Another story. Tale of the Time of Troubles Legends and Tales of the Time of Troubles

A TALE OF SOME BATTLE

This story was written about a certain war,
happened for our sins in a godly
Russia, and about the appearance of a certain sign
in this last generation of ours,
Let's talk about him first

(...) In the summer from the creation of the ancestor of all people, Adam, in the year 7116, in the reign of a pious state, crowned by God, and anointed by God, and a God-honored and Christ-loving champion of the holy Orthodox Christian faith, a valiant peacemaker, a sovereign autocrat and a meek scepter holder of a pious great Russia, Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, Autocrat of all Russia, holding the scepter of the great states lying in the east and north - Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Tver, Yugorsk, Perm, Vyatsky, Bulgarian and others, sovereign and grand prince of the Novgorod Nizovsky land, Chernigov, Ryazan, Rostov, Lifland, Udorsky, Obdorsky, Kondinsky, and the entire Siberian land, and the Northern country of the ruler, and the sovereign of the Iberian land, Georgian kings and Kabardian land, Cherkasy and mountain princes and many other states of the sovereign and possess spruce, from the family of the holy noble grand duke miracle worker Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky; and the root of our Russian sovereigns of this pious family comes from the Roman and Greek Augusts Honorius and Arcadius, the sons of Tsar Theodosius the Great, who held the scepter of Constantinople saved by God - the new Rome, the reigning city of the Greek kingdom. But we will not talk about it, but return to what was left above.

In the third year of the reign of the aforementioned pious autocrat Vasily, who before his reign was under the Russian autocrats the great boyar of the royal synclite, named Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, from those Shuiskys who from ancient times were specific grand dukes 33 , the sovereigns of Suzdal, and under his royal majesty the father and pilgrim and the supreme hierarch of the holy kir 34 Hermogenes, third patriarch of Moscow 35 and all Russia, ruling the throne of the holy great cathedral and apostolic church of the Mother of God, the most holy and blessed mistress of our Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, her honest and glorious Assumption, shining throughout all great Russia - and then to his kingdom on the Russian kingdom by the actions of enemies and God's allowance for our sins came the great war from the damned apostates and enemies of the cross of Christ, from the Polish and Lithuanian people and from the Don Cossacks.

And the Cossacks called one of their people by the royal name - the Russian Tsarevich Dmitry of All Russia, intending with their evil cunning, wanting the Russian state to plunder and acquire much earthly wealth, and were forever excommunicated from heaven. And having gathered a lot of warriors - Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Zaporozhye Cherkasy and other peoples, they came to the reigning city of Moscow and stood 12 miles from Moscow along the Mozhaisk road, in a village called Tushino, because this place was well protected, and there with their cunning and deceitful Tsar Dmitry set up their Lithuanian camp. And they spilled like water and scattered like dust over the Russian kingdom, and rushed like an insatiable viper, and like fierce snakes, and like evil wolves and bloodsuckers, the destroyers of the Christian family, through the cities, through honest monasteries and through villages. And then, from such accursed, from their fierce aspirations, our pious Orthodox Christian faith was trampled, the holy churches of God were desecrated and set on fire, cities and villages were ruined and set on fire, and much Christian blood was shed, and wives, maidens and youths were taken into captivity. And the gospel word of Christ came true, as it is said: “Kingdom will rise against kingdom, nation against nation, and there will be earthquakes and deaths and horrors everywhere, and many will fall by the sword; and human blood will flow like fountains of water, and the earth will be covered with dead bodies, like leaves and trees, and heads will lie on the ground like ears of corn.” (...)

And at that time the Muscovite state was oppressed, and I, a sinner, was then in the reigning city of Moscow. And from the tsar’s pious state, from that Christ-loving tsar and autocrat Vasily from his bright chamber, called the Posolsky order, from his royal secret thought, a clerk named Vasily Telepnev, I was sent from his sovereign’s chamber by an interpreter of the German language named Grigory Krapolsky, to many cities with royal messages to the meetings of the military rank, ready to resist those accursed, named above enemies and destroyers of the Christian faith - to Pereslavl-Zalessky, to Rostov, to Yaroslavl of the Volga region, to Kostroma, to Galich.

And the reigning city of Moscow was then under siege, and those accursed enemies cut off many roads from Moscow, but the ever-memorable autocrat, the pious Tsar Vasily, endured this, like the righteous Job 36 , and accepted all adversity with thanksgiving, saying after the prophet David: “It is good for me that he humbled me, so that I may learn your justifications,” and accepted persecution from his subjects and non-believers, like King David 37 , for many of his pious powers, Moscow people went over to the Gentiles, for our sins. And he, a pious autocrat, recalling the apostolic word of the heavenly trumpet, Christ's disciple, the divine Paul, said: “If [the father] does not punish you, then you are accustomed in sin, and not true sons”; “Whom the Lord loves, he punishes,” and so on.

And we were sent from Moscow by roundabout roads - Vladimirskaya to Kirzhatsky Yam and by any possible route to the Annunciation Monastery on Kirzhach, to Alexander Sloboda and to Pereslavl-Zalessky. And when we were walking on foot at the tsar's command from Alexandrova Sloboda to Pereslavl-Zalessky, I saw some kind of miraculous sign, filled with horror, and I will tell about it now.

That named German interpreter Grigory Krapolsky told me on the way, at noon, during the fast of the chief apostles Peter and Paul 38 : "Do you see anything in the clouds of heaven directly above us?" And after his words I saw a great wonderful and terrible sign, and I said to him: “I see, my lord.” He asked me, “What do you see? Tell me". And I said to him: “Very terrible, sir, a sign! I see a lion, a huge and marvelous beast, standing on the right, and on the left, not far from it, a vicious and proud snake, and they stand motionless, but want to seize and tear one another. And around the lion there are many different animals, and around the serpent there are many small snakes. And after a little while, that vision began to disappear, and the lion lay down on his stomach and began to decrease little by little, and soon the lion and the serpent became invisible, and other animals and snakes also became invisible, and the clouds again acquired their original appearance.

The aforementioned Gregory said to me: “Do you understand what this vision means?” And I answered: “No, my lord, I don’t understand at all, but I am only horrified.” And he began to talk to me and explain: “The huge lion is our pious champion of the Christian faith, Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily. The animals around him are his subjects, Orthodox peoples, Russian sons, standing with him for orthodoxy. And the fierce and proud snake is the insidious Tush tsar, the false prince Dmitry, and the multitude of snakes surrounding him are his supporters, cursed peoples who have renounced God. Both perished, the lion and the serpent, as well as the beasts and serpents that surrounded them. This means that death will soon come to both kings, and neither will prevail against the other.”

And according to him, soon after this vision, it happened, as he said: the Tushino false and treacherous tsar, a prince named Peter Urusov, put to violent death in the city of Kaluga, cut off his head, and after his murder he fled to the Nogai Horde, for he himself - originally from the Nogai Horde.

And the ever-memorable autocrat of the pious Moscow Tsar Vasily was overthrown by his subjects from the throne 39 and forcibly tonsured blacks and, together with half-brothers, with Prince Dmitry and Prince Ivan, gave him to the Polish and Lithuanian king Sigismund, where he died a violent death (...).

The turbulent events of the beginning of the 17th century, which were called “troubles” by contemporaries, were widely reflected in literature. Literature acquires an exclusively topical journalistic character, promptly responding to the demands of the time, reflecting the interests of various social groups participating in the struggle.

Society, having inherited from the previous century an ardent faith in the power of the word, in the power of conviction, seeks to propagate certain ideas in literary works, achieving specific effective goals.

Among the stories that reflected the events of 1604-1613, one can single out works that express the interests of the ruling boyars. Such is the Tale of 1606, created by a monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The story actively supports the policy of the boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky, tries to present him as a popular choice, emphasizing the unity of Shuisky with the people. The people turn out to be a force that the ruling circles cannot but reckon with. The story glorifies "courageous courage" Shuisky in his fight against "Evil heretic", "defrocked" Grishka Otrepiev. To prove the legitimacy of Shuisky's rights to the royal throne, his family is elevated to Vladimir Svyatoslavich of Kyiv.

The author of the story sees the causes of "distemper" and "disorganization" in the Muscovite state in the pernicious rule of Boris Godunov, who, by the villainous murder of Tsarevich Dmitry, stopped the existence of the family of lawful kings of Moscow and "catch the tsar's throne in Moscow with unrighteousness."

Subsequently, "The Tale of 1606" was revised into "Another Legend". Defending the positions of the boyars, the author portrays him as the savior of the Russian state from adversaries.

"The Tale of 1606" and "Another Legend" are written in the traditional bookish manner. They are built on the contrast of the pious champion of the Orthodox faith Vasily Shuisky and "cunning, crafty" Godunov, "evil heretic" Grigory Otrepiev. Their actions are explained from traditional providentialist positions.

This group of works is opposed by stories that reflect the interests of the nobility and the townspeople's trade and craft strata of the population. Here we should first of all mention those journalistic messages that Russian cities exchanged, rallying their forces to fight the enemy.

Takova "A new story about the glorious, Russian kingdom" - publicistic propaganda appeal. Written in late 1610 - early 1611, at the most intense moment of the struggle, when Moscow was captured by Polish troops, and Novgorod - by Swedish feudal lords. "New Tale" to "all sorts of ranks to people", called them to action against the invaders. She sharply denounced the treacherous policy of the boyar government, which, instead of being "landowner" native land, turned into a domestic enemy, and the boyars themselves "earth-eaters", "crooks". The story revealed the plans of the Polish magnates and their leader Sigismund III, who tried to lull the Russian vigilance with false promises. The courageous feat of the Smolensk people was glorified, selflessly defending their city, preventing the enemy from seizing this important key position. " Tea, as if small children heard the wonder of that of their citizens of courage and strength and generosity and an unbending mind, ”- the author notes. The New Tale depicts Patriarch Hermogenes as the ideal patriot, endowing him with the traits of a faithful Christian, a martyr and a fighter for the faith against apostates. On the example of behavior "strong" Smolyan and Hermogenes, "The New Tale" brought to the fore steadfastness as a necessary quality of behavior of a true patriot.

A characteristic feature of the story is its democracy, a new interpretation of the image of the people - this "great ... waterless sea." The calls and messages of Hermogenes are addressed to the people, enemies and traitors are afraid of the people, the author of the story appeals to the people. However, the people in the story do not yet act as an effective force.

Unlike other works of that time, there are no historical excursuses in the New Tale; it is filled with topical material, calls Muscovites to armed struggle against the invaders. This is what determines the peculiarities of the style of the New Story, in which business-like energetic speech is combined with an excited pathetic appeal. The "lyrical element" of the story is the author's patriotic mood, the desire to raise Muscovites to armed struggle against the enemy.

The author more than once resorts to rhythmic speech and "speech verse", which goes back to folk rhythmic tales and paradise verse. For example: “And our landowners themselves, as before, are land-eaters, they have long been from him(Hermogene.- V.K.) lagged behind, and gave up their minds to the last madness, and they stuck to them as an enemy, and to others, fell at their foot and changed their royal birth into a bad slavish service, and they submitted and worshiped who knows - themselves you know."

The general pathetic tone of presentation is combined in the New Tale with numerous psychological characteristics. For the first time in literature, there is a desire to discover and show the contradictions between the thoughts and actions of a person. In this growing attention to the disclosure of a person’s thoughts that determine his behavior, lies the literary significance of the New Tale. Thematically close to the "New Tale" "Lament for the Captivity and Final Destruction of the Muscovite State", created, obviously, after the capture of Smolensk by the Poles and the burning of Moscow in 1612. The fall of "pie(pillar) piety", devastation "God-planted grapes". The burning of Moscow is interpreted as a fall "multinational state". The author seeks to find out the reasons that led to "the fall of high Russia", using the form of an edifying short "conversation". In an abstract generalized form, he speaks of the responsibility of the rulers for what happened. "over the highest Russia." However, this work does not call for struggle, but only mourns, convinces to seek consolation in prayer and hope in God's help.

The immediate response to the events was "The Tale of the Death of Prince Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky". With his victories over False Dmitry II, Skopin-Shuisky gained fame as a talented commander. His sudden death at the age of twenty (April 1610) gave rise to various rumors that, allegedly out of envy, he was poisoned by the boyars. These rumors were reflected in folk songs and legends, the literary processing of which is the story.

It begins with a rhetorical book introduction, in which genealogical calculations are made, tracing the Skopin-Shuisky family to Alexander Nevsky and Augustus Caesar.

The central episode of the story is a description of the christening feast at Prince Vorotynsky. Including a number of everyday details, the author tells in detail about how the hero was poisoned by the wife of his uncle Dmitry Shuisky, the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov. Preserving the speech and rhythmic structure of the folk epic song, the story conveys this episode as follows:

And what will be after a fair table a feast for fun,

And ... the villain is that princess Marya, godmother godmother,

She brought the drink of drink to the godfather

And she beat her forehead, greeted her godson Alexei Ivanovich.

And in that chalice in drink, a fierce drink of death is prepared.

And Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich drinks that drink to dryness,

But he does not know that evil drinking is fierce mortal.

In the above passage, it is not difficult to detect the characteristic elements of epic poetics. They also stand out clearly in the dialogue between a mother and her son, who has returned prematurely from a feast. This dialogue is reminiscent of the conversations of Vasily Buslaev with Mamelfa Timofeevna, Dobrynya with his mother.

The second part of the story, dedicated to the description of the death of the hero and the national grief over his death, is made in the traditional book style. The same techniques are used here as in The Life of Alexander Nevsky and The Tale of the Life of Dmitry Ivanovich. The author of the story conveys the attitude to the death of Skopin of various groups of society. Muscovites express their grief, as well as their assessment of the activities of Skopin-Shuisky, the German governor Yakov Delagardie, Tsar Vasily Shuisky, mother, wife. The laments of the mother and wife almost entirely go back to the tradition of oral folk tales.

