Adashev Kurbsky temple priest Sylvester. Prince Kurbsky. Actions are more important than words

K. D. Kavelin’s statement about the oprichnina (“an institution slandered by contemporaries and incomprehensible to posterity”) is perhaps still to a greater extent applicable to the Elected Rada. Indeed, it is difficult to find another historical example when the government of a country, which conceived and in many ways carried out so many necessary transformations, would have been subjected to such fierce attacks by contemporaries, and then by historians echoing them. Many researchers generally deny in one form or another the existence of a political institution that would deserve the independent name proposed for it by Kurbsky - the Elected Rada.

In the literature about the Elected Rada, a peculiar historiographical situation has developed. Usually historians complain about the contradictory nature of the sources, which hinders the study of the era of Ivan the Terrible. In this case, sources that “should” contradict each other due to the extreme differences in views and irreconcilable hostility of their authors - Grozny and Kurbsky, speak unanimously. The historians themselves introduce contradictions (which are not in the sources this time).

The Tsar was the first to assert the omnipotence of Adashev, Sylvester and their supporters. It is contained in his response to Kurbsky in 1564. None other than Ivan the Terrible speaks of the “evil council”, which “creates all buildings and statements according to its own will and its advisers.” Repeatedly emphasizing the omnipotence of this council, asserting that its leaders have reached “the first rank” in the state, Grozny never identifies it with his official, or rather traditional, “synclit,” i.e., with the Boyar Duma or even with the Middle Duma.

The unanimity of the testimony of Grozny and Kurbsky about the great political and state significance of the reign of Sylvester, Adashev and their supporters at a certain stage in the history of the reign of Ivan IV is explained by the fact that in their polemics it was not the facts of the past themselves that opposed each other, but their interpretation. Each of the polemicists built his own concept of “good” and “evil.” Ivan the Terrible argued that the omnipotence of the then rulers was an evil for the state, a usurpation of the power of the tsar, and that, therefore, their expulsion was a blessing. Kurbsky described the reign of the Chosen Rada as a golden age, which was replaced by the tyranny of Tsar Ivan, who dispersed and destroyed his good and wise advisers.

Let's take a closer look at what Kurbsky writes about the Elected Rada. In his depiction, Adashev and Sylvester “gather to him (the king. - YES.) advisers, wise men and skilled in military and zemstvo things, skilled in everything, and they also assimilate their affection and friendship to him, as if without their advice there is nothing to organize or think about.”

It must be admitted that the objective results achieved with the help of these skillful, in the opinion of Kurbsky, and bad, in the opinion of Grozny, advisers in the late 40s and 50s clearly speak in their favor.

Further from Kurbsky we read: “And besides this, the governors elect skilled, brave men against the enemies, and establish stratilate ranks, both over the mounted and over the foot; and if anyone shows courage in battle and bleeds his hand in the blood of the enemy, he is honored as a gift, both by movable things and by immovable things. Some of them, the most skilled, were elevated to the highest degrees for this reason.” Here Kurbsky gives credit to the “wise advisers” of Ivan IV in the 50s. nothing more than their fulfillment of one of the most important points in the program of the publicist Ivan Peresvetov, with which the latter in 1549, more than twenty years before Kurbsky wrote his “History,” addressed those who then still had to build a new, strong Russian state: “Which warrior will fiercely play a mortal game against the enemy of the sovereign and will stand firmly for the Christian faith, otherwise he will elevate the names of such a warrior, and cheer their hearts, and increase their salaries from the sovereign’s treasury; and to return the hearts of another warrior, and to bring them close to you.”

One can make many assumptions about why Kurbsky in the late 70s. spoke “in a voice not his own”, why he praises the noble reformers. One of them was expressed by the famous researcher of the history of this period S. O. Schmidt: the time of Peresvetov, Adashev, Sylvester, in comparison with the times of the oprichnina terror, with the times of Malyuta Skuratov, the Basmanovs, Gryaznovs, and then all the other oprichnina henchmen of Tsar Ivan, seemed to Kurbsky a golden age .

In addition, speaking in defense of the Chosen Rada and at the same time in defense of the boyars and governors was a more advantageous position in the polemic with Grozny than, say, defending the narrow-caste interests of the aristocracy alone. In the latter case, Kurbsky could not count on the approval of either the Russian service people or the Polish gentry, i.e. those who could become a real force in the fight against the autocracy of the Moscow Tsar. The fact is that he speaks here not as an “ideologist of the boyars” (although he was one and acted in this capacity in his first “epistole”), but on behalf of “the whole earth,” that is, on behalf of the entire class of feudal lords.

The characterization given by Kurbsky to the government of the late 40s and 50s is basically true. Kurbsky has no reason to distort the past at this point. This cannot be said about Ivan the Terrible, who had good reasons for tarring his former comrades. The Tsar needed to justify the sharp turn he made in the early 60s. from the politics of the Chosen One to the politics of the oprichnina.

It follows that in order to develop an objective view of the activities of the government in the late 40s and 50s. it is necessary to free the study of the Chosen Rada from the influence of its first historian - Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

The first thing that needs to be done in this direction is to find out whether the tsar rightfully included Kurbsky among the persons who determined state policy in the late 40s and 50s. I. I. Smirnov, who studied this issue, writes: “Indeed, what has been preserved about Kurbsky’s activities in the sources rather speaks of him as a prominent military leader-voivode than as one of the political leaders of the state.”

Data that during the period of “omnipotence” of Adashev and Sylvester, Kurbsky was one of their friends, associates, or at least supporters, that he participated in the preparation and implementation of reforms in the late 40s and 50s. or at least took up the pen of a publicist in those years in order to support the good deeds that he began to sing after the deaths of Adashev and Sylvester, does not exist. Kurbsky does not appear either among the Tsar’s “close ones” or in the “circles” of Sylvester and Adashev. He was not noticed by sources in any movements and struggles within the Boyar Duma, which he entered in 1556. He did not lose the tsar’s trust after the fall of the Elected Rada and the removal of Adashev and Sylvester in 1560. He is not among the boyars who left in 1560–1564 . from the Boyar Duma on charges of being of the same mind with Adashev and Sylvester. In 1560, when the council condemned Adashev and Sylvester took place, the famous and honored governor, boyar Prince Kurbsky did not in any way raise his voice in their defense. He expressed a passionate protest against their blind condemnation a decade and a half later in his journalistic writings.

Kurbsky, as can be seen from many places in his letters and writings, counts himself in the second group of these ranks surrounding the tsar, namely among the “strong strategists and stratilates”, to whom the current “military leaders” were preferred. We know that Kurbsky did not hesitate to remind of his merits. But he always speaks only about his military labors and exploits. In a word, Kurbsky does not see himself in the “elected council”, in the “wise council”, among the “chosen and reverend men”. All this definitely suggests that the prince became a zealous “agreement” with Adashev and Sylvester in retrospect, when he, a former boyar, himself turned out to be as disgraced as the former noble temporary workers.

The unfounded inclusion of Kurbsky in the Elected Rada contributed to the creation of a distorted image of it. It led to conclusions about her pro-boyar orientation.

Both polemicists, Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky, endow the “council” they are talking about, the Elected Rada, with the functions of a directory, an actual government. Therefore, it is most accurate, in our opinion, to call the Elected Rada the government. This is all the more true because, in contrast to the advisory and legislative body - the Boyar Duma, the Elected Rada was a body that exercised direct executive power, formed a new administrative apparatus and directed this apparatus.

The tsar was part of the government that actually ruled the country in the late 40s and 50s, and was awarded the “honor of chairmanship” (according to him, only nominally). He participated in its work together with his “friends and collaborators” Sylvester and Adashev. This most important circumstance gave the Elected Rada the character of a governing body. We should dwell on the reforms of the actual government here in order to better imagine what direction of development of the Russian centralized state that was emerging at that time was replaced by autocracy. Without this, it is impossible to assess the “degree” of the political turn that was the introduction of the tsarist oprichnina, and, consequently, the scale of the oprichnina itself as a socio-political phenomenon, as a decisive turning point in the history of the country.

The formula - “expressed the interests (or aspirations) of the broad masses of the nobility and the top of the urban settlement” - became a popular general definition of the socio-political position defended by Adashev and Sylvester.

Those who speak on behalf of the “deprived” - in this case, on behalf of the service masses and the upper classes of the town against the traditional elite - the “nobles”, the “rich” and the “bellied”, essentially speak on behalf of the entire people, the entire state. The abuses of the upper caste really affect everyone and everything. Therefore, the struggle waged by the “lower” exploiters against the “upper” ones actually has the support of the lower classes, who willingly act against the higher, “main” exploiters.

An objective expression of the common interests of this “union of horse and rider” is the constant demand of such figures as Adashev and Sylvester to replace the ancient legal order, decentralizing with a new legal order - centralizing the demand to create a state on a single legal basis. It is this tendency that is expressed in every way by the repeated appeal addressed to the tsar - to introduce “law and truth.”

Beginning in 1549, the government brought down an avalanche of new regulations on the previous appanage-feudal order that reigned in the country.

The first reform of the new government was the sentence of February 28, 1549: “In all cities of the Moscow land, the governor should not judge the children of the boyars for anything, except for murder and robbery and red-handed robbery.” Immediately, the corresponding “letters of complaint” were sent “to the boyar children all over the city.”

Many historians consider this reform to be exclusively pro-nobility - the beginning of the gradual formalization of the class privileges of the nobility. However, the matter here, in our opinion, is more complicated. It is impossible not to take into account that local service people were by this verdict exempted from the governor's court for all kinds of minor cases, but they retained jurisdiction over the governors for the most serious cases - theft, murder and robbery. The measure is quite understandable, if you consider that it was the service people, who had not received a salary for years, were unsettled in their land (serious improvements in their situation were still ahead), formed gangs of armed robbers, attacked the estates of rich feudal lords and “merchant men”, terrorized the population with robberies and robberies . At the time of the formation of a centralized state, stopping the rule of the districts and volosts by detachments of armed bandits from provincial nobles was a priority measure that really alleviated the situation of all categories of the population, protecting the lives and property of both the rich and “all Christians.”

If you look at the verdict of February 28, 1549, then the testimony of I. S. Peresvetov about the “good orders” allegedly introduced in his country by the wise philosopher Magmet-Saltan will be filled with new meaning: “And he ordered his warriors to be judged with the great threat of death penalty ..."; “...and there will be a thieves in the army or robbery, or something else... otherwise, such reckless people, thieves and robbers, the search of the kings live firmly...”; “...and whoever the foreman hides a dashing person in his ten, otherwise that foreman with the dashing person will be executed with the death penalty so that the dashing does not multiply...”.

As we see, the friend and defender of the warriors, I. Peresvetov, praises the most severe measures against the thieves and robbers from among them. There is no reason to believe that this motive is present in him by chance. Another thing is that the measure, which emphasized the unrelenting action of the previous punitive system in relation to service people, was presented in the spirit of the times as a benefit and special mercy. One of the first decisions of the government, which the Boyar Duma was forced to approve, was the decree on localism in 1549. Soon, in 1550, it was supplemented by a more detailed decree.

In the Official Book of Discharges of Moscow Sovereigns we find a picture of local disputes and verdicts of the 16th century, unique in its completeness and reliability. Thanks to this, we can get an idea of ​​the real consequences that the decrees of 1549–1550 had. There was a clear “nationalization” of localism. Appointment to service became a state responsibility. Failure to fulfill it entailed punishment, sometimes very severe. The arbiter in resolving the local dispute was the head of state, who could create a Duma commission to prepare his decision. When appointed to a position, the service principle was placed above the generic one.

Strengthening the new state (monarchy) required a decisive replacement of the predatory apparatus of local power that had developed under boyar rule. The order of the day was the creation of an apparatus of state officials, whose activities would exclude abuses in relation to the treasury and arbitrariness against subjects on the part of practically uncontrolled governors.

In the service book of the second half of the 16th century. a prayer has been preserved, which was recommended as a model of repentance for bad governors. It clearly contains elements of the satirical exposure of “strong” and “bellied” predators and bribe-takers, so common in Grozny: “Those who sinned before God and God before the sovereign before the Grand Duke - the Russian Tsar. I did not create the rights he commanded me anywhere in his words, but I also trespassed and lied and did not correct them. We hold the volosts and towns from the sovereign and the court is not right, but by bribe and promise. The right one is completely covered, and the guilty one is armored with the right one. But the court told the sovereign wrong - everything was based on bribes and promises. They handed over innocent people to execution and death, and all according to a bribe and a promise. Oh me, a sinner! Oh woe to me, a sinner! How can the earth not devour me for my damned sins, who has transgressed the commandment of God and the law, and the judgment of God, and the commanded word from his sovereign. And I gained and gained riches through violence, and crooked judgment, and unrighteousness. Father, forgive me - those who have sinned, even if I punish my servants with violence and unrighteousness, and with nakedness, and with hunger, and with bare feet. And in this, Father, forgive me for those who have sinned and have committed sins in sleeping, or in reckless eating, or in drunkenness, we seduce the enemy into evil, falling into dishonesty and into adultery, and into oaths into marriages, and into evil games into quarrels, and into crimes of oaths ..." The most effective form of creating an executive apparatus was the local election of officials by the subjects themselves to carry out state, “government” functions. Celerians and elders elected in cities and volosts became the “official” people of the state. The election and rotation of these persons placed their activities in favor of the state and controlled by the state also under the control of their subjects.

By creating in this way a wide, ramified system of officials serving it, the central government saved itself from the discontent of its subjects for their abuses.

The reforms carried out in this area, more than anything else, helped create the impression that the authorities are the defender of the interests of “the whole earth”, that the king and his advisers are establishing “court and truth” for everyone “whoever it may be.”

But the point, of course, is not only about certain impressions and ideas. The system of electing local authorities, which actually reduced the scale of abuses and arbitrariness, actually increased treasury revenues and actually improved law and order, was a decisive step towards eliminating the remnants of the appanage feudal era. The replacement of numerous governors and feeders - local "kings" - with direct connections between the state and its population through local government bodies turned the inhabitants of the former appanages into subjects of the state, subject to its laws.

The demand for universal submission to a single law turned into demands for the law itself. Legality as an establishment against arbitrariness would have no meaning if arbitrariness reigned in its establishment. Thus, the system of reforms undertaken by the actual government in the late 40s and 50s. by its very essence was initially associated with the idea of ​​​​limiting royal power " wise advice"- one or another form of representation, expressing, in contrast to the caste Boyar Duma, primarily the interests of the serving masses and the upper classes of the township.

The most important legislative measures of the de facto government, covering an extremely wide range of issues of social order - the new Code of Law of 1550 and the establishment of universally elected zemstvo authorities - were inextricably linked. “In ancient Russia, administration and court always went hand in hand,” notes the famous researcher of Russian law F. M. Dmitriev. The zemstvo dispensation was a condition for the implementation of judicial reform, as if it were its second side. It should be noted that the courts themselves essentially became estate-representative institutions under a governor appointed by the state. Thus, the court became a prototype of the relationship between state power as a whole and those elected from the estate. The logical conclusion of this system would be the creation (constitution) of an estate-representative institution from “the whole earth” also under the supreme power. The matter did not reach the point of creating permanent supreme class-representative institutions. This, however, does not detract from the fact that the introduction of a “righteous”, i.e. fair, court, controlled by the “best people” from a given class locally, was a step towards the creation of a class-representative state system.

The Code of Law of 1550 categorically demanded the participation of “judges” - jurors - in every trial conducted by a judge appointed by the state - the governor or his subordinate.

The Code of Law placed governors under direct and strict control by local zemstvo authorities - city clerks as representatives of the district nobility, as well as court elders and kissers as representatives of townspeople and peasants. It is all these individuals who appear in the article as defenders of the interests of the local population.

Electors from the estates were charged, in particular, with the duty of ensuring that government representatives did not accept “promises” - bribes from one of the litigants. In order to eliminate the arbitrariness of the governors in interpreting the nature of the judicial dispute and the court verdict, the Code of Law set out as a mandatory requirement the recording of the meeting in two copies, one of which remained with the elected jury “for the dispute.”

“Judgment men” - elected representatives in the viceroyal court already existed in the 15th century. However, their participation in court was provided by the Grand Duke as a reward, as a privilege. The former “men of judgment” had neither a universal character nor serious significance.

The depth and significance of the judicial reforms of the actual government of the late 40-50s. can be fairly assessed when considering them in comparative historical terms. With this approach, it turns out that these judicial rulings, by their consistency, turned out to be superior to all attempts to reform the judicial system and over the next three centuries, attempts made, in particular, under Peter I and Catherine II. Judicial reform of the 50s. XVI century can be called the predecessor of the judicial reform of 1864. The comparison of these two reforms, which are so distant in time, is quite thorough. Reform of the 60s XIX century appeared after the fall of serfdom and could not have appeared before it fell. Reform of the 50s XVI century appeared before the establishment of serfdom, which excluded the judicial-legal order in which juries elected by the peasants would play such a significant role in legal proceedings.

