Tales and stories about the troubled times of Plato. A Tale of Troubled Times

Deacon, author of the famous "Vremennik" about the events of the Time of Troubles. According to the erroneous assumption of P. M. Stroev, he was considered for a long time the clerk of the Novgorod Metropolitan, but prof. S. F. Platonov, based on new research, establishes... ...

Chronograph Russian- - a chronographic compilation outlining world and Russian history and known in several editions created during the 16th–17th centuries. The author of the first fundamental research, X. R. A. N. Popov, believed that the first (ancient) of his... ...

Platonov Sergey Fedorovich- Platonov (Sergei Fedorovich) historian. Born 1860; After completing a course at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University, he taught Russian history at the higher women’s courses in St. Petersburg, then taught history in... ... Biographical Dictionary

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

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

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

Dimitri Ioannovich, son of Ivan the Terrible- holy prince martyr, son of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and his fifth wife, Maria Feodorovna. In the summer of 1580, Tsar John Vasilyevich celebrated his fifth wedding. The sovereign married without church permission, but the wedding was ruled according to the old days; in my father's... Large biographical encyclopedia

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

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

Job, patriarch- Job (in the world Ivan) (d. 19 VI 1607) – patriarch, author of “The Tale of the Life of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich”, messages, letters and speeches. Born into a townsman family in Staritsa. He studied literacy at the Staritsky Assumption Monastery. Here, from my teacher... ... Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'

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

The literature of the Time of Troubles, on the one hand, introduced new features into Russian literary process and thus quite organically fits into the beginning of the “transitional” 17th century, and on the other hand, it completely continues with a number of features the previously existing tradition. As we will see later, almost all literary works of the first half of the 17th century were so complex and dual. The process of genre transformation of ancient Russian literature did not begin from the outside and was not so much associated with Western influence, but was initially gradually provoked by the internal laws of literary development.

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

D.S. Likhachev noted in his time that an innovative feature of the period of the early 17th century should be considered the discovery by literature of human character - the character of not only a socially significant person, but also an ordinary person, an ordinary, sometimes even ordinary, contemporary. As early as the 16th century, according to the researcher, two features opposing tradition appeared in historical works: unity of point of view and unity of theme (both in contrast to the principles of the formation of chronicle collections, which were essentially written by different chroniclers who continued each other’s work). This is how texts appear that are dedicated to a very limited historical period or even to one person.

TO traditional features literature of the Time of Troubles should include the ideological orientation, themes, issues, genre characteristics and most of the stylistic features of the works of this time. Let's turn directly to the texts.

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

In the autumn of 1606, when Bolotnikov’s troops were approaching Moscow, it was composed "The Tale of a Spiritual Vision to a Certain Man" which is based on the plot scheme of the vision. The story is told about a resident of Moscow who, “in a subtle dream,” saw the Mother of God, John the Baptist and the holy saints in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin begging Christ to spare the Russian Orthodox people suffering from the horrors of the Time of Troubles. In accordance with tradition, dating back to the sermons of Serapion of Vladimir, the trouble of the Moscow state is associated with the fact that the people are ossified in sins. Christ, touched by the tears of the Mother of God, tells her that a necessary condition for forgiveness of the Russian people and easing their fate is complete and sincere repentance. After this, one of the saints turns to the dreamer with the words: “Go and tell, servant of Christ, what you have seen and heard.” The unnamed “clergyman” told about the vision to the archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, Terenty, who ordered a story to be written about this event and gave it to the patriarch, and also told it to the tsar.

The genre of visions was extremely common at this time. The participants in the vision vary: it could be the Mother of God, Christ, a “wonderful wife” in light robes and with an icon in her hands, local patron saints (for example, the Ustyug resident Grigory Klementyev is the patrons of Ustyug the Great, Procopius and John of Ustyug). In the same way, the conditions necessary for salvation are defined differently: they may talk about the need for repentance, fasting and prayer, and building a church. A Nizhny Novgorod legend says that in a newly built church, an unlit candle should be placed on the altar and a blank sheet of paper should be placed. Forgiveness will be marked by the fact that “a light will be kindled from the fire of heaven, and the bells themselves will ring, and the name of who will rule the Russian state will be written on paper.”

Researchers of this group of works have repeatedly noted their inherent everyday concreteness. As before, everyday details play a big role, most likely indicating the authenticity of what is being told. Thus, in one of the Moscow visions, “6 watchmen from the Oshnovo row” are named by name as witnesses to the miracle.

Another popular genre during the Time of Troubles was propaganda letters and “unsubscribes,” combining literary forms and forms of business writing.

Between 1610 and 1612 was written by an unknown author "A new story about the glorious Russian kingdom and the great state of Moscow"- a kind of journalistic manifesto designed to lift the spirit of the people, awaken patriotic feelings and inspire struggle. In difficult conditions, when many rich, noble and powerful people betrayed Russia and support the Poles, the author turns to “people of all ranks who have not yet turned their souls away from God, and have not abandoned the Orthodox faith, and do not follow errors in the faith, but they adhere to piety, and have not given themselves over to their enemies, and have not turned aside to their apostate faith, but are ready to stand for the Orthodox faith until they bleed.” For the author, the Orthodox faith and the Russian Church, led by Patriarch Hermogenes, are the only stronghold, a powerful and invincible force that no army can break. R. Picchio wrote about the image of Patriarch Hermogenes in the “New Tale...”: “Against Poland with its arrogant humanism, Poland, which carried literature fueled Latin tradition and already fertilized by the meeting with the Renaissance, old Russia puts forward the figure of the supreme clergyman, confident that his holy words, devoid of secular splendor, but blazing with biblical passion, will be able to generate an unfading echo among the Orthodox people." "A new story ..." Picchio considered a monument, most fully and holistically conveyed to us the spiritual state of Russian society of that time, which had the firm intention of opposing the Catholic West with the strength of its own, original and highly spiritual literary tradition.

A.S. Demin, who was involved in the figurative structure of “The New Tale...”, noted that its author “was inclined to operate with dual, contradictory, complementary categories, to combine contrasting features in the appearance of the characters.” Such, for example, is the Polish king, who, anticipating the complete and final capture of Russia, simultaneously demonstrates both his joy and his malice. Out of anger, the king twitched, jumped up, “seemed with the boars,” resembled a “fierce and fierce and indomitable stallion” who snores, breaks from the bridle and is ready to throw anyone into the “unending ditch.” On the other hand, signs of heartfelt joy are repeatedly reported (using the traditional formula “rejoicing in your heart” and its synonymous variants). As a result, according to A.S. Demin, “statements about “boiling” movements of anger and heartfelt manifestations of joy, when added, did not semantically cancel each other out, but created a kind of single, “average” semantic whole, transitional between two extremes, in the story about a king who does not subside in joy, but also in anger does not rush somewhere, but, as a result, “boils” in place with feelings, barely restrained.”

