Ivan the Terrible and Philip the Prudent

This paper discusses the comparative aspect of Charles Halperin’s biography of Ivan the Terrible. In his book, Halperin reassesses Michael Cherniavsky’s view of Ivan the Terrible as a Renaissance prince by noting that Cherniavsky overestimated the importance of Moscow-the Third Rome theory and used unreliable later sources. In Russian scholarship, according to Halperin, comparative works on Ivan iv have been marred with nationalism. One should also add here the negative impact of vulgar Marxism on Soviet comparative studies of Ivan iv. Nevertheless, a comparative approach to Ivan the Terrible is still viable because, as Halperin astutely notes, the first Russian tsar “re-sembled his contemporaries among foreign rulers more than he did his Muscovite predecessors or successors.” In this article I apply Halperin’s comparative methodology to Ivan iv the Terrible and Philip ii the Prudent of Spain. What Ivan and Philip had in common was not Renaissance ideas but intensive religious beliefs. The paper exam-ines the foreign and domestic policies of both monarchs, as well as their contemporary visual representations from the perspectives of their religious views. Ivan’s and Philip’s preoccupation with their countryside residences, Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda and the Escorial respectively, is also discussed in the context of the rulers’ intensive religiosity. Despite their different confessions, Ivan iv and Philip ii were driven by aspirations for what they saw as original, simple, correct Christianity.

russian history 47 (2020) 11-35 about Ivan as a Renaissance prince. According to Cherniavsky, Ivan fused the idea of the ruler who used terror to provide justice and the idea of the free personality, who was above human and divine law. 3 Cherniavsky's comparative analysis is not free from internal problems. As Halperin demonstrates, Cherniavsky overestimated the importance of Moscowthe Third Rome theory and used later and unreliable sources (212-213). Due to these and other oversights in Cherniavsky's work (see below), Western historians became hesitant to draw parallels between Ivan and other sixteenthcentury rulers. After Cherniavsky, comparative analysis of Ivan became deliberately anachronistic: the first Russian tsar was studied from the perspective of the Carolingian Renaissance (Daniel Rowland) or thirteenth-century Mongol rulership when the khan was at the zenith of his power (Donald Ostrowski).4 In Russian scholarship, comparative studies of Ivan iv have been marred with vulgar Marxism and nationalism. For example, in his discussion of Ivan's terror, the Soviet historian A. A. Zimin provided a whole list of sixteenth-century Western monarchs, including Philip ii, whom the historian described, with Marxist disdain for feudal exploiters, as moral degenerates. According to Zimin, Ivan did not differ from these rulers who masked their cruelty with hypocrisy and religiosity. Modern nationalistic authors substitute Marxism with clericalism, but they also seek to normalize Ivan's terror with references to Philip ii and other European rulers (Viacheslav Shaposhnik). 5 Halperin's comparison is more sophisticated, as he refrains from labelling and fully appreciates the importance of religion in early modern politics. Halperin clearly demonstrates that comparative studies of Ivan are possible without subscribing to the Marxist or nationalist agenda. Comparison does not make Ivan better or worse: "If Ivan was no worse than his contemporaries, neither was he any better. He resembled his contemporaries among foreign rulers more than he did his Muscovite predecessors or successors" (5).
