The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

"I, Pyotr Alekseyevich": to a samozvanchestvo problem in Russia at the end of the XVII first quarter of the 18th century

UDK 94 (470)" 16/118

O. N. Mukhin


Some theoretical and practical aspects the samozvanchestvo problems in Russia on material XVII - the first quarter of the 18th century are considered. Among sources not published earlier archive materials are used.

Samozvanchestvo - one of the brightest phenomena of political and sociocultural life in the Russian history of modern times. The interesting problem to which researchers repeatedly paid attention, namely a problem of absence false Petrov of I is connected with it (unlike pseudo-tsarevitches Alekseev whom was a little). And it in the presence of obviously provocative circumstances: in the first quarter of the 18th century the legend (in several options) about a podmennost of Peter according to which on the Russian throne there was a false sovereign was in broad use.

Various authors did attempt to explain this gap in the history of a samozvanchestvo. So, K.V. Chistov, the author of one of the most detailed researches of this phenomenon, considered that "historical activity of Peter did not provide to creators of legends of necessary freedom of idealization, and his folklore image could not become a receptacle of the national social and utopian ideas". The researcher emphasizes that even at the tradition of idealization of Peter existing in folk art as winner soldier and persecutor of boyars he was never represented by the country tsar, hopes of disposal of "fortress" were not pinned on it [1, page 113-114].

B.A. Uspensky believes that lzhepetr were not as was considered that the real Peter was killed at "substitution" [2, page 166] while real Piotr whose behavior was anti-behavior, was perceived as the impostor changed overseas or in the childhood. This version does not seem convincing: not all options of a legend of Peter's substitution speak about his death, often they just do not define him final sudby1. Moreover, and the tsarevitch Dmitry was considered as a dead that did not interfere with appearance of numerous impostors of times of the Distemper (False Dmitry II appeared after murder first, the people, perfect in the face of a large number after a while). Poyav-

the leniye of impostors was most often connected with "happy disposal" of death.

Actually this problem is in many respects connected with the question of conceptual definitions which arose in the Soviet historiography where the samozvanchestvo (in peak to the neutral concept "imposture") usually contacted political adventures and social anti-feudal movements (or, by K.V. Chistov's definition, with national social and utopian legends [1]).

The author of one of the latest works in whom much attention is paid to a samozvanchestvo, P.V. Lukin, giving critical analysis of views of this phenomenon, is not inclined to carry out differences between imposture and a samozvanchestvo at all, insisting that all manifestations anyway connected with acceptance by ordinary people of a title or name of the tsar are complex [4, page 109]. According to the researcher, of the 17th century dozens of cases on "not nice words" which persons involved in a household situation declared themselves tsars remained. P.V. Lukin finds it possible to carry them all to a so-called national samozvanchestvo (i.e., probably, as it appears from a context, not connected with political claims and social movements).

There are some expressive examples. In 1648 in Tula the retired Moscow fodder foreigner Chenovittska Ivashko asked to drink wines at the Don Cossack Alyoshki Alekseev in tavern and said: "Let's drink wines, I am a sovereign, the tsar" [4, page 122]. In 1661 kamennovets the son seigniorial Ivan Dolzhikov informed on the lebedinsky resident of a cherka-shenin Ivashka Fyodorov, the son Kaltun, that he "sang songs drunk and was called a sovereign: "I am the sovereign"" [4, page 122-123]. In 168z the peasant from the vicinities Ust-Sysolya Lyovka Sukhanov called at many strangers of the tsar, and the children, Bazhenka and Mishka, tsarevitches [4, page 123].

1 According to the most detailed version of this legend, Piotr was captivated by a certain Swedish princess who on the occasion of the name-day set after a while Peter free, but when he returned, boyars decided to put him in the barrel stuck by nails and to throw into the sea. A certain Sagittarius saved the sovereign, having warned him and having taken his place in a flank [3, page 77]. What was become with Peter further - is not specified.

Preobrazhensky's affairs of the order give the chance to track manifestations "national", in P.V. Lukin's definition, or, maybe, it is more true to speak, a "household" samozvanchestvo (as all manifestations of a samozvanchestvo national on character, even those impostors that they applied for achievement of actual royal advantage, were natives of their ordinary citizens) and during the Petrovsky era. For the presentation of the archive material we will use the classification of situations of emergence of "a national samozvanchestvo" given in work of the called author.

