Sans auteur

Ivan IV, the Terrible, occupies a special place in Russian history. At the age of five, he

inherited the throne and had to escalate his authority against the nobility, from a very young age.

That caused to develop extreme of cruelty and brutality. Among the original historical

documents of that time are the accounts of four western visitors that have witnessed the events in

Muscovy at the peak of Ivan IVs savage reign the years of the oprichnina (1566-72). The

accounts of Johan Taube and Elbert Kruse, Albert Schlichting, and Heinrich von Staden overlap

a great deal, even with all their differences in their personalities, backgrounds, and perception of

events. In all of their writings, Ivan IV was a man who displayed a mania for various types of

extreme brutality that he applied to a great number of his subjects.

Until the sixteenth century, in the eyes of the western Europeans, Muscovy was a strange

and unknown land. Muscovites had been under the rule of the Tatars until 1478 1, when Ivan III

finally defeated them. This marked the beginning of the era of expansion for Muscovy, as a state

that would eventually become a unified country of Russia under Ivan IV. This expansion

resulted in the suppression of the power that previously resided in the hands of the boyars. 2 This

led to a number of rebellions and attempts to overthrow the ruling family.

The earliest of the above mentioned foreigners to arrive in Muscovy were a team of

Johan Taube and Elbert Kruse. They were both born in Livonia and belonged to upper class

families. They were captured while participating in the Livonian War against Muscovy. It is not

quite clear exactly when they arrived in Muscovy as prisoners. According to Roginskiy, they

1
A. L. Rowse, Europes First Glimpse of the Russians. Elizabeth I and Ivan the Terrible A Study in Diplomacy,
The Saturday Review 7 June 1958: 9.
2
Upper class nobility in Muscovy

1
acquired fluency in Russian during the first couple of years of their captivity. Due to their good

communication skills and their noble Baltic background, they became useful to Ivan IV. This

allowed them to obtain higher status in his court. 1 They became active diplomats for Ivan IV

leading discussions between him and the Baltics. This position gave them a great amount of

freedom to travel throughout Muscovy. Their Russian career lasted from 1564 to 1571, which

covers the majority of the period of the oprichnina. Taube and Kruse were also the only

foreigners that were already active on the royal court, during Ivan IVs temporary abdication of

the throne in 1564. Upon their return to their motherland in 1571, they wrote Poslanie Taube i

Kruze, which put a strong emphasis on Ivans cruelty.

Taube and Kruses account was not a report based on what may was expected of them.

It was not a mandatory assignment but more of a way of justifying their double betrayal in order

to promote their political careers. They wrote the account while trying to gain trust and respect

from the people of the upper ranks, in the community of their country where they arrived after

fleeing from Muscovy. Mikhail G. Roginskiy points out that their writing references mostly the

events during the time of their stay there. 2 They mention very few events that had taken place

prior to their arrival. They tend to cross-reference very little second hand material. Even though

most of their writing is supported by a number of various resources, their material is not always

written in a consistent chronological order.

The next to arrive in Muscovy was Albert Schlichting. Unfortunately, there is not much

known about his background except what he mentions in his own writing: A Brief Account of

the Character and Brutal Rule of Vasilevich, Tyrant of Muscovy. Similar to Taube and Kruse,

he was from Pomerania, which was also affected by the Livonian War. Schlichting belonged to

1
Mikhail G. Roginskiy, "Poslanie Ioganna Taube i Elberta Kruze kak istoricheskiy istochnik," Russkiy Istoricheskiy
Zhurnal July 1922: 10.
2
Roginskiy, p. 12.

2
the noble class and claimed to be educated. Because he was bilingual in German and Russian, he

eventually received a job as an interpreter in the court of Ivan IV. Schlichting states that he

started working with Ivan IV almost immediately upon his arrival in Moscow in 1564, by saying

that he worked with Dr. Arnold for seven years 1. However, as stated by Hugh Graham, Dr.

Arnold did not arrive in Moscow until the summer of 1568. Since there are no other references

available as to Schlichtings prior activities, it is unclear when Schlichting actually began to

work for the tsar.2 It is a known fact, that starting in 1568, Schlichting began working as an

interpreter for Ivan IVs court, and was exposed to the events of the oprichnina and other

cruelties of Ivan IV.