The story has an anti-boyar orientation: Skopin-Shuisky is poisoned "on the advice of evil traitors" - boyars, only they do not mourn for the commander.

The story glorifies Skopin-Shuisky as a national hero, defender of the motherland from adversary enemies.

In 1620, The Tale of the Birth of the Governor M. V. Skopin-Shuisky, written in the traditional hagiographic manner, was added to the Tale of the Repose....

The historical events of those years are comprehended in their own way in the people's mind, as evidenced by the recordings of historical songs made in 1619 for the Englishman Richard James. These are the songs “About the dog-thief Grishka-cutting”, “About Marinka - an evil heretic”, about Ksenia Godunova. The songs denounce the invaders and their accomplices "boyars squint-bellied", folk heroes are exalted - the hero Ilya, Skopin-Shuisky, standing guard over the interests of their native land.

"The Tale" by Avraamy Palitsyn. An outstanding historical work that vividly reflected the events of the era is the “Tale” by the cellar of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Avraamy Palitsyn, written in 1609-1620.

Clever, cunning and rather unscrupulous businessman Avraamy Palitsyn was in close relations with Vasily Shuisky, secretly communicated with Sigismund III, seeking benefits for the monastery from the Polish king. Creating the Tale, he sought to rehabilitate himself and tried to emphasize his merits in the fight against foreign invaders and the election of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the throne.

"The Tale" consists of a number of independent works:

I. A small historical essay, reviewing the events from the death of Grozny to the accession of Shuisky. Palitsyn sees the reasons for the "distemper" in the illegal abduction of the royal throne by Godunov and in his policy (ch. 1-6).

II. A detailed description of the 16-month siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by the troops of Sapieha and Lisovsky. This central part of the "Tale" was created by Abraham by processing the notes of the participants in the defense of the monastery fortress (ch. 7-52).

III. Narration about the last months of Shuisky's reign, the ruin of Moscow by the Poles, its liberation, the election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne and the conclusion of a truce with Poland (ch. 53-76).

Thus, the "Tale" gives an account of historical events from 1584 to 1618. They are covered from the traditional providential positions: the causes of troubles, “If you have done it all over Russia, it’s a righteous, wrathful quick punishment from God for all that evil created from us”: The victories won by the Russian people over foreign invaders are the result of the beneficence and mercy of the Mother of God and the intercession of Saints Sergius and Nikon. Religious and didactic reasoning is given in the traditional rhetorical form of teachings, supported by references to the text of "Scripture", as well as abundant religious-fiction pictures of all kinds of "miracles", "phenomena", "visions", which, in the author's opinion, are indisputable evidence of special patronage heavenly forces to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and the Russian land.

The value of the "Tale" is its factual material, associated with the depiction of the heroic feats of arms of the peasants of monastic villages, monastic servants, when “And the non-warriors are brave, and the ignorant, and never the custom of the military who saw and girded themselves with a gigantic fortress.” Abraham reports the names and exploits of many folk heroes. Such, for example, is the peasant of the village of Molokovo - Vanity, "Great in age and strong Velmy, we always make fun of incompetence for the sake of fighting." He stops the fleeing warriors, fearlessly flogs with a reed in his hand "on both countries of enemies" and holds Lisovsky's regiment, saying: “Behold, I will die this day, or I will receive glory from everyone.” "Soon, galloping, like a lynx, The vanity of many then armed and armored." Servant Piman Teneev "shoot" "from the bow in the face" of the "fierce" Alexander Lisovsky, who "fell off your horse." Servant Mikhailo Pavlov caught and killed the voivode Yuri Gorsky.

Abraham repeatedly emphasizes that the monastery was saved from adversaries "young people" a "multiplication in the city"(monastery.- V. K.) "lawlessness and unrighteousness" associated with people of "warlike rank". The "Tale" sharply condemns the treachery of the monastery treasurer Joseph Devochkin and his patron "cunning" governor Alexei Golokhvastov, as well as treason "sons of the boyars".

Abraham has no sympathy for "slaves" and serfs who "because the Lord wants to be, and unwavering to freedom jumps." He sharply condemns the rebellious peasants and "in charge of the villain" serfs Petrushka and Ivan Bolotnikov. However, a zealous defender of the inviolability of the foundations of the feudal system, Abraham is forced to recognize the decisive role of the people in the fight against the interventionists: “All Russia is conducive to the reigning city, because the misfortune is common to everyone.”

One of the features of the "Tale" is the depiction of the life of the besieged monastery: terrible crowding, when people plunder “every tree and stone for the creation of a booth”, “and women give birth to children before all people”; due to crowding, lack of fuel, for the sake of "washing out the port" people are forced to periodically leave the fortress; description of the outbreak of scurvy, etc. “It is not proper, therefore, to lie against the truth, but with great fear it is proper to observe the truth,” Abraham writes. And this observance of the truth is a characteristic feature of the central part of the Tale. And although Abraham's concept of truth also includes a description of religious-fiction pictures, they cannot obscure the main thing - folk heroism.

Outlining "all in a row" Avraamy tries to "document" his material: he accurately indicates the dates of events, the names of their participants, enters "letters" and "replies" i.e. purely business documents.

In general, "The Tale" is an epic work, but it uses dramatic and lyrical elements. In a number of cases, Abraham resorts to the manner of a rhythmic tale, including rhymed speech in the narration. For example:

And we multiply our hands from warfare;

always about firewood fights are evil byvahu.

Outgoing for the abode of firewood for the sake of getting it,

and I return to the city without the demon of bloodshed.

And having bought with blood rash and sickness,

and the more building everyday food;

to a martyr's feat greener excitingly,

and sympathize with each other.

Much attention in the "Tale" is given to the depiction of the deeds and thoughts of both the defenders of the monastery fortress, and enemies and traitors.

Based on the traditions of the "Kazan Chronicler", "The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople", Avraamy Palitsyn creates an original historical work in which a significant step is taken towards recognizing the people as an active participant in historical events. "Chronicle book", attributed to Katyrev-Rostovsky. The events of the first Peasant War and the struggle of the Russian people against the Polish-Swedish intervention are dedicated to the Chronicle Book, attributed by most researchers to Katyrev-Rostovsky. It was created in 1626 and reflected the official government point of view on the recent past. The purpose of the Chronicle Book is to strengthen the authority of the new ruling dynasty of the Romanovs. The Chronicle Book is a coherent pragmatic narrative from the last years of Grozny's reign to the election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne. The author strives to give an epicly calm "objective" narrative. The "Chronicle Book" is devoid of the journalistic sharpness that was characteristic of the works that appeared in the midst of events. It almost lacks religious didactics; the narrative is purely secular. Unlike the "Tale" by Avraamy Palitsyn, the "Chronicle Book" brings to the fore the personalities of the rulers, "chiefs of the army" Patriarch Hermogenes and seeks to give them deeper psychological characteristics, to note not only positive, but also negative traits of the characters of a number of historical figures. The author relied on the Chronograph edition of 1617, where in the narrative of the events of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. attention was drawn to the internal contradictions of the human character, for "no one from the earthly" can't stay "blameless in his life", because "The human mind is sinful, and a good disposition is corrupted by evil ones."

The chronicle book contains a special section “Writing in brief about the kings of Moscow, images of their age and morals”, where verbal portraits of historical figures are given, a description of their contradictory moral qualities.

An interesting verbal portrait of Ivan IV, which coincides with his famous image - a parsuna, stored in the Copenhagen National Museum: “Tsar Ivan in an absurd way, having gray eyes, a long nose and a curse; he is big with age, having a dry body, having high splashes, wide breasts, thick muscles.

The verbal portrait is followed by a description of the contradictions in Grozny's character and his actions related to them: “... a man of wonderful reasoning, in the science of book teaching, is pleased and eloquently talkative, insolent to the militia and stands up for his fatherland. On his servants, from God given to him, he is hard-hearted, and on the shedding of blood and on killing he is impudent and implacable; Destroy many people from small to large in your kingdom, and capture many cities of your own, and imprison many hierarchical ranks and destroy them with a merciless death, and many other deeds over your servants, wives and maidens desecrate fornication. The same tsar Ivan did many good things, loving the army and demanding them from his treasure generously.

The "Chronicle Book" departs from the tradition of a one-sided depiction of a person. She even notes the positive aspects of character "Rostrigi" - False Dmitry I: he is witty, "Satisfied in book learning" bold and brave and only "simple denunciation", absence "royal property", "obscurity" body testifies to his imposture.

A characteristic feature of the "Chronicle Book" is the desire of its author to introduce landscape sketches into the historical narrative, which serve as a contrasting or harmonizing background for ongoing events. Emotionally colored landscape dedicated to glorification "red year" awakening life, contrasts sharply with the brutal abuse of the troops "predatory wolf" False Dmitry and the army of Moscow. If we compare this landscape with Cyril of Turov's "Word for Anti-Easter", we will immediately see those significant changes in the method of depicting reality that took place in the literature of the first quarter of the 17th century. At first glance, S. Shakhovsky uses the same images as Cyril: “winter”, “sun”, “spring”, “wind”, “ratai”, but the writers have different attitudes towards these images. For Cyril, these are only symbols of sin, Christ, the Christian faith, "word rattling". The author of the Book of Chronicles does not give a symbolic interpretation of these images, but uses them in a direct, "earthly" sense. For him, they are only a means of artistic evaluation of current events.

This assessment is also given in the direct author's lyrical digressions, which are devoid of Christian didacticism, they do not refer to the authority of "scripture". All this gives the style of the Chronicle Book an "original, beautiful epic warehouse" that contributes to its popularity. Moreover, wanting to beautifully complete the story, the author puts “verses” (30 rhymed lines) at the end of the work:

The beginning of the verse

rebellious thing,

Let's read them wisely.

And then we understand the compiler of this book ...

With these pre-syllabic verses, the author seeks to declare his individuality as a writer: he "I myself saw this significantly," and others “things” “heard from the graceful without application”, “he found a lot of things, he wrote a fraction of this”. About himself, he reports that he belongs to the Rostov family and is the son "Foreshadowed Prince Michael".

The works of the period of the struggle of the Russian people against the Polish-Swedish intervention and the Peasant War under the leadership of Bolotnikov, continuing to develop the traditions of historical narrative literature of the 16th century, reflected the growth of national self-consciousness. This was manifested in a change in the view of the historical process: the course of history is determined not by God's will, but by the activities of people. Tales from the beginning of the 17th century. they can no longer stop talking about the people, about their participation in the struggle for the national independence of their homeland, about the responsibility of "the whole earth" for what has happened.

This, in turn, determined the increased interest in the human person. For the first time there is a desire to portray the internal contradictions of character and to reveal the reasons by which these contradictions are generated. Rectilinear characteristics of a person in literature of the 16th century. are beginning to be replaced by a deeper depiction of the contradictory properties of the human soul. At the same time, as D.S. Likhachev points out, the characters of historical figures in the works of the early 17th century. shown against the backdrop of folk talk about them. Human activity is given in a historical perspective and for the first time begins to be evaluated in its "social function".

Events 1604-1613 caused a number of significant changes in the public consciousness. The attitude towards the king has changed as to God's chosen one, who received his power from the forefathers, from Augustus Caesar. The practice of life convinced that the tsar was elected by the "zemstvo" and was morally responsible to his country, to his subjects for their fate. Therefore, the actions of the king, his behavior are not subject to the Divine, but to the human court, the court of society.

The events of 1604-1613 dealt a crushing blow to religious ideology, the undivided dominance of the church in all spheres of life: not God, but man creates his own destiny, not God's will, but the activity of people determines the historical fate of the country.

The role of the trade and craft townspeople in public, political and cultural life has increased. This was facilitated by education in the middle of the 17th century. "single all-Russian market", as a result of which the political unification was secured by the economic unification of all Russian lands. A new democratic writer and reader is emerging.

The strengthening of the role of the settlement in cultural life entails the democratization of literature, its gradual liberation from providentialism, symbolism and etiquette - the leading principles of the artistic method of Russian medieval literature. The integrity of this method is already beginning to collapse in the literature of the 16th century, and in the 17th century. conditionally symbolic representation of reality is displaced "aliveness". The beginning of this process is associated with the widespread penetration into the book rhetorical style of Business stationery, on the one hand, and oral folk art, on the other.

All this testifies to the intensification of the process of "secularization" of culture and literature, i.e., its gradual liberation from the tutelage of the church, religious ideology.

The traditions of historical narrative literature of the 16th century continue to develop in the works of the period of the struggle of the Russian people against the Polish-Swedish intervention and the peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov. In addition, the literature of this period reflected the growth of national consciousness. This was manifested in a change in the view of the historical process: the course of history is determined not by God's will, but by the activities of people. The stories of the beginning of the 17th century are already talking about the people, about their participation in the struggle for the national independence of their homeland, about the responsibility of "the whole earth" for what has happened. An increased interest in the human personality is determined, there is a desire to portray the internal contradictions of character and to reveal the reasons by which these contradictions are generated. Characters of historical figures in the works of the early 17th century. shown against the backdrop of folk talk about them. Human activity is given in a historical perspective, and for the first time begins to be evaluated in its "social function" (D.S. Likhachev). The events of 1604 - 1613 a crushing blow was dealt to religious ideology, the undivided dominance of the church in all spheres of life: not God, but man creates his own destiny, not God's will, but the activity of people determines the historical fate of the country. The role of the trade and craft townspeople is growing, and this entails the further democratization of literature. All this leads to the “secularization” of culture and literature in the 17th century; to its gradual liberation from the guardianship of the church, the gradual displacement of church genres and the emergence of new, purely secular genres of literature.