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

In "The New Tale..." rhyming speech is used, which is one of the ways to characterize the characters. Thus, one of the boyars who swore allegiance to the Polish king, treasurer Fyodor Andronov, is described as follows: “neither from the royal families, nor from the boyar ranks, nor from other elected military heads; they say that from Smerdov’s slaves. Him, the accursed and damned, according to him evil deed it is not worthy to call it in the name of Stratelates (St. Theodore Stratelates, the heavenly patron of Theodore Andronov), but in the name of Pilate, or in the name of the venerable one, but in the name of the unlike, or in the name of the passion-bearer, but in the name of the earth-eater, or in the name of the saint, - but in the name of the tormentor, and the persecutor, and the destroyer, and the destroyer of the Christian faith"

Created in 1612 "Crying about the captivity and the final ruin of the exalted and most illustrious Moscow state." The text was written at a time when Minin and Pozharsky were already collecting zemstvo militia, but Moscow was still in the hands of the Poles and no one could predict the outcome of the coming difficult and bloody struggle (that is, until the fall of 1612). Both the name of the monument and its style return the reader to the ancient Russian rhetorical tradition, to the “commonplaces” of hagiographic and preaching literature. The traditional hagiographic formula is reminiscent of the rhetorical question with which the work begins: “Where shall we begin to mourn, alas! such a fall of glorious, bright, great Russia? What source will fill the abyss of tears, our sobs and groans?” "The Lament" attempts to give a detailed account of events recent years, starting with the appearance of the first impostor, the “forerunner of the Antichrist,” the “son of darkness,” as well as an invitation to think not only about the consequences, but also about the causes of the Troubles. And here again, like the ancient Russian preachers of the era Tatar-Mongol invasion(for example, Serapion of Vladimir), the author of “Lamentation...” saw the causes of the disasters that befell the Russian land not only in the power, treachery and treachery of external enemies, but also in the damage to the morals of the Russian people, who had forgotten God and were immersed in numerous vices, like the inhabitants ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah: “Truth has become scarce among men, and unrighteousness has reigned... and malice has been exposed, and we have been covered with lies.”
In the 10s of the 17th century. The cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Abraham Palitsyn, wrote “The Legend” - one of the most famous and popular literary monuments of the Time of Troubles. The text of the "Tale" was revised several times between 1611 and 1620. and has a total of 77 chapters. In the center of the story is the famous siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the story was brought to the Deulin Truce of 1618. Historians rate this text quite highly for its scrupulous factuality, philologists pay attention to Palitsyn’s special flair for contemporary innovative trends in literature (noting, in particular, the use of pre-syllabic verses in the Tale).

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

Another reason for the Troubles is, according to Palitsyn, the transformation of autocracy into autocracy by Boris Godunov. The journalist condemns the tsarist arbitrariness and the associated blind obedience to the monarch of his advisers, called upon to govern the state. However, even more than the autocracy of the tsar, Palitsyn is afraid of the autocracy of the people.

One of the important problems for Abraham Palitsyn is related to the theme of power and the attitude towards the new royal dynasty. For contemporaries, the Troubles also meant a crisis of autocracy, the fall of a legitimate dynasty (the one whose ideological justification for ownership rights was enshrined in numerous monuments XVI century). The embodiment of this social ill-being was an event that had been unprecedented until that time - the appearance on the throne of “false kings”, impostors. As a result, publicists (and Abraham Palitsyn, in particular) faced the need to reconcile the principles of hereditary and electoral monarchy and take into account the role of the people's will in electing contenders for the kingdom. Palitsyn writes that popular unanimity on the issue of choosing a tsar is indisputable evidence of God’s chosenness of this particular candidate, an instrument of Divine providence. Tsar Mikhail Romanov is a sovereign, “given by God... before his birth, chosen by God and anointed from his mother’s womb.” He is contrasted in the “Tale” by Vasily Shuisky, who reigned not according to God’s will, but only according to the “will of hearts” and that is why he could not receive national recognition.

In Abraham Palitsyn's "Legend" there is a clearly felt biographical, memoir component. As you know, his activities were not completely flawless; at one time he served False Dmitry II. And now he seeks to whitewash his reputation, exaggerate his own importance, talking in detail about his trip to the Ipatiev Monastery near Kostroma for Mikhail Romanov, about his participation in the ceremonial meeting of the new sovereign at the gates of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, about his activities in the process of concluding the Deulin truce and about a number of other events.

In 1616-1619. clerk Ivan Timofeev creates "Vremennik", in which he depicts the history of Russia from Ivan the Terrible to Mikhail Romanov. The author of "Vremennik" is a supporter of hereditary monarchy; he sees succession to the throne within one family as an order established by God. From the point of view of this order, Ivan Timofeev speaks of Ivan the Terrible - the legal heir of the great princes of the Russian state. This principle is interrupted after the death of the Terrible’s son Fyodor Ioannovich, who left the kingdom “chamberless and uninherited.” Thus ended the great family of Russian autocrats, whose roots go back to ancient times. And then illegal rulers appeared on the throne, whom Timofeev calls “liars”, “slave-kings”, “self-crowned people”, etc. Along with such rulers, there are those who did not seize power arbitrarily, but were elected by the Zemsky Sobor - such as Boris Godunov. But in this case, human expression of will was not accompanied by Divine recognition, so Godunov on the throne turned out to be not an autocrat, but a lawless “autocrat.” Mikhail Romanov, a worthy descendant, is fundamentally different from all these rulers ancient family, in the act of election of which the will of the people was an expression of the will of God.

D.S. Likhachev noted the duality of characteristics that certain figures of Russian history receive in Timofeev’s work (as in a number of other works of the Time of Troubles). Next to the rhetorically decorated praise of Ivan the Terrible is a story filled with passionate condemnation about his “fiery anger.” Speaking about Boris Godunov, the author sees his duty in talking not only about evil, but also about his good deeds, so that no one has the opportunity to reproach him for bias or one-sidedness: “And even if malice about Boris was not known, there must be His good deeds to the world cannot be hidden." Good and evil are not inherent in a person from the beginning and are not given to him in an unchanged form. Some people can be influenced by others: for example, Anastasia Romanova had a very positive influence on Grozny, and after her death his character changes not at all for the better. Boris Godunov, in turn, was positively influenced by the kind Fyodor Ioannovich. What changed Godunov most radically, according to Timofeev, was the power he unexpectedly received, to which he had no legal right: “Upon receiving this, the majesty of Abiya will become unbearable in every way, he will be cruel and hard for everyone.”

Researchers noted that due to the nature of his service, Ivan Timofeev had access to archives where the most important documents were stored, therefore his “Vremennik” describes important historical events that are no longer recorded in any other source. But at the same time, Ivan Timofeev acts not only as a historian, but also as a memoirist, recording the events that he himself witnessed. So, he talks about the people's walk to Novodevichy Convent when people asked Boris Godunov to accept the royal crown. During this event, a certain youth specially climbed under the very window of Queen Irina’s cell and there screamed loudly, begging her to bless his brother for the kingdom, and Boris himself hypocritically wrapped a handkerchief around his neck, “showing that he meant to hang himself if he was forced to do so, unless those who prayed ceased.” .

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

Another historian of the Time of Troubles is Ivan Andreevich Khvorostinin, who came from a family of Yaroslavl princes and in his youth was close to False Dmitry I, who granted him to the kravchi. Under Shuisky, he was sent to repentance at the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, then returned to Moscow, at the beginning of 1613 he already served as a governor in Mtsensk, then in Novosil, and in 1618 in Pereyaslavl in Ryazan. Tsar Michael rewarded him for his service and appointed him steward. The charge of high treason was forgotten, but it was soon replaced by another - of freethinking and atheism. In 1623, he was exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery under the supervision of a “good” and “strong” monk. Khvorostinin received forgiveness from the Tsar and Patriarch shortly before his death in 1625.

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

Like Ivan Timofeev, Khvorostinin gives complex, sometimes dual and contrasting characteristics historical figures that time. Boris Godunov turns out to be both power-hungry and God-loving. On the one hand, he builds temples, decorates cities, tames the greedy; He “put on the wisdom of this world, like a good giant, and received glory and honor from the kings.” On the other hand, it is reported that he embittered people against each other, provoked “hatred and flattery” in his subjects, restored slaves to masters, destroyed many noble people, and generally “seduced the world and introduced hatred.”

