The abolition of the oprichnina began to go back centuries, and much has already begun to be erased from the long-suffering Russian memory. This is quite unfortunate, since every story has a habit of repeating unlearned and often cruel lessons to people. This is still true today, especially with supporters of autocracy and iron dictatorship.
History of the term “oprichnina”: a brief introduction
The origin of this term comes from the original Slavic word “oprich” or “separately”, “outside”, “beyond”. In those days, it designated an allotment that was given to a widow after the death of her husband. He was outside the main part common property subject to division.
Under Ivan the Terrible, this name was given to territories that were confiscated from their previous owners and transferred to state use. The rest of the country was called "zemshchina". Of the common land, which belonged mostly to the boyar class, the tsar allocated a considerable share for the state, which he himself personified, calling it the “widow's share.” And at the same time he assigned himself the role of a supposedly offended and humble sovereign, who was crushed by the arbitrariness of the boyars and needed defenders.
Thus, an army of many thousands was assembled from the population of the territories transferred to the state and confiscated, that is, the “oprichnaya”. By 1572, the abolition of the oprichnina had already become inevitable and, according to the tsar’s plan, this military formation began to play a role national guard. She was endowed with broad powers and was intended to strengthen state power and royal power.
Cruel historical phenomenon - oprichnina
In the second half of the 16th century, a remarkable, eerie and terrible phenomenon arose in the Moscow kingdom, which began to be called oprichnina. Its essence and goal was to commit thoughtless and senseless murders for the sake of the very fact of murder. But the most immoral and terrible thing was the fact that the cruel tsar and ruler Ivan the Terrible and his guardsmen were in complete confidence in the correctness of their actions, while committing monstrous atrocities.
Such atrocities were also terrible because, according to the concepts of those times, they condemned to death not only the physical substance, but also the soul. During the execution, people were brutally cut into pieces, cutting off their legs, arms, heads and completely dismembering their torsos. Orthodox Church believed and preached that without a body, a sinful soul would not be able to stand before the Last Judgment. Thus, those killed were doomed by the “royal hand” to eternal oblivion.
After the terrible executions, the Moscow Tsar entered the names of innocent victims into the Synodik. They then served a memorial service for them and believed that such repentance would be quite sufficient for an Orthodox and exemplary Christian. Grozny created his own yu concept of monarchical autocracy. He was sure that his royal greatness was equal to God's. As a result, all subjects were deprived of the right to condemn and discuss the sovereign’s acts in any form.
Historical assessments of the oprichnina
The attitude towards the realities that characterized the reign of Ivan the Terrible, namely the oprichnina, has changed many times over the centuries. Various assessments of this phenomenon were given, ranging from the mental insanity of the cruel king (as many pre-revolutionary historians believed), and ending with positive assessments of what was happening. The essence of the latter was that it was progressive phenomenon, aimed at overcoming feudal fragmentation, centralizing power and strengthening the state.
Reasons and goals of the oprichnina
Ivan the Terrible had an exorbitant lust for power and ambition. And any confrontation caused him a storm of indignant emotions and a feeling of hatred. As a result, the Elected Rada was abolished in 1560, although it was thanks to it that the royal greatness subsequently flourished.
One thousand five hundred and fifty eighth d marked the beginning Livonian War. Although many of the representatives of the feudal nobility did not welcome her and openly expressed their dissatisfaction, thereby heating up passions in the highest circles of power. The tsar tried to break the discontent of the boyars, and they, in turn, did not want to show obedient kneeling, and some simply went abroad.
An example of this is the famous prince Andrey Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who left the borders of his state and received a warm welcome from the Polish king. He was granted lands in Lithuania, and the prince himself became a member of the royal council.
The tsar managed to quarrel not only with the princely nobility, but also with representatives of the clergy, thereby pitting himself against the highest bureaucracy. In this regard, one can recall Paul I, who was killed by going against the interests of high-ranking nobles. And Ivan the Terrible could well have ended up in exactly the same way if he had not rallied a layer of petty nobility around himself. That is, he managed to contrast one bureaucracy with another. This is how the oprichnina was born.
Exacerbation of the internal political crisis
One of the reasons for the creation of the oprichnina is considered to be conflict Ivan the Terrible with the Boyar Dumo th because of disagreements on public policy issues. The king did not want to listen to any objections and saw a hidden conspiracy in everything. As a result, power tightened and mass repressions began.
The conflict reached its climax in 1562, when the patrimonial rights of the boyars were limited by royal decree and they were practically equal to the local nobility. The result was the flight of the boyars from the tsarist lawlessness beyond the borders of the state. Flow of fugitives since 1560 constantly increased, thereby causing additional anger of the sovereign.
Large-scale repression
The reason for the start of a massive rampant of repressions was the defeat of Russian troops in 1564 on the Ule River during the battle with the Lithuanians. The first victims were the direct or indirect, in the opinion of the king, those responsible for the defeat.
Another reason was rumors about a forceful seizure of power, which the boyars were preparing, fearing disgrace, while gathering a considerable army in Poland and Lithuania.
This served as an incentive for the creation of the oprichnina army, as a protective measure for the tsar against a real, and often imaginary, threat. But before giving free rein to his unbridled ambitions, the tsar wanted to enlist the support of the masses, and with their tacit “consent” to begin his bloody lawlessness.
Ivan the Terrible staged a real performance for this purpose. With his family, he retired to the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, allegedly abdicating the throne and being offended by the clergy and boyars for the harm done to him. Thus, being God’s anointed one, he tried to incite the masses against his “offenders.” At the same time, he set an ultimatum that he would return provided that he was allowed to carry out reprisals and trials of everyone who angered him, while receiving complete freedom of action.
Grozny achieved the desired result from his idea, thereby provoking a rise in anti-boyar sentiments among the masses. As a result, the Duma was forced ask him to continue his reign by agreeing to the conditions put forward. And in 1565, the tsar adopted a corresponding decree and approved the oprichnina.
New military structure during the oprichnina
All recruits of the formed detachments from residents of the “oprichnina” districts swore allegiance to their tsar and completely broke off relations with the zemstvo. Dog heads suspended from horses' necks were distinctive signs, which symbolized the readiness to look out for sedition, as well as brooms attached to the saddles, spoke of the immediate removal of harmful debris.
- Vologda.
- Vyazma.
- Kozelsk.
- Suzdal.
In Moscow itself, the following streets were given to them: Arbat, Sivtsev Vrazhek, Nikitskaya, etc. And the indigenous residents of these streets were forcibly expelled from their homes and resettled to the very outskirts of the city.
Economic disruption and first discontent
Confiscation of zemstvo lands in favor of the guardsmen became a strong blow for the landowners of the large feudal nobility and undermined the country's economy. One of the reasons for the abolition of the oprichnina in 1572 was the destruction by the new landowners of the system of providing the state with food. The owners of the lands of the new elite did practically no work on their lands, as a result of which the plots were abandoned.
The Zemsky Sobor, held in 1566, where deputies submitted a petition to Ivan the Terrible to take measures against the atrocities of the guardsmen, was regarded as an assassination attempt to royal rights. As a result, the petitioners ended up behind bars.
Reasons for the abolition of the oprichnina, decomposition and demoralization of the oprichnina troops
- The decline of the king's authority. He began to be viewed as a robber and rapist, which was another reason for the abolition of the oprichnina in 1572. But this did not immediately stop the royal servants, who, having felt the taste of blood, continued their atrocities. The bloody rampage continued, but the ease of prey and impunity for crimes corrupted and completely demoralized the once strong and combat-ready army.