A direct response to the events of the beginning of the century was "The Tale of the Death of Prince Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky". With his victories over False Dmitry II, Skopin-Shuisky gained fame as a talented commander. His sudden death (April 1610) gave rise to various rumors that, allegedly out of envy, he was poisoned by the boyars. The story begins with a rhetorical book introduction, in which genealogical calculations are made, tracing the Skopin-Shuisky family to Alexander Nevsky and Augustus Caesar. The central episode is a description of the christening feast at Prince Vorotynsky. Including a number of everyday details, the author tells in detail about how the hero was poisoned by the wife of his uncle Dmitry Shuisky, the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov. Here there are characteristic elements of epic folk poetics. The second part, dedicated to the description of the death of the hero and the nationwide grief over his death, is made in the traditional book style. The story has a pronounced anti-boyar orientation, glorifies Skopin-Shuisky as a national hero, defender of his homeland from adversary enemies.

An outstanding historical work that vividly reflected the events of the era is "Tale" cellar of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Avraamy Palitsyn, written in 1609-1620. The "Tale" tells about the events of the "Time of Troubles" from 1584 to 1618. "The Tale" consists of a number of independent works:

• 1. A small historical essay, surveying the events from the death of Grozny to the accession of Shuisky, where Palitsyn sees the causes of "distemper" in the illegal abduction of the royal throne by Godunov and in his politics.
• 2. A detailed description of the 16-month siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by the troops of Sapieha and Lisovsky. This central part was created by Abraham by processing the notes of the participants in the defense of the monastery fortress.
• 3. Narration about the ruin of Moscow by the Poles, its liberation, the election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne and the conclusion of peace with Poland.

Abraham tries to emphasize the merits in the fight against the enemies of the monastery, he introduces religious-fictional pictures into the narrative: miracles, visions, the purpose of which is to prove that the monastery is under the protection of heavenly powers. The author of the Tale recognizes the decisive role of the people in the fight against enemies. He depicts the exploits of the monastery servants, monastery peasants and emphasizes that the monastery was saved by the people. Much attention is paid to the image of the actions, thoughts of a person. The author made a significant step in recognizing the people as an active participant in historical events.

The genre of the historical story undergoes significant changes in the 17th century, as evidenced by "The Tale of the Azov Siege of the Danish Cossacks". A.I. Robinson believes that the author of the story was the Cossack Yesaul Fedor Poroshin, who arrived with the Cossack embassy in Moscow in 1641 in order to convince the tsar and the government to accept the Azov fortress from the Cossacks "under their own hand", which the Cossacks captured in 1637 from Turks and defended in 1641. Fedor Poroshin, himself a participant in the events, truthfully and in detail describes the feat of the Don Cossacks. The story is written in the form of business writing, but he gave the genre of business writing an unusually bright poetic sound due to the wide and creative use of Cossack folklore, as well as a truthful and accurate description of the events themselves. The hero of the story is not an outstanding historical figure, but a small team, a handful of brave and courageous daredevils-Cossacks who accomplished a heroic feat. A high sense of national self-consciousness, a sense of patriotism inspired them to a feat. Cossacks love their homeland and cannot change it. Therefore, with poisonous irony, they answer the Turkish ambassadors to the proposal to surrender the fortress to them without a fight and go to the Sultan. Their answer to the Turks to a certain extent anticipates the famous letter of the Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan. The author hyperbolically describes the arrival of enemy forces near Azov. The farewell of the Cossacks is poetically described. Glorifying the Cossacks, the author cannot but pay tribute to the tradition: the victory achieved by the Cossacks is explained by the miraculous intercession of the heavenly powers led by John the Baptist. But religious fiction serves only as a means of exalting the patriotic deed of the defenders of Azov.

There is no book rhetoric in the language of the story and elements of a living colloquial language are widely represented. One can feel the desire to create an image of the masses, to convey the feelings, thoughts and moods of this mass, as well as to affirm the forces of the people, triumphant over the forces of the “king of Tours”.

In the second half of the 17th century, the historical story begins to lose its historicism, acquiring the character of a love-adventure short story, which in turn serves as the basis for the further development of an adventurous-adventure love story. The attention of the authors is transferred to the personality of a person, to his life, character. The writer and the reader are more and more interested in moral, ethical and domestic issues. For example, "The Tale of the Beginning of Moscow."

ANOTHER LEGEND

The first story is followed by the second.
legend, and where in the first story is the word
abbreviated, added here, and where in the first
history is written in full, here it is abbreviated.
This story was written by another author

By the will of God, and more so by his philanthropy, in the summer of 7092, the faithful and Christ-loving and brightly shining in piety, the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, autocrat of all Russia, passed away on the 18th day of March. And after him his royal root remained two brightest branches, his sons - Tsarevich Fedor Ivanovich of All Russia and his younger brother Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich of All Russia, children from different mothers. The pious and Christ-loving Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, a sufferer, named after the great martyr Dmitry of Thessalonica, was born from the mother of Tsarina Maria Feodorovna Nagoya. And his elder brother, Tsarevich Fedor Ivanovich of All Russia, was born from the mother of the faithful and God-wise Empress Anastasia Romanovna Yuryeva.

In the summer of 7091, after the birth of the blessed Tsarevich Dmitry, the pious and Christ-loving Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilievich of All Russia, the father of noble princes, fell ill with a bodily illness. And when the tsar was already completely exhausted, he ordered his noble children, the faithful princes Fedor and Dmitry, his faithful friend, ruler and good-natured, well-behaved boyar, Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, and Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky, and Nikita Romanovich Yuryev, to them, our sovereigns , brought up and guarded their royal health with every care. And soon the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Russia, Ivan Vasilyevich, gave up his soul into the hands of God, and, leaving the earthly kingdom, departed into the eternal bliss of the heavenly kingdom. And by the grace of God, in the trinity of the glorified God, after the father of his blessed memory, the tsar and the Grand Duke of All Russia Ivan Vasilyevich, by his blessing and command, Tsarevich Fedor reigned and sat on the highest throne of the God-preserved Russian kingdom in the Muscovite state in the same 92 - m year, the month of May on the 1st day, in memory of the holy prophet Jeremiah, and became king of the entire Russian state. And his younger brother, the pious Tsarevich Dmitry, after the death of his father, remained in infancy, two years or less. He did not stay long in the power of his fatherland in the reigning city, and then with his mother he was sent to the region of the Russian state in the city of Uglich, where he received many sorrows and persecution from a certain man named Boris Godunov.

After a short time, the malicious devil entered the heart of one of the nobles, Boris Godunov, mentioned above. This Boris was the brother-in-law of the Tsar and the Grand Duke of All Russia Fyodor Ivanovich. And Boris became like the Old Testament serpent that once seduced Eve and our great-grandfather Adam in paradise and deprived them of the enjoyment of heavenly food. In the same way, this Boris began to seduce many boyars and nobles from the royal chamber, subjugated many bosses and wealthy merchants, attracted some with gifts, and others with threats, like a hissing snake. And he saw himself among the tsarist synclite, revered above all, and began to hatch a diabolical plan, and rose up against his master, Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky and his only-begotten brothers. At all times, the deceitful hate the righteous, and the diabolical custom is this: as soon as passion seizes him, he becomes more ferocious than a fierce beast. Such a one, even if he does good, is still called evil, because a bitter fruit, even anointed with honey, does not become sweet. But, with God's help, he did not manage to do them any harm, and brought disgrace and curses upon himself.

And it became known to the national assembly 1 Moscow people that Boris is plotting evil against them, and they wanted to stone him with all their relatives without mercy. And Boris, seeing himself cursed and persecuted by all people, resorted to cunning and again began to seduce the great boyar Prince Ivan Petrovich and his relatives, Prince Vasily Ivanovich with his half-brothers, urging them to live with him in harmony and promised that no one else would be evil councils not to advise and not to plot, and together to protect the life and health of the royal majesty. And the God-loving Prince Ivan Petrovich and his relatives, Prince Vasily Ivanovich and his brothers, like their forefathers, fearing God and keeping in their hearts great faith in God and in people the unfeigned truth, believed that the crafty Boris was telling the truth. After all, every mild-mannered person believes every word, and the cunning one, on the contrary, begins to think. These were gentle and believed him and took an oath among themselves to have love and kindness, as before.

But Boris, even after this oath, did not extinguish his evil fire and wanted to gain glory beyond his measure, again began to plot in his malicious plans, in what way they could do dirty tricks, but even with that cunning he could not cause any harm to the noble boyar Prince Ivan Petrovich and his relatives: they were kept by the wing of the Lord. And again Boris began to open his cunning lips and, like a snake, exuding his deadly poison, said that this noble boyar, Prince Ivan Petrovich, preached to the people that he and his relatives had no anger and no suspicion of Boris, then, so that Boris would not be put to death by the Moscow people. And they thought that Boris was telling them the real truth without cunning, and they announced their decision to everyone. And having heard that, the people of Moscow ceased to be angry with Boris.

After some time, Prince Ivan Petrovich wished to inspect the royal grants and the estates of his forefathers, went to his estate 2 , which is in the vicinity of the city of Suzdal. And that crafty Boris, forgetting his promise and departing from the faith, seeing that the time had come for the destruction of the prince, sent his accomplices after Prince Ivan Petrovich and ordered him to be seized, as if by order of the sovereign, from the chamber of his royal majesty, sent him to prison on Beloozero and there he killed him with a violent death. And then his relatives, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky and his half-brothers, he sent to prison in different cities, and sent their brother Prince Andrei Ivanovich to Bui-gorod and there ordered him to be put to death by a violent death. He also ordered many rich merchants to be executed in the middle of the city, and gave their houses to be plundered, and sent others to prison in different cities, and orphaned many wives and killed children. He did not fill his insatiable womb with a note of blood and tears, and again fell upon his masters, princes and boyars, and betrayed many of the nobles to various deaths, only God knows their number, and could not satisfy his womb, thirsting for glory, with any blood.

Oh, fierce hour! How not to shed tears about that? And how can my hand write about it? A traitor will rise, just like Judas Iscariot against his teacher Jesus Christ, the son of God, so that Boris is going to kill his sovereign, Prince Dmitry, which the accursed sanctuary did. And that crafty servant began to think about how he could tear out the God-chosen royal root, in every possible way seeking the death of this namesake pious prince, not wanting to leave an heir to their paternal throne, wanting to receive the kingdom himself. Forgetting God, who saves his chosen ones, he inflicted insults and oppressed this pious prince, sending him deadly poison more than once, hoping to kill him. The prince accepted all this with joy, knowing that the enemy's power is powerless against the power of God, and in everything he followed the humility of his master Christ, as he had to suffer from everyone, without any doubt, not forgetting what was said: “Trust in the Lord, for he - refuge from sorrow,” and endured all persecution with joy. And that crafty slave, seeing all this, could not do anything, could not cause any harm to the pious prince, and sent his advisers and servants to the city of Uglich - the clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky and his nephew Nikita Kachalov. And he ordered them to cut off that royal young and beautifully blossoming branch, the faithful Tsarevich Dmitry, to squeeze it like an unripe ear, to put to death a gentle baby, to slaughter it like a lamb ...

And they, sent by the envious Boris Godunov, came to Uglich, harboring evil intent and plotting another crime against the saint, daring to put their pious master to innocent death, and he was eight years old at that time. But they did not leave their malice, secretly acting and achieving what they were commanded, until they reached the goal, as the ancient Jews were about to kill the lord of Christ our God. And the envious slave named above, who raised his hand against his master, wanted to secretly kill this pious prince, but did not know what the scripture says: “Woe to the lawless, for evil will be rewarded for the deeds of their hands.” And the merciless youths, who were named above, began to wait for a convenient hour to put to death the holy and pious prince. And one day, as children usually do, the holy lad went out to play, and those wicked youths, like merciless wolves, attacked the saint. 3 , and one of them drew a knife, mercilessly struck the saint on the neck and cut his larynx. The lawless put him to death like a gentle lamb, and then the wicked murderers took vengeance for the blood of the righteous: they were beaten by the people of that city. The holy soul of the pious and victorious martyr Tsarevich Dmitry, flying to the heavenly villages and to the throne of the three-solar deity, saw and enjoyed the unspeakable and divine and unthinkable (...). And his honest and suffering body remained on the ground, stained with blood, shining like the sun. And it was laid in the same city of Uglich in the church of the divine Transfiguration of the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ (...).

And again, that Boris began to desire in his heart with an unceasing desire and, as if with unquenchable fire, burn, vigilantly all day and night thinking about the power of the Muscovite state and all of great Russia, how and how to seize the royal throne and fulfill his desire without shame. And before that, he began to extort from the Magi and the Star Speakers, gathering them from many countries and peoples and bringing them to the Muscovite state in the royal name and asking if it was possible for him to achieve the royal throne and be king. And they, seeing his great desire, and introducing him into greater anticipation and joy, telling him that he was born under a royal star and would be the king of great Russia. And, speaking thus, they received honor and a great salary from him for a short time, then he treacherously and secretly put them to death (...).

And the year of the departure from this world to the heavenly dwellings of the holy and righteous Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich, Autocrat of All Russia, the seventh thousand 106 4 month of January on the 6th day, and his death was from an unjust murder committed by the same Boris. Oh, how can I keep silent about this? If we remain silent, the stones will cry out. And this tree, bearing a noble fruit and planted by the hand of the all-generous, eternal God, was cut down and uprooted by the same Boris, even until his death. And as before, having a crafty and crafty disposition, he seduced boyars and royal advisers and nobles, and rulers, and merchants, and all sorts of people, some with gifts, others with love, and others with an evil ban, and none of the boyars or ordinary people dared to contradict him . And so that Boris, after the departure to God of the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of All Russia, began to send his evil advisers and servants to the reigning city of Moscow and in all hundreds and in settlements and in all cities of the Russian region to all people, so that the whole world would ask for state of Boris. The boyars, and rulers and nobles, and the entire tsarist synod, and merchants, and the nationwide multitude of the Muscovite state, were afraid of Borisov’s evil persecution and execution and internecine strife, and his supporters and advisers tried and, according to God’s decree, no one dared against Boris and words to say. And the people taught by the evil advisers and servants of Boris, although they did not want him to reign, were afraid of his evil persecution and begged him before the boyars and rulers and nobles and before the tsarist synclite to accept the scepter of great Russia. And therefore, those who were worthy of this honor did not dare to seek it, thinking that the people turned to Boris out of true heartfelt love, and not involuntarily.

