Miracles and signs. The idea of ​​time in medieval Russian culture of the XI-XVII centuries - Abstract The world around in the perception of the people of ancient Rus'

The perception of the world by medieval man had many features. One of them (perhaps one of the fundamental ones) was the absence of a strict opposition between the divine and earthly worlds. These spheres were in mutual direct contact.

The supernatural literally permeated everyday life and penetrated into all spheres of life105. They believed in its possibility, remembered about it, and performed actions with the understanding that in everyday life at any moment something wonderful, not subject to the laws of everyday existence, could come across.

The well-known story about "Belgorod jelly" is very indicative in this respect. Already to Karamzin it seemed unlikely. Indeed, from the standpoint of modern rational consciousness, it seems to be evidence of the extreme (improbable) inexperience of the Pechenegs, who lifted the siege, believing that the inhabitants of Belgorod have “feed from the earth” in the form of jelly and satiety, which they scoop from wells. And the Belgorod people themselves in this situation hardly look more advantageous, since their cunning was, in general, rather naive and the successful result of the planned operation was ensured, as it were, only by the even greater naivety of the enemy.

Usually, a strange combination of naivety and recklessness in the story of the Belgorod jelly is usually explained by the folklore (meaning, fiction) of the initial part of the PVL. This explanation, however, is rather superficial, because this story was placed in the annals, and therefore there are serious doubts about its truth. at least the chronicler himself did not.

How could this happen? The meaningfulness of the actions of the participants in the events and the explanation of the seeming non-criticality of the chronicler's chronicle may suggest that the people of that time were confident that somewhere far away, if not in Belgorod, there really is such a land where food can be easily scooped up in buckets from wells ("dairy river - jelly banks "of Russian fairy tales). Then the actions of the “old husband” take on the character of a rationally planned operation, and not an adventure. The deception in this case was no longer in the fact that the Pechenegs were convinced of the very possibility of the existence of such a miracle, but in the fact that it was manifested directly in Belgorod. And this is a trick of a completely different plan. It does not fundamentally differ from the “cunning” of I.V. Stalin, who tried to create confidence among the US government and Western allies that the USSR had nuclear weapons at a time when their development had not yet been completed. The possibility of the existence of nuclear weapons, as well as the ability to draw jelly from a well, was a given for the participants in these events, and the matter remained only small. The bluff went well in both cases. The idea worked. The Americans believed that the Soviet Union had a bomb, the Pechenegs believed that there was a wonderful well on the territory of Belgorod. The turbid liquids made by the elder (namely, this is how the tszhets - flour talker, and the “very full” honey) should have looked like) could well be perceived by them as liquids really oozing from the earth. The miracle appeared visibly and convincingly. The Pechenegs had the opportunity to see for themselves that the contents of the wells were edible and could satisfy hunger.

The point, therefore, is not naivete. With a high degree of certainty, we can assume that we are dealing with a peculiar state of social consciousness, characterized by psychological openness to the perception of the supernatural, a constant attunement to a miracle, and a willingness to believe in its fundamental possibility. Old Russian literature is filled with stories about miracles, serious, official literature, which did not allow jokes and practical jokes. Literature created by smart, subtle, by no means naive people. Belief in a miracle was deep and, to one degree or another, universal.

At the same time, it should be noted that, despite the indicated constant readiness, the perception of miracles by the people of Ancient Rus' was not direct and spontaneous. An analysis of ancient Russian literature shows that in order to see miracles, to isolate a miracle from the stream of life phenomena, to evaluate it, some intellectual preparation was necessary.

It probably happened that an amazing phenomenon itself, so to speak, was striking: an unusual phenomenon of nature or a randomly lined up chain of facts that add up to an apparent causal relationship, etc., but in order for all of the above to become a “miracle” or "sign", it had to be meaningful as such. Even if we assume that miracles (that is, supernatural phenomena) really took place in reality, this does not change the matter: in any case, they should have been at least noticed, realized and perceived in an appropriate way, otherwise they simply will not leave a trace. in the human mind and disappear in vain. This comprehension was the more successful, and consequently had the greater resonance, the higher was the corresponding preparation of the interpreter.

An example of this is The Tale of Bygone Years, written by southern monks who absorbed a significant share of Byzantine education. It pays much more attention to miracles and their interpretation than the less intellectually refined Novgorod chronicle. The Novgorod chronicler phlegmatically records the phenomenon of nature: “In the summer of 6615. The earth was shaking on February 5”108 This is where the weather record ends. Surprisingly, the chronicler did not consider it necessary to comment on this, for sure, an unusual event - what was it? Earthquake? In any case, HIJI does not give us any, not only supernatural, but simply everyday interpretation. The references to certain signs “in the sun”109 are stereotypical, but what, in fact, these “signs” signified from the further text is not at all clear. There are many similar passages in the Novgorod chronicle. In addition to the sun, there were signs “in the moon”110, or a certain clerk singing on the kliros in St. does not dedicate. How the participants in the events realized what had happened, how the scribe himself comprehended what was described, remains unknown. The northern chronicler rises to the maximum to the realization of an unusual phenomenon of nature as a sign, but its meaning remains for him either unclear, or uninteresting, or so obvious that it makes no sense to write about it from his point of view. One way or another, the opportunity to introduce a mystical component into the narrative, which seems to be so obvious, is used by him extremely sparingly.

A southern scribe is quite another matter. Descriptions of miracles and lengthy discussions about them are actively used by him to build a narrative. The local material is widely compared with the news of translated literature, and the interpretation is most often carried out using theoretical calculations borrowed from Byzantine chroniclers. In The Tale of Bygone Years, miracles and signs are full of deep, often unkind, meaning.

So, for example, the years 1065 and 1091-92 were especially rich in miracles and signs. Before us appears an almost complete set of all possible manifestations of the supernatural. In 1065, a “great star” appeared with rays as if bloody. Then from the river Segomli fishermen pulled out a drowned child, on whose face there were “shameful ouds” and something else, which the chronicler did not consider it possible to tell on the pages of his work “for the sake of shame”. There was an incomplete solar eclipse: the sun "was not bright, but like a month was"112. No less ominous signs happened in 1091-92. This is “a sign in the sun, as if perishing to him” (also, apparently, a solar eclipse), and the fall from the sky of a “great serpent” during the hunt for Prince Vsevolod for Vyshgorod, and the appearance of a circle in the middle of the sky, and, finally, the most a terrible sign that the inhabitants of Polotsk had to endure: the appearance on the streets of a kind of invisible dead (“Navievs”), who stabbed the Polotsk people to death with invisible spears, who carelessly looked out of the house at the sound of horse stomp and groans113

The described events are given detailed explanations. The blood star predicts bloodshed. This sign was, of course, "not good." After him, "there were many strife and the invasion of the filthy on the Russian land." Here, for comparison, there is a whole series of examples of similar events in Jerusalem, Byzantium, Africa and Syria, borrowed from George Amartol114, where both a shining star and a “brainchild” without eyes, without arms and with a fish tail adhering “to the loins” also appeared. , and much more. And everywhere the appearance of signs preceded great troubles. “Signs of heaven, or in the stars, or suns, or birds, or ethereum, are not for good, but there are signs of evil, or the manifestation of rati, or gladness, or death,” the chronicler sums up "No less thoroughly the events of 1092 were analyzed.

So, the author of the PVL sees in the verified miracles and signs an indication of a higher power on the misfortunes and troubles that happened after. The mechanism of this kind of semiogization seems to be as follows. In some cases, an anomalous natural phenomenon, or a judgment about the future uttered by unquestioned authority, which made an impression on contemporaries, forces the chronicler to look for “consequences” in further events - something that would give the phenomenon the meaning of a formidable omen (fortunately, Russian history provided a lot of material for this) , or judgment - the status of prophecy. In others, on the contrary, a large-scale historical event that aroused the need for comprehension forced the scribe to look for (and if he did not find, then perhaps to conjecture) "signs", "prophecies" that would show non-randomness, mystical predestination, and therefore the highest pattern of what happened.

The description of the events of 1092 can be recognized as examples of constructions of the first type, since both the Polovtsian invasions and droughts obviously happened before. According to the second type, most chronicle prophecies are built. Such, for example, as the prophecy of the Apostle Andrew, who predicted grace to the mountains, “Where afterward there would be Kiev”116. Approximately according to the same template, the prophecy of a certain sorcerer was built, who predicted death from a horse to Prophetic Oleg. The famous warrior prince died, strictly speaking, not from a horse, but from a snake, but as if the prophecy that came true gave his death a special mystical halo. However, this division is largely conditional, since both natural anomalies and historical cataclysms occur quite regularly, therefore, it is not difficult to find a match if desired. Thus, the appearance of a comet (the “great star” with bloody rays mentioned above) in 1065 became a completely appropriate “sign” of all subsequent princely strife for several years after its appearance and, of course, the arrival of the Polovtsy in 1068. The same can be said about "prophecies": those that did not come true are forgotten, and those that can somehow be put into action (like the prediction of the sorcerer mentioned above about the death of Oleg) - being comprehended in a favorable context, remain in history. In any case, the semioticized miracle and the “sign” play a very definite role in the compositional constructional painting (as well as other works of ancient Russian literature, by the way; with their help, the facts of everyday life were connected with a different, higher, mystical reality.

As shown above, the ability to mystically interpret earthly events required a certain intellectual skill. This skill was an integral part of ancient Russian book learning, the basis of which was the acquisition of the ability to comprehend the hidden meaning of things and the development of the ability to interpret the surrounding reality through the prism of a hoarse ideology1-" Representatives of the educated elite jealously kept the exclusive right to comprehend, interpret and even the performance of miracles, signs and prophecies. This is not surprising, since the "monopoly on a miracle" was very important for controlling the mass consciousness of ordinary people of that era. It was important that it was a representative of the church or secular authorities who drew the attention of the population to a certain phenomenon and He explained that there was a miracle or a sign in front of them, giving him the appropriate interpretation.

The descriptions of the events that took place in 1071 in the Rostov land, where, during a crop failure, “vstastadvavolkhva”, who began to perform actions designed to mystically free the local population from the impending disaster, are very indicative. I.Ya. Fromnov117. Arriving at the graveyard, the Magi called the best women, announcing. that it was they who “hold” the harvest, and then they cut them up “by the cut” and took out “any live, any fish”, etc. The action ended with the murder of many wives. Why not a miracle? But Jan Vyshatich, who happened to be nearby, mercilessly exterminates the sorcerers, and my iah-scribe, who many years later described the named events caustically and with rare sanity, exposes all these hostile miracles of the pagan sorcerers as harmful tricks, confusion, and shows that in reality there is no connection with the higher dangerous deceivers have no power. The maximum that they have is the advice of ignorant demons, which ultimately led them to death16 Pseudo-prophets look comical in the depiction of the chronicle (although the humor is rather gloomy): only the “volkhv” in Novgorod self-confidently declares: “I will do great miracles” , and here he is already lying 14

For more details, see Dolgov V.V. Essays on the social consciousness of Ancient Rus'. Tutorial. Izhevsk: Publishing House "Udmurt University". 1999. S. 170. 15

Froinov I.Ya. Ancient Rus'. Experience in the study of the history of social and political struggle. M.-SPb.: Zlatoust, 1995. S. 113-173.

"PSRL.T. I. Stb. 175-179. dead from the blow of Prince Gleb118 The comic is incompatible with the sacred - a funny miracle worker is unthinkable.

Thus, the ideological struggle was waged by the most severe methods. AND I. Froyanov, however, is inclined, as it seems, to somewhat unnecessarily underestimate the ideological component of the reasons that forced the representatives of the princely authorities to intervene - pagan ritual murders. Analyzing similar events in the Suzdal land in 1024119, the researcher sees the reasons) for Yaroslav’s intervention solely in the need to “re-impose” tribute in connection with lean years120 He rejects confrontation on the ideological front due to the fact that at the beginning of the 11th century. The Suzdal land was still entirely in the power of paganism, and there can be no talk of any rivalry with Christianity2 "One cannot but agree with this last provision, however, as an assumption, it should be noted that ideological (religious, in this case) opposition could unfold not only along the line of Christianity-paganism, but also along the line of “mana”, the magical power of the prince (nus 11, already in a Christian shell) is the “mana” of pagan sorcerers-troublemakers. Froyanov in the form of an ancient prince of Fuss and after Christianization, many remnants of the image of the leader of the tribal era continue to be preserved.Consequently, the appearance of Yaroslav in the Suzdal land and the massacre of the Magi can be regarded, among other things, as a desire to protect and once again show their monopoly on the mystical (and any other) superiority ("re-imposition" of tribute in this case looks like an integral part of this event).

In addition to the emotional means of debunking the “imaginary miracle workers”, there was also a rational explanation of how it happens that supernatural possibilities can be in the hands of individuals who, according to church concepts, God should not give ET01. In addition to their pagan sorcerers, the list of such could also include ancient magicians, the memory of which has come down in written sources, perhaps even of ancient origin. A large theoretical calculation on this issue is given in the annals in connection with the history of the prophecy about the death of Prince Oleg (912). The story of the death of the prince is notable for the fact that, while describing it, the ancient Russian scribe found himself in a rather difficult situation. On the one hand, of course, he could not exclude such a vivid and, probably, widely known plot from the narrative, on the other hand, the ideological content of this whole story seemed very doubtful, since the seer in this case was not a Christian saint or ascetic, but a pagan priest , which in itself could be interpreted by weak minds as an indirect confirmation of the fact that even the "nasty" can sometimes turn out to be right. To neutralize possible undesirable conclusions, immediately after the story of the prediction that came true in the annals, there is an extensive insertion from the Chronicle of Georgy Amartol121, beginning with the phrase “Behold, it’s not a miracle, as if sorcery happens from sorcery”, that is, there is nothing surprising that pagan witchcraft can have power, this does not violate the order of things ordained by God and preached by the church. Next is the story of the life and miracles of the sorcerer Apollonius of Tyana, who arrived in the reign of Diocletian from Rome to Byzantium. In general, there was nothing wrong with his miracles (he saved the inhabitants of Antioch from mosquitoes and scorpions), but his activity is interpreted as madness and temptation, carried out by “the weakening of God and the creation of demons”122, because Apollonius was a pagan. the scale of whose activities was small (when it was not about mass pagan uprisings, the destruction of the tranquility of entire cities and townships), the legislation provided for private punishment. The charter of Yaroslav, drawn up by the prince together with the metropolitan, in the event that a woman turns out to be “a sorceress, a nauzer, or a sorcerer, or a herder” Gives the right to “execute” her husband123

We see a completely different attitude in ancient Russian literature towards “their” miracle workers - saints, monks and miraculous icons. Their activities were widely promoted and constituted one of the pillars of the practice of influencing the minds of believers.

Rich material for the study of this type of miracles and miracle workers is provided by the Kiev-Pechersk Paterikon124 Monks turn quinoa into bread, ash into salt, perform supernatural movements in space, resurrect from the dead, etc. one of the main indicators of their holiness.

The miracles that accompanied the transfer of the icon of the Mother of God from the Vyshegrad convent in the Kievan land to Vladimir by A11-Drey Bogolyubsky are very curious. use the results of this "supersensible" vision for ideological needs. On the way to the Rostov land, various troubles occur with the retinue that accompanied Prince Andrei: a guide who rode on a horse to look for a ford on the river. Vachuse, almost drowned, then the horse harnessed to the wagon escaped and attacked the wife of priest Mikula, knocked her down and bit her so that she fell and everyone decided that she was dead, but in fact it turned out that horse teeth only damaged the fringe her clothes, and she herself is alive and unharmed. Thus, in the cases themselves, there was, in general, nothing unusual. If it is difficult for a modern person to believe in what is described by the Kiev-Pechersk Paterp, then it is easy to believe in the reality of the events described by the Tale: a man was drowning, but he was lucky - he got out; the lad had a large barley on his eye (“meat”), and then broke through and passed; "miracle 6th" and "miracle 8th" are cases of curing some women from pain in the heart; "chudo" 4th and 9th - successfully ended difficult birth. In a different situation, hardly anyone began to look for echoes of mystical reality in what happened. But in the Tale, the successful outcome of these, in general, not particularly significant incidents, is unequivocally interpreted as miracles, the appearance of which the victims owe to the Theotokos and fervent prayers offered during critical situations that were with them to the icon. And this is understandable, because they happened during the acquisition by Vladimir-Suzdal Russia of its main shrine. The brilliant victory won by Andrey Bogolyubsky in 1164 over the Volga Bulgarians was attributed to the patronage of the same icon125. For chroniclers-ideologists, it was more important to see in a successful military operation not evidence of the brilliant military talents of the prince, but proof of the miraculous image that this land became the owner of. The move is quite logical, because the prince would have died sooner or later, and the icon is a kind of accumulator of the highest authority for all eternity. In both cases, the decisive role in understanding what happened as a miracle was played not so much by the nature of the events that occurred, but by the ideological need to connect political processes with divine providence, which created a suitable mood and a certain psychological readiness to perceive even ordinary facts as a manifestation of mystical predestination, and therefore, the laws of the aspirations of Vladimir princes to leadership.

We find even more masterly manipulation of supernatural motives in the story of the Suzdal Chronicle about the events of 1169 associated with the campaign of the united army (Suzdal-Ryazan-Smolensk-Polotsk), directed by Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky to Novgorod. The historical outline of events emerges quite clearly: the army led by Mstislav shea

Andreevich, suffered a severe defeat from the Novgorodians. “And I bought a fortune for 2 legs,” the Novgorod chronicler concludes the story of these events21. The Suzdal chronicler also talks about the defeat, but how the material is presented! It turns out that three years before the described campaign in Novgorod, in three Novgorod churches, on three icons, the Mother of God wept, who foresaw the destruction that “wants to be over Novgorod” and with her tears she begged her Son not to eradicate the city, as Sodom and Gomorrah had previously been eradicated. Because of this, the Lord had mercy and saved the city from complete destruction, “they are not Christians” (that is why the city could not be taken), but decided to roughly punish the Novgorodians for all their crimes “by the hand of the faithful Prince Andrei”126. Thus, the defeated Suzdal people act as the embodiment of the punishing (and at the same time also merciful) divine right hand, and Novgorod is represented by a city whose inhabitants are little better than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is curious that in HIJl there is no mention of weeping icons either under 1169 or three years before that.

If it is true that the miracle in ancient Russian culture was a means of ideological struggle, an important tool for shaping public opinion, then the question arises, to what extent did the ideological leaders themselves believe in miracles? Was the interpretation of this or that event as a miracle or a sign only a propaganda ploy? The above passage from the Laurentian Chronicle suggests just such an assumption. In addition, how could it happen that things so obviously improbable as the miracles described in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon could get into the pages of a literary work, because, as was convincingly proven by Academician D.S. Likhachev, did the ancient Russian literary tradition avoid conscious fiction? Or did she allow it?

Most likely, it is impossible to give an unambiguous answer to the question posed. On the one hand, one should not, of course, exaggerate the irrationality of the public consciousness of the early Middle Ages. There were enough sober pragmatists even then. Very noteworthy are the arguments of the boyar Vasily (one of the characters of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon), sent by the prince from Suzdal to Kiev with a cargo of gold and silver to fetter the tomb of St. Vasily sincerely does not understand what is the use of spending wealth on decorating a coffin. He attributes the princely order not to piety, but to a lack of frugality. The boyar does not experience the slightest sacred trembling before the robe of St. Theodosius. The sober mind of a practical person is also felt in the speeches of Jan Vyshatich, who, in response to the picture unfolded before him by the Magi of the miraculous extraction of life and fish from human flesh, said: “God created man from the earth, composed of bones and veins from the blood carrying nothingness in it, not everything is nothingness, but only God is all.”

On the other hand, it would hardly be correct to assume that, for example, the glorification of the miracles of the icon of the Mother of God of Vladimir was a subtly and cold-bloodedly calculated PR action to “promote” the Vladimir land to the role of an all-Russian center. Such an interpretation of the material would be an unacceptable modernization. It is also unlikely that the Pechersk monks really specifically invented fables for the glory of their monastery.

The available material indicates that most likely. The news of a miracle (with an appropriate interpretation) was not created specifically for the needs of an “advertising campaign.” This ideological construct evolved naturally as a way of understanding reality that was characteristic of the society of that era. Miracles "appeared" to people where an atmosphere conducive to this arose. there was an appropriate mood, the expectation of a miracle, due to social, political, economic or cultural factors. Such a situation arose when the icon of the Mother of God was being transported to Vladimir. The scribe, paradoxically, could obviously “adjust” the material, presenting it in a form favorable to his prince or monastery, and at the same time believe himself, believing that he had only correctly interpreted, seen, read the signs of higher reality.

Speaking in the most general terms, the function of a miracle in the public consciousness can be defined as follows: it was a niche for “fitting” into the general picture of the world facts that are inexplicable from the standpoint of trivial everyday experience. At present, “miracle” has almost completely been replaced from this “niche” by “science”, which has taken the place of a “universal explainer” for the modern layman who prefers purely natural (at least in appearance) theories to metaphysical ones. Modern man will understand the reasons for the appearance of the "bloody star" from the corresponding section of the astronomy textbook. The strengthening of the political significance of a state today will be explained by political scientists, economists, historians (also, by the way, like the ancient "specialists in miracles" who do not miss the opportunity to bring the atmosphere of ideological battles into their interpretations). And in Ancient Rus', the aforementioned and similar phenomena received a "registration" in the structure of the worldview through the concept of "miracle".

