Kievan Russia Case Study
Question 1: What does Thompson say about the lives and belies of people in Kievan Russia?
The Kievan state of Russia dates back to first settlement in 800 AD and continues on to about 1200 AD when the internal discord weakened the state paired along side the Mongol conquest of the thirteenth century. During this time, the Kievan state was diversified yet the manner in which this first state of Russia was established is unclear. This however is “where the fundamental characteristics of Russian culture and religion took root…[introducing] basic and lasting political ideas and social institutions” [Thompson 13].
A large majority of the population in Kievan Russia was composed of people living outside of the city, such as hunters, herdsmen …show more content…
and farmers. The climate and environment in Russia at the time was not conducive to agriculture, creating a need for obshchina, or farming commune, as a collective way of unrelated farmers to gather and pool their equipment, time and themselves to work the hard land and share in the products. They lived these small communities, sometimes organized due to the taxes or tribute to the prince or boyar who ruled over them. There were also half-free peasants who had fallen into forced labor temporarily, not being capable to pay back a loan. While a majority of the populace was made up of this class, in the Kiev state very strict and rigid social classes dominated society and the way it ran.
“There were…eleven classes as dictated by Kievan law. But these can be allocated among seven main categories: princes, boyars (nobles), merchants, artisans, smerdy (peasants), semi free persons, and slaves” [17]. The princes were the ‘top dogs’ of the Kiev state alongside the boyers, playing a crucial role in military service especially. The merchants and other people involved in commerce formed their own separate class of a lower rank but not of a significantly lower importance. Many people who resided in cities were free, which cannot be said of their agriculture and rural residing counterparts. Semi free persons could be originally belonging to the merchant, artisan or peasant class, while slaves made up the bottom rung of the social pyramid. These rankings played a big role in how a person was to interact within the society of the Kievan state. However Thompson states “ the single most important event in the history of Kiev was that state’s official adoption of Christianity in AD 988 “ [18].
It was Prince Vladimir who made the decision to adopt Eastern Christianity over the Holy Catholic Church for a variety of different reasons. The first reason was due to the Byzantine Empire’s following of the Eastern Christianity. Following in line with the Byzantines would strengthen their close commercial ties as well as political attachments. Additionally, “geography and political factors undoubtedly weighed heavily on Vladimir’s choice” [19]. Not only did adopting this religion give Kievan Russia these aforementioned advantages, but it also had many distinctive and significant characteristics that shaped the state as a whole and the future of Russia.
Eastern Christianity reinforced the sense of community that was being established by the rural obshchina, making an even large sense of collectivity. It also focused in on the outward forms of religion and worship such as “the church building and decorations, the icons (paintings on wood of holy figures and saints), and the structure and ritual of the Mass itself. To stress these visible signs of devotion made it easier to wean the East Slavs away from pagan idols and customs…” [20]. The adoption of Eastern Christianity as the official religion still did not stop all of the old, traditional pagan rites and customs though, as some were even adapted or added in addition to the new customs. The addition of religion brought a new level of culture and society to Kiev, whether through new craftsmanship, music, art, or education, the new Kievan society was being modeled after that of the Byzantine Empire. Song and icon significance also rose during this time as a well to spread the ideas of Christianity to the illiterate. It also introduced “a written language, Old Church Slavonic, meaning that books were produced and circulated” [21].
Not only did the Byzantine Empire penetrate the spiritual beliefs of Kievan Russia but altered their political system. The princes of the time in Kievan Russia had little political power over every aspect of life as they had before, as a new system of rotating leadership was established to avoid more bitter struggles for power. However, this system didn’t last for an extended period of time and eventually settled into the old system. Thompson states that the Kievan prince would have to “spend a good part of his reign fighting off rival claimants to the throne...[and] he had to protect the trade routes…” [23]. To help the princes with their strife the duma and veche were established. The duma served as a noble advisory board to the prince while the veche was a town council made of mostly the merchant class. However, the veche wielded more power than did the duma.
All-in-all, Kievan Russia’s society was filled of a very well defined stratification of social classes, with specific roles and responsibilities within each rank.
