The Origins of Autocracy

Karamzin called one subsection in his History "The Treason of An­drei Kurbskii." This was not as easy for him as it was for Gorskii. A few pages earlier, he describes the situation preceding Kurbskii's flight: "Muscovy was paralyzed with fear. Blood poured out; in the dungeons and the monasteries the victims groaned; but . . . the tyr­anny was still maturing; the present was horrified by the future."⁵

'' In a situation of total terror, when the fate of a person no longer de­pends on his or her behavior, but only on the caprice of the tyrant, on dark rumors, on evil reports—how in this situation, are we to judge a person who does not wait for the executioners to come after him? Ka­ramzin does not judge: "He [Kurbskii] could without qualms of con­science seek refuge from the persecutor in Lithuania itself." There is another thing, however, for which he cannot forgive Kurbskii: "Re­grettably, [he] did more: he joined the enemies of the fatherland. . . . He committed [to the king of Poland] his honor and his soul, and advised the king on how to ruin Russia.'"" But why Russia?—we might ask Karamzin. Why not the terroristic dictatorship of Ivan the Tormentor—a dictatorship which truly ruined Russia? We would ask this in vain of Karamzin, for whom the autocracy was the soul of Russia and struggle against it equivalent to struggle against the fatherland.

For Skrynnikov today, we must assume, the autocracy is no longer a synonym for the fatherland. However, he goes even further than Ka­ramzin. He not only associates himself with Gorskii, but judges the "traitor" even more severely than does Tsar Ivan himself: "The vice­roy of Livonia [Kurbskii] had been bribed by the Lithuanians, and was driven from his country by the fear of exposure. Kurbskii was not subject to direct persecution at home. To the last day he enjoyed power and honor."⁶¹ A little further on, Skrynnikov writes of the "in­solent reproach [by Kurbskii] to the tsar, [whom he] compared to a fierce and bloodthirsty beast," who had embarked on the "universal ruination" of his governors and counsellors.⁶²

Well, does Skrynnikov refute this "insolent reproach"? Not at all. "Kurbskii's words," he writes,

N. M. Karamzin, Istoriia . . . , vol. 9, p. 23.

Ibid., p. 68.

R. G. Skrynnikov, Perepiska . . . , p. 61.

Ibid., p. 53.

had a quite real historical basis. On the eve of his flight, the tsar's wrath and punishment lost their usual personal character and began to affect entire families. After the death of A. Adashev, the tsar ordered his brother Daniil [the hero of the Crimean campaign of 1559] killed, with his son and his relatives—P. Turov, I. Shiskin, the Satins, and others. In precisely the same way he confined in a monastery the boyar Prince D. Kurliat'ev, his wife, his son, and his daughters.[195]

Furthermore, Skrynnikov understands the meaning of these events excellently: "The execution of famous war leaders symbolized the end of an entire period. . . . Under the 'liberal' regime of Adashev, the death penalty was not once applied to a boyar. . . . The first ex­ecutions of boyars in 1564 signalized the onset of the Oprichnina ter­ror against the boyardom." Why does Skrynnikov think that the boyar Kurbskii, a member of the Government of Compromise, understood what was happening less well than he himself does? In fact, Skryn­nikov does not think anything of the kind. "Kurbskii understood well the meaning of the events taking place before his eyes," he tells us.⁶⁴ What is there surprising, then, about the fact that "in a letter to the tsar, the refugee boyar undertakes the role of intercessor for all peo­ple suffering in Rus'"?⁶⁵ Why is Kurbskii's flight necessarily explained by an ignoble bribe, and not by a noble attempt—which under the conditions of total terror is the only possible one—to "intercede for all the people suffering in Rus'"? Why does this simple and apparently self-evident explanation not even enter Skrynnikov's head—just as it did not enter the head of Likhachev or Lur'e, or Solov'ev or Kavelin, not to speak of Karamzin? And why, if he asserts that the political emigre Kurbskii was bribed by the Lithuanians, is Skrynnikov of­fended when he is told that the political emigre Lenin was bribed by the Germans?