Participation in the Kazan campaigns

Participation in the Livonian War

Transition to Sigismund

Life in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Assessment of a historical figure

Literary creativity

(1528-1583) - prince, famous politician and writer. He came from the Smolensk-Yaroslavl line of the Rurikovichs, the part of it that owned the village of Kurba. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania he was recorded in documents under the surname Krupski. He and his descendants used the Levart coat of arms.

Family Kurbsky

The Kurbsky family separated from the branch of Yaroslavl princes in the 15th century. According to the family legend, the clan received its surname from the village of Kurba. The Kurbsky clan manifested itself mainly in voivodeship service: members of the clan conquered the Khanty and Mansi tribes in the Northern Urals, the Kurbskys died both near Kazan and in the war with the Crimean Khanate. The Kurbsky family was also present in administrative positions, but in this field the family did not achieve much success, although the Kurbskys were governors in Ustyug the Great, and in Pskov, and in Starodub, and in Toropets. Most likely, Mikhail Mikhailovich Kurbsky, the father of Andrei Kurbsky, was a boyar. Perhaps Semyon Fedorovich Kurbsky also had the rank of boyar.

Such a career position, of course, did not correspond to the very name of the Yaroslavl prince. There could be several reasons for this situation. Firstly, the Kurbsky princes often supported the opposition to the ruling regime. The grandson of Semyon Ivanovich Kurbsky was married to the daughter of the disgraced Prince Andrei Uglichsky. The Kurbskys supported not Vasily III, but Dmitry the grandson, in the struggle for the throne, which earned them even greater dislike from the Moscow rulers.

Participation in the Kazan campaigns

At the age of 21 he took part in the 1st campaign near Kazan; then he was a governor in Pronsk. In 1552, he defeated the Tatars near Tula, and was wounded, but eight days later he was already on horseback again. During the siege of Kazan, Kurbsky commanded the right hand of the entire army and, together with younger brother showed outstanding courage. Two years later, he defeated the rebel Tatars and Cheremis, for which he was appointed boyar.

At this time, Kurbsky was one of the people closest to Tsar Ivan the Terrible; he became even closer to the party of Sylvester and Adashev.

Participation in the Livonian War

When setbacks began in Livonia, the tsar placed Kurbsky at the head of the Livonian army, who soon won a number of victories over the knights and Poles, after which he became the governor in Yuryev. But at this time, the persecution and execution of supporters of Sylvester and Adashev and the escape of those disgraced or threatened with royal disgrace to Lithuania had already begun. Although Kurbsky had no guilt other than sympathy for the fallen rulers, he had every reason to think that he would not escape cruel disgrace. Meanwhile, King Sigismund Augustus and the Polish nobles wrote to Kurbsky, persuading him to come over to their side and promising a kind reception.

Transition to Sigismund

The Battle of Nevel (1562), unsuccessful for the Russians, could not provide the Tsar with a pretext for disgrace, judging by the fact that after it Kurbsky ruled in Yuryev; and the king, reproaching him for his failure, does not think of attributing it to treason. Kurbsky could not fear responsibility for the unsuccessful attempt to take possession of the city of Helmet: if this matter had been of great importance, the tsar would have blamed Kurbsky in his letter. Nevertheless, Kurbsky was confident that misfortune was imminent and, after vain prayers and fruitless petitions from the bishops, he decided to emigrate “from God’s land,” endangering his family. This happened in 1563 (according to other sources - in 1564).

He came to Sigismund’s service not alone, but with a whole crowd of followers and servants, and was granted several estates (including the city of Kovel). Kurbsky controlled them through his Muscovites. Already in September 1564 he fought against Moscow. Since he knew the defense system of the western borders very well, with his participation, Polish troops repeatedly ambushed Russian troops or, bypassing the outposts, plundered lands with impunity, driving many people into slavery.

In emigration, a difficult fate befell those close to him. Kurbsky subsequently writes that the king “I killed the mother and wife and youth of my only son, who were shut up in captivity; I destroyed my brethren, the one-generation princes of Yaroslavl, with various deaths, and plundered my estates.”. To justify his rage, Ivan the Terrible could only unfoundedly accuse him of treason and violation of the “kissing of the cross” (he did not kiss the cross); His other two accusations, that Kurbsky “wanted statehood in Yaroslavl” and that he took his wife Anastasia away from him, were invented by the tsar, obviously, only to justify his anger in the eyes of the Polish-Lithuanian nobles: he could not harbor personal hatred for the tsarina, but even contemplate Only a madman could think of separating Yaroslavl into a special principality.

Life in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Kurbsky lived not far from Kovel, in the town of Milyanovichi (present-day territory of Ukraine).

Judging by numerous processes, the acts of which have been preserved to this day, he quickly assimilated with the Polish-Lithuanian magnates and “among the violent ones he turned out to be, in any case, not the most humble”: he fought with the lords, seized estates by force, scolded royal envoys with “obscene Moscow words” and other.

In 1571, Kurbsky married the rich widow Kozinski, née Princess Golshanskaya, but soon divorced her, marrying in 1579 the poor girl Semashko, and with her he was apparently happy, since he had a daughter, Marina, from her (b. 1580) and son Dimitri.

In 1583, Kurbsky died.

Dimitri Kurbsky subsequently received part of the selection and converted to Catholicism.

Assessment of a historical figure

On a mossy stone at night,
An exile from his dear homeland,
Prince Kurbsky, the young leader, was sitting
In hostile Lithuania, a sad wanderer,
Shame and glory Russian countries,
Wise in council, terrible in battle,
Hope of mournful Russians,
The storm of the Livonians, the scourge of Kazan...

K. F. Ryleev, 1821 (excerpt)

Opinions about Kurbsky as a politician and person are not only different, but also diametrically opposed. Some see in him a narrow conservative, an extremely limited but self-important person, a supporter of boyar sedition and an opponent of autocracy. His betrayal is explained by calculation for worldly benefits, and his behavior in Lithuania is considered a manifestation of unbridled autocracy and gross selfishness; even the sincerity and expediency of his efforts to maintain Orthodoxy are suspected.

According to others, Kurbsky is an intelligent and educated person, an honest and sincere person who has always stood on the side of good and truth. He is called the first Russian dissident.

The famous Polish historian and heraldist of the 17th century Simon Okolsky wrote that Kurbsky “was a truly great man: firstly, great in his origin, for he was related to the Moscow prince John; secondly, great in office, since he was the highest military leader in Muscovy; thirdly, great in valor, because he won so many victories; fourthly, great in his happy destiny: after all, he, an exile and fugitive, was received with such honors by King Augustus. He also had a great mind, for a short time, being already in old age, learned in the kingdom Latin language, with whom I was previously unfamiliar.”

Political ideas of Andrei Kurbsky

• The weakening of the Christian faith and the spread of heresy is dangerous, first of all, because it gives rise to ruthlessness and indifference in people towards their people and fatherland.
• Like Ivan the Terrible, Andrei Kurbsky interpreted supreme state power as a gift from God; in addition, he called Russia the “Holy Russian Empire.”
• Those in power do not actually fulfill what God intended for them. Instead of administering righteous justice, they commit arbitrariness. In particular, Ivan IV does not administer righteous justice and does not protect his subjects.
• The Church must be an obstacle to the rampant lawlessness and bloody tyranny of the rulers. The spirit of Christian martyrs who accepted death in the struggle against criminal and unrighteous rulers raises the church to this high destiny.
• Royal power should be carried out with the assistance of advisers. Moreover, this should be a permanent advisory body under the tsar. The prince saw an example of such a body in the Elected Rada - a college of advisers that operated under Ivan IV in the 50s of the 16th century.

