Ivan the Terrible: two myths, two stories and two historiographies
Perhaps TOPWAR readers will remember an article about Prince Alexander Nevsky, which dealt with those myths that were created by Soviet propaganda around his name, including even the editorial from Pravda on April 5 from 1942. Now, the debate goes around the personality of Grozny, and, in my opinion, this is the strangest thing, Karamzin, who treated him very carefully, is accused, and other historians are in bulk, although again Klyuchevsky wrote about him in no way in a derogatory tone . And this is despite the fact that the Web today has texts of chronicles, Klyuchevsky’s lectures, all the writings of Karamzin, and the letters of Ivan the Terrible to Queen Elizabeth of England - everything is there. But there are people who are clearly obsessed with the “threat of the West of Russia”, and very similar to Lieutenant Rzhevsky from the “Hussar Ballad”: “This man also did not read the novel! Be sure to read it, Sharman! ”Meanwhile, the personality of Ivan the Terrible causes controversy in society only because it is simply too lazy for this society to study all this. In Kansk, for example, a certain enthusiast even erected his own monument to him in the form of a… bloody stake. Some say that a monument is needed, others do not. How to be and why is everything so ... "too painful"?
"King, just king!"
Because this time, too, not just opinions, two myths collided, with which it was painful to part with both. What are these myths?
There are only two of them, protective and liberal, but both have a long-standing history and therefore they have already gained the strength of tradition, and it is very difficult to fight the traditions. By the way, another Soviet historian like Mikhail Pokrovsky warned against confusing history with politics, and this is precisely what the fans of both these myths sin. And it was enough just to “light up the flames”, and the monument to Ivan the Terrible in Orel became such a fuse, as the swords immediately “crossed,” that is, world outlook. Well, the reasons for the difference of worldviews in one single state will be discussed at the end. But for now let's outline the essence of each of these two myths. Let's start with the liberal, because for what, if not for freedom, people fought on the barricades in the years of the French Revolution and in 1905, and this myth denied not only the merits of Grozny as a king. He considered our statehood to be tyrannical, the sufferings of the people were immeasurable, and he considered the sample the “democratic West”, where “even the streets are washed in the mornings with liquid soap”, as one newspaper wrote in my blessed Penza bitterly, while in Moscow newspapers Readers were reminded constantly. Why in the early twentieth century there were washed the pavements in the mornings, and with soap and water, the story will also be closer to the end, and now we will look at the generalized conclusions from this myth: Ivan the Terrible ghoul, what to look for, maniac, despot, libertine, bloody madman, in short, so only scare children.
Ivory throne. Armory chamber of the Kremlin.
The other is not much different from him, since it represents his anagram. This is a protective myth, the essence of which is that Ivan the Terrible is a vessel of all conceivable and inconceivable virtues, which was infinitely wise, shrewd, did not do anything bad and could not be done a priori, the king, who won all, gave all his sisters earrings was "a knight without fear and without reproach." I can not believe in that myth, nor in this, because such people simply do not happen. But ... both myths firmly occupied the mass consciousness, and long overshadowed the real Ivan the Terrible. Accordingly, the discussion about the monument is conducted from the standpoint of these two myths.
Monument to the settler in Penza.
But before talking about the monument to him, I would like to say a little about our Penza monument - “The Monument to the First-Setter”, which in our city is simply called “a man with a horse.” They put it back in the Soviet era and how they put it in a whole saga worthy of a separate story. But it is not about this now, but about “what is the monument for him”. And the monument is to those settlers that, by decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Tishayshiy, I mean Romanov, in 1663, they came here along with reiters and Cossacks and "taught the city to build." Today it is a pleasant meeting place, meeting, it's nice to just stand and look into the distance, and no one thinks about why this peasant with the plow standing near the arable horse, even the peak with the pennant, although this monument itself peaks and adorns. In my opinion, the monument would only have won if there were three “first settlers”: the reiter on horseback, since it was the reiters who were sent to guard the newly built fortress. And if without a pike in any way, then let it be a Cossack. Then a peasant with food, since the royal government gave the first settlers a food and an unlimited amount of money to acquire and ... a woman, as without her. After all, there was a decree after the Copper Riot 1662 of the year to send women caught in the copper tatbe to distant "cities", and Penza in the 1663 was much more distant. But the three figures are ... a lot of money. That is why the pioneer we have one.
