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

All this forces us to rely less on pictorial “evidence”, and more on adopted laws, documents on taxes and duties, records of deserted peasant households and other documentation, and, especially, on the Synodik of the Disgraced with the names of executed “traitors”. It is only with a stretch that annals and chronicles can be classified as objective data. After all, the chroniclers were by no means dispassionate recorders of events. All the more unreliable are works of art. Special place occupied by folk mythology - epics and tales, songs, fairy tales. Mythology is also subjective, but unlike the records of eyewitnesses, there are no deliberate lies in it and it reflects the average attitude of the people to the most significant events that take place.

Facts about the reign of Ivan IV. During the reign of Ivan IV, the territory of the Russian state almost doubled - from 2.8 to 5.4 million square meters. km. Three kingdoms were conquered - Kazan (1552), Astrakhan (1556) and Siberian. The peoples of the Volga region, the Urals, Kabarda and Western Siberia recognized dependence on the Russian Tsar. Russia was turning from a predominantly Great Russian state into a multinational empire. This process did not go smoothly and peacefully - there were major uprisings, Russian troops suffered defeats more than once, however, new peoples entered the orbit of Russian statehood and already under Ivan IV took part in wars on the side of Russia. To secure new lands in the Volga and Kama regions, they began to build fortified towns and found monasteries. In 1555 the Kazan diocese was created. Peasants also reached out to new lands, but at their own risk. The Russian authorities tried in every possible way to avoid land disputes with the local population.
Less is known about Russia's expansion southward, towards the Wild Field, as the southern Russian steppes were then called. The wild field, a place of nomadic Tatars and Nogais, passed in the north into the forest-steppe, abandoned by the Slavs after the invasion of Batu. Until the middle of the 16th century, the border between nomads and Russia ran along the northern bank of the Oka from Bolokhov to Kaluga and then to Ryazan. This line was called the Shore. All places convenient for crossing were fortified, and stakes were driven into the bottom of the river. Under Ivan IV, the border was moved to the south, and forests were used for protection. The new line represented a continuous line of defense, where abatis were built between fortified fortresses and forts - forest debris consisting of felled trees with their tops facing south. The abatis were reinforced with palisades, traps, and wolf pits. An early warning system about the movements of the Tatars was created. Fires and mirrors on signal towers were used to transmit messages. Often several lines were built.
In the 1560s - 1570s, a grandiose frontier was created, stretching 600 km from Kozelsk to Ryazan. It was called the Serif Line, the Line or the Sovereign's Commandment. For the arrangement and maintenance of zaseki, a special tax was introduced - zaseki money, and a law was adopted on the protection of zaseki forests. In 1566, Ivan IV visited Cherta. The creation of the Zasechnaya Line sharply reduced the number of Tatar raids on Rus'. Only very large and carefully planned raids, like the raid of 1571, broke through the Line (though then the Tatars burned Moscow). The next year the breakthrough was only partially successful: in the battle of Molodi The 27,000-strong Russian army, led by M.I. Vorotynsky, completely defeated the 120,000-strong army of the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey, which included a 7,000-strong Janissary corps. Only 20 thousand people returned to Crimea. The movement of the Cherta to the south allowed farmers to begin the development of the most fertile Russian Black Earth Region.
During the first period of the reign of Ivan IV, reforms were carried out, conceived among people close to the tsar, primarily the priest Sylvester and Alexei Fedorovich Adashev. The reforms were discussed at the Zemsky Sobor in 1549, where different classes were represented. Giving a speech, the tsar addressed the boyars with a demand to stop offending the nobles and peasants. It was decided to draw up a new Code of Law. A year later, the Code of Law was ready; it was installed general order legal proceedings. The governors could no longer judge the nobles; they received the right of trial at the level of the king and his judges. The Code of Law expanded the rights of local elected courts headed by provincial elders. The right of peasants to change their place of residence once a year was confirmed - a week before and a week after St. George's Day (November 26). In 1551, on the initiative of the Tsar, a church council was assembled, which was called the Stoglavo Council, after the number of chapters in the book with its decisions. At the Council, Ivan IV managed to achieve a resolution limiting the growth of monastic and church lands at the expense of the lands of patrimonial lands. The Council of the Hundred Heads proclaimed the principle of a symphony of church and state.
In 1552-1556, the feeding system was eliminated, according to which Grand Duke or the king sent governors and volosts to the districts and volosts for feeding. The feeders ruled the subject territory, and the population had to support (feed) them and pay them various duties. The number of feeders increased more and more, there were many thirsty people, and feeding began to be split up, appointing two or more feeders per city or volost. Their greed was indescribable, as Ivan IV said, the feeders were wolves, persecutors and destroyers for the people. Now the feedings have been cancelled; The fed payout began to flow into the treasury and went towards the salaries of the governors - the highest authority in the districts. Local self-government was created: the lip, where litigation and petty crimes were dealt with, and the zemstvo hut, which dealt with general affairs. Provincial elders were chosen from nobles and boyar children, and zemstvo elders were chosen from wealthy peasants and townspeople. The main idea of ​​the zemstvo reform is centralization through self-government
The offices - orders - that existed under the Boyar Duma are being improved, and new ones are being formed. The orders made it possible to centrally manage the growing state. An orderly bureaucracy is emerging: noble clerks and clerks take over the day-to-day administration of the country. Localism is limited - disputes about the seniority of the boyars by nobility of origin. From the middle of the 16th century, the appointment of boyars to positions began to be in charge of the Rank Order, which took into account the subtleties of the honor of each boyar. During military campaigns, localism was prohibited.
Was held military reform(1550 - 1556). Military service was now carried out according to the fatherland (origin) and according to the device (recruitment). Boyars, nobles, and boyars' children served in their own country, regardless of the type of holding - patrimonial (hereditary) or local (granted). Service began at the age of 15 and was inherited. At the request of the tsar, a boyar or nobleman had to report for service on horseback, in force and armed, that is, to bring with him military serfs, one from every 150 dessiatines of land holdings. Streltsy, gunners and city guards served as instruments. Streltsy began to be recruited from service people in 1550. At first there were 3 thousand of them, and in the 70s - about 15 thousand. The service was for life. The archers, armed with arquebuses and reeds, were no inferior to the European infantry. The cannon squad was also designated as an independent branch of the military. The service of gunners was constant, like that of the archers. Mass casting of guns was established. During the siege of Kazan in 1552, 150 heavy guns were concentrated under the city walls. Russian gunners distinguished themselves in Livonia and during the defense of Pskov. Thus, under Ivan IV the beginning of the regular army was laid Russian state.

