The standard traitor. Prince Kurbsky: traitor or hero Brave and daring

The madness that seized the tsar makes some boyars, fearing for their own lives, think about fleeing abroad. The pious prince Dmitry Vishnevetsky did not consider it necessary to submit to the whims of the tyrant and took refuge in Poland. Sigismund-August accepts him kindly, but demands that he serve in the Lithuanian army and oppose his former comrades in arms. A man of honor, Vishnevetsky refuses. By force of circumstances, he ends up with the Turkish Sultan, who orders him to be killed. The less scrupulous seek in flight not only salvation, but also profit: they betray Ivan and go into the service of Sigismund. The most famous among them is Andrei Kurbsky. A descendant of Vladimir Monomakh, Prince of Smolensk and Yaroslavl, he distinguished himself in various battles - in Tula, Kazan, the Bashkir steppes, and Livonia.

But in 1562, after an unsuccessful maneuver, his army of forty thousand was defeated near Vitebsk, near Nevel, by the Poles, of whom there were only fifteen thousand. This shameful defeat caused Ivan's reproaches. Kurbsky, who has fallen out of favor, convinces himself that he is in danger of death. But he is ready to die in battle, and not to be executed. Having kissed his wife and nine-year-old son, he leaves the house at night, leaves Dorpat, unnoticed by anyone, and gallops to Wolmar, a city owned by the Poles. Sigismund-August accepts him with open arms, gives him villages, lands, money. Kurbsky without hesitation agrees to command the Polish troops who are fighting against the Russians. Such a transition from one camp to another was not uncommon at that time, since patriotism did not yet possess sacred power for peoples. But Kurbsky’s betrayal shocks Ivan. The fugitive, feeling safe, writes to the king, trying to justify his action. He sends a letter with his groom Shibanov. When he appears before the Tsar, Ivan pins his leg to the floor with his terrible stick. Leaning on her with both hands, he carefully looks into the face of the servant, whose blood is flowing on the floor, but he, clenching his teeth, does not allow a single complaint or groan to escape. The secretary reads the letter in a trembling voice:

“To the once bright king, glorified by God - now, because of our sins, darkened by hellish malice in his heart, leper in his conscience, an unparalleled tyrant among the most unfaithful rulers of the earth. Listen!..Why did you torment the mighty in Israel, the famous leaders given to you by the Almighty, with various torments, and shed their holy, victorious blood in the temples of God? Didn’t they burn with zeal for the Tsar and the Fatherland? Inventing slander, you call the faithful traitors, Christians sorcerers, light darkness and sweet bitter! Why did these representatives of the Fatherland anger you? Was it not they who destroyed the Batu kingdoms, where our ancestors languished in grave captivity? Were they not the ones who took the German strongholds in honor of your name? And what do you repay us, the poor? Death! Are you immortal yourself? Is there no God and higher justice for the king?.. I don’t describe everything I suffered from your cruelty; my soul is still in turmoil; I will say one thing: you deprived me of holy Rus'! My blood, shed for you, cries out to God. He sees hearts. I sought my guilt both in deeds and in secret thoughts; I questioned my conscience, listened to its answers, and I do not know my sin before you. I led your regiments and never turned their ridge towards the enemy; my glory was yours. I served you not for a year, not for two, but for many years, in labor and in military exploits, enduring poverty and illness, not seeing my mother, not knowing my wife, far from my dear Fatherland. Number the battles, number my wounds! I don't boast; God knows everything. I entrust myself to him in the hope of the intercession of the saints and my forefather, Prince Fyodor of Yaroslavl... We parted with you forever; You will not see my face until the Day of Judgment. But the tears of innocent victims prepare the execution of the torturer. Fear the dead too; those killed by you are alive to the Most High; They are at His throne demanding vengeance! Armies will not save you; caresses, unworthy boyars, companions of feasts and bliss, destroyers of your soul, who sacrifice their children to you, will not make you immortal! I order this letter, soaked in my tears, to be placed in the coffin with me and I will appear with it at the judgment of God. Amen. Written in the city of Volmar, in the region of King Sigismund, my sovereign, from whom, with God’s help, I hope for mercy and expect consolation in sorrows.”

Having listened to the reading with a straight face, Ivan orders the messenger to be taken away and tortured in order to obtain the necessary information. But even here Shibanov does not name a single name. The Tsar is delighted with such firmness, but still orders him to be put to death, as well as several of Kurbsky’s servants, suspected of helping to carry out the escape. The fugitive's mother, wife and son are thrown into prison, where they will die in a few years.

Ivan’s long-restrained rage spills out in a response message to his former governor. A lover of heated discussions, he mixes everything in his accusatory speech: insults, ridicule, accusations, oaths and incorrect quotations from the Bible. His hatred and his learning, piety and cruelty spill out across the paper in a wide stream of words. Moses, Isaiah, and John the Baptist appear under his pen. His letter, like Kurbsky’s letter, is not addressed to one opponent - it is an exculpatory document that many should know about. Thus, across borders, the literary duel between the tsar-autocrat and the traitor-prince begins.

“Why, unfortunate one, are you ruining your soul by betrayal, saving your mortal body by flight? – writes Ivan. - If you are righteous and virtuous, then why did you not want to die from me, the obstinate ruler, and inherit the crown of a martyr?... Be ashamed of your servant, Shibanov; he maintained piety before the king and the people; Having made a vow of fidelity to the master, he did not betray him at the gates of death. And you, from my single angry word, burden yourself with the oath of traitors; not only yourself, but also the soul of your ancestors; for they swore to my great grandfather to serve us faithfully with all their descendants. I have read and understood your writing. The venom of an asp in the mouth of a traitor; his words are like arrows. You complain about the persecution you have endured; but you would not have gone to our enemy if we had not been unduly merciful to you, unworthy!”

Then, in order to expose Kurbsky’s dishonor, he reminds him that the governor did not always turn out to be worthy of his glory: when the khan was defeated near Tula, the prince celebrated the victory, instead of pursuing the retreating army; when a storm scattered ships near the walls of Kazan and the water swallowed up weapons and supplies, he, “like a coward,” thought only of flight; when the Russians took Astrakhan, he was not in their ranks; when it came to taking Pskov, he exiled himself as sick. “If it weren’t for your obstinacy (Adashev and Kurbsky), then Livonia would have long ago all belonged to Russia. You won involuntarily, acting like slaves, solely by force of compulsion.”