The strength of the public mood played an important role in the mystical perception of reality. Attitude towards a miracle, postulating which as one of the basic features of the ancient Russian social consciousness the present work began, could have varying degrees of intensity. It is precisely because of the more powerful mood that the miracles of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon are much more “wonderful” than those of Vladimir - after all, the monks who lived outside the walls of the monastery brought themselves to the highest degree of religious exaltation, feeling the immediate proximity of the heavenly world. After seven years of voluntary confinement in a cramped cave, where during all this time he never lay, gradually ate and gradually slept, a whole company of demons appeared to the Monk Isakius, the story of which is placed in the PVL, and almost confused the ascetic to death127 whether the monk, telling the brethren about what had happened? Given the lifestyle of Isakias prior to their appearance, it is unlikely. So a modern person, who generally does not believe in eiiedeniya, after watching horror films, suddenly becomes quite frightened and screams when he sees a whitish silhouette in the darkness. Did you see a ghost, or did it seem to him? Everything will depend on the psychological attitude. Ultimately, a miracle is not a supernatural event, but a supernatural explanation of it.

Thus, there was no need for the ancient Russian witnesses and interpreters of signs and signs to lie. As a miracle in and in the text of the public consciousness of that era, given the right situation, 1

nі could be perceived as a completely ordinary fact of everyday life (past barley), and an unusual natural phenomenon (for example, the appearance of a comet), and a hallucination, and, in fact, a miracle is considered in a worthwhile work, therefore, we allow this possibility as well).

Thus, the analysis allows us to draw the following conclusions: 1.

The miraculous is an integral part of the human worldview of the early Russian Middle Ages. The public consciousness of the population of Ancient Rus' was characterized by psychological openness to

: acceptance of the supernatural, constant attunement to „before. readiness to believe. This phenomenon can also be defined as a reduced (compared to modern man) parity in relation to supernatural explanations of the world around. 2.

To isolate a miracle from the general flow of events in everyday life, a certain intellectual skill was needed, which, as a rule, was the result of special training.

which gave the ideological leaders of the society (initially the pagan priests, and then, after a long struggle, the Orthodox clergy) a powerful weapon of ideological influence on the minds and desire of society. As a "theoretical base" interpret-

Forest Russian scribes widely used translation - it; writings of Byzantine authors. 3.

In ancient Russian literature (and therefore, presumably, in consciousness) the appeal to a "miracle", a "sign" had the meaning of demonstrating the non-randomness, mystical predestination, predestination of an event associated with a miracle or a sign. If certain events, a person or an object found a connection with a mystical reality, they, thereby, were included in the category. The use of supernatural motives as an ideological weapon in the political struggle did not cancel, however, e. the faith of the ideologues themselves in a miracle. For the needs of the "ideological front" miracles were not invented, but were interpreted in the right way. Trakto z-ka profitable became the interpretation of the correct. 5.

The constant readiness to perceive a miracle had a very definite function in the public consciousness: it was a niche for “fitting” into the general picture of the world facts that were inexplicable from the standpoint of trivial everyday experience. 6.

An important role in the perception of a certain phenomenon as a miracle or a sign stump was played by the public mood, which created more or less favorable conditions for this in each specific situation.

As long as a person exists simultaneously, so to speak, in three hypostases - as a living, rational and social being, the material is presented in three sections: nature, man and society. Of course, such a structure is largely conditional, so many issues "resonate" with each other. I hope this will not complicate the perception of further lecture material, and maybe even allow you to create a fairly voluminous image system of spiritual values ​​of the people of Ancient Rus'.

Nature

It seems that our vision of the surrounding reality is the only possible and completely “natural”. It seems us direct. In fact, it is mediated by many categories that are present in our minds in an implicit form and are so familiar that we simply do not notice them. And the less noticeable they are, the more power they have over the perception of a person, the more it depends on them what image of the world is presented to him. normal. And the less they are available for awareness both by the bearer of these concepts and images, and by an outsider. And yet we will try, as far as possible, to look into the “inner” world of the man of Ancient Rus', to see the nature surrounding him at least approximately as he himself saw it.

Quantity and number. Even such an abstract, abstract characteristic as a quantitative assessment of anything had a rather pronounced value value for an ancient Russian person. The idea of ​​the sacred properties of a number was widespread and was realized in various areas of human activity. Numbers and numerical relations, as shown by the works of a number of researchers (V. M. Kirillin, V. N. Toporov, D. Petkanova, and others), had, in addition to applied significance, also a symbolic and theological meaning. They reflected the essence of the highest unknowable truth and acted as a sacralized means of understanding the world around.

In this regard, in ancient Russian literary works, numbers were performed not only documentarily -factual functions(when they determined the real amount of anything), but they could also be filled symbolic(as literary critics say, tropic) content. In the case, they first of all conveyed sacred information, ascertained the divine meaning of the events taking place. You can also find in ancient Russian literary sources the numbers that performed mixed features oriented at the same time both on the phenomena of earthly life and on their ideal, divine prototypes.

This perception of quantity was based on a well-developed in the ancient world symbolism of numbers .

So, in the Christian tradition troika was considered "a complete and perfect number" (Augustine the Blessed); it was the number of the divine Trinity and the number of the soul, arranged according to its pattern; it was also a symbol of everything spiritual. In the earliest monuments, the triple appears as a typically epic number. Four was considered a symbol of the world and material things, signified a static integrity, an ideally stable structure. Seven - the number of a person, which meant his harmonious relationship to the world; it symbolized the sensual expression of the universal order, and was also a sign of the highest degree of knowledge of the divine mystery, the achievement of spiritual perfection. In addition, it was used as a symbol of eternal rest. Ten symbolized harmony and beauty. It was considered as the most perfect cosmic number. At the same time, the alchemists used it to designate matter. Number twelve associated in Christianity with the idea of ​​perfection and symbolized the renewed humanity (apparently, through the Old Testament tradition, in which it was associated with the people of God). In addition, it denoted the earthly and heavenly Church. The typical biblical number was fourty . In Christian practice, it was associated with the idea of ​​cleansing from sins and hope. It symbolized prayer and preparation for a new life.

The author was often more interested not in the actual dimensions of the described object, but in its symbolic connection - through numbers expressing its dimensions or proportions - with some sacred image, say, the Temple of Solomon (20 x 60 x 120) or Noah's Ark (50 x 300 x 30), etc. This is especially important to consider when there are "round" numbers in the source. According to the fair remark of D. Petkanova,

“round numbers in medieval literature were not blindly believed, they were not perceived as documentary numbers, they had to be considered as conditional or approximate, sometimes they could be close to the truth, but in no case were they historically accurate.”

The symbolic interpretation of numbers (numerology) had a wide scope, since most of the letters of the Slavic alphabet, borrowed from the Greek alphabet, could serve as numbers. Consequently, almost every word had a quantitative expression, since it could be considered as the sum of the "numbers" of which it consisted. Suffice it to recall the already mentioned equation of the "Latins" 666 - the number of the apocalyptic Beast (Antichrist). (See Appendix 5: "Could Kyiv be the New Jerusalem?")

The specificity of the perception of the world by this or that ethnic group, this or that culture, this or that civilization is manifested, first of all, in the peculiarities of the perception of space and time.

Image space - an integral part of a holistic picture of the world. Objectively existing space is subjectively experienced and understood by people, and in different historical epochs and in different countries in different ways. It was typical of the Middle Ages, both Western European and domestic, to endow space with religious and ethical features. The center of the Earth - literally and figuratively - was considered Jerusalem, and the center of Jerusalem - the Temple of the Lord. The "navel of the Earth" was surrounded by the "righteous" and "sinful" countries. Some of them were "closer" to heaven, others to hell; some - to the heavenly world, others - to the valley; some to heaven, others to earth.

Moreover, this sacred topography could change from time to time depending on the righteousness or sinfulness of the population of a particular land. At the same time, the spiritual center of the world could also be mixed up. The "New Jerusalem" could theoretically find a very specific embodiment in any city that took upon itself the care of universal salvation. In practice, it became - for the reasons already mentioned - a city that claimed to be the center of the "Russian" land.

This idea also explains the extremely high authority in the national culture. The political activity of the prince was aimed at subordinating North-Eastern and North-Western Rus' to the Golden Horde. On the other hand, his uncompromising opposition to the Catholic world, the defense of the ideals of Orthodoxy from the “distorted” (in the language of a later time) faith of the “Latins” made him a hero who took the entire Orthodox world under his protection.

At the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, after the fall of Constantinople under the blows of the Ottoman Empire, on the basis of these ideas, the theory “Moscow is the third Rome” was formed. It was about moving the world Orthodox center to the capital of the Moscow kingdom. The young unified state that arose on the ruins of the Western Ulus of the Great Mongol Empire was perceived as the last stronghold of the right faith: “ two Romes are fallen, and the third is standing, and the fourth will not be". It is important to note that in this phrase the logical emphasis is shifted from the theme of exclusivity (“ third stands”) to the problem of high responsibility (“ there won't be a fourth") of the Russian state. The consolidation of this idea was embodied in the wedding of the Moscow sovereign to the kingdom, the organization of the urban space of the capital, the construction of the stunning temple of the Intercession-on-the-Ditch (St. Basil the Blessed) and, finally, the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is significant that, according to the testimony of foreigners who visited Moscow at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries, the inhabitants called the central part of the city Tsargrad, and the Church of the Intercession - Jerusalem.

These sentiments were later reflected in the strange (for our modern reader), but symptomatic words, which Ivan Peresvetov put into the mouths of Orthodox Greeks who argued with the “Latins” in The Tale of Magmet-Saltan:

« Eatwe have the kingdom of the waves and the king of the waves, the noble prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and in that kingdom there is the great mercy of God and the banner of God, the holy miracle workers, like the first, - such is the mercy of God from them, like from the first "

Their opponents “agree” with them: “ That is the truth". They supposedly saw for themselves that great is the mercy of God in that land».

« All the good that was with you passed by the grace of Christ to us in Moscow»

« We had a pious king, but now we don't. And in that place the Lord God erected on Moscow the pious king».

No less indicative are the assurances of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich addressed to the Greek merchants:

“I made a commitment that if God wills, I will sacrifice my army, treasury and even my blood for them [Greeks] deliverance».

To which the Greeks, calling the king " a pillar of faith», « assistant in the Vedas», « liberator", they ask him

“take ... the highest throne of the great Tsar Constantine, your great-grandfather, may the pious people and Orthodox Christians be freed from unholy hands, from fierce beasts that eat mercilessly.”

Nikon's church reforms led to the most difficult crisis in the spiritual life of Rus', which led to a conflict between the spiritual and secular rulers. As a result, the ideas of the “third Rome” as the secular center of the “Holy Roman Empire” and the “new Jerusalem” as the spiritual center of the Orthodox world turned out to be divided. Construction New Jerusalem monastery, the symbolism of the name of which was continued in the place where it was built (the meridian of Jerusalem), and in the guise of a monastery temple (created on the model of the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem), emphasized what had happened.

The final point in the sacred perception of geographical space was set by Peter I, who moved the secular capital of Russia to the north, to St. Petersburg, while Moscow continued to remain the capital of the Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time, it should probably be emphasized that the construction of the new capital began with the foundation of the church of Sts. Apostles Peter and Paul. Let me remind you that it was the appearance in Constantinople of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul marked its transformation into the capital of the Roman Empire, and the construction of the Cathedral of the Apostles Peter and Paul on the left bank of the Seine by Clovis is perceived by researchers, in particular, S. Lebeck, as evidence

"his thoughtful policy, the policy of a man who took seriously his recent recognition as emperor and intended to surround himself, his family, his power with an aura of holiness."

Perception not only of the "geographical" world as a whole, but also of individual cardinal directions was also associated with values. So, in Rus' there was a fairly common attitude to the south as to the “God-chosen” side of the world. For example, in the Old Russian translation of the “Jewish War” by Josephus Flavius, a fragrant south wind blows over the place of the afterlife of blessed souls; in the Russian church there has long been a refrain to stichera called " god from the south ».

An example of such a relationship would be the mention of " the spirit of the south ” in “The Tale of the Mamaev Battle”. It undoubtedly had a symbolic meaning for the medieval author and reader.

According to the Tale, at the height of the battle, the Tatar regiments strongly pressed the Russians. Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov, watching the death with pain " Orthodox host ”, invites the governor Bobrok to immediately join the battle. Bobrok, on the other hand, dissuades the prince from hasty actions, urging him to wait “like a time”, in which “ have the grace of God". It is interesting that Bobrok accurately names the hour when " time is like» — « eighth hour"(the eighth hour of the day, according to the old Russian system of numbering hours). It was then, as predicted Volynets, " the spirit of the south is pulling behind them».

“Sing the Volynets: “... The hour is coming, and the time is drawing near ... for the power of the Holy Spirit helps us.”

From this, by the way, according to the well-founded opinion of V. N. Rudakov, it follows that the entry of the ambush regiment into battle was not connected with the real events of the Battle of Kulikovo. Bobrok Volynsky, following the logic of the author of The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev, did not at all choose the moment when the Tatars would put their flank under attack by the Russians (as L.G. Bezkrovny assumed), or when the sun would stop shining into the eyes of the Russian regiments (as A N. Kirpichnikov). The most common opinion in the historical literature that an experienced governor expected a change in wind direction from a headwind to a tailwind is not confirmed either. The fact is that the “southern spirit”, which the “Tale” mentions, under no circumstances could be a companion for Dmitry Donskoy’s associates (and, consequently, helping them). Russian regiments on the Kulikovo field advanced from north to south. Consequently, the south wind could only blow in their faces, hindering the advance. At the same time, any confusion in the use of geographical terms by the author is completely excluded. The creator of the "Tale" was completely free to navigate in geographical space. He accurately pointed out: Mamai is moving to Rus' from the east, the Danube River is in the west, etc.

Another similar example may be the "evidence" of the robber Foma Katsibeev. To him " God is revealed... the vision is great»: « from the east"a cloud appeared (the Horde)," like some plucks you go to the west». « From the midday country"(i.e. from the south)" two young men came"(meaning Boris and Gleb), who helped the Russian regiments to defeat the enemy.

Not only the countries of the world, but also the concepts of top And bottom, right And left sides (with positive and negative sign in both cases, respectively).

How this was manifested in the sources, we will explain with a specific example.

On Saturday night, from June 29 to 30, 1174, Andrei Bogolyubsky was killed in his chambers. The so-called "Tale of the Assassination of Andrei Bogolyubsky" preserved a detailed account of the last hours of the life of the Grand Duke of Vladimir. Here, in particular, it was mentioned how, in the finale of the tragedy, the leader of the killers, Pyotr Kuchkovich, cut off Andrey's "gum" (right) hand, which allegedly led to the death of the prince. However, when studying the remains of Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1934, doctors discovered that it was not his right hand that was cut off (it was not injured at all), but his left hand. Experts suggested that a mistake was made in the story, or that the chronicler used this detail as an artistic device, "to thicken the colors and enhance the effect." At the same time, undoubtedly, the author of the Tale knew which hand the killers cut off. The miniature of the Radzivilov Chronicle, illustrating the story of the death of Andrei Yuryevich, depicts a woman standing near the defeated prince and holding a severed hand - namely the left, not the right.

What made the chronicler "depart from the truth" (in our sense of the word)?

The Gospel of Matthew says:

"And if right your hand seduces you, cut it off and throw it away from you.” (Italics mine. - I.D.)

How could the right hand “seduce” Andrey? The answer can be found in the Apocalypse. People who worship the Antichrist

“there will be a mark on right hand ”(Italics mine. - I.D.)

with the name of the "beast" or the number of his name. At the same time, the description of the “beast” itself, seen by John the Theologian, is very remarkable - it is very close to the description in the annals of Andrei Bogolyubsky himself. The "beast" has great power, its head

“as if mortally wounded; but this mortal wound healed"

(Andrey was killed by the killers and his head, but after they left he began to call for help and even tried to hide from his pursuers under the stairs). His mouth speaks "proudly and blasphemously"

“And it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and authority was given unto him over every kindred, and people, and tongue, and nation.”

He "has a wound from the sword and is alive." The description of the "beast" ends with the maxim:

"Whoever kills with the sword must be killed with the sword."

Not without reason, before the murder, Andrei's servant, the housekeeper Anbal, stole from the prince a sword that had belonged to St. Boris.

One way or another, the cutting off of Andrei Bogolyubsky (according to the "Tale") of precisely the right hand can be fully considered as a condemnation of him, if not as the Antichrist himself, then, in any case, as his servant. This is also indicated by the fact that, according to the author of the Tale, Andrei " washed with the blood of martyrdom for their sins ”(Italics mine. - I.D.), i.e., the martyrdom, as it were, atoned for the sins (and, apparently, considerable ones!) Of the prince.

As we can see, the mention of "concrete" spatial details in the descriptions of events could and did perform a slightly different function in ancient Russian literature than in modern artistic culture, and this happened in connection with a fundamentally different value orientation of ancient Russian spiritual culture.

The above examples, among other things, show that in medieval perception, space is not separated from time, forming a kind of space-time continuum, which in the scientific literature is usually called chronotope.

Time , like space, in the minds of ancient Russian man was endowed with moral and ethical value. Almost any calendar date was considered by him in the context of its real or symbolic content. This can be judged even by the frequency of certain calendar references. So, in The Tale of Bygone Years, Monday and Tuesday are mentioned only once, Wednesday - twice, Thursday - three times, Friday - five times, Saturday - 9, and Sunday ("week") - as many as 17! Naturally, this speaks not so much about “love” or, on the contrary, dislike for certain days, but about their “fullness” with events that interested the chronicler and his readers. So, for example, the laying and consecration of churches, the transfer of relics were usually performed on Saturdays and Sundays.

Contrary to the theory of probability (and modern common sense), events are unevenly distributed in relation to individual numbers of months. For example, in the Pskov Chronicle I there are calendar dates (January 5, February 2, July 20, August 1 and 18, September 1, October 1 and 26), which account for 6 to 8 events throughout the chronicle text. At the same time, a number of dates (January 3, 8, 19 and 25, February 1, 8 and 14, etc.) are not mentioned at all by the compilers of the code. Such "strangeness" of dates is explained by the value attitude of ancient Russian scribes towards them.

For example, battles usually took place on Fridays. Mentions of battles were so often associated with the word " heels”(Friday), that one of the apparently not very educated researchers of the last century even decided that this word denoted the battle order of the Russian troops. In his opinion, it resembled the Roman numeral V. The case then ended in embarrassment. However, the mythical "order of battle" nevertheless penetrated into fiction and even into the movie "Original Rus'". By the way, N. M. Karamzin dated the Battle of the Kalka in 1224 precisely because in that year May 31 (mentioned in the annals as the calendar date of the battle) fell on Friday.

The following example shows how deeply the symbolic content of dates was perceived in Ancient Rus'. In the Tale of Igor's Campaign, following the description of a solar eclipse observed by the army of the Novgorod-Seversky prince while crossing the Don, the following text follows:

“The prince slept with lust, and pity is a sign for him to intercede to tempt the great Don. “I want more,” I say, “to break the end of the Polovtsian field with you, Russians; I want to lay down my head, but it’s nice to drink the Don’s helmet.”

Its meaning will not be completely clear, if you do not take into account that the eclipse fell on May 1, the day of St. prophet Jeremiah. In the prophecy of Jeremiah there are words that echo in meaning with Igor's "speech":

“And now why do you go to Egypt to drink the water of the Nile? And why are you going to Assyria to drink water from its river?

They contain a reproach to Igor and, one might say, a "scenario" for subsequent tragic events. Igor, however, disregarded the prophetic warning, which he indirectly quoted himself, and was punished accordingly.

As for calendar dates, their frequent mention or, conversely, the desire to avoid such a mention, was primarily due to whether this number was considered lucky or not. As already mentioned, in Ancient Russia there was a huge number of apocryphal “false” (forbidden) books - various “Lunniks”, “Thunderers”, “Astrologies”, treatises “About Chikhir the star, what it costs”, “On the evil days of the moon”, “ About the lunar current”, “Books of Rafli”, etc., which described in detail the “qualities” of calendar dates and gave recommendations: is it possible to “open blood” on this day (one of the main methods of treatment) or, say, start what - or a matter of how the fate of a child born on this day will turn out, etc.

