Ivan the Terrible (80 page)

49
Quoted by Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, p. 146.

50
And so do many historians on very little solid evidence, e.g. the assumption that Vladimir of Staritsa must have wanted to be Tsar.

51
Henry VIII had enacted a law entitling the King to name the heir to the throne, after the death of his bastard son, the Duke of Richmond, which is an anticipation of the similar law passed by Peter I of Russia in 1721. The succession was fairly irregular throughout Europe in the sixteenth century as many dynasties died out.

52
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, p. 147.

53
It is noteworthy that much later Boris Godunov feared that Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich (see below, ch. XVIII) who was related to both Ivan and Maria Temriukovna could be a rival Tsar to him, and allegedly had him blinded to disqualify him for rule.

54
See for the descendants of the Patrikeevs, A.A. Zimin,
Formirovanie boyarskoy aristokratii
…, pp. 30ff. They included the Golitsyns, Bulgakovs, Shcheniatevs, Kurakins, and many others. Evfrosin'ya of Staritsa was a descendant of the Patrikeev clan.

55
See, for a general discussion, O.P. Backus, ‘Treason as a Concept and Defections from Moscow to Lithuania in the Sixteenth Century’,
FOG
, 15, pp. 119–44. Nor was it, as R. Pipes suggests, equivalent to apostasy since there were many Orthodox princes and churches in Lithuania and indeed the daughter of Ivan III had married King Alexander of Lithuania–Poland who was a Catholic.

56
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, p. 147

57
See the extremely useful survey by Horace W. Dewey and Ann M. Kleimola, ‘Suretyship and Collective Responsibility in pre-Petrine Russia’,
JGOE,
18, 1970, pp. 337–54. This article, together with a second one by the same authors referring more particularly to criminal responsibility, ‘From the Kinship Group to Every Man His Brother's Keeper: Collective Responsibility in Pre-Petrine Russia’,
JGOE,
30, 1982, pp. 321–35 are absolutely fundamental for the understanding not only of administration in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Russia but also of the way things worked at all levels of society. I disagree with the authors, however, where they state that ‘The principle of collective responsibility emerged as one of the key tools of authoritarian rule in Russia.’ I do not think it emerged specifically with authoritarianism in mind. It emerged in many countries including Russia as a means of ensuring that certain necessary public functions would be performed in a period in which there was no state organization to see to it, indeed in which the state did not yet in fact exist, and in which such functions were carried out by nobles, gentry, peasant elders, etc., however inadequately. Cf. the concept of frank-pledge in England.

58
See for instance the execution of Kurbsky's servant Shibanov (above, p. 164 and n. 24) and the later execution of Fedorov's servants.

59
See Veselovsky, ‘Pobegi za granitsu i poruchnyye zapisi’ in
Issledovania
, pp. 118ff. for a careful analysis of the social situation at court.

60
See J.R. Lander, ‘Bonds, Coercion and Fear’, in
Florilegium Historiale, Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson
, Toronto University Press, 1971, pp. 327–67. Bonds and recognizances had existed intermittently in England under Henry V and Henry VI. Under Henry VII sums involved ranged up to £10.000. ‘Among peers Henry VIII cancelled at least forty-five recognizances imposed by Henry VII during the first year of his reign and one hundred and thirty more over the next five years.’ In Scotland a different system flourished by which nobles bound themselves to each other, but not to the king, for the fulfilment of given obligations. See J. Wormald,
Lords and Men in Scotland, Bonds of Manrent 1442–1603
, Edinburgh University Press, 1985.

61
Poslania Ivana Groznogo
, p. 389.

62
Ibid., pp. 17, 291.

63
Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, p. 188.

