“In conclusion, let us say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory in the people’s memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones; but the name of John shone on the Code of Laws and was reminiscent of the acquisitions of the three Mongol kingdoms; evidence of terrible deeds lay in book depositories, and for centuries the people saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the conquering tsar, honored in him the famous culprit of our state power, our civil education; rejected or forgot the name torturer given to him by his contemporaries, and according to dark rumors about John’s cruelty, to this day he only calls him Grozny, without distinguishing between a grandson and a grandfather so named ancient Russia more for praise than for reproach. History is more vindictive than people!”

These thoughts make it a little embarrassing to return to the house for afternoon tea with Varents and steaming crumpets, to the cloudless complacency of old man Tevyashov, to Natasha’s caresses.

After all, if you look at it, fate was preparing for him a peaceful, unhurried life as a middle-class landowner in the rural worries of mowing - the hay would not rot, the drought would not ruin the harvest, but he, in defiance of fate and fate, soars above the base prose of life. Poet by the grace of God! It’s not for nothing that he was accepted into the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. It is not for nothing that Gnedich himself, the head of the society, the pockmarked, superior, unsmiling Gnedich, spoke favorably of the poem “Kurbsky”, and soon he was transferred from collaborating members to full members of the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. And in “Russian Invalid”, editor Voeikov, publishing “The Death of Ermak,” accompanied it with the following postscript:

“The work of a young poet, still little known, but who will soon stand alongside the old and famous.”

“The Death of Ermak” was also suggested by Karamzin. This great scientist has an amazing talent - to inspire an artist with one detail to create a whole picture. Springboard. You can't call it anything else. Karamzin says:

“Ermak learned about the proximity of the enemy and, as if tired of life, fell into a deep sleep with his daring knights, without observation, without guards. It was raining heavily, the river and the wind were noisy, all the more lulling the Cossacks to sleep; and the enemy was awake on the other side of the river.” And then it came out all at once:

The storm roared, the rain made noise;

Lightning flew in the darkness;

The thunder roared incessantly,

And the winds raged in the wilds...

It is both surprising and strange that a thought arises behind the picture, rather than the thought being ornamented by the picture. Then the most important thing went easily and freely:

Companions of his labors,

Victories and thunderous glory,

Among the pitched tents

They slept carelessly near the oak grove.

“Oh, sleep, sleep,” the hero thought,

Friends, under the roaring storm;

At dawn my voice will be heard,

Calling for glory or death!

You need rest; sweet Dreams

And in a storm he will calm the brave;

In dreams he will remind you of glory

And the strength of the warriors will double.

Who did not spare his life

In robberies, mining for gold,

Will he think about her?

Dying for holy Rus'?

Washed away with your own and the enemy's blood

All the crimes of a violent life

And deserved it for the victories

Blessings of the Fatherland,

Death cannot be scary to us;

We have done our job:

Siberia was conquered by the king,

And we did not live idly in the world!”

He read aloud in the vast desert steppe verses, enjoying the sonority of his voice, loneliness, without trembling, without timidity, as happened in front of listeners, when the shadow of fatigue or indifferent thoughtfulness suddenly appeared on a friendly face.

At home, after breakfast, he complacently and lazily wrote letters to friends, praising peace and solitude, and even, although this was unusual for him, pretending to himself to be a kind of romantic hermit, preferring proud solitude to the bustle of the capital, and quiet reading to riotous friendship. Confessions were just as easy to put into poetry.

Boasting the joys of solitude, he at the same time enthusiastically lists to his old Ostrogozh friend Bedraga the names of his literary contemporaries, mentally plunging again into the St. Petersburg literary whirlpool:

He, with a book in his hands,

Sits under the shade of trees

And in fiery verses

Or in prose, clean, smooth,

Alien to grief and worries,

He drinks sweet delights.

That Pushkin is wayward,

Parnassian is our naughty man,

With “Ruslan and Lyudmila”,

That's Batyushkov, the rogue,

Light-winged dreamer,

That's dear Baratynsky,

Or with the thunder of sonorous strings,

And the honor and glory of the Russians,

Like a marvelous giant

Soaring Lomonosov,

Il Ozerov, Knyazhnin,

Il T A cit-Karamzin

With your ninth volume;

Ile darling Krylov

With rattle and Mom,

Il Gnedich and Kostrov

With old Homer

Or Jean-Jacques Rousseau

With the prankster Voltaire,

Voeikov-Bualo,

Zhukovsky is incomparable,

Honorable Il Dmitriev,

Or his favorite

Milonov is the scourge of vices,

Or the old Sumarokov,

Ile “Dushenki” the creator,

Favorite of muses and graces,

Or our important Horace,

A model of poets,

Or a sweet singer,

Neledinsky is sad,

Or dear Panaev

With your idyll

In secluded silence

Give alternately

Dreams for my soul.

These verses, composed easily, almost thoughtlessly, made up of a list of names and very approximate epithets, were only part of the long poem “Desert”. In it he described his days in Podgorny, hunting, working with a spade in the garden, lunches, dinners, sleeping on a “lonely bed.” The plant life of the thoughtless landowner, described with such complacency, was a trick, a self-consolation. In all honesty, his main pleasure came from the middle of the poem, where, behind the list of names and careless epithets, pictures of hateful and infinitely attractive Petersburg appeared. The pompous, highly solemn Gnedich, who broadcast, not spoke, but was sincerely devoted to literature. Unable to fit into the lines, puffy, pale Delvig. So sleepy in appearance and at the same time capable of the most unexpected, eccentric actions. Snub-nosed, bespectacled Vyazemsky. The Russian Cholier, as Pushkin called him, is a real aristocrat, despite his common people's appearance. I wish I could understand how this works! And dear, indomitable Alexander Bestuzhev, ready to rush into any argument, it would be with whom, and about what, it doesn’t matter. Even Bulgarin, a big, bony guy, one of those people who don’t put a finger in his mouth, will bite off his elbow. Bad manners, of course, more than once horrified with its not only readiness, but some kind of need to engage in dubious tricks - even Bulgarin would now be cute and interesting with his habit of creating a fuss around a damned egg. Stun everyone with your knowledge, sniff out the opinion of high-ranking officials, or even create such an opinion yourself, say tactlessness, create a scandal. What a great master of making porridge! All his qualities were inevitably forgotten; he captivated with sincere affection and devotion. And only one thing made me remember with pleasure - he was constantly on edge, sober, more lively than drunk, every minute full of energy, activity and curiosity.

