"The woman is created for a man, not a man for a woman" - such a postulate ...
; Complete political centralization Russian state; Approve autocracy (repressive way).
Tasks:
1) eliminate the specific system: in 1563, Yuri Staritsky was eliminated;
2) to subjugate the royal will of the Church (the church should approve all the actions of the king) - the case of Metropolitan Philip;
3) defeat the opposition centers - Novgorod, Pskov, Tver;
4) defeat the boyars-princely opposition;
5) carrying out the cleaning of the Boyarskaya Duma and the system of orders;
6) Allow the conflict between the nobility and the booze in favor of the nobles (autocracy support).
Official steps:
1) 1565 - 1566 - the beginning of terror, is not massacre;
2) 1567 - 1572. - a period of mass terror, peak terror - summer 1569 - summer 1570;
3) 1572 - 1584. - Terror is hidden (veiled) character;
February 3, 1565 - the beginning of the Okrichnina; There are cripples in the north of the country that led to strong hunger.
1570 - 1571 - a terrible epidemic of plague in the North-West and Central Rus; Failures in the Livonian War. There was a sacred element - preparation for the terrible court.
1st stage. Executions are part of a part: Obolenskiy, Kurakina, Gorbatoy-Shuisky, Repnins; Yaroslavl, Starodubsk, Rostov princes are sent to the Kazan reference. In the spring of 1566, Metropolitan Athanasius voluntarily took off his san, went to the monastery. Ivan the 4th left his gaze on Fedor Kalychev (Philippe) as Metropolitan, put forward as a condition for cancellation of Okrichnina. In June 1566, Philip became Metropolitan - the terror was recession, they began to return from the Kazan reference; Oples occur.
In 1566, Vladimir Staritsky was deprived of his lot and exiled to Vologda.
2nd stage (1566 - 1572) - the case of Ivan Fedorova, the leader of the Boyarskaya Duma in the ground is unchecked. At the very beginning of the Board of Ivan Fedorovich Ivan the 4th ordered to execute the son. In March 1568, Metropolitan Philip refused Ivan 4th and ghosts in favor. Philip fell, sent to the monastery ovel (Tver) and in December 1569, Metropolitan kills Metropolitan.
In 1569 2 rumors were stubbornly:
Jacob Novgorod wants not Ivan 4th, but Staritsky;
Novgorodians want to go under the authority of Lithuania.
Rumors broke up intentionally.
In September 1566, Vladimir Staritsky and his wife and children were caused to Moscow to Moscow (younger daughter), Ivan the 4th forced to take their poison. On the same day, the mother of Staritsky was killed.
At the end of the autumn, Ivan 4th with an urinary army is sent to the punitive campaign, burned: Wedge, Tver, Torzhok, Novgorod and Pskov. In Novgorod, 1 \\ 2 population was cut, 27 monasteries were ravaged, all the icons were exported, ruined Sophia Cathedral. In Pskov, terror was not so mass.
July 25, 1570, mass executions on the frustrated puddle in Moscow occur. 300 people were sentenced to execution, but 194 was pardoned. Executed wicked, Afanasy Vyazemsky.
In 1571, the Daytlet-Girey approached Moscow and knocking it (the ring was burned to the center). As a result ("The smell of human bodies was broadcasting to the entire district") Ushedshi, the Daytlet Garyre demanded Kazan and Astrakhan.
In 1572, an oprichny army was created (herbalosynin) and Zemsky army (Vorotynsky). In 1545, the village of Methods (near Moscow), the Daytlet Gary was defeated (July 15, 1572). After this victory, Ivan the 4th banned to use the words "Okrichnina, Ochrichnik" and historians believed that it was canceled.
1) but there was no order for cancellation;
2) terror was covered;
3) In 1572, the throne was freed in the speech of the compulciety and Ivan the 4th nominated his candidacy for the throne.
3rd stage 1572-1584. Oprichnina renamed the Public Courtyard. A new direction appears - terror against Yarya Ochrichnikov. The terror against the land was weakened, several persons were rehabilitally rehabilitated and part of their property was returned to far from relatives. 2 icons (one - miraculous) were solemnly returned to Novgorod. A splash of terror occurred in 1575.
In 1574, the throne was liberated in the speech by the compulculation, Ivan the 4th nominated for the throne. The Magi predicted that Ivan the 4th should die (Ivan the 4th removed the royal title and took the title of Moscow prince; the king was prescribed Simeon Bikbulatovich).
From 1578-1579 Count executions. In 1581, in Alexander Sloboda, Ivan the 4th kills son - Ivan. Ivan Ivanovich's daughter-in-law gave birth to a dead son.
Official results:
1) approved autocracy, the centralization of the state was completed;
2) the church became a tool of royal policy, approving the actions of the king;
3) the state apparatus turned into a repression apparatus;
4) the deepest economic crisis occurred in the country (approximately 90% of the land was not processed);
5) the treasury is empty, the taxation, feudal exploitation of the population (in 1581, adopted "Decree on Reserved Falls" - the yield is prohibited from one to another in Yuriev day);
6) colossal human losses;
7) knocks out the color of the nation, the tops of all classes;
8) the military potential of the country has sharply;
9) The shameful end of the Livonian War (1558 - 1583).
In 1582, a pereg-zapolsky truce was signed between Russia and the speech of the respondent for 10 years, and in 1583 between Russia and Sweden, the plus truce for 10 years: Livonia is lost; access to the Baltic Sea; Cities: Ivan city, pit, kopory, parliament parish;
11) The decontamination, a blow to culture ceased.
The word "Okrichnina" takes roots from the Old Russian "Occupy", which is translated as "except", "special". This term in the 16th century called the territories that were already personal use of the sovereign and his neighboring environments.
If we talk about internal politician, then Okrichnina Ivan the Terrible briefly is a policy of repression against recurrent boyars aimed at strengthening the autocratic power and the centralization of the state that has continued from 1565 to 1572. Its essence was in pacification of the still strongly strongly boyar estate at any cost, in particular, the widespread physical violence, confiscation of land possessions and the entire property in favor of the state, forced resettlement of people to other territories.
In history, this time was included, as the bloody time of the bloody, rampant arbitrariness and lawlessness, creative king and its approximate. In order to understand what happened, it is necessary to know the causes and consequences of this phenomenon.
Okrichnikov at the king
The reasons for oprichnin can be called the following:
- The unsuccessful foreign policy (losses in the West in the Livonian War, begun the king in 1558 for the territory on the Baltic coast, the king accused of all the boyars, the reluctance and inability to act decisively, as well as disrespect for the royal power; raids of the Crimean Tatars);
- Death in 1560 by the beloved wife Ivan the Terrible Anastasia (which one of the few could restrain the unbridled temper of the king, she was probably poisoned), in 1563 the death of Metropolitan Makaria, the tutor of the king in the spiritual plan. The elected Rada mentor (it was created from the associate The king, conducted a number of reforms, but the differences between the king and its leader Alexei Adshev in the region foreign Policy, as well as discontent of the king, the slow pace of reform led to the dissolution of the elected Rada in 1560);
- The betrayal in 1563 of the Prince of Prince Andrei Kurbsky, who was part of the elected Rada and fled to hostile Lithuania (after that, a conspiracy at the expense of a conspiracy begins everywhere, he was convinced of the Boyar's infidelity).
These and other reasons served to occur such a phenomenon as an oprichnin. Official politician takes his principle in 1565, when Ivan Grozny left Moscow, having moved to the Alexander Sloboda, and dividing the territory of the state to the "Okrichnin" (part of Moscow, and the treasures closest to it, extensive territories in the West and the south of the state) and the "land" (All the remaining land).
From Alexandrovskaya Slobody, Ivan Grozny writes and sends 2 letters to the capital, the first was addressed to the new Metropolitan and Boyars, the second - the people. In the letters it was said that Ivan Vasilyevich refuses from his board due to the bumps of the boyars, betrayal and the recalcity of their royal power, he does not hold a disadvantage.
At the venue of the sovereign Basmanov-Plescheev (representative of the Tsarist Rodney), he creates an ugly army - the personal guard of the king, who were served by the privileges in her composition, and essentially unlimited power (the king wondered by the officers, and often encouraged them, himself By participating in bloody fun).
Okrichniki squeezed riding on black horses, brooms and dog heads were attached to the sides. These symbols said that the ryrichniki are ready to fit like the suto from the borders of the country of all who disagree with the authorities of the king and dare to resist him. And true to him like Psam. The initial number of oprichny troops was 1000 people, subsequently it increased significantly.
So, we considered the reasons now proceed further.
The farmer was taxed in favor of Ochrichnina, there were forcibly moved by the wrong king of the boyars and their approximate, pre-depriving property, land possessions and ranks. In Okrichnin, the bloody executions of Boyar and Princes began. From Alexan Sobody, Ivan Grozny regularly performs visits to Moscow to punish the states of state and their personal enemies. Almost everyone who dared to get up in his way, to oppose the workless lawlessness, soon died.
In 1569, Ivan Grozny is not unable to decide that in Novgorod is unhappy with what is happening and crumbling against him and his politics. The king collects great strength and heads with them to Novgorod, reaches it in the winter of 1570. Ovenly in Novgorod lasted 1.5 months, during this time every day passed mass beats of people, 500-600 people. We received widespread robbing of local residents, arson, murder of civilians. Alive remained only the 5th part of the population. Thus, every possible resistance in Novgorod was broken.
Next, the bloody movement went to Pskov. Significantly increased army of scrambles entered the city. At first, Ivan Grozny wished to arrange a bloody violence in Pskov like Novgorod, but only a few boyars were executed, and their property was confiscated to the state treasury.
