Knight — in the gender system a special type masculinity possessing a knightly ethos. The concept itself knight comes to us from the Middle Ages and from social history: a knight was that man who was elevated to knighthood by his overlord, swore an oath, while girding himself with a sword. The essence of the social content of the concept knight is inextricably linked with the concept warrior.

A knight has certain characteristics. Firstly, the knight had to be distinguished by beauty and attractiveness, which was emphasized by clothing and armor. The knight was required to have strength and a desire for glory, since he was a warrior. Glory gave rise to the need to constantly confirm it by performing new feats and demonstrating one’s courage. Courage is necessary to fulfill the duty of fidelity and loyalty, since one knightly ethos crystallized in a feudal society imbued with a strict hierarchy. The knight had to maintain unconditional loyalty to his equals. The knight had a whole system of obligations: in the first place was the overlord, then came the one who ordained him to the rank of knight. He was supposed to take care of orphans and widows, in principle, the weak in general, but there is no information that a knight ever protected a weak man. Another characteristic of a knight was generosity. E. Deschamps, a French author of the 14th century, lists the following necessary conditions that a person who wants to become a knight must satisfy: he must start a new life, pray, avoid sin, arrogance and base acts; must protect the church, widows and orphans, and also take care of his subjects; must be brave, faithful and not deprive anyone of property; obliged to fight only for a just cause; must be an avid traveler, fighting in tournaments in honor of his lady love; look for differences everywhere, avoiding everything unworthy; love your overlord and protect his property; be generous and fair; seek the company of the brave and learn from them how to perform great deeds, following the example of Alexander the Great.

When we talk about chivalrous behavior today, we first of all mean the attitude towards the enemy and the attitude towards women. “Fight and love” is the knight’s motto. It is these two components that form this type of masculinity. The attitude towards the enemy was very significant, since the knight’s glory was brought not so much by victory as by his behavior in battle, since the battle could end in his defeat and death without damaging his honor. The enemy should be respected and given, if possible, equal chances. Taking advantage of an enemy's weakness did not bring glory to the knight, but killing an unarmed man was a shame. The knight showed special respect for his weapons and horse. The sword, like the horse, often had its own name (for example, Excalibur and Bayard).

Attitude towards a lady (see. Beautiful lady, Courtly love) became a necessary component of the knightly ethos and remains so to this day. Being in love was one of the duties of a knight (of course, in the Middle Ages only an equal was a Lady, but in the subsequent transformation of this type of masculinity, an ordinary woman is endowed with the traits inherent in a Lady). The Knight had to express caring, adoration and loyalty, readiness at any moment to defend the honor of his Lady and any woman. It was from courtly novels that the so-called “chivalrous behavior” towards a woman came to us, consisting of admiration, veneration and respect for a woman only because she is one. However, the relationship of a knight to a woman is extra- or premarital love, since a knight and marriage are incompatible concepts. The knight acts as an eternal lover and in love, and his attitude towards a woman is formed precisely within the framework of mutual love.

The ideal of chivalry as a special type of masculinity took shape in Western Europe in the late Middle Ages and, as Huizinga aptly notes, a lot of pretense was required in order to maintain the fiction of the chivalric ideal in everyday life. At the same time, the knight was not a highly intellectual specimen, but it was assumed that his life was rich emotionally: men “dried up” with melancholy, lost their minds if they did not keep their word, and easily burst into tears. On the other hand, the knightly ethos is permeated with deep individualism, where considerations of one’s own prestige are preferred to the detriment of the general interest, and concern for preserving one’s own face comes at the expense of concern for the fate of one’s comrades-in-arms. This type of masculinity existed for several centuries, was revived in the romanticism of the early 19th century, its echoes can now be found in everyday forms of male behavior formed by fiction, as well as women’s discourse, where the expression “chivalrous behavior” has a positive connotation and influences the formation of behavioral stereotypes in relation, in particular, to women.

Middle Ages. M., 1992. Issue. 55. pp. 195-213.

Ossovskaya M. Knight and bourgeois. M., 1987.

Tushina E. A. About marriage and family ideas of French chivalry: (Based on materials from heroic songs) // Historical demography of pre-capitalist societies of Western Europe. M., 1988. pp. 135-145.

Huizinga J. Autumn of the Middle Ages. M., 1988.

Cohen G. Histoire de la chevalerie en France du Moyen Age. Paris, 1949.

Dinzelbacher P. Pour une histoire de l’amour au moyen age // Moyen age. Bruxelles, 1987. T. 93. N 2. P. 223-240.

Flori J. Guerre et chevalerie au moyen age (a propos d’un ouvrage recent) // Cahiers de civilization medievale. A. 41. N. 164. Poitiers, 1998. P. 353-363.

Kaeuper Richard W. Chivalry and violence in medieval Europe. Oxford, 1999.

Scaglione A. Knights at court: Courtliness, chivalry, a. courtesy from Ottonian Germany to the Italian Renaissance. Berkeley, 1991.

Serving a fair lady: the love of a knight

Philosophy of Chivalry - service to a beautiful lady

Photo 1 – knighting of a beautiful lady

In the harsh era of the Middle Ages, knights were representatives of a privileged caste of professional, heavily armed horsemen at arms, spiritually united by a moral code of honor.

Photo 2 - Medieval knight in combat gear

The knight-paladin became a symbol of selfless courage, devotion and noble service to his lord, the Beautiful Lady and a high goal. His image, surrounded by a romantic aura and sung by troubadours and poets, was elevated to the pedestal of history as the moral ideal of a warrior.

Photo 3 – farewell to the lady of his heart before a military campaign from a painting by the English artist Edmund Leighton.

A Christian knight is, first of all, a fighter for the faith of Christ, and a faithful vassal of his overlord. Loyalty is one of the most valued virtues of this era.

Photo 4 – solemn procession of the overlord

For a knight, such moral standards as courage, nobility, and fidelity to duty were considered mandatory. Over time, even special charters began to appear, regulating the behavior of a knight in various spheres of life and calling them to nobility, mercy, and protection of the weak and offended.

Photo 5 – farewell to the knight errant

Gradually, the system of knightly education and upbringing, along with military disciplines, included poetry, singing, playing the lute, the art of speaking correctly and beautifully, and the ability to conduct small talk with ladies.

Photo 6 – small talk

The church occupied a huge place in the life and consciousness of any person during the heyday of the Middle Ages.

Reverent worship and service to the Mother of God, cultivated in the religious dogmas of the church, were the main Christian virtues of the knights.

Photo 7 - the revival of knightly customs at the holiday in our time

The desire to become pleasant and attractive, in accordance with courtly ethics, forced many young knights to learn to read and conduct pleasant conversations, and, in addition, to listen to the opinions of ladies regarding the ability to dress, manners and manners. The respectful attitude towards a woman, her exaltation and veneration, glorified in the poetic works of the bards of that time, created the cult of the Beautiful Lady and the ideas of serving her.

Photo 8 - “Lady with an Ermine” painting by Leonard Da Vinci

A ritual developed between a knight and a noble lady, and then a whole centuries-old tradition. The lady of the heart should be unattainable and the feelings felt for her should be purely platonic.

Photo 9 – beautiful ladies of the Middle Ages

Courtly love was perceived as the voluntary vassalage of a strong man to a weak woman. As a sign of complete submission, the knight had to kneel before the mistress of his heart and, placing his hands in hers, make an unbreakable oath to serve her until death. The union was sealed with a kiss and a ring, which the lady gave to the knight.

Photo 10 – ritual of the knight’s oath of allegiance

True, such an exalted attitude of the knights extended only to women of their class, but the man tried to be polite with all the ladies, as well as with the chosen one of his heart.

It was fundamentally important to realize the possibility of seeing in a lady not only an “addition” to a land plot or other property, but a gentle, sublime, beautiful creature in need of love and care.

Photo 11 – taking a vow of fidelity from a painting by Edmund Lighton

Initially, the knightly cult of the “chosen one of the heart” really implied selfless service to the object of adoration and platonic feelings of sublime love. But all the attempts of the church to consolidate these principles, as mirror images of the cult of the Mother of God, were not crowned with decisive success, since true passion often interfered with such relationships.

Photo 11a – knight with the chosen one of his heart

Over time, public opinion began to encourage the transformation of courtly unions into delicately formalized love affairs; however, subject to certain decency and rules.

Photo 12 – medieval scene from a painting by Edmund Lighton

Around 1186, Andrew Capellan wrote the famous treatise “On Love,” which sets out the ethics of courtly love. It is based on the beliefs of the high authority of the really existing noble ladies of the Middle Ages: Alienor of Aquitaine (first the French and then the English queen), Adelaide of Champagne and the Viscountess of Narbonne, whose courts were centers of courtly culture at the end of the 12th century. For lovers who violated rules or obligations, there were even Courts of Love at the court of Alienor of Aquitaine.

Photo 13 – Queen of France Eleanor of Aquitaine (reigned 1137 – 1152)

The work also mentions the legendary King Arthur, who is credited with the authorship of the rules of love, mandatory for all noble lovers.

From the treatise “On Love” by Andrei Kapellan.

• Marriage is not a reason to give up love.
• He who is not jealous does not love.
• What a lover takes against the will of his lover has no taste.
• The male sex is not suitable for love until full maturity.
• The surviving lover will remember the deceased lover for two years of widowhood.
• No one should be deprived of love without good reasons.
• Love is always far from the abodes of self-interest.
• A true lover will not desire any other embrace than his own.
• Love disclosed rarely lasts.
• Love is devalued by an easy achievement, but by a difficult achievement it is included in the price.
• Only valor makes anyone worthy of love.
• He who loves is destroyed by timidity.
• If love weakens, it quickly dies and is rarely reborn.
• He who is tormented by thoughts of love sleeps little and eats little.
• Every act of a lover is directed towards the thought of a lover.
• Love does not deny love anything.
• A lover is not satisfied with any kind of pleasure from his lover.
• Whoever is tormented by immortal voluptuousness does not know how to love.

Photo 14 – at the international Knight festival “Genoese Helmet” in the city of Sudak, Crimea

In New and Contemporary times, a “knight” began to be called a brave, generous, noble, magnanimous and gallant person, the ideal of a real man, who has special value in the eyes of the fair half of humanity.

Photo 15 – romantic plot in the style of the Middle Ages

There is another symbolic interpretation of the romantic medieval image, according to which the knight personifies the spirit ruling over the flesh, just as a rider rules a horse. In this sense, the knight errant, overcoming all obstacles on the way to an unknown goal, is an allegory of the soul, irresistibly striving for a certain ideal through dangers and temptations.

Photo 16 – at the knightly tournament “Quiptana” in the Italian city of Ascoli Piceno

Ideas about valor, honor, fidelity, mutual respect, noble morals and the cult of ladies fascinated people of other cultural eras. A knight and his lady, a hero for the sake of love - this is the primary and unchanging romantic motive that arises and will arise always and everywhere.

Code of Knightly Honor. 28

4. Attitude towards women.

In the knightly culture, the cult of the lady arose, which was a necessary element of courtliness, which attached exceptional importance to love as a feeling that elevates a person, awakens the best in him, and inspires him to exploits. The new knightly culture entails the emergence of a form of female worship unknown to the ancient world - the cult of the Beautiful Lady.

However, the best features of the knightly epic and knightly culture were perceived and rethought by subsequent generations, and they entered the spiritual world of man in the 21st century. The image of a real knight, even if highly idealized, remains attractive to contemporaries.

So, in conclusion, I want to draw attention to the fact that the ideal of chivalry expressed the desire for beautiful forms of being, an ennobled being. The values ​​of chivalry were identified both at the level of the norm (mandatory forms and content of behavior) and at the level of high spiritual ideals. Until now, a noble man is compared to a knight, who exercises in relation to another person not force (especially not brute force), but nobility. From chivalry (albeit partly fictitious) much remains in culture that, at least in the form of norms of external behavior, expresses the most sublime ideals, including moral ones. But it is impossible to judge medieval morality by the knightly ideal.

VII. Used materials

Berdier J. A novel about Tristan and Isolde. M., 1955

Immortal Yu. L. Chivalry and nobility in the X-XIII centuries. in the views of contemporaries.// Sat. INION AS USSR "Ideology of feudal society in Western Europe: problems of culture and socio-cultural ideas of the Middle Ages in foreign historiography." M., 1980

In the shadow of the fortress walls. Encyclopedia. Discovery of the world by youth. M., 1995

Renaissance and humanism. Encyclopedia. Discovery of the world by youth. M., 1995

The World History. T.1. Encyclopedia for children. M., 2001.S. 290-292

Kvitkovsky Yu. V. Warriors of the Middle Ages - Knights of the Cross.

