This monograph deals with the production of manuscripts in Russia in the 16th century as a social... more This monograph deals with the production of manuscripts in Russia in the 16th century as a social phenomenon. Most studies devoted to the history of manuscripts focus on the renowned centers of book culture, primarily monasteries. Little attention has been paid to the production of manuscripts outside the limits of these centers. As a rule, scholars base their conclusions on the manuscripts which were copied and kept in the larger monasteries such as Trinity-St. Sergius monastery, the Volotsky Monastery of St. Joseph, the Kirillo-Belozerskii Monastery, the Solovetskii Monastery and others, whose customers were usually hegumens and whose scribes were usually monks.
In order to provide a more complete picture of book production in Muscovite Russia, the author has analyzed 734 dated colophons from the extant manuscripts copied from 1500–1600. These colophons contain information about the time and the place of the respective manuscripts, their scribes and their customers. The study draws on materials from 44 archives in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Vologda, Kazan, Saratov, Vladimir, Tver, Yaroslavl, Petrozavodsk, and Novosibirsk, as well as other repositories. Approximately 96% of codices were examined de visu. The information about the rest of manuscripts was drawn from printed catalogues.
The primary sources of the monograph are colophons, which are published in the second, companion volume. Among the other historical sources consulted are inventories of possessions, records of income, including donations, and expenses, land cadasters, charters. Particular attention is devoted to ascertaining the place of production, the names and the status of scribes and customers.
Analysis of the aforementioned sources’ enabled the author establish the provenance of two-thirds of the manuscripts. In some cases, the suggested localizations are hypothetical. The author identified 92 monasteries, some large, but others rather small, where the manuscripts in question were produced. Codices were also copied in 37 towns, some quite large (Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Vladimir, Smolensk, Tver, Astrakhan) and others relatively small (Kotelnich, Elatma, Vasilsursk et.al.). The production of a considerable number of manuscripts was tied to village parishes, situated throughout Muscovy. There are a few cases when manuscripts were copied in Russian embassies, by persons residing out of the country or by prisoners.
The sociological analysis of the scribes shows that monks represent around 25% of the general number and that the white clergy makes up approximately the same percentage. Laymen of different ranks represent slightly less than 50% of the scribes. Manuscripts were also copied by the servitors of monasteries and nobles, gunners and et.al. Some of the scribes (Mikhail Medovartsev, the brothers Basov) were copyists by profession. The author has calculated that it could take between 3 weeks and 5 years to copy a codex, although manuscripts were typically copied in the span of several months. It may be estimated that the majority of the scribes copied no more than three or four dozen manuscripts in their lifetime.
The social status of those who purchased manuscripts was higher than that of those who copied them. This is attributable to the cost of manuscripts. As a rule, a manuscript cost from 1 to 3 roubles. However, richly decorated codices which were produced for representatives of church and the political elite could cost 100 roubles or more. The customers of the majority of extant dated manuscripts were highly ranking Russian churchmen – bishops and hegumens (Metropolitan Macarius, the Suzdalian bishop Afanasii (Paletskii), Archbishop Iona (Dumin) of Vologda et.al.). A high percentage of purchasers were noblemen. These included members of the Boyar Duma (the Vorotynskiis, the Bulgakov-Kurakins, the Godunovs et.al.) and provincial gentry (the Aprelevs, the Repevs, the Scriabins et.al). Books were also ordered by Russian sovereigns (Vasili III, Ivan IV), merchants (including foreign), representatives of bureaucracy (Kazarin Dubrovskii, Foma Panin и Dmitrii Skripitsyn). Many books were copied by order of parish church priests. Sometimes books were ordered collectively by a social group (parishioners of a community, town dwellers, provincial gentry). Irrespective of the customer’s and scribe’s status, most of the manuscripts were produced for churches and monasteries.
The investigation permits us to draw two main conclusions. First, that manuscripts were produced practically everywhere. Second, that the copyists and customers of books represented all major social groups of the Russian population.
Книгу можно приобрести на сайте издательства: http://aarheo.ru/shop/usachev-a-s-knigopisanie-v-rossii-xvi-veka-po-materialam-datirovannykh-vykhodnykh-zapisei-v-2-kh-t/
В монографии рассматривается один из крупнейших памятников древнерусской книжности Книга Степенна... more В монографии рассматривается один из крупнейших памятников древнерусской книжности Книга Степенная царского родословия, которая создавалась на рубеже 50–60-х гг. XVI в. ближайшим к Ивану Грозному лицом по поручению митрополита Макария. В работе рассматриваются ключевые аспекты в изучении Степенной книги: ее датировка, источники, вопрос о личности ее составителя, представленные в произведении историко-политические взгляды, а также вопросы о цели написания произведения и его адресате. Изучение Степенной книги ведется на широком фоне памятников древнерусской оригинальной и переводной литературы XI–XVI вв. Выполненная с учетом основных известных в настоящее время работ и источников по данной теме монография существенно расширяет знания о развитии древнерусской литературы и русской истории времени Ивана Грозного.
