John IV Vasilyevich the Terrible. N.a. cheerfully slandered by history: John IV (the terrible) Tsar John 4 biography

Ivan IV Vasilievich the Terrible
upon accession to the throne - John IV)
Years of life: 08/25/1530-03/18/1584.
Reign: 1547-1574, 1576-1584

Grand Duke of Moscow and All Rus' (1533-1547)
The first Tsar of All Rus' (1547-1574 and from 1576)
Prince of Moscow (1574-1576).
Orthodox thinker.

The first Russian Tsar

From the Rurik dynasty, son Vasily III And Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya.
Grandson Sophia Paleolog.

Ivan IV, later nicknamed Ivan the Terrible, was born in 1530, when his father, Vasily III, was already over fifty. He was a very welcome child, and the whole country was awaiting his birth. Before his appearance, the holy fool Domitian announced to Elena Glinskaya that she would be the mother of Titus, a broad-minded man. They wrote that at the moment of Ivan’s birth, the earth and sky were subjected to unheard-of thunderclaps, which was perceived as a good sign.

After the death of Vasily III in 1534, power passed to Elena Glinskaya. But in 1538 she too died, poisoned by the boyars. Childhood remained in the memory of little Ivan as a time of insults and humiliation. The Shuisky princes, who seized power after the death of Grand Duchess Elena, were especially hated by Ivan the Terrible.
In 1543, the 13-year-old tsar showed his character for the first time by rebelling against the boyars and handing over Prince Andrei Shuisky to be torn to pieces by the hounds. Power passed to the Glinskys - Mikhail and Yuri, uncles of Ivan the Terrible, who eliminated their rivals with exile and execution, playing on the cruel instincts of young Ivan. Not knowing the warmth of family, suffering from violence in the environment, from the age of 5 Ivan acted as a powerful monarch in all ceremonies and court holidays. He spent a lot of time in the library, reading the works of the greats, and he gained a reputation as the most well-read person of the 16th century and the richest memory.

The main idea of the tsar, realized already in his early youth, was the idea of unlimited autocratic power. On January 16, 1547, the solemn wedding of the great Prince Ivan IV to the kingdom. The royal title allowed him to take a different position in diplomatic relations with Western Europe. The Russian autocrat John stood on a par with the only Holy Roman Emperor in Europe.

From the late 1540s, Ivan the Terrible ruled with the participation of the Chosen Rada (A.F. Adashev, A.M. Kurbsky, Metropolitan Macarius, Priest Sylvester). Under him, convenings of Zemsky Sobors began, the Code of Law of 1550 was drawn up, which confirmed the right of free movement of peasants. Reforms of the court and administration were carried out, including the introduction of elements of self-government at the local level (Gubnaya, Zemskaya and other reforms). In 1549, the 1st Zemsky Sobor was convened, in 1551 the Stoglavy Sobor, which adopted a collection of decisions on church life “Stoglav”. In 1555-1556, Ivan IV Vasilyevich abolished feeding and adopted the Code of Service. The Code of Law and the royal charters provided peasant communities with the distribution of taxes and supervision of order, as well as the right of self-government.

In 1565, after the betrayal of Prince Kurbsky, the oprichnina was introduced. Under Ivan IV, trade ties were established with England (1553), and the first printing house was created in Moscow. The Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556) khanates were conquered. In 1558-1583. the Livonian War was going on for access to the Baltic Sea and stubborn struggle against the Crimean Tatars (Russian-Crimean War of 1571-1572), the annexation of Siberia began (1581).

For a while reign of Ivan IV there were many wars.

Kazan campaigns.
After Khan Safa-Gerai, who was hostile to Muscovite Rus', reigned in the Kazan Khanate, Ivan IV Vasilievich decided to eliminate the threat and made 3 trips to Kazan:
the campaign of 1547-1548 was unsuccessful, it was interrupted, since all the siege artillery and part of the army went under the ice on the Volga;
campaign of 1549-1550 - Kazan was not taken, but when the Russian army retreated near Kazan, the Sviyazhsk fortress was erected, which served as a stronghold for the Russian army during the next campaign in 1552;
campaign of 1552 (June - October) - capture of Kazan by storm.

Astrakhan campaigns.
Astrakhan Khanate in the beginning. 1550s was an ally of the Crimean Khan.
To subjugate the Astrakhan Khanate, several campaigns were carried out in 1554 and 1556. Later, the Crimean Khan Devlet I Giray made attempts to recapture Astrakhan.
In the 1550s, the Siberian Khan Ediger and Bolshie Nogai also became dependent on Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

Wars with the Crimean Khanate.
During his reign Ivan IV The raids of the troops of the Crimean Khanate continued.
In 1541, 1555, 1558, 1559 Crimean Khan Sahib I Giray was defeated by Russian troops. After Ivan the Terrible captured the Astrakhan and Kazan khanates, Devlet I Giray vowed to return them. In 1563 and 1569 Together with Turkish troops, he was again defeated in the attack on Astrakhan.
However, he soon made 3 more trips to the Moscow lands:
1570 - devastating raid on Ryazan;
1571 - march on Moscow, its burning;
1572 - the last campaign of the Crimean Khan during his reign Ivan IV the Terrible, ended with the defeat of the Crimean-Turkish troops in the Battle of Molodi.

War with Sweden 1554-1557.
It was caused by a dispute over border territories. After mutual sieges, in March 1557 a truce was signed in Novgorod for a period of 40 years, according to which the Russian-Swedish border was restored along the old line, Sweden returned all Russian prisoners with captured property, and Rus' returned Swedish prisoners for ransom.
In 1553, trade relations with England were established on the White Sea.

