Ivan Le Terrible Tue Son Fils

L’histoire bruyant laquelle, en 1581, ns tsarevič Ivan Ivanovič a lété tué moyennant son perez Ivan le incroyable fait portions intégrante ns l’histoire russe. Cependant, Moscovia d’Antonio Possevino SJ, qui dorient la simple source contemporaine, n’a été publiée convoque la première fois qu’en 1586. Les partie sur la mort de tsarevič a été rédigée quelques âge après la survenue ns l’événement et entre en contradiction auprès d’autres informations du livre. Les correspondance, publiée concède tard, du Possevino auprès ses supérieurs jusquà Rome trahir qu’il être affligé cette biographie pour une rumeur et nai pas prêta démarche foi. En effet, nexiste pas ne prouve ns façon irréfutable qu’Ivan ait tué le sien fils, de quelque manière que cette soit, intentionnelle hay accidentelle.

The story du the 1581 death du tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich at auto hands of his father, Ivan the Terrible, is a fixture ns Russian history. However the only contemporary la source is the Moscovia ns Antonio Possevino, SJ.m tons published in 1586. The relevant chapter was composed number of years later, et is inconsistent v other information in the book. Possevino’s then unpublished correspondence v his superiors in rome reveals that hey regarded auto story oui rumor et did not believe it. There is ne sont pas reliable proof that Ivan killed his son, intentionally or accidentally.

Vous lisez ce: Ivan le terrible tue son fils

Haut ns page

Entrées d’index

Haut ns page

Texte intégral

PDF Signaler cette document

1Historians du early contemporary Russia have mined thé accounts du foreigners in Russia parce que le nearly deux centuries. Mostly commonly they usage them venir find details not reflected in Russian sources, such oui court and church rituals, et for auto outsider’s view de the country. Much de the last revolves around understanding auto source du various stereotypes ns the nation that dominated in ouest Europe. Toutes les personnes of this literature has actually contributed venir our understanding du Russian history, marqué many problems remained unresolved.1

2If nous are à use this sources, nous must know not simply general récolte prejudices cible the character du the documents themselves. A helpful starting mission is venir avoid placing them tous in thé same category ont “travellers’ accounts” jaune even the more helpful “state descriptions.” One de nombreux category is the published works du diplomats, which incorporate some du the many important and most typically cited, those de Herberstein, Possevino, Fletcher, and Olearius. Auto diplomats tous had a concrete task et were supposed to report back to their sovereigns quel they actually saw and did, not venir provide propaganda parce que le this or that causer or stereotype. Of arttasters their published works did some du both, and indeed conditions météorologiques can find all the stereotypes that nous want in them alongside accurate, or at least well‑intentioned, information. Pour the sixteenth century diplomatic publications we additionally normally oui no unpublished archival sources. That is to say, thé dispatches de Herberstein et Fletcher à faire not seem venir exist in the relevant archiver so thé published livre are our seul sources à la these missions. In the caisse of Olearius ce is not clear to me si anyone has ever before looked, perhaps they faire exist.2 pour the commander of Antonio Possevino S.J. In 1581‑1582 thé manuscripts du the actual critique relations à Rome à faire not seem to ont been found and may no survive, but a an excellent deal de correspondence to et from Possevino is extant and has also been published in a variety de collections.3

3The existence or absence of unpublished archival material is not merely a matter du antiquarian interest. Année examination ns published product from embassies venir Russia and other European nations at thé end of the ten century reveals exciting differences. In auto 1690’s thé Habsburg ambassador à Moscow was one Ignaz de Guarient et his secretary Johann Korb. As the embassy’s secretary, Korb may be wrote jaune copied Guarient’s dispatches. Hey also released in Latin conditions météorologiques return à Vienna a diary of auto mission, long exploited ont a source for the early years de Peter’s reign. A comparison ns the unpublished dispatches v the journal intime reveals some interesting differences. Thé dispatches to be filled with information about auto various factions among auto Russian boyars et Peter’s conflicts with them. Toutes les personnes that product was absent from the published diary, an absence that provided a usually false picture ns the politics de the Russian court.4 This sort de difference is not dunicité to thé later seventeenth century nor à publications of European diplomats in Russia, parce que le it appears to ont been a aperçu practice to omit that sort of information in published accounts du any country. Reading Herberstein’s bland account ns the boyars, une only wonders what he wrote pour the eyes of his sovereign and his councilors. Fletcher ont well gave ne sont pas hint du the divisions among the elite i m sorry fill auto pages du the work of modern historians.

4Possevino’s Moscovia de 1586 is one such released account. Possevino to be a Jesuit priest through an ordre du jour for auto recatholicization ns Eastern Europe, cible he was also a diplomat, sent by Pope Gregory XIII to Poland et Russia à help adjust a tranquility that would free both nations to lopposé the might of the ottoman Empire. Ce would be useful à analyze auto text more fully in auto light du Possevino’s correspondence, cible here we will confine ourself to une incident, the story of Ivan’s murder ns his le sien Ivan Ivanovich in 1581. This histoire is one du the classics of Russian history, retold passant par Karamzin and all later historians et most well known from auto Repin painting.5 the death of the tsarevich became a theme toutes les personnes of its own in modern-day Russian culture.6 Yet auto correspondence of Possevino gives a quite different snapshot from thé printed book. In this des boites it is no the livre that omitted je vous demande pardon was in auto letters but rather the reverse. The letters à faire not contain thé story and indeed contradict it, i beg your pardon appeared seulement un in the published book.

8 Novodvorskii, Bor´ba za Livoniiu, 255‑303.

5Possevino went venir Russia venir talk venir Ivan auto Terrible as the papal emissary in order à further peace negotiations between Russia and Poland. By the summer de 1581 Ivan’s attempt venir annex Livonia had actually failed, with auto Swedes ensconced in northern Estonia and the roi of Poland, stephen Batory, besieging Pskov from 18 august onwards. Both auto Pope et Emperor were unhappy with thé continuing conflict, since cette made it pas possible to recruit one of two people Poland jaune Russia ont allies against thé Turks.7 thé result was deux journeys de Possevino à Russia, the life on 5 August‑5 October, 1581, to meet the empereur at Staritsa. Possevino climate went to auto Polish partager at Pskov, where cette found thé army meugler on gunpowder et morale under pelting rain. Batory agreed à discuss peace, et Possevino ressentir his translator, Andrei Polonskii, back to Ivan. Polonskii mettre the czar (and tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, alive et healthy) in Aleksandrova Sloboda et hurried back with a positif answer. The prochain months to be taken up with thé negotiations, crowned v success conditions météorologiques 15 January, 1582 at Iam Zapol´skii, in large part due to the Jesuit’s efforts. Ivan surrendered Livonia, but Batory evacuated toutes les personnes his occupations in Russia itself.8 Possevino then made a seconde journey à confirm thé truce in Moscow itself conditions météorologiques 23 January‑14 March, 1582.

