Ivan the Terrible, page 59
13 Attempts to reconstruct Kurbsky's motives and actions have been made by a number of historians; I am basing myself largely on Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, Andreyev, Schlichting, Floria, and Auerbach.
14 Andreyev, op. cit., p. 431.
15 This is considered by Andreyev as possibly meant to apply to the Tsaritsa Maria Temriukovna.
16 Skazania Kniazia Kurbskogo, ed. N. Ustrialov, Appendix.
17 Skrynnikov, op. cit., pp.184–5; Skrynnikov suggests that the money represents payment by Lithuania to Kurbsky for services rendered.
18 Kurbsky, Correspondence, Ivan to Kurbsky, p. 23. All quotations from the correspondence are taken from this edition though I have very occasionally diverged from Fennell's text.
19 Skazania Knaza Kurbskogo, ed. N. Ustrialov, pp. vii–xix. See also Kalugin, Andrei Kurbsky, p. 340. Kurbsky attempted to recover his belongings and there is a list of them in the Lithuanian archives including the sapphire ring which he recovered and lost again.
20 ‘Strong in Israel’ is a phrase frequently used by Kurbsky to describe the virtuous boyars at the Russian court. According to W.F. Ryan, it originates with the Song of Solomon 3: 7 where the guards around Solomon's bed are described as ‘of the valiant in Israel’ (King James's Bible; ‘sil'nykh izraelevykh’ in OCS Bible). The image of Russia as the new Israel was the source of many edifying tales which could be put before the Tsar such as the Biblical models of Joshua and Gideon.
21 It is possible that Kurbsky was afraid that he was going to be accused of heresy and magic practices, which would undoubtedly have meant torture and death.
22 According to Fennell, in Kurbsky, Correspondence, p. 8, note 2, this is a marginal note in some copies of the text.
23 The reference to the priests of Cronus suggests that Kurbsky is alluding to the ‘Saturnalia’ indulged in by Ivan, with their pagan connotation.
24 The capture of Shibanov gave rise to a romanticized tale of the faithful servant, who intercepted the Tsar outside the palace in the Kremlin to announce his mission; Ivan leant forward and ordered Shibanov to read Kurbsky's missive out loud, leaning in the meantime on his pointed staff with which he pinned Shibanov's foot to the ground. Shibanov remained motionless in spite of the pain. Poslania Ivana groznogo, ed. D.S. Likhachev and Ya. S. Lur'e, ANSSR, 1951, notes to the letter to Teterin, p. 585.
25 They are also used by Kurbsky himself in his later History, pp. 9ff., who ascribes Ivan's evil character to his conception, ‘in transgression and concupiscence’ and goes on to describe his cruel tendencies as a boy.
26 I have of course drawn on it in my account of his childhood, but with some caution.
27 Kurbsky, Correspondence, p. 127.
28 Eli was the father of Samuel, Samuel 1: 1–3.
29 A reference to the Tsar's decisive voice in matters of mestnichestvo.
30 Ibid., p. 91.
31 Ibid., p. 49. Did Adashev and Sylvester really dictate to Ivan what shoes he should wear?
32 A reference to the Empress Eudoxia, who had opposed St John Chrysostom; and also perhaps a reference to Kurbsky's failure to buy presents for Ivan's children, see note 37 below. Kurbsky, Correspondence, p. 95.
33 See above, ch. VI, p. 103. See also C. Pouncy, ‘“The Blessed Sil'vestr”’, p. 555.
34 Kurbsky, Correspondence, p.p 93 and 115, n. 5; PSRL, XIII, pt 2, pp. 205 and 501.
35 Ibid., p. 191.
36 For the truce, see Chapter VIII, above, p. 130. It is worth repeating, as I am using Kurbsky's letter so extensively, that I do not accept Professor E. Keenan's view that the Kurbsky–Groznyi correspondence is a seventeenth-century forgery (see Foreword). I do not, for instance, see how a seventeenth-century forger of this correspondence could know that Kurbsky was on a private visit to Pskov at precisely this time. See Kurbsky, Correspondence, p. 119.
37 For a perceptive analysis of the ideological gulf separating Ivan and Kurbsky, see Inge Auerbach, ‘Die politische Vorstellungen des Fürsten Andrej Kurbski’, JGOE, Bd 117, 1969, pp. 170–86. Her discussion ranges beyond the dialogue of 1564, and will be returned to later.
38 Ivan would be familiar with the story of the Iliad in various versions including the History of the Destruction of Troy.