In addition, there were clear church calendar prescriptions, mostly of a prohibitive nature. The most well-known are food and behavioral prohibitions associated with fasting: multi-day - Great (seven weeks before Easter), Peter or Apostle (from six weeks to seven days - depending on the date of the celebration of Easter), Assumption or Lady (from August 1 to 15 ), Christmas or Philippov (forty-day - from November 14 to December 24), as well as one-day - on Wednesdays and Fridays (except for Easter, Trinity, Christmas, about the publican and the Pharisee, cheese), on the Feast of the Exaltation (September 14), day The Beheading of John the Baptist (August 29) and on the eve of the Theophany of the Lord (January 5). In addition, there were other restrictions. For example, marriages were not performed on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, on the days of the Twelve, temple and great holidays, as well as during all multi-day fasts, Christmas time (from December 25 to January 7), Shrovetide, cheese weeks, Easter, on the days of the Beheading of the head John the Baptist and the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

A detailed system of regulation of sexual relations was developed, filled with various prohibitions and limiting sexual intercourse to about 100 days a year. For example, in Ancient Rus', apparently, parish priests condemned parents who conceived a child on Friday, Saturday or Sunday:

“A child will be happy to thither, love to be a robber, love to be a fornicator, love to be trembling” .

Annual (chronographic) dates also had symbolic and ethical content. More often, however, this applied to multi-year periods. But there were numbers of years that occupied the thoughts of our ancestors in and of themselves. First of all, we are talking about the date of the “end of time”, the second coming of Christ, which was followed by the inexorable Last Judgment, which was very tensely expected in Ancient Rus', as, indeed, throughout the Christian world. In the "Holy Scriptures" it is repeatedly emphasized that the date of the end of the world is in the power of God. Neither humans nor angels can know it. Nevertheless, many medieval "promuzgi" tried to calculate it, relying either on the prophecy of Daniel, or on the 3rd book of Ezra, or on the Gospel of Matthew, or on the Apocalypse, or on some apocryphal writings that were not accepted the Christian canon.

Undoubtedly, the most common “potential” date of the end of the world in Rus' was considered to be 7000 from the Creation of the world. This point of view was based on the biblical book of Genesis, according to which the world was created in six days, and on the seventh day God rested from works. This calculation was made based on the Old and New Testaments, where it is repeatedly mentioned that one divine day is equal to a thousand "normal" years:

“Before your eyes, a thousand years are like yesterday when it passed.”

"With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day."

At the end of the seventh thousand-year "day" the "kingdom of glory" should come. Even the history of mankind was divided into “six days”: from the creation of Adam to the flood, from the flood to Abraham, from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian captivity, from the captivity to the Nativity of Christ, and, finally, from Christmas to the Last Judgment. This tradition was also reflected in many literary monuments of Ancient Rus', including the Tale of Bygone Years.

There were, however, other points of view on the possible date of the Last Judgment. So, the first Slavic complete Bible (named after the Novgorod archbishop, who translated all the canonical books of the "Holy Scripture" in 1499, Gennadievskaya) is completed by the following reasoning:

« And after the renunciation of the spoken [ the liberation before the end of the world of the devil is meant “for a short time”] let us think: The evangelist speaks, as if the devil was bound for a thousand years. From now on, was his bondage? From the entry into hell of our Lord Jesus Christ in the year five thousand five hundred and thirty-three, and even until the year six thousand and five hundred and thirty-third, a thousand years will always be fulfilled. And so Satan will renounce according to the righteous judgment of God and deceive the world until the time he was told, even three and a half years, and then there will be an end. Amen. ".

From this it follows that after 6537 from the Creation of the world (apparently, 1037 AD), the expectation of the end of the world acquired a special tension in Rus'. Let me remind you that it was precisely at this moment that the already mentioned construction by Yaroslav the Wise in Kyiv of the Church of St. Sofia and the Golden Gate, the monasteries of St. George and Irina, the pronunciation of the Word of Law and Grace, as well as the creation of the so-called "Ancient Chronicle". Just as "favorable" for the onset of the end of the world were considered - according to the "Revelation of Methodius of Patara" - the years in which the 9th indict fell.

In addition, in the domestic literature there was a huge number of descriptions of various signs that should have directly foreshadowed the approach of the "end" time. Some of them also had a calendar form. For example, it was believed that the end of the world would come in the year when Easter fell on the Annunciation (March 25). It is no coincidence that such coincidences were carefully calculated and recorded. Let us recall, by the way, that Metropolitan Hilarion encountered precisely such a coincidence (although not entirely accurate: March 25, 1038, fell on Great Saturday, when the “Word” was read) when writing the “Word on Law and Grace.”

Since the end of time did not come in any of the “appointed” dates, society experienced a colossal ideological crisis. Disappointment in the "Kingdom of Glory" that never came led to significant changes in the system of existential values ​​and became the mental basis for the ideological and political upheavals that our country experienced in the 16th - early 17th centuries.

In particular, the horrors of the oprichnina were to some extent explained as follows: Ivan the Terrible, until a certain moment, could not imagine that he would stand next to his victims at the Last Judgment. Moreover, he assumed the role of the representative of God's judgment on earth. The justice of the "generous" punishments distributed to them was affirmed by the idea that God punishes sinners not only in the underworld, but also on earth, not only after death, but also during life:

“But I confess and we know, as if not only there is torment, even living evil, transgressing the commandments of God, but even here the righteous wrath of God, according to their evil deeds, they drink the cup of the Lord’s wrath and the manifold punishment of the tormentor; after the departure of this light, the bitterest condemnation accepts ... ".

The sovereign considered his own power as an instrument of such just retribution on behalf of God himself. In his letter to Kurbsky, he wrote about the need to condemn villains and traitors to torment and death, referring to the authority of the Apostle Jude, who ordered people to be saved “by fear” (Jude 1.22-23). Following tradition, the king confirmed his idea with other quotations from the Holy Scriptures, including the words of the Apostle Paul:

« If someone will be unlawfully tormented, that is, not for faith, not a crowned»

Space and time did not exist for the people of the Middle Ages on their own, they were inseparable from the land on which man lived. Accordingly, it also acquired a valuable content, was comprehended.

"Created World" in general, it was perceived by our ancestors primarily symbolically. At the heart of the worldview of the inhabitants of Ancient Rus' lay, speaking in a relatively late language, "silent theology." That is why in Rus' we do not find theological treatises of the Western European type. The Orthodox believer strove to comprehend divine revelation not by scholastic reasoning or observation, not by reason or "external" gaze, as, say, a Catholic, but by "inner eyes." The essence of the world cannot be understood. It is comprehended only by "immersion" in veridical texts and canonical images, approved by the authority of the Church Fathers and enshrined in tradition. That is why the hesychasm of George Palamas has found such distribution here.

In Ancient Rus', we do not find images that tend to be illusory, photographic accuracy in conveying the external features of the visible world, like Western European painting. in Russia until the end of the 17th century. both in painting and in literature dominated icon- a special figurative perception and display of the world. Everything was strictly regulated here: plot, composition, even color. Therefore, at first glance, ancient Russian icons are so "similar" to each other. But it is worth taking a closer look at them - after all, they are designed for a person to look at them during daily prayer for several hours - and we will see how different they are in their inner world, mood, feelings, laid down by nameless artists of the past. In addition, each element of the icon, from the character's gesture to the absence of some obligatory details, carries a whole range of meanings. But in order to penetrate them, one must master the language in which the old Russian “icon” (in the broad sense of the word) speaks to the viewer. The best way to talk about this is "open" texts, which directly explain to the reader what is meant by each specific image. Let's give some examples.

Here is how some animals and birds were described in Ancient Rus'.

Physiologist and about the lion. Three natures imat lion. Whenever a lioness gives birth deadly and blindly gives birth [cub], sititje and watch until the third day. In three days the lion will come and blow into his nostrils and live. Tacos and about the faithful Gentiles [about converted Gentiles] . Before baptism the dead are, after baptism they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The second nature is left. Whenever he sleeps, and his eyes are watchful. This is how our Lord spoke to the Jews, as if: “I sleep, but my eyes are divine and my heart is vigilant.” >

And the third nature is lion: when the lioness runs away, she covers her feet with her tail. Yes, the catcher cannot see [find] a trace of him. So you too, man, when you do alms, your left hand does not smell what your right hand is doing, may the devil not forbid the work of your thought.

"About the Tawny Owl [Pelican] . The tawny owl is a child-loving bird. peck bo wife[female] ribs with their chick. And he[male] comes from feeding[with food] . Their ribs will peck, and the outgoing blood revives the chick.

So is our Lord from the Jews [of the Jews] with a copy of the rib of his conductor. Out came blood and water. And revive the universe, that is to say dead. This is the division and speech of the prophet, as if he were likened to the desert owl

Already from the above examples it is clear that in the system of traditional folk ideas about the surrounding world, animals simultaneously appear both as natural objects and as a kind of mythological characters. In the book tradition there are almost no descriptions of "real" animals, even in "natural science" treatises the fabulous element prevails. It seems that the authors did not seek to convey any specific information about real animals, but tried to form in the reader some ideas about their symbolic essence. These ideas are based on the traditions of different cultures, recorded in written sources.

Animal symbols are not "twins" of their real prototypes. The indispensable presence of fantasy in stories about animals led to the fact that the described animal could bear the name of an animal or bird well known to the reader, but differ sharply from it in its properties. From the prototype character, often only his verbal shell (name) remained. At the same time, the image usually did not correlate with a set of features corresponding to a given name and forming the image of an animal in everyday consciousness, which once again confirms the isolation from each other of two systems of knowledge about nature: “bookish” and “practical”.

Within such a description of an animal, the following distribution of real and fantastic properties can be noted. Often the object is described in accordance with the biological nature; Such texts are most likely based on practical observations. For example:

Oh fox. The physiologist speaks of a fox as if there is a flattering stomach. More to crave, wanting to eat, and not to find bohma [finds nothing at all] looking for vezha[outbuilding] or a spittoon[a barn where straw or chaff is stored] and lie down, as a sign, but they draw the soul in themselves, and lie as if dead. And the imaginary bird seems to have died, sit down on it and start pecking at it. You then jump up soon, grab and take down I

The story about the woodpecker is based on the description of the woodpecker's ability to peck trees with its beak; in the description of the cuckoo, the emphasis is on the habit of this bird to lay its eggs in other people's nests; the amazing skill of the beaver in building a dwelling, and the swallows in arranging their nests, are noted.

Sometimes a real object was endowed with only fictional properties. In this case, the connection of the character with the real animal was preserved only in the name. So, let's say, the relations of the name " beaver» and descriptions « Indian"a beaver, from the insides of which musk is extracted, as well as some kind of predatory animal (perhaps a tiger or a wolverine; in any case, it was depicted in miniatures as striped and with huge claws). " ox" could mean not only a domestic animal bos bubalus, but also " Indian"an ox, which, fearing to lose at least one hair from its tail, stands motionless if it catches its tail on a tree, as well as a mythical sea predator. In addition, it was believed that in India there are huge oxen (between the horns of which a person can sit), oxen with three horns and three legs, and, finally, oxen " reserves”, whose long horns do not allow them to move forward. Salamander is the name of a lizard, as well as a poisonous snake and an animal the size of a dog, capable of extinguishing a fire.

So, depending on the semantic content, the same name of an animal could mean both a real-life animal and a fantastic character. A set of properties that, from the point of view of the modern reader, have no real basis, often correlated with the names of animals from distant countries and determined the ideas of the medieval reader about them. So, in the “Physiologist” it was said about an elephant that in order to give birth to offspring, he needs a mandrake root, and if he falls, he cannot get up, because there are no joints in his knees. It also said here that panfir(panther, leopard) tends to sleep for three days, and on the fourth day to lure other animals to him with his fragrance and voice. Velbudopardus(giraffe) seemed to be a cross between a pard (lynx) and a camel.

The descriptions in which the animal was endowed with both real and fictitious features were the most widespread. So, in addition to the crow's addiction to carrion and the custom of these birds to form mating pairs, ancient Russian descriptions included the story that the crow does not drink water in the month of July, because he was punished by God for neglecting his chicks, as well as evidence that the thief is able to "revive » Boiled eggs with the help of a well-known herb. It was believed that the bird erodium(seagull) is able to distinguish Christians who know the Greek language from people " other tribe". There was a story that ENUDR(otter) kills a sleeping crocodile, reaching through the open mouth to its insides. With a fairly accurate description of the habits of a dolphin (comes to the aid of people drowning in the sea, etc.), the author of such a treatise could call him zelfin bird, and an ancient miniature depicts a pair of dolphins ( dvema delphimon), saving St. Basil the New, in the form of two ... dogs.

The coincidence of characters arising as a result of the redistribution of signs was eliminated by assigning one of them (most often to the one in the description of which fabulous properties prevailed, or it was correlated with a “foreign”, exotic region - India, Ethiopia, Arabia, etc.) unusual (foreign-language ) name. This, as it were, removed the possible inconsistency of any properties of the object with the usual set of features, united under “their own”, familiar name. So, " Indian"The beaver was also named" mskous (musk, mus, mus))».

It should be borne in mind that the free application of signs to the character's name played an important role in the symbolic interpretation of his properties. O.V. Belova, the most authoritative specialist in the field of animal symbolism in ancient Russian literature, notes cases when a set of features completely passed from one name to another, and an object bearing a name that took on other people's features received a new property. So, having been united at first in their signs, the hyena and the bear subsequently "exchanged" their names. In ancient Russian alphabets, the word owena along with the meanings “wild beast imitating a human voice”, “mythical poisonous beast with a human face, drenched in snakes”, “feline beast”, it has the meaning “bear, she-bear”.

From the point of view of medieval literature, such descriptions were not examples of pure fiction. Any "natural-science" information was taken for granted, being backed up by authoritative sources.

“If there is truth or not knowing falsely. But ubo in the books of this find they were compelled to write that one. So it is about animals, and birds, and woods, and grasses, and fish, and stones.

- notes the compiler of one of the alphabet books. For a book "scientific" description of animals, the sign of real-surreal is not decisive.

The names of animals were regarded as originally given, determined by Divine Providence. The article "On naming cattle and beasts and reptiles" tells:

In the days of those first-created man Adam, the Lord God came to earth to visit her and all his creatures, create it yourself. And the Lord called all the cattle of the earth and all the birds that soared, and brought before the face of Adam and I set him up, and I called the name of all. And Adam gave names to all the livestock of the earth, and the wild beast, and the birds, and the fish, and the reptile, and the bugbears. insects ]

Moreover, these names were given so successfully and so accurately reflected the essence of all creatures that God did not consider it possible to change them even after the fall of the first people.

All animals and all their properties, real and fictional, are considered by ancient Russian scribes from the point of view of the secret moralizing meaning contained in them. The symbolism of animals provided abundant material for medieval moralists. In the Physiologus and similar monuments, every animal, be it a supernatural creature (unicorn, centaur, phoenix), an exotic beast of distant lands (elephant, lion) or a well-known creature (fox, hedgehog, partridge, beaver) is amazing. All " Chodestii and Letestii Creatures act in their innermost function, accessible only to spiritual insight. Each animal “means” something, and there can be several meanings, often opposite. These symbols can be classified as "unlike images": they are based not on obvious similarities, but on difficult to explain, traditionally fixed semantic identities. The idea of ​​external similarity is alien to them.

In the context of the culture of Ancient Rus', a living creature, deprived of its symbolic meaning, opposes the harmonious world order and simply does not exist in isolation from its meaning. No matter how entertaining the properties of the described animal may seem, the ancient Russian author always emphasized the primacy of symbolism over actual description. For him, the names of animals are the names of symbols, and not of specific creatures, real or fantastic. The compilers of the "Physiologists" did not set themselves the goal of giving more or less complete characteristics of the animals and birds that they talked about. Among the properties of animals, only those were noted with the help of which it was possible to find analogies with any theological concept or draw moral conclusions.

Approximately the same was perceived by ancient Russian scribes stones , their nature, properties and qualities, color.

« 1st similar kamyk, called sardion[ruby] Babylonian, blackened is the image, like blood. Those who travel to Assyria gain in Babylon in the lands. It is transparent. Healing powers are in it, and otoks [tumors] are molded in it ulcers that occur from iron are anointed. This Kamyk is likened to Reuben's firstborn[of Israel] , somehow strong and strong for business faster.

« 3rd kamyk izmaragd[emerald] is green. In Indian peas they dig them. There is light, a hedgehog to see a human face in it, like in a mirror. This is likened to eating Leuhi [son of Israel] - to the saint and the priestly rank, even the face of a human should not be ashamed of them»

An expanded symbolic system of individual elements of the "created nature" was embodied in derivative texts and images. So, on the icon “Miracle of St. George about the snake" was depicted by St. George, seated on a snow-white horse, in a red cloak fluttering in the wind, with a spear in his hand, striking a dark red snake, wriggling under the horse's hooves. In addition to the literal "illustration" of the corresponding hagiographic text, this icon is also filled with many symbolic meanings. For example, St. George symbolizes the entire army of Christ, which, relying on the right faith (it is symbolized by a white horse), wages an irreconcilable and tireless struggle against the forces of the devil (the serpent is a stable symbol of the devil, and the spear in the hands of the saint is a symbol of overthrow and victory over Satan). These images are complemented and developed by the symbolism of color. The white color of the horse is the color of purity, a symbol of the all-conquering Holy Spirit. The blood-red color of the cloak of St. George corresponds to the color of the ruby ​​(the necessary characteristic can be found in the text just quoted from the Tale of the 12 Stones). The dark red color of the serpent was associated with the color of the seventh stone - uakiif (yahont), which corresponded to the son of Jacob Dan, from whose family the Antichrist should be born.

When analyzing the symbolism of the color characteristics of objects in ancient Russian works of literature and art (for all the conventions of using these terms for Ancient Rus'), it should be remembered that the names of colors could differ significantly from the modern “generally accepted color nomenclature”. If you lose sight of this moment, you can get into a very awkward position. I'll give you an example. In the Old Church Slavonic translation of the Pandects of Antiochus of the 11th century. we read the cryptic phrase:

« Who has blue eyes, if they are not in wine, if they are not watching where feasts»

Here, the models of ethical and color spaces are fundamentally different from what we are used to. Modern man will never understand what connection can exist between "blue" eyes and a tendency to abuse alcohol, if he does not take into account that at the time this text was written, the word "blue" meant "dark, dark red (cherry ), shiny. Without this, by the way, it is not clear why many icons have red("blue, shiny, shining") background.

Deviation from the established canon was not perceived by the medieval Russian reader. He was not interested in new stories. He preferred to reread already known works. Therefore, the composition of the Old Russian “Izborniks” of literary works could remain unchanged for centuries, and each new chronicle collection necessarily included the texts of previous chronicles.

The most general and universal expression of the ideas of the Russian Orthodox person about the world around him has always been Orthodox church . He kept that image(not a model!) of the world, which was "their own" for the people of Ancient Rus'.

The very word "temple", along with the words "church", "cathedral", denotes a special building for worship. Here, for centuries, the most important Christian rites and actions have been performed and continue to be performed today. In the temple, according to Christian ideas, a believer can enter into direct communion with God. Here a person turns to Him with a prayer, enters into a dialogue with the highest of the entities he can think of. This is the “nome of prayer”, “ earth sky"," the house of God.

For our ancestors, the temple was a kind mirror the world in which they lived and part of which they themselves were, moreover, a very peculiar mirror. It reflected not the external appearance, but the inner image, hidden from the uninitiated. The image of the invisible icon(which means in Greek "image"). The manifestation of the inexpressible. The temple was (and remains for believers) an “instrument” rather than even knowledge, but a sense of truth through earthly, auxiliary images. Such figurative assimilation proceeded from what was accessible to the "external" gaze to what could only be comprehended by the inner gaze.

At the same time, the "pure meaning" of earthly things, phenomena and events could be transmitted both through images "similar" ("similar"), and through images "dissimilar" ("dissimilar").

"Similar" images, "for the sake of the weakness of our understanding" (John of Damascus, ca. 675-753), in a certain form reflect the prototypes ("archetypes"). “Dissimilar” ones, although they have a sensually-figurative “shell”, do not so much display as denote the truth in certain signs and symbols that require a special interpretation for a modern person. Their outward form and what they signify have nothing in common. Correspondence between the appearance and content of the image is established by some kind of agreement (convention) between people. Therefore, such symbolism sometimes called conventional. To the uninitiated, the meaning of such images is incomprehensible. The sign tells them nothing. Therefore, we are unable to "hear with our eyes" the voice of those who left these signs.

Which, say, of us would come to mind, looking at bizarre griffins (an image that came from the Ancient East) or good-natured lions sleeping with open eyes on the walls of the Church of the Intercession-on-Nerl, St. Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir or St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky, what before us are unlike images of Jesus Christ?

And the less clear to us is the “stream of metaphors and symbols, the pattern”, which is any ornamental motif without exception that adorns the temple: from “ herbs” (an extremely stylized image of a vine), symbolizing, metaphorically depicting and idea paradise, and the universe (which is in a state of continuous creation, and therefore eternal), and the ideas of cyclicity, the rhythm of nature, the change of seasons, the alternation of day and night (i.e., all the basic laws of living life), and concept human- microcosm(private correspondence to the entire system of the universe - macrocosm), and the great sacrifice, which has become for mankind the path to salvation and immortality, to the endless alternation of extremely generalized images of a flower and a fruit - a symbol of cyclically renewing eternity, or a repetition of stylized images of fan-shaped palm leaves - palmettes, inscribed in intersecting circles - a theme known as called "eternal return".

