Libmonster ID: RS-609
Author(s) of the publication: D. N. ALSHITS

An objective, scientifically grounded assessment of the historical role of the Russian autocracy at all stages of its existence is becoming important in the context of modern ideological struggle. The denial of the historical legitimacy of the socialist revolution in Russia is invariably justified in the works of Western Sovietologists with the help of a distorted image of pre-revolutionary history. Much attention is paid to the autocracy as a kind of supra-class force that supposedly united its subjects, without distinction between their class and class affiliation, on the basis of the "national ideal", the unity of faith and eternal morality. Bourgeois historiography often connects such ideas with the initial period of the autocracy's history, which is facilitated by insufficient knowledge of this period.

In science, there is no unity of views even on such a question as the time of the emergence of an autocratic system. Some researchers attribute the establishment of an autocratic monarchy to the end of the XV century, others-to the second half of the XVII century. Some see its beginning in the XVI century.

The historiography of the Oprichnina is also controversial: there is no consensus about the meaning of its establishment and the terms of its existence, about its role and significance in the history of the Russian centralized state. The lack of clarity in the solution of both these problems - the emergence of autocracy and the actual historical role of the Oprichnina - is largely due to the fact that these problems are not directly connected with each other.

Noble historiography was "embarrassed" by the Oprichnina, tried to separate it from the history of the autocracy, to portray it as a phenomenon alien to tsarism, not characteristic of it. Bourgeois historians, who did not part with constitutional and monarchical illusions, although they considered the Oprichnina as a significant socio-political phenomenon, nevertheless also believed that it had no consequences for the further history of the monarchy.

The idea of the Oprichnina as a senseless product of Ivan the Terrible's personal whim goes back to the writings of A. M. Kurbsky and journalism of the early seventeenth century - either to direct relatives of the executed, or to people who grew up in an environment that vividly and painfully remembered the oprichnina terror1 . Many historians, relying on the unverified, often fantastically exaggerated evidence of foreigners about oprichnina terror, also saw the main reason for the emergence of op-

1 Monuments of ancient Russian writing related to the Time of Troubles. SPb. 1891; Vremennik Ivan Timofeev. Moscow-L. 1951; Piskarevsky letopisets. In: Materials on the History of the USSR, vol. 2, Moscow, 1955, p. 56.

page 45

richnins in the personal cruelty of Ivan IV. A "drunken, depraved, bloodthirsty tyrant" 2, seized with a delusion of persecution, relying on such" worst enemies of all honest citizens "as Basmanov, Malyuta Skuratov, Vyazemsky 3, established "senseless tyranny" 4 and "led the state to ruin" 5 . N. M. Karamzin and V. O. Klyuchevsky expressed this point of view most vividly in pre-revolutionary historiography .6
Other historians, beginning with V. N. Tatishchev, despite all the differences in their views and positions, persistently searched for the real causes of the conflict between the tsarist government and its servants that broke out in the second half of the XVI century. 7 S. F. Platonov saw in the Oprichnina the struggle of Grozny with the feudal aristocracy, as a result of which the tsar managed to eliminate patrimonial land ownership .8 At the same time, in his opinion, Grozny did not fight against the aristocracy as it should. "Its direct meaning was obscured by incomprehensible and terrible ways of acting." Platonov's final conclusion is that the "grave circumstances" that led the country to a crisis, "open turmoil", i.e., to the class battles of the early seventeenth century, would not have happened if the methods of domestic policy had been different, less "cool", "rough", and thoughtlessly cruel .9
As we can see, representatives of pre-Marxist historiography had their own reasons for localizing the significance of the Oprichnina within a narrow time frame. Using Hegel's terminology, we can say that they considered the Oprichnina as a fact equal to itself, i.e., having no roots in the past and did not affect the further development of the autocratic system. This approach could not but affect the handling of sources and facts. The works of even the most prominent representatives of noble and bourgeois historiography devoted to the initial history of the autocracy, in particular the Oprichnina, are replete with examples of arbitrary conclusions that contradict the sources. Even pre-revolutionary journalism drew attention to this situation in this field of historiography, pointing out "amazing curiosities" in the literature about Ivan the Terrible: "Solid historians, distinguished in other cases by extreme caution," wrote N. K. Mikhailovsky, " draw decisive conclusions on this point, not only not coping with the facts, but themselves well-known ones, eh... even directly contrary to them; intelligent people, rich in knowledge and experience, come into open contradiction with the most elementary indications of common sense; people who are used to handling historical documents, see in monuments what cannot be found there in the daytime with fire, and deny what is clearly written in black letters on a white field " 10 .

2 Kostomarov N. I. Personality of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. In: Kostomarov N. I. Sobr. soch. SPb. 1895. Vol. 13, book V, p. 447.

3 Ustryalov N. G. Russkaya istoriya [Russian History], St. Petersburg, 1845, p. 245.

4 Ilovaisky D. I. Istoriya Rossii [History of Russia], Vol. III, Moscow, 1890, pp. 263-264.

5 Shcherbatov M. M. Istoriya Rossiiskaya s drevneyshikh vremeni [Russian History since ancient Times]. Vol. 5, part 2. SPb. 1902, pp. 483-484.

6 Karamzin N. M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiiskogo [History of the Russian State], Vol. IX, St. Petersburg, 1897, pp. 130-131; Klyuchevsky V. O. Soch. Vol. 2, Moscow, 1957, pp. 183-184, 186.

7. Solov'ev S. M. Istoriya Rossii s drevneyshikh vremeni [History of Russia since ancient times]. Book 3. M. 1960, p. 707; Bestuzhev-Ryumin K. N. Russkaya istoriya [Russian History], Vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 261-262; Belov E. A. Ob istoricheskom znacheniye russkogo boyarstva do kontsa XVII v.-ZHMNP, 1896, N 1-2, p. 234; Seredonin S. M. Sochinenie Gils Fletcher's "Of the Russe Common Wealth" as a historical source. St. Petersburg, 1891, pp. 81-86; Platonov S. F. Essays on the history of the troubles in the Moscow State of the XVI-XVII centuries. (Experience in studying the social system and estate relations in the time of Troubles), Moscow, 1937, pp. 105-106, 110.

8 Platonov With F. Uk. soch., pp. 106, 138-139; his. To the history of the Oprichnina of the XVI century-ZHMNP, 1897, N 10, p. 261.

9 Platonov S. F. Essays, pp. 139, 105.

10 Mikhailovsky N. K. Poln. sobr. soch. Vol. VI, St. Petersburg, 1909, pp. 186-187.

page 46

A new stage in the study of the history of autocracy is connected with the Marxist - Leninist doctrine of the state as a product of irreconcilable class contradictions.

It is known that V. I. Lenin characterized the state system of Russia in the 17th century. as " autocracy... with the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy"11 . You should pay attention to the context in which the quoted words are located. Polemicizing against the constitutional illusions of the Social Revolutionaries and criticizing from this point of view their analysis of the results of the revolution of 1905-1907, Lenin speaks of the Russian autocracy only as one of the examples confirming the general position expressed by him ("for example, the Russian autocracy"). Lenin demanded not to confuse the various forms of organization of power of the ruling class, the "shell" in which this power appears at one stage or another of its historical development, with its class content. Lenin also considers the Russian autocracy as an example showing that, despite the changes in the "shell" (the development of autocracy with the Boyar Duma and boyar aristocracy towards various types of absolutism), the class essence of power remained unchanged. 12 Given this, it is wrong to identify the moment of transition from one stage of the development of autocracy to another (in particular, from autocracy with the Boyar Duma to absolutism) with the moment of the emergence of autocracy.

