Muscovite Russia

«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.

The account the Danish aristocrat and ambassador to Russia in 1578 during the Livonian War belongs to the best known and most important foreign accounts of Russia during the reign of Ivan Groznyi. This account was published posthumously in 1608 in France. However, unknown to most scholars two other manuscript accounts by participants in the embassy exist: one like Ulfeldt’s text was written in Latin by Ulfeldt’s personal priest, the other in Danish in the form of a diary was most likely written by the embassy’s Danish interpreter, Henrik Olufsen. A comparison of the three texts shows that Ulfeldt shortened and paraphrased the text his priest had composed when, in 1588,  he mistakenly thought he had a chance to exonerate himself for the disastrous outcome of his negotiations with Groznyi (for whose peculiar negotiation technics [cf. Lind, "Ivan IV's Great State Seal …", previously uploaded] Ulfeldt was no match). Thus there is no doubt that Ulfeldt’s text is dependant on his priest’s considerably larger text. The interpreter’s diary is shorter, but while both the priest’s and Ulfeldt’s text were written some years after their return, the diary was written during the journey, furthermore the interpreter was, it seems, able to gather information directly from Russians as the embassy progressed, therefore his text is in many respect more interesting and important. On the other hand the priest produced one of the most complete western descriptions of Russian church life in the sixteenth century based on his month-long stay in Novgorod.

A Russian version of this text appeared in the publication of the first complete Russian translation of Ulfeldt’s text: Якоб Ульфельдт, Путешествие в Россию. Пер. Л.Н. Годовиковой; отв. ред. Дж. Линд, А.Л. Хорошкевич. – М., 2002.
This Russian version can also be found on the net: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus12/Ulfeldt/pred1.phtml?id=1558

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 relations between tsar Alexis and patriarch Nikon between 1652–1658 can be seen as
the realization of the Byzantine idea of symphony, but there was a sharp break from 1658 on
which finally led to the deposition of Nikon. It means that by the time Fedor Griboedov set
out to write his work in the 1660s, the symphony between the tsar and the patriarch had
already been over. The ideological struggle between the tsar and the patriarch exerted a
great influence on the chronicle which must be interpreted in the context of this conflict.
Griboedov’s chronicle completely abandoned the idea of symphony apparent in the Book of
Degrees, though its structure closely resembled the latter and it quoted extensively from the
Book of Degrees. The icon called The Planting of the Tree of the Muscovite State painted by
Ushakov was a visual representation of the symphony existing only during Moscow’s
historical past, and it also connected the salvation of Russia to the piety of the tsar and his
family.

This text arose in answer to a request for a review of the section on the Russian roots of the Aminoff (Aminev) family, as presented in a book from 1978 by Berndt Herman Aminoff on the genealogy of his family, by then the most numerous and in modern times most influential among the Russian noble families, who, during the Livonian War and the Smutnoe Vremia, defected from Muscovite Russia to Sweden at the end of 16th and beginning of 17th centuries.

It was easily enough to establish that the presentation offered by Berndt Herman Aminoff was fundamentally mistaken. It merely repeated the version found in earlier genealogical manuals, more precisely the one compiled by the emigrant genealogist Nicolaus lkonnikov (La Noblesse de Russie D) in 1933. This again was based on a series of similar gene-alogies reaching back to the works by P. Dolgorukov (Rossijskaia rodoslovnaia kniga. Vol 3, 1856) and G. Anrep (Svenska adelns ättartaflor, vol. 1, 1858). They were the only genealogists who had actually relied on unpublished or genuine source material: Anrep used a version in the Swedish House of Nobility from the 1720s, while Dolgorukov linked the family to the Ratsha filiation in the Russian family registers (rodoslovnye knigi) through the Kuritsyns, where one, Ivan Iurievich, used the byname Amin. As a result the Aminoffs in their Swedish and Finnish context is seen as belonging to the oldest Russian families, related fx. to the Pushkins.

