Libmonster ID: EE-1282
Author(s) of the publication: R. G. SKRYNNIKOV

In the second third of the sixteenth century, the Moscow chronicle entered the period of its greatest prosperity. The result of the efforts of scribes, scribes and artists was a richly illustrated chronicle that described Russian history from Vladimir Monomakh to Ivan the Terrible. The prelude to the history of the Muscovite State was the history of the ancient kingdoms. The ten-volume chronicle collection consisted of a total of about 20 thousand sheets and 16 thousand elaborately executed miniatures. The last two volumes of the "facial" codex were devoted to the time of Tsar Ivan IV. One of these volumes (GIM, Synodal Collection, No. 962) contained an early revision of the text for 1535-1542 with a continuation. The second volume, the so-called Royal Book (ibid., No. 149), included a later edition of Izvestiya for 1533-1542 with a continuation until 1553.

The attention of researchers has long been attracted by traces of vigorous editorial editing in the margins of these manuscripts. The rough nature of the edit made it particularly important. Historians have had a rare opportunity to get a clearer idea of the methods of writing the chronicle and thereby assess the degree of reliability and reliability of the chronicle material. Interest in cursive corrections in the margins of the manuscript became exceptional from the moment when it was suggested that they were autographs of Ivan IV 1 .

The first indications of the tsar's chronicle activities date back to the fall of A. F. Adashev. The head of the government, known as the "Elected Rada", paid great attention to the official chronicle .2 On the eve of Opala (1560), Adashev took with him to the Livonian campaign rough materials intended to replenish the current chronicle. In Livonia, a disgraced nobleman was imprisoned and died. Having received the news of this, Ivan IV sent a trusted person to Yuryev with orders to investigate the causes of Adashev's death, and at the same time to withdraw chronicle materials from his papers. An early inventory of the tsarist archive of the 60s of the XVI century mentioned this mission in the following terms: "The search of Prince Ondrej Petrovich Telyatevsky in Yuriev Livonsky about Adashev's death, and the lists are black, wrote (Adashev. - R. S.) that pisati wrote in the chronicler of new years, which (lists. - R. S.) they were taken from Oleksiy " 3 .

The tsar's interest in chronicle materials was understandable. Adashev's resignation changed the official assessment of his reforms. No less important were the subjective moods of Ivan IV, which were most fully expressed in his messages to A. M. Kurbsky. Sylvester and Adashev, Grozny claimed, had completely "embarrassed" him with their guardianship, taken away his ancestral authority, saw him as a baby, and even called him "the mind of infancy." 4 When he was done with the tutelage of his former mentors, the tsar tried to get rid of the painful memories of his own insignificance. The revision and correction of the chronicles describing the tsar's youth corresponded to such sentiments.

The chronicle notes and the royal epistle to Kurbsky focused on the same subjects related to boyar treasons and rebellions. In neko-

1 D. N. Alshits. Ivan the Terrible and postscript to the facial arches of his time. "Historical Notes", Vol. 23, 1947, p. 283.

2 A. A. Zimin, I. S. Peresvetov and his Contemporaries, Moscow, 1958, pp. 29-41; R. G. Skrynnikov. The beginning of the Oprichnina. L. 1966, pp. 21-25.

3 "Inventory of the tsarist archive of the XVI century and the archive of the Embassy Order of 1614", Moscow, 1960, p. 43.

4 "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", Moscow-L. 1951, pp. 38, 56-57, 61.

page 98

In some cases, the sources are so close to each other that it seems that we are talking about paraphrasing a common text. An outstanding publicist, Ivan IV left an extensive epistolary legacy. But was he also a chronicler of his time? Only a thorough study of the history of attributions will help answer this question.

The Royal Book was based on several sources, including the Synodal and Lviv Chronicles and the Step Book of the Royal Genealogy5 . The Book of Degrees is a monument of ecclesiastical origin; it originated in the early 60s of the XVI century and was completed before the death of Metropolitan Makarii in late 1563.6 In the Royal and Sedate books of similar news is not much, and they are devoted mainly to the description of miracles. It is not yet clear whether the " miracles "were directly borrowed by the authors of the Royal Book from the Book of Degrees, or whether they were derived from some common source. 7
The relationship between the Synodal Chronicle and the Royal Book is different. This is the ratio of draft and whitelist. As noted by A. E. Presnyakov, the chronicler took into account and included in the main text of the Royal Book all the cursive corrections made in the margins of the Synodal List8 . In only one case, the author of the book not only did not follow the draft, but gave the exact opposite version. The editor of the Synodal List considered it necessary to supplement the chronicle with information that the Shuisky rebellion in 1538 led to the arrest of I. F. Velsky and the exile of M. V. Tuchkov9 . In the pages of the Royal Book, M. V. Tuchkov suddenly turned from a victim into the instigator of a bloody turmoil. Noting this dramatic change, D. N. Alshits explained it by saying that the revision of the Synodal List was carried out before 1564, when Kurbsky and his grandfather M. V. Tuchkov were in honor; The Royal book appeared after 1564, when Kurbsky fled to Lithuania, and in a letter to him Ivan the Terrible gave Tuchkov a scathing description 10 . "Eliko then created! - the tsar wrote. - Colico bolyar... Izbisha... and the estates of our uncles are amazing... our mother's treasury was moved,.. and the other is also sobe razdisha. And your grandfather Mikhailo Tuchkov did that!"11 . These angry words, it would seem, directly echoed the chronicle text:"And many among them (boyars - R. S.) byashe enmity about self-interest..." 12 .

A careful comparison of the texts, however, leaves no ground for the assumption that the royal epistle directly influenced the corresponding story of the Royal Book. Not the letter of Ivan IV, but the Lviv Chronicle served as the source for the above lines. The entire passage - "and many among them (boyars - R. S.) byashe enmity about their self-interest and their nieces, everyone cares for their own, and not for the sovereign..." 13-got into the Royal Book from this chronicle unchanged. A comparison of the two original texts - from the Lviv and Synodal Chronicles-and the final text shows that the compiler of the Royal Book did not use any third source. The progress of the compiler can be represented as follows. Having set out to describe the boyar revolt, the fastidious editor noticed that the supporters of Velsky who participated in the turmoil, named in the Lviv Chronicle, did not have a boyar rank. As a result, he decided to replace them with the famous boyar Tuchkov. In a postscript to the Synodal manuscript, he was named as the main supporter of Velsky. In the course of further compilation, the chronicler omitted any mention of the subsequent exile of Velsky and Tuchkov. Did he want to turn "victims" into"accused"? This interpretation seems very problematic. After all, the respectful tone towards Velsky in the subsequent pages of the Royal Book remained unchanged. We have to abandon the idea that the compiler of the Royal Book dramatically changed the coverage of the figure of Tuchkov under the influence of direct acquaintance with the message.

5 A. E. Presnyakov. The Royal Book, its composition and origin. St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 11-13.

6 P. G. Vasenko. The Book of Stepan royal Genealogy, St. Petersburg, 1904, pp. 213-217.

7 A. E. Presnyakov. Op. ed., p. 12.

8 Ibid., pp. 11-12.

9 " The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles "(PSRL), Vol. XIII, St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 98.