At the same time, earthly beauty, brought to the most simple, primordial forms, in which the idea of ​​the temple is embodied, became the path to the knowledge of absolute beauty - the beauty of those meanings that are embedded in idea temple.

The creators understood the Christian temple as harmonized space. This image was formulated and developed by the theologians of the early Middle Ages - Eusebius Pamphilus (264-340), Basil the Great (c. 330-379), etc. In their writings, the concepts of the world and the temple overflow into each other as artistic divine creations: the world is the temple of God's creation, the temple is the world of God.

The “temple-cosmos” was created and perceived as a symbolic, artistic and ideological “image of the world”. The classic image of its embodiment is the Constantinople Church of St. Sofia. This image of a harmonized cosmos turned out to be so universal that after the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, the temple of Sophia was turned into a Muslim mosque.

The original idea of ​​the temple was supplemented and developed over time, complicated by new meanings. The development of the contemplative nature of the Eastern Christian spiritual life led, in particular, to the formation of the idea of ​​the temple as a “symbolic image of a person” (Maxim the Confessor). The image of the external world (macrocosm) merges in the temple with the image of the inner world of man (microcosm). Moreover, their merger was not easy. Moreover, both of these images were in the unresolvable—and permanently resolvable! - contradictions. Their unity formed the basis of the image of the ancient Russian temple.

The idea of ​​a temple was further developed in Byzantium during the period of iconoclasm (8th - first half of the 9th centuries), when the idea of ​​a “temple-cosmos” was transformed into the idea of ​​“a temple is an earthly sky in which God lives and abides”. According to Patriarch German, now the temple is

"The divine house, where a mysterious life-giving sacrifice is performed, where there is an inner sanctuary, and a sacred den, and a tomb, and a soul-saving life-giving meal."

The temple, thus, also turned into a line (border), separating and, at the same time, like any line connecting a person and God, a person and the Universe, which surrounded and at the same time filled his bodily shell (soul). The temple becomes not only a place of communication with the deity, but also an instrument (intermediary) for a person to comprehend his own divine essence, the eternal imperishable Self, a means of becoming him. consciousness.

For this, however, the idea of ​​the temple had to be embodied and specific forms that would fully manifest (reveal) these meanings, make them accessible to the direct perception of the organ of the senses,

How ideas temple is embodied in image temple?

The visual image of the temple is based on two elementary images-symbols that were formed in the East and came to the Christian world in different ways:

— cross("earth", a symbol of death and victory over it, resurrection, immortality, Christ) and

— dome resting on four pillars (chamber - "visible, earthly sky").

That is why churches are called cross-domed.

The combination of these symbols created an extremely complex multi-dimensional and multi-valued image, the complete "decoding", "reading" of which is hardly possible.

The center, the core of the image is the God-man Jesus, whose death on the cross threw (according to Christians) the only bridge of salvation across the abyss that lies between sinful man (“earth”) and holy God (“heaven”). Here is the key that reveals to us the basis of the system of the external and internal appearance of the temple, its constituent elements and their interconnection. This structure took shape in general and Byzantium by the 9th century. and at the end of the X century. was transferred to Kievan Rus.

Let's go to the temple.

The temple is the first thing we see when we drive up to an old Russian town or village. Its dome is noticeable when the roofs of other buildings are not yet visible. And this is not only because the temple is the highest of them. The point is also that for the construction of its architects selected a special - slender - place, the most advantageous for construction, well visible from different points. Subtly found harmonic coherence of architecture and nature increased the impact on the viewer. The temple, as it were, grew out of the earth that gave birth to it. The image "temple - heaven on earth" received a visual embodiment.

With rare exceptions, outwardly a Russian church (especially an early one) makes a very modest, often even ascetic impression. The decorations of its white-stone facade (construction of bricks was prohibited by biblical norms), if any, never develop into decoration. There is no in vain, idle beauty. Everything is subject to one idea. Everything has its own meaning, or rather, meanings.

Each element and the holistic image consisting of them contains several meanings, at least four: literal (it was, however, also subdivided into explicit and secret), moral, symbolic and allegorical:

“Know, wake up, as if according to a fair teacher, there is a five-lip betrothal: verbally, moralizing, building up, secretly coming true and vyyava”.

The total number of meanings extracted (“subtracted”) from a particular image could even reach several tens.

The external appearance of the temple was intended for citywide contemplation and therefore had to most directly express the idea “the temple is the earthly sky” embedded in it. This was achieved, first of all, due to the orientation of the temple to the cardinal points: the central axis of symmetry of the temple is located in the east-west direction. The entrance (or main entrance) to the temple is located on its western façade. From the east, the space of the temple is limited by semicircular, faceted or rectangular in plan altar ledges - apses. At the same time, the west symbolized the earth, death, the end of visible existence (the “dying” Sun at the end of the day), and the east symbolized the sky, life, rebirth, and, finally, Jesus Christ, often called in prayers “ Sun of Truth», « East».

On the head of the dome, perpendicular to the axis of symmetry of the temple is a cross. The upper end of the sloping lower crossbar points north - " midnight countries". The number of domes of the temple is usually also considered symbolic (for example, a five-domed temple - Christ and four evangelists, a 13-domed temple - Christ and 12 apostles, etc.), however, early sources do not make it possible to assert this with complete certainty.

The axis of the temple does not always exactly coincide with the geographical cardinal points. Obviously, this is due to the fact that in the absence of a compass, the builders were guided by the points of sunrise and sunset on the day the temple was founded or on the day of the holiday to which it was dedicated.

The next important element of the external appearance of the temple are the facade decorations. Apparently, the external images divided the surface of the temple into three tiers, or registers. Each of them carried its own content. They symbolized the levels of ascent from sinful earth to heaven.

The lower tier symbolized the earth itself. At first, portals (entrances) and lines of consoles (protrusions in the wall supporting the cornice) of the arcade frieze columns were filled with images. These images meant evil forces, which were forbidden access to the inside of the temple and to the upper parts of its walls. Subsequently, the lower tier of the walls was sometimes filled with images of the plant world.

The frieze that separated the lower tier from the middle tier was a cosmitis - “ dividing line of earthly and heavenly paradise”, or (possibly) a symbol of the arcade of paradise (a series of identical arches supported by columns or pillars).

The second tier was identified with the world of the Divine in its unity with people. Here unfolded pictures of the earthly mission of God - himself or through messengers. It is in this tier that we find the most "narrative" images. The characters here are God himself, people, animals, and sometimes even the most fantastic "creatures" (griffins, centaurs, kitovrases, Sirins, etc.), which, as we know, had symbolic meanings.

The upper, third tier is the sky itself. At first it remained empty. Then they began to fill it with images of God and the highest persons of the church hierarchy.

So, moving along the walls of the temple from the bottom up, the images embodied a special view of the world - gradualism, representing a gradual transition from the world of plants and demonic masks through the images of people and animals to the image of God, which grew into the central, highest and most capacious symbol of Christianity, crowning the dome of the temple - the cross.

Moreover, the higher tiers are inaccessible to a person who has not entered the temple. It is doomed to remain at the vegetable level; earthly world, being itself only a “moving plant”.

In contrast to the external (very laconic) design, which is associated with the modesty, unpretentiousness and severity of the external life of a Christian, the complex internal structure and magnificent interior decoration of the temple, sometimes bordering on luxury, symbolize the richness of the spiritual life of a believer.

The interior of the temple is tripartite in its structure. Its space is formed by walls, pillars that support the dome, and special barriers. In the horizontal plane, the temple is divided into a vestibule ( narthex), ship ( nave) and an altar ( conch).

vestibule- the western part of the temple, separated from the middle - the actual temple - by a blank wall. Not only “true believers” could enter the vestibule, but also people who were forbidden to enter the main part of the temple - non-believers and heretics. He symbolized the earth (Zephanius, patriarch of Jerusalem).

Ship- the central part of the temple - was a prototype of the visible sky. Its somewhat strange name is associated with the idea that the church, like a ship, in the image of Noah's ark, draws the believer across the sea of ​​life to a quiet harbor in the kingdom of heaven.

Altar- the eastern part of the temple, separated from the nave by a special barrier. An iconostasis is usually located on the altar barrier. The altar is the throne of God, the most important part of the temple. Here, in the altar, the laity, as a rule, are not allowed (for women, this is generally excluded). The altar is arranged on a dais, which has not only a symbolic, but also a practical meaning; everyone should be able to hear the divine service and see what is happening in the altar. The inner part of the altar is closed with a veil, which opens and closes during the service.

In the middle of the altar is throne- the main affiliation of the Christian church. It is a quadrangular table covered with two bedspreads (“ clothes"). It is believed that God is invisibly, secretly present on the throne as King and Master of the Church. On the throne before communion and the consecration of the new church are placed antimension- a quadrangular linen or silk dress with images of the position of Jesus Christ in the tomb and the four evangelists. Particles of the relics of saints are sewn into its corners (at first, Christian services were performed on the graves of saints).

During the service, an altar Gospel and a cross, a tabernacle and a monstrance are placed on the antimension. Near the throne, the sacrament of communion is performed, divine services are held.

The throne of the temple is consecrated in honor of any saint or event of Sacred history. This is where the temple gets its name. Often in one temple there are several thrones, which are located in special altars - aisles. Each of them is consecrated in honor of its saint (event). But the whole temple is named after the main, central altar. Only a priest can touch the altar.

Behind the throne are a menorah and (behind it) an altar cross. At the easternmost wall of the altar is an elevated mountainous place, symbolizing the mountainous (higher) world. To the left of the throne, in the northern part of the altar, stands altar where gifts are prepared for the sacrament of communion. On the right (south) side of the altar is arranged sacristy, in which sacred clothes, church vessels and liturgical books are kept.

There are three doors in the altar barrier: "Royal" and deacon(southern and northern) gate. It is believed that Jesus Christ himself, the “King of Glory”, invisibly passes through the Royal Doors in the Holy Gifts. Only a priest in full vestments can enter the Royal Doors. They contain images of the Annunciation and the Evangelists. Above them is the icon of the Last Supper.

The dais, on which the altar and the iconostasis stand, protrudes forward into the ship. This elevation in front of the iconostasis is called salt. Its middle is called pulpit(which means "mountain edge, ascent"). From the pulpit, the deacon says litanies (prayers), reads the gospel, and the priest reads sermons. Here, the sacrament is taught to believers. Along the edges of the salt, near the walls, arrange kliros for reciters and singers.

The central part of the temple, the actual sanctuary, is divided by pillars into the so-called naves(ships). Differ central(limited by two rows of central pillars) and lateral - northern and southern(formed by pillars and the corresponding wall) - naves. The transverse nave is called transept. The semantic center of the nave (the space between the altar and the vestibule) is the middle cross, formed by the central nave and transept. Here, if I may say so, is the vertical "semantic vector" of the temple.

The vestibule corresponding to the courtyard of the Old Testament temple, where all the people were, has now almost completely lost its original meaning, although seriously sinned and apostates are still sent here to stand for correction.

Known symbolism was also contained in the trinity of the transverse division of the central dome church (central and side aisles, throne, altar and deacon; Royal and deacon doors), but it, apparently, was derivative, and not system-forming.

In accordance with the semantic division of the horizontal plane of the temple, the cycles of murals were also distributed in it. The western part was reserved for Old Testament (“historical”) subjects. Partially, they occupied the walls of the main room, but only up to the pre-altar pillars, on which the Annunciation was depicted. There was a limit here that separated pre-Christian and New Testament history.

Time thus acquired a horizontal extension. The person entering the temple, as he moved towards the altar, repeated the entire path of mankind - from the creation of the world to the Nativity and the agony of the Savior, from His resurrection to the Last Judgment, the image of which was on the western wall of the central nave.

However, cyclical time was also present here, into which the whole life of a medieval person fit. In the XI-XII centuries. in Rus', the Byzantine tradition of the location of temple Christological paintings was widespread. She invited the "spectator" to a circular movement in the interior of the temple, which fully corresponded to the "cyclic-temporal" symbolism of the central-domed structure. The gospel story, according to this tradition, originates at the northern end of the central cross formed by the central nave and transept. Then the story passes into its southern, and from here - into the western ending,

Thus, the semantic and chronological sequence of images unfolds clockwise. In order for the worshiper to see all the gospel episodes in turn, he had to make three circles within the central cross. First, the images on three vaults were “read” (“The Nativity of Christ”, “The Meeting”, “Baptism”, “Transfiguration”, “The Resurrection of Lazarus”, “Entry into Jerusalem”). The second circle consisted of images above the arches of the choirs ("Christ before Caiaphas", "Peter's Denial", "Crucifixion", "Descent from the Cross"). Finally, the final episodes of the gospel story were placed in the piers of the lower tier (“The myrrh-bearing women at the tomb of the Lord”, “The Descent into Hell”, “The Appearance of Christ to the Myrrh-bearing Women”, “The Assurance of Thomas”, “Sending the Disciples to Sermon”, “The Descent of St. .Spirit"). In the altar part was placed the image of the "Eucharist".

We find such a sequence of murals in the churches of St. Sofia in Kyiv and Novgorod. However, this Byzantine canon of the arrangement of gospel images in Russian churches was most often violated. But even there, cyclical, eternally repeating time continued to be present in the texts of the liturgies. All the events of the Sacred History mentioned in them have been updated. They are taking place (judging by the verb forms that are used in spoken texts) right now, but in some other dimension.

It is interesting that the whole “path” of the one who came to the temple covers not only the history that has happened at the moment, but also what will happen in the coming end of time. In other words, a person sees his life path as already completed; everything has already happened, it has become unchanged, eternal. However, the present moment ("today") is not here. He is the man himself, standing in the temple and solving the "last questions of being" (or - focusing on the "last human" - the current issues of his mortal life), deciding and resolving his fate. Such a kind of mental dialogue between a person living and experiencing this state, and by him, but having already finished, completed his life path, between the momentary and eternal, temporary and timeless, transient and enduring, gave rise to a special emotional and moral tension, in the "force field" which the formation of the consciousness of the believer, his personality took place.

A kind of focus of the horizontal vector of the “energy field” of the temple was the Deesis (Greek “prayer”) - icons located in the third (considering the second icon of the “Last Supper” above the Royal Doors) row of the iconostasis. They depict Jesus Christ in Glory with forthcoming figures. Christ in bishop's vestments sits on the throne. The Mother of God is coming to him (on the right, “ right hand"from Him) and John the Baptist (left," oshuyu"). They act as mediators between God and people, they pray to Christ for the forgiveness of human sins. The Deesis embodies the idea of ​​intercession ( representation) for the “Christian race”.

Another semantic vector of the temple is the vertical structure of his paintings. The lower (“earthly”) register is assigned to the organizers of the “earthly church” - the apostles, saints, church fathers. The second tier is Christological. Proto-evangelical and gospel scenes, which have already been discussed, are placed here. The third (“heavenly”) register is dedicated to the “heavenly church”, embodied in the images of angels and crowning the inner space of the temple of Christ the Almighty (Pantokrator, often in the form of the “old day”, that is, in old age, which is an unlike image of God- Father) depicted on the central dome.

So, the vertical structure of the interior of the temple also symbolizes the ascent from the "earthly", transient - through the repetitive, cyclical - to the timeless, eternal, universal level, fixing the semantics: "the cross is the Universe".

The external and internal images of the temple corresponded not only to the macrocosm, but also to the microcosm. From the 14th century the idea of ​​the microcosm gradually becomes predominant. The center of attention is transferred to the person, his inner world. At the same time, the external appearance of the temple undergoes some changes. By the beginning of the XV century. he is clearly becoming more and more "humanoid", anthropomorphizing. Its proportions change, the vertical axis of symmetry shifts somewhat. The image of the temple becomes more and more "human".

Obviously, these metamorphoses were associated with certain changes in the value system. In particular, apparently, it became clear that the inner world of a person is a universe that generally coincides with the outer Divinely harmonized world. And consequently, everyone carries his own "temple" in himself - the images of the microcosm have merged with the images of the macrocosm. The temple becomes a place (and a “tool”) for harmonizing the inner and outer worlds of a person, where he realizes himself and his place in this world, acquires the meaning of his being.

The idea of ​​the harmony of internal and external, perhaps, is most clearly manifested in the descriptions human appearance which we find in ancient Russian literature. The material and corporeal were then perceived as visible beauty, testifying to the beauty and expediency of the invisible, spiritual world. The dialectical combination of the visible (material) and the invisible (supersensible) became the core of medieval Christian aesthetics, which understood man as twofold being (« mixed animal"). He is one of the most beautiful phenomena of the surrounding world, in which the creative idea of ​​the Eternal Builder comes off. The invisible and visible worlds are the creation of God. Everything created by God is beautiful. The source of beauty and goodness is in absolute beauty and absolute goodness.

On the contrary, the source of the ugly and evil is outside of God, in free will. Satan was the first to fall away from God. Man was created in the image and likeness of the Creator. In the act of the Fall, Adam and Eve lost similarity, the primeval ideal state of man. Dmitry Rostovsky wrote:

“May God create a man without malice, morality is virtuous, carefree, sorrowless, illuminated with all virtue, painted with all blessings, like some kind of second world, small in the great [microcosm] , an angel of another ... the king of those on earth[equal to an Angel, king over all that is on Earth] .. .»

Spiritual improvement of a person ( after the coming of Christ into the world) is the way to restore the original harmony. Target - deification of all creation. Myself man is fully responsible for his actions, because it is endowed with "autonomy", the freedom to choose between good and evil. In the interaction (cooperation) of the will of created beings and the ideas-wills of the Divine ( synergy) is a pledge of perfect union with God.

The ideal image of a prince (and we don’t see anyone except princes or people from their closest circle in ancient Russian literary works) was based on the combination and interpenetration in the “body temple” of the beautiful material and the beautiful spiritual. Here, for example, is how the author of The Tale of Boris and Gleb describes one of his heroes:

« About Boris[what was the view]. Therefore, the faithful Boris is a good son, obedient to the fathers, repenting with all his father. The body was red, tall, only round, the shoulders were great, the tank was in the loins, the eyes were kind, it was cheerful, the beard was small and the mustache was still young. They shine like emperors, strong telm vysyachskts is decorated like a flower of flowers in their humility, in armies, wise and reasonable with everything, and the grace of God blooms on him.

Such a laconic portrait description of Boris contains holistic human concept, representing in an undivided form the system of moral and aesthetic views of a medieval scribe on a person. She, by the way, found a continuation in the Russian classical literature of the new time. Let us recall at least the textbook Chekhov: “ in a person everything should be fine... ". bodily " good-sightedness"(goodness) directly indicates the inner enlightenment of a person and" limit of wisdom”, to the fact that a person (in this case, the prince-passion-bearer) during his lifetime achieved a high degree of perfection in humility, obedience, meekness.

Ancient Russian culture deeply assimilated the Christian medieval ideal of asceticism, which was expressed in the so-called ascetic aesthetics. The latter contrasted everything material, earthly and carnal with the spiritual.

The monk leaves the world and preaches abstinence, pacifying his passions, and mortifies the body through various hardships and self-torture. From the point of view of a modern person, there is nothing aesthetically valuable here. However, the logic of the early medieval hagiographers (compilers of hagiographic tales, biographies of saints) was different. So, for example, the creator of the "Life of Simeon the Stylite", being carried away by the extremes of monastic asceticism, claims a kind of " aesthetics of negation”, the essence of which is to highlight the ugly and disgusting. The writer compares the worms eating the ascetic's flesh with precious pearls, the ascetic's pus with gilding. From the body of Simeon

« an unbearable stench emanates, so that no one has the opportunity to stand next to him, and his bed is teeming with worms ...»

- these details become the object of specific enjoyment, admiration and contemplation.

Modern man can understand such a “philosophy of the beautiful” only if he tries to adequately reveal its moral and religious meaning. The answer is in the original source, the gospel instruction of Jesus Christ about the Pharisees. The Pharisees (representatives of the Jewish sect) attributed to themselves exceptional holiness, despised "unclean" people (including tax collectors - publicans). In medieval Christian literature, these arrogant and deceitful people became the personification of vicious human nature: they are pious only in words, but their true essence is in slavish dependence on the material goods of this world, in the worship of false idols. Christ rebukes the Pharisees:

« All the same, they do their deeds so that people can see them. ”

comparing the wicked to "painted tombs",

"who appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and all kinds of uncleanness."

For the Christian ascetic, the whole worldly life has become a “painted coffin”, in which people already die during their lifetime from vices and satiety of the flesh. The more beautiful and tempting the appearance of the sinner, the more terrible his inner essence. And vice versa, the disgusting side of the earthly "dying" of the flesh (the monk and his mortal body shell have the name are dying for the world) becomes a symbol of inner perfection. Such symbolism, built on the contrast between the sign and the signified, is typical of medieval thinking.