Kozyakova M.I. History, culture, everyday life, Western Europe from antiquity to the 20th century. M., 2002

Crusaders // What is what. M., 1998

Song of Roland. // Reader on medieval literature.

Poitiers 1356 // Military-historical almanac “New Soldier” year

Rua J. J. History of chivalry. M., 2000

Chivalry. //Great Soviet Encyclopedia. M., 1979

Medieval man and his world. // Medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries and historians. Part 3. M., 1995

http://www.krugosvet.ru Encyclopedia Around the World®

State educational institution

Research project on the topic:

student of 11th grade "A" GOU secondary school No. 81

1 Great Soviet Encyclopedia

2 Review of the literature of the late 60-70s. see in the article: Immortal Yu. L. Chivalry and nobility in the X-XIII centuries. in the views of contemporaries. - Sat. INION AS USSR "Ideology of feudal society in Western Europe: problems of culture and socio-cultural ideas of the Middle Ages in foreign historiography." M., 1980, p. 196-22

1 Ukolova V. I. Chivalry and its background. //Introductory article in the book by Franco Cardini. The origins of medieval knighthood. M., 1987

1 World History. T.1. Encyclopedia for children. M., 2001.S. 290-292

1 Cardini F. Origins of medieval chivalry. M., 1987

2 Cardini F. Origins of medieval chivalry. M., 1987

Basic concepts: knight, tournament, coat of arms, medieval castle, donjon, knightly culture, code of knightly honor, courtliness, minstrelsy.

To the date of Russia's adoption of Christianity, add the date of the death of the prince, who always observed the rules of knightly honor - he never attacked.

Code of honor for an employee of the system of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergency Situations and Liquidation.

Path. Hence, "bushido" "Way of the Warrior", better known as the samurai code of honor. This term describes the principles of honor and.

Code of honor for a pilot - a member of the public association of the Air Astana Flight Crew Trade Union

This Code establishes the rules of conduct for a member of the National Academy of Tourism in professional and extra-official activities.

This Regulation defines in detail the functions of the Courts of Honor mentioned in the Regulations on Knights and Warriors, and the Regulations on Leaders.

Representatives of civil corporations (people's deputies, civil servants) were actively involved in developing ethical standards for their environment.

The Code is intended to ensure that professionals, enterprises and organizations are guided by the basic rules adopted in everything.

Constitution of the Russian Federation, Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Family Code of the Russian Federation, Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Major changes have been made to administrative and labor matters.

Psychologist. I make the complex understandable

About boys, girls and chivalry

I once read an article by a woman involved in preschool education (she is either the head of a kindergarten or a child psychologist there, but something like that). And so she writes that in their garden, boys are instilled with “a chivalrous attitude towards women” from childhood.

Well, let them through the door, give way, and so on. I was happy with the text - reasonable things, correct etiquette, I like everything. And it's well written.

Trouble came from where I didn’t expect it.

The article turned out to be completely finished, without promises of continuations or announcements of the development of the topic. And in the entire article (on the newspaper page, by the way) there was no answer to one very important question: “What attitude are they instilling in girls?”

It’s true, this is a serious topic. If boys are taught to treat a girl like a knight, then a girl should also be taught to treat a boy somehow. For example, it is understandable when they explain to a boy in the sandbox that he should not hit a girl on the head with a shovel. Do they explain the same thing to a girl hitting a boy with a spatula? And in different ways...

Or another example, with the same maxim - you cannot beat a woman. One day, a friend of mine told the following story from his own life. That means he’s sitting at home, reading. For some reason (note, there was a reason), his wife begins to eat his brains out. He tolerated it for a while, but when it came to insults, he could not stand it and hit his wife. Well, he gave me a slap in the face.

The woman screams and tears.

Let's face it, the guy was wrong. The trouble is that the woman was also wrong. But it seems that only I notice that she is wrong.

But she acted no better than her husband - he used physical violence, she had previously used psychological violence. Both are good.

However, for him there is a maxim “don’t hit a woman,” but for a woman there is none. Well, that is, there was one - “be submissive to your husband,” but how could she remain in the era of victorious feminism? So it turns out that men are taught at least some kind of (albeit chivalrous, i.e. from a position of strength) attitude towards women, but women are not taught anything like that.

But this creates a conflict situation for a man. Why should he let him go ahead, hold the door for the one who reviles him for what he stands for? Why should it do anything for a woman just because she is a woman, if there are no reciprocal steps?

This is reminiscent of the situation with discounts. Any competent trader knows that a discount can only be given in exchange for some kind of step on the part of the buyer. For example, I buy tangerines and say, they say, it’s a little expensive for a hundred rubles, let’s do it for ninety. The saleswoman agrees, but on the condition that I take two kilograms.

That is, it gives a discount as an incentive for an additional purchase. Competent behavior.

Transferring the example to the relationship between men and women, it turns out that now men are encouraged to give discounts just like that, for beautiful eyes. Is it any wonder then that many refuse such a deal?

And is it any wonder that many women are satisfied with this situation? After all, it is very convenient to receive something only by birthright, without any additional personal effort.

To summarize: I think that the situation when men are taught to treat women in some special way, but women are not taught anything like that, is deeply unhealthy.

I believe that if you teach boys a chivalrous (or something like that) attitude towards girls, then you definitely need to teach girls to respect this behavior of men and accept it as a valuable gift (with all that it entails), and not as natural behavior.

Well, or teach both of them to interact on some new basis, not related to sex and gender. Also an option. At least there won’t be these guessing discounts and calculations about who lost or gave more to whom.

Aquarius man, attitude towards women and sexual preferences

If you like extraordinary men, whose original vision of the world makes your mind spin and your heart skip a beat, if you are attracted by intelligence and erudition, an Aquarius man should interest you.

General characteristics of men born under the sign of Aquarius

Aquarius is the sign of the discoverer and traveler. A highly intellectual basis here is combined with a desire to change places and a desire to constantly explore new horizons, and it is not so important where the impressions come from - from one’s own thoughts or from trips abroad. The attitude towards the material world is a little arrogant, but if an Aquarius man accepts the importance of the existence of money, he will make a good career.

Attitude towards women

The Aquarius man is looking for in a woman, on the one hand, an unattainable ideal of beauty, aesthetic perfection and sensuality, and on the other, a faithful friend and comrade in his adventures. Therefore, if you want to attract attention and keep Aquarius by your side for a long time, get ready to surprise with the originality of ideas and support them in difficult times. An important point in relation to women will be the desire of Aquarius to perceive the opposite sex as a person, and not as a woman. Therefore, do not be surprised if your loved one begins to tell you about his affairs, thoughts and attitude towards the world.

Sexual addictions

In bed, the Aquarius man is primarily an experimenter. There is no such position or such a way to give and receive pleasure that he would not try in his life. So get ready for some amazing innovations in sex, and remember that being constantly new and bringing new sensations is the best way to attract the long-term attention of an Aquarius.

Compatibility with other signs

It is difficult for an Aquarius man to create a harmonious union with any sign of the zodiac, but when paired with an Aquarius woman, he will feel most comfortable, since she perceives life in the same way, which will allow them to put friendship and the achievement of certain goals at the forefront. In this way, they will develop harmoniously together, and since their sexual needs are approximately the same, joy in bed will complement family happiness. In alliance with Virgo, Aquarius will be able to play on the thin strings of her soul, which will strongly bind this difficult zodiac sign to him. Their mutual calm attitude towards the bedroom issue can add mutual understanding in the couple, and if the Aquarius man comes to terms with Virgo’s increased interest in the material aspect of the relationship, they can be happy. Also, an Aquarius man will perform well in a pair with a Cancer woman, as he will perfectly feel the subtle facets of her vulnerable psyche, and can warm her with his kind attitude. But the sense of ownership inherent in Cancer will contradict the love of freedom of Aquarius. Therefore, it all depends on the degree of love of the man himself. When paired with Leo, problems will begin due to the egocentrism of the fire cat, which will lead to a breakup. An alliance with Libra and Scorpio is also unlikely, due to Aquarius’ ironic attitude towards their characteristics.

If you nevertheless decide to create a stable couple with this difficult sign, remember a few tips. First, don’t push with your attention. Constant communication and spending time only with you will quickly tire Aquarius. Remember that sometimes he needs to be alone and have a change of scenery. An Aquarius man will value a woman who accepts this feature much more than others. Secondly, forget about jealousy and don’t try to provoke such an attitude in your direction. The Aquarius man simply does not understand such a state as a feeling of ownership. If you actively show him, he will most likely leave, especially if you make him jealous. Third, the concept of a relationship frame and Aquarius are incompatible. If it is very important for you to determine the life of your chosen one and tell him what he should do and what he should not do, it is better not to build a relationship with an Aquarius man. Freedom is too valuable for him. Therefore, try not to outwardly limit his circle of contacts and activities; if he begins to respect you as a person, the chances of building a successful couple will increase significantly.

Life of a woman in Ancient Rus'

Today, it is not uncommon to hear calls for a “back to tradition” regarding morality and marriage. This is often justified by biblical principles and truly Russian traditions.

How did women really live in Rus' in the era of early Christianity and before it?

The position of women in Ancient Rus': from paganism to Christianity

Women in the pagan period enjoyed greater influence in the community than in the Christian era.

The status of women in the pagan period was different than in Orthodox times.

Polytheism was characterized by the fact that female deities occupied no less important a niche among the Slavic pantheon than male ones. There was no talk of gender equality, but women during this period enjoyed greater influence in the community than in the era of Christianity.

In pagan times, a woman appeared to men as a special creature endowed with mysterious powers. Mysterious women's rituals, on the one hand, evoked a respectful attitude towards them on the part of men, on the other - fear and hostility, which intensified with the advent of Christianity.

Pagan customs were preserved, partially transformed into Orthodox ones, but the attitude towards women only worsened towards arbitrariness.

“Woman was created for man, and not man for woman,” - this thought was often heard under the arches of Christian churches in Byzantium, starting from the 4th century, migrating to Orthodoxy, which, despite the resistance of convinced pagans, was successfully introduced throughout most of the territory Ancient Rus' X-XI centuries.

This postulate, implanted by the church, caused mutual distrust of the sexes. The idea of ​​marrying for mutual love was not even on the agenda for most young people - marriage was concluded at the will of the parents.

Orthodoxy was successfully introduced throughout most of the territory of Ancient Rus' in the 10th-11th centuries.

In family relationships there was often hostility towards the partner or outright indifference. Husbands did not value their wives, but wives did not value their husbands too much.

To prevent the bride from harming the groom with her girlish charms, before the wedding a ritual of “washing off beauty” was carried out, in other words, getting rid of the effects of protective rituals, allegorically called “beauty.”

Mutual distrust gave rise to disdain for each other and jealousy on the part of the husband, sometimes expressed in harsh forms.

Men, showing cruelty towards their wives, simultaneously feared retaliatory revenge in the form of deception, intrigue, adultery or the use of poison.

Assault was commonplace and justified by society. It was the husband’s responsibility to “teach” (beat) the wife. “Beating means loving” - this saying comes from those times.

A husband who did not follow the generally accepted pattern of “the teaching of the wife” was condemned as a man who did not care for his soul or his home. It was during these centuries that the saying came into use: “He who spares the rod destroys the child.” The style of attitude of husbands towards their wives was similar to the style of attitude towards small, unreasonable children, who must constantly be guided on the right path.

Mysterious women's rituals evoked respectful attitude from men during pagan times. On the other hand, there is fear and hostility, which intensified with the advent of Christianity.

Indicative here is the wedding ritual of those times: the bride’s father hit her with a whip at the moment of handing her over to the groom, after which he passed the whip to the newlywed, thus power over the woman symbolically passed from father to husband.

Violence against a woman’s personality turned into her hidden resistance to her husband. The typical means of revenge was treason. Sometimes, in a fit of despair under the influence of alcohol, a woman would give herself to the first person she met.

Before the arrival of Christianity in Rus', divorces of spouses who were disappointed in each other were not uncommon; in this case, the girl went to her parents’ house, taking her dowry. The spouses, remaining married, could simply live separately.

In family relationships there was often hostility towards the partner or outright indifference.

In Orthodoxy, marriage has become more difficult to dissolve. The options for women were escape, leaving for a richer and more noble man who had more power, slandering the husband to those in power, and other unsightly measures, including poisoning the spouse or murder.

The men did not remain in debt: their disgusted wives were exiled to monasteries and deprived of their lives. Ivan the Terrible, for example, sent 2 wives to a monastery, and 3 of his wives died (one died just 2 weeks after the wedding).

A commoner could even “drink” his wife. A wife could also be pawned by borrowing money. The one who received her on bail could use the woman at his own discretion.