10 d. N. Alshits. Op. ed., pp. 263-264.

11 "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", p. 33.

12 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 432.

13 Ibid., Vol. XX, St. Petersburg 1914, pp. 448-449.

page 99

Ivan IV of Kurbsky. At the same time, the main argument in favor of the thesis that the Royal Book was composed after 1564 in order to "perpetuate both the exculpatory and accusatory arguments of the tsar from his polemic with Kurbsky"14 disappears .

Let us assume that the compiler of the Royal Book actually had the king's epistles at hand. In that case, why didn't he take into account some of his harsh and unambiguous assessments? In the letter, Ivan IV reproached Kurbsky not only as grandfather Tuchkov, but also as "brother" I. S. Lvov, who "stuck" to the plot of Prince Andrey Staritsky and fought "in the heads" under his banners. In the long-winded narrative of the Royal Book about the rebellion of Prince Andrew, I. S. Lviv did not appear at all. After the mutiny, Ivan IV claimed, the boyars" betrayed the custom " of surrendering "the towns of Radogoshch, Starodub, and Gomey"to the enemy .15 The royal book did not support this version of Grozny. The governor of Radogoshch, according to the chronicler, was burned alive while defending the fortress, and the voivode of Starodub fought hard against the enemies before the superior forces of the enemy managed to capture the fortress. 16 A revision in the Synodal List, the Royal Book, and the epistle of Ivan the Terrible - these are the most likely sequence of sources that interest us.

The Synodal manuscript has a complex composition. It cannot be considered as a single whole, since its separate parts appeared at different times and received a common binding only in the XVII century .17 At the time the chronicle was compiled, pieces of it were stored in various locations .18
Only the beginning of the Synodal manuscript with Izvestiya for 1535-1542 (ll. 7 - 93 vols.) has a parallel text in the Royal Book. News from 1542-1553 can only be read in the Royal Book. The main part of the Synodal List (pages 94-495-19) is devoted to the events of 1553-1560 .

An unknown editor corrected the first part, as well as the beginning of the main part of the Synodal List with news from 1553 to 1556. While researchers considered the Synodal Manuscript as a whole, it was taken for granted that its correction was carried out in one step. However, this assumption requires verification. It is safe to say that the first part of the Synodal manuscript, which served as a draft for the Royal Book, was edited first of all. The second part of the Synodal List has no common text with the Royal Book. Therefore, there is no direct reason to say that the second part was also edited before the compilation of the Royal Book. Apparently, the second part was corrected not at the time of its writing, when all the pages of the chronicle were available, but at a later time, because one of the additions in the margins of the second part of the Synodal manuscript outlined the content of the lost sheet.20

A new edition appears along with the appearance of new ideological attitudes. We can not agree that the editor's settings for the second part were no different from the early editing. The greatest changes in it were made by the theme that passed through the chronicles and correspondence of Ivan the Terrible. We are talking about the relationship of the tsar with the lords of the last large inheritance, the princes of Staritsky. Potential and actual seditious Staritsky caused negative emotions in the editor. But in different parts of the chronicle, these emotions have different degrees of intensity. Old chronicles, reporting on the death of the tsar's uncle Prince Andrew, noted that he "was laid in Archangel on Moscow, where the grand dukes lie"21 . The editor of the first part of the Synodal Chronicle noted in the margin: "Here it is necessary to write about Prince Ondreev's repose as follows:...He was laid in the Tomb on the left side of the church.-

14 D. N. Alshits. Op. ed., p. 272.

15 "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", p. 32.

16 PSRL. Vol. XIII, pp. 421, 424.

17 For example, when writing the obituary for Bishop Gurius in 1564, the chronicler was not able to use the main part of the Synodal Chronicle for 1553-1560 for the necessary references; obviously, he did not have it at hand (D. N. Alshits. Op. ed., p. 259).

18 T. N. Protas'eva. To the question of miniatures of the Nikon Chronicle (Sin. N 962)." Chronicles and chronicles", Moscow, 1974, p.254.

19 The report ends with news from 1563-1567.

20 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 2G4.

21 Ibid., p. 121.

page 100

not in (the minds of) Prince Yurya Ivanovich " 22 . The amendment gave away the editor's intention to emphasize the difference between the ruling dynasty and specific lines. The same tendency is clearly shown in the main text of the Royal Book. Its compiler, rewriting the speech of Tsar Ivan IV to the Metropolitan on the occasion of the Kazan victory, twice mechanically reproduced the old text ("you went with your brother with Prince Volodimir Ondreevich"), but immediately lost the words "with your brother" 23. The desire to exclude the Staritskys from the royal family is also confirmed by illustrative material. Miniatures of the Synodal List depicted Ivan IV and his mother Elena Glinskaya in princely caps, as well as Staritsky. The compiler of the Royal Book decorated the heads of Ivan IV and Elena with the royal crown 24 .

Veiled hints gave way to merciless denunciations in the second part of the Synodal List and in the appendices to the main text of the Royal Book. The largest of the references available here-about the boyar revolt of 1553 in the Royal Book and the trial of Prince Semyon of Rostov in the Synodal Chronicle - were clearly journalistic in nature. Their author set out to denigrate the appanage family. Discord in the royal family twice led to open conflict between Tsar Ivan and Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky. For the first time, the prince was formally convicted by a church council for treason in 1563. At that time, the tsar pardoned his cousin, but forcibly imprisoned his mother in a monastery. In 1569, the family of Prince Vladimir was executed by the oprichniks without any trial. Which of these conflicts caused the annalistic additions to come to life? In view of the coincidence of the main tendency of the two attributions, it would be natural to assume that the same events gave rise to their writing and that they appeared at approximately the same time. 25 There are other considerations in this regard. Thus, according to D. N. Alshits, the postscript on the margins of the Synodal List appeared around 1563, whereas in the Royal Book-in 1567-1568 .26 From the point of view of criticism of the source, its exact dating is of paramount importance. Until the monument is dated, its true value is not clear. Finding out the relationship between the source and the environment that gave rise to it remains the only way to uncover the tendencies contained in it. Due to the importance of the problem, the question of the dating and content of the investigated attributions should be reconsidered.

In the second part of the Synodal Manuscript, the chronicler described how the traitorous boyar Prince Semyon of Rostov entered into secret relations with the Polish king and sent his son to Lithuania for "dangerous" letters. The plot involved Moscow boyars and members of the Rostov princely clan. Together with S. V. Rostovsky, they were preparing to "leave" abroad, but they failed to implement these plans. Prince Semyon's son was detained at the border and taken to Moscow. The subsequent inquiry compromised many notable individuals. The threads of treason led to members of the royal family. It is not surprising that the authorities tried to curtail the investigation and did not punish any of the accomplices of Semyon Rostovsky. Fearing unfavorable rumors abroad, the Embassy ordered its diplomatic agents in Lithuania to categorically refute the rumors that "many boyars and nobles wanted to go away with Prince Semyon, "because" who would stick to such a fool? And only with him did his tribe steal - the same fools. " 27 The version of the Embassy order was reflected in the pages of the official chronicle. Its author tried to emphasize that Prince Semyon wanted to "escape from squalor and malaumstvo, because he had little sense", and that among his accomplices there were no high-ranking, influential and reasonable people, but only "the same paloumi Rostov princes" 28 .

