Legally, the ancient Russian woman was not such a powerless creature as is sometimes believed. She had property rights, could independently enter into transactions, enter into inheritance, widows managed the affairs of their sons until they came of age, the law protected the life and honor of a woman. At the same time, in Russian medieval legal practice there were, of course, norms that were of a pronounced gender nature. Thus, a woman convicted of killing a newborn baby or having an abortion was impaled. If a woman killed her husband, she was buried in the ground “up to her tits” in a public place and left to die of hunger and thirst, and all passers-by had the right to hit the unfortunate woman, spit at her, or throw a stone.
However, over the centuries there have also been punishments that to modern man may seem not only cruel, but also strange. Such punishments were imposed for offenses that were not subject to ordinary legal law, but were subject exclusively to moral judgment. It's about women's honor.
Cup with a hole
Everyone knows what importance was attached to the chastity of the bride in former times. The girl had to preserve herself until the wedding so that the triumphant groom could throw her bloody shirt to the matchmaker, who was patiently waiting under the door of the bedchamber. The matchmaker carried the shirt out to the feasters, and the fun flared up with renewed vigor. If not, then the guests quickly left, and the wedding was considered overshadowed. Klyuchevsky also describes a custom that existed in noble families, and then migrated to the peasant life of central Russia: the groom, leaving the bedchamber, brought a cup of honey or wine to the bride’s father. If the bride turned out to be “honest,” then everything was in order with the cup, and the father joyfully drank to the health of the newlyweds. If the bride was not honest, then the cup had a hole. When serving it to his father-in-law, the groom plugged the hole with his finger, but as soon as the father-in-law took the cup in his hands, the drink spilled onto his clothes. It was a terrible shame for both the bride and her parents. Many girls would prefer beatings, if only there would be no such public humiliation.
Yoke as a symbol of wickedness
Many ethnographers, including D. Orlov, P. Varlamov and others, described another type of punishment for a “dishonest” bride. The morning after the first night, the groomsmen asked the groom: “Did you trample the dirt or break the ice?” If he answered, “Trampled on the dirt,” then a collar was put on the bride, and sometimes her mother, and driven around the yard. This was considered a very humiliating punishment for the loss of “virginity.” The collar in this case symbolized the female genital organs, and at the same time equated the unlucky girl with animals that cannot keep their passions in check. The clamp was seen as the opposite flower wreath- a symbol of pure girlhood, so sometimes it was smeared with tar or other nasty things. Sometimes bagels or bagels became a substitute for a collar; the groom handed them to the bride’s parents, emphasizing in every possible way the presence of a hole.
On all fours in front of my mother in law
N. Pushkareva describes such a punishment for a good-for-nothing girl: on her wedding day, she had to stand on all fours in front of the guests, looking out from under the table, and her mother-in-law would hit her in the face every time. This continued until the husband said: “It will be!” I can only punish my wife myself!” This meant that he forgave his wife. After these words, she could take a place at the table next to her husband.
On my knees around the church
Failure to preserve virginity before marriage was, of course, not a criminal offense, and such an offense was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the church court. In many southern regions of Russia, such a girl had to be purified by a priest. He prescribed penance and read cleansing prayers. The penance consisted of the culprit crawling on her knees around the church. After this, the priest allowed the wedding.
Changing your hairstyle
The punishment for a woman was not always beatings or church repentance. Pushkareva describes a custom that existed in Polesie and the Russian North: having learned that the girl was behaving too freely, the general women’s gathering decided to prohibit the guilty one from wearing girl's braid and tape. She had to, like a married woman, braid two braids and hide them under the warrior. This happened without any rituals that accompany a change in hairstyle during traditional wedding. The “walker” unbraided her braid herself, did her own woman’s hairstyle and put on her warrior’s cap. Hence the expression “roll-your-own” - she “twisted” her braids around her head. But the most shameful punishment for a woman was cutting her hair. Hair could be cut off not only for “dishonesty,” but also for other offenses, for example, petty theft and other sins. Ivan Bunin in his story “Sukhodol” describes the punishment of a courtyard girl who stole a mirror from the master’s chambers: her hair was cut off and she was sent to a distant farm to look after the turkey poults.
Snow bath
Not only the girl herself, but also the matchmaker who betrothed her could be punished for wickedness. The groom's groomsmen would catch such a matchmaker somewhere on the street, lay him on a bench, lift up the hem and hover with a broom, sprinkled with snow. It wasn't particularly painful, but it was extremely humiliating.
