early modern Russia (Muscovy)

Honorable Mention, 2012 Early Slavic Studies Association Distinguished Scholarship Award
A pivotal period in Russian history, the "Time of Troubles" of the early 17th century has taken on new resonances in post-Soviet Russia. Current national narratives glorify the role of the Russian Orthodox Church during that torturous span of famine, war, and disintegration. But what was the actual history of the Church and of Orthodox Christian religion in crisis? For the first time, and just prior to the 400th anniversary of the end of the Time of Troubles, this book attempts to give a comprehensive picture of the topic on the basis of archival and other evidence. Beginning with Russia's posited status as "New Israel" and continuing to examine the business activities of monasteries, Gruber discovers the motivations behind key political and religious innovations of the period. New "voices" attributed to women and the people marked this as a unique epoch in the troubled history of one of the world's most enigmatic and influential countries. Both accessibly written and deeply scholarly, this book will appeal to a wide readership interested in history, religion, and culture.

«clashed with them at the Church of the Resurrection in Molody»: Materials about the campaign Devlet I Giray at Moscow in 1572 Crimean Embassy book 1571-1578.
It is the first full publication of the case of the arrival of Ivan IV the Terrible of the army of the Khan Devlet I Girey messenger Chikh-Ali immediately after the defeat of the Crimean Tatars at Molody took in the battle of the composition of the 14th Crimean Embassy books. Publishing a document with detailed historical, source study`s and archeografic reviews. / Это первая полная публикация дела о приезде к Ивану IV Грозному из армии хана Девлет-Гирея I гонца Ших-Али непосредственно сразу после поражения крымских татар в Молодинской битве из состава 14-й крымской посольской книги. Публикация документа снабжена подробным историческим, источниковедческим и археографическим комментариями.

... June 28, 1648), Leningradskoe Otdelenie Instituta Istorii SSSR (henceforth, LOII), sobranie AMArtem'eva, no. ... In an effort to cut state expenses and build financial reserves, the head of the treasury, Aleksei's brother-in-law and chief adviser Boris Morozov, instigated an austerity ...

В статье предлагается комментированный перевод четырёх шведских писем-донесений из Новгорода от июня 1682 г., рассказывающих о московском стрелецком восстании середины мая 1682 г. Письма, хранящиеся в стокгольмском государственном архиве, ранее не переводились на русский язык. Во вступительной статье рассмотрена схема получения шведским королевским двором информации из России, благодаря которой шведскому правительству удавалось быть в курсе внутриполитических новостей в Московском государстве во время стрелецкой смуты. Новости-донесения пересылались шведскими агентами из русских городов – Москвы, Новгорода и Пскова – в Нарву к шведскому комиссару Кристофу Коху, который затем пересылал копии писем в Стокгольм. Этот уникальный источник дополняет сведения других источников по истории Хованщины.

The problem of the genesis of the Russian state has been a subject of debate among politicians and historians for several centuries. This discussion is stimulated, inter alia, by the ardent national aspiration for
self-identification of Russian culture, in which the state has played a much more important role than in other European cultures. The problem of historical and mythical explanation of the origins of the Muscovite Kingdom perturbed the minds even of medieval chroniclers and politics.

... If female magic differed at all from male magic, it was more in being geared more toward ameliorating domestic situations, but the differences are too minor to allow one to describe distinct male and female languages of magic along the lines of Labouvie's Saar witches. ...

Кирпичников И.А. Рязанская служилая элита в конце XV – первой трети XVII века: дис. ... к.и.н. М., 2021.

Диссертация посвящена истории рязанской служилой элиты в конце XV – первой трети XVII в. Центральной проблемой исследования является интеграция данной социальной группы в состав правящего слоя Московского государства. В первой главе изучен процесс формирования рязанского боярства и рассмотрено его положение на завершающем этапе самостоятельности Великого княжества Рязанского. Во второй главе проанализированы процессы трансформации рязанской элиты в период между присоединением княжества к Москве и началом Смутного времени. В третьей главе произведена реконструкция участия рязанской элиты в событиях Смутного времени, а также изучена эволюция данной социальной группы на протяжении первой трети XVII в.

Страница защиты: https://istina.msu.ru/dissertations/370877366/
Автореферат: https://www.academia.edu/57858487/_автореферат_Рязанская_служилая_элита_в_конце_XV_первой_трети_XVII_века_2021_

This text arose in answer to a request for a review of the section on the Russian roots of the Aminoff (Aminev) family, as presented in a book from 1978 by Berndt Herman Aminoff on the genealogy of his family, by then the most numerous and in modern times most influential among the Russian noble families, who, during the Livonian War and the Smutnoe Vremia, defected from Muscovite Russia to Sweden at the end of 16th and beginning of 17th centuries.

It was easily enough to establish that the presentation offered by Berndt Herman Aminoff was fundamentally mistaken. It merely repeated the version found in earlier genealogical manuals, more precisely the one compiled by the emigrant genealogist Nicolaus lkonnikov (La Noblesse de Russie D) in 1933. This again was based on a series of similar gene-alogies reaching back to the works by P. Dolgorukov (Rossijskaia rodoslovnaia kniga. Vol 3, 1856) and G. Anrep (Svenska adelns ättartaflor, vol. 1, 1858). They were the only genealogists who had actually relied on unpublished or genuine source material: Anrep used a version in the Swedish House of Nobility from the 1720s, while Dolgorukov linked the family to the Ratsha filiation in the Russian family registers (rodoslovnye knigi) through the Kuritsyns, where one, Ivan Iurievich, used the byname Amin. As a result the Aminoffs in their Swedish and Finnish context is seen as belonging to the oldest Russian families, related fx. to the Pushkins.