22 Ibid., p. 97; cf. p. 431.

23 A. E. Presnyakov. Edict op., p. 20; D. N. Alshits. Op. ed., pp. 255-256.

24 O. I. Podobedova. Moscow School of Painting under Ivan IV. Moscow, 1972.

25 R. G. Skrynnikov. About the time of Ivan the Terrible's work on the front vault. "Cultural heritage of Ancient Russia", Moscow, 1976.

26 D. N. Alshits. Edict. op., p. 288; same. The origin and features of sources telling about the boyar revolt of 1553. "Historical Notes", vol. 25, 1948, p. 279.

27 "Collection of the Russian Historical Society", vol. 59, St. Petersburg, 1887, pp. 452-4-53.

28 PSRL. Vol. XIII, pp. 237-238.

page 101

This story, compiled during the reign of A. F. Adashev, did not satisfy the editor who edited the second part of the Synodal manuscript. In the margins of it, information appeared that left no stone unturned from the official version. The editor considered it necessary to point out that a political crime, and not a simple "stupidity", prompted the Rostovskys to attempt to leave abroad. The essence of the crime was that Prince Semyon and other boyars took part in a secret anti-government conspiracy of Prince Vladimir Andreevich and his mother. In 1553, the conspirators intended to carry out a coup d'etat in the event of the death of the seriously ill tsar. In 1554, the Rostovites, fearing imminent exposure, tried to flee to Lithuania .29 The chronicle exposure of the long-standing treason of the "sovereign's brother", the second person in the state, was undoubtedly sensational. Who would want to, or rather, who dared to correct the official record and cast a shadow on a member of the dynasty? Obviously, those who occupied a higher position than the appanage sovereigns. Apart from Ivan IV, there were no other persons of this rank. A comparison of the chronicle postscript with the text written by Ivan the Terrible leads to the conclusion that he not only gave the chroniclers guidance, but probably also directly participated in their work.:

Chronicle postscript

Epistle of Ivan IV (1564)

Prince Semyon said everything, even though he was unfaithful to the sovereign, but his sovereign sent everything according to his dignity and his kind... yes, they became enraged with malice." "He was exiled from the ambassadors of Lithuania, from Davoin to tovaryschi... and ordered the Duma of the tsar and the grand Duke as an ambassador... and many insulting words about the tsar... he ordered them", "he married a boyar from his daughter, understood his robe..." 30 .

"The same dog traitor Prince Semyon of Rostov, by our grace, and not by his dignity, was vouchsafed to be a synclite from us, by his treacherous custom, the Lithuanian ambassador Pan Stanislav Davoynu s tovaryschi our duma iznes, reproaching us and the porridge of the queen and our children" 31 .

The similarity of the two texts is obvious. Lines from the message of Ivan the Terrible look like a brief retelling of a more extensive chronicle news. The secondary origin of the message is beyond doubt. The tsar wrote from memory, and in his exasperation made some reservations. Thus, when reproaching Prince Semyon for insulting the tsar's children, he forgot that during the traitor's conversations with the Lithuanian ambassador, there were no children in the royal family: the heir to the throne died as a baby due to an accident (the nurse with the baby fell into the water during the royal family's journey along the Sheksna River), and the second son of Ivan IV born.

The chronicle postscript had a remarkable feature. The presence of details and "quotations" in it indicated that the tsar was thoroughly familiar with the investigative material. A third of the postscript was taken up by the list of persons who conducted the inquiry about Prince Semyon: "Both the tsar and the Grand Duke, seeing his evil treachery, sent their boyars Prince Ivan Fyodorovich Mstislavsky, Ivan Vasilyevich Sheremetev Bolshoy, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Kurlyatev, Mikhail Yakovlevich Morozov, Prince Dmitry Fyodorovich Paletsky, okolnichy Oleksey Fyodorovich Adashev, bedelnichy Ignatiy Veshnyakov yes, the boyars Danil Romanovich, Vasily Mikhailovich Yuriev, the treasurer Mikita Funikov, the deacon Ivan Mikhailov, and ordered him (Prince Semyon - R. S.) to rosprositi, and bring him to torture with torture." These lines resemble an excerpt from the traditional text of the royal decree on the production of investigation. The postscript also contained extensive excerpts from the accused's confessions: "And Prince Semyon said that...","and that's why, he says, he was annoyed..." 32 .

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., p. 237.

31 "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", p. 40.

32 PSRL. Vol. XIII, pp. 237-238.

page 102

The tsar was involved in the chronicle work, and at the same time, when writing a message to Kurbsky, he discovered a thorough acquaintance with the details of the investigative case of Rostovsky's treason. It remains to be determined when Ivan IV applied to the archive for these materials. The original inventory of the tsarist archive of the 60s of the XVI century contained the following paragraph:"Box 174. And in it departure and torture in the Prince Semenov case of Rostov." Next to the above lines, the curators of the archive made the following note: "Taken to the sovereign in the Prince Volodimerov case of Ondreevich on July 7071 on the 20th day, taken to the sovereign" 33. As you can see, Ivan IV requested the" case " of Prince Semyon in the midst of the trial of Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky in 1563.

Let's now try to compare the facts. In 1563. Ivan IV got acquainted with the judicial "case" of Rostovsky; he covered the episode of the trial of Rostovsky in detail in his message of 1564; an unknown person entered a well-documented story about the same court in the official chronicle; the content and phraseology of the chronicle postscript and the royal message are similar. The most satisfactory explanation of these coincidences can be given by the assumption that Ivan IV was directly involved in the work on the chronicle. This assumption allows you to specify the time when the postscript was compiled. As can be seen, the "case" of Rostovsky's treason, requested by the tsar in July 1563, made a deep impression on him, and he decided to include an account of this process in the official chronicle, and a year later similar information found a place in his letter to Kurbsky.

Ivan IV requested archival documents "in the Prince Volodimerov case", in other words, in connection with the prosecution of his cousin. Two weeks passed after the tsar's appeal to the archives, and the supreme court found the family of the appanage prince guilty, after which Princess Euphrosyne Staritskaya was imprisoned in a monastery, and her son lost his inheritance. The massacre of members of the ruling dynasty caused unwanted rumors. To stop them, the tsar apparently ordered to redo the text of the official chronicle and tell the truth about the trial of the boyar Rostovsky, an active participant in the Staritsky conspiracy. The chronicle work achieved its goal: it exposed the tsar's relatives as long-time traitors.

Referring to the chronicle, the tsar pursued not literary, but political goals. In Moscow, official chronicles were given special importance: by tradition, grand dukes relied on them in disputes with free Novgorod; tsarist ambassadors drew arguments here during discussions with foreign diplomats. In relation to subjects, the lines of the official chronicle could easily replace the trial and sentence. Almost all the boyars accused by the chronicle of treason were soon subjected to severe persecution. Prince S. V. Rostovsky was executed without trial about a year later, and his accomplice Prince A. I. Katyrev-Rostovsky was sent to settle in the Kazan Region along with other" half-witted " princes Priimkov and Lobanov. Similar was the fate of the boyars, who, according to the chronicle, participated in the secret plot of the Staritskys. Boyars Dmitry Nemoy-Obolensky and Ivan Kurakin were forcibly imprisoned in a monastery; boyar Peter Kurakin was disgraced and exiled. Later, it was the turn of Prince Pyotr Schenyatev, who was fried alive in a huge frying pan. In the end, none of the boyars denounced by the chronicler escaped retribution.

