Everyday life of a person in the 17th century. Life, culture, spiritual life in the 16th-17th centuries

Life in Russia in the 17th century

Noticeable shifts in all areas of Russian culture had little effect on the overall cultural panorama of the country.
New trends in everyday life affected only the top of the city - the royal court, the boyars, and rich townspeople. Gradually, the European model of life penetrated into the financially secure Russian environment. The main feature of these innovations was concern for comfort. Cutlery and napkins appeared at the table. Tablecloths and individual dishes were used. A separate room was allocated for each family member. People used individual toiletries. Rich families used earthenware, tin and copper dishes. Drinks were abundantly presented at the feast - beer, kvass, berry honey, imported wines.
In the large stone houses of the boyars Golitsyn, Naryshkin, Odoevsky, Morozov and others, the walls were covered with expensive wallpaper, fabrics, leather, and carpets. Mirrors and paintings hung in the walls. The rooms had beautiful furniture. Chandeliers and many candles illuminated the rooms. Separate rooms were allocated for libraries.
The clothes of the owners and servants of such houses were in the Western style, short and light, made of expensive fabrics, decorated with gold and silver embroidery and precious stones. European dress was supposed to become the norm for Russian society, but this trend did not gain its strength immediately; it had to make its way through the strong foundations of the age-old traditions of the people. However, pan-European fashion, dictated by the generally recognized leader - Paris, in the first half of the 18th century. was already accepted by the privileged classes of Russia.
The carriages were light, on springs, with servants at the back. Concerts, various entertainments, and chess became elements of the everyday life of rich people. In a game of chess, the Russians easily beat the Europeans. Europeanized people did their hair, shaved their faces, and some used wigs.
Representatives of the townsfolk elite lived more modestly (cloth clothes, modest furniture and dishes). But among them there was also a desire for comfort.
In the 17th century The royal way of life changed. The king's guard numbered up to 2000 people. Special sleeping servants, stablekeepers, falconers, and coachmen helped him throughout the day. Royal palaces in the 17th century. were distinguished by great splendor. Permanent summer residences appeared - Kolomenskoye and Izmailovskoye.
Paintings, clocks, and mirrors appear in the rooms. The main halls are used to receive guests. At feasts, tables were often set for several thousand guests. The main entertainment of the king was hound and falconry.
The mansions of the nobles were a copy of the royal chambers in miniature. They consisted of a complex of wooden and stone structures. There was a stove in the center. Mica, or fish bladders, were inserted into the windows. The furniture was made from carved wood. The floors were made of wood and often covered with carpets. The dishes were gold and silver. Glassware was rare.

The life of the townspeople was more modest. The farmstead included a residential building and outbuildings. The basis of the furniture were tables, benches, and chests. The main decoration was considered a red corner with icons. In the 17th century townspeople began to build brick houses, but only wealthy townspeople could afford such housing.
The peasant yard included a hut, a stable, and a barn. The huts were heated in black, stoves were rare. A torch was used for lighting. The furniture included tables and benches. We slept on the stove and on couches near it. The dishes were wooden and clay. The basis of nutrition was grain crops, rye, millet, oats, wheat, and peas. Meat was prepared for major holidays. In the north and in the Center they collected mushrooms and berries. The family consisted of no more than 10 people. Boys were married at the age of 15, and girls at the age of 12. Marriages could take place up to 3 times. Since the 17th century Church weddings became mandatory. Clothes were made from homespun canvas and animal skins. Shoes were bast bast shoes or leather morshni.
All new phenomena of everyday life were a drop in the ocean of old Russian customs. Millions of people lived in smoking huts, with a torch in the common room. Peasant and townsfolk families ate from a common bowl with wooden spoons. They wore clothes made of homespun canvas or coarse cloth, bast shoes in summer, felt boots in winter, and slept on benches in common rooms. On rare days of rest, people enjoyed dressing up, doing fortune telling, dancing with pleasure and singing songs and ditties.
New trends remained elitist. They only emphasized the huge gap between the life of the broad masses of the people (peasants and townspeople) and the extremely narrow layer of representatives of the upper ranks of society who were drawn to education and culture. And yet the temples and houses stood in plain sight, the entrance to the churches was open to all parishioners. This left a civilizational stamp on the appearance of the people’s consciousness.
Compared to the 16th century, the 17th century had at least some changes in everyday life. Indeed, in the 16th century, the life of various strata of the people changed slowly. Life in the vast expanses of Russia remained traditional, as it had been many centuries ago. The same long and heavy clothes remained. The same smoking huts, the same wooden dishes, the same entertainment. Only in large cities did some changes occur. In some places mica and glass windows appeared instead of the previous ones, covered with bullish bubbles.

Peasants were the main and most numerous class of Russia. It was on them that the entire economic life of the state rested, since the peasants were not only the guarantor of the country’s survival (supplying it with everything necessary), but were also the main taxable, that is, taxable class. On a peasant farm, all responsibilities were clearly distributed. Men were engaged in field work, crafts, hunting, and fishing. Women ran the household, looked after livestock, gardens, and did handicrafts. In the summer, peasant women also helped in the fields. Children were also taught to work from childhood. From about the age of 9, the boy began to be taught to ride a horse, drive cattle into the yard, guard horses at night, and at the age of 13 he was taught to harrow a field, plow, and was taken to haymaking. Gradually they were also taught to wield a scythe, an ax, and a plow. By the age of 16, the boy was already becoming a worker. He knew crafts and could weave good bast shoes. The girl began doing needlework at the age of 7. At the age of 11 she already knew how to spin, at 13 she could embroider, at 14 she could sew shirts, and at 16 she could weave. Those who did not master the skill at a certain age were ridiculed. Boys who did not know how to weave bast shoes were teased as “shoeless”, and girls. Those who have not learned to spin are “non-spinners.” The peasants also made all their clothes at home, hence its name – homespun. Sometimes, when a peasant was working, parts of his clothing were drawn into the loom, e.g. screw up - a machine for twisting ropes. The man found himself in an awkward position. Hence the saying “get into trouble” – i.e. in an awkward position. Russian shirts were wide and long. Almost to the knees. To make it comfortable to work in a shirt, they cut out under the arms gussets – special replaceable parts that do not interfere with the movements of the arms in the sleeves, collect sweat and can be replaced. The shirts were sewn on the shoulders, chest and back the background - a lining that could also be replaced. The main type of outerwear was a cloth caftan. It was lined and fastened at the front with hooks or copper buttons. In addition to caftans, peasants wore jackets, zipuns, and in winter - sheepskin sheepskin coats up to the toes and felted hats.

Peasant women dressed in shirts and sundresses , ponevs - skirts made of cloth, which were tied at the waist. The girls wore a bandage on their heads in the form of a wide ribbon. Married women carefully tied their hair under kitties And kokoshniks : “to make a fool of yourself” meant to disgrace yourself. They threw it over their shoulders Soul Greys – wide and short sleeveless sweaters, similar to a flared skirt. All peasant women's clothes were decorated with embroidery.

In the peasant house, everything was thought out to the smallest detail. The peasant's home was adapted to his lifestyle. It consisted of cold rooms - cages And entryway and warm – huts . The canopy connected the cold cage and the warm hut, the farm yard and the house. The peasants kept their goods in them. And in the warm season they slept. The house necessarily had a basement or underground - a cold room for storing food supplies. The central place in the house was occupied by the stove. Most often the stove was heated “black”, i.e. there were no ceilings, and the smoke came out of the window right under the roof. Such peasant huts were called smoking . A stove with a chimney and a hut with a ceiling are an attribute of boyars, nobles and generally wealthy people. However, this also had its advantages. In the smoking hut, all the walls were smoked, such walls do not rot longer, the hut could last a hundred years, and a stove without a chimney “ate” much less wood. Everyone loved the stove in the peasant hut: it provided delicious, steamed, incomparable food. The stove heated the house, and the old people slept on the stove. But the mistress of the house spent most of her time near the stove. The corner near the mouth of the furnace was called - woman's cut - women's corner. Here the housewife prepared food, there was a cabinet for storing kitchen utensils - crockery . The other corner opposite the window and near the door was masculine. There was a bench where the owner worked and sometimes slept. Peasant property was stored under the bench. Between the stove and the side wall under the ceiling they laid pay – a place where children slept, dried onions and peas. A special iron ring was inserted into the central beam of the hut ceiling, and a baby cradle was attached to it. A peasant woman, sitting on a bench at work, inserted her foot into the loop of the cradle and rocked it. To prevent a fire, where the torch burned, they had to place a box of earth on the floor where the sparks would fly.

The main corner of the peasant house was the red corner: here hung a special shelf with icons - goddess , there was a dining table under it. This place of honor in a peasant hut was always located diagonally from the stove. When a person entered the hut, he always directed his gaze to this corner, took off his hat, crossed himself and bowed to the icons. And only then did he say hello.