Since S. B. Veselovskii had already disproved Dolgorukov's linkage to the Kuritsyns in a note, posthumously published in 1963, which, however, remained unknown to Bernd Herman Aminoff, there seemed little point in simply repeating Veselovskii's findings. However, a closer look at the genealogical material in the Swedish House of Nobility disclosed some interesting similarities between the genealogies, handed in by the Aminoffs and two other Russian families, the Rubzoffs and Peresvetoff-Moraths. Whereas the earliest versions of the genealogies of these families had only vague ideas of even the nearest ancestors of the first «Swedish» member, the later ones could not only name up to ten male ancestors, but they could also list to whom they were married. Furthermore, the three families had intermarried already in the 13th-14th centuries or married into the same aristrocratic families, like the Golitsyns. In addition they knew where their ancestors had had their estates and in which military or administrative positions they had served. Thus they contained a type of information of which we are ignorant even concerning the best known Russian noble families.

Obviously these genealogies were fiction. But why were they produced and presented to the Swedish House of Nobility. To answer this a comparative study of the roots of all these Russian families and their later respective positions in Swedish society.

From the late 16th century Sweden, then including Finland, with its small population developed an amazing military capacity, which enabled it to expand at the cost of all its neighbours. When Sweden put this military capacity to use in the Thirty Years' War it soon emerged as a major European power, a position it was able to keep until the defeat at the hands of Peter the Great at Poltava in 1709. During this period large numbers of nobles both from conquered regions and from other European countries, seeking military glory, entered Swedish service and were adopted into Swedish nobility. Part of these families were Russian and became known as the «Ingrian Russian boyars», because many at the time had or got links to Ingria. The families in question were the Baranovs, Nasakins, Rozladins (Rosladin), Klement'evs (Clementeoff), Golovachevs (Golawitz), Chebotaevs (Apolloff), Buturlins (Butterlin), Kalitins, Aminevs, Peresvetovs (Peresvetoff-Morath) and Rubtsovs – here listed chronologically according to their appearance in Swedish service. The main task was to link the first members in Swedish service to their or their family's appearance in Russian sources, first of all through the cadastral books (pistsovye knigi) of Russian North-West. This to a large extent proved possible, and the history of most of the families before their entry into Swedish service can be established.

With few exceptions all the families turned out to be of lower, provincial nobility, not sufficiently important in Muscovite society to have been included in the rodoslovnye knigi. Almost all of the families had been moved to the Novgorod region during the last hundred or hundred and fifty years, when service nobility from Central Russia replaced the old deported Novgorodian aristocracy; only one family, the Kalitins, could be shown to have their roots in independent Novgorod. The exceptions were the Buturlins (descendants of Ratsha), Rozladins (descendants of Nestor Riabets) and Chebotaevs (descendants of Andrei Kobyla). But although members of these families could fill high positions in the Muscovite state, branches of the families also served in lower capacities on par with other provincial families. But at least the «Swedish» Petr Rozladin did, as the only member of these Russian nobles, marry into the highest Swedish aristocracy, which probably reflects his position in Russia. A third exception was Aleksandr Rubtsov, who had been held prisoner in Marienburg when it was conquered by the Swedes in 1626. In Russian sources he is presented as citizen (posadskij chelovek) of Smolensk, but somehow he must have convinced the Swedes that he was of noble birth.

Whereas the exact circumstances surrounding the entry into Swedish service of the Daniel Golovachev and Vasilij Buturlin remain unclear, one group, the Baranovs, Nasakins, Klement'evs and Rozladins, chose to enter Swedish service in the later stages of the Livonian War. While the war had gone well for Russia they had been moved westwards, receiving new estates in Estonia. But when the Swedes conquered Estonia they preferred to retain their estates by opting for Sweden.

The remaining families entered Swedish service in the course of Smutnoe vremia and during the Swedish occupation of Novgorod. They all actively supported the election of a Swedish prince as Russian or at least Novgorodian Tsar. Of these the Kalitins, Chebotaevs, and Klement'evs all had their estates in that Votskaia Piatina which after the Stolbova Peace Treaty in 1617, was ceded to Sweden. Thus they both risked losing their estates and be treated as traitors if they remained in the Russia of the Romanovs.

