scholarly journals РИСИ СУСПІЛЬНО-ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЙ У МОСКОВСЬКІЙ ДЕРЖАВІ В XVII СТ.

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-81
Author(s):  
Олег Марченко
Keyword(s):  
Old Regime ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
New Beginning ◽  
Russian State ◽  
History Of ◽  
Time Of Troubles ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Boris Godunov

Ключові слова: Московська держава в XVII ст., династія Романових, самодержавство, абсолютизм, станово-представницька монархія. Анотація На основі новітніх історичних досліджень поданий неупереджений погляд на розвиток Московської держави в XVII ст. через призму соціокультурного, проблемного підходу до суперечливих в історіографії питань, що турбують сьогоднішніх істориків, політиків, звичайних людей України, Росії, інших країн світу і стають предметом численних спекуляцій та маніпуляцій. У результаті проведеного дослідження висвітлено основні риси суспільно-політичних трансформацій у Московській державі в XVII ст., акцентовано увагу на спростування радянських та сучасних російських міфів щодо розвитку централізованої самодержавної моделі Московії, визначаються можливості цивілізаційного вибору Московської держави XVII ст. між станово-представницькою та абсолютистською моделями розвитку. Посилання Andreev, 2003 – Andreev I.L. Aleksey Mihaylovich [Alexey Mikhailovich]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2003. 638 s. [in Russian] Ahiezer, 2013 – Ahiezer A., Klyamkin I., Yakovenko I. Istoriya Rossii: konets ili novoe nachalo? [History of Russia: end or new beginning?] / 3-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moskva: Novoe izdatelstvo, 2013. 496 s. [in Russian] Bogdanov, 2009 – Bogdanov A.P. Nesostoyavshiysya imperator Fedor Alekseevich [Failed Emperor Fyodor Alekseevich]. Moskva: Veche, 2009. 320 s. [in Russian] Volodihin, 2013 – Volodihin D.M. Tsar Fedor Alekseevich, ili Bednyiy otrok [Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, or Poor youth]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2013. 267 s. [in Russian] Danilov, 2007 – Danilov A.G. Alternativyi v istorii Rossii: mif ili realnost (XIV–ХІХ vv.) [Alternatives in the history of Russia: myth or reality (XIV – XIX centuries)]. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks, 2007. 303 s. [in Russian] Zarezin, 2018 – Zarezin M.I. V puchine Russkoy Smutyi. Nevyiuchennyiy uroki istorii [In the abyss of the Russian Troubles. Unlearned history lessons]. Moskva: Veche, 2018. 400 s. [in Russian] Istoriia Rosii, 2013 – Istoriia Rosii (z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVIII st.) [History of Russia (from ancient times to the end of the XVIII century)]: navch. posib. /avtor-uklad. V.M. Mordvintsev. Kyiv: Znannia, 2013. 346 s. [in Ukrainian] Kozlyakov, 2004 – Kozlyakov V.N. Mihail Fedorovich [Mikhail Fedorovich]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2004. 352 s. [in Russian] Kozlyakov, 2017 – Kozlyakov V.N. Boris Godunov. Tragediya o dobrom tsare [Boris Godunov. The tragedy of the good king]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2017. 330 s. [in Russian] Lobachev, 2003 – Lobachev S.V. Patriarh Nikon [Patriarch Nikon]. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo-SPb, 2003. 416 s. [in Russian] Lukin, 2000 – Lukin P.V. Narodnyie predstavleniya o gosudarstvennoy vlasti v Rossii XVII v. [Popular ideas about state power in Russia in the XVII century].Moskva: Nauka, 2000. 296 s. [in Russian] Marchenko, 2015 – Marchenko O.M. Istoriia slovianskykh narodiv. Chastyna persha. Istoriia Rusi, Moskovskoi derzhavy, Rosiiskoi imperii do kintsia XVIII st. Kurs lektsii dlia studentiv vyshchykh navchalnykh zakladiv: Navchalnyi posibnyk [History of Slavic peoples. Part one. History of Russia, the Moscow State, the Russian Empire until the end of the XVIII century. Course of lectures for students of higher educational institutions: Textbook]. Druhe vydannia, pereroblene y dopovnene. Kirovohrad, POLIMED-Servis, 2015. 385 s. [in Ukrainian] Narysy istorii, 2007 – Narysy istorii Rosii [Essays on the history of Russia]: per. z ros. /B.V. Ananich, I.L. Andreiev, Ye.V. Anisimov ta in.; Za zah. red. O.O. Chubariana. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, 2007. 800 s. [in Ukrainian] Nefedov, 2004 – Nefedov S.A. Pervyie shagi po puti modernizatsii Rossii: reformyi seredinyi XVII v. [First steps towards modernization of Russia: reforms of the middle of the XVII century] // Voprosyi istorii. 2004. №4. – S. 33–52. [in Russian] Payps, 2012 – Payps R.E. Rossiya pri starom rezhime [Russia under the old regime]. M.: Zakharov. 2012. 480 s. [in Russian] Pisarkova, 2007 – Pisarkova L.F. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie Rossii s kontsa XVII do kontsa XVIII veka. Evolyutsiya byurokraticheskoy sistemyi [Russian government from the end of the XVII to the end of the XVIII century: the evolution of the bureaucratic system]. Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2007. 743 s. [in Russian] Svetova, 2013 – Svetova E.A. Dvor Alekseya Mihaylovicha v kontekste absolyutizatsii tsarskoy vlasti [The courtyard of Alexei Mikhailovich in the context of the absolutization of the tsarist power]. Moskva: MGU, 2013. 212 s. [in Russian] Sedov, 2006 – Sedov P.V. Zakat Moskovskogo tsarstva: Tsarskiy dvor kontsa XVII veka [The decline of the Moscow kingdom: the royal court at the end of the XVII century]. Sankt-Peterburg: Dmitriy Bulanin, 2006. 604 s. [in Russian] Skryinnikov, 1988 – Skryinnikov R.G. Rossiya v nachale XVII v. Smuta [Russia at the beginning of the XVII century. Troubles]. Moskva: Myisl, 1988. 283 s. [in Russian] Stanislavskiy, 1990 – Stanislavskiy A.L. Grazhdanskaya voyna v Rossii XVII v. [The Civil War in Russia in the XVII century]. Moskva: Myisl, 1990. 270 s. [in Russian] Talina, 1996 – Talina G.V. Tsar Aleksey Mihaylovich: lichnost, myislitel, gosudarstvennyiy deyatel [Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: personality, thinker, statesman]. Moskva: Magistr, 1996. 144 s. [in Russian] Ulyanovskiy, 2006 – Ulyanovskiy V.I. Smutnoe vremya [Time of Troubles]. Moskva: Evropa, 2006. 448 s. [in Russian] Cherepnin, 1978 – Cherepnin L.V. Zemskie soboryi Russkogo gosudarstva v XVI – XVII vv. [Zemsky Cathedrals of the Russian State in the XVI – XVII centuries]. / Moskva: Nauka, 1978. 420 s. [in Russian] Shokarev, 2013 – Shokarev S.Yu. Smutnoe vremya v Moskve [Time of Troubles in Moscow]. Moskva: Veche, 2013. 320 s. [in Russian]

