The people have kept the bright memory of Ivan Vasilievich as the tsar-father, the defender of Light Russia both from external enemies and from the tyranny of the boyars-covetous people. Ivan Vasilyevich acquired in the people's memory the features of a formidable and just tsar, the protector of ordinary people.
The image of the formidable Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich is widely represented in folk art - songs and fairy tales. Of the Russian tsars, only Peter I can compare with the Terrible in terms of popular attention. They sang about Grozny in historical songs (dedicated to specific historical subjects of the past), in Cossack, schismatic and simply in songs. Historical songs of the 16th century are dedicated exclusively to the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Songs about the capture of Kazan were especially popular.
It is worth noting that the people knew the strengths and weaknesses of the character of their king. In folk songs, the image of Ivan Vasilyevich is by no means ideal, but close to the real image. The tsar is shown to be quick-tempered, suspicious, quick to punish, but also easy-going, fair, ready to admit that he is wrong. In addition, the people deeply revered the mind of Ivan Vasilyevich:
“I’ll tell you the old
About the tsar was about Ivan about Vasilyevich.
Already he, our white king, he was cunning, a muder, He is cunning and wise, there is no wiser in his light”.
By the way, two sons of Ivan IV, Tsar Fyodor and Martyr Dmitry, are canonized. Grozny himself was revered among the people as a venerated saint. Several icons with the image of Ivan Vasilyevich, where he is presented with a halo, have even survived to our time. In 1621, the feast day “the acquisition of the body of Tsar John” was established (June 10, according to the Julian calendar), and in the surviving saints of the Koryazhemsky monastery, Ivan Vasilyevich is mentioned with the rank of great martyr. That is, then the church confirmed the fact of the murder of the king.
Patriarch Nikon tried to suppress the official veneration of Tsar Ivan, who organized a schism in the church and wanted to put his power above the tsar. However, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, despite Nikon's efforts, respected Tsar Ivan IV. He put Tsar Ivan and Peter I highly, who considered himself his follower and said: “This sovereign is my predecessor and example. I have always taken him as a model in prudence and courage, but I could not yet equal him. The memory of Ivan the Terrible was honored by Catherine the Great and defended him from attacks.
V. M. Vasnetsov. Tsar Ivan the Terrible
West against Grozny
If the people and great statesmen, although they knew about the shortcomings of the great king, but respected him, then many representatives of the nobility, whom he did not allow to roam at one time, ended their ambitions and appetites, and their descendants did not forget their "grievances." This was reflected in several unofficial chronicles, as well as in a murky wave of foreign "memories" that were left by some mercenaries who served in Russia, including in the oprichnina.
Among the offended, "the first Russian dissident", Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who at the height of the Livonian War went over to the side of the enemy, became the "Vlasov" of that time. The prince received large land plots from the Polish government for his betrayal, and joined the information war against the Russian kingdom. With the participation of Kurbsky, the detachments of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania repeatedly, since.he knew perfectly well the defense system of the western borders, bypassing the outposts, plundering Russian lands with impunity, and ambushing Russian troops.
The appearance of Kurbsky's letters to the tsar is quite understandable. First, the prince wanted to justify himself, to forestall the accusation of treason, in the style of "the fool himself." Secondly, the prince was used to fight Russia. His work became part of an extensive program of Western information warfare, which began not in the 20th century, but much earlier. At this time, the Russian kingdom and personally Ivan the Terrible were actively sowed with mud, and Kurbsky's "works" became part of the systematic work on the "Russian question". After all, it is one thing when the propaganda materials are sent by Prince Radziwill, and another thing when they are written by the Russian prince, yesterday's ally of the tsar, a participant in the Kazan campaigns, at one time one of the people closest to Ivan Vasilyevich, a member of his "chosen council."
In the first message from Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible was called a "tyrant" who bathes in the blood of his subjects and destroys the "pillars" of the Russian state. This assessment of the personality of Ivan the Terrible prevails in the writings of Westerners up to the present time. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that by this time only three "pillars" have lost their lives - traitors Mikhail Repnin, Yuri Kashin, and their close relative and, apparently, accomplice Dmitry Ovchina-Obolensky.
Actually, the "message" was not intended for Ivan Vasilyevich, it was distributed among the gentry, in European courts, that is, to individuals and groups interested in weakening the Russian state. They also sent the Russian nobles to lure them to the side of the West, to choose "freedom" instead of "slavery" and "dictatorship." In general, this method has survived to the present: now it is designated by the term "European choice" ("European integration").