The last of the referenced travelers, Heinrich von Staden, was the latest to arrive and the

only outsider who became an official member of the oprichnina in its last couple of years.

Staden was a different kind of person as compared to Schlichting, Taube, and Kruse. As

described by Thomas Esper, even though Stadens has a noble background, since his family was

involved in local politics3, he did not fit the stereotype of a nobleman. Based on Espers

comments, Stadens original writing was very difficult to follow 4; however, it could be due to an

inaccurate transcription of the original document. During the Livonian War, circa 1560, his

family sent him away to Riga because of his poor conduct. It is not clear when Staden acquired

the knowledge of the Russian language with his level of fluency in it. Within his account, Staden

displays no regret for his acts of animosity that he was performing, as he describes them in his

writing. As a result of Stadens personal cruel nature, he was able to give us a different

perspective that was not solely aimed at Ivan IVs cruelty, but was more balanced in the
1
Albert Schlichting, "A Brief Account of the Character and Brutal Rule of Vasil'evich. Tyrant of Muscovy,"
Translated and Intro. by Hugh F. Graham, Canadian-American Slavic Studies Summer 1975: 214. Additional
footnotes will only be cross-referenced on exact quotes.
2
Hugh F. Graham, Introduction to A Brief Account of the Character and Brutal Rule of Vasil'evich, p. 207.
3
According to Thomas Esper, Stadens father was a burgomaster for the town of Ahlen in Westphalia. p. xx.
4
Thomas Esper, Translators note, p. v.

3
descriptions of the events of that time. According to Espers comments, Staden did not become

an oprichnik until late 1569, whereas before that he was working in the zemshchina1. He

actually explains the reason for the establishment of the oprichnina, its responsibilities, and the

necessity thereof.

One important fact regarding Stadens book The Land and Government of Muscovy, was

that it was intended to be read by the Holy Roman Emperor only, in order to provoke him to

declare war on Russia. In order to be able to accomplish that, he had to present himself, in front

of the Holy Roman Emperor, as an important figure in Moscow, who had a close contact with

Ivan IV. He did not mean to have it published as a work available to a common reader.

According to Staden, Ivan IV accepted him immediately and not only assigned him to

oprichnina, but also gave him a large lot of land. In addition, he received permission to setup

personal businesses, such as bars and taverns. Contrarily, according to Esper, Staden greatly

exaggerated his role in the oprichnina in order to pose as an authority on Russian affairs.2

One of the most important events of Ivans reign was his fake abdication of the throne. It

actually initiated the setup of the oprichnina. Taube and Kruse provide the most thorough

description of this event, in their account. As stated by Taube and Kruse, ever since the time that

Ivan IV has taken the throne, there was ongoing hatred towards him and his family among the

boyars. (This is one of the few historical facts that Taube and Kruse discuss that precedes their

presence in Muscovy.) Since the time when Ivan IV was about to be coronated as the Great

Prince, at the age of five, upon his fathers death, there were constant attempts to overthrow the

royal family3. Therefore, in 1564, when he heard rumors of the new plot to overthrow him, Ivan

IV used his ingenuity to fake a scene of his abdication of the throne, by pledging to the church at
1
Originally, it was intended to be the common peoples level of representation in Ivan IVs court
2
Thomas Esper, Intro. to The Land and Government of Muscovy, Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1967, p.
xxiii
3
A. L. Urganov Staritskiy Myatezh, Voprosy Istorii 1985: 99-101.

4
Alexanders Sloboda1. He intended to use this departure to filter out his supporters versus his

enemies. Upon his resignation, the tsar made a point to leave a wide-open chance at return.

