The nation’s first monument to Tsar Ivan the Terrible was to be opened in a few days in the Russian city of Oryol. Unremarkable at first glance, this initiative of the region’s governor and the city council, aimed at commemorating the founder of the city, caused great excitement. Some locals protested over it, which is quite unusual for contemporary Russia, as our readers would probably agree. They held a protest rally, while more than 700 people signed an online petition, emphasizing the inappropriateness of the monument’s chosen location – just in front of Oryol State Theater for Children and Youth “Free Space.” The building housing the theater was built back in 1799. The signatories believe that the construction of the monument near this architecture masterpiece is against the regulations. In addition, Christmas tree is set up at this location every year. Also, the initiative infringes copyright, since the monument’s design was “borrowed” from its author, sculptor Irina Makarova, without her knowledge.
However, the arguments set out in the petition are of rather limited importance, because the erection of the monument to Ivan the Terrible, as well as increasingly blatant glorification of Josef Stalin in Russia, actually reflect the gradual change of the dominant historical paradigm. The meaning of this event exceeds the confines of the provincial Russian city. It is not even about history, but rather about modern Russia, the Russian government and Russian society, as well as the challenges they pose to the world.
VLADIMIR KRAVTSOV: “IVAN THE TERRIBLE WAS THE MOST CRUEL, DARKEST, MOST BLOOD-SOAKED FIGURE OF MEDIEVAL RUSSIA”
“My attitude to Ivan the Terrible is very negative,” The Day heard from historian and journalist, Ph.D. in History, former dean of the department of history at Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk State Pedagogical Institute Vladimir Kravtsov. “He was the most cruel, darkest, blood-soaked figure of medieval Russia. He ranks among the three most sinister Russian rulers (Vladimir Lenin, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible). For this reason alone, any monuments to him should be out of question. But there is another factor. In Russia, monuments of such a level are not erected just like that, but require sanction from above. Accordingly, the Oryol initiative was approved by the Kremlin. This indicates that the ruling elite continues to support and glorify the figure of Stalin, who highly appreciated Ivan the Terrible. This is an extremely dangerous course that threatens to bring about the restoration of practices of Stalinism in this country. And one more thing. Note the passion with which Oryol governor Vadim Potomsky defended the idea of the monument in a TV interview. I think there are more such leaders in Russia, and it is an ominous prospect.”
By the way, at a recent press conference in Moscow, Potomsky went as far as to claim that Ivan the Terrible did not kill his son, because the latter supposedly died of the disease “while going from Moscow to St. Petersburg.” It is common knowledge that St. Petersburg was founded in 1703, while Ivan the Terrible lived in 1530-1584...
This “conceptual” discussion around the figure of Ivan the Terrible, which is taking place in Russia, has a historical analogue, and the similarity looks totally non-accidental. Kravtsov quotes Stalin’s statements made during the meeting of the All-Union Communist (Bolshevik) Party’s Central Committee’s Organizational Bureau on August 9, 1946, which dealt with Sergei Eisenstein’s film Ivan the Terrible (1945). The “great leader” made known a few observations of his which had to do with the picture. Let us look at them, then (translated from Stalin’s Collected Works in Russian, Vol. 18): “Eisenstein has not understood that the oprichnina troops [Ivan the Terrible’s famously brutal guards. – Ed.] were progressive forces, which Ivan the Terrible relied on as he worked to unite Russia in one centralized state and fought feudal princes who wanted to break it up and weaken it. Eisenstein exhibits old attitude toward the oprichnina. The old historians treated the oprichnina with indiscriminate disdain, because they viewed Ivan’s repression as similar to that of Tsar Nicholas II, and totally abstracted themselves from the historical situation in which it occurred. In our time, a different view of the oprichnina prevails. Russia, fragmented as it was into feudal principalities, i.e., into several countries, had to unite if did not wish to fall under the Tatar yoke for the second time.”