В основу издания положена публикация кандидатского сочинения студента Московской духовной академи... more В основу издания положена публикация кандидатского сочинения студента Московской духовной академии Н. Ф. Околовича «Жития святых, помещенные в Степенной книге» (1909 г.), ряд наблюдений которого не утратил своего значения и по настоящее время. Публикация сопровождается вводной статьей, в которой показано значение работы Н. Ф. Околовича для истории изучения Степенной книги, и комментариями, содержащих пояснения к тексту публикуемого памятника (указываются современные шифры архивных документов и библиографические описания работ использованных Н. Ф. Околовичем), а также ссылки на специальные работы, появившиеся после данного труда. Кроме того, также публикуется отзыв на сочинение Н. Ф. Околовича известного специалиста по истории древнерусской книжности профессора МДА С. И. Смирнова.
Авторами статей рассматриваются различные проблемы российской истории и историографии середины XI... more Авторами статей рассматриваются различные проблемы российской истории и историографии середины XIX – начала XXI в.: феномен старообрядческого предпринимательства, российский период научной биографии известного антиковеда М. И. Ростовцева (1870–1952), творчество крупного историка Н. И. Кареева (1850–1931) в первые годы советской власти, феномен «сталинизм» в советской и российской историографии, теоретико-методологические аспекты в изучении истории повседневности в современной отечественной исторической науке. Работы, вносящие немало нового в изучение соответствующих проблемных узлов, основаны на материале как опубликованных, так и архивных документов, многие из которых в научный оборот вводятся впервые.
Unlike the representatives of the secular elite examined in the works of S. B. Veselovskii, A. A.... more Unlike the representatives of the secular elite examined in the works of S. B. Veselovskii, A. A. Zimin, V. B. Kobrin, V. D. Nazarov the heads of the Russian Church in the Early Modern time have been much less studied. This is determined by the scarcity of the historical sources which inform about the period when they were bishops. As a rule, there is no information about the origins of bishops and the circumstances connected with their elevation. The author of this article publishes the will (duhovnaya gramota) of the closest assistant of the patriarch Iov, the Krutickii metropolitan Gelasius (1586–1601). This historical source has information about the private life of the Russian bishops of the 16th – the beginning of the 17th century. Until recently the historians have known nothing about Gelasius’s life before his appointment. The published historical source fills the gap in the study of his biography. Gelasius played a very significant role in the events of the church and political history (for example, in 1591 Gelasius and the prince Shuiskii headed the commission of inquiry in Uglich, investigated the circumstances of tsarevich Dmitry’s death). The publication of the will has been prepared on the base of the original from the collection of I. K. Zinchenko (the National Library of Russia, Manuscripts department, F.299). This historical source hasn’t been applied earlier for studying the biography of Gelasius and the history of the Russian Church. The text of the publication is accompanied by a preface with the historical source’s characteristic. It was established that the will was composed in the last weeks or even days of his life (probably, in the September of 1601). This source allows to establish the origin (at least spiritual) of this prominent head of the Russian Church and to reconstruct his inner circle on the base of the recipients of donations and the personal structure of executors. Gelasius’s inner circle was exclusively connected with the Suzdal region. It means that his relations with “small motherland” were stronger than his relations with the capital where he had lived for almost 15 years. The published source also contains the important data about some monasteries of the Suzdal diocese: the Spaso-Evfim’ev monastery, the Nicolo-Shartromskii monastery, the Pokrov monastery, St. Basil’s the Great monastery etc. The will containing the list of donations and Gelasius’s property (books, silver dishes, ecclesiastical vestments, icons etc.) is the important historical source of the church and socio-economic history, the history of book culture and old Russian art.
The article is devoted to the biography of the significant leader of the Russian Church of the 16... more The article is devoted to the biography of the significant leader of the Russian Church of the 16th century, the Krutitskiy metropolitan Gelasius (1586-1601). It is shown that he came from the Suzdal Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery, a disciple of its abbot Job (in 1585 – c. 1592 – the Archbishop of Suzdal). It has been established that with his support Gelasius, before being appointed to the Krutitsky (Sarsky and Podonsky) Diocese, headed the Shuisky Nikolsky Shartomsky and Moscow Simonov monasteries. Having become patriarch Iov's chief assistant for 15 years, Gelasius nevertheless never became a "Muscovite", retaining a personal connection exclusively with his "small homeland" – the Suzdal region. The work is based on the material of Gelasiusthe will (duhovnaya gramota), unknown in historiography, as well as other sources (documents, book entries, etc.). Статья посвящена биографии значимого руководителя Русской церкви XVI в. крутицкого митрополита Геласия (1586–1601). Показано, что он являлся выходцем из суздальского Спасо-Евфимьева монастыря, учеником его настоятеля Иова, который в 1585 – ок. 1592 гг. занимал Суздальскую кафедру. Установлено, что при его поддержке Геласий до поставления на Крутицкую (Сарскую и Подонскую) кафедру возглавлял шуйский Никольский Шартомский и московский Симонов монастыри. На полтора десятилетия став главным помощником патриарха Иова, Геласий тем не менее так и не стал «москвичом», сохранив личную связь исключительно с «малой родиной» – с Суздальским краем. Работа основана на материале неизвестной в историографии духовной грамоты Геласия, а также иных источников (актов, записей на книгах и др.).
