Poland had something to entertain pride - among the prisoners of Hetman Zolkiewski were the Russian Tsar Vasily IV, Grand Duke Dmitry, who commanded the Russian troops, and the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Ivan. “... Vasily IV took an oath, humbled himself before the greatness of the Commonwealth, recognized himself defeated and promised that Russia would never again attack Poland. After that, the Polish king Sigismund III Vasa extended his hand to the Russian Tsar kneeling in front of him for a kiss, ”Polish journalist Józef Shaniavsky wrote in the Nasz Dziennik newspaper a year ago.
Savoring the picture of the humiliation of Vasily Shuisky and his brothers, the Polish journalist “forgot” to tell the reader a “trifle”: by that time Shuisky had long lost power. He was deposed from the throne on July 17, 1610.
The fact that the conduct of mocking anti-Russian actions can only complicate the already difficult relations between the two peoples, sober-minded people in Poland itself understand. On the eve of it, Gazeta Wyborcza published a warning article by Lukasz Adamski, coordinator of research projects at the Polish-Russian Center for Dialogue and Accord. He wrote:
“Celebrating victories in unjust wars is worse than honoring the memory of defeated heroes who fought for a just cause. Such an approach cultivates in society a propensity for triumphalism, nationalist exaltation, it contradicts the principles of Christianity and the traditional values of national Polish culture. After all, the so-called Polish intervention at the beginning of the 17th century is one of the most shameful episodes in our history. It testified not so much to the power of the Commonwealth and its weapons, but to the short-sightedness of the Polish elites: the magnates and Sigismund III Vasa ... And what is there to set as an example for modern Poles?
Unfortunately, in Poland this time too, it was not constructive-minded citizens who prevailed, but militant Russophobes.
THE WAY TO POWER
There is no bad without good. The anti-Russian coven in Krakow gave reason to remember the forgotten tsar. Shuisky's biographer Vyacheslav Kozlyakov called him the last Rurikovich to sit on the throne. Like the Moscow heirs of Ivan Kalita, the Suzdal princes Shuisky built their family to Alexander Nevsky. Without entering into the question of the genealogy of the Shuiskys, on which the pre-revolutionary historians Nikolai Karamzin and Sergei Solovyov diverged, we recall that shortly before his death, Ivan IV the Terrible, who knew about the inability of his son Fyodor to govern the state, appointed a regency council. Vasily's father, Ivan, also entered it. A struggle for power began in the regency council, the details of which I happened to set out in an article about Boris Godunov (see Solidarity, No. 7, 2008). Godunov, who gained the upper hand, punished the Shuisky clan. Vasily and his brothers - Dmitry, Alexander and Ivan - were exiled to Galich and Shuya, and their lands were "unsubscribed to the sovereign." The head of the Shuisky clan, Prince Ivan Petrovich, was exiled to Beloozero, forcibly tonsured a monk, and on November 16, 1588, according to a contemporary, “suffocated in a hut with smoke from lit damp hay and stubble” (poisoned with carbon monoxide). Andrey, the brightest of the Shuiskys, died in the same death in the city of Bui.
A few years later, the surviving Shuiskys were pardoned. Godunov tested Vasily's loyalty in 1591, sending him to Uglich to investigate the case of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. The newly-appeared servant did not blunder and confirmed the official version of the “self-slaughtering” of the prince. The reward was a place in the Boyar Duma.
And when, after the death of Godunov, Tsarevich Dmitry “resurrected” and seized the throne, Vasily immediately recognized him as “a miraculously saved prince.” However, having convened a semblance of a Zemsky Sobor, False Dmitry I condemned Shuisky. And that's not all. On July 10, 1605, when Vasily was standing at the block surrounded by executioners, the impostor pardoned the boyar. The Poles have not yet thought of holding a theatrical historical happening on this topic.
After such trials, it is not surprising that it was Shuisky who was at the center of the conspiracy that led on May 17 (27), 1606 to the overthrow and murder of False Dmitry I. Two days later, a narrow circle of conspirators elected Vasily Shuisky, who was related to the extinct dynasty, as king . Assuming the throne, writes Vasily Klyuchevsky, Shuisky "limited his power and officially outlined the conditions for this restriction in a record sent to the regions, on which they kissed the cross during accession." Cases of serious crimes punishable by death and confiscation of property, the tsar promised to administer "from his boyars."
However, the fact that the most important issue of succession to the throne was resolved in a hurry and without convening a Zemsky Sobor turned out to be sad consequences for Shuisky.
A SHORT REIGN
Shuisky began to reign by declaring Boris Godunov the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry, whose body was brought from Uglich and reburied in the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin.
Shuisky, however, did not have a chance to triumph for a long time. Time in Russia was Troubled, and already in the autumn of 1606, rebel detachments of Prokopy Lyapunov and Ivan Bolotnikov appeared on the outskirts of the capital. They consisted of rebellious impoverished nobles, peasants and Cossacks.
Under the walls of Moscow, Lyapunov went to the service of the tsar, and the defeated detachments of Bolotnikov withdrew to Tula. Having laid siege to the fortress, Shuisky promised to save the lives of all those who surrendered. He did not keep his word, arranging a bloodbath for the surrendered. Bolotnikov was blinded and drowned.
