How quickly they forgot: Ivan IV in muscovite historical memory

From a manuscript of a Novgorod chronicle copied in 1822 comes a story about Ivan's reign which strikes me as Muscovite, not Imperial, in origin, so I include it here. In 1571 Petr Volynets reveals to Ivan plots against him in Novgorod. Ivan does not believe the denials by the accused and orders the execution of everyone, man, woman, and child, with the sole exception of the metropolitan. In one day 2,770 Novgorodians met their deaths. Ivan replaced terminated gentry clans with princely and non-princely boyars from the Muscovite heartland, who were resettled in Novgorod district. From that time on, Ivan did not trust his subjects, but Volynets got rich. Implicitly, he profited from his false denunciations of innocent Novgorodians Novgorodskie letopisi. Vol. 2 / ed. by A. I. Tsepkov. Riazan, 2002. P. 468-469..

The head of the Novgorod eparchy was promoted from archbishop to metropolitan in 1589, when the metropolitan of Moscow was raised to patriarchal status; this anachronism marks the tale as post-Ivan. The number of Novgorodian dead in one day is in the same range as that in the memorial lists of his victims that Ivan sent to monasteries with money for prayers for the dead in 1581, approximately 3,200 from Novgorod of approximately 3,300 overall, but any connection to the 1822 count would be speculative Skrynnikov R. G. Tsarstvo terrora. St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 529-544.. The Novgorod chronicler has confused Ivan IV with his grandfather Grand Prince Ivan III (also Ivan Vasilevich), Velikii, although both were called the Groznyi in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Halperin C. J. The Metamorphosis of Ivan IV into Ivan the Terrible // Miscellanea Slavica. Sbornik statei k 70-letiiu Borisa Andreevicha Uspenskogo / ed. by F. B. Uspenskii. Moscow, 2008. P 379-397. Al'shits D. N. Drevnerusskaia povest' pro tsaria Ivana Vasilevicha i kuptsa Kharitona Beloulina... P 256.. Ivan III moved Muscovite gentry onto Novgorod lands confiscated after he annexed the city; overwhelmingly the Muscovite “immigrants” were gentry, but boyars received some lands too. The chronological ignorance of Ivan IV's reign demonstrated by such an error is considerable. Certainly evidence that Ivan IV distrusted Russians, especially but not exclusively boyars, predates the sack of Novgorod; the chronicler overlooked decades of Ivan IV's reign.

From the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century comes the Povest' o Kharitone Belouline⁷¹. According to its earliest redaction, in 1572 Tsar' Ivan IV learned that the death of Tsarevich Ivan the previous year was caused by evil traitors, so in Moscow he ordered the preparation in Pozhar of 300 plakha, 300 axes, and 300 palachi. He summoned people of every rank to attend and to be executed. Ivan rode onto Krasnaia ploshchad' in black dress on a black horse. Each executioner chose a victim from a list of imenitye people. They started with the second tier of the merchant elite, members of the gostinnaia sotnia. After seven executions, the eighth victim, Khariton Beloulin, was too big to fit on the block. He asked the tsar' why he was executing innocent people. Pisari assisted the executioners in holding Beloulin down to be beheaded, but afterward his body kept moving. Ivan was amazed and in fear left the square for his palace. No one moved from the square without the tsar's permission. Three hours later Ivan sent permission to release those seized. The corpse kept moving all day and into the night. The next morning the tsar' ordered the bodies to be buried The secondary redaction drops a number of these elements from the Tale (Al'shits D. N. Drevneruss-kaia povest' pro tsaria Ivana Vasilevicha i kuptsa Kharitona Beloulina. P 268-270)..

The motif of the body of a beheaded man continuing to move as if alive is well- known in folklore and hagiography On St. Mercurius of Smolensk, beheaded by Batu Khan, see: Halperin C. J. The Defeat and Death of Batu. P 50-65.. The 300 blocks, axes, and executioners is a folklore motif. Clearly the tale is a-historical and illogical. Ivan IV chooses to execute not those responsible for Tsarevich Ivan's death but random innocent people. The historical Moscow executions took place in 1571 on Krasnaia ploshchad', and the Pozhar is a nearby merchant district, but Tsarevich Ivan's death occurred in 1581. Ivan could only have dressed in black and ridden a black horse from 1565 until 1572, during the oprichnina. As in the 1617 Khronograf, Ivan experiences fear -- as one might expect in the presence of a miracle, but the description of Ivan's reaction is not flattering. He was afraid because he was caught doing evil.

