What really happened to the son of Ivan the Terrible?
The Russian philosopher Konstantin Pobedonostsev, seeing in 1885 at an exhibition in St. Petersburg the painting by I. Repin “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581,” which later became known as “Ivan the Terrible kills his son,” was outraged that in it fiction was presented as truth. Therefore, he wrote to Alexander III that the picture should never be considered historicalbecause the plot is fantastic.
Indeed, almost everyone has heard about the murder of Ivan the Terrible by anyone, even in the school curriculum, as an illustration of the cruelty of the autocracy, there is information about this. N. Karamzin writes about this in his historiography. However, in fact, the fact of the murder of Grozny by his son, in fact, turned out to be a lie. The same Karamzin could not know about the existence of other versions, but for some reason he deliberately ignored them. The only thing in this story that is not in doubt is the date. Indeed, the son of Ivan the Terrible died in November 1581.
The fact of the killing by an autocrat of his son was until recently considered reliable and indisputable. But in all the documents of that time there is information about the death of John Ivanovich, but about the murder they are not mentioned.
The creator of the murder myth was the papal legate, a high-ranking Jesuit Anthony Possevin. He is also known for inventing and trying to implement political intrigue, hoping to put Russia in unbearable conditions with the help of Poles, Lithuanians and Swedes, and thus force Ivan the Terrible to subordinate the Orthodox Church to the Pope of Rome. But the king had a difficult diplomatic game, having managed to use Possevin for signing peace with Poland and not making concessions to Rome. Despite the fact that historians say about the Yam-Zapolsky peace treaty as a defeat for Russia, it should be noted that thanks to the papal legate, the Poles managed to regain only Polotsk, which Ivan the Terrible took away from Sigismund as early as 1563. After the peace was concluded, the king did not even think to discuss with Possevin the question of uniting the churches, because he did not promise that. Rome deceived itself because it had always been blinded by the idea of establishing domination over the world. The complete failure of this Catholic adventure led to Possevin becoming the personal enemy of Grozny. Moreover, the papal legate arrived in Moscow much later than the death of the prince, so he could not physically be a witness to the murder.
Regarding the essence of what happened, the sudden death of the prince caused controversy among contemporaries and historians. There were a large number of death versions, but in all of them the word “possible”, “most likely”, “maybe”, etc. was present.
Karamzin in his book called the cause of the murder Grozny’s reluctance to send his son along with the army to liberate Pskov, as a result of which a quarrel ensued, and the king hit his son on the head with a rod. But, for example, M. Ivanov, commenting on this version, says that everything was wrong. Ivanov suggested that the murder was due to the wife of the prince. One day, when Grozny entered his son's chambers and saw a pregnant daughter-in-law dressed not according to the rules, he began to beat her, his son stood up for his wife. And then it was dealt a mortal blow. A similar version put forward and Valishevsky. Kobrin noted that such a version is the most plausible, but it is impossible to either verify it or disprove it. But then, on what basis was Ivan the Terrible accused of murder, which is impossible to prove or verify? Just on the basis of the fact that this seems to be true?
Such a household version of "lame in both legs." Ivan the Terrible could not meet the daughter-in-law in his son's chambers. The fact is that each member of the royal family lived in separate mansions, which were connected with the palace passages. Tsarevna Elena led the same way of life as all the ladies of the court: after the morning divine service, she and her attendants worked on needlework in their chambers. The laws of that time were very strict with respect to women, without the permission of her husband, none of them dared to appear in public, they even went to church only with permission, and even then under the supervision of servants. The rooms of noble women were usually in the depths of the house, and they were constantly closed, and the key was with their husbands. In the female part of the house could not get any man. How, then, did the king manage to see the princess Elena, who was also dressed not according to the rules? Did he break the door and then dispersed all the servants? But after all, history has not recorded a single similar incident in the eventful life of John. Therefore, it is quite possible to agree with Metropolitan John of Ladoga that this version was so ridiculous from the very beginning that it became necessary to somehow improve the story and find a worthy excuse for murder.