Civilizational confrontation manifested itself during the Livonian War

At first, John IV was ready to limit himself to tribute from the Dorpat bishopric and freedom of trade. The Livonians promised, but deceived the king. Then he sent the cavalry of Khan Shig-Aley into the raid. The Livonians were afraid, promised to pay tribute, and again deceived them. Only then did the war begin. ... - at first there was a period of success, half of Livonia was occupied by Russian troops. Here the full depth of the king’s miscalculation was revealed. Young Russian state found itself in a state of war not with the decrepit Order, but with the Christian world - Western civilization. Europe perceived the appearance of the Muscovites as a barbarian invasion, as alien to Christianity, culture and humanity as the Tatars and Turks. All the cunning moves of Ivan IV in search of European allies, initially encouraging, ultimately ended in failure. He also failed in his attempts to exit the war, retaining at least part of what he had conquered. On this issue, the Christian world, split into Catholics and Protestants, was unanimous - the Muscovites should retreat to their forests and swamps.
Against the backdrop of super-ethnic confrontation, the confessional and political differences of the European super-ethnos receded. Ivan Vasilyevich, although a Westerner by sympathies (he considered himself to be of German origin), received an unequivocal answer: Europe does not want to speak with Muscovy on equal terms; Muscovites must submit to the true Christian faith and the authority of Christian (European) sovereigns. No one took seriously the king’s claims that he was descended from the brother of the Roman emperor Augustus Prus. But anti-Russian propaganda was widely deployed. In European society, a demand arose for descriptions of the Muscovites who came from nowhere and disturbed the Christian world. Naturally, the greatest interest was aroused by the king, who, according to rumors, surpassed in bloodthirstiness the most brutal tyrants of the present and past. Europeans who visited Russia tried to satisfy this demand. In Poland, Sweden, Prussia, Danzig, and Livonia itself, there were many influential people interested in denigrating Russia and willing to pay for it. This is how the first wave of European Russophobia arose and the foundation was laid for European prejudice against Russia, which has survived to this day.
Crimes of John IV
Ivan IV gained notoriety not thanks to a mistake with Livonian War, which cost Russia so dearly, and because of its crimes, often exaggerated. Ivan IV was unlucky with contemporaries describing his reign. Of the Russian authors, the most famous and brilliant was Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, once a close associate of the tsar, who became his worst enemy. Having fled to Lithuania, Kurbsky made every effort to crush his former friend and overlord. He fought with pen and sword, wrote letters to the Tsar, composed the History of the Grand Duke of Moscow, brought Lithuanians and Tatars to their former homeland, and personally, at the head of the Lithuanian army, defeated the 12,000-strong Russian army. Karamzin took Kurbsky’s writings on faith and introduced them into his History of the Russian State. Thus, the facts presented by Kurbsky have become entrenched in historiography, although some have been refuted by modern historians.
Foreigners also had their own interest in writing the worst about Ivan IV who once served the king, and chroniclers of Novgorod and Pskov. All this forces us to be cautious in assessing the scale of Ivan the Terrible’s terror. Conflicting reports about those killed in Polotsk were written above. The information about the Novgorodians executed by the guardsmen during the pogrom of Novgorod diverges even more. Jerome Horsey reports about 700 thousand killed, the Pskov Chronicle writes about 60 thousand, the Novgorod Chronicle - about 30 thousand, Taub and Cruz - about 15 thousand killed (with a population of Novgorod of 25 thousand). Alexander Guagnini, who fought with the Poles against Grozny, writes about 2,770 killed. The synodik of the disgraced Ivan the Terrible reports: - According to Malyutin’s skask in the Nougorotsky parcel, Malyuta trimmed 1,490 people (by manual truncation), and 15 people were trimmed from the squeak. - Based on the Synodic, historian Skrynnikov suggests that approximately 3,000 people were killed in Novgorod.
The figures of the Synodik of the Disgraced can be trusted more than the estimates of contemporaries, who usually received information second-hand, in the form of rumors, and tended to exaggerate the number of deaths. The Synodik was compiled at the end of the life of Ivan IV (1582-1583) for the commemoration in monasteries of people executed during his reign. The king, as a deeply religious man, wanted to find reconciliation with his victims before God and was interested in the accuracy of the information. The Synodikon records those executed from 1564 to 1575. (total about 3300). These, of course, are not all those who died from terror - judging by the notes of the German guardsman Staden, he did not personally report on the people he killed.
... in total, taking into account the unaccounted victims of the terror of 1564 - 1575, it can be assumed that the number of deaths for political and religious reasons was two to three times higher than indicated in the Synodik, but hardly exceeded 10 thousand people.
Is it a lot or a little? It depends on how and with whom you compare. For Europe contemporary to Ivan IV, 10 thousand people killed during the 37 years of his reign as enemies of the monarch and religion look modest. The Tudors who ruled England - Henry VIII (from 1509 to 1547) and Elizabeth (from 1558 to 1603) surpassed him. Under Henry, 72 thousand were executed, and under Elizabeth - 89 thousand people. Most of those executed were peasants driven from the land - they were hanged as tramps, but aristocrats were also executed. Henry VIII is famous for the executions of his two wives and six of their lovers, the Duke of Buckingham, the minister Cromwell and the philosopher Thomas More, Elizabeth - the execution of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, and her favorite - Lord Essex. The Duke of Alba executed over 18 thousand people in the Netherlands. On St. Bartholomew's Night, August 24, 1572, 2-3 thousand Huguenots were killed in Paris, and more than 10 thousand in total throughout the country in a few days.
Mass atrocities in enlightened Europe exceeded the cruelties of barbaric Muscovy. It is worth remembering that in the 16th century alone, according to the most conservative estimate, at least 50 thousand witches were burned, and they were burned by both Catholics and Protestants. In Russia, under Ivan VI, two or three dozen were also burned at the stake, but not thousands, but people. It remains to be assumed that the reason for the special attitude towards the atrocities of Ivan VI was his destruction of high-ranking aristocrats on a scale exceeding similar executions in Europe. Indeed, in those days only aristocrats, nobles and the clergy were considered full-fledged people. Here the Russian Tsar had a fellow businessman, an acquaintance and even an ally - the Swedish King Eric XIV. In 1563, Eric executed his brother Johan's close nobles, and in 1566, in a fit of madness, he killed a group of senators without trial.
Still, Eric does not live up to Ivan, because out of the 3,300 people noted in the Synodikon, about 400 were nobles and boyars. According to Veselovsky’s calculations, in the Synodik there were three or four noblemen per boyar. One hundred killed princes and boyars is not a small number by European standards and is comparable only to the massacre of the Huguenot aristocracy on St. Bartholomew’s Night. Another thing is that the Synodikon of the Disgraced lists the boyars who were executed during the 11 years of Ivan’s reign, and in France a similar number of aristocrats were killed in one night. But the Catholic half of Europe approved of the murders on the night of St. Bartholomew, while the Muscovite king horrified Catholics and Protestants alike. The reason lies in super-ethnic hostility towards Muscovites and impressions from the description of the king’s executions. And in them, Ivan IV, whether rightly or through slander, looked terrifying. And it's not about the cruelty of executions, in Europe in the 16th century executions were more sophisticated, but in the king’s personal participation in torture and murder.
But is this true? After all, apart from the “testimonies” of contemporaries, there are no documents left about the tsar’s personal participation in torture and murder. Therefore, each author answers according to his worldview. Although in some cases the accusations have been proven false, in others everything agrees that Ivan Vasilyevich really killed people and participated in torture. Here I would like to say in the words of Vladimir Vysotsky’s song: - If it is true, well, at least a third... - And it seems that the probability of such truth is very high.
The devotion of the Russian people to the Tsar
There were, of course, conspiracies against Ivan IV. Individual boyars and nobles ran over to the enemy. Some gave away important secrets. The greatest damage to Russia was caused not even by Prince Kurbsky, but by the robber Kudeyar Tishenkov and several boyar children. They led Devlet-Girey’s army along secret paths past Russian outposts, so the Tatars suddenly found themselves in front of Moscow, which they then burned. But during 24 years of continuous war there were very few such cases. Foreigners note the exact opposite qualities of Russians - their exceptional devotion to the Tsar and their fatherland. Reinhold Heidenstein, a Polish nobleman who fought against the Russians in Batory’s army, is amazed at the popularity of Ivan the Terrible among the Russians:
To anyone who studies the history of his reign, it should seem all the more surprising that with such cruelty there could be such a strong love of the people for him... Moreover, it should be noted that the people not only did not arouse any indignation against him, but even expressed incredible firmness in defending and guarding fortresses, and there were generally very few defectors. On the contrary, there were many... who preferred loyalty to the prince, even at danger to themselves, to the greatest rewards.