6Possevino’s account de his journeys, his observation of Russia, his abordage with Ivan et the story du the killing du Ivan Ivanovich showed up in the first chapter du his Moscovia, first published in Wilno in 1586 and later reprinted number of times.9 The story was année episode in the life chapter, which noted a general description of Russia and suggestions on comment to negotiate with its rulers. The seconde chapter was an account du the 1581 commander composed, as the message says, at the time. Cette too began with général information about Russia et mentioned both of Ivan’s sons ont alive. Chapters 3 through 4 covered auto 1582 commander to Moscow et the debates in between Possevino et Ivan nous religious issues. The final chapter recounted the Russo‑Polish negotiations ns December 1581‑January 1582. The book’s chronology was for this reason rather complicated.

7Possevino’s story in the tons chapter was the “There is solid evidence that the énormément Prince of Moscow slew his own son in the fortress called Alexandrova Sloboda.” he claims that cette heard the story from one du the interpreters, presumably une with whom cette worked in February and March, 1582. Both de Possevino’s interpreters were Lithuanians, one of whom had been with thé tsarevich et in Graham’s translation of Possevino’s words “looked right into the cause première of his death and gave me the more probable account du it”. The result was the well‑known story ns Ivan’s blow to thé wife de the tsarevich and the subsequent quarrel et blow to the son.10 Hugh Graham’s English conveyed Possevino’s caution but literally the histoire was “put about (note the irresponsible passive voice: passant par whom?) oui more certain information” and “those who had actually looked into the truth carried this ont more true” . Historians oui not usually noted the qualifications.11 Possevino likewise stated that he recounted the histoire because

12 Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 13v ; 1587, 28 ; Historiæ Ruthenicæ II, 292‑93.

it would certainly be worth it to know (as cette is worthy de memory, et had not a little dimportance in inclining thé prince à hear many fémoral which nous discussed with him an ext mildly than he perhaps might oui done)<(quod ea res memoratu digna sit, nec mediocre habuerit momentum ad Principem flectendum, ut multa, quae cum eo agebamus, mitius, quam fortasse fecisset, audiret) operae pretium fuerit nosse)>.12

It is no clear je vous demande pardon these “many things” were, but presumably auto proposals pour peace or conversion to Catholicism.

8More major is the formulation about the translator, which both Graham et L.N. Godovikova analyzed incorrectly. Graham rendered Possevino’s “tum erat apud eum alter ex interpretibus meis, quem advertisement ipsum allegaveram” oui “one ns the interpreters assigned to je had been in thé young prince’s prestations de service at thé time”. Godovikova was an ext accurate v “при нем в это время находился один из оставленных мною переводчиков.”13 A completely accurate translation, however, would be “then with him to be the différent of ma interpreters, whom ns had sent to thé same.” toutes les personnes the translators ont interpreted “eum” in “apud eum” ont referring venir Ivan Ivanovich, though cette could average Ivan IV. In either case, Possevino is telling us that cette sent one de his interpreters to auto Russian bas after he, Possevino, had actually returned to the Polish camp near Pskov. If that is auto case, auto conclusion drawn passant par Pierling et subsequent chroniclers that auto interpreter have to be Vasilii Zamasskii and that he was somehow with the tsarevich must be wrong.14 In Possevino’s letter of 16 November 1581 à Ivan IV, hey told him that his interpreter Andrei Polonskii had returned from thé Russian meugler yesterday and that cette was sending Zamasskii to Novgorod with thé Russian courier Zakharii Boltin (who had actually come to thé Polish camp with Polonskii) to importer letters from thé Russian generals. Ivan Ivanovich, however, was currently ill conditions météorologiques 12 November and died conditions météorologiques 19 November. Both father et son to be in Aleksandrova Sloboda, et Ivan IV remained there with November.15 Zamasskii could not ont been all over near auto event. The only other interpreter known venir scholars was thé same Andrei Polonskii, who had been in Aleksandrova Sloboda in October, arriving conditions météorologiques 20 October et departing, ce seems, already nous the 23 after a decision par Ivan, his son Ivan, et the boyars à ask Possevino venir convince roi Stefan à make peace. The order to the pristav Leontii Andreev syn Stremoukhov had been to ensure the while cette was there, Polonskii would interact with non one.16 he may have left later on than 23 October, but he was back with Possevino when the latter wrote auto letter nous 16 November à Ivan (above) cible was ill and died par 13 December, leave Possevino with only une Russian translator. Possevino’s letter of 14/15 December to jan Zamoyski, Poland’s Chancellor, evidently crossed, for the Jesuit walk not sait that auto Chancellor knew ns Polonskii’s death, et it left the in the same situation: only une Russian translator, may be Zamasskii. Hey begged Zamoyski for another translator.17

9The unpreventable conclusion is the neither Polonskii jaune Zamasskii to be at the Russian bas at Aleksandrova Sloboda at thé time de the death of tsarevich Ivan. That conclusion comes not from the henchmen text of the Moscovia marqué from auto letters appended à it. The 1586 Wilno edition has most ns these letters, but the 1587 Antwerp execution (which Graham used) does not ont them at all. Turgenev published these letters in 1842 with thé Moscovia, et evidently Pierling supplied that text. Possevino makes cette quite clear in his letters that hey had seulement un the deux translators, i beg your pardon is additionally implied par his choice of words; “alter ex interpretibus meis”, since “alter” way “one du two”. “One” would ont to be “unus” or “aliquis”. If the translators let go this point, they were correctement to translate “tum” ont “at auto time”. à be sure, “tum”, choose English “then”, is vague, marqué the context points to the time ns the death de the tsarevich. Cette is daunting to créé any est différent meaning. In that caisse Possevino to be lying, due to the fact that his letter make cette clear the neither Zamasskii nor Polonskii to be in Aleksandrova Sloboda during the sérieuse days in November, 1581, and he had seul the two translators. What is peculiar around the conflit between the henn text (the seconde commentary) et the letters is that Possevino published both. Si we are to believe auto Wilno publisher, he worked through Possevino because ns the imperfect texts circulating in manuscript.18 the Moscovia go not give a cétait une date for the death de the tsarevich, so the reader that did no know it would manquer the contradiction, marqué Pierling et other modern-day scholars should have seen it. Finally, in Possevino’s unpublished (at the time) correspondence through Rome et the polish authorities he does not couverts any incident, illness, or death de the tsarevich until early on January when he heard the first rumors circulating thé Polish partager (see below). Polonskii must have left Aleksandrova Sloboda when auto tsarevich was still alive and well, taking around three mainly (October 23‑November15) à join his master. Neither translator was thé source du the story, in spite ns Possevino’s delinquent in auto Moscovia.

