Stories about the events of the "Time of Troubles" for many decades were the favorite reading of Russian people. In the 17th century and in the next century, they continued to be rewritten both in Moscow and on the periphery. Some works have come down to us in dozens and hundreds of lists, while others have been preserved in just one manuscript. The overwhelming majority of writings about the events of the early seventeenth century came from the ruling class. The rebels, and above all the Cossacks, who were the core of the rebel armies and played a major role in the liberation of Moscow in 1612, are usually called rebels, "thieves", "breeders of all evil". Until recently, the only exceptions were Pskov stories (preserved in the Pskov chronicles), the anti-feudal nature of which drew the attention of Academician M. N. Tikhomirov1 .
That is why it is so important to find a Story about the Zemsky Sobor of 1613, which clearly reflected the anti-court, democratic sentiments of its author. Two lists of this story were found. The first one is preserved in a manuscript acquired by the State Literary Museum (inv. N 53173) in 1983 from a private person who indicated its origin in the Kalinin region. The manuscript is written on 814 large-format sheets (in a sheet) in a clear semi-articulation of the late 17th century. Watermarks: the coat of arms of the "7 provinces" and the coat of arms of Amsterdam in several versions; one of them, with a monogram of the letters GVH, has an exact analogy in the manuscript of the State Historical Museum in 1691 2 ; the other, with the letters CS, dates from 1695 3 . The binding is the latest, the boards are covered with embossed leather. The available records of the 19th century point to the existence of the manuscript in the Old Believers ' environment.

The manuscript contains a chronograph with news about the events of Russian history up to 1647 (ll. 1-705ob.), an additional story from the beginning of the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich to 1613 with the published story, compiled mainly according to the so - called third version of the chronograph of the 1620 edition (ll. 707-795ob.). This is followed by a legendary account of Slovenia and Rus (ll. 796-799), a short chronicler who narrates from the time of the calling of the Varangians to the famine of 1601-1602. 4 (ll. 799-805), an interpretation by Patriarch: Gennady of the inscriptions on the tomb of Emperor Constantine with instructions on the translation of the interpretation into Russian by Metropolitan Gabriel of Nazareth in Moscow on March 1, 1641 and calendar and astronomical notes (ll. 806-807), extracts from the book of Ioannikiy Galyatovsky "The Swan", published in Novgorod-Seversky in 1679 (ll. 808-808ob.), The Story of the capture of Novgorod by Ivan the Terrible (ll. 809-814).

The second copy of the Story, which dates back to the last quarter of the 18th century, was acquired by V. I. Sreznevsky in 1903 in Petrozavodsk, apparently from the Old Believers, and is now kept in the Manuscript Department of the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences (RO BAN, 33. 10. 13, ll. 653ob.-656). The 694-page manuscript containing the Story is similar in size to the original one.-

1 Tikhomirov M., N. Klassovaya borba v Rossii XVII v. [Class Struggle in Russia of the 17th century]. Moscow, 1969, pp. 11-22.

2 Dianova T. V., Kostyukhina L. M. Watermarks of Russian manuscripts of the 17th century. In: Based on the materials of the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1980, p. 28, N 171.

3 Klepikov S. A. Paper with filigree "Coat of arms of the city of Amsterdam": Supplement. - Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the V. I. Lenin State Order of Lenin Library of the USSR, 1963, issue 26, p. 481, N 43.

4 The Short Chronicler was published according to another list by M. N. Tikhomirov (see Tikhomirov M. N. Little-known chronicle monuments of the XVI century). In: Istoricheskie zapiski, vol. 10, pp. 93-94).

page 89

I put to the manuscript of the State Literary Museum 5 . However, since the BAN list contains other readings, it is obvious that it does not go directly back to the list of the Literary Museum.