Then he tries to justify his own crimes: he believes that the sovereign should not account for anything to anyone. His impunity is from God:

“Shameless lie, what you say about my imaginary cruelties! We do not destroy the strong in Israel; We do not stain the churches of God with their blood; the strong, the virtuous are alive and serve us. We execute only traitors - and where are they spared?.. There are many disgraces that are sad for my heart; but even more vile betrayals, known everywhere and to everyone... Until now, the Russian rulers were free and independent; complained and executed their subjects without reporting. So it will be! I'm no longer a baby. I have need of the mercy of God, the Most Pure Virgin Mary and the saints; I don’t require human guidance. Praise be to the Almighty, Russia is prospering; my boyars live in love and harmony; only your friends, your advisers, still deceive in the darkness. You threaten me with the judgment of Christ in the next world; But isn’t there the power of God in this world? This is the Manichaean heresy! You think that the Lord reigns only in heaven, the devil in hell, and on earth people rule; no no! The Lord's power is everywhere, both in this and in the future life. You write to me that I will not see your Ethiopian face here; Woe is me! what a disaster! You surround the Throne of the Most High with those killed by me; Here's a new heresy! No one, according to the word of the apostle, can see God... To complete the treason, you call the Livonian city of Volmar the region of King Sigismund and hope from him for mercy, leaving your lawful ruler given to you by God... Your great king is the slave of slaves; Is it any wonder that his slaves praise him? But I’m silent; Solomon does not order to make speeches with the insane; That’s what you really are.”

Andrei Kurbsky replies with contempt that the tsar is humiliated by the lies and insults with which his letter is replete: “You, like an old woman, should be ashamed to send such a poorly composed message to a country where enough people know grammar, rhetoric, dialectics and philosophy... I am innocent and in misery in exile... Let’s wait a little, the truth is not far away.”

A new letter from the Tsar to Kurbsky, whom he calls a cowardly traitor: “I know about my iniquities, but God’s mercy knows no bounds; it will save me... I do not boast of my glory. This glory does not belong to me, but only to the Lord alone... What am I guilty of before you, friends of Adashev and Sylvester? Wasn't it you yourself, having deprived me of my beloved wife, the real reason manifestations of my human weaknesses? How can you talk about the cruelty of your sovereign, who wanted to take away his throne along with his life!.. Prince Vladimir Andreevich, whom you loved so much, did he have any right to power by his origin or personal qualities?.. Listen to to the voice of Divine Providence! Come back yourself, think about your actions. It is not pride that makes me write to you, but Christian charity, so that you can correct yourself and save your soul.”

This strange correspondence continued from 1564 to 1579, sometimes with quite significant interruptions. From one message to another, the interlocutors will present the same arguments, bring down the same reproaches on each other. Andrei Kurbsky, a prominent representative of the boyars, looks upon this aristocratic caste as being called by God to advise the Tsar. No one else, except these people surrounding the throne, can contribute to the prosperity of Russia. Having exterminated his friends Adashev and Sylvester, who always gave the Tsar sound advice, Ivan exceeded his rights as a sovereign and established criminal despotism from which the country would never recover. Ivan insists on the Divine origin of his power, refuses to recognize the positive role played by the boyars and the Duma, and does not consider himself guilty before God. “Until now, the Russian rulers have not given an account to anyone, they were free to favor and execute their subordinates, they did not sue them before anyone... We are free to favor our slaves and we are also free to execute them.” The king, chosen by God, has unlimited power, rebellion against which and simply criticism is blasphemy. Even his most unreasonable, cruel and lawless decisions must be respected by his subjects as messages from God who placed him on the throne. To rebel against the sovereign is not just a political crime, but a mortal sin. “We, humble Ivan, Tsar and Grand Duke“all of Rus' is by the grace of God, and not by the unfaithful will of people” - the Russian Tsar signs letters to the “chosen” and not the “hereditary” king of Poland.

Meanwhile, Andrei Kurbsky becomes an adviser to Sigismund-August. His hatred for the tsar is so great that he pushes his new patron to strengthen the alliance with the Tatars. He does not expect that the infidels, emboldened by this, will perhaps seize a good half of his homeland and desecrate the churches in which he himself recently prayed. He is driven by the hope that the defeat of the Russians will force the boyars to kill Ivan, then the fugitives will be able to return with their heads held high to their home, free from the tyrant.

Finally, Devlet-Girey sets out on a campaign and stops not far from Ryazan. The city heroically resists, repels the attacks, and the boyars Alexei and Fyodor Basmanov, who arrived in time with fresh troops, pursue the retreating Tatars. The danger in the south has been eliminated, but unexpectedly appears in the west - the Polish-Lithuanian army under the command of Radziwill and Kurbsky is trying to capture Polotsk, which the Russians had recently captured. This attempt ends in failure.

The double victory of his commander should have encouraged Ivan. Indeed, he generously rewards distinguished military personnel. But after Kurbsky’s betrayal, he is consumed by anxiety, which becomes stronger every month. Despite the fact that Adashev and Sylvester's main comrades were executed or exiled, he feels surrounded by conspirators. He peers anxiously into the faces of the boyars. If they speak freely, then they are lying. If they fall silent, it means they are hatching treacherous plans against him. He hopes for new revelations and is dissatisfied that there are too few of them. Metropolitan Athanasius has neither the energy nor the authority to give him advice and calm him down. Current favorites - Alexey Basmanov, Mikhail Saltykov, Afanasy Vyazemsky, Ivan Chebotovy - fuel his suspicion, cruelty, and voluptuousness. Suddenly, at the beginning of winter 1564, Ivan decides to leave the capital in an unknown direction, entrusting himself to the will of God. On the third of December, on the snow-covered Kremlin square there are many sleighs, into which servants are putting chests of gold and silver, icons, crosses, precious vases, dishes, clothes, furs. This is not just leaving - moving. In the Assumption Cathedral, in the presence of the boyars, Metropolitan Afanasy blesses the tsar for a journey, the purpose of which is unknown to anyone. Ivan, the queen and his two sons, seven and ten years old, sit in a sleigh. Some dignitaries, favorites and servants - in other sleighs. The people who have come running are trying to find out: “Where is the king going?”, “Why is he leaving us?”, “For how long?” Finally, the endless caravan moves off, leaving behind a restless crowd. The ensuing thaw forces the tsar to stay for two weeks in the village of Kolomenskoye. When roads allow, he goes to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. On Christmas Eve, with his retinue and luggage, he arrives in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, north of Vladimir.