Literary creativity

The following are currently known from K.’s works:

1. “History of the book. the great Moscow about the deeds that we have heard from trustworthy men and that we have seen before our eyes.”
2. "Four letters to Grozny"
3. “Letters” to various persons; 16 of them were included in the 3rd edition. "Tales of the book" TO." N. Ustryalov (St. Petersburg, 1868), one letter was published by Sakharov in “Moskvityanin” (1843, No. 9) and three letters in “Orthodox Interlocutor” (1863, books V-VIII).
4. "Preface to the New Margaret"; ed. for the first time by N. Ivanishev in the collection of acts: “Life of the book.” K. in Lithuania and Volyn" (Kyiv 1849), reprinted by Ustryalov in "Skaz."
5. "Preface to the book of Damascene "Heaven" edited by Prince Obolensky in "Bibliographical Notes" 1858 No. 12).
6. “Notes (in the margins) to translations from Chrysostom and Damascus” (printed by Prof. A. Arkhangelsky in the “Appendices” to the “Essays on the History of Western Russian Literature”, in the “Readings of General and Historical and Ancient.” 1888 No. 1).
7. "History of the Council of Florence", compilation; printed in "Tale." pp. 261-8; about her, see 2 articles by S.P. Shevyrev - “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, 1841, book. I, and “Moskvityanin” 1841, vol. III.

In addition to selected works of Chrysostom (“Margarit the New”; see about him “Slavic-Russian manuscripts” by Undolsky, M., 1870), Kurbsky translated the dialogue of Patr. Gennady, Theology, Dialectics and other works of Damascus (see article by A. Arkhangelsky in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education” 1888, No. 8), some of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, excerpts from Eusebius and so on.

One of the secrets of Ivan the Terrible

The elected Rada is a concept that refers to the unofficial body of 1547-1560 under Ivan IV, which was the de facto state government. The reason for the emergence of this system was the awareness by the king and aristocrats of the urgent need for reforms in the state. The understanding of this was prompted by popular riots in Moscow in 1547, as a result of which the townspeople did not hesitate to kill

royal relatives. In the same year, a circle of people formed around the monarch - the Elected Rada, the purpose of which was to prepare and carry out reforms to restore order in the state, as well as develop the state apparatus, centralize power and take control of the situation in the country. This body included noble boyars, nobles, who then represented themselves as courtyard royal and boyar servants, clergy, and also, obviously, some government officials: Prince Kurbsky, confessor Sylvester, nobleman Adashev, Metropolitan Macarius, clerk Viskovaty and others. Full composition This unofficial government is unknown to us. And the name comes from a later work by Andrei Kurbsky on Polish language while fleeing.

The elected Rada and its reforms

Its main actions were the following:

Creation of a legal code that went down in history under the name “Code of Laws of 1550”.

The power of the tsarist administration was strengthened, and court fees were regulated. The same code of law establishes new types of orders: petition, local, robbery, printed and others.

Religious reform: unification of church canons in all Russian lands. Usury is prohibited among priests.

Military reform of 1556, in connection with which new regular troops were created - archers and gunners. A uniform order of service was established.

Reform local government in 1556.

The Chosen Rada and the Oprichnina

The reason for this unofficial fall was disagreements with the tsar over issues of centralization of power. If Ivan the Terrible intended to achieve this goal as quickly as possible, to accelerate the processes of absolutization of the monarchy, then the Elected Rada mainly advocated evolutionary changes regulated by reforms. This issue has become the most global controversy. The growing personal hostility of the government and the tsar also played a role here. Thus, the Elected Rada had disagreements with his first wife Anastasia Yuryeva, after whose quick death the tsar accused members of the government of driving her away from the world. All this prompted the fall of the Rada, the last reforms of which occurred in 1560. Five years after the elimination of this body, during the Livonian War, one of the prominent members of the former Elected Rada - Andrei Kurbsky - goes over to the side of the Poles. The reason that prompted the defector was the increasing centralization of power in the country and the opinion that the tsar was trampling on the ancient liberties of the boyars. In response, the tsar creates another, more obedient, in contrast to the Elected Rada, and a corps of guardsmen that meets his aspirations. Over the next few years, an unprecedented struggle began in the Moscow state to eliminate the boyar layer. Such actions had both a moral foundation and methods of physical violence.

Kurbsky’s boyars are some kind of chosen brethren on whom the grace of God rests. The prince prophesies retribution to the king, which again is God’s punishment: “Don’t think, king, don’t think of us with fussy thoughts, like those who have already died, beaten innocently by you, and imprisoned and driven away without truth; not rejoicing in this, but rather boasting of my skinny victory... those who were driven away from you without righteousness from the earth to God cry out against you day and night!”

Kurbsky's biblical comparisons were by no means literary metaphors; they posed a terrible threat to Ivan. In order to fully appreciate the radicalism of the accusations hurled at the Tsar by Kurbsky, it should be remembered that at that time the recognition of the sovereign as a wicked man and a servant of the Antichrist automatically freed his subjects from the oath of allegiance, and the fight against such power was made a sacred duty for every Christian.

And indeed, Grozny, having received this message, was alarmed. He responded to the accuser with a letter, which takes up two-thirds (!) of the total volume of correspondence. He called upon all his learning to help. Who and what is not on these endless pages! Extracts from Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church are given in lines and entire chapters; the names of Moses, David, Isaiah, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Joshua, Gideon, Abimelech, Jeuthai are adjacent to the names of Zeus, Apollo, Antenor, Aeneas; incoherent episodes from Jewish, Roman, Byzantine history are interspersed with events from the history of Western European peoples - the Vandals, the Goths, the French, and this historical jumble is sometimes interspersed with news gleaned from Russian chronicles...

The kaleidoscopic change of pictures, the chaotic accumulation of quotes and examples reveals the extreme excitement of the author; Kurbsky had every right to call this letter a “broadcast and loud message.”

But this, as Klyuchevsky puts it, a frothy stream of texts, reflections, memories, lyrical digressions, this collection of all sorts of things, this learned porridge, flavored with theological and political aphorisms, and sometimes salted with subtle irony and harsh sarcasm, are such only at first glance. Grozny pursues his main idea steadily and consistently. It is simple and at the same time comprehensive: autocracy and Orthodoxy are one; whoever attacks the first is the enemy of the second.

“Your letter has been received and read carefully,” the king writes. “The venom of the asp is under your tongue, and your letter is filled with the honey of words, but it contains the bitterness of wormwood.” Are you so accustomed, Christian, to serving a Christian sovereign? You write at the beginning so that those who find themselves opposed to Orthodoxy and have a leper conscience can understand. Like demons, from my youth you have shaken my piety and stolen the sovereign power given to me by God.” This theft of power, according to Ivan, is the fall of the boyars, an attempt on the Divine order of the universal order.

“After all,” the king continues, “in your unstructured letter you repeat everything the same thing, turning different words around, this way and that, your dear thought, so that slaves, in addition to the masters, have power... Is this a leper conscience, so that the kingdom to hold what is yours in your own hand, and not let your slaves rule? Is it contrary to reason - not to want to be owned by your slaves? Is it true Orthodoxy to be under the rule of slaves?

Grozny's political and life philosophy is expressed with almost disarming directness and simplicity. The strong in Israel, the wise advisers - all this is from the demon; the universe of Grozny knows one ruler - himself, everyone else is slaves, and no one else except slaves. Slaves, as it should be, are obstinate and crafty, which is why autocracy is unthinkable without religious and moral content, only it is the true and only pillar of Orthodoxy.

In the end, the efforts of the royal power are aimed at saving the souls subject to it: “I strive with zeal to direct people to the truth and to the light, so that they may know the one true God, glorified in the Trinity, and from God the sovereign given to them, and from internecine warfare and obstinate living they will fall behind, by which the kingdom is destroyed; for if the king’s subjects do not obey, then internecine warfare will never cease.”

