Magdalena Daltseva so Vesuvius the story of Kondraty Ryleev calms down. Continuation of the reign of John the Terrible Conclusion let's say that the good glory of John

The reports of the atrocities of Grozny after the capture of Polotsk are indicative. Former oprichnik Heinrich Staden claims that the tsar ordered the captured Poles and all local Jews to be drowned in Dvina. According to another fugitive from the Russians, Albrecht Schlichting, 500 Polish prisoners were taken to Torzhok and hacked to pieces there. However, Giovanni Tedaldi, a merchant who lived in Russia and Poland, sharply reduces the number of victims - he does not mention the captured Poles at all, and two or three people died, the rest were expelled from the city. Tedaldi also refutes rumors about the drowning of Bernardine monks; however, he did not know about the variant of their murder, described by Kostomarov, where the Bernardines were hacked to death by the serving Tatars on the orders of the tsar. A similar spread in the number of victims can be cited for other crimes of Ivan the Terrible.

All this makes it necessary to rely less on pictorial "testimonies", and more on adopted laws, documents on taxes and duties, records of abandoned peasant yards and other documentation, and, especially, on the Synodik of the disgraced with a roll-call of the executed "traitors". Chronicles and chronicles can be attributed to objective data only with a stretch. After all, the chroniclers were by no means dispassionate registrars of events. All the more unreliable works of art... A special place is occupied by folk mythology - epics and legends, songs, fairy tales. Mythology is also subjective, but unlike eyewitness records, there is no deliberate lie in it and it reflects the average attitude of the people to the most significant events taking place.