Around the same time, two stories were written dedicated to the tragic death of a brave commander, who especially distinguished himself in the fight against False Dmitry II, Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky. The prince suddenly died after a feast at Prince Borotynsky's, and the cause of death was considered by the people to be poison, which was allegedly given to him by the wife of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky, Maria. About these events are going on speech in "Tales of the death and burial of Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky." The traditional features of the “Tale...” include the author’s close attention to the genealogy of his hero (Skopin-Shuisky was of a royal family, belonged to “the same branch with the owner of the universe Augustus, Caesar of Rome” and among his direct ancestors had “the founder of the united Orthodox Christian faith, Prince Kiev and all Russia Vladimir"), a mention of the devil's instigation as a force prompting Mary to crime, a combination of elements of crying and glory (in this case, however, with a significant predominance of the first over the second). The hero’s lamentation is exaggerated: “And the same princesses, his mother and wife, came to their house, and fell prostrate on their table, weeping, the mountaineer... drenched the floor with their tears, and tearful rapids, like a river stream, spilled onto the floor from the table.” .

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

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

A common feature of the literature of the Time of Troubles A.S. Demin considered it an exaggerated portrayal of feelings. Indeed, the authors of that time did not skimp on color when describing emotional experiences. Anger makes a person crazy, makes him, like a dog, bark at the air and throw ridiculous words like stones. Grief not only causes rivers of tears, but also prompts you to beat your head on the ground and scratch your chest with your nails. Fear cuts straight into human heart. Noting that such an exaggeration of feelings in general is not typical for oral folk art, A.S. Demin drew attention to the analogy of this hyperbolization in the song about the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri:
It’s not a whirlwind that swirls through the valley,
It is not the gray feather grass that bends to the ground.
Then comes the terrible wrath of God
For Orthodox Rus'.

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

Researchers of the literature of the Time of Troubles also paid attention to the very noticeable heterogeneity of the literary layer of that time. Here are a monk, a clerk, and princes from the Rurik family, although they represent minor families. All this indicates that there were no professional writers yet, the writing class had not yet developed and there was no monopoly on writing at that time, anyone could become a writer, guided by one or another motive - to talk about the events that he witnessed; try to reveal the causes of events and evaluate them; finally, to whitewash oneself and present one’s own activities in a favorable light.

