The correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Prince Kurbsky is a unique monument of Russian medieval journalism. It is a valuable source of information about the socio-political structure of the Moscow state of the XVI century, about its ideology and culture. In addition, the letters reveal the character of Ivan IV, his worldview and psychological make-up are manifested - extremely important factors for studying the history of autocratic rule. An analysis of Kurbsky's correspondence with Ivan the Terrible will be presented to your attention later.
Previous events
Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky came from an ancient and noble boyar family. He was born in 1528 in the family of the Moscow governor Mikhail Mikhailovich Kurbsky. Entering the state service, Andrei Mikhailovich participated in numerous militarycampaigns - already in 1549 he was in the rank of stolnik in the army that went to take Kazan. After that, the prince was entrusted with the protection of the southwestern borders from the raids of the Crimean Tatars. In 1552, during a new big campaign against Kazan, he already commanded a regiment of his right hand and showed himself in the best possible way, first repelling the attack of the Crimean Khan near Tula, and then successfully acting in the capture of the capital of the Kazan Khanate. During these years, the prince was one of the tsar's close associates and, apparently, was considered one of the most capable military leaders of the Muscovite state. In 1554 and 1556 Andrei Kurbsky is entrusted with suppressing the uprisings of the Tatars and Cheremis.
In 1558, the Livonian War began. At its very beginning, Prince Kurbsky commands one of the regiments of a large Moscow army, which devastates Livonia and captures rich booty. The following year, Andrei Mikhailovich again sent to the southern borders of the Moscow state - to protect the border regions from the raids of the Crimean Tatars. However, already in 1559 he reappeared in Livonia and won several victories over the enemy. Failure befell him in the battle near Nevel in 1562, when Kurbsky, having a significant advantage over the enemy, could not defeat the Lithuanian detachment. In the same year, the prince took part in a large campaign against Polotsk.
In political terms, Andrei Mikhailovich was close to the favorites of the first years of the reign of Ivan IV - Archpriest Sylvester and boyar Alexei Adashev (the so-called "Chosen Rada"). However, in the second half of the 1550s, the attitude of the king towards his advisers changed - Sylvester and Adashevend up in exile, their supporters are disgraced. Fearing that he would suffer the same fate, Kurbsky in 1563 (or, according to some reports, in 1564) fled with his servants to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. From there, he sent a letter to the Moscow Tsar, which serves as the beginning of the correspondence.
Chronology of messages
Ivan the Terrible answered Kurbsky's first letter in the summer of 1564. In 1577, after a campaign against Livonia, the tsar sent a new letter to the defector, and in 1579 the prince sent two answers to Moscow at once - to the first and second letters of John Vasilyevich. Thus, the correspondence lasted for fifteen years, which is very important from the point of view of external circumstances. The flight of Kurbsky coincided with a turning point in the Livonian War, which had previously been successfully developing for the Muscovite kingdom. However, by the end of the 1570s, the Russian troops were already in the position of the defending side, faced with a coalition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Sweden, they suffered one defeat after another. Crisis phenomena were also growing in the internal affairs of the Muscovite kingdom - the country experienced the introduction and abolition of the oprichnina, the devastating raid of the Crimean Khan, who in 1571 reached Moscow and burned its settlements, the boyars experienced several stages of bloody repressions, and the population was exhausted by long wars.
Correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky: originality of genre and style
I. Grozny and A. Kurbsky argued in the genre of epistolary journalism. The letters combine the rationale for politicalviews of opponents, religious dogmas and at the same time a lively, almost colloquial style, sometimes on the verge of "going personal".
In the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and A. Kurbsky (genre - epistolary journalism), on the one hand, a struggle of theoretical approaches is manifested, on the other hand, two complex characters collide with serious mutual claims of a personal nature.
Tsar's letters are more characterized by lengthy narratives, emotional attacks on the opponent. On the one hand, Ivan IV sets out his position more eloquently, on the other hand, it seems that he is often overwhelmed by feelings - logical arguments are interspersed with insults, royal thought jumps from one subject to another.
Ivan the Terrible also fails to stay within a strict stylistic framework. Competent literary language is suddenly replaced by colloquial turns, Ivan Vasilyevich writes, ignoring the generally accepted rules of rhetoric, sometimes resorting to outright rudeness.
What are you, a dog, having committed such villainy, writing and complaining! What is your advice that stinks worse than feces?
