In the early 80s of the 16th century, a boy, Ilya, was born in a suburb in Murom. After the death of his stepfather and mother, his uncle took him in. At the age of 16, the boy traded in the market. Afterwards he began a wandering life, working for merchants.

Stopped in Astrakhan. But he was drawn to the Don and Terek. In 1603, Ileika accosted a Cossack army marching towards North Caucasus, fight the Persians and Turks. In the battles of Muromets, his saber was one of the most ardent.

In the summer of 1604, as part of a detachment of Cossacks under the leadership of Afanasy Andreev, he was sent to the North Caucasus. Poor provision and untimely payment of salaries caused grumbling among the Cossacks and discontent with the Moscow boyars. The Cossacks decided to march on Moscow. And since an impostor to the royal throne, False Dmitry, appeared in the southwest, the Terek Cossacks decided why not have a royal heir too.

Society was seething with rumors about a fake tsar sitting in Moscow, robbing the people, and was ready to defend the “real” tsar. Therefore, it was easier to gather people under the banner of the “real king” who had appeared. The Cossacks of Ataman Fyodor Bodyrin spread a rumor that in 1592, Tsarina Irina gave birth to a son, Peter, whom Boris Godunov replaced with a girl. The girl soon died and everyone forgot about her. And Peter was saved good people and hid in a distant monastery.

At the gathering, the Cossacks suggested Ileika Muromets for the role of “prince,” since he had been to Moscow and knew Moscow customs. Ileyka agreed to the Cossacks' proposal.

The impostor promised servicemen and Cossacks local lands and financial support. Soon about 4,000 Cossacks gathered under his banner. At this time, an impostor was killed in Moscow. Peter - Ileika abandons plans to march on Moscow and turns to the steppe. The south of Rus' did not accept Vasily Shuisky as tsar, believing that he was illegally crowned by the boyars. There were rumors that Tsar Dmitry was alive and would soon come to Rus'. The people wanted a “legitimate” king. Therefore, the cities surrendered to the impostor without a fight.

Peter brutally dealt with the governors loyal to Shuisky. Entering the city of Putivl, he tortured the governor and dishonored the daughter of the murdered Prince Bakhteyarov. Here a messenger arrived to him from Ivan Bolotnikov, who at that time was marching towards Kromy with a large army. Bolotnikov suggested that Peter unite and march to Moscow together. Both understood that it was impossible to take Moscow alone.

But Peter was in no hurry to team up with Bolotnikov, as he understood that in this duet he would be assigned a secondary role. He sought relations with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in order to enlist the support of King Sigismund and receive military assistance from him to capture Moscow. But the king was in no hurry to support another impostor. Bolotnikov at that time won one victory after another and marched on Moscow. In 1607, Ileika left Putivl and united with Bolotnikov in Tula. At this time, Shuisky was also preparing for decisive battle. Tula was surrounded by Tsarist Moscow troops. In October 1607, the combined army of Bolotnikov and the impostor Peter, after a difficult siege, was defeated. Bolotnikov and Ileika were captured by the conspirators and handed over to Shuisky. The impostor was “shackled in chains, put on a nag, taken without a hat to Moscow and hanged on the Serpukhov road near the Danilov Monastery.”

Caste structure of Indian medieval society
Caste is a Portuguese word (meaning clan, tribe, origin), is a translation of the word jati, which in India was used to call feudal period and are now called closed groups of people united by the unity of their profession or class status. Originating in ancient times, castes took on strict forms in the Middle Ages. Neither...

Causes of the Great French Revolution. Features of the socio-economic development of France in the 18th century
The state treasury was depleted and burdened with enormous debt, the middle and especially the lower classes were burdened with unaffordable taxes and expressed obvious displeasure with the privileges of the nobility and clergy and the abuses of the administration. Everything pointed to the need for radical reforms. Considering public opinion, Louis XVI...

Analysis of the Russian village after Kiselev’s reforms.
The unrest of state peasants, which intensified in the late 20s and early 30s and was a consequence of their extremely difficult economic situation, on the one hand, and the growth of arrears, which caused a significant reduction in state revenues, on the other, led to the implementation of the reform of state peasants, called by name...

(? - ca. 1608), one of the leaders of the uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov, ataman of the Terek Cossacks. From the townspeople of Murom. In 1605 he was declared “Tsarevich Peter” by the Cossacks, the son of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. In the winter of 1606 he went with a detachment to the Volga, then to Putivl. In 1607 he defeated the tsarist troops near Kaluga and united with Bolotnikov. Executed after the surrender of Tula.

View value Ileyka Muromets in other dictionaries

Ileyka Muromets- (? ca. 1608) - one of the leaders of the uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov, ataman of the Terek Cossacks. From the townspeople of Murom. In 1605 he was declared “Tsarevich Peter” by the Cossacks, the son of Tsar Fyodor........

Ilya Muromets- Russian 4-engine biplane aircraft. Created in 1913. Crew 4-8 people. Used in World War 1 and Civil wars as a bomber (lifted up to 800 kg of bombs) and reconnaissance.........
Large encyclopedic dictionary

Ilya Muromets— Ilya Muromets waterfall on the island. Iturup (Kuril Islands), one of the highest in Russia. Formed on a stream flowing from the north-east. slope of the volcano Ivan the Terrible and breaking down........
Geographical encyclopedia

Ileyka- Muromets (d. 1607 or early 1608) - one of the leaders of the cross. wars 1606-07; comes from the townspeople of Murom. For several years he worked for hire at a trade. people, then became Terek........
Soviet historical encyclopedia

Elagin, Ilya (Ileyka)- impostor in Tula 1607, false Tsarevich Peter (allegedly the son of Tsar Feodor

Ilya Muromets- Reverend Pechersky, nicknamed Chobotok, lived in caves around 1188, † 16
Big biographical encyclopedia

Ilya Muromets-chebotok— - Venerable Pechersk, commemorated December 19, relics rest in Kyiv, in the Anthony Cave. The name of Ilya Muromets, as historical figure, first found in Erich Lyassota,........
Large biographical encyclopedia

WHEN WAS ILEIKA MUROMETS EXECUTED?

(Multiple chronological comparisons)

East. USSR, 1968 No. 4

The fate of Ileika Muromets - the self-proclaimed “Tsarevich Peter” and the largest, after Bolotnikov, figure in the peasant war of 1606-1607 - for some reason did not attract the attention of researchers, who limited themselves to a brief indication in general form that after the fall of Tula on October 10, 1607, Ileika Muromets was sent by Vasily Shuisky to Moscow and then executed. Meanwhile, the sources not only make it possible to establish the time of Ileika’s execution - January 1608, but also make it possible to explain why such slowness lay in the punishment of the government of Vasily Shuisky.