In the meantime, Shuisky was finishing off Bolotnikov, far from Moscow, a revival of impostor intrigue began. Too many turned out to be interested in “saving” False Dmitry. “Remembered” that the body of the impostor found in the Kremlin was so disfigured that it was impossible to recognize the facial features. Not everyone wanted to accept Shuisky's assertions that this was False Dmitry. Few people believed the cunning Tsar Vasily, who repeatedly changed his point of view on the “case of Tsarevich Dmitry” and deceived the Bolotnikovites.
In June 1607, on a tip from the Polish "puppeteers", a new impostor showed up in the border Starodub. There he "confessed" that he was king. To attract supporters, the impostor called on the serfs of the princes loyal to Shuisky and the boyars to swear allegiance to him, Dmitry. For this, the impostor promised to give them the master's daughters and the possessions of their former masters.
In addition to the newly minted nobles, the army of the impostor consisted of Cossacks, foreign mercenaries and other lovers to profit from the vast Russian expanses. April 30 - May 1, 1608 in a two-day battle near Bolkhov, north of Orel, False Dmitry II defeated the army under the command of the royal brother Dmitry. A month later he was near Moscow, in Tushino. Under him, the Boyar Duma, orders, and the treasury were already functioning. Metropolitan Filaret, brought from Rostov, became the patriarch - in the world Fedor Romanov (the fact that the father of the founder of the Romanov dynasty served with the impostor and recognized him as Tsarevich Dmitry, the Romanovs tried not to remember for 300 years).
The fighting on the outskirts of the capital went with varying success. The war dragged on. For a year and a half, a “dual power” was established in Russia, from which the provinces literally groaned. After all, the envoys of both kings appeared in turn for taxes. And in the "Federal Center", split into two parts, there was a life of its own. Even on the way to the capital, the impostor generously distributed land to mercenaries and nobles, princes and boyars who had defected to him. However, many were noted both in the Kremlin and in Tushino, running from Shuisky to the impostor and back. A winged definition of “Tushino flights” arose, which characterizes the behavior of people running from one camp to another. Representatives of the same genus could be found here and there. Noble families tried to protect themselves from trouble in the event of any outcome of the protracted confrontation.
In 1609, Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden, counting on her help in the war with the impostor. For this, Russia gave the fortress to Korel with the district. This treaty gave Sigismund III a pretext for open intervention. The fact is that he claimed the throne of Sweden, and considered its king Charles IX a usurper. In September, Sigismund III laid siege to Smolensk.
Hope dawned in January 1610, when the tsar's nephew, the talented commander Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky lifted the siege from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and freed Dmitrov. Since among the relatives of the tsar he was the only one who showed the talent of a commander, the people began to pin hopes for the salvation of Russia with him. These hopes were not justified: in April, 24-year-old Skopin-Shuisky, returning from a feast at Prince Ivan Vorotynsky, fell ill and soon died. Rumors spread that he was poisoned by Ekaterina Shuiskaya - the wife of Tsar Dmitry's brother, the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov (her father's nickname was a household name to denote villainy). Moscow mourned Skopin-Shuisky the way it mourned Tsar Fyodor in its time. It seemed that the capital was burying hope...
FALL AND CAPTURE
A new catastrophe was not long in coming. Russian troops and Swedish mercenaries led by Dmitry Shuisky marched to Smolensk. Dmitry again confirmed the reputation of a mediocre commander: on July 4, near the village of Klushino, he was defeated by Hetman Zholkievsky. It was said about Dmitry that in a hasty flight he got stuck with a horse in a swamp, lost his shoes and arrived in Mozhaisk barefoot on a skinny peasant nag.
This defeat finally predetermined the collapse of both Tsar Vasily himself and the entire Shuisky dynasty that never took place. On July 17, 1610, the conspirators led by Lyapunov overthrew Shuisky from the throne. The former king was tonsured a monk against his will.
Vasily IV was far from being the best Russian tsar, but he did not deserve the fate that befell him at the end of his life. The “seven boyars” that came to power handed over Shuisky and his relatives to the Poles. Before appearing in the Sejm, they languished in Polish dungeons for a whole year. When on October 29, 1611, the former king, who had become a political corpse, appeared before the king, he was an exhausted and lost interest in the life of an old man.
In September 1612, when the Poles besieged in Moscow ate rats and dogs, Vasily Shuisky and his brother Dmitry and his wife Ekaterina died one after another in Polish captivity for six days. Immediately there were rumors about the violent death of Russian captives.
The body of the former tsar could only be returned to Moscow in June 1635. The remains of Vasily Shuisky were solemnly buried in the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin.
Death of Basil III. Elena Glinskaya and specific princes. Opal of Yuri Dmitrovsky, Mikhail Glinsky, Andrey Staritsky. Russian-Lithuanian relations. Affairs Crimean and Kazan. Russian affairs. Elena's death. Shuisky's first coming to power. Deposition of Metropolitan Daniel. The reign of Ivan Velsky. The second parish of the Shuiskys. The inglorious end of Andrei Shuisky and boyar self-will. Glinsky. Signs of the spiritual revival of the Russian people. Metropolitan Macarius. Crowning of Ivan I and his marriage
On December 3, 1533, Grand Duke Vasily III Ivanovich died at the age of 55. According to his spiritual testament and already established practice, his twenty-five-year-old mother Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya became regent of the three-year-old Grand Duke Ivan IV, in turn entrusted to the care of her uncle Mikhail Glinsky and the nearest boyars of the deceased sovereign - Mikhail Yuryev and Ivan Shigona, as well as Metropolitan Daniel, who ensure the succession of power and protect the rights of the heir to the throne from possible encroachments on the part of his uncles Yuri Dmitrovsky and Andrey Staritsky, who, according to the denunciations of the grand ducal spies, did not leave hope for the restoration of the ancient ladder law, according to which power passed to the oldest man in the family.