10To complicate problem further, earlier nous in thé “first” (chapter one marqué written second) comment Possevino tells nous that after the life journey he left “two men” à la five months who observed plenty of things: “cum item apud Moscum reliquissem duos homines, qui, dum abdominal eo aberam, mensium quinque spatio multa observarunt.”19 These two cannot be thé same ont the two interpreters, since he claimed that hey had sentiment “the other” de his interpreters venir Moscow, not left the there. The “two men” to be Father stephen Drenocki, a Croatian Jesuit, et his Milanese companion Michele Morieno. Nous the basis of this paragraphe Godovikova thought Drenocki venir be auto source of the story, marqué Possevino himself reported in thé Moscovia the they were retained in total isolation from the time du Possevino’s departure venir his return.20 Drenocki can not be the source du the story, or if cette was, then hey too could seul report rumors.

21 pôle Pierling, ed., Missio Moscovitica, (P. : apud Ernestum Leroux, 1882).

11There is de nouveau text from this missions, republished in 1882 par Paul Pierling, S.J.21 This is auto “Missio Moscovitica”, et first published in the Annuæ Litteræ Societatis Jesu anni MDLXXXII ad patres et fratres ejusdem societatis, Rome, 1584. As Pierling established, thé text is in reality a composite of the 28 April 1582 letter of Possevino venir Claudio Acquaviva, the head ns the Jesuit order, et the report nous Russia de his companion in 1581, Giovanni Paolo Campana S.J. Thé only couverture of Ivan Ivanovich in this message comes in the explication of thé 1581 mission. The tsarevich was present at the public for Possevino, seated prefer his father cible on chair placed on a reduced level (25). Ivan Ivanovich participated in other ceremonies du the audience (26‑28) et the succeeding fête (31), ont well ont the final public (41). Thé text continues with a short account ns Possevino’s joining with auto truce negotiations, and then année account ns the 1582 revenir to Moscow and Possevino’s disputes with Ivan on religion. The text enregistrer Possevino’s come in rome with the Russian ambassadors in September, 1582 (58). The seconde half du the “Missio” is Campana’s notes nous Russia. Campana was in Russia avant the death ns Ivan Ivanovich, et only mentions him indirectly in describing thé ritual du the nouveau Year (1st September) blessing ns the Tsar et his sons par the urban (70). Auto text likewise mentions (59) that a “commentarius” (singular) by Possevino about auto customs du the Muscovites “is said venir exist” (existare dicitur). This must ont been auto “first commentary” the was printed oui the second. Auto 1584 déditions of Possevino et Campana’s reports does no even couvert the death du the tsarevich, though ce was clearly compiled after September, 1582.22

12These 16 century publication are hardly auto whole story of Possevino et the death de the tsarevich, pour the 1586 account du that death oui murder is not discovered in any ns his then unpublished letters to Rome et elsewhere indigenous the des moments of the death de Ivan Ivanovich onwards until auto Moscovia showed up in print in 1586. Possevino even told thé Poles that the histoires about Ivan’s “barbarism” were no true, oui the royalistes secretary jan Piotrowski taped in his diary under 22 November.23 Later nous Possevino absolutely heard auto stories de the death de the tsarevich. The histoires began venir circulate at thé Polish army stock at Kiverova Gorka close to Pskov at auto end de December, 1581. The Polish commander Spytek Jordan wrote to Zamoyski on 26 December that he had “news native informants,” the everyone, even peasants, were saying that the son du the dénormes Duke had actually died, the the czar was an extremely sad and giving alms to monasteries.24 4 days later on Zamoyski wrote to Possevino briefly that “Here news has come to me that Ivan the first bondir son du the dénormes Duke is dead.”25 on 2 January 1582 Zamoyski informed king Stefan: “From prisoners and spies at Novgorod I have understood that thé eldest son du the Muscovite has actually died.”26 on January 6, 1582, Possevino wrote venir Ptolomeo Galli, pinky of Como, the Papal Secretary du State, that cette had heard a rumor de the death ns the tsarevich native Zamoyski, including that the seulement un remaining son was the une whose qualities cette had defined in his commentary nous Muscovy, which must mean thé “second” commentary de the Moscovia.27 A brief note from Zamoyski to thé Danish prince magnifique on 8 January gave nouvelles of a victorious fight at Pskov et told another story through its sources: “ from auto mob that 300 Muscovites ont fallen, that auto son of the dénormes Duke died also there, et many were wounded et captured.”28 (Note that thé rumor was the Ivan Ivanovich to be fighting avant Pskov, which was not auto case.) there is naught in any du this correspondence around a quarrel jaune murder. A few days later, conditions météorologiques 15 January, auto Russian et Polish diplomats signed the truce de Iam Zapol´skii, a des moments of triumph for Possevino. The first couverts of a purported radicalement death du the tsarevich come in Possevino’s letter du 22 January to Galli.

La morte, anzi uccisione après figlio primogenito dal Moscovito, fatta dal padre au cas où conferma et dicesi così esser stata effronté cagione ch’egli al padre ricordò ns morte diabolique molti, et cette bene ch’era revenir seguir della pace. Alla quale perchè cette Moscovito mi dans certains cas mostrò inclinato sempre, ne sont pas so quanto debbo credere a aucas fatti romori.


13In est différent words, Possevino to be hearing rumors from auto Polish authorities. The story de the murder in this letter was not a fact hey learned native his interpreters cible a rumor, again contradicting the Moscovia version. The story that to be circulating said that Ivan had actually killed his son, cible the factor was that the tsarevich want peace et Ivan walk not. Possevino did not believe thé rumors, in aller because cette (correctly) believed that Ivan want peace, so that could not be a cause for a quarrel. Auto statement that hey believed Ivan to always (sempre) incline toward peace additionally contradicts auto statement in thé Moscovia that thé death ns the tsarevich made Ivan listen “more mildly” (mitius) venir what Possevino said à him. The rumor differed from thé Moscovia édition in un autre crucial respect: the cause of the murder was not a problem over the wife of the tsarevich cible over the sortir of peace jaune war. Possevino, passant par his very own admission, go not, as he later on asserted, know ont a fact that Ivan killed his le sien because du the tsar’s quarrel with his daughter in law, in reality he heard a rumor (which hey did no believe) that thé father and son fight over thé war.

30 Jósef Siemeński, ed., Archiwum Jana Zamoyskiego iii (Warsaw, 1913), 11. 31 MPV V, 229 ; MPV VI, 32, 102, 596. 32 Supplementum ad Historica Russiae Monumenta (SPb., 1848), 388‑404.

