Gavrilov K.V.
Introduction
“To the king, glorified of old from all,
But I am drowning in abundant filth!
Respond, crazy, what for the sake of sin
Did you beat the good and strong?
Answer, not by them, in the midst of a difficult war,
Without counting strongholds of enemies slain?
Are you not their courage of the Slavs?
And who is equal to them by fidelity?
Insane! Or think more immortal than us,
Deluded into an unusual heresy?
Take heed! The hour of retribution will come
Foretold to us by Scripture,
And az, like blood in incessant battles
For you, like water, leah and leah,
I will stand before the judge with you!”
These are lines from the famous ballad by A.K. Tolstoy "Vasily Shibanov". And this is a very accurate (for a poetic translation of a prose text) application of the First Epistle of Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, sent by him to Tsar Ivan IV after his flight from Russia. And in the tragedy "The Death of Ivan the Terrible" there is a quote from the last message of Kurbsky, written in 1579. - after the severe failures of the king in the Livonian War.
Ivan the Terrible was less fortunate in the literature of the 19th century. But his messages, and especially the first of them, have also long been known to readers; it was repeatedly and abundantly quoted and retold in the language of modern times by the largest historians - S.M. Soloviev, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others.
Correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky has not come down to us in its contemporary lists; however, this circumstance (quite common for works of medieval literature) gives no reason to doubt its authenticity. The existence of polemical correspondence between Kurbsky and the tsar is noted in the documents of the 16th century. very poor: the turbulent years of the oprichnina did not favor the preservation of literary monuments.
The Epistles of Grozny and Kurbsky have come down to us in separate lists and collections, starting from the first third of the 17th century. Of these collections, compiled mainly from the writings of Kurbsky (with the addition of the First Message of the Tsar) and which have come down to us in the lists of the late 17th century. and subsequent time. On the basis and on the model of these "collections of Kurbsky", the first edition of "Tales of Prince Kurbsky", undertaken in 1833, was compiled. (and then twice reprinted) by N.G. Ustryalov. To the works of Kurbsky, N.G. Ustryalov added, in addition to the First Message of the Tsar, his Second Message of 1577. (also preserved in the lists of the 17th century, but separately from the messages of Kurbsky). The composition of the "Works of Prince Kurbsky" (with the inclusion of both messages of the Terrible), published in 1914, was similar. (in the "Russian Historical Library", vol. XXXI) GZ Kuntsevich.
In 1951 the first attempt was made to publish the persecution of Ivan IV - "The Messages of Ivan the Terrible" in the series "Literary Monuments". When publishing the messages of the king, new lists were involved, older than those published before; according to an older list, Kurbsky's First Message to the Tsar was also published (in the appendix); the rest of Kurbsky's messages were not included.
This edition is specifically dedicated to the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky. The publication was preceded new job on search for textual study of manuscripts - messages; attracted a number of new lists; The First Epistle of Kurbsky and the First Epistle of the Terrible are published in several editions that have come down to us.
Work on the publication of the 2nd message of Kurbsky for this edition was started by A.A. Zimin, who prepared the 1st edition of this message with discrepancies in 19 lists. Further work on the preparation of the message and the preparation of the remaining messages of Kurbsky was carried out by Yu.D. Rykov. The commentary on Kurbsky's messages was compiled by V.B. Kobrin; the translation of these messages was made by O.V. Tvorogov. The archeographic review was compiled by Yu.D. Rykov (messages by Kurbsky) and Ya.S. Lurie (messages by Ivan the Terrible). The articles were written by D.S. Likhachev and Ya.S. Lurie.
Correspondence background
Andrei Kurbsky's correspondence with Tsar Ivan the Terrible is one of the most famous monuments of ancient Russian literature. The history of this correspondence is as follows. April 1564. the royal voivode Prince A.M. Kurbsky fled from the Livonian city of Yuryev, newly annexed to the Russian state, to the neighboring Livonian city of Wolmar, which belonged to the Polish king Sigismund II Augustus. The reason for the flight was the information received by Kurbsky about the royal reprisal being prepared against him. Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky was not only a military leader who fought near Kazan and in Livonia, he participated in the administrative reforms of the middle of the 16th century, was one of the closest people to the tsar, whom he himself later called the “Chosen Rada”. In the early 60s of the 16th century, after the fall of the Chosen One, many of the close associates of the tsar were subject to disgrace and repression. Under these conditions, Kurbsky also expected severe punishment. The very appointment of Kurbsky as governor (governor) in the "long-range" Yuryev after the victorious campaign of the Russian army against Polotsk in 1562-1563, in which he commanded a sentry regiment, could be seen as a harbinger of the coming massacre against them. Kurbsky began to conduct secret negotiations with the Lithuanians with the aim of his possible transfer to the service of the Polish king. But, having gone over to the Polish king, having received large vassal grants from him, Kurbsky did not just enter the environment of the Lithuanian-Russian nobility, who often “departed” from Moscow to Vilna and back. He wanted to justify his departure and turned to Ivan IV with a message in which he accused the tsar of unheard-of persecution, torment and executions of boyars and governors who conquered Russia's "high-profile kingdoms."
Ivan the Terrible, having received a accusatory letter from the boyar who had cheated on him, could not resist a sharp answer to the "treason's traitor." The first king of all Russia, during whose reign Kazan, Astrakhan and Western Siberia were annexed to the territory of the Russian state, the creator of the oprichnina and the organizer of bloody punitive campaigns on his own lands, Ivan IV was not only one of the most terrible tyrants in Russian history. He was quite educated for his time. The tsar replied to Kurbsky with an extensive message, "broadcast and noisy" according to the poisonous characterization of his opponent; famous correspondence ensued.
Biography of A.M. Kurbsky
Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky (1528-1583) came from an old family. He achieved his position at the royal court (“boyar, adviser and voivode”) solely thanks to personal merits rendered to the tsar by the voivodship service and government activities. He was granted land in the vicinity of Moscow, and later (1556) and the boyar rank.
Born in Yaroslavl, in a family distinguished by literary interests, apparently not alien to Western influence. He came from a family of eminent Yaroslavl princes who received a surname from the main village of their inheritance - Kurba on the Kurbitsa River. On the maternal side, Andrei was a relative of Tsarina Anastasia.
It can be safely assumed that Andrei Mikhailovich received a good education, although there is no specific data on his studies. He was one of the influential statesmen and was a member of the Chosen Rada. Period political activity and the military service of Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky coincided with the intensification of state building in Russia. The estate-representative monarchy, which was formed in its main features in the middle of the 16th century, provided for the need for a conciliar decision on all national affairs. It existed until 1560. An important reason that caused its fall was disagreements with the family of the first wife of the Tsar, Anastasia Zakharyina, who died that year.
Kurbsky achieved great success in military service. The most famous of his exploits in the campaign against Kazan. The troops that moved to Kazan were led by Tsar Ivan the Terrible himself, princes Andrey Kurbsky and Pyotr Shchenyatev led right hand troops. Even on the road near Tula, they defeated the Tatars, who outnumbered our soldiers twice. In this battle (as Karamzin writes) Prince Kurbsky "was marked by glorious wounds." During the entire campaign and assault on Kazan, Kurbsky fought very courageously. He especially distinguished himself at the end of the battle, when part (about 10 thousand) of Kazan, defending their king Ediger, retreated through the back gate to the lower part of the city. Kurbsky with two hundred soldiers crossed their path, keeping them in the cramped streets, making it difficult for the Kazanians to take each step, giving time to our troops. Already after the issuance of the king, the Kazan people abandoned their heavy weapons and, having crossed the Kazanka River, rushed to the swamps and the forest, where the cavalry could no longer chase them. Only the young princes Kurbsky, Andrey and Roman, with a small retinue, managed to mount their horses, galloped over the enemy and detained them, but the Kazanians far outnumbered the Russian soldiers, and they managed to defeat the Russian detachment. The new army, thrown in pursuit, overtook and destroyed the Kazanians.
Kurbsky, together with Mikulinsky and Sheremetyev, led a second campaign to pacify the already conquered kingdom.
Having expressed Kurbsky's special location, the Tsar sent him with an army to the city of Dorpat and appointed him to command in the Livonian War (1558-1583).
At the beginning of this war, Russian troops won a number of very important victories and almost completely defeated the Livonian Order, but then with the entry into the war of Denmark, Sweden and other countries against Russia, the victories were replaced by failures. And as a result, Russia lost this war.
In 1560, after the termination of the existence of the Chosen Rada, arrests and executions of people who were part of it followed. Kurbsky was in close relations with Adashev, this increased the tsar's disfavor. The disgrace began, Andrei Mikhailovich was sent to the province in Yuryev (the place of Adashev's exile). Realizing what fate awaits him, Kurbsky, after talking with his wife, decided to run away. Kurbsky's escape was preceded by secret negotiations with Tsar Sigismund II.
After spending a year in Yuriev, Kurbsky fled to Lithuanian possessions on April 30, 1564. Under the cover of night, he descended a rope from a high fortress wall and, with several faithful servants, galloped off to the nearest enemy castle - Wolmar. Escape from the carefully guarded fortress was an exceptionally difficult task. In a hurry, the fugitive left his family, abandoned almost all his property. (Abroad, he especially regretted his military armor and a magnificent library.) The reason for the haste was that Moscow friends secretly warned the boyar about the danger that threatened him, which Ivan the Terrible himself later confirmed.