The tendency to sharply denounce the Staritsky princes and their supporters distinguishes the editing of the second part of the Synodal List from the earlier editing of its first passage. The same attribute brings the corrections of the second part closer to the corrections in the text of the Royal Book. The largest postscript in this book is also devoted to the betrayal of the Staritskys. Based on the content of the postscript, you can title it "The Story of the Mutiny".

33 "Inventory of the tsarist archive of the XVI century and the archive of the Embassy order of 1614", p. 35.

34 A. E. Presnyakov was the first to try to find common points between the postscript about the case of S. V. Rostovsky and the record of sending archival material to the tsar in 1563 and expressed a cautious assumption: "Is it not from the archives of investigative cases that the information contained in the notes was drawn? Most likely, this was their original source" (A. E. Presnyakov. Op. ed., p. 17). the same idea was later developed by S. V. Bakhrushin and D. N. Alshits (S. V. Bakhrushin. Scientific works. Vol. II. M. 1954, p. 333; D. N. Alshits. Ivan the Terrible and postscript.., pp. 278-280).

page 103

Like the postscript in the Synodal Chronicle, the Novella finds analogs in the tsar's epistle to Kurbsky.

In short, the essence of the "Story" was reduced to the following. In March 1553. Ivan IV became mortally ill. In anticipation of his death, the near Duma swore allegiance to the heir, the infant Dmitry, the son of Tsarina Anastasia (Zakharina). However, three Duma members-D. I. Kurlyatev, D. F. Paletsky and N. A. Funikov secretly notified Prince Vladimir Andreevich of their support. The next day, during the general oath of office, an open "mutiny" took place in the Duma, which was stopped by the personal intervention of the tsar . 35 D. N. Alshits highlighted the differences in coverage of the activities of such characters as A. F. Adashev, D. I. Kurlyatev, D. F. Paletsky and N. A. Funikov. In the Synodal Chronicle's postscript, they appeared as investigators in the treason case, while the editor of the Royal Book branded them as participants in anti-government intrigues. This, according to D. N. Alshits, confirms that the above-mentioned chronicles are edited at different times .36 The main characters of the chronicle narrative most often help to identify the main trend of the source. These include A. F. Adashev, to a much lesser extent - D. I. Kurlyatev or N. A. Funikov.

Let's start with the main characters. In the postscript to the Synodal List, A. F. Adashev is mentioned as a member of the judicial commission that revealed the roots of treason. In the tsar's letter to Kurbsky, he is called a "dog" and denounced as the main instigator of treason .37 If, as D. N. Alshits believes, the Royal Book was corrected after 1564, then how could the editor ignore the tsar's scathing review of Adashev? This behavior of the editor seems strange. It remains to conclude that the "Tale of Rebellion" appeared earlier than the royal epistle. The author of the" Story "described the behavior of Adashev in the days of the "rebellion" in one phrase, confirming the ruler's loyalty to the tsar and the legitimate heir: "Yes, the nobles who were in the Duma of the emperor Alexey Fyodorov son of Adashev and Ignatius Veshnyakov," it was written in the margins of the Royal Book , " and those the sovereign led to a kiss in the evening"38 . If it is true that the " Tale of the Rebellion "was composed somewhat earlier than the tsar's epistle of 1564, it is inevitable to conclude that the" Tale " appeared approximately at the same time as the postscript to the second part of the Synodal manuscript. This conclusion is confirmed by direct textual matches of the two attributions. Both sources equally convey the speeches of seditious boyars who organized the plot during the days of the tsar's illness:

Synodal list

The Royal Book

... only us to serve Tsarevich Dmitry, ino nami vladeti Zakhar'inym and than nami vladeti Zakhar'inym, ino lutchi to serve Prince Vladimir Ondreevichyu.

..after all, de us own Zakharin, and what we own Zakharin, and we serve the little sovereign, and we learn to serve the old Prince Volodimir Ondreyevich.

The general "conclusions" that conclude both stories are also similar:

Synodal list

The Royal Book

..and from that time there was enmity between the sovereign and the people 39 .

... and then there was a feud between the boyars and Seliverst... and then there must be a great enmity between the sovereign and Prince Volodimir Ondreevich 40 .

35 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 524.

36 D. N. Alshits. Origin and features of sources.., pp. 268-269.

37 D. N. Alshits. Ivan the Terrible and postscript.., pp. 265-266; his own. Origin and features of sources.., pp. 267-270.

38 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 523.

39 Ibid., p. 238.

40 Ibid., pp. 524-526.

page 104

Coincidences clearly indicate that both chronicle entries belonged to the same editorial stratum. However, the two chronicles were not identical. The differences were most noticeable in the acceptances. "When the emperor was unwell," we read in the Synodal List, " and we all (Prince Rostovsky and others - R. S.) thought that only the emperor would not be as we should be, and one of the princesses from Ofrosinya and from Prince Volodimer Ondreevich came to my courtyard to ask me to go to Prince Volodimer serve and call people over " 41 .

A postscript to the Royal Book confirmed the" treason " of Prince Vladimir with the help of new facts. At the time of the oath to the heir, we read in the "Story", "Prince Volodimer Andreevich and his mother gathered their boyar children and taught them to give a salary of dengi." The next day Prince Vladimir did not want to take the oath of allegiance to Tsarevich Dmitry. One of the loyal boyars threatened the 15-year-old prince that he would kill him. Vladimir, who did not have a strong character, was afraid of threats and obeyed the demands of the boyars. Princess Euphrosyne made many "abusive speeches" about this, but she also had to put up with it .42 Paradoxically, the author of the "Tale of Mutiny" did not mention the most important crime of Princess Euphrosyne - the initiative in organizing a secret boyar conspiracy against the rightful heir. The version of the "conspiracy" that came from her imperceptibly gave way to a reference to seditious speeches of individual boyars.

In the Synodal List, the circle of conspirators is defined much more fully than in the Royal Book. There are named Prince Semyon Rostovsky, Andrey Katyrev, Semyon Morozov, as well as "Prince Peter Schenyatev and Prince Ivan Turuntai Pronskoy and Kurakins by birth and Go [litsyns? - R. S.] and Prince Dmitri the Mute and Prince Peter of Serebryany ...Prince Semyon Mikulinsky and many other boyars and children of the boyars and princes and nobles." The author of the" Story " mentioned the participation of Semyon Rostovsky, Schenyatev, Pronsky and Nemoy in the conspiracy, but kept silent about all the others .43 He had clearly pushed the boyar plot into the background and thus blunted the sharpness of the accusations against Euphrosyne and her son. This feature of the source can be explained by the fact that the additions to the Synodal List appeared in the midst of the trial of Euphrosyne, which ended with her tonsuring, while the "Story" probably appeared in the coming months after the trial, when the tsar returned the appanage to his brother and "forgave" his supporters. The situation has lost its sharpness, which affected the change in tone of the official chronicle.