In January 1558, Ivan IV the Terrible began the Livonian War for the capture of the Baltic Sea coast. Russian troops took Narva, Dorpat, Neuschloss, Neuhaus, and by the spring of 1559 the army of the Livonian Order was completely defeated and the Order virtually ceased to exist.

In 1563, troops captured Polotsk, which at that time was a large Lithuanian fortress. But already in 1564, the tsar was betrayed by the commander of the western army, Prince Kurbsky, who accepted Lithuanian citizenship. Russian troops suffer serious defeats from the Poles on the river. Ula, near Polotsk and Orsha.

The betrayal of Prince Kurbsky and the reluctance of the boyars to participate in the struggle against Lithuania and Poland lead the tsar to the idea of establishing a personal dictatorship and defeating the boyars. In 1565, he announced the introduction of oprichnina in Rus'. The country was divided into 2 parts: the territories that were not included in the oprichnina began to be called “zemshchina”. The northeastern Russian lands, where there were few patrimonial boyars, fell into the oprichnina. The guardsmen swore an oath of allegiance to the tsar and pledged not to communicate with the zemstvo, and dressed in black clothes.

With the help of the guardsmen, who were freed from judicial responsibility, Ivan IV forcibly confiscated the boyar estates, and at the same time transferred them to the guardsman nobles. A major event of the oprichnina was the Novgorod pogrom in January-February 1570, the reason for which was the tsar’s suspicion that Novgorod wanted to go to Lithuania. personally led the campaign and repression fell upon the Novgorod merchant nobility.

In 1572, the tsar abolished the oprichnina due to military failure during the invasion of Moscow in 1571 by the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey. As a result of this raid, agreed with the Polish king, tens of thousands of people died, more than 150 thousand were captured; The southern Russian lands were devastated, all of Moscow was burned.

Results of the reign of Ivan the Terrible

End of the reign Ivan IV the Terrible turned out extremely unsuccessfully. The southern regions of the country were devastated by the Crimean Tatar invasions. In 1579, the troops of the Polish king Stefan Batory captured Polotsk, and after that other Russian cities. Drought and a trade blockade by Sweden and Poland led Rus' to widespread famine and epidemics. The end of the 1560s and the beginning of the 1570s were marked by terrible natural disasters: the loss of crops and the plague. The Livonian War ended in collapse and the loss of the original Russian lands. Since 1578, Tsar Ivan the Terrible stopped executing people, and in his will of 1579 he repented of his deeds.

After examining the remains Ivan the Terrible there is a version that he was poisoned with mercury and it is obvious that due to mercury intoxication, the king did not control his mental state and suffered from severe pain. Periods of repentance were followed by terrible attacks of rage. During one of these attacks on November 9, 1581 Tsar Ivan the Terrible accidentally killed his son Ivan Ivanovich, hitting him in the temple with a staff with an iron tip. The death of the heir plunged Ivan the Terrible into despair; he sent a large contribution to the monastery to commemorate his son’s soul.

Wives of Ivan the Terrible:

Anastasia Romanovna
Maria Temryukovna
Marfa Sobakina
Anna Koltovskaya
Anna Vasilchikova
Vasilisa Melentyeva
Maria Nagaya

The exact number of wives of Ivan the Terrible is unknown. A possible explanation for the large number of his marriages, which was not typical for that time, is that despite his love of love, the king was at the same time a great pedant in observing religious rituals and sought to possess women only as a legal husband. Myself Ivan the Terrible in his spiritual literacy he recognized both “fornication” and “supernatural fornication.”

Children of Ivan the Terrible:

Dmitry Ivanovich (1552-1553) - his father’s heir was accidentally dropped into the river in infancy.
Ivan Ivanovich (1554-1581) - according to one version, he died during a quarrel with his father, according to the 2nd version, he died as a result of illness.
Fedor I Ioannovich;
Tsarevich Dmitry.

Maria

He went down in history not only as a tyrant. He was one of the most educated people of his time, possessed theological erudition and a phenomenal memory. He is the author of numerous messages, music and text for the service of the feast of Our Lady of Vladimir, the canon to the Archangel Michael. The Tsar actively contributed to the organization of book printing and the construction of St. Basil's Cathedral on Red Square. He loved to read, was the owner of the largest library in Europe, and was a good speaker.

In the last years of his life, the king experienced increased pain in his spine (strong soy deposits), and he stopped walking.

On March 18, 1584 the king died. Before his death, according to chronicle sources, Ivan the Terrible bequeathed youngest son Dmitry Uglich with all counties.

The dispute about the results of the reign of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible has been going on for 5 centuries. Some contemporaries considered him a rude but righteous judge, a godly man, and a shrewd ruler.

Many Russian historiographers describe Ivan the Terrible as a great and wise king in the 1st half of his reign and a merciless tyrant in the 2nd. Foreign figures noted his creation of good Russian artillery, strengthening of the autocracy and eradication of heresies.

At the end of the twentieth century, the issue of canonization of Grozny was discussed, but this idea was met with categorical condemnation by the church hierarchy and the patriarch.

The image of Ivan the Terrible is depicted in art: in painting (Ilya Repin, “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan November 16, 1581”), in cinema (“Ivan the Terrible” (1944), “Ivan Vasilyevich changes his profession” (1973), “Tsar Ivan the Terrible" (1991), "Ermak" (1996), "Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Philip" (2008).

On October 4, 2016, the first monument to Ivan the Terrible in Russia was inaugurated in the city of Orel.

