‘Evil – cunning wife’ ‘Damned Marfa’: myth and histori-cal sources about the role of Marfa Boretskaya in the political of Moscow and Novgo-rod in the outdating of the Northern monasteries

The information space of the North at the beginning of the XXI century means that the accuracy is very important in the transmission of the historical facts. Meanwhile, local lore and popu- lar history books, the pages of the guidebooks and websites of the travel agencies, sightseeing in the practice often sound legends and myths, long research. Undoubtedly mythologies in the historical memory of the people play a fundamental role. Historical memory as a kind of the collective (or social) memory and is transmitted from generation to generation historical texts - a reflection on the events of the past, very often fixed in the form of the myths. To understand what really happened with the legendary figures of the past in the sacred periods for the development of the state, a more critical approach to the interpretation of such unique sources as assembly material chronicles and oral traditions.

One of the "nodal points" of the past, understanding which is very important for the citizens of the Russian society, is the period of the formation of the Moscow kingdom (the second half of the XV century). For the first time in Russian's state policy of the "hand of the Kremlin" severely punish "not submissive" – North-West Territories, trying to lead an independent "European" policy. It is interesting that, contrary to the stereotype perception of the medieval Russians as "the prisons hermit" in the fight against the dictates of Moscow actively involved women. The most famous of them, "Governor’s Wife" Martha Boretskaya, which is known by the fact that her name is associated with the northern monasteries: Solovetsky, Nicholas Korelskogo etc.

But is it really? What role did the rebellious Novgorodian noble woman in the history of the foundation of the monastery, in the political struggle for the northern territory? Try again to the historical sources and research.

In the history of the North of the XV century marked not only the era of confrontation between Moscow, already united by the time most of the north-eastern Russian principalities and "Lord Novgorod the Great". It is also a period of active "monastic" development "of continental margins. North vain dubbed Russian Fivaida - Orthodox monastery appeared in these places during the disintegration of the Russian lands. Originally a monk came to the North in two ways: from the center of Russia (Rostov-Suzdal, then Moscow lands) and Novgorod the Great. But if in the XIIXIII centuries "the estates, werenot drawn into the trade and economic activity" the northern monasteries "focused on liturgical and missionary activity" [11, p. 51], in the XIV-XV centuries, many mansions become patrimonial, centers of the economy and trade, and are involved in a political struggle between Moscow and the freedom of Novgorod the Great. However, as the researchers believe that it would be wrong to see in the waves of the monastery foundation analogues political struggle for the influence over the local population. "In the historical literature can often find the allegation those Moscow metropolitans in this period a political order of their princes and archbishops of Novgorod - boyars. And because of the dispensation of the monasteries of

XIV-XV centuries, discernible primarily political motives, as well as a confrontation between two chairs in the distribution of the "spheres of the influencein the North”, - said Alexander Kamkin. Reputable scientists believe that "it was much more difficult. The church is known to have their own, individual tasks not directly related to the political preferences of a particular era. Moreover, in the terms of the feudal disunity it - because of the canonical and dogmatic principles - remained ultimately a single organization. Relative autonomy and independence of Novgorod department did not take it from the local church of a single organism. And therefore the establishment of monasteries in thevarious places of the North blesses various church centers, meant selfdevelopment and the further statement here united Orthodox Church” [11, p. 52-53]. Probably, in the XV century more meaningful to the monasteries was a struggle for the economic impact: the ownership of land, fishing grounds, and manpower. And so along with missionary activity monasteries had to conduct "diplomatic"and sometimes armed struggle against those who previously owned that territory on which the monasteries. A striking example of such a battle for the survival is a story of the foundation of Spaso-Preobrazhensky Solovetsky monastery in the White Sea.

The second half of the XV century – is an important stage in the life of the Solovetsky Monastery: this time, one of the first inhabitants of the Solovki Abbot Zosima received official recognition of the status of the monastery for previously based on the Solovetsky Islands monastery. Ratification monastery gave Jonah Archbishop of Novgorod. But most often associated with the improvement of the monastery estate widow Martha Boretskaya Novgorod mayor allegedly conceded monastery own land. Is this true? Perhaps her name is the solid historiographical fiction, isn’t it?