The last two families, the Aminevs and Peresvetovs, did not have estates in the region. The Aminevs originally came from the Kostroma region, but had at the end of the 15th century received estates in Novgorod; later, however, they moved on to the Pskov region after it had been laid waste during the Livonian War. In 1609 Fedor Aminev, Commander of the streltsy on Ivangorod, was held prisoner by the Swedes in Narva and had bought his freedom by agreeing to attempt to persuade the commanders of Ivangorod, Jama and Kopor'e to surrender to the Swedes. In this he failed but still he must have gained the confidence of the Swedes. The Peresvetovs had no roots at all in the region but came from Rostov. One Murat Peresvetov was, however, among the Russian defenders when the Swedes besieged the Tikhvin Monastery, but defected to the Swedes during the siege.

One reason why the Swedish authorities also after the peace treaty of 1617 wanted to retain the Russian families and even promised to enlarge their estates was that they hoped the Russian families could persuade the Russian peasants to remain in the region after it came under Swedish rule. Otherwise it risked being totally depopulated.

While these Russian families in general were not interested in investigating their Russian roots, we have seen that three of the families, the Aminoffs, Peresvetoff-Moraths and Rubzoffs, in the early 1700s composed extensive but quite unrealistic genealogies. Why? What did they have in common compared to the other families? The answer is that they had not had estates in Ingria before it became Swedish in 1617. By the Peace Treaty of Nystad in 1721, however, Sweden lost all its possessions south of the Gulf of Finland. all Because the surviving Russians families were now completely assimilated with Sweden they chose to stay with Sweden, thereby loosing their estates. The question now arose whether they should be compensated for their loss in other parts of Sweden. At first, the Swedish government looked favourably at the matter, but, when it came to the actual recompensation, difficulties arose. During the so-called Reduction in the 1680s the Swedish nobility had lost all its estates in Sweden which – by contrast to patrimonial estates – had been given in return for service. The Russian families had not been touched by the Reduction. But now when the Russian families were to be compensated by estates in mainland Sweden, many Swedish nobles started to question whether the estates the Russian families had lost in Ingria had not been service estates and therefore should have been reduced (lost) anyway. Since it was clear that the Aminoffs, Peresvetoff-Moraths and Rubzoffs had only received their estates in Ingria after it became Swedish, their estates were deemed to be service estates. All the families now could do was to claim that these estates had been given in return for patrimonies they had lost in Russia when they opted for Sweden. Therefore, in the Diet in 1738, they read a petition, in which they claimed to have been in «secure possession» of their estates «from ancient times». Since this in any case was not true, the best the three families could do to substantiate their claim was to fabricate genealogies, which in a Swedish context could not be falsified, showing their illustrious past linked to patrimonies in Russia from the 14th century onwards.

В статье переписка между Иваном IV и властями Короны Польской и Великого княжества Литовского изучена как источник по истории политической мысли. Особое внимание уделено формированию образа врага в лице унийного государства Ягеллонов и их наследников в Речи Посполитой. Ход переписки показывает, как замыслы Ивана IV, дипломатическая борьба и война меняли риторические стратегии, направленные на вычеркивание польско-литовской унии из истории и с политической карты современности. В общей сложности изучено 306 посольских посланий, не считая сопроводительной дипломатической документации и других источников. Целесообразным было разделить их по 10 периодам и представить общие тенденции в переписке в рамках предложенной периодизации.

Краткая «Grammatica Russica» на латинском языке, изданная Лудольфом в Оксфорде в 1696 году, стала первой в мире грамматикой русского (а не церковнославянского) языка; автор ставил себе задачей описать разговорный русский язык. Он внимательно ознакомился со славянской грамматической традицией (в частности, церковнославянскими грамматиками Мелетия Смотрицкого) и приложил к грамматике для справки перечень славянских грамматических терминов, однако в описании русского языка не следует за Смотрицким. Так, он вовсе не даёт категории, присутствующие только в церковнославянском языке (аорист и имперфект) или вообще выдуманные по образцу греческой грамматики. Он описывает русское полногласие, ряд фонетических соответствий между русским и церковнославянским, отсутствие чередований в русском склонении. В именном склонении он отмечает местный падеж на -у, совпадение звательного падежа с именительным (кроме церковной лексики), замену двойственного множественным (кроме форм вроде воочию), развитие из двойственного числа счётной формы (три, четыре стола и т. п.). Лудольф указывает только три времени современного языка — прошедшее, настоящее и будущее; первым описывает аналитическое будущее время со стану, взаимный залог. В перечне наречий и предлогов Лудольф вместо книжных славянских, приведённых у Смотрицкого, даёт разговорные русские формы. Во многом его описание опережает первые российские грамматики русского языка — В. Е. Адодурова (1740) и М. В. Ломоносова (1755).