Facts about the reign of Ivan IV. During the reign of Ivan IV, the territory of the Russian state almost doubled - from 2.8 to 5.4 million square meters. km. Three kingdoms were conquered - Kazan (1552), Astrakhan (1556) and Siberian. The peoples of the Volga region, Urals, Kabarda and Western Siberia recognized dependence on the Russian tsar. Russia was transformed from a predominantly Great Russian state into a multinational empire. This process did not go smoothly and peacefully - there were major uprisings, Russian troops suffered defeats more than once, nevertheless, new peoples entered the orbit of Russian statehood and already under Ivan IV took part in wars on the side of Russia. To consolidate new lands in the Volga and Kama regions, they began to build fortress towns and found monasteries. In 1555 the Kazan diocese was created. They reached out to new lands and peasants, but at their own risk. The Russian authorities tried in every possible way to avoid land disputes with the local population.
Less is known about Russia's expansion southward, towards the Wild Field, as the southern Russian steppes were then called. The wild field, a place of nomadic Tatars and Nogai, passed in the north into the forest-steppe, abandoned by the Slavs after the invasion of Batu. Until the middle of the 16th century, the border between nomads and Russia ran along the northern bank of the Oka from Bolokhov to Kaluga and then to Ryazan. This line was called the Shore. All places convenient for crossing were fortified, and stakes were driven into the bottom of the river. Under Ivan IV, the border was moved south, and forests were used for protection. The new line represented a continuous line of defense, where between the fortified fortresses and fortresses were arranged notches - forest heaps, consisting of felled trees, with their tops facing south. Zaseki were strengthened with palisades, traps, wolf pits. An early warning system for Tatars' movements was created. Bonfires and mirrors on signal towers were used to transmit messages. Often, several lines of marks were drawn.
In the 1560s - 1570s, a grandiose line was created, stretching 600 km from Kozelsk to Ryazan. He was called a notch line, a line, or the Tsar's commandment. For the arrangement and maintenance of the markings, a special tax was introduced - collection money, a law was passed on the protection of mark forests. In 1566 Ivan IV visited the Devil. The creation of the Zasechnaya line sharply reduced the number of Tatar raids on Russia. Only very large and carefully planned raids, like the raid of 1571, broke through the Line (though then the Tatars burned Moscow). The next year, the breakthrough was only partially successful: in the battle of Molody 27 thousandth Russian army, headed by M.I. Vorotynsky, utterly defeated the 120-thousandth army of the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey, which included a 7-thousandth Janissary corps. Only 20 thousand people returned to Crimea. Moving the Line to the south allowed the farmers to begin the development of the most fertile Russian Black Earth Region.
In the first period of the reign of Ivan IV, reforms were carried out, conceived in the circle of people close to the tsar, first of all, the priest Sylvester and Alexei Fedorovich Adashev. Reforms discussed at Zemsky Sobor 1549, where different classes were represented. In his speech, the tsar appealed to the boyars with a demand to stop offending the nobles and peasants. It was decided to draw up a new Code of Law. A year later, the Code of Law was ready; it established the general procedure for legal proceedings. The governors could no longer judge the nobles, they received the right to court at the level of the tsar and his judges. The Code of Law expanded the rights of local elected courts, headed by laborers. The right of the peasants to change their place of residence once a year was confirmed - a week before and a week after St. George's Day (November 26). In 1551, on the initiative of the Tsar, a church council was assembled, which was named Stoglavy, according to the number of chapters in the book with its decisions. At the Council, Ivan IV succeeded in obtaining a decree limiting the growth of monastic and church lands at the expense of the lands of the patrimonials. The Stoglavy Cathedral proclaimed the principle of the symphony of church and state.
In the years 1552-1556, the feeding system was eliminated, according to which the Grand Duke or Tsar sent governors and volostets to the districts and volosts for feeding. The feeders ruled the territory under their control, and the population had to support (feed) them and pay them various duties. The number of breeders increased more and more, there were a lot of thirsty people, and they began to split the feeding, appointing two or more breeders per city or parish. Their greed was indescribable, as Ivan IV said, the breeders were wolves for the people, persecutors and destroyers. The feedings have now been canceled; the fed payoff began to go to the treasury and went to the salaries of the governors - supreme power in the counties. Was created local government: the lip, where litigations and petty crimes were dealt with, and the zemstvo hut, which was engaged in common affairs... Lip chiefs were chosen from the nobility and children of the boyars, and the zemstvo elders - from wealthy peasants and townspeople. The main idea of ​​the Zemstvo reform is centralization through self-government
Chancery - orders that existed under the Boyar Duma - are being improved, and new ones are being formed. Orders made it possible to centrally manage the growing state. An ordered bureaucracy takes shape: artisan clerks and clerks take over the current government of the country. Localism is limited - disputes about the seniority of the boyars according to the nobility of origin. From the middle of the 16th century, the assignment of boyars to positions began to be in charge of the discharge order, taking into account the subtleties of the honor of each boyar. During military campaigns, localism was prohibited.
A military reform was carried out (1550 - 1556). Military service now passed through the fatherland (origin) and the device (set). Boyars, nobles, boyar children served in the fatherland, regardless of the type of possession - patrimonial (hereditary) or local (granted). The service began at the age of 15 and was inherited. At the request of the tsar, a boyar or a nobleman had to come to the service on horseback, crowded and armed, that is, bring with him fighting slaves, one from every 150 dessiatines of land holdings. The archers, gunners and city guards served on the device. Streltsov began to be recruited from 1550 from service people... At first there were 3 thousand of them, and in the 70s - about 15 thousand. The service was lifelong. Archers armed with pishchals and reeds were not inferior to the European infantry. The cannon outfit was also allocated to an independent branch of the army. The service of gunners was constant like that of the archers. Mass casting of cannons was established... During the siege of Kazan in 1552, 150 heavy guns were concentrated under the city walls. The Russian gunners distinguished themselves in Livonia and during the defense of Pskov. Thus, under Ivan IV the beginning of the regular army Of the Russian state.

