In January 1570, an army of many thousands came to Novgorod. These were not Swedes, not Lithuanians, not Livonians - the guardsmen of Ivan IV approached the city. Maybe the townspeople guessed that the appearance of an entire army (about 15 thousand people) did not bode well. But hardly anyone could have imagined that the pogrom would be so terrifying ...

Oprichniki and archers surrounded Novgorod, so it was impossible to leave it. The first thing dealt with was Archbishop Pimen, several boyars and clerks. But as it turned out, that was just the beginning. At first, the guardsmen smashed only the houses of the boyars, wealthy merchants and clerks. But a few days later the settlement was subjected to a pogrom. At the same time, they killed everyone in a row, from small to large ...

The excesses of the guardsmen were not limited to Novgorod alone. According to historians, the royal detachments thoroughly ruined the district within a radius of 200-300 kilometers from the city. To top it off, a terrible famine began in Novgorod and its environs. All food supplies were confiscated by the "king's servants" who "exterminated treason." And since Novgorod was already so heavily dependent on the supply of food, it is clear that the reserves were not too large anyway.

The death toll was in the thousands - experts still cannot agree on how many people died then. Call the numbers from 4 to 30 thousand people.

One more thing - it is still not completely clear what is the reason for such an unprecedented cruelty of Ivan the Terrible to the inhabitants of one of the cities of his own state.

Formally, the march on Novgorod began a month after the exposure of the "conspiracy" of the appanage prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky. Some vagabond named Peter reported to the tsar that the Novgorodians wanted to elevate Prince Vladimir to the throne. At the same time, in the same denunciation, it was reported that Novgorod was ready to come under the authority of the Polish king. The incompatibility of these two actions did not bother either Ivan Vasilyevich or his entourage.

It can, of course, be assumed that the tsar remembered the past of Novgorod, a free city that for centuries repulsed the attempts of the ancestors of the Muscovite tsar to establish control over the city. But by the time of the campaign, Novgorod had been part of the Muscovite state for almost a hundred years. The same archbishop Pimen, before the appearance of the guardsmen in Novgorod, established himself as an ardent supporter of the tsar. And even helped Ivan Vasilyevich in reprisals against Metropolitan Philip, who fell into disgrace. Who, by the way, refused to bless the Novgorod campaign of the tsar, for which he was killed by Malyuta Skuratov.

But one thing you can absolutely be sure of is that the defeat of Novgorod played its role as a means of intimidating its own subjects. Before that, there was no talk of active resistance to the actions of the tsar, and even more so after the events of the winter of 1570. Someone, of course, fled to neighboring countries, mainly Poland and Lithuania, and mostly noble people. But there were very few of them.

There are many dark spots in Russian history, which are “lightened up” only by hypotheses, and sometimes even by the fantasies of historians. The pogrom of Novgorod by guardsmen, which began on January 12, 1570, stands apart here. He is referred to the most severe acts of John IV.

Walker from Volyn

In the summer of 1569, Tsar John IV received a certain “walker” from Veliky Novgorod in the Alexander Sloboda, who will be referred to in the archives as “Volynets (that is, Ukrainian, Ed.) Peter.” The mysterious guest informs the tsar that the Novgorod elite, led by the local archbishop Pimen, has entered into an agreement with the "Lithuania" and is secretly preparing to swear allegiance to the "Lithuanian king Zhigimont" (Sigismund). There is even proof - a letter with the signatures of the archbishop and other noble Novgorodians, which is stored in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral under the image of the Virgin.

Soon John IV secretly sends agents to Novgorod who obtain a compromising document and deliver it to the tsar. The signature of the archbishop, who had previously been known as an ardent supporter of the tsar, is recognized as genuine, and this becomes the starting point for the famous campaign of Ivan the Terrible against Veliky Novgorod.

Most historians claim that the scammer skillfully forged the signatures on the charter. Yes, he faked it so much that during the subsequent “face-to-face confrontation” with the document, most of the signatories recognized their autographs. True, not a single historian presents any evidence of the “Volynets” fraud.

fatal blessing

At the end of 1569, the tsar and the oprichnina army set off. On the way to the “rebellious city,” John sends the faithful Malyuta Skuratov to the Otroch Dormition Monastery in Tver, where the former Metropolitan Philip of Moscow stayed after being defrocked. It is interesting that Archbishop Pimen, to whom Ivan Vasilievich went to "visit", was at one time the main opponent of Philip and put a lot of effort into his deposition.

According to one version, the tsar sent Skuratov to the disgraced monk to ask for his blessing for the Novgorod campaign. But supposedly Philip refused Malyuta a "parting word", and he strangled him with a pillow. The killer told the other monks that the former metropolitan had died of stuffiness.

This episode is described in the life of Philip, which appeared a hundred years after his death. However, until that time, no written evidence of Philip's violent death has survived. The question arises - why did Grozny need the blessing of the disgraced monk, whom he considered a "sorcerer" and some time ago he wanted to burn at the stake, according to sources? Isn't Malyuta's fatal visit to the disgraced pilgrim a late "interpretation" of the compilers of his life?

Rejected Blessing

So, in early January, the oprichnina army entered Novgorod. On the bridge over the Volkhov, the tsar was met by Archbishop Pimen himself and the best people of the city. But the king ignored the bishop's blessing, refusing to bow to the cross, and instead burst into accusations:

“You are not a shepherd, but a wolf and a predator, and a destroyer, and in your hands you do not have a cross, but a weapon, and you, wicked, want to hand over Veliky Novgorod to the Polish king with your like-minded people.”

The words of the king, logically, should have been the signal for the arrest of Pimen. But then, according to the annalistic “Tale of the Defeat of Veliky Novgorod”, which serves as the main source of the Novgorod events, something strange happens: John goes to the solemn liturgy in St. Sophia Cathedral, and the traitor himself serves the liturgy! And then the retinue of the Terrible goes with Pimen to the residence of the archbishop for a meal ...

And only after the meal, John again accuses the bishop of treason, and he is finally arrested. The script, frankly speaking, is paradoxical even for such a "creative director" as Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. But the main thing is missed in the chronicle plot - did Pimen confess to treason or not? The signature (or its forgery) in the "rebellious" letter was his ...

From archbishops to buffoons

Then the archbishop was subjected to a very strange and very humiliating ceremony. Grozny allegedly announced that Pimen should not be a bishop, but a buffoon, and therefore he should get married. Ivan Vasilyevich had already prepared a wife for the unfortunate bishop: she turned out to be an ordinary mare! The king ordered that Pimen be put on the "bride", they gave him tambourines with a harp and sent him with parting words to join the gang of buffoons.

Historians interpret this rite as a blasphemous desecration of the rank of archbishop and of the Paschal symbolism of the Lord's entry into Jerusalem. The ceremony really looks vulgar - even for Ivan Vasilyevich, who, as you know, was very strong in symbolism. And here the symbolism is somehow "dead".

Grozny in all his ideas always acted in the context of Russian tradition. However, we will not find the ceremony of marrying a horse and “seeing off to buffoons” in folklore. On the other hand, there are similar performances in the Western European carnival tradition, but Grozny could hardly be an expert here.

Clarity comes when we learn the name of the person who witnessed this "ritual". German Albert Schlichting, who was in the service in the oprichnina (with a very muddy "staffing"). According to his biography (compiled by him), in the spring of 1570 he was “demobilized” and left for the Commonwealth, and there, under the shadow of the Polish “Russophiles”, he wrote a memoir “News from Muscovy, reported by the nobleman Albert Schlichting about the life and tyranny of Emperor Ivan ". The most curious thing is that the name of Albert Schlichting does not exist in Russian documents of that time.

"Last Judgment"

According to The Tale of the Defeat of Veliky Novgorod, immediately after the solemn meal at Pimen’s residence and his arrest, the “confiscation” of the property of the St. Sophia Cathedral and some monasteries began, and then the “dispossession” spread to the rest of the city. The robberies were accompanied, according to the chroniclers and "witnesses" (the German "guardsmen" Staden and Schlichting), with unprecedented terror.

The descriptions of the sophisticated executions of the Novgorodians would certainly have been envied by the Marquis de Sade when writing his novel “120 Days of Sodom”. It seems that the guardsmen killed at least several thousand people every day.

The controversy is still not over with the calculation of the victims of the Novgorod pogrom: some say that at least 15 thousand people died (half the population of Veliky Novgorod), others stop at 4-6 thousand.

But for some reason, historians are silent that any execution was preceded by a trial. The guardsmen's court functioned in Novgorod Gorodishche for three weeks. Even with the most accelerated paperwork, the oprichnina judges were hardly able to consider more than 30 cases. Moreover, we should not forget that an investigation was carried out in each individual case. According to the remaining indirect documents, church synodics, about 200 nobles and more than 100 households, 45 clerks and clerks, and the same number of members of their families were subjected to death.

Where do historians get the figures of 15,000 executed? As evidence, the annals speak of the discovered common graves for several thousand people, of hundreds of corpses that surfaced in the spring in Volkhov, etc. But are all these unfortunate victims of terror?

The fact is that 1568 and 1569 became lean years on Novgorod land, famine broke out - the price of bread increased by the beginning of 1570 by almost 10 times. The Livonian War, which undermined the Novgorodian economy by disrupting previous trade relations, only aggravated the situation. And soon the plague came to the city.

According to the Swedish ambassador Pavel Yusten, who was in Veliky Novgorod from September to January, the city long before the "pogrom" was a "crypt" - several hundred citizens died of hunger every day.

If you carefully look at the existing evidence, then in most cases the church economy was subjected to “revisions”. It was at the monasteries and monastic villages that grain, cattle, and salt were confiscated. Probably, the "pogrom" was largely due to the fact that in the conditions of famine and a catastrophic increase in bread prices, the Novgorod church accumulated the lion's share of stocks. It is possible that such a "blockade" was part of a large strategic plan of the local elite.

Was there a betrayal?

It is possible that under these conditions, the Novgorod elite had a desire to seek salvation in joining the Union of Lublin, which was created in 1569 by the unification of Poland and Lithuania.

Novgorod trade did not benefit from the policy of Grozny, including his desire to break through to the Baltic Sea, which threatened to lose its geo-economic positions, once one of the most powerful cities in Europe. In addition, the Novgorodians were very dissatisfied with the tsar's orientation towards England.

The British received the greatest preferences from John IV and opened an alternative to the Novgorod trade meridian - Kholmogory - Vologda - Moscow.

In turn, the British also did not like the "Novgorod corporation", which was once part of the rival Hanseatic League, and in the late 1560s opened the city to the main British competitors in the Russian market - the Dutch. This suggests that the Novgorod campaign could not have been some kind of paranoid improvisation by Ivan the Terrible.

Missing Documents

Since the time of Karamzin, Russian historiography has taken a tough stance in assessing the historical role of John IV. Moreover, the more merciless the position of historians became, the fewer state documents of the Grozny era remained.

So, at the beginning of the 19th century, the materials of the “detective case” on the “Novgorod treason” mysteriously disappeared from the state archive, which would best clarify the events of January 1570 for us. Probably, one of the last people who worked with them was just Nikolai Karamzin, who since 1811 plunged into the execution of the state order - writing the History of the Russian State.

Apparently, Catherine II read these documents. In her notes on Radishchev's Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow, the empress wrote about the unreasonableness of Radishchev, who sang the praises of the Novgorod Republic:

“Speaking about Novgorod, about his free reign and about the severity of Tsar John Vasilyevich, he does not talk about the reason for this execution, but the reason was that Novgorod, having accepted the Union, surrendered to the Polish Republic, therefore the king executed apostates and traitors, in which, in truth, to say measures Have not found".

