Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Ivan the Terrible: Autocrat Incarnate?
It has long been accepted practice to assign Ivan IV the Terrible the role of progenitor of Russian autocracy, the autocrat incarnate who created Russian absolutism. Ivan the Terrible thus becomes the scapegoat figure in Russian history, and the evil figure who dooms Russia to nearly 4 centuries of absolutism.
However, I think this is a simplistic idea. The real picture is more complicated than this. There can be no doubt that Ivans reign can was a ruler who tried to centralize, who promoted his own status, and who was capable of immense brutality. However, he was hardly the first Muscovite ruler to centralize or to promote his own status. Moreover, we must be wary of some of the acts of brutality often ascribed to him
Firstly, we should define autocracy. It seems clear that absolutism and autocracy mean the rule of one man, with little or no consultation of his notional subordinates or their interests. Further, these terms tend to imply that the ruler is thusly unconstrained, and can do anything he wants. He will appropriate whenever he wants, engage/indulge in acts of cruelty if he wants, and so forth. So how does this apply to Ivan IV?
The Oprichnina, in a sense, was an act of absolutism. Ivan divided Muscovite territory into two halves: the Oprichnina and the Zemschina. The former consisted mostly of northern lands, and mostly of the richest lands, which he appropriated for his own use. It was essentially a state within a state, except that Ivan seems to have been able to cut out the role of the higher aristocracy. If he was not an autocrat as ruler of Muscovy, he certainly made himself an autocrat for this large section of it. With the Oprichnina, Ivan created a guard called the Oprichniki, who became notorious for their missions of terror. They wore dark robes, and attaching broom and images of dogs heads to their saddles, they rode around the country terrorizing the populace as they hunted traitors and opponents
The Oprichnina, however, was not a long lasting thing. Its use seems to have disappeared after a mere 8 years (1564-72), making it a short episode in a long, long reign (153384). Rather than explaining it away as part of Ivans tyrannical character, one might rather consider that Ivan was under immense pressure from highly centralized western kingdoms with whom he had to compete several at a time. If we believe the account of how the system was created, with Ivan obtaining the Oprichnina after a threat to abdicate, we must consider that Ivan took a calculated risk for its purpose. It was a risk, and therefore we must presume that it was not without an important rational purpose.
That being said, another indication of Ivans absolutist rule was the centralization of the Muscovite provinces. The abolishment of the kormelenie system and the role of the namestniki and volosteli taken from the elite sections of Muscovite society, in favor of lower ranking locals, seem very much to point in this direction.
Ivan, however, was not the progenitor of this kind of centralizing Muscovite autocracy. As a result of an elevated position as the chief tax collector of the Mongols in Rus, the rulers of Moscow came to dominate the position of Grand Prince. They monopolized it from Dmitrii Donskoi (1359-1389) onwards. Using this position as feudal overlords of Rus, they gradually turned this theoretical position in to an actual one. By the reign of Vasili III, Ivan IVs predecessor, Iaroslavl, Rostov, Novgorod, Tver, Pskov and Riazan had all been deprived of their independence and taken under the personal control of the Muscovite monarch. It was Ivans predecessors who centralized the lands of Rus under the Grand Principality, not Ivan. If Ivan carries this a little further, by creating a more easily controlled system of provincial government, we can hardly draw the conclusion that he was uniquely autocratic or absolutist.
Nevertheless, it is not without relevance that Ivan chooses to crown himself Tsar. Either way one chooses to look at it, whether he is following the Mongol or the Roman model, the office of Tsar represented an autocratic and absolutist form of government that Grand Prince/Duke did not. The title elevated Ivan further above the nobility, and moreover, above his predecessors as Grand Prince/Duke. It made Ivan a titular autocrat at least in theory, in a way that it did not for his predecessors. Here we find a lasting legacy from Ivan to the Russian style of rulership. The old primus inter pares title of Grand Prince/Duke is supplemented by that of emperor, a title that Russian rulers maintained until the Revolution.
Again, however, the taking of such lofty titles was not an innovation of Ivan IV. In 1494, Ivan III had forced the Lithuanians to recognize his title of sovereign of all Rus in 1494. Ivan III also, it appears from a translated letter to the Duke of Milan, referred to himself as belyi Tsar (White Tsar), corresponding with a plaque in Moscow, dating from his reign, on which is inscribed Albus Imperator, meaning white Tsar in Latin. The fact that Ivan III married Zoë Palaeologa, the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, means that Ivans imperial coronation was the culmination of a previously on-going process, rather than the act of an unrestrained, overly-pretentious autocrat.