With the resolution of this hypothetical problem, the government of Helena began its activities. A week after the death of Vasily III, Yuri Dmitrovsky was accused of violating the kiss of the cross and conspiring to seize power, was taken into custody, where he later died of exhaustion.
The decision of the fate of another uncle of the Grand Duke, due to the lack of good reasons and grounds, was postponed "for later" or "until better times."
In the meantime, an intrigue typical of a change of power was developing at the grand ducal court, aggravated in this case by the fact that a young and weak woman replaced the strong prince. The princes and boyars fought among themselves for proximity to the throne, for the opportunity to influence the decisions made by the regent, and the dispute was not about how best to equip the state, but about who would get key court positions, escheated or confiscated estates, who on behalf of the Grand Duke will be "executed and pardoned." In other words, everyone "pulled the blanket over himself."
Suddenly, the star of Prince Ivan Fedorovich Ovchiny-Telepnev-Obolensky, a far from talented military leader who became close to Elena Glinskaya, began to rise high - because of personal affection, she began to trust him with the solution of not only military, but also domestic political and palace problems. As far as one can judge, this was the first favorite in the history of Russia, in which the 18th century would be so rich. It was between him, the lover of the ruler, and her uncle, the power-hungry and ambitious Mikhail Glinsky, that the main struggle unfolded, the winner of which was not the head of the regency council, appointed by Vasily III himself, but the “dear friend of the heart” of the ruler. The uncle, accused of striving to “autocratically maintain the state”, was arrested in August 1534, put in the same ward where he had sat under the former Grand Duke, and soon died of exhaustion, like Yuri Dmitrovsky, starved to death.
Around the same time, two noble boyars fled to Lithuania - Prince Semyon Belsky and Ivan Lyatsky from the Koshkin family, dissatisfied with their position at court and dissatisfied with the dominance of the favorite, on which their career, well-being and life itself began to depend.
Having got rid of the rival boyars, Ovchin-Obolensky began a new intrigue. His next victim was the last uncle of the Grand Duke - Andrei Staritsky, who allowed himself in the circle of boyars not very devoted to him to express grievances against the Grand Duke, the ruler and her favorite for the fact that after the death of Vasily III he never received anything to his destiny. The intrigue that developed over the course of three years was accompanied by the exchange of embassies and the poaching of service people, the formation of coalitions and the readiness of the appanage prince to flee to Lithuania at an opportunity. Things got to the point that Elena's favorite led the Moscow regiments to Andrey, and the latter, having gathered his family, close boyars and his army, rushed along the only remaining unblocked road to Veliky Novgorod - part of the city's landowners expressed a desire to go to his service. Everything ended relatively peacefully, except for the imprisonment of Andrei himself and his family members, the commercial execution of his fellow boyars and the hanging of thirty Novgorod landlords. Six months later, Andrei Staritsky will repeat the fate of his brother: he will die of starvation in prison.
By the time the three-year-old Ivan IV ascended the grand prince's table, the truce with Lithuania was expiring, but the aged Sigismund considered it shameful for himself to send great ambassadors to the child prince. In addition, he, instigated by the defector Semyon Belsky, hoped to take advantage of the temporary disorder in Russia and regain what had been ceded to Moscow through the efforts of Ivan III and Vasily III. The government of Elena Glinskaya, for its part, insisted on observing the custom of concluding Russian-Lithuanian treaties exclusively in Moscow. The squabbling about who to send ambassadors and where to conclude an agreement dragged on for almost three years, which cost a lot of blood to both sides. The Poles took Gomel, Starodub, Pochep, burned Radogoshch and the surroundings of Chernigov. The Moscow regiments, in turn, marched with fire and sword through the Lithuanian lands to Lyubech, Vitebsk and almost to Vilna, recaptured Starodub and Pochep and, to top it all, built their fortified towns of Sebezh, Zavolochye, Velizh on Lithuanian soil. Tens of thousands of people died in these mutual raids, even more people were taken away in full. The peoples paid dearly for the arrogance of their rulers.