In both cases, the democratization of justice undertaken from above came into decisive conflict with the autocratic system. Many of the most significant judicial reforms of the 60s. XIX century were gradually, but still quite quickly taken back by tsarism. And in the 16th century, as soon as the autocracy in the 60s. acquired its essence, became itself not only in name, but in essence, the zemstvo system and judicial reform were doomed to death.

It is natural to equate the situation and judicial reforms of the mid-16th century. to the situation and reforms of the 60s. XIX century It is just as illegitimate as, say, comparing an embryo with the adult individual that develops from it. However, it would be equally inappropriate to assess the importance of the embryo for the further development of the individual only by its small size. Despite all the underdevelopment of the judicial institutions of the actual government of the mid-16th century, their lack of development from the point of view of the legal thought of modern times, in comparison, in particular, with the judicial reform of the 19th century, despite the preservation in them of such remnants of medieval law as the “field” ( i.e. duel) as judicial evidence, it is still necessary to recognize them exclusively high level. “The 16th century, so remarkable politically, also constitutes an era in the history of Russian law,” F. M. Dmitriev rightly notes. It took the strengthened autocratic power more than a decade to take away from its subjects that “righteous court”, that “truth” that it gave them when it was just getting on its feet.

The implementation of zemstvo reform and the introduction of unified legislation could not be carried out while maintaining the previous system of feudal immunities, the system of exclusive rights of certain secular and church feudal lords, which freed them from subordination general standards law, primarily from paying taxes. Therefore, Article 47 of the Code of Law, approved at the Stoglavy Council, is formulated very energetically: “Tarkhannyh” (i.e., tax exemptions - YES.) don’t give advance to anyone, and take the old tarhan letters from everyone.”

There was a sharp struggle around the issue of Tarkhans both before and after the Council of the Hundred Heads. However, supporters of maintaining their immunity rights managed to achieve only the most minor relaxations of the general policy of the state aimed at the destruction of feudal immunity.

The essence of the land policy of the actual government was to limit the encroachments of church and monastic land ownership on the lands of secular feudal lords, including the children of boyars, i.e., the serving nobility. Legislation sought to protect the lands of the peasantry from the expansion of church feudal lords.

As in a number of other important areas of government activity, the transition to autocracy and oprichnina will lead to a break with the policy of the actual government of the late 40-50s. and in the sphere of land relations, to the elimination of the political compromise that took into account the interests of the peasantry and townspeople, in whose favor after the uprisings of 1547–1549. The feudal lords had to temporarily give up their “rights” to exploitation.

The highest manifestation of the political compromise between the feudal elite and the upper classes of the peasant and commercial-industrial urban population can be considered this fact: the feudal state went so far as to give its local power to the “best people” of the volosts and cities. In 1555–1556 In accordance with the decree on the abolition of feeding, the abolition of viceroyal administration and its replacement by an elected administration occurs throughout the country.

Researchers noticed that in areas of patrimonial land ownership, power was in the hands of noble elected leaders - provincial elders. This is rightly seen as a sign of the consolidation of the feudal class in the struggle for further intensification of the exploitation of the peasantry, for the subordination of the peasantry to the power of the noble landowners. In this sense, strengthening the authority and power of local governors was anti-people, anti-democratic in nature. It is necessary, however, to look at the fact of the transfer of local power to elected officials from the nobles from a different angle. On the part of the central government, this was a step towards alienating a share of its power in favor of elected noble self-government. Later, the autocracy will turn the governors into the conductors of their oprichnina land policy on the ground. In the second half of the 17th century, at the time of the final strengthening of absolutism, elected provincial elders would be subordinated to city governors appointed by Moscow. Thus, the last element of self-government, even self-government of the nobility, will be eliminated. At the moment in question, noble self-government had just been established and was gaining strength. In palace and patrimonial lands it coexisted with the bodies of peasant zemstvo self-government, gradually subordinating them to itself. In the black-sown lands, where there were no landowners, there were no provincial elders. There, self-government, or rather, all local power was transferred to elected officials “from the common people.” Elected self-government was also introduced for urban settlements, with the exception of cities such as Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Kazan and border fortress cities, where governor-voivodes remained. These exceptions indicate the extent to which the government did not dare to go in providing cities with elected government. The state left power in the hands of its governor, that is, completely in its own hands, at the outposts of the border defense, in the unpacified, newly conquered region (Kazan) and in the capital. In addition, voivodship administration was retained in Novgorod and Pskov, the original liberties of which traditionally instilled serious fears in Moscow.

The development of the northern regions during the reign of the actual government presents an amazing picture of the growth of crafts, trade, and powerful fishing entrepreneurship. The rich in Pomerania - which is documented - but, apparently, throughout the country, “bought” broad judicial-administrative autonomy from the feudal state.

Historian N. E. Nosov noted that the first trade negotiations with England on behalf of the Moscow state were conducted by “trading men” - the Dvina rich men Fofan Makarov and Mikhail Kositsyn. It was they, together with the Vologda resident Osip Nepei, who were the first to go as Russian “guests” to England in 1556. This foreign policy action was entirely in line with the commercial and industrial policy of the actual government. The head of the government of the Elected Rada, A.F. Adashev, paid special attention to the northern industrial volosts - Totma, Dvina, Perm. He defended in every possible way the interests of the wealthy - the trading and fishing population. The policy of strengthening the trade and fishing elite was energetically supported by Sylvester, who came from among the wealthy townspeople of Novgorod.

It must be said that the nature of the reforms changes depending on the time of their appearance. The reforms, and even more so the reform projects adopted in the years close to 1547, are much more democratic in nature and reflect the interests of truly “the whole earth.” In the mid-50s. The government is carrying out a whole range of reforms aimed at “nationalizing” the relationship between the feudal class and the central government. The most important of them are the sentences on feeding and service.

These facts convincingly confirm V.I. Lenin’s thought that “class struggle, the struggle of the exploited part of the people against the exploiting part lies at the basis of political transformations and in the end decides the fate of all such transformations.”

In addition to the sentence on feeding, in 1550 the government adopted a number of other important decrees regulating the official duties of landowners. A unified standard is established military service from land holdings. In order to practically implement the sentence on service, in the summer of 1556 a general review of the noble militia was held. All feudal landowners, regardless of the size of their holdings, became servants of the state. Even patrimonial land turned into a state salary for service. Of course, this did not make the princely latifundia, in terms of the income it brought in, equal to the small estate of a small landowner. It was not about equalizing wealth, but about equalizing the “strong” and “rich” with all service people in service to the state, precisely despite their wealth, their economic independence.

Since the mid-50s, soon after the implementation of the most important reforms of the de facto government, the powerful military machine of the Moscow state began to work. Two years later, in 1558, the Livonian War began. To conduct it, as well as to fight the steppe inhabitants in the south and east of the country, the central government was able to constantly keep under its banners many tens of thousands of armed warriors, well equipped, supplied with horses and food. Ivan the Terrible later took away from Adashev the credit for creating a powerful Russian army of centralized subordination. He announced the growth and decisive improvement in the actions of the armed forces as a result of Adashev’s removal from power: “When Olekseev and your dog’s power ceases, then our kingdoms and the state are obedient in everything, and many times three thousand warriors come to help Orthodoxy,” he wrote Grozny to Kurbsky in 1564. Of course, the tsar tendentiously and incorrectly portrays the actual causal relationship of facts. The new, numerous and well-organized Russian army did not appear “due to the mania of the Tsar,” who was freed from the advisers who were interfering with him. This required years of hard work by the government; this required a system of measures, which were the reforms of the mid-50s. Equipping and maintaining such an army would not have been possible if payment for it with land and all kinds of “food” had not been organized on a wide national scale.

Another thing is that for the consistent implementation of land redistribution and the strict fulfillment by large and small feudal lords of their official duties to the state, the policy of “intra-class peace” pursued by the government of the 50s. and predetermined by its compromising nature, was insufficient. This required the “uncompromising” hand of the autocracy. However, the practical beginning of the “nationalization” of relations between the entire class of feudal lords and the central government was laid by the reforms of the actual government.

In all the provisions of the actual government there are signs of compromise. The princes and boyars were still so strong both economically and politically that they had to be taken into account. To a certain extent, their traditional rights were supported by the tsar. The originality and “honesty” of his own family was one of the grounds for recognizing him as a king, that is, the first among princes. Therefore, when determining the depth and significance of the reforms of the government of compromise, one should note not the fact that they preserve certain elements of the old, centuries-old way of life - no one has ever been able to completely abolish the customs and orders established for centuries - it is important to objectively comprehend the extent to which they were broken and squeeze out. For example, decrees on localism decisively supplanted the previous centuries-old order. From this point of view, it is necessary to consider all other reforms of the de facto government of the late 40-50s.

Events in later years destroyed many of the results of these reforms. Partly it was their fragility, partly the persistent denigration of the activities of the so-called Chosen Rada, begun by Ivan the Terrible, that led to an underestimation of their depth and scale!

Some historians believe that during the period of activity of the actual government, the question was decided which path Russia would take: along the path of strengthening feudalism by introducing serfdom or along the path of bourgeois development, a path that was more progressive for that time, and most importantly, less harmful to the peasantry. In our opinion, this formulation of the question should be softened. The question of which path Russia would take was predetermined by a certain correlation of objective factors of its development. In this objective-historical sense, he did not “decide.” But the fact that the reforms of the actual government tended to direct the development of the country on a different path than the military-feudal dictatorship in the political structure and serfdom in the basis of the economy, namely, on the path of strengthening the estate-representative monarchy, seems undoubted.

Notes:

Veselovsky S. B. Research on the history of the oprichnina. M., 1963. S. 15–16,

The word “official” was already used in the 16th century.

Dmitriev F. M. History of courts and civil appeal proceedings from the Code of Laws to the institution on provinces // Op. M., 1859. P. 7.

A prominent position in the Elected Rada was occupied by Duma nobleman A.F. Adashev, court priest Sylvester, Metropolitan Macarius, Duma clerk I.M. Viskovaty, Prince A.M. Kurbsky. I.r. (Council of the Elected) used book. A. Kurbsky in the History of the Grand Duke of Moscow. Massive anti-feud.

The Russian state at the end of the 1540-1550s. The Elected Rada included those close to Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible. In foreign policy, the attention of the Chosen Slave was initially focused on the east (the annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates), and later began to be occupied by the struggle for the Baltic states. The importance of Sylvester and Adashev at court also created enemies for them, of which the main ones were the Zakharyins, relatives of Queen Anastasia.

The Rada discussed plans for government reforms, foreign policy and supervised their implementation. Some participants of the I. r. became close to the opposition boyars who opposed the continuation of the Livonian War of 1558-83 (See Livonian War of 1558-83). THE ELECTED RADA - a circle of people close to Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, in fact a former unofficial. 40 50s 16th century Polish Ivan found in them, as well as in Tsarina Anastasia Romanovna and Metropolitan Macarius, moral support and support and directed his thoughts for the good of Russia.

Having become dangerously ill, the tsar wrote a spiritual letter and demanded that his cousin, Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, and the boyars swear allegiance to his son, the infant Dmitry. But Vladimir Andreevich refused to take the oath, asserting his own rights to the throne after the death of John and trying to form a party for himself.

Correspondence between Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible

John recovered and began to look at his former friends with different eyes. Likewise, Sylvester’s supporters now lost the favor of Queen Anastasia, who could suspect them of not wanting to see her son on the throne. Natural death saved him from royal reprisals, since in the coming years all of Adashev’s relatives were executed.

Usachev A. S. Chronicler of the beginning of the kingdom and the metropolitan see in the middle of the 16th century. // Problems of Russian history and historiography of the 17th-20th centuries: a collection of articles dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Ya. G. Solodkin. One brother of the late sovereign, Yuri, was imprisoned on suspicion and starved there. Another brother, Andrei, frightened of the same fate, ran away; for the sake of his own salvation, he plotted an uprising, but was captured and strangled; his wife and son were thrown into prison.

Elena's uncle, Mikhail Lvovich Glinsky, began to reproach his niece for her relationship with Telepnev; for this he was imprisoned and starved to death. His sister Agrafena was shackled and thrown into prison. The young sovereign turned thirteen in 1544. He was influenced by Elena's brothers: Yuri and Mikhail Vasilyevich Glinsky.

At the instigation of his uncles, the youth Ivan ordered Andrei Shuisky to be seized and given to his hounds, who immediately tore him to pieces. Fyodor Skopin-Shuisky and other boyars of his party were exiled. His wanderings around the Russian land, both pious and sinful, had a heavy impact on the inhabitants. Meanwhile, having tasted blood on Shuisky, he gained a taste for it, and the Glinskys took advantage of this and incited him to give free rein to his impressionable nature.

They said that Vladimir Monomakh bequeathed these regalia to his son Yuri Dolgoruky and ordered them to be kept from generation to generation until God erects a worthy autocrat in Rus'.

At the beginning of 1547, by order of the tsar, girls were collected from all over the state, and the young tsar chose from them the daughter of the deceased okolnik Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin. His relatives, the Glinskys, were in charge of everything, their governors sat everywhere, there was no justice anywhere, violence and robberies took place everywhere. Ivan Vasilyevich did not like this so much that he ordered the Pskovites to be undressed, laid on the ground, poured with hot wine and burned with candles on their hair and beards.

The compromise policy of the Elected Rada in the sphere of extending the rights and privileges of the boyars to the nobles, despite the inconsistency, was beneficial to the nobility. From that time on, the tsar, disliked towards noble boyars, brought two unborn, but the best people of his time, Sylvester and Adashev.

“Dispute of the Deaf”: Tsar Ivan’s answer.

Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich's response to the verbal escapades of the fugitive boyar followed immediately - it was ready already in July 1564. Only its appearance and content cannot but amaze. Firstly, it was about 20 times larger in volume. Secondly, this huge text was... about something completely different. It seems that Ivan the Terrible was not responding to Kurbsky’s letter at all. This impression is very accurately conveyed by the famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky: “Each of them repeats his own and does not listen well to the enemy. “Why are you beating us, your faithful servants?” asks Prince Kurbsky. “No,” Tsar Ivan answers him, “Russian autocrats from the beginning own their kingdoms themselves, and not the boyars and not the nobles.” In such simplest form one can express the essence of the famous correspondence."

What did Grozny answer to Kurbsky?

Naturally, the first step was to dismiss the accusations of heresy. Which is what Ivan IV did. He declared himself and his family to be descended from Vladimir the Baptist, the bearer of the “spark of Piety” of the Russian kingdom. The Tsar, the embodiment of the “true Orthodox Christian autocracy,” is, like all the rulers of Russia, under the special protection of God.

However, it was impossible to particularly develop this idea, and Grozny understood this. If Kurbsky insists that the tsar is “opposite”, an apostate, and Grozny responds to this that he is good, righteous, the dispute simply comes to a dead end. Based on the fact that best view defense - attack, Ivan Vasilyevich, in turn, attacked Kurbsky... with accusations of apostasy and heresy! It is he, the defector prince - the destroyer of Christianity and, therefore, the ally of the Antichrist! And then all his attacks against Ivan the Terrible are nothing more than crafty intentions, deception, service to the Devil, an attempt to slander the righteous Russian Tsar.

Already in the first lines, Ivan gave an exhaustive description of Kurbsky, which determined the entire tone of the letter: “An answer to the former (adherent) of true Orthodox Christianity... now - an apostate from the honorable and life-giving cross of the Lord and a destroyer of Christians, and who has joined the enemies of Christianity, who has retreated from the worship of divine icons (so! - A. F), and trampled down all the sacred institutions, and destroyed the holy temples (so! - A. F), who desecrated and trampled on sacred vessels and images...” It is obvious that Kurbsky was never an iconoclast, and by July 1564 he had not yet managed to fight on the side of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and ruin any Orthodox churches. The king attributes sins to the prince that he did not commit. But for him this does not matter: creating the image of the apostate Kurbsky, he resorted to a set of literary cliches in the same way as his opponent.

Grozny continued to destroy Kurbsky. He accuses him of destroying his own soul by “believing the words of his demon-taught friends and advisers.” The prince called the king “opposite,” that is, an apostate; the king branded the prince and his friends as “demons”: “imitating demons, they have spread various networks against us, and, according to the custom of demons, they are watching us in every possible way, every word and step, taking us for disembodied, and therefore they bring all sorts of slander and insults against us, bring them to you and disgrace them to the whole world... you, like a deadly viper, became enraged at me and destroyed your soul, and rose up to destroy the church.”

These words point us to new facets of the conflict between Kurbsky and Grozny. Firstly, the king considered him offended and a victim of repression. myself, and not Kurbsky. And the prince, under his pen, acted as a villain who dared to humiliate his sovereign and push him around! Secondly, it is clear that there really was some kind of conflict between Ivan and Prince Andrei - but its roots lay in the spiritual and ethical sphere. Kurbsky somehow managed to hurt the Tsar’s pride in a particularly painful way, awakening his complexes that arose in childhood. Throughout the entire message, Ivan repeatedly returns to this topic: “We had no will in anything, but we did everything not of our own free will... I remember one thing: it used to be that we were playing children’s games, and Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky was sitting on the bench, leaning his elbow on our father's bed, and putting his foot on the chair, but he will not look at us - neither as a parent, nor as a guardian, and certainly not as a slave to his masters. Who can bear such arrogance? How can I count such countless sufferings that I endured in my youth? How many times I was not given food on time.”