However, one act of the Tsars in particular points to absolutist excessiveness. This is the punishment of Novgorod. One Russian chronicle has it that:
The Tsar ordered commanded that [from Novgorod] the powerful boyars, the important merchants, the administrative officials, and the citizens of every rank be brought before him, together with their wives and children. The Tsar ordered that they be tortured in his presence in various spiteful, horrible and inhuman ways. After various unspeakable and bitter tortures, the Tsar ordered that their bodies be tormented and roasted with fire in refined ways
This one act was one of many reported by the sources as Ivans response to a fear that Novgorod and its archbishop were contemplating switching loyalties to the Poles. The punishment of Novgorod is similarly reported in the writings of the English visitor Jerome Horsey.[SEE POST BELOW] We may be able to doubt the kind of excessive detail mentioned in the chronicle above, but it indisputable that Ivan carried out an act of terror on very limited pretext against one of his subjects. This is the kind of act that is really only possible in the first place by someone with very few operational checks on his behavior. This is a blatant sign of autocracy and absolutism in a Russian ruler, which really does not have any parallel with any previous Russian rulers.
Although such acts of brutality seem to proliferate with Ivan IV, we must remain cautious. Influential sources, such as the letter of Prince Andrew Kurbskii [SEE BELOW], offer slanderous accounts of the Tsar, but are at least just as likely to be the product of foreign propaganda and native political sour grapes as truthful accounts. Events such as the murder of his son are clouded by controversy, and subject to embellishment, because of Ivan's posthumous reputation and foreign enemies. Even his infamous punishment of Novgorod is probably an exaggeration. The kind of detail described by the Chronicle looks suspiciously exaggerated. If we consider the possible desire of Jerome Horsey to expound to his readers on Ivans contemporary reputation in his (comparatively) toned down account of the affair, then the punishment of Novgorod does not look so exceptional as a historical event.
Although the Oprichnina was undoubtedly an act of absolutism, it did not last long and probably had a very good rational purpose. Moreover, Ivan hardly stands out from his predecessors as a centralizer or monopolizer of power, and even the use of the imperial title was not his invention. Furthermore, even though there are many seemingly irrational acts of excessive violence, there are many reasons to be skeptical. Therefore, at the very least, the idea of Ivan as the epitome of Muscovite autocracy and as the progenitor of Russian absolutism, if it is to be held at all, must be seriously, seriously refined to match reality.
It has long been accepted practice to assign Ivan IV the Terrible the role of progenitor of Russian autocracy, the autocrat incarnate who created Russian absolutism. Ivan the Terrible thus becomes the scapegoat figure in Russian history, and the evil figure who dooms Russia to nearly 4 centuries of absolutism.
However, I think this is a simplistic idea. The real picture is more complicated than this. There can be no doubt that Ivans reign can was a ruler who tried to centralize, who promoted his own status, and who was capable of immense brutality. However, he was hardly the first Muscovite ruler to centralize or to promote his own status. Moreover, we must be wary of some of the acts of brutality often ascribed to him
Firstly, we should define autocracy. It seems clear that absolutism and autocracy mean the rule of one man, with little or no consultation of his notional subordinates or their interests. Further, these terms tend to imply that the ruler is thusly unconstrained, and can do anything he wants. He will appropriate whenever he wants, engage/indulge in acts of cruelty if he wants, and so forth. So how does this apply to Ivan IV?
The Oprichnina, in a sense, was an act of absolutism. Ivan divided Muscovite territory into two halves: the Oprichnina and the Zemschina. The former consisted mostly of northern lands, and mostly of the richest lands, which he appropriated for his own use. It was essentially a state within a state, except that Ivan seems to have been able to cut out the role of the higher aristocracy. If he was not an autocrat as ruler of Muscovy, he certainly made himself an autocrat for this large section of it. With the Oprichnina, Ivan created a guard called the Oprichniki, who became notorious for their missions of terror. They wore dark robes, and attaching broom and images of dogs heads to their saddles, they rode around the country terrorizing the populace as they hunted traitors and opponents
The Oprichnina, however, was not a long lasting thing. Its use seems to have disappeared after a mere 8 years (1564-72), making it a short episode in a long, long reign (153384). Rather than explaining it away as part of Ivans tyrannical character, one might rather consider that Ivan was under immense pressure from highly centralized western kingdoms with whom he had to compete several at a time. If we believe the account of how the system was created, with Ivan obtaining the Oprichnina after a threat to abdicate, we must consider that Ivan took a calculated risk for its purpose. It was a risk, and therefore we must presume that it was not without an important rational purpose.
