A Russian dwelling is not a separate house, but a fenced yard in which several buildings, both residential and utility, were built. Izba was the general name of a residential building. The word "hut" comes from the ancient "istba", "stove". Initially, this was the name of the main heated residential part of the house with a stove.
As a rule, the dwellings of rich and poor peasants in the villages practically differed in quality factor and the number of buildings, the quality of decoration, but consisted of the same elements. The presence of such outbuildings as a barn, a barn, a shed, a bathhouse, a cellar, a barn, an exit, a barn, etc., depended on the level of development of the economy. All buildings in the literal sense of the word were chopped with an ax from the beginning to the end of construction, although longitudinal and transverse saws were known and used. The concept of "peasant yard" included not only buildings, but also the plot of land on which they were located, including a vegetable garden, a garden, a threshing floor, etc.
The main building material was wood. The number of forests with excellent "business" forests far exceeded what is now preserved in the vicinity of Saitovka. Pine and spruce were considered the best types of wood for buildings, but pine was always preferred. Oak was valued for the strength of the wood, but it was heavy and difficult to work. It was used only in the lower crowns of log cabins, for the construction of cellars or in structures where special strength was needed (mills, wells, salt pits). Other tree species, especially deciduous (birch, alder, aspen), were used in the construction, as a rule, of outbuildings.
For each need, trees were selected according to special characteristics. So, for the walls of the log house, they tried to pick up special "warm" trees, overgrown with moss, straight, but not necessarily straight-layered. At the same time, not just straight, but straight-layered trees were necessarily chosen for the roof board. More often, log cabins were collected already in the yard or near the yard. Carefully chose the place for the future home
For the construction of even the largest log-type buildings, they usually did not build a special foundation along the perimeter of the walls, but supports were laid at the corners of the huts - large boulders or the so-called "chairs" from oak stumps. In rare cases, if the length of the walls was much longer than usual, supports were also placed in the middle of such walls. The very nature of the log construction of buildings made it possible to confine ourselves to relying on four main points, since the log house was a seamless structure.
The vast majority of buildings were based on a "cage", "crown", a bunch of four logs, the ends of which were chopped into a tie. The methods of such felling could be different according to the execution technique.
The main constructive types of logged peasant residential buildings were "cross", "five-wall", a house with a cut. For insulation between the crowns of logs, moss was interspersed with tow.
but the purpose of the connection was always the same - to fasten the logs together into a square with strong knots without any additional connection elements (staples, nails, wooden pins or knitting needles, etc.). Each log had a strictly defined place in the structure. Having cut down the first wreath, they cut the second one on it, the third one on the second, etc., until the log house reached a predetermined height.
The roofs of the huts were mostly covered with straw, which, especially in lean years, often served as fodder for livestock. Sometimes more prosperous peasants erected roofs made of plank or batten. Tes was made by hand. To do this, two workers used high goats and a long longitudinal saw.
Everywhere, like all Russians, the peasants of Saitovka, according to a common custom, when laying a house, put money under the lower crown in all corners, and a larger coin was supposed to be in the red corner. And where the stove was placed, they did not put anything, since this corner, according to popular beliefs, was intended for a brownie.
In the upper part of the frame, across the hut, there was a uterus - a tetrahedral wooden beam that served as a support for the ceilings. The uterus was cut into the upper crowns of the frame and was often used to hang objects from the ceiling. So, a ring was nailed to it, through which an ochep (flexible pole) of the cradle (unsteadiness) passed. A lantern with a candle was hung in the middle to illuminate the hut, and later a kerosene lamp with a lampshade.
In the rituals associated with the completion of the construction of the house, there was an obligatory treat, which was called "matic". In addition, the laying of the uterus itself, after which there was still a fairly large amount of construction work, was considered as a special stage in the construction of the house and furnished with its own rituals.
In the wedding ceremony for a successful matchmaking, the matchmakers never entered the house for the uterus without a special invitation from the owners of the house. In the folk language, the expression "to sit under the uterus" meant "to be a matchmaker." The idea of the father's house, luck, happiness was associated with the uterus. So, leaving the house, it was necessary to hold on to the uterus.
For insulation around the entire perimeter, the lower crowns of the hut were covered with earth, forming a mound in front of which a bench was installed. In the summer, old people spent the evening on a mound and a bench. Fallen leaves with dry earth were usually laid on top of the ceiling. The space between the ceiling and the roof - the attic in Saitovka was also called the istka. On it, things, utensils, utensils, furniture, brooms, bunches of grass, etc., were usually stored. The children arranged their simple hiding places on it.
A porch and a canopy were necessarily attached to a residential hut - a small room that protected the hut from the cold. The role of the canopy was varied. This is a protective vestibule in front of the entrance, and additional living quarters in the summer, and a utility room where part of the food supplies were kept.
The soul of the whole house was the oven. It should be noted that the so-called "Russian", or, more correctly, an oven, is a purely local invention and quite ancient. It traces its history back to the Trypillia dwellings. But in the design of the oven itself during the second millennium of our era, very significant changes took place, which made it possible to use the fuel much more fully.
Putting together a good stove is not an easy task. At first, a small wooden frame (oven) was installed right on the ground, which served as the foundation of the furnace. Small logs split in half were laid on it and the bottom of the oven was laid out on them - under, even, without tilt, otherwise the baked bread would turn out to be lopsided. Above the hearth of stone and clay, a furnace vault was built. The side of the oven had several shallow holes called stoves, in which mittens, mittens, socks, etc. were dried. In the old days, the huts (smoky ones) were heated in a black way - the stove did not have a chimney. The smoke escaped through a small portage window. Although the walls and ceiling became sooty, this had to be put up with: a stove without a chimney was cheaper to build and required less wood. Subsequently, in accordance with the rules of rural improvement, mandatory for state peasants, chimneys began to be removed above the huts.
First of all, the "big woman" stood up - the owner's wife, if she was not yet old, or one of the daughters-in-law. She flooded the stove, opened wide the door and the smoker. Smoke and cold lifted everyone. Small children were put on a pole to warm themselves. Acrid smoke filled the entire hut, crawled up, hung under the ceiling above human height. In an ancient Russian proverb, known since the 13th century, it says: "I could not bear the smoky sorrows, I did not see the heat." Smoked logs of houses rotted less, so chicken huts were more durable.
The stove occupied almost a quarter of the dwelling area. It was heated for several hours, but, having warmed up, kept warm and heated the room during the day. The stove served not only for heating and cooking, but also as a stove bench. Bread and pies were baked in the oven, porridge, cabbage soup were cooked, meat and vegetables were stewed. In addition, mushrooms, berries, grain, and malt were also dried in it. Often in the oven, replacing the bath, steamed.
In all cases of life, the stove came to the aid of the peasant. And it was necessary to heat the stove not only in winter, but throughout the year. Even in summer, it was necessary to heat the oven well at least once a week in order to bake a sufficient supply of bread. Using the property of the oven to accumulate, accumulate heat, the peasants cooked food once a day, in the morning, left the cooked food inside the ovens until dinner - and the food remained hot. Only at a late summer supper did the food have to be warmed up. This feature of the oven had a decisive influence on Russian cooking, which is dominated by the processes of languishing, boiling, stewing, and not only peasant, since the lifestyle of many small estate nobles did not differ much from peasant life.
The oven served as a lair for the whole family. On the stove, the warmest place in the hut, old people slept, who climbed there by steps - a device in the form of 2-3 steps. One of the obligatory elements of the interior was the floor - wooden flooring from the side wall of the furnace to the opposite side of the hut. They slept on the floorboards, climbing from the stove, dried flax, hemp, and a splinter. For the day, bedding and unnecessary clothes were thrown there. The shelves were made high, at the level of the height of the furnace. The free edge of the boards was often fenced with low railings, balusters, so that nothing would fall from the boards. Polati were a favorite place for children: both as a place to sleep and as the most convenient observation point during peasant holidays and weddings.
The location of the stove determined the layout of the entire living room. Usually the stove was placed in the corner to the right or left of the front door. The corner opposite the mouth of the furnace was the working place of the hostess. Everything here was adapted for cooking. There was a poker, a tong, a pomelo, a wooden shovel by the stove. Nearby is a mortar with a pestle, hand millstones and a sourdough tub for sourdough dough. They raked the ashes out of the furnace with a poker. With a grip, the cook caught pot-bellied clay or cast-iron pots (cast iron), and sent them to the heat. In a mortar, she crushed the grain, peeling it from the husk, And with the help of a mill, she ground it into flour. A pomelo and a shovel were necessary for baking bread: with a broom, a peasant woman swept under the stoves, and with a shovel she planted a future loaf on it.
