Marfa Boretskaya (Marfa-Posadnitsa). V. Marfa Boretskaya, Novgorod mayor
![Marfa Boretskaya (Marfa-Posadnitsa). V. Marfa Boretskaya, Novgorod mayor](https://i2.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/1000_Marfa.jpg)
Mikhail Pogodin
In May-July 1830, preparing for publication the full text of “Martha, Posadnitsa of Novgorod,” M.P. Pogodin read the completed parts of the tragedy by A.S. Pushkin. “Be frank,” he asked the poet before starting the reading. “My goal is in another field, therefore, failure in this field will not dishearten me.” The comforting thought about “another, non-dramatic field” was apparently dear to Pogodin: he wrote it down in his “Diary” and then repeated it almost verbatim in the preface to the 1830 edition of “Marfa, Posadnitsa of Novgorod”. Although the preface did not specify which activities constituted the “essence of life” of the author, it can be assumed that it was about the historical direction of his activity. While still a student in the literature department of Moscow University, Pogodin studied the works of the German scientist A. L. Schlözer and “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin. In 1825, he defended his master's thesis “On the Origin of Rus'” and received a teaching position at the Department of General History of Moscow University. Among his works in the second half of the 1820s are translations of European historians and original articles about treaties with the Greeks of Oleg and Igor, about the genealogy of Princess Olga, and about Ivan the Terrible. At the same time, Pogodin published the magazine Moskovsky Vestnik, translated F. R. Chateaubriand, N. Machiavelli, F. Schiller, J. V. Goethe, participated in literary polemics, and wrote stories. The tragedy in five acts “Marfa, Posadnitsa of Novgorod,” conceived in 1825, united Pogodin’s historical and literary interests.
The plot of the play is based on one of the most dramatic moments in Russian history - the conquest of Novgorod by Ivan III in 1478. The Novgorod Council is discussing the most important question of what to do: meet the “executioner of Moscow” with bread and salt and thus try to preserve at least part of their former rights or engage in open battle, defending not only their independence, but also the honor of their ancestors. The decisive vote in favor of the battle remains with the smart and proud Marfa Boretskaya, the widow of the Novgorod mayor, who convinced her fellow citizens of the impossibility of a peace treaty. The outcome of the battle is predetermined, but the reasons for its defeat are not in the weakness of the Novgorod squad, but in the discord of noble townspeople and the betrayal of the boyars who went over to the side of the Moscow prince. The dramatic conflict takes on even greater urgency in the tragedy when it turns out that among the traitors was Martha’s son, Alexey Boretsky.
When creating the tragedy, Pogodin used many literary and historical sources. However, the main reference points for him were the works of N. M. Karamzin: “The History of the Russian State”, as well as “The News of Martha the Posadnitsa, Taken from the Life of St. Zosima" and the story "Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novgorod." Often polemicizing with the venerable historiographer, the author of “Marfa, Posadnitsa of Novgorod” shared his point of view on the policies of Ivan III, who “was worthy of crushing the fragile freedom of Novgorod, for he wanted the solid good of all Russia.” Such a great-power view of the events of the late 15th century was completely at odds with the ideas of the Decembrists, who saw the ideal of republican rule in the Novgorod veche.
The tragedy of Pogodin, in the words of Pushkin, “was written in a good spirit.” It ends with a solemn hymn to the autocracy and Martha the posadnitsa’s prediction of the coming to power of the Romanovs, who will “create” the happiness and greatness of Russia. However, when the manuscript of the play arrived at the censorship committee, censor S. T. Aksakov, a good friend of Pogodin, considered it necessary to make some corrections. Thus, the words “slave” and “slave” were consistently removed from the text, the surnames of Novgorod citizens were excluded or changed if the same surnames were listed in the “Decembrist Alphabet”. The remark of Prince A.V. Obolensky about the Novgorodians: “They are accustomed to freedom, because they have never lived in a black body” - was transformed into a short definition: “They were spoiled.” In addition to “unreliable” phrases, the censor tried to remove “low”, from his point of view, expressions. An example of a stylistic edit is the changes in the dialogue between two Novgorod residents discussing how everything should work out if there is no more evening. In Pogodin’s manuscript the dialogue looked like this:
The prince will speak, and we will only listen.
- So that's it! His lip is not stupid.
Under the pen of the censor, it acquired the following form:
Others will speak for us, we will listen.
- So that’s it! Understood.
At the end of the editorial work on August 26, 1830, S. T. Aksakov signed a censorship permit for the publication of Martha, Posadnitsa of Novgorod, and soon the tragedy was printed in the Moscow University Printing House. But the sale of the book, on the initiative of S. T. Aksakov and with the knowledge of A. H. Benckendorff, was suspended in connection with the Polish uprising, which began on November 29, 1830. Against the background of the Poles defending their independence, the tragedy of the death of the Novgorod Republic, indeed, could be read like a fresh newspaper. “Marfa, Posadnitsa Novgorodskaya” entered the book market only at the end of 1831, when the uprising was finally suppressed.
