Preparations 

Family life of ancient Rus'. Family way of life in ancient Rus'

The role of a woman-mother in ancient Rus'

The upbringing of children was carried out mainly by women. Churches at that time demanded from women that they bring up in their babies, first of all, respect for elders, obedience, and also patience. In addition, the children had to listen to their mother in everything and not argue with her.

If we talk about an ordinary peasant family, then it had a large number of everyday features. At that time, the family was a single social body. Family and generic characteristics were dominant. Historians say that at that time it was difficult to do anything without a full-fledged family. For example, without a close-knit family, it was almost impossible to have a full-fledged household, reproduce a clan, etc. People who did not have a family were considered outside of religion. Among the most important features of a family in ancient Rus' were collective property, as well as a common household.

The head of the family and his wife

The head of the family was exclusively the oldest man, who was called big. Among the main functions of such a person, one can single out the management of the economic activities of the family, as well as the competent disposal of the labor force of all family members. In addition, the heads of families followed the social and religious morality of their relatives. Also of great importance was the wooden architecture of ancient Rus', which was given special attention.

The father-household in Ancient Rus' is the real bearer of power, as well as the guardian of the religious cult. In addition, the foreman of the family is the representative of his relatives at the village meeting. Of course, the oldest man was not only the head, but also the main worker. If we talk about the material well-being of the family, then it directly depended on the skills of the head of the family, as well as on his practical skills.

The eldest woman in such families, who was called the "big woman", was in charge of all household chores. More precisely, such women were in charge of family reserves, kept family money, and also kept order very carefully, which was quite welcomed. Also, the main woman was engaged in the distribution of all housework among family members. If, however, the main man left for a long time to work, then his functions as head were taken over by an older woman. Also, the "bolshukhs" were engaged in livestock, land work. By the way, agriculture in ancient Rus' significantly influenced the well-being of the family. It is worth noting that without the knowledge of the older woman, the head of the family could not sell the cattle.

The value of the eldest son and his wife in family life

After the big road and the big road, it was the eldest son who enjoyed the greatest authority. Such a family member had to be addressed exclusively by his first name and patronymic. The eldest sons helped the heads of their families in almost everything. For example, they went to fairs together, sold bread, bought all the necessary goods for their families, and so on. The mother-in-law's assistant was the wife of the eldest son. It is worth noting that this situation could be called one of the most difficult, both morally and physically.

http://bestohota.ru/

As you can see, the life of ancient Rus' was quite interesting, and in many respects differed from modern canons. We can confidently conclude that the family in Ancient Rus' is a friendly and well-coordinated team of relatives, each of whom had his own characteristic duties.

Video: Museum of the Old Russian Family in Plyos

Read also:

  • It is no secret that for quite a long period of time Rus' and Byzantium were in close relationship. It is worth noting that it is difficult to imagine the formation of the ancient Russian state without any clashes with such a great state as Byzantium. In general, Byzantium and ancient Rus'

  • The Old Russian state arose in Eastern Europe. It is worth noting that this state was quite powerful and influential. During its existence, the ancient Russian state conquered a large number of lands. Those who are interested in history know that there are two main theories

  • Kievan Rus is the largest state of the European Middle Ages. It is worth noting that the Russian land as a whole existed only in the period from the 9th to the 10th century. In this article, we will consider what the social structure of ancient Rus' was like. It is worth noting that in

  • After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, who was one of the most talented princes of the ancient Russian state, significant changes began to take place in the country, both in political and economic life. In this article we will consider the main reasons for the fragmentation of the ancient Russian state.

  • It's no secret that writing plays an important role in a person's life. In other words, writing can be called the engine of human culture, and indeed it is. It is worth noting that it was the letter that made it possible for people to use a fairly large stock of knowledge that

  • A person who studies modern Russian at school does not even think about the fact that this is far from the language that was called “Russian” in Ancient Rus'. Experts say that today the Belarusian language is really closest to the Old Russian language. Of course, this topic is enough

Family way of life in ancient Rus'.

Information about the family structure of the peoples who inhabited the territory of Russia before the adoption of Christianity is scarce. The chronicles say that while the glades already had a monogamous family, other Slavic tribes (Rodimichi, Vyatichi, Krivichi) maintained polygamy. Family relations were governed by customary law. Various sources contain indications of several ways of concluding a marriage. Among them, the most ancient is the kidnapping of the bride by the groom without her consent. However, gradually the abduction begins to be preceded by a preliminary agreement between the groom and the bride. There was also such a way of concluding a marriage as “buying” a bride from her relatives. Among the meadows, the most common form was the bringing of the bride by her relatives to the house of the groom. At the same time, the bride's consent to marriage was not significant, although Yaroslav's Charter already contained a ban on marrying by force. Marriage was concluded "by announcement" between the relatives of the bride and the groom or his relatives. The next day after the wedding, the bride's relatives brought a dowry.

The relationship between spouses largely depended on the form of marriage. When abducted, the wife became the property of her husband, therefore, rights arose in relation to her, rather, property than personal. When buying a bride, and especially marriage with a dowry by agreement between the groom and the bride's relatives, there arose, firstly, relations between the groom and these relatives (which somewhat limited the power of the husband) and, secondly, the first signs of giving the wife personal rights appeared. The power of the husband in this form of marriage was also very great, but not unlimited.

In Rus', apparently, the husband never had the legal right to dispose of the life or death of his wife. However, he could control her freedom. For example, in the annals of Nestor there is evidence that the princes Mstislav and Kisozhsky Rededya, entering into single combat, agreed that the winner would get the estate, treasury, wife and children of the vanquished.

Divorce at that time was carried out freely, and there is reason to believe that a woman could also be the initiator of the divorce in a marriage with a dowry.

With the adoption of Christianity in Russia, the reception of Byzantine marriage and family legislation, based on canonical ideas about marriage, takes place. The Nomocanon begins to operate - a collection of canonical rules and secular decrees of the Byzantine emperors, subsequently supplemented by decrees of the Russian princes. The Russian translation with these additions was called "The Pilot's Book".

Project language:

Study

Target

A comprehensive analysis of the formation and development of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus' in the 9th-13th centuries.

Hypothesis

I suppose that in the process of preparing the project, I will learn many interesting facts about the family in Ancient Rus' that I did not know.

The theme of my work is “Family in Ancient Rus'”. The objectives of the work is to summarize the collected material on the named topic. In the social science lessons, I got acquainted with the basic concepts of the family that are characteristic of the present, and I would like to look into the family life of the ancient Russian population, and learn as much as possible about what the family and the system of relationships in it and society were in the days of Ancient Rus'. This is the purpose of my work. The family is one of the fundamental institutions of society, giving it stability and the ability to replenish the population in each next generation, it is the most cohesive and stable unit of society, but at the same time it is a complex socio-cultural phenomenon, and therefore deserves great attention. The knowledge of how the family was born in Ancient Rus' contributes to the acquisition of knowledge that is necessary in modern conditions of life.

