Today In History, March 28, 1584-- Death of Russian Czar Ivan The Terrible
Today In History, March 28, 1584--
Death of Russian Czar Ivan The Terrible
It is supremely ironic, (not "iconic") that today of all days is the 438th anniversary of the death of one of the most bloodthirsty and brutal autocrats in Russia's tortured history, Ivan Grozny. It is hard to imagine that the timing of Putin's onslaught against Ukraine is not somehow related to this anniversary, knowing how superstitious can be the minds of paranoid dictators who are operating from a deeply felt religious fanaticism.
This historical event highlights the importance once again of those ideas, concepts and fundamental truths for which the Ukrainians are fighting. This at a moment when one such dictator is, in the fashion of his forebearer Ivan, committing mass murder in the name of a religious fever dream. In specific, we refer to the Russian Orthodox Church prophecy of Moscow as the "Third and Final Rome," the center of world Christianity for the new millennium. It's a prophecy which emphatically foretells of the downfall of the West, which will supposedly perish in a rain of fire.
Many observers have become aware that Putin's war against humanity now being visited upon the people of Ukraine, has been justified by him on the grounds that the Eastern Church recognizes Ukraine as being Russian in origin, nationality, and yes, even by blood. It is referred to in Russian written history as "Kiev-Rus. This belief comes directly from the bloody legacy of Ivan.
from Wikipedia:
[Moscow, third Rome (Russian: Москва — Третий Рим, romanized: Moskva — Tretiy Rim) is a theological and political concept asserting that Moscow is the successor of the Roman Empire, representing a "third Rome" in succession to the first Rome (Rome itself, capital of Ancient Rome) and the second Rome (Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire).
..."Moscow, Third Rome" is a theological and a political concept which was formulated in the 15th–16th centuries in the Tsardom of Rus.[1][unreliable source?]
In this concept, three interrelated and interpenetrating fields of ideas can be found:
a) Theology: that is linked with justification of necessity and inevitability of the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church
b) Social policy: derived out of the feeling of unity in East Slavic territories being historically tied through Christian Eastern Orthodox faith and Slavic culture;
c) State doctrine: according to which the Moscow Prince should act as a supreme ruler (Sovereign and legislator) of Christian Eastern Orthodox nations and become a defender of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church. Herewith the Church should facilitate the Sovereign in execution of his function supposedly determined by God, the autocratic administration.
...This idea is best known in the presentation of the monk Philotheus of the early 16th century:[7][8][9]
So know, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms came to an end and came together in a single kingdom of yours, two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth [emphasis added]. No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom according to the great Theologian [cf. Revelation 17:10] [...].
The Moscow scholars explained the fall of Constantinople as the divine punishment for the sin of the Union with the Catholic Church, but they did not want to obey the Patriarch of Constantinople, although there were no unionist patriarchs since the Turkish conquest in 1453 and the first Patriarch since then, Gennadius Scholarius, was the leader of the anti-unionists. At the next synod, held in Constantinople in 1484, the Union was finally declared invalid. Having lost its Christian basileus after the Turkish conquest, Constantinople as a center of power lost a significant part of its authority. On the contrary, the Moscow rulers soon began to consider themselves real Tsars (this title was already used by Ivan III), and therefore according to them the center of the Eastern Orthodox Church should have been located in Moscow, and thus the bishop of Moscow should become the head of the Orthodoxy.[5] The text of the bishop's oath in Muscovy, edited in 1505–1511, condemned the ordination of metropolitans in Constantinople, calling it "the ordination in the area of godless Turks, by the pagan[a] tsar."[10]
Stirrings of this sentiment began during the reign of Ivan III of Russia, who styled himself Czar (cf. Caesar), who had married Sophia Paleologue. Sophia was a niece of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor. By the rules and laws of inheritance followed by most European monarchies of the time, Ivan could claim that he and his offspring were heirs of the fallen Empire, but the Roman traditions of the empire had never recognized automatic inheritance of the Imperial office.[11]
16th century and after
See also: Church reform of Peter the Great
It was also Sophia's brother, Andreas Palaiologos, who held the rights of succession to the Byzantine throne. Andreas died in 1502, having sold his titles and royal and imperial rights to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. A stronger claim was based on religious symbolism. The Orthodox faith was central to Byzantine notions of their identity and what distinguished them from "barbarians". Vladimir the Great had converted Kievan Rus' to Orthodoxy in 988, in return for which he became the first barbarian to ever get an Imperial princess as a wife.[citation needed]
"The liturgical privileges that the Byzantine emperor enjoyed carried over to the Muscovite tsar. In 1547, for instance, when Ivan IV (Ivan The Terrible--lfr) was crowned tsar, not only was he anointed as the Byzantine emperor had been after the late twelfth century, but he was also allowed to communicate in the sanctuary with the clergy.]