For both Russian and foreign sources containing information about the fate of Ileika, common feature is an indication of the demonstrative, public nature of Ileika’s execution, as opposed to the secret reprisal against Bolotnikov 1.

Of the foreigners, the most detailed description The execution of Ileika is given in his essay “Historical Narrative of the Most Important Troubles in the Russian State” by Elias Gerkman. This description deserves to be given in full: “He was sentenced to hanging, taken out of Moscow and brought to the place where the gallows stood. Many eyewitnesses say that the above-mentioned Pyotr Fedorovich (having ascended the stairs) told the people standing around that he had not committed a crime before His Tsar's Majesty that deserved the death penalty, that his crime was only that he pretended to be the son of Fyodor Ivanovich, that he is in fact his son and is ready to die for this belief;

that his words will be found fair if they order to find out about him on the Don, that for his sins, because he led an ugly life with the Cossacks on the Don, God is punishing him with a shameful death. They hung him on sponges, which could not be tightened tightly, since they were very thick, and the criminal was still alive when the executioner came down. Seeing this, the executioner took a club from a nearby peasant (which he happened to be holding in his hands), climbed onto the gallows again and hit the prince on the skull. He died from this blow." 2.

Gerkman’s story seems to me to be fundamentally reliable. 3 This assessment is supported not only by the author’s direct reference to “many eyewitnesses,” but also, what is much more significant, by a number of details of the execution environment contained in it.

Thus, the indication that Ileika was “brought out of Moscow” for execution corresponds to the testimony of the Karamzin Chronograph that Ileika was executed “under the Danilov Monastery,” located outside the outer ring of walls surrounding Moscow, Zemlyanoy Gorod. The same should be said regarding the reference in Gerkman’s story to the “people” standing around the place of Ileyka’s execution: it is about the execution of Ileyka “before the people” that the Philaret Manuscript speaks. Finally, Gerkman’s message that the hanged Ileika was 1 “Piskarevsky chronicler”. "Materials on the history of the USSR." II, M., 1955, p. 132; “Collection of Mukhanov”, Ed. II, St. Petersburg, 1866, p. 276; A. P about p about v. Collection of Slavic and Russian works and articles included in the chronographs of the Russian edition, M., 1869, p. 338; I. I. Smirnov.

2 “Tales of Massa and Herkman about the Time of Troubles in Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1874, p. 301.

3 For a general assessment of Herkman’s work, published in Amsterdam in 1625, see my book “Bolotnikov’s Rebellion,” M., 1951, pp. 465-466.

the executioner’s beating with a blow of a club to the skull completely coincides with a similar story contained in the notes of Stanislav Nemoevsky, that Ileika “was taken to the square and killed with a blow of a club to the forehead” 4.

The situation is somewhat more complicated with the question of the degree of reliability of Herkman’s story in the part where it talks about Ileika’s speech to the people before the execution and sets out the content of this speech. This question is closely related to a more general question: what goals did the Shuisky government pursue with the execution of Ileika?

The public and demonstrative nature of the execution of Ileika in Moscow (as opposed to the secret killing of Bolotnikov in distant Kargopol) was intended to influence the people by this act, being the final link of the political campaign that the Shuisky government launched from the very moment after the fall of Tula on October 10, 1607 . Ileika and Bolotnikov were in his hands, and which consisted of spreading all kinds of slander and provocations against the leaders and leaders of the rebellious peasants.

The most important moment in this campaign was the distribution of royal letters throughout the cities about the capture of Tula, in which the “Tula prisoners”, led by Bolotnikov, were portrayed as repentant criminals who “finished off” Tsar Vasily and handed over Ileika Muromets to him.

This version of the royal letters, which distorted the actual circumstances of the fall of Tula, was intended to denigrate the participants in the uprising and its leaders and at the same time hide from the masses the treachery of Vasily Shuisky, who violated the “kiss of the cross” and the solemn promise to the “Tula prisoners” of an unhindered exit from besieged Tula and a pardon for all participants and leaders of the uprising 5.

In reality, Bolotnikov, even in chains, remained a captive, but not a broken leader of the peasant war. And Bolotnikov’s last words, preserved by a contemporary eyewitness, were menacing words addressed to his enemies - the “boyars”, that he would still put them in chains “and sew them up in bearskins” 6.

Things were somewhat different with Ileika Muromets. Apparently, Shuisky managed to get the peasant “prince” to confess to being an impostor, and this trump card, which ended up in the hands of Shuisky’s government, was immediately used by him in the political game, first in the form of a public statement by Ileika “before the sovereign’s boyars and before the whole earth” 7 , and then by distributing letters with the text of this statement to cities.

The text of Ileika’s statement, although defective 8, has been preserved (in the presentation of the royal letter), which makes it possible to get an idea of ​​its character and content. This is Ileika’s detailed autobiography, written down with the accuracy inherent in official paperwork, preserving the color of live speech, and brought to the point of the arrival of Ileika’s detachment in Tula in the spring of 1607.

4 A. N i g s with h b e r g. Pamietnik Stanislava Niemojewskiego, Lviv, 1899, p. 235. Russian translation For Nemoevsky's notes, see the publication: A. A. T i t o v. Slavic and Russian manuscripts belonging to I. A. Vakhromeev, vol.

5 6, M., 1907, p. 218. Further references are given to the Polish edition, with simultaneous indication of pages of the Russian translation. Detailed analysis

For all the data contained in the sources about the circumstances of the fall of Tula, see I. I. Smirnov. "Bolotnikov's Rebellion", pp. 468-492.

6 A. N i g s with h b e r g. Polska a Moskwa w Pierwszej Polowine Wiekze, Lviv, 901. p. 128. For Russian translation, see “The Uprising of I. Bolotnikov. Documents and materials”, M., 1959, p. 175. Further references are given to the Polish edition with simultaneous indication of pages of the Russian translation.

7 “Archive of P. M. Stroev”, vol. II, RIB, vol. XXXV, St. Petersburg, 1917, no. 69. AAE, vol. II, no. 81.

8 In the column with the text of Ileika’s statement, one of the compositions is missing: the third from the beginning.

This public recognition by Ileika of her imposture was the political goal pursued by the Shuisky government by organizing Ileika’s speech “before the sovereign boyars” and before “the whole earth,” i.e., before some broad meeting consisting not only of the boyar Duma, but from the representatives of “the whole earth” - a term denoting in modern (17th century) sources the Zemsky Sobor, or representative bodies equivalent to the cathedral.

From the introductory part of the letter with the text of Ileika’s speeches, it follows that Ileika’s statement was made at the very moment of the fall of Tula: “On the 116th, October on the 10th day, as the sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia, the city of Tula and who thieves sat on Tula, Ileika Muromets, who was called the thieves' intent of the blessed memory of the sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Fedor Ivanovich of All Russia, the son of Tsarevich Peter, and Ivashko Bolotnikov, and the Cossacks of the Don and Volsky, and Terek, and Cherkasy, and all sorts of many people from different cities, and Tula residents, townspeople people, - they finished off the sovereign, and their chief, the thief Ileika Muromets, said to himself before the sovereign’s boyars and before the whole earth” 10.

