Balyazin Voldemar. The Horde yoke and the formation of Rus'

Konstantin Ryzhov - Ivan III

Brockhaus-Efron - Ivan III

S. F. Platonov - Ivan III

V. O. Klyuchevsky - Ivan III

Ivan III and the unification of Russia. Hiking to Novgorod. Battle of the Sheloni River 1471. Marriage of Ivan III with Sophia Paleologus. Strengthening autocracy. March on Novgorod 1477-1478. Annexation of Novgorod to Moscow. The end of the Novgorod veche. Conspiracy in Novgorod 1479. Relocation of Novgorodians. Aristotle Fioravanti. The campaign of Khan Akhmat. Standing on the Ugra 1480. Vassian of Rostov. The end of the Horde yoke. Annexation of Tver to Moscow 1485. Annexation of Vyatka to Moscow 1489. Union of Ivan III with the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey. Wars with Lithuania. Transfer of the Verkhovsky and Seversky principalities to Moscow.

Wanting to legitimize the new order of succession to the throne and take away from hostile princes any pretext for unrest, Vasily II, during his lifetime, named Ivan Grand Duke. All letters were written on behalf of the two great princes. By 1462, when Vasily died, 22-year-old Ivan was already a man who had seen a lot, with an established character, ready to solve difficult state issues. He had a cool disposition and a cold heart, was distinguished by prudence, lust for power and the ability to steadily move towards his chosen goal.

Ivan III at the Monument “1000th Anniversary of Russia” in Veliky Novgorod

In 1463, under pressure from Moscow, the Yaroslavl princes ceded their patrimony. Following this, Ivan III began a decisive struggle with Novgorod. They have long hated Moscow here, but they considered it dangerous to go to war with Moscow on their own. Therefore, the Novgorodians resorted to the last resort - they invited the Lithuanian prince Mikhail Olelkovich to reign. At the same time, an agreement was concluded with King Casimir, according to which Novgorod came under his supreme authority, renounced Moscow, and Casimir undertook to protect it from attacks by the Grand Duke. Having learned about this, Ivan III sent ambassadors to Novgorod with meek but firm speeches. The ambassadors reminded that Novgorod is Ivan’s fatherland, and he does not demand from him more than what his ancestors demanded.

The Novgorodians expelled the Moscow ambassadors with dishonor. Thus it was necessary to start a war. On July 13, 1471, on the banks of the Sheloni River, the Novgorodians were completely defeated. Ivan III, who arrived after the battle with the main army, moved to take Novgorod with weapons. Meanwhile, there was no help from Lithuania. The people in Novgorod became agitated and sent their archbishop to ask the Grand Duke for mercy. As if condescending to strengthen the intercession for the guilty metropolitan, his brothers and boyars, the Grand Duke declared his mercy to the Novgorodians: “I give up my dislike, I put down the sword and the thunderstorm in the land of Novgorod and release it full without compensation.” They concluded an agreement: Novgorod renounced its connection with the Lithuanian sovereign, ceded part of the Dvina land to the Grand Duke and undertook to pay a “kopeck” (indemnity). In all other respects, this agreement was a repetition of the one concluded under Vasily II.

In 1467, the Grand Duke became a widower, and two years later began wooing the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Princess Sophia Fominichna Palaeologus. Negotiations dragged on for three years. On November 12, 1472, the bride finally arrived in Moscow. The wedding took place on the same day. The marriage of the Moscow sovereign with the Greek princess was an important event in Russian history. He opened the way for connections between Muscovite Rus' and the West. On the other hand, together with Sophia, some orders and customs of the Byzantine court were established at the Moscow court. The ceremony became more majestic and solemn. The Grand Duke himself rose to prominence in the eyes of his contemporaries. They noticed that Ivan III, after marrying the niece of the Byzantine emperor, appeared as an autocratic sovereign on the Moscow grand-ducal table; He was the first to receive the nickname Terrible, because he was a monarch for the princes of the squad, demanding unquestioning obedience and strictly punishing disobedience.

He rose to a royal, unattainable height, before which the boyar, prince and descendant of Rurik and Gediminas had to reverently bow along with the last of his subjects; at the first wave of the formidable Ivan, the heads of the seditious princes and boyars lay on the chopping block. It was at that time that Ivan III began to inspire fear with his very appearance. Women, contemporaries say, fainted from his angry gaze. The courtiers, fearing for their lives, had to amuse him during his leisure hours, and when he, sitting in his armchairs, indulged in a doze, they stood motionless around him, not daring to cough or make a careless movement, so as not to wake him. Contemporaries and immediate descendants attributed this change to the suggestions of Sophia, and we have no right to reject their testimony. Herberstein, who was in Moscow during the reign of Sophia’s son, said about her: “She was an unusually cunning woman; at her inspiration, the Grand Duke did a lot.”

Sophia Paleolog. Reconstruction based on the skull of S. A. Nikitin

First of all, the gathering of the Russian land continued. In 1474, Ivan III bought from the Rostov princes the remaining half of the Rostov principality. But a much more important event was the final conquest of Novgorod. In 1477, two representatives of the Novgorod veche came to Moscow - the subvoy Nazar and the clerk Zakhar. In their petition, they called Ivan III and his son sovereigns, whereas before all the Novgorodians called them masters. The Grand Duke seized on this and on April 24 sent his ambassadors to ask: what kind of state does Veliky Novgorod want? The Novgorodians responded at the meeting that they did not call the Grand Duke sovereign and did not send ambassadors to him to talk about some new state; all of Novgorod, on the contrary, wants everything to remain unchanged, as in the old days. Ivan III came to the Metropolitan with the news of the perjury of the Novgorodians: “I didn’t want a state for them, they sent me with that, but now they are locking themselves up and accusing us of lies.” He also announced to his mother, brothers, boyars, governors and, with the general blessing and advice, armed himself against the Novgorodians. Moscow detachments were disbanded throughout the Novgorod land from Zavolochye to Narova and were supposed to burn human settlements and exterminate the inhabitants. To protect their freedom, the Novgorodians had neither material means nor moral strength. They sent the bishop with ambassadors to ask the Grand Duke for peace and truth.

The ambassadors met the Grand Duke in the Sytyn churchyard, near Ilmen. The Grand Duke did not accept them, but ordered his boyars to present to them the guilt of Veliky Novgorod. In conclusion, the boyars said: “If Novgorod wants to hit with his forehead, then he knows how to hit with his forehead.” Following this, the Grand Duke crossed the Ilmen and stood three miles from Novgorod. The Novgorodians once again sent their envoys to Ivan, but the Moscow boyars, as before, did not allow them to reach the Grand Duke, uttering the same mysterious words: “If Novgorod wants to hit with his forehead, then he knows how to hit with his forehead.” Moscow troops captured Novgorod monasteries and surrounded the entire city; Novgorod turned out to be closed on all sides. The lord set off again with the ambassadors. This time the Grand Duke did not allow them to come to him, but his boyars now announced bluntly: “There will be no veil and no bell, there will be no mayor, the Grand Duke will hold the state of Novgorod in the same way as he holds the state in the Lower Land, and rule in Novgorod to his governors." For this they were encouraged that the Grand Duke would not take away the land from the boyars and would not remove the inhabitants from the Novgorod land.

Six days passed in excitement. The Novgorod boyars, for the sake of preserving their estates, decided to sacrifice freedom; the people were unable to defend themselves with weapons. The Bishop and the ambassadors again came to the Grand Duke’s camp and announced that Novgorod agreed to all the conditions. The ambassadors proposed to write an agreement and approve it on both sides with a kiss of the cross. But they were told that neither the Grand Duke, nor his boyars, nor the governors would kiss the cross. The ambassadors were detained and the siege continued. Finally, in January 1478, when the townspeople began to suffer severely from hunger, Ivan demanded that half of the lordly and monastic volosts and all the Novotorzh volosts, no matter whose they were, be given to him. Novgorod agreed to everything. On January 15, all townspeople were sworn in to complete obedience to the Grand Duke. The veche bell was removed and sent to Moscow.

Marfa Posadnitsa (Boretskaya). Destruction of the Novgorod veche. Artist K. Lebedev, 1889

In March 1478, Ivan III returned to Moscow, having successfully completed the whole business. But already in the fall of 1479 they let him know that many Novgorodians were being sent with Casimir, calling him to their place, and the king promised to appear with regiments, and communicated with Akhmat, Khan of the Golden Horde, and invited him to Moscow. Ivan's brothers were involved in the conspiracy. The situation was serious, and, contrary to his custom, Ivan III began to act quickly and decisively. He concealed his real intention and started a rumor that he was going against the Germans who were then attacking Pskov; even his son did not know the true purpose of the campaign. Meanwhile, the Novgorodians, relying on the help of Casimir, drove out the grand ducal governors, resumed the veche order, elected a mayor and a thousand. The Grand Duke approached the city with the Italian architect and engineer Aristotle Fioravanti, who set up cannons against Novgorod: his cannons fired accurately. Meanwhile, the grand ducal army captured the settlements, and Novgorod found itself under siege. Riots broke out in the city. Many realized that there was no hope for protection, and hurried in advance to the camp of the Grand Duke. The leaders of the conspiracy, unable to defend themselves, sent to Ivan to ask for “savior,” that is, a letter of free passage for negotiations. “I saved you,” answered the Grand Duke, “I saved the innocent; I am your sovereign, open the gate, I will enter, and I will not offend anyone innocent.” The people opened the gates and Ivan entered the church of St. Sofia, prayed and then settled in the house of the newly elected mayor Efrem Medvedev.

Meanwhile, the informers presented Ivan with a list of the main conspirators. Based on this list, he ordered fifty people to be captured and tortured. Under torture, they showed that the bishop was in complicity with them; the bishop was captured on January 19, 1480 and taken to Moscow without a church trial, where he was imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery. The archbishop's treasury went to the sovereign. The accused told no one else, and so another hundred people were captured. They were tortured and then all executed. The property of those executed was assigned to the sovereign. Following this, more than a thousand merchant families and boyar children were expelled and settled in Pereyaslavl, Vladimir, Yuryev, Murom, Rostov, Kostroma, and Nizhny Novgorod. A few days after that, the Moscow army drove more than seven thousand families from Novgorod to Moscow land. All real and movable property of those resettled became the property of the Grand Duke. Many of those exiled died on the way, as they were driven away in the winter without allowing them to gather; the survivors were resettled in different towns and cities: the Novgorod boyar children were given estates, and instead of them Muscovites were settled in the Novgorod land. In the same way, instead of the merchants exiled to Moscow land, others were sent from Moscow to Novgorod.

N. Shustov. Ivan III tramples Khan's Basma

Having dealt with Novgorod, Ivan III hurried to Moscow; news came that the Khan of the Great Horde, Akhmat, was moving towards him. In fact, Rus' had been independent from the Horde for many years, but formally the supreme power belonged to the Horde khans. Rus' grew stronger - the Horde weakened, but continued to remain a formidable force. In 1480, Khan Akhmat, having learned about the uprising of the brothers of the Grand Duke and agreed to act in concert with Casimir of Lithuania, set out for Moscow. Having received news of Akhmat's movement, Ivan III sent his regiments to the Oka, and he himself went to Kolomna. But the khan, seeing that strong regiments were stationed along the Oka, took a direction to the west, to Lithuanian land, in order to penetrate the Moscow possessions through the Ugra; then Ivan ordered his son Ivan and brother Andrei the Lesser to hurry to the Ugra; The princes carried out the order, came to the river before the Tatars, occupied fords and carriages. Ivan, far from a brave man, was in great confusion. This is evident from his orders and behavior. He immediately sent his wife and the treasury to Beloozero, giving orders to flee further to the sea if the khan took Moscow. He himself was very tempted to follow, but was restrained by his entourage, especially Vassian, Archbishop of Rostov. After spending some time on the Oka, Ivan III ordered Kashira to be burned and went to Moscow, supposedly for advice with the metropolitan and the boyars. He gave the order to Prince Daniil Kholmsky, upon the first dispatch from him from Moscow, to go there together with the young Grand Duke Ivan. On September 30, when Muscovites were moving from the suburbs to the Kremlin to sit under siege, they suddenly saw the Grand Duke entering the city. The people thought that it was all over, that the Tatars were following in Ivan’s footsteps; Complaints were heard in the crowds: “When you, Sovereign Grand Duke, reign over us in meekness and quiet, then you rob us in vain, but now you yourself have angered the tsar, without paying him a way out, and hand us over to the tsar and the Tatars.” Ivan had to endure this insolence. He traveled to the Kremlin and was met here by the formidable Vassian of Rostov. “All Christian blood will fall on you because, having betrayed Christianity, you run away, without putting up a fight with the Tatars and without fighting with them,” he said. “Why are you afraid of death? You are not an immortal person, a mortal; and without fate there is no death neither man nor bird, nor bird; give me, an old man, an army in my hands, and you will see if I turn my face before the Tatars!” Ashamed, Ivan did not go to his Kremlin courtyard, but settled in Krasnoye Selo. From here he sent an order to his son to go to Moscow, but he decided better. to incur his father's wrath than to drive from the shore. “I’ll die here, but I won’t go to my father,” he said to Prince Kholmsky, who persuaded him to leave the army. He guarded the movement of the Tatars, who wanted to secretly cross the Ugra and suddenly rush to Moscow: the Tatars were repulsed from the shore with great damage.

Meanwhile, Ivan III, having lived for two weeks near Moscow, somewhat recovered from his fear, surrendered to the persuasion of the clergy and decided to go to the army. But he didn’t get to Ugra, but stopped in Kremenets on the Luzha River. Here again fear began to overcome him and he completely decided to end the matter peacefully and sent Ivan Tovarkov to the khan with a petition and gifts, asking for a salary so that he would retreat away. The khan answered: “They favor Ivan; let him come to beat him with his brow, just as his fathers went to our fathers in the Horde.” But the Grand Duke did not go.

Standing on the Ugra River 1480

Akhmat, who was not allowed to cross the Ugra by the Moscow regiments, boasted all summer: “God grant winter to you: when all the rivers stop, there will be many roads to Rus'.” Fearing the fulfillment of this threat, Ivan, as soon as the Ugra became, on October 26, ordered his son and brother Andrei with all the regiments to retreat to Kremenets to fight with united forces. But even now Ivan III did not know peace - he gave the order to retreat further to Borovsk, promising to fight there. But Akhmat did not think of taking advantage of the retreat of the Russian troops. He stood on the Ugra until November 11, apparently waiting for the promised Lithuanian help. But then severe frosts began, so that it was impossible to endure; the Tatars were naked, barefoot, and ragged, as the chronicler put it. The Lithuanians never came, distracted by the attack of the Crimeans, and Akhmat did not dare to pursue the Russians further north. He turned back and went back to the steppe. Contemporaries and descendants perceived the standing on the Ugra as the visible end of the Horde yoke. The power of the Grand Duke increased, and at the same time the cruelty of his character increased noticeably. He became intolerant and quick to kill. The further, the more consistently, the bolder than before, Ivan III expanded his state and strengthened his autocracy.