Reznikov K.Yu.

Reign of Ivan the Terrible

John IV - The first Russian sovereign anointed to reign, under him Russia became a multinational empire and under him Russia and the West first collided as hostile civilizations.

Of course, there are historians who are ready for their own historical concept neglect some facts and highlight others. It is also true that even if a historian is sensitive to facts, his overall concept is still subjective and depends on worldview. In the case of Ivan the Terrible, the main problem is not a lack of facts, and their extreme unreliability: the murdered come to life and sit as governors in the cities, then they are executed a second time, the scale of executions varies not tens, but hundreds of times.

Reports of the atrocities of Grozny after the capture of Polotsk are indicative. Former guardsman Heinrich Staden claims that the tsar ordered the captured Poles and all local Jews to be drowned in the Dvina. According to another fugitive from the Russians, Albrecht Schlichting, 500 captured Poles were taken to Torzhok and chopped into pieces there. However, Giovanni Tedaldi, a merchant who lived in Russia and Poland, sharply reduces the number of victims - he does not mention captured Poles at all, and two or three Jews died, the rest were expelled from the city. Tedaldi also refutes rumors about the drowning of Bernardine monks; True, he did not know about the version of their murder described by Kostomarov, where the Bernardines, on the orders of the tsar, were hacked to pieces by serving Tatars. A similar spread in the number of victims can be cited for other crimes of Ivan the Terrible.

All this forces us to rely less on pictorial “evidence”, and more on adopted laws, documents on taxes and duties, records of deserted peasant households and other documentation, and, especially, on the Synodik of the Disgraced with the names of executed “traitors”. It is only with a stretch that annals and chronicles can be classified as objective data. After all, the chroniclers were by no means dispassionate recorders of events. All the more unreliable works of art. A special place is occupied by folk mythology - epics and tales, songs, fairy tales. Mythology is also subjective, but unlike the records of eyewitnesses, there are no deliberate lies in it and it reflects the average attitude of the people to the most significant events that take place.

Facts about the reign of Ivan IV. During the reign of Ivan IV, the territory of the Russian state almost doubled - from 2.8 to 5.4 million square meters. km. Three kingdoms were conquered - Kazan (1552), Astrakhan (1556) and Siberian. The peoples of the Volga region, the Urals, Kabarda and Western Siberia recognized their dependence on the Russian Tsar. Russia was turning from a predominantly Great Russian state into a multinational empire. This process did not go smoothly and peacefully - there were major uprisings, Russian troops suffered defeats more than once, however, new peoples entered the orbit of Russian statehood and already under Ivan IV took part in wars on the side of Russia. To secure new lands in the Volga and Kama regions, they began to build fortified towns and found monasteries. In 1555, the Kazan diocese was created. Peasants also reached out to new lands, but at their own risk. The Russian authorities tried in every possible way to avoid land disputes with the local population.
Less is known about Russia's expansion southward, towards the Wild Field, as the southern Russian steppes were then called. The wild field, a place of nomadic Tatars and Nogais, passed in the north into the forest-steppe, abandoned by the Slavs after the invasion of Batu. Until the middle of the 16th century, the border between nomads and Russia ran along the northern bank of the Oka from Bolokhov to Kaluga and then to Ryazan. This line was called the Shore. All places convenient for crossing were fortified, and stakes were driven into the bottom of the river. Under Ivan IV, the border was moved to the south, and forests were used for protection. The new line represented a continuous line of defense, where abatis were built between fortified fortresses and forts - forest debris consisting of felled trees with their tops facing south. The abatis were reinforced with palisades, traps, and wolf pits. An early warning system about the movements of the Tatars was created. Fires and mirrors on signal towers were used to transmit messages. Often several lines were built.
In the 1560s - 1570s, a grandiose frontier was created, stretching 600 km from Kozelsk to Ryazan. It was called the Serif Line, the Line or the Sovereign's Commandment. For the arrangement and maintenance of zaseki, a special tax was introduced - zaseki money, and a law was adopted on the protection of zaseki forests. In 1566, Ivan IV visited Cherta. The creation of the Zasechnaya Line sharply reduced the number of Tatar raids on Rus'. Only very large and carefully planned raids, like the raid of 1571, broke through the Line (though then the Tatars burned Moscow). The next year the breakthrough was only partially successful: in the battle of Molodi The 27,000-strong Russian army, led by M.I. Vorotynsky, completely defeated the 120,000-strong army of the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey, which included a 7,000-strong Janissary corps. Only 20 thousand people returned to Crimea. The movement of the Cherta to the south allowed farmers to begin the development of the most fertile Russian Black Earth Region.
During the first period of the reign of Ivan IV, reforms were carried out, conceived among people close to the tsar, primarily the priest Sylvester and Alexei Fedorovich Adashev. The reforms were discussed at the Zemsky Sobor in 1549, where different classes were represented. Giving a speech, the tsar addressed the boyars with a demand to stop offending the nobles and peasants. It was decided to draw up a new Code of Law. A year later, the Code of Law was ready; it established a general procedure for legal proceedings. The governors could no longer judge the nobles; they received the right of trial at the level of the king and his judges. The Code of Law expanded the rights of local elected courts headed by provincial elders. The right of peasants to change their place of residence once a year was confirmed - a week before and a week after St. George's Day (November 26). In 1551, on the initiative of the Tsar, a church council was assembled, which was called the Stoglavo Council, after the number of chapters in the book with its decisions. At the Council, Ivan IV managed to achieve a resolution limiting the growth of monastic and church lands at the expense of the lands of patrimonial lands. The Hundred-Glavy Council proclaimed the principle of a symphony of church and state.
In 1552-1556, the feeding system was eliminated, according to which the Grand Duke or Tsar sent governors and volosts to counties and volosts for feeding. The feeders ruled the subject territory, and the population had to support (feed) them and pay them various duties. The number of feeders increased more and more, there were many thirsty people, and feeding began to be split up, appointing two or more feeders per city or volost. Their greed was indescribable, as Ivan IV said, the feeders were wolves, persecutors and destroyers for the people. Now the feedings have been cancelled; The fed payout began to flow into the treasury and went towards the salaries of the governors - the highest authority in the districts. Local self-government was created: the lip, where litigation and petty crimes were dealt with, and the zemstvo hut, which dealt with general affairs. Provincial elders were chosen from nobles and boyar children, and zemstvo elders were chosen from wealthy peasants and townspeople. The main idea of ​​the zemstvo reform is centralization through self-government
The offices - orders - that existed under the Boyar Duma are being improved, and new ones are being formed. The orders made it possible to centrally manage the growing state. An orderly bureaucracy is emerging: noble clerks and clerks take over the day-to-day administration of the country. Localism is limited - disputes about the seniority of the boyars by nobility of origin. From the middle of the 16th century, the appointment of boyars to positions began to be in charge of the Rank Order, which took into account the subtleties of the honor of each boyar. During military campaigns, localism was prohibited.
Military reform was carried out (1550 - 1556). Military service was now carried out according to the fatherland (origin) and according to the device (recruitment). Boyars, nobles, and boyars' children served in their own country, regardless of the type of holding - patrimonial (hereditary) or local (granted). Service began at the age of 15 and was inherited. At the request of the tsar, a boyar or nobleman had to report for service on horseback, in force and armed, that is, to bring with him military serfs, one from every 150 dessiatines of land holdings. Streltsy, gunners and city guards served as instruments. Streltsy began to be recruited from service people in 1550. At first there were 3 thousand of them, and in the 70s - about 15 thousand. The service was for life. The archers, armed with arquebuses and reeds, were no inferior to the European infantry. The cannon squad was also designated as an independent branch of the military. The service of gunners was constant, like that of the archers. Mass casting of guns was established. During the siege of Kazan in 1552, 150 heavy guns were concentrated under the city walls. Russian gunners distinguished themselves in Livonia and during the defense of Pskov. Thus, under Ivan IV the beginning of the regular army was laid Russian state.