Contemporaries perceived Pogodin's first dramatic experience differently. Pushkin highly appreciated the tragedy, dedicating his article “On folk drama and the drama “Marfa Posadnitsa”” to it. It is known that during the author’s reading of the play, the poet began to cry, admiring the folk scenes of the third act, which, in his opinion, surpassed similar scenes in “Boris Godunov.” S.P. Shevyrev, on the contrary, believed that Pogodin should not have published this work. Despite all the differences in responses, they had one common feature: when discussing the merits and demerits of Pogodin’s tragedy, readers and critics inevitably turned to a broader topic dedicated to the further development of Russian drama.
The copy of “Martha, Posadnitsa of Novgorod” presented in the Bibliochronicle is, apparently, a tray: it contains a note from Pogodin addressed to an unidentified person: “I bow to you heartily. Sending a double for yourself. Thank you very much for the article. Reasonably polemical, it should be published immediately. Apr 3 M.P.<огодин>».
Nizhny Novgorod
Marfa Boretskaya(known as Martha the Posadnitsa, various sources indicate patronymic Semyonovna or Ivanovna) - wife of the Novgorod mayor Isaac Boretsky.
Biography
Very little is known about the initial period of Martha’s life. It is known that she came from the boyar family of Loshinsky and that she married twice. The first husband was the boyar Philip; the marriage produced two sons, Anton and Felix, who drowned on the Karelian coast of the White Sea. Her second husband was the Novgorod mayor Isaac Boretsky. Marfa Boretskaya never was and could not be formally a “posadnik”. This nickname was simply an evil mockery of Muscovites at the state system of the original republic - Veliky Novgorod. Being the widow of a wealthy landowner and herself owning vast lands along the banks of the Dvina and the Icy Sea, she first appears on the political scene of Novgorod in 1470 during the election of the new Archbishop of Novgorod. Pimen, supported by her, does not receive rank, and the chosen Theophilus is ordained in Moscow, and not in Kyiv, as the Lithuanian party wanted.
Martha and her son, Novgorod sedate mayor Dmitry, in 1471 they advocated the withdrawal of Novgorod from dependence on Moscow, established by the Yazhelbitsky Peace (1456). Martha was the informal leader of the boyar opposition to Moscow, she was supported by two more noble Novgorod widows: Anastasia (the wife of the boyar Ivan Grigorievich) and Euphemia (the wife of the mayor Andrei Gorshkov). Martha, who had significant funds, negotiated with the Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland Casimir IV about the entry of Novgorod into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on the basis of autonomy while preserving the political rights of Novgorod.
Having learned about the negotiations on the annexation of Novgorod to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Grand Duke Ivan III declared war on the Novgorod Republic and defeated the army of Novgorod in the Battle of Shelon (1471). Dmitry Boretsky was executed as a political criminal. However, Novgorod's right to self-government in its internal affairs was preserved. Martha, despite the death of her son and the actions of Ivan III, continued negotiations with Casimir, who promised her support. A conflict arose between the Lithuanian and Moscow parties, which became known to Ivan III. In 1478, during a new military campaign, Ivan III finally deprived the Novgorod lands of the privileges of self-government, extending the power of autocracy to them. As a sign of the abolition of the Novgorod veche, the veche bell was taken to Moscow, and sentences were passed on influential citizens. Martha's lands were confiscated, she and her grandson Vasily Fedorovich Isakov were first brought to Moscow and then deported to Nizhny Novgorod, where they were tonsured into monasticism under the name of Mary in the Conception (from 1814 - Holy Cross) Monastery, in which she died in 1503. According to another version, Martha died or was executed on the way to Moscow in the village of Mleve, Bezhetsk Pyatina, Novgorod Land.
In Russian chronicles, Martha Boretskaya is compared to Jezebel, Delilah, Herodias and Empress Eudoxia. The accusations against her include a desire to marry a “Lithuanian lord” in order to own Novgorod after its annexation to the Principality of Lithuania.
Marfa Boretskaya and Zosima Solovetsky
The Life of Zosima Solovetsky tells that Zosima Solovetsky, the founder of the Solovetsky Monastery, predicted the fall of Martha Boretskaya. This prophecy is associated with Zosima's visit to Novgorod during the conflict between the monastery and the Novgorod Republic regarding the monastery's fishing rights. Martha once drove the monk out of Novgorod and he predicted: “ The time will come when the residents of this house will not walk in their yard; the doors of the house will be shut and will not open again; this yard will be empty" After some time, at the invitation of Archbishop Theophilus, Zosima again visited Novgorod and Martha, repentant, received him in her home. She gave the Solovetsky Monastery a charter regarding the rights to toni (fishing places). Subsequently, an opinion arose that this document could not have been issued by Martha, but was a late forgery of the Solovetsky monks.