Indeed, the extraordinary personality Martha Posadnitsa attracted the attention of many authors’ chroniclers, writers, historians and ethnographers [16, p. 154-174, 30, 25]. Three times the author turned to the image of the heroine of the Nizhny Novgorod: The works of "Martha Governor's Wife, or the subjugation Novagorod" ( 1802 ), "The news of the Governor's Wife Martha, taken from the life of St. Zosima" (1803 ) and in the monumental work "The History of the Russian State" (that was released in 1818 ). N. M. Karamzin acknowledged that "from the fairy tales, songs and legends, the writer-sentimentalist, created a vivid image of the rebellious Posadnitsa that subsequent historical literature, her image became a symbol, is inextricably linked with the fate of the doomed Veliky Novgorod. Paucity of the historical data on Martha compensated the author’s fantasies, speculations, and instead of a biography specific person turned a beautiful legend.

N. Karamzin compared Martha Posadnitsa with the leader of the Republican Party in Ancient Rome Cato and expressed the hope that her name will be inscribed in the gallery of the famous Russians [13, p. 249]. In the XIX century, Martha got the name on the pages of the historical and of the literary publications. Solovyov wrote that "Martha had a strong authority over children by the custom and personal character and power enjoyed by this powerful influence on the affairs of his native city" [30, p.127]. Insisted on the consept of p Moscow: "Mercenaries Boretskaya was at the square, screaming about the oppression of Moscow...”. Interesting, that the "Westerner" Solovyov Martha condemned and opposed by Ivan III, "all surrounded by the majesty of the truth" [31, p. 85-86]. Kinda opinion was expressed at the same time by historian D. I. Ilovaiskii: "Nothing indicates domestic decline in Veliky Novgorod, as a complete lack of men who have moved into the era of their talents and the civic virtues ... In the most critical time of its history in the foreground is a woman who has the energy for the cause of Novgorod identity over the modern Novgorod " [10, p. 389-390]. Not paid attention to the image of Martha in the "thick journals", social thought of the "golden age" of Russian culture: stories, "historical drama in the verse" and essays about her were published in the "Russian antiquity", "Notes of the Fatherland", "Journal of the Ministry of Education", "Moscow Telegraph", "Northern Bee". A new round of fame began after the creation of Boretskaya after the sculptor Mikhail Mikeshin in the monument "Millennium of Russia". Pictured on the monument image Martha initiated visualization legendary of Novgorod Governor's Wife. According to the Soviet historian and philologist J. Lurie, "the image of Martha Posadnitsa became perhaps the most important political figure of Novgorod on the eve of its fall" [22, p. 628-629].

Soviet historiography could not actively pursue the theme of the confrontation of Moscow margins and monastic colonization, but reinforced our knowledge of Martha Posadnitsa archival sources. Boyarsky tenure in the North was devoted to the books and dissertations, including documents, which were studied by Boyar Boretsky patrimony and land ownership in the monastery in Novgorod in the domoskovsky period [32, 34]. Applied to the image of Martha Posadnitsa, the researchers of the women's history, but most of all the attention paid the portraits of famous Russians in their works of N. L. Pushkarev, now a recognized leader historians – the researchers "female threads" [28, p. 490].

According to another version, as proposed in the XIX century. Arkhangelsk regional specialist M. Zarinsk thought, that Martha was a kind of the boyars Viremskih, who owned the freedom, located 15 miles from Sumy church yard towards the town of Kemi, where on the seashore and the river was a village Virma. In the Solovetsky Monastery "in Novgorod the daughter Martha Isakova Viremskih" written under the general heading. Assuming that Martha came from this kind, it could be by her father Michael Viremsky [21]. Belonging to the boyars Viremskim confirmed part of their contribution to Martha land on the river in Sume Solovetsky monastery. As for naming Synodikon Martha, who was his daughter, not his wife Boretskiy Isaka, it can be explained by the old Russian custom dignify the names of the wives and widows of their husbands [14, p. 31].

Preserved the mention of Nicholas Korelskaya monastery on this village, on the torso, and reap Kudma in Nyonoksa. In this literacy mentioned that Martha and her brother-in-law G. Theodore, son Afromey Vasilevich, abbot of Novgorod Saviour Monastery Khutynsky Basil. The abbot’s document date from the beginning of XV century. There is also an earlier bill of sale Philip G. on grounds mentioned in the deed of Martha [23, p. 18]. Based on these documents prerevolutionary historians identified depositor of Marfa Posadnitsa and, accordingly, called Philip G. first and Isaka Boretskiy second husband of Martha. However, arithmetic calculations make it unlikely that this version. In the 70-ies of XV century, Governor's Wife Martha had two sons (Dmitry and Fedor) and grandson Vasily Fedorovich Boretskiy. Consequently, it is necessary to agree with the researchers prove the innocence of Martha Boretskaya to the base of the monastery of St. Nicholas Korelskogo [21, p. 31-32].