Relics again arrived in Moscow, in transit through half of Russia, from Greece, this time it was the right hand of Spyridon of Trimythous, one of the saints of early Christianity. It hardly makes sense to talk about his life or about the very tradition of venerating the remains of saints - this information is not difficult to find. It is more interesting to understand something else - why do the relics “tour”, and regularly in recent years? One can recall the arrival of the rib of St. Nicholas or the belt of the Virgin Mary... It would seem that one can turn to the saints with prayer anywhere, and particles of relics, including very famous saints, are kept in many churches throughout the country.

Once upon a time, the places where martyrs and other famous Christians were buried became a kind of “assembly points” of the church in a hostile pagan environment - and today a large family often gathers at the next funeral or wake to feel their kinship. But time passed, communities and churches became more and more numerous, and the relics began to be crushed and transferred to each other, so that none of the Christians would be deprived of the opportunity to touch these revered bodies (by the way, not necessarily incorruptible). Historically, Christianity is still a religion not only of the spirit, but also of the flesh; it is no coincidence that its main book speaks specifically about the incarnation of God.

There are several heads of John the Baptist and at least two of John Chrysostom in the world: one is kept on Mount Athos, and the other in Moscow

Well, and then... if there is demand, then there will be supply. The number of venerated relics sometimes goes beyond all reasonable limits and it is clear that all of them cannot be genuine. Thus, in the world there are several heads of John the Baptist and at least two of John Chrysostom: one is kept on Mount Athos, and the other in Moscow. The story of how this happened is connected with other “tours”: in the middle of the 17th century. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in exchange for generous donations, asked the Athonite monks to bring this head to Moscow... and then refused to return it. After some time, the Greeks declared that they still kept the original head of John, and they sent the head of another saint to Moscow. It is hardly possible to find out who is right; it is usually not customary to subject relics to DNA analysis, and most importantly, such an analysis can only tell us whether certain remains belonged to the same person, what race and gender he was. But what his name was and whether he was canonized, DNA will not tell anything about this.

So why do they still carry relics since pre-Petrine times, and only in one direction, from Greece to Russia? After all, Sergius of Radonezh or Seraphim of Sarov are also revered saints for all Orthodox, but in Athens or Bucharest and Tbilisi they are not at all expected to arrive.

Let me give you another parallel. There are many monasteries in Russia, including those with a glorious history, but among the “Orthodox elite” it is customary to mention their pilgrimage to Athos. Not to Solovki, and certainly not to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra near Moscow, but to the Greek peninsula, to the famous “monastic republic,” which they perceive as a kind of standard of Orthodoxy, its pure source and example. After all, champagne, after all, is served to them from Champagne, and not from a Moscow factory. And for this sense of authenticity, they attend tedious, hours-long services in an incomprehensible language.

Some people can see the relics of Spyridon of Trimifuntsky without waiting in line. On the license plates there is the inscription “Russian Boxing Federation” Photo: O. Pshenichny.

And high fashion, as usual, is reflected in the mass segment. Russian Orthodoxy is more than a thousand years old, but Greek Orthodoxy is already almost two thousand years old, our roots are from Byzantium. Before the 1917 revolution, the church itself was officially called “Greek-Russian Orthodox”, i.e. Church of the “Greek faith on Russian territory.” And only Comrade Stalin insisted that it should be called “Russian”.

In the current disputes between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Constantinople Patriarchate over the church future of Ukraine, the same fork in the road is visible. What is Russian Orthodoxy? Is it part of the “Byzantine commonwealth of nations,” to use Dmitry Obolensky’s term, or is it the church of the Russian state and all its former and current territories? There seems to be no consensus among the church leadership, much less among ordinary people.

It just seems to me that the demand for relics is part of the demand for genuine, real, genuine Christianity. It just so happens in our history that of those Russian Orthodox Christians who are now over forty years old, only a few fractions of a percent were born and raised in Christian families. All the rest are former Komsomol pioneers who at some point converted to Orthodoxy, but often retained Komsomol enthusiasm and style of thinking. And it’s not even a matter of who grew up in which family - the current “church revival,” as the last thirty years have been officially called, was essentially a book project. Post-Soviet people reconstructed either the nineteenth, or the sixteenth, or some other century - or rather, their ideas about it.

It is enough to be in the Balkans, not even necessarily on Mount Athos, to see: Orthodox Christianity has lived here for the last two thousand years, the tradition has never been interrupted, churches have not been blown up or turned into vegetable storehouses. Children learned prayers from their parents and grandfathers, went with them to the same church under the Turks, and under independence, and under the communists (in Yugoslavia), and they still do now. And even those who have never been to the Balkans involuntarily feel this continuity. Touching the relics is also touching a centuries-old continuous tradition, and what is the very idea of Orthodoxy if not fidelity to such a tradition?

The news of our church life lately too often looks like a parade of fakes

And most importantly, the news of our church life in lately too often they look like a parade of fakes. Hierarchs who preach self-restraint without leaving the luxury sector of consumption, or priests who are more concerned about the corrupted West than their own parish, and laypeople who confidently consider themselves Orthodox, but know practically nothing about Orthodoxy. This mass character, this substitution of slogans and ideology for life really resembles the ostentatious loyalty to communist ideals in the Brezhnev era: everyone repeats the right words, but few live up to them in practice. But this right hand of St. Spyridon or the rib of St. Nicholas, or the belt of the Virgin Mary - they are real. Well, or so it is at least generally accepted.

Veneration of other people's relics, in my opinion, is the other side of one's own infirmities. There is not enough authenticity in our present - but we can fall back on the venerable past.

