Wand or poison? Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan in November 1581 of the year
In Chingiz Aitmatov’s novel “The Snow-storming Station” there is an image of a mankurt - a slave deprived of the memory of the past. But in the same way, any people without historical memory, turns into a collective "mankurt". This is exactly what they are trying to do today with the Russian and other indigenous peoples of Russia.
One of the ways to oppose this process is to counter the falsification of the history of our Fatherland, to preserve the historical truth about our statesmen. Among them, Ivan the Terrible, the first Russian tsar, laid the foundations of the modern multinational and multi-religious Russian state. That is why he was appointed by the enemies of Russia the role of the bloodiest tyrant in the history of mankind.
But the significance of historical figures must be judged by the results of their rule. If you look at the results of the reign of Ivan IV, we will see that he ruled 43 of the year, and during this time the territory of the state increased almost 2 times, the population grew by about 30%, administrative, judicial and military reforms were carried out, a network of primary schools was created and the postal service, organized printing, founded 155 new cities and fortresses, built more than a hundred churches and monasteries. The tsar laid the foundation for the convocation of the Zemstvo councils, introduced the election of the local administration, which helped the peoples of the Russian state to overcome the Troubles of the early 17th century. The king himself wrote church hymns and became the founder of Russian journalism.
As for his alleged “tyranny”, during the years of his rule no more than 5000 people, including criminals, were executed. For comparison: during the reign of, for example, the contemporary of Ivan IV, the French king Charles IX, during the night of St. Bartholomew, Catholics killed around 30 000 Protestants. In the 16th century, when Ivan the Terrible was ruling, 70 000 people were hanged in England for vagrancy. These figures prove that the special “bloodthirstiness” of the Terrible-king is a lie.
There are one among the falsified "victims" of Ivan IV, about which everyone has heard.
Here is how Nikolai Karamzin described this event:
“In his eldest son, John, the tsar was preparing Russia for his second self: doing important things together with him ... along with him, voluptuous and ruining people ... But, expressing the bitterness of the heart and the unrest in lustfulness in a young man, [the prince] showed the mind deeds and sensitivity to fame or at least to the dishonor of the fatherland. During peace talks, suffering for Russia, reading sorrow and on the faces of the boyars, hearing, maybe (hereinafter highlighted by me. - VM), and the general grumbling, the prince was filled with noble jealousy, came to his father and demanded that he sent him with an army to expel the enemy, to liberate Pskov, to restore the honor of Russia. John shouted in agitation of anger: “Rebel! You and the boyars want to overthrow me from the throne! ”- and raised his hand. Boris Godunov wanted to hold her, the king gave him several wounds with his sharp wand and hit the prince hard in the head. This unhappy fell, drenched in blood. Here the fury of John disappeared. Pale with horror, in trembling, in a frenzy, he exclaimed: “I killed my son!” - and rushed to embrace, kiss him; holding the blood flowing from a deep ulcer; crying, sobbing, calling the healers; begged God for mercy, son for forgiveness. But the judgment of heaven is accomplished. The prince, kissing the hands of his father, gently showed him love and compassion; persuaded him not to indulge in despair; he said that he was dying a faithful son and subjects ... All mourned the fate of the sovereign young man who could live for happiness and virtue. ”
The only credible fact in all this sentimental history is that the prince died in November 1581 of the year. Doctor of Historical Sciences Vladimir Kobrin notes that "the death of the heir to the throne caused puzzled discord among contemporaries and controversy among historians." There were many versions of the death of the prince, but in each of them the main evidence was the words "maybe", "most likely", "probably" and "presumably."
In the scientific commentaries to the above quotation from Karamzin it is written: “Ivan the Terrible killed his son in other circumstances. Once the king went to his son's chambers and saw his pregnant wife dressed not according to the rules: it was hot, and instead of three shirts she put on only one. The king began to beat the daughter-in-law, and the son - to protect her. Then the Terrible and struck his son a fatal blow to the head. "
A similar version was followed by Kazimir Walishevsky:
“Ivan allegedly met his daughter-in-law in the inner chambers of the palace and noticed that her costume did not fully meet the requirements of decency. It is possible that in her position she did not wear a belt over her chemise. Offended by this, the hegumen-king struck her with such force that the next night she was first relieved of the burden. Naturally, the prince did not refrain from reproaching the king. Grozny flared up and swung his staff. Mortal blow was struck the prince in the temple. "
Kobrin recognizes this story as the most "plausible": "Looks like the truth, but it cannot be checked or proved another version: the prince interceded with his father for his pregnant wife, who the father-in-law" taught "with a stick ...". However, since when can a person be found guilty of murder on the basis of a version that cannot be "neither verified nor proven," even if it is "similar to the truth"?