In general, this style corresponds to the personality of the king, who, according to contemporaries, was smart and well-read, but mentally and emotionally unstable. His lively mind, under the influence of external circumstances, often developed not rational, balanced plans, but far-fetched, sometimes seemingly painful, fantasies and hasty conclusions.
Kurbsky also sometimes writes quite emotionally (it should be borne in mind that for him the relationship of the tsar with the boyars isdeeply personal matter), but his style is still stricter and more concise. Moreover, the prince is rather critical of Grozny's "broadcast and noisy" message. Indeed, for a noble and educated person of that time, the elements of colloquial and almost “swearing” speech in the monarch’s letter seem inappropriate and even scandalous.
However, Andrei Mikhailovich himself does not remain in debt. He not only reproaches the tsar with innocently ruined lives, but also allows himself rather caustic and sarcastic reproaches. It should be borne in mind that the autocrat, who was basically intolerant of criticism of his actions, could not calmly endure such insolence (especially since the development of the political situation rather confirmed Kurbsky's correctness).
It is wrong, however, to perceive the correspondence solely as a "private dispute" between two persons, and even more so a squabble between opponents. It is more likely that each of its participants proceeded from the publicity of the messages, considering the messages as part of an open discussion that will become public knowledge, therefore, they sought not only to hurt the opponent, but also to substantiate their own point of view.
Correspondence between Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible: summary
The central issue of the controversy between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky was the relationship between the tsarist government and the higher nobility.
The prince accuses the king of unreasonable persecution of his loyal subjects, John replies with accusations of treason, intrigues and intrigues. Each of them gives a number of examples in support ofof their rightness, but behind private claims one can clearly see the struggle of two ideas: about the perniciousness of imperious arbitrariness and about the inadmissibility of limiting an autocratic monarch.
Of course, one should not expect any coherent political and legal theory from the correspondence - both authors argue in terms of the level of "good advisers", "evil tyrants" and "traitor-boyars". They also do not have any normative justification - Kurbsky refers to some former customs, when the tsars respected the boyar estate and listened to advice. Ivan the Terrible objects in the spirit of "we have always been free to favor our serfs, we were also free to execute." The tsar’s appeal to the old order did not find understanding at all - for him, the participation of “good advisers” in government was associated with the lawlessness that took place during the struggle of boyar groups when John was still a child.
I was eight years old at that time; and so our subjects achieved the fulfillment of their desires - they received a kingdom without a ruler, but for us, their sovereigns, they did not show any care of the heart, they themselves rushed to we alth and glory, and at the same time quarreled with each other. And what have they not done!
Both Ivan Vasilyevich and Prince Andrei were experienced statesmen, so they confirm their opinions with examples from their own biography. The level of political and legal thought in Russia in the 16th century did not at all imply the existence of deeply developed theories about the structure of the state (with the exception, perhaps, of the development of the thesis that all power is from God).
FromThe summary of Kurbsky’s correspondence with Ivan the Terrible shows that if the tsar clearly formulates his ideas about the correct political model (in relation to an absolute monarchy, this is generally not difficult), then Kurbsky rather expresses an opinion about the specific actions of the sovereign, his relations with subjects, and not about the organization of state administration. In any case, he does not formulate any system of limiting the autocratic monarchy (even if he has it in mind) - the requirement not to execute his faithful servants without guilt and to obey good advice can hardly be regarded as such. In this regard, it should be recognized as justified the opinion of V. O. Klyuchevsky that the parties in this dispute do not listen well to each other.
Why are you beating us, your faithful servants? - asks Prince Kurbsky. - No, - Tsar Ivan answers him, - Russian autocrats from the beginning own their own kingdoms, and not boyars and nobles.
Of course, behind the claims and reproaches of Kurbsky are the interests of specific political groups, their opinion regarding the proper relationship between the tsar and the boyars, but at the same time, nowhere in his letters does the prince dispute the autocratic rights of the Moscow sovereign, and even more so does not express an opinion on separation of powers. In turn, Ivan the Terrible, of course, does not justify cruel tyrants, but indicates that these claims do not apply to him, since he punishes only traitors and villains.
Of course, with such approaches to the discussion, it was hardly possible to expect constructive results.
Religious component of correspondence
Both sides constantly turn to the Holy Scriptures, backing up their theses with quotes from it. It should be borne in mind that religion at that time, in principle, was the unconditional basis of the worldview of any person. Christian texts were the basis of any "scholarship", in fact, in the absence of a developed scientific method at that time, religion was almost the only (with the exception of empirical) way of knowing the world.