V. O. Klyuchevskoy

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

V. O. Klyuchevskoy. Works in eight volumes. Volume VII. Research, reviews, speeches (1866-1890) M., Publishing House of Socio-Economic Literature, 1959 Topic 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 the place and time of origin, in the views of their compilers on the events described, and finally, in the goals and motives that prompted their compilation . This variety and abundance of material exposed the researcher to the danger of depriving his research of proper value and completeness, and made it difficult to select and group data, the order of presentation and the choice of study techniques. The author did not hide these difficulties from himself, and they significantly affected his work. Having set himself the task of a “systematic review” of literary works of Great Russian writing of the 17th century, dedicated to the depiction and discussion of the events of the Time of Troubles, the author, however, himself admits in the preface that he was unable to maintain a “uniform approach” either in the general order of presentation or in the study individual works. He considered the best system for reviewing his material to be a “chronological system,” but the lack of accurate information about the time of compilation of many tales about the Time of Troubles forced him to abandon this order of presentation. He adopted a more complex division of his material, dividing the monuments he analyzed into three sections, of which one formed works compiled before the end of the Time of Troubles, the other - the most important works of the time of Tsar Michael, the third - works of secondary and later ones, and among the secondary ones was analyzed by the author one story about the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri, apparently also compiled before the end of the Time of Troubles. Moreover, “the author sometimes found it more convenient to give an account in one place about works from different periods due to their internal proximity and dependence of one on the other” 1 . Therefore, he began his review of works compiled before the end of the Time of Troubles with a detailed analysis of the so-called Another legend consisting of parts from different times, and in connection with its fifth part, I analyzed the narrative about the Troubles of the second edition of the chronograph, compiled after the Troubles, that served as its source. There is one inconvenience in this arrangement of material: it prevented the author from taking adequate advantage of precisely that feature of the monuments he analyzed, which most of all could have given unity and integrity to his work. He notes in the preface that among the monuments he examines there are often journalistic and moral-didactic works. I think that even more can be said: on all these monuments there are more or less clear traces of political overtones, they are all tendentious to a certain extent. In this regard, the Troubles produced a noticeable change in ancient Russian historiography: it brought the ancient Russian narrator of events in his native land out of that epic dispassion into which the ancient Russian chronicler tried, although not always successfully, to withdraw. 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 thoughts. In this excitement one can even notice some movement: the feelings of surprise and anxiety caused by the first symptoms of the Troubles, then turn into political passions and, finally, when the Troubles have passed, turn into calm political opinions. So, the awakening and development of political thought under the influence of the Troubles is the question that constitutes the center of gravity of the task chosen by the author and the resolution 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 notes do not add up the whole picture. One can even notice the author’s inclination to diminish the value that this journalistic tendentiousness of the literary monuments of the Time of Troubles has for the historian. The accusatory story of Archpriest Terenty about the vision of 1606 is very interesting as an energetic protest against the vices of contemporary Russian society and especially the depravity revealed in it towards “vile customs and morals of a nasty language,” nevertheless, the author denies it the significance of a historical source 2. About all the tales compiled before the end of the Time of Troubles, the researcher notes that they “either do not provide factual material for the historian at all,” or they provide information that requires strict critical verification 3 . There is no historical source that does not require critical verification. Moreover, what to call factual material for a historian? Historical facts are not just incidents; ideas, views, feelings, impressions of people of a certain time are the same facts and very important, also requiring critical study. The significance that Another Legend acquired in the society of the Time of Troubles, political role, which was almost the first time that a Russian pen had been given at that time, is in itself such an important fact that it would be worth emphasizing in a study of the sources of the history of the Time of Troubles. Terenty's story was presented to the patriarch, by royal order, read publicly 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 force of Russian patriotic writing directed against him in 1611 and complained to the Moscow boyars that about him then wrote in Rus' 4. One can notice other gaps in Mr. Platonova, having some connection with the specified. If the narrative writing of the Time of Troubles reflected the political parties and opinions then contending, methodological convenience would require that a critical review of that writing explain the origins of these parties and opinions, as well as their significance during the Troubles. Due to the fact that this requirement is left unanswered, the historical sources examined by the author are divorced from the historical soil from which they emerged, and his criticism does not exhaust all the material that they provide. Let's give 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 electoral monarchy. How did Russian society feel in the first half of the 17th century? to this change of sovereigns by God's will sovereigns according to the multi-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 this or that view of the difference and significance of both these sources of power included in the programs political parties that time? The author does not raise a question about this, although from his presentation it is clear that in the writing he examines something can be found to answer this question. So we find in her traces of lack of sympathy for the electoral authorities. Nizhny Novgorod Vision 161! g. does not want a king appointed by the people “of their own free will”; Filaret's manuscript considers the accession of Prince Vasily Shuisky, who was elevated to the throne by Moscow adherents without the advice of the entire land, without the participation of the Zemsky Sobor, to be completely correct. The author further notes in the preface that literary character works about the Troubles are very diverse. Among them there are stories, or legends, lives, chroniclers, chronographs, visions and one cry. All this is pretty worked out in Old Russian writing Literary forms that differed in the choice of subjects, methods of presentation, and even the way of understanding the phenomena depicted. These features must be taken into account when critically assessing works expressed in one or another of these literary forms, especially in the one in which phenomena are reflected at the greatest angle of refraction. These are, for example, visions, Quite a lot of which have been preserved in Old Russian writing and which made a particularly strong impression on Old Russian people. Vision- usually a sharp accusatory sermon with a mysterious atmosphere, caused by the expectation or onset of public misfortune, calling society to repentance and cleansing, the fruit of an alarmed feeling and a piously excited imagination. One would expect the author to express his opinion about these forms, about how a critic should treat them, and even point out how much their stereotypical makeup has changed under the influence of new ones. political concepts and the trends that publicists of the 17th century pursued in these forms. Unfortunately, in the book of Mr. Platonov We find neither such a judgment nor such instructions, which were all the more necessary because in Time of Troubles and partly under his influence a deep change occurred in ancient Russian historiography. The presentation techniques and worldview of the ancient Russian chroniclers and compilers of “legends” are known. This worldview and these techniques began to change noticeably from the beginning of the 17th century. The author notes interesting news in the monuments he examines. The narration of the chronograph of the second edition about the Time of Troubles is no longer that simple weather list of individual events, mechanically linked by moralistic reflections, which is usually found in ancient Russian chronicles: it is a series of essays and characteristics in which the narrator tries to grasp the connection and meaning of events, outstanding features and even the hidden motives of the figures. The narrator ponders the natural causes of phenomena, without involving in the human turmoil the mysterious forces by which the chronicler directs the life of people and nations. The historical view is secularized. New techniques and tasks for storytelling encourage the search for new literary forms and sophisticated titles. Prince Khvorostinin writes a story about the Time of Troubles under the title: “Words of Days and Tsars,” but this story is the same series of general outlines and characteristics as the chronograph’s story; from it we learn not so much about persons and events, but about how the narrator looked at persons and events. According to the thoughts of the Novgorod Metropolitan Isidore, clerk Timofeev at the beginning of the reign of Michael constituted Temporary; but this is far from being a temporary chronicle of the old style, but rather a historical and political treatise: its compiler reflects more than talks about what happened. He knows the techniques of scientific presentation and the requirements of historical objectivity and knows how to formulate them; beneath the clumsy pretentiousness of his presentation, 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, which would form a chapter from the history of Russian historiography, depicting one of the turning points in its development. Such an essay, it seems, would be required by the very task of a study devoted to a critical study of the sources of our history, and it could lead to the raising of questions that are not devoid of scientific significance. Let us point out the possibility of one of them. Revealing the reasons for this 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 the chronographs themselves or by other writers, occupy a prominent place in the Russian-historical department of these chronographs. Andrei Popov's remarkable research on the chronographs of the Russian edition made it possible to trace the consistency and persistence with which this department grew within their composition. Initially, 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 additions to it, but its constituent parts in a synchronistic presentation with Byzantine events. In chronographs of the 17th century. Russian history takes another step forward, emerges from the established framework of the chronograph, or, more precisely, expands it: From the time of 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 disappears , 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 behind itself the general historical department. In this growth of the Russian-historical department of chronographs it is possible to see a reflection of the turn that took place in the worldview of Russian scribes who worked on the presentation of world history, which ancient Russian people studied using chronographs. What is especially curious is that at the same time with this separation of the Russian-historical department, streams from the sources of Western European, Latin chronicles and cosmography are flowing with increasing abundance into the general historical department, which until then was fed almost exclusively by biblical and Byzantine sources. Thus, the horizons of Russian historical thought expanded on both sides. Was the indicated turning point in Russian historiography connected with this expansion? We have seen that the articles about the Time of Troubles in the second edition of the chronograph, compiled shortly after the Time of Troubles, were one of the first monuments, if not the first of the monuments, in which new techniques 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 that were revealed to the Russian thinker of the 17th century? Polish World Chronicle and Latin cosmography? This is a question the study of which, it seems, would not be superfluous in a study of the historiography of the Time of Troubles. But if Mr. Platonov admitted some gaps in the study of what the monuments he analyzed provide 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 would 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 is clear 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; find out the goals that guided the compiler, and the circumstances under which he wrote; find the sources of his information and, finally, characterize the approximate degree of general reliability or plausibility of his story" 7. Such critical program fully corresponds to the main task of the author to indicate what there is in the monument of external facts suitable for history, and researchers of the Time of Troubles will undoubtedly be grateful to Mr. Platonov for his instructions, which will help them to clarify the origin and factual content of many legends about 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 was able to achieve new and reliable conclusions. Many monuments, such as Another legend And Temporary clerk Timofeev, have not yet been analyzed in our literature with such thoroughness as Mr. Platonov. In general, careful development of critical-bibliographical and bibliographical details constitutes, in our opinion, the most strong point Mr. research Platonov. When reading the pages in his book about the lives of princes Khvorostinin, Katyrev-Rostovsky and Shakhovsky, attention involuntarily stops at the author’s ability to mosaically select small data scattered across various sources and put them into a coherent essay, and his habit of accurately identifying the sources from which he draws his information, making it easier to verify his conclusions, at the same time makes it possible to see what each such page cost him: he selected in the order books and indicated in the notes up to 60 places where the name of Prince I.M. Katyrev-Rostovsky is mentioned, so that on the basis of these references, write 5 lines in the text of the study about the life of Prince Katyrev in 1626-1629. 