On the mill wheel
One of the strangest and, at the same time, disgraceful punishments was “riding” on the wing of a mill. A woman guilty of adultery was tied to the blade of a mill wing, her skirt was lifted up and tied over her head, and then the mill was put into low speed. Sometimes the traitor was tied to a grave cross, with her skirt pulled up over her head in the same way, and left there all night.
A woman, according to the peasant community, required strict treatment so that her inherent vices would not get the better of her. Also in the village environment they were considered short intellectual abilities the beautiful half of humanity - “a woman’s hair is long, but her mind is short.” All this formed a system where a woman must unquestioningly obey the head of the family (father-in-law and husband). And she, as a rule, obeyed, but not out of respect, but out of fear of becoming a victim of physical violence.
For any offense - a tastelessly prepared dinner, wasted money - a woman could receive a “moral lesson.” In the village they didn’t say “beat”, they said “teach”, assault was not at all something unacceptable, on the contrary, it was considered the duty of any self-respecting man (“don’t hit your wife - there’s no point”).
For what offenses could peasant women be beaten?
Behavior that undermined male authority in the eyes of the public was not encouraged. Objections and criticism of the husband’s actions are sufficient grounds for beatings. Laziness, the slow pace of housework, and improper storage and use of raw materials were also condemned. Adultery (or just the suspicion of it) could cause serious bodily harm. In such a situation, other family members - the mother-in-law and father-in-law in particular - could also join the process of “training” the woman.
Such cruelty is explained by the risk of conceiving and giving birth to a child from a stranger. In a peasant environment, the birth of a new family member meant that one would have to work more and also divide resources among more people. The prospect of feeding an illegitimate child is extremely undesirable for the head of a peasant family. Physical torture against the traitor was not always the husband’s initiative. Often the decision on punishment was made at a meeting, and the spouse was only the executor.
For crimes against marital fidelity, “driving” or “shaming” with elements of physical violence was relevant. In a village in the Yaroslavl province, a deceived husband harnessed his wife to a cart along with a horse and began to strike alternately with a whip - first the animal, then the woman. Thus, the peasant covered a distance of 8 miles. The woman died.
A man who refused to punish his unfaithful wife, as candidate of historical sciences Z. Mukhina writes, was subjected to condemnation and ridicule. This behavior was perceived as undermining the foundations and inability to be the head of the family. Physical violence was also applied to those who refused sexual intimacy to their husbands. Civil law specialist E. Soloviev wrote that beatings could have resulted from refusal to be the father-in-law's cohabitant (this phenomenon is called daughter-in-law). Or the punishment for the obstinate relative was harder work and constant nagging.
As Tambov historian V. Bezgin writes, the birth of a female child could also cause indignation among relatives; this is due to the fact that land resources in the rural community were distributed only based on the male population. The birth of a girl did not promise the family an expansion of the allotment. It happened that the beatings ended in death; there is numerous evidence confirming the fatal outcome. But such criminal cases were difficult to conduct, since witnesses to the incident, as a rule, gave false testimony, protecting the despot husband from punishment.
Going to court made things worse
Women who sought protection from the authorities took a risk. This position was perceived by the community as a rebellion against family traditions. V. Bezgin writes about the following examples. After the consideration of the case in the volost court of the Tambov province about beatings from her husband, the peasant applicant was faced with disgrace (public driving around the village as a sign of condemnation), organized by her husband and father-in-law. The court sentence was the arrest of the perpetrator for 7 days. In the Sarajevo volost court, where the case of forced father-in-law of a peasant woman to intimacy, it was customary to punish the plaintiff for slander. As a punishment, arrest for 4 days was imposed.
The victim becomes the killer
The easiest way to stop the bullying - to return to the parents' house - was condemned in the peasant community, as it contradicted Orthodox morality. Not only did the woman gain a bad reputation, but also those who sheltered her received the title of panderers of “woman’s self-will.” Wives who could not bear the beatings decided to kill. In order not to meet resistance physically more strong man, the crime was committed while the offender was sleeping. The murder weapon was heavy objects (an ax, a stone), which were used to strike the head.
A method that does not cause much hostility among fellow villagers is poisoning (usually with arsenic). It was used by more than a third of oppressed women who decided to kill their offender. The current legislation did not in any way distinguish this method from others, qualifying it as intentional murder. But in the peasant community they showed some leniency towards the poisoners. This was explained by the fact that the criminal did not act openly, did not show insolence, and did not behave desperately.