A washcloth hung next to the stove, i.e. towel and washbasin. Beneath it was a wooden tub for dirty water. In the oven corner there was also a ship bench (vessel) or a counter with shelves inside, which was used as a kitchen table. On the walls were observers - lockers, shelves for simple tableware: pots, ladles, cups, bowls, spoons. They were made from wood by the owner of the house himself. In the kitchen, one could often see earthenware in "clothing" made of birch bark - economical owners did not throw away cracked pots, pots, bowls, but braided them with strips of birch bark for strength. Above was a stove beam (pole), on which kitchen utensils were placed and a variety of household items were stacked. The sovereign mistress of the stove corner was the eldest woman in the house.
The stove corner was considered a dirty place, unlike the rest of the clean space of the hut. Therefore, the peasants always sought to separate it from the rest of the room with a curtain made of colorful chintz or colored homespun cloth, a tall wardrobe or a wooden bulkhead. Closed, thus, the stove corner formed a small room, which had the name "closet". The stove corner was considered exclusively female space in the hut. During the holiday, when many guests gathered in the house, a second table for women was placed near the stove, where they feasted separately from the men who sat at the table in the red corner. Men, even of their own families, could not enter the women's quarters without special need. The appearance of an outsider there was generally considered unacceptable.
During the matchmaking, the future bride had to be all the time in the oven corner, being able to hear the whole conversation. From the stove corner she came out smartly dressed during the bridegroom - the rite of acquaintance of the groom and his parents with the bride. In the same place, the bride was waiting for the groom on the day of departure down the aisle. In old wedding songs, the stove corner was interpreted as a place associated with the father's house, family, and happiness. The exit of the bride from the stove corner to the red corner was perceived as leaving the house, saying goodbye to him.
At the same time, the stove corner, from where there is an exit to the underground, was perceived at the mythological level as a place where people could meet with representatives of the "other" world. Through the chimney, according to legend, a fiery serpent-devil can fly to a widow yearning for her dead husband. It was generally accepted that on especially solemn days for the family: during the baptism of children, birthdays, weddings - dead parents - "ancestors" come to the stove to take part in important event the lives of their descendants.
The place of honor in the hut - the red corner - was located obliquely from the stove between the side and front wall. It, like the stove, is an important landmark of the interior space of the hut, well lit, since both of its constituent walls had windows. The main decoration of the red corner was a goddess with icons, in front of which a lamp was burning, suspended from the ceiling, so it was also called "holy".
They tried to keep the red corner clean and smartly decorated. It was cleaned with embroidered towels, popular prints, postcards. With the advent of wallpaper, the red corner was often pasted over or separated from the rest of the hut space. The most beautiful household utensils were placed on the shelves near the red corner, the most valuable papers and items were stored.
All significant events of family life were marked in the red corner. Here, as the main piece of furniture, there was a table on massive legs, on which runners were installed. The runners made it easy to move the table around the hut. It was placed next to the oven when bread was baked, and moved while washing the floor and walls.
Behind him were both everyday meals and festive feasts. Every day at lunchtime, the whole peasant family gathered at the table. The table was big enough for everyone to sit. In the wedding ceremony, the matchmaking of the bride, her ransom from her girlfriends and brother took place in the red corner; from the red corner of her father's house she was taken to the church for the wedding, brought to the groom's house and also led to the red corner. During the harvest, the first and last harvested sheaf was solemnly carried from the field and placed in the red corner.
“The first compressed sheaf was called the birthday man. Autumn threshing began with it, sick cattle were fed with straw, the grains of the first sheaf were considered healing for people and birds. in the red corner under the icons. The preservation of the first and last ears of the harvest, endowed, according to popular beliefs, with magical powers, promised well-being to the family, home, and entire economy.
Everyone who entered the hut first of all took off his hat, crossed himself and bowed to the images in the red corner, saying: "Peace be to this house." Peasant etiquette ordered the guest, who entered the hut, to stay in half of the hut at the door, without going behind the uterus. Unauthorized, uninvited intrusion into the "red half", where the table was placed, was considered extremely indecent and could be perceived as an insult. A person who came to the hut could go there only at the special invitation of the owners. The most dear guests were put in the red corner, and during the wedding - the young ones. On ordinary days, the head of the family sat at the dinner table here.
The last of the remaining corners of the hut, to the left or right of the door, was the workplace of the owner of the house. There was a bench where he slept. Under it, a tool was stored in a box. In his free time, the peasant in his corner was engaged in various crafts and minor repairs: weaving bast shoes, baskets and ropes, cutting spoons, gouging cups, etc.
Although most peasant huts consisted of only one room, not divided by partitions, an unspoken tradition prescribed that members of a peasant hut should follow certain accommodation rules. If the stove corner was the female half, then in one of the corners of the house a place was specially allotted for sleeping the older married couple. This place was considered honorable.
Shop
Most of the "furniture" was part of the construction of the hut and was motionless. Along all the walls not occupied by the stove, wide benches stretched, hewn from the largest trees. They were intended not so much for sitting as for sleeping. The benches were firmly attached to the wall. Other important pieces of furniture were benches and stools that could be moved freely from place to place when guests arrived. Above the benches, along all the walls, shelves were arranged - "slaves", on which household items, small tools, etc. were stored. Special wooden pegs for clothes were also driven into the wall.
An integral attribute of almost every Saitovka hut was a pole - a bar built into the opposite walls of the hut under the ceiling, which in the middle, opposite the wall, was supported by two plows. The second pole with one end rested against the first pole, and with the other - against the wall. The designated construction in winter time was the support of the mill for weaving matting and other ancillary operations associated with this fishery.
spinning wheel
The special pride of the hostesses was turned, carved and painted spinning wheels, which were usually put in a prominent place: they served not only as a tool of labor, but also as a decoration of the home. Usually, with elegant spinning wheels, peasant girls went to "gatherings" - cheerful rural gatherings. The "white" hut was cleaned with home weaving items. The beds and the couch were covered with colored curtains made of linen checkered. At the windows - curtains made of homespun muslin, window sills were decorated with geraniums, dear to the peasant's heart. The hut was especially carefully cleaned for the holidays: the women washed with sand and scraped white with large knives - "mowers" - the ceiling, walls, benches, shelves, beds.
Peasants kept their clothes in chests. The more wealth in the family, the more chests in the hut. They were made of wood, upholstered with iron strips for strength. Often the chests had ingenious mortise locks. If a girl grew up in a peasant family, then from an early age, a dowry was collected for her in a separate chest.
A poor Russian peasant lived in this space. Often in the winter cold, domestic animals were kept in the hut: calves, lambs, kids, pigs, and sometimes poultry.
The decoration of the hut reflected the artistic taste and skill of the Russian peasant. The silhouette of the hut crowned carved
ridge (ohlupen) and roof of the porch; The pediment was decorated with carved lintels and towels, the planes of the walls - window frames, often reflecting the influence of the city's architecture (baroque, classicism, etc.). The ceiling, door, walls, oven, less often the outer pediment were painted.
Non-residential peasant buildings made up the household yard. Often they were gathered together and placed under the same roof with a hut. They built an economic yard in two tiers: in the lower one there were barns for cattle, a stable, and in the upper one there was a huge sennik filled with fragrant hay. A significant part of the household yard was occupied by a shed for storing working equipment - plows, harrows, as well as carts and sledges. The more prosperous the peasant, the larger was his economic yard.
Separately from the house, they usually put a bathhouse, a well, and a barn. It is unlikely that the then baths were very different from those that can still be found now - a small log house,
sometimes without a vestibule. In one corner there is a stove-heater, next to it are shelves or beds on which they steamed. In the other corner is a barrel for water, which was heated by throwing red-hot stones into it. Later, cast-iron boilers began to be built in to heat water in stoves. To soften the water, wood ash was added to the barrel, thus preparing lye. All the decoration of the bath was illuminated by a small window, the light from which was drowned in the blackness of the sooty walls and ceilings, since in order to save firewood the baths were heated "in black" and the smoke came out through the half-open door. From above, such a structure often had an almost flat pitched roof, covered with straw, birch bark and turf.
The barn, and often the cellar under it, was placed in plain sight against the windows and at a distance from the dwelling, so that in the event of a fire in the hut, the annual supply of grain would be preserved. A lock was hung on the door of the barn - perhaps the only one in the entire household. In the barn, in huge boxes (bottom boxes), the main wealth of the farmer was stored: rye, wheat, oats, barley. No wonder the village used to say: "What is in the barn, such is in the pocket."
Page QR code
Do you prefer reading on your phone or tablet? Then scan this QR code directly from your computer monitor and read the article. To do this, any application "QR Code Scanner" must be installed on your mobile device.
