1 The historical background of this first major Muscovite expansion beyond Great Russian ethnic territories has been analyzed by M., Khudiakov, Ocherki po istorii kazanskogo khanstva (Kazan, 1923)Google Scholar; Igor, Smolitsch, “Zur Geschichte der russischen Ostpolitik des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts (Die Eroberung des Kazaner Reiches),” Jahrbucher für Geschichte Osteuropas, VI (1941), 55–84Google Scholar; I. I., Smirnov,” Vostochnaia politika Vasiliia III,” Istoricheskie Zapiski, XXVII (1948), 18-66Google Scholar; Boris, Nolde, La Formation de I'Empire Russe, Vol. I (Paris, 1952)Google Scholar; S. O., Shmidt,” Predposylki i pervye gody ‘Kazanskoi voiny’ (1545- 1549),” Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoriko-arkhivnogo instituta, VI (1954), 187–257Google Scholar; Edward L. Keenan,” Muscovy and Kazan’ 1445-1552 : A Study in Steppe Politics,” doctoral dissertation (Harvard University, 1965). For comprehensive treatment of Russo-Tatar relations in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see also Vel'iaminov-Zernov, V. V., Izsledovanie o Kasimovskikh tsariakh i tsarevichakh, Vol. I (St. Petersburg, 1863)Google Scholar; B., Spuler, Die Goldene Horde (Die Mongolen in Russland : 1223-1502) (Leipzig, 1943)Google Scholar; Grekov, B. D. and Iakubovskii, A. Iu., Zolotaia Orda i ee padenie (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950)Google Scholar; Safargaliev, M. G., Raspad Zolotoi Ordy (Saransk, 1960; “Uchenye Zapiski Mordovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta,” Vypusk XI).Google Scholar

2 The Letopisets was identified as a separate historical work and one of the sources of the Nikon Chronicle by A. A. Shakhmatov, in Obozrenie letopisnykh svodov Rusi severovostochnoi I. A. Tikhomirova (offprint from Otchet o sorokovom prisuzhdenii nagrad grafa Uvarova) (St. Petersburg, 1899), p. 73. For its components, dating, and probable authorship, consult Lavrov, N. F., “Zametki o Nikonovskoi letopisi Letopis’ zaniatii Arkheografxcheskoi komissii (LZAK), Vypusk 1 (34) (Leningrad, 1927), pp. 55–90 Google Scholar; and Zimin, A. A., I. S. Peresvetov i ego sovremenniki (Moscow and Leningrad, 1958), pp. 29–41 Google Scholar. The most recent edition of the text is to be found in Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (PSRL), XXIX (1965), 9-116. The Letopisets was most probably compiled between 1553 and 1555.

3 Lavrov has already suggested that the “Continuations” of the Nikon Chronicle for the years 1553-56 constituted an independent text, the sources of which were the official documents of the Muscovite state archive and the “draft copies” of the “Chronicle of New Years” (p. 89). See also S. O. Shmidt, ed., Opisi tsarskogo arkhiva XVI veka i arkhiva posol'skogo prikaza 1614 goda (Moscow, i960), p. 43. Zimin extended these observations to cover the “Continuations” for the period 1556-58 in the Nikon Chronicle and for the years 1559-60 in the Lvov Codex (I. S. Peresvetov, pp. 29-31). For the text of the “Continuations” in the Nikon Chronicle, see PSRL, XIII, Part 1 (1965; offset reproduction of the 1904 edition), 228-300; in the Lvov Chronicle, PSRL, XX, Part 2 (1914), 538-621.

4 The text of the Tsarstvennaia kniga was published in PSRL, XIII, Part 2 (1965; offset reproduction of the 1906 edition), 409-532. For an analysis and identification of the components of the text, see A. E. Presniakov, Tsarstvennaia kniga, eia sostav i proiskhozhdenie (St. Petersburg, 1893).