But he, a malicious, crafty rogue, had been wanting and achieving this for many years, and then, as if not though and not soon succumbing to persuasion and refusing more than once, offered to elect more worthy ones. And he himself went to the great Lavra of the Mother of God, built in memory of the miracle of the Smolensk Icon of the Maiden Monastery, and there he served his sister Tsarina Irina, already nun Alexandra, and many people every day asked him to accept the kingdom. He was ashamed and afraid of his sister, nun Alexandra, because she did not allow him to do this, for she knew how long he had desired this and how much innocent blood of great boyars, ruling in the Russian state and serving their sovereign truly and rightly, shed for this, he also killed merchants and people of all sorts of ranks. His advisers and supporters forced people to pray and beat the brow of the nun the great empress Alexandra and ask her brother Boris for the kingdom, and so they prayed to Alexandra with a multitude of people every day with great wailing and crying.

And the great boyars, descended from a scepter-powerful root, relatives of the great sovereign tsar and the great prince Fedor Ivanovich of all Russia and themselves worthy to accept the scepter, did not want to elect a tsar among themselves, but left the decision to the will of the people, for they were already great under the tsars, and honest, and glorious, not only in great Russia, but also in other countries. And even those who did not want Boris did not dare to speak against him because of his evil and crafty disposition. As in Tsargrad, by the will of God, Foka the Tormentor 5 killed the meek king of Mauritius and seized the Greek kingdom, so now Boris in Moscow is seizing the kingdom by deceit and untruth. collected same many people, to an honest laurel, were forced by Boris's supporters to pray to the great empress nun Alexandra to beat her forehead and ask her brother Boris for the state, they even more strongly prayed with a great cry to nun Alexandra so that she would bless her brother Boris for the Moscow state. And so the people pestered her for many days. The boyars and nobles stood in front of her in the cell, and others on the porch outside the cell at the window, and many people stood in the square. Many were brought involuntarily, and order was laid - if someone does not come to ask Boris for the state, they will demand two rubles a day from him. Many bailiffs were assigned to them, forcing them to scream and shed tears with a great cry. But how can there be tears if there is no tenderness and zeal and love for him in the heart? And instead of tears, they moistened their eyes with saliva ... And with such cunning they turned it to mercy, that, seeing the zeal of the whole people for him and not being able to hear and see many cries and complaints among the people, he gives them free rein, but put Boris on the Muscovite state.

And people again began to beat with their foreheads and beg Boris Fyodorovich Godunov to take into his hand the scepter of great Russia (...). And the patriarch, seeing the people's zeal and zeal for Boris, most of all wanted Boris for the state, and Boris's supporters and well-wishers forced Patriarch Job to this. And the patriarch with all the consecrated cathedral takes the icon of the Most Pure Theotokos, painted by the Evangelist Luke 6 , and other holy icons and relics and carry them on foot to where the people prayed to Boris. He seemed to be ashamed of the coming of the image of the Mother of God, and accepts the scepter of the Russian state, and was crowned with a royal crown in the year 107, on September 3, and reigned for seven years. And during the reign of his great Russia, he began to strengthen and assert himself, so that he would stay for many days and years, holding the scepter of great Russia, and after him, his family would hold the scepter, and then sending many boyars and nobles to distant and different cities and various evil deaths killing them and eradicating the royal family.

Oh, beloved brothers! Don't be surprised at the beginning, but look at the end. Seeing this all-seeing, unsleeping eye, Christ, as by unrighteousness, seized the scepter of the Russian region, and wanted to take revenge on him by the shedding of the innocent blood of his new passion-bearers, who shone in the miracles of Tsarevich Dmitry and the Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of All Russia and others innocently killed by him, and his fury and to denounce unjust murders and set an example for other of his supporters so that they would not follow his crafty cruelty.

And let the enemy fall on him, the remaining brand from the burnt Sodom and Gomorrah 7 or an unburied dead man, a black man (according to the words of John of the Ladder: “Every black man will die before death, his cell will be his coffin”) - a lawbreaker I will cut off Grishka Otrepyev, also from the Russian region, from the city of Galich, from unborn people Yushka Yakovlev son of Otrepyev, as well as that sanctuary Boris Godunov himself. And that Yushka remained after his father very small with his mother and was taught by her divine scripture. Having learned one Hourbook and the Psalms of David 8 , he left his mother and began to soar in the reigning city of Moscow. And after some time he happened to talk with the abbot of the Assumption Monastery Tryphon, Vyatka region, the city of Khlynov, and that abbot Tryphon persuaded him to become a monk. And on the advice of that hegumen, he took the monastic vows, and he was given the name Gregory, and he was then 14 years old. And he went to the city of Suzdal and began to live in the monastery of the all-merciful Savior in the Euthymiev Monastery, and from that monastery he moved in the same district to the monastery to the Savior, called on Kuksa. And I don't want to talk too much about it. He lived, traveling, in many monasteries, and again returned to the reigning city of Moscow and began to live in the Chudov Monastery. And by the will of the rector of that honorable Lavra, Archimandrite Pafnutiy, he was ordained a deacon by the ordination of His Holiness Job, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

And wanting to seek and comprehend with zeal the wisdom of ungodly books, he fell into a fierce heresy. And when he lived in the reigning city of Moscow, he was known to many of the worldly people, also to rulers and many monks. And from Chudov he moved to the monastery of Nikola on Ugresh and began to ascend in his madness and fell into a fierce heresy, like the mad Arius fell from the height and with his wisdom descended to the bottom of hell. And a little later he left the Nikolsky Monastery on Ugresh and settled in Kostroma in a cenobitic monastery 9 John the Baptist on the Iron Bork. And from there they again came to Moscow and then, leaving the Orthodox Christian faith, fled to Lithuania, and he deceived two monks to go with him - the monk Misail Povadin and the monk Varlaam. And the flight of him and the elders was as follows:

The message of the elder Varlaam, filed after
assassination Unstring Tsar Vasily
Ivanovich of All Russia

The Tsar Sovereign and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia is beaten with his brow and the beggar pilgrim Varlaam informs your sovereigns. In the past, sir, in the 110th year of Great Lent, in the second week on Monday, I go, sir, I am the Barbarian sacrum 10 , and a young monk came up to me from behind, and he, having prayed and bowed to me, began to ask me: “Elder, from which honest monastery are you?” And I told him that I took the vows in old age, and the vows of the Nativity of the Most Pure Pafnotiev Monastery. “And what rank do you have, are you a wing-slayer, and what is your name?” And I told him my name - Varlaam. And I began to ask him: “What honest monastery are you from and what rank do you have and what is your name?” And he told me: “I lived in the Miracle Monastery, and I have the rank of deacon, and my name is Grigory, and my nickname is Otrepyev.” And I told him: “What do you mean Zamyatnya and Smirnaya Otrepyev?” And he told me that Zamyatnya was his grandfather, and Smirnoy was his uncle. And I said to him: “What do you care about me?” And he said: “I lived in the Chudov Monastery with Archimandrite Paphnotius in a cell and commended the Moscow wonderworkers Peter, Alexei and Jonah 11 . Yes, I lived with Patriarch Job, and the patriarch, seeing my abilities, began to take me to the royal thought with him, and I entered into great glory, but I don’t want to not only see the glory and wealth of the earth, but also hear, and I want to come from Moscow move to a distant monastery. And there is a monastery in Chernigov, and we will go to that monastery.” And I told him: “You lived in Chudovo with the patriarch, but you won’t get used to Chernigov, because, I heard, the Chernigov monastery is not a great place.” And he told me: “I want to go to Kyiv to the Pechersky Monastery, and in the Pechersky Monastery many elders saved their souls.” And I told him that the Paterik of the Caves 12 was reading. Yes, he told me: "Let's live in the Caves Monastery, let's go to the holy city of Jerusalem, to the Church of the Resurrection of the Lord and to the Holy Sepulcher." And I told him that the Pechersk Monastery is abroad in Lithuania, and you can’t go abroad. And he said to me: “The sovereign of Moscow with the king took the world for twenty-two years, and now it has become simple, and there are no outposts.” And I told him: "To save the soul and to see the Caves Monastery and the holy city of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher, let's go."

And in that, sovereign, we swore by the Christian faith that we should go, postponed until another day and appointed a time to converge in the Icon Row. And the next day they agreed in the Icon Row, and the black Mikhailo was also persuaded to go with him, and in the world they called him Mikhail Povadin, I knew him from Prince Ivan Ivanovich Shuisky. And we went across the Moskva River and hired carts to Volkhov, and from Volkhov to Karachev, and from Karachev to Novgorod Seversky. And in Novgorod, he agreed, and we were accepted into the Transfiguration Monastery, and the builder 13 Zakhary Likharev put us on the kliros 14 , and that deacon Grishka at the Annunciation with the priests served mass and went for the icon of the Most Pure. And on the third week after Easter, on Monday, we got ourselves an escort Ivashka Semyonov, a retired old man, and went to Starodub and the Starodub district, and the escort Ivashko led us abroad to the Lithuanian land, and the first Lithuanian city that we passed was Loev Castle, and the other - Lyubets, and the third - Kyiv. And in Kyiv, in the Pechersk Monastery, Archimandrite Elisey received us, and we lived in Kyiv for only three weeks, and Grishka wanted to go to the Kyiv governor, Prince Vasily Ostrozhsky, and asked for leave from the brethren and from Archimandrite Elisey Pletenetsky.

And I spoke to Archimandrite Elisha and the brethren about him and beat with my forehead that he was going to live in Kyiv in the Caves Monastery for the sake of spiritual salvation, and then go to the holy city of Jerusalem to the Lord's Sepulcher, and now he is going into the world to Prince Vasily Ostrozhsky and wants a monastic dress dump, and he will steal, and God and the Most Pure Mother of God lied. And Archimandrite Elisey and the brethren told me: “Here, the land in Lithuania is free: whoever wants in what faith, remains in that one.” And I beat the archimandrite and the brethren with my forehead so that they would let me live in my Pechersk monastery, but the archimandrite and the brethren would not let me: “Four of you have come, four of you and leave.” And they came to Ostrog, to Prince Vasily Ostrozhsky, this Prince Vasily abides in the true Christian faith. And we spent the summer with him, and in the fall, Prince Vasily sent me and Misail Povadin to his pilgrimage, to the Derman Monastery of the Life-Giving Trinity. And Grishka moved to the city of Goshchei to Pan Gosky, and in Goshchei he threw off his monastic dress and became a layman, and began to study in Goshchei in school in Latin and Polish, and Luthor literacy, and became an apostate and violator of the laws of the existing Orthodox Christian faith. And I, sovereign, went from the monastery to Ostrog to Prince Vasily and beat Prince Vasily with my brow, so that Prince Vasily ordered him to be returned from Goshcheya and made a clergyman and a deacon in the old way, and would order him to be sent to us in the Derman Monastery. And Prince Vasily and all his courtyard people told me: “Here such is the land - as whoever wants, he abides in that faith.” Yes, the prince told me: “My son, Prince Yanysh, was born in the Christian faith, but he holds the Lyash faith, and I can’t appease him. And now de Pan Krakowska in Goshchei”. And Grishka spent the winter in Goshcheya, and after Easter he disappeared from Goshcheya and found himself in the city of Brachin with Prince Adam Vishnevetsky and named himself Prince Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Uglitsky to Prince Adam.

And that Prince Adam, a hawker and a madman, believed Grishka and began to carry him in chariots and horses, accompanied by people. From Brashno, Prince Adam went to Vishnevets and took that Grishka with him and took him to the noble pans and called him Tsarevich Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Uglitsky. And in Vishnevets, Grishka Otrepyev spent the summer and wintered with him. And after Easter, Prince Adam sent Grishka to Krakow to King Sigismund, and Prince Adam told the king about him, as if he were Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich Uglitsky. And the king called him to his hand, and he began to seduce him, calling himself Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of the right-believing sovereign of the tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all great Russia, autocrat.

And Grishka himself began to cry and say to the king: “Have you heard about the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, the autocrat, how great and formidable he was, in many states he was glorious? And I am the son of his native Prince Dmitry Ivanovich. And how, by God’s judgment, our father died in the Russian state, but our brother Fyodor Ivanovich of all Russia remained king in the Moscow state, and our traitors exiled me to Uglich and sent many thieves more than once and ordered them to damage me and kill me. And by God's will and his strong right hand, which sheltered us from their villainous intentions, who want to betray us to an evil death, and the merciful God did not want to fulfill their evil intention, and covered me with invisible power and preserved me for many years, up to our present age. And now, having matured, with God's help I am thinking of going to the throne of my forefathers, to the Muscovite state. And saying this, sheds many tears. “And even that was for you, gracious king, you can understand: as soon as your serf kills you, or your brother, or your son, what will it be like for you at that time? Understand from this how it is for me now.” And many other things he said and told.

Yes, the same was said to the king and called Grishka Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich Uglitsky by the five Khripunov brothers, and Petrushka, the man of Istoma Mikhnev, and Ivashka Shvar, and Ivashka, who brought us abroad, and the people of Kiev, the townspeople. And that Grishka with Prince Adam Vishnevetsky asked the king to go to Sambir.