Особую ценность имеют занимающие большую часть книги учебные диалоги (5 бытовых и один на религиозную тему) с параллельным латинским и немецким текстом. Лишь в очень небольшом количестве случаев это искусственно переведённые фразы, по большей части это записанные в России из уст представителей самых разных социальных слоёв реплики, часто с эллиптическим синтаксисом и разговорной лексикой.

Другое приложение к грамматике — «Краткие сведения по естественной истории России», где даются содержательные сведения о минеральных богатствах, флоре, фауне и населении России.

«Грамматика» Лудольфа в XIX в. часто игнорировалась из-за якобы большого числа ошибок, демонстрирующих плохое знание иностранцем русского языка. На самом деле, как показал Б. А. Ларин, большинство их связано с опечатками, вкравшимися при подготовке книги в Оксфорде (для наборщиков русский язык был абсолютно экзотическим); синтаксических ошибок под влиянием немецкого и латыни (кочевавших в XIX в. из работы в работу как доказательство некомпетентности Лудольфа) считанное количество.

В XX в. «Грамматика» неоднократно переиздавалась и изучалась как источник по истории лингвистической мысли и разговорному русскому языку конца XVII в. Среди её исследователей были такие авторитетные слависты, как С. К. Булич, Б. А. Ларин и Б. О. Унбегаун.

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/

Unter den Quellen fremder Herkunft, die das Thema Rußland in der Zeit Ivans des Schrecklichen behandeln, nimmt der Bericht Albert Schlichtings eine besondere Stellung ein. Der literarisch ansprechende und durch eine Fülle von Einzelheiten beeindruckende Bericht des aus russischer Gefangenschaft Entflohenen, der nicht nur die Gelegenheit gehabt hatte, sich einige Jahre in der russischen Hauptstadt aufzuhalten, sondern während dieser Zeit auch dem Zarenhof nahe gestanden war, hat die Aufmerksamkeit der Forschung von dem Augenblick an auf sich gezogen, als dank dem Fund PIERRE PIERLINGS im Vatikanischen Archiv die lateinische Fassung De moribus et imperandi crudelitate Basilij Moschoviae Tyranni brevis ennaraüS dem Vergessen entrissen wurde. Der nächste Forscher, der viel zum Bekanntwerden des Berichts beigetragen hat, war der Russe EVGENIJ SMURLO; ihm verdanken wir den ersten Versuch einer Analyse von Schlichtings Schrift sowie die Herausarbeitung ihres Zusammenhanges mit der bekannten Darstellung der Verbrechen Ivans des Schrecklichen in dem Werk von ALESSANDRO GUAGNINI Sarmatiae Europae descriptio, das um die Wende des 16. zum 17. Jahrhundert in Europa sehr populär war. Namentlich geht es hier um dessen Kapitel V: De Magni Moscoviae dueis Joannis Basiliadis tyrannide. Weitere Meilensteine in der Erforschung dieser Quelle sind die russische Übersetzung aus der Feder von ALEKSANDR I. MALEIN (1934), die speziell dem Bericht Schlichtings gewidmete Dissertation von CHRISTA PROKSCH-TREPLIN (Erlangen 1952) sowie die ausgezeichnete und mit vorzüglichem Kommentar versehene englische Übersetzung von HUGH F. GRAHAM (1975); nicht zu unterschätzen sind auch die Verdienste von ANDREAS KAPPELER (1972) bei der Einordnung des Berichtes unter den zeitgenössischen Quellen, wobei er besonders auch die antirussischen Schmäh-und Flugschriften berücksichtigte. 2 Das Werk Schlichtings, obwohl bis zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt beinahe ausschließlich auf dem Umweg über die russische Übersetzung rezipiert (die Arbeit von PROKSCH mit * Die vorliegende Arbeit entstand während eines Forschungsaufenthalts am Osteuropa-Institut München, der durch ein Stipendium der Volkswagenstiftung ermöglicht wurde. Der Autor möchte sich herzlich für die dabei erfahrene Hilfe bedanken bei Prof. Dr. Edgar Hösch, den Teilnehmern seines Postgraduiertenkolloquiums sowie-für die Unterstützung bei den Re-cherchen und für wertvolle Hinweise-bei den Kollegen am Osteuropa-Institut München.

