Ivan the Terrible (86 page)

8
Fletcher,
Of the Russe Commonwealth
, pp. 42–3. It is possible that Fletcher believed that Ivan was moved by financial considerations all the more easily because he was as strongly in favour of the confiscation of the lands of the Russian Church as he was of the confiscation of the lands of the English Church.

9
See S.M. Kashtanov, ‘O vnutrennei politike Ivana Groznogo v period velikogo kniazhenia Simeona Bekbulatovicha’, in
Trudy Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo-istoriko-arkhivnogo instituta,
Moscow 1961, p. 427.

10
Ibid., p. 429, note 18. See also P.A. Sadikov, ‘Iz istorii oprichniny’, in
Istoricheskii arkhiv,
1940, III, p. 169, note 1 on the destruction of Simeon's charters.

11
Kashtanov, ‘O vnutrennei politike …’ p. 430; when Ivan and Simeon were mentioned together Ivan' s name continued to appear first on documents, note 23.

12
Woodward and Mattingly, eds,
St John Damascene, Barlaam and Josaphat
. See also A. Pypin, in ‘Istoria Varlaama i Iosafata’,
Ocherk literaturnoi istorii starinnykh povestei i skazok russkikh
, St Petersburg, 1857, p. 124, who states that many copies of this tale were known to have existed in various libraries, though the anecdotes in the story often circulated separately. The story is also told later of the Persian Shah Abbas I, whose death at a specific time was foretold. The Shah abdicated in favour of a craftsman for the few doom laden days mentioned in the prophecy, then resumed his power and executed his double. See P.A. Sadikov
, Ocherki po istorii oprichniny
, Moscow/Leningrad, 1950, p. 38.

13
Skrynnikov,
Rossia posle oprichniny,
p. 36.

14
Tolstoy, op. cit., pp. 183ff.

15
On the supernova and the comet, see B. Woolley,
The Queen's Conjuror: The Science and Magic of Dr Dee,
HarperCollins, London 2001, pp. 161ff. Tycho Brahe noted that the comet's tail pointed northeast, ‘where it would “spew its venom” over the Muscovites and Tartars’. Maybe Bomelius thought so too. See also Ryan,
The Bathhouse
, pp. 374–5.

16
Skrynnikov,
Rossia posle oprichniny,
p. 21, and notes 78 and 79.

17
Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora,
p. 494; see also his
Rossia posle oprichniny
, pp. 20ff. Ivan Ivanovich was already in his twenties, and was given no independent command. Such a suspicion explains Ivan's persecution of the Iur'ev Zakhar'ins at this time. See Chapter XVII, p. 295.

18
Quoted in Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora,
p. 495.

19
In spring 1578 Kambulat Idarovich, a brother of Temriuk, now the Senior Prince of Kabarda visited Moscow, and left behind his son, a first cousin of the Tsaritsa Maria, who converted to Orthodoxy, entered Russian service and eventually as Boris Kambulatovich Cherkassky, married a daughter of Nikita Romanovich Iur'ev Zakhar'in, Tsaritsa Anastasia's brother. See Zimin,
V Kanun
, pp. 52–3. It should be remembered that Ivan's mother was descended from a leading non-Genghisid Tatar warrior, Mamay.

20
Skrynnikov,
Rossia posle oprichniny,
p. 33.

21
Daniel Prinz von Buchau, op. cit., p. 29.

22
Tolstoy, op. cit., pp. 179–80, note of Ivan's speech to Daniel Sylvester, Moscow, 29 November 1575. Sylvester says that the interview took place in the ‘howse of Oprisheno’ to which Ivan had moved on leaving the Kremlin and which was in the Arbat. It had presumably been repaired after the fire of 1571.

23
Skrynnikov,
Tsarstvo terrora,
pp. 508ff.

24
Ibid., p. 485. Kashtanov had put forward a similar kind of argument in 1961 (‘O vnutrenney politike …’, p. 440). The role of Simeon Bekbulatovich was dual, he argued. Ivan had put him forward but had also to guard against him.
‘Only such a dialectical dualism in the role of Simeon can explain the internal contradictions of the policy of Ivan in 1575–6’ and the rapid demotion of Simeon.

25
Likhachev and Lur'e, eds,
Poslania Ivana Groznogo
, letter to Simeon Bekbulatovich, pp. 195 and 372.

26
For a detailed analysis of the personnel and the lands taken in to the
udel
of the Grand Prince of Moscow (Ivan IV) during the ‘reign’ of Simeon Bekbulatovich, see the study by S.P. Mordovina and A.L. Stanislavskii, ‘Sostav osobogo dvora Ivana IV v period “Velikogo Kniazhenia” Semena Bekbulatovicha’,
Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1976
, Moscow, 1976, pp. 153–92.