Paradoxical logic is very consonant with the mood of a person who seeks the salvation of the soul, rejecting earthly pleasures. This is the explanation for the "absurd" behavior of the holy fools, who "returned" to the world in order to denounce it. By their actions, they demonstrate contempt for the generally recognized norms of morality. The holy fool eats meat during fasting, dances with harlots. His behavior seems ridiculous, but in fact it is full of deep meaning. Moscow holy fool of the 16th century. Basil the Blessed, passing through the streets, threw stones at the corners of those houses in which they prayed, and kissed the corners of those houses in which they indulged in debauchery, drank wine and sang shameless songs. He interpreted his actions as follows: demons should be driven away from pious people, and kissing corners is a greeting to angels leaving a bad dwelling. However, the extremes of the aesthetics of negation did not conflict with everyday life. One thing - ideal, completely different - code of Conduct.

How is the ideal revealed? Should one strive for it? The ancient scribes answered these questions, guided by the commandments of the "Holy Scripture". The Christian doctrine of man contrasts the "body" with the "flesh":

“He who sows to his own flesh from the flesh will reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

Old Russian writers, brought up on patristic teaching literature, well understood that sin has not material, but spiritual nature(the satanic beginning is realized in the action of evil spirits). Speaking of the high dignity of man, they defined it as the measure of things. Consequently, not only the rational part and the highest element of human nature - "spirit" ( pneumatic), but the body itself, with its inherent expediency and beauty of proportions, received a place in the hierarchy of spiritual values.

The beautiful - material and visible - contains information about the beauty of the absolute - "spiritual". This concept turned out to be a natural organic element of the Christian system of ethical and aesthetic ideas. She received her justification from Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The “one-good-and-beautiful” became the natural cause of many blessings and beautiful visible and invisible creations.

V. V. Bychkov based on the texts of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite establishes the following hierarchy of beauty in Russian spiritual culture:

1. Absolute Divine beauty. A model, the reason for everything that exists, the source of expediency and harmony.

2. The beauty of heavenly beings.

3. The beauty of the phenomena of the material world, everything visible and bodily.

So, earthly beauty served in medieval aesthetics as a symbol of spiritual beauty. Consequently, everything supersensible could receive material expression in symbols and even in naive naturalistic (unsimilar) images.

Human

The family was the center of human life in Ancient Rus'. The extensive and detailed terminology of kinship relations is one of the best confirmations of this. Unfortunately, written sources cover this side of the spiritual life of our ancestors very sparingly. However, even indirect data allow us to draw quite interesting conclusions.

Apparently, the most significant connections were considered, firstly, between brothers and, secondly, between parents and children. The "depth" of ancestral memory rarely went beyond these two generations of relatives. No wonder the nouns Brother», « brothers» most of all other words are used by chroniclers. So, in The Tale of Bygone Years they occur 219 times (i.e., on average, 4.6 mentions per thousand words of the text; for comparison, the most used noun in the Tale is “ summer” - met 412 times - gives 8.8 mentions for every 1000 words, and the next most frequent use is “ son”- met 172 times, respectively 3.7 mentions). In general, the children did little to occupy the chronicler. Words for the next generation lad», « child», « child”), occur ten times less frequently in The Tale of Bygone Years than nouns referring to adult men. Male related terminology makes up slightly less than a third of the entire complex of chronicle nouns, despite the fact that in general “related” vocabulary makes up 39.4% of all nouns used by the chronicler. It should also be noted that the older generation (father-mother; husband-wife) occupies a subordinate position in the annals in comparison with the younger generation (son-daughter; brothers-sisters; children-children); 353 and 481 references respectively. Moreover, the problem of "fathers and children" in the Russian Middle Ages took the form of the problem of "sons and parents"; the relationship between sons, on the one hand, and parents (father, mother), on the other, gives 355 references.

Approximately the same tendencies can be traced on the material of East Slavic anthroponymy, when analyzing proper names that were worn by people in Ancient Rus'. These include personal names, nicknames, nicknames, patronymics and surnames.

personal names - These are the names that are assigned to people at birth and by which they are known in society. In ancient Rus', canonical and non-canonical names were distinguished.

Canonical name- the “true”, “real” name of a person, enshrined in the traditions of the Christian religion. In domestic sources, canonical usually include Orthodox names taken from the church calendar, where the names of canonized saints are listed according to the months and days of their memory (the so-called calendar, or hagiographic, names). In the early stages of the development of feudal society, as a rule, only godparents (baptismal, church), monastic (monastic) and schema names were canonical.

god name given to a person at baptism. It was usually chosen by the priest from the church calendar in accordance with the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the person's birthday or baptism. There are also other motives for assigning a particular name to a person.

The baptismal name is rarely mentioned in early sources, usually only in reports of the death of a given person or in texts written after his death. Perhaps this was due to superstitious ideas about the need to hide the "true" name, which connected a person with a heavenly patron, patron, guardian angel, in order to protect its bearer from "damage", "evil eye".

In ancient Rus', it was popular to designate the baptismal names and patronymics of the customers of icons, works of small plastic arts and jewelry, the owners of hanging seals (up to the 15th century) by depicting saints on these items that are directly related to the family patronage (these names, say, the owner or customer, or his father, etc.). Thanks to the images of patronal saints, when compared with genealogical data, the baptismal names and patronymics of the owners of ancient Russian seals can be restored and many works of art of Ancient Rus' are attributed.

An indirect basis for the restoration of the prince's baptismal name may be evidence of the construction of a church or monastery, since in the princely environment there was a custom to build church buildings in the name of their patron saints. So, the construction of the church of St. Andrei, under whom the monastery was founded by his daughter Yanka, is considered by V. L. Yanin as an indirect confirmation of the baptismal name Andrei belonging to this prince. And the message of the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 882 about the construction of the church of St. Nikola gave reason to some scholars to suggest that Askold was a Christian and bore the baptismal name Nikola. For similar reasons, Yaroslav the Wise is credited with founding the Yuriev, or Georgievsk, monastery three versts from Novgorod.

It is important to emphasize that in Rus' there was a custom to give children names (both pagan and baptismal) in honor of a grandfather or grandmother, which emphasized (especially before the appearance of surnames) belonging to this genus. Based on this custom, V. A. Kuchkin suggested that the sister of Vladimir Monomakh was not called Catherine, as recorded in the Laurentian Chronicle, but Irina (a reading preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle). The researcher justified his choice by the fact that the name of the daughter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich most likely repeated the baptismal name of Vsevolod's mother, Princess Irina, the second wife of Yaroslav the Wise.

Sometimes, among members of the same genus, a certain connection can be traced between the pagan and baptismal names traditional for the family. So, for example, the Chernigov princes are characterized by a combination of the Christian name Nikola, extremely rare for the princely environment (St. Nicholas of Myra was revered in Rus' almost on a par with Christ) with the pagan name Svyatoslav.

Until the second half of the 15th century. baptismal names in the overwhelming majority of cases can be established only for representatives of the feudal elite - princes, members of their families and boyars. The bulk of the population of that time - peasants, artisans, merchants - usually preferred non-calendar, pagan names. Therefore, the mention of the baptismal name in the source (or, conversely, its absence - albeit with less reason) can be considered as a sign indirectly indicating the social affiliation of a person,

monastic name was the second canonical name that a person received when he was tonsured a monk. It replaced his former worldly name. Usually, the tonsured person received the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the day of tonsure, or a calendar name that began with the same letter as the worldly name of a monk or nun. Thus, the Novgorod I Chronicle mentions the boyar Proksha Malyshevitsa, who took the name of Porfiry, the monk Varlaam, during the tonsure, in the world of the boyar Vyacheslav Prokshinych, the Novgorodian Mikhalko, who took the tonsure under the name of Mitrofan, and others.

Schema name was given to a monk at the "third baptism" (the acceptance of a large schema) instead of his monastic name. It was also given to the Moscow tsars and boyars, many of whom, according to tradition, accepted the schema before their death (which ensured their inclusion in the rank of angels). Often, schema-monks, and sometimes monks, were given rare calendar names that were rarely used in the world as baptismal names (Sakerdon, Melchizedek, Akepsiy; Synclitikia, Golinduha, Christodula, etc.). Such names can also be considered as an additional basis for determining the social status of their bearers.

Over time, canonical names gradually replaced non-canonical names in everyday life and began to be used as the only name of a person. At the same time, they often took a non-canonical form in pronunciation and writing. At the same time, a number of pagan, non-calendar names of secular and religious figures of the Russian Middle Ages, canonized by the Orthodox Church, moved into the category of calendar names (for example, Gleb, Boris, Vladimir, Olga, etc.). Their use as canonical names could take place only after the canonization of this saint.

In some cases, the canonical name gave an idea of ​​the religion of its bearer, since many calendar names of the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christian churches differ from each other in form, and the days of memory of the same saints are often celebrated on different days.

Non-canonical (worldly) name usually not associated with religious traditions. It was the second, optional name of a secular person. In Ancient Rus, a worldly name, as a rule, performed

the function of the main name, since it was more famous and common than the cross name. First, it is a non-calendar, pre-Christian name, not associated with the name of any saint. It,

as a rule, it had an “internal” meaning and was supposed to endow its carrier with some qualities useful in life. Later, along with pagan ones, Christian names begin to be used in the same capacity, usually in their folk, colloquial, non-canonical form, for example, Mykola and Mikula instead of the canonical form Nikolai, Mikita instead of Nikita, Gyurgi instead of George, Nefed instead of Methodius, Nero instead of Miron, Upolon instead of Apollo, Theodosius instead of Theodosius, Ophimia instead of Evfimy, Ovdokia or Avdotya instead of Evdokia, etc. The replacement of pagan names with Christian ones was especially active in the princely and boyar environment.

Diminutive or derogatory (pejorative) forms of non-canonical names are often used in sources. It is quite difficult to restore the full form of the name from them. It is especially difficult to do this when it comes to homophonic (coinciding in pronunciation and spelling) forms of various names. In such cases, the incomplete (ellipsed) name can match two or more full names. For example, the name Elka could be formed both from the name of Elisha, and from the name of Elpidifor, or Elizar, and maybe from the non-calendar name El; Zinka - on behalf of Zinovy ​​​​or Zenon; the abbreviated Alyosha could correspond to both Alexei and Alexander; Mitka - to Dmitry and Nikita, etc. At the same time, various variant forms of one name (alonyms) can be found in the source. Let's say such names as Stekhno, Stensha, Stepsha are non-canonical variant forms of one name - Stepan.

Nicknames , unlike names, always reflect not desirable, but real properties and qualities, territorial or ethnic origin, place of residence of their carriers and thus designate a special meaning that these properties and qualities had for others. Nicknames could be given to people at different periods of their lives and were known to a rather limited circle of people.

Nicknames should be distinguished from pagan Old Russian names. However, such a distinction is not always easy to establish. This is connected, in particular, with the custom of giving children names formed from ethnonyms, names of animals, plants, tissues and other objects, “protective” names. Apparently, he wrote about such nicknames at the beginning of the 17th century. English traveler Richard James in his diary dictionary:

"(Prozvishshe), a nickname given by the mother along with the name of the godfather, and they [Russians] are usually called by this name."

Many of these names sound offensive and therefore can be perceived by modern people as nicknames. For example, even among the nobles of the XVI century. there are names Chudim, Kozarin, Rusin, Cheremisin, Mare, Shevlyaga (Klyacha), Stallion, Cat, Goat, Beast, Cow, Woodpecker, Grass, Sedge, Radish, Zhito, Cabbage, Velvet, Aksamit, Izma-ragd, Shovel, Chobot , Vetoshka, Ignorance, Neustroy, Bad, Malice, Nezvan, Dislike, Tat and even Vozgrivaya (Snotty) Mug, etc. Many of these nicknames have existed in separate families for several generations, thereby emphasizing the person's belonging to this genus. They were often used in official documents along with non-calendar names.

An important clarifying part of a person's name in Rus' was and remains surname(patronymic nickname), usually used together with personal names and formed from the name of the father. The patronymic directly indicated the origin and family ties of the person. Along with the names traditional for a given family, it was one of the most important "external" indicators of a person's belonging to a particular genus (at least before the appearance of surnames).

At the same time, in the old days in Rus', the patronymic indirectly indicated the social affiliation of a person, since it was considered an honorary name. If the representatives of the highest feudal aristocracy were called the so-called full patronymic, ending in – HIV, then the middle classes used less honorable forms of patronymic nicknames - semi-patronymic names ending in - ov, - ev, -in, and the lower generally dispensed with patronymics.

Names, patronymics and nicknames have been known since ancient times, while surnames appeared in Rus' rather late. Surnames - these are inherited official names indicating a person's belonging to a particular family. As we have already noted, for several centuries, “ancestral memory” in Rus' was completely managed by two generations of relatives: fathers and children. This was reflected in the increased (in comparison with other terms of kinship) frequency of references to brothers, on the one hand, and fathers and mothers, on the other, unconsciously by the author of the source. This is also confirmed by the fact that naming a person with a paternal nickname as a generic one was considered quite sufficient, and therefore the so-called dedychestvo (personal nicknames formed on behalf of the grandfather) were used extremely rarely. Now (apparently, with the development of private land ownership), a more “deep” genealogy was required, fixed in generic nicknames common to all family members. They appeared only in the XV-XVI centuries, and even then at first only among the feudal lords.

Particular attention should be paid to female non-canonical names. They are almost unknown to them. This alone is an important indicator of the attitude towards women in Ancient Rus'. There are even a number of names that cannot be unambiguously classified as female or male. In particular, we are talking about the names: Guests, met in the Novgorod birch bark of the XIV century. (No. 9); Uncles (author of graffito No. 8 in Novgorod Sofia), Omrosiya (author of Novgorod birch bark No. 59, first half of the 14th century), etc. If these are female names, then we get indisputable evidence of a rather high level of education of ancient Russian women and their struggle for their rights (mentioned Novgorod birch bark No. 9).

Position of a woman. Women are rarely mentioned in chronicles. For example, in The Tale of Bygone Years, there are five times fewer messages related to the fair sex than “male” ones. Women are considered by the chronicler mainly as a “predicate” of a man (however, like children). That is why in Rus', before marriage, a girl was often called by her father, but not in the form of a patronymic, but in a possessive form: “ Volodimerya", and after marriage - according to her husband (in the same as in the first case, "possessive", "possessive" form; cf. turnover: "husband's wife", that is, "belonging to her husband"). Almost the only exception to the rule was the mention of the wife of Prince Igor Novgorod-Seversky in the "Tale of Igor's Campaign" - Yaroslavna. By the way, this served as one of the arguments for A. A. Zimin to substantiate the late dating of the Lay. Very eloquently speaks of the position of women in the family, a quote from worldly parables”, Given by Daniil Zatochnik (XIII century):

“Not a bird in the birds is an owl; nor the beast of a hedgehog; no fish in fish cancer; nor livestock in goat cattle; not a serf into a serf who works for a serf; nor a husband in husbands, who listens to his wife "

Despotic orders, which became widespread in ancient Russian society, did not bypass the family either. The head of the family, the husband, was a serf in relation to the sovereign, but a sovereign in his own house. All household members, but speaking of servants and serfs in the literal sense of the elephant, were also completely subordinate to him. First of all, this applied to the female half of the house. It is believed that in ancient Rus', before marriage, a girl from a well-born family, as a rule, did not have the right to go beyond the parental estate. Her parents were looking for a husband, and she usually did not see him before the wedding.

After the wedding, her husband became her new "owner", and sometimes (in particular, in the case of his infancy - this happened often) and father-in-law. A woman could go outside the new house, not excluding church attendance, only with the permission of her husband. Only under his control and with his permission could she get to know anyone, carry conversations with strangers, and the content of these conversations was also controlled. Even at home, a woman did not have the right to eat or drink secretly from her husband, give gifts to anyone or receive them.

In Russian peasant families, the share of female labor has always been unusually large. Often a woman had to take even a plow. At the same time, the labor of daughters-in-law, whose position in the family was especially difficult, was especially widely used.

The duties of the husband and father included the "teaching" of the household, which consisted in systematic beatings, to which the children and wife were to be subjected. It was believed that a man who does not beat his wife, " does not build his own house" And " does not care about his soul", and will be " ruined" And " in this century and in the future". Only in the XVI century. society tried to somehow protect the woman, to limit the arbitrariness of her husband. So, "Domostroy" advised to beat his wife "not in front of people, to teach alone" and " don't be angry at all" wherein. Recommended " for every fault"[due to trifles]" do not beat by vision, do not beat with a fist, or with a kick, or with a staff, do not beat with any iron or wooden one.

Such "restrictions" had to be introduced, at least as a recommendation, since in everyday life, apparently, husbands were not particularly shy in the means of "explanation" with their wives. No wonder it was immediately explained that those who

“It beats like that from the heart or from the torment, there are many parables from this: blindness and deafness, and the arm and leg will be dislocated, and the finger, and headache, and dental disease, and in pregnant women and children, damage occurs in the womb»

That is why advice was given to beat a wife not for every one, but only for a serious offense, and not with anything and in any way, but

« soimya shirt, whip politely[carefully ! ]to beat, holding hands": "and reasonable, and painful, and scary, and great»

At the same time, it should be noted that in pre-Mongolian Rus', a woman had a whole range of rights. She could become the heiress of her father's property (before marrying). The highest fines were paid by those guilty of " knocking"(rape) and abuse of women" shameful words". A slave who lived with her master as a wife became free after the death of her master. The appearance of such legal norms in the Old Russian legislation testified to the rather wide prevalence of such cases. The existence of entire harems among influential people is recorded not only in pre-Christian Rus' (for example, Vladimir Svyatoslavich), but also at a much later time. So, according to one Englishman, one of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich's close associates poisoned his wife, because she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that her husband kept many mistresses at home.

At the same time, in some cases, a woman, apparently, herself could become a real despot in the family. It is difficult, of course, to say what influenced the views of the author and editors of the “Prayer” and “Words”, popular in Ancient Rus', attributed to a certain Daniil Zatochnik, - childhood impressions about the relationship between father and mother or their own bitter family experience, but in these works a woman does not at all look as defenseless and incomplete as it may appear from the foregoing. Let's hear what Daniel has to say.

“Or say, prince: marry a rich father-in-law; sing that, and eat that. Lutche for me shaking sick; shaking more, shaking, letting go, but the wife dries to death to death ... Fornication in fornication, whoever has an evil wife of profit sharing or father-in-law is rich. It would be better for me to see an ox in my house than an evil-looking wife ... It would be better for me to cook iron than to be with an evil wife. Bo's wife is evil, like a comb [a combed place] : itching here, it hurts here».

Isn't it true that the preference (albeit jokingly) for the hardest craft - smelting the iron of life with an "evil" wife says something?

However, a woman gained real freedom only after the death of her husband. Widows were highly respected in society. In addition, they became full-fledged mistresses in the house. In fact, from the moment of the death of the spouse, the role of the head of the family passed to them,

In general, the wife had all the responsibility for housekeeping, for raising young children. Teenage boys were then transferred for training and education " uncles”(in the early period, really uncles on the maternal side - uyam), who were considered the closest male relatives, since the problem of establishing paternity, apparently, could not always be solved).

Parents and children. The despotic order that reigned in the family could not but affect the position of the children in it. The spirit of slavery cloaked in the false holiness of patriarchal relationships”(N.I. Kostomarov), dominated the relationship between children and parents in Ancient Rus'.

The subordinate position of the child and adolescent and the family is perhaps best confirmed by the fact that in the vast majority of terms that denoted socially unequal segments of the population, they originally referred specifically to the younger members of the family, clan. So the word " man" was formed from the noun " husband"("an adult free, independent person" and at the same time "spouse") with the addition of a diminutive suffix - hic(literally - "little husband"). " Otrok"("child, teenager, youth" and "junior combatant", as well as, at the same time, "servant, slave, worker") literally meant "not speaking", that is, "having no right to speak, the right to vote in the life of the family or tribe." " serf"("enslaved, not free person") is associated with the word " lad"- "boy, boy, guy" and, possibly, came from the root * chol-, from which the old Russian adjective " single, single”, i.e. “unmarried, celibate, incapable of sexual life” (by the way, therefore, in Russkaya Pravda another word is used to refer to dependent women - “ robe»). « Servants"("Slaves, slaves, servants") originally, apparently, referred to the younger members of the clan, family (cf .: Proto-Slavic * sel "ad- “herd, clan”, related to Irish clan- “offspring, clan, clan”, and Olonets “servants” - “children, boys”, as well as Bulgarian “ servants"-" offspring, kind, children"), Finally, the word "human" in the meaning of "a person who is in the service of someone; someone's servant "occurred, according to most modern etymologists, from a combination of two stems, one of which was related to the Proto-Slavic root just considered cel- (“genus, clan, tribe”), and the second - to the Lithuanian word vaikas- "child, cub, descendant, boy" and the Latvian vaiks - "boy, youth".

It can be added to the above that on ancient Russian miniatures and icons, beards were depicted only in people over 30 years old. However, this rule was valid only for the privileged classes. Representatives of the urban and, especially, rural "lower classes", regardless of age, were portrayed as beardless. From this it is clear why, for example, in Russkaya Pravda for " depredation“A beard or mustache was supposed to be incredibly high, in the opinion of the reader of the end of the 20th century, a fine of 12 hryvnia (as for a stolen beaver and only three times less than the fine for killing a free man). The persistent mention that St. Boris " small beard and mustache(but there is!) young be more". The absence of a beard served as evidence of the incompetence or incompleteness of a person, while pulling out a beard was an insult to honor and dignity.