- The Tatar invasion of 1571 was another reason for the abolition of the oprichnina. It showed the inadequacy of the Russian oprichnina army, which only knew how to cope with the defenseless citizens of its state and had practically lost the skills of real military art.
And the next year, but without the participation of the guardsmen, the Russian princes Khvorostinin and Vorotynsky with their zemstvo army brilliantly won the battle with the Tatars at Molodi. Thus, clearly demonstrating the empty burdensomeness and worthlessness of the military-political structure of the oprichnina state.
Abolition of the oprichnina - 1572
Based on surviving documents, the abolition of the oprichnina is dated back to 1572, although it was prepared much earlier. This was preceded by an endless series of executions of especially close royal guardsmen, which took place in 1570–1571. Yesterday's were physically destroyed favorites of Ivan the Terrible, precisely those who served him as protection and support over the previous years. But the people have not yet received final liberation from the oppression of bloodthirsty power-hungers in 1952.
The final end of the oprichnina period in Rus' does not have a specific date. Because, despite the signing of the official decree of the sovereign associated with the abolition of this structure, the division of lands into oprichnina and zemstvo remained virtually until the death of the tyrant (1584).
Another series of executions followed before Ivan the Terrible appointed Tsarevich Simeon Bekbulatovich as head of the zemstvo in 1575. Among the criminals were high-ranking clergy, as well as dignitaries who took places in the royal entourage after the defeat of the oprichnina elite in 1572.
Consequences and outcome of the oprichnina
What did the oprichnina bring to the Russian people? The essence of this question quite accurately revealed by the historian of the pre-revolutionary period V.O. Klyuchevsky. He rightly noted that the persecution of imaginary sedition became the reason for the rampant oprichnina anarchy, thereby generating a true threat to the throne. And those bloody reprisals that allegedly tried to protect the sovereign from his enemies only worsened the situation, undermining the foundations of the state system.
The abolition of the oprichnina and, accordingly, 1572 (the publication of the royal decree) was difficult for Russia due to military actions against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Weakened by internal tyranny, the Russian army was pushed back by the Poles. The Livonian War, which had ended by that time, also did not bring much success. Narva and Koporye found themselves under Swedish occupation and their fate was uncertain and alarming.
Actual desertion and the inaction of the oprichnina troops in 1571 during the destruction and burning of Moscow brought a very difficult atmosphere to the minds of many Russian people. This became the last and final “point” for making the decision to abolish the oprichnina.
100 RUR bonus for first order
Select type of work Thesis Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem Solving Business Plan Answers to Questions Creative work Essay Drawing Works Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work Online help
Find out the price
Oprichnina is a period in the history of Russia (from 1565 to 1572), marked by state terror and a system of emergency measures. Oprichnina is a state policy of terror that reigned in Rus' at the end of the 16th century under the reign of Ivan 4. The essence of oprichnina was the seizure of property from citizens in favor of the state. By order of the sovereign, special lands were allocated, which were used exclusively for the royal needs and the needs of the royal court. These territories had their own government and were closed to ordinary citizens. All territories were taken from the landowners with the help of threats and force.
The word "oprichnina" comes from the Old Russian word "oprich", which means "special". Also called oprichnina was that part of the state that had already been transferred to the sole use of the tsar and his subjects, as well as oprichniki (members of the sovereign's secret police).
The number of oprichnina (royal retinue) was about a thousand people.
Reasons for introducing the oprichnina. Tsar Ivan the Terrible was famous for his stern disposition and military campaigns. The emergence of the oprichnina is largely connected with the Livonian War.
In 1558, he started the Livonian War for the right to seize the Baltic coast, but the course of the war did not go as the sovereign would have liked. Ivan repeatedly reproached his commanders for not acting decisively enough, and the boyars did not at all respect the tsar as an authority in military matters. The situation is aggravated by the fact that in 1563 one of Ivan’s military leaders betrays him, thereby increasingly undermining the tsar’s trust in his retinue. Ivan 4 begins to suspect the existence of a conspiracy between the governor and the boyars against his royal power. He believes that his entourage dreams of ending the war, overthrowing the sovereign and installing Prince Vladimir Staritsky in his place. All this forces Ivan to create a new environment for himself that would be able to protect him and punish everyone who goes against the king. This is how oprichniki were created - special warriors of the sovereign - and the policy of oprichnina (terror) was established.
The beginning and development of the oprichnina. Main events. The guardsmen followed the tsar everywhere and were supposed to protect him, but it happened that these guards abused their powers and committed terror, punishing the innocent. The Tsar turned a blind eye to all this and always justified his guardsmen in any disputes. As a result of the outrages of the guardsmen, very soon they began to be hated not only by ordinary people, but also by the boyars. All the most terrible executions and acts committed during the reign of Ivan the Terrible were committed by his guardsmen. Ivan 4 leaves for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, where he creates a secluded settlement together with his guardsmen. From there, the tsar regularly makes raids on Moscow in order to punish and execute those whom he considers traitors. Almost everyone who tried to prevent Ivan from his lawlessness soon died. In 1569, Ivan begins to suspect that intrigues are being weaved in Novgorod and there is a conspiracy against him. Having gathered a huge army, Ivan moves into the city and in 1570 reaches Novgorod. After the tsar finds himself in the lair of what he believes are traitors, his guardsmen begin their terror - they rob residents, kill innocent people, and burn houses. According to the data, mass beatings of people took place every day, 500-600 people.
The next stop of the cruel tsar and his guardsmen was Pskov. Despite the fact that the tsar initially planned to also carry out reprisals against the residents, in the end only some of the Pskovites were executed, and their property was confiscated.
After Pskov, Grozny again goes to Moscow to find accomplices of the Novgorod treason there and commit reprisals against them.
In 1570-1571, a huge number of people died in Moscow at the hands of the Tsar and his guardsmen. The king did not spare anyone, not even his own close associates; as a result, about 200 people were executed, including the most noble people. A large number of people survived, but suffered greatly. The Moscow executions are considered the apogee of oprichnina terror.
The end of the oprichnina. The system began to fall apart in 1571, when Rus' was attacked by the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey. The guardsmen, accustomed to living by robbing their own citizens, turned out to be useless warriors and, according to some reports, simply did not show up on the battlefield. This is what forced the tsar to abolish the oprichnina and introduce the zemshchina, which was not much different. There is information that the tsar’s retinue continued to exist almost unchanged until his death, changing only the name from “oprichniki” to “court”.
Results of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. The results of the oprichnina of 1565-1572 were disastrous. Despite the fact that the oprichnina was conceived as a means of unifying the state and the purpose of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible was to protect and destroy feudal fragmentation, it ultimately led only to chaos and complete anarchy.
In addition, the terror and devastation carried out by the guardsmen led to the outbreak of economic crisis. The feudal lords lost their lands, the peasants did not want to work, the people were left without money and did not believe in the justice of their sovereign. The country was mired in chaos, the oprichnina divided the country into several disparate parts.
Since the 14th century, oprichnina (translated from the Old Russian language as “special”) has been called an appanage - a territory with troops and institutions allocated for members of the grand ducal dynasty. A detailed study of the complex of emergency measures carried out by Ivan IV the Terrible to form a centralized state will help you understand what oprichnina is.