scholarly journals “Pure Nonsense!” War Minister A. N. Kuropatkin about the Proceedings of Japanese Nationalists

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 875-891
Author(s):  
R. S. Avilov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Far East ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
High Level ◽  
Imperial Governance

This article based on a large body of unpublished documents from the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RSMHA). The author analyzes the history of the acquaintance Russian Minister of War A. N. Kuropatkin with publications by the Japanese ultra-nationalist society Kokuryūkai in 1901. Despite weaknesses of Russian intelligence in the Far East before the Russo-Japanese War, the service was been able to obtain a highly valued materials, such as the second volume of Bulletin of Amur River Society. An analysis of this publication reveals that the authors and the journals founder, Uchida Ryōhei, had a high level of knowledge about Russian society. The Japanese discovered all the weak spots of Imperial governance, finance, economy, educational system, and domestic and foreign policies of the Russian Empire. The article shows how the Minister of War read a translation of Japanese edition and noted the authors’ conclusions. We conclude that the Japanese state was able to organize these investigations of Russia using materials from nationalist organizations that sometimes took different positions from those of the Russian government, in Russian. In contrast, Russian officials were not able to do a normal analysis of observations from official channels, And Kuropatkin often did not understand the value of such materials that were passed on to him.

History of Russia: Challenges of the era of the Rurik

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Михаил Жеребкин ◽  
Mihail Zherebkin
Keyword(s):  
Training Manual ◽  
Russian History ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Russian State ◽  
History Of ◽  
Time Of Troubles ◽  
The Moment ◽  
In The Beginning

A training manual «History of Russia. Challenges of the Rurikovich’s epoch» covers a period of Russian history from the moment of the genesis and development of the Old Russian State in Novgorod and Kiev in the second half of the IX century till the ending of the ‘Time of troubles’ and the election of the first tsar of the new Romanov’s dynasty of tsar in the beginning of the XVII century. The analysis of the events of the reign of the Rurikovich’s dynasty princes is represented through the prism of challenges, the country is faced with. The content of the manual is consisted of five chapters. Five historic challenges, which the author highlights, are the depletion of Kievan Rus’ and the emergence of Verhnevolozhskaya Rus’, Mongol and Tatar invasion, the tide of west powers, the reunification of Russian lands around Moscow and Distemper

scholarly journals MOSCOW KINDOM AND THE EUROPEAN INNOVATION OF THE TIME OF TROUBLES

2016 ◽  
pp. 18-28
Author(s):  
T. V. Chernikova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Government ◽  
The West ◽  
Cultural Experience ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
The Common ◽  
Western European ◽  
Time Of Troubles ◽  
Boris Godunov ◽  
The Military ◽  
West European

The article is devoted to the examination of the issue of Russian borrowing of military and technical as well as cultural experience of the West at the beginning of the Time of Troubles during the reign of Feodor I Ivanovich (1584-1598), Boris Godunov (1598-1605) and Dmitry the Pretender (1605-1606). One of the channels of the Russian contact with the west-European "powder revolution" and culture was foreigners on Moscow service. A lot of them were the military; doctors of the Tsar had a huge power; some merchants (for example, Jerome Horsey) carried out special orders of the Russian government. The article gives the description of western foreigners' position both, at the beginning of the Time of Troubles, when the Moscow government was interested in western innovation, and after 1606, when the situation changed. The author tries to find out in which areas and what kind of foreign experts were used in Russia; what were the reasons for the use of the Western European experts; what were the results of this phenomenon. While analyzing the "Notes" of foreigners, who were on the Russian service at the beginning of the Time of Troubles, the author examines the achievements of the "common revolution" at the beginning of XVII century.

The Abkhazian Principality and Abazins BETWEEN THE Turks and the Russian Empire

ANCIENT LAND ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 01 (02) ◽  
pp. 18-35
Author(s):  
Ярослав Валентинович Пилипчук ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
Ethnic Composition ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
The People ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Xix Century ◽  
Relationship Of