It is noteworthy that the" Story " entered in the fields of the Royal Book is a draft in the full sense of the word. Its text contains inserts and additions. This allows us to identify at least two main stages in the process of composing a "Story". The initial story boils down to the fact that during the days of the tsar's fatal illness, the loyal boyars began to "take care" of Prince Vladimir and his "often not pochali pushchati to the sovereign", which caused a sharp protest from the powerful temporary worker Priest Sylvester, who owned " obema vlastmi... like a king and a saint." Being "in the great love" of the appanage prince and his mother, Sylvester became" vspreschati "loyal to the boyars, saying:" Why don't you let Prince Volodimera go to the sovereign? brother of you, boyars, the sovereign is more willing." "And Ottole," summed up the author of the "Story", " was the enmity between the boyars and Selivestrom and his advisers." On the day of the general oath in the Duma, the tsar ordered to kiss the cross in the Front Hut, "because the sovereign was exhausted by Velmi." The tsar's order was opposed by two members of the Duma. Prince I. M. Shuisky demanded that the oath be taken in the presence of the tsar, and there was nothing malicious in his statement. Loyal speech of okolnichy F. G. Adasheva was more ambiguous. "God knows, sire," he declared, " we kiss the cross for you, sire, and for your son Tsarevich Prince Dmitri, but don't serve us with Danila z's brothers; your son, our lord, is still in his pelenice, and we are already in possession of Danila z's brothers with Zahariya; and we are already from the boyars to your father." there are many troubles in our age " 44 .

41 Ibid., p. 238.

42 Ibid., pp. 523-524.

43 Ibid., pp. 238, 525.

44 Ibid., p. 524.

page 105

Adashev's speech attracted widespread attention mainly because his son was the de facto ruler of the state. The father also expressed support for the heir. But F. G. Adashev strongly opposed the revival of boyar rule, which, in his opinion, is inevitable in the case of the regency of the Zakharyins. The words "don't serve us as Zakharyins," apparently, were not an expression of F. G. Adashev's personal opinion. And if the father, not the son, undertook to explain the position of the family, then this was most likely caused by parochial prejudices. The father had a higher duma rank of okolnichy and sat in a higher place than the son. The objections of the Duma members caused, as the compiler of the "Story" claimed, a sharp rebuke from the sick tsar. Responding to Adashev, Ivan IV stated: "If you do not kiss the cross of my son Dmitri, then you have another sovereign....I bring you to a kiss and tell you to serve your son Dmitry, and not Zakhar's... " 45 .

In accordance with the initial plan of the "Story", disagreements in the Duma were caused by two points. Firstly, by the performance of Sylvester, which led to his enmity with the loyal boyars, and, secondly, by F. G. Adashev's attack on the day of the oath. It is easy to see that the tsar reproduced the same scheme in his message to Kurbsky, but gave the accusation a more harsh and polemical form. In the days of his illness, Ivan the Terrible wrote to Kurbsky, the so-called do-gooders "vospasha yako piyani, with the priest Selivestr and with your chief with Oleksiy, mnevshe us not be ..." 46 . Replacing the name of Adashev-father with the name of Adashev-son did little to change the essence of the matter. The father's protest mattered only insofar as his son, the ruler, was standing behind him. "Novella" presented the young tsar as a true hero of the day. Answering Adashev, he allegedly made a long speech that put an end to the boyars ' vacillation. The monarch launched threats against seditious boyars and at the same time implored loyal members of the Duma to take care of the safety of his family. "Please," Ivan IV said to them, " remember what they kissed the cross on for me and my son; don't let the boyars destroy my son's customs with anyone, run with him to chuzhaya zemlya, where God will guide you." Turning to Danil Romanovich and Vasily Mikhailovich Yuryev, he added :" And you, Zakharyins, what are you scared of? Or do you think the boyars will spare you? You will be the first dead from the boyars! And you would have died for my son and for his mother, but you would not have given my wife to be mocked. " 47
The royal "speeches" provide new material for attribution of the chronicle narrative. Some phrases of the "speeches" directly echo the works of the tsar of 1564-1565.

"Novella"

The Tsar's Epistle to the Duma and clergy (1564-1565)

"run with him to a strange land, where God will guide you."

"and the king ...he left his state and went to a place where he would settle down, where God would guide him, the sovereign. " 48
The composition of fictional speeches that corresponded to the character of the historical hero and were suitable for the occasion, corresponded to the long-established canons of chronicle writing. The Novosti speeches were no exception. The significance of the speeches was determined, however, by the fact that the imaginary speaker himself participated in their composition. The tsar's speeches were the main ideological burden of the "Story". The fact that the tsar's speeches were fictitious from the first to the last word is beyond doubt, because Ivan IV was at the point of death, had ceased to recognize people and could hardly utter anything coherent. Also, in the general confusion, no one wrote down what was said in the palace chambers. The royal "speeches" were written 10 years late and reflected not so much the past as the present.

45 Ibid., pp. 524-525.

46 "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", p. 39.

47 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 525.

48 Ibid., pp. 525, 392.

page 106

The real bone of contention in the Duma was the Zakharyins ' regency. The boyars - conspirators, Sylvester, Adashev-father strongly objected to the transfer of power into the hands of the queen's brothers. But Ivan IV tried to protect the latter with his speeches. It remains to add that the problem of the Zakharyins became most acute not in the early 50s, but in the early 60s of the XVI century. The Tsarina's brothers initiated the resignation of A. F. Adashev and seized the power that had fallen out of his hands. The new position of the Zakharyins was confirmed in the spiritual testament of Ivan the Terrible, drawn up in the early 60s of the XVI century. In the event of his death, the tsar ordered the transfer of power to the guardianship council headed by Danila Romanovich and Vasily Mikhailovich Zakharyin49 . As rulers, the Zakharyins incurred the hatred of the nobility. Kurbsky swore at them. Ivan IV aptly described the situation with the words: "You (Zakharyins. - R. S.) from the boyars will be the first dead!". The transfer of power into the hands of the Zakharyins served as a prologue to the oprichnina tragedy. The peaceful years of A. F. Adashev's rule are a thing of the past. After a 15-year break, boyar blood flowed again. The conflict could lead to unforeseen consequences at any time, and the king began to think about saving his family abroad. His panicked appeals to the Zakharyins reflected his fear and dismay at the growing treachery. However, the Zakharyins did not enjoy the exclusive trust of the tsar for long. None of them were accepted into the Oprichnina when it was established. And as a result of the Novgorod search, three Zakharyins lost their heads 50 .

The first version of the" Story " did not satisfy the author. After rereading the speeches, he should have noticed that they did not fit well with the story as a whole. F. G. Adashev, despite the attack against the Zakharyins, declared loyalty to the heir, and his speech did not give the tsar any reason to appeal for the salvation of the royal family. Realizing his mistake, the author decided to supplement the story. So an insert appeared at the end of the next sheet. With the help of a special icon, the scribe noted that the addition should follow immediately after the words of A. F. Adashev and before the royal speeches. The insert contained information about a "mutiny" in the Boyar Duma. "And the rebellion was great, and there was much noise and speech in all the boyars," the new text read, "but they do not want to serve the pelenichnik." 51 The author did not name a single rebellious boyar who openly refused to swear allegiance to the heir. Nevertheless, the impressive picture of the boyar "mutiny" gave the "Story" a complete form. The reason for the sovereign's speeches was fictitious, just like the speeches themselves.