The plot of the Story is as follows: the Russian Cossacks, having liberated Moscow, destroy the machinations of the boyars who seek power, and against their wishes achieve the accession of M. F. Romanov. According to the Approved charter of 1613, Romanov's election was unanimous: the son of Metropolitan Philaret was supported not only by the members of the Zemsky Sobor, but also by the entire population of Russia, who" as with one mouth " demanded approval of his candidacy. 6 This official version, as noted by S. F. Platonov, "was adopted by everyone (known to him. - Author) Russian literary tales of the XVII century " 7 .

But even in these writings there is evidence of the socio-political struggle that preceded the final decision of the Zemsky Sobor .8 Much more information about the situation in Moscow at the end of 1612 - beginning of 1613 and the course of the election campaign is provided by agent reports and interrogatory speeches of prisoners and other natives of Russia, preserved in Polish and Swedish archives. Comparing these sources with the Story makes it possible to assess the reliability and significance of the historical material contained in it.

There are conflicting data on the number of Cossacks and nobility in the liberated Russian capital in 1612-1613. The earliest evidence belongs to the Novgorod son of the boyar I. Filosofov, captured by the Poles in a battle near Moscow at the end of November 1612. He showed that the nobles in Moscow remained "about two thousand", while the rest went to their estates; Cossacks-4.5 thousand and Streltsy - "with a thousand people". In view of this balance of power, according to Filosofov, "the Cossacks are strong as boyars and nobles, and they do what they want."9 The Novgorod ambassador B. Dubrovsky, who left Moscow for Novgorod in mid-December 1612, believes that the number of Cossacks in Moscow was not less than 11 thousand, and the number of nobles - not more than 4 thousand 10 . The Livonian nobleman G. Brunno, who left for Novgorod from Moscow at the end of January 1613, informed the Swedish commander J. Delagardi that there were "up to 6000 Cossacks near Moscow" 11 . A. A. Semin recently made an attempt to determine the size of the Cossack army in Moscow on the basis of rank-and-file documents: summing up the data on the number of Cossacks in the detachments that opposed the Poles and Swedes after the election of M. F. Romanov as tsar, he determines its minimum number at 6 thousand people .12
It is known that young Cossacks ("comrades", or" churs") made up at that time

5 For a description of the manuscript, see: Historical collections of the XV-XVII centuries. In: Description of the Manuscript Department of the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2. M.-L. 1965, p. 40-54.

6 Belokurov S. A. Approved certificate of election to the Moscow State of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Moscow, 1906, pp. 42-47.

7 Platonov S. F. Articles on Russian History (1883-1912). St. Petersburg, 1912, pp. 42-47.

8 Obolensky M. A. Novy letopisets [New Chronicler]. - Vremennik Moskovskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, Book 17, Moscow, 1853, p. 161; Skazanie Avraamii Palitsyn, Moscow, 1955, p. 230-231.

9 Hirschberg A. Polska a Moskwa w pierwszej polowie wieku XVII. We Lwowie. 1901, s. 363. These figures were considered reliable by S. F. Platonov and P. G. Lyubomirov (Platonov S. F. Uk. soch., p. 347; Lyubomirov P. G. Ocherk istorii Nizhegorodskogo opolcheniya 1611-1613 gg. M. 1939, p. 157, 205).

10 Arsenyev Swedish papers. 1611-1615 In: Collection of the Novgorod Society of Antiquity Lovers. Issue V. Novgorod. 1911, p. 17. G. A. Zamyatin finds the testimony of B. Dubrovsky consistent with reality (Zamyatin G. A. On the history of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 In: Proceedings of the Voronezh State University. Pedagogical Faculty, vol. 3. Voronezh. 1926, pp. 4-5).