The development of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus'.

A family is an association of people based on marriage or consanguinity, connected by common life and mutual responsibility.

The family, as one of the forms of organizing people's lives, is of great importance, both for the individual and for society as a whole. Family relations largely determine the social and cultural development of any social group.

It is the family that is the main bearer of cultural traditions passed down from generation to generation. In the family, a person learns social roles, receives the basics of education, and behavior skills. In the family, the child develops a set of worldview guidelines that determine the sense of belonging to a particular national, social and political community. From parents and other relatives, the child learns about elementary civic duties, the need to fulfill them, learns a certain style of discussing political problems, attitude to the state, its symbols.

The family, as a stable social unit, appears among the Eastern Slavs during the period of the decomposition of the tribal system. Initially, it was a large patriarchal family (“clan”) uniting three generations - the parents of their married children and grandchildren. But around the 9th century, the growth of labor productivity made possible the independent existence of small families, consisting of only representatives of two generations - parents and their unmarried children. Under the influence of this factor, patriarchal large families begin to disintegrate, and the tribal community gives way to a neighboring community - a “line” that unites several small families.

At the same time, the harsh climate and economic instability of a small family, which was the result of a primitive economic system and low agricultural culture, sometimes forced them to unite, recreating larger tribal groups that represented a large undivided family. But the emergence of these associations, as a rule, was associated with the intensification of the action of unfavorable natural and social factors, and with the disappearance of the latter, large undivided families broke up into small ones.

The head of the family team was the eldest (greater) in age and position, a man - a bolshak. His main function was to manage the economic activities of the family. He disposed of the labor of its adult members, mainly men, made all the necessary household expenses, and supervised the household way of life of the family. The father-household was the real bearer of power and the guardian of the religious cult, followed the social and religious morality of family members. He also represented his family in front of the community at a village gathering. And, finally, he was the main worker in the family: family power and labor were interdependent and inseparable realities.

The male householder had exclusive, traditionally sanctified power over all members of the family. This power was a real personification of power, religiously consecrated, including the centuries-old experience of ancestors and personal, life and work experience. The material well-being of the family depended entirely on the household budget and practical skills of the head of the family, his skills and diligence. The power of the father as the ancestor (head of the family) was at the basis of any idea of ​​the peasant about the nature of public power.

Household affairs were in charge of the eldest woman in the family - the “big woman”, the wife of the head of the family. She, as a rule, was in charge of family reserves, kept family money, kept order in the house, and distributed work among women. Bolshukha was an adviser to her husband in everything, and in household chores she had a certain primacy, with which all men reckoned. In the event of a long absence of her husband, for example, when he went to work, she took over the management of the entire household, including field work.

The position of the bolshukha was determined by her special legal position in the family. By customary law, all the cattle she raised without the help of her husband belonged to the mistress. The latter had no right to sell it without the consent of his wife. Despite the fact that the cultivation of livestock mainly lay on the shoulders of the big woman, her property rights were quite significant. In all other respects she was subordinate to her husband. At the same time, in the event of the death of the head of the family, the bolshukha did not have the right to inherit his power. The rights and duties of the elder necessarily passed to the eldest man in the family, as a rule, to the eldest son, less often to the brother.

The essence of the intra-family hierarchy was determined by the uncomplaining subordination of the younger members of the family to the elders, wives to husbands, children to parents. The eldest son enjoyed the greatest authority in the family after the bolshak and the bolshukha. He was the first to stand out among other sons. He was always addressed only by his first name and patronymic. The son helped his father in household affairs. He went to the fair, sold bread, bought goods necessary for the family. The father gave him money, for which the son reported to his father. The wife of the eldest son was the first assistant to the mother-in-law and was considered among other daughters-in-law. Their position was the most difficult in the family, since they were at the very bottom of the family (power) hierarchy. And among them, the most difficult was the position of the younger daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law (“young women”). If the mother-in-law or one of the elders offended the younger daughter-in-law, then the husband, who himself was at the bottom of the social ladder, could not protect his wife, but only consoled her.

A young woman, before starting any work, had to ask for blessings from her husband's parents. She could neither go outside nor visit the neighbors without the permission of her husband's parents. In the husband's family, each daughter-in-law had to make do with her own means, mainly a dowry, which was her complete property. In addition to the dowry, the personal property of the daughter-in-law was the flax processed by her. In each family, women were allocated a special piece of land for flax. All areas were cultivated and cleaned by women together. Together, the flax was crushed and ruffled, and the tow was then distributed among the souls. Wool was also distributed among women. From linen and wool, they made clothes for all members of their family (husband and children). A woman could sell the surplus canvas, so the canvas was made in as large a quantity as possible.

Thus, the family personified the unity of the upper and lower principles, held together by an authoritative (hierarchical) principle.

The hierarchical structure of the family was clearly manifested, for example, in the way family members were seated at the table. The head of the family sat under the holy corner, next to him - the eldest of the sons. Men sat on one side of the table - on the benches, women - on the other, on the side benches. The children ate at a separate table near the stove. The mother-in-law sat with the children to keep an eye on them. The cook served on the table and ate after everyone else. It also happened that adults ate first, then children; while the women stood behind their husbands and sipped from behind their backs. They ate from the same bowl with wooden spoons. The meat was taken after the father-in-law gave instructions - he would hit with a spoon. They sat decorously at the table, “you laugh, then the father-in-law will hit his forehead with a spoon.”

In addition to the growth of productive forces, the evolution of the Old Russian family was also influenced by changes in the spiritual sphere that took place in Kievan Rus under the influence of Christianity.

After baptism, church (wedding) marriage appears in Rus', which gradually began to supplant previous forms of family union. The economic and physiological foundations that supported the existence of the East Slavic family were supplemented by the moral and moral bonds of the new religion, which resulted in the final transformation of a polygamous family (several wives) into a monogamous (one wife), and its economic and biological functions were supplemented by social ones, the most important of which were the mutual moral support of family members and joint service to God.

But the norms of Christian morality in the field of marriage and family relations for a long time could not oust the usual pagan traditions from the consciousness of an ancient Russian person. Therefore, among the nobility, whose economic position and social privileges made it possible to neglect Christian ethics, polygamy and concubinage flourished.

Preservation of the remnants of paganism in Ancient Rus' after the adoption of Christianity was explained by the weakness of the church, the size of the territory and the dispersion of the population, as well as its direct resistance to the planting of a new religion. Unable to immediately eradicate pre-Christian traditions in the field of marriage and family relations, the church was forced to recognize pagan marriages.

Fundamentals of marriage.

When concluding a marriage, certain conditions were required:

1) reaching the age of marriage as a criterion of physiological maturity and moral maturation, which implies a clear consciousness and free will when deciding on the creation of a family (the age limit for men ranged from 14 to 15 years, for women - 12-13 years). However, the established age limits in Rus' were not always respected, especially if political motives were woven into the marriage process.