In art
- Martha the Posadnitsa, or the conquest of Novgorod - a historical story by Nikolai Karamzin
- Marfa the Posadnitsa - 1910 film.
- Marfa Posadnitsa - poem by Sergei Yesenin.
- Marfa-Posadnitsa - novel by Dmitry Balashov ()
- The Lament of Martha the Posadnitsa - song by Alexander Gorodnitsky ()
- The Widow's Platter - a story by Boris Akunin ()
- Marfa, Posadnitsa Novgorod - a historical tragedy in the verses of Mikhail Pogodin ()
Write a review of the article "Boretskaya, Marfa"
Notes
Literature
- Rudakov V. E.// Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
- Ikonnikov V.// Russian biographical dictionary: in 25 volumes. - St. Petersburg. -M., 1896-1918.
Predecessor: Isaac Boretsky |
Novgorod Posadnitsa (de facto) - |
Successor: abolition of the republic and its capture by Ivan III |
Excerpt characterizing Boretskaya, Marfa
These first days, until September 8th, the day on which the prisoners were taken for secondary interrogation, were the most difficult for Pierre.X
On September 8, a very important officer entered the barn to see the prisoners, judging by the respect with which the guards treated him. This officer, probably a staff officer, with a list in his hands, made a roll call of all the Russians, calling Pierre: celui qui n "avoue pas son nom [the one who does not say his name]. And, indifferently and lazily looking at all the prisoners, he ordered the guard it is proper for the officer to dress and tidy them up before leading them to the marshal. An hour later a company of soldiers arrived, and Pierre and thirteen others were led to the Maiden's Field. The day was clear, sunny after the rain, and the air was unusually clean. Smoke did not settle down as in that day when Pierre was taken out of the guardhouse of Zubovsky Val; smoke rose in columns in the clear air. The fires of the fires were nowhere to be seen, but columns of smoke rose from all sides, and all of Moscow, everything that Pierre could see, was one conflagration. On all sides one could see vacant lots with stoves and chimneys and occasionally the charred walls of stone houses. Pierre looked closely at the fires and did not recognize the familiar quarters of the city. In some places, surviving churches could be seen. The Kremlin, undestroyed, loomed white from afar with its towers and Ivan the Great. Nearby, the dome of the Novodevichy Convent glittered merrily, and the bell of the Gospel was especially loudly heard from there. This announcement reminded Pierre that it was Sunday and the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. But it seemed that there was no one to celebrate this holiday: everywhere there was devastation from the fire, and from the Russian people there were only occasionally ragged, frightened people who hid at the sight of the French.
Obviously, the Russian nest was ravaged and destroyed; but behind the destruction of this Russian order of life, Pierre unconsciously felt that over this ruined nest his own, completely different, but firm French order had been established. He felt this from the sight of those soldiers walking cheerfully and cheerfully, in regular rows, who escorted him with other criminals; he felt this from the sight of some important French official in a double carriage, driven by a soldier, driving towards him. He felt this from the cheerful sounds of regimental music coming from the left side of the field, and especially he felt and understood it from the list that the visiting French officer read this morning, calling out the prisoners. Pierre was taken by some soldiers, taken to one place or another with dozens of other people; it seemed that they could forget about him, mix him up with others. But no: his answers given during the interrogation came back to him in the form of his name: celui qui n "avoue pas son nom. And under this name, which Pierre was afraid of, he was now being led somewhere, with undoubted confidence written on them faces that all the other prisoners and he were the ones who were needed, and that they were being taken where they were needed. Pierre felt like an insignificant sliver caught in the wheels of an unknown to him, but correctly functioning machine.
Pierre and other criminals were led to the right side of the Maiden's Field, not far from the monastery, to a large white house with a huge garden. This was the house of Prince Shcherbatov, in which Pierre had often visited the owner before and in which now, as he learned from the conversation of the soldiers, the marshal, the Duke of Eckmuhl, was stationed.
They were led to the porch and one by one they were led into the house. Pierre was brought in sixth. Through a glass gallery, a vestibule, and an antechamber, familiar to Pierre, he was led into a long, low office, at the door of which stood an adjutant.
Davout sat at the end of the room above the table, glasses on his nose. Pierre came close to him. Davout, without raising his eyes, was apparently coping with some paper lying in front of him. Without raising his eyes, he quietly asked:
– Qui etes vous? [Who are you?]
Pierre was silent because he was unable to utter words. For Pierre, Davout was not just a French general; for Pierre Davout, he was a man known for his cruelty. Looking at the cold face of Davout, who, like a strict teacher, agreed to have patience for the time being and wait for an answer, Pierre felt that every second of delay could cost him his life; but he didn't know what to say. He did not dare say what he said during the first interrogation; revealing one's rank and position was both dangerous and shameful. Pierre was silent. But before Pierre could decide on anything, Davout raised his head, raised his glasses to his forehead, narrowed his eyes and looked intently at Pierre.