The ancestors of the Bunak family had been of Muscovite and Ruthenian origin and had served the Grand Princes of Moscow and Tsar Ivan IV. Three syny boiarskiie, the sons of an Ivan Bunak entered the service of the Polish King and the Grand Prince of Lithuania Sigismund II August in the early 1560s. In different periods they kept landholdings in Livonia, Volhynia. Eventually they settled in Samogitia where since then they and their descendants appeared in legal documents, mainly in the judicial books of the local gentry. This allows to reconstruct their kinship network, matrimonial choices, social mobility, patronage ties with local nobility.

This article explores a church rite of spiritual brotherhood known in Russian as bratotvorenie. This rite, which has not been studied in any depth before, united two unrelated men as ‘brothers’. It appeared in Muscovite and Ruthenian church books until the mid-seventeenth century, when it was banned by the Kievan Metropolitan Petro Mohyla. On the basis of archival research, this article presents a history of the tradition of bratotvorenie for the first time. Using gender theory, it suggests that spiritual brotherhoods were associated culturally with marriage, and that this association had sexual connotations.

This article examines the factors that influenced the creation of the first Russian (so-called “anonymous”) printing press around 1553. The article shows that the first attempts to introduce printing took place as early as the 1540s (as seen in the Hans Schlitte mission and in a letter from Ivan IV to the Danish King Christian III). Thus the Sloglav Council (1551) or the conquest of Kazan (1552) could not be the immediate reasons for the introduction of printing in Russia. The direct reason was the need to standardize church service books. The article argues that the production of printed books in Russia also greatly accelerated as a result of the fire in Moscow in 1547, which destroyed an enormous quantity of books in the libraries in the capital. The capacities of the existing scriptoria in Moscow at the time were insufficient to restore quickly the large quantities of books lost in the fire. It became necessary to employ new methods for replacing the lost books (first and foremost, liturgical books). This study is based in a wide range of sources, including materials connected with the so-called “Viskovatyi Affair,” chronicles, the Tale of the Moscow Fire of 1547, the Book of Degrees, marginalia and other inscriptions found in some books, inventories compiled by the scribal staffs in chanceries, the colophon of the 1564 Apostol, and other sources.
В статье рассматривается вопрос о факторах, оказавших влияние на создание первой русской (т.н. «анонимной») типографии около 1553 г. Показано, что первые попытки введения книгопечатания предпринимались уже в конце 1540-х гг. (миссия Г. Шлитте, письмо Ивана IV датскому королю Христиану III). Соответственно, Стоглавый собор (1551 г.) и присоединение Казани (1552 г.) непосредственными причинами начала книгопечатания являться не могли. Главной причиной являлась необходимость унификации богослужебных книг. Высказывается предположение о том, что процесс печатного производства книг в России значительно ускорил разрушительный Московский пожар 1547 г. С ним были связаны серьезные потери в книжном фонде библиотек столицы. Возможностей книгописных центров Москвы было недостаточно для восполнения утрат в кратчайшие сроки. Было необходимо использовать новые методы тиражирования книг (по преимуществу, богослужебных). Исследование основано на материале «дела И.М. Висковатого», летописей, Повести о Московском пожаре 1547 г., Степенной книги, записей на книгах, писцовых описаний, Послесловия к Апостолу 1564 г. и иных источников.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/22102396/51/2-3

Парижский словарь московитов (Dictionnaire Muscovite 1586) — словарь-разговорник русского языка XVI в., составлен в Холмогорах капитаном Жаном Соважем из Дьепа вместе с французскими купцами, прибывшими с ним к устью Северной Двины. Опубликован в 1586 году в Париже королевским космографом Андре Теве с немалым количеством ошибок.

Содержит 621 двуязычную французско-русскую словарную строку, или «статью». Содержание разнообразно — тематические разделы посвящены географическим терминам, названиям профессий, товаров, названий инструментов, целые разговорные фразы — от торговых выражений до записей галантных бесед с дамами.