Yes, it was probably really difficult for Ivan the Terrible to endure the fact that his subjects did not look at you with fear, like a slave at his master. So it’s not far from mental trauma. And how many such arrogant subjects, so much terrible suffering... In these words of Ivan the Terrible one can clearly see a painfully proud tyrant and despot.

It is noteworthy that Kurbsky is included by the tsar in a certain group, united by the pronoun “you”. In it, the suspicious sovereign wrote down all the “puffy” boyars and governors, starting from his childhood and right up to his pre-prior years (since Ivan repeatedly emphasizes that the outrages of which Kurbsky and his comrades are guilty have not stopped “to this day”). For example:

“...You demand more from a person than human nature allows... but most of all, with these insults and reproaches, which you began in the past and are still continuing, raging like wild animals, you are committing your treason - in Is this your zealous and faithful service, to insult and reproach?.. you condemn me like dogs... just as these saints suffered from demons, so I suffered from you!”

“How much more strongly does our blood cry out to you, shed because of you: not from wounds and not streams of blood, but considerable sweat, shed by me in many backbreaking labors and unnecessary hardships that occurred through your fault! Let it not be blood, but many tears were shed because of the evil, insults and oppression committed by you, how much I sighed in heartbreak, how much reproach I suffered because of this, because you did not love me... And this cries out to God against you to me: this is incomparable with your madness... everything that was sown by your obstinate malice does not cease to live and incessantly cries out to God against you!”

It seemed that the conflict lay purely in the everyday sphere - that some close associates told the sovereign what to eat, drink, what to do with his wife and in general how to breathe: “This was the case in external affairs, and in internal ones, and even in the smallest and most insignificant , right down to food and sleep, we were not given free rein in anything, everything was done according to their wishes, and they looked at us like we were babies.” This was the crime and betrayal of Kurbsky and his comrades-in-arms: “This is the reason and essence of your entire evil plan, for you and the priest decided that I should be a sovereign only in words, and you and the priest would be in in fact."

Ivan the Terrible’s “resistance” is in fact not heresy, not apostasy, but a liberating rebellion against traitors who tried to disrupt the world order established by the Lord and subjugate the king to the slaves. Ivan angrily writes: “Is this really a “leper conscience” - to keep your kingdom in your hands, and not allow your slaves to dominate? Is it “against reason” to not want to be under the power of your slaves? And is this “blessed Orthodoxy” – to be under the power and obedience of slaves?”

Unlike Kurbsky, who was quite abstract in his statements, the tsar was extremely concrete - if we are talking about traitors, then let’s call them by name. Grozny calls them the bearers of “your dog power” and unites the following persons with Kurbsky: the priest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin Sylvester, the devious Alexei Fedorovich Adashev and the boyar Dmitry Ivanovich Kurlyatev. Under the pen of the tsar, these people appear as villains who intimidated the young and pure monarch with “childish scarecrows” and actually ruled the country on his behalf, while committing all the crimes that Kurbsky wrote about. Thus, Ivan found an ingenious answer to accusations of various crimes. In response to Kurbsky’s denunciations, he declares without hesitation: “Yes, there were crimes. But that's not me. This is you and your friends!

Let's take a closer look at the alleged "criminals" and "friends of Kurbsky." As we have already written, the fact that the prince himself participated in political life The Russian state raises great doubts: he spent too long at the fronts and too little at court. Kurbsky purely physically could not “rule” Russia on behalf of the Tsar and be part of any government group. It is unlikely that, as a member of it, he would have stayed away from voivodeship appointments on the outskirts of the country.

So, Pop Sylvester. The figure in Russian history is well-known, although frankly exaggerated. Guided by the words of Ivan the Terrible, some historians were inclined to see in him the “good genius” of Russian history:

“The archpriest of the court cathedral, a stranger from Veliky Novgorod, takes possession of the king and the kingdom, the king - a monster of evil, whose very name brought horror to everyone, a kingdom that had just been united from different destinies, upset by ten years of almost anarchy, for 13 whole years (1547 - 1560) rules the king and the kingdom, becomes a genius, the guardian angel of the king and raises the kingdom to a height that it had not reached during the entire previous historical life. A phenomenon unprecedented in our history. For this alone, Sylvester is a great moral political force.”

Some historians have sought to see in Sylvester's rise not ordinary political favoritism, but an attempt to introduce fundamental innovations in the model government structure Russia. D. N. Alshits went the furthest here, expressing the opinion that Sylvester was specially elevated for “democratization” government controlled(sic! – A.F.) and “personified the desire of secular and spiritual forces to create a limited monarchy, nominally headed by a good king.”

At the same time, a number of works criticized Sylvester's concept of political omnipotence in the 1550s. This point of view is most fully presented in the works of the American historian A. N. Grobovsky. He concluded that “the only group or party that the priest (Sylvester. – A.F.) whenever headed, consisted of persons recruited by historians of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, starting with S. M. Solovyov.” In his opinion, historians "confuse Sylvester's proximity to power with its possession." It is necessary to distinguish the real Sylvester, who acted in the 1550s, from the image of the Sylvester of the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky, formed in the 1560s and 1570s. This image is not a reflection of a real personality, but an “argument in a dispute.” The primary source of information about the “omnipotence” of the Blagoveshchensk priest was the works of Ivan the Terrible, and the words of Kurbsky in his later works (the Third Epistle to the Tsar and “History ...”) are just “turned inside out” theses of the First Epistle of Ivan the Terrible. Sylvester the Terrible refers to Sylvester Kurbsky as “type to antitype.” Kurbsky’s works are created in a unique genre of anti-life: their goal is to show “the fall of the once righteous king.”

What do we really know about Sylvester? He was born at the end of the 15th century, that is, he ended up at the court of Ivan the Terrible at a fairly advanced age. In Novgorod the Great, the priest had a workshop specializing in book and icon work, trade, jewelry, and the manufacture of church and book utensils. The date of Sylvester's appearance in the capital has not been established. The first reliable mention of him as a priest of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral dates back to 1546. In all likelihood, he moved from Novgorod shortly after the appointment of Novgorod Archbishop Macarius as Moscow Metropolitan, that is, after 1542.

It is worth noting that Sylvester, contrary to popular belief, was never Ivan IV’s confessor, at least officially. Until the end of 1547, Fyodor Barmin remained in this position, then, in 1548–1549, he was replaced by Yakov Dmitrievich, and in 1550–1562, this post was occupied by Andrei, the future Metropolitan Afanasy. As a minister of the Annunciation clergy after the fire of 1547, Sylvester was appointed headman to oversee the proper restoration of temple and church paintings in the Kremlin. Here he had the opportunity to experience an unpleasant episode in his biography: in 1553/54, following the denunciation of clerk I.M. Viskovaty, he became involved in a case of church heresy, allegedly manifested in restored paintings.

This circumstance is very important for assessing the real role of Sylvester at court. It does not suit the figure of an all-powerful temporary worker that, at the request of some clerk, a cathedral is convened, at which terrible accusations are made against a man who, according to Ivan the Terrible, is playing with the Tsar like a puppet! At the same time, the accuser himself, Viskovaty, who suffered a crushing defeat at the council, got off very lightly: the loss of the trial did not have any impact on his career. If Sylvester had actually “ruled the Russian land,” then such a denouement of history would have looked abnormal. In 1554 - 1560, I. M. Viskovaty and Sylvester’s ally, A. F. Adashev, together conducted many important diplomatic negotiations. The rapprochement of these people, in the light of the council of 1553/54, if Adashev and Sylvester were “at one”, is completely inexplicable.

At the end of the 1550s, Sylvester retired to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. He was then at least 65 - 70 years old. Here he died between 1568 and 1573.

Sylvester is credited with composing a number of instructive messages, as well as composing or editing in 1546–1552 the famous “Domostroy” - this charter of home life. In light of this, Ivan the Terrible’s accusations may not have been so groundless - judging by these texts, Sylvester was prone to reading lectures and boring, petty regulation of private life. Under favorable circumstances, the priest of the court church had the opportunity to try to “educate” the tsar - if, of course, the tsar was ready to listen to him... A painfully proud man, who undoubtedly was Ivan the Terrible, could not only see tactlessness and lack of subordination in such notations, but to draw far-reaching conclusions about the desire of the “evil priest” to subjugate the will of the sovereign and rule the country on his behalf, holding the king “for a baby.”

If there are no traces of Sylvester’s state activities, except for false accusations on the part of Grozny and the subsequent panegyric of Kurbsky (discussed below), then the situation with the devious Alexei Fedorovich Adashev is somewhat more complicated. As a solicitor, he first appears in the pages of sources at the beginning of 1547. In the category of the wedding of Ivan IV, he is named among the persons who washed with the Terrible in the bathhouse and made the bed for the newlyweds Ivan and Anastasia. In 1550 he short time He held the position of state treasurer, but his career in this field did not work out. Adashev began his rise with the “Capture of Kazan” in 1551–1552. During this campaign, he demonstrated extraordinary diplomatic skills. It was Adashev, on behalf of the Russian side, who on August 6, 1551 conveyed to Shigaley the conditions under which he received the Kazan throne. He also conducted further negotiations with the puppet khan and in February 1552 presented an ultimatum to surrender Kazan to the mercy of Ivan IV. He also had to fight: it was Adashev who supervised the preparation of the famous tunnel under the walls of the fortress in September 1552.

In 1553, Adashev became a member of the Boyar Duma in the second most important rank of okolnichy in the Duma and remained so until his death. Thus, he was unable to repeat his father’s career (he was a boyar). However, Adashev, apparently, did play a very significant role in political life, far beyond his low status in the Boyar Duma. In the business documentation of the 1550s, three people appear who did not formally hold high leadership positions, but on whose behalf various state charters were issued (sometimes you can find the wording that they “ordered with the Tsar’s word”). These are A.F. Adashev, L.A. Saltykov and F.I. Umnoy-Kolychev. This phenomenon is unique and allows us to agree that Adashev really had exceptional powers, which he could only receive directly from the king.

In the 1550s, Adashev, together with clerk I.M. Viskovaty, participated in almost all diplomatic negotiations with Astrakhan, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Livonia, and Sweden. In fact, this is where he got burned. In 1558, at the request of the Tsar, Russia became involved in the Livonian War. Being a very intelligent person, well experienced in foreign policy, Adashev immediately understood what threatened Russia with a war on two fronts: Livonian and Crimean. In addition, the Livonian War was rapidly turning from a local conflict with the insignificant Livonian Order into a clash with a coalition of European powers.

It’s not that Adashev was categorically against the war for the Baltic states - he was for reasonableness and gradualism, for Russia to calculate its strength in these conflicts. This sober approach tragically did not correspond to the extremist sentiments of the tsar, who was eager to declare war on all of Europe and perceived any failure of his commanders or misconduct of diplomats as treason. And Adashev committed such an offense: during very important negotiations for Russia with Denmark, in which the Russian side in the future wanted to achieve recognition of the legitimacy of its seizures in the Baltic states by at least one European country, Adashev in March 1559 agreed, at the request of Denmark, to conclude a six-month truce in Livonia. He himself viewed this as nothing more than a temporary, tactical concession. The diplomat was counting, firstly, on greater compliance from Denmark, and secondly, on “reasoning” with Livonia. They say that the Livonians will feel the difference between wartime and peacetime and will not want to continue the war, but will fulfill all the demands of Russia.

Adashev was wrong. Livonia used the truce as a respite to recruit soldiers in German lands, mobilize its own forces and, most importantly, for intensive negotiations and consultations with European countries, in particular with the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In October 1559, from Yuryev-Livonsky, Prince A. Rostovsky reported: the Livonians attacked the positions of the Russian army a month before the expiration of the peace period...

Ivan the Terrible ordered the governors to go to the rescue of the besieged Yuryev. News comes from Livonia about the defeat of the Russian guard regiment under the command of 3. I. Ochin-Pleshcheev near Yuryev. Due to the muddy road, regiments headed by P.I. Shuisky set out hastily from Moscow. Only in December did the Livonian master lift the siege and move away from Yuryev. The sharp aggravation of the situation in Livonia was regarded by Ivan IV as a consequence of mistakes made by Russian diplomats during the negotiations of 1559.

The situation was further aggravated by the personal tragedy of the sovereign. While receiving news from Livonia, Ivan IV was in Mozhaisk with his family: Anastasia, Ivan and Fedor. On December 1, 1559, overwhelmed by anxiety, he urgently returned to Moscow due to poor roads and bad weather. The journey turned out to be fatal for Queen Anastasia: unable to withstand its hardships, “the queen was unable to bear sin for our sake.” Colds and fevers acquired along the way caused a sharp deterioration in health and aggravated long-standing illnesses. A few months later, Ivan’s wife, the only woman whom he sincerely loved and who could curb his harsh temper, died. According to contemporaries, the king went bald from grief...

All these events signed Adashev’s sentence. It was not his direct fault. In the conditions in which the Russian embassy service operated at the beginning of the Livonian War, torn between political expediency and the need to carry out the absurd decrees of a sovereign incompetent in diplomacy, it was difficult not to make mistakes. Another surprising thing is that there haven’t been so many of these mistakes yet. Adashev is especially not guilty of Anastasia’s death.

At the beginning of 1560, Alexey Fedorovich was sent to the Livonian front, where he managed to fight a little and distinguished himself during the capture of the Fellin fortress. Here he was left in the voivodeship, but lost a local dispute with O.V. Polev and was transferred to Yuryev-Livonsky under the command of Prince D. Khilkov. There Adashev died of fever at the end of 1560 - beginning of 1561.

As we see, we really have before us a very bright personality, an extraordinary politician and diplomat, whose real power prerogatives in 1554 - 1560 actually went beyond the traditional powers of the average Russian okolnichi. At the same time, to say that he “ruled” the Russian land would be an unjustified exaggeration. There are no traces of this. L.A. Saltykov and F.I. Umnoy-Kolychev, who not only were not repressed in 1560, but soon received a promotion, had the same “informal” rights as Adashev to issue letters of grant in their own name.

The third “unkind person” and comrade-in-arms of Kurbsky, named by Ivan the Terrible, is Dmitry Ivanovich Kurlyatev, prince, boyar. It’s even easier with him than with Adashev and Sylvester. The prince's biography is known, and there is no place in it for signs of an all-powerful temporary worker. He came from the princely family of Obolensky. One of his first mentions dates back to February 1535, when he commanded a guard regiment on a campaign against Lithuania from Starodub. In July 1537, he served at the Kolomna line as the third commander of the regiment right hand and in the same month he was appointed in the category of “Kazan Ukraine” as the second governor in the city of Vladimir-on-Klyazma. In September 1537, during the campaign against Kazan, he was already the second governor of the regiment of the right hand. In June 1539, at the Kolomna exit, the prince was appointed second governor of the guard regiment, and in 1540 - second governor of the forward regiment. In December 1541 he was mentioned as the third voivode in Serpukhov.

Then his name disappears from the ranks for several years, and again we see D.I. Kurlyatev as the first commander of the advanced regiment in May 1548. In March 1549, according to the Kazan news, he already commanded a regiment of his right hand. In the fall of this year, he was left in Moscow along with Vladimir Staritsky and other boyars during the tsar’s departure. During the “Kazan Campaign” of 1552, Kurlyatev served in Novgorod, and in 1553 he was transferred to the Kazan land as the second governor of a large regiment.

There are several known cases of the prince's participation in state affairs. On January 18, 1555, Kurlyatev attended a meeting of the commission that adopted a verdict on tateb cases. On May 5, 1555, boyars D.I. Kurlyatev and I.M. Vorontsov, treasurers F.I. Sukin and Kh. Yu. Tyutin were entrusted with monitoring the implementation of the decree on debt collection. In July 1555, upon reaching Kolomna, Kurlyatev was included in the tsar’s retinue. In October 1555, he was the second commander of a large regiment on the southern borders. In June 1556, the prince again went to Serpukhov in the tsar's retinue; in 1557 and 1558, together with I.D. Velsky, he commanded the defense of the southern borders, being the second commander of a large regiment.

In 1559, the prince turned out to be the governor of Yuryev-Livonsky, that is, in fact, the governor of the conquered Baltic lands. When Grozny’s exit to the Oka failed in 1559, according to the ranks, Kurlyatev was planned to be left in Moscow. In 1560, the boyar was first appointed first governor in Tula, then second governor of a large regiment, and finally, first governor in Kaluga, that is, commander-in-chief of the armed forces on the southern border.