To search for historical verisimilitude in such a fantasy seems futile. Its chronological anomalies qualify as reflections of historical ignorance. Al'shits suggests that such errors can be attributed to the carelessness of later copyists Al'shits D. N. Drevnerusskaia povest' pro tsaria Ivana Vasilevicha i kuptsa Kharitona Beloulina... P. 263., but ignorance seems a better explanation.

The ignorance of post-Ivan Muscovite authors of the facts of Ivan's life and reign resulted from multiple causes. Absence of Muscovite sources, inaccessible sources, and copyists' errors, especially in dates, all played a role. Deliberate falsification because of ideological and partisan bias could distort accurate history even when it was known. It would be naive to believe that an author could only report baseless rumor and create fantasy in the absence of credible accurate information, because authorial bias could be decisive in determining what “facts” were considered credible and inevitably produce a tendentious account. Not all authors identified rumors as rumors. Clearly anachronistic fantasies, such as prophesies, must have been conceived post facto, but we know only when surviving written sources repeated them; if there was earlier oral transmission, by definition it left no written record. Distinguishing among rumor, tall tale, legend, and myth is not necessary; the problem for the historian studying Ivan's reign is to discriminate between reliable and unreliable information. Historians have different conceptions of the degree of “creativity” of seventeenth-century authors Boeck B. J. Miscellanea Attributed to Kurbskii: the 17^th Century in Russia Was More Creative Than We Like to Admit // Kritika. 2012. Vol. 13, issue 4. P. 955-963., but erroneous “facts” are erroneous regardless of their source.

Because sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Muscovy was a manuscript culture, in which few books, almost entirely religious, were printed, it is reasonable to ask to what extent that manuscript culture contributed to the ignorance I have documented by making it harder for sources to survive or be disseminated. This raises a question posed by Walter Ong some time ago, namely, what was the impact of print upon historiography? Ong W J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, with additional chapters by John Harley. London, 2012. P. 168-169. Ong was thinking in terms of historical consciousness, which lies outside the scope of this article. Of course, print permitted much more rapid accumulation of a greater amount of material by a historian in a shorter time. What interests me in light of Muscovite historical memory of Ivan Groznyi is a very pragmatic question, did print change the accuracy of historiography? More has been written on the influence of the change from orality to writing on historical memory For example: Sakellariou M. V. Between Memory and Oblivion: the transmission of early Greek his-torical traditions. Paris, 1990; Athens: Research Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1990. than on the transition from writing to print. Jacques le Goff referred to the “decisive advances by written memory connected with printing and literacy.” He also observed that “Printing revolutionized Western memory, but slowly,” although its full impact was not manifest until the eighteenth century le Goff J. History and Memory. Tr. Steven Randall and Elizabeth Claman. New York, 1992. P. 54, 81-90.. Elizabeth Eisenstein, who is more concerned with the effect of printing on history than on historiography, concedes that printing spread inaccurate as well as accurate information, scientific and as well as esoteric occult works Eisenstein E. L. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, 1983, P. 46..

Although historians of history and memory use varying terminologies Cubitt G. History and Memory. Manchester, 2007., we need pause here to mention only one conception. Jeffrey Barash distinguishes between collective memory, which extends only to the temporal horizon of an individual's living memory, how far back a generation can remember, approximately three generations, from the historical past, which lies beyond that Barash J. A. Collective Memory and the Historian Past. Chicago, 2016.. By his definition, I am dealing with both collective memory and the historical past.

I have tentatively formulated the following five observation:

First, the transition to print was a process, not a rapid “revolutionary” change. In the sixteenth century Tudor and Stuart historians still used manuscripts, not just printed material, although it was far easier to accumulate previous printed books and chronicles than if they, too, had remained only in manuscript. Historians too lazy to do archival research could commit historical gaffes in printed books as great as any manuscript historian had ever done. Sir Walter Ralegh got the date of Henry VII's death wrong Fussner F. S. The Historical Revolution. English Historical Writing and Thought 1580-1640. Lon-don, 1962. P. 267-274..