Since S. B. Veselovskii had already disproved Dolgorukov's linkage to the Kuritsyns in a note, posthumously published in 1963, which, however, remained unknown to Bernd Herman Aminoff, there seemed little point in simply repeating Veselovskii's findings. However, a closer look at the genealogical material in the Swedish House of Nobility disclosed some interesting similarities between the genealogies, handed in by the Aminoffs and two other Russian families, the Rubzoffs and Peresvetoff-Moraths. Whereas the earliest versions of the genealogies of these families had only vague ideas of even the nearest ancestors of the first «Swedish» member, the later ones could not only name up to ten male ancestors, but they could also list to whom they were married. Furthermore, the three families had intermarried already in the 13th-14th centuries or married into the same aristrocratic families, like the Golitsyns. In addition they knew where their ancestors had had their estates and in which military or administrative positions they had served. Thus they contained a type of information of which we are ignorant even concerning the best known Russian noble families.

Obviously these genealogies were fiction. But why were they produced and presented to the Swedish House of Nobility. To answer this a comparative study of the roots of all these Russian families and their later respective positions in Swedish society.

From the late 16th century Sweden, then including Finland, with its small population developed an amazing military capacity, which enabled it to expand at the cost of all its neighbours. When Sweden put this military capacity to use in the Thirty Years' War it soon emerged as a major European power, a position it was able to keep until the defeat at the hands of Peter the Great at Poltava in 1709. During this period large numbers of nobles both from conquered regions and from other European countries, seeking military glory, entered Swedish service and were adopted into Swedish nobility. Part of these families were Russian and became known as the «Ingrian Russian boyars», because many at the time had or got links to Ingria. The families in question were the Baranovs, Nasakins, Rozladins (Rosladin), Klement'evs (Clementeoff), Golovachevs (Golawitz), Chebotaevs (Apolloff), Buturlins (Butterlin), Kalitins, Aminevs, Peresvetovs (Peresvetoff-Morath) and Rubtsovs – here listed chronologically according to their appearance in Swedish service. The main task was to link the first members in Swedish service to their or their family's appearance in Russian sources, first of all through the cadastral books (pistsovye knigi) of Russian North-West. This to a large extent proved possible, and the history of most of the families before their entry into Swedish service can be established.

With few exceptions all the families turned out to be of lower, provincial nobility, not sufficiently important in Muscovite society to have been included in the rodoslovnye knigi. Almost all of the families had been moved to the Novgorod region during the last hundred or hundred and fifty years, when service nobility from Central Russia replaced the old deported Novgorodian aristocracy; only one family, the Kalitins, could be shown to have their roots in independent Novgorod. The exceptions were the Buturlins (descendants of Ratsha), Rozladins (descendants of Nestor Riabets) and Chebotaevs (descendants of Andrei Kobyla). But although members of these families could fill high positions in the Muscovite state, branches of the families also served in lower capacities on par with other provincial families. But at least the «Swedish» Petr Rozladin did, as the only member of these Russian nobles, marry into the highest Swedish aristocracy, which probably reflects his position in Russia. A third exception was Aleksandr Rubtsov, who had been held prisoner in Marienburg when it was conquered by the Swedes in 1626. In Russian sources he is presented as citizen (posadskij chelovek) of Smolensk, but somehow he must have convinced the Swedes that he was of noble birth.

Whereas the exact circumstances surrounding the entry into Swedish service of the Daniel Golovachev and Vasilij Buturlin remain unclear, one group, the Baranovs, Nasakins, Klement'evs and Rozladins, chose to enter Swedish service in the later stages of the Livonian War. While the war had gone well for Russia they had been moved westwards, receiving new estates in Estonia. But when the Swedes conquered Estonia they preferred to retain their estates by opting for Sweden.

The remaining families entered Swedish service in the course of Smutnoe vremia and during the Swedish occupation of Novgorod. They all actively supported the election of a Swedish prince as Russian or at least Novgorodian Tsar. Of these the Kalitins, Chebotaevs, and Klement'evs all had their estates in that Votskaia Piatina which after the Stolbova Peace Treaty in 1617, was ceded to Sweden. Thus they both risked losing their estates and be treated as traitors if they remained in the Russia of the Romanovs.

The last two families, the Aminevs and Peresvetovs, did not have estates in the region. The Aminevs originally came from the Kostroma region, but had at the end of the 15th century received estates in Novgorod; later, however, they moved on to the Pskov region after it had been laid waste during the Livonian War. In 1609 Fedor Aminev, Commander of the streltsy on Ivangorod, was held prisoner by the Swedes in Narva and had bought his freedom by agreeing to attempt to persuade the commanders of Ivangorod, Jama and Kopor'e to surrender to the Swedes. In this he failed but still he must have gained the confidence of the Swedes. The Peresvetovs had no roots at all in the region but came from Rostov. One Murat Peresvetov was, however, among the Russian defenders when the Swedes besieged the Tikhvin Monastery, but defected to the Swedes during the siege.