For thirty days the Boyar Duma has no news from the sovereign. On January 3, 1565, official Konstantin Polivanov brought two letters from Ivan to Metropolitan Afanasy. In the first, he lists the unrest, betrayals, crimes committed by the nobility, dignitaries and governors who plundered the treasury, mistreated the peasants, and refused to defend their native land from the Tatars, Poles, and Germans. “If I, driven by justice, declare wrath on the unworthy boyars and officials, then the metropolitan and the clergy stand up for the guilty, are rude, and annoy me. As a result, not wanting to tolerate your betrayals, we, out of great pity of heart, left the state and went where God would show us the way.”

The second letter is addressed to foreign and Russian merchants, all Christian residents of Moscow. The Tsar claims in it that he was angry with the boyars and dignitaries, and that he treats his people with the same mercy. The royal clerks read this message in the square in front of the crowd. There is no more king! Is it possible? But isn't the power of a tyrant better than disorder? Shouts are heard from everywhere: “The Emperor has abandoned us! We are dying! How can there be sheep without a shepherd!” Dejection soon gives way to rage. If the king abandoned the throne, then it is the fault of those who betrayed him. Shops close, houses empty, and crowds of people stream into the Kremlin, shouting and demanding that those responsible be punished. The frightened metropolitan convenes the clergy and boyars for a council. “Let the kingdom not remain without a head,” they decide. “We are all going with our heads to beat the sovereign with our foreheads and cry.”

A delegation of princes, bishops, officials, and merchants, led by Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod, immediately headed to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. A long procession, driven by the wind, stretches along a snow-covered road. It intricately mixes church vestments and brocade dresses, military uniforms, banners, crosses and censers. They look not so much like subjects heading to their sovereign, but like pilgrims going to venerate miraculous icon. They arrive at the place two days later, January 15, 1565. The king receives them with an angry and absent expression. Pimen blesses him and says: “Remember that you are a guardian not only of the state, but also of the Church; the first, only monarch of Orthodoxy! If you leave, who will save the truth, the purity of our faith? Who will save millions of souls from eternal destruction?

Thus, according to the recognition of the clergy themselves, royal power extends not only to the mortal bodies of his subjects, but also to their immortal soul. He rules on earth and in heaven. The Church retreats before his power. Everyone, priests and boyars, kneels before him, who stands with an iron staff in front of them. He enjoys his victory with all his heart - he won the battle thanks to his sudden departure. Struck by the possibility of losing their master, the most prominent people of the state crawl in front of him. Once again Ivan put everything on the line. If these cowards take him at his word, at that very moment he will cease to be a sovereign. By bowing before him, they lift him up and give him strength. With a trembling voice, the king addresses these repentant sinners with his characteristic eloquence and redundancy in speeches. He reproaches them for their desire to rebel against him, for greed, cowardice, and even for the desire to kill him, his wife and eldest son. Everyone stands amazed by these accusations, and no one dares to protest. It is better to listen to unfounded accusations than to incur the wrath of the sovereign by denying them. He speaks with fervor, his eyes sparkle, and each of those present feels the weight of tyranny falling on their shoulders. Finally he reveals his true intentions: “For my father, Metropolitan Athanasius, for you, our pilgrims, archbishops and bishops, I agree to take back our states; and under what conditions, you will find out.” These conditions are simple: the king is free to choose the punishment of traitors - disgrace, death, deprivation of property, the clergy should not interfere with this. Of course, such a decision deprives the Church of the right, inherent in it since ancient times, to speak out in defense of the innocent and even the guilty who deserve pardon. But the petitioners are happy that the king agreed to ascend the throne again, and with tears in their voices they thank him. Satisfied with their submission and humility, the sovereign invites some to celebrate the feast of the Epiphany with him in the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. The people are impatient, but Ivan does not want to return to Moscow. The more desirable he turns out to be, the more he can demand.

On August 25, 1530, the first Tsar of All Rus', Ivan IV the Terrible, was born. He was extremely suspicious and trusted few of his inner circle. Andrei Kurbsky was one of these people, but as soon as he received news of the beginning of the oprichnina, he fled to Lithuania, from where he wrote the first letter to Ivan the Terrible in 1564. The entire correspondence between the Russian Tsar and Kurbsky amounts to five messages. What did Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky correspond about?

Kurbsky's first message:

“Why, O king, did you exterminate the mighty people in Israel and the governors given to you by God to fight your enemies, betrayed them to various executions, and shed their victorious holy blood in the churches of God, and stained the church thresholds with the blood of martyrdom, and for your well-wishers, his soul for you who have inflicted torment, death, and oppression unheard of since the beginning of the world, accusing innocent Orthodox Christians of treason, sorcery, and other indecency, and zealously trying to turn light into darkness and call sweet things bitter? What have you done wrong and how have your Christian comrades angered you? Didn't they destroy the proud kingdoms and turn them into obedients to you in everything, while they had our ancestors in slavery before? Didn’t the German fortresses surrender to you, according to their wisdom, given to them by God?

“And yet, king, I tell you at the same time: I think you will no longer see my face until the Day of Judgment. And don’t expect that I will remain silent about everything: until last day in my life I will constantly denounce you with tears before the beginningless Trinity, in which I believe, and I call upon the help of the Cherubic ruler, my mother, my hope and intercessor, the Lady Theotokos, and all the saints, God’s chosen ones, and my sovereign Prince Fyodor Rostislavich.”

Ivan the Terrible's answer and his first message:

“You, for the sake of the body, destroyed your soul, despised imperishable glory for the sake of fleeting glory, and, enraged at man, rebelled against God. Understand, unfortunate one, from what height into what abyss you have fallen in body and soul! The prophetic words came true on you: “Whoever thinks that he has will lose everything.” Does your piety consist in the fact that you destroyed yourself because of your selfishness, and not for the sake of God?

“If you are righteous and pious, why did you not want from me, the obstinate ruler, to suffer and earn the crown of eternal life?”

Second message from Andrei Kurbsky:

“And I don’t know what you want from me anymore. Not only the princes of the same tribe, ascending to the family of the great Vladimir, were destroyed by various deaths, and their wealth, movable and immovable, which your grandfather and your father had not yet plundered, he took away to the last shirts, and I can say with insolence, in the words of the Gospel, to your proud royal Majesty was not hindered in any way. But the king wanted to answer every word of yours and could have written no worse than you, for by the grace of my Christ I mastered, to the best of my ability, the ancient style, and in my old age I learned it here: but I held back my hand with the pen, because, like in my previous letter, I wrote to you, I place everything on God’s judgment: and I thought about it and decided that it was better to remain silent here, and then dare to shout before the throne of Christ.”