The prerequisites for the emergence of the oprichnina were a chain of tragic events in the life of the tsar: the death of his first wife and then the metropolitan. It is easy to assume that this could not but affect the personality of the ruler and led to his even greater bitterness towards the world around him.
The combination of high intelligence and erudition with suspiciousness and cruelty led Ivan IV to make rash reforms.
Goals
During the period of the Livonian War, aimed at strengthening Russia's authority in the international arena, expanding territories and searching for access to the Baltic Sea, Ivan IV doubted the loyalty of his subjects. The situation was finally aggravated by the betrayal of Prince Andrei Kurbsky. After the betrayal, the tsar became embittered and began to suspect his entourage of preparing a conspiracy among the boyar families to bring the cousin of the ruling head of Russia, Vladimir Staritsky, to power.
It is important to pay attention to the fact that historians identify the following fundamental goals of the oprichnina:
- Strengthening the power of Ivan IV.
- Weakening the independence of boyar clans and boyar power.
- Centralization of the state, the fight against the remnants of fragmentation.
Causes
The king's blind faith in the divine origin of his power redirected him from the path of reforming the state system to an unlimited monarchy. The obstacles on this path were the weak central apparatus of power, the significant influence of the church in all spheres, and the remnants of the appanage system.
Ivan IV gave events a religious character. Unable to embody the ideals of Holy Rus', despising the common people, he created an organization of guardsmen who carried out all his orders, punishing the guilty, including publicly.
The oprichnina army became a reliable guard for the autocrat, but for the boyars and the common people his associates became hated. For the autocrat, his own defense was much more important than the people's lamentations, and even more so the discontent of the boyar families. The ruler of Russia took the side of his inner circle in all disputes.
Losing foreign policy, associated with the conduct of the Livonian War, destroyed the precarious stability in the country by increasing the tax burden. The usual methods of mobilizing resources for the needs of the war could no longer ensure its favorable course. It was precisely on the betrayal of the boyar families that the authorities attributed the failures in the war.
Useful video: oprichnina
Entity Definition
The New Year 1565 began with the departure of the tsar, who pursued the goals of the oprichnina . Together with his family, he left his residence in Kolomenskoye for Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. This departure was a reaction to internal processes at the top of the boyar power. The autocrat sent a message to the clergy and boyars, informing them of his renunciation of power in favor of a young heir and demanding the allocation of a special allotment for himself.
The best thing history gives us is the enthusiasm it arouses.
Goethe
The oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible is considered briefly by modern historians, but these were events that had a great influence both on the tsar himself and his entourage, and on the entire country as a whole. During the oprichnina of 1565-1572, the Russian Tsar tried to strengthen his own power, whose authority was in a very precarious position. This was due to the increasing incidence of treason, as well as the disposition of the majority of the boyars against the current tsar. All this resulted in massacres, largely because of which the tsar received the nickname “Terrible”. In general, the oprichnina was expressed in the fact that part of the lands of the kingdom was transferred to the exclusive rule of the state. The influence of the boyars was not allowed on these lands. Today we will briefly look at the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, its causes, stages of reform, as well as the consequences for the state.
Reasons for the oprichnina
Ivan the Terrible remained in the historical view of his descendants as a suspicious man who constantly saw conspiracies around him. It all started with the Kazan campaign, from which Ivan the Terrible returned in 1553. Tsar (at that time still Grand Duke) fell ill, and greatly fearing the betrayal of the boyars, he ordered everyone to swear allegiance to his son, baby Dmitry. The boyars and courtiers were reluctant to swear allegiance to the “diaperman”, and many even evaded this oath. The reason for this was very simple - the current king is very sick, the heir is less than a year old, there are a large number of boyars who lay claim to power.
After recovery, Ivan the Terrible changed, becoming more cautious and angry towards others. He could not forgive the courtiers for their betrayal (refusing the oath to Dmitry), knowing full well what caused this. But the decisive events that led to the oprichnina were due to the following:
- In 1563, Moscow Metropolitan Macarius dies. He was known for having enormous influence on the king and enjoying his favor. Macarius restrained the king’s aggression, instilling in him the idea that the country was under his control and there was no conspiracy. The new Metropolitan Afanasy took the side of the dissatisfied boyars and opposed the tsar. As a result, the king only grew stronger in the idea that there were only enemies around him.
- In 1564, Prince Kurbsky abandoned the army and went to serve in the Principality of Lithuania. Kurbsky took many military commanders with him, and also declassified all Russian spies in Lithuania itself. This was a terrible blow to the pride of the Russian Tsar, who after this became finally convinced that there were enemies around him who could betray him at any moment.
As a result, Ivan the Terrible decided to eliminate the independence of the boyars in Russia (at that time they owned lands, maintained their own army, had their own assistants and their own courtyard, their own treasury, and so on). The decision was made to create an autocracy.
The essence of the oprichnina
At the beginning of 1565, Ivan the Terrible leaves Moscow, leaving behind two letters. In the first letter, the tsar addresses the metropolitan, saying that all the clergy and boyars are involved in treason. These people only want to have more lands and plunder the royal treasury. With the second letter, the tsar addressed the people, saying that his reasons for absence from Moscow were related to the actions of the boyars. The tsar himself went to Alexandrov Sloboda. There, under the influence of the residents of Moscow, the boyars were sent in order to return the Tsar to the capital. Ivan the Terrible agreed to return it, but only on the condition that he would receive the unconditional power to execute all enemies of the state, as well as create a new system in the country. This system is called the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, which is expressed in the division of all lands of the country into:
- Oprichnina - lands that the tsar seizes for his own (state) administration.
- Zemshchina - lands that the boyars continued to control.
To implement this plan, Ivan the Terrible created a special detachment - the guardsmen. Initially their number was 1000 people. These people made up the tsar's secret police, which reported directly to the head of state, and which brought the necessary order to the country.
Part of the territory of Moscow, Kostroma, Vologda, Mozhaisk and some other cities were chosen as oprichnina lands. Local residents who were not included in the state oprichnina program were forced to leave these lands. As a rule, they were provided with land in the most remote hinterlands of the country. As a result, the oprichnina solved one of the most important tasks that was set by Ivan the Terrible. This task was to weaken the economic power of individual boyars. This limitation was achieved due to the fact that the state took over some of the best land in the country.
The main directions of the oprichnina
Such actions of the tsar were met with sincere discontent of the boyars. Wealthy families, which had previously actively expressed their dissatisfaction with the activities of Ivan the Terrible, now began to wage their struggle even more actively to restore their former power. To counter these forces, a special military unit, the Oprichniki, was created. Their main task, by order of the tsar himself, was to “gnaw” all traitors and “sweep out” treason from the state. It is from here that those symbols that are directly associated with the guardsmen came from. Each of them carried a dog's head at the saddle of his horse, as well as a broom. The guardsmen destroyed or sent into exile all people who were suspected of treason against the state.
In 1566, another Zemsky Sobor was held. On it, an appeal was submitted to the tsar with a request to eliminate the oprichnina. In response to this, Ivan the Terrible ordered the execution of everyone who was involved in the transfer and in the preparation of this document. The reaction of the boyars and all the dissatisfied followed immediately. The most significant is the decision of Moscow Metropolitan Athanasius, who resigned from his priesthood. Metropolitan Philip Kolychev was appointed in his place. This man also actively opposed the oprichnina and criticized the tsar, as a result of which literally a few days later Ivan’s troops sent this man into exile.
