Terribly Romantic, Terribly Progressive, or Terribly Tragic: Rehabilitating Ivan IV under I.V. Stalin

Kevin M. F. Platt; David Brandenberger

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was published in the literary journal Novyi mir in November 1962 and provoked excited debate across the Soviet press in subsequent months. In this article, Miriam Dobson uses unpublished letters to the editor to examine readers' responses to this work of literature and as a means to explore attitudes towards the process of de-Stalinization more broadly. While many historians have tended to see the Nikita Khrushchev period as a battleground between liberals and conservatives, these letters suggest a rather more complex dialogue over the legacies of Stalinism. They show that even those readers who embraced the de-Stalinizing rhetoric of the Twenty-Second Party Congress found Solzhenitsyn's text highly disturbing. Distressed by the appearance of camp slang and "vulgar" language within a literary work, readers took the opportunity to express their concerns over the large numbers of criminals re...

Despite the fact that more than 60 years have passed since the death of Joseph Stalin, the leader of the USSR from 1922 to 1953, the memory of him remains alive. For several years running Stalin has topped the ranking of the most remarkable figures in Russia's history. Portraits of him appear at political demonstrations and religious events; new monuments to the dictator are erected. The Kremlin's official rhetoric increasingly refers to the positive aspects of the Soviet era, in particular to the victory in World War II. Representatives of the state's administration and the Orthodox Church have been making favourable comments about Stalin. However, Stalin's popularity among society in today's Russia is rather superficial – Russians know little about the dictator and his life; they are rather nostalgic about the period of his rule and the achievements of his era. The image of the Soviet dictator as an outstanding leader is blended with Russians' individual memories of repression and terror which affected almost every Russian family. These reminiscences however do not penetrate the public sphere at the mass level, which makes it possible for the state's narrative to dominate it. The Krem-lin has exploited the ambivalent and superficial attitude which Russians have to Stalin. Even though it does not glorify him, it allows for his social cult to develop, and contributes to it by selectively emphasising the positive aspects of the leader's actions and by mythologising his image. The Kremlin has been legitimising its power based on politics of memory, generating controlled divisions in society and mobilising its proponents. On the other hand, the government has made it more difficult to draw attention to the murderous nature of Stalin's actions. Any criticism of him (from Russian citizens and civil society organisations as well as the international community) is seen as an attack on contemporary Russia and its present government which presents itself as the heir to the USSR's and Stalin's accomplishments and victories.

Stalin looked to historical antecedents to confirm his place in history, seeking legitimisation in the parts of Russia’s tsarist past that allowed him to enact his self-identity: the great tsars, national builders and evil despots, Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great are the two Tsars with whom Stalin felt the most affinity. Between himself and the two Tsars, Stalin found a legitimating parallel with a powerful allure; for they provided a model – set in historical circumstances remarkably similar to that which Stalin faced in the late 20s and 30s – that confirmed and informed Stalin’s economic and social policies. It is no surprise therefore that Stalin’s Great Purge of 1936-38 and the Five Year Plans followed in remarkably similar fashion to Ivan’s IV reign of terror and Peter the Great’s industrialisation campaign respectively. As Stalin set out to emulate the two Tsars, he simultaneously then personally saw to their rehabilitation in popular history and culture, altering their negative depictions to positive ones, which will be the focus of the latter part of this essay. In elevating the two Tsars to the status of national heroes, the parallel would now serve his image. It would place him as the natural heir to the great nation builders, as the man set on completing the campaign – that they started with good intentions but failed to complete – to overcome Russia’s backwardness. The second aspect of the rehabilitation of Ivan and Peter was that it formed part of a wider shift in the Soviet Union’s interwar domestic policy known as ‘National Bolshevism’; born out of the need to create national heroes to engender a strong sense of a national identity and bolster support for a potential war.

The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review Terribly Romantic, Terribly Progressive, or Terribly Tragic: Rehabilitating Ivan IV under I. V. Stalin Author(s): Kevin M. F. Platt and David Brandenberger Reviewed work(s): Source: Russian Review, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 635-654 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2679233 . Accessed: 12/04/2012 00:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Blackwell Publishing and The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Russian Review. http://www.jstor.org TerriblyRomantic,Terribly Progressive, orTerribly Tragic: Rehabilitating IvanIV under I. V. Stalin KEVIN M. F. PLATT ANDDAVID BRANDENBERGER I1UT CBYITOCAaBa, Aexa IHBaHa Me-I HloaHHa KaAHThI, Bce Hamu 3eMAH 4O oKeaHa KpOBbIO HOAHThI. HaM Ce,4OyChIH TYT rieA 6hIA4HHHK KaK IPOxo0HA COAAaT HeTpa, TYT meA CYBOPOB, TYT 6hIA KYTY30B, TYT BeIOT PYCCKHe BeTpa. lFYAb 6eCKOHeMHa, ropAaqI CAaBa, CAaBbCH Be-IHO, HamlIa AepXKaBa! FepOicKOii S. I. Kirsanov,Proposed Lyrics fortheAnthemof the USSR, 1943 In recentyearsscholarshavewrittenmuchon thevalorizationofIvantheTerriblein the historical oftheStalinistperiod.Theirworkhas illustrated howthefirst Rusmythology siantsarandhisMuscovitedomainwererepresented as gloriousantecedents to Stalinand Soviet society. Throughthe lens of historicalanalogy,Ivan theTerribleprovidedthe contextforan examination ofissuesrelevantto Sovietlifein the1930sand 1940s,rangingfromtheubiquitousdangeroftreasontothemanifest destiny ofa strongly centralized, multinational state. Researchforthisarticlewas supported in partby a grantfromtheInternational Research& ExchangesBoard fortheHumanities of (IREX), withfundsprovidedbytheNationalEndowment andtheUnitedStatesDepartment theRussian,Eurasian,andEast EuropeanResearchProgram(TitleVIII). Supportwas State,whichadministers also providedbya FellowshipGrantfromtheNationalCouncilforEurasianandEast EuropeanResearch,under ofState.Versionsofthisarticlewerediscussedat the ofa TitleVIII GrantfromtheU.S. Department theauthority 1996 and 1998AnnualMeetingsof theAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancement of Slavic Studies(AAASS) andtheDavis CenterforRussianResearchat HarvardUniversity. Thisarticlelikewisebenefited fromcommunicationswithA. M. Dubrovskii,Gregory Freidin,MaureenPerrie,JoanNeuberger, CarylEmerson,EdwardL. Keenan,andKatiaDianina. 7he RussianReview58 (October1999): 635-54 1999 TheRussianReview Copyright 636 Kevin M F Platt and David Brandenberger Underlying manyof theseaccountsis a monolithic modelin whichculturalagents arecompelledfrom"above"to propagandize therehabilitated imageofIvan. Fluctuation in theemphasisor contentof whatis assumedto be theofficialline is heldto indicate shiftsin statepolicy'or aesopiandissenton thepartof theculturalagentsthemselves (a in interpretations viewoftenforegrounded of S. M. Eisenstein'sfilm,Ivan theTerrible).2 Whilethisapproachis usefulas a heuristic tool,closerexamination of theevidencereveals therehabilitation of Ivan IV to have been muchmorecomplicated.As we argue of theIvan below,Stalinistculturalagentsintentionally promoted conceptions conipeting the narrative, repeatedly clashingoverthemyth'suse as a politicalmetaphor.Moreover, recontrol this turn out to have been to and mediate activity partyhierarchy's attempts In sum,whileitis undeniablethatsomerepresenmarkably haphazardandinconsistent. of fromtheofficialline,we see thisas indicative tationsofIvanIV deviatedsignificantly Ivan and his relevanceto Stalinistsociety,ratherthan a diversity of opinionconcerning evidenceof willfulsubversion on thepartof Sovietelites. of IvantheTertherehabilitation Focusingon the"socialistcompetition" surrounding rible,thisarticle'sfindings correlatewell withotherrecentstudieswhicharguethatSovietsocial andculturallifeseldomconformed to a binarymodelin whichtotalizing state dissidentopposition.Rather,theheightsof the powerwas tempered onlyby determined and thedepthsof underground resistancewereseparatedby a vast,gray partyhierarchy middlespace in whicha varietyof actorsvied foreveryday acknowledgment, pragmatic interests, and statepatronage.Indeed,we findcontestation overthefirstRussiantsar's legacyprecipitating theformation of severalinterpretive "camps,"all of whichenjoyed somedegreeof officialendorsement. Afterdetailingtheactualrehabilitation, we outline the"terrible" IvanIV whichultimately interpretive controversies surrounding confounded notonlytheSovietculturalelitebutalso thepartyhierarchy itself.In so doing,we offer a case studyconcerning culturalproduction duringtheStalinistperiod. If IvanIV had beena problematic heroat bestforRussianhistorians before1917,3hein theworksof likemostothertsarist-era politicalfigures-wasthoroughly marginalized ofHistory:Eisensteinand theIvan GroznyiCultof the1940s,"in 7he 'BerndUhlenbruch, "TheAnnexation Culture ofiheSta/iuPeriod,ed. HansGunther (NewYork,1990),266-87;PeterKenez,Citenmaa-zzidSovietSoci;etj 1917-1953(NewYork,1992),201-3,220; MaureenPerrie,"TheTsar,theEmperor, theLeader:IvantheTerrible, PetertheGreatandAnatoliiRybakov'sStalin,"inStalisik:Y EssaysinHonsorofMos/ie n.I1tsNaturwe camdAftezat/ali, (London,1992), 77-100; David Bordwell,The Cineema Lewin,ed. Nick Lampertand GdborT. Rittersporn of moresophisticated Eisenstein (Cambridge,1993), 253. Considerably is MaureenPerrie'srecent"Nationalism and History:theCultof Ivan theTerriblein Stalin'sRussia,"in Rissian Nati~oalis&m Past cad Present,ed. G. HoskingandR. Service(NewYork,1998), 107-28. 