And I told the king about that Grishka that he was not Tsarevich Dmitry, he was a black man, his name was Grishka, but his nickname was Otrepiev, but he walked with me from Moscow together. Both the king and the gentlemen did not believe me and sent me to him, to Grishka, in Sambir, to the governor of Sandomierz, to Pan Yuri Mnishek, and they wrote a letter about me to them. And how they brought me to Sambir, and when Grishka was stripped, he took off my monastic dress and ordered me to be beaten and tortured. Yes, the defrocked Grishka began to talk and talk about us, about me and about the son of the boyar Yakov Pykhachev, as if we were sent from Tsar Boris in order to kill him. And that Yakov Pykhachev, that defrocked and the governor of Sandomierz, ordered to be executed by death, and he, Yakov, even before the execution called him defrocked Grishka Otrepiev. And after beating and torturing me, he ordered me to be shackled and thrown into prison.

And on the fifteenth day of August, that detachment went to war to Moscow, to the Assumption of the Most Pure Mother of God, and ordered me to be kept in prison in Sambir. And they kept me in Sambir for five months, and Pan Yuri's wife and his daughter Marina rescued me and gave me freedom, and I lived in Kyiv in the Pechersk Monastery. And in the year 113, for our sins, by God's allowance, but by the devil's obsession, and his enemy of God, damned from the whole ecumenical council, the heretic Grishka, was cut off with evil intent, taught from the devil how he, a heretic, came to Moscow, and I was in Kyiv in the Chernigov monastery. And about that, sovereign, ask Pan Yuri Mnishek and his daughter, how he ordered my comrade Yakov Pykhachev to be executed, and how, after chaining me, he left me in Sambir, and how Yuri Mnishek’s wife and daughter let me out - Pan knows everything about it. Yuri Mnishek and his daughter Marina and all his courtyard people.

This story ends here. Let us return to what was left and tell about the collection of Trishkin's army and about his campaign to Moscow.

Lithuanian people and Zaporozhye Cossacks learned about this in Kyiv, that the true Tsarevich Dmitry, the son of the right-believing sovereign of the tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, autocrat of all great Russia, having hidden from his traitors and from their villainous intentions, because they wanted to put him to an evil death, disappeared , lived without being led by anyone to a man's age, and now he has already matured, and is thinking of going to the throne of his forefathers, to the Muscovite state, and the king himself has already been truly tested, and the king promised to support him and help him master the Muscovite state. And everyone, considering him a true prince, joined him. And then Russian Cossacks from the Don came to him in Lithuania and returned with him to the estate to Pan Adam Vishnevetsky.

And after some time the king wanted to see him, and finding him young and eloquent, he recognized him as a true prince and promised to help him. And he, malicious, promised to give the king of the Russian region the city of Smolensk and all other cities of the Seversk country, even up to Mozhaisk, and to be with him in the same faith. And the Lithuanian king for this ordered to convene free people to help him. And he, accursed, sent to the pope in Rome, and there he called himself Tsarevich Dmitry, and ordered the pope to ask for help in order to receive the Russian state, and promised the pope of Rome to accept their Roman faith, calling it the right faith, and to trample the Orthodox Christian faith and destroy the churches of God, and instead of churches put churches. And on these promises, the Pope gave him gold and silver and other valuables, and the Lithuanian king gathered as many troops as he needed.

And in the year 112 of August, on the 15th day, the malevolent one moved to the Russian borders by two roads: from Kyiv across the Dnieper River, while others walked along the Crimean road. And in the year 113, on November 26, having approached Moravsk, he began to send out scriptures and seduce with the enemy’s charm, we wise up and teach by Satan ourselves, in Mur, Chernigov and Kursk and other cities, governors and orders and all kinds of service people, and to all merchants and merchants and black people, calling themselves thus:

“From the Tsar and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of All Russia to each city to the governors by name. By the will of God and his strong right hand, who hid us from our traitor Boris Godunov, who wanted to betray us to an evil death, and the merciful God did not want to fulfill his malicious thought, and I, your born sovereign, God covered with invisible power and kept for many years. And I, the Tsar and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, have now entered adulthood and, with God's help, I am going to the throne of our forefathers to the Muscovite state and to all the states of the Russian kingdom. And you, who belong to us by birth, would remember the Orthodox Christian true faith, the kiss of the cross, on which you kissed the cross to our father, the sovereign of blessed memory to the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia and to us, his children, who wanted good for us in everything and except our royal family to the Muscovite state does not want and does not look for another sovereign. And as by God's judgment our father and brother did not become in the state, and by cunning and violence that Boris became king in the state, and you did not know about us, your born sovereign, and kissed his cross out of ignorance. And now you recognize us, your sovereign sovereign, and from our traitor Boris Godunov pass to us and henceforth already serve us, your born sovereign, without deceit and good desire, as well as our father, sovereign of blessed memory, the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia. And I will begin to favor you according to my royal merciful custom and even more, and keep you in honor, and we want to keep all Orthodox Christianity in silence, in peace and in a prosperous life.

And people in those cities - in Murom, in Chernigov, in Kursk, and in the Komaritskaya volost, and in Putivl, and in Rylsk, and in Starodub, and in Roma (...) no one began to fight with him: wherever he came , everywhere they opened the fortress gates to him and rendered him proper worship and brought gifts that were due to royal majesty. And his other army, which marched along the Crimean road, the cities of Narev, Belgorod and many other cities and villages attached to him. And that Grishka went to the New Seversky city 15 , and in it sat the governors, Prince Nikita Romanovich Trubetskoy and Pyotr Fedorovich Basmanov, and they did not want to surrender to him, but prepared weapons. And he began to approach the city with an army and beat from cannons and squeakers around the city mercilessly, and they smashed the fortress to the very earthen rampart. And the governors and citizens sitting in the fortress, seeing the destruction of the fortress walls, came up with a tricky thing: they began to beat him with their foreheads and ask for mercy for the reason that out of ignorance they defended themselves against him, and now they recognized their born sovereign; stop toiling, breaking down the fortress, we lay before you all our shields and weapons, and now we are ready to open the fortress to you and with due honor we will meet you, like all others. And he, having heard this, was glad and ordered the shooters at the fortress to stop shooting. And the besieged secretly prepared their shields and pointed their cannons and squeaked and raised their sabers and prepared all weapons against them, and themselves, like wolves, lay down under the shields and hid in secret places, and opened the city gates. They, not knowing this, like wild hungry animals for prey, hastening in front of each other in order to be the first to enter the city, and walked closely, pushing each other. And having launched them enough into the fortress, the besieged began to beat on the whole army, as if on a wall, with all kinds of weapons, and as if a bridge under the walls of the city and at the gates were built of people, and the gates were closed, and of those who entered the fortress, some were beaten while others were taken alive and killed up to four thousand of them, while others, seeing this, fled.

And Grishka Rasstriga, seeing their diligence and a similar honor to himself from the townspeople: instead of crosses and images of spears and sabers, instead of censers - guns and squeaks, instead of fragrant incense - gunpowder smoke and stench, instead of sweet fruits, having tasted cannon and squeaky balls, anointed not with honey , but with a deadly poison - and so the filthy one was filled with shame and anger, and again ordered to proceed to the hail. And the townspeople became even more bold and, as if one heart was beating in everyone’s chest, they stood up to fight and fought hard with them. They, standing under the hail, laid down a lot of heads, but achieved nothing.

And Tsar Boris, having heard that Grishka Rasstriga calls himself Tsarevich Dmitry and many cities pass to him without a fight, but stands under the New Seversky city, - and sends a governor from Moscow to rescue the city, Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky, yes, Prince Vasily Ivanovich, yes Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky and with them many governors with many troops. When they approached the city and began to help the besieged, the army met with the army. Just as two clouds filled with water are dark before the rain falls on the earth, so those two armies, converging on the shedding of human blood, covered the earth, wishing to overcome one another. And just as there is thunder in the clouds of heaven, so the roar of squeakers sounded in the earthly clouds, and fire flashed like lightning in the dark darkness, and bullets and arrows whistled through the air, flying out of countless bows, and people fell like sheaves along ravines. And so the two armies came together, and there was a great slaughter, they were cut down, they grabbed each other by the hands, and there was a cry and noise from human voices and such a roar of weapons that the earth trembled, and it was impossible to hear what one was saying to the other. And the battle was terrible, just like on the Don at Grand Duke Dmitry and Mamai, this battle was full of horror and fear.

And Grishka cunningly prepared for battle: many of his people and horses were dressed in bearskins and sheepskins turned inside out, other horses had braids on both sides, and they cut people in crowded places and do a lot of evil. And the horses of the Moscow army recoiled from those horses and did not go to the enemy. And in that confusion they began to kill and overcome even more, and so the Moscow army mixed up, and in this confusion many people were beaten, and they reached the very voivodship banner, and they paved the earth with human bodies, as if with a bridge, and human blood flowed in streams along the earth, and seriously wounded the voivode himself, Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky 16 . And so Grishkin's army overcame him, and Boris's army fled (...).

About the Second Battle of Dobrynich 17

And again the bloodthirsty lion does not sleep, with his animals, as if at a wedding feast, he strives for bloodshed, to lap up Christian blood and eat human flesh, gathers regiments of military people. But even these Moscow governors of Borisov are not afraid of his teeth, but even more boldly oppose him and with brave hearts take up arms to avenge him for the previously shed Christian blood. Like bright falcons on gray ducklings, or like white gyrfalcons clean their beaks to peck, and sharp claws to pierce flesh, and spread their wings, and prepare their shoulders for bird killing, so the Christian champions of the Orthodox faith, put on the armor of the voivode with the Christ-loving with their army against the satanic saint and his army beloved by the demons, they take up arms and shields and call for help from God and the Most Pure Mother of God, the Christian intercessor and helper, and Moscow miracle workers and all the saints.

And they began to converge at Dobrynich near the Komaritskaya parish; a few days after the first battle, both armies lined up, and there was a second battle, more severe than the first. They strove to overcome each other, and a great multitude of people fell from both sides, as trees leaned over or like sheaves rolled along the ravines, and not one wanted to retreat from the other, but each wanted to hit the other, and they killed each other. It was terrible and terrible to see this, there was a great and cruel battle, and much blood was shed. And the Moscow governor, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, could not see the spilled blood, his heart was furious, and smartly and bravely with his regiment of the right hand rushed at the army of the satan saint and, dividing it in two, slashed like grass, overturned the opposing ones, and those who were afraid of death , ran away from him and cleared the way for him. With the regiment of the left hand, Ivan Ivanovich Godunov also showed his courage: bravely and courageously attacks and beats the enemy, as he cuts through the streets, no one can stand up against him. Likewise, other governors and heads could not resist, strongly and unanimously stepped out and crushed all his army, and they, showing their backs, fled. And they persecuted them and cut them down without mercy from behind, and they killed many multitudes of them and took many alive, and few of them escaped. And Prince Ivan Tatev took the most damned to the city of Rylsk, and from there he fled to the city of Putivl. And if Prince Ivan Tatev had not saved him then, he himself would have been killed here. But for our sins, he survived to shed Christian blood again and defeat Tsar Boris.

And the damned Grishka Otrepiev was seized with even more fear and great trembling, and, having lost all hope, began to think about escaping to Lithuania. And Tsar Boris was filled with rage and anger at the inhabitants of the Komaritskaya volost 18 and commanded her to captivate and devastate her with great captivity to the end for having surrendered and serving Rastriga, and to cut all Orthodox Christians, young and old, with a sword, and torment others with various torments, which was done. And who, even having a stone instead of a heart, did not cry and groan about how the Orthodox Christians of the Komaritskaya volost were conquered by Tsar Boris? And the filthy foreign peoples cannot do what Tsar Boris did, pouring out his anger and fury, tortured and killed with many torments without mercy not only husbands, but also wives, and innocent babies sucking milk, and beat all the multitude - from man and to livestock. And their property was plundered, and their houses were ruined and burned by fire, everything turned to ashes, so that his unprecedented evil captivity cannot be described.

And when Grishka Rasstriga wanted to flee to Lithuania, all the townspeople and all the people who submitted to him began to pray to him with tears and ask him: “Oh, great sovereign! You are going to go back to Lithuania, but who are you leaving us to? Or are you betraying us into the hands of your traitor Boris, so that he will capture us as well as the Komarin inhabitants, and torture us with fierce and bitter torments? Better order them to cut off our heads yourself, but don't betray us alive into the hands of Boris. Oh, we are in great trouble! We sailed from one shore, but did not reach the other shore, and now we are standing in the middle of the deep sea. We are completely dying: they retreated from Boris, but they couldn’t hold on to you, we don’t know what to do. We have only one way to salvation: do not let you go, but beat Boris with your forehead and pay for our guilt with your head. And Grishka answered them: “Today I don’t have troops, you see, everything is broken, as soon as he himself escaped, and all my treasury was depleted. I don’t think at all about running away and leaving my homeland, but I want to go to Lithuania for the treasury and the army in order to fight with greater force for the Orthodox states of my homeland. And they said to him: “Take, sovereign, everything that we have, and after that we will all go with you, so that we all perish or receive life and honor from you.” And they brought him all the silver, who had how much: some a thousand rubles, and some a hundred, some more, and some less. And Grishka, with the help of that silver, barely managed to resist; appeared of his own free will, and now he was forced to stay, because his new subjects did not want to part with him alive. And again Grishka settled in Putivl and began to gather an army from where he could. And Tsar Boris rejoiced a lot about this.