11 Zamyatin G. A. Uk. soch., p. 71.

12 Semin A. A. Political struggle in Moscow during the preparation and activity of the Zemsky Sobor in 1613 In: Gosudarstvennye uchrezhdeniya i klassovye otnosheniya v otechestvennoy istorii [State Institutions and Class Relations in the National History]. This calculation may not be entirely correct, since the Cossacks who left Moscow in March 1613 with S. Koltovsky and G. Chebyshev (2323 people) later joined the army of D. M. Cherkassky near Smolensk (there are 2601 Cossacks" from Moscow") and could be counted in its rank list.

page 90

time a significant part of the Cossack army. Meanwhile, in the order documents, including discharge documents, they were not taken into account and did not receive a salary. Thus, if we take the number of adult Cossacks in 4-6 thousand, the total number of all Cossacks in the combined militia could exceed 10 thousand people. One thing is certain: the Cossacks in Moscow after its liberation and during the work of the Zemsky Sobor were significantly more numerous than the nobles. Although their numbers are greatly overstated in the Story (40 thousand), the predominance of Cossacks over nobles is clearly shown in it, and everyday details about the situation in Moscow (the Cossacks went to the bazaar in groups of 10 - 30 people) reveal vivid impressions of a contemporary.

By the end of 1612-the beginning of 1613, the first information about candidates for the Russian throne is given. Russian merchants who arrived from Moscow to Novgorod on February 10, 1613, reported that the boyars rejected the candidacy of Mikhail Romanov put forward by the Cossacks at the Zemsky Sobor (probably referring to the first meeting on January 7) and remained supporters of the Swedish Duke Karl Philip. 13 A similar version is found in the report of G. Brunno: the Cossacks successively nominated three candidates-Prince D. T. Trubetskoy, M. F. Romanov, and Prince D. M. Cherkassky, but all of them were rejected by the boyars who supported Duke Karl Philip 14. G. A. Zamyatin considered the candidacy of the Kabardian Prince D. M. Cherkassky accidental; however, at the present time it is known that in 1618 the rebellious Cossacks asked to be sent to them as voivodes along with D. M. Pozharsky and D. M. Cherkassky15 . This indicates the popularity of the latter in the Cossack environment.

At the end of 1612, after a new attempt by Sigismund III to capture Moscow and the actions of the Cossacks, the members of the boyar government who collaborated with the interventionists fled to Yaroslavl, "because they were afraid," according to G. Brunno, "that the Cossacks would not cause them any violence" 16. Meanwhile, already at the first meeting of the Zemsky Sobor, the candidacies of some of them, it seems, were named. The Swedish writer F. I. Stralenberg, who published his work in Stockholm in 1730, based on sources that have not come down to us, reports that initially Princes Golitsyn, Shuisky and Vorotynsky received the majority of votes at the council .17 It is possible that the list of boyar candidates for tsars, placed in the Story and significantly complementing the data of other sources, belongs to the first council meeting. Four of them (the boyars Prince F. I. Mstislavsky, who, like his father, occupied the first place in the Duma, Prince I. M. Vorotynsky, one of the last appanage princes, F. I. Sheremetev and Metropolitan Filaret's brother I. N. Romanov) were with the Poles in Moscow in 1611-1612., in the eyes of the Cossacks and many other members of the militia and residents of Moscow were traitors. Prince I. B. Cherkassky, the son of a boyar and a close relative of the Romanovs, took up arms with the Poles against the First Militia and was captured in the battle of Vladimir in February 161118 . His candidacy also could not be popular among the participants of the liberation movement. D. T. Trubetskoy, a descendant of the Lithuanian grand dukes, and D. M. Pozharsky were the formal rulers of the country during the Council. Finally, Stolnik PI Pronsky, who came from the family of the Grand Dukes of Ryazan, was one of the relatively few representatives of the highest nobility in the Second Militia.

Thus, the list of contenders for the throne indicated in the Story,

13 Hirschberg A. Op. cit., s. 363. Arsenyev Swedish Papers, pp. 18, 21-22.

14 Zamyatin G. A. Uk. soch., pp. 71-72. The Pskov conscience also reports that it was precisely military men who prevented the intention of the "superiors" to elect the tsar "from the gentiles" (Pskov Chronicles. Issue 1. Moscow, 1941, p. 130).