The majority of the population was composed to the rural community who situated themselves into obshchina due to the harsh climate and environment to easy the strain of working the land. The adoption of Eastern Christianity is one of, if not the most, significant event in the Kievan state’s history. The adoption brought many advantages to the state such as more art, music, education, higher level of society, etc. as well as political and economical advantages in strengthening the relationship with the Byzantine Empire. However, this won’t last as “by the late 1100s under weaker princes Kievan Russia increasingly disintegrated into rival princedoms and towns that spent more time fighting each other than their common enemies” [24]. While the Kievan Russian state would come to an end, the civilization and society that had been established would not.
Question 2: Based on “The Life of Avvakum”, what does Avvakum say about Nikon’s reforms? Please provide …show more content…
examples
When measured against almost any standard, one would find that Avvakum led an extraordinary life. He overcame a harsh childhood, born to a drinking but religious father and a soon after widowed Christian mother, to become an archpriest at the young age of twenty. He endured numerous form of persecution from various types of authority, but in doing so Avvakum became one of the most influential of the Old Believers in the movement against the reforms of the Patriarch Nikon, which is shown in his autobiography The Life of Avvakum.
In The Life of Avvakum, Avvakum paints a picture of himself as a fighter for Christ, very adamant in his beliefs no matter the cost and throughout the book, emphasizes the strength of his spirit. Each trial is a test of spirit. A particularly important reoccurring theme throughout is his opposition to certain reform. Avvakum seemed aghast by the disarray, sinfulness and ignorance of many of the religions and their practices at the time. Avvakum was an ardent advocate of religious and spiritual reform, but not of the liturgical reforms advocated by other members of the Zealots of Piety, focused mainly on Nikon. In the story he states:
“I believe in and serve my God; but the apostates I loathe and curse: they are God's enemies and, living in Christ, I do not fear them. Were they to heap stones on me then, secure in the tradition of the Fathers, I would lie in peace beneath these stones-how much more so beneath the thorny, knavish curses of Nikon! Tush! Why multiply words? All we need do is to spit on their doings and their ritual, and on their newfangled books, then all will be well....” [Rzhevsky 52]
Quite quickly in the story we find Avvakum at odds with Nikon’s reforms. When asked to bless a high-ranking boyer’s son he refused, saying that "How can I pronounce a blessing on a man who has shaved off his beard, deliberately changing the way God made him?" [48]. His sentence was not carried out for this disobedience, but not many years later Avvakum found himself in exile for once again breaking Nikon’s reforms. Through the torture of his family in their exile, Avvakum stays opposed to the reforms and warns all of the people who have stayed faithful to the the church to be weary of Nikon’s new church. Avvakum says, "When the priest comes to sprinkle your house with holy water," he told them, just follow him around and sweep it out with a broom. And if they drag you into church, keep right on whispering your prayer to Jesus!" [59].
Once a patriarch, Nikon had his own ideas about what needed to be changed within the church and how to implement these ideas. He compared the current books the church was using to the original Greek texts and other reprints. However, Avvakum disputed this, saying that the reprints were not to be trusted, and for the truth one must look at the Russian manuscripts. [Davis 1] Avvakum’s distain for Nikon’s revisions to the text are shown when he says
“And I…shook myself free from the blindness of a troubled mind and began once more to preach and teach God's Word in the towns and in all places until such time as I could boldly tear the mask from the heresy of Nikon…I cried aloud in every town and in every village, in churches and in marketplaces, preaching the Word of God and teaching and laying bare the snares of the ungodly.” [60]
One of the Nikon reforms that Avvakum is against is the number of fingers one should use when crossing themselves. Avvakum says that one should use only two fingers, in the old tradition as the first believers did, while Nikon has his ordained cross themselves with three fingers. Avvakum views this and many others of Nikon’s reforms unnecessary and ungodly. Throughout the story Avvakum is so adamant that he refuses to refute his ways or change his beliefs to pacify whatever the suffering is he, or his family, is enduring. He believes throughout that the only way to salvation is through his ways and beliefs, not through Nikon’s new reforms.
All-in-all, Avvakum’s ideals are best embodied in this quote from his autobiography, when invited to see Nikon in Moscow:
“In sadness I wondered if I should keep on preaching or if I should escape somewhere for the sake of my wife and children to whom I was intimately bound… "What shall I do? Shall I speak or keep silence?" … having my eyes opened from blindness, I kept on preaching in towns along the way, denouncing Nikon's heresy.”
Question 3: What does Thompson say about Ivan the Terrible, his politics and the Time of Troubles?