Equally contradictory information about the participation of Martha Boretskaya in the political activity. The first information about her activities, the historians gathered from the chronicles. Interesting, that in the Novgorod chronicles, the name Martha is not mentioned. The record of Boretsky record can be found in "Chronicle Dvina" [33].

To understand what the accused Moscow prince of Novgorod, we should remember that in 1456 his father Ivan, Dark Basil II, Grand Prince of Moscow and Vladimir, and the Government of Republic of Novgorod was signed Yazhelbitsky peace treaty ("dokonchanie"). This agreement marked the beginning of the accession of Novgorod to Moscow. Survived two copies of the contract, one signed by Moscow, the other - Novgorod, the treaty text on these copies are not identical. However, it is obvious that the independence of Novgorod was seriously undermined (not accidentally Ivan refers to Novgorod: "My paternal"; 1456 agreement concluded on behalf of Basil II and his son Ivan III, who was then a youth of sixteen), the republic was greatly curtailed the rights (for example, printing Novgorod, reassuring documents have been replaced by Moscow). Moscow, in the turn, promised to make some territorial concessions, but do not hurry with the commitments. Both sides are constantly violated terms of the contract and therefore the reason for the outbreak of armed conflict was easy to find. Needed was just an excuse. And found a reason.

In November 1470, died in Novgorod Archbishop Jonah, peacemaker. He held long Novgorod to "Westernism". But as soon as Saint Jona stepped into another world, in Novgorod "on the table", as requested by the king Casimir Novgorod, came the new prince, Michael Olelkovich. And as the prince arrived in Novgorod "Queen of hands", it gave rise to accuse Moscow Novgorod in the propensity to "Latins". Michael Olelkovich, unlike his great-uncle, King Casimir was not a Catholic, and Orthodox Christian, but the fact that Michael came from Uniate Kyiv. After the conclusion of the Union of Florence in 1439, recognizes the primacy of Rome in the union of the Christian churches, the Russian Orthodox Church split: Kiev union acknowledged Moscow. Moscow Metropolitans held land from Russian relations with the Uniates. The church authorities echoed the Grand Duke Ivan looking for faith in the writings of Novgorod Bishop Jonah. Jonah was completely in the agreement with this, but he died, and two weeks later the election of a new archbishop led to another conflict between supporters and opponents of Moscow. In the elections for the post of lord defeated Archdeacon Theophilus, a strong opponent of the union, who wanted to get ordained by the Metropolitan of Moscow. But the "fair game" Theophilus had no power in Novgorod, and lost the election Pimen supported local "oligarchs", headed by Martha Boretskaya, supporters of the rapprochement with Lithuania. Their "politically incorrect" behavior and led to another Moscow-Novgorod conflict.

Probably not without the machinations of the "party" Martha in March 1471, Michael Olelkovich left Novgorod (he was a strong opponent of the Uniates) and went to his native Kiev. Prince of Novgorod content with his entourage "was strongly: food… and great gifts" it distressed citizens. Not coincidentally, about Michael remained unflattering memory: "the prince of the

Queen hands "That is not the prince - the dirt! The prince of the Queen hands". In fairness it should be noted that Michael Olelkovich become a victim of the struggle for the "purity of Orthodoxy": conspiracy charges in favor of Moscow and for attempting to overthrow the Casimir, it will be executed in 1481 or 1482 and in 1471 his departure from Novgorod will give rise to new moment of the Moscow policy Grand Duke and the Metropolitan again addressed the Novgorod through its ambassador Ivan Tovarkovo-Pushkin, a descendant of the hero of the Battle of the Neva and the ancestor of the great poet. Prince Ivan Novgorod admonished: "My paternal natural ... "The flames were fanned Church affairs: in 1471 the Patriarch Dionysius I recognize Gregory Metropolitan Lithuanian and All Russia and sends to Moscow and Novgorod its ambassador demanding to take legal Gregory as Metropolitan. This game took the "Western orientation", in particular Boretskaya. "Gentlemen," this time was determined to be guided by Casimir.