Heidenstein describes the devotion to duty of the Russian gunners during the siege of Wenden (1578). In this battle, the Russian troops were defeated and retreated, but the gunners did not want to abandon their guns. They fought to the end. Having shot all the charges and not wanting to surrender, the gunners hanged themselves with their cannons. He also says that when King Batory offered the Russian soldiers captured during the siege of Polotsk the choice of either going to his service or returning home, most chose to return to their fatherland and to their Tsar. Heidenstein adds:
Their love and constancy in relation to both is remarkable; for each of them could think that he was going to certain death and terrible torment. The Moscow Tsar, however, spared them.
Heindenstein was not alone in noting the resilience of the Russians and their devotion to the Tsar. The author of the Livonian Chronicle, Balthazar Russov, a great hater of the Muscovites and a supporter of their expulsion from Livonia, sees the same qualities in them:
The Russians in the fortresses are strong fighting people. This happens for the following reasons. Firstly, Russians are a hard-working people: Russians, if necessary, are tireless in any dangerous and hard work day and night, and pray to God to die righteously for their sovereign. Secondly, from his youth a Russian is accustomed to fasting and making do with meager food; if only he has water, flour, salt and vodka, then he can live on them for a long time, but a German cannot. Thirdly, if the Russians voluntarily surrender the fortress, no matter how insignificant it may be, they do not dare to show themselves in their land, because they will be killed in shame; they cannot and do not want to stay in foreign lands. Therefore, they hold on to the fortress until the last man and would rather agree to die to the last man than to go under escort to a foreign land... Fourthly, the Russians considered it not only a shame, but also a mortal sin to surrender the fortress.
R.Yu. Vipper, who cited Russov’s statement in his book Ivan the Terrible (1922), concludes that Ivan IV inherited the possession of the treasure - the Russian people. Lead this people, use their strength in building a great power. Fate endowed him with extraordinary qualities as a ruler. Ivan Vasilyevich’s fault or his misfortune was that, having set the goal of establishing direct relations with the West, he was unable to stop in time before the growing strength of his enemies and threw into the abyss of destruction most of the values ​​accumulated by his predecessors and acquired by himself, having exhausted the means of the power he created .
The attitude of the people towards Ivan the Terrible. Karamzin completes the description of the reign of Ivan IV with remarkable words: - In conclusion, we will say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory in the people’s memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones;... History is more vindictive than the people!
But is it a matter of Russian quick-wittedness? After all, the people honored and loved the Terrible Tsar not only for the conquest of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. People remember Ivan IV as a formidable but fair king, a defender of ordinary people from the persecuting boyars. During the 37 years of his reign, Ivan the Terrible never publicly said a bad word against ordinary people. On the contrary, speaking in February 1549 to representatives of the estates of Russian cities, gathered on Red Square, he reproached the boyars for oppressing the people: - The nobles... grew rich through untruth, oppressed the people... You, you did what you wanted, evil seditious, unrighteous judges! What answer will you give us today? How many tears, how much blood have you shed? - And he promised to continue to be the people's defender: - People of God and given to us by God! I pray for your Faith in Him and love for me: be generous! It is impossible to correct the past evil: I can only save you in the future from such oppression and robbery. ... From now on I am your judge and defender.
After these words, as Karamzin writes, the people and the tsar began to cry. Modern journalists can call Ivan’s speech an example of populism. But is it? The 19-year-old boy, who grew up abandoned without proper upbringing, could not master the skills of experienced actors. He had never given a speech in front of such a crowd of people, and the emotional stress must have been enormous. He sincerely cared and believed every word he said. We should not forget that Ivan IV was a deeply religious man. He made this speech before God and swore an oath to Him to be the people's judge and protector.
The people believed the king. People wanted to believe him from the very beginning; they were too tired of the turmoil of the boyar regime. Ivan confirmed their hopes. He loved to judge and judged fairly. Soon his Code of Law was published, where the interests of all classes, including ordinary people, were taken into account. The king canceled the feeding, drove away the fierce wolves of the feeders, and the people again liked this. But most importantly, the young tsar forced the Kazan Tatars to release 100 thousand Orthodox people from slavery. The entire 10 million Russian people rejoiced here. And then there was the glorious capture of Kazan; liberation of another 60 thousand Christians from slavery. Kazan was followed by Astrakhan - two kingdoms submitted to the Russian Tsar: this had never happened in Rus'. Ivan Vasilyevich shone as a true autocrat, God's chosen one, leading the Russian people to greatness and saving the broken Orthodox world.
The execution of the boyars and their servants was met with approval by the people, - that means they are building feuds for the king, starting sedition. The Tsar provided evidence in the form of proceedings and decisions of the Boyar Duma. When Ivan Vasilyevich with his family and entourage left for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, the people became despondent - being left without such a king was worse than becoming orphaned. A month later, messages arrived in Moscow: the tsar wrote that he had decided to leave the kingdom because of the boyars’ disobedience, betrayal, and the indulgence of the clergy to the guilty, and at the same time he assured the good Muscovites of his mercy, saying that disgrace and anger did not concern them. Moscow was horrified. - The Emperor has left us! - the people screamed: - we are dying! Who will be our defender in wars with foreigners? How can there be sheep without a shepherd? - An embassy from all classes went to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda - clergy, boyars, nobles, clerks, merchants, townspeople - to beat the Emperor as a whole and cry. Ivan the Terrible received the authority to introduce the oprichnina.
The oprichnina and, especially, the oprichniki could not please the people. Discontent was caused not by the execution of traitors, everyone agreed with this, but by the robbery of cities given over to the oprichnina, and three skins from peasants in the new oprichnina estates. ...After the fire of Moscow, the tsar disbanded the oprichnina, which was hated by the people, but then another misfortune came - famine and pestilence. Nevertheless, the people did not grumble against the king, but saw in the misfortunes the Wrath of God for our sins.
IN last years During the reign of Ivan IV, general fatigue began to take its toll. Peasants fled from extortions and landowners, leaving the devastated central and western regions of Russia. They went south to plow the Wild Field, and east to the still turbulent Volga region, they fled to the Cossacks. The townspeople, crushed by taxes, fled from the cities, the nobles abandoned their service and hurried home. The people suffered, but there was no open rebellion or bitterness against the king. The reserve of love and respect for Ivan Vasilyevich was too great. The people knew about the king’s piety, and that he gave out alms to the poor without counting. But the king’s prayers did not help: the king’s heir, Ivan, died. There are rumors that the father himself had a hand in the death of his son. The people fell into despair. Then a miracle happened - God sent a new kingdom to Russia. Ermak Timofeevich conquered the Siberian kingdom. This was the last sign of the Lord's mercy to the Terrible Tsar. A comet appeared with a cross-shaped heavenly sign between the Church of John the Great and the Annunciation. Soon the king fell ill. Citizens in Moscow churches prayed for the Tsar’s recovery. Even those whose loved ones he killed prayed. Karamzin describes the denouement: - When did the decisive word: “The Tsar passed away!” was heard in the Kremlin, the people screamed loudly.
The people were not sad in vain; if after the death of Tsar Ivan the boyars felt better, this did not affect the ordinary people. A decree on runaway peasants was adopted - the peasants were now caught and returned to the landowners... In Uglich, 9-year-old Dmitry was stabbed to death as if by accident younger son Ivan IV. …. Then, for our sins, a terrible famine and pestilence came, the Pretender appeared and the Troubles began. Holy Rus' was deserted and dying. From that time, according to historians, the nickname Grozny and folklore about the formidable but fair king began. In ruined and disgraced Russia, where gangs of robbers and Poles ruled, the people longingly remembered the reign of Ivan IV as a time of glory and prosperity of the Russian state. Ivan the Terrible remained in people's memory as the defender of ordinary people from the evil boyars.
Ivan the Terrible in Russian folklore. The image of the formidable Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich is widely represented in folk art - songs and fairy tales. Of the Russian tsars, only Peter I can compare with Grozny in terms of popular attention. But if in fairy tales Peter has a certain advantage, then in songs, without a doubt, priority belongs to Ivan the Terrible. They sang about Grozny in historical songs, in Cossack, schismatic and simply in songs. Historical songs in Russian literature are songs dedicated to specific historical subjects of the past, most often, the events of the 16th - 18th centuries. Historical songs of the 16th century are dedicated exclusively to the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Songs about the capture of Kazan were especially popular.
Ivan Vasilyevich communicates with ordinary people not in songs, but in fairy tales. Here his image is not always positive, although not villainous.
In the 17th century, the attitude towards Grozny in fairy tales improved everywhere. The Tsar often acts as a defender of the poor against the boyars. These are the tales about the potter, about the bast tree, about the thief Barma...