The king is higher than the priest, for the priesthood is spirit, and the kingdom is spirit and flesh, life itself in its fullness. To judge the king is to condemn life, whose laws and order are predetermined from above. Reproaching the king for shedding blood is tantamount to an attack on his duty to preserve the Divine law, the highest truth. To doubt the justice of the king already means falling into heresy, “like a dog barking and vomiting the venom of a viper,” for “the king is a thunderstorm not for good, but for evil deeds; If you want not to be afraid of power, do good, but if you do evil, be afraid, for the king does not wear a sword in vain, but to punish the evil and encourage the good.”

This understanding of the tasks of royal power is not alien to greatness, but is internally contradictory, since it presupposes the official duties of the sovereign to society; Ivan wants to be a master, and only a master: “We are free to favor our slaves and we are free to execute them.” The stated goal of absolute justice comes into conflict with the desire for absolute freedom, and as a result, absolute power turns into absolute arbitrariness. The man in Ivan still triumphs over the sovereign, will over reason, passion over thought.

Ivan's political philosophy is based on a deep historical feeling. History for him is always Sacred history, move historical development reveals the pre-eternal Providence unfolding in time and space. Autocracy for Ivan is not only a Divine decree, but also an primordial fact of world and Russian history: “Our autocracy began with Saint Vladimir; we were born and raised in the kingdom, we possess our own, and did not steal someone else’s; Russian autocrats from the beginning own their kingdoms themselves, and not the boyars and nobles.”

The gentry republic, so dear to Kurbsky’s heart, is not only madness, but also heresy, foreigners are both religious and political heretics, encroaching on the state order established from above: “Godless pagans (Western European sovereigns - S. Ts.) .. ... they do not own all their kingdoms: as their workers command them, so they own.” The Ecumenical King of Orthodoxy is holy not so much because he is pious, but mainly because he is a king.

Having opened their souls, confessed and cried to each other, Grozny and Kurbsky, nevertheless, hardly understood each other. The prince asked: “Why do you beat your faithful servants?” The king replied: “I received my autocracy from God and from my parents.” But it must be admitted that in defending his convictions, Ivan the Terrible showed much more polemical brilliance and political foresight: his sovereign hand lay on the pulse of the times. They parted each with their own convictions. In parting, Kurbsky promised Ivan that he would show him his face only at the Last Judgment. The king responded mockingly: “Who wants to see such an Ethiopian face?” The topic for conversation, in general, was exhausted.

Both left it to History, that is, to the visible and indisputable manifestation of Providence, to reveal that they were right. The tsar sent the next message to Kurbsky in 1577 from Volmar - the city from which the eloquent traitor once threw down a polemical gauntlet to him. The campaign of 1577 was one of the most successful during the Livonian War, and Ivan the Terrible compared himself to the long-suffering Job, whom God finally forgave.

Staying in Volmar became one of the signs of Divine grace poured onto the head of the sinner. Kurbsky, apparently shocked by God's favor towards the tyrant, so obviously manifested, found something to answer only after the defeat of the Russian army near Kesyu in the fall of 1578: in his letter, the prince borrowed Ivan's thesis that God helps the righteous.

It was in this pious conviction that he died.

List of used literature:

1. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. Book 3 (vol. 7 – 9). –

Rostov n/d, 1995. – 544 p.

2. Klyuchevsky V. O. Russian history. Book 3. – Moscow, 1995. – 572 p.

3. History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook for universities / Under the general

edited by V. S. Nersesyants. - Moscow, 1995. - 736 p.

4. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861 / Ed. N.I.

Pavlenko. – Moscow, 1996. – 559.

5. History of Russia from antiquity to the present day / Ed. M. N. Zueva. –

Prince Kurbsky Andrei Mikhailovich is a famous Russian politician, commander, writer and translator, the closest associate of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible. In 1564, during the Livonian War, he fled from possible disgrace to Poland, where he was accepted into the service of King Sigismund II Augustus. Subsequently he fought against Muscovy.

Family tree

Prince Rostislav Smolensky was the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh himself and was the ancestor of two eminent families - the Smolensk and Vyazemsky families. The first of them had several branches, one of which was the Kurbsky family, who reigned in Yaroslavl from the 13th century. According to legend, this surname came from the main village called Kurby. This inheritance went to Yakov Ivanovich. All that is known about this man is that he died in 1455 on the Arsk field, bravely fighting with the Kazan people. After his death, the inheritance passed into the possession of his brother Semyon, who served with Grand Duke Vasily.

In turn, he had two sons - Dmitry and Fyodor, who were in the service of Prince Ivan III. The last of them was the Nizhny Novgorod governor. His sons were brave warriors, but only Mikhail, who bore the nickname Karamysh, had children. Together with his brother Roman, he died in 1506 in battles near Kazan. Semyon Fedorovich also fought against the Kazan and Lithuanians. He was a boyar Vasily III and sharply condemned the prince’s decision to tonsure his wife Solomiya as a nun.

One of Karamysh's sons, Mikhail, was often appointed to various command positions during campaigns. The last military campaign in his life was the 1545 campaign against Lithuania. He left behind two sons - Andrei and Ivan, who later successfully continued the family military traditions. Ivan Mikhailovich was seriously wounded, but did not leave the battlefield and continued to fight. It must be said that numerous injuries seriously undermined his health, and a year later he died.

An interesting fact is that no matter how many historians write about Ivan IV, they will definitely remember Andrei Mikhailovich - perhaps the most famous representative of his family and the tsar’s closest ally. Until now, researchers are arguing about who Prince Kurbsky really is: a friend or enemy of Ivan the Terrible?

Biography

No information about his childhood years has been preserved, and no one would have been able to accurately determine Andrei Mikhailovich’s date of birth if he himself had not casually mentioned it in one of his works. And he was born in the autumn of 1528. It is not surprising that for the first time Prince Kurbsky, whose biography was associated with frequent military campaigns, was mentioned in documents in connection with the next campaign of 1549. In the army of Tsar Ivan IV he had the rank of steward.

He was not yet 21 years old when he took part in the campaign against Kazan. Perhaps Kurbsky was able to immediately become famous for his military exploits on the battlefields, because a year later the sovereign made him a governor and sent him to Pronsk to protect the southeastern borders of the country. Soon, as a reward either for military merit, or for a promise to arrive at the first call with his detachment of soldiers, Ivan the Terrible granted Andrei Mikhailovich lands located near Moscow.

First victories

It is known that the Kazan Tatars, starting from the reign of Ivan III, quite often raided Russian settlements. And this despite the fact that Kazan was formally dependent on the Moscow princes. In 1552 Russian army was again convened for another battle with the rebellious Kazan people. Around the same time, the army of the Crimean Khan appeared in the south of the state. The enemy army came close to Tula and besieged it. Tsar Ivan the Terrible decided to stay with the main forces near Kolomna, and send a 15,000-strong army commanded by Shchenyatev and Andrei Kurbsky to the rescue of the besieged city.

The Russian troops took the khan by surprise with their unexpected appearance, so he had to retreat. However, near Tula there still remained a significant detachment of Crimeans, mercilessly plundering the outskirts of the city, not suspecting that the main troops of the khan had gone to the steppe. Immediately Andrei Mikhailovich decided to attack the enemy, although he had half as many warriors. According to surviving documents, this battle lasted an hour and a half, and Prince Kurbsky emerged victorious.

