The literature of the period of the Time of Troubles, on the one hand, introduced new features into the Russian literary process and thus quite organically fits into the beginning of the "transitional" 17th century, and on the other hand, it completely continues the tradition that existed before with a number of features. As we will see later, practically all literary works of the first half of the 17th century were so complex and ambiguous. The process of genre transformation of ancient Russian literature did not begin from outside and was not so much associated with Western influence as it turned out to be initially gradually provoked by the internal laws of literary development.

The appearance of verse writing should undoubtedly be attributed to the new features of the literature of the Time of Troubles. These are verses preceding the syllabic, in which there is as yet no order in either the number of syllables or the number of stresses in a line. The fact that these are still poems can be judged, perhaps, only by the presence of rhyme (almost always in pairs, quite often - verbal). Initially, such verses, called "presyllabic verses" (from the Polish wiersz - verse) were formed in Ukraine. Perhaps one of the earliest examples of such verses is the short verses by Gerasim Smotrytsky attached to the Ostroh Bible, printed by Ivan Fedorov in Ostrog in 1581. Russian-Polish contacts during the Time of Troubles contributed to the extremely intensive penetration of presyllabic verses from Ukraine (which was at that time under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian state) to Russia. Virches could be independent works, but for the most part they were part of traditional prose (most often rhetorical, oratorical or journalistic) works.

D.S. Likhachev noted in his time that the discovery of human character by literature should be considered an innovative feature of the period of the beginning of the 17th century - the character of not only a socially significant, but also an ordinary person, an ordinary, sometimes even an ordinary, contemporary. As far back as the 16th century, according to the researcher, two signs opposing tradition appeared in historical works: the unity of point of view and the unity of the theme (both of them - in contrast to the principles of the formation of chronicles, written in principle by different chroniclers who continued each other's work). So there are texts dedicated to a very limited historical period or even to one person.

The traditional features of the literature of the Time of Troubles include the ideological orientation, themes, problems, genre characteristics and most of the stylistic features of the works of this time. Let's go straight to the text.

Works about the Troubles can be divided into two groups. The first includes texts that arose before Mikhail Romanov was elected to the throne. They are a direct response to events. Their main purpose can be defined as propaganda, in connection with which the works themselves can be included in the group of journalistic ones. The second group includes texts written after the end of the Time of Troubles itself and representing an attempt at a historical understanding of what happened. Both of them appeal to the Old Russian tradition, but, as a rule, to its different aspects.

In the autumn of 1606, when Bolotnikov's troops were approaching Moscow, the "The Tale of a Vision to a Spiritual Man" which is based on the plot scheme of vision. It tells about a certain resident of Moscow, who "in a thin dream" saw how the Mother of God, John the Baptist and saints in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin prayed to Christ to spare the Russian Orthodox people, suffering from the horrors of the Time of Troubles. In accordance with the tradition dating back to the sermons of Serapion of Vladimir, the misfortune of the Muscovite state is associated with the fact that the people have become stagnant in sins. Christ, touched by the tears of the Mother of God, tells her that a necessary condition for the forgiveness of the Russian people and the alleviation of their lot is complete and sincere repentance. After that, one of the saints addresses the dreamer with the words: "Go and tell, saint of Christ, that you have seen and heard." The unnamed “spiritual husband” told about the vision to the archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin Terenty, who ordered to write a story about this event and gave it to the patriarch, and also told the tsar.

The genre of visions was extremely common at this time. The participants in the vision vary: it can be the Mother of God, Christ, the "wonderful wife" in light robes and with an icon in her hands, local patron saints (for example, Ustyug native Grigory Klementyev is the patrons of Ustyug the Great Procopius and John of Ustyug). In the same way, the conditions necessary for salvation are designated in different ways: one can speak of the need for repentance, fasting and prayer, and the building of a church. The Nizhny Novgorod legend says that in a newly built church, an unlit candle should be placed on the throne and put Blank sheet paper. Forgiveness will be marked by the fact that "the candle will be kindled from the fire of heaven, and the bells themselves will ring out, and the name of who owns the Russian state will be written on paper."

Researchers of this group of works have repeatedly noted the everyday concreteness inherent in them. As earlier, big role household details play, most likely testifying to the authenticity of what is being told. So, in one of the Moscow visions, as witnesses of the miracle, "6 watchmen from the row of vegetables" are called by name.

Another popular genre in the Time of Troubles was agitation letters and "replies", combining literary forms and forms of business writing.

Between 1610 and 1612 by unknown author was written "A new story about the glorious Russian kingdom and the great state of Moscow"- a kind of journalistic manifesto, designed to raise the spirit of the people, awaken patriotic feelings and inspire them to fight. In difficult conditions, when many rich, noble and powerful people betrayed Russia and support the Poles, the author refers to "all kinds of people who have not yet turned their souls away from God, and have not deviated from the Orthodox faith, and in faith they do not follow errors, but they hold on to piety, and did not give themselves up to their enemies, and did not deviate into their apostate faith, but are ready to stand for the Orthodox faith to the point of bloodshed. The Orthodox faith and the Russian Church, headed by Patriarch Hermogenes, are for the author the only stronghold, a powerful and invincible force that no army is able to break. R. Picchio wrote about the image of Patriarch Hermogenes in the "New Tale...": "Against Poland with its arrogant humanism, Poland, which carried literature, nourished by the Latin tradition and already fertilized by the meeting with the Renaissance, old Russia exposes the figure of the supreme clergyman, confident that his holy words, devoid of secular brilliance, but burning with biblical passion, will be able to give rise to an unceasing echo in the Orthodox people. Picchio considered the New Tale as a monument that most fully and holistically conveyed to us the spiritual state of Russian society of that time, which had the firm intention of opposing the Catholic West with the fortress of its own, original and highly spiritual literary tradition.

A.S. Demin, who was engaged in the figurative structure of the "New Story ...", noted that its author "was inclined to operate with dual, contradictory, complementary categories, to combine contrasting features in the appearance of characters." Such, for example, is the Polish king, who, anticipating the complete and final capture of Russia, simultaneously demonstrates both his joy and his malice. From anger, the king twitched, jumped up, "boiled with bobs", resembled a "fierce and ferocious and indomitable stallion", which snores, breaks out of the bridle and is ready to throw everyone into the "non-starting moat". On the other hand, signs of heartfelt joy are repeatedly reported (when using the traditional formula "rejoice in your heart" and its synonymous variants). As a result, according to A.S. Demin, "statements about "boiling" movements of anger and heartfelt manifestations of joy, when added, did not semantically cancel each other, but created a kind of single," average "semantic whole, transitional between two extremes, in a story about a king who does not calm down in joy, but also in malice does not rush somewhere, but, as a result, from feelings "boils" on the spot, barely restrained.

The same duality of A.S. Demin also notices other characters in the New Tale, and even its author himself. Speaking of those who now serve the Polish king, the author hopes for the secret desire that still remains in them "to stand with us for the faith." Speaking of enemies, he hopes that at least one of them is "soft and compassionate in heart." Finally, speaking about himself, he honestly admits that he himself served the Poles and is now "greatly favored" by them.

Rhymed speech is used in the "New Tale...", which is one of the ways to characterize the characters. So, one of the boyars who swore allegiance to the Polish king, treasurer Fyodor Andronov, is described as follows: “neither from the royal families, nor from the boyar ranks, nor from other elected military heads; they say that from the Smerdov slaves. the deed is not worthy of him in the name of Stratilat (St. Theodore Stratilat, the heavenly patron of Fedor Andronov), but in the name of Pilate, or in the name of the monk, but in the name of the unlike, or in the name of the passion-bearer, but in the name of the earth-eater , or in the name of the saint, - but in the name of the tormentor, and the persecutor, and the destroyer, and the destroyer of the Christian faith "

In 1612 created "Lamentation for captivity for the final ruin of the lofty and most luminous Muscovite state." The text was written at a time when Minin and Pozharsky were already gathering the Zemstvo militia, but Moscow was still in the hands of the Poles and no one could predict the outcome of the coming hard and bloody struggle (that is, until the autumn of 1612). Both the name of the monument and its style bring the reader back to the ancient Russian rhetorical tradition, to the "common places" of hagiographic and preaching literature. The traditional hagiographical formula is reminiscent of the rhetorical question with which the work begins: "How shall we begin to mourn, alas! such a fall of the glorious, lucid, great Russia? What source will fill the abyss of tears, our sobs and groans?" "Lamentation" is an attempt to give a detailed account of the events of recent years, starting with the appearance of the first impostor, the "forerunner of the Antichrist", the "son of darkness", as well as an invitation to think not only about the consequences, but also about the causes of the Troubles. And here again, like the ancient Russian preachers of the era Tatar-Mongol invasion(for example, Serapion Vladimirsky), the author of "Lament ..." saw the causes of the disasters that struck the Russian land, not only in the power, deceit and treachery of external enemies, but also in the damage to the morals of Russian people who had forgotten God and were immersed in numerous vices, likened to residents the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah: "Truth is poor in men, and untruth reigns ... and malice is exposed, and we cover ourselves with lies."
In the 10s of the XVII century. the cellar of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Avraamy Palitsyn wrote "The Tale" - one of the most famous and popular literary monuments of the Time of Troubles. The text of the Tale was revised several times between 1611 and 1620. and has a total of 77 chapters. In the center of the narrative is the famous siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the story is brought to the Deulinsky truce of 1618. Historians quite highly rate this text for its scrupulous factuality, philologists draw attention to Palitsyn’s special flair for contemporary innovative trends in literature (noting, in particular, the use of presyllabic verses in the Tale).

Trying to uncover the causes of the Troubles, Avraamiy Palitsyn speaks of a general decline in morals and emphasizes the social contradictions of the previous period. Mention is made of the terrible famine that occurred under Boris Godunov and as a result of which a huge number of people died: then it turned out that the barns of the rich were bursting from a huge amount of bread hidden from people. The rich did not spare their people, so our enemies did not spare us.

Another reason for the Troubles is, according to Palitsyn, the transformation of autocracy into autocracy by Boris Godunov. The publicist condemns the tsar's arbitrariness and the blind obedience to the monarch of his advisers, who are called to govern the state, associated with it. However, even more than the autocracy of the tsar, Palitsyn is afraid of the autocracy of the people.

One of the important problems for Avraamy Palitsyn is connected with the theme of power and attitude towards the new royal dynasty. For contemporaries, the Troubles also meant a crisis of autocracy, the fall of a legitimate dynasty (the very one whose ideological justification for property rights was enshrined in numerous monuments XVI century). The embodiment of this social ill-being was an event that had never been seen before - the appearance on the throne of "false kings", impostors. As a result, publicists (and Avraamy Palitsyn, in particular) faced the need to reconcile the principles of hereditary and elective monarchy and take into account the role of the people's will in the election of pretenders to the kingdom. Palitsyn writes that popular unanimity on the issue of choosing a tsar is an indisputable evidence that this particular candidate was chosen by God, an instrument of Divine Providence. Tsar Mikhail Romanov is a sovereign, "granted by God ... before his birth, chosen from God and anointed from the womb." He is contrasted in the "Tale" by Vasily Shuisky, who reigned not by God's will, but only by "the desire of the hearts" and that is why he could not receive popular recognition.

In the "Tale" of Avraamy Palitsyn, the biographical, memoir component is clearly felt. As you know, his work was not completely flawless, at one time he served False Dmitry II. And now he is trying to whitewash his reputation, exaggerate his own significance, telling in detail about his trip to the Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma for Mikhail Romanov, about his participation in the solemn meeting of the new sovereign at the gates of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, about his activities in the process of concluding the Deulinsky truce and a number of other events.

In 1616-1619. clerk Ivan Timofeev creates "Vremennik", which depicts the history of Russia from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov. The author of Vremennik is a supporter of hereditary monarchy; he sees in the succession to the throne within the limits of one surname the order established by God. From the point of view of this order, Ivan Timofeev speaks of Ivan the Terrible, the legitimate heir to the great princes of the Russian state. This principle is interrupted after the death of the son of the Terrible, Fyodor Ivanovich, who left the kingdom "without children and without inheritance." Thus ended the great family of Russian autocrats, whose roots go back to ancient times. And then illegal rulers appeared on the throne, whom Timofeev calls "false tsars", "worker-tsars", "self-crowned", etc. Along with such rulers, those stand out who did not arbitrarily seize power, but were elected by the Zemsky Sobor - such, for example, is Boris Godunov. But in this case, the expression of human will was not accompanied by divine recognition, so Godunov on the throne turned out to be not an autocrat, but a lawless "autocrat". Mikhail Romanov is fundamentally different from all these rulers, a worthy descendant of an ancient family, in the act of electing which the will of the people was an expression of the will of God.

D.S. Likhachev noted the duality of the characteristics that certain figures in Russian history receive in Timofeev's work (as well as in a number of other works of the Time of Troubles). Next to the rhetorically embellished praise of Ivan the Terrible is a passionately condemning story about his "fiery anger." Speaking of Boris Godunov, the author sees his duty to speak not only about his evil, but also about his good deeds, so that no one has the opportunity to reproach him for partiality or one-sidedness: do not hide his blessings to the world." Good and evil are not inherent in a person and are not given to him in an unchanged form. Some people can be influenced by others: for example, Anastasia Romanova had a very positive influence on Grozny, and after her death, his character changes not at all for the better. Boris Godunov, in turn, was positively influenced by the kind Fyodor Ioannovich. According to Timofeev, Godunov was most radically changed by the power he unexpectedly received, to which he had no legal right: "Upon receiving this majesty, the Abiya pretended to be unbearable in every way, he would be cruel and heavy about everything."

The researchers noted that, by the nature of his service, Ivan Timofeev had access to archives where the most important documents were stored, therefore his "Vremennik" describes important historical events that are no longer recorded in any other source. But along with this, Ivan Timofeev acts not only as a historian, but also as a memoirist, recording those events that he himself witnessed. So, he talks about people going to the Novodevichy Convent, when people asked Boris Godunov to accept the royal crown. During this event, a certain youth specially climbed under the very window of the cell of Tsaritsa Irina and there loudly yelled, begging her to bless her brother for the kingdom, and Boris himself hypocritically wrapped a scarf around his neck, "showing to understand, as if to strangle yourself for the sake of the compelled, at least, if the prayers do not stop" .

Another source that Ivan Timofeev boldly and often used is, according to D.S. Likhachev, a variety of rumors, rumors, rumors and conversations that create a polyphonic sound in the narrative, the effect of multiple points of view. This feature is most pronounced when the author speaks about different versions of the interpretation of the events connected with the death of Ivan the Terrible.

Another historian of the Time of Troubles is Ivan Andreevich Khvorostinin, who came from the family of the Yaroslavl princes and in his youth was close to False Dmitry I, who granted him a kravchi. Under Shuisky, he was sent to repentance at the Joseph-Volokolamsky Monastery, then returned to Moscow, at the beginning of 1613 he already served as a governor in Mtsensk, then in Novosili, and in 1618 in Pereyaslavl Ryazansky. Tsar Michael rewarded him for his service and appointed him as a stolnik. The accusation of high treason was forgotten, but soon it was replaced by another - of freethinking and atheism. In 1623 he was exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery under the supervision of a "kind" and "strong life" monk. Khvorostinin received forgiveness from the tsar and patriarch shortly before his death, which followed in 1625.

Wanting to whitewash himself and give his own view of the historical events of the early 17th century, Khvorostinin, apparently shortly before his death, wrote a large-scale work "Words of days and tsars and saints of Moscow". Like Avraamiy Palitsyn, Khvorostinin pays much attention to his role in certain events: he writes that he tried to expose the vain pride of False Dmitry and was worried about saving his soul; claims that he was valued and at one time singled out from others by Patriarch Hermogenes himself, etc.