This determination of the time of Ileika’s speech is confirmed by the way Ileika speaks about Tula in her speeches: “and Nagiba de and Nametka now sat here on Tula”; “We came to them with a letter and they call Putimlya Goryain, he’s saddled in Tula now.” Thus, Tula is directly implied (“here”) as the location of Ileika at the moment of uttering the speech, while this moment is defined (by the use of the form “now”) as immediately following the “sitting” in Tula.

Since V. Shuisky’s letter to Perm dated October 13, 1607 (marked “written in Tula”) already states that “the thief Ileika was sent to Moscow so that all the people of our states would be aware of such thieving intent” 11, obviously , Ileika’s statement dates back to October 10-12, 1607. Determining the place and time of Ileika’s statement allows us to concretize the formula about the “sovereign boyars” and “the whole land” to whom Ileika spoke.

A letter with the text of Ileika’s speeches came to us in the form of an attachment to a letter from V. Shuisky in Solvychegodsk dated October 19 about the fall of Tula 13. This allows us to conclude that Ileika’s speeches were sent to cities simultaneously with letters about the fall of Tula as a kind of annex to them.

9 “Archive of P. M. Stroev”, vol. II, no. 69.

11 SGD, part II, No. 154.

12 S. A. B e l o k u r o v. Bit records for Time of Troubles, M.. 1907. pp. 87-88.

13 See AAE, vol. II, no. 81 and “Stroev Archive,” vol. II, no. 69. Legend. (Currently stored in the LOII archives).

However, a more detailed examination of the letter of October 19 in Solvychegodsk and the letter containing Ileika’s speeches shows that there is no connection between them, and each of the two acts is completely independent and independent of the other. The attachment of Ileika’s speeches to the letter of October 19 is later and secondary and was carried out not in Moscow, when the letter of October 19 was sent to Solvychegodsk, but already in Solvychegodsk.

This is proven, first of all, paleographically. The certificate of October 19, to which Ileika’s speeches are pasted, is not the original, but a list, which is directly noted in its text (“List of the sovereign’s letters,” “And on the back of the letter there is a signature on the fold,” etc.). On the contrary, the letter with Ileika’s speeches is an authentic document sent from Moscow and received in Solvychegodsk, as follows from the note on the back at the top of the letter: “116, December on the 11th day she came with the third Cossack Eutycheik Khlebnik” 14. The handwritings are also different letters and filigree.

The fact that the letter with Ileika’s speeches “came” to Solvychegodsk on December 11, 1607 15 can serve as a second proof that it is unrelated to the letter of October 19. The fact is that from the notes on the letters it is clear that the delivery of letters from Moscow to Solvychegodsk took from two to three weeks 16. Therefore, the letter dated October 19 arrived in Solvychegodsk no later than the beginning of November 1607. And most likely, given the importance of its contents , even at the end of October. And certainly not in December. In other words, the letter of October 19 was received in Solvychegodsk long before the letter with Ileika’s speeches and independently of it.

This conclusion is supported by an appeal to the collection of the State Public Library under the code (Q.IV.17, known since the time of Karamzin. According to the description of E. N. Kusheva, who specially studied this collection, “the contents of the collection consist of several literary works of the Time of Troubles and a number of letters from the time Tsars Feodor, Boris, 1st impostor. Vasily Shuisky, interregnum and Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich (from 1592 to 1616), located in chronological order and addressed in most cases to Sol Vychegda or having notes at the end about their delivery to Sol Vychegda" 17. E. N. Kusheva paints the history of compiling the collection as follows: "The collection began to be compiled in 1605 in Sol Vychegda in the house of the Stroganovs and scribes their offices, among which one can name Zhdan Voronin. In 1606 and 1707, continuing to be replenished with letters, literary works, it also received some expansion at the front, consisting of the message of Patriarch Job in 1592 and several articles in 1598. In the years 1608-1609, work on it was temporarily stopped. It resumed in 1610, when letters from 1613 began to be included in the collection again.

14 “Stroev Archive”, vol. II, no. 69.

15 Although in the surviving part of the letter with Ileika’s speeches there is no mention of Solvychegodsk, the fact that this letter, like the letter dated October 19, was addressed to Solvychegodsk, is beyond doubt and is proven by the fact that it was attached to the letter addressed to Solvychegodsk (letter dated October 19), and the fact that both of these letters were found by P. M. Stroev “in the remains of the cathedral archive in Sol-Vychegodsk” (see AAE, vol. II, no. 81. Legend).

16 See AAE, vol. II, no. 36; No. 38, 1 No. 73, 74; see also No. 57, 58, 59. Tsar's letters from Moscow were delivered to Solvychegodsk in 11-12 days. Metropolitan letters from Rostov - in 13-22 days. The only example of longer delivery times for letters to Solvychegodsk is the letter of Patriarch Job dated January 14, 1605, received in Solvychegodsk only on March 3, 1605. But this letter was not brought, as usual, but “the Totom coachman brought the letter to the Vvedenskaya Monastery” ( AAE, vol. II, no. 28).

17 E. N. Kusheva a. From the history of journalism of the Time of Troubles, Saratov, 1926, p.33.

Even before 1624, the collection had already received its own real look, at the end the letters of the Stroganovs of 1613-1616 were attributed, a table of contents was added to the front, and a number of articles were included in the collection of the old composition, which caused the replacement of the old cinnabar numbering with a new one, written in ink”18. Among the letters in the collection there is also a letter dated October 19, 1607, but without the text of Ileika’s speeches. Moreover, the part of the collection containing the charters of 1606-1607 ends with the letter dated October 19, 1607. Further documents in the collection date back to 1610-1613. The charter with the text of Ileika’s speeches is completely absent from the collection 19. This is a circumstance, in light of the observations of E. N. Kusheva, that the charters in the collection were copied by the Stroganov scribes “directly from the originals,” and “gradually, as they were received,” 20, says that the letter of October 19 was copied into the Stroganov collection even before the letter with Ileika’s speeches was received in Solvychegodsk. The latter did not make it into the collection, since work on it was interrupted until 1610 after copying the letter dated October 19. 21

So, the letter with Ileika’s speeches is completely independent and independent of the letter of October 19, 22.

These are the conclusions that a paleographic and textual study of the letter in Solvychegodek of October 19 and the letter with Ileika’s speeches leads to.

These conclusions can be made even more definite if we turn to a comparison of the letters under consideration in terms of their content. The opportunity for such a comparison is provided by the fact that both the letter to Solvychegodek dated October 19 and the introductory part of the letter from Ileika’s speech set out the circumstances of the fall of Tula. The comparison leads to an unexpected conclusion. It turns out that there are significant differences in the depiction of the circumstances of the fall of Tula in the letter in Solvychegodek dated October 19 and in the letter with Ileika’s speeches.