Already in this "consumer" version, you can see a number of inconsistencies. They write that the princess put on one dress of the three due to the heat. Is it in November, then? Another author points to the absence of a belt that allegedly infuriated Tsar Ivan, who accidentally met his daughter-in-law in the "inner chambers of the palace." This version is completely unreliable: the king was difficult to meet the princess "dressed not according to the statute", and even in the inner chambers.
Each member of the royal family had separate mansions, connected with other parts of the palace by cold transitions in winter. The family of the prince lived in such a separate tower. His wife was on the female half of the chamber, the entrance to which was always locked, and the key was in her husband's pocket. She could get out of there only with the permission of her spouse and accompanied by servants and maids who would take care of her decent clothes. In addition, the princess was pregnant, and she would not be allowed to walk in the cold halls "in one shirt". Metropolitan John (Snychev) is right in pointing out that the absurdity of this version is so obvious that historians needed to find a more credible motive for the “crime”.
Thus, another tale appeared in the presentation of Karamzin - the version of “political sonicide”: quarrels over negotiations with the Poles. “They say that the king was afraid of the young energy of his son, envied him, was suspicious of the prince’s aspiration to lead the troops in the war against the Commonwealth ... Alas, all these versions are based only on dark and contradictory rumors,” Professor Kobrin echoed Vladyka John.
Indeed, there are no fewer contradictions in this version than in the “household” one. The entire episode in Karamzin is based on the discontent of the prince, "reading on the faces" (!) Of the boyars and hearing "universal grumbling" "during peace talks." That is, according to Karamzin, the prince expresses discontent with the course of the Russian-Polish negotiations. But the prince died in November 1581 of the year, and negotiations with Poland began on December 13 of 1581, almost a month after his death. How can you be dissatisfied with the course of negotiations, which have not yet begun, historians are silent.
There is such a version of “sonicide”. In the 1580 year (another date —1578), foreign speculation in alcohol in the German Quarter was suppressed. Tsarevich allegedly defended underground vodka merchants: “The Tsar became infuriated with ... Tsarevich Ivan, because he showed compassion for this unfortunate ... In rage, he struck him with a rod ... in the ear and so dearly (sweet European irony! - VM) that he fell ill with a fever and died on the third day ... The state lost hope of having a sovereign of a wise and meek prince, a hero with a spirit and beautiful appearance, 23 years old (27 years. - V.M.) loved and mourned by everyone ”(Jerome Horsey). And in another translation from English of this place in the writings of Gorsey, the blow with a rod is described as ... just a slap in the face!
This version of events is no less far-fetched than all the others. The acuteness of a quarrel does not correspond to its limitations: from a year to three years have passed. However, the most interesting thing is that at first its authors argue that the prince is a likeness of his father. “Ivan ... physically and morally reminded him of his father, who shared classes and fun with him” (Valishevsky). According to the "testimony" of Oderborn, the father and son "changed their mistresses." Together, they "voluntarily loved and destroyed people" (Karamzin). As Kobrin summarized, the prince was a worthy heir to his father.
All the false abominations that were said about the father are repeated against the son. And suddenly, after his death, everything changes. Karamzin paints an image of a dearly loving son who, dying, "kisses the hands of his father ... all mourn the fate of the sovereign youth ..." (27 years? You would have written a boy. - VM). At Gorsey, the prince became "wise and gentle, a hero and a handsome man beloved by all." Valishevsky writes that the prince was very popular and his death became a national disaster.
Turning a “bloodthirsty monster” into a “beloved nation” says that either the first or the second is a lie. Let everyone decide for himself where the truth is, the author joins the opinion of Metropolitan John (Snychev) about the unfoundedness of all versions of the murder of his son by the king.
It really is. In the Moscow chronicler, under the 7090, we read the year (the chronicles are quoted on the PSRL): “Prince Ivan Ivanovich ceases to live”; in Piskaryovskiy: “On 12, the night of summer on 7090 [1581] November on 17 is the day ... the death of Prince Ivan Ivanovich”; in the Novgorod IV Chronicle: “The same [7090] year, the reign of Ivan Ivanovich on the matins in Sloboda ...”; in Morozovskaya: "Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich was not."
In the given annals there is not a word about the murder.