I believe I have met some real modern day saints in my life. If we talk specifically about clergy, I will name Fathers Viktor Mamontov, Pavel Adelgeim, Mikhail Shpolyansky. Very different and very lively people, not flawless, but real - they shone from within, but few people knew about them, and even now few people know. They did not make a career in the patriarchy, did not frequent the media, and were generally inconspicuous. They have not been canonized (yet?), their buried bodies are not an object of veneration.

But there is no prophet in his own country. Not yet. Haven't seen it yet.

Andrey Desnitsky - Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, employee of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Photo: Moscow City News Agency.

Based on " Interesting facts about Ivan the Terrible"

Recently, I came across several articles or posts on completely different resources about the so-called “dark” rulers of our state - Ivan the Terrible and I.V. Stalin. The thoughts in them were expressed by completely different authors, not unambiguous, but largely coinciding...
Moreover, the authors are the public from online entertainment resources (as today on our beloved Chips), and representatives of the Orthodox Internet, and atheists, and monarchists...

Let me present just a little of what I have accumulated on the figure of the Tsar.
I have been interested in Ivan IV the Terrible for quite a long time; I read the first book about him in 1988, so in addition to the materials I have read/studied, I also have quite significant personal ideas about the sovereign.

I’ll say right away that I am constantly convinced that the thoughts of 90% of the authors of the posts I read are very far from historical documentary. These authors should add lines to the titles of their opuses... well, something like “the author’s view” or “my interpretation”, etc.
For example, many blame John for the alleged beating of Metropolitan Philip by the guardsmen led by the Tsar and his expulsion. In fact, this speculation has no documentary evidence, nor does the fact that Tsar John IV had anything to do with the death of Metropolitan Philip. That is, this is completely fiction!
For example, the “Solovetsky Life” states that “no one witnessed what happened.” (Fedotov G.P. Saint Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow.-M., 1991, pp. 80-81; Venerable Abbot Philip. - In the book: Solovetsky Patericon. - M.: Synodal Library, 1991. - P. 64; Life of St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow. - In the book: Bekhmeteva A. N. Lives of the Saints. - M., 1897. - P. 61. Fedotov G. P. Op., p. 82-83.
And yet, I didn’t want to “go into detail”, I wanted to reflect briefly, so to speak, in “large strokes”, but I can’t resist.
To condemn and depose Saint Philip, Pimen of Novgorod (in the same “life” it is said that he was the first hierarch of the Russian Church after the Metropolitan, dreamed of “delighting his throne”), Paphnutius of Suzdal, Philotheus of Ryazan and the confessor of Grozny (who was the main “whisperer” against St. Philip before the Tsar: “continuously speaking publicly and secretly against St. Philip in speeches unlike the Tsar”) they began to slander the Metropolitan to the Tsar. However, having achieved nothing, they sent an “embassy” to the Solovetsky Monastery, where they managed to bribe several monks of the monastery (some with the promise of the Holy Order, some with money) and they gave false testimony at the Council.
It is significant that even Church historians, with a clearly expressed negative attitude towards Tsar John, sadly stated on this occasion: “The holy confessor had to drink the whole cup of bitterness: to be condemned not by the arbitrariness of a tyrant, but by the council of the Russian Church and slandered by his spiritual children.” (Fedotov G.P. Saint Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow. - M.: 1991. - p. 78.)

Next. Well, how can we not touch on the strong point of the accusers of the “possessed” ruler - mass executions, so beloved by everyone.
As they say, study the materiel before declaring. According to historical sources, during the entire (!!!) period of the reign of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, no more than 4-5 thousand people were executed. Which cannot be compared with the reign of, for example, the contemporary of Tsar John IV, the French king Charles IX, by order of whom Catholics killed 30,000 Protestants in France during one St. Bartholomew's Night. In the same 16th century in England, 70,000 people were hanged for vagrancy alone. These figures prove that the special “bloodthirstiness” of the Terrible Tsar is the speculation of falsifiers.

The main question, which has always haunted me - why in new films and TV series, posts and notes, Tsar John IV Vasilyevich is presented as mentally ill, incapable of state affairs, as a sadistic maniac?

Why do ALL authors of publications put famous words of Holy Scripture into the mouth of the sovereign as a quotation, but sound like a very free transcription? I mean the phrase: “For it is written: all authority is from God” (in the Apostle: “There is no authority except from God” (in Church Slavonic), or “There is no authority except from God” (in civil, or in the so-called Synodal translation). Believe me, the Tsar knew very well HOW it was written.
Not many people seem to know that the oprichnina “brotherhood” wore monastic scufei and black cassocks. Life in the settlement, as in a monastery, was regulated by a communal charter written PERSONALLY by the tsar. John himself rang for matins, sang in the choir in church (!), and after mass, during a fraternal meal, according to the ancient monastic tradition, he read for edification the lives of the saints and patristic teachings on fasting, prayer and abstinence.

I always want to ask why none of these “writers” AT ALL just ever mention the fact that it was under this Tsar that the territory of the state doubled - from 2.8 million square meters. km to 5.4 million sq. km, the kingdoms of Kazan, Astrakhan, Nogai Horde, Northern Caucasus, Western Siberia, the population increased by more than 30%, the election of local administration was introduced, a network was created primary schools, book printing was organized, a postal service and a regular army were created, more than 40 stone churches of unprecedented beauty at that time were erected; over 60 monasteries were founded; 39 Russian Saints were glorified (previously 22 were honoured), among them the Holy Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky was glorified in 1547; 155 fortresses and 300 new cities were built;

The Degree Book was published; Front Chronicle Code; Lawyer; Stoglav; Chetii-Minei; Domostroy; Church Councils were convened in 1547, 1549, 1551, 1553, 1562. The foundations of the Church and Sovereign construction of Holy Rus', as the Third Rome and the Second Jerusalem, were laid on them.
Yes, his personality is very ambiguous, and here one can talk for a long time about his personal moral character, about some spontaneous actions, but one thing should be clear to everyone - Ivan the Terrible was a great statesman and a true patriot.

