The establishment of the oprichnina in what year happened. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible: how it was
When the oprichnina was established by Ivan the Terrible, it had a pronounced anti-princely and anti-boyar orientation. Those confiscations, disgrace and numerous human executions that fell upon the Suzdal nobility (especially in the very first months of the introduction of the oprichnina) could greatly weaken the political authority of the aristocracy and help strengthen the autocratic monarchy. In addition, these measures contributed to overcoming parts of feudal fragmentation, the basis of which, of course, was the princely-boyar land ownership.
But with all this, the oprichnina policy did not remain unchanged during the seven years of its existence. She did not obey any objective or subjective goal, scheme or principle, but acted exclusively spontaneously, which led to the following consequences.
In an atmosphere of general terror, denunciations and general intimidation of the population, the apparatus of violence that was created in the oprichnina acquired an exorbitant influence on the structure of its leadership, which caused it to go out of control of its creators, who themselves turned out to be the last victims of the oprichnina.
The formation of the oprichnina was a kind of top coup, the purpose of which was to establish the strict principles of unlimited government. So, summing up, we can single out several independent consequences of the oprichnina, which in one way or another influenced the entire state structure.
The main consequences of the oprichnina:
1. As a result of the actions of the oprichnina, the princely-boyar aristocracy was significantly weakened. At the same time, the nobility came to the fore.
2. The Muscovite state established itself as strong and centralized, with a strong monarchical authoritative, but very cruel power.
3. The problem of the relationship between society and the state was solved. in favor of the state.
4. Under the oprichnina, owners (landowners) economically independent of the state were liquidated, which were to become the basis for the formation of a new civil society.
5. Fearing guardsmen, many residents left their cities and advanced to the outskirts of the country. Economic ruin raged in the state due to the devastation of entire regions.
6. Oprichnina also led to a weakening of foreign policy positions and military state power.
7. Many researchers also believe that it was the oprichnina that caused the Russian unrest.
Since ancient times, the word "oprichnina" has been called a special land parcel, which was received by the widow of the prince, that is, the land "oprichnina" - except - the main lands of the principality. Ivan the Terrible decided to apply this term to the territory of the state allocated to him for personal administration, his own inheritance, in which he could rule without the intervention of the boyar duma, the Zemstvo sobor and the church synod. Subsequently, the oprichnina began to be called not the lands, but the internal policy pursued by the king.
The beginning of the oprichnina
The official reason for the introduction of the oprichnina was the abdication of Ivan IV from the throne. In 1565, having gone on a pilgrimage, Ivan the Terrible refuses to return to Moscow, explaining his act by the betrayal of the closest boyars. The tsar wrote two letters, one to the boyars, with reproaches and abdication in favor of his young son, the second - to the "posad people", with assurances that boyar treason was to blame for his act. Under the threat of being left without a tsar, God's anointed and protector, the townspeople, representatives of the clergy and the boyars went to the tsar in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda with a request to return "to the kingdom." The king, as a condition of his return, put forward the demand that he be allocated his own inheritance, where he could rule at his own discretion, without the intervention of church authorities.
As a result, the whole country was divided into two parts - and the oprichnina, that is, into state and personal tsar lands. The oprichnina included the northern and northwestern regions, rich in fertile lands, some central appanages, the Kama region, and even individual streets of Moscow. Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda became the capital of the oprichnina, and Moscow remained the capital of the state. The oprichnina lands were personally ruled by the tsar, and the zemstvo lands by the Boyar Duma, the oprichnina’s treasury was also separate, its own. However, the Grand Parish, that is, an analogue of the modern Tax Administration, which was responsible for the receipt and distribution of taxes, was the same for the entire state; The Ambassadorial Order also remained common. This, as it were, symbolized that, despite the division of the lands into two parts, the state is still united and indestructible.
According to the plan of the king, the oprichnina was supposed to appear as a kind of analogue of the European church Order. So, Ivan the Terrible called himself hegumen, his closest associate Prince Vyazemsky became a cellar, and the notorious Malyuta Skuratov became a sexton. The king, as the head of the monastic order, was assigned a number of duties. At midnight, the abbot got up to read the midnight office, served matins at four in the morning, then mass followed. All Orthodox fasts and church prescriptions were observed, for example, daily reading of the Holy Scriptures and all kinds of prayers. The religiosity of the king, and previously widely known, during the years of the oprichnina grew to a maximum level. At the same time, Ivan personally took part in torture and executions, gave orders for new atrocities, often right during worship. Such a strange combination of extreme piety and undisguised cruelty, condemned by the church, later became one of the main historical evidence in favor of the tsar's mental illness.
Reasons for the oprichnina
The “treason” of the boyars, to which the tsar referred in his letters demanding the allocation of oprichny lands to him, became only an official reason for introducing a policy of terror. The reasons for the radical change in the format of government were several factors at once.
The first and perhaps the most significant reason for the oprichnina was the failures in the Livonian War. The conclusion in 1559 of an unnecessary, in fact, truce with Livonia was in fact the provision of rest to the enemy. The tsar insisted on taking tough measures against the Livonian Order, the Chosen Rada considered starting a war with the Crimean Khan a higher priority. The break with the once closest associates, figures of the Chosen Rada, became, according to most historians, the main reason for the introduction of the oprichnina.
However, there is another point of view on this matter. Thus, most historians of the 18th-19th centuries considered the oprichnina to be the result of Ivan the Terrible's mental illness, the toughening of whose character was influenced by the death of his beloved wife Anastasia Zakharyina. A strong nervous shock caused the manifestation of the most terrible personality traits of the king, bestial cruelty and imbalance.
It is impossible not to note the influence of the boyars on the change in the conditions of power. Fears for their own position caused some statesmen to move abroad - to Poland, Lithuania, Sweden. A big blow for Ivan the Terrible was the flight to the Principality of Lithuania of Andrei Kurbsky, a childhood friend and closest ally who took an active part in state reforms. Kurbsky sent a series of letters to the tsar, where he condemned Ivan's actions, accusing "faithful servants" of tyranny and murders.
Military failures, the death of his wife, disapproval of the tsar's actions by the boyars, confrontation with the Chosen Rada and flight - betrayal - of the closest ally dealt a serious blow to the authority of Ivan IV. And the oprichnina conceived by him was supposed to rectify the current situation, restore undermined trust and strengthen the autocracy. To what extent the oprichnina justified the obligations placed on it, historians are still arguing.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF RUSSIA
Branch of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education
"RUSSIAN STATE HUMANITARIAN UNIVERSITY"
in Zheleznodorozhny, Moscow Region
Test
on the History of Russia
OPRICHNINA OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE: HOW IT WAS?
Govoruha Oksana Viktorovna
Railway 2013
Introduction
1. Formation of the oprichnina
2. Zemsky Sobor in 1566
Oprichnina Opponents
The defeat of Novgorod
Power and economy in the years of the oprichnina
The end of the oprichnina
Conclusion
Introduction
Oprichnina - a system of emergency measures applied by Tsar Ivan VI in 1565-1572. in the domestic policy of Russia to weaken the boyar-princely opposition and strengthen the power of the tsar.
The political development of Russia in the 6th century was marked by contradictions. The unification of Russian lands within the framework of a single state did not lead to the disappearance of the remnants of feudal fragmentation. The needs of political centralization required the transformation of feudal institutions. Reforms were needed. The reform of the army allowed Russia to solve such major foreign policy tasks as the reunification of Western Russian lands that fell under the rule of Lithuania, and the conquest of access to the sea. Such was the time of strengthening the Russian state. The introduction of the oprichnina by Ivan VI was caused by the complexities of the internal situation in the country, the contradiction between the political consciousness of the boyars and the higher clergy, who wanted independence, on the one hand, and Ivan VI's desire for unlimited autocracy, on the other. The persistence of Ivan VI in achieving absolute power, not constrained by either law or custom, or common sense and considerations of public benefit, was strengthened by his strong temper. The appearance of the oprichnina was associated with the protracted Livonian War, the deterioration of the situation of the people due to crop failures, famine, and fires. The internal political crisis was exacerbated by the resignation of Ivan VI of the Chosen Rada (1560), the death of Metropolitan Macarius (1563), who kept the tsar within the framework of prudence, and the betrayal and flight abroad of Prince A.M. Kurbsky (April, 1564).