In general, peasants were deeply religious people, however, like all other classes in the Russian state. The word “peasant” itself is modified from “Christian”. Peasant families attached great importance to church life - prayers: morning, evening, before and after meals, before and after any business. The peasants attended church regularly, especially diligently in winter and autumn, when they were free from economic burdens. Fasting was strictly observed in families. They showed special love for icons: they were carefully preserved and passed on from generation to generation. The goddess was decorated with embroidered towels - towels . Russian peasants who sincerely believed in God could not work poorly on the land, which they considered God’s creation. In the Russian hut, almost everything was made by the hands of the peasants themselves. The furniture was homemade, wooden, of a simple design: a table in the red corner according to the number of eaters, benches nailed to the walls, portable benches, chests in which goods were stored. For this reason, they were often lined with iron strips and locked with locks. The more chests there were in the house, the richer the peasant family was considered. The peasant hut was distinguished by its cleanliness: cleaning was done thoroughly and regularly, curtains and towels were changed frequently. Next to the stove in the hut there was always a washstand - a clay jug with two spouts: water was poured on one side, and poured out on the other. Dirty water collected in tub – a special wooden bucket. All the dishes in the peasant house were wooden, and only the pots and some bowls were clay. Clay dishes were covered with simple glaze, wooden ones were decorated with paintings and carvings. Many of the ladles, cups, bowls, and spoons are today in Russian museums.

Russian peasants were sensitive to the misfortune of others. Living in community - peace , they knew very well what mutual assistance and mutual assistance were. Russian peasants were merciful: they tried to help the weak and beggar who suffered. Not giving a crust of bread and not allowing a suffering person to spend the night was considered a great sin. Often the world directed the heating of stoves, cooking, and caring for livestock to families where everyone was sick. If a family's house burned down, the world helped them cut down the trees, remove the logs and build a house. Helping out and not leaving in trouble was in the order of things.

The peasants believed that labor was blessed by God. In everyday life, this was manifested in wishes to the employee: “God help!”, “God help!”. The peasants valued hard workers very much. And, on the contrary, laziness was condemned in the peasant value system, because work was often the meaning of their whole life. They used to say about lazy people that they were “throwing their money away.” At that time, backwoods were called wooden blocks from which spoons and other wooden utensils were made. Preparing baklush was considered a simple, easy, frivolous matter. That is, laziness in the modern understanding as a form of complete idleness could not even be imagined at that time. The universal, centuries-honed form of peasant life, finally formed precisely in this cultural era, became the most stable in Russian culture, survived various periods and finally disappeared (was destroyed) only in the twenties and thirties of the last century.

Prepared by:

Arnaut Anton

7 "A" class

Peasant lifestyle

With the adoption of Christianity, especially revered days of the church calendar became official holidays: Christmas, Easter, Annunciation, Trinity and others, as well as the seventh day of the week - Sunday.

Let's look at how the life of serfs was built. The center of an estate or patrimony was usually a village or hamlet, next to which stood the manor's estate with a house and outbuildings. The village was usually the center of the villages adjacent to it. In an average village there were about 15-30 households, and in villages there were usually 2-3 households.

The owner was responsible for the performance of state duties, and the state transferred to him part of the administrative-fiscal and judicial-police functions. Among the black-sown peasants, these functions were performed by a community with a lay assembly and elected officials: the headman and the sotskie. The secular authorities distributed taxes, carried out trials and reprisals, and defended the land rights of the community. The world was bound by mutual responsibility, which prevented peasants from leaving the community.

Palace peasants were feudal-dependent peasants in Russia who belonged personally to the Tsar and members of the royal family. The lands inhabited by palace peasants were called palace lands. Palace land ownership developed during the period of feudal fragmentation (XII-XIV centuries). The main responsibility of the palace peasants was to supply the grand ducal (later royal) court with food. Palace peasants occupied an intermediate position between privately owned and state peasants. That part of the peasants who were in the personal estates of the king in the 17th century. was in the position of a landowner. The position of the rest of the palace peasants was closer to the state than to the privately owned ones.

Introduction

§ 1. Black-growing (state) peasants

§ 2. Palace peasants

§ 3. Landowner (privately owned) peasants

§ 4. Monastic peasants

§1. Yards and houses

§2. Home furniture and utensils

§3. Cloth

§4. Food and drink

Conclusion

peasants life in black soshny monastery

Introduction

In Russia, the formation of national estates began in the 16th century. In this regard, the class structure was affected by remnants of appanage times. Thus, the presence of numerous divisions in the political elite of the then society was a direct legacy of feudal fragmentation.

Estates are usually called social groups that have certain rights and responsibilities that are enshrined in custom or law and are inherited. With the class organization of society, the position of each person is strictly dependent on his class affiliation, which determines his occupation, social circle, dictates a certain code of behavior and even prescribes what kind of clothes he can and should wear. With a class organization, vertical mobility is reduced to a minimum; a person is born and dies in the same rank in which his ancestors were and leaves it as an inheritance to his children. As a rule, the transition from one social level to another is possible only within the framework of one class.

Thus, the main research goal of the work is to try to fully reveal the main problems of the situation of the peasantry in the second half of the 17th century, to consider their arrangement according to law and life. The main objectives of the work are as follows: firstly, to consider each individual category of the peasantry, to trace what position they occupied in relation to the landowner or the state; secondly, it is necessary to find out what legal and economic position the peasants occupied during the period we are considering; thirdly, the living conditions of the peasants are directly subject to consideration.

In contrast to the feudal class, especially the nobility, the position of peasants and serfs in the 17th century. has deteriorated significantly. Of the privately owned peasants, the best life was for the palace peasants, and the worst for the secular feudal lords, especially the small ones.

A lot of both Soviet and Russian literature is devoted to this issue. This topic is still relevant today. Leading researchers of the peasant question consider both the general situation of all categories of peasants and individual categories. The total number of each category of peasants was well covered by Ya. E. Vodarsky in his monograph “The Population of Russia by the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries.” This monograph is well equipped with comparative tables and is rich in documentary materials. In addition, the author in his work relies on the works of V.M. Vazhinsky, who dealt with the issue of single-dvortsev in Russia.

Consideration of the development of the village in the 17th century. and agriculture in general was engaged in A.N. Sakharov. Agriculture recovered slowly after the turmoil. The reasons for this were the weakness of peasant farms, low yields, natural disasters, crop shortages, etc. From the middle of the century, agricultural production began to grow, which was associated with the development of the fertile lands of Central Russia and the Lower Volga region. The lands were cultivated with tools that did not undergo changes: a plow, a harrow, a sickle, a scythe, and sometimes a plow. The peasant's labor was unproductive not only due to unfavorable climatic conditions, but also due to the peasant's lack of interest in increasing the results of labor. The main path along which agriculture developed was extensive, i.e. An increasing number of new territories were included in economic turnover. Each new form of rent, new forms of feudal exploitation of the peasants determines not only the degree of dependence of the peasants on the feudal owners, but also the level of property differentiation and social stratification of the peasantry.

Among the nobles, the direct connection between service and its reward was gradually lost: the estates remained with the family even if its representatives stopped serving. The rights to dispose of estates were increasingly expanded (transfer as a dowry, barter, etc.), i.e. the estate was losing the features of conditional land ownership and was approaching a fiefdom, between which by the 17th century. formal differences remained.

During this period, the share of secular land ownership increased, because The Council Code of 1649 reduced the church. From now on, the Church was forbidden to expand its possessions either by purchasing land or receiving it as a gift for the funeral of a soul. It is no coincidence that Patriarch Nikon called the Code a “lawless book.” The main trend in the socio-economic development of Russia was the further strengthening of serfdom, in the implementation of which government measures to prevent the flight of peasants occupied a special place: military teams led by detectives were sent to the districts, returning fugitives to their owners.

After 1649, the search for fugitive peasants took on wide proportions. Thousands of them were captured and returned to their owners.

In order to survive, the peasants went into retirement, to become “farmers”, to earn money. Impoverished peasants moved into the category of peasants. Feudal lords, especially large ones, had many slaves, sometimes several hundred people. These are clerks and parcel servants, grooms and tailors, watchmen and shoemakers, falconers and “singing guys.” By the end of the century, serfdom merged with the peasantry. The peasants were outraged by their situation, so writing petitions was quite common in those days, which are widely represented in the collection of peasant petitions of the 17th century, published in 1994. But despite all this, the peasants had certain rights. Census books played a significant role in the legal status of peasants. A.G. Mankov and I. Belyaev studied them in detail. In their works, researchers of this problem widely revealed how and on whom the peasants depended, whether they could enter into various types of transactions and act in court proceedings. In general, the average level of well-being of the Russian serf peasantry decreased. For example, peasant plowing has decreased: in the Zamoskovny Territory by 20-25%. Some peasants had half a tithe, about a tithe of land, others did not have even that. And the wealthy had several dozen acres of land. There were acute contradictions in Russian society at that time. So, for example, I. Belyaev writes in his work that although the peasants were dependent, at the same time they could buy serfs for themselves. It follows that some peasants were quite wealthy to afford this kind of purchase. But most likely, the personality of the feudal lord played a significant role here, who allowed his peasants to develop their farms, and not rip them off “like a stick,” as most landowners of that time did. Along with the landowner peasants, the monastery peasants also suffered from extortions. Gorskaya N.A. in her monograph examines land ownership and land use of monastic peasants, the role of the peasant community in the life of the monastic village, changes in the forms and sizes of rent of monastic peasants throughout the 17th century. In her work, she actively uses records preserved in archives regarding peasants from different regions of the country. Her monograph widely presents data on the volume of taxes and various types of duties levied on peasants, both by landowners and by the state.