One reason why the Swedish authorities also after the peace treaty of 1617 wanted to retain the Russian families and even promised to enlarge their estates was that they hoped the Russian families could persuade the Russian peasants to remain in the region after it came under Swedish rule. Otherwise it risked being totally depopulated.

While these Russian families in general were not interested in investigating their Russian roots, we have seen that three of the families, the Aminoffs, Peresvetoff-Moraths and Rubzoffs, in the early 1700s composed extensive but quite unrealistic genealogies. Why? What did they have in common compared to the other families? The answer is that they had not had estates in Ingria before it became Swedish in 1617. By the Peace Treaty of Nystad in 1721, however, Sweden lost all its possessions south of the Gulf of Finland. all Because the surviving Russians families were now completely assimilated with Sweden they chose to stay with Sweden, thereby loosing their estates. The question now arose whether they should be compensated for their loss in other parts of Sweden. At first, the Swedish government looked favourably at the matter, but, when it came to the actual recompensation, difficulties arose. During the so-called Reduction in the 1680s the Swedish nobility had lost all its estates in Sweden which – by contrast to patrimonial estates – had been given in return for service. The Russian families had not been touched by the Reduction. But now when the Russian families were to be compensated by estates in mainland Sweden, many Swedish nobles started to question whether the estates the Russian families had lost in Ingria had not been service estates and therefore should have been reduced (lost) anyway. Since it was clear that the Aminoffs, Peresvetoff-Moraths and Rubzoffs had only received their estates in Ingria after it became Swedish, their estates were deemed to be service estates. All the families now could do was to claim that these estates had been given in return for patrimonies they had lost in Russia when they opted for Sweden. Therefore, in the Diet in 1738, they read a petition, in which they claimed to have been in «secure possession» of their estates «from ancient times». Since this in any case was not true, the best the three families could do to substantiate their claim was to fabricate genealogies, which in a Swedish context could not be falsified, showing their illustrious past linked to patrimonies in Russia from the 14th century onwards.

В статье рассматривается первый этап жизни митрополита Филиппа (в миру – Федор Степанович Колычев) (1566–1568 гг.). Автор сосредотачивается на изучении мотивов и обстоятельств его ухода в Соловецкий монастырь. В работе оспаривается распространенная в литературе (А. А. Зимин, Р. Г. Скрынников, В. А. Колобков и др.) гипотеза о том, что уход Филиппа был напрямую связан с репрессиями против Колычевых после подавления Старицкого мятежа в 1537 г. Показано, что, во-первых, непосредственно семья Степана Колычева репрессиям не подверглась, во-вторых, уход Федора на Соловки состоялся до Старицкого мятежа – в первой половине 1534 г. К этому времени он уже был зрелым по меркам Средневековья 27-летним человеком. Автор приходит к выводу о добровольности и осознанности решения Федора об уходе в монастырь. Устанавливается, что причины этого шага следует искать не в политической сфере, а исключительно в сфере религиозного сознания. К моменту пострига нереализованных политический амбиций у Филиппа не осталось. Это отличало его от Вассиана (Патрикеева) и Филарета (Романова), вынужденно принявших постриг и порой рассматривавших церковную сферу как поле для удовлетворения своего честолюбия. «Социальный капитал», которым располагал Филипп к моменту пострига, мог сыграть важную роль в его избрании в игумены Соловецкого монастыря. Его иноки нуждались в относительно молодом и энергичном настоятеле, который располагал навыками и опытом управления крупным хозяйством. 37–38-летнего Филиппа отличала приобретенная в миру хозяйственная хватка, а иных иноков из среды служилых людей в этой обители в этот период было немного. Во многом избрание Филиппа в игумены предопределило расцвет вотчины Соловецкого монастыря в 1540–1560-е гг. В основу исследования положены летописные и актовые источники, записи на книгах, а также Житие митрополита Филиппа. Их изучение ведется с применением методов источниковедческого анализа, позволяющих из отрывочных и порой разноречивых показаний источников воссоздать картину прошлого. Особое внимание уделено анализу текста Жития Филиппа, давшего возможность отделить представленные в нем ценные сведения о биографии митрополита от основного текста, написанного с обильным использованием агиографической топики.
The article is devoted to the first period of the metropolitan Filipp’s life (in the world – Fedor Stepanovich Kolychev) (1566–1568). The author focuses on the motives and the circumstances of his entrance the Solovetskii monastery. The work calls in question the widespread hypothesis shared by A. A. Zimin, R. G. Skrynnikov, V. A. Kolobkov etc. that his joining the monastery was closely connected with the repressions against the Kolychevs after the suppression of the Staritskii mutiny in 1537. The author shows that firstly Stepan Kolychev’s family wasn’t persecuted, secondly Fedor had gone to Solovki Islands before the Staritskii mutiny took place – in the first half of 1534. By that time he was a mature (by the standards of the Middle Ages) person of twenty-seven-years-old. The author comes to conclusion that Fedor decided to enter the monastery absolutely consciously and voluntarily. The reasons of Fedor’s decision should be sought not in political sphere but only in the sphere of the religious consciousness. By the moment of taking of monastic vows he had no unrealized political ambitions. This fact distinguishes him from Vassian (Patrikeev) and Filaret (Romanov) forcedly taken of monastic vows and regarded the church as the sphere where they could realize their ambitions. Fedor’s social skills could play the very important role in electing him as the abbot of the Solovetskii monastery. The monks needed the young and active abbot who had skills and experience of administration of the huge household. Filipp of 37-38 years old had a business acumen and at that time in the monastery there were no so many monks originated from the service class. The election of Filipp had contributed to the flourishing of the Solovetskii monastery’s patrimony in the 1540-60s. The research rests on chronicles, acts, colophons and the Live of metropolitan Filipp. These historical sources are analyzed with the help of the source study’s methods, which allow to reconstruct the picture of the past from the contradictory and fragmentary evidences. The author pays much attention to the analysis of the Filipp’s Live and tries to distinguish the valuable facts of his biography from the typical hagiographic motives.