“It’s better, I thought, to place my hope in the almighty God, glorified in three persons, for my soul is open to him and he sees that I feel guilty of nothing before you. Therefore, let us wait a little, because I believe that you and I are close, at the very threshold, awaiting the coming of our Christian hope - the Lord God, our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen".

Second message of Ivan the Terrible:

“Why did you separate me from my wife? If you had not taken my young wife away from me, there would have been no Crown victims. And if you say that after that I could not endure it and did not maintain cleanliness, then we are all human. Why did you take a Streltsy wife? And if you and the priest had not rebelled against me, none of this would have happened: all this happened because of your self-will.”

Kurbsky's third message:

“Could you also remember how during the times of your pious life all your affairs went well through the prayers of the saints and according to the instructions of the Chosen Council, your most worthy advisers, and how later, when you were deceived by cruel and crafty flatterers, destroyers and your and his fatherland, how and what happened: and what plagues were sent by God - I’m talking about hunger and arrows flying in the wind, and finally about the barbarian sword, the avenger for the desecration of God’s law, and the sudden burning of the glorious city of Moscow, and the devastation of the whole the Russian land, and, what is most bitter and shameful of all, the fall of the royal soul, and the shameful flight of the royal troops, who were previously brave; as some here tell us - as if then, hiding from the Tatars in the forests, with your pitch-blacks, you almost died of hunger!

“And I am also sending you two chapters copied from the book of the wise Cicero, the most famous Roman adviser, who lived in those days when the Romans owned the entire universe. And he wrote in response to his enemies, who reproached him as an exile and a traitor, just as Your Majesty, unable to restrain the fury of his persecution, shoots at the poor from afar with the fiery arrows of his threats in vain and in vain.”

Question about the role of Andrei Kurbsky in Russian history even now it remains open. The governor is called with equal frequency a fighter against tyranny and a traitor to the king. A close supporter left Rus', but, wanting to reason with the ruler, he sent him letters and even received reply messages.

Childhood and youth

Andrei Mikhailovich is the eldest son in the family of Mikhail Mikhailovich and Maria Mikhailovna Kurbsky. The married couple were considered close to the king, but due to constant intrigues around the throne, they did not enjoy the favor of the ruler. Therefore, despite a rich pedigree, a famous surname did not become a guarantor of a prosperous life.

Information about Kurbsky’s youth and adolescence has not been preserved. It is only known that soon after Andrei’s birth, two more children appeared in the family - brothers Ivan and Roman. Even the boyar’s date of birth (1528) became public knowledge thanks to Andrei Mikhailovich himself. The man mentioned a significant event in one of his own writings.

Politics and military campaigns

A detailed biography of Kurbsky has been known since he was 21 years old. The young man showed himself to be an excellent strategist during the capture of Kazan in 1549. The brave young man attracted the attention of Ivan the Terrible. In addition to military merits, the tsar and the boyar were related by age. The sovereign was only 2 years younger than Kurbsky, so the men easily found common interests.

Over the next three years, Andrei rose from an ordinary steward to the rank of governor. Kurbsky received full confidence after his victory over Khan Davlet Giray in 1552. The king was especially impressed by the fact that, despite the wound, the young hero mounted his horse again 8 days after the serious injury.

It is not surprising that Kurbsky soon receives an invitation to join the Elected Rada, assembled by Ivan the Terrible to discuss political issues. Along with Adashev and Sylvester, the boyar helps the tsar decide difficult situations and decide on the course of government.

Tensions in relations with the sovereign began to emerge after Andrei Mikhailovich’s victories in the Livonian War. Ivan the Terrible's views on those close to him changed dramatically. Achievements and merits ceased to matter, and in order to avoid disgrace, Kurbatov fled to Lithuania.

The true reason for the escape has not been established. Contemporaries put forward two versions: Kurbatov was afraid for his own life or succumbed to the persuasion of King Sigismund Augustus, who dreamed of luring the commander. Soon after emigrating, Kurbatov joined the ranks of Lithuanian military leaders and even acted on the side of the enemy against his old comrades.

As a reward for betrayal of his homeland, the Lithuanian king rewards Andrei Mikhailovich with the city of Kovel and the adjacent estate. Kurbsky receives a new coat of arms, Levart, whose flag depicts a cheetah with a raised paw.

To dispel homesickness, the man begins translating philosophical works. In addition to studying the worldview of the ancients, Andrei Mikhailovich writes a letter to his former friend, Ivan the Terrible. The men discussed their views on socio-political problems and the future of the country, but did not come to a consensus.

Impressed by the activities of Maxim the Greek, Kurbsky creates several treatises reflecting the views of the boyars on the structure of the state. The king's former confidant sends out business letters expressing his own vision. In his letters and messages, the governor appears as a fighter against tyranny and an accuser of the mad king.

Personal life

The name of Andrei Mikhailovich’s first wife, alas, has not been preserved. It is known that when escaping from Russia, the boyar was forced to leave his beloved with his own relatives. The man and his wife abandoned their nine-year-old son.

All the anger of Ivan the Terrible against his close confidant fell on the traitor’s relatives. Kurbsky’s mother, child and wife were imprisoned in the fortress, where the latter died “of melancholy.” The fate of Andrei Mikhailovich's eldest son is shrouded in mystery, and later became the object of various historical speculations.

Kurbsky's second marriage took place in Lithuania. The new beloved of the former governor was called Maria Yuryevna Golshanskaya. The woman came from an influential family that had influence on the king. This union was overshadowed only by the fact that Maria had already become a widow twice and given birth to two sons, who accepted the news of their mother’s new marriage aggressively.

For the first few years, the spouses’ relationship developed well, but after Andrei Mikhailovich lost interest in Maria, the family became mired in scandals. The proceedings (physical and property) reached the king, who decided to end the scandals and divorce the spouses. In 1578, after a long division of property, divorce proceedings took place.

A year later, Andrei Kurbsky married Alexandra Semashko. Soon after the wedding, the couple had a son, Dmitry, and a daughter, Marina. The only thing that overshadowed the man’s third marriage was Maria Golshanskaya, who was not satisfied with the terms of the divorce. She still demanded land from her ex-husband and harassed the man in every possible way.