2) lack of relationship or property. Blood relationship was not allowed up to the seventh degree inclusive. Property arose through marriage, as a result of which the husband and his relatives were considered in property with the wife's relatives and vice versa. It was forbidden up to the sixth degree inclusive. The difficulty in establishing the degree of property was that relatives could not maintain contacts with each other. Marriage between an adoptive parent and an adopted child was not allowed.

3) the absence of another undissolved marriage. This condition was formulated in the context of Christian views on marriage. The church sought to destroy polygamy as an old pagan habit.

4) marriage no more than a certain number of times. After the termination of the marriage, the person could repeat the marriage procedure again. The church tried to follow the number of marriages quite strictly, although it did not give a clear answer to the question of how many marriages could be concluded in a lifetime. The second and third marriages, concluded even in the event of the death of one of the spouses, were condemned. Only the first marriage was recognized by the church as a sacrament, while others were tolerated as evil.

5) the presence of the Christian religion of the bride and groom;

6) obtaining consent to marriage from the parents of the bride and groom;

7) permission to marry from the authorities. Initially, such a requirement was of general application not only for servicemen, but also for non-servicemen: the former asked permission from the prince and tsar, and the latter from the local authorities.

8) the prohibition to allow a mixture of social differences in marriage;

9) the presence of two or three witnesses during the wedding procedure;

10) compliance with the terms of marriage (it was forbidden to get married on Christmas (November 14 - December 24), Apostolic (June), Assumption (August 1-15) fasts and oil week).

In ancient Rus', two types of marriage are known - pagan and Christian.

A pagan marriage is associated with such a phenomenon as a small knot, and the second - with a church wedding.

Umychka in Ancient Rus' was the main way to get a bride. Two types of kidnapping were practiced - directly at the games and after the games, by special agreement with the bride. Both of these types of abduction survived until the end of the 19th century.

The first kind of abduction was practiced, for example, during the annual fair. A huge number of village girls, burning with the desire to be kidnapped, appeared in the city in their best clothes and lined up in one of the squares near the living room. Guys, in twos or threes, flew up to the ranks on a sleigh drawn by a pair or three of brisk horses, grabbed one of the girls, threw her into the sled and quickly left.

In the second type of kidnapping, the bride, having agreed with the groom about the kidnapping, secretly left the house of her parents and went to a prearranged place, where her future husband and comrades were waiting for her. Everyone got into a cart or sleigh and raced away. Then the groom's relatives came to the bride's parents and begged their consent, which was usually sold for a bucket of wine or for money from 10 to 15 rubles. After that, the dowry was given to the bride. At the end of the wedding, the young people with the groom's relatives went to the bride's parents for forgiveness, after which a feast was again arranged.

An integral part of the pagan wedding ceremony was the payment of "vein". Most often, "veno" is perceived as a payment for the bride.

The only form of marriage in Kievan Rus after baptism was recognized as a church wedding, which was preceded by a mandatory act of betrothal.

The act of betrothal was an agreement during which the parents of the bride and the groom agreed on the marriage: they agreed on the dowry and the expected wedding day.

After obtaining the consent of the parents about the wedding, the question arose about the bride - about the opportunity to see the bride.

The engagement was preceded by a pre-marital agreement.

The act of betrothal was drawn up by a special contractual (line) record. The range of issues that could be reflected in the row was not limited by law: it could include records about the need for the groom to pay the debts of the bride, about the obligation to raise a stepson, about agreeing to support sister-in-law, etc.

The names of the details of the betrothal rite made it possible to name the girl entering into marriage as “narrowed” (matchmakers judged her) and “betrothed” (as a result of collusion they beat hand in hand).

In cases of violation of the promise to marry, a penalty was established - a charge that sometimes reached significant amounts. In case of violation of the terms of the marriage agreement, the parties had the right to sue in court. Betrothal bound the bride and groom almost as strongly as marriage: public morality required the groom to marry the girl, and the violation of fidelity to the groom by the bride was considered adultery.

Having received notice from parents of their children's desire to marry, the parish priest had to conduct a search, ascertaining whether there were any obstacles to marriage. Not later than two weeks before the wedding, three times in a row on Sundays and holidays, in the parish of the groom and in the parish of the bride, the names of the persons entering into marriage were announced. Anyone aware of violations of the terms of marriage should report them. If the circumstances preventing the marriage were not identified and all the conditions for the wedding were met, the priest made an entry in the "search book" and scheduled the wedding.

For the wedding, a crown memory was needed - a document that was issued to the priest for a specific wedding. The names of the bride and groom, information about the results of the search conducted by the priest were recorded in the crown memory. The amount collected for the issuance of crown memories was called the crown collection or crown duty. The crown duty was differentiated: its size depended on what marriage the bride and groom entered into, and increased in proportion to the ordinal number of the marriage. The size of the crown duty largely depended on fluctuations in market prices in a particular diocese. The money collected for the issuance of crown memories was the income of the church.

The church recognized the church wedding as the only form of marriage. The only exceptions were remarriages, when the wedding was replaced by a simple blessing. The preparation procedure and the wedding itself had to be carried out by the priest of the parish in which the bride and groom lived. It was forbidden to get married outside of one's own parish; under exceptional circumstances, the marriage could take place in another place if there was a written permission for marriage by the parish priest of the bride and groom.

The wedding took place only in the church, in public. Secret weddings were forbidden. Any clergyman could marry, but not a monk.

Elements of the traditional ritual of strengthening family ties for several centuries after the adoption of Christianity were transformed into pre-wedding and wedding ceremonies, typical of a wedding marriage, consecrated by the church. Legalizing the wedding marriage, the church, through its laws, established certain penalties for forced or untimely marriage, for moral insult caused by the possible refusal of the groom from the bride, or for non-compliance with other conditions necessary for marriage.

However, marriage according to the method of conclusion (marriage arrangement, row) immediately became a kind of special type of civil contract, and the vitality of the wedding feast as a tradition testified to the importance attached to the recognition of marriage not only by the church, but also by the public. Marriage remained a civil act and was only sanctified by the blessing of the church.

Fundamentals of divorce.

The possibility of dissolution of marriage has existed in Rus' since ancient times. In the pagan period, the strength of family ties depended on the form of marriage. The family union, created by kidnapping the bride, was easily broken at the request of the husband, who was practically the owner of his wife and could do with her at his own discretion.

The manner in which the bride was kidnapped (with or without her consent) did not affect her rights in the area of ​​divorce. They could not ask for a divorce.

The emergence of a new form of marriage - arranged marriage - has changed little in the matter of divorce. The husband still retained exclusive rights over his wife, including the ability to leave her at will. But a divorce initiated by a man already had some material consequences for him in the form of the loss of money paid for the bride, which could not but limit his willfulness in matters of divorce.