Civilizational confrontation manifested itself during the Livonian War

At first, John IV was ready to limit himself to tribute from the Dorpat bishopric and freedom of trade. The Livonians promised, but deceived the king. Then he sent the cavalry of Khan Shig-Aley into the raid. The Livonians were afraid, promised to pay tribute, and again deceived them. Only then did the war begin. ... - at first there was a period of success, half of Livonia was occupied by Russian troops. Here the full depth of the king’s miscalculation was revealed. The young Russian state found itself in a state of war not with the decrepit Order, but with the Christian world - Western civilization. Europe perceived the appearance of the Muscovites as a barbarian invasion, as alien to Christianity, culture and humanity as the Tatars and Turks. All the cunning moves of Ivan IV in search of European allies, initially encouraging, ultimately ended in failure. He also failed in his attempts to exit the war, retaining at least part of what he had conquered. On this issue, the Christian world, split into Catholics and Protestants, was unanimous - the Muscovites should retreat to their forests and swamps.
Against the backdrop of super-ethnic confrontation, the confessional and political differences of the European super-ethnos receded. Ivan Vasilyevich, although a Westerner by sympathies (he considered himself to be of German origin), received an unequivocal answer: Europe does not want to speak with Muscovy on equal terms; Muscovites must submit to the true Christian faith and the authority of Christian (European) sovereigns. No one took seriously the king’s claims that he was descended from the brother of the Roman emperor Augustus Prus. But anti-Russian propaganda was widely deployed. In European society, a demand arose for descriptions of the Muscovites who came from nowhere and disturbed the Christian world. Naturally, the greatest interest was aroused by the king, who, according to rumors, surpassed in bloodthirstiness the most brutal tyrants of the present and past. Europeans who visited Russia tried to satisfy this demand. In Poland, Sweden, Prussia, Danzig, and Livonia itself, there were many influential people interested in denigrating Russia and willing to pay for it. This is how the first wave of European Russophobia arose and the foundation was laid for European prejudice against Russia, which has survived to this day.
Crimes of John IV
Ivan IV gained notoriety not thanks to the mistake with the Livonian War, which cost Russia so dearly, but because of his crimes, often exaggerated. Ivan IV was unlucky with his contemporaries describing his reign. Of the Russian authors, the most famous and brilliant was Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, once a close associate of the tsar, who became his worst enemy. Having fled to Lithuania, Kurbsky made every effort to crush his former friend and overlord. He fought with pen and sword, wrote letters to the Tsar, composed the History of the Grand Duke of Moscow, brought Lithuanians and Tatars to their former homeland, and personally, at the head of the Lithuanian army, defeated the 12,000-strong Russian army. Karamzin took Kurbsky’s writings on faith and introduced them into his History of the Russian State. Thus, the facts presented by Kurbsky have become entrenched in historiography, although some have been refuted by modern historians.
Foreigners also had their own interest in writing the worst about Ivan IV who once served the king, and chroniclers of Novgorod and Pskov. All this forces us to be cautious in assessing the scale of Ivan the Terrible’s terror. Conflicting reports about those killed in Polotsk were written above. The information about the Novgorodians executed by the guardsmen during the pogrom of Novgorod diverges even more. Jerome Horsey reports about 700 thousand killed, the Pskov Chronicle writes about 60 thousand, the Novgorod Chronicle - about 30 thousand, Taub and Cruz - about 15 thousand killed (with a population of Novgorod of 25 thousand). Alexander Guagnini, who fought with the Poles against Grozny, writes about 2,770 killed. The synodik of the disgraced Ivan the Terrible reports: - According to Malyutin’s skask in the Nougorotsky parcel, Malyuta trimmed 1,490 people (by manual truncation), and 15 people were trimmed from the squeak. - Based on the Synodic, historian Skrynnikov suggests that approximately 3,000 people were killed in Novgorod.
The figures of the Synodik of the Disgraced can be trusted more than the estimates of contemporaries, who usually received information second-hand, in the form of rumors, and tended to exaggerate the number of deaths. The Synodik was compiled at the end of the life of Ivan IV (1582-1583) for the commemoration in monasteries of people executed during his reign. The king, as a deeply religious man, wanted to find reconciliation with his victims before God and was interested in the accuracy of the information. The Synodikon records those executed from 1564 to 1575. (total about 3300). These, of course, are not all those who died from terror - judging by the notes of the German guardsman Staden, he did not personally report on the people he killed.
... in total, taking into account the unaccounted victims of the terror of 1564 - 1575, it can be assumed that the number of deaths for political and religious reasons was two to three times higher than indicated in the Synodik, but hardly exceeded 10 thousand people.
Is it a lot or a little? It depends on how and with whom you compare. For Europe contemporary to Ivan IV, 10 thousand people killed during the 37 years of his reign as enemies of the monarch and religion look modest. The Tudors who ruled England - Henry VIII (from 1509 to 1547) and Elizabeth (from 1558 to 1603) surpassed him. Under Henry, 72 thousand were executed, and under Elizabeth - 89 thousand people. Most of those executed were peasants driven from the land - they were hanged as tramps, but aristocrats were also executed. Henry VIII is famous for the executions of his two wives and six of their lovers, the Duke of Buckingham, the minister Cromwell and the philosopher Thomas More, Elizabeth - the execution of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, and her favorite - Lord Essex. The Duke of Alba executed over 18 thousand people in the Netherlands. On St. Bartholomew's Night, August 24, 1572, 2-3 thousand Huguenots were killed in Paris, and more than 10 thousand in total throughout the country in a few days.
Mass atrocities in enlightened Europe exceeded the cruelties of barbaric Muscovy. It is worth remembering that in the 16th century alone, according to the most conservative estimate, at least 50 thousand witches were burned, and they were burned by both Catholics and Protestants. In Russia, under Ivan VI, two or three dozen were also burned at the stake, but not thousands, but people. It remains to be assumed that the reason for the special attitude towards the atrocities of Ivan VI was his destruction of high-ranking aristocrats on a scale exceeding similar executions in Europe. Indeed, in those days only aristocrats, nobles and the clergy were considered full-fledged people. Here the Russian Tsar had a fellow businessman, an acquaintance and even an ally - the Swedish King Eric XIV. In 1563, Eric executed his brother Johan's close nobles, and in 1566, in a fit of madness, he killed a group of senators without trial.
