Another tenacious myth: supposedly the inhabitants of that time by the age of 35-40 turned into decrepit ruins and instantly died from countless diseases in terrible convulsions. Let's see where it came from.
Of course, the lowering of the bar of "childhood" plays a role - a peasant child began to work (that is, work hard, and not just help with the housework) from the age of 13-14. A nobleman at the age of 15 could already participate in wars - this is not the modern generation of Pepsi, who is afraid to join the army at 18. :) Noble girls got married at 12-14 and no one considered it pedophilia.
The bar of "old age" remained approximately at the same level as now. Preserved darkness-darkness of documentation confirming this:
Decree of Philip V of France in 1319 allowing persons over 60 years of age to pay tax to the local seneschal rather than travel to the king's court.
- Decree of Philip VI of 1341 on pensions to be kept for civil servants and the rest of the military over 60 years old.
- Decree of Edward II of England on the military training of all men from 15 to 60 years.
- Decree of Henry VII on pensions for soldiers over 60 years old.
Against this background, the strictest order of the King of Castile, Pedro I the Cruel, about "mandatory work for everyone" from 12 to 60 years old stands out - you can understand what's the matter by looking at the date: 1351. The great epidemic of the Black Death is coming to an end, half (or more) of the population of Castile has died out, there is a catastrophic shortage of workers. Well, quickly picked up sickles and rakes and march-march in the field! That is, the age of a peasant at 60 years old was not considered something abnormal, since they were driven to forced labor after the plague (and even with detachments, I suppose! :)
By the way, about marriageable age. If among the nobles early marriage was the norm, then among the peasants-burghers-townspeople-artisans the situation was somewhat different. In the XIV century in the south and east of Europe they got married at 16-17 years old, in the north and west - generally at 19-20. But on the border of 1400-1500, that is, closer to the Renaissance and the Reformation, marriages become earlier, turning into an institution for the mass production of labor for a developing industry. Note that by the so-called "Renaissance" (for whom the Renaissance, and for whom the ass), the skills of obstetrics, gynecology and contraception, which were fully developed in the "gloomy" Middle Ages, are lost, and the farther, the situation gets worse and worse. Just in the years 1500-1600, due to the catastrophic drop in the quality of life and climatic anomalies (we look at longevity, deep problems arose.
The golden autumn of the Middle Ages in the period up to the border clearly drawn by the Black Death, this very "quality of life" just differed in a positive way. Otherwise, where would such juicy stories come from:
In 1338, a certain clergyman dashed off an extensive slander to the Bishop of Lincoln, which describes the perfidious and dissolute behavior of the Countess Alicia de Lacy, who, after the death of her lawful spouse, vowed to take tonsure and unsubscribe all property to the monastery. But what a nuisance - before taking the vows, a certain knight kidnapped the countess from the monastery and Madame de Lacy agreed to marry him. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the countess was 60 years old - in her years there were such adventures! :)
The cleric can be understood: the monastery missed the property of her ladyship, therefore, in the complaint, the bishop is asked to punish the romantic knight with a fine in order to somehow compensate for the losses. By the way, at the same time in France and England, widows of 60 years old, owning a fortune, were exempted from having to marry or pay a fine for refusing (to help) the king or lord. Well, grandma won’t go to war? Although, if you remember Eleanor of Aquitaine (who died at 84), who remained cheerful until old age... :))
A few examples of the life expectancy of the higher nobility and clergy in the 14th century:
King Philip IV the Handsome - 46 years old, presumably a stroke. Philip was not lucky with children - the heirs Louis, Philip and Karl died at 26, 31 and 34, respectively.
- King Philip VI of Valois - 57 years old.
- King Edward III of England - 65 years old.
- Grand Duke of Burgundy Philip II the Bold - 62 years old.
- King Alfonso XI of Castile - 39 years old, died of the plague.
- Pope Clement V - 50 years old.
- Pope John XXII - elder, broke all records: 90 years old. And this is with such a nervous work!
- Pope Benedict XII - 57 years old.
- Master of the Templars Jacques de Molay - 69 years old, violent death. :)
So the retirement age at that time was not something unusual or out of the ordinary.
“Stop, gentlemen, deceive yourself and cunning with reality! Do such purely zoological circumstances as the lack of food, clothing, fuel and elementary culture among the Russian common people mean nothing? … Doesn’t our shameful, nowhere else in the world infant mortality mean anything, in which the vast majority of the living mass of the people do not even live up to a third of a human century?M. Menshikov "From letters to neighbors." M., 1991. P. 158.