In 1483, the Prince of Verei bequeathed his principality to Moscow. Then it was the turn of Moscow’s longtime rival, Tver. In 1484, Moscow learned that Prince Mikhail Borisovich of Tverskoy had struck up a friendship with Casimir of Lithuania and married the latter’s granddaughter. Ivan III declared war on Mikhail. Muscovites occupied the Tver volost, took and burned the cities. Lithuanian help did not come, and Mikhail was forced to ask for peace. Ivan gave peace. Mikhail promised not to have any relations with Casimir and the Horde. But in the same 1485, Michael’s messenger to Lithuania was intercepted. This time the reprisal was quicker and harsher. On September 8, the Moscow army surrounded Tver, on the 10th the settlements were lit, and on the 11th the Tver boyars, abandoning their prince, came to Ivan’s camp and beat him with their foreheads, asking for service. Mikhail Borisovich fled to Lithuania at night. Tver swore allegiance to Ivan, who planted his son in it.

In 1489, Vyatka was finally annexed. The Moscow army took Khlynov almost without resistance. The leaders of the Vyatchans were whipped and executed, the rest of the inhabitants were taken out of the Vyatka land to Borovsk, Aleksin, Kremenets, and the landowners of the Moscow land were sent in their place.

Ivan III was just as lucky in the wars with Lithuania. On the southern and western borders, petty Orthodox princes with their estates continually came under the authority of Moscow. The Odoevsky princes were the first to be transferred, then the Vorotynsky and Belevsky princes. These petty princes constantly entered into quarrels with their Lithuanian neighbors - in fact, the war did not stop on the southern borders, but in Moscow and Vilna they maintained a semblance of peace for a long time. In 1492, Casimir of Lithuania died, and the table passed to his son Alexander. Ivan III, together with Mengli-Girey, immediately began a war against him. Things went well for Moscow. The governors took Meshchovsk, Serpeisk, Vyazma; The Vyazemsky, Mezetsky, Novosilsky princes and other Lithuanian owners, willy-nilly, went into the service of the Moscow sovereign. Alexander realized that it would be difficult for him to fight both Moscow and Mengli-Girey at the same time; he planned to marry Ivan’s daughter, Elena, and thus create a lasting peace between the two rival states. Negotiations proceeded sluggishly until January 1494. Finally, a peace was concluded, according to which Alexander ceded to Ivan the volosts of the princes who had passed to him. Then Ivan III agreed to marry his daughter to Alexander, but this marriage did not bring the expected results. In 1500, strained relations between father-in-law and son-in-law turned into outright hostility over new defections to Moscow by princes who were Lithuania's henchmen. Ivan sent his son-in-law a marking document and after that sent an army to Lithuania. The Crimeans, as usual, helped the Russian army. Many Ukrainian princes, in order to avoid ruin, hastened to surrender to the rule of Moscow. In 1503, a truce was concluded, according to which Ivan III retained all the conquered lands. Soon after this, Ivan III died. He was buried in Moscow in the Church of the Archangel Michael.

Konstantin Ryzhov. All the monarchs of the world. Russia

Grand Duke of Moscow, son of Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark and Maria Yaroslavovna, b. 22 Jan 1440, was co-ruler with his father in recent years his life, ascended the grand-ducal throne before the death of Vasily, in 1462. Having become an independent ruler, he continued the policies of his predecessors, striving for the unification of Rus' under the leadership of Moscow and, for this purpose, destroying appanage principalities and the independence of veche regions, as well as entering into a stubborn struggle with Lithuania because of the Russian lands that joined it. The actions of Ivan III were not particularly decisive and courageous: cautious and calculating, not possessing personal courage, he did not like to take risks and preferred to achieve his intended goal with slow steps, taking advantage of favorable opportunities and favorable circumstances. The power of Moscow had already reached a very significant development by this time, while its rivals had noticeably weakened; this gave broad scope to the cautious policy of Ivan III and led it to major results. Individual Russian principalities were too weak to fight the Grand Duke; there were not enough funds for this struggle and the leaders. the Principality of Lithuania, and the unification of these forces was hampered by the consciousness of their unity that had already been established among the mass of the Russian population and the hostile attitude of the Russians towards Catholicism, which was becoming stronger in Lithuania. The Novgorodians, seeing the increase in Moscow's power and fearing for their independence, decided to seek protection from Lithuania, although in Novgorod itself a strong party was against this decision. Ivan III at first did not take any decisive action, limiting himself to exhortations. But the latter did not act: the Lithuanian party, led by the Boretsky family (see the corresponding article), finally gained the upper hand. First, one of the serving Lithuanian princes, Mikhail Olelkovich (Alexandrovich), was invited to Novgorod (1470), and then, when Mikhail, having learned about the death of his brother Semyon, who was the Kyiv governor, went to Kyiv, an agreement was concluded with the king of Poland and led. book Lithuanian Casimir, Novgorod surrendered to his rule, with the condition of preserving Novgorod customs and privileges. This gave Moscow chroniclers a reason to call the Novgorodians “foreign pagans and apostates of Orthodoxy.” Then Ivan III set out on a campaign, gathering a large army, in which, in addition to the army, he himself led. Prince, there were auxiliary detachments of his three brothers, Tver and Pskov. Casimir did not give help to the Novgorodians, and their troops, on July 14, 1471, suffered a decisive defeat in the battle of the river. Sheloni from Voivode Ivan, Prince. Dan. Dm. Kholmsky; a little later, another Novgorod army was defeated on the Dvina by Prince. You. Shuisky. Novgorod asked for peace and received it, under the condition of payment. to the prince 15,500 rubles, concession of part of Zavolochye and an obligation not to enter into an alliance with Lithuania. After that, however, a gradual restriction of Novgorod liberties began. In 1475, Ivan III visited Novgorod and tried the court here in the old way, but then the complaints of the Novgorodians began to be accepted in Moscow, where they were held in court, summoning the accused to Moscow bailiffs, contrary to the privileges of Novgorod. Novgorodians tolerated these violations of their rights, without giving a pretext for their complete destruction. In 1477, however, such a pretext appeared to Ivan: the Novgorod ambassadors, the subvoy Nazar and the veche clerk Zakhar, introducing themselves to Ivan, called him not “master,” as usual, but “Sovereign.” A request was immediately sent to the Novgorodians what kind of state they wanted. In vain were the answers of the Novgorod veche that it did not give its envoys such an order; Ivan accused the Novgorodians of denial and dishonor to him, and in October he set out on a campaign against Novgorod. Without encountering resistance and rejecting all requests for peace and pardon, he reached Novgorod itself and besieged it. Only here did the Novgorod ambassadors learn the conditions under which he was leading. the prince agreed to pardon his fatherland: they consisted in the complete destruction of independence and veche government in Novgorod. Surrounded on all sides by the grand ducal troops, Novgorod had to agree to these conditions, as well as to the return of the. to the prince of all Novotorzhsky volosts, half of the lordships and half of the monasteries, having only managed to negotiate small concessions in the interests of the poor monasteries. On January 15, 1478, the Novgorodians swore an oath to Ivan on new terms, after which he entered the city and, having captured the leaders of the party hostile to him, sent them to Moscow prisons. Novgorod did not immediately come to terms with its fate: the very next year there was an uprising, supported by the suggestions of Casimir and Ivan's brothers - Andrei Bolshoi and Boris. Ivan III forced Novgorod to submit, executed many of the perpetrators of the uprising, imprisoned Bishop Theophilus and evicted more than 1,000 merchant families and boyar children from the city to the Moscow regions, relocating new residents from Moscow in their place. New conspiracies and unrest in Novgorod only led to new repressive measures. Ivan III especially widely applied the system of evictions to Novgorod: in one year, 1488, more than 7,000 people were brought to Moscow. Through such measures, the freedom-loving population of Novgorod was finally broken. Following the fall of Novgorod's independence, Vyatka also fell in 1489. forced by the governors of Ivan III to complete submission. Of the veche cities, only Pskov still retained its old structure, achieving this by complete submission to the will of Ivan, who, however, gradually changed the Pskov order: thus, the governors elected by the veche were replaced here by those appointed exclusively by the veche. prince; The council's resolutions on smerds were repealed, and the Pskovites were forced to agree to this. One after another, the appanage principalities fell to Ivan. In 1463, Yaroslavl was annexed by the cession of their rights by the local princes; in 1474, the Rostov princes sold the half of the city that still remained to them to Ivan. Then the turn came to Tver. Book Mikhail Borisovich, fearing the growing power of Moscow, married the granddaughter of the Lithuanian prince. Casimir and concluded an alliance treaty with him in 1484. Ivan III started a war with Tver and waged it successfully, but at the request of Mikhail he gave him peace, on the condition of renouncing independent relations with Lithuania and the Tatars. Having retained its independence, Tver, like Novgorod before, was subjected to a series of oppressions; especially in border disputes, the Tver residents could not obtain justice against the Muscovites who seized their lands, as a result of which an increasing number of boyars and boyar children moved from Tver to Moscow, led to the service. prince Out of patience, Mikhail started relations with Lithuania, but they were open, and Ivan, not listening to requests and apologies, approached Tver with an army in September 1485; Most of the boyars went over to his side, Mikhail fled to Casimir and Tver was annexed to Vel. Principality of Moscow. In the same year, Ivan received Vereya according to the will of the local prince Mikhail Andreevich, whose son, Vasily, even earlier, frightened by Ivan’s disgrace, fled to Lithuania (see the corresponding article).

Within the Moscow principality, appanages were also destroyed and the importance of appanage princes fell before the power of Ivan. In 1472, Ivan's brother, Prince, died. Dmitrovsky Yuri, or Georgy (see the corresponding article); Ivan III took his entire inheritance for himself and did not give anything to the other brothers, violating the old rules, according to which the escheated inheritance was to be divided among the brothers. The brothers quarreled with Ivan, but made peace when he gave them some volosts. A new clash occurred in 1479. Having conquered Novgorod with the help of his brothers, Ivan did not allow them to participate in the Novgorod volost. Already dissatisfied with this, the brothers of the Grand Duke were even more offended when he ordered one of his governors to seize the prince who had driven away from him. Boris the boyar (Prince Iv. Obolensky-Lyko). The princes of Volotsk and Uglitsky, Boris (see the corresponding article) and Andrei Bolshoi (see the corresponding article) Vasilievich, having communicated with each other, entered into relations with the dissatisfied Novgorodians and Lithuania and, having gathered troops, entered the Novgorod and Pskov volosts. But Ivan III managed to suppress the uprising of Novgorod. Casimir did not help his brothers. prince, they alone did not dare to attack Moscow and remained on the Lithuanian border until 1480, when the invasion of Khan Akhmat gave them the opportunity to profitably make peace with their brother. Needing their help, Ivan agreed to make peace with them and gave them new volosts, and Andrei Bolshoy received Mozhaisk, which previously belonged to Yuri. In 1481, Andrei Menshoi, Ivan’s younger brother, died; owing him 30,000 rubles. During his lifetime, according to his will, he left him his inheritance, in which the other brothers did not receive participation. Ten years later, Ivan III arrested Andrei Bolshoi in Moscow, who a few months earlier had not sent his army against the Tatars on his orders, and put him in close confinement, in which he died in 1494; his entire inheritance was taken. prince on himself. Boris Vasilyevich's inheritance, upon his death, was inherited by his two sons, one of whom died in 1503, leaving his part to Ivan. Thus, the number of fiefs created by Ivan’s father was greatly reduced by the end of Ivan’s reign. At the same time, a new beginning was firmly established in the relations of the appanage princes with the greats: the will of Ivan III formulated the rule that he himself followed and according to which escheated appanages were to pass to the great. to the prince. This rule eliminated the possibility of concentrating inheritance in someone else's hands. prince and, consequently, the importance of appanage princes was completely undermined.

The expansion of Moscow's possessions at the expense of Lithuania was facilitated by the internal unrest that took place in Vel. Principality of Lithuania. Already in the first decades of the reign of Ivan III, many serving princes of Lithuania went over to him, maintaining their estates. The most prominent of them were the princes Iv. Mich. Vorotynsky and Iv. You. Belsky. After the death of Casimir, when Poland elected Jan-Albrecht as king, and Alexander took the Lithuanian table, Ivan III began an open war with the latter. Made by Lithuanian Vel. The prince's attempt to stop the struggle through a family union with the Moscow dynasty did not lead to the result expected from it: Ivan III agreed to the marriage of his daughter Elena with Alexander no sooner than he concluded peace, according to which Alexander recognized for him the title of sovereign of all Rus' and all acquired by Moscow in time of war on earth. Later, the very family union became for John only another pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of Lithuania and demanding an end to the oppression of the Orthodox (see the corresponding article). Ivan III himself, through the mouths of the ambassadors sent to Crimea, explained his policy towards Lithuania as follows: “Our Grand Duke and the Lithuanian have no lasting peace; the Lithuanian wants the Grand Duke of those cities and lands that were taken from him, and the Grand Prince wants him of his fatherland, of the whole Russian land." These mutual claims already in 1499 caused new war between Alexander and Ivan, successful for the latter; By the way, on July 14, 1500, Russian troops won a great victory over the Lithuanians near the river. Vedrosha, whereupon the Lithuanian prince hetman was taken prisoner. Konstantin Ostrogsky. The peace concluded in 1503 secured Moscow's new acquisitions, including Chernigov, Starodub, Novgorod-Seversk, Putivl, Rylsk and 14 other cities.

Under Ivan, Muscovite Rus', strengthened and united, finally threw off the Tatar yoke. Khan of the Golden Horde Akhmat, back in 1472, under the suggestions of the Polish king Casimir, undertook a campaign against Moscow, but only took Aleksin and could not cross the Oka, behind which Ivan’s strong army had gathered. In 1476, Ivan, as they say, as a result of the admonitions of his second wife, led. Princess Sophia, refused to pay further tribute to Akhmat, and in 1480 the latter again attacked Rus', but at the river. The Ugrians were stopped by the army led. prince Ivan himself, however, even now hesitated for a long time, and only the persistent demands of the clergy, especially the Rostov Bishop Vassian (see the corresponding article), prompted him to personally go to the army and then interrupt the negotiations that had already begun with Akhmat. All autumn, Russian and Tatar troops stood one against the other on different sides of the river. Ugrians; finally, when it was already winter and severe frosts began to bother the poorly dressed Tatars of Akhmat, he, without waiting for help from Casimir, retreated on November 11; the following year he was killed by the Nogai prince Ivak, and the power of the Golden Horde over Russia collapsed completely.