I like to wander around Moscow and go to different museums. Once, while walking along Arbat, I saw an unusual sign and went into a unique museum. It's called the History Museum corporal punishment" Having long been interested in life and way of life in the old days, I couldn’t pass by and didn’t regret it - there’s so much interesting stuff in it!
I was amazed by the amazing exhibits: engravings, ancient torture instruments, photographs. It was creepy, but interesting to look at the reconstructed torture machines, various instruments for self-mutilation, whips, whips, shackles, a crown of thorns, tongue-pulling tongs, ropes, axes, axes, the executioner’s red shirt and his leather apron...
Traveling through the backstage of history, I learn that in ancient times executioners were needed in hard labor. Even the word “hard labor” itself comes from the word “kat”, and in Rus' kats were called executioners.
On Sakhalin, the famous executioner Gostynsky served his sentence in the Aleksandrovskaya prison. The prisoner did not want to go to the executioner, but the authorities ordered - nothing can be done. He was then 47 years old, and his hard labor was indefinite. Gostynsky experienced the vines and whips, hunger and cold on his own skin, he had nothing to lose, and he became an executioner. This was the most compassionate executioner in penal servitude, as far as it was possible. His whip lay softly and without pain.
Another executioner named Tolstoy ended up in hard labor for his wife. This Siberian Othello cut off his wife's head because she was away from her husband. The executioner mastered his craft to perfection; he was an artist of his craft. The fat people had to slowly pay for the flogging. If the payment satisfied him, then even after a hundred blows the offender got up and walked as if nothing had happened - the whip lay softly and affectionately. And those who did not pay for the flogging, the executioner beat mercilessly, tearing off the skin with ten blows. Having settled, Tolstoy had capital and began trading in bread.
In general, corporal punishment appeared a long time ago - since the time of Yaroslav the Wise, whose sons established it publicly. So it was allowed to beat the wise men and pull out their beards. But most often they punished slaves - serfs.
The whip and batogs came to us from the Asian peoples. Punishment for adultery of wives, beating of father by son, incest with sister and other sins.
RUSSIAN TORTURE WAS CRUEL. They cut off noses, hands, tongues, ears. Corporal punishment flourished between the 16th and 18th centuries. During the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich the Quiet, they beat him for large and small faults: they burned out his eyes, crucified him on the wall, punished him with rods and branding on the cheek, and mounted him on the rack. And being punished was considered a disgrace. For robbery and theft, the thieves were tortured by cutting various members. In 1653, for thieves and robbers, the death penalty was replaced by self-harm punishment.
The thief - the thief, caught in the second theft - was beaten with a whip and his hand was cut off. They cut off the hand of the servant who raised it against his master, and for the first tabba they cut off his ears or two fingers. For forcibly entering someone else's yard, a lip was cut, for robbery, they were deprived of their left hand and right leg. They beat me with a whip so that the skin hung in shreds, and in winter the blood in the wound froze. For the unrest, those involved in Stenka Razin's rebellion had their fingers cut off, and others their hands. The schismatics were also severely punished - they put their hand on the scaffold and cut off the wrist...
The severed members were nailed in a visible place to the wall or trees near the main roads, so that people of all ranks would know about it.
Those found guilty of selling tobacco were beaten, skinned, and a pack of tobacco was hung around their necks. Many could not stand the punishment - they died under the whip or from a broken ridge...
Morals were cruel back then. It was especially hard on the serfs. They were beaten by batogs for arrears. Servants were also punished mercilessly. A serf without scars on his back was rare.
Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov witnessed a public flogging on Sennaya Square in St. Petersburg on a warm summer evening, and this aroused in him such a feeling of protest that the poet wrote these angry, now famous lines:
Yesterday at six o'clock
I went to Sennaya,
There they beat a woman with a whip,
A young peasant woman.
Not a sound from her chest
Only the whip whistled as it played.
And I said to the Muse: “Look
Your dear sister!
Corporal punishment existed in Russia until 1904. Women were abolished earlier, in 1893. And the rods remained in the prison companies and military prisons until the 1917 revolution.
The most common punishment in Rus' was whipping. According to legend, the whip came to us either from the Polovtsy or from the Pechenegs. According to the number of blows, the beating was “with mercy”, “with ease”, “merciless beating”, “with cruelty” and “without mercy”. The blows left marks on the body and shame; the beaten person was disgraced. After all, even the whip or whip itself was made from the genital organ of a bull, which in itself was a shame.