Civilizational confrontation during the Livonian War

At first, John IV was ready to confine himself to tribute from the Dorpat bishopric and free trade. The Livonians promised, but they deceived the king. Then he sent the cavalry of Khan Shig-Alei to the raid. The Livonians were intimidated, promised to pay tribute and again deceived. Only then did the war begin. … - At first there was a period of successes, half of Livonia was occupied by Russian troops. Here the whole depth of the tsar's miscalculation came to light. Young Russian state found itself in a state of war not with the decrepit Order, but with the Christian world - Western civilization. Europe perceived the emergence of the Muscovites as a barbarian invasion, as alien to Christianity, culture and humanity as the Tatars and Turks. All the clever moves of Ivan IV in search of European allies encouraging at first, they eventually ended in failure. He also failed to try to get out of the war, retaining at least part of what he had won. On this issue, the Christian world, split into Catholics and Protestants, turned out to be unanimous - Muscovites should get out into their forests and swamps.
Against the backdrop of a super-ethnic confrontation, the confessional and political divisions of the European super-ethnic group have gone back. Ivan Vasilievich, although he is a Westerner in sympathy (he considered himself to be from German), received an unambiguous answer: Europe does not want to speak on equal terms with Muscovy; Muscovites must submit to the true Christian faith and the authority of Christian (European) sovereigns. No one seriously took the king's claims that he was descended from the brother of the Roman emperor Augustus Prus. But anti-Russian propaganda was widely deployed... In European society, there was a demand for descriptions of the Muscovites who came from nowhere and disturbed Christendom. Naturally, the greatest interest was aroused by the tsar, rumored to have surpassed the most fierce tyrants of the present and past in bloodlust. The Europeans who visited Russia tried to satisfy this demand. In Poland, Sweden, Prussia, Danzig, Livonia itself, there were many influential people interested in denigrating Russia and ready to pay for it. This is how the first wave of European Russophobia emerged. and the foundation was laid for the prejudice of Europeans against Russia, which has survived to this day.
The crimes of John IV
Ivan IV acquired notorious fame not thanks to an error with Livonian War, which cost Russia so dearly, and because of their crimes, often exaggerated... Ivan IV was unlucky for his contemporaries describing his reign. Of the Russian authors, the most famous and brilliant was Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, once an approximate of the tsar, who became his worst enemy. Having fled to Lithuania, Kurbsky made every effort to crush his former friend and suzerain. He fought with a pen and a sword, wrote letters to the Tsar, composed the History of the Grand Duke of Moscow, directed the Lithuanians and Tatars to the former homeland, personally, at the head of the Lithuanian army, defeated the 12 thousandth Russian army... Karamzin took on faith the writings of Kurbsky and introduced them into his history of the Russian state. The facts set forth by Kurbsky have become entrenched in historiography, although some have been refuted by modern historians.
Had their interest in writing the worst about Ivan IV and foreigners who once served the king, and chroniclers of Novgorod and Pskov... All this forces one to be cautious in assessing the scale of the terror of Ivan the Terrible. The conflicting reports of those killed in Polotsk have been written above. Information about the Novgorodians who were executed by the guardsmen during the pogrom of Novgorod is even more divergent. Jerome Horsey reports about 700 thousand killed, the Pskov chronicle writes about 60 thousand, the Novgorod one - about 30 thousand, Tauba and Kruse - about 15 thousand killed (with a population of Novgorod of 25 thousand). Alexander Gvanini, who fought with the Poles against Grozny, writes about 2,770 killed. The Synodikon of the disgraced Ivan the Terrible informs: - According to Malyutin, Malyuta trimmed 1490 people in a Nougorotsky parcel (by hand trimming), 15 people were trimmed. - Based on the Synodikon, the historian Skrynnikov suggests that about 3,000 people were killed in Novgorod.
The figures of the Synodikon of the Disgraced can be trusted more than the assessments of contemporaries, who usually received information from second hand, in the form of rumors, and are inclined to exaggerate the death toll. The synodic was compiled at the end of the life of Ivan IV (1582-1583) to commemorate in monasteries people who were executed during his reign. The king, as a deeply religious person, wanted to find reconciliation with his sacrifices before God and was interested in the accuracy of the information. The Synodikon records those executed from 1564 to 1575. (about 3300 in total). This, of course, is not all those who died from the terror - judging by the notes of the oprichnik of the German Staden, he personally did not report on the people he had killed.