39 Kurbsky, Correspondence, p. 106, ‘vol'ny byli podovlastnykh zhalovati i kazniti, a ne sudilis' s nimi i ni pered kem’.
40 Ibid., pp. 12–13, Ivan to Kurbsky.
41 There is a difference which is often overlooked between absolute legislative power and absolute executive power.
42 Floria, Ivan Groznyi, p. 111.
43 Henry was able to use parliamentary Acts of Attainder to dispose of his enemies, which he had no difficulty in steering through Parliament. See for instance the execution of Anne Boleyn and her ‘lovers’.
44 See above, ch. I, p. 13.
45 ‘Taina Tainykh’, ed. and tr. R.D. Bulavin, Pamiatniki literatury drevnei Rusi, konets XV – pervaia polovina XVI veka, Moscow, 1984, p. 543. That Ivan was acquainted with this text is suggested by his remark to Kurbsky, Correspondence, p. 143, ‘Where will one find a just man who has grey eyes? For your countenance betrays your wicked disposition’, a direct reference to a warning in the Secretum secretorum not to trust a man with grey eyes. An alternative reading gives zekry for sery, which is closer to pale blue, see Kurbsky, Correspondence, p. 143 and n. 4.
46 Ibid., ‘build’ p. 47.
47 Ibid., pp. 59–61. Eccles. 10: 16; Is. 3: 12; and Ecclesiasticus 25: 24.
48 One little incident is revealing: Herberstein heard that when Russian envoys returned from abroad, all valuable gifts they had been given by the rulers to whom they had been accredited were confiscated for the Tsar. This had happened to two envoys and their secretary who had received heavy gold necklaces and chains, Spanish gold coins and other valuable presents from Charles V, and from his brother Ferdinand, and when they returned to Moscow the Grand Prince deprived them of the chains, and gold and silver goblets and most of the Spanish coins. ‘When I asked one of these envoys', writes Herberstein, ‘whether this was true, one of them, fearing to betray his master, firmly denied it, and the other said that his master merely asked him to bring the imperial presents so that he could see them.’ Later writes Herberstein, ‘One of these men avoided me, trying to avoid telling a lie if he continued to deny this story, or the danger of accidentally admitting its truth.’ The determination to interpret Vasily's justified decision to see at least, maybe even to sieze, what were probably actually presents to him as a tyrannical abuse is based on prejudice. The presents which the envoys took abroad with them were provided by the Tsar, and it was tsarist financial policy to monopolize all gold and silver and particularly all coins (Zapiski o Moskovii, p. 74).
49 Quoted by Floria, Ivan Groznyi, p. 146.
50 And so do many historians on very little solid evidence, e.g. the assumption that Vladimir of Staritsa must have wanted to be Tsar.
51 Henry VIII had enacted a law entitling the King to name the heir to the throne, after the death of his bastard son, the Duke of Richmond, which is an anticipation of the similar law passed by Peter I of Russia in 1721. The succession was fairly irregular throughout Europe in the sixteenth century as many dynasties died out.
52 Floria, Ivan Groznyi, p. 147.
53 It is noteworthy that much later Boris Godunov feared that Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich (see below, ch. XVIII) who was related to both Ivan and Maria Temriukovna could be a rival Tsar to him, and allegedly had him blinded to disqualify him for rule.
54 See for the descendants of the Patrikeevs, A.A. Zimin, Formirovanie boyarskoy aristokratii …, pp. 30ff. They included the Golitsyns, Bulgakovs, Shcheniatevs, Kurakins, and many others. Evfrosin'ya of Staritsa was a descendant of the Patrikeev clan.
55 See, for a general discussion, O.P. Backus, ‘Treason as a Concept and Defections from Moscow to Lithuania in the Sixteenth Century’, FOG, 15, pp. 119–44. Nor was it, as R. Pipes suggests, equivalent to apostasy since there were many Orthodox princes and churches in Lithuania and indeed the daughter of Ivan III had married King Alexander of Lithuania–Poland who was a Catholic.
56 Floria, Ivan Groznyi, p. 147
57 See the extremely useful survey by Horace W. Dewey and Ann M. Kleimola, ‘Suretyship and Collective Responsibility in pre-Petrine Russia’, JGOE, 18, 1970, pp. 337–54. This article, together with a second one by the same authors referring more particularly to criminal responsibility, ‘From the Kinship Group to Every Man His Brother's Keeper: Collective Responsibility in Pre-Petrine Russia’, JGOE, 30, 1982, pp. 321–35 are absolutely fundamental for the understanding not only of administration in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Russia but also of the way things worked at all levels of society. I disagree with the authors, however, where they state that ‘The principle of collective responsibility emerged as one of the key tools of authoritarian rule in Russia.’ I do not think it emerged specifically with authoritarianism in mind. It emerged in many countries including Russia as a means of ensuring that certain necessary public functions would be performed in a period in which there was no state organization to see to it, indeed in which the state did not yet in fact exist, and in which such functions were carried out by nobles, gentry, peasant elders, etc., however inadequately. Cf. the concept of frank-pledge in England.