5 The Illuminated Chronicle represented an ambitious attempt to connect Russia's history with the universal historical developments of antiquity. Its coverage of Russian history embraced the period from 1114 to 1567. This huge compilation included 16, 000 miniatures which illustrated the historical events of antiquity and of Russia's past. For an analysis of the components and the dating of this remarkable work, compare A. E. Presniakov, “Moskovskaia istoricheskaia entsiklopediia XVI veka,” Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti (IORIaS), V, No. 3 (1900), 824-76, and separate reprint; Likhachev, N. P., Paleograficheskoe znachenie bumazhnikh vodianykh znakov (St. Petersburg, 1899), PP-cliv-clxxxi, 300–15Google Scholar; Podobedova, O. I., Miniatiury russkikh istoricheskikh rukopisei (Moscow, 1965), pp. 102–34.Google Scholar

6 The critical edition of the Kniga stepennaia was published in PSRL, XXI, Part 1 (1908); Part 2 (1913). The first comprehensive textual analysis of this work was provided by P. H. Vasenko, “Kniga stepennaia tsarskogo rodosloviia” i ee znachenie v drevnerusskoi istoricheskoi pis'mennosti, I (St. Petersburg, 1904). For the most recent discussion and literature on this subject, see David Miller, “The Literary Activities of Metropolitan Macarius : A Study of Muscovite Political Ideology in the Time of Ivan IV,” doctoral dissertation (Columbia University, 1967).

7 Russian historiography of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was profoundly influenced by the historical ideas and ideological propositions of the Muscovite chronicles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Russian historians of modern times, by reading these chronicles, were equipped with a ready-made conceptual framework for early Russian history. In particular, the idea of “continuity” from the Kievan state to Muscovy was accepted as a matter of fact. For some astute remarks on this problem see Miliukov, P. N., Glavnyia techeniia russkoi istoricheskoi mysli (3d ed.; Moscow, 1913), p. 177 Google Scholar; and Presniakov, A. E., Obrazovanie velikorusskogo gosudarstva (Ocherki po istorii XIIIXV stoletii) (Petrograd, 1920), pp. 2–3, 7, 19.Google Scholar

8 Muscovite sources quite naturally provide a biased view of Slavic-Tatar relations. This view is predetermined by the propagandistic and ideological nature of the sources. Most regrettably, the lack of comparable sources from the Tatar side prevents us from drawing valid parallels. Thus the very nature of sources in the realm of political thought and historiography makes a polycultural and pluralistic approach very difficult in this type of study.

9 PSRL, XXVII (1962), 288, 359; PSRL, VIII (1859), 217; PSRL, XII (1901/1965), 219

10 Historians have used various legal terms to describe this “protectorate” more precisely. S. M. Solov'ev spoke of “subordination” (Istoriia Rossii s drevneishkikh vremen, III [Moscow, i960], 71; Vol. III of this new Soviet edition comprises the original Vols. V and VI, which first appeared in 1855 and 1856). K. V. Basilevich stated that after 1487 Kazan came under Muscovite “protection” and Muhammad-Amin became a vassal of the Muscovite grand prince (Vneshniaia politika russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva [Vtoraia polovina XV veka] [Moscow, 1952], p. 205). George Vernadsky also described Muhammad-Amin as a “vassal” of Ivan III (Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age [New Haven, 1959], p. 82). The idea of a “protectorate” was even used by Khudiakov (p. 43). J. L. I. Fennell certainly overstated the case for the vassalage theory by asserting that Muhammad-Amin “was as much Ivan's vassal as were the Tatar tsarevichi of Kasimov” (Ivan the Great of Moscow [London, 1961], p. 96). He also follows the propagandistic phraseology of the Muscovite chronicles a bit too closely when he speaks of “treacherous Kazanites.” I. I. Smirnov attempted to buttress the theory of vassalage with a phrase from the Ustiug Chronicle, where the entry for i486 contains the following reference : This year Tsar [Khan] Muhammad-Amin fled from Kazan, from his brother Ali-Khan, and submitted to the Grand Prince. And he called the Grand Prince his father, and he asked him for support against his brother Ali-Khan, the tsar [khan] of Kazan, and the Grand Prince promised him his support” (Ustiuzhskii Letopisnyi Svod [Moscow and Leningrad, 1950], pp. 95-96). From this passage and some questionable evidence to be found in Kazanskaia istoriia, for example, the statement that e Grand Prince installed in Kazan sluzhashchego svoiego tsaria Mukhammed-Emina (PSRL, XIX [1903], 22), Smirnov concluded that “bit'e chelom and recognition of someone as ‘father’ were concepts of Russian feudal law by which vassal dependence was expressed” (Smirnov, “Vostochnaia politika,” p. 18, n.i).

11 Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva (SRIO) XLI (1884), 85, 92, 96, 130, 131, 132, 133.