I will remain silent in this material about the military campaigns of the Tsar, there is a lot about this historical chronicles, which for some reason no one uses when making statements about, for example, the “killed” Novgorod and so on. If there are specific questions about specific temporary events, I am ready to tell))

Yes, I almost forgot... So, for reference, I’m sure that none of those who read knew that John IV was revered as a locally revered Saint of the Moscow diocese since the time of Patriarch Philaret, when his fresco icon was painted in the Faceted Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin. Anyone interested in this topic can easily find and read the work “Tsar Ivan the Terrible in the Iconography of the 16th-17th Centuries.” And as for the relatively recent past - at the upcoming Council of 1917-1918. under the patronage of Tsar Nicholas II and at the personal request of Queen Alexandra, an all-Russian glorification of the Holy Blessed Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Emperor Paul the First was being prepared...
Here…
No, that’s not all, here’s another fact for you, dear reader: Saint Demetrius of Rostov (+1709), who carefully studied all the available facts and documents on the issue of the relationship between the Tsar and Metropolitan Philip, compiled the life of the Saint. Philippa. So, in this last canonically impeccable text of the life, nowhere does it mention that the Tsar was in any way involved in the death of the Metropolitan. The whole point is that at the beginning of the 20th century, the professors who, so to speak, “translated” the work of the Saint (it was written in the Church Slavonic language) into Russian committed an obvious forgery: they, under the pretext of “correcting the mistakes” of the Saint, instead of the life of Demetrius of Rostov ( where it is said in black and white about the Tsar’s innocence), they inserted a “Solovetsky life” supplemented by Karamzin. Alas, this particular text of the Four Menaions, which was “corrected” at the beginning of the 20th century, which is dedicated to St. Has nothing to do with Dimitri Rostovsky at all...

The pseudonym under which the politician Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov writes. ... In 1907 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the 2nd State Duma in St. Petersburg.

Alyabyev, Alexander Alexandrovich, Russian amateur composer. ... A.'s romances reflected the spirit of the times. Like Russian literature of that time, they are sentimental and sometimes sugary. Most of them are written in minor key. They are almost no different from Glinka’s first romances, but the latter has stepped far forward, while A. remained in place and is now outdated.

The filthy Idolishche (Odolishche) is an epic hero...

Pedrillo (Pietro-Mira Pedrillo) is a famous jester, a Neapolitan, who at the beginning of the reign of Anna Ioannovna arrived in St. Petersburg to sing the roles of buffa and play the violin in the Italian court opera.

Dahl, Vladimir Ivanovich
His numerous stories suffer from a lack of real artistic creativity, deep feeling and a broad view of the people and life. Dahl did not go further than everyday pictures, anecdotes caught on the fly, told in a unique language, smartly, vividly, with a certain humor, sometimes falling into mannerism and jokeiness.

Varlamov, Alexander Egorovich
Varlamov, apparently, did not work at all on the theory of musical composition and was left with the meager knowledge that he could have learned from the chapel, which in those days did not at all care about the general musical development of its students.

Nekrasov Nikolay Alekseevich
None of our great poets has so many poems that are downright bad from all points of view; He himself bequeathed many poems not to be included in the collected works. Nekrasov is not consistent even in his masterpieces: and suddenly prosaic, listless verse hurts the ear.

Gorky, Maxim
By his origin, Gorky by no means belongs to those dregs of society, of which he appeared as a singer in literature.

Zhikharev Stepan Petrovich
His tragedy “Artaban” did not see either print or stage, since, in the opinion of Prince Shakhovsky and the frank review of the author himself, it was a mixture of nonsense and nonsense.

Sherwood-Verny Ivan Vasilievich
“Sherwood,” writes one contemporary, “in society, even in St. Petersburg, was not called anything other than bad Sherwood... his comrades in military service shunned him and called him by the dog name “fidelka.”

Obolyaninov Petr Khrisanfovich
...Field Marshal Kamensky publicly called him “a state thief, a bribe-taker, a complete fool.”

Popular biographies

Peter I Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich Catherine II Romanovs Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich Lomonosov Mikhail Vasilievich Alexander III Suvorov Alexander Vasilievich

Disputes surrounding the personality of Ivan Vasilyevich IV the Terrible have been going on for more than four centuries and have not subsided to this day. For some, he is a bloody tyrant, possessed by a mania of persecution, a murderer of thousands of his subjects, for others, he is a righteous king who punished traitors, held Rus' on himself, and is fully worthy of canonization. When faced with such polar points of view, there is a temptation to find something in between, but this is a trap: there is no arithmetic mean in such cases.

Without anger and passion

There are several historiographical traditions. The first is noble, liberal, represented by the names of N.M. Karamzina, N.I. Kostomarova and others - clearly portrays Ivan the Terrible as a paranoid tyrant who ruined all the brilliant results of his first half in the second half of his reign. The second, which arose in the Stalin era and is represented by the names of S.V. Bakhrushina, I.I. Smirnova, R.Yu. Vipper, partly I.Ya. Froyanova, sees in Ivan the Terrible a strong sovereign who expanded the borders of Russia, conquered Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberian Khanate, who granted Russia zemstvo self-government, etc. and uprooting boyar treason.

However, such prominent scientists as D.N. Alshits, V.V. Shaposhnik, B.N. Florya, are not in a hurry to make a verdict regarding the activities of Ivan the Terrible, but strive for an objective, multidimensional and comprehensive examination of his activities.

