Perrie M. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
lindsey hughes
Along with acceptance of poetry came some sponsorship of education.
Some boyars learned Latin and Polish from foreign tutors.
79
The young Tsar
Alexis’s early lessons werefrom primers and biblical texts,but later he read cos-
mographies, astronomy and mechanics, ancient history and travel accounts.
A few schools sprang up, attached to monasteries (Miracles (Chudovskii),
St Andrew’s and Zaikonospasskii), to the Moscow Printing House and gov-
ernment departments, although information about them is fragmentary.
80
Tsar Alexis’s son Alexis, instructed by Polotskii, in 1667 was able to deliver a
speech in Latin and Polish to a delegation from Poland. In 1682 another son,
Tsar Fedor, approved a charter of privileges for an academy in Moscow to
teach grammar, poetics, rhetoric, dialectics, rational, natural and legal philos-
ophy and the ‘free sciences’. The prototype was the Mohyla academy in Kiev,
founded in the 1630s on the Jesuit model. Fedor’s plan was implemented under
Sophia in 1685–7 when the Slavonic-Greek-Latin academy opened its doors.
All its classes were conducted in Latin. The teachers were churchmen. The
curriculum included Aristotelian cosmology in the context of Jesuit natural
philosophy in an attempt to harmonise secular learning with faith.
81
Conclusion: secularisation revisited
Our knowledge of seventeenth-century Russian culture is far from complete.
Attributions and dating are often imprecise, especially in the case of icons.
Surviving monuments may be too few to allow generalisations – wooden
buildings, for example – or there may be no examples left at all, as in the
case of ‘history’ paintings executed on the walls of royal palaces. New literary
texts in manuscript continue to be discovered and scholars constantly revise
the dating of the known ones. Provincial culture in particular requires further
study.
82
We may conclude that, by and large, ‘high’ Russo-Byzantine Ortho-
dox models and ‘low’ folk culture met most of the needs of the sort of society
that Muscovy was in the seventeenth century and reflected the sort of view
of the world that most Muscovites still held. Hence, tsars in their portraits,
including the young Peter the Great, looked more like Byzantine emperors
than French or English kings; Orthodox church design remained distinct from
79 Bushkovitch, ‘Cultural Change’, 104–5.
80 A. Sakharov, et al. (eds.), Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul’tury XVII veka, 2 vols. (Moscow:
MGU, 1979), vol. ii,pp.149–52.
81 See N. Chrissides, ‘Creating the New Educational Elite. Learning and Faith in Moscow’s
Slavo-Greco-Latin Academy, 1685–1694’, unpublished PhD thesis, Yale University, 2000.
82 See Valerie Kivelson, Autocracy in the Provinces. The Muscovite Gentry and Political Culture
in the Seventeenth Century (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1996).
658
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Cultural and intellectual life
Catholic or Protestant; you could buy an icon or an edition of the Psalter in
most towns, but not an oil painting or a book of poetry. At the same time, there
is compelling evidence of growingreceptiveness to selected aspects of Western
culture, for example, in the desire of the boyar elite to acquire portraits with
coats of arms. Patterns of borrowing and receptiveness suggest a timid but
growing attachment to ‘the West’ as a desirable source of new ideas, filtered
through ‘fraternal’ cultures (notably Ukraine), contradicted by discourses of
the dangers of alien customs and limited by economic and social realities.
Hence seventeenth-century Muscovites failed to assimilate many things that
were commonplace for members of the European elites, including statues,
classical mansions and pictures of their wives and daughters. Boyars still had
to adhere to the royal calendar and independent, participatory cultural life
outside the tsar’s household was extremely restricted. Unlike many of his
Western contemporaries, the average Russian boyar did not compose or play
music, read or write poetry or philosophy, speak foreign languages, travel
abroad or take an interest in architecture (as opposed to building), horticul-
ture or science. There were exceptions, such as Matveev and Golitsyn, but by
and large in their accomplishments and culture Muscovite nobles were closer
to the rest of the population than to their European counterparts. A consis-
tently ‘Westernising’ programme for the arts was patently absent during the
reignsof the seventeenth-century tsars. Foreign ‘novelties’belonged to ‘closed’
society; they were not intended for and still less imposed upon a wider public
as later were Peter I’s dress reforms, for example. Religion dominated high
culture.