When talking about Ivan the Terrible, or Ivan the IV, it is hard to put him into a single category of ruler/leader; during his rule Ivan established a standing army, created a codification of laws along a system of regulations, and many more positive measures. However, the later half of his rule was characterized by strife and a constant power struggle complied upon other failures in his rule. All of these factors coupled together “…set the stage for one of the most sensational and dramatic periods in Russian history, aptly named the Time of Troubles.” [Thompson 77] Ivan assumed rule at the age of sixteen in 1547, when he self-proclaimed himself the first tsar. Even before this though, Ivan’s life had been marked with trouble. Thompson points to Ivan’s upbringing and his exposure to the constant bloody, struggle for power for his “cruelty and suppressed rage” later in life as a almost vengeance for what he had suffered through as a child [68]. As stated in the previous paragraph, the first part of Ivan’s rule was marked by his move towards reform, which were, at first, a success. As a ruler, Ivan understood the worth of advisors and confidants, forming an advisory board known as the zemskii sobor to not only voice the opinions of the boyars and elite but of other populace as well. This did not mean, however that there was peace within the country. “Ivan place high priority on improving the army’s fighting capacity”, and regulated what the terms were to be within the ranks and what responsibilities each of the positions would entail [71]. He also helped in the advancement of solidifying laws and creating a codification to improve the corrupt government system.
Ivan made further advancements through the creation of an amicable relationship with England, as well as making much effort to strength the ties that Russia had with Europe through art, medicine and architecture such as St. Bail’s Cathedral. As much as Ivan may have strived for reform, but he also strived for an absolute tsarist power. This brought Ivan a big challenge: the aristocracy. Thompson points out that the struggle for power between “Ivan the Terrible and the boyars…[was] an unnecessary and even tragic contest, with neither side taking into account how much the struggle endangered the state.” [73]. The tsar Ivan could rely on being supported by the church and that of the gentry class even though tradition had dictated in before Ivan the Terrible’s time that the boyar class wielded much control. However, it was at this time Ivan’s rule began to turn and one begins to see what made Ivan the Terrible’s rule such a controversy.
The first event to spark debate between the two opposing sides, was Ivan’s request for his officials to swear their allegiance to his young son Dmitrii, which some refused out of “fear [of] another period of minority rule marked by internal strife and weakness” [74]. Around this same period of time, Ivan took up campaigns to try to expand Russia’s territory, such as the long and brutal Livonian War, and to expand their trade in Europe. However, just as he was doing so, his wife Anastasia died, which Thompson hypothesizes only added, as they say, ‘fuel-to-the-fire’. At this time, Ivan became irrational, and deepened his distrust of the boyars but now along with them, he expanded his vendetta to his advisors, officials, and even to his friends. This led to the establishment of the oprichina, consisting of land that Ivan had seized from the boyar and royal families, which Ivan may have used “as a weapon in his struggle” [76]. The oprichina did not last long and its exact purpose is still unclear.
“The oprichina as an institution, combined with Ivan’s unbridled anger and violent oppression, succeeded in weakening and demoralizing the boyars and for the last 20 years of his reign, Ivan encountered little opposition to his half-mad rule. Bu the cost was enormous” [76]. Ivan the Terrible clearly had some sort of emotional, mental or physical disturbance to cause his erratic behavior. However, he did manage to secure the absolute power of the tsar from the boyars, but at a large cost. The people of Russia were in a worse state now than when he claimed his rule. Now filled with fear of foreign attacks, civil persecution, a declining economy and much more, at the end of Ivan’s life, the Time of Troubles was just beginning.
“Three main issues characterized the tumultuous era of the Time of Trouble: a struggle for political power, a widespread social revolution, and a national movement to prevent foreign domination of Russia” [77]. First, the boyars and the upper class populance were still bitter at the end of Ivan’s reign. His death was viewed as an opportunity for the struggle between tsar and the former to resume. No social group had benefited greatly from Ivan the Terrible’s rule, creating the perfect storm of civil conflict. Following Ivan, Boris Godunov dominated politics in Russia, serving as the regent for Ivan’s heir and sickly son, Feodor. As talented as Godunov was and despite his best efforts, outside forces working against him made it near impossible from him to re-build what Ivan the Terrible’s reign had undone in Russia. As he tried to rebuild, the economic despairs of the country turned out to be too great of a problem for him to correct in his time. Godunov also made for an easy target for enemies and for vicious rumors, as he had no legal or rightful claim to the throne. Such rumors included that of an heir from Ivan, and that Godunov “was a murderer and usurper and that Russia was being punished for Godunov’s sins” [79]. Rebellion against the now tsar Boris ensued, with pretenders to the throne claiming that they were the rightful heir. The first False Dmitrii, one such pretender, only heightened this tension, setting the stage fore social revolution.