It should also not be overlooked that Lenin contrasts the autocracy of the seventeenth century with the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy, not with the monarchy of the sixteenth century, but, on the contrary, with the later absolutist monarchy of the eighteenth century. Lenin "was well aware... that the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy characterized not only the autocracy of the XVII century, but also the autocracy of the XVI century," N. M. Druzhinin emphasizes in this connection. 13 As M. P. Pavlova-Silvanskaya noted, there is no reason to believe that, in Lenin's opinion, "autocracy arose in the seventeenth century." 14
N. M. Druzhinin analyzed the reasons for the misconceptions that have arisen in this area. "The root of the mistakes lies in the absence of a concrete analysis of historical phenomena: the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy, "enlightened absolutism".. in an isolated, purely formal use of V. I. Lenin's thoughts on the evolution of the Russian state system." He called for combining the fundamental generalizations of the Marxist classics "inextricably and firmly" with the accumulated factual material and subjecting this material to "independent scientific analysis" .15
Today, in the context of a significant influx of new facts into scientific circulation, the unacceptability of a different approach to Lenin's statements about the early stages of the formation of autocracy - when "the same... quotations wander from article to article, from book to book"16 - is becoming more and more obvious. Against the use of Lenin's idea of state centralization of Russia on a capitalist basis in the Soviet Union.

11 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 17, p. 346.

12 Ibid.

13 Druzhinin N. M. On the periodization of the history of capitalist relations in Russia (To the results of the discussion). Voprosy istorii, 1951, No. 1, pp. 68-69.

14 Pavlova-Silvanskaya M. P. On the question of the peculiarities of absolutism in Russia. - Istoriya SSSR, 1968, N 4, p. 75. Cf.: Zimin A. A. Problemy istorii Rossii XVI v. v svete leninskoy kontseptsii russkogo feodalizma [Problems of the History of Russia in the 16th century in the light of Lenin's concept of Russian feudalism]. In: V. I. Lenin and Historical Science, Moscow, 1968, p. 322.

15 Druzhinin N. M. Uk. soch., pp. 68-69.

16 Schmidt S. O. V. I. Lenin on the state System of Russia in the XVI-XVIII centuries. (About the method of studying materials related to the topic). In: V. I. Lenin and Historical Science, p. 331.

page 47

XVII century. to deny the fact of political centralization, which took place already in the sixteenth century, L. V. Cherepnin also resolutely spoke out .17
In the literature, there are complaints about the" mystery "(and even the" great mystery") of the Oprichnina 18 . These perplexities arise precisely from the belief of a number of authors that autocracy emerged only in the middle of the seventeenth century and that its beginning is three-quarters of a century distant from the Oprichnina. In the context of the estate-representative monarchy, which, according to such periodization, supposedly existed under Grozny in the second half of the XVI century, it is difficult to consider the Oprichnina as anything other than a short-term and very mysterious anomaly.

Of exceptional importance for understanding the history of the formation of the autocracy are Lenin's propositions that state centralization is based on the irresistible demands of economic development, 19 and that all transformations and reforms carried out "from above" (in particular, during the formation of the autocracy) are based on the class struggle of the exploited part of the people against the exploiters. Lenin pointed out the hypocrisy of the monarchist teaching that " the autocratic power of the tsar... expresses the universal interests of the entire nation 20 .

Based on the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the state, Soviet historiography conducted a comprehensive analysis of the social conflicts that took place in the Russian state in the second half of the XVI century. Major works on the initial history of the autocracy have been created, and sources that expand the understanding of the era of Grozny have been identified and published .21 Nevertheless, the debate about the time of the emergence of autocracy, "about the significance of the Oprichnina and its influence on the political development of Russia is far from over" 22 .

At one time, S. B. Veselovsky boldly and uncompromisingly opposed the idealization of the personality and activities of Ivan the Terrible, in which some writers, film directors and scientists "after many centuries of slander and slander" finally saw "the true figure of a fighter "for the bright kingdom"23 . Sharing the pathos of condemning the anti-scientific idealization of Grozny and the bloody methods of asserting his power, it is difficult to agree with the alternative proposed by S. B. Veselovsky. Following N. M. Karamzin and V. O. Klyuchevsky, he argues that the Oprichnina did not have any serious state meaning,

17 Cherepnin L. V. Questions of methodology of historical research. Teoreticheskie problemy istorii feodalizma [Theoretical problems of the history of feudalism].

18 Skrynnikov R. G. The beginning of the Oprichnina. - Scientific Notes of the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen, 1966, vol. 294, p. 3; Veselovsky S. B. Issledovaniya po istorii oprichnina [Studies on the history of the Oprichnina], Moscow, 1963, pp. 58, 118.

19 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 16, p. 312.

20 Ibid., vol. 11, p. 181; vol. 9, pp. 333-334; vol. 6, p. 266.

21 Smirnov I. I. Ivan the Terrible, L. 1944; Sadikov P. A. Essays on the history of the Oprichnina. Moscow-L. 1950; Polosin I. I. Sotsial'no-politicheskaya istoriya Rossii XVI-nachala XVII v. Sb. st. Moscow, 1963; Veselovsky S. B. Uk. soch.; Bakhrushin S. V. Ivan Grozny. In: Bakhrushin S. V. Nauchnye trudy [Scientific Works], Vol. 2, Moscow, 1964; Zimin A. A. Oprichnina Ivan Grozny, Moscow, 1964; Skrynnikov R. G. Nachalo oprichnina [The beginning of the Oprichnina]. Oprichnina terror. - Scientific notes of the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen, 1969, vol. 374. Russia after the Oprichnina, Essays on Political and social history, L. 1975; Nosov N. E. Formation of estate-representative institutions in Russia. Research on the Zemstvo reform of Ivan the Terrible, L. 1968; Schmidt S. O. Stanovlenie rossiiskogo autocratstva [Formation of the Russian Autocracy]. Issledovanie sotsial'no - politicheskoi istorii vremen Ivan Grozny [A study of the socio-political history of the times of Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow, 1973; Cherepnin L. V. Zemskie sobory Russkogo gosudarstva v XVI-XVII vv. Moscow, 1978.

22 Skrynnikov R. G. Autocracy and Oprichnina (Some results of the political development of Russia during the Oprichnina period). In: Internal Policy of Tsarism (mid-16th - early 20th centuries), L. 1967, p.69.

23 Veselovsky S. B. Uk. soch., pp. 36-37. See also: Zimin A. A. Akademik S. B. Veselovsky and the image of Ivan the Terrible in fiction. In: Istoriya i istoriki [History and Historians]. Historiographical yearbook. 1971. Moscow, 1973.

page 48

it was reduced to the extermination of individuals and "affected the nerves and imagination of contemporaries more strongly than the state order" 24 . V. B. Kobrin holds a special point of view on Oprichnina. In his opinion, the Oprichnina was not directed against large-scale feudal land ownership, and the "traditional ideas" about the struggle between the boyars and the nobility, in his opinion, are devoid of real grounds and lose their adherents .25 Most modern researchers believe that the internal political struggle that broke out during the reign of Grozny, in particular the Oprichnina, is based on a significant social conflict. More than 40 years ago, G. N. Bibikov confidently stated:"The fact that the oprichnina terror regime was primarily directed against the boyars is such an established opinion that it is unlikely that anyone will object to it at the present time." 26 Turning to later works, we will find the same interpretation of the meaning of the oprichnina. Describing it as "a clash between a powerful feudal aristocracy and a rising autocratic monarchy," R. G. Skrynnikov notes: "Conflict, generally speaking, is common" 27 . This is exactly how the conflict is absolutely "ordinary" in the sense, however, that historians who see a real social conflict at the heart of the Oprichnina usually see it as follows: on one side - the tsar, relying on the new service nobility, on the other - well - born grandees-patrimonial lords and their vassals.

Meanwhile, the number of facts that do not fit into the Procrustean bed of the theory of "ordinary conflict" is very impressive. This has long made her vulnerable to criticism. The tsar "did not beat only boyars, or even mostly boyars," Klyuchevsky noted .28 Veselovsky showed that the policy of land confiscations was also mainly not directed "against the old land ownership of the former appanage principalities" 29 . The victims of land confiscations turned out to be numerous representatives of the poor-born service masses, whose interests, according to the classical scheme, Ivan the Terrible allegedly protected 30 . A study of land changes during the Oprichnina reinforced Veselovsky's view that the policy of land confiscation was not primarily directed against large-scale land ownership. 31
Until relatively recently, S. B. Veselovsky called on scientists studying the Oprichnina to start "building a new building." This comparison can be continued as follows: while the " new building "is being built, modern researchers of the Oprichnina, enriched with new facts and observations, are placed in the" old fund " of conclusions and generalizations. Some are in the offices of Karamzin and Klyuchevsky, while others, in even greater numbers, are in those of Solovyov and Platonov. Of course, the interiors have changed, there are a lot of new books on the bookshelves, other partitions... But the main walls are still the same, and from the windows you can see the same perspective that opened up to the eyes of the former respectable inhabitants of these rooms. In other words, conclusions of a general nature, which are now drawn from other positions, still largely converge with the traditional judgments of pre-revolutionary historians about the Oprichnina.