After Pskov, the king with the army returns to the Moscow frossous of fear, in order to find and erase the infection of the Novgorod conspiracy. Moscow reprisals have become the highest point in the chaos of Okrichnin. It was executed according to the estimates of approximately 200 people from the top of the Boyarsky class, including people close to the king. The consequences of such a massacre, the mass extermination of representatives of the ancient gods hurt the state of internal politics and the perception of what is happening inside the mills and abroad.
The inconsistency of the Okrichnina policy, its deplorable consequences for the country (its defense capability in particular) became visible in 1571 during the invasion of the Crimean Tatars in Moscow headed by Khan Devlet-Gyrey. Then accustomed to the robberies and scatters, sprinkled by the weak resistance of citizens, the oprichny troops could not defend Moscow, many simply did not appear on the battlefield.
Soon the king canceled the policy of Okrichnina, disbanded the Ochrichnikov, and even executed a few, but the approximate retinue of Ivan Grozny existed in this form to his very death, only changing its name from Okrichnina to the courtyard.
We looked at the causes and progress of the Official Policies. What were its consequences and the results for the country?
The consequences and results of the Okrichnin Policy were as follows:
- The Boyarskaya Duma lost its role of the manager (over the years of the Okrichnikina, she never convened), it remains more like a tribute to tradition.
- Tens of thousands of people died. According to the calculations on 1 executed boyar, there were several serving people to a dozen peasants and artisans. People were confused and disoriented.
- The country was on the verge of an economic crisis, up to 90% of arable land did not cultivate, hunger came.
- Strengthening serfdom (Ivan Grozny abolished Yuriev day, now the peasants could not go to other lands, change the owner.)
- Russia lost to the 25-year-old Livonian war with the Polish-Lithuanian state, lost all the exits to the Baltic Sea and the Earth on the territory of the Gulf of Finland, which moved to the Swedes that took advantage of the situation.
- The unstable situation associated with the dynastic crisis (Ivan Vasilyevich did not leave behind the direct heir to the throne and power), social tensions in all layers of the Company led Russia to the sad and complete tragedy to the times of turmoil and impostors.
On the mortal Odra, the king "forgave" all the OPL Boyars - "traitors", which were executed during the Officials by his decree.
The role of Osrichnina Ivan the Terrible in the history of the Russian state
About such a phenomenon as Official I.Grozny (1565-1572) written hundreds, if not thousands of historical research, monographs, articles, reviews, protected the dissertations, have long been allocated the main reasons, the course of events has been restored, consequences are explained.
However, to this day, neither in domestic, nor in foreign historiography there is no consensus on the issue of the meaning of Oricnin in the history of the Russian state. Over the centuries, historians break a spear in disputes: how to sign events 1565-1572? Was it an oprichnina just a cruel terror of a semi-dry king-despot against his subjects? Or, at all, it was still a healthy and necessary policies in those conditions, aimed at strengthening the foundations of statehood, improving the authority of the central authority, improving the country's defense capability, etc.?
In general, all the different opinions of historians can be reduced to two mutually exclusive statements: 1) Okrichnina was due to the personal qualities of King Ivan and had no political sense (N.I. Kostomarov, V.O. Klechevsky, S.B.Veselovsky, I. Y. Froyanov); 2) Okrichnina was a well-thought-out political step of Ivan Grozny and was directed against the social forces that opposed his "self-balance."
Among the supporters of the last point of view also there is no unity of opinion. Some researchers believe that the purpose of Okrichnina was the crushing of the boyars-princely economic and political power associated with the destruction of large wagon land tenure (S.Solovyov, S.F. Platonov, R.G.Skrynnikov). Others (A.A. Zimin and VB Kobrin) believe that Officient "aimed" exclusively in the remnants of the specific-prince of aristocracy (Staritsky Prince Vladimir), and was also directed against the separatist aspirations of Novgorod and the resistance of the Church as a powerful, opposing state Organizations. None of these provisions is undoubtedly, therefore, the scientific discussion on the value of the Okrichnin continues.
What is Okrichnina?
Anyone who at least somehow was interested in the history of Russia, perfectly knows that there was a time when Ochrichniki existed in Russia. In the consciousness of the majority modern people This word was the definition of a terrorist, a criminal, a person who deliberately committing lawlessness with the connivance of the supreme power, and often with its direct support.
Meanwhile, the word "Obvious" itself in relation to any property or land ownership began to be consumed long before the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Already in the XIV century, the "Okrichnikina" is called a part of the inheritance, which goes to the widow of the prince after his death ("Vdovo share"). The widow had the right to receive income from a certain part of land land, but after her death, the estate was returned to the eldest son, another senior heir, or, in the absence of such, was attributed to the state execution. So, Okrichnina in the XIV-XVI centuries is specially highlighted in lifelong possession.
Over time, the word "Okrichnina" appeared synonym, who dates back to the root "Occupy", which means "except." From here "Okrichnina" - "Darkness Thaleny", as it was sometimes called, and "Okrichnik" - "Homeshnik". But this synonym was introduced as some scientists believed, the first "political emigrant" and the opponent I.Grozny Andrei Kurbsky. In his messages, the king of the words "Homeshniki" and "Darkness Thamshny" in relation to Ovrichnina Ivan IV are used for the first time.
In addition, it should be noted that the Old Russian word "Occupic" (adolescence and preposition), according to Dal Dictionary, means: "Out, the okrom, outside, outside of what." Hence the "Officer" - "separate, dedicated, special".
Thus, it is symbolic that the name of the Soviet employee of the Special Department is "an individual" - in fact, is the meaning of the word "Ochrichnik".
In January 1558, Ivan Grozny began Livonian war for mastering the coast Baltic Sea To gain access to maritime communications and simplify trade with Western European countries. Soon the Great Principality of Moscow faces the widespread coalition of enemies, which includes Poland, Lithuania, Sweden. In fact, participates in the Anti-Moscow Coalition and Crimean Khanate, which ruins regular military campaigns of the Southern Regions of the Moscow Principality. The war takes a protracted exhaust character. Drought, hunger, plague epidemic, Crimean-Tatar campaigns, Polish-Lithuanian raids and sea blockade, carried out by Poland and Sweden, devastated the country. The sovereign itself is still facing the manifestations of boyars separatism, the reluctance of the Boyarskaya oligarchy to continue important to the Moscow kingdom of the Livonian war. In 1564, the commander of the Western Army Prince Kurbsky - in the past one of the closest personal friends of the king, a member of the "elected Rada" - passes towards the opponent's side, issues a Russian agent in Livonia and participates in the offensive actions of the Poles and Lithuanians.
The position of Ivan IV becomes critical. It was possible to get out of it only with the help of the most rigid, decisive measures.
On December 3, 1564, Ivan the Terrible with his family suddenly left the capital on a mantis. The king took a treasury, a personal library, icons and symbols of power. Having visited the village of Kolomenskoye, he did not return to Moscow and, slapping several weeks, stopped in the Alexander Sloboda. On January 3, 1565, he announced his renunciation from the throne, due to the "anger" on the boyars, church, voivods and orders. Two days later, the deputation headed by Archbishop Pimen, who persuaded the king to return to the kingdom, arrived in the Alexander Slobod. From Sloboda Ivan IV sent two diplomas to Moscow: one - boyars and clergy, and another landing people explained in detail, for which the sovereign is angry, and for whom "evil does not hold." Thus, he immediately divided society, seeding the seeds of mutual distrust and hatred towards the boyars tip among ordinary citizens and a small servant nobility.
In early February 1565, Ivan Grozny returned to Moscow. The king announced that the board reiterates again, but with that as a condition, so that it was voluntarily to execute the traitors, to impose on them to opal, deprive the property, etc., and so that neither the Boyar Duma nor the clergy in his affairs intervened. Those. The sovereign introduced for himself "Okrichnin".
This word was used first in the sense of special property or ownership; Now it has become different meaning. In Ochrichnina, the king separated part of the boyars, serviceful and ordered people and in general, all his "source" made special: the special staff of the keys, cooks, painters, etc. was appointed in the palaces of satisfies, feed and breadmen; Special squads of Streltsov were scored. Special cities (about 20, including Moscow, Vologda, Vyazma, Suzdal, Kozelsk, Money, Veliky Ustyug) were appointed for the content of the Oprichnik. In Moscow itself, some streets were at the disposal of Okrichnina (Chertolskaya, Arbat, Sivans eneseeks, part of Nikitskaya, etc.); Former residents were resettled to other streets. Up to 1000 princes, nobles, children of the Boyar, both Moscow and urban were also scored in the oprichnin. They were distributed estates in the wallands appointed on the content of the Okrichnin. Former landowners and warders evaporate from those volosts to others.
All the rest of the state was to be "the land": the king instructed his Zemsky Boyars, that is, the actual boyar Duma, and the prince of Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky and Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky put it. All the cases were to be resolved in antiquity, and with great cases, it was necessary to turn to the boyars, if the deeds are happening or the most important land to the sovereign. For the rise, that is, for a trip to the Alexander Slobod, the king charged a fine of 100 thousand rubles from the Zemsky order.
"Okrichniki" - people of the sovereign - should have "etching treason" and act exclusively in the interests of the royal authorities, supporting the authority of the Supreme Ruler in military time. Nobody limited them in the methods nor in the methods of "etching", and all the innovations of Grozny turned into a cruel, unjustified terror of the authority minority against the majority of the country's population.
In December 1569, the army of the Ochrichnikov, who was personally led by Ivan Grozny, made a campaign to Novgorod, who allegedly wanted to change him. The king walked like an enemy country. Okrichniki rolled out the city (Tver, Torzhok), villages and villages, killed and robbed the population. In Novgorod, the defeat lasted 6 weeks. Suspected thousands tortured and treated in Volkhov. The city was looted. The property of churches, monasteries and merchants was confiscated. Beating continued in Novgorod five. Then the Terrible moved to Pskov, and only the superstitiousness of the Terrible Tsar allowed this ancient city to avoid the pogrom.