Taube and Kruse quoted the church officials saying to Ivan:

With saddened hearts and great unwillingness, to hear from their great and deserving of
various homage, master, that they have disgrace and especially, that he is leaving his
kingdom and them And they are begging and asking him, maybe he can think of
another plan If he really know that there are traitors let him declare and name them;
and they must be ready to be responsible to defend their faults; therefore he, the leader,
has the right and power to the strictest punishments and prosecution. 2

However, that statement was probably more due to their fear of Ivan IV rather than the support

thereof. He had officially appointed his brother to be the tsar in his place. Ivans stay at the

church was a practical way of learning who was for versus against him. He also used the time to

setup his plans for what to do when he would return to Moscow. One major idea that Ivan IV

developed during his stay at the Alexanders Sloboda was the origin of the oprichnina.

According to Taube and Kruse, Ivan IV spent forty days there.

Taube and Kruse are also the only ones to actually describe the process of Ivans return to

Moscow, due to the summons for his return. Schlichting totally omits any details of this event,

never mentioning neither the length of Ivans departure nor what prompted his return to Moscow.

Schlichting totally jumps over that period of forty days, as if they never took place. For an

unknown reason, Staden briefly mentions Ivan IVs stay at Alexanders Sloboda as a two-day

trip.3

Taube/Kruse and Schlichting point out that Ivan IV hated the nobility as well as the

church. According to Graham, there was a confrontation between the nobles and Ivan IV in
1
Taube and Kruse reference that as the location of Ivans retreat while with the church. Sloboda as defined by
Oxford Russian Dictionary: settlement exempted from normal State obligations.
2
Elbert Kruse and Johan Taube, "Poslanie Ioganna Taube i Elberta Kruze," Translated by Mikhail G. Roginskiy
Russkiy Istoricheskiy Zhurnal July 1922: 32. Their writing is going to be used excessively throughout the whole
paper. Additional footnotes will only be cross-referenced on exact quotes.
3
Staden, p. 18.

5
1562, regarding excessive executions of the nobility, which were taking place. However, that is

not very clear how Schlichting collected that information, because he did not arrive in Muscovy,

until 1564, at the earliest. Nonetheless, Graham confirms that information, as he states Ivan had

taken repressive actions against certain members of nobility in 1562. 1 In the middle of 1564,

the nobility became petrified of Ivan IVs ongoing savagery and confronted him by stating that

no Christian ruler had the right to treat human beings like animals; instead he should fear the

righteous dooms of God, Who avenges the blood of innocents unto the third generation 2.

Schlichting also discusses Ivan IVs fake abdication of the throne, even though he never

mentions his actual departure or return. He describes it as:

Ivan pretended that he had grown tired of power and wished to lay aside his responsibilities in
order to live the holy life of a monk apart and alone. Summoning members of the nobility he
explained his intentions I have been sated with power Here are my sons receive them as
your princes, rulers, and commanders Let them rule If any difficulty which seems beyond
your capacities should arise, you may call upon me for advice and counsel. I shall not be dwelling
far apart.3

The writings of both Schlichting and the team of Taube and Kruse supported the information of

Ivans abdication at the end of 1564. This retreat gave him time to analyze and think of his next

plan of actions. However, Schlichting has contradicted Taube and Kruse about who was to be his

replacement. According to a number of sources, it was Ivans brother, who was supposed to

become the new tsar following Ivans retreat, as stated by Taube and Kruse, and not the sons, as

mentioned by Schlichting.

Heinrich von Staden also comments on Ivan IVs retreat to Alexanders Sloboda, in

December of 1564. However, he does not go into any details as provided by Taube and Kruse or

Schlichting. He never refers to it as a form of resignation as it was described by others.

However, he does mention, unlike the prior sources, that the whole stay only lasted two days.

1
Graham, p. 214 footonote.
2
Schlichting, p. 217.
3
Schlichting, p. 218.

6
Another difference in Stadens account from others is that he describes the confrontation of the

boyars as an insurrection1 against Ivan IV.

Upon Ivan IVs return from Alexanders Sloboda, he started implementing the setup of

the oprichnina and zemshchina. Schlichting defines oprichnina as Swiftmen or Military

Bodyguards2. According to Schlichting, the oprichnina was made up of approximately 800

men. Zemshchina, as defined by Heinrich von Staden was a group of hand-picked ordinary

ranking individuals working for Ivan IV. They were on a lower level then the oprichniki3 and,

therefore, were required to abide them, even if the latter were in the wrong4.