The image of Ivan the Terrible in the literature of the 19th century will be incomplete without the poem by A.N. Maykov At the Tomb of the Terrible (1887). Maikov believed that the Tsar had historical truth - he created a great Kingdom, Peter and Catherine continued his work. Ivan the Terrible was the sovereign of the people, he made everyone equal, for in the face of the Tsar everyone is equal. The king's justification is in the love of the people:
Yes! My day will come!
The frightened people will be heard howling,
When the death of the King was announced,
And this popular howl over the coffin of the ruler -
I believe that it will not be lost in vain for centuries,
And it will be louder than this underground thorn
Boyar slander and foreign malice...

“In conclusion, let us say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory in the people’s memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones; but the name of John shone on the Code of Laws and was reminiscent of the acquisitions of the three Mongol kingdoms; evidence of terrible deeds lay in book depositories, and for centuries the people saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the conquering tsar, honored in him the famous culprit of our state power, our civil education; rejected or forgot the name torturer given to him by his contemporaries, and according to dark rumors about John’s cruelty, to this day he only calls him Grozny, without distinguishing between a grandson and a grandfather so named ancient Russia more for praise than for reproach. History is more vindictive than people!”

These thoughts make it a little embarrassing to return to the house for afternoon tea with Varents and steaming crumpets, to the cloudless complacency of old man Tevyashov, to Natasha’s caresses.

After all, if you look at it, fate was preparing for him a peaceful, unhurried life as a middle-class landowner in the rural worries of mowing - the hay would not rot, the drought would not ruin the harvest, but he, in defiance of fate and fate, soars above the base prose of life. Poet by the grace of God! It’s not for nothing that he was accepted into the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. It is not for nothing that Gnedich himself, the head of the society, the pockmarked, superior, unsmiling Gnedich, spoke favorably of the poem “Kurbsky”, and soon he was transferred from collaborating members to full members of the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. And in “Russian Invalid”, editor Voeikov, publishing “The Death of Ermak,” accompanied it with the following postscript:

“The work of a young poet, still little known, but who will soon stand alongside the old and famous.”

“The Death of Ermak” was also suggested by Karamzin. This great scientist has an amazing talent - to inspire an artist with one detail to create a whole picture. Springboard. You can't call it anything else. Karamzin says:

“Ermak learned about the proximity of the enemy and, as if tired of life, fell into a deep sleep with his daring knights, without observation, without guards. It was raining heavily, the river and the wind were noisy, all the more lulling the Cossacks to sleep; and the enemy was awake on the other side of the river.” And then it came out all at once:

The storm roared, the rain made noise;

Lightning flew in the darkness;

The thunder roared incessantly,

And the winds raged in the wilds...

It is both surprising and strange that a thought arises behind the picture, rather than the thought being ornamented by the picture. Then the most important thing went easily and freely:

Companions of his labors,

Victories and thunderous glory,

Among the pitched tents

They slept carelessly near the oak grove.

“Oh, sleep, sleep,” the hero thought,

Friends, under the roaring storm;

At dawn my voice will be heard,

Calling for glory or death!

You need rest; sweet Dreams

And in a storm he will calm the brave;

In dreams he will remind you of glory

And the strength of the warriors will double.

Who did not spare his life

In robberies, mining for gold,

Will he think about her?

Dying for holy Rus'?

Washed away with your own and the enemy's blood

All the crimes of a violent life

And deserved it for the victories

Blessings of the Fatherland,

Death cannot be scary to us;

We have done our job:

Siberia was conquered by the king,

And we did not live idly in the world!”

He read poetry aloud in the vast, deserted steppe, enjoying the sonority of his voice, loneliness, without trembling, without timidity, as happened in front of listeners, when a shadow of fatigue or indifferent thoughtfulness suddenly appeared on a friendly face.

At home, after breakfast, he complacently and lazily wrote letters to friends, praising peace and solitude, and even, although this was unusual for him, pretending to himself to be a kind of romantic hermit, preferring proud solitude to the bustle of the capital, and quiet reading to riotous friendship. Confessions were just as easy to put into poetry.

Boasting the joys of solitude, he at the same time enthusiastically lists to his old Ostrogozh friend Bedraga the names of his literary contemporaries, mentally plunging again into the St. Petersburg literary whirlpool:

He, with a book in his hands,

Sits under the shade of trees

And in fiery verses

Or in prose, clean, smooth,

Alien to grief and worries,

He drinks sweet delights.

That Pushkin is wayward,

Parnassian is our naughty man,

With “Ruslan and Lyudmila”,

That's Batyushkov, the rogue,

Light-winged dreamer,

That's dear Baratynsky,

Or with the thunder of sonorous strings,

And the honor and glory of the Russians,

Like a marvelous giant

Soaring Lomonosov,

Il Ozerov, Knyazhnin,

Il T A cit-Karamzin

With your ninth volume;

Ile darling Krylov

With rattle and Mom,

Il Gnedich and Kostrov

With old Homer

Or Jean-Jacques Rousseau

With the prankster Voltaire,

Voeikov-Bualo,

Zhukovsky is incomparable,

Honorable Il Dmitriev,

Or his favorite

Milonov is the scourge of vices,

Or the old Sumarokov,

Ile “Dushenki” the creator,

Favorite of muses and graces,

Or our important Horace,

A model of poets,

Or a sweet singer,

Neledinsky is sad,

Or dear Panaev

With your idyll

In secluded silence

Give alternately

Dreams for my soul.

These verses, composed easily, almost thoughtlessly, made up of a list of names and very approximate epithets, were only part of the long poem “Desert”. In it he described his days in Podgorny, hunting, working with a spade in the garden, lunches, dinners, sleeping on a “lonely bed.” The plant life of the thoughtless landowner, described with such complacency, was a trick, a self-consolation. In all honesty, his main pleasure came from the middle of the poem, where, behind the list of names and careless epithets, pictures of hateful and infinitely attractive Petersburg appeared. The pompous, highly solemn Gnedich, who broadcast, not spoke, but was sincerely devoted to literature. Unable to fit into the lines, puffy, pale Delvig. So sleepy in appearance and at the same time capable of the most unexpected, eccentric actions. Snub-nosed, bespectacled Vyazemsky. The Russian Cholier, as Pushkin called him, is a real aristocrat, despite his common people's appearance. I wish I could understand how this works! And dear, indomitable Alexander Bestuzhev, ready to rush into any argument, it would be with whom, and about what, it doesn’t matter. Even Bulgarin, a big, bony guy, one of those people who don’t put a finger in his mouth, will bite off his elbow. Bad manners, of course, more than once horrified with its not only readiness, but some kind of need to engage in dubious tricks - even Bulgarin would now be cute and interesting with his habit of creating a fuss around a damned egg. Stun everyone with your knowledge, sniff out the opinion of high-ranking officials, or even create such an opinion yourself, say tactlessness, create a scandal. What a great master of making porridge! All his qualities were inevitably forgotten; he captivated with sincere affection and devotion. And only one thing made me remember with pleasure - he was constantly on edge, sober, more lively than drunk, every minute full of energy, activity and curiosity.

(From chapter seven of volume nine)

Illness and death of Ioannov. Russians' love for autocracy. Comparison of John with other torturers. The benefits of history. A mixture of good and evil in John. John is a state educator and legislator... The structure of cities. State of Moscow. Trade. Luxury and pomp. Glory to Ioannov.

