Abstract on the topic:
Dmitry Ivanovich (eldest son of Ivan IV)
Dmitry Ivanovich(October 1552 (1552 ) - June 4, 1553) - the first Russian prince, the first son of Ivan IV the Terrible and Empress Anastasia Romanovna.
During a serious illness in 1552, Ivan demanded an oath from the boyars to his infant son, but many boyars, not wanting the “king in swaddling clothes”, wanted to see Ivan’s cousin, Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, as the next king. This was the reason for the strengthening of Ivan's suspicious attitude towards the boyars and Vladimir personally.
The following year, one-year-old Dmitry drowned during his parents' pilgrimage trip to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery - when the royal family descended from the plow, the gangway on the river turned over in a shallow place, the adults were able to get out, but the baby was already dead. The chronicle says that the death of the prince was predicted to Ivan Maxim the Greek, whom the tsar had visited in the monastery shortly before. According to Andrey Kurbsky, the monk dissuading the tsar from going on a pilgrimage to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, “ did not advise him to go on such a long journey with his wife and newborn boy».
The first Russian prince was buried in the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, in the same grave with his grandfather Vasily III. On his tombstone, a different date of death is indicated than in the annals - June 6, 1554.
Notes
- Kurbsky A. M. The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow - www.sedmitza.ru/text/438701.html
This abstract is based on an article from the Russian Wikipedia. Synchronization completed on 07/11/11 05:47:03
Similar abstracts: Ivan Ivanovich (son of Ivan IV the Terrible), Ivan Ivanovich (son of Ivan the Terrible), Ivan Ivanovich (son of Grand Duke Ivan Mikhailovich), Butakov Grigory Ivanovich (senior), Krasnov Ivan Ivanovich (senior), Kazakov Vasily Ivanovich (senior sergeant ) , Frolov Mikhail Ivanovich (senior sergeant), Frolov Mikhail Ivanovich (Hero of the Soviet Union senior sergeant),
The Rurik dynasty began with the founding of the Moscow principality in 1263 and lasted only 355 years. During this period of history, ten generations of kings have changed. The genus, the first representatives of which were distinguished by remarkable health and died, for the most part, from the enemy's sword, as befits brave warriors, had practically outlived itself by the end of its existence.
Related marriages
It is known that the princes of the first four generations of Rurikovich married exclusively the daughters of sovereign rulers. The vast majority of marriages - 22 - were concluded with representatives of the Russian principalities: Tver, Mezetsky, Serpukhov, Smolensk and Yaroslavl and others. In three cases, with the permission of the Church, the Ruriks married fourth cousins of Moscow origin. 19 alliances were concluded with the princesses Rurikovna from the northeastern lands and adjacent principalities in the upper Oka.
Those who married had a common ancestor - Vsevolod the Big Nest - which means that such a union led to incest in one related group. The result was the genetic degradation of offspring. Children often died in infancy. In total, 137 princes and princesses were born from intra-dynastic marriages. 51 children died before reaching the age of 16.
So, Tsar Vasily I was the father of nine children, five of whom died as babies, one - as a teenager. The heir of Dmitry Donskoy, who died at the age of 15, grew up weak and frail. The son of Vasily II could not walk, grew apathetic and lethargic. In the annals of 1456, it is said that a three-year-old child was brought to church services in his arms. And although the prince lived to be 29 years old, he never got up on his feet.
The demon beguiled
In addition to physiological abnormalities, the heirs of the Rurik family had mental illnesses. Historians note that already in the fifth generation of the Moscow princes, strange behaviors were observed, as well as head diseases unknown at that time, which in our century could be diagnosed as mental disorders.
Ivan IV from childhood was distinguished by a quick temper, suspiciousness and cruelty, surpassing the acts of Caligula and Nero. At the end of the 19th century, the psychiatrist P.I. Kovalevsky published a work in which he claimed that the formidable king had symptoms of paranoia, persecution mania and congenital dementia. By the end of his reign, he was on the verge of insanity, showing a strange affection for the holy fools and scaring those close to him with inexplicable fury. In a fit of rage, he massacred his own son, after which he fell into a severe depression. [S-BLOCK]
The situation was aggravated by the "overseas disease" - syphilis, which struck the king, who, after the death of his wife, Queen Anastasia, fell into disarray and tasted "the vile delights of sensuality." The chroniclers claim that Grozny boasted that he had corrupted a thousand virgins and deprived a thousand of his children of life. The German pastor Oderborn wrote that the father and eldest son changed both mistresses and lovers.
