Grozny and Batory in Epistolary Political Polemic

Druzhevskii Anton Olegovich Postgraduate of the Department of History of Russia from ancient times until the beginning of the 19th century, Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen (St. Petersburg, Russia); Executor of the project of the Scientific Project Support Department of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy named after F. M. Dostoevsky (St. Petersburg, Russia). 195299, Russia, Saint Petersburg, 3 Senatskaya str., office 224 adruzhevskij@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Eil'bart Nataliya Vladimirovna Doctor of History Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of History of Russia from ancient times until the beginning of the 19th century, Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen (St. Petersburg, Russia); researcher at the F.M. Dostoevsky Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy (St. Petersburg, Russia) 191186, Russia, Saint Petersburg, St. Neb.Moika River, 48 ejlbart@mail.ru

At the final stage of the Livonian War, which lasted 25 years (1558-1583), there were two main rivals: the Polish king Stefan Batory and the Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible. The success of the parties in this conflict largely depended on their worldview, personal qualities and relations with their subjects. If we talk about the previous foreign policy success of these sovereigns and their successes on the battlefield, then both of them in one way or another have reached considerable heights here. By the mid-1560s, Ivan the Terrible managed to annex Kazan and Astrakhan to Moscow. At the same time, for Ivan IV, the prospect of taking the Polish throne appeared in 1576, having fought for it with the then Semigrad voivode Batory. If this project had been successfully implemented, the armed conflict on the territory of Livonia could have been at least "frozen" or officially terminated by the incorporation of the whole of Livonia into the newly created Union State. If we talk about the abilities of Stefan Batory, even before he ascended the Polish throne, he became famous as an outstanding commander who served first the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I, and then the Transylvanian voivode Jan Zapole (having been elected to the latter's place in 1571).

In this article, we propose to reveal the personal and ideological (primarily in views on the nature and meaning of power) contradictions between Ivan the Terrible and Stefan Batory through the prism of their correspondence, which, unfortunately, has reached us only in fragments. In general, a comparison of the letters of these two bright contemporary rulers shows that the letter was perceived as an important attribute of diplomacy, strengthening the positions of opponents in the international arena. The analysis of the text also shows that the opponents were in a strong emotional excitement during its writing and often "turned to personalities".

         Before turning to the analysis of the correspondence itself, we will give a brief description of the upbringing of two expressive opponents. Despite the difficult childhood and early orphanhood of Ivan the Terrible, he probably initially received a brilliant education for that time in Moscow Russia. It is known for certain that in addition to the Russian language, the sovereign spoke Tatar perfectly and personally engaged in polemics with ambassadors. S.M. Solovyov noted his "brilliant talents", "hunting and ability to speak", which gave the image of the tsar "the verbal wisdom of a rhetorician" ^{[1, p. 45]}. The educated Grozny theologian is also evidenced by his witty polemic with the Jesuit Antonio Possevino ^{[2, pp.168-187]}. However, according to the same historian, "John used to ignore the interests of others, used not to respect human dignity, not to respect human life" [1 p. 34]. Foreigners who were at the Moscow court both under Grozny and under the first Romanovs, when memories of the tsar were still fresh, also noted the mind of the sovereign, as well as his excessive pride and rigidity. The Courland traveler Jacob Reitenfels, who visited Moscow during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, recorded the testimonies about John passed down from generation to generation: "He had a shrewd and quick mind; he knew no measure equally in hatred or favor, he was equally greedy for fame as for riches; he was extraordinary, before that he demanded by all means to teach the elephant to kneel before him" ^{[3, pp.280-281]}. Skeptically accepting rather the historical anecdote about the elephant of Tsar Ivan, cited by J. Reitenfels, we are still inclined to believe that the arrogance of the Terrible was out of the range of the manifestations of "monarch dignity" accepted in the West and the ground for these rumors was the legend spread by the tsar about his alleged descent from Prus, "brother of Caesar Augustus". Thus, the figure of an educated, capricious and tough man appears before us, inclined to get carried away with the idea of his God-chosen, and who considered his own position above the status of neighboring sovereigns.