Main blows
Ivan the Terrible sought with all his might to strengthen his power, the power of the autocrat. He did everything for this. That is why the main blow of the oprichnina was directed at those people and those groups of people who could realistically lay claim to the royal throne:
- Vladimir Staritsky. This cousin Tsar Ivan the Terrible, who was highly respected among the boyars, and who was very often named as the person who should take power instead of the current Tsar. To eliminate this man, the guardsmen poisoned Vladimir himself, as well as his wife and daughters. This happened in 1569.
- Velikiy Novgorod. From the very beginning of the formation of the Russian land, Novgorod had a unique and original status. It was an independent city that obeyed only itself. Ivan, realizing that it is impossible to strengthen the power of the autocrat without pacifying the rebellious Novgorod is impossible. As a result, in December 1569, the king, at the head of his army, set out on a campaign against this city. On their way to Novgorod, the tsar's army destroys and executes thousands of people who in any way showed dissatisfaction with the actions of the tsar. This campaign lasted until 1571. As a result of the Novgorod campaign, the oprichnina army established the power of the tsar in the city and in the region.
Cancellation of the oprichnina
At a time when the oprichnina was established by a campaign against Novgorod, Ivan the Terrible received news that Devlet-Girey, the Crimean Khan, with an army raided Moscow and almost completely set the city on fire. Due to the fact that almost all the troops that were subordinate to the king were in Novgorod, there was no one to resist this raid. The boyars refused to provide their troops to fight the tsarist enemies. As a result, in 1571 the oprichnina army and the tsar himself were forced to return to Moscow. To fight the Crimean Khanate, the tsar was forced to temporarily abandon the idea of oprichnina, uniting his troops and zemstvo troops. As a result, in 1572, 50 kilometers south of Moscow, the united army defeated the Crimean Khan.
One of the most significant problems of the Russian land of this time was on the western border. The war did not stop there Livonian Order. As a result, the constant raids of the Crimean Khanate, the ongoing war against Livonia, internal unrest in the country, and the weak defense capability of the entire state contributed to Ivan the Terrible abandoning the idea of the oprichnina. In the fall of 1572, the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, which we briefly reviewed today, was canceled. The tsar himself forbade everyone to mention the word oprichnina, and the oprichnina themselves became outlaws. Almost all the troops that were subordinate to the tsar and established the order he needed were later destroyed by the tsar himself.
Results of the oprichnina and its significance
Any historical event, especially one as massive and significant as the oprichnina, carries with it certain consequences that are important for posterity. The results of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible can be expressed in the following main points:
- Significant strengthening of the tsar's autocratic power.
- Reducing the influence of the boyars on state affairs.
- The severe economic decline of the country, which occurred as a result of the split that emerged in society due to the oprichnina.
- Introduction of reserved years in 1581. The protected summers, which prohibited the transition of peasants from one landowner to another, were due to the fact that the population of the central and northern parts of Russia fled en masse to the south. Thus, they escaped from the actions of the authorities.
- The destruction of large boyar lands. Some of the first steps of the oprichnina were aimed at destroying and taking away their property from the boyars, and transferring this property to the state. This was successfully implemented.
Historical assessment
A brief narrative about the oprichnina does not allow us to accurately understand the essence of those events. Moreover, this is difficult to do even with a more detailed analysis. The most revealing thing in this regard is the attitude of historians to this issue. Below are the main ideas that characterize the oprichnina, and which indicate that there is no single approach to assessing this political event. The basic concepts are as follows:
- Imperial Russia. Imperial historians presented the oprichnina as a phenomenon that had a detrimental effect on the economic, political and social development Russia. On the other hand, many historians of imperial Russia have said that it is in the oprichnina that one should look for the origins of autocracy and the current imperial power.
- The era of the USSR. Soviet scientists have always described the bloody events of the tsarist and imperial regimes with particular enthusiasm. As a result, in almost all Soviet works the oprichnina was presented as necessary element, who formed the movement of the masses against oppression by the boyars.
- Modern opinion. Modern historians speak of the oprichnina as a destructive element, as a result of which thousands of innocent people died. This is one of the reasons that allows one to accuse Ivan the Terrible of bloodiness.
The problem here is that studying the oprichnina is extremely difficult, since there are practically no real historical documents of that era left. As a result, we are not dealing with the study of data, nor with the study historical facts, and very often we are dealing with the opinions of individual historians, which are not substantiated in any way. That is why oprichnina cannot be assessed unambiguously.
All we can talk about is that at the time of the oprichnina, there were no clear criteria within the country by which the definition of “oprichnik” and “zemshchik” was made. In this regard, the situation is very similar to the one that was in initial stage the formation of Soviet power, when dispossession took place. In the same way, no one had even the remotest idea of what a fist was, and who should be considered a fist. Therefore, as a result of dispossession as a result of the oprichnina, a huge number of people suffered who were not guilty of anything. This is the main historical assessment of this event. Everything else fades into the background, since in any state the main value is human life. Strengthening the power of an autocrat by exterminating ordinary people is a very shameful step. That is why in last years life, Ivan the Terrible forbade any mention of the oprichnina and ordered the execution of almost people who took an active part in these events.
The remaining elements that modern history presents as the consequences of the oprichnina and its results are very doubtful. After all, the main result, which all history textbooks talk about, is the strengthening of autocratic power. But what kind of strengthening of power can we talk about if after the death of Tsar Ivan a time of troubles began? All this did not just result in some riots or other political events. All this resulted in a change in the ruling dynasty.
The role of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible in the history of the Russian state
Hundreds, if not thousands of historical studies, monographs, articles, reviews have been written about such a phenomenon as the oprichnina of I. the Terrible (1565-1572), dissertations have been defended, the main causes have long been identified, the course of events has been reconstructed, and the consequences have been explained.
However, to this day there is no consensus on the issue of the significance of the oprichnina in the history of the Russian state. For centuries, historians have been debating: how should we perceive the events of 1565-1572? Was the oprichnina simply the cruel terror of a half-mad despot king against his subjects? Or was it based on a sound and necessary policy in those conditions, aimed at strengthening the foundations of statehood, increasing the authority of the central government, improving the country’s defense capability, etc.?
In general, all the diverse opinions of historians can be reduced to two mutually exclusive statements: 1) the oprichnina was determined by the personal qualities of Tsar Ivan and had no political meaning(N.I. Kostomarov, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.B. Veselovsky, I.Ya. Froyanov); 2) the oprichnina was a well-thought-out political step of Ivan the Terrible and was directed against those social forces that opposed his “autocracy.”
There is also no unanimity of opinion among supporters of the latter point of view. Some researchers believe that the purpose of the oprichnina was to crush the boyar-princely economic and political power associated with the destruction of large patrimonial land ownership (S.M. Solovyov, S.F. Platonov, R.G. Skrynnikov). Others (A.A. Zimin and V.B. Kobrin) believe that the oprichnina “aimed” exclusively at the remnants of the appanage princely aristocracy (Staritsky Prince Vladimir), and was also directed against the separatist aspirations of Novgorod and the resistance of the church as a powerful one opposing the state organizations. None of these provisions are indisputable, so the scientific discussion about the meaning of the oprichnina continues.
What is oprichnina?