1. The formation of the oprichnina
December 1564, Tsar Ivan Vasilievich the Terrible with his family went to the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow to celebrate Nikolin's Day (December 6). The departure of the Moscow Tsar on a pilgrimage was a common thing. This time it was unusual that the tsar took with him not only icons and crosses, but also jewelry, clothes and the state treasury. Also, the order to leave Moscow was given to selected boyars, close nobles and clerks, and all of them had to leave with their wives and children. The ultimate goal of this trip was kept secret. After spending two weeks in Kolomenskoye, Ivan VI went to the Trinity Monastery, after which he arrived in Alexandrov Sloboda. Arriving in the settlement in December 1564, Ivan the Terrible ordered to cordon off the settlement with armed guards and bring to him from Moscow and other cities those boyars that he required. On January 3, Ivan VI sent a message to Metropolitan Athanasius, in which he announced his abdication due to dissatisfaction with the boyars, governors and clerks, accusing them of treason, embezzlement, unwillingness to fight enemies. On January 3, the news of the abdication of the tsar was communicated to the Moscow population at a meeting of the Zemsky Sobor. Fearing trouble, on January 3, Metropolitan Athanasius sent a deputation to the tsar in Sloboda, headed by Archbishop Pimen and Archimandrite Leukia, who were closest to Ivan VI. Together with them, other members of the consecrated cathedral, the boyars, headed by I.D. Velsky and I.F. Mstislavsky, orderly and service people. The petition, which the deputation of the inhabitants of Moscow carried with them, contained a request to return to state administration.
January, the king received Pimen, Leukia and other members of the cathedral. The tsar accused his boyars of seeking to deprive him of power. But at the same time, the audience was announced the consent of the king to return to government. Ivan VI took note of the petitioners' consent to the fact that the tsar, at his own discretion, executed traitors and imposed disgrace. At the same time, the tsar's decision to establish an oprichnina was announced. Its essence was reduced to the creation of a new royal court, the personnel of which was provided with land allotments in certain territories of Russia. A significant part of the territory of the Moscow state was allocated for oprichnina lands. The best lands and more than 20 large cities (Moscow, Vyazma, Suzdal, Kozelsk, Medyn, Veliky Ustyug, etc.) went to the oprichnina. The territory that was not included in the oprichnina was called the zemshchina. The tsar demanded 100,000 rubles from the zemshchina for the construction of the oprichnina. The tsar did not limit his power only to the territory of the oprichnina. In negotiations with the deputation, he established for himself the right to uncontrollably dispose of the life and property of all subjects of the Muscovite state.
February Tsar Ivan the Terrible returned to Moscow. The next day, a decree was issued on the introduction of the oprichnina.
The main residence of the guardsmen was Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda.
Oprichniki took a special oath to the king. They pledged not to enter into communication with the Zemstvo, even with relatives. All the guardsmen wore black clothes, similar to monastic ones, and distinctive signs - a broom to sweep out treason, and a dog's head to gnaw it out. There was also a common meal, combined with worship. This meal was reminiscent of the times when the princes feasted with their retinue. Oprichny feasts were very plentiful.
The introduction of the oprichnina was marked by reprisals against persons objectionable to the tsar. Boyar Alexander Borisovich Gorbaty with his son Peter, okolnichi Petr Petrovich Golovin, Prince Ivan Ivanovich Sukhovo-Kashin, Prince Dmitry Fedorovich Shevyrev were executed. The monks tonsured princes Kurakin and
Silent. The executions and disgrace of the first half of 1565 were directed primarily against those who back in 1553 supported Vladimir Staritsky, having resisted the will of the tsar. These measures were primarily aimed at weakening the Boyar Duma and strengthening the power of the tsar.
Executions and forced monastic tonsure did not exhaust the repressive measures that fell upon the feudal nobility. Violent separation of princes from their possessions was also practiced. Disgraced princes and boyar children moved to the outskirts of the Russian state (Kazan, Sviyazhsk) with the confiscation of their lands in the center of Russia. With such relocations, Ivan the Terrible continued repressions against supporters of the Chosen Rada. Among the settlers in the Volga region there were also trade and craft people from Tver, Kostroma, Vladimir, Ryazan, Vologda, Pskov, Uglich, Ustyug, Nizhny Novgorod and Moscow. Among other things, the resettlement policy of Ivan VI testifies to the desire to Russify the newly annexed regions of the Middle Volga region.
During 1565, the oprichnina apparatus was built, people loyal to the tsar were selected, those who inspired fear in the tsar were exiled and executed. Ivan the Terrible lived for a long time in Sloboda, traveled around his new possessions, built a stone fortress in the oprichnina Vologda. Vologda occupied an advantageous position on the routes to Kholmogory, a Russian commercial port in the north. In the spring of 1565, negotiations on a seven-year truce with Sweden were completed. The question of the further course of the Livonian War was also decided. In August 1565, a messenger from Lithuania arrived in Moscow with a letter from the Lithuanian pans with a proposal to continue peace negotiations and hostilities were stopped. On May 30, 1566, Lithuanian ambassadors headed by Hetman Khodkevich arrived in Moscow. Russia faced a dilemma - either the continuation of the war, or the rejection of further territorial acquisitions in Livonia and Lithuania. To resolve this issue in the summer of 1566, a Zemsky Sobor was convened.
2. Zemsky Sobor in 1566
The Zemsky Sobor, which began on June 28, 1566, primarily resolved the issue of the conditions for concluding peace with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Negotiations with the Lithuanian ambassadors in late 1563 - early 1564, which took place after the capture of Polotsk by Russian troops, did not produce results. Both sides took irreconcilable positions. The war took on a protracted character, which was not beneficial to either Lithuania or Russia. The situation in the Principality of Lithuania on the eve of the negotiations was tense due to the depletion of state finances due to the long war. In Russia, the situation was different. Due to the armistice with Sweden, it was possible to establish allied relations between these states. The raids of the Crimean ally of Lithuania on the southern outskirts were no longer dangerous thanks to the system of fortifications and regular sentinel service. From the end of April to the end of May 1566, Ivan VI personally made a detour of Kozelsk, Belev, Volkhov, Aleksin and other border places that were threatened by raids. The fortress barrier to confront the Lithuanian cities - fortresses, was supposed to block the way to the West in the event of a repetition of campaigns of Lithuanian troops against Russia. In July 1566, the construction of the Usvyat fortress near Ozerishche was completed. From the north and south, Polotsk was defended by the Sokol fortresses on the Narovskaya road and Ula, from the summer of 1567 - the fortress in Spear. Also during these years, the fortresses of Susha, Sitna on the Velikolukskaya road, Krasny and Kasyanov on the Obol River were built. All of them covered the waterways to Polotsk. The construction of these fortifications on newly annexed land meant that Russia considered the question of the future of this land settled.