As for the letter of October 19, it reproduces the official version of the government of V. Shuisky about the repentance of the “Tula inmates” and their extradition of Tsarevich Peter Ileika to Shuisky. In accordance with this, the circumstances of the fall of Tula are depicted as follows: “The Tula prisoners, having learned their guilt, finished off our great sovereign with their foreheads and kissed the cross for us, and Grigoriev’s man Elagin Ileika, who called himself the thief Petrushka, was sent to us” 23. This formula is textually identical with the formula in a letter dated October 13, 1607 to Perm, as well as in a letter to Astrakhan (preserved - in presentation - in the Nogai affairs of the Ambassadorial Prikaz) 24.

18 Ibid., pp. 36-37.

19 Description of the collection Q.IV.17. see E. N. Kusheva. Decree. cit., pp. 23-33.

20 Ibid., pp. 33, 38.

21 The following can be added to E.N. Kusheva’s observations on the collection Q.IV.17. A comparison of the text of the charter in Solvychegodsk dated October 19 in the Stroganov collection and in the list found by Stroev in the archives of the Solvychegodsk Cathedral Church reveals in the latter list a number of omissions in the text (“and we, the great sovereign, thanking God for such greatness about the heart of God"; "Trinity to the Glorious God and His Most Pure Mother of God". ). It follows from this that the copy for the Stroganovs was made from a text that had no marked omissions, that is, not from the list found by Stroev, but from the original.

22 V. Shuisky’s charter to Perm dated October 18, 1607, identical in content to the charter to Solvychegodsk dated October 19, also does not have an appendix in the form of Ileika’s speeches (SGGD., Part II, No. 154). At the same time, unlike the letter to Solvychegodek dated October 19, which has come down to us in copies, the letter to Perm has been preserved in the original.

23 “Archive of P. M. Stroev”, vol. II, no. 69.

24 SGD, part II, No. 154; A. M. Gnevushev. Acts of the reign of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, M., 1914, pp. 171-172.

Turning to the version of the letter with Ileika’s speeches, reproduced above, it is not difficult to see that it lacks the very basis of the version of the Solvychegodsk, Perm and Astrakhan letters - the moment of contrasting Ileika with the rest of the “Tula Prisoners” and handing over Ileika to V. Shuisky. On the contrary, in the document with Ileika’s speeches, all the Tula prisoners, led by Ileika, are depicted as having finished off with their brows, while Ileika is called the “chief” of the rebels. The difference in versions about Tula in the documents under consideration becomes especially clear when comparing the list of those who finished off their lives. In the Solvychegodsk charter it opens with the names of princes Telyatevsky and Shakhovsky, after whom Bolotnikov is named. In the letter with the speeches of Ileika Telyatevsky and Shakhovskaya are completely absent and only Ileika Muromets, who opens the list, and Bolotnikov are named by name. Finally, Ileika himself is called differently in the Solvychegodsk charter and in the charter with speeches: in the first - simply Ileika, in the second - with the addition of “Muromets”.

So, the letter with Ileika’s speeches contains a completely different version, compared to the Solvychegodsk (and Perm and Astrakhan) letter, about the circumstances of the fall of Tula. This not only reinforces the conclusions obtained above about the independence and independence of the letter with Ileika’s speeches from the letter to Solvychegodsk dated October 19, but also generally excludes the possibility of simultaneous sending of these letters, as containing mutually exclusive versions on the issue of Ileika and his behavior at the time of the fall of Tula. Moreover, both differences in the versions contained in the letters are of a political nature, which excludes the possibility of talking about the accident of these differences. But it follows from this that the version about the circumstances of the fall of Tula, which was created by Shuisky’s government at the very moment of the fall of Tula, at some stage in the development of events ceased to satisfy Shuisky and was replaced by a new version, reflected in the letter with Ileika’s speeches.

Time of appearance of this new version determined by a mark on the back of the certificate with Ileika’s speeches. Using the above data on the number of days required for the delivery of letters from Moscow to Solvychegodsk, it is not difficult to calculate that the time of sending from Moscow the letter with Ileika’s speeches (received in Solvychegodsk on December 11) falls on the 20th of November, most likely even at the end of November .

It follows that in the second half of November, Shuisky’s government again returns to the moment of the fall of Tula, but now gives this event a slightly different coverage. The new coverage of the circumstances of the fall of Tula in the letter with Ileika’s speeches is in direct connection with the main nature of this document, which pursued the goal of drawing attention to Ileika Muromets. Its main content consisted of Ileika’s speeches admitting his imposture. (The circumstances of the fall of Tula are discussed in the introduction to the letter, which explains the origin of Ileika’s speeches.)

In the letter with Ileika’s speeches, traces of the work on its compilation are very clearly visible. The speeches themselves in the letter, as stated above, undoubtedly reproduce the recording of Ileika’s actual speeches, made back in Tula, at the time of his captivity.

The introductory part of the letter, on the contrary, was compiled later, already at the time of distribution of Ileika’s speeches. This is evident not only from its content (the version of the fall of Tula, different from the version of the October charters), but also from the different, compared to the October charters, form of indicating the date of the fall of Tula. While in the charters about the fall of Tula the date of its fall is indicated without a year, simply “on the 10th day of October” - which is quite natural for a document drawn up at the very moment of the fall of the city - in the charter with Ileika’s speeches the date of the fall of Tula is named already with a year : “On the 116th of October on the 10th day,” - the form of designation is again natural for the document, the time is

the setting of which is already separated by some interval from the time of the fall of Tula. When considering the letter with Ileika’s speeches, it is even more important to clarify its general

, establishing what this literacy is as a whole.

On all the folds of the column with Ileika’s speeches there are traces of longitudinal and transverse folds, indicating that the column was folded in a package a third of the length of the fold. After that, on the fold, across the text, was written an address, probably the same as on the letter in Solvychegodsk dated October 19, about which the list of this letter says: “And on the back of the letter on the fold is the signature: To Solya Vychegodskaya Sharap Semenovich Yakushkin "

Unfortunately, the address was not preserved in the letter with Ileika’s speeches. Obviously, it was written precisely on that stav (the third from the beginning) that was lost 25. The presence of folds on the column, which are traces of the fact that the letter with Ileika’s speeches was folded into a bag, indicates that she had such an address in In accordance with it, she was sent from Moscow to Solvychegodsk, where she “arrived” on December 11, 1607.

The appearance of the letter with Ileika’s speeches leads to the conclusion that what we have before us, strictly speaking, is not a document, not a letter, in the proper sense of the word, but a kind of proclamation, a leaflet, aimed at bringing to the attention of the population the content of Ileika’s speeches and for this was sent to 26 cities.