“I know this man,” he said in a measured, cold voice, obviously calculated to frighten Pierre. The cold that had previously run down Pierre's back gripped his head like a vice.
– Mon general, vous ne pouvez pas me connaitre, je ne vous ai jamais vu... [You couldn’t know me, general, I’ve never seen you.]
“C"est un espion russe, [This is a Russian spy,"] Davout interrupted him, addressing another general who was in the room and whom Pierre had not noticed. And Davout turned away. With an unexpected boom in his voice, Pierre suddenly spoke quickly.
“Non, Monseigneur,” he said, suddenly remembering that Davout was a Duke. - Non, Monseigneur, vous n"avez pas pu me connaitre. Je suis un officier militianaire et je n"ai pas quitte Moscow. [No, Your Highness... No, Your Highness, you could not know me. I am a police officer and I have not left Moscow.]
- Votre nom? [Your name?] - repeated Davout.
- Besouhof. [Bezukhov.]
– Qu"est ce qui me prouvera que vous ne mentez pas? [Who will prove to me that you are not lying?]
- Monseigneur! [Your Highness!] - Pierre cried out in a not offended, but pleading voice.
Davout raised his eyes and looked intently at Pierre. They looked at each other for several seconds, and this glance saved Pierre. In this view, apart from all the conditions of war and trial, a human relationship was established between these two people. Both of them in that one minute vaguely experienced countless things and realized that they were both children of humanity, that they were brothers.
At first glance for Davout, who only raised his head from his list, where human affairs and life were called numbers, Pierre was only a circumstance; and, not taking the bad deed into account on his conscience, Davout would have shot him; but now he already saw a person in him. He thought for a moment.
– Comment me prouverez vous la verite de ce que vous me dites? [How will you prove to me the truth of your words?] - Davout said coldly.
Pierre remembered Rambal and named his regiment, his last name, and the street on which the house was located.
“Vous n"etes pas ce que vous dites, [You are not what you say.],” Davout said again.
Pierre, in a trembling, intermittent voice, began to provide evidence of the truth of his testimony.
But at this time the adjutant entered and reported something to Davout.
Davout suddenly beamed at the news conveyed by the adjutant and began to button up. He apparently completely forgot about Pierre.
When the adjutant reminded him of the prisoner, he frowned, nodded towards Pierre and said to be led away. But Pierre didn’t know where they were supposed to take him: back to the booth or to the prepared place of execution, which his comrades showed him while walking along the Maiden’s Field.
He turned his head and saw that the adjutant was asking something again.
- Oui, sans doute! [Yes, of course!] - said Davout, but Pierre didn’t know what “yes” was.
Pierre did not remember how, how long he walked and where. He, in a state of complete senselessness and dullness, not seeing anything around him, moved his legs along with the others until everyone stopped, and he stopped. During all this time, one thought was in Pierre’s head. It was the thought of who, who, finally sentenced him to death. These were not the same people who interrogated him in the commission: not one of them wanted and, obviously, could not do this. It was not Davout who looked at him so humanly. Another minute and Davout would have realized that they were doing something wrong, but this moment was interrupted by the adjutant who entered. And this adjutant, obviously, did not want anything bad, but he might not have entered. Who was it that finally executed, killed, took his life - Pierre with all his memories, aspirations, hopes, thoughts? Who did this? And Pierre felt that it was no one.
In the history of Rus' there were not many strong and powerful women capable of leading the state at critical moments of its existence. One of them was Martha the posadnitsa, who led the struggle of the Novgorod Republic with the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the second half of the 15th century.
A. Gusev 1857
Historians, writers, poets, and painters have been trying to comprehend the image of this amazing woman for several centuries. But little reliable information about her has survived. This is natural, since she appeared on the pages of chronicles and official documents only when she found herself at the head of one of the Novgorod parties that advocated an open struggle with Moscow. And since she ultimately lost the battle for power, the written reflection of her activities was not carried out without bias. Even such an original, but unlikely version of her actions to subjugate Novgorod to Lithuania has been preserved: “They want to marry a Lithuanian lord, a queen, and want to bring him to her in Veliky Novgrad, and with him they want to own all the Novgorod land...”.
But let's return to the real story of Martha the Posadnitsa. Her father was Semyon Loshinsky, a representative of a noble Novgorod boyar family. Martha was married twice. At first she was married to the boyar Philip. In this marriage, sons Anton and Felix were born, who later died in Zaonezhye, apparently during the collection of tribute from the subject lands. After the death of Philip, Martha married the Novgorod mayor Isaac Boretsky. This time she chose her husband herself, not least guided by material considerations. The new marriage produced three children: Dmitry, Fedor and Ksenia. It is believed that after this marriage, about a third of the Novgorod lands ended up in the hands of the Boretsky family. Colossal wealth allowed Martha and her husband to have a real influence on Novgorod life.