Modern historians were less fortunate than Catherine II and Karamzin. The main sources of the Novgorod pogrom for them are the very dubious "Tale of the Defeat of Veliky Novgorod", which was formed during the years of the Swedish occupation of the city (1611-1617), the memoirs of the already mentioned Albert Schlichting and the adventurer with the reputation of Munchausen Heinrich Staden, who once surfaced with his "Moscow memories" in Holland, who allegedly once served as an oprichnik. However, there is no direct evidence for this.

Considers that " the denunciation was frankly ridiculous and contradictory”, since two incompatible aspirations were attributed to the Novgorodians.

Moving on Novgorod in the autumn of 1569, the guardsmen staged mass murders and robberies in Tver, Klin, Torzhok and other oncoming cities (the murder of 1505 people is documented, mostly Lithuanian and Tatar captives who were in prison, as well as Pskov and Novgorodians evicted from their homes caught by guardsmen on the way to Moscow). In the Tver Otrochy Monastery in December, Malyuta Skuratov personally strangled Metropolitan Philip, who refused to bless the campaign against Novgorod.

Executions in Novgorod

An accurate count of the victims was carried out only at the beginning, when Ivan the Terrible purposefully destroyed the local nobility and clerks, arranging a trial in the Rurik Settlement (211 landowners and 137 members of their families were killed, 45 clerks and clerks, as many members of their families). Among those killed were: the main clerks of Novgorod K. Rumyantsev and A. Bessonov, the boyar V. D. Danilov, who was in charge of cannon affairs, as well as the most prominent boyar F. Syrkov, who had previously taken part in compiling the “Great Chetiy-Minei" and built at his own expense several churches (he was first dipped in the ice water of Volkhov, and then boiled alive in a cauldron). After that, the tsar began to go around the Novgorod monasteries, taking away all their wealth, and the guardsmen carried out a general attack on the Novgorod settlement (which had remained intact until then), during which an unknown number of people died. From the church of St. Sophia, the Vasilyevsky Gates were removed and transported to Aleksandrov Sloboda.

This was followed by executions that continued until 15 February. Many citizens, including women and children, were executed using various tortures. According to the Russian story about the defeat of Novgorod, Ivan ordered the Novgorodians to be doused with an incendiary mixture and then, charred and still alive, thrown into the Volkhov; others were dragged behind the sled before drowning; " and their wives, male and female babies"he commanded" I will take by the hand and by the foot opaco back, babies to their mothers and the elm, and from a great height the sovereign commanded to throw them into the water". Priests and monks, after various abuses, were beaten with clubs and thrown into the same place. Contemporaries report that the Volkhov was filled with corpses; a living tradition about this was preserved as early as the 19th century.

People were beaten to death with sticks, thrown into the Volkhov River, put on the right, forcing them to give up their property, fried in hot flour. The Novgorod chronicler tells that there were days when the number of those killed reached one and a half thousand; days in which 500-600 people were beaten were considered happy.

Private houses and churches were robbed, the property and food of the Novgorodians were destroyed. Detachments of guardsmen, sent out to 200-300 km, committed robberies and murders throughout the district.

But the worst began in the city later. In 1569-1570 there was a terrible crop failure. The total destruction of the few supplies led to a terrible famine, from which many more people died than at the hands of the guardsmen. Cannibalism was widespread in Novgorod. The plague epidemic, which began in Russia before the pogrom, completed the matter, and came to Novgorod after it.

Number of people killed in Novgorod

The number of dead is unknown, modern scientists consider them from 4-5 (R. G. Skrynnikov) to 10-15 (V. B. Kobrin) thousand, with a total population of Novgorod of 30 thousand.

The exact number of those killed in the Novgorod pogrom is controversial. The figures given by contemporaries may be exaggerated and higher than the number of the population of Novgorod itself (30 thousand). However, many more people lived throughout Novgorod land, and terror was not necessarily limited directly to Novgorod. A record of the tsar in the Synodic disgraced from the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery has been preserved: “ According to the Malyutinsk Nougorod parcels (tasks), one thousand four hundred and ninety people were finished with deceased Orthodox Christians, and fifteen people were fired from squeakers, their names are You yourself, Lord, weigh". The recording is believed to be based on Skuratov's documented account.

R. G. Skrynnikov added Novgorodians named by name to this number and concluded that 2170-2180 victims of the Novgorod pogrom were listed in the synodic, while noting that the reports could not be complete and many acted “regardless of Skuratov’s orders”, and allowing the total figure 4-5 thousand victims.

V. B. Kobrin considers this figure to be extremely low, noting that it comes from the premise that Skuratov was the only or at least the main mastermind of the murders. Kobrin believes that Malyuta's detachment was only one of many detachments, and estimates the death toll at 10-15 thousand, out of a total population of Novgorod of 30 thousand. At the same time, the killings were not limited to the city itself. In addition, it should be noted that the result of the destruction of food supplies by the guardsmen was famine (so cannibalism is mentioned), accompanied by a plague epidemic that was raging at that time. As a result, according to the chronicle, in the common grave opened in September 1570, where the surfaced victims of Ivan the Terrible were buried, as well as those who died of starvation and disease, 10 thousand corpses were counted. V. B. Kobrin believes that this grave was not necessarily the only burial place for the dead.

Executions in Pskov

From Novgorod the Terrible went to Pskov. In Pskov, the tsar personally killed the abbot of the Pskov-Pechersk monastery Cornelius. The Third Pskov Chronicle tells about the murder of the monk, Andrei Kurbsky mentions, as well as The Tale of the Beginning and Foundation of the Caves Monastery (late 16th century), which reads: From this perishable life by the earthly king sent to the Heavenly King in the eternal dwelling". In the tsar's synodic disgraced, Cornelius was marked first in the list of persons executed in Pskov. His servants also killed the elder Vassian Muromtsev (with whom A. M. Kurbsky had previously corresponded), two city clerks, one clerk, and 30-40 boyar children.

The tsar limited himself only to the execution of several Pskovites and the confiscation of their property. At that time, as the legend says, Grozny was visiting a Pskov fool (a certain Nikola Salos). When it was time for dinner, Nikola handed Grozny a piece of raw meat with the words: “Here, eat, you eat human meat,” and after that he threatened Ivan with many troubles if he did not spare the inhabitants. Grozny, having disobeyed, ordered to remove the bells from one Pskov monastery. At the same time, his best horse fell under the king, which impressed Ivan. The tsar hurriedly left Pskov and returned to Moscow, where searches and executions began again: they were looking for accomplices of the Novgorod treason.

Notes

Links

• VB Kobrin IVAN THE TERRIBLE Chapter II. The Path of Terror. Novgorod pogrom
• The defeat of Veliky Novgorod Column "Mysteries of history" Magazine "Around the World" No. 1 (1) 2005
• VG Smirnov The third angel. Historical novel. Publishing house "Veche" 2013

1569

1569 (one thousand five hundred and sixty-ninth) year according to the Julian calendar is a common year starting on Saturday. This is 1569 AD, 569 of the 2nd millennium, 69 of the 16th century, 9 of the 7th decade of the 16th century, 10 of the 1560s.

1570 in Russia

The reign of Ivan the Terrible (1547-1584)

the last year of the Russian-Turkish war of Ivan the Terrible

Oprichnina: Novgorod pogrom - campaign of guardsmen against Novgorod

Bezsonov, Andrei Vasilievich

Andrei Vasilyevich Bezsonov (Beznosov) (? - 1570-75?) - Russian nobleman, palace clerk under Ivan the Terrible, whom the tsar kept in favor for a long time and to whom he gave important assignments, died in 1570. In 1550 he accompanied Ivan the Terrible in Kazan campaign. In the period 1552-1555. his name is constantly mentioned at the receptions of ambassadors, and in 1554 he takes part in the wedding of Tsar Simeon of Kazan. In 1560, Tsar Ivan instructed him to take Prince Dmitry Kurlyatev, Sylvester's main supporter, to the monastery. Until 1563, Bezsonov was listed as a deacon in the Treasury Department, and from 1563 until his death in the Embassy Department. In 1564, Bezsonov negotiated with the ambassadors of the German Teutonic Order, Wolfgang. The following year, when Ivan IV retired to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (approx. Now this is the city of Alexandrov), Bezsonov constantly brought cases and letters to him from Moscow, and the tsar instructed him to “unanimously” read his royal letter to the people on the square in Moscow (approx. Probably in them the sovereign announced that he was renouncing the kingdom because of the betrayals of the boyars and the clergy, but he did not hold evil against the townspeople), sent from Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. In 1566 Bezsonov attended the Zemsky Sobor. But soon he too became a victim of Ivan's suspicion: in 1570 he was accused, along with Viskovaty and many others, of treason and secret relations with the Archbishop of Novgorod (approx. Pimen) and Novgorod clerks (approx. who wished to defect to the side of Rech Commonwealth to the Polish king Sigismund II, see Novgorod pogrom) and sentenced to death. However, there is a letter to Kazan, to Prince Pyotr Andreevich Bulgakov, written in Moscow on August 4, 1574 and sealed by deacon Andrei Vasiliev, so the question of whether Andrei Bezsonov was executed along with Viskovaty remains open. This Bezsonov is often confused with another Bezsonov, also Andrei Vasilyevich, who at the end of 1549 was a discharge clerk in Novgorod, and on September 5, 1568, gave carts to priests traveling from Novgorod to Moscow.

Ivan the Terrible

Ivan IV Vasilievich, nicknamed the Terrible (for the first time - in Tatishchev's "History"), also had the names Titus and Smaragd, in tonsure - Jonah (August 25, 1530, the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow - March 18 (28), 1584, Moscow) - sovereign, great prince of Moscow and all Russia since 1533, the first tsar of all Russia (since 1547; except for 1575-1576, when Simeon Bekbulatovich was nominally the “grand prince of all Russia”).

The eldest son of the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III and Elena Glinskaya. Nominally, Ivan became ruler at the age of 3. After the uprising in Moscow in 1547, he ruled with the participation of a circle of close associates - the Chosen Rada. Under him, the convocation of Zemsky Sobors began, the Sudebnik of 1550 was drawn up. Reforms were carried out in the military service, the judiciary, public administration, including the introduction of elements of self-government at the local level (labial, zemstvo and other reforms). The Kazan and Astrakhan khanates were conquered, Western Siberia, the Donskoy Host Region, Bashkiria, and the lands of the Nogai Horde were annexed. Thus, under Ivan IV, the increase in the territory of the Russian state amounted to almost 100%, from 2.8 million km² to 5.4 million km²; by the end of his reign, Russia had become larger than the rest of Europe.

In 1560, the Chosen Rada was abolished, its main figures fell into disgrace, and the completely independent reign of the tsar in Russia began. The second half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible was marked by a streak of setbacks in the Livonian War and the establishment of the oprichnina, during which the country was devastated and the old tribal aristocracy was struck and the position of the local nobility was strengthened. Formally, Ivan IV ruled longer than any of the rulers who have ever stood at the head of the Russian state - 50 years and 105 days.

History of the Novgorod region

In the Neolithic period, the territory of the modern Novgorod region was inhabited by tribes of the Pit-Comb Ware culture. The cemeteries of the Fatyanovo culture date back to the Bronze Age.

It is traditionally believed that in the 6th century the Krivichi tribes came to this territory, and in the 8th century, in the process of the Slavic settlement of the East European Plain, the tribe of Ilmen Slovenes (the culture of the Novgorod hills) came. It is assumed that the Slavs came to these lands from the Southern Baltic (a region of northern Poland). One of the oldest Slavic settlements in the Novgorod region was Gorodok on Mayat, as well as the settlements of Georgy and Sergov Gorodok on the Veryazh River in the Poozerie near Ilmen, Kholopy Gorodok on the Volkhov, and a settlement on the Prost River. Excavations of a settlement on the Prost River revealed materials from the third quarter of the 1st millennium, that is, the earliest Slavic antiquities at the source of the Volkhov, chronologically earlier than the strata in Staraya Ladoga. The village of Prost was the largest unfortified settlement of the early Middle Ages in the Priilmenye and, possibly, was the center of the Slovenes of the Ilmensky Poozerie. Finno-Ugric tribes lived on the same territory, leaving a memory of themselves in the names of numerous rivers and lakes.