25 The likelihood that the address fell on this particular compound is confirmed by testing in practice the folding and packing of a “column” of 5 compounds. According to the following scheme: first, the fifth, short line is folded inwards with the text, then successively the first, second, third and, finally, the fourth line. After this, the column folded along the folds is folded in three again - with the fourth fold inward, and then bent along, and the address is written along the fold line on the reverse side of the third fold, across the text.

A visual representation of this kind of packaging is given by a letter to Perm dated October 13, 1607, preserved in the original. The Perm charter is written on a column of two lines. On both joints there are traces of bending: two transverse folds and one longitudinal. The address is written on the back of the first post, on the longitudinal fold line, across the text: “To Perm Grand Duke

26 An example of this kind of use by the Shuisky government of authentic documents for the purposes of political propaganda is the “Izvet of Varlaam”, the basis of the text of which is the actual “Izvet”, i.e. Varlaam’s statement regarding the identity of the first Pretender. (See E. N. Kusheva. Op. cit., pp. 53-58; I. A. Golubtsov, “Treason” of Smolnyans under B. Godunov and “famous” Varlaam.

What explains this course of political propaganda? Why did Shuisky’s government, at the end of November 1607, need to send out the text of Ileika’s speeches throughout the cities and in this way again draw attention to the figure of the peasant “prince” who was in a Moscow prison? The explanation for this should be sought in the political situation of that time.

It was precisely at this time - November-December 1607 - that the first stage of the armed struggle between False Dmitry II and Vasily Shuisky fell, a struggle in which False Dmitry II relied not only on the detachments of the Polish gentry, which formed the main core of his army, but also on the Cossack detachments . The social demagogy of False Dmitry II, which he especially widely used as a weapon in the fight against Shuisky, also attracted the lower social classes to him - peasants, serfs, including participants in the Bolotnikov uprising 27.

At the end of 1607, the focus of the struggle between False Dmitry II and Vasily Shuisky was the city of Bryansk. Military operations near Bryansk covered a period of almost two months - from November 9, 1607, when False Dmitry II approached Bryansk with an army and began the siege of the city, and until January 6, 1608, when he arrived in Orel for the winter, and never taking Bryansk 28.

Among the evidence from sources about the events near Bryansk, of particular interest in terms of the issue under consideration is the message of the New Chronicler about the Cossacks bringing a new impostor Fedka to Bryansk: “The Cossacks came to Voru and brought with them a thief, who called himself Tsarevich Feodor, Tsar Feodor Ivanovich’s son, and to him like a nephew. Bryansk is especially subject to oppression” 29. This news is confirmed and specified by a Polish source - a letter from near Bryansk dated November 30th. With. 1607 from Pan Stanislav Kurovsky to Pan Raskovsky. Kurovsky in his letter, firstly, names the new prince: Fyodor Fedorovich (and admits inaccuracy in designating the degree of relationship between “Tsarevich Fyodor” and “Tsar Dmitry”, calling him not “nephew”, as he should, but “Dmitry’s cousin”); secondly, he reports that Fyodor Fedorovich “recently was at war” and “came with 3,000 Cossacks”; finally, thirdly, which is especially important, he characterizes the position occupied by Tsarevich Fyodor in the camp of False Dmitry II, indicating that “he and his people are under the command of our king and serve him like some boyar’s son, but he is under the king is held in great esteem" 30.

So, Ileika, who was in Moscow and captured by Vasily Shuisky, i.e. “Tsarevich Pyotr Fedorovich,” suddenly had a “brother” (obviously “junior”) Fedor Fedorovich near Bryansk. This is the circumstance

nal notes of the Institute of History RANION", vol. V, M., 1928). At the same time, one can think that at first “Izvet Varlaam” was distributed as such, and then was included in the text of “Another Legend” (where it was interpolated).

In any case, of the four surviving lists of “Izvet”, the most original form is the list where “Izvet” is located separately, independently of the “Other Legend” (Manager of the department of BAN, 34.8.25, pp. 522-524 vol.).

27 According to the calculations of I. S. Shepelev, “near Bryansk the number of military forces of the impostor was estimated at more than 22 thousand people; of them, approximately 12 thousand Poles and Lithuanians, 2-3 thousand Sevryuk peasants, slaves and small service people and 8 thousand Zaporozhye and Don Cossacks" (S. I. Shepelev. Liberation and class struggle in Russian state in 1608-1610, Pyatigorsk, 1957, p. 52). True, I. S. Shepelev allows “to consider the arrival of eight thousand Cossacks with Zarutsky near Bryansk controversial,” since, while Pyasetsky and Widekind attribute the arrival of Zarutsky to False Dmitry II to the time of his stay near Bryansk, Markhotsky pushes back the arrival of Zarutsky already to the time stay of False Dmitry II in Orel (Ibid., p. 52). But the presence of Cossacks near False Dmitry II near Bryansk, regardless of one or another solution to the issue of Zarutsky’s detachment, is indisputably evidenced by a letter from Stanislav Kurovsky (see below).

28 I. S. Shepelev. Decree. cit., pp. 50-54.

23 PSRL, vol. XIV, p. 77.

This created a very delicate situation. In particular, the appearance of “Tsarevich Fyodor” in the political arena greatly complicated the issue of reprisal against Ileika for the Shuisky government. For in such conditions, the execution of Ileika, that is, “Tsarevich Peter,” could only raise, so to speak, the dynastic weight of “Tsarevich Fyodor”, who already occupied high position in the camp of False Dmitry II.

In this regard, the following circumstance cannot but strike the eye. The appearance of Tsarevich Fyodor Fyodorovich near Bryansk almost coincides with the distribution of letters with Ileika’s speeches throughout the cities. At the same time, there is reason to believe that the appearance of Fyodor Fedorovich near Bryansk (dated by Kurovsky’s letter before November 20, Art. Art.) preceded in time the distribution of letters with Ileika’s speeches (dated by a note on the Solvychegodsk letter with his speeches at the end of November - after November 20) 31 .

This correlation allows us to connect these two events and essentially see in the distribution of Ileika’s speeches with the recognition of his imposture an event aimed not only at discrediting “Peter Fedorovich” himself, but also his Bryansk “brother”, who is much more dangerous in this moment for the Shuisky government than the one in Ileika prison.

However, the situation associated with the appearance of “Tsarevich Fyodor Fedorovich” disappeared as suddenly as it unexpectedly arose: “The same Thief who called himself Tsarevich Dmitry, that thief Fedka, whom the Cossacks brought from the Don, killed near Bryansk to death” 32. This testimony of the New Chronicler does not raise doubts about its reliability, although Polish sources are silent about the fate of “Tsarevich Fyodor Fedorovich.”