Justification for a broader approach than the "conventional conflict"theory,

24 Veselovsky S. B. Uk. soch., p. 15 - 16, 26, 28, 53, 148.

25 Kobrin, V. B. Power and Property in Medieval Russia (XV-XVI centuries), Moscow, 1985, pp. 10, 199, 215, 218.

26 Bibikov G. N. On the question of the social composition of the oprichniks of Ivan the Terrible. - Trudy GIM, 1941, issue 14, p. 19.

27 Skrynnikov R. G. The beginning of the Oprichnina, p. 3.

28 Klyuchevsky V. O. Uk. soch. Vol. 2, pp. 184-185.

29 Veselovsky S. B. Uk. soch., p. 29 - 35, 65, 70, 143, 155, 178.

30 Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, pp. 227, 228, 248.

31 Kobrin V. B. Uk. soch., pp. 29-31.

page 49

a view of the nature of the internal political struggle in the Russian state at the initial stage of the history of autocracy, a view of the Oprichnina not as a kind of "episode", but as a natural phenomenon that played a necessary role in the formation and strengthening of the autocratic monarchy, required a significant expansion of the source base, the search for new documentary materials. Long-term work in this direction has yielded results. New materials of the 16th century were discovered: the list of service people of the court of Ivan the Terrible in 1573 and the Official Discharge Book of Moscow sovereigns-an archive of the sovereign's Discharge Order for the entire 16th century. With exceptional completeness, in a coherent, chronological order, the researcher sees the history of the Russian state of the XVI century, free from selectivity and tendentiousness of chronicles. It was also possible to find a previously unknown story of the XVI century about Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and merchant Khariton Beloulin, which in a vivid figurative form reflected the conflict of the autocratic power with the top of the city posad .32
The appearance of the tsar in Russia preceded the establishment of the tsarist system. In the system of power that later became known by this name, the Russian centralized state was still to be organized. The act of crowning the Grand Duke to the kingdom did not immediately put an end to the boyar rule. The boyar cliques continued to influence the government of the country. After becoming tsar, Ivan IV, as before, had to listen to the voice of representatives of aristocratic clans who ordered in the Boyar Duma. The situation did not change when his mother's relatives, the Glinskys, seized power in the Duma.

Ivan IV remained the" boyar "tsar until the uprising of the Moscow "black" people in June 1547. The popular uprising was a huge shock for young Ivan. Almost yesterday, the solemn hymns and prayerful singing that accompanied his coronation were heard, the bells were ringing festively, and countless candles were shining. Only yesterday, when he appeared, an enthusiastic crowd of subjects fell to their knees and bowed to the ground... And then, all of a sudden, everything changed so terribly. Instead of "candle flame" - "fireman's fire", instead of smoking incense-suffocating smoke: the whole of Moscow is in flames. Instead of a solemn chime - the incessant roar of the alarm. Instead of kneeling submissive people - angry crowds of armed citizens. They break into the church, drag out and stone the tsar's uncle, and demand the extradition of his other relatives. In the threatening shouts of the crowd, the king's name is also heard. There is practically no one to protect the tsar and his family from the fury of the rebels. The king has no army of his own, and when he "saw the multitude of people, he was surprised and horrified." "For this reason fear entered into my soul and trembling into my bones, and my spirit was humbled," he confessed a few years later at the Hundred-Domed Council .33
The objective result of the uprising was the release of the tsar from the heavy guardianship of the former boyar rulers. In his entourage, new people were able to move forward, speaking on behalf of "the whole earth", expressing the interests of the service nobility and the top of the city posad, with the requirements of which the feudal aristocracy had to increasingly reckon 34. "This is how the prerequisites for education were created

32 Alshits D. N. A new document on the people and orders of the oprichnoi court of Ivan the Terrible after 1572. In: Historical Archive, vol. 4, 1949; his. Bit book of the Moscow sovereigns of the XVI century. In: Problemy istochnikovedeniya [Problems of Source Studies], vol. 6, Moscow, 1958. Old Russian story about Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and merchant Khariton Beloulin. - TODRL. T. 17. M.-L. 1960; his. On the official character of the "Book of the discharge of the Grand Dukes and Sovereigns of Moscow". In: Archeographic Yearbook for 1978, Moscow, 1979.

33 Stoglav, St. Petersburg, 1863, pp. 30-31; Cf.: Messages of Ivan the Terrible, Moscow-L. 1951, p. 522.

34 See Skrynnikov R. G. The beginning of the Oprichnina, p. 74. Russia after the Oprichnina, p. 7.

page 50

government of compromise", which included representatives of both the most far-sighted circles of the boyars and the nobility, 35 as well as the spiritual hierarchy. Tsar Ivan was also a participant in this compromise as one of its parties.

The spirit of appeasement hovered at first over this general feudal union. The tsar and Metropolitan Makarii held councils of reconciliation, the participants of which - first of all, the tsar and boyars - repented of their previous "crimes". The goal of all these efforts was expressed by the king in the phrase "To humble all in love." 36
The "repentance" of the tsar and "all people" was essentially an obligation to prevent further arbitrariness and plunder on the part of those in power, to carry out reforms that mainly meet the requirements of the service masses and the top of the urban posad.

The expansion of the social base of the state, the renewal of the administrative apparatus, an active foreign policy - all this required performers who were able to take on such significant tasks. The circle of people who came forward after the upheavals of 1547 to lead the state was at that moment for the young tsar, helpless in the turbulent flow of events, a truly lifeline, for which he was forced to hold on until he felt solid ground under his feet.

The activity of the compromise Government is characterized by a number of significant reforms and foreign policy successes. At the same time, many reforms and institutions of this de facto government led in the long run to the Oprichnina, created prerequisites and conditions for the transition to it. Military service has become a State duty. Failure to comply with it entailed punishment, sometimes very severe. The head of State became an arbitrator in resolving local disputes 37 . The official beginning of the appointment to the post was placed above the generic 38 . The establishment in 1556 of a direct relationship between the "quantity" of service (one armed soldier with 100 quarters of land) and the land ownership of a serving person of any rank inevitably entailed a relationship between the "quality" of service - loyalty, loyalty, bravery, skill - and the land ownership of this person. Without such a measure, the transition to the land policy of the Oprichnina would have been impossible.

The policy of "intra-class peace" pursued by the compromise government was, of course, insufficient for the consistent redistribution of land and the strict performance by large and small feudal lords of public service duties. This required the uncompromising hand of the Oprichnina. However, the practical beginning of the "nationalization" of relations between the entire class of feudal lords and the central government was laid by the reforms of the late 40s-50s of the XVI century.

The new organization of local executive power was based on the election of officials by their subjects to perform state, "state-owned" functions. The replacement of many local "tsars" by local self-government bodies directly connected with the government and fulfilling its destinies turned the inhabitants of the former estates into subjects of the state, subject to its laws.-

35 Zimin A. A. Ivan the Terrible's Reforms. Ocherki sotsial'no - ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Rossii sredni XVI v. Ocherki sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Rossii sredni XVI v. [Essays on the socio-economic and political history of Russia in the middle of the 16th century].

36 Schmidt S. O. Stanovlenie [Formation], pp. 143-145, 134.

37 Alshits D. N. Razditnaya kniga moskovskikh gosudarey XVI v. [The Discharge book of Moscow Sovereigns of the XVI century], pp. 130-151.