Let us begin to describe the solemn, great hour... We saw the life of John: we will see its end, equally amazing, desired for humanity, but terrible for the imagination: for the tyrant died as he lived - destroying people, although in modern legends he is not named latest victims. Is it possible to believe in immortality and not be horrified by such a death?.. This terrible hour, long predicted to John by both his conscience and the innocent martyrs, was quietly approaching him, who had not yet reached extreme old age, still vigorous in spirit, ardent in the desires of his heart. Strongly built, John hoped for longevity; but what bodily strength can withstand the ferocious agitation of passions that overwhelm the gloomy life of a tyrant? The constant trembling of anger and fear, remorse without repentance, the vile delights of abominable voluptuousness, the torment of shame, anger powerless in the failures of weapons, and finally the hellish execution of filicide exhausted the measure of John's strength: he sometimes felt a painful languor, the forerunner of blow and destruction, but he fought against it and did not weaken noticeably until the winter of 1584. At this time, a comet appeared with a cross-shaped heavenly sign between the Church of John the Great and the Annunciation: the curious king came out onto the red porch, looked for a long time, changed his face and said to those around him: “This is the sign of my death!” Alarmed by this thought, he searched, as they write, for astrologers, imaginary magicians, in Russia and in Lapland, gathered them up to sixty, gave them a house in Moscow, sent his favorite, Velsky, every day, to talk with them about the comet, and soon fell dangerously ill: all his insides began to rot and his body began to swell. They claim that astrologers predicted his imminent death in a few days, precisely on March 18, but that John ordered them to remain silent, threatening to burn them all at the stake if they were indiscreet. During the month of February he was still busy with business; but on March 10, it was ordered to stop the Lithuanian ambassador on his way to Moscow, for the sake of the sovereign’s illness. John himself gave this order; He still hoped for a recovery, but he called the boyars and ordered them to write a will; declared Tsarevich Theodore heir to the throne and monarch; elected famous men, Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky (famous for his defense of Pskov), Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky (son of Grand Duke Vasily’s own niece), Nikita Romanovich Yuryev (brother of the first queen, virtuous Anastasia), Boris Godunov and Belsky as advisers and guardians of the state, may they facilitate young Theodore (weak in body and soul) bears the burden of state concerns; He assigned the city of Uglich to the baby Dimitri and his mother and entrusted his upbringing to Belsky alone; expressed gratitude to all the boyars and governors: he called them his friends and associates in the conquest of the kingdoms of the infidels, in the victories won over the Livonian knights, over the khan and the sultan; convinced Theodore to reign piously, with love and mercy; advised him and the five main nobles to avoid war with the Christian powers; spoke about the unfortunate consequences of the Lithuanian and Swedish war; regretted the exhaustion of Russia; ordered to reduce taxes, release all prisoners, even Lithuanian and German prisoners. It seemed that he, preparing to leave the throne and the light, wanted to reconcile with conscience, with humanity, with God - he sobered up his soul, having hitherto been in the rapture of evil, and wanted to save his young son from his disastrous delusions; it seemed that a ray of holy truth on the eve of the grave finally illuminated this gloomy, cold heart; that repentance had an effect in him when the angel of death invisibly appeared to him with the news of eternity...

But at a time when the court was silent in sorrow (for the court is sincerely and hypocritically sad about every dying crown-bearer); when Christian love touched the hearts of the people; when, having forgotten the ferocity of John, the citizens of the capital prayed in churches for the recovery of the king; when the most disgraced families, widows and orphans of people who were innocently beaten, prayed for him... what did he do when he touched the coffin? In moments of relief, he ordered himself to be carried on chairs to the chamber where his wondrous treasures lay; looked at the precious stones and on March 15 showed them with pleasure to the Englishman Horsey, scholarly language an expert describing the dignity of diamonds and yachts!.. Should we still believe this most terrible legend? The daughter-in-law, Feodorov's wife, came to the sick man with tender consolations and fled in disgust from his lustful shamelessness!.. Did the sinner repent? Have you thought about the imminent terrible judgment of the Almighty?

The sick man’s strength was already disappearing; thoughts were darkened: lying on his bed unconscious, John loudly called his murdered son to him, saw him in his imagination, spoke to him affectionately... On March 17, he felt better from the action warm bath, so he ordered the Lithuanian ambassador to immediately go from Mozhaisk to the capital and the next day (according to Gorsey) he said to Belsky: “Declare execution for the liar astrologers: now, according to their fables, I should die, but I feel much more cheerful.” “But the day is not over yet,” the astrologers answered him. They again prepared a bath for the patient: he stayed in it for about three hours, lay down on the bed, got up, asked for a chessboard and, sitting in a dressing gown on the bed, arranged the checkers himself; wanted to play with Belsky... suddenly fell and closed his eyes forever, while the doctors rubbed him with strong liquids, and the Metropolitan - probably fulfilling the long-known will of John - read the prayers of tonsure over the dying man, called Jonah in monasticism... In this For minutes, deep silence reigned in the palace and in the capital: they waited for what would happen, not daring to ask. John lay already dead, but still terrible for the upcoming courtiers, who for a long time did not believe their eyes and did not announce his death. When the decisive word: “The sovereign is gone!” resounded in the Kremlin, the people screamed loudly... either because, as they write, they knew Feodorov’s weakness and were afraid of its bad consequences for the state, or paying the Christian debt of pity to the deceased monarch, although cruel?.. On the third day a magnificent burial took place in the church of St. Michael the Archangel; tears flowed; Sorrow was depicted on their faces, and the earth quietly accepted John’s corpse into its bowels! Human judgment remained silent before the divine - and for contemporaries the curtain fell on the theater: memory and coffins were left for posterity!

Between other difficult experiences of fate, in addition to the disasters of the appanage system, in addition to the yoke of the Mughals, Russia had to experience the threat of the tormenting autocrat: it resisted with love for the autocracy, because it believed that God sends plagues, earthquakes, and tyrants; did not break the iron scepter in the hands of John and endured the destroyer for twenty-four years, armed only with prayer and patience, so that, in better times, to have Peter the Great, Catherine the Second (history does not like to name the living). In magnanimous humility, the sufferers died on the execution site, like the Greeks at Thermopylae, for their fatherland, for faith and loyalty, without even a thought of rebellion. In vain, some foreign historians, excusing Ioannov’s cruelty, wrote about conspiracies that were supposedly destroyed by her: these conspiracies existed solely in the vague mind of the king, according to all the evidence of our chronicles and state papers. The clergy, boyars, famous citizens would not have summoned the beast from the den of the Alexandrovskaya settlement if they had been plotting treason, which was brought against them as absurdly as sorcery. No, the tiger reveled in the blood of lambs - and the victims, dying in innocence, with their last glance at the disastrous land demanded justice, a touching memory from their contemporaries and posterity!

Despite all the speculative explanations, the character of John, a hero of virtue in his youth, a frantic bloodsucker in the years of courage and old age, is a mystery to the mind, and we would doubt the truth of the most reliable news about him if the annals of other nations did not show us equally amazing examples; if Caligula, the model of sovereigns and the monster, if Nero, the pupil of the wise Seneca, the object of love, the object of disgust, had not reigned in Rome. They were pagans; but Louis XI was a Christian, not inferior to John either in ferocity or in outward piety, with which they wanted to atone for their iniquities: both pious out of fear, both bloodthirsty and woman-loving, like the Asian and Roman tormentors. Monsters outside the laws, outside the rules of the PI probabilities of reason: these terrible meteors, the vulture of will-o'-the-wisp fires of unbridled passions, illuminate for us, in the space of centuries, the abyss of possible human depravity, and when we see it, we shudder! The life of a tyrant is a disaster for humanity, but his history is always useful for sovereigns and peoples: to instill disgust for evil is to instill love for virtue - and the glory of the time when a writer armed with the truth can, in an autocratic government, put such a ruler to shame, let him not there will be more like him in the future! The graves are emotionless; but the living fear eternal damnation in history, which, without correcting the villains, sometimes prevents crimes that are always possible, for wild passions rage even in the centuries of civil education, commanding the mind to remain silent or justify its frenzy with a slavish voice.

