|
Welcome, Guest
|
 Apokálypsis X.LXXII & BIBLICAL ARMAGEDDON PLANNING |
|
| [Contact, Search] | World History - Yahoo! - Help | ||
| : BOOK OF LIFE : |
| Bookoflife.org > ++++++++++ > *&*&*&*&*> 1!!!!!!!!!> 2!!!!!!!!!! > 3!!!!!!!!!!!!! > 0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
Correspondence |
|||||||
| a |
Notes & Extracts: Prince A.M. Kurbsky’s Historuy of Ivan IV, trasn., J.L.I. Fennel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965).
(Alleged authorships) A. M. Kurbsky: First letter to Ivan IV. Page 7) ; “for the latter too reproved the law-breaking king for his unlawful marriage. He [Herod] transgressed the law of Moses, but this one [Vasily] the law of the Gospel: What is the law of the Gospel?, debate continues today about Jesus Christ’s militancy passages where he in a general statement is asked about it and he points out he did not come to earth to bring peace but war. Does the writer(s) not understand the contradictions of the New Testament? This also goes to show that the fumbled Bible passages in the texts, pointed out by Fennell, possibly meant that there was no access to one, and from either memory or letters with Bible quotes were used in its place. Page 9-11) There will be some stereotype passages that usually show up from time to time (THOGPOM, 9-11) in different cultures and histories but with the exact same theme. Example: The child harms little defenseless animals in a stupor of blood-lust. A child is exposed to lust(s) at a young age. The withholding of something deemed more horrible than to mention. (See below examples:)The Romans (See Caligula historiography, supposedly the method for his madness related to the above stereotypes /the writer(s) same tactic used) and Mughals ( Prominent historical figure Akbar in the Mughal era, rumored killed small animals when a child – made up by Englishmen to try to justify the British occupation of India in the 19th - 20th century, they tied this to Akbars fierce ways as an adult in administering the empire/ the writer(s) uses this tactic as well) Is this really historically accurate or hogwash? Page 9) “At that time our present Ioann [Ivan] was conceived and ferocity was born in transgression and concupiscence”: This is vitriolic; can we believe someone when they lose all consciousness in writing? Page 9) But this too added still further to that evil beginning: he lost his father while very young—when about two years old (He also lost his mother a few years later): The similarities to the historiography of Caligula’s madness stems not only from the exposure to wanton lust at a young age as the writer(s) accuse here (See page 9 ‘lust’), but of his parents, and family members killed by the Caesar’s court officials when he was young, also leading to his madness. We can see similarities no? This is another stereotypical implication used as a tool to defame, note the phrase usage of “evil beginning.” Is this a constructive criticism? Does everyone who loses their parents become bad people? Page 9) ref. wanton lust at a young age : “Flattering him and pleasing him in every enjoyment and lust” the enjoyment of lust: Roman historiography: After Caesar allegedly had Caligula’s family members killed he brought him to a secluded place and for the rest of his childhood until an adult he lived in lustfull decadence until he was an adult. This point was tied to his madness by the writer(s) to his actions later on as an adult, the same tactic that is being used here. Page 11) “I will be silent on most things”: Does this try to implicate that worse horrors exist but the writer(s) will not divulge; another ploy to make things seem worse than what they accused already? Page 11) Ref. Animal cruelty: “At first he began to spill the blood of dumb creatures, hurling them from lofty places (in their language: from porches or from the top stories of houses ) and to do many other unbefitting things as well, betraying in himself the future merciless will”: See notes for page 9, and Mughal (accusations against Akbar r. 1556-1605 ) 20th British Hist. Mongol/Mughal rulers were evil because they killed animals as children. How can we trust history when it is written like this? How do we know any of these actions of Ivan’s childhood happened, when there are no corresponding references? What the writer(s) Claims as legitimate grievances were, long tours, and murders of friends, and family. The religiosity part I left out, because the writer(s) had no legitimate claim or knowledge of what was written in the Bible. Were the interpretations in the Middle Ages possibly complex, known by them only, and too hard to link to acclaimed biblical sources? What is know as the Church code and was describe as “ law of the Gospel?”