12 Ibid., p. 83.

13 Ibid., p. 85.

14 The letter of Prince Musa to Ivan III includes the following statement : “Thou art father, brother, and friend of Muhammad-Amin… If thou shouldst order [Musa] to give his daughter in marriage to Muhammad-Amin, he will do accordingly; if thou shouldst him not to, he will not” (SRIO, XLI, 90). A similar phrase is to be found in Nur- Sultan's letter to Ivan III in 1491 (ibid., p. 126).

15 Ioasafovskaia letopis’ (IL), ed. A. A. Zimin (Moscow, 1957), p. 167; PSRL, VIII, 260; PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 25 (” … a Mukhammed-Emin tsar’ da i vsia zemlia Kazanskaia dadut velikomu kniaziu pravdu, kakovu kniaz’ pokhochet, chto im bez velikogo kniazia vedoma na Kazan’ tsaria, ni tsarevicha [nikakova] ne vziat* “).

16 IL, p. 172; PSRL, VIII, 266; PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 28.

17 IL, pp. 176-77; PSRL, VIII, 266; PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 32.

18 Nolde, I, 21.

19 The evidence for any hypothesis on this matter is fragmentary and incomplete. In Shmidt, ed., Opisi tsarskogo arkhiva XVI veka, p. 18, texts of agreements between the Muscovite rulers and Muhammad-Amin, Abdel-Letif, and the “whole Kazan land” are mentioned which pertain to the period before 1516 (“Iashchik 13-i. A v nem gramota shertnaia Magmed'-Amineva tsareva s velikim kniazem Vasil'em o Abdelitefe tsare; i gramota shertnaia vsee zemli Kazanskie. Iashchik 14-i. A v nem gramoty shertnye Magemed'- Aminevy tsarevy i Abdeletifovy tsarevy s velikim kniazem Ivanom i s velikim kniazem Vasil'em—vsekh gramot 11“). Unfortunately, the agreements dealing with the direct relations between Kazan and Muscovy are not available.

20 Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii drevnei Rossii s derzhavami innostrannymi, I (1851), 288-89; SRIO, XXXV (1882), 531, 559; SRIO, LIII (1887), 218; SRIO, XCV (1895), C95-96.

21 SRIO, LIX (1887), 26, 40, 54, 116-17, 179-80, 227, 320-21.

22 SRIO, XXXV, 617, 659.

23 SRIO, LIX, 343; Prodolzhenie Drevnei Rossiiskoi Vivliofiki (PDRV), VIII (1793), 3°9-

24 To the best of my knowledge, the letter of the Muscovite court to Khan Sahib-Girei of the Crimea dated February 1534 has not been published. Excerpts from this important document have been utilized by Solov'ev (III, 418), Khudiakov (p. 94), and Shmidt, “Predposylki,” p. 238), all of whom quoted as their source Dela Krymskie, Book 8, in Tsentral'nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Drevnikh Aktov, fol. 123. There is some divergence between the versions offered by the three authors. All three contain the crucial allegation that Ivan III had conquered Kazan, however, and, because of this, was the rightful sover eign of the khanate. The quotation in Shmidt reads as follows : “A chto esi pisal, nam, chto Kazanskaia zemlia iurt tvoi, to, posmotri v starye letopistsy, kotoryi gosudar pridet rat'iu da vozraet kotorogo gosudaria, da ego svedet, a zemliu ego dast komu vskhochet, ne togo li zemlia budet, khto ee vzial? I ty, Kazani pomogaiushche, molchal esi; tsari kotorye lishas’ svoikh iurtov ordinskikh, prished na Kazanskii iurt, voinami i nepravdami, chto imali, i to ty pamiatucsh; a, chto ded nash kniaz’ velikii Ivan milostiiu Bozhiieiu Kazan’ vzial i tsaria svel s mater'iu i s tsaritseiu i z bratiieiu, togo ty ne pamiatuesh'.“

25 PSRL, XXIX, 64; cf. Khudiakov, p. 129.

26 PSRL, XXIX, 64, PDRV, VIII, 309; PDRV, IX (1793), 120.

27 SRIO, LIX, 103.

28 PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 251; PSRL, XX, Part 2, 556-57. The equivalent wording can be found in Letopisets russkii (Lebedev Chronicle) in the version published in Chteniia v Obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh (ChOIDR), 1895, Book 3, Sec. 1, p. 32. The relevant passage was not included in the most recent edition of the Lebedev Chronicle (PSRL, XXIX, 235).