Like Ivan Timofeev, Khvorostinin gives complex, sometimes dual and contrasting characteristics to the historical figures of that time. Boris Godunov turns out to be both power-hungry and God-loving at the same time. On the one hand, he builds temples, decorates cities, tames the covetous; he is "in the wisdom of the life of this world, like a good giant, clothed and receiving glory and honor from the kings." On the other hand, it is reported that he embittered people against each other, provoked "hatred and flattery" in his subjects, restored slaves to masters, killed many noble people and, in general, "seduce the world and introduce hatred."

Around the same time, two stories were created dedicated to the tragic death of a brave commander, who especially proved himself in the fight against False Dmitry II, Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky. The prince died suddenly after a feast at Prince Borotynsky, and the cause of death among the people was poison, which was allegedly given to him by the wife of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky Maria. These events are discussed in "The Tale of the Death and Burial of Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky". The traditional features of the "Tale ..." include the author's close attention to the genealogy of his hero (Skopin-Shuisky was of a royal family, belonged to "a single branch with the owner of the universe Augustus, Caesar of Rome" and among the direct ancestors had "the founder of the single Orthodox Christian faith, Prince Vladimir of Kiev and All Russia"), a mention of the devil's instigation as a force that prompts Mary to commit a crime, a combination of elements of lamentation and glory (in this case, however, with a significant predominance of the first over the second). The mourning of the hero is exaggerated: "And the same princesses, his mother and wife, who came to her house, and fell down on her table, crying highlander ... pouring her tears with her tears, and tear rapids, like a river stream, spilled onto the floor from the table" .

A.S. Demin drew attention to the description of the appearance of the mortally poisoned Mikhail. When the prince returned home after the feast, "his eyes were brightly indignant, and his face was terribly marked with blood, and his hair on his head, standing, wavered." According to the researcher, the manifestations of a fatal disease in this case "are more like anger: cloudy, burning eyes; a bloodshot face; hair standing on end." Mikhail is poisoned by a fierce evil potion - as a result, ferocity and malice flow into Mikhail and manifest in him.

Finally, another work of the Time of Troubles - "Chronicle Book" attributed by some scientists to Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Katyrev-Rostovsky, and by others to Prince Semyon Ivanovich Shakhovsky. The very title of this work, according to researchers, indisputably testifies to the importance for the author of the ancient Russian chronicle tradition, on which he tries to rely, although he transforms its individual elements. The work begins with a lengthy title, which is at the same time an "announcement", a presentation of the content of the text, which will set out the history of the "reigning city of Moscow" from its beginning, about the origin of the great princes of Moscow, "about the suppression of the root of the royal from Augustus the king", about the reign of Boris Godunov and about the attack on Moscow by the heretic Grishka Otrepiev (False Dmitry I). As in the Tale of Avraamy Palitsyn, in the Chronicle Book the prose exposition is interspersed with presyllabic verses.

A common feature of the literature of the Time of Troubles A.S. Demin considered an exaggerated image of feelings. Indeed, the authors of that time did not skimp on colors when describing emotional experiences. Anger makes a man insane, makes him bark at the air like a dog and throw absurd words like stones. Grief not only causes river streams of tears, but also encourages you to beat your head on the ground, scratch your chest with your nails. Fear pierces right into the human heart. Noting that such an exaggeration of feelings is generally not typical of oral folk art, A.S. Demin drew attention to the analogy of this hyperbolization in the song about the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri:
Not a whirlwind twists along the valley,
Not a gray feather grass tends to the ground.
That is the terrible wrath of God
For Orthodox Rus'.

According to A.S. Demin, "the spread of a new manner of narrating feelings was largely due to the current difficult situation, which gave rise to feelings of uncertainty, distrust and fear in the country ... The authors used exaggerations to expose the secret and reveal the hidden ... Even in documents, there are references to exaggerated manifestations of feelings, for example, abundant tears, were considered a kind of proof of the truth of statements.

Researchers of the literature of the Time of Troubles also drew attention to the very noticeable heterogeneity of the writers' layer of that time. Here is a monk, and an orderly clerk, and princes from the Rurik family, although they represent minor families. All this testifies to the fact that there were no professional writers yet, the writing class had not yet developed and there was no monopoly on writing work at that time, anyone who wished, guided by one or another motive, could become a writer - to tell about the events that he witnessed; try to uncover the causes of events and evaluate them; finally, whitewash yourself and present your own activities in a favorable light.

ABOUT CONFUSION AND INTERNATIONAL STRATE AND THE RETRACTION OF PSKOVICH FROM THE MOSCOW STATE; AND WHAT WAS THE FOLLOW GOOD AND ATTACK ON THE CITY OF PSKOV FROM THE INVASION OF THE FILLED AND CAPTIVATION, FIRE AND FIRE; AND FROM WHERE THE EVIL OF THIS BEING STARTED AND IN WHAT TIME

ABOUT TROUBLES AND DIFFERENCES AND ATTENDANCE OF PSKOVICH FROM THE MOSCOW STATE, AND WHAT WERE THEN IN THE CITY OF PSKOV FROM THE INVASION AND CONQUEST OF THE FIRE AND HUNGER; AND WHERE DO THESE DISTRESSES COME FROM AND AT WHAT TIME

In the summer of 7115, when a false tsar, who called himself Dmitry, was always killed in Moscow; with the prayers of the Most Pure Mother of God and the great miracle-workers, God do not let him destroy the Christian faiths and turn the churches into Latinism, as if by that accursed intent; but summer was one and soon was killed. And then Prince Vasily Shuiskaya sat down on the kingdom, and let Tsarina Marinka, a Lithuanian thieves, go with Lithuania to her land, and ordered them to be escorted to the border. And I came to the North, and stuck to them Russian people, and settling in the city, and arranged packs for my own false king. And Tsar Vasily sent many armies to them and went himself, but nothing succeeded; I am afraid of people being confused and deceived, for the sake of our God I have allowed sin; came and under the most reigning city and obsedosha; and be smooth and great, from nowhere, hoping for help.

In the year 7115 (1606), a false tsar who called himself Dmitry was killed in Moscow; thanks to the prayers of the Most Pure Mother of God and the great miracle workers, God did not allow destruction Christian faith and the conversion of the church to Latinism, as the accursed one intended; he was king for only one summer, and was soon killed. And after him, Prince Vasily Shuisky sat on the kingdom, and released Queen Marinka, a criminal Lithuanian, together with the Lithuanians to their land, and ordered them to be escorted to the border. And they came to the Seversky lands, and the Russian people joined them, and occupied the cities, and found themselves again a false tsar. And Tsar Basil many times sent troops to them and went himself, but without success; people got excited and tempted<то Бог допустил за грехи наши>; they even came to the reigning city and laid siege to it; and there was a severe famine, and no help was expected from anywhere.

And the tsar sent his nephew, Prince Mikhail Skopin, to Novgrad, and sent a German across the sea to help him against Lithuania. At the same time, the month of August, vague letters appeared in the Pskov suburbs from the thief from under Moscow to the charm of the faint-hearted, and the people became indignant and began to kiss him with the cross. At the same time, Bishop Genadei soon reposed from the torment, hearing such charms. Similarly, in Pskov, people were confused, hearing some future from a false king with a small army. The governors, who saw so much confusion among the people, and strengthened them a lot, and were not able to exhort. At the same time, the people grabbed the best people, guests, and I was thrown into prison, and I sent the governors to Novgorod to send rati to help in Pskov. At the same time, someone who is an enemy of the cross of Christ, give them the word that the Germans will be in Pskov; they heard the bellow that the tsar had sent to the Germans, but they had not yet come from overseas to Novgorod. And then some rebels among the people cried out, as if the Germans had come from Ivanyagorod to the bridge on the Great River. And at that hour, everyone was indignant and grabbed the governor, planted in prison, and they themselves sent according to the thieves' governor, according to Fedok Pleshcheev, and kissing the cross to the thief falsely, and beginning to be in their will, and set aside from the Muscovite state to the false tsar, and being in their will maddened, and extortion flared up on someone else's estate.

And the king sent his nephew, Prince Mikhail Skopin, to Novgorod, and sent him across the sea to hire the Germans to help him in the war with Lithuania. At the same time, in the month of August, in the Pskov suburbs, seditious letters appeared from a thief from near Moscow for the cowardice of the faint-hearted, and people were tempted and began to kiss his cross. At the same time, Bishop Gennady soon reposed from grief, having heard about such a temptation. Also in Pskov, people were agitated when they heard that someone with a small army was coming from the false tsar. The governors, seeing such an excitement of the people, calmed him for a long time, but could not stop. Then the people seized the best people, merchants and threw them into prison, while the governors sent to Novgorod with a request to send an army to Pskov to help. At the same time, some enemy of the cross of Christ started a rumor that the Germans were going to Pskov; and they heard before that the tsar sent for the Germans, but they had not yet come from across the sea to Novgorod. And then some rebels began to shout among the people that the Germans had already come from Ivangorod to the bridge on the Great River. And immediately everyone got up and seized the governor, put him in prison, and they themselves sent for the thieves' governor Fedka Pleshcheev, and kissed the cross to the thief, and began to live according to their own will, and departed from the Muscovite state, and obeyed the false tsar, and went crazy, living according to their own will , and in greed flared up with a passion for someone else's wealth.

The same autumn came from a thief to Pskov, as if from a hundred of demons, and his regiment were tormentors, and murderers, and robbers, telling the foolish of his state and power; the same repentance, giving praise to his more charming and darker power, and beginning to boast before him of his zeal for the thief, how longing to submit to him. And navadish on them the lovers of God and the sufferers, who did not want to kneel to bow to Baalov, that is, the forerunner of the Antichrist, on the heads of the city and on the deliberate city of men, even I was thrown into the dungeon. Izemshe these evil beasts of the beast of the dungeon, slaughtered by the necessary death, ovs for a stake potkosh, and cut off the heads, tormented by various torments, tormented, and poimasha their estates, and the boyar Pyotr Nikitich Sheremetev was strangled in the dungeons. And in the sovereign's court, and in the monastery, and from the chiefs of the city, and from the guests of the estate, having taken possessions, s'hasha near Moscow to your false tsar, and there follow from your beating of the former.

In the same autumn, tormentors, and murderers, and robbers came from the thief to Pskov, like demons from Satan, from the army, telling the foolish about his might and power; the same accursed ones praised his criminal and sinful rule and began to boast before him of their zeal for the thief, how they longed to submit to him. And they spoke against those God-lovers and sufferers who did not want to kneel before Baal, that is, the forerunner of the Antichrist - against the city rulers and noble men of the city who were put in prison. And those evil fierce beasts took them out of the dungeon, betrayed them to violent death, put some on a stake, cut off the heads of others, tortured the rest with various torments and took away their property, while the boyar Pyotr Nikitich Sheremetev was strangled in the dungeon. And in the sovereign's court, and in the monasteries, and from the rulers of the city, and from the merchants, having taken all the wealth, they left for Moscow to their false tsar, and there they were subsequently killed by their own.

And the false tsar sent his new commanders to Pskov, Pan Ondrey Tronyanov of the Poretsky Belarusian, and Pan Pobedinsky Luthor, and Deacon Krik Tenkin; but thie nothing in the city did no evil, and a little bysh, and s'hash.

And the false tsar sent his new governors to Pskov, Pan Andrey Tronyanov Poretsky Belarusian, and Pan Luthor Pobedinsky, and the clerk Krik Tenkin; but they did nothing evil in the city, and after a short stay, they left.

And then Prince Alexander Zhirovoi Zasekin arrived. At the same time, the wrath of God is inflicted on the glorious city of Pskov as a punishment, so that their self-will and internecine strife remain: the month of Maya on the 15th day, at the 6th hour, caught fire on the Polonishche of the Assumption Monastery from courtyard cooking, and the people swept away and put out the fire. The bowl began to disperse around the house, and suddenly it caught fire again invisibly. And at that hour there was a great storm, the wind was strong from the south, and carry the fire to the square, and not being able to quench it with anything, and run all the koijo to your house. And then the Pechersk metochion caught fire, and suddenly it caught fire near the Monk Varlam on the Zapskovye, and from there, raising a strong wind, the north, and all the hail and green floors caught fire, and the Kremlin of the city was torn out by a potion on both sides. And before nightfall, the whole city fell, and many people were beaten and burned with stones, only the remains of 2 monasteries - Nicholas the miracle worker in Piskakh and against that across the river Kozma and Damian on Grimyachaya Gora; yes, in the cathedral church, only God will keep the tomb of the noble prince Domant, otherwise everything will burn.

And then Prince Alexander Zhirovoi Zasekin arrived. Under him, the wrath of God broke out on the glorious city of Pskov as a punishment, so that they would move away from their self-will and strife: on the 15th day of May, at the 6th hour, it caught fire on Polonishche near the Assumption Monastery, when they were preparing food in the yard, and people fled, and extinguished the fire. They began to go home, and suddenly suddenly caught fire again. And at that moment a great storm arose, a strong wind from the south, and carried the fire to the square, and they could not tame it with anything, and everyone ran to their own house. And then the Pechersk metochion caught fire, and suddenly the top of the church of St. Varlaam in Zapskovye caught fire, and a strong north wind blew from there, and the whole city and powder warehouses caught fire, and gunpowder blew up the walls of the Kremlin from two sides. And until nightfall, the whole city was burned, and many people were stoned and burned, only 2 monasteries remained - St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in Sands, and opposite him, across the river, Kozma and Demyan on Gremyachaya Mountain; and in the cathedral church God preserved only the tomb of the noble prince Dovmont, and everything else burned down.

The people of Pskov, the mob and the archers, were not punished by that wrath of God, they began to rob someone else's estate from deliberate people and, with the devil inflating the existence, saying to the shit: “Bolyars and guests of the city set fire!” And start in the fire itself with a stone to drive them away, they also escaped from the city. And the morning gathered, beginning to drag deliberate nobles and guests, torturing and executing and imprisoning the innocent from the initial city and church rank, saying insanely, as if: “You will set fire to the city and destroy it, not for the sake of our king.” And all that repentant rebels and the chiefs of the Jewish assembly are plotting against good people in order to take their property. And buoy the people in vain in the wake of their beating later, crying out themselves, and then many innocent blood is shed in the city, all the days of tormenting repentance.

The people of Pskov, the mob and archers, not afraid of that Divine wrath, began to rob someone else's property from noble people and, incited by the devil, they said this: “The boyars and merchants set fire to the city!” And during the fire itself, they began to drive them out with stones, they ran out of the city. And in the morning, having gathered, they began to seize noble nobles and merchants, torture and execute, and imprison innocent from among the rulers of the city and people of church rank, insane, saying: “You set fire to the city and destroyed, not wanting our king.” And all this the accursed rebels and the leaders of the Jewish congregation started against good people in order to take their wealth. And the violent crowd blindly followed their example and shouted, and then a lot of innocent blood was shed in the city, the damned were tormented for days on end.

Hearing in Veliky Novgorod the military permission of God to Pskov, a fire, Ataman Timofey Sharov with the Cossacks came soon; and do not dare to go into exile to the city. And in the city then there was no outfit, no potion, but there were few hand weapons, but, having sharpened it, you came out of the city. And the Novgorodians beat many citizens, chasing even to the city, but not daring to go into the city, because the city is great and there are many people, and then there are not many of them, from three hundred people.