In order to reveal the true appearance of the formidable king “without anger and partiality,” in our opinion, one must proceed from the following principles:

1. following sources and selecting the most impartial; Let us emphasize: it is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to find absolutely impartial sources for such a time;

2. the moral assessment of the hero should be based on the moral criteria of his environment and era, and, if possible, his own moral self-esteem should be reconstructed;

3. from a historiosophical perspective, to evaluate a hero, we are obliged to take into account real facts, the real consequences of his activities, and not the group and, especially, “party” views of certain historians.

As for the source base, researchers are experiencing serious problems with it. The most famous source, “The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow,” which had the greatest influence on historians and publicists, including emotional, cannot be considered impartial and truthful, since it belongs to the pen of the traitor prince and outcast Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, Yuryevsky voivode, who fled to 1564 to the Lithuanians. After fleeing, Kurbsky fought against his compatriots and fellow believers, and not only with the sword, but also with the pen. He could not have been an eyewitness to the events in Russia after 1564; he wrote from reports and rumors. Kurbsky's hyperbolism and dishonesty are often obvious: tens of thousands of victims who died in Novgorod at the hands of the guardsmen are the fruit of his invention. The testimony of the guardsmen Taube, Kruse and Staden, who served with Ivan the Terrible and then joined the camp of his enemies, is also quite biased and biased. The veracity and accuracy of Jerome Horsey's testimony is evidenced by the fact that he estimates the number of deaths during the Novgorod affair... at 700,000 people, while in Novgorod in the 60s of the 16th century only 30,000 lived.

The situation is no better with Russian sources. Official chronicle writing ceased in 1568. Unofficial chronicles like the “Pskov Chronicler” also do not provide a complete and objective picture. The worst thing is with the documentary base: the royal archive of Grozny was lost partly as a result of the events of the Time of Troubles, partly as a result of the fire of 1626. One of the main documentary sources is the Synodik of the Disgraced, probably compiled according to the reports of the guardsmen, and is a reconstruction made on the basis of various manuscripts of the 7th century.

“Then we suffered hardships”

However, in general outline It is still possible to create a picture of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. What is she like?

Firstly, let's not forget that Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible was an orphan. His father Vasily III Ivanovich, died when Ivan was three years old. Let us note that this death itself was very strange, to say the least: a trifling abscess, despite the treatment of the best doctor, turns into extensive sepsis, while the doctor does not seriously fight for the patient’s life, but solemnly announces that the disease is fatal. So prominent Russian historian, as I.Ya. Froyanov believes that the death of Vasily ΙΙΙ could be associated either with poisoning or with maliciously improper treatment. The mother of Ivan the Terrible, Elena Glinskaya, according to the general opinion, was given poison to the boyars.

Young Ivan experienced the bitterness of orphanhood with all his might. Before his eyes, the Shuisky boyars usurped power and plundered the treasury. “And what have they not done! How many of our boyars, and our father’s well-wishers, and governors were killed! They took the courtyards, villages, and property of our uncles and settled in them. And our mother’s treasures were transferred to the Great Treasury, furiously kicking and poking with sticks, and the rest was divided,” Grozny later wrote to Kurbsky. Behind the outward respect for the royal rank, the contempt and arrogant arrogance of the temporary boyars were obvious: “My only begotten brother, George, who reposed in God, began to be raised as foreigners or the last poor. Then we suffered deprivations both in clothing and in food. We had no choice in anything, but we did everything not of our own free will and not as children usually do. I remember one thing: it used to be that we were playing children’s games, and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky was sitting on a bench, leaning his elbow on our father’s bed and putting his foot on a chair, but he wouldn’t look at us - neither as a parent, nor as a guardian, and certainly not as a slave for masters."

Grozny’s memories included the murders of his faithful servants Belsky, the plunder of his parents’ treasury, the rebellion of the appanage prince Andrei Staritsky in 1537, and the bloody Moscow uprising of 1547, impossible without the incitement of the boyars, when the tsar’s closest relative, his uncle Yuri Glinsky, died.

And at the same time, Ivan the Terrible was instilled with lofty concepts about his royal power, that, according to the words of Deacon Agapit, the king was, of course, human by nature, but in power he was similar to Christ, the Son of God. The height of his calling was also emphasized by his royal crowning, which took place in 1547. However, the formal autocracy of the tsar was limited at every step - by traditions, by the intervention of the Church, and by numerous advisers such as the priest Sylvester and Alexei Adashev. The Terrible himself sadly summarizes these restrictions in the First Epistle to Kurbsky: “... and so, instead of spiritual matters, they began to discuss worldly affairs, little by little they began to subordinate you, boyars, to their will, taking you out from under our power, they taught you to contradict us and in honor you were almost equal to us... Then you surrounded yourself with friends and exercised all power according to your own will, without asking us about anything, as if we did not exist - all decisions and regulations were made according to your own will and the desires of your advisers. If we even offered something good, it was displeasing to them, and even their worthless, even bad and nasty advice was considered good.”

Behind the façade of success

Perhaps there was a strong exaggeration in Grozny’s words, however, in fact, the so-called “Elected Rada” - Adashev, Sylvester, Kurlyatev and others - really ruled the country.

Historians consider the 50s of the 16th century - the time of the “Elected Rada” - the most brilliant period of Ivan the Terrible’s reign. Indeed, at this time the Kazan Khanate and the Astrakhan Khanate annexed; The Stoglavy Cathedral is passing; zemstvo self-government is introduced; a new edition of the Law Code is adopted; successfully - with the capture of Narva - the Livonian War begins.