В статье рассматриваются особенности биографий ряда руководителей Русской церкви XVI в. Показано, что для успешной церковно-административной карьеры покровительства представителей политической и церковной элиты, как правило, было недостаточно. Оно позволяло лишь успешно продолжить путь инока к хиротонии. Для того чтобы начать его и войти в узкий круг лиц, из которых избирались кандидаты на замещение вакантных кафедр, было необходимо соблюдение иных условий. Как правило, требовалось принятие пострига в относительно раннем возрасте, значительный иноческий «стаж» (чаще всего не менее двух-трех десятилетий), а также определенный уровень подготовки (прежде всего, образования), включавший в себя знание Св. Писания, святоотеческой и агиографической литературы, а также основ богослужения. Знатное происхождение существенной роли не играло: автору статьи удалось выявить лишь 4 архиереев (из примерно 120), происходивших из аристократических родов, входивших в Боярскую думу. В работе отмечается ряд случаев отклонения от данной нормы – новгородский архиепископ Серапион I (1506–1509 гг.), митрополиты Афанасий (1564–1566 гг.) и Дионисий (1581–1586 гг.), а также казанский митрополит (1589–1606 гг.), позднее патриарх (1606–1612 гг.) Гермоген возглавили кафедры (в т.ч. Всероссийскую), имея за своими плечами незначительный иноческий «стаж» (от 1 до несколько лет). Некоторым из них покровительствовали великие князья. Выясняется, что исключительно к этому причины их стремительного карьерного роста сводить нельзя. Устанавливается, что в ряде случаев речь шла об особом варианте духовной карьеры. 4 рассматриваемых иерарха вышли из среды белого духовенства и в силу специфики своей деятельности основную часть знаний и навыков, необходимых руководителю Церкви (текстов Св. Писания и основ богослужения), получили уже в миру. Это выделяло их среди прочих иноков, происходивших из иных социальных слоев, тративших десятилетия на приобретение соответствующих знаний и навыков. На основе изучения ряда фактов биографии вологодского архиепископа (1588–1603 гг.), ростовского митрополита (1603 – между 1604 и 1605 гг.) Ионы (Думина) высказывается предположение о его происхождении из этой же среды. Автором установлено, что уже для XVI в. была характерна тенденция к занятию высших позиций в церковной иерархии выходцами из белого духовенства, которая более наглядно проявилась в XVIII–XIX вв. Если в XVI в. выходцев из этого слоя среди архиереев ок. 43%, то к концу XIX в. их доля возросла до 87,67%.
The article reviews the peculiarities in the biographies of some Russian church leaders. The author shows that successful church and administrative career demanded more than patronage of the representatives of political and church elite. The latter only paved the monk’s way to consecration. To enter the narrow circle from which the candidates for vacant cathedral were elected demanded observation of other rules: usually, monastic vows taken at early age, lengthy monastic service (30 years in the least), as well as education (knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Patristic literature, and hagiography, basics of worship). Noble origin didn’t play any significant role. The author has managed to discover only four bishops (out of 120) belonging to aristocratic families from the Boyar Duma. The article notes several exemptions of these rules: the Novgorod archbishop Serapion I (1506–09), metropolitan Afanasii (1564–66), metropolitan Dionisii (1581–86), and also the Kazan metropolitan (1589–1606) and later patriarch (1606–1612) Germogen became heads of their dioceses after a short monastic service (1 to several years). Some were under the patronage of grand princes. However, their successful career cannot be explained by that reason only. It has been established that in some cases there was a special variant of the church career. These 4 representatives of the church elite began their careers as white priests, thus obtaining the necessary knowledge and skills to head of the church. They differ from other monks belonging to other social groups who spent decades on obtaining the necessary knowledge and skills. The study of the biography of the Vologda archbishop (1588–1603) and the Rostov metropolitan (1603–1604/1605) Iona (Dumin) gives reason to suppose that he also belonged to the white clergy group. The author demonstrates that the 16th century saw an emergence of this tendency (when the representatives of the white clergy took higher positions in the church hierarchy), which manifested itself more clearly in the 18th and 19th centuries. If in the 16th century white clergy numbered about 43% of bishops, by late 19th century their proportion reached 87,67%.