Ivan the Terrible: Free to Reward and Free to Punish continues the line of comparative inquiry introduced by Cherniavsky. Halperin  Still, Halperin is correct in drawing out attention to Cherniavsky's comparative methodology. But we need to change the focus of our comparative analysis. If Ivan and contemporary Western monarchs had any common background, it was Christianity, not the Renaissance. Not all sixteenth-century Western politicians were as cynical about religion as Machiavelli. This is why in this paper I will try to apply Halperin's comparative approach to the religious practices of Ivan iv and Philip ii. One of the advantages of a comparative study of contemporary monarchs is that it permits both a concrete and typological analysis. The first part of this paper will revisit the history of contacts between Ivan and Philip and, as far as the sources permit, their mutual perception. In the second part I will put these contacts in a broader perspective of a typological comparison of religious strategies employed by the two monarchs. and Mary what they later described as "loving and freendly lettres" from Ivan. In their response, which was sent with Nepeia in April 1557, the royal couple confirmed generous, though not entirely reciprocal rights for Russian merchants in England and committed themselves to sending artisans and craftsmen to Moscow. On a more personal level, Philip and Mary undoubtedly pleased Ivan when they addressed him with the title of emperor. This was the closest Western equivalent to Ivan's new title of tsar, which he eagerly promoted in diplomatic relations. Muscovite diplomats subsequently evoked Philip's letters to Ivan as evidence of international recognition of Ivan's title of tsar during negotiations with the Poles.9 At the same time, in their 1557 letter, the royal couple misnamed the Russian tsar Vasilii (Vuassilia), though they got Ivan's name right in their previous letter (1555). The king and the queen sent with Nepeia a peculiar set of gifts for the tsar: pieces of fine cloth, a pair of coats of mail (brigandines) with a helmet (morion), and "a male and female lions."10 By presenting cloth, which was of course the main item of English export, the royal couple sought to promote English commercial interests in Muscovy. The gifts of armour and lions were more exotic than sophisticated, especially if one considers that brigandines and morions were usually worn by foot soldiers rather than by aristocratic cavalrymen (Philip himself often appears in portraits wearing plate armour of exquisite quality). The presented armour and lions referred to the masculine qualities of a monarch, evoking the idea of military strength and power which tamed even wild mighty beasts. Ivan was apparently pleased with the royal gifts, as a list of these gifts was included in the Nikonian chronicle, which usually ignores such details of diplomatic relations. Furthermore, the Book of Degrees of the Royal Genealogy (Stepennaia kniga, 1560s) proudly lists the gifts received from Philip and Mary, including a lion cub, which is not mentioned in other sources (was the cub born already in Muscovy?), and notes that the royal gifts included other things fitting the tsar's dignity.11 Generally, Ivan iv's chroniclers held Philip ii in high esteem. In Muscovite narrative accounts of Anglo-Russian relations in the 1550s, Philip appears as rightful king of England while Mary Tudor, despite her English background, occupies a subordinated position. Her name is either in the second place after Philip's and or not mentioned at all. This manly view of politics was hardly specifically Muscovite, as the above-mentioned English royal letters to Ivan also put Philip's name before Mary's. According to Muscovite chroniclers, Philip was also important as a son of Emperor Charles v (tsesareva Karlosova syn).12 This note is remarkable because the English royal correspondence that came to Moscow did not mention Philip's genealogy. Ivan's bookmen did their homework when preparing the chronicle accounts of Philip ii's relations with Russia. From the late 1560s on, the Muscovite court entertained the idea of an anti-Turkish coalition with the Habsburgs with Philip playing a major part in this project.13 Muscovite visual representations of Philip ii developed his image of a strong male ruler. Philip appears in two miniatures in an illustrated chronicle created at Ivan iv's residence of Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda in the late 1560s and the 1570s (Illustrated Chronicle Compilation, Litsevoi letopisnyi svod).  virtually the same). The English envoys give the tsar three documents, apparently the above-mentioned 1555 royal letter which was prepared in three copies in different languages. All persons shown in the miniature have identical conventional faces; different personages are marked with symbols like headgear and beards. Philip's royal status is indicated with a peculiar yellow (presumably golden) crown; Mary wears a crown of different design. Ivan has a pointed crown which refers to his title of tsar.15 Unlike the bearded figure of Philip, Ivan appears beardless. In the chronicle miniatures, beards usually indicate maturity or advanced age. However, Philip, who was born in 1527, was only three years older than Ivan. Apparently, Philip's beard is part of a general representation of a king from the powerful Habsburg dynasty: a mature married man invested with royal regalia. At the same time, Ivan's beardless evoked the idea that he was "young in years…, but old in wisdom:" even if the Russian ruler had only recently assumed the title of tsar and married in 1547, now he was on par with other Christian rulers, including Philip.16 Accidently, the miniature shows the English agents travelling to Russia in 1555 on horseback, but not by ship. The illustration thus makes a false impression that one can take a trip from London to Moscow by land only because the artist mechanically followed the chronicle text which does not mention any sea travel.