Despite the proclamation by Christian teaching of the equality of men and women, in the case of adultery, a much more severe punishment was imposed on the wife than on the husband. In order to be a ground for divorce, the fact of infidelity had to be thoroughly investigated, "and the judges should consider what kind of accusers are in this process." If the spouse himself was not an eyewitness to this crime, then he was obliged to provide the testimony of three worthy witnesses. If the husband, accusing his wife of treason, could not prove this fact, then he was subject to the same punishment as adulterers - cutting off the nose, and the slandered wife was allowed to divorce.

If the husband himself encouraged his wife to cheat, then she could leave him, and in this case the husband was considered the culprit of the divorce.

The reason for the divorce could be the actions of the wife, casting a shadow on her reputation and making it possible to suspect her of adultery. Such actions include cases when the wife, without the permission of her husband, feasted with other people, washed in the same bathhouse with men or spent the night outside the house, and also if, without the permission of her husband, she visited various games. But if the wife spent the night outside the house due to the fault of her husband, then this fact could not serve as a basis for dissolution of the marriage.

The encroachment of the husband on the life of his wife was also considered as a reason for the dissolution of the marriage. True, this norm in Rus' practically did not work, since it came into conflict with the unlimited power of the head of the family.

A number of reasons for divorce are related to the health problems of the spouses. But it was possible for a woman to dissolve a marriage due to the physical inability of her husband to family life only after three years of marriage. The husband could also demand a divorce in the event of his wife's infertility, since the main purpose of marriage in ancient Russian society was considered to be the birth of offspring.

Circumstances leading to a divorce were considered to be the long-term unknown absence of one of the spouses or his being in captivity. And although the waiting period for the return of a spouse or receiving news from him was legally determined by five years, failure to comply with the statutory waiting period did not invalidate the divorce. If the long-absent spouse nevertheless returned, then he could demand from his second half the dissolution of the new marriage and the renewal of the old one.

The option of dissolution of marriage was the adoption of monasticism by one of the spouses.

After the adoption of Christianity in Rus', the pagan practice of unauthorized divorce continued. It was unauthorized divorces that most of all corresponded to the ideas of the people of that time about marriage as a contract that, if necessary, can be broken.

Quite often, the reason for "arbitrary" divorces in Rus' was "disagreements" that arise between the husband and his wife's relatives.

After the adoption of Christianity by Kievan Rus, all problems related to divorces were considered exclusively by church courts. There is practically no information about the order of legal proceedings. Sources report only court fees and payment of fines in favor of the church. Therefore, the most common forms of divorce were a written agreement between spouses or a unilateral act of "vacation to the wife from the husband."

Thus, divorce as a legal institution already existed in Ancient Rus', but in pagan times only a man had the right to dissolve a marriage, and the reasons for it were not regulated. In the Christian period, after the transition of family relations under the jurisdiction of the church, a woman also received the right to divorce, and the reasons for it were enshrined in law.

Legal status of family members.

Both in pagan times and after the adoption of Christianity, the man (husband) was the head of the family, who had exclusive powers of authority.

The legal status of a woman in an ancient Russian family directly depended on her premarital social status - the higher it was, the more rights she had in the new family.

The position of a woman in the family was also influenced by the way the family union was created. Forms of marriage that did not involve the active role of a woman in its conclusion, at least in the form of consent (kidnapping, purchase, captivity), made her, after marriage, practically powerless "thing" of her husband. Arranged marriage, although it did not directly provide for the mandatory voluntary consent of the woman, was nevertheless based on an agreement between the groom or his relatives and the bride's relatives, who could not completely ignore her interests. In addition, such a marriage assumed that a woman had a dowry that guaranteed her certain property rights in a new family. But even this expansion of women's rights did not eliminate her dependence on her husband, who remained the sovereign head of the family and retained exclusive rights in relation to household members.

After the adoption of Christianity, which declared the equality of all people before God, the position of women in ancient Russian society improved somewhat. But these changes did not affect family relations, since the church canons and the norms of family law based on them in Ancient Rus' assumed the preservation of inequality.

But, despite such a difference in the rights of spouses, relations between them in many ancient Russian families were built on the basis of sincere love and respect. The Old Russian woman, although dependent on her husband, was a respected member of society (a woman-mother had a particularly high status) and took part in various public entertainments and festivities on an equal basis with men. Representatives of the nobility actively influenced the socio-political and religious life of the Old Russian state, sometimes helping their husbands even in matters of state administration.

The property rights of women in Rus' expanded over time. In the pagan period, the representatives of the weaker sex could not inherit their father's property, with the exception of the daughters of feudal lords who did not have brothers. During the life of her husband, the wife could not even manage her own dowry, which, remaining her unconditional property, passed to the disposal of her husband, and the vein received from the groom as a wedding gift, which became her conditional property. Only in the event of the death of her husband did a woman receive full rights to a dowry and a crown, as well as to a share (“part”) previously allocated to her by her husband from her property, which together constitute her security in the event of widowhood. A married daughter could inherit her mother's property if she took care of her.

The adoption of Christianity radically changed the situation - the Russian legislation enshrined the principle of separation of marital property, which gave a woman the right to dispose of her share of family property. At the same time, the husband and wife could not inherit one after another, receiving, in the event of the death of a spouse, only the right to use his property for life. Full-fledged heirs were their children, who received inheritance rights after the death of both parents or in the event of a widowed mother remarrying.

In Ancient Rus', there were no differences in the legal status of a born and adopted child. At the same time, the status of children born in a legal marriage and out of it legally differed. But in the pagan period, this difference was not fundamental, since the existence of "illegal" wives (concubines) in ancient Russian society also led to the appearance of "illegal" children, whose rights were protected by ancient custom and parental feelings. After the adoption of Christianity, these same factors very successfully counteracted the desire of the clergy to consolidate the differences in the legal status of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children in legal practice and in the minds of ancient Russian society.

In relation to their children, parents had very broad rights, which in the pagan period probably included the possibility of disposing of their lives. Subsequently, the church took under its protection the lives of children, including those who had not yet been born. True, the parents retained the right, in case of impossibility to feed the child, to dispose of his freedom.

Sons remained under the authority of their parents throughout the life of the latter, daughters - until their marriage. Parental power over children was limited only when they were sold into servitude or when they entered the princely service. Children received property independence only after separating from their parents' household. The relationship between grandfathers and grandchildren and grandchildren in an undivided family, most likely, did not differ from the relationship between parents and children.

The rights of parents in relation to their children were intertwined with duties, the main of which was the upbringing of their descendants and their material support, and in relation to daughters, also marrying them. The duties of children included obedience and maintenance of parents in old age. Failure to fulfill their duties, both parents and children, was punished by law. But in relations between different generations of the Old Russian family, there was room for care and mutual respect, based not on the threat of punishment, but on warm family feelings.