1. One of common causes of false statements was the aspiration speaking during the conversation to allocate itself from lump, to emphasize the special situation, the status, fundamental difference from the others [4, page 139] as, according to P.V. Lukin, for the Russian person of that time the tsar was an embodiment of the power, greatest possible on the earth, the highest sacral authority conceding only to God in heaven [4, page 140-141].

In 1720 in Pereslavl-Ryazan the peasant of the fiefdom of the Ryazan and Murom metropolitan of the village of Srezneva Dementy Stepanov sentenced to death informed on the prison tselovalnik of the peasant of the village of Klepikova of the Ryazan County Ivan Markov. Stepanov was imprisoned on a charge of four tatba for what it was sentenced to death, and told for himself a monarchic word. In Preobrazhenskoye on interrogation he showed that about three weeks ago the tselovalnik of the fiefdom of the prince of Sergius Dolgorukov Pereslavsky of the county of the Ryazan village of Klepikova peasant Ivan Markov stood sentinel at prison and departed from prison doors, having left a door open. Dementy asked, "for what he departs from a door" on what that asked: "... do you know me who such is I?" [Z, l. 1]. Stepanov told that the peasant. Markov answered that: "I royal knee" [Z, l. 1]. It, according to an izvetchik, was heard by three persons.

In inquiry Markov told that it did not depart from doors, and that izvetchik in a conversation "rossmeyav-sya to it said: you tselovalnichishko neviliko-native person". And Markov for that told: "... you do not know me that I a royal knee". And those words he "in alcoholism" and "told sprostota himself" [Z, l. 1-2]. In this case the tselovalnik offended by the contemptuous address of the interlocutor attributes himself relationship with the tsar to express some kind of self-esteem, pride of "the little person".

2. In other cases the self-name could accompany with the tsar statements for the rights, powers or advantages which somehow affected the sphere monarchical kompeten-

tion (in those days the being considered almost boundless) [4, page 145-146].

In 1720 the robber Vasily Kurka, being races-sprashivan in different robberies, told that two years ago, during the stay as him at a fair in the Cherkassk city of Surzhe Starom, he lived in the house of Cossack Mamitsa [6, l. 1]. There the centurion of the Sumy regiment Trophîme Yakovlev and still some officer was. They began to quarrel with each other at one o'clock in the morning, having sat in a front room and why - does not know. The officer ran out on the yard and shouted: "To Buntavat you conceive, and still in you the mazepovshchina was not removed" [6, l. 2]. Behind it ran out chelyadin Mamitsa. Stepan shouted to him following, having become at gate: "Rastakiya of mother Russians, will be on you Nekrasov (probably, the ataman Nekrasov, one of K. Bulavin's associates. - The lake of M.) and we will drag you for legs" [6, l. 2]. Then to a porch there was a centurion and began to shout to the Cossacks who were outside "for what they did not catch that officer and did not chop up and Cossacks told monarchic people it is not necessary to cut with it" [6, l. 2]. On it Yakovlev said: "You cut all the dragoon which on you kinutets I the sovereign here were gone we from Russians" [6, l. 2]. Before the capture Kurka did not inform on those words "simplicity and being afraid from those Cossacks of an ubivstvo" [6, l. 3]. That is in this case, calling itself the sovereign, the Cossack centurion wanted to confirm the right for court and punishment which was traditionally one of the main prerogatives of the tsar.

P.V. Lukin gives several cases which persons involved were public servants, including voivodes in frames of this option. There are similar examples and in Peter's time. In 1702 the residents of Nerchinsk Cossack Gordey Popov and the Cossack ataman Spiridon Tarkhov gave izvt on the local voivode Ivan Nikolev. According to izvetchik when Gordey came to Nikolev's yard to ask a confrontation with a certain Agapit Plotnik (probably, the official) that that drags "many time", and said: "People to the sovereign serve and get monarchic favor for service", Nikolev in reply said: "Though you five years be dragged, hto to me I will specify the tsar of taka as on Moscow the tsar Pyotr Alekseyevich, not tokmo in Nerchensku, I and on Moscow was a tsar. I which I do things here in the order and on Moscow my affairs a nevprimer also put mine will not remake nikhto" [7, l. 33]. And this case allows to doubt P.V. Lukin's conclusions about a worship for sacrality of throne as the central motive of such "self-glorification". As it was reported in the same izvet, Nikolev "threw and put the monarchic person in legs (a portrait. - The lake of M.), he Ivan also said it a wonder that the royal person" [7, l is sent from Moscow. 33].