15 Stanislavsky A. L. The Cossack movement of 1615-1618 - Voprosy istorii, 1980, N 7, p. 111.

16 Zamyatin G. A. Uk. soch., p. 73; Arsenyev Swedish papers, p. 30.

17 Markevich A. I. Election to the kingdom of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. - Journal of the Ministry of National Education, 1891, September, p. 406.

18 Acts collected in the libraries and archives of the Russian Empire by the Archeographic Expedition of the Academy of Sciences, vol. 2, St. Petersburg, 1836, pp. 306-307.

page 91

it appears to be reliable. In it we find, on the one hand, prominent figures of the Moscow boyar government, on the other-the zemstvo liberation movement, and some persons (Trubetskoy, Vorotynsky, Pozharsky)are mentioned as possible candidates for election in other sources. Thus, the nobleman L. Sumin in 1635, in the heat of a quarrel, said that "Dmitry Pozharsky reigned, and he became twenty thousand" 19 . A. F. Bychkov informed N. I. Kostomarov about some postscript on the manuscript, from which it was clear that Trubetskoy's candidacy was discussed at the Zemsky Sobor. 20 Immediately after the list of candidates for the kingdom in the Story follows a colorful description of the feasts that D. T. Trubetskoy arranged for the Cossacks for a month and a half, hoping for their support. And here an interesting coincidence catches your eye: exactly the same amount of time passed from the first (January 7) to the final (February 21) session of the electoral council.

The story of the drawing of lots to decide which of the contenders would be king seems at first glance to be a literary fiction. However, it is reliably known that even if the choice of the tsar by lot was not seriously discussed at the Zemsky Sobor, in any case, there was talk of such a solution to the issue in Moscow in 1613. Captured by the Swedes on June 17, 1614, stolnik I. I. Chepchugov, Moscow nobleman N. E. Pushkin, and Romanov nobleman F. R. Durov testified in Novgorod that " some people said that it was necessary... draw lots between three persons: Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy, Prince Ivan Golitsyn and Mikhail Romanov"21. On February 7, 1613, the work of the Zemsky Sobor was interrupted for two weeks. It is possible that the story of the arrival of the Cossacks to the Krutitsky Metropolitan Jonah, who was acting as the guardian of the Patriarchate, with a demand to speed up the royal election, belongs to this break. It is possible, however, that the speech took place even before the council meeting on February 7, at which it was decided to hold final elections in two weeks. The fact that such a decision could have been made under pressure from the Cossacks was rightly pointed out by G. A. Zamyatin22 .

The Story's testimony about the sharp clash between Cossacks and boyars during the final elections of February 21, 1613, is fully confirmed by the questioning speeches of I. I. Chepchugov, N. E. Pushkin and F. R. Durov: according to them, during the meeting of the Zemsky Sobor, the Cossacks and the mob broke into the Kremlin and attacked the members of the Boyar Duma with curses, accusing them of that they don't choose a king because they want to rule for themselves. The Cossacks allegedly repeated to the boyars the legend that Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, dying, bequeathed the throne to Fyodor Nikitich Romanov); in turn, the boyars, including Mikhail Fedorovich's relatives, referred to the youth of the Cossack candidate and his absence in Moscow. They tried once again to postpone the elections, but "the Cossacks and the rabble did not leave the Kremlin until the Duma and zemstvo officials swore allegiance to it on the same day."23 The coincidence with the Story here is so striking that one might suspect its author of using the testimony of Russian prisoners, if they were not published in a Swedish manuscript already in our century.