This article deals with an important but hitherto unexplored issue – the personal contacts of Rus... more This article deals with an important but hitherto unexplored issue – the personal contacts of Russian church leaders with representatives of the political elite. So far, the study of this issue has been limited to the enumeration of donations to monasteries. This article shows that some church leaders (the Bishop of Novgorod (1526–1542), Metropolitan (1542–1563) Makarii, the Archbishop of Novgorod Feodosii (1542–1551) and perhaps others) established and supported contacts with influential laymen (princes Shuisky, Obolensky, Rostovsky, Bulgakov, with the Morozovs, Sheins, etc.). These relations were facilitated by the existence of a dual system of local government – secular and ecclesiastical. In some cases, the bishops established relations with the governors and voivods sent annually from Moscow. These contacts did not cease when they returned to the capital: the bishops corresponded with them and sent them gifts. This collaboration was mutually beneficial. On the one hand, the bishops were supported by influential people in Moscow. This was especially necessary during periods of instability (the childhood of Ivan IV, the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich), when the princes Shuisky and Godunov were able to influence appointments in the Church. Relations with representatives of the nobility expanded the administrative possibilities of the bishops when it was necessary to defend the interests of the diocese. For example, they allowed the Archbishop of Novgorod to relieve the representatives of the service class of the burdensome service on the southern frontiers. On the other hand, the attention of the church leaders, who had immense authority in the Middle Ages, could flatter the members of the Royal Council (Duma). The ecclesiastical elite could both provide moral support in the event of the death of relatives and petition the court for aristocrats who were guilty in the eyes of the government. The study is based on chronicle and legal sources, records of church art objects, the book of expenses of the House of St Sophia for the years 1547–1548. The author applies the methods of historical source study, which help to reconstruct the picture of the past from fragmentary and contradictory evidence. В статье поднимается важная, специально еще не исследованная проблема – личные связи руководителей Русской церкви с представителями политической элиты. Ранее ее рассмотрение ограничивалось перечислением вкладов последних в монастыри. Показано, что некоторые архиереи (новгородский архиепископ (1526–1542), митрополит (1542–1563) Макарий, новгородский архиепископ Феодосий (1542–1551) и, вероятно, иные) на протяжении многих лет устанавливали и поддерживали контакты с влиятельными светскими лицами (князьями Шуйскими, Оболенскими, Ростовскими, Булгаковыми, с Морозовыми, Шеиными и др.). Их установлению и поддержанию способствовало наличие двойной системы управления на местах – светской и церковной. В ряде случаев архиереи устанавливали связи с ежегодно присылавшимися из Москвы наместниками и воеводами. Эти контакты не прерывались и после их возвращения в столицу: состоявшие с ними в переписке архиереи посылали им подарки. Сотрудничество носило взаимовыгодный характер. С одной стороны, иерархи получали поддержку влиятельных в столице лиц, особенно необходимую в периоды политической не-
стабильности (малолетство Ивана IV, правление Федора Ивановича), когда князья Шуйские и Годуновы могли оказывать значительное влияние на замещение кафедр. Связи с представителями знати расширяли и административные возможности архиереев при защите интересов епархий. Например, они позволили новгородскому владыке освободить своих служилых людей от обременительной службы на южных рубежах страны. С другой стороны, членам Боярской думы, вероятно, льстило внимание руководителей церкви, пользовавшихся огромным авторитетом в эпоху Средневековья. Последние могли оказывать поддержку – как моральную (в случае смерти родственника), так и вполне реальную, ходатайствуя при дворе о прощении провинившихся перед властями аристократов. В основу исследования положены летописные и актовые источники, записи на предметах церковного искусства, расходная книга Дома Св. Софии за 1547–1548 гг. Их изучение ведется с применением методов источниковедческого анализа, позволяющих
из отрывочных и порой разноречивых показаний источников воссоздать картину прошлого.
The article is devoted to the influence of the Russian bishops’ career and their spiritual backgr... more The article is devoted to the influence of the Russian bishops’ career and their spiritual background on the development of the book culture (mainly its elitist segment) in Russia in the 16th century. It was established that about 100 bishops took the monastic vow in the monasteries not far from where they lived. But becoming abbots and bishops they continued their careers in another regions. The article shows that not rarely they were accompanied by the monks who took the participation in the books’ production, initiated by their patrons. The removal of bishops and abbots with the persons who were close to them was connected with the relocation of monasteries’ books. The author pays much attention to supporting the connections of bishops with their alma mater or the monasteries where they lived for a long time. As a rule they made donations to these monasteries including books which were copied in the regions where they continued their careers. The research is based on the Russian central and local chronicles, the records of income and expenses, the books of donations, the acts, the sinodics and the colophons.
The article deals with the reasons of preservation of the Vologda Diocese positions in 1570s – th... more The article deals with the reasons of preservation of the Vologda Diocese positions in 1570s – the first half of the 1580s. The author presupposes that the interests of the Vologda Diocese were protected by the confessor of Ivan IV Feodosii Vyatka. He took monastic vows in the main monastery of this diocese – the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery. Despite a low social status, the real position of Feodosii at the court was rather significant. It seems that thanks to his support, the representatives of the Pavlov Obnorsky and the Spaso-Prilutsky Monasteries became the bishops of the Kolomenskii (1571) and the Rostovskii (1578) Dioceses and the Vologda Diocese continued to control the part of Pomor’e. After the death of Ivan IV on the 18 March 1584, the positions of Feodosii weakened. In July 1584 the Vologda Diocese returned
the territory which earlier belonged to the Novgorod Diocese. It must have been done with the active participation of the influential representatives of Novgorod – Novgorod Archbishop Alexander and Metropolitan Dionisii. The significant laymen listened to their requests aiming to ensure the support of the church leaders under conditions of the future struggle for power.