Soviet historians, obliged to demonstrate an atheistic world-view, dealt
with the awkward fact of the prolonged control of established religion over
seventeenth-century Russian culture by emphasising the ‘discovery of the
value of the human personality’ (lichnost’) behind religious fac¸ades. They min-
imised or denied the religiosity of religious art, underlining instead its humane
(gumanitarnye), popular (narodnye) and ‘life-enhancing’ (zhizneradostnye) qual-
ities.
83
Icons and frescos were scrutinised for evidence of realism, naturalistic
landscapes, peasant physiognomies and everyday (bytovye) details. Soviet archi-
tectural historians detected ‘progress’ in an increase in the number of domes-
tic and civic buildings constructed of stone and brick rather than wood. Cult
architecturecould be the bearer of advanced features, too. Churches, for exam-
ple, were said to have ‘drawn closer’ to civic buildings in their design. Soviet
scholars, particularly during the Stalin period, played down foreign borrowing
83 See, for example, Grabar’, Istoriia, vol. i (1953), p. 504.
659
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
lindsey hughes
and exaggerated the indigenous roots of new ideas, especially ‘democratic’
ones.
84
The evidence presented above shows that traditional religious culture
remained strong and that Western, secular trends operated within limits.
Tsar Alexis conducted experiments in horticulture with the help of foreign
experts, but he also had holy water sprinkled to form signs of the cross on
fields. He employed foreign medics, but carried around a tooth of St Sabbas to
cure toothache. Simeon Polotskii wrote his works explicitly ‘for the spiritual
benefit of Orthodox Christians’ (polzy radi dushevnyia pravoslavnykh khristian).
Literature and art were firmly rooted in the acceptance of well-defined hier-
archies and in a world of opposites in which a constant struggle is waged
between good and evil and where ultimately people must renounce worldly
things.
There was fierce opposition to what were perceived as ‘Latin and Lutheran’
innovations in religious art. In 1674, for example, Patriarch Ioakim banned
the sale of paper prints ‘made by German heretics, Lutherans and Calvin-
ists, according to their own damned persuasion, crudely and wrongly’. He
and his predecessors denounced icons that ‘depict everything after the man-
ner of earthly things’.
85
Their Old Believer opponents agreed with them in
this respect. The most frequently quoted pronouncement on the subject is
Archpriest Avvakum’s complaint that some icon painters made Christ ‘look
like a German, big-bellied and fat, except that no sword is painted on his
hip’.
86
Henceforth Old Believers strove to preserve ancient artistic tradi-
tions. Warnings were aimed at both non-canonical compositions and non-
traditional, three-dimensional depictions that added improper ‘worldliness’ to
images which, according to Orthodox tradition, should intimate the divine
world beyond the icon, not imitate the flesh and blood of the here and now.
The Church had no quarrel with secular painting as such. Indeed, Patriarch
Nikon had his portrait painted several times.
87
In general, seventeenth-century
debates demonstrate a new awareness of the shifting boundaries between the
sacred and profane and an attempt to establish what was permissible for the
84 For discussions of the problems of Soviet scholarship, see Cracraft, Architecture,pp.9–18,
and Cracraft, Imagery,pp.95–106; also Lindsey Hughes, ‘Restoring Religion to Russian
Art’, in G. Hosking and R. Service (eds.), Reinterpreting Russia (London: Arnold, 1999),
pp. 40–53.
85 D. A. Rovinskii, Russkie gravery i ikh proizvedenie s 1564do osnovaniia Akademii Khudozhestv
(Moscow: Izdatel’stvo grafa Uvarova, 1870), pp. 135–6.
86 See N. E. Andreyev, ‘Nikon and Avvakum on Icon-Painting’, in his Studies in Muscovy
(London: Variorum, 1970), essay xiii,p.43.
87 Ovchinnikova, Portret,p.98. Discussion in Cracraft, Imagery,pp.117–18.
660
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Cultural and intellectual life
devout Orthodox. There was an increased concern with individual morality
as opposed to asceticism.