2MarieSeton,SergeiM Elisenstein, rev.ed. (London,1978),413-31; RosalindMarsh,ImiagesofDictataos/ip. PIoi-aitsofStalikiinLiterature,2d ed. (London,1989),33; LeonidKozlov,"TheArtistandtheShadowofIvan," in Stalinismand SovietCinema,ed. RichardTaylorand Derek Spring(London, 1993), 109-30; Alexander Zholkovsky, "Eisenstein's Poetics:DialogicalorTotalitarian," inLaboratoryofDreams.-. TheRussiacnAvamt-Garzde andCulturalExpemiiment, ed.JohnE. BowltandOlgaMatich(Stanford, 1996),245-56;JoanNeuberger, "Eisenstein, Ivan,Stalin:PowerPersonified," PaperDeliveredat theThirtieth AnnualMeetingof theAAASS, 24 September 1998. See also thespecialissueofKinovedcheskiezapiski38 (1998). 3Foroverviewsof historiographic traditions IvanIV see I. U. Budovnits, "IvanGroznyiv russkoi concerning istoricheskoi literature," Istorichieskie zapiski 21 (1947): 271-330; Leo Yaresh,"Ivan theTerribleand the RehabilitatiligIvan IVwuder I V Stalin 637 earlySovietmaterialist historians, who werecommitted to a conceptionof thehistorical processin whichindividualactorshad limitedsignificance.4 As thisunderstanding of historywanedin theearly-to-mid 1930s,a broadrehabilitation of therole of thestate, individual,and Russianethnicity caused officialviews on prominent prerevolutionary personalities to changemarkedly.In linewiththepartyhierarchy's emerging preoccupationwithRussianstate-building and legitimacy, a numberof figurespreviouslydenigratedas representatives of theold regimewere reevaluated.Perennialestablishment favorites like PetertheGreatand AleksandrNevskiiwereelevatedintoa reconstituted ofRussiannationalheroes.5As one ofthemostrecognizable pantheon figureswithinthe A. USSR's potentialMuscovitelineage,Ivan IV was also consideredforrehabilitation. M. Gor'kiipubliclyspeculatedin 1934atthefirstconference oftheSovietWriters' Union thatfolkloric of IvantheTerriblemighttempertsaristhistoriography's elitinvestigations isttreatment of theleader.6In thefollowing year,A. N. Tolstoiprivately expressedinterestin a reappraisal ofthesixteenth-century tsar,whomhe viewedas a politicalforerunner of PetertheGreat.7In 1936,historians in theeditingof new elementary participating schoolhistorytextsvoiced a varietyof views on Ivan IV, some of whichassessed his policiesand historicallegacyquitepositively.'Yet officialstatements duringtheearly of thetsaristpastindicatethatthespecificlineconstagesof thisStalinistrehabilitation cerningIvan's historical legacyremainedprimarily negativeand dismissive.9 The initiativenecessaryfora profoundrevisionof the officialvisionof Ivan IV Whileleafappearsto havearisensomewhatlater,underratherpeculiarcircumstances. ing througha manuscriptof A. V. Shestakov's Short Course on theHistoryof the USSR in ofI. E. Repin'sclassicpainting "Ivanthe early1937,I. V. Stalinstruckouta reproduction Terrible'sMurderof His Own Son," apparently believingit to be prejudicial.'0Shortly A. A. Zhdanovrewroteportionsof thesame textbookin an explicitendorsethereafter, mentof Ivan IV. Removingcompromising detailsconcerning Ivan's sackingof Kazan' Itel petaptlions oftheRussiavn Oprichnina," inRekvriting RussianHistory'. Sovi;et Past,ed. C. E. Black(NewYork, Enthroned: DemonicVisionsof RussianRulers,"in Russian 1956),78-106; and KevinM. F. Platt,"Antichrist Literature and itsDemons,ed. PamelaDavidson(Oxford,1999). of individual actorsto history, suchscholarsdismissedthecontributions 4Typified byM. N. Pokrovskii, conin as thedecisivefactors socioeconomic forceswhichMarxhadidentified centrating insteadon thesupranational oclierke(Moscow,1932),passin,esp.58-60. Russkaiaistoriiavsanionzszhatomn humanevents.See Pokrovskii, andA. M. Dubrovsky, "'The 5On theera'sideologicalandhistoriographical changessee D. L. Brandenberger People Need a Tsar': The Emergenceof NationalBolshevismas StalinistIdeology,1931-1941,"Europe-Asia Studies50 (1998): 873-92. otchet(Moscow,1934), 10. s "ezdsovetskik/zpilsatelei 1934. Stenograafic/zeskii 6Pervyi vsesoiuznyi ofV.D. Bonch-Bruevich toA.M. Gor'kii,31January 1935,partially reproduced inV.R. Shcherbina, 7Seetheletter 1956),471. A. X Tolstoi.Tvorchesk/iput'(Moscow, ofA. A. Zhdanov ofjurydiscussionsconductedunderthesupervision reports 8Seematerials andstenographic i izucheniiadokumentov noveisheiistorii(RTsKhIDNI),Moscow,f.77, op. 1, in Rossiiskiitsentr dliakhraneniia dd. 332-33. all inMa/alaia Groznyi," and "Oprichnina," "IvanIV Vasilevich, 9M.V. Nechkina,"Moskovskoegosudarstvo," idem,"Ivan sovetskaiav etszidopediia(Moscow,1930),5:420; (1931), 3:352; and (1931), 6:105-6,respectively; announcement for (Moscow,1934),27: 326-29. See also thepublication IV,"Bol's/iaiasovetskaiaentsl/dopedlia vreinenivanaGroznogoin Pravda,13 July1934,4. NovoeIzvestieo Ross#i '00n theexclusionofRepin'spainting fromthetextbook istoril see Stalin'spageproofsforElemenltavyikurs SSSR,datingfromearly1937,in RTsKhIDNI,f.558,op. 3, d. 374,11.108-9. 638 Kevin M E Platt and David Brandeiiberger and his oprichnina a new conclusionintothetexton the guard,1Zhdanovinterpolated tsar'saccomplishments: "Withthis,[IvanIV] essentially completedthegathering of uncoordinated principalities intoa singlestrongstatewhichhad beeninitiated by Kalita.""2 ThiscastingofIvanas thequintessential Muscovitestate-builder was reflected soonthereafterin theGreatSovietEncyclopediaand othertextbooks and curricular materials.13 Yetdespitetheflurry ofactivity, therehabilitation ofIvanwas stillbyno meansaf/at ofhisreign.The rehabilitation accompli,especiallywhenitcameto detaileddescriptions of figuresassociatedwiththetsaristregimewas a delicatematterunderany circuma figureas Ivanthe stances,andthespin-control necessary topopularizeas unsympathetic theissue of the Terriblewas rather tricky.S. V. Bakhrushin and K. V. Bazilevichskirted in 1939 by focusinginsteadon the socioeconomichistoryof tsar'sbloodyreputation Ivan's reign."4B. G. Verkhoven' provedmoreambitiouswiththepublicationlaterthat year of his pamphlet,Russia during the Reign of Ivan the Terrible. Praising Ivan's con- solidationof statepowerandhis "completely necessaryandcorrect"use ofterror to punish treason,he nevertheless diagnosedthetsaras a "psychologically unbalancedperson." Presenting theoprichninzin a similarly nuancedmanner, Verkhoven' characterized the institution as a generally progressive one,yetresponsible for"ravaging"thepeasantry.' While thepartyelite had alreadysignaleda new courseon Ivan in the late 1930s, it to commentdiappearsthathistorians-withtheexceptionof Verkhoven'-hesitated rectlyon theruler'spersonality or his personalcontributions to Muscovitehistory.16 This strategic reticence regarding Ivanwas notpermitted forlong,however.In 1940 theCentralCommittee oftherehabilitation cam(TsK) pronounced theaccomplishments and issuedinstructions paignto be unsatisfactory on futurerepresentations of Ivan IV. Most likely,thisintervention resultedin partfromtheperceivedfailureof Verkhoven's "Comparepp. 38-40 of thepage proofsforKra//iakulisisloriiSSSR, datingfromlate July1937,held in RTsKhIDNI,f.77,op. 1,d. 854,withA.V. Shestakov, ed.,Krcat1kiikursistoriiSSSR(Moscow, 1937),38-40. Other cutspredateZhdanov's-comparep. 39 of thepage proofsforElemientarnyi kursisloriiSSSR withp. 37 of the pageproofsforKratkiikurs istoriiSSSR. '2Zhdanov's revisionis onp.40 ofthepageproofsforKrat/dkikirs publishedas Shestakov, Krat/kii istori/SSSR, kursisorii SSSR,41. 