Monthly Archives: October 2015

Maniacal or Misunderstood?

Posted on by

No one likes to be misunderstood; however, sometimes we cannot control how people perceive our actions. The two short readings on Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) present two contrasting narratives about his character and manner of rule. The first document is the account of Heinrich von Staden – a foreigner who served Ivan IV. The account describes Ivan’s seemingly unrelenting and unrestrained violence. He sacked prosperous cities, burned and looted churches, let his henchmen run wild, and killed countless kin. ((Heinrich von Staden, “A Foreigner Describes the Oprichnina of Tsar Ivan the Terrible,” in Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings 860s-1860s, ed. Daniel H. Kaiser and Gary Marker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 152-153.)) According to this account, Ivan IV lived up to his epithet: a man of terrible, unchecked violence. However, Russian History Nancy Shields Kollmann depicts the power structure between the Grand Prince and the boyars as much more intricate. Accounts, according to Kollmann, of a Grand Prince or Tsar’s autocratic rule result from a conscious, collective decision to maintain an image of autocracy. ((Nancy Shields Kollmann “The Facade of Autocracy,” in Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings 860s-1860s, ed. Daniel H. Kaiser and Gary Marker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 155.)) Promulgating an account of the Tsar’s autocracy actually helped maintain peace among the boyars: the Tsar’s administrative resources. ((Kaiser, Reinterpreting, 156.)) Kollmann even references Ivan IV and his expressed desire for peace among the boyars and their help in maintaining order. ((Kaiser, Reinterpreting, 155.))

In a sense, the dog’s bark is worse than it’s bite. Perhaps the stories about Ivan are embellished to instill fear and respect throughout the population. Perhaps, a middle ground is also acceptable. Ivan IV committed atrocious violent acts on those who challenged his rule. I do not doubt that he committed terrible acts of violence against members of the church, against cities such as Novgorod, his own family, etc. which extended beyond the precedent established by his predecessors. However, violence stood the keystone of effective rule throughout the world during the 15th and 16th centuries. This was the period of Machiavelli and murderous popes of “Bloody” Mary I of England and her unrelenting persecution of Protestants. Ivan’s actions fit the norms of a very violent period in history.

Wednesday we discussed how Ivan reformed several aspects of his administration. Under these reforms, do you feel that his violent actions were excessive and earn him the title of “Ivan the Terrible”?

How Terrible was Ivan the Terrible?

Posted on by

Ivan the Terrible is a very complicated ruler to label as simply “a good guy” or “a bad guy.”  Both good and overlapped throughout his life, coming up at different times, but I don’t believe one is more prominent than the other.  Even more interesting and important to remember is all of Ivan’s personal troubles while he was young and how they could have possibly affected his future as Tsar.

Ivan was successful in bringing change to Russia, although it can be difficult to view his rule as a reformation rule.  Ivan implemented a new law code, paid order to the church, strengthened the military and ordered out bureaucracy.  Ivan was creating an honest and efficient administration.  These reforms were positive towards Ivan’s rule and Russia benefitted greatly.

However the bad of Ivan also has to be analyzed.  Because Ivan was so skeptical of who to trust, he began to “wipe out all the chief people of the oprichnina” ((Kaiser and Marker 153)).  Brutal, horrific deaths began occurring; Ivan’s brother in law “was chopped to death by the harquebusiers [musketeers] with axes,” “Prince Vasilii Temkin was drowned,” “Peter Seisse was hanged from his own court gate,” and more ((Kaiser and Marker 153)).  What was the cause of these awful deaths?

It is interesting to analyze the beginning or early periods of Ivan’s life.  Many tragic things, the death of his mother when he was a young boy and the death of his beloved wife, could be possible reasons as to why he was so agonized.  Ivan also came to power at age three, so it’s possible he never knew who to trust from the beginning since his mother and wife died early on.  His life and personality are too difficult to label as just good or bad; regardless he was a powerful ruler.

Can Ivan the Terrible be classified as just good or bad?

Is it wrong to blame the tragedies of Ivan’s early life for the brutality in his later life?

 

Works Cited

Kaiser, Daniel H., and Gary Marker. Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings, 860-1860’s. New York: Oxford UP, 1994. Print.

Marx in Soho

Posted on by

“Marx in Soho” sought to bring Karl Marx to life in the 21st century. The performance showed how eclectic and misunderstood Karl Marx and his ideas were. He was an advocate for social and economic revolution, and a man who devoted his life to the betterment of his society, not a monster like so many believed, and still believe him to have been. While highlighting the economic and fundamental flaws of capitalism that still exist today, the play gave the audience a glimpse of what Marx’s life may have been like.

Howard Zinn was trying to change the perception of Karl Marx through this performance, and clarify who the man really was, while establishing the difference between him and the Marxist revolutionaries after him. A line summarized Zinn’s premises well: “I [Karl Marx] am not a Marxist!” Marx then went on a tangent about how flawed and naïve people’s interpretations of his writings were, and how he was trying to create a system based on freedom, not an oppressive society governed by few. He wanted equality of class and abolishment of private property. Marx acknowledges that his ideas were not perfect, and that he could be wrong, but through antithesis and synthesis he came to his conclusions. So what—what is the message? People ought to change their thinking and not come to rash conclusions before analyzing the past and present systems, like Marx did, and one must be willing to be wrong.

Of course, the previous interpretation could be wrong, but why does Bob Weick devote his career to playing this role? He wants to make change. In speaking with Bob, he said for people to do what they can to change the capitalist system that is destroying our world environmentally and economically through the poor wages and benefits given to workers, mass production of goods, and capitalist greed. Whether one agrees with Bob or not, he, like Marx, presented his findings analytically, gave evidence, and acknowledged that he may have been wrong. Marx’s ideas are not dead, and never will be. The poverty that existed in Soho, taking of innocent lives worldwide, and capitalist mindset still exist today, and Marx was a misunderstood man trying to combat the world’s problems.

Posted in FYS