Kurbsky wrote in Lithuania an accusatory history of the great prince, i.e., Tsar Ivan, where he expressed the political views of his boyar brethren in a volume of 40 pages. In history, he also makes several general political judgments.
The difference between the views of A.M. Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible
The main subject of controversy between the tsar and Kurbsky was the question of which of them was faithful to the policy of the beginning of the reign of Ivan the Terrible (the policy of the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551 and the reforms of the 50s). Both of them agreed that Ivan IV at the beginning of his reign was “the brightest in Orthodoxy”, but Kurbsky argued that, having dealt with his former advisers (“The Chosen Rada”), the tsar became “opposite” to the previous policy. In his letters to Kurbsky, the tsar accused him of treason, and again and again proved his loyalty to the “blessed Orthodoxy” of the beginning of his reign.
Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky was a supporter of class representation in central and local authorities. Kurbsky traditionally considered the source of power in the state to be divine will, and he saw the goal of supreme power in the just and merciful management of the state for the benefit of all its subjects and in the righteous resolution of all cases.
Kurbsky connects the decline in the affairs of the state and the military failures accompanying it with the fall of the government and the introduction of the oprichnina. The dissolution of the Rada marked the complete and unconditional concentration of unlimited power in the hands of Ivan IV.
Kurbsky's understanding of law clearly shows the idea of the identity of law and justice. Only the just can be called legal, since violence is a source of lawlessness, not law. Outlining his requirements for law-making, Kurbsky emphasizes that the law must contain realistically achievable requirements, because lawlessness is not only non-observance, but also the creation of cruel and unenforceable laws. Such legislation, according to Kurbsky, is criminal. In his political and legal views, elements of a natural law concept are outlined, with which the teachings about the state and law are associated already in modern times. Ideas about law and truth, goodness and justice are perceived as constituent components of natural laws, through which the divine will preserves its highest creation, man, on earth.
Law enforcement practice is considered by Kurbsky, both in judicial and out-of-court versions. The state of the court evoked deep disapproval from Kurbsky. Kurbsky is particularly dissatisfied with the practice of sentencing in absentia, when the guilty person, and in most cases simply an unfairly slandered person, is deprived of the opportunity to personally appear before the court. The advice of Vassian Toporkov, rector of the Pesnosh Monastery, played, according to Kurbsky, a tragic role, providing a change in the personality of the tsar and the manner of his actions. Vassian gave the king advice: “do not keep advisers smarter than yourself.”
The established tyrannical regime led to the loss of value Zemsky Cathedral, who became just a silent conductor of the will of Ivan IV. Best Option organization of the form of state power, Kurbsky imagines a monarchy with an elected class-representative body participating in the resolution of all the most important matters in the state. Kurbsky was not only in favor of the creation of a representative body (the Council of People of the People), but also of various "synclites" consisting of specialists of various profiles. The form of government in the form of a single centralized state system did not cause him any complaints and was fully approved by him.
And the main reason for the difference in views between A.M. Kurbsky and Ivan IV was the problem of choosing the main paths for the political development of Russia. The elected council, like Kurbsky, was a supporter of gradual reforms leading to the strengthening of centralization. Ivan IV, who received the nickname "Terrible", preferred the "path of terror", which contributed to the rapid strengthening of his personal power.
The first message of A. Kurbsky to Ivan IV.
The first message of A. Kurbsky to Ivan IV was written, obviously, shortly after the escape of the "treason" abroad, that is, in May 1564. The text of this message is concise and logical, and the style is a wonderful example of harmonious rhetoric, devoid of any specific details. The message contains Prince Andrei's resolute protest against the lawlessness that began in Russia, the persecution and executions of state and military leaders on the threshold of the oprichnina. Kurbsky acts in this letter not only as a defender of all the disgraced Tsar Ivan, but also as a kind of Old Testament prophet, denouncing the tsar for his crimes and bloodshed. Exposing the fierce cruelty of Ivan IV towards his subjects, complaining about the numerous persecutions and insults personally suffered from the tsar, Kurbsky thereby seeks to justify his "departure" to the Polish king and, mainly, obviously, not in front of the addressee, but in the face of public opinion. This letter, one and a half pages long, was delivered to the tsar by Kurbsky's personal servant, Vasily Shibanov.
The first message of Ivan IV to A. Kurbsky
The first message to Andrei Kurbsky is the largest of Ivan IV's journalistic works; it was, undoubtedly, one of the most important monuments of the Old Rx journalism as a whole. The message is dated July 5, 1564, written on the First Epistle of Kurbsky. The speed with which this extensive message was written (five to six weeks) makes it very likely that it was compiled not by one person, but by the clerks of the royal office (as well as diplomatic messages). However, the key passages of the message (memories of Grozny’s childhood, polemical attacks against the opponent) undoubtedly belonged to the tsar himself: the “rude” style of the message and even its individual turns (comparisons of the enemy with a dog) are reminiscent of the tsar’s later writings - for example, messages to the Swedish king Johan III .
Like Kurbsky's First Epistle, the tsar's epistle was obviously intended mainly not for its formal addressee, but for a wider circle of readers. The first message of Ivan the Terrible contains all and direct evidence of this: in its early editions it is titled as a message from the tsar “in all his great Russian state (in other lists: the Russian kingdom) to his crusaders, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky and his comrades about their betrayal »; one of the earliest lists of the message contains another special indication: “The message of the king to all the cities against his cross-criminals ...”
He declared the “changeable boyars” to be the main enemies of the state (while blaming Kurbsky for “boyar rule” during his childhood, although Kurbsky was the same age as the tsar). This indication of the "boyars" as the main opponents of the autocracy, had a great influence on the histography of the subsequent time. The tsar assured that the main purpose of his existence was the welfare of his subjects: "... for them we wish against all the enemy not only to blood, but also to suffer to death." According to him, all the repressions against the former advisers are already over, "but now everyone," including Kurbsky's like-minded people, can enjoy "every blessing and freedom" and not be afraid of punishment for "the former malice." All this was written in the summer of 1564. - six months before the establishment of the oprichnina. This letter was 40 pages long.
Kurbsky's second message to Ivan IV
The second message of Andrei Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible was written in response to the First message of July 5, 1564. This message has no exact date. According to Kurbsky in 1579, he had already written a response “long ago”, but could not send it “to the Russian kingdom” in time due to the closure of the border: only many years later, in September 1579, he attempted to send it along with the answer to the Second message of Ivan IV to Russia. Sending a long-standing answer to his antoponist, Kurbsky apparently considered it necessary to supplement the old text by mentioning that he originally wanted to reply at length to the tsar's letter of July 5, 1564, but, since. learned in old age in Lithuania the "Attic" language, "keep your hand from the cane." Naturally, Kurbsky could not write these words in the first years after his flight from Yuriev. It is clear that we are dealing with a later insertion into the text, which, obviously, should be dated at least not earlier than the beginning of the 70s of the 16th century. It was at this time that Kurbsky made a translation of The New Margaret into Slavonic, and in a letter to Mark Sarykhozin written about sending him the Preface to the New Margaret, he mentions that he spent many years studying the Latin language and learned it only "already in gray hair", i.e. under old age. The Latin language, this classical language of the Renaissance, is obviously what Kurbsky had in mind when he wrote to Ivan IV that he knew the Attic language.
In the second message, Kurbsky sharply criticized the "broadcast and noisy" message of Tsar Ivan IV dated July 5, 1564. The second message of Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible in the handwritten tradition was preserved only as part of the so-called "Collections of Kurbsky". There is no information that it reached the addressee. This letter is one page long.
The second message of Ivan the Terrible to Kurbsky
The Second Epistle of the Tsar to Kurbsky was written in 1577 - 13 years after the First Epistle. To the First Message of Kurbsky, which penetrated Russia on the eve of the oprichnina, neither the response “broadcast and noisy” message of the tsar, compiled in the same 1564 (nor the short answer of Kurbsky to this “broadcast” message, which was not sent, apparently, until 1579 year), could not have spread in Russian writing: even the text of the sovereign’s message “to all cities” was completely outdated by this time: “execution of our Nikita Afanasyevich” (N.A. Funikov - Kurtsev), for the persecution of which the tsar so strangely accelerated in 1564 Kurbsky and his friends, was already by this time: "executed by Ivan the Terrible." Only the wealth of Kurbsky and the fact that after the betrayal he still “impolitely wrote a letter to the sovereign” remained in the memory. In 1577, one of the largest and most successful campaigns of Ivan IV in Livonia was undertaken. Departing from Pskov to the south, the tsar then headed along the Dvina and occupied almost all coastal fortresses; by September, all of Livonia (with the exception of only Revel and Riga) was in the hands of Grozny. It was in this situation that the tsar in 1577 wrote a number of letters to his various opponents: the newly elected Polish king Stefan Batory, Chetman Khodkevich, the most prominent magnate M. Talvash and M. Radziwill, the vice-regent in Livonia Andrei Polubensky and "traitors" - A. M. Kurbsky, Timokha Teterin, to "Tuv and to Ilert" (Livonians Taube and Kruse, who served Grozny and betrayed him). The letter was written on two pages.