Ряд русских слов зафиксирован в этом словаре впервые: прапорщик, мускат, коршун, звездочёт, замша, куропатка, гулять, шутить и др.

Издан в 1905 г. русистом Полем Буайе по изданию Теве. В 1948 вновь опубликован Б. А. Лариным в Риге по более исправной (хотя также не являющейся протографом) фотокопии Парижской национальной библиотеки с комментариями. Вместе с латинской «Grammatica Russica» Генриха Вильгельма Лудольфа и русско-английским словарём из записной книжки Ричарда Джемса вошёл в состав издания трудов Ларина: Б. А. Ларин. Три иностранных источника по разговорной речи Московской Руси XVI—XVII веков. СПб.: Издательство Петербургского университета, 2002.

В статье на основе анализа записей на Годуновских Псалтирях рассматривается вопрос о распространении идеи «Третьего Рима» в России в конце XVI в. В этом столетии Третьим Римом именовалась либо Русская земля, либо Российское царство. Устанавливается, что одним из первых случаев (возможно, первым) соотнесения Третьего Рима непосредственно с «Москвой» были записи Годуновских Псалтирей. Этот комплекс богато иллюминированных рукописей переписывался в одном из столичных скрипториев между 1591 и 1600 гг. по заказу дяди Б. Ф. Годунова боярина Д. И. Годунова. Данные рукописи вскоре после их написания были отданы в крупнейшие соборы и монастыри России: в Успенский и Архангельский кремлевские соборы, в Чудов, Новодевичий, Троице-Сергиев, Кирилло-Белозерский, Соловецкий, костромской Ипатьевский и калязинский Макарьевский монастыри. В статье высказывается мнение о том, что с распространением Годуновских Псалтирей была связана первая попытка распространения идеи «Третий Рим» за пределами столицы. Она предвосхитила ее тиражирование в печатной Кормчей 1653 г.

In article is considered a question of distribution of the theory «The Third Rome» in Russia of the end of the XVI century. The research is based on texts of records on the Godunov's Psalters. This century the name «The Third Rome» was applied to «The Russian land» and «The Russian tzardom». It is shown that one of the fi rst cases (perhaps, the fi rst) correlation of «the Third Rome» with «Moscow» was records Godunov's Psalters. This complex of richly illuminated manuscripts was written in one of capital monastery between 1591 and 1600 by request of the uncle Boris Godunov of the boyar Dmitry Godunov. These manuscripts soon after their writing were enclosed in the largest cathedrals and monasteries of Russia: in Uspensky and Arkhangelsk Kremlin cathedrals, in monasteries - Chudov, Novodevichij, Troitse-Sergiyev, Kirillo-Belozersky, Soloveckij, Ipatyevsky in Kostroma and Makaryevsky in Kalyazin. In article the opinion that the first attempt of distribution of idea «the Third Rome» outside the capital was connected with distribution of Godunov's Psalters is expressed. It anticipated it's distribution in printing Nomocanon (Kormchaja) of 1653.

This review article examines the historiographic analysis of the circumstances under which appeared the reference guide by D. V. Liseitsev, N. M. Rogozhin, and Iu. M. Eskin, Prikazy Moskovskogo gosudarstva XVI-XVII vekov: Slovar’-spravochnik [Governmental Chancelleries of the Muscovite State in the 16th-17th Centuries] (Moscow, St Petersburg, 2015). This analysis has uncovered two tendencies in the study of Muscovite chancelleries: the formal-legalist, and the practical, which respectively can be attributed to old and new approaches to the study of institutions. The former tendency focuses study on formal institutions with precise legal foundations and a particular structure, range of functions, and jurisdictions. The latter treats the Muscovite chancelleries as a dynamic system formed and changed by practical interactions. The authors of the reference guide used the formal-legalist approach to the study of the chancelleries developed by the State School of Russian historiography and were faced with the inherent limitations of its methodology, which works better in the study of rational bureaucratic institutions  than in the study of old institutions that arose before the  Muscovite administrative apparatus was rationalized. This article argues that the study of old pre-rationalized institutions requires a New institutional approach focused on practice.

В статье приводятся сведения о сохранившихся датированных рукописных книгах, переписанных на территории Русского государства в XVI в. Представлена краткая информация (название, дата и место написания, архивные шифры) о примерно 300 рукописных книг, переписанных в городах, монастырях и ряде иных населенных пунктов. В основу исследования положен материал выходных записей на книгах.