Sea with ships, both afloat and sinking, does appear in the second miniature which shows Nepeia's mission to England in 1557 (Fig. 2), including his troublesome sea voyage to the British isles (the middle part of the miniature), his reception by Philip and Mary in London (lower part) and return with the abovementioned royal gifts to Moscow (upper part).17 The images of English and Muscovite royalty generally follow the previous miniature, with the only exception of Mary's crown, which looks now exactly like Ivan's crown (this pattern of female royal headgear is typical of Muscovite art). The scene of Ivan receiving Nepeia in Moscow features representations of gifts sent by Philip and Mary, including the pair of lions.
We can now turn to images of Ivan iv that were available to Philip ii. His personal possessions included three copies of Abraham Ortelius' Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, which is usually seen as the first modern atlas. Ortelius was Philip's cartographer, hence the dedication of Theatrum to the Spanish king.18 15 On   more regnal. He still has his mace, but his sabre has been substituted with an orb, though, unlike other royal images in the map, his orb has no cross (Fig. 6).23 A similar set of Western regalia appears in the image of Ivan in the original Jenkinson map (now the orb is topped with a cross). It is hard to say which edition of Magnus' Carta Marina became a source for the royal image in the English map. Chronologically, Jenkinson's map is later than the first edition of the Carta Marina (1539) and predates its second edition (1572). However, the dating of early modern maps is often uncertain. One cannot exclude that the second edition of the Carta Marina circulated before its official date of publication (1572) and was available to the creator of the Jenkinson map who worked in the 1560s. Alternatively, the artists of the original Jenkinson map and the 23 The  princely headgear in Magnus' and Jenkinson's maps is the same, but the creator of the latter has given the cap decorations which make it look like a tiara, somewhat similar to the cap of Ivan iii in the World Cosmography by Andre Teve (1575).24 In addition to the royal image, the drawing in Jenkinson's map features a man standing in a bowed position in front of the tsar. Szykuła interprets the bowing figure as the English ambassador and one of the creators of the map, Anthony Jenkinson.25 However, there is nothing Western in that image. Rather, the man standing in front of Ivan iv's throne is dressed in long clothes of similar design and the same blue colour as the tsar's garments; the man's cap, which he holds in his left hand, is of the same conical shape as Ivan iv's headgear and the caps of Muscovites in Magnus' map, though not as lavishly decorated as the emperor's tiara; the man wears boots with curved toe-caps and without heels, very much similar to those that appear in Augustin Hirschvogel's engraved portrait of Vasilii iii.26 The bowing figure obviously represents a Muscovite who is paying respect to his sovereign. It is also possible that the whole composition alludes to parallels between Muscovite Orthodoxy and Catholicism, a theme typical of English accounts of Muscovy. The bowing man looks at Ivan's feet, suggesting that he is going to kiss the tsar's shoe in the same way as Catholics kiss the Pope's shoe. In this respect one may note that Ivan's cap is highly reminiscent of the Pope's tiara.
The original Jenkinson map thus shows Ivan iv as a ruler venerated by his subjects. The image of the Muscovite ruler is very different from images of Muslim rulers which appear in other parts of the Jenkinson map. The Renaissance décor, Western royal regalia with a cross -all these elements represent the Muscovite tsar as a Christian ruler, who looks a bit "Popish" but generally very much similar to Western monarchs.
