Trade between the British and Muscovy. Diplomatic relations with England in the 16th century

English king

Why did Russia need ports on the Baltic in the 16th century? Before that, for centuries, Novgorodians had access to the sea, but they did not try to build fortresses or cities right on the shore. Ivan-Gorod was built opposite Narva only in 1492, and even then exclusively as a fortress. Control of the coast had only military significance. After all, having captured the mouth of the Neva, the Swedes or Germans could close the exit to the Baltic for Novgorod ships, thereby putting Novgorod commodity flows under their control. The Swedes seriously tried to do this twice. It is significant that both times the events took place on the territory of the future St. Petersburg. In 1240 they landed at the mouth of the Neva, but were attacked by the Novgorodians and forced to retreat. In honor of this battle, the leader of the Novgorodians, Prince Alexander, received the nickname Nevsky. However, 60 years later, Swedish Marshal Torkel Knutsson made a second attempt, entering the mouth of the Neva with a fleet of more than a hundred ships. This time, the attempts of the Novgorodians to throw the enemy into the sea were unsuccessful, and the Swedes founded the Landskrona fortress, as Karamzin notes, “seven versts from present-day St. Petersburg.” After the Swedish fleet left, the Novgorodians attacked the city and in 1301 razed it to the ground.

However, over time, the positions of the Novgorodians objectively became weaker. In the 8th-11th centuries, river and sea vessels differed little. Already in the 12th century, Italians and Germans were building sea vessels that were significantly superior in carrying capacity to the boats of the Russians and Scandinavians. And with the beginning of great geographical discoveries, a new merchant fleet began to develop. The tonnage and size of ships is steadily increasing. The Novgorod river fleet is finally becoming uncompetitive.

The British “discover” Muscovy

At the beginning of the 16th century, the economy of the Muscovite kingdom was developing in much the same way as in other European countries. In 1534, Elena Glinskaya, the mother of the future Tsar Ivan the Terrible, carried out a monetary reform that replaced the coins of various appanage principalities with a single system. Conditions arise for the formation of an all-Russian domestic market. Production and trade are growing. The paradox is that economic growth is also accompanied by increasing backwardness of Russia from the West. This apparent contradiction is caused by the fact that, being involved in the general process of development and socio-economic transformation, Russia finds itself on its periphery.

Economic growth occurs against the backdrop of expanding state borders. If Western European countries begin to create colonies in America and on the coast of Africa, then Russia is moving east. The first stage of this movement was the conquest of the Kazan Khanate. As M. Pokrovsky notes, the trigger for this expansion was, as in Western Europe, a combination of the interests of the land-poor nobility and merchant capital. The nobility grew quantitatively, became more and more numerous and (like the Spanish hidalgos) no longer lacked either peasants or land, while capital grew qualitatively and was able to finance noble expeditions in its own interests. A similar situation in Western Europe was already observed during the era of the Crusades, and by the end of the 15th century a similar situation had developed in both the east and west of the continent.

This is superimposed on the crisis of the traditional feudal economy caused by the development of the market. The estates are losing their isolation. “The transformation of bread into a commodity,” notes Pokrovsky, “made the land that gave the bread a commodity.” The old relationships of ownership and mutual responsibility are being called into question. However, the boyar estate is not sold or divided; it remains a family inheritance.

Monasteries in Russia most quickly adopt market relations. On the contrary, large boyar estates turned out to be a brake on development. However, it was impossible to divide them or sell them on the market due to the remaining political power of the boyars. This also makes the Russian situation in many ways similar to the Spanish one (unlike England, where after the Wars of the Roses the old aristocracy was largely exterminated and its political influence undermined). Since the expropriation of the boyars was politically difficult and risky, external expansion seemed a reasonable solution: it was possible to obtain land and supply grain to the market without sacrificing the interests of the boyars. However, the war in the Kazan Khanate was not as easy as it seemed at first. After the capture of Kazan, the resistance of local residents in the form of guerrilla warfare continued for about 6 years. The victory was achieved only through the massive resettlement of Russian colonists from the interior regions of the country to the Volga region. Peasants died in the thousands, but they changed the demographic situation in favor of the conquerors. The nobility, on the contrary, was the loser. During the 6 years of the war, it was never able to seize new estates, and there were even fewer peasants in the western regions. The merchants won more. Merchant capital gained access to river routes leading to Persia, but this only whetted its appetites.

Now Russia is trying to get rid of trade intermediaries - German merchants who control trade in the eastern Baltic through Riga, Revel, Narva. Meanwhile, Russia is not the only country that is hampered by German trade mediation. A new trading power, England, is beginning to rise in Western Europe. She has not yet become mistress of the seas, and the main problem for the development of British merchant capitalism is the Spanish-Portuguese monopoly in the Atlantic. But German domination in the Baltic also restrains the development of English trade. We need new markets and new sources of raw materials. Russia can provide both for English merchant capital.

In 1553, three ships set sail towards Norway, officially with the goal of finding a northern sea route to China, Japan and India. The idea was initially unrealistic. The Northern Sea Route bypassing Siberia and Chukotka could not be properly constructed even in Soviet times with the help of icebreakers. However, in the 16th century, the idea of ​​​​opening a northern route to China did not seem crazy either in England or in Russia itself. Thirty years after the failure of the English expedition, the merchant house of the Stroganovs made a second similar attempt. The Dutch sailors they hired in 1584 tried to do what the British could not, and, naturally, also failed.

Meanwhile, the English expedition initially pursued a much wider range of goals. Its organizers were looking for new markets, because “our merchants are discovering that the goods and products of England are not in great demand among the countries and peoples around us.” The ships that set sail carried with them a message from King Edward VI, addressed to nothing less than “all kings, princes, rulers, judges and governors of the earth.” This was not only a confirmation of the powers of the travelers, who were both merchants and official representatives of their country. “The letter described the benefits of free trade in terms that nineteenth-century free trade economists would have appreciated,” writes English historian T.S. Willan (T.S.Willan).

Two ships were lost because the crews were not prepared for sailing in the extreme north. The leader of the expedition, Hugh Willoughby, also died along with them. But the third ship - Edward Bonaventure under the command of captain Richard Chancellor - entered the mouth of the Northern Dvina. In February 1554, Chancellor, as the English ambassador, was received in Moscow by Ivan the Terrible. The Tsar granted the British trade privileges in Russia, including the right to duty-free trade throughout the country.

After this, Chancellor and his companions returned safely to their homeland. A year later, the Moscow Company (The Moscovy Company or The Russian Company) was created in London. The significance of this company is already indicated by the fact that it was the first such company whose charter was approved by parliament. In a certain sense, the Moscow Company turned out to be not only the prototype of trade and political organizations created to work in the West Indies and East Indies, but also the predecessor of transnational corporations of the twentieth century.

The company's commercial activities were closely connected with diplomatic ones. English embassies at the royal court protected the interests of merchants, and the company's representative office conducted the affairs of the English crown. While in Muscovy, the British wasted no time. Unlike the notes of other travelers, the texts prepared by Chancellor and his comrade John Hasse most closely resemble instructions for the commercial use of Russia. He describes in detail the economic geography of the kingdom of Ivan the Terrible: where and what is produced, what can be bought, what and where can be sold. Soon after this, the English Courtyard appeared in Moscow - first one building, and then a whole complex of structures - residential, commercial, industrial, the remains of which still exist in Moscow. The stone house on Varvarka was granted to the British as a gift from the Tsar “as a sign of his special favor.” As Russian sources noted, this was not enough for the company: “and the Aglin Germans built the wooden mansions themselves.” Soon “English houses” appeared in Kholmogory, Yaroslavl, Borisov and other cities. The company had offices in Novgorod, Pskov, Yaroslavl, Kazan, Astrakhan, Kostroma, and Ivangorod. In Yaroslavl, the British set up large warehouses for goods, which were then sent to Asia. Protestant churches also appeared in Muscovy. In general, in relation to the Western Reformation, Moscow rulers did not take the position of outside observers. “The Russian government,” notes the famous researcher I. Lyubmenko, “while being extremely hostile towards Catholics, often showed great tolerance towards Protestants.”

Northern route

The new trade route was important not only for the British, but also for Muscovy. In 1556, a Russian embassy headed by boyar Osip Nepeya arrived in England. Chancellor died delivering him to London, but he completed his mission. Nepeya went down in the history of diplomacy because he “achieved in London the same benefits that the British received in Moscow.” However, Russian merchants could not use them. They did not have a fleet capable of making long sea voyages. Since 1557, regular trade along the northern route began. Initially, these journeys were accompanied by numerous casualties. 6-7 ships left England for navigation and sometimes no more than half made it back safely. The navigation season was short - the sea froze for 5-6 months. However, as English sailors gained experience sailing in northern latitudes, these voyages became less risky. Nevertheless, the company periodically complained of losses - Tatar raids, pirates, northern storms, all of which damaged trade. The raid of the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey on Moscow caused the company a loss of a huge sum of 10 thousand rubles at that time (which, however, also testifies to the company’s huge turnover). About 40 Englishmen out of 60 who were in Moscow at that moment died in the fire. The Tatar pogrom apparently made a strong impression on the company's management, and therefore, already under Tsar Feodor, the British donated 350 pounds for the construction of a new stone wall around Moscow.

The company's shareholders were repeatedly urged to make additional investments - 50 pounds per share in 1570, 200 pounds in 1572. But they were not going to wind down the business. And the reason for this is not only in the high profits that were able to be obtained from time to time from trade with Muscovy, but also in the significance of these supplies for the general military-political situation in England. They brought from Russia not just northern goods, but strategic raw materials.

As Willan notes, the Anglo-Russian trade of the 16th century “was in many ways reminiscent of the exchange that developed between England and its colonies.” Wood, wax, leather, meat, lard, sometimes grain, flax, hemp (hemp), vorovan (train-oil), resin, ropes, and ship masts were supplied from Russia to England. The king himself was bargaining. According to the British, he was “one of the most important suppliers of wax and sable furs.” Wax was an extremely profitable commodity - candles were made from it, and huge quantities were required to illuminate Gothic cathedrals. This made it possible for the king to assert that wax was not a simple product, but a sacred, “reserved” one. And kings should trade it. Such a monopoly was a real punishment for other Russian merchants, and it was not cheap for the British, but for Tsar Ivan it turned out to be extremely profitable. As for goods brought from England, the tsar demanded the right of first sale, but paid inaccurately. In this, however, the king also did not differ from his contemporaries. Elizabeth of England also did not like to pay debts.