Inspired in part by conversations with David Goldfrank, this essay considers aspects of how attitudes toward biblical language contributed to representations of national and religious identity in late medieval and early modern Muscovite Russia. At roughly the same time in history that revived Hebrew and Greek study in Western Europe helped to stimulate the Renaissance and Reformation, bookmen in East Slavia also reconsidered the original languages of sacred writings. Contrary to what is sometimes assumed, such interest was neither unknown nor marginal within Muscovite religious culture. Hebrew-Russian glossaries circulated in leading monasteries from at least the thirteenth century; major infusions of Greek (and other) words and definitions in the sixteenth century transformed these texts into multilingual dictionaries. This mainstream tradition in Russian Orthodoxy can be linked to such important religious figures as Nil Sorskii and Maksim Grek. I argue that by “appropriating” biblical languages and terminology, often via inaccurate translations, Muscovite Russian literati created and defended their distinctive identity vis-à-vis Jews and Greeks, who were considered God’s former chosen peoples. These findings suggest reconsideration of the nature and boundaries of faith in Muscovy in the “age of confessionalism.”
Keywords: Bible – East Slavic – Greek – Hebrew – identity – language – Muscovy – religion – Russian Orthodox Christianity

В статье предпринимается попытка рассмотреть особенности восприятия представителей центральных и местных светских и духовных властей писцами XVI в. Они, представляя достаточно многочисленные социальные слои далекие от вершины социальной иерархии, работали в различных регионах страны. Некоторые из них (Новгород, Псков, Рязань и т.д.) к Русскому государству были присоединены сравнительно недавно. Выявляются основные тенденции в распределении упоминаний русского государя, митрополита, а также архиереев и представителей светской администрации на местах. Выявленные особенности связываются с незавершенностью процесса превращения некогда независимых от русского государя земель в политическое и административное целое.

Рассматривается вопрос о причинах падения влияния Иосифо-Волоколамского монастыря на управление Русской церковью в последней трети XVI в. В работе приводятся сведения о десятках выходцев из этого монастыря, которые, становясь настоятелями других монастырей и епископами, занимали высшие посты в церковной иерархии. Устанавливается, что резкое ослабление обители Иосифа было связано со значительным сокращением числа ее иноков в ходе мора 1569–1571 гг. В эти годы умерли потенциальные руководители Русской церкви, а также их наставники. С этим было связано укрепление позиций целого ряда других монастырей, которые ранее заметной роли в сфере церковного управления не играли.
The article deals with the reasons of the decline of Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery and loss of its influence on the administration of the Russian church at the last quarter of the XVI century. The author gives data about the dozens of monks from Iosifo-Volokolamsk  Monastery who had subsequently held high rank in a hierarchy of the Russian church. The author comes to conclusion that the decline of Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery was connected with the high mortality of monks during the pestilence of the 1569-1571. In these years the potential leaders of the Russian church and their preceptors died. Thereby the monasteries which didn’t play a significant role in the sphere of the church administration could strengthen their positions.

Abstract. The equilibrium thermodynamics of the
reaction :
4KMgA1Si40, o( OH), + Mg5A1,Si30, o( OH),
muscovlte chlorite
muscovite biotite
= KA13Si,0,,(OH), + 3KMg3AISi,0,0(OH),
+ 7Si0, + 4H,O
quartz fluid
can be formulated as a geobarometer. Thermodynamic
data for the Mg-A1 celadonite endmember
of muscovite is derived from the reversed
mineral equilibria experiments of Velde (I 965)
using the calculation method of Powell (1978)
giving
AfH(1298) = -5823.5 kJ,
S(1298)=0.3060kJK-'
V(1298)= 13.8kJkbar-'.
and
For the above reaction:
AGO =212.6-0.6116T- 1.02P+4F",,(kJ),
(T in K, P in kbar)
and the equilibrium constant is composed of
activities formulated using ideal mixing on sites.
Consideration is given to the evaluation of
uncertainties in pressures calculated using the
geobarometer. Preliminary testing suggests that
the geobarometer has considerable potential.
Much wider testing is now required.