27
See Floria,
Russko-Pol'skie otnoshenia
, pp. 93ff. for discussion of various view points.

28
Ibid., pp. 98ff., and by the same author, ‘Artikuly skazannyye cherez Krishtofa Graevskogo – vazhnyi istochnik po istorii russkoy vneshnei politiki 70-kh godov XVI veka’, in
Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1975g,
Moscow, 1976, pp. 334–8.

29
Floria,
Ivan Groznyy
, p. 325.

30
Ibid., p. 327.

31
Floria,
Russko-Polskie otnoshenia
, pp. 102–3.

32
Zimin,
V Kanun
, p. 22.

33
See Übersberger,
Österreich und Russland
, pp. 404ff. on the unreliability of Magnus Pauli as a Russian envoy. He is nevertheless quoted by Floria,
Ivan Groznyy
, pp. 332ff., as confirming to Ivan Maximilian's plans for an anti-Turkish alliance between Russia, the Commonwealth and the Habsburgs (it is not clear whether the Empire is meant or only the Habsburg lands).

34
This is stated by Übersberger, op. cit., pp. 407 and 409, but Floria in
Ivan Groznyi
assumes that Pauli was speaking with the Emperor's full authority.

35
Ibid., p. 331; Floria speaks of the actual partition of the Commonwealth, but a few lines further he waters down his language and speaks merely of a division of spheres of influence. Übersberger, op. cit., pp. 408–9, argues that partition runs counter to the whole trend of Maximilian's Polish policy and is an invention of Pauli's; he is critical of the interpretation of Novodvorsky in
Bor'baza Livoniu
, pp. 16ff.

36
Übersberger, op. cit., pp. 396ff. It is during this period that Kurbsky proposed an anti-Turkish alliance between Russia, the Commonwealth and the Empire, through the Abbé Cyrus, the imperial representative in Warsaw. See Lur'e, ‘Doneseniya agenta Maksimiliana …’. Nothing came of it.

37
Tikhomirov,
Rossiskoe gosudarstvo
, pp. 72–3.

38
Solov'ev, pp. 632–3.

39
Übersberger, op. cit., p. 443, and note 1 for examples of two such impostors.

40
See Hans Cobenzl's account in
Chtenia
, 1876, IV, pp. 1–20, where it is printed under the title ‘Donesenie o Moskovii Ioanna Pernstaina’, ed. O. Vodiansky. There is no mention of the presence of Tsar Simeon at the banquets or political discussions.

41
The Papal nuncio at this stage favoured the election of Ivan in the belief that he could be moved to accept the authority of the Pope in exchange for the title of Emperor of Constantinople, once he had of course conquered that city. Übersberger, op. cit., p. 446.

42
Cobenzl, op. cit., pp. 1–20.

43
There is apparently no record of his having studied at the University, See G. Gömöri, ‘Where was Istvan Bathory Educated? Or the Genesis of a Legend’,
SEER,
vol. 80, no. 3, 2002, pp. 483–6.

44
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, p. 340.

45
Ibid.

46
Ibid., p. 334.

47
Ivan sent a delegation to this Reichstag which is the subject of a well known illustration of Russian boyars.

48
Übersberger, op. cit., pp. 460ff.

49
Solov'ev, III, p. 648.

50
For a consideration of the issues involved see Zimin,
V Kanun
, pp. 41ff. As late as 1580 however, when Ivan was dividing his troops for the campaign of that winter, the military registers mention ‘the departure to the Lithuanian border of the baptized Tatar tsarevich Grand Prince Simeon Bekbulatovich and Boyar I.F. Mstislavsky’, so that Simeon was still being given his title. Solov'ev, III p. 657.

51
Zimin (
V Kanun
, p. 41) quotes Horsey's extremely muddled description of the demotion of Tsar Simeon. He confused it with the famous request of the people to Ivan to return from Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda to Moscow in 1565. Horsey's easy use of the term ‘act of parliament’ to describe popular demand to the Tsar to return has proved particularly confusing since it has led some historians to assume that a
Zemskii sobor
was called in autumn 1576 to approve the demotion of the Tatar tsar. The final status of Simeon has been variously described as no more than that of an ordinary
pomeshchik
, and that of an appanage prince.

52
Ibid., p. 47.

53
V.B. Kobrin, ‘Sostav oprichnogo dvora Ivana Groznogo’,
Arkheografcheskii ezhegodnik za 1959
, Moscow, 1960, p. 167

54
Kobrin, ‘Sostav oprichnogo dvora’, p. 134. However Solov'ev refers to a report that Vasilisa's husband was executed by an
oprichnik
, and that the Tsar sent her to a convent in Novgorod on 1 May 1577, because her eye wandered to someone else, whom the Tsar executed (III, vol. 6, p. 739. note 136).