29 PSRL, XXI, Part 2, 653.

30 The Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Text), ed. S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz- Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 53, 55, 60.

31 PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 250-52; PSRL, XX, Part 2, 555-57.

32 PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 251; PSRL, XX, Part 2, 557.

33 The problem of Vladimir's conquest of the Volga Bulgars represents one of the most complicated issues of the history of old Rus\ The Primary Chronicle, under the entry for the year 985, reports : “Accompanied by his uncle, Dobrynia, Vladimir set out by boat to attack the Bulgars. He also brought Torks overland on horseback, and defeated the Bulgars” (Povest’ vremennykh let, ed. D. S. Likhachev [Moscow and Leningrad, 1950], I, 59). Russian historiography vacillated for a long time over whether this reference was made to the Bulgars on the Volga River or to the Bulgarians on the Danube. For a discussion of the literature on this problem, see ibid., II, 328, and The Russian Primary Chronicle, Notes, p. 244, n. 89. I accept the conclusions of those authors who maintain that the campaign was directed against the Volga Bulgars because Iakov's Pamiat’ i pokhvala kniaziu Vladimiru, a work written relatively close to the event, corroborates their contention. The best critical edition of this text, from a copy dated 1494, was published by Sreznevskii, V. I., ed., “Pamiat* i pokhvala kniaziu Vladimiru i ego zhitie po sp. 1494 g.,” Zapiski Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, Eighth Series, I, No. 6 (1897), 1-12Google Scholar. The relevant passage reads as follows : “And wherever he went, he gained victory; he defeated the Rademichians and the Viatichians and imposed tribute on both of them, and he conquered the Iatviagians and he defeated the Silver Bulgars, and he went against the Khazars and defeated them and imposed tribute on them” (p. 6). Sixteenth-century Russian chronicles helped to clarify this issue by making unmistakable references to the Volga Bulgars. While their compilers did not engage in any outright tampering with the older sources, they apparently were not adverse to setting the historical record straight (PSRL, VII [1856], 295 [“Victory against the Bulgars who are on the Volga River“]; PSRL, IX [1862/1965], 42 [“Vladimir went against the Nizovskie Bulgars“]). Relying on the narrative of the Primary Chronicle, one is justified in concluding that Vladimir failed to exploit his victory in political terms. Vernadsky observes that the campaign of 985 “ended in victory but a rather indecisive one” (Kievan Russia [4th printing; New Haven and London, 1963], p. 60). It is only in the late fifteenth-century chronicles that one finds assertions concerning Vladimir's imposition of tribute on the Bulgars (PSRL, XXVII, 23) or his subjugation of them (PSRL, XXVIII [1963], 17). Of particular importance for our purpose are the references in the Nikon Chronicle to two additional campaigns against the Bulgars, under the entries for 994 and 997, which are not attested in earlier sources (PSRL, IX, 65, 66). Smirnov, A. P. utilized the testimony of the Nikon Chronicle on these campaigns without any critical evaluation (“Ocherki po istorii drevnikh bulgar,” Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia, Vypusk XI [1940], p. 86 Google Scholar; and “Volzhskie Bulgary,” ibid., Vypusk XIX [1951], p. 44). The entry under 997 reads as follows : “Vladimir went against the Volga and Kama Bulgars, and, having defeated them, he conquered them.” A corresponding statement was included in the Kniga stepennaia, which contends that Vladimir “twice waged war against them [the Volga and Kama Bulgars], and he triumphed, and defeated, and conquered them” (PSRL, XXI, Part 1, 116). The Nikon Chronicle credited even the legendary Kii with having attacked and defeated the Volga and Kama Bulgars (PSRL, IX, 4).

34 Published as a supplement to the Second Sophia Chronicle in PSRL, VI (1853), 277.

35 Ibid., pp. 303-15.

36 Ibid., p. 304.

37 PSRL, I (Lavrent'evskaia letopis’) (1962; offset reproduction of the 1926-28 edition), 292; Letopis’ po Ipatskomu Spisku (St. Petersburg, 1871), p. 205. See also Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii, I (i960), 408.

