Most of all, of course, the most famous Rurikovich, Ivan the Terrible, inherited from the mother of history. He went down in history as a cruel tyrant, an inept manager and a mentally ill person. However, it’s strange, it was under Ivan the Terrible Russian army wins his most impressive victories. The territory of the Russian state increases exactly twice and acquires, by the way, the outlines modern Russia. Moreover, few people pay attention to the well-known facts - it was he, Ivan the Terrible, who created the first Russian parliament - Zemsky Sobor, during which the Judicial Code was adopted for the first time, military reform. The country becomes a world power for the first time. Somehow these achievements do not fit in with the well-known image of a maniac who has lost his mind. So who was Ivan the Terrible really and why did he get so much from history?
The most important sin attributed to Ivan the Terrible is the death of his eldest son. However, the king himself would be greatly surprised to hear such a thing. And after another two hundred years, no one heard anything about the murder of the king's heir.
Nikolai Shakhmagonov, historian, member of the Union of Writers of Russia, says: “One historian said that “Ivan the Terrible did not even suspect that he had killed his son.” That is, nowhere, in any domestic sources, this is mentioned.
But why did John Ivanovich die then?
It is documented that the prince was very ill. Information about this was preserved in the correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with the boyar Yuryev.
Boris Yakimenko tells about one of the letters: “He writes that “we cannot go to Moscow, because our Tsarevich Ivan fell ill, until the Lord has mercy, we cannot go.” It would seem, why not go, it's a common thing, the person got sick. But apparently, he was so shocked that he decided to wait for the outcome after all. The prince died a week later.
It would seem that modern forensic experts could reliably establish the cause of death of the heir to the royal throne. Back in 1963, scientists performed an autopsy of the burial of John Ioannovich in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
Vladimir Lavrov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Institute Russian history RAS, explains why the cause of death was never determined: “We were hoping to see if there was a dent in the skull. If the king really hit his son on the head with a staff, then there should be a dent. They opened the coffin, but from the influx fresh air the skull collapsed before our eyes, and it was not possible to see whether this dent is there or not.”
But, fortunately, something turned out to be found out. Experts were able to say with confidence that there were no traces of blood on the hair of the prince! They would remain even after centuries - it is impossible to wash away such particles, especially since it was reported that the bleeding was very profuse. So what caused the death of John Ioannovich?
Vladimir Lavrov continues: “A lot of mercury and arsenic were found in the remains: mercury in 32, arsenic - 3 times more than the norm.”
Some experts tried to object: mercury was part of many drugs - for example, for syphilis, which was very common at that time. But traces of the disease would certainly have remained in the body, and the examination would have discovered them. But they weren't! It turns out that the prince was specially poisoned. And it looks like it's not just him...
Vladimir Lavrov shares other discoveries: “Elevated mercury content was found in the remains of Ivan the Terrible, and in the remains of his beloved first wife Anastasia from the Romanov family, and in the remains of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible’s mother, Elena Glinskaya. Obviously, they were persecuting ... It seems that Ivan the Terrible's suspicion was not on empty place, apparently, the family was destroyed.
Members royal family one after the other was simply killed. Behind a short time almost all representatives of the Rurik dynasty die. Grozny's first child dies under absurd circumstances: his nanny drops him in ice water. And Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest of the sons, according to one version, falling, pricks himself with a knife. But that's not all...
Vladimir Lavrov reports another amazing fact: “Examination of the remains of Elena Glinskaya, mother of Ivan Vasilyevich, shows that she may have been expecting another child. Maybe someone didn't want him to be born."
But if there was no murder and modern examinations confirm this, where did this terrible legend? Why does this image of a maniac who has lost his mind appear in the West, and then much later in Russian textbooks? It turns out that this historical misinformation has a specific author. His name is well known, it is the ambassador of the Vatican, Antonio Passevino. It was he who came to Ivan the Terrible with the mission to convert Russian state into Catholicism. But he got a tough rebuff.
Nikolai Shakhmagonov claims that the matter went like this: “Ivan the Terrible allegedly answered him: “You say, Anthony, that your Roman faith is one with the Greek faith? And we carry the true Christian faith, but not the Greek one. The Greeks are not the gospel to us. We do not have a Greek, but a Russian faith.” And he rejected all his attempts, leaving Rus' in the bosom of Orthodoxy. Antonio Passevino was very angry about this, because he had to report to the Pope that the mission had failed. And then he came up with the myth that Tsar Ivan was completely uncontrollable, completely crazy, that he killed his son.”
Moreover, this myth even has two variants. At first, Passevino claimed that the reason for the quarrel between father and son was that Grozny, bursting into the chambers of his daughter-in-law, hit her. The prince rushed to the defense of his wife and was killed by his own father. But the author was explained that even the tsar simply could not get into the bedroom of his son's wife - the existing orders did not allow it. Then Passevino had to rewrite both the report and memoirs. He proposed a second version, which Karamzin later presented in his writings.