Life was better for the state-owned, or black-growing, peasants. The sword of Damocles of direct subordination to a private owner did not hang over them. But they depended on the feudal state: they paid taxes in its favor and carried out various duties. In the 17th century The lines between individual categories of the peasantry are being erased, because All of them were equalized by serfdom. However, some differences still remained. Thus, the landowners and palace peasants belonged to one person, while the monastery peasants belonged to institutions: the patriarchal palace order or the monastic brethren. But, despite all the hardships and deprivations of peasant life, the cultural and everyday aspect continued to develop. XVII century brings some changes to the lives of peasants, even if not significant. The work of N.I. Kostomarov covers the daily life of peasants quite well, describing their houses, courtyards, customs and traditions and gives us a complete picture of the life of not only nobles, but also commoners. I would like to note that the life of the nobility was always distinguished by special luxury, but regarding the peasants, the material is not particularly rich. And the modest life of peasants has always attracted researchers less than the living conditions of the noble class. Ryabtsev Yu. S. In his work on the history of Russian culture, he gives a complete picture of holidays in the peasant environment, of the customs of their implementation. Yes, in fact, almost every action among the peasants had its own ritual peculiarity. So, for example, the peasant prepared for sowing grain with special care: the day before he washed himself in a bathhouse so that the grain was clean and free of weeds. On sowing day, he put on a white shirt and went out into the field with a basket on his chest. A priest was invited to the sowing to perform a prayer service and sprinkle the ground with holy water. Only selected grain was sown. A quiet, windless day was chosen for sowing. The peasants in general were a believing people, and they believed not only in God, but also in all kinds of brownies, goblins, mermaids, etc.

In the second half of the 17th century. Agriculture, based on the exploitation of the feudal-dependent peasantry, remained the main occupation of the population. During the period under review, already established forms of land cultivation continued to be used, such as three-field farming, which was the most common method of land cultivation; in some areas, shifting and shifting farming was maintained. Tools for cultivating the land were also not improved and corresponded to the era of feudalism. As before, the land was cultivated with a plow and a harrow; such cultivation was not effective, and the harvest was accordingly quite low.

The land was owned by the spiritual and secular feudal lords of the palace department and the state. By 1678, the boyars and nobles had concentrated 67% of peasant households in their hands. This was achieved through grants from the government and direct seizures of palace and black-plow lands, as well as the possessions of small and service people. The nobles tried to create serfdom as quickly as possible. By this time, only a tenth of the tax-tax population of Russia was in a non-enslaved position. The second place after the nobles in terms of land ownership was occupied by spiritual feudal lords. Bishops, monasteries and churches by the second half of the 17th century. Owned over 13% of tax yards. It should be noted that patrimonial monasteries were not much different from secular feudal lords in their methods of running their serfdom.

As for the state, or as they are also called, black-sowing peasants, in comparison with the landowner and monastic peasants, they were in slightly better conditions. They lived on state lands and were burdened with various kinds of duties in favor of the state treasury, but in addition to this, they constantly suffered from the arbitrariness of the royal governors.

So, as it has already turned out, the peasants were divided into several categories, such as: palace, black-sown, monastery and landowner. Let's look at how the life of representatives of each category was built in more detail.

§1. Chernososhnye (state) peasants

Black-footed peasants are a category of tax-paying people in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries; they are a class of the agricultural population of Russia who lived on “black”, i.e., non-owner land. Unlike serfs, black-sown peasants were not personally dependent, and therefore bore taxes not in favor of the landowners, but in favor of the Russian state. They lived mainly on the underdeveloped outskirts of the country with a harsh climate, and therefore were often forced to engage in hunting, fishing, gathering, and trading. The black-sown peasants include the peasants of the Northern and North-Eastern lands (Pomerania), state peasants of Siberia, as well as the community of single-household peasants that began to take shape towards the end of the 17th century. Historically, the most numerous (up to 1 million people by the beginning of the 18th century) black-mown peasants were in Pomerania (the so-called “Blue Rus'”), which did not know serfdom. This allowed the black openers to engage early in foreign trade with Western countries through Arkhangelsk.

During the 17th century, “black” or state lands were systematically plundered and by the end of the century they remained only in Pomerania and Siberia. The main difference between the black-sown peasants was that, sitting on state land, they had the right to alienate it: sale, mortgage, inheritance. It was also important that they were personally free and did not know serfdom.

With the development of state power in Rus', communal lands little by little turned into black or sovereign lands and were considered to be the prince, but not as a private owner, but as a bearer of state power. Black-growing peasants used the land only as members of the community, receiving certain plots of land or vyti as an allotment. A peasant could sit on the same plot for his whole life and pass it on to his heirs, but with the condition that they were considered members of the community and were involved in all community cuts and markings. To some extent, the land was, as it were, the property of the peasant; he could give it as collateral and sell it, but on the condition that the buyer would go to the community cuttings and markings or immediately pay all community fees and “whitewash” the plot; otherwise, the cession of land was considered invalid.

State peasants were not in a position of direct subordination to the private owner. But they depended on the feudal state: they paid taxes in its favor and carried out various duties. Black-growing peasants paid the highest tax in the country. Until 1680, the unit of taxation was the “plow,” which included land, the area of which depended on the social class of the owner.

The conditional right of alienation of black lands was especially developed in cities: it was not the land that was sold, but the right to it, since even the princes could not buy the plot itself. The presented view of the black-sown peasants is shared by the majority of Russian scientists, with the exception of Chicherin.

Among the black-sown peasants, the largest communal unit was the volost, which had its own headman; Lower communities were drawn into this higher community - villages and large villages assigned to the volost, which also had their own elders; Small villages, repairs and other small settlements were drawn to the villages. Communities themselves brought claims for land, could exchange land with neighbors, buy or redeem land. They also tried to populate the wastelands that belonged to them, called people to them, gave them plots of land, benefits and allowances, and paid money for them to the owners with whom they had previously lived. Communities in the black lands were responsible to the government for order in the volosts and for the proper collection of taxes and administration of duties. Elected chiefs, elders, councilors and good people from the black-growing peasants participated in the courts of governors and volosts.

The picture of complete self-government of the black-sown peasants is clear from the court lists and charters of the 15th century. Based on monuments of the 16th century. Black-growing peasants had two types of relationships with the land: either they owned a certain share of the communal land, or the community gave the peasant land for rent according to a quitrent record. The first type of land relations was determined by a serial record, which the peasant issued to the community or volost. With the addition of peasants, this class, until then integral, was divided into 2 categories: peasants of palace and black lands and peasants of proprietary or private lands. It was then that the term “black-mown peasants” appeared for the first time.

As for the number and distribution of peasants, it can be determined by the decree of September 20, 1686. or according to the certificate of 1722. But both of these sources can be considered incomplete, since they indicate the number of peasants mainly living in the territory of Pomerania. The approximate number of peasants inhabiting Pomorie, taking into account the concealment, was about 0.3 million people.

As was already mentioned above, the number of state peasants also included members of the same household. In the 17th century, “odnodvorki” were the name given to landowners who worked the land themselves or with the help of serfs and did not have serfs or peasants; Odnodvortsy were both service people “according to the device” and service people “according to the fatherland”.

When calculating state peasants, single-yard peasants were counted separately. V. M. Vazhinsky, who specially studied the number of single-dvortsev who settled in the South, determines it at the end of the 17th century. - 76 thousand households, that is, counting 3 people per family, their number was approximately 0.2 million people.

Until the second half of the 18th century. There are no changes in the situation of black-sown peasants. The Code of 1649 recognizes all peasants as one indivisible class of the population; the distinction between black-sown peasants and landowners became clearer at the beginning of the 18th century, under the influence of the measures of Peter I.

§2. Palace Peasants

Palace peasants occupied an intermediate position between privately owned and state peasants. That part of the peasants who were in the personal estates of the king in the 17th century. was in the position of a landowner. The position of the rest of the palace peasants was closer to the state than to the privately owned ones.

During the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state (late 15th-16th centuries), the number of palace peasants increased. According to scribe books of the 16th century. palace lands were located in no less than 32 counties in the European part of the country. In the 16th century In connection with the development of the manorial system, palace peasants began to be widely used to reward the serving nobility.

In the 17th century As the territory of the Russian state grew, the number of palace peasants also increased. In 1700 there were about 100 thousand households of palace peasants. At the same time, distribution to the palace peasants also took place. The distribution of palace peasants acquired a particularly wide scope in the first years of the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613-1645).