In 1562, Kurlyatev was appointed governor of Smolensk. Further events are not entirely clear. The authorities accused him of trying to escape to Lithuania (a sort of predecessor of Kurbsky). The prince justified himself that he simply got lost in an unfamiliar area and “took the wrong road.” It's hard to say who was right. In 1562, on the wave of Russia’s military successes, when, it would seem, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was about to be broken, fleeing there looked like a method of sophisticated suicide. Under front-line Smolensk, any road could lead “to the wrong place,” and it was not difficult to fabricate a false accusation. On the other hand, who knows what was going on in the boyars’ heads in 1562...

On October 29, 1562, Ivan IV “... placed his disgrace with the boyar on Prince Dmitry Kurlyatev for his great treasonous deeds, and ordered him and his son Prince Ivan to be tonsured as Chernetsy and sent to Kovenets to the monastery under the leadership, and the princess of Prince Dmitry Kurlyatev and he ordered two princesses to be tonsured... and, having tonsured them, he ordered them to be taken to Kargopol to the Chelym Monastery.”

This is where the information about Kurlyatev ends. The essence of the tsar's reproaches against him is difficult to understand. Behind them are some kind of psychological complexes and carefully hidden personal grievances of the suspicious king. No traces of Kurlyatev’s political activities, which the tsar might have considered “treasonous,” were found.

But what did the king consider treason besides “puffiness”? Is it possible to reconstruct specific historical episodes in which Kurbsky “and his comrades” committed offenses before the Tsar?

The most striking of them is probably the accusation of conspiracy to overthrow Ivan the Terrible in March 1553. We know about these events from three sources: the First Epistle of Ivan the Terrible (1564) and two additions to the chronicle - the Facial Chronicle Code, made in the 1570s.

According to information from the First Message of Grozny, the main conspirators were allegedly Kurbsky's comrades A.F. Adashev and Sylvester, who wanted, “like Herod,” to destroy the Tsar’s son Tsarevich Dmitry and elevate the Tsar’s cousin, Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, to the throne.

According to the postscript to the chronicle article under 1553, on March 1, 1553, Ivan IV fell ill. In his immediate circle, the illness was considered fatal, and clerk I.M. Viskovaty “remembered the sovereign about the spiritual.” According to Ivan the Terrible's will, the throne was to go to the baby, Tsarevich Dmitry, who was still in diapers. The postscript indicates that a split arose among the boyars: some unconditionally swore allegiance to Dmitry, some hesitated. Several members of the Duma openly declared that they did not want to follow the will of Ivan IV, because the oath to Dmitry the Infant actually meant the regency of the Zakharyins-Yuryevs (as the closest relatives of his mother, Anastasia) for many years.

On March 1, the boyars I. F. Mstislavsky, V. I. Vorotynsky, I. V. Sheremetev-Bolshoi, M. Ya. Morozov, D. F. Paletsky, D. R. and V. M. Yuryev, clerk I. swore allegiance. M. Viskovaty, in the evening - Duma nobles A.F. Adashev and I.M. Veshnyakov. Under the pretext of illness, boyar D. I. Kurlyatev and printer N. A. Funikov-Kurtsev evaded the oath. The last two and boyar D. F. Paletsky began a double game and began to encourage Prince Vladimir Andreevich to take advantage of the opportunity and take the throne. The intentions of the conspirators were undoubtedly “treasonous” in relation to Ivan IV and Dmitry, although their desire to transfer the throne not to a baby, but to an adult who had at least proven his military courage is understandable.

Vladimir gathered his court and presented the nobles with money. Seeing in this an unambiguous desire for a coup, the boyars stopped allowing the prince to the bedside of the sick sovereign. According to the postscript, priest Sylvester went over to Staritsky’s side. The author of the interpolation here places a story about Sylvester’s usurpation of all power in the state, calls him the main adviser and inspirer of Vladimir Andreevich’s actions. The priest’s demands to allow the prince to see the tsar were rejected, “and from that moment there was enmity between the boyars and Sylvester and his advisers.”

On March 2, in the Front Hut, I. F. Mstislavsky and V. I. Vorotynsky led most of the Boyar Duma to kiss the cross. Dissatisfaction was expressed by the boyar I.M. Shuisky (he refused to kiss the cross in the absence of the sovereign) and the okolnichy F.G. Adashev (father of A.F. Adashev, the future famous okolnichy). The latter expressed aloud a thought that apparently worried many boyars: the oath to Dmitry meant the transfer of power to the Yuryev clan and its leader, D.R. Yuryev. After this statement, “there was a great fight between the boyars, a great cry and a great noise, and many swear words.”

The sovereign made a speech to the boyars. After this, I.M. Viskovaty and V.I. Vorotynsky swore in the remaining boyars. Vladimir Andreevich, his mother Efrosinya Staritskaya, boyars I. I. Turuntai-Pronsky, P. M. Shchenyatev, S. V. Rostovsky, D. I. Obolensky showed dissatisfaction with what was happening. On March 12, D.I. Kurlyatev and N.A. Funikov-Kurtsev were the last to take the oath. The mutiny is over.

In the Synodal list, which, as has now been proven, is part of the same chronicle as the Royal Book about the events of the reign of Ivan IV, under 1554 there is a postscript that interprets the events of March 1553 in a completely different way. According to her version, in 1553 real conspiracy and there was no rebellion!

According to this interpolation, in July 1554, boyar S.V. Rostovsky tried to flee to Lithuania. During his capture and interrogation, details emerged that gave the events of 1553 the character of a “conspiracy” and “rebellion” in the eyes of the suspicious tsar. A year ago, the boyars were only discussing the possibility of Vladimir Andreevich’s accession to the throne, and then, apparently, very “behind the scenes.” There were no refusals of the oath or other rebellious actions at the bedside of the sick king. After Grozny’s recovery, the frightened failed conspirators hid their plans, and they surfaced only during the interrogation under torture of S. V. Rostovsky in 1554.

The prince named his like-minded people: P. M. Shchenyatev, I. I. Turuntai-Pronsky, Kurakins, D. I. Obolensky, P. S. Serebryany, S. I. Mikulinsky. The composition of the investigative commission that extracted the fatal confessions from the fugitive is curious: I. F. Mstislavsky, I. V. Sheremetev-Bolshoi, D. I. Kurlyatev, M. Ya. Morozov, D. F. Paletsky, A. F. Adashev, I. M. Veshnyakov, D. R. and V. M. Yuryev, N. A. Funikov, I. M. Viskovaty. The picture turns out to be even more confusing: the commission included persons named in the postscript of 1553 as rebels - D. I. Kurlyatev, N. A. Funikov, D. F. Paletsky, hesitating A. F. Adashev, I. M. Veshnyakov.

Thus, the versions of the sources about the “rebellion” of March 1553, available to scientists, are mutually exclusive. Let's put them in chronological order:

1) Option of the First Message of Ivan the Terrible (1564): A.F. Adashev and Sylvester as the main rebels;

2) Variant of the postscript to the Royal Book of 1553 (second half of the 1570s - early 1580s): the inspirer of the rebellion is Sylvester, adviser to Vladimir Andreevich. The main characters are Vladimir Staritsky, Efrosinya Staritskaya, the boyars are D. I. Kurlyatev, D. F. Paletsky, I. M. Shuisky, the okolnichy F. G. Adashev, the printer N. A. Funikov-Kurtsev. The rebels sympathize with I. I. Turuntai Pronsky, P. M. Shchenyatev, S. V. Rostovsky, D. I. Obolensky. Until the evening of March 1, A.F. Adashev and I.M. Veshnyakov hesitated, but in the end they remained loyal to the sovereign;

3) Variant of the postscript to the Royal Book of 1554 (second half of the 1570s - early 1580s): there was no rebellion. During the tsar’s illness, a group of boyars discussed the option of transferring power to Vladimir Staritsky. It included S.V. Rostovsky, P.M. Shchenyatev, I.I. Turuntai-Pronsky, D.I. Kurlyatev, P.S. Serebryany, S.I. Mikulinsky, Kurakin. The conspirators did not take any practical actions. Their plans were accidentally discovered a year later during the interrogation of the fugitive loser S.V. Rostovsky, who betrayed all his like-minded people.

The most remarkable thing is that all these three mutually exclusive versions, apparently, belonged to the pen of the same person - Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. It was he who was the author of the First Epistle to Kurbsky, and it was he, according to the most conclusive version of D.N. Alshits, who was the author of the postscripts to the facial vaults of the 1570s.

So what happened in the Moscow Kremlin in March 1553?

We can say only one thing with certainty - something happened. There were undoubtedly some upheavals around the throne associated with the names of Ivan IV, Vladimir Staritsky, and Dmitry. They are indicated by the existence of three cross-kissing records of allegiance to the throne, taken from Vladimir Andreevich on March 12, 1553, in April and May 1554. After 1553–1554, serious personnel changes took place in the ruling circles. All this indicates some important events, but their specific history without the introduction of new sources will, unfortunately, be reconstructed only hypothetically.

The problem is that those named in the postscript to the Royal Book and the First Message of the Terrible were the “unkind” of the Tsar - D. I. Kurlyatev, F. G. Adashev, Sylvester, Vladimir Andreevich, D. I. Obolensky, S. V. Rostovsky, who hesitated A. F. Adashev and I. M. Veshnyakov - not only did not pay in 1553 for their “rebellion” and “betrayal”, but, on the contrary, the rise of many of them, and the same A. F. Adashev, begins just since 1553. But the role of D.R. and V.M. Yuryev, who, according to the postscript, remained faithful to the sovereign, on the contrary, after 1553 began to decline rapidly.

In light of the above analysis, how adequate were these accusations against Ivan the Terrible? Before us again is a certain secret of his courtyard. All we can say with certainty is that this mystery exists. That it is hidden behind hints, distortions and slanderous fabrications in the sources. We can make hypotheses. But nothing more...

Let us consider other accusations of the tsar, less obvious and much more difficult to verify from sources.

The first is the accusation of Kurbsky and his supporters of plundering the wealth of the state, with which the traitors pay off the persecutors and detractors of the unfortunate tsar, “imitators of demons”: “But for these atrocities you give them many rewards with our own land and treasury, you are mistaken in considering them servants, and “, filled with these demonic rumors, you, like a deadly viper, became enraged at me and destroyed your soul, and rose up to destroy the church.”

One can only guess what the king meant. If we take his words literally, then among the princes and boyars there was a certain group that paid people who watched over the sovereign and tormented him with petty regulations and guardianship. For such criminal acts aimed at turning the king into a “baby,” they received generous distributions from the state treasury and land fund. But the villains, led by Kurbsky, are mistaken if they think that these “demon-like” individuals serve the treacherous boyars (and who, according to Ivan the Terrible, they actually serve is unclear from the letter). In the “deadly poison of their intent,” Kurbsky and his comrades-in-arms have already lived to see the destruction of churches.

This phantasmagoric picture painted by the king does not find any confirmation in other sources. There is not the slightest trace of such embezzlement, nor the destruction of churches, nor a terrible conspiracy among the boyars and their hirelings - some practicing psychotherapists. This does not mean that at court there were no contradictions between the nobility and Ivan the Terrible - it is another matter how the suspicious tsar with paranoid thinking imagined the nature of these conflicts.

Grozny’s next accusation against Kurbsky and his comrades is “the war with Lithuania was caused by your own betrayal, ill will and frivolous negligence.” Strictly speaking, this is not so, although here one can at least guess what kind of misdeeds of the nobility could cause such assessments. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland had long been hatching plans to capture Livonia. After 1552, these plans began to be implemented. At the end of the 1550s, another truce between Russia and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was expiring. King Sigismund decided to take advantage of this and, under the threat of refusing to extend the truce and thereby unleashing a Russian-Lithuanian war, to obtain from Russia non-interference in the Livonian issue and “free hands” in the Baltic states.

On March 3, 1559, an embassy from Sigismund, headed by Vasily Tishkevich, arrived in Moscow. It brought proposals developed at the court of Sigismund in December 1558. The ambassadors were instructed to begin by discussing the issue of creating a Polish-Lithuanian-Russian anti-Muslim coalition - a project for a military-political alliance against the Crimean Khanate and Turkey. Next, diplomats had to declare that in order to create such a union, it was necessary to resolve old territorial disputes between Russia and Lithuania and extend the truce. And when the Russians started discussing a truce, Lithuanian diplomats were supposed to strike. They were instructed to make claims in the attack on Livonia, on Archbishop William of Brandenburg, a relative of Sigismund.

Thus, the Lithuanian side planned in advance to express a demand for Russia to end the war in Livonia. It was not difficult to foresee the reaction to such a demarche: the Russian side would have responded in the style of “none of your business.” Sigismund's instructions are absolutely clear: to make an accusation of aggression against Livonia at the end of the debate, thereby putting the negotiations in jeopardy.

Therefore, those historians who, following Ivan the Terrible, blame the leaders of the Russian embassy service, in particular A.F. Adashev, for unsuccessful negotiations, do not take into account the fact that Tishkevich’s embassy was not going to extend the truce, not to negotiate, but to aggravate relations. What Adashev could not foresee, much less disavow. Everything shows that Moscow diplomats did not expect Sigismund’s intervention in the Livonian issue.

At the negotiations, Adashev proposed concluding peace on the principle of who owns what, while “for the sake of good agreement, we will not seek the return of our ancestral homelands, the city of Kyiv and other Russian cities.” Thus, Moscow in 1559 was ready, in exchange for eternal peace and an anti-Tatar alliance, to secure in the “eternal” treaty the refusal even to declare its rights to the Russian lands that were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is a fundamental change in position. After all, ten years earlier, Moscow did not even want to hear about a world that would tie its hands in the future “search for its fiefdoms.” Now Russia was ready to give up Kyiv and other lands in exchange for peace with Lithuania and Sigismund’s non-interference in the Livonian issue.

However, the Lithuanians flatly refused to put up without a solution to the territorial problem. To substantiate their position, they even cited a parable from Zlatostruy: “A certain man had a snake in his yard, but it ate his children and his wife, and even wanted to live with that man. And that current world is similar to the same: having eaten his wife and children, eat himself.” Adashev angrily called the speeches of the Lithuanians “rotten seeds” that “wouldn’t even be dreamed of.” But Tishkevich’s position was firm: peace is possible only if Russia returns Smolensk, Seversky lands, Starodub, Novy Gorodok, Putivl, Pochap, Bryansk, Rylsk, Chernigov, Vyazma, Dorogobuzh, Roslavl, Mglin, Dronov and Popova Gora. The ambassadors called these seizures the “sins of the ancestors” of Ivan the Terrible, and until he gets rid of them, there will be no peace.

On March 10, 1559, Tishkevich stated that Sigismund demanded to end the war in Livonia and stop the attack on his relative, Archbishop Wilhelm of Riga. Shocked, Ivan Vasilyevich faced the prospect of a war on two fronts. All he could do was send the ambassadors home, in retaliation ordering not to give them honey and declaring that Russia would hold out the old truce, and then “as God willing.” Adashev was removed from the negotiations, and the answer to the ambassadors was given by I.M. Viskovaty.

On January 23, 1560, Ambassador Martyn Volodkevich appeared before the eyes of Ivan the Terrible with an ultimatum: immediately end the war in Livonia, for Livonia belongs to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The ambassador asked to meet with Adashev and Viskovaty. Ivan ordered them to meet in Viskovaty’s sexton’s hut. Volodkevich said that the pro-war party had won in Lithuania and that hopes for peace were illusory. Adashev and Viskovaty, fulfilling the tsar’s instructions, tried to prove the legitimacy of Russia’s attack on Livonia. On January 30, they conveyed the contents of the conversations to Grozny, after which he sent the ambassador home without a letter and without lunch.

In July 1560, the first detachments of soldiers of the Grand Duchy crossed the Lithuanian-Livonian border. There were few Lithuanian troops - from 800 to 2,500 people. But serious clashes with the Russian army occurred only a year later - in August 1561, the city of Tarvast in Livonia was taken by the Lithuanians after a five-week siege, and the Russian garrison was captured. The Lithuanians still ravaged the Kerepet and Yuryev “places” that were part of the Russian zone of occupation, and the Novogorod district. This event marks the beginning of a new Russian-Lithuanian war of 1561–1570, which, however, Russia will win.

On November 1, 1561, the Russian governors - T. M. Kropotkin, N. Putyatin and G. E. Trusov-Bolshoi - were released in disgrace from the captured Tarvast. It is not known what was worse for them: Lithuanian captivity or Moscow freedom. Ivan the Terrible regarded the surrender of Tarvast as a betrayal: “And how the Torva governors came from Lithuania to Moscow, and the Tsar and the Grand Duke put their disgrace on them for the fact that they surrendered the city to the Lithuanian people, and the sovereign sent them around the cities to prisons, and the estates The sovereign ordered them and their estates to be taken and distributed as distribution.”

Thus, for this accusation of the tsar - that the war with Lithuania began because of the mistakes and negligence of the Russian governors - from the point of view of the tsar, there were grounds. The events he had in mind are reconstructed quite clearly. Another thing is that the true background of these events shows the bias and injustice of the royal anger.