The most important foreign policy events of this period included the aggravated relations with the Crimea, which, in particular, prompted Moscow to conclude a five-year (until 1542) truce with Lithuania. For some time, the Crimean Khanate was, as it were, divided into two warring parts. One of them was headed by Saip-Girey, and the other was led by Islam next in seniority from the Girey family. This, of course, reduced their ability to organize major raids on neighboring countries, nevertheless, both of them, without assuming any obligations, considered it possible to demand gifts and “commemorations” from the Moscow prince, from time to time backing up their claims with local raids on Russian settlements along the banks of the Oka and Prony rivers. The situation changed for the worse after one of the Nogai princes suddenly attacked and killed Islam and Saip Giray became the sole master of the Crimea. Incited by Semyon Belsky, who sought to restore the independence of his Belsky inheritance with the help of the Lithuanians and Tatars and hoped to get the Ryazan principality in addition, the Crimean Khan, with the help of his supporters, organized a conspiracy in Kazan, as a result of which Khan Enalei, Moscow's henchman, was killed. In his place, Saip-Girey put his brother, Safa-Girey. He, not without the recommendation of his brother, stopped paying tribute to Moscow and almost immediately resumed raids on Russian lands. And from the Crimea to Moscow, demands for a “big treasury” and the renunciation of any rights to Kazan continued to pour in. The threat of a destructive raid hung over the Russian land. Under these conditions, the government of Elena Glinskaya had no choice but to, while retaining outward signs of its own greatness, for a while agree with such a balance of power. The already prepared campaign against Kazan was cancelled.
Historians are almost unanimous in their negative assessment of Yelenin's rule. However, justice requires that we still say what she managed to do. And the weak ruler and vicious woman was able to build the Kitaygorod wall in Moscow, restore the almost completely burned Yaroslavl, as well as the city walls of Vladimir and Tver, strengthen Vologda and Veliky Novgorod, build Buigorod and Ustyug, as well as towns on Balakhna and Pron.
And another significant event marked the reign of Elena Glinskaya. Under her rule, a unified monetary system was established for the Grand Duchy of Moscow. The fact is that during the time of Vasily III in Russia, deliberate damage to silver money became widespread, as a result, the weight of the coins, and consequently, the purchasing power, almost halved. "Cutters" of money and counterfeiters were executed, specific principalities were deprived of the right to pour their own coin, circulation of old money was prohibited. Since 1535, in Russia, from one hryvnia of silver (about 200 grams), they began to pour three Moscow rubles or 300 Novgorod money, on which the prince on horseback was no longer depicted with a sword in his hand, but with a spear. From here came the name - penny, penny.
Elena ruled for a little over four years. Rules without gross errors and special damage to the Russian land. On the contrary, some of her steps, or rather, the steps of her government, where Prince Ivan Fedorovich Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky played the part of the "first violin", were thought out, expedient and progressive. But the power-hungry Moscow boyars did not want to put up with the fact that all affairs in the state were run by a person who, according to the Genealogy, was lower than many of them, and in those days this was regarded only as “disgrace”. Therefore, it is not surprising that on April 3, 1538, the thirty-year-old mother of the Grand Duke died. Most historians tend to believe that she was poisoned. Russian society, not ready for a calm perception of her almost open cohabitation with Ivan Ovchina, not only indifferently, but even with some gloating, reacted to the death of the regent. This is evidenced by at least the fact that, contrary to Orthodox customs, Elena was buried on the day of her death and, as N. Karamzin noted, without a metropolitan funeral service.
And seven days later, Ivan Ovchin-Obolensky was taken into custody. They dealt with him by his own methods - they starved him to death.
Now, in the struggle for power, the powerful clans of the Shuisky princes, descendants of the Suzdal princes, supported by the Novgorodians and some members of the Rurik clan, and the Belskys, on whose side many immigrants from Lithuania spoke, clashed. But they did not fight for the Grand Duke's throne, because none of them could challenge the rights of Ivan IV. They fought for the opportunity to rule his name, which, in addition to honor and glory, gave them the opportunity for fabulous enrichment. Those who for some period of time were at the top, like predatory animals, pounced on tidbits. Ivan IV, blaming the Shuiskys, subsequently wrote to Andrei Kurbsky: “... how much evil they have done! How many boyars and governors, our father's well-wishers, were killed! They took the yards, villages and estates of our uncles and settled in them! Our mother’s treasury was transferred to a large treasury ... from the treasury of our father and grandfather they forged gold and silver vessels for themselves and wrote on them the names of their parents, as if it were hereditary property ... Then they ran into cities and villages and robbed them without mercy residents ... they made their slaves nobles ... they took immeasurable bribes from everywhere, everyone said and did according to bribes. And not only the Shuiskys did this. Each of the warring boyar families, once in power and taking advantage of the virtual lack of rights of the Grand Duke, was in a hurry to get as much as possible.
First, the Shuiskys seized power. They took into custody Prince Ivan Fedorovich Belsky, the brother of Semyon Belsky, who had left for Lithuania. They sent his advisers and assistants into exile in the villages, and the clerk Mishurin, without the sovereign's order, was put to death. At the head of the Shuisky family clan was at that time Prince Vasily Vasilyevich - the last governor of free Veliky Novgorod, the most experienced military leader, who, trying to gain a foothold on the throne, and maybe hoping to get it, if not for himself, then for his heirs, being enough advanced years, marries a young cousin of Ivan IV - Anastasia, daughter of the baptized Tatar prince Peter and sister of Vasily III - Evdokia. But their family happiness was short-lived and fruitless. Vasily soon dies, but power passes to his brother Ivan, who goes even further in the fight against his opponents. He seeks the removal from the metropolitan throne of Daniil, a supporter of Belsky, and the erection of a follower of the non-possessors, Abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Joasaph (February 1539), to the vacant seat, which, however, does not remain his ally for long. Behind the Shuiskys, he secured the release of Ivan Belsky from the Grand Duke (July 1540), which came as a complete surprise to them, in connection with which Prince Ivan Shuisky, as they said then, in his hearts stopped going to the sovereign and to the Boyar Duma.