Memorial in honor of the sites on the Ugra River. Kaluga region

Following this, Ivan gave us letters of free passage for negotiations. offensive actions in relation to another Tatar kingdom - Kazan. In the first years of the reign of Ivan III, his hostile attitude towards Kazan was expressed in a number of raids carried out on both sides, but did not lead to anything decisive and were at times interrupted by peace treaties. The unrest that began in Kazan after the death of Khan Ibrahim, between his sons, Ali Khan and Muhammad Amen, gave Ivan the opportunity to subjugate Kazan to his influence. In 1487, Mohammed-Amen, who had been expelled by his brother, came to Ivan asking for help, and after that he led an army. the prince besieged Kazan and forced Ali Khan to surrender; Muhammad-Amen was installed in his place, who actually became a vassal to Ivan. In 1496, Muhammad-Amen was overthrown by the Kazan people, who called upon the Nogai prince. Mamuka; not having gotten along with him, the Kazan people again turned to Ivan for the king, asking only not to send Muhammad-Amen to them, and Ivan III sent to them the Crimean prince Abdyl-Letif, who had recently come to his service, to them. The latter, however, was already deposed by Ivan III in 1502 and imprisoned on Beloezero for disobedience, and Kazan was again given to Muhammad-Amen, who in 1505 broke away from Moscow and began a war with it, attacking Nizhny Novgorod. Death did not allow Ivan to restore his lost power over Kazan. Ivan III maintained peaceful relations with two other Muslim powers - Crimea and Turkey. The Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey, himself threatened by the Golden Horde, was a loyal ally of Ivan III against both it and Lithuania; Not only was trade profitable for the Russians carried out with Turkey at the Kafinsky market, but from 1492 diplomatic relations were also established through Mengli-Girey.

A. Vasnetsov. Moscow Kremlin under Ivan III

The nature of the power of the Moscow sovereign under Ivan underwent significant changes, which depended not only on its actual strengthening, with the fall of appanages, but also on the emergence of new concepts on the soil prepared by such strengthening. With the fall of Constantinople, Russian scribes began to transfer to the Moscow prince. that idea of ​​the tsar - the head of the Orthodox Church. Christianity, which was previously associated with the name of the Byzantine emperor. The family situation of Ivan III also contributed to this transfer. His first marriage was to Maria Borisovna Tverskaya, from whom he had a son, John, nicknamed Young (see the corresponding article); Ivan III named this son Vel. prince, trying to strengthen his throne. Marya Borisovna d. in 1467, and in 1469 Pope Paul II offered Ivan the hand of Zoya, or, as she came to be called in Russia, Sophia Fominishna Paleologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. The ambassador led. book - Ivan Fryazin, as Russian chronicles call him, or Jean-Battista della Volpe, as his name actually was (see the corresponding article), - finally arranged this matter, and on November 12, 1472, Sophia entered Moscow and married Ivan. Along with this marriage, the customs of the Moscow court also changed greatly: the Byzantine princess conveyed to her husband higher ideas about his power, which were externally expressed in increased pomp, in the adoption of the Byzantine coat of arms, in the introduction of complex court ceremonies, and the removal of veils. book from the boyars

Moscow coat of arms at the end of the 15th century

The latter were therefore hostile to Sophia, and after the birth of her son Vasily in 1479 and the death of Ivan the Young in 1490, the cat. had a son, Dimitri (see the corresponding article), at the court of Ivan III, two parties were clearly formed, of which one, consisting of the most noble boyars, including the Patrikeevs and Ryapolovskys, defended the rights to the throne of Dimitri, and the other - mostly ignorant children boyars and clerks - stood for Vasily. This family feud, on the basis of which hostile political parties collided, was also intertwined with the issue of church politics - about measures against Judaizers (see the corresponding article); Dimitri's mother, Elena, was inclined towards heresy and refrained Ivan III from taking drastic measures against her, and Sophia, on the contrary, stood for the persecution of heretics. At first, victory seemed to be on the side of Dmitry and the boyars. In December 1497, a conspiracy was discovered by Vasily’s adherents against the life of Demetrius; Ivan III arrested his son, executed the conspirators and began to beware of his wife, who was caught in relations with sorcerers. 4 Feb 1498 Demetrius was crowned king. But already the next year, disgrace befell his supporters: Sem. Ryapolovsky was executed, Iv. Patrikeev and his son were tonsured as monks; Soon Ivan, without taking it away from his grandson, drove. reign, announced his son led. Prince of Novgorod and Pskov; finally, April 11 1502 Ivan clearly fell into disgrace with Elena and Dmitry, putting them in custody, and on April 14 he blessed Vasily with a great reign. Under Ivan, clerk Gusev compiled the first Code of Law (see). Ivan III tried to boost Russian industry and art and for this purpose called craftsmen from abroad, the most famous of whom was Aristotle Fioravanti, the builder of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Ivan III d. in 1505

Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Built under Ivan III

The opinions of our historians about the personality of Ivan III differ greatly: Karamzin called him great and even contrasted him with Peter I as an example of a cautious reformer; Soloviev saw in him mainly “a happy descendant of a whole series of smart, hardworking, thrifty ancestors”; Bestuzhev-Ryumin, combining both of these views, was more inclined towards Karamzin; Kostomarov drew attention to the complete absence of moral greatness in the figure of Ivan.

The main sources for the time of Ivan III: "Complete. Collection. Ross. Letop." (II-VIII); Nikonovskaya, Lvovskaya, Arkhangelsk chronicles and the continuation of Nestorovskaya; "Collected G. Gr. and Dog."; "Acts of Arch. Exp." (Vol. I); "Acts of history." (Vol. I); "Addition to historical acts" (vol. I); "Acts of Western Russia" (vol. I); "Memorials of diplomatic relations" (vol. I). Literature: Karamzin (vol. VI); Soloviev (vol. V); Artsybashev, “The Narrative of Russia” (vol. II); Bestuzhev-Ryumin (vol. II); Kostomarov, “Russian history in biographies” (vol. I); R. Pierliug, "La Russie et l"Orient. Mariage d "un Tsar au Vatican. Ivan III et Sophie Paléologue" (there is a Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1892), and his, "Papes et Tsars".

V. Mn.

Encyclopedia Brockhaus-Efron

The meaning of Ivan III

Vasily the Dark's successor was his eldest son, Ivan Vasilyevich. Historians look at it differently. Soloviev says that only the happy position of Ivan III after a number of smart predecessors gave him the opportunity to boldly conduct extensive enterprises. Kostomarov judges Ivan even more harshly - he denies any political abilities in Ivan, and denies human dignity in him. Karamzin assesses the activities of Ivan III completely differently: not sympathizing with the violent nature of Peter’s transformations, he puts Ivan III above even Peter the Great. Bestuzhev-Ryumin treats Ivan III much more fairly and calmly. He says that although a lot was done by Ivan’s predecessors and that therefore it was easier for Ivan to work, nevertheless he is great because he knew how to complete old tasks and set new ones.

The blind father made Ivan his escort and during his lifetime gave him the title of Grand Duke. Having grown up in hard time civil strife and unrest, Ivan early acquired worldly experience and the habit of business. Gifted with a great mind and strong will, he brilliantly managed his affairs and, one might say, completed the collection of Great Russian lands under the rule of Moscow, forming a single Great Russian state from his possessions. When he began to reign, his principality was surrounded almost everywhere by Russian possessions: Mr. Veliky Novgorod, the princes of Tver, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Ryazan. Ivan Vasilyevich subjugated all these lands either by force or by peaceful agreements. At the end of his reign, he had only heterodox and foreign neighbors: Swedes, Germans, Lithuanians, Tatars. This circumstance alone should have changed his policy. Previously, surrounded by rulers like himself, Ivan was one of many appanage princes, even if only the most powerful; now, having destroyed these princes, he turned into a single sovereign of an entire nation. At the beginning of his reign, he dreamed of inventions, as his appanage ancestors dreamed of them; in the end, he had to think about protecting the whole people from their heterodox and foreign enemies. In short, at first his policy was appanage, and then this politics has become national.

Having acquired such importance, Ivan III could not, of course, share his power with other princes of the Moscow house. Destroying other people's appanages (in Tver, Yaroslavl, Rostov), ​​he could not leave appanage orders in his own relatives. To study these orders, we have a large number of spiritual testaments of Moscow princes of the 14th and 15th centuries. and from them we see that there were no constant rules that would establish a uniform order of ownership and inheritance; all this was determined each time by the will of the prince, who could transfer his possessions to whomever he wanted. So, for example, Prince Semyon, the son of Ivan Kalita, dying childless, bequeathed his personal inheritance to his wife, in addition to his brothers. The princes looked at their land holdings as articles of their economy, and they divided movable property, private land holdings, and state territory in exactly the same way. The latter was usually divided into counties and volosts according to their economic significance or historical origin. Each heir received his share in these lands, just as he received his share in each article of movable property. The very form of the spiritual letters of the princes was the same as the form of the spiritual wills of persons; in the same way, letters were made in the presence of witnesses and with the blessing of spiritual fathers. From the wills one can clearly trace the relations of the princes to each other. Each appanage prince owned his inheritance independently; the younger appanage princes had to obey the eldest, like a father, and the eldest had to take care of the younger ones; but these were moral rather than political duties. The importance of the elder brother was determined by purely material quantitative dominance, and not by an excess of rights and power. So, for example, Dmitry Donskoy gave the eldest of five sons a third of all property, and Vasily the Dark - half. Ivan III no longer wanted to be content with an excess of material resources alone and wanted complete dominance over his brothers. At the first opportunity, he took away inheritances from his brothers and limited their old rights. He demanded from them obedience to himself, as to a sovereign from his subjects. When drawing up his will, he severely deprived his younger sons in favor of their elder brother, Grand Duke Vasily, and, in addition, deprived them of all sovereign rights, subordinating them to the Grand Duke as simple service princes. In a word, everywhere and in everything Ivan looked at the Grand Duke as a sovereign and autocratic monarch, to whom both his serving princes and ordinary servants were equally subordinate. The new idea of ​​a people's sovereign sovereign led to changes in palace life, to the establishment of court etiquette ("rank"), to greater pomp and solemnity of customs, to the adoption of various emblems and signs that expressed the concept of the high dignity of grand-ducal power. Thus, along with the unification of northern Rus', the transformation took place Moscow appanage prince into sovereign-autocrat of all Rus'.

Finally, having become a national sovereign, Ivan III adopted a new direction in Rus''s foreign relations. He threw off the last remnants of dependence on the Golden Horde Khan. He began offensive operations against Lithuania, from which Moscow had until then only defended itself. He even laid claims to all those Russian regions that the Lithuanian princes had owned since the time of Gediminas: calling himself the sovereign of “all Rus',” by these words he meant not only northern, but also southern and western Rus'. Ivan III also pursued a firm offensive policy regarding the Livonian Order. He skillfully and decisively used the forces and means that his ancestors had accumulated and which he himself created in the united state. This is the important historical significance of the reign of Ivan III. The unification of northern Rus' around Moscow began a long time ago: under Dmitry Donskoy, its first signs were revealed; it happened under Ivan III. With full right, therefore, Ivan III can be called the creator of the Moscow state.

Conquest of Novgorod.

We know that in recent years of independent Novgorod life in Novgorod there has been constant hostility between better and lesser people. Often turning into open strife, this enmity weakened Novgorod and made it easy prey for strong neighbors - Moscow and Lithuania. All the great Moscow princes tried to take Novgorod under their hand and keep their service princes there as Moscow governors. More than once, for the disobedience of the Novgorodians to the great princes, the Muscovites went to war against Novgorod, took a payback (indemnity) from it and obliged the Novgorodians to obey. After the victory over Shemyaka, who hid in Novgorod, Vasily the Dark defeated the Novgorodians, took 10,000 rubles from them and forced them to swear that Novgorod would be obedient to him and would not accept any of the princes hostile to him. Moscow's claims to Novgorod forced the Novgorodians to seek alliance and protection from the Lithuanian grand dukes; and they, for their part, whenever possible tried to subjugate the Novgorodians and took from them the same paybacks as Moscow, but in general they did not help well against Moscow. Placed between two terrible enemies, the Novgorodians came to the conviction that they themselves could not protect and maintain their independence and that only a permanent alliance with one of their neighbors could prolong the existence of the Novgorod state. Two parties were formed in Novgorod: one for an agreement with Moscow, the other for an agreement with Lithuania. It was mainly the common people who stood for Moscow, and the boyars for Lithuania. Ordinary Novgorodians saw the Moscow prince as an Orthodox and Russian sovereign, and the Lithuanian prince as a Catholic and a stranger. To be transferred from subordination to Moscow to subordination to Lithuania would mean for them to betray their faith and nationality. The Novgorod boyars, led by the Boretsky family, expected from Moscow the complete destruction of the old Novgorod system and dreamed of preserving it precisely in an alliance with Lithuania. After the defeat of Novgorod under Vasily the Dark, the Lithuanian party in Novgorod gained the upper hand and began to prepare liberation from Moscow dependence established under the Dark - by coming under the patronage of the Lithuanian prince. In 1471, Novgorod, led by the Boretsky party, concluded an alliance treaty with the Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland Kazimir Jagielovich (otherwise: Jagiellonchik), according to which the king undertook to defend Novgorod from Moscow, give the Novgorodians his governor and observe all the liberties of Novgorod and antiquity.