The tsar’s next claim is related to the involvement of the sovereign in some incorrect church rituals: “If you remember that something was wrong in the church service and that there were games, then this was also because of your insidious plans, for you tore me away from a calm spiritual life and, like a Pharisee, loaded me with a burden that was barely bearable, but you yourself didn’t lift a finger; and therefore the leadership of the church was unsteady, partly due to the concerns of the royal rule, undermined by you, and sometimes to avoid your insidious plans.”

It is noteworthy that Kurbsky did not reproach the tsar for any “games”. He talks about “demonic feasts”, about the shedding of blood on church thresholds, about mockery of monks (“ in an angelic way"), "Aphroditic Sin" and "Crown Sacrifice". All this is too serious and does not fit the definition of a “game”. Moreover, as is clear from the words of the king, these mysterious rituals (fun) are somehow connected with church rituals, and they were played out in front of the people: “As for the games, then only condescending to human weaknesses, for you have captivated many people with your insidious plans , I arranged them so that he (people - A.F.) He recognized us, his sovereigns, and not you, traitors... just as God allowed the Jews to make sacrifices, as long as they offered to God, and not to demons.” What kind of public “games” were these, with the help of which the tsar lured the masses away from the influence of the traitors - Kurbsky and the boyars, thwarting their insidious plans, but at the same time was forced to violate some church customs? What Ivan the Terrible meant here and, most importantly, in what words of Kurbsky he saw a hint of these “games” is impossible to understand.

Grozny stated that “we did not kill the strong in Israel, and I don’t know who the strongest in Israel is.” The Tsar is absolutely categorical: “We did not put our governors to death, but with God’s help we have many governors besides you, traitors. And we were always free to give favors to our slaves, and we were also free to execute them.”

The king is undoubtedly disingenuous here. Who exactly was subjected to repression in the years before the Great Patriotic War and, therefore, can be brought closer to the “strong ones in Israel”? In 1560, the boyar I. S. Vorontsov suffered (according to the private denunciation of F. I. Sukin), the okolnichy A. F. Adashev (exiled to the front), the clerk I. G. Vyrodkov, and also, possibly, the bed guard I. V. Veshnyakov and priest Sylvester (although, according to other sources, he calmly retired to the monastery; Grozny further writes about this: “Priest Sylvester left of his own free will”).

In 1561, the boyar V. M. Glinsky, as well as the Tarvast governors T. M. Kropotkin, N. Putyatin and G. E. Trusov-Bolshoi, were subjected to repression. In 1562, boyar D.I. Kurlyatev was forcibly tonsured a monk (on charges of attempting to leave for Lithuania). Boyar I. D. Belsky and his companions B. F. Gubin-Moklokov, I. Ya. Izmailov, N. V. Elsufiev were accused of a similar crime. Princes A.I. and M.I. Vorotynsky were imprisoned, their lands were confiscated. Prince I.F. Gvozdev-Rostovsky and, probably, boyar V.V. Morozov were also injured.

The year 1563 was marked by two major processes: the “Staritsky” and “Starodub” “treasonous cases.” Following the denunciation of clerk Savluk Ivanov, Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky’s courtyard was confiscated, and his mother, Efrosinya Staritskaya, was sent into exile. In the same case, Prince I. Shakhovsky-Yaroslavsky was executed. According to the “Starodub” investigation, victims were V. S. Funikov-Belozersky, I. F. Shishkin, D. F. and T. D. Adashevs, P. I. Turov, Fedor, Andrey and Alexey Satin (relatives of A. D. Adashev ).

In 1564, the boyars I.V. Sheremetev-Bolshoi, M.P. Repnin and Yu.I. Kashin were persecuted (the last two were apparently killed by order of the tsar), princes D.F. Ovchina-Obolensky, N.F. and A.F. Chernye-Obolensky, P.I. Gorensky-Obolensky.

This is the list of those disgraced by Ivan IV in the pre-Russian years. The king lied when he said that he “did not put his commanders to various deaths.” Another thing is that Grozny considered the victims of repression not “his commanders,” but traitors who received what they deserved: “And we did not invent torture, persecution and various executions for anyone; if you remember traitors and sorcerers, such dogs are executed everywhere.”

Kurbsky tried to portray the relationship between the sovereign and his subjects as a conflict between a tyrant with anti-Christian inclinations and “new martyrs,” and martyrs primarily for the faith or, at least, for the purity of the commandments and Christian morality. For Ivan, this was a dangerous accusation; he appeared in an extremely unfavorable light. Therefore, Grozny sharply dismissed the religious background of the conflict: “We have no martyrs for our faith.” The Tsar laughed at Kurbsky’s words that he had “slandered the Orthodox”: “If I have already lied, from whom can we expect the truth? What, in your evil opinion, no matter what the traitors do, it is impossible to expose them? Why should I kiss them? What do I want from my subjects? The authorities, or their thin rags, or to be satisfied with their bread? Isn’t your invention worthy of laughter?.. Who, having reason, would execute his subjects without reason?”

Grozny, true to his principle - to level at Kurbsky the same accusations that the prince wrote about in his First Message - writes a lengthy story about villainous betrayals, the murders of governors and boyars, the plunder of the state treasury, the ruin of the country and the destruction of Orthodoxy. All this happened in Russia from the childhood of Ivan the Terrible until the early 1560s, when the tsar finally found the strength to deal with his internal enemies. And the princes, boyars, comrades and relatives of Kurbsky, Adashev and other individuals, “like mad dogs,” are to blame for everything.

Despite assurances of care and warm feelings towards his subjects, Tsar Ivan, in principle, has an extremely low opinion of them: “I was eight years old at that time, and so our subjects achieved the fulfillment of their desires - they received a kingdom without a ruler, but about us, their sovereigns, they did not show any concern from the heart, but they themselves rushed to wealth and glory and quarreled with each other at the same time... how many of our boyars, and our father’s well-wishers, and the governor were killed. They took the courtyards, villages, and property of our uncles and settled in them. And our mother’s treasures were transferred to the Great Treasury, furiously kicking and poking with sticks, and the rest was divided.”

Unable to withstand the dominance of evil that reigned in Russia for several years, writes Ivan the Terrible, “being in such sorrow and not being able to bear this burden, which exceeds human strength, we, having investigated the betrayals of the dog Alexei Adashev and all his advisers, lightly punished them for everything this: they were not sentenced to death, but were sent to different places.” All these betrayals, according to the king, were committed “for the sake of the shine of gold.” Therefore, Grozny compares the actions of Kurbsky and others with “Judas’ curse.” They betrayed the king, just as Judas betrayed Christ.

In relation to Kurbsky himself, the tsar’s position was truly Jesuitical. Literally at the beginning of his message, the king declared: “Do not think that it is fair to be angry with a person and speak out against God... Or do you think, you damned one, that you will be saved? No way! If you have to go with them (the Lithuanians. – A.F.) fight, then you will have to destroy churches, trample icons, and kill Christians; If you don’t dare with your hands anywhere, then you will bring a lot of evil there with the deadly poison of your intent. Imagine how, during a military invasion, horse hooves trample and crush the tender bodies of babies!”

Thus, the tsar transferred the personal conflict with Kurbsky to the plane of the fundamental problem of human existence - the problem of saving the soul. And here Ivan the Terrible openly mocked the prince: “If you, in your words, are righteous and pious, then why were you afraid to die innocently, for this is not death, but a good gift? In the end, you will die anyway... why didn’t you want me, the obstinate ruler, to suffer and earn the crown of eternal life?”

The Terrible contrasted the cowardice and hypocrisy of the prince with the behavior of his servant Vasily Shibanov, who delivered Kurbsky’s message to the tsar: “How come you are not ashamed of your slave Vaska Shibanov? After all, he retained his piety, standing before the king and all the people, at the threshold of death, he did not renounce kissing you on the cross, glorifying you in every possible way and volunteering to die for you.”

The main conclusion of Ivan the Terrible: “Russian autocrats initially own their state, not the boyars and nobles!” Based on this statement, made six months before the famous departure to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, historians call the First Epistle of Grozny “the program document of the oprichnina.” Thanks to his polemic with Kurbsky, the tsar himself formulated accusations against “internal enemies.” It was possible to begin to “establish order” and eradicate “treason.”

Appendix 12

Ivan IV Vasilievich the Terrible(1530–1584) - Grand Duke of Moscow from 1533, the first Russian Tsar crowned king (1547), son of Vasily III Ivanovich and Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya. Born August 25, 1530 in the village Kolomenskoye near Moscow.

Left without a father from the age of three (Vasily III died in 1533), and from the age of eight without a mother (Elena Glinskaya died in 1538, and according to rumors was poisoned), he first came under the guardianship of the Shuisky princes, from 1538. - Belsky, and from 1542. - Shuisky again.

Ivan grew up in an atmosphere of lies, intrigue and violence; his childhood remained in his memory as a time of insults and humiliation. The dominance of temporary workers and the struggle for power between warring boyar factions formed in him suspicion, cruelty and unbridledness. At the age of 13, he ordered the hounds to beat his teacher V.I. Shuisky to death, then declared himself an autocrat (December 29, 1543). He appointed the Glinsky princes (mother's relatives) as the most important over all other boyar and princely families. At the age of 15 he sent his army against the Kazan Khan, but the campaign was unsuccessful.

January 16, 1547 was “crowned to the throne” and titled as “Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'.” He placed the Monomakh's hat and barmas on him Metropolitan Macarius(see Appendix 18).

February 13, 1547 entered into his first (out of seven) marriage with an unborn and humble noblewoman Anastasia Romanova, daughter of Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin-Koshkin. He was destined to live with her for 13 years. From this marriage three sons were born, including Fyodor Ivanovich (the future tsar), Ivan Ivanovich (who was killed by him in 1581), Dmitry (who died in adolescence in Uglich) and three daughters. This marriage gave rise to a new royal dynasty - the Romanovs.

In June 1547 The terrible Moscow fire caused a popular revolt against the Glinskys, to whose charms the crowd attributed this disaster. The riot was pacified, but the impressions from it remained in the soul of Ivan the Terrible for the rest of his life.

Ivan the Terrible’s active participation in government activities begins with the creation The chosen one is pleased(see Appendix 15) in 1549 Had a great influence on the young king Sylvester(see Appendix 19), his confessor.

In 1549–1552 Ivan IV carried out the Kazan campaigns, which ended with the capture of Kazan on October 2, 1552. In honor of this event, the Pokrovsky Cathedral with 8 chapters, symbolizing the 8 days of the siege, was founded on Red Square in Moscow.

Since 1549 convocation began Zemsky Sobors, in 1550 a new Code of Law has been drawn up. In 1551 a church council was convened and named Stoglavy(see Appendix 21).

In the early 1550s. The government of Grozny carried out the Guba and Zemstvo reforms, and the “feeding” system was eliminated. In 1553 established trade relations with England and built the first hotel in Russian history near the Kremlin (English Trading Yard); in the same year the work of the first printing house began in Moscow. By the middle of the century, a system of orders (executive institutions) had taken shape, and army reform was successfully carried out.

The first (reform) period of the reign of Ivan the Terrible consolidated the service class (nobles), strengthened the state apparatus and made it possible to solve a number of foreign policy problems: 4 years after the capture of Kazan, the Astrakhan Khanate was conquered. The Siberian Khan Edigei (1555) and the Great Nogai Horde (1557) became dependent on Moscow. At the same time, the Bashkirs voluntarily came under the authority of Moscow.

However, the king himself believed that the measures taken did not strengthen his power. He was concerned about the independence of the views of Adashev and Sylvester. The divergence of opinions revealed the question of the direction of further actions in foreign policy: Grozny believed that a war for access to the Baltic was necessary, the members of the “Rada” believed that further advance to the southeast was necessary.

Started in 1558 The Livonian War was supposed to confirm the tsar was right, but the successes of the first years of the war gave way to defeats. Death in 1560 Anastasia Romanova and the slander of her relatives forced the Tsar to suspect his former associates of malicious intent and poisoning of the Tsarina. Adashev died at the moment of the reprisal being prepared for him; Sylvester, by order of Ivan the Terrible, was tonsured and exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery. In 1564 The tsar's closest adviser, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, having learned about Adashev's death and the impending reprisal against himself, fled to Lithuania.

Kurbsky's betrayal, the reluctance of the patrimonial boyars to participate in the struggle against Poland and Lithuania and the growth of heresies within the kingdom leads the Tsar to the idea of ​​establishing a personal dictatorship and defeating the boyars. In 1565 he announced the introduction of oprichnina in the country.

However, the oprichnina and the ongoing war in Livonia ruined the country. The war in the Baltic States, interrupted after the fall of the Livonian Order (1561), resumed without previous success. With the election of Stefan Batory to the Polish throne (1575), military clashes became a chain of defeats for Russia. The Poles reached Pskov, but were unable to take it. After this, Ivan IV signed a peace treaty with Poland in Yama-Zapolsky (1582), according to which Moscow renounced its claims to Livonia and Polotsk, and the Poles returned the captured Russian lands. According to the Treaty of Plus with Sweden in 1583. all of Estland went to Sweden.

Despite the obvious mistakes in the struggle for the Baltic, the government of Ivan the Terrible managed to establish trade relations through Arkhangelsk with England and the Netherlands during these years. The advance of the Russian army into the lands of the Siberian Khan, which ended under the son of the Terrible, Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, was also very successful.

Appendix 13

Glinskaya Elena Vasilievna(? – 1538) – second wife of the Russian Tsar and Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III Ivanovich, ruler of Russia (as a regency) 1533–1538.

Niece of the Lithuanian tycoon Mikhail Lvovich Glinsky, daughter of the Lithuanian prince Vasily Lvovich Glinsky-Blind and Princess Anna. In 1525 she was married to the 45-year-old Tsar Vasily III after his divorce from his first childless wife Solomonia Saburova. In the eyes of the Moscow boyars she was considered “rootless”. However, Elena was raised in a European way, beautiful and young, which decided the choice of Vasily III.

The marriage of Elena and Vasily III was started with one purpose: so that the new wife could give birth to an heir to whom the Moscow “table” should be handed over. However, Elena and Vasily did not have children for a long time. The long-awaited child - the future Ivan the Terrible - was born only on August 25, 1530. In honor of the fact that Elena was able to give birth to an heir, Vasily III ordered the foundation of the Church of the Ascension in the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow. In November 1531 Elena gave birth to a second son, Yuri, who was sickly and weak-minded. There were rumors in the city that both children were not the children of the Tsar and the Grand Duke, but of Prince Ivan Fedorovich Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky.

Vasily III died in 1533. His last will was to transfer the throne to his son. In reality, power in the state ended up in the hands of Glinskaya as regent. Her strong character and ambition helped her defend her position, despite several boyar conspiracies aimed at overthrowing her. During her reign, her favorite, Prince I.F. Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky and Metropolitan Daniel, continued to play a significant role in state affairs.

Glinskaya's foreign policy was firm and consistent. In 1534 Lithuanian king Sigismund started a war against Russia by attacking Smolensk, but lost. According to the truce of 1536–1537. Chernigov and Starodub lands were assigned to Moscow. But Gomel and Lyubech remained with Lithuania. In 1537 Russia entered into an agreement with Sweden on free trade and benevolent neutrality.

During the reign of Glinskaya, a successful struggle was waged against the growth of monastic land ownership; much was done to strengthen the centralization of power: in December 1533. The inheritance of Prince Yuri Ivanovich of Dmitrov was liquidated in 1537. - the old man’s inheritance of Prince Andrei Ivanovich.

Under Glinskaya, active construction was underway in Moscow; in May 1535. The stone China Town was built. An influx of emigrants from other countries began to rich Muscovy.

Since 1536 By order of Glinskaya, they began to rebuild and strengthen the cities of Vladimir, Tver, Yaroslavl, Vologda, Kostroma, Pronsk, Balakhna, Starodub, and cities on the western, southern and eastern borders.

One of the most significant events in the economic and political development of the Russian state of this period was monetary reform of 1535(see Appendix 14), according to which the rights of appanage princes to mint their own coins were eliminated.

Under Elena Glinskaya, the reorganization of local self-government, the so-called “lip reform,” began. This largely anticipated the future reforms of her son, Ivan IV the Terrible.

On the night of April 3-4, 1538, Elena Glinskaya died suddenly. The chronicles do not mention her death. Foreign travelers left messages that she was poisoned, and her favorite I.F. Ovchina Telepnev-Obolensky was killed immediately after her death.

Appendix 14

Monetary reform of Elena Glinskaya

From 1535 to 1538 The first monetary reform was carried out in the Russian state. The reform was carried out on behalf of the young Grand Duke Ivan IV Vasilyevich during the regency of his mother Elena Glinskaya. This reform was one of the most significant events in the economic and political development of the medieval Russian state. The reform created a stable system of monetary circulation and became the final stage of the political unification of Russian lands.