The responsibilities of husband and wife were fundamentally different: the woman was in charge of the internal space, the man was in charge of the external space.

Men were more likely to do some kind of business away from home: work in the fields, corvee labor, hunting, trading, duties as a warrior. Women gave birth and raised children, kept the household in order, did handicrafts, and looked after livestock.

In the absence of a husband, the eldest woman in the family (bolshukha) acquired power over all family members, including men of junior status. This situation is similar to today's position of the eldest wife in Islam, where families also live like an ancient Russian family, all together in one house: parents, sons, their wives and children.

In Cossack life, there were completely different relationships between spouses than in the countryside: the Cossacks took women with them on campaigns. Cossack women were more lively and independent than residents of other Russian territories.

Love in ancient Rus'

Love in folklore is forbidden fruit.

Mentions of love are rare in written sources.

More often the theme of love is heard in Russian folklore, but love is always a forbidden fruit, it is not love between spouses. Love in the songs is described positively, while family life is dreary and unattractive.

Sexuality was not mentioned at all. The fact is that written sources that have survived to this day were created by monks, who were the main literate stratum of those times. That is why love and the expressions accompanying it are mentioned only in common parlance and folklore sources.

In the few written references, carnal love appears in a negative guise, like sin: lust, fornication. This is a continuation of biblical, Christian foundations.

Although having more than one wife was legally condemned after the adoption of Christianity, in practice the line between the first wife and concubines (mistresses) was only formal.

The fornication of single youths was condemned, but they were not denied communion, unless they sinned with their husband’s wife.

Among the pagan Slavs, love was a divine phenomenon, feigned: it was sent by the gods, like a disease. The feeling of love was perceived as a mental illness. Just as the gods send thunderstorms and rain, they also bring love and the heat of desire to the human consciousness.

Since love was an superficial and magical phenomenon, it was believed that it could be caused by using potions and incantations.

According to the church, which mixed Byzantine and Slavic ideas, love (lustful feeling) had to be fought like a disease. Woman, as the source of this feeling, was considered an instrument of the tempter-devil. It was not the man who was to blame for his desire to take possession of the woman, but she herself was to blame, causing an unclean feeling of lust. The man, succumbing to her charms, suffered, in the eyes of the church, defeat in the fight against her magical power.

The Christian tradition led this view from the story of Adam and Eve the temptress. The woman was credited with demonic, magical powers because of the attraction she evoked in men.

If the love desire came from a woman, then it was also depicted as unclean, sinful. A wife who came from someone else's family was always considered hostile and her fidelity was questionable. It was believed that a woman was more susceptible to the sin of voluptuousness. That is why the man had to keep her within limits.

Did Russian women have rights?

The female part of the population of Ancient Rus' had few rights.

The female part of the population of Ancient Rus' had minimal rights. Only sons had the opportunity to inherit property. Daughters who did not have time to marry while their father was alive, after his death, found themselves supported by the community or forced to beg - a situation reminiscent of the situation of widows in India.

In the pre-Christian era, love marriages were possible if the groom kidnapped his beloved (remember similar rituals among other nations). The abduction of a bride from the Slavs was usually carried out by prior agreement with the girl. However, Christianity gradually put an end to this tradition, because, in the case of a non-church marriage, the priest was deprived of the remuneration due to him for performing the wedding ceremony.

At the same time, the kidnapped girl became the property of her husband. When an agreement was concluded between the parents, a deal took place between the girl’s family and the groom’s family, which somewhat limited the husband’s power. The bride received the right to her dowry, which became her property.

Christianity imposed a ban on bigamy, which had previously been common in Rus'. This tradition was associated with Slavic beliefs in two goddesses - “born women”, who, in inextricable connection with the god Rod, were revered as the ancestors of the Slavs.

In the wedding ceremony, even in those days when Christianity became the dominant religion in the country, many pagan rituals were preserved, which were ahead of the wedding in importance. Therefore, the priest did not occupy the most honorable place during the ceremonial meal at the feast dedicated to the wedding; more often he was pushed to the far end of the table.

Dances and dances at a wedding are a pagan ritual. The wedding procedure did not include them. The daring wedding fun is an echo of pre-Christian pagan traditions.

A crime such as causing the death of a woman was punished differently. The husband could either avenge the smerd’s wife, or through the court the owner, whose servant she was, could receive compensation for damages for her death.

Punishment for sexual violence against women depended on the social status of the victim.

For the murder of a woman of a princely or boyar family, the court offered her relatives a choice between revenge and payment of “vira” - a kind of compensation for damage - in the amount of 20 hryvnia. This amount was very significant, so often the injured party chose to pay a fine. The murder of a man was estimated twice as high - 40 hryvnia.

Punishment for sexual violence against women depended on the social status of the victim. Punishment was imposed for the rape of a well-born girl. For violence against a servant, the owner could receive compensation as for damage to property, if the culprit belonged to another master. The master's violence against his own servants was common. In relation to violence that occurred within the property between smerds, measures were taken at the discretion of the owner.

The right of the first night was used by the owners, although it was not officially stated anywhere. The owner took advantage of the opportunity to take the girl first. Until the 19th century, owners of large estates created entire harems of serf girls.

Orthodoxy's attitude towards women was emphatically derogatory. This was characteristic of Christian philosophy: the exaltation of the spirit and its opposition to the flesh. Despite the fact that the Mother of God, ardently revered in Rus', was a woman, representatives of the fair sex could not stand comparison with their heavenly patroness, they were harshly called the vessel of the devil.

Perhaps that is why, among the Russian pantheon of martyrs and passion-bearers, up to the 18th century, out of more than 300 names, there were only 26 female ones. Most of them belonged to noble families, or were the wives of recognized saints.

Legal foundations and traditions of family life in Ancient Rus'

Family life in Ancient Rus' was subject to strict traditions.

Family life in Ancient Rus' was subject to strict traditions that remained unchanged for a long time.

A widespread phenomenon was a family (clan), consisting of many male relatives living under one roof.

In such a family, together with their aging parents, their sons and grandchildren lived with their families. After the wedding, the girls went to another family, to another clan. Marriages between members of the clan were prohibited.

Sometimes adult sons, for various reasons, separated from their clan and formed new families, which consisted of a husband, wife and their young children.

The Orthodox Church took control of family life itself, and its beginning - the wedding ceremony, declaring it a sacred sacrament. However, at first, in the 11th century, only representatives of the nobility resorted to it, and then, rather, in order to maintain status rather than religious beliefs.

Commoners preferred to do without the help of priests in this matter, since they did not see the point in a church wedding, because Russian wedding traditions were self-sufficient and were not just fun entertainment.

Despite efforts aimed at eradicating non-church marriages, the church court had to recognize them as legal when resolving litigation concerning family issues: divorce and division of property. Children born in marriages not sanctified by the church also had the right to inheritance on an equal basis with married ones.

In the ancient Russian legislation of the 11th century, represented by the “Charter of Prince Yaroslav,” there are a number of regulations relating to family and marriage. Even collusion between matchmakers was a regulated phenomenon.

For example, refusal of marriage by the groom after matchmaking had taken place was considered an insult to the bride and required substantial compensation. Moreover, the amount collected in favor of the metropolitan was twice as large as in favor of the offended party.

The church limited the possibility of remarriage; there should have been no more than two.

By the 12th century, the influence of the church on family life became more noticeable: marriages between relatives up to the sixth generation were prohibited, polygamy practically disappeared in the Kiev and Pereyaslavl principalities, and bride kidnapping became only a playful element of the wedding ceremony.

Marriage age norms were established; only boys who had reached the age of 15 and 13-14 year old girls could marry. True, this rule was not always observed in reality and marriages of younger teenagers were not uncommon.

Also illegal were marriages between people with a large age difference, elderly people (old women at that time were already 35 years old).

Family unions between noble men and lower class women were not considered legal from the point of view of the church and were not recognized. Peasant women and slaves were essentially concubines in a relationship with a noble man, with no legal status or legal protection for themselves or their children.

According to the provisions of the “Long-Range Pravda” (an adaptation of the “Charter of Prince Yaroslav”, made in the 12th century), the marriage of a free citizen of ancient Russian society with a servant, as well as the reverse option, when an enslaved person became the husband, led to the enslavement of a free citizen or woman.

Thus, in reality, a free man could not marry a slave (servant): this would make him a slave. The same thing happened if the woman was free and the man was in bondage.

Slaves of different masters did not have the opportunity to get married, unless the owners agreed to sell one of them into the possession of another, so that both spouses belonged to the same master, which, given the disdainful attitude of masters towards slaves, was an extremely rare occurrence. Therefore, in fact, slaves could only count on marriage with one of the smerdas of the same gentleman, usually from the same village.

Class-unequal alliances were impossible. Yes, the master did not need to marry his servant, she could be used anyway.

The church limited the possibility of remarriage; there should have been no more than two. For a long time, a third wedding was illegal both for the bride and groom and for the priest who performed the sacrament, even if he did not know about the previous marriages.

It was the parents' responsibility to marry off their daughter, failure to comply with which was punished the more severely the more noble the girl was.

The reasons why family life was interrupted (widowhood) did not matter in this case. Later, according to the following editions of legal norms from the 14th-15th centuries, the legislation showed some leniency towards young people who were widowed early in their first two marriages and did not have time to have children, in the form of permission for a third.

Children born from third and subsequent marriages during these times began to have the right to inheritance.

The “Charter of Prince Yaroslav” (which appeared around the turn of the 11th-12th centuries) provided for the obligations of parents to their children, according to which the offspring must be financially secure and settled in family life.

It was the responsibility of the parents to marry off their daughter, failure to fulfill which was punishable the higher the more noble the girl was: “If a girl from the great boyars does not marry, the parents pay the metropolitan 5 hryvnias of gold, and lesser boyars - a hryvnia of gold, and ostentatious people - 12 hryvnias of silver, and a simple child is a hryvnia of silver.” This money went into the church treasury.

Such harsh sanctions forced parents to rush into marriage. The children's opinions were not specifically asked.

Forced marriage was widespread. As a result, women sometimes decided to commit suicide if the marriage was hateful. In this case, the parents were also punished: “If the girl does not want to get married, and her father and mother give her away by force, and she does something to herself, the father and mother will answer to the metropolitan.”

When her parents died, caring for her unmarried sister (marriage, providing a dowry) fell on her brothers, who were obliged to give her whatever they could as a dowry. If there were sons in the family, daughters did not receive inheritance.

The man in the ancient Russian family was the main breadwinner. The woman mainly took care of household chores and children. Many children were born, but most of them did not live to see adolescence.

They tried to get rid of unwanted pregnancy with the help of witchcraft remedies (“potions”), although such actions were considered a sin. Losing a child as a result of work was not considered a sin and no penance was imposed for it.

In old age, children looked after their parents. The society did not provide assistance to the elderly.

In case of divorce or death of her husband, a woman had the right only to her dowry, with which she came to the groom's house.

In the pagan tradition, premarital sexual relations were considered normal. But with the rooting of Christian traditions, the birth of an illegitimate child became like a stigma for a woman. She could only go to a monastery; marriage was no longer possible for her. The blame for the birth of an illegitimate child was placed on the woman. Not only unmarried girls, but also widows were subjected to the same punishment.

The main owner of family property was the man. In case of divorce or death of her husband, a woman had the right only to her dowry, with which she came to the groom's house. Having this property allowed her to remarry.

Upon her death, only the woman's own children inherited the dowry. The size of the dowry varied depending on the social status of its owner; the princess could have an entire city in her possession.

Relations between spouses were regulated by law. He obliged each of them to take care of each other during illness; leaving a sick spouse was illegal.

In family matters, decisions remained with the husband. The husband represented the interests of his wife in relations with society. He had the right to punish her, and the husband was automatically right in any case; he was also free to choose the punishment.

Beating another man's wife was not permitted; in this case, the man was subject to punishment by the church authorities. It was possible and necessary to punish your own wife. The husband's decision regarding his wife was law.

The relations of the spouses were brought to a third-party court only when considering divorce cases.

The list of grounds for divorce was short. The main reasons: infidelity to the husband and the case when the husband was physically unable to fulfill marital duties. Such options were listed in the Novgorod rules of the 12th century.

In family matters, decisions remained with the husband: beating his wife and children was not only his right, but his duty.

The possibility of divorce was also considered if family relationships were completely unbearable, for example, if the husband drank away his wife's property - but in this case, penance was imposed.

A man's adultery was also extinguished by performing penance. Only contact between a husband and someone else's wife was considered treason. The husband's infidelity was not a reason for divorce, although from the 12th-13th centuries the wife's infidelity became a valid reason for divorce, if there were witnesses to her misconduct. Even just communicating with strangers outside the home was considered a threat to the husband’s honor and could lead to divorce.

