Reasons for introducing the oprichnina. Oprichnina: causes and consequences What is oprichnina how it was introduced

Oprichnina is a state policy of terror that reigned in Rus' at the end of the 16th century under the reign of Ivan 4.

The essence of the oprichnina was the seizure of property from citizens in favor of the state. By order of the sovereign, special lands were allocated, which were used exclusively for the royal needs and the needs of the royal court. These territories had their own government and were closed to ordinary citizens. All territories were taken from the landowners with the help of threats and force.

The word "oprichnina" comes from the Old Russian word "oprich", which means "special". Also called oprichnina was that part of the state that had already been transferred to the sole use of the tsar and his subjects, as well as oprichniki (members of the sovereign's secret police).

The number of oprichnina (royal retinue) was about a thousand people.

Reasons for introducing the oprichnina

Tsar Ivan the Terrible was famous for his stern disposition and military campaigns. The emergence of the oprichnina is largely associated with the Livonian War.

In 1558, he started the Livonian War for the right to seize the Baltic coast, but the course of the war did not go as the sovereign would have liked. Ivan repeatedly reproached his commanders for not acting decisively enough, and the boyars did not at all respect the tsar as an authority in military matters. The situation is aggravated by the fact that in 1563 one of Ivan’s military leaders betrays him, thereby increasingly undermining the tsar’s trust in his retinue.

Ivan 4 begins to suspect the existence of a conspiracy between the governor and the boyars against his royal power. He believes that his entourage dreams of ending the war, overthrowing the sovereign and installing Prince Vladimir Staritsky in his place. All this forces Ivan to create a new environment for himself that would be able to protect him and punish everyone who goes against the king. This is how oprichniki were created - special warriors of the sovereign - and the policy of oprichnina (terror) was established.

The beginning and development of the oprichnina. Main events.

The guardsmen followed the tsar everywhere and were supposed to protect him, but it happened that these guards abused their powers and committed terror, punishing the innocent. The Tsar turned a blind eye to all this and always justified his guardsmen in any disputes. As a result of the outrages of the guardsmen, very soon they began to be hated not only by ordinary people, but also by the boyars. All the most terrible executions and acts committed during the reign of Ivan the Terrible were committed by his guardsmen.

Ivan 4 leaves for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, where he creates a secluded settlement together with his guardsmen. From there, the tsar regularly makes raids on Moscow in order to punish and execute those whom he considers traitors. Almost everyone who tried to stop Ivan in his lawlessness soon died.

In 1569, Ivan begins to suspect that intrigues are being woven in Novgorod and that there is a conspiracy against him. Having gathered a huge army, Ivan moves into the city and in 1570 reaches Novgorod. After the tsar finds himself in the lair of what he believes are traitors, his guardsmen begin their terror - they rob residents, kill innocent people, and burn houses. According to the data, mass beatings of people took place every day, 500-600 people.

The next stop of the cruel tsar and his guardsmen was Pskov. Despite the fact that the tsar initially planned to also carry out reprisals against the residents, in the end only some of the Pskovites were executed, and their property was confiscated.

After Pskov, Grozny again goes to Moscow to find accomplices of the Novgorod treason there and commit reprisals against them.

In 1570-1571, a huge number of people died in Moscow at the hands of the Tsar and his guardsmen. The king did not spare anyone, not even his own close associates; as a result, about 200 people were executed, including the most noble people. A large number of people survived, but suffered greatly. The Moscow executions are considered the apogee of oprichnina terror.

The end of the oprichnina

The system began to fall apart in 1571, when Rus' was attacked by the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey. The guardsmen, accustomed to living by robbing their own citizens, turned out to be useless warriors and, according to some reports, simply did not show up on the battlefield. This is what forced the tsar to abolish the oprichnina and introduce the zemshchina, which was not much different. There is information that the tsar’s retinue continued to exist almost unchanged until his death, changing only the name from “oprichniki” to “court”.

Results of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible

The results of the oprichnina of 1565-1572 were disastrous. Despite the fact that the oprichnina was conceived as a means of unifying the state and the purpose of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible was to protect and destroy feudal fragmentation, it ultimately led only to chaos and complete anarchy.

In addition, the terror and devastation carried out by the guardsmen led to an economic crisis in the country. The feudal lords lost their lands, the peasants did not want to work, the people were left without money and did not believe in the justice of their sovereign. The country was mired in chaos, the oprichnina divided the country into several disparate parts.

Oprichnina

Territories caught in the oprichnina

Oprichnina- a period in the history of Russia (from 1572), marked by state terror and a system of emergency measures. Also called “oprichnina” was a part of the territory of the state, with special administration, allocated for the maintenance of the royal court and oprichniki (“Gosudareva oprichnina”). An oprichnik is a person in the ranks of the oprichnina army, that is, the guard created by Ivan the Terrible as part of his political reform in 1565. Oprichnik is a later term. During the time of Ivan the Terrible, the guardsmen were called “sovereign people.”

The word "oprichnina" comes from the Old Russian "oprich", which means "special", "except". The essence of the Russian Oprichnina is the allocation of part of the lands in the kingdom exclusively for the needs of the royal court, its employees - the nobles and the army. Initially, the number of oprichniki - “oprichnina thousand” - was one thousand boyars. Oprichnina in the Moscow principality was also the name given to the widow when dividing her husband's property.

Background

In 1563, the tsar was betrayed by one of the governors who commanded the Russian troops in Livonia, Prince Kurbsky, who betrayed the tsar’s agents in Livonia and participated in the offensive actions of the Poles and Lithuanians, including the Polish-Lithuanian campaign on Velikie Luki.

Kurbsky's betrayal strengthens Ivan Vasilyevich in the idea that there is a terrible boyar conspiracy against him, the Russian autocrat; the boyars not only want to end the war, but are also plotting to kill him and place his obedient cousin, Ivan the Terrible, on the throne. And that the Metropolitan and the Boyar Duma stand up for the disgraced and prevent him, the Russian autocrat, from punishing traitors, therefore emergency measures are required.

The outward distinction of the guardsmen was a dog's head and a broom attached to the saddle, as a sign that they gnaw and sweep traitors to the tsar. The tsar turned a blind eye to all the actions of the guardsmen; When confronted with a zemstvo man, the guardsman always came out on the right. The guardsmen soon became a scourge and an object of hatred for the boyars; all the bloody deeds of the second half of Ivan the Terrible’s reign were committed with the indispensable and direct participation of the guardsmen.