The author analyzes the historiography of the Third Rome concept and divides the attitude of scholars to this idea in contemporary scholarship into two approaches, absolutely different in their understanding of what the Third Rome is and what sources are relevant in regard to this doctrine. The first approach is close to the historical and cultural constructivism. Its adherents claim that the Third Rome is a distinct doctrine expressed in the texts of monk Philotheos and in the texts and artefacts which were receptive, under different angles, of his teaching. The second approach puts the doctrine of the monk from Pskov in relation to a contemporary situation in Moscow Rus’ and connects it to other intellectual movements of the days even if one cannot find any
direct traces of the reception. This perception lies far away from the way of thought of the Pskov author who intended to preach and instruct. According to the ideas of the monk from Pskov, the Third Rome would fall if the simple truth is not perceived: there are no other Orthodox rulers left in the universe and if the Grand Duke does not have heirs, then his kingdom would fall after his death, which necessarily leads to arguing against his fruitless marriage. During the rule of Basil III, the notion of the Third Rome remained limited exclusively to the texts of Philotheos, nor did it influence the state cult during the rule of his son, Ivan the Terrible. What is striking is that this idea was not employed in any of the dozens domestic or hundreds of diplomatic addresses by Ivan the Terrible. This suggests that, in all likelihood, Ivan the Terrible did not know about the Third Rome concept at all.

В статье рассматриваются происхождение и основные факты биографии рязанского епископа Ионы (1522–1547 гг.). Устанавливается, что, вероятно, являясь уроженцем Владимира или его округи, он в относительно раннем возрасте принял постриг в небольшом домовом митрополичьем Никольском Волосовом монастыре. Не позднее 1511 г. он стал его игуменом. Пользуясь покровительством митрополита Варлаама (1511–1521 гг.), Иона перебрался в Москву, установив связи с представителями церковной и политической элиты, способствовавшие его успешной карьере. В 1517 г. Иона был поставлен в архимандриты новгородского Юрьева монастыря, в условиях вдовствования кафедры фактически возглавив церковную иерархию епархии. Вскоре после присоединения Рязани Иону поставили на Рязанскую кафедру (1522). Занимая ее четверть века, он играл значимую роль в управлении Русской церковью в период малолетства Ивана IV. В основу исследования положены акты, летописные известия, Чудеса Варлаама Хутынского, послания митрополита Даниила, выходные и вкладные записи на книгах.
The article is concerned with the origin and the main facts of the Ryazan bishop Iona’s biography (1522–1547). It was established that probably being native of Vladimir or its region he had taken of monastic vows at relatively early age in the small private metropoilitan’s Nikolskii Volosov monastery. No later than in 1511 he became its abbot. Being under the metropolitan Varlaam’s protection (1511–1521) Iona went to Moscow and established connection with the representatives of the church and political elite. These connections helped him in his successful career. In 1517 he became the archimandrite of the Iur’ev monastery in Novgorod and in fact the head of the Novgorod diocese during the Novgorod bishop’s absence. In 1522 after the annexation of Ryazan he was appointed the Ryazan bishop. Being the Ryazan bishop during the quarter of a century Iona played the significant role in the administrative of the Russian church in the period of Ivan’s IV childhood. The research rests on the acts, the chronicles, the Miracles of Varlaam Khutynskii, the metropolitan Daniil’s letters, colophons and books’ records of donations.

The critical edition of The Principal Navigations is under contract with Oxford University Press in 14 volumes. It will provide an unparalleled resource for researchers and teachers working on early modern travel, trade and colonialism. The individual volumes will cover:

Vol 1. Medieval Voyages
Vol 2. Medieval Voyages and the English in Muscovy
Vol 3. Muscovy and Persian Travel
Vol 4. Russia, Iceland and Anglo-Spanish Relations
Vol 5. Medieval Travel and the Early Levant Trade
Vol 6. Levant Travels, South Asia, and Anglo-Ottoman Diplomacy
Vol 7. Travels to Africa and the Far East, and the Anglo-Spanish War
Vol 8. Maritime War with Spain, the Northwest Passage, and West Africa
Vol 9. The Northwest Passage, Travels to Newfoundland, and the Gulf of St Lawrence
Vol 10. Voyages to New France, Roanoke, and Florida
Vol 11. Voyages to New Mexico, California, and New Spain
Vol 12. West Indies Voyages
Vol 13. Travels to Guiana, Brazil, and the River Plate
Vol 14. The South Seas, Far East, and Spanish Trade and Navigation

During the 16th century, several European states were regularly engaged in forming an anti-Ottoman alliance. The goal was to cooperate in the elimination of the Ottoman power and expansion in Europe. In addition, traditional European members of the anti-Ottoman league (the Papal State, the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs, the Venetian Republic) were counting on the help of the Eastern empires such as the Tsardom of Muscovy (Russia) and the Safavid Persia. In connection with this policy, Habsburg-Safavid diplomatic relations continued to develop. In the second half of the 1580s and 1590s, the Tsardom of Muscovy began to play an important mediating role in the context of Habsburg-Persian relations. An illustrative case is the presented study, which deals with the missions of Habsburg envoy Nicholas von Warkostch and the Safavid (Persian) envoy Haji Khosrow to the court of the Russian Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich in 1593. This issue is examined against the background of a broader international politics and diplomacy in the second half of the 1580s and the beginning of 1590s. Regarding their missions to the Russian tsar, both envoys took advantage of their mutual presence at the Muscovite court and through the mediation of Boris Godunov managed to arrange a meeting where they negotiated the possibility of the formation of an anti-Ottoman alliance. The analysis of the preserved archival and published documents concerning the above-mentioned missions reveals the goals and attitudes of all negotiating parties (Habsburgs, Persia, and Muscovy) in relation to the creation of an anti-Ottoman alliance.