Second, while print fixed historical writing more permanently and permitted far wider distribution of books, it was no guarantee of accuracy either of text or fact. Typographical errors replaced scribal errors. Accuracy of fact remained as problematic G. Cubitt asserts that printing introduced “new concepts of accuracy” (Cubitt G. History and Mem-ory. P. 190).. Historians misread and misinterpreted facts just as before. Patrick Collinson points out that newspapers during the Elizabethan and early Stuart period reported “facts” that were fictitious about monsters, wonders, murders, wars, discoveries, and celebrities. Historians presented the story of mythical King Arthur as if it were true, and William Camden had no doubts that Brutus was the father of the English nation Collinson P. Through Several Glasses Darkly: Historical and Sectarian Perceptions of the Tudor Church // Tudorism. Historical Imagination and the Appropriation of the Sixteenth Century / eds Tatiana C. String and Marcus Bull. Oxford, 2011. P. 97-114.. Although F. Smith Fussner eschewed testing the factual accuracy of the Tudor and Stuart historians whose publications he analyzed, he noted the powerful deleterious influence of censorship, via licensing and just arresting printers who published “offensive” authors, on historical truth. Historians such as Edward Herbert, Lord Herbert of Cherbury who imitated Thucydides and Tacitus by putting invented speeches into the mouths of historical personages, merely duplicated in print a practice of early modern Muscovite authors and compilers of narrative texts in manuscripts who had not read the Classics. John Stow, a historian of London, made factual mistakes, but admitted and corrected them. Camden in his history of the reign of Elizabeth I did not invent sources or speeches and tried to be objective, labeling, as Muscovite authors did, rumors as such when he reported them. He committed errors because he was denied access to archival evidence. On the other hand, Sir Francis Bacon was simply too lazy and arrogant to do archival research, resulting in enormous factual inaccuracies in his history of Henry VII. He misread Latin texts and invented speeches. Even the empirical John Selder in his history of tithes made some surprising and avoidable mistakes. These examples illustrate the impossibility of generalizing about “Tudor-Stuart historiography”; historiography in any finite time and specific place is unlikely to be homogeneous Fussner F. S. The Historical Revolution... P. XXI, 37-41, 158-160, 222, 230-252, 264-274, 297..

Third, bias --in the case of Tudor-Stuart historiography, both dynastic and religious -- dominated interpretations even in relatively accurate histories Collinson P Through Several Glasses Darkly..String T. C. Myth and Memory in Representations of Henry VIII, 1509-2009 // Tudorism. Historical Imagination and the Appropriation of the Sixteenth Centu-ry. Eds Tatiana C. String and Marcus Bull. Oxford, 2011. P. 201-222; Walker G. “A Great Guy with his Chop-per”: The Sex Life of Henry VIII on Screen and in the Flesh // Ibid. P 223-242; Jackson C. Lord Herbert of Cherbury and the Presentation of the Henrician Reformation in his Life and Reign of King Henry the Eighth // Seventeenth Century. 2013. Vol. 18, issue 2. P. 139-161; Collinson P This England. Essays on the English Nation and commonwealth in the sixteenth century. Manchester, 2011. P. 143-166, 245-308.. However, whether Henry VIII was Anti-Christ or Elizabeth I was Jezebel are matters of interpretation, which do not necessarily relate to their factual bases.

Fourth, printing did nothing to eliminate ancient myths and legends in historiography. Indeed, printing facilitated the wider spread of such fantastic stories and historical mythology Filyushkin A. Why Did Muscovy Not Participate in the “Communication Revolution” in the Six-teenth Century? Causes and Effects // Canadian-American Slavic Studies. 2017. Vol. 51, issue 2-3. P. 343.. Tudor and Stuart historians did not question legends of St. George, King Arthur, or King Alfred, who supposedly founded Cambridge University Cubitt G. History and Memory. P. 206.. Early modern authors sometimes doubted miracles, but wrote narratives replete with providential signs, tall tales, and exemplary behavior (for example, the ability to withstand torture), which strain the credulity of modern readers, not to mention invented or deliberate falsifica- tions Collinson P This England. P. 216-244..