So if a person is related to a place, then why not be a monument to her exactly there ?! And after all, it was Grozny who indicated to build the Eagle, even if later the modern city grew out of another fortress. But the fact is a fact. And there is a person responsible for him and if so, then why not show off on the monument? True, historically it would have been more appropriate for Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, since the present-day Eagle is his creation, but ... if not Mikhail, then at least Ivan the Terrible, why not.
On the other hand, from the point of view of Russian history and statehood, a monument to Grozny would be much more appropriate to place in Kazan. Indeed, in 1552, he personally participated in the campaign of the Russian troops and risked his life during the storming of Kazan, and as a result, tens of thousands of Russian monks were freed from slavery. This merit is clearly related to the personality of the king. He was on the march, took part in making military decisions, put his life on the line, as there was a moment when he could die there. Therefore, it would be more correct to bet there. But ... under the Soviets, we were tolerant of the Ukrainian Banderovites and “forest brothers”, we are also tolerant of today's residents of Kazan, since such a monument may also not like them and ... why do we need this “there”? However, besides Kazan, Ivan IV also took Polotsk and many other cities of Livonia, ended the Livonian Order, that is, he conducted a very active foreign policy immediately in the east and in the west.
The wedding of the kingdom of Ivan the Terrible. Facial chronicle of the book. 20 page 283.
However, if we talk about the increments to the “Russian land”, then the monument should be erected to his grandfather, Ivan III, who created the Russian state, as such, by the way, many people called it “terrible” at that time. So it is very possible that we will wait for this monument, and not just anywhere, but in the very capital city of Moscow.
Now, from the military affairs of the young king turn to his educational activities. It was under Ivan IV that the typography in Russia was started, and even the state printing house was created. By the way, even in Kazan, the equipment of a printing house simply could not do without a tsar's decree, so here his role was only positive.
They also built many towns and fortresses with a lot of guns, and not just a lot, but so many that travelers from other lands wrote that they had never seen so much anywhere (See for more: V. Shpakovsky "Artillery extravagances" // "Science and technology" №6 (109), 2015,).
But “did he have a hat for Senka,” didn’t he throw at too much? After all, from the time of Khan Tokhtamysh, the enemies did not take Moscow, but here they took it, and even burned it, but the “loyal oprichniki” Devlet-Girey just missed. Yes, then he executed them for it, but ... he also executed the one who took Kazan, and if he didn’t execute? Well, in the end, the Livonian war, after all, Ivan the Terrible lost! And the agreement with the Commonwealth, and the agreement with Sweden were Russia unprofitable! Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye - only Ivan IV's son Fyodor Ivanovich beat them back. What does beat off? Once again, the blood of warfare was spilled, and our warfare is, after all, very often the men of arable farming ... Although, on the other hand, this is a clear plus for him, because we know what this turned out to be before the time, because it was Tsar Ivan IV who created the Strelets army which in the future, up to Peter himself, faithfully served the Russian State.
And then, further, we have just the very thing that is why our two myths, the oprichnina, are most hostile. The liberal myth says that in such a manner Ivan the Terrible created the prototype of the NKVD. But this is the same as saying that Peter I created the MIC. In both cases, there is a similarity, but ... it is necessary to take into account time, and besides, to operate not with particulars, but with the general that does not change when changing particulars. And what is it? And this is the problem of personnel rotation! Tops always want to stay where they are. This has been the case since Paleolithic. But ... without the influx of fresh blood, the elite is rotting, losing its grip, and the country being led to it is being done ... by the military booty of its neighbors.
So in Russia there were only a few dozen boyar and princely families, from which people could be accepted into the boyar duma both in the governor and in orders to put heads on their heads. However, over time, this was not enough. The influx of fresh personnel has declined sharply. His understanding of the elite tasks of government led to conflicts and outright treason.
It was from here that “Kromyshnin” (“oprich” - “except”) was born. It was the basis for a parallel control system, and for creating a “parallel elite” based on personal loyalty to the royal personage. This has already happened in history. Something similar, and even with the transfer of the capital and the approach to it of people who were not well-born, Pharaoh Akhenaton, the author of the Sunshine religious revolution in ancient Egypt, once thought. So did Louis IX, who relied on the advice of the barber and the royal ... executioner, so that Ivan Ivan the Terrible didn’t even think of anything new, it was just that it was a match for the scale of the country, which seemed (and it was) very significant.