88
In 1690 Patriarch Ioakim was still appealing to Tsars Ivan and Peter to ‘resist
new Latin and alien customs and not to introduce the wearing of foreign
dress’.
89
The culture of the 1690s, still inadequately studied, bears witness to
the proliferation of Western influences. Among the royal family’s orders from
the Armoury we find images of patron saints not on wooden panels but in
oils on canvas,
90
battle paintings ‘after the German model’ and pictures on
canvas depicting ‘troops travelling by sea’ copied from German engravings.
91
Armoury artists found themselves making regimental banners and decorating
the new ships that Tsar Peter built at Voronezh. The victory parade held in
Moscow in 1696 to celebrate the capture of Azov from the Turks took place
against a backdrop of classical architectural devices, allegorical paintings and
wooden sculptures set on triumphal gates inscribed with the words of Julius
Caesar: ‘I came. I saw. I conquered.’
92
Peter’s Great Embassy to Western Europe (1697–8) consolidated his view of
what constituted ‘civilised’ art and architecture. In January 1698 he became the
subject of the first portrait of a Russian ruler wholly in the Western manner,
painted in London by Sir Godfrey Kneller.
93
By 1701 only two icon painters
remained on the Armoury payroll and by 1711 nearly all Armoury personnel
were transferred to the new capital of St Petersburg.
94
Yet we are still far from
the ‘liberal’ atmosphere that Western thinkers such as David Hume regarded
as essential for the flourishing of the arts.
95
There was still no sign of an
independent public sphere. The arts in Russia remained firmly harnessed to
higher authority, even though power shifted from the Church to the state.
From the early eighteenth century most things ‘pre-Petrine’ were regarded
as a blank. Russia must achieve cultural salvation by imitating and assimilating
88 Zhivov, ‘Religious Reform’, p. 193.
89 Full text in N. Ustrialov, Istoriia tsarstvovaniia Petra Velikogo, 6 vols. (St Petersburg:
Tipografiia II Otdeleniia S. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1858–63), vol. ii (1859), appendix 9,pp.
467–77. Also Hughes, ‘Attitudes towards Foreigners’.
90 G. V. Esipov (ed.), Sbornik vypisok iz arkhivnykh bumag o Petre Velikom, 2 vols. (Moscow:
Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1872), vol. i,p.127. Lindsey Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter
the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 12–20.
91 Esipov (ed.), Sbornik, vol. i,pp.143–4, 161–2.
92 See Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power. Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, 2 vols.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995–2000), vol. i,pp.42–4.
93 Cracraft, Imagery,pp.133–4; Hughes, ‘Images of Greatness’, pp. 253–4.
94 Esipov (ed.), Sbornik, vol. i,p.154.
95 Gianluigi Goggi, ‘The Philosophes and the Debate over Russian Civilization’, in Maria
Di Salvo and Lindsey Hughes (eds.), A Window on Russia (Rome: La Fenice Edizioni,
1996), pp. 299–305.
661
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
lindsey hughes
Western culture. The idea that Russian art began with Peter held sway for
the next century and a half, roughly coinciding with the period that classi-
cism dominated the arts in Russia and most of Europe. Only from the mid-
nineteenth century did Russia’s seventeenth century begin to be rehabilitated
and recreated in the Russian imagination. Its buildings were widely imitated
in the Neo- or Pseudo-Russian style. Artists, illustrators and designers – Ivan
Bilibin, Apolinarii Vasnetsov, Andrei Riabushkin, Viacheslav Shvarz – tried to
capture the century’s spirit. Faberg
´
e and Ovchinnikov recreated the shapes
and colours of seventeenth-century objets de vertu for elite clients.
96
A roman-
ticised seventeenth-century style became the fashion preference at the court
of Nicholas II, who liked to see himself as a latter-day Tsar Alexis. This imag-
ined seventeenth century is a fairy-tale world of turrets and cupolas, exotic
fabrics, elaborate carvings and jewel-like surfaces that awakes nostalgia for a
pre-Western, pre-classical world. In this vision, far from being the period that
prepared the ground for Westernisation, the seventeenth century remains the
last bastion of true Russian culture.