However, fifth, although printing could generate myths and legends about more recent rulers, which changed with political circumstances, but at a higher level, that of reputation Thompson V. E. The Creation, Destruction and Recreation of Henry IV: Seeing Popular Sovereignty in the Statue of the King // History & Memory. 2012. Vol. 24, issue2. P. 5-40., it is possible that printed histories avoided the most fantastic myths and legends about more recent history. In Tudor and Stuart historiography I have found only one story that matches the degree of “imagination” of numerous presentations of episodes in Ivan's life. Supposedly Mary Stuart's posthumous revenge was that Elizabeth I's body, lying in state in Whitehall, literally exploded, destroying her coffin, which English Catholics thought not only just, but entirely credible Collinson P This England. P. 151.. Notwithstanding this somewhat gruesome case, print historiography had no problem dealing with benign fables, such as those about George Washington popularized by Parson Weems Cubitt G. History and Memory. P. 206.. Abraham Lincoln's apocryphal wisdom is often equally fictitious. Rumor had no difficulty finding its way into print, in gossip columns and political rags, and nowadays finds its first outlet not orally but on the internet.

The differences between the inaccuracies in Muscovite manuscript historical memory of Ivan compared to print historical memory in early modern Europe may be qualitative, not quantitative, in the type of falsified narrative and “fact” propagated, or this distinction could be overturned by more extensive familiarity with early modern English historiography. Before we can properly assess the consequences of the absence of print technology on Muscovite historical memory of Ivan Groznyi, we need to know more of the consequences of the presence of print technology on early modern European historiography. The virtual absence of print technology in Muscovy might very well not be the cause of ignorance of the reign of Ivan Groznyi in Muscovite historical memory. Historical memory is always selective, and errors of omission are just as erroneous as errors of commission. Modern historiography partakes of this syndrome Halperin C. J. Omissions of National Memory: Russian Historiography on the Golden Horde as Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion // Ab Imperio. 2004. Issue 3. P 131-144..

Whatever the explanation of these flaws in Muscovite historical memory, the presence of disinformation and misinformation about Ivan continues to influence modern Russian historiography not only because so much erroneous information is accepted by far too many historians, but because it feeds the powerful negative image of Ivan in the audience of scholarly studies, and thus exacerbates the problem of separating the man from the myth, which is still the goal of professional scholarship.

historical memory ivan terrible

References

Al'shits D. N. Drevnerusskaia povest' pro tsaria Ivana Vasilevicha i kuptsa Kharitona Beloulina. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 1961, vol. 17, pp. 255-271. (In Russian)

Avtokratov V. N. “Rech' Ivana Groznogo”' kak politicheskii pamflet kontsa XVII veka. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 1955, vol. 11, pp. 255-279. (In Russian)

Barash J. A. Collective Memory and the Historian Past. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2016, 286 p. Boeck B. J. Miscellanea Attributed to Kurbskii. The 17^th Century in Russia Was More Creative Than We Like to Admit. Kritika, 2012b, vol. 13, issue 4, pp. 955-963.

Boeck B. J. The Don Interpolation: An Imagined Turning Point in Russian Relations with the Tatar World. Dubitando. Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrowski. Eds Brian Boeck, Russell E. Martin and Daniel B. Rowland. Bloomington, Slavica Publishers, Inc, 2012a, pp. 129-138. Bushkovitch P. Possevino and the Death of Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich. Cahiers du monde russe, 2014, vol. 55, issue 1-2, pp. 119-134.

Collinson P. This England. Essays on the English Nation and commonwealth in the sixteenth century. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2011a, 316 p.

Collinson P. Through Several Glasses Darkly: Historical and Sectarian Perceptions of the Tudor Church. Tudorism. Historical Imagination and the Appropriation of the Sixteenth Century. Eds Tatiana C. String and Marcus Bull. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011b, pp. 97-114.

Cubitt G. History and Memory. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2007, 263 p.

Eisenstein E. L. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, 297 p.

