Ivan the Terrible through the eyes of Western diplomats

Druzhevskii Anton Olegovich Postgraduate of the Department of History of Russia from ancient times until the beginning of the 19th century, Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen (St. Petersburg, Russia); Executor of the project of the Scientific Project Support Department of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy named after F. M. Dostoevsky (St. Petersburg, Russia). 195299, Russia, Saint Petersburg, 3 Senatskaya str., office 224 adruzhevskij@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Pre-Petrine Russia aroused keen interest among representatives of Western countries, who, by virtue of their capabilities, analyzed the specifics of Russian life. Most of these works reflected the peculiarities of the geographical location of Russia, the climate of the country, the originality of the mentality, including its religious component ^{[1, pp.140-147]}. At the same time, it is important that foreign envoys try to convey not only the live speech of the representatives of the boyars, but also the highest supreme autocratic power - the tsar. Having a unique opportunity to talk with the ruler, to notice small details, to receive an immediate royal response, they entered into a polemic with him, sometimes, however, pretending to agree.

The notes of Western diplomats about Russia in the XIX century attracted the attention of researchers as a historical source. It is worth noting that the outstanding historian V.O.Klyuchevsky in the era of "Great Reforms" publishes a study "The Legend of Foreigners about the Moscow State", which gave impetus to the dissemination of foreign notes about Russia in Russian society ^{[2, pp.29-53]}. It is worth noting that all essays of this kind are of different orientation and quality of presentation. There were precedents when the authors of works about Russia acted too cunningly: using fantasies, speculation and rumors, they did not go to Russia, but from the territory of their native country, operating exclusively with rumors that reached them, they brought down lampoons on Tsar Ivan the Terrible and his entourage.

Those who came to Muscovy at that time were different in social status: merchants, diplomats, hired soldiers (future oprichniks) ^[13], healers, adventurers, travelers. Each of them received a different education and had their own life experience behind them, but they also had something in common - none of the above-mentioned representatives of the West came to Russia for what is called "just like that" (due to the fact that in the last quarter of the XVI century, the Livonian War entered its decisive phase, it was necessary to settle various aspects of interstate interaction).

In this study, we will focus on the memories of those foreigners who came to Russia on behalf of their sovereigns and were diplomats. Using the authoritative dictionary of S.I.Ozhegov, we will define the concept of a diplomat: "an official, a specialist engaged in diplomatic activities, work in the field of foreign relations" ^[3].

Let's define the purposes of diplomatic trips of foreigners to Muscovy during the reign of Ivan the Terrible:

-benefits in the trade of imported goods with the prospect of switching to duty-free trade;

- the possibility of acquiring new territories during the Livonian War;

- an attempt to establish trade relations and strengthen its own economy;

-probing the soil to strengthen their own influence; interest in unexplored Muscovy;

-building partnerships for your own safety.

It should be noted that foreign diplomats actually used a certain template when writing their essays about Russia: the circumstances preceding the trip to Muscovy, the purpose of the visit, the climate of the country, the peculiarities of Russians taking into account religious aspects: daily life, clothing, religious worship, morals and moral character, disappointment from unfulfilled expectations, difficulties in interacting with the local population, hard life, the impression of Russia before meeting with the tsar, the royal feast, the features of Ivan the Terrible's audiences, the results of negotiations, a hidden resentment, not achieving the goal of a diplomatic mission. As a rule, the return to the Homeland and the reaction of the person who sent the trip are not described, and the fact of removal from further diplomatic service is also kept silent.

In this regard, we will use the chronological principle of the presentation of the material. Let's build a narrative from 1578 to the end of the century (although Jerome Gorsay's work also covers the time after the death of Ivan the Terrible). Let's focus on the writings of several foreign diplomats who receive little attention or, in our opinion, are most often interpreted inaccurately: the writings of J. Ulfeldt (1535-1593), D. Gorsei (1550-1626), D.Fletcher (1548-1611).^[4].

J. Ulfeldt went to Muscovy in 1578, then wrote "Journey to Russia", in which he shared the features of the trip. This source is extremely important, because by the time of the meeting with the tsar, his eldest son Ivan Ivanovich was still alive, who died under unclear circumstances in November 1581, whom J. Ulfeldt had seen several times. It is striking that the negative attitude with which the diplomat approaches the description of Russians as barbarians, whose lifestyle and behavior, in his opinion, are far from civilized. Russian Russians, however, smile at certain aspects of the image: Russians swear "dog", "son of a dog" with gusto ^{[5, p.19]}.In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the diplomatic messages of Ivan the Terrible, who violates all conceivable norms of European business etiquette and insults the addressees with similar expressions ^{[6, p.13]} Note that Ya.During his short stay in Russia, Ulfeldt was amazed several times by the splendor and variety of clothes of the tsar and his son. At the same time, the pleasant impression of the tsar was replaced by the royal untidiness described by the diplomat at the feast, which struck the Dane. Less emotionally and without squeamishness, he describes the alleged royal harem, consisting of 50 concubines. Thus, the author shows the proximity of the "barbarian" with the eastern despotisms, where such a practice was widespread. Especially offensive to the diplomat was the fact that during the audience the sovereign listened to him inattentively and was distracted. I was surprised . Ulfeldt said that the previous agreements on peace with Denmark suddenly ceased to operate. Note that the autocratic ruler, whom Ivan the Terrible positioned himself, was free to grant and execute whenever he wished ^{[7, pp.132-161]}. This could also apply to diplomatic agreements. An autocratic ruler is free to change his mind abruptly for the sake of the political moment. The diplomat was surprised that the royal visitor needed to come "under the royal" eyes with a gift and attach importance to the utterance of the full royal title. Ten days at J. Ulfeldt's are described almost as hell: difficult living conditions, the Russians did not take into account the gastronomic preferences of the guests (they want to eat geese and drink strong alcohol), several times the Danish envoy met one-eyed representatives of the population: not only among the tsar's subjects, but also among the peasants. Such descriptions are designed to make the Russians described not just morally degraded, but also outwardly very "vile". In general, the diplomatic mission of J. Ulfeldt was not successful, upon his return to his homeland, he was dismissed. It should be noted that the memories of the Dane are the most reliable among those considered by us in this article.