Power for a short time passes to Belsky and Metropolitan Joasaph, supporters of a strong centralized power, thanks to whom the family of the appanage prince Andrei Ivanovich Staritsky, who died in custody, was released from custody - his wife Euphrosyne and son Vladimir. The young prince is given back his father's inheritance and real estate in Moscow. He is allowed to see the Grand Duke and have his own court, boyars and boyar children, only this court no longer consisted of those close to his deceased father, but of Moscow's proteges.
Unlike his contemporaries, Belsky, for some reason, did not use repressive measures against his ill-wishers, which was regarded by them as a weakness and, presumably, hastened the end of his reign. By January 1542, the supporters of the Shuiskys made up a new conspiracy, as a result, Ivan Belsky was removed from power, arrested again and exiled to Beloozero, where four months later he was killed by the servants of the Shuiskys. The conspirators acted no less decisively in relation to the metropolitan: they staged a real raid on him, chasing Joasaph from the metropolitan chambers to the chambers of the Grand Duke - they managed to capture him only in the courtyard of the Trinity Monastery. The Metropolitan's life hung in the balance, for Shuisky's like-minded people were already ready to kill him. Only the intervention of hegumen Alexei prevented lynching. Joasaph was deposed, exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, and in his place, to please the numerous Novgorod participants in the conspiracy, the Archbishop of Novgorod Macarius was erected, who later became one of the greatest church leaders in Russia.
It should be noted that during this coup, the Shuiskys showed not only hostility towards their opponents, but also complete disregard for the growing Ivan Vasilyevich, whose chambers they unceremoniously searched in search of adherents of their former favorite. This greatly frightened the Grand Duke and engendered in his soul a thirst for revenge. But he was too young to make independent decisions, so the Shuiskys and their supporters reveled in their power for another two whole years, infringing on Ivan IV in everyday life, humiliating his human dignity and insulting him as a sovereign. The only thing in which the Shuiskys indulged him was in the development of his negative inclinations and cruelty towards first animals, and then towards people. As for court etiquette, at all official ceremonies and receptions they were forced to fawn before the Grand Duke, showing full readiness to turn into dust at his feet. All this developed in Ivan IV, on the one hand, contempt for the caressing slaves, and on the other, hatred for the obstinate nobles who illegally stole his rights.
The last straw that overflowed the sovereign's patience was an ugly scene that took place in September 1543 at the State Council: the Shuiskys and their associates attacked Fyodor Vorontsov with their fists, whom Ivan Vasilyevich had recently brought closer to him, and nearly killed him. Only the intercession of Metropolitan Macarius and the Grand Duke saved his life, although it did not save him from arrest and exile to Kostroma. It is not known what occasion the thirteen-year-old Ivan IV took advantage of, but three months after this incident, he ordered to seize the "first adviser of the boyar" Andrei Shuisky and give him to the kennels, who, on the way to prison, killed him, baiting him with dogs. Since then, says the chronicler, the boyars began to have fear and obedience from the sovereign.
There is an assumption that this change in the attitude of the young Grand Duke towards his entourage was to some extent provoked by the Glinskys, who immediately filled the vacuum of power that had formed around the throne. The very Glinskys, who under the Shuiskys did not even dare to stutter about their rights, for some time got the opportunity not only to govern the state, but at least to profitably use their kinship with the Grand Duke. Although it must be said, the rule of the Glinskys had a positive effect on the external manifestations of the authority of the supreme power. They stopped humiliating and insulting Ivan, he was surrounded by attention and even subservience. However, condoning the evil inclinations of the prince-lad, the Glinskys did not forget about their own interests. They placed governors everywhere from among their adherents, who migrated from Lithuania, South Russia and Seversk land. Those, in turn, feeling high patronage wherever they could, enriched themselves at the expense of the people, while allowing themselves all sorts of excesses and self-will. Under them, bribery, violence and robbery spread with renewed vigor. The disgrace of the boyars that happened from time to time either bore the imprint of revenge for previous insults inflicted on the Grand Duke in childhood, or were the result of the intrigues of new temporary workers. The boyars Ivan Kubensky, Pyotr Shuisky, Alexander Gorbaty, Dmitry Paletsky, Fedor Vorontsov were out of favor. Even then, the unrestrained character of the young sovereign, his tyranny and despotism began to appear. Considering himself the sovereign master of the Russian land, and all the people inhabiting it as his slaves, he, without much thought, passed death sentences on one and cruel punishments on others. By his order, in particular, Prince Trubetskoy and the son of Ivan Ovchina-Obolensky Fedor, a participant in the sovereign's gallant amusements, were strangled. By his verdict, Prince Kubensky and two Vorontsov brothers were executed, falsely accused of inciting Novgorod archers to disobedience. And in total, by order of a thirteen-year-old boy, eight people were executed. Is it a lot or a little? If for Europe with its Louis XI, the “artist of torture”, with Vlad Dracula, who fought poverty and disease through the mass burning of the sick and poor, with Cesare Borgia, a medieval fiend, eight people were mere trifles, then in Moscow Russia, where for throughout the reign of Ivan III and Vasily III, there were fewer death sentences, such a number of executed nobles shocked public opinion. We are no longer talking about such “pranks” of the sovereign as burning the beards of the Pskov complainants and pouring hot wine on them, which got into the annals as an example of sophisticated villainy.