The quarrel and the death of the prince are not connected with each other, as indicated by the entry in the Second Archival List of the Pskov III Annals. Here, under the summer, 7089 (from 01.09.1580 to 01.09.1581) recorded a quarrel (as a rumor): “Netsyi say, like the son of his prince Ivan, for the sake of his visitation, he taught us about the rescue of the city of Pskov”. And under the summer of 7090 (from 01.09.1581 to 01.09.1582), the prince’s death is said: “Prince Ivan Ivanovich died in the December suburb in the same year [December was mistakenly indicated. - vm] on xnumx day. " If you believe this message, the difference between the quarrel and the death of the prince is at least more than two months (14 year when the quarrel occurred, ended August 7089 31 year, and the death of the prince occurred in November 1581 year, that is, in November 7090 year, because the new year then began on September 1581).
It is possible to point out the message of Jacques Margeret: “It is rumored that the eldest [son] he [the king] killed with his own hand, what happened differently, because, although he hit his end with a rod ... and he was hit by a blow, he did not from this, and some time later, on a pilgrimage journey. "
So the version of the murder of his son by the king is unreliable and has no documentary evidence. But if the father did not kill the prince, how did he die? Regarding the Tsarevich’s illness, it is possible to say definitely: it was poisoning with mercuric chloride (HgCl2 mercury chloride).
In 1963, the tombs of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar Theodore Ivanovich and Prince Skopin-Shuisky were uncovered in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Scientists have found that in the bones of Tsar Ivan IV and Tsarevich Ivan, the presence of mercury is much higher than the allowable rate (for both, about 1,3 mg, more than 30 times the maximum allowable level in 0,04 mg). In addition, the remains of an arsenic prince were almost twice as large as their father’s - 0,26 mg with the maximum allowable level in 0,08 mg (according to the information of the chief archaeologist of the Moscow Kremlin Museum-Reserve, doctor of historical sciences Tatiana Panova. See: Babichenko D. Unpredictable past // Results. - 17.09.2002).
Some have tried to argue that this is not a poisoning, but a consequence of the treatment of syphilis with mercury ointments. However, as noted by ETC. Panova, “M.M. Gerasimov, the conclusion of some too zealous authors that Ivan IV from about 1565 (about twenty years) had syphilis. The same illness (and since the same time!) Allegedly suffered his eldest son Ivan. The authors of this idea did not even stop the age of the boy - he was only 10 years old then! There are no traces of venereal diseases on the bones of the skeleton, or on the skull of Ivan Vasilyevich and his son, but they should have been if they really had syphilis ”(Panova T. Time, time, poison was given ... // Knowledge is power. - №12. - 2000).
After in the 1990-ies conducted a study of the graves of grand duchess and queens, the fact of poisoning by the same merciless mother of Ivan IV Elena Glinsky (1538) and his first wife Anastasia Romanova (1560) was revealed. This indicates that the royal family, including the king himself, for decades was the victim of poisoners from close entourage.
The data from these studies suggested that Prince Ivan Ivanovich was poisoned. Thus, modern historical science refutes the version of the murder of his son by Tsar John Vasilyevich.
But who could be his killer?
The father of the myth of “sonicide” was a Jesuit and papal legate Antonio Possevino, who avenged the king for refusing to negotiate a union with Rome. It was he who spread rumors about this "crime" of Ivan IV in Europe. Possevino knew in advance about the death of the king himself: two years before his death, the Jesuit reported her to the Venetian government. Possevino came to Moscow shortly before the death of the prince, who was against peace with Batory, and could disrupt the plans of the legate who wanted to exchange aid in peace with Poland to an agreement on religious union of Moscow and Rome.
For Possevino, it was not difficult to reach an agreement with opposition-minded boyars, and the prince fell silent forever. And then Posevino composed the myth of suicide.
The king also died very timely for Rome and Poland: at the beginning of 1584, Batory began preparing for a new war with Moscow with the blessing of the Pope. A “shuttle” diplomacy of papal legates began near the Russian borders. And after a couple of months, Ivan IV was gone. The chronicler reported that "the people were poisoned by the king." Deacon Ivan Timofeev said that Godunov and Belsky "prematurely stopped the life of the king." Dutchman Isaac Massa claimed that Belsky had put poison in the royal medicine. Horsey wrote about the secret designs of the Godunovs against Ivan the Terrible.
Everything converges: and who could, and who benefits.
And finally, the ultima ratio in favor of the above version is the Jesuit motto: “The end justifies the means”.