More likely, it is about the voyevodsky arbitrariness which was followed both in XVII, and in the 18th century bribery and petty tyranny and also idea of the impunity, especially in so distant possession as Siberia for which residents the voivode really was actually a sovereign.

Gordey referred to witnesses - voyevodsky people Yakov Sobolev and Alexey Nepekin. Nicko lion on interrogation and a confrontation with Gordey was locked that threw the person under legs and told such words [7, l. 33]. Popov began to say after that that he did not hear such words, and voyevodsky people Yakov Sobolev and Alexey Nie - Beijing told him about them. However the called witnesses also denied everything [7, l. 34]. Unfortunately, than business came to an end, from a fragment it is not visible. But also in case of the false izvet the saying of such words is indicative for characteristic of mentalities of an era even if they were not said by accused Ofrosimov1.

P.V. Lukin considers one more type of situations within the second option reference to the royal authority for the justification, including illegal, behavior (as the total freedom of actions was also one of distinctive features of the tsar).

In 1702 the peasant Frolka Ilyin who was imprisoned in Pereslavl-Zalessky informed on the lip tselovalnik Lukashka Andreyev in "obscene words". Business was so: last fall lip tselovalniks Lukashka Andreyev and Senka Grigoriev took from earth prison in a guard log hut the peasant Kupriyashka Ivanov sitting for theft of a horse and long tortured him, it is not known on whose command and for what. In a week Kup-riyashka died. When in a month Frolka with the marked Lukashka went behind guard to the square to ask to kvass, began to reproach the tselovalnik: "As you are not afraid of God and the sovereign, you zapytat at the night of a kolodnik of a dosmerta. And yours brothers me was hammered" [8, page 1-2]. Lukashka answered it: "I am not afraid of the sovereign, I over you (kolodnik) the sovereign" [8, page 2]. However, nobody the stranger of those words heard so in the absence of witnesses F.Yu. Romodanovsky sentenced Frol to send for search in that obscene word to Pereslavl and to send the diploma about that voivode. And in this case the ending did not remain [8, page 2].

3. P.V. Lukin refers motives of a samozvanche-stvo, unclear in terms of modern rationalistic outlook to the third option [4, page 1Z6]. Referring to Yu.M. Lotman and B.A. Uspensky, he explains such situations with lines of the mythological consciousness characteristic of traditional society [4, page 1Z8].

In 1698 the rylsky landowner Kondraty Koshelev gave izvt on Osip Mikhaylov Ofrosimov who allegedly, having listened to the royal decree, spoke to peasants: "I am de Osip and itself the sovereign" [9, l is same. 3]. On a confrontation Koshelev insisted on the denunciation, and Osipov objected, referring to the fact that they with an izvetchik had a quarrel because of horses therefore that on it and poklepat, or perhaps and on whose learning [9, l. 7]. Unfortunately, there is no end of business.

In 1702 the peasant of the Suzdal County of the village of Kunokhova of the ancestral lands of Ivan Kaysarov Vasily Savelyev informed that on nourishing week and in what number will not remember, the peasant of the same village Mi-kifor Andreyev spoke to peasants: "That were ready under Rugodev (the Old Russian name of Narva. - The lake of M.) - I am Pyotr Alekseyevich" [10, l. 2]. Other peasant, Ivan Filipov, having heard such words, began to hit Mikifor into the head and to speak to him "sup you fish soup but not fish" then all dispersed [10, l. 2]. Ivan Filipov during the investigation confirmed everything, and Mikifor also, and claimed that he those words told "a spyan and nobody on that nauchat its" [10, l. 3] for what it was sentenced to punishment by a whip, to reduction of language and the exile with the wife and children to the distant Siberian cities [10, l. 5].

P.V. Lukin notes existence of false speeches and among clergy, explaining them including with the increased power of church as the first similar affairs appear soon after nikonovsky reform [4, page 162]. However similar episodes meet and in recent years Peter's reigns when from church power and independence there is no trace left also. So, in 1720 the treasurer of Donskoy Monastery aged man Varlaam informed on the konarkhist of a cherkeshenin of Ivan Gubsky that when once in June after a meal he to himself in a cell "called the sacristan's aged men with bottoms and with deacons, and with them a belets cherkashenin Ivan Gubsky came konarkhistr, and drank beer" [11, l. 1]. And when the treasurer suggested to sing perennity for health of royal majesty, konarkhistr said - "I the tsar tomorrow will be" [11, l. 1].