Рассматриваются возможные причины сохранения значимых позиций Вологодской кафедры в 1570-е – первой половине 1580-х гг. Высказывается предположение, что ее интересы защищал исключительно близкий к Ивану IV его духовник Феодосий Вятка, являвшийся постриженником главного монастыря данной епархии – Спасо-Каменного. Несмотря на формально относительно невысокое положение Феодосия, его фактический «вес» при дворе был значителен. Судя по всему, с его поддержкой было связано поставление на Коломенскую (1571 г.) и Ростовскую (1578 г.) кафедры двух выходцев из Павлова Обнорского и Спасо-Прилуцкого монастырей (оба – Давиды), а также сохранение за Вологодской кафедрой переданной ей в 1570/1571 г. части Поморья. После кончины Ивана IV 18 марта 1584 г. позиции Феодосия ослабли: в июле 1584 г. Вологодская кафедра вернула Новгородской принадлежавшую ей ранее территорию. Скорее всего, это было сделано при активном участии влиятельных «новгородцев» – новгородского архиепископа Александра и митрополита Дионисия. К их просьбам прислушались значимые светские лица, стремясь заручиться поддержкой руководителей Церкви в условиях надвигающейся борьбы за власть.
Исследуются возможные причины ухода с Новгородской кафедры архиепископа Феодосия (1542–1551 гг.).... more Исследуются возможные причины ухода с Новгородской кафедры архиепископа Феодосия (1542–1551 гг.). Показания источников и в силу этого представленные в историографии объяснения этого события неконкретны. Автор, анализируя факты биографии предшественников и преемников Феодосия — Сергия (1483–1484 гг.), Геннадия (Гонзова) (1484–1504 гг.), Серапиона I (1506–1509 гг.), Макария (1526–1542 гг.) и Пимена (1552–1570 гг.) — рассматривает основные тенденции во взаимоотношениях столичных светских и духовных властей с Новгородской кафедрой. Показано, что власти очень внимательно относились к подбору кандидатов на эту кафедру. В Новгороде они должны были отстаивать интересы Центра. Речь шла о лицах, в лояльности которых сомнений не было. Большую тревогу властей вызывало то, что с течением времени под влиянием социокультурной среды Новгорода владыки, постепенно «сливаясь» с местным обществом, начинали подражать архиереям эпохи независимости, тяготиться опекой из Москвы и порой защищать интересы новгородцев в ущерб интересам Центра. Это, в частности, проявилось в попытках Феодосия избавить служилых людей Дома Св. Софии от участия в обременительных казанских походах. Прочие представители новгородской служилой корпорации также, вероятно, не без поддержки владыки старались избежать службы за пределами Северо-Запада. Так, в 1552 г. новгородцы массово отказались от участия в Казанском походе. Для столичных властей, стремящихся к мобилизации людских ресурсов для борьбы с Казанью, позиция Феодосия была недопустима. Высказывается предположение, что относительно «мягкое» смещение Феодосия с кафедры — он с почетом удалился в свою alma mater (Иосифо-Волоколамский монастырь) — стало результатом компромисса светских и духовных властей весной 1551 г. Он стал возможен в силу близких отношений Ивана IV и митрополита Макария.
The article deals with the possible reasons of archbishop’s resignation from the Novgorod cathedra in 1551. The evidence of historical sources and the explanations of this event presented in historiography are inconcrete. Analyzing the facts from biographies of the predecessors and the successors of Feodosii — Sergii (1483–1484), Gennadii (Gonzov) (1484–1504), Serapion I (1506–1509), Makarii (1526–1542), Pimen (1552–1570) the author studies the main tendencies in the relations of the metropolitan secular and the church authorities with the Novgorod cathedra. It shows that the authorities paid much attention to the selection of candidates for this сathedra. In Novgorod they had to protect the interests of Center. And they raised no doubts in their loyalty. The authorities were alarmed by the fact that over time under the influence of the Novgorod sociocultural environment the archbishops had become the part of the local society and begun to imitate the archbishops of the period of independence, they were oppressed by the guardianship of Moscow and defended the interests of Novgorod citizens to the detriment of Center’s interests. This tendency can be presented by the fact that Feodosii tried to save the Novgorod served people from the burdensome Kazan campaigns. The other representatives of the Novgorod served community also must have tried to avoid the serve beyond the North-West with the archbishop’s support. For example, in 1552 the Novgorod gentry denied taking part in the Kazan campaign. For the authorities striving for mobilization of human resources for the struggle against Kazan the position of Feodosii was inadmissible. The author supposes that such a “gentle” dismissal of Feodosii (he returned with honor to his alma mater — the Volotskii monastery of St. Josef) was the result of the compromise between the secular and the church authorities in the spring of 1551. It could be possible thanks to the close relations between Ivan IV and metropolitan Makarii.
