The correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Prince Kurbsky is a unique monument of Russian medieval journalism. It is a valuable source of information about the socio-political structure of the Moscow state of the 16th century, about its ideology and culture. In addition, the letters reveal the character of Ivan IV, revealing his worldview and psychological structure - extremely important factors for studying the history of autocratic rule. An analysis of the correspondence between Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible will be presented to your attention further.
Previous events
Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky came from an ancient and noble noble family. He was born in 1528 in the family of the Moscow governor Mikhail Mikhailovich Kurbsky. Having entered the sovereign's service, Andrei Mikhailovich participated in numerous military campaigns - already in 1549 he was in the ranks of the steward in the army, which went to take Kazan. After that, the prince was entrusted with protecting the southwestern borders from the raids of the Crimean Tatars. In 1552, during a new large campaign in Kazan, he already commanded a regiment of the right hand and showed himself in the best way, first repelling the attack of the Crimean Khan near Tula, and then successfully acting in the capture of the capital of the Kazan Khanate. In these years, the prince was one of the czar’s close associates and, apparently, was considered one of the most capable military leaders of the Moscow state. In 1554 and 1556 Andrei Kurbsky was charged with suppressing the uprisings of the Tatars and Cheremis.
In 1558, the Livonian War began. At its very beginning, Prince Kurbsky commands one of the regiments of a large Moscow army, which devastates Livonia and captures rich booty. The following year, Andrei Mikhailovich again sent to the southern borders of the Moscow state - to protect the border areas from the raids of the Crimean Tatars. However, already in 1559 he appeared again in Livonia and won several victories over the enemy. Failure befell him in the battle of Nevel in 1562, when Kurbsky, having a significant advantage over the enemy, could not defeat the Lithuanian detachment. In the same year, the prince participated in a large campaign in Polotsk.
Politically, Andrei Mikhailovich was close to the favorites of the first years of the reign of Ivan IV - Archpriest Sylvester and the boyar Alexei Adashev (the so-called "Chosen Council"). However, in the second half of the 1550s, the king’s attitude towards his advisers changed - Sylvester and Adashev were exiled, their supporters were disgraced. Fearing that he would suffer the same fate, Kurbsky in 1563 (or, according to some reports, in 1564) fled with his servants to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. From there, he sent a letter to the Moscow Tsar, which serves as the beginning of the correspondence.
Message Timeline
Ivan the Terrible answered the first letter of Kurbsky in the summer of 1564. In 1577, after going to Livonia, the tsar sent a new letter to the defector, and in 1579 the prince sent two answers to Moscow at once - to the first and second letters of John Vasilievich. Thus, the correspondence lasted for fifteen years, which is very important from the point of view of external circumstances. Kurbsky’s flight coincided with a turning point in the Livonian War, which had been successfully developing for the Moscow kingdom. However, by the end of the 1570s, Russian troops were already on the defensive side, faced with a coalition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Sweden, they suffered one defeat after another. Crisis phenomena also grew in the internal affairs of the Moscow kingdom - the country survived the introduction and abolition of the oprichnina, the devastating raid of the Crimean khan, which reached Moscow in 1571 and burned its lands, the nobility experienced several stages of bloody repression, and the population was exhausted by lengthy wars.
Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Kurbsky: the originality of the genre and style
I. Grozny and A. Kurbsky argued in the genre of epistolary journalism. The letters combine substantiations of the political views of opponents, religious dogmas and at the same time a lively, almost colloquial style, sometimes on the verge of “switching to personalities”.
The correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and A. Kurbsky (genre - epistolary journalism) shows, on the one hand, the struggle of theoretical approaches, on the other, two complex characters that have serious mutual claims of a personal nature clash.
The tsar’s letters are more characterized by lengthy narratives, emotional attacks on the opponent. On the one hand, Ivan IV expresses his position more eloquently, on the other hand, it seems that he is often overwhelmed by feelings - logical arguments are interspersed with insults, the tsarist idea jumps from one subject to another.
Ivan the Terrible also does not manage to stay in strict stylistic frames. Literate literary language is suddenly replaced by colloquial turns, Ivan Vasilyevich writes, ignoring the generally accepted rules of rhetoric, sometimes resorting to outright rudeness.
What are you, a dog, having committed such villainy, you write and complain! What is similar to your advice, stinking stinker than feces?