In inquiry the konarkhist told that he "from immense alcoholism" does not remember the words, but if witnesses speak, then, maybe, he and told them, "and the great sovereign" [11, l is free in that his fault. 4]. It is hardly worth allocating such affairs from the general context of "a household samozvanchestvo" as which initiators representatives of the majority of social groups of society of that time acted.

Besides listed as shows the material collected in P.V. Lukin's research, situations typical for those times, Petrovsky

1 is considered also by P.V. Lukin who provides several similar cases when indications of an izvetchik were not confirmed in the monograph.

an era brought also the new reasons for a samozvanchest-v connected with cardinal withdrawal pains of the semiotics code or a sociocultural discourse.

In 1697 there was a remarkable incident which P.V. Lukin in details sorts in the work. According to him, this story removes a problem of lack of lzhepetr. A certain Timoshka Kobyl-kin, the Moscow trade person, a tyaglets of the Ustyug fifty, on the road from Pskov to Moscow gave themselves for "the first captain of the Preobrazhensky Regiment Pyotr Alekseev" who is allegedly robbed on the way thus having summoned from local landowners of money and horses [4, page 130]. This story was mentioned casually by S.M. Solovyyov and K.V. Chistov, and the last considered that it "ordinary speculation on a prolonged "amusing masquerade" in the conditions of the increasing Peter's pressing podatny estate" [1, page 113].

But P.V. Lukin convincingly shows existence of lines of a samozvanchestvo in this incident. Kobylkin copied many lines of the real tsar: besides a name of on the rank which is really belonging to Peter he also claimed that he on the way christened "a small nemchenk" whom he carried for "the doctrine of the tsarevitch Alexey Petrovich because he is clever in German and in Latin and on-ruski" [4, page 130]. Besides, he wrote several letters directed to officials, in particular the Pskov voivode Saltykov where, reproaching it sharp words ("a dog medelyan on a chain") and threatening ("it is promised to a toba the axe yes an executioner's block"), orders to deal urgently with affairs of noblemen, it sheltered [4, page 130], and in the second letter claims that it is written Saint Nicholas The Wonderworker, Mikhail Arkhangel and the tsarevitch Dmitry (one of striking examples of that manifestation of "mythological consciousness" [4, page 132].

About the fact that this story cannot be carried only to ordinary fraud speaks also that reaction which it caused among locals. Many residents of Pskov and the toropchena recognized the tsar in Kobylkin though he also was called him in the veiled form. On a temple one of the noblemen receiving the impostor, Kuzma Goryainov, for example, showed that "it accepted, Kuzemka, it, Timoshka that he was called a captain Pyotr Alekseev for monarchic a name hoped..." [4, page 132]. Other witness, Brylkin Kalina, said: "In the people in Pskov and in Toroptsa the velm grieved, hoped the fact that the great sovereign bit in those revenges" 1 [4, page 134].

Piotr whose povede-was "in vain" guilty of a possibility of such use of a royal name

ny did not correspond to a typical ceremonious image of the Moscow sovereign. Really, the young tsar could appear without the appropriate maintenance and a dress is far from the capital. Besides he got used to call himself a certain "reducing" names, such as Pyotr Mikhaylov (under this name it, for example, went to Great embassy) or Pyotr Alekseev. And if in this case conscious use of a royal pseudonym (it is characteristic that Kobylkin nevertheless did not dare to be called actually a tsar Pyotr Alekseyevich, kind of hesitating to attempt up to the end upon the sacral status though all participants of the events understood it "correctly") took place, then in other cases such violation of traditions by the monarch led his citizens to obviously innocent mistakes for which they, nevertheless, quite could pay.

In memory from a town hall of 1701-1703 business of a certain Filki Danilov at which during detention on a charge of theft were taken out by bailiffs from a letter pocket remained, and among them there is a petition on behalf of Pyotr Ulitin in which the name of the sovereign was written "violently" - "sir Pyotr Alekseev" [13, l. 34]. During inquiry Danilov confessed that wrote those letters itself "in small litas", but copied from others, stored at his tutor Yurya Plotnikov. After a while in the Preobrazhenskiy order the posatsky person" Pyotr Dmitriyev the son Ulitin was "serpukhovitin and showed that those letters "were written by him Peter in small litas and how many he told years of that that will not remember as studied the diploma and that in that petition the monarchic name was written by him violently the sprost he before the great sovereign is guilty of that" [13, l. 75]. For it F.Yu. Romodanovsky ordered to beat Ulitin with lashes and to release with the receipt of the brother his native Anton [13, l. 74]. Danilov and Dmitriyev is also told to be whipped for the fact that the first wrote thieves' letters, and the second that held them at itself "many time". And after that poveleno to burn those letters on a back at Danilov and to exile him on eternal life, and Yurya to release [13, l. 74].