Of course, the Cossacks were not the only supporters of M. F. Romanov. He was supported by an influential boyar group and a certain part of the city's nobility. According to the Novgorodian I. Kalitin, Mikhail Fyodorovich was supported by I. N. Romanov, Prince B. M. Lykov, and Prince B. M. Saltykov; while his opponents were Princes D. T. Trubetskoy, D. M. Pozharsky, F. I. Mstislavsky, I. S. Kurakin, and I. B. Cherkassky .24 Apparently, the supporters of M. F. Romanov were successful-

19 Zabelin I. E. Sysknoe delo o quarrel mezhevyh judges stolnik knyaz Vasily Bolshoy Romodanovskogo i dvoryanina Larion Sumin [Detective case about the quarrel of boundary judges stolnik Prince Vasily Bolshoy Romodanovsky and nobleman Larion Sumin]. - Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Issue 7. 1848, Moscow, p. 85.

20 Kostomarov N. I. Smutnoe vremya Moskovskogo gosudarstva v nachale XVII veka [The Time of Troubles of the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century]. Vol. 3.SPb. 1868, p. 306.

21 Arsenyev Swedish Papers, p. 30.

22 Zamyatin G. A. Uk. soch., p. 48.

23 Arsenyev Swedish Papers, pp. 30-31.

24 Ibid., pp. 26-27.

page 92

In particular, the legend of Tsar Fyodor's will was used to promote propaganda among the Cossacks and the Posadsky population of Moscow. Probably, some grants to the Cossacks during the council period are also connected with the pre-election struggle. In particular, Ataman F. Maximov received the right to a quarter salary the day before the election of Mikhail Fedorovich-February 20, 161325 .

There is an opinion that the political struggle at the Zemsky Sobor was reflected in the Approved charter: in 1616, supporters of the Romanovs allegedly committed "forgery", changed the text of the charter and put their signatures on its back above those of well-born representatives of the aristocracy. "It is difficult to imagine," writes A. A. Semin, "that, for example, such a well-born boyar as I. S. Kurakin would put his signature after D. M. Pozharsky" 26 (it is unclear why Pozharsky is ranked among Romanov's supporters). At the same time, the author proceeds from the erroneous assumption that the signatures in the Approved document should have been placed in the local order. Meanwhile, we found a charter of the Zemsky Sobor to the Kola Prison dated the end of February 1613, in which the signature of D. M. Pozharsky stands above the signatures of the boyars I. S. Kurakin, B. M. Lykov and F. I. Sheremetev .27 It is possible that a later change in the text of the Approved Charter took place, but it was probably connected not with the struggle of boyar groups, but with the threat of invasion of Russia by the Polish King's son Vladislav, who still claimed the Russian throne. As for the news twice repeated in the Story about the refusal of the Cossacks to leave Moscow before the election of the tsar, its accuracy is proved by the recently found letter of the Zemsky Sobor to the Kazan deacon N. M. Shulgin: "And without the sovereign, military people, noblemen and children of boyars, and atamans and Cossacks, and all sorts of military people, go to Cherkas and Ivashka They didn't want Zarutsky to go. " 28
The reasons for Mikhail Romanov's popularity in the Cossack community have already been reasoned 29 . He was the son of the" Tushinsky "Patriarch Filaret, and it was in the camp of False Dmitry II that the Cossack army was formed, which came to Moscow in 1611 (other Cossack candidates were also" Tushinsky " - princes D. T. Trubetskoy and D. M. Cherkassky). In the literature, it was also pointed out that M. F. Romanov was related to the old dynasty, which was replaced by Boris Godunov. Finally, Mikhail Fyodorovich was not compromised by cooperation with the interventionists, like many other representatives of the aristocracy. The support of Mikhail Romanov embodied the idea of a "good tsar", which was so popular at that time among the masses, including the Cossacks (and the rebels in general), who, as they hoped, would pursue a different policy than the hostile noble tsar Godunov and the protegee of the boyars Shuisky. According to Academician L. V. Tcherepnin, " those sharp disagreements on the question of a candidate for the tsardom, which were revealed at the Council of 1613, were the result not only of contradictions between individual socio-political groupings within the ruling class, but also of class struggle... The Cossacks and the urban plebs sought a tsar who was convenient for them. " 30 The author of the Story just aims to show that Mikhail Romanov is the long-awaited "good tsar", chosen by the Cossacks despite the resistance of the" evil " boyars.