(a) the Writer(s) claim that Kurbsky had been sent into the military with long tours, and he missed his family as a result. A legitimate claim: The blame stems form Ivan’s constant need to expand the Russian realm and influence. Is this reasonable? (b) the Writer(s) claim that Kurbsky’s master was killed by the boyars or Ivan. I believe everything bad that went on is accredited to Ivan in this part of the correspondence. A back-lash or motive for writing this could be a legitimate grievance without calculating the moral relevance of accepting powerful positions, such as General, in which Kurbsky probably took pride in. (c) A questing arises as the timing for his departure: Did he in fact feel resentment because after returning from a victorious campaign in Lavonia, he came back to court and didn’t get a promotion he had hoped for? (d) History of Ivan: Page 157-9, non-Representation, against court law: could this be seen as a legitimate, but not personal, gripe? (e) Kurbsly it said believed, according to Ivan’s letters, the some of the boyars were going to kill him? Why? Was it something he did on the field of war that got them angry at him? Ivan said these were just rumors?
Page 161 footnote) . Kurbsky letter, Sil’vester had been driven out. In the Ivan rebuttal letter, Ivan says Sil’vester’s departure was voluntary: so who are we supposed to believe? Page 76 footnote) 1525 First Court trial of Maksim the Greek who was born in Italy in about 1475. After spending ten years in the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos he was invited to Moscow by Vasily III in order to help with the translation of sacred books. […] He was put on trial (1525 and 1531) for his ecclesiastical views, which ran counter to those of the Josephian hierarchy,[…] What was the Josephian hierarchy? Page 157) PROPHECY OF THE WRITERS OF KURBSKY:”all kinds of evil and cunning, the destroyers of their fatherland, still more of all the holy Russian tsardom! What good will this bring you? Soon you shall see the result of this deed upon yourselves and upon your children, and from generations to come you shall hear an everlasting curse!” Ivan is stupid, apparently to stupid to rule correctly. Page 157-9)// Accusations of special powers of influence of Ivan// Now the tsar, having been made by the accursed ones to drink his fill of this deadly poison mixed with sweet flattery, and being filled with cunning, or rather stupidity, praised their counsel and loved them and drew them into friendship and bound them to him with oaths, taking up arms against the holy innocent men—and furthermore against all good men and against all who wished him well and who [were ready to] lay down their lives for him, Page 157-9)// Trial without representation: Having written down the charges against these men they read them out in their absence;
Below are some accusations from supposedly Ivan in red. II. IVAN IV TO PRINCE KURBSKY |the Writer(s)
blames Kurbsky for troubles in west.
Questions:
1) Where were the letters found? What did contemporary sources say about their existence? 2) Were the Chronicles available to whoever wrote these histories? 3) Is it possible this came from a Russian monastery that heard gossip, knew what was going on in the realm, knew Russian history, had access to historical sources of Russia and wanted to make this appear as if it was these two people corresponding?
QUESTIONS:
1) Is it possible that a dyaki wrote what Ivan verbally expressed for these letters? can clergy members be ruled out in helping Ivan correspond to Kurbsky, that is if we do not use Keenan’s argument? 2) Are the correspondences between Kurbsky and Ivan the only place we get information on Ivan’s minority? 3) In January 1558 Prince Ivan Kurbsky invaded eastern Estonia (Yuryev), Did Jerome Horsey, call it a “cruel slaughters”: If so then how can Kurbsky reconcile his actions against the accusations he throws at Ivan for his cruelty? 4) Did Kurbsky master Latin after he defected? What is the significance, and where was it that he signed his name as an ‘x’ instead of spelling out his name in a court? 5) has there been a critical cross reference study between all sources, more specifically the Chronicles and the correspondence to see how much raw information of the history of the grand princes was already in the chronicles so that someone could make it appear as they were Kurbsky and Ivan? Or has this been ruled out?
On 30 April 1564 Prince
Andrey Mikhailovich Kurbsky, a boyar and leading general of the
tsar of Muscovy, deserted to the Polish-Lithuanian forces in
Livonia. From the town of Wolmar he wrote the first of his five
letters to the tsar, Ivan IV. The ensuing correspondence
between Kurbsky and Ivan IV has long been recognized as one of
the most important historical documents of sixteenth-century
Russia. Not only does it throw invaluable light on the complex
character of the tsar, but it constitutes the most complete
summing-up of that conflict between the autocratic ideals of the
Muscovite grand princes and the conservative opposition of the
boyars which characterized the political life of the Muscovite
state in the sixteenth century. Yet few historians have
undertaken an edition, let alone a critical analysis, of the
text, and only once has the correspondence been translated into
a foreign language.