Nevertheless, it would be an undue exaggeration to consider these victories as an exceptional achievement of the circle of Sylvester and Adashev. In a whole series of events we see the hand of the young king. It was his determination and energy that held the Russian army near Kazan in 1552, when many commanders were inclined to lift the siege and return home. Grozny had the final say in the adoption of the plan for the assault on Kazan in October 1552, and he also actively participated in determining the places where Russian guns were installed, which played a decisive role in the capture of the city. Such an act as the Hundred-Glavy Council, which determined the life of the Russian Church for a whole century, was unthinkable without the active participation of the tsar, who convened the Council, raised questions before the fathers of the Council, and skillfully but unobtrusively led its course. The influence of Emperor Ivan Vasilyevich was felt in new edition Sudebnik, and in the zemstvo reform, which formalized and developed both urban and rural self-government. Finally, the war with Livonia is solely the initiative of the king, which caused friction even with his immediate circle. As the latest research shows (A.I. Filyushkin and others), the war for Livonia is connected not so much with the desire to “open a window to Europe” - for this it would be enough to establish a port at the mouth of the Neva, which Peter later did - but with the need to increase the land fund for the serving nobility, as well as once and for all to put an end to the danger to the northwestern borders of Rus'.

However, Grozny saw that behind all these successes were hidden uncorrected lawlessness, injustice, discord, disobedience to the tsar, and at times, treason and direct sabotage of the boyars. The Metropolitan and his entourage interceded for obvious traitors who fled to Lithuania. The year 1552 was especially painful for Ivan the Terrible, when he fell ill and his closest associates refused to kiss the cross in loyalty to the rightful heir, the young Tsarevich Dmitry, but were ready to support the Tsar’s cousin, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, the son of the rebel Andrei Staritsky. The next year, under very strange circumstances, Dmitry died: during a pilgrimage voyage, for some reason a gangplank broke under his mother and for some reason the prince drowned. In 1560, in the prime of life, Tsarina Anastasia, the person closest to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, unexpectedly died. For her death, Ivan the Terrible directly blames the boyars, who persecuted her during her life with fierce hatred and in the end, according to him, poisoned her.

The first half of the 1560s was marked by a number of departures to Lithuania and escapes: the betrayal of Andrei Kurbsky, the Yuryevsky governor, who not only revealed to the Lithuanians all the secrets and plans of the Russian military leadership, but also personally led a detachment against his own compatriots and coreligionists, was especially painful. Ivan the Terrible rightly compares Kurbsky with Judas the traitor and with Herod: “Imagine how, during a military invasion, horse hooves trample and crush the tender bodies of babies! When winter comes, even more atrocities are committed. And isn’t your evil dog’s intent to change similar to the evil fury of Herod, who appeared as a murderer of infants?” . In this situation, as Grozny believed, it was necessary to act decisively. But how?

In search of a model of government

The forced leisure of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich in his adolescence and youth contributed to his deep acquaintance with a wide range of books and, above all, with the Holy Scriptures. The tsar's sharp and observant mind told him that all previous political models were not suitable for today's Rus': the Byzantine, or, better said, the Eastern Roman Empire, and other Orthodox states fell due to the fact that its kings and rulers, in the opinion of Ivan the Terrible, depended too much on the nobles and the Church, the state went bankrupt, private individuals grew rich, military strength weakened, and the matter ended with the Turkish invasion and destruction. “Look at all this and think about what kind of governance happens with multiple commands and multiple powers, for there the kings were obedient to the dioceses and nobles, and how these countries perished. Is this what you would advise us to do in order to come to the same destruction? And is it piety not to rule the kingdom, and not to keep the evildoers in check, but to surrender to the plunder of foreigners?” - he writes to Kurbsky. There is nothing to say about the Russian appanage order: it led to civil strife and the nightmare of the Tatars: “You yourself saw with your dishonest eyes what ruin there was in Rus', when every city had its own chiefs and rulers, and therefore you can understand what it is.”

“And is it piety to... not keep evildoers in check and to give in to the plunder of foreigners?”

As for the Polish and Lithuanian order, which was coveted by part of the Russian boyars due to the freedom of the Polish magnates, Ivan the Terrible perspicaciously saw the rottenness and futility of this system: “That’s why you found yourself such a sovereign who, as follows from your evil dog’s desire - he does not manage anything himself, but is worse than the last slave - he receives orders from everyone, but he himself does not command anyone. But you will not find consolation there, for there everyone takes care of himself. Who will protect you from violence or protect you from offenders, even if the court does not listen to orphans and widows? What are you doing, who want disaster for Christianity!” Grozny was staring at the water: Kurbsky was robbed in Lithuania, and he never found justice for his offenders.

In search of other examples, Grozny turns to the East. Ivan Peresvetov’s essay “The Tale of Magmet-Saltan” was very popular in Rus', where in the image of Magmet-Saltan an ideal ruler was depicted, tough, at times cruel, but wise and just. Ivan Peresvetov proclaimed: “Truth is higher than faith.” In his words there is a longing for justice and truth of many Russian people, for example, the famous traveler Afanasy Nikitin, who wrote: “But the Lord will preserve the Russian land, for there is no land like it, and there is little truth in it.”