The domestic political situation at that time was also favorable. After the executions of the boyar Gorbaty and other prominent figures, by the first half of 1566, the oprichny repressions subsided, which brought some calm to the life of the country. In the spring of 1566, the disgraced prince M.I. was returned from exile. Vorotynsky is one of the most prominent commanders of the Russian army. In May 1566, most of the disgraced Kazan princes were also returned. A relatively calm situation was created, which made it possible for the Muscovite government in a favorable situation to consider the question of the terms of peace with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
On June 9, 1566, negotiations began with the Lithuanian ambassadors. Since Ivan the Terrible did not fully trust the Boyar Duma, where supporters of Adashev, who at one time opposed the Livonian War, were influential, he instructed his most trusted persons to negotiate. They were the boyar V.M. Yuryev, gunsmith A.I. Vyazemsky, Duma nobleman P.V. Zaitsev, printer I.M. The viscous and duma embassy clerks Vasiliev and Vladimirov. In essence, they were all guardsmen, expressing, first of all, the opinion of Ivan the Terrible himself. The main task of the negotiations was the solution of the territorial issue. Russia claimed the return of Kyiv, Gomel, Vitebsk and Lyubech, as well as Livonia. The amount of concessions that the Lithuanian government could make was extremely small: the transfer of Smolensk, which had long been part of Russia, as well as Polotsk, Ozerishchi and that part of Livonia, where Russian troops were at the time of the negotiations.
The main goal of Ivan VI was the annexation of Riga. This made it possible to develop economic ties with the countries of Western Europe. The Lithuanian government did not agree to these conditions. The question boiled down to the following: either Russia's refusal from Riga, the conclusion of a truce, or the break in negotiations and the continuation of the Livonian War.
It was to resolve this issue that the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor was needed. The Zemsky Sobor of 1566 was attended by 374 people, among whom were representatives of the church, boyars, nobles, clerks, merchants. There were no representatives of the peasants and ordinary townspeople at the cathedral, which shows the feudal composition of the cathedral representatives. The Zemsky Sobor decided to continue the Livonian War.
Thus, the Zemsky Sobor of 1566 became one of the turning points of the Livonian War. The cathedral also influenced the fate of the oprichnina.
Encouraged by the appeal of the government to the estates in search of a solution to foreign policy measures, representatives of the nobility demanded an end to the oprichnina repressions. The answer was the intensification of the oprichnina terror.
Oprichnina Opponents
In 1566 Metropolitan Athanasius retired due to illness. The tsar offered the metropolitan throne to Kazan Archbishop German Polevoy. Herman turned out to be an opponent of violence and oprichnina. Herman was sent back to Kazan and executed after about 2 years.
The next candidate for the post of metropolitan was the abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery Philip, in the world - Fedor Stepanovich Kolychev, which was a big surprise. Philip at a young age participated in the rebellion of Andrei Staritsky and thus was associated with the staritsky princes. Meanwhile, during the years of the oprichnina, Ivan VI considered his cousin, the staritsky prince Vladimir Andreevich, the son of a rebel, to be the main opponent. In 1566, the tsar took away part of his land allotment, in return giving him new lands, where the population was not accustomed to seeing the master in the staritsa prince. The Kolychevs had estates in the Novgorod land, and the tsar always considered Novgorod dangerous for himself. When Philip was on his way to Moscow, the inhabitants of Novgorod asked him to intercede before the tsar for their city. The condition of his accession to the office of Metropolitan Philip made the abolition of the oprichnina. Nevertheless, the tsar persuaded Philip to become a metropolitan and not interfere in the affairs of the oprichnina. In 1566 there was some relaxation of the terror. But soon a new wave began.
One of the high-profile was the case of Ivan Petrovich Fedorov - a noble boyar, the owner of vast estates, who had a reputation as a very honest person. He enjoyed the love of the masses and was dangerous for Ivan VI with his independence. The execution of Fedorov, as well as many other innocent people, led to the fact that Philip was unable to interfere in the affairs of the oprichnina. In the spring of 1568, Philip publicly refused the king's blessing during a divine service and condemned the executions. In November, Philip was deposed at a church council. After the cathedral, Philip was forced to lead a service in the Assumption Cathedral. During the service, guardsmen announced the deposition of the Metropolitan, tore off his vestments and arrested him. Then Philip was imprisoned in a monastery near Tver.
The defeat of Novgorod
For Ivan VI, Novgorod was dangerous as a major feudal center, as an ally of the staritsa prince, as a potential supporter of Lithuania, and as a major stronghold of a strong opposition church. The first victim of terror was Prince Vladimir Andreevich. At the end of September 1569, the tsar summoned him to his place. The old prince came with his wife and daughters. Ivan VI ordered the prince and his family to drink the poison prepared in advance.
December 1569 Ivan VI with a detachment of 15 thousand people. arrived in Klin, where the massacre was carried out. The same picture was repeated in Torzhok, Tver and Vyshny Volochek. At the same time, the tsar received Malyuta Skuratov to execute Philip, who was imprisoned near Tver. On January 2, 1570, the advanced regiment of guardsmen reached Novgorod. Before the arrival of the rest of the oprichnina forces, the treasury was sealed in monasteries, churches and houses of wealthy people, many merchants and clerics were arrested. On the evening of January 6, Ivan VI approached Novgorod. The tsar considered Archbishop Pimen to be the main conspirator. Therefore, first of all, the Novgorod clergy were subjected to repression. He also did not trust the Novgorod nobility, since none of its members entered the oprichnina.
The pogrom of Novgorod, which is considered one of the most terrible episodes of the oprichnina, lasted six weeks. The pogrom consisted not only of murders, but also of a planned robbery. After the defeat of Novgorod and the return of the tsar to Alexander's settlement, an investigation began in the case of the Novgorod treason. Many of the leaders of the oprichnina were among the accused - father and son Alexei Danilovich and Fedor Alekseevich Basmanov, Afanasy Ivanovich Vyazemsky, Mikhail Temryukovich Cherkassky. On July 25, 1570, mass executions took place on Red Square, more than a hundred people were executed at the same time.
The mass executions of 1570 were the apogee of the oprichnina terror.
Power and economy in the years of the oprichnina
During the oprichnina years, the power of the autocratic power of the tsar increased. All important external and internal political issues were resolved directly by Ivan VI and his inner circle. Ivan the Terrible himself, after consultation with the boyar duma, made decisions about war and peace, about campaigns, building fortresses, military issues, land and financial affairs. The tsar remained the final court in land disputes. The king saw the ultimate goal of his activity in the boundless submission of all his subjects to his will. Thus, the oprichnina terror was one of the forms of strengthening the autocracy. After the execution of Vladimir Staritsky and the defeat of Novgorod, appanages were practically liquidated in Russia. This was a positive result of the transformations during the oprichnina. Decreased composition of the Boyar Duma
From 1570, a gradual decline of the oprichnina began.
During the years of the oprichnina, the population of the country had to experience epidemics and famine. In 1569 there was a crop failure in Russia. In 1569-1571. prices for bread and other agricultural products rose sharply in various regions of Russia. Especially difficult for Russia was 1971, when the country was hit by the plague, famine and the invasion of Devlet Giray. On May 24, 1571, there was a huge fire in Moscow, which brought great devastation to the city. There were desolations all over the country. The peasants could not pay the increased royal duties and left the lands. The extermination of his political opponents by Ivan the Terrible can hardly be called the cause of desolation, but during the oprichnina reprisals, many thousands of innocent people died, including. peasants, townspeople, serfs. First of all, the growth of taxes, military operations, natural disasters can be considered the cause of ruin. The economic crisis hastened the government's decision to abandon the continuation of the oprichnina policy. During the years of the oprichnina, black-mowed and palace lands were widely distributed into estates and estates. The plunder of peasant lands led to the strengthening of serfdom, into which new layers of the peasantry fell. In addition, the new owners of the land rarely cared about the establishment of the economy in the estates and estates they received. Most often, they sought to squeeze as much income out of the peasants as possible. This method of exploitation of estates led to their ruin.
