Historian Katsva on the formation of the Russian state and the missed alternative. The agricultural center won. "The prince's land is about my tillage." years on the throne. Territorial acquisitions of Ivan III
Already at the age of 12 the future Grand Duke married, at the age of 16 he began to replace his father when he was absent, and at 22 he became the Grand Duke of Moscow.
Ivan III had a secretive and at the same time strong character (later these character traits manifested themselves in his grandson).
Under Prince Ivan, the issue of coins began with the image of him and his son Ivan the Young and the signature “Gospodar” All Rus'" As a stern and demanding prince, Ivan III received the nickname Ivan the Terrible, but a little later this phrase began to be understood as a different ruler Rus' .
Ivan continued the policy of his ancestors - collecting Russian lands and centralizing power. In the 1460s, Moscow's relations with Veliky Novgorod became strained, whose residents and princes continued to look west, towards Poland and Lithuania. After the world failed to establish relations with the Novgorodians twice, the conflict reached new level. Novgorod enlisted the support of the Polish king and Prince Casimir of Lithuania, and Ivan stopped sending embassies. On July 14, 1471, Ivan III, at the head of an army of 15-20 thousand, defeated the almost 40 thousand army of Novgorod; Casimir did not come to the rescue.
Novgorod lost most of its autonomy and submitted to Moscow. A little later, in 1477, the Novgorodians organized a new rebellion, which was also suppressed, and on January 13, 1478, Novgorod completely lost its autonomy and became part of Moscow State.
Ivan settled all the unfavorable princes and boyars of the Novgorod principality throughout Rus', and populated the city itself with Muscovites. In this way he protected himself from further possible revolts.
“Carrot and stick” methods Ivan Vasilievich gathered under his rule the Yaroslavl, Tver, Ryazan, Rostov principalities, as well as the Vyatka lands.
The end of the Mongol yoke.
While Akhmat was waiting for Casimir's help, Ivan Vasilyevich sent a sabotage detachment under the command of the Zvenigorod prince Vasily Nozdrovaty, who went down the Oka River, then along the Volga and began to destroy Akhmat's possessions in the rear. Ivan III himself moved away from the river, trying to lure the enemy into a trap, as in his time Dmitry Donskoy lured the Mongols into the Battle of the Vozha River. Akhmat did not fall for the trick (either he remembered Donskoy’s success, or he was distracted by sabotage behind him, in the unprotected rear) and retreated from Russian lands. On January 6, 1481, immediately upon returning to the headquarters of the Great Horde, Akhmat was killed by the Tyumen Khan. Civil strife began among his sons ( Akhmatova's children), the result was the collapse of the Great Horde, as well as the Golden Horde (which formally still existed before that). The remaining khanates became completely sovereign. Thus, standing on the Ugra became the official end Tatar-Mongolian yoke, and the Golden Horde, unlike Rus', could not survive the stage of fragmentation - several states that were not connected with each other later emerged from it. Here comes the power Russian state started to grow.
Meanwhile, the peace of Moscow was also threatened by Poland and Lithuania. Even before standing on the Ugra, Ivan III entered into an alliance with the Crimean Khan Mengli-Gerey, the enemy of Akhmat. The same alliance helped Ivan in containing pressure from Lithuania and Poland.
In the 80s of the 15th century, the Crimean Khan defeated the Polish-Lithuanian troops and destroyed their possessions in the territory of what is now central, southern and western Ukraine. Ivan III entered the battle for the western and northwestern lands controlled by Lithuania.
In 1492, Casimir died, and Ivan Vasilyevich took the strategically important fortress of Vyazma, as well as many settlements in the territory of what is now Smolensk, Oryol and Kaluga regions.
In 1501, Ivan Vasilyevich obliged the Livonian Order to pay tribute for Yuryev - from that moment Russian-Livonian War temporarily stopped. The continuation was already Ivan IV Grozny.
Until the end of his life, Ivan maintained friendly relations with the Kazan and Crimean khanates, but later relations began to deteriorate. Historically, this is associated with the disappearance of the main enemy - the Great Horde.
In 1497, the Grand Duke developed his collection of civil laws called Code of Law, and also organized Boyar Duma.
The Code of Law almost officially established such a concept as “ serfdom", although the peasants still retained some rights, for example, the right to transfer from one owner to another in St. George's day. Nevertheless, the Code of Law became a prerequisite for the transition to an absolute monarchy.
On October 27, 1505, Ivan III Vasilyevich died, judging by the description of the chronicles, from several strokes.
