The Personality of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in the historical concept of V. O. Klyuchevsky

Tokmurzayev Bakyt ORCID: 0000-0003-3972-2329 PhD in History Acting Associate Professor of the Department of National and Foreign History of Syrdarya University 160500, Kazakhstan, Turkestanskaya oblast', g. Zhetysai, ul. M. Auezova, 11 b.tokmurza@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Meirbekov Myrzabay ORCID: 0000-0001-5968-6690 PhD in History Associate Professor of the Department of National and Foreign History of Syrdarya University 160500, Kazakhstan, Turkestanskaya oblast', g. Zhetysai, ul. M.auezova, 11, of. 1 Meyrbekov2020@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The identity of the Russian tsars, lifestyle monarchs, the circumstances of upbringing and education and the practice of everyday behavior always been a keen interest in the society and historiography. Meanwhile, private space autocrats, especially when it was about the medieval period of history, has always been positioned as a sacred, which resulted in a small number of works, mainly the descriptive and ethnographic content on this subject ^{[4, 5, 7]}. It should be noted that the focus of attention of researchers often turned out to be prominent figures of the political elite of the Moscow Central / state of the Russian Empire, which left a bright trace in the history of Russian statehood and the social order. To those, in full can be assigned to the Moscow Tsar Ivan Vasilievich (Ivan IV the terrible), discourse whose identity, rage in secular and religious essays of the SEVENTEENTH century has not lost its relevance in the present time ^{[2, 3, 9-11, 13, 14]}. Note that not only contemporaries and descendants of king, but historians have tried to reflect his reign in the context of historical events of the era. Researcher A. P. Bogdanov noted that: "In literature of the second half and especially the last quarter of the seventeenth century revealed the origins of all groups in the genre of historical narrative that developed in the next century and developed in the modern historical literature of shape in Russia of the XIX century" ^{[1, p. 118]}.

The object of this research is the historiographical discourse of the personality of Ivan the terrible. The subject of the article is the representation of the personality of the Moscow Tsar in historical concept of V. O. Klyuchevsky. The aim of this work is to reveal the contents of the historical representations of V. O. Klyuchevsky about the personality of Ivan the terrible in the context of the concept of Royal power in Moscow centralized state in the SIXTEENTH century

During the study, were involved in a number of methodological techniques, particularly the use of practices of intellectual history, as well as of the sociocultural approach. Intellectual history focuses on the history of ideas and history of the conditions and forms of intellectual activity that involves the Genesis of the historical schools, the study of the communicative environment of the professional community of historians, their historiographical life ^{[8, p. 183]}. Birthday exploration of ideas and historical concepts, is a priority in the study of historiographical works. The sociocultural approach is the application to the first method, and allows a deeper reflection to produce social and cultural conditions influencing the ideas of the authors at one time or another in their lives. From the text it follows that the surrounding social environment largely determined the course and the logic of the formation and evolution of the ideas of V. O. Klyuchevsky, formed his ideas about the identity of the Moscow state.

Main part

In the historiographical traditions of the XIX century occupy a significant place in the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, a prominent historian of source studies, partly writer and the founder of a completely new scientific field of historical sociology. Thanks to the literary talent, the ability to sneer and to find succinct aphorisms V. O. Klyuchevsky has captured the hearts of readers. Moreover, this charm has spread to subsequent generations of intellectuals of the XIX - XX centuries. According to contemporaries, "his essays and lectures were brilliant in its decoration, in its content. In addition, they were imbued with a sense of protest against the despotism"^{[12, p. 24]}. V. O. Klyuchevsky is different from the unique ability not only to present historical fact, providing reliable analysis, but also aesthetics, the ability to admire the fact that as an artist, making a drama, and not to deviate from the proposed theory.

Thus the ideas of V. O. Klyuchevsky sketchy presented in different works, but the most coherent and fully reflected in the lecture course of Russian history. The formation of the Klyuchevsky as a historian, was primarily determined by the influence of the intellectual environment. Coincidentally, the historian, lived in a very important moment in history – the period of the reforms of Alexander II. This is the moment when the Fatherland demanded that historians not just a reinvention, but a deep analysis of the past, causality, and the answer to the question "why everything happened like that". Subsequently himself Kliuchevsky recognized the importance of turning points in the historical periods, as under their influence, was formed historiography of the new qualitative state.