Anyone who is at least somehow interested in the history of Russia knows very well that there was a time when guardsmen existed in Rus'. In the minds of most modern people, this word has become the definition of a terrorist, a criminal, a person who deliberately commits lawlessness with the connivance of the supreme power, and often with its direct support.
Meanwhile, the very word “oprich” in relation to any property or land ownership began to be used long before the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Already in the 14th century, “oprichnina” was the name given to the part of the inheritance that goes to the prince’s widow after his death (“widow’s share”). The widow had the right to receive income from a certain part of the land, but after her death the estate was returned to the eldest son, another eldest heir, or, in the absence of one, was assigned to the state treasury. Thus, oprichnina in the XIV-XVI centuries was a specially allocated inheritance for life.
Over time, the word “oprichnina” acquired a synonym that goes back to the root “oprich”, which means “except.” Hence “oprichnina” - “pitch darkness”, as it was sometimes called, and “oprichnik” - “pitch”. But this synonym was introduced into use, as some scientists believe, by the first “political emigrant” and opponent of Ivan the Terrible, Andrei Kurbsky. In his messages to the Tsar, the words “pitch people” and “utter darkness” are used for the first time in relation to the oprichnina of Ivan IV.
In addition, it should be noted that the Old Russian word “oprich” (adverb and preposition), according to Dahl’s dictionary, means: “Outside, around, outside, beyond what.” Hence “oprichnina” - “separate, allocated, special.”
Thus, it is symbolic that the name of the Soviet employee of the “special department” - “special officer” - is actually a semantic tracing of the word “oprichnik”.
In January 1558, Ivan the Terrible began the Livonian War to take possession of the coast. Baltic Sea to gain access to sea communications and simplify trade with Western European countries. Soon the Grand Duchy of Moscow faces a broad coalition of enemies, which include Poland, Lithuania, and Sweden. Actually participates in the anti-Moscow coalition and Crimean Khanate, which ravages the southern regions of the Moscow principality with regular military campaigns. The war is becoming protracted and exhausting. Drought, famine, plague epidemics, Crimean Tatar campaigns, Polish-Lithuanian raids and a naval blockade carried out by Poland and Sweden devastate the country. The sovereign himself continually faces manifestations of boyar separatism, the reluctance of the boyar oligarchy to continue the Livonian War, which was important for the Moscow kingdom. In 1564, the commander of the Western army, Prince Kurbsky - in the past one of the tsar’s closest personal friends, a member of the “Elected Rada” - goes over to the enemy’s side, betrays Russian agents in Livonia and participates in the offensive actions of the Poles and Lithuanians.
Ivan IV's position becomes critical. It was possible to get out of it only with the help of the toughest, most decisive measures.
On December 3, 1564, Ivan the Terrible and his family suddenly left the capital on a pilgrimage. The king took with him the treasury, personal library, icons and symbols of power. Having visited the village of Kolomenskoye, he did not return to Moscow and, after wandering for several weeks, stopped in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. On January 3, 1565, he announced his abdication of the throne, due to “anger” at the boyars, church, voivode and government officials. Two days later, a deputation headed by Archbishop Pimen arrived in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, which persuaded the tsar to return to his kingdom. From Sloboda, Ivan IV sent two letters to Moscow: one to the boyars and clergy, and the other to the townspeople, explaining in detail why and with whom the sovereign was angry, and against whom he “bears no grudge.” Thus, he immediately divided society, sowing the seeds of mutual distrust and hatred of the boyar elite among ordinary townspeople and the minor serving nobility.
At the beginning of February 1565, Ivan the Terrible returned to Moscow. The Tsar announced that he was again taking over the reigns, but on the condition that he was free to execute traitors, put them in disgrace, deprive them of their property, etc., and that neither the boyar Duma nor the clergy would interfere in his affairs. Those. The sovereign introduced the “oprichnina” for himself.
This word was used at first in the sense of special property or possession; now it has acquired a different meaning. In the oprichnina, the tsar separated part of the boyars, servants and clerks, and in general made his entire “everyday life” special: in the Sytny, Kormovy and Khlebenny palaces a special staff of housekeepers, cooks, clerks, etc. was appointed; special detachments of archers were recruited. Special cities (about 20, including Moscow, Vologda, Vyazma, Suzdal, Kozelsk, Medyn, Veliky Ustyug) with volosts were assigned to maintain the oprichnina. In Moscow itself, some streets were given over to the oprichnina (Chertolskaya, Arbat, Sivtsev Vrazhek, part of Nikitskaya, etc.); the former residents were relocated to other streets. Up to 1,000 princes, nobles, and children of boyars, both Moscow and city, were also recruited into the oprichnina. They were given estates in the volosts assigned to maintain the oprichnina. Former landowners and patrimonial owners were evicted from those volosts to others.
The rest of the state was supposed to constitute the “zemshchina”: the tsar entrusted it to the zemstvo boyars, that is, the boyar duma itself, and put Prince Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky and Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky at the head of its administration. All matters had to be resolved in the old way, and with big matters one should turn to the boyars, but if military or important zemstvo matters happened, then to the sovereign. For his rise, that is, for his trip to Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, the tsar exacted a fine of 100 thousand rubles from the Zemsky Prikaz.
The "oprichniki" - the sovereign's people - were supposed to "root out treason" and act exclusively in the interests of the tsarist power, supporting the authority of the supreme ruler in wartime conditions. No one limited them in the methods or methods of “eradicating” treason, and all the innovations of Ivan the Terrible turned into cruel, unjustified terror of the ruling minority against the majority of the country’s population.
In December 1569, an army of guardsmen, personally led by Ivan the Terrible, set out on a campaign against Novgorod, who allegedly wanted to betray him. The king walked as if through enemy country. The guardsmen destroyed cities (Tver, Torzhok), villages and villages, killed and robbed the population. In Novgorod itself, the defeat lasted 6 weeks. Thousands of suspects were tortured and drowned in Volkhov. The city was plundered. The property of churches, monasteries and merchants was confiscated. The beating continued in Novgorod Pyatina. Then Grozny moved towards Pskov, and only the superstition of the formidable king allowed this ancient city to avoid a pogrom.
In 1572, when a real threat was created to the very existence of the Moscow state from the Krymchaks, the oprichnina troops actually sabotaged the order of their king to oppose the enemy. The battle of Molodin with the army of Devlet-Girey was won by regiments under the leadership of the “Zemstvo” governors. After this, Ivan IV himself abolished the oprichnina, disgraced and executed many of its leaders.
Historiography of the oprichnina in the first half of the 19th century
Historians were the first to talk about the oprichnina already in the 18th and early 19th centuries: Shcherbatov, Bolotov, Karamzin. Even then, a tradition had developed to “divide” the reign of Ivan IV into two halves, which subsequently formed the basis of the theory of the “two Ivans,” introduced into historiography by N.M. Karamzin based on the study of the works of Prince A. Kurbsky. According to Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible was a virtuous hero and a wise statesman in the first half of his reign and a crazy tyrant-despot in the second. Many historians, following Karamzin, associated the sharp change in the sovereign’s policy with his mental illness caused by the death of his first wife, Anastasia Romanovna. Even versions of “replacing” the king with another person arose and were seriously considered.
The watershed between the “good” Ivan and the “bad”, according to Karamzin, was the introduction of the oprichnina in 1565. But N.M. Karamzin was still more of a writer and moralist than a scientist. Painting the oprichnina, he created an artistically expressive picture that was supposed to impress the reader, but in no way answer the question about the causes, consequences and the very nature of this historical phenomenon.