Vladimir Lavrov voices this version: “There was a dispute between Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and his son Ivan Ivanovich because the son wanted to lead the army and fight with Poland, and his father was for peace. A quarrel arose, followed by a blow to the head with a staff, and everything ended tragically.
And supposedly tragic for the king himself. The same Passevino describes how the Russian tsar was tormented by the death of his son: he often woke up at night and began to scream and cry. He was forced back into bed and hardly calmed down.
Boris Yakimenko comments on the state of the tsar: “He changed so much even outwardly, as sources say, that it became clear that this death of his son drew some line under his life, after that he really lived only three years. So, of course, this tragedy lies with him. And, moreover, she shows us him not as a cruel man, a fanatic, but as a man just so shocked that it completely changed his whole being, as a very sensitive person, as a person who deeply repented of what happened.
For a psychologist, the behavior of Ivan the Terrible would be a weighty argument in favor of his innocence. Two years after the death of his son, the tsar arrives at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. He weeps, makes obeisances and leaves a lot of money for the memory of the prince's soul. And at the boyar duma one day he will say: "The death of my son is my sin." He deeply grieved that he could not save his son from trouble, because he dearly loved his firstborn.
Vladimir Lavrov argues: “Here was such a phrase: “The death of my son is my sin.” But how should this phrase be interpreted? That is, he did not say: “I killed”, in the perception of a believer it could be that “I committed some sinful acts, and for this the Lord punished my son.”
Ivan Vasilievich is portrayed as a tyrant and tyrant, while forgetting that he was truly a popularly elected tsar. In the midst of a confrontation with the boyars, he and his family left Moscow in December 1564, as if abdicating the throne, and went to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. The people demanded from the boyars and priests to persuade the tsar to return...
It is also customary to remain silent about his humanitarian reforms. But the first printed books, pharmacies and the fire department are all innovations of Ivan IV. Would a tyrant care so much for his people?
The English diplomat and trade agent Jerome Horsey, who wrote his Notes on Russia, assured that Ivan IV executed almost 700,000 people in Novgorod. However, the population of the city in those years was hardly more than 30,000.
The motives and resentment of Horsey are understandable - he did business in Moscow uncleanly and was expelled for bribery, eventually losing a solid income.
Moreover, with a detailed calculation, it turns out that during the entire reign of Ivan Vasilyevich - and this is more than half a century - no more than 4,000 people were actually executed in Russia. And only by court order and in accordance with the law! For crimes and treason.
The fate of Prince Ivan Kurakin is indicative, from which Western chroniclers made an example of persecution. In fact, Kurakin participated in a conspiracy against the king and was subject to execution. But the church hierarchs begged Ivan Vasilyevich to pardon the prince, and he was appointed governor of the city of Wenden.
By the way, this one is very ancient city was the capital of the province of the Wends - European Slavs, and now it is called the Latvian Cesis. In Russian chronicles, he is sometimes listed as Kes or Kis. This city and its castle was the center of Livonia and in the reign of Ivan the Terrible was a province of the Moscow principality. There were always wars for him. When the city was besieged by the Poles, Prince Kurakin went on a drinking binge, and Wenden was taken. According to our concepts, the governor would be subject to a military tribunal. Ivan the Terrible argued the same way. However, the verdict to the princes and boyars was still approved by the Zemsky Sobor! Does all this show the king as a bloody madman? ..
But the myth of sonicide has become so firmly established in consciousness that even educated and who know history artists took it as a basis in their works. Even people who are not versed in painting will call the famous painting “Ivan the Terrible kills his son.” In fact, the canvas of the great Russian artist Ilya Repin has a different name - "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581." It is this date that is considered the day of the death of the prince.
Says Tatyana Yudinkova, secretary of the Tretyakov Gallery: “We should not perceive a work of art, in particular paintings as an illustration of historical events.
The fact that Repin's painting has nothing to do with history, guides must tell visitors to the Tretyakov Gallery. And there are a lot of similar canvases, says Tatyana Yudinkova.
Tatyana Yudinkova explains: “I must say that in many works that hang here in Tretyakov Gallery, violated historical truth. This is normal, because the artist has a somewhat different task: for him historical event is an occasion that inspires him, and his artistic fantasy leads the artist further.
Russian historical science began to actively form relatively recently - in the 18th century. And our history was written mainly by foreigners (?!), people who not only did not know the Russian language, but also did not want to learn it ...
Despite contradictions or frankly absurd claims, the fantasies of Western historians have fallen into official sources and ingrained in our minds. Or maybe it was done on purpose. After all, in order for the people to have no future, it is enough to take away the past.
It remains to be added that Ivan the Terrible ruled for 50 years and 104 days. Agree, a period worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. His reign was marked by great victories and great reforms, which elevated our country to the pedestal of world power. Ivan the Terrible is perhaps the biggest victim of black PR. After all, if the rumor had developed differently, there would have been a monument to him in the center of Moscow as an outstanding figure Russian state. And instead, in the Tretyakov Gallery hangs famous painting, which tells about an event that did not happen in life.