During the oprichnina, the English company tried to get the tsar to return the money owed to it by the boyars executed by the tsar. The tsar listened to the claims, but did not give the money, recommending his English partners to lend less frequently to the Muscovites. However, sometimes bad debts returned. During the Bowes embassy, ​​Ivan the Terrible suddenly ordered the payment of 3,000 marks, which had already been written off by the company.

"Moscow company"

The British brought paper, sugar, salt, fabrics, dishes, copper, lead tiles for roofing, and luxury goods to Moscow. London cloth in Russian markets was called “lundysh”. “Exotic” goods that came to Russia from America and Asia through the Moscow Company were also of considerable importance. In the lists of supplied goods we also find almonds, raisins, horse harnesses, medicines, musical instruments, halberds, jewelry, dishes and even... lions. They also carried bells and precious metals, which were prohibited for export from England, but by special order of the crown an exception was made for Russia. And yet, what was especially important for Moscow was that lead, gunpowder, saltpeter, sulfur and, apparently, weapons and ammunition arrived on English ships.

Of course, the Moscow Company was not a monopolist in trade with the West. German, Dutch, Italian, Danish, even Spanish and Italian entrepreneurs flocked to Muscovy. However, it was the British who managed to bring trade cooperation to the level of state policy in the 16th century.

In 1557, the British established rope production in Kholmogory. Vologda became another production center of the company. By 1560, local workers had already mastered the technology, and most English craftsmen returned to their homeland. During their stay in Kholmogory, English craftsmen were paid 9 pounds per year (of which 2 pounds per year were deposited into their account in England). This was quite decent money for that time, but the influx of precious metals from America caused rampant inflation, which went down in history as the “price revolution.” As it turns out, this happened not only in Western Europe. 25 years after the first English workshops appeared in Muscovy, a certain John Finch, citing high costs, already demanded an increase in wages to 42 rubles per year - in English money this was 28 pounds. As T.S. rightly notes. Willan, this indicates “that the “price revolution” reached Russia during this time.”

In 1558, a representative of the Moscow Company, Anthony Jenkinson, received permission from the king for an expedition to Persia and Bukhara along the Volga route. Although a significant part of the purchased goods was lost on the way back, what was brought was enough to justify the company's activities for a long time in a commercial sense. At the same time, the English merchant carried out a diplomatic mission for Ivan the Terrible in Persia. The Moscow Tsar sought an alliance with the Persians against the Turks.

At the dawn of capitalism, politics was openly intertwined with trade. Azerbaijani researcher L.I. Yunusova notes that Jenkinson's commercial success was largely determined by the fact that he was “not just an English merchant, but an envoy of the Russian Tsar.”

Jenkinson's mission marked the beginning of a long period of competition and cooperation between English and Russian capital in the Caspian Sea. On the one hand, Moscow, and later St. Petersburg, needed foreign partners. Trade with Persia was largely transit. The British helped establish trade routes; Persian silk and other goods were exported further to Europe on English and later Dutch ships. But on the other hand, the partners waged a fierce struggle among themselves. Both of them sought to retain the maximum share of the profits from Persian trade.

Jenkinson achieved trade privileges in Persia similar to those in Moscow. English expeditions to Persia followed one after another - in 1564, 1565, 1568, 1569 and 1579. This caused concern in Moscow, where they did not want to cede such a profitable trade route to foreigners. In the future, the royal court took measures to ensure that the Volga trade remained under its control, and limited the activities of the British in this direction. Trade expeditions to the south could only be undertaken with royal permission and with joint forces. Despite all the problems, Persian trade was a real bonanza for the company, but by the beginning of the 17th century, another, safer and easier route to Persia was being established through the Indian Ocean. The East India Company begins to export Persian goods to the West in significant quantities, thereby reducing the commercial attractiveness of the Volga route. Later, another transit route appeared - through Turkey. Nevertheless, trade with Persia across the Caspian continued, leading to the prosperity of Astrakhan.

Partners or competitors?

Subsequently, the activities of the Moscow Company became a topic of heated discussion among Russian historians. The 19th century historian N. Kostomarov drew attention to the fact that English merchants, organized around the Moscow Company, were closely connected with their government and acted in concert, often even to the detriment of their compatriots who did not have political support in London. Kostomarov is convinced that the British had “extensive types of political dominance in Russia.” It is easy to guess that this thesis was very popular among Soviet historians, especially in the early years of the Cold War. A number of Soviet authors argued that the British found a backward country in Russia and “strove in every possible way to consolidate this backwardness,” “prevented the Russians from mastering and studying advanced technology,” and went “through pressure and blackmail.” On the contrary, historians of the “Western” persuasion saw in the English merchants representatives of an advanced civilization who brought knowledge to the backward Russian people. Only in the early 1960s did Ya.S. Lurie tried to demythologize the history of Anglo-Russian relations in the 16th century.

The activities of the British in Russia were accompanied by numerous mutual claims between Russian and English partners. Complaints by Russian merchants about foreign competition are repeated regularly, starting from the second half of the 16th century and ending with the era of the first Romanovs. In the 1646 petition submitted to the tsarist government against the “Aglitsky Germans”, the claims made are approximately the same as in documents from an earlier period. The Russians accused the British of manipulating prices, the British, in turn, complained about the unreliability of Russian merchants, frequent delays, and fraud. Often, the complaints of the British (and foreigners in general) who were in Muscovy in the 16th and 17th centuries look quite comical. Thus, foreigners complained that they were being “fed,” clearly trying to harm their health with excessive food. In Muscovy of those times, it was indecent to get up from the table on your own, and if the next day the guests did not complain of feeling unwell due to excessive food and drink, then the feast was considered unsuccessful. Communicating with their Russian partners, the British noticed that they did not keep their words, “and if they start swearing and swearing, they probably want to deceive.” The ability of the Russians to combine ingenuity and enterprise with carelessness and dishonesty could not help but amaze the Protestants, however, as Kostomarov notes, the mutual claims of Russian and Western merchants never prevented them from “deceiving the government together.”

To be fair, it should be noted that the situation always looks more dramatic in hindsight. The fact is that cases where the parties separated amicably leave fewer traces in the documents. It is when mutual claims arise that people begin to write complaints and contact various authorities, thereby providing material for future historians. Paradoxically, it is the huge number of various complaints that testifies to the scope and intensity of trade relations between the British and Russians.

In reality, of course, the main problems were not cultural contradictions. Having settled in Muscovy, the British began to trade in the domestic market, successfully competing with local merchants. They organized their own network of suppliers and a wholesale purchasing system, providing loans to manufacturers. This order, Kostomarov notes, “was beneficial for small traders and for the people in general, but ruinous for Russian wholesale traders.” The law of merchant capitalism is that whoever has the most capital controls the market. Having an advantage in financial resources, the British took a stronger position than their Russian competitors.

The behavior of English merchants in Muscovy caused discontent not only among their competitors among the Russian merchants, but also among many in England itself. In London there was a belief that Russian soil had a corrupting effect on company employees. Once in Muscovy, they quickly became rich, built luxurious mansions that London shareholders could not afford, adopted local customs, and kept servants, dogs and bears. They began, like the Moscow boyars, to overeat to the point of stomach cramps. In London it was believed that Russia was corrupting the British with the temptation of excessive freedom, and those who lived in Moscow did not want to return to Puritan abstinence. Ambassador Bowes openly complained to Grozny about his poverty (my pitiful estate at home). When company employees were recalled, they did everything to stay. For this reason, some switched to Russian service and even converted to Orthodoxy.

Trade with the British was so important for Ivan the Terrible that he ordered boyar Boris Godunov, at that moment a rising star in the Kremlin administration, to deal with their affairs. The British called Godunov in their own way “protector”. The English astrologer, known in Moscow as Elisha Bomeliy, enjoyed particular influence at the tsar’s court. In addition to predicting the future, he also carried out more practical tasks for the ruler: preparing poisons for him, collecting information about boyars suspected of treason. “The fame of Bomelia,” writes S.F. Platonov, “was so widespread, and the fame of his power was so noisy that even the obscure provincial chronicle of that time told about him in an epic-fairy-tale tone.” According to the chronicler, the “fierce sorcerer” Bomelius was to blame for all the troubles that the reign of Ivan the Terrible brought upon the country. The English astrologer instilled in the king “ferocity” towards his own subjects and turned him in favor of the “Germans”.

The question, however, is not what the behavior of the British was, but what the Russian government expected of them. Karamzin is confident that by establishing ties with England, the government of Ivan the Terrible took the opportunity to “borrow from foreigners what was most necessary for its civil education.” Historians note that Ivan the Terrible patronized foreigners to such an extent that this was “much offensive to his subjects, whom he willingly humiliated before foreigners.” However, the Russian Tsar's interest in foreigners was quite practical. Ivan the Terrible tried to find a military and trade ally in Elizabeth of England.

Strategic alliance

The fact that both the English and Russian governments gave preference to organized merchants from the Moscow Company over individual traders, both Russian and British, indicates that both sides tried to solve their problems at the state level. The mutual interest of Elizabeth of England and Ivan the Terrible is completely natural. If the Swedes and Germans needed to maintain trade dominance in the eastern part of the Baltic, then the British, on the contrary, needed to gain access to Russian resources without the mediation of the Riga and Revel merchants. In the same way, Muscovy tried to find direct access to European markets. However, the trade problems of England and Muscovy could not be resolved peacefully.

To understand why government intervention from both London and Moscow was so intense, it is enough to look at the list of goods supplied to each other by both sides. The fact is that it was not only and not so much about commerce, but about military-technical cooperation.

Individual shipments of weapons can also be supplied by individual traders, but systematic military supplies were already coordinated at the state level in the 16th century. The effectiveness of such cooperation is ensured by the fact that the sale of weapons is combined with the supply of military materials and technology transfer, the arrival of specialists, etc. Supplies from Russia were a decisive factor in the development of the English navy. Russian-English cooperation was part of the Anglo-Spanish confrontation. The Spanish king Philip II was preparing to invade England, and Elizabeth of England urgently created a fleet.

“To cut off England and the Netherlands from Eastern European raw materials meant destroying these states,” wrote historian Ya.S. Lurie. - This is precisely the goal that Philip II achieved in Poland, Sweden and Russia. In Poland his diplomats had only some success. In Russia they were a complete failure." Supplies of strategic raw materials from Russia to England played a huge role in the outcome of the military-political struggle that engulfed Western Europe in the second half of the 16th century. The confrontation between England and Spain over dominance of the Atlantic Ocean became inevitable. From now on, the creation of naval power was a matter of life and death for Elizabethan England. “The English fleet built during these years and which defeated the Spanish Invincible Armada in 1588 was equipped primarily with Russian materials,” notes Swedish historian Arthur Attman.