In 1572, when a real threat was created by the very existence of a Moscow state from Crimekov, the oprich troops actually sabotaged the order of his king to oppose the enemy. The Malebinsky battle with the army of Devlet-Gurya won the shelves under the leadership of the "Zemsky" governor. After that, Ivan IV himself canceled an oprichnin, subjected to opal and executed many of her leaders.
Historiography Okrichnina in the first half of the XIX century
The historians spoke the first to speak the first of the XVII-early XIX centuries: Scherbatov, Bolotov, Karamzin. Already then there was a tradition to "divide" the reign of Ivan IV for two halves, which subsequently formed the basis of the theory of "two Ivanov", introduced in the historiography of N.M. Karamzin on the basis of the study of the works of Prince A. Kurbsky. In Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible - a virtuous hero and a wise state husband in the first half of his reign and crazy Tiran-despot - in the second. Many historians, following Karamzin, tied a sharp change in the public policy with his mental illness caused by the death of the first wife Anastasia Romanovna. There were even seriously the versions about the "substitution" of the king by another person.
The watershed between the "good" Ivan and "Bad", according to Karamzin, was the introduction of an oprichnin in 1565. But N.M. Karamzin was still more writer and moralist than scientists. Picturesque Okrichnina, he created a artistic expressive picture, which was to impress the reader, but not to answer the question of the reasons, the consequences and character of this historical phenomenon.
Subsequent historians (N.I. Kostomomarov) were also seen the main cause of Ormpnic, solely in the personal qualities of Ivan Grozny, who did not want to listen to people disagree with the methods of holding it in general the justified policies of the central government.
Solovyov and Klyuchevsky About Official
S. M. Solovyov and the "Public School" created by him, domestic historiography went on a different way. Abstraining from the personal characteristics of the Tsar-Tirana, they saw in the activities of Grozny, first of all, the transition from the old "generic" relations to the modern "state", which completed the Okrichnina - state power in the form, as the great "reformer" understood her . Solovyov first separated the cruelty of the king of Ivan and organized by him internal terror from political, social and economic processes that time. From the point of view of historical science it was, undoubtedly, step forward.
V.O. Welchevsky, unlike Solovyov, considered the internal policy of Ivan the Terrible completely aimless, in addition, dictated exclusively personal qualities of the sovereign character. In his opinion, Okrichnina did not respond with violent political issues, and also did not eliminate those difficulties that were called. Under the "difficulty" historian in mind the collision between Ivan IV and the boyars: "Boyar was addicted to themselves by the power advisers of the Sovereign of All Russia at the time when this sovereign, remaining faithful to the demonstration of the progress, according to ancient Russian right, complained they as the courtyard servants of their sovereign owners. Both sides found themselves in such a unnatural attitude towards each other, whom they seem to not notice until it was, and with whom they did not know what to do when he was noticed. "
Output from such a situation and became an oprichnin, which Klyuchevsky calls an attempt to "live nearby, but not together."
According to the historian, Ivan IV had only two outputs:
Eliminate the boyars as a government class and replace it with other, more flexible and obedient administrations;
Disconnect the boyars, bring to the throne the most reliable people from the boyars and to rule them, as well as Ivan rules at the beginning of his reign.
None of the outputs did not work.
Klyuchevsky indicates that Ivan Grozny followed to act against the political position of all the disaster, and not against individuals. The king does the opposite: without having the opportunity to change the political system uncomfortable for him, he subjures persecutions and executions of individuals (and not only a boyars), but it leaves a boyars at the head of the Zemstvo management.
Such animation of the king is not a consequence of political calculation. It is rather a consequence of a distorted political understanding caused by personal emotions and fear for his personal position:
Klyuchevsky saw in an oprichnin not the State Institute, but the manifestation of the lawless anarchy aimed at loosening the foundations of the state and undermining the authority of the authorities of the monarch himself. Klyuchevsky considered an oprichnin one of the most effective factorswho prepared troubled time.
Concept S.F. PLATONOVA
The developments of the "State School" received further development In the works of S. F. Platonova, who created the most integral concept of Okrichnina, which included in all pre-revolutionary, Soviet and some post-Soviet university textbooks.
S.F. Platonov believed that the main reasons for Okrichnin were lying in the awareness of Ivan the Terrible Danger of the Specific Prince and Boyar Opposition. S.F. Platonov wrote: "Nobody's misunderstanding it, he (Ivan Grozny) applied to her that mode, which Moscow was applied to his enemies, it was -" Conclusion "... what was so well managed with the enemy of the external, the Terrible conceived to experience with the enemy internal those. With those people who were hostile and dangerous. "
Speaking modern tongue, Osrichnina Ivan IV was based on a grand personnel shuffling, as a result of which major boyars-landowners and the specific princes were resettled with specific hereditary land in the space distant from the previous ending. Votches were shared on the plots and complained to those children of Boyars, who were in the service of the king (Ochrichnikov). According to Platonov, Okrichnina was not a "capricious" crazy Tirana. On the contrary, Ivan Grozny led a purposeful and well-designed struggle with a large boyars hereditary land tenure, descending this way to eliminate separatist trends and suppress the opposition of central state power:
The old owners of Grozny sent to the outskirts, where they could be useful in defense of the state.
Officer terror, according to Platonov, was only an inevitable consequence of such a policy: the forest is cut - sinters fly! Over time, the monarch itself becomes a hostage of the current situation. To resist in power and bring to the end of the events conceived by him, Ivan the Terrible was forced to pursue a total terror policy. There was no other way out.
"The entire surgery and change of landowners in the eyes of the population wore the nature of the disaster and political terror," wrote the historian. - With an extraordinary cruelty, he (Ivan Grozny) without any investigation and the court executed and tormented the people unwanted to him, referred to their families, ruined their farms. His ovirks did not hesitate to kill the defenseless people to kill the defenseless people, rob and rape them. "
One of the main negative consequences of the Okrichnina Platonov recognizes the violation of the country's economic life - the state achieved by the state the state of sustainability of the population was lost. In addition, the hatred of the population to the cruel power has made a distribution to the society itself, thoring after the death of the Terrible Universal uprisings and the peasant wars - the harbingers of the Troubles of the early XVII century.
In the overall estimate of Ochrichnina S.F. Platonov puts much more "pros" than all its predecessors. According to his concept, Ivan Grozny managed to achieve undisputed results in the politics of the centralization of the Russian state: large landowners were ruined and partly destroyed, the majority of relatively small landowners, serunel people (nobles) were prevalent, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the country's defense capability . From here - the progressiveness of the policy of oprichnin.
It is this concept that approved in domestic historiography for many years.
Apologetic Historiography Okrichnina (1920-1956)
Despite the abundance of contradictory facts, revealed already in the 1910-20s, the "apologetic" concept of S. Plotonov regarding the Okrichnina and Ivan IV of Grozny was not difficult at all. On the contrary, she spawned a number of successors and sincere supporters.
In 1922, the book of the former professor of Moscow University of R.Vipper "Ivan Grozny" was published. Becoming disintegration witness Russian Empire, having to fully Soviet anarchy and arbitrariness, political emigrant and quite serious historian R. Vipper created not historical study, and very passionate panecirik Okrichnin and Ivan Grozny himself - a policy that was able to "clean up the solid hand." The author for the first time considers the internal policy of Grozny (Okrichnin) in direct connection with the foreign policy situation. However, the vipper interpretation of many foreign policy events is largely fantastic and far-fetched. Ivan the Terrible acts in his work as a wise and a far-sighted ruler, taking care, first of all, about the interests of his great power. Execution and terror of Grozny find justification, and can be explained quite objective reasons: Oprichnina was necessary because of the extremely difficult military situation in the country, the ruin of Novgorod - for the sake of improving the position at the front, etc.
Official itself, according to Vipper, is an expression of democratic (!) The trends of the XVI century. Thus, the Zemsky Cathedral of 1566 is artificially connected by the author with the creation of an oprichnin in 1565, the transformation of the Okrichnina to the courtyard (1572) is interpreted by Vipper as the expansion of the system caused by the betrayal of Novgorod and the ruin of the Crimean Tatar. He refuses to admit that the reform of 1572 was actually the destruction of the Okrichnina. The reasons for catastrophic in their consequences for Russia's completion of the Livonian war are just as unmarked for Vipper.
Even further in apologetics of the Terrible and Okrichnina, the chief official historiographer of the revolution M.N. went. Pokrovsky. In his "Russian history from ancient times", a convinced revolutionary turns Ivan the Terrible in the leader of a democratic revolution, a more successful Fapture of Emperor Paul I, which is also depicted by the Pokrovsky "Democrat on the throne". The excuse of tyrants is one of the favorite topics of Pokrovsky. He saw an aristocracy as such to hate his hatred, for her power to determine malware.
However, faithful historians-Marxists of Pokrovsky, undoubtedly, seemed overly infected idealistic spirit. No personality can play any significant role in history - after all, the story is managed by class struggle. So teaches Marxism. And Pokrovsky, having heard the seminaries of Vinogradov, Klyuchevsky and other "bourgeois specialists", and could not negotiate the exhaustion of idealism, giving too much great importance Persons, as if they did not obey common for all the laws of historical materialism ...