And in the city of Kromy, the Cossack ataman Grishka Korela settled down in the same heretical army 19 with the Cossacks and with the Kromlyans. And Tsar Boris sends his governor, the boyar Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetev, to Kromy with a large army. And they, approaching the city, besieged the fortress and began to storm the walls, but the defenders of the city beat many troops and shed a lot of Christian blood. And Tsar Boris also sent a governor - Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky and Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky with a large army, in order to take the city as soon as possible. And the governors gathered troops and bravely and courageously advanced on the fortress, fired cannons at the prison and around the city, and used all sorts of wall-beating tricks and the prison and the city were smashed to the ground. But those Cossacks, malicious and treacherous, not afraid of death and recalcitrant and patient with all sorts of hardships, sat out in the holes of the earth and fought with the besiegers from under the ground, and staged sorties from the city. And so, having failed to take the city, the Moscow governors stood near Kromy until spring. And then many people in the army died from the winter cold, as the time was very cold and there were terrible frosts.

And Tsar Boris in the Moscow state and in other states and cities of the Russian state ordered His Holiness Patriarch Job and the noble boyar and voivode Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky to convince people, for their blessed memory, the Tsar and Grand Duke Fedor Ivanovich of All Russia sent to inspect and bury the body of the murdered faithful Tsarevich Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, his brother. And he ordered them to preach at the top of their voices at the confluence of many people of the Muscovite state, saying this: “Oh, the multitude of the people! Do not doubt and do not believe the rumors, for truly Tsarevich Dmitry was killed, I saw him with my own eyes and even buried him in the city of Uglich in the Church of the Divine Transfiguration of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and you will pray for him. And Grishka Otrepiev, the decapitated one, is coming at us, calling himself by his princely name, and you curse him. And letters were sent to states and cities. But people did not trust anyone - neither His Holiness the Patriarch, nor Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, and so they said to each other: “This is de by order of Boris and being afraid of him, they say so.”

And Tsar Boris ordered in the cathedral church to loudly read the eternal memory of the blessed Tsarevich and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, and to curse Grishka Otrepyev, who was going to the Muscovite state, to be defrocked; he ordered the same to be done in the states of great Russia. But he did not achieve anything by this, and people throughout the Russian state were even more indignant and angry at him in their hearts, saying: “If not this, what else remains to be said to Boris? If he does not speak like that, then he will have to renounce the Russian kingdom, and even risk his life. And so they supported each other.

Others, however, said something else, that truly Tsar Boris to this day considers the Tsarevich killed, but does not know that another was killed instead of him: having long known Boris’s evil intention against the Tsarevich, that he wants to secretly kill him, no one knows where and at what time, mother she fed another child instead of the prince, and the prince himself was sent to the faithful people for observance, and God so saved him from the murder and destruction of Borisov, and now he has matured and goes to his ancestral throne. And wishing him to come to Moscow, when they learn about his victory over the Moscow troops of Boris, they rejoice, but when they find out that the Moscow troops defeated the expected Dmitri going to Moscow, they go in sorrow, bowing their heads. And the slanderers whispered to Tsar Boris about those who said that Dmitry was coming, and not a defrock, but that he was taking a real defrock with him and showing him so that people would not doubt. And for such words of theirs, Tsar Boris ordered to cut out their tongues, and put others to death with many different torments, but he could not prevent the people from having these conversations and hoping.

And Boris heard that his governors did not return a single city to him, but even more cities fall away from him and Grishka swear allegiance, Grishka himself is in Putivl, gathering a great army from Lithuania and from other states, filled with rage and breathing anger, like an insatiable viper, boasts and wants to come against Tsar Boris, but not as a king, but as a servant. And Tsar Boris, seeing the infidelity of all the people who are ready to serve the approaching self-proclaimed Tsarevich Dmitry and are waiting for him, was in great doubt, thinking about what to do if the impostor really turns out to be not a deprivation, but Tsarevich Dmitry. And he completely despaired of saving his life and intoxicated himself with a deadly potion 20 and was tonsured to the monastic rank and in the monks he was named Bogolep. And soon he died a bitter and violent death from a fierce poison, so that his appearance changed from convulsions, and his whole body turned black like coal, and it is impossible to describe what he became from a fierce potion. And he ordered to be buried in the cathedral church of the Archangel Michael with other kings buried here. He died in the year 113, the month of April on the 13th day, and after him his wife, Tsarina Maria, and his son Fedor, and his daughter, the maiden Xenia, remained the king, but he stayed as king for 7 years and five weeks.

After the death of Boris in the Moscow kingdom, his son Fyodor called himself sovereign, and he sent to the regiments for the governors Prince Fyodor Mstislavsky and Prince Vasily, and Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky and called them to Moscow. And instead of them, two half-brothers, Prince Vasily and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Golitsyn, and Mikhail Saltykov, and Ivan Ivanovich Godunov, remained governors. And he sends to their regiments the governor of Prince Mikhail Katyrev-Rostovsky and Pyotr Fedorovich Basmanov, and Metropolitan Isidor of Novgorod, to lead the army to kiss Fyodor Borisovich on the cross, and his mother Maria, and his sister Xenia. And they arrived in the regiments in Kromy, where the metropolitan began to lead the army to the kiss of the cross. Some in the regiments kissed the cross for them, while others did not want to kiss the cross and sent the metropolitan to Moscow.

The Moscow governors, Prince Vasily and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Golitsyns, and Pyotr Basmanov, seeing doubt and confusion in the regiments, and from confusion and the city perish, and they themselves doubted and believed that Rasstriga was the son of the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia and remembered about the mercy of the blessed memory of the tsar to them: “Yes, would an unborn and not glorious person from the villagers, Grishka Rastriga, dare to start such a business? And not without intent, the Polish and Lithuanian king helps him, and the Russian people with cities pass under his authority, and all the people of the Russian state do not want to stand up against him. Yes, it is better for us of our own free will than to obey him involuntarily, and we will be honored. And if not, then we will also be with him, but with dishonor, judging by the events of recent times. And so they reasoned and among themselves agreed to stick to Rasstriga, and change Borisov's son and move away from his army, and this agreement was firmly approved among themselves. And they were joined by many Novgorod and Ryazan boyar children.

So it all happened, and one day two troops lined up for battle, taking up shields and weapons. And Prince Vasily and Prince Ivan Vasilievich Golitsyns, and Mikhail Saltykov, and Pyotr Basmanov with all their regiments quickly went ahead of everyone, and with them the boyar children and the Lyapunov nobles with other boyar children went as if to battle. And all the others stood and looked at those who boldly crossed over to the enemy shore of Krom and peacefully united with the enemy troops, and they let them through their army. And when the named Moscow governors passed, and again Ataman Korela with his Cossacks and with the inhabitants of Krom, they all struck with one spirit at the remaining Moscow army and all plunged him into confusion, for his courage left him at the sight of the governor who drove away from them and the brave army, united with the enemy . And everyone despaired of their hopes, turned their backs and ran. And the enemy drove them, but did not flog the fugitives, knowing that they were unwillingly sent by Tsar Boris to fight, and robbed them, but instead of slashing and killing, they beat them with whips and drove them further with the words: “And henceforth, do not go to battle against us! ”

And they caught their voivode Ivan Godunov and sent to their chief Grishka in Putivl and sent joyful news to him about the transition to his side of the above-mentioned Moscow voivodes with many regiments. And the Ryazan children of the boyars with all the cities and with their villages along the Oka passed to him. He, having learned about this, rejoiced with great joy. And Ivan Godunov ordered to be put in prison, and the Moscow governor ordered to be brought to the kiss of the cross. Other governors of Tsar Boris - Prince Mikhail Katyrev-Rostovsky and Semyon Chemodanov ran to Moscow with this message.

And Rasstriga is filled with even greater impudence and feels the nearness of the fulfillment of his desire and writes to the reigning city, the mother of all cities, to Moscow, according to the teaching of the devil, the father of all lies and flattery, delighting everyone with sweet words, like honey. As in ancient times, at the beginning of the world, the devil seduced the ancestors of Adam and Eve to fall away from paradise life and brought death to the human race, so now he teaches his saint Rastrigu; by the glory of this fleeting world he deceived him to fall away from the rank of angels and from the kingdom of heaven and choose corruption and death and bring other people with him to perdition. And at first he attempted to seduce the people of the Muscovite state with such charm:

“From the Tsar and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of All Russia to our boyars, Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavsky and Prince Vasily, and Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky, and to all boyars, roundabouts and great nobles, and stewards, and lawyers, and tenants, and clerks, and clerks, and nobles from cities, boyar children, and guests, and merchants, the best and average, and all sorts of black people.

You kissed the cross of blessed memory to our father, the great sovereign tsar and grand duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and to us, his children, so that outside our family we would not want and not look for any other sovereign in the Muscovite state. And how by God's judgment our father, the great sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia died, and our brother, the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of All Russia, sat down in the Moscow state, and the Empress, my mother, the Queen and Grand Duchess nun Martha Fedorovna of All Russia, and the traitors of the great sovereign sent us to Uglich, and so our majesty was oppressed, which was unsuitable for subjects to do - they sent many thieves and ordered to damage us and kill us.

And the merciful God hid us, the great sovereign, from their villainous intentions and from then until our present years, by His will, has preserved. And to you, our boyars and okolnichi, and nobles, and clerks, and guests, merchants and all sorts of people, our traitors kept repeating that we, the great sovereign, were gone, and they buried us, the great sovereign, in Uglich, in the cathedral church at the all-merciful Savior. And as by the will of God our brother, the great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of All Russia, was gone, and you, not knowing about us, your born sovereign, kissed the cross of our traitor Boris Godunov, not knowing his insidious disposition and fearing that in blessed memory, our brother the tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Ivanovich of All Russia, he owned the entire state of Moscow and favored and executed whomever he wanted. But they did not know about us, their born sovereign, but they thought that we were killed by our traitors.

And how about us, the great sovereign, a rumor spread throughout the Russian state that with God's help, we, the great sovereign, are going to the Orthodox throne of our forefathers, the great sovereigns of the Russian tsars, and we wanted to receive our state without blood, and you, our boyars and governors and all sorts of service people, against us, the great sovereign, became ignorant and afraid of the death penalty from our traitor, but they did not dare to talk about us, the great sovereign. And I, a Christian sovereign, according to my royal merciful custom, do not hold our anger and disgrace on you, because you did it out of ignorance and fear of execution.

And now we, great sovereign, will soon come to the throne of our forefathers, the great sovereigns of the tsars of Russia, with God's help, and with us many Russian, Lithuanian and Tatar rati. And the cities of our state, our royal majesty, were finished off with a brow and did not stand against us and kissed the cross, remembering their souls and the kiss of the cross to us, the great sovereign, they serve and bravely and courageously want to stand against our traitors, and you yourself know for sure. And the cities of the Volga region were finished off to us, the great sovereign, and the governor was brought to us, and the Astrakhan governor Mikhail Saburov and his comrades were being led to our Tsar's Majesty, and now they are on the road to Voronezh. And Prince Ishcherek wrote to us from the Great Nogai Horde and Murza from Kaziev Ulus that they want to help our Tsar Majesty. And we, the Christian sovereign, not wanting Christian ruin, did not order the Nogai people to walk before our decree, pitying our state, and ordered the Nogai people to roam near the Tsar's city.

And our traitors Maria Borisova, Godunov’s wife and her son Fyodor, do not regret our land, and they had nothing to regret, because they owned our Seversk land and many other cities and counties ruined and beaten Orthodox Christians without guilt. But we, the Christian sovereign, did not blame you, our boyars and service people, because you did it out of ignorance and fearing the death penalty from our traitors. And even then it was useful for you to know what oppression from our traitor Boris Godunov was to you, our boyars and governors, and our relatives, reproach and reproach and dishonor, and inflicted on you, which it was impossible to endure from your own, and to you, nobles and children boyar, ruin and exile and unbearable torment were, which is unsuitable for prisoners to do; and you, guests and merchants, did not have your freedom in trade, and in duties, that a third of your property, but little and not everything was taken away, but they could not moderate his insidious temper.

And you still don’t admit your faults and you can’t know us, your born sovereign, but you don’t remember God’s righteous judgment and want to shed the blood of innocent Orthodox Christians, which is not only not suitable for us to do, and foreigners mourn about your ruin and they get sick and, having recognized us, a Christian meek, merciful sovereign, they serve us and do not spare their blood for us. And we, the Christian sovereign, not wanting to see bloodshed in Christianity, are writing to you, pitying you and your souls, so that you, remembering God and the Orthodox faith and your souls, on which our father, the great sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, and to us, his children, they kissed the cross, and to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of All Russia they finished off with a brow and to ask for mercy to our royal majesty they sent metropolitans and archbishops, and boyars, and okolniki, and great nobles, and duma clerks, and boyar children , and guests, and the best people.

And we, great sovereign, according to our tsar's merciful custom, will honor all of you, and we, our boyars and governors, will honor and raise you and honor you with your former fathers, and we will also add and keep you in honor. And we want to keep you, nobles and orderly people, in our royal mercy. And we welcome you, guests and merchants of the entire Muscovite state, in duties and taxes, we command in favor and in relief, and we want to inflict all Orthodox Christianity in peace and quiet and in a prosperous life.

But if you don’t finish off our royal majesty with your brow and don’t send mercy, and you can judge what you will answer on the day of God’s righteous judgment, but you can’t be saved anywhere from righteous anger and from our royal high hand, you can’t hide in the mother’s womb . And with God's help, we, the great sovereign, will achieve our glorious states.

And Rastrigin's envoys - Gavrila Pushkin and Naum Pleshcheev - arrive with this letter on the first of June, and the letter was read at the Execution Ground in front of the entire multitude of the Moscow people. And when the people of Moscow and all Russian people heard this message, they believed that all this was true, that the Lord, by his ineffable destinies, with his most generous right hand, saved the prince from Borisov’s destruction, and believed that he was a prince born of his Christian faith, and about Boris they truly knew that he had kidnapped the kingdom by falsehood and shed countless innocent Christian blood, treacherously seeking that great state. And they rejoiced at that with great joy, sending glory to God, and there was a great noise and a cry in them, and it was not possible to make out who was saying what. And calling on each other, they rushed at Tsar Fedor, Boris' son, and at his mother and at their whole family, and without mercy began to rob their yards and catch them themselves, and in the twinkling of an eye they robbed everyone, seized their property and seized them, like a strong storm dispelled them like dust.