In the 9th century, the Novgorod land became the core of the emerging Russian (Varangian-Slavic) state. On the Volkhov, near its source from Lake Ilmen, the Rurik settlement is created, which becomes the princely residence of the first Russian rulers. However, soon Prince Oleg undertakes a campaign to the south against the Krivichi and Khazar tributaries on the Dnieper. In 882, the capital of the Russian state moved to Kyiv. However, in those days, the Russian state was rather amorphous. Novgorod turns into the center of the Novgorod land and a special ancient Novgorod dialect is formed. If at first the Varangians ruled the Novgorod land, then in the 10th century the Novgorodians raised an anti-Varangian uprising. The ancient Russian Malyshev settlement near the village of Lyubytino dates back to the middle of the 10th century. Radiocarbon analysis of cuts from oak logs of the gorodny, found on the site of the former Prechistenskaya tower of the Novgorod citadel, gave the dates 951 ± 27 and 918 ± 41 years. The remains of the bridge crossing that crossed the Volkhov riverbed between St. Nicholas Cathedral on Yaroslav's Courtyard and the lost Cathedral of Boris and Gleb in the Novgorod citadel, 170 meters from the Great Bridge upstream of the Volkhov, are ca. 1060 years ago.

In 980, Prince Vladimir tries to establish an all-Russian cult of Perun and creates the temple of Peryn.

In 988, the Novgorod land was subjected to forced baptism (Dobrynya was baptized with a sword, and Putyata with fire). In 989, a 13-domed wooden church was erected in Novgorod, and in 992 an episcopal chair was established - Joachim Korsunyanin became the first Novgorod bishop.

In Staraya Russa, during excavations at the top of the most elevated part, bounded by a salt lake (Upper), the Malashka River and a deep ravine at the site of a stream flowing from salt lakes, and on its western slope, the earliest layers of the turn of the 10th-11th centuries were revealed.

At the beginning of the 11th century, Yaroslav Vladimirovich moved his residence downstream the Volkhov to Torg, which was reflected in a decrease in the intensity of life on the Rurik settlement.

Under the year 1071, the Tale of Bygone Years mentions the appearance of a sorcerer in Novgorod, who was killed by Prince Gleb Svyatoslavich.

In the last third of the 11th century, due to the decrease in the princely role and the increase in the functions of the Novgorod posadnik, the prince was forced to move again from Novgorod to the Rurik settlement, reserving the right to reside in Novgorod.

In 1136, with the expulsion of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, the Novgorod Republic was established, where the leading role belongs to the people's self-government in the form of a veche, the executive power is exercised by the posadniks.

1230 - July frosts and incessant rains that lasted until winter caused the worst famine in history, in early December the corpses of citizens gnawed by dogs lay on the streets of Novgorod, people did not have the strength to bury the dead: , and other dead meats and corpses are cut off by uncles, and others are horse meat, dogs, cats.

1231 - in Novgorod, during a protracted famine, a terrible fire raged again, fleeing from which the Novgorodians rushed to the Volkhov, where many drowned, it seemed that the city would never be restored. The fire was so "fierce" that it seemed, "as if the fire is hotter on water. walking through the Vlkhovo. The chronicler writes: "Novgorod is already over." The fire destroyed not only buildings and property, but also food supplies. Having learned that famine was continuing in Novgorod for the second year, the German merchants delivered bread to the city, “thinking more about philanthropy than about self-interest, they stopped the famine; his terrible traces soon disappeared, and the people expressed their liveliest gratitude for such a service ”:“ the Germans came running and beyond the sea with life and flour and did a lot of good.

Around 1416, the most important state reform was carried out in Novgorod: “Representatives of the boyar families were elected posadniks and thousandths and formed the Council of Lords, which in its meaning and appearance can be quite likened to the Venetian Senate.” The republic was turning into a caste, oligarchic state.

Under 1446, the chronicler reports that for the last ten years in Novgorod and in the volost there was a high cost and a lack of bread.

Veliky Novgorod maintained close relations with the Hansa. It housed one of the largest branches ("offices", German Kontor) of the Hansa - Gotha (Gotenhof) and German (Peterhof) "courts" of foreign merchants. From the second half of the 15th century, the Hansa began to decline. The decline of the Hansa had an impact on the fate of Novgorod.

On July 14, 1471, the Moscow army defeats the Novgorod militia during the Battle of Shelon. Novgorod posadnik Dmitry Boretsky was captured and beheaded by order of the Moscow Tsar Ivan III. In 1478, the Novgorod land was subordinated to the Moscow principality with the preservation of its five (pyatina - district - churchyard) division. The veche bell was taken to Moscow.

A year later, in 1479, the Novgorodians tried to defend their traditional customs. In response, Ivan III committed a drastic massacre. Vladyka Theophilus was arrested, sent to Moscow, and imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery. Many boyars were executed, and even more moved to Moscow lands. Moscow service people were settled on their lands. Ivan III evicted German merchants from Novgorod, which, together with the destruction of the nobility, completely destroyed Novgorod's trade with the West.

At the same time, as V. O. Klyuchevsky notes, “The lesser people of Novgorod, smerds and ladles, were delivered from the boyar oppression; of these, peasant tax communities were formed on the Moscow model. In general, their situation improved, and they had no motivation to regret the Novgorod antiquity.

In the XV century, the Lithuanian-Russian principality had claims to Novgorod, Pskov and Tver and to the "Rzhev tribute"; as a result, the Russo-Lithuanian wars began.

In 1570, the Moscow oprichnina army, under the personal leadership of Ivan the Terrible, carried out the Novgorod pogrom, accompanied by massacres.

At the end of the 16th century, there was Porukh caused by the Livonian War.

During the Time of Troubles (1611-1617), the Novgorod land became part of the Swedish kingdom, but then was returned to Moscow in accordance with the Stolbovsky Treaty.

After the church schism and the persecution of the Old Believers, a significant part of the population of the Novgorod land emigrated to the neighboring Commonwealth and the East Baltic possessions of Sweden.

During the Northern War, Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea, and the new capital of St. Petersburg was founded on the newly conquered lands of Ingria, because of which the Novgorod land began to turn into a province. First, she entered the Ingermanland province (1708), and then was separated into a separate Novgorod province (1727). In 1831, a cholera riot broke out on Novgorod land, raised by military settlers.

In 1917, the population of the Novgorod province supported the Russian Revolution. In 1918, 5 north-eastern counties (most of the territory) of the Novgorod province (Belozersky, Kirillovsky, Tikhvinsky, Ustyuzhensky and Cherepovets) became part of the Cherepovets province, and since 1926 both provinces became part of the North-Western region. On August 1, 1927, the North-Western Region was renamed Leningrad Region. Both provinces were abolished, and the territory became part of the Novgorod, Borovichi districts and the western part of the Cherepovets district of the Leningrad region, and the territory of the modern Kholmsky district became part of the Velikoluksky district. Since July 1930, the district division was abolished: the districts that later became part of the region, as well as the cities of Novgorod and Borovichi, became directly subordinate to the Leningrad Executive Committee.

On August 19, 1941, during the Great Patriotic War, Novgorod was captured by German troops. The occupation of the Novgorod region lasted 2.5 years. The Leningrad-Novgorod operation and the Novgorod-Luga offensive operation led to the liberation of the city of Novgorod by January 20, 1944.

July 5, 1944 - By decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Novgorod Region was formed as part of the RSFSR from the districts formed in the Leningrad Region and the cities of regional subordination Novgorod, Borovichi and Staraya Russa.

The Novgorod region included all modern districts, with the exception of the Kholmsky district - until 1958 it was part of the Velikoluksky region, and Belebelkovsky, Dregelsky, Zaluchsky, Lychkovsky, Mstinsky, Opechensky, Polavsky, Utorgoshsky were abolished due to consolidation with the inclusion of their territory in the present available, the Molvotitsky district was abolished and re-formed as Marevsky. In addition, in 1956, the Dmitrovsky and Mozolevsky village councils were transferred from the Dregelsky district to the Boksitogorsky district of the Leningrad Region.

On February 18, 1967, by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Novgorod Region was awarded the Order of Lenin.

Moscow-Novgorod wars

This article is about the wars of the late 15th century. For conflicts of the 14th century, see Novgorod campaigns of Vladimir princes

Moscow-Novgorod wars - a series of military conflicts between the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Novgorod Republic, which took place in the period from 1456 to 1478 (with interruptions) and ended in the defeat of the Novgorodians. As a result of the third campaign of Muscovites against Novgorod, the territory of the Novgorod Republic was completely annexed to the Moscow principality.

Moscow-Novgorod wars:

First Moscow-Novgorod War (1456)

Second Moscow-Novgorod War (1471)

Third Moscow-Novgorod War (1477-1478)

Time of Troubles

The Time of Troubles, or Troubles - a period in the history of Russia from 1598 to 1613 (there are other versions of periodization that bring the chronology of the Troubles to 1618), marked by natural disasters, civil war, Russian-Polish and Russian-Swedish wars, the most difficult state-political and socio-economic crisis.

Timeline of Russian history

This page lists in chronological order the main events in the history of Russia and the events that took place in the territories ever occupied by Russia. Some events that took place in the world during the corresponding period are indicated.

See also the main article History of Russia, links to more detailed chronological tables.

Almost the entire population of Novgorod was exterminated down to babies.

(People's encyclopedia of cities and regions of Russia "My City" (http://www.mojgorod.ru/novgorod_obl/vnovgorod/)]

Wikipedia (free electronic encyclopedia): “Winter 1569-1570 - the army of guardsmen, personally led by Ivan the Terrible, set out on a campaign against Novgorod, the reason for which was a denunciation and suspicion of treason. All the cities were plundered on the road from Moscow to Novgorod, along the way Malyuta Skuratov personally strangled Metropolitan Philip in the Tver Otrochesky Monastery. The number of victims in Novgorod was, according to various sources of contemporaries, from 27 thousand to 700 thousand people ... fueled the Volkhov .... The city was sacked. The property of churches, monasteries and merchants was confiscated"

This is what an inexperienced reader will find about the reign of the first Orthodox tsar, the anointed of God, under which the Moscow principality became Russia. About the tsar who defeated formidable enemies in the east (Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberian khanates), repulsed the desire to ruin Muscovy from the Ottoman ports and the Crimean khanate; destroyed the militant Livonian Order in the west; striving to take root in the Baltic and even create a fleet - the first thing he reads about this king: a tyrant, a tyrant who destroyed his own people, a polygamist, a sadist and other horrors.

And the first thing they will point out is the ruin of Novgorod in 1570. And not just ruin, but the murder of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands (even up to babies) of innocent citizens.

An Orthodox Christian who loves his homeland and wants to be proud of his history should know where such information comes from and whether it can be trusted. As jurisprudence says: if you want to unravel a crime, look for a motive, and those who benefit from it. Let's try to understand the history a little.