In addition, the idea of the supremacy of God's power implied that the biblical canon is an unconditional criterion for the correctness of certain ideas or actions.
But in the religious field, the king and prince demonstrate different approaches. Kurbsky cites the Commandments and criticism of cruel tyrants, drawing attention to the fact that Ivan's policy has little in common with the humanistic messages of Holy Scripture. The tsar (by the way, he knew church books, according to contemporaries who quoted long fragments from memory) in turn reminded Kurbsky of the biblical thesis about the divine origin of power (“Why did you despise the Apostle Paul, who says: Every soul obeys the authorities; there is no power not from God…”) and the need to humbly accept all life’s trials, which Kurbsky’s escape to Lithuania clearly did not correspond to.
According to the analysis of Ivan the Terrible's correspondence with Andrei Kurbsky, a serious reproach was the accusation of the prince of violating the oath (kissing the cross).
In addition, we should not forget that Ivan IV considered himself the only trulyChristian (Orthodox) monarch and regarded Kurbsky's departure to the Catholic Sigismund as a betrayal of the true faith.
Obviously, with such approaches, Christian dogmas could not reconcile the participants in the correspondence.
Issues of the authenticity of correspondence
In 1971, the famous American historian, researcher of medieval Russia, Edward Lewis Keenan, published a monograph in which he questioned the authorship of the letters, suggesting that in reality they were written by a 17th-century political figure, Prince Semyon Mikhailovich Shakhovsky. This work caused a wide discussion in scientific circles, which, however, ended with the fact that the majority of experts considered Keenan's hypothesis unproven. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that the text of the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky that has come down to us bears traces of later proofreading.
The further fate of Andrei Kurbsky
The prince was graciously received by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund Augustus, who immediately took the defector to the service, granted him extensive estates, including the city of Kovel. Kurbsky, who knew perfectly well the organization of the Moscow army, won several victories over him, commanding the Lithuanian detachments. Participated in the campaign of Stefan Batory against Polotsk in 1579. In the new homeland, the prince married and started a new family. At the end of hostilities, he lived on his estate, where he died in 1583.
Prince personality assessmentKurbsky
The personality of Andrei Kurbsky was evaluated in different ways, depending on the beliefs of the authors. Someone sees in him a traitor who abandoned the Fatherland in difficult times and, moreover, led the enemy troops. Others regarded his flight as a forced action of a man who does not want to meekly submit to an arbitrary ruler.
Prince Andrei Kurbsky himself, in correspondence with Ivan the Terrible, defended the ancient boyar "right to free departure" - transfer to the service of another sovereign. Actually, only such a justification could justify the prince (of course, not in the eyes of Ivan Vasilyevich, who finally abolished this right).
There are different opinions about how fair Andrei Kurbsky's accusations of treason were. The fact that he very quickly settled in a new place and received generous awards from recent enemies may indirectly indicate that the prince secretly went over to the side of the Lithuanians long before his departure. On the other hand, his escape could indeed be caused by fear of a possible unfair disgrace - subsequent events showed that many representatives of the boyar environment fell victim to tsarist repressions, regardless of their guilt. Sigismund Augustus took advantage of the situation, sent "charming letters" to noble Moscow boyars and, of course, was ready to receive defectors, especially such valuable ones as Prince Kurbsky.
Interesting facts
According to historical legend, Andrei's first letterKurbsky was delivered to the formidable tsar by the prince's servant Vasily Shibanov. Accepting the message of the traitor, Ivan Vasilievich allegedly hit the messenger with his sharp staff and pierced his leg, but Shibanov steadfastly endured the pain. After that, Kurbsky's servant was tortured and executed. The ballad of A. K. Tolstoy "Vasily Shibanov" is dedicated to this story.
The story of a noble and glorious military leader who rebelled against autocratic arbitrariness and was forced to part with his native land, resonated in the soul of the Decembrist Kondraty Ryleev, who dedicated the poem of the same name to Kurbsky.
Conclusion
To our great regret, after centuries of national history, rich in wars, rebellions and other upheavals, only a small part of the literary monuments of medieval Russia has come down to us. In this regard, the correspondence between Prince Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible is a valuable source of knowledge about various spheres of life in the Muscovite state of that time.
It reflects the characters and worldview of historical figures - the king himself and one of the outstanding military leaders, the confrontation between two political models, expressing the interests of the autocracy and the boyars, is traced. Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Kurbsky (genre, summary, features we examined in the article) gives an idea of the development of literature and journalism of that time, the cultural level of society, and religious consciousness.