... in aggregate, taking into account the unaccounted for victims of the terror of 1564-1575, it can be assumed that the death toll for political and religious reasons was two to three times higher than indicated in the Synodikon, but hardly exceeded 10 thousand people.
Is it a lot or a little? It depends on how and with whom to compare. For modern Ivan IV Europe, 10 thousand people killed in 37 years of his reign as enemies of the monarch and religion look modest. The Tudors who ruled England - Henry VIII (from 1509 to 1547) and Elizabeth (from 1558 to 1603) surpassed him. Under Henry, 72 thousand people were executed, and under Elizabeth - 89 thousand people. Most of those executed were peasants driven from the land - they were hanged as vagabonds, but aristocrats were also executed. Henry VIII is famous for the executions of his two wives and six of their lovers, the Duke of Buckingham, Minister Cromwell and the philosopher Thomas More, Elizabeth - the execution of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, and his favorite - Lord Essex. The Duke of Alba executed over 18 thousand people in the Netherlands. On St. Bartholomew's night on August 24, 1572, 2 - 3 thousand Huguenots were killed in Paris, and in total over the country in a few days - more than 10 thousand.
Mass atrocities in enlightened Europe exceeded the brutality of barbarian Muscovy... It is worth remembering that only witches in the 16th century were burned at the most conservative estimate of at least 50 thousand, and they were burned by both Catholics and Protestants. In Russia, under Ivan VI, two or three dozen were also burned at the stake, but not thousands, but people. It remains to assume that the reason for the special attitude to the atrocities of Ivan VI was his destruction of high-ranking aristocrats on a scale exceeding similar executions in Europe. Indeed, in those days only aristocrats, nobles and clergy were considered full-fledged people. Here the Russian tsar had a fellow dealer, and an acquaintance and even an ally - the Swedish king Eric XIV. In 1563, Erik executed his brother Johan's nobles, and in 1566, in a fit of insanity, he killed a group of senators without trial.
Still, Eric does not hold out to Ivan, because out of 3300 people noted in the Synodikon, about 400 were nobles and boyars. According to Veselovsky's calculations, in the Synodik there were three or four noblemen for one boyar. One hundred killed princes and boyars, this is not at all small on a European scale and is comparable only to the beating of the Huguenot aristocracy on St. Bartholomew's night. It is another matter that in the Synodik of the disgraced boyars are indicated who were executed during the 11 years of Ivan's reign, and in France a similar number of aristocrats were killed in one night.... But the Catholic half of Europe approved of the murders on the night of St. Bartholomew, while the Tsar of the Muscovites equally horrified Catholics and Protestants. The reason lies in the super-ethnic enmity towards Muscovites and impressions from the description of the tsar's executions. And in them Ivan IV, whether fair, or by slander, but looked intimidating. And it's not about the cruelty of the executions, in Europe of the XVI century executed more sophisticated, but in the personal participation of the king in torture and murder.
But is it true? Indeed, apart from the "testimonies" of contemporaries, there are no documents about the personal participation of the tsar in torture and murder. Therefore, each author answers according to his own worldview. Although in some cases the accusations have been proven to be false, in others it seems that Ivan Vasilyevich really killed people and participated in torture. Here I would like to say in the words of a song by Vladimir Vysotsky: - If it is true, well, at least by a third ... - And it seems that the likelihood of such a truth is very high.
Devotion of the Russian people to the Tsar
There were, of course, conspiracies against Ivan IV. Individual boyars and nobles ran across to the enemy. Some have revealed important secrets. The greatest damage to Russia was inflicted not even by Prince Kurbsky, but by the robber Kudeyar Tishenkov and several boyar children. They led the army of Devlet-Giray by secret paths past the Russian outposts, so that the Tatars suddenly found themselves in front of Moscow, which was then burned. But in 24 years of continuous war, there were very few such cases. Foreigners note the opposite qualities of the Russians - their exceptional devotion to the Tsar and their homeland. Reingold Heydenstein, a Polish nobleman who fought against the Russians in Batory's army, is amazed at the popularity of Grozny among the Russians:
To those who are studying the history of his reign, it should seem all the more surprising that with such cruelty such a strong love of the people could exist for him ... firmness in the defense and protection of fortresses, and there were very few deserters. Many, on the contrary, were found ... those who preferred loyalty to the prince, even with danger to themselves, to the greatest awards.
Heidenshtein describes the loyalty to the duty of the Russian gunners during the siege of Venden (1578). In this battle, the Russian troops were defeated and retreated, but the gunners did not want to abandon the cannons. They fought to the end. Having shot all the charges and not wanting to surrender, the gunners hanged themselves on their cannons. He also says that when King Batory offered the Russian soldiers captured during the siege of Polotsk the choice of either going to his service or returning home, most of them chose to return to their fatherland and to their Tsar. Heydenstein adds:
Remarkable is their love and constancy in relation to both; for each of them could think that he was going to the most certain death and terrible torment. The Moscow Tsar, however, spared them.
Heindenstein was not alone in celebrating the steadfastness of the Russians and their loyalty to the Tsar. The same qualities are seen in them by the author of the Livonian Chronicle Baltazar Russov, a great hater of the Muscovites and a supporter of their expulsion from Livonia:
The Russians in the fortresses are strong fighting men. This happens for the following reasons. First, the Russians are a hard-working people: the Russian, if necessary, is tireless in any dangerous and hard work day and night, and prays to God to die righteously for their sovereign. Secondly, a Russian from his youth was accustomed to fasting and making do with meager food; if only he has water, flour, salt and vodka, then he can live with them for a long time, but a German cannot. Thirdly, if the Russians voluntarily surrender the fortress, no matter how insignificant it may be, then they dare not appear in their land, because they are being killed in shame; in other people's lands, they cannot, and do not want to stay. Therefore, they stay in the fortress to the last man and would rather agree to die to one man than go under escort to a foreign land. ... Fourthly, the Russians considered not only a shame, but also a mortal sin to surrender the fortress.
R.Yu. Wipper, who quoted Russov's statement in his book Ivan the Terrible (1922), concludes that Ivan IV inherited the treasure - the Russian people. Lead this people, use its forces in building a great power. Fate endowed him with extraordinary data of the ruler. Ivan Vasilyevich's fault or his misfortune lay in the fact that, having set the goal of establishing direct relations with the West, he could not stop in time in front of the growing power of enemies and threw into the abyss of extermination most of the values ​​accumulated by his predecessors and acquired by him, having exhausted the means of the power he had created ...
The attitude of the people to Ivan the Terrible... Karamzin concludes the description of the reign of Ivan IV with wonderful words: - In conclusion, we say that good glory Ioannova survived his bad glory in the people's memory: the groanings ceased, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones; ... History is more vindictive than the people!
But is it a matter of Russian quick-wittedness? After all, the people respected and loved the Terrible Tsar not only for the conquest of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. Among the people, Ivan IV was remembered as a formidable, but just tsar, the defender of ordinary people from the persecutors of the boyars. For 37 years of his reign, Ivan the Terrible has never publicly said a bad word against ordinary people. On the contrary, speaking in February 1549 before representatives of the estates of Russian cities who had gathered on Red Square, he reproached the boyars for oppressing the people: - The nobles ... got rich in falsehood, oppressed the people. ... You, you did what you wanted, evil seditious, unrighteous judges! What answer will you give us today? How many tears, how much blood did you shed? - And he promised to continue to be the people's defender: - People of God and given to us by God! I pray your Faith to Him and love to me: be generous! It is impossible to correct the past evil: I can only continue to save you from such oppression and robbery. ... From now on I am your judge and protector.
After these words, as Karamzin writes, the people and the tsar wept. Modern journalists can call Ivan's speech an example of populism. But is it? A 19-year-old boy, who grew up abandoned without proper upbringing, could not master the skill of experienced actors. He did not have the opportunity to make a speech in front of such a gathering of people, and the emotional stress was probably enormous. He sincerely worried and believed his every word. It should not be forgotten that Ivan IV was a deeply religious person. He kept this speech before God and swore an oath to Him to be the people's judge and protector.
The people believed in the king. People wanted to believe him from the very beginning; they are too tired of the troubles of the boyar inter-rule. Ivan confirmed their hopes. He loved to judge and judged justly... Soon his Code of Law was published, where the interests of all estates, including ordinary people, were taken into account. The tsar canceled the feeding, drove away the dire wolves of the feeders, and the people again liked it. But most importantly, the young tsar forced the Kazan Tatars to release 100 thousand Orthodox people from slavery. All the 10 million Russian people rejoiced here. And then there was the glorious capture of Kazan; the liberation from slavery of another 60 thousand Christians. Astrakhan followed Kazan - two kingdoms submitted to the Russian tsar: this had never happened in Russia. Ivan Vasilyevich shone as a true autocrat, God's chosen one, leading the Russian people to greatness, and saving the ruined Orthodox world.