38 PSRL, XVIII (1913), 117-18. See Solov'ev, , Istoriia Rossii, II (160), 282 Google Scholar; Tikhomirov, M. N., Rossiia v XVI stoletii (Moscow, 1962), 21.Google Scholar

39 PSRL, VI, 282; 284-85, 285-86, 289, 296, 297, 299.

40 Ibid., pp. 308-9.

41 Ibid., p. 308.

42 PSRL, XXI, Part 1, 115-16.

43 Vasenko, pp. 213, 217.

44 PSRL, XXI, Part 1, 58.

45 Ibid., p. 63.

46 It is of minor consequence for the purpose of this analysis whether one accepts the traditional dating of the Kazanskaia istoriia (1564-66) originally suggested by Kuntsevich, G. Z., Istoriia o Kazanskom Tsarstve Hi Kazanskii Letopisets (St. Petersburg, 1905), pp. 176–79Google Scholar, and narrowed down to 1564-65 by Moiseeva, G. N., ed., Kazanskaia Istoriia (Moscow and Leningrad, 1954), pp. 20–21 Google Scholar, n. 5, or the recent hypothesis advanced by Edward L. Keenan that version I of this text appeared most probably between 1626 and 1640 (“Muscovy and Kazan’ 1445-1552.” pp. 55-71). For the most reliable edition of the text of Kazanskaia istoriia, see PSRL, XIX (1903).

47 PSRL, XIX, 2. Commentators on this passage compared its contents with the entry in the Nikon Chronicle (or Lebedev Chronicle) under 1555, and Ivan IV's letter to Nogai Mirza Ismail of January 1553 in which the former observed “that the Kazan iurt [was] our iurt from antiquity” (PDRV, IX, 63-64). Cf. Kuntsevich, p. 195; Moiseeva, ed., Kazanskaia Istoriia, p. 177. The author of the passage in question also relied upon ideas and concepts in other works. Significant parallelisms can be detected in the seventh chapter of the first degree of Kniga stepennaia, entitled “The Names of Russian Provinces” (PSRL, XXI, Part 1, 63). This chapter represents an adaptation of the description of the old East Slavic tribes and their neighbors from the Russian Primary Chronicle, p. 55. Speaking of the Cheremissians and the Mordvinians, the author of the chapter asserted that they populated “countries of the Russian tsardom which were ruled over, and [from which] tribute was collected, by the blessed family of the Grand Prince Vladimir Sviatoslavich for generation after generation,” and that their lands were integral parts of “one Russian state.” Another instructive parallelism is to be found in the Russian Chronograph of 1512. In this work a chapter eulogizing the deeds of Vsevolod III Iur'evich of Vladimir (1176-1212) ended with the statement that he “ruled over all the Russian land along the Volga as far as the sea” (PSRL, XXII, Part 1 [1911], 388). For many extensive borrowings from the Russian Chronograph of 1512 by the Kazanskaia istoriia, compare A. S. Orlov, “Khronograf i ‘Povest’ o Kazanskom tsarstve, '” Sbornik Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti AN SSSR, CI, No. 3 (1928), 188-93 (Sbornik statei v chest’ akademika Alekseia Ivanovicha Sobolevskogo). The author of the passage in the Kazanskaia istoriia apparently integrated and adapted ideas from a variety of sources. He was quite certainly indebted to the Kniga stepennaia for the notion of Russian tsardom before Batu and the view of its unitary character. Furthermore, he may have depended on the Russian Chronograph of 1512, or its earlier version, for his own formulation of the additional national argument for the incorporation of Kazan.

48 PSRL, XIX, 12.

49 The story of Sayin Bolgarskii, the founder of the Kazan khanate, is not historical (PSRL, XIX, 10-13; Moiseeva, ed., Kazanskaia Istoriia, pp. 47-48). It is a well-known fact that Sayin was an epithet for Khan Batu : “good” khan or “distinguished” khan (Spuler, pp. 31-32; Kuntsevich, p. 229). The author of the story about Sayin Bolgarskii erroneously considered Batu and Sayin to be two different persons. In another context he stated that “after the death of Tsar Batu… another tsar, by the name of Sayin, began to rule” (PSRL, XIX, 10; Moiseeva, ed., Kazanskaia Istoriia, p. 46).

50 PSRL, XIX, 12.

51 PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 235-36; and XX, Part 2, 545. See also the Lebedev Chronicle on this point (PSRL, XXIX, 225).