But evil is evil, and cruelty is cruelty. Unlike evil, cruelty can count on explanation and understanding with great success. In a critical situation, it is cruelty that may be the only correct means of correcting the situation. Although it cannot be said that all these murders and disgrace were of an extreme nature and the situation could not be corrected in other ways. The wise Metropolitan Macarius, realizing this, mitigated their consequences as far as possible. Nevertheless, we must admit that cruelty paid off: the boyars realized that their autocracy was coming to an end.
Everything flows, everything changes. New “players” appear on the domestic political arena and old ones are reanimated. The voice of Maxim Grek, who is in custody, sounds again. His efforts aimed at uniting all Orthodox churches, his criticism of church and secular nobles who subject poor people to cruel exploitation, his calls for the establishment of justice on earth find a lively response from both clergy and laity. The question arises again about the relationship between church and state, priesthood and kingdom. If Maxim the Greek, the priest Yermolai, the monk Artemy gave priority to the priesthood, then the former subject of the Polish king, Ivan Peresvetov, was an ardent ideologue of autocracy and a strong central government. The nobleman Matvey Bashkin, being one of the first publicists opposed to the government, not only criticized serfdom, but also questioned the previously inviolable dogmas of Holy Scripture.
The society was updated, and with it the inner circle of the Grand Duke. The Metropolitan played an important role in this. Macarius became the primate, as we remember, in 1542 at the insistence of the Novgorod participants in another Shuisky conspiracy, however, contrary to their expectations, he did not turn into their slander and ally in weakening the already established centralized state. In the teenage years of the Grand Duke and in the first years of his primacy, Macarius did not openly interfere in politics, with the exception of petitions for the condemned. He, if I may say so, prepared the ground, tried to create an environment and conditions for the future fair rule of the younger Ivan Vasilyevich. Thanks to the metropolitan, the future tsar joined the study of history, Holy Scripture and church service books. Among the confidants of the "sovereign madman", at the insistence of Macarius, there appeared people of no nobility, but sincerely wishing well-being to their fatherland and their people. At first their role was imperceptible, the situation was dangerous, but in the end the tactics chosen by the metropolitan paid off. By his coming of age, the Grand Duke was already quite ready to take on the royal title, which, on the one hand, would finally distinguish him from the mass of princely families, raise him above them, and on the other hand, help to realize the responsibility as a Christian ruler of the Third Rome.
In December 1546, sixteen-year-old Ivan summoned the Metropolitan and the boyars to his office and announced that he intended to marry, but not to a foreign princess. He asked to hold a competition of brides in his state not only among the girls of princely and boyar families, but also among the daughters of boyar children. However, before marrying, the prince wanted to take on the royal dignity and marry the kingdom. This desire, according to N.I. Kostomarov, was motivated by two reasons: firstly, Ivan IV, as the grandson of Sophia Palaiologos, could consider himself the heir of the Byzantine emperors (Caesars); and secondly, on the territory of Russia, he was a kind of successor to the power of the khans (kings) of the Golden Horde. For greater persuasiveness of the alleged action, a fairy tale-legend, composed in Lithuania, was used about the origin of Rurik from the descendants of the brother of the Roman emperor Augustus named Prus, who once moved to the Baltic states.
The ceremony of crowning the kingdom took place on January 16, 1547. In a solemn atmosphere, with a confluence of a large number of people, Metropolitan Macarius in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin laid on the young tsar a hat, barmas and the chain of Vladimir Monomakh. This was preceded by a church prayer service with a specially written prayer, in which the primate asked God to strengthen Ivan "on the throne of justice ... give him victory over the barbarians ... make him a wise guardian of the church ... give justice to the people, take care of the poor."
And by that time the bride was ready. The choice of the “competition commission” and the tsar himself fell on the girl of one of the most noble and ancient Moscow boyar families, whose founder, Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla, once came from Prussia. The daughter of the deceased Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin-Koshkin, Anastasia, became the first Russian tsarina. Some were encouraged, and some were upset. “The sovereign offended us with his marriage,” representatives of the princely families said, “he took the boyar’s daughter, his slave, as a bride. And we must serve her as if she were our sister.” And isn't this unkindness in thirteen years will cause Anastasia's premature death?
| |
The death of Vasily the Dark was preceded by dramatic events in Moscow. Once upon a time, during exile in Uglich, Prince Vasily Yaroslavich Borovsky helped the newly blinded Vasily to free himself. Then he went over to the side of Shemyaka, was captured by Vasily II and was imprisoned in the same Uglich. In 1462, Vasily II became aware that Borovsky's supporters decided to release him from prison. He ordered the conspirators to be seized, delivered to Moscow and "executed, beaten and tortured, dragged with horses throughout the city and in all auctions, and then ordered to cut off their heads." As the chronicler writes further, “a multitude of people, from boyars, and from big merchants, and from priests, and from ordinary people, seeing this, were horrified and surprised, and it was pitiful to see how the eyes of everyone filled with tears, because never nothing like this was heard or seen among the princes of Russia, to be executed with such executions and shed blood in the holy Great Lent, and it is unworthy of an Orthodox great sovereign. The brave chronicler wrote these lines! But 100 years will pass, and his successors - fellow writers - will almost indifferently list thousands of martyrs mercilessly torn to pieces by the ferocious Ivan the Terrible and his guardsmen, and crowds of townspeople will quickly get used to the blood shed on the streets and will even run to the execution, as if on a holiday, to crowd at the scaffold so that - for good luck! - wet a handkerchief with the blood of the executed or cut off a piece of the rope of the hanged. This episode testified to the advent of new, terrible times of Moscow autocracy.