The executions of boyars and their servants were welcomed by the people- means that they are building forgives to the tsar, they are instigating sedition. The tsar also cited evidence in the form of proceedings and decisions of the Boyar Duma. When Ivan Vasilyevich with his family and those close to him left for the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, the people fell into despair - being left without such a tsar was worse than being orphaned. A month later, messages came to Moscow: the tsar wrote that he decided to leave the kingdom because of boyar disobedience, betrayal, indulgence of the clergy to the guilty, and at the same time assured the good Muscovites of his mercy, saying that disgrace and anger did not concern them. Moscow was horrified. - The Emperor has left us! - the people yelled: - we are perishing! Who will be our protector in wars with foreigners? How can there be sheep without a shepherd? - An embassy from all classes - clergy, boyars, noblemen, clerks, merchants, petty bourgeois - went to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda - to beat the whole Emperor and cry. Ivan the Terrible received the authority to introduce the oprichnina.
The oprichnina and, especially, the oprichniks could not please the people. The discontent was not caused by the execution of the traitors, with this just everyone agreed, but the robbery of the cities given to the oprichnina, and three skins from the peasants in the new oprichnina estates. ... After the fire of Moscow, the tsar dismissed the oprichnina, hated by the people, but then another trouble came - hunger and pestilence. Yet the people did not begin to murmur against the king, but saw in their misfortunes the wrath of God for our sins.
IN last years during the reign of Ivan IV, general fatigue began to affect. The peasants fled from extortions and landlords, leaving the devastated central and western regions of Russia. They went to the south, to plow the Wild Field, and to the east - to the still restless Volga region, they fled to the Cossacks. The townspeople, crushed by taxes, fled from the cities, the nobles gave up their service and hurried home. The people suffered, but there was no open rebellion or resentment against the tsar. The supply of love and respect for Ivan Vasilievich was too great... The people knew about the piety of the king, and that he gave alms to the poor without counting. But the prayers did not help the tsar: the tsar's heir, Ivan, dies. Rumor has it that the father himself had a hand in the death of his son. The people fell into despair. And then a miracle happened - God sent a new kingdom to Russia. Ermak Timofeevich conquered the Siberian kingdom. This was the last sign of the Lord's mercy to the Terrible Tsar. A comet appeared with a cross-shaped heavenly sign between the Church of John the Great and the Annunciation. Soon the king fell ill. Citizens in the churches of Moscow prayed for the Tsar's recovery. Even those whose loved ones he destroyed were praying. Karamzin paints the denouement: - When is the decisive word: "the Tsar is gone!" distributed in the Kremlin, the people screamed loudly.
The people did not grieve in vain, if after the death of Tsar Ivan the boyars became better, then ordinary people were not affected. A decree was adopted on fugitive peasants - the peasants were now caught and returned to the landowners ... In Uglich, the 9-year-old Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan IV, seemed to be stabbed to death. …. Then for our sins came a terrible famine and pestilence, the Pretender appeared and Troubles began. Holy Russia was deserted and perished. Since that time, as historians believe, the nickname Grozny and folklore about a formidable, but just king. In ruined and disgraced Russia, where gangs of robbers and Poles ruled, people longingly recalled the reign of Ivan IV as the time of glory and prosperity of the Russian state. Ivan the Terrible remained in the people's memory as the defender of ordinary people from the evil boyars.
Ivan the Terrible in Russian folklore. The image of the formidable Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich is widely represented in folk art- songs and fairy tales. Of the Russian tsars, only Peter I can compare with the Terrible in terms of popular attention. But if in fairy tales Peter has a certain advantage, then in songs there is no doubt that the priority belongs to Grozny. They sang about Grozny in historical songs, in Cossack, schismatic and simply in songs. Historical songs in Russian literature are called songs dedicated to specific historical subjects of the past, most often, the events of the 16th - 18th centuries. Historical songs of the 16th century are dedicated exclusively to the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Songs about the capture of Kazan were especially popular.
With ordinary people, Ivan Vasilyevich communicates more not in songs, but in fairy tales. Here his image is not always positive, although not villainous.
In the 17th century, the attitude towards Grozny in fairy tales improved everywhere. The tsar often acts as a defender of the poor against the boyars. Such are the tales about the pot, about the lapotnik, about the thief Barma ...