In the "words of the elect" reported that I.V. Zamyatnya brought Ivan III treaty ratification of Novgorod and the Lithuanian prince Kazimierz, found Dmitry Boretskiy. Copy of the agreement with Casimir stored in the Public Library in St. Peteburge. Under a contract role of Novgorod prince "was selected" from the Grand Duke of Moscow and transferred to the Grand Duke of Lithuania. When this condition is stipulated to Novgorod "old and duties" was not disrupted, and most importantly - contained demands "the Greek Orthodox faith does not take away" and "Roman churches ... do not build". Kazimir pledged in case of any military threat to Novgorod "sit on a horse for Veliky Novgorod with all its". Also, do not rule mediation Lithuanian prince reconciliation Novgorod and Moscow [26, p. 165]. The treaty was concluded with the ambassadors of the King "by Theophilus betrothed dominion, and power from the mayor Vasili Maksimovic, and with all men Novagoroda Great Wave". All Novgorod "old" and duties, for centuries served as the basis of the contracts with the Grand Prince of All Russia, all of it is now redirected to a "fair king" and the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Consequently, Novgorod secedes from Russia and became enemies of Moscow. Historian G. Alekseev says: "The position of the Novgorod boyars, his break with the political system of the Russian land could play the role of torch thrown into a barrel of gunpowder. By the time the Union Novgorod Casimir and Casimir Achmat could become a reality" [1]. Authoritative opinion is worth to trust the scientist, this alternative development of Russian NorthWestern lands would be quite possible.

If trust to Moscow chronicles, in 1471 it was Martha Boretskaya sons made in the Chamber against the subordination of Novgorod Ivan III: "Toyu desperate thought all the people began prelschati Orthodoxy, Veliky Novgorod". "Party" Boretsky overpowered adherents Grand Duke of

Moscow Ambassadors Novgorod boyars went with gifts to Lithuanian (Polish) king. Learning of this, Ivan III June 20, 1471 was made with an army of Moscow [27, p. 54-55].

Chronicle describes how before going Grand Duke prays and is not just a prayer, its contents - a clear situation, underlining the importance of the historical moment, Thus, the Grand Duke is the sole custodian of the true Christian faith, and that the accusations Novgorod preferred to Latins and in collusion with the Lithuanian principality had to justify the actions of Grand Prince of Moscow, who spoke against Novgorod, "like apostate and Orthodoxy".

The campaign began. According to the chronicler, "crafty" Novgorod hoped its impassable swamps, but "their perdition" from May to September is not a drop of rain fell land, swamp of solar heat preskhosha". In the summer of 1471 Novgorod Shelon lined up on "the thirty thousand". As a result of the Battle of Novgorod did not survive the collision [15, p. 331-336].

Undoubtedly, the author of Chronicles purposely exaggerating, but really at the 14 July 1471 at the Battle of the River Shelon Novgorod militia headed by the son of Martha Dmitry Isakovich Boretskaya was broken Moscow army under the command of Prince D. Holmskogo Boyar and F.D. lame. Rebellious Novgorod was captured. Ivan III did not spare the prisoners Novgorod. Chronicler says: "mayor commanded to execute them" [20, p. 116].

More detailed account of the trial of the prisoners is contained in the second Sofia Chronicle (set in 1518 reflects the Metropolitan Moscow chronicles the first quarter of the XVI century)”. [20, p. 116].

In the same year was awarded a contract Korostynsky: Novgorod Grand Prince of Moscow recognized his master and himself his paternal and pledged to break with Lithuania. The contract contained a very important point: selected at the Chamber lord "except Moscow Metropolitan nowhere to put". Intensified as the judiciary Grand Duke of Novgorod. With the "good people of Novgorod" was taken mercy, and "small people" Prince of Moscow ordered "otpuschati to Novgorod". For " pacifying " the Grand Duke posadnik new Thomas A. brought him 1000 silver rubles [27, p. 55]. Seemingly ordinary for the Russian Middle Ages " dokonchavni ", but the main expert in this era Yuri Alexeev insists that "Unlike Korostynskoe dokonchanie Yazhelbitsky neither peace nor on the other, earlier prince of Novgorod and treaties . At this time, gentlemen not escaped any slight shock or severe (16 000, twice as much as in Yazhelbitsy) indemnities. First the traditional, from century to century Novgorod invaded new motive, subjugates the whole melody. Korostynsky agreement stressed not only the total elimination of the foreign independence boyar republic. He stressed foriegn administrative subordination of Veliky Novgorod authority’s tsar of all Russia" [1].