1
PSRL
, XIII, pt 2, pp. 391ff. See also ‘Poslanie Ioganna Taube i Elerta Kruze’, Iohann Taube und Eilhard Kruse', ed. M.G. Roginsky,
Russkii istoricheskii zhurnal,
1922, pp. 8–59. I have only been able to make use of a Russian
translation which may distort the meaning of sixteenth-century words, for instance the word
soslovie
is used, which only began to be used in the nineteenth century. The suggestion that Ivan stripped the monasteries and churches of Moscow of their icons and treasure is rejected by Roginsky (op. cit., p. 14). I propose to use both the standard description of events in the chronicle, as supervised by Ivan himself and that produced by Taube and Kruse, who were eye-witnesses, trying of course to whitewash their own roles in Russia, but where their interests were not involved, usually reliable. Heinrich von Staden who served Ivan for a number of years refers in his
The Land and Government of Muscovy
, ed. and tr. by T. Esper Stanford, 1967, to ‘an insurrection’, presumably in Moscow, in December 1564, which led Ivan to leave Moscow (p. 18). There is no confirmation elsewhere of this insurrection.

2
The text in the Chronicle is somewhat different but conveys the same meaning. A speech is not mentioned but a letter dated 3 January 1565 describes the treason of the boyars and Ivan's anger with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the boyars and all his servants. This was because during his youth they had robbed him right and left, taken no care of Orthodox Christianity and had refused to fight against the Crimeans, and the ‘Tsar and grand prince, out of the great pity in his heart, and not wanting to tolerate their treasonable activities is leaving his state and will go where God disposes’.

3
Zimin,
Oprichnina
, pp. 127ff. There is some inconsistency in the chronology of events as described by Taube and Kruse who also imply that Ivan was aware of a rejection of himself and his heirs (see also Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo
, pp. 213ff.). But N.I. Kostomarov, according to Zimin, p. 131, suggests that some kind of
Zemskii Sobor
was sitting in that autumn and that Ivan failed to put his policy through, and fearing a revolt he left Moscow. According to him, the story of the people coming to appeal to Ivan to return to his capital was a later invention inserted into the Chronicle but does not reflect what actually happened. See also S.O. Schmidt, ‘K istorii soborov XVI v’,
Istoricheskie Zapiski
, 79, 1965, pp. 120–51.

4
This is rather an exaggeration, as in January they would all have died. The most likely meaning of this tale is that they had to leave behind any ceremonial robes and headgear they were wearing.

5
It is not clear whether there were two missives to the Metropolitan. One is more likely but there is a considerable discrepancy between the Chronicle and the account of Taube and Kruse.

6
Zimin,
Oprichnina
, p. 131, seems to accept that this was a
Zemskii Sobor
. This seems again a confusion between an institution and an occasional public gathering.

7
Zimin,
Oprichnina
, p. 130, suggests that the boyars' guilt was indicated by their willingness to sign surety bonds in large sums of money to protect each other.

8
These missives have not survived, but their content is known from the summaries in the chronicles.

9
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, pp.176ff. Floria suggests that this missive was probably very much longer than what has survived in the chronicle and might have been in the nature of a manifesto. For Skrynnikov it is an answer to Kurbsky's letter of April 1564. There is also an echo in Ivan's words according to the chronicle of what he allegedly said several days earlier as reported by Taube and Kruse.

10
PSRL
, XIII, pt 2, pp. 392–3.

11
Ibid., p. 180.

12
It is the procession of the people of Moscow led by Pimen and Levkii as portrayed in Eisenstein's film which so impressed the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, as to make him identify himself with a man so loved by his people
as Ivan the Terrible. According to Albert Schlichting, Ivan declared that he was bowed down by the weight of ruling, wanted to give it up and live a holy and monastic life in solitude (quoted in Zimin,
Oprichnina
, p. 130, n. 1). Schlichting was a Pomeranian who had been captured in battle and remained in Russian captivity for seven years. He knew Russian and German and found work as translator for Ivan's foreign physician. He fled Russia in 1571 and wrote his ‘A Brief Account of the Character and Brutal Rule of Ivan Vasil'evich Tyrant of Muscovy’, and a shorter ‘News from Muscovy concerning the Life and the Tyranny of Prince Ivan’, both of which were translated from a Latin copy and published by H. Graham,
Canadian American Slavic Studies
, IX, No. 2, Summer 1975, pp. 204–72, with very useful notes. The original was probably in German; a Latin MS has survived, now in Harvard University, but the Latin version which was prepared in 1572 for the Vatican seems to have disappeared.