96 See E. I. Kirichenko, The Russian Style (London: L. King, 1991), ch. 3.
662
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
This Bibliography includes all of the works cited in the footnotes, with the exception of
those of a general, comparative or theoretical nature which do not relate primarily to the
history of Russia in the period. It also includes a number of relevant works, recommended
by the contributors, which are not cited in their footnotes.
The Bibliography has been subdivided as follows:
i. primary sources
ii. secondary sources
1. Political history
(a) c.900–1462
(b) 1462–1613
(c) 1613–89
2. Economic and social history
3. The Orthodox Church
4. Cultural and intellectual history
The subdivisions of the secondary material are necessarily somewhat arbitrary. Political
history (ii.1) includes general works, and works relating to military and diplomatic history,
popular uprisings, and Russians’ relations with non-Russians within their borders, as well as
the development of central and local government institutions.Where individualitems cover
periods longer than the chronological subdivisions chosen (ii.1.a–c), they are normally listed
only under the earliest of these. Economic and social history (ii.2) includes archaeology, law,
demography, ethnography, gender and historical geography. The section on the Orthodox
Church (ii.3) excludes religious art and architecture, which is covered in ii.4 (Cultural and
intellectual history).
i. primary sources
AAE, 4 vols. (St Petersburg: Tipografiia II Otdeleniia Sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1836).
Adalbert, Continuatio Reginonis, ed. A. Bauer and R. Rau, in Quellen zur Geschichte der
s
¨
achsischen Kaiserzeit (reprinted Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 2002),
pp. 185–231.
Adelung, Friedrich, Augustin Freiherr von Meyerberg und seine Reise nach Russland, nebst einer
von ihm auf dieser Reise veranstalteten Sammlung von Ansichten, Gebr
¨
auchen, Bildnissen
u.s.w. (St Petersburg: Karl Kray, 1827).
663
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
Adrianova-Peretts, V. P. (ed.), Slovo o polku Igoreve (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1950).
AI, 5 vols. (St Petersburg: various publishers, 1841–2).
Akty, sobrannye Kavkazskoi Arkheograficheskoi kommissiei, 12 vols.(Tiflis, 1866–83, vol.i., Tiflis,
1866).
‘Akty vremeni Lzhedmitriia 1-go (1603–1606), Nogaiskie dela’, ed. N. V. Rozhdestvenskii,
ChOIDR, vol. 264, pt. 1 (1918).
Andreev, Aleksandr, comp., Stroganovy. Entsiklopedicheskoe izdanie (Moscow: Belyi volk –
Kraft, 2000).
Ankhimiuk, Iu. V., ‘Slovona “Spisanie Iosifa”– pamiatnik rannego nestiazhatel’stva’,Zapiski
Otdela Rukopisei Russkoi gosudarstvennoi biblioteki 49 (1990): 115–46.
Annales Bertiniani, ed. F. Grat, J. Vielliard and S. Cl
´
emencet (Soci
´
et
´
e de l’histoire de France
470) (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1964).
Anpilogov, G. N., Novye dokumenty o Rossii kontsa XVI–nachala XVII veka (Moscow: Izda-
tel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1967).
Antonov, A. V., ‘Serpukhovskie dokumenty iz dela Patrikeevykh’, Russkii diplomatarii 7
(Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2001): 299–309.
Avanesov, R. I. (ed.), Smolenskie gramoty XIII–XIV vekov (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1963).
Avvakum,Archpriest,Zhitie protopopaAvvakuma, im samim napisannoe,i drugie ego sochineniia,
ed. N. K. Gudzii (Moscow: Goslitizdat, 1960).
Archpriest Avvakum, the Life Written by Himself : With the Study of V. V. Vinogradov, trans. and
ed. Kenneth N. Brostrom (Michigan Slavic translations; no. 4) (Ann Arbor: Michigan
Slavic Publications, University of Michigan Press, 1979).
Bagalei, D. I., Materialy dlia istorii kolonizatsii i byta stepnoi okrainy Moskovskogo gosudarstva
v XVI–XVII vekakh, vol. i (Khar’kov, 1886).
Barsov, E. V., Drevne-russkie pamiatniki sviashchennogo venchaniia tsarei na tsarstvo (Moscow:
Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1883).
