The Icon and the Axe

ternational as they had been from the Third Rome: scapegoats for the xenophobia that was to prove an enduring legacy of the Muscovite ideology.

The figure of Ivan the Terrible calls for both Spanish and Jewish comparisons. His crusading zeal, ideological fanaticism, and hatred of deviation make him closer in spirit to Philip II of Spain than to any other contemporary. His conviction that God had called him to lead His chosen people into battle made Ivan resemble the Old Testament kings, to whom he was repeatedly likened by chroniclers. One of the key points of the Josephites or "possessors," who were Ivan's teachers, was precisely their insistence on the crucial importance of the Old Testament and their rejection of the "non-possessors' " exclusive reliance on the New Testament and the "Jesus prayer." Ivan's favorite reading was the Book of Kings.95 He appears to have viewed the Tatars as the Canaanites and the Poles as the Philistines during his campaigns against Kazan and Livonia respectively. This Old Testament perspective is well illustrated in Ivan's famous letters to Prince Kurbsky after this former military leader had left Russia to live in Polish Lithuania. Writing in the alternately bombastic and profane Josephite style, Ivan defends his right to cruelty and absolutism as the leader of a chosen people locked in battle with "Hagarenes" and "Ishmaelites."

"Did God," asks Ivan rhetorically, "having led Israel out of bondage, place a priest to rule over men, or a multitude of ordinary officials? No, Moses alone, like a Tsar, he made lord over them."96 Israel was weak under priests, strong under kings and judges. David, in particular, was a just ruler "even though he committed murder."97 Having gone over to the enemies of Israel, Kurbsky can only be described as a "dog" who even befouled the waters in his baptismal font. Kurbsky deserves nothing but contempt; for, unlike his messenger Shibanev, whom Ivan tormented by nailing his feet to the ground with a spear, Kurbsky lacked the courage to return to face in person the judgment of God and of His earthly regent, the Tsar.98 God's intercession and not man's arguments can alone vindicate one who has betrayed God's cause.

Kurbsky, no less than Ivan, is dazzled by the Muscovite ideology. Although he adduces a wide variety of examples and ideas from classical scholarship, his main desire is clearly to find a place once more within Muscovy and not to challenge its basic ideology. Indeed, Kurbsky's letters seem at times little more than an anguished repetition of the question with which he opened the correspondence: "Why, ? Tsar, have you destroyed the strong in Israel and driven to death the generals given to you by God?"99 Far from aligning himself with the Poles and Lithuanians, Kurbsky considers his foreign residence as temporary and seeks to justify himself in terms of Ivan's favorite Old Testament figures: "Consider, ? Tsar, how

even David was compelled by Saul's persecution to wage war on the land of Israel together with a pagan king."100 But eloquent pleadings from abroad only served to convince the leader in the Kremlin that his former lieutenant was secretly unsure of his position. Ivan's campaign of vilification -like those of his great admirer, Stalin-served the purpose of hardening his own convictions and warning potential defectors in his realm.

If Kurbsky as the defender of traditional boyar rights found himself unconsciously accepting the pretentious claims of the Muscovite ideology, defenders of independence for the church hierarchy and the city communities went ever further. Metropolitan Philip argued for an independent church establishment using a Byzantine text, which undermined his position by including the classic argument for unrestricted imperial power.101 The Discourse of Valaam, written by monks from the ancient monastery in Lake Ladoga to advocate some return to the old town assembly principle in Muscovy, argued at the same time for an increase in imperial power and the recognition of its absolute and divinely ordained nature.102 Thus, for all the discontent with Ivan's rule, there was never any effective program for opposing him. Generally ignorant of any but Byzantine political teachings, the anguished pamphleteers of the day included in their programs for reform Byzantine texts advocating unlimited power for the Tsar-often "to an even greater extent than did the apologists and theoreticians of the Muscovite imperial claims."103 Perhaps the leading apologist for Ivan's rule was the widely traveled and essentially secular figure of Ivan Peresvetov, who argued on grounds of expediency that

A Tsar that is meek and humble in his reign will see his realm em-poverished and his glory diminished. A Tsar that is feared and wise [grozen i mudr] will see his realm enlarged and his name praised in all the corners of the earth. … A realm without dread [bez grozy] is like a horse beneath a Tsar without a bridle.104