Ivan the Terrible. Hood Victor Vasnetsov. Xnumx
One of the ways to oppose this process is to counter the falsification of the history of our Fatherland, to preserve the historical truth about our statesmen. Among them, Ivan the Terrible, the first Russian tsar, laid the foundations of the modern multinational and multi-religious Russian state. That is why he was appointed by the enemies of Russia the role of the bloodiest tyrant in the history of mankind.
But the significance of historical figures must be judged by the results of their rule. If you look at the results of the reign of Ivan IV, we will see that he ruled 43 of the year, and during this time the territory of the state increased almost 2 times, the population grew by about 30%, administrative, judicial and military reforms were carried out, a network of primary schools was created and the postal service, organized printing, founded 155 new cities and fortresses, built more than a hundred churches and monasteries. The tsar laid the foundation for the convocation of the Zemstvo councils, introduced the election of the local administration, which helped the peoples of the Russian state to overcome the Troubles of the early 17th century. The king himself wrote church hymns and became the founder of Russian journalism.
As for his alleged “tyranny”, during the years of his rule no more than 5000 people, including criminals, were executed. For comparison: during the reign of, for example, the contemporary of Ivan IV, the French king Charles IX, during the night of St. Bartholomew, Catholics killed around 30 000 Protestants. In the 16th century, when Ivan the Terrible was ruling, 70 000 people were hanged in England for vagrancy. These figures prove that the special “bloodthirstiness” of the Terrible-king is a lie.
There are one among the falsified "victims" of Ivan IV, about which everyone has heard.
Here is how Nikolai Karamzin described this event:
“In his eldest son, John, the tsar was preparing Russia for his second self: doing important things together with him ... along with him, voluptuous and ruining people ... But, expressing the bitterness of the heart and the unrest in lustfulness in a young man, [the prince] showed the mind deeds and sensitivity to fame or at least to the dishonor of the fatherland. During peace talks, suffering for Russia, reading sorrow and on the faces of the boyars, hearing, maybe (hereinafter highlighted by me. - VM), and the general grumbling, the prince was filled with noble jealousy, came to his father and demanded that he sent him with an army to expel the enemy, to liberate Pskov, to restore the honor of Russia. John shouted in agitation of anger: “Rebel! You and the boyars want to overthrow me from the throne! ”- and raised his hand. Boris Godunov wanted to hold her, the king gave him several wounds with his sharp wand and hit the prince hard in the head. This unhappy fell, drenched in blood. Here the fury of John disappeared. Pale with horror, in trembling, in a frenzy, he exclaimed: “I killed my son!” - and rushed to embrace, kiss him; holding the blood flowing from a deep ulcer; crying, sobbing, calling the healers; begged God for mercy, son for forgiveness. But the judgment of heaven is accomplished. The prince, kissing the hands of his father, gently showed him love and compassion; persuaded him not to indulge in despair; he said that he was dying a faithful son and subjects ... All mourned the fate of the sovereign young man who could live for happiness and virtue. ”
The only credible fact in all this sentimental history is that the prince died in November 1581 of the year. Doctor of Historical Sciences Vladimir Kobrin notes that "the death of the heir to the throne caused puzzled discord among contemporaries and controversy among historians." There were many versions of the death of the prince, but in each of them the main evidence was the words "maybe", "most likely", "probably" and "presumably."
The tomb of Ivan the Terrible and his sons in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin
In the scientific commentaries to the above quotation from Karamzin it is written: “Ivan the Terrible killed his son in other circumstances. Once the king went to his son's chambers and saw his pregnant wife dressed not according to the rules: it was hot, and instead of three shirts she put on only one. The king began to beat the daughter-in-law, and the son - to protect her. Then the Terrible and struck his son a fatal blow to the head. "
A similar version was followed by Kazimir Walishevsky:
“Ivan allegedly met his daughter-in-law in the inner chambers of the palace and noticed that her costume did not fully meet the requirements of decency. It is possible that in her position she did not wear a belt over her chemise. Offended by this, the hegumen-king struck her with such force that the next night she was first relieved of the burden. Naturally, the prince did not refrain from reproaching the king. Grozny flared up and swung his staff. Mortal blow was struck the prince in the temple. "
Kobrin recognizes this story as the most "plausible": "Looks like the truth, but it cannot be checked or proved another version: the prince interceded with his father for his pregnant wife, who the father-in-law" taught "with a stick ...". However, since when can a person be found guilty of murder on the basis of a version that cannot be "neither verified nor proven," even if it is "similar to the truth"?
Already in this "consumer" version, you can see a number of inconsistencies. They write that the princess put on one dress of the three due to the heat. Is it in November, then? Another author points to the absence of a belt that allegedly infuriated Tsar Ivan, who accidentally met his daughter-in-law in the "inner chambers of the palace." This version is completely unreliable: the king was difficult to meet the princess "dressed not according to the statute", and even in the inner chambers.
Ivan the Terrible at the body of the son he murdered. Hood Vyacheslav Schwartz. Xnumx
Each member of the royal family had separate mansions, connected with other parts of the palace by cold transitions in winter. The family of the prince lived in such a separate tower. His wife was on the female half of the chamber, the entrance to which was always locked, and the key was in her husband's pocket. She could get out of there only with the permission of her spouse and accompanied by servants and maids who would take care of her decent clothes. In addition, the princess was pregnant, and she would not be allowed to walk in the cold halls "in one shirt". Metropolitan John (Snychev) is right in pointing out that the absurdity of this version is so obvious that historians needed to find a more credible motive for the “crime”.
Thus, another tale appeared in the presentation of Karamzin - the version of “political sonicide”: quarrels over negotiations with the Poles. “They say that the king was afraid of the young energy of his son, envied him, was suspicious of the prince’s aspiration to lead the troops in the war against the Commonwealth ... Alas, all these versions are based only on dark and contradictory rumors,” Professor Kobrin echoed Vladyka John.
Indeed, there are no fewer contradictions in this version than in the “household” one. The entire episode in Karamzin is based on the discontent of the prince, "reading on the faces" (!) Of the boyars and hearing "universal grumbling" "during peace talks." That is, according to Karamzin, the prince expresses discontent with the course of the Russian-Polish negotiations. But the prince died in November 1581 of the year, and negotiations with Poland began on December 13 of 1581, almost a month after his death. How can you be dissatisfied with the course of negotiations, which have not yet begun, historians are silent.
There is such a version of “sonicide”. In the 1580 year (another date —1578), foreign speculation in alcohol in the German Quarter was suppressed. Tsarevich allegedly defended underground vodka merchants: “The Tsar became infuriated with ... Tsarevich Ivan, because he showed compassion for this unfortunate ... In rage, he struck him with a rod ... in the ear and so dearly (sweet European irony! - VM) that he fell ill with a fever and died on the third day ... The state lost hope of having a sovereign of a wise and meek prince, a hero with a spirit and beautiful appearance, 23 years old (27 years. - V.M.) loved and mourned by everyone ”(Jerome Horsey). And in another translation from English of this place in the writings of Gorsey, the blow with a rod is described as ... just a slap in the face!
This version of events is no less far-fetched than all the others. The acuteness of a quarrel does not correspond to its limitations: from a year to three years have passed. However, the most interesting thing is that at first its authors argue that the prince is a likeness of his father. “Ivan ... physically and morally reminded him of his father, who shared classes and fun with him” (Valishevsky). According to the "testimony" of Oderborn, the father and son "changed their mistresses." Together, they "voluntarily loved and destroyed people" (Karamzin). As Kobrin summarized, the prince was a worthy heir to his father.
All the false abominations that were said about the father are repeated against the son. And suddenly, after his death, everything changes. Karamzin paints an image of a dearly loving son who, dying, "kisses the hands of his father ... all mourn the fate of the sovereign youth ..." (27 years? You would have written a boy. - VM). At Gorsey, the prince became "wise and gentle, a hero and a handsome man beloved by all." Valishevsky writes that the prince was very popular and his death became a national disaster.
Turning a “bloodthirsty monster” into a “beloved nation” says that either the first or the second is a lie. Let everyone decide for himself where the truth is, the author joins the opinion of Metropolitan John (Snychev) about the unfoundedness of all versions of the murder of his son by the king.
It really is. In the Moscow chronicler, under the 7090, we read the year (the chronicles are quoted on the PSRL): “Prince Ivan Ivanovich ceases to live”; in Piskaryovskiy: “On 12, the night of summer on 7090 [1581] November on 17 is the day ... the death of Prince Ivan Ivanovich”; in the Novgorod IV Chronicle: “The same [7090] year, the reign of Ivan Ivanovich on the matins in Sloboda ...”; in Morozovskaya: "Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich was not."
In the given annals there is not a word about the murder.
The quarrel and the death of the prince are not connected with each other, as indicated by the entry in the Second Archival List of the Pskov III Annals. Here, under the summer, 7089 (from 01.09.1580 to 01.09.1581) recorded a quarrel (as a rumor): “Netsyi say, like the son of his prince Ivan, for the sake of his visitation, he taught us about the rescue of the city of Pskov”. And under the summer of 7090 (from 01.09.1581 to 01.09.1582), the prince’s death is said: “Prince Ivan Ivanovich died in the December suburb in the same year [December was mistakenly indicated. - vm] on xnumx day. " If you believe this message, the difference between the quarrel and the death of the prince is at least more than two months (14 year when the quarrel occurred, ended August 7089 31 year, and the death of the prince occurred in November 1581 year, that is, in November 7090 year, because the new year then began on September 1581).
It is possible to point out the message of Jacques Margeret: “It is rumored that the eldest [son] he [the king] killed with his own hand, what happened differently, because, although he hit his end with a rod ... and he was hit by a blow, he did not from this, and some time later, on a pilgrimage journey. "
So the version of the murder of his son by the king is unreliable and has no documentary evidence. But if the father did not kill the prince, how did he die? Regarding the Tsarevich’s illness, it is possible to say definitely: it was poisoning with mercuric chloride (HgCl2 mercury chloride).
Ivan the Terrible at the body of the son he murdered. Hood Nikolay Shustov. 1860's
In 1963, the tombs of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar Theodore Ivanovich and Prince Skopin-Shuisky were uncovered in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Scientists have found that in the bones of Tsar Ivan IV and Tsarevich Ivan, the presence of mercury is much higher than the allowable rate (for both, about 1,3 mg, more than 30 times the maximum allowable level in 0,04 mg). In addition, the remains of an arsenic prince were almost twice as large as their father’s - 0,26 mg with the maximum allowable level in 0,08 mg (according to the information of the chief archaeologist of the Moscow Kremlin Museum-Reserve, doctor of historical sciences Tatiana Panova. See: Babichenko D. Unpredictable past // Results. - 17.09.2002).
Some have tried to argue that this is not a poisoning, but a consequence of the treatment of syphilis with mercury ointments. However, as noted by ETC. Panova, “M.M. Gerasimov, the conclusion of some too zealous authors that Ivan IV from about 1565 (about twenty years) had syphilis. The same illness (and since the same time!) Allegedly suffered his eldest son Ivan. The authors of this idea did not even stop the age of the boy - he was only 10 years old then! There are no traces of venereal diseases on the bones of the skeleton, or on the skull of Ivan Vasilyevich and his son, but they should have been if they really had syphilis ”(Panova T. Time, time, poison was given ... // Knowledge is power. - №12. - 2000).
After in the 1990-ies conducted a study of the graves of grand duchess and queens, the fact of poisoning by the same merciless mother of Ivan IV Elena Glinsky (1538) and his first wife Anastasia Romanova (1560) was revealed. This indicates that the royal family, including the king himself, for decades was the victim of poisoners from close entourage.
The data from these studies suggested that Prince Ivan Ivanovich was poisoned. Thus, modern historical science refutes the version of the murder of his son by Tsar John Vasilyevich.
But who could be his killer?
The father of the myth of “sonicide” was a Jesuit and papal legate Antonio Possevino, who avenged the king for refusing to negotiate a union with Rome. It was he who spread rumors about this "crime" of Ivan IV in Europe. Possevino knew in advance about the death of the king himself: two years before his death, the Jesuit reported her to the Venetian government. Possevino came to Moscow shortly before the death of the prince, who was against peace with Batory, and could disrupt the plans of the legate who wanted to exchange aid in peace with Poland to an agreement on religious union of Moscow and Rome.
For Possevino, it was not difficult to reach an agreement with opposition-minded boyars, and the prince fell silent forever. And then Posevino composed the myth of suicide.
The king also died very timely for Rome and Poland: at the beginning of 1584, Batory began preparing for a new war with Moscow with the blessing of the Pope. A “shuttle” diplomacy of papal legates began near the Russian borders. And after a couple of months, Ivan IV was gone. The chronicler reported that "the people were poisoned by the king." Deacon Ivan Timofeev said that Godunov and Belsky "prematurely stopped the life of the king." Dutchman Isaac Massa claimed that Belsky had put poison in the royal medicine. Horsey wrote about the secret designs of the Godunovs against Ivan the Terrible.
Everything converges: and who could, and who benefits.
And finally, the ultima ratio in favor of the above version is the Jesuit motto: “The end justifies the means”.
Information