The soldiers in Veliky Novgorod heard about God's permission for Pskov, about the fire, and soon ataman Timofey Sharov came with the Cossacks and did not dare to suddenly attack the city. And in the city then there were no guns, no gunpowder, and there were few hand weapons, but, having sharpened the stakes, they left the city. And the Novgorodians beat many citizens, pursued them to the city, but they did not dare to enter the city, for the city was large and there were many people in it, and there were few of them then, about three hundred people.

The Pskovites, like the second Jews, having become furious, having the prisons of good people, tormenting and saying evilly, as if: “You will summon the Novgorodians to us.” The Novgorodians, on the Zavelichie Posad, were burned and otidosha.

The Pskovians, like the second Jews, having become furious, dragged good people out of prison, cruelly tortured them, saying: “You called the Novgorodians against us.” The Novgorodians burned down the settlement on Zavelichye and left.

That same summer, the month of August on the 18th day, the enemies of the cross of Christ took from the dungeons the guest Alexei Semyonov, the son of Khozyu, and tormented much evil and led him out of the city to execution. At the same time, the netsyi Christ-lovers, hearing such severity and bloodshed of the rebels in the ranks, took up their weapons and called to themselves: “If we do not stand on our enemies and tormentors now, they will destroy all the good men of the citizens.” And he cried out, poidoshia on them, and dispersed the buih from the people, and beat the chiefs of the assembly, betrayed other executions, and drove the archers out of the city. When you heard the repentance of Tia, even having led to the execution of Alex that the citizens had risen against them, at that hour the enemy, a certain archer, came running, cut off the innocent head of the righteous Alex in the most city gates. And after dispersing the enemies, he brought out everyone, freed and gave praise to God about this.

In the same year, on the 18th day of August, the enemies of the cross of Christ took the merchant Alexei Semyonov, the son of Khozin, from prison, and tortured him cruelly for a long time, and took him out of the city to be executed. At the same time, some Christ-lovers heard in the trading rows about such ferocity of the rebels and bloodshed, took their weapons and said to themselves: “If now we do not rise against our enemies and tormentors, then they will destroy all the good men of the city.” And, crying out, they went to them, and dispersed the violent crowd, and beat the leaders of the gathering, executed others, and drove the archers out of the city. The accursed ones who led Alexei to execution heard that the townspeople rose up against them, and then some atheist archer came running and at the very city gates cut off the innocent head of the righteous Alexei. And after the enemies were dispersed, they released everyone and gave praise to God for that.

And in the 118th year, in oiled zagovena, having sent two archers from Veliky Novagrad with letters from Tsar Vasily, so that the people of Pskov would turn to the Muscovite state, and unite, and would become one against thieves and Lithuania. The rulers of the city and deliberately the men, desiring to bow to the state and copulate, and soon want to kiss the cross, and the enemy’s libel of that hour did not find the record of the former in the treasury, for which the kiss of the cross.

In 118 (1610), during the Pancake week, two archers were sent from Veliky Novgorod with a letter from Tsar Vasily, so that the Pskovites would again return under the rule of the Muscovite state, and reunite, and together they would rise up against troublemakers and Lithuanians. The rulers of the city and noble men wanted to submit to the authorities and reunite and wanted to immediately kiss the cross, but due to the enemy's slander, they did not find in the treasury the previous record according to which the cross was to be kissed.

And packs of the same hour, the evil bitterness of the first ones flared up: the rebel and debauchee ran around the city, the self-leader’s words, the accusers, the blood-drinkers, who torture without truth, who steal other people’s estates and do not want to live under the power; and roaring over the city, blatantly the same ugly and stinky, standing on the sacrum in a host of people, like the heads of the city and the best people, nobles and guests, blacks and priests, and all white people want to kiss the cross and take revenge on their offense, hedgehog we will do to them , and kissed the cross to the Moscow Tsar Vasily.

And then again misfortunes began worse than the first: rebels and corrupters ran all over the city, the aforementioned leaders, screamers, bloodsuckers, tormenting lawlessly, plundering other people's wealth and not wanting to obey the authorities; and, scouring the city, they shouted to the same ignoramuses and smerts standing at crossroads and squares that the rulers of the city and the best people, nobles and merchants, monks and priests, and all white people want to kiss the cross and avenge their offenses, which we they were hurt, and the cross was kissed to the Moscow Tsar Vasily.

They, the wild people, are cowardly and unreasonable, rising with weapons on their own, and sent out of the city, beyond the Great River, to the streltsy settlement for the archers, and went to them in the city, after the archers from the city drove the former by Aleksiev's murder of Khozin for their theft and they were not allowed into the city until now. The rulers of the city, and the guests, and the nobles, and a few from the deliberate people of the city, who saw the confusion of the people and their evil intentions, I already exist in the evening, the fir trees were successful on horses, and on the other hand, weeping highlander, left their houses and wives and children, fled get out of the city to the Great River to the Taken Mountain. Which horses are named after going to Novgorod, and which are on foot, they went to the Most Holy Mother of God in Caves monastery, fearing their former torment and executions of the evil ones.

They, a violent crowd, faint-hearted and unreasonable, rose up with weapons on their own and sent them outside the city, across the Great River, to the streltsy settlement for the archers; and they went to them in the city, because after the murder of Alexei Khozin, the archers were expelled from the city for their betrayal, and they have not been allowed into the city until now. The rulers of the city, and merchants, and nobles, some of the noble people of the city, seeing the confusion of the people and their evil thoughts, fled from the city with the onset of evening to Snetnaya Mountain along the Great River, weeping bitterly, leaving at home and wives and children, who had time, one on horseback, the other on foot. Those who had horses went to Novgorod, and those on foot went to the Pechersk Monastery of the Most Pure Mother of God, fearing previous persecutions and cruel executions.

Nautria at the very Clean Monday During the Great Lent, in the same time, the existing Christians will be cleansed from all evil deeds, but they, more severe than animals, fiercely flutter, like lions, gathering in the midst of a city and calling on viche. Gathering together, the foolish people and the settlers, like dumb cattle, and they themselves are not aware, for the sake of gathering. The bosses of the host rekosha, as if: “Yesterday, those who seek our blood and ran away; and we will choose their remaining counselors, and we will put them in prison, and we will test them.”

In the morning, on a clean Monday of Great Lent, when all true Christians are cleansed of all evil deeds, they, even wilder than animals, furiously enraged like lions, gathered in the center of the city and rang at the Veche. A riotous, unreasonable people and peasants gathered, like dumb cattle, not knowing themselves why they were gathered. The leaders of the gathering said: “Those who sought our blood yesterday fled, and we will take their remaining advisers and put them in prison and find out about them.”

And rushing around the house, looking for catches to find and be satisfied with human blood, like the former tormentors, or more than the second Jews, their former prophesying, the blessed river told them Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky on their case. And the feast of the innocent Orthodox, I drag them into the assembly, and torture them evil, and litter them in empty bins and cellars; but the tree from the city ran away in soul and body, then the wives of those were thrown into the floor and cellars and, from there, taking away, evil torment and death. And he enters their houses, eating, and drinking, and having fun, and dividing their possessions with himself. Also, the fir trees were in the dungeons of the possessions that paid off with a bribe for the sake of flour and death; yelitsy byahu not having anything to give, these torments of the former and in dungeons froze, the wives and children of the rest are wandering. For all the husband and wife who suffered in such grief, more than 2 hundred, until the false king and thief Matyushka came, free them all who suffered and imprison them in that place. According to God's structure, all this was so, after all, having received retribution against your deed. But we will return again in advance. Tsar Vasily, hearing such internecine strife in Pskov, stinks autocracy, and although he frightened them so that they would turn to the Muscovite state, he sent Prince Vladimir Dolgoruky to Veliky Novgorod, ordered him to march with the Novgorodians near Pskov; and came after Peter's days.

And they rushed home, looking for prey and wanting to get enough of human blood, like the former tormentors, or even more so - the second Jews, as, predicting, Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky called the Pskovites for their deeds. And some of the innocent Orthodox were found, they were dragged to the gathering, and they were cruelly tortured, and thrown into empty houses and cellars; who, in soul and body, left the city, they threw them into the houses and cellars of those wives, and, releasing them from there, they cruelly tortured them and put them to death. And they occupied their houses, they ate, they drank, and they were merry, and they divided their riches among themselves. And if one of those sitting in the dungeon had something with him, then he paid off with a bribe from torment and death; those who could not give anything were tortured and died in prison, while their wives and children remained homeless. And there were more than two hundred men and women who suffered from such misfortunes, until the coming liar and thief Matyushka freed all the sufferers and instead of them imprisoned themselves<мучителей>. All this was according to God's provision, and then everyone received retribution for their deeds. But back to the previous story. Tsar Vasily, having learned about such strife in Pskov, the arbitrariness of the smerds and wanting to intimidate them so that they obey the Muscovite state, sent Prince Vladimir Dolgoruky to Veliky Novgorod, ordered him to go under Pskov with the Novgorod troops; and they came after Peter's day.

And the Pskovites went out of the city for three fields against them, to the River Promeshitsy, like a rage of a buoy, like a fight or a fistfight, there were no commanders or an orderly in them, but they put regiments in them, like a host of collectors, but sharpening people, shouting, and blatantly, and knowing nothing of military affairs. And then they beat many Pskovites at Promeshchitsy near the Savior, and trampled down to the very city.

And the people of Pskov went out of the city to meet them for three fields, to the river Promezhytsia, as violently mad, as if to a fight or a fistfight, and they had neither a governor nor a leader, and their regiments were built by the same who gathered them at the gathering , they incited the people, shouting and yelling and not at all knowing military affairs. And many Pskovians were then beaten at Promezhytsia near the Spas, and pursued them to the very city.

The Novgorodians, on the other hand, stasha at Nikola on Lyubyatov in the monastery. And the people of Pskov, more than anything else, descended on them, with Rybnitsa shields on the cart and with regimental attire, and went to the monastery of St. Nicholas. But there are not many Novgorod people, like three hundred people, send a besh to intimidate, so that the Pskovites unite together. But when the Novgorodians saw their unsettled army, the multitudes coming against them, they were not afraid and divided into three parts into half a workshop; the first regiment of the Germans launched into Pskov. The Pskovites, then still not knowing military affairs, seeing the Germans, running to the city, they sent all the regiments and drove them to the city, beating and cutting, but with the mercy of Rustia, only the Germans were many; If only they would have stood a little then, and the hail would have been given to them.

Novgorodians also stood at the Nikolsky Monastery on Lyubyatov. And the people of Pskov, almost the whole city, came out to them with fishing shields on carts and regimental guns, and went to the monastery of St. Nicholas. There were few Novgorod people, about three hundred people, they were sent to intimidate, so that the Pskovites would reunite. The Novgorodians saw their disorderly army, were not afraid of the multitude coming against them, and divided into three regiments; the first to be released on the Pskov regiment of Germans. The Pskovites, then still not understanding in military affairs, seeing the Germans, ran to the city, then the Novgorodians threw all the regiments on them and pursued them to the city, killing and chopping; the Russians did it with pity, only the Germans chopped many; and if they had stood a little longer then, they would have handed over the city to them.

But I deigned God so, for the sake of our sin I want to take revenge and captivate the Russian land: as if psy had previously heard with my ear about the Northern country, which was there from Lithuania near the Muscovite state and near Novagrad, only the rest of the Pskov land is still intact. But when the cup of sorrow of the pelyn was filled, a rumor came: he, a fierce thief and a robber, pan Lisovskaya and Ivan Prosovetskaya with Russian tormentors and robbers, and he is coming to run away to this country, even if we don’t find a place, we are persecuted from Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin, and many cities from him sparkled captivated and devastated quickly. Heard, the Novgorodians went home, but did not suddenly come to Veliky Novgorod to capture me.

But God commanded so, for our sins he wished to punish and ruin the Russian land: before, like dogs, we only heard with our ears about the Seversk land and what the Lithuanians were doing on the borders of the Moscow State and near Novgorod, and only the Pskov land alone remained hitherto whole . But the cup of wormwood bitterness was filled - the news came that the evil thief and robber Pan Lisovsky and Ivan Prosovetsky, together with Russian tormentors and robbers, were approaching, fleeing, and to this land, that they had not found any more place, persecuted by Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin, that many the cities were unexpectedly taken and ruined by them. Hearing this, the Novgorodians returned, fearing that he would suddenly come to Veliky Novgorod and take it.

The Pskovites, having previously seen the Novgorodians coming to them, having no help from anywhere, sent Maxim Karpovsky to the Livonian land to Pan Khotkevich in order to help them; but then he would not have time to get together with them and go with them. The Pskovites, having heard Pan Lisovsky with Lithuania and Russian people, standing in the Novgorod land, in Porkhovshino, sent a beat to him with a forehead so that he would go to Pskov with Russian people. He, having captured the Novgorod region a lot, came to Pskov.

Even before that, the Pskovians, having learned about the impending attack on them by the Novgorodians, having no help from anywhere, sent Maxim Karpovsky to the Livonian land to Pan Khodkevich with a request for help, but then he did not have time to gather an army and speak. And the Pskovites, having learned that Pan Lisovsky with Lithuanians and Russian people was standing in Novgorod land, near Porkhov, they sent him to beat him with his forehead so that he would go to Pskov with Russian people. He, having devastated many Novgorod lands, came to Pskov.

And let it go into the city, and put Lithuania outside the city in the settlement and in the Streltsy settlement. But little by little, the cup and Lithuania entered the city, and began to drink a lot of the great treasury and put on a dress, because there were a lot of names of gold, and silver, and pearls, and they robbed and captured the glorious cities of Rostov and Kostroma, and the cloisters and laurels of honest Pafnuty in Borovsk and Kolyazin, and many others; and the crayfish of the saints cut, and the courts and the salary of the figurative, and the multitude is full, wives, and maidens, and a youth. When she was all stealing and losing in grain and writing, starting to speak loudly and threaten the citizens, that “we have captured and ruined many cities, it will be the same from us to this city of Pskov, because our stomach is all here laid in a tavern.” And their evil thought will not come true: do not learn from a human sense, but from God’s providence, even if you don’t destroy prayers for the sake of your Most Pure Mother and the great miracle workers, then this city will not be betrayed to this barbarian by plunder, but waiting for our repose.

And they let him into the city, and the Lithuanians were placed outside the city in a suburb and a streltsy settlement. But little by little, the Lithuanians also began to penetrate the city, and many began to spend a lot of money on drink and dress up, for many had gold, and silver, and pearls, which they looted and seized in the glorious cities of Rostov and Kostroma, and in the cloisters and laurels of the glorified, in the monastery Pafnuty Borovsky and Kolyazinsky Monastery and many others; and they broke the tombs of the saints, and the vessels and salaries at the icons, and they took many captives, wives, and maidens, and young men. When all this was spent, and lost at dice, and drunk, they began to boldly speak and threaten the townspeople: “We have captured and ruined many cities, we will do the same with the city of Pskov, for all our fortune is laid here in the tavern.” And their evil plan did not come true, everything happened not according to human understanding, but according to God's providence, for, thanks to the prayers of his Most Pure Mother and the great miracle workers, he did not want to destroy the city then, did not give it to this barbarian for plunder, for he was waiting for our repentance.

Hearing the citizens of evil people this evil intention, and coming to the barbarian, beginning to speak with flattering words, so that he would go to Ivangorod for a charge, then the Germans would be the Sveisky Germans and beyond the ridge of Novagrad and Pskov; and we, having collected the treasury, will send it to you. He stood a little about this, and soon left the city with everyone, and went to Ivanyugorod. The Germans, having heard, fled to their country in Rugodiv.