Thus, John had an excellent mind, not alien to education and information, combined with an extraordinary gift of speech, in order to shamelessly servile to the most vile lusts. Having a rare memory, he knew the Bible by heart, the history of Greek, Roman, and our fatherland, in order to absurdly interpret them in favor of tyranny; he boasted of his firmness and power over himself, being able to laugh loudly in hours of fear and inner anxiety; boasted of mercy and generosity, enriching his favorites with the property of disgraced boyars and citizens; he boasted of justice, punishing together, with equal pleasure, both merit and crime; he boasted of the royal spirit, the observance of sovereign honor, ordering to chop up an elephant sent from Persia to Moscow, who did not want to kneel before him, and cruelly punishing the poor courtiers who dared to play checkers or cards better than the sovereign; Finally, he boasted of the deep wisdom of the state, according to system, according to eras, with some kind of cold-blooded measure, exterminating famous clans, supposedly dangerous for the royal power, - raising to their level new, vile clans and with a destructive hand touching the very future of times: for the cloud informers, slanderers, total mongers, formed by him, like a cloud of hungry insects, having disappeared, left an evil seed among the people; and if the yoke of Batu humiliated the spirit of the Russians, then, without a doubt, the reign of John did not exalt it.

But let us give justice to the tyrant: John, in the very extremes of evil, is like the ghost of a great monarch, zealous, tireless, often insightful in government activities ; although, always loving to equal himself in valor with Alexander the Great, he did not have a shadow of courage in his soul, but remained a conqueror; in foreign policy he unswervingly followed the great intentions of his grandfather; he loved the truth in the courts, he himself often sorted out litigation, listened to complaints, read all sorts of papers, decided immediately; executed the oppressors of the people, unscrupulous dignitaries, covetous people, physically and with shame (dressed them in magnificent clothes, put them on a chariot and ordered the flayers to take them from street to street); did not tolerate vile drunkenness (only on Holy Week and on the Nativity of Christ were people allowed to have fun in taverns; drunks were sent to prison at any other time). Not liking bold reproach, John sometimes did not like rude flattery: let us present proof. The governors, princes Joseph Shcherbaty and Yuri Boryatinsky, redeemed by the tsar from Lithuanian captivity, were awarded his mercy, gifts and the honor of dining with him. He asked them about Lithuania: Shcherbaty spoke the truth; Boryatinsky lied shamelessly, assuring that the king had neither troops nor fortresses and trembled at John’s name. “Poor king! - the king said quietly, nodding his head. “How sorry you are to me!” - and suddenly, grabbing the staff, he broke it into small chips about Boryatinsky, saying: “Here’s to you, shameless one, for your blatant lie!” - John was famous for his prudent tolerance of faiths (with the exception of one Jewish); although, having allowed Lutherans and Calvinists to have a church in Moscow, five years later he ordered both to be burned (whether fearing temptation or hearing about the displeasure of the people?): however, he did not prevent them from gathering for worship in the houses of pastors; he loved to argue with learned Germans about the law and endured contradictions: so (in 1570) he had a solemn debate in the Kremlin Palace with the Lutheran theologian Rotsita, convicting him of heresy: Rotsita sat in front of him on an elevated place, covered with rich carpets; spoke boldly, justified the dogmas of the Augsburg Confession, received signs of royal favor and wrote a book about this interesting conversation. The German preacher Caspar, wanting to please John, was baptized in Moscow according to the rites of our church and together with him, to the chagrin of his fellow countrymen, joked about Luther; but none of them complained of oppression. They lived quietly in Moscow, in the new German settlement on the banks of the Yauza, enriching themselves with crafts and arts. John showed respect for the arts and sciences, caressing enlightened foreigners: he did not found academies, but contributed to public education by multiplying church schools, where the laity learned to read and write, law, even history, especially preparing to be clerks, to the shame of the boyars, who did not yet know how to do everything. then write. - Finally, John is famous in history as a lawmaker and state educator.

There is no doubt that the truly great John III, having published the “Civil Code,” also established various governments for better action autocratic power: in addition to the ancient boyar duma, in the affairs of this time the State Court and orders are mentioned; but we know nothing more, having already clear, reliable news about many massacres and judicial places that existed in Moscow under John IV. The main orders, or cheti, were called ambassadorial, rank, local, Kazan: the first was especially in charge of external or diplomatic affairs, the second - military, the third - lands distributed to officials and boyar children for their service, the fourth - affairs of the kingdom of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia and all the cities of the Volga; The first three orders, in addition to the designated positions, also dealt with the reprisals of regional cities: a strange mixture! Complaints, lawsuits, and investigations came to the courts from the regions, where the governors judged and tried with their tiuns and elders, who were helped by the sots and tens in the districts; from the ceti, where the most famous state dignitaries sat, every important criminal matter, the most civil, went to the boyar duma, so that without the tsar’s approval no one was executed, no one was deprived of their property. Only the governors of Smolensk, Pskov, Novgorod and Kazan, replaced almost annually, could punish criminals in emergency cases. New laws, institutions, taxes were always announced through orders. The royal property, or patrimony, which included many cities, had its consequences. In addition, huts (or orders) are also called: Streltsy, Yamskaya, Palace, State, Robbery, Zemsky Dvor, or Moscow City Council, Big Parish, or State Treasury, Armored, or Armory, Prikaz, Zhitny, or Reserve, and Serf Court , where litigation about serfs was resolved. Both in these and in regional governments or courts, the main actors were clerks-letters, used in embassy affairs, military affairs, in sieges, for writing and for advice, to the envy and displeasure of the military nobility. Knowing not only how to read and write better than others, but also knowing firmly the laws, traditions, rituals, clerks or clerks constituted a special kind of government servants, a rank lower than the nobles and higher than the tenants or deliberate children of the boyars, guests or eminent merchants; and the Duma clerks were inferior in dignity only to state advisers: boyars, okolnichy and new Duma nobles, established by John in 1572 to introduce into the Duma dignitaries, distinguished in mind, although not noble by birth: for, despite all the abuses of unlimited power, he sometimes respected ancient customs: for example, he did not want to give the boyars to the favorite of his soul, Malyuta Skuratov, for fear of humiliating this supreme rank by such a quick rise of an honorable man. Having increased the number of clerks and given them more importance in the state structure, John, as a skillful ruler, created even new degrees of celebrity for nobles and princes, dividing the first into two articles, into nobles of the same age and junior, and the second into simple and service princes, to the number of courtiers he added stewards, who, while serving at the sovereign’s table, also held military positions, being more dignified than the younger nobles. - We wrote about the military institutions of this active reign: with his cowardice, disgracing our banners in the field, John left Russia an army such as it had never had before: better organized and more numerous than before; destroyed the most glorious governors, but did not destroy the valor in the warriors, who most of all showed it in misfortunes, so that our immortal enemy Batory told Possevin with surprise how in defense of cities they do not think about life: they calmly stand in the places of those killed or blown up by the action of a mine and block the gaps with the chest; fighting day and night, they eat only bread; they die of hunger, but do not give up, so as not to betray the Tsar-Sovereign; how the women themselves take courage with them, either putting out the fire, or throwing logs and stones at the enemies from the heights of the walls. In this field, these warriors loyal to the fatherland were distinguished, if not by their art, then at least by their wonderful patience, enduring frosts, blizzards and bad weather under light winds and in draughty huts. - In the most ancient ranks, only governors were named: in the ranks of this time, heads, or private leaders, who, together with the first, were responsible to the king for every matter, are usually named.

John, as we said, supplemented his grandfather’s “Civil Code” in the legal code, including new laws in it, but without changing the system or spirit of the old ones...