When Moscow learned about the transition of Novgorod to Lithuania, they looked at it as a betrayal not only of the Grand Duke, but also of the faith and the Russian people. In this sense, Grand Duke Ivan wrote to Novgorod, urging the Novgorodians to abandon Lithuania and the Catholic king. The Grand Duke gathered a large council of his military leaders and officials along with the clergy, announced at the council all the Novgorod lies and treason and asked the council for their opinion on whether to immediately start a war with Novgorod or wait for winter, when the Novgorod rivers, lakes and swamps would freeze . It was decided to fight immediately. The campaign against the Novgorodians was given the appearance of a campaign for faith against apostates: just as Dmitry Donskoy armed himself against the godless Mamai, so, according to the chronicler, the blessed Grand Duke John went against these apostates from Orthodoxy to Latinism. The Moscow army entered the Novgorod land via different roads. Under the command of Prince Daniil Kholmsky, she soon defeated the Novgorodians: first, one Moscow detachment on the southern banks of the Ilmen defeated the Novgorod army, and then in a new battle on the river. Sheloni, the main forces of the Novgorodians suffered a terrible defeat. Posadnik Boretsky was captured and executed. The road to Novgorod was open, but Lithuania did not help Novgorod. The Novgorodians had to humble themselves before Ivan and ask for mercy. They renounced all relations with Lithuania and pledged to be persistent from Moscow; Moreover, they paid the Grand Duke a huge repayment of 15.5 thousand rubles. Ivan returned to Moscow, and internal unrest resumed in Novgorod. Offended by their rapists, the Novgorodians complained to the Grand Duke about the offenders, and Ivan personally went to Novgorod in 1475 for trial and justice. The justice of the Moscow prince, who did not spare the strong boyars at his trial, led to the fact that the Novgorodians, who had suffered insults at home, began to travel to Moscow from year to year to ask for justice from Ivan. During one of these visits, two Novgorod officials called the Grand Duke “sovereign,” whereas earlier the Novgorodians called the Moscow prince “master.” The difference was big: the word “sovereign” at that time meant the same thing that the word “master” now means; Slaves and servants then called their master the sovereign. For the free Novgorodians, the prince was not a “sovereign,” and they called him with the honorary title “lord,” just as they called their free city “lord Veliky Novgorod.” Naturally, Ivan could have seized on this opportunity to put an end to Novgorod freedom. His ambassadors asked him in Novgorod: on what basis do the Novgorodians call him sovereign and what kind of state do they want? When the Novgorodians renounced the new title and said that they did not authorize anyone to call Ivan sovereign, Ivan went on a campaign against Novgorod for their lies and denial. Novgorod did not have the strength to fight Moscow, Ivan besieged the city and began negotiations with the Novgorod ruler Theophilus and the boyars. He demanded unconditional obedience and declared that he wanted the same state in Novgorod as in Moscow: there would not be a veche, there would not be a posadnik, but there would be a Moscow custom, just as the great princes keep their state in their Moscow land. The Novgorodians thought for a long time and finally reconciled: in January 1478 they agreed to the Grand Duke’s demand and kissed his cross. The Novgorod state ceased to exist; The veche bell was taken to Moscow. The Boretsky family of boyars was also sent there, headed by the widow of the mayor Marfa (she was considered the leader of the anti-Moscow party in Novgorod). Following Veliky Novgorod, all Novgorod lands were subordinated to Moscow. Of these, Vyatka showed some resistance. In 1489, Moscow troops (under the command of Prince Daniil Shchenyati) conquered Vyatka by force.

In the first year after the subjugation of Novgorod, Grand Duke Ivan did not put his disgrace on the Novgorodians" and did not take drastic measures against them. When in Novgorod they tried to rebel and return to the old days - just a year after surrendering to the Grand Duke - then Ivan began with the Novgorodians The ruler of Novgorod, Theophilus, was taken and sent to Moscow, and in his place, Archbishop Sergius was sent to Novgorod. Many Novgorod boyars were executed, and even more were resettled to the east, to the Moscow lands. Gradually, all the best Novgorod people were removed from Novgorod. and their lands were taken over by the sovereign and distributed to Moscow service people, whom the Grand Duke settled in large numbers in the Novgorod pyatinas. Thus, the Novgorod nobility completely disappeared, and with it the memory of Novgorod freedom disappeared. from boyar oppression; peasant tax communities were formed from them on the Moscow model. In general, their situation improved, and they had no incentive to regret the Novgorod antiquity. With the destruction of the Novgorod nobility, Novgorod trade with the West also fell, especially since Ivan III evicted German merchants from Novgorod. Thus, the independence of Veliky Novgorod was destroyed. Pskov has so far retained its self-government, without deviating in any way from the will of the Grand Duke.

Subjugation of the appanage principalities by Ivan III

Under Ivan III, the subjugation and annexation of appanage lands actively continued. Those of the small Yaroslavl and Rostov princes who still retained their independence before Ivan III, under Ivan all transferred their lands to Moscow and beat the Grand Duke so that he would accept them into his service. Becoming Moscow servants and turning into boyars of the Moscow prince, these princes retained their ancestral lands, but not as appanages, but as simple fiefdoms. They were their private property, and the Moscow Grand Duke was already considered the “sovereign” of their lands. Thus, all the small estates were collected by Moscow; only Tver and Ryazan remained. These “great principalities,” which had once fought against Moscow, were now weak and retained only a shadow of their independence. The last Ryazan princes, two brothers - Ivan and Fyodor, were nephews of Ivan III (sons of his sister Anna). Like their mother, they themselves did not leave Ivan’s will, and the Grand Duke, one might say, himself ruled Ryazan for them. One of the brothers (Prince Fyodor) died childless and bequeathed his inheritance to his uncle the Grand Duke, thus voluntarily giving half of Ryazan to Moscow. Another brother (Ivan) also died young, leaving a baby son named Ivan, for whom his grandmother and her brother Ivan III ruled. Ryazan was under the complete control of Moscow. Prince Mikhail Borisovich of Tver also obeyed Ivan III. The Tver nobility even went with the Muscovites to conquer Novgorod. But later, in 1484–1485, relations deteriorated. The Tver prince made friends with Lithuania, thinking of getting help from the Lithuanian Grand Duke against Moscow. Ivan III, having learned about this, started a war with Tver and, of course, won. Mikhail Borisovich fled to Lithuania, and Tver was annexed to Moscow (1485). This is how the final unification of northern Rus' took place.

Moreover, the unifying national policy of Moscow attracted such service princes to the Moscow sovereign who belonged not to northern Rus', but to the Lithuanian-Russian principality. The princes of Vyazemsky, Odoevsky, Novosilsky, Vorotynsky and many others, sitting on the eastern outskirts of the Lithuanian state, abandoned their Grand Duke and went over to the Moscow service, subordinating their lands to the Moscow prince. It was the transition of the old Russian princes from the Catholic sovereign of Lithuania to the Orthodox prince of northern Rus' that gave the Moscow princes reason to consider themselves sovereigns of the entire Russian land, even that which was under Lithuanian rule and, although not yet united with Moscow, should, in their opinion , unite through the unity of faith, nationality and the old dynasty of St. Vladimir.

Family and court affairs of Ivan III

The unusually rapid successes of Grand Duke Ivan III in collecting Russian lands were accompanied by significant changes in Moscow court life. The first wife of Ivan III, Princess Maria Borisovna of Tver, died early, in 1467, when Ivan was not yet 30 years old. After her, Ivan left behind a son - Prince Ivan Ivanovich “Young”, as he was usually called. At that time, relations between Moscow and Western countries were already being established. For various reasons, the Pope was interested in establishing relations with Moscow and subordinating it to his influence. It was the pope who suggested arranging the marriage of the young Moscow prince with the niece of the last Constantinople Emperor of Poland, Zoe-Sophia Palaeologus. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), the brother of the murdered Emperor Constantine Palaeologus, named Thomas, fled with his family to Italy and died there, leaving the children in the care of the pope. The children were raised in the spirit of the Union of Florence, and the pope had reason to hope that by marrying Sophia to the Moscow prince, he would have the opportunity to introduce the union to Moscow. Ivan III agreed to start matchmaking and sent envoys to Italy to fetch the bride. In 1472 she came to Moscow and the marriage took place. However, the pope’s hopes were not destined to come true: the papal legate accompanying Sophia did not have any success in Moscow; Sophia herself did not contribute in any way to the triumph of the union, and, thus, the marriage of the Moscow prince did not entail any visible consequences for Europe and Catholicism [*The role of Sophia Paleologue has been thoroughly studied by prof. V.I. Savvoy ("Moscow Tsars and Byzantine Basileus", 1901).].

But it had some consequences for the Moscow court. Firstly, he contributed to the revitalization and strengthening of the relations that began in that era between Moscow and the West, with Italy in particular. Together with Sophia, Greeks and Italians arrived in Moscow; they came later too. The Grand Duke kept them as “masters”, entrusting them with the construction of fortresses, churches and chambers, casting cannons, and minting coins. Sometimes these masters were entrusted with diplomatic affairs, and they traveled to Italy with instructions from the Grand Duke. Traveling Italians in Moscow were called by the common name “Fryazin” (from “fryag”, “franc”); This is how Ivan Fryazin, Mark Fryazin, Antony Fryazin, etc. acted in Moscow. Of the Italian masters, Aristotle Fioraventi, who built the famous Assumption Cathedral and the Faceted Chamber in the Moscow Kremlin, was especially famous. In general, through the efforts of the Italians, under Ivan III, the Kremlin was rebuilt and decorated anew. Along with the “Fryazhsky” craftsmen, German craftsmen also worked for Ivan III, although in his time they did not play a leading role; Only “German” doctors were issued. In addition to the masters, foreign guests (for example, Sophia’s Greek relatives) and ambassadors from Western European sovereigns appeared in Moscow. (By the way, an embassy from the Roman emperor offered Ivan III the title of king, which Ivan refused). To receive guests and ambassadors at the Moscow court, a certain “rite” (ceremonial) was developed, completely different from the order that was previously observed when receiving Tatar embassies. And in general, the order of court life under new circumstances changed, became more complex and more ceremonious.

Secondly, the Moscow people attributed great changes in the character of Ivan III and confusion in the princely family to the appearance of Sophia in Moscow. They said that when Sophia came with the Greeks, the earth was confused, and great unrest came. The Grand Duke changed his behavior with those around him: he began to behave less simply and easily as before, he demanded signs of attention to himself, he became demanding and was easily scorched (inflicted disfavor) on the boyars. He began to discover a new, unusually high idea of ​​his power. Having married a Greek princess, he seemed to consider himself the successor of the disappeared Greek emperors and hinted at this succession by adopting the Byzantine coat of arms - the double-headed eagle. In short, after his marriage to Sophia, Ivan III showed great lust for power, which the Grand Duchess herself later experienced. At the end of his life, Ivan completely quarreled with Sophia and alienated her from himself. Their quarrel occurred over the issue of succession to the throne. Ivan III's son from his first marriage, Ivan the Young, died in 1490, leaving the Grand Duke with a small grandson, Dmitry. But the Grand Duke had another son from his marriage with Sophia - Vasily. Who should inherit the throne of Moscow: grandson Dmitry or son Vasily? First, Ivan III decided the case in favor of Dmitry and at the same time brought his disgrace on Sophia and Vasily. During his lifetime, he crowned Dmitry to the kingdom (precisely to the kingdom, and not to the great reign). But a year later the relationship changed: Dmitry was removed, and Sophia and Vasily again fell into favor. Vasily received the title of Grand Duke and became his father's co-ruler. During these changes, the courtiers of Ivan III suffered: with Sophia’s disgrace, her entourage fell into disgrace, and several people were even executed; With the disgrace of Dmitry, the Grand Duke also initiated persecution against some boyars and executed one of them.

Remembering everything that happened at the court of Ivan III after his marriage to Sophia, Moscow people condemned Sophia and considered her influence on her husband more harmful than useful. They attributed to her the fall of old customs and various novelties in Moscow life, as well as the corruption of the character of her husband and son, who became powerful and formidable monarchs. One should not, however, exaggerate the importance of Sophia’s personality: even if she had not been at the Moscow court at all, the Moscow Grand Duke would still have realized his strength and sovereignty, and relations with the West would still have begun. The entire course of Moscow history led to this, due to which the Moscow Grand Duke became the sole sovereign of the powerful Great Russian nation and a neighbor of several European states.

Foreign policy of Ivan III.

During the time of Ivan III, there were already three independent Tatar hordes within what is now Russia. The Golden Horde, exhausted by strife, was living out its life. Next to it in the 15th century. The Crimean Horde was formed in the Black Sea region, in which the Girey dynasty (descendants of Azi-Girey) established itself. In Kazan, Golden Horde immigrants founded, also in the middle of the 15th century, a special horde, uniting Finnish foreigners under Tatar rule: Mordovians, Cheremis, Votyaks. Taking advantage of disagreements and constant civil strife among the Tatars, Ivan III gradually achieved that he subjugated Kazan to his influence and made the Kazan khan or “tsar” his assistant (at that time Muscovites called khans tsars). Ivan III formed a strong friendship with the Crimean Tsar, since both of them had a common enemy - the Golden Horde, against which they acted together. As for the Golden Horde, Ivan III stopped all dependent relations with it: he did not give tribute, did not go to the Horde, and did not show respect to the khan. They said that once Ivan III even threw the Khan’s “basma” to the ground and trampled with his foot. that sign (in all likelihood, a gold plate, a “token” with an inscription) that the khan presented to his ambassadors to Ivan as proof of their authority and power. The weak Golden Horde Khan Akhmat tried to act against Moscow in alliance with Lithuania; but since Lithuania did not give him reliable help, he limited himself to raids on the Moscow borders. In 1472, he came to the banks of the Oka River and, having plundered it, went back, not daring to go to Moscow itself. In 1480 he repeated his raid. Leaving the upper reaches of the Oka to his right, Akhmat came to the river. Ugra, in the border areas between Moscow and Lithuania. But even here he did not receive any help from Lithuania, and Moscow met him with a strong army. On the Ugra, Akhmat and Ivan III stood against each other - both hesitant to start a direct battle. Ivan III ordered the capital to be prepared for a siege, sent his wife Sophia from Moscow to the north and himself came from the Ugra to Moscow, fearing both the Tatars and his own brothers (this is perfectly shown in the article by A.E. Presnyakov “Ivan III on the Ugra” ). They were at odds with him and instilled in him the suspicion that they would betray him at the decisive moment. Ivan's prudence and slowness seemed cowardly to the people, and ordinary people, preparing for the siege in Moscow, were openly indignant at Ivan. The spiritual father of the Grand Duke, Archbishop Vassian of Rostov, both in word and in a written “message,” exhorted Ivan not to be a “runner,” but to bravely stand against the enemy. However, Ivan did not dare to attack the Tatars. In turn, Akhmat, having stood on the Ugra from summer until November, waited for snow and frost and had to go home. He himself was soon killed in strife, and his sons died in the fight against the Crimean Horde, and the Golden Horde itself finally disintegrated (1502). This is how the “Tatar yoke” ended for Moscow, which subsided gradually and in its last time was nominal. But the troubles from the Tatars did not end for Rus'. Both the Crimeans and the Kazanians, and the Nagai, and all the small nomadic Tatar hordes close to the Russian borders and “Ukrainians” constantly attacked these Ukrainians, burned, destroyed homes and property, and took people and livestock with them. The Russian people had to fight this constant Tatar robbery for about three more centuries.