Inadequate behavior was also noticed in his brother Tsarevich - Yuri. For the son of Ivan IV, Fedor Ivanovich, the reputation of an inferior person was completely fixed. Foreign subjects in reports to their homeland reported that the Russians called their ruler the word durak. The last son of the formidable tsar, Dmitry Uglichsky, suffered from an "epilepsy" disease, now known as epilepsy, from infancy, and lagged behind in mental development. The events of the era of Ivan the Terrible pushed the princely families to abandon kinship unions.
Perthes disease
In 2010, with the participation of scientists from Ukraine, Sweden, Great Britain and the United States, a DNA study was conducted on bone remains from sarcophagi found in the Church of St. Sophia of Kyiv. According to Ukrainian anthropologists and archaeologists, the examination helped to identify a hereditary disease that Prince Yaroslav the Wise suffered - this is Perthes' disease, in which the blood supply to the femoral head is disrupted, resulting in poor nutrition of the joint, leading to its necrosis. Indeed, during his lifetime, the Grand Duke limped heavily and complained of constant pain.
Apparently, the Rurikovichi could have inherited the gene mutation from their ancestor, Prince Vladimir the Great. Pathogenic autosomes as a result of internatal marriages were transferred to descendants from Yaroslav Vladimirovich himself and his blood sister Pryamyslava. Chromosomes with a genetic disease were distributed to all branches of the princely family, as well as to the dynasty of Hungarian and Polish sovereigns, which was confirmed by DNA analyzes of the remains from burials in Chernigov, Krakow and the Hungarian Tihany, where the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, Queen Anastasia, rested.
The prince did not even live to be 9 years old. However, his short life and mysterious death most seriously influenced the fate of the Russian state. The Great Time of Troubles, which called into question the very possibility of the existence of Russia as a single, independent power, is from beginning to end connected with the name of Tsarevich Dmitry.
Illegitimate
Strictly speaking, the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible bore the title of "tsarevich" only conditionally, and had no right to the throne.
his mother Maria Nagaya, was, according to different versions of historians, either the sixth or seventh wife of the king. The Church did not recognize this marriage as legal, which means that a child born on October 19, 1582 could not be the legitimate heir to the throne.
Dmitry Ivanovich was the full namesake of his older brother, the first-born Ivan the Terrible. The first Dmitry Ivanovich passed away without having lived even a year. The circumstances of his death are not exactly known - during his father's trip to the pilgrimage, the baby either died of illness or drowned as a result of an accident.
The second Dmitry Ivanovich survived his father - when Ivan the Terrible died, his youngest son was about one and a half years old.
Ascended to the throne Fedor Ivanovich ordered to send his stepmother and brother to Uglich, proclaiming him a specific prince.
Big ambitions of the Naga clan
Tsarevich Dmitry became the last specific prince in Russia, while his rights were seriously limited. Uglich was managed clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky appointed by the king.
Relations between Fyodor Ivanovich's entourage and Nagimi were, to put it mildly, strained.
Sending the dowager queen and prince to Uglich, they were given to understand that they would not tolerate any claims to the throne. The truth was on the side of Nagi's opponents, since, as already mentioned, Dmitry was considered illegitimate.
The Nagi clan, starting with the queen, was extremely hurt by this state of affairs, hoping to take high government posts.
But they still had hope. Fyodor Ivanovich was not distinguished by good health and could not produce an heir. And this meant that Dmitry, for all his illegitimacy, remains the only direct heir to the throne.
"He finds pleasure in seeing his throat slit as he bleeds."
Information about Dmitry himself is contradictory. Russian historians, for reasons that will be discussed below, drew the image of a kind of angel endowed with exceptional virtues.
Foreigners wrote somewhat differently. Englishman Giles Fletcher, who wrote a book about his trip to Russia, reported: “The younger brother of the tsar, a child of six or seven years old (as was said before), is kept in a remote place from Moscow, under the supervision of his mother and relatives from the house of the Nagy, but (as you can hear) life he is in danger from the attempts of those who extend their views on the possession of the throne in the event of the childless death of the king. The nurse, who had tasted some food before him (as I heard), died suddenly. The Russians confirm that he is definitely the son of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, by the fact that at a young age all the qualities of a father begin to be revealed in him. He (it is said) delights in watching sheep and livestock in general being slaughtered, in seeing the throat cut while it bleeds (whereas children are usually afraid of this), and in beating geese and chickens with a stick until they won't die."
In addition to the cruelty of Dmitry, with which he reminded his contemporaries of his father and older brother Ivan, the topic of a possible attempt on the prince's life also pops up here. This is extremely important in connection with the events that occurred subsequently.
Fatal May 15
On May 15, 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry was found dead in the courtyard of the palace. The boy was mortally wounded in the neck.
The mother of the deceased, Maria Nagaya, as well as her relatives, announced that the tsarevich was stabbed to death by the people of the clerk Mikhail Bityagovsky on orders from Moscow. An alarm bell sounded over Uglich. An angry mob tore the alleged killers to pieces - Osip Volokhov, Nikita Kachalova and Danila Bityagovsky, the son of a deacon. Following this, they dealt with Mikhail Bityagovsky himself, who was trying to calm the crowd.
From the point of view of the tsarist authorities, there was a riot in Uglich. Brother-in-law of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich Boris Godunov, who at that time was the actual head of the government, immediately sent a commission of inquiry to Uglich. The boyar was appointed head of the commission Vasily Shuisky.
The investigation into the case of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry is unique in that the materials of the investigation have survived to this day. About 150 people were interrogated - almost everyone who was involved in the events of May 15.
The investigation established
As a result of the investigation, the following was found. The prince had long suffered from attacks of "black sickness" - epilepsy. The last seizure occurred on May 12, that is, three days before death. Then Dmitry felt better, and on May 15, after attending mass, his mother allowed him to take a walk in the courtyard.
Mother was with the prince Vasilisa Volokhova, nurse Arina Tuchkova, bed Marya Kolobova and four peers of Dmitry, the sons of a nurse and a bed Petrusha Kolobov, Ivan Krasensky and Grisha Kozlovsky. The boys played "poke" - this ancient Russian game most of all resembles the so-called "knives", which are still played today. In general terms, the essence of the game is to throw a pointed metal object (knife or rod) into the ground in a certain way.
In Dmitry's hand was either a knife or a pile (a pointed four-sided nail). At this moment, the prince was overtaken by a new attack of epilepsy. During the attack, the boy involuntarily stuck the point into his throat, which caused death.
The final conclusion of the commission of inquiry is that Tsarevich Dmitry died as a result of an accident. Consecrated cathedral led by Patriarch Job approved the results of the investigation.
Weapon against Godunov
As punishment for the rebellion, Maria Nagaya was tonsured a nun under the name of Martha, her brothers were sent into exile, the most active participants in the rebellion from among the townspeople were executed or exiled to Siberia.
But that was only the beginning of the story. In 1598, without leaving an heir, Tsar Fedor Ioannovich died. The Rurik dynasty was cut short. The Zemsky Sobor elects a new tsar, Boris Godunov.
For opponents of the new monarch, the "Uglich case" becomes an excellent tool for generating distrust in Godunov among the people. One of the main intruders is Vasily Shuisky. The former head of the investigation into the death of Tsarevich Dmitry himself dreams of taking the throne, so he intrigues against Godunov with all his might.
And then he appears on the stage False Dmitry I, allegedly miraculously saved from the murderers of the prince. Many believe him, and as a result, in 1605, after the death of Boris Godunov and the massacre of his son Fedor, the impostor takes the throne. Vasily Shuisky once again changes his testimony, and recognizes the legitimate prince in False Dmitry.
Saint vs impostor
But already in 1606, Vasily Shuisky becomes the head of a new conspiracy, as a result of which False Dmitry will be killed, and the ambitious boyar finally sits on the throne.
However, Shuisky also faces the problem of the “miraculously saved” prince, now in the form False Dmitry II.
The tsar understands that the story of the tsarevich needs to end, and in such a way that the masses of the people believe that he is dead.
The prince was buried in Uglich, where few people could see his grave. Vasily Shuisky decides to rebury him in Moscow, and not just as a deceased member of the royal family, but as a holy martyr.
It was an elegant decision - with the revered relics of the saint, the myth of the "miraculous salvation" would be much more difficult to use.
By order of the tsar, a special commission was sent to Uglich under the leadership of Metropolitan Filaret- father Mikhail Romanov, the future founder of the new royal dynasty.
When opening the grave, the relics of the prince were found incorrupt and emitting incense. In his hand, the dead prince was clutching a handful of nuts - according to the version of the murder, the criminals caught the child when he was playing with nuts.
The relics were solemnly reburied in the Archangel Cathedral of the Kremlin. Those who came to the tomb of the prince began to declare miraculous healings, and in the same year he was canonized as a saint.
What you don't want to believe
Here, historians walk around the edge, for the faithful Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglitsia, a miracle worker of Uglich and Moscow and all Russia, is still a revered Russian saint today. Nevertheless, for the sake of historical truth, it is necessary to mention what contemporaries thought about the canonization of the prince.
The political meaning of what was happening was clear and lay on the surface - Vasily Shuisky struggled to push his supporters away from False Dmitry II. Very bad assumptions have come down to our time as to exactly how the remains of Dmitry turned out to be incorrupt. It was alleged that Metropolitan Filaret bought a son from one of the archers, who, in age, approached the age of Dmitry's death, and ordered him to be killed. The body of this child was presented as incorruptible relics. I don’t want to believe in this terrible version, but the times were very harsh. A little later, during the accession of Mikhail Romanov, the 3-year-old son of the “miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry” was publicly hanged, so few people stopped before killing children in that era.
Boris the condemned
So, the final version of Vasily Shuisky read that Tsarevich Dmitry was killed by supporters of Boris Godunov on his personal order. The tsar had no reason to rehabilitate Godunov - firstly, he was his political opponent, and secondly, only a murder victim could be canonized, but not an epileptic who died as a result of a seizure.
The canonization of Tsarevich Dmitry Shuisky himself did not save him: he was overthrown and ended his days in a Polish prison.
However, the version that the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible was killed by Boris Godunov's henchmen survived during the Romanov dynasty. Firstly, the Romanovs were also at enmity with Godunov, and secondly, the version of the guilt of Tsar Boris made him an “illegitimate” monarch, an instigator of the Time of Troubles, which was completed by the accession of the “legitimate Romanovs”.
For more than two centuries, Godunov was unconditionally considered the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry. His talent finally "sentenced" him Alexandra Pushkin in the tragedy Boris Godunov.
Was there a murder?
However, in the 1820s, the materials of the Uglich case discovered in the archive became available. Russian historian Mikhail Pogodin questioned the version of the murder of the prince. The materials of the investigation quite logically substantiated the fact that an accident had occurred.
It is also noteworthy that Boris Godunov himself sent the investigators to Uglich, demanding a thorough investigation. It turns out that Godunov was absolutely sure that no evidence would be found against him. Meanwhile, he could not possibly know exactly how the events in Uglich developed and what exactly the witnesses saw. It turns out that Godunov was interested in an objective investigation, knowing that it would confirm his innocence.
In addition, in 1591, Tsarevich Dmitry was by no means the only obstacle for Godunov on the way to the throne. Then there was still a reasonable hope that Fedor would have an heir. In May 1592 queen Irina gave birth to a girl, and no one could guarantee that this was the last child of the royal couple.
We must not forget that Tsarevich Dmitry was illegitimate from the point of view of the church. With such a competitor, Godunov could compete for the throne without hired killers.
For lack of evidence
Supporters of the version of the murder have another serious argument - modern doctors believe that a child with an epileptic attack would have dropped the knife and could not inflict a mortal wound on himself. But there is an answer to this - the wound could have arisen as a result of improper assistance by frightened boys or nannies, who provoked a fatal movement.
The massacre perpetrated on the suspects in the murder deprived the investigation of their testimony, which could become the most important in this case.
As a result, both versions of the death of Tsarevich Dmitry cannot be completely rejected.
On November 19, 1582, the son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, died. This event became fatal for Russian history. And one of the most confusing.
fatal intercession
One of the main versions of the murder of his son by Ivan the Terrible is known to us from the words of Antonio Possevino, papal legate. According to this version, Ivan the Terrible found his son's wife, Elena, in an inappropriate form. Grozny's daughter-in-law was pregnant and lay in her underwear. Ivan IV became angry and began to "teach" Elena, hit her in the face and beat her with a staff. Here, according to the same Possevino, Ivan the Terrible ran into the wards and began to reproach his father with these words: “You imprisoned my first wife for no reason, you did the same with your second wife and now you are beating your third wife in order to destroy your son, which she carries in her womb. The end is known. The father's staff also took out his son, breaking his skull.
This version, which has become a textbook, is now being criticized. It was beneficial to present Ivan IV as a ruthless son-killer for at least two reasons: firstly, the Russian tsar appeared in an unseemly light, and secondly, such horrors, which were happening on the assurances of the same Possevino in Russia, legitimized the European Inquisition.
Political strife
According to another version, politics became the "stumbling block" between the son and his father. This version was voiced in his "History" by Nikolai Karamzin: "The prince, full of noble jealousy, came to his father and demanded that he send him with an army to expel the enemy, liberate Pskov, restore the honor of Russia. John, in a flurry of anger, shouted, “Rebel! You, along with the boyars, want to overthrow me from the throne, ”and raised his hand. Boris Godunov wanted to keep her. The king gave him several wounds with his sharp rod and hit the prince hard in the head with it. This unfortunate fell down, covered in blood! It is significant that this version, accepted by Karamzin as reliable, belonged to the same Antonio Possevino. The reliability of this completely literary presentation is even more doubtful than the first version; it has not been confirmed by any other evidence. A grain of truth, however, is present in this version. It is that the situation in the last years of the reign of Ivan the Terrible at court was, to put it mildly, tense. It was extremely difficult to survive in such an environment.
Who wrote history
It is amazing how surprisingly trustful Russian historians, and above all Karamzin, "wrote history", focusing on the evidence of Antonio Possevino, the legate of Pope Gregory XIII, the German Heinrich Staden and the Frenchman Jacques Marzharette. In all historical interpretations, especially foreign ones, one should look for who benefits from this. The same Staden, returning to Germany, outlined a plan for the conquest of Muscovy, proposing to destroy churches and monasteries, abolish the Orthodox faith, and then turn the inhabitants into slaves. With regret, it is worth recognizing the correctness of the historian Zabelin, who wrote: “As you know, we very diligently only deny and denounce our history and do not even dare to think about any characters and ideals. We do not allow the ideal in our history... Our whole history is a dark realm of ignorance, barbarism, superstitiousness, slavery, and so on...».
Poisoning?
In 1963, the tombs of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and Tsarevich Ivan Ioannovich were opened in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The subsequent reliable studies, medical-chemical and medical-forensic examinations of the honest remains of the prince showed that the permissible content of mercury was 32 times higher, arsenic and lead were several times higher. Due to the poor preservation of the bone tissue, it was impossible to reliably establish whether Ivan Ivanovich had a fractured skull. Taking into account the fact that the mother of Ivan the Terrible and his first wife also died of poisoning with selenium, the version with the poisoning of Ivan the Terrible's son seems to be the most probable. Another question: who was the poisoner?
Didn't kill
Ivan the Terrible did not kill his son. This version was adhered to, for example, by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev. Seeing the famous painting by Repin at the exhibition, he was indignant and wrote to Emperor Alexander III: "You cannot call the painting historical, since this moment ... is purely fantastic." An analysis of what happened in 1582 confirms Pobedonostsev's idea that it is precisely "fantastic". Since Repin painted the picture, the version of "Ivan the Terrible killed his son" has become a kind of historical meme. It is so rooted in the mind that the idea of Grozny's innocence in the death of his son is often simply not considered. By the way, the picture has a difficult fate. In February 1913, she was badly injured by the knife of the Old Believer Abram Baloshov, and more recently, Orthodox activists turned to the Minister of Culture with a request to remove the painting from the Tretyakov Gallery.
Repose of the son
The death of his son seriously affected Ivan IV. The untimely death of his son made him a "mortgage", he could not be buried, he was doomed to eternal suffering. In 1583, Ivan the Terrible came out with an unprecedented initiative - to introduce into the liturgical life of the monastic cloisters of the Moscow Metropolis the so-called "Synodika of the Disgraced" - an "eternal" commemoration of the victims of the Oprichnina. In fact, the king offered God a deal: for the sake of saving the soul of his dead son, to create relief from the death torments of the executed disgraced.