In one of my earlier posts on the topic: “RUSSIA WHICH THEY LOST” (it was about natural growth and mortality in the Russian Empire and European countries), I cited this quote from the book by V.B. Bezgin Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th century":
“According to demographers, a Russian peasant woman of this period (the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries - approx.) gave birth on average 7-9 times. The average number of births among peasant women in the Tambov province was 6.8 times, and a maximum of 17. Here are some extracts from the report of the gynecological department of the Tambov provincial zemstvo hospital for 1897, 1901:
“Evdokia Moshakova, peasant woman, 40 years old, married 27 years, gave birth 14 times”; "Akulina Manukhina, peasant woman, 45 years old, married 25 years, gave birth 16 times."
In the absence of artificial birth control, the number of children in a family depended solely on the woman's reproductive capabilities.
High infant mortality played the role of a spontaneous regulator of the reproduction of the rural population. According to surveys (1887-1896), the proportion of dead children under five years old averaged 43.2% in Russia, and in a number of provinces over 50%.
Agree, the data on child mortality is impressive, isn't it? I decided to “dig” deeper into this issue, and what I “dug up” plunged me into a real shock.
“According to the data for 1908-1910. the number of deaths under the age of 5 years was almost 3/5 of the total number of deaths. The infant mortality rate was especially high” (Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913”).
“... in 1905, out of every 1000 deaths of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, there were 606.5 dead children under 5 years old, i.e. almost two-thirds (!!!). Of every 1,000 dead men, in the same year, 625.9 were children under 5 years old, and 585.4, of every 1,000 dead women, were girls under 5 years old. In other words, in Russia, a huge percentage of children who have not even reached the age of 5 die every year - a terrible fact that cannot but make us think about the difficult conditions in which the Russian population lives, if such a significant percentage of the dead are accounted for for children under 5 years of age.
Please note that in the quotes I have cited, we are not talking about the deaf and dark years of serfdom and the complete lack of rights of the peasantry of Tsarist Russia, but about the beginning of the 20th century! Speaking about this time, lovers and admirers of tsarism like to prove that the empire was “on the rise”: the economy was growing, the well-being of the people too, the level of education and medical care was rising.
"Gentlemen"!!! Not everything is as you think! Read the contemporaries of that “prosperous” time, for example, Nechvolodov (I will note to you - a Russian, gendarmerie general, the largest analyst of the tsarist special services) “From ruin to prosperity”, edition of 1906 (I gave this material), Rubakin “Russia in numbers” edition 1912, Novoselsky "Mortality and life expectancy in Russia" edition of 1916.
The main result is the gigantic external debt of the Russian Empire by 1914, the sale (“... we are not selling, but we are selling off,” as Nechvolodov wrote) of national wealth to foreigners, the purchase by the same foreigners of basic industries: metallurgy, shipbuilding, the oil industry, etc. ., its meager share of industrial production in global production, a significant lag behind the United States, England, France, Germany in terms of gross national product per capita - “European Russia, compared with other countries, is a country
semi-poor" (Rubakin "Russia in Numbers", edition of 1912).
The main thing is that there would be a desire to read the authors I am talking about, but no, at least read what I have already cited in my LiveJournal on the topic “RUSSIA WHICH THEY LOST” (tag “Tsarist Russia”). Everything that is posted there is based on these sources (and on other authors), plus statistical data from the Collection “Russia 1913. Statistical and documentary reference book.
However, I have somewhat moved away from the topic of infant mortality in the Russian Empire. I think that what you have already read about it from me, you are interested. Now I will give you the most detailed statistics that will convince you that the horror that both Rashin and Rubakin wrote about was such.
And we will start with the mortality of infants under the age of 1 year in European Russia for the period 1867-1911.
The following table (source - P.I. Kurkin "Mortality and birth rate in the capitalist states of Europe", edition of 1938) shows the indicators of infant mortality for the entire period under review.