The article deals with the representations of „Muscovy“ and „Alba Russia“ on the 16th century maps and developments of these Renaissance choronyms in the 17 - 18th centuries, and „Muscovite“ toponymy on the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Crown. The Muscovy and populating her Muscovites emerged on the maps ca. 1500-1540s as cartographic symbols on the understudied lands, which were not considered as political unit until the mid-16th century, and later were also limited in their domineering status in these lands by special cartographic means.

This monograph deals with the production of manuscripts in Russia in the 16th century as a social phenomenon. Most studies devoted to the history of manuscripts focus on the renowned centers of book culture, primarily monasteries. Little attention has been paid to the production of manuscripts outside the limits of these centers. As a rule, scholars base their conclusions on the manuscripts which were copied and kept in the larger monasteries such as Trinity-St. Sergius monastery, the Volotsky Monastery of St. Joseph, the Kirillo-Belozerskii Monastery, the Solovetskii Monastery and others, whose customers were usually hegumens and whose scribes were usually monks.
In order to provide a more complete picture of book production in Muscovite Russia, the author has analyzed 734 dated colophons from the extant manuscripts copied from 1500–1600. These colophons contain information about the time and the place of the respective manuscripts, their scribes and their customers. The study draws on materials from 44 archives in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Vologda, Kazan, Saratov, Vladimir, Tver, Yaroslavl, Petrozavodsk, and Novosibirsk, as well as other repositories. Approximately 96% of codices were examined de visu. The information about the rest of manuscripts was drawn from printed catalogues.
The primary sources of the monograph are colophons, which are published in the second, companion volume. Among the other historical sources consulted are inventories of possessions, records of income, including donations, and expenses, land cadasters, charters. Particular attention is devoted to ascertaining the place of production, the names and the status of scribes and customers.
Analysis of the aforementioned sources’ enabled the author establish the provenance of two-thirds of the manuscripts. In some cases, the suggested localizations are hypothetical. The author identified 92 monasteries, some large, but others rather small, where the manuscripts in question were produced. Codices were also copied in 37 towns, some quite large (Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Vladimir, Smolensk, Tver, Astrakhan) and others relatively small (Kotelnich, Elatma, Vasilsursk et.al.). The production of a considerable number of manuscripts was tied to village parishes, situated throughout Muscovy. There are a few cases when manuscripts were copied in Russian embassies, by persons residing out of the country or by prisoners.
The sociological analysis of the scribes shows that monks represent around 25% of the general number and that the white clergy makes up approximately the same percentage. Laymen of different ranks represent slightly less than 50% of the scribes. Manuscripts were also copied by the servitors of monasteries and nobles, gunners and et.al. Some of the scribes (Mikhail Medovartsev, the brothers Basov) were copyists by profession. The author has calculated that it could take between 3 weeks and 5 years to copy a codex, although manuscripts were typically copied in the span of several months. It may be estimated that the majority of the scribes copied no more than three or four dozen manuscripts in their lifetime.
The social status of those who purchased manuscripts was higher than that of those who copied them. This is attributable to the cost of manuscripts. As a rule, a manuscript cost from 1 to 3 roubles. However, richly decorated codices which were produced for representatives of church and the political elite could cost 100 roubles or more. The customers of the majority of extant dated manuscripts were highly ranking Russian churchmen – bishops and hegumens (Metropolitan Macarius, the Suzdalian bishop Afanasii (Paletskii), Archbishop Iona (Dumin) of Vologda et.al.). A high percentage of purchasers were noblemen. These included members of the Boyar Duma (the Vorotynskiis, the Bulgakov-Kurakins, the Godunovs et.al.) and provincial gentry (the Aprelevs, the Repevs, the Scriabins et.al). Books were also ordered by Russian sovereigns (Vasili III, Ivan IV), merchants (including foreign), representatives of bureaucracy (Kazarin Dubrovskii, Foma Panin и Dmitrii Skripitsyn). Many books were copied by order of parish church priests. Sometimes books were ordered collectively by a social group (parishioners of a community, town dwellers, provincial gentry). Irrespective of the customer’s and scribe’s status, most of the manuscripts were produced for churches and monasteries.
The investigation permits us to draw two main conclusions. First, that manuscripts were produced practically everywhere. Second, that the copyists and customers of books represented all major social groups of the Russian population.
Книгу можно приобрести на сайте издательства: http://aarheo.ru/shop/usachev-a-s-knigopisanie-v-rossii-xvi-veka-po-materialam-datirovannykh-vykhodnykh-zapisei-v-2-kh-t/

В статье рассматривается важная категория иноков русских монастырей эпохи Средневековья – соборные старцы. Если ранее в историографии они рассматривались исключительно на материале мужских монастырей, то в данной работе впервые специально изучается этот церковный и административный феномен жизни женских обителей. Показано, что численность, происхождение, статус и функции соборных стариц женских монастырей в целом были аналогичны старцам мужских обителей. Исследование основано на материале монастырских актов, приходо-расходных книг, летописных и иных источников. Особое внимание уделено лучше сохранившимся данным суздальского Покровского и московского Новодевичьева монастырей.
The article deals with the important category of the Russian monks in the Middle Ages – the elders. Earlier in the historiography they were considered only on the materials of the monasteries. In this article this church and administrative phenomenon is examined on the material of the convents. The author shows that the number, origin, status and functions of the elder nuns were similar to the elders. The research is based on the convent’s acts, records of income and expenses, chronicles and other historical sources. Much attention is paid to the well-represented data of the Suzdal Pokrovsky and the Moscow Novodevichy convents.