After the First Dmitrii took claim following tsar Boris’ death, the boyars were the first of the social classes to successfully back on these pretenders to power, however he was soon after killed by a coup led by another self-proclaimed tsar of Russia.
This internal struggle and strife continued for the next decade, with each social class backing some figurehead, or long lost heir, in a ploy for that social group themselves to gain control of the government until around 1608 a stalemate developed and the focus turned instead to foreigners trying to wriggle their way into Russian political affairs. Thompson explains this period of time best when stating, “This was certainly the low point in the fortunes of the Muscovite state: with no tsar, the capital occupied by Poles, the northwest controlled by Swedes, and a pretender stirring up trouble in the countryside, its chances for survival seemed slim”
[82].
This time though, a national revival started throughout Russia, backed with a strong religious element as the Russian Orthodox Church thought he Poles’ Catholicism was heretical. Finally, two Russians successful led an army of Russian citizens in the successful liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders, starting to put an end to the Time of Troubles in Russia and taking the country for the first time in a while, in the forward direction. A new tsar, tsar Michael Romanov, took control of rule in Russia and by 1618, had started a firm rule, marking an end to “[a] weak government, and disorder and civil strife” in Russia [83].
Resources
Davis, Nicholas. "Reference Guide to Russian Literature." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.
Rzhevsky, Nicholas. An Anthology of Russian Literature: From Earliest Writings to Modern Fiction : Introduction to a Culture. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1996. Print.
"The Language of Russian Protest â On the Anniversary of Avvakum's Execution." The Language of Russian Protest â On the Anniversary of Avvakum's Execution. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.
Thompson, John M. Russia and the Soviet Union: An Historical Introduction. Boulder: Westview, 1990. Print.
The Kievan state of Russia dates back to first settlement in 800 AD and continues on to about 1200 AD when the internal discord weakened the state paired along side the Mongol conquest of the thirteenth century. During this time, the Kievan state was diversified yet the manner in which this first state of Russia was established is unclear. This however is “where the fundamental characteristics of Russian culture and religion took root…[introducing] basic and lasting political ideas and social institutions” [Thompson 13].
A large majority of the population in Kievan Russia was composed of people living outside of the city, such as hunters, herdsmen …show more content…
and farmers. The climate and environment in Russia at the time was not conducive to agriculture, creating a need for obshchina, or farming commune, as a collective way of unrelated farmers to gather and pool their equipment, time and themselves to work the hard land and share in the products. They lived these small communities, sometimes organized due to the taxes or tribute to the prince or boyar who ruled over them. There were also half-free peasants who had fallen into forced labor temporarily, not being capable to pay back a loan. While a majority of the populace was made up of this class, in the Kiev state very strict and rigid social classes dominated society and the way it ran.
“There were…eleven classes as dictated by Kievan law. But these can be allocated among seven main categories: princes, boyars (nobles), merchants, artisans, smerdy (peasants), semi free persons, and slaves” [17]. The princes were the ‘top dogs’ of the Kiev state alongside the boyers, playing a crucial role in military service especially. The merchants and other people involved in commerce formed their own separate class of a lower rank but not of a significantly lower importance. Many people who resided in cities were free, which cannot be said of their agriculture and rural residing counterparts. Semi free persons could be originally belonging to the merchant, artisan or peasant class, while slaves made up the bottom rung of the social pyramid. These rankings played a big role in how a person was to interact within the society of the Kievan state. However Thompson states “ the single most important event in the history of Kiev was that state’s official adoption of Christianity in AD 988 “ [18].
It was Prince Vladimir who made the decision to adopt Eastern Christianity over the Holy Catholic Church for a variety of different reasons. The first reason was due to the Byzantine Empire’s following of the Eastern Christianity. Following in line with the Byzantines would strengthen their close commercial ties as well as political attachments. Additionally, “geography and political factors undoubtedly weighed heavily on Vladimir’s choice” [19]. Not only did adopting this religion give Kievan Russia these aforementioned advantages, but it also had many distinctive and significant characteristics that shaped the state as a whole and the future of Russia.