It is unclear whether Philip ii ever saw this image of Ivan iv in the original Jenkinson map. Ortelius' atlas, which Philip had in his residence, includes a variant of Jenkinson's map which shows the tsar in a completely different manner (Fig. 7).27 Compositionally, the scene with Ivan iv in Ortelius' Theatrum has very little in common with the drawing in the original map. The atlas shows  Ivan iv in Ortelius' atlas is deliberately "oriental." Contrary to the representation of Ivan in the original map, the figure of the Russian tsar in the Ortelius atlas is completely different from depictions of Western Christian monarchs that we find in Western Renaissance cartography. It was this exotic, non-Christian, "oriental" representation of Ivan iv that Philip ii could easily observe in his residence at the Escorial. But his policies suggest that he did not buy this "orientalized" image of the Russian tsar. According to a French diplomatic account, Philip encouraged Ivan iv to attack the Ottoman sultan during negotiations with Osip Nepeia in London in 1557. When Ivan unleashed the Livonian war in 1558, Philip pleaded with him for the citizens of Narva and other Livonians, despite the Protestants' beliefs that it was Philip who instigated the tsar to attack Livonia.29 Philip returned to his plans of involving Muscovy in an anti-Turkish league after the death of Ivan iv. In 1585, Philip's representative at the court of the Holy Roman emperor hosted the Russian ambassador L. Novosil'tsev. During the meeting the Spanish diplomat promoted the idea of a union between Christian monarchs against the Muslims, very much in line with what Philip expected from the Russian tsar as early as the 1550s. Philip's other activities relating to Russia were less proactive. His agents monitored Anglo-Russian commercial relations in the 1570s. The king also had abortive plans to send a mission to Ivan iv in 1577 and to turn Ivan's successor on the Muscovite throne Fedor Ivanovich against the English.30 Ia. S. Lur'e believed that Philip ii's attitude to Russia was driven by political rather than confessional reasons. He concluded that socially the feudal absolutist Spain was closer to Ivan closer to Ivan IV's political regime than the Netherlands and England were. However, Russian export of raw material to England and the Netherlands was strategically important and significantly helped these countries in their struggle against European (read Catholic, Habsburg, Spanish) reaction.31 We hardly need to follow this confused socio-political approach typical of Soviet historiography. Rather, it is more productive to explore the  1563. Both residences had common functions. First of all, they served as countryside palaces for their masters. What is important that both also housed religious institutions.33 Philip ii rigorously observed the feasts of the Hieronymite Order at his residence. He used the religious ceremonies at the Escorial to demonstrate his modesty and piety, for example, by choosing the south-western corner seat of the choir rather than the prestigious prior's seat or the impressive seats that flanked it.34 Ivan iv went even further than Philip. At Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda, the tsar assumed the functions of an abbot while other high-ranking courtiers (senators, according to Albert Schlichting) acted as monks. All members of that brotherhood, including Ivan, wore similar dark habits with a cowl. The practice of this court religious institution included joint prayers and communal meals, attendance to both was compulsory, and addressing every member of that religious community, including the tsar, brother.35 The religious practices of this brotherhood offered an egalitarian alternative to the traditional hierarchy of the Muscovite court.
