History of Muscovy

Temčinas S., Какой польский печатный Коран перевел в московском Посольском приказе С.Ф. Чижинский в 1683 году: К рецепции произведений Иоанникия Галятовского, in Kulwicka-Kamińska J., Łapicz Cz., Miškinienė G. (eds.), Tatarskie dziedzictwo kulturowe: Historia. Literatura. Sztuka, Toruń, 2018, s. 67–76.

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

Издание «Русские средневековые монеты» посвящено всему княжескому периоду средневековой истории Руси от первых киевских монет до венчания Ивана Васильевича Грозного на царство (X в. - 1547).

В книгу вошёл значительный массив платёжных слитков, игравших ключевую роль в русском денежном обращении XII-XV столетий. До настоящего времени информация об этих необычных памятниках нумизматики была разобщена и труднодоступна массовому читателю. Заметно расширена классификация подражаний и надчеканов, выпускавшихся в русских княжествах, исследованы их основы.

Переработана компоновка страниц для повышения удобства читателя, изображения монет размещены над описанием. Значительная часть прорисовок и черно-белых изображений заменена цветными фотографиями. В научный оборот вводится большое количество новых монет.

Формат А4, твердая обложка, 660 страниц, Москва, 2017 г. Тираж: 500 экз.

Introduction. The visit of the Russian envoy Osip Nepeya to London in 1556-1557 is usually considered as the beginning of the official relations between Russia and England. In the light of modern views about the sixteenth-century diplomacy, this event requires a more thorough research. Methods. The Nepeya's trip was traditionally viewed as an insignificant episode in the context of general reviews of bilateral relations concentrated mainly on trade. The reasons and possibilities of the military and political rapprochement between England, Spain and Russia in the 1550s, which was the most likely goal of the Nepeya's journey to England, have never been investigated. Therefore, this article is based on an analysis of numerous multilingual sources. Analysis. The author clarifies the Nepeya's diplomatic rank and certain previously unknown details of the Muscovites' stay in London. He analyzes Nepeya's mission to England in the context of foreign affairs of Ivan IV, Mary Tudor and Philip II Habsburg. Results. It is concluded that the rulers of Spain and England could provide military support to Ivan IV, but they were not interested in military and political alliance with the Muscovy and the war against Turkey. However, establishing official equal relations between England and Russia at the highest level, as well as obtaining trade privileges for Russian merchants was the main result of Nepeya's trip. This allows us to conclude that the first Russian diplomatic mission in London was successful.

Our evidence concerning the Khanate of Sibir’ is sparse. The origin of the term is murky, its origins in the northeastern part of the Ulus of Jochi unclear, and most of its history unaccounted for. Arabic sources provide testimony that groupings of people coalesced in the area under the Taybughids (a non-Chingissid ruling clan), in the late 14th century and that Ibak, a Shibanid (descendants of Batu's fifth son), ousted the Taybughid ruler in the 15th century. Ibak, in turn, was ousted and killed by Muhammad, a Taybughid. Russian chronicles begin referring to Sibir’ as the Khanate of Tiumen in the late 15th century and provide more testimony about its relations with Muscovy until its demise a hundred years later. By the mid-16th century, Khan Kuchum, the grandson of Ibak, had apparently overthrown the Taybughid ruler of Sibir’ and was dealing on an equal footing more or less directly with Tsar Ivan IV. Disputes concerning subject peoples are reported in the Russian sources, and a Cossack band under Ermak, who was hired by the Stroganovs, defeated Kuchum's forces in 1582. Subsequently, in 1585, Kuchum's forces ambushed Ermak's group and killed Ermak. Thirteen years later, in 1598, Kuchum was defeated by Russian forces, and, according to a 17th-century Chagatai source, he fled to the Noghays. Thus, 1598 is considered to be the official end of the Khanate of Sibir’, although reports of Kuchum's descendants contesting Russian control continued until the 1680s.

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

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

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

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

The author of the essay reflects on the attitude in today's Russia to the
personality of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, reverence for him in certain circles of Russian society and analyzes the commemorative practice associated with this. Most of all he is occupied by the problem of the relationship between academic knowledge and public perception of the figure of the first Russian Tsar.

Аннотация. В статье рассмотрена история титульных гербов Московского царства на протяжении второй половины XVI-XVII в. Выделено три этапа эволюции территориальной геральдики за этот период и определены причины происходивших изменений. Прослежена взаимосвязь формирования территориальных эмблем с эволюцией царского титула, созданием новых регалий и иными формами внешней презентации власти русских государей.