Let us look also into an excerpt from a conversation between Stalin, Eisenstein and Mikhail Cherkasov, held on February 26, 1947: “Tsar Ivan was a great and wise ruler. (...) The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible is reflected by the following: he looked at things from the national point of view and did not allow foreigners into his country, he barricaded the country from the entry of foreign influence. By showing Ivan the Terrible in this manner you have committed a deviation and a mistake. Peter I was also a great ruler, but he was extremely liberal towards foreigners, he opened the gate wide to them and allowed foreign influence into the country and permitted the Germanization of Russia. (...) Ivan the Terrible was extremely cruel. It is allowed to show it, but it should be made clear why he had to be cruel. One of the mistakes of Ivan the Terrible was that he did not completely finish off the five big feudal families. If he had destroyed these five families then there would not have been the Time of Troubles. If Ivan the Terrible executed someone then he repented and prayed for a long time. God disturbed him on these matters… It was necessary to be even more decisive.”
Note that the current Russian rulers’ decisiveness is not blunted by religion; if anything, it works in the opposite direction... But we should stick to the topic.
YURII SHAPOVAL: “VLADIMIR PUTIN ‘TRIES ON’ THE ROYAL ROBES”
Ukrainian historian, Doctor of Sciences in History, Professor Yurii Shapoval offers a slightly broader view of Ivan the Terrible, but generally agrees with Kravtsov’s assessment. “Ivan the Terrible was the first Russian Tsar (his predecessors were known as Grand Dukes of Moscow),” Shapoval said in a comment for The Day. “On the one hand, he was one of the most educated people of his time. The tsar had a phenomenal memory, erudition, wrote literature works and even composed music. He is praised most for expanding the nation’s territory. Let us recall that Ivan the Terrible’s reign saw conquests of Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates and beginnings of the Russian annexation of Siberia. However, he was certainly a tyrant. The tsar tried to keep everyone under his thumb. Those who like tyrants are generally tyrants themselves. The idea to erect a monument to Ivan the Terrible looks like a completely pro-Putin project. Putin has ruled Russia for 16 years. He created the so-called centralized, managed democracy which is, in fact, not a democracy at all, annexed Crimea, initiated a large-scale provocation which has grown into the war in eastern Ukraine. Putin ‘tries on’ the royal robes. I think this explains the interest in the figure of Ivan the Terrible. But there is another aspect to it. Let us not forget what Ivan the Terrible did. To defeat his domestic enemies, he divided the country into two parts and established the oprichnina. These guards were very much like the Cheka/KGB of the 16th century. Their symbols, I mean brooms (to sweep ‘traitors’ out of the country) and dog heads (to gnaw out enemies) which they attached to their horses, displayed a true Cheka ideology, which is consistent with the current situation in Russia, where ‘enemies’ are literally purged and ‘dog heads’ (with various faces) gnaw out anything even remotely reminiscent of the short-lived democratic periods of Russian history. I think that Ivan IV’s penchant for mass terror and despoliation of the country which was combined with relative effectiveness in holding the nation under his thumb resonate with what is happening in Russia today. The origins of the current interest in the figure of Ivan the Terrible lie here.”
According to Shapoval, Ivan IV was fundamentally different from Peter I, who can be considered one of the key figures of the modern Russian historical myth. “Peter I spent a lot of time abroad, he tried to Westernize Russia, taught his country to shave beards and drink coffee,” the historian said. “Ivan the Terrible followed a completely different political line and sought a completely autonomous existence for Russia. His type of governance, his state leadership style (albeit with some reservations) are generally quite close to Putin’s. Putin said once that craving for centralism was written in the genetic code of Russians. Had the people who initiated the monument not detected ‘vibes’ from the very top, had they not known in advance that it would please the leadership, they would have never launched the said initiative. Obviously, they have support on the very top. It is another element of efforts to ‘cement’ Russia around its current political and ideological values.”
Whether influenced by the protests, or (more likely) after a signal from the top, the authorities decided to postpone erecting the monument in Oryol. While the unveiling was slated for August 3, the city’s foundation day, it has been moved to September. Recently, the governor of Oryol region met with supporters and opponents of the monument. Following the meeting, it was decided to conduct an opinion poll on the need to commemorate Ivan the Terrible in Oryol, as well as the location of the monument. This level of respect for democratic procedure, unprecedented for present-day Russia, likely also shows how symbolic the event is. The cult of Stalin in Russia has been effectively restored as an official practice. Will the cult of Ivan the Terrible follow?