Out of 100 babies born, died before the age of 1 year:
1867 - 24.3;
1868 - 29.9;
1869 - 27.5;
1870 - 24.8;
1871 - 27.4;
1872 - 29.5;
1873 - 26.2;
1874 - 26.2;
1875 - 26.6;
1876 - 27.8;
1877 - 26.0;
1878 - 30.0;
1879 - 25.2;
1880 - 28.6;
1881 - 25.2;
1882 - 30.1;
1883 - 28.4;
1884 - 25.4;
1885 - 27.0;
1886 - 24.8;
1887 - 25.6;
1888 - 25.0;
1889 - 27.5;
1890 - 29.2;
1891 - 27.2;
1892 - 30.7;
1893 - 25.2;
1894 - 26.5;
1895 - 27.9;
1896 - 27.4;
1897 - 26.0;
1898 - 27.9;
1899 - 24.0;
1900 - 25.2;
1901 - 27.2;
1902 - 25.8;
1903 - 25.0;
1904 - 23.2;
1905 - 27.2;
1906 - 24.8;
1907 - 22.5;
1908 - 24.4;
1909 - 24.8;
1910 - 27.1;
1911 - 23.7.
With an overall high infant mortality, infant mortality was extremely high in 1868, 1872, 1878, 1882, 1890 and 1892.
Minimum mortality for 1867-1911 was reached in 1907. But is it worth rejoicing at the fact that such a record low was achieved this year? In my opinion - no! In the future (1908-1910) it again grows to 27.1, after which it again declined to 23.7, which is quite natural if we analyze the trend in child mortality since 1867. The trend is the same - after every fall in this indicator for infants under 1 year old, it again goes up.
The only reason for some optimism of the supporters of the tsarist empire is that after 1892 until 1911 the infant mortality rate among infants under 1 year old did not reach the record for 1892 of 30.7 dead infants per 100 births and showed a slight decrease in the maximum. But at the same time, please do not forget that with the outbreak of the First World War, the economic situation in the Russian Empire only worsened, which could not but affect infant mortality, because, as Rubakin rightly noted: “... Any national disaster, be it crop failure , epidemic, etc., first of all, is reflected in child mortality, which immediately increases.
And now, if one of the admirers of tsarism itches his tongue to accuse Kurkin of the fact that the figures he cited are biased (the edition, they say, of 1938, i.e. Stalin), I propose, in fairness, to get acquainted with one more source.
In the work of S.A. Novoselsky "Overview of the main data on demography and sanitary statistics", edition of 1916 (!)) published the following summary data on the mortality of infants under one year old in European Russia for 1867-1911.
So, out of 100 babies born, died under the age of 1 year (for five years):
1867-1871 - 26.7 (26.78 for Kurkin);
1872-1876 - 27.3 (26.26 for Kurkin);
1877-1881 - 27.0 (27.0 for Kurkin);
1882-1886 - 27.1 (27.14 for Kurkin);
1887-1891 - 26.9 (26.9 for Kurkin);
1892-1896 - 27.5 (27.54 for Kurkin);
1897-1901 - 26.0 (26.06 for Kurkin);
1902-1906 - 25.3 (25.2 for Kurkin);
1907-1911 - 24.4 (24.5 for Kurkin).
As you can see, the data of both authors are almost identical. And although the data for five years,
show a downward trend in infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age from 1892-1896. to 1907-1911 by 11.27%, this decrease, in general, not very significant, was interrupted with the outbreak of the First World War due to the rapid deterioration of the economic and epidemiological situation in the empire.
For example, the incidence of typhus in the Russian Empire increased from 118.4 thousand diseases in 1913 to 133.6 thousand in 1916. And these are only registered cases, among which all in the same “prosperous” year 1913, according to the “Report on the state of public health and the organization of medical care for 1913”, only 20% were hospitalized!
And now, a small "lyrical" digression for those who, after all, have not read my materials. The Russian Empire, according to the data of the same Novoselsky (“Mortality and life expectancy in Russia”, edition of 1916), among the countries of Europe he cited, was still in the relatively prosperous 1905-1909. showed superiority in mortality from smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough. Scabies (!) And malaria (!) In the prosperous 1912, more people fell ill than influenza (4,735,490 people and 3,537,060 people, respectively, against 3,440,282 people) (Statistical collection of Russia.
1914, data are given for 1912).
As always, cholera behaved unpredictably even in prosperous years. For example, in 1909. 10 thousand 677 people died from it, and already in the next 1910. - 109 thousand 560 people, i.e. more than 10 times! And this too, only reported cases. (M.S. Onitkansky “On the spread of cholera in Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1911). The annual incidence rate of tuberculosis steadily grew, from 278.5 thousand in 1896 to up to 876.5 thousand in the "prosperous" 1913. And he never (!) (since the mentioned year 1896) had a tendency to decrease! (Novoselsky "Mortality and life expectancy in Russia", edition of 1916).