What was the reason for such a terrible extermination of the population of Novgorod and the surrounding cities? As most chronographs note, the goal is: “To prevent the conspirators from tearing Pskov and Novgorod away from the Russian state” (Floria B.N. “Ivan the Terrible”)

“... in the autumn of 1569, the tsar received information about a new ... dangerous conspiracy .... This time, we no longer have reports from foreigners at our disposal, but a record of a genuine investigative case in the Inventory of the Archives of the Ambassadorial Order of 1626: Pimen and on Novogorodsk clerks, and on clerks, and on guests, and on sovereign clerks, and on boyar children ... about the building of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, that Archbishop Pimin wanted to give Novgorod and Pskov with them to the Lithuanian king, and the king and the great Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia wanted to lime with malicious intent, and put Prince Vladimir Andreevich in the state. It was not about a secret conspiracy of a group of representatives of the nobility, but about a large-scale conspiracy, in which both the entire prikaz administration that ruled the Novgorod land, and the social elites of its population (guests - rich merchants and boyar children), and the head of the Novgorod diocese were involved - Archbishop Pimen with his court. (Bishops in Russia have long had their own large land holdings and their own military vassals who ruled over their lands). Florya B.N. "Ivan the Terrible"

“Vladimir Varentsov and Gennady Kovalenko write about the reason for this campaign in the Chronicle of the“ Rebellious Age ”:“ The reason for the campaign of the guardsmen against Novgorod was the surrender to the Lithuanians in January 1569 of the Russian border town of Izborsk, which was one of the most impregnable fortresses in Russia at that time. .. ... by order of the king, the most unreliable persons of the Pskov and Novgorod settlements were evicted. 500 families were evicted from Pskov, and 150 from Novgorod….
Even greater distrust of the Novgorodians manifested itself after the guardsmen discovered in October 1569 a conspiracy in the zemstvo in favor of the tsar's cousin, Prince Vladimir Staritsky ...
The search for conspirators associated with the Novgorodians led to one of the prominent representatives of the state administration apparatus - Zemstvo boyar V[asily] D[mitrievich] Danilov, who headed the Pushkar order ...
VD Danilov confessed to treason under torture. The accusation ... boiled down to the fact that the conspirators wanted to “give Novgorod and Pskov to the Lithuanian king, and they wanted to lime the tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich with malicious intent” ”(A. Sharymov“ Prehistory of St. Petersburg ”book 1. Section 1
So, first: the pogrom had a motive, and a very serious one. The northeastern lands of the nascent Russian state, which until recently were separate independent principalities (annexed by the grandfather of John IV) could be lost to Russia, and become subordinate to the Kingdom of Lithuania as a result of "a large-scale conspiracy, in which the entire prikaz administration that ruled the Novgorod land was involved , and the social elites of its population (guests are rich merchants, and boyar children), and the head of the Novgorod diocese himself - Archbishop Pimen "A political coup was being prepared, in fact, or if in a completely modern way - a" color revolution ", as an option, suggesting the overthrow of the current ruler and (or) withdrawal into citizenship of Lithuania.

If it had succeeded, then Russia would have lost almost a third of the territory, access to the Baltic, and would have received hostile cities in close proximity to vital centers, from where Lithuania would no doubt continue to conduct hostilities.

As you can see, the threat was not a joke. And one can say - deadly for a young state fighting on two fronts. Recall that the Crimean-Turkish troops were constantly attacking from the south, in the west there was a war with Lithuania, Poland, and in the north-west the attacks of the Swedes were periodically repulsed.

Now let's see what the chronographs write about the events of these days:

“The advanced detachments of the oprichnina troops approached Novgorod on January 2, 1570 and immediately surrounded it, “if not a single person had escaped from the city.” On January 6, the tsar himself arrived and became a fortified camp on Gorodishche, where the princes lived during the independence of Novgorod. January 8, Sunday, the king went to mass in the church of Hagia Sophia. On the "Volkhov Bridge the Great" he was met by Archbishop Pimen with all the Novgorod clergy. According to custom, the archbishop wanted to bless the tsar, but the tsar did not accept the blessing and "ordered" the archbishop to go to the church and serve the liturgy. After mass, the archbishop invited the tsar to his chambers of "bread to eat." However, as soon as dinner began, the tsar “shouted with a voice of great rage to his prince and boyars ... and immediately commanded the archbishop’s treasury and his entire court and cells to be robbed, and his boyars and servants to be taken over and given to bailiffs before his sovereign decree, and Having robbed the lord himself, commanded him to give a single watchman and shake him tightly ”(to guard). ... Pimen was taken from Novgorod to Moscow ... At a church council convened in Moscow, Pimen was defrocked. He was imprisoned in the Nikolsky Monastery in Venev ...

Taube and Kruse subsequently wrote with some surprise: the tsar ordered in Sloboda “to atone for his sins, to build two large stone churches and fill them with famous icons, bells and others, so that everyone had an opinion, and he himself thought that he was forgiven all sins by the Lord God." The nobles - Protestants - did not understand the logic of the king's actions and thoughts. For them, the Novgorod conspiracy was an act of political treason, an attempt to pass under the power of another sovereign. Things looked different from the point of view of the king: it was, first of all, an act of apostasy from the faith, an attempt to pass under the rule of the ruler of the “Latins” and heretics, who only had a name left from Christianity. From the point of view of the tsar, it was an extremely charitable act to take the shrines from the hands of people who defiled themselves with the plans of separation from the “holy land” and communication with heretics, and to take them under their own protection. (According to the book: B. N. Florya. Ivan the Terrible)

While we see the logic in the actions of the authorities. The rebellious areas are cordoned off by troops. And we see that the tsar first meets with traitors, and is present at the Liturgy, which is led by the rebellious archbishop, who was later removed and defrocked.

But then, according to modern historians, such horrors begin that do not fit not only with the title of the Orthodox Tsar, but generally do not resemble the actions of a sane person. All this is extremely surprising, especially for those who know the history and God-fearing, piety and merciful character of John IV, who repeatedly forgave his enemies. Before giving “evidence”, we must say that, thanks to the historiosophist Karamzin, from the 19th century, it was believed that Tsar John IV was kind and merciful until 1560, and after that he became for some reason malicious and uncontrollable. We are inclined to think that such a “transformation” simply did not take place, and historians were misled by the “testimony” of which, as it turns out, only a few have come down to us. First of all, this is a kind of "The Tale of the Defeat of Novgorod by Ivan the Terrible", the text of which, in one form or another, was included in most chronicles. Here is what we read on the website of the Institute of Russian Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences “The Tale ... was widespread in ancient Russian writing. S. A. Morozov recorded over 80 lists of its various editions as part of annalistic collections, historical collections, in the Latukhinskaya Book of Degrees ”(http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4564)

There, on the site, you can study in detail the metamorphoses that happened to this source of "testimony", how it began to wander from chronicle to chronicle. With each new edition, acquiring more and more credibility in the eyes of contemporaries. Meanwhile, it is important that, according to historians

“numbers of tens of thousands of those killed are an exaggeration”, “The story was written by a Novgorodian condemning the tsar”, and “Apparently, in Novgorod, after the campaign of Ivan the Terrible, a legend arose, seeking to divert suspicion of treason from the Novgorodians.” In addition, the story itself was written in the 80-90s of the 16th century - 10-20 years after the events, and could be written "both by an eyewitness and from someone's words," we read in an article devoted to "The Tale of the Defeated Novgorod by Ivan the Terrible" on the IRLI RAS website (http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4564)

In addition to the "Tale .." written by people interested in averting suspicion of treason from Novgorodians, and possibly seeking to discredit the tsar, we have a set of testimonies from foreigners who, as we will see below, often simply refer to some "trustworthy" Novgorodians, drawing from their words such horrors that it just makes your hair stand on end. Moreover, often the testimonies of foreign "witnesses" are replete with gross inaccuracies (chronological, geographical, etc.), which shows that this is a retelling from other people's words.

Now, the generally accepted judgment about further events:

On January 9, the trial of those arrested and other people suspected of treason began at Gorodishche. “The tsar and the grand duke sat at the court and ordered them to bring from Veliky Novgorod the sovereign boyars, and the servants of the boyars, and guests, and all sorts of Gorodtsky and orderly people, and wives, and children, and ordered fierce torment in front of him.” After the torture, the king ordered "their bodies to be set on fire with some composite fiery wisdom, which is called a fire." Then the convicts were tied by the hands and feet to the sledge, dragged from Gorodishche to the “great Volkhov bridge” and thrown into the river. It happened in winter, when the Volkhov was covered with ice, and, obviously, it had to be broken up on purpose. This choice of method of execution is surprising. True, in Veche Novgorod this was how criminals were executed, but it is unlikely that Ivan IV set himself the goal of reviving Novgorodian customs ”(Based on the book: B.N. Florya. Ivan the Terrible)

Here at this point I would like to dwell in more detail. Comparison of descriptions of events related to the bridge and the river by different "eyewitnesses" turns out to be very significant for assessing the degree of their reliability and objectivity. From this description it can be seen that the narrative on which the historian relies was compiled by a Novgorodian, for whom the usual method of execution was practiced in “Veche Novgorod”: dragging the criminal onto the bridge and throwing it into the water. But for the Muscovite John IV, this method of execution is somewhat strange (not to mention the faith and piety of the tsar, before the start of the “devastation of Novgorod”, who ordered the disgraced bishop, first of all, to serve the Liturgy).

Agree, it would be easier to execute him right there on Gorodische, and not “drag from Gorodische to the great Volkhov bridge” in order to drown (The ancient settlement is located 2 km from the center of modern Novgorod, and according to I. Taube and E. Kruse, a quarter of the way " from Novgorod).

Plus, it must be taken into account that this is happening in January and the river should be covered with a thick layer of ice, which “obviously had to be specially broken.” If, together with the IRLI RAS, we assume that the "Tale ..." was written with the desire to avert suspicion of treason from the Novgorodians, then this moment becomes clear.

They try to explain the strangeness of the execution in different ways. So, if John IV did not set himself the goal of “reviving Novgorodian customs”, then why such difficulties? Here is one suggestion from the same book:

"BUT. L. Yurganov pointed to the stable idea reflected in many Russian folklore texts about the connection of hell, the underworld with the abyss, the bottom of the rivers. From this it is concluded that the executions of the Novgorodians were symbolic: apostates were directly sent to hell ”(B.N. Florya. Ivan the Terrible)).

However, images and myths tend to acquire new details. And now we are reading:

“People were stabbed with knives, chopped with axes, poured with water in the cold. They were tied with ropes and dozens were thrown from the Volkhov bridge into the river. Guardsmen rode in boats along the river and finished off those who emerged with hooks and axes ”(“ Chronicles of the“ Rebellious Age ”” by V. Varentsov and G. Kovalenko)

Recall that the case was supposed to take place in January. And the ice on the river, as previously suggested, "probably had to be broken" so that you could then sail in boats and finish off with hooks and axes dozens of the executed, who were dragged from Gorodishche, located "a quarter of the way from Novgorod."

The symbolism of "sending to hell" turns into some extremely complex method of execution. Assuming, of course, that this is what actually happened.

Now let's cite the "evidence" of foreigners. We will highlight places connected with the Novgorod bridge across the Volkhov River.

Jakob Ulfeldt, “Journey to Russia”, 1578: “About 9 years ago, if I am not mistaken, the Grand Duke had some suspicion of his half-brother - the suspicion that he planned to harm him and plots. Was it so, God knows. So he summoned him to him [and] offered him poison. After he drank it, he fell ill and died. Then [the Grand Duke] selected 300 guardsmen, giving them power over the life and death of people, as well as over all property, houses and household belongings. They went around the whole space between Moscow and Pskov [and] razed a great many houses to the ground; at their own discretion, they killed men, women and children, robbed merchants, destroyed fish ponds, and burned fish [and] in general, they upset and ruined everyone so much that it’s scary to talk about it [even] and not what to see ... At the same time, At the same time, the tsar summoned a large number of people to Novgorod, as if he intended to discuss urgent matters with them. When they arrived there, he ordered them all to be driven to the bridge near the city - the one that we saw every day. Having collected them, he [ordered] to throw them into the river flowing there. Many thousands of people were killed and strangled, whom he suspected because of his brother, [still] earlier eliminated by him with the help of poison - [suspected] that they were supposedly on his side. And what is most surprising [is] that so many people drowned that the aforementioned river was filled with corpses beyond all human expectation and was so dammed with them that it could not flow along its former course, but spilled over verdant meadows and fertile fields. and flooded everything with her water. Although it seems unlikely and far from the truth, it was all true, as I learned in Russia from people worthy of trust, that is, from those who still live in Novgorod under the rule of the Muscovites. Otherwise, I, as they say, would not write about it ... ”(Jakob Ulfeldt. Journey to Russia. M., 2002).