Статья посвящена изучению особенностей состава соборных старцев крупнейших русских монастырей XVI... more Статья посвящена изучению особенностей состава соборных старцев крупнейших русских монастырей XVI в. Рассматриваются региональные особенности формирования сообщества наиболее авторитетных иноков, совместно с игуменом управлявших обителями. Установлено, что в обителях Центра страны (Троице-Сергиев, Иосифо-Волоколамский, Симонов и иные монастыри) среди соборных старцев преобладали представители средних и мелких служилых родов. Состав соборных старцев монастырей Русского Севера (Спасо-Прилуцкого, Соловецкого и др.) был заметно «демократичнее»: среди них доминировали выходцы из местных крестьян и посадских людей. Показано, что наряду с географией служилого землевладения значимую (вероятно, определяющую) роль играли полученный в миру «социальный капитал» инока и особенности климатической зоны, в которой располагался монастырь. Выходцы из служилой среды располагали навыками по управлению крупными вотчинами, которые приносили основные доходы обителям сельскохозяйственного Центра. Монастырям промыслового Севера требовались управленцы, располагавшие иными навыками – прежде всего, по организации промыслов (соляного и иных) и реализации их продуктов. Исследование основано на данных хозяйственной документации (актов, приходо-расходных, вкладных, кормовых книг и др.) ряда русских монастырей XVI в.
The author has made an attempt to find out the metropolitan Dionisii’s status in the world and th... more The author has made an attempt to find out the metropolitan Dionisii’s status in the world and the place of taking him the monastic vows. Earlier he was the abbot of the Novgorod Spaso-Khutynskii monastery. On the base of some historical sources the author makes presupposition that Dionisii soon after taking the monastic vows became the abbot of the Otenskii monastery protected by the secular and the church authorities in the third quarter of the 16th century. There are data about Dionisii’s son - the priest Matfey who took the monastic vows and following the father went to the Spaso-Khutynskii monastery. The son must have inherited the father’s status in the world. Thus Dionisii was from the white clergy. This promoted his turbulent career. In the world he could already acquired many skills which were necessary for the leaders of the church. The epidemics of the 1560-70s could also play their role: a lot of elderly experienced monks who could became abbots and bishops dead. Soon after taking the monastic vows no later than the august of 1572 Dionisii became the abbot of the important Otenskii monastery. After that probably thanks to the acquaintance with Ivan IV no later than the 26th October of 1577 he became the abbot of the Spaso-Khutynskii monastery and then the metropolitan. Taking into consideration that after his dismissal in 1586 he lived for 18 years the author presupposes that he became the abbot and metropolitan in the relatively early age. The research is based on the data from the chronicles, acts, colophons and the records on the objects of church art.
П-60 Порядок и смута. Государство, общество, человек на востоке и западе Европы в Средние века и ... more П-60 Порядок и смута. Государство, общество, человек на востоке и западе Европы в Средние века и раннее Новое время: К 85-летию Владислава Дмитриевича Назарова / Под общей редакцией А.А. Фролова. М.: Аквилон, 2023.-464 с. (Специальные исторические дисциплины, вып. 3) Издание объединяет работы исследователей русской и западноевропейской истории периода средневековья и раннего Нового времени. Все они развивают актуальную проблематику научных исследований по истории различных социальных групп и корпораций, государственных институтов и места в них человека. Большое внимание уделяется источниковедческому изучению отдельных источников или их групп.
The article is devoted to the patriarch Joasaphus I’s (1634–40) origin and status in worldly life... more The article is devoted to the patriarch Joasaphus I’s (1634–40) origin and status in worldly life. Earlier he was the abbot of the Pskov-Caves Monastery (1621–27) and the Pskov archbishop (1627–34). Joasaphus became the metropolitan after the death of Philaret (Romanov) (1619–33). The researchers noted that they had a close relationship. The only previously known historical source informing of Joasaphus’s origin is the Chronograph of the Astrakhan archbishop Pachomius (mid-17th century). It reports that Joasaphus was a descendant of servitors of Boyar scions (deti boyarskie). His parents’ names in religion (Julia and Bogolep) are known to researchers from the Synodic of the Cornelius Komelski monastery. The author of the article has managed to find new data. Synodic of the Yaroslavl Transfiguration of the Savior Monastery notes Joasaphus’s secular name: Ivan Borisov, son of Tonky (the Thin). The author has also established that, prior to taking his monastic vows (1609), Ivan made a donation (a 16th century manuscript) to the Siya Monastery of St. Antonius to commemorate his parents. In 1601–05 Philaret lived in this monastery in exile. Ivan’s father, Boris (Bogolep), might have lived in this monastery with him. The record of donation mentions Ivan’s status: he was a Boyar scion of the Rostov metropolitan Philaret. Considering absence of the names of Ivan and his father in the list of servitors of the Rostov metropolitan’s house (1591/92), the author supposes that Ivan had been connected with Philaret before the latter became the Rostov metropolitan. Probably he was a servitor of the Romanovs (aristocrats like Fedor Nikitich Romanov had a lot of them). Ivan might have taken the monastic vows in the Solovetsky monastery (ca. 1611–12) after his overlord Philaret had been captured by the Poles. After his returning in Moscow, thanks to his relationship with Philaret, Joasaphus made a successful church career. Ivan/Joasaphus’s interest in books might have been instrumental in this. His donation to the monastery was not typical for a representative of service class people. As a rule, they donated the Gospel, Psalter, Menaion to churches and monasteries. Ivan possibly inherited his interest in books from his father. The Gift book of the Siya Monastery of St. Antonius informs that monk Bogolep (probably, the father of the future patriarch) gave no less than 6 books to the monastery in late 16th century. The research is based on the colophons, Synodics, Commemoration books of the Russian monasteries.