And the Moscow boyars and governors, and the nobles, and other royal confidants, seeing the actions of all the people of the Muscovite state, and they shields and spears and, more simply, throw all their weapons and meet the prince near Tula; and all fall to the ground in front of him, calling him the son of the deceased king. And with the battle, he, ungodly, did not take a single weight 21 , not like an insignificant city.

And in those places there was no one who knew him, and an old man named Leonid, who walked with him from Putivl and called him Grishka Otrepiev and showed him to many in Lithuania and in the Seversk land, by order of the Pretender, was imprisoned in Putivl as if for some guilt. And again from Tula to the surrounding cities, which are in the Russian region, he sends messengers with letters, and in the letters he writes like this:

“From the Tsar and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of All Russia, to which the city to governors and clerks by name.

By the will of God and his strong right hand, who saved us from our traitor Boris Godunov, who wanted to betray us to an evil death, the merciful God did not want to fulfill his insidious intention, and he kept me, your born sovereign, in his destinies. And I, Tsar and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of All Russia, have now matured and, with God's help, have sat on the throne of our forefathers in the Muscovite state and in all the states of the Russian kingdom. And in Moscow and in all cities, our boyars and okolnichi, and clerks, and clerks, and nobles, and boyar children, and all sorts of clerks of our entire state and foreigners, kissed the cross to us, our born sovereign, and we granted them wine they were forgiven. And how will this letter of ours come to you, and you, subjects given to us by birth, remembering the true Orthodox Christian faith and the kiss of the cross, on which we kissed the cross to our father, of blessed memory to the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, and to us children he, his born sovereign, was kissed on the cross.

And you would have led centurions, and archers, and gunners, and collars, and townspeople, and volosts, and black people to the kiss of the cross, and led all foreigners according to their faith. And why kiss the cross and lead all kinds of people to the cross, and we sent you a kissing note with this letter of ours together. And how can you bring all kinds of people to the kiss of the cross, and we will reward them and you with our great royal salary, which you cannot even think about. And who exactly will you take to the oath, and you would write about it and send lists of names to us in Moscow, but indicate where it is written, in what quarter and to whom it is written.

And with such diabolical intent and lies, not with his mind and reason, but by acting on the flattering spirit that had inhabited him, he deceived not only the boyars and all the people of great Russia, but also the king of the Lithuanian land and all the pans and his courtiers. And so that heretic went to the reigning city with great audacity and without the slightest fear. And he sent his servants in front of him and ordered the executioners to bring an evil death to Borisov's wife Maria and her son Fyodor, tear their souls from the body, and ordered his daughter to be left alive so that he could enjoy her beauty, which happened.

See, my love, what death awaits those who do unrighteous iniquity: with what measure they measure, it will be measured to them with the same measure, and what cup they fill with others, that cup they themselves drink. Oh, the depth of delusion, the descendant of the builders of the Babylonian pillar darkened by darkness 22 from them the whole world was divided. Oh, blindness, oh, his fury, oh, many curses, oh, great ignorance, oh, the delicacies of the hungry and the possessions of the vain and the thirst for high thrones, oh, the insolence and unauthorized kissing of the cross and perjury! How did he forget and how was he not afraid of the end of his days in this fast-moving unfaithful world, how does he want for the short time allotted to him, what we will quickly find out, have time to enjoy? Where is the glory of arrogance now? Where is his wife and beloved children? Where are the golden-domed halls? Where are the bright meals and fattened calves? Where are the servants and slaves who serve him? Where are the precious clothes and shoes? Where are the other royal utensils? Who can take away his wife and children from the executioner? They raised their eyes here and there, and nowhere found a helper, they found themselves in extreme poverty and were strangled, met death fiercely and without mercy.

And that heretic Grishka admired the marvelous and glorious, shining in the skies as if shining, the great city of Moscow, and entered it in the year 113, the month of June on the 20th day, on Thursday, and no one stopped him. And then that heretic, not by his own mind and desire, but by God's will, for it is not befitting murderers and robbers to be with the righteous, ordered that the aforementioned sanctuary Boris from the Archangel Cathedral from the royal ancestors to be thrown into the square in disgrace. And everyone saw that here he was - the same Boris, who had previously cut down the great trees that flourished, like cypresses, and squeezed many other trees with his merciless sickle, like flowers or fig leaves, and where he now lies, like a beggar, cast down to shame. And the heretic Grishka ordered him and his son to be buried in a wretched convent called Varsonofiev. And then he entered the Kremlin, where the royal chambers are located.

And many Moscow people who knew him began to recognize him, and God helped the above-mentioned first-sufferer, boyar Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, to learn about Rasstriga's crime and his bogomerz heresy. And he began to loudly denounce his transgression publicly to all people 23 , so saying: “I know you that you are not the son of tsars, but a criminal, a defrocked Grishka Bogdanov, the son of Otrepyev.” And the people, hearing these words, were astonished and horrified, and did no harm to him. And that accursed heretic, in order not to be convicted of his shameless transgression, conceived with his advisers to put him to death. And on Saturday, on the third day after his entry into the reigning city of Moscow, June 23, he planted that boyar and his brothers as bailiffs, and the next day, Sunday, June 24, he appointed Ignatius the Greek patriarch. And on Monday, June 25, he ordered that great boyar Shuisky be put to death in the middle of the city, cut off his head with a sword at the confluence of all the people, so that others were afraid to denounce him. And he had Mikhailo Saltykov and Pyotr Basmanov as bailiffs. When they brought him to the Fire (Red Square.- Comp.) and they set it up, and next to it they installed a chopping block and laid axes, and Pyotr Basmanov began to travel among the people, read the list compiled by Rastriga and inspire everyone in the ears like this:

“This great boyar, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, is cheating on me, your born sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of All Russia, and speaks unkind speeches about me to everyone and dishonors me with all of you, with our boyars, princes and nobles, and with boyar children, and with the guests, and with all the people of great Russia, he calls me not Dmitry Tsarevich, but the heretic Grishka Otrepyev, and for that we condemned him: let him die a death.

All the people standing here were filled with fear and trembling, and tears flowed from their eyes.

And near the boyar, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, many archers with many weapons were placed, as well as many Lithuanian pans and Cherkasy with spears and sabers, and throughout the city all the archers were armed, as if for battle, and everyone who saw this was filled with fear and horror. . But our philanthropic creator and creator did not allow this to happen and took pity on his creation, wishing that the passion-bearer would save his bride, the church, from ruin, and glorify him and put him over everyone for the sufferings he accepted as truth, as the Lord himself said with his righteous lips: "Those who glorify me I will glorify." And he delivered that great boyar from the unrighteous sword raised against him by the lawbreaker, and saved him from innocent death, holding back the snake, ready to seize him with its open mouth. And he only ordered that the boyar named above, Prince Vasily Ivanovich, and his brothers, Prince Dmitry and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky, be sent to various distant cities for imprisonment, and ordered to plunder their houses and property. And in that confinement the great boyars spent half a year, but they suffered for the love of Christ, for the true Orthodox Christian faith.

And on July 18, on Thursday, the queen nun Marfa Feodorovna arrived in Moscow, and the boyars of the Moscow state met her with honor, and that Grishka Otrepyev himself was with them. And after seeing that boyar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky courageous boldness and bursting with spiritual fire and heartfelt desire and trying not to yield to him in courage, many of the Christ-named monks who wished to die for the true Christian faith and for piety, by the action of the Holy Spirit with their heart eyes saw, that Grishka Otrepiev is a heretic and a lawbreaker, and they began, like trumpets, to shout loudly at the confluence of the people and denounce his accursed heresy, saying so: “Oh, men, Moscow people and the multitude of all Orthodox Christians! We tell you the real truth that the tsar, who now reigns in Moscow, is not a tsar, not the son of a tsar, but a criminal and a defamationist, a damned heretic, whom everyone used to curse in the holy cathedral and apostolic church of the Most Pure Mother of God of her honest and glorious Assumption as Grishka Otrepiev ” .

And he, hard-hearted, was inflamed with an evil fire of rage at the delusion of Satan and wanted to destroy them, and ordered them to be seized and to betray them to many different torments, and ordered many to be locked up in dungeons in the far sides of the Russian region and chained in iron, and others to be executed without mercy . And he filled the hearts of people with fear and trembling, so that those who had known him for a long time could not raise their eyes to him, let alone denounce him.

And soon, in the same year 113, on July 1, on Sunday, the cursed by everyone reigned and began to do much evil to Orthodox Christianity in the reigning city. And so he fell away from the Orthodox faith, the accursed criminal, Satan's saint and forerunner, that he desecrated the very image of God and wanted to destroy the altars of God's churches, destroy monasteries and monastic dwellings, and equate the Orthodox Christian faith with the fallen faith, and instead of God's churches build churches . And he began to live, like other heretics of other nations, and wanted to force Orthodox Christians to worship idols, and he desecrated many young nuns, corrupted many youths and maidens, and great weeping and sobbing began among the people, for there had never been such a misfortune.

And in this short life, he arranged for himself amusement, and for his future life - a sign of his eternal dwelling, which no one in the world has ever seen in the Russian state, or in any other, except for the underground: a huge hell with three heads 24 . And on both sides he attached copper bells to his jaws, and when he opens his jaws, from within him all those standing nearby bursts with flame and loud sounds are heard from his larynx, and has teeth and claws ready to grab, and flames also burst out of his ears . And he placed his accursed Rasstriga in front of his chambers on the Moscow River for his denunciation, so that he could look at him from his highest palace and be ready to move into him for endless centuries together with his like-minded people.

And he took as his wife from the great Lithuanian land a Lutheran of their infidel faith, just like him, taught evil and witchcraft wisdom, the daughter of a certain Sandomierz pan Yuri Mniszek, a girl named Marina. And with her, leaving his estates in the Luthor region, came to the Russian state and her father, pan Yuri, and with him many other great gentlemen. And that accursed criminal married in the year 114, the month of May on the 8th day, on Thursday, on the feast of the holy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian, on the eve of Friday and on the eve of the memory of the miracle worker Nicholas. And immediately after the wedding, Rasstriga raised a great storm and began persecuting Christians, and betrayed the Christian faith, and, according to Roman custom, began to observe the Sabbath fast. 25 , as promised to the Pope, and on Wednesday and Friday he began to eat beef and other unclean foods.

And that accursed persecutor with his evil advisers planned to kill the boyars and guests and all Orthodox Christians on May 18 on Sunday. Oh, it was bad for us in the year 114, the month of May on the 18th day, on Sunday, on the day of Christ's Ascension! He, the evil-minded wolf, cruel and unmerciful, like Phocas the Tormentor and Constantine the Motyl-named and Julian the Apostate, or like the pharaoh on the people of Israel, wanted to sharpen a sword to cut us Orthodox Christians without a trace, and without any fault to shed our blood to turn that joyful day Resurrection of Christ on the day of sorrow.

And he wanted to desecrate holy places, and turn monasteries into dwellings of the wicked, and according to his evil plan, he wanted to marry young monks and nuns, accursed, and give nuns in marriage, and those monks and nuns who do not want to take off their angelic image and not wants the charms of the local fast-flowing life, to execute with a sword. And the accursed one planned to create all this evil on Sunday and flood the Muscovite state with filthy infidels - Lithuanians, Jews and Poles and other bad ones, so that Russian people among them will be little noticeable. And with those evil advisers, he was going to do all this evil on Sunday.

But from the beginning, who created us, his slaves, the Lord, our Creator and Creator, did not forget what he promised us, and wiped away our tears, and did not allow the evil beast to eat the sheep of his chosen flock, and did not let the days of his three-day Resurrection turn into an insult to his faithful slaves, but he, an evil serpent, opening its mouth to swallow us, turned his beloved Sabbath day into a day of eternal perdition and into a day of inconsolable weeping and sobbing for endless ages. And the Lord God directed his sharp sword at his neck and at his advisers, the accursed wicked, according to the words of the scripture: "He who digs a hole himself will fall into it." And that accursed criminal, who wanted to live in ancient malice, in the abomination of desolation, in the bosom of the proud Satan, and even more - following his predecessor Judas, intending to surpass Satan himself in the hellish abyss, called himself not only the king, but also the invincible Caesar and soon He deprived himself of all the brief glory of this world, with all sorts of torments he cast out his evil-smelling soul from his evil-smelling body.

On the tenth day after his wedding, in the 114th year, the month of May on the 16th day, on the fourth week after Christ's Pascha, on Saturday, he was killed with swords and other weapons, dragged out of his highest and brightest chambers on the ground by the hands of many people who had previously attacked him alive and it was impossible to look, let alone touch him. And so he was thrown out of the fortress and thrown into the marketplace, cursed and trampled by everyone and defiled by everyone in every way for his evil and cruel disposition. And with his invisible power, our Creator-deliverer suddenly defeated his advisers, a great many of the cunning wicked mentioned above. And the Russian people, desperate and unarmed, with God's help, their deadly weapons were taken away from them and they, armed, were defeated. And so many of them, the wicked, died on that Sabbath day that it was impossible to walk along all the streets of the great city of Moscow because of their corpses. And he delivered us, his sinful servants, from that great, deadly ulcer that kills the soul.