The constant shortage of workers led to very ugly phenomena of peasant life in Rus'. The hunger for laborers penetrated the very structure of the peasant family. Therefore, children from a very early age were used in various jobs. However, since they were obviously inferior workers, parents often married their sons already at the age of 8-9 to adult women, wanting to get an extra worker. Naturally, the position of a young wife who came under such conditions to her husband's family could hardly really differ in any significant way from that of a slave. This disfigured family relations, giving rise to such phenomena as daughter-in-law, etc.

Beating children for "instructive" purposes was considered the norm. Moreover, the authors of many ancient Russian instructions, including the famous Domostroy, recommended doing this systematically:

« executions[punish] your son from his youth, and rest thee in your old age and give beauty to your soul; and do not weaken, beating the baby: if you beat him with a rod, he will not die, but he will be healthy. For you, beating him on the body, and delivering his soul from death ... Loving your son, increase his wounds, but after him rejoice, execute your son from childhood and rejoice in him in courage ... Do not laugh at him, creating games: in if you are afraid of weakening yourself a little, you will be more grieving [you will suffer] grieving ... And you will not give him power in his youth, but crush his ribs, he grows too long, and, having hardened, will not obey you and will be vexed, and illness of the soul, and vanity of the house, death estate, and reproach from neighbors, and laughter before enemies, before power payment [fine] , and the vexation of evil»

The norms of attitude towards children, declared in the 16th century, were in force even half a thousand years before the lines just quoted were written. The mother of Theodosius of the Caves, as the author of his "Life" repeatedly emphasized, tried to influence her son with just such methods. Each of his offenses, whether it was an attempt to engage in a business that was unusual for a person of his class, or secretly wearing chains to “depress the flesh”, or running away from home with pilgrims to the Holy Land, was punished with extraordinary, in the opinion of a person of the late 20th century, cruelty. The mother beat her son (even with her feet) until she literally collapsed from fatigue, put him in shackles, etc.

Marriage and sexual relations . In medieval society, “depression of the flesh” was of particular value. Christianity directly connects the idea of ​​the flesh with the idea of ​​sin. The development of the "anti-corporeal" concept, already found in the apostles, follows the path of "devilization" of the body as a repository of vices, a source of sin. The doctrine of original sin, which actually consisted of pride, over time acquired an increasingly distinct anti-sexual orientation.

In parallel with this, in the official religious settings, there was an all-round exaltation of virginity. However, it was not the girl who kept “purity” before marriage, apparently, initially it was valued only by the elite of society. Among " simpletons”, According to numerous sources, premarital sex in Rus' was viewed condescendingly. In particular, until the XVII century. society was quite tolerant of girls visiting spring-summer " games”, which provided the opportunity for pre- and extramarital sexual contacts:

“When this very holiday comes, not all the city will be taken up in tambourines and in snot ... And with all sorts of incomparable games of Sotonin splashing and splashing. For wives and girls - the head of the nakivanie and their mouths are hostile cry, all-bad songs, their wobbling with a grunt, their feet jumping and trampling. Here there is a great fall as a man and a child, nor a woman's and girl's vacillation. It is the same for wives with husbands, lawless desecration right there ... ”

Naturally, the participation of girls in such " games"led - and, apparently, often - to" corruption of virginity". Nevertheless, even according to church laws, this could not serve as an obstacle to marriage (the only exceptions were marriages with representatives of the princely family and priests). In the village, premarital sexual contacts of both boys and girls were considered almost the norm.

Experts note that the ancient Russian society recognized the right of a girl to freely choose a sexual partner. This is evidenced not only by the long-term preservation of the custom of marriage in Christian Rus'. withdrawal", by kidnapping the bride by prior agreement with her. Church law even provided for the responsibility of parents who forbade a girl to marry at her choice, if she "what to do with herself." Indirectly, the rather severe punishments of rapists testify to the right of free sexual choice of girls. " Who molested a girl by force"was to marry her. In case of refusal, the culprit was excommunicated from the church or punished with a four-year fast. Perhaps it is even more curious that twice as much punishment awaited in the 15th-16th centuries. those who persuaded the girl to intimacy " cunning", promising to marry her: the deceiver was threatened with a nine-year penance (religious punishment). Finally, the church ordered to continue to consider the raped girl (though, provided that she resisted the rapist and screamed, but there was no one who could come to her aid). A slave raped by her master received complete freedom along with her children.

The basis of the new, Christian, sexual morality was the rejection of pleasures and bodily joys. Marriage, although perceived as a lesser evil than debauchery, was nevertheless marked by the seal of sinfulness.

In ancient Rus', the only meaning and justification of sexual life was seen in procreation. All forms of sexuality that pursued other goals not related to childbearing were considered not only immoral, but also unnatural. In the “Questioning Kirikov” (XII century), they were evaluated “ like sodom sin". The attitude towards sexual abstinence and moderation was supported by religious and ethical arguments about the sinfulness and baseness of the “carnal life”. Christian morality condemned not only lust, but also individual love, since it allegedly interfered with the fulfillment of the duties of piety. One might get the impression that in such an atmosphere, sex and marriage were doomed to extinction. However, the gap between the prescriptions of the church and everyday life practice was very large. That is why ancient Russian sources pay special attention to questions of sex.

According to Questioning, spouses were required to avoid sexual contact during fasts. Nevertheless, this restriction seems to have been violated quite often. No wonder Kirik was worried about the question:

« Is it worthy to give communion to him, even to eat with his wife during Great Lent?»

Bishop of Novgorod Nifont, to whom he addressed, despite his indignation at such violations

« Teach qi, speech, refrain from fasting from wives? You are wrong!»

was forced to make concessions:

« If they cannot [abstain], but in the front week and in the last»

Apparently, even the clergyman understood that it was impossible to achieve unconditional fulfillment of such instructions. Bishop of Novgorod Nifont, to whom he addressed, despite his indignation at such violations

Single " on a big day[at Easter], let us keep the pure great fasting", it was allowed to take communion despite the fact that those" sometimes sinned". True, first it was necessary to find out with whom " sinned". It was believed that fornication with " man's wife There is more evil than with an unmarried woman. The possibility of forgiveness for such transgressions was envisaged. At the same time, the norms of behavior for men were softer than for women. The offender most often faced only the appropriate suggestion, while rather severe punishments were imposed on the woman. Sexual taboos set for women might not apply to the stronger sex at all.

Spouses, in addition, were ordered to avoid cohabitation on Sundays, as well as on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, before communion and immediately after it, since “ in these days a spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord". Let us also recall that parents were forbidden to conceive a child on Sunday, Saturday and Friday. For violation of this prohibition, parents were entitled to penance " two summers". Such prohibitions were based on apocryphal literature (and in particular on the so-called " Commandment of the Holy Fathers" And " Skinny Nomokanunians”), so many priests did not consider them mandatory.

Even an “impure” dream could become a worthy punishment. However, in this case, it was necessary to carefully consider whether the one who saw the shameful dream was subject to the lust of his own flesh (if he dreamed of a familiar woman) or whether he was tempted by Satan. In the first case, he could not take communion, in the second he was simply obliged to take communion,

« for otherwise the tempter [ devil] will not stop attacking him at the time when he should partake»

This also applied to the priest:

« More blasphemy [“unclean” dream] will be from the devil in the night, is it worthy to serve at dinner, after rinsing, the prayer has risen? - If, he said, you will be diligent with the thought of which wife, then you will not be worthy; more…. soton to seduce, but leave the church without [without] service, then rinsing serve»

It is interesting that the woman seemed to be more evil than the devil, since the natural carnal attraction and the erotic dreams associated with it were declared unclean and unworthy of the priesthood (or a person in general), while the same dreams, caused by the alleged devilish influence, deserved forgiveness.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that compulsory marriage, established by the Orthodox Church for the white clergy, brought the priest closer to his flock in everyday life. And the life of a married clergyman put forward essentially the same questions that the priest then had to solve in relation to his"children"" (B. A. Romanov).

Society

Team and personality . Russia is a country with deep and stable traditions. They are her wealth. The stability of the social structure of Russian society and state forms, way of life and spiritual culture are amazing and deserve the deepest respect. Generated in many respects by the relative isolation of the country, they themselves become its component.

Continuation and at the same time providing traditionalism Russian spiritual culture became her collectivism. In Ancient Rus', the peasant community (peace, rope) had indisputable and indestructible authority. For centuries, it remained the most general conservative beginning of the life of society. It was the collective and its memory that were the bearers of the tradition and its defenders. In the city, collectivist tendencies were embodied in the popular assembly.

The collectivism inherent in our spiritual culture has given rise to a number of features that characterize Russian society from ancient times to the present day.

First of all, this is denial of the value of the individual. How deep it is, at least shows that the vast majority of the people of Ancient Rus' are anonymous - if not literally, then in essence. Even when giving names, the sources tend to retain almost no information about their personal qualities. With great difficulty, and even then not always, it is possible to find their biographical data. The personalities of all turn out to be "absorbed" by one Personality - the sovereign. Our ideas about many prominent figures in Russian history have a clearly "mythological" character.

The tradition of "depersonalization" was reinforced by economic factors. Throughout Russian history, collective forms of ownership of land dominated: communal, monastic, state. Private property, as already noted, did not receive such distribution and "weight" here as in Western European countries.

Power and personality . The collective ownership and authority of "public assemblies" in Rus' brought to life the notion that only some external force that stands above everyone and is not subordinate to anyone can govern the life of society. The basis of such ideas lay, however strange it may seem at first glance, and the specifics of the most collective form of social management.

Despite the fact that the legends about the first steps of ancient Russian statehood as a description of specific events are hardly credible, nevertheless, they retain memories of some real facts. In particular, it is possible that among the first East Slavic rulers (as well as in Slavic Bulgaria, Frankish Normandy and many other European countries) foreign warriors prevailed - sometimes invaders (Kiy), sometimes specially invited for this (Rurik). The invitation of princes "from outside" seemed quite normal (if not natural) phenomenon in the conditions of the formation of the state.

Veche orders made it possible to resolve issues of only a certain degree of complexity. The interests of small territorial associations, represented at the veche meeting by the heads of families and communities, outweighed the common interests of the nascent community. Therefore, as such a community expanded, there was an increasing danger that collective decision-making would escalate into open conflict between communities. Recall that the Novgorodians, who had expelled the Varangians in their time, were forced to ask them to return because of internal conflicts. With the veche order of solving common problems, a large society carried the danger of great conflicts, irreversible disorganization, and catastrophe.

A special institution that stood above the interests of the constituents could prevent the conflict. People who did not belong to any of the cells that made up the new social association were able to become spokesmen for non-local rather than common interests to a much greater extent. The state, represented by such a group of persons or one person, became a powerful institution that consolidated society, capable of judge by right", organize joint actions of individual clans (tribes) to defend their lands or to develop new territories or control trade routes (which in Eastern Europe acquired particular importance).

Alienation of power functions from society led to a further denial of the role of the personality of the "ordinary" person. Accordingly, the need of the individual for free expression of will as a value realized and accepted by society also faded away. Moreover, relying on collectivist traditions, society actively suppressed attempts at such an expression of will, if they did appear. So, all members of ancient Russian society, except for the ruler himself, were denied freedom. As a result, this led to the personification of power - the identification of power functions with a specific person who performs them. Becoming a ruler, a person stood out from society, rose above it. Similar tendencies found quite definite expression already in the activities of Andrei Bogolyubsky, who tried to become the first of the ancient Russian princes to become "self-ruler".

However, despotic personified power posed the most serious danger to its bearer. The same Andrey Yurievich Bogolyubsky paid with his life for trying to establish it. If the combatants could drive off”from an objectionable prince, with whom they were in contractual vassal-suzerain relations, then the“ merciful ”were completely deprived of such an opportunity. They were not equal with him in position, they did not travel with him in public, but were servants who received a reward. There was only one way they could get rid of the despotic master - by physically eliminating him.

Personality and freedom . The concept of freedom in Russian spiritual culture had a special content. In practice, it has always been perceived as non-dependence, freedom from something or someone. The very proto-Slavic word *sveboda associated with Church Slavonic property or property — « persona", in which the root *svob descended from svojь(cf.: " mine”) and denoted the position of an independent member of the genus, independent of the elders.

The place of personal freedom (in the "European" sense of the word) in Russian spiritual culture was occupied by the category will. It is interesting that in Russian this word denotes both “power, the ability to dispose”, and “freedom, the ability to fulfill one's desires”. The words “command”, “command”, “allow”, “power” are formed from it.

It is curious that the central figure of Old Russian culture, Old Russian self-consciousness more often became not the winner, but the victim. It is characteristic that it was the victims who became the first saints of Ancient Rus': “ innocent victims"Brothers Boris and Gleb, whose whole merit was that they did not resist their own murder. True, it was organized by their elder brother, who, of course, should have been obeyed implicitly! Yaroslav the Wise, who avenged the murderer for them, did not receive such an honor, although his own contribution to the development of Russian statehood, and to the development of domestic legislation, and to the Christianization and enlightenment of Rus' is undeniable.

Many “messianic” assessments of the events of Russian history in Russian chronicles are closely connected with the category of sacrifice. They seem to justify in advance the sacrifices that were made in the name of collective interests. In addition, the need for such a sacrifice removed from the agenda the issue of the lack of personal freedom, and at the same time the responsibility for unjustified losses. It was worth realizing the need for sacrifice - and voluntary consent to one's slaughter turned into the highest freedom.

Personality and law . In the early stages of the development of ancient Russian society, a purely natural (pagan-mythological) understanding of the essence of man freed moral assessments from a sense of human justice, that is, from the consciousness of guilt. As you know, "myths do not teach morality." The moral law of the epic consciousness protected the right of individual arbitrariness of the "strong personality". Consequently, the goal, duty and main virtue of the epic hero was the unconditional exercise of his individual right. In other words, personal valor was put at the forefront, but not conscience, which, as if, inevitably had to lead to arbitrariness.

The relations of people in society were regulated by folk custom. Ordinary norms were treated as inviolable, sacred institutions, which enjoyed the greater respect and authority, the older they seemed. " Antiquity The custom gave him strength. Of course, in reality, over time, the custom was transformed. However, the content of the custom was gradually corrected, reflecting changes in the life of the tribe, for the most part in addition to the consciousness of people. In their memory, the custom seemed to remain the same. A radical change in the accepted norm was not allowed. And the way of life of traditional society, which changed more on the surface than in essence, ruled out any serious shifts in law. Customary law is conservative law.

However, as social life became more complex, it was necessary to regulate those relations that went beyond the scope of customary law and did not obey it. “Strong personalities” (the prince and his retinue) had, first of all, to formulate the norms of their relations with the townspeople and communal peasants, from whom they received tribute and whom they protected (including from themselves!). Thus, they not only consolidated the emerging new social traditions, but also guaranteed the observance of certain norms that limited their own arbitrariness. The creation of such legal acts protected both those who paid for the failed raid and those who charged such a fee.

How relevant this was is shown by the conflict between Prince Igor and the Drevlyans. As we remember, an attempt to re-collect tribute led to the murder of an unfortunate "racketeer". The immediate consequence of the tragedy was a series of legislative measures taken by his widow, Princess Olga. As the chronicler writes, she had to pass through tribute-paying territories, “ establishing statutes and lessons».

To replace the vital-egoistic principle “I want” in the relationship between those who stood above society, and the society itself followed the conscious-volitional principle “must”. The implementation of this principle had to be based on a certain system of values, until that moment, apparently absent in society (at least in an explicit form). Customary law, which for thousands of years had previously regulated relations between people, was now supplemented by written law, which proceeded not only from the oral and ritual tradition, but also from the written tradition. The custom was reinforced and developed in the "Holy Scripture", from which (along with the monuments of Byzantine legislation) new legal norms were mainly drawn.

The first monument of such a “paper” law that has come down to our time was “ Russian Truth". Its very name already included the word (“truth”), from which almost the entire modern legal the lexicon is "right", "justice", "rightness", "rule" and even "righteous". Meanwhile, its original meaning, in which it existed in Ancient Rus', differs significantly from our understanding of what is behind the word "truth". Hence the ordinary idea of ​​the injustice of that world. What did it mean?

Root *pro- probably Proto-Indo-European. Plunging into the depths of time by comparing related languages, etymologists found that its earliest meanings were “strong, outstanding (in strength or abundance)”, later they were joined by “active, courageous, standing in front”, then “clothed with power, having right” and, finally, “kind, honest, decent”. In Ancient Rus', the first of these meanings, most likely, was dominant. By the way, that's why gum the hand, which is stronger in most people, is called by us right. The idea of ​​law and truth is traditionally associated within the meaning of with the concept of force, violence.

The establishment of rightness among the peoples of traditional cultures, including our ancestors, was closely connected with the idea of ​​divine justice. The main thing was not so much to establish who is guilty and who is not, but to find out whether the actions of a person received the sanction of higher powers, whether they correspond good, inaccessible to direct human perception and understanding. Therefore, the solution of legal issues very often relied not on a legal norm precisely formulated by a person, but on whether this or that action was committed by God's permission, "allowance" or not. Hence the widespread practice of resolving litigation by "God's judgment": a trial with iron, water, or a legal duel (" field"). The winner clearly proved which side God is on, and therefore was right. He was given " right» A letter is a court decision. The defeated one (" killed”, according to the terminology of the XV-XVI centuries) was recognized as guilty or a loser. The practice of court fights existed in Rus' at least until the middle of the 16th century.

Even the role of witnesses (" vidokov" or " rumors”) was reduced to testifying not so much “about the fact”, but about “ good reputation» of the person on whose side they spoke in court. Thus, their function, apparently, was primarily to provide "moral" support to the plaintiff or defendant. And such support was determined not by knowledge of the truth and the desire to demonstrate it, but by connections with a person who attracted them to participate in a lawsuit on his side. The purpose of the process was not to clarify and prove the facts - they seemed self-evident or became so as a result of taking the appropriate oaths and performing the necessary actions. The court, as an instance designed to establish the truth, obviously did not exist in Ancient Rus'; it was replaced by a process of competition between litigants. The court was called upon to monitor the strict and unswerving observance of the "rules of the game" by them. I. Huizinga's idea that among ancient peoples, litigation was to a large extent a competition in the literal sense of the word, which gave the participants a sense of moral satisfaction in itself, regardless of its outcome, can be fully attributed to ancient Russian legal proceedings.

Another distinguishing feature of the ancient Russian systems of law was that " right[loyal] court"could be such only if it took place with the strictest observance of all procedures. The slightest deviation from the "standard" was fraught with failure. The strictest adherence to all the detailed prescriptions of the procedure was considered absolutely necessary. The explanations of judicial procedures and customs offered by modern researchers, which are reflected in Russkaya Pravda, Measures of the Righteous, Pilot Books and other similar legislative sources, inevitably have a rationalistic character. An inalienable need of the thinking of a person of our time is the desire to find some interpretation of certain actions of a person, based on "common sense". However, the norms that we find in ancient Russian legislative acts are organically linked with consciousness, which differently perceived and mastered the social world. There is no certainty that for the participants in the legal procedures themselves, everything in them was quite clear and they could reveal the meaning of each symbol or symbolic action. Apparently, they did not need such an explanation at all, and a rational explanation, familiar to a person of modern times, in fact, would not explain anything to them. The effectiveness and legitimacy of normative rituals was not related to their comprehensibility to the performers. As already noted, the main thing was in accordance with the "old times".

A characteristic feature of common and early written law was its publicity. The system of such law, based on a detailed formalism and a comprehensive ritualization of its norms, was a kind of mechanism for "inclusion" of the individual in society. The subject of social activity was the group to which the individual belonged, performing the prescribed traditional functions, following the categorical imperatives of behavior. A man of Ancient Rus' is a man of a group, an organic collective in which he was born and to which he belonged throughout his life. Only as a member of this collective, he could enjoy legal capacity.

All of the above features of the Old Russian legal system to a greater or lesser extent continued to exist in subsequent times. For several centuries, the laws that were in force on the Russian lands were only supplemented, remaining basically unchanged. So, "Russian Truth" of the XII-XIII centuries. was based on the "Russian Law", mentioned as early as the beginning of the 10th century. It, in turn, was repeated by the “Sudebniks” of 1497 and 1550, and they were repeated by the “Cathedral Code” of 1649.

ethnic identity . One of the most important characteristics of a person of any world, including Ancient Rus', was and remains his idea of ​​his own involvement in a particular community (ethnic, political, confessional).

“When studying the processes of ethnic development,” writes B. N. Florya, “for a long time, the tendency to establish “objective” signs of certain ethnic communities (the presence of a territory of compact residence, unity of language, etc.) prevailed. However, as research progressed, it became more and more clear that all these "objective" signs are only certain conditions for the development of a process that takes place primarily in the sphere of social consciousness. This or that community of people makes an ethnos the presence of its special ethnic self-awareness, which is characterized by a clear awareness of the differences between the ethnos "one's own" and "alien". Therefore, it is precisely by tracing the history of the development of ethnic self-consciousness that one can establish the main stages in the development of a particular ethnic group. All that has been said fully applies to the history of the Slavic ethnic community.