I
II
Below are some accusations from supposedly Ivan in red.
II. IVAN IV TO PRINCE
KURBSKY 19 Both opening letters begin with heavy religiosity. According to Kurbsky’s first letter, he accuses Ivan of having placed him in the field, he was a general, for a long time, and he complained this kept him from seeing his family, and he justified Ivan’s aggressive foreign policy to fight his enemies as proof Ivan was no in the right religiously. If we are to believe the letter, we must understand that Kurbsky had personal reasons and connected them to his job and state. We can almost see a pacifist argument against a leader that believes force, war and commitment creates a stronger realm. Ivan’s piety theme. He expresses Kurbsky’s fear of death, warning him he will die anyway: was this predicated upon Rumors in the boyar circles that he was about to be offed? Ivan tells him, it was only a false rumor, and he should not have reacted by running away: People were faling in the Kremlin, could Kurbsky’s fear have arisen because of this? Themes: If these were written by other people, how do we see a motive for the rhetoric, the story telling and arguments? First, Kurbsky attacks Ivan’s Orthodoxy, and Ivan defends and attacks Kurbsky’s piety. Second theme, Kurbsky attacks autocracy, and Ivan defends it: what were the competing ideologies in Lithuania or western Europe at that time that could be considered competing government ideas in regards to ruler-ship and the way a state runs its government? Absolutism argued by Kurbsky, and pacifism as God’ way. Whatever that means, it is not accurate according to the New Testament. Ivan argues for Absolutism, and the Church ordains it, and he is correct. Even though Orthodoxy was separate from the Roman Catholic Church, the Church understood Christianity, and Jesus’ words spoke of times to be militant and protect what is yours. How does Kurbsky rectify his aggression in the Yuryev slaughter to his theme in the correspondence? Does this mean he changed his mind and became a pacifist, or as suspected this was not written by him as Keenen proposes? Page 43) Ivan waxes philosophic: This indicates more of a scholastic trained person than a Grand Prince.
Page 45/Ivan to Kurbsky) “Or do you consider this to be “pious illustriousness”, namely for a kingdom to be ruled by an ignoremus of a priest, by evil, treacherous men, and for a tsar to be ordered about? And is this “contrary to reason and [betraying] a leprous conscience” for an ignoremus to be silenced, for evil men to be repelled and for a tsar, granted by God, to rule?”: The tsar’s authority to rule is granted by God, and I van explains that pacifism can not work to run a state when it has various ill-willed enemies.
Page 69) “ For in your devilish manner you decreed that traitors be loved—but in foreign lands they love not traitors” Ivan accused Kurbsky of hypocrisy. Page 69) Kurbsky, here questions Orthodox religious practices, according to Ivan so Ivan responds with his reason as it was a tradition of grand princes, such as the tonsure of a grand prince, on his death bed: “Vasily, having exchanged the purple for the angel’s form, had left all that was perishable and the fleeting earthly kingdom and come to the heavenly [realm], to that everlasting eternity, to stand before the Tsar of Tsars and the Lord of Lords […]”(69) Page 75 ) “[…] began to hand over our patrimony to our Lithuanian enemy—the towns of Radogoshch, Starodub, Gomel […]”: Could temper have been high on both sides of the Lithuanian side and the Russian side because of massive casulties in wars?, for instance, During the battle for Starodub the voevoda was captured and 13,000 of the inhabitants were killed? Page 85) “divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand;” and how can one conduct military operations against an enemy if the kingdom be torn by fratricidal struggles?”: Here Ivan discusses why bodies falling to matters into his own hands; can we believe this is Ivan’s views, or the writer of this letter?