© Valery Georgievich Anishkin, 2016
© Lyudmila V. Shmaneva, 2016
ISBN 978-5-4483-5395-6
Created with the intelligent publishing system Ridero
This book presents the palace life of the Russian tsars, the customs and life of the royal courts and the Russian people from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century, including the reign of the last Russian tsar.
The book also contains information about the army, trade, state structure, religious relations, etc., and the material of the book is arranged in such a way that it makes it easy to find the information that interests the reader.
The book contains an extensive thematic material and is intended for the widest range of readers.
Foreword
In Russia, there has always been a high interest in its history, in its national traditions, customs, and way of life. But recently, the topic of morality has attracted no less interest. We are losing moral foundations in relation to the family, to each other. And the fall of morality leads to the degeneration of society.
Now more than ever it is important for us to know what we were in order to understand what we are and why we have become such. This will allow us to correctly evaluate ourselves, not to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors and not to feel like outcasts, integrating into the community of civilized states.
If customs are accepted order or traditional rules public behavior, and everyday life is the general way of life, i.e. our daily life, then morality is the rules human behavior, spiritual and mental qualities necessary for a person in society.
Morality cannot be separated from folk life and customs, but it also depends on many other factors. These are economic relations, laws, courts and forms of government. Morality is also closely related to philosophy, politics, ideology and religion, which plays a special role in the formation of moral standards.
All this is reflected in the book and presented in the form of the most interesting historical facts.
Much attention in the book is given to such terrible events for Russia as the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the Time of Troubles and the Polish-Swedish intervention, the war with Napoleon, etc. These upheavals involuntarily convince us that we are martyrs, but history has repeatedly proved that we the harder it is, the stronger we become. In the most difficult times for Russia, when she was on the verge of death, the people rose up and saved her. For this, Russia needed only a firm hand and hope.
Madame de Stael, who visited Moscow in 1812 just before the invasion of Napoleon, was struck by the unprecedented spiritual uplift of the Russian people, their patriotism and sacrifice in the name of Russia.
Russia is also known for its unique identity. The Russian historian and archaeologist I. E. Zabelin very accurately defined this phenomenon: “Our ancient society ... was formed by direct generation, without the participation of any newcomers, alien elements.
The Varangian invasion, exile blossomed in our life, like a drop in the ocean, leaving almost no trace. The peculiar strength of our way of life is so great that the very reform and, one might say, the revolution of Peter turned out to be completely powerless in many ways. I. E. Zabelin has a good definition of another truly Russian phenomenon - self-will. “The idea of independence, moral independence,” writes the historian, “was inseparable from the idea of autocracy, and even closer, with the idea of self-will and self-will. That is why we, people of a different time and different concepts of the laws of morality, do not have the right to judge too harshly about this immeasurable and boundless self-will and autocracy, which so widely dominated our pre-Petrine and Petrine society, and especially we have little right to condemn for this individual, and even more so historical figures who always serve only as more or less strong spokesmen for the ideas and provisions of the life of their society ... Willfulness and autocracy in that era was the moral freedom of man; the whole world-people was firmly and deeply convinced of this; it was the general, basic way of life.”
If we talk about historical figures, then they undoubtedly had a great influence on the state and development of society. And if we are talking about the life and moral state of the royal courts and Russia as a whole, then we cannot bypass the personality of the autocrat, as well as the personalities of heroes, such as Minin, Pozharsky, or anti-heroes, such as False Dmitry, Biron, Pugachev.
We know little about the life of Russia before the 10th century, but already in the 11th century the chronicler Nestor appeared, about whom the German historian Schlözer said that he “... is the first, most ancient, the only, at least, the main source for all Slavic, Lets (Latvian and Lithuanian) and Scandinavian life…”, from which we received some information about the life, customs and moral behavior of our ancient ancestors. Since then, Russia has attracted constant interest in the West and at different times such classics of world literature as Shakespeare, Rabelais, Cervantes, Cyrano de Bergerac, Thomas More and many others wrote about it. etc. Russia was visited by politicians, diplomats, military, merchants, doctors, writers of almost all European countries and left written information about her. Foreigners were struck by the harsh climate of Russia, its natural wealth, the abundance of bread, honey, livestock, fish, the uniqueness of culture and religious tolerance, which the West could not boast of. “There is no such wealth in Europe,” said the German diplomat Herberstein.
Memoirs of eyewitnesses who wrote about Russia were popular in the West, they were read by both kings and ordinary people. But not all authors were objective in relation to Russia. Often this was hindered by ignorance of the language, customs and mores of the Russian people, and sometimes simply bias or difference in political and religious views. So, the German scientist and traveler Olearius wrote about the customs, way of life, rituals of the Russians of the 17th century and at the same time criticized them for intemperance, rudeness, drunkenness and immoral behavior, forgetting that the inhabitants Western Europe suffered the same vices, and the author himself was forced to flee from his native Leipzig from the violence of drunken soldiers engaged in robberies. But, criticizing the Russians, Olearius nevertheless speaks with enthusiasm about the simplicity of the manners and customs of the Muscovites of that time. The same can be said about the French writer de Custine, whose book in the 30s of the 19th century became a pamphlet with an anti-Russian direction. The writer condemned the vices of Russian society, although the same society existed in France, if we turn to the literary prototypes of Stendhal, Balzac, George Sand and others.
De Custine's attitude towards Russia was condemned by many Europeans, and Herzen said that "... Russia should be explored a little deeper than the pavement along which the elegant carriage of the Marquis de Custine rolled."
The assessment of people's actions from the point of view of moral principles and norms is expressed in the categories of good and evil, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice, and if these categories are used to measure the modern Russian, then we must bear in mind that genetically we have changed little, and therefore in events past, parallels can be found to the crisis state of modern society.
In conclusion, it remains to be said that in Russia customs, way of life and moral principles are commensurate with the peculiarities of both geographical location and historical development, and they are no worse than the customs and mores of any other European powers with their poor and miserable traditions. And it is not always reasonable to look back at the West, and even less reasonable to cross out everything that is dear to a Russian person and blindly transfer Western culture to the Russian environment.
Section I. Customs, way of life and moral state of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century
Chapter 1
PAGAN RUSSIA BEFORE THE CALLING OF THE VARYAGS
Influence natural conditions on the appearance and life of the Slavs. - Rule of the Slavs. - Military spirit of the Slavs. - Trade. - Cruelty of the Slavs. - Kindness and hospitality. - Chastity of Russian Slavs. - Marriages and polygamy. - Life of the Slavs. - Idolatry. - Pagan holidays and legends. - Temples and sacrifices.
The influence of natural conditions on the appearance and life of the Slavs
Ancient Greek historian Herodotus 1
Herodotus (c. 485 - 425 BC) - "father of history", a Greek from Halicarnassus, traveled a lot, wrote the history of the Greco-Persian wars (until 479) in 9 books. Describing the history of the Greeks and Persians, G. gives a description of the peoples with whom they came into contact.
After visiting the lands north of the Black Sea, he wrote that the tribes that live in this country lead the way of life that their nature dictates to them. S. M. Solovyov, agreeing with the ancient historian, argues that this remark remains true even after several centuries and that "the course of events is constantly subject to natural conditions."
We know from the Greeks and Romans that the whole land from the Baltic coast to the Dnieper in the middle of the 5th century was covered with impenetrable forests and swamps, the soil was a desert, flocks of wild predatory animals roamed the boundless space, and deep snows were terrifying.
Slavic tribes occupied vast spaces, settled along the banks of large rivers. Meeting with the Finnish tribes when moving from south to north, they got along peacefully, since there was a lot of land and there was enough space for everyone on it. Gradually, the Slavs penetrated further and further to the East, inhabiting desert spaces.
In both N. M. Karamzin and S. M. Solovyov, we find an argument about why the people of the north, forced to live in a harsh and less generous nature than the southern peoples, are more practical and active. “Nature, buying up its gifts, requiring constant and hard work on the part of a person,” says S.M. Solovyov, “keeps the latter always in an excited state: ... he constantly works with his mind, steadily strives for his goal; it is clear that a population with such a character in the highest degree capable of laying among itself strong foundations of state life, subordinating tribes with an opposite character to its influence.
In harsh conditions, the people become more severe, they do not strive for embellishment, they are less inclined to honor and deify women, and this, in turn, forms even more severe morals.
According to the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea 2
Procopius of Caesarea (late 5th century - 562) - Byzantine historian, author of many works. He reports especially valuable information about the ancient Slavs in the work "History of Wars".
And the Byzantine writer Mauritius the Strategist 3
Mauritius Strategist (Pseudo-Mauritius) (VI - VII c.) - Byzantine writer of the VI - early VII centuries, author of the military treatise "Strategikon". Previously, the authorship was attributed to the Byzantine emperor Mauritius (582-602), who is erroneously referred to by the historian.