Eastern Christianity reinforced the sense of community that was being established by the rural obshchina, making an even large sense of collectivity. It also focused in on the outward forms of religion and worship such as “the church building and decorations, the icons (paintings on wood of holy figures and saints), and the structure and ritual of the Mass itself. To stress these visible signs of devotion made it easier to wean the East Slavs away from pagan idols and customs…” [20]. The adoption of Eastern Christianity as the official religion still did not stop all of the old, traditional pagan rites and customs though, as some were even adapted or added in addition to the new customs. The addition of religion brought a new level of culture and society to Kiev, whether through new craftsmanship, music, art, or education, the new Kievan society was being modeled after that of the Byzantine Empire. Song and icon significance also rose during this time as a well to spread the ideas of Christianity to the illiterate. It also introduced “a written language, Old Church Slavonic, meaning that books were produced and circulated” [21].
Not only did the Byzantine Empire penetrate the spiritual beliefs of Kievan Russia but altered their political system. The princes of the time in Kievan Russia had little political power over every aspect of life as they had before, as a new system of rotating leadership was established to avoid more bitter struggles for power. However, this system didn’t last for an extended period of time and eventually settled into the old system. Thompson states that the Kievan prince would have to “spend a good part of his reign fighting off rival claimants to the throne...[and] he had to protect the trade routes…” [23]. To help the princes with their strife the duma and veche were established. The duma served as a noble advisory board to the prince while the veche was a town council made of mostly the merchant class. However, the veche wielded more power than did the duma.
All-in-all, Kievan Russia’s society was filled of a very well defined stratification of social classes, with specific roles and responsibilities within each rank.
The majority of the population was composed to the rural community who situated themselves into obshchina due to the harsh climate and environment to easy the strain of working the land. The adoption of Eastern Christianity is one of, if not the most, significant event in the Kievan state’s history. The adoption brought many advantages to the state such as more art, music, education, higher level of society, etc. as well as political and economical advantages in strengthening the relationship with the Byzantine Empire. However, this won’t last as “by the late 1100s under weaker princes Kievan Russia increasingly disintegrated into rival princedoms and towns that spent more time fighting each other than their common enemies” [24]. While the Kievan Russian state would come to an end, the civilization and society that had been established would not.
Question 2: Based on “The Life of Avvakum”, what does Avvakum say about Nikon’s reforms? Please provide …show more content…
examples
When measured against almost any standard, one would find that Avvakum led an extraordinary life. He overcame a harsh childhood, born to a drinking but religious father and a soon after widowed Christian mother, to become an archpriest at the young age of twenty. He endured numerous form of persecution from various types of authority, but in doing so Avvakum became one of the most influential of the Old Believers in the movement against the reforms of the Patriarch Nikon, which is shown in his autobiography The Life of Avvakum.
In The Life of Avvakum, Avvakum paints a picture of himself as a fighter for Christ, very adamant in his beliefs no matter the cost and throughout the book, emphasizes the strength of his spirit. Each trial is a test of spirit. A particularly important reoccurring theme throughout is his opposition to certain reform. Avvakum seemed aghast by the disarray, sinfulness and ignorance of many of the religions and their practices at the time. Avvakum was an ardent advocate of religious and spiritual reform, but not of the liturgical reforms advocated by other members of the Zealots of Piety, focused mainly on Nikon. In the story he states:
“I believe in and serve my God; but the apostates I loathe and curse: they are God's enemies and, living in Christ, I do not fear them. Were they to heap stones on me then, secure in the tradition of the Fathers, I would lie in peace beneath these stones-how much more so beneath the thorny, knavish curses of Nikon! Tush! Why multiply words? All we need do is to spit on their doings and their ritual, and on their newfangled books, then all will be well....” [Rzhevsky 52]
Quite quickly in the story we find Avvakum at odds with Nikon’s reforms. When asked to bless a high-ranking boyer’s son he refused, saying that "How can I pronounce a blessing on a man who has shaved off his beard, deliberately changing the way God made him?" [48]. His sentence was not carried out for this disobedience, but not many years later Avvakum found himself in exile for once again breaking Nikon’s reforms. Through the torture of his family in their exile, Avvakum stays opposed to the reforms and warns all of the people who have stayed faithful to the the church to be weary of Nikon’s new church. Avvakum says, "When the priest comes to sprinkle your house with holy water," he told them, just follow him around and sweep it out with a broom. And if they drag you into church, keep right on whispering your prayer to Jesus!" [59].