Death

The last years of the life of the politician and former assistant of Ivan the Terrible were spent in litigation. In addition to Golshanskaya, who suddenly wanted to declare Kurbsky’s third marriage illegal, Andrei Mikhailovich fought in court with his neighbors. Pan Kraselsky, who owed money to Kurbsky, refused to repay the debt. The proceedings, which were moved to the courtroom, did not produce results. Constant clashes and scandals pretty tired Andrei Mikhailovich.

A man died in his own bed in Kovel Castle. Death overtook the former boyar between May 2-23, 1583. The funeral took place on the territory of the Holy Trinity Monastery. Kurbsky's body was buried at the feet of his confessor, Father Alexander. Archaeologists were unable to find the burial to create an authentic portrait of the governor.

Bibliography

• 1564-1679 – “Four letters to Ivan the Terrible”
• 1581-1583 - “History of the book. the great Moscow about the deeds that we have heard from trustworthy men and that we have seen before our eyes"
• 1586 - “The Tale of Logic” (first edition)
• 1586 - “From other dialectics of John Spaninberger about silogism interpreted” (first edition)

Standard traitor

In parallel with the myth of Kurbsky - a fighter against a tyrant and Kurbsky - a true patriot, another myth was formed and flourished, the myth of Kurbsky - a traitor, Kurbsky - an agent of the enemies of Russia, Kurbsky - a destroyer of the foundations of Russian statehood and morality. In general, both M. M. Shcherbatov and N. M. Karamzin considered him a traitor, but they saw in this the contradictory and tragic appearance of the prince: on the one hand, he fought against despotism, on the other, the Fatherland was still treacherous left, escaping from the active army. But what could he do if he had to choose between death on the chopping block and flight abroad?

A popular history book for children in the mid-19th century by A. Ishimova tells that after the fall of the “Chosen Rada,” informers and slanderers became Ivan’s favorites, “while the good boyars feared death or disgrace every minute, that is, the Tsar’s wrath. Many of them fled to Lithuania and Poland out of fear. Among these traitors was, unfortunately for all Russians, the famous hero who participated in the conquests of Kazan and Livonia, the former favorite of the Tsar - Prince Andrei Kurbsky. Although he decided on this betrayal with extreme sorrow, it nevertheless covered his name with eternal shame and forced his conscience to experience eternal torment. With what inexpressible sadness he listened to stories about the loyalty of John’s other boyars; how I envied the firmness with which they, despite all the flattering offers of the King of Poland, did not betray their honor and patiently endured John’s cruelty as a punishment sent from God.”

It would probably be unnecessary to say that there is no evidence of Kurbsky’s “sadness” in the sources. But the image of a repentant emigrant was ideally suited for the moralizing teachings that fill A. Ishimova’s book.

One of the first to introduce significant critical notes into the artistic interpretation of the image of Kurbsky was A.K. Tolstoy in the poem “Vasily Shibanov” (1840s). Tolstoy’s prince is an anti-hero, in some ways even close to Ivan the Terrible, ready to sacrifice a faithful servant for the sake of a brief moment of triumph, throwing angry and evil words in the face of the king:

But the prince is not pleased with the new honor,

He is filled with bile and malice;

Kurbsky is preparing to read the Tsar

The souls of an offended sweetheart...

And the boyar writes all night long,

His pen breathes revenge;

He reads it, smiles, and reads it again,

And again he writes without rest,

And he sarcastic the king with evil words,

And so, when the dawn broke,

It's time for his joy

A message full of poison...

The true hero of the poem is the servant Vasily Shibanov, whose feat is true patriotism and denunciation of the tyrant:

Shibanov was silent. From a pierced leg

The scarlet blood flowed like a current,

And the king on the calm eye of the servant

He looked with a searching eye...

“...Messenger, you are not a slave, but a comrade and friend,

And Kurbsky has many loyal servants, you know,

Why gave you away for next to nothing!

Go with Malyuta to the dungeon!”

...And the king asks: “Well, what about the messenger?

Did he finally call the thief his friends?”

- “King, his word is all one:

He praises his master!”

By his behavior, the servant seems to excuse the crime of Kurbsky, whom Shibanov himself considers a traitor:

“Oh prince, you who could betray me

For a sweet moment of reproach,

Oh prince, I pray that God forgives you

I will betray you before your fatherland!..

Hear me, God, in my dying hour,

Forgive my master!

My tongue goes numb, and my gaze fades away,

But my word is all one:

For the terrible, O God, king I pray,

For our holy, great Rus' -

And I firmly await the desired death!”

Thus died Shibanov, the striving .

True, as often happens, readers perceived the meaning of the poem more simply than its creator. First of all, the first lines of the poem fell into the figurative series of Russian literature: “Prince Kurbsky fled from the tsar’s wrath...” And when reading the poems about Shibanov in the minds of readers, the central plot was not the courage and devotion of the “slave” who glorifies the master, despite all his meanness, but traditional image Kurbsky as a political emigrant, a fighter against despotism.

Tolstoy's poem enjoyed extraordinary popularity. It was often performed on stage. Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, listening to the actors read these poems, tested their skill as a reader and their ability to influence the audience. In 1889, a fashionable hypnotist in the capital, O.I. Feldman, staged in his experiments “the tales of the Terrible Tsar and Kurbsky’s envoy Shibanov.” In the early 1890s, teachers of evening workers' schools in St. Petersburg studied A. K. Tolstoy's ballad with their students. It was believed that by the way students perceived it, their thinking and level of ability could be determined.

Following the moral condemnation of Kurbsky came a turn of political labels. They appear clearly for the first time in S. Gorsky’s book “The Life and Historical Significance of Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky” (1858). Here Kurbsky acts as a symbol of all anti-state, anti-Moscow forces, a generalized image of the enemy of Russia:

“Andrei Mikhailovich, from the first years of his life, was placed in an environment hostile to Moscow; from his earliest youth, hatred of its princes was instilled in him... Kurbsky was not ashamed to deceive John, just as he was not ashamed to call traitors who were put to death martyrs... selfish calculations are always in the foreground for Kurbsky... Imbued with hatred of Moscow from the earliest years of his life, Kurbsky was not imbued with love for the Fatherland... how deeply Kurbsky’s moral nature was corrupted, that for him there was nothing sacred; that man’s most cherished treasure, religion, was for him only a means to satisfy selfish impulses.”

Kurbsky’s sentence, handed down by S. Gorsky, matches all the above accusations: “What did he care about Russia... he knew only himself... In such people, posterity sees enemies of the development of mankind, therefore, people worthy not of participation, but condemnation."