Traces of complication of the text by the new plot can be found in other parts of the"Story". About D. I. Kurlyatev, the author reported that he swore the oath "on the third day, as soon as the mutiny was over." 52 The reader could first learn about the " mutiny "only at the end of the" Story", so the reference to it at the beginning of the story put him in a dead end. Was there not another "seam" of the annalistic editing? The attempt to present Kurlyatev as a rebel allowed some authors to raise the question of the existence of a new edition in the "Story" in comparison with the postscript to the Synodal Chronicle, which emphasized the loyalty of this boyar. The degree of difference in the illumination of Kurlyatev's figure should not, however, be exaggerated. The editor of the Synodal Chronicle made an extract from the court case of S. V. Rostovsky and reproduced the full composition of the court commission not to praise its minor members (Kurlyatev, Funikov), but to prove the authority of the body that condemned the traitor Prince Semyon to death. For his part, the author of the "Story" did not seek to present Kurlyatev or Funikov as complete traitors. He gave two versions of their behavior in the days of the "mutiny". According to the first, these "close people" did not swear an oath to the heir prematurely because of their illness: Kurlyatev "did not kiss, he was exhausted," and Funikov "was exhausted early, but got up, like the sovereign, much healthier."

The second version was reduced to the following: "Glagolakh about Prince Dmitry Kurlyatev and Mikita Funikov, as if they were referring to Princess Ofrosinya with her son Prince Vladimir, but they wanted him to go to the state, and the tsarevich Prince Dmit-

49 R. G. Skrynnikov. The beginning of the Oprichnina, pp. 147-150.

50 p. G. Skrynnikov. Oprichny terror, L. 1969, p. 136.

51 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 524.

52 Ibid., p. 523.

page 107

they didn't want to send a baby's rey to the state."53 It is easy to see that the author of the" Story " does not insist on the reliability of the second version. Moreover, he emphasizes that he writes according to rumors ("glagolakhu... as if"). He mentioned the illness of Kurlyatev and Funikov as a very real fact. The fact that Funikov fell ill before the tsar, and got up after his final recovery, contradicted the idea that Funikov's illness was a clever trick. Insinuations about Kurlyatev and Funikov cause some confusion, since the tsar in a letter to Kurbsky scolded the former, but spoke respectfully about the latter .54 Kurlyatev was forcibly tonsured a monk and imprisoned in a monastery in 1562-1563. Words about reprehensible behavior during the days of the king's illness could appear at any time after his imprisonment.

With the Funicular, the situation is more complicated. During the 60s of the XVI century. he successfully served the emperor and was not disgraced. Perhaps the annalistic slanders against the treasurer were the result of his execution in 1570? Such an assumption, tempting as it is, is hardly legitimate. Funikov was prosecuted in the same "case" with the state printer I. M. Viskovaty in the summer of 1570. A few weeks before the execution, the printer negotiated with foreign ambassadors, while Funikov was in charge of the entire zemstvo treasury. During the execution, the treasurer refused to plead guilty to treason, and was boiled alive in boiling water. The king admonished him with these words:: "You will perish not through my fault, but through your comrade (Viskovatyi - R. S.), for you obeyed him, depended entirely on him; even if you did not sin in anything, nevertheless you pleased him, so both must perish." 55 Archival records confirm that Funikov was tried as an accomplice of Viskovaty 56 . This fact alone refutes the assumption that the "Story" could have appeared during the days of Funikov's trial. Otherwise, the author should have branded both Funikov and Viskovaty at the same time. But he didn't. Moreover, Viskovaty was depicted as one of the main positive characters of the "Tale of Mutiny". The attack of the official chronicle against the treasurer seems inexplicable. To interpret it correctly, it must be borne in mind that Funikov was at best a third-rate figure. Khudorodny deacon occupied the last place in the Boyar Duma. This circumstance leads to some conjectures. Is it possible to assume that the official was aiming at Kurlyatev, but along the way touched Funikov? Both had failed to take the oath in time, and suspicion had fallen on both of them. The faceless treasurer was put in the same place as Kurlyatev, just as he was later executed along with Viskovaty. The clerk's reputation was sacrificed in passing.

Among the many heroes of the "Story", special attention is drawn to the equerry I. P. Fedorov. The fate of this outstanding dignitary was closely intertwined with the fate of Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, so that his biographical information can serve as a touchstone for various dating of the "Story". In the days of the rebellion, the author of the "Story" claimed, " the boyar Ivan Petrovich Fyodorov told the emperor that the boyars had spoken to him, but Prince Pyotr Schenyatev (and others. - R. S.) did not want to kiss the cross ...учнем служити ...to Prince Volodimir Ondreevich " 57 . The equerry not only did not succumb to the persuasions of traitors, but also denounced them to the king. This testimony of the "Story" sounded like the highest praise. At the first trial of Prince Vladimir in 1563, such praise seemed entirely justified. The equerry had reached the pinnacle of power. He headed the boyar commission, which Ivan IV entrusted with the management of the state in his absence. When the tsar decided to take away the appanage from Prince Vladimir, he instructed Fyodorov to make a land exchange 58 . The nobility was indignant at the elevation of the new sovereign's favorite. When Kurbsky was abroad in 1564, he was annoyed by Fyodorov, who had been sent to Russia for a long time.-

53 Ibid., p. 253.

54 "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", p. 52.

55 A. Schlichting. Novoe izvestiye o Rossii vremena Ivan Grozny [New News about Russia in the time of Ivan the Terrible]. l. 1934, p. 48.

56 R. G. Skrynnikov. Oprichny terror, pp. 92-95.

57 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 525.

58 R. G. Skrynnikov. The beginning of the Oprichnina, pp. 366-368.

page 108

which is "in great favor and honor with the grand Duke" 59 . Fyodorov's career was wrecked at the height of the Oprichnina, when the equerry was declared an accomplice of the Staritskys and executed in the fall of 1568.

There is an opinion that the "Tale of Mutiny" was composed either during the initial period of the oprichnina search for the betrayal of the Staritskys in 1567-1568, or at the end of the investigation that led to the execution of the sovereign's brother in the autumn of 156960 . This late dating of the Novella does not agree, however, with the information about Fyodorov. A. A. Zimin tried to remove the contradiction with the help of two arguments. In his opinion, by the time the chronicle was compiled in 1569-1570, "the episode with Fyodorov was already in the past", and the author of the story about the mutiny probably " conveyed quite real facts, and therefore reported that Fyodorov, like Adashev (you can't get words out of the song!), he supported the candidacy of Tsarevich Dmitry for the Russian throne in 1553"61 . Fyodorov was hardly forgotten just a year after his execution. He was the largest leader of the Zemstvo region. In addition, his "case" served as the impetus for a grandiose search. Followers of Prince Vladimir Andreevich were first declared Fedorov and his servants. Then the inquest began in Novgorod, where thousands of people were executed on suspicion of involvement in this plot alone. Terror reached its highest point 62 .

