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 right hand the whole army and together with younger brother showed remarkable 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 full foundation to think that cruel disgrace will not pass him by. 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 proximity of misfortune and, after vain prayers and fruitless petitions bishoprics, 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 perfectly knew the defense system of the western borders, with his participation, Polish troops repeatedly ambushed Russian troops or, bypassing 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.

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

Evaluation of a historical figure

On a mossy stone hour of the 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 an intelligent and educated person, an honest and sincere person who has always stood on the side of goodness 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

• Weakening 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 different 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.

Introduction

The 16th century is the century of an extraordinary rise in autocratic power in Russia, and at the same time it is the last century of the Rurikids - the first dynasty on the Russian throne.

Ivan the Terrible, in fact, became the last independent ruler from this dynasty, and so independent and autocratic that he tried in every possible way to get rid of advisers, not only evil, but also kind. The personality of the tsar is so complex that historians over the centuries have often expressed completely opposite opinions, some condemn him, say that “Russia has never been ruled worse”, others justify it. Ivan Vasilievich combined so much different traits character, was so contradictory and unpredictable that only contemporaries who directly lived with him and served with him, one of whom was Andrei Kurbsky, could reliably describe his personality. A. S. Pushkin described the Terrible Tsar as follows: “Quirky, hypochondriac, pious, even a believer, but most of all afraid of the devil and hell, smart, principled, understanding the depravity of the mores of his time, aware of the savagery of his barbaric country, convinced to the point of fanaticism in his right falling under the influence of Godunov like a charm, passionate, depraved, suddenly becoming an ascetic, abandoned by Kurbsky, who betrayed him, a friend who had long understood him, but in the end could not help but leave him - a strange soul full of contradictions!

Brief biography of A.M. Kurbsky

Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky (1528--1583) belonged to the noble princely family of Rurikovich. 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 paternal side, he descended from Prince Fyodor Rostislavich of Smolensk and Yaroslavl (circa 1240-1299), who in turn was a descendant in the tenth generation of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir the Holy. On the maternal side, Prince Kurbsky was related to the wife of Ivan the Terrible, Anastasia Romanovna. His great-grandfather Vasily Borisovich Tuchkov-Morozov and Anastasia's great-grandfather Ivan Borisovich were siblings. "And that is your queen pl?, a wretched, close relative," noted: Prince Kurbsky in one of his messages to Ivan the Terrible.

Contemporaries of the prince, as well as subsequent researchers of his work, noted the great education of Prince Andrei. He studied ancient languages ​​(Greek and Latin), spoke several modern ones, was fond of translations, and in his original work he managed to "comprehend the secret of historical art."

He was one of the most influential statesmen and was included in 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.

Until 1564, Andrei Kurbsky was the closest associate of the Russian tsar, an influential tsarist governor. Moreover, he was one of the favorites of Ivan IV. According to the prince himself, at the end of 1559 the tsar, sending him to war in Livonia, told him: "I am forced either to go against the Livonians myself, or to send you, my beloved: go and serve me faithfully" Tomsinov V.A. History of Russian political and legal thought. M .: Zertsalo, 2003, - 255 p. However, by the end of 1563, the attitude of Ivan the Terrible towards Andrei Kurbsky changed. The prince was at that time in Dorpat, but the people loyal to him, who were at the royal court, reported that the king was scolding him with "angry words." Fearing that this scolding would be followed by something more terrible for him, Kurbsky fled in the spring of 1564 to Lithuania and entered the service of the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund II August. Already in the autumn of that year, he takes part in the war against Russia.

While in exile, Kurbsky wrote about Russia as a foreign country for himself, however, Lithuania did not become his native country either. “I have been banished without truth from the land of God and in a wandering place between heavy people and zealously inhospitable people,” the traitor boyar complained about his difficult fate in a foreign land. King Sigismund II granted Kurbsky as a reward for his betrayal of Russia as a fief the rich and populous city of Kovel with towns and villages in Volyn, as well as estates in Lithuania. This royal generosity to the Russian boyar aroused the envy of his neighbors - the Polish lords. Discord and litigation broke out between them and Kurbsky. The ambassador of Ivan the Terrible at the royal court reported to the tsar in 1571: “And now Kurbskoy has fallen from the Poles in the borders, and the Poles do not like him, but everyone calls him an idol and a lotr (i.e. a traitor and a thief) and they look forward to him from King of disgrace is not for a long time, that the whole Polish Rada does not like him.

Under these conditions, books became the only consolation for the unfortunate Kurbsky. "And those who are comforted in book affairs and the minds of the highest ancient men are passers-by," Kurbsky admitted in one of his messages. In order to read ancient Roman writers in the originals, he learned Latin in a short time. Sending his third message to Ivan the Terrible around 1579, Kurbsky attached to him the text of the second message, which he could not send earlier, as well as his translation of two chapters from the work of Mark Tullius Cicero "ParadoxaadM.Brutum" *. In these chapters, Kurbsky points out to the tsar, the wise Cicero gave the answer "to his enemy, even scolding him as an exile and a traitor, just like your majesty us poor ones, unable to restrain the ferocity of your persecution, shooting us with fiery arrows of sikovance ( i.e. threats) to your tune and in vain.

Kurbsky Andrei Mikhailovich (born 1528 - death 1583), Russian political and military figure, publicist writer, philanthropist. From a family of eminent Yaroslavl princes who received a surname from the main village of their inheritance - Kurba on the Kurbitsa River. He was brilliantly educated (studied grammar, rhetoric, astronomy and philosophy); Maxim Grek had a great influence on the formation of the prince's worldview.

Father Mikhail Mikhailovich Kurbsky, prince and governor in the service of the Moscow princes. On the maternal side, Andrei was a relative of Tsarina Anastasia. In the 1540-50s. was one of the people closest to the king. He was in the highest administrative and military positions, was a member of the Chosen Council, took part in the Kazan campaigns of 1545-52.

Due to military failures in Livonia, the sovereign in 1561 put Kurbsky at the head of the Russian army in the Baltic states, who was soon able to win a number of victories over the knights and Poles, after which he was governor in Yuryev (Derpt). Beware of disgrace after the fall of the government of A.F. Adasheva, with whom he was close, on April 30, 1564, the prince fled from Yuriev to Lithuania; the king of Poland granted Andrei Mikhailovich several estates in Lithuania (including the city of Kovel) and Volyn, the voivode was included in the number of members of the royal council. 1564 - led one of the Polish armies in the war against Russia.

The beginning of a military career

Little is known about his childhood, and the date when he was born would have remained unknown if he himself had not mentioned in one of his writings that he was born in October 1528.

The name Andrei Kurbsky was first mentioned in connection with the campaign against Kazan in 1549. At that time he was almost 21 years old, and he was in the rank of steward of Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich. Apparently, by that time he managed to become famous for his feats of arms, if the sovereign already in the next 1550 appointed him governor in Pronsk to guard the southeastern borders of Rus'. Soon Kurbsky received land from the tsar in the vicinity of Moscow. It is likely that they were given to him for merit, but it is also possible that they were received for the obligation to appear with a detachment of soldiers for a campaign against enemies at the first call. And since that time, Prince Kurbsky has been repeatedly glorified on the battlefields.

Capture of Kazan

Ever since the time of the Grand Duke, Kazan Tatars often made devastating raids on Russian lands. Although Kazan was dependent on Moscow, this dependence was rather fragile. So in 1552, Russian troops were again gathered for a decisive battle with the Kazanians. Along with this, the troops of the Crimean Khan came to the southern Russian lands, who reached Tula and laid siege to the city.

The sovereign remained with the main forces near Kolomna, and sent a 15,000-strong army under the command of Kurbsky and Shchenyatev to the rescue of Tula. The Russian army appeared in front of the khan unexpectedly and forced him to hastily retreat to the steppe. However, a large detachment of Crimeans remained near Tula, robbing the surroundings of the city, not knowing that the khan had withdrawn the main forces. The prince decided to attack this detachment, although he had half the army. The battle lasted "half a year" (one and a half hours) and ended with the complete victory of Andrei Kurbsky. Half of the 30,000-strong detachment of Crimeans fell in battle, others were captured or died during the pursuit or crossing the Shivoron River.

In addition to prisoners, the Russians captured many war trophies. The prince himself fought bravely in the front ranks of the soldiers and was wounded several times during the battle - “they cut off his head, shoulders and arms.” However, despite the injuries, after 8 days he was already in the ranks and went on a campaign. He moved to Kazan through the Ryazan lands and Meshchera, leading troops through forests, swamps and the "wild field", covering the main forces from the attack of the steppes.

Near Kazan, Kurbsky, together with Shchenyatev, led the regiment of the Right Hand, which was in the meadow beyond the Kazanka River. Located on open space, the regiment was badly damaged by firing from the besieged city, in addition to everything, he had to repel the attacks of the Cheremis from the rear. During the storming of Kazan on September 2, 1552, Andrei Mikhailovich was instructed to “guard” the Elbugin gates in order to prevent the besieged from leaving the city, where the warriors of the Big Regiment had already broken into. All attempts of the Kazanians to pass through the gate were repulsed by the prince, only 5 thousand managed to leave the fortress and start crossing the river. Kurbsky, with part of his soldiers, rushed after them and several times bravely cut into the ranks of the enemy, until a severe wound forced him to leave the battlefield.

After 2 years, he was again in Kazan land, sent there to pacify the rebellion. This campaign was quite difficult, it was possible to lead troops without roads and fight in the forests, but the prince was able to cope with the task, returning to Moscow as the winner of the Tatars and Cheremis. For this feat of arms, the sovereign granted him the rank of boyar. After that, Andrei Kurbsky becomes one of the people closest to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. He became close to the party of reformers - Sylvester and Adashev, and entered the Chosen Rada - the government of the tsar's "advisers, reasonable and perfect men."

1556 - the prince won a new victory in the campaign against the Cheremis. Upon his return, he was appointed commander of the regiment of the Left Hand, standing in Kaluga to protect the southern borders from the Crimean Tatars. Then, together with Shchenyatev, Andrei Mikhailovich was sent to Kashira, where he took command of the regiment of the Right Hand.

Livonian War

The outbreak of war with Livonia again brought the prince to the battlefield. At the beginning of the war, he led the Guard Regiment, and then, commanding the Advance Regiment, he took part in the capture of Neuhaus and Yuryev (Derpt). Returning to Moscow in March 1559, the governor was sent to protect the southern borders from the Crimean Tatars. However, failures soon began in Livonia, and the tsar again summoned Andrei Kurbsky and appointed him to command all the troops fighting in Livonia.

The new commander acted decisively. He did not wait for the approach of all Russian squads and was the first to attack the Livonian detachment near Weissenstein (Paide), winning. Then he decided to give battle to the main forces of the enemy, commanded by the master of the Livonian Order himself. Having bypassed the main forces of the Livonians through the swamps, the prince did not wait. And as Kurbsky himself wrote, the Livonians "as if proud stood on a wide field from those blat (swamps), waiting for us to fight." And although it was night, the Russian army began a skirmish with the enemy, which soon developed into hand-to-hand combat. The victory was again on the side of the prince.

After giving the army a 10-day respite, the commander led the troops further. Approaching Fellin and burning the suburbs, the Russian army laid siege to the city. In this battle, the Land Marshal of the Order, Philipp Schall von Bell, was captured, hurrying to the aid of the besieged. A valuable prisoner was sent to Moscow, and with him Kurbsky handed over a letter to the sovereign, in which he asked not to execute the Landmarshal, because he was "not only a courageous and brave husband, but also full of words, and a sharp mind, and good memory of having." These words characterize the nobility of the prince, who not only knew how to fight well, but also respected a worthy opponent. Although, the intercession of the prince could not help the land marshal of the order. By order of the king, he was nevertheless executed. But what can we say about the commander of the enemy troops, when by that time the government of Sylvester and Adashev had fallen, and the sovereign executed his advisers, associates and friends one after another without any reason.

1) Sigismund II August; 2) Stefan Batory

Defeat

Having taken Fellin in three weeks, the prince moved first to Vitebsk, where he burned the settlement, and then to Nevel, under which he was defeated. He understood that while the victories were with him, the sovereign would not disgrace him, but defeats could quickly lead him to the block, although, apart from sympathy for the disgraced, there was no other fault for him.

Escape

After the failure at Nevel, Andrei Kurbsky was appointed governor in Yuryev (Derpt). The king does not reproach his commander for the defeat, does not blame him for treason. The prince could not fear responsibility for the unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Helmet: if it were so important, the sovereign would blame Kurbsky in his letter. But the prince feels that clouds are gathering over his head. Previously, the king of Poland, Sigismund-August, called him to the service, promising a good reception and a comfortable life. Now Andrei Mikhailovich seriously thought about his proposal, and on April 30, 1564, he secretly fled to the city of Wolmar. Kurbsky's adherents and servants went with him to Sigismund-August. The Polish king received them very kindly, rewarded the prince with estates for life, and a year later approved the right of hereditary property for them.

According to some reports (?), as early as January 1563, the prince established treacherous ties with Lithuanian intelligence. Perhaps Kurbsky transmitted information about the movement of Russian troops, which contributed to the defeat of the Russian army in the battle on January 25, 1564 near Ula?

Upon learning of the flight of Andrei Kurbsky, Ivan the Terrible brought down his anger on his relatives who remained in Russia. A hard fate befell the relatives of the prince, and as he himself later wrote, “the mothers and wife and lad of my only son, in prison, shut up, with a rope, my brethren, the princes of Yaroslavl, died with various deaths, my estates and plundered them.” To justify the sovereign's actions regarding his relatives, the prince was accused of treason against the tsar, of wanting to personally rule in Yaroslavl, and of plotting to poison the tsar's wife, Anastasia. (Of course, the last two accusations were bogus.)

1) Ivan IV the Terrible; 2) Ivan the Terrible listens to a letter from Andrei Kurbsky

In the service of the Polish king

In the service of the King of Poland, the prince quickly began to occupy high positions. Six months later, he was already at war with Russia. With the Lithuanians, he went to Velikie Luki, defended Volyn from the Tatars, and in 1576, commanding a large detachment of troops, fought with the Moscow regiments near Polotsk.

Life in the Commonwealth

The prince lived mainly in Milyanovichi, located 20 miles from Kovel, managing the lands through trusted representatives from among the people who arrived with him in Poland. He not only fought, but also devoted a lot of time to scientific studies, comprehending works on theology, astronomy, philosophy and mathematics, studying Latin and Greek. The correspondence of the fugitive Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky with Tsar Ivan the Terrible entered the history of Russian journalism.

The first letter to the sovereign from the prince in 1564 was delivered by Kurbsky's faithful servant Vasily Shibanov, who was tortured and executed in Russia. In the messages, Kurbsky was indignant at the unjust persecutions and executions of people who served the sovereign faithfully. In response letters, Ivan IV defends his unlimited right, at his own discretion, to execute or pardon any subject. Correspondence ended in 1579. Both the correspondence and the pamphlet "The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow", and other works of the prince, written by a good literary language, contain a lot of valuable information about time.

Living in Poland, Andrei Kurbsky was married twice. With the assistance of King Sigismund August himself, the prince in 1571 married a wealthy widow, Maria Yurievna Kozinskaya, nee Princess Golshanskaya. This marriage was short-lived and ended in divorce.

1579, April - the prince again married a poor Volyn noblewoman Alexandra Petrovna Semashko, daughter of the headman of Kremenets Peter Semashko. From this marriage Andrei Mikhailovich had a daughter and a son.

Church of the Holy Trinity in the village of Verbki, where the tomb of Andrei Kurbsky was placed (engraving 1848)

Last years. Death

Before last days the prince was an ardent supporter of Orthodoxy and everything Russian. The stern and proud nature of Kurbsky "helped" him to make many enemies from among the Lithuanian-Polish nobles. The prince often quarreled with his neighbors, fought with the lords, seizing their lands, and scolded the king's envoys with "obscene Moscow words."

1581 - Kurbsky again took part in the military campaign of Stefan Batory against Moscow. However, having reached the borders of Russia, he became very ill and was forced to return. 1583 - Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky died and was buried in a monastery near Kovel.

After death

Soon his authoritative executor, governor of Kiev and Orthodox Prince Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhsky, died, the Polish-gentry government, under various pretexts, began to take possession of the widow and son of Kurbsky and, in the end, took away the city of Kovel. Dmitry Kurbsky will later be able to return part of what was taken away, convert to Catholicism and serve as the royal headman in Upite.

Opinions about Prince Kurbsky

The assessment of Kurbsky's personality as a political figure and a person is very contradictory. Some speak of him as a narrow-minded conservative, a narrow-minded person with high conceit, a supporter of boyar sedition and an opponent of autocracy. The flight to the Polish king is explained by a profitable calculation. According to the beliefs of others, the prince is a smart and educated person, an honest and sincere person who has always stood on the side of goodness and justice.

In the 17th century, Kurbsky's great-grandchildren returned to Russia.

The figure of Prince Kurbsky in Russian historiography is symbolic. They see him not just as an outstanding commander and major statesman, but as an ideologue of freedom-loving views and principles, who dared to openly challenge the tyrant king. His messages to Grozny are called "the first document of Russian dissidence and émigré prose that has come down to us" 1 . When describing the reign of Ivan IV, Kurbsky often looks like the antipode of the blood-drinking sovereign. In other words, there is a certain political canonization of the fugitive prince.