Who knew the Slavs and Antes in the 6th century, the ancient Slavs, the inhabitants of the northern (midnight) lands, were very mobile, they preferred work to rest and steadfastly endured harsh climatic conditions.
The ancient Slavs easily endured hunger, eating rough, raw food, and the Greeks were amazed at the ease with which they climbed steep slopes, how boldly they overcame marshy swamps and deep rivers.
The Slavs cared little about their appearance, believing that the main beauty of a man is in the strength of the body. The Greeks condemned the dirty, untidy clothes of the Slavs. Procopius says that they are like the Massagetae 4
The Massagets are a Scythian tribe who occupied in the VIII - IV centuries. BC. lower reaches of the Syr-Darya and Amur-Darya in Central Asia. In the III-I centuries. BC. became part of other tribes and since then ancient sources do not mention them.
They were covered with dirt and all sorts of uncleanness. However, contemporaries noted that the Slavs were healthy, strong, tall, distinguished by their article and masculine attractiveness. The Slavs had swarthy skin, their hair was long dark blond hair and looked like all other Europeans.
Rule of the Slavs
The ancient Slavs did not have a state government, and they did not have a ruler. They did not have slaves, but they had freedom, which they considered a blessing and valued.
Each owner built a separate hut for himself, away from the others, and each family was independent and isolated. Even in special occasions when fellow tribesmen gathered together for advice and chose leaders for military campaigns, they often did not obey them in battles, because. not accustomed to any kind of coercion.
Nestor, and after him foreign writers, speaking about the manners and customs of the Slavs, noted that tribal life aroused enmity between them. Nestor notices that as soon as the tribes began to govern themselves, they had no truth; they did not have a charter to be followed, and there was no authority that could force them to comply with the charter.
According to N. M. Karamzin, after several centuries, the popular rule of the Slavs turned into an aristocratic one. The leaders became the first rulers, i.e. people who distinguished themselves by martial arts and personal courage. But the leaders were only the first among equals. The squad said: “We elect you as leaders and where your fate will lead you, we will go there and we will follow you; but what will be acquired by our common forces, it must be divided among all of us, according to the dignity of each.
The power of the Slavs received the names boyar, governor, prince. “Boyarin” comes from “battle” (if the word “boyar” is derived from the word “boyar”, then it should mean “big”), and at first simply meant a brave warrior, and then turned into dignity 5
In the "History of Russia" (editor-corresponding member A. N. Sakharov) the term "boyar" is explained as a derivative of the term from the Iranian language, in which it means something like a master.
In Oleg's agreement with the Greeks in 911, the great Russian boyars are already mentioned as a virtue, as a sign military glory, which was introduced in Russia not by the Varangians, but by the ancient Slavs. Voevodas used to be called only military commanders, later it acquired a wider meaning.
The word "prince", according to N. M. Karamzin, could come from a horse or from the German Konig. At least, it is known that among the Slavs, horses were considered expensive property and one who, for example, had 30 horses, was considered a rich man.
In contrast to the prince, the rest of the population was called "smerds". Smerd meant a simple person. A common man was also called a "man". People's affairs were judged in the assembly of elders, often in the forest, because the Slavs imagined that the god of judgment, Prove, lived in the shadow of old dense forests. These places, as well as the princely houses, were considered sacred, no one had the right to enter there with a weapon, and even a criminal could safely hide there without fear of being caught.
The Slavs observed the law of their fathers, as well as ancient customs that had the force of written laws for them.
Military spirit of the Slavs
According to the Greek chronicles, the Slavs did not have one permanent commander, they chose leaders on a special occasion.
The courage of the Slavs was theirs natural feature. At first they avoided battles in open spaces, but, realizing that a quick and bold attack could easily upset and confuse the ranks of the legions, they no longer abandoned battles. The Slavs fought not in orderly ranks, but in a scattered crowd and always on foot, neglected caution and relied only on their courage.
According to Byzantine historians, the Slavs fought especially skillfully in impassable places, in gorges, and hid in the grass. They also liked to fight in the forests, where they lured the enemy, as if running away from him, and then suddenly attacked and took the enemy prisoner. The same Mauritius (see above) advised attacking the Slavs in winter, when they could not hide behind bare trees, and the snow prevented them from running.
The Slavs could also hide in the water, breathing through hollow reeds or hollowed-out reeds. The weapons of the ancient Slavs were swords, darts and arrows, the tips of which were smeared with poison, as well as large heavy shields. Procopius, to whom S. M. Solovyov refers, writes that the Slavs in the 6th century did not have armor and fought without caftans, some even without shirts in some ports.
When the Slavs could not save the booty pursued by the Roman legions, they burned it, leaving only a pile of ashes for the enemies. It is of interest that those jewels that they mined, not sparing their lives, they did not need. They did not use them, but simply buried them in the ground.
Trade.
Trade among the pagan Slavs was mainly barter and was reduced only to the exchange of things; they did not use money, and looked at foreign gold as a commodity.
Arabic writers 6
Ibn Fodlan, Ahmed (b. and death unknown) - Arab traveler and writer of the first half of the 10th century; later Arab writers and travelers Yakut, ibn Abdallah (1178 - 1229) and Ibn Battuta, Muhammad (1304 - 1377) also mentioned barter.
They left descriptions of this barter trade of the Bulgarians with all 7
All - one of the oldest tribes that lived in the north of the European part of Russia around the White Lake. In the X-XII centuries, it assimilated with the Russian tribes.
Bulgarian merchants went to the people the whole on boats up the Volga and Sheksna for the purchase of furs. They came to a certain place where they left their goods and left. After that, the other side (all) laid out their goods, which they considered possible to exchange for Bulgarian, after which they also left. The Bulgarians evaluated the goods and, if they considered the exchange profitable, they took all the goods of the tribe, left their own, and, thus, the exchange was considered to have taken place. If the Bulgarians considered the goods to be unequal to their own, they left again, making it clear that this exchange did not suit them and that they demanded an increase. Local merchants add goods as long as it suits the Bulgarians
Cruelty of the Slavs
The chroniclers of that time noted the cruelty of the Slavs, but they forgot that it was also revenge for the fact that the Greeks mercilessly cracked down on the Slavs who fell into their hands. To the credit of the Slavs, they endured the torment steadfastly, without a groan, did not name the number of troops, did not give out their plans.
Among the cruel customs of the pagan Slavs, there was a custom when a mother had the right to kill a newborn daughter if the family became too numerous, but she was obliged to protect the life of her son, born for military affairs. But the Slavs also had an even more cruel custom, when children could also kill their parents, who became a burden for the family and useless for society due to old age and illness. And this despite the fact that the children of the Slavs were famous for their respect for their parents and care for them.
SM Solovyov says on this occasion that such behavior, which terrifies us, was due to peculiar concepts of kindred compassion, and not because of barbaric cruelty. Here the purely practical side prevailed: the weak was considered an unfortunate person, and it was a natural act of compassion to kill him. This applied more to the warlike, western tribes, who did not have the right to have the weak and crippled, unable to fight. Such customs were not noted among the peaceful, agricultural peoples, as well as among the Eastern Slavs, who treated the elderly and weak relatives more humanely.
Kindness and hospitality
Showing cruelty in campaigns, the Slavs at home were distinguished by natural good nature. With their morality, the pagan Slavs made a good impression on their foreign contemporaries, and the simplicity of their morals favorably differed from the corrupted morals of other, more educated peoples. Both S. M. Solovyov and N. M. Karamzin, referring to the historians of that time, note that the ancient Slavs knew neither cunning nor anger; unlike the Greeks, they were friendly with prisoners and always determined the period of their slavery, gave them the opportunity to either redeem themselves and return home or stay with them and live freely as free people or friends. The Slavs were used to being content with little, their clothes and dwellings were not luxurious, they were ready to leave their homes in case of any threat from enemies, and the slaves in this case only interfered with them, and therefore had no special value for them. Among the customs of the Slavs, chroniclers note hospitality, rare for that time. They affectionately met any traveler, treated him and saw him off with good parting words. If someone could not ensure the safety of the guest and keep him out of trouble, then this was considered an insult to all neighbors. The Slavs did not lock the doors of the houses and always left ready food for the wanderer in the house. There were no thieves or robbers among the Slavs, however, if a poor person did not have the opportunity to treat a foreigner well, he was allowed to steal everything necessary for this from a rich neighbor, and this was not considered a crime, because. the duty of hospitality was more important.