It is doubtful that the official chronicler did not see what was happening around him, and followed the true facts even when they diverged from the views of the king. It seems unlikely that the chronicler would have dared to praise Fyodorov's loyalty in exposing the Staritsky plot shortly after his execution for participating in a similar plot. N. E. Andreev tried to explain the contradiction as follows: not Ivan IV, but the clerk Viskovaty was the real author of the chronicle postscript, and the chronicle reflected his personal point of view, which diverged from the views of Ivan the Terrible .63 N. E. Andreev's assumption hardly corresponds to the nature of the Moscow official chronicle and the historical situation in general. An attempt to whitewash the state criminal "number one" would have been perceived in 1568-1570 by the chief district clerk as a monstrous sedition. A comprehensive check of the biographical information of the "Story" does not make it possible to attribute the time of its occurrence to the time of the oprichnina crisis.

The cursive "Tale of the Mutiny", as well as two other most important additions (under 1543 and 1547) in the Royal Book are closely related to the first epistle of Ivan IV to Kurbsky. Apparently, the chronicle work and the compilation of the royal epistle were separated by a short period of time. The resulting dispute with Kurbsky may have had a direct impact on the completion of the editorial work. The fugitive boyar accused the tsar of an unheard-of blasphemy - the shedding of boyar blood in the church. The author of the postscript about the revolt of 1547 hastened to return this accusation to the boyars themselves. In the main text of the Royal Book, it appeared that the mob killed the tsar's uncle Yuri Glinsky on the square. The editor corrected the text, writing in the margin that the people "took Prince Yurya in the church and killed him in the church" at the instigation of the" traitorous " boyars .64 In a letter to Kurbsky, the tsar added new colorful details to the scene of his uncle's death. He clarified that Glinsky was captured "in the border of the Great Martyr Dmitry Selunsky", killed "against the metropolitan place" and "the church will fill a with blood"65 . In his message, Ivan IV did not name the traitors who shed the blood of his family-

59 Central State Archive of the Latvian SSR, f. A 2, sp. K 8, 35, l. 4.

60 D. N. Alshits. Provenance and features of sources.., p. 279; N. E. Andreev. About the author of the notes in the front arches of Grozny. "Proceedings" of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol. XVIII. Moscow-L. 1962, pp. 140, 148; A. A. Zimin. Oprichnina Ivan the Terrible, Moscow, 1964, p. 4. 72; his own. On the method of studying narrative sources of the XVI century "Source studies of national history". Issue 1. Moscow, 1973, pp. 194-195.

61 A. A. Zimin. On the method of studying narrative sources of the XVI century, pp. 193-194.

62 R. G. Skrynnikov. Oprichny terror, pp. 7-52.

63 N. E. Andreev. Op. ed., pp. 130-131.

64 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 456.

65 "Messages of Ivan the Terrible", p. 35.

page 109

neither, but he threatened to denounce them when he saw fit. The editor of the chronicle carried out this threat of the king and named their names in the margins of the Royal Book. Among the main traitors were I. II. Fedorov and G. Y. Zakhar'in. This indication is difficult to reconcile with the main trend of the Tale of Mutiny, which extolled Fyodorov's loyalty and portrayed the Zakharyins as possible saviors of the royal family. The contradiction is probably explained by the complex composition of the chronicle postscript 66 . Sharp accusations against Fyodorov and Zakharyin are contained in two lines that serve as the ending of the story and move (with the exception of the introductory word) from sheet 305 to sheet 305 of the book. The subtle differences in handwriting give rise to a cautious guess: are these lines a late insertion? This assumption can be supported by textual observations. On page 305, the story ends with an indication that Prince Yuri was killed, and his corpse was thrown at the auction. The main text on page 305 vol. served as a direct continuation of the same theme: "And the people of the Princess Yurievs are innumerably beaten." Words about the "treasonable" council of Fyodorov and Zakharyin broke the coherent narrative. At the beginning of the postscript on page 305, the editor mentioned that the boyars had inadvertently passed on to the tsar the rumors that had defamed the Glinskys. There was no direct accusation of treason yet. Zakharyin did not figure at all among the careless boyars.

The cursive postscript about the mutiny of 1543 (on page 248 vol.), apparently, was complicated by an even more crude insertion. Next to the name of the last of the boyar rebels, the editor wrote above the line: "Oleksey Ba" (he moved the end of the name "smanov - Pleshcheyev" to the next free line). In 1564, Basmanov was the closest adviser to the tsar, and then headed the first oprichnina government. What chronicler would have dared to accuse him of long-standing treason? After Basmanov's resignation and execution in 1570, the situation changed. Interpolation of Basmanov's name thus makes it possible to detect traces of the latest edits in the postscripts, which relate to the last years of the Oprichnina. Isn't this the time when the attacks against Fyodorov and Zakharyin also apply? Fyodorov was executed as a traitor in 1568, and some of the Zakharyins lost their heads two years later. The sheet with the postscript about the mutiny of 1547 was eventually rewritten completely and provided with new illustrations, which in the manner of execution significantly differed from the previous miniatures of the Royal Book. Does this observation not confirm the hypothesis about the last, most recent stage of the editor's work on the Royal Book?

Miniatures occupied a special place both in the Royal Book and in the Synodal Chronicle. The "front" chronicle presented the reader with a story in pictures. The text was no more than a brief explanation of the illustration, which took up more than two-thirds of the page. This unusual way of presenting information may have been explained by the fact that the" facial " chronicle was used not only for its intended purpose, as a government official, but also as a manual for teaching junior members of the royal family. As a child, Ivan received more than a modest amount of knowledge, but by the 30s he was striking others with the vastness of his historical knowledge. The eight-volume "story in pictures", as you can see, was used for its intended purpose. The last two volumes of the" facial " codex appeared in the 60s of the XVI century. By that time, the tsar had passed the age of an apprentice, but his son, the heir, had grown up. Ivan IV was concerned to ensure that the events of his own reign were presented to his son in the proper form. The habit of illustrative material led Grozny to pay special attention to the chronicle miniature. Therefore, the comments on the miniatures in the margins of the Synodal Chronicle and the Royal Book are important for attribution of the chronicle work. The author of the attributions scrutinized the images of the royal person and, when they did not satisfy him, made comments, the peremptory nature of which is amazing. Next to the miniature on page 65 of the Synodal Library-

66 In the text of the narrative about the events of 1547, you can notice a number of signs of different-time work. On the back of sheet 305, the editor wrote: "And your mother Princess Anna (Glinskaya - R. S.) magpie flew and lit". Then this story was deleted and replaced with another one on page 305: "Anna Glinskaya... go around Moscow and sprinkle, and that's why Moscow burned out." In a message to Kurbsky, the tsar mentioned the slander against babka, but did not mention her transformation into a magpie: the rumors about werewolves in the royal family were hardly pleasant to him.

page 110

The editor of the chronicle noted: "In the sign (tsarevich) the sovereign is not written to the point." On page 361 of the Royal Book, the editor saw the illustrator's inattention and wrote: "It's too old to write a tsar here." The point of the remark was to remove the figure of Ivan IV from the drawing and draw in its place the "old" Kazan tsar or khan. In the margins of page 652, another order of the editor's concerning the painting of the transfer of the relics is imprinted: "It is not' adobe that the king himself wears ' 67 . The tone of these comments confirms the assumption that Ivan the Terrible was directly involved in the correction of the "facial" code.