14Possevino’s mindset at the time also emerges from his letter venir Zamoyski written only a week later, 29 January 1582, where he reported merely that “Filius Magni Ducis primogenitus, ut dudum erat rumor, diem obiit” (“The first attaché of the grand Duke, as was parce que le some time auto rumor, on work died”.30 “Died” (obiit), not “was murdered”. Ago in Moscow in February, Possevino wrote venir Galli mentioning auto death ns the tsarevich, cible nothing about its cause. Perhaps cette did not want à be too open up at that point, cible in his staying correspondence with Bolognetti and Galli the subject never ever came up. The seulement un question about Ivan’s des sons was thé capacities de Fyodor and the rumors ns the birth du tsarevich Dmitrii in 1582.31 His report to Aquaviva, the general of the Jesuit order, indigenous 28 April, 1582, composed after cette left Russia, likewise does not couverture the death of the tsarevich though cette reported nous the whole ordre to Moscow.32

34 Pierling, Bathory und Possevino, 172.

15Possevino go discuss auto tsarevich, jaune at least couverts him, in his reports created in Venice where hey stopped nous the means from Moscow to rome with thé Russian ambassador, Iakov Molvianinov. Hey delivered several reports and proposals to thé Venetian Doge et Senate, consisting of a discourse nous the need venir form a ligue against the Turks, which had actually been one de the principal aims of Papal diplomacy. (It was that desire that had incited rome to adjust a truce between Russia and Poland par sending Possevino venir meet Ivan IV.) In his discourse to auto Venetians conditions météorologiques 12 August, 1582, Possevino33 moche out auto difficulties à such a project, primarily the fact that tous the relevant rulers of leurope  were one of two people preoccupied with other issues or just not interested. In the caisse of Ivan IV, thé Jesuit adduced his bad health, that hey slept poorly, frequently waking up at night et was “pieno di melancolia doppo ns morte del primogenito.” (“full du melancholy after auto death du his son”).34 In thé report hey said “morte,” definition “death”, no “uccisione,” definition “murder”. This was a private agissant to thé Venetian authorities, et there was non reason pour him not to say the Ivan had actually killed his le sien unless he did not think it. None du the Venetian documents of conversations with Possevino records any déditions of thé rumors ns the murder ns the tsarevich. Passant par August, 1582, his death was no longer news, cible had Possevino believed that Ivan had killed his son, it is hard à believe that he would ont considered auto fact irrelevant in evaluating auto tsar’s personality and abilities à conduct affairs of state. Much ns Possevino’s correspondence et the reporter in question revolved exactly around auto personalities du the monarchs, including Ivan.

37 Godovikova, ed., Istoricheskie sochineniia, 232.

16Subsequent correspondence throws some light nous the composition of auto Moscovia. In 1583 Possevino go on another mission à Hungary and Transylvania, after which cette returned à Poland.35 thé first mention of thé Moscovia came in his report to Pope Gregory XIII nous Livonia date Bartfa in Hungary (Bardejov, Slovakia), 30 March, 1583. Here cette referred à his “second book” conditions météorologiques Muscovy, though ce is not clear je vous demande pardon part de the final text the comprised. In thé preceding pages de the Livonia hey briefly described thé story ns the Polish séries from the death ns Sigismund August et Ivan’s conquests in Livonia during thé time stephen Batory was occupied with thé rebellious city of Danzig, et then asserted the “about toutes les personnes this matter he had written sufficient in his second livre on Muscovy” (Qua de tota re satis multa scripsi in secondo de Moscovia libro…)36 Godovikova correctly interpreted this “second book” venir be auto commentary the appeared ont the first chapter in the 1586 Moscovia, since the date of the différent was plainly from September, 1581.37 Thus par March, 1583, there were clearly two commentaries.

38 Pierling, Missio. Vii‑viii ; likewise published in Monumenta Poloniæ Vaticana VII, 77.

17Work must ont continued conditions météorologiques that commentary. In his notes to his edition du the “Missio Moscovitica” Pierling quote a letter indigenous Possevino to pinky Galli native Krakow, 11 February 1584, whereby Possevino defines that hey had created a lundi commentary nous Muscovy while he was in Hungary in 1583.38 Possevino composed that hey was sending the Cardinal:

un piccolo libro delle cose di Moscovia cette quale è cette secondo commentario ch’ultimamente ho fatto in Ungheria, relaxant ad alcuni avvertimenti che V. S. Illma mi diede, pertinenti alle cose politiche et altre.


39 Graham, auto Moscovia ns Antonio Possevino, 1, 44 ; Possevino, Moscovia (1586), pages, (1587), 7, 86 40 MPV VI, 702.

18In auto Moscovia Possevino stated twice that the “second commentary”, the second chapter, in that book was composed during the first commander (1581).39 hence what hey called auto “second commentary” in thé 1584 letter venir Galli must be je vous demande pardon became the “first commentary”, the sapin chapter, in the Moscovia, the is, the aller with auto story of the death ns the heir, and it was composed at least three years after thé events. In other words, Possevino created up his décalage using information that came from divers sources than his own memory jaune notes, and it appears that cette was more jaune less commanded à use the information. Possevino had sentiment earlier nous 9 December 1583 to auto nuncio Bolognetti a copy de the “second commentary”, nous Muscovy, again this must oui been auto same “second commentary” (on 1582) the appeared as the tons commentary in auto printed edition of 1586. Hey commented: “Può essere che tali cose qualche tension serviranno come potrà comprender.” (“It may be that such fémoral will be helpful some time, oui one peut être understand”).40 what is not clear is why Possevino had to be asked to write auto “second commentary” on the 1582 embassy to Moscow, and why hey had venir use “avvertimenti” from Galli. In auto published text he claimed that his sources, as well as Drenocki and Morieno (by his very own admission, how much assist could they ont been?), were historical writings, et discussions through ambassadors and the rois of Poland and Sweden, oui well as Ivan’s own words. May be this means his own notes and letters conditions météorologiques those discussions. Cette did not mention any “information” native Galli. From the letter à Bolognetti, cette seems the the new text was venir be kept pour some later on purpose. We ont no idea je vous demande pardon that was. Cette would be easy à speculate conditions météorologiques the basis de our knowledge du Papal et Polish politics et relations through Russia, cible that would certainly be naught more, seul speculation.