The story of the Zemsky Sobor fits well into the circle of currently known sources about the events in Moscow in late 1612-early 1613. Most of the factual information contained in it is more or less confirmed in documents, the reliability of which is beyond doubt. At the same time, in comparison with them, the Story has preserved many important details about the situation in Moscow during the Zemsky Sobor, preceding the election of the tsar, the socio-political and class struggle, and the contenders for the throne from among the Russians

25 TSGADA, f. 396, stb. 39025, ll. 1-2.

26 Semin A. A. On the history of the "Approved Charter" of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613-Archeographic Yearbook for 1980, Moscow, 1981, pp. 97-104.

27 Archive of the LOII of the USSR, k. 238, op. 1, n 292, ll. 77-90ob.

28 GIM OP. Collection of A. S. Uvarov, N 160, in sheet, l. 16ob.

29 Tcherepnin L. V. Zemsky sobory Russkogo gosudarstva v XVI - XVII vvakh [Zemsky Sobory of the Russian State in the XVI-XVII centuries]. Moscow, 1978, pp. 198-199.

30 Ibid., p. 197.

page 93

the aristocracy, the speeches of the Cossacks in support of the candidacy of M. F. Romanov. With the discovery of the Story, the circumstances of Mikhail Romanov's election are drawn as follows. Until the very last council meeting, as G. A. Zamyatin expected, the participants of the Zemsky Sobor were not unanimous on the question of a candidate for the kingdom. In addition to M. F. Romanov, other representatives of the boyars and the liberation movement were also named; some of them, for example, D. T. Trubetskoy, actively campaigned in their favor. Attempts were made to postpone the resolution of the issue, especially since the delegations of some cities, including Kazan, and the first-ranking hierarch of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Ephraim of Kazan, did not appear in Moscow until after the council. And only under the strong pressure of the Cossacks and posadsky people on February 21, 1613, the "royal obiranye" took place.

The author of the Story is undoubtedly a contemporary of the events described and, moreover, well-informed, who created his work most likely in 1613. The well-known simplification in the depiction of the course of the Zemsky Sobor is explained by the sharp journalistic anti-boyar orientation of the work. The author probably belonged to the Posadsky people or social strata close to them, and perhaps he himself traded with the Cossacks in the Moscow bazaar. This is also evidenced by the naming of the Romanovs as princes, which is impossible for a representative of the ruling class. It is known that many Muscovites joined the militia after the March uprising of 1611 and the fire of Moscow. Some of them, like residents of other cities, returned to their previous occupations after the liberation of Moscow. Among them was, most likely, the author of the Story. He writes about the Cossacks with obvious sympathy, but from the outside. Perhaps the story is part of a larger work. It is a rare and at the same time vivid monument of folk literature, as well as a valuable historical source.

The publication is based on a list from the collections of the State Literary Museum (hereinafter referred to as the letter "L"). Variants are listed from the collections of the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the letter "A"). The title is given by publishers. The introductory article was written by A. L. Stanislavsky. B. N. Morozov is the author of the description of the manuscript "L". The text of the Story was prepared for publication by A. L. Stanislavsky and B. N. Morozov.

The tale of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613

(l. 787) After the capture of the reigning city of Moscow, many Lithuanian people went to Sekosha , and the big lords went to the dungeons of Razsadish and to the city of rozvozish 1, but the idea is to deal with Lithuania in peacetime 2 .

Don and Polish 3 Cossacks entered 4 Moscow then forty thousand, and the champions of the reigning city of Moscow and the Orthodox Christian faith. And hozhakhu 5 Cossacks in Moscow in droves, wherever they move to walk in the bazaar 6-20 or 30 people, and all armed 7, autocratic, and less than 15 or ten people will not move in any way. From boyarskom same (l. 787ob.) rank nikhto 8 same with them vpreki 9 glagoleti not daredevil and on the way met and boyars same in side vorotyashche from them, but tokmo them heads its worshiping.