The institution of guardianship acted in Ancient Rus' in relation to young children if they were left without parents, as well as in the event of a widowed mother remarrying. The guardian, as compensation for the work of raising and maintaining children, received the right to income from their property. He was obliged to return the property itself upon reaching the age of majority by the guardians. Responsibility for its waste was borne not only by the guardian himself, but also by his heirs.

Relations between lateral relatives were not adequately regulated by ancient Russian law. In the general case, they were built on the basis of physical seniority: the elder brother had superiority over the younger, and the uncle over the nephew. But legal conflicts in this matter served as a breeding ground for various conflicts in the princely family over seniority and the ensuing ownership rights.

In relations between relatives, by nature, the principle of physical seniority also operated: the daughter-in-law was in a subordinate position in relation to her husband's parents, the son-in-law - to the father-in-law. But in the latter case, deviations from the general rule were very often encountered, especially in the princely family, when the son-in-law did not recognize the supremacy of his father-in-law.

Analysis of the formation and development of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus' in the 9th - 13th centuries. within the framework of the prepared project allows us to conclude that in the course of the cultural and historical development of Ancient Rus', not only the form of family and marriage relations has changed, but also the very content of these relations. The evolution of the family and family relations in ancient Rus' was due to two factors: the development of productive forces and the influence of the Christian religion.

The family as a stable social unit appears among the Eastern Slavs during the period of the decomposition of the tribal system. Initially, the only way to create a family was the kidnapping of the bride. The appearance of a surplus product made it possible to move on to the next form of marriage - purchase and sale, which, in turn, grew into an arranged marriage based on an agreement between the parents of the bride and groom.

The evolution of the Old Russian family was also influenced by changes in the spiritual sphere that took place in Ancient Rus' under the influence of Christianity. After baptism, church marriage appeared in Rus', which gradually began to supplant previous forms of family union. The economic and physiological foundations that supported the existence of the East Slavic family were supplemented by the moral bonds of the new religion, the result was the final transformation of a polygamous family into a monogamous one, and its economic and biological functions were supplemented by social ones, the most important of which were mutual moral support of family members and joint service to God.

The Slavs' understanding of family and marriage in the Old Russian state makes it possible to call a family a complex union of spouses between themselves and parents with children. Both unions were necessary for the existence of a family.

Personal relationships between spouses largely depended on the form of marriage. When a bride was kidnapped, she became the property of her husband. Therefore, in relation to a woman, the husband had rights rather of a real nature than personal. When buying a bride, by agreement between the groom and the bride's relatives, such relations arose that somewhat limited the power of the husband and gave the wife some personal rights. The power of the husband in all cases was great. But at the same time, in Rus', a husband never legally had the right to life and death in relation to his wife. Although he could dispose of her freedom.

A characteristic feature of marital relations in Ancient Rus' was the dependence of a woman on a man, since physical strength gave status advantages in a society dominated by manual labor and there was a constant need to protect the home.

However, the role of the family undoubtedly increased.

Study Protocol

1. Development of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus'.

2. Fundamentals of marriage

3. Fundamentals of divorce.

4.Legal status of family members

To look into the life of the ancient Russian population, and into such a side of it, hidden from prying eyes, as family life, is both interesting and useful from a scientific point of view. But it is difficult to do so. As far as the few sources allow, we will still try to find out what the family and marriage were like in the times of Kievan Rus. In the Russian Middle Ages, two main types of families are known with transitional stages between them. A small family, consisting of spouses and their children who had not yet married, lived in a separate small dwelling, had its own household and was the primary production team. Along with it, there was a large family, or "clan", as the sources call it. This family consisted of old people - parents, their sons with wives and grandchildren. The small family stood out from the large one. Its emergence was caused by an increase in labor productivity and sufficient profitability of a small farm. But the small family turned out to be less resistant in the fight against the forces of nature, in social clashes with more prosperous and stronger families, as well as with the power of the emerging feudal state, which imposed tributes, judicial fines and duties on the population. The role of the extended family in ancient Russian society is not entirely clear. Members of a large family were interconnected by a commonality of political and property rights, for example, inheritance of escheat (having no direct heirs) property; the right to punish the murderer (this right was then taken away by the state power). The extended family was exogamous: marriages were forbidden between its members, even second cousins. Members of a large family did not necessarily live under the same roof. It is difficult to trace the role of this family as a production team. In this capacity, it acted, obviously, primarily where the population, who had moved from the old agricultural territories to new, forested ones, was initially forced to develop these lands in large groups. Then small families again prevailed.

In addition to the small and large families, there was a larger social group, which often acted as the defender of the old system and, as it were, the rival of the emerging feudal state. It was a free neighborhood community - an organization that included large and small families living in one or more villages. At an early stage of its development, such a community, in the person of its senior or elected representatives, had power in relation to those families that were part of it, had a number of important administrative and judicial functions. But this continued until the princely power, and then the church, expropriated these functions one by one. The norms of family law of the Old Russian state regulated relations within small and large families, as well as the relations of family members with the community and the state. With the development of the class system, the strengthening of the early feudal state, new social groups arose alongside the old social groups, which became well known already in the feudal period of history. The man of the Middle Ages was an integral part of a certain social group, outside of which he had neither rights nor duties. The basis of family and marriage law XI-XII centuries. constituted the norms that arose in the relationship of the family with the community and the state that was being formed back in pagan times. Even then, monogamy won in the Kyiv and Pereyaslav lands, and marriage by kidnapping the bride became a relic, preserved only in the form of a rite. Archaic norms of marriage at that time still took place in the less developed regions - the forest parts of Rus', in the basins of the Upper Dnieper, Pripyat, Oka, where the remnants of the primitive communal system were stronger. Borrowed from Byzantium, the Christian church, rich in traditions, after its official establishment in Rus' at the end of the 10th century, trying to adapt to local conditions, itself partially changed and relied on the norms that it found in Rus'. By the middle of the XI century. as a result of this interaction of ancient pagan norms and Christian ones introduced here, the foundations of ancient Russian family and marriage law took shape, which were partly recorded in 1051-1053. in a special code known as the "Charter of Prince Yaroslav on Church Courts." In the XI-XIII centuries. a number of norms of family and marriage law were reflected in the princely codes - the Brief and Long editions of Russkaya Pravda, in chronicles, in parchment and birch bark letters.

The Church in Rus' arrogated to itself the right to approve marriage and propagandized that its conclusion was one of the divine sacraments, incomprehensible to man. However, the church registration of marriage - "wedding" for a very long time could not supplant the old customs of "wedding". In the 1080s, a contemporary noted that only boyars and princes get married, while ordinary people still arrange weddings with dancing and music. The wedding was preceded by an engagement, an agreement; she was accompanied by a meal at the bride's parents, and obligatory dishes were a loaf pie and cheese. The groom's refusal to marry after an agreement was considered a shame for the bride and was compensated by a sum of money, to which the church authorities added a fine in their favor. “If cheese is cut because of a girl, and then they do it wrong, for cheese hryvnia, but for insulting her 3 hryvnia, and what is lost, then pay her, and 6 hryvnia to the metropolitan,”2) - we read in the “Charter of Prince Yaroslav”.