The most typical for an orthodox Marxist approach to the problem of Ivan the Terrible and Okrichnina is the article M. Svetchina about Ivan IV in the "First Soviet Encyclopedia" (1933). In her interpretation, the personality of the king does not matter at all:
The social sense of the Okrichnina was in the elimination of the boyars as a class and dissolving it in the mass of small land feudalists. Ivan worked on the embodiment of this goal with the "greatest sequence and unstable perseverance" and completely succeeded in his work.
Such was the only true and only possible interpretation of the policy of Ivan the Terrible.
Moreover, this interpretation so liked "collectors" and "revivals" of the new Russian Empire, namely, the USSR, which was immediately taken by the Stalinist leadership. A new great ideology needed historical rootedness, especially on the eve of the upcoming war. The narratives about Russian military leaders and commander of the past were urgently created and replicated, who fought with the Germans or with someone, distant to the Germans. The victories of Alexander Nevsky, Peter I (True, he fought with the Swedes, but why go to the details? ..), Alexander Suvorov. Dmitry Donskoy, Minin with Pozhai and Mikhail Kutuzov, who fought with foreign aggressors, also after 20 years of oblivion, were declared national heroes and the glorious Sons of the Fatherland.
Of course, with all these circumstances, Ivan the Terrible could not remain forgotten. True, he did not reflect foreign aggression and did not win the military victory over the Germans, but he was the creator of a centralized Russian state, a fighter against disorder and anarchy created by malicious aristocrats - boyars. He began to introduce revolutionary reforms in order to create a new order. But even an autocratic king can play a positive role, if the monarchy is a progressive building on this segment of history ...
Despite the very sad fate of the Academician of Platonov, convicted of "academic cause" (1929-1930), which began "apologization" of Okrichnin in the late 1930s, gained all new revs.
Randomly or not, but in 1937 - the most "peak" of Stalinist repressions - in the fourth time, Platonovsky "Essays on the history of the Trouble in the Moscow State of the XVI-XVII centuries were reprinted, and the Higher School of Propagandists has published (however," for Internal use ") Fragments of the pre-revolutionary textbook of Platonov for universities.
In 1941, the director S. Eisenstein received from the Kremlin "order" to shoot a film about Ivan Grozny. Naturally, Comrade Stalin wished to see the Grozny Tsar, which would fully fit into the concept of Soviet "apologists." Therefore, all the events included in the Scenario of Eisenstein are subordinated to the main conflict - the struggle for the uniforms against recalcitable boyars and against all who prevents him in unification of land and strengthening the state. The film "Ivan Grozny" (1944) exhibits Tsar Ivan as a wise and fair ruler who had great goal. Oprichnina and terror are represented as inevitable "costs" when it is achieved. But even these "costs" (the second series of the film) Comrade Stalin preferred to the screens not allow.
In 1946, the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) was published, which refers to the "progressive army of Ochrichnikov." Progressive value in the then historiography Okrich Troops It was that his education was necessary stage In the struggle for the strengthening of the centralized state and was the struggle of the central government, which launched a servant nobility, against feudal aristocracy and specific remnants.
Thus, a positive assessment of Ivan IV activities in Soviet historiography was supported at the highest state level. Until 1956, the most cruel tyrant in the history of Russia appeared on the pages of textbooks, works of art and in cinema as national hero, true patriot, wise politician.
Revision of the concept of Okrichnina during the years of Khrushchev "Thaw"
As soon as Khrushchev read his famous report at the XX Congress, all the panegyric groove was put an end. The plus sign has changed sharply on the "minus", and historians have no longer hesitated to carry out completely obvious parallels of the reign of Grozny and the Board only recently improving Soviet tyrana.
A number of articles of domestic researchers immediately appear, in which the "cult of personality" of Stalin and the "cult of personality" of Grozny are divorced by about the same expressions and in similar to each other real examples.
One of the first were the article V.N. Shevyakova "On the question of the original of Ivan the Terrible", explaining the causes and consequences of Okrichnin in the spirit of N.I. Kostomarova and V.O. Klyuchevsky - i.e. Extremely negative:
The king himself, contracted with the whole of the previous apologetics, is named what he was actually the hall with the execution of his subjects.
Following the article, Shevyakova is another radical article of S.N.Dubrovsky "On the cult of personality in some works on the issues of history (about estimating Ivan IV, etc.)." The author is considering an oprichnin not as the war of the king against the specific aristocracy. On the contrary, he believes that Ivan Grozny was at the same time with the boyars-landowners. In their help, the king led the war against his people with the sole purpose - to clear the ground for the subsequent reassurance of the peasants. According to Dubrovsky, Ivan IV was not so talented and clever, as he tried to submit His historians stalin's era. The author accuses them in intentional travelers and distortion of historical facts, testifying to the personal qualities of the king.
In 1964, the book A.A. Zimin "Oprichnina Ivan Grozny" was published. Zimin recycled great amount Sources, raised the mass of the actual material that had a relation to the Ochrichnina. But his own opinion literally drowned in the abundance of names, graphs, numbers and solid facts. For its predecessors, unambiguous conclusions in the work of the historian are practically absent. With many reservations, Zimin agrees with the fact that most of The bloodshed and crimes of ryrichnikov were useless. However, the "objectively" content of the original in his eyes is still progressive: the initial thought of Grozny was true, and then everything spoiled the Ochrichnikov themselves, degenerated into the gangsters and robbers.
The book of Zimin was written during the Board of Khrushchev, and therefore the author is trying to satisfy both parties to the dispute. However, at the end of the life of A. A. Zimin revised his views towards the purely negative evaluation of Okrichnin, seeing "The bloody glow of oprichnin" Extremely manifestation of serfdom and despotic trends in counterweight preburazuis.
These positions were developed by his student V. B. Kobrin and the student of the latter A. L. Yurganov. Based on specific studies that began before the war and conducted by S. B. Veselovsky and A. A. Zimin (and continued by V. B. Kobrin), they showed that the theory of S.F. PLATONOVA about defeating as a result of urchinous land tenure - No matter how historic myth.
Criticism of Platonov concept
Back in 1910-1920, studies of the colossal complex of materials began, formally, it would seem that far from the problems of Okrichnin. Historians were studied a huge number of tube books, where land was fixed and large landowners, and serviced people. These were in the full sense of the word accounting accounts of the time.
And the more materials related to land tenure, was introduced into the scientific turnover in the 1930s, the more interesting the picture became. It turned out that major land tenure as a result of Ochrichnina did not suffer. In fact, at the end of the XVI century, it has been preserved almost the same as it was up to Okrichnina. It turned out that it was in those lands that were revealed in the Ochrichnina, often found territories inhabited by servilative people who did not have large puts. For example, the territory of the Suzdal principality was almost completely populated by servilative people, rich landowners there were very few. Moreover, according to the script books, it often turned out that many ryrds, allegedly received their estates in the Moscow region for the service of the king, and before that were their owners. Just in 1565-72, small landowners automatically hit the number of ovarists, because The sovereign declared these lands opic.
All these data was completely dispersed with the fact that S. F. Platonov, who did not proceed with tubers, did not know the statistics and practically did not use sources that were massive.
Soon another source was opened, which Platonov also did not analyze in detail - the famous synodics. They contain lists of people killed and tortured by order of King Ivan. Basically, they died or were executed and tortured without repentance and communion, therefore, the king was sinning in the fact that they died not in Christian. These synodics were sent over the monasteries to commemoration.
S. B. Veselovsky analyzed in detail the synodics and came to an unequivocal conclusion: it is impossible to say that in the period of Officer Terror, mostly large landowners died. Yes, undoubtedly, the boyars were executed, members of their families, but besides them, an incredible number of serving people died. Persons of the spiritual estate died with absolutely all ranks, people who were on the state service in orders, military leaders, minor officials, ordinary warriors. Finally, the incredible number of man in the streets died - urban, landing people, those who inhabited villages and villages on the territory of those or other victobs and places. According to the estimates of S. B. Veselovsky, on one boyar or a person from the court of the courtyard accounted for three or four ordinary landowners, and one servant is a dozen commoners. Consequently, the statement that terror was electing and was sent only against the Boyarskaya Tip - in the root incorrectly.
In the 1940s, S.B.Veselovsky wrote his book "Essays on the History of Official" "in the table", because It was absolutely impossible to publish it with modern tyran. The historian died in 1952, but his conclusions and developments on the problem of Okrichnin were not forgotten and was actively used in the criticism of the concept of S.F. Platonov and his followers.
One more serious mistake S.F. Plonov was that he believed that the boyars had volatile patients, which included parts of the previous principalities. Thus, the danger of separatism remained - i.e. Restoring a reign. As confirmation of Platonov, the fact that during Ivan IV's illness in 1553, a proprietary Prince Vladimir Staritsky was a possible contender for the throne - a large landseller and a close relative of the king.
Appeal to the materials of the protrus books showed that the boyars had their lands in different, as they would say, regions, and then the lotion. Boyars had to serve in different places, because they were filled with the land (or she was given it) where they served. The same person often had land in Nizhny Novgorod, and in Suzdal, and in Moscow Earth, i.e. It was not attached specifically to some particular place. In order to somehow separate, avoid the process of centralization, the speech did not go, because even the largest landowners could not collect their lands together and oppose their power of the Great Soviet power. The process of centralizing the state was quite objective, and say that the boyars aristocracy actively prevented him, there is no reason.
Thanks to the research of sources, it turned out that the postulate himself on the resistance of the boyars and the descendants of the specific princes of centralization - a purely speculative design, derived from theoretical analogies between social Build Russia and Western Europe of the era of feudalism and absolutism. No direct reasons for such statements sources do not give. The postulation of large-scale "boyars conspiracies" in the era of Ivan the Terrible is based on allegations emanating only from the Grozny itself.