The third message of Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible
The third message of Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible completes the famous correspondence. It was written in response to the Second Epistle of Ivan IV to Kurbsky in 1577. The third epistle was written by Kurbsky, apparently, in several steps. Probably Kurbsky could not immediately give an answer to Tsar Ivan, because. the position of the Commonwealth at the end of 1577 was not strong enough. There were major successes of the Russian troops in Livonia. In addition, part of the gentry acted in these conditions for the transfer of power to Ivan IV. On October 21, 1578, the battle of the Polish-Lithuanian and Russian military detachments took place near Wenden (Kesyu), as a result of which the tsarist governors were defeated. After successful military operations, Dvinsk (Daugavpils) and some other cities also ended up under the rule of the Polish king. These defeats of the king from the Polish-Lithuanian troops, obviously, inspired Kurbsky to write a triumphant response. In the Message to Ivan IV, Kurbsky gave an answer to various accusations against him, put forward by Ivan the Terrible in the Wolmar message of 1577. In an effort to justify his flight from Yuryev, Kurbsky not only used the scriptures and the writings of the "fathers of the church", but also attached to the answer to the Second Message of the Tsar two passages he translated from Cicero's Paradoxes, the content of which echoed his fate. He also did the latter out of a desire to emphasize his education to the king. Prince Andrei Mikhailovich did not deny himself the pleasure of attaching to the Third Letter his Second Message to the Tsar, which, according to him, he could not send to Russia in a timely manner. In the autumn of 1579, the Polish-Lithuanian troops under the leadership of King Stefan Batory captured Polotsk. The third day after the capture of Polotsk, i.e. On September 3, Kurbsky, who took part in the Polotsk campaign of the Polish-Lithuanian troops, made an extensive postscript to the original text of the Third Letter to the Tsar. Kurbsky explained the defeats of the tsarist troops by the absence of experienced commanders from the tsar, whom he had previously “tore to pieces with various deaths” and “generally destroyed without trial and right, bowing the ear of a single country, shirch as a vicious caresser, blighters of the fatherland.” Kurbsky again ridicules the tsar's assertion that the power of the life-giving cross helps him in the fight against his enemies. As convincing examples of the wrongness of Ivan the Terrible, Prince Andrei refers to the two “most shameful” defeats of the tsar and his troops, the burning of Moscow by the Crimean Tatars in 1571, and the just-fallen Plock. At the end of September 1579, the tsarist troops suffered another major defeat from the troops of Stefan Batory near Sokol, and this circumstance inspired the prince to write a new triumphant addition to the letter: he writes that he was assigned in Polotsk "by the actual overcoming near Sokol on the 4th day", those. September 15th. The third message of Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible, like his "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow", contains a large number of polozmas, which is probably evidence that very serious changes occurred in Kurbsky's language caused by his long stay in a foreign land. This also testifies in favor of the fact that the prince counted on the reading of his message by the "bright men" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Whether this message of Kurbsky got to the tsar is unknown. In any case, Ivan IV's answer to the Second and Third Epistles of Kurbsky is not available in the handwritten tradition - obviously.
Conclusion
In total, there were five letters in this correspondence: two from Ivan IV and three from Prince A.M. Kurbsky. The first letter of A.M. Kurbsky contains a strong protest against the lawlessness that began in Russia, the persecution and executions of state and military figures on the threshold of the oprichnina. Ivan the Terrible responded to Kurbsky's first letter with a large, large-scale letter in which the tsar tries to convince him that the main purpose of his existence is the welfare of his subjects. According to him, all the repressions against the former advisers are over and there is no need to fear a new disgrace. In the second letter, Andrei Kurbsky, which he sent late, namely, along with the third, lashed out with sharp criticism at the "broadcast and noisy" letter of Tsar Ivan IV. Ivan the Terrible, who has not yet received an answer to his first letter, 13 years after Kurbsky wrote the first letter, writes the second. By this time, only the flight of the prince to Livonia remained in his memory. The third letter of Andrei Mikhailovich to Ivan the Terrible completed the famous correspondence. In this letter, Kurbsky gave an answer to various accusations against him, put forward by Ivan the Terrible in the second letter of 1577.
This correspondence, which belongs to the most famous monuments of ancient Russian literature, provides answers to a number of questions of that time: why did Prince Kurbsky fled from Russia?, Why all these repressions of Ivan the Terrible?, What are the differences in the views of Tsar Ivan and A.M. But it does not give an answer to this question: why did Prince Kurbsky fled to Livonia? After all, it was with Livonia that Russia was at war, and Kurbsky decided to go over to the side of the enemy, rather than join another country.
One way or another, the correspondence of irreconcilable political opponents has ceased.
List of used literature
- J.S. Lurie, Yu.D. Rykov. Ivan IV, correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky.-M., 1993, 93-5/997.
- D.S. Likhachev. Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia, second half of the 16th century. - M., 1986, 86-5/6264.
- Klyuchevsky V. O. Russian history. Book 3. - M., 1995. - 572 p.
- History of Russia from ancient times to 1861 / Ed. N. I. Pavlenko. - Moscow, 1996. - 559.
- History of Russia from antiquity to the present day / Ed. M. N. Zueva. - Moscow, 1996. - 639.
- History of Russia (pre-Petrine era)
When implementing the project, state support funds were used, allocated as a grant in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 11-rp dated January 17, 2014 and on the basis of a competition held by the All-Russian Public Organization "Russian Union of Youth"
The pious Great Sovereign, the Tsar and Grand Duke John Vasilievich of All Russia, a message to all his Great Russia states against the cross-criminals, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky and his comrades about their treason
Our God is the Trinity, who was before all time and now exists, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, having neither beginning nor end, by which we live and move, by whose name kings are glorified and rulers write the truth. Our God Jesus Christ gave the only-begotten son of God the victorious and forever invincible banner - the honest cross to the first of the pious Tsar Constantine and all Orthodox tsars and guardians of Orthodoxy. And after the will of Providence was fulfilled everywhere and the divine servants of the word of God, like eagles, flew around the whole universe, a spark of piety reached the Russian kingdom. The autocracy of the Russian Tsardom, filled with this true Orthodoxy, began by God's will from the Grand Duke Vladimir, who enlightened the Russian land with holy baptism, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh, who received a high honor from the Greeks, and from the brave and great sovereign Alexander Nevsky, who won great victory over the godless Germans, and from the praiseworthy great sovereign Dmitry, who won a victory over the godless Hagarians beyond the Don, up to the avenger of the iniquity of our grandfather, Grand Duke Ivan, and to the acquirer of the original ancestral lands, the blessed memory of our father, the great sovereign Vasily, and to us , humble scepter holders of the Russian kingdom. But we praise God for his immeasurable mercy sent down to us, that until now he has not allowed our right hand to be stained with the blood of fellow tribesmen, for we did not want to take away the kingdom from anyone, but by God's will and with the blessing of our forefathers and parents, we were born in the kingdom So they were brought up, and matured, and by God's command they reigned, and they took what belongs to us with the blessing of their forefathers and parents, but they did not desire someone else's. This is a truly Orthodox Christian autocracy, wielding a lot of power, a command and our Christian humble response to the former boyar, adviser, and governor, who was formerly true Orthodox Christianity and our autocracy, now an apostate from the honest and life-giving cross of the Lord and the destroyer of Christians, and who joined the enemies Christianity, which departed from the worship of divine icons, and trampled on all divine institutions, and ruined the holy temples, desecrated and trampled on sacred vessels and images, like Isaurus, the Gnostic and the Armenian, who united them all in himself - Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who treacherously wished to become the Prince of Yaroslavl, - let it be known. Why, O prince, if you think yourself pious, did you reject your only begotten soul? What will you replace it with on the Day of Judgment? Even if you gain the whole world, death will still kidnap you in the end ...
You, for the sake of the body, destroyed the soul, despised the imperishable glory for the sake of the fleeting one, and, being furious with a person, rebelled against God. Understand, unfortunate one, from what height into what abyss you have fallen in body and soul! The prophetic words came true on you: "Whoever thinks that he has will lose everything." Is your piety in that you ruined yourself because of your selfishness, and not for the sake of God? Those who are close to you and capable of reflection can guess that there is an evil poison in you: you did not run away from death, but for the sake of glory in this short-term and fleeting life and for wealth. If, according to you, you are righteous and pious, then why were you afraid to die innocently, for this is not death, but retribution? In the end, you will die anyway. If you were afraid. a death sentence on libel, believing the villainous lies of your friends, the servants of Satan, then this is your obvious treasonous intent, as it happened in the past, and it is now. Why did you despise the words of the Apostle Paul, who said: “Let every soul obey the ruler who has authority; there is no power except from God: whoever opposes authority opposes God's command." Look at it and think about it: whoever opposes power opposes God; and whoever opposes God is called an apostate, and this is the worst of sins. But this is said about any power, even about power obtained at the cost of blood and wars. Think about what has been said, because we did not obtain the kingdom by violence, all the more so, whoever opposes such power - opposes God! The same apostle Paul says (and you did not heed these words): “Slaves! Obey your masters, working for them not only in front of them, as people-pleasers, but as servants of God, obey not only the good, but also the evil, not only out of fear, but also out of conscience. But this is the will of the Lord, if you have to suffer while doing good.
But if you are righteous and pious, why did you not want me, the obstinate lord, to suffer and deserve the crown of eternal life. But for the sake of transient glory, because of selfishness, in the name of the joys of this world, all your spiritual piety, along with the Christian faith and law, you trampled, became like a seed thrown on a stone and grew up when the hot sun shone, immediately, because of succumbed to the temptation of one false word, and was rejected, and did not bear fruit ...