8 Biographies of the three named writers of the 17th century. can be considered the valuable contributions of Mr. Platonov V biographical dictionary Russian historiography. All this, given the author’s thorough acquaintance with other people’s works on his chosen subject, forces us to recognize his research as the fruit of leisurely, thoughtfully and clearly carried out work. But, inspiring confidence in the conclusions about the origin, sources and composition of the monuments, the research of Mr. Platonov It is not always convincing enough to evaluate and characterize these monuments as historical sources. The reason for this is a certain uncertainty in the critical standard 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 examines as sources for the history of the Troubles. Basing his assessment on the quality and quantity of “factual material” that the monument provides to the historian, the author does not introduce into this material the political opinions and tendencies carried out in the monument, considering them only “literary” and not historical facts and, thus, confusing or by 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 talks about the Kelar Avr. Palitsyn and clerk I. Timofeev, that both of these writers, “not only describing, but also discussing the era they lived through, often left the role of historians and entered the realm of journalistic reasoning,” as if thinking about historical phenomena while 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 for oneself and others is not propaganda 9. Some instability of the point of view is also felt in other judgments of the author. In connection with the fifth part Another legend he examines in detail the identical articles of the second edition of the chronograph 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, from here they were transferred to Another legend 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 ones and brief chronicle news. But even if we admit that these chronicle notes were inserted into the narrative by the compiler himself, and not by an outside hand, then Mr. Platonov noticed that these insertions are frequent only at the beginning of the narrative, going on from 1534, and that the closer the narrator gets to his time, to the beginning of the 17th century, the less brief notes he has and the more coherent his story is. This means that the narrator, knowing less about the time he did not remember, was unable to coherently present the borrowed information. The author seems to confuse the integrity of the composition, the attribution of the work to one pen, with the literary harmony of the presentation. He does not recognize the originality of the work, because its compiler “did not simply compose his testimony, but was guided literary sources"The author hardly wrote here what he wanted to say: he knows very well that being an original historical narrator does not mean compose testimony without being guided by sources; otherwise the rare historian can be considered original. Thus, there does not seem to be a sufficient reason for polemics with A. Popov, especially when the author himself admits that the chronograph narrative being analyzed “bears a very noticeable imprint of the originality of 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 notes that “nothing has yet been done” to illuminate its origin. Unfortunately, the author’s wavering considerations do not sufficiently illuminate the origin of the monument. He poses the question: is the New Chronicler not 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 guess that the Chronicler was compiled by Patriarch Job or his cell attendant, as well as by the testimony of Patriarch Hermogenes that he wrote down “in the chronicler” some events of his time. Observations of 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 unified view of events, which indicates the work of one author; there is no trace of the compiler’s personal likes and dislikes, which indicates the later origin of the monument, when the immediate impressions of the Time of Troubles had already faded. However, from the author’s further observations of the monument, it turned out that the New Chronicler looks at the same events and persons in completely different ways, that in one place he speaks officially and calmly about the same person, and in another differently. Thus, in the Chronicler there is neither a unity of view nor the personal dispassion of the compiler; therefore, there is no internal integrity. The author explains this by the compiler’s excessive dependence on the various sources he used, his inability to merge “different parts of his body of work into a single literary work.” To this the author also adds that some of the articles of the New Chronicler, in their finishing and completeness, “have 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, combining the results of his observations, the author refuses to recognize the New Chronicle as a chronicle that was compiled gradually, by the work of several people, and settles on the opinion that “by all indications” it was processed from beginning to end around 1630 and, moreover, by one person. The author himself considers it necessary admit that the data he cited “do not categorically resolve the question 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 confidence that this published list “happily” reproduced the original text monument |3 It is difficult to justify such confidence in an edition that is known to be very faulty, and it is even more difficult to blame the author for not taking upon himself the truly “enormous task” of comparing all numerous lists of this monument, preserved in our ancient repositories. But you may regret it. The Chronicler's lists are distinguished by significant variations in the text and composition of the monument. The three printed editions 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 a chronicle story about the defeat of Novgorod in 1570, and the third - with a list of boyars, “which of them were traitors” from 1534. Maybe studying The lists of the monument would help to clarify its origin, but in the lists of the short edition of the Tale of 1606 there was an indication of the time of compilation of this legend. Finally, it is hardly possible to recognize as firmly established the author’s view of the narrative of the Time of Troubles, included in the famous Stolyarovsky list of the chronograph. The author agrees with Mr. Markevich, who considers this narrative to be a fairly complete book of private origin, therefore Mr. Platonov thinks that this monument has until now been included in the ranks of literary works only “by misunderstanding” 14. So, this is a non-literary and unofficial monument. One may fear whether there are sufficient grounds for such a verdict. True, in the narrative under consideration we often encounter news presented in the form of bit recording or painting. But it is known how much there is in the Moscow chronicles of the 15th and 16th centuries. detailed extracts from grade books, which does not prevent them from remaining chronicles and even literary works. On the other hand, news from the chronicle was sometimes included in the discharge books for communication and in the explanation of military campaign or court ceremonial paintings. But it is necessary to distinguish a digit book with chronicle inserts from a chronicle with digit inserts. Both sets retained their typical features in composition and presentation techniques and had special goals. If, among the rank lists, news was placed that was not directly related to them, revealing the compiler’s intention to depict the general course of affairs, it means that the intention was to compile not a stationery book for business official 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 categorical extracts, a rather detailed and interesting story would have been compiled, at least until the accession of Mikhail. As for the lack of rhetoric and “any attempt to construct a harmonious literary presentation” in the unknown narrator, it is not clear why his presentation seems to the author in literary terms lower, for example, than the chronicle according to the Resurrection 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 digit paintings, so some news of a non-digital nature from the 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 ranks, but a chronicle compiled from various sources, mainly from rank paintings, not without the participation of the compiler’s personal observations and memories. Judging by the nature of the main source and the tone of the presentation, simple, but at the same time restrained and formal, it is difficult to imagine that this chronicle was undertaken on a private initiative, and not on official instructions. It may easily be that, contrary to the opinion of the author, we have here before us not only a literary monument, but also an official one. From the analysis of individual monuments, let us move on to the general results of Mr. Platonov and we will indicate what he has done on his chosen subject and what still 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 was, until recently, an unfulfilled task in Russian historiography.” Without exaggeration, we can say that in relation to the early and basic legends, the author successfully solved the task he had taken upon himself and thereby filled one of the noticeable gaps in our historiography: he carefully sorted out the extensive and diverse material, for the first time introduced into scientific circulation several little-known monuments, such as Temporary Timofeev, and successfully unraveled several particular issues in the historiography of the Time of Troubles or prepared their resolution. A student of the history of the Time of Troubles will find in his book enough instructions to know what each of the main legends about the Time of Troubles can give him and what he does not need to look for there. The author did not ignore the secondary and later monuments, having analyzed in detail those of them that were attributed to him classified as biographical and not devoid of literary integrity and originality 15. But later compilation monuments, as well as local legends about the Time of Troubles, are characterized by the author briefly or only listed with their sources indicated. The incompleteness of this list is justified by the abundance of such monuments and the difficulty of collecting them. Meanwhile, these compilations, compiled during the 17th century, are not without scientific significance in many respects. Firstly, their very large number shows how long and with what tension attention was maintained in Russian society to an era so rich in extraordinary phenomena. Then in them you can find fragments of earlier legends that have not reached us. Finally, this compilation of writing introduces us to the course of historiography in the 17th century, with its techniques and favorite topics, with the way it adopted to use sources and explain historical phenomena. In explanation, I will point out 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 chronograph lists of the 17th century. it is not possible to establish any exact types of compilations, because each manuscript has its own differences 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 as it is in the lists of the second category. It begins directly with the 151st chapter, a story about the invasion of the Crimean Khan to Moscow in 1521, but not because the previous chapters in it were lost - they never existed. The first pages of the list are occupied by a detailed table of contents, which exactly corresponds to the chapters contained in it. In the story about the invasion of the khan, the compiler inserted visions of the “righteous bastard” St. Basil and other pious people of the city of Moscow, described in his own way the last days and 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, To another legend And Legend A. Palitsyna; in our manuscript we find extracts from The stories that were made from the Solovetsky chronograph and some sources unknown to us 19. Thus, in the story of the famine under Tsar Boris we encounter curious features that we do not find in other legends about that time. Based on one detail, one can guess where this alteration was compiled: the document on the accession of Vasily Shuisky is given here according to the list of it that was sent to Tver to the governor Z. Tikhmenev, with the note June 19, 114. 20 Having collected similar instructions from the chronograph lists, it will be possible judge where and how they were processed in the 17th century. tales of Troubles. 