Under the Grand Duke, the Assumption Cathedral was built in Moscow, literature (in the form of chronicles) and architecture flourished. But the most important achievement of that era was liberation of Rus' from Mongol yoke.
mi621 writes:
I thought for a long time about what would be more interesting to throw in. There's a lot to dig into here. And according to events. For example, “Ivan III tramples the Khan’s Basma” was written on the basis of a legend 70 years after “standing on the Ugra”. In reality, the Khan's ambassadors did not come to Ivan with such an order, and he did not solemnly tear up any basma letter in their presence.
Ivan III did not seek to fight the enemy. Khan Akhmat is far away, hundreds of kilometers away, and Ivan’s wife, Grand Duchess Sophia, is fleeing Moscow, for which she receives accusatory epithets from the chronicler. Moreover, at the same time some strange events are unfolding in the principality. “The Tale of Standing on the Ugra” tells about it this way: “That same winter, Grand Duchess Sophia returned from her escape, for she fled to Beloozero from the Tatars, although no one was chasing her.” And then - even more mysterious words about these events, in fact the only mention of them: “And those lands through which she wandered became worse than from the Tatars, from the boyar slaves, from the Christian bloodsuckers. Reward them, Lord, according to the deceit of their actions, give them according to the works of their hands, for they loved wives more than the Orthodox Christian faith and the holy churches, and they agreed to betray Christianity, for their malice blinded them.”
And in terms of numbers. It’s difficult, of course, but you can estimate. And why did the Horde, which hasn’t become any worse since Batya’s times, screwed up so much?
Reinhold Heidenstein, historian and diplomat, State Secretary of King Stefan Batory, used his author’s invention that Ivan 3 was prompted to overthrow the Mongol-Tatar yoke by “the speeches of the intelligent woman Sophia of Greece.” It turns out that she forced him, and without her, her energy and the yoke would not have been lifted. How...
This invention of Heidenstein, picked up by the French historian Jacques Auguste de Thou, subsequently became widespread in historical literature. Then they went to “screw up” the Tatar basma and other things... Why did Ivan 3 have to tear up and trample this basma? He was a good diplomat and would not have stooped to such an act.
Now, as for Sophia’s departure, first to Dmitrov, and then to Beloozero. She left before the invasion of the Tatars with children, boyars, court and treasury on the orders of Ivan 3 himself, since the danger of Akhmed Khan’s horde breaking through to Moscow was taken into account. Not everyone in Rus' supported such a move by the princely house. They considered this a manifestation of cowardice and cowardice. It turned out, in their opinion, that the princely family was abandoning Moscow and fleeing, and not thinking about defending their homeland. Sophia returned to Moscow that same winter... They waited until everything returned to normal and returned... Sophia was not loved in Moscow. They considered her very smart, proud, and the chroniclers there made all kinds of things about her because of hostility. What kind of criminal thing could this woman do with her servants in a short period of time in the places where she came? Probably she started to restore order, but the local aborigines didn’t like it, so they started whining...
Yuri Krivosheev, Doctor of Historical Sciences
A. D. Kivshenko. John III tears up the Khan's letter and tramples the basma in front of the Tatar ambassadors
Events associated with the end of Rus''s tributary dependence on the Horde are widely reflected in domestic scientific, popular and fiction. Representatives of Russian fine art did not pass them by either.
Thus, the paintings of the 19th century artists N. Shustov and A. Kivshenko vividly and figuratively depict the scene in the Kremlin chambers that preceded the military invasion of Rus' by Khan Akhmat. In them, Grand Duke Ivan III Vasilyevich, proudly rising from the throne, tears up and tramples on the Khan’s charter (and Kivshenko also has a certain basma). The indignant Tatar envoys (as well as the prince’s entourage) grab their weapons. A fight is about to happen...
Experts also know the depiction of this situation in the chronicle version - in the so-called Kazan Chronicler. There, Ivan III, sitting on the throne, threw someone’s portrait (apparently, some revered ancestor) at the feet of the Tatars. As we will see later, such artistic inconsistency in the presentation of the “apple of discord” (letter, basma, portrait?) between Russia and the Horde, Ivan III and Akhmat is caused by the state of the sources and their interpretation by historians.
We will turn to these problems.
Ivan III Vasilievich
In the historiography of the events of 1480 on the Ugra, a tradition has developed of dividing sources into representative and, so to speak, marginal. The latter usually includes the news of such a monument of Russian writing from the mid-16th century as “The History of the Kazan Kingdom” - also known as the Kazan Chronicler. This attitude towards him is due to at least two circumstances. Firstly, with a later origin compared to chronicles and other sources (some of which are contemporary with the events). And secondly, with the difficulty of interpreting a number of places: their information is considered to poorly correlate with reports from other sources.