This paper is devoted to the history of the relationship of Abkhazians and Abazines with the Mingrels, Turkic world and the Russians. Abkhazian mtavarist developed on the basis of the Tskhum eristavarist. During the XV century - the first half of the XVII century. Abkhazia was an integral part of the Mingrel principalities of Sabediano and Odishi. The region was actually ruled by the Georgian Sharvashidze dynasty. During the XVII century. Abkhazians put pressure on the Mingrels and advanced their border to the Enguri River. They took an active part in the strife in Mingrelia. In the XVIII century. Abkhazians put pressure on the Ottoman possessions in Georgia.in XVIII cebtury. Abkhazia despite the formal vassalage from the Ottoman Empire was practically an independent principality, which at one time was divided into a number of destinies and free societies. The specific principality of Samurzakan had a mixed (Abkhazs and Mingrels) ethnic composition of the population. The most powerful Abkhaz ruler was Keleshbey, who maneuvered between the Ottomans and the Russian Empire in fact maintained independence. He combined several destinies into a single state. Seferbey (Giorgi Sharvashidze) and Hamutbey (Mikheil Sharvashidze) were in fact Russian demonstrators, who did not find support among the people. However, Mikheil Sharvashidze tried to pursue an independent policy. He fought with the Mingrel Dadiani for control of Samurzakano and strengthened power over the mountainous free societies of Abkhazia. During the Crimean War, he maneuvered between the Ottomans and the Romanovs. The disgraced Aslanbey and Hasanbey also enjoyed wide support among the people. The Abkhazian rebelled against the Russians several times in the XIX century. This was often associated with the offensive of the Russians on the rights of the Abkhazian princes and the mountain free societies. The main initiators of the confrontation with the Russians were the Tsebeldin princes Marshania. The mountain communities of Tsebelda, Pskhu and Dal became deserted as a result of Abkhazian mahajirism. Southern Abazins-Sadzes gravitated towards Abkhazia and depended on it. They supported Aslanbey in his struggle against the Russians. They were also strongly associated with the Ubykhs and the Circassian tribes who took part in the Caucasian war. Part of the Circassian tribes of the XVIII century were assimilated abazins. Northern Abaza made up free societies. The attempts of the Crimean Gherays to subjugate them to themselves were unsuccessful. The presence of Nogays and Turks in the Abazin lands was episodic. In the XVI - XVII centuries. The northern Abazins were subjects of Greater and Lesser Kabarda, and they also sent embassies to the Russians in Moscow and Tersky town. They were loyal to the Russian authorities and reacted to the infringement of rights migration to the mountains. Southern Abazins (Jigets) since the 40-ies of XIX century they became subjects of the Russian Empire. Key words: Abkhazian principality, Abkhazians, Abazins, Sharvashidze, Marshania, Turks, Ottoman Empire, Odishi, Sabeianom Mingrels, Russian Empire, Russians

scholarly journals Captain Jacques Margeret: a Remarkable Huguenot Soldier in Russia’s Time of Troubles

2019 ◽  
pp. 76-102
Author(s):  
Chester Dunning
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Religious Affiliation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
James I ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Military Modernization ◽  
Famous Book ◽  
Time Of Troubles ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Boris Godunov

Captain Jacques Margeret (fl. 1591-1621), a brave and highly intelligent French Huguenot soldier, was an active observer-participant in the Time of Troubles who contributed to Russia’s military modernization. Margeret also wrote one of the most valuable foreign accounts of early modern Russia: Estat de l’Empire de Russie et Grand Duché de Moscovie (1607). In this essay, Chester Dunning surveys two hundred years of scholarship about Margeret and his famous book, and he lays the foundation for a more objective biography of the remarkable French captain who served Tsar Boris Godunov, Tsar “Dmitrii”, Tsar Vasilii Shuiskii, the Tushinite pretender Dmitrii, “Tsar” Wladyslaw, King Sigismund III of Poland-Lithuania, Prince Janusz Radziwiłł, and finally King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden. This essay challenges recent scholarship concerning Margeret’s identity, his religious affiliation, his early career in France, his controversial career in Russia, his later career, and the composition of his book. This essay is based on fifty years of research by the translator of Jacques Margeret’s book into English as The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy: A 17th-Century French Account (1983). In addition to reading most published sources and scholarship about Margeret and his account of Russia, the author has examined documents related to Margeret’s biography in French, Russian, Polish, and British archives. In the process, Dunning discovered a letter Margeret wrote to King James I in 1612 encouraging English military intervention in north Russia to counter Polish and Swedish intervention.