The Moscow Company was the official supplier of the Royal Navy. “Russia was not a monopoly supplier of ropes and tackle, which were also imported from the Baltic countries, but Russian supplies were especially important for Elizabeth’s fleet, and ropes and tackle were as important to the then fleet as oil was to the modern one,” writes Willan. English sailors admitted that the gear supplied from Russia was “the best of those brought into the country.” In addition, ropes and tackle coming from Muscovy were cheaper than those supplied from other places. Therefore, Willan concludes, northern trade “was more important for England than for Russia.”

In turn, Ivan the Terrible asked England for the supply of military materials, weapons, engineers knowledgeable in artillery, and architects familiar with the construction of fortifications. As soon as the Livonian War began in 1557, rumors spread across Europe about English weapons ending up in the hands of the Muscovites. Poland and Sweden protested. In Cologne and Hamburg, large shipments of weapons purchased by the British were blocked, since the Germans feared that the equipment was actually intended for the troops of Ivan the Terrible. Elizabeth of England, of course, denied everything. Not only did she assure other monarchs that there was no military cooperation with Muscovy, she also belittled the scale of trade in every possible way, claiming that we were talking about several merchant ships that almost accidentally sailed into the mouth of the Northern Dvina. The merchants, naturally, were peaceful people who thought exclusively about commercial gain.

One episode testifies to how “peaceful people” the employees of the “Moscow Company” were. In 1570, at the height of the Livonian War, Swedish corsairs attacked English traders transporting “Russian” cargo. As a result of the ensuing battle, the flagship (!) of the Swedes was boarded and captured by “peaceful merchants”. The victorious report was immediately sent by company representatives to Moscow and brought to the attention of the Russian authorities.

However, British diplomats throughout Europe denied “rumors” of military cooperation, and a special embassy was sent to the continent for this purpose. Meanwhile, from nowhere, Ivan the Terrible’s troops acquired weapons and military technologies that were suspiciously reminiscent of English ones.

In 1558, company employee Thomas Alcocke, captured by the Poles, admitted that military supplies had taken place, but justified himself by saying that “they only imported old, worthless weapons.” The engineer Locke would hardly have agreed with this, boasting in his letters that with his help Moscow had learned to make the most advanced weapons available in Europe. Meanwhile, not only English doctors and pharmacists, but also architects and specialists “to erect stone buildings” arrive in Russia. Considering that Ivan directly wrote to London several times about the fact that he needed help during fortification work, it becomes clear what kind of “stone buildings” we are talking about.

The surviving documents also leave no doubt as to what was in the holds of the Moscow Company ships. They carried saltpeter, lead, sulfur, and artillery gunpowder. Although, of course, not all deliveries had a strategic purpose. The British, not being winemakers themselves, also brought wine to Muscovy. Moscow consumers were not demanding. Therefore, they imported “various spoiled wines, sweet wines, wines with a large admixture of cider.” Perhaps they carried a lot of other things, because not all deliveries were documented. “Although the British repeatedly assured other states that they did not supply Russia with weapons,” writes I. Lyubimenko in the history of Anglo-Russian trade, “but, on the other hand, they more than once pointed out to the Tsar himself what an important service they provided him with the import military supplies." Since ammunition, as a rule, was exchanged for wax, which was in great demand in Europe, Tsar Ivan’s desire to keep the supply of wax under personal control is apparently explained not only by the desire to profit from the “secret commodity.”

The cooperation between England and Muscovy was strategic as well as commercial. Trade of the 16th and 17th centuries is inseparable from war. Having opened the route from Northern Europe to the mouth of the Northern Dvina, the British quickly made it attractive to other Western countries. However, the Russian Pomors themselves did not have the technology or resources to build a serious fleet. Moreover, it was basically impossible to create a serious fleet in the north, even if the British helped in its construction. This required not only a lot of wood and know-how. In the end, specialists can be discharged from abroad, as Peter I later did. But a strong fleet can only be based in large port cities. The Northern Dvina was too remote from the rest of Russia and had too few resources and people to compete with Riga. And it was not profitable to develop trade there - the sea freezes in winter. The main flow of Russian goods went through German-owned Revel and Swedish Vyborg. The Moscow Company was in intense competition with them. In order to gain access to new trade routes, Russia needed trading positions in the Baltic, and therefore the German merchants, who were at first opponents and then leading partners for the Novgorodians, again turned into opponents - now for Muscovy. Russia needed its own large port in the Baltic. And with the beginning of the Livonian War, she received it.

Livonian War

Immanuel Wallerstein, in a study on the origins of the modern world economic system, argues that during the Livonian War, Ivan the Terrible tried to “achieve the autonomy of the Russian state in relation to the European world economy” and in this sense, the tsar’s policy that led to the war was not only not a defeat, but on the contrary it was a "giant success". As a result of the policy of Ivan the Terrible, “Russia was not drawn into the European world economy,” which allowed our country to maintain a developed national bourgeoisie and subsequently become not a periphery, but a semi-periphery of world capitalism. It is curious that Wallerstein's reasoning coincides with the official propaganda myth that dominated Stalin's times. Meanwhile, the Livonian War was not only a disaster in military terms, but was also caused precisely by the desire of the tsarist government to achieve inclusion in the emerging world system at any cost.

In the 16th century, Russia’s integration into the world system was, at first glance, quite successful. As the Swedish historian Arthur Attman notes, Russia constantly had a trade surplus in relation to Western countries. “As for the Russian market, from the Middle Ages until at least the middle of the 17th century, each of these countries was forced to spend precious metals to cover their trade deficit.” The situation for Russia as a whole was better than for Poland - despite the fact that both countries often traded the same goods (but Poland, unlike Russia, could not act as a supplier of furs on the world market).

And yet, Russian trade in the 16th century is a paradoxical phenomenon. On the one hand, there is a positive balance, a constant influx of hard currency. In other words, Russia benefited from world trade, ensuring capital accumulation. On the other hand, the structure of trade is clearly peripheral. The similarities with the American colonies noted by Willan are far from accidental. Russia exports raw materials and imports technologies. It competes in the world market with other countries and territories that form the periphery of the emerging world system. This combination of strength and vulnerability predetermined the inevitable aggressiveness of Muscovy's foreign policy, as well as its subsequent failures.

When Wallerstein, comparing Russia with Poland, concludes that Ivan the Terrible fought to avoid the fate of Poland, which became an appendage of the European world system, he is deeply mistaken. The Russian Tsar sought just the opposite, unsuccessfully trying to occupy the same place in the emerging world system that Poland occupied in the 16th and 17th centuries. Contemporaries were well aware that Russia and Poland were competitors on the world market. In the 17th century, Dutch trade representatives in Moscow discussed these issues directly with the Tsar, insisting on expanding Russian grain exports.

Contrary to Wallerstein’s opinion, the ruling circles of Russia did not strive to resist the expansion of the West, but, on the contrary, to join the world system - as its periphery, but on their own terms. In turn, Poland and Sweden in this war defended the places that they had already occupied in the world-economy by the middle of the 16th century.

At first, the Livonian War was successful for the Russian troops. Starting hostilities, Ivan the Terrible used a completely ridiculous and deliberately far-fetched pretext, remembering the failure of the Dorpat bishop to pay tribute, which was never mentioned for 50 years. Ideologically, the order was undermined by the reformation, its troops were small in number. Unlike the conflicts of the 17th century, the armament of Russian troops was not yet much inferior to that of the West. The presence of British military specialists also had an effect. Artillery and metalworking were at a completely modern level for those years, which predetermined the rapid success of the tsarist troops at the first stage of the war. The Livonian Order suffered a crushing defeat. In May 1558, Russian troops took Narva, a key port and fortress that opened the road to the Baltic.

In turn, for England, the capture of Narva opened up direct access to Russian raw materials. However, for the shareholders of the Moscow Company this was by no means good news, because the northern route it had mastered with such difficulty was losing its attractiveness. After the Russians took Narva, English ships arrived there. In general, the Narva port was not very convenient, and the conditions for doing business here were incomparably worse than in Revel. However, Narva attracted Western traders. As American researcher Walther Kirchner notes, “as in the case of the northern route, traders here were attracted to Russia by the potential opportunities of this market, and not by the real state of affairs.” In 1566, 42 ships had already visited Narva and trade was growing rapidly. Compared to this, the 6-7 ships that sailed along the northern route seem like an insignificant trading operation. The monopoly of the Moscow Company does not extend to Narva; everyone who wants to sail here can sail here. In turn, the company protests and complains that traders who have no experience working in Muscovy are bringing all sorts of rubbish there and are undermining the reputation of English goods. If in the case of the Northern Sea Route, official London was completely on the side of the Moscow Company, protecting its monopoly in every possible way, then in the conflict around the “Narva voyage” the company has to give in. Here trade is already reaching such proportions that military-strategic considerations cannot help but be pushed aside by commercial ones. It is significant that Elizabeth, who previously supported the Moscow Company in everything, is in no hurry to take action against Narva traders this time. The company was not only a trading enterprise, but also a political instrument of England in Russia, however, with the capture of Narva, one of the key political goals was achieved. Of course, this does not at all indicate a change in policy, especially since the compromise reached between the company and its competitors maintains the company's dominant position. Now all English merchants can benefit from the fruits of her efforts. The issue of Narva trade is discussed in parliament, the monopoly is ultimately confirmed, but in such a form that for the company in a commercial sense it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Narva swimming

Before the Livno War, Narva was not so much a trading port as a fortress, blocking the Russians’ access to the Baltic. But after 1559, Narva trade developed rapidly: in addition to the British, merchants from Holland and other countries appeared here. Large-scale construction begins in the city, business life is in full swing. In 1566, 98 ships departing from Narva passed Riga, and only 35 ships left Riga itself to the west. In 1567, no less than seventy English ships alone were sent here. With the transition of Narva to Russian rule, the port of Revel fell into decay (even after the end of the war, Narva continued to undermine its position). Other German ports on the Baltic - Riga and Konigsberg - suffered less, because Polish exports went through them. At first, the Swedes tried to compensate for losses by introducing duty-free trade in Vyborg for Russian merchants. At the same time, Swedish pirates terrorized merchants heading to Narva. However, even this could not provide Vyborg with a dominant position.