Chastity of Russian Slavs
Ancient writers note the chastity of the Slavs. Moreover, this chastity was inherent not only to women, but also to men who, demanding proof of innocence from brides, considered themselves obliged to faithfully remain faithful to their wives.
Slavic wives considered it a dishonor for themselves to live after the death of their husband, voluntarily went to the stake and were burned along with their corpses. S. M. Solovyov considers it likely that the Slavs believed that a man more easily achieved bliss in the afterlife if he went there accompanied by a woman. On the other hand, a woman came to a strange family and the only person who could give her protection in a different environment was her husband, and after his death she lost this support of hers, and her situation became unbearable. This custom disappeared only with the adoption of Christianity, as barbaric.
Slav women sometimes went to war with their fathers and husbands (during the siege of Constantinople in 626, the Greeks found many female corpses among the killed Slavs).
The Slavs considered it shameful to forget the insult, so the mother had to raise her children as warriors who could take revenge on those who offended their neighbors. Fear of vengeance often stopped killings. in this case, the children of the murdered person took revenge not only on the criminal, but the whole family of the murderer was also subjected to revenge.
N. M. Karamzin, however, referring to Nestor 8
Nestor (born year and see unknown) is an outstanding ancient Russian writer of the 11th - early 11th centuries. It is considered the author of the monument of ancient Russian chronicle - "The Tale of Bygone Years".
He notes that all this is inherent in the customs of the Russian Slavs, because the glades, for example, were more educated, more meek and quiet in customs, their wives were bashful, and peace and harmony reigned in families. This is confirmed by the Laurentian Chronicle, from which we learn that “the glade has its customs to be meek and quiet and ashamed of their daughters-in-law and sisters ... and to their parents, mothers-in-law and brothers-in-law great shame imech, marriage customs imakh ... ". The Drevlyans, on the other hand, had wild customs and lived in dark forests, “living in a bestial way, bestially, killing each other ... and they didn’t have marriage, but kidnaps girls ...”, i.e. marriages were not familiar to them, and they simply abducted girls. The same customs existed among the northerners, relatives, Vyatichi, who also lived in the forests like animals, used foul language in the presence of relatives and lived in celibacy, i.e. without any rites.
In peasant families in Russia, children were very early accustomed to responsibility and systematic work: this was both the main issue of education and the key to survival. Moreover, the views of our ancestors on this process would hardly please modern teenagers.
Most importantly, the approach to their heirs among the people was not just strict, but very strict. First, no one then considered children equal to their parents. And it was in the first years of a child's life that adults saw the guarantee of what kind of person he would become.
Secondly, the authority of mother and father in peasant families was indisputable. Usually, the parents were unanimous in their views on the upbringing and duties of the child, and even if they did not agree on something, they never showed it publicly, so the child had no chance to “pull” one of the parents to his side.
Thirdly, neither with girls nor with boys was it customary to "mandalize" and pamper them in vain. Usually, assignments between households were distributed by the head of the family in an orderly tone, and no one contradicted him in response. At the same time, the child was always praised and encouraged for a successfully completed task, emphasizing in every possible way that he benefited the whole family.
Child labor - involving children in work on a regular basis. Currently, in most states it is considered a form of exploitation and, according to the UN Convention N32 "On the Rights of the Child" and the acts of the International Labor Organization, it is recognized as illegal. Our great-grandfathers could not even dream of such a thing. Maybe that's why they entered adulthood perfectly prepared and adapted?
"The father of the son does not teach badly"
The age criteria for children were very clear, and, accordingly, their labor duties were also clearly divided. Age was measured in seven years: the first seven years - childhood or "infancy". The kids were called "child", "baby", "kuvyaka" (crying) and other affectionate nicknames.
In the second seven years, adolescence began: the child became a “lad” or “lad”, the boys were given ports (trousers), the girls - a long girl's shirt.
The third seven-year period is youth. As a rule, adolescents mastered all the necessary skills for independent living by the end of adolescence. The boy became right hand father, a replacement for his absences and illnesses, and the girl is a full-fledged assistant to her mother.
Perhaps the requirements for boys were stricter than for girls, because it was from the sons that the future “breadwinners”, “caregivers” and defenders had to grow up. In a word, real husbands and fathers.
In the first seven years of his life, the boy comprehended many of the basics of peasant labor: he was taught to take care of cattle, ride a horse, help in the field, and also the basics of craftsmanship. For example, the ability to make toys from various materials, weave baskets and baskets, and, of course, bast shoes, which had to be strong, warm, waterproof, was considered an absolutely necessary skill.
Many 6- and 7-year-old boys confidently helped their fathers in the manufacture of furniture, harness and other household items. The proverb “Teach a child while it lies across the bench” was not an empty phrase in peasant families.
In the second seven years of life, stable and varied household duties were finally assigned to the boy, and they acquired a clear gender division. For example, not a single lad was obliged to take care of his younger brothers and sisters or engage in a garden, but he had to learn how to plow and thresh - girls were not attracted to such physically hard work.
Often, already at the age of 7-9, peasant boys began to earn extra money "in people": their parents gave them to shepherds for a moderate fee. By this age, it was believed that the child had already finally "entered the mind", and therefore it was necessary to teach him everything that the father knows and knows.
Work on the ground. In Russian villages, arable farming was a confirmation of a full-fledged male status. Therefore, teenage boys had to work in the fields. They fertilized the land (scattered manure across the field and made sure that its clods did not impede the work of the plow), harrowed (loosened the top layer of soil with harrows or hoes), led a horse harnessed to a harrow by the bridle or rode it "when the father makes a furrow" .
If the earth was lumpy, then the father would seat his son on a harrow to make it heavier, and he himself would lead the horse by the bridle. Teenagers took an active part in the harvest. From the age of 11-13, the boy was already involved in independent plowing. At first, he was allocated a small plot of arable land, where he could practice, and by the age of 14, the teenager himself could confidently plow the land, that is, he became a full-fledged worker.
Cattle care. Another important component of peasant life, which women were not trusted (they could only milk cows or goats, drive them out to pasture). The youths had to feed, remove manure, and clean the animals under the strict guidance of the elders.
The main breadwinner in a peasant family has always been a horse, which worked all day in the field with the owner. They grazed the horses at night, and this was also the duty of the boys. That is why from the very early years they were taught to harness horses and ride them, to drive them, sitting or standing in a cart, to drive them to a watering hole - in full accordance with the saying "Business teaches, torments, but feeds."
Industrial occupations. They were especially common in the Russian North and Siberia, where they served as a reliable source of income. Looking at his father and older brothers, the boy first adopted the skills of fishing and hunting in the form of a game, and then improved this art.
Already by the age of 8-9, the boy usually knew how to arrange snares for small game and birds, shoot from a bow, fish or spear it. The collection of mushrooms, berries and nuts was often added to this list, which was also a good material help. By the age of 9-12, a teenager could join an adult fishing artel and by the age of 14, after passing a probationary period, become a full-fledged member of it. Then he began to make a significant share in the family budget and moved into the category of adult "earners" and enviable suitors.
This is how “good fellows” grew up in peasant families - father's assistants, whom parents were rightly proud of. In addition to labor education, the boys were also instilled with clear moral principles: they were taught to respect elders, to treat the poor and the poor with mercy, hospitality, respect for the fruits of their own and other people's labor, and the foundations of faith.
There were two more important rules that any youth knew by heart: first, a man must be able to protect his woman and his family, not only physically, but also from the material and psychological side. According to the second rule, a man had to be able to restrain his emotions and always control himself.
Why were bathtubs hidden in Petersburg palaces and where did aristocrats and students live, what did the streets of the pre-revolutionary city smell like and how did they get rid of sewage, why did the toilets on the back stairs have no doors and how did people live in houses at an average temperature of 17 degrees?
Ekaterina Yukhneva
Which apartments in St. Petersburg houses were the most luxurious and where poor students lived
In the 19th century, the most expensive apartments in an apartment building were located on the second floor. They had a front entrance, the windows overlooked the street. The maximum number of rooms that I came across was 21. Moreover, the rooms were up to 50 meters in area.
By the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, the most expensive apartments moved higher. This was due primarily to the spread of elevators: it was considered chic to ride it to an apartment. There is no need for an elevator for the second floor.
In addition, with the development of transport and the growth of the city, the apartments on the second floor became dirty, because everything that accumulated on the street went up there. By the beginning of the 20th century, the third and fourth floors became the most expensive. If you walk through the center of St. Petersburg, you will notice that these floors are often marked with pilasters, columns, and arches.
The office of the merchant of the 1st guild G. G. Eliseev. Early 1900s. Photo from the book “Petersburg Profitable Houses. Essays from the history of life "
What is interesting in European cities traditionally settled settlements - this has gone since the Middle Ages. Artisans lived in one area, aristocrats in another. In St. Petersburg, as in a new city, this tradition has not developed. The poor apartments were located in the same houses as the rich.