Princes zh and bolyara 10 Moscow thinking on the tsar's Russia from the nobles of the boyars and inventing 11 seven nobles of the boyars: the first Prince Feodor 12 Ivanovich Mstislavskaya, the second Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynskaya, the third Prince Dmitry Timofievich Trubetskoy, the fourth Ivan Nikitin Romanov, the fifth Prince Ivan Borisovich Cherkasky, the sixth Feodor 13 Ivanovich Sheremetev, the seventh Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharskoy, osymyy is due 14 Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Pronskoy, but yes is those according to God's will so that 15 will be the king and 16 will foal 17 .

And with the Cossacks and boyars do not have, but the individual is 18 from them. And waiting for the boyars, so that the 19 Cossacks from Moscow will drive away, in the secret thinking. The Cossacks are about the same to the boyars in no way glagoleshe, staying in silence, but tokmo waiting for bolyar 20 who from them will become famous king byti.

page 94

Prince Dmitri Timofievich Trubetskoy made honest tables and many feasts for the Cossacks and in a month and a half all the Cossacks, forty thousand, calling to Soba's yard all the days, honoring, feeding and singing honestly and praying to them that he might be king in Russia and from them the Cossacks would be praised. Those who take honor from him 21, eat and drink and praise his flattery, but those who go away from him to their regiments and scold him and laugh at his madness are like this. Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy did not know the flattery of their Cossacks.

The Cossacks, however, cannot wait for their advice from the Bolyars, since they will have a king in Russia on the 22nd . And having advised 23 all the Cossack host and approached the Cossacks up to five (l. 788) hundred and more to the court of the Krutitsky metropolitan, and the gates were broken down, and poured into the courtyard, and glagolesha zrubny 24 words to the Metropolitan 25 : "Give us 26 27, Metropolitan, the tsar sovereign in Russia whom we worship and 28 serve and ask Kovo for his salary, and we'll die before we get there!" Metropolitan 29 is obsessed with fear and running through the mansions of the secret way to the boyars and saying everything in a row bolyar: "The Cossacks want 30 me alive raztorgnut, and proshayut 31 on the tsar's Russia."

The princes and bolyars, and the nobles, and the children of the boyars announced each other and gathered at the cathedral place, and told the Cossacks to the cathedral. And the Cossack atamans came and glagolesha to the boyars: "Give us a tsar sovereign in Russia, whom we serve." Bolyara glagolekhu 32 . "The royal family is minushasya, but we will put our trust in God alive, and according to your thoughts, atamans and all the Cossack army, who should not be the tsar, but only from the nobles of the boyars, such as Prince Fyodor Ivanovich Mstislavskaya, such as Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynskaya, such as Prince Dmitry Timofievich Trubetskoy." And all by name and the eighth Pronskago.

The Cossacks are listening to their words, from just about everyone. Kazgki same uverzhivaya bolyar: "How much will the is of those nobles be invented according to your plan?" Bolyara Glagolesha: "Let us choose only those and draw lots, 34 but to whom God will give." Ataman 35 of the same Cossack verb at the council: "Princes and bolyars and all the Moscow nobles, but not by God's will, not by autocracy and by your own will, you choose the autocratic 36 . But by the will of God and with the blessing of the most pious and Christ-loving tsar, the sovereign and Grand Duke Theodore (l. 788ob.) Ivanovich of all 37 Russia, with his blessed memory, to whom he, the sovereign, blessed his staff of royal and sovereign power in Russia, Prince Theodore 38 Nikitich Romanov 39. And he is now full in Lithuania, and from the blessed root and branch of good and honor, his son Prince Mikhailo Fyodorovich 40 . May it be fitting, according to God's will, for those who reign in the 41st city of Moscow and all Russia, may the tsar, the sovereign, and the Grand Duke Mikhailo Fedorovich of All Russia be King." And we have been serving him, the sovereign, for many years.