Also, the husband had the right to demand a divorce if his wife tried to encroach on his life or rob him, or became an accomplice in such actions.

Later editions of legal documents made it possible for a wife to also demand a divorce if her husband accused her of adultery without evidence, that is, he had no witnesses, or if he tried to kill her.

Both the authorities and the church tried to preserve the marriage, not only consecrated, but also unmarried. The dissolution of a church marriage cost twice as much - 12 hryvnia, and an unmarried marriage - 6 hryvnia. At that time this was a lot of money.

The legislation of the 11th century provided for liability for illegal divorces and marriages. A man who left his first wife and entered into an unauthorized marriage with the second, as a result of a court decision, had to return to his legal wife, pay her a certain amount in the form of compensation for the insult and not forget about the penalty against the metropolitan.

If a wife left for another man, her new, illegitimate husband was responsible for this offense: he had to pay the “sale,” in other words, a fine, to the church authorities. A woman who had sinned was placed in a church house to atone for her unrighteous deed.

But the men, both the first and the second (after appropriate penance), could subsequently improve their personal lives by creating a new family with the approval of the church.

What awaited the children after their parents’ divorce was not mentioned anywhere; the legislation was not concerned with deciding their fate. When a wife was exiled to a monastery, as well as upon her death, the children could remain with the husband's family, under the supervision of aunts and grandmothers.

It is noteworthy that in Ancient Rus' of the 11th century the word “orphan” meant a free peasant (peasant woman), and not at all a child left without parents. Parents had great power over their children, they could even give them to slaves. For the death of a child, the father was sentenced to a year in prison and a fine. For the murder of their parents, children were sentenced to death. Children were prohibited from complaining about their parents.

The position of women in Rus' during the period of autocracy

The sixteenth century was a time of rapid changes in Rus'. The country was ruled at this time by a well-born son, who became famous as Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The new Grand Duke became ruler at the age of 3, and king at 16.

The title "Tsar" is important here because he was indeed the first to be officially given this title. “Terrible” because his reign was marked by such trials for the Russian people that even to him, an eternal worker and sufferer, seemed terrible.

It was from the message of Tsar Ivan the Terrible that an estate-representative monarchy arose, a transitional form on the path to absolutism. The goal was worthy - the elevation of the royal throne and the country as a whole above other states of Europe and the East (the territory of Rus' doubled under the leadership of Ivan the Terrible). To control new territories and suppress attempts to resist the increasingly absolute power of the tsar, internal terror was used - the oprichnina.

The reign of Ivan the Terrible was marked by terrible trials for the Russian people.

But the legal basis for the changes sought did not correspond to the goals: the law was unable to cope with the rudeness of morals. No one, neither ordinary people, nor the nobility, nor the guardsmen themselves felt safe.

Only under the watchful eye of the authorities was the appearance of order maintained. As soon as the boss failed to notice the irregularities, everyone tried to grab what they could. “Why not steal if there is no one to appease,” says a Russian proverb contemporary to the era of Ivan the Terrible.

“Theft” was the name given to any offense, including murder and rebellion. The one who was stronger was right. In society there was a struggle between custom and decree: time-honored traditions contradicted innovations. The result of mosaic law was chaos and intimidation.

It was during this era that the famous book “Domostroy” became popular. It was a teaching addressed to his son and containing advice for all occasions, especially family life, as well as a serious moral message, closely intertwined with Christian commandments about humility and mercy, nobility and a sober lifestyle.

The initial version dates back to the end of the 15th century. Subsequently, the book was improved by Archpriest Sylvester, the mentor of Tsar Ivan the Terrible himself. The commandments of this work initially found a response in the soul of the young autocrat. But after the death of his first wife Anastasia, with whom he lived for more than 13 years, the king changed. The Lord of All Rus', according to some sources, boasted of having hundreds of concubines, but he only had at least 6 official wives.

After Domostroy, no similar attempt was made in Russian-speaking social culture to regulate the comprehensive range of responsibilities in everyday life, especially family life. Of the documents of modern times, the only thing that can be compared with it is the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism.” The similarity lies in the fact that the ideals of Domostroy, as well as the principles of the moral code of the builder of communism, for the most part remained calls, and not the real norm of people’s lives.

Instead of cruel punishments, Domostroy proposed teaching women with rods, carefully and without witnesses. Instead of the usual slander and denunciations, we find calls not to spread rumors and not to listen to snitches.

According to this teaching, humility must be combined with firmness of conviction, zeal and hard work - with generosity towards guests, the church, the orphaned and the needy. Talkativeness, laziness, wastefulness, bad habits, and connivance towards the weaknesses of others were strictly condemned.

This primarily applied to wives, who, according to the book, should be silent, hardworking and faithful executors of their husband's will. Their communication with household servants should be limited to guidelines; it is not recommended to communicate with strangers at all, and especially with girlfriends, “grandmothers-conspirators” who distract the wife from her immediate duties with conversations and gossip, which, from the point of view of Domostroy, are very harmful . Unemployment and freedom are portrayed as evil, and submission as good.

"Domostroy" was popular during the 16th-17th centuries; With the advent of Peter the Great's times, they began to treat him with irony.

Hierarchical position on the ladder determines the degree of freedom and control. A high position imposes an obligation to make decisions and monitor their implementation. Subordinates may not think about plans; their task is unquestioning submission. The young woman is at the bottom of the family hierarchy, below her only small children.

The king is responsible for the country, the husband is responsible for the family and their misdeeds. That is why the superior is entrusted with the responsibility to punish subordinates, including for disobedience.

A compromise approach was expected only from the female side: the wife deliberately loses all her rights and freedoms in exchange for the privilege of being protected by her husband’s authority. The husband, in turn, has complete control over his wife, being responsible for her to society (as in Ancient Rus').

The word “married” is indicative in this regard: the wife was “behind” her husband and did not function without his permission.

“Domostroy” was very popular during the 16th-17th centuries, however, with the advent of Peter the Great’s times, it began to be treated with irony and ridicule.

Terem - maiden dungeon

Shame awaited the family that married off their daughter “not pure”: in order to avoid this, the girl was imprisoned in a mansion.

According to the customs of the times of Domostroy, a noble bride must be virgin until her wedding. This quality of a girl was the main requirement for her, in addition to property or household requirements.

Shame awaited the family that married off their “unclean” daughter. Preventive measures in this case were simple and unpretentious: the girl was kept in a tower. Depending on the wealth of the family to which it belonged, and in this case we are talking about representatives of noble families, it could be an entire turret in a mansion house typical of that time, or one, or perhaps several light fixtures.

Maximum isolation was created: of the men, only the father or priest had the right to enter. The girl's company included her relatives, children, maids, and nannies. Their whole life consisted of chatting, reading prayers, sewing and dowry embroidery.

The wealth and high-born position of a girl reduced the likelihood of marriage, because it was not easy to find a groom of equal status. Such home confinement could be lifelong. Other options for leaving the tower were the following: to marry at least someone or go to a monastery.

However, the life of a high-born married woman was not much different from the life of a bride - the same loneliness while waiting for her husband. If these women left the tower, it was either for a walk behind a high garden fence, or for a ride in a carriage with drawn curtains and a mass of accompanying nannies.

All these rules did not apply to women of simple origin, since the family needed their labor.

By the end of the 17th century, the rules regarding noble women began to soften. For example, Natalia Naryshkina, the wife of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, was allowed to ride in a carriage, exposing her face.

The girl's life in the mansion consisted of chatting, reading prayers, sewing and embroidering her dowry.

Russian wedding customs

Before the wedding, the noble bride and groom often did not see each other.

Wedding traditions in Rus' were strict and consistent, deviations from them were impossible. Therefore, the parents agreed to marry their children, agreed with each other on property issues, and there will be a feast.

It doesn’t matter that the offspring are not yet aware of their parents’ plans for their future, it doesn’t matter that the girl is still playing with dolls, and the boy has just been put on a horse - the main thing is that the game is profitable.

Young marriageable age was typical for Russia, especially in noble families, where the marriage of children was a means of obtaining economic or political benefits.

A lot of time could pass between the engagement and the wedding, the children had time to grow up, but the property agreements remained in force. Such traditions contributed to the isolation of each of the social layers; misalliances at that time were extremely rare.

Before the wedding, the noble bride and groom often did not see each other; personal acquaintance between the couple was not necessary, and, even more so, they did not dare to object to the decision of their fate. For the first time, the young man could see the face of his betrothed only during the ceremony, where he could no longer change anything.

Peter I introduced many changes to the marriage system.

At the wedding, the girl was hidden from head to toe under a rich outfit. No wonder the etymological meaning of the word “bride” is “unknown”.

The bride's veil and bedspreads were removed at the wedding feast.

The wedding night was a time of discovery, and not always pleasant, but there was no turning back. Girls’ “fortune telling” about their future betrothed was an attempt by teenage girls to somehow figure out their future destiny, because they had little opportunity to influence it.

Peter I logically assumed that in such families there was little chance of producing full-fledged descendants, and this was a direct loss for the state. He began active actions against the traditional Russian marriage system.

In particular, in 1700-1702. It was legally established that at least 6 weeks must pass between engagement and marriage. During this time, young people had the right to change their decision regarding marriage.

Later, in 1722, Tsar Peter went even further in this direction, prohibiting marriages from being consummated in the church if one of the newlyweds was against the wedding.

However, Peter, for reasons of high politics, betrayed his own convictions and forced Tsarevich Alexei to marry a girl from the German royal family. She belonged to a different faith, Protestant, and this greatly turned Alexei away from her, who, thanks to his mother’s upbringing, was committed to Russian Orthodox traditions.

Fearing his father's wrath, the son carried out his will, and this marriage gave rise to a long-term (for two centuries) custom of choosing spouses of German blood for representatives of the Romanov family.

Peter I forbade consummation of marriages in the church if one of the newlyweds was against the wedding.

Representatives of the lower classes had a much simpler attitude towards creating a family. Girls from serfs, servants, and urban commoners were not abstracted from society, like noble beauties. They were lively and sociable, although they were also influenced by the moral principles accepted in society and supported by the church.

Communication between commoner girls and the opposite sex was free, which resulted from their joint work activities and visiting church. In the temple, men and women were on opposite sides, but could see each other. As a result, marriages of mutual sympathy were common among serfs, especially those living on large or remote estates.

Serfs serving at the house found themselves in a worse position, since the owner created families among the servants, based on his own interests, which rarely coincided with the personal sympathies of the forced people.

The saddest situation was when love arose between young people from the estates of different owners. In the 17th century, it was possible for a serf to move to another estate, but for this he needed to be redeemed; the amount was high, but everything depended on the goodwill of the owner, who was not interested in the loss of labor.

Tsar Peter I, with the help of the same decree of 1722, took into account the possibility of marriage of one’s own free will even for peasants, including serfs. But the Senate unanimously opposed such an innovation, which threatened their material well-being.

And, despite the fact that the decree was put into effect, it did not make the fate of the serfs easier either under Peter or in subsequent years, which is confirmed by the situation described by Turgenev in the story “Mumu” ​​in 1854, where a maid is married off to an unloved man.

Divorces took place in Rus'.

As already written above, divorces in Rus' took place due to the infidelity of one of the spouses, refusal to live together, and the conviction of one of the spouses. Women often ended up in a monastery as a result of divorce.

Peter I also changed this, imperfect, in his opinion, legislation, with the help of a decree of the Synod of 1723. Women who caused divorce, and therefore were found guilty from the point of view of the church, were sent to the workhouse instead of the monastery, where they were useful, in contrast to being in the monastery.

Men were no less likely than women to file for divorce. In case of a positive decision, the wife was obliged to leave her husband’s house along with her dowry, however, husbands sometimes did not give up their wife’s property and threatened her. The only salvation for women was the same monastery.

There is a well-known example of the noble Saltykov family, where a divorce case, after many years of proceedings, ended in a refusal to dissolve the marriage, despite confirmed cruelty towards the woman on the part of the husband.

The wife, as a result of her request being refused, had to go to a monastery, since she had nothing to live on.

Peter himself did not escape the temptation to sell his wife Evdokia, who was disgusted with him, under the monastery vaults; moreover, she had to take monastic vows there against her own desire.

Later, by order of Peter, the women who were forcibly tonsured were allowed to return to secular life and were given permission to remarry. If a wife left for a monastery, the marriage with her now continued to be considered valid, the woman’s property was inaccessible to her husband. As a result of such innovations, well-born men stopped sending their wives to the monastery with the same frequency.

In case of divorce, the wife left her husband's house along with her dowry, however, the husbands sometimes did not want to give it away.