Among the commendable deeds of this reign is the construction of many new cities for the safety of our borders. In addition to Laishev, Cheboksary, Kozmodemyansk, Bolkhov, Orel and other fortresses that we mentioned, John founded Donkov, Epifan, Venev, Chern, Kokshazhsk, Tetyushi, Alatyr, Arzamas. But, erecting beautiful strongholds in the forests and in the steppes, he saw with regret until the end of his life the ruins and wastelands in Moscow, burned by the khan in 1571, so that, according to Possevinov’s calculation, around 1581 there were no more than thirty thousand inhabitants , six times less than before, as another foreign writer says, having heard this from Moscow old-timers at the beginning of the 17th century. The walls of the new fortresses were wooden, filled inside with earth and sand or tightly woven from brushwood; and stone ones are only in the capital, Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, Tula, Kolomna, Zaraysk, Staritsa, Yaroslavl, Nizhny, Belozersk, Porkhov, Novgorod, Pskov.

The proliferation of cities also favored the extraordinary success of trade, which more and more increased the royal income (which in 1588 extended to six million current silver rubles). Not only on the import of foreign products or on the production of our works, but even on food items brought into the cities, there was a significant duty, sometimes paid off by the residents. The Novogorod Customs Charter of 1571 states that for all goods imported by foreign guests and valued by jury people, the treasury takes seven money per ruble: Russian merchants paid 4, and Novgorod merchants - 1 and 1/2 money: from meat, livestock, fish , caviar, honey, salt (German and long-tailed duck), onions, nuts, apples, except for special collection from carts, ships, sleighs. They paid for imported precious metals, just like for everything else; and exporting them was considered a crime. It is worthy of note that government goods were not exempt from duties. Concealment was punished with a heavy penalty. - At this time, the ancient capital of Rurik, although among the ruins, was beginning to revive again with trade activity, taking advantage of the proximity of Narva, where we were merchants with the whole of Europe; but soon plunged into dead silence when Russia, in the disasters of the Lithuanian and Swedish wars, lost this important harbour. Moreover, our Dvina trade flourished, in which the British had to share benefits with Dutch, German, French merchants, bringing to us sugar, wine, salt, berries, tin, cloth, lace and exchanging furs, hemp, flax, ropes for them, wool, wax, honey, lard, leather, iron, wood. French merchants, who brought a friendly letter from Henry III to John, were allowed to trade in Kola, and Spanish or Dutch merchants - in the Pudozher estuary: the most famous of these guests was called Ivan the Virgin Beloborod, delivered precious stones to the king and enjoyed his special favor, to the displeasure of the English. In a conversation with Elizabeth's ambassador, Baus, John complained that London merchants were not bringing anything good to us; he took the ring from his hand, pointed to the emerald of his cap and boasted that Devakh had given him the first for 60 rubles, and the second for a thousand: why did Baus marvel, valuing the ring at 300 rubles, and the emerald at 40,000. To Sweden and Denmark We sold a significant amount of bread. “This blessed land (Kobentzel writes about Russia) abounds in everything necessary for human life, having no real need for any foreign products.” - The conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan strengthened our Asian exchange.

Having enriched the treasury with trade city and zemstvo taxes, as well as by appropriating church estates in order to multiply the army, establish arsenals (where at least two thousand siege and field weapons were always ready), build fortresses, chambers, temples, John loved to use the excess income and luxury: we talked about the surprise of foreigners who saw piles of pearls in the Moscow treasury, mountains of gold and silver in the palace, brilliant meetings, dinners, during which for five, six hours 600 or 700 guests were sated with not only abundant, but also expensive dishes and fruits and the wines of hot, remote climates: once, in addition to eminent people, 2000 Nogai allies who were going to the Livonian war dined in the Kremlin chambers with the Tsar. In the ceremonial exits and departures of the sovereign, everything also presented an image of Asian splendor: squads of bodyguards drenched in gold, the wealth of their weapons, the decoration of horses. So, on December 12, John usually rode out of the city on horseback to see the effect of a firearm projectile: in front of him were several hundred princes, governors, dignitaries, three in a row; in front of the dignitaries - 5000 selected archers, five in a row. Among the vast snowy plain, on a high platform, 200 fathoms or more long, guns and soldiers stood, fired at the target, smashed fortifications, wooden, covered with earth, and ice. In church celebrations, as we have seen, John also appeared to the people with striking pomp, knowing how to give himself even more greatness with the appearance of artificial humility and combining the appearance of Christian virtues with worldly splendor: treating nobles and ambassadors on bright holidays, he poured rich alms on the poor.

In conclusion, let us say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory in the people’s memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones; but the name of John shone on the law book and was reminiscent of the acquisition of the three Mogul kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in book depositories, and for centuries the people saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the conquering king; I honored in him the famous culprit of our state strength, our civil education; rejected or forgot the name of the tormentor given to him by his contemporaries, and, according to dark rumors about John’s cruelty, to this day he calls him only the Terrible, not distinguishing between his grandson and his grandfather, so called by ancient Russia more in praise than in reproach. History is more vindictive than people!

N.M. Karamzin (1766 - 1826) - Russian writer, publicist and historian. In 1803, he received an order from the tsar to write the history of Russia and began to receive a pension as a civil servant. In 1816 - 1818 The first 8 volumes of “History of the Russian State” were published. The success of the work was extraordinary: in less than a month, readers bought up the entire circulation (3,000 copies). In this regard, the publication was repeated and subsequently reprinted several times.

Historical views Karamzin stemmed from a rationalistic idea of ​​the course of social development: the history of mankind is the history of global progress, the basis of which is the struggle of reason against error, enlightenment against ignorance. According to Karamzin, great people play a decisive role in history. Therefore, he devoted all his efforts to revealing the ideological and moral motivations for the actions of historical figures. Karamzin is an active supporter and defender of the monarchy. Therefore, he considered autocracy to be the determining force of history. “History of the Russian State,” written by a contemporary for that time literary language, with a vivid and imaginative depiction of historical events, turned out to be accessible to the widest circles of readers. For several decades it was a reference book through which people in Russia learned about history.

Volume IX. Chapter VII.

Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible.

The sick man’s strength was already disappearing; thoughts were darkened: lying on his bed, unconscious, John loudly called his murdered son to him, saw him in his imagination, spoke to him affectionately... On March 17, he felt better from the effects of a warm bath, so he ordered the Lithuanian ambassador to immediately leave Mozhaisk to the capital, and the next day (according to Horsey) he said to Belsky: “Declare execution for the liar astrologers: now, according to their fables, I should die, but I feel much more cheerful.” But the day has not passed yet, the astrologers answered him. They made a bath for the patient again: he stayed in it for about three hours, lay down on the bed, got up, asked for the chessboard and, sitting in a dressing gown on the bed, he himself placed the checkers: he wanted to play with Belsky... suddenly fell and closed his eyes forever, between while the doctors rubbed him with strong liquids, and the Metropolitan - probably fulfilling the long-known will of John - read the prayers of tonsure over the dying man, called Jonah in monasticism... At those moments, deep silence reigned in the palace and in the capital: they waited for what would happen, not daring to ask. John lay already dead, but still terrible for the upcoming courtiers, who for a long time did not believe their eyes and did not announce his death. When did the decisive word: “the sovereign pass away!” was heard in the Kremlin, the people screamed loudly... was it because, as they write, that they knew Feodorov’s weakness and were afraid of its bad consequences for the state, or paying the Christian debt of pity to the deceased monarch, albeit a cruel one?.. On the third day, a magnificent burial took place in the temple St. Michael the Archangel; tears flowed; Sorrow was depicted on their faces, and the earth quietly accepted John’s corpse into its bowels! Human judgment remained silent before the Divine - and for contemporaries the curtain fell on the theater: memory and coffins were left for posterity!