55
I have come across no mention of Ivan ever seeing the sea. It would be interesting to know what impact it had on him.

56
Polubensky is described as a descendant of Palemon, a legendary ancestor of the Lithuanian princes, related to Nero, who fled from Rome to the Niemen and founded the Lithuanian nation.
Poslania Ivana Groznogo,
pp. 374ff.

57
Prince Alexander Polubensky belonged to a branch of the Trubetskoy clan which had left Russia, entered Polish–Lithuanian service and fought against the Russians. See Kurbsky,
Correspondence,
p. 186, note 1.

58
Poslania Ivana Groznogo
, pp. 374ff. Ivan addresses Polubensky as ‘Palemonova roda’, or ‘poloumnogo roda’ (half-witted) because he had not had the wit to keep what he had conquered.

59
Floria,
Ivan Groznyy
, p. 344.

60
Kukonos.

61
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, pp. 343, using Baltasar Russow.

62
Kurbsky,
Correspondence
, pp. 187–97, dated 1577. It was probably sent to Kurbsky via Polubensky, when he returned to the Commonwealth. See below, Chapter XXI for further discussion.

63
Zimin,
V Kanun
, p. 50. Ivan expresses the same idea in his letter to Kurbsky.

64
Kurbsky,
Correspondence
, pp. 187–97.

65
Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, pp. 344–5.

66
Zimin,
V Kanun
, p. 52

67
Solov'ev, III, p. 646. See also Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, pp. 350–1; Roberts,
The Early Vasas,
p. 263.

68
Zimin,
V Kanun
, p. 53. See the account of Johann Boch, who was staying in the foreign quarter, in Graham, ed., ‘Johann Boch in Moscow’.

69
Horsey,
Travels
, pp. 288–9.

70
Solov'ev, III, p. 649. Floria,
Ivan Groznyi
, suggests that the Russian envoys succeeded only in misleading Ivan by suggesting that Bathory had not been accepted as king in Poland, hence only a few Lithuanian troops would follow him; the people really wanted the Tsarevich Fedor Ivanovich. Unfortunately Floria provides no footnotes so that the source cannot be checked (ibid., p. 352).

71
Roberts, op. cit., p. 263.

72
Poslania Ivana Groznogo
, pp. 337–50, ‘Vtoroe poslanie Shvedskomy koroliu Ioganny III, 1573’. Ivan's letter takes up thirteen printed pages.

73
Solov'ev, III, 6, p. 648.

74
Ibid., the quotation is from Ecclesiasticus (Jesus of Sirach).

1
Zimin,
V Kanun
, p. 54. Skrynnikov,
Rossia posle oprichniny
, p. 45, note 22 and p. 90 and note 18. Floria found a report of Ivan's illness of 3 April 1579 in theJan Zamoyski archives in Poland. Ivan's health is also mentioned in the
Vremennik Ivana Timofeeva
, ed.O.A. Derzhavina, Moscow and Leningrad, 1951, p. 174 in the context of the Tsar's fondness for foreign doctors.

2
Howes,
Testaments of the Grand Princes of Moscow,
pp. 304ff.

3
Veselovsky, ‘Dukhovnoe zaveshchanie Tsaria Ivana 1572’ in
Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny,
pp. 302ff. Zimin,
V Kanun,
p. 8 and note 6. Metropolitan Antoni, who is mentioned in the will, was appointed in May 1572, and remained in office until 1581, thus mention of his name does not help to establish the date.

4
This is the date suggested by A.L. Iurganov, in ‘O date zapisania zaveshchania Ivana Groznogo’,
Otechestvennaia istoria,
6, 1993, pp. 135–41.

5
A will usually began with a reference to the testator as ‘a sinful poor slave of God’, any other sins having been confessed to the private chaplain before undertaking such a solemn act as making a will.

6
The ultimate destiny of Vorotynsky's lands is very complicated and the details are not relevant here. See B.Yu. Belikov and E.I. Kolycheva, ‘Dokumenty o zemlevladenii kniazei Vorotynskikh vo vtoroi poloviny XVI – nachale XVII vv’, in
Arkhiv russkoi istorii
, vyp. 2, Moscow, 1992, pp. 427–46.

7
Ivan also lists many towns and villages which had belonged to his brother Prince Iuri and which he had made over to the latter's widow, Princess Ul'iana, which were to remain hers for her life.

8
Howes, op. cit., p. 173, my translation from the Russian version of Ivan's will.

9
The Kanon was edited and published by D.S. Likhachev, who attributes it to Ivan in
Issledovania po drevnerusskoi literature
, Leningrad, 1986, pp. 372–3. It is reprinted in modernized Russian in Ivan Groznyi,
Sochinenia
, pp. 139ff.