Under Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) about 14 thousand households were distributed, under Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-82) - over 6 thousand households. In the first years of the reign of Peter I (1682-99), about 24.5 thousand households of palace peasants were distributed. Most of them fell into the hands of the royal relatives, favorites and those close to the court.

So, the summary of the courtyards in the palace estates at the end of the 17th century. ranges from 102 thousand to 110 thousand households.

In the 18th century, as before, the replenishment of palace peasants and lands was mainly due to the confiscation of lands from disgraced owners and the population of the newly annexed lands (in the Baltic states, Ukraine and Belarus).

Already from the end of the 15th century. The palace peasants and lands were administered by various special palace institutions. In 1724, the palace peasants came under the jurisdiction of the Main Palace Chancellery, which was the central administrative and economic body for managing the palace peasants and the highest court in civil cases. Palace parishes on the ground until the beginning of the 18th century. were controlled by clerks, and then by managers. There was local self-government in the palace volosts. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 18th centuries. palace peasants paid rent in kind or cash, or both at the same time, supplied bread, meat, eggs, fish, honey, etc., performed various palace work and delivered food, firewood, etc. to the court on their carts.

From the beginning of the 18th century. Cash rent began to become increasingly important; therefore, in 1753, most of the palace peasants were freed from corvée and natural duties and transferred to cash rent. In the 18th century the economic situation of the palace peasants was somewhat better compared to privately owned peasants, their duties were easier, they enjoyed greater freedom in their economic activities. Among the palace peasants in the 18th century. rich peasants, merchants, moneylenders, etc. are clearly distinguished. According to the reform of 1797, palace peasants were transformed into appanage peasants.

§3. Landowner (privately owned) peasants

In the 17th century the expansion of serf land ownership occurred due to the granting of black and palace lands to nobles (landowners), which was accompanied by an increase in the number of enslaved people. As mentioned above, the bulk of the peasantry was concentrated in the hands of the landowners, which by the second half of the 17th century. fell into serfdom (67% of the total tax population).

The bulk of the serfs were located in the Non-Black Earth Center, the North-Western and Western regions. In other areas where settlement and development of new lands took place, the peasants had half as many serfs.

According to the method of working out serfdom, the landowner peasants were divided into corvée, quitrent and courtyard peasants. The landowners' main income came from the corvée and quitrent duties of the serfs. While serving his corvee, the peasant worked the landowner's land with his own tools, of course, for free; by law - three days a week, although other landowners extended the corvee to six days. The peasants cultivated the landowner's land, harvested crops, mowed meadows, transported firewood from the forest, cleaned ponds, built and repaired mansions. . In addition to corvée, they were obliged to deliver “table supplies” to the gentlemen - a certain amount of meat, eggs, dry berries, mushrooms, etc.

While on quitrent, the peasant was engaged in various trades, trade, crafts, carriage, or hired out to manufacture; He paid part of his earnings - quitrent - to the landowner. Obrok peasants were released from the estate only with a special document - a passport issued by the landowner. The volume of work in corvée or the amount of money for rent was determined by taxes; tax was a peasant household (family) with a team, as well as the rate of labor for such a unit. Thus, corvée was more profitable for landowners who owned fertile lands, and quitrent was more preferred in less fertile, that is, in non-black earth provinces. In general, quitrent, which allowed him to freely manage his time, was easier for the peasant than grueling corvee labor. The increase in domestic demand for agricultural products, as well as partly the export of some of them abroad, encouraged landowners to expand the lordly plowing and increase the rent. In this regard, in the black earth zone, peasant corvée continuously increased, and in non-black earth regions, mainly central, where corvée was less common, the proportion of quitrent duties increased. The landowners' arable land expanded at the expense of the best peasant lands, which were allocated to the master's fields. In areas where quitrent prevailed, the importance of cash rent grew slowly but steadily. This phenomenon reflected the development of commodity-money relations in the country, into which peasant farms were gradually involved. However, in its pure form, monetary rent was very rare; as a rule, it was combined with food rent or corvee duties.

Landowner peasants were also subject to state taxes. These taxes were usually collected by the elders. In addition to state taxes, the landowner himself did not hesitate to collect taxes from the peasants, but at the same time he had to stipulate from whom and how much to take. “And the tsar’s taxes are ordered to be collected from their peasants by the elders and given to their people into the tsar’s treasury, according to the tsar’s decree; and they put their taxes on their peasants themselves, depending on how much they take from each.”

In addition to the draft peasants, there were non-draft peasants - the elderly and sick, used as needed in various feasible jobs. Maintaining this kind of peasants was not profitable for the landowners.

Serfs were called serfs, cut off from the land and serving the manor's house and courtyard. They usually lived in people's or courtyard huts located near the manor's house. The room for servants in the manor's house was called the people's room. The courtyard people fed in the common room, at a common table, or received a salary in the form of a month - a monthly food ration, which was sometimes called otvesny ("vertical"), since it was sold by weight, and a small amount of money - "for shoes." Guests came to the owners, the servants were visible; Therefore, the servants dressed better than the corvee workers, wore uniforms, and often wore out the lord's dress. Men were forced to shave their beards. Although the courtyards were the same serfs, they were not called that.

A special category of peasants, formally state-owned ("state-owned"), but actually in the position of landowners, were peasants assigned to private manufactories. For example, the peasants of the Solomenskaya volost of the Kashira district and the Vyshegorodskaya volost of the Vereisky district were assigned to iron factories. The total number of registered peasants in the second half of the 17th century did not exceed 5 thousand people.

In 1696, all owners of serfdoms were subject to a tax for the construction of ships. The feudal lords were united into “kumpanships” of 10 thousand households (each “kumpanship” had to build a ship).

Number of households of secular feudal lords according to the 1678 census. amounted to 436 thousand households and that the distribution by district covered 419 thousand households, that is, 97%.

The peasant, like the landowner, economy basically retained a natural character: the peasants were content with what they produced themselves, and the landowners with what the same peasants delivered to them in the form of rent in kind: poultry, meat, butter, eggs, lard, as well as such handicraft products such as linen, coarse cloth, wooden and earthenware, etc. The estates of landowners were scattered across many counties. The patrimonial administration was in charge of collecting rent, managing the economy, and performing supervisory functions.

§4. Monastic peasants

One of the categories of peasant ownership was the assignment of peasants to monasteries. What was the situation of the monastic peasants we will try to consider in this paragraph. How did their position differ from the peasants of the landowners or palaces? After all, in fact, they were also assigned to the monastery, like a serf to a landowner’s land.

Based on the number of peasant households belonging to the monasteries, monasteries can be divided into three groups: large (over 1 thousand households), medium (over 100 households) and small (over 10 households). Vodarsky Ya.E. in his monograph relies on the data of Gorchakov M.I. in calculating the number of courtyards that belonged to the monasteries. So, the total number of households ranged from 120 thousand to 146.5 thousand households.

The real conditions of peasant life were largely determined by the nature of those organizational forms within the framework of which the economic activities of the peasantry took place. Like state peasants, one of the most important forms of unification of monastic peasants was the community. Within each monastic estate and each peasant world, strict correspondence was observed between the land allotment and the taxation of the peasant household. The peasant's allotment included various types of land. Thus, field arable land (could be located on different fields), feeder wastelands, meadows, vegetable gardens and estate land - this is the structure of the peasant allotment in the 17th century. The basis, as a matter of course, was field arable land, while the size of feeder wastelands was directly dependent on the monastic reserves lands. It should be noted that the provision of land resources in different monastery estates was far from equal. Thus, the tax allotment of the monastic peasants, in conditions of a fixed rent, represented the minimum that ensured the simple reproduction of the peasant economy and rent for the patrimonial monastery. Such an allotment really “served entirely and exclusively for the exploitation of the peasant by the landowner, to “provide” the landowner with labor, never to actually provide for the peasant himself.”

In addition to allotment land, monastery peasants could have so-called non-allotment lands. The overwhelming majority of peasant households resorted to renting non-allotted lands. Non-allotment land use in a monastic village traditionally complemented allotment land and served for the landowner as a means of making the most complete use of the changing labor resources of the peasant farm, and for the peasant landowner (in conditions when the minimum size of the allotment was provided only by the landowner’s labor) - the only way to “independently increase property” , that is, to conduct expanded reproduction of one’s economy at certain periods of time and under almost favorable conditions, which could take place in all forms of alienation of surplus product from the direct producer without exception.

The monastery peasants, like the black-sown peasants, paid state duties, but they also combined them with corvee payments to their patrimonial owner. State payments of monastic peasants were divided into natural and monetary - by their nature and into salary (the annual salary of which is established for a long period or is determined for the next year according to the previous one), request and emergency in the form of their collection. The main salary tax for monastic peasants throughout the 17th century. There was Streltsy bread, and the money was Yamsky money. The amount they collected in most cases depended on the patrimonial owner. In some fiefdoms, state payments exceeded payments to the feudal lords, while in others it could be the other way around. In addition, government payments were constantly increasing, and emergency collections from peasants were also becoming more frequent. For the best collection of taxes, the state introduced the yard salary unit, and within the community the principle of secular distribution of duties continued to be preserved.