The townspeople found out about this evil intention of evil people and, having come to the barbarian, began to persuade him in flattering words to go to Ivangorod to the rescue, since he was then surrounded by Swedish Germans and was behind Novgorod and Pskov; and they de, having collected the money, will send it to him. He did not think about it at all, and soon left the city with the whole army, and came to Ivangorod. The Germans, having learned about this, fled to their lands, to Rugodiv.

The same accursed barbarian, after understanding in yourselves how the Pskovians thought about him Oman, sent out of the city with flattery, and were much saddened. Still, think up a second flattery, so that you can take a fraction of the fortress of Ivangorod with flattery: “To this day I can get from that city and other things.” And beforehand he sent himself several soldiers with bread to the city, there was no shortage of bread. They entered the prison and wanted to enter the city and sit down, according to his word, and no one in the city thought of the deceit of this being, but I rejoiced and praised greatly. But one deacon, a chief named Afonasey Andronnikov, understood his evil deceit, and commanded to close the gates of the city, and do not let them in, and commanded them to be in jail.

Then that accursed barbarian realized how the Pskovites had deceived him, cunningly sending him out of the city, and he was very sad. And then he conceived a counter trick to take Ivangorod, such a powerful fortress, by deceit: “Then I can conquer others from this city as well.” And he sent ahead of himself a small detachment into the city with a grain supply, for there was little food left. They entered the prison and wanted to enter the city and sit there, as he ordered, and no one in the city saw deceit in this, but everyone was very happy and praised them. But one of the senior clerks, named Afanasy Andronnikov, understood his evil deceit, and ordered the gates of the city to be closed, and did not let them in, and ordered them to be in prison.

And at that hour, the multi-deceitful one himself was attached to the jail, and did not let go, and be put to shame; and ask the rulers of the city to stay in the city with a few people, and let him go and pay honor to him about the assignment. He, marveling at the great fortress of the city, rather stands on a high mountain, three walls of stone byakhu and a lot along with any treasury. And praise the rulers of the city, rivers, as if: “In no Russian city could you recognize my many different treachery and networks, deceitful in image, this city will not be able to take flattery, if you recognize my flattery.” And out of the city.

At the same time, the tricky one himself arrived in time for the prison, and they did not let him in, and he was put to shame; and asked the rulers of the city to visit the city with a small number of people, and they let him through, and thanked him for the help. He was surprised by the powerful fortifications of the city: it stands on a high mountain, has three stone walls and a lot of guns and all sorts of supplies. And he praised the rulers of the city, saying: “In none of the Russian cities could they unravel my many tricks and tricks with which I fooled them, I did not manage to take this city by deceit, because my deceit was revealed.” And left the city.

And Lithuania and Rus' began to gather among themselves, and Rus' went to Pskov, and Pan Lisovskaya with Lithuania and German, captured in Ivanegorod, and having caught, went past Pskov. And went above Pskov; and the suburbs of Voronoch, and Krasnaya, and Zavolochye were taken, and from there they began all day and night near Pskov, and near Izborsko, and near Pechora and others, and heaved out the whole Pskov land.

And the Lithuanians and Russians were divided among themselves, and the Russians went to Pskov, and pan Lisovsky with the Lithuanians and Germans taken prisoner in Ivangorod, went past Pskov. And he went above Pskov, and took the suburbs of Voronich, and Krasnoye, and Zavolochye, and from there began to raid Pskov every day and night, and Izborsk, and Pechory, and other places, and devastated the entire Pskov land.

And that summer, the whole evil life began in Pskov: every bread is valued by the gardens, it was soon planted from everywhere, from two sides the Germans, and from the third Lithuania, not allowing anyone to come out of the city for the sake of it. And the speed of that smooth time, and the pestilence, and the siege sitting from Lithuania and from Russian thieves and German 8 years. But the great mercy of the Most Pure Mother of God of the Caves, that only past your house do not block the way to the Lithuanian border in the Livonian land, from there all that summer the bread went to Pskov, because the world is great for the name of the philistines from Pskov; if that land had not helped with bread, then the filthy would not have been eliminated. But then there was a lot of evil on her Most Pure Theotokos monastery from Lithuanian people and German invasions; but from all these save and keep the Most Pure Mother of God her house, and be glorified in all the countries of the universe, from them we have a small confession, because it is impossible to confess all the details of her glorious miracles that were at that time.

And in the same year, all sorts of troubles began in Pskov: food in the suburbs began to rise in price, since the city was surrounded from everywhere, on two sides by the Germans, and on the third by the Lithuanians, who did not allow leaving the city for the necessary. And 8 years lasted hunger, and pestilence, and being under siege from the Lithuanians, and from Russian thieves, and from the Germans. But the mercy of the Most Pure Mother of God of the Caves is great, which did not allow to close the path that goes past her house to the Lithuanian border to the Livonian land, from there all these years they delivered food to Pskov, since the inhabitants<ливонских>cities were in a big world with the Pskovites; if that land did not help with food, then they could not get rid of the filthy. But many troubles from the invasion of the Lithuanian and German troops then fell to the lot of the monastery of the Most Pure Theotokos, but the Most Pure Mother of God preserved and protected her house from all troubles, and her monastery became famous in all parts of the universe, which I will talk a little about later, because it is impossible to tell in detail about all her glorious miracles that happened at that time.

Then, for the sake of our sin in the Moscow state, there would be discord among the people, hating Tsar Vasily for much bloodshed, and secondly, the brethren of his nephew hated for his courage, Prince Mikhail Skopin, who was a German hired and drove away the thief with Lithuania from the reigning city, and enticing him to Moscow, with poison to kill. And zdumasha Lithuanian king's son to plant himself on the kingdom, and so did, taking Tsar Vasily and giving it to the Lithuanian king. The king longed for this a lot, no matter how he seduced the Russian people, promising to give his son to the kingdom and the ambassador of his people to Moscow; and having come having a kingdom. Holy Germans, seeing the disorder in the state, and who hired them, died, having come, taking the Great Novgorod of July on Saturday and owning it for 6 years.

Then, for our sins, strife began in the Muscovite state: they hated Tsar Vasily for much bloodshed, and, secondly, the brothers of Tsar Vasily hated their nephew, Prince Mikhail Skopin, for the courage, who hired the Germans and drove the thief with the Lithuanians away from the reigning city, and, having lured him to Moscow, they poisoned him. And they planned to put a Lithuanian prince in the kingdom, and they did it: they took Tsar Vasily and gave him to the Lithuanian king. The king, however, had been waiting for a long time to seduce the Russian people, promised to give his son to the kingdom and sent his people to Moscow, and, having come, they took possession of the kingdom. The Swedish Germans, seeing the unrest in the state and that the one who hired them had died, on July 16 came and captured Veliky Novgorod and owned it for 6 years.

The same 119th year, about the Great Days, charms appeared again in Ivan-gorod: the thief of Tushino, who was seduced by Ivanogorodtsy and Pskovites. Calling yourself by the same name, the deacon Matyushka, having come running from Moscow, you will find yourself a safe time to confuse the cities of Russia, because the former Tushinsky thief in Koluga was killed by Peter Urusov, and it was as if he had gone to Ivangorod, and not killed. And the same thieves and murderers began to gather to him: from Novgorod the Cossacks, having left Novgorod as a German, and came to him, and the archers of Pskovia gathered to him; and began to send letters to Pskov and the suburbs for disclosure and embarrassment, saying: "I am the Tsar."

In the same 119 (1611) year, on the eve of the Great Day, new unrest swept over Ivangorod, for the people of Ivangorod and Pskov succumbed to the deception of the Tushino thief. The deacon Matyushka, who called himself by this name, having come running from Moscow, chose a convenient time to raise a revolt in Russian cities, for the former Tush thief was killed in Kaluga by Peter Urusov, but it was said that he went to Ivangorod, and was not killed. And the same thieves and murderers began to gather around him: from Novgorod, the Cossacks, leaving Novgorod to the Germans, came to him, and the Pskov archers joined him; and he began to send letters to Pskov and the suburbs, causing discord and confusion, saying: "I am the king."

The citizens of Pskov, who saw the charm of the former and, as if many were the former rebels and debauchees Rustey of the earth, called the royal offspring, did not heed this, and sent away the sent dishonest, rekshe, as the enemy is also the destroyer of Christianity and those who do not want his king themselves. He gathered with his thieves and came with an outfit of wall-beaters and with a mark near Pskov in the month of July; the citizens are strongly opposed to his stash and have shown many victories before; the same thief beat many in the houses of men and, sweeping with fiery ones, lighting them up, frightening people, and succeeded in nothing.

The inhabitants of Pskov, seeing constant betrayals and the fact that before many rebels and apostates of the Russian land called themselves the royal name, did not listen to him and sent a messenger in disgrace, saying that he was an atheist and an apostate and that they did not want him to be their king. The same one gathered his thieves and came in the month of July to Pskov with wall and throwing tools; the townspeople courageously resisted him and won many victories; and this thief shelled residential buildings for a long time and set them on fire, throwing fire, frightening people, but achieved nothing.

Hearing the Germans in Veliky Novgorod, who was a thief, standing near Pskov, afraid, but someday he would settle in Pskov and, having come, drive them out of Novgorod; and sent a few yats against him. The same accursed one, hearing the Germans coming at him, running under Pskov to Ivangorod; and the Germans caught up with him beyond Gdov on the Plus of the river, only he managed to be one with some interruptions, and cut many that one. Citizens of Pskovia, perplexed, what to do and where to bow, hoping for help from nowhere, since Moscow was behind Lithuania, and in Novgorod the Germans, as if surrounded from everywhere, and relying on it, call a false king to them. Ole madness of the last! First, swearing to yourself not to listen to the false king, lower yourself to him, then send from all the ranks of people to beat him with your forehead and send a confession.

The Germans in Veliky Novgorod heard about the thief who had appeared, standing near Pskov, they were afraid that someday he would land in Pskov and, having come, would drive them out of Novgorod; and sent a small army to take it. The same accursed, having learned about the Germans who opposed him, fled from Pskov to Ivangorod; and the Germans caught up with him behind Gdov on the Plyussa River, and many were killed here, only he alone with a small detachment managed to cross the river. The inhabitants of Pskov, not knowing what to do and whom to join, not hoping for anyone's help, since there were Lithuanians in Moscow, and Germans in Novgorod, surrounded on all sides, they decided to call the false tsar to them. Oh, this is the ultimate madness! First they swore not to listen to the false king, not to obey him, then they themselves sent elected representatives from all estates to beat him with their foreheads and sent a confession.

The same accursed one rejoiced with joy at the greatness of this, as if delivering him from the German siege, there he was to disappear; come to Pskov soon. And sretosha him with honor, and began to gather many people to him, even rejoicing in the blood and other people's property, for this, loving the filthy, Lithuanian and German. And there was a lot of violence and justice in the stern and in any tribute, and many were killed by the citizen. Then the people of Pskov, of course, were convinced by the false, flattering kings and began to grieve and grieve at his tax.

The same accursed one rejoiced with great joy that they had delivered him from the German encirclement, in which he would have perished, and soon came to Pskov. And they met him with honor, and many of those who rejoiced in blood and thirsted for someone else's good, and also loved filthy people, Lithuanians and Germans, began to gather to him. And they raped the townspeople a lot, and exacted food and all kinds of tribute with torture, and tortured many. Then the people of Pskov finally lost faith in the false tsars, deceivers, and began to grieve and suffer from his oppression.

Then the whiteness was besieged in Moscow by Russian people, and from there they sent some deliberate ones to Pskov to ripen the charms of that newly appointed tsar. They are the vigilantes who are obsessed with fear, fearing death, not reproaching him. And not by much time, it is better to get time, always a military ambassador from yourself near the Novgorod suburb near Porkhov, and then he made advice with the citizens, washing him and bringing him to Moscow.

At this time, the Lithuanians were surrounded in Moscow by Russian troops and sent from there to Pskov several worthy men to expose the deceit of this new self-proclaimed tsar. The same ones who came to set<кто этот новый царь>were afraid, fearing death, did not rebuke him. And some time later, having chosen a convenient time, when he sent an army to the Novgorod suburb of Porkhov, then they, after consulting with the townspeople, seized him and took him to Moscow.

And from there the charm of false tsars in Rus' ceased; but some flattery remains small: after the murder of the former false tsar, who was killed in Koluga, a certain Ivashko Zarutsky took his son Ivashka and his wife and fled down the Volga to Astarakhan. When the pious Tsar Michael reigned and the Muscovite state was renewed, then those enemies, having seized, brought them to Moscow, put all of them to death; and the evil tares of the charms of the enemy were quickly put out.

And since then, the rebellions of false tsars have ceased in Rus', only a small turmoil has remained: after the murder of the former false tsar, who was killed in Kaluga, a certain Ivashka Zarutsky took his son Ivashka and his wife and fled down the Volga to Astrakhan. When the pious Tsar Michael reigned and the Muscovite state was revived, then those atheists, having been caught, were brought to Moscow, and they were all executed; and the evil weed of enemy troubles was destroyed.

... let go queen Marinka... - In June 1608, according to an agreement concluded by Vasily Shuisky with the Commonwealth, Marina Mnishek, the wife of False Dmitry I, was allowed to return to her homeland. Prince V. Dolgoruky accompanied her to the border with a detachment of thousands of soldiers.

AND comedosha on WITHѣ faith... — The events are not quite right. The path of M. Mnishek and her father passed through Uglich, Tver, Belaya, these settlements were not part of the Seversky lands. False Dmitry II appeared in the Seversky lands earlier, in May 1607, and in August 1608, when M. Mnishek was approaching the border, he was in Tushino near Moscow.

... comedosha And under most reigning hail And obsedosha... — In the summer of 1608, the Pretender's army set up camp in Tushino, on the outskirts of Moscow; in the spring of 1609, the Tushino people completely blockaded Moscow, cutting off all the routes through which food was supplied to the city.

AND ambassador tsar nephew his prince Michael Skopin... - See commentary: "Scripture on the Repose and Burial of Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky." The Germans here and below mean the Swedes.

... repose bishop Genadey... — Gennady, Bishop of Pskov (1595-1608).

... heard nѣ whom coming from false king... — The troops of False Dmitry II ("Tushinsky Thief") appeared in the Pskov lands in the summer of 1608, many Pskov suburbs (Sebezh, Opochka, Krasny, Ostrov, Izborsk) submitted to the Tushino governor Pleshcheev.

... to Filmed mountainsѣ . — A steep mountain north of Pskov on the right bank of the Velikaya River, here was the monastery of the Nativity of the Virgin, in which the fugitives could hide.

... to more pure Mother of God V Pechersky monastery... — The Pskov-Pechersky Monastery of the Assumption of the Virgin, about 50 kilometers west of Pskov.

... V most clean Monday Great post... — The first Monday of Great Lent is called Clean Monday.

... more second Jews... By dѣ scrap ih. — Alexander Nevsky, who liberated Pskov and defeated the German knights on Lake Peipsi in 1242, after returning to Pskov, addressed the Pskovites with a speech in which he urged them to remember what he had done for Pskov and not to become like the Jews who forgot about the prophet who saved them from Egyptian captivity. (See current ed., vol. 5, pp. 364-365).