38 Schmidt S. O. Stanovlenie, p. 276-279; Skrynnikov R. G. Nachalo oprichniny, p. 84.

page 51

us. The courts essentially became class-representative institutions under a governor appointed by the central government .39
The judicial institutions of the compromise Government in the mid-sixteenth century were in many respects superior to the attempts to reform the court over the next three centuries, particularly under Peter I and Catherine II .40 The restructuring of the court in the 50s of the XVI century can in a certain sense be called a distant predecessor of the judicial reform of 1864. It was carried out before the final formalization of serfdom, which excluded the judicial and legal order in which juries elected by peasants would play such a significant role in legal proceedings. In turn, the judicial reform of the 60s of the XIX century could be adopted only after the fall of serfdom. In both cases, the well-known democratization of the court undertaken from above was forced and came into decisive contradiction with the autocratic system. Many of the most significant judicial reforms of the 60s of the XIX century were soon taken back by tsarism. And in the XVI century, as soon as the autocracy found its essence in the 60s, became itself not in name, but in fact, many judicial institutions of the reforms of the late 40s and 50s were doomed to perish. The reforms and reform projects of the sixteenth century, which are close in time to the revolt of 1547, are much more democratic in nature than those carried out later.

It was established in the late 40s of the XVI century. The government wanted to create the impression that the state power is an ally of every citizen of the country against any dignitary who has committed abuses. Thus, even at the initial moment of the formation of tsarism, the seeds of naive faith in the "tsar-father" were thrown into the popular soil. It played a significant role in the fact that at the time of the transition to autocracy, the tsar so easily managed to raise the Moscow people to defend the tsarist power against all those who, according to his claims, attempted it - against the Boyar Duma, government officials, and even against the church hierarchs.

Whoever later "whispered" to Ivan IV the idea of creating an Oprichnina - Alexey Basmanov or his Circassian wife Maria Temryukovna (similar explanations of the" roots " of the Oprichnina are found in the literature) - this idea was first expressed by publicists of the compromise government - the Adashev - Sylvester-Ivan the Terrible government. The Legend of Magmet-Saltan, a work undoubtedly close to A. F. Adashev, explicitly states the need to create a special army to protect the internal security of the state .41 The security corps described there, consisting of loyal and well-paid soldiers, is in many ways similar to the future Oprichnina. The compromise Government has implemented a number of practical measures in the spirit of these prescriptions. The creation of the tsar's personal guard - the three-thousandth corps of streltsy "ognennyya strelki" - is one of them.

The tsar's advisers and educators, Sylvester and Adashev, objectively made a considerable contribution to the justification of the future oprichnina terror. Repeatedly (nine times) repeated in the Legend of Magmet-Saltan calls to the sovereign to be terrible, to execute and burn the guilty under the fire.-

39 " In ancient Russia, administration and the court always went hand in hand," notes the well - known researcher of Russian law F. M. Dmitriev (Dmitriev F. M. History of judicial instances and civil appeal proceedings from the Sudebnik to the institution of provinces. In: Dmitriev F. M. Soch. M. 1859, p. 7) Cf.: Nosov N. E. Stanovlenie, p. 53-54; Romanov B. A. Commentarii k Sudebnik 1550 g. In: Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov, Moscow-L. 1952, pp. 251, 279; Smirnov I. I. Ocherki, p-320.

40" The sixteenth century, so significant in political terms, is also an epoch in the history of Russian law, " wrote F. M. Dmitriev (uk. soch., p. 5).

41 Works of I. Peresvetov, Moscow, 1956, p. 156.

page 52

data. Using a well-known comparison, we can say that Adashev and Sylvester planted "baobab grain" in the "flower pot"of a political compromise. This seed fell on exceptionally fertile ground, for the transition to autocracy had already been prepared by previous historical development. We are talking about such objective factors as the vastness of the country's territory; the multinational composition of its population; the small number and geographical disunity of large cities and, accordingly, the political weakness of urban settlements; the need to create a powerful, centrally controlled army capable of ensuring the defense of the state and its foreign policy tasks; the inevitable victory in this regard landlords ' form of land ownership over patrimonial land; and most importantly, the class interest of feudal lords in a strong centralized government capable of suppressing the resistance of the exploited population, primarily the peasantry, to feudal oppression.

To solve all these problems, the previously established forms of centralized government of the country were insufficient. We are talking about the traditional division of power between the Grand dukes, the Boyar Duma, the church synclite and the strengthening zemstvo institutions. Thus, the formation of autocracy, an indivisible autocratic form of government, was due to deep objective reasons.

The political compromise - the de facto government of Adashev and Sylvester-was the last attempt to strengthen and preserve the traditional union of authorities. However, reality also pushed them to strengthen the autocracy of the tsar. This led to the inevitable consequences: the political compromise cracked and fell apart into its component parts.

It is difficult to find a monarch figure in world history who possessed the same bright talent of a political writer-publicist, absolutely unshakable in his commitment to autocracy, in rejecting all and every historical and contemporary forms of limiting the power of sovereigns, as the first Russian tsar.

One of the most important directions in the ideological struggle of Ivan IV for the establishment of autocracy was the historical justification of the eternal Russian autocracy. Grozny instilled the idea that the royal wedding was for him nothing more than the adoption of the parental, ancestral, and generally primordial royal crown of the Russian autocrats. 42 Official Moscow scribes, under the leadership and sometimes with the direct participation of Ivan the Terrible, created a number of monumental historical and literary monuments: multi-volume Chronicle Vaults, the Book of Degrees, and the Kazan History... All these works were intended to provide a historical justification for the exclusive right of the Muscovite sovereigns to Russian autocracy .43
Another major area of the ideological struggle waged by Grozny was the relentless criticism of any form of restriction of the autocrat's power. Ivan IV was constantly haunted by the specter of parliamentarism (in its then forms). However, is it just a ghost? If you turned your eyes to the west, you could see the very systems of government that he wanted at all costs

42 Messages of Ivan the Terrible, pp. 9-19, 226; PSRL. Vol. XIII, part 2. St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 392. 43 See: Alshits D. N. Sources and nature of Ivan the Terrible's editorial work on the history of his reign. - Proceedings of the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Library, vol. I (IV), 1957. The Legend of Vsevolod is a polemical response of the XVI century to the "Word about Igor's Regiment". - TODRL. T. 14. M.-L. 1958; his. What does "pirogoshaya" mean in Russian chronicles and "Words about Igor's Regiment"? In: Issledovaniya po otechestvennomu istochnikovedeniyu [Research on Domestic Source Studies], Moscow, L. 1964. "The word about the destruction of the Russian land" and "Kazan History". In: Chronicles and Chronicles, Collection of Articles 1974, Moscow, 1974.

page 53

avoid in your own country 44 . "There each individual takes care of his own things," 45 Grozny argued, correctly noting that the representative institutions of the Western European states - all kinds of parliaments, assemblies, states-general-are designed to cover up the egoistic exploitative interests of the feudal lords and the unrestrained desire for profit of the emerging bourgeoisie under the guise of "national unity." He himself fanatically believed that the sole power of the sovereign, who is not subject to anyone's private or estate interests, guarantees the observance of only national interests at all times and in everything.

The tsar sees a threat to the autocracy from various forces. One of them is the specific fronde, which acted from the positions of "yesterday". Since the struggle against the "lazy rich" and "traitorous boyars" found the understanding and support of all non-aristocratic strata of the population, the tsar and his entourage deliberately "bested" - called boyar do-gooders and accomplices of boyar plots-all those who were accused of treason or" not direct " service to the tsar .46 This maneuver was successful both among Ivan the Terrible's contemporaries and a number of historians. In reality, the tsar feared not only the " arbitrariness of the nobility." His idea of the supra-class (or rather, supra - word, since he did not have the concept of "class") character of autocratic power had its reverse side-the idea of the supra-class (supra-word) character of the opposition to tsarist power, merging into one and able to nestle in any strata of society.

Ivan IV cites many examples of the demise of those kingdoms ruled by priests - "priests". Because of them, he claims, Israel, Rome and Byzantium perished .47
The mass of discontented people was constantly raised above themselves by the service masses, with their constant demands for salaries and claims to land, with their spontaneous armed actions, with their rebellious hesitation in gathering the tsarist army for campaigns. The serving masses were the main political and military support of the autocracy, its social base. That is why it was necessary to organize and strengthen it, to bring it to complete submission.

