Who created the reputation of a maniac for Tsar Ivan the Terrible?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Most of all from mother-story went, of course, to the most famous Rurikovich - Ivan the Terrible. He went down in history as a cruel tyrant, an inept manager and a mentally ill person. However, it is strange that it was under Ivan the Terrible that the Russian army won its most impressive victories.

The territory of the Russian state has doubled and acquired, by the way, the modern outlines of our Russia. Moreover, few people pay attention to well-known facts: it was he, Ivan the Terrible, who created the first Russian parliament - the Zemsky Sobor, under him the Judicial Code was adopted for the first time, and a military reform was carried out. The country became a world power for the first time. Something does not fit these achievements with the well-known portrait of a maniac out of his mind. So who really was Ivan the Terrible and why did he get so much from history?

The main sin attributed to Ivan the Terrible is the death of his eldest son. However, the king himself would have been very surprised to hear such a thing. Even two hundred years after the alleged murder of the heir, no one knew about him.

Nikolai Shakhmagonov, historian, member of the Writers' Union of Russia, states: « One historian said that "Ivan the Terrible did not even suspect that he had killed his son." That is, nowhere, in any domestic sources, is it said about it."

But why then did John Ioannovich die? It has been documented that the prince was very ill. Information about this was preserved in the correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with the boyar Yuriev.

Boris Yakimenko, Associate Professor of the Department of Russian History of the RUDN University, Candidate of Historical Sciences: “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, obviously, he was so shocked that he decided to wait all the same for the outcome. The prince dies in a week."

It would seem that the final cause of death of the heir to the royal throne could be established by modern forensic experts. Back in 1963, scientists performed an autopsy of the grave of John Ioannovich in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

Vladimir Lavrov, Chief Researcher, Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences: “Hoping to see if there is a dent in the skull. If the king really hit his son on the head with a staff, then there must be a dent. They opened the coffin, but from the influx of fresh air the skull collapsed before our eyes, and it was not possible to see whether there was this dent there or not”.

But, fortunately, we managed to find out something. Experts were able to say with confidence that there are no traces of blood on the prince's hair! They would have remained even after centuries, it is impossible to wash off such particles - all the more it was reported that the bleeding was very profuse - is impossible. So what caused the death of John Ioannovich?

Vladimir Lavrov says about the finds: "A lot of mercury and arsenic were found in the remains, mercury is 32 times more than the norm, arsenic - 3 times."

Some experts tried to argue: mercury was part of many drugs - for example, for syphilis, which was very common at that time. But traces of it would have remained in the body, and an examination would have found them - but no! It turns out that the prince was specially poisoned. And, it seems, not only him …

Vladimir Lavrov: “As the results of the study show, an increased content of mercury 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. It looks like they were being hounded. And this suspicion of Ivan the Terrible, obviously, was not out of the blue. It looks like the family was being destroyed."

The members of the royal family were simply killed one by one. In a short time, almost all representatives of the Rurik dynasty died. The first child of Grozny died under ridiculous circumstances: the nanny dropped him into icy water. And Tsarevich Dmitry, the youngest of the sons, according to one of the versions, fell on a knife. But that's not all …

Vladimir Lavrov: “An examination of the remains of Elena Glinskaya, mother of Ivan Vasilyevich, shows that, perhaps, she was expecting another child. Maybe someone was not happy that he was born."

But if there was no murder and modern examinations confirm this, where did this terrible legend come from over the centuries? Why in the West, and then much later and in Russian textbooks, does the image of a maniac out of his mind appear? It turns out that this historical disinformation has a specific author. His name is well known - it is the Vatican Ambassador Antonio Passevino. It was he who came to Ivan the Terrible with a mission to convert the Russian state to Catholicism. But he received a tough rebuff.

Nikolay Shakhmagonov: “Ivan the Terrible answered him:“You say, Anthony, that your Roman faith is one with the Greek faith? And we carry a faith that is truly Christian, but not Greek. The Greeks are not the gospel to us. Our faith is not Greek, but Russian. " And he rejected all his attempts, leaving Russia 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 is completely uncontrollable, abnormal. And that he killed his son."

Moreover, this myth even has two options. At first, Passevino argued 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 protect his wife and was killed by his own father. But the author was explained that even the king could not easily get into the bedroom of his son's wife - the existing order did not allow. Then Passevino had to rewrite both the memorandum and memoirs. He proposed a second version, which was later presented in his writings by Karamzin.

Vladimir Lavrov believes: “There was a dispute between Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and his son Ivan Ivanovich because the son wanted to lead the army, to fight with Poland, the father was for peace. There was a quarrel, followed by a blow to the head with a staff, and it all ended tragically."

And supposedly tragically for the king himself. The same Passevino describes how the Russian tsar suffered because of the death of his son: he often woke up at night and began to scream and cry. He was forced back into bed and with difficulty calmed down.

Boris Yakimenko notes: “He has changed so much even outwardly, as the sources write, that it became clear that the death of his son had drawn 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 not as a cruel person, a fanatic, but as a person just so shocked that it completely changed his whole being, as a very sensitive person, 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 arrived at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. He sobbed, bowed down and left a lot of money to commemorate the soul of the prince. And at the Boyar Duma he once said: "The death of my son is my sin." He deeply grieved that he could not save the heir from trouble, because he dearly loved his first-born.

Vladimir Lavrov: “That was the phrase:“The death of my son is my sin”. But how is this phrase to be interpreted? That is, he did not say: “I killed”, in the perception of a believer it could be that “I committed some sinful deeds, and for this the Lord punished my son”.

Ivan Vasilyevich is portrayed as a tyrant and tyrant, while forgetting that he was truly a popularly elected king. 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 the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. The people demanded from the boyars and priests to persuade the king 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 about his people?

The English diplomat and trade agent Jerome Horsey, who wrote his "Notes on Russia", assured that Ivan IV executed almost 700 thousand people in Novgorod. However, the population of the city in those years was hardly 30 thousand.

Gorsey's motives and resentment are understandable - he did dishonest business in Moscow and was expelled for bribery, eventually losing a substantial income.

Moreover, a detailed calculation reveals that during the entire period of Ivan Vasilyevich's rule - and this is more than half a century - in Russia no more than 4,000 people were actually executed. And only by a court decision and in accordance with the law: for crimes and high treason.

The fate of Prince Ivan Kurakin, from which Western chroniclers have made an example of persecution, is indicative. In fact, Kurakin participated in a conspiracy against the tsar and should have been executed. But the church hierarchs begged Ivan Vasilyevich to pardon the prince, and he was appointed governor of the city of Venden.

By the way, this very ancient city was the capital of the Wends province - European Slavs, and now it is the Latvian Cesis. In Russian chronicles, he is sometimes listed as Kes or Kis. This city with its castle was the center of Livonia and during 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 into a binge and Wenden was taken. According to our rules, the voivode would be subject to a military tribunal. Ivan the Terrible reasoned 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 filicide was so firmly entrenched in consciousness that even educated and knowledgeable artists took it as the basis of their works. Even people who are not versed in painting know one of the most famous: "Ivan the Terrible kills his son." In fact, the painting of the great Russian artist Ilya Repin bears a completely 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.

Tatiana Yudinkova, Secretary of the Tretyakov Gallery: "We should not perceive a work of art, in particular a painting, as an illustration of historical events."

The guides must tell the visitors of the Tretyakov Gallery that Repin's painting has nothing to do with history. There are many such canvases, says Tatyana Yudinkova: “I must say that in many of the works that hang here, in the Tretyakov Gallery, there is a violation of the historical truth. This is normal, because the artist's task is somewhat different: for him, a historical event is a reason that inspires him, and further artistic imagination leads the artist."

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.

But, despite the contradictions or frankly absurd statements, the fantasy of Western historians got into official sources and took root 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 add that Ivan the Terrible ruled for 50 years and 104 days. Agree, a time worthy of the Guinness Book of Records. His reign was marked by great victories and great reformism, which elevated our country to the pedestal of a world power. Ivan the Terrible is perhaps the biggest victim of black PR. After all, if the rumor was different - in the center of Moscow there would be a monument to him as an outstanding figure of the Russian state. Instead, a famous canvas hangs in the Tretyakov Gallery, which tells about an event that has never happened in history.