But command without troops is not command. Hence the confiscation of land, repression against those representatives of the elite, who are clearly against and ... recruitment and placement of personnel, in the form of people like Malyuta Skuratov - “they will not let those down”. All this has destroyed the balance in society, that is, the most terrible thing that could happen.
No, it was not “Milena” who was executed by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, thousands, and then in a few years and all within a dozen - either five, or six thousand people. This is not enough for us. For the time in Russia is a lot! After all, it was a means of political struggle, until that time in the Russian state is unknown! Since the time of the first princes of this in Russia did not happen, and then suddenly it knows where it started from. Yes, the princes of each other and in the cellar planted, and killed, and blinded, and strangled, and poisoned, but on such a scale at that time, murder, above all, noble people committed us just utter.
And here's an interesting question, but where did all this come from? From the depths of a spoiled Ivanova nature, which in childhood had received more than one psychological trauma, or from where? Most likely ... "from there", because it was under Ivan IV that Russia established intensive ties with Sweden, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Germany, and even with distant England. But at that moment in Europe there were religious wars. Catholics slaughtered Protestants, and Protestants Catholics. Even without war! In America, in the colonies, the Spaniards slaughtered a settlement of French Huguenots. "Killed not like the French, but as heretics," said the Spaniards. The French burned down their village in retaliation, and hung up the prisoners: “They were hanged not as Spaniards, but as rapists and murderers!” Such was the “life” there.
And even before the start of mass executions, “in the oprichnina of Tsar Ivan” there was a massacre in Vassi in France, Eric XIV executed many of his nobles, and in England there was Mary the Bloody. That is, we have people - and above all, the king himself, we learned that this is possible. And if this is done “there”, then why shouldn't we use similar means? Ivan Chapygin has a remarkable historical novel “Razin Stepan”, highly praised by Maxim Gorky. There are a lot of references to historical documents in it, that is, he didn’t write out of his head, and here there is a revealing phrase: “We take measure from the sea, - there people are tortured and burn our own strength ...” And this was indeed the case. In Germany and the Netherlands in the Middle Ages even special commissions were established to check the population for signs of pedication. Even the highest post did not save him from punishment for sodomy - so, it was for her that Dutch President Gosin de Wilde was beheaded.
Against this background, church penance, no matter how strict it may be, does not seem such a strict punishment. More tolerant attitude of the Muscovites to the Sodom sin was repeatedly noted with surprise by many foreign travelers, including Sigismund Herberstein. In numerous travel notes it is mentioned that the Sodom sin served as the subject of a wide variety of jokes and was not regarded as something absolutely sinful. For foreigners, it was wild - jokingly reproaching in vice, which was punishable by death in their homeland! And it is not surprising that the flow of information came not only from us to the West, but also from the West to us. You read the king's letters to Queen Elizabeth: his broad outlook, good knowledge of foreign affairs, and observantness - “why do all of your letters have different print marks?”
Well, then it turned out the way it always goes. The new elite wanted to compare with the old. But not with intelligence and experience, she neglected this, having behind her “her” sovereign. Not! Wealth! That is, the oprichniki began to openly rob the Zemstvo, but the oprichnina army could not cope with its enemies without Zemsky ratification. Here is the king of her in 1572 year and canceled. But it was already late, as already noted, the social peace in the country gave a crack and very deep.
Parsun Ivan the Terrible from the collection of the National Museum of Denmark (Copenhagen), the end of the XVI - the beginning of the XVII centuries.
As a result, the reign of Ivan IV ended with demographic losses, especially in the northern regions, with economic, as well as territorial, although the total land area increased. It was a blow to the country's reputation - “Devlet Girey burned Moscow,” the church, which had not happened for a long time. In a word, Ivan the Terrible failed to “deal” with the elite. It is good that at least the fact that people are tired of everything and the person who gives them rest from excessive tension is loved and revered. Such a ruler for Russia was the son of Ivan the Terrible, in which the country recovered somewhat from the consequences of great deeds and was again ready for the next challenges of “modernity”. Well, and the “fresh blood” still joined the elite, the most irreconcilable ones were honored to the Lord, so that the amplitude of the historical pendulum acquired a much more acceptable frequency of rocking.