The years of the oprichnina are associated with the strong growth of monastic land ownership. It grew so much that on October 9, 1572, a special decree was adopted prohibiting contributions to large monasteries. Along with the expansion of their estates, the monasteries during the oprichnina achieved an increase in tax privileges. The burden of bearing national taxes was shifted onto the shoulders of the peasants of the black lands, as well as the peasants of the secular feudal lords, worsening their already difficult situation. The landlessness of the peasants, the transfer of black-soil lands to the exploitation of secular and spiritual feudal lords was accompanied by a sharp increase in state taxes and land rent. The process of corvée development intensified. The ruin of the peasantry, burdened with double oppression (state and feudal), was complemented by the strengthening of the arbitrariness of the landlords, which prepared the way for the final establishment of serfdom. This was one of the results of the oprichnina.
The end of the oprichnina
In the spring of 1571, it became known in Moscow that Devlet Giray was preparing a campaign against Moscow. A barrier of Russian troops was put up on the banks of the Oka. One section of the coast was entrusted to the zemstvo troops, and the other - to the oprichny. At the same time, there were five regiments of zemstvo troops, and only one regiment was able to convene the oprichniki. Oprichnina demonstrated the loss of combat capability. The tsar, leaving one oprichny regiment on the banks of the Oka, went deep into Russia to gather oprichny troops. On May 23, the troops of Devlet Giray approached the Oka and they managed to cross the Oka in a place that was not guarded by Russian troops due to their small number. The way for the troops of Divlet Giray to Moscow was opened. Russian governors managed to get to Moscow before Divlet-Girey and take up defense around the city. Divlet-Giray did not begin to storm Moscow, but set fire to “posadas not protected by walls. In this fire, almost all the wooden buildings of Moscow burned down. The Moscow oprichny yard also burned down. After the burning of Moscow, Divlet Giray left, but at the same time he plundered many cities, especially in the Ryazan land. All this hit the prestige of Tsar Ivan VI and the oprichnina.
For the foreign policy position of Russia, the consequences of the Divlet Giray raid were very difficult. Khan believed that now he could dictate his will to Russia. Negotiations with the Crimean ambassadors were very difficult. The Russian representatives were ready to give up Astrakhan, but the representatives of the Crimean Khan also demanded Kazan. Ivan VI made a decision - to repulse the Tatar Khan, he united the zemstvo and oprichnina troops. Now in each regiment there were both oprichny and zemstvo soldiers. Often guardsmen found themselves under the leadership of zemstvo governors. The previously disgraced Prince M.I. was appointed commander-in-chief. Vorotynsky.
On July 1572, a battle took place near the village of Molodi, not far from Podolsk. Russian troops led by Vorotynsky were able to defeat the troops of Devlet - Giray. The danger from the Crimean Khan was eliminated.
In the autumn of 1572, Ivan VI abolished the oprichnina. It was forbidden to mention the oprichnina. Even the mention of the word "oprichnina" was followed by punishment with a whip.
The oprichnina and zemstvo troops, oprichnina and zemstvo service people were united, the unity of the Boyar Duma was restored. Many were rehabilitated, some zemstvos got their estates back.
ivan tsar novgorod oprichnina
Conclusion
The purpose of the oprichnina, first of all, was to strengthen the autocracy of Ivan VI. Obviously, the oprichnina was not a step towards a progressive form of government and did not contribute to the development of the state. It was a bloody reform, as evidenced by its later consequences, including the onset of the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 7th century. The dreams of the nobility of a strong monarch were embodied in unbridled despotism. As a result of the activities of Ivan the Terrible, the country was ruined, but united under a single authority. Influence in the West was undermined.
The oprichnina exhausted the country and seriously affected the position of the masses. The bloody revelry of the guardsmen brought the death of thousands of peasants and artisans, the ruin of many cities and villages.
Nevertheless, it is impossible not to say about some of the positive aspects of the oprichnina. Oprichnina became the final step in the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, the boundaries of the former specific principalities were erased, and feudal fragmentation in the state almost disappeared. The role of nobles in government was strengthened. The state finally became centralized.
List of sources and literature
1. Zimin A.A. Oprichnina. - M.: Territory, 2001. - 450 p.
2. Zuev I.N. History of Russia Textbook for universities / MN Zuev. - M.: PRIOR Publishing House, 2000. - 688 p.
Kobrin V.B. Ivan the Terrible / V.B. Kobrin. - M.: Mosk. Worker, 1989. - 174 p.
Khoroshkevich A.L. The Russian state in the system of international relations of the late 15th - early 16th century. / A.L. Khoroshkevich. - M.: Nauka, 1980. - 293 p.
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
The role of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible in the history of the Russian state
Hundreds if not thousands of historical studies, monographs, articles, reviews have been written about such a phenomenon as the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible (1565-1572), dissertations have been defended, the main causes have long been identified, the course of events has been restored, and the consequences have been explained.
However, to this day, neither in domestic nor in foreign historiography there is no consensus on the issue of the significance of the oprichnina in the history of the Russian state. For centuries, historians have been breaking spears in disputes: with what sign should we perceive the events of 1565-1572? Was the oprichnina just a cruel terror of a half-mad despot tsar against his subjects? Or was it still based on a sound and necessary policy in those conditions, aimed at strengthening the foundations of statehood, increasing the authority of the central government, improving the country's defense capability, etc.?
In general, all the diverse opinions of historians can be reduced to two mutually exclusive statements: 1) the oprichnina was due to the personal qualities of Tsar Ivan and had no political meaning (N.I. Kostomarov, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.B. Veselovsky, I. Ya. Froyanov); 2) the oprichnina was a well-thought-out political step by Ivan the Terrible and was directed against those social forces that opposed his "autocracy".
Among the supporters of the latter point of view there is also no unanimity of opinion. Some researchers believe that the purpose of the oprichnina was to crush the boyar-princely economic and political power associated with the destruction of large patrimonial land ownership (S.M. Solovyov, S.F. Platonov, R.G. Skrynnikov). Others (A.A. Zimin and V.B. Kobrin) believe that the oprichnina “aimed” exclusively at the remnants of the specific princely aristocracy (Staritsky Prince Vladimir), and was also directed against the separatist aspirations of Novgorod and the resistance of the church as a powerful one, opposing the state organizations. None of these provisions is indisputable, so the scientific discussion about the meaning of the oprichnina continues.
What is an oprichnina?
Anyone who is at least somehow interested in the history of Russia knows perfectly well that there was a time when guardsmen existed in Russia. In the minds of most modern people, this word has become the definition of a terrorist, a criminal, a person who deliberately commits lawlessness with the connivance of the supreme power, and often with its direct support.
Meanwhile, the very word "oprich" in relation to any property or land ownership began to be used long before the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Already in the XIV century, "oprichnina" is called the part of the inheritance that goes to the widow of the prince after his death ("widow's share"). The widow had the right to receive income from a certain part of the land, but after her death the estate was returned to the eldest son, another senior heir, or, in the absence of such, was attributed to the state treasury. Thus, in the XIV-XVI centuries, the oprichnina was a destiny specially allocated for lifelong possession.
Over time, the word "oprichnina" has a synonym that goes back to the root "oprich", which means "except". Hence the “oprichnina” - “pitch darkness”, as it was sometimes called, and the “oprichnik” - “kromeshnik”. But this synonym was put into use, as some scientists believe, by the first "political emigrant" and opponent of Ivan the Terrible, Andrei Kurbsky. In his messages to the tsar, the words "kromeshniks" and "pitch darkness" in relation to the oprichnina of Ivan IV are used for the first time.
In addition, it should be noted that the Old Russian word "oprich" (adverb and preposition), according to Dahl's dictionary, means: "Outside, outside, outside, beyond what." Hence "oprichny" - "separate, distinguished, special."