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 Chronicle there is short story about the defeat of Lisovsky near Yuryevets 22. In the lists of the lengthy edition of the life of St. Macarius of Zheltovodsk we find an interesting, detailed account of this episode. However, these gaps do not prevent us from recognizing Mr. Platonov a valuable contribution to Russian historiography, fully deserving of the prize sought by the author. This is the price they attach to the work of Mr. Platonov to the highest degree serious attitude the author 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 heyday - 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 research of V. O. Klyuchevsky, placed in the seventh volume of his Works, is mainly connected with two problems - with the situation of peasants in Russia and the origin of serfdom ("The serfdom question on the eve of its legislative initiation", "Law and fact in the history of the peasant question", “The origin of serfdom in Russia”, “Poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia”, “Review of the study by V. I. Semevsky “The Peasant Question in Russia in the 18th and the first half of the 19th century.”). On the issue of economic development of Russia ("Economic activity Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory", "Russian ruble XVI--XVIII centuries. in its relation to the present."). The predominant attention to issues of a socio-economic nature 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 sketches 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 is a question of its adaptation to the interests of the state and the conditions of society” ( See page 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 “weakness historical criticism in the study comes from a lack of historical perspective on the subject under study" (See p. 427.). Responding to the pressing issues of the post-reform times, one way or another connected with the peasant question and the reform of 1861, which abolished serfdom, V. O. Klyuchevsky traced stages in the development of serfdom in Russia, the reasons that both gave rise to it and led to its abolition, characteristic phenomena in the boyar, landowner, and 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 largest representative B. N. Chicherin, according to whose idea the entire history of social development in Russia consisted of “enslavement and emancipation of classes” carried out by the state depending on its needs. V. O. Klyuchevsky, on the contrary, believed that serfdom in Russia was determined by a private law moment, developing on the basis of the economic debt of peasants to landowners; the state only legislatively sanctioned the emerging relations. The scheme proposed by V. O. Klyuchevsky was as follows. The primary form of serfdom in Rus' (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. Subsequently, with the development of large private land ownership, the peasantry, according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, as a “free and wandering tenant of someone else’s land,” gradually lost the right to move, either due to the impossibility of returning the loan received for the establishment, or as a result of a preliminary voluntary refusal 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 fortresses, known private act of ownership or acquisition" (See p. 245.). The state, in order to ensure its needs, only "allowed the previously existing serfdom of serfdom to spread to the peasants, contrary to the land attachment of the peasants, if only the latter was ever established by it" (See . p. 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 extended to the peasantry as a whole and during the enslavement of the peasants, servitude, in turn, lost its specific traits and merged with the enslaved peasantry. V. O. Klyuchevsky attributed the development of serfdom to the 16th century. Until that time, in his opinion, the peasantry, who were not land owners, were free tenants of privately owned land. From the second half of the 15th century in Russia Because of the economic turning point, the reasons for which remained unclear to Klyuchevsky, landowners, extremely interested in working hands, are developing the agricultural holdings of their indentured servants and are actively attracting free people to their land; the latter “could not support their economy without the help of other people’s capital,” and their number “increased enormously” (See pp. 252, 257, 280.). As a result, the increasing debt of the peasants led to the fact that landowners, of their own free will, began to extend the norms of servile law to the indebted peasants, and serfdom on 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 the rural population" (See pp. 271, 272, 338, 339.). “Even without encountering in the legislation the slightest trace of the serfdom of the peasants, one can feel that the fate of peasant freedom has already been decided apart from the state legislative institution, which only had to formalize and register this decision, imperatively dictated by historical law, at the appropriate time,” 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 servitude began to merge into one by the end of the 17th century general concept serf man."“This explains the legal indifference with which landowners in the second half of the 17th century exchanged household servants, complete and indentured servants, for peasants, and peasants for householders” (See pp. 389--390, 389.). This process of merger was completed with the introduction of the poll tax under Peter I, and the will of landowners turned into state law. The indicated scheme of V. O. Klyuchevsky, later developed by M. A. Dyakonov, had an unconditionally positive significance for its time. Despite the fact that in his monographic works devoted to 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 economic factor, independent of the will of the government. Klyuchevsky caught the connection between servitude (bonded) and serfdom, gave interesting characteristic 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, devoting the main attention in analyzing the reasons for the enslavement of the peasantry to private legal 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 development of the system of feudal socio-economic relations. In Soviet historical literature, the question of the enslavement of peasants was the subject of a major study by Academician B. D. Grekov (See. V. D. Grekov, Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the 17th century, book. I--II, M. 1952--1954.) and a number of works by 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 study." Sat. IV, M. 1955, pp. 307--349; him,"From the history of the formation of the class of feudal-dependent peasantry in Rus'", "Historical Notes", book. 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 are of interest, devoted to the analysis of the works of Yu. F. Samarin: “The serf question on the eve of its legislative initiation” and “Law and fact in the history of the peasant question.” In these articles, he shows, not without irony, that even “sincere and conscientious” noble public figures, when work began on preparing the Regulations of 1861, remained in the positions of “ideas and events” of the first half of the 19th century. and assumed that the provision of land to the peasants would be within the framework of a “voluntary” agreement between the landowners and the peasants. To characterize the scientific interests of V. O. Klyuchevsky, it should be noted that he devoted his first large monographic work, “The Economic Activities of the Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea Territory,” published in 1866, to the history of colonization and the economy of monasteries, which was later developed and generalized by him in the second part of the "Course of Russian History". In this work, the history of the emergence of the monastic economy deserves unconditional attention, “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 most recent detailed study of land ownership and economy of the estate of the Solovetsky Monastery belongs to the pen of A. A. Savich, who comprehensively examined the acquisitive activities of this largest Northern Russian feudal lord of the 15th-17th centuries (See. A. A. Savich, Solovetsky patrimony of the XV-XVII centuries, Perm 1927.) The article “Pskov Disputes” (1877), devoted to some issues of ideological life in Rus' of the XV-XVI centuries, is connected with Klyuchevsky’s many years of work on the ancient Russian lives of saints. This article by Klyuchevsky arose in conditions that intensified in the second half of the 19th century. polemics between the dominant Orthodox Church and the Old Believers. The article contains material about the futility of medieval disputes on church issues and the rights of church governance in Rus'. Until now, it has fully retained its scientific significance another work by V. O. Klyuchevsky “Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries in its relation to the present” (Checking Klyuchevsky’s observations about 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 ( Cm. V. V. Kafengauz, Essays on the internal 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 from 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 clarify 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 ceremonial meeting of Moscow University on June 6, 1880, on the day of the opening of the monument to Pushkin” and “Eugene Onegin ". V. O. Klyuchevsky owns a phrase that is brilliant in form: “You always want to say too much about Pushkin, you always say a lot of unnecessary things and never say everything that should be said” (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 living picture noble society that time. This approach to the work of A. S. Pushkin cannot but be considered 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 viewed the culture of Russia of that time too one-sidedly, not seeing advanced trends in it. The articles published in the seventh volume of the Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky are, in general, a valuable historiographical heritage on a number of important issues in the history of Russia. More or less full list the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, published from 1866 to 1914, were 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,” books I, M . 1914, pp. 442--473.) The omissions in this list are insignificant (There is no mention of the work of P. Kirchman “History of Public and Private Life”, M. 1867. This book was published in the processing of Klyuchevsky, who re-wrote the sections on Russian everyday life. The review "Great Chetyi-Minea", published in the newspaper "Moscow", 1868, No. 90, dated June 20 (republished in the Third Collection of Articles) was not noted. Comments about the hryvnia kun made by V. O. Klyuchevsky were omitted A. V. Prakhov's report on the frescoes of the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev 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, based on the report of V.I. Kholmogorov “On the question of the time of creation of scribal books” (“Antiquities. Proceedings of the Archaeographic Commission”, vol. I, M. 189S, p. 182). On April 24, 1896, V. O. Klyuchevsky gave a speech “On the educational role of St. Stephen of Perm” (Readings of the OIDR, 1898, book II, minutes p. 14), on 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 peasants in the north” (“Antiquities. Proceedings of the Archaeographic Commission,” vol. II, issue II, M. 1900, p. 402), on March 18, 1904, he gave a speech about 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 makes no mention of the article by V. O. Klyuchevsky “M. S. Korelin” (died January 3, 1894), published in the appendix to the book: M. S. Korelin, Essays on the history of philosophical thought during the Renaissance, "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 of S. A. Belokurov (among them “Reviews and answers. Third collection of articles”, M. 1914, reprint, M. 1918; reprints the first two collections of articles, “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 the collection .: "Proceedings of the All-Russian public library them. Lenin and the State Rumyantsev Museum", issue V, M. 1924; an abbreviated recording of Klyuchevsky’s speeches at the Peterhof meeting in June 1905 is given in the book: "Nicholas II. Materials for characterizing personality and reign", M. 1917, pp. 163--164, 169--170, 193--196, 232--233.). Most of articles, studies and reviews by V. O. Klyuchevsky was collected and published in three collections. The first was entitled “Experiments and Research”, published back in 1912 (a second time in 1915) (It included studies: “Economic activity of the Solovetsky Monastery”, “Pskov disputes”, “Russian ruble of the 16th-18th centuries. in its relation to the present", "The origin of serfdom in Russia", "Poll tax and the abolition of servitude in Russia." "Composition of representation at zemstvo councils ancient Rus'".). 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 ceremonial meeting of Moscow University on June 6, 1880, on the opening day of the monument to Pushkin", "Eugene Onegin and his ancestors", "Promotion of the church to the success 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", "Fonvizin's minor", "Empress Catherine II ", "Western influence and church schism in Russia XVII c.", "Peter the Great among his employees." 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 ancient Russian monasteries", "Analysis of the work of V. Ikonnikov", "Amendment to one anti-criticism. Reply 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 Paphnutius", "Academic review of the work of A. Gorchakov", "Doctoral disputation of Subbotin at the Moscow Theological Academy", "Analysis of the book of D. Solntsev", "Analysis of the work of N. Suvorov" , "The serf question on the eve of its legislative initiation", "Review of the book by S. Smirnov", "G. Rambo - historian of Russia." "Law and fact in the history of the peasant question, response to Vladimirsky-Budanov", "Academic review of the research 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 articles were not included in collections of his works. Texts are published according to the rules set out in the first volume of “Works of V. O. Klyuchevsky”. References to archival sources in Klyuchevsky’s published works are unified, but are not compared with handwritten material. Tom comes out under the general supervision of an academician M. N. Tikhomirova, text prepared and commented V. A. Alexandrov And A. A. Zimin.

REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH BY S. F. PLATONOV "ANCIENT RUSSIAN TALES AND STORIES ABOUT THE TIME OF TROUBLES IN THE 17th CENTURY AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE"

Review by V. O. Klyuchevsky about the study of S. F. Platonov “Ancient 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 award of Count Uvarov ", St. Petersburg. 1890, pp. 53--66, et seq. St. Petersburg 1890, pp. 1--14. Reprinted in the book: V. O. Klyuchevsky,

The traditions of historical narrative literature of the 16th century continue to develop in works from 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 early 17th century already speak 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, a desire appears to depict the internal contradictions of character and 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 popular rumors about them. Human activity is given in a historical perspective, and for the first time begins to be assessed in its “social function” (D.S. Likhachev). Events of 1604 - 1613 a crushing blow was dealt to religious ideology, to the undivided dominance of the church in all spheres of life: it is not God, but man who creates his own destiny; it is not God’s will, but the activity of people that determines the historical destinies of the country. The role of the trade and craft townspeople is strengthening, and this entails the further democratization of literature. All this leads to the “secularization” of culture and literature in the 17th century, i.e. to its gradual liberation from the tutelage 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 Vasilyevich 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 he was allegedly poisoned by the boyars out of envy. The story begins with a rhetorical book introduction, in which genealogical calculations are made, tracing the Skopin-Shuisky family back 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 talks in detail about how the hero was poisoned by the wife of his uncle Dmitry Shuisky, the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov. There are characteristic elements epic folk poetics. The second part, dedicated to the description of the death of the hero and the national grief over his death, is made in the traditional book manner. The story has a pronounced anti-boyar orientation, glorifying 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 "Legend" cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Abraham Palitsyn, written in 1609-1620. The “Tale” tells about the events of the “time of troubles” from 1584 to 1618. “The Legend” consists of a number of independent works:

• 1. A short historical essay reviewing the events from the death of Ivan the Terrible to the accession of Shuisky, where Palitsyn sees the causes of the “turmoil” in the illegal theft of the royal throne by Godunov and in his policies.
• 2. 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 notes from participants in the defense of the monastery fortress.
• 3. The story of the destruction 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 and fantastic 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" admits decisive role people in the fight against enemies. He depicts the exploits of monastery servants, monastery peasants and emphasizes that the monastery was saved by the people. Much attention is paid to depicting a person’s actions and thoughts. The author has made a significant step in recognizing the people as active participants in historical events.

The genre of the historical story underwent 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 esaul Fedor Poroshin, who arrived with the Cossack embassy in Moscow in 1641 in order to convince the tsar and the government to accept the fortress of Azov from the Cossacks “under their own hands,” which the Cossacks captured in 1637 from Turks and defended in 1641. Fyodor 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 outstanding historical figure, but a small team, a handful of brave and courageous Cossack daredevils who accomplished a heroic feat. A high sense of national self-awareness and a sense of patriotism inspired them to heroism. Cossacks love their homeland and cannot betray it. Therefore, with poisonous irony they answer Turkish ambassadors to the offer to surrender the fortress to them without a fight and go to the Sultan. Their response 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 help but pay tribute to tradition: the victory achieved by the Cossacks is explained by the result of the miraculous intercession of heavenly forces led by John the Baptist. But religious fiction serves only as a means of exalting the patriotic feat of the defenders of Azov.

In the language of the story there is no bookish rhetoric and elements of living spoken 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 masses, as well as to establish the forces of the people, triumphing 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 story, which in turn serves as the basis for the further development of an adventure love story. The attention of the authors is transferred to the personality of a person, to his life, character. The writer and reader are increasingly interested in moral, ethical and everyday issues. For example, “The Tale of the Beginning of Moscow.”

Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of Russia. Significant changes took place in society: a new ruling dynasty emerged, a negative attitude towards the bearers of Western European culture was formed for a long time, and the country was ruined. The consequences of the Time of Troubles were overcome over the course of decades, and yet it was impossible to completely restore previous forms of life. The Time of Troubles became, in a certain sense, a milestone in the history of late medieval Russia. People of the 17th century they were excited and interested in these changes in their lives, which they tried to comprehend through an assessment of the events of the Time of Troubles. In this regard, a large complex of literary and historical works of the 17th century is dedicated to the Troubles, the genre of which can be defined as historical journalism. This literature, created throughout the 17th century, is dedicated to the events of the turn of the 16th–17th centuries. and the first decade of the 17th century.

Some of the works about the Troubles are distinguished by the detail of their presentation, others by the imagery of their characteristics, but all of them are united by the desire to comprehend the era of the recent past, which so strongly influenced the present.

The most popular of these early writings about the Troubles was "The story of how the all-seeing eye of Christ took revenge on Godunov by shedding the innocent blood of the new passion-bearer, the blessed Tsarevich Dmitry of Uglich"and its later reworking" Tale, How can Boris Godunov seize the royal throne in Moscow by untruth..."

“The story of how the all-seeing eye of Christ took revenge on Godunov for the shedding of the innocent blood of the new passion-bearer, the blessed Tsarevich Dmitry Uglichsky” was compiled in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by one of the monks, who was an eyewitness to most of the events (with the exception of the foreign adventures of Grigory Otrepiev and several other episodes) about which wrote. The work describes the events of the late 16th – early 17th centuries. (before the election of Vasily Shuisky to the kingdom), and the author not only does not hide his political views, but even passionately promotes them: Boris Godunov, the murderer of Tsarevich Dimitri and the actual usurper of the royal throne, is declared to be the culprit of all misfortunes. Compared to Godunov, even Grigory Otrepiev does not look like a villain, although the author condemns him. The positive character of the story is the newly crowned Tsar Vasily Shuisky, whose name is associated with hopes for the end of the Time of Troubles. The work is written in bookish language. The author himself states that he took the Chronicle of Constantine Manasias as a model for the narrative. Perhaps it was precisely the literary merits that ensured this story’s popularity in historical writing of the 17th century.

One of the earliest literary works about the Time of Troubles - the so-called "The Tale of Troubles from the Article List", which was compiled immediately after the assassination of False Dmitry I as a guide for the ambassadors to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Prince G.K. Volkonsky and clerk A. Ivanov, sent by the new Tsar Vasily Shuisky immediately after the coronation. The text of the work ends with a description of Shuisky’s coronation, which took place on June 1, 1606. Apparently, it was at this time that the story was composed. The text of “The Tale of the Time of Troubles from the Article List” arrived as part of the article list of the embassy of G. K. Volkonsky and A. Ivanov. By sending ambassadors to the Polish king Sigismund III, Vasily Shuisky tried to establish peaceful relations with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Hence the story contains harsh accusations against False Dmitry I, which should justify his overthrow from the throne and reprisal against him.

The works created during the Time of Troubles have a pronounced journalistic character, which is also expressed in their mutual influence: once a successful form of presenting the material is found, it passes from text to text. This is especially clearly seen in the example of the genre of miraculous visions. People were so exhausted by incessant hostilities, robberies and murders that the end of the disaster was expected not from the government, but from divine intervention. In such an environment, mystical sentiments, generally quite strong in society, appeared more and more often. This resulted in visions to various persons, which spoke about the end of the Time of Troubles and which were recorded and formalized in the form of independent works.