Subsequent historians (N.I. Kostomarov) also saw the main reason for the oprichnina solely in the personal qualities of Ivan the Terrible, who did not want to listen to people who disagreed with the methods of carrying out his generally justified policy of strengthening the central government.
Solovyov and Klyuchevsky about the oprichnina
S. M. Solovyov and the “state school” of Russian historiography he created took a different path. Abstracting from the personal characteristics of the tyrant king, they saw in the activities of Ivan the Terrible, first of all, a transition from old “tribal” relations to modern “state” ones, which were completed by the oprichnina - government in the form in which the great “reformer” himself understood it. Solovyov was the first to separate the cruelties of Tsar Ivan and the internal terror he organized from the political, social and economic processes of that time. From the point of view of historical science, this was undoubtedly a step forward.
V.O. Klyuchevsky, unlike Solovyov, considered the internal policy of Ivan the Terrible to be completely aimless, moreover, dictated exclusively by the personal qualities of the sovereign’s character. In his opinion, the oprichnina did not answer pressing political issues, and also did not eliminate the difficulties that it caused. By “difficulty,” the historian means the clashes between Ivan IV and the boyars: “The boyars imagined themselves to be powerful advisers to the sovereign of all Rus' at the very time when this sovereign, remaining faithful to the view of the appanage patrimonial landowner, in accordance with ancient Russian law, granted them as his courtyard servants the title of the sovereign's slaves. Both sides found themselves in such an unnatural relationship to each other, which they did not seem to notice while it was developing, and which they did not know what to do with when they noticed it.”
The way out of this situation was the oprichnina, which Klyuchevsky calls an attempt to “live side by side, but not together.”
According to the historian, Ivan IV had only two options:
Eliminate the boyars as a government class and replace them with other, more flexible and obedient instruments of government;
Disunite the boyars, bring to the throne the most reliable people from the boyars and rule with them, as Ivan ruled at the beginning of his reign.
It was not possible to implement any of the outputs.
Klyuchevsky points out that Ivan the Terrible should have acted against the political situation of the entire boyars, and not against individuals. The king does the opposite: not being able to change what is inconvenient for him. political system, he persecutes and executes individuals (and not only the boyars), but at the same time leaves the boyars at the head of the zemstvo administration.
This course of action of the tsar is by no means a consequence of political calculation. It is, rather, a consequence of a distorted political understanding caused by personal emotions and fear for one’s personal position:
Klyuchevsky saw in the oprichnina not a state institution, but a manifestation of lawless anarchy aimed at shaking the foundations of the state and undermining the authority of the monarch himself. Klyuchevsky considered the oprichnina one of the most effective factors that prepared the Time of Troubles.
Concept by S.F. Platonov
The developments of the “state school” were further developed in the works of S. F. Platonov, who created the most comprehensive concept of the oprichnina, which was included in all pre-revolutionary, Soviet and some post-Soviet university textbooks.
S.F. Platonov believed that the main reasons for the oprichnina lay in Ivan the Terrible’s awareness of the danger of the appanage princely and boyar opposition. S.F. Platonov wrote: “Dissatisfied with the nobility that surrounded him, he (Ivan the Terrible) applied to her the same measure that Moscow applied to its enemies, namely, “conclusion”... What succeeded so well with the external enemy, the Terrible planned to try with the internal enemy, those. with those people who seemed hostile and dangerous to him.”
In modern language, the oprichnina of Ivan IV formed the basis for a grandiose personnel reshuffle, as a result of which large landowner boyars and appanage princes were resettled from appanage hereditary lands to places remote from the former settlement. The estates were divided into plots and complaints were made to those boyar children who were in the service of the tsar (oprichniki). According to Platonov, the oprichnina was not the “whim” of a crazy tyrant. On the contrary, Ivan the Terrible waged a focused and well-thought-out struggle against large boyar hereditary land ownership, thus wanting to eliminate separatist tendencies and suppress opposition to the central government:
Grozny sent the old owners to the outskirts, where they could be useful for the defense of the state.
Oprichnina terror, according to Platonov, was only an inevitable consequence of such a policy: the forest is cut down - the chips fly! Over time, the monarch himself becomes a hostage to the current situation. In order to stay in power and complete the measures he had planned, Ivan the Terrible was forced to pursue a policy of total terror. There was simply no other way out.
“The entire operation of reviewing and changing landowners in the eyes of the population bore the character of disaster and political terror,” the historian wrote. - With extraordinary cruelty, he (Ivan the Terrible), without any investigation or trial, executed and tortured people he disliked, exiled their families, ruined their farms. His guardsmen did not hesitate to kill defenseless people, rob and rape them “for a laugh.”
One of the main negative consequences Oprichnina Platonov recognizes the violation of the economic life of the country - the state of stability of the population achieved by the state was lost. In addition, the population’s hatred of the cruel authorities brought discord into society itself, giving rise to general uprisings and peasant wars after the death of Ivan the Terrible - the harbingers of the Troubles of the early 17th century.
In his general assessment of the oprichnina, S.F. Platonov puts much more “pluses” than all his predecessors. According to his concept, Ivan the Terrible was able to achieve indisputable results in the policy of centralization of the Russian state: large landowners (the boyar elite) were ruined and partly destroyed, a large mass of relatively small landowners and service people (nobles) gained dominance, which, of course, contributed to increasing the country's defense capability . Hence the progressive nature of the oprichnina policy.
It was this concept that was established in Russian historiography for many years.
“Apologetic” historiography of the oprichnina (1920-1956)
Despite the abundance of contradictory facts that came to light already in the 1910-20s, S.F. Platonov’s “apologetic” concept regarding the oprichnina and Ivan IV the Terrible was not at all disgraced. On the contrary, it gave birth to a number of successors and sincere supporters.
In 1922, the book “Ivan the Terrible” by former Moscow University professor R. Vipper was published. Having witnessed the collapse of the Russian Empire, having tasted the full extent of Soviet anarchy and tyranny, political emigrant and quite serious historian R. Vipper created not a historical study, but a very passionate panegyric to the oprichnina and Ivan the Terrible himself - a politician who managed to “restore order with a firm hand.” The author for the first time examines the internal politics of Grozny (oprichnina) in direct connection with the foreign policy situation. However, Vipper's interpretation of many foreign policy events is largely fantastic and far-fetched. Ivan the Terrible appears in his work as a wise and far-sighted ruler who cared, first of all, about the interests of his great power. The executions and terror of Grozny are justified and can be explained by completely objective reasons: the oprichnina was necessary due to the extremely difficult military situation in the country, the ruin of Novgorod - for the sake of improving the situation at the front, etc.
The oprichnina itself, according to Vipper, is an expression of democratic (!) tendencies of the 16th century. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor of 1566 is artificially connected by the author with the creation of the oprichnina in 1565; the transformation of the oprichnina into a courtyard (1572) is interpreted by Vipper as an expansion of the system caused by the betrayal of the Novgorodians and the ruinous raid of the Crimean Tatars. He refuses to admit that the reform of 1572 was in fact the destruction of the oprichnina. The reasons for the catastrophic consequences for Rus' of the end of the Livonian War are equally unobvious to Vipper.