The terms of the marriage were quite difficult. Marriages between relatives were forbidden. The Church refused to marry people who were relatives even in the sixth generation, that is, marriages between second cousins ​​were not allowed. Only their children could marry among themselves. The marriageable age for men was considered 15 years, for women less: 13-14. However, these standards were often not respected. The ministers of the Christian church in Rus', like adherents of other religious cults, preached the exclusivity of their faith and forbade the marriages of Christians with non-Christians, as well as with those who were not baptized “from our language”, that is, local, ancient Russian pagans. The early feudal marriage law in Rus' did not know language and state differences. As for marriages between persons belonging to different social groups, the corporate nature of society made them a rare exception, although such marriages were not formally forbidden. In fact, marriages between representatives of the nobility (princes and boyars) and representatives of the social lower classes (peasant women and slaves) were not recognized as legal and were not sealed by the church. In this case, the peasant women and slaves acted as concubines, the "lesser women" - the younger, "second" wives. The marriage of a free woman to a slave without a preliminary agreement with her master, provided for by the Long Truth (XII century), led to the loss of freedom and enslavement. 3) As for the marriage of a free woman with a slave (“serf”), then, according to later sources, it led to the same. This class norm partly prevented marriages between freemen and serfs.

According to the legal norms that existed in Rus' after the adoption of Christianity, no more than two marriages could be entered into. Even the death of one of the spouses in the second marriage did not give the survivor the right to enter into a third marriage. A clergyman who blessed such a union, even out of ignorance, was threatened with defrocking. In the monuments of the XIV-XV centuries. reflected the amendments that the state and church authorities were forced to make to these strict rules. For example, in Novgorod, children from the third and fourth marriages were recognized as heirs, and the third marriage was allowed as an exception in the event that “if someone is young, and he does not have children either from the first marriage or from the second.” 4) Probably, similar amendments had to be made before.

A certain role in the conclusion of the first marriage was played by the parents of the bride and groom, who even had the right to force their children to marry. The “Charter of Prince Yaroslav” ordered that parents be punished only in those cases when, by forcibly forcing marriage or forbidding it, they caused an attempted suicide or suicide: “If a girl does not want to marry, and her father and mother will be extradited by force, and she will do something to herself, the father and mother answer to the metropolitan.” Parents in relation to their children had not only great rights, but also many duties. The "Charter of Prince Yaroslav" provided for responsibility for providing for children and their arrangement in life. Failure to marry a daughter was punishable by a fine in favor of the metropolitan: "If a girl from the great boyars does not marry, parents pay the metropolitan 5 hryvnias of gold, and lesser boyars - a hryvnia of gold, and deliberate people - 12 hryvnias of silver, and a simple child - a hryvnia of silver." According to Old Russian law, if there were son-heirs in the family, daughters did not receive an inheritance, but were dependent on their brothers: “If there is a sister in the house, then she is not entitled to an inheritance, but the brothers will give her in marriage, giving as a dowry what they can.” 5) It is the duty of the parents to ensure the marriage of their daughter.

Wherever the Old Russian family lived, in the southern forest-steppe and steppe belts or in the northern forest regions, the main source of its existence was the labor of a man. The woman actively helped to run the household, and also gave birth and fed numerous children, a considerable part of whom, however, died in childhood. There was almost no regulation of childbearing, although folk “potions” were already known to cause miscarriage. To the question of the priest who took the confession, “whether it would be a sin if a woman throws out a baby during work,” the Novgorod bishop of the 12th century. answered: “If this is not the result of a potion, there is no penance for it.” 6) Given the high mortality of children and the relatively short life of peasants (usually up to 40-45 years), practically unlimited childbearing was the most important source of population growth. The social system in no way provided the means of subsistence for people in old age, and their maintenance fell only on their children.

The traditions of pagan times allowed regulated premarital relationships. But the birth of a child by an unmarried woman was regarded by the church as a “civil death” of the future bride: “If a girl living with her father and mother has a child, or a widow, then, accusing her, transfer her to a church house”, an institution of the monastic type. The same was done for an unmarried woman who had a child.

Most of the movable property of the family was the property of the husband. The wife did not share her husband's rights to property acquired in their joint management. However, she possessed part of the property received by her as a dowry. Dowry is a fairly early social phenomenon. It will arise during the transition to a class society, when the large family is already becoming obsolete, but marriage is not yet regarded as a stable and intractable institution, which it has become in a class society. Dowry - property, including clothes, household items, and other things that the bride received from her parents and brought to the groom's house - was, as it were, a guarantee of the possibility of her existence outside the future husband's household: the bride entered a new family with this property even if the old marriage was dissolved or her former husband died. After the death of a wife, only her own children retained the right to inherit her dowry. The formation of private peasant ownership of land in Ancient Rus' was significantly delayed where the traditional collective owner turned out to be strong - the rural community, which hampered the process of property differentiation and class formation in the countryside. Women of privileged classes - princesses, boyars - could be the owners of villages, even cities, such as, for example, the widow of Prince Vladimir Vasilkovich (XIII century). 7)

Between the spouses there were responsibilities for mutual maintenance. Neither the husband nor the wife had the right to leave each other if one of them was seriously ill: “If the wife has a serious illness, or blindness, or a long illness, then she cannot be left: likewise, the wife cannot leave her husband” (“The Charter of Prince Yaroslav”). Here, obviously, we are not talking about a formal divorce, after which the spouse had the right to remarry, but only about leaving the spouse without help. The right to resolve intra-family issues relating to the relationship between husband and wife, as well as the wife with the world around her, as well as the right to punish misconduct, belonged to the husband. The "Charter of Prince Yaroslav" pursues punishment from the church authorities only in cases where a man insulted or beat someone else's wife. Similar actions in relation to one's own wife were regarded not as a crime, but as the fulfillment of a duty. The rural community, the princely tiuns, the church, the city administration bodies were subject only to the husband, but not to the wife. It is true that the church had great moral power through the priest-confessor. But the metropolitan and episcopal officials intervened in conflicts, where one of the parties was a woman, only at the conclusion and dissolution of marriage.