Page 85) “It is hard to assess the full extent of the influence of the ‘Ibrannaya Rada [duma]” or Chosen Council (the name given by Kurbsky in his History to Sylvester and his associates) on the tsar in matters of governmental policy” (foot 85)
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the term d’yak or “scribe” signified merely a personal servant who, by virtue of his ability to read and write, assisted his master in any matters connected with correspondence or finance. With the formation of Prikazy (ministries) and the centralization of the administration in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, however, the dyaki assumed a far more important role in society, becoming not only members of the various ministries, but even secretaries, ministers and Privy Councillors of the grand prince. (74-5 foot 3)
Prince A.M. Kurbsky’s Historuy of Ivan IV, trasn., J.L.I. Fennel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965).
OPENING OF HISTORY The History of the Grand Princes of Moscow
The History of the
Grand Prince of Moscow. That which we have heard from
trustworthy people and that which we have seen with our eyes I
have written down, pertinaciously importuned by
rtry
(footnotes) for Sofia’s
“sorcery”, Kurbsky’s accusation, repeated below (see pp. 256—7),
may have originated in the report of one of the chroniclers who
stated that in 1497, after a conspiracy against Ivan
III’s grandson, Dmitry Ivanovich, had been brought to light, it
was discovered that “women were coming to her [Sofia] with
poisonous herbs”. (PSRL vi, p. 279; XII, p. 263.)
INTRODUCTION
1
Such is the opinion of
the Soviet historian, A. A. Zimin (A. A. Zimin, Kogda Kurbsky
napisal). Convincing as Zimin’s views are, it must be
pointed out that Kurbsky mentions two incidents which occurred
after 1573 (Khabarov’s execution, 1581, and
Archbishop Leonid’s execution, 1575, see below, pp. 21
s, 247). It should also be borne in mind that there
is a striking similarity between Kurbsky’s last three letters to
Ivan, all written after 1578, and certain passages in the
History. While it is possible that Kurbsky quoted from his
History five or six years later, it would seem more
probable that the letters and those passages of the History
which are similar were written more or less at the same
time.
because the tsar had
previously lumped them together with Kurbsky and the boyars.’
Secondly, it must be remembered that Kurbsky himself was not the
best informed of historians. In the first half of his life his
career, to judge from the only sources to mention him (the
raryay and the chronicles), was confined to the army. The
offspring of a junior branch of the appanage princes of
Yaroslavi’, he appears to have been almost exclusively engaged
in military affairs from the first mention of him as a minor
commander in 1550 to 1564 when he defected. If he enjoyed
any popularity or influence at court, it was only due to a
tenuous relationship on his mother’s side with the tsaritsa
Anastasia. We have no indication (apart from Kurbsky’s own
assurances) that he was persona grata with the tsar or
that he had anything to do with the political administration of
the State during the years of the great reforms (the 1550’S),
the heyday of his posthumously glorified heroes, Adashev and
Sil’vestr. True he was appointed boyar in 1556, in other words
he was made a member of the Boyar Council, the body of advisers
whom the tsar consulted, in theory at least, on matters of home
and foreign policy. But shortly after this the Livonian war
began, and from 1558 to 1564 we find him again on almost
permanent active service, fighting Livonians and Lithuanians and
away from the intrigues of the Muscovite court.
(Footnotes) ‘ It is
interesting to note that Kurbsky himself made no mention of
either Adashev or Sil’vestr in his first and second letters to
Ivan. It is only in his last three letters (written 1578 and
1579) and in his History that Kurbsky took up the cudgels
on behalf of the “blessed Sil’vestr” and the “angelic Adashev”,
after Ivan in his two letters to Kurbsky had virtually portrayed
them as the ringleaders of the aristocratic opposition.
Muscovite: Kurbsky’s
Muscovy is Muscovy described by a Muscovite, Secondly, it
provides the modern historian with a large amount of factual
detail, particularly as regards the lists of Ivan’s political
victims: indeed much of his information can often be used as an
additional check to other sources and in many cases it fills in
useful gaps in our knowledge. Thirdly, Kurbsky’s History
is invaluable for the light it throws on certain episodes in
Ivan’s reign of which Kurbsky had expert knowledge, such as the
capture of Kazan’ and the Livonian war, or on individuals whom
Kurbsky knew personally, such as Feodorit the Enlightener of the
Lapps. But above all the History is important as a
document written by a representative of the boyar aristocracy,
an opponent of autocracy, a conservative with a hankering after
a return to the good old days of “appanage freedom”. Indeed one
might say that the historian today can learn most from the very
tendentiousness of the work. Even when distorting facts, Kurbsky
sheds light on his viewpoint and on the viewpoint of that
section of the community he professed to represent—the
conservative opposition to the tsar.
m replaced by e, i
by u, 0 by l, and final z omitted; ü has been
substituted for u, where necessary, to conform to modern
usage). OXFORD 1963 J. L. I. F. Page 7) ; “for the latter too reproved the law-breaking king for his unlawful marriage. He [Herod] transgressed the law of Moses, but this one [Vasily] the law of the Gospel. Of his lay counsellors he was rebuked by Semen Kurbsky, from the kin of the princes of Smolensk and Yaroslavi’, about whom and about whose holy way of life not only is the Russian land aware,1 but also Herberstein, that eminent man, the great ambassador of the emperor, who was in Moscow and learned about it and bears witness to it in his chronicle, which he wrote in the Latin tongue when he was in the glorious city of Milan.” : What is the law of the Gosple, debate continues today about Jesus Christ’s militancy passages where he in a general statement is asked about it and he points out he did not come to earth to bring peace but war. Does the writer(s) not understand the contradictions of the New Testament? This also goes to show that the fumbled Bible passages in the texts possibly meant that there was no access to one, and from either memory or letters with Bible quotes were used in place. Page 9-11) There will be some stereotype passages that usually show up from time to time (THOGPOM, 9-11) in different cultures but with the exact same theme. The child harms little defenseless animals in a stupor of blood-lust. A child is exposed to lust(s) at a young age. The Romans( See Caligula, supposedly the method for his madness/Kurbsky same implied sense) and Mughals ( Prominent historical figure in the Mughal era, rumored killed small animals when a child, they tied this to his fierce ways as an adult/ Kurbsky uses this tactic as well) had vitriolic texts say the same thing about their young leader that grew in stature I history as Ivan IV has: Is this really historical writing or hogwash?
Page 9) “At that time our present Ioann [Ivan] was conceived and ferocity was born in transgression and concupiscence”: This is vitriolic; can we believe someone when they lose all consciousness in writing?
Page 9) But this too added still further to that evil beginning: he lost his father while very young—when about two years old ( He lost his mother a few years later): The similarities to the accusations of Caligula’s madness stems not only from the exposure to wanton lust at a young age as the writer(s) accuse (See page 9 ‘lust’), but of his parents, and family members killed by the Caesar’s court officials. This is another stereotypical implication used as a tool to defame, note the usage of “evil beginning”. Does everyone who loses their parents become bad people?
Pans ( boyars in Russian) Ioann (Ivan) Page 9) “Flattering him and pleasing him in every enjoyment and lust” the enjoyment of lust: Roman historiography: After Caesar allegedly had Caligula’s family members killed he brought him to a secluded place and for the rest of his childhood until an adult he lived in lustfull decadence. This point was tied to his madness later on as an adult, the same tactic that is being used here. Page 11) “I will be silent on most things”: Does this try to implicate that worse horrors exist but the writer(s) will not divulge; a ploy to make things seem worse than what they accuse already? “. At first he began to spill the blood of dumb creatures, hurling them from lofty places (in their language: from porches or from the top stories of houses ) and to do many other unbefitting things as well, betraying in himself the future merciless will”: See notes for page 9, and Mughal (accusations against Akbar r. 1556-1605 ) rulers were evil because they killed animals as children. How can we trust history when it is written like this?
But as for what he used
to do when he came of age, at about twelve or later,1 I will be
silent on most things; however this I will relate. At first he
began to spill the blood of dumb creatures, hurling them from
lofty places (in their language: from porches or from the top
stories of houses2) and to do many other unbefitting things as
well, betraying in himself the future merciless will;3 for, as
Solomon says: “a wise man regardeth the life of his beasts;
likewise the foolish man beats them unsparingly”. 4 But while
his tutors flattered him by allowing this and praising him, they
taught the child to their own detriment. And when he came to his
fifteenth year, he began to harm people. Gathering around him
groups of youths and relatives of those above-mentioned
counsellors, he rode with them on horseback through the squares
and market-places and beat and robbed the common people, men and
women, in- decorously galloping and racing everywhere. And in
truth he committed real acts of brigandage and performed other
evil deeds which it is not only unbefitting to relate, but
shameful too; and all his flatterers would praise such
behaviour, to their own detriment, saying: “0, brave and manly
will this tsar be!” But when he came to his seventeenth year,
then those same arrogant counsellors began to urge him on and
through him to avenge their hostilities, one against the other.
And first of all they killed a most powerful man, a very brave
general and a man of great stock, who came from the kin of the
princes of Lithuania, of the same family as King Jagiello of
Poland, Prince Ivan Bel’sky by name, who was not only manly, but
was great in intellect and versed in the holy scriptures.5
Page 161) . Kurbsky letter, Sil’vester had been driven out. In the Ivan rebuttal letter, Ivan says Sil’vester’s departure was voluntary: so who are we supposed to believe?
Page 76 ) 1525 First Court trial of Maksim the Greek who was born in Italy in about 1475. After spending ten years in the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos he was invited to Moscow by Vasily III in order to help with the translation of sacred books. He remained in Moscow for the rest of his life, interesting himself in such controversial questions as monastic landownership and the position of the Church vis-a-vis the State. He was put on trial (1525 and 1531) for his ecclesiastical views, which ran counter to those of the Josephian hierarchy, for “heretical” opinions and for treacherously conspiring with one Skinder, the sultan’s ambassador in Moscow. From 1525 to 1531 he was imprisoned in the Josephian monastery of Volokolamsk; after his second trial in I531 he was sent to the Tver’ Otroch’ monastery; in 1551 he was allowed to move to the Trinity monastery of St Sergy where he died in 1556. (J.L.I. Fenne History of Grand Princes, foot 2, p.76-7). Page 157) PROPHECY OF THE WRITERS OF KURBSKY:”all kinds of evil and cunning, the destroyers of their fatherland, still more of all the holy Russian tsardom! What good will this bring you? Soon you shall see the result of this deed upon yourselves and upon your children, and from generations to come you shall hear an everlasting curse!”
Page 157-9)// Section of court and representation, justification// Now the tsar, having been made by the accursed ones to drink his fill of this deadly poison mixed with sweet flattery, and being filled with cunning, or rather stupidity, praised their counsel and loved them and drew them into friendship and bound them to him with oaths, taking up arms against the holy innocent men—and furthermore against all good men and against all who wished him well and who [were ready to] lay down their lives for him, as though against his enemies ; and he gathered together and collected around him an exceedingly strong and great satanic host. And what did he then embark upon and do first of all? He summoned a council, including not only all his lay senate, but also all the clergy, that is to say he called for the metropolitan and the bishops of the towns, and to these he added certain very cunning monks, Misail Sukin, who had long been renowned for his iniquities, and Vassian Besny, who was rightly named “the Mad” [ Besny means “Possessed by the Devil” may have been an invented nickname of the writer(s) of this for Bishop Vassian Toporkov] , and others like them, filled with hypocrisy and all kinds of diabolical shamelessness and boldness; and he seated them near himself, listening to them with gratitude as they uttered false accusations against the holy men and said lawless things against the just with exceedingly great pride and contempt. And what was done at that council? Having written down the charges against these men they read them out in their absence; but the metropolitan then said in the presence of all: “It is right that they should be brought here before us so that the charges may be brought against them in their presence, for it is indeed right that we should hear what they have to say in reply.” And all the good men agreed with him and said the same thing. But those most pernicious flatterers shouted with the tsar: “It is not right, O bishop! These men are recognized evil-doers and great sorcerers, and they will bewitch the tsar and will destroy us if they come!” And so they were condemned in their absence. Oh judgement worthy of ridicule, still more, replete with calamity, passed by a tsar who was deceived by flatterers.The priest Sil’vestr, his confessor, was imprisoned by him and sent as far as an island in the Frozen Sea, to the monastery of Solovki in the land of the Korelian people, amongst the wild Lapps. And Aleksey was banished from his sight without judgement to the town of Fellin, which had recently been taken by us, and was governor there for a short time.2 But when the evil ones heard that even there God was helping him—several Livonian towns which had not yet been taken wanted to surrender to him because of his goodness, for even though he was in a calamitous position he served his tsar faithfully—then again in the tsar’s ears they added accusation to accusation, whisper to whisper, tissue of lies to tissue of lies against that just and good man. And straightway he ordered him to be taken away from there to Derpt and kept under guard; and two months later he fell into a fever. Having confessed and having taken the holy sacraments of Christ our God, he departed to Him. And when his accusers heard about his death they cried in the tsar’s ear: “Now your traitor has given himself deadly poison and has died.”
3
February his brother Daniil was sent to Livonia (ibid. p.
326) and in May 1560 he himself was sent as 3 i/c the Great
Regiment to Livonia (ibid. p. 327; DRK, p.
222). After the capture of Fellin he was appointed one of
the governors of the town (DRK, p. 225).
[…]Sil’vestr and Aleksey has not yet departed!” And with other still more devilish words than these they abused many men who were sober and moderate in their good way of life and habits, and they put them to shame, pouring those accursed beakers on them, with which they did not wish—or were quite unable—to become drunk, and they threatened them with death and various tortures, in the same way as they destroyed many people a little later for this reason. 0, new idolatry, in truth, a pledge and an offering not to the statue of Apollo and others, but to Satan himself and to his devils! They brought not a sacrifice of oxen and goats led by force to the slaughter, but brought their very souls and bodies of their own free will, because of the love of money and the glory of this world—this they did in their blindness! And thus those most evil and accursed men first of all destroyed the pious and moderate way of life of the tsar! This then, o tsar, is what you have received from your beloved flatterers who whisper in your ears: instead of your former holy fasting and restraint—pernicious drunkenness, with beakers pledged to the devil […]
The History of the Grand Princes of Moscow, trasn., J.L.I. Fennel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965).
QUESTIONS:
3) Is it possible that a dyaki wrote what Ivan verbally expressed for these letters? can clergy members be ruled out in helping Ivan correspond to Kurbsky, that is if we do not use Keenan’s argument? 4) Are the correspondences between Kurbsky and Ivan the only place we get information on Ivan’s minority? 3) In January 1558 Prince Ivan Kurbsky invaded eastern Estonia (Yuryev), Did Jerome Horsey, call it a “cruel slaughters”: If so then how can Kurbsky reconcile his actions against the accusations he throws at Ivan for his cruelty? 4) Did Kurbsky master Latin after he defected? What is the significance, and where was it that he signed his name as an ‘x’ instead of spelling out his name in a court? 5) has there been a critical cross reference study between all sources, more specifically the Chronicles and the correspondence to see how much raw information of the history of the grand princes was already in the chronicles so that someone could make it appear as they were Kurbsky and Ivan? Or has this been ruled out?
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/kurbskyivan.html
((((((((((((((((
45 IVPN IV TO PRINCE KURBSKY (((((((((((((((((((((((((
IX. IVAN IV TO PRINCE
KURBSKY 69 6 FC ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
II. IVAN IV TO PRINCE KURBSKV 85
divided against itself,
that kingdom cannot stand;” and how can one conduct military
operations against an enemy if the kingdom be torn by
fratricidal struggles? For how can a tree flower if its roots
are dry? Likewise [is] this [the case] too: if there is
not good order in the kingdom beforehand, how can wars be fought
with bravery?2 For if a commander does not sufficiently
strengthen his army, then he is conquered rather than conqueror.
