75 Lukian Iakovlev, DrevnostiRossiiskogogosudarstva. DopolneniekIIIotdeleniiu.Russkiestarin- nye znamena (Moscow: Sinodal'naia tipografiia, 1865), pp. 8-10; D. Strukov and I. Popov, Risunki k izdaniiu 'Russkie starinnye znamena' Lukiana Iakovleva (Moscow: Khromoli- tografiia V Bakhman, 1865).
76 The Stroev copy of the third Pskov Chronicle, dating to the 1560s: Pskovskie letopisi, ed. A. N. Nasonov, vol. ii (Moscow: ANSSSR, 1955; reprintedMoscow: Iazyki russkoikul'tury, 2000), p. 23i.
77 See V N. Kozliakov, 'Novyi dokument ob oprichnykh pereseleniiakh', in Arkhiv russkoi istorii 7 (Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2002): 197-211.
Chingisids became important elements of the tsar's army operating on the western front.[118]
By the mid-i570s, only one of such Tatar tsars, the baptised Tatar Khan Simeon Bekbulatovich, was alive. He actively participated in the tsar's campaigns and became Ivan IV's nephew by marriage. In i575, Ivan unexpectedly installed Simeon on the Muscovite throne in his stead. For a year, Simeon was a nominal ruler as grand prince of Moscow. Scholars usually see this bizarre act as Ivan's attempt at abdication, a cultural experiment or a political parody. According to the Soviet historian A. A. Zimin, Ivan IV was planning to pass on the throne to Simeon.[119] The historian justly focuses on the close relations between the Muscovite dynasty and the descendants of Chingis Khan, but he seems to underestimate such an essential element of dynastic policy as Simeon's title. In the second half of the 1560s, Ivan IV himself bestowed on Simeon the title of tsar.[120] Given his pedigree and title, Simeon could indeed become a pretender for the Muscovite throne, something which apparently caused Ivan's suspicion in the intense political situation of the mid-i570s. At the same time, Ivan could not resort to violence in his dealings with Simeon because of his title of tsar. The use of violence against the bearer of the title would compromise the idea of the divine origin of the tsar's power. This is why Ivan consistently lowered Simeon's status in the dynastic hierarchy. First he made Simeon grand prince of Moscow and shortly after that, grand prince of Tver'.[121] The episode with Simeon thus seems to be an elaborate means of precluding a possible Chingisid succession to the throne.
At the end of Ivan's reign, Muscovy's human and economic resources were exhausted. The Livonian war, the oprichnina, famines and epidemics led to human losses and the country's economic decline. The economic crisis was especially grave in the Novgorod region, which was devastated during the war and the oprichnina. The population of the region fell by more than 80 per cent in the early i580s when compared to the mid-sixteenth century. The economic hardship caused many peasants to flee to the periphery of the realm. By the end of Ivan's reign, peasants had abandoned 70-98 per cent of arable land throughout the country. The authorities sought to stop this practice by limiting the mobility of the peasants at the end of Ivan's reign. Irregular at
first, such measures later resulted in the establishment of serfdom in Russia.
***
Was Ivan IV's reign important in a long-term perspective? The traditional view is that Ivan created a centralised state which assumed control over its subjects through the political regime of autocracy. Historians also often juxtapose the first half of Ivan's reign, which was a period of reforms, to the second one, when he unleashed a campaign of terror. Recent studies with their accent on continuities, localities, minorities and informal relations within the elite argue that Ivan's regime remained medieval and personal. Ivan and his advisers did indeed use some traditional forms of dynastic and court policies. It is also clear now that the social and political structure of the Muscovite polity under Ivan IV never was as homogenous as the notion of a 'centralised state' implies.
Nevertheless, Ivan changed Muscovy. The period from the end of the 1540s to the early 1560s was formative for Ivan's reign. The royal family received a new status during a multi-phase transformation of the concept of its power, which began with Ivan's coronation as tsar and culminated in turning him into a sacred figure. The 1550s policy of reconciliation also contributed to the strengthening of the dynasty. Capitalising on the commonly agreed reinter- pretation of the period of boyar rule, the monarchy articulated its central role in Muscovite politics. The elite became carefully arranged in a rank order; the functionaries received clearly defined procedures and forms of documents. Thanks to these reforms, the sovereign's court, the chancellery system and the local administration turned into complex organisations which facilitated the functioning of the military-fiscal state.[122]
Ivan valued the political and organisational instruments that he received in the 1550s. It is true that his policy later became extravagant and unpredictable, probably as a result of mental illness. Ivan's transgressions, however, were not signs of full debility, because they had their own logic which was based on the ideas formulated in the 1550s: the divine sanction for the tsar's power, and precluding the boyars from restoring their rule, which could lead to anarchy.
Despite the notorious experiments with his court, Ivan never relinquished his title of tsar and was obsessed with bequeathing it to his heir. It is obvious that Ivan exaggerated, if not imagined, various threats to his power and to his family. This is why much of Ivan's characteristic activity was in fact defensive. However erratic his dynastic policy was, Ivan eventually succeeded in its implementation, since he secured the succession of power for one of his sons despite all the tragic events in the family. The assumption and active propaganda of the title of tsar, transgressions and sudden changes in policy during the oprichnina contributed to the image of the Muscovite prince as a ruler accountable only to God. Though succeeding Muscovite rulers never went to the extremes reached by Ivan, they benefited from the idea of the divine nature of the power of the Russian monarch which crystallised during Ivan's reign.
How far was Ivan personally in charge of policy during his long reign? The relationship between the ruler and his counsellors was complex and varied according to circumstances. Ivan the boy surely depended on his mentors. At the same time, all evidence of the influence of one or another courtier on the adult ruler should be treated with caution, because passages about good and evil advisers are commonplaces in the literary and documentary sources. At the height of the terror, Ivan could subject every courtier to suspicion and punishment.[123] Ivan's reign thus revealed the vulnerability of the social and legal mechanisms for personal protection when confronted by authorities exceeding the political system's normal level of violence.
Ivan was also generally successful in integrating various territories into a single state. Despite the failure in the Livonian war, his regime had enough political, military, economic and cultural resources to annex large territories. Ivan's state also sustained its presence in the provinces and accommodated localism. The centre established in the provinces a local government system which was based on a combination of centrally appointed and locally elected officials. Despite later modifications, this form oflocal administrationprovedto be functional and durable. Ivan left to his successors a devastated but coherent state that retained its territorial integrity even in spite of the stormy events of the Time of Troubles. As a result of Ivan's rule, Muscovy became a self- sufficient polity at an immensely high price.
118
See Janet Martin, 'Tatars in the Muscovite Army during the Livonian War', in Lohr and Poe (eds.),
119
A. A. Zimin,
120
A. A. Zimin (ed.),
121
A later piece of evidence suggesting that Simeon was crowned as tsar in i575 is not reliable, because from i575 till Ivan's death in i584 contemporary working documents refer to Simeon as grand prince. Only after Ivan IV's death was the title of tsar restored to Simeon. See
122
On the fiscal-military state, see Jan Glete,
123
See the revealing records of an investigation held by Ivan in S. K. Bogoiavlenskii (ed.), 'Dopros tsarem Ioannom Groznym russkikh plennikov vyshedshikh iz Kryma', in