Still, Eric does not live up to Ivan, because out of the 3,300 people noted in the Synodikon, about 400 were nobles and boyars. According to Veselovsky’s calculations, in the Synodik there were three or four noblemen per boyar. One hundred killed princes and boyars is not a small number by European standards and is comparable only to the massacre of the Huguenot aristocracy on St. Bartholomew’s Night. Another thing is that the Synodikon of the Disgraced lists the boyars who were executed during the 11 years of Ivan’s reign, and in France a similar number of aristocrats were killed in one night. But the Catholic half of Europe approved of the murders on the night of St. Bartholomew, while the Muscovite king horrified Catholics and Protestants alike. The reason lies in super-ethnic hostility towards Muscovites and impressions from the description of the king’s executions. And in them, Ivan IV, whether rightly or through slander, looked terrifying. And it's not about the cruelty of executions, in Europe in the 16th century executions were more sophisticated, but in the king’s personal participation in torture and murder.
But is this true? After all, apart from the “testimonies” of contemporaries, there are no documents left about the tsar’s personal participation in torture and murder. Therefore, each author answers according to his worldview. Although in some cases the accusations have been proven false, in others everything agrees that Ivan Vasilyevich really killed people and participated in torture. Here I would like to say in the words of Vladimir Vysotsky’s song: - If it’s true, well, at least a third... - And it seems that the probability of such truth is very high.
The devotion of the Russian people to the Tsar
There were, of course, conspiracies against Ivan IV. Individual boyars and nobles ran over to the enemy. Some gave away important secrets. The greatest damage to Russia was caused not even by Prince Kurbsky, but by the robber Kudeyar Tishenkov and several boyar children. They led Devlet-Girey’s army along secret paths past Russian outposts, so the Tatars suddenly found themselves in front of Moscow, which they then burned. But during 24 years of continuous war there were very few such cases. Foreigners note the exact opposite qualities of Russians - their exceptional devotion to the Tsar and their fatherland. Reinhold Heidenstein, a Polish nobleman who fought against the Russians in Batory’s army, is amazed at the popularity of Ivan the Terrible among the Russians:
To anyone who studies the history of his reign, it should seem all the more surprising that with such cruelty there could be such a strong love of the people for him... Moreover, it should be noted that the people not only did not arouse any indignation against him, but even expressed incredible firmness in defending and guarding fortresses, and there were generally very few defectors. On the contrary, there were many... who preferred loyalty to the prince, even at danger to themselves, to the greatest rewards.
Heidenstein describes the devotion to duty of the Russian gunners during the siege of Wenden (1578). In this battle, the Russian troops were defeated and retreated, but the gunners did not want to abandon their guns. They fought to the end. Having shot all the charges and not wanting to surrender, the gunners hanged themselves with their cannons. He also says that when King Batory offered the Russian soldiers captured during the siege of Polotsk the choice of either going to his service or returning home, most chose to return to their fatherland and to their Tsar. Heidenstein adds:
Their love and constancy in relation to both is remarkable; for each of them could think that he was going to certain death and terrible torment. The Moscow Tsar, however, spared them.
Heindenstein was not alone in noting the resilience of the Russians and their devotion to the Tsar. The author of the Livonian Chronicle, Balthazar Russov, a great hater of the Muscovites and a supporter of their expulsion from Livonia, sees the same qualities in them:
The Russians in the fortresses are strong fighting people. This happens for the following reasons. Firstly, Russians are a hard-working people: Russians, if necessary, are tireless in any dangerous and hard work day and night, and pray to God to die righteously for their sovereign. Secondly, from his youth a Russian is accustomed to fasting and making do with meager food; if only he has water, flour, salt and vodka, then he can live on them for a long time, but a German cannot. Thirdly, if the Russians voluntarily surrender the fortress, no matter how insignificant it may be, they do not dare to show themselves in their land, because they will be killed in shame; they cannot and do not want to stay in foreign lands. Therefore, they hold on to the fortress until the last person and would rather agree to die to the last man than to go under escort to a foreign land... Fourthly, the Russians considered it not only a shame, but also a mortal sin to surrender the fortress.
R.Yu. Vipper, who cited Russov’s statement in his book Ivan the Terrible (1922), concludes that Ivan IV inherited the possession of the treasure - the Russian people. Lead this people, use their strength in building a great power. Fate endowed him with extraordinary qualities as a ruler. Ivan Vasilyevich’s fault or his misfortune was that, having set the goal of establishing direct relations with the West, he was unable to stop in time before the growing strength of his enemies and threw into the abyss of destruction most of the values ​​accumulated by his predecessors and acquired by himself, having exhausted the means of the power he created .
The attitude of the people towards Ivan the Terrible. Karamzin completes the description of the reign of Ivan IV with remarkable words: - In conclusion, we will say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory in the people’s memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones;... History is more vindictive than the people!
But is it a matter of Russian quick-wittedness? After all, the people honored and loved the Terrible Tsar not only for the conquest of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. People remember Ivan IV as a formidable but fair king, a defender of ordinary people from the persecuting boyars. During the 37 years of his reign, Ivan the Terrible never publicly said a bad word against ordinary people. On the contrary, speaking in February 1549 to representatives of the estates of Russian cities, gathered on Red Square, he reproached the boyars for oppressing the people: - The nobles... grew rich by untruth, oppressed the people... You, you did what you wanted, evil seditious, unrighteous judges! What answer will you give us today? How many tears, how much blood have you shed? - And he promised to continue to be the people's defender: - People of God and given to us by God! I pray for your Faith in Him and love for me: be generous! It is impossible to correct the past evil: I can only save you in the future from such oppression and robbery. ... From now on I am your judge and defender.