Thus, it is symbolic that the name of the Soviet employee of the "special department" - "special officer" - is in fact a semantic copy of the word "oprichnik".
In January 1558, Ivan the Terrible began the Livonian War for the mastery of the coast of the Baltic Sea in order to gain access to sea lanes and facilitate trade with Western European countries. Soon the Grand Duchy of Moscow is faced with a broad coalition of enemies, which include Poland, Lithuania, Sweden. In fact, the Crimean Khanate also participates in the anti-Moscow coalition, which ruins the southern regions of the Moscow principality with regular military campaigns. The war takes on a protracted and exhausting character. Drought, famine, plague epidemics, Crimean Tatar campaigns, Polish-Lithuanian raids and a naval blockade carried out by Poland and Sweden devastate the country. The sovereign himself now and then encounters manifestations of boyar separatism, the unwillingness of the boyar oligarchy to continue the Livonian War, which is important for the Muscovite kingdom. In 1564, the commander of the western army, Prince Kurbsky - in the past one of the closest personal friends of the tsar, a member of the Chosen Rada - goes over to the side of the enemy, betrays Russian agents in Livonia and participates in the offensive actions of the Poles and Lithuanians.
The position of Ivan IV becomes critical. It was possible to get out of it only with the help of the toughest, decisive measures.
On December 3, 1564, Ivan the Terrible and his family suddenly left the capital on a pilgrimage. With him, the king took the treasury, personal library, icons and symbols of power. Having visited the village of Kolomenskoye, he did not return to Moscow and, having wandered for several weeks, stopped in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. On January 3, 1565, he announced his abdication of the throne, due to "anger" at the boyars, church, voivodship and order people. Two days later, a deputation headed by Archbishop Pimen arrived in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda and persuaded the tsar to return to the kingdom. From Sloboda, Ivan IV sent two letters to Moscow: one to the boyars and the clergy, and the other to the townspeople, explaining in detail why and with whom the sovereign was angry, and with whom he “does not hold evil.” Thus, he immediately divided society, sowing the seeds of mutual distrust and hatred for the boyar elite among ordinary townspeople and petty service nobility.
In early February 1565, Ivan the Terrible returned to Moscow. The tsar announced that he was again taking over the reign, but on the condition that he was free to execute traitors, put them in disgrace, deprive them of property, etc., and that neither the boyar thought nor the clergy interfere in his affairs. Those. the sovereign introduced for himself "oprichnina".
This word was used at first in the sense of special property or possession; now it has taken on a different meaning. In the oprichnina, the tsar separated part of the boyars, servicemen and clerks, and in general made all his “everyday life” special: in the palaces of Sytnoy, Kormovoi and Khlebenny, a special staff of housekeepers, cooks, clerks, etc. was appointed; special detachments of archers were recruited. Special cities (about 20, including Moscow, Vologda, Vyazma, Suzdal, Kozelsk, Medyn, Veliky Ustyug) with volosts were appointed to maintain the oprichnina. In Moscow itself, some streets were given over to the oprichnina (Chertolskaya, Arbat, Sivtsev Vrazhek, part of Nikitskaya, etc.); the former inhabitants were relocated to other streets. Up to 1000 princes, nobles, boyar children, both Moscow and city, were also recruited into the oprichnina. They were given estates in the volosts assigned to the maintenance of the oprichnina. Former landlords and estate owners were evicted from those volosts to others.
The rest of the state was to constitute the “zemshchina”: the tsar entrusted it to the zemstvo boyars, that is, to the boyar duma proper, and put Prince Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky and Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky at the head of its management. All matters had to be decided in the old way, and with big cases it was necessary to turn to the boyars, but if military or most important zemstvo affairs happen, then to the sovereign. For his rise, that is, for a trip to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, the tsar exacted a fine of 100 thousand rubles from the Zemsky Prikaz.
The "oprichniki" - the sovereign's people - were supposed to "correct treason" and act solely in the interests of the tsarist government, maintaining the authority of the supreme ruler in wartime conditions. No one restricted them in the methods or in the methods of "correcting" treason, and all the innovations of Grozny turned into a cruel, unjustified terror of the ruling minority against the majority of the country's population.
In December 1569, the army of guardsmen, personally led by Ivan the Terrible, set out on a campaign against Novgorod, who allegedly wanted to betray him. The king was walking as though he were in an enemy country. Oprichniki sacked cities (Tver, Torzhok), villages and villages, killed and robbed the population. In Novgorod itself, the rout lasted 6 weeks. Thousands of suspects were tortured and drowned in Volkhov. The city was sacked. The property of churches, monasteries and merchants was confiscated. The beating continued in the Novgorod Pyatina. Then Grozny moved to Pskov, and only the superstition of the formidable king allowed this ancient city to avoid a pogrom.
In 1572, when a real threat to the very existence of the Muscovite state was created by the Krymchaks, the oprichnina troops actually sabotaged the order of their king to oppose the enemy. The Molodinsky battle with the army of Devlet Giray was won by regiments under the leadership of the “zemstvo” governors. After that, Ivan IV himself abolished the oprichnina, disgraced and executed many of its leaders.
Historiography of the oprichnina in the first half of the 19th century
Historians were the first to talk about the oprichnina already in the 18th and early 19th centuries: Shcherbatov, Bolotov, Karamzin. Even then, there was a tradition to “divide” the reign of Ivan IV into two halves, which subsequently formed the basis of the theory of “two Ivans”, introduced into historiography by N.M. Karamzin based on the study of the works of Prince A. Kurbsky. According to Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible is a virtuous hero and a wise statesman in the first half of his reign and a crazy tyrant-despot in the second. Many historians, following Karamzin, associated the abrupt change in the sovereign's policy with his mental illness caused by the death of his first wife, Anastasia Romanovna. Even versions about the “substitution” of the king by another person arose and were seriously considered.
The watershed between the "good" Ivan and the "bad" one, according to Karamzin, was the introduction of the oprichnina in 1565. But N.M. Karamzin was still more of a writer and moralist than a scientist. Depicting the oprichnina, he created an artistically expressive picture that was supposed to impress the reader, but in no way answer the question of the causes, consequences and the very nature of this historical phenomenon.
Subsequent historians (N.I. Kostomarov) also saw the main reason for the oprichnina solely in the personal qualities of Ivan the Terrible, who did not want to listen to people who disagreed with the methods of pursuing his generally justified policy of strengthening the central government.
Solovyov and Klyuchevsky about oprichnina
S. M. Solovyov and the “state school” of Russian historiography he created took a different path. Abstracting from the personal characteristics of the tyrant king, they saw in the activities of Grozny, first of all, the transition from the old "tribal" relations to the modern "state", which was completed by the oprichnina - state power in the form in which the great "reformer" himself understood it . Solovyov for the first time separated the cruelties of Tsar Ivan and the internal terror organized by him from the political, social and economic processes of that time. From the point of view of historical science, this was undoubtedly a step forward.
V.O. Klyuchevsky, unlike Solovyov, considered Ivan the Terrible’s domestic policy to be completely aimless, moreover, dictated solely by the personal qualities of the sovereign’s character. In his opinion, the oprichnina did not answer urgent political issues, and also did not eliminate the difficulties that it caused. By "difficulty" the historian means clashes between Ivan IV and the boyars: “The boyars imagined themselves as powerful advisers to the sovereign of all Russia at the very time when this sovereign, remaining true to the view of the specific patrimony, in accordance with ancient Russian law, granted them as his servants in the yard to the title of servants of the sovereign. Both sides found themselves in such an unnatural relation to each other, which they did not seem to notice while it was taking shape, and which they did not know what to do with when they noticed it.
The way out of this situation was the oprichnina, which Klyuchevsky calls an attempt to "live side by side, but not together."