Having buried both husbands, Marfa Boretskaya remained an independent mistress with significant land, which she later increased through her own “purchases” and lands colonized with her knowledge or at her order by representatives of the patrimonial administration.
By the 70s of the 15th century. in terms of the size of her possessions, Marfa was the only patrimony of its kind, incomparable with other Novgorod boyars (Esipovs, Ovinovs, etc.). It is believed that in terms of the size of Marfa's property by the end of the 15th century. was the third after the Novgorod ruler and monasteries. In the inventory of her possessions you can see furs in thousands of skins, and linen in hundreds of cubits, and bread in hundreds of boxes, and meat in hundreds of carcasses, butter, chickens, swans and much more, and most importantly - money: in the patrimony of Boretskaya, the monetary dues amounted to 51 % of owner's income.
Marfa's own house in Novgorod on Velikaya Street (Nerevsky end of the city) was a stone chamber on two floors, which distinguished it from other boyar houses.
Thanks to her enormous wealth, Marfa Boretskaya gained significant political weight. Her image remained in the people's memory for a long time - an imperious ruler, a punishing autocrat.
The legend says that, having learned about the death of her sons from her first marriage in Zaonezhye, Martha ordered a number of villages there to be burned. In the chronicles, Boretskaya appears as an irreconcilable money-grubber with a death grip.
In the middle of the 15th century, when the Solovetsky Monastery began to fight the Novgorod boyars for the possession of Obonezhye, the Solovetsky Abbot Zosima petitioned the mayors to transfer the islands into the possession of the Solovetsky Monastery. But he was driven out by “one of the most glorious and the first of this city” - the mayor Martha with the words: “He will take our fatherland away from us!”
Martha mercilessly destroyed her opponents. “The Life of Varlaam Vazhsky” tells that a certain Vasily Svoezemtsev, fleeing the intrigues of the mayor, was forced to flee with his family from Novgorod to an estate on Vaga, and the boyar Miroslavsky paid for the lawsuit with Martha by being imprisoned in a dungeon.
A.P. Ryabushkin. Passage of Marfa Posadnitsa and the Eternal Bell. 1885-1886. Nikolaev Art Museum named after. V.V.Vereshchagina, Nikolaev.
In the second half of the 60s of the 15th century. An active patrimonial woman led a boyar group that openly opposed Moscow's unification policy. In 1471, together with several influential Novgorodians, including the boyars Anastasia, the widow of Ivan Grigoriev, and Euphemia, the widow of the mayor Esip Andreevich Gorshkov, Marfa Boretskaya nominated “her” candidate for ordination to the rank of archbishop - a certain Pimen. Being close to the former Archbishop Jonah, he had access to the Sofia treasury and transferred a lot of funds to the Boretskys to support their “party”. However, Theophilus was proclaimed archbishop, for whom, as we remember, the aforementioned Grand Duchess Marya Yaroslavna procured “dangerous” letters. The Novgorod ambassador who returned from Moscow reported that the Grand Duke of Moscow in his speech called Novgorod “his fatherland.” Martha used this news as a reason for decisive action. Her home became the site of heated political meetings, and she herself became their inspirer. “Many people in the host came to her and listened to her charming and godly words, not knowing what was to their detriment,” the chronicler later noted, lamenting that “many of the people” were embarrassed by the “temptation” of the mayor’s words.
Veche bell. Miniature of the Front Chronicle. XVI century
By this time, two large boyar groups had formed in the political life of Veliky Novgorod: one advocated a close alliance with Moscow, and the other, practically led by the Boretskys, advocated “deposition” to Lithuania to preserve republican privileges and greater independence. The fight between the groups was tough and bloody, all means were used, including killing opponents.
The political influence of the Boretsky family was also facilitated by the fact that, following his father, who probably died in the 60s, Dmitry became the Novgorod mayor. It is worth mentioning that during this period in Veliky Novgorod, 18 lifelong mayors were selected and appointed from Moscow, from among whom a sedate mayor was elected for six months, who was formally the head of the elected government. It is curious that Isaac Boretsky was a posadnik from the Grand Duke of Moscow, but “looked” towards Lithuania.
Dmitry Ivanovich Ivanov. Marfa Posadnitsa. The presentation of the sword of Ratmir by the hermit Theodosius Boretsky to the young leader of the Novgorodians Miroslav, appointed by Martha Posadnitsa as the husband of her daughter Ksenia.
Martha the posadnitsa is depicted watching Theodosius Boretsky hand over the sword of Ratmir to Miroslav.1808
Despite the high position of her son, the Boretsky family and the party of supporters of Lithuania were confidently led by Martha herself. But she lost the first major political battle. This happened in 1470, when elections were held for a new Novgorod archbishop, who traditionally had significant political weight in the republic. During the struggle, the Boretskys' protege, the sacristan Pimen, who was planned to be ordained in Kyiv, was defeated, and the chosen Theophilus was elevated to the rank in Moscow.