Between other difficult experiences of Fate, in addition to the disasters of the appanage system, in addition to the yoke of the Mughals, Russia had to experience the threat of the tormenting autocrat: it resisted with love for autocracy, because it believed that God sends plagues and earthquakes and tyrants; did not break the iron scepter in the hands of John and endured the destroyer for twenty-four years, armed only with prayer and patience, so that in better times she would have Peter the Great, Catherine the Second (history does not like to name the living). In magnanimous humility, the sufferers died on the execution site, like the Greeks at Thermopylae for their fatherland, for Faith and Fidelity, without even a thought of rebellion. In vain, some foreign historians, excusing Ioannov’s cruelty, wrote about conspiracies that were supposedly destroyed by her: these conspiracies existed solely in the vague mind of the king, according to all the evidence of our chronicles and state papers. The clergy, boyars, famous citizens would not have summoned the beast from the den of Sloboda Aleksandrovskaya if they had been plotting treason, which was brought against them as absurdly as sorcery. No, the tiger reveled in the blood of lambs - and the victims, dying in innocence, with their last glance at the disastrous land demanded justice, a touching memory from their contemporaries and posterity!

Despite all the speculative explanations, the character of John, the Hero of virtue in his youth, a frantic bloodsucker in the years of courage and old age, is a mystery to the mind, and we would doubt the truth of the most reliable news about him if the annals of other nations did not show us equally amazing examples; if Caligula, the model of sovereigns and the monster, - if Nero, the pupil of the wise Seneca, the object of love, the object of disgust, had not reigned in Rome.

They were pagans; but Louis XI was a Christian, not inferior to John either in ferocity or in outward piety, with which they wanted to atone for their iniquities: both pious out of fear, both bloodthirsty and woman-loving, like the Asian and Roman tormentors. Monsters outside the laws, outside the rules and probabilities of reason, these terrible meteors, these wandering fires of unbridled passions illuminate for us, in the space of centuries, the abyss of possible human depravity, and when we see it, we shudder! The life of a tyrant is a disaster for humanity, but his history is always useful for sovereigns and peoples: to instill disgust for evil is to instill love for virtue - and the glory of the time when a writer armed with the truth can, in an autocratic government, put such a ruler to shame, but not there will be more like him in the future! The graves are emotionless; but the living fear eternal damnation in history, which, without correcting the villains, sometimes prevents crimes that are always possible, for wild passions rage even in the centuries of civil education, commanding the mind to remain silent or justify its frenzy with a slavish voice.

Thus, John had an excellent mind, not alien to education and information, combined with an extraordinary gift of speech, in order to shamelessly servile to the most vile lusts. Having a rare memory, he knew the Bible, Greek, Roman, and our fatherland history by heart, in order to absurdly interpret them in favor of tyranny; he boasted of his firmness and power over himself, being able to laugh loudly in hours of fear and inner anxiety, he boasted of his mercy and generosity, enriching his favorites with the property of disgraced boyars and citizens; he boasted of justice, punishing together, with equal pleasure, both merit and crime; he boasted of the royal spirit, the observance of sovereign honor, ordering to chop up an elephant sent from Persia to Moscow, which did not want to kneel before him, and cruelly punishing the poor courtiers who dared to play checkers or cards better than the sovereign; finally boasted of the deep wisdom of the state according to the system, according to eras, with some kind of cold-blooded measure, exterminating famous clans, supposedly dangerous for the royal power - raising new, vile clans to their level, and touching with a destructive hand the very future of times: for a cloud of informers, slanderers , the outcasts he formed, like a cloud of hungry insects, having disappeared, left an evil seed among the people; and if the yoke of Batu humiliated the spirit of the Russians, then, without a doubt, the reign of John did not exalt it.

But let us give justice to the tyrant: John, in the very extremes of evil, is like the ghost of a great monarch, zealous, tireless, often insightful in state activities; although he always loved to equal himself in valor with Alexander the Great, he did not have a shadow of courage in his soul, but remained a conqueror; in foreign policy he unswervingly followed the great intentions of his grandfather; he loved the truth in the courts, he himself often dealt with litigation, listened to complaints, read all sorts of papers, and decided immediately; executed the oppressors of the people, unscrupulous dignitaries, covetous people, physically and with shame (dressed them in magnificent clothes, put them on a chariot and ordered the flayers to take them from street to street); did not tolerate vile drunkenness (only on Holy Week and on the Nativity of Christ were people allowed to have fun in taverns; drunks were sent to prison at any other time). Not liking bold reproach, John sometimes did not like rude flattery: let us present proof. The governors, princes Joseph Shcherbaty and Yuri Boryatinsky, redeemed by the tsar from Lithuanian captivity, were awarded his mercy, gifts and the honor of dining with him. He asked them about Lithuania: Shcherbaty spoke the truth; Boryatinsky lied shamelessly, assuring that the king had neither troops nor fortresses and trembled at John’s name. “Poor king! - the king said quietly, nodding his head: “how sorry you are to me!” and suddenly, grabbing the staff, he broke it into small chips about Boryatinsky, saying: “Here’s to you, shameless one, for your blatant lie!” - John was famous for his prudent tolerance of faiths (with the exception of one Jewish); although, having allowed Lutherans and Calvinists to have a church in Moscow, five years later he ordered both to be burned (whether fearing temptation or hearing about the displeasure of the people?): however, he did not prevent them from gathering for worship in the houses of pastors; he loved to argue with learned Germans about the Law and endured contradictions: thus (in 1570) he had a solemn debate in the Kremlin Palace with the Lutheran theologian Rotsita, convicting him of heresy: Rotsita sat in front of him on an elevated place, covered with rich carpets; spoke boldly, justified the dogmas of the Augsburg Confession, received signs of royal favor and wrote a book about this interesting conversation.

The German preacher Caspar, wanting to please John, was baptized in Moscow according to the rites of our church and together with him, to the chagrin of his fellow countrymen, joked about Luther; but none of them complained of oppression. They lived quietly in Moscow, in the new German Settlement, on the banks of the Yauza, enriching themselves with crafts and arts. John showed respect for the arts and sciences, caring for enlightened foreigners: he did not found academies, but contributed to public education by multiplying church schools, where the laity learned to read and write, law, even history, especially preparing to be clerks, to the shame of the boyars, who did not yet know how to do everything. then write. Finally, John is famous in history as a lawgiver and state educator...

Having enriched the treasury with trade, city and zemstvo taxes, as well as by appropriating church estates in order to increase the army, build arsenals (where at least two thousand siege and field weapons were always ready), build fortresses, chambers, temples, John loved to use the excess income and for luxury: we talked about the surprise of foreigners who saw piles of pearls in the Moscow treasury, mountains of gold and silver in the palace, brilliant meetings, dinners, during which for five, six hours 600 or 700 guests were sated with not only abundant, but also expensive dishes , fruits and wines of hot, distant climates: once, in addition to eminent people, 2000 Nogai allies who were going to the Livonian War dined in the Kremlin chambers with the Tsar. In the ceremonial exits and departures of the sovereign, everything also presented an image of Asian splendor: squads of bodyguards drenched in gold - the wealth of their weapons, the decoration of horses. So, on December 12, John usually rode out of the city on horseback to see the effect of a firearm projectile: in front of him were several hundred princes, governors, dignitaries, three in a row; in front of the dignitaries were 5,000 selected archers, five in a row. In the midst of a vast, snowy plain, on a high platform, 200 fathoms long or more, guns and soldiers stood, fired at the target, smashed fortifications, wooden, covered with earth, and ice. In church celebrations, as we have seen, John also appeared to the people with striking pomp, knowing how to give himself greatness with the appearance of artificial humility, and combining the appearance of Christian virtues with worldly splendor: treating nobles and ambassadors on bright holidays, he showered rich alms on the poor.

In conclusion, let us say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory in the people’s memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones; but the name of John shone on the Code of Laws and was reminiscent of the acquisition of three Mogul kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in book depositories, and for centuries the people saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the Conqueror Tsar; I honored in him the famous culprit of our state strength, our civil education; rejected or forgot the name of the Tormentor, given to him by his contemporaries, and, according to dark rumors about John’s cruelty, to this day he calls him only the Terrible, not distinguishing between his grandson and his grandfather, so called by ancient Russia more in praise than in reproach. History is more vindictive than people!

SOURCE:

Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian state. T. IX - XII.

Kaluga, 1994. pp. 176 - 179, 189 - 190.