An essential condition for carrying out the reform was the presence of significant experience in Russian coin circulation, which by that time had already existed for about 150 years. The first Russian coins were minted in the first half of the 11th century, but for a very short time. The beginning of a stable issue of Russian coins dates back to the 1380s. - in Moscow, Ryazan and Nizhny Novgorod. Since 1420, coins have been minted by Novgorod the Great.

The coins of local centers were distinguished by an extraordinary variety of weight denominations, as well as designations in the form of images and inscriptions, which, naturally, made it difficult to use them in common system monetary circulation. After the completion of the unification of lands around Moscow at the beginning of the 16th century. conditions for the unification of coin denominations and designations have developed

Another reason for the reform was the need to eliminate the state budget deficit resulting from the active foreign policy of Vasily III. The strengthening of the southern Russian borders also required significant funds.

The reason for the event was in the 1530s. The first Russian reform of monetary circulation was the spread of deterioration of coins through a decrease in the amount of silver in it. Therefore, a state monopoly was established on the issue of coins and the consolidation of craftsmen at the mints in Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov.

The Russian state did not have its own silver mines, and the raw material for coinage was silver, which came as a result of international trade, primarily from Germany.

In February 1535, on behalf of five-year-old Ivan Vasilyevich, a decree was adopted to replace old money with new ones. State mints were organized. On June 20, 1535, new coins of a certain denomination began to be minted in Novgorod, which received the name “Novgorodka”, a little later in Moscow (“Moscow coins” were half as heavy as Novgorod coins) and Pskov. The final ban on “old” money dates back to 1538.

The basis of Russian monetary circulation after the reform of Elena Glinskaya was silver coins "kopecks"- Novgorodka with a weight norm of 0.68 g, “money” - Moscow with a weight norm of 0.34 g and “polushki” with a weight norm of 0.17 grams.

During the reform of Elena Glinskaya, not only the weight ratios of the introduced types of coins were unified, but also designations in the form of images and inscriptions. This also made it easier to use new coins and protect them from damage.

The implementation of monetary reform under Elena Glinskaya was of utmost importance for the further development of the Russian state. As a result of the reform, it was created one system monetary circulation of the Russian state, which over the next centuries underwent various changes, but generally maintained unity and stability. This became an objective positive factor in the political and economic development of the Russian state. As a result of the reform, the monetary systems of previously economically unconnected regions, primarily Novgorod and Moscow, were finally unified. This allowed the all-Russian economy to develop much more successfully, especially in the middle of the 16th century.

Thanks to the reform of Elena Glinskaya, the Russian monetary system reached a new qualitative economic and technical level, which was of great importance for the activation of Russian foreign trade, primarily with European countries.

Appendix 15

Elected Rada- a special circle that essentially performed the functions of the government. Created on the initiative of the confessor of Tsar Selvester, who managed to convince the Tsar of the possibility of saving the country with the help of new advisers, who were selected according to his instructions. The full composition of the Elected Rada is unknown. But of the most famous people In addition to Sylvester, it included: Metropolitan Macarius, Prince Andrei Kurbsky and nobleman A.F. Adashev. Named so by Prince A. Kurbsky. The actual head was A.F. Adasheva.

Heterogeneous in composition, the Elected Rada faithfully served to strengthen the autocratic power of Ivan IV and strengthen the centralization of the state.

Appendix 16

Adashev Alexey Fedorovich(?–1560) – famous Russian statesman the times of Ivan the Terrible (Duma nobleman, falconer, bed-keeper), head of the government of the Chosen Rada.

Year and place of birth are unknown. He came from the Kostroma nobles, was considered a “not very noble family, but good”, associated with the Moscow boyars.

First mentioned in 1547. at the royal wedding. Has gained big influence against the tsar during the Moscow fire of 1547, when the tsar began to bring people who were not well-born, but loyal, closer to him. Thanks to his talents and devotion to Ivan IV, Adashev found himself among the leaders of the “Chosen Rada” - the tsar’s advisers, who became in fact an unofficial government. Created in 1549 and led by Adashev, it temporarily pushed the Boyar Duma away from governing the country, and Adashev himself became a major statesman.

Among his contemporaries, Adashev was known as an ascetic, fair and deeply religious man. Surrounded by the tsar, he belonged to the circle of convinced reformers - oppositionists of the noble boyars.

A number of reforms that strengthened royal power are associated with his name. Together with other members of the Chosen Rada, A.F. Adashev actively participated in the development of the Code of Laws of 1550. During these same years he was promoted to falconer. He headed the highest control body - the Petition Order.

Adashev pursued a policy of reforms that contributed to the centralization of power. He advocated the abolition of the feeding system and the implementation military reform(the creation of a “chosen thousand” warriors from the nobles, who were provided with land near Moscow).

Smart and energetic, Adashev was so close to the tsar that he became the custodian of his personal archive and the state seal “for urgent and secret matters,” and also supervised the writing of the official Books of Rank, the Sovereign’s Genealogy and the Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom. Around 1550 he became treasurer and headed the financial department.

He constantly participated in negotiations with foreign ambassadors, pursued an active foreign policy, led the diplomatic preparations for the annexation of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, and engineering work during the siege of Kazan in 1552.

In the spring of 1553 Ivan IV became seriously ill, made a spiritual will and demanded that his young son Dmitry swear allegiance. The will of the tsar was challenged only by two courtiers - the tsar's cousin, the Staritsky prince Vladimir Andreevich, and A.F. Adashev's father, the okolnichy Fyodor Adashev. Personally, Alexey Adashev swore allegiance to Dmitry (as the tsar wanted), but his father announced to the sick Ivan IV that he did not want to obey the Romanovs, who would rule the country due to Dmitry’s early age.

When the tsar recovered, his attitude towards the Adashev family changed dramatically. Despite his past merits, A.F. Adashev was sent to diplomatic work and thereby alienated from the affairs of the capital. In 1555–1556 Adashev led negotiations justifying the annexation of the Astrakhan Khanate to Russia. After the successful completion of this mission, he insisted on continuing the fight against the Crimean Tatars and developing this area of ​​foreign policy. However, Ivan IV chose to start the Livonian War for access to the Baltic Sea (1558–1584).

Adashev did not agree with this decision of the tsar, but did not disobey him and repeatedly participated together with I.M. Viskovaty in negotiations with Livonia (1554, 1557, 1558), Poland (1558, 1560) and Denmark (1559). ). But, despite such devotion, in May 1560. Adashev was sent by Ivan IV into honorable exile in Livonia as the commander of a large regiment.

The Tsar's disgrace was caused by the growing morbid suspicion of Ivan IV at that time, as well as by the fact that the policy of the Elected Rada no longer reflected the interests of the growing nobility, and Adashev himself was increasingly turning into an oppositionist. Formally, his government fell as a result of disagreements with Ivan the Terrible in the conduct of foreign policy. Thus, the end of the 1550s. drew a line under the long-standing rivalry between the tsar and the reformers who rejected violence and terror on the path to centralize the state.

On August 7, 1560, the wife of Ivan IV, Anastasia Romanova-Zakharyina, died. The Tsar believed rumors that she was poisoned by people associated with A.F. Adashev, and exiled the suspect to Dorpat (Tartu). There Adashev was placed under secret surveillance and died two months later under unclear circumstances.

Appendix 17

Kurbsky Andrey Mikhailovich(c. 1528–1583), Russian thinker, translator. From the family of Smolensk-Yaroslavl princes. In 1549–1564 was in the service of Ivan IV the Terrible and was an active member of the Chosen Rada.

Andrei Kurbsky belonged to an old family of Yaroslavl princes and considered himself a descendant of Vladimir Monomakh. He was a prominent military leader, an active participant in the Kazan campaign of Ivan the Terrible. However, fearing the disgrace that so often overtook Grozny's closest associates, Kurbsky fled to Lithuania in April 1564 under the patronage of the Polish king Sigismund Augustus and spent the rest of his life in exile.

Trying to justify his action, he wrote a letter to Ivan the Terrible, containing a condemnation of his state policy. In his “History of the Grand Duke of Moscow,” he criticized Ivan the Terrible for distorting the principles of Orthodox autocracy, and substantiated the idea of ​​an enlightened class monarchy and popular representation.

As a talented writer, Andrei Kurbsky translated the most important work of John of Damascus, “The Source of Knowledge.” His comments to this work reveal extensive historical and philosophical knowledge and independent philosophical reasoning. Thanks to Kurbsky's translations and commentaries, a number of philosophical concepts: syllogism, element, measure, matter, etc.

Kurbsky died in Miljanovichi in Lithuania in May 1583.

Appendix 18

Macarius(1482–1563) - Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus', church leader, outstanding politician and Orthodox hierarch, who made a great contribution to ancient Russian bookmaking and art.

He took monastic vows at the Pafnutievo-Borovsky Monastery. He was the archimandrite of the Mozhaisk Luzhetsky Monastery. In 1526 elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Novgorod. He acted as a supporter of Joseph Volotsky's ideas about the church, strong strictness of ritual and economic security. He was opposed to the secularization of monastic lands.

In 1542 was installed as Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'. He was an adviser to Ivan the Terrible and participated in making the most important government decisions. Under his leadership, the Council of the Hundred Heads was held (1551).

In an effort to strengthen autocratic power, Macarius encouraged young Ivan Vasilyevich to in 1547. was crowned king, accepting the new title of “Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'.” During subsequent disturbances, riots, and cruel tsarist repressions, he repeatedly called for mutual repentance of the parties.

He was harsh and merciless towards “heretics”, branding them at church councils of 1549–1554. Ivan IV trusted Macarius during his campaign against the Kazan Khanate in 1552–1555. left him in the capital “in place of myself.”

In 1547–1549 Macarius carried out the canonization of numerous local (and from that time on, all-Russian) saints. He zealously put into practice the ideas of the theocratic, divine origin of royal power, and contributed to the magnificent flowering of church art, which clearly embodied the greatness of the state.

By the end of the 1560s. Metropolitan Macarius gradually retired from government affairs, concentrating on issues of church administration and education. Under his leadership, the 12-volume Great Menaion of Chetya (completed in the first edition in 1541) and the Degree Book (1560–1563) were compiled, and the first Russian printing house of Ivan Fedorov was established (which published the first book in 1564 after the death of Macarius).

Metropolitan Macarius died on December 31, 1563. Canonized as a saint. The church celebrates his memory on December 30 (January 12). In memory of him, since 1993. Historical and research “Makaryev Readings” are held annually in Mozhaisk.

Appendix 19

Sylvester(end of the 15th century - ca. 1565) - Russian church, political and literary figure of the 16th century, archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, one of the members and leaders of the Elected Rada. Sylvester is the author of what is called the Small Domostro. A number of researchers also consider him the author of the final edition of Domostroy.

Originally known as a Novgorod priest. Between 1543 and 1547 on the recommendation of Metropolitan Macarius, he ended up in the capital. He was appointed archpriest of the Kremlin Annunciation Cathedral, where he met Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich. Becoming by 1549 one of the people closest to the tsar (it is assumed that he could be the confessor of the young ruler), entered the Chosen Rada. According to the memoirs of Ivan IV and the notes of Prince A. Kurbsky, Sylvester pushed the tsar along the path of reforming the government of the country with the help of new advisers. It was according to the instructions and instructions of Sylvester and A.F. Adashev, who was close to him in his views, that the composition of these advisers was selected.

In 1551 Selvester took part in the work of the Stoglavy Cathedral. He also drew up a reform program Orthodox Church in the form of royal questions to the Council.

In 1553 After the illness of Ivan IV, a cooling began in the Tsar’s relationship with Sylvester. This is due to the fact that Sylvester and Adashev, during the days of the ruler’s illness, did not want to swear allegiance to the tsar’s young son Dmitry Ivanovich, but supported the tsar’s cousin, Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Staritsa. After the recovery of Ivan IV, Sylvester was removed from government affairs and was forced to limit himself to ordinary priestly service in his church.

The next step that separated Sylvester from Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was the desire of the Chosen One to continue the war with the Tatars in Crimea after the successful capture of Astrakhan by the Russian army in 1556, although the Tsar intended to go to the West, to Livonia. Unable to convince his former comrades of the correctness of transferring troops to the West, the tsar decided to dissolve the Chosen Rada.

In 1560, after rumors arose about the mythical involvement of Sylvester and Adashev in the death of Tsarina Anastasia Romanova Zakharyina, Adashev was sent to the active army, and Sylvester was finally removed from the court, exiled to Solovetsky, and from there transferred to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. There he became a monk under the name of Spiridon and died around 1565. in Vologda.

Appendix 20

Code of laws of 1550(Extract)

In the summer of June 7058, the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Rus' [with] his brother and the boyars laid down the Sudebnik; (...)

1. The court of the Tsar and the Grand Duke is judged by the boar, and the guard, and the butler, and the treasurer, and the clerk. And in court, do not be friendly and do not take revenge on anyone, and do not make a promise in court; Likewise, every judge should not make promises in court (...)

3. And to whom the boyar, or the butler, or the treasurer, or the clerk takes a promise in court and accuses him not according to the court, but the truth is found out, and a claim is brought against that boyar, or the butler, or the treasurer, or the clerk, and the duties of the Tsar and the Grand Duke, and the ride, and the truth, and the gossip, and the walked, and the right ten and the iron were taken three times, and in the penalty that the sovereign will indicate.

4. And for whom the clerk prepares a list or records the case not according to the court, not as it was at the trial, without the boyar, or without the butler, or without the treasurer’s knowledge, but it will be searched for the truth that he took the promise from him, and on that The clerk was taken in front of the boyar and thrown into prison.

5. A clerk who is not registered in court for a promise without a clerk’s order, and that clerk is executed with a trade execution, beaten with a whip. (...)

26. And dishonor to the children of the boyars, for whom feeding is indicated against the income, that feeding according to the books is income, and dishonor to his wife is twice as much against that income; which children of the boars receive a monetary salary, as much as the salary they received, then dishonor to him, and to his wife twice as much as their dishonor; and the clerks of the plate and the palace are dishonest whatever the Tsar and the Grand Duke indicate, and their wives are dishonest twice as much as they are; (...) and the merchants and the townspeople and everyone in the middle are dishonored five rubles, and their wives are dishonored twice as much as their dishonor; and to a good boyar dishonor five rubles, including tiuns and dovotchikov, and to his wife twice; and the boyar tiun or the dovotchik and the righteous man is dishonest against their income, and their wives twice as much; and a peasant who is arable and not arable is dishonored by a ruble, and his wife is dishonored by two rubles; and for a boyar man or a young black town man, a ruble of dishonor, and for their wives, double dishonor. And point out the injury to the peasant, depending on the injury and dishonor; and points out to everyone for their injury, depending on the person and the injury.

61. And the sovereign’s killer, and the city steward, and the koromolnik, and the church thief, and the head thief, and the sweeper, and the lighter, known to the dashing man, have no date, he will be executed with the death penalty. (...)

88. About peasant refusal. And peasants are allowed to leave from volost to volost and from village to village for one period of the year: a week before Yuryev days before autumn and a week after Yuryev days in autumn. And elderly householders pay a ruble and two altyns in the field, and in the forests, where ten miles to the mansion forest, for the yard half a ruble and two altyns. And to whom the peasant lives for a year and goes away, and he pays a quarter of the yard; and he lives for two years, and he pays half the yard; and he will live for three years, and he will pay three Thursdays for the yard; and he lives for four years, and he pays the entire yard, a ruble and two altyns. And take the elderly out of the gate. And for the cart, charge two altyns from the yard; And besides, don’t charge any duties on it. And the peasant who remains has bread in the land, and when he reaps that bread, he will give two altyns from that bread or from something else; and in some places his mug was in the ground, and he pays taxes to the Tsarev and the Grand Duke from the rye, but he, for whom he lived, did not do the boyar’s business. But there is no elderly priest, and he is free to go out indefinitely. And to whom a peasant from the arable land will sell himself to the slaves in full, and he will be brought out indefinitely, and there will be no old man from him; and to whom his bread remains in the ground, and he gives from that bread to the Tsarina and the Grand Duke; but he does not want to pay taxes, and he is deprived of his land bread. (...)

92. And if a man dies without spiritual literacy, and does not have a son, then his daughter will take the rest of the land and all the land; and if he does not have a daughter, she will be taken to a neighbor from his family. (...)

Appendix 21

Stoglavy Cathedral- one of the most remarkable church councils of medieval Rus', which received its name from “Stoglav”, a collection of his decisions, which had 100 chapters (hence its name).

The Council took place in February - May 1551. in Moscow at the behest of Ivan the Terrible, who sought to strengthen centralized power and was extremely concerned about the state of church affairs. It was attended by spiritual hierarchs led by Metropolitan Macarius, as well as some representatives of the Boyar Duma and the top nobility. The council approved the pantheon of Russian saints and unified rituals. The work of the council consisted of questions from the king, detailed answers to them, as well as relevant resolutions.

The royal questions were aimed at eradicating heresies and popular superstitions, strengthening deanery by correcting errors and discrepancies in liturgical books. They substantiated and unified rituals and church regulations. By decision of the Council, measures were taken to develop religious education, which evoked the most favorable assessments from the church hierarchs.