But is this so, is truth higher than faith? St. Nicholas (Velimirović) has insightful words: “When love fades, people seek justice. On the ruins of justice, people are trying to build equality. When this fails, everything dies.” From time immemorial both Russian society and Russian state based on the ideals of love and brotherly love. This is how Dimitri Donskoy, the winner of the Tatars on the Kulikovo Field, addresses his boyars before his death: “Come to me, and I will tell you what I have done in my life. The old men are like fathers to me, the middle-aged men are like brothers, the young ones are like children. You know my habits and disposition: I was born with you, I grew up before your eyes, I reigned with you and held the Russian land for twenty-seven years, and from birth I am forty years old. And he fought with you against many countries, and was terrible to the enemy in battles, and trampled down the filthy with God’s help, subdued the enemies, strengthened the principality, established peace and silence on earth. I preserved my fatherland, which God and my parents handed down to me, with you, I honored you and loved you, I kept my cities and great volosts under your rule. And he loved your children, did not harm anyone, did not take anything by force, did not annoy, did not reproach, did not ruin, did not commit outrages, but he loved everyone and held them in honor, and had fun with you, and endured grief with you. You were not called boyars, but princes of my land. Now remember your words, spoken to me at one time: “We must, while serving you and your children, lay down our heads for you.” Strengthen them with truth, serve my princess and my children with all your heart, have fun with them in hours of joy, and do not leave them in grief. May your sorrow be replaced by joy. Let there be peace between you."

New Moses?

Ivan the Terrible, while formally honoring his ancestor - “the praiseworthy great sovereign Dmitry, who won a victory over the godless Hagaryans beyond the Don,” essentially renounces his spiritual and state heritage and seeks other models. One of them is the formidable prophet Moses, who, for the sake of saving the people, did not hesitate to kill 3 thousand Israelis who bowed to the golden calf: “Remember, when God delivered the Jews from slavery, did he place a priest or many stewards before them? No, he appointed one king to rule over them - Moses, and ordered not him, but his brother Aaron, to become a priest, but he forbade him to engage in worldly affairs; when Aaron became busy with worldly affairs, he led people away from God.” It is possible that when Ivan the Terrible went on a Novgorod campaign, where he exterminated about 2,000 Novgorodians (a number comparable to the number of Jews killed by Moses) and destroyed the goods of Novgorod merchants who grumbled at him because of the decline in trade, he likened himself to Moses, who not only He killed idolaters, but also ground the golden calf to dust, mixed it with water and gave it to the unfaithful Israelites to drink (see: Exodus 32:20).

Another parallel between Moses and Ivan the Terrible: during the execution of 1570 in Moscow, he personally pierces one of the condemned with a spear. Thus, he seems to be likened to the zealot Phinehas, who stopped the pagan corruption of the Israelites, who clung to the pagan god Baal and caused the wrath of God against Israel: “Phineas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, seeing this, stood up from the midst of the crowd and took it in his hand spear, and followed the Israelite into the bedroom and pierced both of them, the Israelite and the woman (Midianite. – Dr. V.V.) into her belly: and the defeat of the children of Israel was ceased. (Num. 25:7–8).

However, in the above words of the tsar, something else is also significant: the rejection of the symphony of the state and the Church, expressed in the right of the patriarch or metropolitan to give advice to the tsar and grieve for the disgraced, the denial of any role of the Church in state life and church legislation for the state: “Or you tell me that there (that is, in Byzantium. – Dr. V.V.) obeyed the saint’s instructions? This is good and useful! But it is one thing to save your soul, and another thing to take care of the bodies and souls of many people; Hermitage is one thing, monasticism is another, priestly authority is another, royal rule. Hermitage is like a lamb that resists no one, or a bird that does not sow, does not reap, and does not gather into the barn; the monks, although they have renounced the world, nevertheless already have responsibilities, obey the statutes and commandments - if they do not observe all this, then their life together will be upset; priestly power requires strict word prohibitions for guilt and evil, allows glory, and honors, and decorations, and the subordination of one to another, which is not appropriate for monks; The royal power is allowed to act through fear, and prohibition, and curbs and to strictly curb the madness of the most evil and insidious people. So understand the difference between hermitage, monasticism, priesthood and royal power. And is it proper for a king, if he is struck on the cheek, to offer the other? This is the most perfect commandment. How can a king rule the kingdom if he allows himself to be dishonored? And this is appropriate for priests. Understand therefore the difference between royal and priestly power! Even among those who have renounced the world, you will encounter many severe punishments, although not the death penalty. How much more severely should the royal government punish evildoers!”

“Even among those who renounce the world you will meet severe punishments. How much more severely should the royal government punish evildoers!”

In other words, Grozny, unlike the Byzantine emperors, did not consider himself responsible to the Church, much less to his subjects, but only to God. On the other hand, he perceived responsibility before God for the people entrusted to him with burning seriousness, comprehending it, like all human life, in the perspective of the Last Judgment. These are the reproaches with which he addresses Kurbsky: “Why, O prince, if you consider yourself pious, have you rejected your only-begotten soul? What will you replace it with on the Day of Judgment?” At the same time, Kurbsky destroyed not only his soul, but also the souls of his ancestors. So the tsar is responsible not only for the present and future of the Russian people and his family, but also for the past and is likened to Moses, who, like a mother, carried Israel in his arms. Moreover, Russia - the Kingdom of Moscow - is the Third Rome and at the same time the New Israel, “the camp of saints and the city of the beloved,” surrounded on all sides by heretics, pagans and enemies - the forerunners of the Antichrist. This is a holy military camp, similar to the Old Testament, within which no defilement and no treason can be allowed.

All this is worthy of respect, but hyper-responsibility and eschatological overstrain, in our opinion, played a cruel joke on Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. His activities could be defined by two quotes from Russian classics. First: “One government wants to resist, but waves a club in the dark and hits its own” ( F.M. Dostoevsky. Demons). And the second: “They repented and sinned and, under the guise of Antichrists, they killed non-Antichrists” ( N.V. Gogol. Dead Souls. Second volume). The results of repression and oprichnina turned out to be significantly different from the goals set.