In 1471, Grand Duke Ivan III, who reasonably counted on the support of the newly elected archbishop, declared war on the Novgorod Republic. Perhaps he would have tried for longer to resolve the matter peacefully, but under the leadership of Martha, direct negotiations began with Casimir IV and a draft agreement was even drawn up on the entry of the Novgorod Republic into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the preservation of a certain autonomy and basic political rights. Lithuania promised military assistance to Novgorod; naturally, Ivan III did not wait for her approach.
Several battles took place, the largest of which was the Battle of Shelon.
The forty thousand-strong Novgorod militia, led by the sedate mayor Dmitry Boretsky, suffered a crushing defeat. Dmitry was captured and executed. Veliky Novgorod paid a large indemnity, ceded part of its lands to Moscow and swore allegiance to Ivan III, but retained the right of self-government in internal affairs. The party supporting Lithuania was defeated, but this did not stop Marfa, who retained both wealth and political influence.
Komarov Nikolai Parfenovich.
Martha again managed to rally around herself those dissatisfied with the Moscow order, and dual power practically developed in Novgorod. In December 1475, Ivan III was forced to come to Novgorod to restore order, but this only worsened the situation.
Ivan III visited the houses of major Novgorod boyars: Korobov, Kazimir, as well as the rich boyar Anastasia Grigorieva. Only the house of Marfa Boretskaya was not awarded this honor: Ivan III continued to fear new actions on her part.
In an effort to finally bring Novgorod under his influence, Ivan III demanded that the rebellious republic officially recognize him as a sovereign, completely transfer judicial power into his hands, and create the residence of the Grand Duke of Moscow in the city. Boretskaya’s supporters were able to get Moscow’s demands rejected at the meeting, and the republic began to prepare for another war. Ambassadors again went to Lithuania asking for help.
Lebedev Klavdiy Vasilievich. Marfa Posadnitsa. Destruction of the Novgorod veche.
In the fall of 1477, the army of Ivan III besieged Novgorod. The Grand Duke’s demands on the rebels became even stricter: “I will ring the bell in our fatherland in Novgorod, there will be no mayor, and we will keep our state.” The implementation of this demand led to the final loss of Novgorod's independence. Naturally, supporters of Marfa Boretskaya fiercely opposed him and called for the continuation of the struggle. Despite all the efforts of Marfa, supported by direct bribery of the Novgorodians, who were given food and money, it became increasingly difficult to continue defending the city. Armed clashes began on the streets of Novgorod between supporters and opponents of Moscow. Soon, Archbishop Theophilus and Prince Vasily Grebenka-Shuisky, who led the defense of the city, openly went over to the side of the Grand Duke.
Arrest of Marfa Posadnitsa with her grandson Vasily Fedorovich in Novgorod
Victor Vasnetsov, 1877 Sketch.
Ivan III ordered to capture Marfa and her grandson Vasily Fedorovich, send them to prison and “so of course tame Veliky Novgorod.”
On January 15, 1478, Veliky Novgorod opened the gates to the grand ducal army. The famous Novgorod veche was finally abolished and the veche bell was even taken to Moscow.
Vast possessions of Boretskaya were assigned to Ivan III. Martha and her supporters were captured and sent to Moscow.
A. Kivshenko. Annexation of Veliky Novgorod. Expulsion of noble and eminent Novgorodians to Moscow.
The further fate of Martha the Posadnitsa is not precisely known. According to some sources, she was transported to Nizhny Novgorod, tonsured as a nun and died in 1503. According to another version, she died or was killed on the way to Moscow; this happened on the territory of the Tver Principality in the village of Mleve. Even at the beginning of the twentieth century, pilgrims came to Mlev to venerate the grave of Martha, where healings took place.
For a long time in Novgorod, Marfa was considered a defender of Novgorod liberties, who suffered for active resistance to Moscow. Naturally, the authorities tried to hide the time of her death and the place of burial.
Komarov Nikolay. Marfa Posadnitsa.
Marfa Boretskaya and Zosima Solovetsky
The Life of Zosima Solovetsky tells that Zosima Solovetsky, the founder of the Solovetsky Monastery, predicted the fall of Martha Boretskaya. This prophecy is associated with Zosima's visit to Novgorod during the conflict between the monastery and the Novgorod principality regarding the monastery's fishing rights. Martha once drove the monk out of Novgorod and he predicted: “The time will come when the inhabitants of this house will not walk around their yard; the doors of the house will be shut and will not open again; this yard will be empty.” After some time, at the invitation of Archbishop Theophilus, Zosima again visited Novgorod and Martha, repentant, received him in her home. She gave the Solovetsky Monastery a charter regarding the rights to toni (fishing places). Subsequently, an opinion arose that this document could not have been issued by Martha, but was a late forgery of the Solovetsky monks.