They say that in Russia there is an eternal "dictatorship", "totalitarianism", "imperial manners", "prison of peoples", "Great Russian chauvinism." And in Europe - "freedom", "human rights" and "tolerance". It is well known how the attempts of the Russian political "elite" (nobility) to follow the path of Europe end. Suffice it to recall how the “European choice” of the aristocracy, generals, liberal parties and intelligentsia ended in 1917 or Gorbachev and Yeltsin in 1985-1993. In particular, the collapse of the USSR and the "democratization" of Great Russia cost the Russian people and other indigenous peoples of Russian civilization more expensive than the direct invasion of Hitler's hordes.
Ivan Vasilievich, responding to the enemy's propaganda move, writes a response message. In fact, it was a whole book. We must not forget that the sovereign was one of the most educated people of that era and a good writer. Actually, it was also not an answer to the traitor. This message was also not meant for one person. Personal will be the second, shorter letter of the tsar, intended personally for Kurbsky, in it Ivan the Terrible will list the specific crimes of Kurbsky, Sylvester and Adashev, etc. The first message of the tsar was a classic counter-propaganda. It considered theses about "slavery", "freedoms", the principles of tsarist (autocratic) power, the essence of betrayal. For any person who approaches these historical sources impartially, the answer, who is right, is obvious - the tsar's letters are not only better and brighter written, but also more truthful, wiser.
Other contemporaries of Ivan Vasilyevich and his detractors are the Livonian nobles Johann Taube and Elert Kruse. They initially betrayed their homeland, during the Livonian War they were captured by the Russians and transferred to the tsarist service. They were not only accepted into the Russian service, but they were granted lands in Russia and Livonia, and later were accepted into the oprichnina. They served as secret agents of the king, negotiated with the Danish prince Magnus about the creation of a kingdom in Livonia headed by him and under the Russian protectorate. In 1570-1571. The Livonians took part in the campaign of the prince Magnus against Revel. After the failure of the campaign, they entered into secret relations with the Poles, received security guarantees. They raised a mutiny in Dorpat against the Russian authorities. At the end of 1571, after suppressing the rebellion, they fled to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. We entered the service of King Stephen Bathory. Thus, they were double traitors - first they betrayed Livonia, then Russia. They also took part in the information war against the Russian kingdom, one of their most famous works is the "Message" to Hetman Chodkevich in 1572, this is a kind of sketch of the internal history of the Russian state in the period 1564-1571. It is clear that their works are very tendentious. The Livonians tried in every possible way to denigrate Grozny in the eyes of Europe, from which they saw only blessings, diligently fulfilled the Polish order.
Another detractor of Russia and Ivan IV is the German adventurer, oprichnik Heinrich von Staden. He is the author of several works devoted to Russia in the era of Ivan the Terrible, which are known under the general title "Notes on Muscovy" ("The Country and the Rule of the Muscovites, Described by Heinrich von Staden"). Shtaden was in the Russian service for several years, then for offenses he was deprived of his estates and left the borders of the Russian state. In Europe, he visited Germany and Sweden, then showed up at the residence of the Palatine Georg Hans Weldenzsky. There the German adventurer presented his work, where he calls the Russian "infidels", and the tsar - "a terrible tyrant."
Staden also proposed a plan for the military occupation of "Muscovy", and it was discussed for several years during the embassies to the Grand Master of the German Order, Heinrich, to the Polish ruler Stefan Batory and to the Emperor Rudolf II. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire became interested in the project of "converting Muscovy to an imperial province." Stefan Batory also cherished plans to sever vast areas from the Russian land, including Pskov and Novgorod.
Staden wrote: “One of the emperor's brothers will govern the new imperial province of Russia. In the occupied territories, power should belong to the imperial commissars, whose main task will be to provide the German troops with everything they need at the expense of the population. For this, peasants and merchants must be assigned to each fortification - twenty or ten miles around - so that they pay salaries to military men and deliver everything they need …”It was proposed to make Russians prisoners, driving them to castles and cities. From there they can be taken to work, "… but not otherwise, as in iron shackles, filled with lead at their feet …". And further: “Stone German churches should be built all over the country, and Muscovites should be allowed to build wooden ones. They will soon rot and only Germanic stone ones will remain in Russia. So the change of religion will happen painlessly and naturally for Muscovites. When the Russian land … is taken, then the borders of the empire will converge with the borders of the Persian Shah … "Thus, plans to enslave Russians, destroy their language and faith were created in the West long before the XX century, and the plans of Hitler and his ideologists.
