certificate “Russian Truth in relation to criminal law”. The provisions of the dissertation caused a storm on the part of Pogodin, which later turned into polemics on the pages of Moskvityanin. On the same subject, Popov also wrote a monograph “On guardianship and inheritance under Russian law” (in Valuev’s collection). At the same time, Popov went on a trip abroad, and in Vienna he became close to Buk S. Karadzic. From Vienna he came to Montenegro, the result of the trip was the book “Travel through Montenegro”, St. Petersburg, 1847, which depicts in detail legal life, folk poetry and the history of the Black Mountain. At one time, “Travel” was little appreciated, although it has value to this day. Upon returning from abroad, Popov settled down with the patron of the Slavophiles, Count. Bludov, under whom he served until his death. Then, at first, he was occupied with the question of the attitude of the German school to the “origin of Rus”, especially about Schletserg. The result was an extensive article (in the Moscow Collection of 1847) about him, written in a spirit hostile to Schlozer’s negative criticism. Popov sought to prove that the yardstick with which the famous critic measured the history of Russia, a yardstick taken from the general course of development of Western history, was not applicable to Russia, that ancient Rus' was not at all a country of impenetrable barbarism, that it had its own original history... The importance and interest of ancient Russian history are perfectly revealed here. Popov took an active part in the journal “Northern Review”, published by Orientalists with a Slavophile tint II. S. Savelyev and V.V. Grigoriev. Here, among other things, he placed articles: “On the structure of criminal courts” and “On Russian icon painting; a similar article to the latter, “On Ancient Czech Painting”, was placed in the “Notes of the Archaeological Society” and translated into Czech in the Museum. In addition, there are many important critical articles in Northern Review. The same can be said about many of his critical articles in the “Journal of the Ministry of N. Education.” In Kalachov’s “Archive,” Popov published a very important article: “Feasts and Brotherhood.” Popov took an active part in geographical, archaeological and later historical societies, as the editor of their works. On the history of Russia’s diplomatic relations with foreign powers, Popov published: “On Russia’s relations with Khiva and Bukhara” and a special
THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY BY THE CHRNICAL NESTOR.
extensive work “Russian Embassy to Poland 1673 - 77” In “Russian Conversation”, among other things, he published a large work about Stenka Galina, about the Potemkin embassy of 1668, etc. In “Russian Antiquity” and in the “Russian Archive” he published about “the twelfth year”,* collaborated in the Vestnik Evropy", where, among other things, his extensive research on relations between Russia and Rome in 1845-67 was published. etc. Popov's articles are not the same in scientific merit, but their common feature is a serious attitude to the matter. A. N. Popov has never been a superb gazer anywhere. He also possessed one more quality to the fullest extent: he knew how to be impartially objective to the point of coldness. In any case, the active participation of the deceased in the fate of Russian education, science and literature gives full right to the attention and respect of posterity.
Application.
Testimony of Abbot Theodosius Vaskovsky about the situation of the Kyiv townspeople before Bogdan Khmelnitsky.
Between the documents on the estates of the Kyiv monasteries, transferred in 1837 from the Kyiv treasury chamber to the library of the Kyiv Theological Academy, there is a copy of the testimony of the Mezhigorsk abbot Theodosius Vaskovsky, a Kyiv old-timer, about the situation in which the Kyiv townspeople were before the war of Bogdan Khmelnitsky with the Poles. The testimony was written on December 10, 1699, regarding the letter of complaint from Emperor Peter I to the Kyiv voyt Yan Diomidovich Bykovsky and the burghers, given on April 10, 1699, at the request of the Kyiv voit and the burghers, for some immovable estates and income items that hitherto belonged to the Kyiv monasteries. Wanting to show the injustice of the request of the Kyiv voyt and the bourgeoisie and to defend the inviolability of the monastery property, Mezhigorsky Abbot Bankovsky wrote his testimony with the purpose of proving that the Kyiv bourgeoisie, before the war of Bogdap Khmelnytsky, with those monastic property, which they are now claiming and asking for charters, positively did not have any rights during Polish rule in the region.