There is no need to consider the editorial changes on the "front" arches as autographs of Ivan IV. A significant part of it is rough proofreading. It is absolutely impossible to imagine the tsar in the role of a scribe-reference officer, who carefully verified letter typos, omissions of words, and minor stylistic absurdities. Centuries-old traditions forbade the Moscow sovereigns to take up a pen even for binding their own decrees, letters and wills. While working on the chronicle, Ivan IV hardly violated this prohibition. It was enough for him to determine the general direction of work or, in the most critical cases, dictate the necessary text. Men of authority, well-versed in the use of the pen, were always at his service. Is it possible to identify them by their names? So far, no one has been able to do this with a sufficient degree of probability. Researchers believe that clerk Ivan Viskovaty participated in the compilation of the "Story of the Mutiny" and a similar postscript about the trial of Prince Semyon Rostovsky .68 However, this attribution is not consistent with the dating of the two mentioned attributions. If it is true that the postscript in the Synodal Chronicle appeared in the midst of the Staritsky trial in the summer of 1563, then Viskovaty could not have been its author: for a year he was with the embassy in Denmark and returned to Moscow only in November 1563. 69
"A Tale of Mutiny" put Viskovaty's figure in the most favorable light. But this circumstance still does not prove its authorship. The office of the Embassy Order, of which he was the administrator, has long been involved in compiling the chronicles. The chief's praise might have come from his subordinates. Paleographic analysis excludes the assumption that the entries in the margins of the Royal Book belonged directly to Viskovaty. The clerk had a more delicate and elegant handwriting than the person who corrected the chronicle 70 . The authorship of Viskovaty is also proved by the insinuations of the "Story" addressed to Funikov, who enjoyed the patronage of Viskovaty. Ivan IV's assistants in correcting the chronicles can hardly be found among the most famous "bureaucrats" of that time, who were overloaded with the affairs of the current administration. Most likely, they were ordered "scribes", inclined to literary works.

In their style, the annalistic additions differ markedly from the original message of the tsar addressed to Kurbsky. When evaluating this fact, we should not forget about the differences between the epistolary and chronicle genres. The genre put the work of medieval writers in a rigid framework. In a letter to Kurbsky, Grozny gave vent to his anger and irritation. But the style of" rude polemics", appropriate in the epistolary genre, was not suitable for the chronicle. The canons of the official chronicle were determined by a stable centuries-old tradition. Following them, the tsar's assistants inevitably had to subject his words to literary processing. But at times the authentic intonation of Ivan IV still broke the epic tone of the chronicle. In the postscript to the Synodal Chronicle, Semyon Rostovsky's testimony about the reasons for his "annoyance" was included:"As if his sovereign and his family did not send him to their fatherland." The tsar could not restrain his irritation and accompanied the traitor's testimony with an angry shout: "His sovereign sent everything according to its dignity and its kind ...yes, they vzneistovilsya malice!"71 . The word "malice" occupied a special place in the lexicon of Ivan the Terrible. The pages of the royal epistle are full of attacks against the" malice " of the boyars.

67 PSRL. Vol. XIII, pp. 108, 463; A. E. Presnyakov. Op. ed., p. 8, note 10.

68 N. E. Andreev. Op. ed., pp. 117-118.

69 PSRL. Vol. XIII, pp. 343, 372.

70 See R. G. Skrynnikov. On the time of Ivan the Terrible's work on the front vault, p. 159.

71 PSRL. Vol. XIII, p. 237.

page 111

In the Tale of the Rebellion, the intervention of Ivan IV was most noticeable in the royal "speeches", colored by personal experiences, as well as in the overall composition of the story. The tsar did not give the scribe the opportunity to finish writing the last sheet of the Royal Book, and stopped his hand in the middle of the story about the illness and recovery of the sovereign 72 . Not knowing where to put the "Story", the tsar moved the transfer sign from place to place four times and finally ordered to include the story of the March revolt of 1553 in the text with the news for December 1552. As a result, the chroniclers did not know what to do with the interim news, which took up more than 10 pages. The departure from the chronological principle obviously baffled them.

The compositional shortcomings of the" Tale of Mutiny " are similar to those of the Epistle to Kurbsky. They should be attributed entirely to the incompetent but imperious interference of a high-ranking publicist in the chronicle work. The Royal Book and the second part of the Synodal Chronicle underwent a thorough editorial revision on the eve of the Oprichnina. Kurbsky's flight and his letter to the tsar may have stimulated the completion of this work. The chronicle studies of Ivan IV in 1562-1563 explain why in 1564 he was able to write a message to Kurbsky in a short time, equal in volume to an entire book and more like a historical treatise than an ordinary letter. The last minor corrections were made to the text of the notes a few years later. The maelstrom of oprichnina events for a long time distracted Ivan the Terrible's attention from literary activity. Therefore, the ceremonial Royal book, which became an extensive draft, was first postponed, and then completely forgotten.

72 Ibid., p. 529.

page 112


© library.ee

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.ee/m/articles/view/THE-RIDDLE-OF-AN-ANCIENT-AUTOGRAPH

Similar publications: LEstonia LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Anna KostabiContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.ee/Kostabi

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

R. G. SKRYNNIKOV, THE RIDDLE OF AN ANCIENT AUTOGRAPH // Tallinn: Library of Estonia (LIBRARY.EE). Updated: 19.01.2025. URL: https://library.ee/m/articles/view/THE-RIDDLE-OF-AN-ANCIENT-AUTOGRAPH (date of access: 17.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - R. G. SKRYNNIKOV:

R. G. SKRYNNIKOV → other publications, search: Libmonster EstoniaLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Anna Kostabi
Таллинн, Estonia
58 views rating
19.01.2025 (29 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
ATTITUDE OF THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THE NATIONAL REGIONS OF RUSSIA TO THE QUESTION OF POWER ON THE EVE OF OCTOBER
17 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
V. O. KLYUCHEVSKY. UNPUBLISHED WORKS
17 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
BELARUSIAN-LITHUANIAN CHRONICLE
18 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
NOVGOROD ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION: RESULTS OF THE FIRST FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF NOVGOROD ; NOVGOROD COLLECTION. 50 YEARS OF EXCAVATIONS IN NOVGOROD
18 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
MOROZOV STRIKE
19 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
STARITSKY MUTINY
Catalog: История 
19 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
G. Z. IOFFE. KOLCHAK ADVENTURE AND ITS COLLAPSE
20 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
SHLISSELBURG PRISON IN 1884-1906
Catalog: История 
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
BORIS GEORGIEVICH WEBER
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
INTERNAL TROOPS AT THE FINAL STAGE OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.EE - Digital Library of Estonia

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

THE RIDDLE OF AN ANCIENT AUTOGRAPH
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: EE LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Estonia ® All rights reserved.
2014-2025, LIBRARY.EE is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Estonia


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android