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

[Russian Ambassadors in Leghorn and the Relationship between Muscovy and Tuscany in the Seventeenth Century]. In 1656 and in 1660 some ambassadors of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of Russia arrived in Livorno. The first of these embassies, led by Ivan Ivanovich Chemodanov and the clerk Alexei Posnikov, was in fact directed in Venice but the stay of just over a month in Livorno was an important stage for the Russian ambassadors. The second mission, led by Vasily Bogdanovich Lichachaev and the clerk Ivan Fomin, was directly addressed to Tuscany although this time, the ambassadors stayed for only five days at Livorno. In both cases the presence of Russian diplomats in the city attracted much attention and left many documentary traces that are described in detail in the article. In April 1663 another Muscovite ambassador arrived in Florence: Ivan Afanas’evich Zheljabuzhskij. The three Russian embassies in Tuscany, in 1657, 1660 and 1663, laid the foundations for stable trade relations with Muscovy, which increased progressively with the gradual opening of that country to the West that characterized the last years of the reign of Alexei and those of the regency of Sophia Alexeevna. Villani highlights the importance of Dutch and English mediation in the development of Russian-Tuscan relations, and especially the role that played Charles Longland. It also shows that behind these missions stood the intention to develop commerce of some Russian goods in which the Italian markets were particularly interested in, including leather, salmon and caviar. The consolidation and development of trade between Muscovy and the Mediterranean area during the 1660s and 1670s was also thanks to the brokerage of Francesco Guasconi (a Florentine living in Muscovy), after Zheljabuzhskij’s 1663 mission time there were not direct diplomatic exchanges for a long and Tuscany was not even officially visited by Russian diplomats who travelled through Italy in those years. The resumption of direct talks with Muscovy occurred in the early 1680s due to the morbid “scientific” and “ethnographic” curiosities of the Grand Duke Cosimo III, that in any case were, not directed to Muscovy itself but to the lands which bordered with China. In the summer of 1682 the Grand Duke asked to Francesco Gasconi to buy a Circassian slave for him in Muscovy. The Grand Duke liked to surround himself with young people of different nationalities to give an exotic touch to his court. These slaves were then forced to convert to Catholicism and as soon as they become adults, they were manumitted with a good pension. Apparently the Grand Duke had to wait a long time for the arrival of his young Circassian, and, before the promised gift a Russian ambassador arrived in Tuscany in February 1688. This diplomatic mission was not addressed only to the Grand Duke and was not to deal directly with specific Russian interests in Tuscany. On May 6, 1686, in Moscow, the “eternal” Peace between Russia and Poland had been signed, putting to an end decades of war between the two countries. It was a huge success of Moscow’s foreign policy and therefore, at the beginning of 1687, Sofia Alexeevna sent a series of diplomatic embassies to all European countries to officially give this news and to prompt the construction of a league against the Turkish. The ambassador for Tuscany was Vasily Timofeevich Postnikov. This was the first diplomatic mission in Tuscany after almost a quarter of a century. The survey of the Tuscan-Russian relations since the middle of the 1600s highlights the role of the British as intermediaries between the Muscovites and Italians. And why in the course of the seventeenth century, Livorno – now the main English port for the Levant trade – also became the Italian port for Russian goods.

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

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

"[A Mediterranean Window on Europe: the Northerners in Early Modern Leghorn]. Livorno in the early modern period for commercial and economic reasons was the site of rich British and Dutch mercantile communities and was also one of the few Italian cities where, in the seventeenth century, Italians and Nordics came into direct contact. In the essay Villani examines how the “Nordics” lived in Livorno, going beyond mere mercantile relations and investigating, from the social and cultural point of view, what difficulties they experienced in that context, being communities so culturally and religiously distant from Italy. He also discusses how these foreigners were perceived by the Italians. If St. Petersburg was rightly called “the window through which Russia looks on Europe” (Francesco Algarotti), one can say that Leghorn in the seventeenth century was to some extent the Italian window on Northern Europe. Relying on his earlier research on the religious history of the mercantile communities of Livorno already published or submitted for publication, Villani attempts to capture the view that from that window that was launched on the north in the seventeenth century.
"

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

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

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

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

Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich was the nephew of Ivan IV’s second wife, Mariia Temriukovna. He was a Chingissid who had a remarkable career, first, as khan of Kasimov, then after entering
Muscovite service, as head of the Muscovite army’s “main regiment”, as grand prince of Rus', and as grand prince of Tver'. He also married Anastasia Ivanovna Miloslavskaia. Finally he was tonsured as the monk Stefan and was buried in the Simonov Monastery. The episode that has attracted the most attention in the sources and in the scholarly literature was his
appointment as grand prince of all Rus' between September 1575 and September 1576. Ivan IV held on to his other titles, including tsar of Kazan' and Astrakhan', but he also acquired an estate as the prince of Moscow under Grand Prince Simeon. In this article, I classified the primary source testimony into two categories: those accounts contemporary to the time of Ivan IV and those written after his death in 1584. After analyzing them and comparing them
with the various historiographical explanations, I proposed that Ivan IV placed Simeon on the grand princely throne of Rus' as a legal maneuver to allow him to go after certain individuals in the ruling elite who he thought were plotting against him. These individuals who he suspected were mostly former members of the oprichnina. Ivan had claimed to the metropolitan in 1565 that he was being prevented from investigating and punishing certain individuals and again to foreigners in 1575 about the perfidiousness of his subjects. By having someone else serve as grand prince of Rus' who would give him the go ahead, he would be freed from constraints on his actions.

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