Taube and Kruse give a thorough description of the process of choosing the individuals,

uniform, the pledge, and the following family problems upon ones appointment to the

oprichnina. Taube and Kruse say, that Ivan requested all the soldiers from the area of three

cities. As a result, 6,000 people showed up. According to Taube and Kruse, after all the soldiers

had been questioned, roughly one fourth of them was selected to be the members of the

oprichnina, which equals about 1,500. The selection was based on their family and friends

backgrounds. Later, in the passage, Taube and Kruse show a total of 500 people made up the

oprichnina, mostly of the lower level of nobility. Those numbers are obviously not consistent.

Taube and Kruses numbers alone are three times the differences, and Schlichtings number of

800 people seems to be in between the two.

Taube and Kruse also provide the text of the oath that the members of the oprichnina

were required to take:

I swear to be faithful to our ruler, the Great Prince and his government not to be silent about
what I know or hear what is being planned against the tsar, or Great Prince, his government I

1
Heinrich von Staden, The Land and Government of Muscovy. Translated and intro. by Thomas Esper Stanford,
CA: Stanford University, 1967, p. 18. Additional footnotes will only be cross-referenced on exact quotes.
2
Schlichting, p. 217.
3
Members of the oprichnina and zemshchina accordingly
4
Staden, p. 18.

7
 swear not to eat or drink together with zemshchina and not to have anything in common with
them. For this I kiss the cross.1

Staden gives a detailed description of the setup of the oprichnina. He explains that the

members of oprichnina were selected based on their birth status and were required to wear a

special all black attire, which would identify them to anyone on the street. After a while, that

began to be used against them; this enabled other people to fake their uniforms in order to

commit similar types of crime. Staden confirms the rule described above by Taube and Kruse

that the oprichniki were not allowed to have anything to do with the zemshchiki. According to

Taube and Kruse, the oprichniki were separated from the rest of the population, because Ivan IV

set up an isolated area for their residence. That meant that they had to be totally cut off from

their families. They also explain that many of the nobles that were not selected to be part of the

oprichnina, were stripped of all of their belongings and forced out in the street to pursue the life

of a beggar. It seems that Taube and Kruse were the only ones of the foreigners who had any

detailed information about the original setup of the oprichnina. Both Staden and Schlichting

focus on a slightly later period, which makes sense, since both of them began their active role in

the government at a later period.

One of the benefits that the oprichniki enjoyed as described by Staden was

a person from the oprichnina could accuse someone from zemshchina of owing him a sum of
money. And even if the oprichnik had never known nor seen the accused from zemshchina, the
latter had to pay him immediately or he was publicly beaten in the marketplace with knouts or
cudgels everyday until he paid.2

Taube and Kruse also confirmed this, as they described the power of an oprichnik to approach a

stranger on the street and ask for a payment of any amount. The person was required to pay that

amount instantly with no questions asked; otherwise, they were subjected to acts of extreme

brutality.3
1
Taube and Kruse, p. 35.
2
Staden, p. 19.
3
Taube and Kruse, p. 38.

8
 Ivan IV made sure to prosecute people who had displayed a level of kindness in them.

That was the case with Prince Ivan Petrovich. There are no dates referenced regarding him on

either of the sources. Taube and Kruse do not give a very detailed description of this event.

They state that as for Ivan Petrovich [Ivan IV] personally stabbed him in a large tent and

ordered oprichniki to throw the [body]; they chopped [it] up into more than a hundred pieces and

left them out in the middle of a large town square.1 The other two accounts, of Schlichting

and Staden, tend to support the statements of Taube and Kruse and give an even more detailed

description of these events.

Schlichting gives a long thorough description of Prince Ivan Petrovichs execution.

According to Schlichting, Ivan IV brutally murdered Ivan Petrovich by stabbing him multiple

times, in front of all his military assistants. Then the oprichniki picked up his body and pulled

around the city, to intimidate the city population 2. Based on Schlichtings account, following the

cruel and unjustified execution of Ivan Petrovich, Ivan IV decided to get rid of all Ivan

Petrovichs family members and the residents of the fortress that was recently conquered by him.