The boyars at that time were all possessed with fear and trembling tremblingly, and their faces were changing blood, and there was no one 42 who could possibly crack, but only one Ivan Nikitich Romanov spoke: "That Prince Mikhailo Fyodorovich is still young and not in his full 43 mind, who should rule?" The Cossacks also glagolesha 44 : "But you, Ivan Nikitich, are old 45, in full mind, and to him, the sovereign, you are in the flesh uncle prirozheyany and you are a strong potpor 46 budeshi" 47 .

And inventing the 48 sent from the nobles and sending them to the city of Kostroma to the sovereign Prince Mikhail Fedorovich. Bolyara razydoshasya 49 all go home. But Prince Dmitri Trubetskoy, whose face was blackened from a steep slope, and fell ill, and lay for three months without leaving his yard. Bolyar also intended to kiss the cross for the sovereign as a Cossack, and they would have left Moscow, but they would not have kissed the cross themselves. The Cossacks knowingly 51 their evil guile and compel 52 before, with them, their boyars 53 cross to kiss 54 . Kissing 55 same 56 [bolya]ra 57 cross, the same then and Cossacks cross kissing 58, on the frontal place vynyosha six crosses, posavisha Cossack 59 on kissing.

And when the sovereign comes from Kostroma to Moscow and you bow down to him all, and you establish yourself in the reigning city (l.789) of Moscow and all Russia, the sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Fyodorovich of All Russia. The Cossacks of the whole Army, having left Moscow, stash 60 in the field.

page 95

notes

1 Spread "A".

2 Further in the "L" is crossed out with the Litvoyu imeyashe.

3 There may be a typo in the text; correct-Volsk (Volga). A similar typo is found in one of the lists of the Legend of Avraamiy Palitsyn (The Legend of Avraamiy Palitsyn, Moscow-L. 1955, p. 145).

4 After entering "A".

5 In" L " the end of the word is written in erased letters; khozhashe "A".

6 Bazaar "A".

7 Are Armed with "A".

8 Nobody "A".

9 Въпреки "А".

10 Boyar "A".

11 In" L " incorrectly assembled, corrected for "A".

12 Feodar "A".

13 Fedor "A".

14 "A" is due.

15 Who is "A".

16 In" L " it is wrong to go, corrected for "A".

17 Foals "A".

18 Persons "A".

19 To "A".

20 Boyars "A".

21 Priimashe "A".

22 Who is "A".

23 Sovietsashe "A".

24 Rough "A's".

25 There Is No "A".

26 There is no "A".

27 There Is no "A".

28 There is no "A".

29 In" L " inserted above the line: no "A".

30 In " L " is wrong though, fixed by "A".

31 Prashayut "A".

32 Glagolesha "A".

33 Will display "A".

34 Draw "A".

35 Ataman "A".

36 Autocratic "A".

37 All the letters "A".

38 to Fedor "A".

39 The Romanovs were not really princes.

40 Fedorovich "A".

41 The reigning "A".

42 One on whom "A".

43 Full "A".

44 Glagolakhu "A".

45 In "A" next and.

46 Backstop "A".

47 Will be "A".

48 Sent by "A".

49 Razydosha same "A".

50 More deliberate than "A".

51 Vedaha "A".

52 In" L "y is ascribed above the word: prinuzhakhu "A".

53 In" L " wrongly boyar, corrected for "A".

54 In "L" is written above the line.

55 Kissingshe "A".

56 The "L" is inserted at the end of the line after the cinnabar mark marking the omission of text.

57-58 In " L " is written in the lower field of the sheet, the lost part of the word is restored in "A".

59 Cossacks "A".

60 In " L " the end of the word is written in erased letters.

page 96

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: