Reflection of the Activity of Baim Boltin in the Stolyarov Chronograph and the Private Discharge Book of Nikita and Grigory Zyuzin.

Vtiurin Andrei ORCID: 0000-0002-1294-1516 Postgraduate student, Department of Russian History and Archeology, Saratov National Research State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky 410012, Russia, Saratov region, Saratov, Astrakhan St., 83 andrej.vtiurin@yandex.ru

During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the resumption of parochial disputes can be traced with renewed vigor after the Troubles ^{[1, p. 92]}. This period is characterized by an increase in the number of disputes between representatives of little-known noble families and the withdrawal from the arena of parochial disputes of some aristocratic surnames ^{[2, pp. 130-131]}. To ensure their position, serving people kept documents that testified to the achievements of their relatives. In the case of a parochial dispute, they were treated as proof of their position ^{[2, p. 63]}.

In this regard, private discharge books are of interest – systematized records created on the model of official discharge books by private individuals. They contain information about ancestral merits, list in order the events taking place in a particular year in the state, the appointment of other service people, thereby placing representatives of their kind in the context of the life of the state. The documentary sources for them were paintings, instructions, letters and memorials received during the service. Authors who had access to the discharge order entered extracts from official books into their private books. Often the information was copied from relatives ^{[3, p. 10]}. Thus, the information in private bit books may be subjective. The description of the same event may differ in books with different authors. The differences in the texts are due to different methods of compilation, capabilities and personal interests of their authors ^{[3, p. 9]}.

Among the works of this kind, the so-called Carpenter's chronograph stands apart, describing the events of 1605-1644. It was introduced into scientific circulation by Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. The chronograph differs from private bit books by the content of a large amount of narrative, but it is also not devoid of the formalism inherent in bit books. Sergei Fedorovich Platonov practically proved the authorship of this work, attributing it to a prominent statesman and military figure of the first half of the XVII century, Baim Fedorovich Boltin, who went from Arzamas city nobleman to court officials, ambassador, governor of large cities. The main arguments in favor of such attribution were the accents contained in the text on the personal achievements of Baim Boltin, as well as the author's detailed awareness of certain events that took place in his places of service ^{[4, pp. 18-28]}. Researcher Viktor Kuzmich Ziborov also inclines to the version about the authorship of Baim Boltin ^{[5, pp. 147-148] [6, pp. 219-220]}. The work of S.F. Platonov "Stolyarov Chronograph and its author" raises the question of what kind of sources this text belongs to. A well-known historian defined it as a private bit book; this opinion was supported by A.I. Markevich and V.S. Ikonnikov. As a chronograph, this work was qualified by P.I. Melnikov; A.N. Popov considered it a chronicle; V.O. Klyuchevsky called it an original chronicle; S.A. Belokurov believed that it was a digit-chronographic record ^{[4, p. 18-28]}. Without aiming to give an exact definition of this work, in this article, for ease of perception, we will call it a Chronograph.

In this paper, we will analyze the places of the Chronograph where Baim Boltin appears, making a comparison with information from other sources. We will also consider some fragments of the Chronograph, based on the context of the events described, and turn to some fragments from the private discharge book of Nikita and Grigory Zyuzin, in which Boltin is mentioned. This will allow us to find out how serving people could exaggerate their merits and achievements, what is the degree of these exaggerations.

Baim Boltin first mentioned himself in the Chronograph when describing the events that took place in 1613-1614 in the Volga region. In Kazan, in 1613, the fourth Streltsy order was created, numbering 500 Streltsy. They were ordered to organize a separate settlement for them. "121 and 122 and 123 years in Kazan, the boyar and voivodes Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky, and Prince Yurya Petrovich Ushatov, and clerks Fyodor Likhachev, and Stepan Dichkov... And in 122, the boyar Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Vorotynsky was sent a sovereign decree, and ordered to clean up the fourth order in Kazan, and to be a five-man centurion of the boyar, yes, five hundred people are Sagittarius, and they are paid money and bread against the old orders and arrange a Streletskaya settlement and a gun from the treasury of dati." In 1614, Baim was sent to Kazan as the Streletsky head of the newly created order. "And in 123, that order was ordered to be in the heads of Baim Fyodorov's son Boltin" ^{[7, p. 360]}. The creation of an additional Streletsky order was probably dictated by the actions of Ivan Zarutsky in the Don and Volga lands and the generally alarming situation in that region. In the same Chronograph there are references to the uprisings of the Tatars and Cheremis ^{[7, p. 362]}.

Boltin then proceeds to a very detailed description of the capture of Ivan Zarutsky and Marina Mnishek. Thus, the author reports that service men from Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan, one Nizhny Novgorod Streletsky order and three Streletsky orders from Kazan were sent to Astrakhan ^{[7, p. 361]}. Thus, Boltin makes it clear that he remained in Kazan as the head of the only Streletsky order, while the voivodes Ivan Nikitich Lesser Odoevsky and Semyon Vasilyevich Golovin advanced down the Volga to Astrakhan with the army. Based on the contents of the Chronograph, it really gives the impression of the importance of such an appointment. Moreover, Boltin provides detailed information about Zarutsky's stay in Astrakhan, about reprisals against the governor and local residents: "he executed Prince Dmitrievich Khvorostinin, and put the head of Streletskov Semyon Chyurkin in the water, and murz and lutchikh beat all sorts of people... and their bellies were cut off" ^{[7, p. 361]}; it is said about the struggle of government troops with him "and from the Turk voivode Pyotr Petrovich Golovin sent to Astrakhan the head of Streletskov Kazan Vasily Danilovs son Khokhlov, and with him Streltsov and Cossacks five hundred people at the request and petition of the Astrakhan people"; finally, it is reported about the flight of Zarutsky, Marina Mnishek and her son from Astrakhan to the Yaik River and their final capture by the Streltsy heads of the voivode Odoevsky.

The above events took place in the spring of 1614, and Zarutsky was caught on June 25 of that year ^{[8, pp. 47-51]}. However, Baim Boltin could not be in Kazan at that time and head the newly created Streletsky order left in the city. At the same time, he was still part of the army of Prince Dmitry Timofeevich Trubetskoy near Bronnitsy. A detailed description of Trubetskoy's campaign on Novgorod is available in the Chronograph, and the palace discharges contain a mention that Baim Boltin was sent to the sovereign with a report that the Russian army was failing and had to move away from Bronnitsy ^{[9, stb. 108]}. He could not have been in Kazan before the autumn of 1614. In our opinion, the non-linearity of the narrative of this fragment could have been intended to create the impression of Boltin's involvement in important events.

I would like to dwell on the fact of acquaintance of the Astrakhan Streletsky head of Semyon Churkin, drowned by Zarutsky, with Baim Boltin. Churkin was mentioned in local disputes in Arzamas county, in which Baim Boltin took part. In 1613, Daniil Obaturov sued the village of Novoselki in Arzamas County, which had previously belonged to Semyon Churkin, from Baim Boltin. Both sides referred to the fact that the latter had transferred the village to them, but Boltin could not provide convincing evidence of bona fide ownership and the sovereign ordered Boltin and his people to be expelled from the village ^{[10, p. 499]}. In 1616, as part of another case already about another village – Chernaya of the same county, Boltin presented evidence that she had been transferred to him by Semyon Churkin ^{[10, pp. 569-570]}. Churkin himself was sent to Astrakhan by the Streletsky head by False Dmitry II, where he remained until his death ^{[10, p. 499]}. This fact is curious from the point of view of the conscientiousness of the acquisition by Baim Boltin of the villages of Semyon Churkin. If in the first case, during Churkin's lifetime, he could not confirm the transfer of the village, then after his death, the ownership of the village did not raise questions. Considering that during and after the Troubles there was a practice of appropriating other people's estates, it seems quite likely that Boltin took Churkin's villages for himself. However, we have no way to confirm this.

Perhaps the most important event in the service of Baim Boltin is his participation in the Smolensk War as the second voivode in the Seversky direction and the capture of Novgorod-Seversky under his direct leadership. This event was reflected in the palace ranks, discharge books and other sources. In the Chronograph, Boltin described his feat in detail. This description leaves no doubt that the Chronograph was created for the purpose of describing Boltin's merits, since in comparison with other fragments of the work, this one is the largest dedicated to a specific event with a description of small details. And of course, such a significant event could not be described without certain shifts in the accents of the narrative.

Boltin did not mention voivode Ivan Eropkin, who replaced the deceased first voivode Fedor Pleshcheyev ^{[11, stb. 310]}. The reason for this is most likely Boltin's dissatisfaction with such an appointment and the further conflict between the voivodes ^{[12, p. 58, 71]}. Ivan Eropkin also distinguished himself in the Seversky campaign, taking Starodub ^{[13, stb. 384]}, but not a word is said about him in the Chronograph.

The Chronograph overstated the title of the commander of the defense of Novgorod-Seversky – uryadnik Jan Kuninsky. In it, he is called a colonel, however, in his petition to the sovereign with a request to pay him a salary (after these events), Baim Boltin himself calls him not a colonel but a captain ^{[14, pp. 484-487]}.

Boltin did not ignore the role of his relative Semyon Zhdanovich Boltin, indicating him as the centenary of the head, who, commanding yertaul, engaged in battle with a Lithuanian detachment that had come out to meet in the city's suburbs ^{[7, p. 369]}.

There is also a difference in the number of prisoners sent to Moscow after the capture of the city. The Chronograph shows the number of 205 people, but there is information about a larger number of sent prisoners in the number of 405 people ^[15]. We cannot explain this difference at the moment.

After describing the events in Novgorod Seversky, Baim Boltin reports on the distribution of voivodes in Moscow under the threat of a raid by Crimean Tatars in the summer of 1632. He himself was appointed governor of the Simonov Monastery. A detailed list of voivodes involved in the defense of Moscow has reached us, numbering several dozen appointments ^{[13, stb. 515-526]}. However, Baim Boltin limited himself to mentioning the most famous service people, such as B.M. Lykov, I.Y. Pleshcheev, D.M. Pozharsky, as well as four lesser-known ones: diak Makro Pozdev (mentioned together with Lykov and Pleshcheev) and V.I. Tolstoy Sharpe (in comrades with D.M. Pozharsky), I.I. Baklanovsky, S.F. Glebov. Boltin also reports on the people who were under his leadership: "... and with him the military men and with the Moscow Archers, the centurion Denis Petrov son Zolotarev" ^{[7, p. 372]}. The order of enumeration of the voivodes is also curious, namely, that Boltin placed himself in the wake of D.M. Pozharsky. It is also noteworthy that according to the Chronograph, D.M. Pozharsky stood "behind the Yauza", and according to the list of discharge books, he stood "along the Kolomna Road", and there were other voivodes behind the Yauza.

The following two events with Boltin's participation, described in the Chronograph, relate to the conclusion of the Polyanovsky Peace Treaty. Even before the cessation of hostilities, when the Polish King Vladislav stormed the Belaya Fortress, and other Polish detachments besieged Vyazma and Dorogobuzh, negotiations for peace began. On April 1, 1634, the sovereign appointed Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetev as ambassador, the second ambassador was the okolnichy Prince Alexei Mikhailovich Lvov, the third was Stepan Matveyevich Proestev. They were ordered to go to the border between Vyazma and Dorogobuzh (to the Polyanovka River, which was the name of the peace treaty) to negotiate with the Polish ambassadors.

The most interesting clarification introduced by Boltin is the description of who headed this or that hundred. Boltin himself was the head of the stewards and solicitors; Bogdan Vasilyevich Kondyrev, Timofey Sidorovich Zhelyabovsky and Semyon Vasilyevich Chaplin were the nobles of Moscow, Andrei Timofeyevich Lazarev was the head of the city nobles and the children of the boyars. There is a dash in the place where the tenants' head was indicated ^{[7, p. 374]}. In this part there is a discrepancy with the palace ranks. They do not specify who exactly headed this or that hundred, but there is an indication of substitutions in the composition of the heads that occurred due to illness. Boltin took the place of Grigory Andreevich Olyabyev, who was indeed listed first on the list. Apart from him, due to illness, Semyon Vasilyevich Chaplin could not join the embassy, whose place was taken by Zhdan Vasilyevich Kondyrev ^{[11, stb. 357-358]}. Three points are curious here: firstly, Boltin deliberately concealed the fact of replacement, secondly, he indicated the sick Chaplin among the hundreds of heads of Moscow nobles, thirdly, he mentioned Timofey Zhelyabovsky, who was not listed in the palace ranks, and also changed the name of Zhdan to Bogdan at Kondyrev. There is practically no doubt that Boltin headed the stewards and solicitors, in view of the sequence in which the hundred heads are indicated in the palace ranks, where Boltin, as we saw earlier, is listed first.

Given the high importance of the embassy, such an appointment, although unplanned, was very honorable for Baim Boltin. As a deacon before the war, he had the experience of meeting Persian, Danish and "Turkish" ambassadors ^{[11, stb. 62, 63, 222, 224, 251, 264]}. Finally, the Polish side knew him as the voivode who took Novgorod Seversky, which increased the importance of the embassy retinue. Perhaps a certain role was played by the fact that by that time Baim Boltin was in Mozhaisk according to the painting of the voivodes ^{[11, stb. 393-394]}.  and he could quickly get to the place of the gathering of the ambassadors. One of these discharge records is curious, reporting about the stay of Baim Boltin at the meeting of the voivodes in Mozhaisk in March 1634. This is a note from the second volume of the palace ranks, placed under columns 393 and 394. This fragment was specially selected from the main text of the ranks, since it contains information that is not repeated anywhere else, and is designated as "list E". This is an example of a private bit record. Its authors are brothers Nikita and Grigory Zyuzin ^{[9, p. 30]}.  – the children of Alexey Ivanovich Zyuzin, the ringmaster. In turn, Alexey Ivanovich's wife, Fekla Grigoryevna, was the aunt of Baim Boltin ^{[16, pp. 104-126]}. Thus, the compilers of the aforementioned "list E" and Baim Boltin were female relatives to each other. Considering that the stay of Baim Boltin in Mozhaisk in the spring of 1634 is not reflected in other sources, it can be assumed that he was included in this list precisely because of kinship with the compilers.Already in the mentioned meetings of ambassadors from different countries, there were also inserts from the "E" list, which specified the position of Baim Boltin not just as a deacon (as he was mentioned in other lists), but as a deacon of the Novgorod couple ^{[11, stb. 222, 251]}, whom he was actually at that time period.

The first parochial dispute in the history of the Boltin family took place in 1634 ^{[2, p. 134]}. The embassy to Warsaw was being prepared in order to bring the King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Vladislav to the kiss of the cross on the occasion of the conclusion of the Polyanovsky Peace Treaty. Grand ambassadors were appointed boyar Prince Alexei Mikhailovich Lvov, Duma nobleman Stepan Matveyevich Proestev, Duma clerk Mikhail Danilov, clerk Ivan Perenozov. There were also three stewards and nobles with them. Baim Boltin was the first in the list of nobles ^{[11, stb. 404] [7, p. 375]}. In total, 255 people were in the retinue ^[17]. Such a number was due to the need to provide a permanent postal message, search for prisoners, and conduct reconnaissance activities. The embassy was also instructed to negotiate the transfer of the body of Tsar Vasily Shuisky to the Russian side.

And here there is an insert from the "E" list describing the parochial dispute that has arisen. The nobles listed in the list of those accompanying Prince A. M. Lvov submitted a petition to Baim: Ilya Vasilyevich Naumov and Zhdan Vasilyevich Kondyrev (the latter had previously been placed below Baim during negotiations on the Polyanovka River). They believed that by their parochial status they should stand above Boltin, to which the sovereign replied that they should all be without seats ^{[11, stb. 404]}. According to Y. M. Eskin, this and Boltin's subsequent parochial case indicate that even a short-term stay in the clerks left a "stain" in the career of a serving man ^{[2, p. 339]}. From this point of view, the information entered by the Zyuzins about the sovereign's decision on this parochial case is important for Baim Boltin.  

The Chronograph does not specify this parochial dispute. Meanwhile, the very course of the embassy, the stay in Poland and the return back are described there similarly. The author also pointed out that the nobles and the nobles were given a double salary, and in addition, money for expenses of 130 rubles and 40 sables in the amount of 50 rubles (which had to be presented to the king as a gift) ^{[7, p. 376]}. The amount of salary received by Boltin for the embassy is known. It amounted to "180 rubles for a year and 360 rubles for that" ^[18].

In 1637, Boltin had to take part in the demarcation of lands with the Lithuanian side in the Putivl region. There is no mention of this in the Chronograph. In the Palace ranks, this event is covered only in the "E" list, which reports that the sovereign sent the ringleader Prince Fyodor Fedorovich Volkonsky, Baim Fedorovich Boltin and the clerk Nikifor Shipulin to Putivl ^{[11, stb. 538]}.

The demarcation of the lands was preceded by a meeting of the Polish ambassador Adam Orlik, who arrived in Moscow with a complaint against the Russian boundary judges responsible for the delimitation of lands under the Polyanovsky Peace Treaty ^{[19, pp. 119-122]}. The sovereign received him on January 30, 1637 in the golden subscription chamber ^{[11, stb. 529]}. Baim Boltin is listed among the greeters. ^{[11, stb. 869-874]}. Adam Orlik was sent to refute the claims. The chronograph also reports that ambassadors were sent to the Polish king with similar claims, complaining about Lithuanian people who occupy lands in the Putivl region that belong to the Moscow state ^{[7, pp. 377-378]}. Probably, it was these negotiations that led to the aforementioned delimitation of lands. Boltin's presence at the ambassador's meeting caused his participation in the disengagement in the Putivl area.

However, we are not sure that the separation took place in 1637. This is confirmed by the following entry, which was given by N.N. Bantysh-Kamensky after listing the appointed boundary judges in Putivl: "the congress was postponed for disputes." ^{[19, p. 120]}.  (the judges themselves correspond to those mentioned in the "E" list).  

Probably, the demarcation did not take place in 1637, which is why the same boundary judges were sent to Putivl in 1642. This event has already been reflected in the Chronograph. Here, Baim Boltin listed only the main boundary judges – the aforementioned Prince F.F. Volkonsky and clerk Nikifor Shipulin. Bayim Boltin mentioned himself as the governor of Serpukhov and named his position at the court – the nursery. Similar titles were attributed by Baim Boltin earlier to ambassadors (F.I. Sheremetyev at the embassy to Polyanovka was called the governor of Pskov, and A.M. Lviv was called the governor of Yaroslavl ^{[7, pp. 373-374]}, F.F. Volkonsky at the demarcation - Murom ^{[7, p. 378]}). This was done in connection with the ambassadorial custom to correlate the status of Russian ambassadors with the titles of Polish ambassadors ^{[20, p. 36]}, who always had a link to a particular city in their title. Other participants in the disengagement (nobles Kuzma Andreevich Trusov, Vasily Protasov, Ivan Vasilyevich Kaftyrev, Ivan Stepanovich Volkov, Vasily Vasilyevich Strelkov, Timofey Vasilyevich Iskansky, tenants Nikita Andreevich Zagoskin and Andrey Polikarpovich Poltev ^{[11, stb. 682]}) Boltin did not mention, although earlier when listing the participants of the embassy to Polyanovka and Warsaw, he listed minor members of the embassy, which he himself was then. He also did not mention the local dispute he won with Kuzma Trusov ^{[11, stb. 683] [21, pp. 300-307]}. It follows from the contents of the Chronograph that the demarcation failed: "... and the lands of Nichevo were not delimited due to the obstinacy of Lithuanian judges ..." ^{[7, p. 378]}.

I would also like to note that this fragment of the Chronograph was included in the Mazurinsky chronicler, who literally repeated the description of the process of demarcation ^{[22, p. 163]}. Perhaps Baim Boltin himself borrowed this fragment from an unknown source, which served as the primary source for the chronicle.

The last time Baim Boltin mentioned himself in the Chronograph was when describing the meeting of Prince Voldemar in 1644. The participation of Baim Boltin in it is confirmed by information from the Palace ranks. Boltin, along with deacon Grigory Pyatov, met "with sanmi" and were listed separately from the others ^{[11, stb. 722]}. The Chronograph has a more detailed description of these events and the role of Baim Boltin: "And with the sovereign's sanmi of the king's son, having met the Yaselnichi behind the Earthen City, Baim Fedorovich Boltin, and with them the sovereign's stirrups and court grooms followed the sanmi, and as with the sovereign's sanmi of the prince Voldemar of the Yaselnichi, Baim stretil and told the prince Voldemar that the sovereign had sent his sovereign's sleigh for him. And Prince Voldemar, on the sovereign's salary, was a man on a sleigh and got into the sovereign's sleigh... went in a sleigh to the city to the Kremlin to the Borisovsky yard." ^{[7, p. 379]}. Boltin explained his role in detail, without embellishment. However, in comparison with the description of the role of other people in the meeting, this fragment is larger than the rest.

At this event, the Chronograph is interrupted. After the death of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Baim Boltin leaves the post of nursery. Zhdan Vasilyevich Kondyrev ^{[23, stb. 49-50]}, who had previously conducted a parochial dispute with Boltin before the embassy to Warsaw, was appointed the next nursery master on November 9, 1646.  Boltin was appointed ambassador to Denmark on January 21, 1647 (listed first in the list of ambassadors), from where he would return only a year later in January 1648 ^{[24, p. 227]}. The latest information about him as a courtier dates back to August-September 1649, when he was a bailiff for the Polish ambassadors ^{[23, stb. 129-130]}. This is followed by the voivodeship in Tobolsk (the second voivode) ^{[23, stb. 328, 363]} and participation in the Smolensk campaign of Alexei Mikhailovich ^{[23, stb. 467]}, after which information about Boltin disappears from sources. It can be assumed that the Chronograph was compiled after the death of Mikhail Romanov to ensure his parochial rights and preserve his place at the court of the new sovereign. But with the death of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, as we can see, there was still the removal of Baim Boltin from the court, although the new appointments cannot be called humiliating to his merits. It is worth paying attention to the fact that the compiled private discharge book of the brothers Nikita and Grigory Zyuzin ends in 1645 ^{[9, p. 30]} Thus, probably Boltin's relatives also sought to secure their position at the court of the new tsar.

Summing up, it is necessary to deduce the author's methods of exaggeration of merit used by Baim Boltin in the Chronograph.

Firstly, Boltin did not resort to falsifying facts in key points. He really had to do with the events that he mentioned in the Chronograph. We have not been able to find confirmation of his stay in Kazan as a Streletsky head, however, the detail of the facts in the Chronograph and the insignificance of such an appointment in comparison with other merits, gives no reason to doubt this. However, there are minor exaggerations or conscientious errors in his description (for example, Captain Kuninsky is mentioned as a colonel).

Secondly, Boltin focuses on his merits and describes in detail significant events with his own participation, specifying his role in them. At the same time, there was a clear omission of the merits of other persons involved in the same events (the most obvious is the lack of information about the first voivode Ivan Eropkin, the leader of Boltin in the Seversky campaign).

Thirdly, there is a desire to place oneself not only next to eminent persons, but also to indicate oneself in the context of events to which he has nothing to do (the most obvious is placing oneself after D.M. Pozharsky, and mentioning in connection with the capture of Ivan Zarutsky.)

Separately, it is worth noting the mention of Boltin in the private discharge book of his relatives. They did not make any significant exaggerations. However, the Zyuzin brothers indicated the failed demarcation of lands near Putivl in 1637, and participation in the gathering of voivodes near Mozhaisk in 1634. These events are insignificant. On the other hand, they mentioned Boltin's victories in parochial disputes, which already has more weight. An analysis of the original text of the "E" list would allow us to study in more detail the issue of differences with other sources, but at the moment this work has not been done.

Actually, according to the author of the Chronograph, Baim Boltin, such a description of his merits should have ensured his position at court. Unfortunately, we do not know how satisfied he was with the subsequent service, and as a result, it is not clear whether the Chronograph fulfilled its purpose.