When the tsar speaks out against any restriction of his power, he also speaks about the means to protect it. He confirms the necessity of a "thunderstorm" for the establishment of the autocrat's power by references to international experience and to the experience of history. According to him, the authorities should inspire fear: "Do not you fear the authorities? Do good things; if you do evil things, be afraid, it's not for the sword that you wear, in revenge for the villains, in praise of the virtuous, " the tsar writes to Kurbsky. All subjects should be "afraid" of the authorities, regardless of their social status: "Give weakness to the nobleman-ino and simple." The tsar divides his subjects into only two categories: "good" and "evil," "loyal" and " traitors." The salary of the former and the punishment of the latter are the chief virtues of a Christian king. Boyars, like all other groups and estates of subjects, are divided into "our boyars" - "pleasing", i.e. loyal, and "our" boyars, but rebellious and traitorous .48
The theory (apology) of the autocracy of Grozny is permeated by the idea of the Oprichnina. It involves the division of the sovereign's servants into those who "serve "close", and those who are not so reliable and "serve" "distant".

44 P.: Cherepnin L. V. Zemsky sobory Russkogo gosudarstva v XVI - XVII vv., p. 96-100; Alpatov M. A. Russkaya istoricheskaya mysl i Zapadnaya Evropa XII-XVII vv. Moscow 1973, p. 209-210.

45 Messages of Ivan the Terrible, p. 62.

46 Cf.: Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Andrey Kurbsky, L. 1979, p. 233 (commentary).

47 Messages of Ivan the Terrible, p. 23.

48 Ibid., pp. 20, 173, 36.

page 54

The first "servants" are close to the king in order to protect him from "likhodey", in order to constantly and unquestioningly fulfill the royal will, to be, in fact, an instrument of its implementation.

The most important circumstance that accelerated the final transition to a single power was the Livonian War. It dictated the need to concentrate military, political and economic management in a single center. The transition to an extremely centralized, autocratic government has become the order of the day.

The very form of transition to autocracy largely depended on the personality of the ruler. If another sovereign had been in Grozny's place, he probably would not have introduced the term "oprichnina", probably would have dispensed with leaving the capital, and would have surrounded himself with other "Basmanovs"and " Malyuts". Nevertheless, the development of the monarchy towards the establishment of a single power naturally and inevitably led to an order that in its essence would be close to the Oprichnina of Ivan IV.

Many historians imagine the tsar's departure from Moscow on December 3, 1564, as the stampede of a terrified man who does not even know where to direct his steps. The background of this kind of "escapes" of the tsar was revealed by P. A. Sadikov, who recalled that in 1567 Ivan IV intended to flee with his family to England, "but instead he vigorously set about eradicating all his 'traitors'."49 In all such cases, one should be interested not so much in whether the tsar was actually going to "run away" somewhere, but in what he was doing "instead."

Before leaving Moscow, Grozny spent two weeks personally seizing "sanctity" - the most valuable icons and precious utensils-from churches and monasteries in Moscow, completely without fear that the churchmen would be able to outrage the population of the capital against him. The tsar's reliable personal guard - the "Satanic regiment" - was already carefully "tidied up" and formed 50 .

It is also important to ask when the documents that the tsar sent from Alexandrovskaya Sloboda to Moscow were created - before his departure or after he left the capital, already in the sloboda? There is not the slightest trace of the events that took place after the tsar's departure from Moscow, either in Russian or in foreign testimonies that recount the contents of these royal epistles. But these messages are textually close to the response of the tsar to Kurbsky, written in the summer of 1564. This suggests that the documents sent from the settlement to the capital (the decree on the introduction of the Oprichnina, messages-one to the government, the other to the Moscow posad) were prepared in advance, that is, even before leaving for the settlement.

At the time of the establishment of the autocracy, its class essence was particularly thickly obscured. The struggle of the autocrat with the bearers of traditional feudal relations looked like a struggle against feudal injustice and therefore found the support of the broad masses of the population, primarily the upper classes of the posad. The tsar, who treated "peasants", "serfs", "slaves" and all sorts of "black people" with undisguised contempt, did not disdain to include the townspeople in his calculations as the most important component of the economy . As a political chess player, he was able to look at many moves ahead in this case. Bringing over the heads of opponents oprichny "hammer" - a military force, concentrated

49 Sadikov P. A. Uk. soch., p. 32.

50 Messages of I. Taube and E. Kruse. - Russian Historical Journal, 1922, book 8, p. 32-33; PSRL. T. XIII, part 2, p. 391-392; Skrynnikov R. G. The beginning of the Oprichnina, p. 232.

51 "In the chronicle story there is an indirect indication that after the tsar's departure from Moscow, his agents conducted agitation corresponding to Ivan's plans" (Veselovsky S. B. Uk. soch., p. 136).

page 55

in the settlement, - the tsar also prepared the "anvil". With undisguised triumph, the official chronicler describes the triumphant success of this project. The townspeople firmly stated that they did not intend to defend or support the "likhodeev" and "traitors" - they "do not stand for those" and anyone whom the tsar points out to them, they will destroy with their own hands: "they will consume them themselves"52 .

Finding themselves in a hopeless situation, the boyars, the clerks, the holy council, the voivodes-in a word, those who represented the former state power, recognized the right of the tsar to punish any of them at his discretion: "And which boyars and voivodes and clerks went to the sovereign's great treasons, to the death penalty, and others went to the death penalty. opals, and those bellies and statki take the sovereign on themselves. The archbishops and bishops and archimandrites and hegumens and the whole holy council and the boyars and the clerks, then they put everything on the sovereign's will. " 53 The "sovereign's will" was recognized as the only source of power and law. It is quite obvious that such a "social contract" could neither take place nor be consolidated without the instrument of coercion that the strengthened autocracy was able to forge, i.e., without the Oprichnina. "Under the pressure of circumstances, the Duma and the higher clergy sanctioned the Oprichnina decree, which established a new regime in the country." 54 That's right: a new regime was established in the country, which even at that time it was fair to call - the royal one. The establishment of autocracy was accomplished.

In the cancellation and (as many believe) disappearance from the sources of the name "Oprichnina" itself, some historians see confirmation of their view of it as a meaningless undertaking, doomed to rapid disappearance. "The fact of destroying the Oprichnina without substituting a 'court' for it," says Veselovsky, "is so important that if properly understood, it abolishes most of the simple and 'witty' concepts (oprichnina - D. L.) created by various authors. "55 S. B. Veselovsky, who" refused to see the Oprichnina in general as a historical meaning."Of course, it was not difficult to "cancel" it; R. G. Skrynnikov, on the contrary, found it more difficult than anyone else to "cancel" the Oprichnina, since he penetrated deeper into its true essence than many other researchers. Skrynnikov points out that " in Oprichnina, the tsar received unlimited powers to carry out repressions against the nobles and members of the Duma, to confiscate land and other measures that could not normally be carried out without the consent of the "council of large feudal lords". In Oprichnina, the tsar got rid of the usual guardianship of the Duma and the higher clergy. " 57 Of course, Ivan IV would not have parted with any of these conquests and would not have parted with them. From this point of view, Skrynnikov's statements about the abolition of the Oprichnina 58 come into conflict with his assessments of the internal political structure of power in the Russian state after 1572. Objectivity requires noting that Skrynnikov, contrary to the title of his own work - "Russia after the Oprichnina", cited in this book a large amount of material indicating that the Oprichnina actually continued to exist under the name of "dvora"59 . The researcher is right when he claims that some of the parties to the gnrss-

52 PSRL. Vol. XIII, part 2, pp. 392-393.

53 Ibid., p. 395.

54 Skrynnikov R. G. Russia after the Oprichnina, p. 7.

55 Veselovsky S. B. Uk. soch., p. 195.

56 Zimin A, A. Oprichnina, p. 45.

57 Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, p. 229; his own. Russia after the Oprichnina, pp. 7-8. Russia on the eve of the "Time of Troubles", Moscow, 1980, pp. 9, 46-47.

58 Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, p. 176-189, 233; his. Russia after the Oprichnina, pp. 7-8.

59 Skrynnikov R. G. Russia after the Oprichnina, p. 26 - 28, 63 - 68, 72, 107.

page 56

the Nins " nipped in the bud, as it were, all the subsequent development of the aristocratic - bureaucratic monarchy."60 But the embryo, as you know, can not be "canceled". The destruction of the" germ " would mean the cancellation of further development. But that didn't happen.