A colorful figure of Veliky Novgorod in the 15th century - in the last period of its independence - was the noble Novgorod noblewoman Marfa Boretskaya. No wonder Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin called her a “majestic republican”...
Marfa Boretskaya, or, as she was also called, Marfa the Posadnitsa, was the last defender of the Novgorod Republic. Karamzin, an ardent supporter of the monarchy, nevertheless expressed hope that her name will be inscribed in the “gallery of famous Russian women.”
In this, as in many other things, the great historian turned out to be right.
Independent housewife
The famous Novgorod came from a noble family of boyars, the Loshinskys. Her first husband was the boyar Philip, and in this marriage two sons were born, Anton and Felix. Unfortunately, they drowned on the Karelian coast of the White Sea.
Martha's second husband was mayor Isaac Andreevich Boretsky. He belonged to a family famous in Novgorod, which in the 15th century had extensive “boyars” - landholdings. Having buried both husbands, Boretskaya remained a sovereign and independent mistress with significant land.
In the memory of Novgorodians, the image of Martha forever remained as the image of an imperious and cruel ruler, a punishing autocrat.
As the legend says, having learned about the death of her sons from her first marriage in Zaonezhye, she ordered a number of villages there to be burned. If you believe the chronicles, Boretskaya was a money-grubber with a stranglehold.
Thus, in the middle of the 15th century, Abbot Zosima petitioned the mayor to transfer Obonezhye to the Solovetsky Monastery. The Novgorod boyars opposed this. Among those who zealously defended the rights to this land was Boretskaya. And Zosima was driven out by Martha, “one of the most glorious and the first of this city,” with the words: “He will take our fatherland away from us!” She dealt mercilessly with her enemies. The “Life of Varlaam Vazhsky” tells that a certain Vasily Svoezemtsev was forced to flee due to the intrigues of Martha and fled with his family to an estate on Vaga.
Later, she increased her lands through her own “purchases.” Over time, she became the largest patrimonial owner and was not inferior to the then boyar families - the Ovinovs and the Esipovs. According to many historians, Boretskaya by the end of the 15th century was the third largest property after the Novgorod ruler and monasteries.
Carefully looking through the inventory of her possessions, you can find furs in thousands of skins and bread in hundreds of boxes, many meat carcasses, butter, chickens, swans, linen in hundreds of cubits. And, of course, money. Monetary dues in the Boretskaya estates amounted to at least 51% of the owner's income. In Novgorod, at the Nerevsky end of the city, on Velikaya Street, she owned two-story stone chambers. Her house stood out sharply even among other boyar mansions. Thanks to such enormous wealth, Martha gained political weight. In such conflicts, she always showed herself as the worst enemy of the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
So she had something to lose, and when Moscow claimed its rights to Novgorod, it entered into a fight with the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III.
Confused by the “temptation of speeches”
In the second half of the 60s of the 15th century, Martha led a boyar group that openly opposed Moscow and its unification policy. In 1471, Boretskaya, together with a number of influential Novgorodians, which included the boyar Anastasia (the widow of the boyar Ivan Grigoriev) and Euphemia (the wife of the mayor Andrei Gorshkov), decided to nominate their candidate for post-archbishop - a certain Pimen.
Being a close associate of the former Archbishop Jonah and having access to the treasury, he managed to transfer a lot of funds to Boretskaya for the fight against Moscow. But this time Martha and her minions lost, and Theophilus was elected archbishop. And soon the Novgorod ambassador returned from Moscow, who stated that the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III considers Novgorod “his fatherland.” Boretskaya used this statement as a reason for decisive action. Her house essentially became the center of stormy meetings, and Martha herself became their inspirer. According to the chronicler of that time, “many people came to her at the gathering and listened a lot to her charming and godly words, not knowing what was to their detriment.” Even “many of the people” - ordinary Novgorodians - were “confused by the temptation” of Boretskaya’s speeches. But the Novgorod boyars-aristocracy had great plans.
They wanted to create an Orthodox viceroyalty in Novgorod, dependent on Lithuania. The boyars longed to see a future governor from among the “Litvins”. In addition, this governor was supposed to marry Martha Boretskaya, who “wanted to marry the Lithuanian gentleman for the queen, yes ... the intention was to bring him to her in Veliky Novgrad, and with him they wanted to rule over the entire Novgorod land from the king.” .
In 1471, Martha Posadnitsa, together with her sons (children from Isaac Boretsky), openly spoke out at a meeting against the subordination of Novgorod to Moscow. As the chronicle says, “Velik Novgorod began to seduce the entire people of Orthodoxy with that desperate thought.” According to the Russian historian Sergei Solovyov, she “forced” the veche to agree to secede from Moscow: “Boretskaya’s mercenaries appeared in the square and screamed about the oppression of Moscow, about the golden will under the patronage of Casimir of Lithuania, and forced Moscow adherents to remain silent with stones.” Sergei Mikhailovich, condemning Boretskaya, calls her nothing less than Jezebel, the possessed Herodias, Queen Eudoxia and Delilah, the biblical heroine who betrayed Samson. Although we should not forget that Boretskaya was a daughter of her time and used the same means in the political struggle as her contemporaries, at least the same Great Prince of Moscow Ivan III.