Filiushkin A. I. Istoriia odnoi mistifikatsii. Ivan Groznyi i “Izbrannaia Rada”. Moscow, Voronezh State University Press, 1998, 352 p. (In Russian)

Filjushkin A. The Mystery of a Political Masquerade (Concerning the Article of Donald Ostrowski). Russian History, 2012, vol. 39, issue 3, pp. 301-305.

Filyushkin A. Why Did Muscovy Not Participate in the “Communication Revolution” in the Sixteenth Century? Causes and Effects. Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 2017, vol. 51, issue 2-3, pp. 339-350. Fussner F. S. The Historical Revolution. English Historical Writing and Thought 1580-1640. London, Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1962, 343 p.

Grekov I. B. Ob ideino-politicheskikh tendentsiiakh nekotorykh literaturnykh pamiatnikov nachala XVII v. (ob avtore Piskarevskogo letopistsa). Kul'turnye sviazi narodov Vostochnoi Evropy v XVI v. Problemy vzaimootnoshenii Pol'shi, Rossii, Ukrainy, Belorusii i Litvy v epokhu Vozrozhdeniia. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1976, pp. 329-358. (In Russian)

Halperin C. J. Did Ivan IV's Oprichniki Carry Dogs' Heads on Their Horses? Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 2012a, vol. 46, issue 1, pp. 40-67.

Halperin C. J. Ivan IV and Chinggis Khan. Jahrbьcher fьr Geschichte Osteuropas, 2003, vol. 51, issue 4, pp. 481-497.

Halperin C. J. Ivan IV as Autocrat (samoderzhets). Cahiers du monde russe, 2014a, vol. 55, issue 3/4, pp. 197213.

Halperin C. J. Metropolitan Makarii and Muscovite Court Politics during the Reign of Ivan IV. Russian Review, 2014b, vol. 763, issue 3, pp. 447-464.

Halperin C. J. Omissions of National Memory: Russian Historiography on the Golden Horde as Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion. Ab Imperio, 2004, iss. 3, pp. 131-144.

Halperin C. J. Russia Between East and West: Diplomatic Reports During the Reign of Ivan IV. Saluting Aaron Gurevich: Essays in History, Literature and Other Subjects. Eds Yelena Mazour-Matusevich and Alexandra S. Korros. Leiden, Koninklijke Brill NV, 2010, pp. 81-103.

Halperin C. J. The Defeat and Death of Batu. Russian history, 1983, issue 10, pp. 50-65.

Halperin C. J. The Metamorphosis of Ivan IV into Ivan the Terrible. Miscellanea Slavica. Sbornik statei k 70-letiiu Borisa Andreevicha Uspenskogo. Ed. by F. B. Uspenskii. Moscow, Indrik Publ., 2008, pp. 379397.

Halperin C. J. Simeon Bekbulatovich and the Mongol Influence on Ivan IV's Muscovy. Russian History, 2012b, vol. 39, issue 3, pp. 306-330.

Jackson C. Lord Herbert of Cherbury and the Presentation of the Henrician Reformation in his Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth. Seventeenth Century, 2013, vol. 18, issue 2, pp. 139-161.

Kagan M. D. Legendarnaia perepiska Ivana IV s turetskim sultanom kak literaturnyi pamiatnik pervoi chetverti XVII v. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 1957, vol. 13, pp. 246-272. (In Russian)

Karamzin N. M. Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskago, v. 9. St. Petersburg, Izdanie Evg. Evdokimova Publ., 1892, 471 p. (In Russian)

Kazanskaia istoriia. Ed. by G. N. Moiseeva. Moscow;Leningrad, AN SSSR Publ., 1954, 191 p. (In Russian)

Keenan E. L. Who Was `Ivan Timofeev'?” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 2011-2014, vol. 32/33, pp. 415-423.

Khazanova S. I. Oprichnina v Piskarevskom letopiste i letopisanie XVII veka. Arkhiv russkoi istorii, 2007, vol. 8, pp. 49-59. (In Russian)

Khazanova S. I. Piskarevskii letopisets: Proiskhozhdenie, Istochniki, Avtorstvo. Moscow, Kvadriga Publ., 2014, 170 p. (In Russian)

Kolobkov V. A. Mitropolit Filipp i stanovlenie moskovskogo samoderzhaviia, Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo. St. Petersburg, Ateleiia Publ., 2004, 639 p. (In Russian)

Kuznetsov I. I. Sviatye blazhennye Vasilii i Ioann, Khrista radi moskovskie chiudotvortsy. Zapiski Moskovskogo arkheologicheskago instituta, 1910, vol. 8, 494, IV, 4 p. (In Russian)

Le Goff J. History and Memory. Transl. Steven Randall and Elizabeth Claman. New York, Columbia University Press, 1992, 265 p.