They were especially sophisticated in torture under Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Under him, the guilty were buried alive in the ground and an overseer was appointed so that they would not be allowed to drink or eat. Sometimes the unfortunate ones were dug up and sent to a monastery. They also drove me around, hung me by the rib, impaled me, and poured metal into the throats of fake coin-makers.
Ivan the Terrible himself was often angry and ordered his seventh wife Vasilisa Melentyeva, who cheated on him, to be tied with ropes and buried alive, and the Novgorod bishop, by order of the tsar, was hunted down with dogs and his beard was burned with a candle. Torture was carried out in the sadoma chambers of Malyuta Skuratov, who could unleash an angry bear on a crowd of peaceful people, while he himself laughed.
SEVERE corporal punishment remained in Russia until its abolition in 1863.
I walk around the museum, look at the torture devices and the film about the guillotine, hear the dying screams and want to quickly go outside from this terrible twilight.
I go outside on a bright day, enjoy the sun and think that sometimes you need such a shake-up with fear. A person’s entire life is accompanied by fear, from a dark room and fairy tales about Baba Yaga in childhood to the fear of death in old age.
A person needs fear in order to overcome it and become strong.
Our ancestors did not ask themselves the question “to flog or not to flog”: disagreements arose only in the part with what frequency this should be done and what available means to use.
Nikolai Bogdanov-Belsky “Children at a lesson”, 1918
In the middle of the 16th century, the order established over centuries was finally recorded in writing: special books were born that literally describe step by step the entire way of life of a Russian person. “Great Menaion of Chetia” - reading for the whole family for every day of the year; “Stoglav” is a collection of religious dogmas and rules, and “Domostroy” is a thorough regulation of all everyday life, a clear set of life rules for every family.
Monk Sylvester, the spiritual mentor of Tsar Ivan the Terrible and the compiler of Domostroy, not only gave advice on how, for example, to pickle saffron milk caps or receive guests. Special attention he focused on the relationships between spouses, masters and servants in the family home and, of course, parents and children. In your prototype Family Code he clearly states that the main task of any parent is to take care of the material and spiritual well-being of their child. This concern should be active, and not focus on the financial component alone. A responsible father and mother are obliged, first of all, to instill in their child useful qualities, necessary for further righteous life: such as fear of God, respect for elders, politeness, hard work and observance of “all order.” Parents are instructed not to pamper their children, but to “save them through fear, punishing and teaching them,” and “having condemned them, beat them.”
Beat the child without sparing: if you cut him with a rod, he will not die, but he will be healthier, for by executing his body, you will save his soul from death. The monk Sylvester Sylvester teaches: “Loving your son, increase his wounds, and then you will not boast about him.” By the way, the same rules, only formulated more simply, are reflected in numerous folk proverbs and sayings. For example, like this: “I wish you were crazy from the backyard.”
At the same time, the compiler of the canonical text warns adults against excessive cruelty: he notes that physical force must be moderate and justified. For example, the flogging of children is prescribed on a strictly defined day, for example, Saturday, it is forbidden to punish a child too harshly and maim him, as well as to be led by one’s anger - the decision on physical impact must be made carefully and objectively. Sylvester pays special attention to protecting the child’s self-esteem: “Teach your wife before your children, and teach your children without people.” Russian society has followed these rules for centuries. Incredibly, even in the enlightened 19th century there were many families who lived according to house-building. 
Vladimir Makovsky “Game of Grandmas”, 1870
For one beaten they give two unbeaten
Rods, whips, sticks, batogs - all this was used for “educational purposes” not only in families, but also in educational institutions. A child could also be whipped with a knotted rope, or placed naked with his knees on a pea - the punishment was not only painful, but also very humiliating. All this was done completely legally. There was even a special regulation on this issue. By the way, one should not think that such procedures were introduced only in educational institutions for the common people: both noble and merchant children were also familiar with rods firsthand. In various memoirs, the same eloquent moment is often repeated: during the traditional Saturday flogging, not only the guilty children, but also those who behaved diligently all week were often punished - “so that they would be disgraced.”It is easy to guess that the system physical punishment for children was an exact copy of the adult rules of the game. The Military Regulations of the great Emperor Peter I list not only flogging and beating with spitzrutens, but also cutting off the hand and fingers, cutting out the tongue. Compared to these tortures, punishments for children seemed like just innocent fun. All attempts to soften the system made by Catherine II and Alexander I did not look convincing. And in the 19th century, “flogged generations” grew up in Russia: whipping was abolished only in 1845, but whips, spitzrutens and rods remained in use until the 20th century. Surprisingly, no one seriously protested against this way of life.