Begunov, Iu. K., ‘“Slovo inoe” – novonaidennoe proizvedenie russkoi publitsistike XVI v. o
bor’be Ivan III s zemlevladeniem tserkvi’, TODRL 20 (1964): 351–2.
Belokurov, S. A., ‘Razriadnye zapisi za Smutnoe vremia (7113–7121 gg.)’, ChOIDR 221 (1907),
kn. 2, otd. 2: 1–80.
Berry, Lloyd E., and Crummey, Robert O. (eds.), Rude and Barbarous Kingdom: Russia in the
Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1968).
Biblioteka literatury Drevnei Rusi. Tom I: XI–XII veka (St Petersburg: Nauka, 1997).
Bogoiavlenskii, S. K. (ed.), ‘Dopros tsarem Ioannom Groznym russkikh plennikov,
vyshedshikh iz Kryma’, ChOIDR 2 (Moscow: Sinodal’naia tipografiia, 1912), Smes’:
26–33.
Boiarskie spiski poslednei chetverti XVI – nachala XVII v. i rospis’ russkogo voiska 1604 g., comp.
S. P. Mordovina and A. L. Stanislavskii, 2 parts (Moscow: TsGADA, 1979).
Bond, E. A. (ed.), Russia at the Close of the Sixteenth Century (London: Hakluyt Society, 1896).
Borovkova-Maikova, M. S., ‘Nila sorskogo predanie i ustav’, Pamiatniki Drevnei pis’mennosti
i iskusstva,no.179 (1912).
Bronevskii, S. M., Istoricheskie vypiski o snosheniiakh Rossii s Persiei, Gruziei i voobshche s
gorskimi narodami, v Kavkaze obitaiushchimi, so vremen Ivana Vasil’evicha donyne, ed. I. K.
Pavlova (St Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 1996).
664
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
Bussov, Konrad, Moskovskaia khronika 1584–1613 gg., ed. I. I. Smirnov (Moscow and
Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1961).
Bussow, Conrad, The Disturbed State of the Russian Realm, ed. and trans. G. Edward Orchard
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994).
Chancellor,Richard,‘TheFirst Voyage to Russia’,in Lloyd E. Berry and Robert O. Crummey
(eds.), Rude and Barbarous Kingdom: Russia in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English
Voyagers (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), pp. 9–41.
The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471, trans. Robert Mitchell and Nevill Forbes (Camden
Society Third Series, no. 25) (London: Royal Historical Society, 1914).
Collins, Samuel, The Present State of Russia (London, 1671).
Constantine VII, De administrando imperio, ed. and trans. G. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins
(Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae 1) (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2nd edn.,
1967).
De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. J. Reiske, vol. i (Corpus scriptorum historiae byzanti-
nae) (Bonn: E. Weber, 1829).
Contarini, Ambrogio, ‘Viaggio in Persia’, in Barbaro i Kontarini o Rossii. K istorii italo-russkikh
sviazei v XV v., ed. E. Ch. Skrzhinskaia (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971), pp. 188–210.
Cross, Samuel Hazard, and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P. (trans.), The Russian Primary
Chronicle. Laurentian Text, 3rd printing (Cambridge, Mass.: Mediaeval Academy of
America, 1973).
Cummings, Denver (trans.), The Rudder (Pedalion) of the Metaphorical Ship of the One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians (Chicago: Orthodox Christian
Education Society, 1957).
Dawson, Christopher (ed.), The Mongol Mission (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955).
‘Deianiia Moskovskogo tserkovnogo sobora 1649 goda’, ed. S. A. Belokurov, ChOIDR 171
(1894, kn. 4): 1–52.
Demkova, N. S. (ed.), Sochineniia protopopa Avvakuma i publitsisticheskaia literatura rannego
staroobriadchestva (St Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo S.-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 1998).
De-Pule, M., Materialy po istorii Voronezhskoi i sosednikh gubernii. Orlovskie akty XVII–XVIII
stoletii (Voronezh, 1861).
Derzhavina, O. A., et al. (eds.), Ranniaia russkaia dramaturgiia XVII – pervaia polovina XVIII
v. , 5 vols. (Moscow: Nauka, 1972–6).