According to the historian, Ivan IV had only two options:
Eliminate the boyars as a government class and replace it with other, more flexible and obedient instruments of government;
Separate the boyars, bring to the throne the most reliable people from the boyars and rule with them, as Ivan ruled at the beginning of his reign.
None of the outputs were implemented.
Klyuchevsky points out that Ivan the Terrible should have acted against the political position of the entire boyars, and not against individuals. The tsar, on the other hand, does the opposite: not being able to change the political system that is inconvenient for him, he persecutes and executes individuals (and not only the boyars), but at the same time leaves the boyars at the head of the zemstvo administration.
Such a course of action of the king is by no means a consequence of political calculation. Rather, it is a consequence of a distorted political understanding caused by personal emotions and fear for one's personal position:
Klyuchevsky saw in the oprichnina not a state institution, but a manifestation of lawless anarchy aimed at undermining the foundations of the state and undermining the authority of the power of the monarch himself. Klyuchevsky considered the oprichnina one of the most effective factors that prepared the Time of Troubles.
The concept of S.F. Platonov
The developments of the “state school” were further developed in the works of S. F. Platonov, who created the most integral concept of the oprichnina, which was included in all pre-revolutionary, Soviet and some post-Soviet university textbooks.
S.F. Platonov believed that the main reasons for the oprichnina lay in Ivan the Terrible's awareness of the danger of the specific princely and boyar opposition. S.F. Platonov wrote: “Dissatisfied with the nobility surrounding him, he (Ivan the Terrible) applied to her the measure that Moscow applied to her enemies, namely, “withdrawal” ... What worked so well with the external enemy, the Terrible planned to test with the internal enemy, those. with those people who seemed to him hostile and dangerous.
In modern terms, the oprichnina of Ivan IV formed the basis of a grandiose personnel reshuffling, as a result of which large landowning boyars and specific princes were relocated from specific hereditary lands to places far from their former settled way of life. The votchinas were divided into plots and complained to those boyar children who were in the service of the tsar (guardsmen). According to Platonov, the oprichnina was not a "whim" of a crazy tyrant. On the contrary, Ivan the Terrible waged a purposeful and well-thought-out struggle against large boyar hereditary land ownership, thus wishing to eliminate separatist tendencies and suppress opposition to the central government:
Grozny sent the old owners to the outskirts, where they could be useful for the defense of the state.
Oprichnina terror, according to Platonov, was only an inevitable consequence of such a policy: they cut down the forest - chips fly! Over time, the monarch himself becomes a hostage to the current situation. In order to stay in power and bring to the end the measures he had planned, Ivan the Terrible was forced to pursue a policy of total terror. There was simply no other way out.
“The whole operation of revising and changing landowners in the eyes of the population was in the nature of disaster and political terror,” the historian wrote. - With extraordinary cruelty, he (Ivan the Terrible), without any investigation or trial, executed and tortured people who were objectionable to him, exiled their families, ruined their households. His guardsmen were not shy about killing defenseless people, robbing and raping them “for laughing”.
One of the main negative consequences of the oprichnina Platonov recognizes the disruption of the economic life of the country - the state of population stability achieved by the state was lost. In addition, the hatred of the population for the brutal government brought discord into society itself, giving rise to general uprisings and peasant wars after the death of Ivan the Terrible - harbingers of the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century.
In the general assessment of the oprichnina, S.F. Platonov puts much more “pluses” than all his predecessors. According to his concept, Ivan the Terrible managed to achieve indisputable results in the policy of centralization of the Russian state: large landowners (the boyar elite) were ruined and partly destroyed, a large mass of relatively small landowners, service people (nobles) gained predominance, which, of course, contributed to the increase in the country's defense capability . Hence the progressiveness of the policy of the oprichnina.
It was this concept that was established in Russian historiography for many years.
"Apologetic" historiography of the oprichnina (1920-1956)
Despite the abundance of contradictory facts that were revealed already in the 1910s and 20s, S.F. Platonov’s “apologetic” concept regarding the oprichnina and Ivan IV the Terrible was not at all disgraced. On the contrary, it gave rise to a number of successors and sincere supporters.
In 1922, the book of the former professor of Moscow University R. Vipper "Ivan the Terrible" was published. Having witnessed the collapse of the Russian Empire, having fully tasted Soviet anarchy and arbitrariness, the political emigrant and quite serious historian R. Vipper created not a historical study, but a very passionate panegyric of the oprichnina and Ivan the Terrible himself - a politician who managed to "put things in order with a firm hand." For the first time, the author considers Grozny's domestic policy (oprichnina) in direct connection with the foreign policy situation. However, Wipper's interpretation of many foreign policy events is in many respects fantastic and far-fetched. Ivan the Terrible appears in his work as a wise and far-sighted ruler who cared, first of all, about the interests of his great power. The executions and terror of Grozny are justified, and can be explained by quite objective reasons: the oprichnina was necessary because of the extremely difficult military situation in the country, the ruin of Novgorod was for the sake of improving the situation at the front, etc.
The oprichnina itself, according to Vipper, is an expression of the democratic (!) tendencies of the 16th century. So, the Zemsky Sobor of 1566 is artificially connected by the author with the creation of the oprichnina in 1565, the transformation of the oprichnina into a courtyard (1572) is interpreted by Vipper as an expansion of the system caused by the betrayal of the Novgorodians and the devastating raid of the Crimean Tatars. He refuses to admit that the reform of 1572 was in fact the destruction of the oprichnina. The reasons for the end of the Livonian War, which was catastrophic in its consequences for Russia, are also not obvious to Vipper.
The main official historiographer of the revolution, M.N., went even further in the apologetics of Grozny and the oprichnina. Pokrovsky. In his Russian History from Ancient Times, the convinced revolutionary turns Ivan the Terrible into the leader of a democratic revolution, a more successful forerunner of Emperor Paul I, who is also portrayed by Pokrovsky as a “democrat on the throne.” The justification of tyrants is one of Pokrovsky's favorite topics. He saw the aristocracy as such as the main object of his hatred, because its power is, by definition, harmful.
However, to orthodox Marxist historians, Pokrovsky's views undoubtedly seemed excessively infected with an idealistic spirit. No individual can play any significant role in history - after all, history is controlled by the class struggle. This is what Marxism teaches. And Pokrovsky, having heard enough of the seminaries of Vinogradov, Klyuchevsky and other "bourgeois specialists", could not get rid of the burp of idealism in himself, attaching too much importance to personalities, as if they did not obey the laws of historical materialism common to all ...
The most typical for the orthodox Marxist approach to the problem of Ivan the Terrible and the oprichnina is M. Nechkina's article about Ivan IV in the First Soviet Encyclopedia (1933). In her interpretation, the personality of the king does not matter at all:
The social meaning of the oprichnina was in the elimination of the boyars as a class and its dissolution in the mass of small landed feudal lords. Ivan worked to realize this goal with "the greatest consistency and invincible perseverance" and completely succeeded in his work.
This was the only true and only possible interpretation of the policy of Ivan the Terrible.
Moreover, the "collectors" and "revivalists" of the new Russian Empire, namely the USSR, liked this interpretation so much that it was immediately adopted by the Stalinist leadership. The new great-power ideology needed historical roots, especially on the eve of the upcoming war. Narratives about Russian military leaders and commanders of the past who fought the Germans or anyone remotely similar to the Germans were urgently created and replicated. The victories of Alexander Nevsky, Peter I (it is true, he fought with the Swedes, but why go into details? ..), Alexander Suvorov were remembered and extolled. Dmitry Donskoy, Minin with Pozharsky and Mikhail Kutuzov, who fought against foreign aggressors, were also declared national heroes and glorious sons of the Fatherland after 20 years of oblivion.