The result of this battle was a large loss of enemy troops: half of the 30,000-strong detachment died during the battle, and the rest were either captured or drowned while crossing Shivoron. Kurbsky himself fought along with his subordinates, as a result of which he received several wounds. However, within a week he was back in action and even went on a hike. This time his path ran through Ryazan lands. He was faced with the task of protecting the main forces from sudden attacks by the steppe inhabitants.

Siege of Kazan

In the autumn of 1552, Russian troops approached Kazan. Shchenyatev and Kurbsky were appointed regiment commanders Right hand. Their detachments were located across the Kazanka River. This area turned out to be unprotected, so the regiment suffered heavy losses as a result of fire opened at them from the city. In addition, Russian soldiers had to repel attacks by the Cheremis, who often came from the rear.

On September 2, the assault on Kazan began, during which Prince Kurbsky and his warriors had to stand on the Elbugin Gate so that the besieged would not be able to escape from the city. Numerous attempts by enemy troops to break through the guarded area were largely repulsed. Only a small part of the enemy soldiers managed to escape from the fortress. Andrei Mikhailovich and his soldiers rushed in pursuit. He fought bravely, and only a serious wound forced him to finally leave the battlefield.

Two years later, Kurbsky again went to the Kazan lands, this time to pacify the rebels. It must be said that the campaign turned out to be very difficult, since the troops had to make their way off-road and fight in wooded areas, but the prince coped with the task, after which he returned to the capital with victory. It was for this feat that Ivan the Terrible promoted him to boyar.

At this time, Prince Kurbsky was one of the people closest to Tsar Ivan IV. Gradually, he became close to Adashev and Sylvester, representatives of the reformer party, and also became one of the sovereign’s advisers, entering the Elected Rada. In 1556, he took part in a new military campaign against the Cheremis and again returned from the campaign as a winner. First, he was appointed governor of the Left Hand regiment, which was stationed in Kaluga, and a little later he took command of the Right Hand regiment, located in Kashira.

War with Livonia

It was this circumstance that forced Andrei Mikhailovich to return to combat formation again. At first he was appointed to command the Storozhevoy, and a little later the Advanced Regiment, with which he took part in the capture of Yuryev and Neuhaus. In the spring of 1559, he returned to Moscow, where they soon decided to send him to serve on the southern border of the state.

The victorious war with Livonia did not last long. When failures began to fall one after another, the tsar summoned Kurbsky and made him commander of the entire army fighting in Livonia. It must be said that the new commander immediately began to act decisively. Without waiting for the main forces, he was the first to attack the enemy detachment, located not far from Weissenstein, and won a convincing victory.

Without thinking twice, Prince Kurbsky makes a new decision - to fight the enemy troops, which were personally led by the master of the famous Livonian Order himself. Russian troops bypassed the enemy from the rear and, despite the night time, attacked him. Soon the firefight with the Livonians escalated into hand-to-hand combat. And here the victory was for Kurbsky. After a ten-day respite, the Russian troops moved on.

Having reached Fellin, the prince ordered to burn its outskirts and then begin a siege of the city. In this battle, Landmarshal of the Order F. Schall von Belle, who was rushing to help the besieged, was captured. He was immediately sent to Moscow with a covering letter from Kurbsky. In it, Andrei Mikhailovich asked not to kill the land marshal, since he considered him an intelligent, brave and courageous person. This message suggests that the Russian prince was a noble warrior who not only knew how to fight well, but also treated worthy opponents with great respect. However, despite this, Ivan the Terrible still executed the Livonian. Yes, this is not surprising, since around the same time the government of Adashev and Sylvester was eliminated, and the advisers themselves, their associates and friends were executed.

Defeat

Andrei Mikhailovich took Fellin Castle in three weeks, after which he went to Vitebsk, and then to Nevel. Here luck turned against him and he was defeated. However, the royal correspondence with Prince Kurbsky indicates that Ivan IV did not intend to accuse him of treason. The king was not angry with him for his unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Helmet. The fact is that if this event had been given great importance, then this would have been mentioned in one of the letters.

Nevertheless, it was then that the prince first thought about what would happen to him when the king learned of the failures that had befallen him. Knowing well the strong character of the ruler, he understood perfectly well: if he defeats his enemies, nothing will threaten him, but in case of defeat he can quickly fall out of favor and end up on the chopping block. Although, in truth, apart from compassion for the disgraced, there was nothing to blame him for.

Judging by the fact that after the defeat at Nevel, Ivan IV appointed Andrei Mikhailovich as governor of Yuryev, the tsar did not intend to punish him. However, Prince Kurbsky fled to Poland from the tsar’s wrath, as he felt that sooner or later the sovereign’s wrath would fall on his head. The king highly valued the prince’s military exploits, so he once called him into his service, promising him a good reception and a luxurious life.

Escape

Kurbsky increasingly began to think about the proposal until, at the end of April 1564, he decided to secretly flee to Volmar. His followers and even servants went with him. Sigismund II received them well, and rewarded the prince himself with estates with the right of inheritance.

Having learned that Prince Kurbsky had fled from the tsar’s wrath, Ivan the Terrible unleashed all his rage on the relatives of Andrei Mikhailovich who remained here. All of them suffered a difficult fate. To justify his cruelty, he accused Kurbsky of treason, violating the kiss of the cross, as well as kidnapping his wife Anastasia and wanting to reign in Yaroslavl himself. Ivan IV was able to prove only the first two facts, but he clearly invented the rest in order to justify his actions in the eyes of Lithuanian and Polish nobles.

Life in exile

Having entered the service of King Sigismund II, Kurbsky almost immediately began to occupy high military positions. Less than six months later, he already fought against Muscovy. With Lithuanian troops he took part in the campaign against Velikie Luki and defended Volyn from the Tatars. In 1576, Andrei Mikhailovich commanded a large detachment that was part of the troops of the Grand Duke who fought with the Russian army near Polotsk.

In Poland, Kurbsky lived almost all the time in Milyanovichi, near Kovel. He entrusted the management of his lands to trusted persons. In his free time from military campaigns, he was engaged in scientific research, giving preference to works on mathematics, astronomy, philosophy and theology, as well as studying Greek and Latin.

It is a known fact that the fugitive Prince Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible corresponded. The first letter was sent to the king in 1564. He was brought to Moscow by Andrei Mikhailovich’s faithful servant Vasily Shibanov, who was subsequently tortured and executed. In his messages, the prince expressed his deep indignation at those unjust persecutions, as well as the numerous executions of innocent people who served the sovereign faithfully. In turn, Ivan IV defended the absolute right to pardon or execute any of his subjects at his own discretion.

The correspondence between the two opponents lasted for 15 years and ended in 1579. The letters themselves, the well-known pamphlet entitled “The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow” and the rest of Kurbsky’s works were written by a literate literary language. In addition, they contain very valuable information about the era of the reign of one of the most cruel rulers in Russian history.

Already living in Poland, the prince married a second time. In 1571, he married the rich widow Kozinskaya. However, this marriage did not last long and ended in divorce. For the third time, Kurbsky married a poor woman named Semashko. From this union the prince had a son and daughter.

Shortly before his death, the prince took part in another campaign against Moscow under the leadership of But this time he did not have to fight - having reached almost the border with Russia, he became seriously ill and was forced to turn back. Andrei Mikhailovich died in 1583. He was buried on the territory of the monastery located near Kovel.

All his life he was an ardent supporter of Orthodoxy. Kurbsky's proud, stern and irreconcilable character greatly contributed to the fact that he had many enemies among the Lithuanian and Polish nobility. He constantly quarreled with his neighbors and often seized their lands, and covered the royal envoys with Russian abuse.

Soon after the death of Andrei Kurbsky, his confidant, Prince Konstantin Ostrozhsky, also died. From that moment on, the Polish government began to gradually take away the property from his widow and son, until finally it took Kovel too. Court hearings on this matter lasted several years. As a result, his son Dmitry managed to return part of the lost lands, after which he converted to Catholicism.