Ivanovich, was killed by his own father. In a fit of anger, the king poked his offspring with his staff in the temple with all his might. The blow was accurate and strong - the crown prince died on the spot. It is also surprising what kind of son Ivan the Terrible killed! The most beloved, the eldest, the one on whom he laid big hopes, because his second descendant, Fedor, was not ready to rule the country initially.
Over the past more than four hundred and fifty years, history has been overgrown with many legends, put forward different versions happened. Until now, the exact date of the death of the Tsarevich has not been established. Some researchers suggest that the tragedy occurred as early as 1581, in November, others call the year 1582, and still others, which are the majority, still adhere to the date July 3, 1583. By by and large, the numbers are not so important, the main task- to understand why Ivan the Terrible killed his son, and did he kill him at all? Let's try to figure it out.
First version. Political
Nikolai Karamzin in his "History" voiced that politics became a stumbling block between father and son. Filled with noble jealousy, the Tsarevich came to his parent and demanded that Pskov be liberated, the enemy driven out, and honor restored. Russian Empire. In anger, John shouted that his son, along with the boyars, wanted to overthrow him from the throne, and raised his hand. Boris Godunov tried to hold her back, but the tsar inflicted several wounds on the nobleman with his sharp rod, and then hit the crown prince with force in the head. He fell, covered in blood. The death of Ivan - the son of Ivan the Terrible - came instantly. It is noteworthy that this version, which Karamzin considered true, was originally put forward by Antonio Possevino, the papal legate, who, it must be admitted, was, if not the most interested witness, then certainly not an independent one. Therefore, the reliability of such a presentation is very doubtful, especially since it is not confirmed by any other evidence. Then why did Ivan the Terrible kill his son? Go ahead.
Second version. Zhiteiskaya
Only officially, Tsar John Vasilyevich was married at least seven times. As you know, the apple does not fall far from the tree. So the young Tsarevich tried to keep up with his father. His first wife was Saburov's daughter, Evdokia Bogdanova, after an unsuccessful marriage, she was forcibly tonsured a nun. The second wife, Feodosia Mikhailova, daughter of Solovov, suffered the same fate - she ended her life in a monastery. By 1583 Ivan was married to the daughter of the youngest of the Sheremetev brothers, Elena. One morning, John Vasilyevich saw the pregnant wife of the Tsarevich in an inappropriate form: her belt was not tied, and she walked wide open married woman did not fit. The king got angry and gave a couple of good slaps in the face to his daughter-in-law. Elena fell and hit herself, and the next night she lost her child. Immediately, the crown prince ran into the chambers and began to reproach his father, he stood up for his wife, for which he received a staff in the temple. It turns out that's why Ivan the Terrible killed his son! However, not everything is clear here either. The author of this version was the same Antonio Possevino, who found it beneficial to present the ruler as a ruthless son-killer in order to legitimize the European Inquisition. So what happened anyway?
Third version. love
He was very eager for the female sex and, according to testimonies, did not miss a single skirt. Once, somewhere in the wards, he met Elena, the wife of Tsarevich Ivan, whom we have already spoken about, and began to force her into cohabitation. It is not known for certain whether John Vasilievich eventually became a daughter-in-law (in Rus', a man who shared one woman with his son has long been called so), but the young princess told her husband about the harassment, and he decided to sort things out with his father. How it all ended, we know. The son fell with a broken temple, and his wife after some time was sent to a monastery. But is this really what happened?
Fourth version. refuting
Historians who lived much later than Ivan Vasilyevich and his offspring thought: “Did Ivan the Terrible kill his son?” Perhaps this is just a fascinating legend? In other words, disinformation and slander? Indeed, at the present time the very fact of sonicide raises great doubts. To understand why it is worth doubting, let's turn to 1883-1885 - the time when the work of art "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581" appeared from under the brush of the famous Russian artist Ilya Repin.
Painting "Ivan the Terrible kills his son"
It was under this name that the canvas became known to the general public, which depicts how the Russian Tsar inflicted death blow. On the patterned red carpets in the twilight of the chambers lies an abandoned wand next to the overturned throne, and in the very center of the chambers two figures are lit up: the father, who has just done the irreparable in an angry outburst, and the son dying in his arms. Despair, immeasurable love and horror expresses the face of Ivan Vasilievich, he convulsively hugs the Tsarevich, tries to stop the blood, holding the wound on his head, and the son, forgiving his father, falls to his chest. The senile appearance of the king with sharpened features looks in his lostness at the same time pitiful and scary. Ivan's face, in comparison with him, is more "alive", spiritualized, humane. Pity for his father overwhelms the Tsarevich, he feels a sense of forgiveness, it elevates him above all the petty passions unworthy of a person, which caused his death, cleanse the soul. This is precisely what the picture “Ivan the Terrible kills his son” demonstrates.