41 Pierling, Russie, II, 249‑273. 42 Pierling, Russie, II, 282‑324.

19We aller not sait the précis context of the communiqués of thé Moscovia. In February, 1585, Galli bespeak Possevino to leave the Polish court et to retiree to auto Jesuit college in Braunsberg, in royaliste (Polish) Prussia. According venir Pierling the reason was the Possevino had end up being too supportive du Stefan Batory’s plans parce que le the conquest ns Russia, i m sorry Pope Gregory XIII discovered incompatible with his very own plans pour a Turkish crusade and his relations with Emperor Rudolf.41 Possevino went to Braunsberg, though he violated roman orders by travelling à Dorpat and elsewhere in Livonia venir advance auto Catholic cause. King Stefan’s plans for conquest only grew an ext extravagant, but the nouveau (May, 1585) Pope Sixtus V to be even more skeptical 보다 his predecessor. The roi of Poland preserved that the le meilleur way to defeat the Turks was par the conquest du Moscow. That was thé problem: neither Pope to be against the conquest du Russia pour the Catholic cause, cible it to be expensive (the Papacy would have to pay pour the war, given the lopposait in the Polish diet) et it could not work. Possevino created to rome early in 1586 again as avocat for auto king’s plans, et in the lété the roman authorities called him back. He arrived in rome in September, 1586. There hey managed venir convince Sixtus the Batory’s plan was workable, and in December Possevino set off à la Warsaw par way ns Venice. Unfortunately, stefan Batory died conditions météorologiques 12 December, 1586, rendering tous the schemes irrelevant.42 The only reference to auto Moscovia in this period seems venir be Pierling’s comment? ou quoi that Possevino discussed ce with Annibale di Capua, the new nuncio à Poland on the means from rome to Venice in December, 1586.43 if this was the printed book and not a manuscript, then it must have been published in the first part du the year 1586, antérieur à Possevino went to Rome. That hey brought cette with him says that part du its purpose à convince the roman curia ns the viability de Stefan Batory’s plans. The livre did elicit some discuter in Poland, because Zamoyski to be unhappy that Possevino had published royaliste correspondence in the letters appended to the Wilno edition. Possevino protected himself early in 1588 indigenous Padua passant par noting that cette had followed auto advice of Heidenstein and omitted part details that can offend thé Russians “while tranquility is being dealt with” (dum pax curaretur) and suppressed Batory’s “long letter” venir Ivan IV, maintaining it parce que le quieter times.44

20Possevino touched on Russian to work only oz more, in a letter ns 1587 prompted by the Polish discussion of séquence after Batory’s death. Here cette did couverts Ivan Ivanovich. He said that hey spoke with thé tsarevich, despite not through his younger brother, and he did no even suggest to auto story du his death found in thé Moscovia. Cette wrote that hey published his Moscovia “urgentibus cordatissimis viris” (as most prudent men to be urging).45 what that meant is anyone’s guess. Rome recalled Possevino in April, 1587, and he went à Padua, spending thé rest of his life teaching et writing, primarily thé Bibliotheca selecta, his substantial compilation and bibliography of theology.

47 Zimin, v kanun groznykh potriasenii, 91‑92.

21Possevino has always served ont the central source parce que le the story ns Ivan killing his son, but other sources aller exist. They are not in any method definitive. Reinhold Heidenstein (Stefan Batory’s secretary) tells the histoire that Ivan killed his son, though not in the same version ont Possevino. Heidenstein presented two stories, one of which which hey asserted came from two noblesse Muscovite detainees (“duos nobiles Moscos”). Their histoire was that auto blow came from dispute arising from mutual bragging, the divers story (“some say” – “quidam dicerent”) that the quarrel emerged from the son’s desire à take his very own army venir Pskov. Ivan, in the story, climate struck his son, and either from the blow or from the renforcer of dargousier of auto soul, the le sien fell into an epilectic fit et a fever and then died.46 the “some” à whom Heidenstein ad may ont included auto Polish commandants Georg Farensbach, who passed nous a comparable rumor, that Ivan eliminated his le sien because auto latter wanted à lead thé army at Pskov, in May, 1582.47 obviously a variety ns contradictory rumors to be circulating in thé Polish camp, Heidenstein’s second édition being the exact opposite de the rumor Possevino reported to Galli, wherein Ivan Ivanovich desired peace, not venir lead the war. Thé Polish camp was hundreds of mile away from thé scene du Ivan’s death. We oui no idea what the sources du the rumors were, marqué Russian deserters or prisoners were no more likely than the Poles us to have accurate information. Jerome Horsey was no in Russia at the central moment and wrote his account much later. Giles Fletcher came à Russia in thé 1590’s, to be well educated, et seems to have used Possevino jaune Heidenstein as a source.

49 A.N. Nasonov, ed., Pskovskie letopisi (M., 1955), 263. 50 à la example, Solov´ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, iii <1960>, 703.

22Finally, ne sont pas contemporary Russian sources say more than that thé tsarevich died. There is one brief remarque from Ivan IV to Nikita Romanovich Iur´ev et Andrei Shchelkalov from Alexandrova Sloboda nous 12 November, 1581 reporting that he, thé tsar, could not come venir Moscow because de his young illness, cible with no more details.48 Some later sources report the histoire that Ivan eliminated his son, cible most of them present the story oui a rumor. Thé Pskov III Chronicle, Arkhivskii spisok, seulement un recorded that “glagoliut netsyi” that Ivan struck his son, cible it does not actually say that he killed him, and noted his fatality without comment.49 auto Pskov chronicle is sometimes quoted inaccurately ont saying Ivan eliminated his son.50 In any des boites it is a source compiled after thé Time du Troubles. Auto same is true du the 1617 Khronograf and the work of Ivan Timofeev, whose Vremennik likewise reported that “glagoliut netsyi,” Ivan killed his son.51 Timofeev did no himself vouch pour the rumors, nor did auto author ns the Khronograf. None ns these histoires had something like thé apparent reliability de Possevino’s version.

23Two larger issues arise from auto story de Possevino’s deception around his knowledge ns the death de the tsarevich. Une is the the story arose indigenous rumors in the Polish camp, which formed part de the larger history du the intention of the rois of Poland and other polish political actors towards Russia, et their understanding of Russian politics in auto sixteenth century. B.N. Floria et a variety de Polish historians have identified evolving political regimen at auto Polish court et in the diet toward Russia. Basically, both teams wanted in part way à put Russia and the Polish‑Lithuanian state together, v Russia either as a subject state (the royaliste agenda) or as some sort of partner (some circles among the szlachta stood for in the diet). This platform, though it had some previously roots, came right into being in the course of auto 1560’s. It was in part a reaction to thé Livonian War, that is venir Ivan’s attempts to incorporate all or part du the dénormes Duchy de Lithuania, together with Livonia, right into Russia. While thé Russians likewise toyed with serene means, such ont getting the tsar or his des sons elected énormément Duke de Lithuania or roi of Poland, Ivan to be waging battle in auto 1560’s and the Poles had to respond. Auto election ns Stefan Batory in 1576 lugged to thé Polish throne année aggressive proponent du war et conquest, i beg your pardon provoked a corresponding reaction in thé diet suspicious of possible royalistes plans pour a grab parce que le power through army success in thé east.52

24The relationship to auto Possevino story lies in thé belief in Poland that Russian national politics was filled through conflict, inside thé elite et between auto tsar et the elite. This is how they seem to oui read the events de the Oprichnina. As we know, in général they were no wrong, but they exaggerated thé amount of conflict and got many ns the details wrong. Indigenous a éliminer it was hard to make out the ligue and problems at the Russian court, as the Poles relied conditions météorologiques interrogations ns prisoners de war, deserters, and the informations picked up by Polish diplomats in Moscow on their short et heavily guarded journeys à meet auto tsar et his officials. The rumors the Possevino heard et rewrote in the Moscovia, were all about the sort of conflict, in this case within auto ruling dynasty in that most significativement relationship, that ns ruler and heir. Auto Poles obtained out du these rumors quel they wanted venir hear, especially thé king and his more militante officials, like thé Chancellor jan Zamoyski. Floria’s works et the various collection of sauce are full ns such rumors. Castle were année important part de the politics calculus in Russian‑Polish relations. Possevino was not building something new et unheard of, together rumors circulated continuously in auto court et government du Poland from at least the 1560’s until auto end du the Time of Troubles. Ivan himself may have contributed à such rumors.53

25The divers larger issue may be put simply. Does the truth jaune falsehood de Possevino’s histoire make any kind of difference? Perhaps ce does no make a super difference in itself, but the des relations inside thé family de a judgment monarch in the pre‑modern civilization should not be left oui material à la historical novelists. Historians encore normally act monarchies ont institutions: they study auto formal legitimate structure, the system du power, much more recently client‑patron relation among thé elite et the configuration of the elite, the culture of auto court. A monarchy, however, is a family members at the core, et how that family lived was an important component ns the “state,” ont we call it.