13
Skrynnikov, passim, suggests that Ivan addressed a meeting of the Boyar Council in Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda. I find this unconvincing.

14
Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora,
pp 208–9. But see Schlichting, ‘A Brief Account …’, p. 218. Seeing that Schlichting's account was written in late 1570 the story of the abdication was probably remembered in a distorted form. The will will be dealt with later, see below, Chapter XIX.

15
Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, p. 240; cf. Kurbsky,
History
, p. 47. Taube and Kruse, ‘Poslanie loganna …’, pp. 33–4 who however call him Cheliadnin Barbatta, an evident confusion between Fedorov Cheliadnin and Gorbaty-Shuisky.

16
Taube and Kruse, op. cit., pp. 32 and 34. They mention a certain Garbato, evidently a distortion of Gorbatov, as having been accused by the Tsar of conspiring to place himself on the throne.

17
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, p. 193; see also Staden,
Land and Government
, p. 17, who attributed to the Metropolitan the power to take a prisoner sentenced to death from a jailer and set him free.

18
The word was derived from
oprich
meaning ‘besides’ or ‘except’, i.e., set aside, and was akin to
krome
.

19
See above, p. 175.

20
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, p. 183.

21
See above, note 16.

22
See above, Chapter X, p. 166.

23
Kurbsky,
History
, pp. 185–6.

24
Zimin,
Oprichnina
, p. 134, note 4.

25
Taube and Kruse, ‘Poslanie loganna …’, give 8 January, Zimin,
Oprichnina
, gives 2 February and Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, 15 February.

26
Karamzin,
Istoria
, IX, ch. 1, pp. 50–1.

27
Mikhail Temriukovich, brother of Maria.

28
Staden,
Land and Government
, pp. 48ff.

29
Zimin,
Oprichnina
, pp. 136–7 points out that both Taube and Kruse and Kurbsky (
History,
p. 183) relate this incident; it is possible that he incurred the particular wrath of Ivan as a member of the Obolensky clan. See Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, p. 242, for details of the extermination of this clan.

30
Note that in England the property of those executed on a bill of attainder passed in Parliament was also confiscated. This loophole was extensively used by both Henry VII and Henry VIII.

31
Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, p. 243.

32
Ibid., p. 218.

33
In Suzdal' 612 service gentry were serving in the regiments, in Mozhaisk 486, in Viaz'ma 314. Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, p. 221.

34
S.N. Bogatyrev,
The Sovereign and His Councillors
, p. 217.

35
Taube and Kruse, ‘Poslanie loganna …’, p. 35.

36
Ibid., p. 38.

37
Ibid., p. 36. The two have an interest in painting the scene in particularly black colours, but there is enough evidence to show that they were not far wrong.

38
Likhachev and Lur'e, eds,
Poslania Ivana Groznogo,
Ivan to Vasily Griaznoi, 1574, pp. 371–2.

39
See Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, pp. 247ff. for a list of the Iaroslavskys, Rostovskys, Starodubskys, Obolenskys, untitled boyars and
pomeshchiki
who were expelled to Kazan' in 1565.

40
It is noteworthy that Kurbsky who belonged to the Iaroslavsky princes was outraged by the confiscation of the lands of some of them. In 1603 Prince D.M. Pozharsky, the future hero of the Time of Troubles, petitioned Tsar Boris Godunov about the lands confiscated from his grandfather who had been exiled to Kazan', ibid., pp. 245 and 252.

41
Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora
, p. 262, note 25.

42
See above, Chapter VII, p. 113.

43
Ibid., p. 221.

44
Karamzin,
Istoria
, IX, ch. 3, p. 53.

45
Notably Platonov who is positively scathing about the notion. On the other hand Floria, writing in 1999, points out that according to all the evidence, Ivan ‘fell for’ Maria,
Ivan Groznyi
, p. 139.

46
Quoted by H. Graham, in Schlichting, ‘News from Muscovy …’ p. 263, note 175.

47
Staden,
Land and Government
, pp. 17–18. The social composition of the
oprichiniki
as given by Staden differs somewhat from that given by most Russian historians, in that he says it was drawn from the
strel'tsy
, who were not gently born. He also stresses the presence of foreigners.