52 “Poslanie Mitropolita Makariia v Sviiazhsk k tsarskomu voisku,” Akty istoricheskie (AI), I (1841), No. 159, 287-90 (dated May 25, 1552), or “Poslanie uchitel'no presviashchennogo Makariia Mitropolita vsei Rusii v Sviiazhskii grad,” PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 180-83; PSRL, XXIX, 75-78 (dated May 21, 1552). “Poslanie Mitropolita Makariia Tsariu Ioannu Vasil'evichu o ukreplenii na bran’ s kazanskimi Tatarami,” AI, I, No. 160, 290-96; PSRL, XIII, Part 1, 192-97; PSRL, XXIX, 86-90. “Poslanie ot Mitropolita Makariia velikomu kniaziu,” PSRL, VI, 308-9 (this letter, written in Aug. or Sept. 1552, must have reached Ivan IV before the fall of Kazan on Oct. 2).

53 PSRL, VI, 225-30. Cf. Kudriavtsev, I. M., ‘“Poslanie na Ugru’ Vassiiana Rylo kak pamiatnik publitsistiki XV v.,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, VIII (1951), 182–83Google Scholar. Macarius lacked originality as a writer (Zimin, I. S. Peresvetov, p. 76); from a stylistic point of view Macarius’ letters were much weaker than Vasiian's epistle.

54 PSRL, XXI, Part 2, 638-51.

55 Ibid., p. 639.

56 Ibid., p. 646.

57 For the first identification of the borrowings from the Kniga stepennaia in the Tsarstvennaia kniga, see Presniakov, Tsarstvennaia kniga, eia sostav i proiskhozhdenie, p. 12, n.19.

58 Germogen (ca. 1530—Feb. 17, 1612) rose to ecclesiastical prominence during his service in Kazan. The first reference to his activity can be found under the year 1579, in connccdon with the discovery of the miraculous icon of the Virgin Mary. At that time he was a priest in Kazan. It is quite possible that he entered a monastic order in 1587. Shortly after that he seems to have been appointed abbot, and later archimandrite, of the Spaso- Preobrazhenskii Monastery in Kazan, which had been founded in 1555. After the establishment of the Patriarchate in 1589, Germogen became the metropolitan of Kazan with jurisdiction over the area of the former Astrakhan khanate. He had been very active in proselytizing the local Tatar population. Particularly in the early 1590s, he distinguished himself in missionary work among the newly converted Tatars, who continued to cling to their old religious and national customs. Germogen was in office as metropolitan of Kazan for about seventeen years; he became Patriarch of All Russia, probably in July 1606. For a factual account of Germogen's activities in Kazan, see S., Kedrov, Zhizneopisanie Sv. Germogena, Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rossii (Moscow, 1912), pp. 13–31.Google Scholar

59 The text of the “Tale” is published in Tvoreniia sviateishago Germogena Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rosii (Moscow, 1912), pp. 1-16.

60 A. I. Sobolevskii showed that the 36-page manuscript of the “Tale” was written by several people. One part of the manuscript (pp. 26-36) undoubtedly came from the pen of the Metropolitan, according to Sobolevskii. Another part of the manuscript (pp. 1-25) represents a copy from an older draft which may have been composed by several authors, including Germogen. It is obvious that the latter edited the whole text, since it contains many of his remarks and additions, and for this reason he can be considered the chief author of the “Tale.” For an analysis of the components and the dating of the text, see Sobolevskii's foreword to “Skazanie o chudotvornoi ikonie presviatoi Bogoroditsy (Rukopis’ Sv. Patriarkha Germogena),” ibid., pp. 3-8. On page 21 of the manuscript of the “Tale” Sobolevskii discovered a significant gloss mentioning tsarevichi Ivan Ivanovich and Fedor Ivanovich and a comment in Germogen's hand that Fedor was “now” sovereign and tsar. From this he drew the conclusion that the manuscript had been partially compiled during Ivan IV's lifetime. Ivan IV died on March 18, 1584. The last date mentioned in the manuscript is October 27, 1594. Therefore Sobolevskii dated the manuscript between 1584 and 1595. Since, however, Tsar Ivan's son Ivan Ivanovich is mentioned in the manuscript as, apparently, a living person, it would be more correct to speak of November 1581 as the earliest possible dating for one fragment of the “Tale.“

61 Tvoreniia sviateishago Germogena, pp. 4-5.

62 Kedrov, p. 16.

63 PSRL, XXIX, 59.

64 PSRL, XIII, Part 2, 515.

65 The text of the letter was published by D. P. Golokhvastov and Leonid, “Blagoveshchenskii ierei Sil'vestr i ego pisaniia,” ChOIDR, 1874, Book 1, Sec. 1, pp. 88-100. According to V. Malinin, this letter was written in the early part of March 1553 (Starets Eleazarova monastyria Filofei i ego poslaniia [Kiev, 1901], p. 180). For the most recent analysis of Sil'vestr's sociopolitical ideas, consult Zimin, I. S. Peresvetov, pp. 41-70.