After these words, as Karamzin writes, the people and the tsar began to cry. Modern journalists can call Ivan’s speech an example of populism. But is it? The 19-year-old boy, who grew up neglected without proper upbringing, could not master the skills of experienced actors. He had never given a speech in front of such a crowd of people, and the emotional stress must have been enormous. He sincerely cared and believed every word he said. We should not forget that Ivan IV was a deeply religious man. He made this speech before God and swore an oath to Him to be the people's judge and protector.
The people believed the king. People wanted to believe him from the very beginning; they were too tired of the turmoil of the boyar regime. Ivan confirmed their hopes. He loved to judge and judged fairly. Soon his Code of Law was published, where the interests of all classes, including ordinary people, were taken into account. The king canceled the feeding, drove away the fierce wolves of the feeders, and the people again liked this. But most importantly, the young tsar forced the Kazan Tatars to release 100 thousand Orthodox people from slavery. The entire 10 million Russian people rejoiced here. And then there was the glorious capture of Kazan; liberation of another 60 thousand Christians from slavery. Kazan was followed by Astrakhan - two kingdoms submitted to the Russian Tsar: this had never happened in Rus'. Ivan Vasilyevich shone as a true autocrat, the chosen one of God, leading the Russian people to greatness, and saving the broken Orthodox world.
The execution of the boyars and their servants was met with approval by the people, - that means they are building feuds for the king, starting sedition. The Tsar provided evidence in the form of proceedings and decisions of the Boyar Duma. When Ivan Vasilyevich with his family and entourage left for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, the people became despondent - being left without such a king was worse than becoming orphaned. A month later, messages arrived in Moscow: the tsar wrote that he had decided to leave the kingdom because of the boyars’ disobedience, betrayal, and the indulgence of the clergy to the guilty, and at the same time he assured the good Muscovites of his mercy, saying that disgrace and anger did not concern them. Moscow was horrified. - The Emperor has left us! - the people screamed: - we are dying! Who will be our defender in wars with foreigners? How can there be sheep without a shepherd? - An embassy from all classes went to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda - clergy, boyars, nobles, clerks, merchants, townspeople - to beat the Emperor as a whole and cry. Ivan the Terrible received the authority to introduce the oprichnina.
The oprichnina and, especially, the oprichniki could not please the people. Discontent was caused not by the execution of traitors, everyone agreed with this, but by the robbery of cities given over to the oprichnina, and three skins from peasants in the new oprichnina estates. ...After the fire of Moscow, the tsar disbanded the oprichnina, which was hated by the people, but then another misfortune came - famine and pestilence. Nevertheless, the people did not grumble against the king, but saw in the misfortunes the Wrath of God for our sins.
IN last years During the reign of Ivan IV, general fatigue began to take its toll. Peasants fled from extortions and landowners, leaving the devastated central and western regions of Russia. They went south to plow the Wild Field, and east to the still turbulent Volga region, they fled to the Cossacks. The townspeople, crushed by taxes, fled from the cities, the nobles abandoned their service and hurried home. The people suffered, but there was no open rebellion or bitterness against the king. The reserve of love and respect for Ivan Vasilyevich was too great. The people knew about the king’s piety, and that he gave out alms to the poor without counting. But the king’s prayers did not help: the king’s heir, Ivan, died. There are rumors that the father himself had a hand in the death of his son. The people fell into despair. Then a miracle happened - God sent a new kingdom to Russia. Ermak Timofeevich conquered the Siberian kingdom. This was the last sign of the Lord's mercy to the Terrible Tsar. A comet appeared with a cross-shaped heavenly sign between the Church of John the Great and the Annunciation. Soon the king fell ill. Citizens in Moscow churches prayed for the Tsar’s recovery. Even those whose loved ones he killed prayed. Karamzin describes the denouement: - When did the decisive word: “The Tsar passed away!” was heard in the Kremlin, the people screamed loudly.
The people were not sad in vain; if after the death of Tsar Ivan the boyars felt better, this did not affect the ordinary people. A decree on runaway peasants was adopted - the peasants were now caught and returned to the landowners... In Uglich, 9-year-old Dmitry, the youngest son of Ivan IV, was stabbed to death as if by accident. …. Then, for our sins, a terrible famine and pestilence came, the Pretender appeared and the Troubles began. Holy Rus' was deserted and dying. From that time, according to historians, the nickname Grozny and folklore about the formidable but fair king began. In ruined and disgraced Russia, where gangs of robbers and Poles ruled, the people longingly remembered the reign of Ivan IV as a time of glory and prosperity of the Russian state. Ivan the Terrible remained in people's memory as the defender of ordinary people from the evil boyars.
Ivan the Terrible in Russian folklore. The image of the formidable Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich is widely represented in folk art - songs and fairy tales. Of the Russian tsars, only Peter I can compare with Grozny in terms of popular attention. But if in fairy tales Peter has a certain advantage, then in songs, without a doubt, priority belongs to Ivan the Terrible. They sang about Grozny in historical songs, in Cossack, schismatic and simply in songs. Historical songs in Russian literature are songs dedicated to specific historical subjects of the past, most often, the events of the 16th - 18th centuries. Historical songs of the 16th century are dedicated exclusively to the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Songs about the capture of Kazan were especially popular.
Ivan Vasilyevich communicates with ordinary people not in songs, but in fairy tales. Here his image is not always positive, although not villainous.
In the 17th century, the attitude towards Grozny in fairy tales improved everywhere. The Tsar often acts as a defender of the poor against the boyars. These are the tales about the potter, about the bast tree, about the thief Barma...