Women's rights throughout XVI– XVIII centuries

In the 16th-17th centuries, property was at the complete disposal of noble women.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, changes occurred in women's rights.

The property was now at the complete disposal of noble women. They had the opportunity to bequeath their fortune to anyone; the husband was not the wife’s unconditional heir. After the death of her husband, the widow managed his property and acted as guardian of the children.

For a noble woman, an estate was an opportunity to prove herself as a sovereign ruler. Women from the upper classes were admitted as witnesses in court.

The social status of women belonging to the lower strata of society differed from that of the nobility. Serf women were so powerless that even their clothes and other things were the property of their master or mistress. Lower-class women could only testify in court if the proceedings were against a person of the same social category.

The 16th-17th centuries became the apogee of servitude for the enslaved population of Russia. Their position, completely dependent on their owners, was confirmed by law and strictly controlled. They were to be sold as pets. In the 18th century, markets in large cities of the country, for example, in St. Petersburg, had shopping arcades where serfs were presented for sale.

Serfs were sold individually and in families, with a price tag attached to their foreheads. Prices were different, but even the strongest, youngest and healthiest serf was valued cheaper than a thoroughbred horse.

With the development of state structures, the duty of landowners and nobles became service for the benefit of the state, most often military. Payment for service was estates given to them for temporary use during the period of service.

Since the 18th century, a man has been responsible for the death of a woman with his own head.

In the event of the death of an employee, the land with the serfs living on it was returned to the state, and the widow had to leave her home; she was often left without housing and means of subsistence. A frequent solution to such a difficult situation was the monastery. However, younger women could again find a husband and provide for their children.

Judicial legislation was still more severe towards women. For the murder of her own husband, a wife was always punished by execution, regardless of the reason for such an act. For example, in the 16th century, the killer of a spouse was buried in the ground alive up to his shoulders. This method was used until the reign of Peter I, who abolished such a medieval relic.

A man in similar situations was not strictly punished until the 18th century; only Peter the Great corrected this injustice, and now a man was responsible for the death of a woman with his own head. At the same time, the laws regarding children also changed; previously, the father had the right to do with his offspring as he pleased, but now the death of a child was also punishable by execution.

Soon after the adoption of this law, it was applied to the maid of honor Mary Hamilton, who had an affair with the emperor. The woman, having given birth to a child from Peter, killed him. Despite numerous requests for leniency, the woman was executed on the main charge: infanticide.

For a long time, starting from pagan times and before Peter’s reforms, the position of women changed, sometimes radically, from fairly free under paganism to completely powerless, “terem”, during the period of the 16th-17th centuries. With the coming to power of the Romanov dynasty, the legal situation regarding women again underwent changes, and the mansion began to become a thing of the past.

The era of Emperor Peter revolutionized the life of Russian women in accordance with the changes that the country experienced in all social spheres under the leadership of the reformer tsar - in the Western style.

Obeying the instructions of Peter the Great, well-born women and girls were obliged to master the science of relaxed communication with the male sex, as in the best houses of Europe. The “chamber regime” was replaced for them by beautiful dances together with young people and learning languages.

The romantic image of the knight was sung in medieval ballads and later works. In them, noble, handsome men in shining armor and on a faithful horse fought with enemies and defended the honor of a beautiful lady. This idealized image is firmly rooted in the minds of many girls.

However, the culture and life of the Middle Ages left their mark on the knights. They behaved according to the mores of their time, which modern people would find simply terrifying. So were the knights as ideal as they were written about in courtly novels?

How did you become a medieval knight?

To understand a little better what knights were like, it’s worth finding out how they came to be. The prototypes of medieval knights can be considered the equites - the horsemen of Ancient Rome. But in our usual understanding, knighthood appeared around the 8th century in the Frankish state. Back then, knights were heavily armed horsemen who defended their homeland from Arab attacks. However, knighthood as an estate took shape only in the 11th–12th centuries. Among the German knights there were ministerials - untitled land owners who were not, strictly speaking, vassals of their master. In the Frankish state, things were somewhat different.

In France, only a noble owner of a large fief or allotment could become a knight. But in very rare cases, an untitled person endowed with land could become a knight. In England, those who could not boast of noble origin, but owned land, the annual income of which amounted to a certain amount, became knights. In this country, only the king had the right to knight. And in Germany and France, any knight could knight another person. And the father-knight himself initiated his son, who had completed training. But usually this was done by the lord, to whom the newly made knight swore a vassal oath. By the way, training in the art of knighthood lasted a very long time.

Boys began to be taught at the age of seven at home. At the age of 14 he was sent to the lord's court, where he served as a page. And after, from 14 to 21 years old, the young man was a squire to a knight. The squires were taught the seven main virtues of knighthood: wielding a spear, swimming, fencing, falconry, playing chess, horse riding and poetry. They were taught both court etiquette and courtly ethics - the ability to treat women. Religious education was also given. The influence of the church on chivalry was very great, it was not for nothing that knights went on Crusades in the name of faith. At the age of 21, a trained squire was knighted. And with this began his new life, often dedicated only to the “beautiful lady.”

"Fight of Thirty" O. P. L'Charidon

The chivalric cult of the “beautiful lady”

Each knight was obliged to choose a lady of his heart, this was written in the knightly code of love. Yes, yes, there was one. Moreover, it does not matter whether the lady was an aristocrat or a commoner, whether she had a husband or not. All the “beautiful lady” had to do was accept the advances of the knight who had chosen her.

For a medieval knight, the lady he chose was an unattainable ideal and the embodiment of a goddess. In honor of her, he composed sonnets and sang serenades to her under the window. And for the sake of the “beautiful lady” the knights fought in tournaments. The knight rode out to the lists, attaching the gloves received from the lady of his heart to his helmet. A sign was also attached to the shield, praising the beauty of the “beautiful lady.”

Only after several months, or even years of courtship and victory in the tournament, the knight received the right to kiss his lady's hand. However, it also came to bed, but this was not welcomed. The knight was supposed to have only platonic feelings for his lady. This was also prescribed in the code of chivalry. It also stated that a knight is obliged to protect the weak, to be a believing Christian, and to protect the Gospel and the church. The knight had to keep his word, maintain purity of morals, fight against evil, be generous and defend good. But medieval chivalry also had another, dark side.

"God help." E. Leighton

Foul-smelling "handsome"

As you know, hygiene in the Middle Ages left much to be desired, especially in Europe. There, people could not wash for years, “fragrant” with the smell of sweat and excrement. Knights were famous for their particular disregard for their own hygiene. Their armor played an important role in this. It was very difficult to remove them yourself, so during military campaigns the knight remained in armor around the clock. The felt shirt tucked under the armor was soaked with sweat, and the smell from it hurt the eyes. There is even a known case when enemies figured out the place where the knights were staying only by smell.

It is also worth adding the amber from the mouth. The knights had complete lack of oral hygiene. And it’s good if by the age of 30 the knight had at least a dozen teeth left. In addition, the knights loved to drink beer and eat it with garlic. Garlic was believed to cure many diseases. So the ladies to whom the knights showed their attention had to endure all this. However, the lovely ladies did not bother themselves with brushing their teeth and taking a daily bath. So the knights, whose smell knocked them off their feet, did not stand out much at court. Especially externally.

Now, because of the idealization of the image of a knight, it seems to us that they were all tall, muscular machos. In fact, the average height of a knight was about 160 centimeters. But in the Middle Ages, people in general were taller than they are today. Not all knights could boast of beautiful appearance either. The raging smallpox epidemics left their imprints on their faces. The knight's pockmarked face was a familiar sight. As well as his beard, in which pieces of food kept getting stuck. The “noble men” did not bother themselves with shaving - numerous broods of fleas and lice crawled through their hair and beard. In general, the knights were still “handsome”. And, despite the existing code, many of them were notorious scum.

Love whoever you catch

Errant and poor “one-shield” knights not from noble families, for the most part, did not give a damn about the code of honor. Hiding behind the orders of their overlord, they traveled through villages and plundered them. Some even formed into real gangs, which honest people feared. They also forgot about the rule of “protecting the weak” when they killed women and children in villages just for fun. Abuse of women also occurred. Moreover, it didn’t matter to the knights whether it was a girl in front of them or a gray-haired old woman. Any kind of lovemaking was suitable, and besides, it was not difficult to break the resistance of a weaker victim. By the way, the knight’s wife could also forget about treating herself well.

It was only the “beautiful lady” that the knights treated with honor and love. They thought about the chosen one of their hearts day and night, not forgetting to beat and rape their own wife in between. She did not dare to make a word, because in the Middle Ages a woman was considered the property of her husband. The wives also turned a blind eye to the numerous infidelities of their husbands with their maids and forced peasant women. Medieval knights were especially willing to take the wives of their own friends. There was no talk of any kind of fraternal respect. However, everything comes to an end.

They tried to guide the knights who deviated from the code onto the true path through the organization of the Crusades. Pope Urban and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa inspired the knights that they must kill all infidels who desecrated the Holy Sepulcher located in Palestine. The knights heeded this call, but they hardly behaved better on campaigns than on their native land. In the end, the need for knights as mounted warriors disappeared by itself with the invention of firearms. Knights ceased to be warriors and became a political class of untitled nobility. Today the knights remain only in Great Britain. But there it is simply a formal title, given for special services to the crown.