Soon the tsar and his guardsmen left for the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, from which they made a fortified city. There he started something like a monastery, recruited 300 brethren from the guardsmen, called himself abbot, Prince Vyazemsky - cellarer, Malyuta Skuratov - paraclesiarch, went with him to the bell tower to ring, zealously attended services, prayed and at the same time feasted, entertained himself with torture and executions; made visits to Moscow and the tsar did not encounter opposition from anyone: Metropolitan Athanasius was too weak for this and, after spending two years at the see, retired, and his successor Philip, a courageous man, on the contrary, began to publicly denounce the lawlessness committed by order tsar, and was not afraid to speak against Ivan, even when he was extremely furious at his words. After the Metropolitan pointedly refused to give Ivan his metropolitan blessing at the Assumption Cathedral, which could have caused mass disobedience to the Tsar as the Tsar - the servant of the Antichrist, the Metropolitan was removed from the cathedral with extreme haste and (presumably) killed during the campaign against Novgorod (Philip died after personal conversation with the Tsar’s envoy Malyuta Skuratov, rumored to have been strangled with a pillow). The Kolychev family, to which Philip belonged, was persecuted; some of its members were executed on John's orders. In 1569, the tsar’s cousin, Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, also died (presumably, according to rumors, on the order of the tsar, they brought him a cup of poisoned wine and ordered that Vladimir Andreevich himself, his wife and their eldest daughter drink the wine). Somewhat later, Vladimir Andreevich’s mother, Efrosinya Staritskaya, who repeatedly stood at the head of boyar conspiracies against John IV and was repeatedly pardoned by him, was also killed.

Ivan the Terrible in Al. settlement

Campaign against Novgorod

Main article: Oprichnina army march on Novgorod

In December 1569, suspecting the Novgorod nobility of complicity in the “conspiracy” of Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, who had recently committed suicide on his orders, and at the same time of the intention to surrender to the Polish king, Ivan, accompanied by a large army of guardsmen, marched against Novgorod.

Despite the Novgorod chronicles, the “Synodik of the Disgraced”, compiled around 1583, with reference to the report (“fairy tale”) of Malyuta Skuratov, speaks of 1,505 executed under Skuratov’s control, of which 1,490 were cut off minnows from squeaks. Soviet historian Ruslan Skrynnikov, adding to this number all the named Novgorodians, received an estimate of 2170-2180 executed; stipulating that the reports may not have been complete, many acted “independently of Skuratov’s orders,” Skrynnikov admits a figure of three to four thousand people. V. B. Kobrin also considers this figure to be extremely underestimated, noting that it is based on the premise that Skuratov was the only, or at least the main organizer of the murders. In addition, it should be noted that the result of the destruction of food supplies by the guardsmen was famine (so cannibalism is mentioned), accompanied by a plague epidemic that was raging at that time. According to the Novgorod chronicle, in a common grave opened in September 1570, where the surfaced victims of Ivan the Terrible were buried, as well as those who died from the ensuing hunger and disease, 10 thousand people were found. Kobrin doubts that this was the only burial place of the dead, but considers the figure of 10-15 thousand to be closest to the truth, although the total population of Novgorod at that time did not exceed 30 thousand. However, the killings were not limited to the city itself.

From Novgorod, Grozny went to Pskov. Initially, he prepared the same fate for him, but the tsar limited himself to only executing several Pskovites and confiscating their property. At that time, as a popular legend says, Grozny was visiting a Pskov holy fool (a certain Nikola Salos). When it was time for lunch, Nikola handed Ivan a piece of raw meat with the words: “Here, eat it, you eat human flesh,” and then threatened Ivan with many troubles if he did not spare the inhabitants. Grozny, having disobeyed, ordered the bells to be removed from one Pskov monastery. At that same hour, his best horse fell under the king, which impressed John. The Tsar hastily left Pskov and returned to Moscow, where searches and executions began again: they were looking for accomplices of the Novgorod treason.

Moscow executions of 1571

“Moscow dungeon. The end of the 16th century (Konstantin-Eleninsky gates of the Moscow dungeon at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries)", 1912.

Now the people closest to the tsar, the leaders of the oprichnina, came under repression. The tsar's favorites, the oprichniki Basmanovs - father and son, Prince Afanasy Vyazemsky, as well as several prominent leaders of the zemshchina - printer Ivan Viskovaty, treasurer Funikov and others were accused of treason. Together with them, at the end of July 1570, up to 200 people were executed in Moscow : the Duma clerk read the names of the condemned, the oprichniki executioners stabbed, chopped, hung, poured boiling water over the condemned. As they said, the tsar personally took part in the executions, and crowds of guardsmen stood around and greeted the executions with cries of “goyda, goyda.” The wives, children of those executed, and even their household members were persecuted; their estate was taken away by the sovereign. Executions were resumed more than once, and subsequently they died: Prince Peter Serebryany, Duma clerk Zakhary Ochin-Pleshcheev, Ivan Vorontsov, etc., and the tsar came up with special methods of torture: hot frying pans, ovens, tongs, thin ropes rubbing the body, etc. He ordered the boyar Kozarinov-Golokhvatov, who accepted the schema to avoid execution, to be blown up on a barrel of gunpowder, on the grounds that the schema-monks were angels and therefore should fly to heaven. The Moscow executions of 1571 were the apogee of the terrible oprichnina terror.

The end of the oprichnina

According to R. Skrynnikov, who analyzed the memorial lists, the victims of repression during the entire reign of Ivan IV were ( synodics), about 4.5 thousand people, however, other historians, such as V. B. Kobrin, consider this figure to be extremely underestimated.

The immediate result of desolation was “famine and pestilence,” since the defeat undermined the foundations of the shaky economy of even the survivors and deprived it of resources. The flight of the peasants, in turn, led to the need to forcibly keep them in place - hence the introduction of “reserved years,” which smoothly grew into the establishment of serfdom. In ideological terms, the oprichnina led to a decline in the moral authority and legitimacy of the tsarist government; from a protector and legislator, the king and the state he personified turned into a robber and rapist. The system of government that had been built over decades was replaced by a primitive military dictatorship. Ivan the Terrible’s trampling of Orthodox norms and values ​​and repression of young people deprived the self-accepted dogma “Moscow is the third Rome” of meaning and led to a weakening of moral guidelines in society. According to a number of historians, the events associated with the oprichnina were the direct cause of the systemic socio-political crisis that gripped Russia 20 years after the death of Ivan the Terrible and known as the “Time of Troubles.”

The oprichnina showed its complete military ineffectiveness, which manifested itself during the invasion of Devlet-Girey and was recognized by the tsar himself.

The oprichnina established the unlimited power of the tsar - autocracy. In the 17th century, the monarchy in Russia became virtually dualistic, but under Peter I, absolutism was restored in Russia; This consequence of the oprichnina, thus, turned out to be the most long-term.

Historical assessment

Historical assessments of the oprichnina can vary radically depending on the era, the scientific school to which the historian belongs, etc. To a certain extent, the foundations of these opposing assessments were laid already in the times of Ivan the Terrible, when two points of view coexisted: the official one, which considered the oprichnina as an action to combat “treason,” and the unofficial one, which saw in it a senseless and incomprehensible excess of the “formidable king.”

Pre-revolutionary concepts

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the oprichnina was a manifestation of the tsar's morbid insanity and tyrannical tendencies. In the historiography of the 19th century, this point of view was adhered to by N.M. Karamzin, N.I. Kostomarov, D.I. Ilovaisky, who denied any political and generally rational meaning in the oprichnina.

V. O. Klyuchevsky looked at the oprichnina in a similar way, considering it the result of the tsar’s struggle with the boyars - a struggle that “had not a political, but a dynastic origin”; Neither side knew how to get along with one another or how to get along without each other. They tried to separate, to live side by side, but not together. An attempt to arrange such political cohabitation was the division of the state into the oprichnina and the zemshchina.