A little later, another tale appeared - a version of political assassination, but it turned out to be even more unsubstantiated than the previous one. According to historians, Ivan the Terrible with great distrust treated the desire of his son to lead the army in the fight against the Commonwealth, envied his youthful energy, but this is only speculation and no evidence of the veracity of this version does not exist. It is no less controversial than in the household. If you believe Karamzin, the prince expresses dissatisfaction of some segments of the population with the negotiations between Russia and Poland, that is, he comes out in opposition to the tsar regarding the conditions for signing a peace treaty. But according to all sources, the death of the prince falls on November 15 1581, while negotiations between the two states began only in mid-December, a month after his death. How can one be dissatisfied with the course of negotiations, which have not even begun yet, historians do not specify.
There is another version of the murder - "moral." Recall that in 1580, and according to some data - in 1578, in the German Quarter, an action was held to stop the speculation in alcohol. This was the basis for the new version. Its essence was that the prince showed compassion to the Livonians, so he gave one of the nobles, without the knowledge of the sovereign, to send the horses to the 5 of the mail horses. In addition, Ivan the Terrible feared for his power, because the people loved and supported the young prince in every possible way. Therefore, he hit his son with a rod, which is why he died on the third day. Note that in another interpretation of the same version, the blow to the ear turned into a regular slap, but also with a sad ending. But this version was untenable. First of all, because the named event could not have served as the cause of the quarrel, since it happened a few years before the murder. Some historians are of the opinion that the cause of the quarrel could be that the prince interceded for the Livonian prisoners, whom the henchmen treated badly.
This version is full of contradictions in the assessment of the character of the young prince. At first, historians claimed that the son was an exact copy of his father, and the similarity was not only physical, but also moral. After death, there are other pictures - the prince, it turns out, wise, not like his father, everyone loves him, so his death became a national grief. Thus, it is clear that such a transformation from a monster into a “public favorite” means only that one thing is a lie.
But how then did the prince perish if there was no murder? Metropolitan John of Ladoga was convinced that the son of Ivan the Terrible died a natural death, for which there is documentary evidence. Back in 1570, he came to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery and, donating a thousand rubles, set a condition that he could take the veil to the monastery at any time, and would be remembered in case of death.
But was the prince's death natural? In 1963, the 4 tombs were uncovered in the Archangel Cathedral: Ivan the Terrible himself, his son, Tsar Fedor and Colonel Skopin-Shuisky. It was decided to conduct research on the subject of poisoning. During their conduct, it was found that the arsenic content in all skeletons is approximately equal. But in the skeletons of the king and his son were also found traces of mercury, its content in the remains many times higher than normal.
Could this coincidence be accidental? Unfortunately, only one thing is known: the Tsarevich's illness lasted for about a week, and he died in Alexandrov Sloboda. Historians suggest that the prince felt bad, so he decided to go to the monastery and get a haircut as a monk. Of course, about any injury to the head and the speech can not be, otherwise he would have lay unconscious with a head injury. On the road, his condition worsened, and the prince finally fell ill, and soon died.
Little more is known about the death of Ivan the Terrible himself. Back in 1582, Possevin expressed the idea that the king had only a short time to live. Similar statements seem very strange, if, according to the same Karamzin, in 1584 there was no deterioration in the autocrat's health. Thus, such confidence in the imminent death of the king cannot be explained by anything other than the fact that the papal legate himself was responsible for the death of Ivan the Terrible. Moreover, despite the statements of historians that it was in 1584, he fell ill, this is also not quite true. The fact is that this year the ruler only saw a comet in the sky and said that it foreshadows his death. The first mentions of the disease appeared on March 10, March 1584, March 16 worsened, then - relief, and March 18 - sudden death. His body was swollen and smelled bad. Thus, it can be argued that Ivan the Terrible died from mercury poisoning, since all 10 days of illness and before his death all the symptoms were observed: a swollen body and an unpleasant smell indicate that the kidneys failed (which is characteristic of mercury poisoning). Bathing contributed to the partial removal of poison from the body (because of this, the king felt relieved).
However, according to some historians, Ivan the Terrible was strangled.
The great autocrat died "very on time": at the beginning of 1584, Stefan Batory, enlisting the support of the Roman throne, began active preparations for a new war with Russia. Thus, it becomes clear who could and who did it, and who would benefit from the death of the king and his heir.
Information