Dewey, Horace W. (ed.), Muscovite Judicial Texts 1488–1556 (Michigan Slavic Materials,no.7)
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures,
1966).
Dmitrieva, R. P., Skazanie o kniaz’iakh vladimirskikh (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR,
1955).
Dnevnik Mariny Mnishek, trans. V. N. Kozliakov (St Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1995).
Dokumenty Razriadnogo, Posol’skogo, Novgorodskogo i Tainogo Prikazov o raskol’nikakh v goro-
dakh Rossii, 1654–1684 gg., ed. V. S. Rumiantseva (Moscow: AN SSSR, Institut istorii
SSSR, 1990).
Donesenie o poezdke v Moskvu M. Shilia 1598 g. (Moscow, 1875).
DopAI, 12 vols. (St Petersburg: various publishers, 1846–75).
Doronin, P., ‘Dokumenty po istorii Komi’, Istoriko-filologicheskii sbornik Komi filiala AN SSSR
4 (1958): 241–71.
665
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
Dukhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel’nykh kniazei XIV–XVI vv., ed. L. V. Cherepnin
(Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1950).
Dzhakson, T. N., Islandskie korolevskie sagi o vostochnoi Evrope (seredina XI–seredina XIII v.)
(teksty, perevod, kommentarii) (Moscow: Ladomir, 2000).
Emchenko, E. B., Stoglav. Issledovanie i tekst (Moscow: Indrik, 2000).
Esipov, G. V. (ed.), Sbornik vypisok iz arkhivnykh bumag o Petre Velikom, 2 vols. (Moscow:
Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1872).
Fennell, J. L. I. (ed. and trans.), The Correspondence between Prince A.M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan
IV of Russia, 1564–1579 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955).
(ed. and trans.),Prince A.M. Kurbsky’s History of Ivan IV (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1965).
andObolensky,Dimitri (eds.),‘TheLayofIgor’sCampaign’, in A Historical Russian Reader:
A Selection of Texts from the XIth to the XVth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969),
pp. 63–72.
Fletcher, Giles, Of the Russe Common Wealth, or Maner of Governement by the Russe Emperour,
(Commonly Called the Emperour of Moskovia) with the Manners, and Fashions of the People
of That Country (London: T. D. for Thomas Charde, 1591).
[Fletcher, Dzhil’s], O gosudarstve Russkom (St Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1906).
Of the Russe Commonwealth, ed. John V. A. Fine and Richard Pipes (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1966).
‘Of the Russe Commonwealth’, in Lloyd E. Berry and Robert O. Crummey (eds.),
Rude and Barbarous Kingdom: Russia in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), pp. 85–246.
Franklin, Simon (trans. and intro.), Sermons and Rhetoric of Kievan Rus’ (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1991).
Glazyrina, G. V., Saga ob Ingvare puteshestvennike. Tekst. Perevod. Kommentarii (Moscow:
Vostochnaia literatura, 2002).
Golb, N. and Pritsak, O., Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1982).
Goldfrank, David M., The Monastic Rule of Iosif Volotsky, rev. edn, Cistercian Studies
Series, no. 36 (Kalamazoo, Mich., and Cambridge, Mass.: Cistercian Publications,
2000
).
Golokhvastov, D. P., and Archimandrite Leonid, ‘Blagoveshchenskii ierei Sil’vestr i ego
poslaniia’, ChOIDR (1874), kn. 1: 71–2.
Golubtsov, Aleksandr, ‘Chinovnik Novgorodskogo Sofiiskogo sobora’, ChOIDR (1899), kn.
2: otd. 2: i–xx, 1–272.
‘Chinovniki Moskovskogo Uspenskogo sobora’, ChOIDR (1907), kn. 4, otd. 1: 1–312.
Gordon,Patrick, Passages from the Diary of Patrick Gordon of Auchleuchries in the Years 1635–1 699
(London: Frank Cass, 1968).
Gorodskie vosstaniia v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVII v. Sbornik dokumentov, ed. K.V. Bazilevich
(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1936; reprinted
Moscow: Gosudarstvennaia Publichnaia Istoricheskaia Biblioteka Rossii, 2003).