How are you not ashamed of your slave Vaska Shibanov? After all, he retained his piety, he stood before the king and before all the people, did not renounce kissing you on the cross, glorifying you in every possible way and crying out for you to die. But you didn’t want to equal him in piety: because of one insignificant angry word, you destroyed not only your soul, but also the soul of your ancestors, for by God’s will God gave their souls under the authority of our grandfather, the great sovereign, and they , having given their souls, served until their death and bequeathed to you, their children, to serve the children and grandchildren of our grandfather. And you forgot all this, having violated the kiss of the cross with a dog's betrayal, you joined the enemy of Christianity; and besides, not realizing your own villainy, you speak absurdities with these stupid words, as if throwing stones at the sky, not ashamed of the piety of your slave and not wanting to act like him before your master.
Your Scripture is accepted and read carefully. And since you hid the venom of the snake under your tongue, therefore, although your letter, according to your plan, is filled with honey and honeycombs, it tastes bitterer than wormwood; as the prophet said: "Their words are softer than oil, but they are like arrows." Are you so accustomed, being a Christian, to serve a Christian sovereign? Is it really necessary to give honor to the lord, given by God, as you do, spewing poison, like a demon? .. What are you, a dog, having committed such villainy, write and complain! What is your advice like, stinking more vile than feces? ..
And when you asked why we slew the mighty in Israel, exterminated, and betrayed the commanders given to us by God to fight our enemies to various executions, and shed their holy and heroic blood in the churches of God, and stained church thresholds with martyr's blood, and invented unheard-of torments , executions and persecution for their well-wishers who lay down their lives for us, denouncing the Orthodox and accusing them of treason, sorcery and other indecency, then you wrote and spoke lies, as your father, the devil, taught you, for Christ said: “You are the children of the devil and you want to fulfill the desire of your father, for he was from the beginning a murderer and did not stand in the truth, for there is no truth in him; when he speaks a lie, he speaks his own, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” And we didn’t kill the strong in Israel, and I don’t know who is the strongest in Israel: because the Russian land is held by God’s mercy, and the mercy of the Most Pure Mother of God, and the prayers of all the saints, and the blessing of our parents, and, finally, by us, our sovereigns, and not judges and magistrates, but hypocrites and strategists. We did not betray our governors to various deaths, and with God's help we have many governors in our country besides you, traitors. And we were always free to favor our serfs, we were free to execute ...
We did not stain the church thresholds with blood; we have no martyrs for the faith; when we find well-wishers who sincerely lay down their lives for us, and not falsely, not those who speak good things with their tongues, but in their hearts start evil things, bestow and praise before our eyes, but squander and reproach behind our eyes (like a mirror that reflects the one who who looks at him and forgets the one who turned away), when we meet people who are free from these shortcomings, who serve honestly and do not forget, like a mirror, the entrusted service, then we reward them with a great salary; the one who, as I said, opposes, deserves to be executed for his guilt. And how in other countries you yourself will see how villains are punished there - not in the local way! It is you, in your malicious disposition, who have decided to love the traitors; but in other countries they do not like traitors and execute them and thereby strengthen their power.
And we did not invent torments, persecutions and various executions for anyone: if you are talking about traitors and sorcerers, then such dogs are executed everywhere ...
When, according to God's plan, our parent, the pious Empress Elena, was destined to move from the earthly kingdom to the heavenly one, we were left with our brother George, who had died in the Bose, complete orphans - no one helped us; we only have hope in God, and in the Most Pure Mother of God, and in all prayers, and in the blessing of our parents. I was eight years old at that time; and so our subjects achieved the fulfillment of their desires - they received a kingdom without a ruler, but they did not show any concern for us, their sovereigns, they themselves rushed to wealth and glory, and at the same time quarreled with each other. And what have they not done! How many of our boyars and well-wishers of our father and governor were killed! Yards, and villages, and the property of our uncles took for themselves and settled in them. And the mother's treasures were transferred to the Great Treasury, while frantically kicking and poking at them with sticks, and the rest was divided. But your grandfather, Mikhailo Tuchkov, did it. In the meantime, Prince Vasily and Ivan Shuisky arbitrarily imposed themselves on me as guardians and thus reigned; those who most betrayed our father and our mother were released from prison and brought closer to themselves. And Prince Vasily Shuisky settled in the yard of our uncle, Prince Andrey, and in this yard his people, having gathered, like a Jewish host, seized Fyodor Mishurin, the clerk's neighbor to our father, and saved him, and, disgracing him, killed him; and Prince Ivan Fedorovich Belsky and many others were imprisoned in different places; and raised their hand to the church; having overthrown the throne of Metropolitan Daniel, they sent him to prison; and so they carried out all their plans and began to reign themselves. We, along with my only-begotten brother, George, who died in the Bose, began to be brought up as strangers or the last poor people. Then we suffered hardships both in clothing and in food. We had no will in anything, but we did everything not of our own free will and not in the way children usually do. I remember one thing: we used to play children's games, and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky was sitting on a bench, leaning his elbow on our father's bed and putting his foot on a chair, but he wouldn't even look at us - neither as a parent, nor as a guardian, and certainly not at all. nor as a slave to the masters. Who can bear such pride? How can I count such dishonorable sufferings that I endured in my youth? How many times have I not been allowed to eat on time. What can I say about the parental treasury that I got? They stole everything in an insidious way: they said that the children of the boyars were on a salary, but they took them for themselves, but they were not paid for the cause, they were appointed not worthy; and they took away the countless treasury of our grandfather and our father, and with the money they forged gold and silver vessels for themselves and inscribed on them the names of their parents, as if it were their hereditary property. And it is known to all people that during the reign of our mother, Prince Ivan Shuisky had a fur coat of green mukhoya on martens, and besides, on shabby ones; so if this was their inheritance, then how to forge vessels, it would be better to change a fur coat, and forge vessels when there is extra money. And what about the treasury of our uncles? They took over everything. Then they attacked cities and villages, tortured the inhabitants in various cruel ways, robbed their property without mercy. And how to count the grievances that they caused to their neighbors? They considered all subjects to be their slaves, they made their own slaves grandees, pretended to rule and dispose, but they themselves violated the laws and caused disorder, they took immense bribes from everyone and, depending on it, they said one way or another, and did ... Is this good faithful service? The whole universe will laugh at such fidelity! What can we say about the oppressions that were at that time? From the day of our mother's death until that time, for six and a half years, they did not stop doing evil!
When the wives were fifteen years old, they undertook to manage their kingdom themselves, and, thank God, our management began successfully. But since human sins often irritate God, a fire broke out in Moscow due to God’s anger for our sins, and our traitorous boyars, those whom you call martyrs (I will name their names when I find it necessary), as if seizing a favorable time for of their treachery, they convinced mediocre people that it was as if our grandmother, Princess Anna Glinskaya, with her children and servants, took out human hearts and conjured, and thus burned Moscow, and that we knew about this plan. And at the instigation of our traitors, the people, having gathered according to Jewish custom, with shouts captured the great martyr of Christ Dmitry Solunsky, our boyar, Prince Yuri Vasilyevich Glinsky, in the aisle of the church; they dragged him into the cathedral and great church and inhumanly killed opposite the metropolitan place, flooding the church with blood, and, pulling out his body through the front church doors, laid him on the market like a condemned criminal. And this murder in the holy church is known to all, and not the one about which you, dog, are lying! We lived then in our village of Vorobyevo, and the same traitors persuaded the people to kill us too, because we allegedly hide from them the mother of Prince Yuri, Princess Anna, and his brother, Prince Mikhail. How can one not laugh at such a fabrication? Why should we burn our kingdom ourselves? After all, how many valuable things from the parental blessing have burned down with us, which you will not find in the whole universe. Who can be so insane and vicious as to be angry with his slaves and set fire to his own property? He would then set fire to their houses, and save himself! Your canine betrayal is visible in everything. It is like trying to sprinkle water on the belfry of St. Ivan, which has such a huge height. This is sheer madness. Is this worthy service to us by our boyars and governors, that they, gathering without our knowledge in such packs of dogs, kill our boyars and even our relatives? And do they think their souls for us so that they always yearn to send our souls out of this world into eternal life? We are told to sacredly honor the law, but they themselves do not want to follow us in this! What are you, a dog, proudly boasting and praising for the military prowess of other traitor dogs? ..
And that, according to your insane words, your blood, shed by the hands of foreigners for us, cries out at us to God, then since it was not shed by us, it is worthy of laughter: the blood cries out at the one who shed it, and you have fulfilled your duty to the fatherland , and we have nothing to do with it: after all, if you had not done this, you would not have been a Christian, but a barbarian. How much stronger does our blood shed because of you cry out for you: not from wounds, and not streams of blood, but a lot of sweat shed by me in many overwork and unnecessary hardships that occurred through your fault! Also, instead of blood, many tears were shed because of your anger, desecration and oppression, many sighed and groaned ...