Another slanderer of Russia and Grozny is the German nobleman Albert Schlichting. He repeated the fate of Tauba and Kruse. He served as a mercenary in the service of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, after the fall of the Ozerishche fortress by the Russian army in 1564, was captured and taken to Moscow. He was noticed because he spoke many languages and Schlichting was hired as a servant and translator for the personal physician of Ivan IV Vasilyevich Arnold Lendzey. A few years later he returned to the Rzeczpospolita and conscientiously fulfilled a propaganda order - he became the author of the essay "News from Muscovy, reported by the nobleman Albert Schlichting about the life and tyranny of Tsar Ivan", and then "A short story about the character and cruel rule of the Moscow tyrant Vasilyevich."
Another author is the Italian nobleman Alessandro Guagnini. He himself was not in Russia, he served in the Polish troops, took part in the wars with the Russian state, was the military commandant of Vitebsk. The Italian became the author of several works, including "Descriptions of European Sarmatia", "Descriptions of the entire country subordinated to the Tsar of Muscovy …" His information about the Russian state was based on the data of defectors. Pavel Oderborn, a Pomeranian historian, theologian and pastor in Riga, was not in the Russian kingdom either. He was professionally engaged in information warfare. He wrote so many blatant lies that historians usually consider his work unreliable and do not use his "data".
It should also be noted that not all foreigners spoke negatively about Grozny. Their assessments clearly contradict the tendentious attacks on Ivan Vasilyevich. In particular, the ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Crimean Khanate, writer-ethnographer Michalon Litvin (author of the essay "On the customs of the Tatars, Lithuanians and Muscovites") highly appreciated the reign of Ivan the Terrible, setting him as an example for the Lithuanian authorities. He wrote: “He defends freedom not with a soft cloth, not with shiny gold, but with iron, his people are always in arms, fortresses are equipped with permanent garrisons, he does not look out for peace, he reflects strength by force, the temperance of the Tatars is opposed by the temperance of his people, sobriety - by sobriety, art - art. " The Englishmen Chancellor, Adams, Jenkinson (ambassador) who visited Russia more than once gave positive assessments to Ivan the Terrible. They also celebrated the love of the common people for him.
The Venetian ambassador Marco Foscarino, who belonged to one of the most ancient and glorious families of Venice, in the "Report on Muscovy" wrote about Grozny as an "incomparable sovereign", admired his "justice", "friendliness, humanity, diversity of his knowledge." He assigned the Russian tsar "one of the first places among the rulers" of his time. Other Italians also spoke positively about Ivan Vasilievich - among them the Italian merchant from Florence Giovanni Tedaldi. He was in the 1550s - early 1560s. made several trips to the Russian kingdom. Tedaldi has a positive view of Russia during the time of Grozny and has repeatedly criticized unfavorable reports about the tsar. The Venetian ambassador Lippomano in 1575, after the oprichnina, represented Ivan the Terrible as a righteous judge, highly values the tsar's justice, and does not report any "atrocities". The German prince Daniel von Buchau, who, as an ambassador from two German emperors, Maximilian II and Rudolf II, twice visited Moscow in 1576 and 1578, does not report any "horrors" either. His "Notes on Muscovy" are considered truthful by researchers. He noted the good organization and governance of Russia.
The following fact is also of interest: the Polish nobility twice (!), In 1572 and 1574. (after the oprichnina), they nominated Ivan Vasilyevich for the election of the Polish king. It is obvious that they would not offer the “bloody tyrant” who began to subject them to oppression and mass terror for the role of ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
The information war that the West waged against Russia during the Livonian War played an important role in creating the image of the “bloody murderer and tyrant of Grozny”. At that time, flying sheets appeared, containing several pages of large typed text, often accompanied by primitive woodcuts (the "yellow press" of those years). In the West, they actively formed the image of cruel, aggressive Russian barbarians, slavishly obedient to their tyrant tsar (the basis has been preserved to this day).
In 1558 Ivan IV Vasilievich started the Livonian War for Russia's access to the Baltic Sea. And in 1561 a leaflet appeared with the following heading: “Very disgusting, terrible, hitherto unheard of, true new news, what atrocities the Muscovites commit with captive Christians from Livonia, men and women, virgins and children, and what harm they do to them every day in their country …Along the way, it is shown what is the greater danger and need of the Livonian people. To all Christians, as a warning and improvement of their sinful life, it was written from Livonia and published. Nuremberg 1561 ". Thus, the myth of the "raped by the Russians of Germany" in 1945 is only a repetition of an earlier image.