An English diplomat, who was also a secret agent of the English court, Jerome Gorsay, continued to form an idea of Russia in Western Europe. He helped Russian weapons with military supplies in the conditions of the protracted Livonian War. In this regard, the diplomat was awarded a high honor: he had several conversations with the tsar. The Englishman managed to communicate with him one of the last before the death of the ruler. The cunning Ivan Vasilyevich did not show Gorsei his true face, he was benevolent and courteous ^{[8, p.85]}. It should be noted that the English envoy admits a number of factual errors and inaccuracies in his book, combines events that occurred at different time intervals: J. Gorsei confuses the sequence of the advance of the tsarist troops during the oprichnoi campaign in 1570, the number of victims of the Novgorod pogrom is greatly exaggerated and does not correspond to the data available to modern researchers^{[10, p.43-75]}. It is worth saying that the author is mistaken when he groups events that occurred with an interval of almost 10 years: the introduction of the oprichnina in Russia and the appointment of Simeon Bekbulatovich as the "tsar of Muscovy". To emphasize the superiority of England over Russia, an episode in which Ivan the Terrible is surprised by the number of ships of the English fleet is described in detail ^{[8, p.73]}. (An informed reader knows that the problem of ship construction and the Baltic question were finally solved in the era of Peter the Great) ^[9]. Scenes describing reprisals against unwanted monks through bear baiting are created in the key of describing medieval torture: the "trials" of clerics with iron and water require verification by other sources. Thus, the author shows that the tsar is increasingly worried about his personal safety every day, justifying his cruelty ^{[8, p.62]}. Ivan Vasilyevich appears before us in a fabulous and semi-legendary style in an episode of a demonstration of royal treasures and ancient stones. The king is depicted as the owner and connoisseur of esoteric knowledge. This is confirmed in the described episode with the drawing of a magic circle with a spider. Of particular importance to researchers is an episode of the last seconds of Ivan the Terrible's life, who unexpectedly died while playing chess. Such a description gives an idea of a limited circle of people close to the throne. This fragment also forms three versions of the death of Ivan the Terrible:

-death from venereal disease (as hinted by Gorsei); Not only the English diplomat, but also the fugitive Prince A.M. Kurbsky (who died a year before the sovereign) confirms the presence of "1000 virgins" in the tsar ^{[9, pp.17-22]};

-death from dropsy of the abdomen (descriptions given by an Englishman confirm such a manifestation of the disease);

- death by strangulation (one should not translate the statement that it was stuffy in the royal chambers using the passive voice of the English language).

Also, a number of historians believe that the tsar was eliminated by Western agents. One of which could be Jerome Gorsay. At the same time, the Englishman still managed to get some trade preferences from the tsar. This circumstance explains the benevolent description of the ruler by the envoy, his disposition towards him. Since the author of the memoirs lived in Muscovy longer than others, he had someone to compare the personality traits of Ivan the Terrible with. However, it is necessary to treat this source more critically, to distinguish the mythologized image of the ruler from the real one, involving other sources in the analysis.

The most educated of the three ambassadors presented in this study was J. Fletcher, who had several educations, was no stranger to creative impulses, and was also a member of the English Parliament. An important feature of his essay "On the Russian State" (1591) is the fact that he did not personally find Tsar Ivan the Terrible, but used rumors and gossip about him. The tsar died a few years before the arrival of the English envoy to Russia. We see that even under the new ruler, formal procedures occupied an important place: not uttering the full royal title entailed the anger of Fyodor Ivanovich and the departure of the diplomat to England without significant results. Fletcher, offended, begins an "information war" against Rurikovich who kicked him out and mixes truthful evidence and outright slander. Russian Russians are all thieves," the episode with the conversation between Ivan the Terrible and the goldsmith is implausible, in which the ruler points out that "my Russians are all thieves," separates himself from them and calls him a German. ^{[12, p.19]} Thereby Fletcher shows that Russia has such barbaric mores that the tsar is ashamed to identify himself with Russians. Thus, a barbarian nation has a ruler who, in a fit of anger, kills his own son. Such an outcome is God's justice for the sins committed. Fletcher's book, due to its aggressive orientation and unreliability, has a difficult fate, was burned, and was fully published less than two centuries ago.

However, the author also makes a correct political forecast - after the death of the last tsar of the Rurik dynasty, the country was in Turmoil.

Summarizing the above, we note that the myth of Ivan the Terrible actually began to take shape during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, i.e. after the death of the sovereign. The notes of foreign travelers who have visited Russia are a very interesting historical source. Foreigners often experienced cultural shock, did not understand much and described what the court chroniclers did not dare to notice. In the Time of Troubles, all the "black legends" about Russia and Russians, including the myth of Ivan the Terrible, are fixed in the writings of foreigners as reliable information. At the same time, every time it leads to the assertion of negative stereotypes about our country. Therefore, anyone who researches or simply reads the memories of foreigners about Russia should approach them critically and not completely take them on faith. It should also be noted that so far all the memories of foreigners about Russia during the time of Ivan the Terrible have not been collected into a single publication and are not equipped with the necessary scientific apparatus and competent comments of professional historians.