Unter den Quellen fremder Herkunft, die das Thema Rußland in der Zeit Ivans des Schrecklichen behandeln, nimmt der Bericht Albert Schlichtings eine besondere Stellung ein. Der literarisch ansprechende und durch eine Fülle von Einzelheiten beeindruckende Bericht des aus russischer Gefangenschaft Entflohenen, der nicht nur die Gelegenheit gehabt hatte, sich einige Jahre in der russischen Hauptstadt aufzuhalten, sondern während dieser Zeit auch dem Zarenhof nahe gestanden war, hat die Aufmerksamkeit der Forschung von dem Augenblick an auf sich gezogen, als dank dem Fund PIERRE PIERLINGS im Vatikanischen Archiv die lateinische Fassung De moribus et imperandi crudelitate Basilij Moschoviae Tyranni brevis ennaraüS dem Vergessen entrissen wurde. Der nächste Forscher, der viel zum Bekanntwerden des Berichts beigetragen hat, war der Russe EVGENIJ SMURLO; ihm verdanken wir den ersten Versuch einer Analyse von Schlichtings Schrift sowie die Herausarbeitung ihres Zusammenhanges mit der bekannten Darstellung der Verbrechen Ivans des Schrecklichen in dem Werk von ALESSANDRO GUAGNINI Sarmatiae Europae descriptio, das um die Wende des 16. zum 17. Jahrhundert in Europa sehr populär war. Namentlich geht es hier um dessen Kapitel V: De Magni Moscoviae dueis Joannis Basiliadis tyrannide. Weitere Meilensteine in der Erforschung dieser Quelle sind die russische Übersetzung aus der Feder von ALEKSANDR I. MALEIN (1934), die speziell dem Bericht Schlichtings gewidmete Dissertation von CHRISTA PROKSCH-TREPLIN (Erlangen 1952) sowie die ausgezeichnete und mit vorzüglichem Kommentar versehene englische Übersetzung von HUGH F. GRAHAM (1975); nicht zu unterschätzen sind auch die Verdienste von ANDREAS KAPPELER (1972) bei der Einordnung des Berichtes unter den zeitgenössischen Quellen, wobei er besonders auch die antirussischen Schmäh-und Flugschriften berücksichtigte. 2 Das Werk Schlichtings, obwohl bis zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt beinahe ausschließlich auf dem Umweg über die russische Übersetzung rezipiert (die Arbeit von PROKSCH mit * Die vorliegende Arbeit entstand während eines Forschungsaufenthalts am Osteuropa-Institut München, der durch ein Stipendium der Volkswagenstiftung ermöglicht wurde. Der Autor möchte sich herzlich für die dabei erfahrene Hilfe bedanken bei Prof. Dr. Edgar Hösch, den Teilnehmern seines Postgraduiertenkolloquiums sowie-für die Unterstützung bei den Re-cherchen und für wertvolle Hinweise-bei den Kollegen am Osteuropa-Institut München.

Preprint version of my essay in the proceedings of the conference "Cultural Encounters: Tensions and Polarities of the Transmission from the Late Middle Ages to the Enlightenment' held at the Warburg Institute, University of London (17 November 2016).

Кирпичников И.А. Рязанская элита после присоединения княжества к Москве: проблемы интеграции // Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики. 2021. № 2 (84). С. 68–78.

Исследование посвящено истории рязанской элиты в период между ликвидацией независимости княжества и началом опричнины. Присоединение Рязанской земли к Москве не сопровождалось трансформацией традиционной социальной структуры, и местные боярские кланы сохранили свою позицию в локальном сообществе. Рязанская верхушка была включена в служилую систему Русского государства, но ее представители имели относительно низкий статус в иерархии «государева двора».

Ссылка на номер: http://www.drevnyaya.ru/vyp/v2021.php#n2

В данной статье проанализировано, каким образом различные аспекты наличия у Речи Посполитой границы с Московским государством отражались в выступлениях сеймиков Великого княжества Литовского в первой половине XVII в. Среди затрагиваемых литовской шляхтой в указанный период проблем стоит отметить несколько вопросов: защита границы и укрепление порубежных крепостей, принадлежность завоеванных во время войны 1609-1618 гг. территорий — Смоленщины и Северщины, а также проведение разграничения между Речью Посполитой и Россией в период после Поляновского мира 1634 г., в том числе передачи Москве Трубчевска.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Moscow state were reflected in the documents of the seymiks of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the first half of the XVIIth century.
The issues raised by the Lithuanian gentry were divided into three groups, first of which includes various demands to protect and strengthen the border fortresses. Attention of seymiks concentrated on Smolensk, being a key stronghold on the frontier, less often Polotsk, Vitebsk, Braslav and Orsha were mentioned.
Another question considered by seymiks was the belonging of the territories conquered during the war of 1609-1618 - Smolensk and Severshchina, which on the basis of diploma of Sigismund III were included into Polish Crown. The king's decision evoked severe resistance from the Lithuanian gentry, which achieved including them into the Grand Duchy.
The third group of issues was the demarcation between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia in the period after the Polyanovsk peace treaty of 1634. The key problem was the transfer of Trubchevsk to Moscow, which once again caused dissatisfaction of the seymiks. However, the Lithuanian gentry did not question the demarcation itself and was contented with gaining Loev and Lyubech from the Polish Crown.