58 See for instance the execution of Kurbsky's servant Shibanov (above, p. 164 and n. 24) and the later execution of Fedorov's servants.
59 See Veselovsky, ‘Pobegi za granitsu i poruchnyye zapisi’ in Issledovania, pp. 118ff. for a careful analysis of the social situation at court.
60 See J.R. Lander, ‘Bonds, Coercion and Fear’, in Florilegium Historiale, Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson, Toronto University Press, 1971, pp. 327–67. Bonds and recognizances had existed intermittently in England under Henry V and Henry VI. Under Henry VII sums involved ranged up to £10.000. ‘Among peers Henry VIII cancelled at least forty-five recognizances imposed by Henry VII during the first year of his reign and one hundred and thirty more over the next five years.’ In Scotland a different system flourished by which nobles bound themselves to each other, but not to the king, for the fulfilment of given obligations. See J. Wormald, Lords and Men in Scotland, Bonds of Manrent 1442–1603, Edinburgh University Press, 1985.
61 Poslania Ivana Groznogo, p. 389.
62 Ibid., pp. 17, 291.
63 Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, p. 188.
CHAPTER XI THE SETTING UP OF THE OPRICHNINA
1 PSRL, XIII, pt 2, pp. 391ff. See also ‘Poslanie Ioganna Taube i Elerta Kruze’, Iohann Taube und Eilhard Kruse', ed. M.G. Roginsky, Russkii istoricheskii zhurnal, 1922, pp. 8–59. I have only been able to make use of a Russian translation which may distort the meaning of sixteenth-century words, for instance the word soslovie is used, which only began to be used in the nineteenth century. The suggestion that Ivan stripped the monasteries and churches of Moscow of their icons and treasure is rejected by Roginsky (op. cit., p. 14). I propose to use both the standard description of events in the chronicle, as supervised by Ivan himself and that produced by Taube and Kruse, who were eye-witnesses, trying of course to whitewash their own roles in Russia, but where their interests were not involved, usually reliable. Heinrich von Staden who served Ivan for a number of years refers in his The Land and Government of Muscovy, ed. and tr. by T. Esper Stanford, 1967, to ‘an insurrection’, presumably in Moscow, in December 1564, which led Ivan to leave Moscow (p. 18). There is no confirmation elsewhere of this insurrection.
2 The text in the Chronicle is somewhat different but conveys the same meaning. A speech is not mentioned but a letter dated 3 January 1565 describes the treason of the boyars and Ivan's anger with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the boyars and all his servants. This was because during his youth they had robbed him right and left, taken no care of Orthodox Christianity and had refused to fight against the Crimeans, and the ‘Tsar and grand prince, out of the great pity in his heart, and not wanting to tolerate their treasonable activities is leaving his state and will go where God disposes’.
3 Zimin, Oprichnina, pp. 127ff. There is some inconsistency in the chronology of events as described by Taube and Kruse who also imply that Ivan was aware of a rejection of himself and his heirs (see also Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo, pp. 213ff.). But N.I. Kostomarov, according to Zimin, p. 131, suggests that some kind of Zemskii Sobor was sitting in that autumn and that Ivan failed to put his policy through, and fearing a revolt he left Moscow. According to him, the story of the people coming to appeal to Ivan to return to his capital was a later invention inserted into the Chronicle but does not reflect what actually happened. See also S.O. Schmidt, ‘K istorii soborov XVI v’, Istoricheskie Zapiski, 79, 1965, pp. 120–51.
4 This is rather an exaggeration, as in January they would all have died. The most likely meaning of this tale is that they had to leave behind any ceremonial robes and headgear they were wearing.
5 It is not clear whether there were two missives to the Metropolitan. One is more likely but there is a considerable discrepancy between the Chronicle and the account of Taube and Kruse.
6 Zimin, Oprichnina, p. 131, seems to accept that this was a Zemskii Sobor. This seems again a confusion between an institution and an occasional public gathering.
7 Zimin, Oprichnina, p. 130, suggests that the boyars' guilt was indicated by their willingness to sign surety bonds in large sums of money to protect each other.