At the end of the 17th century. With the coming to power of Peter I, annual fees for ship construction, equipment and repairs also fell on the shoulders of the peasants. And already in 1701, all the peasant clergy were transferred to the jurisdiction of the restored Monastic Order, and subsequently the Synod was created. So, the situation of the monastic peasants was by no means easier than that of the serfs or state ones. Constant extortions allowed the peasants to only eke out their miserable existence. Even despite the use of non-allocated land, the peasants could barely make ends meet. Although the tithe of non-allotment quitrent land brought in much more income than the use of allotment land. Only in rare cases did the use of this kind of land lead to an improvement in the material well-being of individual peasants.

Chapter II. Socio-economic situation of peasants

The situation of peasants in the 17th century worsened significantly. The Council Code of 1649 established permanent hereditary and hereditary serfdom of peasants, including their families, as well as direct and collateral relatives. Because of this, the regular years of searching for fugitives were cancelled. The investigation became indefinite.

Black-growing peasants were also assigned to the volost communities and were subject to search and return to their former plots on a general basis. The Code of 1649 secured the monopoly right of ownership of peasants for all categories of service ranks in the fatherland. The legal basis for the rights to peasants, their attachment and investigation were the scribe books of the 20s. XVII century, and for the period after the Code, in addition to them - census books of 1646-1648, individual and refusal books, letters of grant, acts of transactions for peasants between feudal lords, inventories of the return of peasants as a result of investigation. To give private acts of transactions on peasants official force, their registration in the Local Order was mandatory.

The Code completed the process of legal rapprochement between bobyls and peasants, extending to bobyls an equal measure of serfdom. The Code, in order to preserve the local system, limited the rights of disposal of peasants recorded in the books of the estates: it was forbidden to transfer them to patrimonial lands and to give them vacation pay. Rights to patrimonial peasants were more complete. Thus, the Code, following the immediately preceding legislation and supplementing it, resolved land and peasant issues in conjunction, subordinating the question of the peasantry to the land issue.

In the bulk of cases, the legal capacity of peasants was limited (landowners were “searched” and “responsible” for them), but in criminal cases they remained the subject of a crime. As a subject of law, a peasant could participate in a trial, as a witness, or be a participant in a general search. In the civil legal sphere, he could bring material claims within the limits of 20 rubles. In the fact of compensation for dishonor and injury provided for by the Code, the peasant, along with other classes, received recognition (from the standpoint of feudal society) - a certain set of civil rights inherent in the lower class-estate of this society. The peasant, according to the Code, had a certain legal capacity and legal capacity. Black-sown peasants had more rights than privately-owned peasants.

A new step on the path to the final enslavement of the main producers of material goods is associated with the Council Code of 1649.

§1. Legal status of peasants

By the second half of the 17th century, the legal basis for the serfdom of peasants, established by the Council Code, was in force on the territory of Russia. First of all, these should include the scribe books of 1626-1628. and census books of 1646-1648. Census books from 1678 were later added. and other inventories of the 80s. It was the census books that played a significant role in determining the legal status of peasants. Their main feature was that they provided detailed information about males in each household, regardless of age, and they also contained information about runaway peasants. The dependent state of Russian peasants was determined and secured, in addition to census and scribe books, by various kinds of acts that recorded changes in the legal status and affiliation of peasants and serfs to one or another feudal owner, in the interval from the previous census and scribe books to the compilation of new ones. These kinds of measures were taken by the state taking into account the practiced transactions between landowners in relation to peasants.

The right to own serfs was assigned mainly to all categories of service ranks “according to the fatherland,” although these service minors did not even always have peasants. The law on hereditary (for feudal lords) and hereditary (for peasants) attachment of peasants is the largest measure of the Council Code, and the abolition of the fixed-term years for the investigation of fugitives became a necessary consequence and condition for the implementation of this norm. Thus, the complete attachment of peasants to the land according to the Code extended not only to the peasants themselves, but also to their children, who were born at a time when he lived on the run for another owner, and even to sons-in-law, if the peasant, while on the run, married his daughter to someone, or a peasant girl or a widow on the run married someone - all these persons, through court and investigation, were returned to the old owner from whom the peasant father, recorded in a scribe or census book, had fled.

But the attachment of peasants to the land according to the Council Code was only a financial measure of the government, without in any way affecting the rights of the peasantry as a state class; the only purpose of attachment was the convenience of collecting government taxes from the lands. But it should be noted that the attachment of peasants to the land according to the Council Code did not yet make the peasants serfs of their landowners. The Code considered peasants only to be strong to the land; they belonged to landowners insofar as the landowner had the right to the land. Thus, a full landowner-owner had more rights to a peasant living on his estate, and a landowner, an incomplete owner, had less rights to a peasant living on his estate.

Serfdom acts for peasants and serfs, on the basis of which the peasant was attached to a plot of land, can be divided according to their purpose into two groups. The first group includes those that concerned the cash mass of the serf population living in estates and estates. For this group, the following documents were important: salaries, waivers, import certificates, decrees on the allocation of estates and estates, on the sale of estates, etc. With the exercise of the right to transfer a votchina or estate, the rights to the peasant population attached to the land were also transferred. For this purpose, the new owner was given obedient letters to the peasants. Also related to the actual population of feudal estates were acts that served as a form of implementation of non-economic coercion against peasants: separate records, marriage licenses, settlements, mortgages and deeds of sale, etc.

The second group should include those who were related to newcomers, temporarily free people who became peasants of a given patrimony and estate. Thus, in relation to outsiders and those who became peasants, housing, order, loan and surety records were concluded. Formula for peasant obedience in the second half of the 17th century. usually included in the act with which the transfer of ownership rights to the votchina and estate was associated.

Russian legislation considered patrimonial owners and landowners as representatives of state power locally, and primarily within the boundaries of their possessions, endowing them with certain rights and responsibilities. It should be noted that the terms of reference of the feudal lord of the second half of the 17th century. was significantly wide. But the presence of various kinds of powers of feudal lords in relation to peasants did not exclude the fact that the peasant, as a subject of law, had certain rights to own his plot and farm. In the second half of the 17th century. Both of these interrelated aspects of the legal status of peasants as an object of feudal law and as a subject of law, possessing a certain, albeit limited, set of civil legal powers, closely interacted. But directly within the boundaries of estates and estates, the jurisdiction of feudal lords was not clearly regulated by law. However, the property and life of the peasant were protected by law from the extreme manifestation of the willfulness of the feudal lords. The landowners had to protect the peasants from various kinds of encroachments on them from the outside; in case of improper treatment of the peasants, the feudal lord could lose not only the peasant, but also the land, if it was given to him by the tsar. For the murder of a peasant, the boyar was subject to trial, and the tsar himself could act as a plaintiff. “And if a boyar and a Duma member, a neighbor, or any landowner and patrimonial owner commits mortal murder against his godparents or some outrage against a non-Christian custom, there will be petitioners against him, and to such a villain the decree is written authentically in the Coded Book. But there will be no petitioners against him , and the king himself is the plaintiff in such cases for dead people.” It follows from this that male peasants were protected from arbitrariness by the tsar personally, and as for the abuses committed against peasant women and children, they did not even fall within the scope of consideration of the tsar’s court. “And if they commit some kind of fornication on their subjects, peasant wives and daughters, or they will take out a little woman’s child, or she will die tortured and beaten with a child, and there will be petitions against such evil-doers, and according to their petitions, such cases and plaintiffs in Moscow will be sent to the Patriarch, and city to the metropolitan... but in the royal court there is no case"

Thus, protection from the state was provided for peasants of both sexes. As noted earlier, males were given more “privileges” than females.

The following phenomena in the life of Russian society serve as a denial of the full development of the possessory right of full ownership of the peasants and as evidence of the civil rights still retained by the peasants:

.The landowner peasants still retained the old right to enter into agreements with the treasury and with outsiders without regard to their masters; the government recognized this right for them and recorded them in contracts in the land registers;

.The peasants took out various contracts from their owners and wrote conditions in public places without any powers of attorney from their owner, as independent persons;

.Peasants, both proprietary and black-sown, enjoyed full ownership rights, both movable and immovable, and the right to engage in various crafts and trade;

.Peasants, both landowners and black farmers, continued to form communities governed by elders and other elected officials. And the peasant communities were still quite independent of the owners in relation to their common affairs;

So, the basis of the legislation on peasants of the second half of the 17th century. lay the norms of the Council Code of 1649, since this code remained effective for quite a long time, various kinds of additions were included in it (changes in the original terms of investigation, new grounds for attachment, etc.). Recognition of the economic connection between feudal ownership and peasant farming continued to form the basis of feudal law and entailed the protection of the property and life of the peasant from the arbitrariness of the feudal lord. The range of powers of the feudal lord in relation to the peasants was quite wide and along with this, the peasant had, as a subject of law, certain rights of ownership and disposal of his farm, could participate in the trial as a witness, plaintiff and defendant and be a participant in a general search

Black-sown peasants had more civil rights than privately-owned peasants.