The only lands that could claim the "waste" from a single state, were Novgorod and Pskov in the XVI century. In the case of a separation from Moscow in the conditions of the Livonian war, they could not be preserved independence, and would inevitably be seized by opponents of the Moscow sovereign. Therefore, Zimin and Kobrin consider Ivan IV campaign to Novgorod historically justified and condemned only methods of the king's struggle with potential separatists.
The new concept of comprehending of such a phenomenon as an oprichnina, created by the winter, Kobrin and their followers, was built on the proof that Officient objectively allowed (albeit barbaric methods) some urgent tasks, namely: strengthening the centralization, the destruction of the residues of the specific system and the independence of the church. But Oprichnina was, above all, the instrument of establishing the personal despotic power of Ivan the Terrible. The terror unleashed by him was nationwide, was caused exclusively by the fear of the king for his position ("Bay his own, so that they were afraid of others") and had no "high" political goal or a social population.
Related and point of view of the Soviet historian D. Alya (Alshitz), already in the 2000s, the opinion that terror Ivan Grozny was intended to have a total subordination of all and all the united autocratic monarch authorities. All who personally did not prove their loyalty to the sovereign were destroyed; The independence of the church was destroyed; The economically independent trade Novgorod was destroyed, the merchants are subordinate, etc. Thus, Ivan the Terrible wanted not to say, like Louis XIV, and to prove with effective measures to all their contemporaries that "the state is me." Oprichnina acted as the State Institute for the Protection of the Monarch, his personal guard.
This concept has arranged for a while science community. However, the trends towards the new rehabilitation of Ivan the Terrible and even to the creation of his new cult fully developed in subsequent historiography. For example, in the article in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia (1972) in the presence of a certain duality in the assessment, positive traits Ivan the Terrible is clearly exaggerated, and negative are understood.
With the beginning of the "restructuring" and the new antistali campaign in the media, Grozny and Okrichnina again underwent condemnation and compared with the period of Stalinist repression. During this period revaluation historical eventsIncluding oprichins, it turned out mostly not into scientific research, but in populist reasoning on the pages of central newspapers and magazines.
Employees of the NKVD and other powerful departments (the so-called "individuals") in newspaper publications were now not named otherwise than "Ochrichniki", terror of the XVI century directly contacted the 1930s, as if all this was just yesterday. "The story is repeated" - this strange, the politicians and parliamentarians, and writers, and even very distinguished scientists, and writers, and even very distinguished scientists, inclined again and re-hold the historical parallels of Grozny-Stalin, Malyuta Skuratov - Beria, etc. etc.
The attitude towards the oprichnin and the personality of Ivan the Terrible today can be called a "litmus paper" of the political situation in our country. During the liberalization periods of public and state life in Russia, which, as a rule, follows the separatist "sovereignty parade", in-interest, changing the system of values \u200b\u200b- Ivan the Terrible is perceived as a bloody tyrant and sammodour. Tired of anarchy and permissiveness, society is ready to dream of a "strong hand", the revival of statehood, and even stable tyranny in the spirit of Grozny, Stalin, and anyone ...
Today, not only in society, but also in scientific circles, the tendency of the "apologization" of Stalin as a great state leader again is clearly traced. From the television screens and pages of the press, we are again persistently trying to prove that Joseph Jugashvili created a great power, which won the war, built rockets, blocked by Yenisei and even in the field of ballet was ahead of the planet all. And planted and shot in the 1930s and 50s only those who had to plant and shoot - former royal officials and officers, spies and dissidents of all stripes. Recall that an academician S.F. Platonov adhered to about the same opinion regarding the original of Ivan the Terror and the "selectivity" of His terror. However, the Academician himself had come to the sum of the victims of the modern clerk, the OGPU, died in the link, and his name was crossed out of the history of domestic historical science for a long time.
Oprichnina - the period at the end of the 16th century. In Russia, characterized by terror and bloody crimes of the deugers of King Ivan Grozny.
Characteristic Oprichnina
Under the word "Okrichnina" is usually understood by several phenomena. The word comes from the Old Russian "Occupy", which means "special," that, that is, Ivan Grozny called his personal warriors who protected him and committed atrocities by decree. Hence the name of the entire historical period. In addition, Ivan the Terrible and his Ochrichniki took the land and money from the people in favor of the king and royal suite, this phenomenon is also called an oprichnina.
Thus, the essence of Okrichnina is the removal of property among citizens in favor of the state through particularly cruel methods.
Oprichnina became the result state reforms 1565, conducted by Ivan Grozny.
The beginning of the Okrichnina, the causes of the occurrence
The creation of a special guard and scrambles was associated with the Livonian War. Ivan the Terrible was famous for its harsh moral and suspicion. In 1558, he began the Livonian war, the purpose of which was the conquest of new lands on the Baltic coast. Unfortunately, the war went not so quickly and successfully, as King wanted, so he repeatedly expressed his discontent and reproached the governor in the fact that they incorrectly behave hostilities.
The failures were copied, and it caused suspicion of Ivan 4th. Pretty soon he came to the conclusion that there is a secret conspiracy against him, in which the boyars (who never supported his military decisions) and governors. In confirmation of the words of the king during the Livonian war, one of the governor () betrayed him and moved to the side of the enemy.
As a result, the king is exhausted with suspicions decide that he wants to kill him and take his place. To protect himself, Ivan Grozny creates a special retinue consisting of a thousand people, which he comes with chicks. Ivan 4th orders them to follow his safety and the inviolability of the royal power. Ochrichnikov included boyars and ordinary soldiers, as well as representatives of other segments of the population. Over time, the chicks began to constitute an analogue of the royal yard.
The main events of Okrichnina
Ivan the Terrible was very afraid of his power and life and everywhere he suspected treason, so quite often forced the crystals to execute people. The actions of the royal warriors sometimes went beyond the scope of its orders and became extremely brutally: the ryrichniki killed, robbed and took away the property, and often in innocent. The king closed his eyes, worrying only about his own security.
A huge retinue had to somehow keep. Ivan the Terrible Together with the Ochrichniki decides to leave to the Alexander Slobodi and organizes the settlement there, where to manage state affairs and make executions of the alleged state trains. In the same period, a decree was adopted, according to which funds and land should be received on the use of the state, then sent to the content of the oprichnikov. Despite the decree, often the land was taken by force. By this time, the boyars, princes and simple people were already extremely dissatisfied with the atrocities of the king, but everyone who tried to prevent him, died.
In 1569, Ivan the 4th reached the information that Novgorod allegedly prepares a campaign against him for the purpose of the kingdom. Ivan collects a huge army, consisting of officers, and moves to Novgorod to cut the state trains. While the king, going to the city, tried to find the guilty, his ghosts robbed and killed the inhabitants, taking themselves their property.
After Novgorod, the king moved to Pskov, where he saw a new conspiracy. In Pskov, the ghosts were limited to the few executions of residents whom the king called the traitors.
The era of the rampage of oprichnin occurred. In 1570-1571 Ivan Grozny returns to Moscow. By this time, the king sees conspiracies almost everywhere, so a real terror begins in Moscow. Executed almost everyone, including the most close to the king. Okrichniki by order of Ivan 4th, and sometimes in their own will severely beaten people, cried them, chose their property and money. Moscow mired in chaos and blood.
End of Okrichnina
In 1571, Crimean Khan attacked Russia. Ivan Grozny sends his scramphs against him, but they refuse to go to war, continuing to engage in robberies of ordinary citizens. Seeing what his reforms led to, Ivan Grozny abolishes an oprichnin and replaces it by a softer version - the land (allocates the boyars and approximate part of the state to control). However, according to historians, only the name has changed, and the essence remains the same. But, fortunately, terror went on wage.
The consequences of oprichnina
Official results 1565-1572. Extremely sad. The retinue of the Ochrichnikov was created to protect the king and avoid the fragmentation of the state, however, instead of benefit only brought trouble. Rus, exhausted by terror, was in a difficult economic and political situation, many people were killed, the defense capability of the state was also injured. Oprichnina divided the country into parts and led it to a serious decline.
The role of Osrichnina Ivan the Terrible in the history of the Russian state
About such a phenomenon as Official I.Grozny (1565-1572) written hundreds, if not thousands of historical research, monographs, articles, reviews, protected the dissertations, have long been allocated the main reasons, the course of events has been restored, consequences are explained.
However, to this day, neither in domestic, nor in foreign historiography there is no consensus on the issue of the meaning of Oricnin in the history of the Russian state. Over the centuries, historians break a spear in disputes: how to sign events 1565-1572? Was it an oprichnina just a cruel terror of a semi-dry king-despot against his subjects? Or, at all, it was still a healthy and necessary policies in those conditions, aimed at strengthening the foundations of statehood, improving the authority of the central authority, improving the country's defense capability, etc.?
In general, all the different opinions of historians can be reduced to two mutually exclusive statements: 1) Okrichnina was due to the personal qualities of King Ivan and had no political sense (N.I. Kostomarov, V.O. Klechevsky, S.B.Veselovsky, I. Y. Froyanov); 2) Okrichnina was a well-thought-out political step of Ivan Grozny and was directed against the social forces that opposed his "self-balance."
Among the supporters of the last point of view also there is no unity of opinion. Some researchers believe that the purpose of Okrichnina was the crushing of the boyars-princely economic and political power associated with the destruction of large wagon land tenure (S.Solovyov, S.F. Platonov, R.G.Skrynnikov). Others (A.A. Zimin and VB Kobrin) believe that Officient "aimed" exclusively in the remnants of the specific-prince of aristocracy (Staritsky Prince Vladimir), and was also directed against the separatist aspirations of Novgorod and the resistance of the Church as a powerful, opposing state Organizations. None of these provisions is undoubtedly, therefore, the scientific discussion on the value of the Okrichnin continues.