5 August 2011, 12:02

It seems to me that it was with this cult that the romanticization of chivalry and the Middle Ages began. However, not everything was so simple. The Middle Ages knew two polar views on the position of women - a woman appears either as the embodiment of sinfulness, she is initially vicious; or in the image of holy heavenly beauty, the Cult of the Beautiful Lady is its earthly variety. It is amazing that such different cultural worlds existed in one era in parallel, without intersecting with each other. During the Middle Ages, women occupied a secondary, subordinate position. Society's attitude towards it is enshrined in the tenets of the Christian religion. The main features of the morality that dominated medieval society: the ascetic and anti-sexual ideal, the superiority of men over women. Since “flesh” was the container of evil, and woman was the bearer of sinful temptation, the entire sphere of the erotic was “outside the law.” The ideal to strive for is absolute abstinence, virginity, the so-called “spiritual marriage.” The Church declared marriage eternal and indissoluble, but divorces still occurred, although quite rarely. In the classical Middle Ages, the reason for divorce could be, for example, the absence of children. A marriage entered into in violation of church regulations was subject to dissolution, because in this case it could not be considered a sacrament. Monogamy has remained an elusive ideal for centuries. Since the Franks, nobles have changed wives as often as they please. The Frankish lord had as many wives as he could feed on large estates starting from the 6th century. there were so-called “dovecotes” - houses of maids who satisfied the specific needs of the lords. Throughout the Middle Ages, concubinage existed. The Council of Toledo in 400 resolved it, considering it as a permanent extramarital union or as an unregistered marriage. The concubinage was actively used by the clergy, who were prohibited from official marriage. Only in the 16th century. secular authorities put an end to this institution. There was an excess of female population in the medieval city. As a result of wars and civil strife, and the dangers of trade routes, men died much more often. Some of them were deprived of the opportunity to marry. First of all, this applies to clergy. Initially, celibacy was mandatory only for monks and higher clergy, but in the 2nd century. it was extended to all Catholic clergy (celibacy). When marrying, craftsmen were required to prove the existence of independent income, so guild apprentices, as a rule, were doomed to celibacy. A category of so-called “eternal apprentices” is formed and the number of single men increases to abnormal proportions. These circumstances contributed to a decrease in the number of marriages and provoked the development of prostitution. Medieval prostitution functioned primarily in the closed form of a guild organization. The state sought to bring it under control. Houses of brothel in the 13th century, as a rule, were a state structure. They were maintained at the expense of the city council or the sovereign (prince). They were directly supervised by a manager who took the oath and worked under the supervision of city officials. The contingent of “women” was formed through the slave trade, pimping and pimping. Prostitution flourished in baths, taverns and taverns, as well as during fairs, holidays, tournaments, crusades, etc. Paradoxically, the church and state themselves universally initiated the spread of the belief in the absolute inevitability of prostitution. Being a derivative of original sin, it is ineradicable, like sin itself. There was even talk of some benefits of this vice. She was seen as protection from an even more dangerous evil: adultery, seduction of “decent” women, etc. An amazing phenomenon of the Middle Ages was the cult of the beautiful lady. Its origins are unclear. Typically, in warrior cultures that glorify the male warrior, women are not valued very highly. Be that as it may, it represents the antithesis of the institution of medieval marriage. The cult arose in the 12th century. It is believed that his homeland is the south of France. He sings of sweet bliss and erotic longing. The glorification of the lady of the heart is spreading in France and Germany, and other countries are borrowing it. The Beautiful Lady is worshiped by traveling minstrels, troubadours and minnesingers. In the 13th century a courtly novel appears, which then became very widespread. Noble sublime love is the monopoly of chivalry. Only a woman from the “seniorial” class had the privilege of arousing this feeling, but not a commoner. There are two rules of knightly behavior, two passions and duties: “to fight and to love.” Both must be done absolutely unselfishly. Courtly love is based on the worship of the Lady and is built on the model of vassal relations. The woman in this duet plays the main role and takes the place of the seigneur. The lover takes an oath to his chosen one and serves her as overlord. The cult of love includes separate stages of initiation, and its central point is testing. The Knight serves in the name of an idea, and the Lady is only an excuse to express feelings and demonstrate valor. It is interesting that the reward of the lover is not supposed to be in this game, at least not the main goal. Thus, the nature of these relationships is platonic (although the real connection was by no means contrary to the spirit of the times). As proof of this, it should be noted that the cult of the Lady flourished at the courts of large lords. As a rule, the mistress of the castle was chosen as the object of worship. For her husband's vassals, traveling minstrels who came from families of poor and land-poor knights, she remained unattainable. They glorified a mature married woman without expecting reciprocity. In addition to chanting the lord, the cult involved real actions that confirmed the feelings of the admirer. These are deeds on the battlefield or in tournaments, performed in honor of the beloved, which was the most traditional, a variety of deeds, starting with the most simple and harmless acts, such as wearing a scarf, ribbon, glove or shirt of your lady, as well as the colors of her coat of arms, and ending with the most exotic and masochistic acts such as pulling out nails, running on all fours and howling like a wolf. Voluntarily entering into love slavery, the knights subjected themselves to all sorts of humiliations in order to achieve the favor of their mistress. In the world of knightly valor and honor, women suddenly acquire enormous rights and rise in the consciousness of the male environment to unattainable heights - up to the hitherto unprecedented opportunity to judge a man. True, all these rights and opportunities were exercised in the very narrow sphere of knightly eroticism, but this was already a victory for women. “Court of love” in this usage is not at all a metaphor. Proceedings in the field of love law took place in full compliance with all moral norms and the then existing judicial practice. Unless the “courts of love” handed down death sentences. Here are a few stories from that time: A certain knight passionately and devotedly loved a lady, “and only about her was all the excitement of his spirit.” The lady refused to reciprocate his love. Seeing that the knight persisted in his passion, the lady asked him if he agreed to achieve her love on the condition that he would fulfill all her wishes, whatever they may be. “My lady,” answered the knight, “let me be so overcome as to disobey your commands in any way!” Hearing this, the lady immediately ordered him to stop all harassment and not to dare praise her in front of others. The knight was forced to come to terms. But in one society, this noble gentleman heard how his lady was blasphemed with obscene words, could not resist and defended the honorable name of his beloved. The beloved, hearing about this, announced that she would forever deny him love, since he had violated her command. In this case, the Countess of Champagne “shone through” with the following decision: “The lady was too harsh in her command... It is not the lover’s fault that he rebelled with a righteous rebuff against his mistress’s detractors; for he took an oath in order to more accurately achieve the love of her lady, and therefore she was wrong in her command to him not to advocate for that love anymore.” And another similar trial. Someone, in love with a worthy woman, began to urgently seek the love of another mistress. When his goal was achieved, “he became jealous of the embrace of his former mistress, and turned his back to his second mistress.” In this case, the Countess of Flanders expressed the following verdict: “A husband, so experienced in the fabrications of deception, deserves to be deprived of both his old and new love, and in the future he should not enjoy love with any worthy lady, since violent voluptuousness clearly reigns in him, and it is entirely hostile to true love." Troubadour Richard de Barbezil had been in love for a long time with a certain lady, the wife of Juaffre de Tonnet. And she “favored him beyond all measure, and he called her the Best of All.” But in vain he delighted his ears with his beloved songs. She remained unapproachable. Having learned about this, another lady suggested that Richard give up his hopeless attempts and promised to give him everything that Madame de Tonnet had denied him. Richard, succumbing to temptation, really abandoned his former lover. But when he came to the new lady, she refused him, explaining that if he was unfaithful to the first one, then he could do the same to her. Discouraged, Richard decided to return to where he left. However, Madame de Tonnet, in turn, refused to accept him. True, she soon softened and agreed to forgive him on the condition that a hundred pairs of lovers would come to her and beg her on their knees for it. And so it was done. A story with the opposite plot is associated with the name of the troubadour Guillem de Balaun. Now the troubadour himself experiences the lady’s love and, demonstrating complete cooling, brings the poor woman to the last humiliation and, with beatings (!), drives her away. However, the day came when Guillem realized what he had done. The lady did not want to see him and “ordered him to be driven out of the castle in shame.” The troubadour retired to his room, grieving over what he had done. The lady, apparently, was no better. And soon, through the noble lord, who undertook to reconcile the lovers, the lady conveyed her decision to Guilhem. She agrees to forgive the troubadour only on the condition that he pulls out his thumbnail and brings it to her along with a song in which he reproaches himself for the madness he has committed. Guillem did all this with great readiness. A certain Guillem de la Thore kidnapped his future wife from a Milanese barber and loved her more than anything in the world. Time passed and the wife died. Guillem, who fell into madness from grief, did not believe this and began to come to the cemetery every day. He removed the deceased from the crypt, hugged, kissed and asked her to forgive him, stop pretending and talk to him. People from the surrounding area began to drive Guillem away from the burial site. Then he went to the sorcerers and fortune-tellers, trying to find out whether the dead woman could be resurrected. Some unkind person taught him that if he read certain prayers every day, give alms to seven beggars (before lunch) and do this for a whole year, then his wife will come to life, only she will not be able to eat, drink, or talk. Guillem was delighted, but when, after a year, he saw that everything was to no avail, he fell into despair and soon died. Hausbert de Poisibote, out of great love, married a noble and beautiful girl. When the husband left home for a long time, a certain knight began to court his beautiful wife. In the end, he took her away from home and kept her as his mistress for a long time, and then abandoned her. On his way home, Gausbert accidentally ended up in the same city where his wife, abandoned by her lover, was found. In the evening, Gausbert went to a brothel and found his wife there in the most deplorable condition. Then the anonymous author continues, as in a novel from the era of romanticism: “And when they saw each other, they both experienced great shame and great sorrow. He spent the night with her, and the next morning they went out together, and he took her to the monastery, where he left her Because of such grief, he gave up singing and troubadour art." Troubadour Juaffre Rudel had the misfortune of falling in love with the Princess of Tripoli without ever seeing her. He went in search of her, but during the sea voyage he fell ill with a fatal disease. In Tripoli he was placed in a hospice and the countess was told about this. She came and embraced the troubadour. He immediately came to his senses, recognizing the Lady of his heart, and thanked the Lord for the life saved until he saw his love. He died in her arms. She ordered him to be buried with great honors in the Temple of the Templars, and on the same day she took monastic vows as a nun. The beautiful and valiant knight Guillem de Cabestany fell in love with the wife of his lord, Mr. Raymond de Castell-Rossillon. Having learned about such love, Raymond was filled with jealousy and locked his unfaithful wife in a castle. Then, inviting Guillem to his place, he took him far into the forest and killed him there. Raymond cut out the heart of the unhappy lover, gave it to the cook, and ordered the prepared food to be served at dinner to his wife, who did not suspect anything. When Raymond asked her if she liked the treat, the lady answered in the affirmative. Then her husband told her the truth and showed her the head of the murdered troubadour as proof. The lady replied that since her husband treated her to such a wonderful dish, she would never taste anything else, and rushed down from the high balcony. Hearing about the monstrous crime, the King of Aragon, whose vassal Raymond was, went to war against him and took away all his property, and imprisoned Raymond himself. He ordered the bodies of both lovers to be buried with due honor at the church entrance in the same grave, and ordered all the ladies and knights of Rossillon to gather annually in this place and celebrate the anniversary of their death. As you can see, the Cult of the Beautiful Lady is a game of love, but they played it with full dedication. An article from the magazine “Science and Life” was used in writing the post, as well as illustrations by Edmund Blair and Nikolai Bessonov.

Candidate of Philosophical Sciences O. ANDREEVA

From the remote times of the Middle Ages, shrouded in a dense fog of legends, later fictions and exalted Christian mysticism, a dozen concepts have come down to us, each of which is firmly rooted in the consciousness of a string of generations. Let's leave aside football, badges and other details of modern life that were introduced into everyday use back then. Through the darkness of time, a mysterious female face clearly shines before us - a Beautiful Lady! The Middle Ages were a time of miracles. It is precisely in the realm of the miraculous that one can include the magical transformation of a female image from an inconspicuous detail of family life into a mysterious and multifaceted Stranger who has survived centuries.

Science and life // Illustrations

Beautiful ladies from the Babenberg family - Gerberga, daughter of Leopold III (left), and a Polish princess who joined the family of Austrian kings. XII century.

In their canson songs, the troubadours sang love for the Beautiful Lady. Antique miniature.

The famous Alcazar Castle in Segovia (Spain), founded by King Alfonso VI in the 11th century, is one of the most beautiful in Europe.

The troubadour gives his canson to the lady of his heart. Miniature in a manuscript from the early 16th century.

Battle of the Roncesvalles Gorge.

Street in medieval Siena (Italy). XIII century.

Frankish crusaders attack the Saracens in the Holy Land. Miniature around 1200.

In the early Middle Ages, women, as a rule, did not take part in feasts. Vintage drawing.

Music and dance classes. Medieval miniature.

The ball game is reminiscent of modern bandy hockey. Only then the ball was big.

How much does original sin cost?

The Middle Ages gave women a very modest, if not insignificant, place in the orderly edifice of the social hierarchy. Patriarchal instinct, traditions preserved since the times of barbarism, and finally, religious orthodoxy - all this prompted medieval man to have a very wary attitude towards women. And how else could one relate to it if the sacred pages of the Bible told the story of how Eve’s malicious curiosity and her naivety led Adam to sin, which had such terrible consequences for the human race? Therefore, it seemed quite natural to place the entire burden of responsibility for original sin on fragile female shoulders.

Coquetry, changeability, gullibility and frivolity, stupidity, greed, envy, godless cunning, deceit - this is not a complete list of impartial female traits that have become a favorite theme in literature and folk art. The female theme was exploited with abandon. The bibliography of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries is full of antifeminist works of various genres. But here’s what’s surprising: they all existed next to completely different literature, which persistently sang and glorified the Beautiful Lady.

But first, let's talk about the social status of women. The Middle Ages borrowed it from the famous Roman law, which gave her, in fact, the only right, or rather, the obligation - to give birth and raise children. True, the Middle Ages imposed its own characteristics on this faceless and powerless status. Since the main value in the subsistence economy of that time was land ownership, women often acted as a passive instrument for the seizure of land holdings and other real estate. And one should not be deluded by the heroism of knights who win the hand and heart of their beloved: they did not always do it selflessly.

The legal age for marriage was 14 for boys and 12 for girls. In this state of affairs, the choice of a spouse depended entirely on the parental will. It is not surprising that church-sanctioned marriage became a lifelong nightmare for most. This is evidenced by the laws of that time, which regulated in great detail the punishments for women who killed their husbands - apparently, such cases were not uncommon. Desperate criminals were burned at the stake or buried alive in the ground. And if we remember that medieval morality strongly recommended beating your wife, preferably more often, then it’s easy to imagine how “happy” the Beautiful Lady was in her family.

Typical of that era are the words of the Dominican monk Nicholas Bayard, who wrote at the end of the 13th century: “A husband has the right to punish his wife and beat her for her correction, for she belongs to his household property.” In this, church views diverged somewhat from civil law. The latter stated that a husband could beat his wife, but only moderately. In general, medieval tradition advised a husband to treat his wife as a teacher treats a student, that is, to teach her wisdom more often.

The marriage contract from the point of view of the Middle Ages

Marriage at this time was treated controversially and, from a modern perspective, strange. It was not immediately that the church was able to find sufficient grounds to justify marriage as such. For a very long time it was believed that only a virgin could be a true Christian. This concept, first formulated by Saint Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great, was unconditionally accepted by the church. However, already St. Augustine, at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries, argued that marriage was not so bad after all. The Holy Father also recognized the superiority of virgins over married people, but believed that in a legal marriage, carnal sin turns from mortal to venial, “for it is better to marry than to be inflamed.” Moreover, it was strictly stipulated that in marriage, intercourse should not be performed for the sake of pleasure, but only for the purpose of giving birth to children, who, if they lead a righteous life, have a chance to replace the fallen angels in paradise.

