Ivan IV Grozny has entered history as one of the greatest Russian rulers, and all serious historians recognize this as a fact. Yet it is the odious side of his reign that has captured the imagination of the history buffs, and there is no denying that the most astonishingly positive aspects of Ivan’s historical legacy are by no means as well-known to the reader as Ivan’s proverbial savage cruelty, atrocious willfulness, and explosive temper. It is probably because of this latter dark side of his reign that his nickname Grozny [fear-inspiring] has been famously mistranslated as The Terrible.
There is no denying, of course, that Ivan’s reign, particularly during its later period, was marked by terrible cruelty, which may have been exceptional even against the backdrop of the all-pervasive inhuman cruelty of those times, generally speaking, prominently including the most civilized and supposedly humane nations of the contemporary world. I would not have liked to live in those times in Russia, when even the sincerest and most loyal supporters of the Tsar could suffer a most horrific torture and death, maliciously slandered by an envious rival for the monarch’s attention or simply on the Tsar’s wild whim. Yet, fortunately, I’m not living in those days, I have no memory of any close relatives coming to harm at the hand of the Tsar, and there is a great enough distance separating us to be able to look at Ivan’s reign from the broad world-historical, rather than personal perspective.
I am not going to relate Ivan’s biography and curriculum vitae here, as these can be gleaned from any good reference book. It is enough to say that he was the key figure in Russian history to establish and validate the mighty Russian Empire. Formally, he was the first Russian “Tsar,” using the specific term characterizing an absolute and unconditional ruler. (Jesus Christ has always been referred to, in Russian Church literature and liturgy, as “Tsar Nebesnyi,” “Tsar of the Heavens.”) Ivan effectively created the system of administration of the Russian State and formed the first permanent Russian army, the “streltsy.”
In terms of his foreign policy, he is occasionally denigrated by his detractors for suffering several defeats in his “Livonian” wars waged against Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, and other Western foes. But it must be noted that in these Western wars, he was an “aggressor,” trying to win Russia a broad access to the Baltic Sea, and in “winning some--losing some” he did not actually surrender any significant Russian territory to the enemy, whereas his successes in the “eastward push” were spectacular. Subduing the mighty Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates and conquering Siberia, he doubled the size of Russia during his long reign, turning it into a giant power greater than all of Europe in size and leaving to his successors, including Peter I and Catherine II, the relatively modest task of expansion by accretion.
…So far so good, but I have not explained the significance of my title yet. Ivan Grozny and the Alternative. What is “the alternative,” and how does it fit into the context of this entry?
There was a highly significant episode during Ivan’s reign, when in 1575 he suddenly “relinquished” power and forced the boyars and the nation to accept a certain Russified Tatar nobleman Sainbulat-Khan, renamed Simeon Bekbulatovich, as… the Grand Prince (mind you, not Tsar!) of all Russia, while he himself seemed to retreat from secular life to a humble monastic abode, where he ostensibly intended to spend the rest of his life. The charade would last for almost a year, frightening and dispiriting the Russian people, until the Tsar presumably repented of his action and, like a conquering hero saving his nation, restored himself to absolute power…
This totally bizarre episode is brilliantly depicted and cleverly interpreted in the Stalin-sponsored Eisenstein movie Ivan Grozny, Part I (1944), where the terrified nation, left “fatherless,” embarks on a pleading march to the Alexandrov Monastery, where the Tsar-monk appears to be hiding, to bring him back to the Kremlin, back to absolute power. No longer is it important that the Tsar is a sadistic monster torturing and killing his own long-suffering people. What is important now, what is in fact the only thing that is important, is that the alternative is unconscionable. Come back, they plead, come back and rule again over us with an iron fist, to the greater glory of Mother Russia, and to the greater dread of Russia’s sworn enemies…
So, what is the moral of the story of Ivan Grozny, both as a historical figure and as the symbolic centerpiece of the Stalin-Eisenstein film? Let Ivan’s triumphs stand on their own, but let his savagery and debauchery be weighed against the alternative of a Russia without a strong leader… The alternative which is unthinkable...
There is no denying, of course, that Ivan’s reign, particularly during its later period, was marked by terrible cruelty, which may have been exceptional even against the backdrop of the all-pervasive inhuman cruelty of those times, generally speaking, prominently including the most civilized and supposedly humane nations of the contemporary world. I would not have liked to live in those times in Russia, when even the sincerest and most loyal supporters of the Tsar could suffer a most horrific torture and death, maliciously slandered by an envious rival for the monarch’s attention or simply on the Tsar’s wild whim. Yet, fortunately, I’m not living in those days, I have no memory of any close relatives coming to harm at the hand of the Tsar, and there is a great enough distance separating us to be able to look at Ivan’s reign from the broad world-historical, rather than personal perspective.
I am not going to relate Ivan’s biography and curriculum vitae here, as these can be gleaned from any good reference book. It is enough to say that he was the key figure in Russian history to establish and validate the mighty Russian Empire. Formally, he was the first Russian “Tsar,” using the specific term characterizing an absolute and unconditional ruler. (Jesus Christ has always been referred to, in Russian Church literature and liturgy, as “Tsar Nebesnyi,” “Tsar of the Heavens.”) Ivan effectively created the system of administration of the Russian State and formed the first permanent Russian army, the “streltsy.”
In terms of his foreign policy, he is occasionally denigrated by his detractors for suffering several defeats in his “Livonian” wars waged against Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, and other Western foes. But it must be noted that in these Western wars, he was an “aggressor,” trying to win Russia a broad access to the Baltic Sea, and in “winning some--losing some” he did not actually surrender any significant Russian territory to the enemy, whereas his successes in the “eastward push” were spectacular. Subduing the mighty Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates and conquering Siberia, he doubled the size of Russia during his long reign, turning it into a giant power greater than all of Europe in size and leaving to his successors, including Peter I and Catherine II, the relatively modest task of expansion by accretion.
…So far so good, but I have not explained the significance of my title yet. Ivan Grozny and the Alternative. What is “the alternative,” and how does it fit into the context of this entry?
There was a highly significant episode during Ivan’s reign, when in 1575 he suddenly “relinquished” power and forced the boyars and the nation to accept a certain Russified Tatar nobleman Sainbulat-Khan, renamed Simeon Bekbulatovich, as… the Grand Prince (mind you, not Tsar!) of all Russia, while he himself seemed to retreat from secular life to a humble monastic abode, where he ostensibly intended to spend the rest of his life. The charade would last for almost a year, frightening and dispiriting the Russian people, until the Tsar presumably repented of his action and, like a conquering hero saving his nation, restored himself to absolute power…
This totally bizarre episode is brilliantly depicted and cleverly interpreted in the Stalin-sponsored Eisenstein movie Ivan Grozny, Part I (1944), where the terrified nation, left “fatherless,” embarks on a pleading march to the Alexandrov Monastery, where the Tsar-monk appears to be hiding, to bring him back to the Kremlin, back to absolute power. No longer is it important that the Tsar is a sadistic monster torturing and killing his own long-suffering people. What is important now, what is in fact the only thing that is important, is that the alternative is unconscionable. Come back, they plead, come back and rule again over us with an iron fist, to the greater glory of Mother Russia, and to the greater dread of Russia’s sworn enemies…
So, what is the moral of the story of Ivan Grozny, both as a historical figure and as the symbolic centerpiece of the Stalin-Eisenstein film? Let Ivan’s triumphs stand on their own, but let his savagery and debauchery be weighed against the alternative of a Russia without a strong leader… The alternative which is unthinkable...
No comments:
Post a Comment