What is Okrichnina?
Anyone who at least somehow was interested in the history of Russia, perfectly knows that there was a time when Ochrichniki existed in Russia. In the consciousness of most modern people, this word was the definition of a terrorist, a criminal, a person who deliberately committing lawlessness from the bond of supreme power, and often with its direct support.
Meanwhile, the word "Obvious" itself in relation to any property or land ownership began to be consumed long before the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Already in the XIV century, the "Okrichnikina" is called a part of the inheritance, which goes to the widow of the prince after his death ("Vdovo share"). The widow had the right to receive income from a certain part of land land, but after her death, the estate was returned to the eldest son, another senior heir, or, in the absence of such, was attributed to the state execution. So, Okrichnina in the XIV-XVI centuries is specially highlighted in lifelong possession.
Over time, the word "Okrichnina" appeared synonym, who dates back to the root "Occupy", which means "except." From here "Okrichnina" - "Darkness Thaleny", as it was sometimes called, and "Okrichnik" - "Homeshnik". But this synonym was introduced as some scientists believed, the first "political emigrant" and the opponent I.Grozny Andrei Kurbsky. In his messages, the king of the words "Homeshniki" and "Darkness Thamshny" in relation to Ovrichnina Ivan IV are used for the first time.
In addition, it should be noted that the Old Russian word "Occupic" (adolescence and preposition), according to Dal Dictionary, means: "Out, the okrom, outside, outside of what." Hence the "Officer" - "separate, dedicated, special".
Thus, it is symbolic that the name of the Soviet employee of the Special Department is "an individual" - in fact, is the meaning of the word "Ochrichnik".
In January 1558, Ivan Grozny began the Livonian war for mastering the Baltic Sea coast for accessing maritime communications and simplify trade with Western European countries. Soon the Great Principality of Moscow faces the widespread coalition of enemies, which includes Poland, Lithuania, Sweden. In fact, participates in the Anti-Moscow Coalition and Crimean Khanate, which ruins regular military campaigns of the Southern Regions of the Moscow Principality. The war takes a protracted exhaust character. Drought, hunger, plague epidemic, Crimean-Tatar campaigns, Polish-Lithuanian raids and sea blockade, carried out by Poland and Sweden, devastated the country. The sovereign itself is still facing the manifestations of boyars separatism, the reluctance of the Boyarskaya oligarchy to continue important to the Moscow kingdom of the Livonian war. In 1564, the commander of the Western Army Prince Kurbsky - in the past one of the closest personal friends of the king, a member of the "elected Rada" - passes towards the opponent's side, issues a Russian agent in Livonia and participates in the offensive actions of the Poles and Lithuanians.
The position of Ivan IV becomes critical. It was possible to get out of it only with the help of the most rigid, decisive measures.
On December 3, 1564, Ivan the Terrible with his family suddenly left the capital on a mantis. The king took a treasury, a personal library, icons and symbols of power. Having visited the village of Kolomenskoye, he did not return to Moscow and, slapping several weeks, stopped in the Alexander Sloboda. On January 3, 1565, he announced his renunciation from the throne, due to the "anger" on the boyars, church, voivods and orders. Two days later, the deputation headed by Archbishop Pimen, who persuaded the king to return to the kingdom, arrived in the Alexander Slobod. From Sloboda Ivan IV sent two diplomas to Moscow: one - boyars and clergy, and another landing people explained in detail, for which the sovereign is angry, and for whom "evil does not hold." Thus, he immediately divided society, seeding the seeds of mutual distrust and hatred towards the boyars tip among ordinary citizens and a small servant nobility.
In early February 1565, Ivan Grozny returned to Moscow. The king announced that the board reiterates again, but with that as a condition, so that it was voluntarily to execute the traitors, to impose on them to opal, deprive the property, etc., and so that neither the Boyar Duma nor the clergy in his affairs intervened. Those. The sovereign introduced for himself "Okrichnin".
This word was used first in the sense of special property or ownership; Now it has become different meaning. In Ochrichnina, the king separated part of the boyars, serviceful and ordered people and in general, all his "source" made special: the special staff of the keys, cooks, painters, etc. was appointed in the palaces of satisfies, feed and breadmen; Special squads of Streltsov were scored. Special cities (about 20, including Moscow, Vologda, Vyazma, Suzdal, Kozelsk, Money, Veliky Ustyug) were appointed for the content of the Oprichnik. In Moscow itself, some streets were at the disposal of Okrichnina (Chertolskaya, Arbat, Sivans eneseeks, part of Nikitskaya, etc.); Former residents were resettled to other streets. Up to 1000 princes, nobles, children of the Boyar, both Moscow and urban were also scored in the oprichnin. They were distributed estates in the wallands appointed on the content of the Okrichnin. Former landowners and warders evaporate from those volosts to others.
All the rest of the state was to be "the land": the king instructed his Zemsky Boyars, that is, the actual boyar Duma, and the prince of Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky and Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky put it. All the cases were to be resolved in antiquity, and with great cases, it was necessary to turn to the boyars, if the deeds are happening or the most important land to the sovereign. For the rise, that is, for a trip to the Alexander Slobod, the king charged a fine of 100 thousand rubles from the Zemsky order.
"Okrichniki" - people of the sovereign - should have "etching treason" and act exclusively in the interests of the royal authorities, supporting the authority of the Supreme Ruler in military time. Nobody limited them in the methods nor in the methods of "etching", and all the innovations of Grozny turned into a cruel, unjustified terror of the authority minority against the majority of the country's population.
In December 1569, the army of the Ochrichnikov, who was personally led by Ivan Grozny, made a campaign to Novgorod, who allegedly wanted to change him. The king walked like an enemy country. Okrichniki rolled out the city (Tver, Torzhok), villages and villages, killed and robbed the population. In Novgorod, the defeat lasted 6 weeks. Suspected thousands tortured and treated in Volkhov. The city was looted. The property of churches, monasteries and merchants was confiscated. Beating continued in Novgorod five. Then the Terrible moved to Pskov, and only the superstitiousness of the Terrible Tsar allowed this ancient city to avoid the pogrom.
In 1572, when a real threat was created by the very existence of a Moscow state from Crimekov, the oprich troops actually sabotaged the order of his king to oppose the enemy. The Malebinsky battle with the army of Devlet-Gurya won the shelves under the leadership of the "Zemsky" governor. After that, Ivan IV himself canceled an oprichnin, subjected to opal and executed many of her leaders.
Historiography Okrichnina in the first half of the XIX century
The historians spoke the first to speak the first of the XVII-early XIX centuries: Scherbatov, Bolotov, Karamzin. Already then there was a tradition to "divide" the reign of Ivan IV for two halves, which subsequently formed the basis of the theory of "two Ivanov", introduced in the historiography of N.M. Karamzin on the basis of the study of the works of Prince A. Kurbsky. In Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible - a virtuous hero and a wise state husband in the first half of his reign and crazy Tiran-despot - in the second. Many historians, following Karamzin, tied a sharp change in the public policy with his mental illness caused by the death of the first wife Anastasia Romanovna. There were even seriously the versions about the "substitution" of the king by another person.
The watershed between the "good" Ivan and "Bad", according to Karamzin, was the introduction of an oprichnin in 1565. But N.M. Karamzin was still more writer and moralist than scientists. Picturesque Okrichnina, he created a artistic expressive picture, which was to impress the reader, but not to answer the question of the reasons, the consequences and character of this historical phenomenon.
Subsequent historians (N.I. Kostomomarov) were also seen the main cause of Ormpnic, solely in the personal qualities of Ivan Grozny, who did not want to listen to people disagree with the methods of holding it in general the justified policies of the central government.
Solovyov and Klyuchevsky About Official
S. M. Solovyov and the "Public School" created by him, domestic historiography went on a different way. Abstraining from the personal characteristics of the Tsar-Tirana, they saw in the activities of Grozny, first of all, the transition from the old "generic" relations to the modern "state", which completed the Okrichnina - state power in the form, as the great "reformer" understood her . Solovyov for the first time separated the cruelty of King Ivan and organized by the internal terror from the political, social and economic processes of that time. From the point of view of historical science it was, undoubtedly, step forward.
V.O. Welchevsky, unlike Solovyov, considered the internal policy of Ivan the Terrible completely aimless, in addition, dictated exclusively personal qualities of the sovereign character. In his opinion, Okrichnina did not respond with violent political issues, and also did not eliminate those difficulties that were called. Under the "difficulty" historian in mind the collision between Ivan IV and the boyars: "Boyar was addicted to themselves by the power advisers of the Sovereign of All Russia at the time when this sovereign, remaining faithful to the demonstration of the progress, according to ancient Russian right, complained they as the courtyard servants of their sovereign owners. Both sides found themselves in such a unnatural attitude towards each other, whom they seem to not notice until it was, and with whom they did not know what to do when he was noticed. "
Output from such a situation and became an oprichnin, which Klyuchevsky calls an attempt to "live nearby, but not together."
According to the historian, Ivan IV had only two outputs:
Eliminate the boyars as a government class and replace it with other, more flexible and obedient administrations;
Disconnect the boyars, bring to the throne the most reliable people from the boyars and to rule them, as well as Ivan rules at the beginning of his reign.
None of the outputs did not work.
Klyuchevsky indicates that Ivan Grozny followed to act against the political position of all the disaster, and not against individuals. The king does the opposite: without having the opportunity to change the political system uncomfortable for him, he subjures persecutions and executions of individuals (and not only a boyars), but it leaves a boyars at the head of the Zemstvo management.