One can imagine a beautiful house with windows overlooking Liteiny Prospekt, where wealthy townspeople live on the second and third floors, and the basement is rented out to seasonal workers. And several dozen people live there - the only thing is that the entrance to this apartment will not be from the front staircase, but from the black one.
Senators, wealthy merchants and some student who rented an apartment on the top floor could walk along one staircase. Perhaps the instability of St. Petersburg society was laid in this mixture and, perhaps, that is why it became the city of three revolutions.
Which areas were considered prestigious and where they built houses with the latest amenities
At first, the so-called golden triangle, bounded by the Fontanka, Nevsky Prospect and the Neva, was considered the most fashionable district of the city. The best palaces of the city were built there. For this reason, it was impossible to build profitable houses there, and gradually they began to rent apartments in mansions. We see this in the example of Pushkin's apartment, which was located in the house of Princess Volkonskaya.
At the same time, since the mansions were not built for rent, the apartments there were somewhat strange. Pushkin, for example, had a kitchen on the floor below. By the end of the 19th century, no one would put up with such amenities, and gradually tenement houses began to appear in the Foundry part. They are already being built with plumbing and water closets, that is, with all modern conveniences up to house steam heating.
Bedroom in a manor's apartment, 1915. Photo from the book “Petersburg Profitable Houses. Essays from the history of life "
At the beginning of the 20th century, with the appearance of a bridge across the Neva to the Petrogradskaya side, Kamennoostrovsky Prospekt was built up. There were houses with all amenities, including vacuum cleaners built into the wall (with a central dust extraction station connected by pipes to all apartments - approx. "Paper"). In the same way, up to the 15th line, Vasilyevsky Island is being built up at this time.
How St. Petersburg lived without sewerage and what smell was on the streets of the city
In St. Petersburg, there were the most complex systems of fountains, so technically there was a water pipe in the city from the moment of its foundation. But no one needed him.
In the middle of the 19th century, Count Essen-Stenbock-Fermor came to St. Petersburg, looked at how in the capital Russian Empire wash from jugs, and made the first water pipe along the streets of Znamenskaya (Vosstaniya), Italian, Sergievskaya (Tchaikovsky). Water was supplied by a water tower, which stood at the Resurrection Bridge. But the count went bankrupt because no one wanted to connect to this water supply.
Water carrier. Photo: vodokanal.spb.ru
Gradually, at the end of the 19th century, water supply was first installed on the left bank, and then on the right bank.
It is amazing that with water supply for almost 40 years in St. Petersburg there was no drain sewerage. Before the revolution, there was only storm water. It is still there, it can be identified by the manhole covers with large slots. There goes snow and rain.
Sewerage construction in Leningrad in the 1920s. Photo: vodokanal.spb.ru
The water from the pipes went into cesspools, which were located near each back staircase. In ordinary houses, it was a dug hole with earthen walls - and liquids were absorbed into the soil. At the same time, there was usually a well in the middle of the courtyard.
In the best houses, they realized that this was unhygienic, and they made concrete cesspools. In the presence of baths, a water closet, a huge amount of water got into these tanks. They scooped it out from there with ladles on a long stick.
As for the smell, in decent houses there were hatches on the pits, somewhere they even twisted with a lid. The smell was from something else: the transport was mostly horse-drawn, and, naturally, the horses left traces of their vital activity. Therefore, Petersburg was covered with a thin suspension of yellow dust. In the summer months, all this stood over the city. From here came the fashion for dachas.
Why it was considered normal to urinate in front of strangers and what devices the ladies hid under their skirts
In the XVIII century, the administration of natural needs could quite calmly take place in public. The female servants walked past the men who were urinating at that time, and this did not bother them at all. At the same time, it was indecent for a woman to show her ankle in front of strangers.
In the upper strata of society, this was also considered absolutely natural. Lush outfits allowed the ladies to relieve themselves anywhere. For example, Catherine II received ambassadors sitting on her portable chest. Because of the wide skirts, this was, as it were, not visible. In the same way, the ladies at the balls used a special device bourdal.
Bourdal. Photo: Wikimedia.org
In tenement houses up to late XIX centuries there were latrines: a niche with a seat and a hole. There was no booth or door. This convenience was used by laundresses, cooks, servants.
We now have a poor idea of what a busy place the back staircase used to be: we need to bring firewood, and water, and hang linen in the attic. People walked back and forth along it all the time, which did not prevent them from immediately using the latrine.
There were retreats in the yards - something that looks like our summer cottage amenities. They were used by janitors and street vendors. In the last quarter of the 19th century and in the 20th century, all yards were equipped with repeaters. Somewhere these are brick extensions, in simpler houses - wooden houses.
There were no public toilets in the city until 1871. The contents of night vases and filthy buckets were thrown out onto the streets. Not quite, however, under the feet of passers-by, but into a ditch that ran along the street.
What temperature in the house was considered normal and how Petersburgers warmed up if it was cold
Dutch stoves and round stoves were used for heating in apartments. From a practical point of view, they did not like fireplaces in St. Petersburg - they set them up only for beauty.
Furnaces were able to heat the air to a sufficiently high temperature, but this was not considered necessary. We now live in too hot rooms, and then 17 degrees of heat were considered the norm. At the same time, they slept under pique blankets, that is, under covers from our point of view. Often the temperature was even lower - 12-13 degrees. Then they slept under duvets, but they always put on nightcaps, because their heads were cold.
Quilted robes were worn in the houses. In terms of warmth, these are our padding jackets. The official came home, took off his frock coat and put on such a dressing gown over his trousers and shirt. Because it was just cold.
Unloading barges with firewood. Photo from the beginning of the 20th century
For the winter, a second frame was inserted into the windows. Between the frames, specially sewn bags stuffed with sawdust were laid. In the richest houses, these bags were stuffed with cotton.
What St. Petersburg palaces amazed contemporaries and how they illuminated apartments in tenement houses
The light in the houses was very cherished. A system of internal light windows above the doors was made in the apartments. Daylight was used not only in rooms, but also in dark corridors and hallways. These light windows existed until the construction of Khrushchev houses.
With the advent of first kerosene lighting and then electricity, very intelligent lamps were made. They lowered and rose with the help of a handle. Usually there was a large round table in the middle of the room, at which papa read the newspaper, mama darned something, the schoolboy taught lessons, the younger children played with toys. And all this with one lamp.
There were also portable lamps. Moreover, kerosene lamps survived with the advent of electricity. It was not customary to turn on the light in the room in order to go somewhere.
In the second half of the 19th century, contemporaries were amazed at the electric lighting in Petersburg palaces. But there was no stationary electricity. There was a dynamo with wires and lamps - something resembling a Christmas tree garland. Before the ball, special electricians were called in, they hung the lamps - and when the ball began, a bright light flashed.
And mostly ladies were amazed. Their makeup was designed for the light of kerosene lamps, and in electric light it looked vulgar.
In domestic terms, electric lighting could not take root in St. Petersburg for a very long time. New homes had electricity since the 1890s. And it is difficult to re-equip old houses, therefore, in many tenement houses there was no electric lighting.
How often Petersburgers bathed and why it was customary to hide bathrooms
In the 18th century, baths began to appear in the St. Petersburg palaces of the nobility. They were considered rare curiosities. In the second quarter of the 19th century, baths became obligatory in palaces, and they were often disguised, for example, as a billiard table, and showers were hidden in fake cabinets. Like any office space, it was not considered necessary to show it to guests.
Baths began to be installed in apartments in the last quarter of the 19th century. In the large apartments of wealthy houses there were individual bathtubs. For residents of small apartments there were public baths.
The senior janitor distributed the schedule for using the bathrooms. He also fired up the hot water heater. The luxurious houses had marble bathtubs, the average ones had ordinary enameled ones, and the inferior ones had tin ones. Baths were taken, lining it with a sheet. Washed once a week. If the house did not have a public bath, then the tenants went to the bathhouse.
... Suppose that a family lives in Moscow, consisting of a husband, wife and only two children (and two usually come already 3 years after marriage). The husband - an official or middle-class clerk - receives 50 rubles a month. This is a good salary, because not very long ago the Minister of Finance recommended that mainly people with higher education be hired in this department, and the initial salary is something around 30 rubles a month. Candidates for judicial positions, until recently, served for a long time for free, and only recently they were assigned something like 50 rubles a month. The same is true for hospital doctors. Therefore, it will not be an understatement if for persons without higher education a salary of 50 rubles is good.
Now let's calculate the monthly budget of this family, making the calculation for items not even of the first, but of the first necessity.