That is, whether someone likes it or not, but the personality of Tsar Ivan is very complicated, controversial and tragic. To create and see how your deed is crumbling to dust, to do good and to see how you are betrayed by the benevolent, faithful change, rootless, who seem to give you all - go out of the will and rage, slaves rebel, in a word, he carried Nemer, and here and God with his commandments and God's punishment, the word ... everything, as in the movie: "Between the angel and the demon."
PS Well, now about the "soap", and where are these two myths and the difference in ideologies. The fact is that in the cities of Europe for a long time the issue of sewage was solved very badly. Even when the streets were paved with stone, and the houses became multi-storey, it was not built, and barrels on the landings were used to collect fecal masses. Early in the morning, they were taken by the vacuum trucks, demolished down the stairs and poured into large barrels on carts. Naturally, something and shed. And so in front of every home! Getting out of it in long skirts meant ... just revenge them on the dirty pavement, so you had to wash it regularly, and wash it with soap! The Russian cities in this regard were the township estates, where all the amenities were in your yard, and not a little. Therefore, what was there to wash with soap?
As for the myths, the first one came from the liberal traditions of “fighting tyranny” and Herzen’s “Call an Rus to the ax!”. And the second was born in the Soviet times through the efforts of director Sergei Eisenstein, who shot the epic two-part film “Ivan the Terrible”, which became an apologist for Stalin. But he and the other were just a response from society to deceived expectations. The fact is that people always want more than they are promised, and are confident that everything around is done for their benefit, although in reality this is not at all the case. But it turned out that our society was deceived many times: 1861, 1905-07, 1917, 1962, 1965, 1985, 1991 ... As a result, it received two large groups of people: those who "managed to adapt to new conditions" and "those who failed. Hence the dual attitude to the personality of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Because both the left and the right, and those who won, and those who lost, wanted and wanted more, brought to a logical end, happiness in their own understanding, but they didn’t really want to wait and work for him. Who would come and give! And one wants a lot of tyranny (they pin their unfulfilled hopes on her), others that it does not exist at all (the same, but vice versa). That is, people live in the mythical world of extremes. Each representative of his direction looks at the image of the king (as well as at society as a whole) from his bell tower, but about the wave nature of social development, ups and downs, as if he does not know, although it is obvious that there was something and there was a decline in something, there was progress, but there was also regression, morality coexisted with overt amoralism, savagery with enlightenment, and so absolutely in everything! And the fact that the path to the elite is very complicated and difficult, for some reason they forget, as well as the fact that everyone is sooner or later, but rewarded according to his works or mind. And if not rewarded? It means that works are bad, and there are obvious problems with the mind. But there are such 80% in the society and you have to put up with it and ... just live! Well, we will consider the historiography of this issue next time.
Продолжение следует ...
"King, just king!"
Because this time, too, not just opinions, two myths collided, with which it was painful to part with both. What are these myths?
There are only two of them, protective and liberal, but both have a long-standing history and therefore they have already gained the strength of tradition, and it is very difficult to fight the traditions. By the way, another Soviet historian like Mikhail Pokrovsky warned against confusing history with politics, and this is precisely what the fans of both these myths sin. And it was enough just to “light up the flames”, and the monument to Ivan the Terrible in Orel became such a fuse, as the swords immediately “crossed,” that is, world outlook. Well, the reasons for the difference of worldviews in one single state will be discussed at the end. But for now let's outline the essence of each of these two myths. Let's start with the liberal, because for what, if not for freedom, people fought on the barricades in the years of the French Revolution and in 1905, and this myth denied not only the merits of Grozny as a king. He considered our statehood to be tyrannical, the sufferings of the people were immeasurable, and he considered the sample the “democratic West”, where “even the streets are washed in the mornings with liquid soap”, as one newspaper wrote in my blessed Penza bitterly, while in Moscow newspapers Readers were reminded constantly. Why in the early twentieth century there were washed the pavements in the mornings, and with soap and water, the story will also be closer to the end, and now we will look at the generalized conclusions from this myth: Ivan the Terrible ghoul, what to look for, maniac, despot, libertine, bloody madman, in short, so only scare children.
Ivory throne. Armory chamber of the Kremlin.