This deplorable situation in the Russian Empire only worsened with the outbreak of the First World War. Therefore, as I said above, Rubakin absolutely rightly remarked: "... Any national disaster, be it a crop failure, an epidemic, etc., first of all, is reflected in infant mortality, which immediately increases."
I think that after the above statistics, no one wants to argue that the First World War, as a national disaster, was better than a crop failure or an epidemic, and its consequences did not affect infant mortality in general, and infants under 1 year old in particular.
Now we put an end to the "lyrical" digression and again return to the topic of conversation.
Do you want to know which of the 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were in the lead in infant mortality among infants under 1 year old? I have the answer to this question! So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 babies under the age of 1 year) were the following provinces:
Perm - 438 children (Quiet Horror!!!);
Moscow - 406 children (and this is not an abandoned outskirts of the empire!);
Nizhny Novgorod - 397 children (!);
Vladimirskaya - 388 children (!);
Vyatka - 383 children (!)
The generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 271 children (under 1 year old) died per 1000 births.
For 1886-1897. The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 babies under the age of 1 year) from 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the following provinces:
Perm - 437 children (Again, the highest figure among 50 provinces);
Nizhny Novgorod - 410 children (Quiet Horror!);
Saratov - 377 children (!);
Vyatka - 371 children (!);
Penza and Moscow 366 children each (!);
The generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 274 children (up to a year old) died per 1000 births.
For 1908-1910. The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 babies under the age of 1 year) from 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the following provinces:
Nizhny Novgorod - 340 children;
Vyatskaya - 325 children;
Olonetskaya - 321 children;
Perm - 320 children;
Kostroma - 314 children;
The generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 253 children (up to a year old) died per 1000 births.
(Sources: D.A. Sokolov and V.I. Grebenshchikov “Mortality in Russia and the fight against it”, 1901, “Population movement in European Russia for 1908, 1909 and 1910”).
Well, tell me. Maximum child mortality rates (for infants under 1 year old) compared to 1867-1881. decreased!
Ooo!!! Do not rush to draw conclusions!
By 1908-1910. infant mortality rates decreased mainly in a number of provinces with especially high infant mortality (in Perm, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, St. Petersburg, Orenburg, Kazan) and increased in Kursk, Kiev, Bessarabia, Vitebsk, Kovno, Yekaterinoslav, Vilna provinces, Oblast Don troops.
For example, in the Region of the Don Cossacks for 1867-1881. the infant mortality rate was 160 dead infants under 1 year old per 1000 births, in 1886-1897. it became 206 dead babies under 1 year old per 1000 births, and in 1908-1910. it rose to a record 256 deaths before 1 year per 1,000 births. The growth in mortality in this region is no less impressive in its pace than the decline in mortality, say, in the Perm province.
For the rest of the provinces, changes in the mortality rates of infants under 1 year old for 1867-1881 and 1908-1910. were relatively small.
And further. A small comment regarding the Moscow province. P.I. Kurkin in his special study on infant mortality in the Moscow province for 1883-1892. pointed out: “Children who died before the age of 1 year of life account for 45.4% of the total number of deaths of all ages in the province, and this ratio for individual five-year periods varies from 46.9% in 1883-1897. up to 45.7% in 1888-1892 and up to 43.5% in 1893-1897." (Source - Kurkin "Child mortality in the Moscow province and its districts in 1883-1897", 1902).
For complete clarity, one should also give a picture of infant mortality for 1908-1910.
So, 50 provinces of European Russia can be divided into the following 5 groups:
Group 1 with a mortality rate of 14 to 18% - 11 provinces: Estonian, Courland, Livonia, Vilenskaya, Minsk, Grodno, Podolsk, Volyn, Tauride, Yekaterinoslav, Poltava, located in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (At least one Russian province, E-MY!!!);
2nd group, where the mortality was from 18 to 22% - 8 provinces: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Kovno, Bessarabia, Kherson, Kharkov, Chernigov, Ufa, located mainly (with the exception of the Bashkir Ufa province) in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (And where are the original Russian provinces???);
3rd group, with a mortality rate of 22 to 26%, - 6 provinces: Astrakhan, Kiev, Kazan, Orenburg, Arkhangelsk, the Don Cossack Region;
4th group with mortality from 26 to 30% - 14 provinces: St. Petersburg, Yaroslavl, Pskov, Vologda, Novgorod, Moscow, Ryazan, Oryol, Kursk, Voronezh, Tula, Tambov, Saratov, Samara, located mainly in the central strip, on northeast and southeast of the Russian Empire (Here it is Central Russia! That's where Russia degenerated!);
Group 5 with a mortality rate of 30% or more - 11 provinces: Kaluga, Tver, Penza, Smolensk, Vladimir, Simbirsk, Kostroma, Olonetsk, Vyatka, Perm, Nizhny Novgorod provinces, located mainly in the north and in the central part of Russia. Moreover, the Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka, Olonets and Perm provinces had an infant mortality rate above 32%!