Religious ceremonies were of course typical of every pre-modern court. However, Ivan and Philip gave a new dimension to these ceremonies by shifting their focus to their countryside residences. The religious rituals practiced at Sloboda and the Escorial at least partially served as compensatory and explanatory mechanisms for the use of violence in pre-modern politics. Ivan performed religious rites at his cloister for several days after which he returned to public life, which undoubtedly included terror and executions. We can detect a similar pattern in Philip ii's behaviour. As Geoffrey Parker notes, "numerous religious activities allowed the king to step back from the constant stress of having to take decisions and renewed his ability to cope with broader issues." By the stress of decisions Parker means, among other things, the need to rationalise the arrests of the king's son Don Carlos (1568) and Secretary of State Antonio Pérez (1579). After both arrests Philip retreated to the Escorial where 33 There was also a library, a mausoleum, a college, a seminary and a hospital at the Escorial. Sloboda certainly housed a collection of books and documents required for the functioning of the local scriptorium and press, as well as for Ivan's court administration. While at Sloboda, Ivan requested to send him diplomatic records, decisions on precedence disputes, a description of his coronation as tsar, a chronicle and additional material for it. he confessed and took communion in the royal chapel.36 The king's confession undoubtedly included Philip's own explanation of his actions to God. Rigorous religious practices marked the countryside residences of Ivan and Philip as sacred places. Constant prayers invited comparison between the Escorial and Ancient Israel with its Temple of Solomon, and by extension, with Heavenly Jerusalem and the Heavenly Court. Such parallels were enhanced by the statues of six kings of Israel at the portico of the Basilica (Fig. 8), the pictorial programme of the chapel, and illumination, which decorated the Escorial on feast days.37 The themes of Jerusalem, both terrestrial and Heavenly, and the Apocalypse became very prominent in Muscovite court culture in the late 1550s and the 1560s, i.e. on the eve of Ivan's departure to Sloboda  The decorative programme of the churches at Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda also contains references to eschatological themes associated with the beginning and end of Christian history. The history of church construction and decoration at Sloboda is very complex. Unlike the Escorial, which was created according to one uniform plan, Sloboda underwent a series of renovations in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Among the Sloboda churches, the Trinity church is particularly important as it was part of Ivan's palace (Fig. 9).39 Its frescoes, which date to the 1560s or early 1570s, focus on figures that symbolise two opposite ends of world Christian history. On the one hand, the frescos de- Intensive religiosity practiced at Sloboda and the Escorial manifested itself not only in ritual and decorative programmes but also in collecting relics. When Ivan left Moscow for Sloboda, he took along the most revered icons, crosses adorned with gold and precious stones, gold and silver vessels and sideboards.42 During the punitive expedition against Novgorod, Ivan also confiscated numerous icons, books and bells. Among the booty taken in Novgorod was one pair of fourteenth-century gates with religious images from the St. Sophia.43 These Novgorodian gates were installed in the main cathedral of Sloboda.  The Escorial is famous for its collection of some 7,500 relics, which Philip ii inherited, received as gifts, or acquired through agents, including those operating in Protestant countries.44 As far as I know, no relics were taken by force. Philip not only collected relics but also disseminated them. For instance, he gave the city of Cartagena some relics of local saints that he had purchased on another occasion.45 Similarly, after the confiscation of vessels in Moscow, Ivan eventually returned the silver ones. He also made restitution by returning some confiscated icons to Novgorod (icons of Apostles Peter and Paul) and ordered a copy of another looted icon (Saviour) be made for Novgorod.46 Such actions may look like erratic inconsistency or attempts at reconciliation. Scholars often argue that both types of behaviour were typical of Ivan. However, studies of Philip's attitude to relics offer a new perspective on Ivan's motives. Guy Lazure explains that the Spanish king was eager to demonstrate that relics first and foremost belonged to him: it was he who graciously agreed to turn over relics to a city or prelates. The collection of relics served to establish Philip's authority as a Christian ruler and helped him project a coherent image of himself and his monarchy to contemporaries and to posterity. By reserving rights to relics from every church in his kingdom for his own private collection, Philip ii asserted and reaffirmed his personal authority.47 I think Ivan was driven by similar aspirations to establish his ultimate authority over religious objects. This explains why, together with returning Novgorodian icons to the city, he also sent to Novgorod a copy of the General History of the World in the Age of Philip ii, the Prudent began in 1559. 49 Such limited coverage would not be enough for Ivan. As we saw, the frescoes of the court Trinity church presented a streamlined version of world history from the images of Old Testament forefathers to the ancestors of Ivan iv. Similar approach to history informed the most ambitious chronicle ever produced in Rus' , the above-mentioned Illustrated Chronicle Compilation. This gigantic chronicle contains about 10,000 folios and 17,000 miniatures, covering the period from the Creation through Roman and Byzantine history to the history of the East Slavs and culminating, naturally, in the reign of Ivan iv. The creation of the chronicle and other cultural activities at Sloboda show that it was not just "a bloodthirsty town," the capital of the Oprichnina terror, but also a cultural centre with an active scriptorium and a press. In his review of a work on Muscovite book culture, Halperin comments on a book copied at Sloboda: "Considering the executions and torture taking place there (at Sloboda -SB), one wonders how conducive the atmosphere was to copying a manuscript book."50 The cultural output of chroniclers, scribes and artists working at Sloboda suggests that the atmosphere was conducive despite the terror.