In the last quarter of the 19th century, the interpretation of the image of Kurbsky in literature became more complex. It turns out to be connected with the theme of the boyar oligarchy as a “brake on progress,” a hostile force opposing the tsar. It was then that the theme of Ivan the Terrible’s uncompromising struggle against boyar treason, developed in the Stalinist 1940s, arises, the representative of which is Kurbsky. A struggle in the name of which one must not spare father and mother. As a matter of fact, Stalin did not invent anything here, but only diligently read writers turn of the XIX century– XX centuries...

In 1882, M. I. Bogdanovich’s drama “Prince Kurbsky” was released. Already from the first scene (the siege of Kazan in 1552), the theme of the unfortunate king, exhausted by the boyars' willfulness, confronting the selfish and selfish boyars was set. Ivan says:

Now they want to delete me

To start troubles in Moscow again;

Don't let that happen! I will return to Moscow

Immediately and to the plans of the boyars

I won't let it come true... They dream

To rule Russia... Not to be!

Kurbsky's theme arises in connection with the sending of troops to Livonia. The Tsar sends his “beloved,” the best Russian commander, Prince Andrei, to command them. But the latter is embarrassed by his wife Maria, who claims that “the closer one is to the king, the closer one is to death.” Her bad premonitions come true: Kurbsky was slandered by Malyuta Skuratov:

And Kurbsky wants to be more important than everyone else,

And the people praise him above all others,

Traitor prince, among his friends

He reviles you and all your deeds,

He stands up not only for his own people,

But also for our enemy...

Kurbsky received an angry letter from the tsar calling him to Moscow to answer for the defeat at Nevel. The prince decides to flee, and Maria supports him in this. She announces that for the sake of her husband she would renounce both her homeland and her father and mother, but she cannot leave her son. Moreover, the separation will not be long, she is still mortally ill, so the prince can safely run away without thinking about his wife.

The escape was difficult for the “patriot prince”:

The first step into a foreign land was terrible;

Three times the prince turned his horse back,

Three times he faced his homeland,

And the strong-willed husband wept bitterly;

But finally, his fate was fulfilled:

And the Russian leader became an enemy of Russia.

As in the poem by A.K. Tolstoy, Vasily Shibanov atones for the sin of Kurbsky’s betrayal with his feat (“Let the sin of my prince fall on me with all its burden; may Prince Andrey find redemption in my suffering!”).

In exile, the Poles admire the prince, calling him the best Russian commander. Sigismund's nobles fear that Kurbsky will take away from them and appropriate for himself all the success of the victory over the Russians. Even the proud Princess Maria Golshanskaya doubts her ability to seduce the “Russian lion”:

...Didn't you catch

Severe lions, like gentle lambs?

Princess:

Lithuanian and Polish lions

But the Russian lion, perhaps, will not give in.

But in a foreign land the prince feels bad and uncomfortable (“It’s sad for the Russians here, / And the sun seems to shine paler”). He becomes an apologist for the Russian order (“And your people? They are in eternal bondage, / We don’t have such slavery in Russia”) and the power of Ivan the Terrible (“For us, he is God’s anointed, holy, / And power was granted to him by God: / But we are all equal before the king." In his repentance, Kurbsky goes so far that he refuses to participate in the campaign against Pskov and publicly repents of his sin of treason. The drama ends with the dying prince's farewell to his son. Kurbsky bequeaths to his descendant to return to Russia: and “make your father forget his betrayal, / Let your exploits wash away my shame, / And the Kurbsky family will be glorious with you!”

In Soviet times, the theme of repentance completely disappears from stories about Kurbsky, but the sentence imposed on him becomes increasingly severe. Revolution and Civil War in Russia, outright enemies of Soviet power were exterminated. Since the system of Great Terror that had developed in the country required that firewood be constantly thrown into the firebox, and there was no undoubted enemy, the ideologists of the regime were faced with the task of creating a whole system of social roles, the executors of which would be appointed “enemies of the people.” At the same time, it is desirable to have vivid and memorable historical analogies and examples. The almost ideal ruler was approved by the Leader himself: Ivan the Terrible became him. Paired with him was the standard traitor - the defector prince Andrei Kurbsky. The image of Kurbsky was mobilized by Stalinist propaganda and replicated in cinema, theatrical productions, literary works and school textbooks.

On the pages of O. M. Brik’s tragedy “Ivan the Terrible” (1942), Kurbsky appears as an anti-hero who is not only a symbol of betrayal, but also forces others to betray:

Re-sew:

Great king,

Don't judge by appearance.

I'm wearing an overseas camisole, narrow,

But the soul remained Russian,

And the Russian heart is in my chest.

I'm a warrior. Ivan Kozel is my nickname.

Prince Kurbsky brought me to Lithuania...

Ivan (angry):

He is not a prince! Thief, traitor, dog!

The further dialogue between Tsar Ivan and his warrior Ivan Kozl contains several more revealing characteristics of Kurbsky: “And Kurbsky is an example for us: / this mind is good for this, / to sell the Motherland for a penny,” “The dog Kurbsky indulges the enemies of Rus',” etc. The Tsar complains that he started the oprichnina too late, then Kurbsky would not have left. It soon becomes clear that the warrior is nicknamed “Goat” for a reason: he is a secret spy from Kurbsky to the treacherous Moscow boyars, in particular Prince Vladimir Staritsky and I.P. Fedorov-Chelyadnin. The boyars pronounce a manifesto of their freedom, denouncing their betrayal:

Motherland... people...

The words are empty

Ringing.

Where is my power?

where is my honor and glory?

where is my law

my court

my reprisal -

there is my homeland,

there are my people!

The boyar fathers and grandfathers, who acquired their estates “with rubles and in fights,” are contrasted with the oprichnina’s “noble poverty.” The boyars have “guns hidden, / The mob has been bribed, / They are waiting for a call to our destinies.” Moreover, the messenger from Kurbsky and the king is a drunkard, a libertine, an immoral type. The traitor boyars are no better; they are ready to trade Orthodox shrines and even own daughters for the sake of selling Russia to external enemies. The situation is saved by the people in the person of their representative, the guardsman Falcon, who flees to the king’s camp. He is not looking for a better life (“And the king doesn’t flog? – He does. For the cause, according to the law”). He is ready to serve the sovereign, who stands for social justice. In Ivan's army, a serf can easily become a governor for his military valor.