The article is devoted to the insufficiently known Boris Godunov’s relations with the representat... more The article is devoted to the insufficiently known Boris Godunov’s relations with the representatives of the church elite. The author shows that the marriage with the daughter of G. L. Skuratov-Bel’skii who was very close to the tsar had contributed to strengthen not only his official positions. In fact, Boris Godunov inherited from the Bel’skiis the close relations with the Volotskii Monastery of St. Josef. Even after the pestilence of 1560–1570s the monastery continued to save some part of its former influence. At the same time after the death of its main patron Ivan IV the monastery needed the support of influential persons. The union of Godunov and the monastery expressed in donations and support of its natives who held the high posts in the Russian Church (Gurii (Stupishin), the Novgorod metropolitan Varlaam). The author supposes that the persons who had connections with this monastery supported Boris Godunov at the Council elected him as the tsar in 1598. The research rests on the acts, records of income, including donations, and expenses of the Volotskii monastery.
The article deals with the internal factors of the Russian episcopate’s formation in the 16th ce... more The article deals with the internal factors of the Russian episcopate’s formation in the 16th century. It was established that the belonging to the influential church groups had played the most important role till the last quarter of the 16th century. There were three - the monks’ community of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius monastery, the Kirillo-Belozerskii monastery, the Iosifo-Volockii monastery. The period, when Simon (the monk of the Holy Trinity- St. Sergius monastery) was the metropolitan, was characterized by the increase of the number of the bishops from this monastery (1495-1511). The metropolitan Daniil (1522-1539) who was from the Iosifo-Volockii monastery strengthened the position of this monastery. The metropolitan Makarii (1542-1563) tried to strike a balance between these two groups. The patriarch Iov (1586-1605) didn’t belong to the influential church groups. That’s why their influence on the governing of the Russian church was minimized. The bishops were appointed from about 15 monasteries. It was connected, on the one hand, with the attempt of Iov and his ally the Godunovs to weaken the “aristocratic” monasteries, on another hand - with the death of the last capable representative of the dynasty in 1584. For a long time the dynasty supported these influential monasteries and others.
Principles of Staffing the Church Elite in Russia in the 16th Century: The Episcopate, 2022
The principles in accordance with which the church elite was formed in Russia in the late Middle ... more The principles in accordance with which the church elite was formed in Russia in the late Middle Ages and early modern times are discussed. For obvious reasons, it was not hereditary. The author focuses on the criteria that candidates for vacant cathedras had to meet. It has been shown that people from the environment of the white clergy had noticeable advantages, who, even before taking the monastic vows, acquired some of the skills necessary for a leader of the Church. There were relatively few representatives of the nobility among the bishops. For a successful church career, first of all, a certain level of training and a significant monastic “experience” were required. Belonging to an influential intra-church group and the support of representatives of the political elite made it easier for people who, as a result of lengthy training, had already passed a certain selection.
The article studies the reasons for the absence of archbishop in Kazan, one of the largest dioces... more The article studies the reasons for the absence of archbishop in Kazan, one of the largest dioceses in the Russian Church in the 16th century and occupying the third place in the church hierarchy. It has been found out that Archbishop Lavrentiy (1568–1574) left it in February 1574, probably due to his poor health; formerly, he was head of Iosifo-Volokolamskiy Monastery. Persons from this monastery — Guriy (Rugotin, 1555–1563), German (Sadyrev-Polev, 1564–1567), and Lavrentiy — occupied Kazan see continuously since the time of its foundation. It was the harmful consequences of the epidemics of the 1560–1570s in this monastery that made it impossible to appoint to Kazan see Hegumen Tikhon (Khvorostinin, 1573–1575) of Volokolamsk or any other person from this monastery. The monastery in Volokolamsk and several other large monasteries (Troitse-Sergiev, Simonov, etc.) lost a considerable number of experienced monks who for many years had been trained to supervise monasteries and sees. There were no possibilities to fi ll these losses quickly in conditions of the meritocratic principles of selecting candidates for heads of sees. Due to this, in the last third of the 16th c. monks from other, less prominent monasteries (Mahrishchskiy Monastery, Staritskii Monastery of Assumption, Gerasimov Boldin Monastery), came to be appointed heads of sees. In February 1575, Vassian, archimandrite of Novospassky Monastery (he was alumnus of Ipatiev Monastery of Kostroma), was appointed to Kazan see, but he deceased as early as May 1575. In July 1575, Tikhon (Khvorostinin), abbot of the Monastery of St. Joseph, was appointed head of Kazan Diocese. This came to be possible through the personal interference of Ivan IV: with this end in view, he arrived in Iosifo-Volokolamsky Monastery in person and, as a matter fact, appointed Evfi miy (Turkov) successor of Tikhon. Previously, in 1573, Evfi miy refused to become head of the monastery. The article draws on acts, records of income and expenses, records of donations of Volotskii Monastery of St. Joseph and another monasteries.