To summarize the above, we note that although the peasantry as a class did not take part in legislative activity, nevertheless it exerted significant influence through the submission of petitions. Ordinary class peasant law was of great importance in the development of legislation. Part of the norms of communal law at the stage of developed feudalism received the sanction of the state, which to varying degrees invaded the estate law of state, palace, monastic and landowner peasants. Customary law had a certain social value for peasants as a means of protection, but at the same time it was distinguished by its conservatism, contributing to the reproduction of existing social relations.

§2. Economic situation of peasants

The situation of peasants in life is much more varied than is stated in the law. It is quite important that, both in law and in life, peasants were sharply different from slaves or complete serfs and did not constitute the silent private property of their owners. The position of the peasant economy and, if possible, its development under feudalism, other things being equal, were ultimately determined by the size of the rent, which was the normal limit of profit.

In the last quarter of the 17th century. in the life of Russian society, various kinds of contradictions regarding the economic situation of the peasants coexisted. On the one hand, the peasant could become the subject of sale without land as the full private property of the owner. On the other hand, landowner peasants, as full citizens, could buy serfs in their own name, sell them, exchange them - a right that complete serfs did not have, as silent private property.

Peasants of all the above categories bore duties both to the owner (landowners, monasteries) and to the state. Now let's take a closer look at what duties the peasant bore to the feudal lord and the state.

As is already known, most of the tax-paying population was concentrated in the hands of the feudal lords. Peasants belonging to the feudal lord were, in most cases, required to work corvée and pay quitrent. For failure to comply with which, the landowner could punish the peasant, both financially, by depriving him of his land plot, and physically.

So, the quitrent was usually determined by the landowner by mutual agreement with the peasants. Therefore, there is no general measure of quitrents. The quantity and various measures of quitrent paid by peasants were determined by salary books. These kinds of quitrent estates were managed either by elected elders, or by clerks sent by the master. Together with the elected elders, two powers acted: the secular elective and the possessory order, thus, the power of the master did not destroy the communal structure of the peasants. But still, the management of the estate depended on the will of the feudal lord.

An ordered person depended only on the master, the world had no rights to him and could only complain to the master about his disorder and oppression. The headman depended both on the master and on the world. The master could recover from the headman all faults in management and, if anything happened, punish him.

The intervention of landowners in the social relations of peasant communities was at the request and with the consent of the peasants themselves, and this in turn led to the influence of the landowners on the police and on the government between the peasants. Such influence was convenient for the feudal lords, because many of them still enjoyed the right to trial and reprisal their peasants.

Thus, despite the right of civil personality, which was recognized for the peasants, and the right of property, they were quite often violated by the feudal lord himself, and the peasants were easily subjected to violence on his part, since he considered the peasants his property, although this property had not yet been accepted by law.

But the positive side of economic relations between peasants and feudal lords should also be noted. The feudal lord could involve his peasants in the management of his estate, could ask their advice and opinion.

The next form of economic dependence of the peasant on the feudal lord was corvée. The owner disposed of the labor of the peasants who belonged to him. With quitrent, the share of capital collected by the master from the peasant, by the very nature of capital, allowed for greater certainty, but the share of peasant labor did not allow such certainty, thus giving scope to the owner's arbitrariness.

The master's field work was carried out both by the tithe and the harvest, by peasants and courtyard business people, based on the needs and considerations of the clerk. Working off the corvee was mainly expressed only by working in the fields of the feudal lord and repairing outbuildings; The peasants did not accept other forms of labor. In general, the power of landowners was strongly developed and, at every opportunity, put pressure on peasant rights. The peasant community itself in the 17th century. was strongly subordinate to the owner, who could unceremoniously meddle not only in public affairs, but even in family affairs. Thus, the peasants in their lives were not far from becoming completely equal to slaves, to complete serfs. Now we should consider how the state exploited the tax-paying population of Russia. The state in the second half of the 17th century. also increased her appetites. Various taxes were introduced, as a result of which the peasants rose up in riots and wars, not without reason in the 17th century. went down in history as "rebellious". So, in the period we are considering, the main taxes were: 1) yam and polonyany money (10.5-12 kopecks from the yard); 2) for retired archers for food (10 kopecks from the yard); 3) for granary crafts (2 kopecks from the yard); 4) hay, for hay to the sovereign's horses (10-12 kopecks from the yard); 5) Streltsy bread (5 squares of rye and oats from the yard).

In addition to these taxes, there were also emergency fees, which could be collected 3 times a year. Fees have also been introduced for shipbuilding, equipment and ship repairs.

Chapter III. Life of the Russian peasantry

In order to understand what the life of the Russian peasantry is like, one must first find out what life is in general. Everyday life, as M. Yu. Lotman defines it, is the usual course of life in its really practical forms; everyday life is the things that surround us, our habits and everyday behavior. Everyday life surrounds us like air, and like air, it is noticeable only when it is missing or deteriorates. We can notice some features of someone else’s life, but the features of our own are always elusive to us. Most often, everyday life can manifest itself in the world of things, but its manifestations are far from limited to this. Life can manifest itself both in the material sphere and in the spiritual. So, for example, in every established society it is already possible to identify certain norms of behavior, an established system of traditions and customs, in general, this is the structure of life that determines the daily routine, the time of various activities, the nature of work and leisure, forms of recreation, games, love rituals and funeral ritual.

Everyday life is one of the forms of manifestation of culture. And in every social circle of society it is different. Peasants, especially serfs, could not boast of the “luxury” of their existence. They basically had to be content with what they inherited either from their ancestors or what they created with their own hands. But even in this case, everything depended on the personal qualities of the person himself. If a person was enterprising, then his household had much more aesthetic things than those who saw the meaning of their existence only in sleeping, eating and sometimes working “under pressure”.

In this chapter we will try to look at how peasants lived in the second half of the 17th century, how and what they dressed in, what rituals they performed, etc.

§1. Yards and houses

The courtyards, as was the long-standing Russian tradition, were always very spacious so that you could roam around. If possible, they tried to build them somewhere on a hill, so that in the event of a flood, the household would suffer as little as possible. This rule was also observed in villages and villages during the construction of estates of the owners. Yards were usually fenced with a fence or a sharp fence. This was done with the aim of preventing any animal from getting through to its neighbors or vice versa. In the 17th century In addition to wooden fences, stone ones also appear, but so far such luxury could be found in rare courtyards. There could be two or three gates leading into the fence (sometimes there were more), between them there were only the main ones, which had their own symbolic meaning. The gates were not left open either day or night. During the day they were only covered, and at night they were locked.

A peculiarity of the Russian courtyard is that the houses were not built next to the gate. There was usually a path leading from the central gate to the house. There could be several buildings on the territory of the yard. A necessary accessory to any decent yard was a soap bar. Almost everywhere it formed a separate special structure. The soap box was an accessory to the first necessities of life. Usually it consisted of a room with a stove for washing, with a vestibule that was equal to the entryway in residential buildings and was called a dressing room or a soaping room. Cages were built to store household property, and the more prosperous the peasant was, the more cages he had at court, which served as a kind of storage not only for any utensils, but also for food.

If the peasant had livestock, he also created a barnyard. So a peasant’s yard could be divided into several parts. There could also have been residential courtyards, on which there were granaries with grain or barns.

Peasant houses differed in many ways from lordly buildings. The houses were quadrangular in shape, made of solid pine or oak beams. Ordinary peasants had black huts, that is, smoke huts, without chimneys; The smoke in such huts usually came out of a small fiberglass window. If necessary, fiberglass windows could be covered with leather. Small windows were made specifically to preserve warmth, and when they were covered with leather, it became dark in the hut in broad daylight.

The so-called huts had extensions called rooms. In this space the Russian peasant lived, as he lives in many places now, with his chickens, pigs, geese and heifers, in the midst of an unbearable stench. The stove served as a lair for the whole family, and from the stove, roofs were attached to the ceiling. Various walls and cuts were attached to the huts. The wealthiest peasants could afford to build a hut or several huts in their yard for their relatives, and these huts were usually connected to each other by passages or (if the houses were under the same roof) vestibules. The canopy is a kind of vestibule between the street and the residential part of the house, protecting against cold air. In the summer, peasants could sleep there. In addition, the canopy connected the residential and utility parts of the house. Through them one could go to the barn, to the barnyard, to the attic, to the underground. But the main room in the hut remained the room with the stove.