It is Sokol who submits a denunciation to the Tsar about Chelyadnin’s treason. Ivan appears at a feast with the conspirators, who decide to poison him with “Polish poison” sent by Kurbsky. What follows is a scene so beloved in the Stalin era: the sovereign offers the main conspirator, Chelyadnin, to drink first, but he does not dare and thereby admits to the conspiracy. Then the boyar still drinks the potion and falls dead. Warriors led by Sokol arrest the conspirators and their relatives (“You too will be put on trial! You are Chelyadnin’s daughter!”). Kozel tries to seduce Anastasia Chelyadnina by escaping to Lithuania, where Kurbsky will give a dowry for her. But the girl proudly declares that she would rather go to prison to the father-tsar and, in good conscience, answer “both the judge and the executioner.” She acts as an exposer of the conspirators, testifying against her father and his friends.

The play ends with another topic relevant to the Stalin era: the tsar did not finish off treason. Metropolitan Philip stood up for the traitor boyars, and the tsar, despite the protests of the people, released them and even arrested the guardsman Sokol, who continued to boldly denounce the traitors. But the ending of O. M. Brik’s play is generally optimistic: Grozny blesses the wedding of the informer Anastasia Chelyadnina and the guardsman Sokol, hoping that from them new, decisive people will come who will restore order in Rus'.

In 1944, the script for S. M. Eisenstein’s film “Ivan the Terrible” was published. It contained the quintessence of the “Stalinist discourse” about Ivan the Terrible (although one can judge from the reviews of contemporaries that Eisenstein himself did not share all the assessments of the script, but was forced to follow the political situation). The director first uses the image of Kurbsky in the scene of the crowning of Ivan IV, when the prince is unable to hide his jealousy of Anastasia, who is marrying the young tsar. This is noticed by foreign diplomats who are looking for a “weak link” in Grozny’s circle: “Ambition is worse than self-interest... A person cannot be satisfied while he is the first... after another... No one knows the boundaries of human lust.” Noticing the way Kurbsky looks at Anastasia, the spy gives orders to his henchmen: “Take care of Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky.”

Kurbsky’s role in the film was clearly written according to the scenarios of the destinies of Stalin’s associates, because he is called “Ivan’s first friend and second man in the state,” that is, in fact, the co-ruler of the young monarch. It is interesting that Kurbsky’s betrayal in his portrayal of Eisenstein lies in the fact that he was unable to resist either his own lusts or the whisperings of the Tsar’s enemies. The latter tease the prince that he is “eternally second”: “I loved Anastasia - Ivan took it, Kazan fought - Ivan got it.” But the boyars are not limited to hints: they directly blackmail Kurbsky that if he does not become their ally, they will inform the tsar that the prince is a traitor. The image of the soft-bodied Kurbsky, who blindly follows Ivan’s enemies and becomes a traitor (not only of Ivan, but also of his love for Anastasia), is contrasted with the figures of gunners from the people who entrust their lives to the royal will in everything and are even ready to accept an unjust execution without complaint.

In the script, Kurbsky cheats at the most decisive moment, deliberately losing the battle of Nevel to the Lithuanians. He states that “in Moscow everyone is ready to withdraw to Lithuania. The defeat of Russian troops near Nevel is a signal for an uprising.” And he offers the Moscow throne to the Polish king Sigismund. Ivan is shocked: “Andrey, friend... for what? What were you missing? Or did you want my royal hat?”

Ivan IV regards Kurbsky's betrayal as treason to a great cause, and even the very name of the criminal is banned. Kurbsky, denouncing the tsar from exile, envies him and, in principle, approves: “You are doing the right thing, Ivan. On the throne, I would do the same.”

In essence, the conflict between Kurbsky and the Terrible, as depicted by Eisenstein on the part of the prince, is devoid of ideological content: it began with jealousy of Anastasia, and ended with jealousy of the greatness of Ivan the Terrible, the tsar’s involvement in the great cause of building a united Rus'. Kurbsky's betrayal stems precisely from envy, from the desire to take the royal place. And he quickly “disarms” and repents of his actions. He attacks with curses the ambassador who arrived from the conspiratorial boyars (“Psya krev! Hell’s dog! Prodigal feces!”). Kurbsky’s anger is caused by disappointment: the prince hoped that this was a messenger from Ivan the Terrible, that the monarch had forgiven him and was calling him to him. Hence the very strange scene depicted by Eisenstein: Kurbsky dictates an accusatory letter to Ivan the Terrible, while interrupting himself with exclamations:

“You are plunging Rus' into a sea of ​​blood, you are raping the Russian land!.. Lie! You are great, Ivan!.. It is not easy for him: the load is carried by an inhuman one, alone, abandoned by friends!.. Among the blood, the unprecedented shines, as if Hosts are rushing over a sea of ​​blood: on that blood the firmament is creating. An unprecedented thing is based on that blood: the Russian kingdom is being built...”

Andrei Kurbsky as a secret apologist for the repressions of Ivan the Terrible is undoubtedly the most original interpretation of the image of the emigrant prince that can be found in literature and art.

Since the tsar did not forgive the fugitive, Kurbsky becomes the head of the conspiracy and sends him to Moscow German spies, is preparing a foreign invasion (in 1944 the charges are absolutely damning). In accordance with the “spy” scenarios of the era, the enemy is exposed, his henchmen are arrested, the attempt to attack Russia fails, and Kurbsky himself shamefully, “like a hare,” without making out the road, runs away through the swamp from the invincible Russian army (this plan of Eisenstein did not fall into movie).

In 1947, the famous trilogy novel by V. I. Kostylev “Ivan the Terrible” was published, awarded the Stalin Prize of the second degree. The image of Kurbsky was considered in the context of revealing descriptions of the depth of the moral fall of the boyar-conspirators. V.I. Kostylev consistently showed the reasons for the prince’s betrayal. First of all, this is limited thinking, a lack of understanding of the greatness of the tasks that Ivan the Terrible puts forward. Kurbsky opposes the war in Livonia (“I will speak again and again against the campaign to the Sea of ​​Sveia... should we rush to the west? What’s in it? Heretics! Destruction!”). Kurbsky's judgments are “outdated, tedious,” in contrast to the flight of thought of the “progressive” tsar. The prince condemns the start of construction of the Russian navy: “Our Grand Duke will lose his rank and his name, destroy his homeland.”

From a lack of understanding of the height of the sovereign’s plans, the second step towards treason followed: Kurbsky does not want to serve Ivan loyally. He has his own opinion, which he considers more correct. As a matter of fact, this is not even the prince’s personal opinion. He acts as the mouthpiece of the traitor boyars, a supporter of the aristocratic oligarchy, which must limit the power of an unreasonable and cruel monarch. From such a position in life to conspiracy is one step, and Kurbsky takes it. He is already the leader at secret gatherings of boyars discussing plans for a coup d’etat: “We must rule in Rus', ours is the power!” The conspirators want to overthrow the tsar with the help of military support from foreign troops: selling the homeland to the king or the Crimean khan.