That being said, another indication of Ivans absolutist rule was the centralization of the Muscovite provinces. The abolishment of the kormelenie system and the role of the namestniki and volosteli taken from the elite sections of Muscovite society, in favor of lower ranking locals, seem very much to point in this direction.
Ivan, however, was not the progenitor of this kind of centralizing Muscovite autocracy. As a result of an elevated position as the chief tax collector of the Mongols in Rus, the rulers of Moscow came to dominate the position of Grand Prince. They monopolized it from Dmitrii Donskoi (1359-1389) onwards. Using this position as feudal overlords of Rus, they gradually turned this theoretical position in to an actual one. By the reign of Vasili III, Ivan IVs predecessor, Iaroslavl, Rostov, Novgorod, Tver, Pskov and Riazan had all been deprived of their independence and taken under the personal control of the Muscovite monarch. It was Ivans predecessors who centralized the lands of Rus under the Grand Principality, not Ivan. If Ivan carries this a little further, by creating a more easily controlled system of provincial government, we can hardly draw the conclusion that he was uniquely autocratic or absolutist.
Nevertheless, it is not without relevance that Ivan chooses to crown himself Tsar. Either way one chooses to look at it, whether he is following the Mongol or the Roman model, the office of Tsar represented an autocratic and absolutist form of government that Grand Prince/Duke did not. The title elevated Ivan further above the nobility, and moreover, above his predecessors as Grand Prince/Duke. It made Ivan a titular autocrat at least in theory, in a way that it did not for his predecessors. Here we find a lasting legacy from Ivan to the Russian style of rulership. The old primus inter pares title of Grand Prince/Duke is supplemented by that of emperor, a title that Russian rulers maintained until the Revolution.
Again, however, the taking of such lofty titles was not an innovation of Ivan IV. In 1494, Ivan III had forced the Lithuanians to recognize his title of sovereign of all Rus in 1494. Ivan III also, it appears from a translated letter to the Duke of Milan, referred to himself as belyi Tsar (White Tsar), corresponding with a plaque in Moscow, dating from his reign, on which is inscribed Albus Imperator, meaning white Tsar in Latin. The fact that Ivan III married Zoë Palaeologa, the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, means that Ivans imperial coronation was the culmination of a previously on-going process, rather than the act of an unrestrained, overly-pretentious autocrat.
However, one act of the Tsars in particular points to absolutist excessiveness. This is the punishment of Novgorod. One Russian chronicle has it that:
The Tsar ordered commanded that [from Novgorod] the powerful boyars, the important merchants, the administrative officials, and the citizens of every rank be brought before him, together with their wives and children. The Tsar ordered that they be tortured in his presence in various spiteful, horrible and inhuman ways. After various unspeakable and bitter tortures, the Tsar ordered that their bodies be tormented and roasted with fire in refined ways
This one act was one of many reported by the sources as Ivans response to a fear that Novgorod and its archbishop were contemplating switching loyalties to the Poles. The punishment of Novgorod is similarly reported in the writings of the English visitor Jerome Horsey.[SEE POST BELOW] We may be able to doubt the kind of excessive detail mentioned in the chronicle above, but it indisputable that Ivan carried out an act of terror on very limited pretext against one of his subjects. This is the kind of act that is really only possible in the first place by someone with very few operational checks on his behavior. This is a blatant sign of autocracy and absolutism in a Russian ruler, which really does not have any parallel with any previous Russian rulers.
Although such acts of brutality seem to proliferate with Ivan IV, we must remain cautious. Influential sources, such as the letter of Prince Andrew Kurbskii [SEE BELOW], offer slanderous accounts of the Tsar, but are at least just as likely to be the product of foreign propaganda and native political sour grapes as truthful accounts. Events such as the murder of his son are clouded by controversy, and subject to embellishment, because of Ivan's posthumous reputation and foreign enemies. Even his infamous punishment of Novgorod is probably an exaggeration. The kind of detail described by the Chronicle looks suspiciously exaggerated. If we consider the possible desire of Jerome Horsey to expound to his readers on Ivans contemporary reputation in his (comparatively) toned down account of the affair, then the punishment of Novgorod does not look so exceptional as a historical event.
Although the Oprichnina was undoubtedly an act of absolutism, it did not last long and probably had a very good rational purpose. Moreover, Ivan hardly stands out from his predecessors as a centralizer or monopolizer of power, and even the use of the imperial title was not his invention. Furthermore, even though there are many seemingly irrational acts of excessive violence, there are many reasons to be skeptical. Therefore, at the very least, the idea of Ivan as the epitome of Muscovite autocracy and as the progenitor of Russian absolutism, if it is to be held at all, must be seriously, seriously refined to match reality.
