Popular movements under Vasily 3. Vasily III Ivanovich
In the first half of the XVI century. Russia experienced an economic boom. Our land, wrote the Russian scribe, freed itself from the yoke and began to renew itself, as if it had passed from winter to a quiet spring; she again reached her ancient greatness, piety and tranquility, as under the first Grand Duke Vladimir. The cessation of the Tatar raids contributed a lot to the prosperity of the country. A long war between the Great Horde and the Crimea, which fell into vassal dependence on Ottoman Empire, absorbed the forces of the Tatar world. A Moscow protege established himself in Kazan. The governors of Ivan III made campaigns beyond the Urals and into Siberia. The union between Russia and Crimea lasted for several decades, until the Crimeans destroyed the remnants of the Great Horde.
Peace on the southern borders untied the hands of Ivan III. In 1501, its governors defeated the Livonian Order. As soon as the Russian regiments began the siege of Smolensk, the knightly army attacked Pskov. Unlike Novgorod, Pskov did not have either a vast territory or a large population. The Pskov "republic" could not maintain significant military forces and relied on Moscow's help. The war with the Order weakened the forces of the "republic".
A kind of dual power has long been established in Pskov. The prince sent from Moscow ruled the city together with the Pskov veche. Such a management system was fraught with frequent misunderstandings and conflicts. In the eyes of Vasily III, the procedure for "inviting" the prince from Moscow to the Pskov table had long ago turned into an empty formality, and he decided to abolish it. The Moscow authorities sent Prince I. M. Repnya-Obolensky to Pskov. The Pskov chronicler wrote with irritation that the boyar Repnya settled in the city without any invitation from the Lord of Pskov - "he came to Pskov without a fee and sat down to reign." The priests did not even have time to meet him "from the cross" in the field. Not without ridicule, the people of Pskov nicknamed Prince Naydenoy - a foundling. The Pskovians “found” him right in the princely residence. Repnya was "fierce to people" and quickly brought the matter to a rupture. Having provoked the conflict, Vasily III began to prepare the conquest of Pskov. In the autumn of 1509, he arrived in Novgorod at the head of a large army. Having learned about the sovereign's campaign, the Pskov Veche sent posadniks and boyars to Novgorod. Together with the gifts, they presented the Grand Duke with a complaint against Repnya. Vasily III tried to lull the vigilance of the Pskovites. He assured the ambassadors that Pskov would “favour and harrow his fatherland”. The Pskovites did not know any guilt behind themselves and easily abandoned suspicions about the threat of a Muscovite conquest. Following the posadniks and merchant elders, "black people" and other complainers were drawn to Novgorod. All this corresponded to the secret intentions of the sovereign. Encouraging the petitioners, Vasily III announced: “You, plaintive people, are saving up for the Baptism of the Lord, and I give you all justice.” At the appointed time, all Pskovites, under pain of execution, were ordered to appear at the sovereign's court. " the best people”was invited to the wards, the“ young ”was left to wait under the windows. In the ward, the Pskovites fell into the hands of armed guards. They were announced without distant words: "Catch, de, eat God and the Grand Duke." The rest of the Pskovites were rewritten and handed over to the Moscow landowners, the owners of the Novgorod yards. According to the Moscow chronicles, the sovereign intervened in Pskov affairs in order to protect the people, “because then in Pskov there were rebellions and resentment and violence by black, petty people from the Pskov posadniks and boyars.” Meanwhile, the Pskov veche, expressing the opinion of the people, complained primarily about the violence of the Moscow authorities in the person of Repni.
Unrest in Pskov began after the illegal arrest of Pskov elected officials and petitioners. Having gathered at the veche, the people "began to think whether to put up a shield against the sovereign, whether to lock themselves in the city." Pskov had powerful fortifications and could withstand a long siege. Since the elected authorities of Pskov were held hostage in Novgorod, the veche dispersed without adopting any decision. Meanwhile, Vasily III ordered to start negotiations with the arrested Pskov ambassadors. The people of Pskov had the experience of Novgorod before their eyes, and it was not difficult for them to imagine their future. But they were in custody, and they had to submit to force. The Moscow boyars notified the posadniks that the sovereign intended to abolish the veche order in Pskov and introduce a governorship. If these demands were accepted, the authorities guaranteed the Pskov boyars the inviolability of their property. Negotiations with the detainees, apparently, were informal and did not receive wide publicity. Therefore, the Pskov chronicles do not report anything about the capitulation of the posadniks. The report on the negotiations ended up only on the pages of the Moscow chronicle.
Having imposed his will on the posadniks, Vasily III immediately sent a deacon to Pskov. The Pskov Veche gathered in last time. The clerk demanded to remove the veche bell, abolish elective offices and accept two governors in the city. At the same time, he did not mention a word about the guarantees received by the Pskov boyars in Novgorod. Veche expressed complete obedience to the sovereign. At dawn on January 13, 1510, the veche bell was thrown to the ground. Watching this scene, the people of Pskov "began to weep in their old ways and according to their own will."
Arriving in Pskov, Vasily III announced to the boyars, merchants and living people that they should immediately leave the city because of "many complaints" against them from the Pskovites. 300 families were evicted. The estates confiscated from them were distributed on the estate to Moscow service people. The Pskovites were expelled from the Middle City, where there were more than 1,500 households. A thousand Novgorod landowners settled in the empty courtyards. The citadel, surrounded by a powerful fortress wall, turned into a stronghold of Moscow dominion. The Pskovites helped Moscow crush Novgorod. Now they had to share the same share. The flourishing city has endured difficult days. Many townspeople dispersed to the villages in search of food. A lot of time passed before the wanderers returned to their native places: “they began to accumulate in Pskov, as they were dispersed.”
The defeat of the sons of Akhmat Khan by the Crimeans changed the situation on the southern Russian borders. With the disappearance of the Great Horde, the alliance between Russia and the Crimea lost ground. The Crimean Khanate tried to extend its influence on the Muslim yurts of the Lower Volga region. The Polish king Sigismund started a war with Russia in alliance with the Crimea, Kazan and the Livonian Order. The war was short-lived and ended with the conclusion in 1508 of "eternal peace". The continued incursions of the Crimeans into the Russian borders gave Vasily III a reason to resume the war with Poland. In 1512–1513 Moscow governors twice unsuccessfully besieged Smolensk. In 1514 the siege of Smolensk resumed. The campaign of the Russian army this time was preceded by secret negotiations with the Russian population of Smolensk and the command of the mercenary companies defending the fortress. The initiative for negotiations belonged to the Lithuanian magnate Prince M. Glinsky. He fled to Moscow after an unsuccessful uprising against King Sigismund in 1508. With a small detachment, Glinsky arrived in the vicinity of Smolensk in April 1514, a month before the arrival of the main forces. Heavy artillery began shelling the fortress on July 29, and already on July 30 the city threw out a white flag. The governor of Smolensk, G. Sologub, and the bishop came to the Grand Duke's tent for negotiations. But there they were immediately arrested and imprisoned "for watchmen." Meanwhile, Glinsky finished negotiations with the mercenary commanders. They were offered honorable terms of surrender. Finally, the Smolensk boyar M. Pivov came to Vasily III with a delegation that included Smolensk boyars, philistines and black people. In advance, on July 10, the autocrat approved the text of the letter of commendation to Smolensk. The deputation of Smolensk got acquainted with the letter and announced the transition to Moscow citizenship. The charter of 1514 granted the Smolensk boyars their estates and privileges. Smolensk philistines traditionally paid a tax of one hundred rubles to the Lithuanian treasury. The diploma guaranteed the abolition of this requisition.
On July 30, the fortress opened its gates to the Moscow governors. The inhabitants of Smolensk were rewritten and sworn in, the zholners were rewarded and released to Poland. Vasily III undertook to transfer Smolensk to the patrimony of Glinsky, but did not fulfill his promise. Then Glinsky started secret negotiations with the king and promised him to return the city. On the advice of Glinsky, Sigismund sent hetman K. Ostrozhsky with the main forces to Orsha. Glinsky himself was preparing to move to the royal camp to participate in the Lithuanian campaign against Smolensk. In the battle of Orsha, two noble Moscow governors took over and lost the battle. Ostrozhsky's success encouraged Moscow's opponents in Smolensk. The local bishop notified the Lithuanians that he would open the gates of the fortress for them as soon as they launched an assault. However, the plot failed. The first to be arrested was Glinsky, who never managed to get to Orsha. Then the bishop was taken into custody. His accomplices - the Smolensk boyars were hanged on the walls of the fortress. With 6,000 soldiers, Ostrozhsky did not dare to attack.
"Trouble" in Smolensk led to the fact that the letter of commendation became invalid. Any mention of her was carefully deleted from Moscow documents and annals. Many Smolensk boyars and gentry, who were not at all involved in the conspiracy, lost their estates and were resettled in out-of-Moscow districts, where they received estates.
The protracted war between Russia and Poland greatly strengthened the military positions of the Crimea. After the death of Mengli Giray, a longtime ally of Ivan III, Mohammed Giray established himself on the throne. The Horde began to pursue a more active foreign policy. The Crimean invasions caused great devastation to the Russian and Lithuanian lands. In 1519, the Crimean horde defeated the army of hetman K. Ostrozhsky. A year later, Crimea and Poland agreed on a joint military action against Russia.
Shigalei occupied the Kazan throne for three years. In the spring of 1521, the local nobility overthrew him, transferring the throne to the Crimean Gireys. The Moscow governor was robbed and expelled from Kazan, many of his servants were killed. The coup in Kazan accelerated subsequent events. Mohammed Giray received no help from the Turks. But an experienced Lithuanian governor with a detachment took part in the Crimean raid on Russia.
In the summer of 1521, the khan bypassed the Russian regiments assembled on the Oka River in Serpukhov and broke through to the vicinity of Moscow.
The invasion took Vasily III by surprise. Having entrusted the defense of Moscow to his son-in-law, the Tatar prince Peter, the Grand Duke fled to Volokolamsk. On the way, as the Austrian envoy wrote, he had to hide in a haystack. Waiting for the approach of troops from Novgorod and Pskov, the Grand Duke ordered to start negotiations with the Crimean Khan. Treasurer Yu. D. Trakhaniot, who was in the capital with the treasury, sent rich gifts to the Crimean Khan. Having accepted the gifts, Mohammed-Giray promised to lift the siege and go to the Horde, “if Vasily commits himself by letter to be an eternal tributary of the tsar (Crimean Khan. - R.S.), as his father and ancestors were.” The Crimeans stood near Moscow for two weeks, and during this time the required letter was delivered to the “king”. The authenticity of the information given by S. Herberstein is beyond doubt. In the Russian Discharge Records, it is noted that during the attack of the Tatars on Moscow, “then the Crimean tsar took a letter given to the Grand Duke, as a tribute to the Grand Duke and give him a way out.”
According to the assumption of G.V. Vernadsky, the certificate of allegiance was not compiled by Vasily III, but by the governor of Moscow, Tsarevich Peter. Moscow sovereigns did not sign their decrees and letters. The state seal served as a replacement for the signature, the keeper of which was the treasurer Y. Trakhaniot. The prince and the treasurer could make a charter in the absence of the sovereign. But without the knowledge and permission of Vasily III, who was not far from Moscow, they would hardly have dared to take such a step. The compliance of Vasily III was explained by the fact that the situation in the Moscow region was becoming more and more complicated. The governors stationed in Serpukhov squabbled among themselves instead of acting. The young and less experienced governor, Prince D.F. Belsky, refused to listen to the advice of senior governors, I.M. Vorotynsky and others. Vasily III sent his brother, Prince Andrei, to Moscow with specific regiments. But the Tatars prevented the Russians from joining forces. Having received the required letter from Vasily III, Mohammed Giray withdrew to Ryazan. During a stop near Ryazan, the Tatars traded with the Russians for several weeks. Nobles and wealthy people could redeem their loved ones from captivity. Mohammed-Girey informed the Ryazan governor about the letter issued to him by Vasily III, and demanded that he supply the horde with food from the stocks stored in the fortress. The governor asked to show him the sovereign's charter. As soon as the document was delivered to the fortress, the Ryazanians drove the Tatars away from the walls of the city with cannon fire. Following that, on August 12, 1521, the horde left for the steppes.
Vasily III recognized himself as a tributary of the Crimea, which meant the restoration of the Horde's power over Russia. But the new Horde yoke lasted for several weeks. Khan Mohammed Giray was killed by the Nogais. His successor demanded that Moscow pay an "exit" in the amount of approximately 1,800 rubles. However, his advances were strongly rejected by the Russians.
Vasily III tried to relieve himself of responsibility for the defeat and shift the blame to the boyars. He roughly punished the governor I. M. Vorotynsky by imprisoning him.
One of the most ancient principalities of North-Eastern Russia was the Ryazan principality. By the middle of the XV century. it fell into the orbit of Moscow influence. Ryazan prince Vasily was brought up at the Moscow court and was married to the sister of Ivan III. His grandson Prince Ivan Ivanovich sought to restore independence to his principality. According to some reports, he tried to find support in the Crimea. The threat of a Crimean attack sealed the fate of the last of the Ryazan Grand Dukes. Vasily III in 1520 lured his cousin to Moscow and put him under house arrest. The prince was accused of courtship to the Khan's daughter. During the days of the Crimean attack, Ivan Ivanovich fled from Moscow to Ryazan. They speculate about his collusion with the Tatars. Be that as it may, Mohammed-Giray, leaving the outskirts of Moscow, made a quick transition to the walls of Ryazan. The Moscow governors staunchly defended Ryazan, and the prince had to head to Lithuania, where his life ended. Ryazan was annexed to the possessions of the Moscow crown. The unification of the Great Russian lands was completed.
The basic principles of the domestic policy of Vasily III were formed at the time when he received Novgorod the Great from his father. The struggle for the throne entered a decisive phase, and all the prince's thoughts were focused on strengthening his military base - the Novgorod local militia. To do this, he tried to expand the fund of state land ownership, formed in Novgorod. By the end of the XV century. 964 sons of the boyars received estates in Novgorod. At the beginning of the XVI century. 1,400 boyar children already served in the Novgorod militia. Having overthrown Dmitry, Vasily III did not abandon the policy developed in the appanage and extended it to the entire state.
The formation of a nobility dependent on the throne of the military service class had a profound impact on the development Russian state generally. Russia moved further and further away from the West. According to R. Crami, in the West the monarch and his vassals were bound by an agreement, in Russia the monarch subordinated the nobles to compulsory service. The stated concept contradicts the facts. The Moscow autocrats did not have sufficient power to forcibly impose on the nobility and nobility the principle of compulsory service from the land. Like Western sovereigns, they could not do without a "social contract". The basis for the agreement was the violent and rapid restructuring of the system of land ownership, which brought huge benefits to the Moscow nobility. For centuries, the patrimony dominated in Russia, providing the old boyars with a certain independence in relation to the sovereign. The expropriation of the Novgorod boyars changed the whole situation. Novgorod and Pskov in terms of territory were not inferior to the former Moscow principality. Therefore, the transformation of the boyars confiscated here into state property - the estate immediately provided state property with a leading place in the land tenure system. In the XVI century. The fund of manorial lands continued to grow rapidly. As a result, the treasury was able to give state property not to individuals, not to individual groups, but to the entire class of Moscow service people. The fund of confiscated lands was so large, and the number of Moscow nobles was so limited, that the authorities gave estates even to military serfs from the dissolved boyar retinues. With an abundance of land, an order developed in which the treasury began to endow the children and grandchildren of the nobles with estates, as soon as they reached the age of majority and entered the service. Having become a tradition, this order did not receive legislative formalization, which was typical for the Muscovite kingdom and its jurisprudence. The essence of the "social contract" was that the treasury undertook to provide the nobles with the land necessary for service. In turn, the nobles agreed to compulsory service.
The distribution of estates did not lead to equalization of the aristocracy and ordinary nobility. In addition to the estates, the nobility received large estates, many times greater than the estates of the county boyar children, for whom the estate often remained the only source of income.
Necessary condition the spread of the estate system to the central districts of the Moscow state was the creation of a large fund of state lands there. The treasury replenished this fund at the expense of “black” volosts, secular estates, etc. Ivan III and Vasily III issued “codes” (law or practical instructions) that the estates of Tver, Ryazan, Obolensk, Beloozero did not sell their estates to “out-of-town” and "they did not give to the monasteries without a report (special permission of the monarch)." Members of the three largest princely houses - Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Starodub were forbidden to sell hereditary estates to anyone "without the knowledge of the Grand Duke." Only the direct heirs of the deceased prince could acquire the princely patrimony. It is believed that the “codes” of Ivan III and his son were aimed at “conserving the remnants of specific antiquity” (V. B. Kobrin). But it is difficult to agree with this. The ban on landowners to sell estates “without a report” and the restriction of the circle of buyers of estates placed land transactions under the control of the monarch. Any violation of the “report” procedure to the sovereign led to the alienation of the estate to the treasury. In the central uyezds, the state managed without mass confiscations of the boyars' patrimonies, but the government's intrusion into the sphere of private (patrimonial) property began. The treasury set out to assert its exclusive right to the heritage of specific antiquity - the richest princely and boyar estates.
Ivan III began, and Vasily III completed the formation of the estate system in Russia. The basis of the system was state land ownership. Violence like feature Moscow political culture and the creation of a colossal fund of state lands sharply increased the autocratic tendencies of the monarchy. The Austrian ambassador S. Herberstein gave a devastating assessment of the new Russian order. Basil III, according to the ambassador, is far superior in power to all the monarchs of the world, he equally oppresses all his subjects with cruel slavery, he took away all the fortresses from the princes and other nobility.
With regard to the specific princes, Vasily III pursued the same policy as Ivan III. The eldest of the appanage princes, Andrei Bolshoy Uglitsky, was killed in prison in 1494. Vasily III not only did not release his cousins, the children of Andrei the Great, but kept them “bound” in the Pereyaslav prison for many years. Vasily III took away the inheritance and took into custody Prince Dmitry Shemyachich, the ruler of the Novgorod-Seversky principality. The autocrat repeatedly took away destinies from Vorotynsky, Volsky, Glinsky.
Following tradition, the Moscow sovereign filled up his Duma with representatives of the most aristocratic families. But the rights of specific and other aristocracy were steadily limited. The right to leave, based on a centuries-old tradition, was finally destroyed not by a legislative act, but by the practice of sovereign opals and cross-kissing records. The princes, suspected of intending to leave Russia, under an oath promised to faithfully serve the sovereign and put up numerous guarantors.
Having usurped power against the will of the Boyar Duma, Vasily III retained his distrust of the powerful Moscow aristocracy for the rest of his life. He showed no mercy even to relatives suspected of treason or not submissive enough. Under Ivan III, Danila Kholmsky, who came from the specific princes of Tver, gained the glory of the winner of Akhmat Khan. His son Vasily Kholmsky married in 1500 the sister of Vasily III, who, however, soon died. By kinship with the grand-ducal family and the merits of his father, Prince Vasily could claim the highest post in the Duma. However, kinship with the overthrown Tver branch of the dynasty inspired suspicion in the autocrat. In 1509, Dmitry the grandson was killed in prison. A year before, V. Kholmsky was arrested and exiled to Beloozero, where he soon died.
Vasily III had confidence in the youngest of the brothers Andrei. With him he made a Pskov campaign. The older brothers Yuri, Dmitry and Semyon were ordered to remain in their destinies and thus lost the reason to demand participation in the division of the conquered land. Brother Semyon was preparing to flee to Lithuania in 1511, and only the intercession of the metropolitan saved him from disgrace and prison.
Ivan III proposed to the heir Vasily the Danish princess Elizabeth, asked for help in choosing a bride for his daughter - the Grand Duchess of Lithuania. The efforts were not successful. The Orthodox kingdoms in the Balkans were destroyed by the Turkish conquest, and marriage with a non-Christian was considered undesirable. In the end, the Greeks from Sophia's entourage prompted the prince a way out, referring to examples from the history of the Byzantine imperial house. They advised to conduct a census of brides throughout the state and to select a bride for the heir and co-ruler Ivan III on the bride. There were rumors that Vasily's adviser Y. Trakhaniot hoped to marry him to his own daughter. Marriage with her would finally turn the Moscow dynasty into a "Greek", which hardly added to her popularity. The issue of marriage was decided at a time when Ivan III was paralyzed, and the supporters of Dmitry the grandson did not abandon their intentions to return the Moscow crown to him.
In the summer of 1505, scribes "began to elect princesses and boyars." 500 girls were brought to Moscow to participate in the bride show. Vasily III opted for Solomonia Saburova. The Saburovs were known to Vasily thanks to their service in his Novgorod inheritance. The father of the bride Yu. K. Saburov served as the governor of Korela, which was part of the Novgorod inheritance of Vasily III. Having lost their hereditary estates, the Saburovs moved in a whole nest to estates in Novgorod. The bride's relatives did not belong to the aristocracy, and therefore could not claim the boyar title. According to some reports, Solomonia's father bore the rank of a roundabout.
The marriage was unsuccessful, the couple had no children. By right of seniority, the throne, after the death of the childless Vasily, was to be occupied by the appanage prince Yuri. Yuri's claims caused growing anxiety in the grand ducal family. In 1523, Vasily III for the first time began to "think" with the boyars about his divorce from his barren wife.
Divorce was contrary to Muscovite traditions, and the clergy made no secret of their disapproval of the monarch's actions. The latter had to turn to learned Athonite monks for a blessing. But the monks spoke out against the impending divorce. Enlisting the support of Metropolitan Daniel, Vasily III on November 23. 1525 ordered the start of a search for the witchcraft of Solomon. The brother of the Grand Duchess testified that she kept a fortune-teller and sprinkled her husband’s “ports” with charmed water, obviously in order to return his love. A week later, the culprit was forcibly tonsured a nun and sent to the Pokrovsky nunnery in Suzdal.
After the divorce, the monarch married Princess Elena Glinskaya. According to A. A. Zimin, the second marriage divided the life of Vasily III into two periods. During the period of marriage with Solomonia, which symbolized a certain political program, the sovereign relied on the circle of old Moscow boyars, "expressing the interests of wide circles of the nobility." Marriage with Glinskaya brought with it a sharp turn in the political line of Vasily III, which led to the rise of the princely aristocracy. For all the importance of marriages in the grand-ducal family, their influence on political development should not be exaggerated. Despite the princely title, Glinskaya did not belong to the circle of the ruling aristocracy of Russia. She was an orphan, and her uncle M. Glinsky was sentenced to life imprisonment for high treason. After the wedding of Vasily III and Glinskaya, her uncle was under arrest and supervision for another 1 year.
Following the divorce, Vasily III ordered a list of brides to be compiled, but at the same time to conduct a search for their relationship, "so that the girl would not have the tribe of Shchenyatevs and Pleshcheevs." The ban on participation in the bride-to-be extended to families belonging to the first-class Moscow nobility. According to his father, Shchenyatev came from the Patrikeev family, and from his mother - the princes of Suzdal. The Pleshcheevs stood out among the old Moscow untitled nobility. The circle of kinship between these two surnames was very wide. Thus, already at the first stage of the show, the attitude of the sovereign to his nobility was revealed. It is not possible to confirm the thesis about the strengthening of the aristocracy at the end of the life of Vasily III with facts. “The sovereign of Moscow,” the Austrian ambassador S. Herberstein wrote in his Notes, “does not trust his nobility and makes an exception only for the children of the boyars, that is, noble persons with a more modest income, such persons, crushed by their poverty, he usually receives every year to himself and contains, appointing a salary. The wide distribution of estates helped to overcome the crisis caused by the process of fragmentation of the boyars and the impoverishment of the boyar children - the lowest stratum of landowners. The development of the fund of state estates remained the core of the policy of Vasily III throughout his life.
The reign of Vasily III led to the strengthening of the autocratic order in Russia. The courtier of Ivan III, I. Beklemishev, said with condemnation that Vasily III did not show respect for antiquity, and did business not with the Boyar Duma, but with selected advisers in his personal office. “Now, dei,” Beklemishev said, “our sovereign, locking himself up, is doing all sorts of things by his bedside.” Under Ivan III, Beklemishev himself served "at the bedside", in other words, in the personal office of the sovereign. But under Vasily III, the significance of the named office grew exorbitantly. The main persons who managed affairs in the chancellery were by no means the highest titled dignitaries of the state, but advisers of the sovereign, who were inferior in the eyes of natural princes, like M. Yu. Zakharyin and the son of the boyar Yu. Shigona-Podzhogin. The collapse of the traditional system foreshadowed the death of Russia. “Which land,” said the political freethinker, “rearranges its customs, and that land does not last long, but here the great prince has changed our old customs, otherwise we have good luck.”
By the 16th century monasteries owned vast prosperous estates in the center and north of Russia. The secularization of these estates would allow the Moscow authorities to finally form in the center of the state a comprehensive fund of state lands, which could be used to provide all members of the Moscow court with estates. Social thought could not but respond to the needs of the time.
The church council of 1503 decisively rejected the projects of secularization of the lands near the Moscow monasteries. Nevertheless, after the aforementioned council, Russian “non-covetousness” entered its heyday. The monks collected dues from the peasants, bargained, and indulged in usury. The excessive enrichment of the monasteries, the practice of donating estates and treasures to the cloisters gave rise to renewed disputes about the nature of monasticism.
The Russian "non-covetousness" owed its origin to two elders - Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev. Neil Sorsky focused on the issues of moral improvement of the individual. Nile's student Vassian, in the world Prince Vasily Kosoy Patrikeev, made a brilliant career at the court of his uncle Ivan III. At the age of 30, he survived disgrace and was forcibly tonsured in the Kirill-Belozersky Monastery. The Monk Prince excelled in the study of Holy Scripture and eventually became one of the best church writers in Russia. But, putting on a cassock, he continued to look at the world through the eyes of an experienced politician.
The appointments of church hierarchs very accurately reflected the success of the nonpossessors in the first years of the reign of Basil III. In 1506, Elder Varlaam was summoned from the Volga desert and appointed Archimandrite of the Metropolitan Simonov Monastery. In May 1509, the Grand Duke ordered Serapion to be removed from the Novgorod Archbishopric. On April 30, 1511 Metropolitan Simon laid down his rank. Both saints were directly responsible for the failure of the government's project to secularize church lands at the council of 1503.
The resignation of two senior hierarchs led to a complete renewal of the church leadership. On August 3, 1511, Archimandrite Varlaam of Simonov, known for his closeness to the non-possessors, became metropolitan. Mindful of the sharp clash between Ivan III and Gennady, Vasily III forbade the holy cathedral to send a new archbishop to Novgorod. The Novgorod chair remained vacant for seventeen years.
Vassian Patrikeyev was on friendly terms with Varlaam. It was Varlaam who, in 1509, summoned the prince to Moscow and settled him in the Simonov Monastery. Over time, Patrikeev became one of the most influential people in the grand ducal court. The scribe Mikhail Medovartsev characterized the meaning of the prince-monk in this way: he is "a great temporary person, with the great prince of his neighbor." Using the patronage of the monarch and the support of the head of the church, Vassian made sharp attacks on Joseph Volotsky. The Joseph-Volokolamsky Monastery broke with the specific sovereign and came under the patronage of Vasily III. But this did not change the attitude of the sovereign towards Sanin. In 1512, Joseph complained to the Grand Duke's butler that he was being subjected to "blasphemy and slander" by Bassian, but could not justify himself because of the sovereign's prohibition. In conclusion, the abbot humbly asked the boyar to “mourn” Vasily III for him.
The debate between Bassian and Joseph led to renewed disputes over the monastery villages. Composed at a later time, the story "The Debate of Joseph" sets out the following dialogue between two famous church leaders. Sanin allegedly reproached Vassian for teaching the sovereign to take away “villages” from monasteries and churches. Vassian answered him with the words: “This, Joseph, do not lie to me, that I command the Grand Duke from the monasteries of the village to take away from the worldly churches.”
"Debates" were a monument of journalism. The tendentiousness of this work was not reflected in the fabrication of information about Bassian's speech against the monastic land ownership, but in the coverage of the nature of this speech. Nonpossessors never "ordered" the sovereign to take away church lands for the treasury. Those who retired from the world and took a monastic vow, Nil argued, "do not deserve to have villages." Vassian Patrikeev followed the precepts of the teacher. The most characteristic feature of Russian non-acquisitiveness was the rejection of violence as a means of correcting monasticism. Secularization could become a saving measure only when the monks themselves came to the realization of its necessity.
The Russian Church has maintained close ties with the Orthodox Greek monasteries on Mount Athos. Under Vasily III, Moscow scribes worked to correct and translate liturgical books. The educated theologian Maxim (Michael) the Greek, invited to Moscow by the Grand Duke, arrived to help them from Athos. Maxim came from a noble Byzantine family Trivolis. In 1492 he went to study in Italy and spent ten years there. In Florence, he met the outstanding philosopher Marsilino Ficino, witnessed the fall of the Medici tyranny and the triumph of Savonarola. After his death, Maxim left to complete his education in Venice. In Italy, he converted to Catholicism, on his return to Athos he returned to Orthodoxy. In the person of Maxim, educated Russia for the first time encountered a scientist-encyclopedist who received deep and multifaceted knowledge in Italian universities. Principles philological science The revivals that Maximus guided in his translations were the most advanced for their time.
While in Russia, Maxim wrote many original compositions. His interpretations of ancient church writers became one of the few sources from which Russian people could draw various information, including ancient mythology.
Maxim the Greek did not let himself be drawn into the strife that tormented the Russian Church. This allowed him for many years to translate church writings and correct old Russian books.
At the beginning of the XVI century. supporters of the church union did not stop their activities in Moscow. One of them was the physician Nikola Bulev, invited by the Greeks from Rome. According to the monks of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery. Bulev wrote a letter to Joseph Volotsky's brother Vassian. In the letter, he defended the idea of the unity of faith and "led" true Russian Orthodoxy "to a Latin union." Counting on the support of the Greeks, the life doctor asked Maxim the Greek to outline the history of the division of the Christian church in order to reason with the Russians. The philosopher had the highest opinion of Boolev's amazing wisdom, but he sharply condemned his commitment to Catholicism.
Dmitry Maly Trakhaniot enjoyed great influence at the Moscow court. His son Yuri Trakhaniot made a brilliant career in Moscow. As treasurer, he headed the grand ducal treasury, one of the main government departments. In addition, the Greek became a printer, or custodian state seal. The Austrian ambassador called him Vasily III's chief adviser, "a husband of outstanding scholarship and many-sided experience." Y. Trakhaniot inherited from his father his sympathy for the union. The ambassador of the Prussian order, D. Schonberg, had lengthy conversations with the treasurer about the unification of the churches. From these conversations the ambassador got the impression that the Russians agreed to a union with the Catholic Church. Schonberg immediately reported his impressions to Rome. The imperial ambassador Francesco da Collo at the same time talked with N. Bulev and also concluded that Moscow was ready to accept the union.
In 1519, the Pope of Rome conveyed to Vasily III a proposal to accept the title of king and join the church union with all the land. The Grand Duke of Moscow rejected the offer.
Vasily III deliberately tried to create in the West the impression that Russia was ready to join the anti-Turkish league. At the same time, he actively sought peace and union with the Porte. the main objective his diplomatic game was to use the alliance with the empire for the war with Poland. But in the circle of the Grand Duke there were people who sincerely desired rapprochement with the Catholic West. The Greeks were among them.
The Moscow hierarchs forgave the Greeks for their sympathy for the idea of uniting the Christian world, while they saw the Catholics as allies in the cause of the eradication of Judaism in Europe. After the massacre of heretics, the situation changed. During the reign of Vasily III, cultural ties with Italy were increasingly reduced, and interest in the achievements of the Western world was falling. The planned turn towards the West did not take place.
The position of the Greeks in Moscow was somewhat ambiguous. By tradition, Moscow scribes continued to see them as their teachers. At the same time, supporters of the national church refused to submit to the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The idea of the superiority of Russian Orthodoxy over Greek Orthodoxy gained many supporters in Russia after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. In 1514–1521 the monk of the Pskov Eliazarov Monastery Philotheus turned to Vasily III with an important message. Following the thesis of the God-established unity of the entire Christian world, Philotheus argued that the first world center was the old Rome, followed by the new Rome - Constantinople, and in recent times in their place was the third Rome - Moscow. "Two Romes have fallen (fell)," Philotheus argued, "and the third is standing, and the fourth will not happen." The concept of Philotheus was based on the idea of a certain "indestructible Roman kingdom" that developed in the era of Augustus, which included the deeds and earthly life of Christ. "Great Rome" retained its physical existence, but lost its spiritual essence, being captivated by Catholicism. The Greek kingdom became the stronghold of Orthodoxy, but it fell under the rule of the “infidels”. The collapse of the two kingdoms cleared the way for the Muscovite Orthodox kingdom. The idea of the global role of Moscow in the mouth of Philotheus was more sacred than imperial meaning (N.V. Sinitsyna).
In a message to the Sovereign's clerk Misyur Munekhin, Filofei clarified his idea as follows: the Greek kingdom "will go bankrupt" due to the fact that the Greeks "betrayed the Greek Orthodox faith in Latinism." The Russian court was impressed by the discussions about the exclusive historical mission of Moscow. But no evidence can be found that Filofey's theories have acquired the character of Moscow's official doctrine. Basil III was Greek by mother and was proud of his kinship with the Byzantine imperial dynasty. The Greeks, close to the grand ducal court, met the attacks on the Byzantine church with understandable indignation. Vasily III's mother was brought up in Italy. Vasily himself, not alien to the spirit of Greek-Italian culture, patronized Maxim the Greek and encouraged his work to correct Russian books. Doubts about the orthodoxy of the Greek faith put him in a delicate position.
According to P. Pascal and V. Vodov, in "Russian Christianity" the version of Christian ideas and texts acquired a pronounced national character. Over the 500 years of its existence, Russian church culture was bound to acquire some distinctive features. No less important is another circumstance. Initially, the Byzantine church followed the Studian Rule, which became the basis of the Russian one. However, in the XII-XIII centuries. in Byzantium, the Jerusalem Rule prevailed. The Moscow metropolitans from the Greeks Photius and Cyprian started a reform with the aim of introducing this charter in Russia, but did not finish the job. The break with Constantinople after the Union of Florence perpetuated ancient Byzantine features in Russian church culture. Among other things, the old Slavic translations of Greek books contained many errors and distortions. It was not difficult for learned theologians like Maximus the Greek, armed with the method of philological criticism, to discover these errors.
Among the Moscow educated monks, Maxim's activities initially aroused sympathy, especially since the Grand Duke himself patronized the Greek. However, in 1522, Maxim Grek criticized the procedure for electing the Moscow Metropolitan Daniel, which changed the attitude of the authorities towards him. After refusing to sign the Union of Florence, the Russian metropolitans stopped going to Constantinople "for appointment". Maxim could not come to terms with the blatant violation of the rights of the head of the universal Orthodox Church. Daniel was elected to the Moscow metropolis without the blessing of the patriarch, and therefore, in violation of the law. Maxim Grek proved the fallacy of the decision of the Moscow Cathedral not to accept appointments to the metropolis "from the Constantinople patriarch, like in the region of the godless Turks of the filthy tsar." The learned monk refuted the idea of the “destruction” of Greek Orthodoxy under the rule of the Turks and defended the idea of the undefiled purity of the Greek Church. The philosopher bluntly said that he considers the election of Daniel to be "unorderly."
Learned Greeks tried to return the Russian Church to the bosom of the Greek. The Orthodox saw in their harassment an attack on the independence of the Moscow church. Disputes about the "purity" and "violation" of the Greek faith prompted the learned Greeks to speak more and more sharply about the "delusions" of the Muscovites and the errors in their liturgical books. In turn, the Moscow monks, defending the orthodoxy of the old Russian books and rituals, began to accuse the Greeks of heresy.
Vasily III understood how important the support of the Moscow Orthodox Church was for him, and when life confronted him with the choice of being considered a supporter of the Greek "charm" or the head of a true Orthodox kingdom, he did not hesitate for long. A certain Mark the Greek labored in Moscow as a doctor and a merchant. Russian diplomats were busy in Constantinople asking the sultan to allow his wife to leave for Russia. Subsequently, Constantinople tried to rescue Mark himself from Russia. Mark had confidential conversations with the sovereign, from which it follows that he was one of the court physicians. According to S. Herberstein, Mark the Greek was the first to dare to express harsh remarks to Vasily III about the grave errors of Russian Orthodoxy. For this, he was immediately taken into custody and disappeared without a trace. Y. Trakhaniot also tried to defend the beauty of the Greek faith, and at the same time rescue Mark from trouble. For this, he was removed from all positions. However, the monarch punished his pet only for appearances. Very soon he was returned to the court and, in view of his illness, was allowed to be carried on a stretcher “upstairs” to the sovereign’s rooms.
Metropolitan Varlaam did not show due firmness towards the Greeks. The Greeks declared illegal the appointment of Daniel without the sanction of the patriarch, for which they were persecuted by the new metropolitan. Daniel first of all tried to get rid of Maximus the Philosopher. The Osifians found out about the dubious past of the Greek, who converted to Catholicism while teaching in Italy. Among the zealots of Moscow antiquity, suspicions arose that Maxim was spoiling old Russian liturgical books. The Orthodox were convinced of the holiness and immutability of every letter and line of these books. Perhaps the most famous calligrapher of his time, Mikhail Medovartsev, vividly conveyed the feeling of shock that he experienced when correcting church texts at the direction of Maxim: , a great trembling caught me and horror attacked me.
Iosif Sanin honored the spirit and the letter of Scripture. His disciples far surpassed their teacher in teaching. Metropolitan Daniel treated with extreme disapproval the activities of a foreign translator. During the trial, Maxim admitted: “... he said that here in Russia (sacred. - R.S.) books are not straight, and some books were spoiled by translators, they did not know how to translate them, and other books were spoiled by scribes, otherwise they need to be translated " .
The Osifians tried at all costs to compromise the Greek in the eyes of the monarch. At the trial, three witnesses testified that the Philosopher was engaged in witchcraft: “You wrote vodka on your hands with the magic tricks of the Hellenes,” and when the sovereign was angry with the monk, “he will teach the Grand Duke against what to answer, but against the Grand Duke he delivers his hand, and the prince great anger against him will quench that hour and teach him to laugh.”
Maxim the Greek had a sharp mind, extensive theological knowledge and was fluent in the techniques of rhetoric. It is not known how the trial would have ended if the judges had allowed a free dispute. Through the efforts of Daniel, the debate at the council was reduced to petty nit-picking in the spirit of Joseph Volotsky. Correcting the Color Triod by order of Basil III, Maxim the Greek made a correction to the Ascension Service. Instead of "Christ ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the father," he wrote: "having sat at the right hand of the father." The Orthodox taught that Christ sits eternally "at the right hand of the Father." From the corrected text, it followed that "graying" was a fleeting state in the past - "like the graying of Christ at the right hand of the father, past and past." During interrogations, Maxim defended his correction, denying the "difference" in the texts. But later he admitted the error of his spelling and explained the matter insufficient knowledge Russian language.
In order to affirm the inviolability of the Moscow faith, Metropolitan Daniel in 1531 secured the trial of Vassian Patrikeev and a second search for the faults of Maxim the Greek. The scribe testified at the trial that the Greek made corrections with the approval of the prince-monk. “You listen to me and Maxim the Greek,” Vassian Patrikeev said to the Chudov scribe, “and as Maxim the Greek tells you to write and make amends, do it. And the local books are all false, and the local rules were crooked, not the rules. After the translations of Maxim the Greek questioned the sanctity of the old books, the question of the attitude towards Russian saints became extremely acute. At the trial, Daniel, turning to Vassian, said: “And you call miracle workers (Russians. - R.S.) troublemakers,” because they “have people near the monasteries of the village.” Both the accuser and the accused have not forgotten the old disputes about church "contractions." But now both touched on this topic as if in passing. Without touching on the details of the case, Vassian answered his accuser: "Yaz wrote about villages - it is written in the Gospel: it is not allowed to keep villages as a monastery." The Metropolitan referred to texts from Kormcha and old saints. To this, Patrikeev replied: “They kept the villages, but they had no addiction to them.” When Daniel pointed to the example of the new miracle workers, Bassian replied: “I don’t know if they were miracle workers.” The judges tried to use the writings and interpretations of Vassian to accuse him of heresy. The monk-monk courageously defended himself, using irony and a brilliant knowledge of theological writings. Bassian did not hide from the council his doubts about the dogma of the dual nature of Christ, which had the most unfavorable consequences for the disgraced. Metropolitan Daniel attacked with anger the heretical "philosophies" of Vassian that "the flesh of the Lord is incorruptible until the Resurrection." Instead of repentance, the cathedral heard firm words: "Yaz, sir, as I have spoken before, so I say now." An ominous role in the process of Patrikeev and Maxim Grek was played by the favorite of Vasily III - M. Yu. Zakharyin. At the trial, he claimed that in Italy, Maxim and 200 other persons had learned from a certain teacher “the philosophic wisdom and all the wisdom of Lithuanian and viterste, but deviated and retreated into the Jewish law and teaching”; the pope ordered them to be burned, but Maxim escaped by fleeing to Athos. If Zakharyin had succeeded in proving his accusations, the heretic could have been sent to the stake. But Maxim Grek wrote several diatribes against Judaism, and the speech of the neighbor boyar did not achieve its goal. In view of the obvious absurdity of suspicions about “Jewishness,” Metropolitan Daniel did not include this point in his accusatory speech.
In 1522, the Turkish ambassador Skander, a Greek by blood, arrived in Moscow. He brought an offer of peace and friendship with Russia. Maxim Grek saw his countryman. Daniel took advantage of this circumstance and in 1531 accused the Philosopher of treasonous relations with the Turks. The accusations were unfounded. Maxim believed in the high historical mission of the God-protected Russian state and hoped for the revival of Greece under its auspices.
The initiators of the trial sought to denigrate the learned translator as a spy and a sorcerer with the sole purpose of discrediting his translations, which undermined the old faith. The main accusations boiled down to the fact that the Greek did not recognize Russian sacred books, distorted a number of canonical articles in the Kormcha, “smoothed out” (erased) certain lines in the Gospel, and blasphemed Russian miracle workers.
After the trial, Vassian Patrikeyev was imprisoned in the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, where he died. Maxim the Greek was transferred to the Otroch Monastery in Tver. His assistants were sent to other monasteries. The Greek "charm" was done away with once and for all.
Comparing the views of Maxim the Philosopher and his opponents, the Osiflyans, the theologian G. Florovsky singled out their differences in assessing the fate and future of Russia. According to the Osifyans, the future of Russia is magnificent and determined once and for all. Maxim saw Russia in the form of a suffering widow, for whom fate had prepared a thorny path. In the eyes of the Osifians, Moscow seemed to be the third Rome, a great new Christian kingdom was being built. For Maxim, on the contrary, Russia was a City on a journey.
The Moscow Orthodox perpetrated reprisals against Maxim the Greek, defending the autocephaly of the Russian Church and its superiority over the “destroyed” Greek faith. The trial of Maxim the Greek and the educated non-possessor monks inevitably led Russia to religious and cultural isolation and paved the way for the schism of the Russian Church in the 17th century.
In accordance with tradition, Vasily III never signed his decrees, leaving it to his clerks to do so. But unlike other sovereigns, he knew how to write and, on occasion, sent notes to his wife "of his own hand." Byzantine by mother, Vasily III showed interest in Western innovations and willingly patronized Italian architects and builders, Western doctors, Greek theologians. But he made no effort to expand and strengthen the relations that had arisen with Italy and other Western countries. The Grand Duke did not think about the Europeanization of Russian society, which means that the spirit of the Renaissance remained alien to him. Gone are the days when chroniclers questioned the wisdom of a monarch or denounced cowardice on the battlefield. Under Basil III, they observed due respect for the person of the monarch. For the sake of strengthening his power, the sovereign handed over the helm of church management to the Osifians, who taught that the king was only like people in nature, but like God in power. There was nothing bright and extraordinary in the character and habits of Vasily III. Like his father, he was a prudent and prudent politician and avoided everything that could lead to political upheaval. In his declining years, things began to weigh on the monarch, and he secretly thought about being tonsured. He chose the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery as the place of his rest, which involuntarily betrayed his true attitude towards the Josephites.
At fifty-three, Vasily III fell mortally ill. The disease was discovered during the hunting days near Volokolamsk in 1533. Upon returning to Moscow, the patient made a will in the presence of his brother Andrei and close people M. Yu. Zakharyin, I. Yu. Shigona, boyars Prince V. V. Shuisky, M. S. Vorontsov , Treasurer P. I. Golovin. With them, the sovereign held advice about his great reign, about his son, “before his son is young,” and “how the kingdom should be built after him.” Those invited to the bed of a dying man were considered his executors. They were entrusted with the functions of guardians for the infant heir. During the meeting, the circle of guardians expanded. Vasily III "add to your mind to spiritual literacy" of three persons. Regarding one of them, the sovereign had to give explanations: “He added Prince Mikhail Lvovich Glinsky,” said Vasily, “because, after talking with the boyars, he was related by his wife.” Glinsky had an indomitable character. His adventurous adventures were known throughout Europe. Neighbor boyars were responsible for his conviction and long imprisonment in Moscow. The appointment of Glinsky alarmed the guardians, and, apparently, on their recommendation, M. V. Tuchkov-Morozov (nephew of M. Yu. Zakharyin) and I. V. Shuisky (brother of V. V. Shuisky) were “added” to the board of trustees. The autocratic regime did not have time to get stronger, and the monarch was tormented by bad forebodings. He was afraid that the boyars, who had not forgotten his disgrace and prison "seats", would not spare his heir and widow. Having completed the drafting of the spiritual, the patient convened the Boyar Duma and explained in detail the motives for including Glinsky among the executors. He, as the sovereign stated, “is a person who comes to us and you didn’t even say that ... hold him for a native here, he is a direct servant to me.” Glinsky was responsible for the personal safety of the grand ducal family. “And you, Prince Mikhail Glinskaya, for my son Grand Duke Ivan and for my Grand Duchess Elena ... shed your blood and gave your body to fragmentation,” Vasily III ended his speech to the Duma.
last hours Basil's life showed that he never managed to become an unlimited monarch. Mortally ill, the sovereign secretly began to prepare for the tonsure. He revealed his intention to his favorite Shigone-Podzhogin. Such a decision was fraught with enormous political risk. In case of recovery, the monarch could not return to the throne as a defrock. When Vasily III announced his last will to the Duma, his brother Prince Andrey Staritsky, the boyar Vorontsov and Shigona declared their disagreement. Having failed to achieve obedience from the executors, the patient turned to Metropolitan Daniel with a plea: “If (the boyars. - R.S.) they won’t let me tonsure, but put a black dress on my dead, be it long since my desire.” The Metropolitan tried to fulfill the desire of the sovereign, but Prince Andrei and Vorontsov pushed him away from the bed. The pious intention of the monarch was supported only by M. Yu. Zakharyin, in whose family the spirit of religious fanaticism reigned.
Enemies accused Vasily III of removing the Boyar Duma from power and deciding the affairs of the state "himself-thirds at the bed." By creating a board of trustees, the monarch hoped to maintain such an order. On the night of February 4, 1533, the sovereign died.
At the end of the XV century. Russia has significantly expanded its ties with the countries of Western Europe, and primarily with Italy. in Moscow in large numbers Italian architects, engineers, doctors, jewelers and other craftsmen appeared. They were destined to leave a deep mark in the history of Russian culture, especially in the field of architecture.
Fioravanti's masterpiece - the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral in Moscow has become the main shrine of Orthodox Moscow Russia. For many decades, he became a model for Russian craftsmen who worked in different cities and lands.
The new features that appeared in the appearance of the Assumption Cathedral were even more clearly expressed in the architecture of the Archangel Cathedral, built by the Italian architect Aleviz Novy in 1505–1508. The cathedral served as the tomb of the Moscow sovereigns.
The old Moscow Kremlin, erected under Dmitry Donskoy from "white stone" - limestone, has long since fallen into disrepair. Because of the many patches, its dilapidated walls seemed to be made of wood from a distance. Ivan III needed a new residence that corresponded to the power and splendor of his power. To rebuild the Kremlin, he invited the Milanese engineer Pietro Antonio Solari, Marco Ruffo and other builders. In 1487, Marco Ruffo began the construction of the Beklemishevskaya Tower, Anton Fryazin built the Tainitskaya and Sviblovskaya (now Vodovzvodnaya) towers, completing the fortification of the southern part of the Kremlin. Pietro Solari erected towers at the Borovitsky and Constantino-Eleninsky gates, and then, together with Marco Ruffo, laid the foundation for the new Frolovskaya (now Spassky) travel tower. Solari brought the wall up to the Borovitskaya tower, as well as from the Nikolskaya tower to the Neglinnaya, where he built the Sobakin (now Corner Arsenal) tower with a spring. The new fortifications of the Kremlin were built of brick. The towers received tent superstructures in the 17th century. After Solari's death construction works continued engineer Aleviz from Milan. In 1495 the Trinity Tower was laid. The construction of the Kremlin was completed in 1515 by Aleviz Novy, who erected a wall along the river. Neglinnaya. The Kremlin has become one of the best fortresses in Europe. The Kremlin was not only the residence of the Moscow monarch, but also a symbol of the emerging Russian Empire.
First half of the 16th century was the heyday of tent architecture. The first tent temple was the Church of the Ascension, erected in the grand-ducal estate of the village of Kolomenskoye in 1530–1532. This court-princely temple was also a memorial temple. The Church of the Ascension was a monument in honor of the birth of the heir Ivan in the grand-ducal family.
Moscow painting survived in the 15th century. your golden age. The traditions of Andrei Rublev created a solid foundation for further development Moscow school in the second half of the 15th century. The most important artist of this period was Dionysius. Very little is known about the life of Dionysius. He was born in the middle of the 15th century, probably around 1440, and died at the beginning of the 16th century, probably between 1503 and 1508. With complete certainty, only the main milestones of his life can be established. The first major work of Dionysius was the painting of the Nativity Cathedral in the Pafnutiev Borovsky Monastery between 1467 and 1477. Dionysius completed this work under the guidance of the teacher Mitrofan, a monk from the Simonov Monastery in the capital. Pafnutevskaya painting has not been preserved. Not later than 1481, as the Moscow chronicle tells, Dionysius, together with three other icon painters - Yarts, Kony and Timothy, wrote the Deesis for the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral "with the holidays and with the prophets." (Deesis - a composition with the figure of Christ in the center and with the saints who turn to him with prayer; holidays - holiday icons; prophets - compositions with the figures of the prophets). Apparently, Dionysius and his comrades painted a wooden iconostasis, which has not survived to this day.
It is believed that Dionysius was close to the court of Ivan III all his life. But this is hardly fair. In 1479 the monarch came into open conflict with the head of the church. Vassian Rylo, a disciple of Pafnuty Borovsky, who received the post of Archbishop of Rostov, resolutely sided with the sovereign. Vassian knew Dionysius closely from the Pafnutiev Monastery. Thanks to the patronage of Vassian, the master received an order for icons for the Assumption Cathedral. From the hands of Archbishop Dionysius and his team received a huge reward for that time - one hundred rubles. However, in March 1481, Vassian Rylo died, and Dionysius lost his influential patron and customer.
In the Borovsky Monastery, Dionysius struck up a friendship with Vassian Rylo and Joseph Sanin. The successor of Pafnuty Borovsky, Iosif Sanin, was supposed to head the monastery after the death of the founder of the monastery, but he left the possessions of Ivan III and moved to the capital of the appanage prince Boris. Soon, Prince Boris and his brother Andrei raised an armed rebellion against Ivan III. While in the Principality of Volotsk, Joseph wrote a treatise on the power of the sovereign, in which he pointed out that, under certain conditions, subjects should not obey the king, tormentor and tyrant.
Going to Volokolamsk, Joseph brought with him the icon of Hodegetria "Dionysian letters". Thanks to the patronage and generosity of Prince Boris Sanin, he founded a monastery in the estate and built the stone Assumption Cathedral in it. Sanin invited Dionysius to paint the cathedral. From 1484–1485 the artist began to work on icons for the new monastery. The biographer Dionysius has no facts at his disposal relating to his life in the next decade and a half, which was the heyday of his talent. It is safe to say, wrote V. N. Lazarev, that during the 1490s Dionisy's activities were concentrated mainly in Moscow. This assumption cannot be called successful. It is not clear where Dionysius lived and where his workshop was located. It is reliably known that in these years the icon painter worked a lot on the orders of the appanage prince Boris Volotsky and the rich Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery. In Moscow, the construction of large cathedrals and churches began. They needed painting. But Dionysius received an invitation only from Abbot Chigas, who founded a tiny monastery on the outskirts of Moscow beyond the Yauza in 1483. There he painted a small monastery church. Dionysius did not belong to the Moscow grand ducal and metropolitan icon painters who emerged in the 15th-16th centuries. from among other icons. The activity of the master is firmly connected not with Moscow, but with Volokolamsk, where he painted icons and frescoes in the Assumption Cathedral (after 1485), the churches of Hodegetria (about 1490) and the Epiphany (about 1504 or 1506). Apparently, the artistic school of Dionysius was finally formed in the Volotsk principality, to which belonged the sons of the artist Theodosius and Vladimir, two young nephews of Joseph Sanin, the elder Paisius. The results of the activities of Dionysius and the icon painters of his circle were impressive. According to the inventory of the sacristy of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, in the middle of the 16th century. The monastery owned 87 icons by Dionysius and 37 icons by his sons Theodosius and Vladimir. Dionysius and his disciples left no letters or writings behind them. But the “Message to the icon painter” has been preserved, addressed either to Dionysius himself or to his son Theodosius. The epistle is remarkable in that Joseph Volotsky, and perhaps Nil Sorsky, were involved in its compilation. Proponents of the orthodox faith were alarmed by the fact that freethinkers and heretics criticized icon veneration along with other rites. The author of the "Message to the icon painter" acted as a supporter of the canonization of traditional forms of Moscow icon veneration. Joseph and his disciples gave great importance solemn atmosphere of the temple, they admired the precious salaries of icons, in their brilliance and radiance they guessed the reflection of the divine light. Speaking about the veneration of the icon, Joseph pointed to spiritual purification as a result of prayerful standing before the icon. The work of Dionysius was inspired by the same ideal. His tastes and ideas were not much different from the views of the Osiflians.
The family of the appanage prince Boris Volotsky valued the art of Dionysius no less than Joseph Sanin, and quite a few of his works probably ended up in the princely collection of icons. Prince Boris Volotsky generously granted money for the construction and decoration of the specific Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery. However, after his death, the inheritance passed into the hands of the stingy Prince Fyodor, who was not averse to fixing his frustrated financial affairs at the expense of the wealthy monastery. Joseph tried to pay off the sovereign: “they began to console the prince with a bribe and sent him the icon of the Rublev letter, Dionisiyev.”
Moscow rediscovered Dionysius, probably after his death. Several factors contributed to this. Having quarreled with Prince Fedor, Joseph announced in 1508 that, together with the monastery, he was leaving the specific principality and was given under the patronage of Vasily III. With the death of Volotsk prince Fyodor in 1513, the escheated principality with the entire treasury, as well as the icons of Dionysius, passed into the hands of Vasily III.
The authorities of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery could accurately attribute the icons painted before their eyes. In addition to Dionysius, the list contains the names of a dozen other painters who worked at the same time. But the monastery elders, following the example of Dionysius, did not provide his icons with signatures. Later, part of the monastery collection passed into the possession of the Moscow treasury and cathedrals. The change of owners led over time to the loss of attribution. Many icons of Dionysius perished or became dilapidated and were written down by new icon painters. The difficulties of identifying the icons of Dionysius are exacerbated by the following circumstances. Throughout his life, the master worked together with other artists, with an artel of assistants and students. It is almost impossible to distinguish between the works of Dionysius and the painters of his circle. Dionysius was one of the most prolific painters of Russia. But his creations are as rare as Rublev's icons.
It is possible that it was the conflict in the Volotsk appanage and the reduction of monetary subsidies that prompted Dionysius to leave the appanage principality and seek orders in distant monasteries in the North. Around 1500, the artist painted a number of icons for the Pavlo-Obnorsky Monastery, and later painted the Nativity Cathedral in the Ferapontov Monastery on Beloozero.
Recognizing the classical perfection of the Ferapontov frescoes, the researchers saw in the art of Dionysius a touch of restraint that borders on coldness, the figures on the frescoes are graceful, but their movements seem to be subordinated to a strict court ritual. The motif of standing before (worshiping) the saints or the king prevails, because of which the slow action is clothed in a solemn, unhurried ceremony, which corresponds to magnificent, royally magnificent clothes; the martyrs are especially smartly dressed; in the interpretation of the image of a person, purely decorative moments acquire much more importance in Dionysius than in Rublev (V. N. Lazarev).
The last years of Dionisy's life include his hagiographic icons painted for the Assumption Monastery in the Kremlin, presumably commissioned by the Metropolitan House. The genre of the icon with the Life, borrowed by the Russians from Byzantium, was brought to perfection by Dionysius and his school. The most famous are two icons of this genre: Metropolitan Peter with Life and Metropolitan Alexei with Life.
The art of Dionisy serves as the final milestone of the period, which began with the work of Andrei Rublev. The main achievement of this period was a generalized-idealized understanding of the image of a perfect man.
The brilliant era of the Italian Renaissance had a profound effect on the whole of Europe. Russia was no exception. At the end of the XV century. it seemed that Russia, having lost its spiritual shepherd in the person of Byzantium, was ready to look for ways of rapprochement with the Western Christian world. The Italian marriage of Ivan III and the activities of the Uniate Greeks in Moscow expanded ties with the West. However, the deposition of Archbishop Gennady, who patronized the "Latins", the actual severance of Russian-Italian ties, the trial of Maxim the Greek put an end to the emerging turn - the Florentine Union and the fall of Byzantium, according to G. Florovsky, were fatal for Russia: at the decisive moment of the Russian national Byzantine tradition of self-determination was interrupted, the Byzantine heritage was abandoned and half-forgotten; in this renunciation "from the Greeks - the plot and the essence of the Moscow crisis of culture." The ground for the crisis was created, apparently, not only by the break with the "Greeks", but also by the rejection of the emerging turn towards the Catholic West. The triumph of the official church and autocratic principles, the assertion of the idea of the exclusivity of Moscow - the “third Rome”, the last truly Christian world empire contributed to the isolation of Russia at a time when it was in dire need of developing cultural and other ties with the countries of Western Europe.
Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Ivanovich III (1505 - 1533, born in 1479) is most famous for the fact that during his reign the collection of fragmented inheritances of North-Eastern Russia was completed in single state. Under Vasily III, the veche city of Pskov (1510) and the last specific principalities - Ryazan (1517) and Chernigov-Seversky (1517-1523) were annexed to Moscow. Vasily continued the domestic and foreign policy of his father, Ivan III, whom he resembled with a harsh, autocratic character. After the death of his son-in-law, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander (1506), Vasily decided to take advantage of the turmoil that arose among the noblest pans of Lithuania. Between them stood out education, military glory, wealth and land holdings, Mikhail Glinsky, who was insulted by Alexander's brother and successor, Sigismund. Mikhail Glinsky, in response, went to the service of Vasily III. This circumstance, as well as the mistreatment in Lithuania of Vasily's sister (Alexander's wife) Elena, who died in 1513, as was suspected of poisoning, caused a war between Lithuania and Moscow. During it, Glinsky lost all his former Lithuanian possessions, in return for which he received Medyn and Maloyaroslavets from Vasily. The union of Sigismund with the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey caused in 1512 the second war of Vasily III with Lithuania. On August 1, 1514, Vasily, with the assistance of Glinsky, took Smolensk from the Lithuanians, but on September 8 of the same year, the commander of Sigismund, Prince Ostrozhsky, inflicted a heavy defeat on the Moscow army at Orsha.
REFORMS OF THE PERIOD BOARD OF ELENA GLINSKAYA AND IVAN THE TERRIBLE
Ivan IY the Terrible (1530-1584) was crowned Grand Prince of Moscow at the age of three. Dying, Vasily III created a guardianship council of 7 boyars with his young son, who were supposed to rule the country until he came of age (15 years). The mother of Ivan the Terrible, Elena Glinskaya, was not allowed to manage the Moscow state, but a year after the death of her husband, she made a coup in her favor. Reformed:
Monetary - coinage of Moscow coins - kopecks
Metrological - streamlining measures of weights in Russia
Administrative - the creation of labial elders on the ground.
In 1547, Ivan II (aged 17) took the title of tsar and became the first tsar in Russia. The title of king was hereditary.
Ivan the Terrible had to strengthen the central government. There were two ways to strengthen the power of the king: the path of reform and the path of terror. At the first stage of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, reforms were carried out, and at the second stage he switched to terror.
The reforms had an anti-boyar orientation, contributed to the strengthening of the nobility - the service class.
From the first days of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, a number of key changes and reforms took place in the state, which he developed with Chosen Rada, and in Russia a period of autocracy began, during which all power fell into the hands of one monarch.
The Tsar of All Russia dedicated the next 10 years to global reform - Ivan the Terrible spent zemstvo reform, which formed a class-representative monarchy in the country, adopted a new judicial code that tightened the rights of all peasants and serfs, introduced a lip reform that redistributed the powers of volostels and governors in favor of the nobility. In 1550, the ruler distributed estates within 70 km from the Russian capital to a “chosen” thousand Moscow nobles and formed a streltsy army, which he armed with firearms. The same period was marked by the enslavement of peasants and the ban on Jewish merchants from entering Russia.
Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Ivanovich III (1505 - 1533, born in 1479) is most famous for the fact that during his reign the gathering of the fragmented appanages of North-Eastern Russia into a single state was completed. Under Vasily III, the veche city of Pskov (1510) and the last specific principalities - Ryazan (1517) and Chernigov-Seversky (1517-1523) were annexed to Moscow. Vasily continued the domestic and foreign policy of his father, Ivan III, whom he resembled with a harsh, autocratic character. Of the two main then church parties in the first years of his reign, the predominance belonged to the non-possessors, but then it passed to the Josephites, whom Basil III supported until his death.
Basil III. Miniature from the Royal titular book
The former, purely service-minded composition of the Moscow boyars, as the Russian North-East unified, was replenished with recent specific princes, people much more influential and pretentious. In this regard, Vasily treated the boyars with suspicion and distrust, consulting with him only for show, and even then rarely. He conducted the most important affairs not with the help of the boyars, but with the help of humble clerks and nobles (like his close butler Shigona Podzhogin). Vasily treated such rootless nominees rudely and unceremoniously (clerk Dolmatov paid with imprisonment for refusing to go to the embassy, and Bersen-Beklemishev was executed for contradicting the Grand Duke). During the reign of Vasily III, the conflict between the grand ducal power and the boyars began to gradually intensify, which, during the reign of his son, Ivan the Terrible, led to the horrors of the oprichnina. But Vasily behaved with the boyars still very reserved. Neither of noble representatives of the boyar class was not executed under him. For the most part, Vasily limited himself to taking oaths from the boyars (Shuisky, Belsky, Vorotynsky, Mstislavsky) that they would not leave for Lithuania. Only Prince Vasily Kholmsky fell into disgrace with him (for what, it is not known).
Unification of Moscow Rus under Ivan III and Vasily III
But to close relatives, capable of challenging his power by dynastic kinship, Vasily treated with the usual severity of his predecessors. Vasily's rival, his nephew Dmitry Ivanovich (grandson of Ivan III from his eldest son, Ivan), died in prison. For his brothers, Yuri and Andrei, Vasily III established strict supervision. Andrei was allowed to marry only when Vasily III himself became the father of two children. Vasily's brothers hated his favorites and the new order.
Not wanting to transfer the throne to either Yuri or Andrei, Vasily, after a long childless marriage, divorced his first wife, the barren Solomonia Saburova, and married (1526) Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, niece of the famous Western Russian nobleman Mikhail Glinsky. From her, his sons Ivan (in 1530, the future Ivan the Terrible) and Yuri (1533) were born. Solomonia Saburova was imprisoned in the Suzdal Intercession Monastery, and the opponents of divorce also suffered (Metropolitan Varlaam, as well as the leaders of the non-possessors Vassian Kosoy Patrikeev and the renowned Byzantine scientist Maxim Grek).
Solomonia Saburova. Painting by P. Mineeva
Foreign policy of Basil III
After the death of his son-in-law, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander (1506), Vasily decided to take advantage of the turmoil that arose among the noblest pans of Lithuania. Between them stood out education, military glory, wealth and land holdings, Mikhail Glinsky, who was insulted by Alexander's brother and successor, Sigismund. Mikhail Glinsky, in response, went to the service of Vasily III. This circumstance, as well as the mistreatment in Lithuania of Vasily's sister (Alexander's wife) Elena, who died in 1513, as was suspected of poisoning, caused a war between Lithuania and Moscow. During it, Glinsky lost all his former Lithuanian possessions, in return for which he received Medyn and Maloyaroslavets from Vasily. The union of Sigismund with the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey caused in 1512 the second war of Vasily III with Lithuania. On August 1, 1514, Vasily, with the assistance of Glinsky, took Smolensk from the Lithuanians, but on September 8 of the same year, the commander of Sigismund, Prince Ostrozhsky, inflicted a heavy defeat on the Moscow army at Orsha. However, according to the truce of 1522, concluded with the mediation of the ambassador of the German emperor Maximilian I, Herberstein, Smolensk remained with Moscow.
Crimean Tatar archer
In addition to Lithuania, the main concern of the reign of Vasily III was Tatar relations, especially Crimean ones. Having submitted to powerful Turkey at the end of the 15th century, Crimea began to receive strong support from it. The raids of the Crimean Tatars more and more disturbed the Muscovite state (raid on the Oka in 1507, on the Ryazan Ukraine in 1516, on the Tula Ukraine in 1518, the siege of Moscow in 1521). Russia and Lithuania alternately taunted the Crimean robbers and involved them in their mutual squabbles. The strengthened Crimean khans tried to subjugate Kazan and Astrakhan in order to restore the former Golden Horde - from the Upper Volga region and the Urals to the Black and Caspian Seas. Vasily III in every possible way opposed the annexation of Kazan to the Crimea, which in 1521 led to the most dangerous raid of the Tatars on Russia immediately from the south and east. However, Kazan, torn apart by internal strife, was more and more subordinate to Moscow (the siege of Kazan in 1506, the peace with its khan, Mohammed-Amin in 1507, the appointment from Moscow by the Kazan king Shah-Ali (Shigalei) in 1519. and Dzhan-Ali in 1524, the construction by Vasily on the border with the Kazan possessions of the powerful fortress of Vasilsursk in 1524, etc.). By this constant pressure on Kazan, Vasily also anticipated the accomplishments of Ivan the Terrible. In 1523, the Crimean Khan Mohammed Giray captured Astrakhan, but was soon killed there by the Nogais.
After the death in 1505 of Grand Duke Ivan III, Vasily III occupied the Grand Duke's throne. He was born in 1479 in Moscow and was the second son of Ivan III and Sophia Palaiologos, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. Vasily became the heir to the throne after the death of his older brother Ivan in 1490. Ivan III wanted to transfer the throne to his grandson Dmitry Ivanovich, but shortly before his death he abandoned this intention. Vasily III in 1505 married Solomonia Saburova, who came from an old Moscow boyar family.
Vasily III (1505-1533) continued his father's policy of creating a unified Russian state and expanding its borders. During his reign, the last Russian principalities were annexed, which had previously formally retained independence: in 1510 - the lands of the Pskov Republic, in 1521 - the Ryazan principality, which in fact had long been completely dependent on Moscow.
Vasily III consistently pursued a policy of liquidation of specific principalities. He did not fulfill his promises to grant inheritances to noble immigrants from Lithuania (the princes of Belsky and Glinsky), and in 1521 he liquidated the Novgorod-Seversky principality - the lot of Prince Vasily Ivanovich, the grandson of Shemyaka. All other specific principalities either disappeared as a result of the death of their rulers (for example, Starodubskoye), or were liquidated in exchange for granting high places to the former specific princes at the court of Vasily III (Vorotynskoye, Belevskoye, Odoevskoye, Masalskoye). As a result, by the end of the reign of Vasily III, only the inheritances that belonged to the brothers of the Grand Duke - Yuri (Dmitrov) and Andrey (Staritsa), as well as the Kasimov Principality, where pretenders to the Kazan throne from the Genghisides dynasty ruled, but with very limited rights of princes (they had it was forbidden to mint their own coins, the judicial power was limited, etc.).
The development of the local system continued, the total number of service people - landowners was already about 30 thousand.
Basil III supported the expansion of the political role of the church. Many churches were built at his personal expense, including the Kremlin Cathedral of the Annunciation. At the same time, Vasily III completely controlled the church. This is evidenced, in particular, by his appointment of Metropolitans Varlaam (1511) and Daniel (1522) without convening a Local Council, that is, in violation of the norms of church law. This happened for the first time in the history of Russia. And in former times, the princes played an important role in the appointment of metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, but at the same time, church canons were necessarily observed.
The ascension in the summer of 1511 to the metropolitan throne of Varlaam led to the strengthening of the position of non-possessors among the highest church hierarchs. By the beginning of the 1920s, Vasily III lost interest in nonpossessors and lost hope of depriving the church of its land holdings. He believed that much more benefits could be drawn from an alliance with the Josephites, who, although they firmly held on to church possessions, were ready for any compromises with the Grand Duke. In vain, Vasily III asked Metropolitan Varlaam, a non-possessor by his convictions, to help him fraudulently lure the last Novgorod-Seversky prince Vasily Shemyachich to Moscow, who, without the metropolitan's safe-conduct, resolutely refused to appear in the capital. Varlaam did not make a deal with the Grand Duke and, at the insistence of Vasily III, was forced to leave the metropolitan see. On February 27, 1522, the more accommodating hegumen of the Valaam Monastery, the Josephite Daniel, was appointed in his place, who became an obedient executor of the will of the Grand Duke. Daniil issued a "metropolitan's letter of protection" to Vasily Shemyachich, who, upon entering Moscow in April 1523, was captured and imprisoned, where he ended his days. This whole story created a storm of indignation in Russian society.
Vasily III was remembered by his contemporaries as an imperious man, who did not tolerate objections, who single-handedly made the most important decisions. He dealt harshly with the undesirable. Even at the beginning of his reign, many supporters of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich (grandson of Ivan III) were disgraced, in 1525 - opponents of the divorce and second marriage of the Grand Duke, among them were the then leader of non-possessors Vassian (Patrikeev), a prominent figure in the church, writer and translator Maxim A Greek (now canonized), a prominent statesman and diplomat P.N.Bersen-Beklemishev (he was subjected to a cruel execution). In fact, Vasily's brothers and their specific households were in isolation.
At the same time, Vasily III sought to substantiate the supposedly divine origin of the grand duke's power, relying on the authority of Joseph Volotsky, who in his works acted as an ideologist of strong state power and "ancient piety" (canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church), as well as on the ideas of the "Tale of Princes of Vladimir” and others. This was facilitated by the increased authority of the Grand Duke in Western Europe. In an agreement (1514) with the emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire" Maximilian, Vasily III was even named king.
Vasily III pursued an active foreign policy, although not always successful. In 1507-1508. he waged war with the Principality of Lithuania, and the Russian troops suffered a number of serious defeats in field battles, and the result was the preservation of the status quo. Basil III managed to achieve success in Lithuanian affairs thanks to the events that unfolded in the lands subject to Lithuania.
At the court of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Alexander Kazimirovich, the princes of Glinsky, who descended from Mamai and owned vast lands in Ukraine (Poltava, Glinsk), enjoyed enormous influence. Sigismund, who replaced Alexander, deprived Mikhail Lvovich Glinsky of all his posts. The latter, together with his brothers Ivan and Vasily, revolted, which was hardly suppressed. The Glinskys fled to Moscow. Mikhail Glinsky had extensive connections at the court of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Maximilian (it was the vast empire of that time, including almost half of Europe). Thanks to the mediation of Glinsky, Vasily III established allied relations with Maximilian, who opposed Poland and Lithuania. The most important success of the military operations of Vasily III was the capture of Smolensk after two unsuccessful assaults. The war continued until 1522, when a truce was concluded through the mediation of representatives of the Holy Roman Empire. Although Lithuania did not recognize the loss of Smolensk, the city became part of the Russian state (1514).
The eastern policy of Vasily III was rather complicated, where the central factor was the relationship of the Russian state with the Kazan Khanate. Until 1521, under the khans Mohammed Edin and Shah-Ali, Kazan was in vassal dependence on Moscow. However, in 1521, the Kazan nobility expelled Vasily III's protege of the Kasimov Khan Shah-Ali and invited the Crimean prince Sahib-Girey to the throne. Relations between Moscow and Kazan deteriorated sharply. The Kazan Khanate, in essence, got out of obedience to the Russian state. Both sides began to use military force. Kazan raids resumed, that is, military campaigns on Russian lands, organized by the top of the Kazan Khanate to capture booty and prisoners, as well as an open show of force. In 1521, Kazan military leaders took part in a large Crimean campaign against Moscow, Kazan troops made 5 raids on the eastern regions of the Russian state (Meshchera, Nizhny Novgorod, Totma, Uneka). Kazan raids were also undertaken in 1522 (two) and in 1523. To defend the eastern border in 1523, the Russian fortress Vasilsursk was built on the Volga at the mouth of the Sura. However, Moscow did not abandon attempts to restore its control over the Kazan Khanate, to return Khan Shah Ali, obedient to her, to the Kazan throne. For this purpose, a number of campaigns against Kazan were made (in 1524, 1530 and 1532), however, they were unsuccessful. True, in 1532 Moscow still managed to put Khan Jan-Ali (Enalei), brother of Shah-Ali, on the Kazan throne, but in 1536 he was killed as a result of another palace conspiracy, and Safa Giray became the new ruler of the Kazan Khanate - representative of the Crimean dynasty, hostile to the Russian state.
Relations with the Crimean Khanate also escalated. Moscow's ally, Khan Mengli-Girey, died in 1515, but even during his lifetime, his sons actually got out of their father's control and independently raided Russian lands. In 1521, Khan Magmet-Girey inflicted a serious defeat on the Russian army, besieged Moscow (Vasily III was even forced to flee the city), Ryazan was later besieged, and only the skillful actions of the Ryazan governor Khabar Simsky (who successfully used artillery) forced the khan to go back to Crimea. Since that time, relations with Crimea have become one of the most acute problems of Russian foreign policy for centuries.
The reign of Basil III was almost marked by a dynastic crisis. Vasily's marriage to Solomonia Saburova was childless for more than 20 years. The dynasty of Moscow princes could be interrupted, especially since Vasily III forbade his brothers Yuri and Andrei to marry. In 1526, he forcibly tonsured Solomonia into a monastery, and the following year he married Princess Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya, who was half her husband's age. In 1530, the son of Ivan, the future Tsar Ivan IV, was born to the fifty-year-old Grand Duke.
Reign of Basil III (briefly)
Reign of Basil III (briefly)
On March 25, 1479, Vasily the Third, the future ruler, was born. Vasily was born in the family of Ivan the Third and was his second son. For this reason, in 1470, the prince announced Ivan the Young (the eldest son) as his co-ruler, intending to transfer full control to him in the future. However, unfortunately, Ivan died in 1490, and already in 1502, Vasily the Third Ivanovich, who at that time was already the Pskov and Great Novgorod prince, was declared the co-ruler and future full-fledged heir of Ivan the Third.
In his policy, Vasily the Third fully adhered to the course that was chosen by his father. Its main goals were:
centralization and strengthening of the state;
defending the interests of the Orthodox Church.
During the reign of Vasily the Third, the Starodub and Novgorod-Seversk principalities, as well as the lands of Ryazan, Smolensk and Pskov, were annexed to the Moscow principality.
Trying to protect the Russian borders from active regular Tatar raids from the Crimean and Kazan kingdoms, Vasily III introduces the practice of introducing Tatar princes into the service, giving them considerable territories for this. The policy of this ruler in relation to distant states was quite friendly. Basil even discussed with the Pope about the possibility of a union against unfavorable for both Turkeys, and also tried to develop trade contacts with Austria, Italy and France.
In domestic politics Vasily the Third concentrated his forces on strengthening the autocracy, which soon led to the "cutting" of the privileges of the boyars and princes. For example, they were removed from solving important state issues, which from now on were taken exclusively by Vasily the Third and his circle of close advisers. At the same time, representatives of the boyar estate were able to retain important places in the prince's army.
Historians indicate that the prince was married twice. The first time was with Solomonia Saburova, who herself was from a noble boyar family, but turned out to be childless. And the second time he married Elena Glinskaya, who bore him two sons, the youngest of whom, Yuri, suffered from dementia.
On December 3, 1533, Moscow Prince Vasily the Third died of a blood poisoning disease, after which he was buried in the Moscow Kremlin (Arkhangelsk Cathedral). In the following years, the boyars Belsky and Glinsky acted as regents for the young Ivan.
- The displacement is called the vector connecting the start and end points of the trajectory The vector connecting the beginning and end of the path is called
- Trajectory, path length, displacement vector Vector connecting the initial position
- Calculating the area of a polygon from the coordinates of its vertices The area of a triangle from the coordinates of the vertices formula
- Acceptable Value Range (ODZ), theory, examples, solutions