Stefan Batory, born in the family of the Semigrad voivode Stefan, like Grozny, lost his father in early childhood, but unlike his future rival, he was not a hereditary ruler and owed his subsequent ascent largely to the ability to maneuver between various groupings of the local nobility. Being under the patronage of first the Habsburgs, then the governor of Semigrad Jan Zapolya, and finally the Turkish Sultan, he managed to seize the throne of Transylvania in 1571, and in 1576, with the consent of the Turkish government, he was elected Polish king. Being a well-educated man who once studied at the University of Padua and contributed to the foundation of the Vilna Academy, Batory, however, never learned the language of his Polish subjects, communicating with educated representatives of the gentry in Latin. Despite the fact that the king was brought up in conditions of sufficient freedom of political elites, he himself often showed despotic qualities, an example of which is the order given contrary to gentry customs to execute magnate Samuel Zborovsky in 1584 (such a step required the consent of the Sejm). By his order, in the summer of 1578, in order to please the Turkish Sultan, Moldavian ruler Ivan Podkova was arrested and sentenced to execution in Lviv, which, of course, was a manifestation of treachery on the part of the king. Proceeding from the above, it can be concluded that the character of Batory did not correspond in the least to the traditions of the "golden Polish liberty" and the gentry were in some way burdened by the manifestations of despotism and impulsiveness of the "Hungarian tyrant". There is a version that the cause of the king's death was poison spiked in wine by a supporter of one of the groups dissatisfied with the sovereign ^{[4,550 s.]}.

Turning to the analysis of the political polemics of the above-mentioned sovereigns, we note that their personal correspondence served as a source for him. When working with this correspondence, we used the following methods of historical research: linguistic analysis, narrative method, actualization method, historical-genetic, historical–systemic and historical-comparative methods.

Diplomatic correspondence between the first Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible and the Polish king Stefan Batory began in 1576, immediately after the royal elections, but, unfortunately, her first letters have not been preserved. The content of the tsar's message to the Polish king from 1579 has reached our days, it is very brief in volume. We can divide the royal text into several heterogeneous parts:

- listing of monarch titles;

- protection of Orthodoxy from religious heresies;

- condemnation of the arrogance of a political opponent;

 - for the formation of the Christian world against war, under God's protection;

- the antiquity of the family and the legitimacy of the accession;

- the traitor Kurbsky;

- religious moralizing of Ivan the Terrible. ^{[5, pp.248-269]}

Due to the fact that the Russian army had not yet suffered a catastrophic defeat in the Livonian War, and the situation on the fronts was more stable, which would not happen later, Ivan the Terrible felt at ease and showed every possible superiority over the Polish king. The key theme of the message is the issue of making peace. Prince A.M. Kurbsky is repeatedly mentioned in the test, the tsar is conducting a polemic with him in absentia and still cannot forgive his treason ^{[5, p.250;256]}. Ivan the Terrible appears in the text of the message as the guardian of Christian piety. Apparently, this message was widely distributed in Polish ruling circles, and the "pride of the Muscovite" was ridiculed by court poets at the king's instigation ^[6;7].

The second message of the Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible to the Polish king Stefan Batory in 1581 differs from the previous one in that the tsar somewhat humbles his own pride. At the same time, Ivan the Terrible emphasizes the nobility of his origin, the power received from his ancestors, which is not elective in nature. The message is about territorial and indemnity claims from the Polish side, as well as the need for a peace agreement. The text of the message shows obvious manipulation: the Russian ruler accuses his opponent of the sin that he has long suffered from – arrogance. Let's list the many manipulative techniques that are found in the text of Tsar Ivan (the sovereign addresses not only his political opponent, the Polish king Stefan Batory, but understands that the text of the message will become known to both the pope and the emperor Rudolf II and other contemporaries). With his message, Ivan the Terrible is trying to form a positive attitude towards his personality and his policies. The sovereign tries in every possible way to belittle his opponent and tease him. By the middle of the message, there is no trace of humiliation on the part of Ivan Vasilyevich. This is how the tsar's change of role manifests itself - from a humiliated victim, he goes on the offensive and "bites the opponent". The tsar repeatedly states in his message that he is for peace and against war and the shedding of Christian blood. Ivan the Terrible also occasionally turns to irony ^{[8, p.161]}. This helps to understand that the sovereign is simply mocking his opponent. Suddenly Ivan the Terrible becomes peaceful and does not show aggression and malice towards Stefan Batory. This indicates that Grozny is prone to theatricality and is ready to get used to a new image for the sake of his own ambitions. In fact, he uses imaginary humility to confuse his opponent and win the debate. The tsar often appeals to tradition, showing that Stefan Batory is incompetent as a ruler and unable to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Also, the king can be overly emotional. This technique allows Ivan the Terrible to depart from clear logical constructions and cause an emotional response from the opponent. Throughout the message, the sovereign says directly that God is on his side. Thereby showing the enemy that not only polemical, but also military confrontation will be won by them. Often the king uses words - tricks. This helps to create the effect of absolute authenticity of what has been said. The main polemical attack of Grozny manifests itself, as a rule, towards the end of the text of the letter ^{[8, pp.162-165]}. The sovereign himself violates the norms of decency and diplomatic etiquette and switches to unacceptable swearing and insults. At the end of the message, the ruler makes a tough conclusion, "wiping his nose" to Stefan Batory, making it clear that he is on the side of good.