Once a patriarch, Nikon had his own ideas about what needed to be changed within the church and how to implement these ideas. He compared the current books the church was using to the original Greek texts and other reprints. However, Avvakum disputed this, saying that the reprints were not to be trusted, and for the truth one must look at the Russian manuscripts. [Davis 1] Avvakum’s distain for Nikon’s revisions to the text are shown when he says
“And I…shook myself free from the blindness of a troubled mind and began once more to preach and teach God's Word in the towns and in all places until such time as I could boldly tear the mask from the heresy of Nikon…I cried aloud in every town and in every village, in churches and in marketplaces, preaching the Word of God and teaching and laying bare the snares of the ungodly.” [60]
One of the Nikon reforms that Avvakum is against is the number of fingers one should use when crossing themselves. Avvakum says that one should use only two fingers, in the old tradition as the first believers did, while Nikon has his ordained cross themselves with three fingers. Avvakum views this and many others of Nikon’s reforms unnecessary and ungodly. Throughout the story Avvakum is so adamant that he refuses to refute his ways or change his beliefs to pacify whatever the suffering is he, or his family, is enduring. He believes throughout that the only way to salvation is through his ways and beliefs, not through Nikon’s new reforms.
All-in-all, Avvakum’s ideals are best embodied in this quote from his autobiography, when invited to see Nikon in Moscow:
“In sadness I wondered if I should keep on preaching or if I should escape somewhere for the sake of my wife and children to whom I was intimately bound… "What shall I do? Shall I speak or keep silence?" … having my eyes opened from blindness, I kept on preaching in towns along the way, denouncing Nikon's heresy.”
Question 3: What does Thompson say about Ivan the Terrible, his politics and the Time of Troubles?
When talking about Ivan the Terrible, or Ivan the IV, it is hard to put him into a single category of ruler/leader; during his rule Ivan established a standing army, created a codification of laws along a system of regulations, and many more positive measures. However, the later half of his rule was characterized by strife and a constant power struggle complied upon other failures in his rule. All of these factors coupled together “…set the stage for one of the most sensational and dramatic periods in Russian history, aptly named the Time of Troubles.” [Thompson 77] Ivan assumed rule at the age of sixteen in 1547, when he self-proclaimed himself the first tsar. Even before this though, Ivan’s life had been marked with trouble. Thompson points to Ivan’s upbringing and his exposure to the constant bloody, struggle for power for his “cruelty and suppressed rage” later in life as a almost vengeance for what he had suffered through as a child [68]. As stated in the previous paragraph, the first part of Ivan’s rule was marked by his move towards reform, which were, at first, a success. As a ruler, Ivan understood the worth of advisors and confidants, forming an advisory board known as the zemskii sobor to not only voice the opinions of the boyars and elite but of other populace as well. This did not mean, however that there was peace within the country. “Ivan place high priority on improving the army’s fighting capacity”, and regulated what the terms were to be within the ranks and what responsibilities each of the positions would entail [71]. He also helped in the advancement of solidifying laws and creating a codification to improve the corrupt government system.
Ivan made further advancements through the creation of an amicable relationship with England, as well as making much effort to strength the ties that Russia had with Europe through art, medicine and architecture such as St. Bail’s Cathedral. As much as Ivan may have strived for reform, but he also strived for an absolute tsarist power. This brought Ivan a big challenge: the aristocracy. Thompson points out that the struggle for power between “Ivan the Terrible and the boyars…[was] an unnecessary and even tragic contest, with neither side taking into account how much the struggle endangered the state.” [73]. The tsar Ivan could rely on being supported by the church and that of the gentry class even though tradition had dictated in before Ivan the Terrible’s time that the boyar class wielded much control. However, it was at this time Ivan’s rule began to turn and one begins to see what made Ivan the Terrible’s rule such a controversy.