... come false king And thief matyushka... — "False Tsar Matyushka" (some sources call him Sidorka) was a Moscow deacon because of the Yauza. After the murder of the "Tushinsky thief" in Kaluga, Matyushka ran to Novgorod, traded here in petty trade, and finally opened his own " royal name". Novgorodians did not believe him, and the newly appeared Dmitry had to flee, with several Cossacks he went to Ivangorod and there on March 23, 1611 he announced that he was "saved Dmitry." The Cossacks began to gather around Matyushka, and the Pskovites also came to him, assuring him that Pskov was ready to receive Dmitry. On July 8, the “king” appeared near Pskov, but the Pskovites did not open the gates for him. Matyushka stood under the walls of the city for six weeks. Frightened by the approach of the Swedes with the Novgorodians, he fled to Gdov; defeated by the Swedes, took refuge in Ivangorod. Rescued Matyushka Pskov. Fearing the Lithuanians with Khodkevich and the Swedes led by Gorn, not wanting to recognize Prince Vladislav, the people of Pskov decided to swear allegiance to the impostor. Matyushka managed to slip between the detachments of the Swedes, on December 4 he was in Pskov. Having settled in the Pskov Kremlin, Matyushka sent ambassadors to the militia near Moscow to the former Tushino people. The Cossacks became agitated, elected people were sent to identify the king. Not daring to tell the truth about Matyushka's imposture, they confirmed the truth of Dmitry. On March 2, 1612, the Cossacks of the militia proclaimed the sovereign of the Pskov "false tsar Matyushka", the third in a row of False Dmitry. He was forced to recognize, fearing reprisals, and the leaders of the militia I. Zarutsky, D. Trubetskoy. On April 11, a new embassy arrived from the militia in Pskov, headed by I. Pleshcheev, a former favorite of the Tushinsky Thief. Pleshcheev played the role of a faithful servant for more than a month, without exposing the imposture of Matyushka, whose position in Pskov was very precarious. The Pskovites have long been disillusioned with their king, who turned out to be unable to expel Lisovsky from the Pskov lands, protect him from the Swedes - he only debauched and imposed requisitions. Feeling the fragility of his position, Matyushka fled to Gdov on the night of May 18, 1612 with a small number of Cossacks, on May 20 he was caught, brought to shame in Pskov, then sent to Moscow under heavy guard. In the Moscow camps, the Cossacks put him on a chain for all to see. So ingloriously ended the short reign of the Pskov "false tsar Matyushka"; after Mikhail Romanov was elected to the throne, he was hanged.

... after Petrova days. — Peter's day - June 29, Art. Art.

... To Promѣ shitsy... at spasa... — Promezhitsa - a stream that flows into the Cherekha River, a tributary of the Great; Church of the Holy Image of the Savior - about three kilometers south of the city.

... stasha at Nikola on Lyubyatov V monasteryѣ. - St. Nicholas Monastery on the churchyard of Lyubyatovo, one and a half kilometers on the way from Novgorod to Pskov.

... pan Lisovskaya Yes Ivan Prosovetskaya... coming ubѣ gom V syu country... — Alexander Lisovsky, governor of False Dmitry II, led, together with J. Sapega, the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery near Moscow. In October 1609, after the decisive actions of M. Skopin-Shuisky, Lisovsky with his detachments went to the Novgorod and Pskov lands.

... To sir Hotkѣ evich... — Lithuanian hetman Jan Karol Chodkiewicz (1560-1621).

... on Ivangorod on corruption, softer Then the situation bѣ St.ѣ yskim nѣ mtsy... — Sveian Germans, i.e. Swedes; Ivangorod in 1607-1610 often changed hands.

.. prince Michael Skopin... enticing his To Moscow, poison killer. — See "Scripture on the Repose and Burial of Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky".

AND crazy Lithuanian prince sobѣ on kingdom plant ... - We are talking about Tsarevich Vladislav.

... vzemshe king Vasily And give back Lithuanian king. - a king from an old family of Suzdal princes, elected to the throne after a popular uprising in Moscow on May 17, 1606 and after the murder of False Dmitry. He was deposed from the throne by Muscovites in July 1610 and tonsured a monk. Then he was arrested by the Poles along with his brothers Dmitry and Ivan; died in captivity near Warsaw on 5 September 1612

Stѣ istii same nѣ mtsy... taking Great Novgrad... And vladѣ sha them 6 lѣ t. — Novgorod was ruled by the Swedes from July 1611 to February 1617.

... about Velice days... — The big day is Easter.

... nѣ Who Ivashko Zarutskaya... in Astarakhan. — Ivan Martynovich Zarutsky, the Cossack ataman, supported various political forces, was one of the closest associates of False Dmitry II, went from him to serve Sigismund III, then, together with Lyapunov and Trubetskoy, led the first Zemstvo militia. Dreaming of personal power, he began agitation for the election to the Russian throne of the "Vorenok" - the son of False Dmitry II and M. Mnishek. The idea of ​​​​inviting a “Vorenka” to Moscow was met with distrust by many. The army of Zarutsky was thinning out, the cities that he tried to get for the “funnel” resisted. After the election of M. Romanov to the throne, noble detachments led by I. Odoevsky spoke out against Zarutsky. I. Zarutsky took refuge in Astrakhan, after the uprising in Astrakhan he fled to Yaik. Here the Cossacks handed over the "Queen", "Vorenok" and Zarutsky to the authorities. In Moscow Ivan was hanged, I. Zarutsky was impaled, M. Mnishek was exiled (she died a natural death in Tula).

historical works about turmoil

To give a historical explanation of the Time of Troubles fell to the lot of writers who worked already after the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom (1613), in the 10-20s. 17th century These writers belonged to different classes - the all-class activity of the period of the civil war and foreign intervention had not yet died out. Among these writers were clerics and laity, representatives of the administration and aristocrats.

"The Tale" Avraamy Palitsyn. One of the most popular in the XVII century. and the most extensive writings about the Troubles came from the pen of the monk Avraamy Palitsyn, cellar of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (cellarer- this is a monk who is in charge of monastic supplies or in general the secular affairs of the monastery). His "Tale", with a total of 77 chapters, consists of several layers of different times. Thus, the first six chapters were written as early as 1612, although the final form of the monument took shape only by 1620. The central part is dedicated to the famous siege of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Then the story was brought to the Deulinsky truce of 1618, in the conclusion of which Avraamy Palitsyn himself took an active part.

Abraham Palitsyn is a prominent participant in the events of the Time of Troubles (in his behavior in these difficult years there were not only positive, but also negative points: for example, Abraham Palitsyn served False Dmitry II). Abraham Palitsyn constantly emphasizes his own significance, for example, in the story of how he went to Kostroma, to the Ipatiev Monastery for Mikhail Romanov, how he later met him at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, etc.

In the Tale, Avraamy Palitsyn painted a truly terrible picture of people's suffering: “And then the people hid in the impenetrable jungle, and in the thickets of dark forests, and in the unknown caves and in the water between the bushes, resting and crying to the co-founder (god), so that these nights would embrace and it would not be enough to rest on the sousse (on land). But neither night nor day, running around in the sky of rest and place to hide and rest, and instead of the dark moon, many fires of the field and forest illuminated the night, and no one could move more powerfully from his place: people, like animals, expect from the forest coming out ".

"Vremennik" by Ivan Timofeev. Another writer of this time, the clerk (the ruler of any office) Ivan Timofeev, a representative of the highest bureaucracy, in his Vremennik, compiled in 1616-1619, depicted the history of Russia from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov. In the service, Ivan Timofeev had to constantly participate in the administration of state affairs. He had access to many important documents, and therefore "Vremennik" contains many historical news that no other author except Timofeev recorded. In addition, Timofeev describes as a memoirist many of the events he witnessed. When the people went to the Novodevichy Convent to ask Boris Godunov to accept the royal crown, he “holding in his hands the sweat of his wiping ... the payment ... the payment of the surroundings of his own taxed ... praying." In addition to this hypocritical gesture of Boris Godunov, Ivan Timofeev noticed other curious details that characterize the atmosphere of Boris's "voluntary" calling to the kingdom. A certain "youth was inspired", climbing under the very window of Queen Irina's cell, yelled "as if in the ears of that one", begging to bless his brother for the kingdom. All these are small details, but their pettiness is characteristic, because here Ivan Timofeev manifests himself as a memoirist, as a private person, and not as a historian.

I. A. Khvorostinin. The third author is Prince I. A. Khvorostinin, who came from the family of Yaroslavl appanage princes. In his youth, he was close to False Dmitry, who granted him a kravchim (a court rank; the kravchiy cut the sovereign’s food) and, according to a contemporary, “kept this milksucker in great honor, which he was very proud of and allowed himself to do everything” . Everyone remembered this shameful closeness, and it was important for Khvorostinin to whitewash himself in the eyes of his contemporaries and descendants. Therefore, in his “Words of the Days and Tsars and Hierarchs of Moscow”, which Khvorostinin apparently wrote shortly before his death (he died in 1625), he introduced the motives of self-justification. Once, says Khvorostinin, the Pretender boasted of some kind of his “temple”, building. “There was a certain young man standing there, whom we loved and cared for (always baked) about his salvation more than all people.” This young man, Khvorostinin himself (hereinafter the story is already in the first person), allegedly dared to denounce the vain pride of False Dmitry, reminding him that God "erases all the arrogance of the proud." Elsewhere in his Sloves, Khvorostinin claims that he was valued by Patriarch Hermogenes himself, who led the opposition to the Polish interventionists. Once instructing those gathered, the patriarch singled out Khvorostinin, who was immediately present: “You have worked harder than anyone else in teaching, you weigh, you know!” Whether this conversation actually took place, we do not know, since other sources do not mention it.

S. I. Shakhovskaya. A relative of I. A. Khvorostinin was Prince Semyon Ivanovich Shakhovskoy. His life is full of sudden changes and vicissitudes, so characteristic of the Time of Troubles. In 1606, when the "northern" cities (Putivl, Chernigov, Yelets, Kromy) rebelled against Tsar Vasily Shuisky, S. I. Shakhovskoy served near Yelets. Here he suffered the first disgrace: he was taken to the capital and, without announcing the reasons, was exiled to Novgorod - “to the sea” (there was a plague in Novgorod at that time), but they turned from the road to the village. In 1608-1610. he was again in the service in Moscow, fought with the Tushins, then went over to their side. The second and again short-lived disgrace in 1615 was the result of Shakhovsky's own petition, in which he complained that he was "clouded (exhausted) from service to service." At the end of 1619, after the death of his third wife, Shakhovskoy married for the fourth time, which was forbidden by church rules. This brought the wrath of Patriarch Filaret on him. In his Prayer, Filaret Shakhovskaya is justified by the fact that he lived with his first wife for three years, with the second - only one and a half, and with the third - only 19 weeks (all the wives died). Shakhovskoy reached an advanced age (sources mention him as early as the 50s) and more than once was "scorched".

An excellently educated person, Shakhovskoy left a great literary legacy. Two of his stories are dedicated to the Troubles: “The story is known to be predicable in memory of the great martyr, the blessed Tsarevich Dimitri” and “The Tale of a certain mnis (monk), who was sent from God to Tsar Boris in revenge on the blood of the righteous Tsarevich Dimitri”. It has recently been proven that Shakhovsky owns one of the most significant monuments in the history of the Time of Troubles - the so-called "Tale of the book of sowing from former years." This concise, but integral essay on the history of the Time of Troubles came as part of the Chronograph of the Tobolsk son of the boyar Sergey Kubasov. It was customary to consider the kiyaz I. M. Katyrev-Rostovsky as the author of the story, since in the verses that conclude the “Tale” there is such a couplet:

There are books that compose,

The son of the predestined prince Mikhail to the Rostov family, come together.

Mikhail Petrovich Katyrev-Rostovsky, the famous voevoda, whom the Tale mentions with empathy in the highest degree, had one son, namely Ivan Katyrev. By his first wife, he was the son-in-law of the future Patriarch Filaret and the brother-in-law of Mikhail Romanov. Tsar Vasily Shuisky exiled I. Katyrev-Rostovsky to Tobolsk for "shakiness" in the fight against the Tushinsky thief. Only in 1613, just in time for the election of his brother-in-law as tsar, did he again appear in Moscow.

Recently found early, late 20s - early 30s. 17th century list of the original edition of the Tale. The postscript directly refers to the author - "Semyon Shakhovsky, who is very sinful in mankind." The "Tale" here has no title, and the verse looks like this:

There are books of this aggregator

Kind of Yaroslavl exodus.

So, about the Troubles in the 10-20s. 17th century wrote a monk, an official clerk, two Rurik princes, although from minor surnames. From this list it is clear that the literary environment of the first quarter of the 17th century. was varied. This circumstance suggests that there are no professional writers yet; it also says that there is no monopoly on writing, that everyone can become a writer.

Of course, the positions and literary manner of these authors are different. However, they are united by some fundamental important points. .The main one is the strengthening of the individual beginning, the orientation towards a kind of "self-expression". We have already seen how Abraham Palitsyn emphasizes his role in the events of all-Russian significance; how I. A. Khvorostinin tries to whitewash himself by introducing into the text conversations with False Dmitry and with Patriarch Hermogenes - conversations are most likely fictitious. Even in The Tale for the Memory of Tsarevich Dimitry, in which Shakhovskoy strictly adhered to the hagiographic canon, autobiographical features are felt. Having reported that Tsarevich Dimitri was the son of Ivan the Terrible from “his sixth wife, Tsarina Maria,” i.e., the heir of dubious legality, Shakhovskoy continues: “Yes, no one despises (condemns) this polygamous Christmas ... from polygamy by parental sin, if he will bring good to his life. Defending the prince, the author of the Tale also defended himself, or rather the rights of his children from his fourth wife.

The strengthening of the individual beginning was not only reflected in autobiographical allusions and scenes. It was also expressed in a relatively free discussion of the causes of the Troubles and the behavior of its leaders, regardless of their position on the hierarchical ladder and social relations. All historians of the Time of Troubles see the cause of the national disaster in the "sin of all Russia." This is natural, for they could not yet give up religious view to history. However, it is important that they did not limit themselves to a general reference to this "sin", but tried to understand it. It is extremely important that such an analysis is individual for different authors.

Ivan Timofeev and Avraamiy Palitsyn both agree that “wordless silence” or “insane silence of the whole world”, in other words, silent slavish obedience to unjust rulers, led to the Troubles. But then each of the writers goes his own way. According to Vremennik, the influx of foreigners is to blame for moral ill health; Ivan Timofeev emphasizes their pernicious role in the disasters of Russia over and over again.

On the contrary, Avraamy Palitsyn, speaking of the signs of a general moral decline - from the tsar to the serfs, from the boyars to the church rank, is not inclined to shift the blame to foreigners. He emphasizes the social contradictions on the eve of the Troubles. Under Boris Godunov, three years in a row there was a crop failure, many thousands of hungry people died. Then it turned out that the rich hid huge stocks of grain: “The old granaries are not exhausted, and the fields of stacks are standing, the threshing floor is full of odones and copons and germs (haystacks and haystacks) up to fourteen years from confusion throughout the Russian land ... "Guilt for Avraamy Palitsyn lays the civil war on the rich: “Behold, yes, of course, the sin of all of Russia, for the sake of others, the language (peoples) suffered: during the 66 temptation of God’s wrath (i.e., during a three-year crop failure) you did not spare (did not spare) the brethren ours ... And just as we do not spare, so our enemies will not spare us either.

Historians of the autocratic state cannot be satisfied with the image of the "sin of the whole people." “The powers that be” should also be in the sphere of their attention. The characteristics of the kings - from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov - are given by all the authors who wrote about the Troubles. It was in these descriptions that the literary discovery, which D.S. Likhachev designated as “discovery of character,” manifested itself most clearly. The crux of the matter, according to D.S. Likhachev, is as follows.