After the signing of the peace treaty restored the Bishop Theophilus traditional procedure for the approval of Novgorod Archbishop of Moscow, "Metropolitan of all Russia". Orientation of the opposition of the clergy Novgorod to Kiev and Lithuania became impossible. In Moscow, at a ceremony attended by the ordination of Archbishop of Rostov Theophilus, Bishop of Suzdal, Kolomna, Ramsar, Perm, Ryazan, Archimandrite and abbots of the largest monasteries, the entire "Holy Synod of the glorious city of Moscow". On the occasion of such a solemn act of recovery Novgorod Russian state comprising the newly-born Archbishop of Novgorod, Grand Duke begged for amnesty for the prisoners countrymen. Prince Ivan took petition and "let go of all those with honor". "Those all" had 30 people. Begged the Archbishop of bondage, they went with him to Novgorod. It would seem that the incident was closed.

But after a few years of the independence supporters Novgorod from Moscow again became the most powerful force on the banks of the Volkhov. Resumed its activities and "party" Martha. In 1475 her youngest son Theodore Isakovitch Boretskii nicknamed Fool with power Posadnik Ananyin Basil, Ivan Loshinskim, Bogdan Esipov, Gregory Tuchin, Matvey and Yakov Seleznev Telyatevym Andrew, Luke and Semyon Afansevymi and others involved in the collision, robbery and burglary yards on his opponents and Slavkovye Mikitin streets on the Marketplace side [26 , p. 166]. Probably to about the same time and the events described in one of the sources of hagiographic genre - "The Life of Barlaam Vaga". Most often, this piece sounds "muffled" editors "Life" reported that Basil lord, known in the North as ascetic Vazhsky land Balaam was forced to flee with his family from Novgorod to his estate on Vahe escape the intrigues of Martha [7].

Information about Basil Svoezemtsev was collected in the middle of the XIX century, native Shenkursk, hagiographic literature M. Zarinsk, who for many years worked in Vazhskoe region. Since 1845 Zarinsky - editor of "Arkhangelsk Provincial Gazette", where he publishes articles about life Svoezemtsevyh. In his description of the fate of Barlaam Vazheskogo appears, Reverend "was a contemporary Posadnitsa Boretskaya Martha, owner of large estates along the Dvina, which withdrew from the intrigues with the family from Novgorod to his estate, fearing that may not fall under the same fate, which succumbed to his friend or Miroslovsky Miloslavskii, completely missing then, but later turned out that she kept him in an underground prison" [9, p. 4]. As you can see, these data confirm the "violent" nature of Martha indicated in Moscow chronicles characters rather than the actual material. In November 1475, Ivan III came to court in Novgorod. November 26 the trial, which claims to Boretskaya were substantiated. Perpetrators were sentenced to the various punishments. Fedor Boretskii by order of Moscow Prince Ivan III in chains was exiled in Moore, where he was tonsured monks, and on May 9 the next (1476), he died [3, p. 223; 14, p. 55].

Great-reinforced Moscow and spiritual power: in 1476 in Moscow Church Council decided not to take on the Moscow metropolitan officials sent from Constantinople and Rome. This and other manifestations of dictatorship of Moscow led to a new surge of discontent in the former "free city" and in 1477 took a new campaign against Novgorod prince's troops. In 1478 Novgorod was "forever Zamir" and finally lost its former rights and privileges. In the Moscow chronicles written conditions of Ivan III: "Our state is as follows: the assembly bell in Novgorod not be; posadnik not be, and the state all to keep; parishes, villages we possess, as in Nizovoy own land, so it was on what we have in our paternal, and that our land for you, and you give them to us; No fear, the knights do not enter, and the court will be in the old days, as in the land court costs" [20, p. 116]. Nevertheless, the "conclusion" (in the Stalin era, it was called deportation) still held and knights moved to the Moscow authorities.

Not still elective and ecclesiastical authority of Novgorod. In 1480, Bishop Theophilus caught in relations with King Casimir, who was captured and imprisoned in Miracles Monastery. This gave rise to the right to cancel the citizens to choose their own rulers, and all subsequent Archbishop of Novgorod supplied Moscow metropolitans.