Over sixty family members together with over 300, mostly foreign, residents of Kolomna (which

had belonged to Ivan Petrovich) were drowned. Schlichting states that Ivan IV decided to totally

annihilate all the people, animals, and lands of Ivan Petrovichs enormous estate, which consisted

several cities. He personally accompanied the oprichniki in performing these brutal acts and

displayed great satisfaction at the executions being committed.

According to Staden, the reason for the execution of Prince Ivan Petrovich, who was one

of the chief men of the zemshchina, was his kindness that he displayed towards the poor people.

He describes these events as villages were burned with their churches and everything that was

1
Taube and Kruse, p. 40.
2
Schlichting, p. 223-4.

9
in them, icons and church ornaments.1 Staden claims that following the brutality of those town

eliminations; there was a low level rebellion by the zemshchiki, who secretly murdered many of

the oprichniki who participated in this massacre.

One of the most atrocious acts of violence that by Ivan IV and the oprichnina was the

attack on the city of Novgorod, in 1570. According to Esper, the reason for the attack was the

city leaders rebellion plans that were in alliance with Sigismund-Augustus of Poland-Lithuania. 2

All three writings discuss the brutal events that took place there over a period of six weeks.

However, not all of their data matches in some specific details.

Taube and Kruse begin with Ivan IV and his oprichniks arrival in the outskirts of the city

and their attacks on many of the churches in the area. Ivans presence meant tormenting of

many thousands of clergymen, merchants, and various craftsmen. 3 He tortured them until they

would confess where all their goods were or kill them. Taube and Kruse do not give an exact

number of churches that were attacked, but they do state that he ransacked and destroyed

everything in the churches to such an extreme, that there was nothing left; things he could not

take with him, he would either discard in the river or set to fire. Roginskiy mentions in the

introduction, that Taube and Kruse were not present at the location where these events were

taking place; therefore, it is realistic to postulate that their information had derived from other

sources and some details could be missing.

Staden also describes the events taking place at the churches and monasteries, but from a

first hand perspective, of the oprichnina. His description of Ivans behavior with the monasteries

focused on the anti-church approach. He confirms the brutality and murder of majority of the

monks there, giving a number of three hundred monasteries inside and outside the city and not

1
Staden, p. 21.
2
Esper, footnote, p. 26.
3
Taube and Kruse, p. 49.

10
one of these was spared.1 Staden also confirms the fact that anything that the soldiers could

not carry off was thrown into the water or burned.2

Schlichting supports the fact that Ivan IV and the oprichniki attacked many monasteries.

He has two variations from the two prior discussed accounts. First, Schlichting makes a point

that all the clergy, from the monasteries that were torn down, were killed. Schlichting also

changes the number of monasteries torn down from 300 as mentioned by Staden to 170. Graham

comments that the main reason for Ivan IV to burn down all those monasteries was to be able to

confiscate their lands.3 It is unclear who has the correct number pertaining to the quantity of

monasteries, which were destroyed in that six-week period of time.

The other part of the attack was on the secular part of Novgorod. There is a detailed

description of the attack from Taube and Kruse and Schlichting, but not Staden. Staden had no

numbers to give for the devastating events that took place. Since Staden was a member of the

oprichnina and had direct involvement in the event, one would expect more detailed information

from him. Staden does mention the destruction of all the physical objects found in Novgorod

and confirms, as Taube and Kruse and Schlichting do, that anything that the soldiers could not

be carry off was thrown into the water or burned. If one of the zemskie people retrieved anything

from the water, he was hanged This distress and misery continued in the city for six weeks

without interruption.4 However, Staden makes it sound that even though there were some

cruelties done, it was not anything extreme.

Ironically, Taube and Kruse give a rather detailed description about the events that had

taken place in Novgorod. They discuss the process of taking away of the various goods from the

residents of Novgorod and burning them. They also give estimates as to the number of people of
1
Staden, p. 26.
2
Staden, p. 27.
3
Graham, footnote on p. 235.
4
Staden, p. 27.