And that you “saw little of your parent and knew little of your wife, left the fatherland and were always on a campaign against enemies in distant cities, suffered from illness and received many wounds from barbarian hands in battles and your whole body was wounded”, then all this happened when you dominated with the priest and Alexei. If you didn't like it, why did you do it? And if you did, then why, having created according to your will, do you lay the blame on us? And if we ordered this, then there is nothing surprising in this, for you were obliged to serve according to our command. If you were a warlike man, you would not consider your warlike deeds, but would look for new ones; that is why you list your warlike deeds, because you turned out to be a fugitive, you do not want wary deeds and are looking for peace. Did we not appreciate your insignificant feats of arms, even if we neglected your notorious betrayals and opposition, and you were among our most faithful servants, in glory, honor and wealth? If it were not for these feats, then what kind of executions for your malice would you be worthy! If it were not for our mercy towards you, if, as you wrote in your malicious letter, you were persecuted, you would not have been able to escape to our enemy. Your wicked deeds are well known to us. Do not think that I am weak-minded or an unreasonable baby, as your bosses, Pop Sylvester and Alexei Adashev, impudently asserted. And do not hope to frighten me, as children are frightened and as they used to deceive me with the priest Sylvester and Alexei thanks to their cunning, and do not hope that now you will succeed in this. As the parables say: "What you cannot take, do not try to take."
You cry out to God, the recompense; truly, he justly repays for all deeds - good and evil, but each person should only think: what and for what deeds does he deserve retribution? And you value your face. But who wants to see such an Ethiopian face? ..
And if you want to put your scripture with you in the coffin, then you have already completely fallen away from Christianity. The Lord commanded not to resist evil, but even before death you do not want to forgive your enemies, as even the ignorant usually do; therefore, the last funeral service will not have to be performed on you.
The city of Vladimir, located in our fiefdom, the Livonian land, you call the possession of our enemy, King Sigismund, which finally reveals your canine betrayal. And if you hope to receive many awards from him, then this is as it should be, because you did not want to live under the rule of God and sovereigns given by God, but wanted self-will. Therefore, you have found yourself such a sovereign, who, as follows from your evil dog desire, does not manage anything himself, but is worse than the last slave - he receives orders from everyone, but he himself does not command anyone ...
This strong instruction was given in Moscow, the reigning Orthodox city of all Russia, in 7702, from the creation of the world of July on the 5th day (July 5, 1564).
The policy of Grozny, aimed at strengthening the autocracy, strengthening the role of the service nobility and infringing on the interests of the boyar nobility, provoked a rebuff from the latter. This struggle was vividly reflected in Andrei Kurbsky's correspondence with Ivan the Terrible.
A descendant of the princes of Yaroslavl, who raised his family to Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Kurbsky in 1563, after an unsuccessful battle, fled to the Livonian city of Wolmar (Volmiera), occupied by the troops of Sigismund-August. From here he sent in 1564 his first "epistole" (message), addressed to Ivan the Terrible. The message was intended for a wide range of readers and aimed to denounce the autocratic policy of the tsar. In the very appeal to "To the Tsar, glorified from God, moreover, in Orthodoxy, the brightest appeared, now, a sin for our sake, who has found resistance to this" there was a reproach: the king had lost the appearance of an ideal ruler.
Kurbsky's accusatory speech, built according to the rules of rhetoric and grammar, sounds strict and measured: “Why, the king, beat the ecu and the voivode, from God given to you, betrayed ecu with various deaths? on your well-meaning and soul for you, laying unheard-of torment, and persecution, and death, thou didst intend ... "
Kurbsky acts as a prosecutor bringing charges against the tsar on behalf of "the dead, innocently beaten, imprisoned and driven away without truth" the boyars, who, in his opinion, are the backbone of the state, constituting its strength. He writes from "many sorrows of his heart."
He accuses the king of abusing his sovereign power. Kurbsky understood that it was impossible to completely return the old order, and did not put forward demands for decentralization. He sought only to weaken the autocratic power of the tsar, considered it necessary to share power between the tsar and the boyars. Finally, Kurbsky counts his own misfortunes and misfortunes that he had to endure from the king. He lists his military services to the fatherland, not appreciated by Grozny.
The disgraced boyar declares that the tsar will not see him until the day of judgment, and "this scripture is soaked with tears" he orders to put it with him in a coffin in order to present it to a formidable and just heavenly judge.
The message, as the legend says, was handed to the tsar by Kurbsky's faithful servant Vasily Shibanov on the Red Porch. The enraged king pierced the leg of the messenger with his staff and, leaning on the staff, listened to the message of his enemy. Overcoming the pain, Shibanov did not even utter a groan and, thrown into the dungeon, died under torture, without giving any evidence.
The message of Kurbsky excited and wounded the heart of John. His answer clearly reveals the complex and contradictory nature of the outstanding personality of the king. Terrible's message reveals a remarkable mind, broad education, erudition, and at the same time a proud and embittered, restless soul. He addresses his answer not only to Kurbsky, but also to "to the whole Russian kingdom": for, speaking against Kurbsky, the tsar opposed all "Crusaders". This determined, on the one hand, the accusatory pathos of Grozny's message, directed against the traitorous boyars, and, on the other hand, the pathos of asserting, substantiating and defending autocratic power.
Grozny appears as a politician, a statesman, and his speech is initially restrained and official. He begins his answer to Kurbsky by proving the legitimacy of his sovereign power, inherited from his glorious ancestors: Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Vladimir Monomakh, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, grandfather Ivan Vasilyevich and father Vasily. “As if we were born in the kingdom, so we will grow up and reign by God’s command, and take our parents with our blessing, and not someone else’s admiration,”- John proudly declares, rejecting Kurbsky's accusation of illegal use of his power. With references to "scripture", quoting whole passages from memory, Grozny proves that the power of the tsar is consecrated by God himself, and anyone who opposes his power opposes God. Iosiflyansky's ideas of the divine origin of royal power were firmly assimilated by the tsar, and, relying on them, he qualifies Kurbsky's act as treason, apostasy, a crime against his sovereign, and therefore against God. "Ridiculous Glory" acquired, according to the tsar, Kurbsky, who "cross-kissing with a dog's treacherous custom" and thus lost his soul. The tsar sets as an example to the traitorous boyar the selfless devotion of his serf Vasily Shibanov, who was martyred for his master. Such devotion leads Grozny into admiration, and he demands such devotion from all his subjects - his lackeys. "And I am free to pay my lackeys, and I am free to execute," he says.
Terrible is irritated by Kurbsky's venomous reproaches, the harsh accusatory pathos of his epistles, and the tone of the tsar's message becomes passionate. He addresses ironic questions to the traitor: " What, then, dog, are you writing and getting sick, having committed such malice? Why would your advice be like that, more stinky than feces?"
With malicious bewilderment, Grozny writes that he did not destroy "strong in Israel" and doesn't know "who is the strongest in Israel." He does not agree with the assessment given to the boyars by Kurbsky: they do not constitute the strength and glory of the state.
To make the answer more weighty, Grozny introduces a number of autobiographical moments. He recalls how in the years of infancy many "well-wishers" his father, how the treasury of his mother, father and grandfather was plundered by the boyars, the yards and villages were taken away from his uncles, how princes Vasily and Ivan Shuisky reigned, brutally cracking down on their opponents. "But we, with our only-begotten brother, who sanctified George, are fed like foreigners or like the most wretched child,"- Ivan recalls bitterly. A picture of a bleak orphan childhood resurrects in his memory. “For us, in the youth of childhood, it’s playing, and Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky sits on a bench, leaning on his elbow, putting his foot on our father’s bed; he didn’t bow to us, not only as a parent, but as a sovereign, as if a slave, he found a lower beginning” . And, turning to his opponent, Ivan bitterly asks: “How can such poor sufferings be eliminated, many suffering even in youth”?
He recalls the Terrible and grandiose Moscow fire of 1547, when traitorous boyars, calling themselves martyrs, spread a rumor that Anna Glinskaya had burned the city with her sorcery, and the rebellious Muscovites killed Yuri Glinsky in the church and were incited not even to kill the tsar himself.
No, Grozny concludes, the boyars are not the good-natured tsar, but inhuman traitor dogs, who in everything "opposite eliminate" to his sovereign. Therefore, Grozny believes, there is nothing to brag about "there are also other dogs and traitors with abusive courage." Parrying off his opponent's accusation, Grozny resorts to quoting Kurbsky's message, playing ironically on these quotations. For example: “But you write your face, do not show us until the day of the terrible judgment of God. Who, then, will desire to see such an Ephopian face?”
So, not embarrassed in terms, resorting to a direct mockery of the enemy, Grozny pours out his soul in the message. He does not reckon with the rules of rhetoric and piitika. His writing style reveals a close connection with the "Josephite" literary school. Terrible's speech is impetuous, agitated, it is saturated with living concrete everyday images, sprinkled with witticisms and caustic irony. This style of Ivan the Terrible's epistle, which violated the canonical rules, became the object of Kurbsky's constant ridicule. In his "short answer" Kurbsky does not try to refute the opponent. He stubbornly insists on the correctness of his accusations brought against the king in the first message, rejects "impure and biting" "verbs of the king", considers himself a man "much offended and expelled without truth", and trust in God's judgment.
Learner "Volga elders", brought up in a strict book literary tradition, Kurbsky cannot accept the style "broadcast and noisy" Grozny's messages. He believes that the style of this message is not only unworthy of a king, so great and famous in the universe, but also a poor, simple warrior. Kurbsky reproaches Grozny for his inability to quote: in the message of the tsar "many sacred words were seized, and those with much fury and ferocity ... exceedingly exceedingly redundant and shrill, whole books and whole paremias, and messages."