As we can see, Veselovsky and Skrynnikov "cancel" far from equivalent political institutions. Meanwhile, the arsenal of evidence put forward by these and other historians in support of the abolition of the Oprichnina is in all cases the same. The oldest argument in favor of abolishing the oprichnina is an observation made by N. M. Karamzin. From the discharge paintings from the autumn of 1572 vol. the words "voivodes from the Oprichnina", "oprishninsky regiments", "oprishninsky rank"have disappeared61 . However, the change in the "signboard" did not mean the elimination of the Oprichnina as a system of state government. It is known that a year after its establishment, in 1566, diplomatic messages and instructions to ambassadors sought to "prove that all the new orders in the state are original, that there is no 'oprichnina '" 62 .

In 1572, there was a particularly serious reason to deny the existence of the Oprichnina. On June 7, King Sigismund II Augustus of Poland died. Ivan IV and his son Ivan appeared as contenders for the Polish throne. Grozny, who was well aware of the Polish gentry's commitment to its liberties, could not count on his election without showing a rejection of the oprichnina methods of government. Let us recall in this connection that the epic of the fictitious transfer of tsarist power to Simeon Bekbulatovich, started by Grozny later, in 1575-1576, chronologically coincided with the time of the second Polish kingless state.

There was another good reason for rejecting the name "Oprichnina". At the end of 1564-beginning of 1565, the tsar wanted to emphasize that he was retiring to the "Oprichnina" - to the orphan, widow's lot, giving the entire state - "zemstvo" - to the management of the boyars. As soon, however, as he established himself as an autocrat, the true master of the country, the derogatory meaning of the word "oprichnina" came into conflict with the actual situation. Precisely because the oprichnina as a system meant not the division of power, but, on the contrary, its unprecedented consolidation in the hands of the tsar, the "orphan" term "oprichnina" began to become increasingly obsolete in essence. Thus, the rejection of the word "oprichnina" does not indicate its abolition, but, on the contrary, the transformation of the oprichnina from an emergency, temporary measure into an essential part of the state administration system.

L. M. Sukhotin was the first to suggest that in 1572 a royal decree was issued on the abolition of the Oprichnina, which has not reached us 63 . This assumption is based mainly on Staden's statement that "the Oprichnina has come to an end" and that the Zemskys have been restored to their fiefdoms .64 An investigation of this source, however, has shown that, firstly, Staden never served in the Oprichnina and, secondly, his testimony about the abolition of the Oprichnina does not deserve the slightest credibility .65 Others

60 Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, p. 238.

61 Karamzin N. M. Uk. soch., p. 131

62 See: Sadikov P. A. Uk. soch., pp. 61, 66-68; Schmidt S. O. Stanovlenie, p. 227; Polosin I. I. Uk. soch., p. 107; Skrynnikov R. G. Nachalo oprichnina, p. 357; his. Oprichny terror, p. 16; Messages of Ivan the Terrible, p. 270-271.

63 Sukhotin L. M. To the revision of the question of the Oprichnina. Issue I. Belgrade. 1931, p. 21; vol. II - VI. Belgrade. 1936, p. 49.

64 Staden G. O. Ivan the Terrible's Moscow. Zapiski nemtsa-oprichnik [Notes of a German oprichnik], Moscow, 1925, p. 110; Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, p. 189; Veselovsky S. B. The establishment of the oprichny yard in 1565 and its cancellation in 1572. - Voprosy istorii, 1946, N 1, p. 102; his. Research, pp. 63, 195.

65 Alshits D. N. Notes of Heinrich Staden on Ivan the Terrible's Moscow as a historical source. In: Auxiliary historical disciplines. Issue XVI. l. 1985, pp. 134-148.

page 57

there are no sources "clearly and definitely" talking about the rejection of the Oprichnina at all. This was pointed out by S. B. Veselovsky himself, who nevertheless defended the hypothesis of the abolition of the Oprichnina .66 Not only has the decree on the abolition of the Oprichnina not reached us, but no trace of it has reached us. There is not a single reference to such a decree either in the diplomatic documents known to us or in any other official materials. There is not a single instance of reference to the Oprichnina as a "former" institution. All claims about unfair decisions of local disputes made "in the Oprichnina" appear only after the death of Grozny.

The system of evidence for the abolition of the Oprichnina also includes the aforementioned decree of 1572 on the return of ancient fiefdoms to the zemstvo nobles and numerous alleged cases of the return of lands confiscated in the Oprichnina to their former owners .67 However, the sources do not show any signs of changes in the land policy that existed during the Oprichnina, either in 1572 or later, during the entire reign of Grozny. The return of some fiefdoms to those who returned from exile was declared an amnesty decree for Kazan exiles, but it was issued in 1566, i.e. at the height of the Oprichnina .68 Historians have so far pointed to only one example of such a return after 1572, dating back to 1574-1575. We are talking about the old patrimonies of the Pereyaslavsky district Taratinykh 69 . However, this is the only fact that we have to part with. The fact is that the Taratins got back their fiefdom in the Oprichnina Pereyaslavsky uyezd precisely because they joined the Oprichnina .70 This fact indicates that the land in the Oprichnina uyezds was returned to the former zemskys when they joined the Oprichnina .71 Thus, the history of servile land ownership of that period does not provide any evidence in favor of assumptions about the abolition of the Oprichnina.

In the system of evidence for the abolition of the Oprichnina, an important place is occupied by the interpretation of events related to the invasions of Devlet Giray on Moscow in 1571 and 1572. It is claimed that after the burning of Moscow by the Crimean Tatars in May 1571, when the oprichnoi army allegedly failed to meet the tsar's hopes and caused his anger, the division of the army into oprichnoi and zemstvo ceased .72 This interpretation of the military events of 1571 and 1572 does not correspond to the sources. In May 1570, even before the approach of the main Russian regiments, the oprichny voivode D. I. Khvorostinin "beat the Crimean voivodes" 73 . The Khan's march on Moscow was thwarted. In May 1571, Moscow was defended from the Crimean zemstvo regiments. And only one regiment of oprichniks stood across the Neglinnaya River, guarding the new royal palace. Khan's troops approached the outskirts of the capital and set fire to the city's suburbs. Moscow and the southern counties of the country, through which the horde passed, were razed to the ground .74 During the search for "boyar treason", which began in connection with this defeat of the Russian army, none of the Oprichnina leaders were accused. A year later, at the time of but-

66 Veselovsky S. B. Uchrezhdenie oprichnogo dvora [Establishment of an oprichnoi yard], pp. 86-104. Research, p. 58, 63 - 65, 144, 195.

67 Veselovsky S. B. Uchrezhdenie oprichnogo dvora [Establishment of an oprichnoi yard], p. 102. Research, p. 63 - 65, 199, 203 - 237; Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, pp. 181-182.

68 Skrynnikov R. G. The beginning of the Oprichnina, pp. 290-291, 317-327.

69 Veselovsky S. B. Issledovaniya [Research], p. 199.

70 List of the Court of Ivan the Terrible in 1573. - RO GPB, Erm., 542, ll. 23, 24, Wed.: Alshits D. N. New document, p. 46. 47.

71 Sadikov P. A. Uk. soch., pp. 166-169.

72 Veselovsky S. B. Issledovaniya, p. 195; Cf.: Sukhotin L. M. Uk. soch. Vyp. I, pp. 17-21.

73 RO GPB, Erm. 390. Razditnaya kniga 1375-1605 gg. (further-Razryaty), l. 357. Cf.: Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, p. 77.

74 Razryady, ll. 369-370; Cf.: Skrytinikov R. G. Oprichny terror, pp. 127, 128.

page 58

during the invasion of Devlet Giray, oprichnina regiments are formed according to their individual oprichnina paintings and operate under the command of their voivodes from the "oprichnina". An outstanding role in the defeat of the enemy in the Battle of Molodi and thus in the salvation of the Russian state was played by oprichnik soldiers led by the same oprichnoi voivode Khvorostinin 75 .