It is possible to give one more example of such conceptual confusion which is brightly illustrating the conflict of semiotics codes characterizing the Petrovsky era. In 1698 the gunner Konstantin Kornilov informed that when the neighbor of the Pankratyevsky settlement of tyagleets Levki Yeremeyev had him on a christening, one of guests, Stepka Isaev, drunk swore abusively while drank

1 This case was not unique. Bashkirets by Balya Karmanov who "imat from Tatars of a bribe" in the Ufa County is mentioned in painting to the kolodnik who were contained in Preobrazhenskoye the order in 1722 and "was called the tsar" [12, l. 11]. Unfortunately, because of decay of business to get acquainted with details there is no opportunity.

for health of the sovereign and to what he told it, Braids do not know [14, l. 2]. However on search it became clear how the witness Mishka Timofeev told that Kornilov proposed a toast "give de Boge to a life zdorov to our shipor" (probably, to the skipper) on what Stepka swore: "... you shit give to drink... x... silver" [14, l. 4]. And who is this shipor, Mishka does not know. Kostka for those words went Isaev a hand to the head twice [14, l. 4]. Kostka recognized that he was drunk too therefore such toast spoke and that it for "shipor", and itself does not know. Remembers only as Stepka used foul language and as he hit him [14, l. H].

Stepka showed what remembers how drank for monarchic health, and then Kostka told a toast for a shipo-r, and it, Stepka, said that "I do not know a shipor, and I drink about gosudarsky health" [14, l. 6]. And Kostka told: "... for what you Stepka for shiporovo do not drink health" and went it to the head two times. At the same time Stepka refused abusive words, claiming that Kostka and Mishka "poklepat" him [14, l. 6]. Under pressing of testimony Stepka confessed and told that he told that "a spyana and for what spoke about that will not remember", and was locked by "oblivion" earlier [14, l. 8]. Both are both Kostka, and Stepka - are punished for obscene words (as, it is not written) and released [14, l. 9]. Judging by softness of punishment, the authorities realized a possibility of such confusion which arose because of sharp changes of the semiotics code of culture and a political discourse and therefore treated it indulgently. It is indicative that the author of a toast who was zealously protecting honor of the regal skipper in a sober state could not understand point of the saying.

But one of the most remarkable cases of "a household samozvanchestvo" the Petrovsky era, and, history which began that is interesting, long before Peter's trip abroad - in 1690 is having "a political trace". In Smolensk the thief roslovets Tereshka Prokofiev was seized. It was brought into a mayetnost to Denis Shvykovsky in the village by Bars, that village the priest Vikula and Smolensk shlyakhtich Andrey Glinka heard from it obscene words: "... I am a tsar Pyotr Alekseyevich" [1Z, l. 2]. The person was sent to Smolensk for interrogation.

On interrogation he told "the obscenest great words": "... I am a prince that his bolsha is not on Moscow and imyany de Piotr Alekseev the son" and that the father is his tsar Alexey Mikhaylovich [1Z, l. 3]. From Moscow it went "taka to rozsmatrivat the earth and hto that about them speaks, and on Moscow there was a brother his tsar Ioann Alekseyevich" [1Z, l. 3]. It left Moscow in the Lent with five companions, so went to Mozhaisk. Then dispersed, and it went to Smolensk. On the road it on -

zyvat itself the passerby the person, and only to the priest and Glinka for the first time opened [15, l. 3-4].