The image of Ivan the Terrible in literature XIX century will be incomplete without a poem by A.N. Maikov At the grave of Grozny (1887). Maikov believed that the tsar had a historical truth - he was creating a great kingdom, Peter and Catherine continued his work. Terrible was the people's sovereign, he made everyone equal, for in the face of the king everyone is equal. In the love of the people is the justification of the king:
Yes! My day will come!
You will hear how the frightened people howl,
When the end was announced to the King,
And this people's howl over the ruler's coffin -
I believe - it will not be lost in centuries,
And it will be louder than this underground thorn
Boyar slander and foreign malice ...

Ivan's personality

As the chronicles write, Ivan's appearance amazed everyone. He was tall and slender, had broad shoulders, strong muscles, a developed chest, fine hair, a Roman nose, and small gray penetrating eyes. In his youth, his face was pleasant, but with age he changed greatly; the features of his face were distorted and acquired a fierce expression, almost not a single hair remained on his head and beard, which could be the result of the rage boiling in his soul. K. Valishevsky adds an even larger mustache to the appearance of Ivan the Terrible and says that his reddish beard turned gray by the end of his reign, and he shaved his head.

The character of Ivan, notes N.M. Karamzin, with his virtue in youth and the fierceness of a tyrant in maturity and old age, remains a mystery, although other similar examples can be found in history. N.M. Karamzin, however, tries to find a benefit for future generations in the example of the brutal reign of Ivan IV. "The life of a tyrant is a disaster for mankind," says the historian, "but his story is always useful for sovereigns and peoples: to instill disgust for evil is to instill love for virtue."

It is appropriate to quote in full the words of N.M. Karamzin, reflecting his view of the presence of Ivan the Terrible: “In conclusion, let us say that the good glory of Ioannov outlived his bad glory in the people's memory: the groanings ceased, the victims decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest; but the name Ioannovo shone on the Code of Law and resembled the acquisition of the three Mongol kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in the book depositories, and the people honored in him the famous culprit of our state power, our public education; rejected or forgot the name of the Tormentor given to him by his contemporaries, and according to dark rumors about the cruelty of Ioannova, he still calls him only Terrible ... ”.

The right of modern historians to agree with this point of view or not, but it exists, reflects the opinion of a certain part of the population and becomes, in the end, a philosophical concept.

The mistake of Ivan the Terrible Ivan IV was a striking figure of the domination of early moderate authoritarianism and its decline at the same time. His attempt to solve the mediation problem is characterized by two essential elements. First, he strove to go beyond the flaccid inversion, resorting to those

Bastions of Ivan Sytin It's a shame to admit, but I got involved in publishing while skipping school. Here is how it was. At first I wandered aimlessly around Serpukhovka - just on the eve of May Day - and with a hidden smile looked at the portraits of the leaders of the party and

The Code of Laws and the Laws of Ivan III According to the legislation contained in the Code of Laws of 1497, the chief judge was Grand Duke with kids. But the right to judge was also given to the boyars, governors and local boyar children, who, however, could not judge without the headman and the best people,

Court of Ivan III The princes of the Rurikovich and St. Vladimir clan served Ivan on an equal basis with other subjects and bore the titles of boyars, butlers, and attendants. As an inheritance from his father, Vasily the Dark, Ivan at first had only four grand-ducal boyars. In 1480, Ivan already had 19 boyars

The wife of Ivan III Vasilievich The wife of Ivan III Maria died prematurely and suddenly at a young age in the absence of her husband. She was buried by the mother of the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan in the Kremlin Church of the Ascension, where, since the time of Vasily Dmitrievich, they began to bury all the princesses. Death of Mary

Ivan's wife After the death of Anastasia, Ivan's close circle began to tell him that he was looking for a new bride. “Do you always cry for your spouse? You will find another, equally lovely; but you can harm your priceless health by immoderation in sorrow. " Ivan

Fools of Ivan the Terrible Ivan kept fools and fools at his court. From the fact that jesters were often not smart enough, their jokes were distinguished by obscenity and cynicism. In those days, one or more jesters were kept in every more or less wealthy house. Ivan had them

Death of Ivan IV Ivan was strong in body and could live enough long life, but, as N.M. Karamzin, “... remorse without remorse, vile delights of filthy voluptuousness, torment of shame, malice powerless in the failures of weapons, finally, the hellish execution of filicide

Belief and Faith of Ivan Karamazov Religious and philosophical literature has firmly established the opinion that the main character of Dostoevsky's novels written after 1864 is "a self-incriminating atheist" and that the slogan "everything is allowed", to which many of his heroes

What kind Ioannov's glory survived him bad glory in the popular memory: the groanings ceased, the sacrifices decayed, and old traditions are eclipsed by the newest; but the name Ioannovo shone on the Code of Laws and resembled the acquisition of the three Mongol kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in the book depositories, and the people for centuries saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the conqueror tsar; honored in him the famous culprit of our state power, our civic education; rejected or forgot the name Torturer, given to him by his contemporaries, and according to dark rumors about the cruelty of Ioannova, henceforth calls him only Grozny without distinguishing between grandson and grandfather, the so-called ancient Russia more to praise than to reproach. History is more vindictive than the people! "

As you can see, both the great ruler and the monster are called Terrible! .. They are named by none other than descendants! Here is the righteous court of the Russian model; time itself in this country is an accomplice of injustice. Lecuente Laveau in his "Guide to Moscow", describing royal palace in the Kremlin, he was not ashamed to call the shadow of Ivan IV and dared to compare him with David, mourning the delusions of youth. Laveau's book was written for the Russians.