Of course, under all these circumstances, Ivan the Terrible could not remain forgotten. True, he did not repel foreign aggression and did not win a military victory over the Germans, but he was the creator of a centralized Russian state, a fighter against disorder and anarchy created by malevolent aristocrats - the boyars. He began to introduce revolutionary reforms in order to create a new order. But even an autocratic tsar can play a positive role if the monarchy is a progressive system in a given period of history...
Despite the very sad fate of Academician Platonov himself, who was convicted on an "academic case" (1929-1930), the "apologia" of the oprichnina he began in the late 1930s gained new momentum.
Coincidentally or not, but in 1937 - the very "peak" of Stalin's repressions - Plato's "Essays on the History of the Troubles in the Moscow State of the XVI-XVII centuries" were republished for the fourth time, and the Higher School of Propaganda under the Central Committee of the Party published (albeit, "for internal use") fragments of Platonov's pre-revolutionary textbook for universities.
In 1941, director S. Eisenstein received an “order” from the Kremlin to shoot a film about Ivan the Terrible. Naturally, Comrade Stalin wanted to see the Terrible Tsar, who would fully fit into the concept of the Soviet "apologists". Therefore, all the events included in Eisenstein's scenario are subject to the main conflict - the struggle for autocracy against the recalcitrant boyars and against all those who prevent him from uniting the lands and strengthening the state. The film Ivan the Terrible (1944) glorifies Tsar Ivan as a wise and just ruler who had a great goal. Oprichnina and terror are presented as inevitable "costs" in achieving it. But even these "costs" (the second series of the film), Comrade Stalin preferred not to be allowed on the screens.
In 1946, the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was issued, which spoke of the "progressive army of guardsmen." The progressive significance in the then historiography of the Oprichny army was that its formation was a necessary stage in the struggle to strengthen the centralized state and was a struggle of the central government, based on the service nobility, against the feudal aristocracy and specific remnants.
Thus, a positive assessment of the activities of Ivan IV in Soviet historiography was supported at the highest state level. Until 1956, the most cruel tyrant in the history of Russia appeared on the pages of textbooks, works of art and in cinema as a national hero, a true patriot, a wise politician.
Revision of the concept of oprichnina in the years of Khrushchev's "thaw"
As soon as Khrushchev read his famous report at the 20th Congress, all panegyric odes to Grozny were put to an end. The plus sign abruptly changed to a minus, and historians no longer hesitated to draw completely obvious parallels between the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the reign of the recently deceased Soviet tyrant.
A number of articles by domestic researchers immediately appear, in which the "cult of personality" of Stalin and the "cult of personality" of Grozny are debunked in approximately the same expressions and on real examples similar to each other.
One of the first was an article by V.N. Shevyakov "On the question of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible", explaining the causes and consequences of the oprichnina in the spirit of N.I. Kostomarov and V.O. Klyuchevsky - i.e. very negative:
The king himself, contrary to all previous apologetics, is called what he really was - the executioner of his subjects exposed by the authorities.
Following the article by Shevyakov, an even more radical article by S.N. Dubrovsky “On the cult of personality in some works on questions of history (on the assessment of Ivan IV, etc.)” comes out. The author considers the oprichnina not as a war of the tsar against the specific aristocracy. On the contrary, he believes that Ivan the Terrible was at one with the landowning boyars. With their help, the tsar waged war against his people with the sole purpose of clearing the ground for the subsequent enslavement of the peasants. According to Dubrovsky, Ivan IV was not at all as talented and smart as historians of the Stalin era tried to present him. The author accuses them of intentionally rigging and distorting historical facts that testify to the personal qualities of the king.
In 1964, A.A. Zimin's book "The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible" was published. Zimin processed a huge number of sources, raised a lot of factual material related to the oprichnina. But his own opinion literally drowned in the abundance of names, graphs, numbers and solid facts. The unambiguous conclusions so characteristic of his predecessors are practically absent in the work of the historian. With many reservations, Zimin agrees that most of the bloodshed and crimes of the guardsmen were useless. However, "objectively" the content of the oprichnina in his eyes still looks progressive: Ivan the Terrible's initial thought was correct, and then everything was spoiled by the guardsmen themselves, who degenerated into bandits and robbers.
Zimin's book was written during the reign of Khrushchev, and therefore the author tries to satisfy both sides of the dispute. However, at the end of his life, A. A. Zimin revised his views towards a purely negative assessment of the oprichnina, seeing in "The bloody glow of the oprichnina" an extreme manifestation of feudal and despotic tendencies as opposed to pre-bourgeois ones.
These positions were developed by his student V. B. Kobrin and the latter’s student A. L. Yurganov. Based on specific studies that began even before the war and conducted by S. B. Veselovsky and A. A. Zimin (and continued by V. B. Kobrin), they showed that S. F. Platonov’s theory of the defeat of patrimonial land ownership as a result of the oprichnina - nothing more than a historical myth.
Criticism of Platonov's concept
Back in the 1910-1920s, research began on a colossal complex of materials that, formally, would seem to be far from the problems of the oprichnina. Historians have studied a huge number of scribe books, where land allotments of both large landowners and service people were recorded. These were in the full sense of the word accounting records of that time.
And the more materials related to land ownership were introduced into scientific circulation in the 1930s and 60s, the more interesting the picture became. It turned out that as a result of the oprichnina, large land ownership did not suffer in any way. In fact, at the end of the 16th century, it remained almost the same as it was before the oprichnina. It also turned out that those lands that went specifically to the oprichnina often included territories inhabited by service people who did not have large allotments. For example, the territory of the Suzdal Principality was almost entirely populated by service people, there were very few rich landowners there. Moreover, according to scribe books, it often turned out that many guardsmen, who allegedly received their estates in the Moscow region for serving the tsar, were their owners before that. Just in 1565-72, small landowners automatically fell into the number of guardsmen, because. the sovereign declared these lands oprichnina.
All these data were completely at odds with what was expressed by S. F. Platonov, who did not process scribe books, did not know statistics and practically did not use sources that were of a mass character.
Soon another source was uncovered, which Platonov also did not analyze in detail - the famous synodics. They contain lists of people killed and tortured by order of Tsar Ivan. Basically, they died or were executed and tortured without repentance and communion, therefore, the king was sinful in that they died not in a Christian way. These synodics were sent to the monasteries for commemoration.
S. B. Veselovsky analyzed the synodics in detail and came to an unequivocal conclusion: it is impossible to say that during the period of the oprichnina terror, it was mainly large landowners who died. Yes, no doubt, the boyars and members of their families were executed, but besides them, an incredible number of service people died. Persons of the clergy of absolutely all ranks died, people who were in the state service in orders, military leaders, petty officials, simple warriors. Finally, an incredible number of inhabitants died - urban, townspeople, those who inhabited villages and villages on the territory of certain estates and estates. According to S. B. Veselovsky, for one boyar or a person from the Sovereign's court there were three or four ordinary landowners, and for one service person - a dozen commoners. Consequently, the assertion that terror was selective in nature and was directed only against the boyar elite is fundamentally wrong.
In the 1940s, S.B. Veselovsky wrote his book “Essays on the history of the oprichnina” “on the table”, because. to publish it under the modern tyrant was absolutely impossible. The historian died in 1952, but his conclusions and developments on the problem of the oprichnina were not forgotten and were actively used in criticizing the concept of S.F. Platonov and his followers.
Another serious mistake of S.F. Platonov was that he believed that the boyars had colossal estates, which included parts of the former principalities. Thus, the danger of separatism remained - i.e. restoration of one or another reign. As confirmation, Platonov cites the fact that during the illness of Ivan IV in 1553, the appanage prince Vladimir Staritsky, a large landowner and close relative of the tsar, acted as a possible contender for the throne.