Russian Russian King Stefan Batory immediately replied to Grozny on November 14, 1581. Listing the title of ruler, he gladly forged an opponent and called himself "the Grand Duke of Russia" (meaning that the Poles claimed a number of Russian territories during the bloody Livonian War, as well as the long-standing belonging to the Polish Crown of the lands of Chervona Rus). Batory tries to mirror the behavior of the addressee and appears as a supporter of peace and a conductor of religious values. The message contains the name of Antonio Possevino, who will mediate in the negotiations and will argue with the tsar about faith (note that the papal legate will play a role in the "information war" against Russia and will contribute to the formation and dissemination of the myth of Ivan the Terrible as a sonslayer).

The epistolary polemic of Grozny and Batory received an ambiguous assessment by Russian historians. N.M. Karamzin claimed that Stefan Batory won the palm in the polemic with the tsar, while Ivan the Terrible's behavior was "fearful" ^{[9, p.127]}. He believed that Batory also won a victory on the battlefield, having received territorial acquisitions. The red thread in the book is the statement that the reason for the unstable emotional state of the sovereign is tyranny. N.I. Kostomarov showed that the confrontation between the rulers began with the rejection of the Terrible Batory as an equal in status, the Russian side did not seek peace, delayed negotiations and openly mocked rivals ^{[10, p.501]}. The tsar's behavior led to increased escalation. It is difficult to imagine that, due to excessive pride, Ivan IV would have gone out to a duel with Batory, to which the king called him (if the duel had taken place, then Ivan Vasilyevich had no chance to win, because Batory was reputed to be an excellent swordsman). The proposal itself shocked the tsar, humiliated, puzzled and frightened. It seems that Grozny did not expect this (in this regard, we disagree with B.N.Florey, who believes that the sovereign sought to stop the war as soon as possible ^{[11, pp.28, 76, 149]}). In our opinion, it is clear from the behavior and rhetoric of the Polish king that he also does not seek peace, putting forward new territorial claims to Moscow.

Thus, in the exchange of messages, the rulers fueled a large-scale information war and mutual escalation. Both Stefan Batory and Ivan the Terrible used the technique of retelling the opponent's theses. This approach helps to return the interlocutor to what he has written and establish himself in his own rightness. From the text of the messages it becomes clear that there was a certain template that the sovereigns used in official correspondence. The addressee could be different, but the structure of the message was the same: a retelling of the previous message, a refutation of the opponent, interspersed with quotations from the holy scriptures, an assertion of one's own significance and the truth of judgments. Often the rulers turned personal and violated the norms of etiquette and interstate communication. Of course, such a technique made the text more emotional and interesting to read, but it aroused anger and hatred in the enemy.

In connection with the above, we note that any military and political confrontation cannot do without propaganda from both sides.

The Belgian historian Anna Morelli in 2001 identifies 10 principles of military propaganda. They can be extrapolated to the correspondence of the Russian and Polish rulers under consideration:

- We do not want war, we are only defending ourselves;- Our enemy bears full responsibility for this war;

- The leader of our opponent is initially angry and looks like the devil;- We are defending a noble cause, not our own special interests;

- The enemy purposefully commits atrocities; if we make mistakes, it happens without intent;

- The enemy uses prohibited weapons;

- Our losses are small, the enemy's losses are significant;

-Our cause is supported by recognized intellectuals and artists;

- Our cause is sacred;- Anyone who questions our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor^[12].

(Those theses that reflect the position of our heroes are highlighted in bold).

In general, the messages of the Terrible Batory reflect the unique literary style of pre-Petrine Russia. For several centuries, such texts were not preserved, i.e. until the middle of the sixteenth century, in fact, Russia was silent and, in view of the absence of extensive diplomatic correspondence, it is difficult to establish and analyze the mindset of the highest authorities. We agree with the outstanding historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, who considered Tsar Ivan the Terrible a talented publicist ^{[13, p.106]}. Thus, it can be stated that a draw was won in the polemic between Batory and Grozny: the tsar did not respond to the calls of the Polish king to a duel, did not get the desired access to the Baltic Sea, Batory failed to bring the wayward ruler of Moscow to his knees, to take possession of a number of Russian cities, to enrich himself economically. The opponents remained each with their own opinion. However, Ivan the Terrible, using the manipulation techniques he used, managed to establish this text as part of his own journalistic heritage, to make his personality interesting in the West: his messages were actively quoted in Europe and even found attractive features in them (such as, for example, the king's impeccable knowledge of the Holy Scriptures). Ivan the Terrible used persuasion and manipulation techniques that were in no way inferior to, and in many ways superior to, his political opponents.