The Formation of the Image of Ivan the Terrible in English Sources of the Second Half of the XVI Century

Mikheev Dmitry Vladimirovich ORCID: 0000-0001-9263-0234 PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of World History, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia; Senior Researcher, Research Laboratory "Center for the Comprehensive Studies of Regional Security Issues", Pskov State University 191186, Russia, federal city of Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, nab. Moika River, 48 Tankred85@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Since the end of the XV century, the Russian state has been playing an increasingly prominent role in European politics. However, the most serious attempts to strengthen the country's position in the international arena occurred during the reign of Ivan IV. In order to achieve success in the European direction, the Grand Dukes of Moscow needed not only trade partners, but also political alliances in Europe, but among their closest neighbors, neither the Livonian Order, nor Sweden, nor even the Polish-Lithuanian state could be considered as a possible ally of Moscow. It is not surprising that the rather accidental appearance in 1553 of representatives of the English crown within the domain of Ivan IV aroused the genuine interest of the young Russian tsar.

For the British themselves, the "rediscovery" of Muscovy as a result of the Chancler–Willoughby expedition in the middle of the XVI century was a real breakthrough in their trade expansion, outlined during the reign of the Tudors. The creation of the Moscow Company in 1555 and the rapidly developing trade with the Moscow Kingdom through the northern ports, as well as the emerging interest in the political rapprochement of the two countries in Moscow, caused an increase in interest in English society in a distant and rich state in eastern Europe. And last but not least, the English reading public was interested in the image of the ruler of Muscovy. This work is devoted to the formation of the image of the Terrible Tsar during the reign of Elizabeth Tudor.

Russian Russian historiography devoted to the history of the formation of Russian-English relations and the formation of the image of the Russian state abroad is quite extensive. Among the most significant works we note the pre-revolutionary works of S. M. Seredonin ^{[1; 2; 3]}, Y. V. Tolstoy ^[4] and I. I. Lyubimenko ^[5], in their works much attention was paid to the main directions of bilateral relations, as well as the introduction into scientific circulation of the fundamental sources characterizing Russian-English relations in the second half of the XVI century. Interest in the problem of the formation and development of Anglo-Russian relations did not fade even in Soviet times ^[6]. Of the modern works , the generalizing works of T. L. Labutina deserve special attention . ^{[7; 8; 9; 10; 11]} and A. B. Sokolova ^[12], characterizing the development of bilateral relations in the pre-Petrine era. Numerous specialized studies were devoted to the activities of the Moscow company ^{[13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19]}, the life of foreign specialists, merchants and diplomats in the Moscow Kingdom ^{[20; 21; 22; 23]}, and also the formation of the image of the Russian state in Europe ^{[24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35]}. Here, M. Poe's fundamental work "People Born for Slavery" ^[36] is of particular importance, reflecting the peculiarities of the formation of the negative image of the Moscow Kingdom as a barbaric, despotic state in the countries of Europe in the era of Modern Times. In line with this work, A. I. Filyushkin reflected the formation of a negative image of the Russian state during the Livonian War ^[37]. However, the formation of the image of Ivan the Terrible himself in English sources was only fragmentally touched upon in existing studies.

The source base of the research is the writings of English travelers, merchants, diplomats and adventurers who visited the borders of the Moscow Kingdom during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The peculiarity of many English works of the era is, as N. P. Mikhalskaya noted, the lack of a clear line between documentary and artistic works. The authors of the works, based on their experience, sought to acquaint their compatriots with everything that first of all attracted their attention, seemed new, unusual, and sometimes outlandish ^{[28, p. 7]}. Many extant works were specially written or adapted for publication and acquaintance of the general public with distant, rich and unusual Muscovy, and therefore assumed a certain propaganda effect, on the one hand replicating numerous images and stereotypes rooted in people's minds, and on the other convincing readers of the need for further trade and colonial expansion. However, there is no doubt that many travel notes were intended to become a kind of guide to the Moscow Kingdom for future generations of English travelers.

Many images and judgments about the Russian tsar are fixed in English writings from the very moment of the rediscovery of Muscovy, in connection with which it is impossible not to mention the first English writings left by the participants of the Chancler–Willoughby expedition. It was on their basis that many Englishmen who went to the royal court built their initial judgments about the Russian state. The testimony of Chancellor will be mainly confirmed and expanded in the notes of English travelers who visited the court of the Russian tsar in the second half of the XVI century ^{[28, p. 9]}. However, it is quite difficult to judge how far these earliest writings escaped the influence of the other pan-European narrative that existed by the middle of the XVI century about Muscovy and, in general, about the states lying in the east. However, there is no complete unity of opinion among English authors in describing the image of the terrible tsar ^{[11, p. 151]}.

Russian Russian diplomat Anthony Jenkinson, one of the favorites of the Russian tsar, became the next English author who got to know Ivan IV directly and left an extensive description of the Russian state. He visited the Russian state four times, leaving one of the first detailed maps of Muscovy, extremely popular in Europe in the XVI–XVII centuries ^{[38, pp. 21-56]}. His essay noticeably complements the description left by Richard Chancellor.

Among other works, the letters of George Turberville, the secretary of the embassy Thomas Randolph, who arrived in the Russian state in 1568, written in verse form, stand out. The young nobleman went on a difficult and dangerous journey to improve his financial situation and painfully endured a long wait for an audience with Ivan IV. At the same time, the participants of the embassy spent a significant part of the time under house arrest. Many of his remarks serve as an example of the assertion of English stereotypes about Russia in the XVI century . His knowledge of the Russian language is highly doubtful ^{[39, pp. 245-246]}, but Turberville used the testimonies of other foreigners. He himself notes in one of his letters that the image of the country is best represented in the work of Herberstein, whom he actually quotes ^{[39, pp. 247-248]}.

The reign of Ivan the Terrible is described in the most detail in the work of the English diplomat and adventurer Jerome Gorsay, who spent almost 17 years in the Moscow Kingdom ^{[39, p. 6]}. Gorsei was personally acquainted with the tsar, many influential boyars, and for a long time defended the interests of the Moscow company at court. It is important to note that Gorsei specifically noted that he used not only eyewitness accounts or interpreted his own experience when writing his essay, but was admitted to Russian written sources in the tsarist archives ^{[39, p. 50]}. Gorsei was one of the few English authors of the era who knew Russian well. Probably, this explains in his writings the detail in the description of events that took place in the Russian state during the reign of Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ioannovich. However, Gorsei did not escape the temptation to include in his texts legends, gossip and speculation that existed in those years.

One of the most voluminous English treatises of the Elizabethan era about the Russian state is the work of the English diplomat Giles Fletcher, who visited Moscow in the late 1580s. Fletcher's mission proved to be ineffective, the Moscow company was not returned to its former monopoly rights, which probably affected the perception of the country by an Englishman. And although he did not personally know Ivan the Terrible, Fletcher in his essay did not miss the opportunity to characterize the former Moscow sovereign and the way of his rule. At the same time, we must take into account that in describing events that Fletcher was not an eyewitness to, he was forced to rely on eyewitness accounts, rare written evidence, legends and speculation. His reports contain a significant number of inaccuracies and outright mistakes, such as the fact that Ivan the Terrible's father Vasily III was allegedly the first to receive the title of tsar ^{[40, p. 34]}. However, the more interesting the image of the Russian tsar, formed in the first years after his death by an English diplomat, becomes. Returning to his homeland, Fletcher prepared for publication his essay "On the Russian State", but the description of the country was given in such a gloomy light that merchants, fearing for the welfare of trade with Moscow, asked the government of Elizabeth to prohibit the publication of the essay in England. However, criticism of the tyrannical rule of the Russian tsars could cast a shadow on the absolutist tendencies in the rule of the Tudors. Probably for this reason, almost all copies of the work published in 1591 were seized and destroyed by order of the Lord Treasurer William Cecil ^{[41, pp. 8-9]}.

Separately, it is worth noting the diplomatic instructions, reports and correspondence conducted by diplomats and rulers of the two countries. First of all, of course, this is the correspondence of the Queen of England and the Tsar of Moscow, numbering many dozens of preserved letters ^{[42, pp. 117-184]}.

As already noted above, the first detailed description of the Russian state and the young tsar Ivan the Terrible, who ruled in the country by the time of the "rediscovery" of Muscovy by the British, was made by the participants of the Chancler–Willoughby expedition. Richard Chancellor's first meeting with Ivan IV demonstrates to us the wealth and greatness of the Russian ruler. The author himself succinctly accommodates his admiration for the power of the Moscow tsar in the following phrase: "This prince is the ruler and tsar over many countries, and his power is amazingly great" ^{[43, p. 59]}. It is noteworthy that in the original English authors often refer to the Moscow tsar by the more familiar titles of emperor or king, thus comparing his powers with the power of the Holy Roman Emperor, the English or French monarch ^{[39, p. 257; 43, p. 71, 76]}. However, when it comes to comparison, Ivan the Terrible is most often compared with the Turkish Sultan. Giles Fletcher, speaking about the political structure of the state in general, comes to the conclusion that "their way of government is very similar to the Turkish one, which they apparently try to imitate ..." ^{[40, p. 40]}.

The strength and power of the Moscow tsar are emphasized by military might. Most authors, describing the country, necessarily mention this. Thus, Chancellor writes that the tsar of Moscow can assemble an army of "200 or 300 thousand people," while all the tsar's soldiers are mounted, since "he does not use infantrymen, except those who serve in the artillery, and workers." Muscovites, according to Chancellor, "strive to have luxurious clothes in the war, especially the nobility and nobles" ^{[43, p. 59]}. But the wealth of Ivan IV himself is nothing compared to ordinary nobles, as, according to the English envoy, he was able to see for himself: "The Grand Duke is equipped beyond measure richly; his tent is covered with gold or silver brocade and so decorated with stones that it is amazing to look at. I have seen the tents of the royal majesty of England and the French king, which are magnificent, but still not like the tent of the Moscow Grand Duke" ^{[43, p. 59]}.

The special status of the ruler is emphasized by the court ceremonial, which all English envoys encountered ^{[11, p. 150]}. A diplomat representing the English monarch at the court of the Moscow ruler cannot conduct a conversation with the tsar himself, but only has to answer his questions ^{[43, p. 57]}. The person of the tsar is always isolated, he is always on the dais and sits separately even during a festive dinner, receiving the English envoy ^{[43, p. 58]}. The tradition described by Chancellor of the tsar's salary during the dinner of guests with bread, dishes and wine is noteworthy. At the same time, the whole dinner is a magnificent ceremony designed to demonstrate the wealth of the king (all the dishes and cups at the dinner are made of pure gold) and the complete dependence of his subjects on the mercy of the ruler: "The Grand Duke sent everyone a large slice of bread, and the deliverer called everyone to whom it was sent, loudly by name and said: "Ivan Vasilyevich, the Russian tsar and the Grand Duke of Moscow, bestows you with bread." At the same time, everyone had to get up and stand while these words were being uttered" ^{[43, pp. 58-59]}. At the same time, Chancellor emphasizes that the pomp of the ceremonies and the richness of the decorations are precisely part of a special ceremonial designed to exalt the ruler, since in ordinary circumstances "all their everyday life is mediocre at best" ^{[43, p. 60]}.

Anthony Jenkinson describes a similar court ceremony during the royal dinner. Expanding on the description of the ceremony given by Chancellor, the English ambassador noted that "when the tsar drinks, all those present stand up" ^{[43, p. 77]}. Accepted by Ivan IV very favorably, Jenkinson was seated at a separate table opposite the tsar during dinner and received drinks and food from him, as a sign of special favor ^{[43, p. 77, 78]}. It should be emphasized that in the early years of Elizabethan rule, up to the beginning of the 1570s, Russian-English relations flourished, expressed in significant privileges granted to English merchants by Ivan IV, and attempts to conclude a military-political alliance, emanating from the tsar ^{[7, pp. 30-37]}.

Surprisingly, the appearance of the tsar did not often become the subject of description by English authors. The most capacious and detailed description of the tsar's appearance is given by Jerome Gorsei: "He was pleasant—looking, had good facial features, a high forehead, a sharp voice - a real Scythian, cunning, cruel, bloodthirsty, ruthless" ^{[39, pp. 93-94]}.

Justice in the Muscovite Kingdom, according to Chancellor, also depends entirely on the will of the sovereign ^{[43, pp. 62-63]}. Russian Russian tsar's power over his subjects and their property amaze and cause his admiration: "We can say that the Russian people are in great fear and obedience, and everyone should voluntarily give up his estate ... at the discretion and disposal of the sovereign. Oh, if our brave rebels would be in the same subordination and would know their duty to their sovereigns!" ^{[43, p. 61]}. On the other hand, the English envoy emphasizes that all submission to the tsar is based not on love for the monarch, but on the fear of his subjects before his power and strength. Such unlimited power of the Moscow sovereign is rather condemned by other English authors.

Describing the greatness and power of the Russian tsar, Jenkinson notes that they are confirmed by his numerous conquests. "He holds his people in great subjection; all affairs, no matter how insignificant they may be, go back to him" ^{[43, pp. 78-79]}. The last remark characterizes the English diplomat's idea of the despotic, unlimited nature of the power of the Russian ruler. The only exception are matters of faith, in which the tsar is not omnipotent and listens to the opinion of the Metropolitan of Moscow ^{[43, p. 79]}.

Jerome Gorsay confirms many of the judgments of other English authors, adding vivid details to them about the atrocities committed at the will of the Moscow tsar over all those who aroused his suspicion ^{[39, pp. 66-67]}. Tsar Ivan himself was actually free from earthly judgment in his most terrible deeds, boasting that he "molested a thousand virgins, and that thousands of his children were deprived of their lives" ^{[39, p. 85]}.

However, George Turberville and Giles Fletcher are the most radical. The wild lands of Muscovy are presented to the secretary of the English Embassy to Turberville as a land where laws have no power. Here everything depends on the will of the "king", and the property, and even the life of any person ^{[39, p. 257]}. The English poet compares the Tsar of Moscow with the legendary Roman tsar Tarquin the Proud, whose tyrannical rule led to the collapse of the monarchy in Rome: "But there is no choice here: everywhere before the will of the princely one has to bow. So Tarquin ruled, as you know, Rome, you can remember what his fate was. Where there is no law and only the authorities know how to take care of the common good. There both the prince and the kingdom should gradually fall..." ^{[39, p. 266]}. Giles Fletcher speaks directly about the tyrannical way of government in the country: "Their rule is purely tyrannical: all his actions tend to the benefit and benefits of one tsar ... both nobles and commoners, in relation to their property, are nothing but keepers of the royal income, because everything they have acquired sooner or later passes into the royal chests" ^{[40, p. 40]}. Brutal reprisals, according to Fletcher, were carried out at the whim of the tsar without the slightest hint of trial and legality: "the late Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, during walks or trips, ordered to chop off the heads of those who came across him if he did not like their faces, or when someone looked at him carelessly. The order was executed immediately, and heads fell at his feet..." ^{[40, pp. 41-42]}. The accidental murder of the tsar's eldest son during a quarrel is considered by Fletcher as a punishment of the Lord and one of the main causes of deep sorrow, which, according to the Englishman, brought the former ruler to the grave ^{[40, p. 34]}. It is noteworthy that this story was most widely spread by foreign authors who wrote about the tsar.

However, the most terrible deed of the Terrible Tsar is described by Gorsei. Gorsei still considered the pogroms committed by him in Narva and Novgorod to be the most monstrous lawlessness committed by Ivan the Terrible. The tsar, confident that his defeats in Livonia became possible because of the betrayal of the Novgorodians and Pskov, "was in a hurry to inflict such a cruel and bloody execution as the world had never seen. He came to Narva, seized all the treasury and goods, killed and robbed men, women and children, giving the city to the final plunder of his army... Returning to Veliky Novgorod, where his booty and prisoners remained, he wanted to take revenge on its inhabitants for treason and treachery, as he was especially angry at this city for his joining the discontented nobility; he broke in there with thirty thousand of his Tatars and ten thousand of his guards, who dishonored all the women and girls, robbed and seized everything that was in this city, its treasury, vessels, treasures, killed people, young and old, set fire to their warehouses, storehouses of goods, wax flax, lard, leather, salt, wine, clothing and silk; melted lard and wax flooded the drains in the streets, mixing with the blood of 700 thousand murdered men, women, children; dead bodies of people and animals dammed the Volkhov River, where they were dumped. History does not know such a terrible massacre. The city destroyed by such actions was left deserted and deserted..." ^{[39, pp. 54-55]}. The monstrous devastation committed by the tsar during the oprichnina pogrom in Novgorod in the description of the English author turns into a tragedy of unprecedented proportions. Significantly exaggerating the number of those killed, Gorsei could not but know that there could not be so many residents in Novgorod. Modern researchers agree that the likely numbers of victims of the pogrom are ten times less. Thus, R. G. Skrynnikov noted that the population of the city did not exceed 25-30 thousand people, and 2-3 thousand people could die during pogroms ^{[44, p. 26, 157-158]}. B. N. Florya adheres to approximately the same figures ^{[45, p. 242-243]}. A. A. Zimin believed that the total number of victims in Novgorod and the district could approach 40 thousand people, but most likely it was significantly lower ^{[46, p. 120; 47, p. 300-302]}.

Surprisingly, we observe the evolution of the image of the terrible tsar only in the work of Gorsei, who, having spent many years in the country, personally knew the Moscow sovereign and many of his entourage. The beginning of the reign of Ivan IV, according to Gorsei, inspired hope for a kind and just reign of the young tsar: "Ivan Vasilyevich ... was endowed with a great mind, brilliant abilities worthy of managing such a great monarchy" ^{[39, pp. 50-51]}. With the help of his first wife, who curbed his harsh temper, listening to the advice of his "brave princes, clergy and council", the Grand Duke achieved great success, conquering new countries and defeating his ancient enemies in the south and east ^{[39, p. 51]}. The young tsar systematized the laws, promoted the establishment of order in the country and uniformity in the sphere of religion ^{[39, pp. 91-92]}. However, the excessive power of the tsar led to pride, making Ivan cruel and bloodthirsty ^{[48, p. 155]}. According to Gorsei, excessive wealth, power and power lead the ruler to the growth of despotism, since it is impossible to keep such a great country in subjection in any other way.

Discontent with the despotic rule of Ivan the Terrible matured for a long time: in an atmosphere of terror, none of those close to the court could be calm for their lives, the country was devastated by wars and oprichnina, it is not surprising that the tsar and many to whom he expressed sympathy earned the hatred of the nobility and the common people ^{[12, p. 54]}. Gorsei, in this regard, wrote that "cruelty gave rise to such strong universal hatred, depression, fear and discontent throughout his state that there were many attempts and plans to crush this tyrant, but he managed to uncover their plots and treasons with the help of notorious scoundrels, whom he favored and encouraged in every possible way, opposing the main nobility" ^{[39, p. 55]}. And the longer the lawlessness committed by the tsar continued, the more dangerous the situation in the state became: "The tsar enjoyed bathing his hands and heart in blood, inventing new tortures and tortures, condemning to death those who aroused his anger, and especially those of the nobility who were most loyal and loved by his subjects. At that time, he opposed them in every possible way and supported the biggest scoundrels of his military leaders, soldiers, all this in fact led to the growth of warring and envious people who did not even dare to trust each other with their plans to overthrow the tsar (which was their main desire). He saw this and knew that his state and personal security were becoming less reliable every day" ^{[39, p. 63]}.

Now let's focus separately on the correspondence of the Russian tsar with the English queen. As already noted, Ivan the Terrible has always sought to expand allied relations with England, hoping for its support in the international arena. At the same time, in the foggy Albion, the Russian state saw first of all an important trading partner and a possible route to advance to the riches of the East. Such a different view of the prospects for cooperation between the two countries often led to mutual insults and conflicts ^{[7, pp. 30-31; 49, pp. 266-267]}. It is well known that the Tudors themselves sometimes rarely considered the opinion of parliament, but the model of absolutism formed in England seriously differed from the ideas of Ivan the Terrible ^{[42, p. 456]}. Elizabeth, like many other rulers known to the tsar in the west, could not be considered a sovereign "born" sovereign, since she depended on the estates in her decisions, receiving power, as the tsar believed, not by inheritance, but with the support of the people. Elizabeth's excessive concern for the interests of her merchants only strengthened Ivan the Terrible's conviction that it was these "merchant men" who had power in the country, and the queen was completely dependent on them and only carried out their will ^{[45, p. 111]}. The Tsar of Moscow despised the queen, who, in his opinion, had to reckon with her advisers and parliament ^{[42, p. 455]}. The Russian tsar was not trusted by the unwillingness of Elizabeth's subjects to strictly observe the diplomatic ceremony, the lack of uniformity in the royal letters sent to Moscow ^{[42, p. 146]}. Ivan the Terrible himself was well aware of the unflattering statements made by individual English representatives in his address. Thus, in a letter dated October 24, 1570, the tsar mentions the arrest of a certain Eduard Goodman, in which letters were found in which "about our sovereign name and about our state, many inappropriate messages were written and written, as if improper things were being done in our kingdom" ^{[42, p. 147]}. The message ended with a direct attack on Elizabeth, in whose power the Russian tsar openly doubted: "We expected that you, the sovereign, own your own state and look at your sovereign honor... However, people own you past you, and not just people, but men of commerce and about our heads of the sovereign and about the honor and about the lands of profit, not looking, but looking for their trade profits. And you remain in your maiden rank as a vulgar maiden" ^{[42, p. 148-149]}.

However, it was not permissible for Elizabeth to belittle her power in correspondence with a foreign monarch. In a reply letter sent to Moscow with her beloved tsar Jenkins, Elizabeth pointed out with extreme restraint that "no merchants manage our state affairs, but that we ourselves take care of the conduct of affairs, as befits the virgin and the princess, set before the good supreme God; and that no sovereign is no longer obeyed by his subjects, than to us by our peoples" ^{[4, p. 120]}.

It is noteworthy that his political opponents also sought to bring a negative image of the Russian tsar into English public opinion. Several letters of Sigismund III to the Queen of England have been preserved, where he presents Elizabeth with a negative image of Ivan the Terrible and criticizes his rule. In a letter dated 1568, the Polish king wrote that Ivan the Terrible "is not only a temporary enemy of our crown, but also a hereditary enemy of all free peoples" ^{[42, p. 121]}. In a letter addressed to Queen Elizabeth, sent at the end of 1569, Sigismund III tried to convince the Queen to abandon the support of Moscow: "we know and are reliably convinced that the enemy of all freedom under heaven... is daily increasing as various objects are brought to Narva..." ^{[42, p. 121]}. Against the background of the struggle for Livonia, the Russian state lost the initial stage of the propaganda war that unfolded in Europe, probably, as A. I. Filyushkin noted, without even suspecting it. In Europe, a negative image of the Moscow Tsardom and the Russian tsar began to form intensively, overlaid on the recent revelations of Herberstein ^{[37, p. 420]}. Only the economic interest of the British and the Anglophilism of the Russian tsar kept the hope of an alliance between the two countries at that moment.

In literature, Ivan IV is often called the "English tsar" for the numerous preferences and friendship that the Russian sovereign sought to develop with the inhabitants of foggy Albion. Grozny's "Westernism" was noticeably superior to his boyar entourage, being a supporter of the "Western version" of Russia's foreign policy – paving the way to the West through the Baltic and northern ports ^{[49, p. 206]}. However, as we can see, in English writings the image of the Russian autocrat is far from so unambiguous and it is associated rather not with Western society, but with the Eastern one, endowing the all-powerful ruler not so much with the features of a bold reformer, as forming the image of an eastern despot.

In general, in the English literature of the XVI century. there was a model of the image of Russia, which in the future, with some of its modifications, will appear in the works of writers of subsequent eras. Literary monuments of the XVI century will remain for a long time for the British the main sources of ideas about Russia and Russians ^{[28, p. 30]}.

The image of Ivan IV in the reports of English authors is undergoing a vivid transformation in the Elizabethan era, from admiration for the unlimited power of the Moscow autocrat, his wealth and strength, to censure and presentation as the most negative example of eastern despotism.

What affects the image of the Moscow ruler. First of all, these are the stereotypical images of the rulers of the Moscow state that took root in previous years. In most cases, this information was collected by representatives of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and carried a negative message, which is becoming characteristic of the works of English authors. However, the direct acquaintance of the British with the Russian state, its customs and customs, with the Moscow ruler himself contributes to the development of the image of Ivan the Terrible. English authors were able to identify the progressive initial stage of the reign of Ivan IV. Gorsei, one of the few authors who stayed in the Moscow Kingdom for a long time, was able to highlight a whole series of progressive reforms of the tsar, noting the respectable traits of his character. However, the enormous power and wealth resulting from the conquest of a huge country, according to English authors, led to the corruption of the ruler. At the same time, when discussing the evolution of the image, we should always keep in mind the subjective factor that often determined the general mood of the author of the composition. If the embassy mission to Moscow was unsuccessful, then the picture of what he saw was often negative after the trip, and Ivan the Terrible appeared in the most negative and gloomy manifestations of his nature: bloodthirstiness and complete arbitrariness in the administration of the trial of his subjects.