The source of all these data is Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913". Who does not believe - that everything that I posted there is - find this magnificent book, open it and read it. Everything is very simple!
Now for a little shock! The figures that I cited above are relative, i.e. we talked about the mortality of children under 1 year old per 1000 births. And how many children under 1 year of age died in absolute numerical terms, at least for some of the periods under consideration?
And here Rashin helped us:
“According to the data for 1895-1899. out of a total of 23 million 256 thousand. 800 babies born died at the age of less than a year - 6 million 186 thousand 400 children!!! WHY THIS IS NOT THE MOST REAL GENOCIDE!!! Do lovers of tsarist Russia have something to say?
I think it's a rhetorical question...
But that's not all. In conclusion, considering the mortality of children under 1 year old in the Russian Empire, I will give another very useful comparison (N.A. Rubakin "Russia in Numbers" (St. Petersburg, 1912):
“The following table shows the place that Russia occupies among other peoples of the globe in terms of the death rate of its children.
In 1905, out of 1000 births, people died before 1 year:
In Mexico - 308 children;
In Russia - 272 children;
In Hungary - 230 children;
In Austria - 215 children;
In Germany - 185 children;
In Italy - 166 children;
In Japan - 152 children;
In France - 143 children;
In England - 133 children;
In the Netherlands - 131 children;
In Scotland - 116 children;
In the United States of America - 97 children;
In Sweden - 84 children;
In Australia - 82 children;
In Uruguay - 89 children;
New Zealand has 68 children.
These figures are so eloquent, so bright, that any explanations for them become completely superfluous.
In this regard, in the official review "Mortality of infants aged from birth to one year in 1909, 1910 and 1911 in European Russia", compiled by the director of the Central Statistical Committee, prof. P. Georgievsky, we meet the following recognition:
“25-30 years have passed ... In all states, the mortality rate has dropped significantly, even where it was very low, as, for example, in Sweden, where it almost halved from 13.2 to 7.5. On the contrary, Russia - according to these data, relating to 1901, not only in comparison with European, but also with all states (excluding Mexico alone, where the coefficient reaches 30.4) belongs to the sad superiority in terms of the loss of the largest number of babies during the first year their lives compared with the number of those born in the same year, namely, for 100 live births there are 27.2 deaths in the first year of life (here we are talking about the number of dead children per 100 births - approx.) ”(Source - P. Georgievsky“ Mortality infants aged from birth to one year in 1909, 1910 and 1911 in European Russia, 1914).
Let my opponents from the “gold-chasing” camp try to comment on this somehow. I'll see what they can do...
At this point, I consider the question of infant mortality among infants under 1 year old to be closed.
Let's move on to the issue of infant mortality among children who died under the age of 5, since it was with them that our conversation with you on the topic of infant mortality in the Russian Empire began. I remind you that the sacramental phrase of N.A. Rubakin (“Russia in Figures”, St. Petersburg, edition of 1912):
“... in 1905, out of every 1000 deaths of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, there were 606.5 dead children under 5 years old, i.e. almost two-thirds (!!!)
Looking ahead, I want to say right away - this is a quiet horror in the brightest colors!
So, our main source is already well-known to you Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913". And we will cite it (with regard to infant mortality for children under 5 years old) for the same periods as when considering child mortality for infants under 1 year old.
So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in child mortality (per 1,000 children under the age of 5) were the following provinces:
Moscow - 554 children (quiet horror for the ancient capital of the state
Russian!!!);
Perm - 541 children (among the dead babies under 1 year old, she was the leader in
this period)
Vladimirskaya - 522 children (!);
Nizhny Novgorod - 509 children (!);
Vyatka - 499 children (!)
For 1887-1896. The leaders in child mortality (per 1,000 children under the age of 5) were the following provinces:
Perm - 545 children (Leader in mortality among infants under 1 year of age for the same
period);
Nizhny Novgorod - 538 children (!);
Tula - 524 children (!);
Penza - 518 children (!);
Moscow - 516 children (!);
Generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia for 1867-1881. – 423 children (under 5 years old) who died per 1000 births.