The trade goals of the Livonian War were achieved. However, when starting the war, Ivan the Terrible relied not only on the merchants, but also on the land-poor nobility. “The bourgeoisie was satisfied,” writes Pokrovsky, “for them, continuing the war no longer made sense. When the order's embassy came to Moscow to sue for peace, it found support precisely from the Moscow merchant class. But the success made a completely different impression on the “military”. The campaign of 1558 yielded huge booty - the war in a rich, cultural country was not at all like the fight against foreigners in distant Kazan or the pursuit of the elusive Crimeans across the steppes. The landowners were already dreaming of a lasting conquest of all of Livonia and the distribution of rich manors of German knights to the estates. This distribution has actually already begun. But the transition of the entire south-eastern coast of the Baltic to Russian rule raised the whole of Eastern Europe: neither the Swedes nor the Poles could allow this.”

The capture of Revel and Riga would give Russia a chance to enter European trade without intermediaries. Poland could not allow Riga to fall under the rule of Russia, which was its main competitor in the world market. The era of trade wars was beginning, for which Muscovy was not ready, first of all, diplomatically and politically. Having defeated the Livonian knights, Ivan the Terrible was faced with the combined forces of Sweden and Poland, which, although they were in conflict with each other, could not allow the strengthening of Moscow. Polish trading capital was in the same situation as Russian, and therefore Russian domination in the Baltic would have meant disaster for it. In 1561, the Swedes occupied Revel, and the Poles annexed most of Livonia. Ivan the Terrible tried to avoid war with the Swedes, but it was too late. Negotiations with the Swedish king Eric XIV broke down due to a palace coup, after which Johann III became the head of Sweden, who categorically rejected any concessions to the Muscovites.

As Pokrovsky notes, at the first stage of the war, the victories of the Russian troops “were ensured only by a colossal numerical superiority: where the order could field hundreds of soldiers, there were tens of thousands of Muscovites.” With the entry of Sweden and Poland into the war, the balance of power changes. Already the Polish army was difficult to cope with. When superbly armed, organized and trained Swedish troops (perhaps the best in Europe at that time) appeared on the battlefield, the state of affairs became simply catastrophic. Prince Kurbsky, the best of the governors of Grozny, lost to four thousand Poles near Nevel, having 15,000 troops, and in 1564 near Orsha the Russian army was completely defeated. Senior commanders died, the enemy got guns and convoys. And most importantly, the fighting spirit of the Moscow army was broken. There was a split in the coalition that supported the reforms of Grozny.

Oprichnina

The more difficult the king’s field of maneuver became. “In an environment of foreign policy failures,” writes Soviet historian R.G. Skrynnikov, the tsar’s associates strongly advised to establish a dictatorship in the country and crush the opposition with the help of terror and violence. But in the Russian state, not a single major political decision could be made without approval in the Boyar Duma. Meanwhile, the position of the Duma and church leadership was known and did not promise success for the enterprise.”

Trying to put pressure on the Duma, the tsar left Moscow and announced his abdication of the throne. In front of the whole country, the tsar presented himself to the people as offended and “expelled” by the boyars from his own capital. The Duma was forced to reject the Tsar's abdication and itself turned to him with assurances and fidelity.

Having undermined the political position of the Duma, the tsar announced that in order to “protect” his life he was forced to divide his entire land into “zemshchina” and “oprichnina”. If the “zemshchina” remained under the control of the Boyar Duma, then the oprichnina was subordinated to the personal power of Ivan the Terrible. Here everything was organized as in an appanage principality; affairs were in charge of the tsar’s appointees, who did not have a noble background. “High-born” nobles who had no connections with the boyar aristocracy were selected here. Foreigners were willingly taken into oprichnina service. The oprichnina army equipped in this way became the tsar’s reliable weapon in the fight against internal opposition.

Moscow witnessed bloody executions. Real and imaginary opponents of the tsar, accused of conspiracy, ascended to the scaffold. At the direction of Ivan the Terrible, the chronicles were corrected in accordance with the changed political situation, and stories about boyar conspiracies recorded under the dictation of the tsar's people replaced non-existent investigative materials.

However, the oprichnina was not just a terrorist organization in the service of the tsar. Oprichnina meant the beginning of a large land redistribution. In the territory of the oprichnina, the confiscation of boyar estates began, which provided for the tsar's nominees. Until now, while waging wars in Kazan and the Baltic, the tsar tried to satisfy the needs of the land-poor nobility and the trading bourgeoisie, without affecting the interests of the old nobility. As Pokrovsky notes, after the defeats in Livonia, it was impossible to continue such a course: “foreign policy no longer promised either land or money.”

According to Pokrovsky, the oprichnina remained the only way out for the government, which was confused in its own politics. The Tsar twice tried to satisfy the land hunger of the minor nobility. The first time was during the Kazan campaign, the second time during the Livonian War. But in neither case was the goal achieved. The only way out was the expropriation of the feudal aristocracy. In the territory of the oprichnina, not only unbridled terror began against the old boyar families and their supporters, but also land redistribution. In place of feudal estates, much smaller landowner farms arose. The boyar estate was large enough to live its own closed life. It supplied only the surplus of its production to the market. The new estates, on the contrary, were not self-sufficient; from the very beginning they produced a significant part of their products for exchange on the market.

The redistribution of property that took place in the oprichnina is strikingly similar to what happened in England several decades earlier during the Reformation carried out by Henry VIII. The English aristocracy was largely exterminated already during the War of the Scarlet and White Roses, and therefore huge monastic possessions were destroyed. The “new nobility”, which settled on the occupied land, laid the foundations of rural capitalism. The more the estates focused on the market, the stronger the connection between the “new nobility” and the urban bourgeoisie became: in the civil war of the 17th century, they took the same side.

The land redistribution carried out by Ivan the Terrible also received the full support of commercial capital. It is significant that all the main trading cities and routes fell into the oprichnina: “of all the roads connecting Moscow with the borders, only the roads to the south, to Tula and Ryazan, were left without attention by the oprichnina,” writes the famous historian S.F. Platonov, “ We think because their customs and other income was not great, and their entire length was in troubled places in southern Ukraine.” This approach cannot be explained by concerns about defense - from a military point of view, it was the unsafe southern roads that should have attracted attention in the first place. But the oprichnina was not so much a military organization as a socio-political one. “It was not for nothing that the British, who were dealing with the northern regions, asked that they too be in charge of the oprichnina; “- notes Platonov, “it was not without reason that the Stroganovs also flocked there: commercial and industrial capital, of course, needed the support of the administration that was in charge of the region and, apparently, was not afraid of the horrors with which we associate the idea of ​​the oprichnina.” Mikhail Pokrovsky, quoting this statement, sarcastically adds: “One should still be afraid of what was created with the participation of this very capital.”

As Pokrovsky notes, the oprichnina represented the expropriation of the boyars by the petty nobility, focused on commodity production, primarily on the grain trade. Oprichnina, Pokrovsky believes, “followed the line of natural economic development.” In this sense, the oprichnina in Russia under Grozny is a step in the same direction as the creation of the “new nobility” in England by Henry VIII. Not only the goals are similar, but also the methods: Henry VIII did not hesitate to deal with his opponents, supporters of the Catholic Church were subjected to severe repression, and monks were expelled from their monasteries by force. But despite all the similarities with the measures of Henry VIII, the measures of Ivan the Terrible had one more than significant difference: politically they failed. It was impossible to carry out reforms within the country while simultaneously waging a war doomed to failure. The Moscow state was transformed by Ivan the Terrible, literally raised on its hind legs. But in the face of military failures, it was impossible to consolidate what had been achieved.

Meanwhile, the Livonian War was hopelessly lost. Attacks against the Swedes in Reval were launched twice - in 1570 and 1577, both times ending in heavy defeats. In 1571, the Crimean Tatars reached Moscow, subjecting the city to terrible destruction. Contemporaries wrote about 800 thousand dead and 150 thousand taken into slavery. Even if these data are exaggerated, we are talking about a real catastrophe in a country whose population did not exceed 10 million.

The oprichnina terror takes on a “senseless and merciless” character against the backdrop of military failures and a chronic lack of funds. Expropriations turn into ordinary robbery, not only in favor of the treasury, but also in favor of the guardsmen themselves. Discontent is growing in the country, to which the authorities are responding by intensifying terror. The tsar's destruction of Veliky Novgorod in January 1570 became the pinnacle of madness. First, the tsar and the guardsmen massacred almost the entire local elite, including women and children. The clergy did not escape reprisals either. Then a real pogrom began in the city. According to the famous historian R.G. Skrynnikov, the guardsmen “made a formal attack on the city. They plundered the Novgorod market and divided the most valuable of the loot among themselves. They dumped simple goods such as lard, wax, flax into large heaps and burned them. During the days of the pogrom, large reserves of goods intended for trade with the West were destroyed. Not only the auctions, but also the houses of the townspeople were robbed. The guardsmen broke gates, exposed doors, and broke windows. Townspeople who tried to resist the violence were killed on the spot. The royal servants persecuted the poor with particular cruelty. As a result of the famine, many beggars gathered in Novgorod. In severe frosts, the king ordered them all to be driven out of the city gates. Most of these people died from cold and hunger.”

Despite the terror, and to a large extent because of it, the government's position remained unstable. In 1567, Ivan the Terrible stipulated in his letters that he would receive political asylum in England in case he was defeated by his enemies in his homeland. And more weapons. And architects for the construction of fortresses. And even better - the English fleet for the war with Poland and Sweden. Elizabeth promises refuge. Weapons, apparently, continue to arrive, although clearly not in the quantities that Ivan expected. But the queen refuses to openly enter into the Livonian War. Naturally, the cunning and cautious Elizabeth could not agree to this. And this is not only a matter of fear of a war on two fronts - a conflict with Spain is brewing and a war in the Baltic is an unaffordable luxury for England. In addition, the fleet that will “rule the seas” has not yet been built (it is for its creation that ropes and masts from Narva are needed). But Elizabeth has another reason for caution. No matter how important its interests in Russia are, the British are also actively trading in Poland and do not intend to sacrifice it. London is quite happy with the current state of affairs.

However, having refused to send a military fleet to Moscow, Elizabeth did not completely ignore the requests of her partner. In 1572, at least 16 English sailors were in the royal service in Narva. They are trying to create a Russian navy in the Baltic 130 years before Peter the Great, train people, help build ships.

The embassy of Thomas Randolph in 1568 confronts the king with a fact: we will trade, but we will not conclude an open military alliance. Ivan the Terrible repeatedly expressed his displeasure, but, in turn, was forced to accept the conditions of the British, realizing that he simply had no other choice. The privileges of the “Moscow Company” were confirmed in 1569 to the maximum extent. A new rope factory is being built in Vologda, the British begin searching for and extracting metal in Russia, and then set up their own production.