As for the "conclusions", "rebel Martha" lost their possessions and were repressed one of the first. No doubt, Boretskaya Martha was one of the most influential women of Nowogrod. N.L. Pushkarev thought that it is "because of the enormous wealth of Martha Boretskaya, who gained considerable political weight. Martha largest ownership was by the end of the XV century. Novgorod was third after the lord and monasteries"[27, p. 53]. According to estimates of G. Alekseev, "about 1,200 farms owned by Martha Boretskaya" [1]. It is true that she once gave the land o the Solovki to the monks settled there? To answer this question it is necessary to trace the steps of owning this land for the centuries. To answer this question it is necessary to trace the steps of owning this land for centuries.

Before the beginning of the XV century, the ground was the subsequently territory of the Karelian coast of Pomerania (and vicinity to the island), belonged Karelian nobility of the five generation of "Karelian children". In the first half of the XV century, the part of the land transferred to the Novgorod boyars. So, Novgorod mayor Dmitry Vasilyevich Gluhov were obtained by deed from literacy representative of one of the five generation of "Karelian children" (in this case Kurolchi) Howrah Toyvutovoy vast possessions (250 km from the East to the West, 150 km from the North to the South by the modern standards ). It should be noted that the purchase cost is very inexpensive, "the fourth - floor of the ruble", that is, for three rubles and a half [23, p. 24], suggesting that non-voluntary transaction. Dmitry Gluhov received "paternal Dedina and the sea on Vyg and

Shuya river and Kilboostrove and along the seashore, and Pongami river, on both sides, and her paternal leshim lake and Lesha Lopi portion there of, and Kutoozere her paternal and Kem river on horseback, where will be her father Vasily Kokui, and Solovki islands in the sea of her paternal and into the body in the islands" [18, p. 291]. Bill of Sale dated 1447-1458 [17, p. 2]

No documentary records of the transition land Boyar Glukhova Boretskaya to Martha, her husband and children did not survive. Perhaps this is due to the fact that after the submission of Novgorod Moscow boyars many archives have been destroyed, but vroyatnee all, and Martha was not the owner of these lands. Assembly records of the period show that the land zavolochskih graveyards in the XV century, Belonged to different owners and sites are often passed on bill of sale, mortgage and bondage from one person to another [9, p.3].

Chronologically, the first legal instrument to justify the right of the Solovetsky Monastery on any land became abbot mention Jonah from Novgorod mayor on which Solovetsky Archipelago fully assigned to the monks. Mention is given in the book "The geographical, historical and statistical description of the first-class stavropigialny Solovetsky Monastery" compiled Dosifey abbot in 1836. According to the document, only the monks had exclusive ownership "Solovki Anzer Island and island and Muksalma Zayatsky Island and small islands". Diploma dated no later than 1470.

It should be noted that the mechanism of transfer of the land was carried out is quite simple, if the land were "inside" of the Novgorod community. It was an ordinary transaction in the modern terms. But everything is much more complicated if the earth as a result of the transaction out of the jurisdiction of Novgorod. And here is the case: the monasteries possessed certain sovereignty that is not subordinate to the archbishops, and directly superior spiritual authorities. According to the then existing legal norms in Novgorod land transfer act in such a case must sign lord, sedate burgomaster, tysyatsky and "golden belt". That is the letter Zosima and received, the process described in his Life.

In solovetskikh patericon historians find and many other details about the events of those years. "Life of St. Zosima Savvatii and Herman, Solovetsky monastery the begginers" tells the story of a trip to Novgorod abbot Zosima, request the transfer of the possession of the Solovetsky monastery Obonezhie islands. Naselnik Solovetsky complained further harassment "knights and Korelskaya: "In the source, contains the story of how Martha would not let an old man on your yard, but then, giving the explicit request of the lord and the boyars, consented to the transfer of the island monastery" [7, p.124-126]. In addition, Martha allegedly gave the monastery land on the river Sume and even invited to the feast Solovetsky abbot where Zosima had a vision. Elder imagined that fellow diners Martha deprived goals and Zosima predicted them terrible demise.

Indeed, the boyars of Novgorod sympathetic Boretskaya were repressed Prince Ivan Vasilyevich during internecine struggle.