Vasily Perov “Boy preparing for a fight”, 1866They were beaten as children
Emperor Nicholas INicholas I, while still heir to the throne, suffered regular beatings... from his tutor, Count Lamsdorf. In a fit of rage, he repeatedly even hit the crown prince’s head against the wall. Subsequently, having become emperor, Nicholas I banned any corporal punishment for his own children: instead, they were limited in meetings with their parents and in their diet (instead of a full lunch - only soup).
Natalia Goncharova
The biography of Natalya Nikolaevna Goncharova, Pushkin’s wife, is not as simple as it might seem. On the one hand, this brilliant beauty received an excellent education for her time, and on the other, in her youth she was unusually silent, for which she was considered a simpleton. Everything was explained simply - Natalya’s authoritarian mother would brutally whip her daughters on the cheeks for the slightest disobedience. Later, childhood experiences resulted in youthful isolation. By the way, Natalya’s husband, Alexander Sergeevich, personally whipped their children with rods.
Ivan Turgenev
Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev himself was subjected to domestic violence as a child. His mother, Varvara Petrovna, came from a wealthy noble family, was well-read, educated and erudite, which did not stop her from being a real domestic tyrant. Ivan Sergeevich recalled: “They beat me up for all sorts of trifles, almost every day... without any trial or punishment.” Subsequently, the writer “sent greetings” to his mother, immortalizing her in the image of a tyrant lady from the piercingly bitter story “Mumu”.
A large-scale protest movement for the abolition of corporal punishment unfolded in the Russian Empire only at the turn of the 20th century. And even then, progress in this difficult issue moved forward in small steps. For example, at first it was forbidden to flog high school students, then women and, finally, convicts. But the final point of no return was passed only after the October Revolution of 1917. The Bolsheviks actively opposed corporal punishment, calling it a “bourgeois relic,” and spanking was strictly prohibited in Soviet schools. Post-revolutionary posters were full of slogans: “Don’t beat or punish the guys, lead them to the pioneer detachment.” Despite all the ambiguity of the system of upbringing and education in the USSR, one principle was immutable there: cracks in education cannot be smoothed over with slaps.
The stories from the flash mob “I’m not afraid to say” are just flowers compared to what happened to peasant women in Tsarist Rus'.
“And only when “she can no longer endure the lobe,” when, as they say, there is not a single living place on her, she, beaten and exhausted, often with a braid torn out by her husband in her hands, trudges to the magistrate in the hope that he will protect her, if not formally, then at least with his authority,” wrote magistrate Yakov Ivanovich Ludmer in the Legal Bulletin in 1884. “No judicial institution can, within the limits of our legislation, protect a woman from ill-treatment and cruelty.”
The unfortunate women came and went to Ludmer. And all he could do was imprison their monster husbands for several days. Returning home, they beat their wives even harder because they dared to complain.
There were no statistics of victims, because the majority endured and remained silent, taking their fate for granted.
Investigator D. Bobrov responded to Ludmer’s article in 1885 in the same Legal Bulletin. He also complained that judges and investigators do not have the ability to protect women from arbitrariness, because the legislation does not provide punishment for sadistic husbands. He cited as an example the story of the investigation into the case of a peasant woman who was buried as if she had died of a cold. But the daughter-in-law insisted on opening the grave. Having examined the corpse, they found that half of the deceased’s braid had been torn out from the scalp, the sacrum had been broken in several places by a heavy sharp object, and the ribs were broken.
It was common for priests to agree to bury those brutally murdered, taking the side of their husbands, and considering marriage with male dominance in everything to be sacred. That is, endure it until death, since you got married.
Even during pregnancy, the women did all the housework, threshing, planting and harvesting potatoes... I felt the approach of childbirth in the field, the women ran home to give birth. Nobody provided them with “parental leave” either. Almost every woman suffered from prolapse of the uterus from overwork after childbirth. They endured until the last moment, and when it was completely impossible to walk, they went to the healer grandmothers. Grandmothers ruled the belly “through the pot.”