---end Wikipedia entry on Third Rome
---on the life of Ivan, also Wikipedia
[Ivan was the first Moscow ruler born after its independence. The son of Vasili III, the Rurikid ruler of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, he was appointed grand prince after his father's death when he was three years old. A group of reformers known as the "Chosen Council" united around the young Ivan, declaring him tsar (emperor) of All Rus' in 1547 at the age of 16 and establishing the Tsardom of Russia with Moscow as the predominant state. Ivan's reign was characterised by Russia's transformation from a medieval state to an empire under the tsar but at an immense cost to its people and its broader, long-term economy.
...Contemporary sources present disparate accounts of Ivan's complex personality. He was described as intelligent and devout but also prone to paranoia, rage, and episodic outbreaks of mental instability that increased with age.[6][7][8] In one fit of anger, he murdered his eldest son and heir, Ivan Ivanovich, and he might also have caused the miscarriage of the latter's unborn child. This left his younger son, the politically ineffectual Feodor Ivanovich, to inherit the throne, a man whose rule and subsequent childless death directly led to the end of the Rurikid dynasty and the beginning of the Time of Troubles. 10]
The reference to the year 988 AD is the year in which the Eastern Church recognizes the Christianization of Russia, named "Kiev-Rus" under Russia's first Czar Vladimir. The Third Rome prophecy was existent in the Russian Church before Ivan IV but was codified as both state and church doctrine under his reign.
Not unlike Putin today, Ivan's reign started out as one which included peaceful reforms, modernization, and economic growth, allowing for a parliament, and bringing the printing press to Russia. He also built the famous St. Basil's Cathedral.
However, the Russian situation took a turn for the worse, which brought out the worst in Ivan and led to a cycle of domestic purges and war.
---more from Wikipedia
[The 1560s brought to Russia hardships that led to a dramatic change of Ivan's policies. Russia was devastated by a combination of drought, famine, unsuccessful wars against the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Tatar invasions, and the sea-trading blockade carried out by the Swedes, the Poles, and the Hanseatic League. His first wife, Anastasia Romanovna, died in 1560, which was suspected to be a poisoning. The personal tragedy deeply hurt Ivan and is thought to have affected his personality, if not his mental health. At the same time, one of Ivan's advisors, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, defected to the Lithuanians, took command of the Lithuanian troops and devastated the Russian region of Velikiye Luki. That series of treasons made Ivan paranoically suspicious of nobility. 11]
Unbelievably, Ivan in his diminished state of mind abdicated and took up residence in a Monastery outside of Moscow. He wrote two letters explaining his decision, claiming the the Boyar aristocracy and the Church were embezzling from the Treasury, and he wanted nothing to do with it. During his absence, Moscow descended into virtual chaos and ungovernability.
It was then that the Russian nobility and government leaders begged Ivan to return and reassume the Czar's role, even though misleadership and mass bloodshed against his own people characterized his reign!
So he returned with vengenace on his mind, bloodier than ever, and organized what was known as the "Oprichina" a 1000 person paramilitary order of men which functioned as a secret police and terror squad, which was used to torture and murder any and all opponents real or imagined.
This was all in the service of his belief in the mystical prophecy of Philotheus of Pskov, the Monk who made the Third Rome the religious and ideological doctrine of Russia.
In later years after Ivan's death, there were periods in which the Third Rome outlook became weaker and then stronger, depending on the particular circumstances facing Russia at the time. There were Czars who were "westernizers" such as Peter The Great, Catherine The Great, and Alexander II who brought progress and education to a broader strata in Russia, including the end of serfdom in 1863. During such times Russia did not have an expansionist drive, rather the cultural imperative remained operative and was reflected in the persecution and attempts to "russify" minority ethnic and religious populations living within the vast territories claimed by Russia. Otherwise it remained dormant, lurking like a feral beast, ready to erupt at any point some foreign invader threatened (or in today's situation was believed to be threatening, despite it not being true) to violate the sacred soil of "Holy Mother Russia", Matushka Rus.
It is during times like today's of great upheaval, economic and social crisis, real or perceived external threats from the "heathens" of the West, that this old cultural imperative rises to the forefront, and drives the paranoid rage which has been all too prevalent in many Russian autocratic leaders throughout their history. In that sense, Vladimir Putin is a modern incarnation of Ivan The Terrible, operating in reaction to similar events as the "time of troubles" which caused Ivan to snap, and act as a bloodthirsty dictator instead of a pragmatic ruler and reformer. The parallels are striking, though not necessarily definitive.
People may remember my blog article on Vladimir Putin and the Third Rome from November of 2019, "Czar Vladimir The Terrible--What Makes Putin Tick" It is worth rereading again, as it was like several pieces I've reposted recently, eerily prescient. One major difference of course was that Russia under Ivan was not a superpower, nor did he have nuclear weapons. Imagine if he did. Imagine what it means that the bearer of his legacy does.