It was clearly not an eyewitness who wrote about the "green meadows" in January. In addition, the traveler directly says that he learned this from people who still live in Novgorod. That is, he was not an eyewitness, but conveys someone else's opinion. And in his narration, the logic is not violated - people are not judged on the Settlement, but are immediately driven onto the bridge (several thousand) to strangle (!) And drown. But the traveler does not know that it was winter and the river was covered with ice.

"Although it seems unlikely," but Jakob Ulfeldt believed people who "live in Novgorod" and probably make a lot of effort to convince others of the reliability of what "seems ... far from the truth."

Let's continue the river theme:

Johann Taube and Elert Kruse, "Message to Gotthard Kettler, Duke of Courland and Semigalle", 1572. When he reached the famous city of Novgorod, he stopped a quarter of the way from it in a monastery called Gorodishche, and ordered to besiege the city and all the streets, and the next day to catch all the noble Novgorodians .... There is also certain and reliable information that he ordered the killing of 12,000 eminent people, men and brave women. As for the unknown poor artisans and common people, there were more than 15,000 of them. The great famous river Volga, which is twice as large as the Pregel near Koenigsberg, was so filled with dead bodies that it turned blood-colored in this place and had to stop at the bridges .... The bloodthirsty tyrant, having spent 6 weeks in Novgorod, devastated the city and the surrounding environs for more than 150 German miles around, so that nothing was left .. (this story ends revealingly) ... Based on all of the above, reasonable people will understand that with God's grace and with help you can conquer the Russian state and there is no reason to be afraid of such poor, naked, powerless people ... (Message of Johann Taube and Elert Kruse // Russian Historical Journal. Book 8. 1922).
Recall, and the fact that John IV was in Veliky Novgorod, which stands on the Volkhov River. On the Volga there is another city - Nizhny Novgorod, which has nothing to do with the story. One gets the impression that the author of the narration, when writing, looked at the map, and simply ... mixed up the cities.

Or here is another description of the "outrages of the tyrant" in Novgorod on the Volga, consonant with the previous one with its indicative mistake in the name of the river (or city):

"A Truly True Description", 1571: Then the Grand Duke moved on to Novgorod (this is a large trading city) and robbed all the villages and villages and killed many people. Then, a week before the beginning of the fast, he suddenly attacked Novgorod and caused great misfortune by robbery and murder. There was not a single house where they did not break or break gates, doors and windows. These were shameful and pathetic deeds. Archers forced noble and honest women and girls to fornication and raped them in a shameful way. Then they took about a few hundred women and girls, stripped them naked and brought them to a prepared place lined with boards. And they were put on fifty people at this place completely naked. And when the Grand Duke went there, he asked them what they had done. And so this audience continued until they froze. Then, for fun and pleasure, those people were thrown into the water, which was not yet completely frozen, and drowned them. Then they captured several thousand captives, tying men and women together by the hands and tying the children to their mothers' chests, throwing them all together in a huge river called the Volga, which there has a depth of 8 fadenes (about 14-16 m). Because of this, the river was completely filled from bottom to top, the flow of the river was delayed and the dead bodies had to be pushed under the ice so that the current would carry them away. (“A truly truthful description” // Patriotic history. 1999. No. 1).
Next eyewitness:

Albert Schlichting, "A Brief Tale of the Character and Cruel Rule of the Moscow Tyrant Vasilyevich", beginning. 70s XVI century: The usual type of execution he then had was the following: he ordered a vast place to be fenced with a palisade, instructed to bring there a huge crowd of noble persons and merchants whom he knew to be outstanding, mounted a horse with a spear in his hand and, spurring his horse, pierced with a spear individual faces, and his son looked at this fun and was equally engaged in the same game. When the horse got tired, the tyrant himself, “tired but not satiated”, raising his voice, shouted to the murderers from the oprichnina to kill everyone indiscriminately and cut them to pieces. Those, taking away pieces from there, threw them into the river. Another method of execution was also invented: many people were ordered to go out onto the water, bound by ice, and the tyrant ordered to chop off all the ice around with axes; and then this ice, pressed down by the weight of people, lowered them all into the depths…. the houses of the townspeople were burned down by fire. Thus, this old city of the Slavs, the seat of the princes of Novgorod, can be seen destroyed and razed to the ground ... (New news about the time of Ivan the Terrible. L., 1934).

The tsar and the tsarevich (probably Fedor Ioannovich, who later became the tsar and received the nickname “blessed on the throne” for his quiet and God-fearing disposition) on horseback in a paddock with spears in their hands kill noble citizens, and then the Volga was probably dammed up with pieces of their bodies , or Volkhov ... so it overflowed its banks. As they say, no comment.

The story of the former guardsman - German Henri Staden, "Notes on Muscovy", 70s. 16th century:

For six weeks without a break lasted horror and misfortune in this city! All shops and tents where one could assume [cash] money or goods were sealed. The Grand Duke invariably visited the dungeon (Peinhofe oder Haus) personally every day. Nothing was to remain in the city or in the monasteries; everything that the military people could not take away with them was thrown into the water or burned. If one of the zemstvo tried to pull something out of the water, he was hanged. Then all captured foreigners were executed; most of them were Poles with their wives and children, and those Russians who had married on a foreign side. All tall buildings were demolished; everything beautiful was excised: gates, stairs, windows. The guardsmen also took away several thousand townspeople girls. Some of the zemstvos disguised themselves as guardsmen and caused great harm and mischief; they were hunted down and killed. (Heinrich Staden. About Moscow of Ivan the Terrible. M., 1925)
In this story, probably a participant in the events - Staden's guardsman - we see that far from corpses were thrown into the water, but things, goods and other confiscated goods. And it is shown not the genocide of the population, as described above, but the ruin of trading places, monastic property, and the houses of wealthy citizens (all tall buildings were demolished, everything beautiful was cut: gates, stairs, windows). At the same time, the executions of foreigners - given the border nature of the territory, and the cause of the conflict (the conspiracy of the highest circles in order to transfer to Lithuanian citizenship) - are explained by the eradication of the conspiracy and the logic of wartime. While other "witnesses" draw the madness of a tyrant who kills his subjects almost for fun and "satiation".

Analyzing the above passages, one gets the impression that the authors had a desire to outdo other narrators in the description of horror. And since most of the texts were intended for the Western reader, who had the most vague ideas about Muscovy, they were not limited to fantasies. Whether these were the fantasies of the authors or the retellers from whose words these "evidence" was written is not important. It is important that historians and descendants took the fables for truth, and cite them as "evidence" of eyewitnesses.

If we take the Novgorod "Tale ...", then it should also be treated critically. After all, the Institute of Russian Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences presumably dates the time of its writing to the 80-90s of the 16th century - i.e. it was written 10-20 years after the events. The compiler is not neutral, and has a desire to whitewash Novgorod - to divert suspicion of treason from the Novgorodians. Therefore, it can distort facts or exaggerate events.

In this regard, one must take extremely seriously the remark of the traveler Jacob Ulfeldt, who described the terrible horrors from the words of some Novgorodians "this seems unlikely and far from the truth, but all this actually happened, as I learned in Russia from people worthy of trust, then there are from those who still live in Novgorod under the rule of the Muscovite." And as we see, for a foreign traveler they are "worthy of trust" only because they live in Novgorod or are called contemporaries of those events.

Thus, it becomes clear that 8-10 years after the events described, there were people in Novgorod who were extremely interested in spreading exaggerated and frankly false information. And, probably, many of the foreigners who left "evidence" were misled by these myth-makers, and passed on to their compatriots what they heard from "people who still live in Novgorod" ... Again, it is important to understand that in during the "pogrom" none of the foreigners whose opinions we cited above, except for the guardsman G. Staden, most likely were not there. I. Taube and E. Kruse, in their "Message ..." also refer to some "reliable information" about the murder of tens of thousands of people. It is possible that they gleaned this information from the same Novgorod "Tale ..." or from the people who compiled it.

Thus, we have in front of us messages supposedly of four types:

Frankly false or well flavored with the imagination of the author or narrator (“A Truly Truthful Description”, A. Schlichting)

Hearsay (Jakob Ulfeldt, possibly Johann Taube and Elert Kruse),

Biased and having the intention to distort the essence (Novgorod's "Tale ...")

Documents and eyewitness accounts (probably "Synodiki disgraced", and possibly G. Staden)

As mentioned earlier, the synodists speak of 1490 executed in Novgorod, however, doubts are expressed about the reliability of this document (see the opinion of the pre-revolutionary historian Belov E.A. http://www.hrono.info/libris/pdf/belov_ivan4. pdf), G. Staden's story stands out from all. He, as a former oprichnik who saw the system from the inside, knew not only the facts, but also partly their motives, although he could not know everything, and he could not understand all the actions of the Russians, remaining a stranger in "this country" to the end, as can be seen from the following phrases of his autobiographical monologue: “In this country, every foreigner occupies a better place if he knows how to behave in accordance with local customs for a certain time ...” “After some time, I left everything, went to Rybnaya Sloboda and built a mill there. But he carefully considered how to leave this country ... ”(Heinrich Staden. About Moscow of Ivan the Terrible. M., 1925).

Thus, we have very little material available to form an objective picture of what was happening. And there is a need to question much of the "evidence". Therefore, in the case of the history of Russia in the second half of the 16th century, all “evidence” must be “divided by ten”, that is, treated extremely critically.

We should pay more attention to circumstantial facts that silently testify to the character and history of that time.

So one of such indirect refutations of the “myth of the extermination of the Novgorodians” can be the following fact: Novgorod family and the entire treasury of the then Russia. This is two years after the "Novgorod pogrom"!

“At the beginning of February 1572, carts with the royal treasury in bast boxes on 450 sledges arrived in Novy Gorod. The treasury was placed in the cellars of the churches of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, Pyatnitsa and the Myrrh-Bearing Women under round-the-clock protection of archers - "for every might, 500 people per shift." The usual norm for the load of the cart was 20 pounds in summer, and 25 pounds in winter. The total weight of the treasury delivered to Novgorod was about 10,000 pounds. Then the tsar went to Moscow for the discharge of regiments and the appointment of governors to repel the upcoming attack of the Tatars.

(A.R. Andreev "Unknown Borodino. Battle of Molodinskaya 1572. The battle of the Russian army under the command of the princes Vorotynsky and Khvorostinin with the army of the Crimean Khan Devlet Giray near Serpukhov" Documentary chronicle of the 16th century, M. 1997). http://www.hrono .ru/libris/lib_a/andeev08ar.html

An extremely interesting fact. Especially when you consider that just two years ago, there was allegedly a total extermination of civilians here. The tsar decides to leave the entire treasury of Russia in the church cellars under the protection of some "500 people per shift" and leaves. Let's think about whether he was crazy to hope so much for a city where he allegedly drowned thousands of women, mothers with children, etc. under the ice under the ice. It would be useful to recall that the Novgorodians, even during the Horde, once destroyed the well-armed guards of the Horde "ambassadors" (more than a thousand people) and the ambassadors themselves, regarding their presence as a threat to Novgorod. This happened in 1374 (even before the Battle of Kulikovo), when the khans were afraid and the princes carried tribute, and received the right to reign. And this freedom-loving people, annexed to Muscovy by the grandfather of John IV, would have endured the "murderer", "tyrant" and "villain" in their land? Suppose earlier allegedly there was a surprise attack. Now the Russian tsar brought his family, the treasury, and probably left no more than a thousand of those same guardsmen. There is only one answer - no, I would not tolerate it.