This view prevailed in church circles only at the beginning of the 9th century, and from then on marriages began to be sanctified by the sacrament of weddings. And before, even the very concept of “marriage” was absent. A family was a more or less permanent cohabitation of numerous relatives on the “husband’s” side. The number of “wives” was not standardized in any way; Moreover, they could be changed, given for temporary use to friends or relatives, and finally, simply kicked out. In the Scandinavian countries, a wife, even already married, for a long time was not considered a relative of her husband at all.

But even after the church began to sanctify marriage, public morality strictly separated the marriage relationship (more like a political, legal and financial contract) and true love. So, for example, one of the high-born ladies of the 12th century, Ermengarde of Narbonne, when asked where affection is stronger: between lovers or between spouses, answered this: “Marital affection and true tenderness in love should be considered different, and they originate from very dissimilar impulses.” .

The main thing that was required of a woman in marriage was the birth of children. But this blessed ability often turned out to be not a blessing, but a misfortune for a medieval family, since it greatly complicated the procedure for inheriting property. They divided property in every way, but the most common way of distributing inheritance was primordacy, in which the eldest son received the lion's share of property, primarily land plots. The remaining sons either remained in their brother's house as hangers-on, or joined the ranks of knights-errant - noble, but poor.

For a long time, daughters and wives had no rights at all to inherit marital and parental property. If the daughter could not be married off, she was sent to a monastery, and the widow also went there. It was not until the 12th century that wives and only daughters acquired the right of inheritance, but even then (and much later) they were limited in their ability to make wills. The English Parliament, for example, equated them in this respect to peasants who were the property of the feudal lord.

It was especially difficult for orphan girls; they became entirely dependent on their guardians, who rarely felt kindred feelings for their charges. If the orphan had a large inheritance behind her, then her marriage usually turned into a very cynical deal between the guardian and the prospective groom. For example, the English king John the Landless (1199-1216), who became the guardian of little Grace, the heiress of Thomas Sailby, decided to give her as a wife to the brother of the chief royal forester, Adam Neville. When the girl was four years old, he announced his desire to immediately marry her. The bishop opposed, considering such a marriage premature, but during his absence the priest married the newlyweds. Grace was soon widowed. Then the king gave her to his courtier as a wife for 200 marks. However, he soon died. The last husband of the unfortunate woman was a certain Brian de Lisle. Now the enterprising king had already received 300 marks (Grace, apparently, grew and became prettier). This time the husband lived a long time, had a brutal character and tried to ensure that his wife’s life was not sweet.

Despite the obvious arbitrariness of parents and guardians, the church wedding ceremony involved a sacramental question: does the bride agree to get married? Few people had the courage to answer “no.” However, there are no rules without exceptions. One of the Spanish kings at a palace reception announced that he was giving his daughter, sixteen-year-old beauty Ursula, in marriage to his marshal, who by that time was well over 60. The courageous girl publicly refused to marry the elderly marshal. The king immediately declared that he was cursing her. In response, the princess, previously known for her meekness and piety, said that she would immediately leave the palace and go to a brothel, where she would earn a living with her body. “I will earn a lot of money,” added Ursula, “and I promise to erect a monument to my father in the main square of Madrid, greater in splendor than all the monuments that have ever stood on earth.” She kept her promise. True, she still did not reach the brothel, becoming the concubine of some noble nobleman. But when her father died, Ursula actually erected at her own expense a magnificent monument in his honor, which for several centuries became almost the main decoration of Madrid.

The story of the desperate princess did not end there. After the king's death, Ursula's brother ascended the throne, but he also died soon after. The cursed daughter, according to the rules of Spanish succession to the throne, became queen and, as in a fairy tale, ruled happily ever after.

Birth of a legend

No matter how difficult and bizarre the reality of those years was, the imagination of a medieval person was clearly lacking something. Through the centuries-old shrouds of tradition and religious restrictions of the exalted Middle Ages, a certain foggy female image shimmering with an unsolved mystery was drawn. This is how the legend of the Beautiful Lady arose. With relative accuracy, we can say that she was born at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century; her birthplace is considered to be the southern region of France, Provence.

Provence, from which the Beautiful Lady's victorious march around the world began, is now called the entire southern outskirts of France, uniting several provinces: Périgord, Auvergne, Limousin, Provence, etc. During the Middle Ages, this entire vast region was called Occitania, since the people its inhabitants spoke the Ok language, which is now known as Provençal. The traditional distinction between Romance languages ​​is associated with the affirmative particle used in them. In Provençal the particle "ok" was used. By the way, it was included in the name of one of the southern provinces - Languedoc.

Poets who composed their songs in the “ok” language were called troubadours. Poems in this language, dedicated to the Beautiful Lady, were the first works of high literature written not in “eternal” Latin, but in colloquial language, which made them understandable to everyone. The great Dante, in his treatise “On Popular Eloquence,” wrote: “...And another language, that is, “ok,” proves in its favor that the masters of folk eloquence first began to compose poetry in it, as a more perfect and sweet language.”

The image of our heroine is, naturally, collective. But he still has one special feature: she is certainly beautiful. The Beautiful Lady's childhood years were spent in a harsh male environment. It was born out of the traditions of social manners, good manners, the ability to have a pleasant conversation, and most importantly, to compose songs in honor of the Lady, introduced by the knightly code of honor. From these songs, fortunately preserved to this day, one can learn something about herself, as well as about her male contemporaries, the famous troubadours.

Beautiful love of a beautiful lady

The poets of Occitania, who sang of the Beautiful Lady, usually depicted her as married. Marriage was the insurmountable barrier through which love acquired the necessary degree of tragic hopelessness. This hopelessness constituted the main subject of the troubadours' lyrics. The love of the inspired poet was not always mutual and only in rare cases resulted in intimacy. This was the law of knightly fidelity, which presupposed the maximum idealization of feelings and, preferably, a more complete renunciation of carnal pleasure.

The capricious Lady wanted to be served for the sake of the service itself, and not for the pleasure with which she was able to make her lover happy. In the sources of that time, only once is there a story about how a certain lady allowed an admirer into her chambers and, lifting her skirt, threw it over the knight’s head. But even in this case, the lucky one was not the poor troubadour, but a man of position who did not bother himself with composing songs. The lady's behavior was considered quite insolent, and the offended poet, who spied the whole scene through a crack, condemns his immodest beloved.

However, the love law that dominated the minds at that time had a rather weak relationship with modern morality and saw few barriers to true love. Even marriage, despite some natural difficulties, such as jealousy, did not pose a particular obstacle in the relationship of lovers. After all, legal marriage had nothing to do with love. For example, there is a known case when the so-called “court of love” (courts that heard controversial cases regarding ladies and their noble admirers) recognized the unworthy behavior of a lady who refused “ordinary pleasures” to her lover after her marriage. The verdict in this case read: “It is unfair that a subsequent marriage excludes former love, unless the woman completely renounces love and does not intend to love in the future.”

One can hardly accuse those women of commercialism. Public opinion in the Middle Ages very, very approved of the marriages of well-born women with less noble men. And then what was valued in a troubadour, first of all, was not his origin, but his poetic gift and other talents. After all, the life of a medieval castle was extremely closed. Troubadours, leading a nomadic lifestyle, became welcome guests at any court. They often took on the duties of palace stewards and were responsible for everything related to receiving guests and entertaining the hosts.

Sometimes the gentlemen themselves became troubadours. For example, one of the first troubadours known to us, William of Aquitaine, Count of Poitevin, far surpassed the French king himself in wealth, although he was considered his subject. And his young contemporary, the poet Marcabrun, had neither family nor wealth, as sources say, a certain gentleman found him in infancy at his gate. However, Marcabrun had such a talent that “a great rumor spread about him throughout the world, and everyone listened to him, afraid of his tongue, because he was so slanderous...”.

Harsh but fair...

In the world of knightly valor and honor, women suddenly acquire enormous rights and rise in the consciousness of the male environment to unattainable heights - up to the hitherto unprecedented opportunity to judge a man. True, all these rights and opportunities were exercised in the very narrow sphere of knightly eroticism, but this was already a victory for women. The courts of the famous courtly queens of that time - Eleanor of Aquitaine (granddaughter of the "first troubadour" Duke Guilhem of Aquitaine, who was married to Louis VII of France, and later to Henry II of England) or her daughter Mary of Champagne and niece Isabella of Flanders - appear to be the most brilliant centers of knightly culture end of the 12th century. It was at their courts that the famous “courts of love” were solemnly carried out.

“Court of love” in this usage is not at all a metaphor. Proceedings in the field of love law took place in full compliance with all moral norms and the then existing judicial practice. Unless the “courts of love” handed down death sentences.

Here is a classic example of a decision of such a court. A certain knight passionately and devotedly loved a lady, “and only about her was all the excitement of his spirit.” The lady refused to reciprocate his love. Seeing that the knight persisted in his passion, the lady asked him if he agreed to achieve her love on the condition that he would fulfill all her wishes, whatever they may be. “My lady,” answered the knight, “let me be so overcome as to disobey your commands in any way!” Hearing this, the lady immediately ordered him to stop all harassment and not to dare praise her in front of others. The knight was forced to come to terms. But in one society, this noble gentleman heard how his lady was blasphemed with obscene words, could not resist and defended the honorable name of his beloved. The beloved, hearing about this, announced that she would forever deny him love, since he had violated her command.

In this case, the Countess of Champagne “shone through” with the following decision: “The lady was too harsh in her command... It is not the lover’s fault that he rebelled with a righteous rebuff against his mistress’s detractors; for he took an oath in order to more accurately achieve the love of her lady, and therefore she was wrong in her command to him not to advocate for that love anymore.”

And another similar trial. Someone, in love with a worthy woman, began to urgently seek the love of another mistress. When his goal was achieved, “he became jealous of the embrace of his former mistress, and turned his back to his second mistress.” In this case, the Countess of Flanders expressed the following verdict: “A husband, so experienced in the fabrications of deception, deserves to be deprived of both his old and new love, and in the future he should not enjoy love with any worthy lady, since violent voluptuousness clearly reigns in him, and it is entirely hostile to true love."

As we see, a huge area of ​​\u200b\u200blife at that time, almost everything that mattered in gender relations, suddenly fell into the sphere of influence of a woman. However, there is no need to delude yourself. She acquired all her new rights not on the path of emancipation and not in struggle, but thanks to the same male will, which suddenly wanted humility.

Territory of love

Women did not fail to take advantage of their new position. The documents preserved a huge number of legends, many of them later became material for an endless number of treatments and transcriptions. The plots of these legends were used by Boccaccio, Dante, and Petrarch. Western romantics and Russian symbolists were interested in them. One of them, by the way, is the basis for Blok’s famous drama “The Rose and the Cross.” In all legends, women play the most active role.

Troubadour Richard de Barbezil had been in love for a long time with a certain lady, the wife of Juaffre de Tonnet. And she “favored him beyond all measure, and he called her the Best of All.” But in vain he delighted his ears with his beloved songs. She remained unapproachable. Having learned about this, another lady suggested that Richard give up his hopeless attempts and promised to give him everything that Madame de Tonnet had denied him. Richard, succumbing to temptation, really abandoned his former lover. But when he came to the new lady, she refused him, explaining that if he was unfaithful to the first one, then he could do the same to her. Discouraged, Richard decided to return to where he left. However, Madame de Tonnet, in turn, refused to accept him. True, she soon softened and agreed to forgive him on the condition that a hundred pairs of lovers would come to her and beg her on their knees for it. And so it was done.

A story with the opposite plot is associated with the name of the troubadour Guillem de Balaun. Now the troubadour himself experiences the lady’s love and, demonstrating complete cooling, brings the poor woman to the last humiliation and, with beatings (!), drives her away. However, the day came when Guillem realized what he had done. The lady did not want to see him and “ordered him to be driven out of the castle in shame.” The troubadour retired to his room, grieving over what he had done. The lady, apparently, was no better. And soon, through the noble lord, who undertook to reconcile the lovers, the lady conveyed her decision to Guilhem. She agrees to forgive the troubadour only on the condition that he pulls out his thumbnail and brings it to her along with a song in which he reproaches himself for the madness he has committed. Guillem did all this with great readiness.

As we can see from the examples given, the ladies were stern, but fair. Much more tragic stories have also come down to us, partly reminiscent of modern necrophiliac horrors. A certain Guillem de la Thore kidnapped his future wife from a Milanese barber and loved her more than anything in the world. Time passed and the wife died. Guillem, who fell into madness from grief, did not believe this and began to come to the cemetery every day. He removed the deceased from the crypt, hugged, kissed and asked her to forgive him, stop pretending and talk to him. People from the surrounding area began to drive Guillem away from the burial site. Then he went to the sorcerers and fortune-tellers, trying to find out whether the dead woman could be resurrected. Some unkind person taught him that if he read certain prayers every day, give alms to seven beggars (before lunch) and do this for a whole year, then his wife will come to life, only she will not be able to eat, drink, or talk. Guillem was delighted, but when, after a year, he saw that everything was to no avail, he fell into despair and soon died.