В статье на конкретном примере рассматриваются информационные возможности выходных записей на кни... more В статье на конкретном примере рассматриваются информационные возможности выходных записей на книгах. Показано, что книговедческой составляющей они не исчерпываются. Итоги изучения текста колофона списка Апостола 1570 г. дали дополнительный материал к истории церковного управления в России XVI в. Установлено, что волоколамский инок Пимен (Садыков) ок. 1561 г. перешел в относительно небольшой, но значимый подмосковный Николо-Угрешский монастырь в сопровождении близких к нему лиц – Симеона (Голыгина) и, вероятно, иных. После Пимена ок. 1574–1581 гг. угрешским игуменом являлся Симеон (Голыгин). Показано, что благодаря таким, как он, Иосифо-Волоколамский монастырь и после опустошительного мора рубежа 1560–70-х гг. продолжал играть значимую роль в управлении Русской Церковью. The article is concerned with the informational potential of the colophons. The author shows that the informational potential of these historical sources isn’t exhausted by the book history. The study of the colophon from the Books of the Apostles (1570) has given the additional material for the history of the Russian Church administration in the 16th century. It was established that about 1561 the monk of the Volotskii monastery Pimen (Sadykov) went to the relatively small but significant in the Moscow region the Nikolo-Ugreshskii monastery with Simeon (Golygin) and probably somebody else. After Pimen about 1574–1581 Simeon (Golygin) was the abbot of this monastery. It shows that thanks to such monks as Simeon the Volotskii monastery continued to play the significant role in the administration of the Russian Church even after the pestilence of the 1560–70s.
Uploads
Books by Andrey Usachev
In order to provide a more complete picture of book production in Muscovite Russia, the author has analyzed 734 dated colophons from the extant manuscripts copied from 1500–1600. These colophons contain information about the time and the place of the respective manuscripts, their scribes and their customers. The study draws on materials from 44 archives in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Vologda, Kazan, Saratov, Vladimir, Tver, Yaroslavl, Petrozavodsk, and Novosibirsk, as well as other repositories. Approximately 96% of codices were examined de visu. The information about the rest of manuscripts was drawn from printed catalogues.
The primary sources of the monograph are colophons, which are published in the second, companion volume. Among the other historical sources consulted are inventories of possessions, records of income, including donations, and expenses, land cadasters, charters. Particular attention is devoted to ascertaining the place of production, the names and the status of scribes and customers.
Analysis of the aforementioned sources’ enabled the author establish the provenance of two-thirds of the manuscripts. In some cases, the suggested localizations are hypothetical. The author identified 92 monasteries, some large, but others rather small, where the manuscripts in question were produced. Codices were also copied in 37 towns, some quite large (Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Vladimir, Smolensk, Tver, Astrakhan) and others relatively small (Kotelnich, Elatma, Vasilsursk et.al.). The production of a considerable number of manuscripts was tied to village parishes, situated throughout Muscovy. There are a few cases when manuscripts were copied in Russian embassies, by persons residing out of the country or by prisoners.
The sociological analysis of the scribes shows that monks represent around 25% of the general number and that the white clergy makes up approximately the same percentage. Laymen of different ranks represent slightly less than 50% of the scribes. Manuscripts were also copied by the servitors of monasteries and nobles, gunners and et.al. Some of the scribes (Mikhail Medovartsev, the brothers Basov) were copyists by profession. The author has calculated that it could take between 3 weeks and 5 years to copy a codex, although manuscripts were typically copied in the span of several months. It may be estimated that the majority of the scribes copied no more than three or four dozen manuscripts in their lifetime.
The social status of those who purchased manuscripts was higher than that of those who copied them. This is attributable to the cost of manuscripts. As a rule, a manuscript cost from 1 to 3 roubles. However, richly decorated codices which were produced for representatives of church and the political elite could cost 100 roubles or more. The customers of the majority of extant dated manuscripts were highly ranking Russian churchmen – bishops and hegumens (Metropolitan Macarius, the Suzdalian bishop Afanasii (Paletskii), Archbishop Iona (Dumin) of Vologda et.al.). A high percentage of purchasers were noblemen. These included members of the Boyar Duma (the Vorotynskiis, the Bulgakov-Kurakins, the Godunovs et.al.) and provincial gentry (the Aprelevs, the Repevs, the Scriabins et.al). Books were also ordered by Russian sovereigns (Vasili III, Ivan IV), merchants (including foreign), representatives of bureaucracy (Kazarin Dubrovskii, Foma Panin и Dmitrii Skripitsyn). Many books were copied by order of parish church priests. Sometimes books were ordered collectively by a social group (parishioners of a community, town dwellers, provincial gentry). Irrespective of the customer’s and scribe’s status, most of the manuscripts were produced for churches and monasteries.