L. M. Sukhotin believed that the compilation in May 1570 of joint discharge murals of oprichnina and zemstvo regiments was a sign that the government of Grozny had already taken a course to eliminate the Oprichnina. 76 This argument is also groundless. Joint services of the oprichnina and zemstvo regiments, often without indicating that these regiments and voivodes are oprichnina, took place from the very first year of the Oprichnina's existence .77 An unprecedented increase in the oprichnina stratum in the command of troops occurred in 1569. And this is not accidental. In 1568, a widespread conspiracy of the boyar I. P. Fedorov was discovered. During the Livonian campaign of 1568, the conspirators wanted to surround the tsarist oprichniks with zemstvo forces, kill the oprichniks, and hand Ivan over to the Polish king .78 The conspiracy showed that the isolated position of the oprichnina regiments and the oprichnina command was fraught with danger, and after this incident the "merging" of the zemstvo troops with the oprichnina, i.e., the stratification of the zemstvo command by voivodes from the Oprichnina, became a custom.

At the same time, the oprichniks were stratifying the zemstvo administrative apparatus. Since 1564, the Boyar Duma has ceased to be a boyar Duma at all. A new rank appears-Duma nobles. Among them were prominent oprichniki Malyuta Skuratov and Vasily Gryaznoy. It is no coincidence that the last Duma nobles of Grozny were prominent oprichniks-Vasily Zyuzin, Afanasy Nagoy, Demensha Cheremisinov, Baim Voeikov, Roman Pivov, Mikhail Beznin, Ignatiy Tatishchev, Boris Godunov and Bogdan Velsky. This is the general line that led to the "merger" of the zemskys with the oprichniks under Grozny .79 And the logical construction itself-joint actions mean merging-is basically artificial. Joint actions in any field of human activity are called joint actions because they combine the efforts of different individuals or institutions.

Much more important for solving the question of whether the oprichnina was preserved after 1572 or not, since such a question has been raised, is the fact that the oprichnina continued to be isolated, the division of regiments, lands, cities, financial and other fees into oprichnina and zemstvo, and the special official functions of the oprichniks were preserved. The evidence of the sources about this in the full sense of the word is innumerable 80 .

A. M. Kurbsky in his "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow", completed in 1573-1574. (and according to S. A. Eliseev, even in

75 Razryady, l. 464; Cf.: Buganov V. I. A new document about the battle on Molodyakh in 1572. V. kn.: Istoricheskiy archiv. Vol. 4. Moscow, 1959; Burdey G. D. Molodinskaya battle of 1572. - Scientific notes of the Institute of Slavic Studies, 1963, vol. XXVI, pp. 50-69; Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, pp. 170-174.

76 Sukhotin L. M. Uk. soch. Vol. VII - VIII. Belgrade. 1940, pp. 166-177.

77 Digits for 1567, ll. 341-347 vol., for 1568, ll. 348-349 vol. , for 1569, ll. 351-354.

78 R. G. Skrynnikov examined in detail numerous sources reporting on the Fedorov plot, noting the inconsistency of their testimony (R. G. Skrynnikov, The Beginning of the Oprichnina, pp. 373-379).

79 Zimin A. A. Composition of the Boyar Duma in the XV-XVI centuries. In: Archeographic Yearbook for 1957, Moscow, 1958, pp. 72-76, 80; Skrynnikov R. G. Oprichny terror, pp. 233-234.

80 Digits, ll. 338-341 vol., 361-365 vol.; 369. 375-375 vol., - 378 vol., 385 vol., 388 vol., - 393, 395 - 397, 426, 429 - 430, 432, 437 - 440, 453, 457 - 458 vol -, 483-483 vol., 487 vol., 491 vol., 508-508 vol., 513-524 vol., 528 vol., 533 - 534 vol., 545-546, 560 vol., 566, 568, etc.

page 59

1582-1583), writes about the Oprichnina as an existing institution 81: In the third epistle to Ivan the Terrible, written in September 1579, Kurbsky writes: "Instead of chosen and worthy husbands... surrounded himself with the worst hangers-on and maniacs... instead of a brave host of kromeshniki, blood-eating guardsmen, who are incomparably more disgusting than executioners " 82 . As we can see, Kurbsky, who would certainly have noted the failure and destruction of the Oprichnina, continues to fight for its destruction until the end of his life. It does not in any way lend itself to deception-denial and concealment of the Oprichnina.

G. N. Bibikov, as a result of his painstaking work, was able to say that he "knew the names of 234 oprichniks". The researcher expressed hope: "Maybe some lucky find will increase the number of known associates of Tsar Ivan. But it's not there yet. " 83 Eight years later, a list of employees of the court of Ivan the Terrible was discovered and published, which lists 1,854 people with an indication of the amount of salary for senior personnel and with the definition of their duties, pay and "feed"for ordinary employees. All of them are paid for a year, which is repeatedly mentioned in the document. The list includes all "noviks" - persons who are newly accepted into the court-some "by kinship", others "in the place of the deceased" 84 . This means that all the other domestic servants of 1573, i.e., the overwhelming majority, are oprichniks of 1572, who remained in their places and with their salaries. Here, then, is the list of the oprichnina court of Grozny in 1573 .85
For a correct assessment of the essence of the Oprichnina, it is necessary to part with some well-established ideas. First of all, with the idea that the Oprichnina really divided ("dissected") the state into two parts ("into floors"). The tsar did indeed set aside a "special" courtyard for himself, at first "posted" his oprichniks separately on the ground, created separate oprichni regiments, and arranged oprichni orders in his settlement. Oprichniks were dressed in a special vestment that distinguished them from other service people, 86 and enjoyed special privileges. However, all these "divisions", and above all the division of the state into "zemstvo" and "Oprichnina", were essentially nothing more than the creation of the upper floor of power. The old, historically formed institutions that remained in the Zemstvo, including the Boyar Duma, were thus all at once subordinated to the power of the autocrat.

The decisive suppression of the recalcitrant was, as shown above, a pre-ideologically grounded and legally approved policy of strengthening the autocracy. The land policy of the Oprichnina greatly expanded the scope of terror in its usual sense. Enough

81 Kurbsky A.M. Istoriya o velikom knyaz moskovskogo [History of the Grand Duke of Moscow]. SPb. 1913, stb. 352. Cf.: Eliseev S. A. Istoriya o velikom knyaz moskovskogo A.M. Kurbsky [History of the Grand Duke of Moscow]. Avtoref. kand-diss. M. 1984.

82 Correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrey Kurbsky, pp. 178-179.

83 Bibikov G. N. Uk. soch., p. 8. Unfortunately, historians do not even have the 234 names that Bibikov wrote about, since the list of oprichniks compiled by him was not published.

84 Alshits D. N. New Document, pp. 3-71.

85 Shortly after the publication of the source, O. A. Yakovleva spoke out against the opinion that the list of "domestic servants of 1573" is a list of oprichniks. She did not mention the name of the author, whose conclusions she disputed, did not indicate the cipher, title, or pages of the archive file on the basis of which she argues and which, obviously, she herself did not hold in her hands, because she took the late entry of the document in the copy book for the title of the document itself (Yakovleva O. A. On the question of 7081 (1573) - Notes of the Research Institute under the Council of Ministers of the Mordovian ASSR, Saransk, 1951, N 13, pp. 234-236). This should be pointed out, since the uncritical attitude to the speech of O. A. Yakovleva caused a number of serious researchers to distrust such a valuable source as the list of service people of the court of Ivan the Terrible in 1573.

86 Sadikov P. A. Uk. soch., pp. 23-24.

page 60

it was necessary to declare this territory oprichnoi, so that the expulsion of objectionable people from there would begin. Landowners of all categories became the objects of land confiscations. In this equation in the rights, or rather, in the disenfranchisement, of a well - born nobleman with a rootless servant, the political essence of the Oprichnina clearly manifested itself. The confiscation of land from everyone who was not "close" literally knocked the ground out from under the feet of any opposition.

In the early 70s, Grozny turned against the posadsky tops of Novgorod, Moscow, Pskov, Tver and other cities as another force that opposed the unlimited power of the autocrat. The tsar eventually eliminated both the political and economic independence of the Russian "merchant people". He took the Novgorod trade side to the Oprichnina by force. Following the Novgorodians, he suppressed the "arbitrariness" in Pskov, dealt with the recalcitrant Moscow merchants.