Divorce of spouses in Ancient Rus' was allowed. He was preceded by a trial with the involvement of witnesses. In early times, at least in the XI-XII centuries, when the wedding in the church did not yet become a common phenomenon, the authorities sought to preserve not only a church, “legal” marriage, but also the one in which the church did not take part and who condemned: “If the husband dispersed with his wife, by his own will and they are crowned, then the Metropolitan is 12 hryvnias, if the Metropolitan is 6 hryvnias.” Several reasons for a legal divorce were recognized. The Novgorod Rules of Bishop Nifont (1180s) mention two of them: a wife's infidelity or her husband's physical inability to marry. The betrayal of her husband did not serve as such a basis and was only punished by penance. Divorce was also allowed with the imposition of a penance for three years, “if it is very bad, so that the husband cannot live with his wife or the wife with her husband,” and also when the husband “starts stealing his wife’s clothes or drinking away.” The appearance of the Old Russian integral code of norms of "dissolution" (divorce) refers to the second half of the 12th - the beginning of the 13th century. He entered the lengthy edition of the "Charter of Prince Yaroslav". In it, they found a place for the norm of divorce only because of the misconduct of the wife. Thus, the husband had the right to leave his wife in the event of her adultery, confirmed by witnesses (this was considered as moral damage to the husband); in the case of a wife communicating with strangers outside the home without the permission of her husband, which was a threat to her (and, consequently, his) honor; for her attempt on her husband's life or complicity in such an attempt (failure to inform her husband about it); when participating in the robbery of her husband or complicity in such a robbery. These are the norms known in Byzantium.

As for the divorce due to the fault of the husband, then, judging by later records, the wife could leave her husband if he slanderously accused her of treason, that is, he could not prove it with witness testimony. A husband's attempt on his wife's life also served as grounds for divorce. How did they act in case of unauthorized dissolution of marriage and the conclusion of a new one, not approved by the authorities? In this case, the second marriage was considered invalid. And the fate of the first marriage depended on who exactly was the active party in its dissolution: the husband who took the second wife was obliged to return to the first and pay a fine to the metropolitan; the very fact of a husband leaving his wife was not a legal ground for divorce. The amount of the fine depended on the social status of the family. In addition to the fine, according to the archaic norms of the XI century. the boyar was obliged to reimburse his wife a large amount "for shame" (for insult). If the wife left for another, then it was not she who was considered responsible for this violation (because she was not competent enough), but her new husband. It was he who paid the metropolitan the "sale" (fine). Such a woman did not return back to her first husband: it was just a case of a legal divorce through her fault. She was transferred to the church house. The articles of the "Charter of Prince Yaroslav" do not speak of the rights of ex-husbands as a result of establishing "order", but both (the second - after the penance), apparently, could enter into new church marriages. As for children, there is no information in the monuments of that time that their interests were taken into account when deciding on divorce.

The family and marriage law of the Old Russian state is the right of an early class society in which there was an active process of feudalization, covering an increasing number of community members who previously depended only on the supreme state power. As you can see, this rule included many local pre-Christian norms that did not contradict the class system. The further development of feudal relations in Rus' led to noticeable changes in family and marriage law.

1) "Russian Historical Library, published by the Archaeographic Commission" (RIB). T. VI SPB. 1908, stb. 18. 2) "Monuments of Russian Law". Issue. 1. M. 1952, p. 269. 3) Ibid., p. 119. 4) “Monuments of Russian law”. Issue. 2. M. 1953, p. 165; RIB. T. VI, p. 273. 5) "Monuments of Russian Law". Issue. 1, p. 118. 6) RIB. T. VI, p. 58. 7) "Monuments of Russian Law". Issue. 2, page 27.

Podlasova Alena

Family relations in Ancient Rus' (9th-13th centuries) are considered.

Download:

Preview:

Introduction………………………………………………………………….3

  1. The development of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus'…………..12
  2. Marriage in Ancient Rus'…………………………………..21
  3. Divorce in Ancient Rus'………………………………………………..36

Conclusion………………………………………………………………..42

List of used literature……………………………………….45

INTRODUCTION

Family and marriage relations are of interest for research, since the family is one of the five fundamental institutions of society, giving it stability and the ability to replenish the population in each next generation. At the same time, the family acts as a small group - the most cohesive and stable unit of society. The family is a complex sociocultural phenomenon. Its specificity and uniqueness lies in the fact that it focuses almost all aspects of human life and goes to all levels of social practice: from the individual to the socio-historical, from the material to the spiritual. And although the family from the moment of its inception, being initially a complex social phenomenon, organically included both natural-biological, and moral, psychological, and economic aspects of life, their influence on the organization of its life throughout the development of human society was far from unambiguous.

A family is an association of people based on marriage or consanguinity, connected by common life and mutual responsibility. Being a necessary component of the social structure of any society and performing multiple social functions, the family plays an important role in social development.

Representatives of all social sciences have always paid special attention to the study of the institution of the family. And this is no coincidence. The family, as one of the forms of organizing people's lives, is of great importance, both for the individual and for society as a whole. Historical experience shows that family relations largely determine the social and cultural development of any social group.

It is the family that is the main bearer of cultural examples transmitted from generation to generation. In the family, a person learns social roles, receives the basics of education, and behavior skills. In the family, the child develops a set of worldview guidelines that determine the sense of belonging to the national, social and political communities of which he is a member. From parents and other relatives, the child learns about elementary civic duties, the need to fulfill them, learns a certain style of discussing political problems, attitude to the state, its symbols. Thus, the family provides not only the socio-cultural, but also the primary political and legal socialization of the individual.

The relevance of the research topic is due to the lack of special works considering this problem at the modern methodological level. In recent decades, the problem of the family and its evolution have been considered within the framework of social history and historical demography. However, representatives of these areas of historical science, as a rule, pay the main attention to the period of the 17th-20th centuries, leaving the Old Russian family before the Mongolian period outside the scope of their research. This paper attempts to fill this gap.

The appeal to the study of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus' is also caused by the role that the family, as the primary structural element of any social formation, plays in its history. Given the weak level of political consolidation of Old Russian society, the study of such a “non-state” regulator of social relations as the family allows one to take another step forward in the reconstruction of the history of Ancient Rus'.

In the course of cultural and historical development, not only the form of family and marriage relations changed, but also the very content of these relations, in particular, between husband and wife. The concept of family should not be confused with the concept of marriage. Marriage is a historically changing social form of relationship between a woman and a man, through which society regulates and sanctions their sexual life and establishes their marital and kinship rights and obligations. But the family, as a rule, is a more complex system of relations than marriage, since it can unite not only spouses, but also their children, as well as other relatives. Therefore, the family should be considered not just as a marriage group, but as a social institution, that is, a system of connections, interactions and relationships of individuals that perform the functions of reproduction of the human race, regulating all connections, interactions and relationships based on certain values ​​and norms, subject to extensive social control through a system of positive and negative sanctions.

The development of family and marriage relations from large families VI - VII centuries. to economically and legally independent small families of the XI-XII centuries. no doubt by most researchers. The nature of family ties inherent in an individual family that existed in the period under review is confirmed both by archaeological and written sources. Normative literature testifies to the small type of both princely and boyar families, as well as families of Novgorod svoezemtsy, free community members and semi-dependent peasants. The predominance of the individual family is recorded by the monuments of law and among the serfs. Similarly, the legal norms relating to civil law testify to the implementation of the principle of individual, and not extended family responsibility.