13Forexample,S. V. Bakhrushin, "Moskovskoegosudarstvo," Bolsshaiasovelskaiaenvsi/opediia(Moscow, 1938),40:458-67; [M. V. Nechkina?],"Oprichnina," ibid. (1939), 43:226-28; A. M. Pankratova, ed., Isloriia andS. V. Bakhrushin, eds.,Isoriia SSSR, SSSR,vol. 1 (Moscow,1940),chap.8; andV. I. Lebedev,B. D. Grekov, vol. 1 (Moscow,1939),389-90; See also Rrogrammy, nachalu'zoishkoly (Moscow,1938),42-43; A. N. Khmelev, "Oprichnina (Stenograficheskaia zapis' uroka),"in Opy/piepodavanila iso/or/i SSSR v nachialnoishicole(Moscow,1938),20-27; andA. V. Shestakov, ed., Vponzoshch'grzuppovodtpolitza.mzia/.. k/erme "Rass/ireni;e Ma/aeni-aly russkogonatsional'nogogosudarstva"(Leningrad,1938). "Rasshirenie 14S. V. Bakhrushin, russkogogosudarstva priIvane IV,"Propagandist1 (1939): 15-22; K. V. Bazilevich,"'Torgovyikapitalizm'i genezismoskovskogo samoderzhaviia v rabotakhM. N. Pokrovskogo," in N Pok-ovskogo: Propvislonicheskoi kontsep/sliM ed. B. D. Grekovetal. (Moscow,1939),1: 147sboinikXslalei, 59. Bakhrushin's piece was authoritative enoughto be includedas chapter8 of thefollowing year'sinfluential textbook (Pankratova, Istori-& SSS*. 15B.Verkhoven', Ross/iavtsarstvovaniilvana Groznogo(Moscow,1939),43, 45. Verkhoven's workeliciteda decidedlynegativereactionat thehandsof theacademicestablishment, althoughthemostprominent reviewer, Academician Iu.V.Got'e,delicately thecharacterization ofIvanIV directly. avoidedcontesting See Got'e,"Plokhaia kniga,"Knigaipivle/arskaiarevoliufsiia 11 (1939): 92-95. '6A.M. Dubrovskii, S. VBakhrushin iego vremia(Moscow,1992), 121-22. Ivan IV iuder I V Stalizm 639 Rehabilitatinig book,whichhad beentoo equivocal.'7It has also beenproposedthattherisein official interest in Ivan atthispointcorresponded to theincreasedtopicality ofIvan's attempts at expansionin theBaltics,theMolotov-Ribbentrop pacthavingbeen signedonlymonths earlier."8While theactualwordingand circumstances theinstructions are surrounding in 1942can be elusive,theirlaterparaphrasing byTsK ideologychiefA. S. Shcherbakov used to reconstruct theStalinistpartyhierarchy's "official"positionon Ivan theTerrible. in therehabilitation Accordingto Shcherbakov, theTsK intervened campaignbecause "theimageof Ivan IV in thehistoricalsciencesand artistic literature has been seriously and relatedpublicistic distorted bothbyreactionary gentry and bourgeoishistoriography andartistic literature." soundunderstanding of Ivan IV in the Notingthat"a historically forourtimes,"Shcherbakov then of theRussianstatehas enormoussignificance history rehearsed a seriesof unequivocalstatements describing IvanIV as a "progressive" figure forhis era.19 The TsK's intervention however. was notjust limitedto questionsof interpretation, Expandingtherehabilitation of Ivan beyondthe scholarlyworldof historiography, attemptsweremadeto introduce thesubjectintoartisticmediawithmass appeal ranging fromdramaand literature to film. Between1940 and 1941,A. N. Tolstoiand S. M. Eisensteinwererecruited to producemajorworkson the sixteenth-century tsar(T. M. on proposalsforan accompanying Khrennikov and D. M. Shostakovich demurring opera).20An articlein Izvestiiain March 1941 by novelistV. I. Kostylevpublicizedthe direction and scope of thecampaign,describing Ivan as a far-sighted, populartsarbeset anddramaticworkswhich bytraitors and "lazyboyars."21 The listof subsequent literary woulduse Ivan as an allegoricaldeviceto eulogizeSovietstate-building is impressive. in Oktiabr'in1942,publishing novelofhiseventualtrilogy it Kostylevserializedthefirst as a separateeditionin 1943. Two further volumeswerereleasedin 1945 and 1947, in twoseparatemasseditionsin 1948 and theentireworkbeingrepublished respectively, '7Verkhoven's book wouldbe virtually theonlypost-1937narrative concerning Ivan notto be republished, indicating thebook'sunpopularity withinthepartyhierarchy. ofHistory," "Perrie,"Nationalism andHistory," 112. Uhlenbruch madethepointfirst in"TheAnnexation 269. '9Shcherbakov's "Tovarishchu StalinuI. V. o p'ese A. N. Tolstogo'Ivan Groznyi,"'existsin memorandum, threedrafts: RTsKhIDNI,f. 17,op. 125,d. 123,11.161-69;a draft fromthePresidential Archive(APRF),Moscow, inIu. Murin,"Istoriia-oruzhie bor'by,"Glasnost'28 November1991,7; andRTsKhIDNI,f. 17,op. 125,d. 297, ofthememorandum 11.130-40. The initialdraft datesfromthemiddleof 1942. BecauseMurinpublishedonlya ofthedraft fromtheAPRF,we referheretothemostextensive ofthememoranfragment andpolishedthird draft fora banon Tolstoi'splay,Shcherbakov mentions dum,whichlikelydatesfromlate1942orearly1943(lobbying thatithadbeen"morethana year"sincetheplaywas commissioned-aneventwhichtookplace duringJanuary of 1941). Forthechronology ofworkon theplaysee Shcherbina, A. N. Tolstoi, 471. memorandum mentions that"theCommittee forArtistic on thebasisoftheaforemen20Shcherbakov's Affairs, tioneddirectives, issuedordersforthecreationof a playaboutIvan theTerribleand of a filmscriptabouthim" ("Tovarishchu StalinuI. V. o p'ese,"1. 165; andd. 297,1. 134). See also R. Iurenev, Se;gei Eizenshtefiz. Zitnysl)y /l'my Taketobylo.Tikhoon A. N. Tolstol, 471; TikhonKrennikov, m) etod(Moscow,1988),2:192,210; Shcherbina, K/zrennikov o venzenii o sebe,ed. V. Rubtsova(Moscow,1994), 110; and S. Khentova, Shostakovi/ch.: ZhiznIi to A. M. DubrovskiifortheKhrennikov vol. 1 (Leningrad,1985), 519. The authorsare grateful tvo~rhestvo, reference. 21V.I. Kostylev, "Literaturnye zametki," Izvest'ia,19 March1941,5. Manyconsiderthe1941Kostylevarticle tomarkthestartofrehabilitation campaign.See, forexample,Ia. S. Lur'e andIu. D. Rykov,eds.,Peiepi~skal vvaza "TheAnnexation GroznogosAndreemn Kurbskirn (Leningrad,1979),216-17; Uhlenbruch, ofHistory," 269-70; andHistory," Kozlov,"TheArtistandtheShadowofIvan,"112; andPerrie,"Nationalism 112-13. 640 Kevin AMF P/attapedDavid Brandeniberger 1949. In March1942,Tolstoipublisheda segment ofthefirstofhistwoplaysaboutIvan in Literanura i iskusstpo.22Thispairofplays as theauthorcalledit,a "dramatic novella in twoparts" was publishedin its entirety in Ok/iabr'in 1943,to be republished in a in revisededition 1945 and 1950. The firstplay was producedin theMoscow Malyi Theaterin thefallof 1944,to be reworked andimmediately restagedin theMalyiduring thefollowing spring.Thesecondwas stagedintheMoscowArtTheaterin 1946. Eisenstein followedpreliminary articlesin thepressbetween1941 and 1942withthepublication of theinitialscriptofhisfilmprojectconcerning IvaninAovy izirin 1943,23thefirst partof thescreensin 1945. The periodalso whathad evolvedintoa plannedfilmtrilogy hitting saw theappearanceofotherless well-known worksaboutthefirstRussiantsar,including VladimirSolov'ev's versetragedy, 7he Great Sovereign,and Il'ia Sel'vinskii'splay,The LivoniialWar,bothofwhichwerestagedduringthesameyear. If 1940had seentheinitiative fortheIvanrehabilitation shiftto theartistic commufront" resumedwithrenewedfervorafterthe 1941 German nity,workon the"historical invasion. Tsarist-eraheroes includingIvan theTerrible were mobilizedto demonstrateage-oldRussianmartialprowessand to offsetwidespreadfearsthattheGerman Wehrrnacht The mostsensational newcontribution was invincible.24 to historiography on Ivan was thepublicationin 1942 of a revisededitionof a little-known 1922 apologetic R. Iu. Vipper.Vipperquitetransparently biography by thenon-Marxist equatesRussia's with the Soviet in the conclusiontohismonopresent, proclaiming sixteenth-century past graphthatHeinrichStaden'splan fortheconquestof Russia,presented to theHabsburg Emperorin 1578,was in facta "prophecyand a plan forthefuture" whichwouldlater to conquerand enslavetheSlavs.25A steadyflowof inspireNazi Germanyto attempt treatments ofthesixteenth-centuiy tsarcontinued fortheduration ofthewar, popularized of twoadditionalfull-scalebiographies.26 1942 and 1944 seeingthepublication fascination withIvan peakedon theeve of theNazi defeat. In thisreUltimately, ofStalinPrizestoEisenstein, Tolstoi(posthumously), gard,onemaypointtotheawarding and Solov'ev fortheirwartimetreatments of theterribletsar.27Documentsfromthe 21 March1942,3. 22Aleksei Tolstoi,"'Ivan Groznyi,"' Lileratum/iskiiss/vo, wellto 23S.M. Eizenshtein, "IvanGroznyi, kino-stsenarii," Novy'imir 10-11 (1943): 61-108. Stalinresponded on 13 September thefirst partofthescreenplay, writing totheheadoftheStateFilmCommittee 1943:"Comrade Bol'shakov:The screenplayhasn'tturned outbadly.C[omrade]Eisensteinhas copedwellwiththetask.Ivanthe forceof his timeand theoprichnina Terribleas theprogressive as his expedientinstrument haven'tturnedout badly.The screenplayoughttobe sentintoproduction" (G. Mar'iamov,Kerm/evskil tse17sor:Sta/izsiolotrit kho [Moscow,1992],70). Fora completelistofEisenstein's articlessee "Bibliografiia," Ki/lovedcliesk-ie za-piski36137 (1997/98):368-71. 240n the"mobilization" ofIvansee, forinstance, A. Tolstoi,"Rodina,"Piavda, 7 November1941,1. 2d ed. (Tashkent, 3d ed. (Moscow,1944), 25R.Iu. Vipper,Lvav Grozniy4 1942), 184-85; idem,LvaulGi-oz1,q/ 155-56. IvatiGroznyi(Moscow, 26S.V. Bakhrushin, 1942;2d ed., 1945);I. I. Smirnov,lvai Grovzni(Leningrad, 1944). 