And for three days the corpse of the accursed theomachist lay in the marketplace, and everyone looked at his unclean corpse, not covered by anyone, naked, with which he came out of his mother's womb. And the idols that he worshiped, but did not help him in any way, were placed on his chest. And after three days, the accursed one was thrown out of the city into the field. And it was not only disgusting for people to look at his corpse, thrown to shame, but the very earth from which he was taken abhorred them. And we saw all this, and everyone said to himself: “Oh, an evil deed: he was born, enlightened by holy baptism and called himself a son of light, and now he himself wanted to become a son of perdition!”

And when he lay in the field, many people heard loud cries and tambourines and flutes and other demonic games over his body at midnight and until the very cocks: so Satan rejoiced at the arrival of his servant. Oh, the curse is so heavy on you, accursed one, that even the earth abhors to accept your accursed heretical body, and the air began to breathe a stench, and the clouds did not give rain, not wanting to wash his accursed body, and the sun did not warm the earth, frost hit and deprived us of wheat ears while his stinking body lay on the ground.

By the will of God and the prayers of the Most Pure Mother of God to the one born by her and with the help of the great miracle workers Peter, Alexei and Jonah and all the saints, we, Orthodox Christians, by the whole Russian land chose for ourselves from the royal chamber of advisers a righteous and pious husband, a relative of the former pious tsars, the Grand Duke Vladimir 26 , named in holy baptism Vasily, the right-believing Prince Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, the boyar Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky, who suffered first of all for the Orthodox Christian faith. And he was named to the kingdom in the same year 114, the month of May on the 19th day, on Monday. Our creator, the philanthropist God, who does not allow his creatures to deviate from their customs and doom to starvation all people living on earth, his slaves, pointed out to his faithful servant, who wears the cross and was named by the sovereign tsar and grand duke Vasily Ivanovich, autocrat of all great Russia and the owner of many states given to him by God for his faith, in order to plunge that evil heretic-defiant into his house named above, into the hell he built, and burn the filthy accursed body of the lawbreaker, which was done: he was burned at the place called the Cauldron, seven miles from the city.

And by the will of God, our sovereign, the tsar, wanted to see the revered relics of the faithful Tsarevich Dmitry Uglitsky in the God-saved city of Moscow. And the sovereign sent his pilgrims to Uglich for his honest relics: His Grace Filaret, Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl, Theodosius, Bishop of Astrakhan and Terek, archimandrites and his boyars - Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky and Peter Fedorovich Sheremetev 27 with comrades. And when his honorable relics were brought to the most honorable Lavra of the holy and life-giving Trinity and the miracle worker Sergius, and the archimandrite and priests and deacons of that honorable monastery, dressed in sacred clothes, with censers and other brethren with candles met his most honorable and multi-healing relics outside the fence with joyful tears and sang before them worthy funeral psalms. And for some time the relics stayed in the monastery, in the cathedral church of the most holy and life-giving Trinity, and were again carried to the reigning city of Moscow. When the procession reached the God-saved city of Moscow, Moscow people, men, wives and children, also greeted the relics with joyful tears and each, falling to his cancer, asked for mercy. And they brought the relics into the inner city and placed them on a high place called the Execution Ground, and here many miracles were performed by those who asked in faith: the blind received their sight, the lame began to walk freely, the humpbacked straightened up and the deaf began to hear. And everyone, no matter what ailments he had, falls to his cancer with relics and receives healing. And then his honest and multi-healing relics were transferred to the church of God's archangel Michael, where to this day we see them, and they give healing to everyone who comes to them with faith.

And two weeks after his nomination for the kingdom 28 Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia, autocrat, was crowned with a royal crown and diadem of the month of June on the 1st day, Sunday, and sat on his royal throne, and from the hands of Almighty God in his right hand received the scepter of the Russian land. And the Lord God created a triple joy in the whole Russian land for Orthodox Christians: the first, having crushed his ungodly apostate, and our persecutor, the heretic Grishka Otrepiev, the second - granting rain and sunshine for fertility, the third, more than all joys - the transfer of the honest relics of the new martyr of the faithful Tsarevich Dmitry from the city of Uglich to the glorious great reigning city of Moscow, that criminal Grishka Otrepiev was named after him, and the Lord granted that martyr grace and the ability to give healing to those who come with faith to his cancer, the cure of all ailments, inexhaustible health. And from these days, the assembly of Russian Orthodox people, we rejoice and rejoice in God's visitation and deliverance, which God has given to all his people.

Oh, the great love of God! Oh, his unspeakable and unknown fates! Who knows the understanding of the Lord and who is his adviser? Truly, no one, neither angels, nor archangels, nor rulers, nor rulers, nor thrones, nor dominions, nor heavenly powers, nor cherubim, nor formidable seraphim, but only our glorified God, one in the Trinity, he himself watches over human destinies and all does what he wants. But we, the servants of Christ, from time immemorial worship the beginningless, glorified in the Trinity, Christ our God, for all this we glorify and praise the Lord Christ, who created us, thus saying: death and gave life. That cursed heretic and lawbreaker named above directed his sword to destroy all Orthodox Christianity to the end, and we could not prevent him in any way, but he himself perished and became the son of perdition; those who were with him, who loved his evil custom more than the unset light of eternal life, perished, not forced by torment or order, but obeying him of their own free will. And we all know that the monks and laity, whom the accursed heretic tortured and put to death, died in the Orthodox Christian faith. And some of our monk brothers are still alive, and they are now spiritually working with us in the monastery of the most holy and life-giving Trinity, and others in the monastery of the Archangel Michael of God, at the miracle worker Alexei on Chudov. And they endured such misfortunes and oppressions and misfortunes, but the grace of God was not rejected, and everyone rejoices in their sufferings, glorifies and thanks God and the Most Pure Theotokos and the new passion-bearer who shone in the Russian region, the faithful Tsarevich Dmitry.

Now, all Orthodox people, rejoice and rejoice, always praising and glorifying our beginningless, eternal God, who, by his all-generous will, gave us such a pious sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, autocrat of all Russia, a true intercessor and shepherd to his verbal sheep, and not mercenary: and so he lays down his life for the sheep during our sorrow and death, and not only his wealth, but he did not spare himself, and now he keeps the true Orthodox Christian faith as the apple of his eye, and guides everyone and instructs him on the path of salvation, so that even after death everyone inherits eternal life, and does not lead us to destruction, but I will say more - it leads us off the path of death. And for this we praise God who created us. Amen.

And I, a sinner and disobedient to God and weak in mind, decided to write this story, not according to rumors, except for the stay of that heretic and lawbreaker Grishka in the Lithuanian land, but everything that happened in the Russian state, I saw everything with my own eyes. And he could not remain silent about such evil, he wrote for the benefit of those who read this today and for the memory of future people in future times. And to the rest who plot evil and indulge in its evil transgression, so that they humble their temper and abandon such crafty plans. The accursed Grishka reigned and seized many estates in the Russian kingdom and soon became very rich, and soon died, and not even a small shirt was left of his wealth to bury his shameless body.

And some ignoramuses secretly destroy their souls by following the books forbidden by the holy fathers of the seven ecumenical councils; they commanded us not to read these books, for those who read them do not gain any benefit, they only plunge the ship of their soul into the abyss of sins, as the scripture says: “He who throws a stone upwards will break his own head; kindling a fire - he himself will burn in it. Wonder, O man, how the teaching, about which it is said in the Divine Scripture, came true: “If a man masters the whole world, but loses his soul, and what will he receive in return for his soul?” Do you see how this evil and cunning sorcerer gained the whole world, but lost his soul - and what good praise and glory he received? For endless ages, he, with all his cunning sorcery, perished in body and soul, and shamefully deprived himself of this short fleeting life.

And you, shameless one, why are you doing all this, leaving hope in God's mercy and calling on Satan for help, not finding any help for yourself in this illness? First, understand what a person is and what is the end of your days, and think about how you will appear before a righteous judge who judges regardless of faces - Christ our God? And as you prepare your way to where there is pitch darkness and an insatiable worm, try, can you endure the heat of earthly fire in this life? And if you can, then you will not endure the future unquenchable fire, this flame is such that it rises from the earth to the very heavens. The worm awaits the sinning man and the son of man, his house is hell, and his bed is darkness, and his father is death, and his mother and sister are corruption. How can you even imagine this in your mind, let alone in life retreat from the graces of God to evil and stick to Satan and the devil, and grieve your mentor and guardian - the angel of God? And if, disobedient to God, you do not renounce your evil life, indeed, I tell you, you will suffer in this and in the next century, just like the accursed heretic Grishka Otrepyev.

May grace and peace be with your spirit, brethren, now and forever and forever and ever. Amen.

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. He considered the "chronological system" to be the best system for reviewing his material, 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 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 analyzed 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, he began the review of works compiled before the end of the Troubles with a detailed analysis of the so-called Another story, consisting of parts of different times, and in connection with the fifth part of it, he analyzed the story of the Time of Troubles of the chronograph of the second edition, compiled after the Time of 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: more or less clear traces of political overtones are visible on all these monuments, 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 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. Thus, 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 a complete picture. One can even notice in the author a tendency 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 nasty tongues" 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 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 Russia 4 . Other gaps in Mr. Platonov, having some connection with the specified. If the narrative writing about the Time of Troubles reflected the political parties and opinions that fought, then 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 tsar 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 invested in one or another of these literary forms, especially one in which the phenomena are 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. One would expect the author to express his opinion about these forms, about how criticism should be treated with them, and even indicate how much their stereotyped structure has changed under the influence of new political concepts and trends 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 worldview of the ancient Russian chroniclers and compilers of "tales" are well known. It is this worldview and these methods that began to change noticeably 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 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 treated 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 isolation 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 shortly 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 analyzing most of the monuments, at least the main ones, the author paid special attention to 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 a historical fact and a historical event or incident. 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 stepped on the ground 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 its compiler himself, 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 what he wanted to say here: 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 a trace of 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 an integral literary work." all signs of individual 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 a publication that is known to be very faulty, and even more difficult blame the author for not taking upon himself the really "enormous work" of comparing all the numerous copies 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, news from 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 among the discharge paintings were placed news 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 character 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 we will indicate what he has done on the chosen subject and what remains to be done. In the preface to his work, he notes that "the 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 invasion of the Khan, the compiler inserted visions of the "righteous nagokhodets" Vasily the Blessed and other pious people of the city of Moscow, described in his own way the last days and the death of Grand Duke Vasily, guided by the 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 tales serve as an important addition to the main general 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 the 19th century. 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 prominent representative B. N. Chicherin, according to whom the whole history of social development in Russia consisted in "enslavement and emancipation of estates implemented 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. The primary form of serfdom in Russia (See p. 241.) was servitude in its various forms, which developed for a number of reasons, including as a result of the personal service of a previously free person under 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 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 needs, only "allowed the extension to the peasants of the previously existing serfdom of the servile disposition, contrary to the land attachment of the peasants, if only the latter had ever been established by him" (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, which was not the owner of the land, was a free the force of the economic turning point, the reasons for which for Klyuchevsky remained unclear we, the landowners, who are extremely interested in working hands, are developing the agricultural holdings 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 voluntarily began to extend the norms of servile law to the peasants who owed money, and serfdom for peasants was a new combination of legal elements that were part of various types of servitude, but "adapted to the economic and state situation of rural population" (See pp. 271, 272, 338, 339.). “Without encountering 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 apart from the state legislative institution, which had to issue and register this decision at the appropriate time, 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.). "In the circle of land relations, all types of servility by the end of the 17th 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 Russia 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 Russia", "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 centuries, "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 landlords 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 was further developed and generalized by him 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 Russia 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 Russia. 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 in the first half of the 18th century, 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 of the noble society of 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. The articles placed in the seventh volume of the Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, as a whole, are a valuable historiographic heritage on a number of important issues in the 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 of printed works of V. O. Klyuchevsky. Readings in the society of Russian history and antiquities at Moscow University", book I, M. 1914, pp. 442--473.) The omissions 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 sections about Russian life were rewritten.The review of "Great Cheti-Minei", published in the newspaper "Moskva", 1868, No. 90, dated June 20 (republished in the Third Collection of Articles), was not noted. O. Klyuchevsky according to the report of A. V. Prakhova on the frescoes of St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv 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 according to the report of V. I. Kholmogorov "On 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 on 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), on March 18, 1904, delivered a speech on the activities of the OIDR (Readings of the OIDR, 1905, book II, protocols, p. 27), On the publication of protocol records of these speeches by V. O. Klyuchevskogr S. A. Belokurov does not provide any information. He also does not 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 Petrarch", 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 named after 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 characterizing the 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 one is entitled "Experiments and Research", was published back in 1912 (again in 1915) (It included studies: "Economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery", "Pskov disputes", "Russian ruble of the 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 on June 6, 1880, on the day of the opening of the monument to Pushkin", "Eugene Onegin and his ancestors", "Promotion of the Church to the successes of Russian civil law and order", "Sadness", "Good people of ancient Russia", " I. N. Boltin", "The Significance 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 Menaion-Chetia collected by the All-Russian Metropolitan Macarius", "New Research on the History of Old Russian Monasteries", "Analysis of the Works of V Ikonnikova", "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 the works of A. Gorchakov", "Alleluia and Pafnuty", "Academic review of A. Gorchakov's work", "Subbotin's doctoral debate at the Moscow Theological Academy", "Analysis of D. Solntsev's book", "Analysis of N. Suvorov's essay", "Fortress question on the eve of his legislative excitation", "Review of the book by S. Smirnov", "G. Rambaud - the historian of Russia". "Law and fact in the history of the peasant question, the answer to Vladimirsky-Budanov", "Academic review of the study of prof. Platonov", "Academic review of Chechulin's research", "Academic review of N. Rozhnov's research" 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 they are not checked against the manuscript material. Tom goes out under the general supervision of an academician M. N. Tikhomirova, text prepared and commented V. A. Alexandrov 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,