The position of False Dmitry II towards the self-proclaimed “princes” was sharply hostile. In the famous letter of False Dmitry II dated April 24, 1608, he, citing a long list of self-proclaimed princes (including “Peter Tsarevich” and “Tsarevich Fyodor”), ordered “to find those thieves who are called princes, and having found them, he ordered to beat them with a whip ;

The tragic end of the “Tsarevich” Fyodor Fedorovich indicates that the honor and high position in the camp of False Dmitry II of the “other Tsarevich,” as Stanislav Kurovsky calls Fyodor Fedorovich in his letter, were purely external and ephemeral and represented only a disguise of the real position of False Dmitry P. At the same time, one should also take into account the interest of False Dmitry II at first in the possibility of using the three thousand-strong detachment of Cossacks of “Tsarevich” Fyodor, which False Dmitry II especially needed at the beginning of the siege of Bryansk.

31 Between the arrival of Fyodor Fedorovich near Bryansk and the dispatch of letters with Ileika’s speeches, there is a time interval of about a week or 10 days, sufficient for the Shuisky government to know (from the reports of the governor) about the arrival of “Tsarevich” Fyodor near Bryansk, However, about the “Tsarevich” “Fyodor Fedorovich could have known Shuisky’s government even before his arrival near Bryansk: he came there from the Don and had previously participated in the war.

32 PSRL, vol. XIV, p. 77.

33 D. Buturlin. History of the Time of Troubles, part II, St. Petersburg, 1841, Appendix, p. 58.

34 PSRL, vol. XIV, p. 89.

ka, when the forces of the second Impostor were still very small. However, as detachments of the Polish gentry joined the army of False Dmitry II near Bryansk and he became stronger militarily, the preconditions were created that allowed False Dmitry II to drop his mask in relations with Fedor and deal with him, eliminating him from the road as a potential rival in struggle for the Moscow throne.

There is no way to more accurately date the murder of “Tsarevich” Fyodor Fedorovich 35. In any case, this happened near Bryansk before False Dmitry II moved to Orel. The reprisal of False Dmitry II against the “Tsarevich” Fyodor Fedorovich had a decisive impact on the position of Ileika. After False Dmitry II executed the self-proclaimed “Tsarevich Fyodor” (as False Dmitry II obviously depicted his reprisal against “Tsarevich Fyodor Fedorovich”), any delay in Ileika’s execution would mean that Tsar Vasily does not dare to do what he so decisively carried out “ Tsar Dmitry,” and thereby undermined the prestige of Vasily Shuisky.

This predetermined future fate Ileiki.

The time of Ileika’s execution is established by an entry in the diary of Stanislav Nemoevsky dated February 9. Art. 1608: “On the 9th day of February, a townsman arrived from Moscow. Our people learned from him through the archer that Petrashko had been executed these days.”36 From this entry it follows that “Petrashko”, i.e. Ileika, was executed shortly before the departure of the townsman from Moscow to Beloozero, from whom Nemoevsky and other Poles who were in exile on Beloozero learned about Ileika’s execution. At the same time, the nature of the entry, the nature of the news, and finally, the reference to the fact that the Poles learned about the news brought by the townsman through the archer - all this makes it most likely that the day the townsman arrived at Beloozero is either February 9 or one of the closest days to it is 37.

Thus, to establish the day of Ileika’s execution, it is necessary to determine the duration of the trip of a townsman from Moscow to Beloozero, and then, taking the date February 9 as the starting point for counting, subtract from it the days spent traveling from Moscow to Beloozero, plus a certain number of additional days .

To solve the problem of how many days a townsman spent traveling from Moscow to Beloozero, you can first of all use the above materials about the timing of delivery of letters to Solvychegodsk. The basis for this use is that, as follows from the 17th-century “Poverty Book,” the route from Moscow to Beloozero for the most part (to Vologda) coincided with the route to Solvychegodsk. If we take into account that, according to the Poverty Book, the distance from Moscow to Beloozero (540 versts) was almost exactly half the distance from Moscow to Solvychegodsk (1060 versts) 38, then, obviously, time is different.

85 The fact that the New Chronicle says about the murder of “Tsarevich Fyodor” immediately after the report of his arrival near Bryansk cannot serve as a dating moment, but is an expression of the literary style of this source, the desire to exhaust in one place the entire plot about “Tsarevich Fedka ", to which this chapter of the New Chronicler is dedicated.

36 A. N i g s with h b e r g. Pamietnik S. Niemojewsliego, p. 234 (Russian translation, p. 218).

37 On the nature of the entries in Nemoevsky’s diary, see I. I. Smirnov. "Bolotnikov's Rebellion", pp. 475-476.

The history of the text of Nemoevsky's diary is outlined by A. Grishberg in the introduction to his edition of S. Nemoevsky's notes. 38 V. A. Petrov. Geographical reference books of the 17th century. " Historical archive

", vol. V, M.-L., 1950, pp. 106, 111. Here is also a map of roads of the 17th century, compiled by V. A. Petrov according to the data of the "Purpose Book". The data from the Poverty Book on the distance between cities is contemporary with the events under consideration. The main source of the “Povernaya Kniga” is the “Pogonnaya Kniga” 114, i.e. 1606.

the trip to Beloozero was half the time of the trip to Solvychegodsk.

Conventionally, I assume that the “posad man” spent 12 days 39 on the road from Moscow to Beloozero. This gives the date of departure of the “posad man” from Moscow (February 9 minus 12 days) - January 28 A.D. Art., i.e. January 18 according to the Moscow calendar. Considering that, according to the “posad man,” Ileika’s execution took place “the other day,” i.e., shortly before his departure, several days should be subtracted from the date of January 18—conditionally, three days. Finally, from the date obtained as a result of this - January 15 - a certain number of days should be excluded - conditionally also three days - admitting that Nemoevsky could have made a record of the arrival of the “posad man” to Beloozero not on the very day of this event.

As a result of all these calculations, we receive the probable date of Ileika’s execution as January 12, 1608.

Correlating this date with the events of hostilities between False Dmitry II and Shuisky, one should come to the conclusion that by this time the Shuisky government already knew both about the departure of False Dmitry II from Bryansk, and about the reprisal of False Dmitry II against the “prince” that preceded this departure. Fedor Fedorovich 40.

The Shuisky government portrayed the outcome of the struggle near Bryansk as a defeat for False Dmitry II and its own victory. 41 Indeed, near Bryansk False Dmitry II suffered a setback. However, both the degree of defeat of False Dmitry II and the scale of the victory of governor Shuisky were clearly and deliberately exaggerated by Shuisky in order to politically influence the masses. Nevertheless, with the departure of False Dmitry II from Bryansk to Oryol, the situation in the country undoubtedly changed in favor of Shuisky compared to the time of the battles near Bryansk.