Another reproach that Kurbsky throws at Grozny is a mixture of bookish and colloquial styles: "Here about beds, about body warmers, and countless other, truly, as if frantic women's fables; and so barbaric, as if not only by a scientist and a skilled husband, but also by a simple and child with surprise and laughter ..."
Reproaching the king, Kurbsky believes that it is a shame to send such a message to a foreign land.
Kurbsky's rejection of Ivan the Terrible's literary manner was reflected in the difference in principles of approach to the word, to life.
After Kurbsky's answer, correspondence ceased for 13 years and was resumed by Grozny in 1577, when Russian troops took the Livonian city of Volmar, behind whose walls Kurbsky was hiding.
In a message written in Wolmar, Grozny lists the misfortunes and hardships that he had to endure from the boyars during the reign of the "chosen council" (Adashev and Sylvester). "What do I care about you, I can't write it all down!"- he exclaims and asks with pain: “And why did you separate me from my wife? Sorrowful questions, counting the crimes of the boyars, are replaced by an ironic mockery of the fugitive.
In response to this message, Kurbsky mainly justified himself by stuffing his defensive speech with quotations from "Holy Scripture."
A strong blow that Kurbsky inflicted on his enemy was the historical pamphlet "The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow" of 1573. Here Kurbsky brings to the fore the moral argument: the cause of all evils and troubles is the personal qualities of the tsar. Kurbsky succeeded in fixing for a long time in history the view of Ivan the Terrible as a representative of "long since the bloody city", who, having begun his reign so brilliantly, in his second period was possessed by excessive malice and ferocity, and stained his hands in the blood of innocent victims.
Grozny's contradictory, complex, morbid character, his outstanding writing talent is found not only in his polemical letters to Kurbsky, but also in a number of other letters. Terrible's message to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. An interesting message from Grozny to Abbot of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery Kozma (written around 1573) regarding the violation of the monastery charter by the boyars Sheremetev, Khabarov, and Sobakin exiled there by the Terrible.
The message is permeated with caustic irony, growing into sarcasm, in relation to the disgraced boyars who are in the monastery "they introduced their voluptuous statutes." A vivid satirical picture of monastic life comes to life: “And now Sheremetev is sitting in your cell like a tsar, and Khabarov comes to him, and other blacks eat and drink that in the world, and Sheremetev, the bride from the wedding, the bride from the homeland, sends beds, gingerbread and other spicy composite vegetables, and behind the monastery is a courtyard, and on it are all sorts of annual supplies ... "
Based on this, Grozny makes a broad generalization that "now the boyars are all over the monastery ... with their voluptuousness" violated the strict monastic rule. And in the monastery there should not be social inequality: "Is it another way of salvation, that the boyar of the boyars will not cut the hair of the boyars in black, and the serf will not get rid of the servility?"
Terrible also falls upon the monks, who are unable to curb the willful boyars. The king's irony is enhanced by the self-abasement with which Grozny begins his message: “Alas for me, a sinner! Woe to me, a cursed one! Oh, to me, a stinking dog! And further, the more Grozny speaks of his respect for the Kirillov Monastery, the more caustic his reproaches sound. He shames the brethren for allowing the rule to be violated by the boyars, and thus it is not known, writes the tsar, who had their hair cut by whom, whether the boyars were monks or monks were boyars. "You are not their teachers and legislators, but they are yours." FROM sarcastically Grozny writes: “Yes, Sheremetev’s charter is good, keep him, and Kirilov’s charter is not good, leave him. Yes, today that boyar will introduce that passion, and sometimes he will introduce another weakness, but gradually, gradually, all the everyday life of the monastery serf will defecate, and there will be ecu worldly customs” .
Terrible ends the message with an angry, irritable appeal, forbidding the monks to bother him with such questions: "And I have nothing to write about Khabarov: as he wants, he is so foolish ... But in advance, if only about Sheremetev and other such nonsense, we would not be bothered ..." As D.S. Likhachev notes, "Message to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery" is a free improvisation, at first scholarly, and then passionate, turning into an accusatory speech, written with ardent conviction that one is right.
The originality of Grozny's personality, the peculiarities of his writing style are also manifested in his relationship with one of the guardsmen close to him, Vasily Gryazny, to whom the tsar sent his message in 1574.
Sent by the tsar to the Russian-Crimean border as a governor, Vasily Gryaznoy was captured by the Crimeans. In his letter to the tsar (the letter has not been preserved), Gryaznov outlined the conditions under which the Crimean Khan agreed to release "great man" Russian sovereign: either send a large ransom, or exchange it for the Crimean commander Divey, captured by the Russians.
Turning to "Vasyushka", Grozny ironically writes that Gryaznoy shouldn't have "without the path of the middle of the Crimean uluses to visit", and if "carried – and but it was not on the bypass sleep. "" You expected that you came to the detour with dogs for hares - the agios of the Crimeans tied you into a torok. Ali, you looked forward to what it is like in the Crimea, how do I stand behind the temptation of jokes? ironic king. For the king, the oprichnik is not " great person", a "sufferer", that was "We're getting close." For his entourage, he agrees to give a ransom of no more than 2 thousand, and not 100 thousand, as Gryaznoy asks, because "Besides, sovereigns do not give such paybacks to anyone." The tsar does not have a high opinion of the military talent of the guardsman and opposes him to the Crimean Divey: "You, - Grozny turns to Dirty, - having come out of the crowd, you won’t bring the Tatars so much, you won’t catch how many Divey Kristyan shade. The tsar reproaches the oprichnik that he promised the khan a ransom and exchange "uncomfortable". Terrible's message was written in the form of a casual conversation and does not at all testify to the tsar's positive assessment of his guardsmen.
The restlessness of the soul of a stern lord, sometimes experiencing remorse, fearing approaching death, reflects the penitential canon he created to the Terrible Angel.
"A man of wonderful reasoning, in the science of book teaching, is pleased and eloquently talkative," so the next descendants characterized Grozny. All his writings are permeated by the deep, subtle and mocking mind of a Russian man, an outstanding statesman and politician, and at the same time a tyrant who rules his own. "self-willedness". Lively observation, indefatigable temperament, good nature and cruelty, a sly ingenuous grin and caustic irony, sharpness and irascibility - these are the traits of Grozny's character that are vividly reflected in his writings.
Ignoring book canons and traditions, boldly violating them, he introduces into his messages specific sketches snatched from reality. To convey the whole complex range of feelings that own him, Grozny makes extensive use of vernacular, colloquial everyday intonations and even swear words. This allows Grozny to become an unsurpassed master of the "biting" style for his time, which strikes the enemy without a miss.
The Epistles of the Terrible are clear evidence of the beginning of the destruction of the strict system of the bookish literary style, which was created through the efforts of the scribes of the 14th-16th centuries, and the emergence of an individual style. True, only the tsar, the autocrat of all Russia, could then "declare" his individuality in the field of style. Realizing his high position, he could boldly violate the established stylistic norms and play the role of either a wise philosopher, or a humble servant of God, or a cruel and inexorable ruler, "free" to execute or pardon his "serfs" - subjects.
In journalism of the 16th century. not only the voices of defenders of the interests of various groups of the ruling class were heard. At this time, the first ideologists of the democratic strata of Russian society also appeared. The boyar's son Matvey Bashkin opposes slavery, proving the illegality of slavery with the authority of "scripture". "Christ condemns all the brethren, he said, and we have some on others and bondage, on others - fugitives, and on others - elegant, and on others full. The fugitive serf Theodosius Kosoy went even further than Bashkin, who, rejecting church dogmas (the trinity of the deity, the veneration of temples and icons, the church hierarchy), opposed any exploitation, wars and civil authorities, a passionate champion of human equality.
The denunciation of the "heresy" of Theodosius Kosoy was devoted to two journalistic works of Zinovy \u200b\u200bOtensky - "Truth Testimony" and "Message verbose".
Convened in 1554, the church council condemned the "heresies" of Matvey Bashkin and Theodosius Kosoy, as well as the former abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Elder Artemy, a zealous "non-possessor" associated with Maxim the Greek and Matvey Bashkin. They were sentenced to life imprisonment in monasteries. However, Artemy and Theodosius Kosy managed to escape to Lithuania.
Thus, in the journalism of the XVI century. reflected the controversy on the cardinal political problems of its time, related to the nature of public administration, the place and role in this administration of the tsar, the boyars, the service nobility and monasticism. In journalism, for the first time, the question of the position of the Russian peasant was raised and voices were heard condemning slavery. Publicists associated political problems with moral, philosophical and aesthetic ones. Proving their case, refuting the arguments of their opponents, they did not limit themselves to referring to the authority of "scripture", but relied on logic, appealed to reason, using the facts of reality and personal life.
A distinctive feature of journalism of the XVI century. - its genre diversity: polemical "word", "punishment", "reply word", conversation, petition, journalistic pamphlet, epistole.
Journalism of the 16th century played an important role in the formation of the Russian literary language and Russian literature. Its traditions received a response in the historical stories of the beginning of the 17th century, in the polemical messages-conversations of Avvakum.
- The modern American historian Edward Keenan dates Kurbsky's correspondence with Grozny to the first third of the 17th century. and considers Prince Semyon Ivanovich Shakhovsky to be its "creator". By the 17th century, he also refers the "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow", created by an unknown author, who wrote under the name of Kurbsky.