For 1908-1910. The leaders in child mortality (per 1,000 children under the age of 5) were the following provinces:
Samara - 482 children;
Smolensk - 477 children;
Kaluga - 471 children;
Tverskaya - 468 children;
Saratov - 465 children;
The generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 389 children (under 5 years old) died per 1000 births.
From 1867-1881 to 1908-1910 the death rate of children under the age of 5 years on average in European Russia decreased from 423 to 389 children per 1000 births. At the same time, along with groups of provinces in which the infant mortality rate has decreased, there is a group of provinces where changes in mortality were relatively insignificant, as well as a group of provinces where infant mortality has increased.
If we analyze the indicators of infant mortality for dead children under the age of 5 per 1000 births (for the three periods under consideration) for 50 provinces of European Russia, we will get very interesting data:
1867-1881
500 or more (!) children died in 4 provinces;
450-500 children died in 13 provinces;
400-450 children died in 14 provinces;
1887-1896
500 or more (!) children died in 12 (!!!) provinces;
450-500 children died in 9 provinces;
400-450 children died in 10 provinces;
350-400 children died in 8 provinces;
300-350 children died in 7 provinces;
Less than 300 children died in 4 provinces.
Note how significantly the number of provinces has increased, where infant mortality for children under 5 years old was 500 (or more) deaths per 1000 births. I am practically sure that if we raise the data on mortality in the provinces of the Russian Empire, where the famine of 1891-1892 took place, it will turn out that these provinces are the leaders in mortality among children under 5 years old. Somehow I will deal with this issue, but for now we will continue.
1908-1910
500 or more children did not die in any province;
450-500 children died in 7 provinces;
400-450 children died in 18 provinces;
350-400 children died in 9 provinces;
300-350 children died in 7 provinces;
Less than 300 children died in 9 provinces
Positive dynamics in infant mortality for children under 5 years old, although extremely small, still exists. There are no more provinces where 500 or more children under 5 died per 1000 births, there are more provinces where less than 300 children under 5 died per 1000 births, but with all this, the number of provinces where 400 died up to 450 children under the age of 5 per 100 births.
So now draw your conclusions after all this, and in order to help you a little, I will again give you a small quote from Rubakin “Russia in Numbers” (St. Petersburg, 1912):
“... in some corners of the Kazan province in 1899-1900, in some public schools there was no admission of students, since those who were supposed to go to school this year “became dead” 8-9 years ago, in the era great national disaster of 1891-1892, which, however, is not the largest, but there are many in Russian history.
And further. I deliberately do not want to talk and write a lot about the reasons that gave rise to the terrible situation in which the Russian Empire found itself in terms of infant mortality among children under 5 years old. Anyone who is interested can read about this in Bezgin's “Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries”, as well as Milov’s “Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process”.
I will dwell on this issue only in passing.
So, the main reasons for high infant mortality in tsarist Russia were: - unsanitary conditions caused by the living conditions of the peasantry and city residents, and in connection with this, constant outbreaks of infectious diseases (especially in summer). Here, for example, is a small quote from the "Explanatory Note to the State Control Report on the Execution of the State List and Financial Estimates for 1911" (St. Petersburg, 1912. S. 194-200):
“As a result of a survey of the cities of Kyiv, Kharkov, Rostov-on-Don and St. Petersburg in 1907-1910. it turned out that one of the reasons for the widespread epidemics of typhus and cholera was the contamination of the water supply with sewage. If such a situation was observed in the largest cities of the Russian Empire, then what was it like where there was no running water at all, and where the culture of life was at the level of dirty chicken huts (who does not know - most of the peasant huts were heated "in black". Source - Bezgin "Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries")?
It is not surprising that at the same time, scabies was the main sore of the empire, and for the most part, it was not the inhabitants of the Central Asian possessions of the Russian Empire, but the inhabitants of the European part of the Russian Empire (
The life expectancy of people was different in different historical periods and depended on socio-economic conditions.
Scientists who studied ancient tombstones, as well as the remains of burials, came to the conclusion that in ancient times people lived an average of 22 years.
In the XIV-XV centuries, there is a slight increase in life expectancy. English scientists believe that it was minimal (17 years) in the era of the "black death" of the plague that raged in England in the 14th century. And in other periods, the maximum level did not exceed 24-26 years.