40 False Dmitry II arrived in Orel on January 6, Art. Art. 1608 (RIB, vol. I, stb. 130). Considering that the distance from Bryansk to Orel was 140 versts (Historical Archive, vol. V, p. 137), this transition of an entire army should have taken at least 4 days. In other words, False Dmitry II left Bryansk on January 2-3. Since it is 370 versts from Moscow to Bryansk (“Historical Archives”, vol. V, p. 137), a messenger from the governor with the news of the victory at Bryansk, traveling at maximum speed, should have reached Moscow in 5-6 days ( compare the speed of Jenkinson’s travel, covering the distance from Vologda to Moscow - 420 versts according to the “Poverstnaya Kniga” (“Historical Archive”, vol. V, p. 106), in 6 days), i.e. no later than January 7-8 1608

41 “Near Bryansk, thieves were beaten. And Tsar Vasily Ivanovich sent the boyar and governor to Bryansk, Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Kashin, and to Ondrei Nikitin, son of Rzhevsky, for his service with gold.” (S. A. B elokurov. “Bit records”, p. 46).

42 Information about the time of Ileika’s execution is also contained in Diamentovsky’s diary. In an entry dated February 7th. Art. 1608 sets out the contents of a letter from the Catholic missionary monk N. de Melo; paragraph 2 of the letter reads: “Petrushka was hanged in Moscow, and Bolotnikov is in chains” (A. N i g s h e r g. Polska a Moskwa, p. 123. Russian translation, p. 174). The letter of N. de Melo, who was at that time imprisoned in the Boris and Gleb Monastery, near Rostov, is undoubtedly a less accurate source of information than the story of the “posad man.” But in general, this letter can serve as confirmation of the date of Ileika’s execution, obtained on the basis of data from Nemoevsky’s diary. More should be taken into account long time

passing this information - first to N. de Melo, and then from him to Yaroslavl - Diamentovsky. Another, earlier entry in Diamentovsky’s diary is dated January 5th. Art. 1608 - represents a record of various rumors (“the news resumed”), among which is that “Petrushka was hanged in Moscow” (A. N i g s h e r g, p. 120. Russian translation, p. 174 ), - the rumor is clearly false.

“Tsarevich Peter”, the Shuisky government wanted to enhance the effect of the victory at Bryansk over the self-proclaimed Tsar Dimitri 43.

Returning to Herkman's story about Ileika's execution, I believe that Ileika's speech that Herkman speaks of is quite probable. And if earlier (by torture or the promise of pardon) Ileika could be forced to confess to imposture, which Shuisky then used for his own political purposes, by organizing Ileika’s public repentance, now, before execution, Ileika could well declare that he “really” is the son Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, and thereby thwart the plans of his executioners.

If we assume that Herkman’s story is reliable in this part, then this also explains such a detail as finishing off Ileika with a blow of a club - in order to thereby quickly put an end to the failed venture.

In the biography of Ileika Muromets, his behavior during the execution is the final and striking touch.

43 Another event, timed to coincide with the moment after the victory at Bryansk and immediately following the massacre of Ileika, was the wedding of Tsar Vasily Shuisky, dated in the discharge records on January 17, 1608 (S. A. B elokurov. Discharge entries, pp. 174, 175 and 249), and in the Philaret Manuscript - January 14 (Filaret Manuscript, p. 276).

Ileyka Karamzin considered “the first testimony is more likely, because the 14th of January this year was on Thursday, and the 17th on Sunday” (N. M. Karamzin. History of the Russian State, vol. XII, note 163). Muromets (d. 1607 or early 1608), one of the leaders Peasant uprising led by I. I. Bolotnikov (1606-07), came from the townspeople of Murom. He worked for several years as a hired servant for merchants, then became a Cossack on the Terek. In 1605, the Cossacks elected I. ataman and declared him Tsarevich Peter, son Fedor Ivanovich

. In the winter of 1606, I. went to the Volga with a detachment of Cossacks and, after receiving a letter from False Dmitry I, decided to go to Moscow, then his detachment arrived in Putivl. From here I. went to join up with Bolotnikov’s detachment, which was located in Kaluga. The stronghold of the I. detachment’s actions was Tula. May 3, 1607 on the river. In Pchelna near Kaluga, I.’s detachment struck a blow against the troops of V.I. Shuisky and ensured Bolotnikov’s exit from the siege. From that time on, I., together with Bolotnikov, led the fight of the rebels near Tula. October 10, 1607 Tula fell. I. was captured by Shuisky’s troops and hanged. Lit.: Smirnov I.I., Bolotnikov’s Rebellion 1606-1607, 2nd ed., M., 1951 (see index); Makovsky D. P., First peasant war

• - Bogatyr, the central figure of the Russian epic, along with Alyosha Popovich and Dobrynya Nikitich. The name of Ilya Muromets is associated with a large number of plots of epics of the so-called Kyiv cycle...

  Russia. Linguistic and regional dictionary

• - an impostor who took the name of Tsarevich Pyotr Fedorovich, the son of supposedly Queen Irina, replaced by Boris Godunov with a girl...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - 1. favorite hero of the Russian epic, peasant son, defender of the Russian land from enemies. Having lain in paralysis for up to 33 years, he receives strength from wandering angels. He fights with the Nightingale the Robber, the idol, the Jew, the Tatars...

  Russian Encyclopedia

• - a waterfall in the Sakhalin region, on the island of Iturup, near Cape Ilya Muromets...

  Russian Encyclopedia

• - holy reverend. A former warrior who served as the prototype for the favorite character of Russian epics...

  Orthodox encyclopedic dictionary

• - Muromets, one of the leaders of the Peasant Uprising led by I. I. Bolotnikov, a native of the townspeople of Murom...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Ilya Muromets waterfall on the island. Iturup, one of the highest in Russia. Formed on a stream flowing from the north-east. the slope of the Ivan the Terrible volcano and falling from a steep cliff into the ocean...

  Geographical encyclopedia

• - impostor in Tula 1607, false Tsarevich Peter...
• - Reverend...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - bell maker in Novgorod...

  Large biographical encyclopedia

• - one of the leaders of the peasant-Cossack uprising under the leadership of I.I. Bolotnikov, ataman of the Terek Cossacks. From the townspeople of Murom...

  Russian Encyclopedia

• - one of the leaders of the uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov, ataman of the Terek Cossacks. From the townspeople of Murom. In 1605 he was declared by the Cossacks "Tsarevich Peter", the son of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich...

  Large encyclopedic dictionary

• - Muromets m. Ilya...

  Dictionary Efremova

• - Muromets m. Resident of Murom...

  Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova

• - m"uromets, -mtsa, creative p. -mtsem; but: Il"I M"...

  Russian orthographic dictionary

• - noun, number of synonyms: 1 Murom resident...