The first of these works, which influenced subsequent ones, was "The Tale of a Spiritual Vision to a Certain Man" Archpriest of the Kremlin Annunciation Cathedral Terenty, written in 1606 in anticipation of an attack on Moscow by I. Bolotnikov’s troops. "The Tale of a Vision in Novgorod" tells about the vision of the Novgorod miracle workers to a certain monk Varlaam in the St. Sophia Cathedral on the eve of the capture of Novgorod by the Swedes in 1611. Using the work of Archpriest Terenty as a source, the author of the Novgorod story changes its main idea. Terenty tells of a vision to “a certain holy man” of the Mother of God and Jesus Christ in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. According to the vision, the Mother of God begged Christ for the salvation of Russia, prerequisite which declared general repentance. In the Novgorod vision, the Mother of God, surrounded by a host of Novgorod saints, will deliver the city into the hands of enemies for the sins of the people. From this, researchers conclude that the Novgorod story was written after the occupation of Novgorod by the Swedes. “The Tale of a Vision in Nizhny Novgorod,” also written in 1611, but even before the capture of Novgorod by the Swedes (in any case, the author did not know about it), also uses Terenty’s story as a source, introducing Nizhny Novgorod realities into the plot. In particular, the call for national unity in the face of enemies, which played a decisive role later, during the formation of the second militia, deserves attention. The Nizhny Novgorod story is also related to “The Tale of a Vision in Vladimir”, which is similar in plot; Only in Vladimir did a woman become a visionary, to whom the Mother of God appeared. Both stories, Nizhny Novgorod and Vladimir, were sent out to cities in 1611, being integral part patriotic correspondence between the latter, which preceded the creation of the militia.

A number of works were created after the end of the Time of Troubles, but their authors were direct participants in the events. These works should also include chapters on the Troubles Chronograph edition 1617, And New chronicler and some monuments of hagiography (for example, “The Life of Tsarevich Dimitri”). A special place is occupied by original works in which attempts are made to understand recent events. At the same time, contradictions are smoothed out and more neutral characteristics are given to some odious figures. Thus, the authors speak much more restrainedly about Vasily Shuisky and his reign.

In addition, the description of the Troubles is used by the authors to express their political and ideological positions. One of these stories was written by Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Katyrev-Rostovsky, who, despite the relatively low rank of a Moscow nobleman, belonged to the highest nobility of Russia at that time. In addition to his noble origin, I.M. Katyrev-Rostovsky had a peculiar relationship with the new dynasty: his first wife was the daughter of Patriarch Filaret and, accordingly, the sister of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. The prince did not pursue ranks, but served honestly, as far as possible given the general “vacillation” in the Time of Troubles. In 1608, he nevertheless fell out of favor with Vasily Shuisky and was sent to the voivodeship in distant Tobolsk, where he stayed until the end of the Time of Troubles. Thus, I.M. Katyrev-Rostovsky was not an eyewitness to all the events he wrote about. His story is not replete with emotional assessments, and there is no retelling of small facts. Boris Godunov is given in general positive characteristic, impartiality remains in relation to Vasily Shuisky. Grigory Otrepyev, without a doubt, is portrayed as the negative hero of the story, but it is remarkable that the author accuses him of specific actions and actions. Despite his obvious closeness to the Romanovs, I. M. Katyrev-Rostovsky avoids direct praise of Filaret. This work, written immediately after the end of the Time of Troubles, contains elements of historicism, which allows it to be classified not as journalism, but as historical prose.

The essay about the Time of Troubles by Prince Ivan Andreevich Khvorostinin also reflects the character and views of the author. When very young, I. A. Khvorostinin served at the court of False Dmitry I, was in his favor, and then, after his overthrow, found himself in disgrace. I. A. Khvorostinin’s further service was accompanied by periodic accusations of sympathy for Catholicism and Western European culture. Contemporaries speak of him as an arrogant, unpleasant person to communicate with. Matching the author is his work “Words of the Days, and Tsars, and Saints of Moscow...”, in which I. A. Khvorostinin focuses on his own figure, and tries in every possible way to whitewash himself and emphasize his importance in the events of the Time of Troubles. In reality it was not so great. The sequence of events in I. A. Khvorostinin’s work is presented extremely poorly; let us point out as an example that there are no dates in the text. Despite this, the central hero of the era is visible, who, according to the author, was Patriarch Hermogenes.

The work of Prince Semyon Ivanovich Shakhovsky is a treatise about Tsarevich Dimitri. The source of the treatise was the story of I. M. Katyrev-Rostovsky. The work of S. I. Shakhovsky is similar to “Words of the Days, and Tsars, and Saints of Moscow...” by I. A. Khvorostinin precisely because of its literary component; the text mentions a minimal number of facts. The work consists of two parts: the life of Tsarevich Demetrius and the story of False Dmitry I (“The Tale of a Certain Mnis, which was sent from God to Tsar Boris”). These parts are connected chronologically, thematically and literary. The idea of ​​retribution to Boris Godunov for his sins and the theme of humility, which is saving in any life situation, runs through the entire essay. Before us is an attempt to comprehend the historical experience of the Time of Troubles, to give the historical narrative a moralizing character.

The Troubles were described not only by aristocrats, but also by representatives of other segments of the population. Of the works written by church authors, the most famous was " Story"cellar of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Abraham Palitsyn - an active participant in the events of the Time of Troubles. During the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by Polish troops, A. Palitsyn participated in the composition of letters of patriotic content, which were sent to cities and played a significant role in the unity of society. In "History" Trinity cellarer talks about events well known to him: the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The author writes about his role in the defense of the monastery, emphasizing, like I. A. Khvorostinin, the significance of his actions. At the same time, A. Palitsyn’s essay is filled with factual details , dialogues of the characters. The author clearly sought to capture the historical process in all its diversity, and in this “History" comes close to the story of I. M. Katyrev-Rostovsky. It is important in A. Palitsyn’s work to understand the role of the masses in the historical process, in this he as a historian he turned out to be wealthier than his contemporaries.

Ivan Timofeev, the author of another famous work about the Troubles, the so-called "Vremennik".

“Vremennik” is written in a heavy, florid language, indicating the author’s attempt to imitate the style of church books, and also the fact that he did not master this style. I. Timofeev describes the disasters that befell the Russian land, and, wondering about the cause of these disasters, criticizes domestic policy Ivan the Terrible and Boris

Godunov, who changed the “legal order” of reform, etc. Here, as in other works created by contemporaries of the Time of Troubles after its end, there is a noticeable desire to comprehend the events of the recent past.

A separate group consists of compilations based on the writings of contemporaries of the Time of Troubles. They often combine fragments of several sources that contradict each other in their assessments of events. These sources seem to “speak in different voices.”

For example, in the composition compiled in the 1630s–1640s. text "Another Legend" The narration is carried out using the "Tale of how to take revenge on the all-seeing eye of Christ on Godunov for the shedding of innocent blood of the new passion-bearer, the blessed Tsarevich Dmitry of Uglich" and the Chronograph of the 1617 edition. In turn, "Another Legend" is widely used in the text of the Chronograph of the 1620 edition.

Compilation is also the so-called "Filaret's manuscript" in fact, not related to Patriarch Filaret (this groundless attribution appeared at the end of the 17th century). It was written in the 1620s. on the column, believed to be in the Ambassadorial Prikaz. Among its sources are the story of I.M. Katyrev-Rostovsky and, presumably, the New Chronicler.

New Chronicler was compiled around 1630. It covered the events of the Time of Troubles from the perspective of the Romanovs and, in particular, Patriarch Filaret. Despite its name, this work is not a chronicle. It is divided into chapters, each of them represents a complete narrative, in which dates, although present, are not the main and indispensable part of the story. The title of the New Chronicler contains the words “degree of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich,” which suggests that the author or authors of the work aimed to continue the text of the Book of Degrees, which ends with the degree of Ivan the Terrible. The new chronicler was extremely popular in the 17th century; several dozen copies of him are known. His storytelling style significantly influenced historical works subsequent time.

Troubles occupied the minds of Russian people throughout the entire 17th century. Using the example of stories and legends about the Time of Troubles, one can trace the process of transforming modernity into history, and journalism into historiography.