hand made 

Dissident number one. How Prince Andrei Kurbsky betrayed his homeland. Andrei Kurbsky. Biography of Prince Andrei Kurbsky was an associate of Peter 1

November 1528 - May 23 or May 24, 1583, Kovel, the Commonwealth, now the Volyn region of Ukraine), prince, Russian and Lithuanian military and statesman, writer and publicist; boyar (1556). From the family of princes Kurbsky, a branch of the Yaroslavl Rurikovich. First mentioned in the sources in the fall of 1547 among the participants in the wedding ceremony of the younger brother of Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich, Prince Yuri Vasilyevich of Dmitrovsky. He was close to the government of A.F. Adashev (the only one of his contemporaries later called him the Chosen Rada). In 1549-50, with the rank of steward and with the rank of Yesaul, he participated in the campaign against Kazan, being part of the retinue of Tsar Ivan IV. On August 16, 1550 he was sent as governor to Pronsk, in October 1550 he was enrolled in the 1st article of the “chosen thousand” of boyar children, having received possessions near Moscow. In 1552, a participant in the campaign against Kazan, after it began, was sent to lift the siege of Tula, pursued the retreating Crimean Tatars to the Shivoron River, where he participated in a victorious battle with them and was wounded. In July, by royal order, he marched to Sviyazhsk, in August, as part of the Russian army under the general command of Ivan IV, he went to Kazan, during the assault on October 2, 1552, he broke into the city through the Elbugin Gate, then pursued the retreating Kazan Tatars outside the city, was seriously wounded. During the illness of Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich (March 1553), he swore allegiance to the infant heir - Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. In 1553, he accompanied Ivan IV on a pilgrimage to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, attended a conversation with Maxim the Greek at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, during which Maxim the Greek warned the tsar against continuing the trip and made a prophecy about the possible death of Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich during it (which happened in June 1553). In 1553/54, at the head of a guard regiment, he participated in the suppression of the Cheremis uprising in the Middle Volga region (he was awarded for service to the Golden Ugric), in 1555 he led the suppression of a new outbreak of the uprising. In June 1556, already in the rank of boyar and being in the retinue of the king, he participated in the campaign of Ivan IV to protect the border lines near Serpukhov; in September - October he led the regiment of the left hand, stationed in Kaluga. In 1557 he was in the coastal service of the 2nd voivode of the regiment of the right hand, stationed in Kashira, from 12/21/1557 - 1st voivode in Tula. From the beginning of the Livonian War of 1558-83, the 1st governor of the guard regiment, then - the advanced regiment. Participated in the siege of Neishloss (Syrensk), Neuhausen (Novgorodka), Derpt (Yuriev; now Tartu, Estonia) and other cities.

On March 11, 1559, he was sent by the 2nd voivode of the regiment of the right hand to guard the southwestern border from the raids of the Crimean Tatars, was in Kaluga, Mtsensk, in July - in Dedilov. He acted as a staunch supporter of military operations against the Crimean Khanate. In February - March 1560 he commanded a large regiment in the next Livonian campaign. He made successful campaigns under Weisenstein (White Stone; now the city of Paide, Estonia), Fellin (Viljan; now the city of Viljandi, Estonia), Volmar (now the city of Valmiera, Latvia). In May 1560 he was in Yuriev at the head of an advanced regiment, in August he defeated a Lithuanian detachment led by Prince A. I. Polubensky near Venden (Kesya; now the city of Cesis, Latvia). Member of the Battle of Ermes (2.8.1560), which put an end to the existence of the Livonian Order. At the end of 1560, he participated in the battle of Weissenstein, which was unsuccessful for the Russian troops. When the Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish troops entered the war, together with other generals, he defended the cities bordering Livonia. On March 25, 1562, he was in Velikiye Luki, on May 28 he burned the settlement and captured artillery in the prison of Vitebsk, in August he lost a battle with Lithuanian troops near Nevel, was wounded. In the Polotsk campaign of 1562-63 the 2nd governor of the guard regiment; on the night of February 5 to February 6, 1563, “by the sovereign’s decree,” he supervised the installation of siege tours (towers) in front of the Polotsk prison. After the capture of Polotsk (15.2.1563) he accompanied Ivan IV to Velikie Luki. On March 8, 1563, he was appointed governor of Yuryev for 1 year. From January 1563, he conducted secret negotiations with the Grand Hetman of Lithuania, N. Yu. Radziwill the Ryzhim, on the conditions for transferring to the service of the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the Polish King Sigismund II August. In the autumn of 1563, Kurbsky conducted secret, but fruitless negotiations, sanctioned by the Russian side, with Count I. von Arts, viceroy of the Duke of Finland Johan, about surrendering Helmet Castle in Livonia to the Russian Tsar.

On the night of April 30, 1564, accompanied by 12 servants, he fled to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (ON). One of the reasons for his hasty flight, according to the assumption of a number of historians, was the news received by Kurbsky about his imminent disgrace and fears of a possible exposure of his secret ties with Radziwill and the Polish king. In itself, Kurbsky's escape abroad cannot yet be considered a betrayal, but it was not a simple departure of a serviceman from one sovereign to another. Kurbsky fled, leaving to the mercy of fate almost all his property in the Russian state with the expectation of receiving compensation in the GDL for going over to the side of Sigismund II Augustus. Soon after that, Kurbsky, based on the conditions of his fief grant of lands in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Volhynia, began to participate in military campaigns and actively help the Polish king in the war with the Russian state, which can already be considered treason. The mother, wife and son of Kurbsky, who remained in Yuryev, fell into disgrace and died in prison; the patrimonial lands of Kurbsky and his other property were confiscated and entered the treasury.

Sigismund II August 4.7.1564 granted Kurbsky Volyn townships, Kovel, Vizhva and Milyanovichi with castles and 28 villages, rich estates in Lithuania (up to 10 villages). Soon Kurbsky also received the Upitsky estates (in 1567, having concluded an agreement with Prince M. A. Czartorysky, Kurbsky annexed the Smedinsky volost to his Volyn possessions). In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, he held the positions of the Kovel headman (appointed in 1564, accepted the position in 1565 and held it until his death), the Krevo headman (1566-71).

In September - October 1564, Kurbsky, together with Prince B.F. Koretsky, commanded the advanced regiment of the 70,000th Polish-Lithuanian army in a campaign against the Russian state, participated in the unsuccessful three-week siege of Polotsk. In March 1565, at the head of a cavalry detachment of 200 soldiers, as part of a 15,000-strong Lithuanian army, he devastated the Velikolutsk lands. In the late 1560s, Kurbsky personally entered into secret negotiations with the representative of Emperor Maximilian II of Habsburg, abbot I. Tsir, on the creation of an anti-Turkish league within the Russian state and the Holy Roman Empire. Until the beginning of 1571, Kurbsky remained under Sigismund II Augustus and was considered by him as a possible candidate for negotiations with the Russian nobility in order to convince its representatives to accept royal citizenship. In March 1573 he was elected a deputy of the elected Sejm from Volhynia, in May 1573 he participated in the election of the Polish King Henry of Valois. With the coming to power in the Commonwealth in 1576 of the new Polish king Stefan Batory, Kurbsky returned to military service. In August - September 1579, a company led by Kurbsky, which included 86 Cossacks and 14 hussars, participated in the campaign of the Polish-Lithuanian troops against the Russian state. As a result of this campaign, the troops of Stefan Batory conquered Polotsk (8/31/1579) and some other fortresses from the Russian state. In 1581, on the orders of King Stefan Batory, Kurbsky went on a campaign already to Pskov, but on the way to him, in the region of the Russian border, he fell seriously ill and returned to Milyanovichi.

Kurbsky's literary interests and spiritual views were formed under the influence of his mother's uncle, the writer V.M. Kurbsky was very educated for his time, not alien to the trends of the Western European Counter-Reformation. He studied grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, philosophy and other secular "sciences". In the 1570s he learned Latin. His most famous writings are three epistles to Ivan IV, as well as "The History of the Great Prince of Moscow Affairs." In the messages of Kurbsky to the Tsar, in a polemical form, disagreement was expressed with the policy of Ivan IV, carried out in the 1560s and 70s, sympathy for the boyar aristocracy was expressed. Kurbsky condemned the cruel and extrajudicial executions of subjects, seeing them as an attempt on the prerogatives of the Last Judgment. He ridiculed the military failures of the Russian troops, commanded not by skillful "stratilates", but by obscure "voevodishki", mocked the rude style of the "broadcast and noisy" tsar's message, unworthy, in his opinion, even an ordinary "wretched warrior", opposed the tsar with his Western European learning, education and brilliant abilities in the field of epistolary genre and style. In an effort to once again justify his flight to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Kurbsky in the 3rd message referred to Cicero's Paradoxes (he sent the king two excerpts from them in his own translation from Latin). He predicted death for Ivan IV along with the entire royal house if the tsar did not return to pious deeds.

The question of dating the "History of the Great Prince of Moscow Affairs" remains controversial and not finally resolved, but there is no doubt that it was written between 1573 and 1583. "History ...", in which Kurbsky innovatively combined the techniques of various literary genres - chronicles , lives, military stories, memoirs, written in the form of a detailed answer to the questions of the "bright men" of the Commonwealth about the features of the reign of Ivan IV. It outlines the life of Ivan IV from birth to the early 1570s, names the reasons for his moral rebirth (the influence of the Josephites, the “Shuryevs” of the Zakharyins-Yuryevs and other “harmful fathers”), describes the tragic fate of many of Kurbsky’s contemporaries who died from tsarist arbitrariness. In "History ..." Kurbsky acted as a representative of the enlightened aristocracy, which stood in positions of compromise with other categories of the nobility. The state ideal of Kurbsky was the Chosen Rada, the church ideal was non-possessiveness (see the article Non-Possessors).

During his stay in Yuryev, Kurbsky wrote two letters to the elder of the Pskov-Pechersk monastery Vassian (Muromtsev) and, probably, “An answer about the right faith to John the learned” (possibly to the well-known Protestant preacher I. Vetterman in Yuryev). The 1st epistle to Elder Bassian and "Answer ..." are devoted mainly to church-dogmatic questions and have an anti-Catholic and anti-heretical orientation. The 2nd epistle to the elder Bassian contains a condemnation of the king's iniquities, the servility of a number of church hierarchs; it denounced an unjust judgment, expressed sympathy for the plight of service people, merchants, and peasants. Kurbsky urged the Pskov-Caves monks to oppose the cruel actions of Ivan IV and asked for protection from the arbitrariness of the tsar. The 3rd Epistle to Vassian, apparently written already in Wolmar after fleeing from Yuriev, contained complaints and reproaches to the monks who did not support Kurbsky and spread slander about him.

In the 1570s, Kurbsky also wrote a number of letters to various people, including Prince K. K. Ostrozhsky, in which he defended Orthodoxy and opposed an alliance with the Catholic Church, and especially against various reformation and heretical religious movements. In conversations with the elder, Artemy came up with the idea of ​​creating a circle of scribes. Kurbsky and his associates (Prince M. A. Nogotkov-Obolensky, gentry bachelor A. Bzhezhevsky, etc.) translated and copied various works of Christian writers, compiled in the early 1570s a collection of church writings “New Margaret” (included the works of John Chrysostom , an anonymous grammatical work "On Book Signs" and "The Tale", compiled by Kurbsky himself), translated from Latin a collection of words and lives of the Byzantine hagiographer Simeon Metaphrastus. In the second half of the 1570s, Kurbsky translated from Latin the treatise of John of Damascus "The Source of Knowledge", which included "Theology", "Dialectics" (partially), possibly "The Book of Heresies". Kurbsky also worked on translations of the “Chronicle” by Nikifor Kallistos Xanthopoulos, the works of the Church Fathers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Dionysius the Areopagite, Jerome the Blessed, and others.

Kurbsky left a deep mark on the history of ancient Russian literature as an outstanding writer and publicist, who for the first time attempted to synthesize various literary genres in order to create a new genre - a biography of an individual ruler against the backdrop of the history of his reign. The literary work of Kurbsky is a significant phenomenon of Russian culture, located at the intersection of various literary and linguistic traditions - Slavic-Byzantine and Latin, Moscow and Western Russian.

Cit.: Works. SPb., 1914. Vol. 1: Original compositions; Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with A. Kurbsky. 3rd ed. M., 1993; The same // Library of Literature of Ancient Rus'. SPb., 2001. T. 11: XVI century; Works of A. Kurbsky // Ibid.

Lit.: Gorsky S. [D.]. The life and historical significance of Prince A. M. Kurbsky. Kazan, 1858; Yasinsky A.N. Works of Prince Kurbsky as historical material. K., 1889; Lurie Ya. S. Reports of the agent of Emperor Maximilian II, Abbot Tsir about negotiations with A. M. Kurbsky in 1569 (According to the materials of the Vienna Archive) // Archeographic Yearbook for 1957, M., 1958; Skrynnikov R. G. Kurbsky and his letters to the Pskov-Caves Monastery // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. M.; L., 1962. T. 18; he is. Correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky. Paradoxes of E. Keenan. L., 1973; Schmidt S. O. To the study of the "History of Prince Kurbsky" // Slavs and Rus'. M., 1968; he is. On the history of correspondence between Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible // Cultural Heritage of Ancient Rus'. M., 1976; Keepap E. L. The Kurbskii-Groznyi Apocrypha. Camb. (Mass.), 1971; Rykov Yu. D. Editions of the "History" of Prince Kurbsky // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1970. M., 1971; he is. "The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow" by A. M. Kurbsky and Oprichnin Ivan the Terrible // Historical Notes. 1974. T. 93; he is. Prince A.M. Kurbsky and his concept of state power // Russia on the Ways of Centralization. M., 1982; Florya B.N. New about Grozny and Kurbsky // History of the USSR. 1974. No. 3; Zimin A. A. The first message of Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible: (Textological problems) // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. L., 1976. T. 31; he is. Escape of Prince A. Kurbsky to Lithuania // Russian genealogy. 2002. No. 1; Rossing N., Renne B. Apocryphal - not Apocryphal? A critical analysis of the discussion concerning the correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV Groznyj and Prince A. Kurbskij. Ph., 1980; Tsekhanovich A. A. On the translation activity of Prince A. M. Kurbsky // Old Russian literature. Source study. L., 1985; Auerbach I. A. M. Kurbskij: Leben in osteuropaischen Adelsgesellschaften des 16. Jahrhunderts. Munch., 1985; idem. Identity in Exile: A. M. Kurbskii and national consciousness in the sixteenth century // Moscow Rus (1359-1584): culture and historical identity. M., 1997; Morozov B. N. The first message of Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible in the collection of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1986. M., 1987; Kalugin VV When was Prince A. Kurbsky born? // Archive of Russian history. 1995. Issue. 6; he is. A. Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible: Theoretical views and literary technique of the ancient Russian writer. M., 1998; Yerusalimsky K. Yu. A. M. Kurbsky's ideas about princely power and Russian princes in the 9th - mid-16th centuries. // Society. 2004. Issue. 4; he is. A. Kurbsky as a Renaissance historian // Time - History - Memory. M., 2007; he is. Collection of Kurbsky. M., 2009. T. 1-2; Filyushkin A.I.A.M. Kurbsky: prosopographic study and hermeneutic commentary on A. Kurbsky's messages to Ivan the Terrible. St. Petersburg, 2007; he is. A. Kurbsky. M., 2008.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

OREL STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

CHAIR OF PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY

on national history

Andrey Kurbsky - military leader and politician ».

Eagle, 2001

Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky (1528-1583) came from an old family, he achieved his position at the royal court (“boyar, adviser and voivode”) solely thanks to personal merits rendered to the tsar by the voivodship service and government activities, for which he was granted land in the vicinity of Moscow, and later (1556) and the boyar rank.

Born in Yaroslavl, in a family distinguished by literary interests, apparently not alien to Western influence. He came from a family of eminent Yaroslavl princes who received a surname from the main village of their inheritance - Kurba on the Kurbitsa River. On the maternal side, Andrei was a relative of Tsarina Anastasia.

It can be safely assumed that Andrei Mikhailovich received a good education, although there is no specific data on his studies.

He was one of the influential statesmen and was a member of the circle of persons closest to the tsar, which he himself later called "The Chosen Rada". This circle of service nobility and courtiers was actually headed by a nobleman from a rich, but not noble family, A.F. Adashev and the Tsar's confessor Archpriest of the Kremlin's Annunciation Cathedral Sylvester. The noble princes D. Kurlyatev, N. Odoevsky, M. Vorotynsky and others joined them. Metropolitan Macarius actively supported the activities of this circle. Not being formally a state institution, the Elected Rada was essentially the government of Russia and for 13 years ruled the state on behalf of the tsar, consistently implementing a whole series of major reforms.

The period of political activity and military service of Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky coincided with the intensification of state building in Russia. The estate-representative monarchy, which was formed in its main features in the middle of the 16th century, provided for the need for a conciliar decision on all national affairs. Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky was a supporter of class representation in central and local authorities.

Kurbsky traditionally considered the source of power in the state to be divine will, and he saw the goal of supreme power in the just and merciful management of the state for the benefit of all its subjects and in the righteous resolution of all cases.

Kurbsky connects the decline in the affairs of the state and the military failures accompanying it with the fall of the government and the introduction of the oprichnina. The dissolution of the Rada marked the complete and unconditional concentration of unlimited power in the hands of Ivan IV.

Kurbsky's understanding of law clearly shows the idea of ​​the identity of law and justice. Only the just can be called legal, since violence is a source of lawlessness, not law. Outlining his requirements for law-making, Kurbsky emphasizes that the law must contain realistically achievable requirements, because lawlessness is not only non-observance, but also the creation of cruel and unenforceable laws. Such legislation, according to Kurbsky, is criminal. In his political and legal views, elements of a natural law concept are outlined, with which the teachings about the state and law are associated already in modern times. Ideas about law and truth, goodness and justice are perceived as constituent components of natural laws, through which the divine will preserves its highest creation, man, on earth.

Law enforcement practice is considered by Kurbsky both in judicial and out-of-court versions. The state of the court caused deep disapproval at Kurbsky.

Kurbsky is especially dissatisfied with the practice of sentencing in absentia, when the guilty person, and in most cases simply an unfairly slandered person, is deprived of the opportunity to personally appear before the court.

The advice of Vassian Toporkov, rector of the Pesnosh Monastery, played, according to Kurbsky, a tragic role, providing a change in the personality of the tsar and the manner of his actions. Vassian gave the king advice: “do not keep advisers smarter than yourself.”

The established tyrannical regime led to the loss of the significance of the Zemsky Sobor, which became just a silent conductor of the will of Ivan the Terrible.

The best option for organizing a form of state power Kurbsky seems to be a monarchy with an elected class-representative body participating in the resolution of all the most important matters in the state. Kurbsky was not only for the creation of a representative body (the Council of People of the People), but also various "sigklits", consisting of specialists of various profiles. The form of government in the form of a single centralized state system did not cause him any complaints and was fully approved by him.

The elected council carried out serious, deep reforms designed for a long period. Tsar Ivan sought immediate results. But with the underdevelopment of the apparatus of state power, a rapid movement towards centralization was possible only with the help of terror. The king went exactly this way, the Chosen One did not agree to it.

It existed until 1560. An important reason that caused its fall was disagreements with the family of the first wife of the Tsar, Anastasia Zakharyina, who died that year. But the main reason, however, was the problem of choosing the main paths of Russia's political development. The elected council was a supporter gradual reforms leading to greater centralization. Ivan IV, nicknamed Grozny, preferred path of terror contributing to the rapid strengthening of his personal power. Leaders of the Rada A.F. Adashev and Archpriest Sylvester fell into disgrace and died in exile.

Kurbsky achieved great success in military service. The most famous of his exploits in the campaign against Kazan. The troops that moved to Kazan were led by Tsar Ivan the Terrible himself, princes Andrei Kurbsky and Pyotr Shchenyatev led the right hand of the troops.

Even on the road near Tula, they defeated the Tatars, who outnumbered our soldiers twice. In this battle (as Karamzin writes) Prince Kurbsky "was marked by glorious wounds."

During the entire campaign and assault on Kazan, Kurbsky fought very courageously.

He especially distinguished himself at the end of the battle, when part (about 10 thousand) of Kazan, defending their king Ediger, retreated through the back gate to the lower part of the city. Kurbsky with two hundred soldiers crossed their path, keeping them in the cramped streets, making it difficult for the Kazanians to take each step, giving time to our troops.

Already after the issuance of the king, the Kazan people abandoned their heavy weapons and, having crossed the Kazanka River, rushed to the swamps and the forest, where the cavalry could no longer chase them. Only the young princes Kurbsky, Andrei and Roman, with a small retinue, managed to mount their horses, galloped over the enemy and detained them, but the Kazanians far outnumbered the Russian soldiers and they managed to defeat the Russian detachment. The new army, thrown in pursuit, overtook and destroyed the Kazanians.

Kurbsky, together with Mikulinsky and Sheremetyev, led a second campaign to pacify the already conquered kingdom.

Having expressed Kurbsky a special location, the Tsar sent him with an army to the city of Dorpat and appointed him to command in the Livonian War (1558-1583).

At the beginning of this war, Russian troops won a number of very important victories and almost completely defeated the Livonian Order, but then with the entry into the war of Denmark, Sweden and other countries against Russia, the victories were replaced by failures. And as a result, Russia lost this war.

In 1560 (as mentioned above), the Elected Rada ceased to exist, in which Kurbsky was an active participant. Arrests and executions of people who were members of the Rada followed. Kurbsky was in close relations with Adashev, this increased the disfavor of the Tsar. The disgrace began, Andrei Mikhailovich was sent to the province in Yuryev (the place of Adashev's exile). Realizing what fate awaited him, Kurbsky, after talking with his wife, decided to run away. Kurbsky's escape was preceded by secret negotiations with Tsar Sigismund II.

After spending a year in Yuriev, Kurbsky fled to Lithuanian possessions on April 30, 1564. Under the cover of night, he descended a rope from a high fortress wall and, with several faithful servants, galloped off to the nearest enemy castle - Wolmar. Escape from the carefully guarded fortress was an exceptionally difficult task. In a hurry, the fugitive left his family, abandoned almost all his property. (Abroad, he especially regretted his military armor and a magnificent library.) The reason for the haste was that Moscow friends secretly warned the boyar about the danger that threatened him, which Ivan the Terrible himself later confirmed.

After the escape, Kurbsky wrote a letter to Ivan the Terrible, in which he sharply criticized the changes in the tsar's rule, the established order, the cruel treatment of the boyars, etc. The letter was personally delivered to the tsar by Andrei Mikhailovich's servant Vasily Shibanov. After reading the letter, the Tsar ordered the servant to be tortured, but Kurbsky's most faithful comrade said nothing. Ivan IV did not want to remain indebted to the fugitive and wrote him a very long letter in response. This correspondence, with long breaks, went on in 1564-1579. Prince Kurbsky wrote only four letters, Tsar Ivan two; but his first letter is more than half of all correspondence in volume (62 out of 100 pages according to Ustryalov's edition). In addition, Kurbsky wrote an indictment in Lithuania The history of the Great Prince of Moscow, i.e., Tsar Ivan, where he also expressed the political views of his boyar brethren. But even in this controversy, conducted by both sides with great fervor and talent, we do not find a direct and clear answer to the question of the causes of mutual hostility. The letters of Prince Kurbsky are filled mainly with personal or estate reproaches and political complaints; V Stories he also makes several general political and historical judgments.

Participation in the Kazan campaigns

Participation in the Livonian War

Transition to Sigismund

Life in the Commonwealth

Evaluation of a historical figure

Literary creativity

(1528-1583) - prince, famous politician and writer. He came from the Smolensk-Yaroslavl line of Rurikovich, that part of it that owned the village of Kurba. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, he was recorded in documents under the surname Krupsky (Krupski). He and his descendants used the Levart coat of arms.

Rod Kurbsky

The Kurbsky family separated from the branch of the Yaroslavl princes in the 15th century. According to the family legend, the family received a surname from the village of Kurba. The Kurbsky clan manifested itself mainly in the voivodeship service: members of the clan conquered the Khanty and Mansi tribes in the Northern Urals, the Kurbskys died both near Kazan and in the war with the Crimean Khanate. The Kurbsky family was also present in administrative positions, but in this field the family did not achieve great success, although the Kurbskys were governors in Veliky Ustyug, and in Pskov, and in Starodub, and in Toropets. Most likely, Mikhail Mikhailovich Kurbsky, the father of Andrei Kurbsky, had the boyars. Perhaps Semyon Fedorovich Kurbsky also had the boyar rank.

Such a career position, of course, did not correspond to the very name of the Yaroslavl prince. There could be several reasons for this situation. Firstly, the princes Kurbsky often supported the opposition to the ruling regime. The grandson of Semyon Ivanovich Kurbsky was married to the daughter of the disgraced Prince Andrei Uglichsky. The Kurbskys supported in the struggle for the throne not Vasily III, but Dmitry the grandson, which earned even greater dislike of the Moscow rulers.

Participation in the Kazan campaigns

In the 21st year, he participated in the 1st campaign near Kazan; then he was governor in Pronsk. In 1552, he defeated the Tatars near Tula, and was wounded, but eight days later he was already on horseback again. During the siege of Kazan, Kurbsky commanded the right hand of the entire army and, together with his younger brother, showed outstanding courage. Two years later, he defeated the rebellious Tatars and Cheremis, for which he was appointed boyar.

At this time, Kurbsky was one of the closest people to Tsar Ivan the Terrible, he became even closer to the party of Sylvester and Adashev.

Participation in the Livonian War

When failures began in Livonia, the tsar put Kurbsky at the head of the Livonian army, who soon won a number of victories over the knights and Poles, after which he was governor in Yuryev. But at that time, the persecution and execution of supporters of Sylvester and Adashev had already begun, and the escapes of those disgraced or threatened with royal disgrace to Lithuania. Although there was no fault for Kurbsky, except for sympathy for the fallen rulers, he had every reason to think that he would not escape cruel disgrace. Meanwhile, King Sigismund-August and the Polish nobles wrote to Kurbsky, persuading him to go over to their side and promising a warm welcome.

Transition to Sigismund

The battle near Nevel (1562), unsuccessful for the Russians, could not give the tsar a pretext for disgrace, judging by the fact that even after it Kurbsky was in charge in Yuryev; and the king, reproaching him for his failure, does not think of attributing it to treason. Kurbsky could not be afraid of responsibility for an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Helmet: if this matter were of great importance, the tsar would blame Kurbsky in his letter. Nevertheless, Kurbsky was sure of the nearness of misfortune and, after vain prayers and fruitless petitions from the hierarchal ranks, he decided to emigrate "from the land of God", endangering his family. This happened in 1563 (according to other news - in 1564).

He came to the service of Sigismund not alone, but with a whole crowd of adherents and servants, and was granted several estates (including the city of Kovel). Kurbsky controlled them through his Muscovite constables. Already in September 1564 he fought against Moscow. Since he knew perfectly well the defense system of the western borders, with his participation, Polish troops repeatedly ambushed Russian troops or, bypassing the outposts, robbed the lands with impunity, driving many people into slavery.

In emigration, a difficult fate befell people close to him. Kurbsky subsequently writes that the tsar “I killed my mother and wife and lad of my only son, who were shut up in prison, with a rope; my brethren, the single-knee princes of Yaroslavl, with various deaths, I killed my estates and plundered them ”. To justify his rage, Ivan the Terrible could only unfoundedly accuse him of betraying him and violating the "kissing the cross" (he did not kiss the cross); his other two accusations, that Kurbsky “wanted to be sovereign in Yaroslavl” and that he had taken away his wife Anastasia from him, were invented by the tsar, apparently only to justify his malice in the eyes of the Polish-Lithuanian nobles: he could not harbor personal hatred for the tsarina, but think about the allocation of Yaroslavl to a special principality could only be insane.

Life in the Commonwealth

Kurbsky lived near Kovel, in the town of Milyanovichi (present-day Ukraine).

Judging by the numerous trials, the acts of which have survived to this day, he quickly assimilated with the Polish-Lithuanian magnates and “among the violent ones, he turned out to be at least not the most humble”: he fought with the pans, seized the estate by force, scolded the royal envoys with “obscene Moscow words” and other.

In 1571, Kurbsky married a wealthy widow Kozinskaya (Kozinski), nee Princess Golshanskaya, but soon divorced her, marrying in 1579 a poor girl Semashko, and was apparently happy with her, since he had a daughter Marina from her (born 1580) and son Demetrius.

Kurbsky died in 1583.

Dimitry Kurbsky subsequently received a part of what was taken away and converted to Catholicism.

Evaluation of a historical figure

On a mossy stone at night,
An exile from a dear homeland,
Prince Kurbsky sat, the young leader,
In hostile Lithuania, a sad wanderer,
Shame and glory of the Russian countries,
Wise in advice, terrible in battle,
The hope of mournful Russians,
The storm of the Livonians, the scourge of Kazan...

K. F. Ryleev, 1821 (excerpt)

Opinions about Kurbsky, as a politician and a person, are not only different, but also diametrically opposed. Some see him as a narrow conservative, an extremely limited but self-important person, a supporter of boyar sedition and an opponent of autocracy. His betrayal is explained by the calculation of worldly benefits, and his behavior in Lithuania is considered a manifestation of unbridled autocracy and gross egoism; even the sincerity and expediency of his labors for the maintenance of Orthodoxy are suspected.

According to others, Kurbsky is a smart and educated person, an honest and sincere person who has always stood on the side of good and truth. He is called the first Russian dissident.

The well-known Polish historian and heraldist of the 17th century, Simon Okolsky, wrote that Kurbsky “was a truly great man: firstly, great in his origin, for he was in common with Prince John of Moscow; secondly, great in position, as he was the highest military leader in Muscovy; thirdly, great in valor, because he won so many victories; fourthly, great in his happy fate: after all, he, an exile and a fugitive, was received with such honors by King Augustus. He also possessed a great mind, for in a short time, already in his advanced years, he learned the Latin language in the kingdom, with which he was previously unfamiliar.

Political ideas of Andrei Kurbsky

  • The weakening of the Christian faith and the spread of heresy is dangerous primarily because it gives rise to ruthlessness and indifference in people towards their people and fatherland.
  • Like Ivan the Terrible, Andrei Kurbsky interpreted the supreme state power as a gift from God, in addition, he called Russia the "Holy Russian Empire."
  • The holders of power do not actually fulfill what God intended for them. Instead of administering a righteous judgment, they create arbitrariness. In particular, Ivan IV does not administer a righteous court and does not protect his subjects.
  • The Church should be an obstacle to rampant lawlessness and bloody arbitrariness of rulers. The spirit of Christian martyrs who died in the struggle against criminal and unrighteous rulers raises the Church to this lofty destiny.
  • Royal power should be exercised with the assistance of advisers. Moreover, it should be a permanent advisory body under the tsar. The prince saw an example of such an organ in the Elected Rada - a board of advisers that operated under Ivan IV in the 50s of the 16th century.

Literary creativity

From the works of K. currently known the following:

  1. "History of the book. the great Moscow about the deeds, even heard from reliable husbands and even seen by our eyes.
  2. "Four Letters to Grozny",
  3. "Letters" to various persons; 16 of them were included in the 3rd edition. "Tales of the book. TO." N. Ustryalova (St. Petersburg, 1868), one letter was published by Sakharov in The Moskvityanin (1843, No. 9) and three letters in The Orthodox Interlocutor (1863, book V-VIII).
  4. "Preface to the New Margaret"; ed. for the first time by N. Ivanishev in the collection of acts: “Life of Prince. K. in Lithuania and Volhynia ”(Kyiv 1849), reprinted by Ustryalov in Skaz.
  5. "Foreword to the book of Damascus" Heaven "published by Prince Obolensky in" Bibliographic Notes "1858 No. 12).
  6. “Notes (on the margins) to the translations from Chrysostom and Damascus” (published by Prof. A. Arkhangelsky in “Appendices” to “Essays on the History of Western Russian Literature”, in “Readings of the General and Ist. and Ancient.” 1888 No. 1).
  7. "History of the Cathedral of Florence", compilation; printed in "Story" pp. 261-8; about it, see 2 articles by S.P. Shevyrev - “Journal of the Ministry of Education”, 1841, book. I, and "Moskvityanin" 1841, vol. III.

In addition to selected works of Chrysostom ("Margaret the New"; see about him "Slavic-Russian rukop." Undolsky, M., 1870), Kurbsky translated the dialogue of Patr. Gennady, Theology, Dialectics, and other writings of Damascus (see the article by A. Arkhangelsky in the Journal of the Ministry of National Education, 1888, No. 8), some of the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, excerpts from Eusebius, and so on.

G. Vasily Mikhailovich Tuchkov (Kurbsky's mother - nee Tuchkov) was very close to Maxim, who probably had a strong influence on Kurbsky. Like Maxim, Kurbsky has a deep hatred for the self-satisfied ignorance, at that time very common even in the upper class of the Muscovite state. Kurbsky considers dislike for books, which supposedly "turn people in, that is to say go crazy", as a malicious heresy. Above all, he places St. Scripture and the Church Fathers as its interpreters; but he also respects the external or noble sciences - grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, natural philosophy (physics, etc.), moral philosophy (ethics) and the circle of heavenly circulation (astronomy). He himself studies in fits and starts, but he studies all his life; as a governor in Yuryev, he has a whole library with him.

In the 21st year, he participated in the 1st campaign near Kazan; then he was a governor in Pronsk. In the city, he defeated the Tatars near Tula, and was wounded, but after 8 days he was already on horseback again. During the siege of Kazan, Kurbsky commanded the right hand of the entire army and, together with his younger brother, showed outstanding courage. After 2 years, he defeated the rebellious Tatars and Cheremis, for which he was appointed boyar. At this time, Kurbsky was one of the people closest to the tsar; he became even closer to the party of Sylvester and Adashev. When failures began in Livonia, the tsar put Kurbsky at the head of the Livonian army, who soon won a number of victories over the knights and Poles, after which he was governor in Yuryev Livonsky (Derpt).

But at that time, the persecution and execution of supporters of Sylvester and Adashev had already begun, and the escapes of those disgraced or threatened with royal disgrace to Lithuania. Although there was no fault for Kurbsky, except for sympathy for the fallen rulers, he had every reason to think that he would not escape cruel disgrace. Meanwhile, King Sigismund-August and the Polish nobles wrote to Kurbsky, persuading him to go over to their side and promising a warm welcome. The battle near Nevl (city), unsuccessful for the Russians, could not give the tsar a pretext for disgrace, judging by the fact that even after it Kurbsky voivodship in Yuryev; and the king, reproaching him for his failure, does not think of attributing it to treason. Kurbsky could not be afraid of responsibility for an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Helmet: if this matter were of great importance, the tsar would blame Kurbsky in his letter. Nevertheless, Kurbsky was sure of the proximity of misfortune and, after vain prayers and fruitless intercession of the hierarchal ranks, he decided to flee "from the land of God."

According to Kurbsky, state disasters also come from neglect of teaching, and states where verbal education is firmly established not only do not perish, but expand and convert non-believers to Christianity (like the Spaniards - the New World). Kurbsky shares with Maxim the Greek his dislike for the "Osiflyans", for monks who "began to love acquisitions"; they are in his eyes "in truth, all sorts of kats (executioners) are bitter." He pursues the apocrypha, denounces the "Bulgarian fables" of the priest Yeremey, "or rather the nonsense of the Baba", and especially rises against the Gospel of Nicodemus, the authenticity of which was ready to be believed by people who were well-read in St. Scripture. Exposing the ignorance of contemporary Rus' and willingly admitting that in his new homeland science is more widespread and more respected, Kurbsky is proud of the purity of the faith of his natural fellow citizens, reproaches the Catholics for their impious innovations and vacillations, and deliberately does not want to separate the Protestants from them, although he is aware regarding the biography of Luther, the civil strife that arose as a result of his preaching and the iconoclasm of Protestant sects. He is also pleased with the purity of the Slavic language and opposes it to "Polish barbaria".

He clearly sees the danger threatening the Orthodox of the Polish crown from the Jesuits, and warns Konstantin Ostrozhsky himself against their machinations; it is precisely for the struggle against them that he would like to prepare his co-religionists by science. Kurbsky looks gloomily at his time; this is the 8th thousand years, the "age of the beast"; “even if the Antichrist has not yet been born, everyone is already wide and bold in Prague. In general, Kurbsky’s mind can rather be called strong and solid, rather than strong and original (so he sincerely believes that during the siege of Kazan, the Tatar old men and women with their charms inspired “spitting ", i.e., rain on the Russian army;, and in this respect his royal opponent is significantly superior to him. Grozny is not inferior to Kurbsky in knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, the history of the church of the first centuries and the history of Byzantium, but he is less well-read in the church fathers and incomparably less experienced in the ability to clearly and literaryly express his thoughts, and his "much rage and ferocity" interferes with the correctness of his speech.

In terms of content, Grozny's correspondence with Kurbsky is a precious literary monument: there is no other case where the worldview of the advanced Russian people of the 16th century would have been revealed with greater frankness and freedom, and where two outstanding minds would have acted with great tension. In "History of the Great Prince of Moscow" (an account of events from the childhood of Grozny to 1578), which is rightly considered the first monument of Russian historiography with a strictly sustained trend, Kurbsky is a writer to an even greater extent: all parts of his monograph are strictly considered, the presentation is harmonious and clear (except for those places where the text is faulty); he very skillfully uses the figures of exclamation and questioning, and in some places (for example, in the depiction of the torment of Metropolitan Philip) comes to true pathos. But even in the "History" Kurbsky cannot rise to a definite and original world outlook; and here he is only an imitator of good Byzantine models. Either he rises against the nobles, and the lazy ones go to battle, and proves that the king should seek good advice "not only from advisers, but also from people of all people" (Ska. 89), then he reproaches the king that he elects "clerks" for himself " not from a gentry family", "but more from priests or from a simple nation" (Skaz. 43). He constantly equips his story with unnecessary beautiful words, insertions, not always going to the point and not well-aimed maxims, composed speeches and prayers and monotonous reproaches against the primordial enemy of the human race. Kurbsky's language is in places beautiful and even strong, in places pompous and viscous, and everywhere dotted with foreign words, obviously - not out of necessity, but for the sake of greater literary character. In a huge number there are words taken from the Greek language unfamiliar to him, even more - Latin words, somewhat smaller - German words that have become known to the author either in Livonia or through the Polish language.

Proceedings

From the works of Kurbsky, the following are currently known:

  1. "The story of the Great Prince of Moscow about deeds, even heard from reliable husbands and even seen by our eyes."
  2. "Four Letters to Grozny",
  3. "Letters" to various persons; 16 of them were included in the 3rd edition. "Tales of Prince Kurbsky" by N. Ustryalov (St. Petersburg, 1868), one letter was published by Sakharov in "Moskvityanin" (1843, No. 9) and three letters - in "Orthodox Interlocutor" (1863, book V - VIII).
  4. "Preface to the New Margaret"; ed. for the first time by N. Ivanishev in the collection of acts: "The Life of Prince Kurbsky in Lithuania and Volyn" (Kyiv 1849), reprinted by Ustryalov in "Skaz.".
  5. "Foreword to the book of Damascus" Heaven "published by Prince Obolensky in" Bibliographic. Notes" 1858 No. 12.
  6. "Notes (on the margins) to translations from Chrysostom and Damascus" (published by Prof. A. Arkhangelsky in "Appendices" to "Essays on the History of West Russian Literature", in "Readings of General and Ist. and Ancient." 1888 No. 1).
  7. "History of the Cathedral of Florence", compilation; printed in "Story." pp. 261-8; about it, see 2 articles by S.P. Shevyrev - "Journal. Min. Nar. Education", 1841 book. I, and "Moskvityanin" 1841, vol. III.

In addition to selected works

  • "Tales of Prince Kurbsky" were published by N. Ustryalov in 1833, 1842 and 1868, but also the 3rd ed. far from being called critical and does not contain all that was known even in 1868.
  • S. Gorsky: "Kn. A. M. Kurbsky" (Kaz., 1858), as well as a review of it in the article by N. A. Popov, "On the biographical and criminal element in history" ("Ateney" 1858 Part VIII, No. 46).
  • A number of articles by Z. Oppokov ("Kn. A. M. Kurbsky") were published in Kiev. Univ. Izv. for 1872, nos. 6-8.
  • Prof. M. Petrovsky (M. P-sky): "Kn. A. M. Kurbsky. Historical and bibliographic notes on his Tales" print. in "Uch. Zap. Kazan Univ." for 1873
  • "Investigations about the life of Prince Kurbsky in Volyn", reported. L. Matseevich ("Ancient and New Russia" 1880, I);
  • "Prince Kurbsky in Volyn" Yul. Bartoshevich ("Ist. Bulletin" VI).
  • A. N. Yasinsky "The works of Prince Kurbsky as historical material", Kyiv, 1889

Used materials

  • Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron.

Simon Okolsky. Polish world. Krakow, 1641. Vol. 1. S. 504. Cited. Quoted from: Kalugin V.V. Andrey Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. M., 1998. S. 4.

"Margaret New"; see about him "Slavic-Russian hands." Undolsky, M., 1870

See the article by A. Arkhangelsky in "Journal. M. H. Pr." 1888, No. 8

ANDREY MIKHAILOVICH KURBSKY

Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky(c.1528-1583) came from a noble family of Smolensk-Yaroslavl princes, descendants of Rurik, and was related to the royal family through the female line. The first years of his service were associated with the royal court and military affairs. In 1549, he already had the court rank of stolnik and, with the rank of Yesaul, participated in military campaigns. In 1552, he already became famous as a brave commander during the capture of Kazan, and in 1556, at the age of 28, he was granted the boyar rank. By the beginning of the Livonian War, in 1558, Kurbsky commanded a sentry regiment and in April 1563 was appointed governor in the city of Derpt (Yuriev).

Andrei Kurbsky actively participated in the activities of the government, which led the country from the end of the 40s. XVI century under the young Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich. The leaders of this government were the tsar's confessor, the priest Sylvester, and the Kostroma nobleman, who received the high rank of a roundabout, Alexei Adashev. Later, with the light hand of Kurbsky, this government began to be called " Chosen Rada».

In the early 60s. the tsar, dissatisfied with the limitation of his own power, disperses the Chosen Rada, and sends Sylvester and Adashev into exile, where they soon die. In the same years, the first persecutions and executions of the boyars began. Fearing death, Andrei Kurbsky fled to Lithuania in April 1564, where he received service and rich lands. Being in the service of the Lithuanian prince, and then the Polish king, Kurbsky participates in military campaigns, including against Russia. In 1581, during one of the campaigns, he fell ill and returned to his estate Milyanovichi near Kovel, where he died two years later.

Apparently, in his youth, Kurbsky received a good education, and he repeatedly and with great respect called Maxim the Greek his teacher. Already in Russia, Kurbsky wrote a number of works - several letters, as well as two "Lives of Augustine of Hippo". But creative flourishing comes in the Lithuanian period of life. From his pen come numerous messages to various people, including three messages to Ivan the Terrible. These letters, in which Ivan the Terrible's grave accusations of numerous crimes were first uttered, became the basis of correspondence with the tsar - the most interesting document of the religious and philosophical thought of Russia in the 16th century.

In 1573, Kurbsky wrote a vivid philosophical and journalistic essay - “ History of the Grand Duke of Moscow”, which tells about the board of the Chosen One and about Ivan Vasilyevich’s betrayal of their common undertakings. In addition, in his estate, he organized a kind of scriptorium, where manuscripts were copied and translated, and various compositions were written. Among the translations, it is necessary to name the collection "New Margaret", the basis of which was the works of John Chrysostom and the writings of John of Damascus. Andrey Kurbsky also owns the translation of the treatise of the Protestant thinker I. Spangenberg "On Syllogism".

The writings of Andrei Kurbsky testify that while remaining a secular person, he was at the same time a brilliant Orthodox thinker who put a lot of effort into defending the truth of the Orthodox dogma. He quite consciously does not accept Catholicism and especially Protestantism. A significant part of Kurbsky's epistles written in Lithuania were directed against the "Luthores", "Zwinglians", "Calvins" and other "impious scoffers". He also sharply condemns any attempts to reform Orthodoxy, which was characteristic of those who were called "heretics" in Rus'. In one of his epistles, Kurbsky declared that it was inadmissible for "a true Christian from a Christ-hating Arian" to accept "scriptures to help the Church of Christ God." Kurbsky was also critical of the humanistic teachings that appeared in Western Rus'. And in general, having learned in emigration the "freedoms of Christian kings", he came to the denial of all the teachings that these freedoms substantiated, calling all the non-Orthodox literature of the Polish-Lithuanian state as "Polish barbaria", "polycism".

At the same time, despite his flight from Russia, Andrey Kurbsky considered the Russian state the only country in the world that had preserved true Christianity. Therefore, in his writings, he repeatedly refers to Russia as " Holy Russian land" And " Holy Russian kingdom».

In his interpretation of the Orthodox dogma, Andrei Kurbsky was close to Maxim the Greek and "non-acquisitiveness", while condemning the "money-loving" Josephite hierarchs. Like all thinkers of the “non-possessive” direction, he believed that the world is created by Christ’s Love, which, as a gift of the Holy Spirit, fills the hearts of people, inspires people with “rightness of heart”: “... The gift of the spirit is given not according to external wealth and the power of the kingdom, but according to rightness of soul… After all, God does not look at power and pride, but at rightness of heart, and gives gifts to those who perceive them with their good will!”

Based on the idea of ​​“rightness of heart”, Andrei Kurbsky develops thoughts about the existence of “ free human nature" And " natural law by which people should live. Moreover, speaking of “natural law”, Kurbsky refers both to the experience of “pagan philosophers” and to the Epistle to the Romans of the Apostle Paul (11: 14–15): “If pagan philosophers, according to natural laws, have reached such truths and such reason and great wisdom among themselves, as the apostle said: "The thoughts of those who condemn and justify," and for this reason God allowed. That they own the whole universe, then why are we called Christians, and cannot be likened not only to scribes and Pharisees, but also to people who live according to natural laws!

And although these thoughts did not receive a detailed explanation in the writings of Kurbsky, nevertheless, it can be assumed that he interpreted the concept of “freedom of human nature” quite broadly, in any case, much wider than the Josephite thinkers and sovereign Ivan the Terrible.

The ideal of the socio-political structure of Russia - " orthodox true christian autocracy”- Kurbsky considered it already created during the time of the Chosen One. It was during this period that the sovereign most fully corresponded to the “non-possessive” ideas about the “pious king” - he surrounded himself with wise advisers, listened to their opinion and ruled his state based on the idea of ​​​​Love. As Kurbsky wrote, "the tsar himself" needs to be "like a head and love his advisers." Moreover, according to the disgraced prince, “the king, although the kingdom serves to his honor, and has not received any gift from God, should seek good and useful advice not only from advisers, but also from the whole people.”

However, the tsar did not put up with certain restrictions on his power for long, and soon this ideal, brought to life by the efforts of the Chosen One, collapsed. And then Andrei Kurbsky falls upon Ivan the Terrible with accusatory messages. In fact, all three messages to the tsar and most of the “History of the Grand Duke of Moscow” are a bitter song about the lost “Holy Russian kingdom”.

It must be said right away that the correspondence between Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible is evidence not so much of a political as of religious-philosophical dispute. In their letters, two different understandings of the essence of Orthodox teaching clashed, which is why each of them so fiercely accuses the other of apostasy, heresy, and betrayal of the right faith. “Why are you, fool, still outrageous against your Lord? Kurbsky asks angrily in one of his letters. “Has not the hour come to reason and repentance and return to Christ?” In other words, Ivan the Terrible for Andrei Kurbsky is the same apostate as the sovereign of the disgraced prince considers.

Kurbsky sees the tsar's apostasy in the fact that he betrayed the "non-possessive" ideals of the "Chosen One" and ceased to correspond to the image of the "pious tsar." In any case, Andrei Kurbsky reduces all his accusations against Ivan IV to one idea: “forgetting” “non-possessive” ideals, Ivan Vasilyevich lost his “piety”, ceased to be a “pious tsar”. Moreover, Kurbsky accused Ivan IV of the fact that, by refusing the help of the "Chosen Rada", the sovereign destroyed social harmony and with his own hands destroyed the "Holy Russian kingdom", "true Orthodox Christian autocracy", already created by the joint efforts of the tsar and his advisers. Therefore, all the terrible events that Russia experienced during the reign of Ivan the Terrible are only the consequences of the tsar's "betrayal" of the true faith.

He sees the essence of apostasy in the fact that the king, supported by "evil" advisers, exorbitantly imagined himself as the only anointed of God on earth. In the Third Epistle, Kurbsky demonstrates an excellent understanding of the inner aspirations of the Moscow autocrat - to enlighten almost the entire universe: "... You think to yourself that you are wise and that you can teach the whole universe." And he rejects the claims of Ivan the Terrible to the role of the universal Orthodox sovereign, accusing him of "exorbitant pride and arrogance."

And yet, the disgraced prince hopes that the mind will return to the king, and the king will return to the days of the reign of the Chosen One. Therefore, Kurbsky calls on him to “repent and return to Christ”: “You were wise and, I think, you know about the three parts of the soul and how the mortal parts obey the immortal. If you do not know, then learn from the wisest and subdue and subjugate the bestial part in yourself to the Divine image and likeness: after all, since ancient times everyone saves the soul by subordinating the worst in themselves to the best.

Andrey Kurbsky also considers the tsar’s passion for witchcraft and sorcery to be evidence of betrayal of faith, which was completely not accepted by the “non-possessors”. Almost in the spirit of Maxim the Greek, who denounced astrology, Kurbsky accuses Ivan the Terrible of surrounding himself with soothsayers and pagan sorcerers and believing them more than the Word of God.

And Andrei Kurbsky unequivocally interprets various failures of Ivan the Terrible as "God's punishment" for apostasy. So, when in the early 70s. famine, an epidemic of plague, and then the Crimean Tatars, who burned all of Moscow, fell upon Russia, Kurbsky wrote: “What plagues were sent by God - I’m talking about hunger and arrows flying in the wind (meaning the plague. - S.P.), and finally about the barbarian sword, the avenger for the desecration of the law of God, and the sudden burning of the glorious city of Moscow and the devastation of the entire Russian land ... "

Therefore, Kurbsky’s final assessment of Ivan the Terrible’s deeds is more than tough: “Having violated the commandments of his Christ and rejected the legal provisions of the Gospel, did he not openly devote himself to the devil and his servants ...”

Kurbsky accuses not only the tsar, but also his new entourage of betraying the true faith. So, about the Josephite monk Vassian Toporkov, who, according to Kurbsky, played a decisive role in changing the religious and political preferences of the sovereign, he wrote: “Oh, son of the devil! Why, in short, cut off the veins of human nature and destroyed the whole fortress of the soul ... ”And he calls the other“ flatterers ”and“ destroyers ”servants of“ Satan and his demons ”, who, of their own“ free will ”, destroy not only the king, but also their souls : “Truly a new idolatry and dedication and offering not to the idol of Apollo and the like, but to Satan himself and his demons: they sacrifice not oxen and goats forcibly drawn to the slaughter, but by the free will of their souls and bodies, and they do this in blindness for the sake of avarice and the glory of this world!