Vasily II himself did not die quite normally. He began to become numb in some parts of the body so that the prince applied kindled tinder to them and did not feel pain. Then pus came out of the wounds and Vasily "fell into a serious illness", from which he did not come out.
Ivan III Vasilievich
From an early age, Prince Ivan (born in 1440) experienced the horrors of internecine strife. He was with his father on the very day when the people of Shemyaka forcibly dragged Vasily II out of the church in order to blind him. In the confusion, Ivan and his brother Yuri managed to escape to their relatives. He had no childhood - from the age of 10 (in 1450) he became co-ruler of his blind father, sat next to him on the throne and was called the Grand Duke. At the age of 12, he was married to the young Maria, the daughter of the Tver prince Boris Alexandrovich. In total, Ivan III Vasilyevich stayed in power for 55 years! And of these, he ruled independently for 43 years.
According to the foreigner who saw him, he was a tall, handsome, thin man. He also had two nicknames: “Humpbacked” - it is clear that Ivan was stooping, and “Terrible”. The last nickname was later forgotten - his grandson Ivan IV turned out to be even more formidable. Ivan III was power-hungry, cruel, cunning. He also remained stern towards his loved ones: he starved his brother Andrei to death in prison.
Ivan was distinguished by the outstanding gift of a politician and diplomat. He could wait for years, slowly move towards his goal and achieve it without serious losses. This happened with the liberation from the Tatar yoke, with the conquest of Tver and Novgorod. Ivan III became a true "collector" of lands. Ivan annexed some quietly and peacefully (Yaroslavl and Rostov principalities), conquered others by force (Chernigov-Seversk land, Bryansk). The campaigns of his troops to the northeast were crowned with success - Ivan took over Vyatka, Yugra land along the banks of the Pechera River. Under him, Moscow power was also established in the Urals, and in 1472 the Perm land that belonged to Novgorod was subordinated to Moscow.
By the end of Ivan's life, the Moscow principality had increased 6 times! As S. Herberstein, the Austrian ambassador at the court of Vasily III, wrote: “As a rule, he never fought in battles and yet he always won, so the great Stefan, the famous governor of Moldavia, often commemorated him at feasts, saying that he , sitting at home and indulging in sleep, multiplies his power, and he (Stefan), fighting daily, is hardly able to defend his borders.
Vasily Makarovich Shukshin is an actor, director, screenwriter and writer. His last film work was the role of the soldier Lopakhin in the film "They Fought for the Motherland." On October 2, 1974, two days before the end of filming, which took place in the Don village of Kletskaya, Shukshin was found dead in the cabin of the Danube motor ship, on which the film crew lived. The official diagnosis is heart failure. However, even before the funeral, many were sure that Vasily Makarovich had been killed.
Why did rumors spread about the murder of Shukshin
The last person Vasily Makarovich talked to was his shooting partner and best friend Georgy Burkov. He also discovered the body. According to Burkov's memoirs, Shukshin's manuscripts were scattered around the cabin, although the porthole was closed and there should have been no draft. Shukshin was distinguished by accuracy and could not arrange such a mess himself. Everyone who first appeared at the site of the tragedy had the impression that they were looking for something among the writer's papers.
An important detail - there was a sharp smell of cinnamon in the cabin. This is what heart attack gas smells like, causing heart spasms. Witnesses testified that Shukshin was lying in a twisted position, and papers were lying around him. In the photographs of forensic experts, he lies evenly, hands at his heart, and around - order.
His wife, actress Larisa Fedoseeva-Shukshina, was also sure that Vasily Makarovich was killed, who claimed that a strange man of short stature was following her husband back in Moscow. She noticed him on the set of the film. The actor's wife says that director Sergei Bondarchuk knew this man, but he refused to tell her his name.
The official conclusion on the death of Shukshin, which was made by pathologist Avtandilov, is heart failure. However, the actor suffered from a stomach ulcer, and for this reason, before filming, he even lay in a Moscow hospital, where specialists conducted a complete examination of him, including a cardiogram, which did not reveal any heart problems in a known patient. This document is still kept in the Shukshin family.
Meeting in Volgograd
The cameraman Anatoly Zabolotsky and Shukshin were connected by friendship and joint shooting of the films "Kalina Krasnaya" and "Stove-shops". A few years after the death of a friend, Anatoly Dmitrievich ended up in Volgograd. There he met a man who introduced himself as Alexei and said that he had read his book "Shukshin in the frame and behind the scenes." He really wanted to tell the details of the evacuation of the body of Shukshin from the Danube ship, since in 1974 he was part of the group involved in this matter.