The image of Ivan the Terrible in the literature of the 19th century will be incomplete without A.N. Maykov’s poem At the Tomb of the Terrible (1887). Maikov believed that the Tsar had historical truth - he created a great Kingdom, Peter and Catherine continued his work. Ivan the Terrible was the sovereign of the people, he made everyone equal, for in the face of the Tsar everyone is equal. The king's justification is in the love of the people:
Yes! My day will come!
The frightened people will be heard howling,
When the death of the King was announced,
And this popular howl over the coffin of the ruler -
I believe that it will not be lost in vain for centuries,
And it will be louder than this underground thorn
Boyar slander and foreign malice...

What good John's glory outlived him bad reputation in people's memory: the lamentations fell silent, the victims decayed, and old legends have been eclipsed by the newest ones; but the name of John shone on the Code of Laws and was reminiscent of the acquisition of the three Mongol kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in book depositories, and for centuries the people saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the conquering king; I honored in him the famous culprit of our state strength, our civil education; rejected or forgot the name Tormentor given to him by his contemporaries, and according to dark rumors about John’s cruelty, from now on he only calls him Grozny, not distinguishing between a grandson and a grandfather, so called by ancient Russia more in praise than in reproach. History is more vindictive than people!”

As you can see, both the great ruler and the monster are called Terrible!.. Named by none other than descendants! Here is the righteous court of the Russian model; Time itself in this country is an accomplice of injustice. Lecointe Laveau, in his “Guide to Moscow,” describing the royal palace in the Kremlin, was not ashamed to evoke the shadow of Ivan IV and dared to compare him with David, mourning the errors of his youth. Laveau's book was written for Russians.

I cannot deny myself the pleasure of introducing you to the last quote from Karamzin; this is a description of the character of the prince of whom Russia is proud. Only a Russian can speak about Ivan III the way Karamzin does, and at the same time believe that he is praising the monarch. Only a Russian can describe the reign of Ivan IV the way Karamzin describes it, and end his story with words excusing despotism. Here is the historian’s true opinion about Ivan III, the great ancestor of Ivan IV:

“Proud in relations with kings, majestic in receiving their embassies, he loved magnificent solemnity; established the ritual kissing a royal hand as a sign of flattering favor; I wanted to rise before people in all external ways in order to have a strong effect on the imagination; in a word, having unraveled the secrets of the autocracy, he became, as it were, an earthly God for the Russians, who with this time(emphasized by Karamzin or his translator) began to surprise all other nations with their boundless submission to the will of the monarch. He was the first to be given a name in Russia Grozny, but in a commendable sense: formidable for enemies and obstinate disobedients. However, not being a tyrant, like his grandson, Ivan Vasilyevich the Second, he undoubtedly had natural cruelty in his character, tempered in him by the power of reason. The founders of monarchies are rarely known for their tender sensitivity, and the firmness necessary for great affairs of state borders on severity. They write that timid women fainted from the angry, fiery gaze of John; that petitioners were afraid to go to the throne; that the nobles trembled and at feasts in the palace did not dare to whisper a word or move from their place, when the Emperor, tired of noisy conversation, hot with wine, dozed for hours at dinner: everyone sat in deep silence, waiting for a new order to amuse him and have fun. Having already noticed the severity of Ioannov’s punishments, we add that the most noble officials, secular and ecclesiastical, defrocked for crimes, were not exempt from the terrible trade execution: thus (in 1491) they publicly whipped the Ukhtomsky prince, the nobleman Khomutov and the former Archimandrite Chudovsky, for a forged document composed by them for the land of the deceased brother Ioannov.

History is not a word of praise and does not present the greatest men as perfect. John as a person did not have the amiable properties of either Monomakh or Donskoy, but as a sovereign he stands at the highest degree of greatness. He sometimes seemed timid and indecisive, because he always wanted to act carefully. This caution is generally prudence: it does not captivate us like magnanimous courage; but with slow successes, as if incomplete, he gives strength to his creations. What did Alexander the Great leave to the world? Glory. John left a state amazing in space, strong in its peoples, even stronger in the spirit of government, which we now call with love and pride our dear fatherland.”

The proliferation of cities also favored the extraordinary success of trade, which more and more increased the Tsar’s income (which in 1588 reached six million of today’s silver rubles). Not only on the import of foreign products or on the production of our works, but even on food items brought into the cities, there was a significant duty, sometimes paid off by the residents. The Novogorod Customs Charter of 1571 states that for all goods imported by foreign guests and valued by people of the jury, the treasury takes seven money per ruble: Russian merchants paid 4, and Novogorod 1 money: from meat, livestock, fish, caviar, honey, salt (German and long-tailed ducks), onions, nuts, apples, except for special collection from carts, ships, sleighs. They paid for imported precious metals, just like for everything else; and exporting them was considered a crime. It is worthy of note that the Sovereign's goods were not exempt from duty. Concealment was punished with a heavy penalty. At this time, the ancient capital of Rurik, although among the ruins, was beginning to revive again with trade activity, taking advantage of the proximity of Narva, where we were merchants with the whole of Europe; but soon plunged into dead silence when Russia, in the disasters of the Lithuanian and Swedish wars, lost this important harbour. Moreover, our Dvina trade flourished, in which the British had to share benefits with Dutch, German, French merchants, bringing to us sugar, wine, salt, berries, tin, cloth, lace and exchanging furs, hemp, flax, ropes for them, wool, wax, honey, lard, leather, iron, wood. French merchants, who brought a friendly letter from Henry III to John, were allowed to trade in Kola, and Spanish or Dutch merchants in the Pudozhersky estuary: the most famous of these guests was called Ivan the Virgin Whitebeard, delivered precious stones to the Tsar and enjoyed his special favor, to the displeasure of the English. In a conversation with Elizabeth's Ambassador, Baus, John complained that London merchants did not bring anything good to us; took the ring off his hand and pointed to the emerald cap his own and boasted that Devakh gave him the first for 60 rubles, and the second for a thousand: what Baus marveled at, estimating the ring at 300 rubles, and the emerald at 40,000. We sold a significant amount of grain to Sweden and Denmark. “This blessed land (Kobentzel writes about Russia) abounds in everything necessary for human life, having no real need for any foreign products.” - The conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan strengthened our Asian exchange.