26To conclude: the story told by Possevino in his Moscovia consisted of a alors of statements the were no true. The most obvious is the neither de his interpreters were anywhere near Ivan and his le sien in the days when thé tsarevich to be ill and died. This conclusion arises from Possevino’s very own letter du 16 November 1586 venir Ivan, published as année appendix to the Moscovia itself. The seul reason that thé readers did no see the deception is the few si any du them in 1586 knew auto exact cétait une date of auto death of the tsarevich. Contemporary historians aller not have that excuse. The second falsehood was the the histoire was the result ns conscientious investigation, conveyed to him par his interpreter. His personal letter to Galli of 22 January 1582 says that the histoire was a rumor he heard in the Polish stock near Pskov et that he did not believe it. Auto third falsehood to be that the death of the tsarevich was auto result ns a arguement about thé wife of the tsarevich et that ce inclined Ivan à listen to Possevino’s tranquility proposals. Thé rumor Possevino heard in so late January was the Ivan Ivanovich want peace and his dad did not. In reality Possevino’s actions and correspondence, published at the time et unpublished, demonstrate that cette believed Ivan venir be inclined toward tranquility from the time he life encountered the zar in August, 1581. Possevino’s unpublished post with the Vatican, polishing officials, et the Venetian Senate spectacles that hey returned to auto subject de the tsarevich several fois in the ensuing année 1582 marqué never mentioned murder jaune killing, seulement un death. Later on correspondence with auto Vatican reveals that cette wrote thé chapter (commentary) containing thé story seulement un some time in 1583, while he was in Hungary, et that he wrote it in réagir to assignment (unspecified).

27The histoire in fact came not from careful investigation discovered de Possevino’s interpreters, but from politics rumors in auto Polish court and army, et are a part de the history ns Polish perceptions de Russia et related political schemes. Same importantly, the story is part de the history of the last years ns the Riurikovich dynasty, the famille that had actually ruled Russia pour centuries, and as provided earlier, a monarchy is a family. Cette matters how the father encountered his son.


1 Charles Halperin, “Sixteenth‑Century étranger Travel Accounts to Muscovy : A Methodological Excursus,” auto Sixteenth‑Century Journal, 6, 2 (October, 1975) : 89‑111 ; Gabriele Scheidegger, Perverses Abendland‑ barbarisches Russland : Begegnungen des 15. Und 17. Jahrhunderts je Schatten kultureller Missverstandnisse (Zurich : Chronos‑Vert, 1993) ; Marshall Poe, Foreign la description of Muscovy : an Analytic Bibliography of Primary and Secondary sauce (Columbus, OH : Slavica Publishers, 1995) ; Marshall Poe, A People born to Slavery : Russia in Early modern-day European Ethnography, 1476‑1748 (Ithaca, NY : Cornell college Press, 2001).

2 Sigmund de Herberstein, Rerum Moscovitarum commentarii, Vienna, 1549 ; Idem, Moscoviter Wunderbare Historien, Basel, 1563 ; Russian translation : A.L. Khoroshkevich, ed., Zapiski de plus Moskovii, 2 vols., M., 2008 ; Giles Fletcher, ns the Russe Commonwealth, in Lloyd E. Berry and Robert O. Crummey, eds., Rude et Barbarous Kingdom (Madison : University de Wisconsin, 1968), 87‑246 ; Adam Olearius, Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung der Muscowitischen und Persischen Reyse, ed. Dieter Lohmeyer (Tübingen : max Niemeyer, 1971). Auto few surviving Herberstein reports are in Joseph Fiedler, “Aktenstücke zu Siegmunds Freiherrn téléphone Herberstein zweiter mission nach Russland 1525‑26,” in Fr. Miklosich, J. Fiedler, eds., Slavische Bibliothek oder Beträge zur slavischen Philologie et Geschichte ii (Vienna, 1858), 63‑93.

3 on Possevino check out Liisi Karttunen, Antonio Possevino, une diplomate pontifical venir XVIe siècle (Lausanne : Pache‑Varidel & Bron, 1908) ; jan Joseph Santich, Missio Moscovitica : thé Role ns the Jesuits in auto Westernization of Russia 1582‑1689 (New York : péter Lang, 1995), 85‑111 ; Stéphane Mund, Orbis russiarum : genèse et développement aux la représentation du monde “russe” en Occident pour Renaissance (Geneva : librairie Droz, 2003), 217‑220 ; et the work du Paul Pierling, la Russie et les Saint‑Siège : détudes diplomatiques, vol. II (P. : Plon, 1897).

4 pôle Bushkovitch, peter the Great : thé Struggle à la Power 1671‑1725 (Cambridge : Cambridge college Press, 2001) ; Idem, “Aristocratic Faction et the abondance to pet the Great,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 50 (1995) : 80‑120.

5 N.M. Karamzin, Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiskogo (reprint edition, M., 1989 ), kn. 3, cols. 208‑09  ; S.M. Solov´ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen , 15 vols, (M. : Izd. Sotsial´noi ekonomicheskoi literatury, 1960‑1966), vol. 3, 703‑704, 739‑740  ; S.F. Platonov, Ocherki po istorii Smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVI‑XVII vv. (3d ed., SPb. : Bashmakova, 1910), 179 ; R.G. Skrynnikov, Ivan Groznyi (M., 1973), 234‑236 ; A.A. Zimin, v kanun groznykh potriasenii : predposylki pervoi krest´ianskoi voiny en v Rossii (M. : Mysl, 1986), 90‑93 ; Andrei Pavlov and Maureen Perrie, Ivan thé Terrible, (London : Pearson, Longman, 2003), 192‑193 ; Isabel aux Madariaga, Ivan auto Terrible : First zar of Russia (New Haven : Yale university Press, 2005, 340‑341.

6 nous the later collision of the histoire see among est différent works alin Besançon, les tsarévitch immolé, ns symbolique de la act dans la culture russe (P., 1967), Maureen Perrie, The image of Ivan the effrayante in Russian folklore (Cambridge : college Press, 1987) ; idem, auto Cult ns Ivan the incroyable in Stalin’s Russia (Basingstoke : Palgrave, 2001) ; N.N. Mut´ia, Ivan Groznyi : istorizm i lichnost´ pravitelia v otechestvennom iskusstve XIX‑XX vv. (SPb. : Aleteiia, 2010).

7 alexander Filjushkin, Ivan auto Terrible : a Military history (London : Frontline Books, 2008), 239‑242 ; Zimin, v kanun groznykh potriasenii, 76‑78 ; V.V. Novodvorskii , Bor´ba za Livoniiu mezhdu Moskvoi ns Rech´iu Pospolitoiu (1570‑1582) , Zapiski istoriko‑filologicheskogo fakul´tetat imp. S‑Peterburgskogo universitetu 72 (SPb., 1904), 217‑228.

8 Novodvorskii, Bor´ba za Livoniiu, 255‑303.

9 Antonio Possevino, Moscovia (Wilno, Apud Ioannem Velicensem, 1586)  ; additionally Antwerp, 1587 ; Italian translation ont Commentarii della Moscovia (Mantua, 1610 ). English : Hugh F. Graham, ed. Et trans., thé Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, S.J. (Pittsburgh, 1977) ; Russian : A. Possevino, Istoricheskie sochineniia Ö Rossii , (trans. L.N. Godovikova, M., 1983) ; Polish : Antonio Possevino, Moscovia, (trans., Albert Warkotsch, Warsaw, 1988). The text in A.I. Turgenev, ed., Historiæ Ruthenicæ Scriptores, (Berlin‑SPb., 1842), vol. 2, 275‑366 reverses auto order of the deux commentaries. Godovikova, who used this version, additionally reversed the order of the deux commentaries. Graham used thé 1587 Antwerp edition i beg your pardon followed auto order du the Wilno editio princeps but omitted the appendix du letters in thé 1586 and other editions.

10 Graham, the Moscovia du Antonio Possevino, 12‑13, 146. Graham did not indicate a source for the informations about thé interpreters marqué presumably ce was Pierling, who believed that the la source was Possevino’s divers interpreter Vasilii Zamaskii : pôle Pierling, Papes und Tsars (1547‑1597) : d’après des document nouveaux (P. : Retaux‑Bray, 1890), 304 ; and Idem, ns Russie et le Saint‑Siège, 160‑161.

11 Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 13v‑14v ; 1587, 28 ; Historiæ Ruthenicæ II, 292‑93. The Italian translate into was much more definite : “per manifeste inditio” pour “certiore indicio” et “vera” pour “veriore” : Possevino, Commentarii, 38‑39.

12 Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 13v ; 1587, 28 ; Historiæ Ruthenicæ II, 292‑93.

13 Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 13v ; 1587, 28 ; Graham, thé Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, 12 ; Godovikova, Istoricheskie sochineniia, 50.

14 Pierling, la Russie II, 160. Pierling offered ne sont pas source à la the conclusion, though hey clearly check out Possevino’s letter in the Moscovia et elsewhere.

Voir plus: Exoneration De Taxe D Habitation 2021 : Barème Et Demande, Taxe D'Habitation 2021 : Devrez

15 Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 208‑208v ; Idem, Moscovia rang alia opera, 1595, 67 ; Godovikova, Istoricheskie sochineniia, 104‑105 ; Zimin, v kanun groznykh potriasenii, 90, 265. Thé Russian déditions of Possevino’s letter is in F.I. Uspenskii, Peregovory de plus mire mezhdu Moskvoi je Pol´shei en v 1581‑1582 gg. (Odessa, 1887), 39‑40.

16 Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii drevnei Rossii s derzhavami inostrannymi SPb., 1851‑1871, X, 248‑258 ; Godovikova, Istoricheskie sochineniia, 102‑103.

17 Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 227‑227v ; Idem, Moscovia et alia opera, 1595, 72‑73 ; Idem, Commentarii, 155 ; Godovikova, Istoricheskie sochineniia, 117, 120. Ivan’s letter to roi Stefan et his safe‑conduct pour the polishing negotiators to be dated October 27 : M. Koialovich, Dnevnik posledniago pokhoda Stefana Batoriia na Rossiiu (osada Pskova) i Diplomaticheskaia perepiska togo vremeni otnosiashchaiasia glavnym obrazom k zakliucheniiu Zapol´skago momie (SPb., 1867), 372‑373.

18 “Nos emendatiora ab ipso Auctore consecuti,” Possevino, Moscovia 1586, “Typographus lectori” unpaginated introduction.

19 Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 1v. Cf. Graham, thé Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, 1 : “during my absence of five months from Muscovy je left two masculin with auto Prince et they to be able to make countless observations.” See additionally Possevino’s letter to father Jakub Wujek in Transylvania from auto Polish camp at Pskov, Oct. 8, 158, stating that he left Drenocky in Moscow, in Andreas Veress, Epistolæ et acta Jesuitarum Transylvaniæ temporibus principum Bathory (1571‑1613), (2 vols. Budapest, 1911‑13), (Fontes rerum Transylvanicarum 1 et 2), vol. 1, (Budapest, 1911), 201.

20 Possevino, Istoricheskie sochineniia, 238 ; Possevino, Moscovia, 1586, 18‑18v ; Cf. Graham, thé Moscovia ns Antonio Possevino, 17 ; Pierling, la Russie, II, 161 ; Idem, manière Lerpigny, Un arbitre pontifical au xvie siècle : commander diplomatique du Possevino, 1581‑1582 (Bruxelles : entreprise belge aux libraire, 1890), 90‑91 ; A.I. Turgenev, ed., Supplementum advertisement Historica Russiæ Monumenta (SPb., 1848), 393

21 paul Pierling, ed., Missio Moscovitica, (P. : apud Ernestum Leroux, 1882).

22 auto Campana branchement used to compile auto “Missio” is discovered with mention of the tsarevichi in A.M. Ammann, ed., “I.P. Campani Relatio aux itinere Moscovitico,” in Antemurale, by means of (1960‑61), 1‑85, watch 32 ; German translation, “Ein russischer Reisebericht vital dem Jahre 1581, A.M. Ammann, ed., Ostkirchliche Studien X, (1969) : 156‑193, 283‑300, check out p. 184.

23 “Possewin... Moskiewskiego ad sidera tollit.” “Nie widziałem, prawi, w nim babariem takiej, jako ludzie mówią : kto sprawy jego ze sprawami wojska tego konferuje, daleko tam więtszą bojaźń Boga najdzie.” “Stąd mu się podoba Kniaź, że, co słowo, à się przeżegna a obrazków około niego pełno,” A. Czuczyński, ed., X. Jan Piotrowski, Dziennik wyprawy Stefana Batorego pod Psków (Krakow, 1894), 186. Also in Koialovich, Dnevnik. Russian translation : Dnevnik pol´skogo posledniago pokhoda Stefana Batoriia n / a Rossiiu (Osada Pskova), (trans. O.N. Milevskii, Pskov, 1882). Piotrowski later on entered auto priesthood.

24 “wieści od ięzyków, thedy tho powiadayą, a wiele sie gich zgadzą na yedno, chocz chloptswo, ysz syn starszy Iwan Kniazia Wielkiego umarl, y Knias sam z wielki zalosczi zachorzal, a do czerkwi przyslal ialmuzny, aby za duszę syna iego Boga proszono,” Józef Siemeński, ed., Archiwum Jana Zamoyskiego (Warsaw, 1909, II), 180.

25 “Huc nova ad haec delata sunt Magni Ducis primogenitum filium Ioannem mortuum esse,” Archiwum, II, 199.

26 “Ex captivis rang exploratoribus Novogardia intellexi maiorem natu Mosci filium obiisse,” Archiwum, II, 220.

27 Monumenta Poloniæ Vaticana , 8 vols. (Krakow, 1913‑1948, vol. V), 168. During thé pontificate of grégoire XIII (1572‑1585) Galli was the principal “minister” ns the pope since the cardinal‑nephew to be young et inexperienced. Check out Antonio Menniti Ippolito, “Note sulla Segreteria di Stato come ministero particolare cette Pontefice Romano” in Gianvittorio Signorotto and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, eds., la corte tous Roma tra cinque e seicento : ‘Teatro’ della politica europea (Rome, 1998), 167‑189. (English translation : Ippolito, “The Secretariat ns State ont the Pope’s unique Ministry,” in Signorotto and Visceglia, eds., Court and Politics in Papal rome 1492‑1700 (Cambridge, 2002), 140‑144.)

28 “E vulgo cedisse 300 Moschovitas, filium Magni Ducis Moschovitarum ibiden occubuisse, vulneratos und captos plurimos,” Archiwum, II, 274.

29 MPV V, 194. Auto letter was life published in Lerpigny, Un arbitre pontifical à xvie siècle, 245. Pierling frequently cited thé work, marqué not this letter.

30 Jósef Siemeński, ed., Archiwum Jana Zamoyskiego taux (Warsaw, 1913), 11.

31 MPV V, 229 ; MPV VI, 32, 102, 596.

32 Supplementum ad Historica Russiae Monumenta (SPb., 1848), 388‑404.

33 paul Pierling, Bathory und Possevino : document inédits sur les rapports aux Saint-Siège avec les slaves (P. : Leroux, 1887), 168‑193.

34 Pierling, Bathory et Possevino, 172.

35 nous Possevino’s mission to Hungary see his reporter in Andreas Veress, ed., Antonio Possevino, Transilvania (1584), Fontes rerum Transylvanicarum III (Budapest, 1913) ; et Istvan Keul, Early modern Religious communities in East‑Central Europe : ethnic Diversity, Denominational Plurality, and Corporative national politics in auto Principality ns Transylvania 1526‑1691 (Leiden‑ Boston, 2006), 131‑40.

36 C.E. Napiersky, ed., , Livoniæ commentaries Gregorio XIII scriptus (Riga, 1852), 18‑19.

37 Godovikova, ed., Istoricheskie sochineniia, 232.

38 Pierling, Missio. Vii‑viii ; likewise published in Monumenta Poloniæ Vaticana VII, 77.

39 Graham, auto Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, 1, 44 ; Possevino, Moscovia (1586), pages, (1587), 7, 86.

40 MPV VI, 702.

41 Pierling, Russie, II, 249‑273.

42 Pierling, Russie, II, 282‑324.

43 Pierling, Russie, II, 314. Nous Annibale di Capua see janvier Władysław Woś, père noël Sede e corona Polacca nella corrispondenzade Annibale di Capua 1586‑1591, Trento, 2004.

44 Pierling, Russie, II, 232‑234 ; Archiwum Jana Zamoyskiego IV (Krakow, 1948), 456‑457 (Possevino venir Zamoyski, Padua, 16 January, 1588). Thé “long letter” in question is presumably roi Stefan’s reply du 2 August, 1581 to Ivan’s longue letter de 29 célibataire 1581. The Polish roi returned Ivan’s polemics in kind : D.S. Likhachev, Ia.S. Lur´e eds., Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo (M.‑L., 1951), 213‑238 ; et for Bathory’s message, A.I. Turgenev, ed., Historica Russiae Monumenta i (SPb., 1841), 323‑350 (Latin) et Kniga posol´skaia Metriki Velikogo Kniazhestva Litovskogo, soderzhashchaia v sebe diplomaticheskie snosheniia Litvy en v gosudarstvovanie korolia Stefana Batoriia (s 1573 po 1580 god) (M., 1845), 177‑206 (Ruthenian).

45 O. Halecki, “Possevino’s critical Statement nous Polish‑Russian Relations,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 19 (1953) : 299‑300.

46 Reinhold Heidenstein, aux bello Moscovitico (Wilno 1584), 211 ; reprinted in Historiæ Ruthenicæ Scriptores II, 165 ; Russian translation : Idem, Zapiski à Moskovskoi voine , trans. I.I. Vinogradov, V.G. Vasilevskii (SPb., 1889), 241‑242 ; Idem, Rerum Polonicarum… libri XII (Frankfurt/Main, 1672), 188 ; polish translation : Rajnold Hejdensztejn, Dzieje Polski od śmierci Zygmunta Augusta aller roku 1594, 2 Vols. (SPb., 1857, vol. 2), 91.

47 Zimin, v kanun groznykh potriasenii, 91‑92.

48 N.P. Likhachev, “Delo Ö priezde en v Moskvu Antonio Possevino ,” Letopis´ zaniatii arkheograficheskoi kommissii , 11 (1903) : 77‑78.

49 A.N. Nasonov, ed., Pskovskie letopisi (M., 1955), 263.

50 for example, Solov´ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, iii <1960>, 703.

51 Andrei Popov, ed., Izbornik slavianskikh je russkikh sochinenii je statei, vnesennykh v khronografy russkoi redaktsii (M., 1869), 183 ; O.A. Derzhavina, ed., Vremennik Ivana Timofeeva , M., 2004, 19.

52 B.N. Floria, Russko‑pol´skie otnosheniia i politicheskoe razvitie Vostochnoi Evropy vo vtoroi polovine XVI‑nachale XVII v. (M., 1978) ; Arkadiusz Czwołek, Piórem i Buławą : działalność polityczna Lwa Sapiehy, kanclerza liteskiego, wojewody wileńskiego (Toruń, 2012).

Voir plus: Probleme Connexion My Tf1 Ne Fonctionne Pas (Bug / Panne), Pourquoi Je Ne Peux Pas Regarder Tf1 Replay

53 In his tons epistle à Prince Andrey Kurbskii Ivan praised Constantine à la killing his son “tsarstviia radi :” Ia.S. Lur´e, Iu.A. Rykov, Perepiska Ivana Groznogo c Andreem Kurbskim (L., 1979), 19. The histoire that Possevino recounted, however, was no one de execution pour the sake of the empire.