The first event to spark debate between the two opposing sides, was Ivan’s request for his officials to swear their allegiance to his young son Dmitrii, which some refused out of “fear [of] another period of minority rule marked by internal strife and weakness” [74]. Around this same period of time, Ivan took up campaigns to try to expand Russia’s territory, such as the long and brutal Livonian War, and to expand their trade in Europe. However, just as he was doing so, his wife Anastasia died, which Thompson hypothesizes only added, as they say, ‘fuel-to-the-fire’. At this time, Ivan became irrational, and deepened his distrust of the boyars but now along with them, he expanded his vendetta to his advisors, officials, and even to his friends. This led to the establishment of the oprichina, consisting of land that Ivan had seized from the boyar and royal families, which Ivan may have used “as a weapon in his struggle” [76]. The oprichina did not last long and its exact purpose is still unclear.
“The oprichina as an institution, combined with Ivan’s unbridled anger and violent oppression, succeeded in weakening and demoralizing the boyars and for the last 20 years of his reign, Ivan encountered little opposition to his half-mad rule. Bu the cost was enormous” [76]. Ivan the Terrible clearly had some sort of emotional, mental or physical disturbance to cause his erratic behavior. However, he did manage to secure the absolute power of the tsar from the boyars, but at a large cost. The people of Russia were in a worse state now than when he claimed his rule. Now filled with fear of foreign attacks, civil persecution, a declining economy and much more, at the end of Ivan’s life, the Time of Troubles was just beginning.
“Three main issues characterized the tumultuous era of the Time of Trouble: a struggle for political power, a widespread social revolution, and a national movement to prevent foreign domination of Russia” [77]. First, the boyars and the upper class populance were still bitter at the end of Ivan’s reign. His death was viewed as an opportunity for the struggle between tsar and the former to resume. No social group had benefited greatly from Ivan the Terrible’s rule, creating the perfect storm of civil conflict. Following Ivan, Boris Godunov dominated politics in Russia, serving as the regent for Ivan’s heir and sickly son, Feodor. As talented as Godunov was and despite his best efforts, outside forces working against him made it near impossible from him to re-build what Ivan the Terrible’s reign had undone in Russia. As he tried to rebuild, the economic despairs of the country turned out to be too great of a problem for him to correct in his time. Godunov also made for an easy target for enemies and for vicious rumors, as he had no legal or rightful claim to the throne. Such rumors included that of an heir from Ivan, and that Godunov “was a murderer and usurper and that Russia was being punished for Godunov’s sins” [79]. Rebellion against the now tsar Boris ensued, with pretenders to the throne claiming that they were the rightful heir. The first False Dmitrii, one such pretender, only heightened this tension, setting the stage fore social revolution.
After the First Dmitrii took claim following tsar Boris’ death, the boyars were the first of the social classes to successfully back on these pretenders to power, however he was soon after killed by a coup led by another self-proclaimed tsar of Russia.
This internal struggle and strife continued for the next decade, with each social class backing some figurehead, or long lost heir, in a ploy for that social group themselves to gain control of the government until around 1608 a stalemate developed and the focus turned instead to foreigners trying to wriggle their way into Russian political affairs. Thompson explains this period of time best when stating, “This was certainly the low point in the fortunes of the Muscovite state: with no tsar, the capital occupied by Poles, the northwest controlled by Swedes, and a pretender stirring up trouble in the countryside, its chances for survival seemed slim”
[82].
This time though, a national revival started throughout Russia, backed with a strong religious element as the Russian Orthodox Church thought he Poles’ Catholicism was heretical. Finally, two Russians successful led an army of Russian citizens in the successful liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders, starting to put an end to the Time of Troubles in Russia and taking the country for the first time in a while, in the forward direction. A new tsar, tsar Michael Romanov, took control of rule in Russia and by 1618, had started a firm rule, marking an end to “[a] weak government, and disorder and civil strife” in Russia [83].
Resources
Davis, Nicholas. "Reference Guide to Russian Literature." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.
Rzhevsky, Nicholas. An Anthology of Russian Literature: From Earliest Writings to Modern Fiction : Introduction to a Culture. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1996. Print.
"The Language of Russian Protest â On the Anniversary of Avvakum's Execution." The Language of Russian Protest â On the Anniversary of Avvakum's Execution. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.
Thompson, John M. Russia and the Soviet Union: An Historical Introduction. Boulder: Westview, 1990. Print.