History of the Russian State, Vol. 9

A.D. 1560 — 1561.

and the Tsar should not have been left by these virtuous men to hold the rudder of the State: it is better to do good by compulsion than evil by will. But it is much more likely that Ivan, in desiring to blame them, slanders himself; it is much more likely that he sincerely loved the good, having known its charm, and finally, carried away by passions—which were merely restrained, not eradicated—he changed the rules of magnanimity imparted to him by wise mentors: for it is easier to change than to force oneself for so long—and for whom? For an Autocratic Sovereign who, with one word, could always have severed this imagined chain of captivity. Adashev, as a counselor not approving of the Livonian War, served Ivan as a subject, as a Minister and warrior, a zealous instrument for its success: consequently, the Sovereign commanded and, contrary to his complaints, was not a slave to his favorites.

Having listened to the document concerning the crimes of Adashev and Sylvester, some of the judges declared that these villains were convicted and worthy of execution; others, casting down their eyes, remained silent. Then the elder, Metropolitan Makary, affirmed in his duty to speak the truth by the proximity of death and the rank of Primate High Priest, told the Tsar that the accused ought to be summoned and heard. All the conscientious Noblemen agreed with this opinion (17); but the assembly of destroyers, in the expression of Kurbsky, cried out against it, proving that people condemned by the feeling of a wise and merciful Sovereign could not present any legitimate justification; that their presence and intrigues were dangerous; that the tranquility of the Tsar and the fatherland demanded an immediate decision in this important matter. And so they decided that the accused were guilty. It remained only to determine the execution, and the Sovereign, still wishing to appear merciful, moderated it (18):