Ivan the Terrible was compared to the pharaoh who persecuted the Jews, Nebuchadnezzar and Herod. He was identified as a tyrant. It was then that the word "tyrant" began to call all the rulers of Russia, in principle, who did not like the Westerners (that is, they defended the interests of Russia and its people). In the West, legends were launched about the murder of Ivan the Terrible's own son. Although this version has not been announced in any Russian sources. Everywhere, including the personal correspondence of Grozny, it is said about Ivan Ivanovich's rather long illness. The version of the murder was voiced by the papal Jesuit legate Antonio Possevino, who tried to persuade Ivan to an alliance with Rome, to subordinate the Orthodox Church to the Roman throne (based on the rules of the Florentine Cathedral), as well as Heinrich Staden, the Englishman Jerome Horsey and other foreigners who were not direct witnesses of the Tsarevich's death were. N. M. Karamzin and subsequent Russian historians wrote on this topic based on Western sources.
The Saxon Elector August I became the author of the famous maxim, the meaning of which was that the Russian danger was comparable only to the Turkish one. Ivan the Terrible was portrayed in the dress of the Turkish Sultan. They wrote about his harem of dozens of wives, and he allegedly killed those who were bored. Dozens of flying leaflets have been issued in the West. It is clear that all the Russians and their tsar are depicted there in the blackest colors. The first marching printing house in history under the leadership of Lapka (Lapchinsky) appears in the Polish army. Polish propaganda worked in several languages and in several directions throughout Europe. And she did it very effectively.
The basics of the information war, which was waged during the Livonian War against Russia, the Russians and Ivan the Terrible, survived for centuries. So, abroad, a new murky wave of "memories" appeared in the era of Peter I. Then Russia again cut a "window" to Europe, tried to recapture its ancient lands in the Baltic. In Europe, they immediately raised a new wave about the "Russian threat". And to reinforce this "threat" they pulled out the old slander about Ivan the Terrible, adding a few fresh ideas. At the end of the reign of Peter I in Germany, the book "Conversations in the Kingdom of the Dead" was published with pictures of Ivan the Terrible's executions of his enemies. There, by the way, for the first time the Russian sovereign is depicted in the form of a bear.
Allegory of the tyrannical rule of Ivan the Terrible (Germany. First half of the 18th century). Picture from the German weekly newspaper David Fassmann "Conversations in the kingdom of the dead"
The next peak of interest in the personality of Grozny in the West appeared suddenly during the Great French Revolution. At this time, the revolutionaries literally drowned France in blood. In just a few days of "popular terror" in Paris, 15 thousand people were torn to pieces by the crowd. In the country, thousands of people were guillotined, hanged, drowned in barges, beaten, shot with buckshot, etc. But the Westerners needed to cover up the horrors of "enlightened Europe" by the "terrible Russian tyrant tsar." Citizens of "free France" selflessly exterminated each other, but at the same time they were indignant at the cruelty of Ivan Vasilyevich!
From the West, this "fashion" has passed to Russia as well, entrenched in the pro-Western "elite" and intelligentsia. The first in Russia to tackle this topic was the freemason A. N. Radishchev. However, Catherine quickly "reassured" him. However, in the 19th century, the myth of the "bloody tyrant" became dominant in the Westernized "elite" and intelligentsia. N. M. Karamzin and subsequent liberal Russian historians, writers and publicists wrote on this topic, based on Western sources. They collectively formed such a "public opinion" that Ivan the Terrible, one of the brightest and greatest figures in the history of Russia, did not find a place in the epoch-making monument "Millennium of Russia" (1862).
Later, this negative assessment of Grozny continued to dominate. At the same time, the Russian aristocracy and the liberal intelligentsia were complete adherents of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Only under Tsar Alexander III, when a course was taken to strengthen patriotic values and fight against Russophobia, did they try to whitewash the image of the great ruler Ivan the Terrible. By the order of the emperor, the image of Ivan Vasilyevich in the Faceted Chamber was restored. A number of works have appeared that refute the libel of the liberals. In addition, Grozny received a positive assessment in the era of Stalin, another ascetic who challenged the West and created the No. 1 superpower.
Thus, Western historians of the 19th century (like Karamzin), and after them many researchers of the 20th century, accepted a group of Western sources as the truth of a slanderous, propagandistic nature, completely ignoring those works that described the era of Ivan the Terrible more truthfully. They have formed "public opinion" in Russia, in which the negative image of Ivan the Terrible prevails. Given that the cosmopolitan, pro-Western intelligentsia still controls the culture, public opinion and education in Russia, the first Russian tsar is a "demonic" figure. Or cautious assessments are given so as not to agitate this "swamp". They say that Ivan the Terrible is a "controversial figure." Though it is difficult to find in the history of Russia a person who would have done more for the state and the people than Grozny.