I cannot deny myself the pleasure of introducing you to the last quotation from Karamzin; it is a description of the character of the prince, whom Russia is proud of. Only a Russian can speak of Ivan III as Karamzin says, and at the same time believe that he is pronouncing praise to the monarch. Only a Russian can describe the reign of Ivan IV as Karamzin describes, and end his story with words that excuse despotism. Here is the historian's true opinion about Ivan III, the great ancestor of Ivan IV:

“Proud in his dealings with kings, dignified in receiving their embassies, he loved splendid solemnity; set the rite kissing the royal hand as a sign of flattering favor; he wanted to rise in front of people in all outward ways, in order to strongly influence the imagination; in a word, having solved the secrets of autocracy, he became, as it were, an earthly God for the Russians, who with this time(emphasized by Karamzin or his translator) began to amaze all other peoples with their boundless obedience to the will of the monarchs. He was the first to be given a name in Russia Grozny, but in a laudable sense: formidable to enemies and obstinate disobedient. However, not being a tyrant, like his grandson, Ivan Vasilyevich II, he undoubtedly had a natural cruelty in his disposition, tempered in him by the power of reason. Rarely are the founders of monarchies renowned for their tender sensitivity, and the firmness necessary for great affairs of state borders on severity. They write that timid women fainted from the angry, fiery gaze of Ioannov; that the petitioners were afraid to go to the throne; that the nobles trembled and at the feasts in the palace did not dare to whisper a word, nor to move, when the Tsar, tired of noisy conversation, heated with wine, dozed for hours at dinner: everyone sat in deep silence, waiting for a new order to amuse him and have fun. Having already noticed the severity of Ioannov's punishments, we add that the most noble officials, secular and clergy, who were defrocked for crimes, were not exempted from the terrible commercial execution: so (in 1491) they publicly flogged the Ukhtomsky prince, the nobleman Khomutov and the former archimandrite Chudovsky, for a forged letter written by them on the land of the deceased brother Ioannov.

History is not a word of praise and does not represent the greatest men as perfect. John as a person did not have the pleasant qualities of either Monomakh or Donskoy, but as a sovereign he stands at the highest degree of greatness. He seemed sometimes timid, indecisive, for he always wanted to act with caution. This caution is prudence in general: it does not captivate us like magnanimous courage; but with slow, as if incomplete successes, it gives strength to its creations. What did Alexander the Great leave to the world? Glory. John left the state, amazing in space, strong by the peoples, even strongest in the spirit of government, that which now with love and pride we call our dear fatherland. "

The first monument to Ivan the Terrible was erected in Russia. The ruler, who, by the way, even in tsarist times They did not like him very much, but they had to give him his due due to the huge and very significant territorial acquisitions of the country. By the way, Karamzin, in his work History of the Russian State, ends the Volume dedicated to the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible:
"..In conclusion, let us say that the good glory of Ioannov has outlived his bad glory in the people's memory: the groanings have ceased, the sacrifices have decayed, and the old traditions have been eclipsed by the newest; but the name Ioannovo shone on the Sudebnikemi reminiscent of the acquisition of the three Mongol Kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in the book depositories, and the people for centuries saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the Tsar-Conqueror; honored in him the famous perpetrators of our state power, our civic education; rejected or forgot the name of the Tormentor given to him by his contemporaries, and according to dark rumors about the cruelty of Ioannova, he still calls him only Terrible, not distinguishing between grandson and grandfather, so named more in praise than in reproach. History is more vindictive than people.."

Liberals will run to shout that "the people need a whip. The slaves yearned for a cruel master."

Although everything is different. Simple and straightforward. Ivan the Terrible exterminated the top of the country. The top, which, on the one hand, helped to create the strength and greatness of the country, and on the other hand, was ready to tear it apart and was no less cruel than Ivan the Terrible himself. And this cruelty of the top, Ivan the Terrible saw from childhood, including the capture and brutal beating in his eyes of the man who replaced Ivan the Terrible for his father: the favorite of Tsarina Elena Glinskaya, Prince Ivan Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky.
It is with the great affairs of state and the suppression of the lawlessness of the top (and there are many descriptions of those outrages that the boyars and their entourage did) and the popularity of the tsar among the people is connected. The people already suffered from the tyranny of various boyars, governors and their entourage. It didn't get any worse for him. It was during the time of Ivan the Terrible that the tradition was established to complain to the tsar about the arbitrariness of the boyars and governors, when all other methods had already been exhausted. This custom was abolished only by Empress Catherine the Great.

Original taken from