The appeal to the problems of the family in the framework of the study is not accidental - the transformation of the institution of the family raises many questions of a theoretical and practical nature. The social and legal significance of the problem of regulating marriage and family relations is primarily due to the role of the family institution in the life of society. The family is the primary social cell and the source of the reproduction of society. The family is an educational environment, an interpretive system, inwithin the framework of which the ideological, cultural and moral foundations of the life of society are formed and fixed at the everyday level. Family socialization also determines the process of internationalization of sociocultural norms. However, we have to admit that up to the present time in historical science, attention to the problems of family and marriage is clearly insufficiently removed, and the available works are either purely sectoral or applied in nature. The relevance of the problems of regulating marriage and family relations and the acuteness of issues related to them are especially noticeable in our country, a country of deepening depopulation progress, where ultra-low birth rates, the lack of young people's desire for legal consolidation of a marital union, an increase in the number of divorce proceedings, and an increase in the number of illegitimate children have become a fact.

The study of the problems of marriage and family relations in Russian history, the accumulation of factual material about the Russian family, the personal and property rights of a husband and wife, the marital status of a man and a woman, the role of the family in cultural and socio-political life began in Russian historiography in the 18th-first half of the 19th century. Over the past three centuries, certain aspects of the problem of relations between the sphere of family and marriage have repeatedly become the subject of special consideration by historians, ethnographers, folklorists, jurists, and sociologists.

The beginning of the study of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus' was laid in the first half of the 19th century. N.M. Karamzin. In his opinion, in pagan times, the Eastern Slavs bought wives, paying their parents a vein, which determined the slavish position of a woman in the family.

From the 30s. 19th century the study of the problem of marriage and family relations in Ancient Rus' was developed within the framework of the historical and legal school. It was founded by the works of I.F. Evers and A.M. Reitz. Both authors proved the existence in Rus' in the pre-Christian period of practice

kidnapping and buying and selling of brides, as well as payments for them vein, which later transformed into a wedding gift from a husband to his wife. In their opinion, both forms of marriage led to the establishment of the husband's unlimited power over his household, which (in a somewhat relaxed form) continued to exist even after the introduction of Christianity.

35. Levina, E. Sex and Society in the Orthodox World, 900-1700 / Eva Levina; Translation from English.V. V. Lvova / / “And all sins are evil, mortal ...” Love, erotica and sexual ethics in pre-industrial Russia (X-first half of the XIX century). - M .: Ladomir, 1999.-239-491s.

36. Lyubavsky, M. K. Lectures on ancient Russian history until the end of the 16th century / M. K. Lyubavsky.

37. Lyapushkin I. I. Slavs of Eastern Europe on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state / I. I. Lyapushkin.-M .: Nauka, 1968.-190 p.

38. Mavrodin, V. Ancient Rus' (the origin of the Russian people and the formation of the Kyiv state) / V. Mavrodin.-M.: Gospolitizdan, 1946.-309 p.

39. Marx, K. German ideology // Karl Marx. Friedrich Engls.-M.: Izd.polit. Literature, 1988.-574 p.

40. Mironov, B. N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII-beginning of XX centuries): in 2 vols./B. N. Mironov.-St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2003.-T. 1.-548 p.

41. Moroshkin, M. Wedding ceremonies of ancient Rus' / M. Moroshkin // Son of the Fatherland. 1848. - No. 2. - 55-80 p.

42. Popov, A. On guardianship and inheritance, in the time of Russian Truth / A. Popov / / Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia, the peoples of her faith and the same tribe - M .: August Semyon Printing House, 1845.- T.1.-96-133 p.

43. Polyakov A. N. Kievan Rus as a civilization: monograph / A. N. Polyakov, Orenburg State University - Orenburg: OSU, 2010.-484 p.

44. Pushkareva, N. L. Women of Ancient Rus' / N. L. Pushkareva.- M .: Thought, 1989.-286 p.

45. Pushkoreva N. L. Property rights of women in Rus' (X-XV centuries) / N. L. Pushkareva / / Historical record. 1986.-Vol.144.-S. 180224.

46. ​​Pushkareva N. L. Mother and motherhood in Rus' (X-XVII centuries) / N. L. Pushkareva / / A person in the family circle. Essays on the history of private life in Europe before the beginning of modern times / ed. Yu. L. Bessmertny.-M.: RGGU, 1996.-305-341 p.

47. Rybokov, B. A. Paganism of the ancient Slavs / B. A. Rybakov.-M.: Nauka, 1981.-604.p.

48. Smirnov, A. Essays on family relations under the customary law of the Russian people / A. Smirnov.-M .: In the university printing house, 1877 .- Issue. 1.- 259 p.

49. Froyanov, I. A. Kievan Rus. The main features of the socio-economic system / I. A. Froyanov. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 1999.-370 p.

50. Froyanov, I.Ya. Family and faith in Kievan Rus (on the article by Yu.M. Rapov) / I. A. Froyanov / / Soviet ethnography. 1972.-№3.-90-97 p.

51. Shashkov, S.S. The history of the Russian woman / S.S. Shashkov. - St. Petersburg: Printing house A.S. Suvorina, 1879.-352 p.

52. Yanin, V.L. I slept for you birch bark. 33rd ed. / V. L. Yanin .- M .: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1998. – 464 p.

Annals

  1. The Tale of Bygone Years / ed. V. P. Adrianov - Peretz. - St. Petersburg: Nauk, 1996. - 668 p.
  2. Complete collection of Russian chronicles. Published by the highest order of the Archaeographic Commission. - St. Petersburg: In the printing house of E. Prats, 1846. - T. 1: Laurentian and Trinity Chronicle. – 267 p.
  3. PSRL. - T.1. Laurentian Chronicle. - M .: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 1997. - 496 p.
  4. PSRL. - V.2. Ipatiev Chronicle. – M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1998.-648 p.
  5. PSPL. T.3. Novgorod First Chronicle of the Senior and Junior Editions. – M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 2000. – 720 p.
  6. Complete collection of Russian chronicles / under. ed. E.F. Karsky.- M .: Publishing House of Eastern Literature, 1962. - T. 2: Ipatiev Chronicle. - 938 stb.

Birch letters.

  1. Artsikhovsky, A.V. Novgorod letters on birch bark. From the excavations of 1962 - 1976, Nauka, M. 1978 - 192 p.
  2. Artsikhovsky, A.V. Novgorod letters on birch bark. From excavations in 1952, Nauka, M. 1978 - 192 p.
  3. Artsikhovsky, A.V., Borkovsky V.I. Novgorod letters on birch bark. From 1956 - 1957, publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1963. - 327 p.
  4. Zaliznyak A.A. Old Novgorod dialect in 2 hours - Part 2. 2004 - 694 p.