Tag Archives: Ivan IV

Domostroi ch. 1-11

Posted on by

During the reign of Ivan IV, the Domostroi was written. The book is a guide on the rituals of mundane life of the time period followed by those in the upper strata of society. It details the proper way of living as a Christian, as a good citizen, and as a human being. Throughout the first few chapters, we noticed reoccurring themes.

Being a household manual, it would make sense that the Domostroi would mention God, as the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church was ubiquitous in this time period. These chapters show that religion is not just a part of society but the guiding force in the lives of 16th century Muscovites. The first chapters discuss everything from family relationships to entertaining guests and the importance of religion in all of these acts. The importance of God also appears regularly in the preparation and importance of food in the family home. According to the Domostroi, God can make bad or rotten food taste sweet again. It also explores ideas such as the love each person should have for God, the Tsar, other important figures in society, the less fortunate, and loved ones.  It is very clear in the text that, specifically for God and the Tsar, this love should be accompanied by the acknowledgement that reverence is essential and the fear of these figures is just as important as the love. The prevalence of God in Muscovy is clear through these first few chapters.

The Domostroi mentions food many times throughout the first eleven chapters. Food plays an important role that relates to God. Communion bread must be chewed with the lips and not the teeth: biting sharply and harshly into the flesh of Jesus was wrong. With the bread, a Christian may only drink certain liquids, and must do so carefully, sipping the divine water or consecrated wine. When feasting with neighbors, friends, and family, the highest ranking person in attendance is to start eating first; to eat out of place is disrespectful. When someone dies in a man’s family, food is set out so that the neighbors and friends can feast in celebration in the memory of the person and in God. Food is God’s gift to the people and so the Domostroi demands that Christians “eat, then, and drink in praise of God” (ch.11 p.77) One cannot praise God while eating slovenly, sloppily, or rudely. Food is meant to be shared among all in attendance. The more honor a person has does not entitle him to eat more food than the rest. Sharing and compassion for all of God’s creations — whether elder, equal, or poor — is what the Domostroi promotes.

The Domostroi also placed a lot of emphasis on reverence for all—reverence for God, reverence for superiors, and even reverence for inferiors. Reverence for all of these beings, natural or supernatural, is supposed to be accomplished through both love and fear. By showing reverence through both love and fear, the reader hears quotes from the Bible about love for the Lord (Chapter 4), and at the same time he also hears the quote that one should “fear the tsar and serve him faithfully” (Chapter 7). All of this demonstrates that, while there were different ways of showing reverence to others, one of the central themes of the Domostroi was in showing reverence.

 

Leah, Leah, and Brendan.

Pouncy, Carolyn Johnston. The Domostroi. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1994.

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.

Ivan IV, the Confused Puppy

Posted on by

The regime of Ivan IV was not terrible as his epithet might scream. Ivan’s reign was filled with rather level-headed ideas of the time such as more control over your kingdom and personal safety from enemy assassins. His creation of the district elders in cities and later other parts of the country made complete sense. Criminals needed to be punished without every petty crime involving the Prince. Ivan increased the amount of justice served in Rus’ and the communities in which these elders resided were happy to be rid of crime.

To protect his person from bodily harm, Ivan instituted a body of government to weed out those who were against him, publicly or  not. It was here that Ivan received his title of “the terrible” because of how this institution, the oprichnina, operated and more so because of Ivan’s mental disability that impaired his judgement on who was actually out to get him. He was so paranoid that everyone was inherently against him that there were seven “[y]ears of absurd denunciation, sudden arrests, and horrifying executions”1 carried out by the oprichnina.

Ivan IV was not a ruthless leader who would stop at nothing to harm innocent citizens in a sadistic type of way. Ivan simply wanted a guarantee that no one would hurt him. He was an important Grand Prince and world leader of orthodoxy; there’s a price to pay for that kind of power and Ivan thought it was in his safety. But, he was not “the terrible”. He was more like a wayward puppy, confused as to who was friend or foe, and not being able to see the difference between the two.

1Crummey, Robert O. Ivan IV: Reformer or Tyrant? in Daniel H. Kaiser, and Gary Marker. Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings, 860-1860’s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. p 162.

Ivan the Terrible questions:

Posted on by

Questions about the Ivan IV readings:

What was the significance of the oprichniki’s “brushes or brooms tied on the ends of sticks”?  When does this look like?

Why did Ivan kill everyone and plunder instead of taking over the lands to become more of a monarch of sorts?

On page 153 (second paragraph), it states Ivan accepts all the petitions that were being maintained for the oprichniki.  What was his motivation to do this?  Did he suspect foul play was involved?

Questions on Ivan Groznyi

Posted on by

After reading the first-hand account of Heinrich von Staden, here are the questions I have:

  1. How often did Ivan IV ride out with the Oprichniki?
  2. Why did he allow for the burning of churches if he was a holy man?
  3. Why were all the places he slept all burned afterward?
  4. On pg. 153 it mentions “Aleksei [Basmanov] and his own son [Fedor], with whom the Grand Prince indulged in lewdness were killed.”  What exactly does von Staden mean by “lewdness?”  Was he implying that Ivan IV was bisexual?

Questions About Ivan IV

Posted on by

1.) Ivan IV reigned over a period in Russian history where the growth of the central government was rapid and intrusive to local administrators. Was centralizing Russia a positive or negative idea?….regardless of whose in charge?

2.) What was the role of the Zemskii Sobor? The “Assembly of Land” took place centuries after Ivan IV, what does this reveal about Russian culture?

3.) How does The Reign of Terror represent Ivan’s irrational approach to ruling over Russia?

Ivan IV Questions

Posted on by

Was Ivan well-liked or at least tolerable in the 1540s and 1550s, prior to his institution of the oprichnina? Does the oprichnina mark the period in which Ivan’s mental health deteriorated or was he extremely paranoid throughout his entire rule? What exactly was the oprichnina? I know it was a second, separate administration instituted by Ivan but what was its intended goal? Did the oprichnina have any other function besides its infliction of a reign of terror?