In the 19th century, according to statisticians, the Belgians lived an average of 32 years, the Dutch - 33 years. In India, during the reign of the British, the average life expectancy of the Hindus was 30 years, while the British in this country at that time lived up to 65 years. In tsarist Russia in 1897 the average life expectancy for men was 31.4 years, in 1913 - 32 years. Today in the Soviet Union, according to the Central Statistical Bureau, men live an average of 65 years, and women - 74 years.
In many countries there is a difference in life expectancy between men and women of 5-7 years. Some researchers explain this by the fact that the male population consumes alcohol, others by a decrease in the death rate of women from childbirth, others by the fact that men do harder work, and others by the biological adaptability of women to changing living conditions. These questions are currently being studied.
Historical data show that in different periods, almost all peoples met individuals who managed to live a very long life.
Academician A. A. Bogomolets in the book "Life Extension" gives examples of longevity. In 1724, P. Kzarten died in Hungary at the age of 185. His son was 95 at the time; Disenkins died in 1670 in Yorkshire at 169. Thomas Parr lived 152 years of working peasant life. At the age of 120, he remarried a widow, with whom he lived for 12 years, and was so cheerful that, as contemporaries say, his wife did not notice his old age. In Norway, in 1797, Joseph Surrington died at the age of 160, leaving a young widow and many children from several marriages, the eldest son was 103 years old, and the youngest was 9 years old.
The Hungarians John Rovel and his wife Sarah lived in marriage for 147 years. John died at 172, and his wife was 164 years old.
The Norwegian sailor Drakenberg lived for 146 years, and his life was difficult: at the age of 68 he was captured by the Arabs and remained in slavery until the age of 83. At 90, he still led the life of a sailor, at 111 he got married. Having lost his wife at the age of 130, he wooed a young peasant woman, but was refused. The painter Kramer left a portrait of Drakenberg at the age of 139, in which he looks like a strong old man.
In 1927, Henri Barbusse visited the village of Laty near Sukhumi, the peasant Shapkovsky, who was then 140 years old. Barbusse was surprised by the vivacity, liveliness of movements, sonorous voice of this man. His third wife was 82 years old, the youngest daughter was 26 years old. Thus, at the age of 110, Shapkovsky had not yet stopped his sexual life.
Women in their longevity are not inferior to men. Mechnikov reports that in 1904 lived an Ossetian, whose age was 180 years. Despite this, she was engaged in sewing and farming. Not so long ago, 169-year-old Turkish woman Hajer Issek Nine died in Ankara after a heart attack. Her last words were: "I haven't lived enough in this world yet." Even longer was the life of the Ossetian Tayabad Anieva: she died in the 182nd year.
The largest number of centenarians is noted in Georgia, but people 100 years old and older also live in harsh Yakutia, Altai, Krasnodar Territories and in all regions of the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR and other republics.
If we compare the data for the USSR with the data of the capitalist countries, then in the USSR there are 10 centenarians per 100 thousand of the population, in the USA - 3 people, in France - 0.7 people, in the UK - 0.6.
The socialist system, with its concern for the well-being of the people, creates all the conditions for longevity. Soviet power gave citizens a secure, peaceful old age. Despite material security, many of them continue to work to the best of their ability, benefit society. Old age usually develops gradually and varies from person to person. For some, the aging process begins at the age of 35-40: vision decreases, signs of sclerosis appear. The concepts of youth and old age are arbitrary. Currently, it is generally accepted that there is a passport age and a biological age, so retirement (55-60 years) is sometimes ahead of the age at which a person actually is.
The average life expectancy in the USSR, scientists believe, will soon increase to 80 years, and by the year 2000 - up to 150 years. Of course, not all people will be able to reach this age. The duration of life depends not only on the environmental conditions in which a person is located, but also on the genetic characteristics of a person.
shakko_kitsune about a very unpleasant story of one Russian noblewoman, a certain Vladimir *** wrote that allegedly everywhere they got married early because of the low life expectancy. When I answered him that the average life expectancy of 30-40 years was explained by high infant mortality, and that in Western Europe the average age at the first marriage of the bride was 23 years or more, he began to try to prove the opposite to me, and he gave out as evidence that that in France before the French Revolution minimum The legal age of the bride was 12. This allegedly proves that in Europe of the 18th century there was a low marriageable age and people often got married at 12-13 years old. However, statistics on the marriageable age of European women shows the absurdity of this statement.One way or another, all the above data indicate that the population of Western Europe of the 17th-18th centuries had a high marriageable age and marriages in early adolescence were rare (nobles and sovereign nobility are not considered), but marriages after 25 were a common phenomenon (among the ruling nobility too). It is believed that ordinary European women often married at a later age in order to give birth less (source 5).