The other is not much different from him, since it represents his anagram. This is a protective myth, the essence of which is that Ivan the Terrible is a vessel of all conceivable and inconceivable virtues, which was infinitely wise, shrewd, did not do anything bad and could not be done a priori, the king, who won all, gave all his sisters earrings was "a knight without fear and without reproach." I can not believe in that myth, nor in this, because such people simply do not happen. But ... both myths firmly occupied the mass consciousness, and long overshadowed the real Ivan the Terrible. Accordingly, the discussion about the monument is conducted from the standpoint of these two myths.
Monument to the settler in Penza.
But before talking about the monument to him, I would like to say a little about our Penza monument - “The Monument to the First-Setter”, which in our city is simply called “a man with a horse.” They put it back in the Soviet era and how they put it in a whole saga worthy of a separate story. But it is not about this now, but about “what is the monument for him”. And the monument is to those settlers that, by decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Tishayshiy, I mean Romanov, in 1663, they came here along with reiters and Cossacks and "taught the city to build." Today it is a pleasant meeting place, meeting, it's nice to just stand and look into the distance, and no one thinks about why this peasant with the plow standing near the arable horse, even the peak with the pennant, although this monument itself peaks and adorns. In my opinion, the monument would only have won if there were three “first settlers”: the reiter on horseback, since it was the reiters who were sent to guard the newly built fortress. And if without a pike in any way, then let it be a Cossack. Then a peasant with food, since the royal government gave the first settlers a food and an unlimited amount of money to acquire and ... a woman, as without her. After all, there was a decree after the Copper Riot 1662 of the year to send women caught in the copper tatbe to distant "cities", and Penza in the 1663 was much more distant. But the three figures are ... a lot of money. That is why the pioneer we have one.
So if a person is related to a place, then why not be a monument to her exactly there ?! And after all, it was Grozny who indicated to build the Eagle, even if later the modern city grew out of another fortress. But the fact is a fact. And there is a person responsible for him and if so, then why not show off on the monument? True, historically it would have been more appropriate for Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, since the present-day Eagle is his creation, but ... if not Mikhail, then at least Ivan the Terrible, why not.
On the other hand, from the point of view of Russian history and statehood, a monument to Grozny would be much more appropriate to place in Kazan. Indeed, in 1552, he personally participated in the campaign of the Russian troops and risked his life during the storming of Kazan, and as a result, tens of thousands of Russian monks were freed from slavery. This merit is clearly related to the personality of the king. He was on the march, took part in making military decisions, put his life on the line, as there was a moment when he could die there. Therefore, it would be more correct to bet there. But ... under the Soviets, we were tolerant of the Ukrainian Banderovites and “forest brothers”, we are also tolerant of today's residents of Kazan, since such a monument may also not like them and ... why do we need this “there”? However, besides Kazan, Ivan IV also took Polotsk and many other cities of Livonia, ended the Livonian Order, that is, he conducted a very active foreign policy immediately in the east and in the west.
The wedding of the kingdom of Ivan the Terrible. Facial chronicle of the book. 20 page 283.
However, if we talk about the increments to the “Russian land”, then the monument should be erected to his grandfather, Ivan III, who created the Russian state, as such, by the way, many people called it “terrible” at that time. So it is very possible that we will wait for this monument, and not just anywhere, but in the very capital city of Moscow.
Now, from the military affairs of the young king turn to his educational activities. It was under Ivan IV that the typography in Russia was started, and even the state printing house was created. By the way, even in Kazan, the equipment of a printing house simply could not do without a tsar's decree, so here his role was only positive.
They also built many towns and fortresses with a lot of guns, and not just a lot, but so many that travelers from other lands wrote that they had never seen so much anywhere (See for more: V. Shpakovsky "Artillery extravagances" // "Science and technology" №6 (109), 2015,).
But “did he have a hat for Senka,” didn’t he throw at too much? After all, from the time of Khan Tokhtamysh, the enemies did not take Moscow, but here they took it, and even burned it, but the “loyal oprichniki” Devlet-Girey just missed. Yes, then he executed them for it, but ... he also executed the one who took Kazan, and if he didn’t execute? Well, in the end, the Livonian war, after all, Ivan the Terrible lost! And the agreement with the Commonwealth, and the agreement with Sweden were Russia unprofitable! Ivangorod, Yam, Koporye - only Ivan IV's son Fyodor Ivanovich beat them back. What does beat off? Once again, the blood of warfare was spilled, and our warfare is, after all, very often the men of arable farming ... Although, on the other hand, this is a clear plus for him, because we know what this turned out to be before the time, because it was Tsar Ivan IV who created the Strelets army which in the future, up to Peter himself, faithfully served the Russian State.