An apartment in 1 1/2 rooms with a kitchen is cheaper than 20 rubles. in a month it is impossible to find, and even then somewhere closer or to heaven, or to the underworld, if in the center of the city, or - at the "hell in the middle of nowhere".
Put 5 rubles on firewood and coal for samovars and ironing. a month is no exaggeration.
It is impossible to spend on lighting, on average, less than one pood of kerosene per month. Let's take the worst grade of 1 rub. 20 kop.
Tea and sugar per month, with the most extreme thrift, will come out no less than 3 rubles. (including the smallest portion).
For lunch, dinner and breakfast, for soup (or cabbage soup) and roast, 3 pounds of beef per day is taken, moreover, the lowest grade, the so-called human, 12 kopecks. pound, total per day 36 kopecks, and per month 10 rubles. 80 kop. Black bread (nothing to think about white) 3 pounds a day, seasonings (potatoes, onions, roots, salt, etc.; there is probably nothing to think about cucumbers either) for 15 kopecks; total for 4 rubles. 50 kop. per month.
For one of the children, milk porridge is required; counting only 10 kopecks. per day, it will turn out 3 rubles per month.
Water carrier 1 ruble per month.
Petty expenses: postage stamps, paper and envelopes, ink, pens, pencils, wax for cleaning boots, needles and thread for sewing and darning, breaking dishes and lamp glasses, matches, etc. - let's put 2 rubles on everything. per month.
Now the servant. After all, the husband is at work in the morning, but the wife cannot run to the store and leave the children alone or carry firewood and water herself, clean boots, etc. But ... let me sum up the previous expenses:
Flat ………………. 20 rub. 00 kop.
Heating and coal ………. 5 rub. 00 kop.
Lighting ……………… 1 rub. 20 kop.
Tea and sugar …………… 3 rub. 00 kop.
Beef ………………. 10 rub. 80 kop.
Bread and seasoning …………. 4 rub. 50 kop.
Milk porridge …………… 3 rubles. 00 kop.
For water ………………… 1 rub. 00 kop.
Little things…………………. 2 rub. 00 kop.
Total 50 rubles. 50 kop.
Girls in kubilyaks. Donskoy elegant costume. 1875-1876
Oh God! The budget has already been exceeded! What to do?
We rent a small room for 15 rubles from a tenant. This gives a reduction of 5 rubles for an apartment, 5 rubles for heating, and 1 ruble for water; we will take 2 pounds of beef - savings of 3 rubles. 60 kopecks, total savings 14 rubles. 60 kop. But when cooking at home, more kerosene will be produced by 1 rub. 20 kop. The total reduction is 13 rubles. 40 kop. The landlady's cook must be given at least 1 ruble. - total 12 rubles. 40 kop. The monthly budget is 50 rubles. 50 kop. - 12 rubles. 40 kop. = 38 rubles. 10 kop. With an income of 50 rubles for all other expenses, 11 rubles will remain. 90 kop. per month, and the family lives in a tenant's kennel room.
But let's move on to other necessary expenses.
Laundry is required. Soap is needed, and if the hostess allows access to the kitchen, she will take for water and coals. No matter how you spin, but cheaper than 2 rubles. laundry will not cost a month, in total only 9 rubles will remain for other expenses. 90 kop. Of course, the wife herself does the washing, and irons the linen, and starches her husband's shirts, and the husband himself cleans his own boots and dress.
But the husband must always be decently dressed, and the wife and children also cannot walk in the costume of Adam and Eve. The wife sews everything for herself and for the children, and the husband already needs to buy ready-made linen. Let's make an estimate for this item of expenditure.
The return of the Cossacks from the fair to the Tsimlyansk village. 1875-1876
A. Estimate for husband
The cheapest, but decent for the service, vice-uniform pair or a simple one costs 25 rubles, not cheaper. At least one other pair is needed, homemade, at 15 rubles. Assuming that they are replaced only once every three years (???), we get the annual cost of repairs in (25 + 15): 3 = 40: 3 = = 13 1/3 rubles. It will not be an exaggeration to allow the same expense for the repair of outerwear, hats, caps; total for the upper and lower dress we get about 27 rubles. per year of consumption.
We will not mention gloves, but it is unlikely that less than a ruble will come out for handkerchiefs, cufflinks and ties per year, total 27 + 1 = 28 rubles.
Boots, on the assumption that the husband will not even dream of a horse-drawn carriage (not to mention cabbies), you need two pairs of 6 rubles a year. 50 kop. (cheap varieties) and galoshes, also two pairs of 2 rubles each. 25 kopecks, and in total (6 1/2 +2 1/4) x 2 = 17 rubles. 50 kop.
Suppose the wife sews underwear for the whole family herself. Still needed: calico, buttons, thread, and repair of the sewing machine. Let's put on everything 3 rubles a year, really, a little.
As a result, to maintain the husband’s robes in a somewhat tolerable form, we get:
Top and bottom dress….. 27 rub. 00 kop.
Cufflinks, ties, etc….. 1 rub. 00 kop.
Shoes …………………. 17 rub. 50 kop.
Underwear ……………. 3 rub. 00 kop.
Total 48 rubles. 50 kop.
Don Cossack shooter, seventy-five years old. 1875-1876
B. Estimates for wife, children, etc.
We saw above that for everything, except for the most urgently needed items, 9 rubles remain from the budget. 90 kop. per month, i.e. 9 rubles. 90 kop. x 12 = 118 rubles. 80 kop. in year. But 48 rubles are absolutely necessary for a husband. 50 kop. - for a family, therefore, only 70 rubles remain. 30 kop.
If the wife will dress like a cook, she still needs at least three calico dresses a year for 5 rubles; linen, let's say, like a husband, for 3 rubles, shoes and galoshes, like a husband, for 17 rubles. 50 kopecks, for the repair and redemption of the top dress 15 rubles; for pins, hairpins, scarves, etc. 2 rub. - total 15 + 3 + 17 rubles. 50 kop. + 15 rub. + 2 rub. = 52 rubles. 50 kop. It remains 70 rubles. 30 kop. — 52 rubles. 50 kop. = 17 rubles. 80 kopecks, this is for children and petty needs, such as repairing lamps and burners, brushes, combs, soap for washing, etc. It is easy to say without calculation that the amount is hardly enough.
At the same time, it is assumed that the husband does not smoke tobacco and does not drink a glass of vodka or a bottle of beer a year, that there is never a single guest, that the wife herself runs to the shops, leaving the children unattended, that she herself washes linen, sews and mends his own, her husband's and children's underwear, and if the husband oversleeps, cleans his boots and dress, that all this takes place in a kennel for 15 rubles. per month.
Well, what if homelands, christenings, illness happen? What if there are not two children, but four? What to bury if one of them dies? etc.
The answer is one; complete poverty, even if the husband came to the service in a very elegant vice-uniform (after all, now general requirement so that employees, even from peasants, are dressed quite decently). Poverty and hunger together are hopeless, hopeless, increasing every year, taking away the strength of a family worker ... Family life, contrary to the proverb "with a sweet paradise and in a hut", turns into a real hell, from which the only salvation for a husband is in vodka, and the family let him eat only potatoes for months ...
Cossacks before going to work. 1875-1876
Here's another interesting piece:
This explains the apparently strange fact that many highly educated people marry almost illiterate people. I knew a highly learned professor who married his cook. Everyone, of course, knows many cases when gymnasium teachers, for example, marry dressmakers, milliners, etc., while young ladies who speak two or three foreign languages either sit in girls or stand behind the counter of a store with 9 o'clock morning until 8 o'clock. evenings for a salary of 25 rubles. per month, or are engaged in other professions (telegraph operators, teachers, etc.), which make it possible to eat cheap sausage with bread, vegetate and ... dream of suitors.
Mothers and brides-to-be should think about it. I assure you that if, appearing by chance, the groom finds a young lady ironing linen and all stained with soot, then he will like it much more than if he found her overdressed, powdered, perfumed. If you add modesty and unpretentiousness to simplicity, then this will be a magnet for suitors.
Of course, such frequent cases of the marriage of educated people to dressmakers and seamstresses are an undesirable phenomenon; Of course, it would be nice sometimes to talk to your wife about something and higher than the economy. But what to do: we do not live in heaven, but on earth.
This is how the current suitors argue.
Father and son before hunting. Vyatka province, Glazovsky district 1907
However, is it really necessary to go against the education of women? It would be more than unfortunate. Education for a woman is an excellent dowry, and we will prove it here with figures.
Let's assume that the mother knows languages, music and sciences in the gymnasium program. It is obvious that she herself can (but will she!) teach her children, and this is very expensive; We count according to the Moscow tax.