Now let's compare with Russia. If, due to low life expectancy, marriage had to be equally early, then the indicators would be close or equal. But the point is that in late 18th century in Ryazan, the average age at first marriage was only 17.5 years old(source 6), which is significantly less than European indicators. I did not find data for other regions in the 18th century, however, back in the 19th century, Russia had one of the lowest marriageable ages in Europe. IN 1815-1861 V the village of Vykhino The average age of the bride was 19.3 before 20.1 years old(source 7). IN Petrovsky(Tambov province) in 1813-1856 this figure was 18.9 years old. For comparison: V 1800-1850. marriageable age of a woman England was 23.4 years(source 5). IN Omelanden (Groningen, Netherlands) average age of the bride between 1801 and 1820 ranged from 23 to 26.7 years(source 8).
There is such a thing as "Hajnal/Hajnal Line". The Hainala line separates regions characterized by early marriage and complex family structures from the zone to the west of late marriage and the nuclear family. (See, for example: Burguiere A., Klapisch-Zuber S.I., Segalen M., Zonabend F. Histoire de la Famille. - Paris: Stock, 1994.). For the reasons given above and below, Russia was one of the first. There were accepted universal early marriages as soon as the minimum age is reached. Among the serfs, marriages of teenagers aged 13-16 were common, which were encouraged by the landlords who wanted to get more offspring from the peasants. 90% Ryazan women in late XVIII century have been married to 21 years old. Even in 1897 of people aged 45-49 in Russia there were only 5-6% unmarried and unmarried. IN Western Europe(Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Great Britain, Austria, France, Italy, Spain, Germany) by 45-49 never married 10-19% women and 8-16% men (source 9).
Now a concrete example of the fact that low life expectancy at birth is not a guarantee of a low marriageable age. Here is Russia 1751-1800 years. Average life expectancy at birth - 30 years(source 10), average age at first marriage 17.5 years old(for Ryazan). Here is France, the same 1751-1800. Average life expectancy - 26-36 years old(source 10), average age at first marriage - 26 years and over.
It is also because in the popular literature low life expectancy is often misinterpreted to mean that only a few lived past 40 years of age. Life expectancy at birth was very low due to very high infant and child mortality rates. in England with 1580 to 1800 18 % babies die in the first year of life. Only 69 % newborns lived to their fifteenth birthday. But those who were lucky enough to celebrate their 15th birthday could expect to celebrate their birthday 37 more times (source 5), i.e., live about 52 years old. Given the fact that there were almost no marriages under 15 in England at that time, the life expectancy of the married population was most likely more than 52. In some other countries, infant mortality was even higher France the end of the 18th century, only 49% born. (source 4) This explains why the average life expectancy and the average age at first marriage in this country in the same period were almost equal.
So, we come to the conclusion that the widespread opinion that not only in Russia, but also in Western Europe of the 17th-18th centuries, the age of marriage was equally low is erroneous. The difference was enormous. In addition, low life expectancy at birth was not a guarantee of a low marriageable age.
Sources of data on marriageable age in different countries:
1. English Population History from Family Reconstitution 1580-1837", EA Wrigley, RS Davies, JE Oppen, RS Schofield (Cambridge, 1997)
2. POPULATION GROWTH IN EUROPE, B.Ts. URLANIS (calculus experience) (M., OGIZ-Gospolitizdat, 1941, 436 pages)
3. Hurwich, Judith J. Noble Strategies: Marriage and Sexuality in the Zimmern Chronicle. Vol. 75
4. L. M. Bacci: The demographic history of Europe
5. Gregory Clark. Goodbye poverty! Brief economic history of the world / Per. from English. Nicholas Edelman. - M .: Publishing house of the Gaidar Institute, 2012. - 304 p.
6. The Russian Peasantry, 1600-1930: The World the Peasants Made. By David Moon. London: Longman, 1999. Pp. xii+396.
7. Peasant Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Russia. A. Avdeev, A. Blum, I. Troitskaia. Population (English edition), 2004, Vol.59, No.6, pages 721-764
8. Explaining individual ages at first marriage in a 18th century rural market economy. Richard Paping. University of Groningen
9. Patterns of First Marriage: Timing and Prevalence. N.Y.: United Nations, 1990. P.7-18.
10. Zubets A. N. Quantitative assessments in history (instruments for cliometry). Financial University, 2014.