The privilege of 1569 was, according to Lyubimenko, “undoubtedly the culminating point in the history of the successes achieved by the company with the Russian supreme power.” Soon after this, difficulties began. In 1571, against the backdrop of a worsening military situation in Livonia, Ivan the Terrible again tried to get direct intervention from the British. The Tsar repeatedly complained that Elizabeth was interested in “not royal” affairs, but “merchant” affairs - trade, finance. It must be said that these complaints were clearly demagogic - the tsar himself also did not disdain trade. But such complaints should, in modern terms, shift the focus of the discussion from trade to military-political issues. Having failed to achieve what he wanted, the Moscow Tsar tried to influence the trade interests of the British. Privileges were revoked and British goods were seized. It is significant that this crisis in Anglo-Russian relations coincides with the crisis of Ivan’s regime. But the king was in a disadvantageous position. In 1572, trade was resumed on English terms.

The disaster in Livonia and the successes of the Dutch

In 1581 Narva was lost. Together with her, the Swedes occupied the old Novgorod fortress of Ivangorod. The Livonian War finally took on a catastrophic character for Muscovy. A year later, the privileges of the British in Russia were once again confirmed, but to a limited extent. Ivan the Terrible again tries to use trade as a reason for an open alliance, this time a dynastic one. He asks for the hand of an English princess from the House of Tudor.

In general, this idea originated back in 1568, but only now became the subject of diplomatic negotiations. The Russian ambassador Fyodor Pisemsky was introduced to Lady Mary Hastings, who, apparently, did not make much of an impression on him. The British delayed, and in 1584 Ivan the Terrible died.

The result of the reign of Ivan the Terrible was a lost war in Livonia and internal disorder in the state. The struggle for the Baltic coast turned into a complete defeat for Russia, when it was necessary not only to abandon the captured ports in the Baltic, but also to cede its own territories. Polish troops led by Stefan Batory found themselves at the walls of Smolensk and almost took the city. The Moscow state was devastated by the war and weakened. Swedish hegemony was established in the Baltic for more than a hundred years. The Swedes captured not only the trading centers of the Baltics, but, later, also the sparsely populated strip of land between Narva and Lake Ladoga. This territory in itself had no value, but its possession finally guaranteed control over the Novgorod trade routes.

After the catastrophic defeat in the Livonian War, Russia risked finding itself not so much on the periphery of the emerging world system as outside of it. And it was precisely in this that the tragedy of the historical fate of the Russian state manifested itself. The only real alternative to peripheral development was isolation and stagnation.

On the contrary, England achieved its goals, although not in full. It did not receive free access to the Russian market, but it provided systematic supplies of raw materials and materials for the emerging fleet during the most difficult period of the conflict with Spain. In 1588, the Spanish Invincible Armada was destroyed, Britain took the first decisive step towards becoming "Mistress of the Seas". And yet, the defeat of Muscovy in the Livonian War was at the same time a major defeat for England in the struggle for direct access to Russian resources. Already at the end of the 16th century, Anglo-Dutch trade rivalry intensified. Recent allies in the fight against Spain, the English and Dutch bourgeoisie enter into a battle for dominance in the markets. Throughout the 17th century, this confrontation leads to constant conflict, ending in war three times. This struggle is also being waged on Russian territory, and the Dutch, following in the footsteps of the British, are increasingly pushing them back.

The first Dutch ship entered the mouth of the Northern Dvina in 1578. This was not yet a serious threat to the British. In addition to them, Swedes, French, Germans and even Spaniards also conducted trade in the north, but no one could seriously undermine the position of London merchants. However, soon Dutch merchants, fleeing the pursuit of Danish pirates, accidentally discovered a new harbor, more convenient than the one used by the British. This harbor, located near the Michael-Arkhangelsk monastery, became the beginning of the city of Arkhangelsk. The Dutch asked to move trade here. The British resisted, but there was nothing to be done, and in 1583-84 the main port of the Russian north was built here.

Arkhangelsk harbor was the most convenient of all that existed in the Russian north. However, it was shallow, like most Dutch harbors. She was ideally suited for lighter Dutch ships. The displacement of the English ships was significantly larger, and therefore for the Moscow Company the transfer of trade to Arkhangelsk meant additional difficulties.

After the opening of the Arkhangelsk port, the rivalry between the British and the Dutch intensifies. Holland, having defended its freedom in the fight against the Spanish crown, turns into a leading maritime power. If at the beginning of the struggle for independence the Dutch bourgeoisie needed the support of the English monarchy against a common enemy, now the two most advanced countries in Europe find themselves first as competitors and then as enemies. Russia is becoming one of the arenas for their rivalry. The Dutch exported furs, caviar, hemp, flax, resin, lard, soap, and ship masts from Muscovy. English and Dutch embassies to Moscow follow one after another. The British are unsuccessfully trying to prevent their rivals from entering the interior of the country. During the Anglo-Dutch wars, both sides tried to persuade the king to prohibit the supply of masts - a strategic raw material - to their opponents. The Moscow government preferred neutrality, banning the removal of masts to both warring states for the duration of hostilities.

Trade competition and diplomatic intrigue are accompanied by an ideological struggle. Contemporaries wrote that the Dutch “tried to humiliate and ridicule the British, drew caricatures of them, and wrote lampoons.” British representatives in Moscow complained that “the Dutch deliberately put a false English mark (a tailless lion with three overturned crowns) on their worst cloth in order to discredit British goods, and also spread all sorts of tall tales about England.” But the most effective way to win over the sympathy of the Moscow elite was ordinary bribes.

Throughout the 17th century, the position of the Moscow Company weakened, and Dutch merchants strengthened their presence in the Russian market. “Their goods,” wrote a Soviet researcher, “were of higher quality. The British themselves admitted this. Further, they were richer and had more opportunities for bribery, although they resorted to it only in extreme cases. But their gifts and offerings to the king were more magnificent and luxurious than the English ones. Finally, they were able to create a reputation for themselves from the very beginning as disinterested and honest traders.” To this, historians often add that the Dutch acted more in the spirit of free enterprise, while the British were organized around the monopoly “Moscow Company” into a trade and political structure closely linked to the state. Thus, the defeat of the British in the 17th century was caused by the same thing that ensured their impressive success in the middle of the 16th century. The Moscow Company, being closely connected with the royal court in London, was an ideal partner for Ivan the Terrible during the preparation for the Livonian War and at the height of hostilities. During these times, as Lyubimenko writes admiringly, the English ambassador “dared to enter the Tsar without taking off his hat.” But after the defeat in the war, all this no longer mattered to the Moscow government. While Ivan the Terrible was alive, the old relationship remained, but with his death everything inevitably had to change.

The end of the "English king"

On the eve of his death, Tsar Ivan managed to arrange a meeting with the ambassador of Queen Elizabeth. The Englishman who arrived at the Kremlin realized that the audience would not take place. “Your English king has died,” clerk Andrei Shchelkanov threw at him.

Shchelkanov’s hostility towards the British was far from personal. Or, at least, not only personal. Shchelkanov sympathized with the Habsburgs, and subsequently, in defiance of the British, patronized the Dutch merchants. He belonged to the party at court that relied not on a trade and political alliance with distant England, but on joint actions with the German Emperor against Turkey.

Russia, even having lost the war in the Baltic, was not at all in diplomatic isolation. But the choice in favor of the English Tudors or the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs in the Europe of that time was not just a choice of foreign policy. This was an (unconscious, of course) choice in favor of the forces of bourgeois reform or feudal reaction. Fortunately for the British, neither Austria, nor especially Spain, could offer Moscow anything truly beneficial. And the Dutch and Danes, despite their rivalry with the British, did not at all want to strengthen the position of the Habsburgs. “Despite the fact that the social system of feudal-absolutist Spain was undoubtedly closer to Grozny and Godunov than the social system of the Netherlands and even England,” writes Ya.S. Lurie, “despite the fact that the participation of English “trading men” in public administration seemed to the Russian Tsar to be the greatest nonsense, Russia’s international political position was objectively less favorable for the Habsburgs than for their opponents.”

Losing their political influence, the British were doomed to lose their commercial influence. Under Tsar Fedor and Boris Godunov, they finally lost the opportunity to engage in retail trade; they were deprived of the right to travel through Russia to Persia. Political relations between Moscow and London under Godunov no longer had the previous allied character. From now on, Moscow saw England as only one of the possible trading partners - along with the Dutch and Danes. The alliance with Denmark was especially important, since it was here that Moscow hoped to find an ally against Sweden. And for money-loving Moscow officials, the generous Dutch were much more attractive than the British.

This article is part of the book "Peripheral Empire. Russia and the World System." - M.: Ultra; Culture, 2004

N.M. Karamzin. Quote op., book. 1, p. 531. It is curious that the Novgorodians themselves did not try to build a fortress at the mouth of the Neva, nor to populate Landskrona with their people. This place clearly had no value for them. XVI XVI century. Tbilisi, 1956; A.I. Ivanov. On the issue of the initial stage of Anglo-Dutch trade rivalry in Russia. Scientific notes of the Komi State Pedagogical Institute. Syktyvkar, 1968, v. 34. The change in position of I. Lyubimenko is also very interesting in this regard. If in her pre-revolutionary works she assessed in the most positive way the activities of the British in Russia in the 16th and 17th centuries, then in the works of Stalin’s time she assessed the same actions as attempts at a colonialist takeover of the country (see The English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. Edited by E.A. Kosminsky and Ya.A.Levitsky M., Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1954, vol. 2).

Scientific notes of the Komi State Pedagogical Institute. Syktyvkar, 1968, t. 34, p. 83; N.T. Nakshidze. Quote cit., p. 153-154.

See A.Attman for details. Op. cit., p. 25. Attman notes that until the beginning of the Livonian War, it was through Revel that most of Novgorod’s exports passed, and essentially it was as a transit port for Novgorod that this city took shape and flourished. (see p. 35).

Wallerstein believes that the policies of Ivan the Terrible helped the Russian bourgeoisie and the monarchy to escape “at least for the moment, the fate of their Polish counterparts” (I. Wallerstein. The Modern World-System I, p. 319). The paradox is that Russia and Poland laid claim to same place in the world system and in this sense, the failure of the king’s attempts to conquer Livonia can be retroactively considered as “luck.” But in reality, Moscow’s military defeats did not isolate it from the world system at all, but simply forced it to integrate on less favorable terms. As for Poland, the struggle between it and Russia for a place in the world system continued until Poland disappeared from the map of Europe.

HELL. Kuzmichev, I.N. Shapkin. Domestic entrepreneurship. Essays on history. M., “Progress Academy”, 1995, p. 25.

Scientific notes of the Komi State Pedagogical Institute. Syktyvkar, 1968, t. 34, p. 103.

Empire is trade

Joseph Chamberlain
(British Colonial Secretary)

The British were not the first to create an effective commercial state. But it was they who were able to create a state where the state, acting as a spokesman for the interests of the commercial class, was also a defender of the interests of the entire society. Only such a harmonious combination made it possible not to cause fatal damage to either business or society. And as a result, everyone benefited from it.

Any national capital always strives for business expansion. At the dawn of capitalism, trade expansion could not help but be associated with armed violence. Only armed force could allow trade to continue uninterrupted and markets to be captured. But only the state has armed force, and state officials do not always understand the vital state interest in direct armed assistance to their private trade. That is why trading companies created by shareholders are able to respond more quickly to all fluctuations in foreign markets, and if necessary, then defend their commercial interests by force of arms. Private trading companies are usually followed in their expansion by the home state. This is exactly what happened with the British.

The first companies were created back in the infancy of the Anglo-British Empire (16th century), in the form of private joint-stock companies and received from the crown (for monetary contributions) various privileges and benefits for carrying out trade operations. Joint stock companies were created through the share contributions of their members. Typically, a meeting of company shareholders elected a management team - a board of directors, which was obliged to report to ordinary shareholders about the company's trading policy and, of course, about the rise or fall in profits for investors. It was the board of directors that then organized expeditions to overseas countries to develop new markets, and accompanied embassies with armed detachments there.

The latter was far from unnecessary. Since at that time trade operations and transactions often took place in an area of ​​increased commercial risk (corsairs, pirates, etc.), as well as due to constant wars with European competitors and native rulers, companies often took on military-political functions . In recent cases, such companies have represented a failure of something like a state within a state. It was precisely this kind of company-state that the famous East India Company later became.

One of the very first joint-stock companies was the Moscow Company, renamed from China to Moscow, in 1554. The unusual nature of this renaming was that this company financed the unsuccessful expedition of C. Willoughby and R. Chancellor to search for the Northeast route to China and India. Due to the impossibility of breaking through the ice of the polar ocean, the expedition arrived in Moscow through Arkhangelsk, establishing trade relations with Russia. It was in this way that the Moscow Company arose, which was greatly favored by the Russian tsars.

Already in 1558, Tsar Ivan the Terrible (the tsar most favorable to the British) allowed the company's representative Anthony Jenkins an expedition to Persia to trade with it in transit through Russian territory. Since Russia needed not only a trade, but also a political partnership with England (Grozny, for example, proposed to Queen Elizabeth to marry him), the tsar then permanently allowed the Moscow company to conduct transit trade (along the Volga) with Safavid Iran.

Another circumstance that explained the king’s generosity towards the trade privileges of the British was explained by the possibility of establishing a military alliance with England against Sweden, Denmark and Poland. But the British did not fall for it. But it was the English merchants who, through the port of Narva, which was open to the Baltic for a short time, delivered weapons and military technologies to the Russian troops. The British were also interested in trading with the Russians bypassing intermediaries and along the more convenient Baltic Sea.

But for the Russian merchants, the unheard-of trade privileges for the British were like a bone in the throat, and they constantly complained to the royal court about commercial oppression from the British, since their trade was ruinous for the Russian merchants. The royal court was forced to listen to them and increase transit duties for the British. And under the new tsars: Fyodor Ioannovich and Boris Godunov, the British were completely deprived of the right to travel through Russia to Persia (Kagarlitsky. B.). However, the Volga route in the 17th century for the British lost its former attractiveness, since sea routes with the East were opened, as well as by land through the lands of the Ottomans.

Even after the Time of Troubles, Russian tsars turned to the Moscow company for help. In dire need of money, the government of Mikhail Romanov made a loan from the company's English merchants in 1618. But the government of Mikhail Romanov did not agree to further requests from English merchants to trade with Iran through Russia. It increasingly sought to take into account the interests of its merchants.

Trade with Russia for the Moscow company was very profitable, and the profits of its investors reached 300–400% of the share capital (Aslanov L.). The main rival for the company in the Russian market were the Dutch, who, like the British, dreamed of monopolizing trade with the “Muscovites” in their hands. To remove their competitors from the Russian market, the English traders of the Moscow Company and their Dutch competitors often resorted to bribing senior officials, bringing rich offerings and gifts to the Tsar. The rich Russian market was worth it.

The British needed Russian timber, hemp and other equipment for their fleet. Life in a completely different cultural environment for English merchants in Russia led to the borrowing of many cultural habits of the Muscovites: the desire for luxury, gluttony, keeping dogs and bears. In London it was believed that a long stay in Muscovy corrupted the company’s employees, and they sought to recall the “violators” home. However, some of the employees, in order to avoid returning, “switched to Russian service and even converted to Orthodoxy” (Kagarlitsy B.Yu.).

And yet it was difficult to discern some similarity in two dissimilar peoples, such as the Russians and the British, but the Dutchman Isaac Massa (in the first half of the 17th century) saw this similarity: “The Muscovites are in many ways similar to the English. They are also cunning, they also love glitter and money, and therefore these two nations easily converge and get along well” (Kagarlitsky B.). It is not difficult to notice that the Dutchman had no sympathy for either the Russians or the British.

However, relations between the British and Russians soon clearly deteriorated, and this was due to the news of the revolution in England and the execution of King Charles I. Immediately after this, a royal decree was issued banning trade with England. The Dutch could celebrate their victory over their main trading rival. All attempts by Cromwell to establish trade with Russia were unsuccessful. Alexei Mikhailovich did not want to deal with the king's murderer and usurper of England. Only the return of Charles II Stuart to the royal throne was able to establish diplomatic and trade relations. However, the English trading company failed to regain its former trading privileges (duty-free trade) in Russia; the Dutch firmly occupied their place in the market.

But with the colonization of North America, the Russian market gradually lost its former importance for the British. They now delivered the same mast timber for their fleet and fur across the Atlantic from North America, and even faster than through the ice of the White and Barents Seas. The opportunity to expand trade for the English Moscow Company on the Russian market opened only with the coming to power of Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century.

Elizabethan times were probably the most fertile for the creation of English trading companies; a total of 8 of them were created during the reign of the “Virgin Queen”. In 1588, based on the unification of the Turkish and Venetian companies, the Levantine Company was founded. The company opened its trading posts in the shopping centers of Aleppo and Istanbul and soon began to earn super profits from the resale of Oriental goods to European consumers.

Since the East at that time was self-sufficient and until the end of the 18th century practically did not need European goods, the British (like, indeed, all Europeans) had to purchase Spanish gold and silver from America, and then exchange it for eastern goods, highly valued in Europe. West: raw silk, silk and cotton fabrics, gum (resin), spices, etc. (Zaplava E.A., Petrunina Zh.V., Tabatsky A.D.).

What was the advantage of Levantine trade? One of its important advantages was the possibility of rapid turnover of capital. L. Marsigli explained the struggle of English merchants for dominance in the Levant in the 17th century: “Turkish trade brings such great profit to the English both for the proximity and for the capable dispatch of the merchants because ships go there and return twice a year.” However, in the 18th century, the British were able to significantly oust the French in the Mediterranean, who were able to establish constant contact with Istanbul at the highest level.

English trade of the Levant Company in the Eastern Mediterranean reached its highest level in the middle of the 17th century, when it accounted for about 10% of the total volume of English trade operations, and by the end of the 18th century. this figure fell to 1%. (Rodriguez A.M.). The Levantine Company existed until 1825, it saw both its heyday in the 17th century and its decline at the beginning of the 18th century, while for a long time it was the main competitor of the new favorite in the Asian market - the British East India Company.

The British government sought in every possible way to support the monopoly rights of its companies both domestically and internationally. In case of need, he came to their aid, presenting money, weapons, ships and soldiers. And this help was mutual. Repeatedly, trading companies helped the government out, not only with finances, but also, by organizing colonial conquests and trade with the money of private investors, and expanded the overall expansion of the country whose subjects they were.

Often, such monopoly companies as the Moscow, Levantine and East India companies engaged in diplomatic activities in the countries where they traded, also fought with its competitors in the interests of their country and bore a certain political responsibility to their government (Kagarlitsky B.). In addition, trading companies have always served as an important source of funding for the state budget.

In conditions of insufficient financial income and continuous and fierce colonial rivalry with other European powers, it was extremely profitable for the English state to use the financial, administrative and military resources of its largest companies, while maintaining a reasonable regime of budgetary savings. This was the uniqueness of the British who built their empire (unlike the continental empires of the East and Russia), in which the state and private business went hand in hand, mutually realizing joint commercial and political interests and thereby contributing to the growth of the power of their country in the international arena.

In 1553, a close acquaintance between England and Russia took place, which opened up enormous prospects for mutually beneficial cooperation. Then it seemed that nothing could interfere with the “eternal friendship and love” of the two countries.

Looking for new ways

In the middle of the 16th century, England was not yet the mistress of the seas. The monopoly over trade routes was in the hands of Spain and Portugal, who had no intention of sharing it. However, the desperate desire of English merchants to reach the coveted treasures of the East prompted the explorers Sebastian Cabot, Richard Chancellor and Hugo Willoughby to create the Mystery Company to “discover regions, dominions, islands and unknown places.” The main task of the enterprise was to find the unexplored northeastern route to China.
On May 10, 1553, the ships "Good Hope", "Good Trust" and "Edward the Good Deed" sailed into the unknown. The cold and stormy waters of the Arctic Ocean were unkind to brave sailors. The storm scattered the ships, two of them were forced to land on the shores of the Kola Peninsula for the winter. In May 1554, the Pomors found the ships, and there were 63 dead sailors, including Captain Willoughby.

The Venetian ambassador to Muscovy recorded the following:

“Some of the dead were found sitting with a pen in their hands and paper in front of them, others at a table with plates in their hands and spoons in their mouths, others opening a cupboard, others in other positions, as if they were statues.”

Ivan the Terrible, having learned about the incident, ordered all goods to be sealed on the ships and the bodies to be transported to Kholmogory.

Chancellor's fate turned out to be happier. On August 24, 1553, the ship “Eduard Good Deed”, led by him, entered the mouth of the Northern Dvina and approached the Nikolo-Karelian Monastery. The Pomors, who had not seen such large ships, fled. But, by encouraging signs and gestures, Chancellor managed to win over the local residents. Very quickly, news spread throughout the area about “kind and affectionate” foreigners who had arrived to trade with the king’s subjects.

Tempting prospects for England

During the first weeks of his stay in Muscovy, Richard Chancellor assessed the potential trade benefits of England with the keen eye of an entrepreneur. The country seemed to the Englishman to be abundant in “land and people.” On the way from Yaroslavl to Moscow, he noticed a large number of fields well sown with grain. Chancellor appreciated local furs, fish, honey, walrus ivory, blubber (liquid fat) - things that could be in demand in his homeland.
The English ambassador conveyed to Ivan the Terrible the wishes of King Edward VI, who hoped to discover new countries and look for in them “what he does not have.” In return, the king promised to supply goods that were not available in these lands:

“May there be benefit to them and to us through this, and may there be eternal friendship between them and us.”

Chancellor stayed in Moscow for eight months. Upon returning to London to the new rulers, Mary Tudor and her husband Philip II of Spain, he handed over the letter handed over by Ivan the Terrible. In his response, the Russian Tsar assured that English ships could come as often as they could, and “no harm would be done to them.” The tsar promised “free trade with all freedom in all our possessions with all kinds of goods.”
The English monarchs showed keen interest in the new project, which promised great benefits to the state. As a result, in February 1555 the Moscow Company was established, which received a monopoly right to trade with Russia. The treaty was drawn up with the utmost care, in particular, it ordered “to study the character of the Russian population in all classes and to be careful that no law, civil or religious, was violated by any of the English.”

With great zeal, the agents got down to business. And now, along the new trade route, timber, wax, lard, blubber, flax, furs, fish are sailing to the British Isles, and in the opposite direction - pewter, various fabrics and cloth, gloves, shoes, mirrors, combs, buttons and other small items. . Ivan the Terrible allows the Company to build trading posts in Varvarka and Zaryadye, as well as open its representative offices in other cities - Yaroslavl, Vologda, Kholmogory, Nizhny Novgorod.

In 1562, the British were granted the right to visit Persia, which the founders of the Moscow Company so sought. The expedition reaches the Persian cities of Qazvin and Shamakhi, where the enterprising British extract privileges from the Persians for their merchants.

Mutual benefits

Having received the right to duty-free trade, English merchants extract enormous profits from their enterprise. According to the archives of Scotland, during the heyday of the Company in the 1660-1670s, the profits of English merchants reached 300-400%! What benefits did the Moscow state have from trade with England? From the point of view of historian Olga Dmitrieva, “strong, mutually beneficial relations” were established between the two countries.
The situation in the country was such that intensively developing production, in particular foundry, weapons, money, as well as various branches of metalworking and construction, required raw materials. But under the conditions of the economic blockade from Lithuania, Poland and Sweden, Russian craft, deprived of imports, faded away. The emerging trade relations with England became a kind of “window to Europe”, through which Moscow not only received much-needed raw materials, but could also sell goods of its own production.

During the Livonian War (1558 - 1583), the northern sea route became the “road of life” along which the Russian army was uninterruptedly supplied with weapons and military materials (gunpowder, lead, saltpeter). Specialists sailed to Russia on ships of the English fleet to help build fortifications, provide diplomatic support and share intelligence.

However, Ivan the Terrible did not just want a profitable trade partnership; he demanded that the English monarchs conclude a political and military alliance. But, as the king soon realized, England was pursuing exclusively commercial goals and did not consider it necessary to sign up for any political obligations. The idea of ​​a dynastic marriage between the Russian Tsar and Elizabeth I, which was delicately rejected by the Queen, did not continue either.

True goals

Unfortunately, the “eternal friendship and love” between Russia and England, which Grozny so desired, did not work out. On the contrary, the activities of the Moscow Company began to increasingly lead to conflicts. Historian Mikhail Alpatov notes that “England’s diplomatic relations with Russia at that time consisted of endless solicitations from the English side for privileges for its merchants, protests against any infringement of their privileges, and protection of erring merchants.”

Agents of the Moscow company did not always fulfill agreements in good faith. Thus, by 1587, the total amount of debts of individual English merchants exceeded 10 thousand rubles - a huge amount of money at that time.
Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ioannovich repeatedly made claims to Queen Elizabeth that the Moscow company was sending “unworthy people” to Russia who were not engaged in trade, but in “theft and spying.” Clerk Andrei Shchelkanov pointed out a specific fraud:

“Your guests will not allow our merchants to trade some goods past them, but in advance of ours they will buy and exchange any goods themselves, if only they were natives of Moscow.”

From the first steps of its activity, the Moscow company tried to monopolize the trade of certain goods not only in Russia, but also in neighboring countries. This is confirmed by the British historian William Scott, reporting that the Moscow Trading Company had the exclusive right to export wax from Russia and supply it not only to England, but to the whole of Europe. The British approached the matter thoroughly, showing their intention to take control of all Russian foreign trade.
However, the interests of the British in Russia extended beyond the monopolization of trade. Modern historians are confident that by seizing the levers of managing the country's economy, the British were going to subjugate the entire internal and foreign policy of the Moscow state, if not peacefully, then by force to force Russia to accept the British protectorate.

The end of the novel

The first cooling of relations between Moscow and London in 1571 led to the deprivation of the right of duty-free trade to English merchants. And, despite the quick return of trust and further patronage of the British by Fyodor Ioannovich and, especially Boris Godunov, relations between England and Russia were no longer the same.

The British behaved very ambiguously during the Time of Troubles. At first they helped Vasily Shuisky with the supply of weapons and mercenaries, but as soon as False Dmitry II was on the Moscow throne, they immediately defected to the new tsar. According to researcher Olga Dmitrieva, the Polish intervention disrupted the plans of the Moscow Company, and the British seriously considered the option of inviting James I Stuart as a protectorate of the Russian state.
For many years, English businessmen had been buying up Russian raw materials at low prices and taking advantage of the cheapness of Russian life, and did not want to let go of such a fat sum from their hands. The report provided by Captain Thomas Chamberlain to King James I stated:

“If His Majesty received an offer of sovereignty over that part of Muscovy, which is located between Arkhangelsk and the Volga, then the annual crown income of such an enterprise would reach 8 million pounds sterling.”

With the accession of Mikhail Romanov, Russia's contacts with other Western countries are intensifying: France, Holland, Denmark. The role of the British in the trade turnover of the state is noticeably narrowing, and their search for new opportunities to regain their trading privileges does not lead to anything significant.
In 1649, the English king Charles I was executed. “They committed a great evil deed, they killed their sovereign Charles to death,” this is how Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich reacted to the death of the English monarch. The Russian Tsar did not forget to mention that “English merchants enjoyed great privileges, but did not appreciate them and behaved unworthily.”
On June 1, 1649, Alexei Mikhailovich, by his decree, demanded that the British be expelled from the Moscow state, allowing them to enter only Arkhangelsk. This meant one thing: the stormy romance between England and Russia came to an end.

During the reign of Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich, in the middle of the 16th century, trade and diplomatic relations between Russia and England were established. In general, the development of Russian-English relations easily fits into the framework of the basic patterns that characterize relations between Russia and Western European countries. During the era of the Old Russian state, there were quite active connections between Russian lands and European states, including dynastic marriages. In particular, the first wife of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh was Gita of Wessex, daughter of King Harold II of England. During the reign of the Horde, the Russian lands fell into some isolation, which was not complete. Relations are mainly limited to contacts with neighboring states. The rise of Moscow in the late 15th and early 16th centuries led to a new growth in ties with Western countries. English merchants, artisans, and travelers (scouts) appeared in Rus', and contractual relations were established between states.

The first page of Russian-English relations

The history of Russian-English relations is usually counted from the mid-16th century, when Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich received the English navigator Richard Chancellor (Chancellor). In May 1553, the English king Edward VI sent three ships under the command of Hugh Willoughby and Captain Chancellor to search for a northern route to India and China through the Arctic Ocean. The route across the Atlantic Ocean was controlled by Spain and Portugal; they were not going to help the British. The idea of ​​​​the possibility of reaching China by the northern route was expressed by the Italian traveler Sebastian Cabot, who lived in England. This idea was supported by the English merchants. The expedition was equipped by the “English Society of Merchant Explorers for the discovery of countries, lands, islands, states and possessions, unknown and hitherto not visited by sea.”

The ships were separated by a storm, but one of them reached the White Sea. The other two, under the command of Hugh Willoughby, reached Novaya Zemlya, after which they turned and stopped at the mouth of the Varzina River, where they spent the winter. The crews of the ships died under mysterious circumstances. In May 1554, they were discovered by Pomor fishermen.

In August, "Eduard Bonaventura" entered the Dvina Bay and dropped anchor near the village of Nenoksa. Then the English ship moved to the island of Jagry and landed on the shore in the bay of St. Nicholas, not far from the Nikolo-Korelsky Monastery (the city of Severodvinsk was later founded there). Until the founding of Arkhangelsk in 1583, this place would become the main gateway for foreign merchants in northern Russia. The British said that they wanted to start trade with the Russians and had a letter to the Tsar. The leadership of the Dvina land supplied the British with food and sent a messenger to Moscow. Ivan Vasilyevich invited Chancellor to his place. The Englishman handed the letter to the Tsar, dined with him and negotiated with the boyars. The English documents were written in such a clever style that they could be handed to any ruler whom the British could reach. Ivan the Terrible, being a well-educated man, sarcastically noted that the royal charters “were drawn up by someone unknown.” But Russia itself was looking for new trade routes. Trade with Western countries passed through hostile Poland and Lithuania, which soon united into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Therefore, trade communications with England through the northern harbors became a new channel, beyond the control of enemies. The British brought samples of suitable goods - tin, cloth. In February 1554, Chancellor was sent back with a reply message. Ivan Vasilyevich wrote that he, sincerely wanting to be friends with Edward, would gladly receive English merchants and ambassadors. Edward had already died, so the letter was presented to Queen Mary. The English merchants were delighted by this discovery.

Ivan the Terrible receives Captain Chancellor.

In 1555, after organizing the Moscow Company in the English capital, Chancellor went to the Russian kingdom for the second time on two ships with the attorneys of the society created in England, merchants Gray and Killingworth, to conclude an agreement with Moscow. Queen Mary approved the company's Charter, which received the right to monopoly trade with Russia. Tsar's and royal commissions were often carried out by representatives of the Moscow company, which soon created its own representative office in the Russian capital. It must be said that this was a feature of the British - they often combined political and economic interests, merchants were both intelligence officers and diplomats, and travelers were merchants. The British were shown high confidence - they had relative freedom, unlike other foreign merchants. They received a separate courtyard, which is still preserved on Varvarka (Old English Court).