A significant part of the peasant yard was occupied by a barn where work equipment was stored - plows, harrows, scythes, sickles, rakes, as well as a sleigh and a cart (if any). A bathhouse, a well and a barn were usually placed separately from the house. The bathhouse was placed closer to the water, and the barn away from the housing, in order to preserve a year's supply of grain in case of fire. They usually placed the barn in front of the house so that it could be seen

The usual roof of Russian houses was made of wood, planks, shingles or shingles. In the 16th and 17th centuries it was customary to cover the top with bark to prevent dampness; this gave it a variegated look; and sometimes earth and turf were placed on the roof as fire protection. The shape of the roofs is quite ordinary - pitched on two sides with gables on the other two sides. Along the outskirts, the roof was framed with slotted ridges, scars, railings or railings with turned balusters.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, peasant households differed from each other. From them one could judge the position of the peasant, his hard work. The most purposeful peasants maintained their farm, constantly trying to transform it.

§2. Home furniture and utensils

The home environment of peasants was usually quite modest. To some extent, it depended on the wealth of the owner, on his position. As already mentioned, the main room in the house was the room with the stove, so let’s look at the arrangement of household utensils in this room.

The location of the stove in the house determined its layout. The stove was usually placed in the corner to the right or left of the entrance. The corner opposite the mouth of the furnace was considered working and was called “woman’s kut” or “middle”. Everything here was adapted for cooking. At the stove there was usually a poker, a grip, a broom, a wooden shovel, and next to it there was a mortar with a pestle and a hand mill. Not far from the stove hung a towel and a washstand - an earthenware jug with two spouts on the sides. Underneath there was a wooden basin for dirty water. In the woman's kutu, on the shelves there were simple peasant utensils: pots, bowls, ladles, cups, spoons. This was usually made directly by the owner of the house, mainly from wood. Among the peasant utensils there were many wicker things, such as baskets, baskets, and boxes. Birch bark tues served as containers for water. But the owner’s corner was also present in the house. It was usually located to the left or right of the door. There was also a bench on which the owner slept. A toolbox was usually kept under the bench. In his free time, the peasant did not sit idle. He was engaged in making counterfeits, weaving bast shoes, cutting spoons, etc.

The main decoration of the houses of both nobles and commoners were images. The more prosperous the owner was, the correspondingly more images there were in the house. This “red corner” occupied a place of honor in the hut and was usually located diagonally from the stove. The most honored guests were usually seated in this corner. In almost every home one could find several images of the Mother of God in various names, such as: Hodegetria of Friday, Mother of God the Merciful, Tenderness, Sorrowful, etc. The image was placed in the front corner of the chamber, and this corner was covered with a curtain called a dungeon. Ubrists and shrouds were changed on the images, and on holidays more elegant ones were hung than on weekdays and fasts. Lamps hung in front of the icons and wax candles burned. Between all the images, the main one stood out, which was placed in the center and usually decorated with it. It should be noted that there were no wall mirrors in the houses, as the church treated this with contempt. Yes, in fact, not every peasant house had mirrors; everything depended on the wealth of the owner.

There was little furniture in the hut: benches, benches, chests, crockery chests. For seating in the house there were benches attached tightly to the walls. If the walls in the house were upholstered, then the benches were also upholstered with the same thing, but in addition, the benches were also covered with shelf stands, usually there were two of them (one was larger than the other; the larger one hung down to the floor). The counters also changed; they were different on weekdays and holidays.

In addition to benches, the house had benches and tables. The benches were somewhat wider than the benches, and at one end there was usually a raised platform called a headrest, since they not only sat on them, but also rested. Stoltsy are quadrangular stools for one person to sit on; they were also covered with a piece of cloth. But the main piece of home furniture was the dining table. He usually stood in the "red corner". The tables were made of wood, usually narrow, and were often placed next to benches. They were also covered with a tablecloth, which was replaceable.

The bed in the house was usually a bench attached to the wall. Peasants (depending on their social status) usually slept on bare benches or covered with felt. Very poor villagers usually slept on the stove, with only their clothes under their heads. Young children most often slept in cradles, which were hanging and usually wide and long. This was done so that the child could grow freely. An icon or crosses were usually hung inside the cradle.

To store things they used hide-outs, cellars, chests, and suitcases. The dishes were placed in shelves: these were pillars lined with shelves on all sides; They were made wider at the bottom and narrower at the top, since more massive dishes were placed on the lower shelves, and smaller ones on the upper ones.

Peasant houses were usually illuminated with torches or tallow candles; wax candles were a luxury and therefore were usually used by representatives of the noble classes. The light from the torches was quite dim, making the house dim. In addition, the splinters made the room very smoky.

Tableware for food and drink bore the general name of pike perch. Liquid food was served on the table in cauldrons or pans. At the table, liquid food was poured into bowls. If the nobles had them mostly in silver, then among the peasants they were most often made of wood, and less often of tin. There were dishes for solid foods. Liquids had their own instruments, which had different names, and each served for certain cases. So, for example, they used buckets, jugs, suleys, quarters, bratins. They scooped from them with chumkas, scoopers or ladles. The peasant's home life was not particularly luxurious. The utensils used by peasants during the period under review were predominantly wooden; occasionally copper or tin could be found. Dishes for storing liquids were usually clay or wooden (for large quantities). We also had to sleep on whatever and wherever we had to, especially for poor peasants.

§3. Cloth

Clothes are an irreplaceable attribute of every person. The clothes of the peasants, unlike those of the lords, were not particularly colorful, but nevertheless, peasant clothes were the main form of life. Men's and women's clothing differed from each other only slightly.

So, what was men's clothing? Let's start our review with shoes. The shoes of a simple peasant were not particularly luxurious. It was usually made from natural materials at hand. Usually these were bast shoes made from tree bark or shoes woven from vine twigs. Some could wear leather soles, tied with belts. Such shoes were worn by both peasants and peasant women.

The shirts of the common people were usually made of canvas. Men's shirts were made wide and short and barely reached the thighs, dropped over the underwear and girded with a low and weakly narrow belt. In canvas shirts, triangular inserts from another linen were made under the arms. But most often in a shirt, attention was paid to the collar, which came out of the outerwear. It was usually decorated among peasants with copper buttons or cufflinks with loops.

Russian trousers, or ports, were sewn without cuts, with a knot, so that it could be made wider or narrower. Peasant trousers were usually made of canvas, white or dyed, and semiryaga - coarse woolen fabric. In general, Russian trousers were not long; they usually only reached the knees. They were made with pockets called zepya.

Most often, three clothes were worn over a shirt and trousers: one on top of the other. The underwear was the one in which people sat at home. It was called zipun, and was a narrow, short dress, often not even reaching the knees. Zipuns were usually made from dyed leather, and winter ones from semiryaga. If it was necessary to go somewhere to visit or receive guests, then different clothes were put on. This clothing had several names, but most often it was called a caftan. They were also decorated whenever possible. The third garment was a throw-on garment for going out. These are, for example, opashen, okhaben, one-row, epancha and fur coat. In the peasant environment, opashni were most often made of cloth, and fur coats were sheepskin, or sheepskin coats and hare's. The belt was indispensable in Russian everyday life. It was considered indecent to walk without a belt. The belt also acted as an indicator of position; the more colorfully it was embroidered, the richer its owner was.

Women's clothes were similar to men's, especially since the latter were also long. The women's shirt was long, with long sleeves, white or red. Red shirts were considered festive. A flyer was worn over the shirt. The flyer itself was not long, but its sleeves were usually long. They were white or painted in color. Peasant women tied a scarf made of dyed or woolen material around their heads, tying it under their chin. On top of everything, instead of a cape dress, the village women wore clothes made of coarse cloth or semiryag, called sernik. In winter they usually wore sheepskin coats. The girls made themselves kokoshniks from tree bark in the form of a crown. The expensive clothes of the peasants were cut quite simply and were usually passed down from generation to generation. For the most part, clothes were cut and sewn at home.

Both men's and women's expensive clothes were almost always kept in cages and chests under pieces of water mouse skin, which was considered a preventative against moths and mustiness. Expensive clothes were usually worn on holidays, and all the rest were usually kept in the chest.

§4. Food and drink

The everyday peasant table was not particularly luxurious. The usual diet of peasants is cabbage soup, porridge, black bread and kvass. But it is worth noting that the gifts of nature - mushrooms, berries, nuts, honey, etc. - were a serious help. But the main thing has always been bread. It is not for nothing that proverbs arose in Rus': “Bread is the head of everything” or “Bread and water are peasant food.” Not a single meal was complete without black bread. If there was a bad year, it was a tragedy for the peasant. The honorable duty of cutting bread was always presented to the head of the family.

In addition to the everyday table, bread was also a ritual food. So, for example, bread for communion was baked separately, special bread - pepper - took part in the wedding ceremony, Easter cakes were baked for Easter, pancakes for Maslenitsa, etc. Bread was usually baked once a week. In the evening, the housewife prepared the dough in a special wooden tub. Both the dough and the tub were called kvashnya. The tub was constantly in use, so it was very rarely washed. The baked bread was stored in special bread bins. In times of famine, when there was not enough bread, quinoa, tree bark, ground acorns, nettles, and bran were added to the flour.