And John IV, being a smart strategist and prudent politician, would not have acted so recklessly. Most likely, he would have moved the treasury to any other city - just not to Novgorod. At least even to the same Pskov, from where the holy fool (?) supposedly drove him away, and where, because of this, the oprichnina troops did not do such things as in Novgorod.

However, nothing like that. John IV Vasilyevich, as if nothing had happened, brings the treasury (read the country's gold and foreign exchange reserve) on 450 sleighs and leaves it like his friends with almost no protection (in the cellars of churches that he allegedly ruined. With the protection of one person for 25 pounds of gold ( 500 people for 450 sledges)). True A.R. Andreev, writes in a tone characteristic of most chroniclers of that period that John “wanted to sit out in Novgorod”, probably blaming him that the tsar did not direct the military operation directly, as in the capture of Kazan. Although the tsar soon "went to Moscow for the discharge of regiments and the appointment of governors to repel the upcoming attack of the Tatars."

Thus, the family of John IV and the treasury of the Muscovite kingdom remain in Novgorod, with the protection of a generally insignificant garrison. And not in some kind of stone Kremlin closed on all sides, but in a city where two years ago “all the high buildings were demolished”. At the end of May, he returned to Novgorod again, where "on the eve of the battle, languishing in anticipation, he wrote a will - a spiritual letter."

Isn't it true, a strange choice of the city in order to "sit out" - without troops (which were all thrown to the southern borders) with family and treasury. In fact, John IV temporarily moved the capital to Novgorod. And this is after 1570! Or rather, after what has been written about him!

On the site dedicated to Veliky Novgorod, we read that under John IV there were significant changes in the city and the region. Streets were built and expanded, new fortifications were erected, a third defensive wall arose. True, there is also a “mandatory” in such cases mention of the severity of the maintenance of the Sovereign’s court, and of the “Novgorod pogrom” - how could it be without it.

“The royal court in Novgorod was located near the Church of Nikita, which was rebuilt on the orders of Ivan the Terrible back in 1555-1556. Obviously, at the same time they built a stone palace for the king, which adjoined the church of Nikita from the southwest ....

The tsar and his family remained in Novgorod until August 6, 1572. Apparently, already by that time Ivan the Terrible had decided to build the Great Royal Court in Novgorod and from there to manage the guardsmen. The lands and estates of the disgraced Novgorod boyars and merchants were transferred to the possession of the guardsmen.

It was decided to build a large royal court on the site of the ancient Yaroslav's court. The chronicle testifies that in 1571 the area of ​​​​Yaroslav's court was measured, and on June 15, 1572, "the sovereign laid the hut to put it in our yard, on the Courtyard." Obviously, auxiliary wooden buildings were built before. From Novgorod scribe books and from the image on the icon "The Sign" of the 8th century, it is known that part of the Trade side of Novgorod along the Volkhov was assigned to the Great Sovereign's Court ....

During the reign of Ivan the Terrible, great changes took place in Novgorod and the region. In the city, as confirmed by archaeological research, the streets were widened, defensive structures were reconstructed. In the 80s of the 16th century, in connection with the widespread use of firearms, new wooden-earth fortresses were built in Novgorod, Staraya Russa and Ladoga. The fortifications had not only ditches and earthen ramparts, but also the so-called "output bulls" - the predecessors of the bastions, which provided defense not only along the front, but also from the flanks. So, in 1583, a third defensive line arose in Novgorod - a small earthen city that defended a stone citadel” (http://www.vnovgorod.info/oprichnik.html)

So was or not the ruin of Novgorod? We can only make assumptions. First of all, we see that the historical memory of the time of John IV is dominated by the myth of his bloodiness and despotism, and hence all other myths - including the "ruin of Novgorod" with thousands of victims. Descriptions of individual "witnesses" paint a picture of almost an invasion of pagans who killed for fun by many thousands of defenseless and innocent townspeople. At the same time, either the motives of the bloody murderers are not explained at all, or these motives are insignificant or meaningless (slander, the desire to replenish the treasury, the oprichnina - simply as something bloody and terrible in itself), etc.

The motive for the march on the rebellious border regions was the news of the desire of the upper echelon of power in the two regions to carry out a coup d'état or become subjects of neighboring Lithuania. The entire prikaz administration that governed the Novgorod land, and the social elites of the population, headed by the archbishop, were drawn into the conspiracy. Decisive actions were needed to prevent the loss of the lands for which the Russian soldiers shed their blood; lands that were vital to the state - as a gateway to the Baltic.

John IV Vasilyevich, eradicated the rebellion of the upper classes according to the laws of war. After all, Russia then fought on several fronts: with the Crimean-Turkish troops in the south, Livonia, Poland in the west, Sweden in the north-west and internal enemies in the face of traitors who sought to stretch the country again into specific principalities.

One can argue whether it was justified to execute captured foreigners (“most of them were Poles with their wives and children, and those Russians who got married on a foreign side”), and to ruin the shops of merchants, whether it was necessary to touch the property of monasteries, and demolish tall buildings, “to cut through everything beautiful” (gates, stairs, windows) ... But the fact remains that the Pskov and Novgorod regions were not cut off from the Moscow Kingdom. Otherwise, if the conspiracy had succeeded, it would have made problematic not only access to the Baltic, but also the very continued existence of the nascent Russia. Moreover, it can be assumed that anger at the king and bile, which poured out for a long time later in writing lampoons and fables, was at the top, but not among the townspeople. Otherwise, in just two years, the head of state with his families and the treasury would not have been able to hide behind the walls of Novgorod.

This means that the actions of the king were, in general, fair - including from the point of view of the townspeople themselves. It can be assumed that “demolishing high buildings” and “cutting down the beautiful” the soldiers of John IV punished the local “oligarchs” and ruined their places of residence - which stood out against the general background. Probably, the same "unrighteous" property was confiscated or drowned in the river. Further, G. Staden shows that under the guise of guardsmen, disguised zemstvos also acted, who wanted to rob. But these were identified and killed. In general, the practice is not new.

If there had been an unfair plunder of the people of Novgorod, according to popular notions, or, even more so, the extermination of innocent people by thousands and tens of thousands, then this would have caused uprisings. And of course, two years later, when the “injustice” was still fresh in the memory, the tsar could not organize his temporary capital in Novgorod with practically no troops, and live for more than six months on the provision of the Novgorodians.

The full text of the testimonies of G. Staden, I. Taube and E. Kruse, A. Schlichting, J. Ulfeldt, "A Truly Truthful Description" is here http://www.midday.narod.ru/17.htm

Was there a possibility of compromise between Moscow and defeated Novgorod? Could the Novgorodians, having retained their identity, become part of Muscovy? The good of the Russian nation demanded such a compromise. An example of this is the entry into the Moscow kingdom of the Cossacks, who lost their autocracy, but retained their ethnic and spiritual identity.

What prevented Moscow, just as for the Cossacks, from finding a place in the nascent empire for the Novgorodians? In comparison with the Muscovites, the Cossacks stood at the lowest level of civilizational development, and the Novgorodians - at a higher one. Moscow could force the Cossacks, like a workhorse, to participate in the construction of the empire. But it was impossible to force the noble Novgorod horse to do the work of a beast of burden. Nevertheless, in the 16th century, some compromise relations developed between Moscow and Novgorod. However, they were short-term and came at a time when Moscow was just deciding on the choice of the imperial course. In fact, the empire was already being built, but the Moscow government was still in a state of understanding what it was actually creating. It was during this period that the revival of Novgorod took place.

Having lost its political independence, Novgorod became part of the Muscovite state as an economic, human and cultural resource. The priceless potential of the Novgorod ethnos for the Russian nation began to act in favor of the united Russia. It seemed that a compromise had been reached. And if Moscow stopped on the path of empire building, it could become a historical fact. However, already under Ivan IV, the compromise between Novgorod and Moscow Rus was finished forever. The tsar, having accepted the Astrakhan and Kazan Tatars into his citizenship and finding a place for them in the state, at the same time destroyed the Novgorodians as an original Russian ethnic group.

CAUSES OF THE POGROME

The official reason for the defeat of Veliky Novgorod was a conspiracy. It was compiled by the Novgorodians allegedly with the aim of "give Novgorod and Pskov to the Lithuanian king, and they wanted to lime the tsar and the Grand Duke of All Russia with malicious intent, and put Prince Volodymyr Ondreevich on the state." The accusation of treason against the people of Novgorod, who had held back the onslaught of the West for centuries, was absurd. However, the recognition of the existence of a conspiracy gave Ivan IV the right to deal with the Novgorodians in the most cruel way.

Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod was named one of the main conspirators. It's also sheer nonsense. Before his disgrace, he never showed himself in any way as a champion of the former Novgorod liberty. On the contrary, many of the actions of Archbishop Pimen were regarded by contemporaries as nothing more than excessive obsequiousness to the tsar. He constantly supported the tsar in all his undertakings, and especially in foreign policy actions on the western borders of Russia. So, in 1563, Archbishop Pimen turned to Ivan IV with a message, which was essentially a program anti-Lithuanian document. Inspiring the tsar to fight the Lithuanians, the archbishop urged: "Fight against the godless Lithuania and the filthy Luthor for the name of the Lord." It happened to Archbishop Pimen right according to the proverb: “What you fought for, you ran into!”

* * *

Some historians justify the cruel actions of Ivan IV against Novgorod by the fact that the tsar could allegedly end the fight against the remnants of the political fragmentation of Russia only by radical measures. Is there any basis for such an excuse?

“The reference to the need to overcome feudal fragmentation,” writes Professor R. G. Skrynnikov, “can neither justify nor explain the oprichnina destruction of Novgorod. With the liquidation of the republican order in Novgorod at the end of the 15th century, Novgorod land became part of the Russian state completely and irrevocably. Novgorod ceased to be a stronghold of feudal disunity from the moment the Moscow government expropriated without exception all the local Novgorod boyars, merchants, "living people" and settled Moscow service people - landlords - on the expropriated lands. In no other land were the measures designed to guarantee unification carried out with such consistency as in Novgorod. By the time of the oprichnina, the Moscow order was firmly established in Novgorod. Moscow unlimitedly disposed of the entire fund of Novgorod manorial lands, constantly appointed and replaced the entire prikaz administration of Novgorod. The control of the tsarist government over Novgorod land and its inhabitants was total.

R. G. Skrynnikov quite reasonably proves that the oprichny campaign against Veliky Novgorod pursued two main goals. First, Ivan IV wanted to replenish the empty treasury by robbing the wealthy commercial and industrial elite and the Novgorod Church. Secondly, knowing about the anti-Moscow sentiments that were provoked by the atrocities of the oprichnina, the tsar sought to stop even the slightest inclination of the Novgorodians to a popular uprising by bloody terror.

* * *

Ivan IV subjected Veliky Novgorod to such a terrifying pogrom, which many times surpassed the ruin of the city under Ivan III. Why, a hundred years after joining the Muscovite state, Veliky Novgorod experienced such terrible devastation? One of the reasons for the pogrom lies in the character of Ivan the Terrible, who tirelessly uprooted treason even where there was not even a trace of it. Another reason lies in the character of the Muscovite state, which underwent a radical change in the century after the capture of Novgorod.

What did the Grand Duchy of Moscow become by the middle of the 16th century? "The Russian state, which by violent means completed the unification of the Great Russian lands, in the middle of the century turned into an empire - the Moscow kingdom, whose policy acquired a clearly expressed imperial character." It is precisely in the imperial policy that one of the main reasons is hidden that the Moscow kingdom, represented by Ivan IV, was more merciless towards Novgorod than the Moscow principality, represented by Ivan III.