The fate of Repin's work
Now the canvas is stored in Moscow, in the Tretyakov Gallery. A group of Orthodox activists and historians in 2013 asked to be removed from there, as it offends the patriotic feelings of Russians. The request was denied. I must say, this is not the first attack on the picture. When it was first presented to the general public at the 13th traveling exhibition, all Petersburg was excited. Spectators literally besieged the building where the canvas hung. There were fierce disputes: the intelligentsia and progressive youth were enthusiastically enthusiastic, while other Petersburgers were indignant: “Is it possible to show filicide?” Among those who did not like the work was the emperor Alexander III, as a result, on April 1, 1885, it was banned from showing. It was the first painting to be censored in the Russian Empire. However, already three months later, at the request of the artist A. Bogolyubov, who was close to the court, the ban was lifted.
Was there a murder?
At this very exhibition in St. Petersburg in 1885, the painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son” was noticed by the outstanding Russian thinker and chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev. He was outraged by its plot, because, in his opinion, fiction was presented as fact. Pobedonostsev wrote a letter in which he said that this painting cannot be called historical, because the depicted moment is purely fantastic. How so? We have always been told about the murder of Tsarevich Ivan by Ivan Vasilyevich as an indisputable fact, even in school textbooks it is written about this as an example of how cruel Russian autocracy. It was not entirely clear why Ivan the Terrible killed his son. And how did such information get into historical literature, no one thought.
dramatic event
In 1913, something strange happened at the Tretyakov Gallery. When examining the painting by Ilya Repin "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan on November 16, 1581", the icon painter Abram Balashov shouted: "Too much blood!" He then attacked the painting with a knife and cut it open. Immediately Repin arrived in Moscow and, together with Igor Grabar, his former student and a well-known restorer, took up restoration. In the press, the attempt on the work of painting received an extensive response, a dispute was even arranged on the topic of how ordinary people relate to the image of royal persons. Repin was unexpectedly accused of deliberately provoking people to aggression and of not understanding the situation that had taken shape in Russia. The artist was confused and very annoyed. He left Moscow in frustrated feelings and decided that he would never come to this city again.
Why did the prince die?
Metropolitan John of Ladoga and St. Petersburg in his book "Autocracy of the Spirit" denied the fact of the murder and stated that the death of Ivan the Terrible's son was due to a serious illness. Indeed, in the surviving historical documents there is no mention of sonicide. On the other hand, numerous factors were discovered that certify that the crown prince died as a result of poisoning. V. Manyagin in his 2003 work “The Leader of the Militant Church” wrote that Ivan was poisoned with sublimate, a poison that causes painful death if taken in an amount of 0.18 grams.
Exhumation
In the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin in 1963, four tombs were opened: the commander Skopin-Shuisky, Tsarevich Ivan, Tsar John Vasilyevich, Tsar. During the study of the remains, scientists found that all four skeletons contain approximately equal amounts of arsenic, and it does not exceed the norm. However, in the bones of Tsarevich Ivan and Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the presence of mercury in a dose significantly exceeding the permissible norm was found. Some historians argued that this was not poisoning, but the consequences of treatment with mercury ointments for syphilis. But as a result of the research, no syphilitic changes were found in the remains of representatives of the royal family.
New facts
In the 1990s, a study was made of the burial places of the great Moscow queens and princesses. As a result, it turned out that Elena Glinskaya, the mother of Ivan the Terrible, who died in 1538, and his first wife, who died in 1560, were poisoned with sublimate. That is, the royal family was a victim of poisoning for several decades. The data of these and other studies led to the conclusion that the murder of the son of Ivan the Terrible by his own father is a fiction, but in fact he was poisoned, this is supported by the fact that the content of poison in his remains exceeds the permissible norm many times. Thus, science categorically refutes the version of sonicide.
The son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan (Ioan Ioannovich) was born in 1554, in the first marriage of the tsar with Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina-Yuryeva. WITH early age prepared for the role of the future tsar, successor to Ivan the Terrible. Tsarevich Ivan accompanied his father on some military campaigns, took part in embassy receptions and many solemn events state significance, participated in the board along with the king. Ivan Ivanovich was even considered as a candidate for the crown of Poland (after the death of the last of the Jagiellons). Having ascended the throne, he would have ensured the reconciliation of the Commonwealth and Rus', making the two countries reliable allies. However, according to contemporaries, the prince did not play a significant political role in the life of the country.
About the life, and especially about the death of Tsarevich Ivan, not much information has survived to our time to finally separate facts and fiction. And in scientific historical circles there are still disputes whether the death of the prince was violent or can be considered the result of natural events.
Version one
Everyone famous picture Ilya Repin's "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan" illustrates the most known version death of the prince. The heir to the throne, according to some historians, was killed by the Terrible tip (top) of the staff in the temple. It is believed that the king hit his son in a fit of anger caused by a quarrel for some personal or political reasons.
According to the Jesuit monk Antonino Possevino, sent as a representative of the pope to resolve the Russian-Polish conflict, the tsar was angry with the wife of Tsarevich Ivan: “The third wife of Ivan’s son was once lying on a bench, dressed in an underdress, as she was pregnant and did not think that anyone would come in to her. unexpectedly visited her Grand Duke Moscow. She immediately got up to meet him, but it was already impossible to calm him down. The prince struck her in the face, and then beat her so with his staff, which was with him, that the next night she threw the boy away. At this time, son Ivan ran to his father and began to ask not to beat his wife, but this only drew the anger and blows of his father on himself. He was very seriously wounded in the head, almost in the temple, by the same staff.
The same version is confirmed by the Mazurin Chronicle, which also mentions the "osno" - a staff. The version of the murder of Tsarevich by Grozny was also supported by some historians, primarily Karamzin, based on the publication of which Repin painted his famous painting.
Version two
According to some historians, the reasons for the quarrel between the king and his son were not personal, but political differences. Allegedly, Ivan the Terrible did not allow the prince to power: he was afraid that common people Tsarevich Ivan will enjoy more love than the formidable king himself.
The quarrel was caused by the disagreement of the prince with the conduct of the Livonian War. Ivan Ivanovich criticized the need to conclude a truce, as a result of which Russia was losing significant territories. The king was extremely angry with the behavior of his son, which led to the tragedy.
Criticism
However, not everything in the version of the murder of the son by the king can be considered facts. And the main refutation is the results of the examination of the remains of Ivan the Terrible and Tsarevich Ivan, conducted in 1963. In the report of a specialist who examined the skeleton of the king - M.M. Gerasimov, it is indicated that the spine of Ivan IV lost its mobility due to the huge number of osteophytes. The whole body was blocked - deposits on the vertebrae formed a kind of locks that caused when moving severe pain.
The study leads to the conclusion that last years before his death, the king moved with great difficulty, for the most part he had to be carried on a stretcher. With such limited mobility, how could Ivan the Terrible swing his staff so hard to pierce the bones of the skull? With so many osteophytes, he would hardly even be able to raise his arm - severe pain in the spine with such diseases does not allow him to make sudden movements.
Unfortunately, due to temporary decomposition, the prince’s skull was not completely preserved, and therefore it is unambiguous to say whether it was damaged and whether there was a trace of a blow on it, in currently impossible.
The personality of the figure who told the world the news about the murder of the king's son also raises doubts. The Jesuit Antonino Possevino was sent to the court of Grozny by the pope in order to persuade the Russian tsar to the union of the Orthodox and catholic church. Among other instructions, the papal legate was charged with the duty to prevent an alliance between Stephen Batory and Ivan IV - it was beneficial for Rome Livonian War, so it significantly weakened the position of Russia. It is likely that Possevino put forward the version of the murder to show the cruelty of the king of a barbarian country.
Another, indirect, refutation of the version of the murder is the fact that none of the chronicles of that time (with the exception of the Mazurinskaya, the translation of which leaves doubts) contains even hints at the unnatural causes of the death of the prince.
However, the examination revealed another unusual detail: the tissues of the remains contained a huge amount of arsenic, lead and mercury. The maximum allowable amount of mercury was exceeded 32 times - and this involuntarily suggests the poisoning of the prince. However, the version with poisoning also does not have any significant evidence.
An interesting story with the demand of the "Orthodox community" (which was composed by I. Froyanov, a certain businessman Boyko-Veliky with his wife, some Bolotin and Lebedev, etc.) to remove I. Repin's painting "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan 16" from the Tretyakov Gallery November 1581" (1885), which offends their patriotic feelings, attracted attention last week. Letter sent by the public different people and organizations, was written in a special, traditional style of kings and contained interesting phrase: "modern historical science it is firmly established that the First Russian Tsar John did not kill his son. Next come the "prominent historians" - the late Metropolitan John (Snychev), who was not a historian and, apparently, did not write his own works. Froyanov, who was thrown from Kievan Rus, which he was engaged in, already in the 16th century, an apologist for the "holy" Rasputin Fomin, etc. They claim that "there was no" sonicide ", and a false rumor was deliberately launched by enemies in order to slander the pious Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible." http://zanuda.offtopic.su/viewtopic.php?id=12038
Let's try to figure it out. We should start with the fact that the selection of these people is not at all accidental. This whole company, in the words of the same I.E. Repin, “rotten originals on cabbage”, is united by the jingoistic, marginal newspaper “Russian Messenger”, militant Judeomorism, and simply friendly ties. So, it was Boyko-Veliky who published the “works” of Fomin, in which the latter debunked the conspiracy against the holy Tsar Ivan the Terrible and denounced I. Repin not so much for the picture, but for the details of life and respect for the Jews, along the way “proving” the lack of evidence of the murder son Ivan the Terrible. These kinds of topics, in which much more politics, anti-Semitism and self-delusion than science, have periodically arisen and arise in public space. Prince Vladimir was repeatedly declared an enemy of the primordial faith and originality for the Baptism of Rus' and the destruction of idols, Alexander Nevsky used to be listed as a collaborator and enemy of the Fatherland, Tsarevich Dimitri in Uglich was “tortured by the Jews”, after which he successfully escaped, and Godunov had “bloody boys in eyes." Now here is the first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible, who did not kill anyone. Main argument“Defenders” of Grozny is that all the sources that tell about the death of the prince are foreign and therefore biased, and the story itself was invented in order to denigrate Russia and the sovereign. That is, the arguments are quite in the spirit of the largest expert history XVI c., successor scientific school S.B. Veselovsky, S.O. Schmidt, A.L. Khoroshkevich, Doctor of Science Medinsky, to whom the authors of the letter refer. The doctor, however, was silent, so we'll figure it out ourselves.
So, let's consider the history of the conflict without pathos, politics and the mandatory conclusion about the need to beat the Jews and save Russia. And the story is very interesting. The well-known version is this. On November 9, 1581, in the Alexander Sloboda, where Ivan IV lived at that time, there was a quarrel between the tsar and the heir to the throne. Ivan the Terrible, in a rage, hit his son with the "osnom" (the tip of the staff) in the temple. Ivan Ivanovich fell seriously ill and died ten days later. Analysis of sources by this story made by A.A. Zimin. First of all, the sources are foreign. ABOUT tragic events x in Alexandrova Sloboda tells the papal envoy Antonio Possevino, who visited Moscow in early 1582. He says that the tsar unexpectedly entered the room of the tsarevich's wife, his daughter-in-law Elena Sheremeteva, when she, pregnant, was lying on a bench, dressed only in an underdress , which at the time was considered a liberty. The king, seeing her in inappropriate clothes, "hit her in the face, and then beat her so with his staff ... that the next night she threw out the boy." The prince attacked his father with reproaches, after which Grozny began to beat his son. The prince "was seriously wounded in the head, almost in the temple, by the same staff" and died on the fifth day. “Possevino's story,” writes B. Florya. is in good agreement with what we know about family life prince according to other sources. 
Aleksandrova Sloboda today (Assumption Monastery). The chambers where the conflict took place have not been preserved - they were wooden.
The Polish chronicler Reinhold Heidenstein writes that the cause of the quarrel was the conflict between Grozny and his son because the prince “preferred valor, courage, with which ... he could devastate his possessions with a sword and fire and take away most kingdoms." Allegedly, "the prince too insistently began to demand troops from his father in order to fight the royal troops." These versions were known to the Poles who besieged Pskov. Then the king again struck his son with a rod, "either from a blow or from severe mental pain, he fell into an epileptic illness, then into a fever, from which he died." The commander of Batory G. Farensbek writes about the same. Western European chroniclers P. Oderborn and I. Massa, stating their version of the quarrel, again write that “his father ... hit him on the temple with an iron staff. The half-dead son fell on the floor” Oderborn), “The king was very angry and hit his son on the head with a staff so that he died three days later” (I. Massa). The Englishman D. Horsey ends his version of the quarrel as follows: “in a fit of anger, he slapped him (the postscript “thrown a spear at him” by B.Ya.), the prince could not stand the blow, fell ill with a fever and died three days later.” French Margeret ( early XVII c.) no longer conveying any versions of the quarrel, he wrote that “there is a rumor that he killed his eldest son with his own hand, which happened otherwise, because although he hit him with the end of a rod with a four-sided steel point ... and he was wounded by a blow, he did not die from this, but some time later, on a journey on a pilgrimage.
So, we see that there is a serious difference in versions about the reasons for the quarrel between Ivan the Terrible and his son. “The diversity and contradictory nature of the news about the death of the prince,” wrote S.B. Veselovsky, - are explained simply by the fact that the whole thing took place in the inner chambers of the palace, accessible only to a few close associates. However, all authors agree that the result was the beatings and death of the prince. Apparently, the tragic denouement followed a conflict that had developed over time. Researchers of this period (B. Florya, S. Veselovsky, A. Zimin, R. Skrynnikov) note that the relationship between father and son was bad. The sources say the same. So, when the Danish ambassador J. Ulfeldt in 1578, introducing himself to the tsar, gave him “and the eldest son gilded goblets”, the tsar immediately demanded that younger son Fedor "was presented with gifts", which was, as the commentary on the text says, "evidence of some displeasure of the king in relation to his eldest son Ivan." In the spring of 1581, D. Belsky, who fled to Lithuania, said that "the tsar does not love his eldest son and often beats him with a stick." “The tsar had long suspected his eldest son of all sorts of intrigues,” A. Zimin wrote. - As a suspicious person, he imagined a new contender for the throne, as he previously considered Vladimir Staritsky. The immediate cause of the outbreak of the quarrel could be some trifle like the one reported by A. Possevino. The long-smoldering conflict ended in tragedy.
Tombs of Tsar Ivan the Terrible and his sons Ivan and Fyodor in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
They are located behind the iconostasis, in the altar part of the cathedral and are not accessible to visitors.
Is it possible that all foreign authors, as one, set out fictional story the death of a prince? Hardly. transfer modern technologies the creation and dissemination of compromising evidence 500 years ago can create a tempting and very understandable version of the death of the heir to our contemporaries, but all this will have nothing to do with reality. Not all foreign envoys were united in their desire to discredit the tsar (the Poles can be suspected of bias because of the Pskov war, but the rest are unlikely), especially since Russia in general and Moscow in particular at that time did not differ much from Europe in terms of their way of life and European cities, and Western European politicians were not saints either. It was impossible to discredit Grozny politically in this way, and religious conflict(Terrible was persistently sought to win over the Jesuits) is not visible in the sources. Therefore, there is no doubt that the conflict was (its causes are different in the sources) and its ending was tragic, and the authors are unanimous in this opinion.
The fact that this was the case is also confirmed by Russian sources, although not in such detail (often no mention is made of the causes of the conflict at all). Ivan the Terrible himself on November 12 (the conflict occurred, as we remember, on the 9th) wrote to H.R. of course, he is ill” “and God will have mercy on Ivan’s son for us until Kudov, it’s impossible to leave here.” In the Chronograph edition of 1617, it is said that “they say, as if from the father of your rage, take him sickness, and death from the sickness.” The Pskov chronicler writes that Grozny “beat his son with the ostem, that he taught him to talk about the rescue of the city of Pskov.” Dyak I. Timofeev wrote that the prince died when he wanted to keep the king from "some kind of dissimilarity."
Convincing evidence that the prince did not just die of illness, but Tsar Ivan played a decisive role in his death, is evidence that after what happened (as A. Possevino writes) “every night the prince, under the influence of grief or remorse, got out of bed and, clutching the walls of the bedroom with his hands, let out heavy groans. Sleeping bags could hardly put him on a bed laid out on the floor. Almost two years have passed, and the tragedy that happened to his son could not lose its sharpness for Ivan the Terrible. On January 6, 1583, in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the tsar asked the Trinity elders and his confessor to forever remember his son, and then “the tsarevich Ivanna wept and sobbed about that remembrance, and begged the tsar and sovereign, put six bows to the ground with his forehead with tears and sobbing." At the same time, the king announced the “forgiveness” of all the nobles he had executed and began sending generous contributions to monasteries in memory of the soul of his son, as well as to Athos, Sinai, and Jerusalem. He even thinks to renounce the throne and go to the Cyril Monastery. All this could hardly have happened if the prince simply died of illness - obviously, the king was the voluntary or involuntary cause of his death. It is no coincidence that real historians write that “Ivan Ivanovich died in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, and the cause of his death was a blow with a staff, complicated by blood poisoning” (A. Zimin), “Only one thing remains indisputable: the prince died from a blow with a staff that his father inflicted on him” . (B. Florya).
Thus, we come to the conclusion that the prince died at the hands of his father. I don’t know what kind of patriotic feelings this offends someone, but it is this tragedy that shows Tsar Ivan as a man extremely attached to his son, wounded by his own conscience and awareness of the irreparable, deeply believing and penitent. A man who carried in himself a very sensitive and affectionate soul, which clung so tightly to some people that they had to be torn off “with meat” and each time this left an unhealed wound in Grozny’s heart. “He loved his first wife with some especially sensitive, non-domostroy love,” wrote V. Klyuchevsky. “Just as unconsciously, he became attached to Sylvester and Adashev, and then to Malyuta Skuratov.” You can add - and son Ivan. In many respects, the result of this tragedy was the creation by the tsar of the famous canon to the angel of death, “The Canon to the Terrible Angel Governor Parthenius the Ugly”, which embodied the whole tragedy of his loneliness. Grozny changed a lot in appearance, aged dramatically, became indifferent to many things. Even in his spiritual letter shortly before his death, a letter more formal and soulless than which, according to V. Klyuchevsky, nothing could be, he reflected what disturbed his soul: “The body is exhausted, the spirit is sick, the wounds of the soul and body have multiplied, and there is no doctor who would heal me, I waited, who would mourn with me, and no one appeared, I did not find comforters. And it was the death of the prince, obviously, hastened the death of the king, which occurred at only 54 years old - by today's standards, at the age of flowering maturity of a person.
In turn, the attraction of the painting by I. Repin lies precisely in the fact that the artist was able to feel and convey all the horror that had taken possession of the king, after it became clear what had happened and that what had happened could not be corrected. The picture turned out to be so strong that some fainted in front of it. It has become a magnificent monument to Ivan the Tsar and Ivan the Man, one of the most complex and tragic sovereigns of our history.
Why did Ivan the Terrible kill his son?
After the death of his son, Ivan the Terrible lived for another three years. All this time, he "... yearned terribly; did not know a peaceful sleep: at night, as if frightened by ghosts, he jumped up, fell from the bed, lay in the middle of the room, groaned, yelled; subsided only from exhaustion; he forgot himself in a momentary slumber on the floor where they laid for him a mattress at the head, waited and was afraid of the morning light, afraid to see people and show them in his face the torment of a son-killer ... ”(IM Karamzin. “On the history of the state”).
In the life of Ivan the Terrible, who went down in history as a merciless tyrant, there were, perhaps, only two tragic events - the death of his beloved wife Anastasia and their son Ivan.
The tsarevich was the only truly close person for the monarch: in him, Ivan Vasilievich prepared a second himself. From a very early age, the tsar introduced his son to state affairs: together they were present in the Boyar Duma, traveled around the country, received foreign ambassadors. The ruler did not forget about the other side of the “education” of the heir: Ivan, along with his parent, participated in numerous orgies and murders. It seemed that the tsar did everything to ensure that his son was guilty of all mortal sins and could not blame his father for them, so that Russia would not expect any changes in its fate with the coming of the prince to power.
The heir learned the lessons of his father well: he was wayward, cunning, cruel, voluptuous. For the sake of the parent and at his own whim, he changed wives and mistresses, sometimes even shared concubines with his father. But at the same time, in political affairs showed great discretion and even dared to point out the king's mistakes. According to historical data, this was the reason for his quarrel with his father and, as a result, his death.
During peace negotiations with the Polish king Stefan Batory, the prince, accompanied by the boyars, came to the monarch and demanded that he send him with an army to liberate Pskov and drive the enemy out of Russian land, thereby restoring her honor. Ivan the Terrible was furious: "Rebel! You, along with the boyars, want to overthrow me from the throne!" In a fit of anger, the tsar waved his rod at his son, but Boris Godunov, who was nearby, tried to prevent a fight, for which he was severely beaten by the tsar. After that, Ivan the Terrible returned to his son and hit him hard on the head with a sharp rod. Here is how he describes further development events N.M. Karamzin: “This unfortunate fell, bleeding. Here the fury of Ioannov disappeared. Turning pale with horror, in awe, in a frenzy, he exclaimed: “I killed my son!” - and rushed to hug, kiss him; kept the blood flowing from a deep ulcer; wept, sobbed, called for doctors; prayed to God for mercy, son - for forgiveness. But the heavenly judgment came to pass!.. The prince kissed his father's hands, tenderly expressed his love and compassion to him; urged him not to despair; said that he was dying a faithful son and subject ... "
On November 19, 1581, the prince died in the Alexander Sloboda, and a few days later he was buried in the church of St. Michael the Archangel. The death of his son was a heavy burden on the shoulders of Ivan the Terrible: he was well aware that with his own hand he had killed not only himself native person, but also the future of his dynasty - the youngest son Fedor was completely incapable of governing the state.
Various sources also name other reasons for the fatal quarrel between Ivan the Terrible and the heir. One of them is rather banal: father and son did not share their mistress. Another is also connected with the king's unrequited love for a woman. Only this time the object of passion was Elena Sheremeteva - the third wife of Ivan's heir, a recognized beauty.
According to another version, in favor of which Antonio Possevino, the papal legate, who was in Russia at that time, testifies, Ivan the Terrible did not like any of the three wives of the prince. The king urged his son to get rid of them. So, the first two wives - Saburova and Paraskeva Mikhailovna Solovaya were forcibly tonsured as nuns.
At the age of 27, the prince made another attempt to improve his personal life and married Elena Ivanovna Sheremeteva, who also did not like her father-in-law. Once the king entered the palace chambers and saw her in one shirt. According to the concepts of those times, it was rather immodest - a woman was considered dressed if she had at least three shirts on. Despite Elena's pregnancy, the king began to beat her with his staff. The prince, who came running to the cries of his wife, naturally tried to stand up for her. During the ensuing fight, Ivan the Terrible struck his son with the same ill-fated blow to the head with a staff. Elena gave birth the next night dead child, and a few days later the prince died from a wound and mental shock.
An interesting version was put forward in 1963 by researchers of the remains of the royal family. The results of the analysis showed a high concentration of mercury - more than 1 g and arsenic - 0.26 mg in the bones of Tsarevich Ivan, almost the same as that of Ivan the Terrible himself. There are vague indications that, fearing poisoning, father and son accustomed their bodies to poisons, taking them in small portions. According to scientists, the state of the prince's body was such that if he had not received a fatal blow to the head, he would still have died after some time from chronic arsenic and mercury poisoning. It is possible that the data chemical substances were integral part medicines for venereal diseases, which the prince, leading a far from pious lifestyle, could well have been ill with. The answer to the question of how poisons got into the body of the heir to the Russian throne is still a mystery. There is no clear answer as to what caused the quarrel between father and son. One thing is clear: the death of the prince became a kind of heavenly punishment for Ivan the Terrible, on whose conscience there were thousands of ruined lives.