The questionable text is already at the beginning of the Kazan Chronicler in the chapter called “About the aftermath from the Tsar who came boldly to the Grand Duke of Moscow, about the Tsar’s rage against him and about the courage of the Grand Duke against the Tsar.” Let us quote this text in the part that interests us:
“Tsar Akhmat... sent his ambassadors to the Grand Duke of Moscow, according to the old custom, his father and basma, asking for tribute and dues for last summer. The Grand Duke was not the least afraid of the Tsarev’s fear and, accepting the basma of his face and spitting on her, brought her down, and to the ground, and trampled under his feet, and ordered all his proud ambassadors to be confiscated, who came to him insolently, and to let only one go alive, carrying the message to the king, saying: “Yes, just as I did with your ambassador, the imam will do the same for you, so that you stop, you lawless one, from your evil beginnings, the hedgehog.” The king, hearing this, was inflamed with great rage about this, and breathing anger and rebuke, like fire and speaking to his prince: “You see what our servant is doing to us, and how he dares to resist our great power, these crazy people.” And having gathered (in) the Great Horde, all your Sratsyn strength... and come to Rus', to the Ugra River...”
The best explanation that historians resort to when characterizing this fragment (as well as those adjacent to it further) is that it represents a legendary (G.V. Vernadsky, Ya.S. Lurie) or folklore (N.S. Borisov ) statement of events. And, therefore, not entirely reliable as a historical source.
There is no doubt, folklore and legendary notes are heard here. But does this exclude the depiction of events that actually took place?
The diplomatic negotiations that preceded the “standing on the Ugra” are a reality attested to by a number of chronicles. The Assumption Chronicler (late 1480s) and the Vologda-Perm Chronicle (circa 1500) tell us in particular detail about the Russian embassies “with gifts” and with “great mother-in-arms.” And “there seems to be nothing incredible in the news of History that the Khan’s ambassadors “came boldly” to Moscow before the campaign of 1480.”
They say that Ivan III, who was in a difficult political situation and was distinguished by caution, could hardly have made such serious aggravations in relations with Akhmat. “He could hardly afford such a challenge, the consequence of which would inevitably be a big war with Akhmat,” writes, for example, N. S. Borisov. I think this is not entirely true. The entire year of 1480 (and, perhaps, the immediate previous and subsequent ones) was a chain of endless, acute collisions in the internal and external affairs of Moscow. And Ivan III sometimes goes to extreme measures. So, against all odds, he enters into an extremely dangerous confrontation with his brothers. Why couldn’t he act uncompromisingly and openly hostile towards the Horde - especially since they were no longer as strong as before? “Kazan History” also records that the Moscow prince “ordered the proud ambassadors... to confiscate all those who came to him insolently, and to release only one alive.”
Ivan III tears up the Khan's letter. Painting by N. S. Shustov. 1858
The term “withdraw” can be interpreted in at least two ways. Either as “imprison”, “arrest” (which, undoubtedly, could have taken place), or as “kill” - which could also happen, fortunately it has already happened in Russian-Mongolian relations. Suffice it to recall the episode preceding the Battle of Kalka, or Tver uprising 1327. For the medieval Mongols, ambassadors were sacred persons, representing not only the khans, but the entire people. Their death (or an attack on their life) was followed by severe punishment - a punitive campaign and merciless destruction of both the nobility and the “people”. And it is not surprising that Akhmat “was inflamed with great rage about this, breathing anger and rebuke like fire,” and immediately moved towards Moscow.
But the murder (or arrest, or beating) of the ambassadors was not the only circumstance that aroused the wrath of the Khan of the Great Horde. The “trampling of basma” was no less aggravating. This episode (as well as the term “basma”) has also repeatedly attracted the attention of historians. Even the first researcher of the Kazan chronicler G.Z. Kuntsevich noted that the term “basma” is “interpreted differently” - from “an imprint of the khan’s foot on wax” and “a cap with the top curved inward” to “an image of the khan” and a letter with the khan’s seal.
A different interpretation was proposed by G.V. Vernadsky. “It is obvious,” he wrote, criticizing previous explanations, “that the compiler, or copyist, of the story did not have a clear idea of the symbols of power granted by the khans to their vassals and servants. He talks about such a sign as basma - a portrait of a khan. In Turkic, basma means “imprint”, “imprint”. In Old Russian, the term was used in relation to the metal frame of an icon (usually made of chased silver). Basma-portrait should then mean an image of a face in the form of a bas-relief on metal. None of the Mongol khans ever issued any such portraits to their vassals.”
The scientist believes that “the compiler of the Kazan History, apparently, confused basma with paiza; the latter term comes from the Chinese paitze - “plate of power” ... ". Paiza “was, depending on the position of the person to whom it was given by the khan, a gold or silver plate with some kind of design, for example, the head of a tiger or a falcon, and an engraved inscription.” Vernadsky’s summary is as follows: “This is exactly the sign that Akhmat’s ambassador should have presented to Ivan III if he had agreed to recognize Akhmat’s suzerainty. Since Ivan III refused to become Akhmat's vassal, the ambassador had to return the plate to the khan. The dramatic description of how Ivan III trampled the paizu is therefore pure fiction.” The last conclusion is not entirely clear (after all, it was possible not to return this paiza to the Horde), but it seems that Vernadsky (following his predecessors 8) indicated the correct path to finding an answer to the question of “basma”.
N. S. Borisov also focuses on the significance of paizi as a symbol of “the power of the supreme ruler of the Horde,” a symbol that had a “formidable inscription demanding obedience.” He also supports Vernadsky in denying “Ivan III’s public desecration of the signs of the khan’s power.”
“Prince Ivan most likely did not make any theatrical gestures, like those described in the Kazan History. However, the logic of myth differs from the logic of sober political calculation. For the people's consciousness, it was necessary that the long and difficult period of the Tatar yoke end with some bright, significant event. The sovereign had to express his contempt for the once all-powerful ruler of the Golden Horde in the most obvious and generally accepted way. This is how the myth of the trampled “basma” was born.
Ivan III destroys Khan's Basma. Engraving by N. A. Koshelev
So, “basma” was most likely paiza. What was its purpose? Paizi, received “from the Golden Horde chancellery” “as a visible evidence of the khan’s mercy,” were divided into two types: “award, given for merit, and travel - for persons carrying out special assignments of the khan’s house.” It is clear that in our case we can talk about “reward” paijie.
Its meaning was explained by A.P. Grigoriev: this is “a certificate confirming that the holder of the paizi has a khan’s label - a letter of grant for the ownership of any property or position.” But what could be depicted and written on such a paijie? We have already given some of the opinions. Oriental scholars also give other interpretations.
There are written references to paitsas, and there are also samples of them. In the territory once occupied by the Golden Horde, paizi with the names of the Jochid khans were repeatedly found. As a rule, “the forms of paiz are close or identical and differ only in the names of the rulers.” The inscriptions begin with the mention of “Eternal Sky”, then the name of the khan and punishment for possible disobedience are indicated. In addition to the inscriptions, the Golden Horde paitsa are engraved in various types and combinations of images of the sun and moon, and on some, a spear-shaped sign (an image of a banner pole against the backdrop of the full moon). What does this mean?
M. G. Kramarovsky, based on the conclusions of T. D. Skrynnikova about “charisma-light” associated with the cult of Genghis Khan, gives the following explanation. Images of the sun and moon (i.e., light, sky) are “the iconographic embodiment of the charisma of Genghis Khan.” And then follows a very important observation for us: “An appeal to the charisma of the great ancestor... concentrated in solar symbols, turned out to be inevitable for the younger Chinggisids during periods of instability of the Mongol state at the end of the 13th-14th centuries. The sun and moon on the Golden Horde paits are signs of borrowed charisma... The khans’ concern for the legitimacy of their own power led them to draw the charisma of the great ancestor to own name. The appearance of Genghis symbols on administrative documents should be regarded as evidence of the Golden Horde khans’ own weakness.”
As we can see, this conclusion was made for the period of the still unified Dzhuchiev Ulus (aka the Golden Horde). What then can we say about the era of the collapse of the Golden Horde statehood? About the time when the Genghisid dynasty itself was represented only by the Khan of the Great Horde, Akhmat, a direct descendant of Genghis Khan?
This is how we come to explain the incident with the “basma”-paiza. What is called “the basma of his face” in the “Kazan History” was most likely a symbolic image of the charisma of Akhmat’s great ancestor, Genghis Khan. Perhaps this is indicated by the reference to the “old custom of one’s fathers” - which neither the witnesses of the ceremony, nor the author (or compiler) of the “Kazan History”, nor its editor (who wrote next to the word “basma” the word he understood, “parsuna”) understood. ”, nor the illustrator (who depicted “Basma” in the form of a khan’s portrait). Obviously, the paijie also had the usual threatening inscription.
“The Grand Duke was no less afraid of the Tsarev’s fear and, accepting the basma of his face and spitting on her, he brought her down, and laid her flat on the ground, and trampled her under his feet.”
Leaving the spitting aside without comment, let’s say that everything else could well have taken place. We should not be embarrassed by the fact that the Basma was broken (broken). Of course, it is hardly possible to break a gold or silver paizu. But paizi were also made of wood. In the history of relations between the Mongols and subordinate peoples, there was a case very reminiscent of our situation - when the ruler, “who delayed in expressing his submission, was given a wooden paiza by the Mongols ....” The wooden plate could well have been broken, thrown on the floor, and trampled on heartily. By the way, such disrespect can explain such an angry reaction of Ivan III...
The desecration of the shrine - one of the main elements of the Horde state-tribal symbols - could not go unpunished (we must not forget the injured ambassadors). And Akhmat Khan, as a worthy heir of Genghis Khan, moved towards Moscow.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes
1. PSRL. T. XIX. History of the Kazan Kingdom (Kazan Chronicler). M. 2000. Stlb. 6-7, 200-201.
2. Kuntsevich G.Z. History of the Kazan Kingdom, or the Kazan Chronicler. Experience in historical and literary research. St. Petersburg 1905. P. 213.
3. Borisov N. S. Ivan III. M. 2000. P. 429. See also: Bazilevich K.V. Foreign policy Russian centralized state. Second half of the 15th century.
M. 2001. P. 111.
4. For more details, see: Krivosheev Yu. V. Rus' and the Mongols. Research on the history of North-Eastern Rus' of the XII-XIV centuries. St. Petersburg 2003. pp. 134-135.
5. PSRL. T. XIX. P. 527.
6. See also: Grigoriev A.P. The time of writing Akhmat’s “label” // Historiography and source studies of the history of Asian and African countries. Vol. X.L. 1987. P. 35; Kramarovsky M. G. Symbols of power among the early Mongols. Golden Horde paizi as a phenomenon of official culture // Turkological collection. 2001. The Golden Horde and its legacy. M. 2002. P. 215.
7. Vernadsky G.V. Russia in the Middle Ages. Tver; M. 1997. pp. 83-84.
8. It should be noted that “already at the beginning of the 20th century. it was found out that the “basma” of Kazan history is paiza - a tablet, usually from precious metal, with a short text carved on it - an order of the ruling khan, calling for obedience" (Grigoriev A.P. Decree. Op. P. 33).
9. Borisov N. S. Decree. Op. P. 429. See also: Grigoriev A.P. Decree. Op. pp. 32-36.
10. Borisov N. S. Decree. Op. P. 430.
11. Grigoriev A.P. Decree. Op. P. 35.
12. Kramarovsky M. G. Decree. Op. P. 215.
13. Grigoriev A.P. Decree. Op. P. 35.
14. Kramarovsky M. G. Decree. Op. P. 215.
15. See: Skrynnikova T.D. Charisma and power in the era of Genghis Khan. M. 1997. pp. 149-165.
16. Kramarovsky M. G. Decree. Op.S. 220-221.
17. Kuntsevich G. Z. Decree. Op. pp. 216-217.
18. Kramarovsky M. G. Decree. Op. P. 214.
October 27, 2005 marks 500 years since the death of the Grand Duke of Moscow and All Rus' John III, the sovereign who completed the unification of the Russian principalities into a single one Russian state, reports Sedmitsa.Ru.
Consolidation of Russian lands under political power Moscow sovereigns and the Russian Church
The dispute between two ascetic movements could benefit monasticism if both sides drew the correct conclusions from it and recognized that the issues of ascetic care of monks and the organization of monastic life in general are a purely church matter. Although during this dispute it turned out that ascetic views are closely connected with the state and political life of the country - we mean the issue of monastic possessions - both the Josephites and the non-possessors could find a middle path and thereby eliminate the negative consequences of the dispute from the life of monasticism , if they had shown moderation, which is exactly what monastic humility demanded of them. However, this did not happen - not because of the excessive zeal of the Josephites or because of the stubbornness of non-covetous people, but because both of these directions were involved in a powerful flow of state-political opinions, ideologies and ideas that literally flooded the Muscovite state in the 16th century. Apparently, it was no coincidence that a dispute about the foundations of asceticism broke out at a time when the Muscovite kingdom entered a decisive period in its history.
The entire history of monasticism, both in the East and in the West, speaks of how difficult it is to separate the monastery from outside world and, if monks have to fulfill their obedience in the world, how difficult it is to protect monasticism from secularization. Great Church and political events They destroy the monastery fence and draw monasticism into the stream of worldly life. Iconoclasm in Byzantium, the Cluniac movement in the West, and the Crusades serve as good confirmation of this pattern.
The events that took place in the Moscow state were fateful and impressive both for contemporaries, Josephites and non-covetous people, and for the next generation. Religious and political views of a person of that era, especially from the circle educated people- and this circle drew its spiritual strength exclusively from monasticism - were literally shocked by these events. Historians, and especially church historians, often schematize the way of thinking and actions of people of the past; later generations sometimes simply do not understand the ideas that people lived then, if they cannot mentally transport themselves to the situation of that era, to understand the religious views of the past. The worldview of the Russian people at that time was thoroughly religious; all events in church and state-political life were considered, weighed and assessed from a religious point of view. The way of thinking, the nature of reasoning was decisively different from the modern one. People then were for the most part like believing children, but with the passions of adults; these were Christians who knew how to see examples of true Christian perfection, but did not know how to find the path to it themselves. To understand the psychological background of the era, we need to remember once again characteristic features Russian people of the beginning of the 16th century: “Then they thought not in ideas, but in images, symbols, rituals, legends, that is, ideas developed not into logical combinations, but into symbolic actions or alleged facts, for which they sought justification in history. They turned to the past not to explain the phenomena of the present, but to justify current interests, and looked for examples for their own claims.”
Great national Russian and world political events unfolded before the eyes of the Russian people. Until recently, the Moscow Principality was just a piece of land between the endless forests of the Russian Plain. But this piece of land was constantly expanding at the expense of other appanage principalities; The Moscow principality grew territorially, politically and economically. The consolidation of the Russian principalities under the rule of the Moscow prince, the “gatherer of the Russian land,” was the result of skillful politics, on the one hand, and the growth of national self-awareness, on the other. “The completion of the territorial gathering of North-Eastern Rus' by Moscow turned the Moscow principality into a national Great Russian state,” says Klyuchevsky.
2. Church and political ideas in Moscow in the second half of the 15th and early 16th centuries
These events naturally left their mark on the lives of people of that era. We must not forget that in the process of gathering the Russian land, the church hierarchy played a very important role important role. Russian metropolitans, mainly Theognostus (1328–1353), Peter (1308–1325), Alexy (1354–1378), Gerontius (1473–1489), always very zealously supported the policy of “gatherers of the Russian land.” This policy of the church hierarchy already contained the prerequisites for the formation of such relations between the state and the Church, which corresponded to the ideas of Joseph Volotsky and his supporters. Monks had participated in similar policies before, before Joseph Volotsky. Strict ascetic, St. Sergius of Radonezh acted in the same spirit outside the monastery walls. He did not participate in the Battle of Kulikovo (1380), which ended in victory over the Tatars, but he blessed the Grand Duke for this battle.
The Church, however, not only supported and blessed the Grand Duke, but often she herself was forced to seek help from the state authorities. This was especially evident in 1439, when the Russian Church and Russian religious consciousness had to determine their attitude towards the Council of Florence. The actions of the Russian Metropolitan Isidore (1437–1441), who participated in the Council and recognized the union, encountered decisive resistance in Moscow from Grand Duke Vasily (1425–1462) and the Russian clergy. The distrust of the Greeks that already existed in Moscow intensified after the Union of Florence, and the firmness shown by the Grand Duke in defending Orthodox teaching was not only recognized and approved by church circles, but also showed them that state power willing and able to serve Christian purposes. This event was an extremely important manifestation of Russian religious consciousness, which subsequent generations were able to appreciate. “The significance of the Union of Florence for Russian history cannot be overestimated. It was a harbinger of the inclusion of Rus' in pan-European politics in the 2nd half of the 15th century. At the same time, the union and the assessment of its significance became the basis for religious journalism to discuss the growing power of Moscow.” The Union of Florence had great value for the development of Russian religious journalism of the 15th–16th centuries, as well as to determine Moscow’s attitude towards Byzantium and the Greek Church. When, two decades after the union, Constantinople - the second Rome - fell under the onslaught of the “godless” Turks (1453), Christians in Moscow saw this event as punishment for an alliance with the “heretic Latins.” In the eyes of the Russians, the religious authority of Greek Orthodoxy fell completely.
Meanwhile, events took place in Moscow that fit well into this atmosphere of mental ferment and aggravation of religious sentiments, passions and opinions. The state-political development of Moscow, the transformation of small principalities into a single kingdom with a vast territory, as already said, made a strong impression on contemporaries. But “it was not the number of new spaces that was important,” notes Klyuchevsky. “In Moscow they felt that a great long-standing work was being completed, deeply concerning the internal structure of zemstvo life... Feeling themselves in a new position, but not yet clearly realizing the new meaning, Moscow state power gropingly searched at home and on the side for forms that would correspond to this situation, and, having already taken on these forms, tried to use them to understand its new meaning. From this side, certain diplomatic formalities and new court ceremonies that appeared during the reign of Ivan III are of no small historical interest.”
This is how the state-philosophical idea arose that the Moscow Grand Duke, through marriage with a princess from the Byzantine imperial house, became the heir of the Byzantine emperors. Yes, the great Christian Orthodox kingdom in the Bosporus was destroyed by the godless Mohammedans, but this conquest will not be long, much less eternal. “But you understand, wretched one,” the author of “The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople” exclaims pathetically, “... the Russian family with the first creators of all Ishmael will defeat, and Sedmokholmago (i.e. Constantinople - I.S.) will be accepted with first his lawful ones, and they will reign in him.” This belief that the Moscow sovereign became the heir of the Byzantine kings was reflected in the new court ceremony in the palace of Ivan III in the Moscow Kremlin, which from now on repeated the Byzantine ceremony, and in the new state emblem with a Byzantine double-headed eagle. After the Tatar yoke was thrown off (1480), the Moscow Grand Duke felt and called himself not only an autocrat, but also “the sovereign of all Rus'”, and even “the king by God's grace" Grand dukes were sometimes called “tsars” before, but this was only a pathetic phrase, but now this title, in the opinion of the Russian people, has become a reflection of the actual state of affairs. Russian political and church journalism will develop this topic for decades and as a result will create a grandiose ideological construction. These ideas were born not from political claims, but mainly from religious quests, from the Christian faith, they were born as a response to the spiritual upheaval that was caused by the mentioned historical events. For Russian society of that time these were not historical facts, but religious and historical events, which is why they were perceived with such excitement and were subjected to such intense discussion from a religious point of view.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact that religiously colored journalism speaks both about the rights and responsibilities of the Orthodox Tsar. This feature of the royal power was emphasized by representatives of the church hierarchy and monasticism at the time when they turned to the Grand Duke for help in the fight against the Novgorod heretics - the Judaizers. For the Josephites, the religious rights and duties of an Orthodox king flow from his godlike nature. “The king is similar in nature to all mankind,” says Joseph Volotsky, “but in power he is similar to the Most High God.”
The idea of the religious duties of the tsar, which was deeply and for a long time rooted in the views of the Josephites, was also expressed by Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod. He was the compiler of three letters to Ivan IV (1545–1547). These same views were shared, of course, by Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow (1542–1563), “one of the greatest personalities in the history of the Russian Church,” “the most famous of all our metropolitans of the 16th century.” His views were formed not only under the influence of the events of the era, but also - mainly - in consonance with his own life experience and with the ideas of Joseph and Josephiteness. Macarius' Josephite views were also reflected in his archpastoral service. In connection with measures to correct monastic life in the Novgorod diocese, in 1526 he turned not to the church authorities - the Moscow Metropolitan, but directly to the Grand Duke, from whom he asked permission to change the monastery charter and to introduce a hostel. His message to the Grand Duke Vasily III is completely consistent in the Josephite spirit and reflects the idea of an Orthodox king: “For the sake of God, sir, and the Most Pure Mother of God and the great miracle workers, striving and providing for the Divine churches and honest monasteries, from where, sir, you have been appointed autocrat and sovereign of all by the highest right hand of God Russia, you, sovereign, God has chosen in Himself a place on earth and placed you on His throne, entrusting mercy and the life of all great Orthodoxy to you.” This was an expression of the views of representatives of the church hierarchy on the religious duties of the king, on his attitude to the Church, and even on his place in the Church.
The political events mentioned above contributed to the development and written presentation of these views. For that era, this was not a fabricated ideology, but a logical conclusion from the church-political situation that had developed in the Moscow state. The long ecclesiastical relationship with Byzantium could and should have borne fruit, and when Byzantium suffered a terrible catastrophe, a new power was to take its place at the center of the Orthodox world. But for the Moscow autocrats, church-religious justification alone was not enough; they also tried to justify their power in political and legal language, to root it in tradition, in “old times.”
These state-political views developed in parallel with the activities of the “Moscow collectors” and the political flourishing of Moscow. Klyuchevsky gave brief description this ideological construct and its content: “Moscow politicians of the early 16th century. It was not enough to have a marriage relationship with Byzantium (that is, with Princess Sophia Palaeologus. - I.S.), I wanted to become related by blood, moreover, with the very root or world model of supreme power - with Rome itself. In the Moscow chronicle of that century, a new genealogy of Russian princes appears, leading their family directly from the Roman Emperor. Apparently, at the beginning of the 16th century. there was a legend that Augustus, Caesar of Rome, owner of the entire universe, when he began to grow weak, divided the universe between his brothers and relatives and planted his brother Prus on the banks of the Vistula River along the river called Neman, which to this day the Prussian land is called by his name, “and from Prus the fourteenth tribe is the great sovereign Rurik.” Moscow diplomacy made practical use of this legend: in 1563, the boyars of Tsar Ivan, justifying his royal title in negotiations with Polish ambassadors, cited this very genealogy of the Moscow Rurikovichs with the words of the chronicle... They wanted to illuminate the idea of the Byzantine inheritance with history. Vladimir Monomakh was the son of the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh, who died more than 50 years before his grandson’s accession to the Kiev throne. In the Moscow chronicle, compiled under Grozny, it is narrated that Vladimir Monomakh, having become a prince in Kyiv, sent his governors to Constantinople to fight this same Greek king Constantine Monomakh, who, in order to stop the war, sent to Kiev with the Greek metropolitan the Cross from the Life-Giving Tree and the royal crown from his head, that is, Monomakh’s cap, with a carnelian cup, from which Augustus, the king of Rome, rejoiced, and with a golden chain... Vladimir was crowned with this crown and began to be called Monomakh, the divinely crowned king of all Rus'. “From there,” this is how the story ends, “all the great princes of Vladimir are crowned with that royal crown...” ...The main idea of the legend: the significance of the Moscow sovereigns as church-political successors of the Byzantine kings is based on the joint rule of the Greek and Russian kings established under Vladimir Monomakh -autocrats over the entire Orthodox world."
Sometimes in the intricacies of history the devil will break his leg, and even more so people. There were two tracts in Moscow with almost identical names: Bolvanovka and Bolvanovye, which are sometimes confused. Among the various versions of the origin of the name, the main one is the one that claims that a pagan idol or simply a blockhead once stood there. I visited Bolvanovka, which is located in Zamoskvorechye, near the Church of the Transfiguration on Bolvanovka.
There is a legend that it was on the site of the temple that the Horde embassy court in Zamoskvorechye was located, which was transferred here from the Kremlin in 1365, when the lands on the site of the former embassy court in the Kremlin were granted to Metropolitan Alexy for the healing of the mother of Khan Janibek Taidula and Chudov was founded on them monastery. And then the Chudov Monastery founded a settlement on the Volga from which the city of Khvalynsk Khvalbuny in the apple region grew. A kind of Tatar settlement was formed around the Horde embassy courtyard in Zamoskvorechye, especially since the highway from Moscow to Golden Horde. The names of Tatarskaya, Bolshaya and Malaya Ordynskaya streets have been preserved from those times, and the first mosque appeared in these parts.
According to another legend, it was at this place in 1476 that Prince Ivan III destroyed the Khan’s basma and trampled it into the ground, symbolizing this refusal to pay tribute, which he had not paid for several years before this symbolic gesture. There are several paintings on this topic.
The most amazing thing is that historians themselves cannot decide what the Grand Duke trampled there. Russian historian Dmitry Ivanovich Ilovaisky (1832-1920), in his work “The Question of the Khan’s Basma” (Russian Archive, 1897 No. 3), tells where the legs of this legend come from and gives several theories about the Basma.
It turns out that this story about trampling basma, which was called “The History of the Kazan Kingdom,” was first published in St. Petersburg in 1791, although it was written in the 16th century. The dictionaries say that "basma - seal with the image of a khan", someone thinks that it was a letter. Illovaisky liked the following theory: “The Khan’s basma was nothing more than a wooden casket, twelve inches long and five inches wide, filled with melted wax, which was painted in one color or another, depending on the Khan’s desire. On this wax mass, not yet completely frozen, the Khan’s the foot directly under the pressure of the bare foot. A pad made of expensive material and stuffed with cotton paper saturated with the smell of musk was placed on such an imprint. The casket was closed with a high lid and wrapped in silk material woven with gold and silver for travel. was loaded onto a camel richly decorated and covered with a purple blanket. This camel was led by a specially appointed official, and was surrounded by twelve khan’s standard-bearers or lancers for guard and honor.”
At this place, first one temple appeared in the name of George on the Yar; the founding date is considered to be 1465. Then in 1635 the second was the Church of the Transfiguration, which was built by the mother of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, nun Martha. Around the temple the “Red Tsaritsyna and Grand Duchess settlement". Then the wooden churches were replaced by stone ones. After the revolution, the temple was closed in 1930. The crosses of the dome were knocked down in 1932. In 1991 they were returned to the believers. Judging by scaffolding- renovations are still underway here.
There is a nice wooden bell tower in the courtyard.