11
various social classes brutally murdered there. Their estimates are 12,000 nobles and 15,000

more of everyone else in the city, for a total of 27,000 people. As mentioned above, Taube and

Kruse were not present at the time that the bloodbath at Novgorod was taking place, therefore

they did not have an accurate headcount.

Finally, Schlichting gives the most detailed description of the attack on Novgorod

compared with either Taube and Kruse or Staden. He describes that all this was carried out using

unbelievable tortures, he cut them to pieces, pierced them with spears, and shot them with
arrows. The method of execution he favored was to fence off a large area into which he herded a
huge number of nobles and leading merchants of whose prominence he was aware. Mounting a
horse and brandishing a spear he charged in and ran people through while his son watch the
entertainment and joined in the sport.1

The numbers given by Schlichting, happened to be lower than those given by Taube and Kruse.

Schlichting says that Ivan slew 2,770 Novgorod nobles and wealthy men. 2 Graham proposes

that Schlichtings original paper stated more or less correctly the total number of all people killed

in Novgorod. Graham suggests that the concept of that number (2,770) cross-referencing strictly

the wealthy population was forced onto Schlichting by papal authorities.3

Another tyrannical event that was an aftermath of the destruction of Novgorod cross-

listed by all three writings is the prosecutions that took place in Moscow, on July 25, 1570. All

three accounts describe quite graphically, the brutal acts that were executed in front of the whole

city that day. Staden, however, gives a much briefer description of the same type brutalities as

described by either Schlichting or Taube and Kruse. All three establish the place of the event as

downtown marketplace square and emphasize the cruelty displayed that day within a two-hour

period, but approach the descriptions differently.

1
Schlichting, p. 234.
2
Schlichting, p. 234.
3
Graham, footnotes, p. 234.

12
 Schlichting provides the most graphic description of the execution and is the only one to

officially record the date of the execution, ironically, as being the Feast Day of St. James. 1

Schlichting starts to list the first seven of the accused that were about to be prosecuted, by name,

status, and description of the prosecution technique applied to each of them. Majority of the

people that he named held high-ranking government offices. Then Schlichting goes on to state

that a total of 300 people were originally brought out, of which 180 were cruelly tormented

leading up to death that day. These varied from dipping people in boiling and freezing water, to

stabbing with spears, and chopping them up into pieces all of this after being stripped naked in

front of the crowd. The rest of them were to be slaughtered, over the next few days. According

to Schlichting, Ivan IV definitely had a broad range of types of executions to conduct on his

victims. The one that all three accounts describe graphically is the prosecution of Ivan

Mikhailovich, one of Ivans personal secretaries. Schlichting describes the event as follows:

They stripped him naked, passed a rope under his arms, tied him to a transverse beam, and let him
hang there The tyrant [said]: Let the most loyal punish the traitor. [One] ran up to the man as
he hung from the beam, cut off his nose, and rode away on his horse; another darted up and cut off
one of Ivans ears, and then everyone in turn approached and cut off various parts of his body.
Finally, Ivan Reutov, one of the tyrants clerks, cut of the mans genitals and the poor wretch
expired on the spot.2

Schlichting states that this prosecution went on for four hours and left those bodies in the middle

of the town square to rot for a week to come. Schlichtings presence at the event allowed him to

give such a graphic description.

Taube and Kruse tend to give a very similar description without giving a list of individual

executions. He said that there were 300 noblemen brought over to be executed which supports

Schlichtings statement. They do also give details about the execution of Ivan Mikhailovich

who he loved same as himself. The church official ordered first to tie the treasurer to a pole and

1
Schlichting, p. 259.
2
Schlichting, p. 261.

13
cut him up starting at the bottom. 3 The one fact that Taube and Kruse have mentioned, which

was omitted by Schlichting was that Ivan IV had his elder son go along the line of the nobles tied

to the poles, one by one and poked a spear in their stomachs and then butcher them with their

swords.2 Therefore, this was a method of making sure that his son, when he comes to power,

maintains the same level of cruelty as his father.