Such animation of the king is not a consequence of political calculation. It is rather a consequence of a distorted political understanding caused by personal emotions and fear for his personal position:
Klyuchevsky saw in an oprichnin not the State Institute, but the manifestation of the lawless anarchy aimed at loosening the foundations of the state and undermining the authority of the authorities of the monarch himself. Klyuchevsky considered an oprichnin one of the most effective factors that prepared troubled time.
Concept S.F. PLATONOVA
The developments of the "State School" were further developed in the works of S. F. Platonov, who created the most integral concept of Okrichnina, which included in all pre-revolutionary, Soviet and some post-Soviet university textbooks.
S.F. Platonov believed that the main reasons for Okrichnin were lying in the awareness of Ivan the Terrible Danger of the Specific Prince and Boyar Opposition. S.F. Platonov wrote: "Nobody's misunderstanding it, he (Ivan Grozny) applied to her that mode, which Moscow was applied to his enemies, it was -" Conclusion "... what was so well managed with the enemy of the external, the Terrible conceived to experience with the enemy internal those. With those people who were hostile and dangerous. "
In modern language, Officient Ivan IV was based on the basis of the grand personnel shuffling, as a result of which major boyars-landowners and specific princes were resettled from specific hereditary land in the space distant. Votches were shared on the plots and complained to those children of Boyars, who were in the service of the king (Ochrichnikov). According to Platonov, Okrichnina was not a "capricious" crazy Tirana. On the contrary, Ivan Grozny led a purposeful and well-designed struggle with a large boyars hereditary land tenure, descending this way to eliminate separatist trends and suppress the opposition of central state power:
The old owners of Grozny sent to the outskirts, where they could be useful in defense of the state.
Officer terror, according to Platonov, was only an inevitable consequence of such a policy: the forest is cut - sinters fly! Over time, the monarch itself becomes a hostage of the current situation. To resist in power and bring to the end of the events conceived by him, Ivan the Terrible was forced to pursue a total terror policy. There was no other way out.
"The entire surgery and change of landowners in the eyes of the population wore the nature of the disaster and political terror," wrote the historian. - With an extraordinary cruelty, he (Ivan Grozny) without any investigation and the court executed and tormented the people unwanted to him, referred to their families, ruined their farms. His ovirks did not hesitate to kill the defenseless people to kill the defenseless people, rob and rape them. "
One of the main negative consequences of the Okrichnina Platonov recognizes the violation of the country's economic life - the state achieved by the state the state of sustainability of the population was lost. In addition, the hatred of the population to the cruel power has made a distribution to the society itself, thoring after the death of the Terrible Universal uprisings and the peasant wars - the harbingers of the Troubles of the early XVII century.
In the overall estimate of Ochrichnina S.F. Platonov puts much more "pros" than all its predecessors. According to his concept, Ivan Grozny managed to achieve undisputed results in the politics of the centralization of the Russian state: large landowners were ruined and partly destroyed, the majority of relatively small landowners, serunel people (nobles) were prevalent, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the country's defense capability . From here - the progressiveness of the policy of oprichnin.
It is this concept that approved in domestic historiography for many years.
Apologetic Historiography Okrichnina (1920-1956)
Despite the abundance of contradictory facts, revealed already in the 1910-20s, the "apologetic" concept of S. Plotonov regarding the Okrichnina and Ivan IV of Grozny was not difficult at all. On the contrary, she spawned a number of successors and sincere supporters.
In 1922, the book of the former professor of Moscow University of R.Vipper "Ivan Grozny" was published. Becoming a witness to the collapse of the Russian Empire, tasted a fully Soviet anarchy and arbitrariness, a political emigrant and a completely serious historian R. Vipper created not a historical study, but a very passionate panegirik of Officient and Ivan Grozny himself - a politics, who managed to "clean the hard hand." The author for the first time considers the internal policy of Grozny (Okrichnin) in direct connection with the foreign policy situation. However, the vipper interpretation of many foreign policy events is largely fantastic and far-fetched. Ivan the Terrible acts in his work as a wise and a far-sighted ruler, taking care, first of all, about the interests of his great power. The executions and terror of Grozny find an excuse, and can be explained by quite objective reasons: Okrichnina was necessary because of the extremely difficult military situation in the country, the ruin of Novgorod - for the sake of improving the situation at the front, etc.
Official itself, according to Vipper, is an expression of democratic (!) The trends of the XVI century. Thus, the Zemsky Cathedral of 1566 is artificially connected by the author with the creation of an oprichnin in 1565, the transformation of the Okrichnina to the courtyard (1572) is interpreted by Vipper as the expansion of the system caused by the betrayal of Novgorod and the ruin of the Crimean Tatar. He refuses to admit that the reform of 1572 was actually the destruction of the Okrichnina. The reasons for catastrophic in their consequences for Russia's completion of the Livonian war are just as unmarked for Vipper.
Even further in apologetics of the Terrible and Okrichnina, the chief official historiographer of the revolution M.N. went. Pokrovsky. In his "Russian history from ancient times", a convinced revolutionary turns Ivan the Terrible in the leader of a democratic revolution, a more successful Fapture of Emperor Paul I, which is also depicted by the Pokrovsky "Democrat on the throne". The excuse of tyrants is one of the favorite topics of Pokrovsky. He saw an aristocracy as such to hate his hatred, for her power to determine malware.
However, faithful historians-Marxists of Pokrovsky, undoubtedly, seemed overly infected idealistic spirit. No personality can play any significant role in history - after all, the story is managed by class struggle. So teaches Marxism. And Pokrovsky, having heard the seminaries of Vinogradov, Klyuchevsky and other "bourgeois specialists", was not able to negotiate the exhaustion of idealism, giving too much personal importance, as if they were not obeying the general for all the laws of historical materialism ...
The most typical for an orthodox Marxist approach to the problem of Ivan the Terrible and Okrichnina is the article M. Svetchina about Ivan IV in the "First Soviet Encyclopedia" (1933). In her interpretation, the personality of the king does not matter at all:
The social sense of the Okrichnina was in the elimination of the boyars as a class and dissolving it in the mass of small land feudalists. Ivan worked on the embodiment of this goal with the "greatest sequence and unstable perseverance" and completely succeeded in his work.
Such was the only true and only possible interpretation of the policy of Ivan the Terrible.
Moreover, this interpretation so liked "collectors" and "revivals" of the new Russian Empire, namely, the USSR, which was immediately taken by the Stalinist leadership. A new great ideology needed historical rootedness, especially on the eve of the upcoming war. The narratives about Russian military leaders and commander of the past were urgently created and replicated, who fought with the Germans or with someone, distant to the Germans. The victories of Alexander Nevsky, Peter I (True, he fought with the Swedes, but why go to the details? ..), Alexander Suvorov. Dmitry Donskoy, Minin with Pozhai and Mikhail Kutuzov, who fought with foreign aggressors, also after 20 years of oblivion, were declared national heroes and the glorious Sons of the Fatherland.
Of course, with all these circumstances, Ivan the Terrible could not remain forgotten. True, he did not reflect foreign aggression and did not win the military victory over the Germans, but he was the creator of a centralized Russian state, a fighter against disorder and anarchy created by malicious aristocrats - boyars. He began to introduce revolutionary reforms in order to create a new order. But even an autocratic king can play a positive role, if the monarchy is a progressive building on this segment of history ...
Despite the very sad fate of the Academician of Platonov, convicted of "academic cause" (1929-1930), which began "apologization" of Okrichnin in the late 1930s, gained all new revs.
Randomly or not, but in 1937 - the most "peak" of Stalinist repressions - in the fourth time, Platonovsky "Essays on the history of the Trouble in the Moscow State of the XVI-XVII centuries were reprinted, and the Higher School of Propagandists has published (however," for Internal use ") Fragments of the pre-revolutionary textbook of Platonov for universities.
In 1941, the director S. Eisenstein received from the Kremlin "order" to shoot a film about Ivan Grozny. Naturally, Comrade Stalin wished to see the Grozny Tsar, which would fully fit into the concept of Soviet "apologists." Therefore, all the events included in the Scenario of Eisenstein are subordinated to the main conflict - the struggle for the uniforms against recalcitable boyars and against all who prevents him in unification of land and strengthening the state. The film "Ivan Grozny" (1944) exalted the king of Ivan as a wise and fair ruler, who had a great goal. Oprichnina and terror are represented as inevitable "costs" when it is achieved. But even these "costs" (the second series of the film) Comrade Stalin preferred to the screens not allow.
In 1946, the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) was published, which refers to the "progressive army of Ochrichnikov." The progressive meaning in the then historiography of the Odichi troops was that his formation was the necessary stage in the struggle for strengthening the centralized state and was the struggle of the central government, which was based on the servant nobility, against the feudal aristocracy and specific remnants.
Thus, a positive assessment of Ivan IV activities in Soviet historiography was supported at the highest state level. Up until 1956, the most cruel tyrant in the history of Russia appeared on the pages of textbooks, works of art and in cinema as a national hero, a true patriot, a wise politician.
Revision of the concept of Okrichnina during the years of Khrushchev "Thaw"
As soon as Khrushchev read his famous report at the XX Congress, all the panegyric groove was put an end. The plus sign has changed sharply on the "minus", and historians have no longer hesitated to carry out completely obvious parallels of the reign of Grozny and the Board only recently improving Soviet tyrana.
A number of articles of domestic researchers immediately appear, in which the "cult of personality" of Stalin and the "cult of personality" of Grozny are divorced by about the same expressions and in similar to each other real examples.
One of the first were the article V.N. Shevyakova "On the question of the original of Ivan the Terrible", explaining the causes and consequences of Okrichnin in the spirit of N.I. Kostomarova and V.O. Klyuchevsky - i.e. Extremely negative:
The king himself, contracted with the whole of the previous apologetics, is named what he was actually the hall with the execution of his subjects.