The impostor was brought to torture and confessed that he is a posadsky person Tereshka Prokofiev the son from Yaroslavl, the father his Pronka Ostafyev the son died, his mother in Yaroslavl is fed with the work. To Moscow Tereshka went since Christmas and on Moscow the yard wandered "boundaries", and went to the Annunciation from Moscow, and was called such great name "out of the mind" and was blamed for that [15, l. 6]. Further from tortures it was blamed that to it his companions Kar-pushka Mikulayev, the son Zhukovsky and Ivashko Sergeyev, the son Chigirinets - Fedki Shaklovity people and Andryushka Vasilyev, the son Pitirimov, and Sergushka Andreyev, the son Bulatov, - Vasily Golitsyn's people ordered to be called such name. They said that they from Moscow have letters to the Sveyky German earth, in the Cherkassk goroda, to Lithuania and the Tsesarsky earth. And who gave and why to them to go there, they did not tell. In Mozhaisk they dispersed therefore that Tereshka is silly and will give them a trouble, and that it from those states then to be back to Moscow. The clear political implication of business appeared. Tereshka was given several blows by a whip, suspended on a rack, burned down with fire four times, tortured with pincers, on the head poured water, but he any more told nothing [15, l. 7].

Tereshka it was told held down to deliver to Moscow. Voivodes of Novgorod, Pskov, Kiev and Sevsk and also the hetman were told to look for his companions (9). However in holiday papers of the Holopy and Streletsky order of the names told by Te tails it did not appear and in settlements what he specified, on the signs called by it they were also not known [15, l. 9-10]. From Moscow it was told to interrogate Tereshka's mother, Anyutka Nikitina to vyznat why he left to Moscow, "in general whether mind" or the drunkard and "сумазброд" [15, l. 30]. Anyutka on interrogation showed that Tereshka her son, he is 26 years old, in Roslavl he wandered between the yards, was signed up in streletsky service, but then left this winter "to not permission codes", she will not remember number, she then was sick. Where it now whether there is behind it what theft (it it was told not to speak about the main point) and who his companions whether and in the made it mind, she does not know. "And there was it Tereshka a brazhnik and the drunkard and her mother bivat the" [15, l. 31-32]. In Roslavl it was bit a whip for theft, besides it had epilepsy "and time it and in mind was stirred" [15, l. 41-42].

From Moscow it was told to carry Tereshka to Mozhaisk and there to the decree to hold, and to feed and watch, "that it from hunger or what tool did not make over himself a mortal uboystvo to investigation". However soon it became known that in time

transportation through Dnieper in the village of Pnev in May Tereshka died where he was buried [15, l. 32].

This story, probably, was the echo which is peculiar refracted by unhealthy consciousness of the recent events of 1689 which led to overthrow of the tsarevna Sofya and coming to power of the government of Naryshkin. It is known that this coup was followed by an execution of one of the tsarevna's favourites - Fyodor Shaklovity and the reference of another - the prince Vasily Vasilyevich Guo - a litsyn, declared the main enemies of the new mode. Umopovrezhdeniye quite often appeared in cases of "a household samozvanchestvo". So, the furrier of the Ustyug fifty Mishka Samsonov, the son Kazanets knowing the impostor Timofey Kobylkin showed that last year that "went crazy and was mad many time". However it does not reduce a pokazatelnost of all these stories for an illustration of mentalities of an era as sick consciousness operated with categories and the ideas, typical for the environment.

In what after all the reasons of so mass distribution of a samozvanchestvo during the new period of the Russian history? Developing B.A. Uspensky's thought, P.V. Lukin connects him with a sacralization of throne (examples of impostors of grand dukes are unknown to us). As the royal status in perception of the ordinary Russian of the 17th century was meant by the highest authority, possible on the earth, conceding only God's, from here and constant reference to it in certain diskutivny situations [4, l. 140-141]. However it is impossible to forget also the fact that origin and development of a samozvanchestvo is directly connected with Distemper events. Chronological coincidence of two basic bases of this phenomenon should not force down us: development of sacral ideas of throne and dynastic crisis of a turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. One of them should not cover another.

It is represented that between the described cases of "a household samozvanchestvo" and well-known examples of a samozvanchestvo socio-political it is much bigger the general, than can seem at tough differentiation of the known facts. Certainly, these phenomena - single-root. And a binding factor for them is crisis of perception of the monarchical power. Undoubtedly, influence of a sacralization of the royal status also played a role, but it not a contradiction at all. Here comparison with bozhby occurs: stating sacramental words, offensive in a form, the Christian did not become an atheist at all, and only moved to antiworld space.