Scientific thought of the era as well have an important impact on the worldview of the historian. It is considered that the V. O. Klyuchevsky was a supporter of the "public school", held in the mid-nineteenth century, one of the Central provisions in the historiography, which is largely determined by the specific direction in the development of this science. V. O. Klyuchevsky no doubt partly succumbed to the influence of "statesmen", but by revisiting some ideas of the direction and applying their own views in terms of positivism, created the author's historical concept. The historian was able to take the best of "public schools" and to combine with their own social results of the analysis of historical eras. V. O. Klyuchevsky researched key life processes of the "Russian nation" and identified two fundamental beginning – the state and the people. V. O. Klyuchevsky was interested in not only the principles of the dispensation of the state, legal aspects of its formation and development, the person who led the process, but the role of the people in these processes, the mechanisms of interaction of human unions, the identification of the laws of development of society as a whole organism from smaller and fragmented structures. Unlike their predecessors, in particular N. M. Karamzin, the historian was not looking for moral lessons in history, did not consider that it is possible to find answers to practical issues. V. O. Klyuchevsky was first and foremost a pragmatist who saw as their goal the study of history from the standpoint of academic science. In view of this fact he was interested in "mechanisms of the human community" and excretion of the laws of historical development.

Despite the fact that the historian has paid great attention to the study of society as a whole and of individual groups in it, V. O. Klyuchevsky has taken an important place and a particular individual in it. In his understanding, intellectual work is the most productive force in the evolution of mankind. Thus, the historian differently than was customary in the historiographical tradition, came to the study of historical figures. According to the author, the individual transformirovalsya in person only thanks to the society through socialization. V. O. Klyuchevsky was convinced that any society is doomed to inevitable contact of the generations in whose context is the historical, cultural, spiritual and value continuity. To the individual the experience passed on through education and socialization. This is the key to the formation of any individual. The historian in his studies, considering certain historical figures, paid special attention to the sphere of education and the conditions of formation of personal qualities in early childhood describe a person.

V. O. Klyuchevsky in the same style as its predecessors N. M. Karamzin N. I. Kostomarov, started the reconstruction of the image of the king with the characteristics of its inherent properties and qualities: "King John was born in 1530 by nature it's got a mind lively and flexible, thoughtful and a little mocking, a true great, Moscow mind" ^{[6, p. 176]}. However, from the first lines they were designated different view of the problem. V. O. Klyuchevsky showed the transformation of the natural instincts of the young Ivan IV in view of the existing tradition of education: "from childhood He saw himself among strangers. In his mind before and went deep, and all his life remained a sense of abandonment, of abandonment, of loneliness...Hence his shyness, which is the main feature of his character" ^{[6, p. 176]}. In contrast to the N. I. Kostomarov, historian showed the king is not cowardly, but a lonely man, forced to a lifetime struggle with their fears before the betrayal of the environment. Some of these fears, as I thought of V. O. Klyuchevsky, based on the logic of human thought of the bygone era, was quite justified: "Ivan used to think that only surrounded by enemies, and brought to its unfortunate tendency to look out for... that forced him to constantly stay on the lookout... Just worked harder in him the instinct of self-preservation. All the efforts of his lively mind was drawn to the development of this ill-feeling," ^{[6, p. 177]}. Historian has questioned the mental state of Ivan IV the terrible, did not put him crazy, he didn't look natural instincts tyrant, assessing the Moscow Tsar as a typical figure of the Russian middle ages. It is through differences in the methods of education "sovereign" and "child", or rather in contradictory methods, it was found the cause of the formed of Ivan IV of excessive arrogance in its title: "the solemn, ceremonial occasions – when entering or receiving ambassadors, it was surrounded by a Regal splendour, became around him with slavish humility, and on weekdays, the same people did not stand on ceremony with him, sometimes spoiled, sometimes teased... caressed the Emperor and abused as a child" ^{[6, p. 176-177]}. Such education, largely determined his own character: "the need to hold back, sulking in the sleeve, swallow the tears harbored in this irritability and breathless, silent anger against the people who anger with clenched teeth," and also the features of a future politics: "the Ugly scenes of the boyar arbitrariness and violence, among which grew Ivan, was his first political experience. They made him nervous timidity timidity, of which the years had developed a tendency to exaggerate the danger" ^{[6, c.177]}.

Not less important role in the formation of the personality of Ivan IV the terrible, the historian took away education. V. O. Klyuchevsky took a sample, the system of education prevalent in the whole old Russian state and projected it on the life of the young king. Drill and memorization of biblical texts, this was the basis of such education. However, Ivan IV gave great hope in the intellectual sphere. According to Kliuchevsky, natural talents, combined with the education system have led to the results, largely determine the future of the whole country: "Ivana taught to read and write, probably the same as was taught by his ancestors, as generally taught to read and write in Ancient Russia, forcing him to repeat the prayer book and Psalter, with endless repetition backsides before traversed. The sayings of these books were satorialist mechanical, for life was braziulis in memory from where it met the line of the king and Kingdom, the anointed of God, the wicked advisers... He understood the biblical aphorisms in their own way, applying them to himself, to his position" ^{[6, c.181]}. V. O. Klyuchevsky noted that in these texts, the oppressed surrounded by Ivan IV, found not only solace, but a whole world to implement their thoughts about the purpose of the Imperial power. As a child and teenager, the king opened in the texts of all new characters, the possible role models, and detailed shapes of the villains surrounding the throne ^{[6, c.181]}. Historians believe that the circumstances of childhood has prepared a fertile ground for the formation in the mind of Ivan IV the special concept of Royal power.

V. O. Klyuchevsky, partly agreed with the opinion. I. Kostomarov the failure of the nobility to the estates unity and the implementation of positive influence on the fate of the state. In fact, approached the young Emperor saw that the emerging features, but it did not countered: "I Think it has been a secret, a secret from others, who have long had no idea in which direction is alarmed by the thoughts of the young sovereign, and probably would not approve of his assiduous attention to the books, if I guessed" ^{[6, c.183]}. Nobility appeared in the texts of V. O. Klyuchevsky as is divided into political factions, can not without the power of the monarch is favorable to control the government: "Divided into parties, nobles led a fierce strife with each other because of personal or family accounts, and not for any public order...All saw anarchic force is nobility, if not restrained by the strong hand" ^{[6, c.186]}; on the other hand, it is divided into political factions, has led some of the boyars as close as possible to the throne, influencing both the external and internal policy of the state.

Thus, V. O. Klyuchevsky came to the conclusion about the convergence of the Emperor with its immediate surrounding, the current early state of activities of Ivan the terrible. However, as I thought of V. O. Klyuchevsky, this agreement and the balance of a temporary nature, and the reason behind the conflict with the sovereign advisers, was the mistrust of the king, and the desire to get rid of the boyar care, as the theory of "Royal power", in the center of which was located patrimonial idea, according to which all the subjects are servants, possessed the mind of Ivan IV completely and demanded the first practical steps, "But the king did not get along with his advisers. In suspicious and painful?an excited sense of power, he believed good direct advice to infringe on its sovereign rights.... Removing myself a good advisors, he gave a unilateral direction of its mistrust of political thought" ^{[6, c.185]}. Since then, the historian represents the king as a separate policy. V. O. Klyuchevsky did not create for the reader the impression of a sharp drop in the tyranny of the Royal person. On the contrary, since the majority of the king, was pronounced promise in the direction of the desire for independence of Ivan IV, the aspiration to individual decision-making. It does not exclude the opinion of the Board, but the last word was left to the king: "just coming out of childhood, still not having 20 years, Tsar Ivan unusual for his age energy took over the Affairs of the Board. The first thoughts of Ivan when leaving government care boyars was to take the title of king, and to be crowned the solemn Church ceremony. Political Duma of the king was developed in secret from others, as secretly developed its complexity" ^{[6, c.183]}.

In the future, implemented the process of rapprochement of the theory of Royal power and actions of the sovereign. You should pay attention, how typical was the mentality of "great" in mental and behavioral activities of Ivan IV. V. O. Klyuchevsky stressed that "secretly" was his character, and in the same way the king hatched their plans. However, the historian is not in the person of the monarch talented politics, on the contrary, saw in him impatient, prone to fervor in the decisions unbalanced steward: "It was in the historical contradiction, disagreement government regulations and political sentiments of the nobility with the nature of power and political consciousness of the Moscow Tsar. This issue was insoluble for the Moscow people of the XVI century ...Ivan wanted time to cut the question, sharpen the contradiction"^{[6, c.186]}. According to the historian, the monarch, in view of the limitations of their views, focused only on major release of the power of the king from the influence from the aristocratic unions were not aware of the complexity of the whole picture of the historical reality of the XVI century. So the king made a series of fatal mistakes that ultimately led to the crisis in the state, and most importantly within the dynasty.

V. O. Klyuchevsky highlighted two main areas in the internal politics of Ivan IV: 1. The transition from theory to practice, in the implementation of the concept of Royal power. 2. The achievement of personal security through the establishment of homeland security. This conventional division into two directions, according to the author, and ultimately carried out almost simultaneously. V. O. Klyuchevsky paid tribute to the virtues of Ivan IV by selecting it from the number of all the kings of the ancient Russian state. The historian even introduced him to a man in many respects ahead of his time. And yet, the base of the character, childhood, natural inclinations of the king, and the pathological inability of "great Russian" to build a long-term strategy, has led to an unprecedented collapse: "But of all these efforts of the mind and of the imagination, the king issued only simple, bare idea of Imperial authority without practical insights, which requires every idea. Theory were not developed in the state order, the political programme... Making a political issue of the order in a bitter feud with individuals, aimless, indiscriminate massacre" ^{[6, c.185]}. Concern about personal safety were Central in throughout the reign of Ivan the terrible. And especially the need arose after the dissolution of "wise counselors". Of course, theoretically, the concept was developed by king, the person of the monarch was under the protection of God. However, the practice and experience gained in childhood, persuaded the king to create companies based on the personal safety of the Emperor: "so, the oprichnina was the institution that was supposed to protect the personal safety of the king... Oprichnina received the appointment of senior police in cases of treason" ^{[6, c.175]}. V. O. Klyuchevsky unlike his predecessors, never tried to create an image of the guardsmen – like gatherings of the "mountains" led by the Antichrist-king. On the contrary, he saw in it only a part of the state and an instrument of influence of power^{[6, c.168]}. The historian also made some adjustments in the Genesis of the ideas of the oprichnina. Not only that, he regained the reader to experience, experienced by the monarch in childhood and adolescence (hence this fear for his life), the author also found the roots of origin of the oprichnina during the collaboration, the king and the "Chosen happy" ^{[6, c.162-163]}. Summing up an independent political activities of Ivan IV, and V. O. Klyuchevsky with some irony spoke of the great undertakings of the king and the sad outcome of their implementation. Historian, analyzing the state of activities of the monarch, as well as identifying the Moscow Tsar as Manager, explained the trend in the understanding of the duality nature of the monarch. V. O. Klyuchevsky approached differently for the study of the person of the king, and all the contradictions were excluded themselves, and the process of formation of the autocracy was smooth and theoretically sound: "Thus, a positive value of Tsar Ivan in the history of our country is not so great as one would think, judging by his ideas and initiatives for noise, which made his work... this explains why the king had double vision in the view of contemporaries, survived his reign" ^{[6, c.186-187]}.

V. O. Klyuchevsky one of the first drew attention to the journalistic talent of Ivan IV the terrible, actively taking part in discussions on the topic indicate the boundaries of Imperial authority. This fact V. O. Klyuchevsky noted, analyzing the text of the correspondence of the king with Prince Andrei Kurbsky: "However, in his writings, with some accuracy to reconstruct the course of his political self-education. His letters to Prince Kurbsky, half political treatises on Imperial power and half polemical pamphlets against the nobility and his claims" ^{[6, c.183]}. All this allowed the historian weighty complement the personality characteristics of Ivan IV, detailing specific examples pronounced traits of the king: "...But in this debate, led by both parties with great vigor and talent, do not find a direct and clear answer... Tsar Ivan writes less quietly and smoothly... Reading the letters of the Tsar to Prince Kurbsky, amazed at the rapid change in the author of a variety of feelings" ^{[6, c.178]}. Here we see not blind worship of the historian in front of the oratorical brilliance of the genius of the era, V. O. Klyuchevsky was subjected to a critical analysis of the texts of Ivan IV and simply paid tribute to the talented writer manipulator. Klyuchevskaya irony in a stunning manner led up to this reader: "I Think nothing could be heartless formality and spiritual letters... Tsar Ivan and this is a stereotypical act has maintained its lyrical nature. ...Poor sufferer, the Royal Martyr – think reading these plaintive?mournful lines, and the sufferer a year or two before, nothing to investigate, one suspicious, vain, inhuman and hopelessly defeated a large ancient city... In the most wicked of minutes, he was able to rise to this artificial intimacy, krokodilov crying" ^{[6, c.180]}. In this regard, the image of the king acquires the features of a ruthless policy, clearly sticking to their goals. V. O. Klyuchevsky did not take a separate place to the description of the tyranny of Ivan IV the terrible. Also, in contrast to prevailing in the domestic historiography tradition, Klyuchevskaya not tried to exploit the common theme of "king Antichrist", seeking internal and external transformation of the Emperor to enter into the context of the era: "As all men are, too soon began a struggle for existence, Ivan grew rapidly and prematurely grown... he has astounded people exorbitant amount of residual impressions and thoughts brooded over, to which his ancestors had not thought of in Mature age" ^{[6, c.177-178]}. On the example of transformation of the appearance of the king, historian showed also the brunt of the decisions taken by Ivan IV as a politician, what a burden they lay on him as a person: "It is not learned: light grey penetrating eyes went out, always lively and friendly face haggard and looked for a loner, on his head and in his beard from the previous hair survived only leftovers. Obviously, two months of absence, the king was carried in a terrible state of mind, not knowing what the outcome was his idea," ^{[6, c.164]}. From this passage it follows that the establishment of the oprichnina was not an easy decision for the monarch. Moreover, V. O. Klyuchevsky considered this step as a political necessity, whereas in N. M. Karamzin N. I. Kostomarov oprichnina – the fruit of a sick imagination of the king, a tyrant. V. O. Klyuchevsky a priori refuses to see in the Moscow sovereigns, in particular, Ivan the terrible, the only inherent features of deviant behavior. Ivan IV the terrible typically it is a great product of an era ^{[6, c.186-187]}. Individual traits of the monarch was the result of a merger natural instincts distorted upbringing and their experiences of childhood: "Ivan lost the balance of their spiritual strength, the ability to send them when you want to split their job or keep one opposition to another, used to enter in the mind's participation feelings. Whatever he was thinking, it's customized, egged his idea of passion" ^{[6, c.178]}. V. O. Klyuchevsky was able to show how, under the influence of this experience in childhood and adolescence forever ingrained a certain duality in the character of Ivan IV, and remained throughout his life: "But in moments of moral soothing, when he was freed from irritating external impressions and remained alone with yourself, with your sincere thoughts, they were overcome with melancholy, for what can only people who have experienced a lot of moral loss and life's disappointments....This duality of nature and stripped him of sustainability" ^{[6, c.180]}.

V. O. Klyuchevsky in conclusion, could not resist full of criticism of the reign of Ivan IV the terrible, not pleading his own merits and talents, but recognizing his inept politician. According to the historian, personal fears and ambitions of the king, is largely determined by all political decisions made by the monarch, "King Ivan was a great writer, perhaps even a brisk political thinker, but he was the national operator. One-sided, selfish, and conceited direction of his political thought in his nervous excitement deprived him of the practical tact of the political eye, sense of reality, and, after successful completion of the state, laid by his ancestors, he, unbeknownst to himself, cumshot fact that shattered the very foundations of this order" ^{[6, c.187]}, and led to the greatest in the history of the crisis of the tsarist government: "the hostility and the tyranny of the king sacrificed himself and his dynasty, and the public good. It can be compared with the old Testament blind hero, who has to destroy his enemies, and himself knocked down a building, the roof of which these were enemies" ^{[6, c.187]}. It is noteworthy that to complete the personality characteristics of Ivan IV, and V. O. Klyuchevsky used the technique in the Arsenal of the king, comparing it with the old Testament character. This again emphasizes talent as a historian, and his ability to subtly feel the irony of the situation.

Insights

Summing up, it is necessary to say the following: V. O. Klyuchevsky examined the personality of Ivan IV in the context of their historical theory, the center of which was the idea of increased conflict among Russian companies in connection with the inheritance from Veche institutions. In terms of autocratic rule, there was a gradual onset of the state on society. Klyuchevskaya believed that the state of progress in Russia were on the bones of the people. In this respect, the Moscow princes were the sons of his time. Finally finally formed the system of inheritance of power, assumed a frequent appearance on the throne, young or unable to control the Emperor. Ivan IV the terrible was largely a hostage situation when a systemic problem connected with the peculiarities of his upbringing and attitude to the future Emperor in the years of his childhood.

In addition, V. O. Klyuchevsky, turning to the problem of personality in history, repelled by the idea of inclusion of the individual in the "human community". It is through the personality of the historian was trying to discover the unique features of the spirituality and ethics of the people. On this basis, Kliuchevsky believed that personality is historical, but once outside of the human Union, which ultimately happened with Ivan the Terrible, it ceases to be meaningful to the story.