  Synonym dictionary

"Ileyka Muromets" in books

Ilya Muromets

From the author's book

Ilya Muromets Ilya Muromets, national hero and the main Russian hero is a generalized image of the defender of Holy Rus'. A whole cycle of Russian epics is dedicated to him, such as “Ilya Muromets and the Nightingale the Robber”, “Ilya Muromets and the Poganous Idol”, “Ilya Muromets’s Quarrel with the Prince”

"Ilya Muromets"

From the book Unknown Sikorsky [“God” of helicopters] author Mikheev Vadim Rostislavovich

“Ilya Muromets” “Russian Knight” provided invaluable experience in the development, construction and operation of a heavy vehicle. Already in August 1913, work began at RBVZ to create a new four-engine heavy aircraft, which was named “Ilya Muromets”. This name has become

"Ilya Muromets"

From the book Aircraft designer Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky 1889-1972 author Katyshev Gennady Ivanovich

”Ilya Muromets” After the impressive flights of the “Russian Knight” War Department showed its interest in airships. Already in August 1913, work was underway at RBVZ to create a new four-engine heavy aircraft, which was named “Ilya

"Ilya Muromets"

From the book Unusual Dough Dishes author Kashin Sergey Pavlovich

ILYA MUROMETS

From the book Folk Life of the Great North. Volume I author Burtsev Alexander Evgenievich

ILYA MUROMETS Because of the forest, the forest was dark, because of the darkness it was dense, maybe the clouds were dull there, maybe everything was foggy. There the villain Tsar Kalin rises to the city of Kyiv, behind him there were forty kings with a princess, forty kings with a queen, and behind each king a prince, and behind each

Muromets

From the book Your Home Vineyard author Plotnikova Tatyana Fedorovna

Muromets A fruitful variety, produces large, dark purple berries with a thick prune weighing 5 g each. The pulp is aromaless, fleshy and crunchy. The sugar content of the juice is 17%, and the acidity is 5 – 7 g/l. The berries are collected in large clusters of 400 g, conical, medium

Muromets

From the book Grapes. Secrets of Overharvest author Larina Svetlana

Muromets A fruitful variety, produces large dark purple berries with a thick pruin, weighing 5 g each. The pulp is aromaless, fleshy and crispy. The sugar content of the juice is 17%, and the acidity is 5–7 g/l. The berries are collected in large clusters of 400 g, conical, medium

Muromets

From the book Grapes for Beginners author Larina Svetlana

Muromets A fruitful variety, produces large, dark purple berries with a thick prune weighing 5 g each. The pulp is aromaless, fleshy and crunchy. The sugar content of the juice is 17%, and the acidity is 5–7 g/l. The berries are collected in large clusters of 400 g, conical, medium

Ilya Muromets

From the book Secrets of the Slavic Gods [The World of the Ancient Slavs. Magic rites and rituals. Slavic mythology. Christian holidays and rituals] author Kapitsa Fedor Sergeevich

Ilya Muromets The main character of the Russian epic epic. As the eldest in age, in most stories he leads a squad of Russian heroes. Together with Dobrynya Nikitich and Alyosha Popovich, he is part of the so-called heroic triad. Ilya Muromets accomplishes many

ILYA MUROMETS

From the book 100 Great Heroes author Shishov Alexey Vasilievich

ILYA MUROMETS The most popular Russian epic hero. Researchers Ancient Rus' tend to believe that Ilya Muromets is a historical personality, quite real. It is no coincidence that all epics call the birthplace of a peasant hero, a protector native land, village

ILYA MUROMETS

From the book Bogatyrs of the times of Grand Duke Vladimir based on Russian songs author Aksakov Konstantin Sergeevich

ILYA MUROMETS Among the young, strong, mighty heroes, only one is old: the hero Ilya Muromets, far superior in strength to all the others. The song does not give him the usual saying: daring; and for sure - there is no daring in him. All his exploits are sedate, and everything about him is sedate: this

Ilya Muromets

From the book Encyclopedia of Slavic culture, writing and mythology author Kononenko Alexey Anatolievich

Ilya Muromets One of the main characters of the Slavic epic. Evidence of the popularity of the image of Ilya Muromets is the number of epics and epic stories about him. There are more than ten plots, each of them has many options, which gives this hero the right to occupy the main place in the heroic

79. ILYA MUROMETS

From the book 100 Great Myths and Legends author Muravyova Tatyana

79. ILYA MUROMETS Ilya Muromets is the central hero of the Russian heroic epic. More than ten epic stories are dedicated to him, each of which is known in many records. V.Ya. Propp, one of the greatest folklorists of the 20th century, wrote: “The image of Elijah is the most mature and

Ilya Muromets (?-?)

From the book 100 great Cossacks author Shishov Alexey Vasilievich

Ilya Muromets (?-?) The most popular Russian epic hero. The first Cossack in folk legends Researchers of Ancient Rus' are inclined to believe that Ilya Muromets is a historical personality, quite real. It’s no coincidence that all epics call their place of birth

Ileyka Muromets

From the book Big Soviet Encyclopedia(IL) of the author TSB

The section is very easy to use. Just enter the desired word in the field provided, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our website provides data from different sources– encyclopedic, explanatory, word-formation dictionaries. Here you can also see examples of the use of the word you entered.

Ileyka Muromets

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

Ileyka Muromets

ILEIKA MUROMETS (? - approx. 1608) one of the leaders of the uprising of I. I. Bolotnikov, ataman of the Terek Cossacks. From the townspeople of Murom. In 1605 he was declared “Tsarevich Peter” by the Cossacks, the son of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich. In the winter of 1606 he went with a detachment to the Volga, then to Putivl. In 1607 he defeated the tsar's troops near Kaluga. He united with Bolotnikov, with whom he led the defense of Tula. Executed.

Ileyka Muromets

Ileyka Muromets (d. 1607 or early 1608), one of the leaders of the Peasant Uprising led by I. I. Bolotnikov (1606≈07), came from the townspeople of Murom. He worked for several years as a hired servant for merchants, then became a Cossack on the Terek. In 1605, the Cossacks elected I. ataman and declared him Tsarevich Peter, the son of Fyodor Ivanovich. In the winter of 1606, I. went to the Volga with a detachment of Cossacks and, after receiving a letter from False Dmitry I, decided to go to Moscow, then his detachment arrived in Putivl. From here I. went to join up with Bolotnikov’s detachment, which was located in Kaluga. The stronghold of the I. detachment’s actions was Tula. May 3, 1607 on the river. In Pchelna near Kaluga, I.’s detachment struck a blow against the troops of V.I. Shuisky and ensured Bolotnikov’s exit from the siege. From that time on, I., together with Bolotnikov, led the fight of the rebels near Tula. October 10, 1607 Tula fell. I. was captured by Shuisky’s troops and hanged.

Lit.: Smirnov I.I., Bolotnikov’s Rebellion 1606≈1607, 2nd ed., M., 1951 (see index); Makovsky D.P., The First Peasant War in Russia, Smolensk, 1967.