Let us name the main objective consequences of Grozny's oprichnina terror policy. The defeat of the church opposition: the removal of Philip Kolychev from the archdiocese and the murder of the Novgorod archbishops Pimen and Leonid. Defeat of the zemstvo opposition: elimination of the conspiracy of I. P. Fedorov, executions in 1570. Elimination of intra-dynastic danger: execution of Vladimir Staritsky and his relatives. Destruction of the last shires. Final liquidation of the self-government of Veliky Novgorod. These political actions, carried out with the help of the Oprichnina, established the tsarist regime, the essence of which consisted in universal and unconditional submission to the tsar of all classes and all authorities, in turning all the inhabitants of the country into loyal subjects.

Karamzin's words apply to the situation under Ivan IV: "The autocracy has taken root inside. No one, except the sovereign, could either judge or favor: all power was the outpouring of the monarch's will. Life and property depended on the arbitrariness of the tsars, and the most famous title in Russia was not a Princely or Boyar title, but the title of the servant of the Tsar." "True," the historian goes on to say, " they also wrote in our country: "The sovereign pointed out, the Boyars sentenced," but this was a legitimate proverb in Russia... a memorial service for the deceased Boyar aristocracy " 87 .

Studies by P. A. Sadikov, A. A. Zimin, and R. G. Skrynnikov showed that the Oprichnina had the most important orders: Razryad, Yamskoy, the Sovereign's Palace, and the Treasury. The Oprichnii Discharge Order was responsible for the formation of a privileged part of the army accompanying the tsar himself, as they would later say, the royal "guard". From the very beginning to the end of the days of Grozny, the Oprichnoi court was the supreme leadership of all the main services and institutions of the state, and it practically embodied the power of the autocrat.

The system of autocracy created by Ivan the Terrible did not die with the first tsar, but became the basis for further strengthening and developing the power apparatus of the unlimited monarchy. The Oprichnina played an important role in consolidating the feudal class around tsarist power. Unity was achieved by subordinating the interests of all strata of this class to the interests of its largest and most powerful stratum - the service people, the landlords. As a result, the feudal class and its state were able to carry out the attachment of peasants to the land. Complete submission to the autocracy, universal "emancipation" of feudal lords of all degrees-recognition of the absolute, unlimited domination of the royal will and power - such was the price they had to pay for the enslavement of the peasants in their favor.

The feudal autocracy is not "younger" than serfdom, but "older" than it. The autocracy proclaimed serfdom and carried out

87 Karamzin N. M. Zapiskaia o drevnoi i novoi Rossii [Note on Ancient and New Russia], St. Petersburg, 1914, pp. 12, 65.

page 61

into life. Ensuring the interests of feudal feudal lords - this is the main class meaning of the establishment and existence of autocracy. Even from this point of view, it seems incorrect to attribute the emergence of autocracy to a later time - to the middle of the seventeenth century.

The peasant war of the early 17th century, the dynastic crisis, and the intervention were the strongest blows to the system of autocratic power. However, the changes made to the social structure of the Russian state during the reign of Ivan the Terrible were irreversible. We are talking about such important socio-political changes as the introduction of serfdom, the transformation of local land ownership into the socio-economic base of the ruling class; the reorganization of military service; the subordination of the church to the state; the establishment of administrative regulations and taxation of trade; the creation of a unified state tax system. The consolidation of tsarist power in the middle of the 17th century, reflected in the Code of 1649, was essentially a restoration of the foundations of autocracy laid down in the reign of Grozny, which were shaken during the above-mentioned crises, and their further development. It is not by chance that the middle of the 17th century was marked by an exceptional interest and attention to the time of Ivan IV. It is enough, without going into details, to point out that most of the written sources of his era (the Sudebnik of 1550, the works of Grozny, Peresvetov, Kurbsky) have come down to us due to the fact that they were preserved in numerous lists of the middle of the XVII century, when they were copied and distributed.

Unsubstantiated conclusions about the imminent abolition of the Oprichnina, established in historiography, make it difficult to really assess this phenomenon and its significance in the history of the autocracy.

Historical figures of that time, including those invested with the highest authority, were free to create and abolish certain political institutions, to give them names, even the most arbitrary ones, such as the name "oprichnina", they could arrange the creation of these institutions in any way, sometimes very theatrically, they could shape and change them their personnel. But they could neither create an objective historical development by their own will, nor cancel it.

As always, when "a state is formed, a special force is created, special detachments of armed people" 88 . From this point of view, the Oprichnina ceases to be a product of the personal whim of Ivan the Terrible, a short-term zigzag of his internal policy, which did not have any serious grounds, and finds its place as a natural stage in the formation and strengthening of the autocracy.

The history of the creation of an autocratic state in Russia is a vivid confirmation of the Marxist-Leninist position that the state is a product of irreconcilable class contradictions. It is no coincidence that the strengthening of the consolidation of the feudal class, which led to the Oprichnina in the middle of the XVI century, and the strengthening of the consolidation of feudal lords in the middle of the XVII century, reflected in the Code of 1649, occurred under the direct influence of anti-feudal popular movements. What suffered most from the Oprichnina was not the boyars or nobles, not the rich "guests" and not the dignified churchmen, as pre-revolutionary historiography liked to portray. From the very beginning of its history, the working people suffered most from the strengthening of the tsarist system - the peasantry, who suffered oprichnina ruin and fell into the serf yoke. The social origin of autocracy is inextricably linked with the Oprichnina and serfdom. And the origin, as you know, can be denied, but can not be canceled.

88 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 33, p. 10.

page 62


© library.rs

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.rs/m/articles/view/THE-INITIAL-STAGE-IN-THE-HISTORY-OF-AUTOCRACY

Similar publications: LSerbia LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Andrija PutnikContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.rs/Putnik

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

D. N. ALSHITS, THE INITIAL STAGE IN THE HISTORY OF AUTOCRACY // Belgrade: Library of Serbia (LIBRARY.RS). Updated: 24.01.2025. URL: https://library.rs/m/articles/view/THE-INITIAL-STAGE-IN-THE-HISTORY-OF-AUTOCRACY (date of access: 19.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - D. N. ALSHITS:

D. N. ALSHITS → other publications, search: Libmonster SerbiaLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Andrija Putnik
Белград, Serbia
49 views rating
24.01.2025 (26 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Заснув в сафьянах книг Мы пробудились поздно Нам нами не зажгут сиреневые звёзды В лесах росу не раскачает лень полуденных дерев Дрозды уснут в полях всех перепев... И шепот деревень загасит пламя дня Наступит ночь, как видно без меня Осталось мало Нас, сотрудников Земли Уходим, уводя Надежды корабли...
Catalog: Филология 
«Вздор!.. Гений не совершает ошибок. Его блуждания намеренны, они врата – открытия» (Джойс Д. Улисс. стр. 202). Писано в брутальные времена...
Jean Eiffel and Innovations Derivatives
Catalog: Экономика 
The Question of Changing the Global Matrix in Russia and in the World
Catalog: Экономика 
"A WORD ABOUT IGOR'S REGIMENT" IN THE "EXPERIENCE OF NARRATION ABOUT RUSSIA" BY I. P. ELAGIN
17 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
DRUZHINA AND THE GENESIS OF FEUDALISM IN RUSSIA
Catalog: История 
18 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
Many of you and your associates are operating in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions y.e. This is about your transactions... Direct or Indirect or Potential. Not so long ago, many of you became players in "Cybereconomics". In a fundamentally new transformation of the digital world, about which many of us are still little known.. Purchase and exchange of fiat money, work on the transformation of fiat money into cryptocurrency. Buying a car, apartments, loans from financial institutions... Et cetera. There are lucky people who work in their own business or act as investors.
Catalog: Экономика 
LITTLE-KNOWN HERO OF BORODIN
Catalog: История 
20 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
THE IDEA OF SLAVIC UNITY IN THE SOCIAL THOUGHT OF PRE-REFORM RUSSIA
20 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
A. M. STANISLAVSKAYA. POLITICHESKAYA DEYATEL'NOST ' F. F. USHAKOV V GREKE [POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF F. F. USHAKOV IN GREECE]. 1798-1800
21 days ago · From Andrija Putnik

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.RS - Serbian Digital Library

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

THE INITIAL STAGE IN THE HISTORY OF AUTOCRACY
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: RS LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Serbian Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2014-2025, LIBRARY.RS is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Serbia


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android