Alexey said that he arrived on the ship to transport the corpse on October 2, but the order to remove the body was postponed. Shukshin had to stay in the cabin until the arrival of the forensic experts. He was lying across the bed in his clothes, but they shifted him, took off his outer clothes and boots. Aleksey's group was led by an unknown man - short, broad-shouldered and without a neck. Leaving the cabin, he rudely ordered to put it in order and fold all the scattered papers.
Anatoly Zabolotsky recalled that all this was said by Alexei in a patter, after which he quickly disappeared into the crowd. If Shukshin was killed, then only the KGB or high-ranking officials from Moscow had the opportunity to carry out such an operation. Supporters of the version of Shukshin's murder, in addition to his wife, were friends Georgy Burkov, Alexei Vanin, Anatoly Zabolotsky, director Sergei Bondarchuk, actor Pankratov-Cherny.
Why could Shukshin be killed
In the mid-1970s, two opposing groups formed in the Central Committee of the party - "Westerners" and "pochvenniki". More than 62 million people watched Shukshin's last film, which made Vasily Makarovich a "people's star". The then General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev also liked the tape.
The new status and support of Bondarchuk made it possible to shoot a film about Stepan Razin, the script for which was written based on Shukshin's novel "I came to give you freedom." In September 1974, the Artistic Council approved the script, and shooting was scheduled for the end of the autumn of that year. Even the literary persecution of Shukshin did not interfere with the decision of the commission, which, it is believed, began with the filing of "Westerners" who were afraid of the increase in Vasily Makarovich's influence on the people.
How would a Soviet person react to the image of Stepan Razin performed by Shukshin? People close to the actor are sure that they killed him precisely because of the future film and the ideas that the film was intended to promote. A movie hero - a fighter against tsarism, could provoke, in addition to interest in national culture, a revolt of the people, and Shukshin himself could become the embodiment of a renewed Russian person.
Chronicle of a dying "god" (causes of death of Ivan the Terrible's father) March 7th, 2011
Translated into modern Russian, this case history looks something like this (ellipsis - the text I deleted):
Man 54 years old. He fell ill on October 1, 1534. On the bend of the thigh of the left leg, in the groin area, a small sore the size of a pinhead appeared; “There is no crust on it, there is no pus in it, but it is purple itself.”
Riding a horse became difficult for the patient because of the pain. A week later, he could no longer sit but only lay in bed. There could be a little.
They began to treat with the application of wheat flour with unleavened honey and baked onions to the sore, from which the sore began to turn red; ... "and appeared on the sore as if a small pimple, and a little pus appeared in it." This went on for two weeks.
Pus practically did not come out of the sore, “there was no crust on it, but the wound was as if something was stuck in it: it neither increases nor decreases.” They began to apply ointment to the sore, pus came out of it, at first a little, and then up to the half-pelvis and over the whole pelvis. The patient's mood was depressed and "at the same time, his chest was severely squeezed." For relief, they used three-day pots and seeds, and from this "everything went down", but the disease did not recede. From that moment on, he practically stopped eating.
On October 26, the patient's condition worsened to such an extent that he redoes his will.
.... On November 5, at night, the amount of leaked pus already exceeded one pelvis, and a rod came out of the sore - more than thirty centimeters in size, but not all. Thinking that this was a sign of recovery, the patient's mood improved. In addition, the tumor decreased a little from the new ointment ... He did not get out of bed at all, he lay all the time; and turn him over from one side to the other, because he himself could no longer do it.
Eventually, he stopped feeling pain; his wound did not increase, but only the smell from it was heavy and liquid oozed from it, as from a corpse.
Before his death, the patient ceased to speak the language, and then his right hand ceased to rise.
Death came on December 3, 1534 at midnight. After death, he turned white, the smell from the wound disappeared and, moreover, became pleasant.
The first reconstruction of this disease was made in the early 19th century. It has been suggested that Basil III died of vered (boil) . Apparently, doctors do not consider the version with the poisoning of the grand ducal person. Methods of treating the patient, namely the application of baked onions, were common for the treatment of abscesses in medieval Russia.
Unfortunately, we do not know the composition of the ointment with which the "sore" was treated. But judging by her actions, it is unlikely that she made the patient worse.
It is curious that the doctors who treated the Grand Duke survived after his death (back in the 15th century, such an outcome of the treatment of the most august persons ended with the death penalty). There were no charges of poisoning either.
Although this is weak, it is nevertheless confirmation of the fact that everything possible was done for that level of medicine. And everyone agreed with this.
From the point of view of modern medicine, Vasily III's disease was most likely a purulent inflammation of the hip joint (purulent arthritis) . Treatment is through injections of antibiotics, and in advanced cases, surgery.
Also, given the lethality of the disease, it can be assumed that we are talking about one of the most common infections of the Middle Ages - tuberculosis. As an example, the death of Prince Vasily the Dark in 1462 from pulmonary tuberculosis ("dry disease"). In the case of Vasily III, it was generalized tuberculosis - bone, with a leak and pulmonary tuberculosis (consumption).
Total:
Both probable diseases of Vasily III suggest changes in the bones of the patient, which can be established during the exhumation of the body. His tomb is located in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin among the graves of other Russian princes of the pre-Roman era. The immuredness of this (as well as the rest) burial is amazing. It remains to be hoped that science will be given an opportunity to establish the truth ...
Literature