E. A. Belov, being an apologist for Grozny in his monograph “On the Historical Significance of the Russian Boyars until the End of the 17th Century,” finds deep state meaning in the oprichnina. In particular, the oprichnina contributed to the destruction of the privileges of the feudal nobility, which impeded the objective tendencies of centralization of the state.

At the same time, the first attempts are being made to find the social and then the socio-economic background of the oprichnina, which became mainstream in the 20th century. According to K.D. Kavelin: “The oprichnina was the first attempt to create a service nobility and replace the clan nobles with it, in place of the clan, the blood principle, to put the beginning of personal dignity in public administration.”

In his “Complete course of lectures on Russian history,” prof. S. F. Platonov presents the following view of the oprichnina:

In the establishment of the oprichnina there was no “removal of the head of state from the state,” as S. M. Solovyov put it; on the contrary, the oprichnina took into its own hands the entire state in its root part, leaving boundaries to the “zemstvo” administration, and even strived for state reforms, for it introduced significant changes in the composition of the service land tenure. Destroying his aristocratic system, the oprichnina was directed, in essence, against those aspects of the state order that tolerated and supported such a system. It acted not “against individuals,” as V. O. Klyuchevsky says, but precisely against order, and therefore was much more an instrument of state reform than a simple police means of suppressing and preventing state crimes.

S. F. Platonov sees the main essence of the oprichnina in the energetic mobilization of land ownership, in which land ownership, thanks to the mass withdrawal of former patrimonial owners from the lands taken into the oprichnina, was torn away from the previous appanage-patrimonial feudal order and associated with compulsory military service.

Since the late 1930s, in Soviet historiography, the point of view about the progressive nature of the oprichnina, which, according to this concept, was directed against the remnants of fragmentation and the influence of the boyars, considered as a reactionary force, and reflected the interests of the serving nobility who supported centralization, which, in ultimately identified with national interests. The origins of the oprichnina were seen, on the one hand, in the struggle between large patrimonial and small-scale landownership, and on the other hand, in the struggle between the progressive central government and the reactionary princely-boyar opposition. This concept went back to pre-revolutionary historians and, above all, to S. F. Platonov, and at the same time it was implanted through administrative means. The basic point of view was expressed by J.V. Stalin at a meeting with filmmakers regarding the 2nd episode of Eisenstein’s film “Ivan the Terrible” (as is known, banned):

(Eisenstein) portrayed the oprichnina as the last scabs, degenerates, something like the American Ku Klux Klan... The oprichnina troops were progressive troops that Ivan the Terrible relied on to gather Russia into one centralized state against the feudal princes who wanted to fragment and weaken his. He has an old attitude towards the oprichnina. The attitude of old historians towards the oprichnina was grossly negative, because they regarded the repressions of Grozny as the repressions of Nicholas II and were completely distracted from the historical situation in which this happened. Nowadays there is a different way of looking at it."

In 1946, a Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was issued, which spoke of the “progressive army of the guardsmen.” The progressive significance in the then historiography of the Oprichnina Army was that its formation was a necessary stage in the struggle to strengthen the centralized state and represented the struggle of the central government, based on the serving nobility, against the feudal aristocracy and appanage remnants, to make even a partial return to it impossible - and thereby ensure the military defense of the country. .

A detailed assessment of the oprichnina is given in A. A. Zimin’s monograph “The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible” (1964), which contains the following assessment of the phenomenon:

The oprichnina was a weapon for the defeat of the reactionary feudal nobility, but at the same time, the introduction of the oprichnina was accompanied by an intensified seizure of peasant “black” lands. The oprichnina order was a new step towards strengthening feudal ownership of land and enslaving the peasantry. The division of the territory into “oprichnina” and “zemshchina” (...) contributed to the centralization of the state, for this division was directed with its edge against the boyar aristocracy and the appanage princely opposition. One of the tasks of the oprichnina was to strengthen the defense capability, therefore the lands of those nobles who did not serve military service from their estates were taken into the oprichnina. The government of Ivan IV carried out a personal review of the feudal lords. The entire year of 1565 was filled with measures to enumerate lands, break up the existing ancient land tenure. In the interests of wide circles of the nobility, Ivan the Terrible carried out measures aimed at eliminating the remnants of former fragmentation and, restoring order in the feudal disorder, strengthening the centralized monarchy with strong royal power at the head. The townspeople, who were interested in strengthening tsarist power and eliminating the remnants of feudal fragmentation and privileges, also sympathized with the policies of Ivan the Terrible. The struggle of the government of Ivan the Terrible with the aristocracy met with the sympathy of the masses. The reactionary boyars, betraying the national interests of Rus', sought to dismember the state and could lead to the enslavement of the Russian people by foreign invaders. Oprichnina marked a decisive step towards strengthening the centralized apparatus of power, combating the separatist claims of the reactionary boyars, and facilitated the defense of the borders of the Russian state. This was the progressive content of the reforms of the oprichnina period. But the oprichnina was also a means of suppressing the oppressed peasantry; it was carried out by the government by strengthening feudal-serf oppression and was one of the significant factors that caused the further deepening of class contradictions and the development of class struggle in the country."

At the end of his life, A. A. Zimin revised his views towards a purely negative assessment of the oprichnina, seeing "the bloody glow of the oprichnina" an extreme manifestation of serfdom and despotic tendencies as opposed to pre-bourgeois ones. These positions were developed by his student V.B. Kobrin and the latter’s student A.L. Yurganov. Based on specific research that began even before the war and carried out especially by S. B. Veselovsky and A. A. Zimin (and continued by V. B. Kobrin), they showed that the theory of defeat as a result of the oprichnina of patrimonial land ownership is a myth. From this point of view, the difference between patrimonial and local land ownership was not as fundamental as previously thought; the mass withdrawal of votchinniki from the oprichnina lands (in which S. F. Platonov and his followers saw the very essence of the oprichnina) was not carried out, contrary to declarations; and it was mainly the disgraced and their relatives who lost the reality of the estates, while the “reliable” estates, apparently, were taken into the oprichnina; at the same time, precisely those counties where small and medium landownership predominated were taken into the oprichnina; in the oprichine itself there was a large percentage of the clan nobility; finally, statements about the personal orientation of the oprichnina against the boyars are also refuted: the victims-boyars are especially noted in the sources because they were the most prominent, but in the end, it was primarily ordinary landowners and commoners who died from the oprichnina: according to the calculations of S. B. Veselovsky, on for one boyar or person from the Sovereign's court there were three or four ordinary landowners, and for one service person there were a dozen commoners. In addition, terror also fell on the bureaucracy (dyacry), which, according to the old scheme, should be the support of the central government in the fight against the “reactionary” boyars and appanage remnants. It is also noted that the resistance of the boyars and the descendants of appanage princes to centralization is generally a purely speculative construction, derived from theoretical analogies between the social system of Russia and Western Europe of the era of feudalism and absolutism; The sources do not provide any direct grounds for such statements. The postulation of large-scale “boyar conspiracies” in the era of Ivan the Terrible is based on statements emanating from Ivan the Terrible himself. Ultimately, this school notes that although the oprichnina objectively resolved (albeit through barbaric methods) some pressing tasks, primarily strengthening centralization, destroying the remnants of the appanage system and the independence of the church, it was, first of all, a tool for establishing the personal despotic power of Ivan the Terrible.