66 Golokhvastov and Leonid, p. 89.

67 Ibid., p. 99.

68 Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekakh i arkhivakh Rossiiskoi imperii Arkheograficheskoiu Ekspeditsiieiu Akademii Nauk, I (1836), No. 241, 257-61; PDRV, V (1789), 241-44. Before the conquest the Muscovite government professed not to be interested in the Christianization of the Kazan Tatars. For example, the diplomatic instruction issued to the Muscovite envoy Vasilii Tretiak-Gubin in June 1521 for negotiations with Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rejected Crimean accusations that the Russians were introducing Orthodoxy in the Kazan khanate, emphasizing that “our Sovereign did not order the mosques destroyed, and he did not order churches built, and no bells were there, and their mosques stand there according to the old custom” (SRIO, XCV, 696).

69 A. N. Grigor'ev, “Khristianizatsiia nerusskikh narodnostei, kak odin iz metodov natsional'no- kolonial'noi politiki tsarizma v Tatarii (S poloviny XVI v. do fevralia 1917 g.),” Materialy po istorii Tatarii, Vypusk I (Kazan, 1948), pp. 226-29. For a conservative ecclesiastical interpretation of Muscovite policies with regard to the Tatar population of the former Kazan khanate, see A. F. Mozharovskii, “Izlozhenie khoda missionerskogo dela po prosveshcheniiu kazanskikh inorodtsev, s 1552 po 1867 god,” ChOIDR, 1880, Book 1.

70 PSRL, XXIX, 50. It appears from an analysis of the ideological justifications for the Kazan conquest that the leadership of the Muscovite clergy influenced to a considerable degree their formulation. From this, however, it does not follow that the Church injected its ideological notions artificially into official Muscovite statements and that the political ideas of influential laymen were overshadowed by considerations of the clergy. Personalities like Macarius and Sil'vestr were not churchmen only. They played a considerable role in Muscovite politics. See Smirnov, I. I., Ocherki politicheskoi istorii russkogo gosudarstva 30-50kh godov XVI veka (Moscow and Leningrad, 1958), pp. 194–202, 231-57Google Scholar. A. A. Zimin expressed somewhat different opinions on the activities and contributions of these ecclesiastics, but he agreed that they were “prominent political figures” (Reformy Ivana Groznogo [Moscow, i960], p. 320). It is justifiable to regard them as leading members of the Muscovite political establishment. When speaking of the attitudes of the Muscovite elite toward Tatars, one should remember that they were not necessarily shared by all segments of Muscovite society. Feodosii Kosoi may have expressed a view held by others as well when he said that “all people are equal before God—the Tatars, the Germans, and other nations” (vsi liudie edino sut’ u Boga, i tatarove, i nemtsy, i prochii iazytsi) (“Poslanie mnogoslovnoe : Sochinenie inoka Zinoviia,” ed. A. Popov, ChOIDR, 1880, Book 2, pp. xv, 143). These words were attributed to him only after his defection to Poland- Lithuania (probably in 1555), where he apparently felt free to voice such radical opinions (Introduction, ibid., p. i).

71 The best evidence is a passage from an interpolation in the Tsarstvennaia kniga : ” … i khristiianskoe Rosiiskoe tsarstvo v'zvelichashesia i besermenskaia zhilishcha izsprazhniakhusia, Kazan’ i Azstarakhan', i bezvernyia iazytsy, Krym i Litva i Nemtsy, strakhovafsus]- khusia, i ne be lukavomu terpeti, iako Khristovo imia proslavliaemo i velichaemo, a skvernaia ego zhilishcha razariaemy…” (PSRL, XIII, Part 2, 522).

72 SRIO, LIX, 437, 452. See also Dmitrieva, R. P., Skazanie o kniaz'iakh Vladimirskikh (Moscow and Leningrad, 1955), p. 144.Google Scholar