An appeal to the materials of cadastral books showed that the boyars had their own lands in different, as they would say now, areas, but then appanages. The boyars had to serve in different places, and therefore, on occasion, they bought land (or it was given to them) where they served. One and the same person often had land in Nizhny Novgorod, Suzdal, and Moscow, i.e. was not tied specifically to any particular place. There was no question of somehow separating, avoiding the process of centralization, because even the largest landowners could not gather their lands together and oppose their power to the power of the great sovereign. The process of centralization of the state was quite objective, and there is no reason to say that the boyar aristocracy actively prevented it.
Thanks to the study of sources, it turned out that the very postulate about the resistance of the boyars and the descendants of the specific princes of centralization is a purely speculative construction, derived from theoretical analogies between the social system of Russia and Western Europe in the era of feudalism and absolutism. The sources do not provide any direct basis for such assertions. The postulation of large-scale "boyar conspiracies" in the era of Ivan the Terrible is based on statements that come only from Grozny himself.
Novgorod and Pskov were the only lands that in the 16th century could lay claim to a "departure" from a single state. In the event of separation from Moscow in the conditions of the Livonian War, they would not be able to maintain their independence, and would inevitably be captured by the opponents of the Moscow sovereign. Therefore, Zimin and Kobrin consider Ivan IV's campaign against Novgorod historically justified and condemn only the methods of the tsar's struggle against potential separatists.
The new concept of understanding such a phenomenon as the oprichnina, created by Zimin, Kobrin and their followers, is based on the proof that the oprichnina objectively resolved (albeit by barbaric methods) some urgent tasks, namely: strengthening centralization, destroying the remnants of the appanage system and the independence of the church. But the oprichnina was, first of all, an instrument for establishing the personal despotic power of Ivan the Terrible. The terror unleashed by him was of a national character, was caused solely by the king’s fear for his position (“beat your own so that strangers are afraid”) and had no “high” political goal or social background.
Not without interest is the point of view of the Soviet historian D. Al (Alshitz), who already in the 2000s expressed the opinion that the terror of Ivan the Terrible was aimed at the total subordination of everyone and everything to the unified power of the autocratic monarch. All those who did not personally prove their loyalty to the sovereign were destroyed; the independence of the church was destroyed; the economically independent commercial Novgorod was destroyed, the merchants were subjugated, and so on. Thus, Ivan the Terrible did not want to say, like Louis XIV, but by effective measures to prove to all his contemporaries that "I am the state." Oprichnina acted as a state institution for the protection of the monarch, his personal guard.
This concept satisfied the scientific community for a while. However, the tendencies towards a new rehabilitation of Ivan the Terrible and even the creation of his new cult were fully developed in subsequent historiography. For example, in an article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1972), in the presence of a certain duality in assessment, the positive qualities of Ivan the Terrible are clearly exaggerated, and the negative ones are underestimated.
With the beginning of “perestroika” and a new anti-Stalinist campaign in the media, Grozny and the oprichnina were again condemned and compared with the period of Stalinist repressions. During this period, the reassessment of historical events, including the reasons, resulted mainly not in scientific research, but in populist reasoning on the pages of central newspapers and magazines.
Employees of the NKVD and other law enforcement agencies (the so-called "specialists") in newspaper publications were no longer referred to other than "guardsmen", the terror of the 16th century was directly connected with the "Yezhovshchina" of the 1930s, as if it all happened only yesterday. “History repeats itself” - this strange, unconfirmed truth was repeated by politicians, parliamentarians, writers, and even highly respected scientists who tend to draw historical parallels Grozny-Stalin, Malyuta Skuratov - Beria, etc. again and again. etc.
The attitude towards the oprichnina and the personality of Ivan the Terrible himself today can be called a “litmus test” of the political situation in our country. During periods of liberalization of public and state life in Russia, which, as a rule, are followed by a separatist "parade of sovereignties", anarchy, a change in the value system - Ivan the Terrible is perceived as a bloody tyrant and tyrant. Tired of anarchy and permissiveness, society is again ready to dream of a “strong hand”, the revival of statehood, and even stable tyranny in the spirit of Grozny, Stalin, and anyone else ...
Today, not only in society, but also in scientific circles, the tendency to “apologize” Stalin as a great statesman is again clearly visible. From television screens and the pages of the press, they are again stubbornly trying to prove to us that Iosif Dzhugashvili created a great power that won the war, built rockets, blocked the Yenisei, and even in the field of ballet was ahead of the rest. And in the 1930s and 50s they planted and shot only those who had to be planted and shot - former tsarist officials and officers, spies and dissidents of all stripes. Recall that Academician S.F. Platonov had approximately the same opinion regarding the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible and the “selectivity” of his terror. However, the academician himself, already in 1929, was among the victims of his contemporary incarnation of the oprichnina - the OGPU, died in exile, and his name was deleted from the history of national historical science for a long time.
As early as the 14th century, the oprichnina began to be called the inheritance allocated to the widowed princess for life; after her death, all her possessions passed to her eldest son. That is, the direct meaning of this word is “a lot given into lifetime possession.” However, over time, the word has acquired several other meanings. All of them are associated with the name of the first king of all Russia, John the Terrible.
By the 16th century, the appearance of the word “oprichnina”, which goes back to its root “oprich”, “except”, is attributed. We are talking about the phrase "pitch darkness", which was called oprichnoe, and the guardsmen themselves were "kromeshniks". Now the meaning of these synonyms is divorced. The first became the personification of permissiveness, the second - complete darkness.
The need to create an oprichnina, that is, his own lot, the king arose for several reasons, but the main one was the need to centralize power - the country led the Livonian, and there were endless strife among the ruling class. In 1565, the tsar issued a decree on the establishment of the oprichnina and divided the state into two unequal parts - the oprichnina (own inheritance) and the zemshchina - the rest of Russia. In fact, John forced the boyars to give him the absolute right to execute and pardon all disobedient. The zemshchina was immediately subjected to an exorbitant tax on the maintenance of the royal inheritance. Since not everyone agreed to say goodbye to their money, repressions fell upon them, which were carried out by service people from the oprichnina army. For their service, the guardsmen received the lands of disgraced statesmen, objectionable boyars. However, they could get into the number of guardsmen simply according to the lists. Many did not even know that, by the will of fate, they became the royal "favorites".
The rampant tsarist lawlessness reached its apogee in 1569, when the oprichnina army, led by Malyuta Skuratov, carried out massacres in many cities on the way from Moscow to Novgorod. Lawlessness was created with the "noble" goal of finding the instigators of the conspiracy in Novgorod.
In 1571, the oprichnina army was already completely degenerated; Devlet Giray (Crimean Khan) invaded Moscow, burned the capital and defeated the miserable remnants of the royal army. The end of the oprichnina was put in 1572, when the army of the tsar and the zemstvo army were united to repulse the Crimeans. The very word "oprichnina" was forbidden to be mentioned under pain of the death penalty. Atrocities returned like a boomerang to those who did them - Ivan the Terrible executed the most important guardsmen.
Experts call oprichnina not only the royal inheritance that existed in these 8 years from 1565 to 1572, but also the period of state terror itself. Many historians draw analogies with this period in the modern history of our state. This is the so-called Yezhovshchina - the great terror of 1937-1938, whose task was to get rid of the unwanted faces of the young Soviet state. Yezhovshchina ended in the same way as the oprichnina - with a purge of the ranks of the NKVD (the main punishing body), including Yezhov himself.
The consequences of the oprichnina were deplorable. The Russian people, about whom the tsar cared so much, fled from the central lands to the outskirts, abandoning the fertile lands. The country could not recover from this shock. Neither Fyodor Ioannovich, whose reign was relatively peaceful, nor Boris Godunov, in whose reign there was much wisdom, could bring Russia out of the crisis into which Ivan the Terrible threw it. A direct consequence of the oprichnina was the Time of Troubles.