Meanwhile, despite such an important place given to Kurbsky among the statesmen of the Russian Middle Ages, his biography has been poorly studied. The main works about him, which are mainly journalistic in nature, were published in the last century and are now outdated. The only exception is N. Ivanishev's collection of documents on the Lithuanian period of the prince's life, which has not lost its scientific significance.

I. I. Smirnov, A. A. Zimin, R. G. Skrynnikov 3 found new facts from his biography in the latest Russian historiography. His life path is most fully described (excluding the Lithuanian period) in Yu. D. Rykov's dissertation 4 . Much attention is paid to the literary work of Kurbsky and the peculiarities of his writings as a historical source 5 .

In foreign historiography, a significant place is occupied by the study of Kurbsky's literary work, his writings have been published with comments. I. Auerbakh's only fundamental biographical study stands out in particular, in which she covers in detail the Moscow and Lithuanian periods of the boyar's life, his connections, and environment 6 . Articles by O. P. Bakus, introducing unknown archival documents, X. Kotarsky and X. Russ 7 are devoted to the same problem.

The date of birth of the prince is established only on the basis of his own words. In the autobiographical part of the "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow" he claims that during the "Kazan capture" in 1552 he was 24 years old. Therefore, he was born in 1528 8 . The first mention of Kurbsky in official ranks dates back to 1547. He is listed second in the official list of the wedding train of Prince Yuri Vasilyevich. V. D. Nazarov relates the appearance of this list to September - October 1547, therefore, this can be considered the date of the beginning of Kurbsky's service career 9 .

Filyushkin Alexander Ilyich- candidate of historical sciences, lecturer. Voronezh University.

His career growth was slow: the second mention refers only to 1550. In the Thousand Book, he is called the son of the boyars of the 1st article in Yaroslavl (together with I. M. Troekurov, and Kurbsky is in second place on the list). The first rank of Kurbsky known to us is "steward in captains". He was in the royal retinue during the campaign against Kazan in 1550. In the same year, closer to August, the prince turned out to be a governor in Pronsk. After that, in May 1551, Kurbsky was the second voivode of the regiment of the right hand, who stood at Nikola Zarazsky with the traditional painting of troops along the Oka lines (he was subordinate to the boyar P.M. Shchenyatev) 10 .

From the autumn Dmitriev's day of 1551 (October 26), Kurbsky served "according to the Nogai news" in Ryazan, the second governor under the command of M.I. Vorotynsky, and from June 1552. - the second governor of the regiment of the right hand near Kashira during the defense of the southern borders (the first was the boyar P. M. Shchenyatev). Having received news from the Tula governor G. I. Temkin-Rostovsky about the raid on Tula by the Crimean and Nogai Tatars under the command of Devlet Giray, Shchenyatev and Kurbsky set out with their regiment from Kashira to Tula. In this campaign, the prince was wounded in the head, arms and legs. Around June 15 (but possibly also in December 1553 - the dating is debatable) he had a parochial dispute with D. I. Pleshcheev 11 .

In 1552 Kurbsky participated in the "Kazan Capture", which he later recalled as the most striking and heroic episode of his biography. In the "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow," he described in detail his journey, along with a 13,000-strong army through the Ryazan and Meshchera lands, the Mordovian forests, "exodus to a great wild field." During the siege of the capital of the Kazan Khanate, the regiment of the right hand of Shchenyatev and Kurbsky, consisting of 12 thousand cavalry and 6 thousand foot archers and Cossacks, was located in a meadow from the river. Kazanka to the bridge on the Galician road. From August 29, they set up siege fortifications ("tours"). It was this regiment that took the blow of the Tatar army, which was trying to break through from the besieged city to the saving forest.

During the breakthrough, Kurbsky pursued the Kazanians: “Leaving the city and riding on a horse and chasing them, and having arrived at all of them, they beat him from his horse and cut a lot of him and walked over him dead many, but after God’s mercy he healed.” The prince received many wounds, was taken out of the battle without memory by two faithful servants and two royal soldiers. In his salvation (thanks to strong armor), he saw God's sign: "Moreover, the grace of my Christ was so pleased, even as his angel commanded to keep me unworthy in all ways" 12 .

Perhaps the valor of Kurbsky during the "Kazan capture" was appreciated by the king, and he was brought closer to the court. According to the prince himself, in May - June 1553. he accompanied Ivan IV during the "Kirillovsky ride" (the pilgrimage of the Terrible to the holy cloisters with his family - Tsarina Anastasia and the newborn Tsarevich Dmitry). The prince claimed that it was he, together with I.F. Mstislavsky and A.F. Adashev, who conveyed to the tsar the prophecy of the elder Maxim the Greek that Dmitry would die if the sovereign continued the trip. Ivan IV did not obey, and Dmitry died due to the negligence of a nanny in the waters of Sheksna. Grozny, contrary to the good advice of the boyars and their opposition, went to the Pesnoshsky Yakhroma Monastery to the "evil" Vassian Toporkov. He received advice from him: "Don't keep an adviser or a single wiser self", it was he who inspired the king to "spit" and villainy 13 . Kurbsky's story is unique and not devoid of features of self-aggrandizement as a "sovereign's first counselor" and guardian of piety. There is nothing to confirm or refute it.

Soon the governor received new position. In October 1553, when he went to Kolomna according to the news of the raid of the Nogais Ismail-Murza, Akhtar-Murza and Yusup, he was the first governor of the regiment of the left hand. December 6, 1553 the first commander of the guard regiment, Kurbsky went to pacify the Kazan Tatars of the Ar and meadow side, "places to fight, which where they do not direct the sovereign." The participation of the prince in the conquest of the peoples of the former khanate lasted several years. September 8, 1555 he was again sent to Kazan by the first governor, together with F.I. Troekurov, to pacify the meadow cheremis 14 .

For the first time, upon the return of Kurbsky from the outskirts of the Russian state in June 1556. sources mention him with the boyar rank. During the exit to Serpukhov, he was in the retinue of the sovereign - in last, tenth place; At the same time, he was engaged in a parochial dispute with the second governor of the sentry regiment, okolnichik D. I. Pleshcheev 15 . However, joining the Boyar Duma had little effect on Kurbsky's career. In the autumn painting of 1556. on the regiments on the southern borders, he was again appointed the 1st voivode of the regiment of the left hand. In the spring of 1557, with a similar painting, the prince occupies the familiar position of the 2nd voivode of the regiment of the right hand under the command of Shchenyatev 16 .

The promotion of the young boyar accelerated with the start of the Livonian War. In January 1558. campaign against Livonia Kurbsky and P. P. Golovin led the guard regiment. The fighting continued throughout the spring and summer, during which Kurbsky, together with D.F. Adashev, commanded the advanced regiment. After the fall of Syrensk (June), P. I. Shuisky and Kurbsky were supposed to "hunt for other German cities." On June 30, Novgorodok fell. Its siege lasted three weeks, "and the Germans fought kindly cruelly and sat to the death." On July 6, the governors reported their successes to the tsar, and to them with awards - the sovereign's salary and gold - was sent I.

Zabolotsky. Near Yuryev their regiments defeated the Bishop of Dorpat and "chased along the very settlement of Yuryevskaya", captured many prisoners and trophies 17 .

Historically reliable contemporary depictions of Kurbsky do not exist.

In the second half of 1558, Kurbsky was recalled from the Livonian front. Together with F. I. Troekurov and G. P. Zvenigorodsky, he was governor in Tula "according to the prince's message, as he turned from the Sword", that is, from December 21, and from March 11, 1560 he served as the 2nd governor regiment of the right hand on the southern border 18 .

In the spring of 1560 Kurbsky again in the Livonian War. At the head of a large regiment, the prince went "from Yuryev to the Germans by war." Since May 1560, in the battles near Fellin, he was the 1st commander of the advanced regiment. On August 30, the city fell. The governors were "released from under it into the war" to another territory of the Order. In his autobiography, Kurbsky draws his exceptional role in the capture of Fellin: Grozny sent him under the city as a “last hope”: “Let the tsar take me into his lair and speak to me with words, diluted with mercy and very loving ... [forced] you, my beloved send, let my army be brave again" 19 . Kurbsky here exaggerates his role, in Livonia he was one of the prominent governors, but still not the most important.

In 1562 on Velikiye Luki, governors P.V. Morozov, V.D. Danilov, Tsarevich Simeon Kasaevich, and with them the sovereign boyars: I.I. Turuntai-Pronsky and Kurbsky. The latter, together with Troekurov, went "to war" and was wounded again. Their detachment burned the suburbs and the surroundings of Vitebsk and Surozh 20 . In August 1562, an unsuccessful battle for the Kurbsky battle with the Lithuanians near Nevel took place. In Western chronicles, the scale of the defeat of the Russian troops is greatly exaggerated. According to M. Belsky, the Crown Hetman F. Zebrzhidovsky sent Captain S. Lesnevelsky from Ozerishchi with 1,500 soldiers and 10 field guns. The detachment near Nevel faced the superior Russian forces under the command of Kurbsky. The prince boasted that with some whips he would drive the enemy into Moscow, but he was defeated. The Russians lost 3 thousand killed - according to M. Stryikovsky; according to other sources - 7 - 8 thousand (M. Belsky), 15 thousand (A. Gvagnini), Poles, allegedly 15 people died. According to Polish sources, it was the fear of punishment for such a shameful defeat that caused Kurbsky to flee from Russia. However, A.N. Yasinsky drew attention to the message of the Pskov I chronicle. It only says about the battle that "on both sides they turned around and our tongues were taken from them." Thus, the Kurbsky regiment did not suffer a crushing defeat, but could not defeat the smaller enemy forces. The description of the battle in Polish sources is frankly boastful and sins with many inaccuracies: their authors even get confused in the names of the governors, attributing this victory to S. Zamoisky, Senyavsky, Zborovsky and Potocki 21 . Such evidence about the defeat of Kurbsky near Nevel does not deserve complete trust.

In 1563 Kurbsky took part in the capture of Polotsk. He was the third governor of the guard regiment (together with Tsarevich Ibak, Shchenyatev, I. M. Vorontsov). In February, he set up siege fortifications ("tours") against the prison up to the river. Cloths and at the river. Dvina united with the regiment of V.S. Serebryany. The purpose of the night building of fortifications was to intimidate the besieged before starting negotiations for their surrender. But the negotiations did not yield any results, and in the future Kurbsky's detachment had to defend the "turs" from the sorties of the Lithuanians 22 .

Kurbsky returned from the Polotsk campaign in the army of Ivan IV. After a stop in Velikiye Luki, he was appointed on April 3, 1563. The 1st governor in Yuryev Livonsky (M.F. Prozorovsky, A.D. Dashkov, M.A. Karpov, G.P. Saburov were under his command) 23 . He remained in this position until his flight on April 30, 1564.

As you can see, Kurbsky's life was spent in battles and campaigns, in "distant cities", as he put it. He actually fought on all three main fronts of that time: Kazan, Crimean and Livonian. At the same time, there is no need to talk about some of his outstanding role as a commander and commander. Only once did he command, as the first voivode, a large regiment (1560), but basically he headed the sentry, advanced regiment, the regiment of the left hand, or was the second voivode of the regiment of the right hand - positions by no means leading in the military hierarchy. There is no reason to doubt the personal courage of the prince and his combat experience, but the opinion sometimes found in historiography about Kurbsky as an outstanding and leading Russian governor of the 1550s and 60s is not supported by facts. It is based on the statements of the prince himself, his praise of his own military talents.

In addition to purely military activities, the only known fact of the prince's participation in domestic political affairs is the mention of his holding reviews of boyar children, their local typesetting and determining the land salary. In the Boyar book of 1556. Kurbsky is mentioned as the leader of the nobility review in Murom in 1555-1556. I. I. Smirnov found in the archive a number of letters issued on behalf of Kurbsky. They certify the "good" service of the nobles and were used at reviews. The participation of the boyar in the implementation of local typesetting is also mentioned in the scribe's extract dated September 7, 1560 24 .

Conducting military and verstal reviews was considered the usual duty of voivodes and does not indicate a significant role of Kurbsky in government, and even more so in pursuing the course of reforms of the Chosen Rada; as D. N. Alshits showed, there is no reason to rank Kurbsky among its members. "Contrary to the popular point of view, the prince was not a close associate of the sovereign, and even more so a member of the Middle Duma. He is mentioned once in the retinue of the king (1556), yes and then in last place.There is not a single evidence of his participation in the meetings of the Boyar Duma; his signature is absent on the documents on the development of reforms of the 1550s and legislative acts of that time.Opinion on the significant role of Kurbsky in the internal political life of Russia in the 1550s - early 1560s is based, as in the previous case, only on his own statements. Until 1563 - 1564. Kurbsky did not stand out in any significant way among other boyars and governors. But in 1564, on April 30, he committed an exceptional act: the prince fled to Lithuania, and later, in exile, created a number of accusatory writings aimed at discrediting his former master, Ivan the Terrible.

The assessment of Kurbsky's actions in historiography is ambiguous. Some, together with N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, N. G. Ustryalov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. A. Zimin, V. B. Kobrin and others, recognize the compulsion of this act and justify the traitor 26 . Others point to facts testifying to obvious betrayal (S. Gorsky, N. Ivanishev, A. N. Yasinsky, S. V. Bakhrushin, R. G. Skrynnikov, S. O. Schmidt, etc.) 27 .

Until 1562. the career of the boyar is absolutely cloudless, and in April 1563 he was appointed voivode to Yuryev Livonsky. This fact of his biography is estimated differently. Kobrin, Skrynnikov believe that this appointment was a manifestation of disgrace, judging by the analogy with Adashev, who was also exiled to Yuryev at one time. However, Yasinsky draws attention to the objection expressed by the tsar in his first letter to Kurbsky. Ivan IV argued that if Kurbsky had been disgraced, then he "would be in such a distant city of ours (Yuriev. - A. F.) was not, and it was impossible for you to create a leak if we did not believe you. And we, believing you, sent us to that patrimony. "Yasinsky emphasizes that, being the governor of Yuryev, Kurbsky actually turned out to be the governor of the entire conquered territory of Livonia with fairly broad powers (up to the right to negotiate with Sweden) 28. Appointment to such a position is unlikely can be regarded as a manifestation of disgrace.

There is, however, evidence that the prince felt uncomfortable in his new place. Skrynnikov points out that already a few months after his arrival in Yuryev, Kurbsky wrote a letter to the monks of the Pskov-Caves Monastery: many start." Behind the allegorical image of Babylon, according to the scientist, was hiding royal power, from which the boyar expected misfortune and misfortune 29 .

Were there any grounds for such expectations? Apparently yes. The prince, who tried to portray himself as an innocent victim, had a stigma in fluff. It is established that already in January 1563. Kurbsky struck up treacherous ties with Lithuanian intelligence. On January 13, 1563, Sigismund II, in a letter to the Rada of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, thanked the Vitebsk voivode N. Yu. Radziwill "for his efforts in relation to Kurbsky" and allowed him to send his message to Kurbsky or Mstislavsky. The letter speaks of a certain "beginning" of the traitor prince. According to Skrynnikov, we are talking about the transfer of information to them about the movement of the Russian army, which contributed to the defeat of the Russian troops in the battle on January 25, 1564 near Ula 30.

As Ivanishev points out, shortly before the flight, at the beginning of 1564, Kurbsky received two letters from Lithuania (from Sigismund II and from Radziwill and E. Volovich), guaranteeing the fugitive support, a warm welcome and a reward. In the privilege of Sigismund to the Kovel estate, it is said that the boyar left "with the will and knowledge of our gospodar and for kleit (dangerous letters. - A. F.) our services came to our lord's allegiance." In his will dated April 24, 1583, Kurbsky claimed that in 1564 he was promised a rich allowance for emigration 31 .

According to Skrynnikov, in addition to treacherous relations with the Lithuanians, "Kurbsky's betrayal ... consisted in the fact that he, being related to the specific prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, discussed, together with other members of the Boyar Duma, the project of deposing Ivan IV and transferring the throne to Prince Vladimir." It seems that the role of Kurbsky in the conspiracies connected with the figure of Staritsky is exaggerated by Skrynnikov. It is based on later tendentious accusations raised by the tsar against the runaway boyar in letters and orders to ambassadors. Independent sources do not confirm the fact of Kurbsky's connection with the supporters of Vladimir Andreevich, while the prince denied it in his third message: "Truly, I did not even think about it, because I was not worthy of it" 32. Thus, Kurbsky's statement about the suddenness of his flight from Russia due to fear of unjust persecution is false. He fled, fearing the disclosure of his treacherous ties with the Lithuanians, but before that he took care of the guarantees of payment for his betrayal. Skrynnikov drew attention to the evidence of the Lithuanian metrics published by G. Z. Kuntsevich about the departure of the prince. When the latter crossed the border, it turned out that he had a huge amount of money: 300 gold, 30 ducats, 500 German thalers and 44 (!) Moscow rubles. The origin of this money is unknown, but it is indicative that almost all of it is in "foreign currency", which suggests that for treason the boyar received not only land, but also monetary awards 33 .

Ustryalov cited the following legend about the circumstances of the escape: "In the same summer (1564 - A. F.) in the city of Yuryev Livonsky, the former governor Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky and his son-in-law Mikhail Fedorovich Prozorovsky. Prince Andrey, having seen the royal wrath upon himself and not waiting for the sending on his own, was afraid of the fury of the king. Remembering your former services and harden yourself. And he said to his wife: "Cheso, woman! Do you want to see me dead before you, or hear me alive!" She said to him: "It's not like I want to see you dead, but I want to hear about your death, my lord,!" Prince Andrey shed a tear, and, kissing my son and his deyaletnoe being, and having created forgiveness with them, and through the wall of the city of Yuryev, in it be the governor, preleze; the keys of the gates of the city are thrown into the well. Some faithful servant of his, by the name of Vaska, according to Shibanov’s advertisement, having prepared for his prince the horses saddled outside the city, and saddled on them, and drove off to the Lithuanian border and arrived in Lithuania "34.

However, the circumstances of the flight were not so romantic. Kurbsky left on April 30, 1564. with three horses and 12 sums of good. According to Nienstedt, he abandoned his pregnant wife. The path of the prince lay through the castle of Helmet, where he was supposed to take a guide to Wolmar; there Sigismund's envoys were waiting for him. But the Helmetians arrested the traitor, robbed him, and took him as a prisoner to the castle of Armus. There, the local nobles took away his fox hat and horses. Kurbsky arrived in Wolmar robbed to the bone. Later, Kurbsky sued the offenders, but returned only some of the stolen property. In exile, he especially regretted the expensive armor and library left in Russia. The Lithuanian governor A. Polubensky offered to exchange them for Russian prisoners, but he was refused 35 .

Later, Kurbsky associated his flight with the threat of persecution and repression: “I was expelled without righteousness from the land of God and in a wandering ... And what did you charge me, unhappy? rope (sorrow [Polish]. - A. F.) mortified; my brethren of the same-knee princes of Yaroslavl, he died with various deaths, serving him faithfully, my estates and plundered them, and above all the bitterest: he expelled from his beloved fatherland, separated from his most beloved friends! "(Preface to" New Margaret ") 36. However, those described by the prince persecutions took place after his flight and were largely provoked by him.The fact that Kurbsky in all his works sought to justify this betrayal and lay high moral grounds for it shows how much this question tormented his conscience.

The fugitive boyar, apparently, was not in vain afraid of disgrace. Ivan IV noted that the prince changed "one for the sake of a small word is angry", which means that it nevertheless sounded. In the order to the ambassadors to Lithuania in 1565. Grozny ordered to speak: "Kurbsky taught our sovereign to do treacherous deeds, and the sovereign wanted to punish him, and he, having learned his treacherous deeds, betrayed our sovereign." In a conversation with the Lithuanian ambassador F. Voropay, Grozny swore by the “royal word” that he was not going to execute the boyar, but only wanted to diminish his honors and take away his “places” (patrimonies? positions? - A. F.) 37 . Later, in his letters and instructions to the ambassadors, the tsar painted Kurbsky's "treason". However, this was done retroactively, in 1564. if something threatened the prince, then only "a small word is angry."

For his betrayal, in addition to money, Kurbsky received land grants. On July 4, 1564, he received a charter for the possession of the Kovel estate (the patrimony of the princes Lubartovich-Sangushkov). It was not about full ownership, he received an estate in the so-called "Krulevshchina". It belonged to the crown and was given by personal order of the king into temporary possession for special merits, on the terms of military service. Thus, in the words of Yu. Bartoshevich, the prince in Lithuania became "only an ordinary tenant" 38 .

In the possession of Kurbsky, as part of the Kovelsky estate, there were castles in Kovel and in the town of Vizhva, a palace in Milanovichi and 28 villages. All this was divided into three volosts: Kovel, Vizhov and Milyanovich. In addition, Kurbsky received the post of headman of Krevo in the Vilna Voivodeship and could participate in the meetings of the Sejm. Later, the prince's possessions expanded: November 23, 1568. he was granted the Smedynskaya volost, and on July 27, 1568 - a fief right to 10 villages in the Upitskaya volost 39 .

The awards received had to be worked off, and Kurbsky led troops to his former homeland, which in his letters to Grozny touchingly called "the land of God." Already in September 1564, the prince commanded an advanced regiment in the Lithuanian army that besieged Polotsk (together with the Volyn governor, Lutsk, Vilna and Bratslav elder B. F. Koretsky). He also took part in other campaigns against Russia. Skrynnikov cites vivid evidence from archival documents about the behavior of a fugitive boyar in one of these campaigns. Kurbsky surrounded the Russian detachment, drove it into the swamp and defeated it. This victory turned his head, and the traitor began to ask Sigismund for a 30,000-strong army to march on Moscow. At the same time, he exclaimed that if they did not trust him, then let them chain him to the cart and put a guard who would shoot him at the very second when the Lithuanians doubted his intentions. On this cart, Kurbsky was ready to lead troops to Moscow and get the Russian capital for the Polish king 40 .

Kurbsky did not realize (or did not want to admit) his low status in emigration. When fleeing, he counted on certain privileges, understanding them in accordance with the upbringing of the Moscow boyar, for whom proximity to the tsar meant the right to permissiveness and arbitrariness. Hence his wild, from the point of view of the gentry, behavior. He appropriated the title of Prince Kovelsky and began to arbitrarily distribute land grants to his servants (the Kovel constable Ivan Kalymet received the villages of Sekun and Sushki, and A. Baranovsky - the village of Borki). "Moskal" quickly quarreled with neighbors, perpetrated robbery attacks on them with the use of firearms. The new owner of Kovel also committed arbitrariness towards his subjects - in the style of his former master, Ivan the Terrible. For example, in the summer of 1569, he tried to resolve financial disputes with Kovel Jews simply and radically: he put the unfortunate people in the courtyard of his castle in a pond with leeches and kept them there until the authorities intervened. Kurbsky obeyed the royal order to release the sufferers extremely reluctantly. His servant objected to the royal messengers: "Is it not free for the pan to punish his subjects, not only with prison or any other punishment, but even with death?" 41. From this episode it is clear that the denunciation of the arbitrariness of the powerful of this world for the emigrant prince was only an abstract theory. In practice, he professed the principles of his ideological opponent, Ivan the Terrible: "You are free to favor your slaves, and you are free to execute."

In addition to quarrels with neighbors and conflicts with the authorities, Kurbsky's marriage in 1571 to Princess Maria Yurievna Golshanskaya brought a lot of trouble. His Russian family, apparently, died in the oprichnina. For Golshanskaya, he was already the third husband (the first - A. Ya. Mongolt, from whom the children Andrey and Jan remained, and the second - M. T. Kozinsky, from him - the daughter of Varvara, who was married to Yuri Zbarazhsky). The marriage was beneficial to the runaway boyar: he became related to noble Lithuanian families: the princes Sangushki, Zbarazhsky, Sokolinsky, Polubensky, Sapieha, Mongols and Volovins. The rich lands of Golshanskaya joined his possessions: the estates of Dubrovina, Shesheli, Kroshta, Zhirmony, Orlovkishki and Osmigovichi in several counties.

However, new relatives involved Kurbsky in squabbles and quarrels that reigned in their family. Maria was at enmity with her sister Anna. It came to armed skirmishes between their yard people. By 1578, more than 200 extracts from their mutual lawsuits had accumulated in court documents. In addition, Maria transferred all her lands to her new husband, which caused enmity towards him from Jan and Andrey. The spouses obviously "did not agree on the characters": Maria was a strong-willed, decisive, very religious woman (she constantly carried church books and a reliquary with relics), while Kurbsky tried to address her, in the figurative expression of Opokov, in accordance with the Moscow proverb: " Love your wife like a soul, but shake like a pear." This annoyed Maria, the Lithuanian princess was not accustomed to such customs.

In 1577 on the instructions of their mistress, the maid Golshanskaya and her brother stole the archive of the prince from his Dubrovitsky estate. Maria gave it to Andrey and Jan. While searching for a burglary, Kurbsky found a bag of sand, hair, and other "sorcerous" items. The fact that the princess cast spells and divination on him made a depressing impression on the prince. He put her under house arrest in the Kovel Castle, but from there she managed to convey the news to her sons, and Andrei Mongolt with an armed detachment began to sack Kurbsky's estates. Maria complained to the court that a Muscovite had forced a confession of theft from Raina's maid by telling his servant to rape her in prison.

Such a sharp conflict in 1578 ended in divorce. At the court that preceded him, Kurbsky had to answer why he repaired "fights, mutilation and okruchenstvo" to his wife. The prince, by virtue of the psychology of a Moscow boyar, did not see his own guilt and objected in bewilderment that he was only "politely lashing her with a whip" 42 . In fact, he had to pay off Golshanskaya, satisfying a number of her financial claims.

According to the laws of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the owner of Kovel, despite the divorce, could not remarry until the death of his former wife. Meanwhile, in 1579. he married Alexandra Semashka, daughter of the Kremenets elder. From her Kurbsky had two children: Marina (1580) and Dmitry (1582). However, the birth of heirs meant a threat to the rights to the estate of Maria Golshanskaya and her children. And then in 1582 she began a new lawsuit, declaring her divorce and Kurbsky's new marriage illegal. The court threatened the prince with great trouble. He responded by collecting evidence that Mary had been cheating on him with the servants, but this did not give grounds to justify his second marriage. In addition, the owner of Kovel was already tormented by constant litigation: in 1580. - with the royal secretary V.I. Borzobogaty-Krasensky regarding the recruitment of guides for the army, in 1581 - with Ya.K. the widow of N. Voronovetskaya, who accused Kurbsky of organizing the murder of her husband Peter. In 1582 there was also a lawsuit with the peasants of the Smedynsky estate, in the winter of 1583 - with I. Fifth Torokanov-Kalinovsky on a false denunciation. Kurbsky sought salvation in military activity: for the period of his stay in the active army (for example, in 1579 and 1581), according to Lithuanian laws, all court cases against him were suspended. He chose not to appear at the divorce court, citing illness.

Between 6 and 24 May 1583 Kurbsky, being in a deep depression, died on his estate in Kovel. He was buried in the Kovel Monastery of the Holy Trinity in Verbka. Princess Alexandra Semashka managed to take possession of his estate, but used the income from it exclusively for her own amusement. She arranged balls with jolners and squandered the money acquired by her husband. This did not go unnoticed by the authorities, and from 1585 the crown began to take one village after another from her. In 1590, the Kovel estate was confiscated and then transferred to the Malyost castellan A. Firlei, son-in-law of Maria Golshanskaya. But the descendants of Kurbsky were in no hurry to release him, and then on June 17, 1597, Firlei's haiduks broke into Kovel, killed Semashka's servants and drove out the princess, accompanied by the surviving household, robbed to their underwear 43 .

The fate of Kurbsky's descendants turned out to be connected with Russia. In 1656 in the battle of Velikie Luki, the Russian army captured his grandson Kaspar. He was rebaptized under the name of Cyril and for some time served Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, since after the capture of Polotsk and Vitebsk, his estate ended up on the territory that had ceded to Russia. After Polotsk and Vitebsk were returned to the Commonwealth according to the Andrusovo truce (1667), Kaspar-Kirill again found himself in the service of the Polish-Lithuanian state.

In 1684, Alexander, the youngest son of Kaspar-Kirill, left for Russia, converted to Orthodoxy under the name of Yakov and, tempted by a rich salary, asked for Russian citizenship. As a reward for leaving and being baptized, he received 50 rubles, a fox caftan, Persian silk trousers and other clothes, and in 1685 - 100 rubles for the purchase and construction of a yard. (Later he served in the rank of steward, nothing is known about his offspring.) In 1686, having learned about these favors, his elder brother Alexander also went to Russia to serve. Apparently, as a family trait, the Kurbskys still had the desire to change their homeland to a more advantageous place of residence. Like fate, the Kurbskys (their surname began to be spelled "Krupsky") were pursued by family troubles that tormented A. M. Kurbsky at one time. In 1693 Yakov killed his wife and was exiled to Siberia for this. The clan was later cut off 44 .

Thus, the last, Lithuanian period of Kurbsky's life was a kind of chronicle litigation and family scandals. But it was at this time that the prince was intensively engaged in epistolary creativity, thanks to which he went down in history. His literary activity can be divided into three areas: the famous correspondence with Ivan the Terrible (this also includes the pamphlet "The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow"), polemical letters on cultural and religious topics, translations and comments on the works of Christian theologians and church texts.

Kurbsky's first epistolary experiments date back to 1563-1564, during the period of Yuryev's governorship. He entered into correspondence with the elder of the Pskov-Caves Monastery Vassian Muromtsev, discussed with him some theological issues, and also criticized the existing order in Russia. In the second message to Vassian, the boyar analyzed in detail the disasters of each of the estates (priests, "military rank", merchants and farmers) and blamed them on persons "sovereign, called to power from God", who "the ferocity of blood-eating animals is acquired ... unheard of death and torment on their well-meaning intentions. The prince angrily wrote "about the negligence of the state and the crookedness of the court and about the insatiability of robbing other people's estates." Kurbsky sees the reason for this in apostasy from Orthodoxy, violation of piety and intrigues of the devil 45 .

Kurbsky developed this theme in an accusatory letter to Ivan the Terrible, written immediately after his flight from Russia on April 30, 1564. It contained two main ideas: Kurbsky's complaints about the unjust persecution of him and other "strong in Israel" governors and the accusation of Ivan IV of unrighteous, anti-Christian, almost heretical behavior 46 . The prince argued that the appearance of Grozny did not correspond to the ideal of the Orthodox tsar and listed these discrepancies point by point. The tsar became "opposite" to Orthodoxy, because he destroyed the best representatives of his God-chosen people ("New Israel"). Instead of them, he surrounded himself with evil "petters", corrupting the sovereign's soul and pushing him to unrighteous deeds. Kurbsky also hinted at Ivan's propensity for sexual perversion and the illegality of his origin (the illegitimate son of Elena Glinskaya and I.F. Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky). All this, according to the prince, brought Ivan IV closer to the Antichrist. Enraged by such impudent accusations, the tsar composed an answer - almost 20 times more lengthy than Kurbsky's message. In his letter, he developed two themes. The first is the concept of unlimited kingship given to him by God; Kurbsky, not wanting to blindly fulfill the will of the sovereign and accept martyrdom, became a traitor. The second theme was the insidious and criminal activities of the aristocracy headed by Kurbsky, Adashev, Sylvester, D. I. Kurlyatev and others. Grozny lists in detail their meanness and betrayal, starting from the so-called era of "boyar rule" and ending with the flight of Kurbsky. At the same time, he resorted to a special trick: Ivan IV declared that in the 1550s he was fraudulently removed from power, and all affairs in the country were run by traitors - boyars and priest Sylvester. Therefore, the accusations thrown by Kurbsky to the tsar of unfounded repressions and the ruin of the state refer to them, friends and associates of the prince, and the tsar, as a punishing right hand of God, dispersed and punished traitors, "who are executed everywhere" 47 .

Such an interpretation of the history of the 1550s was completely unexpected for Kurbsky. He made up an answer, but the researchers call it "mysterious". He did not object to the royal accusations, confining himself to a general criticism of the literary style of the message: “Your message is broadcast and noisy ... even from indomitable anger with poisonous words it was burped out, not only the king, but also a simple, wretched warrior, this was not worth it .. more than measure excessively and shrillly (loudly. - A. F.) ... right there about beds, about body warmers ... as if frantic women of a fable. "Statements about the usurpation of the power of the sovereign by the" synclite "headed by Adashev and Sylvester, the" chiefs "of Kurbsky and other boyars remained unrefuted. The second letter prince was written, according to the assumption of X. F . Graham, about 1569 - 1570, but was never sent to the king. Apparently, the runaway boyar felt the weakness and helplessness of his answer 48 .

In 1577, after a successful campaign against the Livonian lands, Ivan IV, triumphant, wrote to Kurbsky from Wolmar, occupied by Russian troops, a new message repeating the same basic ideas. Then Kurbsky wrote several compositions at once; some researchers combine them into the Third epistle of Kurbsky (as the main text and two postscripts), while others consider them as the 3rd, 4th and 5th epistles 49, dating from 1579. In them, the prince answered a number of accusations made in the First Epistle of Ivan the Terrible. For persuasiveness, the prince included in his text two passages from Cicero's "Paradoxes" and sent Ivan IV immediately both the second and third messages. Their content, according to Graham, caused extreme irritation of the king. In a letter to Stefan Batory dated November 21, 1579, Grozny, in an angry rage, accused the prince of having "led" Batory to Rus', incited the Crimean Khan to Russia and wanted to kill the sovereign 50 .

What caused such rage? In the Third Epistle of Kurbsky, it was stated that the "changing synclite" of his friends, Adashev and Sylvester, actually consisted of the righteous, with their advice and instructions directing the fierce and sinful sovereign to the true path. They "pulled out" Ivan from the nets of the devil, but he "beat" the righteous advisers and thus showed his true antichrist essence. Kurbsky declared all counter-accusations of Grozny to be slanderous. Thus, in his message, Kurbsky gave a completely opposite interpretation of the history of the 1550s, although the same persons appeared in it.

The prince unfolded a new interpretation of past events on the pages of the famous pamphlet "The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow." There, for the first time, the name of this "synclite" was heard: "The Chosen Rada". So the prince called the actual, albeit unofficial, government of the middle of the 16th century, which consisted of almost half-holy men. According to Kurbsky's political views, Ivan, brought up in vices, had no right to rule independently, uncontrollably, and therefore had to surround himself with righteous advisers. The most glorious and heroic pages of Russian history of the 1550s are connected with their deeds. Having driven them away from him in 1560, the tsar finally turned into Satan on the throne, the Antichrist, and began the persecution of new Christian martyrs. Boyarin devoted several chapters of his "History" to the martyrology of those killed by Grozny, describing the chilling details of his atrocities.

The question of the time of creation of the "History" remains controversial. The most widespread version was Zimin, who believed that it was written around 1573 in order to discredit Ivan IV in the eyes of the Polish and Lithuanian nobles, to prevent the election of Grozny to the throne of the Commonwealth during the first Polish kinglessness. However, other researchers tend to reconsider such dating. I. Auerbach calls the time of Kurbsky's work on this work 1581, V. V. Kalugin - 1579 - 1581. The arguments of S. A. Eliseev deserve attention. He pointed out that there was no evidence of the pamphlet being circulated in the Polish-Lithuanian state at that time. In the Third Epistle, Kurbsky does not mention "History", although he is generally characterized by references to his own writings. Therefore, it is much more likely that it was written after the resumption of controversy, in 1577-1579. If we take into account the vague prophecy contained in the pamphlet about Grozny's murder of his son in 1581, then the most acceptable date for the creation of the "History" should be recognized as 1581-1583 51 .

The correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky is an important historical source. On its basis, in domestic and foreign historiography, the theory of "two Ivans" (a good king with good advisers and a monster after being freed from their moral influence) and the concept of "The Chosen Rada" (a special government of the reformers of the 1550s) were created. However, there are still disputes in science about how to separate the reflection of historical reality in correspondence from the subjective, polemical inventions of Tsar Ivan and Prince Andrei. Basically, the discussion is around the problem of the "Chosen Rada": some scientists unconditionally trust the words of Kurbsky about its existence, their opponents (I. I. Smirnov, A. N. Grobovsky and others) see in the concept of the "Rada" a political myth, casually created emigrant prince and later became a historiographical stereotype 52 .

While in Lithuania, Kurbsky, in addition to polemics with the Russian tsar, actively intervened in disputes over ecclesiastical and dogmatic issues. For the first time, he turned to this topic in the last year of his stay in Russia, in letters to Vassian Muromtsev and in the "Answer about the right faith to Ivan the learned" (to the Protestant pastor I. Vitterman), apparently written at the same time. In exile, he devoted his works mainly to two issues: the struggle against the church union, the denunciation of the dogmatic and liturgical errors of the Western Church and the apology of the Russian language and Church Orthodox culture in the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Kurbsky sharply criticized Catholicism, Protestantism and other "heresies", defended the positions of Orthodoxy in the Commonwealth. He did not seek to create any large social movement around him, but he corresponded with many representatives of the Orthodox Lithuanian nobility, among whom he propagated his views. Among its addressees were Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky, a Moscow emigrant who lived at the court of Prince Yu. Slutsky, the elder Artemy, the owner of a printing house in Vilna, Kuzma Mamonich, pans Kodian Chaplich, Fyodor Bokey Pechihvosty and Ostafiy Trotsky, Lvov tradesman Semyon Sedlar and others 53 .

Along with correspondence, Kurbsky launched anti-Western propaganda in his literary and translation activities. Perhaps, in his environment, the Explanatory Psalter with an anti-Jewish orientation was compiled. He compiled a collection called "New Margaret", consisting of 72 articles, with new translations of the writings of John Chrysostom, his life, as well as his own work "On Book Signs", dedicated to the theory of punctuation, and "Preface", containing autobiographical information and characterization Ivan the Terrible as Antichrist. The emigrant prince is also credited with one of the Tales of Maxim the Greek (whom he considered his spiritual teacher), comments on the works of John of Damascus and other works.

For translation activities and literary creativity, it was necessary to have broad knowledge. One can speak of Kurbsky as one of the most educated Russian people of the 16th century. He studied the sciences and languages, was familiar with grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, astronomy, already in old age he learned Latin. Judging by his writings, he knew the philosophical writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Parmenides, Epicurus, Plato, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Cyril of Alexandria. He was well versed in patristics and in the works of Christian theologians. The names of Philo of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Gregory Palamas, Augustine the Blessed, Ambrose of Milan, Tertullian, Luther and others appear on the pages of his works.

The list of translations attributed to Kurbsky speaks for itself: two excerpts from Cicero's "Paradoxes", "Source of Knowledge" by John of Damascus, "The Word of John Chrysostom on Penticosity about the Holy Spirit", 44 - 47th conversations of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John, "From other dialectics of Ion Spakinberger about syllogism are interpreted", "Dialogue" of Patriarch Gennady Scholarius, works of Simeon Metaphrastus, excerpts from the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea, "The Tale of Barlaam and Joasaph", "Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus about the rise from the dead testimony", the message of Ignatius to the Theotokos and "answer" to him by the Mother of God, the works of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Dionysius the Areopagite 54 .

Kurbsky was the first of the ancient Russian scribes who possessed such extensive philosophical knowledge and developed his own system of views on society, the state, and man. It was based on the idea that the human mind and God are similar to each other, in which elements of rationalism can be seen, as, for example, in Maxim Grek's advice to Ivan the Terrible quoted in The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow: "Do not fulfill a pious vow if he foolish" (sic!). The prince considered wise advice to be a manifestation of the mind, and therefore, of the deity.

These views determined the peculiarities of Kurbsky's political views and his assessment of the reign of Ivan IV. He defended the need for participation in the government of the country of righteous advisers, bearers of the "gift of the spirit" and "rightness of soul." His position cannot be reduced only to defending the right of the boyars to interfere in the administration of the country and the affairs of the tsar, as is sometimes done in research literature. Kurbsky's "advisers - tsar - God" ratio is thinner. He has saintly advisers who bring the life of the morally unstable king in line with God's commandments. Their antipode is "evil caresses" who lead the sovereign astray: "They disagree with your boyars, the destroyer of your soul and body, who will move you to Aphrodite deeds and act with your children more than Crown priests" 55 .

Hence the main idea of ​​the prince, illustrated by him with the concept of the "Chosen Rada": Ivan the Terrible, not endowed with good human qualities, had to surround himself with righteous advisers in order to give his power divine legitimacy. Otherwise, the tsar, reveling in autocracy, according to Kurbsky, amuses himself with the thought of standing on a par with God (“Do you still think you are immortal?”). This will inevitably be followed by retribution, a fall and transformation into Satan (in the "History" its author cites the legend of King Phosphorus to confirm this idea). According to the general idea of ​​D.S. Likhachev and A.N. Grobovsky, the prince describes Ivan's reign in a peculiar genre of "anti-life" 56 . This is the story of one person, one reign, created according to all the laws of hagiographic literature, but with the opposite arrangement of accents, revealing the fall of "the once righteous king." Obviously, the difference between Kurbsky's views from the position of Ivan the Terrible and the official political ideology of Muscovite Rus, who interpreted the monarch as the bearer of God's will. The prince brought in political theory moral and ethical principles based on Orthodox teaching and European philosophical thought.

Thus, Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, in his views, level of culture and education, was really ahead of his time. What can not be said about his activities in the field of public service, where he was only one of many boyars and governor, and then became a traitor.

Notes

1 . VENCLOVA T. Vain efforts. History of Prince Andrei Kurbsky. - Vilnius, 1993, N 3, p. 118.

2. GORSKY S. Life and historical significance of Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky. Kazan. 1858; OPOKOV Z. Prince A. M. Kurbsky. Kyiv. 1872; Tales of Prince Kurbsky. SPb. 1868, p. VII - XXXIII; BARTOSHEVICH Y. Prince Kurbsky in Volhynia. - Historical Bulletin, 1881, v. 6; IVANISHEV N. Life of Prince Kurbsky in Lithuania and Volhynia. T. 1 - 2. Kyiv. 1849.

3 . ZIMIN A. A. Oprichnin Ivan the Terrible. M. 1960, p. 117 - 119; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky. L. 1973; his own. Escape of Kurbsky. In: Prometheus. No. 11. M. 1977; SMIRNOV I. I. Essays on the political history of the Russian state in the 30s - 50s of the 16th century. M. -L. 1958, p. 434.

4 . RYKOV Yu. D. "The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow A. M. Kurbsky" as a source on the history of the oprichnina. Cand. diss. M. 1984, p. 36 - 109.

5 . For bibliography, see: A. I. GLADKY, A. A. TSEHANOVICH. Andrey Mikhailovich Kurbsky. In the book: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Second half of the 14th - 16th centuries Part 1. L. 1988, p. 501 - 503.

6. AUERBACH I. Andrej Michajlovic Kurbskij. Mimchen. 1985.

7. BACKUS O. P. A. M. Kurbsky in the Polish-Lithuanian State (1564 - 1583). - Acta Balto-Slavica. 1969 - 1970 Vol. 6; KOTARSKI H. Kurbski A. In: Polski Slovnik Biograficzny. T. 16. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdansk. 1973; RUSS H. Moskauer "Westler" und "Dissidenten". In: Deutsche und Deutschland aus russischer Sicht: 11. - 17. Jahrhundert. Mimchen. 1988.

8 . Russian Historical Library (RIB). T. 31. St. Petersburg. 1914, stb. 182; KALUGIN VV When Prince Andrei Kurbsky was born. - Archive of Russian history. Issue. 6. M. 1995, p. 241 - 242.

9 . NAZAROV V.D. On the structure of the "sovereign's court" in the middle of the 16th century. In: Society and State of Feudal Russia. M. 1975, p. 46, 53; Complete collection of Russian chronicles (PSRL). T. 13. M. 1965, p. 154.

10 . The thousandth book of 1550 and the Yard notebook of the 50s of the 16th century. M. -L. 1950, p. 55; Discharge book 1475 - 1598 M. 1966 (RK-1), p. 129, 132; Discharge book 1475 - 1605 T. 1. Part 2. M. 1977 (RK-2), p. 380, 394, 402.

eleven . PSRL. T. 13, p. 188; RIB. T. 31, stb. 175 - 176; RK-1, p. 133, 135, 136; RK-2, p. 407, 413; Discharge book 1475 - 1605 T. 1. Part 3. M. 1978 (RK-3), p. 418; ESKIN Yu. M. Regionalism in Russia in the 16th - 17th centuries. Chronological register. M. 1994, p. 49, No. 101.

12 . PSRL. T. 13, p. 207 - 208, 215, 218; RIB. T. 31, stb. 177, 178, 183-203; RK-1, p. 137; RK-3, p. 418, 422, 428, 438.

13 . PSRL. T. 13, p. 231 - 232; RIB. T. 31, stb. 212.

14 . PSRL. T. 13, p. 234; RK-1, p. 143, 144, 153; RK-3, p. 455 - 456, 461 - 462, 500 - 501.

15 . RK-1, p. 156 - 157; RK-3, p. 511; ESKIN Yu. M. Uk. op., p. 52. No. 129.

16 . RK-1, p. 162; Discharge book 1475 - 1605 T. 2. Part 1. M. 1981 (RK-4), p. 4, 7.

17 . PSRL. T. 13, p. 287, 299, 303 - 304, 311; RK-1, p. 170, 172 - 173; RK-4, p. 18, 27 - 28.

18 . This day dates back to the receipt of news of the retreat of Muhammad-Emin (See: ZAGOROVSKY V.P. History of the Central Black Earth Region becoming part of the Russian state in the 16th century. Voronezh. 1991, pp. 132 - 133); RK-1, p. 170, 178; RK-4, p. 38, 46.

19 . PSRL. T. 13, p. 340 - 341; RIB. T. 31, stb. 247 - 248, 249 - 253, 257 - 259; RK-1, p. 178, 189 - 190; RK-4, p. 46, 76, 78, 80, 83.

20 . PSRL. T. 13, p. 340 - 341; RK-1, p. 96; RK-4, p. 106.

21 . PSRL. T. 4. St. Petersburg. 1848, p. 314; Tales of Prince Kurbsky, p. XII-XIII; Yasinsky A. N. The works of Prince Kurbsky as historical material. M. 1889, p. 63 - 64.

22. PSRL. T. 13, p. 349; RK-4, p. 114, 121, 127.

23. RK-1, p. 201; RK-4, p. 138.

24. Acts of the 13th - 17th centuries, submitted to the Discharge Order by representatives of service families after the abolition of localism. Part 1. M. 1896. N 188, p. 170 - 171; Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia, published by N. Kalachev. Book. 3. St. Petersburg. 1861. Det. 3, p. 29; SMIRNOV I. I. Uk. op., p. 434. Note. N 42.

25 . Compare: GLADKY A. I., Tsekhanovich A. A. Uk. op., p. 494. In the article, A.F. Adashev (instead of his brother D.F. Adashev) is mistakenly named Kurbsky’s comrade-in-arms in the campaign of June 1558 at the head of the advanced regiment; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. The reign of terror. SPb. 1992, p. 187; ALSHITS D.N. The Beginning of Autocracy in Russia. L. 1988, p. 47 - 49.

26 . Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian state. T. 9. St. Petersburg. 1843, stb. 33 - 34; SOLOVIEV S. M. Op. Book. 3. T. 6. M. 1989, p. 525; KLYUCHEVSKY V. O. Op. in 9 volumes. T. 2. M. 1988, p. 154; Tales of Prince Kurbsky, p. XV; PIOTROVSKY M. P. Prince A. M. Kurbsky. Historical and biographical notes on the latest edition of his Tales. In the book: Scientific notes of the Kazan University, 1873, N 6, p. 21; OPOKOV Z. Uk. op., p. 2; ZIMIN. A. Oprichnina, p. 113; RYKOV Yu. D. The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow, p. 93, 103; KOBRIN V. B. Ivan the Terrible. M. 1989, p. 61 - 62; ALSHITS D. N. Uk. op., p. 123.

27 . GORSKY S. UK. op., p. 123, 148, 218; IVANISHEV N. UK. op. T. 1, p. 111; Yasinsky A. N. Uk. op., p. 66; BAKHRUSHIN S. V. Ivan the Terrible. In the book: BAKHRUSHIN SV Scientific works. T. 2. M. 1954, p. 297; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Correspondence, p. 59 - 60; his own. Escape of Kurbsky, p. 294 - 300; his own. Kingdom, p. 183; S. O. SCHMIDT At the origins of Russian absolutism. M. 1996, p. 261, 264.

28. Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, p. 378. Note. 9; Messages from Ivan the Terrible. M. -L. 1950, p. 536; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Flight of Kurbsky, p. 294; Yasinsky A. N. Uk. op., p. 66.

29. RIB. T. 31, stb. 381; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Correspondence, p. 56; his own. Kurbsky and his letters to Pskov-Caves Monastery. In: Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature (TODRL). T. 18. M. -L. 1962, p. 103.

thirty . SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Correspondence, p. 59.

31 . IVANISHEV N. UK. op. T. 1, p. 232; vol. 2, p. 193; Tales of Prince Kurbsky, p. 399.

32 . Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, p. 109; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Kingdom, p. 183.

33 . Act of the Lithuanian metrics on the flight of Prince A. M. Kurbsky. - Proceedings of the Department of the Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences (Izv. ORYAS), 1914, Part 19. Book. 2, p. 284; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Correspondence, p. 60; his own. Kingdom, p. 184 - 185.

34 . Cit. Quoted from: Tales of Prince Kurbsky, p. 339 - 340. Note. 213.

35 . Act of the Lithuanian Metrics, p. 284; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Correspondence, p. 60; his own. Escape of Kurbsky, p. 299.

36 . IVANISHEV N. UK. op. T. 2, p. 303, 306.

37 . Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, p. 15; Collection of the Russian Historical Society. T. 71. St. Petersburg. 1892, p. 321; Readings in the society of Russian history and antiquities. Book. 9. M. 1848, Department. IV, p. 300.

38. BARTOSHEVICH Yu. Uk. op., p. 71; IVANISHEV N. UK. op. T. 1, p. 7, 10.

39. IVANISHEV N. UK. op. T. 1, p. 13, 246 - 247. The Kovel volost consisted of: the city of Kovel, palaces: Gridkovichi, Shaino, Tulichev, Khoteshovo, Goishino, Nyuino, villages: Krasnaya Volya, Moshchonaya, Oak, Oblapy, Verbka, Bakhovo, Skulin, Belin, Stems, Bridges , Smedino, Sloboda Tops. Vizhovskaya included: the town and castle of Vizhva, the villages of Staraya Vizhva and Volya. Milyanovskaya included: the town of Milyanovichi and the villages: Poryduby, Selishche, Godevichi, Zelovo, Turovichi, Klevetskoye.

40. PSRL. T. 13, p. 390; RK-4, p. 164 - 167; SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Kingdom, p. 200.

41. IVANISHEV N. UK. op. vol. 1, p. 37; vol. 2, p. 1-13, 197; OPOKOV Z. Uk. op., p. 24.

42. ANDREEV V. Essay on the activities of Prince Kurbsky in defense of Orthodoxy in Lithuania and Volhynia. M. 1873, p. 4; IVANISHEV N. UK. op. T. 1, p. 80 - 83, 95, 98, 125, 158, 281.

43. IVANISHEV N. UK. op. T. 1, p. 192, 228, 247; T. 2, p. 54, 81, 91, 127, 157, 186, 207, 214.

44 . KALAYDOVICH K. Note on the departure to Russia of the great-grandchildren of Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky. - Northern archive, 1824, part 12, N 19, p. 16.

45 . RIB. T. 31, stb. 395 - 399; for details see: SKRYNNIKOV R. G. Kurbsky and his letters; ANDREEV N. Kurbsky's Letters to Vasyan Muromtsev. - Slavonic and East European Review. 1955 Vol. 33, p. 414 - 436.

46 . For more details, see: GROBOVSKY A. N. Ivan the Terrible and Sylvester. London. 1987, p. 117 - 128; Lurie YS Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Andrey Kurbsky in the social thought of Ancient Rus'. In: Correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky. M. 1993, p. 240; SERGEEV V. M. The structure of the text and analysis of the argumentation of the First Epistle of Kurbsky. In: Methods for studying sources on the history of Russian social thought in the period of feudalism. M. 1989, p. 118 - 130.

47 . Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, p. 14 - 31.

48. Ibid, p. 101; GREKHEM X. F. Again about the correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky. - Questions of History, 1984, N 5, p. 175.

49 . RYKOV Yu. D. Archaeographic review. In: Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, p. 298 - 299; Der Briefwechsel Iwans des Schrecklichen mil dem Fursten Kurbskij. In: Quellen und Aufsatze zur russischen Geschichte. H. Z. Leipzig. 1921. S. 14 - 18, 106 - 129, 170, Anm. 123; S. 172, Anm. 126; FENNELL J. The correspondence, between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia. 1564 - 1579. Cambridge. 1955, p. 199 - 247. The assessment of Kurbsky's Third Epistle as a whole seems more correct.

50 . SIN H. F. Uk. op., p. 178; UO D. An unknown monument of ancient Russian literature. In the book: Archeographic Yearbook for 1971. M. 1972, p. 359.

51 . Eliseev S. A. "The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow" by A. M. Kurbsky as a monument of Russian historical thought of the 16th century. Cand. diss. M. 1984, p. 20 - 22; IKONNIKOV VS The experience of Russian historiography. T. 2. Book. 2. Kyiv. 1908, p. 1826; ZIMIN. A. When did Kurbsky write "The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow"? - TODRL. T. 18. M. 1962, p. 306 - 308; AUERBACH I. Gedanken zur Entstehung von A. M. Kurbskijs "Istorija o velikom knjaze Moskovskom". - Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 1979, vol. 13, No. 1 - 2; KALUGIN VV Literary circle book. Andrei Kurbsky in the East Slavic lands of the Commonwealth. - Slavia Orientalis, 1996, Rocznik 45, N 1; his own. Theoretical views and authorial techniques of the ancient Russian writer (Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky). - Bulletin of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, 1997, N 1, p. 122.

52 . Veselovsky S. B. Research on the history of the oprichnina. M. 1963, p. 108; SMIRNOV I. I. Uk. op., p. 145 - 150; GROBOVSKY A. N. Ivan the Terrible and Sylvester; GROBOVSKY A. N. The "Chosen Council" of Ivan IV. N.Y. 1969.

53 . For more details on the content of the letters and the analysis of Kurbsky's dogmatic and religious views, see: ANDREEV V. Uk. op.; ARKHANGELSKY A. The struggle against Catholicism and the awakening of Southern Rus' by the end of the 16th century. - Kievan antiquity, 1886, v. 15, June, p. 243 - 260; GRUSHEVSKY A. From polemical literature late XVI V. after the introduction of the union. In the book: Izvestiya ORYAS, 1917, v. 22, book. 2. Pg. 1918. The texts of his messages were published by G. Z. Kuntsevich: RIB. T. 31. Stb. 411 - 472.

54 . BELYAEVA N. P. Materials for the index of translated works of A. M. Kurbsky. In: Old Russian Literature. L. 1984; Eliseev S. A. UK. op., p. 50; TSEKHANOVICH A. A. On the translation activity of Prince A. M. Kurbsky. In: Old Russian Literature, p. 110; Yasinsky A. N. Uk. op., p. 78 - 79.

55 . Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, p. 10.

56 . GROBOVSKY A. N. Ivan the Terrible and Sylvester, p. 117 - 129; Likhachev D. S. The style of the works of Ivan the Terrible and the style of the works of Kurbsky. In: Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible, p. 208 - 209.

Boyar and governor, writer, b. in 1528, d. in 1583. For the first time, the name of Prince. Kurbsky meets in 1549, when he accompanied Tsar John IV to the Kazan campaign in the rank of steward, and was in the captains together with the brother of Tsarina Anastasia, Nikita Romanovich Yuryev, who, on the part of his mother, born Tuchkova, was his great-granddaughter brother. Shortly after returning from the Kazan campaign, Prince. Kurbsky was sent as governor to Pronsk, to protect the southeastern borders from the Tatar raid, and the next, in 1551, together with Prince. Shchenyatev commanded the regiment of the right hand, standing on the banks of the river. Oka, in anticipation of an attack by the Crimean and Kazan Tatars. Despite his youth, Kurbsky enjoyed the special confidence of the king, which can be seen, for example. from the following: the governors who were stationed in Ryazan began to parochialize with Prince. Mich. Iv. Vorotynsky and refused to go to him, as a result of which there was a strong disorder in the army. Upon learning of this, the king sent Prince. A letter to Kurbsky with an order to announce to the governors that they were "without places." At the end of the same 1551, the tsar gathered with a large army on a campaign to Kazan. Having received news on the way to Kolomna that the Crimeans had laid siege to Tula, the tsar ordered the regiment of his right hand to go to the rescue of Tula, led by Prince. Kurbsky and Prince. Shchenyateva, as well as the advanced and large regiments. Tula was heavily besieged for two days by the Crimean Khan Devlet Giray himself, and now he fled to the steppes, frightened by the arrival of Russian troops. Book. Kurbsky and Prince. Shchenyatev caught up with the Crimeans on the banks of the Shivorona River, defeated them, took away many prisoners and took the Khan's convoy. In this battle, Kurbsky received serious wounds in the head, shoulders and arms, which did not prevent him, however, eight days later, to go on a campaign again. The regiment of the right hand went through the Ryazan region and Meshchera, through the forests and the "wild field", covering the movement of the king to Kazan from the attack of the Nogais. On August 13, the king and the whole army arrived in Sviyazhsk, where they rested for several days; On August 20 they crossed the Kazanka, and on August 23 all the regiments stood in their assigned places. Regiment of the right hand, under the command of Prince. Kurbsky and Prince. Shchenyateva, located in a meadow across the river. Kazanka, between large swamps, and suffered greatly both from firing from the fortress walls of Kazan, built on a steep mountain, and from incessant attacks from the rear, cheremis, leaving dense forests, and finally from bad weather and the diseases caused by it. In a decisive attack on Kazan on October 2, 1552, Prince. Kurbsky, with part of the regiment of the right hand, was supposed to go to the Elbugin Gate, below Kazanka, and to another governor of the right hand, Prince. Shchenyatev, was ordered to reinforce him. The Tatars allowed the Russians to approach the fortress wall itself and then began to pour boiling tar on their firebrands, throwing logs, stones and arrows. After a stubborn and bloody battle, the Tatars were overturned from the walls; the troops of a large regiment broke through the gaps into the city and entered into a fierce battle in the streets, and Prince. Kurbsky stood at the entrance to the Elbugin Gate and blocked the way for the Tatars from the fortress. When the Tatars, seeing that further struggle was impossible, betrayed their Tsar Ediger to the Russians, and themselves began to rush from the walls to the bank of the river. Kazan women, intending to break through the tours of the regiment of the right hand located there, and then, repulsed here, began to wade across to the opposite bank, Prince. Kurbsky mounted his horse and, with 200 riders, rushed in pursuit of the Tatars, of whom there were at least 5,000: giving them a little distance from the shore, he hit them at a time when the last part of the detachment was still in the river. In his "History of Prince. Great. Moscow", Prince. Kurbsky, talking about this podpi, adds: “I pray that no one will think of me who is crazy, praising himself! I truly speak the truth and have been gifted with the spirit of courage, given by God, I don’t melt; besides, the horse is very fast and good imeh " . Book. Kurbsky was the first to burst into the crowd of Tatars, and during the battle his horse crashed into the ranks of the retreating three times, and the fourth time both the horse and the rider, badly wounded, fell to the ground. Book. Kurbsky woke up some time later and saw how, like a dead man, he was mourned by two of his servants and two tsarist soldiers; his life was saved, thanks to the strong ancestral armor that was on him. In the "Royal Book" there is a confirmation of this story: "And the voivode Prince Andrey Mikh. Kurbsky left the city, and everywhere on a horse, and a gnat over them, and having arrived in all of them; they beat him from his horse, and his sekosha many, and many passed over him for the dead; but by God's mercy he healed; the Tatars ran to the forest in strife.

In early March 1553, Tsar John IV fell seriously ill and, in case of death, ordered the boyars to swear allegiance to their little son Dimitri. Among the boyars there were supporters cousin king, prince Vlad. Andr. Staritsky; the boyars argued, got excited and hesitated with the oath, spoke of their unwillingness to serve Zakharyin during Dmitry's infancy. The most influential and close to the king people, Sylvester and Adashev, and those in this difficult moment showed a lack of unconditional devotion and cordial disposition to the king. Book. Kurbsky, who belonged to the party of Sylvester and Adashev, as is clear from his many flattering comments about them, did not join them during the tsar's illness. In his answer to the second epistle of John, he says, among other things: "But you remember brother Volodimer, as if we wanted him for the kingdom: truly, we don’t think about this: because he was not worthy of it." It must be assumed that the king appreciated the course of action of the book. Kurbsky, because, after his recovery, he took him with him among the few accompanying him on pilgrimage to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The first stop after leaving Moscow was at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, where Maxim the Greek, who enjoyed the respect of the tsar, lived at that time. Maxim began to dissuade the king from his planned long journey, especially with his wife and young son, arguing that such vows are unreasonable, that "God is omnipresent and sees everywhere with his watchful eye, and that his saints heed our prayers, looking not at the place where they are brought but on good will and our power over ourselves"; instead of a trip to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, Maxim advised to gather around him the widows, orphans and mothers of those soldiers who died during the Kazan campaign, and try to console them and arrange their fate. The tsar, however, persisted in his intention, and Maxim spoke in a prophetic spirit, instructing the tsar's confessor Andrei Protopopov, Prince. Iv. Fed. Mstielavsky, Alexei Adashev and Prince. Kurbsky, accompanying the king, tell him that in case of disobedience, his son Dmitry will die during the journey. The king did not heed the advice of Maxim the Greek and went to Dmitrov, from there to the Pesnoshsky Monastery, which lies on the river. Yakhroma, where ships were prepared for further travel. The former Kolomna Bishop Vassian Toporkov, a favorite and close associate of John's father, lived in retirement in the Pesnoshsky Monastery, led. book. Vasily Ivanovich. Very interesting review of the book. Kurbsky about the conversation of Tsar John with Bassian, and we will dwell on it when considering the work of Prince. Kurbsky "History of the Prince. Great. Moscow".

The tsar and his companions returned from pilgrimage to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in July 1553. At the beginning of 1554, Prince. Kurbsky, together with Sheremetev and Prince. Mikulinsky was sent to pacify the rebellion in the Kazan land, since the Votyaks, Cheremis and Tatars did not want to pay tribute and obey the royal governors and disturbed the Nizhny Novgorod borders with their raids. Russian troops went deep into the forests where the rebels were hiding, using their knowledge of the area; for a whole month, the governors pursued them and successfully fought with them more than twenty times: they defeated 10,000 enemies, with their chieftains Yanchura and Alek Cheremisin at the head, and returned to Moscow on the day of the Annunciation with "a glorious victory and with great self-interest." After that, the Ars and the coastal side submitted and promised to pay tribute, and the king rewarded the governor with golden neck torcs with his image. In 1556, Prince. Kurbsky was sent along with Prince. Fed. Iv. Troekurov to pacify the rebellious meadow cheremis again. Upon his return from this campaign, he, in the position of governor of the regiment of the left hand, was in Kaluga, to protect the southern border from the threatened attack of the Crimeans, and then stood in Kashira, commanding together with Prince. Shchenyatev with his right hand. In the same year he was granted to the boyars.

In January 1558, a war began with Livonia because of its refusal to pay tribute, promised to the Muscovite state under John III by Master Plettenberg. A huge Russian army (according to Prince Kurbsky there were 40 thousand, or even more) set out from Pskov and entered Livonia in three detachments, and the guard regiment was commanded by Prince. Kurbsky and Golovin. The troops were ordered to "fight the land", that is, to burn and devastate the settlements, but not to besiege the cities. For a whole month, the Russians devastated Livonia and returned with a large number of prisoners and rich booty. After that, Livonia was fussing about peace, but John did not even agree to a truce. In the spring of 1558, Syrensk (Neyshloss) was taken, and Zabolotsky was left there as governor, and the tsar ordered the rest of the governors to join Prince. Peter. Iv. Shuisky and with Prince. Kurbsky, who went from Pskov to Neuhaus; book. Kurbsky commanded the advanced regiment. book. Shuisky - a large regiment, Prince. You. Sem. Silver - right hand. Neuhaus was to be taken after a three-week siege; then besieged, was Derpt, in which the Derpt bishop himself shut himself up. On July 18, the terms of surrender were signed, and the next day the Russians occupied the fortifications of the city. This summer, the Russians conquered up to twenty cities. "And we will remain in that land right up to the very first winter," writes Prince Kurbsky, "and we will return to our tsar with a great and bright victory."

Less than six months after returning from Livonia, as Prince. Kurbsky was sent to southern Ukraine, which was threatened by the Crimeans. On March 11, 1559, the governors were painted for regiments, and Prince. Kurbsky together with Prince. Mstislavsky appointed governors of the right hand; at first they stood in Kaluga, and then they were ordered to move closer to the steppes, to Mtsensk. In August, when the danger had passed, the troops were disbanded to their homes, and Prince. Kurbsky toe probably returned to Moscow. Meanwhile, disappointing news came from Livonia, and the tsar was apparently not completely satisfied with the actions of the chief governor sent there: zealously loving and to this with many promises: “I was forced, I say, from these my governors who had come running, otherwise I myself would go against the Liflyants, otherwise send you, my beloved, so that my army would be brave, God helping you; for this sake, go and serve the faithful. "Kn. Kurbsky with his detachment went to Derpt and, in anticipation of the arrival of other governors in Livonia, made a movement to Weissenstein (Paide). Having struck the Livonian detachment near the city itself, he learned from the prisoners that the master with an army stands eight miles behind large marshes. At night, Prince Kurbsky set out on a campaign, came in the morning to the marshes and spent the whole day using troops to cross them. If the Livonians had met the Russians at that time, they would have struck them, even if more numerous army at Prince Kurbsky, but they, according to him, "as if proud, stood on a wide field from those pulls, waiting for us, like two miles, to battle. " Having crossed these dangerous places, the soldiers rested a little and then about at midnight they began a skirmish, and then, engaging in hand-to-hand combat, put the Livonians to flight, pursued them and inflicted great damage. Returning to Derpt and receiving reinforcements from a detachment of 2000 soldiers who voluntarily joined him, Prince Kurbsky, after a ten-day rest, went to Fellin, where Master Furstenberg, who had resigned, was located. Book. Kurbsky sent forward a Tatar detachment, under the command of Prince. Zolotoy-Obolensky, as if in order to burn the settlement; Furstenberg rode out against the Tatars with all his garrison and barely escaped when Prince. Kurbsky hit him from an ambush. When the expected large army finally entered Livonia, under the command of Prince. I. F. Mstislavsky and Prince. Petra Iv. Shuisky, Prince. Kurbsky with an advanced regiment joined them and together they went to Felin, sending a detachment of princes around. Barbashina. Near the city of Ermes on the book. Barbashin was attacked by a Livonian detachment under the command of Land Marshal Philip Schall-fon-Belle; the land marshal was defeated and, together with the commanders, was taken prisoner. Book. Kurbsky speaks of him with great praise: "because the husband, if we look at him kindly, is not only courageous and brave, but also full of words, and has a sharp mind and a good memory." Sending him with other important prisoners to Moscow, Prince. Kurbsky and other governors in writing begged the tsar not to execute the land marshal - he was, however, executed, for the harsh expression he said to the tsar at the reception. During the three-week siege of Fellin, Prince. Kurbsky went under Wenden and defeated the head of the Lithuanian detachment, Prince. Polubensky, sent against him by Hieronymus Khodkevich, and near Wolmar struck the Livonians and the new Land Marshal. The battle of the book. Kurbsky with Prince. Polubensky was the first clash between the Russians and the Polish king over the rights to Livonia. In order to protect the borders from Lithuanian raids, it became necessary to place governors in the cities, who were also ordered to devastate the Lithuanian border places. Book. Kurbsky stood on Luki the Great, and in June 1562 made an attack on Vitebsk and burned the settlement. In August of the same year, he was sent against the Lithuanians, who were devastating the neighborhood of Nevlja. The testimonies of Polish historians Stryikovsky, Belsky and Gvanini contradict the Pskov Chronicle. If you believe them, then the book. Kurboky suffered a severe defeat at Nevl, having incomparably more troops than the Lithuanians, and then fled to Lithuania, out of fear of the royal wrath; in the Pskov Chronicle, it is only said that “Lithuanian people came near Nevlya, the town of the Grand Duke, and the volosts fought and went away; and Prince Andrei Kurbskoy and other governors followed them, and there was little help, they stumbled on both sides and took our tongues and took them" and the king in his response to the message of Prince. Kurbsky writes, among other things, regarding the battle of Nevl: "with 15 thousand you could not defeat 4 thousand, and not only did not win, but you yourself barely returned from them, without having done anything" - thus both the chronicle and the king agree, that book. Kurbsky did not succeed in defeating the Lithuanians, but one cannot yet conclude from this about the defeat that threatened him with the wrath of the king - John, of course, would reproach Kurbsky with a defeat. Belsky expresses the opinion that after the Battle of Nevl the tsar suspected Prince. Kurbsky in treason, but this is also doubtful, both because there was no reason for this, and in view of the fact that in this case the tsar would hardly have taken him with him on November 30 of the same year on a campaign near Polotsk and would have left him in early March 1563 governor in the newly conquered city of Derpt. "If we didn't believe you," John wrote to Prince Kurbsky, "we wouldn't send you to that patrimony of ours." With a little more than a year after that, on the night of April 30, 1564, Prince. Kurbsky fled, accompanied by several boyar children, to the Livonian city of Wolmar to the Polish king, leaving his wife and nine-year-old son to fend for themselves. His faithful servant Shibanov was captured by the Derpt governors and sent to Moscow to the tsar, where he was executed; mother, wife and son. Kurbsky were sent to prison and died there of anguish. All persons close to him were, apparently, subjected to interrogation; at least this can be judged from the fact that "the speeches of the elder from the Savior from Yaroslavl, the priest of the black spiritual father Kurbsky", obviously, that Feodorite, whom Kurbsky speaks of with great praise in the 8th chapter of his "History", were recorded.

Since neither the book itself. Kurbsky in the "History" and in the letters to the king, nor John in his answers to the messages do not indicate what exactly prompted the book. Kurbsky to leave for Lithuania, then we can only make guesses and assumptions. According to the story of the Derpt burgher Nienstedt and the Livonian chronicler unknown by name, Prince. In 1563 Kurbsky negotiated the surrender of several Livonian cities, but these negotiations were unsuccessful. It is very possible that the Kurbsky feared that the tsar would attribute this failure to his malicious intent and that he would not suffer the fate of Sylvester and Adashev and his other associates. As can be seen from the words of the book itself. Kurbsky, he did not immediately decide to leave the fatherland and considered himself innocently expelled: “What evil and persecution did you not suffer from you,” he writes in a message, “and what troubles and misfortunes did you not bring on me! And the various misfortunes that have happened from you in a row, behind a multitude of them, I can’t now utter: if I still embrace the sorrow of my soul. I didn’t ask for tender words, I didn’t beg you with many tearful sobs, and I didn’t ask for any mercy from you with the hierarchal ranks; and you rewarded me with evil for good things and for my uncompromising love! I put it on her, and, claiming and thinking mentally and turning, and I didn’t know myself and didn’t find myself in anything that had sinned against you. John, in his answer to this epistle, says among other things. “And for such your services, even higher than rech, you were naturally worthy of many disgrace and executions; but we still repaired our disgrace with mercy for you, if it were for your dignity, and you would you didn’t go to our enemy, and in such a case, in whatever city of ours you were, it was impossible for you to create leaks. the punishment was not enough for you, and then for your crime: you agreed with our traitors. and punished." In all likelihood, on the book. Kurbsky lay in disgrace for his participation in the "chosen council" and for his closeness to Sylvester and Adashev, the persecution against which John the Terrible was erected after the death of Tsarina Anastasia Romanovna in 1560. We find a hint of disgrace and what treason consisted of. in the words of John, which he ordered the messenger Kolychev to tell the Polish king Sigismund-August: "Kurbsky and his advisers of treason that he wanted over our sovereign and over his queen Nastasya and over their children to plot any dashing grandfather: and our sovereign, having seen his betrayals wanted to humble him, and he ran.

In the specific veche time, as is known, there was the right to leave, that is, the transfer of boyars from one prince to another. It was the right of the combatants. From the time of the strengthening of Moscow, mainly from the reign of John III, this right of departure, by virtue of necessity, had to be limited: northeastern Rus' was united under the rule of the Moscow princes-gatherers, and departure became possible only to the Horde, or to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania , which in the eyes of the sovereigns of Moscow was already considered treason, therefore, a crime, and not a legal right. Under John III, under Vasily Ivanovich, and especially under John IV, oath records were taken from many of the most prominent boyars, with the guarantee of the metropolitan and other boyars and service people that they would not leave the Muscovite state. Of course, there were no hunters to go to the "busurmans" - and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the only refuge for the boyars dissatisfied with the Moscow order. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, inhabited by the Russian Orthodox people, attracted the boyars by the greater independence of the higher service class there, which was already beginning to organize itself in the image and likeness of the Polish magnate. The departures of the boyars to Lithuania especially intensified with the influx of "princes" among the Moscow boyars, since these princes had every reason to consider themselves not combatants, but still "free" servants of the Moscow sovereign. But even in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not all the princes were, in turn, satisfied with the local order, and also considered themselves entitled to leave Lithuania for Moscow, where they, in contrast to their departing princes, were not only not considered traitors, but, on the contrary, were received very kindly. and were awarded estates. The Bulgakovs, Patrikeyevs, Golitsyns, Belskys, Mstislavskys, Glinskys left Lithuania and played an outstanding role in the Muscovite state. The departures of the princes from Moscow to Lithuania and back under John III created great instability in the territory bordering between these states, in which the estates of these princes were located: they either recognized the power of Lithuania, then Moscow, changing this dependence according to their personal circumstances. This instability of the border territory, even called at that time the "country of princes", was constantly the cause of the hostile relations of the Muscovite state towards Lithuania, and over time led to hostile clashes between Moscow and Poland. Book. Kurbsky, like other princes, did not recognize the right of Tsar John to prohibit the departure from the Muscovite state and in his response to the second epistle of John the Psalm: , according to the prophet, to foreign lands, as Jesus of Sirach says: you call him a traitor; and if they seize him at the limit, and you will execute him with various deaths.

One of the researchers of the life of the book. Kurbsky (Ivanishev) suggests that he "acted deliberately and only then decided to betray his king, when he found the payment for treason profitable for himself." Another researcher (Gorsky) says: “If Kurbsky fled to Lithuania really out of fear of death, then he probably would have done it without the king’s invitation, because he, no doubt, knew how well the king accepts Russian traitors. "that Kurbsky did his job slowly, even too slowly, because it took a long time to complete all the negotiations that he had with Sigismund-August. This slowness is the best proof that Kurbsky was completely calm about his life." Of the surviving letters of "sheets" of the royal in the name of Prince. Kurbsky - it is clear that the Polish king really invited him to move to Lithuania, but there is nothing special about this; and earlier, Moscow boyars and all those fit for military service were lured to Lithuania. As for the "profitable payment for treason", neither the Polish king Sigismund-August, nor the Lithuanian hetman Radzivil nn expressed anything definite: the king promised in a security letter to be merciful to Prince Kurbsky (where he kindly promises to put it), and the hetman promised a decent content . In view of this, there is no reason to assert that Kurbsky decided to leave from any selfish motives.

Having left for Wolmar, Prince. Kurbsky sent a message to John, in which he reproached him for beating the boyars and governor, for slandering loyal subjects, spoke of his own persecution and the need to leave the fatherland, and advised him to remove the headphones. And from the escape of Kurbsky and from his message, John was beside himself with anger: he wrote a lengthy answer, referred to ancient history, to the books of Holy Scripture and the works of St. fathers, justified his deeds, blamed the boyars. At the beginning of the answer, John briefly outlined his genealogy, as proof of the undeniable rights to the throne and the advantages of his kind over the kind of Prince. Kurbsky, who mentioned in a message to the tsar that until the end of his days he would be in prayers "to mourn for him by the Most Beginning Trinity" and call for help from all the saints, "and the sovereign of my forefather, Prince Feodor Rostislavovich." In these words, the king probably saw a hint of a desire to be an independent prince, since he used the following appeal to Prince. Kurbsky: "to Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who desired to be the Yaroslavl ruler with his treacherous custom." To this letter, or, as Kurbsky called it, he led a "very broad epitholium." book. Moscow followed by a "short answer" to Prince. Kurbsky; it begins like this: "I received your broad-casting and much-noisy writing, and understood and learned, even from indomitable anger with poisonous words burped out, if not only the king, so great and famous in the whole universe, but this was not worthy of a simple, wretched warrior" . Further, he says that he deserves not reproaches, but consolation: “do not insult - the prophet said, - a husband in trouble, rather than such”, that at first he wanted to answer every word of the king, but then decided to bring everything to the judgment of God, considering that it is indecent for a "knight" to enter into a quarrel, and for a Christian it is ashamed "to burp unclean and biting verbs from the mouth."

Guided by a sense of revenge against John Prince. Kurbsky in October 1564 took part in the siege by the Polish troops of Polotsk, shortly before taken by John. Following this, in the winter of 1565, on the second week of Lent, 15,000 Lithuanians invaded the Velikolutsk region, and Prince. Kurbsky participated in this invasion. In 1579, already under Stefan Batory, he was again near Polotsk, which this time could not resist the attack of the Poles. On the third day after the siege of Polotsk, i.e. September 2, 1579, Prince. Kurbsky replied to John's second message, sent to him two years earlier from Vladimir Livonsky, the same Wolmar, where he took refuge after fleeing from the Muscovite state. Having taken possession of Volmar, the tsar remembered Kurbsky’s flight there and wrote to him with irony: “And where did you want to be reassured from all your labors, in Volmer, and then your God brought us to rest; and where the dreamer left, and we are here, for God’s by will: they stole it!" In this message, the king reproached Prince. Kurbsky in that the “chosen council”, to which Kurbsky belonged, wanted to appropriate the highest power: “you want to see the whole Russian land under your feet with the priest Selyvestre and Alexei Adashev; God gives power to him Well, he wants ... not only guilty of wanting to be me and obedient, but you also own me, and remove all power from me, and they themselves were sovereigns, as they wanted, but the whole state was removed from me: in a word, I was the sovereign, but not in deed which he did not own." Proud of his successes in Livonia, John boasted that even without seditious boyars he conquered "the firm German cities by the power of the life-giving cross", "even more than the sand of my sea iniquity, but I hope for the mercy of God's mercy, I can sink my iniquities with the abyss of my mercy, as if but now I am a sinner, and a fornicator, and a tormentor of mercy ... "In his response to this message, Prince. Kurbsky again reproaches the tsar for slandering pious men, reproaches him with ingratitude to Sylvester, who healed his soul for a while, lists the disasters that have befallen Moscow state after the expulsion and beating of wise advisers, he convinces the king to remember the best time of his reign and humble himself, and in conclusion advises not to write to foreign lands to foreign servants. To this answer, Kurbsky attached a translation of two chapters from Cicero. Probably book. Kurbsky found that he did not fully depict the difference between the best times of John's reign and the era of persecution and executions, because on September 29 of the same 1579 he also wrote a letter to John; in this message, he compared in detail the time of Sylvester with the time of headphones and advised John to come to his senses so as not to destroy himself and his family.

Let's see what the book got. Kurbsky in the possessions of the Polish king and how his life went on in a foreign land. On July 4, 1564, Sigismund-August gave him, as a reward for the lands abandoned in the fatherland, extensive estates in Lithuania and Volhynia: in Lithuania, in the Upitsky district (in the present Vilna province.) Krevo starostvo and up to 10 villages, in which it was considered more than 4,000 acres, in Volyn - the city of Kovel with a castle, the town of Vizhva with a castle, the town of Milyanovichi with a palace and 28 villages. All these estates were given to him only "for vyhovanie", that is, for temporary use, without the right of ownership, as a result of which the neighboring princes and pans began to populate and appropriate the lands of the Kovel volost, inflicting offense on him and the peasants. In 1567, "as a reward for a kind, sensible (valiant), faithful, masculine service during the war against the Polish knighthood of the land of the Prince of Moscow," Sigismund-August approved all these estates in the ownership of Prince. Kurbsky and for his offspring in the male tribe. Since that time, he began to call himself in all papers: kn. Andrey Kurbsky and Yaroslavsky, in letters to Tsar John, Andrey Kurbsky prince to Kovlya, and in his will: Andrey Mikhailovich Kurbsky, Yaroslavsky and Kovelsky.

In his first letter to John, Prince Kurbsky wrote that he hoped, with the help of God, to be "comforted from all sorrows by the sovereign mercy of Sigismund-August." However, his hopes were not justified: the favor of the Polish king was not enough to console his grief. On the one hand to the book. Kurbsky heard rumors about all the disasters that befell the Muscovite state - "in the fatherland I heard the fire of torment, the most cruel burning"; on the other hand, he found himself between people "heavy and zealously unhospitable and, moreover, corrupted in various sins" - this is how he himself expresses himself in the "Preface to the New Margaret", from which one can draw valuable information about his spiritual mood and scientific studies in Lithuania . Mentioning the rumors that reached him from the Muscovite state, he says: “But I heard all this vedahi and were enveloped in pity and squeezed from everywhere with despondency and consuming those unbearable predicted misfortunes, like a moth, my heart.”

Prince Kurbsky lived for the most part in Milyanovichi, about 20 versts from Kovel. During this era of his life, he discovered a heavy temper: in relations with his neighbors, he was distinguished by severity and lust for power, violated the rights and privileges of his Kovel subjects and did not comply with royal commands if he found them disagreeing with his benefits. So, for example, having received a royal order to satisfy Prince. Chartorizhsky for robbery and robbery of his peasants, Prince. Kurbsky, in Smedyn, in the presence of the vizh, the sworn investigator of the cases of the voivods subject to trial, and the Ipvet elders answered what was sent from the prince. Czartorizhsky with a royal list: “I, de, I don’t show concessions to the Smedynsky commander; but I order my commander, which I may for the caress of God’s master, to boroniti. And if the Smedyntsy will enter my Vizhovsky’s ground, enter those islands that the Smedyntsy will change with their own, then I’ll tell them to take them and hang them. they demanded that the estates given to him be taken away from him. Sigismund-August did not agree, declaring that Kovel and the eldership of Krevskoye were given to Prince Kurbsky for very important state reasons. Then the magnates began to manage themselves with an unpleasant foreigner. Prince Kurbsky says this about this: "hateful and crafty neighbors forego this deed, driven by delicacy and envy, wanting to tear out the property given to me for" royal caresses for food, not only to seize and trample many people for the sake of envy, but also want to be satisfied with my blood. Two volumes of acts issued in Kyiv by the Provisional Commission are devoted to the life of Prince. Kurbsky in Lithuania and Volhynia - and almost all of these acts relate to the processes of Prince. Kurbsky with various private individuals and his clashes with the government over the rights of ownership of various estates, as well as the case of the murder by the Poles of some Muscovites who left with him for Lithuania.

In 1571 Prince. Kurbsky married a noble and wealthy Polish woman, Marya Yurievna, who came from the ancient princely family of the Golshanskys. She was in no way younger, and perhaps older than him, and she was getting married for the third time. From her first marriage to Andrey Montovt, she had two adult sons; from a second marriage with Mikhail Kozinsky - one daughter, who married Prince. Zbarazhsky, and then for Firlei. Marriage with Marya Yurievna seemed to be Prince. Kurbsky advantageous, since through him he entered into a relationship with Prince. Sangushki, Zbarazhsky, Sapieha, Polubensky, Sokolinsky, Montovt, Volovich and acquired vast estates in Lithuania and Volhynia. Years five book. Kurbsky lived in harmony with his wife, in quiet seclusion, mostly also in Milyanovichi. Then, Marya Yuryevna, having become very ill, wrote a spiritual testament, which she refused all her estates to her husband, and bequeathed to her sons from her first marriage only Goltenki and two villages pledged in private hands, providing them to be redeemed and own them inseparably, like a fiefdom. Marya Yurievna did not die, but a year later family strife began: the stepsons of Prince. Kurbsky, the Montovts, violent and obstinate people, accused him of mistreating their mother for selfish purposes, that is, out of a desire to seize her estates. True, Prince Kurbsky locked up his wife and did not allow anyone to see her, but he was guided by completely different considerations, which forced him in 1578 to seek a divorce. Vladimir Bishop Theodosius approved the divorce, without announcing the reasons why church laws allow divorce: in Lithuania and Poland there was a custom to give a divorce only on the basis of the consent of both parties.

In April 1579, Prince. Kurbsky married for the third time to Alexandra Petrovna Semashko, the daughter of old age in Kremenets. A year later they had a daughter, Princess Marina, and in 1582 a son, Prince Dmitry. Marya Yurievna then filed a complaint with King Stefan Batory against her ex-husband for illegal divorce. The king handed over the complaint to the Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia Onesiphorus, a spiritual court was appointed, and Prince. Kurbsky. Book. Kurbsky did not appear in court, citing illness, but presented evidence that gave him the right to divorce; later he concluded a peace deal with Marya Yuryevna, in which, among other things, it is said: "she already does nothing before me and before my ability." - Feeling the weakening of forces and foreseeing the imminent death, Prince. Kurbsky wrote a spiritual testament, according to which he left the Kovel estate to his son. Shortly thereafter, in May 1583, he died and was buried in the monastery of St. Trinity, three miles from Kovel.

Elected after the death of Stefan Batory to the Polish throne, Sigismund III began to persecute the widow and children of Prince. Kurbsky and even decided to take away the Kovel estate as illegally appropriated; in March 1590, the decision of the royal court took place, according to which the Kovel estate was selected from the heirs.

The only son of Prince Kurbsky, Prince. Dmitry Andreevich, was a sub-commissary of Upitsky, converted to Catholicism and founded a church in the name of St. St. Apostles Peter and Paul to spread the Roman Catholic religion. He died after 1645, and left two sons, Jan and Andrey, and a daughter, Anna; according to the information available in the Russian state archive, he also had a third son, Kashper, who had a place in the Vitebsk province. Book. Jan Dm. Kurbsky was a city clerk upitsky, and his brother Prince. Andrei was distinguished by his courage in military campaigns and proved his loyalty to King Jan Casimir during the invasion of Poland by the Swedish king Charles X, for which he was awarded the honorary title of Marshal of Upitsky. According to the royal charter of Stanislav-August (Poniatowski) in 1777 and according to the testimony of the Polish writer Okolsky, the family of the Kurbsky princes died out with the death of his grandsons Jan and Casimir, who left no male offspring. But from the affairs of the Russian state archive known great-grandchildren Andrew Mikh. Kurbsky, Prince Alexander and Prince Yakov, children of Kasper Kurbsky, who left Poland for Russia in the first years of the reign of John and Peter Alekseevich. Both of them returned to the bosom of Orthodoxy and entered into Russian citizenship. For the last time, the name of the book. Kurbsky is mentioned in 1693.

Book. Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, in his education and in his aspirations, belongs to the number of outstanding Russian people of the 16th century. He was not a stranger to that mental movement based on the study of the classical world, which at that time, spreading from Italy, swept Germany and France and is known in history under the name of humanism. And his correspondence with Tsar John, and the works written by him already within Lithuania, give him a prominent place among the literary figures of ancient Rus'. As can be seen from the preface of the book. Kurbsky to the translation of the writings of John of Damascus, he was not content with studying one Holy Scripture and advised young people to also get acquainted with secular sciences, which he calls either gentry or external. Among these external sciences, he introduces grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, astronomy, adding to them "natural science" and "moral" philosophy, which he met through the Latin translation of Aristotle. He was apparently familiar with the philosophy of Parmenides and Plato and some of the writings of Cicero. His knowledge of astronomy was so great that he knew about the movement of the seven planets and comets around the sun, had a completely correct concept of the ecliptic and condemned astrology. - Judging by some expressions of the book. Kurbsky, it must be assumed that a great influence on his mental development even in the days of his youth, Maxim Grek, who was on friendly terms with the Tuchkovs, from whose family came the mother of Prince. Kurbsky. And in the "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow" and in the "Preface to the New Margarit" book. Kurbsky with deep respect and love mentions Maxim the Greek, calls him "holy", "reverend", "beloved teacher", and his words are "sweeter than honey", says that he was "a very wise husband, and not only in a rhetorical art is many, but also philosophically skillful, and, according to Bose, in confessional patience is decorated. In the same Preface, Kurbsky recalls how, once talking with Maxim the Greek, he asked him: were all the books of the great Eastern teachers translated from Greek into Slavic , and where are they, among the Serbs, among the Bulgarians or among other Slavic tribes? Maximus the Greek replied that they had not been translated into Slavonic and had not even been translated into Latin for a long time, despite the fact that the Romans greatly desired this and repeatedly asked permission from the Byzantine emperors, and that only after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, when Patriarch Athanasius of Constantinople fled to Venice with the clergy and with all the books of spiritual content, the books he brought were translated from Greek into Latin by people versed in the Holy Scriptures and in the philosophical sciences, and that these translations were printed and went on sale at an inexpensive price not only in Italy, but also in other Western European countries. The recollection of this conversation with Maxim the Greek and the desire to translate the books of Holy Scripture from Latin into Slavonic prompted the book. Kurbsky, already in his mature years, began to study the Latin language, as well as grammar, dialectics and other sciences. When he had sufficiently mastered the Latin language, he bought books and begged a certain young man, Ambrosio, from whom he studied "external sciences", to help him in translation. First they translated one speech of Gregory the Theologian and one word of Basil the Great, then Prince. Kurbsky intended to translate the interpretations of John Chrysostom to the epistles of St. Apostle Paul, but then there was a delay: book. Kurbsky was afraid to undertake this work only with the help of one book. Mikhail Obolensky, who, on his advice and insistence, spent three years in Krakow and two years in Italy to improve in the sciences, "because we have not gotten used to the Slovenian language to the end." Not finding any of the monks or secular people who would have a proper command of the Slavonic book language, Prince. Kurbsky wrote to Mark Sarygozin in writing, asking him to come and help with the translation: “Show love for the same-tribe Russia, for the entire Slovenian language! At this time, at the disposal of the book. Kurbsky already had all the works of John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus and the chronicle of Nicephorus Callistus, in which Ustryalov sees the church history of the Sophia monk in 38 books, compiled according to Eusebius, Sozomen, Evagrius and other authors. One of the biographers Kurbsky, Yasinsky, says: “The best proof of Kurbsky’s high patriotism is his literary activity, which he devoted entirely to the good of his homeland: seeing that “Holy Russian land is melting with spiritual hunger,” he was not satisfied with a word of condemnation, but in his advanced years he sat down at the Latin alphabet and translations of the works of the great church fathers.

Reading in Holy Scripture and familiarity with the works of the great fathers of the church gave the book. Kurbskoiu opportunity to see weak sides Catholicism and Lutheranism. As a result, he put his native Orthodoxy even higher, which, however, did not prevent him from sadly noticing some undesirable phenomena in the Russian church: a passion for apocrophic writings, a predilection for appearance, and a decline in morality among monastics. Even under John III, a struggle arose between Nil Sorsky and Joseph Sanin: one was a supporter of non-possessiveness, the other defended the right of monasteries to own property. This fundamental hostility of Nil Sorsky to the acquisitiveness of the monks passed from Prince. Kurbsky in hatred for the "Osiflyans", i.e., the disciples of Joseph Sanin, whom he calls "evil in anger, quick novices and all evil indulgences, a sly couple, a monastic family full of slyness" ... But in addition to "possessive" inclinations in " Osiflyany" book. Kurbsky castigates in them unsympathetic qualities for him: servility to the led. book. Vasily Ivanovich, an inappropriate desire to justify his autocratic inclinations by the teachings of the Orthodox religion and forgetfulness of the direct duty of the higher clergy to intercede and intercede before the supreme power for the oppressed and offended.

The main work of Kurbsky and one of the most important sources for the history of his time is "The History of the Great Prince of Moscow about the deeds, even heard from reliable husbands and even seen by our eyes." Here is its content: in the preface of the book. Kurbsky finds out the reason that prompted him to take up the compilation of the "History". He says that repeatedly "many luminous men" turned to him with the question: "Why did the change happen with the previously kind and exemplary sovereign, who many times, forgetting about himself for the fatherland, in campaigns against the enemies of the cross of Christ endured, sweating, heavy labors and exhaustion, and enjoyed a good reputation among all?" For a long time, the book Kurbsky remained silent, sighing and mourning, but, finally, as a result of private inquiries, he decided to present an outline of the events that brought about this change in the sovereign. - The beginning of all evil lies, according to the book. Kurbsky, divorced led. book. Vasily Ivanovich with Solomonia and in his marriage to Elena Glinskaya. From this unhappy marriage, John was born, who, after the death of his parents, remained in the care of the boyars, who indulged his bad inclinations, entered into disputes among themselves and contributed to the further development of the "evil inclination". Having come of age, John executed, one after another, many well-born people who were not guilty of anything and "began to excel with all sorts of innumerable malicious ones." God, "pacifying his ferocity," allowed Moscow to burn; following the fire, there was an indignation of the mob and the murder of the uncle of the tsar, Prince Mikhail Glinsky. In this Hard time God sent help and comfort to "the whole earth" in the person of Archpriest Sylvester of Blagoveshchensk, who appeared to the tsar in Vorobyevo. Sylvester "pretending him from God with sacred letters and strose conjuring him with the terrible name of God ... he healed and cleansed his soul from leprous wounds, and corrected the corrupted mind, instructing him on the right path with the new one." Since that time, the tsar especially brought Sylvester closer to him and exalted Alexei Adashev, who, according to Prince. Kurbsky, was "very much loved and agreed" by him, and was "very useful to the general thing, and partly, in some manners, like an angel." The main merit of Sylvester and Adashev lies in the fact that, having removed "petters and people-pleasers" from the tsar, they "gather advisers to him, reasonable and perfect men, in old age, living suits, adorned with piety and the fear of God: others, also in the middle age, so well kind and brave, and those and these in military and zemstvo things in everything skillful; and they will also learn them for affection and friendship, as if without their advice nothing can be done or thought. , good advisers, like a city with firm pillars established "; and packs: love, speech, advice, keep your soul, and do not love him, will completely disappear: because, as if wordless, it is necessary to govern by nature by feeling, and all verbal, advice and reasoning. And then those advisers were called his chosen council; truly, by deeds they had a name: after all, they made all the chosen and deliberate advice with their own, that is: a righteous court, impartial, like a rich, so poor, hedgehog happens to be the worst in the kingdom; and besides, governors, skillful and brave men, are elected against enemies, and the ranks of the stratilates will arrange, as if over riders, and over footmen; and if someone appears courageous in battles and bleeds his hand in the blood of the enemy, this gift is revered, as moving things, and motionless. Some of them, the most skillful, were raised to the highest degrees for the sake of it. The second chapter of the History is devoted to a description of the campaign near Kazan and its conquest. Prince Kurbsky played, as we have seen, an outstanding role in the capture of Kazan, but he wrote from memory, already being in Lithuania, many, many years after the events that he witnessed.As a result, there are some inaccuracies and errors in dates (as can be seen from the study of Mr. Yasinsky, where the description of the Kazan campaign of Prince Kurbsky was checked with other sources).

In the 3rd chapter of the book. Kurbsky speaks disapprovingly of the tsar's hasty return from Kazan to Moscow, despite the advice of the wise governors to spend the winter in Kazan for the final arrangement of the city and the pacification of foreigners. About the dangerous illness of the king, which befell him soon after his return from Kazan, Prince. Kurbsky mentions only in passing, but tells in great detail about the trip to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Book. Kurbsky dwells in detail on the conversation between the tsar and Vassian Toporkovon, who was "of one council and in everything pleasing and agreeing" with his father. book. Vasily Ivanovich. The king asked Vassian: "How could you reign well and have your great and mighty ones in obedience?" Vassian answered: “If you want to be an autocrat, do not keep a single wisest adviser for yourself: you yourself are better than everyone; so you will be firm in the kingdom, and you will have everything in your own hands. ". The king took Bassian's hand and say: "Oh! if my father were still alive, such a useful verb would not be told to me!" Book. Kurbsky, on the other hand, considers this advice a “satanic syllogism” and finds that Vassian should have answered this way: “it is worthy for the king himself to be like a head, and to love his wise advisers like his own uds.” Book. Kurbsky argues as follows: "The king, if he is honored by the kingdom, but whose gifts he has not received from God, must seek good and useful advice not only among advisers, but also among people of all people: because the gift of the spirit is given not according to external wealth and according to the power of the kingdom, but according to the rightness of the soul; because God does not look at might and pride, but at rightness of heart, and gives gifts, that is, whoever can accommodate with good will. a fierce fire flared up on the earth, "and that he himself can be called not an ax, that is, a small ax, but a wide and large ax that destroyed "noble and glorious men in great Russia", for the tsar, who destroyed them and many common people, was Kurbsky says that the prediction of Maxim was also fulfilled: the journey to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery ended very sadly: on the way back, the son of John, Tsarevich Dmitry, died. Prince Kurbsky took part. Prince Kurbsky considers this indignation "God's permission" in order to "humble the pride" of John, who did not listen to wise advisers and did not remain in Kazan "till the end of eradicating the Busurman authorities from the land of this land." Telling then about the arrival of the Crimean Khan and about the tsar's hesitation to enter the battle with the Crimeans, who had already defeated part of the Russian army, Prince. Kurbsky says that the tsar accepted the advice of the brave and rejected the advice of the "fearful" and went to Tula, intending to fight the Busurmans for Orthodox Christianity: but the most destructive and bitter in the kingdom of nothing can exist. After that, "packs, akibs in repentance, and for many years he reigned well: he would be horrified at the punishments thereof from God." In the 4th chapter of the book. Kurbsky sets out the reasons that prompted John to start Livonian War, talks about the capture of several German cities, about the conquest of Astrakhan. Having described all the victories won by the Russian troops in Livonia and over the Crimeans, Prince. Kurbsky says: “In those same years, our tsar humbled himself and reigned well and walked along the path of the Lord’s law; he directs and affirms more with kindness than with punishment, but if he already treats him cruelly and rebelliously, then he punishes with a ban, mixed with mercy, if it’s already incurable, then punishment, on the image of those who want to transgress the law. bestowing and comforting in repentance, the king of the Christian. From these words it is clear that, according to the book. Kurbsky, John could happily reign and defeat his enemies as long as God was merciful to him for his attentiveness to advisers. Having told about the campaign against the Crimeans, Prince. Vishnevetsky, who offered his services to John in 1557 to conquer the southern Dnieper region, Prince. Kurbsky recalls how benevolent people advised the tsar to take advantage of the convenient time and go himself to the Crimean horde, or send a large army; "But he did not listen, foretelling us this and helping him caresses, good and faithful companions of meals and cups and various pleasures of friends; but similarly, on his relatives and knees, the sharpness of the weapon is more than filthy, he was preparing, hiding in himself this seed, all-sown from the foretold bishop, the verb Topork." Further, he reproached the Poles that they also did not take advantage of the favorable circumstances for the conquest of the Crimea, Prince. Kurbsky dwells in detail on the pampered way of life of the Polish king Sigismund-August and the Polish lords, and explains to himself their arrogance, cowardice and neglect of the benefit and security of the fatherland by the fact that they rejected the true faith and deviated into the "Luthor heresy". Only one Volyn regiment, with its brave and glorious commander, Prince. Konstantin Ostrozhsky, repeatedly proved himself a worthy defender of the fatherland (Poland) - because he remained faithful to Orthodoxy. - After this digression, Prince. Kurbsky again refers to the description of the military operations in Livonia, in which he took an active part.

The 5th chapter details the removal of Sylvester and Adashev, as a result of the intrigues of "despicable petters" and the brothers of Tsaritsa Anastasia Romanovna. Despite requests, they were not allowed to justify themselves before the tsar, and they were charged in absentia. From the monastery where Sylvester voluntarily tonsured before the start of the persecution, he was sent to Solovki, and Alexei Adashev, appointed governor of the newly conquered Livonian city of Fellin, was transported from there to Dorpat, imprisoned and died in captivity.

In the 6th, 7th and 8th chapters, entitled: "On the beating of the princely families" (On the beating of the boyar and noble families", "On the suffering of the holy martyrs", all the executions committed by John are listed. According to Ustryalov: "All almost the persons who, according to Kurbsky's news, died an unfortunate death are named in the Cyril Synodic; about the same persons who are not named there, the memory remained in our annals, in ranks, in the list of old dignitaries, in embassy affairs; in a word, no more than two or three of Kurbsky's news remain unproven." In chapter 9, John is compared with other tormentors and the new martyrs are compared with the ancient ones.

For a long time, our historians almost exclusively based their judgment on the character of the formidable tsar and his relationship to the Moscow boyars on the writings of Kurbsky. Karamzin, too trusting of the testimony of Prince. Kurbsky, recognized the drastic change in the character of John IV, which occurred after the death of his first wife, Anastasia Romanovna, as a result of the slander of evil caresses and headphones, and explained the cruelty of John in the era of the oprichnina solely by what he explains them and Prince. Kurbsky: removing the best of the boyars from himself, and then persecuting them for the sake of revenge for their former supremacy over him. Such unconditional credulity of the historiographer to the book. Kurbsky attracted the attention of N. S. Artsybashev, who diligently studied the book. Kurbsky, and he began to prove Karamzin's lack of strict methods of historical criticism. It goes without saying that the book Kurbsky cannot be considered an objective narrator about the personal qualities of Tsar John and the events of his reign. Being a supporter of parties of a different outlook than John IV, seeing his political friends in persecution and on the chopping block and risking himself experiencing the same fate, Prince. Kurbsky, quite naturally, one-sidedly explains both the personal qualities of John IV and the reasons for his persecution of the boyars. Of course, it was not the removal of "wise advisers and strategists" from himself and the approach of "headphones" that led the tsar to persecute the boyars, but, on the contrary, both were the result of John's inherent mental properties, which were only drowned out in him during the reign of the chosen one. glad. In this case, John IV is right, asserting in one of his answers to Prince. Kurbsky, that at that time he was under the exceptional, burdensome influence of the members of the elected council. The so-called "change" in John was not a change, but a stronger manifestation of his same qualities - self-will and cruelty, which were manifested in him even at the time of his youth. Then a whole host of other conditions and circumstances contributed to the fact that these properties were expressed with particular force in John after 1560. But despite the one-sided explanation of the "change" in John, Prince. Kurbsky's "History" cannot be honored as an unconditional pamphlet. Many private explanations of the book. Kurbsky, as, for example, his remarks about the role of the Osiflyans, his depiction of the merits of the elected Rada and its political views - should be seriously taken into account by the historian. As for the factual side of the "History", then in the narrative of the wars of John and his executions - it is certainly true, which is proved by comparing the evidence of sq. Kurbsky with other historical sources contemporary to him, and even official ones: chronicles, discharges, John IV's Synod, etc.; the inaccuracies encountered in it are the same as those found in any similar writings of contemporaries of the events described.

Messages of the book. Kurbsky to the Moscow Tsar, written ardently, in high spirits, uniquely beautiful for the 16th century. language, are precious material for studying the nature of the book itself. Kurbsky - imperious, indomitable, vengeful - and prove his mind, erudition and literary education.

Military and political activity of the book. Kurbsky, from the first mention of his participation in the military campaigns of Tsar John IV until his departure for Lithuania, took place during the reign of the Moscow state of the so-called "chosen council" and gives him a prominent place among the figures of his time. In his "History of the Great Prince of Moscow" and in his correspondence with Tsar Ivan the Terrible, Prince. Kurbsky quite clearly expresses his political program, which is precious for characterizing this remarkable Russian man of the 16th century.

Under the pen of historians of 1840 and 1850 and scientists of the school of tribal life and Slavophiles, Prince. Kurbsky is a supporter of either retinue-tribal principles that have already become obsolete, or boyar-oligarchic aspirations alien to the people. The sympathy of the historians of these two opposing trends is on the side of Ivan the Terrible, who, according to their views, was a representative of state and democratic progressive principles. Comparatively only recently (80-90s of the XIX century), when the mental nature of Ivan the Terrible, on the one hand, and the history of the Moscow boyars, on the other, began to be more elucidated, the personality of Prince. Kurbsky appears in a different light.

Book. Kurbsky, according to the latest historical studies, belongs to that group of "boyars-princes" of Eastern Rus', which, starting from the era of John III, fills the ranks of the highest service people of the Muscovite state, pushing into the background a few in number "from the old" Moscow and those traveling to Moscow, boyars and other thoughtful people. This group of princes, remembering their genealogy from the "root of St. Vladimir", in most cases, according to genealogical accounts, was older than the line of Moscow princes; therefore, she looked at them somewhat condescendingly and did not share the autocratic aspirations of Kalita's offspring, but at the same time this group did not strive for specific isolation. The Rurik princes were very well aware of the historical necessity of uniting the Russian lands, and in this respect they agreed in their views with the Moscow collectors of the Russian land, but they understood the state order in this association diametrically opposed to the Moscow Grand Dukes. They did not consider it right for the Grand Dukes and Tsars of Moscow to decide "all the affairs of the third by locking themselves at the bed," as Proved so aptly put it. book. Vasily Ivanovich Bersen Beklemishev, and based the political order of the Muscovite state on the unity of the tsar with the boyar duma and on his conversion to critical cases to the "all people", to the council of "the whole earth". At the present time we know that from 1547 to 1560 the government of the Moscow State was headed not only by Sylvester and Adashev, but by the "best people", both from the princely boyars and from the Moscow untitled boyars, with the addition of "authorities" to them ", i.e., the clergy, with Metropolitan Macarius at the head, and several persons from the" nation ". It was a circle of supporters of reforms, a circle that, according to Prince. Kurbsky is usually called "the chosen council", and to which he himself belonged. This "rada" left a good memory for posterity in a number of very important reforms who glorified the reign of John IV. The elected council first of all strengthened and exalted the supreme power of the Moscow sovereign, prompting led. book. Moscow Ivan Vasilyevich to accept the title of tsar, as a symbol of the all-Russian autocratic ruler. This royal power received its consecration in the crowning of the sovereign to the kingdom and in uniting the interests of all the disparate regions of the Muscovite state by convening the first Zemsky Sobor in 1547. Then the elected council marked its activities in the following state events: it compiled a new Code of Laws, established a number of councils for church affairs, of which the most important is the so-called Stoglavy Cathedral, which spoke out in favor of the need to expand the lower public education; founded the first printing house in Moscow, turned to the German emperor Charles V with a request to send artisans, artists and various other technicians to the Moscow state, issued a number of decrees for better internal management (statutory and lip charters and the establishment of communal "kissers"), sought to improve the military organization and to streamline land holdings (limitation of localism, the first experience of establishing a permanent army in the form of archers, the first experiments of land delimitation), began trade relations with England. During the reign of this council, the kingdoms of Kazan and Astrakhan were conquered, the Siberian tsar undertook to pay tribute to the tsar of Moscow. These successes in our then Eastern question stopped Moscow's dependence on the once formidable Kipchak horde. "Rada" intended to inflict an equally decisive blow to the fourth Tatar ulus - Crimea.

The political program of the book. Kurbsky lies in the confession of the principles underlying the activities of the "chosen council" and justified by its broad state activities.

"Tales" book. Kurbsky were published by N. G. Ustryalov for the first time in 1833, 2nd ed. published in 1842, 3rd ed. in 1868. In the 3rd edition printed: "The story of the great prince of Moscow about deeds, even heard from reliable husbands and even seen by our eyes; "Correspondence with Tsar Joain IV" four letters to him); "Letters to different persons - in number 16"; "History of the Florence Cathedral" and "Preface to the New Margaret". - Sakharov published in "Moskvitianin" in 1843 one letter from Prince Kurbsky to an unknown person in Dorpat. Prince Obolensky - in "Bibliogr. Zap." 1858, No. 12, "published Kurbsky's preface to Damaskin's book Heaven. - A.S. Pavlov in "Orthodox Social Security." 1863 issued three letters to unknown persons; A. S. Arkhangelsky in the appendix to his article "Essays from the history of Western Russian literature" - Thu. Moscow Tot. East and etc. 1888 - published Kurbsky's notes to the translation of the works of John Chrysostom and Damascus. - The following translations of the book have been preserved. Kurbsky: Six conversations of John Chrysostom, several excerpts from the history of Eusebius, Dialogue of Patriarch Gennady, Theology, Dialectics and 7 other works of Damascus. A significant part of the "New Margaret" is devoted to the translation of the life of Chrysostom, compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam, the "tale" of the book itself. Kurbsky and the translation of information additional to the life of Chrysostom from the chronicle of Nicephorus Callistus, and the rest of the chapters of this collection, in the form in which they have been preserved, represent a translation of various words and conversations of Chrysostom. - MP Petrovsky, "Bibliographic notes on the compositions of Prince Kurbsky", lists all his works that Ustryalov missed, this article was published in the "Zap. Kaz. un." 1879, No. 4, and separately under the title: "Kn. A. M. Kurbsky", 1873. Information about the life and work of Kurbsky - Dr. Ros. Vivl., vol. VIII and XIII; - "Father. Zap." 1830 part 44; "Acts of Arch. Exp.", vols. I and II; "Add. to act. ist.", I; "Acts of the Lithuanian Metrics" at the 2nd and 3rd editions of Ustryalov's Tales; - Kingdoms. book; - Pskov chronicle; - Nikon. Chronicle, VII; - Undolsky, "Description of Khludov's manuscripts"; Vostokov, "Description of the Manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum"; Arkhangelsky, A.S., "Creations of the Church Fathers in Old Russian Writing", in "Journal of the Ministry of Nar. Education", 1888, No. 8; Ustryalov, N. G., "Tales of Prince Kurbsky". 3rd ed., 1868; Karamzin, vol. VII - XI; Solovyov, "History of childbirth. relations of the princes of Rurik's house" 1847 and a review of this book by K. D. Kavelin, - "Works", 1897, vol. I; Solovyov "History", vol. VI; and K. S. Aksakov review of this volume, in "Works" by Aksakov, vol. I, 1861; "The life of Prince A. M. Kurbsky in Lithuania and Volyn" - "Acts of the Provisional Commission", Kyiv, 1849, vols. I and II, with preface. prof. N. D. Ivanisheva - trans. in Ivanishev's Works, 153-231; Gorsky, S., "The life and historical significance of Prince A. M. Kurbsky", 1858; V. S. Ikonnikov, "Russian public figures of the 16th century." 1866; Oppokov, "Prince A. M. Kurbsky" - in "Kyiv. Univ. Izv." 1872, 6-8; N. I. Kostomarov, "Russian history in life history", G; Yasinsky, "Works of Prince Kurbsky, as historical material" - in "Kyiv. Univ. Izv." 1888, 10 at 11; V. O. Klyuchevsky, "The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'".

V. Korsakov.

(Polovtsov)

Kurbsky, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich

Renowned politician and writer, b. around 1528. 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 after 8 days he was already on horseback again. During the siege of Kazan, K. commanded right hand the whole 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, K. was one of the people closest to the king; he became even closer to the party of Sylvester and Adashev. When failures began in Livonia, the tsar put K. 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 executions of supporters of Sylvester and Adashev and those who fled or were threatened with royal disgrace to Lithuania had already begun. Although there was no fault for K., 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 K., persuading him to go over to their side and promising a warm welcome. The battle near Nevl (1562), unsuccessful for the Russians, could not provide the tsar with a pretext for disgrace, judging by the fact that even after it K. voivodship in Yuryev; and the king, reproaching him for his failure (Skaz. 186), does not think of attributing it to treason. K. could not be afraid of responsibility for an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Helmet: if this matter were of great importance, the king would blame him K. in his letter. Nevertheless, K. was sure of the nearness of misfortune and, after vain prayers and fruitless intercession of the hierarchical ranks (Skaz. 132-3), decided to flee "from the land of God." In 1563 (according to other news - in 1564: g.) K., with the help of his faithful servant Vaska Shibanov, fled from Yuryev to Lithuania [In rukop. "Tales" K., storage. in moscow the main archive, it is told how Shibanov took the 1st message of K. to the tsar and was tormented by him for that. According to another report, Vaska Shibanov was captured during his flight and said in K. "many treacherous deeds"; but the praises that the tsar showers on Shibanov for his loyalty to K. clearly contradict this news]. K. came to the service of Sigismund not alone, but with a whole crowd of adherents and servants, and was granted several estates (by the way, by the city of Kovel). K. controlled them through his officers from Muscovites. Already in September 1564, K. was fighting against Russia. After K. escaped, a hard fate befell people close to him. K. subsequently writes that the tsar "mortified my mother and wife and lad of my only son, who were imprisoned, with a wire rope; my brethren, the same-knee princes of Yaroslavl, died with various deaths, my estates and plundered them." To justify his rage, Grozny could only cite the fact of betrayal and violation of the kiss of the cross; his other two accusations that K. "I wanted the sovereignty in Yaroslavl" and as if he took away his wife Anastasia from him, they were apparently invented by him only to justify his malice in the eyes of the Polish-Lithuanian nobles: K. could not harbor personal hatred for the queen, but thought about separating Yaroslavl into a special principality only a fool could. K. usually lived 20 versts from Kovel, in the town of Milyanovichi. Judging by the numerous processes, the acts of which have come down to us, the Moscow boyar and the tsar’s servant quickly assimilated with the Polish-Lithuanian magnates and, among the violent ones, was in any case not the most humble: he fought with the lords, seized the estate by force, scolded the royal envoys with “obscene Moscow words” ; his officers, hoping for his protection, extorted money from the Jews and so on. In 1571, K. married a rich widow Kozinskaya, nee Princess Golshanskaya, but soon divorced her, married, in 1579, for the third time a poor girl Semashko and was apparently happy with her; had a daughter and son Demetrius by her. In 1583, Mr.. K. died. Since soon his authoritative executor, Konstantin Ostrozhsky, also died, the government, under various pretexts, began to take possession of the widow and son K. and, finally, took Kovel himself. Demetrius K. subsequently received part of what was taken away and converted to Catholicism. - Opinions about K., 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, K. is an intelligent, honest and sincere person who has always stood on the side of good and truth. Since the controversy between K. and Ivan the Terrible, together with other products of K.'s literary activity, has still been studied extremely insufficiently, a final judgment about K., more or less capable of reconciling the contradictions, is still impossible. The following are known from K.'s writings: 1) "The history of the Great Prince of Moscow about deeds, even heard from reliable men and even seen by our eyes." 2) "Four letters to Grozny", 3) "Letters" to various persons; 16 of them were included in the 3rd ed. "Tales of Prince K." N. Ustryalova (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 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 translations from Chrysostom and Damascus" (printed by Prof. A. Arkhangelsky in "Appendices" to "Essays on the history of Western Russian literature", in "Readings of the General. and Historical and Ancient. "1888 No. 1). 7) "History of the Florence Cathedral", compilation; printed in "Tale" pp. 261-8; . Shevyreva - "Journal. Min. Nar. Enlightenment", 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) , K. translated the dialogue of Patriarch Gennady, Theology, Dialectics and other writings of Damaskinos (see the article by A. Arkhangelsky in the Journal of M. H. Pr. 1888, No. 8), some of the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, excerpts from Eusebius, etc. Large excerpts from Cicero are inserted into one of his letters to Grozny ("Tale." 205-9). K. himself calls Maxim the Greek his "beloved teacher"; but the latter was both old and dejected at the time when K. entered into life, and K. could not be his direct student. Back in 1525, Vasily Mikh. Tuchkov (K.'s mother - nee Tuchkov) was very close to Maxim, who probably had a strong influence on K. Like Maxim, K. has a deep hatred for self-satisfied ignorance, which at that time was very common even in the upper class of the Moscow state. Dislike for books, from which allegedly "people go crazy, that is to say go crazy," K. considers a malicious heresy. Above all, he places St. Scripture and the Church Fathers as its interpreters; but he also respects the external or gentry 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 governor in Yuryev, he has a whole library with him; after the flight, "already in gray hairs" ("Skaz.", 224), he strives "to learn the Latin language for the sake of it, and he could put into his own language what has not yet been put down" ("Skaz." 274). According to K., 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 those of other faiths to Christianity (as the Spaniards - New World). K. shares with Maxim the Greek his dislike for the "Osiflyans", for the monks, who "began to love the acquisitions"; they are in his eyes "in the truth of all katov (executioners) are bitter. "He pursues the apocrypha, denounces the" Bulgarian fables "priest Yeremey," or more than Babian nonsense, "and especially rises against the gospel of Nicodemus, the authenticity of which people who had read in the Holy Scriptures were ready to believe. Revealing the ignorance of contemporary Russia and willingly admitting that science is more widespread and more respected in his new fatherland, K. 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 of Luther's biography, civil strife that arose as a result of his preaching and the iconoclasm of the Protestant sects. He is also pleased with the purity of the Slavic language and contrasts it with the "Polish barbaria". He clearly sees the danger threatening the Orthodox Polish crown from the Jesuits, and warns Konstantin Ostrozhsky himself from their machinations; precisely for He would like to train his co-religionists to fight them with science.K. looks gloomily at his time: this is the 8th thousand years, "the age of the bestial"; "even if the Antichrist has not yet been born, everyone is already wide and bold in Prague. In general, K.'s mind can 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 cast their spells" pluviyu", i.e. rain, on the Russian army; Skaz. 24), 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 less than him well-read among the fathers of the church and incomparably less experienced in the ability to clearly and literaryly express his thoughts, and "many rage and ferocity" interfere with the correctness of his speech. 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. historiography with a strictly sustained tendency, K. is a writer to an even greater extent: all parts of his monograph are strictly considered, the presentation is harmonious and clear (with the exception of 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" K. cannot rise to a definite and original world outlook; and here he is only an imitator of good Byzantine examples. 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 enriches his story with unnecessary beautiful words, intercalary, 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. K.'s language is beautiful and even strong in places, pompous and viscous in places, and everywhere dotted with foreign words, obviously - not out of need, but for the sake of greater literary. 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. Literature about K. is extremely extensive: anyone who wrote about Grozny could not avoid K.; in addition, his history and his letters, on the one hand, translations and polemics for Orthodoxy, on the other, are such significant facts in the history of Russian mental life that not a single researcher of pre-Petrine writing had the opportunity not to express judgment about them; in almost every description of the Slavic manuscripts of Russian book depositories there is material for the history of the literary activity of K. We will name only major works not named above. "Tales of Prince K." 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. Concerning the work of S. Gorsky: "Kn. A. M. K." (Kaz., 1858) see N. A. Popov’s article, “On the Biographical and Criminal Element in History” (“Ateney”, 1858, part VIII, No. 46). A number of articles by Z. Oppokov ("Kn. A. M. K.") were published in Kiev. Univ. Izv. for 1872, nos. 6-8. Article by prof. M. Petrovsky (M. P -sky): "Kn. A..M.K. Historical and bibliographic notes about his Tales" print. in "Uch. Zap. Kazan Univ." for 1873. See also "Investigations about the life of Prince K. in Volyn", reported. L. Matseevich ("Ancient and New Russia" 1880, I); "Kn. K. in Volyn" Yul. Bartoshevich ("Ist. Bulletin" VI). In 1889, a detailed work by A. N. Yasinsky was published in Kyiv: "The works of Prince K. as historical material."