D.S. Likhachyov's calculations can push us to understanding of a key part of the problem. He noted that "buntashny" XVII century became literally time of a celebration of the "pitch" world - the world of which the turned sign system is characteristic: "Hunger and nakedness in the 17th century became real for many therefore the inverted world became real, and the real world of wellbeing makes an impression unreal" [16, page 388]. In such sociocultural situation which is followed including some kind of karnavalization (in M.M. Bakhtin's understanding), the name of the ordinary person was the tsar quite justified, "normal" 1. Demonstrate to it, let not numerous, but very indicative episodes of a so-called game in the tsar which participants, whether it be peasants or princes, within clownish action ryaditsya by tsars and court.

Not without reason Piotr I showed such neglect attributes of the old Moscow power (itself being throughout all life the most active participant of the permanent "game in the tsar" represented by a figure of the prince-Caesar F.Yu. Romodanov-sky) is, perhaps, the brightest sign of the designated crisis. And (both in the plan personal, and in state) an event, and not a so certain whim acceptance by it new, let not all and not at once accepted, the emperor's title was absolutely natural.

Also there is no contradiction between a statement about crisis of throne and its known strengthening within the 17th century. If the sacral status of royal official charisma kept the importance in the opinion of Russians of that time (that is confirmed also by use of a royal title in the sacramental purposes), then the hereditary charisma of a new dynasty of Romanov actually was absent at that time and will be created by Peter I. But it is obvious, as the official charisma was considerably reduced Distemper events especially as the heaviest social situation of the XVII century did not give the chance for fast and its complete recovery (see about it is more detailed: [17]). All this (though, perhaps, and not only it) also did possible splash and survivability of a sa-mozvanchestvo, both political, and "household".

Follows from all aforesaid that zvanchestvo was a phenomenon in essence ambivalent, reflecting as the highest sacral nature of throne in the opinion of contemporaries, and washing out of her authority as a result of political and sociocultural features of development of Russia at the end of the 16-17th centuries. Special

1 P.V. Chistov also writes about a samozvanchestvo as manifestation of "inverted world", referring to the English researcher M. Perry [4, page 110].

st of Petrovsky reign not only were not removed we have an opportunity to remove a question about otsuts-

the existing contradiction, but it is considerable tviya of lzhepetr that gives to a phenomenon he is self-appointed -

aggravated it that was also expressed, with one hundred- chestvo more complete and system image. One -

of Rhone, in change of a title of the governor and, with another - in on- to all above - only some bastings

the phenomenon of ideas of a samozvannost most to more complex and detailed issledo-

monarch. At such interpretation of available facts to a problem vaniye.

List of references and sources

1. K.V. Chistov. Russian national social and utopian legends of the XVII-XIX centuries of M., 1967. 339 pages
2. Uspensky B.A. Tsar and impostor: a samozvanchestvo in Russia as a cultural and historical phenomenon//Izbr. tr.: in 3 t. T. 1. M, 1996. Page 142-183.
3. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Russian history. A full course of lectures in 3 books by the Prince 3. M, 1997. 559 pages
4. P.V. Lukin. National ideas of the government in Russia the 17th century of M., 2GGG. 292 pages
5. RGADA. T. 371. Op. 2. Part 4. 1253.
6. In the same place. 128G.
7. In the same place. Stb. 1G61.
8. In the same place. Stb. 1G66.
9. In the same place. Stb. 61G.
1G. In the same place. Stb. 1G98.
11. In the same place. 1271.
12. RGADA. T. 371. Op. 4. Part 2. 1288.
13. RGADA. T. 371. Op. 2. Part 4. Stb. 1G47.
14. In the same place. Stb. 653.
15. RGADA. T. 159. Op. 2. Unit hr. 4G78 and.
16. D.S. Likhachyov. Laughter as outlook//Historical poetics Russian literatures. SPb., 1997. Page 342-4G3.
17. O.N. Mukhin Peter I is tsar-charismatic: change sacral an image the governor in Russia early Modern times//Political

culture in the history of Germany and Russia. Kemerovo, 2GG9. Page 373-385.

O.N. Mukhin, candidate of historical sciences, associate professor, associate professor.

Tomsk state pedagogical university.

Kiyevskaya St., 60, Tomsk, Tomsk region, Russia, 634061.


Material came to edition 31.05.2010.

O. N. Mukhin


Some theoretical and practical aspects of imposture problem in Russia are discussed on the material of 17th - first quarter of 18th century. Among sources there are unpublished archival materials.

of Key words: imposture, czar power, charisma, crisis.

Tomsk State Pedagogical University.

Ul. Kiyevskaya, 60, Tomsk, Tomsk region, Russia, 634061.


Simons Wouter
Other scientific works: