EntranceThe meaning of Simeon Bekbulatovich in a brief biographical encyclopedia. Grand Duke Simeon Bekbulatovich Semyon Bekbulatovich why he became the Russian Tsar
SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH
Simeon Bekbulatovich - Kasimov Khan, baptized Tatar; by a strange whim of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, he became the Grand Duke of All Rus' in 1574. Having executed many boyars, the Chudov archimandrite, the archpriest and many other people of every rank, John installed Simeon Bekbulatovich as king in Moscow and crowned him with the royal crown, and he himself called himself Ivan of Moscow, left the city and began to live on Petrovka; He gave all his royal rank to Simeon, and he himself rode simply, like a boyar, in shafts, and every time Simeon arrived, he sat down with the boyars far from the king’s place. Ivan the Terrible ordered all letters and petitions to be written to Simeon. Some explain this by Ivan the Terrible’s desire to humiliate the zemshchina and especially the boyars he hated; others suggest that he wanted, hiding behind the name of Simeon, to give full rein to his unbridled cruelty; finally, still others see this act as a pathological phenomenon. Two years later, Simeon was exiled from Moscow and given control of Tver and Torzhok. He was returned from exile during the reign of Dmitry the Pretender.
Brief biographical encyclopedia. 2012
See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH is in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:
- SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH
(Sain-Bulat) (?-1616) Kasimov Khan, “Grand Duke of All Rus'” - the nominal ruler of the Russian state since 1575. In 1576 he received as appanage ... - SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH
Bekbulatovich (before baptism - Sain-Bulat) [died 5(15).1.1616], Kasimov Khan, descendant of the khans of the Golden Horde. Appeared in Russia in the late 50s. ... - SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH
Kasimov Khan, baptized Tatar; by a strange whim of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, he became the Grand Duke of All Rus' in 1574. Executing many... - SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH
? Kasimov Khan, baptized Tatar; by a strange whim of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, he became the Grand Duke of All Rus' in 1574. Execution... - SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH
(Sain-Bulat) (?-1616), Kasimov Khan, “Grand Duke of All Rus'” - the nominal ruler of the Russian state from 1575. In 1576 he received ... - SIMEON
SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH, Sain-Bulat (? - 1616), Kasimov Khan, “Grand Prince of All Rus'” - nominal ruler of Russia. state since 1575. In 1576 ... - SIMEON in the Bible Encyclopedia of Nikephoros:
(hearing) - the name of several persons mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures: Gen 29:33 etc.; second son of Jacob by Leah. According to the prediction... - SIMEON in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(d. 107) apostle from 70, relative of the Lord in the flesh (son of the Apostle Cleopas), second bishop of Jerusalem (from 62), hieromartyr, suffered in ... - SIMEON in big Soviet encyclopedia, TSB:
(864 or 865-27.5.927), Bulgarian prince (from 893) and king (from 919). As a result of numerous wars with Byzantium, the territory significantly expanded... - SIMEON V Encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Euphron:
(Heb. "heard") is a very common biblical name. Of the persons who wore it, the most famous are: 1) S. - one of the sons of Jacob, ... - SIMEON in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SIMEON THE STILITE (c. 390-459), Christ. monk, ascetic, hermit. For more than 40 years he labored near Antioch, standing on a platform on a pillar surrounded by... - SIMEON in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SIMEON POLOTSKY (in the world Samuil Emelyanovich Petrovsky-Sitnianovich) (1629-80), society. and church activist, writer, preacher. Since 1664 in Moscow. Author of theological... - SIMEON in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SIMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIST (949-1022), Byzantine. religious writer, poet, mystic. He labored in the Studite monastery, then hegumen of the monastery of St. Mammoth in Constantinople. ... - SIMEON in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SIMEON METAPHRAST (i.e. reteller) (also Logothet) (? - ca. 960), Byzantine. hagiographer. He became famous for his collection and retelling of “The Lives of ... - SIMEON in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SIMEON YEREVANTSI, Armenian. Catholicos (1763-1782). Founder of the first printing house in Armenia and boom. f-ki in... - SIMEON in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SIMEON THE GOD-RECEIVER, according to the New Testament, is an elder-priest who received a newborn baby in the Jerusalem Temple... - SIMEON in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SIMEON (864?-927), Bulgarian prince (from 893), king (from 919). During the reign of S. First Bolg. the kingdom reached its peak. terr. extensions (in... - SIMEON in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
(Heb. "heard") ? a very common biblical name. Of the people who wore it, the most famous are: 1) S. ? one of the sons of Jacob... - SIMEON in the Russian Synonyms dictionary:
Name, … - SIMEON in Modern explanatory dictionary, TSB:
(864?-927), Bulgarian prince (from 893), king (from 919). During the reign of Simeon, the First Bulgarian Kingdom achieved its greatest territorial expansion (in ... - SIMEON THE STILITE
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon the Stylite (356 - 459), Rev. Memory 1 September. Born in 356... - SIMEON THESSALONASKY in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon of Thessalonica (+ 1429), archbishop, saint. Memory 15 September. Life of the Future Saint... - SIMEON POLOTSKY in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon of Polotsk (1629 - 1680), monk, public and church figure, writer, publicist, poet, ... - SIMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIST in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon the New Theologian (946 - 1022), abbot, venerable. Memory 12 March. ... - SIMEON THE OLD in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon the Old (+ c. 390), venerable. Memory January 26. Venerable Simeon the Old, named... - SIMEON THE GOD-RECEIVER in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon the God-Receiver (IV century BC - 1st century), righteous. Memory 3 February. ... - SIMEON (MOLYUKOV) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon (Molyukov) (+ 1699), Metropolitan of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh, saint. Memory January 4... - SIMEON (DU) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Simeon (Du), (1886 - 1965), Bishop of Shanghai. In the world: Du Fedor Runchen (杜润臣). ... - SIMEON IOANNOVICH PROUD
Simeon Ioannovich Proud - the son of Ivan Danilovich Kalita, occupied the Grand Duke's Moscow table from 1341 to 1353. Upon death... - SIMEON DMITRIEVICH in Brief biographical encyclopedia:
Simeon Dmitrievich - Prince of Suzdal, son of Dmitry Konstantinovich; after the invasion of the land of Nizhny Novgorod, the Tatars repelled the attack of the Mordovians; hike... - Nakhod-Simeon in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(Serbian Nakhod Simeune - Simeon the Foundling) - hero of the Serbian epic. As a seven-day-old child, he was found by the abbot in a box nailed with water to... - Nakhod-Simeon in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
(Serbian: Nakhod Simeune? Simeon the Foundling) ? hero of the Serbian epic. As a seven-day-old child, he was found by the abbot in a box nailed with water to... - STEFAN FILEYSKY in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Stefan Fileisky (1830 - 1890), Vyatka, hieroschemamonk, reverend. Memory in the Vyatka Cathedral... - THE MEETING OF THE LORD in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". The Presentation of the Lord, a holiday of the Orthodox Church, belongs to the twelve. Celebrated on February 2. IN … - GEORGIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Georgian Orthodox Church- Local Autocephalous Church. Another official name is the Georgian Patriarchate. Georgian... - VASILY (KRIVOSHEIN) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Vasily (Krivoshein) (1900 - 1985), Archbishop of Brussels and Belgium. In the world of Krivoshein Vsevolod... - JOHN IV VASILIEVICH THE TERRIBLE in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible - Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus', the eldest son of Grand Duke Vasily III Ioannovich from the second ... - VASILY IV IOANNOVICH SHUISKY in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
Vasily IV Ivanovich (Shuisky), Tsar of Moscow and All Rus'. Born in 1547, ascended the throne on May 19, 1606, ... - KIRILLO-BELOZERSKY MONASTERY in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
monastery, monastery in northern Russia. Founded in 1397 by Kirill Belozersky on the shores of Lake Siverskoye (within the boundaries of the modern city ... - PRINCIPALITY OF TVER in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Tver region already at the beginning of the 11th century. belonged to fairly populated and cultural areas ancient Rus': Murom book. Gleb Vladimirovich, ...
Historians still have not agreed on why Ivan the Terrible in 1575 temporarily replaced himself on the throne with Kasimov’s “Tsar” Simeon Bekbulatovich. As for me, this was connected with the possible election of a Russian ruler to the Polish throne. And I had to look “free.” Although I do not insist on this version. But others are even worse.
Original taken from shatff on This day... April 4 – 3
About the mysterious Russian Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich
...According to sources, on April 4, 1606, he was tonsured a monk. Simeon Bekbulatovich... This is how another metamorphosis will take place in life of Sain-Bulat Khan, called for almost a year Grand Duke of All Rus' . (Note that in historiography it is customary to speak with disdain about Kasimov Khan, but everything is not so simple - firstly, by birth he was a real blood Chingizid; secondly, by marrying Anastasia Cherkasskaya, will be the father of the last descendants IvanaIII And Sophia Paleolog . ...As for the Kasimov Khanate, the history of its emergence in the Ryazan region is quite curious - a century and a half before the events described, Ivan the Dark will give these lands to the Kazan prince who came to his service Kashima... at the end In the 17th century, the Khanate will be abolished - but the city of Kasimov still exists today... However, we digress).
...So, in 1575 Ivan groznyj threw out a trick that has not yet been clearly explained - he abdicated the throne, and moved to Petrovka... having previously taken care of royal wedding the mentioned Kasimov Khan. (There is an opinion that Ivan needed a “dummy” sovereign during the “decline” of the oprichnina; according to another version, the sorcerers told fortunes that year To the Moscow Tsar death, and Grozny decided to play it safe; It is even believed that a conspiracy was hatched among the boyars in favor of Devlet-Gireya…(It sounds strange - but, firstly, Genghisid Simeon turned out to be more noble Crimean Khan; secondly - chronologically, Grozny will return to the palace shortly before the death of the latter!..) Of course, there is also a version that Ivan was simply being weird - “crazy, what can you take”... It must be said that the monarch who surrendered his powers will not let go of the reins - but the rules of the game will strictly comply, addressing the successor as follows: “To the Sovereign Grand Duke Semyon Bekbulatovich of All Russia, Ivanets Vasiliev with his children, with Ivanets and Fedorets, is beaten with his forehead.”
...One way or another - in eleven months, Simeon’s reign (no matter how formal it may be considered) will end - and Bekbulatovich will not be thrown, due to his uselessness, to be devoured by bears!.. Quite the contrary, the “ex-tsar” will receive the title Grand Duke of Tver- and will leave for a new place of government, in fact, having exchanged one courtyard for another - only a little less magnificent...
...Everything would be fine - but over the years, clouds will gather over the prince... (As we remember, at one time the ceremony of crowning the kingdom was carried out in its entirety - and no one canceled it!) Therefore, after death Fyodor Ioannovich, Opponents will begin to “raise the flag” of Simeon Godunova... The prince himself did not seem to have any complaints - but elected Tsar Boris was very burdened by the potential competitor. (To what extent can be judged from the text of the oath, in which the subjects separately promised Godunov: “...you don’t want to see Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich and his children and anyone else in the Muscovite kingdom.” As we see, it’s still a “king”!..)
Just in case, suspicious Boris will take away the principality from Simeon, leaving one village. (And, as they say, he will order to blind him - although, perhaps, out of habit, they are trying to “pin” another sin on Godunov). However, real trouble will come to Tsar Boris from a completely different direction - in the face of An impostor.
...Simeon will not get better from this - after all, the legitimacy of False Dmitry was even more doubtful!.. So, on April 4, 1606, the khan and the grand duke turned into Elder Stephen, monk of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. But power continues to change - and in the same year already Shuisky(also a dubious sovereign) will send the poor fellow to Solovki. (It must be said that, as if sensing fate, Simeon would spend all his property on churches and monasteries even earlier - and the first on the list (by coincidence or not) was precisely Solovetsky).
PS: ...After the well-known events of 1612, he would be returned to the Vologda region - and four years later, the owner of many names and titles would pass on to another world. His grave is lost, but, as sources testify, the inscription on it was as follows: “On the 5th day of the summer of January 7124, the servant of God, Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich, reposed in the monastery of the schema-monk Stefan.” And again - the “tsar”... It seems that Ivan the Terrible was not joking after all... However, this is a completely different story.
Lastly. Michael Christopher “Mike” Starr was born on April 4, 1966, the bassist of the successful American band Alice In Chains in the 1990s. The musician died in 2011.
And further. Johan Magnus Sveningsson, bassist of the Swedish band The Cardigans, was born on April 4, 1972.
Simeon Bekbulatovich
(before baptism Sain-Bulat Bekbulatovich) - Tatar prince. S.'s life represents a rare combination of accidents. This is one of those random people who, at times occupying an outstanding political position, did not leave anything lasting for themselves either in the political or public life of the state. Of particular interest is only S.’s personal fate: during his long life, he rose from the role of a serviceman to the position of Grand Duke of All Rus'. S.'s life falls into a number of separate, sometimes very dramatic moments: Sain-Bulat - Khan of Kasimov, Simeon Bekbulatovich - Tsar of All Rus', S. B. - Grand Duke of Tver, S. B. - blind prisoner.
By origin, Sain-Bulat was a direct descendant of the khans of the Golden Horde: Tsarevich Bekbulat, his father, was the grandson of Akhmat, khan of the Golden Horde. Tsarevich Bekbulat appeared at the Moscow court in the late 50s of the 16th century: in 1558, Grozny invited him to his service. During his short service (in 1566 he was no longer alive), he left behind a good memory at the Moscow court. When in 1566 the sister of Tsarevich Bekbulat came to Moscow to meet with her relatives, and, by the way, with her nephew Sain-Bulat, the sovereign pointed out: “And that princess was bestowed upon the sovereign, because her relatives served the sovereign and laid their heads.” Origin, as well as his father’s service, ensured a brilliant career for the young prince. At the end of the 60s (not earlier than 1567) he was already Kasimov Khan. Novosiltsev, Grozny’s ambassador to Constantinople, characterizes S.B.’s independent position in Kasimov with these features: “Our sovereign planted Tsarevich Sain-Bulat in the town of Kasimov, ordered the mizgiti and kisheni to be organized as in the Busurman law, and he has no will in anything our sovereign did not take it away." Of course, in Novosiltsev’s speech, S.B.’s independent position in Kasimov is outlined too boldly. In fact, S.B.’s dependence on the Moscow sovereign was very great. For example, a Moscow boyar was always with him. The activities of S.B. during the period of his khanate in Kasimov are the activities of a Moscow serviceman of the highest rank. The Kasimov Khanate, as a territorial district, is the local salary of S.B. for his service to the Moscow sovereign; S.B.’s service is ordinary military service a service man of the highest rank. By the time of Grozny, the Kasimov Khanate had lost its original purpose: the borders of the Moscow state, which had advanced to the south, southeast and southwest, took away from the Kasimov Khanate the importance of an advanced stronghold against Tatar raids; conventional names: the territory of the town of Kasimov - the khanate, and the serving Tatar prince - the khan - the only almost remnants of the former really official role Kasimov Khanate. In the early 70s, S.B. participated in the Russian wars with the Swedes and Germans, either as a commander of an advanced regiment or as a guard commander. S.B.’s military talent, as an independent governor, turned out to be quite insignificant. Under Koloveri, the Russians were completely defeated mainly due to the fact that “the governors did not march together and did not follow military custom.” Unsuccessful trip against the Germans contributed to the conclusion of a truce, which was decided at a general meeting of governors in Veliky Novgorod. S.B. was also present at this meeting. Around this time, important changes took place in S.B.’s personal life. In July 1573, he was baptized and took the name Simeon. In the Kushalinskaya Church (village of Kushalino, Tver province and district), built by S.B. himself, the icon of the Smolensk Mother of God, with which, according to legend, S.B. was blessed by his successor-metropolitan, is still kept. Soon after his baptism, S. B. married the daughter of boyar Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky, Anastasia. This ends the first period in S.B.’s life and begins the second, which to this day cannot be explained.
By the will of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, in the mid-70s of the 16th century, S.B. became the Grand Duke of All Rus'. The essence of this strange fact is as follows: “Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was arbitrary and installed Simeon Bekbulatovich as tsar in Moscow... and he himself called himself Ivan of Moscow, and left the city, lived on Petrovka; he gave all his royal rank to Simeon, and he rode simply, like a boyar, in shafts, and when he arrives at Tsar Simeon, he sits down in a place far from the Tsar, together with the boyars.” The placement of S.B. on the grand ducal table of all Rus' is confirmed by a number of instructions, Russian and foreign, although extremely contradictory in detail. In addition, the fact of S. B.’s placement on the Grand Duke’s table of All Rus' is fully confirmed by: 1) the petition of Ivanets Vasiliev dated October 30, 1575, 2) five letters of the Grand Duke of All Rus' Simeon Bekbulatovich dated 1576 - January, February 9, 14 March, March 27 and April 2, and 3) a letter from Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow, Grand Duke Simeon Bekbulatovich of All Russia to clerk Ondrey Shchelkalov dated May 29, 1576. Having placed S.B. on the Grand Duke's table of All Russia, Grozny left the city and lived on Petrovka, having given his entire royal rank to S. Both Russian and foreign sources, stating the fact of S. B.’s elevation to the Grand Duke’s table of all Rus' and noting that Grozny formally renounced power and became a simple boyar, are extremely contradictory about certain details of this strange games by Ioann Vasilievich. When did S.B. sit on the Grand Duke's table of all Rus'? How long did S.B.'s reign last? What essentially, and not formally, was the grand ducal dignity of S.B.? What were they essentially mutual relations Ivanets of Moscow and S.B. during the reign of this latter? Finally, what were the motives of Ivan the Terrible when he began his game with “God’s people”? Sources, and after them researchers, answer all these questions in the most contradictory ways. According to the definition of the beginning of S. B.’s reign, all sources fall into 2 groups: some of them (for example, the Morozov Chronicle, Sergei Kubasov’s chronograph, Horsey’s notes) merge the moment of S. B.’s elevation to the Grand Duke’s table of all Rus' with the moment of the division of Rus' into zemshchina and oprichnina, while others date S.B.’s placement on the grand-ducal table to the 70s of the 16th century. Most accurately, questions about the beginning and duration of the great reign of S.B. can be resolved on the basis of a comparison of the letters given in the mid-70s of the 16th century on behalf of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and the Grand Duke of All Russia S.B. Examining these letters, one can notice , that from January to April 1576 all letters were given in the name of one Grand Duke of All Rus' S.B., a letter in the name of clerk Ondrei Shchelkalov dated May 29, 1576 was given jointly from Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow and from the great Prince of All Rus' S. B.; in July 1576, in the ranks of S.B., he was called the Grand Duke of Tver; finally, in the charter of Rostov Archbishop Jonah dated June 27, 1576, S.B. is still titled Grand Duke of All Rus'. The earliest indication of the beginning of S.B.’s reign is the famous petition of Ivanets of Moscow dated October 30, 1575 about the enumeration of little people. However, in the period from October 30, 1575 to January 1576, letters were given on behalf of the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus' Ivan Vasilyevich. So, with some probability, the time of S.B.’s great reign can be attributed to the period from October 1575 to June 1576. The testimony of one private chronicle collection belonging to N.P. very closely matches this definition of the time of S.B.’s great reign. Likhachev. "Summer 7084 (1576). The Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich placed Semyon Bekbulatovich in the Moscow state for the great reign, and the sovereign himself went ashore to serve and stood all summer in Kaluga. And Semyon Bekbulatovich was in the great reign for a year not full, and then the sovereign granted him a great reign over Tver, and he himself again sat down as the kingdom of Moscow." The question of the essence of S.B.’s power and the mutual relations of Ivanets of Moscow and the Grand Duke of All Rus' is also interpreted in contradictory ways by both Russian and foreign sources. The only thing they all agree on is that formally John Vasilyevich renounced royal power. Only the Abbreviated Temporary and Margeret speak about the royal crowning of S.B. However, other sources pass over this issue in silence and, speaking about the transfer of power to S.B., use the following expressions: “he placed Grand Duke Simeon Bekbulatovich on the great reign in Moscow ...; the kingdom was divided into two parts: separate one for yourself, the other Simeon... entrust; ... make him (Simeon) king in Moscow...", etc. Finally, Daniel Sylvester testifies that in a conversation with him on January 29, 1576, the sovereign said the following: "... although we announced to you that, apparently, we have elevated another to royal dignity and thereby obliged ourselves and others, however, this matter is not yet final and we have not renounced the kingdom so much that we cannot, when we please, again accept the rank, and we will also act in this matter as God instructs us, because it has not yet been approved by the wedding rite, and was appointed not by popular choice, but only by our permission. Look also: seven crowns are still in our possession with the scepter and the rest of the royal ornaments that belong to the kingdom, and with all the treasures that belong to each crown." Comparing all the given indications from the sources and taking into account that if the wedding took place over S.B., the very fact of the wedding to the kingdom would certainly be noted by contemporaries, one cannot but agree with that researcher of the era who says: “Since S.B. did not bear the royal title, he could not have been crowned king; he was simply, in the words of one discharge book, the sovereign “placed him on the great reign in Moscow,” perhaps with some ritual, but, of course, not with the rite of a royal wedding." . Having formally removed himself from tsarist power, Grozny, during the great reign of S.B., actively continued to engage in government affairs: he gave letters and received foreign ambassadors. The grand ducal authority of S.B. was so small that the clerks did not even respond to his letters, but only responded to the sovereign, Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow. The letters themselves, given to S.B. during the period from January to April 1576, are of absolutely insignificant significance. Finally, on October 30, 1575, Ivanets of Moscow ordered the Grand Duke of All Rus', under the guise of a plaintive petition, to review the service people. The petition of Ivanets of Moscow dated October 30, 1575 is a decree on the revision of service people with the introduction of the oprichnina. The content of the decree is not new. It sets out the most important principles introduced by Ivan the Terrible on the lands of the old appanage princes and boyars. So, the episode of the great reign of S.B., apparently, can be understood, according to the apt definition of clerk Ivan Timofeev, only as “a game over God’s people.” The very fact of S.B.’s great reign on the table of all Rus' remained, it seems, completely misunderstood by contemporaries. All explanations given about this fact by Moscow and foreign writers suffer from extreme tension. The shortened Vremennik until 1691. S. B.’s placement on the Grand Duke’s table puts him in close connection with the disgrace of Ivan Vasilyevich against Mstislavsky and with the executions of the boyars that took place in 1574. Other Russian sources (Morozov Chronicle and Sergei Kubasov’s chronograph) identify the facts of the establishment of the oprichnina and the imprisonment of S.B. on the table of all Rus'. Finally, other Russian sources pass over the reasons in complete silence , which Grozny could have been guided by when placing S.B. on the grand-ducal table. Foreigners' explanations of the reasons for the fact in question are completely arbitrary. Ivan Vasilyevich is planning to flee with his treasury to England. His son John will remain in Rus'. A new treasury will be needed for the new king. But how to get it? I.B. simply resolves the issue: he enthrones Simeon of Kazan, who must cancel all grants and privileges belonging to cities and monasteries. At the urgent request of the clergy and cities, Grozny returns to power and, for a lot of money, returns the confiscated charters to the monasteries and cities. These are in general outline Fletcher and Horsey's explanations. Even more arbitrary is Margeret’s note about the reasons for the elevation of S.B. to the throne of the Grand Duke: “John Vasilyevich, nicknamed the torturer, doubting the devotion of his subjects, tested them by various means; the main thing was the elevation of Tsar Simeon to the throne...” Almost all the researchers who wrote about this episode, were not able to explain this episode with sufficient conviction due to the lack of any accurate data, and as much as the news from sources talking about this episode in the life of S.B. is contradictory, the explanations of the researchers are just as contradictory. N.M. Karamzin in “History of the Russian State” carefully passes over in silence the episode of S.B.’s Grand Duchy, limiting himself to only a general indication of individual Russian and foreign evidence relating to the fact in question. Yu. Tolstoy, N.I. Kostomarov and D.I. Ilovaisky explain the elevation of S.B. to the grand ducal table of all Rus' as a result of the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and deny any share of rationality behind this fact. S. M. Solovyov and K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin see in the imprisonment of S. B. only a replacement of the head of the zemshchina: S. B. replaces I. F. Mstislavsky. N.V. Lileev, who wrote a historical essay about S.B., strives to reconcile all the information from the sources. Being in a “desperate situation” (financial difficulties, discord with the boyars, external failures, etc.), Grozny sees his only way out in fleeing abroad. Not wanting to leave the state without a ruler, he is looking for a successor. S.B. is a person suitable for this purpose: by his origin he is alien to the court parties, and by his abilities he is quite capable of ruling the Moscow state. S. M. Seredonin and S. F. Platonov give a completely new insight into the fact of S. B.’s placement on the Grand Duke’s table of all Rus' in their studies. They view it as one of the episodes of the oprichnina. “The accession of Simeon, probably,” says Mr. Seredonin, “was caused by events like the events of 1564, that is, at that time John had reasons to be especially dissatisfied with his subjects. The deposition of Simeon, sending him to Tver, was together reconciliation between the Tsar and the Zemshchina." S. F. Platonov, pointing out that Ivan Vasilyevich built the mutual relations of the zemshchina and the oprichnina not on the principle of mutual enmity, adds: “Only one episode with the great reign in the zemshchina S.B. could contradict this if serious significance could be attached to it and if he had clearly indicated the intention to separate the “zemshchina” into a special “great reign.” But, it seems, this was a short-term and completely unsustained test of the division of power. .. It was some kind of game or whim, the meaning of which is unclear, and the political significance is insignificant." So, the insignificance, inaccuracy and contradiction of sources do not allow us to illuminate the considered episode in the life of S. B. Its meaning was not understood by contemporaries and remains unsolved by researchers. His closest contemporaries soon forgot the fact: they did not know what time to attribute him to, they even lost the very name of the temporary Grand Duke of All Russia.Many sources call Simeon of Kazan instead of S.B.
In the second half of 1576, “Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich again took over and sent the temporary tsar to his Torzhkov estates, also granting him the principality of Tver.” S.B. again becomes a Moscow service man of the highest rank. Tver and Torzhok were withdrawn from national administration and given into the possession of S.B. The former Grand Duke of All Rus' is a large landowner. Part of the scribe book of his lands, compiled around 1580, has been preserved. The vast lands of the Grand Duke were located in the districts of Tverskoy and Mikulinsky and included up to 13,500 acres of arable land alone. True, with the low profitability of land in the era under consideration and with constant peasant output, the income from the estate was small, but S.B.’s local salary itself gave him a prominent role in the state. N.V. Lileev, managed through small observations to establish that S.B. in his land holdings had special possessory rights that distinguished the Grand Duke from other service people of the Moscow state of that time: S.B. gives letters of grant, grants estates, collects into his treasury, Yamsk money from a soshny letter, in some cases collects rent from empty estates into his own treasury, etc. At the same time, his courtyard, located in the village of Kushalin, bears traces administrative center. The staff of people surrounding S.B. is very diverse and varied in composition. In a word, S.B. occupies a very prominent position in the hierarchy of Moscow service people contemporary to him. As a serviceman of the Moscow sovereign, S.B. takes direct part in wars. From the end of 1577 to 1582, S.B. took part in military operations against Poland and undoubtedly turned out to be a completely incapable military leader.
With the death of Ivan the Terrible, S.B.'s life enters its last, dramatic period. A number of great misfortunes befall him. During the first period of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich, S.B. occupied his former high position. The unsubscribe was saved. book S.B. dated 1585 about sending them, by sovereign decree, the children of the boyar Tverites and Novotorzhtsy to serve in Velikiy Novgorod, with a list of them attached; from the reply it is clear that disgrace befell S.B. not immediately after the death of Grozny and that an explanation for it should be sought in the special events that took place at that time in Moscow. Under the sovereign, Boris Godunov was in particular power. There are known attempts by the Moscow boyars to eliminate the influence of this strong and smart person . A close relative of S.B., I.F. Mstislavsky, is involved in one of the intrigues against Boris Feodorovich. The intrigue was revealed, Mstislavsky was tonsured into the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. At this time, disgrace also befell S.B., from whom his rank and estate were taken away, and he himself was left to live in Kushalin. “After the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich was no longer on his estate in Tver,” says the Nikon Chronicle, “taking him to the village of Kushalino, but at that time there were not many people in his court and they lived in poverty; the enemy hates the good of the human race and when he saw Tsar Simeon, his strong life and faith in God was great, not seeking anything earthly; he put the same enemy in Boris’s heart and was terrified of him, and sent an envoy to him with magical cunning, and commanded him to blind him, and did the same , and living in that village was blind." The very tone of the above story casts doubt on the authenticity of the story about the blinding of S. B. Godunov. There is no doubt that the Grand Duke of Tver was deprived of his previous position and left to live in Kushalin, where, perhaps, he lost his sight at that time. Having so unexpectedly found himself in captivity, having lost his high position, the disgraced Grand Duke sought consolation in God: he built churches and made contributions to monasteries. But the first misfortune that befell him was only the beginning of the grave misfortunes that awaited him ahead. The events that took place in Moscow did not escape S.B. Sources say that in May 1598, the boyars in Moscow began to think about how to elect S.B. to the throne instead of Boris Feodorovich. At the head of the intrigue were prominent boyars - Belsky and Feodor Nikitich Romanov. The intrigue was upset in time, but it explains the insertion into the cross note to Tsar Boris, compiled after his coronation, about “not wanting Tsar Semyon Bekbulatov to become king, not to link with him and report on any movement or conversation in favor of the tsar Simeon or his son." It is possible that these words in the subscript explain the rumors that spread among Muscovites and then found their way into the notes of foreigners about the blinding of S.B. and the poisoning by Tsar Boris of the son of the former Grand Duke of All Rus'. With the accession of False Dmitry, a change occurred again in the fate of S.B. According to some news, he was first invited to Moscow and treated kindly by False Dmitry, but then sent to prison in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. From March 29, 1606, a letter from False Demetrius to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery to Abbot Sylvester has been preserved with the order that the Tsar’s Abbot “tonsure the entire cathedral honestly and order him to rest in the monastery against the same as Elder Jonah of Mstislavsky, and as Tsar Simeon you will tonsure , and you should have written to us about this in Moscow, so that we would know about it.” On April 3, S.B. was tonsured at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery under the name of Stephen. But he did not find peace in the monastery either: Moscow events continued to affect his personal fate. With the accession of Vasily Shuisky to the throne, Moscow again remembered the ill-fated monk. In June 1606, an intrigue was opened in Moscow against V.I. Shuisky in favor of the Mstislavskys. Among the people who suffered from the consequences of the intrigue was the monk Stefan. “And the monk Stefan lived in the Kirillov Monastery for 2 months, and the nobleman of the sovereign and Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich Fyodor Ivanov, son of Suponev, came from Moscow, and he was ordered by letter to bring the monk Stefan to Solovki.” Elder Stefan lived in Solovki for 6 years, suffering great need. The Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery seemed to him a quiet refuge; the former Grand Duke of All Rus' asked for this refuge; “and on the advice of the whole earth they ordered Elder Stefan Bekbulatovich to be in the Cyril Monastery.” S.B. ended his bitter days in Moscow in 1616 and was buried in the Simonov Monastery.
S. B. had three sons - Theodore, Dimitri and John, and three daughters - Evdokia, Maria and Anastasia. S.B. outlived all his children. His wife, having become a nun under the name of Alexandra, died on June 7, 1607 and was buried in the Simonov Monastery.
All information related to the life of S. B. is collected with great care in the historical essay by N. V. Lileev “Simeon Bekbulatovich, Khan Kasimovsky, Grand Duke of All Rus', later Grand Duke of Tver, 1567-1616,” Tver, 1891 - "Readings in the Moscow General History and Antiquities", 1898, III, Acts of the city of Yushkov, No. 206. - Historical Acts, I, Nos. 194 and 195. - "Acts of the Architectural Expedition", vol. I, Nos. 288, 289, 290, 294, 295, 344. - "Acts of the Moscow State", vol. I, pp. 46, 52-54, 56. - "Scribe books of the Moscow State", vol. II, Part I, Dept. 2., pp. 291-403, ed. Imp. Russian Geogr. General, ed. N.V. Kalacheva, St. Petersburg, 1877. - “Ancient Russian Vivliofika”, part X, p. 30; h. XIII, p. 435. - "Continuation of Ancient Russian Vivliofika", vol. XI, p. 170. - "Nikon Chronicle", vol. VIII, p. 30. - "Russian Historical Library", III, 255. - “Tales of Gorsey”, “Domestic Notes”, 1859, part 126, p. 116. - Margeret, “The state of the Russian state at the beginning of the 17th century”, St. Petersburg, 1830, pp. 2, 12, 66 . - S. M. Seredonin, “Essay by Giles Fletcher “Of the russe common wealth” as historical source", St. Petersburg, 1891, pp. 61, 66, 76-80, 81, 189, 190, 194-197, 198-200, 274, 314, 318, 353. - A. Popov, "Selection of Slavic and Russian works and articles included in the chronographs of the Russian edition", Moscow, 1869, p. 284. - Artsybashev, "Narrative of Russia", vol. II, book IV, Moscow, 1838, p. 324 et seq. - N. M. Karamzin, "History of the Russian State" (1st ed. Einerling), according to the index. - Soloviev, "History of Russia from ancient times" (ed. Public Benefit), according to the index. - D. I. Ilovaisky, "History of Russia", vol. III, Moscow, 1890, pp. 281-282. - K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, "Russian History", vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1885, pp. 265 and words - S. F. Platonov, "Essays on the history of the Troubles in the Moscow State of the 16th-17th centuries", St. Petersburg, 1899, according to the index - S. F. Platonov, "Ancient Russian tales and stories about the Time of Troubles of the 17th century . as a historical source", St. Petersburg, 1888, pp. 136, 255, 317. - N. P. Likhachev, "District clerks of the 16th century", 1888, according to the index. - Hamel, "The British in Russia in the 16th century and XVII century.", St. Petersburg, 1865-1869, pp. 110 et seq. - E. A. Belov, "About historical significance Russian boyars", pp. 115-116. - Yu. Tolstoy, "The first forty years of relations between Russia and England", 1553-1593, St. Petersburg, 1875, pp. 174-188. - N.I. Kostomarov, “The beginning of autocracy in ancient Rus'”, Bulletin of Europe, November 1870, pp. 551-552. - S. V. Rozhdestvensky, “Servant land ownership in the Moscow state of the 16th century”, St. Petersburg, 1897, p. 169, 170, 216, 245, 248, 250, 276, 311, 380. - Dosifey, “Description of the Solovetsky Monastery”, part I, pp. 108, 117-118. - Velyaminov-Zernov, “Research on the Kasimov kings and princes", St. Petersburg, 1864, vol. II, pp. 7-13, 24-26. - Sudakov, "Historical note about the ancient church in the village of Kushalin and about Kushalin itself", Tver, 1851, p. 17 et seq. - M. A. Kolchin, “Exiled and imprisoned in the prison of the Solovetsky Monastery in the 16th-17th centuries,” Russian Antiquity, 1887, November.
A. Nikolaev.
(Polovtsov)
Simeon Bekbulatovich
Kasimov Khan, baptized Tatar; by a strange whim of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, he became the Grand Duke of All Rus' in 1574. Having executed many boyars, the Chudov archimandrite, the archpriest and many other people of every rank, John installed S. Bekbulatovich as king in Moscow and crowned him with the royal crown, and he himself called himself Ivan of Moscow, left the city and began to live on Petrovka; He gave all his royal rank to S., and he himself rode simply, like a boyar, in shafts, and every time S. arrived, he sat down with the boyars far from the Tsar’s place. Ivan the Terrible ordered all letters and petitions to be written to S. Some explain this by Ivan the Terrible’s desire to humiliate the zemshchina and especially the boyars he hated; others suggest that he wanted, hiding behind the name S., to give full vent to his unbridled cruelty; finally, still others see this act as a pathological phenomenon. Two years later, Simeon was exiled from Moscow and given control of Tver and Torzhok. He was returned from exile only during the reign of Dmitry the Pretender.
(Brockhaus)
Simeon Bekbulatovich
titled the Terrible Tsar and led. Prince of Tver and all Russia, monastic. Stephen; † in Solovetsky Monastery. 5 Jan 1616
(Polovtsov)
Large biographical encyclopedia. 2009 .
Grozny shows his treasures to the English ambassador Horsey. 1875 Artist A. Litovchenko Clickable 2000 px
Live and learn. I didn't know this historical fact. And you? One day, Emperor Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible greatly surprised his subjects. In 1575 he abdicated power in favor of the so-called Kasimov king Simeon Bekbulatovich .
Overnight, the Tatar Khan was promoted to ruler of Rus', and Tsar Ivan the Terrible became Prince Ivan of Moscow. Grozny even wrote a “petition” to the new ruler. Everything is as it should be: “To the Sovereign Grand Duke Simeon Bekbulatovich of All Rus', Ivanets Vasiliev with his children, with Ivanets, and with Fedorets, they beat their foreheads.” Although it is customary to call Simeon a king during this period, in fact he was not one. Ivan the Terrible did not give him this title. Simeon sat on the throne with the title of “Grand Duke of All Rus'.” Ivan remained the Prince of Moscow, Pskov and Rostov. A prince from the family of Genghis Khan ascended the Moscow throne. Russian history could have been completely different if he had inherited the political will, courage, treachery and ambitions of his great ancestor. But he just accurately and honestly played the modest role assigned to him in the brilliant political combination invented by Ivan Vasilyevich on a scale worthy of his Shakespearean era. The history of puppet rule in Russia, interesting in itself, has seriously influenced our political consciousness, for the first time so clearly demonstrating that Power and
Responsibilities may be completely unrelated. Subsequently, this technique was used repeatedly, of course, not in such a radical form, but rather under the motto “The Tsar does not know what his boyars are doing,” and its effectiveness was highly appreciated. And Tsar Simeon, the hero and victim of this unprecedented historical tragedy, was forgotten...
One October day in 1575, Moscow was noisy like a disturbed beehive: Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich abdicated the throne and placed the baptized Tatar prince Simeon in the great reign of all Rus'. Not everyone today has heard of this Russian sovereign, and if his reign is mentioned in history textbooks, it is only as a strange curiosity, the extravagance of Ivan the Terrible. Contemporaries viewed this differently. The fact is that Simeon became king long before his coronation in the Assumption Cathedral.
Simeon Bekbulatovich The noble blood of the Chingizids flowed in him. Before baptism he was called Sain-Bulat. His father Bek-Bulat was a direct descendant of the rulers of the Golden Horde - the grandson of the last Golden Horde khan Akhmat. In 1558, Ivan IV invited Bek-Bulat to his service. It is reliably known that in 1563 he took part in a military campaign near Smolensk, and already in 1566 “he laid down his head in the sovereign’s service.” After his death, his son continued his service. In official documents, Sain-Bulat was called the Astrakhan prince. However, at the end of the 1560s, his life took off for the first time. Ivan the Terrible placed Sain-Bulat on the throne in Khan-Kerman (City of Khan), as the town of Kasimov was called at that time. After the collapse of the Golden Horde, the Tatars often moved to the Moscow Principality. The offspring of noble Horde families, together with their children and household members, asked the great princes for service and a place to live.
IN different time The princes who left the Horde were given native Russian cities as their inheritance. The Tatar Murza Kaibula owned Yuryev, Derbysh-Aley - Zvenigorod, Ibaka - Surozhik. During the reign of Vasily II, there was such an influx of Tatars into Moscow service that at court the Russians felt relegated to the background. In the Russian nobility one can trace several hundred names of Turkic origin - Aksakovs and Yusupovs, Berdyaevs and Tenishevs, Urusovs and Karamzins, Tretyakovs and Chaadaevs, and many others... Why did Moscow treat its former enslavers with such attention? Firstly, the high origin of Tatar emigrants allowed them to lay claim to the khan’s thrones in Kazan, Astrakhan and Bakhchisarai.
Secondly, three centuries of subordination to the Golden Horde developed in Rus' a persistent veneration of the Genghis Khan dynasty, which ruled there. According to chroniclers, the Tatar princes at the Kremlin court were considered “the honor of the boyars.” And more than once it happened that, going to war, the Grand Duke entrusted the government of the country not to the boyars, but to one of his Tatar subjects. For example, during the campaign against Veliky Novgorod in 1477, Ivan III entrusted all affairs to the Tatar prince Murtaza, who was in his service; later, in 1518, Ivan’s son, Vasily III, when the Crimean Khan’s troops approached the capital, fled from Moscow, entrusting its defense to the Tatar prince Peter...
Ivan the Terrible at the wedding of Simeon Bekbulatovich (miniature of Litsevoy chronicle code) Kasym, the son of the first Kazan khan Ulug-Muhammad, was granted Gorodets-Meshchersky by Grand Duke Vasily II (since then this city in the Ryazan region has been called Kasimov). The holdings around Kasimov formed an ulus dependent on Moscow. However, in the beginning things were completely different. The founding of the Kasimov Khanate was a forced concession to the Horde. It all started with the fact that in 1437, as a result of internal disputes, the grandson of the famous Tokhtamysh, Khan Ulug-Muhammad, lost his throne in the Great Horde. Fleeing, he fled to the Belevsky principality on the border of Rus'. However, this proximity did not please Grand Duke Vasily II, who sent troops to Belev. Ulug offered to accept him as Moscow citizen, promised to serve faithfully and guard the border. Everything is in vain. The Moscow army staged a terrible defeat, Ulug-Muhammad was again forced to flee. However, things soon improved for him. He settled in Kazan and began to take revenge. In 1445 the Tatars captured Nizhny Novgorod, and then in the battle of Suzdal Vasily II himself was captured. He paid off with an amount equal to nothing in the history of Russia either before or since - 200 thousand rubles (according to other sources - “the entire treasury”). It is clear that the unlucky Grand Duke did not have that kind of money. As if as a pledge, Vasily II was forced to give extensive land ownership to the son of the winner - Tsarevich Kasym. The return of Vasily II to Moscow with a Tatar detachment, which was supposed to take the ransom to Kazan, caused an uprising against the prince, who bought freedom so dearly. Vasily was overthrown, and the leader of the “anti-Horde opposition” Dmitry Shemyaka, his cousin, came to power.
Vasily was blinded (from then on he began to be called the Dark One) and exiled to Uglich. And then his worst enemy came to Vasily’s aid. With the support of the troops of Ulug-Muhammad, Vasily regained his throne. And only then was he able to pay off his debts... For centuries, Kasimov was an important military factor in Moscow’s strategic plans. It should be noted that, unlike other Russian principalities, the Kasimov Khanate was a Muslim inheritance within Russia. The Russian tsars reminded Crimea and Turkey of this every time when they began to worry about the fate of their co-religionists in Rus': “If our sovereign had destroyed the Busurman law, he would not have ordered Sain-Bulat to be established among his land in the Busurman law.” Many rulers of Kasimov left a bright mark on history. For example, Kasimov's Khan Shah-Ali occupied the Kazan throne five times, and his soldiers took part in all Kazan campaigns of Russian troops. But our hero, Sain-Bulat, made the most successful career. The Tsar's Servant Sain-Bulat's ascent to the heights of power began in 1570, when in the Moscow discharge books he began to be called Tsar Kasimov (his predecessors were called more modestly - princes). Perhaps Sain had powerful patrons in the Kremlin: he was a relative of Ivan IV’s second wife, Maria Temryukovna, who came from a family of ruling Kabardian princes. However, by that time the queen had already died (Grozny claimed that she was poisoned), and her brother Mikhail Cherkassky, who commanded the oprichnina guard, was in disgrace. So the rise of Sain-Bulat cannot be explained only by palace intrigues. Many at that time made rapid careers in the oprichnina army - but Sain never served in the oprichnina. An important condition To advance the career of a Tatar dignitary in Rus', he converted to the Orthodox faith. In July 1573, at the insistence of Ivan the Terrible, the Kasimov king was baptized in the village of Kushalino, Tver district, receiving the Christian name Simeon. Sain knew that he was losing the right to the throne of the Muslim Kasimov. However, Ivan the Terrible compensated him in full for this loss by granting him the title of “servant of the sovereign,” which was given only to the closest dignitaries and only for special services.
In addition to Simeon, this title was borne by Prince Mikhail Vorotynsky (being commander-in-chief of the Russian army in 1572, he completely defeated the Crimean Horde) and Boris Godunov, who was the de facto ruler of Russia under the feeble-minded Tsar Feodor. Explaining to foreigners the meaning of the title of “servant of the sovereign,” Moscow diplomats stated that “that name is more honorable than all the boyars, and that name is given by the sovereign for many services.” What did Sain-Bulat have to do to earn such favor from Ivan the Terrible? At a minimum, save the king from imminent death or uncover a conspiracy. The chronicles are silent about this. It is tempting to explain the sudden rise of Kasimov Khan by his secret intimate relationship with the king. This is not surprising - history knows similar examples. Fyodor Basmanov, the son of the head of the first oprichnina government, was called Ivan Vasilyevich’s lover. He was extraordinarily handsome (N. Karamzin wrote about him: “Beautiful in face, vile in soul”). Prince Andrei Kurbsky argued that it was precisely this circumstance that ensured the Basmanovs’ career. They said that the favorite achieved a high position thanks to seductive dancing in a woman's costume in front of the king. These rumors greatly irritated Ivan the Terrible. When Prince Dmitry Obolensky-Ovchinin at a feast threw the tsar’s favorite in the face: “My ancestors and I have always served the sovereign in a dignified manner, and you serve him with sodomy,” Ivan the Terrible ordered the boyar to be strangled. However, despite the fact that sodomy in Rus' at that time was quite widespread (the Austrian ambassador Sigismund Herberstein in his book “Notes on Muscovite Affairs” noted that homosexuality was widespread in all social strata), to Simeon’s credit it can be said that this kind Contemporaries had no assumptions. So the reasons for Ivan the Terrible’s affection for Simeon remained a sealed secret for historians. ...
In 1573, Ivan the Terrible married Simeon. His wife was one of the most beautiful women of that time - Anastasia Mstislavskaya, the daughter of Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky, whom foreigners called “the prince of the blood” - his mother was the niece of Grand Duke Vasily III. Thus, the Mstislavskys, who descended from the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas, were also related to Tsar Ivan IV. Having married the beautiful Anastasia, Simeon Bekbulatovich also became related to the tsar. The marriage of Simeon and Anastasia was successful. They had six children - Evdokia, Maria, Anastasia, Fedor, Dmitry and Ivan. But high politics interfered with the quiet family life. On the Moscow throne, on October 30, 1575, Ivan the Terrible renounced the kingdom and transferred supreme power to Simeon, who had recently been appointed head of the Boyar Duma. This decision was prepared in secret and therefore even for the closest royal circle it sounded like a bolt from the blue. The former Kasimov Khan became "the Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus'." Simeon was married in the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin - as befits Moscow sovereigns. Grozny himself, according to the chronicler, moved “to Neglinnaya on Petrovka, on Orbat, opposite the Kamenoy Bridge Starovo, and his name was Ivan of Moscow... And he simply rode as a boyar, and in winter the driver was deafened...
And when he comes to the Grand Duke Simeon, he sits far away, like the boyars, and Simeon the Great Prince sits in the royal place." Grozny retained his "destiny", to which Rostov, Pskov, Dmitrov, Staritsa, Rzhev and Zubtsov went. the rest of Rus' (except for the former Kazan Khanate) was “ruled" by Simeon. State decrees and awards were issued under the name and coat of arms of Simeon Bekbulatovich. And the Terrible himself wrote petitions addressed to Simeon: “To the Sovereign Grand Duke Simion Bekbulatovich of all Rus', Ivanets Vasilyev with his children, with Yvanets, and with Fedorets they beat him with his forehead." In the petitions, Ivan the Terrible asks the sovereign to welcome him and show his mercy, and to "sort out the little people" - to reconsider the monetary and local salaries of service people. In the enemy environment For ten years, Ivan the Terrible tried to break the resistance of the Russian aristocracy with the help of oprichnina terror. The oprichnina plunged Russia into chaos, but did not achieve any results. Ivan was forced to disband the Praetorian Guard. This only made the situation worse. Treason had penetrated the government, the immediate circle was unreliable, and the boyars inspired even greater fears in the tsar. The English ambassador Daniel Sylvester wrote that in a conversation with him, Ivan IV explained his decision to transfer the throne to Simeon by threatening conspiracies: he “foresaw the changing and dangerous position of sovereigns and the fact that they, along with the lowest people, are subject to coups.” The reason for the “resignation” of Ivan the Terrible was “the criminal and malicious actions of our subjects, who murmur and oppose us for demanding loyal obedience and organize treason against our person.” Did boyar conspiracies really exist or was this a figment of Ivan the Terrible’s sick imagination? “Independent sources” - foreigners in Russian service - believed that there were conspiracies. At the head of one of them was the equerry (the head of the Konyushenny Prikaz) and the head of the Boyar Duma, Ivan Fedorov-Chelyadnin, who was allegedly the lover of Ivan the Terrible’s wife, Maria Temryukovna.
During one of the campaigns in Livonia, it was planned to kill Grozny’s personal guards, capture the Tsar and hand him over to the Poles. The situation for Ivan the Terrible looked so desperate that a year before his abdication, in the summer of 1574, he came up with the idea of escaping with his entire family to England. Secret negotiations were held with Queen Elizabeth to grant him asylum. The royal treasures were brought to Vologda and ships were built for departure “to save yourself and your family... until the trouble passes, God will not arrange it otherwise.” Ivan Vasilyevich was afraid of a revolt of powerful vassals, which could end his dynasty (a sad example was before his eyes - in Sweden, as a result of a coup, his ally Eric XIV was overthrown from the throne). And the abolition of the “state of emergency” regime led to the fact that repressions against the highest aristocracy had to be approved by the Boyar Duma. The Duma did not give up its own people so easily. It is a known fact that Prince Ivan Mstislavsky, accused by the tsar of conspiring with Crimean Tatars opened the way for them to Moscow, not only survived, but continued to sit in the Boyar Duma. Without the sanction of the Duma, Ivan was forced to resort to a completely unprecedented method of dealing with his opponents at that time. Public executions stopped at Lobnoye Mesto. The investigation was conducted in secret, and sentences were passed in absentia. Convicts began to be killed at home or on the street; a short note was left on the corpse listing the “sins” of the deceased.
The transfer of power to Tsar Simeon meant that Ivan the Terrible received complete freedom to punish “traitors” in his “destiny.” Within a month, Grozny formed a new government and a new “specific” guard, with the help of which he dealt with the “conspirators,” most of whom belonged to the top of the oprichnina. It is clear that to a large extent the success of Ivan IV’s plan depended on the personality of the “replacement”. Ivan the Terrible wanted to be sure that the new tsar would not leave his submission. He should not have been associated with any of the boyar families, but at the same time he should have satisfied the boyars and the Kremlin bureaucracy with his origin. Ivan easily and quickly became attached to people, but he just as easily dealt with yesterday’s favorites, and the more cruelly he became attached to them. Throughout his life, Ivan IV favored Metropolitan Macarius, boyar Zakharyin-Yuryev, brother of his first wife Anastasia. Simeon Bekbulatovich stood out even in this row. One of the proofs of this is Simeon’s participation in the Livonian War, which historians call Grozny’s “life’s work.” Even as the Kasimov king in 1571, Sain-Bulat took part in campaigns near Oreshek, Paida, and Kolyvan. Moreover, he commanded either a forward or a guard regiment - only experienced commanders were appointed to these positions. But Sain turned out to be a bad military leader. Through his fault, the Russian army was defeated at Koloveri (Lod). However, the khan did not fall into disgrace; moreover, in December 1572, Ivan IV “promoted” Sain-Bulat, appointing him first governor of a large regiment.
Anti-crisis manager Ivan Vasilyevich Rulers always try to implement unpopular anti-crisis measures with the wrong hands. Ivan the Terrible was no exception. The war, which he waged for almost thirty years, devastated the treasury, and the collection of taxes was hampered by the so-called “Tarkhans” - tax exemptions granted to estates and monasteries by generations of temporary workers. It is no coincidence that English ambassador in Russia, Jerome Horsey saw a serious financial motive in Simeon’s “appointment”. In his opinion, Ivan IV, through the hands of Tsar Simeon, wanted to annul all the charters granted to the church and thereby seriously reduce its land holdings. "With the intention of destroying all the obligations assumed by him, he established the division of his cities, orders and subjects, proclaimed him a new sovereign, under the name of Tsar Simeon, transferred to him his title and crown and, getting rid of his powers, crowned him; forced his subjects to treat with their deeds, petitions and lawsuits to Simeon, decrees, awards, statements were issued under his name - all this was written under his name and coat of arms. In all court cases, petitions were drawn up in his name, coins were also minted, taxes, taxes and other income were collected on the maintenance of his court, guards and servants, he was also responsible for all debts and matters relating to the treasury... Such a turn of affairs and all the changes could have given the former king the opportunity to reject all the debts incurred during his reign: letters of patent, grants to cities, monasteries - everything was canceled.
He was freed from all old debts and all past obligations." He is echoed by the English diplomat Sir Giles Fletcher, who visited Muscovy in 1588. Here is what he wrote in his book "On the Russian State": "For the sake of this goal, Ivan Vasilyevich used a very strange a practice that few princes could adopt in the most extreme situations. He left his kingdom to a certain Grand Duke Simeon... as if he intended to retire from all public affairs to a quiet personal life. Towards the end of the year of his reign he induced this new king to revoke all the charters granted to the bishoprics and monasteries. All of them were annulled." In reality, it was not possible to completely eliminate the Tarkhanov system. The desire to confiscate the main wealth of the church - monastery lands - caused a sharp rebuff from the church hierarchs. The fight for Krakow Another reason why Ivan the Terrible could "cede" his throne to Simeon was foreign policy ambitions of the tsar. Grozny laid claim to the throne of the neighboring Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where, after the death of the childless Sigismund II in 1572, "kinglessness" began. In 1573, at a meeting of the Sejm, Henry of Anjou from the French Valois dynasty was elected as the new king. At the same time, he was forced to accept the principle " free election" (election of the king by the gentry). The king was forbidden to declare war or increase taxes without the consent of parliament. And even he had to marry only on the recommendation of the Senate. So it is not surprising that Henry Valois ruled Poland for only 13 months, spending all time in feasts and card games, and then secretly fled to France, where, after the death of his brother Charles IX, the throne became vacant. Senate and Sejm for a long time could not agree on the candidacy of the next monarch. The Austrian Archduke, the Swedish king and even the Duke of Ferrara argued for the throne in Krakow. Lithuania, where big role played by Orthodox feudal lords and Protestants, for whom the Catholic monarch was unacceptable. The candidacy of Ivan Vasilyevich was also discussed in the elections of 1572. But then the Moscow candidate did not pass.
The abdication of Ivan the Terrible and the coronation of Simeon in 1575 could have attracted to his side the votes of those nobles who were afraid to elect a powerful foreign ruler as their monarch. Unfortunately, this plan was not crowned with success. Two candidates were chosen as King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: the Austrian Archduke and the Semigrad Prince Stefan Batory. In the ensuing “war of two kings,” the energetic Batory, who was considered one of the best commanders of his time, won. This turned into a severe defeat for Russia in Livonia. Why Ivan the Terrible killed his son Everyone is well aware of the textbook painting by Ilya Repin. But the artist’s version, supported, however, by the most prominent Russian historians, is in fact nothing more than a version. It is believed that Ivan, in a fit of anger, hit the prince with a heavy staff, causing him to die three days later. However, was this blow accidental? Six months before the death of Ivan Ivanovich, a relative of one of the leaders of the then government, Bogdan Belsky, fled to Poland, who told the Poles that the Moscow Tsar did not like his eldest son and often beat him with a stick. Quarrels in royal family were politically motivated. According to Jerome Horsey, “the king feared for his power, believing that the people were too good opinion about his son." And the Moscow chronicler, in an elaborate and intricate style, said that Grozny "began to think about the desire for the kingdom against his son, Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich." modern language, the heir was suspected of intending to overthrow his father. It was precisely in order to eliminate such a threat (or, at least, to bring some sense to the heir), Grozny named the great reign of Simeon. Then the boyars close to the prince allegedly said: “It is inappropriate, sir, for you to appoint a foreigner to the state past your children.” Open resistance to Ivan the Terrible's will shows how far things have gone.
The first serious quarrel with his son occurred back in 1570. Then Ivan the Terrible declared in the presence of boyars, clergy and foreign ambassadors that he intended to deprive his son of the rights to the throne and make Magnus, Prince of Denmark, heir. Five years later, Ivan Vasilyevich fulfilled his threat, but handed over the Monomakh cap not to Magnus, but to Simeon. Kremlin astrology Another most interesting figure of that era is connected with the intrigue waged against Grozny by the “small court” of the prince. The Tsar's personal physician, Elisha Bomeley, according to some sources, was born in Wesel (Westphalia), studied at Cambridge, was imprisoned in London for witchcraft, fled to Russia, where he fell into favor with Tsar Ivan the Terrible, who made him his doctor. He left behind a bad memory among the people. He was considered a “fierce sorcerer,” but the secret of his influence was explained simply: in secret laboratories of the Kremlin, he produced poisons for nobles who had fallen out of favor, whom Ivan the Terrible could not deal with openly. Bomeley poisoned some courtiers (for example, one of the leaders of the oprichine Grigory Gryazny) with his own hands. Intrigues ruined Bomeley. The life physician also served as the royal astrologer. He told the king about the unfavorable position of the stars, predicted all sorts of troubles, and then “opened” the ways of salvation to him. Ivan IV, like many of his contemporaries (and not only in Russia), was afraid of witchcraft and believed in prophecies. Finally (apparently, the initiative came from the entourage of Tsarevich Ivan), Bomeley predicted to the tsar that in 7084 from the creation of the world (from September 1, 1575 to August 31, 1576) the ruler of Rus' would die. The Piskarevskaya Chronicle directly reports that “some people said that Ivan placed Simeon (on the throne) because the soothsayers warned him that a change would happen that year: the Tsar of Moscow would die.” It is not known whether Bomeley was a good astrologer, but he sensed the danger in advance. Deciding to flee from Russia, the life doctor took a travel document in the name of his servant and went to the border, having previously sewn all his gold into the lining of his dress. In Pskov, a suspicious foreigner was captured and brought to Moscow in chains. Jerome Horsey told interesting details about last days adventurer.
According to him, Grozny ordered Tsarevich Ivan and his associates, suspected of collusion with the life physician, to interrogate Bomeley. With the help of these people, Bomeley hoped to get out of trouble. When the sorcerer saw that his friends had betrayed him, he spoke. And he showed much more than what the king wanted to know. But betrayal did not save the “evil sorcerer”: he was roasted on a huge spit. The last prince of the great Tver A year later, Monomakh's hat returned to Ivan Vasilyevich's head. Having created a strong and reliable security service, which he had lacked since the dissolution of the oprichina in 1572, Ivan IV felt secure. The opposition was broken. The executions stopped. As they say, the Moor did his job. However, Ivan the Terrible thanked Simeon royally for his service: he was granted the title of Grand Duke of Tver (by that time all appanage principalities had been liquidated) and vast lands in Tver and Torzhok. In 1580, according to the scribe book, Simeon owned 13,500 acres of arable land. He disposed of the lands given to him autocratically, and had the right to judge and reward “his little people.” ...Everyone will show you the ancient Simeonovskaya Street in Tver. It got its name from the Church of Simeon the Stylite. But the Tver residents themselves claim that the street was named in honor of Simeon Bekbulatovich. In Tver, the former king was received with delight: everyone knew about Simeon’s calm and gentle character. And his title made us remember the glorious times of the former independence of the Tver principality. The Kremlin became Simeon's residence. It housed a lush courtyard, which was a miniature copy of the Moscow one. Under Simeon there were boyars, a butler, a bed-keeper, a manger, and steward. Orders were formed that were in charge of the affairs of the appanage principality. The former tsar's hobbies became hunting (in the village of Kushalino, where he was once baptized, there was a hunting yard) and construction. The Tatar Khan, who became a zealous Christian, built churches and made rich contributions to monasteries. The construction of one of the churches is associated with a miracle... One day the Monk Martyrius, the founder and first abbot of the Holy Trinity Zelenetsky Monastery, was passing through Tver. Simeon Bekbulatovich ordered the abbot to be called to him and asked him to pray for his son Ivan, who was dying. Before Martyrius had time to cross the threshold royal palace, as Simeon was informed that the child had died. The king was inconsolable, and Martyrius approached the deceased and began to read prayers.
And a miracle happened - the boy got up from his bed completely healthy. As a token of gratitude, Simeon built a stone church in honor of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God. And the Zelenets monastery found a generous benefactor in the Grand Duke of Tver. The reign in Tver was not an honorable exile for Simeon. Bekbulatovich continued to sit in the Boyar Duma. He took part in the Livonian War: a corps under the command of the former tsar operated on the Russian-Lithuanian border, and when Stefan Batory besieged Pskov in 1581, Grozny appointed the Grand Duke of Tver commander-in-chief of the 300,000-strong reserve army. ...
Dark days for Simeon Bekbulatovich came in 1584, when Ivan the Terrible died. Under Tsar Fedor, power was in the hands of Boris Godunov. It began with the fact that Simeon's father-in-law, Prince Ivan Mstislavsky, who, according to Ivan the Terrible's will, was a member of the guardianship council, was accused of conspiracy against Godunov and was tonsured in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery under the name of Jonah. Following this, Simeon was deprived of his title and estates and exiled to live in the village of Kushalino. As recorded in the Nikon Chronicle: “Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich was no longer on his estate in Tver... but at that time there were not many people in his court and they lived in poverty...” A barrel of Spanish wine However, history gave Simeon the last chance for revenge. After mysterious death In Uglich, Tsarevich Dmitry and the death of the childless Tsar Fyodor, Russia was faced with the need to choose a new ruler. The first candidate for the orphaned throne was the Tsar's brother-in-law Boris Godunov. However, not everyone saw this situation as clear-cut. WITH new strength Intrigues flared up in Moscow. And then the name of King Simeon came up again. In April 1598, several boyar families decided to consolidate around this figure against the powerful Godunov. The Romanovs and Belskys spoke in favor of Simeon. And not only them.
As N. Karamzin noted with surprise, “the idea of placing the crown of Monomakhs on the head of a Tatar did not seem absurd to all Russians at that time.” The royal title that he once bore still had a magical effect on the people. In order to become king, Vasily Shuisky only had to get approval from the highest aristocratic families of Russia. Boris Godunov had to convene the Zemsky Sobor and use the entire arsenal of political struggle - from agitation to bribery of deputies. Kissing the cross to the new sovereign, the subjects had to promise: “Do not want to see Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich and his children and anyone else in the Moscow kingdom, nor think, nor think, nor become related, nor refer to Tsar Simeon, neither by letters, nor by word, nor by deed, nor by cunning; but whoever begins to think and think about it with someone else, that Tsar Simeon or his son should be installed in the Moscow state, find him and bring him to the sovereign.” By the way, after the death of Boris Godunov in 1605, those who swore allegiance to his son Fedor gave the same obligation. Boris Godunov was mortally afraid of Simeon. The Nikon Chronicle says: “The enemy put it in Boris’s heart and from him (Simeon) there was terror, and sent to him with magical cunning, and ordered him to blind him, and did the same.” The Frenchman Jacob Margeret shed light on this mysterious phrase.
The head of the personal guard of Boris Godunov, and then of False Dmitry I, personally knew Simeon, talked with him several times, and he told him that on his birthday a man arrived in the village of Kushalino with a letter from Tsar Boris. It said that Simeon's exile was coming to an end. As a sign of his favor, Godunov sent the former Tsar a barrel of Spanish wine. Having drunk to Boris's health, Simeon and his servant, who shared the meal with the master, became blind. This story was widely discussed at that time, and did not add to Godunov’s popularity. Thus, False Dmitry I, before entering Moscow, listing Godunov’s crimes, accused him of blinding Simeon, and at the same time of poisoning his son Ivan. One can believe this, knowing Boris Fedorovich’s habit of dealing with his enemies on the sly. The Humble Monk Stefan During the reign of Tsar Boris, Simeon, shunned by everyone, lived quietly in his village, as the chronicle says, “not seeking anything earthly.” But when False Dmitry I sat on the throne, former king turned out to be needed new government. The new autocrat, whose royal dignity was very doubtful, summoned Simeon Bekbulatovich to Moscow, promised to return the possessions granted by Ivan the Terrible, and even allowed him to officially be called the tsar. However, the obstinate Tatar did not want to support the authority of the impostor. Retribution was not long in coming - in March 1606, False Dmitry ordered Simeon to be exiled to a monastery. In this way he also got rid of a hypothetical competitor: the path to becoming a sovereign was forever barred from the monastery. The Grand Duke of All Rus' Simeon Bekbulatovich, formerly the Tsar of Kasimov Sain-Bulat, was tonsured under the name of Stephen in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, where his father-in-law ended his days ten years earlier. Moreover, False Dmitry remembered this and in the instructions to those accompanying him he ordered that they tonsure him “like Elder Jonah of Mstislavsky.” Just a month and a half later, False Dmitry I was killed.
Tent church in Kushalino - the estate of Simeon Bekbulatovich
Vasily Shuisky was “named” to become king. He was not popular among the people, his rights to the throne were shaky (they said that he “arbitrarily made us king”), and therefore he also remembered Simeon. It would seem that the blind old man could not cause fear, but just nine days after coming to power, on May 29, 1606, Vasily Shuisky orders the old man to be transferred to Solovki, the place of exile for especially dangerous “state criminals.” Tsar Vasily personally keeps this operation under control: he demands from the bailiffs a report “on what date he will leave the monastery, so that we will know about it soon.” Elder Stefan lived on the Solovetsky Islands for six years. The rich contributions to the monastery that he made when he was the Grand Duke of Tver did not ease his hardships. The monks did not dare to disobey the orders of Moscow and kept the former tsar in a stone bag on bread and water. And only in 1612, by order of Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and “on the advice of the whole earth,” he was returned to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Last years Bekbulatovich lived in Moscow. He outlived all his children; his wife Anastasia, who followed her husband, took monastic vows, did not wait for him to return from exile. Elder Alexandra was buried in the Old Simonov Monastery. Stephen himself died on January 5, 1616. He was buried next to his wife. On tombstone wrote: “In the summer of 7124, on the 5th day of January, the servant of God, Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich, reposed in the monastery of the schema-monk Stefan.” In the 1930s, on the site of the Old Simonov Monastery, according to the design of the Vesnin brothers, the ZIL Palace of Culture was built.
The fate of the tandem Ivan IV - Kasimov Khan
The institution of political successors has long been used in politics. It is used today and has been used before. Is there anything we can learn from history on this issue? The historian of the Middle Ages and columnist for Realnoe Vremya Bulat Rakhimzyanov in today’s column finds out how Ivan the Terrible experimented with dual power and dividing the country into parts. Simeon Bekbulatovich, the former Tatar Khan Sain-Bulat, served as an example for him of what life had in store for the former favorite of the first person of the state.
Who is the mysterious Simeon Bekbulatovich? Before baptism his name was Sain-Bulat. He is the Kasimov Khan in 1567-1573, the son of Sultan Bek-Bulat, the great-grandson of Khan Ahmad, who ruled the Great Horde and threatened Ivan III in “Standing on the Ugra” in 1480. Sain-Bulat, together with his father, went into the service of Ivan the Terrible. In 1575, Ivan IV insisted on naming Simeon “Grand Duke of All Rus'” (1575-1576). Since 1576, Sain-Bulat has been the Grand Duke of Tver. Let's look at his life and political career more details.
Khan Kasimova
The exact year of Sain-Bulat's appointment as Kasimov's owner is unknown. Apparently, this happened either immediately after the death of the previous Khan Shah Ali (that is, in 1567), or a little later. In 1570, Sain-Bulat was already the Kasimov king.
Previously, in order to become Kasimov's kings (khans), the Genghisids had to have time to “correct” some Tatar Khanate. However, Ivan the Terrible made an exception for the young Sain-Bulat, who had never been on the throne before, and personal power made him king; after him, a series of kings, or khans, actually Kasimov’s, began. What forced the Russian sovereign to take this step is unknown.
Wedding of Simeon Bekbulatovich and Anastasia Mstislavskaya. Miniature of the Front Chronicle. Ill. runivers.ru
In mid-1573, Sain-Bulat converted to Christianity and was named Simeon. Then Ivan the Terrible, doing a thing understandable only to him, married the convert. His betrothed was Anastasia Mstislavskaya, the daughter of the most influential boyar Prince Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky, the former head of the zemshchina. After this, Sain-Bulat was deprived of the city of Kasimov and the Kasimov kingdom. The life of Sain-Bulat after accepting Christianity deserves a separate and very thorough study: there are many controversial issues in this period of his life. He was an instrument of Ivan the Terrible’s politics, held the titles of Grand Duke of All Russia, Grand Duke of Tver, his name was heard in the political struggle for power during the Time of Troubles. He died as a simple monk under the name of monk Stephen in 1616. So what happened after 1573 in the life of Sain-Bulat?
Heir to the Terrible Tsar?
In the fall of 1575, fate presented Simeon Bekbulatovich with an unexpected surprise. A revolution took place in his life, which, one must think, he subsequently recalled more than once with despair. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich “abdicated” the throne and elevated Simeon Bekbulatovich to it with the rank of “Grand Duke of All Rus'”, giving him the Kremlin, the palace, the throne, and the royal exit. Ivan IV himself began to be called the Prince of Moscow - “Ivanets of Moscow”:
“... he installed Simeon Bekbulatovich as king in Moscow and crowned him with the royal crown, and he himself called himself Ivan of Moscow and left the city, lived on Petrovka; He gave all his royal rank to Simeon, and he himself rode simply, like a boyar, in shafts...”
Contemporaries were perplexed. But it was not surprise that turned out to be their main feeling, but fear. Everyone wondered what the next metamorphosis of the formidable king might turn out to be. The royal game of renunciation was already familiar. Ten years ago, the oprichnina began with this.
“Summer 7084th October on the 30th day. This petition was submitted to the Grand Duke Semyon Bekbulatovich of All Russia by Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow and his children, Prince Ivan and Prince Fyodor Ivanovich of Moscow.” Message to Simeon Bekbulatovich from Ivan VI. Ill. historic.ru
The author of the Piskarevsky chronicler conveys conflicting rumors that were circulating among the Russian people at that time: some claimed that the tsar was frightened by the predictions of the magi, who prophesied “death for the Tsar of Moscow” for this year; others believed that the king “tempted the people: that rumors would spread among the people about this.” Of course, these are nothing more than rumors. The second of them shows how contemporaries imagined the personality and character of Tsar Ivan. He, in their opinion, was ready even for such a large-scale game as giving up the throne in order to hear “rumor” about himself and identify his opponents. However, if we recall the decline of the Soviet empire during the late Brezhnev period, Leonid Ilyich also, in the spirit of the courtiers and sycophantic intrigues that reigned among the “oligarchy of old men,” more than once declared in private companies close to the throne that he was “tired” and was going to retire . According to his scenario, everyone had to beg the ruler to stay. If someone suddenly even remained silent during this masquerade of sycophants, such a “figure” was immediately written off as a political scrap and pushed away from the trough. However, let's go back to the Middle Ages.
As before, during the oprichnina, Russia was divided into two parts - the great reign (the domain of Simeon) and the sovereign's appanage (the domain of Ivan IV). It is interesting to note that this non-standard decision did not cause any disturbances on the part of either the nobility or the people. All this was perceived as normal.
Simeon lived in Moscow, surrounded by a lush courtyard. There are known derogatory formulas for Ivan IV’s address to Simeon Bekbulatovich:
“To the Sovereign Grand Duke Semyon Bekbulatovich of All Russia, Ivanets Vasiliev with his children, with Ivanets and Fedorets, is beaten with his forehead.”
Not everyone believed in dual power, believing that it was “a short-term and not at all sustained test of the division of power,” as one of the ambassadors reported to his king, “some kind of game or whim, the meaning of which is unclear.” IN. Klyuchevsky and S.F. Platonov designated this event as a "political masquerade". This is not surprising, because historians of that time transferred their thoughts and visions of people of the 19th century to the events of the past. This is not always legal.
Grand Duke John IV Vasilievich. (miniature from the Tsar's titular book of 1672). Ill. wellesley.edu
Here we should not lose sight of the fact that the highest authority and unattainable height for Moscow politicians of the 16th century was the dynasty of Genghis Khan; the model for them was the empire of the Golden Horde, built by his descendants, in the system of which Muscovite Rus' grew and “matured.” That is why the Tatar-Genghisid was not only not a “stranger” for the Russian rulers, but, on the contrary, a welcome and very authoritative person in the system of government of the country. A “loss of honor” for the Russian nobility would rather have been the elevation to the throne of an equal Russian noble boyar from the former appanage princes: Simeon Bekbulatovich was immeasurably superior to all of them in terms of birth. And before Simeon, people from Tatar families happened to occupy high positions in the Moscow state. So, in 1572-1575, just before the beginning of the reign of Simeon Bekbulatovich, the head of the zemshchina was the Astrakhan prince Mikhail Kaibulovich.
Of course, in fact, Ivan IV still ruled Muscovite Russia, but Simeon was not so simple and “sham”; when the king went into action against the Crimean Khan Daulet-Girey, Simeon ruled the country.
Simeon Bekbulatovich served as Grand Duke of All Rus' for only 11 months. Letters of grant written on his behalf are known. In August 1576, Ivan Vasilyevich returned to the throne, and Tsar Simeon was granted the Grand Duchy of Tver with the title of Grand Duke of Tver, and Ivan the Terrible again became Tsar.
Political ending
After the death of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, the noble families vying for power decided to consolidate against Boris Godunov. Simeon became the banner of these forces. Godunov was forced to take action. Kissing the cross to the new Tsar Boris Godunov, each boyar had to promise “Tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich and his children and no one else to come to the Muscovite kingdom...”. Simeon was deprived of his inheritance and reduced to one Tver estate - he was exiled to live in the Tver village of Kushalino. In 1605, those who swore allegiance to Godunov’s son Fedor gave the same obligation. Simeon became poor, blind and lived in poverty. After the election of Boris Godunov to the kingdom, his opponents began campaigning in favor of Simeon, and the frightened Boris exiled the former Tatar khan to a distant city.
False Dmitry I tonsured Simeon at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery as a monk under the name of Elder Stefan (1606). Ill. historydoc.edu.ru
False Dmitry I tonsured Simeon at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery as a monk under the name of Elder Stefan (1606). In the same year, Vasily Shuisky ordered his exile to Solovki. All this time, Simeon sent letters to the capital with a request to return him to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Simeon died on January 5 (15), 1616 and was buried next to his wife in the Simonov Monastery.
So, Simeon’s “succession” greatly changed later life former Tatar Khan. Ivan the Terrible, apparently, initially did not see him as any “successor” and used him for his own selfish purposes. In general, successor games are not as harmless as it might seem from this text. There are many cases in history when real rulers installed seemingly “dummy” and weak people at the head of the state. politically figures, but after some time these persons suddenly showed themselves not as weak and weak-willed, but as figures striving for authoritarianism. Their former patrons often suffered from their protégés. And it happened the other way around. In any case, the successor, whatever he may be, is not his patron, and his policy, if he is a real politician and not a figurehead, will in one way or another differ from the line of the former leader.
Bulat Rakhimzyanov
Reference
Bulat Raimovich Rakhimzyanov- historian, senior Researcher Institute of History. Sh. Marjani of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, candidate of historical sciences.
- Graduated from the Faculty of History (1998) and graduate school (2001) from Kazan State University. IN AND. Ulyanov-Lenin.
- Author of about 60 scientific publications, including two monographs.
- Conducted Scientific research at Harvard University (USA) in the 2006-2007 academic year.
- Participant in many scientific and educational events, including international ones scientific conferences, schools, doctoral seminars. He gave presentations at Harvard University, St. Petersburg state university, High school social sciences(EHESS, Paris), Johannes Guttenberg University in Mainz, Higher School of Economics (Moscow).
- Author of the monograph “Moscow and the Tatar world: cooperation and confrontation in the era of change, XV-XVI centuries.” (Eurasia Publishing House, St. Petersburg).
- Area of scientific interests: medieval history Russia (especially the eastern policy of the Muscovite state), imperial history of Russia (especially national and religious aspects), ethnic history Russian Tatars, Tatar identity, history and memory.