27TheStalinPrizesfor1943-44werepubliclyannounced27 January 1946. Eisenstein'sfirstfilmon IvanIV thetsar,thecomposerS. S. earnedfirst as wellas forN. K. Cherkasov, whoportrayed prizesforhimas director, and thecinematographers awardeda first Prokof'ev, A. N. MoskvinandE. K. Tisse.Tolstoiwas posthumously prizeforhis playson Ivan IV. The prizesfor1945 wereannounced29 June1946. In thisroundof awards of thesameplayinTbilisi's Solov'evreceiveda secondprizeforhis playon thefirsttsar,whiletheproduction A. A. Khoravaand theactorsA. A. Vasadze and G. M. RustaveliTheaterbroughtfirstprizesto thedirector Davitashvili. Rehabi/itatilig Ivaz IVuniderI V Stalin 641 StalinPrizeCommittee revealthatKostylevand Sel'vinskiiwerenominated forprizesas well.28Yet almostsimultaneously withthisofficialcelebration oftherenovated imageof Ivan,thepartyhierarchy was turning on Eisensteinforthesecondpartofhisfilm,banning it in March1946 and subsequently reprimanding thedirector forhis ideologicalfailings in thewell-known TsK resolution "Concerning theFilm 'The GreatLife."'29Such was theanticlimactic end to the all-outrehabilitation campaignin the arts,afterwhichno newartistic wouldbe satissignificantly projectswerebegun.Demandformorematerial fiedonlyby therepublication of existingworksfromthewartimecanon untilStalin's deathin 1953. WhilethedebacleassociatedwiththesecondpartofEisenstein'sfilmultimately brought thecampaignto a grindinghalt,it wouldbe a mistaketo conclude as is sometimes encouraged bytheextensive literature on thescandal thatthiswas theonlyworkwithin theIvancanonto provokedisagreement and officialdispleasure.Indeed,thefirstpartof Eisenstein'sfilmhad sparkedseriousdebatesconcerning its suitability forreleasewhen first CounciloftheCommittee ofCinematography in 1944.30Tolstoi's viewedattheArtistic playshave a stormy historyas well,withcontroversy beginning as theauthorreadpasof TheEagle apedHis Mate to membersof theSoviet sages froman earlymanuscript cultural ofHistoryin 1942whilein evacuation eliteat theAcademyofScience'sInstitute inTashkent.31 If thisaudienceobjectedto theauthor'sliberalrearrangement ofhistorical and his attribution of democratic chronology impulsesto thetsar,subsequentshortcomings identifiedby partyhierarchsprovedto be even more damning. In particular, M. B. Khrapchenko, Shcherbakov andthechairoftheStateCommittee onArtistic Affairs, tsar."Profoundtheplaytobe damagingly ofthe"progressive" equivocalinitstreatment ductionorpublication ofthisplay,"Shcherbakov argued,"wouldonlyincreasetheconfusion in themindsof historians thehistoryof Russia in thesixand writersconcerning teenthcentury added: "Beyondanydoubt,A. N. Tolstoi's and Ivan IV."32 Khrapchenko Even playfailsto solvetheproblemofthehistorical rehabilitation ofIvantheTerrible."33 were not metwith afterrewriting theplay and addinga secondpart,Tolstoi'sefforts a seriesof impassionedappealsto Stalinappearto havebeenneccompleteapprobation; 28SeethelistofStalinPrizenomineesinRTsKhIDNI,f. 17,op. 125,d. 399,11.1-11. 29TsKresolution, 5 March1946,"O vtoroiseriifil'ma'Ivan Groznyi,"'RTsKhIDNI,f. 17, op. 116,d. 249 draftof thisresolution (Zhdanov'sundatedhandwritten is in RTsKhIDNI,f. 77, op. 3, d. 179, 11.73-75); TsK resolution, 4 September 1946,"O kinofil'me 'Bol'shaiazhizn',"Ailt1Xwzn 10 September 1946,reprinted in izhiZ,1', O partiololi soveiskoipec/aib: Sbor-l'ik dokumiewtov (Moscow,1954),575-76. 30ThedebatesoftheArtistic Councilconcerning Eisenstein's first andsecondfilmsaboutIvanIV arepublished inpartinE. Levin,"Istoricheskaia kakzhanri kaksud'ba:Po stranitsam tragediia dvukhstenogramm 1944i 1946 i iskusstva godov,"IsX-tss/vo kizo 9 (1991): 83-92. Theyareheldin Rossiiskiigosudarstvennyi arkhivliteratury (RGALI), Moscow,f.2456,op. 1,dd. 956,957, 1277,1278. 14March1942,4; S. 31'M. Zh. [Zhivov?],"Na chteniip'esyA. Tolstogo'IvanGroznyi,"' Litemiwzua iIskuss/vo, 0. Shmidt,"Otzyv S. B. Veselovskogo o dramaticheskoipovesti 'Ivan Groznyi'A. N. Tolstogo," in 1988god, ed. S. 0. Shmidt(Moscow,1989),296-313; G. D. Burdei,Istorikki Arkheograficlheskiiezlhegodiikza voi~na.1941-1945(Saratov,1991), 188. f. 17,op. 125,d. 297,1. 140. 32RTsKhIDNI, 33M.Khrapchenko, "Sovremennaia sovetskaiadramaturgiia," Litei-aniiai isksstvo,30 May 1942,3. 642 Kevin M: F Platt and David Brandeizberger essaryto win thework'seventualrelease.34If thehastycancellationof theplay'spreamidthecriticalacclaimforitssubsequentstagingundera different mierewas forgotten floundered underambigufora StalinPrizenevertheless director, theplay's nomination whichbecame A similarfatebefellKostylev'swartime publications, ous circumstances.35 andOktiabr' i iskussvto thetopicofa heatedpolemicalexchangeon thepagesofLiteratura and an overexaginaccuracy in 1943,wherehis novelswereindictedforgrosshistorical of thetsar.36 gerated"democratization" campaign makesit clearthatthemainactorsin therehabilitation Such controversy Ivan IV. But of "correct" interpretation the held a wide varietyof opinionsconcerning to the whatarethemajorfaultlinesthatseparatetheseviews? All thevoicescontributing grappledwitha moreorless fixedproblem:How couldIvan's"progressive" rehabilitation imputed role,assumeda priori,be reconciledwiththenegativecharacteristics historical employeda numberof To resolvethisissue Ivan'sinterpreters to himbyhis detractors? to twomajorvariables:eonwhichmaybe analyzedbyreference strategies explanatory frame and choice of narrativeform. The firstvariable refersto the poral interpretive it with approachknowledgeof thepastand integrate generalmodelby whichnarrators ofIvanIV weregovbelow,someinterpretations presentexperience.As we demonstrate ofthepresentandthepast,whileothers ernedprimarily byan allegoricalinterconnection long-term connectedpast and presentby meansof a "historical"visionof evolutionary or politicaldevelopment.Our second variablerefersto the formalnarrativepattern, With referwhichindividualtextsrelatethestoryof Ivan's reign. through emplotment, ofitto andHaydenWhite'sapplication enceto Northrop Frye'sclassicworkon narrative we haveidentified twobasicplotswhichwereappliedtothe thepoeticsofhistoriography, On thebasis on thesetwovariables,we storyofIvanandhisera:romanceandtragedy.37 of Ivan IV, which threemajorcamps tookpartin the rehabilitation have distinguised comandtheartistic thehistorical establishment, referred tobelowas thepartyhierarchy, munity (see Table 1).38 heldinAPRF,arepublishedinMurin,"Istoriia- oruzhiebor'by,"7. letters, 34Tolstoi's criticalofTolstoi.Rememoranda (discussedin notes19 and20 in thisarticle)wereharshly 35Shcherbakov's 25 October of thefirststagingsee his "Postanovka'Ivana Groznogo'v Malomteatre," gardingthecancellation 1945,RTsKhIDNI,f. 17,op. 125,d. 297,11.109-16,and"I. V. Stalinu,"1 March1945,ibid.,d. 367,11.18-20. On see ibid.,d. 399. infighting in theStalinPrizeCommittee Borodin,"'IvanGroznyi'- romanV.Kostyleva$Lew'ural/iskusslvo, 15May 1943,3; V.I. Kostylev, 36Sergei Literalura Okliabr'8-9(1943): 261-63. See alsoA. Iakovlev,"Knigaob IvaneGroznom," "Pis'mov redaktsiiu," 4 March1944,3. iiskiisstvo, modesofemplotment HaydenWhitedescribesfourarchetypal 37Inhisanalysisofthepoeticsofhistoriography, comedy,and satire events:romance,tragedy, formand meaningto historical givenarrative by whichhistorians Frye'sclassicworkin thisschemefromNorthrop 1973],1-42). Whiteborrows [Baltimore, (White,Metahisi'ory 1957). FourEssays(Princeton, ofCriticism. analysis, narrative Aizatom)y campaign,thisis moreillustrative of thosewhotookpartin therehabilitation 38Aprovisional categorization is bestlocated community, forinstance, whomightseemtobe associatedwiththeartistic thandefinitive. Kostylev, also has morein commonwiththelattercampthanhisprofescamp. Vipper,a historian, inthepartyhierarchy's coherent as so internally sionalcolleagues. By thetermcamp,of course,we do notintendto suggestanything andstyle. interest basedon sharedprofession, loose affiliations but,rather, politicalfactions, Rehabilitating Ivan IVunderL V Stalin 643 TABLE 1 Party hierarchy Historical establishment Artistic community Temporal interpretive frame allegory historical dialectic allegory Choiceof form narrative (emplotment) romance romance tragedy in The views of thefirstcamp,thepartyhierarchy, are perhapsbest summarized Shcherbakov's 1942 memorandum: Ivan IV was an outstanding politicalfigureof sixteenth-century Russia. He endeavorinitiated completedtheprogressive of a by IvanIII: theestablishment centralized Russianstate. Ivan IV fundamentally liquidatedthecountry's feutheresistanceofrepresentatives dal fragmentation, successfully crushing of the feudalorder.Thereis literally nota singlequestionofdomesticpolitics,beginningwithfinancesand endingwiththearmy,whichduringthisperioddid not IvanIV himselfwas one ofthemosteduundergorevisionorreorganization.... catedmenof his timesand a championof thebroaddissemination of knowlendeavorssuchas theintroduction of edge. He strongly supported progressive in Russia. All of thesereforms book-printing provokedvigorousresistanceon thepartof representatives of thefeudalorder hardenedpatrimonial estateholders,tenaciously insisting on preservation of thefeudalorder.IvantheTerriblewas forcedto resortto harshmeasuresin orderto strikeat thefeudal, patrimonial privilegesof theboyars.... Ivan IV was an outstanding military leader. He personally led theconquestsof Kazan' andAstrakhan'.In foreign hisstunning skills. Onlyhismighty policyhe demonstrated willand diplomatic brilliant of the politicalabilitiesallowedhimto overcomethegreatdifficulties almostquarter-century longLivonianWar. Despitetheoppositionand treason ofrepresentatives ofthefeudalorderandenormous offorces,under expenditure theleadership theRussianstateoccupieda prominent ofIvantheTerrible place of Europeanlands.39 amongthemightiest In this,themosthyperbolic ofthethreereadingsof Ivan,he is seenas a tirelessreformer whoimproved all he touched,an enlightener whodisseminated knowledgeandnewtechleaderwhosetriumphs led Muscovy nology,anda greatpolitician, diplomatandmilitary intoa new era of internalcohesionand international prestige. In termsof the larger context ofRussianhistory, Shcherbakov statesthat"withregardtohistorical consequences, theactivities of Ivan IV helpedRussiato overcomethedangersof theTimeofTroubles and withstand themad attackof thePolish interventionists," notingthat"if one must discussthemistakes,themiscalculations of Tsar Ivan,thenone such mistakewas his failureto uproottheShuiskiis."40 39Shcherbakov, "Tovarishchu StalinuI. V. o p'ese,"11.130-31. 