Lobakova I. A. Zhitie mitropolita Filippa. Issledovanie i tektsy. St. Petersburg, Dmitrii Bulanin Publ., 2006, 306 p. (In Russian)

Lyzlov A. Skifskaia istoriia. Eds E. V. Chistiakova and A. P. Bogdanov. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1990, 518 p. (In Russian)

Martin J. Simeon Bekbulatovich and Steppe Politics: Some Thoughts on Donald Ostrowski's Interpretation of the Tsar's Remarkable Career. Russian History, 2012, vol. 39, issue 3, pp. 331-338.

Martin R. E. A Bride for the Tsar: Bride-Shows and Marriage Politics in Early Modern Russia. DeKalb, Northern Illinois University Press, 2012, XIV, 480 p.

Morozov S. A. K izucheniiu istochnikov Postnikovskogo i Piskarevskogo letopistsev. Letopisi i khroniki 1984. Moscow, Nauka Publ., pp. 59-74. (In Russian)

Ong W. J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. With additional chapters by John Harley. London, Routledge Publ., 2012, 232 p.

Ostrowski D. Simeon Bekbulatovich's Remarkable Career as Tatar Khan, Grand Prince of All Rus', and Monastic Elder. Russian History, 2012, vol. 39, issue 3, pp. 269-299, 339-345.

Poe M. What Did Russians Mean When They Called Themselves `Slaves of the Tsar'? Slavic Review, 1998, vol. 57, issue 3, pp. 585-608.

Prince A. M. Kurbsky's History of Ivan IV. Ed. by J. L. I. Fennell. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1965, 314 p.

Rock S. Popular Religion in Russia. `Double Belief and the making of an academic myth. London, Routledge Publ., 2007, 234 p.

Skrynnikov R. S. Tsarstvo terrora. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 1992, 573 p. (In Russian)

Sakellariou M. V. Between Memory and Oblivion: the transmission of early Greek historical traditions. Paris; Athens, Diffusion de Bocard; Research Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1990, 267 p.

Solodkin Ia. G. Po povodu atributsii Piskarevskogo letopistsa. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 1990, vol. 44, pp. 387-396. (In Russian)

String T. C. Myth and Memory in Representations of Henry VIII, 1509-2009. Tudorism. Historical Imagination and the Appropriation of the Sixteenth Century. Eds Tatiana C. String and Marcus Bull. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 201-222.

Swoboda M. The Place of Novgorod in Ivan Timofeyev's Vremennik. Russian History, 1998, vol. 25, issue 4, pp. 409-428.

Thompson V. E. The Creation, Destruction and Recreation of Henry IV: Seeing Popular Sovereignty in the Statue of the King. History & Memory, 2012, vol. 24, issue 2, pp. 5-40.

Tikhomirov M. N. Kratkie zametki o letopisnykh proizvedeniiakh v rukupisnykh sobraniiakh Moskvy. Moscow, AN USSR Publ., 1962, 184 p. (In Russian)

Tikhomirov M. N. Piskarevskii letopisets kak istoricheskii istochnik o sobytiiakh XV -- nachala XVII v. Russkoe letopisanie. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1979, pp. 232-247. (In Russian)

Walker G. “A Great Guy with his Chopper”: The Sex Life of Henry VIII on Screen and in the Flesh. Tudo- rism. Historical Imagination and the Appropriation of the Sixteenth Century. Eds Tatiana C. String and Marcus Bull. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 223-242.

Waugh D. C. The Great Turkes Defiance. On the History of the Apocryphal Correspondence of the Ottoman Sultan in its Muscovite and Russian Variants. Columbus, Slavica Press Inc., 1978, 355 p.

Zguta R. Russian Minstrels. A History of the Skomorokhi. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978, 160 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru