Oprichnina policy of Ivan 4. Oprichnina: causes and consequences

It acquired the meaning of political asylum, where Tsar Ivan the Terrible wanted to hide from his seditious boyars. The thought that he must flee from his boyars gradually took possession of his mind and became his incessant thought. In his spiritual, written around 1572, the king very seriously portrays himself as an exile, a wanderer. Here he writes: “Because of the multitude of my iniquities, the wrath of God has spread upon me, I was expelled by the boyars for their arbitrariness from my property and am wandering around the countries.” He was credited with a serious intention to flee to England.

So, the oprichnina was an institution that was supposed to protect the personal safety of the tsar. She was given a political goal by Ivan the Terrible, for which there was no special institution in the existing Moscow state structure. This goal was to exterminate the sedition that nested in the Russian land, mainly among the boyars. The oprichnina received the appointment of the highest police in cases of high treason. A detachment of a thousand people, enlisted in the oprichnina and then increased to 6 thousand, became a corps of watchmen for internal sedition. Malyuta Skuratov, i.e. Grigory Yakovlevich Pleshcheev-Belsky, relative of St. Metropolitan Alexy, was, as it were, the chief of this corps, and the tsar begged himself from the clergy, boyars and the whole land for a police dictatorship to combat this sedition. As a special police detachment, the oprichnina received a special uniform: the oprichnina had a dog's head and a broom tied to the saddle - these were the signs of his position, whose purpose was to track down, sniff out and sweep out treason and gnaw on the sovereign's seditious villains. The oprichnik rode all in black from head to toe, on a black horse in black harness, which is why contemporaries called the oprichnina “pitch darkness”, they said about it: “... like night, dark.” It was some kind of order of hermits, like monks who renounced the land and fought with the land, like monks fight the temptations of the world. The very reception into the oprichnina squad was furnished with either monastic or conspiratorial solemnity. Prince Kurbsky in his History of Tsar Ivan writes that the Tsar from all over the Russian land gathered for himself “nasty people and filled with all sorts of evils” and obliged them with terrible oaths not to know not only their friends and brothers, but also their parents, but to serve only him and this forced them to kiss the cross. Let us remember at the same time what I said about the monastic order of life, which Ivan the Terrible established in the settlement for his chosen oprichnina brethren.

Contradictions in the structure of the Moscow state before Ivan the Terrible

This was the purpose of the oprichnina. But, having explained its origin and purpose, it is still quite difficult to understand it political meaning. It is easy to see how and why it arose, but it is difficult to understand how it could have arisen, how the very idea of such an institution could have come to Ivan the Terrible. After all, the oprichnina did not respond to political question, which was then in line, did not eliminate the difficulty that was caused. The difficulty was created by the clashes that arose between the sovereign and the boyars. The source of these clashes was not the contradictory political aspirations of both state forces, but one contradiction in the political system of the Moscow state itself.

The sovereign and the boyars did not irreconcilably disagree with each other in their political ideals, goals, plans for state order, but only came across one inconsistency in the already established state order, which they did not know what to do with. What it really was Moscow State in the 16th century, even before the establishment of the oprichnina? It was an absolute monarchy, but with aristocratic government, i.e., government personnel. There was no political legislation that would define the boundaries of the supreme power, but there was a government class with an aristocratic organization that the government itself recognized. This power grew together, simultaneously and even hand in hand with another political force that constrained it. Thus, the character of this power did not correspond to the character of the governmental instruments through which it was supposed to act. The boyars imagined themselves to be powerful advisers to the sovereign of all Rus' at the very time when this sovereign, remaining faithful to the view of the appanage patrimonial landowner, in accordance with ancient Russian law, granted them as his courtyard servants the title of the sovereign's slaves. Both sides found themselves in such an unnatural relationship to each other, which they did not seem to notice while it was developing, and which they did not know what to do with when they noticed it. Then both sides felt in an awkward position and did not know how to get out of it. Neither the boyars knew how to settle down and establish state order without the sovereign power to which they were accustomed, nor did the sovereign know how to manage his kingdom within its new borders without the boyars’ assistance. Both sides could neither get along with each other nor do without each other. Unable to either get along or separate, they tried to separate - to live side by side, but not together. The oprichnina was such a way out of the difficulty; this was its main goal.

N. Nevrev. Oprichnina. The murder of boyar Fedorov by Ivan the Terrible

Oprichnina as preparation for the replacement of the boyars by the nobility

But the division of the state into oprichnina and zemshchina did not eliminate the difficulty itself. It consisted in the inconvenient political position of the boyars as a government class for the sovereign, which constrained him.

There were two ways out of the difficulty: it was necessary either to eliminate the boyars as a government class and replace them with other, more flexible and obedient instruments of government, or to separate them, to attract the most reliable people from the boyars to the throne and to rule with them, as Ivan the Terrible ruled. at the beginning of his reign. He could not do the first soon, the second he was unable or did not want to do. In conversations with close foreigners, the king carelessly admitted that he had the goal of changing the entire government of the country and even exterminating the nobles. But the idea of transforming government was limited to dividing the state into zemshchina and oprichnina, and the goal of the wholesale extermination of the boyars remained an absurd dream of an excited imagination: it was tricky to isolate from society and destroy an entire class that was intertwined with various everyday threads with the layers that lay underneath it. In the same way, Ivan the Terrible could not soon, even with the help of the bloody oprichnina, create another government class to replace the boyars. Such changes require time and skill: it is necessary for the ruling class to get used to power and for society to get used to the ruling class.

A. Vasnetsov. Moscow dungeon during the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible

But undoubtedly, Ivan the Terrible was thinking about such a replacement and main goal his oprichnina was preparing for it. He took this thought out of childhood, from the turmoil of boyar rule; She also prompted him to bring A. Adashev closer to her, taking him, in the tsar’s words, from the stick insects, “from the rot,” and putting him together with the nobles, expecting direct service from him. So Adashev became the prototype of the guardsman. Ivan the Terrible had the opportunity to become acquainted with the way of thinking that later dominated the oprichnina at the very beginning of his reign.

Based on materials from lectures by V. O. Klyuchevsky (revised)

Once again, big and fiery greetings to everyone from the distant Urals, whose sky rests on Ural mountains! Andrey Puchkov is in touch with you. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible - the second no less important topic after . For many guys, this is something of a dark spot. Well, oprichnina and oprichnina, what else is there to talk about? But in fact, you need to know its causes, main events and consequences! Otherwise you won't pass the exam! So in this article we will briefly explore this topic.

"Oprichniki". Artist Nikolai Nevrev, 1888. The painting shows the execution of boyar Ivan Petrovich Fedorov-Chelyadnin

Origins

Oprichnina was the name given to the widow of a serviceman after his death, so that she could feed herself and her children. Oprichnina under Ivan the Terrible is a policy aimed at eliminating the opposition royal power. This is its essence. What made the king personally allocate such an inheritance for himself? And what does the opposition have to do with it? Let's figure it out.

From the 12th to the 15th centuries, and to be precise, until 1521, the historical process of unifying the lands around Moscow took place. The Moscow prince proved that he is the leader of this association, as well as the initiator of the fight against the yoke of the Golden Horde. During the process of unification, various principalities were “absorbed” by Moscow. How this happened is a separate big topic. Where did the princes of these principalities go? They became appanage princes and either remained in place or moved to Moscow, receiving their patrimony in exchange for their principality.

I say this process again, it is very complex and multifaceted, so here I am resorting to simplification. So these appanage princes could not understand why they now have less power and authority than the Tsar of All Rus' now has? After all, he was recently still a prince like them! The same sentiments reigned among the boyars. And the childhood of Ivan the Terrible is a clear example of this.

Well, in about 1553, something completely out of the ordinary happened: the king allegedly fell ill with a serious illness, and many thought that he would die. And therefore, many princes and boyars swore allegiance not to his son Dmitry, but to the appanage prince Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky! The king soon recovered, but did not forget this incident.

Thus, the opposition to the tsarist power was represented not only by appanage princes, but also by the boyars.

Course of events

It all started in December 1564, when Ivan the Terrible went on a pilgrimage to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The ruler took the entire treasury with him. And after the prayer he never returned to Moscow. The townspeople rebelled and went to look for the king. They found him in Alexandrova Sloboda. Ivan sent two letters: one to the Muscovites, and the other to the boyars, in which he accused the boyars of sedition and treason.

As a result, Ivan nevertheless agreed to return to the throne, but on the conditions that he would be allowed to commit oprichnina and he would be able to execute and pardon without trial. As a result, the whole country was divided into oprichnina and zemshchina: in the first, only the tsar ruled, and in the second, he ruled together with the boyar duma.

The oprichnina period itself lasted from 1565 to 1572. Here are the events you need to know:

Was established oprichnina army, which was organized on the principle of a monastic-knightly order. The most famous guardsmen you need to know were: Malyuta Skuratov, Mikhail Vorotynsky, Boris Godunov, Afanasy Vyazemsky, brothers Fedor and Alexey Basmanov, Vasily Gryaznoy, etc.
Oprichnina terror affected all members of the Chosen Rada, who carried out reforms under Ivan the Terrible. Only Andrei Kurbsky, who fled to Lithuania, was saved. Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky was also executed: he was forced to take poison with his family.
The oprichnina terror peaked in the winter of 1570, when at least 20,000 people were executed in Novgorod. The reasons for it were rumors that Novgorod again wanted to come under the rule of Lithuania.
The oprichnina ended in 1572, after the Crimean Khan Devlet Giray went on a campaign to Moscow. As a result of the Battle of Molodi, the Moscow army was completely defeated, the guardsmen fled. Therefore, the king even forbade the use of this word itself.

Consequences

The results of the Oprichnina were terrible: the country was devastated, many villages were destroyed. Don’t forget that Moscow was still fighting for the Baltic states at that time. But the opposition to the tsarist government could not be destroyed. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, the boyars actually began to rule the country under the feeble-minded Fyodor Ioannovich.

So, we have briefly and clearly discussed the most important things in this topic. However, you must understand that it, like others, has a lot of nuances. Moreover, you need to solve tests on the topic, and better under the supervision of a competent teacher who will help and check, and also point out your specific mistakes and show the way to overcome them. All this is available in our training courses.

Best regards, Andrey Puchkov

oprichnina (from oprich - except, especially; in the 14th-15th centuries oprishnina was a special property allocated to members of the grand ducal dynasty) - 1) Name. the sovereign's inheritance in 1565-72 (his territory, troops, institutions). 2) Name of internal policies of the government of Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible in the same years. Since the 16th century. various opinions were expressed about the reasons for the introduction of O. and its essence; O. is assessed differently in modern times. historiography. Ivan IV justified the oprichnina measures by citing boyar treason. For A.M. Kurbsky, the essence of O. was reduced to the senseless extermination of governors slandered in treason and sorcery. Close to his assessment are the opinions about O. of the compiler of the 1617 chronograph I. M. Katyrev-Rostovsky and the author of the Vremennik clerk Ivan Timofeev. H. M. Karamzin believed that the establishment of the O. was caused by Ivan IV’s groundless fear for his life and the O. did not pursue any goals other than ensuring the personal safety of the Tsar. S. M. Soloviev (following K. D. Kavelin) saw in O. a means for establishing a progressive state. began in his primordial struggle with the clan (princely-boyar), believing that the choice of such a terrible means was due to the personal qualities of Ivan IV. According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, O. arose as a result of the contradiction between absolute monarchy and the aristocracy, which constituted the government. staff; Ivan IV, not being able to crush the government that was inconvenient for him. system, began to destroy the department. persons Klyuchevsky saw in O. the fruit of the Tsar’s “overly timid imagination,” and her ch. The goal was to ensure the personal safety of Ivan IV. Point of view of Kavelin - Solovyov about the state. necessity of O. was developed by S. F. Platonov. He assessed O. as a large state company. reform that put an end to economic and political the power of the landed aristocracy. Owl research historians (P. A. Sadikov, S. B. Veselovsky, A. A. Zimin, I. I. Polosin, I. I. Smirnov, L. V. Cherepnin, S. O. Shmidt, R. G. Skrynnikov, V. B. Kobrin, S. M. Kashtanov, V. I. Koretsky, etc.) showed that O. should be understood as a number of military, administrative, and financial. and social measures of the government of Ivan IV and certain policies, the significance of which was reduced to overcoming the remnants of feudal rule. fragmentation in the country, the rise of the nobility and the strengthening of the cross. enslavement. The implementation of these measures and this policy was accompanied by massive repressions, which affected not only the princes and boyars, but also the nobles, as well as the people. masses. In the 40s and 50s. under the influence of J.V. Stalin’s assessments in certain works of Sov. Historians emphasized only the progressive significance of O. in the struggle for the centralization of the state. Its emergence was explained by the struggle between reactionaries. boyars and progressive nobility. O.'s role in suppressing antifeudalism was underestimated. speeches and in strengthening serfdom (republications of R. Yu. Vipper’s book “Ivan the Terrible” in 1942 and 1944, works by I. I. Smirnov “Ivan the Terrible”, Leningrad, 1944, and S. V. Bakhrushin “Ivan the Terrible” - see . in "Scientific Works", vol. 2, M., 1954). S. B. Veselovsky in 1940-51 worked on essays on politics. history of O., in which the idealization of Ivan IV and O. was criticized (most of the essays were first published posthumously in 1963). In his opinion, O.’s institution did not pursue the state. goals, it was caused by Ivan IV’s fears for personal safety. Formation of special oprichnina orders and troops, changes in the placement of fiefs. land ownership, theft of “black” lands and other socio-economic measures. and political character were not foreseen by Ivan IV, but were a consequence of the creation of a special oprichnina court and increased repression. One of important reasons liquidation O. Veselovsky considered its degeneration into robbery. On the contrary, A. A. Zimin considers the establishment of O. a continuation of the previous policy of Ivan IV and proves that the spearhead of O. was directed against the remnants of appanage antiquity (liquidation of the Staritsa appanage, overcoming the separatism of Veliky Novgorod and the church). New problems were solved by old means and in old forms (resurrection of the inheritance - “O.”), through mass extermination of the population, etc., which means. degree predetermined her downfall. Mn. questions of the history of O. remain controversial and require further research. The institution of O. was prepared by the events of the beginning. 60s 16th century Ivan IV sought to actively continue the Livonian War of 1558-83, but encountered opposition among his circle. The break with the Elected Rada and disgrace with the princes and boyars in 1560-64 caused discontent among the feudal lords. nobility, leaders of orders and high clergy; some feudal lords betrayed the tsar by fleeing abroad (A.M. Kurbsky and others). The Metropolitan and the boyars turned to Ivan IV with a request to stop reprisals against his subjects “without any reason or misconduct.” On Dec. 1564 Ivan IV retired to Alexandrov Sloboda and on January 3. 1565 announced his abdication of the throne because of “anger” at the clergy, boyars, children of boyars and officials. A deputation from the Boyar Duma and the clergy arrived in the settlement, and the region agreed to grant the Tsar emergency powers. A decree was prepared, Crimea Ivan IV announced the establishment of a “special” court with a special territory, army, finances and administration. The goal of O. was proclaimed to be the eradication of “sedition.” A special one was created. control apparatus and an army unquestioningly obedient to the king (initially 1000 people), who were directly subordinate to him. The O. included: in the Center - Mozhaisk, Vyazma, Suzdal, etc.; to the south-west - Kozelsk, Przemysl, Belev, Medyn, etc.; on the north - Dvina, Veliky Ustyug, Kargopol, Vologda, etc., as well as palace possessions. Income from this territory. entered the state treasury and went to maintain the oprichnina army, the administrative apparatus, etc. The number of the oprichnina army subsequently increased to 5-6 thousand people, Kostroma, Staritsa, part of Novgorod, Obonezhskaya and Bezhetskaya Pyatina and other territories were included in the oprichnina inheritance. In O. there was an oprichnina Duma and finance. orders - Cheti. Command personnel for O. were staffed mainly. from the sovereign's court. The government introduced the non-jurisdiction of the general state guardsmen. authorities and courts. The rest of the state received the name zemshchina. It continued to be governed by the Boyar Duma, which was, however, forced to seek the consent of the tsar on all important issues. To establish the O., a huge one-time tax of 100 thousand rubles was taken from the zemshchina. From the territory Many local feudal landowners who were not included in the “special court” were evicted, and their lands were transferred to the oprichniki nobles. The nobles taken into O. were better allocated land and peasants and received generous benefits. These land requisitions to a certain extent undermined the economy. and political the importance of large landed aristocracy. With the establishment of O., disgraces and executions intensified. Active conductors of the oprichnina repressions were the boyar A.D. Basmanov, the prince of arms. A. I. Vyazemsky, M. L. Skuratov-Belsky and others. The establishment of O. and the actions of Ivan IV the Terrible, aimed at physical. destruction of their political opponents and the confiscation of their land holdings, caused protest among part of the ruling class. At the Zemsky Sobor of 1566, a group of nobles filed a petition for the abolition of O. The petitioners were executed. Metropolitan Athanasius expressed O.'s dissatisfaction (abandoned the throne on May 19, 1566); The new Metropolitan Philip Kolychev (dead in 1569) also spoke out against O. Started in 1568 a big wave repressions (the case of the boyar I.P. Fedorov), which ended with the liquidation of the Ancient Usage (1569) and the defeat of Novgorod (1570). In the case of I.P. Fedorov, more than 400 people were executed. (on July 6, 1568 - 369 people), during the Novgorod campaign in Tver, Torzhok and Novgorod, the guardsmen killed 1505 people only on the report of M. L. Skuratov-Belsky. Oprichnina repressions were accompanied by murders and robberies of the population of cities and estates. Among those killed in Novgorod, most were “black” townspeople. To extort excessive taxes from the population, Ivan the Terrible during the years of O. used the system of “oprichnaya” and “sovereign rights.” As a result, O. Ivan IV achieved a sharp increase autocratic power, gave her oriental features. despotism. Feudal in essence and methods of implementation, the policy of O. became important stage there is a cross on the way. enslavement. During the years of O., the government widely distributed “black” and palace lands to the feudal lords. At the same time the cross increased sharply. duties, the oprichniki removed peasants from the zemshchina “by force and not on time.” A sharp increase in government taxes and private ownership. duties caused the ruin of the peasants, aggravated by the war. actions, raids Crimean Tatars, famine, pestilence, oprichnina rights. In conditions of oprichnina terror, when any protest was suppressed in the bud, Ch. Mass escapes and non-payment of taxes became forms of peasant resistance. The division of the state into O. and Zemshchina was fraught with many negative consequences for the ruling class. Called, according to L.V. Tcherepnin’s definition, “to paralyze the possibility of a mass baptismal movement,” the O. clearly failed to cope with its task. The raid on Moscow by the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey in 1571 also revealed the weakness of the oprichnina army. In 1572 O. was abolished and part of the confiscated lands was returned to their former owners. A new revival of O. for less than a year (under the name of “destiny”) occurred in 1575-76, when Ivan IV faced opposition among the ruling class. Having placed the service khan Simion Bekbulatovich at the head of the zemshchina, Ivan IV accepted the title of “Prince of Moscow” and began new land searches. Lit.: Platonov S.F., Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in Moscow. state of the XVI-XVII centuries, M., 1937; Sadikov P. A., Essays on the history of the oprichnina, M.-L., 1950; Veselovsky S.V., Studies on the history of the oprichnina, M., 1963; Zimin A. A., Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, M., 1964; Polosin I.I., Socio-political. history of Russia XVI - early. XVII century Sat. Art., M., 1963; Smirnov I.I., Klas. contradictions in feud. village in Russia at the end. XVI century, "PIMK", 1933, No. 5-6; Bibikov G.N., On the question of the social composition of the guardsmen of Ivan the Terrible, "Tr. GIM", v. 14, M., 1941; Cherepnin L.V., Preface, in the collection: "PRP", v. 4, M., 1956; him, Zemsky Sobors and the establishment of absolutism in Russia, in the collection: Absolutism in Russia (XVII-XVIII centuries), M., 1964; Kobrin V.B., Composition of the oprichnina court of Ivan the Terrible, "Archaeographic Yearbook for 1959", M., 1960; Skrynnikov R.G., Oprichnaya land reform of Grozny 1565, IZ, vol. 70, M., 1961; him, Oprichnina and the last appanage reigns in Rus', in the same place, vol. 76, M., 1965; him, Synodik of the disgraced Tsar Ivan the Terrible as a historical. source, in the collection: Questions of the history of the USSR XVI-XVIII centuries, Leningrad, 1965, p. 22-86 (Teaching notes of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after A.I. Herzen, vol. 278); Kashtanov S.M., To the study of the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, "ISSSR", 1963, No. 2; Schmidt S. O., On the history of cathedrals of the 16th century, IZ, vol. 76, M., 1965. V. I. Koretsky. Moscow. -***-***-***- Russian state during the oprichnina years (1565-1572)

Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible - general characteristics

Oprichnina historians call the state policy of terror that reigned in Rus' at the end of the sixteenth century during the reign of Ivan the Terrible.

The essence of the oprichnina

The essence of the oprichnina consisted of taking away property from the population in favor of the state. At the sole request of the king, special land plots could be allocated, which were used only for the royal court or state needs. These territories had their own administrative power, and they were inaccessible to the common population. All such land areas were taken away from the landowners through physical force or threats.

Origin of the word "oprichnina"

The very word “oprichnika” has Old Russian roots and means “special”. In addition, oprichnina was sometimes called a part of the state that was transferred to the sole use of the tsar (as well as his courtiers). Oprichniki are members of the sovereign's secret police.

The number of the royal retinue (oprichnina) at that time was about a thousand people.

Tsar Ivan the Terrible became famous in history for his military approaches and his stern disposition. Oprichnina arose in connection with the Livonian War. In 1558 Grozny began Livonian War, in order to take possession of the Baltic lands (coast), but the course of military operations did not go as the tsar himself had intended. He repeatedly reproached the boyars and governors for the fact that they did not at all respect their king for authority, therefore they acted softly and not decisively. The current situation is further aggravated by the tsar’s betrayal by one of his commanders, finally undermining Ivan the Terrible’s trust in his own retinue. That is why the oprichnina was created.

The guardsmen had to follow their king everywhere, protecting him from dangers. However, executions and moral bullying occurred more than once from them. Usually the king preferred to turn a blind eye to this, justifying such cruelty of his subordinates in any disputes. The result of such outrages of the guardsmen was hatred towards them not only from the common population, but also from the boyars.

In just two years (1570-1571), many people died at the hands of Ivan the Terrible and his guardsmen. At the same time, the king did not spare even his own subordinates, of whom, according to researchers, at least two hundred people were killed. These Moscow executions were the apogee of oprichnina terror.

The oprichnina system began to fall apart at the end of 1571 due to the attack of the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey. The oprichniki, who were accustomed to living off the robberies of their own citizens, did not appear on the battlefield, after which the tsar abolished the oprichnina and introduced the zemshchina, which differed little from the first.

5-04-2017, 19:09 |

On February 15, 1565, the tsar returned to Moscow. Upon his return, he issued a decree on the introduction of . The oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible was that the state was divided into two parts - the oprichnina zone (tsar) and the zemshchina (boyars). Each of the territories had its own governing bodies and army. Ivan IV created the oprichnina army, the most famous oprichnik was Malyuta Skuratov.

Before you start talking about the game itself, you need to remember where it all began. On December 3, 1564, after a prayer in the Assumption Cathedral, the tsar said goodbye to the clergy and boyars. Then he openly left Moscow, and he took with him the entire state treasury and some valuables. All valuables were collected in advance. And the royal procession included not only Ivan and his family, but also some other close associates and guards.

Reasons for the oprichnina of Ivan IV the Terrible

Having collected his things in advance, he leaves for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. When saying goodbye to the people, in particular to the boyars, he did not say a word about where he was going. In fact, the boyars had no idea where the king was going and why he was doing it. Ivan’s path lay through Kolomenskoye, then he visited the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and only then arrived in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda.

Alexandrova Sloboda was built in 1514 during my father's time. If you evaluate the buildings of the settlement, it was a fortification. It was surrounded on three sides by a dense forest, in which there were many traps and pits. And on the fourth side there was a steep bank. Arriving in the settlement, he sends two letters. In them he outlined some of the motives for his behavior. He said that he was giving up the kingdom. But at the same time, Ivan conveyed to the boyars and clergy that they were in disgrace towards him. The contradiction here is obvious. If a ruler renounces the kingdom, then he cannot actually impose disgrace.

On the same day, December 3, representatives arrive in Moscow. They conducted active propaganda among the common people. They assured them that the sovereign was angry not with the people, but with the boyars. The king accused them of embezzlement and treason. Unrest began among the common population. The boyars, knowing from the experience of the uprising of 1547, knew how this could end. Therefore, on January 5, 1565, they came to Ivan the Terrible with a request to return to the throne.

When the boyars and representatives of the clergy visited the tsar, Ivan clearly expressed his further position. He said that he would return only if the power of the king was above all else. That is, the will of the king is above the law and is of paramount importance in the state. Thus, the previously existing grand-ducal power was now replaced by autocratic rule. The boyars and clergy are forced to accept such conditions.

Prerequisites for the oprichnina of Ivan IV the Terrible

An interesting question is why the regime of autocracy began to take shape in . Why not his father Vasily III, nor his grandfather took power into their own hands. To do this, we need to remember what the Principality of Moscow was and why people began to surround it.

History textbooks often give us the same reasons.

Profitable geographical position;
The struggle of the principality against the Horde;
Strong economy of the principality.

In fact, not everything is so simple. For example, Novgorod and Tver also had an advantageous geographical location, and Moscow was not an ardent opponent of the Horde, on the contrary, it actively collaborated with it. The only exception is the event of the Battle of Kulikovo, when Dmitry Donskoy showed open resistance to the Mongols. Mamai's army was defeated in 1380. But Mamai, in the eyes of Donskoy, was a usurper of power. And then in 1382 a smaller army of the now true Mongolian king Tokhtamysh marches on Moscow. And here Donskoy no longer offers any resistance.

In fact, Moscow was the main representative of the Horde in Rus', which is why many boyars sought to get to Moscow. The boyars and the prince, acting together, were able to defeat the other principalities and take first place. While there was dependence on the Horde, and the prince still had little land, he relied in everything on the boyars. With the departure of the Horde and the capture of Novgorod, princely power begins new stage. He does not distribute the lands inherited from Novgorod to the boyars, so as not to allow them to become equal in position to the prince. Instead, the nobles (children of the boyars) received the lands. The development of the local system begins.