40Ibid.,11.131, 139. Stalinelaboratedon Shcherbakov's analysisof Ivan'sfailingsduringhis famous1947 644 KevinA E ad DbavidBrandenberger PFlatt Shcherbakov's interpretive modelofhistory is basedin an allegoricalrelationship of pastandpresent.He clearlyconceivedofthe"cult"ofIvanas an auxiliary to Stalin'sown personality cult. Ivan,likeStalin,is describedas a charismatic leader,themostprogressivefigure andtechnological ofhisday,whose"will"was thekeytothepolitical,military reorganization of thestate.4' Partand parcelof Shcherbakov's allegoricalvisionis his lack of concernforhistoricalaccuracy.Treating negativedimensions of Ivan's personalityandreignas he mighthaveresolvedsimilarissuesconcerning representations ofStalin, thepartyideologistdismissedanyaspectsof thehistorical recordwhichwereincompatible withhis grandiosevision. Ignoringmassacresin Novgorodcommonly attributed to Ivan and discounting otherfailingsas thelies of Ivan's politicalenemies,Shcherbakov bristledin classic Stalinistfashionthat: It seemsthateverypossibleinsulthas been used againstIvan IV by historians and authors despot,bloodytyrant, madman,coward,"yellow,""marauder," etc. in a repetition ofslandersagainstIvanwhichwereconcoctedin murderer, thefirstplace byhis mostnefarious internal enemiesandin thesecondplace by externalenemieswho fearedthe strengthening of theRussianstateunderthe leadershipofTsar Ivan.42 to students of Shcherbakov shapeshis storyaccordingto a plotthatwillbe familiar fromthedisorderof earlySovietpubliclife. Ivan'sreignfollowsa streamlined trajectory, thepastto thegloryof thefuture, fromignoranceto enlightenment, from"feudalfragof theEuropean mentation" to thestatusof a "centralized state... amongthemightiest lands." Accordingto Shcherbakov, everyaspectof Russianlifewas transformed by the will of thegreattsar. Thus,in thehandsof theideologychief,the storyof Russia's becomesa fableof miraculoussalvation.Turning of medievaltyrant toWhite'stypology thisvisionofIvanas belongingto the one mayidentify archetypal plotsinhistoriography, categoryof romance:thestoryof humanstrugglewiththeevils of a fallenworldand a "dramaof self-identification ... ofthetriumph of good overevil, eventualperseverance, of virtueovervice,of lightoverdarkness."43 The prominence of thisarchetypal plotin Sovietpublicdiscourseis of coursea directconsequenceof thefoundational statusof anotherromancestoryin Sovietpoliticalmythology: therevolutionary transformation of tsaristRussiaintothesocialistmotherland.44 Thus thepartyhierarchy's approachto Ivan theTerriblemaybe summarized as an as a romance.Thisviewfindsitsartistic allegoricalviewofthepastemplotted promulga- interview withEisensteinandCherkasov.See "Stalin,Molotovi Zhdanov,'O vtoroiseriifil'ma'IvanGroznyi": Zapis' SergeiaEizenshteinai NikolaiaCherkasova," Moskovskie iiovosti, 7 August1988, 8; N. K. Cherkasov, Zapiskisovetskogo aktera(Moscow,1953),379-81; andMar'iamov,Krern/evskii tseinzo;; 83-92. "The TsK wouldreturn to Shcherbakov's discussionof Ivan's "will" in itsresolution"Concerning thefilm 'The GreatLife,"'referring tohimas "a manwitha strongwillandcharacter" 'Bol'shaiazhizn',"' ("O kinofil'me 575). "Tovarishchu StalinuI. V. o p'ese,"1. 133. 42Shcherbakov, 43White,Metahistonr,8-9. 44Concerning thepoeticsoftheRussianrevolutionary mythsee KevinM. F. Platt,Historyi&;a Grotesque Key. RzissiatiLltenatuoeand the Adea of Revolution (Stanford, 1997), 1-29, 120-29. Rehabi/itailugAvwn IVzinder I V Stalin 645 tionin Kostylev'snovelsand thevariousreviewsand othermaterials publishedconcerningit.45Some newspaperarticlesrelatingto otherpresentations of Ivan also conveythe as do otherinternal viewsof thepartyhierarchy,46 bureaucratic documents dealingwith therehabilitation campaign(such as thoseconcerning theStalinprizecommittee).47 On the"historical front," thepartyhierarchy's viewsweremostcloselyconveyedbyVipper, whoseaccountof Ivan was so muchto thelikingof thepartyhierarchy thathis monographwas publishedin twowartimeeditionsand translated intoa numberof European languages. The aged historianwas also keptbusypublicizinghis visionof Ivan in a Hall of Columns(subsevarietyof otherforums, includinga lecturein theprestigious inpamphlet quently published form)andanarticleinthepedagogical journal,Prepodavalie istorli v slkozle.48 theinterpretation To represent ofIvanIV promoted bywhatwe refertoas thehistoriS. V. Bakhrushin. Thecenterpiece ofBakhrushin's cal establishment, we turntothehistorian to therehabilitation Ivan theTerrible, contribution campaignwas his 1942 monograph, in an expandededitionin 1945. In general,thehistoricalestablishment's republished in emphasisratherthanin essentialinterpretive features fromthoseof the viewsdiffered ofIvan'sreignrecallthose Bakhrushin's assessments ofthesignificance partyhierarchy. in overalltoneandnarrative in certaincrucialparticulars: ofShcherbakov form, yetdiffer The reignofIvanIV represents an indispensable andveryimportant stagein the of a centralizedstate,fusingtheRussiannationality historyof theformation intoa strongpoliticalorganization, theattacks capablenotonlyofwithstanding of enemies,butof realizingnationalgoals in foreign policy.The essentialfeain theepochdescribedhere theformation of a centraltureofRussianhistory ofsavageclass warfare leftitsimprint ized statein conditions on thecharacter of IvantheTerrible.49 and theactivity recordas theslanderofIvan'senemies.Yetin 45LikeShcherbakov, Kostylevdiscountsmuchofthehistorical althoughhe dismissesit as contrast to Shcherbakov, Kostylevalso recognizesthetsar'spenchantforcruelty, impulses,focusingconsidtypicalfortheera. Likewise,KostylevmakesmuchofIvan'ssupposed"democratic" ofthe reference to thevydvizhentsy erableattention on thelow-born promoted duringIvan'sreign(a transparent Kostylev, "Pis'mo 1930s). See Kostylev, "Literaturnye zametki"; Borodin,"'IvanGroznyi' romanV.Kostyleva"; andIakovlev,"Knigaob IvaneGroznom." v redaktsiiu"; "Sovremennaia L. Il'ichev,"Postanovka 46M.Zh. "Na chteniip'esy";Khrapchenko, sovetskaiadramaturgiia"; "Vydaiushchiesia proizvedeniia 'IvanaGroznogo'v Malomteatre," Pravda,27 October1944,3; NikolaiTikhonov, sovetskoi Drozdov,"IvanGroznyi," ibid.,2 Febliteratury," Literatuvizaia 1946,2; Aleksandr gazela, 27 January ruary1946,4. see RTsKhIDNI,f. 17,op. 125,d. 399,11.182,158. See also Zhdanov's 47For StalinPrizeCommittee materials thehistory conference analysisofIvan in notesregarding organizedbytheTsK in 1944 anddraftversionsof a on history in ibid.,op. 1,dd. 797 and799, andop. 3, d. 27. TsK resolution 48Stenogiatnrmapublichnoi lekis#iakadermikaVipjpe R. Li., prochitaioli l7semtiabiia 1943 goda v Koloimnom Piepodavanieislor/i v slikole1 zale DornaSoiuzovv Moskve(Moscow,1943); R. Iu Vipper,"Ivan Groznyi," (1946): 29; Burdei, Is/ofiki voina, 237. Ivai Givzliyi/(Moscow, 1945),6. Bakhrushin's participation 49WerefertothelatereditionofS. V.Bakhrushin's internal exilein connection in therehabilitation campaignshouldbe viewedin lightofhisarrestandsubsequent helddecidedlynegativeopinions withthe 1930 "Academicians' Case." Beforehis pardonin 1933,Bakhrushin Ivan(Dubrovskii. S. V Baklmuslh>i, 82, 121-23,140). regarding 646 M. F PlattalzdDavid Brandenberger KevPin in theRussianstate'sdevelopment Bakhrushin's description of Ivan's era as a watershed corresponds to similarviewswithinthepartyhierarchy. However,Bakhrushin makesfar moremodestclaimsconcerning social and politicaldevelopment achievedunderIvan. Tellingly,while Shcherbakovclaimed a heroicrole forIvan as an agentof change, Bakhrushin reversedtheequation,claimingthattheepochleftitsmarkon Ivan. ofthis"softened" versionof thepartyhierarchy's narraWhataretheotherfeatures of a centralized "formation state"was betive? In Bakhrushin's view,theall-important Bakhrushin devotes century.50 gunlongbeforeIvanIV,underIvanIII in themid-fifteenth thateconomicand politicalfactorsgovernedthe era's a key chapterto demonstrating in contrast to the"prescient" to Ivan in theparty development, leadershiprole attributed the rhetoric.5"While Bakhrushinexpendedconsiderableeffort hierarchy's justifying he also condemned administrative the as an instrument ofprogressive oprichnina reform, institution forexcessivebloodshedin theserviceof personalinterests.In his description a similarly nuanced and here,self-contradictory view: of Ivan's character he offered of