Opinions about him as a politician and a person are often diametrically opposed. Some consider him an inveterate conservative with an extremely narrow and limited outlook, who supported the boyars in everything and opposed the tsarist autocracy. In addition, his flight to Poland is regarded as a kind of prudence associated with the great worldly benefits that King Sigismund Augustus promised him. Andrei Kurbsky is even suspected of the insincerity of his judgments, which he set out in numerous works that were entirely aimed at maintaining Orthodoxy.

Many historians are inclined to think that the prince was, after all, an extremely intelligent and educated man, as well as sincere and honest, always on the side of good and justice. For such character traits they began to call him “the first Russian dissident.” Since the reasons for the disagreement between him and Ivan the Terrible, as well as the legends of Prince Kurbsky themselves, have not been fully studied, the controversy over the identity of this famous politician that time will last for a long time.

The well-known Polish heraldist and historian Simon Okolsky, who lived in the 17th century, also expressed his opinion on this issue. His characterization of Prince Kurbsky boiled down to the following: it was for real great person, and not only because he was related to royal house and held the highest military and government positions, but also because of valor, since he won several significant victories. In addition, the historian wrote about the prince as truly happy man. Judge for yourself: he, an exile and fugitive boyar, received him with extraordinary honors Polish king Sigismund II Augustus.

Until now, the reasons for the flight and betrayal of Prince Kurbsky are of keen interest to researchers, since the personality of this man is ambiguous and multifaceted. Another proof that Andrei Mikhailovich had a remarkable mind can be served by the fact that, being no longer young, he managed to learn the Latin language, which until that time he did not know at all.

In the first volume of the book called Orbis Poloni, which was published in 1641 in Krakow, the same Simon Okolsky placed the coat of arms of the Kurbsky princes (in the Polish version - Krupsky) and gave an explanation for it. He believed that this heraldic sign was Russian in origin. It is worth noting that in the Middle Ages the image of a lion could often be found on the coats of arms of the nobility in different states. In ancient Russian heraldry, this animal was considered a symbol of nobility, courage, moral and military virtues. Therefore, it is not surprising that it was the lion that was depicted on the princely coat of arms of the Kurbskys.

Page 10 of 19

Chapter 9
MYTH ABOUT THE FIRST RUSSIAN “HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER” - PRINCE OF KURBSKY

Here we come close to an event that is not only the most famous in the long series of boyar conspiracies and betrayals of the era of Ivan IV, but perhaps the most vile in national history, comparable, perhaps, only with the actions of General Vlasov. In the spring of 1564, the main sovereign governor in Livonia, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, went over to the enemy’s side. How low the hero of the capture of Kazan fell is evidenced by the fact that his flight did not happen at all as brightly, boldly, angrily, in front of the entire army, as the proud nobleman Mikhail Glinsky once tried to do near Orsha. Kurbsky fled precisely as a traitor, as an oathbreaker - in fear, secretly, under the bashful cover of the dark night.

Trying to convey this moment as romantically and touchingly as possible - when, after kissing last time wife and little son, the prince jumped (with the help of servants) over the high city wall of Yuriev (Tartu), to “where saddled horses were already waiting for him”... Edward Radzinsky says that Andrei Mikhailovich decided on this escape solely for the sake of salvation own life, frightened by the news from Moscow, where, according to the author, “the ax and the block worked quickly”... Meanwhile, history recorded: “in Kurbsky’s homeland before last day was not directly persecuted." On the contrary, it was the tsar himself who appointed him in the spring of last year, 1563, as his chief governor in Livonia - immediately after the end of the Polotsk campaign. And, by the way, the noble prince was very dissatisfied with this appointment: after a difficult campaign, he wanted to rest, and Ivan allocated only a month for training...

The fear that forced the “burly prince,” as an ordinary adventurer, clinging to a rope, to climb over the high fortress wall of a medieval city, the fear that forced him to abandon his family, huge family estates and, most importantly, enormous power, was of a completely different kind - it was the “fear of exposure ". But our restless researcher of historical mysteries of all times and peoples also kept silent about him. And this is understandable. After all, if he had told, even briefly, about the real preconditions and circumstances of the flight of Andrei Kurbsky, as well as about his further life in the Polish-Lithuanian state, the portrait of the “first human rights activist” so lovingly painted by the author would have faded greatly, very much. Portrait of Prince Kurbsky, in whose loud dispute with Ivan the Terrible Mr. Radzinsky saw “the first Russian polemic about freedom, about power, about general servility in Rus'.” (The idea, by the way, is far from new. Even N.A. Dobrolyubov considered Kurbsky the first Russian liberal, whose works were written “partly under the influence of Western ideas” and with which Russia “celebrated the beginning of its deliverance from Eastern stagnation.”

Well, it is well known: Kurbsky “belonged to the number of the most educated people of his time,” not inferior in erudition to the Terrible Tsar himself. “It was precisely this same erudition, the same passion for books that previously served as the strongest connection between them.” She also gave the opportunity for their correspondence dialogue-dispute. “Kurbsky did not want to leave in silence, to part with Ivan in silence: he challenged him to a verbal duel. A correspondence precious for historians began, because it expressed not only the personal... relations of the opponents, it... revealed the historical connection of the phenomena.” For the first time, the remarkable Russian historian S.M. analyzed this correspondence in detail (and most objectively). Soloviev. Scrupulously, step by step, argument by argument, considering the passionate, largely biased accusations put forward to Tsar Kurbsky, and the deeply substantiated (although no less passionate) responses to them by Ivan himself, the historian first of all came to the conclusion that the critic of the Tsar was by no means a “supporter of progress,” but, on the contrary, of the old “tribal relations” of the times of specific fragmentation. For Kurbsky, the only true “Orthodox kingdom” was one where the tsar rules together with his nobility. Ivan the Terrible left this “ideal”, becoming an autocratic ruler, and this is the main thing that “the descendant of the princes of Yaroslavl and Smolensk... who fell victims of John IV, his father and grandfather,” could not forgive his former friend, wrote SM. Soloviev. For details of this most interesting analysis let the attentive reader himself turn to his fundamental “History of Russia” (Book III, M, I960. pp. 536-550). Here we would like to emphasize the main thing.

With fierce hatred, denouncing the autocratic aspirations of the tsar, his persistent attempts, having removed the boyars from government, to create such a strong, centralized mechanism of power that would protect the main interests of the entire population of the country, and not just individual classes, Kurbsky is indeed western (specifically, Polish) manner defended rights - exclusive rights to power only for the aristocracy, only for a select circle of people called “wise advisers”, and to whom the sovereign himself was obliged to obey. No duty, no service to national tasks, the complete and undeniable right to “depart” (i.e. leave) to another ruler - this is the only freedom, and again only for the nobility (but in no way - God forbid! - not for slaves), suited the noble prince. Indeed, a liberal!...

However, even better than the messages filled with criticism of the abuses of the Terrible Tsar, his own “acts” speak about Kurbsky’s political beliefs and moral values, many of which are not remembered in popular literature as often as the “atrocities” of Ivan IV. So let the reader forgive us this lengthy digression...

The proud scion of the ancient family of Yaroslavl princes - representatives of the senior branch of the Rurikovichs, Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky was 36 years old when he supposedly completely unexpectedly decided to leave the Fatherland. But authentic historical documents irrefutably testify: Prince Kurbsky planned to flee from the Russian state at least a year and a half before the indicated time - obviously, just when Grozny increasingly began to limit the privileges of the princely-boyar elite. Kurbsky, as we said above, was unequivocally against such actions of the tsar. This ultimately led to their breakup, making two longtime friends the most irreconcilable enemies. Realizing that, despite his high position, he could no longer convince Ivan or resist him, the prince decided to take evil revenge on Ivan the Terrible for the desecrated boyar honor. He thought everything through well...

Although it has not yet been finally clarified who took the very first step, who sent the first letter, the fact remains: the commander of the Russian troops in Livonia, Prince Kurbsky, for a long time personally conducted secret correspondence with the enemy of Rus' - King Sigismund Augustus, carefully stipulating the terms of his going over to his side. First, Andrei Mikhailovich obtained the so-called “closed sheets”, i.e. secret letters (though without the corresponding seals) from the king himself, Hetman N. Radziwill and Lithuanian sub-chancellor E. Volovich. All three invited Kurbsky to leave Muscovy and move to Lithuania. When the prince gave his consent, the king and hetman sent him “open sheets” to Yuryev (Dorpt, Tartu) - officially certified letters with seals, containing an invitation to come and a promise of “royal affection” (mercy) along with a substantial reward. Only after this double invitation did the prince make his famous escape, appearing in Lithuania not at all as a persecuted victim of “royal tyranny,” but precisely as a traitor and perjurer.

However, counting on the royal “affection”, Kurbsky preferred to have something “for his soul”. The historian notes: even a year before his escape, while being the governor in Yuryev, the prince turned to the Pechora Monastery with a request for large loan, and the monks, of course, did not refuse the powerful governor, thanks to which he “appeared abroad with a bag of gold. In his wallet they found a huge amount of money in foreign coins for those times - 30 ducats, 300 gold, 500 silver thalers and only 44 Moscow rubles." In his book R.G. Skrynnikov cites on this occasion the opinion of the American researcher E. Keenan, who also “revolted against the myth of the persecuted and persecuted sufferer Kurbsky. The boyar left his wife in Russia, but this, according to E. Keenan, was not forced. He fled with at least three horses and managed to grab twelve bags full of goods. It’s clear... Kurbsky took what and who he considered necessary for his future life abroad.”

The desired foreign country, however, did not greet him hospitably. Leaving Yuriev at night, Kurbsky with a small detachment of loyal people who followed him (12 people in total) reached the Livonian castle of Helmet in the morning - to take a guide there to Volmar, where royal officials were waiting for the fugitives. But... the Helmetic Germans acted in a completely “uncivilized” way: they captured and robbed a noble defector, taking all his gold. Only after this, says the historian, were the arrested fugitives taken to the authorities - to Armus Castle - to be sorted out. The archives of the city of Riga still keep a neat record of the testimony given then by Prince Kurbsky...

Kurbsky, robbed to the bone, will take out his anger and disappointment with such a “reception” the very next day, finally finding himself in Volmar and immediately starting to write a message to his former friend the king: “... I was deprived of everything and driven away from God’s earth by you! .. (But) do not think, king, do not think of us as lost. Driven away (by you) without truth... we cry out to God day and night against you!”

“In Lithuania, the fugitive boyar first of all stated that he considered it his duty to bring to the attention of the king about the “intrigues of Moscow”, which should be “immediately stopped.” Kurbsky handed over to the Lithuanians all Livonian supporters of Moscow, with whom he himself had negotiated, and named the names of Moscow intelligence officers at the royal court.” Moreover. “On the advice of Kurbsky, the king set the Crimean Tatars against Russia, and then sent his troops to Polotsk. Kurbsky participated in this invasion. A few months later, with a detachment of Lithuanians, he crossed the Russian borders for the second time. As evidenced by the newly found archival documents, the prince, thanks to his good knowledge of the area, managed to surround the Russian corps, drove it into a swamp and defeated it. The easy victory turned the boyar's head. He persistently asked the king to give him an army of 30 thousand, with which he intended to capture Moscow. If there are still some suspicions towards him, Kurbsky declared, he agrees to be chained to a cart during the campaign, surrounded in front and behind by archers with loaded guns, so that they would immediately shoot him if they notice his intention to escape; on this cart... he will ride in front, lead, direct the army and lead it to the goal (to Moscow), let only the army follow him.” These cited by R.G. Skrynnikov's personal confessions of Prince Kurbsky - from the State Archive of Latvia...

Why did the hitherto so proud and independent prince, who did not want to humble himself under the rule of the Russian autocrat, strive so humiliatingly, so servilely and persistently to prove his loyalty to the new sovereign? This riddle is revealed simply. Even Tsar Ivan, responding to Kurbsky’s message, quite rightly noted that seditious people and traitors are not trusted anywhere in the world, in any state, and in most cases are shamefully “hanged like dogs.” After all, he who betrayed once can betray a second time... This was confirmed by everyone future fate Kurbsky. Having spent almost twenty years in Poland, the prince, despite all his efforts, was unable to achieve either the strong trust of the king or the high position that he occupied in Moscow, making himself an outcast until the end of his life...

Distrust in the defector began to show itself immediately upon his arrival on the territory of Poland-Lithuania. For all the services provided by Kurbsky to the Polish crown, as well as in compensation for damages for the estates abandoned in Rus', King Sigismund Augustus issued Kurbsky a charter on July 4, 1564 for the Kovelskoe estate (located in Volyn), as a result of which he immediately began to loudly call himself in all letters “to the Prince of Yaroslavl and Kovel.” At the same time, the newly created “Prince of Kovelsky” did not notice (or did not want to notice) that the charter, in fact, appointed him only as the royal manager of the Kovel estate, and not as a full owner. In the charter, for example, there was no mention that Kurbsky could freely dispose of the estate (donate, sell, mortgage), that it was given to him and his descendants “for eternity” with the right of inheritance. Finally, for the charter to come into effect, the king’s will alone, according to Lithuanian laws, was not enough - it had to be approved by the General Sejm. The act of appointing Kurbsky as king to the eldership of Krevskoye was completely illegal. According to the Lithuanian statute, the king did not have the right to distribute any positions to foreigners. (That’s when Kurbsky had to feel that in reality there was a “synclitsky council” under the sovereign, so praised by him.) All this, we repeat, the prince chose not to notice then - obviously, as something completely insignificant, not worthy of his attention. However, life itself very soon reminded Andrei Mikhailovich who is who now...

Having arbitrarily assigned himself the title of “Prince Kovelsky” and, in all likelihood, immediately forgetting all his liberalism, Kurbsky began to manage there as a true appanage patrimonial landowner - cynically and harshly, demanding unquestioning slavish submission from everyone and everything. But the rich Kovel volost (together with the adjacent Vizhov volost and the town of Milyanovichi) that came under his control was not inhabited by slaves at all. In addition to the peasants, there lived small nobles, townspeople, Jews - people who had long been personally free and enjoyed various privileges and liberties, both on the basis of Magdeburg law and on the basis of charters of former kings. No decrees of Sigismund-August could subordinate these people to Kurbsky. And therefore, a real war immediately began between the prince and the population of the volosts given to him to manage. Protesting against the extortions and oppression by Kurbsky, the residents of Kovel literally inundated the city magistrate with complaints against him. (Some of these complaints, by the way, were published in the above-mentioned Collection of Documents. While working on the image of his freedom-loving “hero,” it would also be useful for Mr. Radzinsky to familiarize himself with them.) Especially acute conflict happened to Kurbsky with Kovel Jews, from whom he illegally extorted large sums of money. When they refused to pay him, the enraged prince ordered his constable (manager) Ivan Kelemet (a nobleman who fled with him from Russia) to dig a large hole in the courtyard of the Kovalsky castle, fill it with water and leeches, and then put the Jews in this hole, holding them there until they agree to pay the required money. As documents testify, “the screams of the tortured were heard even outside the castle walls.” In view of such blatant arbitrariness, the Jewish community of the neighboring city of Vladimir stood up for their fellow tribesmen, sending their representatives to Kovel with demands to stop torture and restore legal order in accordance with royal privileges. But the one who came out to them. Kelemet calmly declared that he did not want to know any of their “privileges”, that he did everything exclusively on the orders of his prince, and the prince could punish his subjects as he pleased, even with death, and neither the king nor anyone else had anything to do with this affairs...

The denouement of this conflict occurred already at the Lublin Sejm, where the Kovel community sent its deputies and where Andrei Kurbsky was present at the same time. A complaint was officially filed against the prince to the king himself. But... even during the litigation that began, the prince, not at all embarrassed and not considering himself guilty, continued to assert that he acted completely legally, for he had full ownership rights “to the Kovel volost and its inhabitants” (this is how the prince obviously understood real freedom -liberal...). In such a situation, the king had no choice but to simply order Kurbsky to leave the Jews alone and, most importantly, with his special decree, to explain to the obstinate how limited his “rights” to the Kovel estate, given to him only for maintenance, were actually limited, so that he served the king. Upon the death of Kurbsky, in the absence of a male heir, it must again go to the treasury. So, finally, they put a proud supporter of the boyar freemen in his place.

However, the above facts are far from all the “exploits” of Andrei Mikhailovich. - Since Kovel alone was clearly not enough for him, accustomed to living on a grand scale and splendor, he, in an effort to strengthen his financial situation, Prince Kurbsky got married in 1571. At first he married successfully, although bypassing canonical laws (after all, he still had a wife and child in Russia, and no one gave him a divorce, except, probably, his own conscience). He married the richest widow - Maria Yuryevna Montolt-Kozinskaya, nee Princess Golshanskaya (a very famous surname in Poland). Before this, Maria Yuryevna had already buried two spouses, owned truly countless treasures, which she wrote down all in the marriage contract for her new husband, expressing her “sincere love and zeal for his mercy to the prince.” True, having become rich and becoming related to the native Polish gentry, Kurbsky soon experienced the gentry's hardships. The fact is that in the Golshansky family there were eternal strife over the largest family estate - Dubrovitsky. His sisters, princesses Maria and Anna Golshansky, owned it inseparably, and therefore constantly quarreled among themselves over it. Anna Yuryevna's husband, Olizar Mylsky, often intervened in these quarrels, committing robbery raids and robbing Maria Yuryevna's peasants. And the sisters themselves were not at all disdainful of “entertainment” of this kind. Anna Yuryevna more than once personally commanded a detachment of her armed servants in dashing raids on her sister’s lands2. Maria Yurievna did not remain in debt either. Once, having ambushed her on the road, she robbed a relative completely. Now that Kurbsky became the official owner of his wife’s family estates, all the enmity of Maria Golshanskaya’s relatives and children from her first marriages transferred to Kurbsky himself. To the open raids and robberies were added constant denunciations to the authorities, dirty gossip, which relatives did not hesitate to spread around the “newlyweds” couple. And Maria’s sons - Jan and Andrei Montolt - not only made attempts, by bribing a servant, to steal blank forms with their personal seals and signatures from the Kurbskys, but also directly attempted to kill the “Muscovite”, waylaying him on the roads...

All this extremely disappointed and embittered the fugitive prince. He began to realize that he would forever remain a stranger among these, in his own words, “heavy and extremely inhospitable people.” But there was no turning back, just as there was no longer any confidence or peace in the soul. Probably, in a vain attempt to get rid of, to get away from this inevitably falling block of loneliness and belated repentance, repentance that his conscience demanded, but which his proud mind did not want to allow into his heart, Prince Kurbsky then turned to books. He studied Latin, took up the philosophy of Aristotle, and gradually translated the “Conversations” of John Chrysostom. However, this was not the main thing. The most painful, but also the most painfully desirable, as a kind of spiritual drug, for him was the work on the famous “The Story of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich” - the first attempt to present the Terrible Tsar in the image of a tormentor and in this way to take revenge for his downfall. Although, apparently, not only to take revenge. But also to make excuses. To cleanse your groaning soul not so much even before Ivan, before his contemporaries and descendants, but before God himself, at his final trial. It is no coincidence that Kurbsky promised to take his writings with him to the grave. He knew that his conscience was unclean, and, fearing the answer, he prepared his justification speech in advance...

But let's get back to the facts. Not having lasted even three years, Kurbsky’s marriage to Golshanskaya broke up. Moreover, as documents show, Andrei Mikhailovich himself collected evidence against his wife, according to which Maria Yuryevna cheated on him with his servant Zhdan Mironovich... The divorce was obtained, but even after that the former spouses annoyed each other for a long time with mutual reproaches and litigation. To the woman’s credit, it must be said that Maria Golshanskaya managed to defend the main family estates from the prince’s attempts to keep them for himself. Kurbsky was again left with almost nothing, except for the very conditional “possession” of Kovel, on whose residents he took out the anger, frustration, and impotence that overwhelmed him.

The royal “affection” also completely disappeared in relation to the rebellious Moscow defector. For example, in response to the complaint of the Kovel armored boyar Kuzma Porydubsky that Prince Kurbsky in 1574 unlawfully took away the Trublya estate from him, “plundered movable property” and kept him with his wife and children in “cruel imprisonment” for six years, the king, not wanting to cover up his arbitrary antics, he ordered Kurbsky not only to return Trublya, but also to fully compensate the plaintiff for losses and imprisonment. In addition, anticipating attempts at revenge, the king issued his special safe-conduct to Porydubsky to protect him from persecution of Kurbsky in the future. But the prince did not let up. The Pole historian wrote quite rightly: “as a master, he was hated by his servants. As a neighbor, he was the most obnoxious. As a subject - the most rebellious... he opposed despotism, but allowed himself abuses of power no less monstrous... ".

In 1581, another Kovel boyar, Yanko Kuzmich Zhaba Osovetsky, became his next victim. By order of Kurbsky, his armed servants attacked the Yanko pillbox, beat the owner’s wife with whips, drove the entire family out of their own estate, ordering them to get out. Only a complaint to the king saved the Osovetskys. Kurbsky was again convicted of illegal acts. The royal letter ordered him to immediately return the seized estate to the Osovetskys and compensate for all losses. It is noteworthy that when a special royal official came to Kurbsky to notify him of this, the prince flew into a rage, cursed the envoy with “indecent Moscow words” and drove him away. True, having soon come to his senses, Andrei Mikhailovich sent servants to catch up with him and say that he was not at all opposed to the “royal will”...

Finally, at the same time, an entire delegation was sent to the royal court with complaints against Kurbsky and the Kovel peasants, who accused the prince of the most brutal exactions and oppression, as well as of taking away land from them and distributing it to his people. So, after listening to them, the king, without any investigation, immediately ordered Kurbsky to write an order not to offend the peasants in the future and not to demand illegal new taxes from them... Last fact It is especially interesting and significant in that long before these events, while still preparing to treacherously leave the Fatherland, Prince Kurbsky, in a letter to the monks of the Pechora Monastery, mercilessly scolded Grozny for the “impoverishment of the nobles” and... “the suffering of the farmers,” that is, the peasants. When was the prince sincere? When did he loudly moan about the “innocent victims” of the tsar, or when he himself dealt harshly with his own (and not his own) “little people”? Unlike Edward Radzinsky, who did not remember any of the above documentary evidence, we again give the reader the opportunity to compare and decide for himself...

In bright April 1579, fifty-year-old Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky married again - for the third time. Probably, the aging prince again wanted the warmth and comfort of a “family nest,” as our tireless narrator might put it, but!.. It’s a pity. And this romantic etude, so characteristic of Kurbsky’s personality, is also absent from his narrative.