Sources make it possible, at least in general terms, to establish to which community and how the ancient Russian person considered himself. Chronicle data are of paramount importance in this. They allow us to believe with a high degree of confidence that for the compiler and potential reader of the chronicle, the most important was involvement, firstly, with the descendants of Adam, secondly, with the heirs of Japheth, thirdly, with Christians, fourthly, with the Slavs, fifthly, to a specific branch of the Slavs (including the descendants of one or another tribe of Eastern Slavs) and, finally, sixthly, to the inhabitants of a certain city or territory adjoining it.

In "The Tale of Bygone Years"

“First of all, the adherence to the category of “universal” is noticeable, without expressive distinction between “one’s own” or “foreign” ethnic groups, dividing them by borders.”

“to find a large geographical landmark of settlement for each people, and not petty draw ethnic boundaries ... The chronicler himself formulated the principle of connecting peoples with conspicuous places, leading to the problem of “one’s own / not one’s own”: “on the ground ... where is the seat on which place: ... on the river ... "," I live every ... in my place ... on the mountain "and so on .... However, in general, the principle of subject-landscape orientation prevailed, rather than delimitation ... In general, the principle was maintained: people + a large geographical feature, implying "one's own / not one's own."

These were not precise political, legal, or linguistic categories of "one's own" and "alien", but relatively vague feelings and emotional-figurative representations, manifested by no means in terms of terminology and not in uniform statements. At the same time, it is felt that the chronicler was constantly looking for some formal criteria for separating “us” and “them”. For him, language was such a source, or at least a very significant feature. Here is what B. N. Florya writes about this:

“One of the important signs of the unity of the Slavs as a special ethnic community was for people of the early Middle Ages that all Slavs speak the same “Slavic” language common to all of them. The belief that all Slavs speak the same language common to them, and that therefore all Slavic peoples can use both writing and translations made by Cyril and Methodius, is expressed with greater force in the Long Lives of Cyril and Methodius and in other texts of the Cyril and Methodius circle. ".

However, as it is not difficult to see, in this case we are talking primarily about the written language, the language of bookish, primarily Christian, culture. The own language of one or another part of the Slavic world became an ethnic "marker" at a later time. According to B. N. Flora,

“In the era of the early Middle Ages, all Slavs believed that they spoke the same “Slavic” language, but by the 13th century. the situation has changed. In the second half of the XII century. we meet the first mention of the "Czech" language, in the beginning. 13th century - about "Polish", in the texts of the XIII century. the "Bulgarian" language also begins to be mentioned in those contexts where the "Slavic" language was previously spoken of. From that time on, it was their own special "language" that became the main sign of a special nationality. Before the "Slavs" of the Byzantine cultural circle, for whom even in the XIII century. Old Church Slavonic remained the most important means of mutual communication, the question arose of how this common language for many (and not only Slavic) peoples correlates with the real-life, distinct languages ​​of such individual peoples. (Italics mine. - I.D.)

So far, the language factor has served only as a sign of belonging to an extremely wide, and therefore largely ephemeral, Slavic-Christian community. This criterion was neither ethnic nor political in the minds of ancient Russian people.

Much more concrete for him was his involvement in a certain rather narrow urban locus.

“It would seem,” writes A.P. the ephemerality of the existence of a common Eastern European (more precisely, Eastern Slavic) community and its replacement by self-consciousness at the level of the land-principality. Of course, ethnocultural ties in each specific micro-region strengthened both horizontally and vertically. But, in our opinion, even in times of fragmentation in Rus', the nationality continued to exist at certain levels of social consciousness. This was due to the peculiarities of socio-economic relations in Rus', and first of all they consisted in the struggle between centrifugal and centripetal tendencies, as well as in the specifics of feudal holding throughout the entire ancient Russian period.

At the same time, however, the problem arises of identifying those features that would still make it possible to single out on the pages of written sources the idea of ​​an ancient Russian person about his belonging to a certain single “nationality”. Until such a formal criterion is found, one will have to agree with the opinion of the author cited above that

"in the Middle Ages, in general, a very significant part of the population was non-ethnic."

This applies primarily to representatives of the "lower classes" who are not covered by the "elitist" book culture:

“The broad masses of the people at that time,” says A.P. Motsya, “participated in the integration processes very weakly. It is difficult to imagine a high awareness of their unity by the smerds sitting (for example) near Galich and Pskov - their "world" was real and occupied a much smaller size.

The question of revealing the elements of the self-consciousness of the “popular masses” proper is extremely complicated. First of all, it has not yet been possible to determine the circle of sources in which their self-consciousness would be adequately reflected. It may be objected to me that such texts are known. This is primarily folklore, in which a special place is given to epics. In particular, according to B.N. Flory,

“it seems ... possible to compare the system of ideas reflected in the epics about the place of one’s country and people in the world around us with the system of ideas that we find in the annals and other literary monuments of Kievan Rus. For the ideas reflected in the epics and chronicles, a feeling of deep patriotism is common: the main feat of the epic heroes is the defense of Kyiv and the Russian land from its traditional enemies - nomadic neighbors. For the sake of this, they leave the feasts in the prince's gritnitsa to stand at the heroic "outposts" for many years. As in the chronicles, the nomads in epics are contrasted with the inhabitants of "holy Rus'" as "nasty" who do not honor Christ and do not worship icons. However, the pathos of the "holy war" against the infidels, characteristic of the historical monuments of the early feudal society, is alien to the creators of epics. If the author of the introduction to the Primary Code of the second half of the XI century. praised the “old” princes and their combatants for not only “baraking the Russian land”, but also “giving countries for themselves”, and in general “feeding, warring other countries”, then the creators of epics, although they are sure and the superiority of their heroes over the heroes of other peoples, the theme of conquest campaigns is also alien. All these comparisons indisputably speak of only one thing: the lower classes of the people had their own views and ideas, which by no means coincided with what we find in the official tradition.

This thesis is acceptable, of course, if we ignore the fact that the question remains open; on what basis are the texts that tell about " heroes" And " outposts of the heroic”, can be attributed to the history of Rus' in the 10th-11th centuries? After all, these words themselves appeared in sources no earlier than the 13th century. " Bogatyrs”, which are described in epics, is a rather late borrowing from the Turkic languages ​​\u200b\u200b(M. Vasmer). The earliest mentions of it are recorded in the Ipatiev Chronicle (South Russian collection of the end of the 13th century) under 1240, 1243 and 1262. It is characteristic that in the first articles with the mention of "heroes" they are talking about the Mongol invasion (in particular, under 1240 it is present in the combination " Bouroundai bogatyr"). The word is " outpost” was first mentioned in the same Ipatiev Chronicle under 1205 in the meaning of “ambush”, and in the meaning of “a detachment left to protect any routes”, “border outpost” - and in general in the 17th century.

In addition, the names and patronymics of most of the heroes of epics ( Ilya, Alyosha, Mikula, Dobrynya Nikitich etc.) - Christian, calendar. Along with the mention of the usual for us forms of female patronymics ( Amelfa Timofeevna, Zabava Putyatichna, Marfa Dmitrievna) this gives grounds to suspect a rather late (not earlier than the 16th-17th centuries) origin of the “starin”, at least in the form in which they were recorded.

Consequently, if East Slavic folklore sources (and all of them, I repeat, have been preserved only in the records of modern times) are used to reconstruct the mental structures of the early history of Rus', then their involvement should have a powerful theoretical justification. It should explain, in particular, what, in fact, allows these texts to be dated to a time earlier than the words of which they are composed? How did it happen that the lexical replacements of the basic vocabulary of oral works (what else do the earliest Russian epics tell about, if not about heroes and heroic outposts?) did not affect the content of the “stars”? And, finally, on what basis are the restored mental structures dated not to the time of existence (and recording) of these folklore works, but to the time of their origin? Without resolving these issues, any reconstruction of the ideas of the ancient Russian "lower classes" based on epic materials can, apparently, be considered only as working hypotheses.

In the meantime, it remains to agree with the opinion of A. S. Demin, who writes:

“It can be assumed that in The Tale of Bygone Years, especially in its first half, the chronicler of the beginning of the 12th century. looked at the world of the past as a world full of sights and mysteries and almost completely not "foreign", although with many "not his" ethnic groups. The chronicler expressed an active, unobstructed, optimistic attitude and, in essence, continued to live in the mood of the 11th century. The bitter division of peoples into "us" and "them" arose quite recently and concerned only modernity, first with the compiler of the "Initial Code", and soon with Nestor.

It is characteristic that these new "painful ideas," says A. S. Demin,

“were expressed separately, in isolated cases, and only at the end of the Primary Code. They were not developed by Nestor, who, in the new beginning of the chronicle, narrated about the history of the habitats of peoples and about various sights, without touching at all on the question of "one's own" or "alien". Nestor wrote about neutral landmarks intended for each and every person on his way, without the feeling that the border between "us" and "them" is being crossed. The whole world is "not a stranger". Such an attitude of the chronicler, apparently, was associated with a phenomenon that historians, with reference to B. A. Rybakov, called "hybridization", "international syncretism" of culture as a special qualitative characteristic of early feudal society.

For such an open worldview, the blurring of the delimitation of ethnic poles was natural. Indeed, whom did the chronicler originally refer to as "friends" by tribal, confessional, or other group affiliation, and whom - unconditionally as "strangers"? This can be seen from the use of the words "we" and "our" in the author's speech (not in the speeches of the characters!) The chronicler considered Christians in general, their entire community, to be “his own”, and this was proclaimed at the beginning of The Tale of Bygone Years: “We are Christians, like the earth, who believe in the Holy Trinity and in one baptism, in one faith, for which the imams are one.” This chronicler repeated further: "But we, the peasants of existence ..." (under 1015), "we ... accept bookish teaching" (under 1037), etc. Both Nestor and his predecessors thought so.

Undoubtedly, another large entity, in which the chroniclers included themselves, acted as "our own" - Rus', the Russian land: "we are. Rus' ... us, Rus'" (under 898), "our land ... our villages and our cities" (under 1093). For the chronicler, it was natural to refer to the princes of Rus' as "our prince" (under 1015), to the united army of Rus' as "ours": "ours are with fun on horseback and walk on foot" (under 1103), "ours are a bowl of sich" (under 1107). The Russian land was also implied in the chronicler's frequent condemnations of "our wickedness" and "our sin" (under 1068, and many others). He could blame "ours", but they remained "theirs".

However, the harmonious system of “ours” and “aliens” was absent in the annals… absolutely not belonging to “ours”, it was expressed only at the end of the Tale of Bygone Years, when the chronicler, once again talking about the Polovtsy, suddenly spoke about “our enemies”: "(under 1093)," our chauffeur ... flee the former foreigner ... many defeat our that padosha "(under 1096). The chronicler began to emphasize the separation of "them" from "us" with additional designations: "foreigners", "sons of Ishmael", "foreign people", "we are cunning sons of Ishmaelev ... we are betrayed to be in the hands of the language of countries well" (under 1093).

But until the chronicler felt keenly "strangers", he was focused on a vast transitional area: on ethnic groups and individuals, not absolutely "strangers", but not quite "ours", but psychologically strangers to "ours" or strange to "ours" … There is some estrangement between them.”

It is noteworthy that the division into “us” and “them” proposed by A.S. Demin exactly corresponds to the question we have already discussed about what the category of “Russian land” is in ancient Russian sources. If we recall that “Russian” (that is, “ours”, in the terminology of A. S. Demin) is “Christian”, “orthodox”, then the “sudden” transformation of the Polovtsy into “our enemies” (read: enemies Christians) exactly corresponds to the general eschatological

orientation of the "Tale of Bygone Years" in articles 1093-1096. In them, the Polovtsy are described as "Ismailians", whose invasion should have immediately preceded the arrival of the peoples of Gog and Magog, "riveted" by Alexander the Great somewhere in the north until the "last times" ...

From this, a very important conclusion follows for us: in all likelihood, the self-consciousness of the inhabitants of Ancient Rus' (more precisely, the elite self-consciousness) did not have a proper ethnic or political character. Rather, it can be attributed to ethno-confessional ideas. Apparently, this should not be forgotten when it comes to Old Russian patriotism and love for the “Russian Land”.

I. N. Danilevsky

From the book “Ancient Rus' through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries). Lecture course"

1. Symbolic perception of the world of ancient Russian man.
2. Icon language.
3. Animals - real and mythical.
4. Animals as symbols.
5. The moralizing meaning of stories about the surrounding world.
6. The primacy of symbolism over facts.

Today our conversation will be about the world in which the people of Ancient Rus' lived, we will talk about how what was called the created world was perceived. That is, what was created by God, and what surrounded man. First of all, these are various animals, stones, plants - the surrounding world as a whole. It must be said that the created world was perceived by our ancestors mainly symbolically. In the basis of the worldview of ancient Rus' lies, speaking in a relatively late language, what was called silent theology. That is why in Rus' we do not find theological treatises that tell in detail about how a person sees the world, how he perceives it, how he lives in it. The Orthodox believer strove to comprehend the divine revelation not through scholastic reasoning or observation, not with reason, not with an external look, as, say, a Catholic, but with internal eyes. The essence of the world, it was believed, could not be understood. It is comprehended only by immersion in faith texts, in canonical images, in statements approved by the authority of the Church Fathers and fixed by tradition. That is why there are no theological treatises in Rus'. Moreover, in Ancient Rus' we do not find images that tend to be illusory, photographic accuracy in conveying the external features of the visible world, like Western European painting. In Rus' until the end of the 17th century. both in painting and in literature, the icon dominated - a special figurative perception and reflection of the world. Everything is strictly regulated here: plot, composition, even color. Therefore, at first glance, ancient Russian icons are so "similar" to each other - despite the fact that they can be completely different, even if they are painted on the same subject.
It is worth taking a closer look at them - after all, they are designed for the fact that a person will look at them during daily prayer for several hours - and we will see how different they are in their inner world, in mood, in feelings laid down by nameless artists of the past. In addition, each element of the icon - from the gesture of the character to the absence of any obligatory details - carries a number of meanings. But in order to penetrate them, one must master the language in which the old Russian “icon” speaks to the viewer, in the broad sense of the word – both texts and images. Best of all, the meanings that the ancient Russian person laid in the world around him are spoken by the texts that introduced the reader to the world around him, which directly explain to the reader what is meant by each specific image. I will give a few examples.
For example, in Rus', animals were perceived in a rather peculiar way. The people of Ancient Rus', of course, encountered real, ordinary animals, although by no means all of them. About animals that lived in other lands, the man of Ancient Rus' read in various “Physiologists”, “Cosmographies”, which described distant countries. Take, for example, a lion. Naturally, an ancient Russian person encountered a lion extremely rarely, except for the images that appear in ancient Russian churches in the 12th century. In the "Physiologist" extremely interesting things were told about the lion. In particular, they wrote that a lion has three natures, and when a lioness gives birth to a cub, this cub is dead and blind. And the lioness sits over him for three days. And after three days, the lion will come and blow into the nostrils of the cub, and he will come to life. This had a symbolic meaning, which was explained in the "Physiologist": one should also speak of converted pagans - before baptism they are dead, and after baptism they come to life from the Holy Spirit. As for the second nature of the lion, it was explained as follows: when the lion sleeps, his eyes watch. This also has a symbolic meaning: so the Lord says that I am sleeping, and my divine eyes and heart are watching, they are open to the world. The third nature of a lion: when a lioness runs away from her pursuers, she covers her tracks with her tail so that the catcher cannot find her on them. We know Russian fairy tales about a fox-sister who covers her tracks with her tail. It would seem that a purely folk detail that appears in fairy tales, but it turns out that it is of book origin, goes back to such “Physiologists”. The symbolic meaning of the third property of a lion is also explained in the “Physiologist”: so you are a person, when you do alms, but your left hand does not know what your right hand is doing - so that the devil does not interfere in the thoughts of a person that have a positive meaning.
And here is another text - a story about a pelican or, as it was called in Rus', an owl. The tawny owl was described as a child-loving bird, the female owl pecks her ribs and feeds (revives) the chicks with her blood: “They peck their ribs, but the outgoing blood revives the chick.” So, they explained the symbolic meaning of this image, and the Lord was pierced by a spear, blood and water came out of His body, and thus the dead universe was revived. Therefore, the prophets likened Christ to such a desert owl, that is, a pelican. It is curious that even now the image of a pelican is used in a symbolic sense: in particular, at the Teacher of the Year competition, teachers are presented with crystal pelicans tearing their bodies with their beaks - a hint that a teacher gives life to his students with his life.
Already from the above examples it is clear that in the system of traditional folk ideas about the surrounding world, animals simultaneously appear both as natural objects and as a kind of mythological characters. In the book tradition there are almost no descriptions of real animals, even in the "natural science" treatises the fabulous element prevails. One gets the impression that the authors did not seek to convey any specific information about real animals, but tried to form the reader's ideas about the symbolic essence of the world that surrounds a person. These ideas are based on the traditions of different cultures, recorded in treatises.
Animal symbols are not "twins" of their real prototypes. The indispensable presence of fantasy in stories about animals led to the fact that the described animal could bear the name of an animal or bird well known to the reader, but differ sharply from it in its properties. From the prototype character, often only his verbal shell (name) remained. At the same time, the image usually did not correlate with a set of features that corresponded to the given name and formed the image of the animal in everyday consciousness. This once again confirms the isolation from each other of the two systems of knowledge about nature that existed simultaneously - "practical", which a person encountered in his daily life, and "bookish", which formed symbolic representations.
Within such a description of an animal, one can note the distribution of real and fantastic properties. Often the animal is described according to its biological nature; Such texts are most likely based on practical observations. For example, they wrote that the fox is very flattering and cunning: if she wants to eat and cannot find anything, then she is looking for an outbuilding, a barn where straw or chaff is stored, she will lie down near him, pretending that she is dead, and so "as if dead to lie." And the birds that hover around think that she is dead, sit on her and begin to peck at her. Then she jumps up quickly, grabs these birds and eats them.
This is a fairly well-known story, and it goes back to the descriptions from the "Physiologist". Or here is a story about a woodpecker. It is built on the description of the woodpecker's property - the ability to peck trees with its beak; in the description of the cuckoo, the emphasis was on the habit of this bird to lay eggs in other people's nests; the amazing skill of the beaver in building a dwelling, and the swallows in arranging their nests, was noted.
But sometimes a real object was endowed with only fictional properties. In this case, the connection of the character with the real animal was preserved only in the name. So, for example, in Rus' they knew perfectly well who a beaver was - they hunted him, his skins were an important subject of trade. At the same time, in the Physiologists there is a description of the "Indian" beaver, from whose insides musk is extracted, as well as a description of some predatory beast, more like a tiger or a wolverine; in any case, in miniatures, he was sometimes depicted as striped, with huge claws and teeth. By the way, Vladimir Ivanovich Dal recorded the dialectal name of the Ussuri tiger - "beaver". Apparently, the idea that had already been formed in the ancient Russian man was subsequently transferred to a new beast, which the pioneers who went to the Far East met with.