scholarly journals The Armenian Apostolic Church in the Politics of the Russian Empire: the Search for an Administrative Optimum

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 63-93
Author(s):  
Amiran Urushadze
Keyword(s):  
Russian Empire ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Historical Archive ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Political Interaction ◽  
History Of ◽  
Imperial Politics ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Scholarly Discourse ◽  
First Time

The article analyzes governmental debates on the functions, rights and privileges of the Armenian Catholicoi in the context of inter-institutional controversies. The author attempts to identify and analyze the most influential programmes for solving the “Echmiadzin issue” and their origins presenting at the same time certain aspects of political interaction between the Russian Empire and the Armenian Church as overlapping processes and related events. The history of relationships between Russian state and Armenian Church in XIX–XX centuries shows that different actors of the imperial politics had different ideas about the optimal model of cooperation with Echmiadzin. The divisions took place not only between the various departments (the Ministry of Internal Affairs versus the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), but also within them, where individual officials could hold “anti-departmental” views in each particular case. All this hindered administrative consolidation, slowed down the empire's response to important political challenges and dragged the imperial structures into protracted service-hierarchical confrontations. The “Etchmiadzin Question” and the governmental discussions around it show in part the administrative paralysis of the autocracy and the decompensation of the system of power in the Russian Empire in the early 20th century. The article employs a rich documentary base of archival materials from the collections of the Russian State Historical Archive. These materials are introduced into the scholarly discourse for the first time ever.

scholarly journals MODERN MYTHS OF HISTORY OF PEDAGOGICS

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-58
Author(s):  
Sergei Teleshov ◽  
Elena Teleshova
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Training ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
Teacher Training College ◽  
Russian State ◽  
State Pedagogical ◽  
Unique Material ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
The Right

The unique material returning us to the history of a question on possible primogenitors of the Russian State Pedagogical University, the long years, was a smithy of the best teacher's staff of the Russian empire and then the USSR is offered to attention of readers. Whether it is lawful to adhere only to one version of the occurrence of the pedagogical university? The reader can find some answers to an asked question in an offered material. And all of them, probably, have the right to existence. Scientific researchers are guided first of all by the facts (the facts, as speak, a stubborn thing). However, the facts powerless before politicians who interpret history randomly. Nevertheless, we insist that the history of pedagogical university, began in 1903 with the creation of Women's teacher training college. Key words: history of pedagogy, Educational House, teacher's seminary, pedagogical college, pedagogical university.

scholarly journals Social-political activity of O. Bobrinsky in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

10.33287/1196 ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 58-70
Author(s):  
І. С. Карпань ◽  
Н. С. Чернікова
Keyword(s):  
Russian Empire ◽  
Government Support ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Russian State ◽  
The Russian Empire