Yes, the prince got married. He got married, not at all embarrassed by the fact that according to the laws of Orthodoxy (he invariably emphasized his true devotion to which, including in righteously angry messages to the Tsar), he had absolutely no right to enter into a new marriage while his former wife, Maria Golshanskaya, was alive . This time, Kurbsky’s chosen one was the young orphan Alexandra Petrovna Semashko, who was much inferior to Golshanskaya in both nobility and wealth. The main advantage of the bride was her youth, and also the fact that Alexandra’s brothers, minor nobles, owed the prince a large sum of money even before the matchmaking. This, apparently, decided the whole matter. The wedding was celebrated in Vladimir (in Volyn) - loudly, on a grand scale, as Andrei Mikhailovich loved...

Needless to say, Kurbsky took the previous failure well into account. The new wife was young, not very wealthy, and therefore resigned. The prince was finally satisfied. As is clear from his will, he called Alexandra his “dear little one”, praised her for serving him diligently, being faithful and generally behaving nobly. A year later, in 1580, Alexandra Petrovna gave birth to the prince’s daughter Marina, and in 1582 - a son, Dmitry.

True, the prince himself did not have to enjoy this family idyll for long. The wedding took place in April, and already in June 1579, the newly elected Polish king Stefan Batory, continuing the work of his deceased predecessor, Sigismund Augustus, began to gather troops for a new attack on Russia. Then the royal “list” (order) came and Andrei Kurbsky set off with his detachment against the Moscow Tsar, to go to the ancient Russian city of Polotsk, for the capture of which, as the attentive reader probably remembers, 17 years ago the Russians fought so heroically under the personal command of Grozny troops against the Poles and Lithuanians. Now Kurbsky went there on the side of the enemies. 17 years...

During this, most difficult for the Russians, siege of Polotsk by Polish troops, Kurbsky, furious and gloating, did not fail to send Grozny another message. Filled with “reproaches and cries for vengeance,” it was not much different from the previous ones, written immediately after the flight. The proud prince obviously did not feel that the final retribution was already awaiting him.

The war with Russia brought great human losses to the Poles, and therefore the Warsaw Sejm decided to carry out an additional recruitment of troops in all royal possessions. In pursuance of this decree, Stefan Batory sent his captain Shchasny-Lyashevsky to Volyn, to the Kovel volost. There, the captain had to, without any consent from Kurbsky, recruit “tall and strong” soldiers for the royal service. This gesture of the young king made it clear who “Prince Kovelsky” really was in his eyes... The humiliation was cruel. In fact, the prince was equated with the small landless gentry. And Kurbsky, of course, could not stand the shame. The captain was “disrespectfully” expelled from the “estate”, not allowing him to recruit a single guide...

And what about the king? Angry, he immediately demanded Kurbsky to stand trial. The text of the “royal letter” to the rebellious nobleman dated July 20, 1580, in which the traditional form of address was eloquently absent: “Our royal affection, sincerely faithful to us, dear!”, perhaps it is worth quoting verbatim. He will tell the reader a lot, and not only about Prince Kurbsky...

"Stephen, by God's grace King of Poland, Grand Duke Lithuanian, Russian, Prussian. You, noble Andrey... I command: without fail and without delay... appear in person and defend yourself against the instigator. ...We call you to trial on the denunciation of the noble Shchasny-Lyashevsky, our captain, because you, stubbornly and disrespectfully opposed our supreme power, without fear of the punishments determined by law against elders and police officers who failed in the performance of their duties, you opposed the resolution of the General Warsaw Sejm of 1579 about the military militia against our enemy, the Grand Duke of Moscow, not paying attention to the fine that you must incur in favor of our court for your malfunction, did not equip for war and did not send our Kovel estates and villages from those under your administration.. ... subjects called haiduks, but also forbade them to go to war, despite our demand and reminder sent through our aforementioned captain, and thus did not do or fulfill the duty belonging to your rank. And therefore you are subject to penalties imposed against disobedient elders and police officers... and you must be punished by deprivation of the order and all property for your disobedience and the resistance you showed to great harm and danger for the state.”...

Unfortunately, we have no information about whether and how that trial took place over “who caused great harm” to Polish state Prince Kurbsky. Did Andrei Mikhailovich really manage to “defend himself from the instigator” and what was the final verdict? Only one thing is known for certain. Exactly a year later, in July 1581, the illustrious prince, again preparing for war against the Tsar of Moscow, armed a significant detachment at his own expense, and not at the expense of taxes from the Kovel estate. But this, however, did not help him make amends to the king. Or rather, he didn’t have time, because it was precisely last trip against Russia, Kurbsky and God's wrath overtook...

While heading towards Pskov with the Polish troops, the prince suddenly fell ill. The illness quickly weakened him, making him so helpless that he was unable to ride, and for him, a proud warrior who had spent his entire life in the saddle, this was probably almost worse than death. With great difficulties, on a stretcher tied between two horses, Kurbsky was taken back to Poland - as if he had been denied the right to even die nearby native land, once so cynically devoted to them.

However, even at home, in the picturesque town of Milyanovichi (near Kovel), where the sick prince ordered himself to be taken, he could not find peace. The fate of the traitor continued to sum up...

Having heard that Kurbsky had fallen out of favor and was seriously ill, he was sued by his ex-wife- Maria Golshanskaya. She accused Andrei Mikhailovich of illegal divorce and demanded satisfaction for the grievances inflicted. The king sent Golshanskaya's complaint to the metropolitan for consideration... For Kurbsky, Maria Yuryevna's new lawsuit was not just another nuisance. If the metropolitan court recognized the prince’s divorce from Golshanskaya as truly illegal, then his marriage to Alexandra Semashko would also be illegal, and the children from this marriage would be illegitimate and not entitled to inheritance. This is how the Polish princess finally decided to take revenge on her ex-hubby. Kurbsky, using all his long-standing connections, was barely able to hush up this dangerous matter. (Moreover, Metropolitan Onesiphorus of Kiev and Galicia himself then complained to King Stephen that Prince Kurbsky was disobedient to his spiritual authority, did not appear before him for trial and did not allow metropolitan envoys to come to him, ordering his servants to beat and drive them away.) As it says. The will of Andrei Mikhailovich, he nevertheless concluded an “eternal agreement” with Golshanskaya, according to which “my ex-wife, Maria Yuryevna, no longer cares about me or my property.”

Finally, Prince Kurbsky, who had lost his strength and power, began to be abandoned one by one even by his closest servants - those who fled with him from Russia almost twenty years ago. For example, on the frosty night of January 7, 1580, Mercury Nevklyudov, the constable Milyanovsky, who kept the keys to the princely treasury, left, taking all the money, gold and silver. Another - Joseph Tarakanov - reported to the king that Kurbsky ordered the murder of his servant Pyotr Voronovetsky. This sad list of betrayals can go on and on, but it would not have added anything to the cruel fact that on the verge of death Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky found himself completely alone. One, if you don’t count his young, unhappy wife with two children in her arms, it’s small or small. With what reproach, with what despair and what hatred she looked into his already glassy eyes - one can only guess...

Prince Kurbsky died in May 1583. Neither his son Dmitry, nor his daughter Marina, nor his wife Alexandra Petrovna, despite repeated legal proceedings, were ever able to receive the Kovel volost bequeathed by their father. They simply didn't give it to them. Having become a traitor and an outcast himself, Andrei Kurbsky doomed his children to an equally miserable and shameful existence. Already in 1777, the Kurbsky family died out completely. This was his finale - the finale of a man who, as it is said in one of the Epistles of Ivan the Terrible, “sold his soul for his body” 320