Stadens account has a very brief mention of the events of that day. He says that a total of

130 noblemen were executed. This seems that he is undermining the number of executions

compared to Schlichting and Taube and Kruse. The reason for that could once again be his cruel

personality and himself being a member of the oprichnina. Even Staden mentions the beginning

of execution conducted on Ivan Mikhailovich Viskovatyi as being first has his nose and ears cut

off, and then his hands.3 However, that is the most details that he goes into for that days

events.

The final topic cross-referenced by all the accounts is various types of sexual cruelties

displayed by Ivan. Starting with Taube and Kruse, they mention that following the prosecution

of Prince Ivan Petrovich, which was discussed earlier. Ivan IV with the assistance of the

oprichniki got women, maidens, and female servers were brought out naked in the presence of

many people and were forced to run around catching hens when all this was done, he said to

shoot them with a bow and arrow.4 Taube and Kruse state that this was all part of Ivans search

for a wife. They are the only ones that discuss his wife search in detail. However, Staden

describes a similar event, following the killing of Prince Ivan Petrovich. His quote about the

incident is women and girls were stripped naked and forced in that state to catch chickens in the

1
Taube and Kruse, p. 51.
2
Taube and Kruse, p. 51.
3
Staden, p. 28.
4
Taube and Kruse, p. 42.

14
fields.5 Schlichting, however, does not mention the same event in his writing. He states that

Ivan IV also instructed the oprichniki, to strip and rape the women of those towns before killing

them.2 This was before Dr. Arnolds arrival to Moscow; therefore, it is not clear neither where

Schlichting was working at the time nor if he was even present at Ivan IVs court.

Overall Taube and Kruse, Albert Schlichting, and Heinrich von Staden have all supported

the general idea of Ivan IVs brutality. There were a number of events that they described in all

of their writings. Even though there were mild discrepancies between them, they all tend to

support the same general theme of Ivan IV being a cruel and brutal man. There is a record of

Ivan IV conducting a number of barbaric acts on thousands of innocent people. He seemed to

enjoy to watch other people being tortured in the totally unimaginable ways. Even Staden, who

was also a heartless man, says that The Grand Prince has been such a grim and horrid tyrant that

neither Laymen nor clerics savor him, and all the neighboring sovereigns are his enemies, that

heathens as well as the Christians.3 Regardless of the peoples hatred to him, he was able to

unite Russia into a powerful country. That, however, does not justify the loss and suffering of

thousands of innocent people over almost four decades of his reign.

1
Staden, p. 21.
2
Schlichting, p. 224
3
Staden, p. 91.

15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ivan the Terrible. April 22, 2002.
http://www.cnit.uniyar.ac.ru/yaros/images1/uglich/uglich70.jpg. May 1, 2002.

Kruse, Elbert and Taube, Johan. Poslanie Ioganna Taube i Elberta Kruze. Translated by
Mikhail G. Roginskiy. Russkiy Istoricheskiy Zhurnal July 1922: 29-59.

Oxford Russian Dictionary. 3rd Edition. 2000.

Roginskiy, Mikhail G. Poslanie Ioganna Taube i Elberta Kruze kak istoricheskii istochnik.
Russkiy Istoricheskiy Zhurnal July 1922: 10-28.

Rowse, A. L. Europes First Glimpse of the Russians. Elizabeth I and Ivan the Terrible A
Study in Diplomacy. The Saturday Review 7 June 1958: 9+.

Schlichting, Albert. A Brief Account of the Character and Brutal Rule of Vasilevich, Tyrant of
Muscovy. Translated and Intro. by Hugh F. Graham. Canadian-American Slavic
Studies Summer 1975: 204-66.

Schlichting, Albert. News from Muscovy Concerning the life and Tyranny of Prince Ivan,
Conveyed by the Nobleman , Albert Schlicting. Translated and Intro. by Hugh F.
Graham. Canadian-American Slavic Studies Summer 1975: 266-72.

Staden, Heinrich von. The Land and Government of Muscovy. Translated and intro. by Thomas
Esper Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1967. (Original documents were written in
1578.)

Urganov, A. L. Staricheskiy Myatezh. Voprosy Istorii 1985: 100-45?

16