In medieval historiography, a person is “absolutized” - for the most part (but, as we saw above, not always) he is either absolutely good or absolutely evil. Authors of the beginning of the 17th century. they no longer consider the evil and good principles in a person’s character to be something eternal and given once and for all. The variability of character, as well as its contrast, does not now confuse the writer: on the contrary, he points out the reasons for such variability. This, along with the free will of a person, is the influence of other people, vanity, etc. In a person, different character traits are combined - both good and bad.

This discovery can be illustrated by those characteristics of Boris Godunov, with which the writings about the Troubles are dotted. It is curious that not one of the authors in his discussions about Boris can do without opposing conjunctions. “If it were reasonable in the royal reigns,” Avraamy Palitsyn writes about him, “but the scriptures of the divine were not used, and for this reason, in brotherly love, you were blessed” (that is, he oppressed his neighbors, sinned against the commandment of love for one's neighbor). Khvorostinin: "Even if he is not taught writings and bookish things, but having a natural property wholesomely." Even Shakhovskoy, speaking about the murderer of Tsarevich Dimitri, considered it necessary to say a few friendly words about the “wise and wise mind” of Boris Godunov!

Ivan Timofeev’s combination of good and bad in one person acquires the meaning of an aesthetic principle: “And if malice about Boris is known, there should be no hiding his good deeds to the world ... Elika, the malicious one, write him in detail, let’s say goodbye, sitsa and do good deeds about him confess let's not get lazy."

This literary principle is proclaimed and consolidated in the Chronograph edition of 1617. Here, the inconsistency and variability of character is characteristic of the vast majority of characters, starting with Ivan the Terrible, - Patriarch Germogen and Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, Kozma Minin and Ivan Zarutsky, one of the Cossack leaders. The compiler of the Chronograph of 1617 substantiates this feature theoretically: "There is no one who is blameless in his life." The chronograph was to a certain extent an official, exemplary monument. With his authority, he consolidated the "discovery of character" in Russian literature.

For publication and study of the monument, see: The Legend of Avraamy Palitsyn. Preparation of the text, commentary by O. A. Derzhavina and E. V. Kolosova. M.-L., 1955. Further text is cited from this edition.
For the edition of the text, see: "Vremennik" by Ivan Timofeev. Preparation of the text, translation and comments by O. A. Derzhavina. M.-L., 1951. Further text is cited from this edition.
Mass Isaac. Brief news about Muscovy at the beginning of the 17th century. Translation by A. A. Morozov. M., 1937, p. 145.
See: Kukushkina M. V. Semyon Shakhovsky - author of The Tale of Troubles. - In the book: Monuments of culture. New discoveries. Writing. Art. Archeology. - Yearbook 1974. M., 1975, p. 75-78.
See: Likhachev D.S. Man in the literature of Ancient Rus'. M.-L., 1958, p. 7-26.

V. O. Klyuchevskoy

Review of the study by S. F. Platonov "Old Russian legends and stories about the troubled times of the 17th century as a historical source"

V. O. Klyuchevskoy. Works in eight volumes. Volume VII. Research, reviews, speeches (1866-1890) M., Publishing house of socio-economic literature, 1959 Theme chosen by Mr. Platonov, can be considered risky in some respects. Literary works that could serve as sources for the history of the Time of Troubles are not only numerous, but also very diverse in their literary forms, in place and time of origin, in the views of their compilers on the events described, and finally, in terms of the goals and motives that caused their compilation. . This diversity and abundance of material exposed the researcher to the danger of depriving his study of its proper value and completeness, made it difficult to select and group data, the order of presentation and the choice of the very methods of study. The author did not hide these difficulties from himself, and they were noticeably reflected in his work. Having set himself the task of a "systematic review" of the literary works of the Great Russian literature of the 17th century, devoted to the depiction and discussion of the events of the Time of Troubles, the author himself, however, admits in the preface that he was unable to withstand the "uniform method" either in the general order of presentation or in the study individual works. The best system reviewing his material, he considered the "chronological system", but the lack of accurate information about the time of compilation of many legends about the Troubles forced him to abandon this order of presentation. He adopted a more complex division of his material, dividing the monuments he analyzed into three sections, of which one formed works compiled before the end of the Time of Troubles, the other - the most important works of the time of Tsar Michael, the third - works of secondary and later, and among the secondary ones was disassembled by the author one story about the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri, compiled, apparently, also before the end of the Troubles. Moreover, "the author sometimes found it more convenient to give an account in one place about works of different times due to their inner proximity and dependence of one on the other" 1 . Therefore, a review of the works compiled before the end of the Troubles, he began detailed analysis so-called Another story, consisting of parts of different times, and in connection with the fifth part of it, he dismantled the story about the Troubles of the chronograph of the second edition, compiled after the Troubles, which served as its source. There is one inconvenience in such an arrangement of the material: it prevented the author from using to the proper extent precisely that feature of the monuments he analyzed, which could most of all give unity and integrity to his work. He notes in the preface that among the monuments he analyzes, there are often journalistic and moral-didactic works. I think that even more can be said: on all these monuments, more or less clear traces of political overtones are visible, they are all tendentious to a certain extent. In this regard, the Time of Troubles made a noticeable change in Old Russian historiography: it brought the Old Russian narrator about events in his native land out of that epic dispassion into which the Old Russian chronicler tried, although not always successfully, to shut himself up. This is understandable: the Time of Troubles put the Russian people in such an unusual state for them, which, against their will, disturbed their feelings and nerves and through them awakened thought. In this excitement, one can even notice a certain movement: feelings of surprise and anxiety, caused by the first symptoms of the Troubles, then turn into political passions and, finally, when the Troubles have passed, turn into calm political opinions. So, the awakening and development of political thought under the influence of the Time of Troubles is the question that constitutes the center of gravity of the task chosen by the author and the solution of which could impart integrity to his research. In the analysis of some works, he notes which parties they belonged to, what political opinions their compilers held, but thanks to the order of the material adopted by the author, these marks do not add up to whole picture. You can even notice the author's inclination to reduce the price that this journalistic tendentiousness of the literary monuments of the Time of Troubles has for the historian. Archpriest Terenty's accusatory story about the vision of 1606 is very curious as an energetic protest against the vices of contemporary Russian society and especially the greed for "vile customs and mores of bad languages" that was revealed in it, nevertheless, the author denies it the significance of a historical source 2. About all the legends compiled before the end of the Troubles, the researcher notes that they "either do not provide factual material for the historian at all," or they provide information that needs rigorous critical verification 3 . There is no historical source that does not need critical scrutiny. Moreover, what to call factual material for the historian? Historical facts are not only incidents; ideas, views, feelings, impressions of people of a certain time - the same facts and very important, in the same way requiring critical study. The significance that the Other Legend acquired in the society of the Time of Troubles, the political role that was then almost for the first time assigned to the Russian pen, is in itself such an important fact that it would be worth emphasizing in a study on the sources of the history of the Time of Troubles. The story of Terenty was presented to the patriarch, by the tsar's order it was publicly read in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral and led to the establishment of a six-day fast throughout the kingdom. The story of the Nizhny Novgorod vision of 1611 went from hand to hand in the first militia near Moscow. King Sigismund himself recognized the annoying power of the Russian patriotic writing directed against him in 1611 and complained to the Moscow boyars that about him then wrote in Rus' 4 . Other gaps in Mr. Platonov, having some connection with the specified. If the narrative writing about the Time of Troubles reflected political parties and opinions, then those who fought, methodological convenience would require that a critical review of this writing explain the origin of these parties and opinions, as well as their significance during the Time of Troubles. Due to the fact that this demand is left unanswered, the historical sources studied by the author are divorced from the historical soil from which they emerged, and his criticism does not exhaust all the material that they give her. Let's take one example. The suppression of the Moscow dynasty was accompanied by an important change in the Moscow state system: the hereditary fatherland of the Danilovichs began to turn into an elective monarchy. How did Russian society in the first half of the 17th century to this change of sovereigns by God's will sovereigns according to the many-rebellious human desire, as the sovereign Moscow publicist of the 16th century put it. Tsar Ivan in a letter sent by him to King Stefan Batory, and was one or another view of the difference and significance of these two sources of power included in the programs of political parties of that time? The author does not raise the question of this, although it is clear from his presentation that one can find something in the writing he analyzes to answer this question. Thus, we encounter in it traces of dissympathy for the electoral authorities. Nizhny Novgorod Vision 161! d. does not want a king appointed by the people "of their own free will"; Filaret's manuscript considers the accession of Prince Vasily Shuisky, who was enthroned by Muscovite adherents without the advice of the whole earth, without the participation of the Zemsky Sobor, to be absolutely correct. Further, the author notes in the preface that the literary nature of the works about the Troubles is very diverse. Among them there are story, or legends, lives, chroniclers, chronographs, visions and one cry. All of these are literary forms well developed in ancient Russian writing, differing in the choice of subjects, methods of presentation, and even in the way of understanding the phenomena depicted. These features must be taken into account when critically evaluating works clothed in one or another of these literary forms, especially in one in which the phenomena were reflected at the largest angle of refraction. These are, for example, visions, of which quite a lot has been preserved in ancient Russian writing and which made a particularly strong impression on the ancient Russian person. Vision- usually a sharp accusatory sermon with a mysterious atmosphere, caused by the expectation or onset of a public disaster, calling society to repentance and purification, the fruit of an alarmed feeling and piously excited imagination. It might be expected that the author would express his opinion about these forms, about how criticism should deal with them, and even indicate how much their stereotypical makeup has changed under the influence of new political concepts and tendencies that publicists of the 17th century carried out in these forms. Unfortunately, in the book of Mr. Platonov we do not find either such a judgment or such indications, which were all the more necessary because in the Time of Troubles and partly under its influence, a profound change occurred in ancient Russian historiography. The methods of presentation and the worldview of the ancient Russian chroniclers and compilers of "tales" are well known. This worldview and these methods began to noticeably change from the beginning of the 17th century. The author notes interesting news in the monuments he examines. The chronograph's second edition narration of the Time of Troubles is no longer that simple weather list of individual events, mechanically linked by moralistic reflections, which we usually find in ancient Russian chronicles: it is a series of essays and characteristics in which the narrator tries to catch the connection and meaning of events, outstanding features and even the hidden motivations of the actors. The narrator thinks about the natural causes of phenomena, without involving in the human confusion the mysterious forces by which the chronicler directs the life of people and peoples. The historical view is secularized. New methods and tasks of narration encourage the search for new literary forms, exquisite titles. Prince Khvorostinin writes a story about the Time of Troubles under the title: "Words of Days and Tsars", but this story is the same series of general essays and characteristics as the story of a chronograph; from it we learn not so much about faces and events as about how the narrator looked at faces and events. According to the Novgorod Metropolitan Isidore, the clerk Timofeev at the beginning of the reign of Michael is Vremnik; but this is far from being a timepiece of the old chronicle warehouse, but rather a historical and political treatise: its compiler reflects more than tells about what happened. He knows the methods of scientific presentation and the requirements of historical objectivity, and knows how to formulate them; under the clumsy pretentiousness of his exposition, historical ideas and political principles shine through. All such glimpses of political reflection and historical pragmatism, scattered in the tales of the Time of Troubles, could be combined into a special integral essay that would constitute a chapter from the history of Russian historiography, depicting one of the turning points in its development. Such an outline would seem to be demanded by the very task of a study devoted to the critical study of the sources of our history, and it could lead to the excitation of questions not devoid of scientific significance. Let us point out the possibility of one of them. Revealing the reasons for the indicated turning point in the development of Russian historiography, the researcher will inevitably focus on the interest with which Russian chronographs of the 17th century related to the Time of Troubles. Articles about this time, written by the compilers of chronographs themselves or by other writers, occupy a prominent place in the Russian-historical department of these chronographs. Andrey Popov's wonderful research on the chronographs of the Russian edition made it possible to trace the consistency and perseverance with which this department grew in their composition. Initially, the news, borrowed from Russian sources, in these chronographs are timid additions to Byzantine history without an organic connection with it. Then these news are brought into closer connection with Byzantine history, they are not mechanical prefixes to it, but its constituent parts in a synchronistic presentation with Byzantine events. In the chronographs of the XVII century. Russian history takes another step forward, steps out of the established framework of the chronograph, or, more precisely, expands them: Since the fall of Byzantium, it breaks its connection with the fate of the latter and continues in a solitary presentation until the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich. The further the composition of the Russian chronograph developed, becoming more and more complicated, the more this Russian continuation of the Byzantine chronicle expanded, until, finally, in the so-called chronographs of a special composition, Russian history stood out as an independent and, moreover, dominant department: in the narrative before the fall of Constantinople, Russian news disappear , break out of the presentation of Byzantine history and are transferred to the Russian continuation of the chronograph, forming the beginning of a special Russian-historical department, which, gradually expanding, closes the general historical department behind it. In this growth of the Russian-historical department of chronographs, it is permissible to see a reflection of the turn that was taking place in the worldview of Russian scribes who worked on the exposition of world history, which ancient Russian people studied using chronographs. What is especially curious is that at the same time as this separation of the Russian-historical department and into the general historical department, which until then was fed almost exclusively by biblical and Byzantine sources, jets from the sources of Western European, Latin chronicles and cosmography pour in with increasing abundance. Thus, the horizons of Russian historical thought were broadened from two sides. Was this change connected with this expansion in Russian historiography? We have seen that the articles about the Time of Troubles in the chronograph of the second edition, compiled soon after the Troubles, were one of the first monuments, if not the first of the monuments, in which both new methods of historical presentation and a new look at historical phenomena are noticeable. To what extent were these methods and this view inspired by acquaintance with new historical sources and new historical measures, which were revealed to the Russian thinker of the 17th century. Polish World Chronicle and Latin cosmography? Here is a question, the study of which, it seems, would not be superfluous