thesickexcessesof an "The cruelty of Ivan theTerriblewas notonlya manifestation ofhis ownsonin a fitof anger.Cruelty unbalancedperson,whichled himto themurder methodofpoliticalstruggle whichwas unavoidable was also a consciouslyimplemented in thegivenhistoricalcircumstances."52 In his conclusionsBakhrushinagain grafteda series of caveats onto the party withwhatseemsto be an obliquecorrective hierarchy's representation ofIvan,beginning to competing viewsof themedievalruler: For us thereis no need to idealize Ivan theTerrible,no need to conceal the and activity. ... The resultsofthestate-buildnegativeaspectsofhispersonality ingwhichIvantheTerriblecarriedoutbecameclearonlythirty yearsafterhis and fusedintoone mighty whole, death,whentheRussianstate,strengthened notonlysuccessfully butembarkedquicklyon repelleda foreignintervention, thepathoffurther Yetin spiteoftheradicalnatureofthetransfordevelopment. mationscompletedby Ivan IV, and in spiteof all theexecutionsand punishmentswhichthis"terrible"tsardispensedso generously, the statewhichhe createdwas stillnotan absolutemonarchy.Evenin his oprichmnina policyIvan IV was notalwaysconsistent, and couldnothavebeenin thesocial conditions of theera,and he made a seriesof concessionsto thevestigesof thefeudal of absolutismwhichhe began was completeda system.... The construction laterbyPetertheGreat,butone mustnotforget thatthereforms ofIvan century clearedthepathforthereforms of Peterand forthecreationof an absolutist state.53 As thisexcerptreveals,Bakhrushin's conceptionof thepast stressedevolutionary proin distinction fromthepartyhierarchy's gressionandcontinuity, allegoricalvision. Like Bakhrushin Ivan as a progressive state-builder. Yet he saw this Shcherbakov, portrayed Ivaiz Grozviyl, 5"Bakhrushin, 6-11. 5"Ibid., 70-80; Dubrovskii, S VBak/irushiln, chaps.7 and9, esp. pg. 140. Ivan Groznyi,66-70, 88. 52Bakhrushin, 53Ibid., 89-90. Ivan IV UnderI V Stalin Rehabilitatiiig 647 roleas a partofa dialecticallotiguedun-e. Ratherthandepicting Ivanas a timelessideal leaderanda prototype forStalin,Bakhrushin tookpainstocontextualize themedievaltsar in a narrative whichseparatedthepastfromthepresentas surelyas itconnectedthetwo epochs. This moretruly"historical" visionallowedBakhrushin to represent thepast more thandid Shcherbakov orVipper.His approachto thenegativeaspectsof Ivan accurately IV andhis reignwas to includethemas a counterpoint to his generally highappraisalof In Bakhrushin's theperiod'sstate-building. one observesa similardeflation emplotment, ofthepartyhierarchy's rhetoric.The romanceplotoftriumphant overbackwardvictory nessanddisorganization remainsoperative butmuted,Ivan'sepochappearingas onlyone dialecticof progressandreaction, chapterin a centuries-long good and evil. In essence, then,thehistoricalestablishment adoptedthegeneralcontoursof thepartyhierarchy's butshapedthemintoa historical, Ivan mythology, ratherthanallegorical,view of the historipast. ThisvisionofIvanis presentin manyotherworksauthored byprofessional in of the I. ans thecourse rehabilitation campaign,includingI. Smirnov'scompeting IvantheTerrible, anda variety ofarticlesandreviewsin academicandpopumonograph, larjournalsauthored by Bakhrushin, Smirnov, Bazilevich,and others.54 theviewsof thethirdinterpretive Tolstoi,epitomizing camp theartisticcommunity was less inclinedto equivocateregarding Ivan,particularly concerning thetsar's andlong-term historical Tolstoipresents Ivanas a farpoliticalmotivations significance. andtreasonous sightedpoliticalleaderwhostruggled againstreactionary boyarsto create statein thenameof internal cohesionand externaldefense: a strong, centralized The bishopsandthepriests, withtheboyarsandtheprinces... desireto together live accordingto theold ways,witheveryone hunkered downon theirpatrimonial estateswiththeirown fighting men,just like theydid undertheMongol Yoke,stealinga bitof landhereand therefromone another....But werewe to live as we did of old thenLithuania,and Poland,theGermanknightsand the CrimeanTatars,andtheSultanas well,wouldthrowthemselves uponus byway ofUkrainein orderto dismember ourbodyandcrushoursouls.55 Accordingto Tolstoi,thetsarsoughtout technicaland culturalcontactswiththeWest, towarda rapprochement withEnglandand wagingwarwithLivoniain orderto working of hostile-chieflyGerman encirclement.Tolstoi'sIvan is a breakthe stranglehold an attempt on thelifeofthetsarwhich populartsaras well,theplayat one pointfeaturing failsonlybecauseVasiliitheBlessed,a representative of the simplepeople,acceptsa deathby shieldingthetsarfroma deadlyarrow.56 martyr's Conceivingof Ivanin almost thesameexaggerated termsas didthepartyhierarchy, Tolstoi'streatment ofthepastis at its base allegorical,his idealizationof Ivan almostliftingthemedievaltsarout of his "Rasshirenie Ivan Grozvzyi; Bakhrushin, 54See,forexample,Smirnov, russkogogosudarstva"; Got'e,"Plokhaia kniga";K. V.Bazilevich,"O knigeR. VipperaIvanGroznyi," Propagandist 17 (1945): 58-64; K. V. Bazilevich,"I. I. Smirnov:IvanGroznyi," Sovetskaina k;iuga34 (1946): 74-78; andS. V. Bakhrushin, "MoskvaIvanaGroznogo," 9 (1947): 61-73. Vestmik Moskovskogo uzltiversiteta 55AlekseiTolstoi,Ivan Gf'oziqyi. Dramaficheskai:.ipovest'v dvuklzchastiakh (Moscow,1945),59-60. 56Ibid., 89, 93. 648 Kevin M E Platt atid David Bratidenbeiyer historicalcontext.Tolstoi'sIvan musthave appearedto audiencesin the 1940s as an obviousdoubleofStalin,each realizingan essentially mythic pattern ofcharismatic leadershipand messianicprogress. Yet despitethisfundamental agreement betweentheauthorand partyhierarchy on mattersof historicalvision,Tolstoishapedhis storyaccordingto a decidedlydifferent plotthandid Shcherbakov and Bakhrushin.In contrast to thepartyhierarchy and the historical establishment, Tolstoipresented thereignof Ivan IV as a tragedy.57 Unlikethe romanceof the ascentfromcorruption to transcendence, tragedyis predicatedon the ofhumandesiresfromthelogicof a higherreality.As Fryewrites,thetragic divergence herois "halfwaybetweenhumansocietyon thegroundand thesomething greaterin the sky.... Tragicheroesare so muchthehighestpointsin theirhumanlandscapethatthey seem theinevitableconductorsof thepoweraboutthem,greattreesmorelikelyto be Ivanis just such struck bylightning thana clumpof grass."58In Tolstoi'srepresentation, a lonelyfigure, animated thatonly by a senseofhistorical progressandnationalgreatness he can grasp. He is a visionary surrounded by treacherous enemies.His greatundertakingsendin defeat,to be redeemedonlybytheeventualtriumph oftheprogressive cause in thenationalfuture.UnlikeShcherbakov's and Bakhrushin's Tolstoi'send narratives, withcatastrophe: theassassination of thetsaritsa(in thefirstplay) and thesack of Moscow (in thesecond). TolstoirealizesIvan'stragicpotential notonlyin thetsar'sconflict withreactionbut also inhispersonalstruggles.One sceneshowsIvanpickingthrough a listoftortured and executedboyars,tormented by therealizationthatthemotherof one of his victimshad beenhischildhoodnanny.Subplotsdepicthispassionatelove forthetsaritsa(in thefirst play) and forAnna,wifeof PrinceViazemskii(in the second),bothof whichend in sorrow.The deathofthetsaritsa loss of by assassins'poisonis echoedin thesubsequent to retireto a Anna(despiteswearingeternalloveforIvan,Annais compelledbytradition conventafterherhusband'sexecution).These scenesand subplotsexplorethepsychoofthetsar'svisionary logicaldimensions calling,whichrequireshimto sacrificeall personaldesiresand affectionsevenlove itself forthegreatcauses of state-building and nationaldefense. Thustheartistic community's conceptionofIvanIV is, likethatof thepartyhierarandthe chy,organizedin a largelyallegoricalfashion.Yetunlikeboththepartyhierarchy theartisticcommunity cast Ivan as theheroof a tragedy rather historical establishment, thana romance.WiththeexceptionofKostylev'snovels,thisvisionofIvananimatedall themajorartisticworksof therehabilitation campaign,includingEisenstein'sfilmsand in theexploraeven Solov'ev's versedrama.59Interestingly, they adoptsimilarstrategies thetsar'spolitical,military and psychological tionof Ivan's tragicpotential, portraying as sacrificesto thegreatcause. ThusEisenstein'sfirstfilm,likeTolstoi'sfirst struggles 57Tolstoi describedIvan'seraas "oneofthetragicandcreative was epochsduringwhichtheRussiancharacter formed" ("Moi put',"Novyimir1 [1943]: 108). 58Frye,Aiamatomy of/citiCwz, 207. 