Ivan Vasilyevich again graciously received Chancellor and his comrades and called Queen Mary his most kind sister. A commission was established to consider the rights and liberties that the British wanted to receive. The main trading platform was supposed to appear in Kholmogory. The Moscow company received the right to open trading posts in Kholmogory, Vologda and Moscow. Ivan the Terrible gave the British a charter, according to which they received the right to freely and duty-free wholesale and retail trade in all Russian cities. The company received the right to have its own court. Customs officers, governors and governors had no right to interfere in the trade affairs of the Moscow company.

In the spring of 1556, the British departed for England with four richly loaded ships and with the Russian envoy, clerk of the Ambassadorial Prikaz Osip Grigorievich Nepeya. With Nepeya was a retinue of 16 people and 10 Russian merchants who planned to organize foreign trade. However, a storm off the coast of Scotland scattered the ships, drowning Chancellor's ship and himself and his son. Russian merchants and part of the envoy's retinue also died. The Russian envoy escaped and was taken from Scotland to London. An agreement was concluded under which Russian merchants received the right to duty-free trade in England. However, it should be said that Russian merchants did not have the opportunity to organize such trade in practice - Russia did not have a navy. For a long time, only Russian envoys arrived in England on English ships.

Trade caravans began to arrive from England every year. The ships moved around Norway and Sweden to the mouth of the Dvina. Already in 1557, Killingworth organized the import of cloth into the Russian kingdom. Wax, lard, flax, ship timber, and blubber, a liquid fat extracted from the fat of marine mammals, were exported from Rus'; it was used for lubricants and fuel. Gray created a rope production in Kholmogory; craftsmen were brought from England. Company agents appeared in Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl and other cities. The British expanded trade in Russia quickly and with great benefit for themselves. The British bought honey, furs, as well as samples of Russian steel and mica, which for some time in England began to be preferred to their own British glass, which was still of poor quality. Among the privileges received by the British was the right to mine iron ore and build an ironworks in Vychegda. It should be noted that Russian resources became one of the prerequisites for the creation of a powerful British fleet, thanks to which England would become the “mistress of the seas.” At the mouth of the Northern Dvina, the British will create mast and rope factories. For many decades, the equipment of all British ships was Russian. Cloth, copper, and gunpowder were brought from England. In addition, Russia needed metals, especially silver and gold; naturally, the British did not sell their own gold and silver; they bought precious metals in continental Europe, for example, German silver thalers (“efimki”). Thalers were melted down, and Russian goldsmiths used them as raw materials. Gold coins with the image of a ship (“shipmen”) also arrived in Russia.

A very important area of ​​cooperation with England for Russia was the invitation of qualified craftsmen. Doctors, pharmacists, metallurgists, and construction specialists were invited to Russia. The ability to bring craftsmen from Western Europe by sea was important for the Russian government. The arrival of qualified craftsmen by land was prevented by the Livonian Order, as well as by hostile Lithuania and Poland, who were not interested in the growth of the economic and military power of the Russian state.

The British were still looking for a northern route. In 1556, Barrow's expedition searched for the Ob River, which was then believed to originate at a Chinese lake where the palace of the Chinese emperor stands. In 1580, the Englishmen Arthur Peat (Pat) and Charles Jackman reached the Vaygach Island and discovered the Yugorsky Shar (Vaigach Strait) - a strait between the shores of the Vaygach Island and the Yugorsky Peninsula. In the Kara Sea, the British encountered a large accumulation of ice. Having rounded Kolguev Island from the south, their ships took the opposite course.

In 1557, Nepeya, together with the new English ambassador Anthony Jenkinson, returned to Russia, delivering letters, “many masters” and gifts. In 1557 and 1561, Jenkinson negotiated on behalf of Elizabeth I and solved the problem of obtaining letters of protection and the right to safe passage along the Volga to the Caspian Sea and further to Persia. Jenkinson received the right to travel along the Volga and an escort of 50 archers. In 1558-1560 he made an expedition to Bukhara and became the first Western European traveler to describe the coast of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. He also compiled the most detailed map of the Russian kingdom, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia at that time, which was published in London in 1562 under the title “Description of Muscovy, Russia and Tartaria.” Jenkinson also visited the Persian capital, but the Shah's government did not show much interest in trade with England. However, he found support from the ruler of Shamakhi. Ivan the Terrible was also pleased with this trip; he confirmed the trading privileges of the British.

Thus, from the very beginning, the British solved strategic problems: they were looking for a northern route to China and India; wanted to obtain the right to duty-free trade in Russia and master the Volga route, reaching Persia and Central Asia through the Caspian Sea. The British wanted to subjugate the Russian market, gain a monopoly on trade, and establish connections with China, India, Persia and Central Asia through Russia.

It should be noted that it was from that time that information about “Muscovy” and “Muscovites” began to spread in English society. Mentions of Russia appear in literature and on the theatrical stage. Russian books appear in libraries. The British, especially those with economic interests in Russia, are beginning to learn Russian. Queen Elizabeth, caring about the development of trade and political interests of England, even took care of training a staff of translators.

Map of Russia, Muscovy, Tartary by Anthony Jenkinson (1562).

Political interests

Ivan the Terrible initially patronized the development of Russian-English trade. He granted English merchants very important rights - free entry and exit, movement around the country and duty-free trade in Russia. But in the 1560s, disagreements arose. In 1566 Jenkinson came to Russia again. His arrival was connected with the activities of the Dutch merchant Barberini, who presented the Tsar with a forged letter from Queen Elizabeth and suggested that Ivan Vasilyevich deprive the Moscow Company of privileges. Jenkinson was carrying a real letter.

But Ivan Vasilyevich wanted to develop relations with England. In his opinion, for the important economic concessions that Russia provided to the British, London had to repay. Russia during this period fought a difficult Livonian War. Due to the increasing danger from Poland, the Moscow government was looking for allies against the Habsburgs, who secretly supported Russia's opponents. Ivan the Terrible wanted an “eternal consummation” - a military-political alliance with England, which was supposed to complement close economic relations. Moreover, in 1567 the British were granted new trade benefits: the right to trade in Kazan, the Volga region and Shamakhi; it was proclaimed that only the British could trade in the White Sea with Russia. The best guarantee of the strength of the union of states in that period was considered to be a marriage union.

It is believed that at this time the Russian Tsar had the idea of ​​marrying the Queen of England. The fact of Tsar Ivan’s matchmaking with Elizabeth I is currently in doubt, since it is based only on the message of the Englishman Horsey, who was distinguished by dishonesty (even English merchants from the Moscow Company complained about him). And some researchers suggest that the Russian Tsar wanted to be able to obtain “political asylum” in England in case of success of internal unrest or conspiracy. At the same time, in 1567, Russian merchants Stepan Tverdikov and Fedot Pogorely arrived in London - on behalf of the tsar, they exchanged furs for precious stones for the Russian treasury. They brought a letter to Moscow in which the English government asked to expel from Russia merchants who traded outside the Moscow company, but this time the request was not granted. And the question of violators of the English monopoly will become the cause of Russian-English friction for a long time.

In the fall of 1568, the tsar did not like the letter of Ambassador Randolph, since it did not give a direct answer to the proposal for an alliance. True, the tsar still hoped for the development of relations with England. In 1569, England received new privileges - English trading posts were classified as oprichnina and they were not dependent on the zemstvo authorities. Together with Randolph, the Russian embassy departed for England with the nobleman Andrei Sovin and the translator Sylvester. The embassy was supposed to achieve the conclusion of a formal union between Russia and England. In words, Elizabeth expressed her readiness to conclude such an alliance, but in reality, nothing was done. This angered the Russian Tsar. In 1570, the Russian government deprived the Moscow company of some of its privileges (some were later restored). In 1570, a cooling occurred that lasted 10 years. The British were deprived of the right to free trade along the Volga and communications with eastern countries. Moscow begins a rapprochement with Dutch merchants. However, there was no complete break in relations with England. Correspondence between Ivan and Elizabeth continued.

In the early 1580s, Moscow again returned to the topic of concluding a military-political alliance with England. By his decree, an embassy to England was prepared in 1582. The nobleman Fyodor Pisemsky was accompanied by the clerk Epifan Vasilyevich Neudacha-Khovralev and the English translator Giles Crowe. The conclusion of an alliance was a preliminary and obligatory condition for marriage. They wooed Queen Mary Hastings's niece. This embassy was preceded by royal letters sent through Jerome Horsey, he managed the office of the Moscow company. The Russian embassy was received well, and the ambassadors were shown all the outward signs of respect - fireworks, gifts, an invitation to hunt.

Russian ambassadors proposed a military alliance, preserving the British the right to duty-free trade in Russia. In January 1583, there was a negative reaction from the queen to the proposal of marriage to Mary Hastings. The Queen referred to the fact that her niece was ugly and sick. Like, she doesn’t want to offend the Russian Tsar, because she heard that he loves pretty girls. On March 19, a response to the proposal for an alliance followed. The English queen agreed to recognize the king's enemies only if the peaceful mediation of England was rejected by a third party. Thus, London wanted to gain the right to understand the conflicts of the Russian kingdom and provide it with assistance not unconditionally, but according to circumstances. In addition, the British government expressed a desire to have a monopoly of trade in the north and not allow ships from other countries. However, this caused objections from the Russian envoys, since due to the loss of Narva, where foreign merchant ships arrived, the northern piers remained the only sea gates for communication with Western countries.

D. Bowes was sent to Moscow to continue negotiations. He was supposed to achieve a monopoly on Russia's northern trade. At the same time, it was impossible to agree to a political union on Ivan the Terrible’s terms and dissuade him from marrying. England was not going to help Russia in strengthening its position in the Baltic states. Negotiations have reached a dead end. Ivan the Terrible demanded that England start a war with Poland if S. Batory did not return Polotsk and Livonia to Russia. Negotiations were interrupted by the death of Ivan the Terrible.

Wax was an extremely profitable commodity - candles were made from it, and huge quantities were required to illuminate Gothic cathedrals. This made it possible for the king to assert that wax was not a simple product, but a sacred, “reserved” one. And kings should trade it. Such a monopoly was a real punishment for other Russian merchants, and it was not cheap for the British, but for Tsar Ivan it turned out to be extremely profitable. As for goods brought from England, the tsar demanded the right of first sale, but paid inaccurately. In this, however, the king also did not differ from his contemporaries. Elizabeth of England also did not like to pay debts.

During the oprichnina, the English company tried to get the tsar to return the money owed to it by the boyars executed by the tsar. The tsar listened to the claims, but did not give the money, recommending his English partners to lend less frequently to the Muscovites. However, sometimes bad debts were returned. During Bose's embassy, ​​Ivan the Terrible suddenly ordered the payment of 3,000 marks, which had already been written off by the company.