Ivan III's relations with Lithuania under Grand Duke Kazimir Jagailovich were not peaceful. Not wanting the strengthening of Moscow, Lithuania sought to support Veliky Novgorod and Tver against Moscow, and raised the Tatars against Ivan III. But Casimir did not have enough strength to wage an open war with Moscow. After Vytautas, internal complications in Lithuania weakened her. The increase in Polish influence and Catholic propaganda created many disgruntled princes in Lithuania; they, as we know, went into Moscow citizenship with their estates. This further diminished the Lithuanian forces and made it very risky for Lithuania (Vol. I); nimnoy open clash with Moscow. However, it became inevitable after the death of Casimir (1492), when Lithuania elected a Grand Duke separately from Poland. While Casimir's son Jan Albrecht became king of Poland, his brother Alexander Kazimirovich became king of Lithuania. Taking advantage of this division, Ivan III started a war against Alexander and achieved that Lithuania formally ceded to him the lands of the princes who moved to Moscow (Vyazma, Novosilsky, Odoevsky, Vorotynsky, Belevsky), and in addition, recognized for him the title of “Sovereign of All Rus'” . The conclusion of peace was secured by the fact that Ivan III gave his daughter Elena in marriage to Alexander Kazimirovich. Alexander was himself a Catholic, but promised not to force his Orthodox wife to convert to Catholicism. However, he found it difficult to keep this promise due to the suggestions of his Catholic advisers. The fate of Grand Duchess Elena Ivanovna was very sad, and her father in vain demanded better treatment from Alexander. On the other hand, Alexander was also offended by the Moscow Grand Duke. Orthodox princes from Lithuania continued to ask for service with Ivan III, explaining their reluctance to remain under Lithuanian rule by persecution of their faith. Thus, Ivan III received Prince Belsky and the princes of Novgorod-Seversky and Chernigov with huge estates along the Dnieper and Desna. War between Moscow and Lithuania became inevitable. It went on from 1500 to 1503, with the Livonian Order taking the side of Lithuania, and the Crimean Khan taking the side of Moscow. The matter ended with a truce, according to which Ivan III retained all the principalities he had acquired. It was obvious that Moscow at that moment was stronger than Lithuania, just as it was stronger than the order. The Order, despite some military successes, also concluded a not particularly honorable truce with Moscow. Before Ivan III, under pressure from the west, the Moscow principality yielded and lost; now the Moscow Grand Duke himself begins to attack his neighbors and, increasing his possessions from the west, openly expresses his claim to annex all Russian lands to Moscow.

While fighting with his western neighbors, Ivan III sought friendship and alliances in Europe. Under him, Moscow entered into diplomatic relations with Denmark, with the emperor, with Hungary, with Venice, with Turkey. The strengthened Russian state gradually entered the circle of European international relations and began its communication with the cultural countries of the West.

S. F. Platonov. Complete course of lectures on Russian history

Unification of Russia under Ivan III and Vasily III

These are the new phenomena that have been noticed in the territorial gathering of Rus' by Moscow since the middle of the 15th century. Local societies themselves are beginning to openly turn to Moscow, dragging their governments along with them or being carried away by them. Thanks to this gravity, the Moscow gathering of Rus' received a different character and accelerated progress. Now it has ceased to be a matter of seizure or private agreement, but has become a national-religious movement. A short list of territorial acquisitions made by Moscow under Ivan III and his son Vasily III is enough to see how this political unification of Rus' accelerated.

From the half of the 15th century. both free cities with their regions and principalities quickly became part of Moscow territory. In 1463, all the princes of Yaroslavl, the great and the appanages, begged Ivan III to accept them into the Moscow service and renounced their independence. In the 1470s, Novgorod the Great with its vast region in Northern Rus' was conquered. In 1472, the Perm land was brought under the hand of the Moscow sovereign, in part of which (along the Vychegda River) the beginning of Russian colonization began in the 14th century, during the time of St. Stefan of Perm. In 1474, the Rostov princes sold the remaining half of the Rostov principality to Moscow; the other half was acquired by Moscow even earlier. This deal was accompanied by the entry of the Rostov princes into the Moscow boyars. In 1485, Tver, besieged by him, swore allegiance to Ivan III without a fight. In 1489, Vyatka was finally conquered. In the 1490s, the princes of Vyazemsky and a number of small princes of the Chernigov line - the Odoevsky, Novosilsky, Vorotynsky, Mezetsky, as well as the now mentioned sons of Moscow fugitives, the princes of Chernigov and Seversky, all with their possessions that captured the eastern strip of Smolensk and most of the Chernigov and The Seversk lands recognized over themselves, as already said, the supreme power of the Moscow sovereign. During the reign of Ivanov's successor [Vasily III], Pskov and its region were annexed to Moscow in 1510, in 1514 - the Principality of Smolensk, captured by Lithuania at the beginning of the 15th century, in 1517 - the Principality of Ryazan; finally, in 1517 - 1523. The principalities of Chernigov and Seversk were included in the direct possessions of Moscow when the Seversky Shemyachich expelled his Chernigov neighbor and fellow exile from his possessions, and then he himself ended up in a Moscow prison. We will not list the territorial acquisitions made by Moscow during the reign of Ivan IV outside the then Great Russia, along the Middle and Lower Volga and in the steppes along the Don and its tributaries. It is enough what was acquired by the tsar’s father and grandfather [Vasily III and Ivan III] to see how much the territory of the Moscow principality expanded.

Not counting the shaky, unfortified Trans-Ural possessions in Ugra and the land of the Vogulichs, Moscow controlled from Pechora and the mountains of the Northern Urals to the mouths of the Neva and Narova and from Vasilsursk on the Volga to Lyubech on the Dnieper. At the accession of Ivan III to the throne of the Grand Duke, Moscow territory hardly contained more than 15 thousand square miles. The acquisitions of Ivan III and his son [Vasily III] increased this territory by at least thousands by 40 square miles.

Ivan III and Sophia Paleolog

Ivan III was married twice. His first wife was the sister of his neighbor, the Grand Duke of Tver, Marya Borisovna. After her death (1467), Ivan III began to look for another wife, further away and more important. At that time, the orphan niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Fominichna Paleolog, lived in Rome. Despite the fact that the Greeks, since the Union of Florence, had greatly degraded themselves in Russian Orthodox eyes, despite the fact that Sophia lived so close to the hated pope, in such a suspicious church society, Ivan III, overcoming his religious disgust, sent the princess out of Italy and married her in 1472

This princess, then known in Europe for her rare plumpness, brought a very subtle mind to Moscow and acquired very important importance here. Boyars of the 16th century they attributed to her all the unpleasant innovations that had appeared at the Moscow court since that time. An attentive observer of Moscow life, Baron Herberstein, who came to Moscow twice as the ambassador of the German Emperor under Ivan's successor, having listened to enough boyar talk, notes about Sophia in his notes that she was an unusually cunning woman who had great influence on the Grand Duke, who, at her suggestion, did a lot . Even Ivan III’s determination to throw off the Tatar yoke was attributed to her influence. In the boyars' tales and judgments about the princess, it is not easy to separate observation from suspicion or exaggeration guided by ill will. Sophia could only inspire what she valued and what was understood and appreciated in Moscow. She could have brought here the legends and customs of the Byzantine court, pride in her origin, annoyance that she was marrying a Tatar tributary. In Moscow, she hardly liked the simplicity of the situation and the unceremoniousness of relations at court, where Ivan III himself had to listen, in the words of his grandson, “many obnoxious and reproachful words” from obstinate boyars. But in Moscow, even without her, not only Ivan III had a desire to change all these old orders, which were so inconsistent with the new position of the Moscow sovereign, and Sophia, with the Greeks she brought, who had seen both Byzantine and Roman styles, could give valuable instructions on how and why samples to introduce the desired changes. She cannot be denied influence on the decorative environment and behind-the-scenes life of the Moscow court, on court intrigues and personal relationships; but she could act on political affairs only through suggestions that echoed the secret or vague thoughts of Ivan III himself. The idea that she, the princess, with her Moscow marriage was making the Moscow sovereigns the successors of the Byzantine emperors with all the interests of the Orthodox East that held on to these emperors could be especially understandably perceived. Therefore, Sophia was valued in Moscow and valued herself not so much as the Grand Duchess of Moscow, but as a Byzantine princess. In the Trinity Sergius Monastery there is a silk shroud sewn by the hands of this Grand Duchess, who also embroidered her name on it. This veil was embroidered in 1498. At 26 years of marriage, Sophia, it seems, was already time to forget about her girlhood and her former Byzantine title; however, in the signature on the shroud, she still calls herself “the princess of Tsaregorod,” and not the Grand Duchess of Moscow, and this was not without reason: Sophia, as a princess, enjoyed the right to receive foreign embassies in Moscow.

Thus, the marriage of Ivan III and Sophia acquired the significance of a political demonstration, which declared to the whole world that the princess, as the heir of the fallen Byzantine house, transferred his sovereign rights to Moscow as to the new Constantinople, where she shared them with her husband.

New titles of Ivan III

Feeling himself in a new position and still next to such a noble wife, the heiress of the Byzantine emperors, Ivan III found the previous Kremlin environment in which his undemanding ancestors lived cramped and ugly. Following the princess, the craftsmen who built Ivana were sent from Italy. III new Assumption Cathedral. A faceted chamber and a new stone palace on the site of the former wooden mansion. At the same time, at the court in the Kremlin, that complex and strict ceremony began to take place, which conveyed such stiffness and tension in Moscow court life. Just as at home, in the Kremlin, among his court servants, Ivan III began to act with a more solemn gait in external relations, especially since the Horde fell from his shoulders by itself, without a fight, with Tatar assistance. the yoke that weighed on northeastern Russia for two and a half centuries (1238 - 1480). Since then, in Moscow government, especially diplomatic, papers, a new, more solemn language has appeared, and a magnificent terminology has developed, unfamiliar to the Moscow clerks of the appanage centuries.

By the way, for barely perceived political concepts and trends, they were not slow to find a suitable expression in new titles that appear in acts in the name of the Moscow sovereign. This is an entire political program that characterizes not so much the actual situation as the desired one. It is based on the same two ideas, extracted by the Moscow government minds from the events that took place, and both of these ideas are political claims: this is the idea of ​​​​the Moscow sovereign as a national ruler all Russian land and the idea of ​​him as a political and church successor of the Byzantine emperors.

Much of Rus' remained with Lithuania and Poland, and, however, in relations with the Western courts, not excluding the Lithuanian one, Ivan III for the first time dared to show the European political world the demanding title of sovereign all Rus', previously used only in domestic use, in acts of internal government, and in the treaty of 1494 even forced the Lithuanian government to formally recognize this title.

After the Tatar yoke fell from Moscow, in relations with unimportant foreign rulers, for example with the Livonian master, Ivan III titled himself king all Rus'. This term, as is known, is a shortened South Slavic and Russian form of the Latin word Caesar, or according to the old spelling tzsar, as from the same word with a different pronunciation, Caesar came from the German Kaiser. The title of tsar in acts of internal government under Ivan III was sometimes, under Ivan IV, usually combined with a title of similar meaning autocrat is a Slavic translation of the Byzantine imperial title αυτοκρατωρ. Both terms in Ancient Rus' did not mean what they began to mean later; they expressed the concept not of a sovereign with unlimited internal power, but of a ruler who was independent of any external authority and did not pay tribute to anyone. In the political language of that time, both of these terms were opposed to what we mean by the word vassal. Monuments of Russian writing before the Tatar yoke, sometimes Russian princes are called tsars, giving them this title as a sign of respect, not in the sense of a political term. The kings were predominantly Ancient Rus' until the half of the 15th century. called the Byzantine emperors and khans of the Golden Horde, the independent rulers best known to it, and Ivan III could accept this title only by ceasing to be a tributary of the khan. The overthrow of the yoke removed the political obstacle to this, and the marriage with Sophia provided a historical justification for this: Ivan III could now consider himself the only Orthodox and independent sovereign remaining in the world, as the Byzantine emperors were, and the supreme ruler of Rus', which was under the rule of the Horde khans.

Having adopted these new magnificent titles, Ivan III found that it was no longer suitable for him to be called in government acts simply in Russian Ivan, Sovereign Grand Duke, but began to be written in church book form: “John, by the grace of God, sovereign of all Rus'.” To this title, as its historical justification, is attached a long series of geographical epithets, denoting the new boundaries of the Moscow state: “Sovereign of All Rus' and Grand Duke of Vladimir, and Moscow, and Novgorod, and Pskov, and Tver, and Perm, and Yugorsk, and Bulgarian, and other", i.e. lands. Having felt himself, both in terms of political power, and in Orthodox Christianity, and, finally, in terms of marriage kinship, the successor to the fallen house of the Byzantine emperors, the Moscow sovereign also found a clear expression of his dynastic connection with them: from the end of the 15th century. the Byzantine coat of arms appears on its seals - a double-headed eagle.

V. O. Klyuchevsky. Russian history. Full course of lectures. Excerpts from lectures 25 and 26

John III is one of the very few sovereigns chosen by providence to decide the fate of nations for a long time: he is a hero not only of Russian, but also of world history. John appeared on the political theater at a time when a new state system, together with the new power of sovereigns, was emerging throughout Europe. Royal power increased in England and France. Spain, free from the yoke of the Moors, became the paramount power. The unification of the three northern states was the subject of the efforts of the Danish king1. In addition to the successes of monarchical power and reasonable policies, the age of John was marked by great discoveries. Colomb discovered new world, new connections between peoples were born; in a word, a new era has begun.

For about three centuries Russia was outside the circle of European political activity. Although nothing is done suddenly; although the commendable efforts of the princes of Moscow, from Kalita to Vasily the Dark, prepared a lot for autocracy and our internal power, Russia under John III seemed to emerge from the twilight of shadows, where it still had neither a solid image nor the full existence of a state. Kalita's beneficial cunning was the cunning of the khan's clever servant. The magnanimous Dimitri defeated Mamai, but saw the ashes of the capital and servilely to Tokhtamysh. Donskoy's son was still looking for mercy from the khans, and his grandson drank the entire cup of shame on the throne, humiliated by his weakness, having been a slave in Moscow itself. The Horde and Lithuania, like two terrible shadows, obscured the world from us and were the only political horizon of Russia.

John, born and raised as a tributary of the steppe Horde, became one of the most famous sovereigns in Europe; without teaching, without instructions, guided only by the natural mind, by force and cunning, restoring the freedom and integrity of Russia, destroying the kingdom of Batu, oppressing Lithuania, crushing the freedom of Novgorod, seizing inheritances, expanding the Moscow possessions. By marrying Sophia, he drew the attention of the powers, tore the veil between Europe and us, surveyed the thrones and kingdoms with curiosity, and did not want to get involved in alien affairs. The consequence was that Russia, as an independent power, majestically raised its head on the borders of Asia and Europe, calm within, and without fear of external enemies. He was the first true autocrat of Russia, forcing the nobles and people to revere him. Everything became an order or favor of the sovereign. They write that timid women fainted from the angry, fiery gaze of John, that the nobles trembled at feasts in the palace, did not dare to whisper a word, when the sovereign, tired of noisy conversation, heated by wine, dozed for hours at a time at dinner: everyone sat in deep silence , waiting for the order to amuse him and have fun.

John as a person did not have the amiable properties of either Monomakh or Donskoy, but as a sovereign he stands at the highest degree of greatness. He sometimes seemed timid and indecisive, because he always wanted to act carefully. This caution is prudence: it does not captivate us like magnanimous courage; but with slow successes, as if incomplete, he gives strength to his creations. What did Alexander the Great leave to the world? Glory. John left a state amazing in space, strong in its peoples, and even stronger in the spirit of government. Russia Olegov, Vladimirov, Yaroslavov died in the Mughal invasion3; Today's Russia was founded by John.