Gorsei, Dzherom [Jerome Horsey], Zapiski o Rossii: XVI–nachalo XVII v., ed. and trans. A.A.
Sevast’ianova (Moscow: MGU, 1990).
Graham, Hugh F., ‘Paul Juusten’s Mission to Muscovy’, RH 13 (1986): 41–92.
666
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, ed. S. N. Valk (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1949; reprinted
D
¨
usseldorf: Br
¨
ucken Verlag and Vaduz: Europe Printing, 1970).
Grekov, B. D., et al. (eds.), Pravda russkaia, 3 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR,
1940–63).
Hakluyt, Richard, The Principall Navigations Voiages and Discoveries of the English Nation,
2 vols., facs. edn, ed. David Beers Quinn and Raleigh Ashlin Skelton (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965).
Hellie, Richard (ed. and trans.), Muscovite Society (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967,
1970).
(ed. and trans.), The Muscovite Law Code (Ulozhenie) of 1649. Part 1: Text and Translation
(Irvine, Calif.: Charles Schlacks, 1988).
Heppell, Muriel (trans.), The ‘Paterik’ of the Kievan Caves Monastery (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1989).
Herberstein, Sigismund von, Notes upon Russia, 2 vols., trans. R. H. Major (New York: Burt
Franklin, 1851–2).
Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, ed. B. Picard (London: J. M. Dent, 1969).
Hollingsworth, Paul (trans. and intro.), The Hagiography of Kievan Rus’ (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1992).
Horsey, Jerome, ‘Travels’, in Lloyd E. Berry and Robert O. Crummey (eds.), Rude and
Barbarous Kingdom. Russia in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), pp. 262–369.
Iakovlev, A. I. (ed.), Novgorodskie zapisnye kabal’nye knigi 100–104 i 111 godov (1591–1596 i
1602–1603 gg.) (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1939).
(ed.), Akty khoziaistva boiarina B. I. Morozova, 2 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR,
1940–5).
Iakovlev, Lukian, Drevnosti Rossiiskogogosudarstva.Dopolnenie k III otdeleniiu. Russkiestarinnye
znamena (Moscow: Sinodal’naia tipografiia, 1865).
Iakubov, K. I. (ed.), Rossiia i Shvetsiia v pervoi polovine XVII veka (Moscow: Universitetskaia
tipografiia, 1897).
Ianin, V. L., Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi X–XV vv., vol. i: Pechati X–nachala XIII v. (Moscow:
Nauka, 1970).
andGaidukov,P. G.,Aktovye pechati Drevnei RusiX–XV vv., vol.iii:Pechati,zaregistrirovannye
v 1970–1 996 gg. (Moscow: Intrada, 1998).
Ibn Fadlan, Ris
¯
ala, ed. T. Lewicki,
´
Zr
´
odl
˜
a arabskie do dziej
´
ow sl
´
owia
´
nszczyzny, vol. III
(Wrocl
aw, Warsaw, Cracow, Gdansk, L odz: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1985).
Ibn Rusta, Kit
¯
ab al-A‘lak an-nafisa, ed. T. Lewicki,
´
Zr
´
odl
˜
a arabskie do dziej
´
ow sl
´
owia
´
nszczyzny,
vol. ii.2 (Wrocl
aw, Warsaw, Cracow, Gdansk: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1977).
Ilarion, ‘Slovo o zakone i blagodati’, in D. S. Likhachev et al. (eds.), Biblioteka literatury
drevnei Rusi, vol. i (St Petersburg: Nauka, 1997), pp. 26–60.
Inostrannye izvestiia o vosstanii Stepana Razina, ed. A. G. Man’kov (Leningrad: Nauka,
1975).
Ioasafovskaia letopis’, ed. A. A. Zimin (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1957).
Ivina, L. I., et al. (eds.), Sobornoe ulozhenie 1649 goda: tekst, kommentarii (Leningrad: Nauka,
Leningradskoe otdelenie, 1987).
‘Iz l’vovskogo arkhiva kn. Sapegi’, Russkii arkhiv, 1896, vol. i, bk. 4.
667
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008