in a study on the historiography of the Time of Troubles. But if mr Platonov allowed some gaps in the study of what the monuments he analyzed give for the history of Russian political thought and historiography in the 17th century, but he tried to extract from them everything that he found in them suitable for the "history of external facts" of the Time of Troubles. These monuments are so diverse and so many of them have not yet been published, scattered among the manuscripts of various ancient repositories, that hardly anyone will dare to reproach the author for the incompleteness of his critical review, which he himself admits 6 . However, he treated the handwritten material very carefully: from the list attached to the study, it can be seen that he had to revise more than a hundred manuscripts from different libraries. In the preface, he lists the questions that he posed to himself when studying each monument: he tried "to determine the time of its compilation and indicate the identity of the compiler; to find out the goals by which the compiler was guided and the circumstances under which he wrote; to find the sources of his information and, finally, characterize the approximate degree of general reliability or plausibility of his story" 7 . Such a critical program fully corresponds to the main task of the author to indicate what is in the monument of external facts suitable for history, and the researchers of the Time of Troubles will undoubtedly be grateful to Mr. Platonov for his instructions, which will help them discover the origin and factual content of many of the tales of that time, as well as the degree of confidence they deserve. In the analysis of most of the monuments, at least the main ones, the author drew special attention on their composition and sources, and here, thanks to critical sensitivity and careful study and comparison of texts and editions, he managed to reach new and reliable conclusions. Many monuments, such as Another legend And Vremnik clerk Timofeev, have not yet been analyzed in our literature with such thoroughness, as did Mr. Platonov. In general, the careful elaboration of critical bibliographic and bibliographic details is, in our opinion, the strongest side of Mr. Platonov. When reading in his book pages about the life of princes Khvorostinin, Katyrev-Rostovsky and Shakhovsky, attention involuntarily stops at the author’s ability to mosaically select small data scattered from various sources and put them into a single essay, and his habit of accurately identifying the sources from which he draws his information, facilitating the verification of his conclusions, at the same time makes it possible to see what each such page cost him: he picked up in the order books and indicated in the note up to 60 places where the name of Prince I. M. Katyrev-Rostovsky is mentioned, so that on the basis of these references, write in the text of the study 5 lines about the life of Prince Katyrev in 1626-1629. 8 Biographies of the three named writers of the 17th century. can be considered valuable contributions of Mr. Platonov in the biographical dictionary of Russian historiography. All this, given the author's thorough acquaintance with other people's works on the subject of his choice, makes him recognize his research as the fruit of a leisurely, deliberately and clearly carried out work. But, inspiring confidence in the conclusions about the origin, sources and composition of the monuments, the study of Mr. Platonov not always convincing enough in the assessment and characterization of these monuments as historical sources. The reason for this is in some uncertainty of the critical measure applied to them by the researcher. We have already had occasion to notice that the author's criticism does not fully capture the content of the works he analyzes as sources for the history of the Time of Troubles. Basing his assessment on the quality and quantity of "factual material" provided by a monument to a historian, the author does not include in this material the political opinions and tendencies carried out in the monument, considering them only "literary" and not historical facts, and thus confusing or identifying not quite coinciding concepts of historical fact and historical event or incidents. It is difficult to agree with the author when he speaks of Avr. Palitsyn and deacon I. Timofeev, that both of these writers, "not only describing, but also discussing the era they lived through, often left the role of historians and entered the field of journalistic reasoning", as if to ponder over historical phenomena, describing them, --> means step out of the role of a historian: judgment is not a tendency, and an attempt to understand the meaning of a phenomenon to oneself and others is not propaganda 9 . Some shaky point of view is felt in other judgments of the author. In connection with the fifth Another story he analyzes in detail the articles of the chronograph of the second edition, identical with her, about the events of 1607-1613. 10 He very thoroughly proves the idea, expressed by A. Popov, that these articles belong to the compiler of the chronograph, therefore, they were moved from here to Another story, and not vice versa. But he does not agree with the review of A. Popov, who recognized these articles as "the original integral work of an unknown Russian author", i.e., the compiler of the chronograph of 1617. He does not recognize the integrity of this work, because in it coherent sketches of persons and events are torn apart by incoherent and brief chronicles. But even if we admit that these chronicle notes were inserted into the narrative by the compiler of it, and not by an outside hand, then after all, Mr. Platonov noticed that these insertions are frequent only at the beginning of the narrative, going from 1534, and that the closer the narrator approaches his time, to the beginning of the 17th century, the less brief notes he has and the more connected his story. This means that the narrator, knowing less about the time, which he did not remember, was not able to coherently present the borrowed information. The author, it seems, confuses the integrity of the composition, the belonging of the work to one pen, with the literary harmony of presentation. He also does not recognize the originality of the work, because its compiler "did not just compose his testimony, but was guided by literary sources". It is unlikely that the author wrote here what he wanted to say: he knows very well that being an original historical narrator does not mean compose testimonies not guided by sources; otherwise, a rare historian can be recognized as original. Thus, there does not seem to be sufficient grounds for polemics with A. Popov, especially when the author himself admits that the chronograph's narration being analyzed "has a very noticeable imprint of originality in style and views" 11 . For the same reason, the reader is unlikely to be completely satisfied with the analysis New Chronicler in the author's book. Turning to the analysis of this monument, one of the most important sources for the history of the Time of Troubles, Mr. Platonov remarks that "nothing has been done so far" to shed light on its origins. Unfortunately, even the vacillating considerations of the author do not sufficiently shed light on the origin of the monument. He raises the question: isn't the New Chronicler a collection of data officially collected at the patriarchal court for the history of the Time of Troubles? This question was suggested to the author by Tatishchev's conjecture that the Chronicler was compiled by Patriarch Job or his cell-attendant, as well as by the testimony of Patriarch Hermogenes that he recorded "in the chronicler" some events of his time. Observations on the text of the monument lead Mr. Platonov to the conclusion that the New Chronicler is distinguished by the "internal integrity" of the narrative: he is completely imbued with a unity of view of events, which indicates the work of one author; there is not even a trace of the personal sympathies and antipathies of the compiler in it, which indicates the later origin of the monument, when the immediate impressions of the Time of Troubles had already begun to shine. However, from further observations of the author over the monument, it turned out that the New Chronicler looks at the same events and faces in completely different ways, that he speaks officially and calmly about the same person in one place, and differently in another. Thus, in the Chronicler there is neither unity of view, nor personal dispassion of the compiler, and, consequently, there is no inner integrity. The author explains this by the compiler's excessive dependence on the various sources that he used, his inability to merge "the diverse parts of his collection into a single literary work." All signs of separate legends. "It would seem that all this means only that the New Chronicler is a mechanical stitching together of articles written at different times by different persons, or "a collection of diverse literary and historical material," as the author himself put it. However, after a few pages, reducing the results of his observations, the author refuses to recognize the New Chronicler as a chronicle that was compiled gradually, by the work of several persons, and dwells on the opinion that "according to all indications" it was processed from beginning to end around 1630 and, moreover, by one person. admit that the data he cited "do not categorically resolve the issue of the origin of the monument" 12. He could not resolve this issue, limiting himself to the data of one list of the Chronicler, on which he mainly based his considerations in the belief that this published list "happily" reproduced the original text monument | 3. It is difficult to justify such confidence in the edition, which is known to be very faulty, and it is even more difficult to blame the author for not taking on the really "enormous work" of comparing all the numerous lists of this monument that have been preserved in our ancient repositories. But you can regret it. The lists of the Chronicler differ in significant variations in the text and composition of the monument. The three prints have different beginnings and endings. Of the three lists that accidentally fell into our hands, one is similar to the printed Nikonovsky, the other begins with an annalistic story about the defeat of Novgorod in 1570, and the third - with a list of boyars, "which of them were traitors" from 1534. Perhaps the study lists of the monument would help to clarify its origin, but in the lists of the short edition of the Tale of 1606, an indication of the time of compilation of this legend was found. Finally, it is hardly possible to recognize as firmly established the author's view of the story of the Troubles, included in the well-known Stolyarovsky list of the chronograph. The author agrees with Mr. Markevich, who considers this narrative to be a fairly complete book of private origin, so Mr. Platonov thinks that this monument has hitherto been included in the ranks of literary works only "through a misunderstanding" 14 . So, this is a non-literary and unofficial monument. It may be feared whether there are sufficient grounds for such a verdict. True, in the narration under consideration we often find news, clothed in the form of a discharge record or painting. But it is known how much in the Moscow chronicles of the XV and XVI centuries. detailed extracts from rank books, which does not prevent them from remaining chronicles and even literary works. On the other hand, the news of the annalistic warehouse was sometimes included in the category books for communication and explanation of military marching or court ceremonial paintings. But it is necessary to distinguish a bit book with chronicle inserts from an annals with bit inserts. Both sets retained their typical features in composition and presentation techniques and had specific goals. If news was placed among the discharge paintings that were not directly related to them, revealing the intention of the compiler to depict the general course of affairs, then it was meant to compile not a stationery book for business office information, but a historical, literary story for the edification of an inquisitive reader. There is a lot of such news in the narrative under consideration, and from them, even without discharge extracts, a rather detailed and curious story would have been compiled, at least until the accession of Michael. As for the lack of rhetoric and "any attempt to build a coherent literary presentation" by an unknown narrator, it is not clear why his presentation seems to the author in a literary sense lower, for example, the annals according to the Voskresensky list or lower than the New Chronicler, with whom, we note by the way, he also had common sources: just as the Chronicler undoubtedly used discharge paintings, so some news of a non-digit nature from an unknown narrator resembles the Chronicler's story, depicting the same moments with similar features. So, there are some reasons to see in the monument under consideration not a book of digits, but a chronicle compiled from various sources, mainly from digit paintings, not without the participation of personal observations and memoirs of the compiler. According to the nature of the main source and the tone of presentation, simple, but at the same time restrained and formal, it is difficult to assume that this chronicle was undertaken on a private initiative, and not on official instructions. It can easily be that, contrary to the opinion of the author, we have here in front of us a monument not only literary, but also official. From the analysis of individual monuments, let's move on to the general results of Mr. Platonov and indicate what they have done chosen subject and what else remains to be done. In the preface to his work, he notes that "a historical-critical study of the tales of the Time of Troubles in their entirety constituted until recently an unfulfilled task in Russian historiography." It can be said without exaggeration that in relation to the early and main legends, the author successfully solved the problem he had assumed and thus filled in one of the noticeable gaps in our historiography: he carefully sorted out the vast and diverse material, for the first time introduced into scientific circulation several little-known monuments, such as Vremnik Timofeev, and successfully unraveled several private issues in the historiography of the Time of Troubles or prepared their resolution. The student of the history of the Time of Troubles will find enough indications in his book to know what each of the main legends about the Time of Troubles can give him and what he should not look for there. to the category of biographical and are not devoid of literary integrity and originality 15 . But later compilations, as well as local legends about the Time of Troubles, are briefly characterized by the author or only listed with an indication of their sources. The incompleteness of this list is justified by the abundance of such monuments and the difficulty of collecting them. Meanwhile, these compilations, compiled in the course of the 17th century, are not devoid of scientific significance in many respects. Firstly, their sheer number shows how long and with what intensity attention was maintained in Russian society to an era so abundant in extraordinary phenomena. Then in them you can find fragments of earlier legends that have not come down to us. Finally, this compilative writing acquaints us with the course of historiography in the 17th century, with its techniques and favorite themes, with the way it learned to use sources and explain historical phenomena. In explanation, I will point to one manuscript (from the library of E. V. Barsov). At its core, this is a chronograph list of the third edition, belonging to the second category of its lists according to the classification of A. Popov 16 . Mr. Platonov rightly noted that in the lists of the chronograph of the XVII century. it is not possible to establish any exact types of compilations because each manuscript is different 17 . The manuscript we are talking about represents an attempt to remake the last part of the chronograph of the third edition, changing the composition that it has in the lists of the second category. It begins directly with the 151st chapter, a story about the invasion of the Crimean Khan on Moscow in 1521, but not because the previous chapters were lost in it - they did not exist. The first pages of the list are occupied by a detailed table of contents, which exactly corresponds to the chapters placed in it. In the story about the Khan's invasion, the compiler inserted visions of the "righteous hunter" Basil the Blessed and others pious people of the city of Moscow, described in his own way the last days and the death of Grand Duke Vasily, guided by a well-known chronicle legend 18 . In general, the story about the times of Grand Duke Vasily and Tsar Ivan is more detailed here than in the lists of the 2nd category of the third edition of the chronograph. The Time of Troubles is described in these lists according to the second edition of the chronograph, Another story And legend A. Palitsyna; in our manuscript we find extracts from Legends, hedgehog, from the Solovetsky chronograph and some sources unknown to us 19 . So, in the story of the famine under Tsar Boris, we find curious features that we do not find in other legends about that time. From one detail, one can guess where this alteration was drawn up: the charter on the accession of Vasily Shuisky is given here according to its list, which was sent to Tver to the governor Z. Tikhmenev, with a note of June 19, 114. 20 Having collected similar indications of the chronograph lists, it will be possible to to judge where and how they were processed in the 17th century. tales of the Troubles. Particularly in need of replenishment is the review of local legends made by Mr. Platonov 21 . These stories serve an important addition major common sources for the history of the Troubles. So, in the New chronicler there is a brief story about the defeat of Lisovsky near Yuryevets 22 . In the lists of the lengthy edition of the life of St. Macarius Zheltovodsky we find a curious detailed story about this episode. However, these gaps do not prevent us from recognizing the book of Mr. Platonov a valuable contribution to Russian historiography, well deserving of the prize sought by the author. Such a price is attached to the essay of Mr. Platonov the author's extremely serious attitude to his task, a thorough study of the material, critical observation and the novelty of many conclusions.

COMMENTS

The seventh volume of the Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky includes his individual monographic studies, reviews and reviews, created during the period of the scientist's creative flourishing - from the late 1860s to the early 1890s. If the "Course of Russian History" makes it possible to trace the general theoretical views of V. O. Klyuchevsky on the course of the Russian historical process, then the works published in the seventh and eighth volumes of his Works give an idea of ​​​​V. O. Klyuchevsky as a researcher. The studies of V. O. Klyuchevsky, placed in the seventh volume of the Works, are mainly connected with two problems - with the position of the peasants in Russia and the origin of serfdom ("The serf question on the eve of its legislative excitation", "Law and fact in the history of the peasant question", "The origin of serfdom in Russia", "The poll tax and the abolition of servility in Russia", "Review of the study by V.I. With the question of the economic development of Russia ("The economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory", "The Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries in its relation to the present one".). The predominant attention to socio-economic issues and their formulation by V. O. Klyuchevsky was a new phenomenon in Russian bourgeois historiography of the second half of XIX V. In his outlines for a speech at a debate dedicated to the defense of V. I. Semevsky's dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science, V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote: "Is the peasant question only a question of limiting and abolishing serfdom? .. The question of serfdom before Alexander II there is the question of its adaptation to the interests of the state and the conditions of community life" (See p. 483.). V. O. Klyuchevsky, in his review of Semevsky’s work, noted the complexity and versatility of the peasant question in Russia and reproached the author for the fact that “the weakness of historical criticism in research comes from a lack of a historical view of the subject under study” (See p. 427.) . Responding to the topical issues of the post-reform period, one way or another connected with the peasant question and the reform of 1861, which abolished serfdom, V. O. Klyuchevsky traced the stages in the development of serfdom in Russia, the reasons that both gave rise to it and led to its abolition are characteristic phenomena in the boyar, landowner, monastic economy. In his interpretation of this problem, V. O. Klyuchevsky went much further than the Slavophiles and representatives of the "state school", - first of all, its most important representative B. N. Chicherin, according to whose thought the whole history community development in Russia it consisted in "enslavement and emancipation of estates", carried out by the state depending on its needs. V. O. Klyuchevsky, on the contrary, believed that serfdom in Russia was determined by a private law moment that developed on the basis of the economic debt of peasants to landowners; the state only legislatively sanctioned the developing relations. The scheme proposed by V. O. Klyuchevsky was as follows. primary form serfdom in Rus' (See p. 241.) was servility in its various forms, which developed for a number of reasons, including as a result of the personal service of a previously free person on certain conditions of the economic order. Later, with the development of large-scale private landownership, the peasantry, according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, as a "free and passable tenant of someone else's land" gradually lost the right to transfer either due to the impossibility of repaying the loan received for arranging, or as a result of preliminary voluntary refusal from leaving the leased land for the loan received. Thus, the strength of the peasant was determined not by his attachment to the land as a means of production, but by his personally obligated relationship with the landowner. This led to the conclusion that serfdom is "a set of serf relations based on fortress, known private act of possession or acquisition" (See p. 245.). The state, in order to meet its own needs, only "allowed the extension to the peasants of the previously existing serfdom of the servile disposition, in spite of the land attachment of the peasants, if only the latter had ever been established by it" (See 246.) Tracing in parallel the path of development of servitude in Russia, its original forms and the process of development of serfdom, Klyuchevsky sought to show how the legal norms of servitude gradually spread to the peasantry as a whole, and in the course of the enslavement of the peasants, servitude, in turn, lost its specific V.O. Klyuchevsky attributed the development of serfdom to the 16th century. Until that time, in his opinion, the peasantry, who was not the owner of the land, was a free the force of the economic change, the reasons for which remained unclear to Klyuchevsky, the landowners, who are extremely interested in working hands, are developing the agricultural farms of their bonded serfs and are strenuously attracting free people to their land; the latter "could not support their economy without the help of foreign capital," and their number "grew enormously" (See pp. 252, 257, 280.). As a result, the growing indebtedness of the peasants led to the fact that the landowners of their own free will began to extend the norms of serfdom to the peasants who owed money, and serfdom over the peasants was a new combination of legal elements that were part of various types of servitude, but "adapted to the economic and state position of the rural population "(See pp. 271, 272, 338, 339.). "Already not meeting in the legislation the slightest trace of the serfdom of the peasants, one can feel that the fate of the peasant liberty has already been decided in addition to the state legislative institution, which remained in due time formalize and register this decision, imperatively dictated by historical law," wrote V. O. Klyuchevsky, seeing in the loss of the right of transition by many peasants the "cradle of serfdom" (See pp. 280, 278, 383, 384.). the circle of land relations, all types of servility by the end of the XVII century. began to merge into one general concept serf man.""This explains the legal indifference with which the landowners in the second half of the 17th century exchanged yard serfs, full and indentured, for peasants, and peasants for backyard people" (See pp. 389--390, 389.). This process of merging was completed with the introduction of the poll tax under Peter I, and the will of the landowners turned into state law. The indicated scheme of V. O. Klyuchevsky, further developed by M. A. Dyakonov, for its time had an unconditionally positive value. Despite the fact that in his monographic works on the history of serfdom in Russia, Klyuchevsky, in his own words, limited himself to the study of legal aspects in the development of serfdom, the main place in Klyuchevsky's scheme was occupied by an economic factor independent of the will of the government. Klyuchevsky caught the connection between servitude (bondage) and serfdom, gave an interesting description of the various categories of servitude that existed in Russia before the 18th century, and tried to reflect the order of the emerging relations between peasants and landowners. But, focusing on the analysis of the reasons for the enslavement of the peasantry to private law relations and considering loan records as the only documents that determined the loss of independence of the peasants, Klyuchevsky not only underestimated the role of the feudal state as an organ of the class rule of the feudal lords, but also did not recognize that the establishment of serfdom was a consequence of development of the system of feudal socio-economic relations. In Soviet historical literature, the question of the enslavement of the peasants was the subject of a major study by Academician B. D. Grekov (See. V. D. Grekov, Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the 17th century, book. I - II, M. 1952 - 1954.) and a number of works of other Soviet historians (See L. V. Cherepnin, Actual material as a source on the history of the Russian peasantry of the 15th century, "Problems of Source Studies". Sat. IV, M. 1955, pp. 307--349; his own"From the history of the formation of the class of the feudal-dependent peasantry in Rus'", "Historical Notes", Vol. 56, pp. 235--264; V. I. Koretsky, From the history of the enslavement of peasants in Russia at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century, "History of the USSR" No 1, 1957, pp. 161-191.). For the history of the preparation of the reform of 1861, two articles by V. O. Klyuchevsky devoted to the analysis of the writings of Yu. In these articles, he shows, not without irony, that even "sincere and conscientious" noble public figures, when work began on the preparation of the Regulations of 1861, remained on the positions of "ideas and events" of the first half of the 19th century. and assumed the provision of land to the peasants to be placed within the framework of a "voluntary" agreement between the landowners and the peasants. To characterize the scientific interests of V. O. Klyuchevsky, it should be noted that he devoted his first large monographic work "Economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory", published in 1866, to the history of colonization and the economy of monasteries, which he later developed and generalized in the second part of the "Course of Russian History". In this work, unconditional attention deserves the history of the emergence of the monastery economy, "the curious process of concentration in the hands of the Solovetsky brotherhood of vast and numerous land plots in the White Sea" (See p. 14.), which passed to the monastery as a result of purely economic transactions - mortgage, sale etc. The latest detailed study of land ownership and the economy of the patrimony of the Solovetsky Monastery belongs to the pen of A. A. Savich, who comprehensively examined the acquisitive activity of this largest northern Russian feudal lord of the 15th-17th centuries. (Cm. A. A. Savich, Solovetsky votchina XV-XVII centuries, Perm 1927.) The article "Pskov Disputes" (1877), devoted to some issues of ideological life in Rus' XV-XVI centuries, is connected with Klyuchevsky's many years of work on the ancient Russian lives of saints. This article of Klyuchevsky arose in the conditions of the intensified in the second half of the 19th century. controversy between the dominant Orthodox Church and the Old Believers. The article contains material about the futility of medieval disputes on church issues and about the rights of church administration in Rus'. Until now, another work by V. O. Klyuchevsky "The Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries in its relation to the present" has fully retained its scientific significance (Verification of Klyuchevsky's observations on the value of the ruble in the first half of the 18th century, undertaken recently by B. B. Kafengauz, showed the correctness of his main conclusions (See. V. V. Kafengauz, Essays on the domestic market of Russia first half of XVIII in., M. 1958, pp. 187, 189, 258, 259). Based on a subtle analysis of sources, this work testifies to the source study skill of V. O. Klyuchevsky; the conclusions of this work on the comparative ratio of monetary units in Russia since the beginning of the 16th century. until the middle of the 18th century. in their relation to monetary units of the second half of the 19th century. necessary to elucidate many economic phenomena in the history of Russia. Two works by V. O. Klyuchevsky, published in the seventh volume, are associated with the name of the great Russian poet A. S. Pushkin: "Speech delivered at the solemn meeting of Moscow University on June 6, 1880, on the day the monument to Pushkin was opened" and "Eugene Onegin ". V. O. Klyuchevsky owns a phrase brilliant in form: “You always want to say too much about Pushkin, you always say too much and you never say everything that follows” (See p. 421.). In his articles about Pushkin, V. O. Klyuchevsky emphasized Pushkin's deep interest in history, which gave "a coherent chronicle of our society in the faces of more than 100 years" (See p. 152.). Klyuchevsky sought to give a generalizing character to the images of people of the 18th century, outlined in various works of Pushkin, to explain the conditions in which they arose, and on the basis of these images to draw a vivid picture noble society that time. Such an approach to the work of A. S. Pushkin cannot but be recognized as correct. But in his interpretation of the images of the noble society of the 18th century, as in the fifth part of the "Course of Russian History", V. O. Klyuchevsky considered the culture of Russia of that time too one-sidedly, not seeing advanced trends in it. Articles placed in the seventh volume of the Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, as a whole, are a valuable historiographic heritage in a number of ways. critical issues history of Russia. A more or less complete list of the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, published from 1866 to 1914, was compiled by S. A. Belokurov ("List printed works V. O. Klyuchevsky "Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University", Vol. I, M. 1914, pp. 442--473.). The gaps in this list are insignificant (There are no mentions of the work of P. Kirchman "History of Public and Private Life", M. 1867. This book was published in the processing of Klyuchevsky, who re-wrote sections on Russian life. The review "Great Cheti-Minei" is not marked, published in the newspaper "Moskva", 1868, No. 90, dated June 20 (republished in the Third Collection of Articles) The remarks about the hryvnia kun made by V. O. Klyuchevsky on the report of A. V. Prakhov on the frescoes of St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev are omitted at a meeting of the Moscow Archaeological Society on December 20, 1855 ("Antiquities. Proceedings of the Archaeological Society", vol. XI, issue Ill, M. 1887, p. 86), speech in November 1897 on the report of V. I. Kholmogorov "K the question of the time of creation of scribe books "(" Antiquities. Proceedings of the Archaeographic Commission, vol. I, M. 189S, p. 182). On April 24, 1896, V. O. Klyuchevsky delivered a speech "On the educational role of St. Stephen of Perm" (Readings of the OIDR, 1898, book II, protocols, p. 14), September 26, 1898 - a speech about A. S. Pavlov (Readings of the OIDR, 1899, vol. II, protocols, p. 16), spoke on April 13 1900 according to the report of P.I. Ivanov "On the redistribution of the peasants in the north" ("Antiquities. Proceedings of the Archaeographic Commission", vol. II, issue II, M. 1900, p. 402), March 18, 1904, delivered a speech on the activities of the OIDR (Readings of the OIDR, 1905, book II, protocols, p. 27), O S. A. Belokurov does not provide any information about the publication of the minutes of these speeches by V. O. Klyuchevsky, nor does he mention the article by V. O. Klyuchevsky "M. S. Korelin "(died January 3, 1894), published in the appendix to the book: M. S. Korelin, Essays from the history of philosophical thought in the Renaissance, "The Worldview of Francesco Petrarca", M. 1899, pp. I-XV.). Some works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, published in 1914 and later, were not included in the list of works by S. A. Belokurov (among them are "Reviews and answers. The third collection of articles", M. 1914, reprinted, M. 1918; reprinted the first two collections of articles, "The Course of Russian History", "History of Estates", "The Legend of Foreigners", "Boyar Duma", etc.) (See also: "Letters of V. O. Klyuchevsky to P. P. Gvozdev". In Sat .: "Proceedings of the All-Russian public library them. Lenin and the State Rumyantsev Museum", issue V, M. 1924; an abridged record of Klyuchevsky's speeches at the Peterhof meeting in June 1905 is given in the book: "Nicholas II. Materials for the characterization of personality and reign", M. 1917, pp. 163--164, 169--170, 193--196, 232--233.). Most of the articles, studies and reviews of V. O. Klyuchevsky were collected and published in three collections.The first is entitled "Experiments and Research", published back in 1912 (for the second time in 1915) (It included studies: "The economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery", "Pskov disputes", "Russian ruble XVI-XVIII centuries in its relation to the present", "The origin of serfdom in Russia", "The poll tax and the abolition of servility in Russia". "The composition of the representation at the zemstvo councils of ancient Russia".). The second collection appeared in print in 1913 and was called "Essays and speeches" (The collection contained articles: "S. M. Solovyov", "S. M. Solovyov as a teacher", "In memory of S. M. Solovyov", "Speech at the solemn meeting of Moscow University 6 June 1880, on the day of the opening of the monument to Pushkin", "Eugene Onegin and His Ancestors", "Contribution of the Church to the Successes of Russian Civil Law and Order", "Sadness", "Good People of Ancient Russia", "I. N. Boltin", "The Meaning of St. Sergius for the Russian people and state", "Two upbringings", "Memories of N. I. Novikov and his time", "Undergrowth Fonvizin", "Empress Catherine II", "Western influence and church schism in Russia in the 17th century", "Peter the Great Among His Collaborators".) Finally, a year later (in 1914), the third collection was published - "Answers and Reviews" (Including "Great Menaias-Chetias collected by the All-Russian Metropolitan Macarius", "New Research on the history of ancient Russian monasteries", "Analysis of the work of V. Ikonnikov", "Amendment to one anti-criticism. Answer to V. Ikonnikov", "Manuscript library of V. M. Undolsky", "The Church in relation to the mental development of ancient Russia", "Analysis of works A. Gorchakov", "Alleluia and Paphnutius", "Academic review of the work of A. Gorchakov", "Doctoral dispute of Subbotin at the Moscow Theological Academy", "Analysis of the book by D. Solntsev", "Analysis of the work of N. Suvorov", "The Serf Question on the eve of its legislative initiation", "Review of the book of S. Smirnov", "G. Rambaud - a historian of Russia". "Law and Fact in the History of the Peasant Question, Answer to Vladimirsky-Budanov", "Academic Review of Prof. Platonov's Study", "Academic Review of Chechulin's Study", "Academic Review of N. Rozhnov" and translation of the book review Th. V. Bernhardt, Geschichte Russlands und der europaischen Politik in den Jahren 1814--1837). All three collections of articles were republished in 1918. The texts of V. O. Klyuchevsky's works in this volume are reproduced from collections of his articles or from autographs and journal publications when the articles were not included in collections of his works. The texts are published according to the rules set forth in the first volume of the "Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky". References to archival sources in the published works of Klyuchevsky are unified, but with handwritten material do not match. Tom goes out under the general supervision of an academician M. N. Tikhomirova, text prepared and commented V. A. Aleksandrov And A. A. Zimin.

REVIEW ON THE RESEARCH OF S. F. PLATONOV "OLD RUSSIAN TALES AND STORIES ABOUT THE TIME OF TROUBLES OF THE XVII CENTURY AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE"

V. O. Klyuchevsky's review of the study by S. F. Platonov "Old Russian legends and stories about the Time of Troubles of the 17th century as a historical source" (St. Petersburg, 1888) was first published in the book: "Report on the 31st awarding of awards to Count Uvarov ", St. Petersburg. 1890, pp. 53-66, and ed. SPb. 1890, pp. 1--14. Reprinted in book: V. O. Klyuchevsky,

Dyak, the author of the famous "Vremennik" about the events of the Time of Troubles. According to the erroneous assumption of P. M. Stroev, his for a long time considered the deacon of the Metropolitan of Novgorod, but prof. S. F. Platonov, on the basis of new research, establishes that ... ...

Chronograph Russian- - a chronographic code that sets out world and Russian history and is known in several editions that were created during the 16th-17th centuries. The author of the first fundamental research X. R. A. N. Popov believed that the first (oldest) of his ... ...

Platonov Sergey Fyodorovich- Platonov (Sergei Fedorovich) historian. Born in 1860; at the end of the course at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University, read Russian history at the higher courses for women in Saint Petersburg, then taught history at ... ... Biographical Dictionary

New Chronicler- (“The Book of the New Chronicler”) is a monument of late Russian chronicle writing, which covers events from the end of the reign of Ivan IV to 1630. It is an important source on the history of the Time of Troubles. The work is bright ... ... Wikipedia

Abraham Palitsyn- Avraamiy Palitsyn, in the world Averky Ivanovich, a well-known figure of the Time of Troubles. Born in the middle of the 16th century, according to family legends, in the village of Protasiev (near Rostov), ​​in noble family; died a monk in the Solovetsky Monastery on September 13, 1626. ... ... Biographical Dictionary

Khvorostinin, Ivan Andreevich- Ivan Andreevich Khvorostinin (d. February 28, 1625 Sergiev Posad) Russian statesman and politician, writer. Considered the first Russian Westerner. [by whom?] ... Wikipedia

Dimitri Ioannovich, son of Ivan the Terrible- Holy Tsarevich Martyr, son of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and his fifth wife, Maria Feodorovna. In the summer of 1580, Tsar John Vasilyevich celebrated his fifth wedding. The sovereign married without church permission, but he ruled the wedding in the old days; in paternal... Big biographical encyclopedia

Shakhovskoy, Prince Semyon Ivanovich- (nicknamed Kharya) a spiritual writer of the first half of the 17th century, remarkable for the abundance and variety of his writings. Professor Platonov, who studied in detail and carefully the works of Prince. Shakhovsky, says that he was distinguished by great ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia

Life of Sergius of Radonezh- - a monument of hagiography, dedicated to the famous ecclesiastical and social politician Rus' in the second half of the 14th century. Sergius of Radonezh (in the world - Bartholomew Kirillovich; born around 1321/1322 - died September 25, 1391/1392), the creator and ... ... Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'

Job, patriarch- Job (in the world Ivan) (d. 19 VI 1607) - patriarch, author of The Tale of the Life of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, messages, letters and speeches. Born in a township family in the town of Staritsa. Studied literacy at the Staritsky Dormition Monastery. Here, from his teacher, ... ... Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'

Boltin Baim Fedorovich (Sidor Fedorovich)- Boltin Baim (Sidor) Fedorovich, a serviceman of the 17th century, an Arzamas landowner, from the provincial noble family of the Boltins. Bit notes about his services in the military, diplomatic and administrative fields, having the character of a chronicle ... ... Biographical Dictionary