According to V.B. Kobrin, the oprichnina objectively strengthened centralization (which “the Chosen Rada tried to do through the method of gradual structural reforms”), put an end to the remnants of the appanage system and the independence of the church. At the same time, oprichnina robberies, murders, extortion and other atrocities led to the complete ruin of Rus', recorded in the census books and comparable to the consequences of an enemy invasion. The main result of the oprichnina, according to Kobrin, is the establishment of autocracy in extremely despotic forms, and indirectly also the establishment of serfdom. Finally, oprichnina and terror, according to Kobrin, undermined the moral foundations of Russian society, destroyed self-esteem, independence, and responsibility.

Only a comprehensive study of the political development of the Russian state in the second half of the 16th century. will allow us to give a substantiated answer to the question about the essence of the repressive regime of the oprichnina from the point of view of the historical destinies of the country.

In the person of the first Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the historical process of the formation of the Russian autocracy found an executor who was fully aware of his historical mission. In addition to his journalistic and theoretical speeches, this is clearly evidenced by the precisely calculated and completely successfully carried out political action of establishing the oprichnina.

Alshits D.N. The beginning of autocracy in Russia...

The most notable event in the assessment of the oprichnina was the work of art by Vladimir Sorokin “The Day of the Oprichnika”. It was published in 2006 by the Zakharov publishing house. This is a fantastic dystopia in the form of a one-day novel. Here the life, customs and technologies of abstract “parallel” Russia in the 21st and 16th centuries are intricately intertwined. Thus, the heroes of the novel live according to Domostroy, have servants and lackeys, all ranks, titles and crafts correspond to the era of Ivan the Terrible, but they drive cars, shoot beam weapons and communicate via holographic videophones. The main character, Andrei Komyaga, is a high-ranking guardsman, one of those close to “Bati” - the main guardsman. Above all stands the Sovereign Autocrat.

Sorokin portrays the “guardsmen of the future” as unprincipled looters and murderers. The only rules in their “brotherhood” are loyalty to the sovereign and each other. They use drugs, engage in sodomy for reasons of team unity, take bribes, and do not disdain unfair rules of the game and violations of laws. And, of course, they kill and rob those who have fallen out of favor with the sovereign. Sorokin himself assesses the oprichnina as the most negative phenomenon, which is not justified by any positive goals:

The oprichnina is greater than the FSB and the KGB. This is an old, powerful, very Russian phenomenon. Since the 16th century, despite the fact that it was officially under Ivan the Terrible for only ten years, it greatly influenced Russian consciousness and history. All our punitive agencies, and in many ways our entire institution of power, are the result of the influence of the oprichnina. Ivan the Terrible divided society into the people and the oprichniki, making a state within a state. This showed the citizens of the Russian state that they do not have all the rights, but the oprichniki have all the rights. To be safe, you need to become an oprichnina, separate from the people. This is what our officials have been doing for these four centuries. It seems to me that the oprichnina, its destructiveness, has not yet been truly examined or appreciated. But in vain.

Interview for the newspaper “Moskovsky Komsomolets”, 08/22/2006

Notes

1. “Textbook “History of Russia”, Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov Faculty of History, 4th edition, A. S. Orlov, V. A. Georgiev, N. G. Georgieva, T. A. Sivokhina">
2. Skrynnikov R. G. Ivan the Terrible. - P. 103. Archived
3. V. B. Kobrin, “Ivan the Terrible” - Chapter II. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
4. V. B. Kobrin. Ivan groznyj. M. 1989. (Chapter II: “The Path of Terror”, "The collapse of the oprichnina". Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.).
5. The beginning of autocracy in Russia: The State of Ivan the Terrible. - Alshits D.N., L., 1988.
6. N. M. Karamzin. History of Russian Goverment. Vol. 9, chapter 2. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
7. N. I. Kostomarov. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures Chapter 20. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
8. S. F. Platonov. Ivan groznyj. - Petrograd, 1923. P. 2.
9. Rozhkov N. The origin of autocracy in Russia. M., 1906. P.190.
10. Spiritual and contractual letters of great and appanage princes. - M. - L, 1950. P. 444.
11. Error in footnotes? : Invalid tag ; no text specified for plat footnotes
12. Whipper R. Yu. Ivan groznyj . Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.. - C.58
13. Korotkov I. A. Ivan the Terrible. Military activities. Moscow, Voenizdat, 1952, p. 25.
14. Bakhrushin S.V. Ivan the Terrible. M. 1945. P. 80.
15. Polosin I.I. Socio-political history of Russia in the 16th and early 18th centuries. P. 153. Collection of articles. M. Academy of Sciences. 1963, 382 p.
16. I. Ya. Froyanov. Drama of Russian history. P. 6
17. I. Ya. Froyanov. Drama of Russian history. P. 925.
18. Zimin A. A. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. M., 1964. S. 477-479. Quote. By
19. A. A. Zimin. Knight at the crossroads. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
20. A. L. Yurganov, L. A. Katsva. Russian history. XVI-XVIII centuries. M., 1996, pp. 44-46
21. Skrynnikov R.G. The reign of terror. St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 8
22. Alshits D.N. The beginning of autocracy in Russia... P.111. See also: Al Daniel. Ivan the Terrible: famous and unknown. From legends to facts. St. Petersburg, 2005. P. 155.
23. Assessing the historical significance of the oprichnina in different times.
24. Interview with Vladimir Sorokin to the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, 08/22/2006. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.

Literature

• . Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
• V. B. Kobrin IVAN THE GROZNY. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
• World History, vol. 4, M., 1958. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
• Skrynnikov R. G. “Ivan the Terrible”, AST, M, 2001. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.

Since ancient times, the word “oprichnina” was the name for a special land allotment that the prince’s widow received, that is, the land “oprichnina” - except for - the main lands of the principality. Ivan the Terrible decided to apply this term to the territory of the state allocated to him for personal management, his own destiny, in which he could rule without the intervention of the boyar duma, the zemstvo council and the church synod. Subsequently, oprichnina began to be called not the land, but the internal policy pursued by the tsar.

The beginning of the oprichnina

The official reason for the introduction of the oprichnina was the abdication of Ivan IV from the throne. In 1565, having gone on a pilgrimage, Ivan the Terrible refuses to return to Moscow, explaining his action as treason by the closest boyars. The tsar wrote two letters, one to the boyars, with reproaches and abdication of the throne in favor of his young son, the second - to the “posad people”, with assurances that his action was due to boyar treason. Under the threat of being left without a tsar, God’s anointed and protector, the townspeople, representatives of the clergy and boyars went to the tsar in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda with a request to return “to the kingdom.” The tsar, as a condition for his return, put forward the demand that he be allocated his own inheritance, where he could rule at his own discretion, without the intervention of church authorities.

As a result, the whole country was divided into two parts - and the oprichnina, that is, into state and personal lands of the kings. The oprichnina included the northern and northwestern regions, rich in fertile lands, some central destinies, the Kama region, and even individual streets of Moscow. The capital of the oprichnina became Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, the capital of the state still remained Moscow. The oprichnina lands were ruled personally by the tsar, and the zemstvo lands by the Boyar Duma; the oprichnina also had a separate treasury, its own. However, the Grand Parish, that is, the analogue of the modern Tax Administration, which was responsible for the receipt and distribution of taxes, was uniform for the entire state; The Ambassadorial Order also remained common. This seemed to symbolize that, despite the division of the lands into two parts, the state is still united and indestructible.

According to the tsar's plan, the oprichnina was supposed to appear as a kind of analogue of the European church Order. Thus, Ivan the Terrible called himself abbot, his closest associate Prince Vyazemsky became a cellarer, and the well-known Malyuta Skuratov became a sexton. The king, as the head of the monastic order, was assigned a number of responsibilities. At midnight the abbot rose to read the Midnight Office, at four in the morning he served matins, then followed mass. All Orthodox fasts and church regulations were observed, for example, daily reading of the Holy Scriptures and all kinds of prayers. The tsar's religiosity, previously widely known, grew to its maximum level during the oprichnina years. At the same time, Ivan personally took part in torture and executions, and gave orders for new atrocities, often right during divine services. Such a strange combination of extreme piety and undisguised cruelty, condemned by the church, later became one of the main historical evidence in favor of the tsar’s mental illness.

Reasons for the oprichnina

The “treason” of the boyars, to which the tsar referred in his letters demanding the allocation of oprichnina lands to him, became only the official reason for introducing a policy of terror. The reasons for the radical change in the format of government were several factors.

The first and, perhaps, the most significant reason for the oprichnina was the failures in the Livonian War. The conclusion of an essentially unnecessary truce with Livonia in 1559 was actually giving the enemy a rest. The Tsar insisted on taking tough measures against the Livonian Order. The Elected Rada considered starting a war with the Crimean Khan a higher priority. The break with the once closest associates, the leaders of the Chosen Rada, became, in the opinion of most historians, the main reason for the introduction of the oprichnina.

However, there is another point of view on this matter. Thus, most historians of the 18th-19th centuries considered the oprichnina the result of the mental illness of Ivan the Terrible, whose hardening of character was influenced by the death of his beloved wife Anastasia Zakharyina. A strong nervous shock caused the manifestation of the most terrible personality traits of the king, bestial cruelty and imbalance.

It is impossible not to note the influence of the boyars on the change in the conditions of power. Fears for their own position caused some government officials to move abroad - to Poland, Lithuania, and Sweden. A big blow for Ivan the Terrible was the flight to the Principality of Lithuania of Andrei Kurbsky, a childhood friend and closest ally who took an active part in government reforms. Kurbsky sent a series of letters to the Tsar, where he condemned Ivan’s actions, accusing “faithful servants” of tyranny and murder.

Military failures, the death of his wife, disapproval of the tsar’s actions by the boyars, confrontation with the Elected Rada and the flight - betrayal - of his closest ally dealt a serious blow to the authority of Ivan IV. And the oprichnina he conceived was supposed to rectify the current situation, restore damaged trust and strengthen the autocracy. To what extent the oprichnina lived up to its obligations, historians are still arguing.

- this is one of the periods in the history of Russia, between 1565 and 1572, marked by extreme terror against the subjects of Tsar Ivan IV. This concept also referred to a part of the country with a special system of government, which was allocated for the maintenance of the guardsmen and the royal court. The Old Russian word itself has the meaning “special” in origin.

Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible implied repression, confiscation of property, and forced relocation of people. It included the central, western and southwestern districts, partly Moscow and some northern regions, sometimes entire populated areas fell under the oprichnina.

The reasons for the emergence of oprichnina.

Reasons for the oprichnina still not precisely named, perhaps it was simply the king’s desire to strengthen power. Introduction of the oprichnina was marked by the creation of an oprichnina army of 1000 people, who were assigned to carry out the royal decrees; later their number increased.

Oprichnina as a feature of state policy became a huge shock for the country. By implementing extreme measures to confiscate the property of feudal lords and lands for the state benefit, the oprichnina was aimed at centralizing power and nationalizing income.

Goals of the oprichnina

The phenomenon was aimed at eliminating the feudal fragmentation of the principalities and its goal was to undermine the independence of the boyar class. Entered in 1565 oprichnina became the desire of Ivan IV, tired of the betrayals of the boyars, to execute the unfaithful nobles of his own free will.

Consequences of the introduction of oprichnina

Oprichnina Ivana 4 almost completely eliminated the owners who could become the basis of civil society in the country. After its implementation, the people became even more dependent on the existing government and the absolute despotism of the monarch was established in the country, but the Russian nobility found itself in a more privileged position.

Establishment of the oprichnina worsened the situation in Russia, in particular in the economy. Some villages were devastated, and cultivation of arable land ceased. The ruin of the nobles entailed that the Russian army, of which they formed the basis, weakened and this became the reason for the loss of the war with Livonia.

Consequences of the oprichnina were such that no one, regardless of class and position, could feel safe. In addition, in 1572, the king’s army was unable to repel the attack of the Crimean Tatar army on the capital, and Ivan the Terrible decided to abolish the existing system of repression and punishment, but in fact it existed until the death of the sovereign.

Oprichnina

Territories caught in the oprichnina

Oprichnina- a period in the history of Russia (from 1572), marked by state terror and a system of emergency measures. Also called “oprichnina” was a part of the territory of the state, with special administration, allocated for the maintenance of the royal court and oprichniki (“Gosudareva oprichnina”). An oprichnik is a person in the ranks of the oprichnina army, that is, the guard created by Ivan the Terrible as part of his political reform in 1565. Oprichnik is a later term. During the time of Ivan the Terrible, the guardsmen were called “sovereign people.”

The word "oprichnina" comes from the Old Russian "oprich", which means "special", "except". The essence of the Russian Oprichnina is the allocation of part of the lands in the kingdom exclusively for the needs of the royal court, its employees - the nobles and the army. Initially, the number of oprichniki - “oprichnina thousand” - was one thousand boyars. Oprichnina in the Moscow principality was also the name given to the widow when dividing her husband's property.

Background

In 1563, the tsar was betrayed by one of the governors who commanded the Russian troops in Livonia, Prince Kurbsky, who betrayed the tsar’s agents in Livonia and participated in the offensive actions of the Poles and Lithuanians, including the Polish-Lithuanian campaign on Velikie Luki.

Kurbsky's betrayal strengthens Ivan Vasilyevich in the idea that there is a terrible boyar conspiracy against him, the Russian autocrat; the boyars not only want to end the war, but are also plotting to kill him and place his obedient cousin, Ivan the Terrible, on the throne. And that the Metropolitan and the Boyar Duma stand up for the disgraced and prevent him, the Russian autocrat, from punishing traitors, therefore emergency measures are required.

The outward distinction of the guardsmen was a dog's head and a broom attached to the saddle, as a sign that they gnaw and sweep traitors to the tsar. The tsar turned a blind eye to all the actions of the guardsmen; When confronted with a zemstvo man, the guardsman always came out on the right. The guardsmen soon became a scourge and an object of hatred for the boyars; all the bloody deeds of the second half of Ivan the Terrible’s reign were committed with the indispensable and direct participation of the guardsmen.

Soon the tsar and his guardsmen left for the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, from which they made a fortified city. There he started something like a monastery, recruited 300 brethren from the guardsmen, called himself abbot, Prince Vyazemsky - cellarer, Malyuta Skuratov - paraclesiarch, went with him to the bell tower to ring, zealously attended services, prayed and at the same time feasted, entertained himself with torture and executions; made visits to Moscow and the tsar did not encounter opposition from anyone: Metropolitan Athanasius was too weak for this and, after spending two years at the see, retired, and his successor Philip, a courageous man, on the contrary, began to publicly denounce the lawlessness committed by order tsar, and was not afraid to speak against Ivan, even when he was extremely furious at his words. After the Metropolitan pointedly refused to give Ivan his metropolitan blessing at the Assumption Cathedral, which could have caused mass disobedience to the Tsar as the Tsar - the servant of the Antichrist, the Metropolitan was removed from the cathedral with extreme haste and (presumably) killed during the campaign against Novgorod (Philip died after personal conversation with the Tsar’s envoy Malyuta Skuratov, rumored to have been strangled with a pillow). The Kolychev family, to which Philip belonged, was persecuted; some of its members were executed on John's orders. In 1569, the tsar’s cousin, Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, also died (presumably, according to rumors, on the order of the tsar, they brought him a cup of poisoned wine and ordered that Vladimir Andreevich himself, his wife and their eldest daughter drink the wine). Somewhat later, Vladimir Andreevich’s mother, Efrosinya Staritskaya, who repeatedly stood at the head of boyar conspiracies against John IV and was repeatedly pardoned by him, was also killed.

Ivan the Terrible in Al. settlement

Campaign against Novgorod

Main article: Oprichnina army march on Novgorod

In December 1569, suspecting the Novgorod nobility of complicity in the “conspiracy” of Prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, who had recently committed suicide on his orders, and at the same time of the intention to surrender to the Polish king, Ivan, accompanied by a large army of guardsmen, marched against Novgorod.

Despite the Novgorod chronicles, the “Synodik of the Disgraced”, compiled around 1583, with reference to the report (“fairy tale”) of Malyuta Skuratov, speaks of 1,505 executed under Skuratov’s control, of which 1,490 were cut off minnows from squeaks. Soviet historian Ruslan Skrynnikov, adding to this number all the named Novgorodians, received an estimate of 2170-2180 executed; stipulating that the reports may not have been complete, many acted “independently of Skuratov’s orders,” Skrynnikov admits a figure of three to four thousand people. V. B. Kobrin also considers this figure to be extremely underestimated, noting that it is based on the premise that Skuratov was the only, or at least the main organizer of the murders. In addition, it should be noted that the result of the destruction of food supplies by the guardsmen was famine (so cannibalism is mentioned), accompanied by a plague epidemic that was raging at that time. According to the Novgorod chronicle, in a common grave opened in September 1570, where the surfaced victims of Ivan the Terrible were buried, as well as those who died from the ensuing hunger and disease, 10 thousand people were found. Kobrin doubts that this was the only burial place of the dead, but considers the figure of 10-15 thousand to be closest to the truth, although the total population of Novgorod at that time did not exceed 30 thousand. However, the killings were not limited to the city itself.

From Novgorod, Grozny went to Pskov. Initially, he prepared the same fate for him, but the tsar limited himself to only executing several Pskovites and confiscating their property. At that time, as a popular legend says, Grozny was visiting a Pskov holy fool (a certain Nikola Salos). When it was time for lunch, Nikola handed Ivan a piece of raw meat with the words: “Here, eat it, you eat human flesh,” and then threatened Ivan with many troubles if he did not spare the inhabitants. Grozny, having disobeyed, ordered the bells to be removed from one Pskov monastery. At that same hour, his best horse fell under the king, which impressed John. The Tsar hastily left Pskov and returned to Moscow, where searches and executions began again: they were looking for accomplices of the Novgorod treason.

Moscow executions of 1571

“Moscow dungeon. The end of the 16th century (Konstantin-Eleninsky gates of the Moscow dungeon at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries)", 1912.

Now the people closest to the tsar, the leaders of the oprichnina, came under repression. The tsar's favorites, the oprichniki Basmanovs - father and son, Prince Afanasy Vyazemsky, as well as several prominent leaders of the zemshchina - printer Ivan Viskovaty, treasurer Funikov and others were accused of treason. Together with them, at the end of July 1570, up to 200 people were executed in Moscow : the Duma clerk read the names of the condemned, the oprichniki executioners stabbed, chopped, hung, poured boiling water over the condemned. As they said, the tsar personally took part in the executions, and crowds of guardsmen stood around and greeted the executions with cries of “goyda, goyda.” The wives, children of those executed, and even their household members were persecuted; their estate was taken away by the sovereign. Executions were resumed more than once, and subsequently they died: Prince Peter Serebryany, Duma clerk Zakhary Ochin-Pleshcheev, Ivan Vorontsov, etc., and the tsar came up with special methods of torture: hot frying pans, ovens, tongs, thin ropes rubbing the body, etc. He ordered the boyar Kozarinov-Golokhvatov, who accepted the schema to avoid execution, to be blown up on a barrel of gunpowder, on the grounds that the schema-monks were angels and therefore should fly to heaven. The Moscow executions of 1571 were the apogee of the terrible oprichnina terror.

The end of the oprichnina

According to R. Skrynnikov, who analyzed the memorial lists, the victims of repression during the entire reign of Ivan IV were ( synodics), about 4.5 thousand people, however, other historians, such as V. B. Kobrin, consider this figure to be extremely underestimated.

The immediate result of desolation was “famine and pestilence,” since the defeat undermined the foundations of the shaky economy of even the survivors and deprived it of resources. The flight of the peasants, in turn, led to the need to forcibly keep them in place - hence the introduction of “reserved years,” which smoothly grew into the establishment of serfdom. In ideological terms, the oprichnina led to a decline in the moral authority and legitimacy of the tsarist government; from a protector and legislator, the king and the state he personified turned into a robber and rapist. The system of government that had been built over decades was replaced by a primitive military dictatorship. Ivan the Terrible’s trampling of Orthodox norms and values ​​and repression of young people deprived the self-accepted dogma “Moscow is the third Rome” of meaning and led to a weakening of moral guidelines in society. According to a number of historians, the events associated with the oprichnina were the direct cause of the systemic socio-political crisis that gripped Russia 20 years after the death of Ivan the Terrible and known as the “Time of Troubles.”

The oprichnina showed its complete military ineffectiveness, which manifested itself during the invasion of Devlet-Girey and was recognized by the tsar himself.

The oprichnina established the unlimited power of the tsar - autocracy. In the 17th century, the monarchy in Russia became virtually dualistic, but under Peter I, absolutism was restored in Russia; This consequence of the oprichnina, thus, turned out to be the most long-term.

Historical assessment

Historical assessments of the oprichnina can vary radically depending on the era, the scientific school to which the historian belongs, etc. To a certain extent, the foundations of these opposing assessments were laid already in the times of Ivan the Terrible, when two points of view coexisted: the official one, which considered the oprichnina as an action to combat “treason,” and the unofficial one, which saw in it a senseless and incomprehensible excess of the “formidable king.”

Pre-revolutionary concepts

According to most pre-revolutionary historians, the oprichnina was a manifestation of the tsar's morbid insanity and tyrannical tendencies. In the historiography of the 19th century, this point of view was adhered to by N.M. Karamzin, N.I. Kostomarov, D.I. Ilovaisky, who denied any political and generally rational meaning in the oprichnina.

V. O. Klyuchevsky looked at the oprichnina in a similar way, considering it the result of the tsar’s struggle with the boyars - a struggle that “had not a political, but a dynastic origin”; Neither side knew how to get along with one another or how to get along without each other. They tried to separate, to live side by side, but not together. An attempt to arrange such political cohabitation was the division of the state into the oprichnina and the zemshchina.

E. A. Belov, being an apologist for Grozny in his monograph “On the Historical Significance of the Russian Boyars until the End of the 17th Century,” finds deep state meaning in the oprichnina. In particular, the oprichnina contributed to the destruction of the privileges of the feudal nobility, which impeded the objective tendencies of centralization of the state.

At the same time, the first attempts are being made to find the social and then the socio-economic background of the oprichnina, which became mainstream in the 20th century. According to K.D. Kavelin: “The oprichnina was the first attempt to create a service nobility and replace the clan nobles with it, in place of the clan, the blood principle, to put the beginning of personal dignity in public administration.”

In his “Complete course of lectures on Russian history,” prof. S. F. Platonov presents the following view of the oprichnina:

In the establishment of the oprichnina there was no “removal of the head of state from the state,” as S. M. Solovyov put it; on the contrary, the oprichnina took into its own hands the entire state in its root part, leaving boundaries to the “zemstvo” administration, and even strived for state reforms, for it introduced significant changes in the composition of the service land tenure. Destroying his aristocratic system, the oprichnina was directed, in essence, against those aspects of the state order that tolerated and supported such a system. It acted not “against individuals,” as V. O. Klyuchevsky says, but precisely against order, and therefore was much more an instrument of state reform than a simple police means of suppressing and preventing state crimes.

S. F. Platonov sees the main essence of the oprichnina in the energetic mobilization of land ownership, in which land ownership, thanks to the mass withdrawal of former patrimonial owners from the lands taken into the oprichnina, was torn away from the previous appanage-patrimonial feudal order and associated with compulsory military service.

Since the late 1930s, in Soviet historiography, the point of view about the progressive nature of the oprichnina, which, according to this concept, was directed against the remnants of fragmentation and the influence of the boyars, considered as a reactionary force, and reflected the interests of the serving nobility who supported centralization, which, in ultimately identified with national interests. The origins of the oprichnina were seen, on the one hand, in the struggle between large patrimonial and small-scale landownership, and on the other hand, in the struggle between the progressive central government and the reactionary princely-boyar opposition. This concept went back to pre-revolutionary historians and, above all, to S. F. Platonov, and at the same time it was implanted through administrative means. The basic point of view was expressed by J.V. Stalin at a meeting with filmmakers regarding the 2nd episode of Eisenstein’s film “Ivan the Terrible” (as is known, banned):

(Eisenstein) portrayed the oprichnina as the last scabs, degenerates, something like the American Ku Klux Klan... The oprichnina troops were progressive troops that Ivan the Terrible relied on to gather Russia into one centralized state against the feudal princes who wanted to fragment and weaken his. He has an old attitude towards the oprichnina. The attitude of old historians towards the oprichnina was grossly negative, because they regarded the repressions of Grozny as the repressions of Nicholas II and were completely distracted from the historical situation in which this happened. Nowadays there is a different way of looking at it."

In 1946, a Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was issued, which spoke of the “progressive army of the guardsmen.” The progressive significance in the then historiography of the Oprichnina Army was that its formation was a necessary stage in the struggle to strengthen the centralized state and represented the struggle of the central government, based on the serving nobility, against the feudal aristocracy and appanage remnants, to make even a partial return to it impossible - and thereby ensure the military defense of the country. .

A detailed assessment of the oprichnina is given in A. A. Zimin’s monograph “The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible” (1964), which contains the following assessment of the phenomenon:

The oprichnina was a weapon for the defeat of the reactionary feudal nobility, but at the same time, the introduction of the oprichnina was accompanied by an intensified seizure of peasant “black” lands. The oprichnina order was a new step towards strengthening feudal ownership of land and enslaving the peasantry. The division of the territory into “oprichnina” and “zemshchina” (...) contributed to the centralization of the state, for this division was directed with its edge against the boyar aristocracy and the appanage princely opposition. One of the tasks of the oprichnina was to strengthen the defense capability, therefore the lands of those nobles who did not serve military service from their estates were taken into the oprichnina. The government of Ivan IV carried out a personal review of the feudal lords. The entire year of 1565 was filled with measures to enumerate lands, break up the existing ancient land tenure. In the interests of wide circles of the nobility, Ivan the Terrible carried out measures aimed at eliminating the remnants of former fragmentation and, restoring order in the feudal disorder, strengthening the centralized monarchy with strong royal power at the head. The townspeople, who were interested in strengthening tsarist power and eliminating the remnants of feudal fragmentation and privileges, also sympathized with the policies of Ivan the Terrible. The struggle of the government of Ivan the Terrible with the aristocracy met with the sympathy of the masses. The reactionary boyars, betraying the national interests of Rus', sought to dismember the state and could lead to the enslavement of the Russian people by foreign invaders. Oprichnina marked a decisive step towards strengthening the centralized apparatus of power, combating the separatist claims of the reactionary boyars, and facilitated the defense of the borders of the Russian state. This was the progressive content of the reforms of the oprichnina period. But the oprichnina was also a means of suppressing the oppressed peasantry; it was carried out by the government by strengthening feudal-serf oppression and was one of the significant factors that caused the further deepening of class contradictions and the development of class struggle in the country."

At the end of his life, A. A. Zimin revised his views towards a purely negative assessment of the oprichnina, seeing "the bloody glow of the oprichnina" an extreme manifestation of serfdom and despotic tendencies as opposed to pre-bourgeois ones. These positions were developed by his student V.B. Kobrin and the latter’s student A.L. Yurganov. Based on specific research that began even before the war and carried out especially by S. B. Veselovsky and A. A. Zimin (and continued by V. B. Kobrin), they showed that the theory of defeat as a result of the oprichnina of patrimonial land ownership is a myth. From this point of view, the difference between patrimonial and local land ownership was not as fundamental as previously thought; the mass withdrawal of votchinniki from the oprichnina lands (in which S. F. Platonov and his followers saw the very essence of the oprichnina) was not carried out, contrary to declarations; and it was mainly the disgraced and their relatives who lost the reality of the estates, while the “reliable” estates, apparently, were taken into the oprichnina; at the same time, precisely those counties where small and medium landownership predominated were taken into the oprichnina; in the oprichine itself there was a large percentage of the clan nobility; finally, statements about the personal orientation of the oprichnina against the boyars are also refuted: the victims-boyars are especially noted in the sources because they were the most prominent, but in the end, it was primarily ordinary landowners and commoners who died from the oprichnina: according to the calculations of S. B. Veselovsky, on for one boyar or person from the Sovereign's court there were three or four ordinary landowners, and for one service person there were a dozen commoners. In addition, terror also fell on the bureaucracy (dyacry), which, according to the old scheme, should be the support of the central government in the fight against the “reactionary” boyars and appanage remnants. It is also noted that the resistance of the boyars and the descendants of appanage princes to centralization is generally a purely speculative construction, derived from theoretical analogies between the social system of Russia and Western Europe of the era of feudalism and absolutism; The sources do not provide any direct grounds for such statements. The postulation of large-scale “boyar conspiracies” in the era of Ivan the Terrible is based on statements emanating from Ivan the Terrible himself. Ultimately, this school notes that although the oprichnina objectively resolved (albeit through barbaric methods) some pressing tasks, primarily strengthening centralization, destroying the remnants of the appanage system and the independence of the church, it was, first of all, a tool for establishing the personal despotic power of Ivan the Terrible.

According to V.B. Kobrin, the oprichnina objectively strengthened centralization (which “the Chosen Rada tried to do through the method of gradual structural reforms”), put an end to the remnants of the appanage system and the independence of the church. At the same time, oprichnina robberies, murders, extortion and other atrocities led to the complete ruin of Rus', recorded in the census books and comparable to the consequences of an enemy invasion. The main result of the oprichnina, according to Kobrin, is the establishment of autocracy in extremely despotic forms, and indirectly also the establishment of serfdom. Finally, oprichnina and terror, according to Kobrin, undermined the moral foundations of Russian society, destroyed self-esteem, independence, and responsibility.

Only a comprehensive study of the political development of the Russian state in the second half of the 16th century. will allow us to give a substantiated answer to the question about the essence of the repressive regime of the oprichnina from the point of view of the historical destinies of the country.

In the person of the first Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the historical process of the formation of the Russian autocracy found an executor who was fully aware of his historical mission. In addition to his journalistic and theoretical speeches, this is clearly evidenced by the precisely calculated and completely successfully carried out political action of establishing the oprichnina.

Alshits D.N. The beginning of autocracy in Russia...

The most notable event in the assessment of the oprichnina was the work of art by Vladimir Sorokin “The Day of the Oprichnika”. It was published in 2006 by the Zakharov publishing house. This is a fantastic dystopia in the form of a one-day novel. Here the life, customs and technologies of abstract “parallel” Russia in the 21st and 16th centuries are intricately intertwined. Thus, the heroes of the novel live according to Domostroy, have servants and lackeys, all ranks, titles and crafts correspond to the era of Ivan the Terrible, but they drive cars, shoot beam weapons and communicate via holographic videophones. The main character, Andrei Komyaga, is a high-ranking guardsman, one of those close to “Bati” - the main guardsman. Above all stands the Sovereign Autocrat.

Sorokin portrays the “guardsmen of the future” as unprincipled looters and murderers. The only rules in their “brotherhood” are loyalty to the sovereign and each other. They use drugs, engage in sodomy for reasons of team unity, take bribes, and do not disdain unfair rules of the game and violations of laws. And, of course, they kill and rob those who have fallen out of favor with the sovereign. Sorokin himself assesses the oprichnina as the most negative phenomenon, which is not justified by any positive goals:

The oprichnina is greater than the FSB and the KGB. This is an old, powerful, very Russian phenomenon. Since the 16th century, despite the fact that it was officially under Ivan the Terrible for only ten years, it greatly influenced Russian consciousness and history. All our punitive agencies, and in many ways our entire institution of power, are the result of the influence of the oprichnina. Ivan the Terrible divided society into the people and the oprichniki, making a state within a state. This showed the citizens of the Russian state that they do not have all the rights, but the oprichniki have all the rights. To be safe, you need to become an oprichnina, separate from the people. This is what our officials have been doing for these four centuries. It seems to me that the oprichnina, its destructiveness, has not yet been truly examined or appreciated. But in vain.

Interview for the newspaper “Moskovsky Komsomolets”, 08/22/2006

Notes

1. “Textbook “History of Russia”, Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov Faculty of History, 4th edition, A. S. Orlov, V. A. Georgiev, N. G. Georgieva, T. A. Sivokhina">
2. Skrynnikov R. G. Ivan the Terrible. - P. 103. Archived
3. V. B. Kobrin, “Ivan the Terrible” - Chapter II. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
4. V. B. Kobrin. Ivan groznyj. M. 1989. (Chapter II: “The Path of Terror”, "The collapse of the oprichnina". Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.).
5. The beginning of autocracy in Russia: The State of Ivan the Terrible. - Alshits D.N., L., 1988.
6. N. M. Karamzin. History of Russian Goverment. Vol. 9, chapter 2. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
7. N. I. Kostomarov. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures Chapter 20. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
8. S. F. Platonov. Ivan groznyj. - Petrograd, 1923. P. 2.
9. Rozhkov N. The origin of autocracy in Russia. M., 1906. P.190.
10. Spiritual and contractual letters of great and appanage princes. - M. - L, 1950. P. 444.
11. Error in footnotes? : Invalid tag ; no text specified for plat footnotes
12. Whipper R. Yu. Ivan groznyj . Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.. - C.58
13. Korotkov I. A. Ivan the Terrible. Military activities. Moscow, Voenizdat, 1952, p. 25.
14. Bakhrushin S.V. Ivan the Terrible. M. 1945. P. 80.
15. Polosin I.I. Socio-political history of Russia in the 16th and early 18th centuries. P. 153. Collection of articles. M. Academy of Sciences. 1963, 382 p.
16. I. Ya. Froyanov. Drama of Russian history. P. 6
17. I. Ya. Froyanov. Drama of Russian history. P. 925.
18. Zimin A. A. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. M., 1964. S. 477-479. Quote. By
19. A. A. Zimin. Knight at the crossroads. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
20. A. L. Yurganov, L. A. Katsva. Russian history. XVI-XVIII centuries. M., 1996, pp. 44-46
21. Skrynnikov R.G. The reign of terror. St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 8
22. Alshits D.N. The beginning of autocracy in Russia... P.111. See also: Al Daniel. Ivan the Terrible: famous and unknown. From legends to facts. St. Petersburg, 2005. P. 155.
23. Assessing the historical significance of the oprichnina in different times.
24. Interview with Vladimir Sorokin to the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, 08/22/2006. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.

Literature

• . Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
• V. B. Kobrin IVAN THE GROZNY. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
• World History, vol. 4, M., 1958. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.
• Skrynnikov R. G. “Ivan the Terrible”, AST, M, 2001. Archived from the original on November 28, 2012.