The investigation permits us to draw two main conclusions. First, that manuscripts were produced practically everywhere. Second, that the copyists and customers of books represented all major social groups of the Russian population.
Книгу можно приобрести на сайте издательства: http://aarheo.ru/shop/usachev-a-s-knigopisanie-v-rossii-xvi-veka-po-materialam-datirovannykh-vykhodnykh-zapisei-v-2-kh-t/
Papers by Andrey Usachev
стабильности (малолетство Ивана IV, правление Федора Ивановича), когда князья Шуйские и Годуновы могли оказывать значительное влияние на замещение кафедр. Связи с представителями знати расширяли и административные возможности архиереев при защите интересов епархий. Например, они позволили новгородскому владыке освободить своих служилых людей от обременительной службы на южных рубежах страны. С другой стороны, членам Боярской думы, вероятно, льстило внимание руководителей церкви, пользовавшихся огромным авторитетом в эпоху Средневековья. Последние могли оказывать поддержку – как моральную (в случае смерти родственника), так и вполне реальную, ходатайствуя при дворе о прощении провинившихся перед властями аристократов. В основу исследования положены летописные и актовые источники, записи на предметах церковного искусства, расходная книга Дома Св. Софии за 1547–1548 гг. Их изучение ведется с применением методов источниковедческого анализа, позволяющих
из отрывочных и порой разноречивых показаний источников воссоздать картину прошлого.
the territory which earlier belonged to the Novgorod Diocese. It must have been done with the active participation of the influential representatives of Novgorod – Novgorod Archbishop Alexander and Metropolitan Dionisii. The significant laymen listened to their requests aiming to ensure the support of the church leaders under conditions of the future struggle for power.
Рассматриваются возможные причины сохранения значимых позиций Вологодской кафедры в 1570-е – первой половине 1580-х гг. Высказывается предположение, что ее интересы защищал исключительно близкий к Ивану IV его духовник Феодосий Вятка, являвшийся постриженником главного монастыря данной епархии – Спасо-Каменного. Несмотря на формально относительно невысокое положение Феодосия, его фактический «вес» при дворе был значителен. Судя по всему, с его поддержкой было связано поставление на Коломенскую (1571 г.) и Ростовскую (1578 г.) кафедры двух выходцев из Павлова Обнорского и Спасо-Прилуцкого монастырей (оба – Давиды), а также сохранение за Вологодской кафедрой переданной ей в 1570/1571 г. части Поморья. После кончины Ивана IV 18 марта 1584 г. позиции Феодосия ослабли: в июле 1584 г. Вологодская кафедра вернула Новгородской принадлежавшую ей ранее территорию. Скорее всего, это было сделано при активном участии влиятельных «новгородцев» – новгородского архиепископа Александра и митрополита Дионисия. К их просьбам прислушались значимые светские лица, стремясь заручиться поддержкой руководителей Церкви в условиях надвигающейся борьбы за власть.
The article deals with the possible reasons of archbishop’s resignation from the Novgorod cathedra in 1551. The evidence of historical sources and the explanations of this event presented in historiography are inconcrete. Analyzing the facts from biographies of the predecessors and the successors of Feodosii — Sergii (1483–1484), Gennadii (Gonzov) (1484–1504), Serapion I (1506–1509), Makarii (1526–1542), Pimen (1552–1570) the author studies the main tendencies in the relations of the metropolitan secular and the church authorities with the Novgorod cathedra. It shows that the authorities paid much attention to the selection of candidates for this сathedra. In Novgorod they had to protect the interests of Center. And they raised no doubts in their loyalty. The authorities were alarmed by the fact that over time under the influence of the Novgorod sociocultural environment the archbishops had become the part of the local society and begun to imitate the archbishops of the period of independence, they were oppressed by the guardianship of Moscow and defended the interests of Novgorod citizens to the detriment of Center’s interests. This tendency can be presented by the fact that Feodosii tried to save the Novgorod served people from the burdensome Kazan campaigns. The other representatives of the Novgorod served community also must have tried to avoid the serve beyond the North-West with the archbishop’s support. For example, in 1552 the Novgorod gentry denied taking part in the Kazan campaign. For the authorities striving for mobilization of human resources for the struggle against Kazan the position of Feodosii was inadmissible. The author supposes that such a “gentle” dismissal of Feodosii (he returned with honor to his alma mater — the Volotskii monastery of St. Josef) was the result of the compromise between the secular and the church authorities in the spring of 1551. It could be possible thanks to the close relations between Ivan IV and metropolitan Makarii.
The article is concerned with the informational potential of the colophons. The author shows that the informational potential of these historical sources isn’t exhausted by the book history. The study of the colophon from the Books of the Apostles (1570) has given the additional material for the history of the Russian Church administration in the 16th century. It was established that about 1561 the monk of the Volotskii monastery Pimen (Sadykov) went to the relatively small but significant in the Moscow region the Nikolo-Ugreshskii monastery with Simeon (Golygin) and probably somebody else. After Pimen about 1574–1581 Simeon (Golygin) was the abbot of this monastery. It shows that thanks to such monks as Simeon the Volotskii monastery continued to play the significant role in the administration of the Russian Church even after the pestilence of the 1560–70s.