- Cm.: Likhachev D.S. Ivan the Terrible as a Writer // Messages of Ivan the Terrible. M.; L., 1951.
- Cm.: Likhachev D.S. Canon and prayer to the Terrible Angel governor Parthenius the Ugly (Ivan (Rose) // Likhachev D.S. Studies in ancient Russian literature. L., 1986. S. 361–377.
Three messages of the prominent Russian commander, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who fled from the wrath of the formidable Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, to the Polish king Sigismund II Augustus, and two answers to the first of them by Ivan IV have long been the objects of research by scientists different countries and various humanities. Historians looked for facts of Russian reality in them in the 60-70s of the 16th century, saw in the messages of two historical figures of the 16th century entire political programs of the growing autocracy and the large boyars opposed to it. Philologists emphasized the high journalistic sound of the letters, the use in them of various literary sources, among which ancient ones occupied a considerable place.
The captured servant of Andrei Kurbsky, Vasily Shibanov, informs Ivan the Terrible about Kurbsky's "changing deeds". (Miniature from the Synodal List of the Illuminated Code of the 16th century, stored in the Department of Manuscripts of the State Historical Museum.)
The first message of Ivan the Terrible to Kurbsky (Pogodinsky list).
And two years ago, a book appeared that called into question all the observations and conclusions related to the correspondence between Kurbsky and Grozny. It was written by an American specialist in Russian history, Professor Edward L. Keenan. The content of the book reflects its title: “The Apocrypha of Kurbsky and the Terrible. History of compilation in the 17th century. "correspondence" attributed to Prince Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV.
The book caused a sensation. What was previously mistaken for a monument of the 16th century now turned out to be a fake, an invention of a talented hoaxer of the 17th century. Letters of Constantine of the Roman Church. And Harvard University in the USA awarded E. Keenan the T. Wilson Prize of the first degree.
On what did the American historian build his conclusions? The central point in the study of E. Keenan was his assertion of the falsity of the first of the messages of Prince Kurbsky. The starting point was chosen by E. Keenan not by chance. After all, if the first monument is fake - namely, it gave rise to correspondence - then all other monuments must be recognized as fake. From the point of view of logic, such a premise is impeccable.
E. Keenan managed to find that two rare sources were cited in the first letter of Kurbsky: the so-called "Lament" of the monk Isaiah and his own "Complaint". Lamentations was written in 1566. As for Kurbsky's first message to Tsar Ivan, it has no date. However, from the content of the letter it is clear that it was compiled in Wolmar, the town of Livonia, where he fled in 1564, betraying his own, Prince Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible's reply was written on July 5, 1564, which means that Kurbsky turned to the tsar in the first half of 1564 . How, then, could he have used the writings of Isaiah, written in 1566, in his message to the king? Hence the conclusion of Keenan about the unreliability of the message, its obviously later origin.
E. Keenan drew attention to another circumstance. There are no manuscripts of the 16th century containing the correspondence of the king with his former governor. Correspondence was preserved only in collections of the 17th century - in later lists. E. Keenan's colleague Daniel C. Woo once again and quite carefully checked the time of writing these collections. Dating was carried out visually by filigree - paper watermarks, which were put by paper manufacturers or paper craftsmen on their products. It turned out that the earliest collections containing the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky date back to the 20s of the 17th century. Even the oldest collection from the collection of the Russian historian M.P. Pogodin (No. 1567), which used to be attributed to the 10s of the 17th century, turned out to be 10 years younger.
In the light of evidence of the late origin of Kurbsky's first epistle, the absence of early lists of correspondence became symptomatic. He also denounced the forgery. As for the genre of forgery, E. Keenan drew attention to parallels, such Russian monuments of "documentary fiction" of the 17th century as "The Correspondence of Grozny with the Turkish Sultan", "The Tale of Two Embassies", etc., the fiction of which in science generally accepted. According to E. Keenan, the creator of the correspondence between Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible was a rather talented poet of the 17th century, Prince S.I. and everything else. Such, apart from a number of inaccuracies, some exaggerations and errors in the study, is the main concept of the American historian.
But is she flawless in her being? Any exposure of a forgery, even three hundred years ago, requires extraordinarily careful, painstaking work. Every fact must be weighed, every step in the research thought out, every conclusion checked and rechecked. The evidence of a historian in this kind of work should be akin to the calculations of a theorist dealing with a rocket. The slightest mistake in the calculation - and the rocket will not take off or deviate from the intended trajectory. A slight omission in the textual analysis of the historian - and his study from scientific work will turn into a fascinating, but a novel on a textual plot.
The verification of E. Keenan's evidence was proposed by the Soviet researcher R. G. Skrynnikov. Naturally, the starting point of all the conclusions of the American professor aroused the greatest interest. Comparing once again the first message of Kurbsky with the writings of the monk Isaiah, R. G. Skrynnikov discovered curious things. First of all, it turned out that the degrees of textual similarity between the "Lament" and the epistle, between the "Complaint" and the epistle are different. If in the “Complaint” and the message one can find several common, rather significant pieces of text, which clearly indicates their textual proximity, then “Lament” and the message are brought together by a single phrase of 12 words, moreover, broken in both monuments by other, dissimilar words. The phrase itself is religious and didactic content. Expressions like this phrase are found in other works. It becomes obvious that the American scientist has found a phrase-stereotype, a common place, the presence of which in different works does not at all mean that they are textologically dependent on each other. Therefore, one cannot speak of the influence of Lament on Kurbsky's first epistle. But the "Complaint" of Isaiah was used by Kurbsky quite widely. But when was it written?
Unlike Lament, which is accurately dated 1566, Complaint has no date. E. Keenan considered that "Complaint" was written in the same year as "Lament". R. G. Skrynnikov turned to the handwritten collection where the writings of the monk Isaiah were placed.
This monk arrived in Russia from the Lithuanian city of Kamenetz-Podolsk. He arrived in 1561 together with the Greek Metropolitan Joasaph. And immediately wrote a political denunciation against Joasaph. But the informer got the first whip. The word of the metropolitan turned out to be more weighty, and the Kamenets-Podolsk monk was sent to prison, first in Vologda, and then in Rostov the Great. Isaiah spent 20 years in prison. There he wrote his letters. The collection has preserved 5 works of Isaiah: "Message" of 1567, "Lament" of 1566, "Complaint", "Explanation" and "Prediction". R. G. Skrynnikov drew attention to the fact that the last three works have a common heading in the manuscript (that is, the heading before “Complaint”), and the traditional ending “Amen” ends only with “Prediction”, in other words, and it is common .
A sign was also found, indicating that the "Explanation" is a direct continuation of the "Complaint". It became obvious that the "Complaint" is only part of a single message of Isaiah, which includes three parts - the last three of his works in the collection. The question of when the Complaint was written became the question of when the whole epistle was written. R. G. Skrynnikov solved this problem in the following way.
Another monument has been preserved in the collection - “The Leaf”, an unnamed letter from a certain well-wisher to the imprisoned Isaiah. Anonymous informed Isaiah about the secret arrival of a trusted person to the prisoner, to whom Isaiah was to tell about his misadventures. The monk's tripartite epistle contains such a story. Moreover, it reveals a textual connection with Liszt. The “List” itself was written in July 1562, when hostilities were in full swing on the Russian-Lithuanian border. Liszt was written by a foreigner, a subject of Poland or Lithuania, and delivered to Vologda by some conspiratorial person. Isaiah had to hurry with the answer. From this it is easy to deduce the date of his message - shortly after July 1562. But if the message of Isaiah (and as part of it - "Complaint") was written in 1562, then there is nothing surprising in the fact that Kurbsky used it in his essay of 1564.
This is how the main contradiction is resolved in the explanation of the textual similarity discovered by E. Keenan between the "Complaint" of Isaiah and the first epistle of Kurbsky. The main argument of the American historian about the falsification of the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky is no longer valid.
There are other data that contradict E. Keenan's concept. Prince Kurbsky was closely associated with the Pskov-Pechora Monastery. Two of his letters to the elder of this monastery, Vasyan, have been preserved, written even before the prince's flight to Wolmar. When Kurbsky ended up in Wolmar, he sent Vasyan a new letter, the third in a row. This letter is placed in the same manuscripts as Kurbsky's correspondence with Grozny. And it turns out that Kurbsky's Wolmar writings retain the same stylistic manner as his earlier letters to the Pskov-Pechora Monastery. This speaks in favor of the authorship of Kurbsky and the authenticity of the works disputed by him.
True, one could also declare the first two messages of Kurbsky to Vasyan as later falsifications. E. Keenan does not avoid such temptation. However, as R. G. Skrynnikov found out, the most ancient collection, where the first two letters of Kurbsky to the Pskov-Pechora Monastery were preserved, dates back to the 90s of the 16th century, and it can no longer be dragged into the 20s of the 17th century, when Prince S. I. Shakhovskoy amused himself with his pen.
Finally, in the “Inventory of the Tsar’s Archive”, compiled in the 60-70s of the 16th century, box 191 was noted, in which papers were kept concerning Prince Kurbsky, who had taken refuge with the Polish king, and among these papers was mentioned the letter of “Kurbsky ..., and the sovereign's charter." Consequently, A. M. Kurbsky wrote to Tsar Ivan.