Of course, not all such stories are based on real facts. To create a legend, it was enough to remove one or two key words from the canson (love song), the rest was thought up by the sophisticated imagination of the first commentators and jugglers - performers of troubadour songs. The story of the unfortunate de la Tor is a vivid example of this. In one of his songs he actually addresses the topic of death. But just contrary to the legend, she claims that it will be of no use to her friend if her lover dies because of her.

But the story of the troubadour Gausbert de Poisibote sounds, in our opinion, very plausible. It is likely that something similar actually happened. Hausbert de Poisibote, out of great love, married a noble and beautiful girl. When the husband left home for a long time, a certain knight began to court his beautiful wife. In the end, he took her away from home and kept her as his mistress for a long time, and then abandoned her. On his way home, Gausbert accidentally ended up in the same city where his wife, abandoned by her lover, was found. In the evening, Gausbert went to a brothel and found his wife there in the most deplorable condition. Then the anonymous author continues, as in a novel from the era of romanticism: “And when they saw each other, they both experienced great shame and great sorrow. He spent the night with her, and the next morning they went out together, and he took her to the monastery, where he left her Because of such grief, he gave up singing and troubadour art."

What's ahead? – immortality

The conventions that surrounded knightly life presupposed, in spite of everything, the utmost sincerity of its adherents. What now seems naive and implausible to us was then perceived with all the purity and depth of feeling. That is why the demanding culture of the Christian world granted eternal life to many subjects of medieval lyric poetry. This is the story of the “distant love” of the troubadour Juafre Rudel, who had the misfortune of falling in love with the Princess of Tripoli without ever seeing her. He went in search of her, but during the sea voyage he fell ill with a fatal disease. In Tripoli he was placed in a hospice and the countess was told about this. She came and embraced the troubadour. He immediately came to his senses, recognizing the Lady of his heart, and thanked the Lord for the life saved until he saw his love. He died in her arms. She ordered him to be buried with great honors in the Temple of the Templars, and on the same day she took monastic vows as a nun.

One of the cansons, composed by Giuaffre Rudel in honor of a distant lover, sounds like this:

The days are longer, the dawn is shining,
More tender than the song of a distant bird,
May has come - I’m in a hurry to follow
For sweet distant love.
I am crushed and crushed by desire,
And I prefer the winter cold,
Than the singing of birds and poppies in the field.
My only true portrait is
Where I strive for distant love.
Let me compare the delights of all victories
With the delight of distant love?..

Among the immortal stories generated by this brilliant era is the famous story of the “eaten heart.” The beautiful and valiant knight Guillem de Cabestany fell in love with the wife of his lord, Mr. Raymond de Castell-Rossillon. Having learned about such love, Raymond was filled with jealousy and locked his unfaithful wife in a castle. Then, inviting Guillem to his place, he took him far into the forest and killed him there. Raymond cut out the heart of the unhappy lover, gave it to the cook, and ordered the prepared food to be served at dinner to his wife, who did not suspect anything. When Raymond asked her if she liked the treat, the lady answered in the affirmative. Then her husband told her the truth and showed her the head of the murdered troubadour as proof. The lady replied that since her husband treated her to such a wonderful dish, she would never taste anything else, and rushed down from the high balcony.

Hearing about the monstrous crime, the King of Aragon, whose vassal Raymond was, went to war against him and took away all his property, and imprisoned Raymond himself. He ordered the bodies of both lovers to be buried with due honor at the church entrance in the same grave, and ordered all the ladies and knights of Rossillon to gather annually in this place and celebrate the anniversary of their death.

This story was reworked by Boccaccio in The Decameron and has since enjoyed enormous fame in world literature. Among its modern adaptations, it is enough to recall Peter Greenaway’s film “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Lover.”

The Beautiful Lady did not last long. Already in the first half of the 13th century, between 1209 and 1240, Provence was subject to four crusades from Northern France, led by the famous Simon de Montfort. In the history of France they remained under the name of the Albigensian wars.

The formal reason for the outbreak of hostilities was heresies of various kinds that spread throughout Provence, which was distinguished by extreme religious tolerance. One of the most powerful heretical movements was the movement of the so-called Cathars, centered in the city of Albi. Hence the name of the wars. However, as usually happens, the main reason for the war was not so much religious fanaticism as the fact that Provence, historically the most developed, progressive and rich part of France, actually lived a life independent of it.

With the fall of Provence, troubadour art quickly declined and was soon forgotten. But the job was done. Morals have become more refined and humane, and the Beautiful Lady, who has since changed thousands of names, is alive to this day.

Illustration: “Battle of Roncesvalles Gorge”

The medieval miniature depicts the battle in the Roncesvalles Gorge, in the Pyrenees, in which the Breton Margrave Roland died in August 778. The “Song of Roland”, composed around 1100, tells about the margrave’s feat.

Attitudes towards women in the Middle Ages

In the Code of Canon Law of the Northern Italian jurist Gratian, a woman was interpreted as an inferior being and dependent on a man. Since woman was not created in the image of God, she was considered dependent and did not have authority and legal capacity. A woman could not teach, act as a witness in court and a guarantor in transactions, she did not have the right to sit in court. A woman's social activity was limited by the power of the man whom she was obliged to serve.

Her subordination to her earthly, carnal husband was considered only as an element of her subordination to her heavenly, spiritual husband. God was represented as the owner of the woman's soul and body, and the husband was the tenant of her body. God was the only object of spiritual affection for a woman in marriage. For carnal marriage

Only feelings of respectful affection and pleasure were permissible, but not love. On the day of the Last Judgment, a marriage based on fidelity, fertility, and sacrament was considered worthy of forgiveness. In sexual life, abstinence and dispassion were required.

The Middle Ages gave women a very modest, if not insignificant, place in the orderly edifice of the social hierarchy. Patriarchal instinct, traditions preserved since the times of barbarism, and finally, religious orthodoxy - all this prompted medieval man to have a very wary attitude towards women. And how else could one relate to it if the sacred pages of the Bible told the story of how Eve’s malicious curiosity and her naivety led Adam to sin, which had such terrible consequences for the human race? Therefore, it seemed quite natural to place the entire burden of responsibility for original sin on fragile female shoulders.

Coquetry, changeability, gullibility and frivolity, stupidity, greed, envy, godless cunning, deceit - this is not a complete list of impartial female traits that have become a favorite theme in literature and folk art. The female theme was exploited with abandon. The bibliography of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries is full of antifeminist works of various genres.

The Middle Ages borrowed the social status of women from the famous Roman law, which endowed her, in fact, with the only right, or rather, the responsibility - to give birth and raise children. True, the Middle Ages XI - XIII centuries. imposed its own characteristics on this faceless and powerless status. Since the main value in the subsistence economy of that time was land ownership, women often acted as a passive instrument for the seizure of land holdings and other real estate. And there is no need to be deluded by the heroism of the knights who win the hand and heart of

The legal age for marriage was 14 for boys and 12 for girls. In this state of affairs, the choice of a spouse depended entirely on the parental will. It is not surprising that church-sanctioned marriage became a lifelong nightmare for most. This is evidenced by the laws of that time, which regulated in great detail the punishments for women who killed their husbands - apparently, such cases were not uncommon. Desperate criminals were burned at the stake or buried alive in the ground. And if we remember that medieval morality strongly recommended beating your wife, preferably more often, then it’s easy to imagine how “happy” the woman was in her family. lovers: they did not always do it selflessly.

The words domini are typical for that era

Caen monk Nicholas Bayard, who wrote at the end of the 13th century: “A husband has the right to punish his wife and beat her for her correction, for she belongs to his household property.” In this, church views diverged somewhat from civil law. The latter stated that a husband could beat his wife, but only moderately. In general, medieval tradition advised a husband should treat his wife like a teacher treats a student, that is, teach her more often.

A medieval device against female chatter - Scold’s bridle ...

Scold's bridle is an item invented in the 1500s in Britain and then spread throughout Europe. An iron mask that fits tightly around the head was worn by women as a punishment for rude chatter and arguing. It was impossible to talk in it. A bell was attached to the top to attract attention.

Marriage contraCT from the point of view of the Middle Ages

Marriage at this time was treated controversially and, from a modern perspective, strange. It was not immediately that the church was able to find sufficient grounds to justify marriage as such. For a very long time it was believed that only a virgin could be a true Christian. This concept, first formulated by Saint Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great, was unconditionally accepted by the church. However, already St. Augustine, at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries, argued that marriage was not so bad after all. The Holy Father also recognized the superiority of virgins over married people, but believed that in a legal marriage, carnal sin turns from mortal to venial, “for it is better to marry than to be inflamed.” Moreover, it was strictly stipulated that in marriage, intercourse should not be performed for the sake of pleasure, but only for the purpose of giving birth to children, who, if they lead a righteous life, have a chance to replace the fallen angels in paradise.

This view prevailed in church circles only at the beginning of the 9th century, and from then on marriages began to be sanctified by the sacrament of weddings. And before, even the very concept of “marriage” was absent. A family was a more or less permanent cohabitation of numerous relatives on the “husband’s” side. The number of “wives” was not standardized in any way; Moreover, they could be changed, given for temporary use to friends or relatives, and finally, simply kicked out. In the Scandinavian countries, a wife, even already married, for a long time was not considered a relative of her husband at all.

But even after the church began to sanctify marriage, public morality strictly separated the marriage relationship (more like a political, legal and financial contract) and true love. So, for example, one of the high-born ladies of the 12th century, Ermengarde of Narbonne, when asked where affection is stronger: between lovers or between spouses, answered this: “Marital affection and true tenderness in love should be considered different, and they originate from very dissimilar impulses.” .

The main thing that was required of a woman in marriage was the birth of children. But this blessed ability often turned out to be not a blessing, but a misfortune for a medieval family, since it greatly complicated the procedure for inheriting property. They divided property in every way, but the most common way of distributing inheritance was primordacy, in which the eldest son received the lion's share of property, primarily land plots. The remaining sons either remained in their brother's house as hangers-on, or joined the ranks of knights-errant - noble, but poor.

For a long time, daughters and wives had no rights at all to inherit marital and parental property. If the daughter could not be married off, she was sent to a monastery, and the widow also went there. It was not until the 12th century that wives and only daughters acquired the right of inheritance, but even then (and much later) they were limited in their ability to make wills. The English Parliament, for example, equated them in this respect to peasants who were the property of the feudal lord.

It was especially difficult for orphan girls; they became entirely dependent on their guardians, who rarely felt kindred feelings for their charges. If the orphan had a large inheritance behind her, then her marriage usually turned into a very cynical deal between the guardian and the prospective groom.

Zconclusion

Medieval society was a society of absolute male dominance. However, one should not assume that women in the Middle Ages were completely powerless; such a statement has no basis in reality. We must not forget that the culture of that time, the legal tradition, the origins of the formation of public consciousness and mentality consist of three fundamental elements: the Roman tradition, the Germanic substratum and Christianity.

Understanding of the role of women was ambiguous. On the one hand, in the context of general cultural values, she was a bearer of negative qualities, representing the negative pole of the value hierarchy of the Christian world, combining in herself a source of disaster for a man and a refuge of devilish forces, on the other hand, a woman, being dependent on a man, was his assistant, acted as a mother.

The negative image of a woman, woven from base desires, ugly character traits, contradictions and depravity of female nature, was created by the Middle Ages. A woman was interpreted as an inferior being and dependent on a man. Since she was not created in the image of God, she was therefore not capable of acting independently, and did not have the authority and legal capacity of a man. The woman remained unprotected, her position in society was determined solely through restrictions and prohibitions. A woman's social activity was limited by the authority of a man, whom she was obliged to serve according to the provisions of canon law.

The image of a medieval woman, deformed towards the negative pole, this image was supported and developed in the minds of contemporaries throughout the 12th-13th centuries. in parallel with the episodic increasing prestige of women in a feudal environment.

Historians see the origins of the rise in women's status in the strengthening of the seigneurial system. Economic living conditions improved, social and economic units such as “house”, “village”, “parish”, “community” were strengthened, which led to the assignment of a number of key economic and cultural functions to women: “housekeeping”, direct management of food families and providing them with clothing, raising small children, the cult of deceased ancestors, preserving family heirlooms. The defiant demonstration of male superiority in these conditions, according to the French historian R. Fossier, hid the “matriarchy” in reality.