The article deals with problems of the noble class in post-reform period in Russia (70–90-ies XIXth cent.) through A. Bobrinsky’s activity as the Leader of the St. Petersburg nobility. The study analyzed his activities towards the Nobility consolidation and involvement their representatives into development of Russian state policy. A. Bobrinsky belonged to the family of large landowners and successful sugar-growers of the Russian Empire. It greatly influenced to the formation of his political worldview and contributed to the growth of the young Count’s authority among the Nobility and Gentry. In the last quarter of the XIXth cent. A. Bobrinsky defended the dominant position of the Nobility as the provincial Governor (the Leader) of the St. Petersburg nobility. A. Bobrinsky’s main efforts were aimed to the consolidation of the Gentry to defend their own rights and privileges and their involvement to the Russian state authorities. He promoted the idea of founding a representative institution – the Duma or Zemsky Sobor – in Russian Empire. However, the purpose of its creation he was seen in the count in the redistribution of executive, judicial and punitive powers between government representatives and elected people from the Nobility. He was convinced that only the Gentry was worthy to represent the interests of Russian society in the state authorities. During this period, the young Bobrinsky attempted to unite the St. Petersburg nobility into the organization of «Svyataya Druzhyna». It was a semi-secret organization which established to protect of the Russian Tsar from possible terrorist acts. The purpose of the organization was rather limited and local, so it disintegrated soon. However, it contributed to the growth of A. Bobrysky’s authority as a loyal to the Tsar and autocracy personality. It had a great importance in the conditions of the economic and political crisis of the noble class. In the 90’s of the XIX cent. A. Bobrinsky took an active part in nobility meetings devoted to problems of the privileged class. Here he defended an idea of preserving the privileges and dominant position of the estate Nobility. He opposed the provision of political rights and state support to the estateless nobles-homeowners and representatives of the bourgeoisie. A. Bobrinsky didn’t reject an idea to create conditions for the nobility replenishment by the new social classes, but he saw it possibility only in the distant future. However, even government support didn’t contribute to consolidation processes and politicization among the nobility class. A. Bobrinsky with sadness stated that the meetings of the noble leaders continued to be only like private talks about preserving the nobility former positions in the social structure. So he had to change strategy and initiated the founding in 1906 a new organization – the United Nobility. During the next decade its existence largely predetermined the main directions of Russian government policy and as a whole.

scholarly journals “GREEK PROJECT” – CLUE TO THE HISTORY OF GEORGIA 50-90-IES OF XVIII CENTURY

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamuka Natsvaladze ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Holy Roman Empire ◽  
The Caucasus ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Imperial Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Political Background ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Main Message

Global international project of the 70-80-s of the XVIII century envisaging a new distribution of Europe based on the areas of the Ottoman Empire is reviewed in the article. This topic acquires a final feature in a conceptual form in the correspondence between Catherine II and the Emperor of Austria and the Holy Roman Empire Josephus II under the name of "Greek Project". The article is a scientific fragment of a monograph, reviewing the Greek Project in regard of the Caucasus for the first time in historiography. Initially, Soviet historiography strictly separated itself from the Greek Project, since the objective research of the latter would ensure presenting the Russian Empire as an aggressive state. Afterwards, the research of this project was converted into a narrow political framework and presented as a plan to conquer Crimea. The Greek Project can be unequivocally considered as a key to the history of Georgia of 50-80-ies of the XVIII century. A number of studies have shown that numerous problematic questions remain unanswered until the present day without considering the Greek Project. Patience and tolerance shown by the King of Kartli - Kakheti Erekle II towards the Russian intrigues cannot be explained without the Greek Project. Georgia acquires qualitatively different and desired form of all time through the implementation of the Greek Project. The Greek Project is an attempt to create a Christian global political model, a political background that can serve as a precondition for the restoration of a real united Caucasian Home, ensuring a guarantee of irreversible development and security for all royal principalities and khanate in the Caucasus. This is the reason, the state oriented thinker Erekle II, avoids responding with aggression to the permanent intrigues of Russia. Erekle II tries to get involved in this great political game as a sovereign of a full-fledged political entity. Such attitude of Erekle is a guarantee of success for the Imperial Court of St. Petersburg. However, Russia chooses a completely different way - confronting Erekle's benevolent alliance with hostile, imperial sentiments. The main message of these sentiments is that a united Caucasus, independent Georgian kingdoms for Russia is considered to be an anti-Russian phenomenon. This consistent and hostile attitude towards the Caucasus became the reason for the failure of Russian policy - it could neither establish a model of Christian globalization nor neutralize the Ottomans. Therefore, the study and understanding of the referred problem is rather important to determine the directions and priorities of modern political processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document