This article examines the factors that influenced the creation of the first Russian (so-called “anonymous”) printing press around 1553. The article shows that the first attempts to introduce printing took place as early as the 1540s (as seen in the Hans Schlitte mission and in a letter from Ivan IV to the Danish King Christian III). Thus the Sloglav Council (1551) or the conquest of Kazan (1552) could not be the immediate reasons for the introduction of printing in Russia. The direct reason was the need to standardize church service books. The article argues that the production of printed books in Russia also greatly accelerated as a result of the fire in Moscow in 1547, which destroyed an enormous quantity of books in the libraries in the capital. The capacities of the existing scriptoria in Moscow at the time were insufficient to restore quickly the large quantities of books lost in the fire. It became necessary to employ new methods for replacing the lost books (first and foremost, liturgical books). This study is based in a wide range of sources, including materials connected with the so-called “Viskovatyi Affair,” chronicles, the Tale of the Moscow Fire of 1547, the Book of Degrees, marginalia and other inscriptions found in some books, inventories compiled by the scribal staffs in chanceries, the colophon of the 1564 Apostol, and other sources.
В статье рассматривается вопрос о факторах, оказавших влияние на создание первой русской (т.н. «анонимной») типографии около 1553 г. Показано, что первые попытки введения книгопечатания предпринимались уже в конце 1540-х гг. (миссия Г. Шлитте, письмо Ивана IV датскому королю Христиану III). Соответственно, Стоглавый собор (1551 г.) и присоединение Казани (1552 г.) непосредственными причинами начала книгопечатания являться не могли. Главной причиной являлась необходимость унификации богослужебных книг. Высказывается предположение о том, что процесс печатного производства книг в России значительно ускорил разрушительный Московский пожар 1547 г. С ним были связаны серьезные потери в книжном фонде библиотек столицы. Возможностей книгописных центров Москвы было недостаточно для восполнения утрат в кратчайшие сроки. Было необходимо использовать новые методы тиражирования книг (по преимуществу, богослужебных). Исследование основано на материале «дела И.М. Висковатого», летописей, Повести о Московском пожаре 1547 г., Степенной книги, записей на книгах, писцовых описаний, Послесловия к Апостолу 1564 г. и иных источников.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/22102396/51/2-3

The Truce of Andrusovo (1667) stipulated an exchange of prisoners of war. The paper describes the legal framework created by the Russian government to find and repatriate eligible prisoners (clergy, nobility, and military personnel) while enforcing a ban on repatriating captive commoners. Practical implementation of the swap is exemplified by a case of Ostafii Kleczkowski, a Lithuanian nobleman who had been taken captive, released, but then after many complications returned to the service of the tsar.

В статье на основе анализа записей на Годуновских Псалтирях рассматривается вопрос о распространении идеи «Третьего Рима» в России в конце XVI в. В этом столетии Третьим Римом именовалась либо Русская земля, либо Российское царство. Устанавливается, что одним из первых случаев (возможно, первым) соотнесения Третьего Рима непосредственно с «Москвой» были записи Годуновских Псалтирей. Этот комплекс богато иллюминированных рукописей переписывался в одном из столичных скрипториев между 1591 и 1600 гг. по заказу дяди Б. Ф. Годунова боярина Д. И. Годунова. Данные рукописи вскоре после их написания были отданы в крупнейшие соборы и монастыри России: в Успенский и Архангельский кремлевские соборы, в Чудов, Новодевичий, Троице-Сергиев, Кирилло-Белозерский, Соловецкий, костромской Ипатьевский и калязинский Макарьевский монастыри. В статье высказывается мнение о том, что с распространением Годуновских Псалтирей была связана первая попытка распространения идеи «Третий Рим» за пределами столицы. Она предвосхитила ее тиражирование в печатной Кормчей 1653 г.

In article is considered a question of distribution of the theory «The Third Rome» in Russia of the end of the XVI century. The research is based on texts of records on the Godunov's Psalters. This century the name «The Third Rome» was applied to «The Russian land» and «The Russian tzardom». It is shown that one of the fi rst cases (perhaps, the fi rst) correlation of «the Third Rome» with «Moscow» was records Godunov's Psalters. This complex of richly illuminated manuscripts was written in one of capital monastery between 1591 and 1600 by request of the uncle Boris Godunov of the boyar Dmitry Godunov. These manuscripts soon after their writing were enclosed in the largest cathedrals and monasteries of Russia: in Uspensky and Arkhangelsk Kremlin cathedrals, in monasteries - Chudov, Novodevichij, Troitse-Sergiyev, Kirillo-Belozersky, Soloveckij, Ipatyevsky in Kostroma and Makaryevsky in Kalyazin. In article the opinion that the first attempt of distribution of idea «the Third Rome» outside the capital was connected with distribution of Godunov's Psalters is expressed. It anticipated it's distribution in printing Nomocanon (Kormchaja) of 1653.