A teacher or music teacher costs no less than 15 rubles per month. - per year 180 rubles.
It is impossible to find a decent tutor cheaper than 20 rubles a month - 240 per year.
To teach languages, one must also take a governess with a salary of at least 20 rubles, and her maintenance (including a separate room) will cost 25 rubles. - total per month 45 rubles, and per year 540 rubles. Counting everything together, we get 180 + 240 + 540 rubles. = 960 rubles. Obviously, the wife, putting her labor and knowledge into the family, puts a capital of about 25,000 rubles.
It is impossible for a woman to earn this amount on the side: lessons for everything are knocked down to the extreme, and it is obviously impossible to become a governess - in a word, women's labor has the most rational use in their family; this is the best solution to the women's issue, I dare to assure you. There is no calculation to rush to the side, because the above calculation does not yet indicate how much the economy will lose from the lack of supervision of the hostess, and this can be valued and cost very dearly.
Educated, but at the same time modest, unpretentious wives, capable after a music lesson and French children, the same children, to mend their stockings and iron their linen - this is almost an extraordinary rarity. But the secret is that this is not uncommon. Let the piano replace the tongues, and then the needle and iron. Such a young lady will always find a groom, and time, however, perhaps a little, for her ideal dreams, in order to float up at least for a while up the swamp of life pulling us down ...
Salaries in pre-revolutionary Russia:
Servant, received per month: from 3 to 5 rubles for women and from 5 to 10 rubles for men.
Further, according to the increasing wages in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, there were workers of provincial factories, village manufactories, laborers, loaders. Their salary ranged from 8 to 15 rubles a month. Moreover, it was not uncommon when one tenth of the salary was issued by cards, which could only be bought in a factory store at inflated prices with products that were far from the first freshness. Mostly, workers at the metallurgical plants in Moscow and St. Petersburg earned more. The salary of these workers at the beginning of the 20th century in Tsarist Russia ranged from 25 to 35 rubles. And the representatives of the so-called labor aristocracy, ie. professional turners, locksmiths, craftsmen, foremen received from 50 to 80 rubles a month.
Employees
The smallest salaries at the beginning of the 20th century were for junior civil servants in the amount of 20 rubles per month. The same amount was received by ordinary employees of the post office, zemstvo teachers lower grades, apothecary assistants, orderlies, librarians, etc. Doctors received much more, for example, in zemstvo hospitals they had a salary of 80 rubles, for paramedics 35 rubles, and the head of the hospital received 125 rubles a month. In small rural hospitals, where there was only one medical assistant in the state, he received a salary of 55 rubles. Senior school teachers in women's and men's gymnasiums received from 80 to 100 rubles a month. Heads of postal, railway, steamship stations in major cities had monthly salaries from 150 to 300 rubles. MPs State Duma received a salary of 350 rubles, governors had salaries of about one thousand rubles, and ministers and senior officials, members of the State Council - 1,500 rubles a month.
military personnel
After the promotion in 1909, the salary in the army was like this.
The second lieutenant had a salary of 70 rubles a month, plus 30 kopecks a day for guards and 7 rubles for rent, for a total of 80 rubles.
The lieutenant received a salary of 80 rubles, plus the same apartment and guards another 10 rubles, in the amount of 90 rubles.
The staff captain received a salary of 93 to 123 rubles, the captain - from 135 to 145 rubles, and the lieutenant colonel from 185 to 200 rubles a month.
The colonel of the Tsarist army received from the Sovereign a salary of 320 rubles a month, a general in the position of division commander had a salary of 500 rubles, and a general in the position of corps commander - 725 rubles a month.
Op.: Science and Life, 1890, No. 1. Without a signature. Republished: Science and Life, 2000, No. 12. The preface to the publication indicates that the author is, apparently, the editor M.N. Glubokovsky, who signed all the unsigned materials of the journal. Pagination according to the 2001 publication, the page number precedes the text on it.
Prices for 1913
A loaf of black stale bread weighing 400 grams - 3 kopecks,
A loaf of fresh rye bread weighing 400 grams - 4 kopecks,
A loaf of white butter bread weighing 300 grams - 7 kopecks,
Potato fresh crop 1 kilogram - 15 kopecks,
Potato old crop 1 kilogram - 5 kopecks,
Rye flour 1 kilogram - 6 kopecks,
Oat flour 1 kilogram - 10 kopecks,
Wheat flour of the highest grade 1 kilogram - 24 kopecks,
Pasta simple 1 kilogram - 20 kopecks,
Granulated sugar of the second grade 1 kilogram - 25 kopecks,
Lump refined sugar selected 1 kilogram - 60 kopecks,
Tula gingerbread with jam 1 kilogram - 80 kopecks,
Chocolate sweets 1 kilogram - 3 rubles,
Coffee beans 1 kilogram - 2 rubles,
Leaf tea 1 kilogram - 3 rubles,
Salt 1 kilogram - 3 kopecks,
Fresh milk 1 liter - 14 kopecks,
Fatty cream 1 liter - 60 kopecks,
Sour cream 1 liter - 80 kopecks,
Cottage cheese 1 kilogram - 25 kopecks,
Cheese VV "RossiyskiyVV" 1 kilogram - 70 kopecks,
Butter 1 kilogram - 1 ruble 20 kopecks,
Sunflower oil 1 liter - 40 kopecks,
Steam chicken 1 kilogram - 80 kopecks,
A dozen selected eggs - 25 kopecks,
Veal meat steam tenderloin 1 kilogram - 70 kopecks,
Meat beef shoulder blade 1 kilogram - 45 kopecks,
Meat pork neck 1 kilogram - 30 kopecks,
Fish fresh river perch 1 kilogram - 28 kopecks,
Fresh fish zander river 1 kilogram - 50 kopecks,
Frozen pink salmon fish 1 kilogram - 60 kopecks,
Frozen salmon fish 1 kilogram - 80 kopecks,
Frozen fish sturgeon 1 kilogram - 90 kopecks,
Black granular caviar 1 kilogram - 3 rubles 20 kopecks,
Caviar black pressed 2 grades 1 kilogram - 1 ruble 20 kopecks,
Salted red caviar 1 kilogram - 2 rubles 50 kopecks,
Vegetables fresh cabbage 1 kilogram - 10 kopecks,
Vegetables sauerkraut 1 kilogram - 20 kopecks,
Vegetables onion 1 kilogram - 5 kopecks,
Vegetables carrots 1 kilogram - 8 kopecks,
Vegetables tomatoes selected 1 kilogram - 45 kopecks.
A little about the cost of things at the beginning of the 20th century in Tsarist Russia:
Let's start with the cost of uniforms and military uniform clothes, which Russian officers they were forced to purchase with their own money, and, taking into account the low officer salary (which will be given at the end of the article), she clearly cost them dearly.
Ceremonial officers' boots - 20 rubles,
Full dress officer's uniform - 70 rubles,
Chief officer's cap - 3 rubles,
Lancer's hat - 20 rubles,
Hussar staff hat - 12 rubles,
Gilded staff officer epaulettes - 13 rubles,
Spurs - 14 rubles,
Dragoon and Cossack sabers - 15 rubles,
Officer's satchel - 4 rubles.
Clothing for the civilian population was much cheaper:
Weekend shirt - 3 rubles,
Business suit for clerks - 8 rubles,
Long coat - 15 rubles,
Cowhide boots - 5 rubles,
Summer boots - 2 rubles,
Harmonica - 7 rubles 50 kopecks,
Gramophone - 40 rubles,
Grand piano of a famous brand - 200 rubles,
Car without additional equipment - 2.000 rubles
In the army, officer salaries at the beginning of the 20th century in the Russian Empire, after being raised in 1909, were as follows. The second lieutenant had a salary of 70 rubles a month, plus 30 kopecks a day for guards and 7 rubles additional payment for renting housing, all together 80 rubles. The lieutenant received a salary of 80 rubles plus the same room and guards another 10 rubles, in the amount of 90 rubles . The staff captain received a salary of 93 to 123 rubles, the captain - from 135 to 145 rubles, and the lieutenant colonel from 185 to 200 rubles a month. The colonel of the Tsarist army received from the Sovereign a salary of 320 rubles a month, a general in the position of division commander had a salary of 500 rubles, and a general in the position of corps commander - 725 rubles a month.
In the provinces of the Russian Empire, the percentage of officials whose salaries did not meet the subsistence level was 64.7%, in the capital - 87.8%. . B.N. Chicherin notes that “insignificant salaries serve as a sure means for the spread of extortion, and once it has taken root, it also covers the highest levels, where they are no longer satisfied with material needs, but with the needs of luxury. It's worse when higher spheres huge salaries are obtained, and in the lower employees they are begging.