Neither pregnancy nor the birth of a child spared women from beatings. They beat me because I became less agile, because I gave birth to a girl... For not giving birth to a son, they could have been kicked out of the house altogether.
They beat us with sticks, grips, feet, fists, buckets, and just any heavy object that came to hand. This was called “teaching your wife wisdom” and was considered completely ordinary.
“Baba pasha, baba mow, baba rake the hay, baba reap, baba do all the women’s work and clean up everything around the house, even chop wood. They’re going to visit, a woman opens the gate, straightens a horse, puts a drunk to sleep... A Russian’s good and humane relationship with his wife is an exception, but for non-believers it’s the opposite,” wrote forensic doctor O. Vereshchagin.
And here is an excerpt from a letter from the peasant woman Marya Vasilievna Tatarinova, which Metropolitan Anthony handed over to Emperor Nicholas II: “It’s scary to remember my unhappy childhood, when my father appeared drunk, beat our mother and everything that was in the house, not even sparing us little ones, but what we endured poverty, living almost on alms, because our mother supported us with her labors, and our drunken father, who reached the point of brutality, took everything from us with beatings and force, and there was nowhere to seek protection; This is how it was done everywhere.”
Jacob Ludmer described what he encountered while traveling through villages. He hosted a reception for women who wanted to complain about their husbands. Peasant woman Stepanova said that her husband beats her to death, so that the blood comes from her throat, and her whole body is covered in purple spots. In addition, he took away her property - and this could already be the basis for court session. Ludmer achieved reconciliation between the parties. The husband promised to return the property, not to beat his wife in the future, and to allow her to undergo treatment in the hospital. Two days after the meeting, Stepanova died in the hospital from internal injuries caused by beatings.
The peasant woman Ivanova's husband bit off pieces of skin and meat from her face. And when the eldest son stood up for his mother, the husband kicked the whole family out of the house. Ludmer again persuaded the parties to reconcile, and made the husband promise not to torture his wife anymore. But promises to some visiting judge meant nothing to the brutalized husbands. A week later, Ivanova tried to hang herself, they took her out of the noose, but they did not spare her, and they also flogged her with rods for attempting suicide.
And what did the landowners do with the serfs and underage girls... It is not known what was worse, living with a sadistic husband or being liked by the owner. And many endured both. The peasant was ordered: “Tomorrow go winnow the wheat, and send your wife to the master”...
A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, who, on behalf of the Minister of State Property, collected detailed information about the situation of serfs, wrote in his report:
“In general, reprehensible connections between landowners and their peasant women are not at all uncommon. In every province, in almost every district, examples will be shown to you... The essence of all these cases is the same: debauchery combined with greater or lesser violence. The details are extremely varied. Another landowner forces him to satisfy his bestial urges simply by the force of power, and seeing no limit, he goes into a frenzy, raping young children... another comes to the village temporarily to have fun with his friends, and first gives the peasant women drink and then forces him to satisfy both his own bestial passions and his friends.” .
And this is from the notes of an anonymous author: “After lunch, all the gentlemen will go to bed. All the time while they are sleeping, the girls stand by the beds and brush away flies with green branches, standing and not moving from their place... For boys-children: one girl brushed away flies with a branch, another told fairy tales, the third stroked their heels. It’s amazing how widespread this was - both fairy tales and heels - and passed on from century to century!
When the barchuks grew up, they were assigned only storytellers. A girl sits on the edge of the bed and says: I-va-n tsa-re-vich... And the barchuk lies and does tricks with her... Finally, the young master began to sniffle. The girl stopped talking and quietly stood up. Barchuk will jump up, and bam in the face!
Those about whom the Frenchman Charles Masson wrote in his notes can be called lucky in comparison with the rest:
“One St. Petersburg widow, Mrs. Pozdnyakova, had an estate with quite a large number of souls not far from the capital. Every year, on her orders, the most beautiful and slender girls who had reached ten to twelve years of age were brought from there. They were brought up in her house under the supervision of a special governess and were taught useful and pleasant arts. They were simultaneously taught dancing, music, sewing, embroidery, combing, etc., so that her house, always filled with a dozen young girls, seemed like a boarding house for well-bred girls. At the age of fifteen, she sold them: the most dexterous ones ended up as maids for ladies, the most beautiful ones - as mistresses for secular libertines. And since she took up to 500 rubles apiece, this gave her a certain annual income.”
Saved