Having enriched the treasury with trade, city and zemstvo taxes, as well as by appropriating church estates in order to increase the army, build arsenals (where at least two thousand siege and field weapons were always ready), build fortresses, chambers, temples, John loved to use the excess income and for luxury: we talked about the surprise of foreigners who saw piles of pearls in the Moscow treasury, mountains of gold and silver in the palace, brilliant meetings, dinners, during which for five, six hours fed up 600 or 700 guests, not only abundant, but also expensive dishes, fruits and wines of hot, distant climates: once, in addition to eminent people, 2000 Nogai allies, who were going to the Livonian War, dined with the Tsar in the Kremlin chambers. In the ceremonial exits and departures of the Sovereigns, everything also represented the image of Asian splendor: squads of bodyguards drenched in gold - the wealth of their weapons, the decoration of horses. So John, on December 12, usually rode out of the city on horseback to see the effect of a firearm projectile: in front of him were several hundred Princes, Governors, dignitaries, three in a row; in front of the dignitaries were 5,000 selected archers, five in a row. In the midst of a vast, snowy plain, on a high platform, 200 fathoms long or more, guns and soldiers stood, fired at the target, smashed fortifications, wooden, covered with earth, and ice. In church celebrations, as we have seen, John also appeared to the people with striking pomp, being able to give himself greatness with the appearance of artificial humility, and combining the appearance of Christian virtues with worldly splendor: treating the Nobles and Ambassadors on bright holidays, he poured rich alms on the poor.

In conclusion, let us say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory. in people's memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones; but the name of John shone on the Code of Laws and was reminiscent of the acquisition of the three Mughal Kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in book depositories, and for centuries the people saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the Conqueror Tsar; I honored in him the famous culprit of our state strength, our civil education; rejected or forgot the name Tormentor given to him by his contemporaries, and according to dark rumors about John’s cruelty, to this day he only calls him Grozny, not distinguishing between a grandson and a grandfather, so called by ancient Russia more in praise than in reproach. History is more vindictive than people!

VOLUME X

Chapter I

REIGN OF THEODOR IOANNOVICH. G. 1584-1587

Properties of Feodorov. Members of the Supreme Duma. The excitement of the people. Meeting of the Great Duma of the Zemstvo. Tsarevich Dimitri and his mother go to Uglich. Mutiny in Moscow. The power and properties of Godunov. Royal wedding of Feodorovo. Various favors. Godunov Ruler of the Kingdom. The pacification of the Cheremis rebellion. Secondary conquest of Siberia. Relations with England and Lithuania. Conspiracy against Godunov. Comparison of Godunov with Adashev. Truce with Sweden. Embassy to Austria. Renewal of friendship with Dasha. Crimean affairs. Embassy in Constantinople. Tsar of Iveron, or Georgian, tributary of Russia. Affairs with Persia. Internal matters. Founding of Arkhangelsk. The structure of the White, or Tsarev, city in Moscow. The beginning of Uralsk. Dangers for Godunov. Exiles and execution. The pitiful death of Hero Shuisky. The fate of the Magnus family. Feodorov's idleness.

Here is what N.M. Karamzin wrote: “In conclusion, let’s say that John’s good glory outlived his bad glory in the people’s memory: the lamentations fell silent, the sacrifices decayed, and the old traditions were eclipsed by the newest ones; but the name of John shone on the Code of Laws and was reminiscent of the acquisition of the three Mongol kingdoms: evidence of terrible deeds lay in book depositories, and for centuries the people saw Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia as living monuments of the conquering king; I honored in him the famous culprit of our state strength, our civil education; rejected or forgot the name of the Tormentor, given to him by his contemporaries, and, according to dark rumors about John’s cruelty, to this day he calls him only the Terrible, not distinguishing between his grandson and his grandfather, so called by ancient Russia more in praise than in reproach. History is more vindictive than people!”

After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his 27-year-old son Fedor ascended the throne.

Thus, in the 16th century. There was a process of strengthening the traditional feudal economy. The growth of small-scale production in cities and trade did not lead to the creation of centers of bourgeois development.

2. Political activity of Ivan (IV) the Terrible and his reforms

2.1. Years of boyar rule

After the death of Vasily III in 1533, his three-year-old son Ivan IV ascended the grand-ducal throne. In fact, the state was ruled by his mother Elena, the daughter of Prince Glinsky, a native of Lithuania. Both during the reign of Elena and after her death (1538, there is an assumption that she was poisoned), the struggle for power between the boyar groups of the Belskys, Shuiskys, and Glinskys did not stop.

Boyar rule led to the weakening of central power, and the arbitrariness of the patrimonial owners caused widespread discontent and open protests in a number of Russian cities.

In June 1547, a strong fire broke out on the Arbat in Moscow. The fire raged for two days, the city was almost completely burned out. About 4 thousand Muscovites died in the fire. Ivan IV and his entourage, fleeing smoke and fire, hid in the village of Vorobyovo (present-day Vorobyovy Gory). The cause of the fire was sought in the actions of real persons. Rumors spread that the fire was the work of the Glinskys, with whose name the people associated the years of boyar rule.

A meeting gathered in the Kremlin on the square near the Assumption Cathedral. One of the Glinskys was torn to pieces by the rebel people. The yards of their supporters and relatives were burned and looted. “And then fear entered my soul and trembling entered my bones,” Ivan IV later recalled. With great difficulty the government managed to suppress the uprising.

Demonstrations against the authorities took place in the cities of Olochek, and somewhat later in Pskov and Ustyug. The discontent of the people was reflected in the emergence of heresies. For example, the serf of Theodosius Kosoy, the most radical heretic of that time, advocated the equality of people and disobedience to authorities. His teachings became widespread, especially among the townspeople.

Popular uprisings showed that the country needs reforms to strengthen statehood and centralize power. Ivan IV embarked on the path of structural reforms.