V.I. Kostylev considers Kurbsky’s entourage to be the third step towards treason. He stands up for the traitor boyars based on class solidarity, although Ivan, in conversations with the prince, repeatedly emphasizes the justice of their punishment for treason. Kurbsky verbally agrees, but secretly sympathizes with them. The prince's servants and his close nobles enter into a secret conspiracy with German and Lithuanian spies even before Kurbsky.

The fourth reason is the cowardice and softness of the prince. Having entered into a conspiracy, he quickly finds himself a toy in the wrong hands: he does not dare to contradict other boyars, he is a hostage of his noble servants, who threaten the prince with exposure if he does not take them to Lithuania. Even the Jesuit monk, who negotiated with Kurbsky about transferring to the service of Sigismund, blackmails him with similar threats.

The prince is also ruined by his craving for speculation. Queen Anastasia saw the essence of the traitor-scribe:

“The late queen did not like Kurbsky’s rantings... it seemed to her that with his learning and bookishness the prince was trying to weaken the direct affairs of the king, his concerns about the state. The queen insisted that Kurbsky was fooling him. He knows how much the sovereign loves books, and in order to hinder him, to lead him astray, he raises disputes about ancient prophecies.”

Kurbsky here appears as a downright “rotten intellectual,” the hero of revealing satirical works of the 1930s.

The image of Kurbsky is drawn by V.I. Kostylev in contrast: after the scene of Ivan’s intimate conversation with Prince Andrei and the appointment of the latter as commander-in-chief in Livonia, the Terrible walks through the night corridor to the queen’s chambers - and the moon symbolically highlights the figure of Judas on the wall in front of him on the fresco depicting the “Last Supper” " A vision of the deceased Anastasia Romanova appears before the Tsar, which makes the Tsar think: “Kurbsky? Yes. She did not love Kurbsky. Why didn't she believe him? Anastasia! What did you see, what did you smell with your dove’s heart, queen?”

In emigration, Kurbsky is portrayed as a coward and a hysteric, terribly afraid that he will be extradited to Moscow, a “tearful man” who conjures that he loves his Motherland, but at the same time goes to fight against it. For this duplicity, hypocrisy and cowardice, he is despised even by the Poles and Lithuanians. At the same time, the prince is no longer the master of his fate: he is surrounded by his servants, even greater scoundrels. And when the emigrant tries to refuse to participate in the campaign against Pskov, the servants threaten to kill him if Kurbsky does not unquestioningly obey “our masters and benefactors” the Poles. Smearing “tears over his flabby cheeks,” the humiliated traitor goes to his chambers to cry and prepare for the campaign against Rus'.

Kurbsky, the “Moscow Judas,” is depicted as the antipode of Ivan the Terrible, clearly a traitor and scoundrel, who during his lifetime was punished with numerous failures and misfortunes for his betrayal (somewhat unexpected for socialist realism, but downright Christian providentialism). At the same time, having received the tsar’s accusatory letter, Kurbsky himself realizes the high truth of the sovereign and all the baseness of his fall: “The truth, Ivan Vasilyevich... the truth... Get away! Go away! Do not torture!"

The very description of the prince’s chambers in Kovel Castle as a den of robbers should make the reader hate its owner:

“The light of the fire falls on the gloomy walls under low stone arches, decorated with various weapons... With these halberds, sabers and six-feathers, he, the prince, and his entourage beat the Moscow soldiers near Velikiye Luki. This weapon is held in special esteem – that’s why it is hung on the carpets. Elsewhere, sabers, spears and other weapons, simply hung on a stone wall, are in great disarray. There are also many weapons stacked in the corners. All these are trophies collected from dead Muscovite soldiers. Prince Kurbsky’s people took these weapons with them when he took them to the Tatba.”

There is a special “revenge room” in Kurbsky’s chambers:

“Here he once indulged in rosy dreams of a march on Moscow, the dethronement of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the elevation of Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky to the throne, and his return to the appanage Yaroslavl principality. Now it’s funny to think about it!”

The prince's hopes for the success of Stefan Batory's attack on Pskov were not justified. Peace has been concluded between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Kurbsky was no longer needed by anyone: “Forgotten by everyone, revered by no one... like a hunted animal, he sat in his stone bag, afraid to appear in the wild, feeling like a wretched, helpless prisoner.” At the same time, he orders to beat with batogs a Russian prisoner, who not only did not renounce his homeland under torture (despite the fact that Ivan the Terrible was guilty of the death of this man’s family), but also began to curse and denounce Kurbsky to his face as a traitor.

A similar interpretation of the image of Kurbsky as a symbol of betrayal was contained on the pages of Soviet textbooks of the Stalin era. For example:

“Commander-in-Chief of the Russian troops, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, former member Elected by the Rada, in 1562 it was defeated near Revel. Ivan IV began to suspect the commander-in-chief of treason... In January 1564, the Lithuanian hetman Radziwill inflicted a severe defeat on the Russian troops. Andrei Kurbsky, who commanded the army in Dorpat, together with twelve boyars went over to the side of the enemy. This traitor received a large detachment of troops and waged war against his homeland. He plundered the city of Velikiye Luki and demanded even more active action against Moscow. From the correspondence of Ivan IV with Kurbsky it is clear that it was not by chance that he ended up on the side of the enemies of his homeland. He was a determined opponent of the policies of Ivan IV, who hated the boyars. In a letter to Kurbsky, Ivan IV stated that he would deal mercilessly with all traitors, boyars and nobles, that his goal was to finally break all these small kings, strengthen a single government, and at the same time make the Russian state powerful and strong.”

Every line here is an error: Revel is confused with Nevel, 12 nobles who accompanied Kurbsky to Lithuania are called boyars, the prince is credited with the robbery of Velikiye Luki, etc. But on these inaccuracies, the whole image of a traitor to the Motherland, an enemy of the people, was built, which, in fact, that was what was required.

Interpretation of the image of Kurbsky as a traitorous commander, and army commander(sic!), of course, was closely connected both with the “case of conspiracy in the Red Army” and with propaganda, and at the level children's education, hatred of traitors, the need to fight them by any means. For this purpose, the role of the prince was exaggerated, the facts of his biography were distorted and distorted.