Legend of Zosima trip to Novgorod "hit"of hagiographic literature in the regional studies. For example, "Geographical, historical and statistical description of the Solovetsky Monastery" was written by Archimandrit Dosifey Solovki in the early XIX century. Based on the hagiographical sources, which were kept in the monastery library. Probably the same place, in the vault of the Solovetsky Monastery, and were removable letters - another kind of the historical sources (assembly material). This removable letters to the Solovetsky monastery, they are well studied and described by the experts [9, p. 4; 32].

We are primarily interested in, removable letters monastery data "personally Mar FOY Boretskaya". Two of them, donative first mention on which the monastery allegedly transmits a fishing hauls on Varzuga dated 1469-1470. It giver named "Martha Isakovskogo Veliky Novgorod Governor's Wife” [21]. Naming Martha Posadnitsa in this supplementary literacy led some writers suggest, as if Martha Boretskaya was even elected to the dignity of the Novgorod Veche Posadnitsa. However, since it could be called because she had in her possession posad his patrimony or boyarschinu. Besides Martha were the wife and then widow of Boretskiy Isak, Novgorod mayor and therefore could have only magnified Posadnitsa. Renowned historian V. L. Yanin considers that this this Martha Boretskaya Solovetsky monastery diploma is not genuine, the contents of which "there are a number of the elements pointing to its forgery" [35, p. 357-358]. The investigator V.A. Burov also cites a number of the arguments to prove that it is a fake between 1575 and 1633 years [5, p.193-196].

Another letter, according to the text, can be dated to between 1471 (it tells Martha remember Dmitry Isakovich, and his execution took place in 1471) and 1475 (as Fedor Isakovitch). In hagiography receive certificates associated with this second visit to the house of Martha Zosima. This time it cost him more than favorably - invited at the dinner table and gave the monastery charter to land on the river Sume. "Behold lang Martha A. Isaka wife and my son, Fedor Isakov, esm gave the house of St. Saviour and His Mother Fairest and St. Nicholas Solovki abbot Jonah and the elders of the sea; Sume in the river at the chapel two bows land where Parfianok yes Pershits live, and on the village land and reap and forest poleshey and torso water lake and goblins; tyi two bows in the house of the Saviour and His Mother Fairest and St. Nicholas on Current literacy this my rule over the abbot and the elders ever: and they pominati my husband Isaac , and my parents, and my children , and they staviti lunch Dmitriev day" [29, p . 12]. Two onion ground ( small vil- lage) for Solovki economy at that time were not so large an addition , but the name Martha still remained in the memory of the local residents and inhabitants of the Solovetsky monastery.

Obviously, the role of Martha in Boretskaya ustroitelstve and development of the Solovetsky Monastery is exaggerated in hagiographic and regional literature. But as a person and politician, who performed besides various gender roles (daughter, wife, widow, mother, head of the party, the ruler of the estates, philanthropist) and breaks the stereotypes of the behavior medieval Russians, it is worthy of the study.

Concerning the death of the legendary Martha there are two versions. According to the first version, by order of Ivan III Martha Boretskaya together with his young grandson vasily was arrested in February 1479 sent to Moscow, then in Nizhny Novgorod. There she was tonsured under the name Mary Conception Convent, where, probably, soon died [4, p. 397]. By the second, Ivan III in February 1488 ordered to grab Martha with her grandson vasily, send them to prison and "tacos course tame Veliky Novgorod". Boretskaya vast possessions were unsubscribed Ivan III. Martha was executed before reaching Moscow, in the Tver principality Mleve village [27, p. 55]. This opinion is also based on the found in the village Mleve Vyshnevolotsk County Tver province near the Church of Our Saviour tombstone stone slab with the inscription: "In the year 3... put the servant of God presented on Martha pas..." [24, p.36-40; 19, p.446-451; 14, p.57].

Remains debatable question: what could be an alternative to the development of the northern territories in case of victory "Western Party" Martha Boretskaya? Critical reevaluation of historical myths and legends, historical documentary sources would help to "read" the events five hundred years ago, based on the relevance of sociocultural factors in our century. For "problem field" in Russian society at the beginning of the XXI century remain the same: it questions the relation of totalitarianism and civil society, the role of the "oligarchs" and "people" in the country and the choice of the historical path of the nation, the relationship between church and state, "center" and the periphery. Probably should refer to the experience of the past, especially the "lifechanging" its marginal moments and periods, as was, for example, the age of Martha Boretskaya.