And then, further, we have just the very thing that is why our two myths, the oprichnina, are most hostile. The liberal myth says that in such a manner Ivan the Terrible created the prototype of the NKVD. But this is the same as saying that Peter I created the MIC. In both cases, there is a similarity, but ... it is necessary to take into account time, and besides, to operate not with particulars, but with the general that does not change when changing particulars. And what is it? And this is the problem of personnel rotation! Tops always want to stay where they are. This has been the case since Paleolithic. But ... without the influx of fresh blood, the elite is rotting, losing its grip, and the country being led to it is being done ... by the military booty of its neighbors.
So in Russia there were only a few dozen boyar and princely families, from which people could be accepted into the boyar duma both in the governor and in orders to put heads on their heads. However, over time, this was not enough. The influx of fresh personnel has declined sharply. His understanding of the elite tasks of government led to conflicts and outright treason.
It was from here that “Kromyshnin” (“oprich” - “except”) was born. It was the basis for a parallel control system, and for creating a “parallel elite” based on personal loyalty to the royal personage. This has already happened in history. Something similar, and even with the transfer of the capital and the approach to it of people who were not well-born, Pharaoh Akhenaton, the author of the Sunshine religious revolution in ancient Egypt, once thought. So did Louis IX, who relied on the advice of the barber and the royal ... executioner, so that Ivan Ivan the Terrible didn’t even think of anything new, it was just that it was a match for the scale of the country, which seemed (and it was) very significant.
But command without troops is not command. Hence the confiscation of land, repression against those representatives of the elite, who are clearly against and ... recruitment and placement of personnel, in the form of people like Malyuta Skuratov - “they will not let those down”. All this has destroyed the balance in society, that is, the most terrible thing that could happen.
No, it was not “Milena” who was executed by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, thousands, and then in a few years and all within a dozen - either five, or six thousand people. This is not enough for us. For the time in Russia is a lot! After all, it was a means of political struggle, until that time in the Russian state is unknown! Since the time of the first princes of this in Russia did not happen, and then suddenly it knows where it started from. Yes, the princes of each other and in the cellar planted, and killed, and blinded, and strangled, and poisoned, but on such a scale at that time, murder, above all, noble people committed us just utter.
And here's an interesting question, but where did all this come from? From the depths of a spoiled Ivanova nature, which in childhood had received more than one psychological trauma, or from where? Most likely ... "from there", because it was under Ivan IV that Russia established intensive ties with Sweden, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Germany, and even with distant England. But at that moment in Europe there were religious wars. Catholics slaughtered Protestants, and Protestants Catholics. Even without war! In America, in the colonies, the Spaniards slaughtered a settlement of French Huguenots. "Killed not like the French, but as heretics," said the Spaniards. The French burned down their village in retaliation, and hung up the prisoners: “They were hanged not as Spaniards, but as rapists and murderers!” Such was the “life” there.
And even before the start of mass executions, “in the oprichnina of Tsar Ivan” there was a massacre in Vassi in France, Eric XIV executed many of his nobles, and in England there was Mary the Bloody. That is, we have people - and above all, the king himself, we learned that this is possible. And if this is done “there”, then why shouldn't we use similar means? Ivan Chapygin has a remarkable historical novel “Razin Stepan”, highly praised by Maxim Gorky. There are a lot of references to historical documents in it, that is, he didn’t write out of his head, and here there is a revealing phrase: “We take measure from the sea, - there people are tortured and burn our own strength ...” And this was indeed the case. In Germany and the Netherlands in the Middle Ages even special commissions were established to check the population for signs of pedication. Even the highest post did not save him from punishment for sodomy - so, it was for her that Dutch President Gosin de Wilde was beheaded.
Against this background, church penance, no matter how strict it may be, does not seem such a strict punishment. More tolerant attitude of the Muscovites to the Sodom sin was repeatedly noted with surprise by many foreign travelers, including Sigismund Herberstein. In numerous travel notes it is mentioned that the Sodom sin served as the subject of a wide variety of jokes and was not regarded as something absolutely sinful. For foreigners, it was wild - jokingly reproaching in vice, which was punishable by death in their homeland! And it is not surprising that the flow of information came not only from us to the West, but also from the West to us. You read the king's letters to Queen Elizabeth: his broad outlook, good knowledge of foreign affairs, and observantness - “why do all of your letters have different print marks?”