The Moscow principality was basically a national state, and the policy of Ivan III expressed the interests of the Great Russians. The powerful economic and human potential of Veliky Novgorod was of great importance for the all-Russian state. Therefore, Ivan III, when conquering Novgorod, limited himself to necessary, albeit harsh, measures.

In the Moscow kingdom, imperial interests gradually took precedence over the interests of the indigenous nation. Mighty Novgorod could become a stronghold of national forces rejecting the course towards the development of the empire. Therefore, “the defeat of Novgorod became an important milestone in the process of forming the imperial policy of Russia. A natural continuation of external wars of conquest was the policy of direct robbery of one's own population.

Empires are created by wars, which, as you know, require a lot of money. Therefore, the state-forming nation of the Russian Empire, under the yoke of some of its rulers, lived incomparably poorer and harder than many of the "subjugated" peoples, who still cannot forgive her for their conquest.

OPRICHNY HIKING

Ivan IV prepared the punitive expedition thoroughly. All guardsmen were mobilized to march on Veliky Novgorod. At the beginning of the winter of 1569, they took control of all the Yamsk stations along the Novgorod road. Movement along it was strictly forbidden under the pretext of fighting the plague. The tsar wanted to catch the Novgorodians by surprise and therefore ordered to kill everyone who dared to move along the road to Novgorod.

In December 1569, the army of guardsmen, led by Ivan IV, moved to Veliky Novgorod. Along the way, the guardsmen defeated Tver. On January 2, 1570, their advance detachments reached Novgorod. So that no one could leave the city, the guardsmen immediately surrounded it with outposts around the perimeter. Novgorodians, unaware of the impending disaster, watched in bewilderment what was happening.

First of all, the guardsmen brought down repressions on the monasticism and clergy, the keepers of the theocratic traditions of Veliky Novgorod. Ivan IV guarded his autocracy with painful jealousy, furiously eradicating in Russia even hints of other forms of power. At the same time, he furiously argued that royal power was of divine origin.

Bursting into monasteries and parish churches, the guardsmen immediately sealed the church treasury. Even before the arrival of the king, they arrested several hundred Novgorod priests, abbots of monasteries and the most respected elders. On January 6, Ivan IV arrived at the monastery on Gorodishche, located near Novgorod. According to the Novgorod chronicler, on the orders of the tsar, the arrested monks were taken to the market square and beaten to death with clubs. Some modern historians, doubting the report of the chronicler, argue that the arrested clergy languished in prison for another year. These historians, after centuries, probably know better.

The trial of the Novgorodians was led by the tsar himself. The most eminent citizens and wealthy merchants were brought to the camp on Gorodishche from Novgorod. Those suspected of treason were first burned with fire, and then, tied with ropes to a sledge, they were dragged along the winter roads to Volkhov. From the bridge they were thrown into the river. Oprichniki drowned not only men, but also women, tying children to their chests. Novgorodians were destroyed by entire families. If one of the unfortunates tried to escape, they finished him off with axes and horns. The testimony of the Novgorod chronicler about the atrocities of the guardsmen is also confirmed by a German source, contemporary to the events described.

Archbishop Pimen drank the cup of shame in full. The oprichniki dressed Vladyka in rags, squeezed a tambourine into his hands and, putting him on a white mare, drove him like a jester through the streets of Novgorod. Then he was sent to Moscow in custody.

ROBBERY

After the execution of those accused of high treason, the army of guardsmen, led by Ivan IV, took up the wholesale robbery of Veliky Novgorod and its environs. "Novgorodsky Posad fell victim to a wild, senseless pogrom". All Novgorodians who showed even the slightest inclination to resist were killed on the spot by the guardsmen. “John with a retinue traveled all the monasteries around the city; took the church and monastery treasuries; ordered to empty the yards and cells, to destroy bread, horses, cattle; he also betrayed the whole of Novgorod to robbery, shops, houses, churches; he himself traveled from street to street; I watched how predatory warriors broke into the chambers and storerooms, beat off the gates, climbed into the windows, divided silk fabrics and furs among themselves; burned hemp, leather; they threw wax and lard into the river. Crowds of villains were sent to the pyatins of Novgorod to destroy the property and lives of people indiscriminately, without an answer.

If the Novgorodians, contemporaries of Ivan III, knew what kind of pogrom Novgorod would be subjected to by his grandson, Ivan IV, they would not have made any compromises with Moscow and would have fought for their freedom to the last man!

Ivan IV, just like Ivan III, did not fail to rob the Novgorod Church. The guardsmen took out the treasury, valuable utensils, icons and shrines from the Hagia Sophia. Muscovites completely robbed the archbishop's courtyard, where the richest property of the Sophia House was stored. “The sovereign's defeat was a real disaster for the largest Novgorod monasteries. The black clergy were robbed to the bone. The wealth accumulated by the monasteries and the Sophia House over the centuries passed into the oprichnina treasury.

The “blessed” Tsar Ivan IV was not satisfied with the fact that he robbed monasteries, churches and completely ruined the church economy. In addition, he also imposed on the clergy and a colossal indemnity. The archimandrite of Novgorod had to pay a ransom of 2000 gold coins, the abbots of the monasteries - 1000 each, the cathedral elders - 300-500 each. They demanded 40 rubles per person from city priests. Many of the clergy could not pay such huge sums for those times. Then Ivan IV ordered the bailiffs to mercilessly flog the debtors from morning until evening, until the relatives collect the required amount.

Having defeated Veliky Novgorod, Ivan IV sent detachments of guardsmen to rob and ravage the cities and villages of the Novgorod land. “At the same time, armed crowds were sent in all four directions, to five quarters, to camps and volosts, 200 and 250 miles away, with orders to devastate and rob everywhere.” The cities of Ladoga, Korela, Oreshek, Ivangorod and many villages, villages, graveyards were subjected to pogrom. Oprichniki robbed, tortured and killed not only wealthy people, but also ordinary peasants. The guardsmen burned the estates and courtyards of their victims.

NUMBER OF VICTIMS

The pogrom of Veliky Novgorod shocked contemporaries. In Russia, they spoke and wrote about tens of thousands of dead Novgorodians, in Europe - about hundreds of thousands. Later, many historians cited these figures in their writings. So N. M. Karamzin wrote that Ivan IV sent from Novgorod “an innumerable booty of sacrilege and robbery to the capital. There was no one to regret the stolen wealth; who remained alive, thanked God or did not remember himself in a frenzy! They assure that at least sixty thousand citizens and villagers died then. The bloody Volkhov, laden with the bodies and limbs of tormented people, could not carry them into Lake Ladoga for a long time. Hunger and illness completed the execution of John, so that the priests did not have time to bury the dead for six or seven months: they threw them into a pit without any rituals.

What is the true number of victims of the guardsmen? Domestic historians A. G. Ilyinsky and A. A. Zimin, based on their research, came to the conclusion that Ivan IV destroyed at least 40 thousand Novgorodians. In their calculations, these historians mainly relied on chronicle evidence. However, R. G. Skrynnikov considers such calculations incorrect. He writes: "The most reliable source for determining the scale of repression remains the Synod of the Disgraced, compiled on the basis of original documents from the oprichnina archive." Therefore, “summing up all the data, we can conclude that during the pogrom, 2170-2180 people mentioned in the Synod were killed. These data cannot be considered complete, since many guardsmen robbed and killed at their own peril and risk. However, the number of their victims was small compared to the number of victims of organized massacres.

R. G. Skrynnikov's calculations can also be claimed. Not trusting the evidence of the chronicles, he fully believes in the synodics, which was compiled on the basis of the oprichnina archive. Why do oprichny documents inspire such sincere faith in the historian? Are the guardsmen the ideal of fighters for the truth? And one more thing: why did R. G. Skrynnikov decide that the number of unorganized murders is small? He provides no evidence for his claim. Perhaps, on the contrary, the number of such victims many times exceeded the number of those killed by the decision of the royal court. In addition, the names of wives, children, servants, ordinary townspeople and peasants were hardly included in the synodik.

Ivan IV himself confessed to the murder of 2170-2180 people, entering their names in the Synod for commemoration. How many Novgorodians actually died at the hands of the guardsmen will remain a mystery to history forever. Researchers can only put forward various versions and give only approximate figures.

* * *

The atrocities of the guardsmen were a terrible shock for the inhabitants of Veliky Novgorod. For a hundred years since joining Moscow, Novgorodians did not experience such manifestations of tyranny and were psychologically unprepared for the bloody terror of Ivan the Terrible. The horror of the endured trials fettered the consciousness of the Novgorodians for a long time. “What impression the pogrom made on the Novgorodians is best seen from the following news: on May 25, 1571, there were a lot of people in the church of St. Paraskeva on the trading side at mass; when, after the service, they began to ring the bells, suddenly a mysterious horror attacked everyone, everyone ran in different directions, men, women, children, pushed each other, not knowing where they were running, the merchants swept the benches, gave goods with their own hands to the first one who came across. Exactly the same news about the trouble we meet in the annals under 1239, after the Batu pogrom.

The massacres were followed by the resettlement of wealthy Novgorodians who survived to Moscow. So, only in 1572, one hundred merchant families were forcibly evicted from Novgorod. By the end of the 1970s, the ruling and commercial elite of Veliky Novgorod was virtually completely eliminated.

IMPACT TO THE ECONOMY

In the middle of the 16th century, an economic crisis began to develop in Novgorod. The situation was gradually aggravated by epidemics, crop failures, the terror of the guardsmen and huge extortions going to the Livonian War. However, the main cause of the crisis was the policy of the central government, "which in the end dealt a crushing blow to Novgorod's foreign trade - the main source of public welfare and the main suspect in the appropriation of state power" .

Ivan IV, suspicious of everything that had at least some sign of independence in his totalitarian kingdom, actually destroyed the Novgorod merchant class. Having killed the golden hen, the tsar, apparently, did not attach any importance to the damage he inflicted on the present and future of the Russian nation. When felling the Novgorod forest, Ivan the Terrible did not notice the chips. He placed the triumph of total autocracy disproportionately above the good of the nation. Yes, and was he familiar with the concept of “the good of the nation”?

Ivan IV finally crushed the economy of Veliky Novgorod, which was in crisis. “In the days of the defeat, the guardsmen plundered numerous commercial premises and warehouses of Novgorod and ruined Novgorod bargaining. All the money confiscated from merchants and the most valuable goods became the prey of the treasury. Part of the goods (cloth, velvet and silk brought from Europe and the East) was distributed to the guardsmen in the form of a reward.

In the Novgorod warehouses, huge, according to some sources, twenty-year-old stocks of wax, lard and flax were stored, intended for export to Europe. It was impossible to sell such a quantity of goods on the domestic Russian market. Therefore, the guardsmen burned all these stocks.

Having ruined the financial elite, the guardsmen let ordinary workers of Veliky Novgorod go around the world. “Craftsmen, small merchants, shopkeepers… were the lifeblood of the city, the system of its blood vessels. They, and not the landowners with their land plots in five patches, brought the main income to the city, formed its financial power. Deprived of stocks, money, housing, jobs, the townspeople not only lost their own wealth. Their ruin meant a complete breakdown of the entire urban economy.

Novgorod agriculture, which began to wither already during the reign of Ivan III, finally fell into decline under Ivan IV. “Most of the lands that belonged to any well-to-do Novgorodians were seized from their possession. Only insignificant grains of land remained behind the Novgorod owners. Moscow settlers became the new owners of the land. “Novgorod landowners were landowners; on the contrary, the Moscow landowners were temporary owners of estates received in the form of a salary for their service” 1 . Accordingly, the attitude to land use among those and others was completely different.