591na March 1941 letter,Vs. Vishnevskiiloosely quoted Eisensteinas sayingthathis filmwould be suchan emplotment tomoretraditional narratives. anda "historic "Shakespearian" tragedy," explicitly contrasting The letteris publishedinEsfir'Shub,Z/liz-; 'oloia-/disiemza-tograf (Moscow,1972), 195-96. I V Stalin Ivan IVtimder Rehabiiitatiwlg 649 play,revolvesaroundtheassassination ofthetsaritsa(as ithappens,ofdifferent tsaritsas); in thesecondfilmwe see Ivan hesitateoverwhether to takepunitiveactionagainstthe tospillthebloodofhisownfamily.60 In Solov'ev's traitorous Staritskiis outofa reluctance play,Ivanfacestheprospectof dissolvinga marriagewithhis belovedMaria Nagaia in orderto securea politicalalliancewiththeBritishhouse of Hastings,whilea subplot concernsIvan's killingof his son andheirin a confrontation engineered by theboyars.6' The artistic community's conception ofIvan offering imagesofprogressive, charismatic leadershipin a tragicbattleagainstimplacablefoesand enormousodds also foundexand reviews.62 pressionin relatedjournalistic writing Our divisionof Stalinistvisionsof Ivan IV intothesethreedistinct campsallowsfora of theinteractions betweenthevariousactorsof therehabilitation deeperunderstanding of initiative fortherehabilitation transfer campaignin campaign.The partyhierarchy's 1940-41 fromthehistorical disciplineto theartistic community seemsto havebeenexecutedquitegracefully, as theelitefiguresof Sovietculturallifewerequitewillingto enlistin the serviceof historicalmythmaking.63 Moreover,Kostylevand Tolstoihad theirownIvannarratives forseveralyears;onlyEisenstein alreadybeenconsidering writing theFerghanacanal andprerevolutionary was occupiedwithunrelated projectsconcerning In thelatter'scase,thepartyhierarchy's Beilisaffair.64 proposalthathe shoota filmabout Ivanwas something writes, lierallyimpossibletorefuse;as Eisenstein'sSovietbiographer Zhdanov"satEisensteindownnextto himand addressedhimas author whichis to say thattheissue was settled.He offered everyassistance.Consultations?but,of course: Vipper,Bakhrushin, Grekov, Nechkina theywillbe asked."65IndeedTolstoi,Eisenstein, discussionhas beendevotedto Eisenstein'sfilmsas tragediesand to thedramatic tensionbe60Considerable andhisneedto sacrifice tweenthetsar'spersonalinterests all earthly attachments tohisgrandhistorical mission. andBordwell,Ci(iema, See Seton,Seige/MA 412,429,436-37,457; Levin,"Istoricheskaia tragediia"; Eiseiisteii,, 199-253. ofIvan'spsychological attheconclusionofSolov'ev'splaythedying 6'Similar toTolstoi'streatment struggles, tsarseeksabsolution forhismassexecutions andforgoesa finalpurgeoftraitors becausehe cannotconvincehis himthesinofknowingly an innocent confessor to forgive executing alongwiththeguilty. 62Forexample,Tolstoi,"'Ivan Groznyi"';Eizenshtein, "IvanGroznyi,kino-stsenarii"; V. Pertsov,"Chuvstvo i iskuisstvo, zhivoiistorichnosti," Lit1eiatutr 22 April1944,3; IuriiOsnos,"P'esa o tsareIvaneIV,"titetnwalia-ia inEz/?egod-uXk'Moskovs/cogo gazea, 29 June1946,3; andA. PopovandM. Knebel',"N. P.Khmelev-IvanGroznyi," khudozhesi1vemiomgo teatz, 1945g. (Moscow,1948),2:133-57. 63Tolstoi toL. Koganin theearly1930sthat"I don'tunderstand reportedly commented whypeopleareafraid of theword'commission'(zaX-az) evenin itsmoreliteralmeaning" ( Vospo;uiwmsiiaob A. N. Tolsto;;m-Sborzik [Moscow,1973],131,205). 64Mar'iamov, Kre;i1evs/ki tseoizo;;69-71. Morethantenyearsearlier,Eisensteinhadexpressedsomeinterest inrevising historical accountsofIvanin linewiththethen-dominant negative interpretation. See JayLeyda,ed., a LecturebySeigeiEise/isteiol (London,1968),26-27. FRim EssaYs ivith 65lurenev, Sergei izeies/hteizi 2: 209; RostislavIurenev,"TragediiaSergeiaEizenshteina," Rofiza 11 (1993): inEisenstein's personalarchiveconfirm 104-113,114. Twoletters aspectsofthethematic assignment: "Dorogoi AndreiAleksandrovich" (11 February1942), and "DorogoilosifVissarionovich" (20 January1944), bothin RGALI,f. 1923,op. 1,d. 561,1.1,andd. 657,11.3-4,respectively. See alsoVs. Vishnevskii, "Iz dnevnikov 19441948gg<' Ki1zo,'edc/zeskie zapiski38 (1998): 66. ForEisenstein'sreputation as a courtdirector withintheparty see BorisBazhanov,Vospo'i.oliaoiia hierarchy sekietlaiaStalbiia(St. Petersburg, 1992),224-26. blivs/iego 650 AKevilM. F Platt and David Brandenberger and Kostylevall appearto have referred to thesehistorians' writings whiledeveloping theirownconceptions of Ivan's era.66 Yettheseemingly tranquil collaboration ofartists andhistorians undertheleadership oftheparty(shadesofa NEP-esquesmych/ka) provedtobe shortlived.Whilemembers of the artisticcommunity were willingto produceworksaboutIvan on order,theywere unwilling (or unable)to dovetailwiththepartylineas conceptualized bybureaucrats like Andwhiletheplaywrights to the Shcherbakov.67 anddirectors tendedtoreferrespectfully historicaldiscipline'scontributions, thehistorians expressedconsiderable dissatisfaction withthevisionsofIvangenerated bytheartistic establishment. Atprofessional meetings andin officialdenunciations A. M. Pankratova criticized efforts to castIvanas repeatedly a tsarof thepeople.68AcademicianS. B. Veselovskiigrumbledbothin publicand in privateafterTolstoi'sreadingofdrafts ofhisfirst playin 1942andcomposedlongwritten withofficialorgacritiquesofTolstoi'sand Kostylev'sworksin privatecommunications nizations.69Even B. D. GrekovderidedTolstoi's workin a privateletterto M. N. Tikhomirov, notingthatthewriterwas essentiallysaying"to hell withhistory, because facts don'talwaysdie whenthey'resupposedto."70 people ifyoufollowthehistorical On a superficial do notcorrespond level,thetermsof thiscriticism neatlywithour accountofthecrucialdifferences thatdistinguish therehabilitation campaign'sthreecamps. Most focusattention on shortcomings concerning historicalaccuracy:thusKhrapchenko and Shcherbakov of chronol(likeGrekov)criticizeTolstoiforhis liberalrearrangement ignoranceofhistory; ogy;Veselovskii'scritiqueof Kostylevaccuseshimof fundamental and theoriginalpartyrulingon thesecondpartof Eisenstein'sfilmindictsits "lack of historicity."71 Thisbeingsaid,significant undercurrents in thesecritiquestendto confirm ouranalysis.Certainhistorians wereclearlyuncomfortable withthepreference forallewhichprevailedwithintheartisticcommunity, thepartyhierarchy, goryoverhistoricity ofher andamonghistorians whoespousedthelatter'sviews. Pankratova's denunciations 66OnTolstoi'smentors see his letterto Stalinof 2 June1943 in Murin,"Istoriia-oruzhiebor'by,"7. For a surveyofthesourcesEisenstein madeuse of(including komentarii Vipper)see S. M. Eizenshtein, "Istoricheskie k fil'mu'Ivan Groznyi',"KZiovedcheskie zapis/i38 (1998): 173-246. 67Despite publiclyrepenting in 1946andbeingpersonally on theproperdepictionofIvanbyStalin, instructed Zhdanov,andMolotovin 1947,Eisenstein reportedly indicated tofriends that"I do notwanttobackofffromIvan theTerrible as I havedrawnhimin thescreenplay andthefirstpartofthefilm.I do nothavetherightto falsify historical truth, toretreat frommycreative credo"(Mar'iamov,Krernievskiitsefzzo;;93-94). Givenpermission to continueworkon thefilm,Eisensteinseemsto havehopedrather unrealistically thatminorcompromises would bringtheworkbackintoalignment line. See S. M. Eizenshtein, withtheparty "O fil'me'IvanGroznyi,"' Kul'tlra lzhizl', 20 October1946,4; andnotes29, 40, and41 in thisarticle. accusedmanyhistorians 681na letter to theTsK of 12 May 1944,Pankratova of grossideological,theoretical, andfactualerrors whichhadledTolstoiandEisenstein astrayintheirefforts toimputedemocratic impulsestoIvan IV (RTsKhIDNI,f. 17,op. 125,d. 224,11.60Ob-70,andf.77, op. 2, d. 971,11.7-8). Pankratova hadvoicedsimilar criticisms in a publiclecturein 1943 (Burdei,Istoi-/ci Volola,152, 156-57, 188). andS. B. Veselovskii, "Po povodutrilogii i voznikshei 69SeeShmidt, "OtzyvS. B. Veselovskogo"; tov.Kostyleva o nei polemiki," Isiroriia 1971 (Moscow,1973), 351-76. See also Burdei, i istoikiW: Istoric/zeskii ez/zegodnik, "Mezhdudvumiatiranami," Istoiiki voina,189; andI. Smirnov, Kinovedcheskie zapiski38(1998): 17. fondenaslediiaM. N. Tikhomirova," 70E.V.Chistakova, "Materialy B. D. Grekovav rukopisnom inIssledovaniha so doia rozlideniia B. D. Grekola(Moscow,1982), po islorii i istoriografilfeodalizkna: akadeznika KJXOO-i0etiiui 63-64. 71"0 vtoroiseriifil'ma'IvanGroznyi."' RehabilitahngIvan IVunder I V Stalin r .1 - .C 651 ?~~W~k~~fCA4' P.~-4. -, 4 attheedgeofthesea andwillcontinueto standhere?"N. K. Cherkasov "We arestanding as Ivan theTerrible, is presented by theactorto Thdanov,May 1944. The inscription drawnfromtheunfinished thirdpartof Eisenstein'sfilmtrilogy (RTsKhLDNI,f.77,op. withpermission. 2, d. 105). Reprinted AKevivl F Plattand Da vidBrandenberger 652 oftsaristheroes-amongthemIvan IV as preciselythepromotion colleaguescriticized swipeat thosewho "idealize" not-so-veiled modelsfortheSovietpresent.Bakhrushin's singledoutbyPankratova hewashimself (although Ivanlikelyexpressesa similarsentiment and ideologistsattackedthe foridealizingthetsaristpast). Moreover,ifbothhistorians in defenseof historicalaccuracy,muchof theirlanguagebetraysa artisticcommunity callsTolstoion the issues. ThusShcherbakov withplot-related discomfort moreprofound whobemoanshislackoffriends.According Ivanas an isolatedfigure carpetfordepicting as a "seriousforcewhich Tolstoishouldhave depictedtheoprichnina to Shcherbakov, IvanIV coulddependupon."72VeselovskiiopinesthatTolstoi'sdrama"has no plot. It is of the onlyby thepersonality composedof a seriesof sceneswhichare linkedtogether one sensesthatthesecritics,prejuThroughout, Ivan theTerrible."73 mainprotagonist, diced by theirown conceptionsof Ivan, were seeking-and notfinding-thefamiliar contoursof a romanceplot. In so doing,theysimplymissedthepoint.As Fryestatesso ofisolatedcentralcharacrevolvearoundthepersonalities bydefinition lucidly,tragedies ters. If Tolstoiwas able to keep thehoundsat bay in 1943 by directappealsto Stalin,74 Eisensteinwas notso luckythreeyearslater.75In theTsK's rulingof4 September1946, was said to be guiltyof theFilm 'The GreatLife,"'thedirector "Concerning Ivan the Terrible's ignorancein his depictionof historicalfacts,presenting alongthelinesof theAmericanKu Klux as a band of degenerates oprichniki as weak and Klan, and Ivan theTerrible,a man of strongwill and character, as somesortof Hamlet.76 irresolute, to Hamlet,it appearsthatit finallyhad dawnedon thepartyelitethat Withthereference lay in thelatter'stragiccastingof the withtheartisticcommunity theirdisagreement was tobe allowedtore-cutthesecondpartofthefilmto Eisenstein tsar.Although terrible thetaskwas virtually expectations, withthepartyhierarchy's bringit intoconformity apit appearsthatthepartyhierarchy As Eisenstein'sprojectfloundered, impossible.77 on Sel'vinskii's 1945 he film based that shoot a the proposal proachedI. A. Pyr'evwith StalinuI. V. o p'ese,"1. 