However, on the issue of monastic land ownership, the opinions of the church and the autocracy differed. Although the Tsar was inclined, under the influence of the members of the Chosen Rada and, above all, his confessor, Priest Sylvester, to support "non-acquisitive"(followers of Nil Sorsky), in general, the opinion of the church-hierarchical majority, consisting of "Josephites"(followers of Joseph Volotsky), committed to the idea of ​​economically strong and independent monasteries. True, according to the decision of the Council, their rights were still somewhat limited. In particular, they were prohibited from acquiring new lands without the consent of the king, as well as from founding new settlements in cities. The Church also managed to defend the competence of a special hierarchical court, independent of secular authorities.

The instructions of the Council carefully regulated church rituals, the rules of icon painting, the norms of life of the white and black clergy, as well as national life in general.

Based on “Stoglav”, special orders and teachings were sent out, which, in general, were not strictly codified. It remained in history precisely as a review of customs and recommendations, and not as a consolidated code of church laws. His texts remain a most valuable source of information about the church and secular history of the Russian people of the 16th century. However, references to his decisions as church laws subsequently contributed to the split of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century.

Appendix 22

Oprichnina- a necessary stage in the struggle to strengthen the centralized state. In order to put an end to the opposition in the person of the boyars, the tsar decided on a demonstrative “resentment”: together with his family, in December 1564. left Moscow, as if abdicating the throne, and went to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. The people, thrown into confusion, demanded that the boyars and higher clergy beg the Tsar to return. Grozny accepted the deputation and agreed to return, but under certain conditions. He outlined them when he arrived in the capital in February 1565; in essence, it was a demand to grant him dictatorial powers. By a special decree, the tsar proclaimed the establishment of the oprichnina (from the Old Russian oprich - “except”), i.e. specific personal possession of the king. IN oprichnina They fell mainly in the northeastern Russian lands, where there were few patrimonial boyars.

These personal land holdings were to be made up of the confiscated lands of political opponents and again redistributed among those who were loyal and devoted to him. About 20 cities and several volosts fell under the redistribution. The tsar created a special army from his devoted “friends” - the oprichnina, and formed courtyards with servants to support them. In Moscow, several streets and settlements were allocated for the guardsmen. The number of guardsmen and their lands quickly increased. The lands that did not fall into the oprichnina were called “zemshchina”. The zemshchina was governed by the boyar duma, had an army, a judicial system and other administrative institutions. However, the real power was possessed by the guardsmen, who performed the functions of the state police.

The beginning of education oprichnina army(PamLitDrRus1a.jpg) can be considered the year 1565, when a detachment of 1000 people selected from the “oprichnina” districts was formed. Dressed in black, on black horses with black harness and a dog's head and broom tied to the saddle (symbols of their office). Subsequently, the number of “oprichniks” reached 6,000 people. The Oprichnina Army also included detachments of archers from the oprichnina territories.

These merciless executors of the Tsar's will terrified people with mass murders, robberies and extortions. Many boyar families were completely exterminated, among them were relatives of the king (Prince V.A. Staritsky). In 1569 guardsman Malyuta Skuratov(see Appendix 23) Metropolitan Philip was strangled, having moved from the tsar’s exhortations to his direct denunciations and openly protested against the oprichnina. In 1570 A cruel blow from the oprichnina army fell on Novgorod and Pskov, who were accused of seeking to become allegiance to the Lithuanian king. Tens of thousands of Novgorodians were subjected to painful executions on suspicion of treason.

However, in May 1571 The oprichnina army showed itself unable to resist the troops of the Crimean Khan Devlet-Gerey, and Moscow was burned. For such a mistake, the tsar executed the commander of the oprichnina army, Prince Cherkassy, ​​and in 1572. abolished the oprichnina and restored the previous order.

Appendix 23

Malyuta Skuratov(Grigory Lukyanovich Skuratov-Belsky) (?–1573) - Russian statesman, military and political figure, one of the leaders of the oprichnina. He received the nickname “Malyuta” for his small stature.

Year and place of birth are unknown. Coming from among the provincial nobility, he grew rather slowly into the system of public administration, and at first he was more in a secondary role.

In 1567 first mentioned as part of the oprichnina army. During the oprichnina repressions of 1569–1570. sharply became one of the guardsmen closest to Ivan the Terrible due to the fact that he fulfilled the tsar’s every whim. For the amusement of Ivan IV and his entourage, he raided the houses of Moscow boyars, governors, clerks, taking away their wives and daughters. In December 1569, Malyuta personally participated in the massacre of Metropolitan Philip Kolychev, who was “removed” from the metropolis in 1568. and exiled to a monastery because he refused the Tsar’s blessing for the oprichnina executions and condemned the tsar’s oprichnina arbitrariness in every possible way. Malyuta arrived at the monastery, ordered the metropolitan to be tied up right during his service in the Assumption Cathedral and strangled him with his own hands.

Since 1569 Malyuta was one of the closest to Ivan the Terrible, from 1570 to 1572. - thoughtful nobleman. One of Malyuta Skuratov’s daughters, Maria, was married to boyar Boris Godunov, the future tsar, and the other to Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky.

In January 1570 Malyuta led robberies and pogroms in Novgorod, who was accused of treason. Under his leadership, thousands of city residents were slaughtered. All this was preserved in the people's memory in the form of proverbs: “The king is not as terrible as his Malyuta,” “On those streets where you rode, Malyuta, the chicken did not drink” (that is, there was nothing alive left).

Malyuta died during the Livonian War in battle during the capture of Weissenstein Castle (now Paide in Estonia) on January 1, I573. By order of the king, his body was transported to the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery. Skuratov's relatives continued to enjoy royal favors, and his widow received a lifelong pension, which was unique fact for that time.

The determination and cruelty with which Malyuta carried out all the king’s orders aroused anger and condemnation among those around him. The image and name of the executioner and murderer Malyuta Skuratov became a household name among the people.

Appendix 24

Ermak (Ermak Timofeevich Alenin)(1530/1540–1585) - Cossack ataman, leader of the Moscow army, who, on the orders of Tsar Ivan IV, successfully started a war with the Siberian Khan Kuchum, as a result of which the Siberian Khanate ceased to exist, and the Siberian lands became part of the Russian state.

The origin of Ermak is controversial. According to N.M. Karamzin, “Ermak was unknown to his family, but had a great soul.” His grandfather was a Suzdal townsman, his father, Timofey, moved “from poverty and poverty” to the estate of the Ural merchants and salt industrialists Stroganovs, and then, having gathered a squad, went to the Volga.

In the 1550–1570s. Ermak led the Cossack village. In 1571, together with his squad, he repelled the raid of the Crimean Khan Davlet-Girey from Moscow, and participated in the Livonian War.

In 1577 The Stroganov merchants invited him to return to Siberia to protect their possessions from the raids of the Siberian Khan Kuchum, who began to oust the Stroganovs from the Western Urals, from the Chusovaya and Kama rivers.

Ermak gathered an army of 540 people. In June 1579 he went on a military campaign. Having crossed the Ural ridge, he invaded the possessions of the Siberian Khan, using waterways - the rivers Chusovaya, Serebryanka, Zharovl. At the passes, the Cossacks carried boats in their arms. Along Tagil they reached Tura, where for the first time they fought with the Tatar princes and defeated them. Ermak's success is explained by the presence of firearms (arquebuses) among the Cossacks and the correctly chosen tactics, when the enemy was forced to engage in battle where he could not use cavalry.

The decisive battle was the battle at the mouth of the river. Tobol in October 1582, where Ermak captured a small fortified town and turned it into a stronghold for the conquest of the capital of the Siberian Khanate - Kashlyk. Its capture turned out to be the most important milestone in the development of Siberia: the Khanty, Mansi and some Tatar uluses wished to accept Russian citizenship. The territory of the lower Ob region became part of the Russian state and, along with other developed territories, began to pay tribute (yasak) to Moscow.

In 1583, the lands up to the mouth of the Irtysh were subjugated. The Siberian Khanate collapsed. Ivan the Terrible rewarded all participants in the campaign, forgave the criminals who sided with Ermak, promised assistance of 300 archers, and awarded Ermak himself the title “Prince of Siberia.”

In 1585, Kuchum managed to gather new forces to fight Ermak. He suddenly attacked Ermak’s detachment at the mouth of the Volaya River (a tributary of the Irtysh). Being wounded, Ermak tried to swim across Vagai, but the heavy chain mail - a gift from Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible - pulled him to the bottom. According to the chronicles, Ermak’s body was discovered by the Tatars and the “festival of revenge” lasted six weeks (arrows were shot into the dead body). Ermak was buried, according to legend, at the “Baishevsky cemetery under a curly pine tree.”

After the conviction of Rostovsky, the Terrible claimed, Sylvester and his advisers “began to keep his dog in great care and help him with all the benefits.” Ivan the Terrible's words were not speculation. Sylvester's consoling message to a certain disgraced nobleman, whose story was like two peas in a pod, resembled the fate of the prince, has been preserved. The nobleman was “at the hour of death,” lost all his “acquisitions,” and was sent “to distant lands.” The priest advised the disgraced man not to listen to those who incite “to bring slander and reproach against the sovereign,” “let not the thought and blasphemy of the sovereign enter into your heart... against the sovereign.” Sylvester informed the nobleman that “the royal soul was appeased”: it was decided to make the prince a landowner and return the estate, “and God will not forsake your tears in the future.” In fact, Rostovsky was returned to service, and his accomplice, Prince Andrei Katyrev, who was preparing to flee to Lithuania with Prince Semyon, was promoted to boyar.

The bloody executions carried out by order of the king in the days of his youth were forgotten.

Interest in religion turned out to be beneficial. The spiritual shepherds managed to instill in the sovereign the idea that God’s anointed should rule mercifully. Peresvetov’s instructions about ruling “with thunder” and flaying the skin of traitors were considered untimely. Now the monarch openly condemned the cruelty of his predecessors and considered those who died at their hands to be martyrs. His words found a lively response in the hearts of the princes who were honored with his friendship. One of these friends recorded the words of Ivan: “I am from the beaten from my father and grandfather, I dress their coffins with precious oxamites and decorate the innocent crayfish of the beaten righteous.”

Who did “dear sir” mean? Did he condemn his grandfather and father for reprisals against his brothers, nephew, and other relatives? If the sovereign decorated tombs, it was most likely his relatives buried in the Kremlin cathedrals.

Maxim the Greek was one of the autocrat’s mentors. Both he himself and his students (one of them was Kurbsky) were resolute opponents of executions. Finally, Rus' “has calmed down from various malice under you,” wrote Maxim the Greek to Ivan, “glorious princes and nobles will love all truth, obeying your most righteous statutes and commands, looking at your most philanthropic will, as if it were animated kindness and the image of the most Divine goodness.” The Christian ideal of a good and righteous tsar who loved mankind temporarily acquired real power over Ivan’s thoughts.

It was impossible to hide the betrayal of Semyon Lobanov-Rostovsky, but Alexey Adashev took care to present the betrayal as an accidental result of feeblemindedness. The official chronicle stated that Prince Semyon “wanted to escape from poverty and from feeble-mindedness, given his lack of reason.”

Sylvester used the right of “grief” before the sovereign to finally consign to oblivion the case of the boyar conspiracy in favor of Prince Vladimir. The Staritskys fully appreciated the service of the modest court preacher. He became a frequent adviser to Princess Euphrosyne and won her “great love.”

In the conflict between the Zakharyins and the Duma, the Adashevs took the side of the boyar leadership, which had a beneficial effect on their careers. In November 1553, Alexei received the rank of okolnichy, and his father received the rank of boyar, which was not due to him due to his “art”. Alexey Adashev strengthened his position in the Middle Duma.

The influence of the Zakharyins fell sharply. Danila Romanov was already removed from the leadership of the Grand Palace in 1554. Vasily Yuriev-Zakharyin lost the rank of Tver butler. Their relative Ivan Golovin was expelled from the State Prikaz.

A supporter of the Zakharyin Funiki lost his post as a printer and fell into disgrace. Queen Anastasia tried to intercede for her brothers, but was not at all successful in this.

In a letter to Kurbsky, the Terrible reproached his former favorites for the fact that they “raised hatred against our Queen Anastasia and likened her to all wicked queens.”

The queen's hostility towards Sylvester gave rise to mutual accusations and intrigues. The priest compared Anastasia with the wicked Byzantine queen Eudoxia, the persecutor of John Chrysostom.

Prince Andrei Kurbsky was among those who rejoiced at the disgrace of the queen and her brothers. In 1554 he was finally granted a boyar status.

Elected Rada

In his “History of the Grand Duke of Moscow,” Andrei Kurbsky mentioned that under Sylvester and Adashev, the affairs of the state were managed by the Elected Rada. If you believe the letters of Ivan the Terrible, the ruling circle consisted entirely of traitorous boyars. According to Kurbsky, wise men were included in the Chosen Rada. Despite the fact that “History” was in no way inferior in bias to the tsar’s letters, the term “Chosen Rada” proposed by its author received recognition.

The traditional interpretation of Kurbsky's text comes down to the fact that after the Moscow fire of 1547, Sylvester and Adashev came to power. They drove away the “caressers” from the king and formed the government of the Chosen Rada, which carried out reforms.

This interpretation is not consistent with the facts.

In the story about the Rada, the names of the “caresses” are not mentioned. But from the further narration it follows that Kurbsky considered the Sovereign Zakharyins’ “shuryas” to be the main “caressers”. He called them the wicked destroyers of the entire Holy Russian kingdom, noting at the same time that above he “rekhom many times” (said many times) about them.

The reasons for the boyar’s irritation are quite understandable. It was the Zakharyins who slandered Sylvester and Adashev and removed from power the wise men, to whom Prince Andrei counted himself. The fall of the Rada ruined Kurbsky’s career once and for all. The boyar fled from Russia before the oprichnina, which means that the oprichnina “caressers” could not cause him as much harm as the Zakharyins.

The history of the Rada cannot be connected either with the fire of 1547 or with the removal of the “caressers”. The Zakharyins not only did not lose their influence after the fire, but, on the contrary, became powerful. There was no talk of any replacement of the “caresses” with wise men - the Rada. We have to admit that Kurbsky’s confused story can only give a wrong idea of ​​the reform government of the mid-16th century.

Unlike the Elected Rada, the Middle Duma was a real institution that operated for many years. To solve current affairs, the authorities gathered a few “close people” who were directly related to the agenda. In a critical situation, the Near Duma was assembled in full, as evidenced by the following facts. On March 1, 1553, the oath was taken by “close people”: boyars (princes Ivan Mstislavsky, Vladimir Vorotynsky and Dmitry Paletsky, as well as Ivan Sheremetev, Mikhail Morozov), boyar children in the Duma (Alexey Adashev and Ignatiy Veshnyakov), clerk (Ivan Viskovaty) , and with them the boyars Danila Romanov-Zakharyin and Vasily Yuryev-Zakharyin. Two “close people” (boyar Dmitry Kurlyatev-Obolensky and printer Nikita Funikov) were absent due to illness. The same persons, excluding the deceased Vorotynsky, were instructed a year later to carry out a search for the treason of the boyar Prince Semyon of Rostov. The complete coincidence of the two lists confirms that the Middle Duma was a permanent institution with a certain composition. It was she who was to rule Russia for the young Dmitry.

Inside the Near Duma, seats were distributed in strict accordance with local rules. In both cases, the list of the Near Duma ends with the name of clerk Viskovaty, and below are the names of two Romanov boyars - the queen's brothers. What seems like a small thing at first glance was actually of paramount importance. As you can see, the Zakharyins did not belong to the Middle Duma in 1553-1554.

In 1553, having time to discuss the composition of the guardian council with the boyars, Ivan IV was deprived of this opportunity due to “fiery fever” and unconsciousness. For this reason, the functions of the guardianship council were taken over by the Near Duma, to which the Zakharyins joined. This kind of usurpation of power by “close people” without the proper sanction of the Boyar Duma caused great indignation of the highest boyar leadership.

Vasily III appointed the appanage prince Andrei Staritsky as head of the guardianship council. In full accordance with tradition, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, as the brother of Tsar Ivan, had every reason to become the head of the new guardianship council. However, Prince Vladimir was barely twenty years old, and he lacked political experience and character.

His mother Euphrosyne remembered the story of Sophia Paleologus, who eliminated the legitimate heir to the throne, Dmitry the grandson, and delivered the throne to Ivan the Terrible’s father, appanage prince Vasily. She intended, following Sophia's path, to place her son on the throne. It was for this reason that the Staritskys stubbornly refused to take the oath to the “diaper keeper”.

The Zakharins used every means to frustrate Euphrosyne's intrigue. They had influential relatives in the Middle Duma. Boyar Ivan Bolshoi Sheremetev was related to the Zakharyins, and boyars Mikhail Morozov and Vasily Yuryev were married to their own sisters. The Zakharyins’ protégés were the printer Funikov and the clerk Viskovaty.