“The Novgorod Republic,” quite rightly notes R. G. Skrynnikov, “did not wage wars of conquest, and its military spending was insignificant, which determined the low level of taxation of the peasants. The Moscow conquest radically changed the situation. The vast majority of Novgorod's land fund turned into state property, which ultimately determined the decline and ruin of the once flourishing region. The local system, which meant dual ownership of land, became dominant. The fragmentation of estates and the introduction of compulsory service of the landowner in the conditions of continuous wars prompted the landlords to expand peasant duties, start a master's plowing, use the labor of serfs-sufferers, which destroyed the economic structure of the Novgorod village.

The economy of Veliky Novgorod was formed by many generations of hardworking, purposeful and enterprising Novgorodians. However, "a hundred years of Moscow rule have turned the flourishing land into a huge wasteland." The destruction of the economy and economic traditions of the Novgorod land caused significant damage to the entire Great Russian nation. She lost invaluable experience and centuries-old succession in the field of economic management of that part of the Russian people, which was the most successful in the economic sphere.

THE DEATH OF THE NOVGOROD ETHNOS

Uniting Russia, the Moscow sovereigns acted on the principle of "beat your own, so that strangers are afraid." Ivan III and Ivan IV acted with the Novgorodians in the same way that few invaders in all of world history acted with a defeated people, especially those who were related by blood. The Moscow sovereigns applied the tactics of the ancient Assyrians to the Novgorodians, who either destroyed the conquered peoples or resettled them in areas far from their homeland.

The fate of Novgorodians turned out to be much more deplorable than the fate of foreigners and non-Christians included in Russia. Having captured Astrakhan and Kazan, Ivan IV did not kill, did not resettle, did not assimilate the Tatars, but gave them the right to live on their own land under the shadow of Russian sovereignty. Moreover, Ivan the Terrible even gave the Tatars the opportunity to practice Islam and adhere to their national traditions.

In the relations between Moscow and Veliky Novgorod, the phenomenon of hostility of close ethnic groups, often encountered in history, was clearly manifested. It happened according to the proverb: "Two bears cannot get along in one lair."

Moscow, incorporating foreign and heterodox nations into its state body, gave them the opportunity for joint imperial development, but at the same time clearly defined the boundaries of their religious and cultural settled way of life. Moscow was not afraid of the destructive influence of these nations on its statehood, because they were clearly alien and could not deliver a blow that was not foreseen in advance. On the contrary, ethnic groups related to Muscovites, especially Novgorodians, due to their proximity, could easily penetrate the social and state nature of Muscovites and disrupt its mentality and structure. Therefore, in the Moscow Kremlin, it was believed that the closest relatives should be subjected to especially thorough decontamination.

* * *

With the accession of Theodore Ioannovich, the policy towards Veliky Novgorod underwent a change for the better. The new Moscow government realized the mistakes of its predecessors and made efforts to correct them. However, it was too late. “In the last decade of the 16th century,” writes E. A. Gordienko, “shortly before the ruin of the Time of Troubles, a short period of time is outlined in the life of Novgorod, when, with the interested assistance of the government of Fyodor Ivanovich and the most direct participation of Boris Godunov, conditions are created for collecting church lands, restoration of the economy and trade, revival of lost spiritual values. But having no real potential, this renewal attempt was doomed to failure, and in the early 1600s, Novgorod, together with the entire Russian state, enters the most difficult time in its history.

By the end of the 16th century, there was, in fact, nothing to restore and revive in Veliky Novgorod. Defeats and pogroms, intermittently lasting for a whole century, led to a complete decline in the spiritual, cultural, social and economic life of the Novgorod land. For a long time, the Moscow rulers either strangled the Novgorod laying hen, then again let her breathe. It was all about her golden balls. Probably, they would have cut off her head right away, but in Moscow they did not want to lose these testicles ... There they showed hesitation and could not get out of the dilemma "and you want and prick." Ivan the Terrible put an end to Moscow's hesitation. During another fit of anger, he strangled a golden hen to death.

All resuscitation measures taken by Boris Godunov were for Veliky Novgorod like a dead poultice. The main reason for the failure was that the human potential of Novgorod was destroyed and dispersed. The crisis that began in the 50s of the 16th century and engulfed all spheres of life in Veliky Novgorod, as well as the pogrom organized by Ivan IV, ultimately led to the fact that the city began to resemble a huge cemetery. By 1581, only 1396 remained of the former population. Who could put into practice the good initiatives of the central government? For this, Novgorod lacked the most valuable state resource - people. As for the Novgorodians as carriers of a special original ethnic group, by that time they had actually completely disappeared from the face of the earth.

Depopulated Veliky Novgorod began to fall into disrepair. “The fires of 1600 and 1606 at the Slovenian end destroyed the shopping malls, the Great Bridge, half of the Gostiny Dvor, many churches and residential buildings. The city remained destroyed for a long time, construction in it completely stopped. Cultural life froze for at least half a century, and its revival took place in the new conditions of modern times.

* * *

What did the annexation of Veliky Novgorod to the Muscovite state give the Russian people? Almost nothing but the unification of Russian lands. And speaking truthfully and more objectively, this accession caused considerable damage to the nation. Yes, the territory of the Moscow state has grown significantly at the expense of the Novgorod lands. But at the same time, the tree of the Great Russian nation completely lost its mighty Novgorod branch.

For the development of the nation, the territory, of course, is of great importance. However, what is the use of having a huge space when the flower of the nation is dying? With the territory of the Novgorod Republic, the Moscow sovereigns disposed of by no means in the best way. The once prosperous Novgorod land became the northwestern backwater of the Muscovite kingdom. When studying the history of this region, the question sometimes arises: why did the Moscow sovereigns conquer Novgorod at all? In order to exterminate the Novgorodians? The strategic location of Veliky Novgorod did not find any use in the Muscovite state.

In addition to the territory, Moscow received the material resources of the Novgorod state. What is their fate? They were mediocrely wasted by Ivan IV on the senseless Livonian War, which bled Russia dry.

As for the self-consciousness of the Russian nation, the words of Lev Gumilyov are quite fair: “Together with the independence of Novgorod, all stereotypes of behavior characteristic of veche Russia disappeared, and the people themselves retained only the memory of their origin.” The annexation of Veliky Novgorod to Moscow, in the form in which it was accomplished, caused enormous damage to the Russian nation.

The spiritual, cultural and state heritage of Veliky Novgorod in the Moscow kingdom and the Russian Empire was, if not destroyed, then completely forgotten. The heritage of the Novgorod Republic has become an object of study relatively recently. And even then, only museum workers and historians give him close attention.

* * *

Any nation consists of various ethnic groups, which are characterized by characteristic psycho-ethnic portraits. The diversity of psycho-ethnic types is the mental wealth of the nation. The loss of each psycho-ethnic type for a nation can be much more disastrous than the loss of territories or natural resources.

Between the reigns of Ivan III and Ivan IV, the process of gradual and peaceful entry of Novgorodians into the Moscow superethnos was almost completed. If the tsarist genocide had bypassed the Novgorodians, they would have become one of the founders of the modern Great Russians, and the Russian people would have retained the features of the Novgorodian psycho-ethnic portrait. And this would be an undeniable boon for the nation. The destruction of the Novgorodians could not but affect the ethnic development of the Great Russians. After the defeat of Veliky Novgorod, the formation of the modern Russian people did not go as fully as before the death of the Novgorod ethnos.

* * *

Some peoples (for example, Jews, Armenians, Chechens, Crimean Tatars) in the places of eviction were able to preserve their ethnic features and did not assimilate with the local population. Novgorodians, resettled in Muscovy, failed to do this. Yes, probably, and could not, with all the desire. After all, ethnically, Novgorodians were very close to Muscovites-Great Russians and therefore quickly merged with them into a single ethnic group. Such a merger of genetically distant peoples is extremely rare. The mechanisms and instincts of self-preservation among nations are very strong, and it is rather difficult to break them. Conversely, close ethnic groups are characterized by easy interpenetration and dissolution.

A PYRRHIC VICTORY OF HISTORICAL PROGRESS

The Novgorod Republic was a powerful Russian state that no one and nothing could crush for several centuries. Only another Russian state, Moscow, succeeded in destroying the armor of Veliky Novgorod. The Moscow military-monastic, in the words of Lev Gumilyov, system in the 15th century turned out to be stronger than the Novgorod republican theocracy.

Many domestic historians, especially representatives of the Soviet historiographic school, were of the opinion that the Novgorod Republic was declining for a long time. According to these historians, the social-veche system of Veliky Novgorod gradually degenerated into an oligarchic form of government, extremely unattractive in nature. Therefore, the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow was a positive and quite natural political act, the final major chord in the process of formation of a centralized Russian state under the leadership of the Moscow sovereigns. “In reality,” writes Professor R. G. Skrynnikov, “everything was different. There is no reason to regard the fall of Novgorod and the triumph of Moscow centralization as a triumph of historical progress. In terms of its level, Novgorod's political culture was not inferior to Moscow's and even surpassed it. Novgorod escaped the Tatar pogrom, and the influence of Asiatic forms was felt here to the least extent. The potentialities laid down in the institutions of Ancient Russia were organically developed in Novgorod in the 14th-15th centuries. The veche, which retained archaic features, ensured the participation of a fairly wide range of the population in the administration of the republic. At critical moments, not a single important decision could be taken without a meeting. This situation continued until the fall of Novgorod.

In the XV-XVI centuries, as, indeed, in other times, the Moscow monarchs needed a humble, silent people, ready for their masters to pave the way to the imperial throne with their own bones. Freedom-loving Novgorodians could not be compelled to do this either with gingerbread or with a whip. That is why Moscow destroyed the Novgorodians.

WINDOW TO EUROPE

For centuries, Veliky Novgorod served as a gateway to Europe for Russia. In the field of economy, Novgorod was closely connected with the economic life of many European countries. In the interstate sphere, the Novgorod Republic was at the same time an integral part of the political systems of both northeastern Europe and Rurik Rus.

Moscow, having annexed Novgorod, could get an advantageous place in the European economic market and take a worthy position in the political field of northeastern Europe. However, Ivan III, with his reckless actions, covered the Novgorod gates, and Ivan IV walled them up tightly. True, this sovereign immediately began by force to cut through the notorious "window to Europe" through the territory of Livonia. Having exhausted the state in a long war, Ivan the Terrible did not achieve his goal.

The case of the Terrible Tsar was later continued by Peter I. The “Great Reformer” nevertheless managed to cut through a certain gap, but at the same time he bled Russia no less than Ivan IV. The ax in the hands of these sovereigns was the Russian people, who suffered innumerable human and material losses in an endless series of Livonian-Swedish wars. They could well have been avoided if Veliky Novgorod, this European bridge of Russia, had not been so thoughtlessly destroyed.

Having defeated the Novgorod and Pskov republics and incorporating their lands into its possessions, Moscow came into direct contact with the West. The Novgorod-Pskov sanitary-defensive rampart, which protected the Russian nation, was destroyed. Moscow preferred aggression to defense. However, instead of the expected golden stream, slops poured into Muscovy through the cut through western window. And, as if in mockery, after the death of Peter I, the last Russian autocrat by blood, Catherine I, a Livonian from an army convoy, ascended the throne of the Russian Empire. And this was only the beginning, then - almost two hundred years of rule of the German dynasty. How not to remember the saying again "for what they fought for - they ran into that."

Notes:

2 Shirokorad A. B. Russ and Lithuania: Rurikids against Gedeminoviches. M., 2004. S. 347.

3 Fedotov G.P. Cit. op.

29 Likhachev D.S. Veliky Novgorod… S. 11–12. Novgorod in the 16th century and its spiritual life. S. 9.

314 Maykov V. V. Scribe book on Veliky Novgorod at the end of the 16th century. SPb., 1911. S. 1–274.

315 Gordienko E. A. Novgorod in the 16th century and its spiritual life. S. 422.

316 Gumilyov L. From Russia to Russia. S. 185.

317 Skrynnikov R. G. The tragedy of Novgorod. S. 152.