Following the article, Shevyakova is another radical article of S.N.Dubrovsky "On the cult of personality in some works on the issues of history (about estimating Ivan IV, etc.)." The author is considering an oprichnin not as the war of the king against the specific aristocracy. On the contrary, he believes that Ivan Grozny was at the same time with the boyars-landowners. In their help, the king led the war against his people with the sole purpose - to clear the ground for the subsequent reassurance of the peasants. According to Dubrovsky, Ivan IV was not at all so talented and worn, as the historians of the Stalin era were trying to present. The author accuses them in intentional travelers and distortion of historical facts, testifying to the personal qualities of the king.
In 1964, the book A.A. Zimin "Oprichnina Ivan Grozny" was published. Zimin recycled a huge number of sources, raised the mass of the actual material that had a relation to the Ochrichnina. But his own opinion literally drowned in the abundance of names, graphs, numbers and solid facts. For its predecessors, unambiguous conclusions in the work of the historian are practically absent. With many reservations, Zimin agrees that most of the bloodshed and crimes of ryrichnikov were useless. However, the "objectively" content of the original in his eyes is still progressive: the initial thought of Grozny was true, and then everything spoiled the Ochrichnikov themselves, degenerated into the gangsters and robbers.
The book of Zimin was written during the Board of Khrushchev, and therefore the author is trying to satisfy both parties to the dispute. However, at the end of the life of A. A. Zimin revised his views towards the purely negative evaluation of Okrichnin, seeing "The bloody glow of oprichnin" Extremely manifestation of serfdom and despotic trends in counterweight preburazuis.
These positions were developed by his student V. B. Kobrin and the student of the latter A. L. Yurganov. Based on specific studies that began before the war and conducted by S. B. Veselovsky and A. A. Zimin (and continued by V. B. Kobrin), they showed that the theory of S.F. PLATONOVA about defeating as a result of urchinous land tenure - No matter how historic myth.
Criticism of Platonov concept
Back in 1910-1920, studies of the colossal complex of materials began, formally, it would seem that far from the problems of Okrichnin. Historians were studied a huge number of tube books, where land was fixed and large landowners, and serviced people. These were in the full sense of the word accounting accounts of the time.
And the more materials related to land tenure, was introduced into the scientific turnover in the 1930s, the more interesting the picture became. It turned out that major land tenure as a result of Ochrichnina did not suffer. In fact, at the end of the XVI century, it has been preserved almost the same as it was up to Okrichnina. It turned out that it was in those lands that were revealed in the Ochrichnina, often found territories inhabited by servilative people who did not have large puts. For example, the territory of the Suzdal principality was almost completely populated by servilative people, rich landowners there were very few. Moreover, according to the script books, it often turned out that many ryrds, allegedly received their estates in the Moscow region for the service of the king, and before that were their owners. Just in 1565-72, small landowners automatically hit the number of ovarists, because The sovereign declared these lands opic.
All these data was completely dispersed with the fact that S. F. Platonov, who did not proceed with tubers, did not know the statistics and practically did not use sources that were massive.
Soon another source was opened, which Platonov also did not analyze in detail - the famous synodics. They contain lists of people killed and tortured by order of King Ivan. Basically, they died or were executed and tortured without repentance and communion, therefore, the king was sinning in the fact that they died not in Christian. These synodics were sent over the monasteries to commemoration.
S. B. Veselovsky analyzed in detail the synodics and came to an unequivocal conclusion: it is impossible to say that in the period of Officer Terror, mostly large landowners died. Yes, undoubtedly, the boyars were executed, members of their families, but besides them, an incredible number of serving people died. Persons of the spiritual estate died with absolutely all ranks, people who were on the state service in orders, military leaders, minor officials, ordinary warriors. Finally, the incredible number of man in the streets died - urban, landing people, those who inhabited villages and villages on the territory of those or other victobs and places. According to the estimates of S. B. Veselovsky, on one boyar or a person from the court of the courtyard accounted for three or four ordinary landowners, and one servant is a dozen commoners. Consequently, the statement that terror was electing and was sent only against the Boyarskaya Tip - in the root incorrectly.
In the 1940s, S.B.Veselovsky wrote his book "Essays on the History of Official" "in the table", because It was absolutely impossible to publish it with modern tyran. The historian died in 1952, but his conclusions and developments on the problem of Okrichnin were not forgotten and was actively used in the criticism of the concept of S.F. Platonov and his followers.
Another serious mistake S.F. PLATONOVA was that he believed that the boyars had tremendous patrimony, which included parts of the previous principalities. Thus, the danger of separatism remained - i.e. Restoring a reign. As confirmation of Platonov, the fact that during Ivan IV's illness in 1553, a proprietary Prince Vladimir Staritsky was a possible contender for the throne - a large landseller and a close relative of the king.
Appeal to the materials of the protrus books showed that the boyars had their lands in different, as they would say, regions, and then the lotion. Boyars had to serve in different places, because they were filled with the land (or she was given it) where they served. The same person often had land in Nizhny Novgorod, and in Suzdal, and in Moscow Earth, i.e. It was not attached specifically to some particular place. In order to somehow separate, avoid the process of centralization, the speech did not go, because even the largest landowners could not collect their lands together and oppose their power of the Great Soviet power. The process of centralizing the state was quite objective, and say that the boyars aristocracy actively prevented him, there is no reason.
Thanks to the study of sources, it turned out that the postulate himself on the resistance of the boyars and descendants of the specific princes of centralization is a purely speculative design, derived from theoretical analogies between the social system of Russia and Western Europe of the era of feudalism and absolutism. No direct reasons for such statements sources do not give. The postulation of large-scale "boyars conspiracies" in the era of Ivan the Terrible is based on allegations emanating only from the Grozny itself.
The only lands that could claim the "waste" from a single state, were Novgorod and Pskov in the XVI century. In the case of a separation from Moscow in the conditions of the Livonian war, they could not be preserved independence, and would inevitably be seized by opponents of the Moscow sovereign. Therefore, Zimin and Kobrin consider Ivan IV campaign to Novgorod historically justified and condemned only methods of the king's struggle with potential separatists.
The new concept of comprehending of such a phenomenon as an oprichnina, created by the winter, Kobrin and their followers, was built on the proof that Officient objectively allowed (albeit barbaric methods) some urgent tasks, namely: strengthening the centralization, the destruction of the residues of the specific system and the independence of the church. But Oprichnina was, above all, the instrument of establishing the personal despotic power of Ivan the Terrible. The terror unleashed by him was nationwide, was caused exclusively by the fear of the king for his position ("Bay his own, so that they were afraid of others") and had no "high" political goal or a social population.
Related and point of view of the Soviet historian D. Alya (Alshitz), already in the 2000s, the opinion that terror Ivan Grozny was intended to have a total subordination of all and all the united autocratic monarch authorities. All who personally did not prove their loyalty to the sovereign were destroyed; The independence of the church was destroyed; The economically independent trade Novgorod was destroyed, the merchants are subordinate, etc. Thus, Ivan the Terrible wanted not to say, like Louis XIV, and to prove with effective measures to all their contemporaries that "the state is me." Oprichnina acted as the State Institute for the Protection of the Monarch, his personal guard.
This concept has arranged a scientific community for some time. However, the trends towards the new rehabilitation of Ivan the Terrible and even to the creation of his new cult fully developed in subsequent historiography. For example, in the article in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia (1972) in the presence of a certain duality in the assessment, the positive qualities of Ivan the Terrible are clearly exaggerated, and negative are understood.
With the beginning of the "restructuring" and the new antistali campaign in the media, Grozny and Okrichnina again underwent condemnation and compared with the period of Stalinist repression. During this period, the revaluation of historical events, including oprichins, was mainly not scientific research, but in populist reasoning on the pages of central newspapers and magazines.
Employees of the NKVD and other powerful departments (the so-called "individuals") in newspaper publications were now not named otherwise than "Ochrichniki", terror of the XVI century directly contacted the 1930s, as if all this was just yesterday. "The story is repeated" - this strange, the politicians and parliamentarians, and writers, and even very distinguished scientists, and writers, and even very distinguished scientists, inclined again and re-hold the historical parallels of Grozny-Stalin, Malyuta Skuratov - Beria, etc. etc.
The attitude towards the oprichnin and the personality of Ivan the Terrible today can be called a "litmus paper" of the political situation in our country. During the liberalization periods of public and state life in Russia, which, as a rule, follows the separatist "sovereignty parade", in-interest, changing the system of values \u200b\u200b- Ivan the Terrible is perceived as a bloody tyrant and sammodour. Tired of anarchy and permissiveness, society is ready to dream of a "strong hand", the revival of statehood, and even stable tyranny in the spirit of Grozny, Stalin, and anyone ...
Today, not only in society, but also in scientific circles, the tendency of the "apologization" of Stalin as a great state leader again is clearly traced. From the television screens and pages of the press, we are again persistently trying to prove that Joseph Jugashvili created a great power, which won the war, built rockets, blocked by Yenisei and even in the field of ballet was ahead of the planet all. And planted and shot in the 1930s and 50s only those who had to plant and shoot - former royal officials and officers, spies and dissidents of all stripes. Recall that an academician S.F. Platonov adhered to about the same opinion regarding the original of Ivan the Terror and the "selectivity" of His terror. However, the Academician himself had come to the sum of the victims of the modern clerk, the OGPU, died in the link, and his name was crossed out of the history of domestic historical science for a long time.
Based on:
Veselovsky S.B. King Ivan the Terrible in the works of writers and historians. Three articles. - M., 1999
Platonov S.F. Ivan groznyj. - Petersburg: Brockhauses and Efron, 1923