The text of their correspondence has not come down to us in the original or early copies. And although the collections with the messages of Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible date back to the 17th-18th centuries, there is nothing paradoxical in this fact itself, just as there is nothing surprising in the fact that the most numerous works of world ancient literature, literature and journalism of the Middle Ages and even our days are known to us only from later copies.
R. G. Skrynnikov. Is the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky false! "Questions of History" No. 6, 1973.
CORRESPONDENCE OF ANDREY KURBSKY WITH IVAN THE TERRIBLE
THE FIRST MESSAGE OF KURBSKY TO IVAN THE TERRIBLE
Letter of Kurbsky to the Tsar Sovereign from Lithuania
To the Tsar, glorified from God, moreover, in Orthodoxy, I have appeared most brightly, now I have found sin for the sake of our resisters. Understand and understand, the conscience is a leper's property, but Jacob is not found in godless tongues. And more than this, do not let my tongue speak about everything in a row, but persecution for the sake of the most bitter from your power and from many sorrows of the heart I will try to utter a little, O king.
Why, the king, beat the mighty in Israel, and the governor from God given to you on your enemies, terminated you with various deaths, and you shed their victorious holy blood in the churches of God, and you stained the church Prague with martyr blood, and on your well-meaning and soul for those who believe unheard-of torment from the ages, and death and persecution, did you intend, betraying and sorcery and other unsimilar things, cursing the Orthodox and trying with zeal to turn the light into darkness and bitterly call sweet? What did they do wrong before you and how did the Christian representatives anger you? Have not the proud kingdoms been ruined and handed over to you in everything they have created, while our forefathers were at work before? Have not the cities of Germany been fortified by the diligence of their minds from God given to you bysh? Did you reward us, the poor, by ruining us all? Ali you are immortal, imagining the king, and deceived into insatiable heresy, as if you didn’t even appear to the unwashed vessel, the hope of the Christians, God-given Jesus, who wants to judge the universe in truth, moreover, not being humbled by the proud persecutor and wanting to torture them to the point of their transgression, as if words are spoken. He is my Christ, seated on the throne, the Cherubim at the right hand of Majesty in the highest, the judge between you and me.
What evil and persecution I have not suffered from you! And what misfortunes and misfortunes did not move me! And what lies and betrayals did not you raise against me! And all the various misfortunes that happened to me from you in a row, for a multitude of them, I can’t utter, because my soul is still embraced by grief. But together the whole river is of course: they were deprived of everything and were driven away from the land of God by you. And you rewarded me with an evil reward for good and for my love - unreconciled hatred. And my blood, like water shed for you, cries out against you to my God. God - a spectator to the hearts - diligently thought in my mind and put my conscience as a witness, and claims, and zreh, mentally turned, and I didn’t know myself, and I didn’t sin in anything before you. Before your army, I walked and walked and brought no dishonor to you, but perhaps the victories were bright with the help of the Lord’s aggel to your glory, and never turned your regiments with a ridge to someone else’s, but more than overcoming, glorious to praise you created. And this is not in a single year, not in two, but in contented years, I have labored with many sweats and patience, as if it were not enough to give birth to me, and I did not know my wife, and my fatherland is sludge, but always in your distant cities against your enemies, take up arms and having endured natural illnesses, my Lord Jesus Christ is a witness to them, moreover, I have been quickened by wounds from barbarian hands and various battles, and I already have my whole body crushed by wounds. But to you, the king, all this is for nothing.
But I wanted to say all my military deeds in a row, I did them for your praise, but for this I did not say, for God knows only better. He, God, is the giver of all this, and not only this, but also for a cup of icy water. And again, to the king, I will say to him: You will no longer see, I think, my face until the days of the Last Judgment. And do not think me silent about this; until the days of the death of my belly, I will ceaselessly cry with tears at thee, the infinite Trinity, in which I believe, and I call on the help of the lord of the cherubic mother, my hope and intercessor, the mistress of the Mother of God and all the saints, God's chosen ones, and my sovereign, Prince Fyodor Rostislavich.
Do not think, king, nor think of us with superstitious thoughts, like those who have already died and beaten from you innocently, and imprisoned, and driven away without truth. Do not rejoice in this, as if boasting of overcoming the lean: cut from you, standing at the throne of the Lord, asking for vengeance on you, imprisoned and driven away from you demons of truth from earth to God, we cry out day and night against you! Even more boasting in darkness in your pride in this temporary, fleeting age, plotting painful vessels on the Christian family, moreover scolding and trampling on the Aggel image, and coordinating the flattering and comrade of demonic meals, agreeing to your boyars, the destroyer of your soul and body, like your children more than crown priests act. And about this even to this day. And this writing, soaked in tears, I will command you to put it in the coffin with you, coming with you to the judgment of my God Jesus. Amen.
It was written in the city of Volmer of my sovereign August Zhigimont the king, from whom I hoped to be granted many blessings and consoled from all my sorrows, by the mercy of his sovereign, more than helping God.
Heard from scriptures who wants from the devil to be allowed to be the destroyer of the Christian race, from the fornication of the God-fighting Antichrist, and now I have seen the synclit, everyone knows that he was born from adultery, and even today whispers false to the king in the ears and pours Christian blood, like water, and already killed the strong in Israel, as the deed of the Antichrist is not suitable for you to be such an accomplice, O king! In the law of the Lord, in the first it is written: “Moabite, and ammonite, and bastards up to ten generations do not enter the church of God,” and so on.
THE FIRST MESSAGE OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE TO KURBSKY
The pious Great Sovereign, the Tsar and Grand Duke John Vasilievich of All Russia, a message to all his Great Russia states against the cross-criminals, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky and his comrades about their treason
Our God is the Trinity, who was before all time and now exists, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, having neither beginning nor end, by which we live and move, by whose name kings are glorified and rulers write the truth. Our God Jesus Christ gave the only-begotten son of God the victorious and forever invincible banner - the honest cross to the first of the pious Tsar Constantine and all Orthodox tsars and guardians of Orthodoxy. And after the will of Providence was fulfilled everywhere and the divine servants of the word of God, like eagles, flew around the whole universe, a spark of piety reached the Russian kingdom. The autocracy of the Russian Tsardom, filled with this true Orthodoxy, began by God’s will from the Grand Duke Vladimir, who enlightened the Russian land with holy baptism, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh, who received a high honor from the Greeks, and from the brave and great sovereign Alexander Nevsky, who won a great victory over the godless Germans, and from the praiseworthy great sovereign Dmitry, who won a victory over the godless Hagarians beyond the Don, up to the avenger of the iniquity of our grandfather, the Grand Duke Ivan, and to the acquirer of the original ancestral lands, the blessed memory of the father of our great sovereign Vasily, and to us, the humble scepter-holders of Russia kingdoms. But we praise God for his immeasurable mercy sent down to us, that until now he has not allowed our right hand to be stained with the blood of fellow tribesmen, for we did not want to take away the kingdom from anyone, but by God's will and with the blessing of our forefathers and parents, we were born in the kingdom So they were brought up, and matured, and by God's command they reigned, and they took what belongs to us with the blessing of their forefathers and parents, but they did not desire someone else's. This is a truly Orthodox Christian autocracy, wielding a lot of power, a command and our Christian humble response to the former boyar, adviser, and governor, who was formerly true Orthodox Christianity and our autocracy, now an apostate from the honest and life-giving cross of the Lord and the destroyer of Christians, and who joined the enemies Christianity, which departed from the worship of divine icons, and trampled on all divine institutions, and ruined the holy temples, desecrated and trampled on sacred vessels and images, like Isaurus, the Gnostic and the Armenian, who united them all in himself - Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who treacherously wished to become the Prince of Yaroslavl, - let it be known. Why, O prince, if you think yourself pious, did you reject your only begotten soul? What will you replace it with on the Day of Judgment? Even if you gain the whole world, death will still kidnap you in the end ...
You, for the sake of the body, destroyed the soul, despised the imperishable glory for the sake of the fleeting one, and, being furious with a person, rebelled against God. Understand, unfortunate one, from what height into what abyss you have fallen in body and soul! The prophetic words came true on you: "Whoever thinks that he has will lose everything." Is your piety in that you ruined yourself because of your selfishness, and not for the sake of God? Those who are close to you and capable of reflection can guess that there is an evil poison in you: you did not run away from death, but for the sake of glory in this short-term and fleeting life and for wealth. If, according to you, you are righteous and pious, then why were you afraid to die innocently, for this is not death, but retribution? In the end, you will die anyway. If you were afraid. a death sentence on libel, believing the villainous lies of your friends, the servants of Satan, then this is your obvious treasonous intent, as it happened in the past, and it is now. Why did you despise the words of the Apostle Paul, who said: “Let every soul obey the ruler who has authority; there is no power except from God: whoever opposes authority opposes God's command." Look at it and think about it: whoever opposes power opposes God; and whoever opposes God is called an apostate, and this is the worst of sins. But this is said about any power, even about power obtained at the cost of blood and wars. Think about what has been said, because we did not obtain the kingdom by violence, all the more so, whoever opposes such power - opposes God! The same apostle Paul says (and you did not heed these words): “Slaves! Obey your masters, working for them not only in front of them, as people-pleasers, but as servants of God, obey not only the good, but also the evil, not only out of fear, but also out of conscience. But this is the will of the Lord, if you have to suffer while doing good.