In general, Russian cuisine was rich in flour dishes: pancakes, pies, gingerbread, etc. For example, by the 17th century, only pancakes were popular. At least 50 species were known.

In addition to flour dishes, peasants ate porridge and various kinds of stews. Porridge was the simplest, most satisfying and affordable food. By the 17th century At least 20 types of cereals were known, some of which are still eaten today. Another type of peasant diet was cabbage soup. Shchi is an original Russian food. In those days, cabbage soup was the name given to any stew, not just soup with cabbage. Traditional Russian cabbage soup was cooked from fresh or sour cabbage in meat broth. In the spring, instead of cabbage, cabbage soup was seasoned with young cabbage or sorrel. The presence of meat in cabbage soup was determined by the wealth of the family.

Kvass was one of the favorite drinks of peasants. Each housewife had her own special recipe for kvass: honey, pear, cherry, cranberry, etc. Kvass was available to anyone. Various dishes were also prepared on its basis, such as okroshka or botvinya. But along with kvass, peasants drank the same ancient drink as jelly. Beer was a common drink in Rus'. In the XVI-XVII centuries. beer was even part of feudal duties.

§5. Holidays and home rituals

There have always been many holidays in Rus'. Both secular and religious holidays were celebrated. The peasants, just like the feudal lords, celebrated holidays, maybe not on such a grand scale, but still the fact remains a fact. Every holiday and every grief was accompanied by a certain ritual.

In peasant life, the chronology of marriage rituals was connected with the agricultural calendar, the antiquity of which appeared through the veil of Christianity. The dates of the marriage cycle were grouped around autumn, between the “Indian summer” and autumn fasting (from November 15 to December 24 - from the martyrs Guria and Aviva to Christmas), and the spring holidays, which began with Easter.

As a rule, acquaintances took place in the spring, and marriages in the fall, although this custom was not rigid. On the first of October (old style), on the day of the Intercession, the girls prayed to the Intercession for their suitors.

The wedding was a complex ritual event, because the wedding was one of the most important human events of that time. Russians generally married very early. With such an early marriage, it was natural that the bride and groom did not even know each other. Initially there was a viewing of the bride; After the review, a conspiracy usually followed. The arranged day was appointed by the bride's parents. Then, on the eve of the wedding, his guests gathered for the groom, and for the bride, guests prepared for her train. It was the custom among the peasants that the groom at that time sent the bride as a gift a hat, a pair of boots, a casket containing blush, rings, a comb, soap and a mirror; and some also sent accessories for women’s work: scissors, threads, needles, and along with them delicacies. This was a symbolic sign that if the young wife worked diligently, she would be fed sweets and pampered, otherwise she would be flogged.

Special home rituals accompanied the death of a person. As soon as a person breathed his last, a bowl of holy water and a bowl of flour or porridge were placed on the window. The dead person was washed with warm water, put on a shirt and wrapped in a white blanket, or shroud, put on shoes, and folded his arms crosswise. Burying in winter was an expensive pleasure for peasants, so they placed the dead in tombs or vestibules at bell towers and kept them there until spring. In the spring, families collected their dead and buried them in cemeteries. Drowned and strangled people were not buried in cemeteries. Suicides were usually buried in the forest and field.

Holidays in Rus' were quite frequent. In the 16th-17th centuries, the New Year was celebrated on September 1st. This holiday was called Summer Day. Another major holiday was Christmas. The peculiarity of the celebration of the Nativity of Christ was to glorify Christ. On Christmas Day itself, it was customary to bake crumbly rolls or baked goods and send them to friends’ houses. Christmastide evenings were a time for girls' fortune-telling and fun. On the eve of the Nativity of Christ, they ran around the village and called koleda and usen or tausen.

Maslenitsa was considered one of the most riotous holidays in Rus'. This holiday has been preserved since pagan times. The Church combined Maslenitsa with the eve of Lent. This holiday was celebrated for a whole week. On Monday of Maslenitsa week they began to bake pancakes - the main treat of this holiday. On the last day of Maslenitsa, that is, on Sunday, it was customary to ask everyone for forgiveness. And farewell to winter passed. Thus, the peasants welcomed spring, the most important time for peasants - the time when agricultural work began.

During the summer, the population of Rus' also had a number of holidays. The most famous to this day is the holiday of Ivan Kupala. It was celebrated on June 24 on the eve of the Christian holiday of John the Baptist. In the evenings on this day, fires were lit and fun games began, such as jumping over a fire. According to popular beliefs, bathing night is a mysterious time: trees move from place to place and talk to each other through the rustling of leaves, the river is covered with a mysterious silvery sheen, and witches flock to Bald Mountain and have a Sabbath.

Thus, the peasantry observed certain traditions and customs in their everyday life. Although in everyday life you quickly get used to it, and what seems ordinary to a peasant person can amaze a newcomer or a person of a different class. Various holidays were also held. And if there was a major church holiday, then everyone did not take up work on that day, as this was considered a great sin. And the peasants were a superstitious people and therefore treated the observance of all traditions and customs with special respect.

Conclusion

From time immemorial, the life of peasants was quite difficult. The situation of the peasants was largely aggravated by the adoption of the Council Code and subsequent acts regarding the peasants. In the 17th century peasants give obligations that limit the rights of their care and give the owner the right to dispose, to one degree or another, of the peasant’s personality. Peasant children, who lived under their father and did not bear taxes, also become enslaved, and, as if they were not tied to taxes, they fall at the complete disposal of the owner. The exit of the peasants is replaced by their export, and, moreover, with the consent of the previous owner, and this, over time, is, in essence, their sale. The government only cared about the peasants fulfilling government duties, and made the owner responsible for paying these duties.

By the end of the 17th century. The rapprochement between the landowner peasants and the slaves continues. On the one hand, the owners put slaves on the land, on the other, the state seeks to impose duties on the slaves in its favor, but the law still strictly distinguishes between these two groups of the population.

The situation of the monastic and black-sown peasants was by no means the best. Like privately owned ones, they bore various kinds of duties. But the position of the black-growing peasants in this regard was much better, because, unlike privately owned and monastic peasants, they bore duties only in favor of the state, while serfs and peasants attached to monasteries were obliged both to the state and to their direct owner, be it a landowner or monastery.

The 17th century was the peak of the growing indignation of the peasants: riots and peasant wars were characteristic of this period. All reforms carried out placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the peasants as the main tax-paying population. Legislation supposedly protecting the rights of peasants came into force very rarely. The feudal lords took advantage of this, increasingly exploiting the tax-taxed population, collecting almost everything from the peasants, even the grain left for planting. Thus dooming the peasants to a half-starved existence. Studying the life of peasants, we come to the conclusion that bread and water were the main food of the peasant table.

The state and feudal lords constantly increased their appetites. By that time, there was no progressive tax system and therefore the least protected in its rights and the most numerous class, namely the peasantry, acted as a “cash cow”.

However, in most cases, the peasants had to come to terms with their situation. After all, the state came to their defense only in rare cases, namely when it came directly to the murder of a peasant by a feudal lord.

To summarize, I would like to note that despite their difficult situation, the peasants lived and enjoyed life in their own way. This is most strongly reflected in the holding of various holidays. One even begins to get the impression that the Russian peasant is truly knee-deep in the sea and shoulder-deep in the mountains.

List of sources and literature used

Belyaev I.D. Peasants in Rus': A study on the gradual change in the importance of peasants in Russian society. - M.: GPIB, 2002.

Buganov. V.I. World of history: Russia in the 17th century - M.: "Young Guard", 1989.

World History. T. 5.// edited by Ya.Ya. Zutis, O. L. Vainshtein and others. M.: Publishing House of Socio-Economic Literature, 1958.

Vodarsky Ya. E. The population of Russia at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. (numbers, class composition, placement) - M.: "Science" 1977.

Gorskaya. N. A. Monastic peasants of Central Russia in the 17th century. On the essence and forms of feudal-serf relations. - M.: "Science" 1977.

Zudina L. S. History of Russia in the 17th century. - Lipetsk, 2004.

Kostomarov. N.I. Russian morals: (“Essay on the home life and customs of the Great Russian people over the centuries”, “Family life in the works of South Russian folk song creativity”, “Stories by Bogucharov”). - M.: "Charlie", 1995.- P.- 150.

Kotoshikhin. G.K. About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2000.

Peasant petitions of the 17th century: From the collections of the State Historical Museum. - M.: "Science", 1994.

Lotman. Yu. M. Conversations about Russian culture: Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX centuries). - St. Petersburg: "Art of St. Petersburg", 1994.

Mankov. G. A. Legislation and law of Russia in the second half of the 17th century. - St. Petersburg: "Science" 1977.

Ryabtsev. Yu. S. History of Russian culture: Artistic life and life in the XI-XVII centuries. - M.: "Humanitarian Publishing Center VLADOS", 1997.

Sakharov A.N. Russian village of the 17th century. - M.: "Science", 1966.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.