But you, disregarding all these things, praise bravery alone;
and as for what bravery consists in, this you consider of no
importance and you show yourself to be a man who not only does
[not]3 strengthen bravery, but rather destroys it,4 for you are
[as] nought: at home a traitor, in the field 5—bereft of
reasoning; for you wish by fratricidal strife and by wilfulness
to strengthen your bravery, which is impossible. ((((((((((((((((((((((((((
of the Lord, “which
things the angels desire to look into,”’ where the Lamb of God
is ever sacrificed for the salvation of the world and is never
consumed,2 he, indeed, whilst still in the flesh, was deemed
worthy [to perform] the Seraphic service with his own hands;3
and all this he trampled down in his cunning way; yet at first
it seemed as though he had begun in a righteous manner,
following the Holy Scriptures; [and] when I saw in the Holy
Scriptures that it is right to submit to good preceptors without
any consideration, then, willingly, but through ignorance, did I
obey even him for the sake of spiritual counsel. But he was
carried away by power like Eli the priest4 [and] began to form
friendships5 as laymen do. Then we assembled all the archbishops
and the bishops and all the holy synod of the Russian
metropolitanate, and as for what befell us in our youth, the
disgraces inflicted by us [lit, our disgraces] upon you,
our boyars, and likewise too the hostility towards us and the
misdemeanours committed by you, our boyars—for all these things
did we ourselves publicly ask forgiveness before our father and
interceder, Makary, Metropolitan of All Russia. And [to] you, or
boyars, and to all our people did I grant [forgiveness] for your
misdemeanours and [decreed] that henceforth all memory of them
be obliterated; and so then did we begin to treat you all as
[though you were] good men.6 (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
6 Prince Dimitry Kurlyatev (or Shkurlyatev)-Obolensky was during Ivan IV’s minority a supporter of the Shuisky faction and was involved in 1543 in the attempt to remove the tsar’s favourite, Vorontsov (see above, p. 79, n. ). His co-operation with Sylvester and Adashev and his participation in the activities of the Izbranna)a Rada probably date from 1549 when he was elevated to the dignity of boyar. During Ivan’s illness in 1553 (see below, pp. 94—5) he absented himself from the palace under pretext of sickness and, it was rumoured, maintained secret communications with Prince Vladimir Andreevich. On the third day after the beginning of Ivan’s illness he turned up at the palace and was amongst the last to give the oath of allegiance to Ivan’s infant son, Dimitry At the beginning of the Livonian war (1558) he was given command ofan army but does not appear to have distinguished himself in the feild. In i6o he was forced by Ivan IV to accept monastic vows together with his wife and children and was subsequently murdered at the tsar’s behest. See below, pp. 190—1.
(Foot. 6 88-9) (((((((((((((((((
II. IVAN IV TO PRINCE KURBSKY 91
of his begin to
establish their evil counsel; not one position [lit,
power] did they neglect in which they did not appoint their
favourites, and so in all things did they achieve their desire.
And after this did he and that confederate of his take from us
the power given to us by our forefathers so that you, [who are]
our boyars [only] by our grace [alone], might be honoured with
the dignity of precedence.’ And all these things did they place
in their hands [lit, power] and in your hands, as it
suited you and as anyone of you desired; for that reason, then,
did they strengthen [their positions] with friendships and when
they had all things in their power entirely according to their
will, then, without asking us aught, as though we did not exist,
did they make regulations and take measures according to their
will and to the desire of their advisers. Whenever we gave any
good advice, they did not avail themselves of it ;2 but if
thej were to give any refractory or corrupt advice, then
were they acting for the common weal!
/END OF LETTER +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Prince Andrew Kurbskii http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/kurbskyivan.html
1408 Vasily
Patrikeev (Vassian, after his tonsure) was in fact the great-
grandson of Patriky Narimuntovich, the Lithuanian prince who
entered the service of Vasily I in 1408. His grandmother Maria
was Vasily II’s sister and Ivan III’s aunt (his mother Evdokia
Vladimirovna Khovrin was not related to the grand princely
family). After a distinguished career in the service of Ivan
III, Vasily Patrikeev fell from favour in 1499 together
with his father Ivan Yur’evich, his brother Ivan Mynin Patrikeev
and his brother-in-law Semen Ivanovich Ryapolovsky. The reasons
for his disgrace are not known; “treason” is mentioned by one
source. It may be that all four were involved in the dynastic
crisis of 1497—9. Ryapolovsky was executed, but the three
Patrikeevs, thanks to the intervention of the senior clergy,
were spared. Vasily/Vassian was sent to the monastery of St
Kirill in Beloozcro; he was later allowed to move to the
hermitage of Nil Sorsky, and eventually to the Simonov monastery
in Moscow where he evidently lived until his trial in 1531.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm WAR STATES OF EARTH
|
||||||
Direct
corrections and technical inquiries to |
|||||||
INDEX
REV >
* >