A scaffold instead of a throne
Of course, Boretskaya’s supporters - the boyars - had the means, and they managed to bribe “smerds, shilniks and other nameless men”, inciting them to perform. At the right moment, bells rang in the city, and people began to shout: “We want for the king!” And although there was a “party” of Moscow supporters in Novgorod, Boretskaya’s supporters overpowered them. The ambassadors of the Novgorod boyars went with gifts to the Lithuanian king.
Having learned about this, Ivan III organized a campaign against Novgorod. On June 20, 1471, with a large army, he set out from Moscow. The battle between Muscovites and Novgorodians took place on the Sheloni River. The latter suffered a crushing defeat. Martha's son, the sedate mayor Dmitry Isaakovich, was captured in this battle and laid his head on the block. The mayor's minions were forced to admit defeat. In order to make peace with the Grand Duke, the new mayor, Foma Andreevich, presented Ivan III with a thousand silver rubles, and he “did not reject the petition, took a heavy penalty for the offense.” Nevertheless, Martha the posadnitsa continued to fight against the Moscow prince. In December 1475, Ivan III again arrived in Novgorod. He even visited the mansions of rich boyars. He even awarded this honor to Anastasia Grigorieva, who belonged to Boretskaya’s “party,” and some boyars.
But the future “sovereign of all Rus'” did not bother to visit Martha’s house. Apparently he knew that she was still his worst enemy. In the same year, by order of Ivan III, Martha’s other son, Fyodor Isaakovich, was captured and sent to prison.
The tragic ending came a few years later. In February 1478, Ivan ordered the capture of Marfa herself and her grandson Vasily Fedorovich. The Grand Duke ordered to send them to “prisonment” and “so of course tame Veliky Novgorod.” “The evil wife,” as the chronicler calls Marfa Boretskaya, was sent to Moscow. But, apparently, she was so terrible for the Moscow ruler that they did not take her to Belokamennaya. In the same year, she was executed in the small Tver village of Mleve on the way to Moscow.
Victor Eliseev
Martha and her son in 1471 advocated the withdrawal of Novgorod from dependence on Moscow, established by the Yazhelbitsky Peace (1456). Martha was the informal leader of the boyar opposition to Moscow; she was supported by noble Novgorod widows. Martha, who had significant funds, negotiated with the Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland Casimir IV about the entry of Novgorod into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on the basis of autonomy while preserving the political rights of Novgorod. Having learned about the negotiations on the annexation of Novgorod to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Grand Duke Ivan III declared war on the Novgorod Republic and defeated the army of Novgorod in the Battle of Shelon (1471). Dmitry Boretsky was executed as a political criminal. However, Novgorod's right to self-government in its internal affairs was preserved. Martha, despite the death of her son and the actions of Ivan III, continued negotiations with Casimir, who promised her support. A conflict arose between the Lithuanian and Moscow parties, which became known to Ivan III.
 
In 1478, during a new military campaign, Ivan III finally deprived the Novgorod lands of the privileges of self-government, extending the power of autocracy to them. As a sign of the abolition of the Novgorod veche, the veche bell was taken to Moscow, and sentences were passed on influential citizens. Martha's lands were confiscated, she and her grandson were first brought to Moscow, and then deported to Nizhny Novgorod, where she was tonsured into monasticism under the name of Mary in the Conception (from 1814 - Holy Cross) Monastery, where she died in 1503. According to another version, Martha died or was executed on the way to Moscow in the village of Mleve, Tver Principality. In Russian chronicles, Martha Boretskaya is compared to Jezebel, Delilah, Herodias and Empress Eudoxia.
Marfa-Posadnitsa (Boretskaya Marfa Semyonovna) is the head of the party of Novgorod boyars who are hostile to Moscow. In her second marriage, she was married to mayor I.A. Boretsky, whose family had long stood in opposition to the car wash policy. princes. Widowed in Bo-x. XV century the second time, Martha the Posadnitsa became independent, the owner of a huge fortune, second in size only to the state of the Novg. archbishop and the richest monasteries of the Novgorod feudal. republics. In accordance with her wealth, she occupied a position in Novgorod the Great. In 1471, together with his son Dmitry, Nov. a sedate mayor, led the Novg party hostile to Moscow. boyars, who negotiated the transfer of Novgorod to Lithuanian citizenship with the leaders. book lit. Casimir IV. Novg. The 4th chronicle directly accuses Martha the Posadnitsa of conspiring with Lit. book Mikhail Olelkovich. After the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow (1478), Martha the Posadnitsa, by order of Ivan III Vasilyevich, was arrested, exiled to Moscow and tonsured as a nun, and all her property was confiscated.