In general, this style corresponds to the personality of the king, who, according to contemporaries, was smart and well-read, but mentally and emotionally unstable. Under the influence of external circumstances, his living mind often developed not rational, balanced plans, but far-fetched, sometimes seemingly painful, fantasies and hasty conclusions.
Kurbsky also sometimes writes quite emotionally (it should be borne in mind that for him the relationship of the tsar with the boyars is a deeply personal matter), but his style is still more simple and concise. Moreover, the prince speaks rather critically of the "broadcast and loud" message of Grozny. Indeed, for a noble and educated person of that time, the elements of colloquial and practically “swearing” speech in the monarch’s letter seem inappropriate and even scandalous.
However, Andrei Mikhailovich himself does not remain in debt. He not only reproaches the king with innocently ruined lives, but also allows himself rather caustic and sarcastic reproaches. It should be borne in mind that, in principle, an autocrat who was intolerant of criticism of his actions could not calmly endure such impudence (all the more so since the development of the political situation, more likely, confirmed the correctness of Kurbsky).
It is not true, however, to perceive correspondence solely as a “private dispute” between two persons and, all the more so, an exchange of opponents. It is more likely that each of its participants proceeded from the publicity of the messages, considering the messages as part of an open discussion that will become public knowledge, therefore, he sought not only to hurt his opponent, but also to justify his own point of view.
Correspondence between Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible: summary
The central issue of the polemic between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky was the relationship between the tsarist government and the higher nobility.
The prince accuses the king of unreasonable persecution of faithful subjects, John replies with reproaches of treason, intrigues and intrigues. Each of them cites a number of examples in support of their innocence, but the struggle between two ideas is clearly visible behind private claims: the harmfulness of arbitrary arbitrariness and the inadmissibility of limiting the autocratic monarch.
Of course, you should not expect any coherent political and legal theory from correspondence - both authors argue with categories of the level of “good advisers”, “evil tyrants” and “traitors-boyars”. They don’t have any normative substantiation either - Kurbsky refers to some previous customs when the kings respected the boyar estate and listened to advice. Ivan the Terrible objects in the spirit of "to favor our slaves, we were always free, we were free to execute." An appeal to the previous orders does not find the tsar’s understanding at all - for him, the participation of “good advisers” in government was associated with the lawlessness that was going on during the struggle of the boyar groups when John was still a child.
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, our sovereigns, did not show any cordial concern, they themselves rushed to wealth and glory, and quarreled with each other. And what only they did not do!
Both Ivan Vasilyevich and Prince Andrei were experienced statesmen, so they confirm their opinions with examples from their own biography. The level of political and legal thought in Russia of the 16th century did not at all imply the existence of deeply developed theories about the structure of the state (with the exception, perhaps, of developing the thesis that all power is from God).
From a brief summary of Kurbsky’s correspondence with Ivan the Terrible, it can be seen that if the tsar clearly articulates his ideas about the correct political model (as applied to an absolute monarchy, it’s generally not difficult), then Kurbsky most likely expresses an opinion on the specific actions of the sovereign, his relations with his subjects, and not about the organization of public administration. In any case, he does not formulate any system for restricting the autocratic monarchy (even if he means it) - the requirement not to execute his faithful servants without fault and to obey good advice can hardly be regarded as such. In this connection, V.O. Klyuchevsky’s opinion that the parties to this dispute listen poorly to each other should be recognized as justified.
Why do you beat us, your faithful servants? - asks Prince Kurbsky. “No,” tsar Ivan answers him, “the Russian autocrats own their own kingdoms from the beginning, and not the nobles and nobles.”
Of course, the claims and reproaches of Kurbsky are supported by the interests of specific political groups, their opinion regarding the proper relationship between the tsar and the boyars, but at the same time, the prince does not dispute the autocratic rights of the Moscow sovereign anywhere and even more so does not express an opinion on the separation of powers. In turn, Ivan the Terrible, of course, does not justify cruel tyrants, but points out that these claims do not apply to him, since he punishes only traitors and villains.
Of course, with such approaches to the discussion, it was hardly possible to expect constructive results.
Religious component of correspondence
Both sides constantly turn to the Holy Scripture, reinforcing quotes from it their theses. It should be borne in mind that religion at that time, in principle, was the unconditional basis of the worldview of any person. Christian texts were the basis of any “scholarship,” in fact, in the absence of a developed scientific method at that time, religion was almost the only (with the exception of empirical) way of knowing the world.
In addition, the idea of the supremacy of God's authority implied that the biblical canon is an unconditional criterion for the correctness of certain ideas or actions.
But in the religious field, the king and the prince demonstrate different approaches. Kurbsky quotes the commandments and criticisms of cruel tyrants, noting that Ivan’s policies have little to do with the humanistic messengers of scripture. The Tsar (by the way, who knew church books, according to contemporaries, who quoted long fragments as a keepsake), in turn, reminded Kurbsky of the biblical thesis about the divine origin of power (“Why did you despise the Apostle Paul, who says: Every soul obeys the authorities; there is no authority from God ... ”) and the need to humbly accept all life’s tests, which Kurbsky’s escape to Lithuania clearly did not correspond to.
As the analysis of the correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Andrei Kurbsky shows, a serious rebuke was the prince's charge of violating the oath (cross kissing).
In addition, we should not forget that Ivan IV considered himself the only truly Christian (Orthodox) monarch and regarded the departure of Kurbsky to the Catholic Sigismund as a betrayal of the true faith.
Obviously, with such approaches, Christian dogmas could not reconcile the participants of the correspondence.
Correspondence issues
In 1971, the famous American historian, researcher of medieval Russia, Edward Lewis Keenan published a monograph in which he questioned the authorship of the letters, suggesting that in reality they were written by a political figure of the 17th century, Prince Semyon Mikhailovich Shakhovsky. This work caused a wide discussion in the scientific community, which, however, culminated in the fact that the bulk of experts considered the Kinan hypothesis unproven. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that the text of the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky that has reached us carries traces of later proofreading.
The fate of Andrei Kurbsky
The prince was graciously received by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund Augustus, who immediately took the defector into service, granted him vast estates, including the city of Kovel. Kurbsky, who knew the organization of the Moscow army perfectly, won several victories over him, commanding the Lithuanian detachments. He participated in the campaign of Stefan Batory on Polotsk in 1579. The prince married his new homeland and started a new family. At the end of hostilities he lived on his estate, where he died in 1583.
Assessment of the personality of Prince Kurbsky
The identity of Andrei Kurbsky was evaluated differently, depending on the beliefs of the authors. Someone sees in him a traitor who left the Fatherland in difficult times and, moreover, led the enemy troops. Others regarded his flight as a forced action of a person who does not want to meekly submit to a tyrannical ruler.
Prince Andrei Kurbsky himself, in correspondence with Ivan the Terrible, defended the ancient boyar "right to free departure" - the transition to service to another sovereign. Actually, only such a justification could justify the prince (of course, not in the eyes of Ivan Vasilievich, who finally canceled this right).
Regarding how true the accusations of Andrei Kurbsky for treason were, there are different opinions. The fact that he quickly established himself in a new place and received generous awards from recent enemies may indirectly indicate that the prince secretly went over to the side of the Lithuanians long before his departure. On the other hand, his escape could indeed have been caused by a fear of a possible unfair disgrace - subsequent events showed that many representatives of the boyar milieu were the victims of tsarist repressions, regardless of their guilt. Sigismund August took advantage of the situation, sent “noble letters” to the noble Moscow boyars and, of course, was ready to receive defectors, especially those valuable as Prince Kurbsky.
Interesting Facts
According to historical legend, the first letter of Andrei Kurbsky was delivered to the formidable king by the servant of Prince Vasily Shibanov. Accepting the message of the traitor, Ivan Vasilyevich allegedly hit the messenger with his sharp staff and struck that leg, but Shibanov endured the pain. After this, the servant of Kurbsky was tortured and executed. This story is dedicated to the ballad of A. K. Tolstoy "Vasily Shibanov."
The story of a noble and glorious military leader who rebelled against autocratic arbitrariness and forced to part with his native land found a response in the soul of the Decembrist Kondraty Ryleyev, who dedicated the poem of the same name to Kurbsky.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, after centuries of Russian history, rich in wars, riots and other upheavals, only a small part of the literary monuments of medieval Russia survived. In this regard, the correspondence between Prince Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible is a valuable source of knowledge about the various spheres of life of the Moscow state of that time.
It reflects the characters and worldview of historical figures - the tsar himself and one of the prominent military leaders, the confrontation of two political models that express the interests of autocracy and boyars is traced. The correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Kurbsky (genre, summary, features we examined in the article) gives an idea of the development of literature and journalism of that time, the cultural level of society, and religious consciousness.