Well, then it turned out the way it always goes. The new elite wanted to compare with the old. But not with intelligence and experience, she neglected this, having behind her “her” sovereign. Not! Wealth! That is, the oprichniki began to openly rob the Zemstvo, but the oprichnina army could not cope with its enemies without Zemsky ratification. Here is the king of her in 1572 year and canceled. But it was already late, as already noted, the social peace in the country gave a crack and very deep.
Parsun Ivan the Terrible from the collection of the National Museum of Denmark (Copenhagen), the end of the XVI - the beginning of the XVII centuries.
As a result, the reign of Ivan IV ended with demographic losses, especially in the northern regions, with economic, as well as territorial, although the total land area increased. It was a blow to the country's reputation - “Devlet Girey burned Moscow,” the church, which had not happened for a long time. In a word, Ivan the Terrible failed to “deal” with the elite. It is good that at least the fact that people are tired of everything and the person who gives them rest from excessive tension is loved and revered. Such a ruler for Russia was the son of Ivan the Terrible, in which the country recovered somewhat from the consequences of great deeds and was again ready for the next challenges of “modernity”. Well, and the “fresh blood” still joined the elite, the most irreconcilable ones were honored to the Lord, so that the amplitude of the historical pendulum acquired a much more acceptable frequency of rocking.
That is, whether someone likes it or not, but the personality of Tsar Ivan is very complicated, controversial and tragic. To create and see how your deed is crumbling to dust, to do good and to see how you are betrayed by the benevolent, faithful change, rootless, who seem to give you all - go out of the will and rage, slaves rebel, in a word, he carried Nemer, and here and God with his commandments and God's punishment, the word ... everything, as in the movie: "Between the angel and the demon."
PS Well, now about the "soap", and where are these two myths and the difference in ideologies. The fact is that in the cities of Europe for a long time the issue of sewage was solved very badly. Even when the streets were paved with stone, and the houses became multi-storey, it was not built, and barrels on the landings were used to collect fecal masses. Early in the morning, they were taken by the vacuum trucks, demolished down the stairs and poured into large barrels on carts. Naturally, something and shed. And so in front of every home! Getting out of it in long skirts meant ... just revenge them on the dirty pavement, so you had to wash it regularly, and wash it with soap! The Russian cities in this regard were the township estates, where all the amenities were in your yard, and not a little. Therefore, what was there to wash with soap?
As for the myths, the first one came from the liberal traditions of “fighting tyranny” and Herzen’s “Call an Rus to the ax!”. And the second was born in the Soviet times through the efforts of director Sergei Eisenstein, who shot the epic two-part film “Ivan the Terrible”, which became an apologist for Stalin. But he and the other were just a response from society to deceived expectations. The fact is that people always want more than they are promised, and are confident that everything around is done for their benefit, although in reality this is not at all the case. But it turned out that our society was deceived many times: 1861, 1905-07, 1917, 1962, 1965, 1985, 1991 ... As a result, it received two large groups of people: those who "managed to adapt to new conditions" and "those who failed. Hence the dual attitude to the personality of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Because both the left and the right, and those who won, and those who lost, wanted and wanted more, brought to a logical end, happiness in their own understanding, but they didn’t really want to wait and work for him. Who would come and give! And one wants a lot of tyranny (they pin their unfulfilled hopes on her), others that it does not exist at all (the same, but vice versa). That is, people live in the mythical world of extremes. Each representative of his direction looks at the image of the king (as well as at society as a whole) from his bell tower, but about the wave nature of social development, ups and downs, as if he does not know, although it is obvious that there was something and there was a decline in something, there was progress, but there was also regression, morality coexisted with overt amoralism, savagery with enlightenment, and so absolutely in everything! And the fact that the path to the elite is very complicated and difficult, for some reason they forget, as well as the fact that everyone is sooner or later, but rewarded according to his works or mind. And if not rewarded? It means that works are bad, and there are obvious problems with the mind. But there are such 80% in the society and you have to put up with it and ... just live! Well, we will consider the historiography of this issue next time.
Продолжение следует ...
Information