136. "Tovarishchu 72Shcherbakov, 305. 73Shmidt, "OtzyvS. B. Veselovskogo," 74Seenote34 in thisarticle. withBol'shakov,Mar'iamovwritesthat:"No soonerhad thelights to conversations referring 75Apparently shortly: 'That'snota film. filmtoStalininearly19461thanStalinannounced showingEisenstein's comeon [after It's somekindof nightmare.'This gave theotherPolitburomembersthegreenlightto let loose withabusive StalinshowedBol'shakovoutwiththewords:'Duringthe oftheirown. Beriawas themostvituperative. epithets 74). (Mar'iamov,Krem/levskitsenzolo; warourhandsweretied,butnowwe'regoingtodealwithyouall properly"' toStalinby andhisalliesappealedtoStalintoreversethedecisiontobanthefilm.See theletters BothEisenstein and Eisensteinpublishedin Iu. Murin,"'Ivan Groznyi':Ot milostik opale,"Glasnost',12 G. V. Aleksandrov September1991,6. inAugust1946after wrotetoEisenstein V.V.Vishnevskii 76"O kinofil'me 'Bol'shaiazhizn',"575-76. A letter oftheresolution.The theeventualwording withStalinrecounts a discussionwhichclearlyanticipated a meeting 111. "TragediiaSergeiaEizenshteina," storedat RGALI,f. 1923,op. 1,d. 1712,1.38, is quotedin Iurenev, letter, 77Seenotes40, 41, and67 in thisarticle. Rehabilitating Ivan IVunderL V Stalin 653 play. AlthoughPyr'evflirted briefly withtheidea,he demurred aftergraspingthedifficultyof thetask.78 As we haveargued,therehabilitation an interesting case studyin the of IvanIV presents politicsof Stalinistculturalproduction.Far froma monolithic enterprise directedfrom abovebyan all-powerful itseemsthattherehabilitation partyapparatus, was governed by theinteraction of a variety of actorsin theSovietestablishment. Theirdiffering viewson historicity, allegory, andproperemplotment seemtohaveled to intensebehind-the-scenes and mutualdenunciation.Ultimately, jockeying,letter-writing, confusionand disagreementoverthebasicprinciples ofthecampaignled theprojectintoa dead-end.At leastas withtheline on Ivan theTerriblein theearlypostwaryearsas it had been in frustrated reclaimedtheinitiative fortherehabilitation 1940,thepartyhierarchy campaignfromthe between1946 and 1947 and returned artistic a much-diminished mandateto community theprofessional historians.As notedabove,existingworksin thenew canonon Ivan in thelate 1940sandearly1950s,butveryfewnewworkswouldbe wouldbe republished on added,written onlybythemostcautiousofhistorians.TheselateStaliniststatements Ivanarecharacterized bya narrowscholarly focus,a highdegreeofhistoricity (and more anddiligentattention sparinguse of allegory),a romanceemplotment, to thepartyline.79 Onlyafterthedeathof Stalinwouldthisinterpretation againbe challenged.80 letus turnattention to thebroaderimplications By wayofconclusion, ofthevarying Stalinistperspectives on Ivan. The romantic and tragicvisionsof Ivan,whenrefracted theprismofhistoricalallegory, communicate through vastlydiffering messageswithrecontributed to thelegitimation of dictatorial gardto theSovietpresent.Bothultimately ruleandterror, yettheyservedthiscause in different ways. Romancetellsofthetriumph of thehumanspiritoverall, demonstrating simplythatourdestinyis to realizethetranscendentorderon earth.Thosewhoopposethisgrandcallingcan onlybe enemies,tobe crushedwithno regret.On theotherhand,whilethetragedy it mayalso endin triumph, whichlie alongthepathto redemption. tellsa storyof thenoblesacrifices Whilewe are called to look,withIvan,towardthegreatideals whichlie beyondthehorizon,we also feelhis agonyas he loses familyand friends, his own fleshand blood to his sacrificing historicalmission. It is nothardto understand whythepartyhierarchy preferred theformer emplotment overthelatter.In theSoviet1940s,theromanceofIvantheTerriblewas fullycompatible withtheongoingpropaganda thepresentas a sceneoftriumph campaignto mythologize overinternal andexternal the and time itselfundertheleadershipof a enemies, elements, of theartisticestablishment to thetragicvisionof prescientvozhid'.Yet theattraction It maybe that,in thetradition ofearliertreatments is less easilycomprehended. history 94. Kozlovassertswithout evidencethatI. A. Pyr'evreceiveda commission 78Mar'iamov, Kemmlevsk/itsenzzot; filmaboutIvanin "TheArtistandtheShadowofIvan,"130. in 1952to beginshooting another Ivan Givznzj',Bo/'shafia sovetskai7i 2d ed. (1952), s. v. "Ivan 79See,forinstance,Korotkov, ewztsiklopedtia, in thepostwargeneration ofhistory textbooks. Groznyi";andcommentary 80TheStalinistmythology concerning Ivan was ultimately challengedin 1956. Forthearticleandthecontro"Protividealizatsiideiatel'nosti IvanaIV," Voprosy see S. M. Dubrovskii, versythatitprecipitated isto1ii8(1956): IvanaGroznogo,"ibid.9 (1956): 195-203. 121-29; andM. D. Kurmacheva, "Ob otsenkedeiatel'nosti 654 KevinAd F Plait and David Brandenberger goals,artistslikeTolstoiandEisensteinadoptedthe ofpurelyartistic ofIvanorin pursuit forthepresent.Thisreckofitsallegoricalimplications fullconsideration genrewithout thattheSoand politicalimpasse:theimplication less moveled to personalcatastrophe found thepartyhierarchy mightbe viewedas a tragedywas something vietexperiment norhow greattheeventualvictory.8'Sohow noblethesacrifice, no matter intolerable, thewar,theleader,and theenemycould onlybe presentedin the cialistconstruction, grandiosepose of theromance. triumphant, consciouslyinIt is also possiblethatsome membersof theartisticestablishment tendedtheirtragicvisionof historyto allegoricallyreferto the Stalinistera. As the upon of the1930srecededintothepastand membersof Sovietsocietyreflected horrors and thewar,tragedymayhave seemed collectivization, thehistoryof industrialization, the whilealso acknowledging theseordealsas "progressive," likea vehicleto legitimate deep scars theyleftin theirwake. Such a tragicvisionof therecentpast mighthave expressedboththenecessityand theagonyof theprecedingtwo decades,providinga thanromance.Whileevidence of Soviethistory aptrepresentation morepsychologically conceivedof therecentpastin suchtermsis community thatthemembersof theartistic of to thepopularity contributed has undoubtedly potential thisinterpretative inconclusive, readthedirector's audiences,whohavecommonly Eisenstein'sfilmamongpost-Stalinist concerning Ivan as an aesopianexpressionof dissent.82 ambivalence intocovertcritique of Eisenstein'sloyalistrevisionism It is ironicthattheinflation inspiredbothStalin'swrathin 1946 and popularacclaimtwelveyearslater. The most masterful and least dogmaticworkof theStalinistcanon on Ivan,Eisenstein'sfilmis thaw. Even today,thefilm's to survivethepost-Stalin itsonlyrepresentative practically as Eisenstein's thisis nothardto understand, tragicvisionretainsitsappeal. Ultimately, yetagonizingsacrias a nobletragedy-aseriesofnecessary, ofRussianhistory retelling societywho wishto refices-mustremaincompellingforthosewithincontemporary andtheSovieterawhilealso celebratoftherevolution bloodletting member thecriminal and theSecondWorldWar. of industrialization ingthetriumphs unwillingtheGeneralSecretary's toStalinbyMar'iamovillustrate attributed statements "Possiblyapocryphal "WastheEnglish[Queen]Elizabethlesscruelwhenshewas oftheIvannarrative: nesstoaccepta tragicrendering inEngland[?]... How manyheadsrolledduringherrule? She didn't ofabsolutism forthestrengthening fighting evenhavepityon hercousinMaryStuart.But theEnglishpeoplearenotfoolish-theyrespectherandcall her 92). tsenzor; 'Great"'(Krenzlevsk/i (see note23 inthisarticle) readingofthescreenplay assertsthatStalin's1943patriotic forinstance, 82Kozlov, sequel. Mostoftheevidencesupporting threwEisensteinintoa tailspinwhichcausedhimto shoota subversive longafterEisenstein'sdeathwhichcastthe or derivedfrommemoirswritten Kozlov's analysisis circumstantial andmartyr ("TheArtistandtheShadowofIvan,"121-30). as a dissident director rather tenuously

Log In

With David Brandenberger. “Terribly Romantic, Terribly Progressive, or Terribly Tragic: Rehabilitating Ivan IV under IV Stalin.” The Russian Review, Vol. 58, No. 4. 635-654.

With David Brandenberger. “Terribly Romantic, Terribly Progressive, or Terribly Tragic: Rehabilitating Ivan IV under IV Stalin.” The Russian Review, Vol. 58, No. 4. 635-654.

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS