Social and cultural development in the 16th century

1.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE 16th
CENTURY
.
NAME :-
RUDRA PATEL
SRUSHTI GODHANI
BHAKTI BHOJANI
VARUN KETAM
NANDINI LUKHI
GROUP :- 20LL5(A)

2.

AGENDA
I.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN CULTURE
II. CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 16TH CENTURY
III. MENTALITY OF PEOPLE IN 16TH CENTURY
IV. PHOTO GALLERY
V. MECHANISM OF SOCIAL INTEGRATION
VI. CHURCH
VII. STATE DECISION
VIII. MOSCOW: THE THIRD ROME
IX. QUESTIONS

3.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN CULTURE
Russia’s unique and vibrant culture developed, as did the country
itself, from a complicated interplay of native Slavic cultural
material and borrowings from a wide variety of foreign cultures.
In the Kievan period (c. 10th–13th century), the borrowings were
primarily from Eastern Orthodox Byzantine culture. During the
Muscovite period (c. 14th–17th century), the Slavic and Byzantine
cultural substrates were enriched and modified by Asiatic
influences carried by the Mongol hordes.
Finally, in the modern period (since the 18th century), the cultural
heritage of western Europe was added to the Russian melting pot.

4.

CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 16TH CENTURY
The 16th century was a period of vigorous economic expansion. This
expansion in turn played a major role in the many other
transformations—social, political, and cultural—of the early modern
age
Sixteenth-century Russians were nominally Orthodox Christian, but
that statement is as misleading as saying that most Europeans before
the Reformation were Catholic
So diverse a populace cannot be said to have possessed a single
mentality
Parish schools or seminaries were nonexistent, parish organization was
weak, books, sermons, and learning were limited to ecclesiastical élites.

5.

CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN 16TH CENTURY
The Church in the sixteenth century railed against many of these practices
By examining death rituals, marriage ceremonies, prayers, and a range of celebratory practices, one
can discern a ‘popular culture’, that is, a range of beliefs and practices exhibited by the entire social
range which was distinct from the prescriptions of the official Church
Rather than seeing the world as basically good, created by God and disrupted by the Devil, sixteenthcentury Russians seem to have regarded it as a universe of powerful natural forces ‘neither good nor
evil but wilful and arbitrary’. They identified these forces in Christian terms (the Devil) or terms
drawn from Finno-Ugric beliefs (nezhit, a force of evil in nature; bears and foxes were equated with
evil)
But as monasteries became less exemplary with greater worldly success, the church hierarchy
diversified the focus of spiritual life, offering saints’ cults, sermons, other moralistic writings and
teachings, and more ritual experiences to appeal more broadly

6.

MENTALITY OF PEOPLE IN 16TH CENTURY
The culture of the ethnic Russian people (along with the cultures of
many other ethnicities with which it has intertwined in the territory of
the Russian Federation and the former Soviet Union) has a long
tradition of achievement in many field.
In all these areas Russia has had a considerable influence on world
culture.
Attitudes towards daily life in the élite can be gleaned from a handbook
of household management (the Domostroi ), which was most probably
based on a foreign secular model, but edited in an Orthodox Christian
vein in Muscovy in the midsixteenth century
The Domostroi depicts the family as the structuring principle of the
community and of the polity; the grand prince is portrayed as the head
of the realm construed as a ‘household

7.

MENTALITY OF PEOPLE IN 16TH CENTURY
Christian values such as charity to the poor and just treatment of dependents are balanced by a
keen attention to sexual probity all of which values worked towards social stability as much as
piety
Women and children are to behave and obey; physical force is recommended to fathers to
keep them in line. But women also have remarkably broad latitude and responsibility.
Theirs is the primary responsibility for leading the family to salvation by the example of
virtue and piety; theirs is the responsibility of making the household economy and servants
productive by skillful management.
One can hardly argue that Russians were particularly spiritual or ‘pagan’ in the sixteenth
century

8.

PHOTO GALLERY

9.

MECHANISM OF SOCIAL INTEGRATION…
The grand princes’ primary goals in the sixteenth
century may have been expanding their territory and
extracting resources from it, but to do so they needed
a minimal degree of social cohesion in the realm as a
whole to ensure stability.
Active techniques of integration that touched all society
seem to have focused on the Orthodox population. The
non-Orthodox (called ‘tribute’ people) generally were
neither integrated into the élite (except for the highest
clans among them) nor addressed by many of the less
tangible institutions of integration.

10.

MECHANISM OF SOCIAL INTEGRATION
It has been noted that early seventeenth century texts portray the
tsardom as a ‘God dependent’ community in which all, high and
lowly, are personally dependent on the ruler and all equally share a
responsibility to serve him loyally and offer him virtuous counsel when
he errs.
The central focus for building a cohesive state was the court,
which sought to project a coherent public image of the realm and its
relationship to the élit

11.

MECHANISM OF SOCIAL INTEGRATION
Genealogical tales of the Muscovite grand princes began
to extend the family line through Kiev to ancient Rome in
a typically Renaissance quest for a classical heritage.
Metropolitan Makarii’s midcentury compilations of
hagiography chronicles, and didactic texts presented
Muscovy as a holy kingdom, part of universal
Christianity, linked through Kiev Rusto Byzantine
Christianity and ultimately to God’s creation of the earth.

12.

CHURCH
The Church and state recognized local holy men as saints on the
national or local levels and thus worked to integrate disparate
parts of the realm into a putative Orthodox community.
Rulers also used architecture as a symbolic statement. Ivan III
reconstructed the Kremlin churches into a magnificent that
demonstrated not only his power and strength but, by
incorporating architectural motifs from Novgorod and Pskov, the
breadth of his conquests.
Grand princes also left symbols of their authority in new
churches and monasteries built to commemorate military
victories or to spread their patronage

13.

STATE DECISION
The state also extended protection to all society for
‘injured honour’ (beschest’e ) , implicitly defining
the state as a community unified by honour.
The state also appealed to all its inhabitants with a
vision of community by according all subjects, even
non-Orthodox, the right to petition the ruler.
Around 1550 a ‘Petitions Chancery’ was founded to
encourage individuals to bring their grievances
directly to the ruler.

14.

MOSCOW: THE THIRD ROME
Moscow ,third Rome is a theological and political concept asserting that
Moscow is the successor of the Roman Empire, representing a "third
Rome" in succession to the first Rome and the second Rome
Constantinople,
In this concept, three interrelated and interpenetrating fields of ideas can be
found:
a) Theology:
B)Social policy
c) State doctrine:

15.

QUESTIONS
I. On what church hierarchy diversified focus ?
II. Who is portrayed as the head of the realm constructed as a household ?
III.Who reconstructed kremlin church and who left the symbols of
authority in new churches ?
IV.What name was given to the community formed in early seventeenth
century ?
V. What is the concept of Moscow third Rome ?