And here is another animal that was well known to ancient Russian man - an ox. Under this name, they knew not only a domestic animal, but also an “Indian” ox, which had a curious property: being afraid to lose at least one hair from its tail, it stands motionless if it catches a tree with its tail. So they hunted him, substituting thorny branches of a bush, so that, clinging to them, the Indian ox would stop. "Ox" was also called the mythical sea creature. In addition, it was believed that in India there are huge oxen, between the horns of which a person can sit (it is possible that this image is based on the impression of an elephant). Mention was made of oxen with three horns and three legs, and, finally, oxen "reserves", whose long horns did not allow them to move forward, and therefore they could only feed by moving backwards.
The descriptions of elephants, in turn, are extremely curious in the Physiologists and Cosmographies. So, it was believed that elephants do not have knee joints, so if the elephant lies down, then it will not be able to get up. And he sleeps, leaning against a tree or some other high and powerful object.
Such animals, completely unfamiliar to ancient Russian people, as the salamander were also described. By salamander was meant a lizard, sometimes a poisonous snake and an animal the size of a dog, capable of extinguishing a fire.
Depending on the semantic content, the same name of an animal could mean both a real animal and a fantastic character. A set of properties that, from the point of view of the modern reader, have no real basis, often correlated with the names of animals from distant countries and determined the ideas of the medieval reader about them. So, the "Physiologist" said that in order to produce offspring, an elephant needs a mandrake root. It also said that panfir (panther, leopard) tends to sleep for three days, and on the fourth day to lure other animals to itself with its fragrance and voice. Unknown to the ancient Russian man, the giraffe - velbudopardus - seemed to be a cross between a pard (lynx) and a camel.
The descriptions in which the animal was endowed with both real and fictitious features were the most widespread. So, in addition to the predilection of crows for carrion and the custom of these birds to form mating pairs, ancient Russian descriptions included a story that the crow does not drink water in the month of July. Why? Because he was punished by God for neglecting his chicks. It was alleged that the raven was able to "revive" boiled eggs with the help of one known herb. How can one not remember the fairy tales in which the raven brings living or dead water! It was believed that the bird erodius (heron) is able to distinguish Christians who know the Greek language from people of the “other tribe”. There was a story that the endur (otter) kills a sleeping crocodile, reaching through the open mouth to its insides. By the way, a crocodile could also be drawn in the form of an animal with a huge mane, a tail with a tassel, claws and teeth. With a fairly accurate description of the habits of a dolphin (it comes to the aid of people drowning in the sea, etc.), the author of such a treatise could call it a “zelfin bird”, and an ancient miniature depicts a pair of dolphins saving St. Basil the New, in the form of two dogs.
The coincidence of characters arising as a result of the redistribution of signs was eliminated by assigning one of them (most often to the one in the description of which fabulous properties prevailed, or it was correlated with "foreign", exotic region - India, Ethiopia, Arabia, etc.) unusual (foreign language ) name. This, as it were, removed the possible inconsistency of any properties of the object with the usual set of features, united under “their own”, familiar name. So, the "Indian" beaver also bore the name "mskous".
It should be borne in mind that the free application of signs to the character's name played an important role in the symbolic interpretation of his properties. The most authoritative specialist in the study of animal symbolism in ancient Russian literature, Olga Vladislavovna Belova, notes cases when a set of signs completely passed from one name to another and an animal that accepted other people's signs received a new property. So, having been united at first in their signs, the hyena and the bear subsequently "exchanged" their names. In the Old Russian alphabet books, the word “ouena” along with the meaning “wild beast imitating a human voice”, “mythical poisonous beast with a human face entwined with snakes”, “feline beast” has the meaning “bear, she-bear”.
From the point of view of medieval literature, such descriptions were not examples of pure fiction. Any information was taken for granted, being backed up by authoritative sources - if it was already written in books, then it was so, despite the fact that the old Russian people could not verify the stories. For a bookish, "scientific" description of animals, the real-unreal sign is not decisive.
The names of animals were regarded as originally given, determined by Divine Providence. Moreover, these names were given so successfully and so accurately reflected the essence of all creatures that God did not change them after.
All animals and all their properties, real and fictional, are considered by ancient Russian scribes from the point of view of the secret moralizing meaning contained in them. The symbolism of animals provided abundant material for medieval moralists. In the Physiologus and similar monuments, each animal is amazing in itself, whether it is a supernatural creature (unicorn, centaur or phoenix; an exotic beast of distant lands (elephant or lion) or a well-known creature (fox, hedgehog, partridge, beaver;) "All the creatures mentioned act in their innermost function, accessible only to spiritual insight. Each animal means something, and there can be several meanings, often opposite. These symbols can be classified as "unlike images": they are not based on obvious similarities , but on difficult to explain, traditionally fixed semantic identities.The idea of ​​external similarity is alien to them.
The ideas about animals were so peculiar that modern man often thinks, looking at this or that image, that this image dates back to pagan antiquity. For example, on many temples of the Vladimir-Suzdal land, we see the image of a griffin. It is often written that this is a consequence of the appeal of ancient Russian stone cutters to pagan origins. In fact, the griffin is a creature about which the Christian "Physiologists" wrote. Under the griffin was meant a mythical creature that combines the features of a bird and a lion. He was depicted as a four-legged creature with a sharp beak, protruding tongue, wings and a lion-like tail. At the same time, it was written that gripsos is a huge mythical bird that collects the sun with its wings. The griffin could be the designation of the archangel Michael and the Virgin. And the lamb - usually a symbol of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice, the atonement of human sins, denoting martyrs for the faith - could at the same time depict the Antichrist. True, the appearance of such a lamb was somewhat unusual: it was depicted without a halo, its body was mottled, paws with sharp claws, it had sharp ears, a toothy mouth with a protruding tongue and a long tail. Such a lamb of the Antichrist was very different from the lamb - a symbolic image of Christ.
In the context of the culture of Ancient Rus', a living creature, deprived of its symbolic meaning, contradicts the harmonious world order, and simply does not exist in isolation from its meaning. No matter how entertaining the properties of the described animal may seem, the ancient Russian author always emphasized the primacy of symbolism over actual description. For him, the names of animals are the names of symbols, and not of specific creatures, real or fantastic. The compilers of the "Physiologists" did not aim to give more or less complete characteristics of the animals and birds that were told about. Among the properties of animals, only those were noted with the help of which it was possible to find analogies with any theological concept or draw moral conclusions.
Stones, their nature, properties and qualities, color were perceived in approximately the same way by ancient Russian scribes. Here is how the ancient Russian author describes the ruby: “The Babylonian sardion (or ruby) stone is red as blood, they find it in Babylon on earth, traveling to Assyria. This stone is transparent, there is a healing power in it, tumors, ulcers, and abscesses are treated with it, for this this abscess must be anointed. At the same time, it was said that this stone is likened to Reuben, the son of Jacob, because this stone is strong and strong in action. It must be said that the color designation of stones and their symbolic meaning were then transferred to the colors that were used in miniatures and in icon painting. Each of the colors had its own symbolic meaning and gave an extremely rich range of meanings that the author brought to his work. It is the color symbolic meanings that often make it possible to understand what is depicted on the icon, what kind of character is depicted and what qualities this character possesses.
The culture of Ancient Rus' is a multilevel culture. Every text, whether it is written or depicted with visual elements, contains several meanings, at least five: literal explicit, literal secret, symbolic, allegorical and moral. And therefore, each of the texts of Ancient Rus' that we read is always extremely deep. Deeper than we used to think, focusing on modern literature. We, the current ones, are more interested in the plot. The Old Russian reader was much more interested in the meanings behind what they read, what they saw, behind those animals, birds, stones and plants that they encountered. This is a different world, and one must listen to it very carefully in order to understand it.

The idea of ​​an ancient Russian person about the world, about the place of Rus' in it

Plan:
1. The resettlement of the Slavs.
2. Formation of the state among the glades.
3. Neighbors of Kievan Rus and contacts with them. The path from the Varangians to the Greeks.
4. Awareness by the Russian people of their place in the world.
5. "The Tale of Bygone Years" and its central ideas.
6. Development of the idea of ​​unity and patriotism in legends about princely strife.
7. Conclusion: cosmopolitanism in assessing the events of world history.

Favorsky V.A. Screen saver-illustration for "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" (1950)

The glorious deeds and accomplishments of the great Russian people, their richest life and moral experience, the breadth and depth of their worldview, way of thinking, philosophical optimism and faith in the bright tomorrow of their homeland were vividly reflected in the works of ancient Russian literature, monumental and extraordinarily serious works.

The monumentality of the literature of Ancient Rus' is enhanced by the fact that its monuments are devoted mainly to historical themes. In them, than in subsequent literature, there is less fictitious, imaginary, designed for entertainment, for entertainment. Seriousness is also due to the fact that the main works of ancient Russian literature are civic in the highest sense of the word. The authors of that distant era are most concerned about the historical fate of their homeland, the defense of the Russian land, the correction of social shortcomings, and the protection of justice in people's relationships. Old Russian literature is filled with patriotism. Above all, she honored loyalty to her land and selfless love for the Motherland, which more than once stood in the way of enemy hordes and at the most expensive price - the price of the life of her sons and daughters - saving the peoples of other countries from enslavement and destruction.

Old Russian authors paid great attention to the problems of the place of Rus' in world history, trying to present it as clearly and in detail as possible on the pages of their works. This was not a mere whim of a chronicler, such tasks were dictated by history itself: the young state wanted to recognize itself among many other countries with different levels of economic, political and cultural development. And, of course, the Russians really wanted to enter the system of peoples not just on an equal footing, but to become heralds of a new way of thinking, showing the way to the "kingdom of God." The idea of ​​a special mission of Rus' was widely reflected in the works of the Kiev period, again, not by chance: it was prompted by the developing self-consciousness of the Russian people, and without this quality, as you know, the equal entry of the people into the system of world civilization is impossible.

To answer the question about the origins of this patriotism, where did the ancient Russian writer get such a high assessment of the place of Rus' among the states surrounding it, we must at least briefly consider “where the Russian land came from.”

The monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor asked this question back in the 12th century. And he answered it with all the seriousness of a medieval scholar, using all the materials available to him. The chronicler accurately determined that Slavism is only a part of the pan-European flow of peoples. Based on the biblical legend that after the "Great Flood" the sons of Noah divided the earth among themselves, Nestor believes that one of them - Japheth - took under his protection "midnight and western countries", that is, the countries of Europe. The composition of the peoples who sit in the “Afetova part” included Rus, Chud (Baltic peoples), Poles (Poles), Prussians (the disappeared Baltic tribe that gave the name to Prussia), as well as Svei (Swedes), Urmans (Norwegians), Agnians (English), Fryags and Romans (Italians), Germans and other European peoples.

Nestor tells about the settlement of European peoples and places the Slavs on the Danube, where the Hungarians and Bulgarians later began to live. And from those Slavs, he writes, "they dispersed over the earth and were called by their name." But the chronicler is not quite sure of his hypothesis. He does not exclude that the Slavs may have lived in the land of the Scythians, who in the VI-IV centuries. BC. occupied vast expanses of Eastern Europe, including the Dnieper and Northern Black Sea regions, or even in the land of the Khazars, who settled in the steppes of the Azov and Lower Volga regions (1).

Two circumstances are striking in their reality in the reasoning of the ancient author: the understanding of the Slavs as an ancient and integral part of the entire European community of peoples and the idea of ​​the appearance of the Slavs in the territory of the Dnieper region, the interfluve of the Oka and Volga, in the region of the Russian North as a result of migration from other places.

And Nestor noticed another very curious circumstance: at the beginning of their ancient history, the Slavs, from the very time they appeared on the banks of the Dnieper, Dniester, Oka, Volga, Lake Ilmen, lived surrounded by numerous peoples who, like them, mastered these lands. The chronicler mentions Chud, Meryu, Murom, All, Mordva, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Yugra (belonging to the Finno-Ugric linguistic and ethnic group of peoples) and Lithuania, Letgol and Zemigol (ancestors of the current Lithuanians, Latvians), who belonged to the Baltic peoples.

In all these observations, the chronicler was not far from the truth. Modern research has confirmed that the Slavs belonged to the common Indo-European group of peoples who settled during the Neolithic period (VI-III millennium BC). Then throughout Europe there was “one kind and one language”, according to Nestor, that is, until the 3rd millennium BC. Indo-Europeans still represented a single whole, spoke the same language, prayed to common gods (2).

It has been established that in the II millennium BC. the ancestors of the Slavs, who had not yet divided into separate peoples, lived somewhere between the Balts, Germans, Celts and Iranians. The Proto-Slavs owned some area in the area of ​​the Vistula river basin. In mid. II millennium BC we find the ancestors of the Slavs occupying the vast territory of Eastern Europe. Their center is still the lands along the Vistula River, but their migration already extends to the Oder River in the west and the Dnieper in the east. The southern border of this settlement rests on the Carpathian Mountains, the Danube, the northern part reaches the Pripyat River (3). As you can see, the territory of the Carpathians, the Danube already appears in the form of a distant Slavic ancestral home, which Nestor knew about.

K ser. In the 2nd millennium, the process of consolidation of kindred tribes settled in their places into large ethnic groups was outlined. The Slavs had to defend their independence, defending themselves from the invasion of the Scythians, Sarmatians. Later, in the 5th c. BC, part of the Slavic tribes was carried away by a powerful stream of Huns moving to the West (4). At this time, there is a constant movement of the ancient Slavs, their development of new lands, mixing with the Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes who previously lived here, which did not cause cruel wars and bloody clashes.

How to explain such a peaceful nature of the Slavic colonization? The reason here is not only in some features of the spiritual warehouse of the Slavs and the tribes they met, but in the conditions in which the resettlement took place. The population density in the forest thickets was very low. The aliens did not have to capture the developed places. Therefore, there was no reason for bloody conflicts. The Slavs brought to this taiga region a higher agricultural culture developed in the fertile south. Gradually, the neighborhood, the exchange of experience, the borrowing of achievements led to the mutual assimilation of Finno-Finns and Slavs.

The Tale of Bygone Years notes that on the eve of the unification of most of the East Slavic tribes under the rule of Kyiv, there were at least fifteen large tribal unions here. A powerful union of tribes lived in the Middle Dnieper region, united by the name "glade", that is, the inhabitants of the fields. The center of the Polyana lands has long been the city of Kyiv; the colorful legend about its founding by the brothers Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv and their sister Lybid is known to us from the same Tale of Bygone Years. To the north of the glades lived Novgorod Slovenes, grouped around the cities of Novgorod, Ladoga. To the northwest were the Drevlyans, that is, the inhabitants of the forests, whose main city was Iskorosten. Further, in the forest zone on the territory of modern Belarus, a tribal union of the Dregovichi, that is, swamp inhabitants, was formed (from the word "dryagva" - swamp, bog). In the northeast, in the forest thickets between the Oka, Klyazma and Volga rivers, lived the Vyatichi, in whose lands Rostov and Suzdal were the main cities. Between the Vyatichi and the glades in the upper reaches of the Volga, the Dnieper and the Western Dvina lived the Krivichi, who later penetrated into the lands of the Slovenes and Vyatichi. Smolensk became their main city. Polotsk people lived in the basin of the Western Dvina River, who received their name from the Polota River, which flows into the Western Dvina. The main city of Polotsk later became Polotsk. The tribes that settled along the rivers Desna, Seim, Sula, and lived to the east of the meadows, were called northerners or inhabitants of the northern lands, Chernigov became their main city over time. Radimichi lived along the rivers Sozh and Seim. To the west of the glades, in the basin of the Bug River, Volhynians and Buzhans settled; between the Dniester and the Danube lived the streets and Tivertsy, bordering on the lands of Bulgaria. The annals also mention the tribes of Croats and Dulebs, who lived in the Danube and Carpathian regions (5).

Strong and populous East Slavic unions of tribes subordinated the neighboring small peoples to their influence, taxed them with tribute. There were clashes between them, but relations were mostly peaceful and good neighborly. Against an external enemy, the Slavs and their neighbors - the Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes - often acted as a united front.

Collecting tribute from the surrounding tribes, some Slavs themselves were in tributary dependence on stronger foreign neighbors. So, glade, northerners, radimichi, vyatichi paid tribute to the Khazars for a long time - for squirrel and ermine from the "smoke", Novgorod Slovenes and Krivichi, together with Chud and Merey, paid tribute to the Varangians. Yes, and the Slavs themselves, having defeated and subjugated any other Slavic tribe, taxed him with tribute. The meadows, having begun to “collect” the East Slavic lands under their own hand, imposed tribute on the Radimichi, northerners, Vyatichi, who used to pay it to the Khazars. By the end of the VIII - beginning of the IX century. the Polan core of the Eastern Slavs is freed from the power of the Khazars. During this period, an independent, independent state of Kievan Rus begins to form.

The Slavs were not isolated from other peoples. Economic, political and cultural ties between them were carried out regularly, and trade routes played an important role in this. Not yet becoming an independent political entity, the East Slavic tribal unions carried on a lively trade with their neighbors. It was in the VIII-IX centuries. the famous path “from the Varangians to the Greeks” was born, which contributed not only to the various contacts of the Slavs with the outside world, but also linked together the East Slavic lands themselves. This is how the Tale of Bygone Years describes this path: “from the Greek [from Byzantium] along the Dnieper, and in the upper reaches of the Dnieper it is dragged to Lovot, and along Lovot you can enter Ilmen, the great lake; Volkhov flows out of the same lake and flows into the Great Lake Nevo [Lake Ladoga] and the mouth of that lake enters the Varangian [Baltic] Sea. And on that sea you can sail to Rome, and from Rome you can sail along the same sea to Constantinople, and from Constantinople you can sail to the Pontus Sea [Black], the Dnieper River flows into it ”(6).

We see that the “path from the Varangians to the Greeks”, closing in a ring, passed through the territory of many countries with a way of life different from the Slavic one. But besides this, there were other roads. First of all, this is the eastern trade route, the axis of which was the Volga and Don rivers. To the north of this Volga-Don route ran roads from the state of Bulgar, located on the Middle Volga, through the Voronezh forests to Kyiv, and up the Volga through Northern Rus' to the Baltic regions. From here, the Muravskaya road, so named later, led south to the Don and the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov. Both merchants from the north from the Vyatichi forests and those who moved north, heading from the countries of the East, walked along it. Finally, there were western and southwestern trade routes that gave the Eastern Slavs a direct entry into the heart of Europe (7).

All these paths covered the lands of the Eastern Slavs with a kind of network, crossed with each other, and, in fact, firmly tied the Eastern Slavic lands to the states of Western Europe, the Balkans, the Northern Black Sea region, the Volga region, the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea, Western and Central Asia.

It must also be said that the countries with which Kievan Rus maintained ties were at different stages of social development, which is why mutual influence was carried out especially intensively. In the countries of Europe, for example, phenomena of great importance took place (8).

The famous role of the Frankish tribe and its leaders ended in the beginning. XI century., When the political ideas of Rome and the Roman Church conquered the completely barbarian world with the weapons of Charlemagne, and the leader of the Franks was proclaimed emperor of Rome. The spiritual unity of Western Europe was finally cemented with the help of Rome; now another, new beginning came forward, brought by the barbarians, the Germans on the soil of the empire, now the material disintegration of the Charles Monarchy began, individual states, members of the Western European confederations, began to form; The ninth century was the century of the formation of states for both Eastern and Western Europe, the century of great historical definitions, which sometimes remained valid until modern times.

At a time when the difficult, painful process of the disintegration of the Charles Monarchy and the formation of new states, new nationalities is taking place in the West, Scandinavia, this ancient cradle of peoples, is sending out numerous crowds of its pirates, who have no place on their native land; but the continent is already occupied, and the Scandinavians cannot move south by land, as their predecessors moved, only the sea is open to them, they must be content with robberies, devastation of the sea and river banks.

An important phenomenon is also taking place in Byzantium: the theological disputes that have worried her until now cease; in 842, in the year of the accession to the throne of Emperor Michael III, from whom our chronicler begins his chronology, the last, seventh Ecumenical Council was convened for the final approval of the dogma, as if in order to convey this finally established dogma to the Slavic peoples, among which at the same time Christianity begins to spread; then, to help this distribution, thanks to the special zeal of Cyril and Methodius, is the translation of the Holy Scripture into the Slavic language.

Economic and cultural ties with the Byzantine Empire, which intensified after the introduction of Christianity, were of particular importance for the culture of Kyiv and Rus'. In Kyiv, the construction of huge religious buildings, decorated with monumental paintings - mosaics and frescoes, carved stone, began. New palace buildings, powerful fortifications to protect the city - all this was influenced by Byzantium. Successes in the study of ancient Russian architecture showed that by the beginning of the 12th century, Byzantine building principles, techniques and schemes, advanced at that time, had undergone significant changes and rethinking in Rus', resulting in new original architectural solutions that met local conditions and aesthetic tastes. In the spiritual life of ancient Russian society, an important place was occupied by translated literature, mainly Byzantine. In the XI century. works on world history, instructive and entertaining literature were translated from foreign languages: the Chronicle of Georgy Amartol, the Chronicle of Sinkell, the History of the Jewish War by Josephus Flavius, The Life of Basil the New, Christian Topography by Kozma Indikoplov, Alexandria, The Tale of Akira the Wise” and others. In Russia, collections called “Bee” were known, which included excerpts from the works of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Epicurus, Plutarch, Sophocles, Herodotus and other ancient authors.

So, the Eastern Slavs, on the eve of the creation of their statehood, on the eve, when tribal unions began the struggle for primacy in the Slavic lands, occupied their place in the history of Europe, unlike any of the surrounding neighbors. At the same time, East Slavic society carried features common to other countries and peoples. Thus, the Eastern Slavs found themselves at the average level in terms of economic, social, political and cultural development. They lagged behind the Western countries - France, England. The Byzantine Empire and the Arab Caliphate with their developed statehood, the highest culture, and writing were at an unattainable height for them, but the Eastern Slavs were on a par with the lands of the Czechs, Poles, Scandinavians, significantly ahead of the Hungarians, who were still at the nomadic level, not to mention the nomadic Turks, Finno-Ugric forest dwellers or Lithuanians living in isolation and closed.

The Russian people, who were at the stage of formation of statehood, could not but realize their difference from other countries, their individuality. From generation to generation, the Russians carefully kept the memory of the past, driven by a natural desire not to get lost in a huge number of peoples, not to drown in the maelstrom of history. Memories of the events of Russian history were of a heroic nature and were connected by a common, unified idea of ​​the glorious deeds of their ancestors.

We find wonderful words about the historical knowledge of Ancient Rus' from Cyril of Turov, a Russian writer of the 12th century. He distinguishes between two types of keepers of historical memory - chroniclers and songwriters, therefore, creators of written history and creators of oral history, but in both he finds the same goal of their activity as historians: the glorification of heroes and, mainly, their military exploits. Cyril proposes to glorify the "heroes" of the church in the same way as the people sing of their secular heroes (9). In this regard, let us turn to the remarkable work of ancient Russian literature - "The Lay on Law and Grace."