Quote By: Karamzin N M. Ivan III. // Reader on the history of Russia: In 4 volumes. T. 1. From ancient times to the 17th century / comp.: I.V. Babich, V.N. Zakharova, I.E. Ukolova. M., 1994. S. 186 - 187.

Grand Dukes of Moscow Ivan III and Ivan IV

The reign of Ivan Vasilyevich (1462 -1505) was the most important stage in the process of creating a unified Russian state. This is the time of the formation of the main territory of Russia, its final liberation from the Mongol yoke and the formation of the political foundations of a centralized state. Ivan III was a major statesman, a man of great political plans and decisive undertakings. Smart, far-sighted, calculating and persistent, but cautious and cunning, he was a worthy successor to his father's work. Ivan Vasilyevich was nicknamed the Great for a long time.

About the forty-three-year reign of this prince, Karamzin writes the following: “The people are still stagnant in ignorance, in rudeness; but the government is already acting according to the laws of the enlightened mind. The best armies are organized, the Arts most necessary for military and civil success are called upon; The Grand Duke's embassies rush to all the famous Courts; Foreign embassies appear one after another in our capital: the Emperor, the Pope, the Kings, the Republics, the Kings of Asia greet the Russian Monarch, glorious with victories and conquests from the great-grandfathers of Lithuania and Novagorod to Siberia. Dying Greece denies us the remnants of its ancient greatness: Italy gives the first fruits of the arts born in it. Moscow is decorated with magnificent buildings. The earth opens its depths, and with our own hands we extract precious metals from them. This is the content of the brilliant History of John III, who had the rare happiness of ruling for forty-three years and was worthy of it, ruling for the greatness and glory of the Russians.”

Almost half a century of his reign was marked by the struggle for the reunification of the Russian lands. Ivan III is called the “gatherer of the Russian land.” He annexed many native Russian lands to Moscow, repelled the invasion of Lithuania, and liberated the country from the Mongol-Tatar yoke (“Standing on the Ugra” 1480). His second wife Sophia, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, helped Ivan obtain the rights and regalia of the monarchs of Constantinople and contributed to the country's conversion to European culture. The new political and religious position of the Muscovite state gave rise to the idea of ​​considering Moscow the “third Rome” (considering Rome and Constantinople the first and second, respectively).

During the reign of Ivan III, Yaroslavl (1463), Novgorod (1478), Tver (1485), Vyatka, Perm and other cities and lands were annexed to Moscow. Under Ivan III, major construction began in Moscow, the international authority of the Russian state grew, and the title Grand Duke of “All Rus'” was formalized.

Within the state, like Yaroslav, Ivan III, “having exalted Russia with arms and politics,” tried to “affirm its internal improvement with general civil laws, for which it had the necessary need.” For this purpose, “he issued his own Code, written very clearly and thoroughly.” The code of law of Ivan III regulated legal proceedings in Rus'. “The main judge was the Grand Duke with his children: but he gave this right to the Boyars, Okolnichi, Viceroys, the so-called Volostels and local Boyar Children, who, however, could not judge without the Starosta, the Dvorsky and the best people elected by the citizens.”

Ivan III managed to change the entire appearance of the state - transform it from a strong principality into a powerful centralized power. As N.M. Karamzin wrote: “From now on, our history accepts the dignity of a true state, describing no longer senseless princely fights, but the action of a Kingdom acquiring independence and greatness. Diversity of power disappears along with our citizenship; a strong power is being formed, as if new to Europe and Asia, which, seeing it with surprise, offer it a famous place in their political system. Our alliances and wars already have an important goal: every special enterprise is a consequence of the main thought aimed at the good of the fatherland.”

Karamzin devotes the entire 6th volume to a description of the reign of Ivan III, starting with his youth and ending with the death of the ruler. Assessing Ivan’s activities as an autocrat, N. M. Karamzin writes about him this way: “John, born and raised as a tributary of the steppe Horde, became one of the most famous sovereigns in Europe, revered and caressed from Rome to Constantinople, Vienna and Copenhagen, not yielding primacy to the Emperors. , nor the proud Sultans; without teaching, without instructions, guided only by the natural mind, he gave himself wise rules in foreign and domestic politics; restoring the freedom and integrity of Russia by force and cunning, destroying the kingdom of Batu, oppressing, cutting off Lithuania, crushing the freedom of Novgorod, seizing inheritances, expanding the possessions of Moscow to the deserts of Siberia and Norwegian Lapland, he invented the most prudent system of war and peace based on far-sighted moderation for us, which his successors had only to follow constantly in order to establish the greatness of the state. ...stripping the curtain between Europe and us, surveying the thrones and kingdoms with curiosity, did not want to get involved in alien affairs; accepted alliances, but with the condition of clear benefit for Russia; looked for instruments for his own plans, and did not serve as an instrument for anyone, always acting as is characteristic of a great, cunning monarch, who has no passions in politics except a virtuous love for the lasting good of his people. The consequence was, says Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin, that Russia, as an independent power, majestically raised its head on the borders of Asia and Europe, calm within, and without fear of external enemies.”

That is why Karamzin believes “John III is one of the very few Sovereigns elected by Providence to decide the fate of peoples for a long time: he is a Hero not only of Russian, but also of World History.”

After the death of Ivan III, power passed to his son Vasily. Karamzin speaks about his reign as follows: “The reign of Vasily seemed only a continuation of Ioannov. Being, like his father, a zealot of the Autocracy, firm, unyielding, although less strict, he followed the same rules in foreign and domestic policy; decided important matters in the council of Boyars, disciples and associates of John; asserting his own opinion with their opinion, he showed modesty in the actions of Monarchical power, but knew how to command; loved the benefits of peace, without fear of war and without missing an opportunity for acquisitions important for state power; less famous for his military happiness, more dangerous for his enemies by cunning; He did not humiliate Russia, he even exalted it, and after John he still seemed worthy of autocracy.” But Vasily did not rule for long; due to his death, power passed to the young Ivan IV, later known as Ivan the Terrible.

Karamzin’s descriptions of the reign of Ivan the Terrible in volumes 8-9 of “History of the Russian State” are devoted. The eighth volume of the History ends in 1560, breaking the reign of John IV into two parts, the line between which was the death of Queen Anastasia. With the death of the queen, the principle that restrained the unbridled temper of the king disappeared, and a dark time of atrocities, cruelties, and a tyrannical regime began. During the years of unrest, when the autocracy was shaken, Russia also perished.

N. M. Karamzin described the life of Ivan the Terrible consistently and in great detail, analyzing the prerequisites for the tsar’s further life. These were the prerequisites for Ivan Vasilyevich’s difficult childhood.

Tsar Ivan was born in 1530. By nature he received a lively and flexible mind, thoughtful and a little mocking, a true Great Russian mind. But the circumstances among which Ivan’s childhood passed spoiled this mind early and gave it an unnatural, painful development. Ivan was orphaned early, in his fourth year he lost his father, and in his eighth year he lost his mother. Russia has never had such a young ruler. After the death of his father, power was in the hands of his mother Elena and several boyars, who had a strong influence on the mind of the ruler. Soon Elena dies, and Ivan is left alone among strangers, without his father's gaze and mother's greetings.

Thus, N.M. Karamzin says that from childhood Ivan the Terrible saw himself among strangers. A feeling of orphanhood, abandonment, and loneliness was etched into his soul early and deeply and remained for the rest of his life, about which he repeated at every opportunity: “My relatives did not care about me.” Hence his timidity, which became the main feature of his character.

According to Karamzin, a picture emerges quite clearly that John’s childhood took place in an unnatural, abnormal environment, which did not contribute to the balanced, healthy development of the child. In childhood, serious illnesses were embedded in John’s soul, which developed and aggravated, due to the prevailing circumstances, in the future.

Following historical facts, N.M. Karamzin also describes the crowning of the young king - “in 1546, sixteen-year-old Ivan suddenly spoke to them about the fact that he was planning to get married, but before getting married, he wants to fulfill the ancient rite of his ancestors, to marry into the kingdom . John ordered the Metropolitan and the boyars to prepare for this great celebration, as if confirming with the seal of faith the holy union between the sovereign and the people. Meanwhile, noble dignitaries, okolniches, clerks traveled around Russia to see all the noble maidens and present the best brides to the sovereign: he chose young Anastasia from among them. The bride’s personal merits justified this choice.”

Karamzin in his work notes that what is remarkable about these events is that Ivan the Terrible “was the first of the Moscow sovereigns who saw and vividly felt within himself the king in the true biblical sense, the anointed of God. This was a political revelation for him, and from that time on his royal “I” became for him an object of pious worship. But neither John’s piety nor sincere love for his wife could tame his ardent, restless soul, swift in the movements of anger, accustomed to noisy idleness, to unseemly amusements. He loved to show himself as a king, but not in matters of wise rule, but in punishments, in the unbridled whims; played, so to speak, with favors and disgraces; multiplying the number of favorites, he even more multiplied the number of rejected ones; he was willful in order to prove his independence, and still depended on the nobles, because he did not work in the organization of the kingdom and did not know that a truly independent sovereign is only a virtuous sovereign.

Karamzin writes that “Russia has never been governed worse: the Glinskys did what they wanted in the name of the young sovereign; enjoyed honors; wealth and indifference saw the infidelity of private rulers; they demanded servility from them, not justice. Strong characters require a strong shock in order to throw off the yoke of evil passions and rush with living zeal onto the path of virtue. To correct John, Moscow had to burn!”

It is impossible, according to the descriptions of contemporaries, to describe or imagine this disaster; people with singed hair and black faces wandered like shadows among the horrors of a vast ashes: they were looking for children, parents, the remains of their estate; they couldn’t find them and howled like wild animals. And the tsar and his nobles retired to the village of Vorobyovo, as if in order not to hear or see this popular despair.

“In this terrible time, when the young tsar was trembling in his Vorobievsky palace, and the virtuous Anastasia was praying, some amazing man appeared there, named Sylvester, with the rank of priest, originally from Novgorod, approached John with a raised, threatening finger, with the air of a prophet , and in a convincing voice told him that God’s judgment was thundering over the head of the frivolous and malicious Tsar, that heavenly fire had incinerated Moscow.

Having opened the holy scripture, this man pointed out to John the rules given by the Almighty to the host of the kings of the earth; conjured him to be a zealous executor of these statutes; He even gave him some terrible visions, shook his soul and heart, took possession of the young man’s imagination and mind and produced a miracle: John became a different person; shedding tears of repentance; He extended his right hand to the inspired mentor, demanded from him the strength to be virtuous and accepted it.”

“The humble priest, without demanding either a high name, honor, or wealth, stood at the throne to affirm and encourage the young crown-bearer on the path of correction, having concluded a close alliance with one of John’s favorites, Alexei Fedorovich Adashev, a wonderful young man who is described as earthly an angel: having a gentle, pure soul, good morals, a pleasant mind, a love of goodness, he sought John’s mercy not for his own personal benefits, but for the benefit of the fatherland, and the king found in him a rare treasure, a friend that the autocrat needed in order to know better people, the state of the state, its true needs. Sylvester aroused a desire for good in the king, Adashev made it easier for the king to do good. Here begins the era of John's glory, a new, zealous activity in the reign, marked by happy successes and great intentions for the state. And modern Russians and foreigners who were then in Moscow portray this young, thirty-year-old crown-bearer as an example of pious, wise monarchs, zealous for the glory and happiness of the state,” says an intelligent contemporary, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, who was then already a noble dignitary of the court.

In a word, at this time Russia had a good king, whom the people loved and who worked for the good of the state. “In general, wise moderation, love of mankind, the spirit of meekness and peace became the rule for the Tsar’s power. Very few of the former Courtiers - and the most evil ones - were removed; others were curbed or corrected.”

“Exposing the tormentor of the Russians” - this is how Karamzin himself succinctly defined the content of the 9th volume of the main work of his life. And the author called the first, artistically and historically the most vivid and profound chapters of the volume even more briefly (it sounded like the verdict of a historian and thinker): “Ivashka’s atrocities” (!). Those close to the historian joked (and there was a considerable amount of truth in this!) that it took Karamzin four whole years to write the history of the despot-tsar, because it was just as difficult for him to describe his crimes as it was for the powerless subjects of Ivan the Terrible to endure them.

Karamzin undertook to expose despotism, living in a despotic society, and undertook to comprehend its essence, main features and character, while going far beyond the specific era he described.

Having described the beginning of mass repressions (in 1560), conceived by a suspicious, power-hungry and vindictive king, describing the first executions committed by the torturer, clearly revealing the connection of times, Karamzin writes: “The voice of an inexorable conscience disturbed the muddy sleep of the king’s soul. Blood flowed, victims groaned in the dungeons; there is no correction for the tormentor, blood drinking does not quench, but intensifies the thirst for blood: it becomes the fiercest of passions, inexplicable to the mind, for there is madness - the execution of peoples and the tyrant himself.” The people, the author notes, “sorted about the innocent, cursing the caresses, the new royal advisers; but the king was angry and wanted to calm down the insolence with cruel measures.”

Karamzin has more than enough pictures of the Tsar’s incredible cruelty. But - what are the reasons for it? loyalty and definitely to the Russians, and not to the Roman tyrant!")?”

Karamzin writes: “History will not resolve the issue of human moral freedom; but, assuming it in his judgment about deeds and characters, he explains both, firstly, by the natural properties of people, and secondly, by the circumstances or impressions of objects acting on the soul. John was born with ardent passions, with a strong imagination, with a mind even sharper than solid or thorough. A bad upbringing, having spoiled his natural inclinations, left him a way to correct himself in faith alone... Friends of the fatherland and blessings in emergency circumstances were able to touch her with saving horrors, to strike his heart; They kidnapped the young man from the snares of bliss, and with the help of the pious, meek Anastasia, they drew him onto the path of virtue. The unfortunate consequences of John's illness upset this wonderful union, weakened the power of friendship, and brought about a change.

The sovereign has matured: passions mature along with the mind, and pride acts even more powerfully in advanced years...”

Ordinary envious people, who did not tolerate anyone higher than themselves, did not sleep, praised the wisdom of the king and said: “Now you are already a true autocrat, God’s anointed; You alone rule the earth: you have opened your eyes and see freely over the whole kingdom.”

“The new favorites of the sovereign were Malyuta Skuratov-Belsky, boyar Alexei Basmanov, his son, handsome Fyodor, Prince Afanasy Vyazemsky, Vasily Gryaznoy, who were ready to do anything to satisfy their ambition. Out of sympathy for evil, they stepped forward and crept into John’s soul, pleasing him with a kind of lightness of mind, artificial gaiety, boastful zeal to fulfill, to warn his will as divine, without any consideration of other rules that curb both good kings and good servants royal, the first - in their desires, the second - in the fulfillment of them. Ioannov’s old friends expressed love for the sovereign and for civil virtue; the new ones - only to the sovereign, and seemed all the more kind.”

The terror of Grozny matured gradually, accumulating over the years; Karamzin writes: “The king decided to be strict and became a tormentor, whose equal we can hardly find in the Tacitus Chronicles themselves!” Two remarks are in order here. Firstly, Tacitus’s chronicles preserved for future generations stories about the atrocities of “glorious” emperors, such as Nero, Caligula, Tiberius and others like them; Karamzin’s “monarchism” is good, directly indicating that the “native” autocrat of Moscow, Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, surpassed these Roman tyrants in cruelty! And, secondly, I recall an old poem by the same Karamzin, who angrily accused the Roman people “of the time of Tacitus” of the fact that they, the people, resignedly endured what “which cannot be tolerated without meanness...”.

And now - an orgy of murders! The former associates of Ivan IV, his trusted advisers, who for one reason or another aroused the royal wrath, were executed; executed, tormented, tortured and exiled to the North, to Solovki (it was not in the 20th century that these terrible islands acquired such an evil reputation!), to remote prisons and monasteries of relatives, friends, children and wives of “traitors” to the Tsar.

The noble prince Dmitry Obolensky-Ovchinin, offended by the boorish arrogance of the Tsar’s young favorite Fyodor Basmanov, said to the newly-minted favorite: “We serve the Tsar with useful labors, and you serve with vile deeds of sodomy!” Karamzin writes: “Basmanov brought a complaint to the tsar, who, in a frenzy of anger, stabbed the unfortunate prince in the heart at dinner; others write that he ordered to strangle him.” And further: “The boyar Prince Mikhailo Repnin was also a victim of magnanimous courage. Seeing an obscene game in the courtyard, where the king, intoxicated with strong honey, danced with his favorites in masks, this nobleman began to cry with grief. John wanted to put a mask on him; Repnin tore it out, trampled it under his feet and said: “Should the Emperor be a buffoon? At least I, a boyar and adviser to the Duma, cannot go crazy.” The king drove him out and a few days later ordered him to be killed, standing in the holy temple in prayer; the blood of this virtuous man stained the church platform.”

And here is another very important observation by Karamzin: “pleasing the unhappy disposition of Ioannova’s soul, crowds of informers appeared. They overheard quiet conversations in families, between friends; they looked at faces, guessed the secret of thoughts, and vile slanderers were not afraid to invent crimes, because the sovereign liked denunciations and the judge did not demand true evidence... Moscow was frozen in fear. It is interesting to see how this sovereign, a zealous adherent of the Christian law until the end of his life, wanted to reconcile his divine teaching with his unheard-of cruelty: he justified it in the form of justice, claiming that all its martyrs were traitors, sorcerers, enemies of Christ and Russia; then he humbly blamed himself before God and people, called himself a vile murderer of the innocent, ordered to pray for them in holy churches, but was consoled by the hope that sincere repentance would be his salvation and that he, having laid aside earthly greatness, would eventually live in the peaceful monastery of St. Cyril of Belozersky will be an exemplary monk. So John wrote to Prince Andrei Kurbsky and to the heads of the monasteries he loved, as evidence that the voice of an inexorable conscience disturbed the cloudy sleep of his soul, preparing it for a sudden, terrible awakening in the grave!

But what did this devout Orthodox Christian do with Metropolitan Philip, one of the few church hierarchs close to the tsar who dared to openly condemn his atrocities? In the midst of executions, the tsar enters the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, he is met by the metropolitan, determined “in the duty of his office” to intercede for all those doomed to execution, all who will be beheaded, burned at the stake, wheeled, impaled. Karamzin narrates this way: “Be silent,” the Terrible interrupts him, barely restraining his anger. “I tell you one thing - be silent, holy father, be silent and bless us.” “Our silence,” answered the Bishop, “inflicts sin on your soul and brings death.” “My neighbors,” interrupts Philip the Terrible, “have stood up to me, seeking harm to me. What do you care about our royal plans?”

Metropolitan Philip was exiled to a remote monastery near Tver, and then strangled by the tsar’s henchman and executioner Malyuta Skuratov (it was announced that Bishop Philip died of “unbearable heat” in his cell...).

The historiographer’s denunciation of “Ivashka’s atrocities” is increasing; and the overture of Karamzin’s “tragedy of horrors” is the pages dedicated to the introduction of the oprichnina, as the tsar called his special personal squad, the name of which, until then unknown in Russia, is associated with the division of the state into two parts proclaimed by Ivan the Terrible. He declared one his unlimited personal property (a management model already unthinkable for most European countries of that era!), he called it “oprichnina” from the word “oprich” (outside), in contrast to the other - Zemshchina, as Ivan IV called the rest state, left (purely nominally) under the jurisdiction of the “zemsky boyars”.

The guardsmen, as Karamzin repeatedly and persistently emphasizes, were people who were ready for anything, personally devoted to the despot and who despised any norms of human morality. The king chose those he liked! The historian notes: “They soon saw that John was betraying all of Russia as a sacrifice to his oprichniki: they were always right in the courts, but there was no trial or justice for them. An oprichnik or a kromeshnik - that’s how they began to be called, as if they were monsters of total darkness - could safely oppress and rob a neighbor and, in case of a complaint, charged him a fine for dishonor.”

Oprichnina is truly the foundation of the system of power of the murderer tsar, a devilish invention of his resourceful mind, which left such a terrible mark on the history of the Moscow and Russian states and, thanks to this, caused so many imitations, covered only by other names (more on this below!). To divide, to break up the people, to set one part of it against another, inciting the wildest basest animal instincts, sowing hatred, fear everywhere and producing countless hordes, millions of spies, executioners, informers and flatterers... This is the hellish method of turning people into a crowd, only using which and you can “twist” society by killing the best sons of the country, and only by exterminating the bearers of courage, conscience and reason of the people, can you bring the survivors to their knees, mercilessly dumbing them down.

The author compares the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible to the most difficult trials that Russians suffered during the appanage period and the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke: “Among other difficult experiences of fate, in addition to the disasters of the appanage system, in addition to the yoke of the Mongols, Russia had to experience the threat of the autocrat-tormentor: it resisted with love for autocracy , for she believed that God sends plagues, earthquakes, and tyrants.”

It would seem that by describing the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible (and this was the first time this was done with such detail), Karamzin struck a blow at the autocracy, which he consistently defended. The historian resolves this seeming contradiction with arguments about the need to study the past so as not to repeat its vices in the future: “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 time “When a writer armed with the truth can, in an autocratic government, put such a ruler to shame, so that there will be no more like him in the future.”

So, describing the personalities of the Moscow kings Ivan III and Ivan IV, Karamzin, as it were, contrasts them with each other. Karamzin characterizes Ivan III as a great ruler who, during his reign, managed to transform Muscovite Rus' into a single strong state that Europe could not help but reckon with. Karamzin describes his grandson Ivan the Terrible as a great and wise sovereign in the first half of his reign, a merciless tyrant in the second, who weakened Rus' with his rule. Ivan the Terrible appears before us as the “fierce grandson” of the “reasonable autocrat” Ivan III.

“A cruel reign often prepares a weak reign: the new Crown Bearer, fearing to become like his hated predecessor and wanting to gain common love, easily falls into the other extreme, into relaxation harmful to the State.” This is exactly the kind of reign Karamzin sees in the reign of Ivan the Terrible’s son Fyodor.

“Guessing that this twenty-seven-year-old Sovereign, condemned by nature to the eternal youth of spirit, would depend on the Nobles or Monks, many did not dare to rejoice at the end of tyranny, lest they regret it in the days of anarchy, intrigues and unrest of the Boyars, less destructive for people, but still the most disastrous for the great Power, built by the strong, undivided power of the Tsar... To the happiness of Russia, Fyodor, fearing power as a dangerous reason for sins, entrusted the helm of the State to a skillful hand,” writes Karamzin.

Real power passed to two boyars: Fyodor's uncle Nikita Romanov and his brother-in-law Boris Godunov. This is how Karamzin describes Boris Godunov: “This famous husband was then in the full bloom of life, in full physical and mental strength, being 32 years old from birth. With majestic beauty, commanding appearance, quick and deep meaning, and seductive sweet speech, surpassing all nobles (as the Chronicler says), Boris did not have only... virtue; wanted and knew how to do charity, but solely out of love for fame and power; saw virtue not as a goal, but as a means to achieving a goal; if he had been born on the throne, he would have earned the name of one of the best Crown Bearers in the world; but born a subject, with an unbridled passion for domination, could not overcome temptations where evil seemed to be an advantage for him - and the curse of centuries drowns out the good glory of Borisov in history.”

Boris had a huge influence on the weak king. His sister Irina, Fedor’s wife, helped him in this. Irina did a lot to create a strong alliance between the king, who was not capable of ruling, and his brother, who was striving for power.

Karamzin speaks about Godunov’s activities during the reign of Fyodor as follows: “In matters of foreign policy, Boris followed the rules of the best times of the Ivanovs, expressing prudence with decisiveness, caution in maintaining the integrity, dignity, and greatness of Russia.”

“This is how the foreign, peaceful and ambitious policy of Russia acted during the first years of Fedorov’s reign or Godunov’s rule, not without cunning and not without success, more cautiously than boldly,” Karamzin further writes, “threatening and beckoning, promising, and not always sincerely. We didn’t go to war, but we prepared for it, strengthening ourselves everywhere, strengthening our army everywhere.”

However, positively assessing Godunov’s actions in governing the state, Karamzin characterizes him as a two-faced power-lover: “arrogant Boris wanted to appear modest: for this purpose he gave up first places in the Council to other elder nobles; but, sitting in the fourth place in it, in one word, with one glance and the movement of a finger, he blocked the lips of contradiction... Godunov was clearly self-ruling and magnified himself before the throne, covering with his arrogance the weak shadow of the Crown Bearer.”

Karamzin writes that such an attitude towards Godunov was typical of Tsar Fedor’s entourage: “They regretted Fedorova’s insignificance and saw in Godunov a predator of the Tsar’s rights; they remembered in him the Chetovo Mughal tribe and were ashamed of the humiliation of Rurik’s sovereign heirs. They listened to his flatterers coldly, his enemies with attention, and easily believed them that his son-in-law Malyutin, temporary worker Ivanov, was a tyrant, albeit a timid one!”

It was not easy for representatives of noble boyar families to humble their pride and see the rapid rise of the Tsar’s favorite, very young, Tatar origin and the ignorant. Karamzin writes: “With the most public benefits, the happiest successes of his reign, he strengthened envy, sharpened its sting and prepared for himself the disastrous need to act with terror.”

Having gained strength, Godunov brutally dealt with opponents who tried to displace him by organizing a conspiracy against him. From then on, Godunov became an autocratic ruler in the Moscow state. Everything was calm inside the kingdom. Feodor was only listed as Tsar. In fact, all state affairs were managed by Godunov, covering with his colorful figure the weak shadow of the crown bearer. He maintained Fedor's importance as a tsar at the height at which it was beneficial for him. “Internally rejoicing at this derogatory inaction of the Tsar, the cunning Godunov all the more tried to elevate Irina in the eyes of the Russians, with her sovereign name alone, without Fedorov, issuing merciful decrees, forgiving, pitying, comforting people, so that the common love for her, combined with the respect and gratitude of the people , establish your present greatness and prepare your future.”

On May 15, 1591, the prince died under unclear circumstances. The official investigation was conducted by boyar V.I. Shuisky. Trying to please Godunov, he reduced the reasons for the incident to the “negligence” of the Nagikhs, as a result of which Dmitry accidentally stabbed himself with a knife while playing with his peers. The prince was seriously ill with epilepsy. Giving such a child a knife was, in fact, criminal. It is possible that Godunov himself was involved in Dmitry’s death: after all, it was enough, through the prince’s mother, to allow a sick child to play with a knife. No matter how hard Godunov tried to show his innocence in the death of Dmitry, the people were convinced that it was he who did it. And the people, despite all the good deeds and mercies that the cunning ruler did for him, could not forgive him for the martyrdom of the prince, the last scion of the royal house. Karamzin made the same melodramatic villain out of Boris Godunov. Subject to the hobby that most harms the historian, he speaks affirmatively about the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri, as about the Godunov case, as if no doubt about this was already possible.

On January 6, 1598, Tsar Fedor died, and on February 17, the Zemsky Sobor elected his brother-in-law Boris Godunov to the kingdom. He was supported because the work of the temporary worker was highly appreciated by his contemporaries. However, Karamzin perceives the accession to the kingdom of Boris and the future of Russia under his rule ambiguously: “Only the name of the Tsar has changed; sovereign power remained in the hands of the one who had had it for a long time and ruled happily for the integrity of the State, for the internal structure, for external honor and security in Russia. So it seemed; but this ruler endowed with human wisdom reached the throne through villainy... Heavenly execution threatened the criminal Tsar and the unfortunate Kingdom.”

Boris's reign began successfully. “The first two years of this Reign seemed to be the best time of Russia since the 15th century or since its restoration: it was at the highest degree of its new power, secure by its own strength and the happiness of external circumstances, and internally governed with wise firmness and with extraordinary meekness. Boris fulfilled his royal wedding vow and rightly wanted to be called the father of the people, reducing their burdens; father of the orphans and the poor, pouring out unparalleled generosity on them; friend of humanity, without touching people’s lives, without staining the Russian land with a single drop of blood and punishing criminals only with exile.”

However, truly terrible events soon broke out. In 1601 there were long rains, and then early frosts struck and, according to a contemporary, “the strong scum killed all the labor of human affairs in the fields.” The following year, the harvest failed again. A famine began in the country and lasted three years. The price of bread increased 100 times. Boris Godunov forbade the sale of bread above a certain limit, even resorting to persecution of those who inflated prices, but did not achieve success. In an effort to help the hungry, he spared no expense, widely distributing money to the poor.

But bread became more expensive, and money lost value. Boris ordered the royal barns to be opened for the hungry. However, even their supplies were not enough for all the hungry, especially since, having learned about the distribution, people from all over the country flocked to Moscow, abandoning the meager supplies they still had at home. Cases of cannibalism appeared. People began to think that this was God's punishment. The conviction arose that Boris's reign was not blessed by God, because it was lawless, achieved through untruth. Therefore, it cannot end well.

This is exactly how Karamzin perceives the disasters that befell Russia: “Boris did not seduce the Russians with his good deeds: for the thought, terrible for him, dominated in the souls of the thought that Heaven would execute the Kingdom for the iniquities of the Tsar.” The historian blames Godunov for the death of Dmitry; in the eyes of Karamzin, only legitimate autocrats were bearers of state order. Boris usurped power by killing the last member of the royal dynasty, and therefore providence itself doomed him to death in his future reign.

Karamzinsky Godunov is a completely dual person, like Ivan the Terrible: he is both wise and limited, a villain and a virtuous person, an angel and a demon. “He was not, but he was a tyrant; did not go mad, but acted evilly like John, eliminating his partners or executing his ill-wishers,” writes Karamzin. The historian sees the positive results of Godunov’s activities “in the truth of Borisov’s courts, in generosity, in love for civic education, in jealousy for the greatness of Russia, in a peaceful and sound policy.”

He wisely rules the state and, accepting the crown, swears that there will be no beggars and wretches in his kingdom and that he will share his last shirt with the people. And he honestly keeps his promise: he does everything for the people that was in his means and strength to do.

Meanwhile, the people want to love him - but cannot love him! He attributes to him the murder of the prince: he sees in him the deliberate culprit of all the disasters that befell Russia.

Summing up the board and reign of Godunov, and again emphasizing the duality of his personality, Karamzin writes: “the name of Godunov, one of the most reasonable rulers in the world, has been and will be pronounced with disgust for centuries, in honor of moral, unwavering justice.” The historian blames him for all the troubles that befell the state; “If Godunov for a time improved the State, for a time elevated it in the opinion of Europe, was it not he who plunged Russia into the abyss of misfortune, almost unheard of - he betrayed it as prey to the Poles and vagabonds, summoned to the theater a host of avengers and impostors by exterminating the ancient Tsar’s tribe? Was it not he who, finally, most of all contributed to the humiliation of the throne, having sat on it as a holy murderer?

If before writing “The History of the Russian State” Karamzin assessed the personality of Boris very highly in connection with his royal services to the state, then in “History” “the ratio changes and a criminal conscience makes all the efforts of the state mind useless. What is immoral cannot be useful to the state,” Karamzin believes.

After the death of Boris Godunov, the era of imposture began - the “sovereign time” - contributing to the destruction of statehood in Rus' and the spread of the Troubles. Disillusioned with the reign of False Dmitry, the people, for whom the reign of False Dmitry did not bring anything but new bondage, rebelled, as a result of which the impostor was executed.

On May 19, 1606, boyar Vasily Shuisky was “shouted out” to the kingdom at Lobnoye Mesto, and in June he was solemnly married in the Assumption Cathedral.

Karamzin immediately assesses the personality of this king negatively: “Vasily, the flattering courtier Ioannov, at first an obvious enemy, and then an unscrupulous saint and still secret ill-wisher Borisov, having achieved the crown with the success of deceit, could only be a second Godunov: a hypocrite, and not a hero of virtue, which happens the main strength of rulers and peoples in extreme dangers.”

However, unlike Godunov, Shuisky “was not a holy killer; stained only with hateful blood and having earned the surprise of the Russians with a brilliant deed, having shown in the overthrow of the Pretender both cunning and fearlessness, always captivating for the people.” Another advantage for the people was that he “ascended to the throne from the place of execution, and covered the signs of cruel torture with the royal robe. This memory did not harm, but contributed to the general goodwill towards Vasily: he suffered for the fatherland and faith!..”

Having learned of his election, all other cities and regions willingly supported Moscow and swore allegiance to Shuisky as the legitimate sovereign. This is how the reign of Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky began favorably. But he wanted the best for Russia and tried. But Shuisky was not a bright and original personality, he was not distinguished by his talents, and his deeds, seemingly good, did not have the resonance that he had hoped for.

Shuisky began his reign with a series of letters full of lies and slander. His reign was very unhappy and full of riots and rebellions, as well as wars with external (mainly Poles) enemies. One of the main events in Rus' during his reign was the civil war led by Bolotnikov.

Only in the fall of 1607, with great difficulty, Shuisky’s government managed to suppress the peasant uprising, but immediately had to fight a new impostor - False Dmitry II, who was defeated (1608) by the governor of Shuisky near Bolkhov and settled in Tushino. In order to be able to fight him, Shuisky called on Swedish troops for help, for which he had to give the Swedes Korela (Kexholm) with the district. Shuisky stayed in power only with the help of his nephew M. Skopin-Shuisky, a talented commander who was very popular among the people. It was he, together with the people's militia, who managed to liberate it in the beginning. 1610 north and most of the Zamoskovny region from the troops of the “Tushino thief” and his allies (Poles). After the unexpected death of Skopin-Shuisky, the Polish king Sigismund III began direct military action against Russia and defeated Shuisky’s troops near the village. Klumina. The government's failures in the fight against the interventionists, the dissatisfaction of the nobles and some of the boyars with its foreign policy led to a rebellion of the nobles led by Z. Lyapunov.

“The throne revealed to contemporaries a weakness in Shuisky: dependence on suggestions, a tendency to both gullibility, which evil-mindedness desires, and distrust, which cools zeal. But the throne also revealed for posterity the extreme firmness of Vasilyeva’s soul in the fight against the irresistible Fate: having tasted all the sorrow of the unfortunate state, captured by the lust for power, and having learned that the crown is sometimes not a reward, but an execution, Shuisky fell with greatness in the ruins of the State! - writes Karamzin about the short reign of Vasily Shuisky and continues - “he had the desire, he just did not have the time to become an educator of the fatherland... and in what a century! in what terrible circumstances!”

In July 1610, Shuisky was overthrown and forcibly tonsured a monk. “This is what Moscow did with the Crown Bearer, who wanted to win her and Russia’s love by subordinating his will to the law, frugality of the State, impartiality in rewards, moderation in punishments, tolerance of public freedom, zeal for civil education - who was not amazed in the most extreme disasters, showed fearlessness in riots, readiness to die true to the dignity of the Monarch, and was never so famous, so worthy of the throne, as he was overthrown from it by treason: drawn to his cell by a crowd of villains, the unfortunate Shuisky appeared alone truly magnanimous in the rebellious capital ... " - with these words Karamzin sums up the reign of Vasily Shuisky.

So, in the last two volumes of “History” Karamzin again contrasts two personalities - Boris Godunov, a man who had a rare mind, courageously confronted state disasters and passionately wanted to earn the love of his people, and Vasily Shuisky, who did not have exceptional qualities for reign, a weak ruler , who gave up his power to the boyars.

The project for the restoration of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality arose during the internecine war of the princes of the Moscow house in 1425-1453. In Moscow then, according to his father’s will, the son of VASILI I, Vasily II, sat on the throne. But his opponent was his uncle, the beloved son of Dmitry Donskoy - Yuri Zvenigorodsky, Galitsky, Uglitsky. The throne was supposed to go to him according to the will of Dmitry Donskoy. In 1433 and 1434 Yuri captured Moscow. He died in 1434 as the Grand Duke of Moscow. Two of Yuri's three sons - Vasily Kosoy and Dmitry Shemyaka, although they did not have any legal rights, began to challenge the crown from Vasily II.

The war was accompanied by atrocities. So Vasily II blinded the boyar Vsevolozhsky, who went to the side of his opponents, and then his captured cousin, Vasily Kosoy. Taking revenge for his brother and his own grievances, Dmitry Shemyaka blinded Vasily II himself (he received the nickname “Dark”) and took the Moscow throne from him.

In 1447, Dmitry Shemyaka entered into an agreement with princes Vasily and Fyodor Yuryevich Shuisky (descendants of Vasily Kirdyapa). According to this agreement, the Shuya princes pledged to support Dmitry Shemyaka in his pursuit of a great reign, and in return received the restoration of their sovereign rights in the territory of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod appanage.

All land transactions concluded during their “unbelief” were declared invalid, and the princes received complete independence in relations with the Horde. However, this agreement remained only on paper.

With the support of the Moscow boyars and service people, as well as the Tver and Mozhaisk princes, Vasily the Dark regained the grand-ducal throne. Dmitry Shemyaka continued to fight with him, relying on his inheritance in Galich. But in 1450 Shemyaka suffered a crushing defeat from Vasily II Galich. He fled to Veliky Novgorod and in 1453 was poisoned there by his own cook, as they said, according to the teachings of the Moscow people.

The Nizhny Novgorod “rebels” found themselves in a hopeless situation. Prince Vasily Yuryevich soon died, and Prince Fedor brought his “guilts” to Vasily II.

(Based on materials from the work of S. Shokarev “Russian principalities in the XIV-XV centuries”)

First of September. 2003. No. 1-2.

John III is one of the very few sovereigns chosen by providence to decide the fate of nations for a long time: he is a hero not only of Russian, but also of world history. John appeared on the political theater at a time when a new state system, together with the new power of sovereigns, was emerging throughout Europe.

Royal power increased in England and France. Spain, free from the yoke of the Moors, became the paramount power. The unification of the three northern states was the subject of the efforts of the Danish king. In addition to the successes of the authorities monarchical and reasonable policies, the age of John was marked by great discoveries. Colomb discovered a new world, new connections between peoples were born; in a word, a new era has begun.

Russia was outside the circle of European political activity for about three centuries. Although nothing is done suddenly; although the commendable efforts of the princes of Moscow, from Kalita to Vasily the Dark, prepared a lot for autocracy and our internal power, Russia under John III seemed to emerge from the twilight of shadows, where it still had neither a solid image nor the full existence of a state. Kalita's beneficial cunning was the cunning of the khan's clever servant. The magnanimous Dimitri defeated Mamai, but saw the ashes of the capital and servilely to Tokhtamysh. Donskoy's son was still looking for mercy from the khans, and his grandson drank the entire cup of shame on the throne, humiliated by his weakness, having been a slave in Moscow itself. The Horde and Lithuania, like two terrible shadows, obscured the world from us and were the only political horizon of Russia.

John, born and raised as a tributary of the steppe Horde, became one of the most famous sovereigns in Europe; without teaching, without instructions, guided only by the natural mind, by force and cunning, restoring the freedom and integrity of Russia, destroying the kingdom of Batu, oppressing Lithuania, crushing the freedom of Novgorod, seizing inheritances, expanding the Moscow possessions. By marrying Sophia, he drew the attention of the powers, tore the veil between Europe and us, surveying the thrones and kingdoms with curiosity, not wanting to interfere in alien affairs. The consequence was that Russia, as an independent power, majestically raised its head on the borders of Asia and Europe, calm within, and without fear of external enemies.

He was the first true autocrat of Russia, forcing the nobles and people to revere him. Everything became an order or favor of the sovereign. They write that timid women fainted from the angry, fiery gaze of John, that the nobles trembled at feasts in the palace, did not dare to whisper a word, when the sovereign, tired of noisy conversation, heated by wine, dozed for hours at a time at dinner: everyone sat in deep silence , waiting for the order to amuse him and have fun.

John as a person did not have the amiable properties of either Monomakh or Donskoy, but as a sovereign he stands at the highest degree of greatness. He sometimes seemed timid and indecisive, because he always wanted to act carefully. This caution is prudence: it does not captivate us like magnanimous courage; but with slow successes, as if incomplete, he gives strength to his creations.

What did Alexander the Great leave to the world? Glory. John left a state amazing in space, strong in its peoples, and even stronger in the spirit of government. The Russia of Oleg, Vladimirov, Yaroslavov perished in the Mongol invasion: the present Russia was formed by John.

(From “History of the Russian State” N.M. Karamzin)

Karamzin was an ardent supporter of the monarchy. He considered the transformation of European monarchies into absolute monarchies to be an extremely important and positive result of progressive human development.

The formation of a single state in Russia coincided with the formation of centralized states in Western Europe. Karamzin remembers this. In England, after a long internecine War of the Scarlet and White Roses, Henry VII Tudor (1485-1509) came to power. The name of this king is usually associated with the beginning of the formation of English absolutism. In France, King Louis XI (1461-1483) was engaged in a “similar matter.” He managed, with the help of treachery, deception, intrigue and simply military force, to deal with his opponents from among the feudal nobility. In Spain, under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, the unification of Aragon and Castile took place, and in the south of the country in 1492 the Emirate of Grenada, the last state of the Saracens (Muslims, who were also called Moors in Spain) on the Iberian Peninsula, was destroyed. The unification of Sweden, Norway and Denmark under the rule of the Danish king occurred in 1397, but in the middle of the 15th century. Sweden left this union.

N.M. Karamzin about Ivan III and his time

This refers to the discovery of America by Columbus, a Genoese in Spanish service, in 1492.

Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. Book II. T. 6. M., 1989. Stb. 210-216.

Having turned autocracy into the determining force of Russian history, Karamzin created a periodization of history entirely dependent on the history of autocracy. The first period from the calling of the Varangian princes to Svyatopolk 862 1015 The period begins with Rurik, the first Russian autocrat, and ends with the reign of Vladimir, who divided the state into appanages. This was the heyday of the Russian state, which it owed to the “happy introduction of monarchical power.” The second period from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav 2 Vsevolodovich 1015 1238. This was a period of gradual fading of autocracy, specific civil strife and, finally, the Tatar Mongol invasion. Karamzin noted the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who restored the autocracy of the great princes, but did not think of “changing the system of hereditary land allotments, so contrary to the good and peace of the fatherland.” The period ends with the invasion of Batu, which “overthrew Russia.” Karamzin sees the main reason for the defeat of the Russians in the destruction of the autocracy, which was replaced by the specific fragmentation of Rus'. Third period from Yaroslav Vsevolodovich to Ivan 3 1238 1462 This was the period of the fall of the Russian state, the dominance of the conquerors and the beginning of the unification of Russia under the rule of the Moscow princes. The fourth period was the reign of Ivan 3 and Vasily 3. Under Ivan 3, dependence on the Mongol Tatars was eliminated, the fragmentation of Russia was eliminated and autocracy was completely established. Ivan 3 was "the first true Autocrat of Russia" and from him "our history accepts the dignity of a truly state." The fifth period is the reign of Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ivanovich. According to Karamzin, during the childhood of Ivan 4, the aristocratic mode of government was preserved. “Tsarist unity” was restored only in 1547 after the crowning of Ivan 4 as king. Karamzin divided the reign itself into 2 periods until 1560, the death of Queen Anastasia, when the king, with the help of Sylvester and Adashev, wisely ruled the country, and after 1560, when the tsar's autocracy turned into tyranny. The sixth period covers the “time of troubles” of 1598-1612, which begins with the accession of Boris Godunov. The omnipotence of the boyars, the “many-headed hydra of the aristocracy,” blossomed magnificently after the overthrow of Vasily Shuisky and brought the state to the brink of destruction. The elimination of the Troubles and the revival of the Russian state are associated with the restoration of autocracy. Karamzin's approach to the question of the nature of power is peculiar. He introduced the concept of “single-power” monarchy and “autocratic” monarchy. He called a one-state political system with the spread of an appanage system, where the monarch acts as the head of appanage princes with real but not absolute power. By autocracy he understood a political system in which there was no appanage system, and the monarch had unlimited power. Karamzin's historical concept became official, supported by the entire power of state power. Karamzin had a profound influence on the historical views of the Slavophiles, as well as M.P. Pogodin and other representatives of the theory of official nationality. His influence was experienced by Ustryalov, Bestuzhev Ryumin, Ilovaisky, Koyalovich and other representatives of official historiography.