The chief official historiographer of the revolution, M.N., went even further in his apologetics for Grozny and the oprichnina. Pokrovsky. In his “Russian History from Ancient Times,” the convinced revolutionary turns Ivan the Terrible into the leader of a democratic revolution, a more successful forerunner of Emperor Paul I, who is also portrayed by Pokrovsky as a “democrat on the throne.” Justification of tyrants is one of Pokrovsky's favorite themes. He saw the aristocracy as such as the main object of his hatred, because its power is, by definition, harmful.
However, to faithful Marxist historians, Pokrovsky’s views undoubtedly seemed overly infected with an idealistic spirit. No individual can play any significant role in history - after all, history is governed by the class struggle. This is what Marxism teaches. And Pokrovsky, having listened enough to the seminaries of Vinogradov, Klyuchevsky and other “bourgeois specialists,” was never able to get rid of the burp of idealism in himself, giving too much great importance individuals, as if they did not obey the laws of historical materialism common to all...
The most typical of the orthodox Marxist approach to the problem of Ivan the Terrible and the oprichnina is M. Nechkina’s article about Ivan IV in the First Soviet Encyclopedia (1933). In her interpretation, the personality of the king does not matter at all:
The social meaning of the oprichnina was the elimination of the boyars as a class and its dissolution into the mass of small land feudal lords. Ivan worked to realize this goal with “the greatest consistency and indestructible perseverance” and was completely successful in his work.
This was the only true and only possible interpretation policies of Ivan the Terrible.
Moreover, this interpretation was so liked by the “collectors” and “revivers” of the new Russian Empire, namely the USSR, that it was immediately adopted by the Stalinist leadership. The new great-power ideology needed historical roots, especially on the eve of the upcoming war. Stories about Russian military leaders and generals of the past who fought with the Germans or with anyone remotely similar to the Germans were urgently created and replicated. The victories of Alexander Nevsky, Peter I (true, he fought with the Swedes, but why go into details?..), Alexander Suvorov were recalled and extolled. Dmitry Donskoy, Minin with Pozharsky and Mikhail Kutuzov, who fought against foreign aggressors, also after 20 years of oblivion, were declared national heroes and glorious sons of the Fatherland.
Of course, under all these circumstances, Ivan the Terrible could not remain forgotten. True, he did not repel foreign aggression and did not win a military victory over the Germans, but he was the creator of a centralized Russian state, a fighter against disorder and anarchy created by malicious aristocrats - the boyars. He began to introduce revolutionary reforms with the aim of creating a new order. But even an autocratic king can play a positive role if the monarchy is a progressive system at this point in history...
Despite the very sad fate of Academician Platonov himself, who was convicted in an “academic case” (1929-1930), the “apologization” of the oprichnina that he began gained more and more momentum in the late 1930s.
Whether by chance or not, in 1937 – the very “peak” of Stalin’s repressions – Plato’s “Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th–17th centuries” were republished for the fourth time, and the Higher School of Propagandists under the Central Committee of the Party published (though “for internal use”) fragments of Platonov’s pre-revolutionary textbook for universities.
In 1941, director S. Eisenstein received an “order” from the Kremlin to shoot a film about Ivan the Terrible. Naturally, Comrade Stalin wanted to see a Terrible Tsar who would fully fit into the concept of the Soviet “apologists.” Therefore, all the events included in Eisenstein’s script are subordinated to the main conflict - the struggle for autocracy against the rebellious boyars and against everyone who interferes with him in unifying the lands and strengthening the state. The film Ivan the Terrible (1944) exalts Tsar Ivan as a wise and fair ruler who had a great goal. Oprichnina and terror are presented as inevitable “costs” in achieving it. But even these “costs” (the second episode of the film) Comrade Stalin chose not to allow on screens.
In 1946, a Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was issued, which spoke of the “progressive army of the guardsmen.” The progressive significance in the then historiography of the Oprichnina army was that its formation was necessary step in the struggle to strengthen the centralized state and represented a struggle of the central government, based on the serving nobility, against the feudal aristocracy and appanage remnants.
Thus, a positive assessment of the activities of Ivan IV in Soviet historiography was supported at the highest state level. Until 1956, the most cruel tyrant in the history of Russia appeared on the pages of textbooks, works of art and in cinema as a national hero, a true patriot, and a wise politician.
Revision of the concept of oprichnina during the years of Khrushchev’s “thaw”
As soon as Khrushchev read his famous report at the 20th Congress, all panegyric odes to Grozny came to an end. The “plus” sign abruptly changed to a “minus”, and historians no longer hesitated to draw completely obvious parallels between the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the reign of the only recently deceased Soviet tyrant.
A number of articles by domestic researchers immediately appear in which the “cult of personality” of Stalin and the “cult of personality” of Grozny are debunked in approximately the same terms and using real examples similar to each other.
One of the first articles published by V.N. Shevyakova “On the issue of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible”, explaining the causes and consequences of the oprichnina in the spirit of N.I. Kostomarov and V.O. Klyuchevsky – i.e. extremely negative:
The tsar himself, contrary to all previous apologetics, was called what he really was - the executioner of his subjects exposed to power.
Following Shevyakov’s article comes an even more radical article by S.N. Dubrovsky, “On the cult of personality in some works on historical issues (on the assessment of Ivan IV, etc.).” The author views the oprichnina not as a war of the king against the appanage aristocracy. On the contrary, he believes that Ivan the Terrible was at one with the landowner boyars. With their help, the king waged a war against his people with the sole purpose of clearing the ground for the subsequent enslavement of the peasants. According to Dubrovsky, Ivan IV was not at all as talented and smart as historians of the Stalin era tried to present him. The author accuses them of deliberately juggling and distorting historical facts indicating the personal qualities of the king.
In 1964, A.A. Zimin’s book “The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible” was published. Zimin processed a huge number of sources, raised a lot of factual material related to the oprichnina. But his own opinion was literally drowned in the abundance of names, graphs, numbers and solid facts. The unambiguous conclusions so characteristic of his predecessors are practically absent in the historian’s work. With many reservations, Zimin agrees that most of the bloodshed and crimes of the guardsmen were useless. However, “objectively” the content of the oprichnina in his eyes still looks progressive: Grozny’s initial thought was correct, and then everything was ruined by the oprichnina themselves, who degenerated into bandits and robbers.
Zimin's book was written during the reign of Khrushchev, and therefore the author tries to satisfy both sides of the argument. However, at the end of his life A. A. Zimin revised his views towards a purely negative assessment of the oprichnina, seeing "the bloody glow of the oprichnina" an extreme manifestation of serfdom and despotic tendencies as opposed to pre-bourgeois ones.
These positions were developed by his student V.B. Kobrin and the latter’s student A.L. Yurganov. Based on specific research that began before the war and carried out by S. B. Veselovsky and A. A. Zimin (and continued by V. B. Kobrin), they showed that S. F. Platonov’s theory about the defeat as a result of the oprichnina of patrimonial land ownership - nothing more than a historical myth.
Criticism of Platonov's concept
Back in the 1910-1920s, research began on a colossal complex of materials, formally, it would seem, far from the problems of the oprichnina. Historians have studied a huge number of scribe books where land plots of both large landowners and service people were recorded. These were, in the full sense of the word, accounting records of that time.