Vasily III appointed almost the entire Duma, its most influential members, as executors. By the time of Ivan IV’s illness, there were 31 boyars in the Duma. Of these, only six boyars, not counting the Zakharyins, were among the executors of the dying Ivan IV.

The greatest influence in the Duma was enjoyed by the family of the Shuisky-Suzdal princes, to which Ivan Mikhailovich, Pyotr Ivanovich and Fyodor Skopin-Shuisky belonged, as well as the conqueror of Kazan Alexander Gorbaty. All of them remained outside the board of trustees. The Shuiskys had reason to be indignant at their guardians.

The influential relatives of Princess Euphrosyne Staritskaya-Khovanskaya (boyars Prince Pyotr Shchenyatev, Fyodor Kurakin, Mikhail Golitsa and his son Yuri Golitsyn) did not get into the regency council. The princes Semyon Mikulinsky and Ivan Pronsky, Ivan Vorontsov, and the equerry Ivan Fedorov-Chelyadnin remained out of work.

Having recovered from his illness, Tsar Ivan went with his family on a pilgrimage to the Kirillov Monastery. The royal family made their first stop at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. There the sovereign had a long conversation with the monk Maxim the Greek. Maxim Trivolis advised Ivan to postpone his trip to the north and take upon himself the responsibility of helping the families of the soldiers who fell under the walls of Kazan. The authorities of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery showed special interest in the ongoing war with the Kazan people. Before the monarch returned from his trip to Beloozero, the monastery cellarer Adrian Angelov wrote “The Tale of the Capture of Kazan.” The sovereign, we read in the story, is obliged to save his subjects “from evil,” and they must obey him unquestioningly. Obedience of subjects - that's it main question, this is what absorbed the thoughts of the autocrat at that time. The story included the royal speech on this occasion: subjects should “have my fear (of the sovereigns) on themselves and be obedient in everything” and “have fear and trembling on themselves, as from God the (monarch) has received power over them and the kingdom, and not from a person." The words of the mentors about the divine origin of royal power were in tune with the sentiments of the monarch, and he looked for ways to practically implement this worthy idea.

On the way to Kirillov, the tsar stopped at the Nikolo-Pesnoshsky monastery and saw there the nephew of Joseph of Volotsky, monk Vassian Toporkov. Vassian was a favorite of Vasily III and received from him the rank of Bishop of Kolomna. After the coup carried out by the Shuiskys in 1542, he lost his chair. Exposing the boyars' arbitrariness - this topic was equally close to the tsar and the deposed bishop.

While in Vassian’s cell, the autocrat asked: “How could he reign well and have his great strong ones in haste?” If you believe Kurbsky, the elder answered: “And if you want to be an autocrat, do not keep for yourself an adviser, not a single wiser one.” Kurbsky called the members of the Chosen Rada the wisest men.

The advice not to keep wise advisers was tantamount to advice to get rid of the tutelage of the wise council. Toporkov gained fame as a supporter of strong monarchical power. Many years passed before Ivan IV was able to follow the monk's advice.

Arriving in Kirillov, Grozny left his wife and son in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, and he himself went “to the Ferapontov monastery and through the deserts.” The disciples and followers of Nil Sorsky lived in the deserts. Their advice concerned spiritual self-improvement and was very different from the advice of the Osiphlans. The most authoritative figure among them was Artemy the Hermit. Kurbsky wrote about the elder that the king “loved him dearly and talked many times, learning from him.” It is known that Artemy was patronized by Sylvester.

The omnipotence of Sylvester and Adashev was based not only on the favor of the king. Being the favorites of the sovereign, they managed to find strong support in the Boyar Duma. The tsar's mentor established the closest relations with the famous governor, Prince Gorbaty.

Having become the first governor of Kazan, which he conquered, Alexander Gorbaty considered it necessary to turn to Sylvester for advice on how to govern the Basurman kingdom. The shepherd not only wrote him a detailed message, but also recommended reading the sermon to the other governors, “the sacred order and the flock of Christ.”

Everyone knew that although the message was signed by Sylvester, the priest, of course, had previously discussed it with the king, so the letter expressed the will of the sovereign.

Sylvester's influential patron was Prince Dmitry Kurlyatev-Obolensky. In a letter to Kurbsky, Ivan IV angrily reproached Sylvester and Adashev for “allowing” this high-born boyar into the Near Duma. Thanks to Kurlyatev, many of his relatives received the highest Duma ranks: Prince Vasily Serebryany-Obolensky and Konstantin Kurlyatev, later - Pyotr Serebryany, Dmitry Nemogo-Obolensky, Ivan Gorensky, Fedor and Yuri Kashin, Mikhail Repnin. Compared to other princely houses, the Obolenskys had the largest number of representatives in the Duma.

In a letter to Kurbsky, Ivan IV complained that Sylvester and Adashev, taking advantage of Kurlyatev’s patronage, “with that like-minded person, began to establish an evil council, and left not a single power where they installed their own saints.”

Sylvester planted his saints everywhere, relying on the goodwill of the Tsar and the leaders of the Duma.

The Blagoveshchensk priest knew how to maintain good relations with both the nobility who patronized him and with the circle of young friends of the tsar who dreamed of broad reforms.

“Having intended evil,” Ivan IV later complained, “Priest Selivester became friends with Oleksei (Adashev) and began to advise us, thinking we were unreasonable beings.” It is difficult to say which side benefited most from the alliance.

Materials related to the history of the Kazan War give a clear idea of ​​the role that Alexey Adashev began to play under the person of the Tsar. The war required large expenditures. In 1550, Ivan IV sent Adashev to the State Prikaz, giving him the Duma rank of treasurer for this occasion. Obviously, the Tsar’s favorite had to streamline financial affairs and bring order to the Treasury. Having fulfilled the order, Adashev resigned as treasurer. Subsequently, from time to time he participated in the work of the Treasury Department, but no longer as treasurer. He more than once spoke with the “king’s word,” which decided the outcome of any matter.

In 1551, the Tsar sent Adashev on a secret mission to Shah Ali, the Russian protege on the Kazan throne. Kurbsky wrote that Adashev led a pious and even angelic life. But he made an exaggeration. Alexei diligently carried out any, even the most cruel, orders of the tsar.

When, during negotiations with Shah-Ali, it became clear that he had not kept his promises, Ivan’s envoy turned to him with reproach: “... and Alexey told him that Kasyn should be killed and other people, on which he gave the truth,” and also “so that the great prince let people into the city.” Adashev conveyed the demand to kill all opponents of Moscow in Kazan, including the mullah. Having completed the negotiations, Adashev hastily left for Moscow to report to the sovereign.

During the siege of Kazan in 1552, Adashev was listed among the governors of either the advanced regiment or the ertoul (vanguard). As soon as the governors began to set up tours, the sovereign sent Alexei Adashev “on his own behalf” to the most dangerous point - to the Arsky Gate.

A large Tatar cavalry army struck from the direction of the Arsk field, hoping to break through to the fortress. But the attack did not take the governor by surprise.

When the project of undermining at the Muraleev Gate arose, Ivan immediately sent Alexei Adashev, and with him Nemchin Rozmysl, to the place of undermining, with the order to destroy the “Kazan cache” with a well from which the Tatars took water. The Emperor could not observe with his own eyes the construction of the underground gallery, which housed 11 barrels of gunpowder.

But all this aroused extreme curiosity in him, and he hoped to receive accurate information from Adashev. The explosion destroyed part of the fortress wall.

The above facts reveal the meaning of Kurbsky’s words that Adashev was “useful to the general thing.” Wherever Adashev appeared, his efforts benefited the cause.

The temporary worker was a capable and versatile person. He successfully carried out a wide variety of orders from the autocrat: he wrote laws, commanded troops, built underground galleries, negotiated with foreign ambassadors, collected historical material, compiled chronicles and did other things. In fact, he was the sovereign's eye, an attorney, a reliable executor of his will.

After the birth of a son to Ivan IV, Adashev at the end of 1553 accompanied the royal family on a pilgrimage to the Kirillov Monastery. It was during this journey that the heir to the throne, “the diaper maker” Dmitry, died. The cause was an accident. But the queen’s brothers bore the blame for him. Opponents of the Romanovs used the tragedy to instill in the sovereign distrust of the “Shauryas.”

By the time of the dynastic crisis, Sylvester had reached the pinnacle of his career. The split in the Middle Duma and the mutual struggle between the Staritskys and the Zakharyins allowed him to act as a peacemaker. We know nothing about Sylvester's political views. One can only guess that politics itself did not worry him too much. Correcting old chronicles, Ivan the Terrible painted a vivid portrait of a temporary worker, inclined to “simply solve all sorts of things.” According to him, the priest “rules all the affairs and powers of the saint and the king, and no one dares to do anything not according to his command, and rules over all, both the authorities, both the saint and the royal, like the king and the saint...” Despite all the tendentiousness, Ivan the Terrible correctly pointed out two sources of influence of the court preacher. Firstly, “no one would dare to oppose him in anything for the sake of the royal salary” and, secondly, he was “honored by everyone.” The shepherd was revered for his virtues and immaculate life. And yet, not everyone recognized his authority.

Sylvester maintained an icon-painting workshop while in Novgorod. The Novgorod icon painting school was perhaps the best in the country. Having moved to Moscow, the priest kept his workshop. In this regard, the Tsar instructed him to restore the painting of the Annunciation Cathedral, destroyed by fire. The painting was done in the Novgorod style. In Novgorod, earlier than in other cities, new trends in the development of painting appeared. The icon began to depict ideas rather than faces, turning into an illustration of biblical texts.

As always, Sylvester, taking advantage of free access to the autocrat’s person, did not fail to show the painting to his pet and secured his approval. This served him well in the future.

The innovations of the Novgorod school of painting were met with distrust by the Moscow Orthodox. Ivan Viskovaty, a widely educated theologian, openly rebelled against the iconography of the Annunciation Cathedral. The clerk was horrified not so much by the novelty as by the idea of ​​the new iconography, in which he saw a deviation from the truth of the Gospel to the Old Testament, to prophetic images. “It is not proper,” said the clerk, “to honor an image more than the truth.”

In the fall of 1553, Viskovaty filed a denunciation against Sylvester to the Tsar. In the petition, the clerk admitted that “the people had doubts and were outraged” about the painting for three years. So, the Moscow clerk suspected something was wrong back in 1550, and from then on he loudly denounced Sylvester’s inclination towards heresy. Sylvester did not have enough power to silence him. Viskovaty was not afraid to openly express his opinion, as he hoped for the patronage of the royal brothers-in-law, the Zakharyins. The latter were ready to use all means to undermine the influence of the priest.

Sylvester belonged neither to the Osiphlites nor to the non-covetous people. But when the sovereign demanded his advice on the appointment of abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, he spoke in favor of the leader of the non-covetous Artemy. The elder was summoned from the Trans-Volga desert and settled in the Chudov Monastery. Ivan asked Sylvester “to look for all kinds of character and spiritual benefits in him.” The mentor praised Artemy. As a result, “at the sovereign’s command” and at the request of the Trinity monks, the elder took the key post of abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.

Artemy was one of those people who had a profound influence on the formation of the religiosity of Ivan IV. The Tsar, as Kurbsky noted, “talked with him very lovingly and many times.”

It is known that the ascetic addressed the monarch with messages, convincing him to take up the study of theology. “I want to move your royal soul,” he wrote, “to test the reason of the Divine Scriptures.” The elder of a wonderful life instructed Ivan never to be shy about teaching: “Do not be embarrassed by ignorance, ask the leader with all care. It is fitting therefore to study without shame, just as it is proper to teach without envy.

No one can understand anything without learning.” Wanting to push the young sovereign to study the Holy Scriptures, Artemy decisively challenged those who followed the rule: “Do not honor too many books, lest you fall into heresy.”

The Soviets fell on prepared ground. Ivan became addicted to reading and over the years acquired extensive knowledge of theology.

The Hermit’s instructions made such a strong impression on his pet that he asked the monk to write in detail “about God’s commandments and fatherly traditions and human customs.”

Artemy used his influence at court to achieve the release of Maxim the Greek. The Osifites kept the Greek in captivity for more than 20 years. The new Trinity abbot hoped that Maxim’s authority would help him make changes in the life of the monastery. But his hopes were not justified. Maxim the Greek and Artemy Pustynnik taught that the Chernets should live “by their handicrafts” and not own villages. Their preaching was far from the practice of the richest monastery in Russia. Despite Sylvester's intercession, Artemy had to resign. He stayed at Trinity for only six months.

The Church opposed the introduction of printing in Rus' when Danish printers arrived in Rus'. The higher clergy tried to protect the Orthodox society from the machinations of the Danish “Luthors”.

However, it soon became clear that the “Luthor” heresy had already taken root in Holy Rus'. Sylvester was the first to sound the alarm, filing a denunciation against the son of the boyar Matvey Bashkin.

Matvey Bashkin apparently served in the palace, since his confessor was Simeon, the priest of the Annunciation Cathedral. Matvey was friends with two palace pharmacists.

Like Sylvester, Bashkin condemned slavery. He informed confessor Simeon that he had freed his slaves and torn up the slaves' letters. At the next meeting, Bashkin showed Simeon the book “The Apostle”, and in it there were places marked with wax that caused him bewilderment. The interpretations he proposed seemed “depraved” to the confessor, and Simeon hurried to Sylvester for advice. He was afraid that not reporting Bashkin would damage his reputation. In June 1553, Sylvester appeared in the royal chambers and, in the presence of Alexei Adashev, reported to Ivan IV about the “new heresy.”

Having become acquainted with Matvey’s “depraved” views, the Tsar ordered him to be put in a cellar in the Tsar’s court until a real investigation was carried out. Having escaped prison, the heretic ended up in the basements of the palace. Bashkin preached unheard of ideas: he denied the official church, called the Holy Scriptures a fable. During interrogation, Bashkin admitted that he had accepted the heresy from two Poles - Matthias, the palace pharmacist, and Andrei Suteev. Bashkin's interlocutors were Protestants.

Having received a denunciation against Bashkin, the Tsar, after a meeting with his mentors, ordered Maxim the Greek and Artemy the Hermit to be invited to Moscow. The order proved that Sylvester intended to hear the opinion of the most authoritative theologians in Russia.

Artemy came to Moscow, but did not want to participate in the trial of freethinkers and secretly left the capital without the knowledge of the authorities. The rash step had fatal consequences. On October 25, 1553, Ivan Viskovaty, in the presence of the Tsar and the boyars, openly accused Sylvester and Artemy of aiding the heretic Bashkin. In November, he drew up a report listing charges against Sylvester. The new icons of the Annunciation Cathedral, the clerk announced, are the result of the “malice” of the heretic Bashkin: “Bashkin is with Ortemey of the Soviet, and Ortemey is with Seliverst.”

The harsh attacks on Sylvester were explained by the fact that Viskovaty had powerful patrons. When compiling his “Scripture,” Viskovaty used books he received from a member of the Middle Duma, boyar Mikhail Morozov, and his brother-in-law, boyar Vasily Mikhailovich Yuryev-Zakharyin.

The accusations alarmed Sylvester. He sent a message to the king against the “izbny” (prikazny) people who had fallen into shamelessness.

The outcome of the clash depended on what position the head of the church Macarius would take.

The Metropolitan's response to Viskovaty was brief and energetic. “You became a heretics,” said the Metropolitan, “and now you speak and philosophize little about holy icons, so as not to fall into heresy yourself. If only you knew your affairs, which are assigned to you, do not drop the lists” (embassy papers). Macarius threatened the clerk that he could be expelled from service.

The head of the church clearly expressed his attitude towards the Zakharyins’ creature, Viskovaty. Kurbsky’s remark that Sylvester managed to drive away the “caressers” from Tsar Ivan after he “added to his aid the bishop of the great city” of Moscow, in other words, Metropolitan Macarius, becomes clear.

This is the reason why Ivan the Terrible did not say a word about Macarius in his report on the crisis of 1553. The mortal illness of the sovereign and the dynastic crisis brought the figure of the metropolitan to the fore. If the monarch did not mention the name of Macarius at all in his report on the “rebellion,” it was only because he spared his memory. He did not accuse the pastor of the church of what he accused the “treasonous boyars” of, namely, enmity towards the Zakharyins. Apparently, in 1553, Macarius, like Sylvester, tried to extinguish the discord between the Staritskys and the Zakharyins in order to eliminate the danger of unrest.

Disputes about heresy revived the old discord. The search discovered that heresy had made a nest for itself at the court of the old appanage prince. The main accomplices of the heretic were the noble nobles Ivan Timofeevich Borisov-Borozdin and his brother. They came from a very noble family of Tver boyars and were second cousins ​​of Euphrosyne Staritskaya. Both served in the appanage principality and were prominent courtiers of Prince Vladimir Andreevich. The Staritskys' enemies were not averse to using the moment, but Sylvester and Macarius did not allow the fire to start.