The nobility expressed particular interest in carrying out reforms. Its original ideologist was the talented publicist of that time, nobleman Ivan Semenovich Peresvetov. He addressed the king with messages (petitions), which outlined a unique program of reforms. Proposals by I.S. Peresvetov was largely anticipated by the actions of Ivan IV. Some historians even believed that the author of the petitions was Ivan IV himself. Based on the interests of the nobility, I.S. Peresvetov sharply condemned the boyar arbitrariness.

Around 1549, a council of people close to him, called the Chosen Rada, formed around the young Ivan IV. This is what A. Kurbsky called it in the Polish manner in one of his works.

The composition of the Chosen Rada is not entirely clear. It was headed by A.F. Adashev, who came from a rich, but not very noble family.

Representatives of various strata of the ruling class participated in the work of the Chosen Rada. Princes D. Kurpyatev, A. Kurbsky, M. Vorotynsky, Moscow Metropolitan Macarius and priest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Kremlin (the home church of the Moscow kings), confessor of the Tsar Sylvester, clerk of the Ambassadorial Prikaz I. Viskovaty. The composition of the Chosen Rada seemed to reflect a compromise between various layers of the ruling class. The elected council existed until 1560; she carried out transformations called reforms of the mid-16th century.

2.2. Political system

In January 1547, Ivan IV, having reached adulthood, was officially crowned king. The ceremony of accepting the royal title took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. From the hands of the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, who developed the ritual of crowning the king, Ivan IV accepted the Monomakh cap and other signs of royal power. From now on, the Grand Duke of Moscow began to be called Tsar.

During the period when a centralized state was taking shape, as well as during interregnums and internal strife, the Boyar Duma played the role of a legislative and advisory body under the Grand Duke, and later under the Tsar. During the reign of Ivan IV, the composition of the Boyar Duma was almost tripled in order to weaken the role of the old boyar aristocracy in it.

A new authority arose - the Zemsky Sobor. Zemsky Sobors met irregularly and dealt with the most important state affairs, primarily issues of foreign policy and finance. During the interregnum, new kings were elected at Zemsky Sobors. According to experts, more than 50 Zemsky Sobors took place; The last Zemsky Sobors met in Russia in the 80s of the 17th century. They included the Boyar Duma. The consecrated cathedral - representatives of the highest clergy; Representatives of the nobility and the top of the settlement were also present at the meetings of the Zemsky Sobors. The first Zemsky Sobor was convened in 1549. It decided to draw up a new Code of Law (approved in 1550) and outlined a reform program.

Even before the reforms of the mid-16th century. certain branches of government, as well as the management of individual territories, began to be entrusted (“ordered,” as they said then) to the boyars. This is how the first orders appeared - institutions in charge of branches of public administration or individual regions of the country. In the middle of the 16th century. There were already two dozen orders. Military affairs were managed by the Rank Order (in charge of the local army). Pushkarsky (artillery), Streletsky (streltsy). Armory Chamber (Arsenal). Foreign affairs were managed by the Ambassadorial Prikaz, finances were managed by the Grand Parish Prikaz; state lands distributed to nobles - Local Prikaz, to serfs - Serf Prikaz. There were orders that were in charge of certain territories, for example, the order of the Siberian Palace governed Siberia, the order of the Kazan Palace governed the annexed Kazan Khanate.

At the head of the order was a boyar or clerk - a major government official. The orders were in charge of administration, tax collection and the courts. With more complex tasks government controlled the number of orders grew. By the time of Peter the Great's reforms at the beginning of the 18th century. there were about 50 of them. The design of the order system made it possible to centralize the management of the country.

Started to take shape one system local management. Previously, the collection of taxes there was entrusted to the feeding boyars; they were the actual rulers of individual lands. All funds collected in excess of the required taxes to the treasury were at their personal disposal, i.e. they "fed" by managing the lands. In 1556, feedings were abolished. Local administration (investigation and court in particularly important state affairs) was transferred to the hands of provincial elders (guba - district), who were drawn from local nobles, zemstvo elders - from among the wealthy strata of the Chernososh population where there was no noble land ownership, city clerks or favorite goals --in cities.

Thus, in the middle of the 16th century. An apparatus of state power emerged in the form of an estate-representative monarchy.

2.2. Code of Law

1550 The general trend towards centralization of the country necessitated the publication of a new set of laws - the Code of Laws of 1550. Taking the Code of Laws of Ivan III as a basis, the compilers of the new Code of Laws made changes to it related to the strengthening of central power. It confirmed the right of peasants to move on St. George’s Day and increased the payment for the “elderly”. The feudal lord was now responsible for the crimes of the peasants, which increased their personal dependence on the master. For the first time, penalties were introduced for bribery of government officials.

Even under Elena Glinskaya, a monetary reform was launched, according to which the Moscow ruble became the main monetary unit of the country. The right to collect trade duties passed into the hands of the state. The population of the country was obliged to bear taxes - a complex of natural and monetary duties. In the middle of the 16th century. a single unit for collecting taxes was established for the entire state - the large plow. Depending on the fertility of the soil, as well as the social status of the owner of the land, the plow amounted to 400-600 acres of land.

2.3. Military reform

The core of the army was the noble militia. Near Moscow, the “chosen thousand” were planted on the ground - 1070 provincial nobles, who, according to the Tsar’s plan, were to become his support. For the first time, the “Code of Service” was drawn up. A votchinnik or landowner could begin his service from. 15 years and pass it on by inheritance. From 150 dessiatines of land, both the boyar and the nobleman had to field one warrior and appear at the reviews “on horseback, with people and with weapons.” In 1550, a permanent streltsy army was created. At first, the archers recruited three thousand people. In addition, foreigners began to be recruited into the army, the number of whom was insignificant. Artillery was reinforced. The Cossacks were recruited to perform border service. The boyars and nobles who made up the militia were called “serving people for the fatherland,” i.e. by origin. The other group consisted of “service people according to the instrument” (i.e., according to recruitment). In addition to the archers, there were gunners (artillerymen), city guards, and the Cossacks were close to them. Rear work (cart trains, construction of fortifications) was carried out by the "staff" - a militia from among the black soshns, monastery peasants and townspeople. During military campaigns, localism was limited. In the middle of the 16th century. An official reference book was compiled - "The Sovereign's Genealogist", which streamlined local disputes.