And what more materials, related to land ownership, was introduced into scientific circulation in the 1930-60s, the more interesting the picture became. It turned out that large landholdings did not suffer in any way as a result of the oprichnina. In fact, at the end of the 16th century it remained almost the same as it was before the oprichnina. It also turned out that those lands that went specifically to the oprichnina often included territories inhabited by service people who did not have large plots. For example, the territory of the Suzdal principality was almost entirely populated by service people; there were very few rich landowners there. Moreover, according to scribe books, it often turned out that many guardsmen who allegedly received their estates in the Moscow region for serving the tsar were their owners before. It’s just that in 1565-72, small landowners automatically fell into the ranks of the guardsmen, because The sovereign declared these lands oprichnina.
All these data were completely at odds with what was expressed by S. F. Platonov, who did not process scribal books, did not know statistics and practically did not use sources of a mass nature.
Soon another source was discovered, which Platonov also did not analyze in detail - the famous synodics. They contain lists of people killed and tortured by order of Tsar Ivan. Basically, they died or were executed and tortured without repentance and communion, therefore, the king was sinful in that they did not die in a Christian manner. These synodics were sent to monasteries for commemoration.
S. B. Veselovsky analyzed the synodics in detail and came to an unequivocal conclusion: it is impossible to say that during the period of oprichnina terror it was mainly large landowners who died. Yes, undoubtedly, the boyars and members of their families were executed, but besides them, an incredible number of service people died. Persons of the clergy of absolutely all ranks died, people who were in the sovereign's service in the orders, military leaders, minor officials, and simple warriors. Finally, an incredible number of ordinary people died - urban, townspeople, those who inhabited villages and hamlets on the territory of certain estates and estates. According to S. B. Veselovsky’s calculations, for one boyar or person from the Sovereign’s court there were three or four ordinary landowners, and for one service person there were a dozen commoners. Consequently, the assertion that the terror was selective in nature and was directed only against the boyar elite is fundamentally incorrect.
In the 1940s, S.B. Veselovsky wrote his book “Essays on the History of the Oprichnina” “on the table”, because it was completely impossible to publish it under a modern tyrant. The historian died in 1952, but his conclusions and developments on the problem of oprichnina were not forgotten and were actively used in criticism of the concept of S.F. Platonov and his followers.
Another serious mistake of S.F. Platonov was that he believed that the boyars had colossal estates, which included parts of the former principalities. Thus, the danger of separatism remained – i.e. restoration of one or another reign. As confirmation, Platonov cites the fact that during the illness of Ivan IV in 1553, the appanage prince Vladimir Staritsky, a large landowner and close relative of the tsar, was a possible contender for the throne.
An appeal to the materials of the scribe books showed that the boyars had their own lands in different, as they would say now, regions, and then appanages. The boyars had to serve in different places, and therefore, on occasion, they bought land (or it was given to them) where they served. The same person often owned land in Nizhny Novgorod, Suzdal, and Moscow, i.e. was not tied specifically to any particular place. There was no talk of somehow separating, of avoiding the process of centralization, because even the largest landowners could not gather their lands together and oppose their power to the power of the great sovereign. The process of centralization of the state was completely objective, and there is no reason to say that the boyar aristocracy actively prevented it.
Thanks to the study of sources, it turned out that the very postulate about the resistance of the boyars and the descendants of appanage princes to centralization is a purely speculative construction, derived from theoretical analogies between the social system of Russia and Western Europe in the era of feudalism and absolutism. The sources do not provide any direct basis for such statements. The postulation of large-scale “boyar conspiracies” in the era of Ivan the Terrible is based on statements emanating only from Ivan the Terrible himself.
The only lands that could lay claim to a “departure” from a single state in the 16th century were Novgorod and Pskov. In the event of separation from Moscow in the conditions of the Livonian War, they would not have been able to maintain independence, and would inevitably have been captured by opponents of the Moscow sovereign. Therefore, Zimin and Kobrin consider Ivan IV’s campaign against Novgorod historically justified and condemn only the tsar’s methods of struggle with potential separatists.
The new concept of understanding such a phenomenon as the oprichnina, created by Zimin, Kobrin and their followers, is built on the proof that the oprichnina objectively resolved (albeit by barbaric methods) some pressing problems, namely: strengthening centralization, destroying the remnants of the appanage system and the independence of the church. But the oprichnina was, first of all, a tool for establishing the personal despotic power of Ivan the Terrible. The terror he unleashed was of a national nature, was caused solely by the tsar’s fear for his position (“beat your own so that strangers will be afraid”) and did not have any “high” political goal or social background.
The point of view of the Soviet historian D. Al (Alshits), already in the 2000s, expressed the opinion that the terror of Ivan the Terrible was aimed at the total subjugation of everyone and everything to the unified power of the autocratic monarch. Everyone who did not personally prove their loyalty to the sovereign was destroyed; the independence of the church was destroyed; The economically independent trading Novgorod was destroyed, the merchant class was subjugated, etc. Thus, Ivan the Terrible did not want to say, like Louis XIV, but to prove to all his contemporaries through effective measures that “I am the state.” Oprichnina acted as state institute protection of the monarch, his personal guard.
This concept suited the scientific community for some time. However, trends towards a new rehabilitation of Ivan the Terrible and even towards the creation of his new cult were fully developed in subsequent historiography. For example, in an article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1972), while there is a certain duality in the assessment, the positive qualities of Ivan the Terrible are clearly exaggerated, and the negative ones are downplayed.
With the beginning of “perestroika” and a new anti-Stalinist campaign in the media, Grozny and the oprichnina were again condemned and compared with the period of Stalinist repressions. During this period, revaluation historical events, including the reasons, resulted mainly not in Scientific research, and into populist discussions on the pages of central newspapers and magazines.
Employees of the NKVD and other law enforcement agencies (the so-called “special officers”) in newspaper publications were no longer referred to as “oprichniki”; the terror of the 16th century was directly associated with the “Yezhovshchina” of the 1930s, as if all this had happened just yesterday. “History repeats itself” - this strange, unconfirmed truth was repeated by politicians, parliamentarians, writers, and even highly respected scientists who were inclined to conduct historical parallels Grozny-Stalin, Malyuta Skuratov-Beria, etc. and so on.
The attitude towards the oprichnina and the personality of Ivan the Terrible himself today can be called a “litmus test” of the political situation in our country. During periods of liberalization of social and state life in Russia, which, as a rule, are followed by a separatist “parade of sovereignties”, anarchy, a change in the value system - Ivan the Terrible is perceived as a bloody tyrant and tyrant. Tired of anarchy and permissiveness, society is again ready to dream of “ strong hand", the revival of statehood, and even stable tyranny in the spirit of Grozny, Stalin, or anyone else...
Today, not only in society, but also in scientific circles, the tendency to “apologize” Stalin as a great statesman is again clearly visible. From television screens and the pages of the press they are again persistently trying to prove to us that Joseph Dzhugashvili created a great power that won the war, built rockets, blocked the Yenisei and was even ahead of the rest in the field of ballet. And in the 1930s-50s they imprisoned and shot only those who needed to be imprisoned and shot - former tsarist officials and officers, spies and dissidents of all stripes. Let us remember that Academician S.F. Platonov held approximately the same opinion regarding the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible and the “selectivity” of his terror. However, already in 1929, the academician himself became one of the victims of the oprichnina contemporary to him - the OGPU, died in exile, and his name was erased from the history of Russian historical science for a long time.
Based on materials:
Veselovsky S.B. Tsar Ivan the Terrible in the works of writers and historians. Three articles. – M., 1999
Platonov S.F. Ivan groznyj. – Petersburg: Brockhaus and Efron, 1923