8 These missives have not survived, but their content is known from the summaries in the chronicles.
9 Floria, Ivan Groznyi, pp.176ff. Floria suggests that this missive was probably very much longer than what has survived in the chronicle and might have been in the nature of a manifesto. For Skrynnikov it is an answer to Kurbsky's letter of April 1564. There is also an echo in Ivan's words according to the chronicle of what he allegedly said several days earlier as reported by Taube and Kruse.
10 PSRL, XIII, pt 2, pp. 392–3.
11 Ibid., p. 180.
12 It is the procession of the people of Moscow led by Pimen and Levkii as portrayed in Eisenstein's film which so impressed the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, as to make him identify himself with a man so loved by his people as Ivan the Terrible. According to Albert Schlichting, Ivan declared that he was bowed down by the weight of ruling, wanted to give it up and live a holy and monastic life in solitude (quoted in Zimin, Oprichnina, p. 130, n. 1). Schlichting was a Pomeranian who had been captured in battle and remained in Russian captivity for seven years. He knew Russian and German and found work as translator for Ivan's foreign physician. He fled Russia in 1571 and wrote his ‘A Brief Account of the Character and Brutal Rule of Ivan Vasil'evich Tyrant of Muscovy’, and a shorter ‘News from Muscovy concerning the Life and the Tyranny of Prince Ivan’, both of which were translated from a Latin copy and published by H. Graham, Canadian American Slavic Studies, IX, No. 2, Summer 1975, pp. 204–72, with very useful notes. The original was probably in German; a Latin MS has survived, now in Harvard University, but the Latin version which was prepared in 1572 for the Vatican seems to have disappeared.
13 Skrynnikov, passim, suggests that Ivan addressed a meeting of the Boyar Council in Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda. I find this unconvincing.
14 Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, pp 208–9. But see Schlichting, ‘A Brief Account …’, p. 218. Seeing that Schlichting's account was written in late 1570 the story of the abdication was probably remembered in a distorted form. The will will be dealt with later, see below, Chapter XIX.
15 Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, p. 240; cf. Kurbsky, History, p. 47. Taube and Kruse, ‘Poslanie loganna …’, pp. 33–4 who however call him Cheliadnin Barbatta, an evident confusion between Fedorov Cheliadnin and Gorbaty-Shuisky.
16 Taube and Kruse, op. cit., pp. 32 and 34. They mention a certain Garbato, evidently a distortion of Gorbatov, as having been accused by the Tsar of conspiring to place himself on the throne.
17 Floria, Ivan Groznyi, p. 193; see also Staden, Land and Government, p. 17, who attributed to the Metropolitan the power to take a prisoner sentenced to death from a jailer and set him free.
18 The word was derived from oprich meaning ‘besides’ or ‘except’, i.e., set aside, and was akin to krome.
19 See above, p. 175.
20 Floria, Ivan Groznyi, p. 183.
21 See above, note 16.
22 See above, Chapter X, p. 166.
23 Kurbsky, History, pp. 185–6.
24 Zimin, Oprichnina, p. 134, note 4.
25 Taube and Kruse, ‘Poslanie loganna …’, give 8 January, Zimin, Oprichnina, gives 2 February and Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, 15 February.
26 Karamzin, Istoria, IX, ch. 1, pp. 50–1.
27 Mikhail Temriukovich, brother of Maria.
28 Staden, Land and Government, pp. 48ff.
29 Zimin, Oprichnina, pp. 136–7 points out that both Taube and Kruse and Kurbsky (History, p. 183) relate this incident; it is possible that he incurred the particular wrath of Ivan as a member of the Obolensky clan. See Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, p. 242, for details of the extermination of this clan.
30 Note that in England the property of those executed on a bill of attainder passed in Parliament was also confiscated. This loophole was extensively used by both Henry VII and Henry VIII.
31 Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, p. 243.
32 Ibid., p. 218.
33 In Suzdal' 612 service gentry were serving in the regiments, in Mozhaisk 486, in Viaz'ma 314. Skrynnikov, Tsarstvo terrora, p. 221.
34 S.N. Bogatyrev, The Sovereign and His Councillors, p. 217.
35 Taube and Kruse, ‘Poslanie loganna …’, p. 35.
36 Ibid., p. 38.
37 Ibid., p. 36. The two have an interest in painting the scene in particularly black colours, but there is enough evidence to show that they were not far wrong.
38 Likhachev and Lur'e, eds, Poslania Ivana Groznogo, Ivan to Vasily Griaznoi, 1574, pp. 371–2.