Typological parallels between Sloboda and the Escorial reveal important aspects of the Oprichnina. A comparative analysis of Ivan iv and Philip ii suggests that we should be careful with some of Cherniavsky's assertions about Ivan. In his explanation of the Oprichnina Halperin develops Cherniavsky's idea that Ivan was experiencing what Cherniavsky called "enormous ideological escalation" (212). According to Halperin, Ivan established the Oprichnina because of his "ideological overload" (214). The most burdensome element of Muscovite royal ideology was the title of tsar. As Cherniavsky and other scholars have demonstrated, the title had multiple religious and political layers, as it was applied to such different rulers as the Byzantine emperor and the Mongol khan and also to Christ. Ivan's coronation as tsar added tension to his relations with the Polish king who interpreted the title as a Muscovite imperial claim. If Ivan really wanted a relief, he should have dropped the title of tsar. But he never did that. Furthermore, Ivan deprived a Chinggisid (Simeon Bekbulatovich) of that title, thereby eliminating possible contenders for the title.51 Contrary to Cherniavsky and Halperin, the fact that Ivan always kept the title of tsar indicates that he never abdicated, though he could entrust parts of his russian history 47 (2020) 11-35 patrimony, including Moscow, to other people on a temporary basis, as it happened during the Oprichnina and the "reign" of Simeon Bekbulatovich (cf. 73, 166, 178, 213, 214).
Like Philip, Ivan was driven not by ideological overload, but rather by religious considerations, by his aspiration for original, simple, correct Christianity, an idea which was central to the cultural programmes of Sloboda and the Escorial. Despite obvious confessional, aesthetic and political differences, both programmes focused at rediscovering the origins of Christian faith and emphasised direct connections between the foundation Christian myth and contemporary monarchs, Philip and Ivan respectively. This is why both rulers resorted to the same spatial and functional model, a countryside palacemonastery, which freed them from the constraints of established religious and court institutions.
Countryside residences did help monarchs relieve the stress of decision making. But Philip did not create anything similar to the Oprichnina at the Escorial. Neither did Ivan iv's father Vasilii iii when he established Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda as his residence in 1513. What was special about Ivan iv's attitude to Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda was that is provided him security, as he suspected his old court and clerics of high treason. Ivan's preoccupation with security led to terror, and no study of Ivan the Terrible can ignore the Oprichnina executions at Sloboda. However, Halperin reminds us that other aspects of the Oprichnina should be taken as seriously as terror. He rejects the semiotic interpretation of the Oprichnina brotherhood as a parody of the established church because the brothers rigorously observed church services at Sloboda (185). Indeed, Ivan did not joke about his religion. Neither did Philip or any other contemporary Christian ruler, whether Catholic or Protestant. Halperin's comparative methodology helps us understand Ivan the Terrible in the global context of sixteenth-century Christianity.
of the roundtable in San-Francisco, for inviting me to participate in their events. Prof. Torres was also instrumental in organising my visit to the Escorial. I am grateful to José Luis del Valle Merino, Director of the Royal Library at the Escorial for information on the library's holdings. Almudena Pérez de Tudela Gabaldón, curator of the Royal Monastery of the Escorial, kindly explained the history of maps hanging in the Escorial's Galería de Paseo. Many thanks to Prof. Valerie Kivelson (University of Michigan) for references to works on Jenkinson's map of Russia.