Файлы будут доступны для скачивания в личном кабинете после оплаты.
Оглавление Введение 3 Глава 1. Оценка личности Ивана Грозного в исторической литературе. 6 1.1. Иван грозный – первый русский царь. 6 Глава 2. Образ первого русского царя в культуре истории. 9 2.1. Образ Ивана Грозного в истории, оценка Н.В. Карамзина. 9 2.2. Образ и оценка личности в современной исторической литературе и культуре. 15 Заключение. 20 Список использованной литературы. 21 Содержание
Фрагмент работы для ознакомления
According to the scientist, exhausting military struggle on several fronts left a mark on all the major events of the era, all reforms, on the economy, domestic politics and the state structure of the country.In the historiographical preface to the “Research on the history of the oprichnina” S.B.Veselovsky wrote: “In our historiography, there seems to be no issue that would cause more controversy than the personality of Ivan IV, his policies and, in particular, his oprichnina. It is noteworthy that with the progress of history, the differences should have been reduced, but actually the converse is observed”.Almost all the major historians of the second half of the XVIII-XIX centuries in varying degrees analyzed the reign of Ivan the Terrible in their writings and left many diverse and sometimes conflicting concepts of his reign. N. K. Mikhailovsky in his article “Ivan the Terrible in Russian literature” wrote that “reading literature on Ivan the Terrible, you enter such a long gallery of his portraits that the walk through this gallery is rather tiring”.In above-mentioned work on oprichnina S.B.Veselovsky wrote about relationship between the historiography devoted to Ivan the Terrible and the political atmosphere of the country. “Great start of Alexander's days” gave rise to Karamzin’s concept of Tsar Ivan personality and public activities which was instructive for government officials. The harsh reaction of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I raised a number of attempts from the part of writers of all sizes and varying degrees of awareness to rehabilitate Tsar Ivan, as opposed to the negative characterization given by Karamzin.This close relationship of the internal political situation in the country with the historiography of the reign of Ivan the Terrible only worsened since 1917. The era of Stalin's rule is the period of unrestrained apologia of Ivan IV. Khrushchev's liberalization of the late 50's - early 60's, made possible the publication of “Research on oprichnina history” written by S.B.Veselovsky twenty years before. The emergence of this monograph was one of the most illustrative examples of de-Stalinization for the Russian intelligentsia. Partial rehabilitation of Stalin and Stalinism in the reign of L.I. Brezhnev led to a much more “balanced” interpretation of both the oprichnina and the entire reign of Ivan IV. Sharply negative assessment of Ivan IV role in Russian history was abandoned.We can say without exaggeration that the historiography of the reign of Ivan the Terrible makes it easy to reconstruct all the important changes in Russia's domestic policy and very accurately see how sovereignty looks at Russia, and at itself.Firstly, in all the concepts of the reign of Ivan the Terrible his personality definitely prevails over the events of his reign, which act most often as the materialized incarnation of Ivan’s character. Psychologism of Russian historiography is due to the study of this subject, that is why the historiography of Ivan the Terrible is characterized by brilliant portrait sketches (by Belinsky, Aksakov, Klyuchevsky).Secondly, with all the variety of historiographical concepts of the reign of Ivan the Terrible they are reducible to two main areas – defamatory and apologetic.The first point of view is based on estimation of Ivan the Terrible in terms of universal human morality and ethics. The second is based on assessment of his personality and rule from the point of view of government achievements. The second point of view not only inevitably attributes the achievements made by Russia to the personality of its monarch, but, which is more importantly, it is reducible to the other moral system – ethnic. Russia's success is an absolute good, regardless of the means by which it is achieved.At the end of the XIX century, in 1899, one more concept of the reign of Ivan the Terrible was described by S.F. Platonov in the first part of his “Essays on the History of disturbance in the Muscovite state of XIV-XVII centuries”. This concept was an exceptional success. Subsequently, it was reproduced with some changes in his lecture course, and in the book “Ivan the Terrible”. Carrying out the overall assessment of the Russian crisis of the middle of the XVI century Platonov agrees with V.O. Kluchevsky, and sees the cause of the crisis in the contradictions inherent in the basis of the Moscow State and public order. S.F. Platonov did not put forward a new concept of the reign of Ivan the Terrible; he changed the approach to the topic. Before his research the historians were interested in personality of Ivan the Terrible. And after studying the personality they came to the actual history of Russia. S.F. Platonov started from the other end, with the history of Russia. Russia ceased to be a simple continuation of Ivan the Terrible. It stood apart and it immediately became clear how closely the XVI century is connected with the events of the preceding centuries in Russian history. The reign of Ivan the Terrible and the oprichnina itself, emancipated from his personality, was easily fitted into the overall fabric of Russian history, and was associated with the general direction and with the traditions of the preceding reign.Contemporary historians often accuse Ivan the Terrible of inconsistency of goal and means and in the absence of logic and sense in repressions.ConclusionIn conclusion, I would like to note that due to the contradictory evaluations of personality and activities of the first Russian tsar and autocrat Ivan the Terrible there is no unified assessment of the tsar as an individual and leader in historical science.Some authors consider him the greatest disaster for Russia; others believe that his reign was to the good of the country and its future autocratic rulers.But all of them agree that this historical figure should not be ignored, because whatever the consequences of his reign, they have had a tremendous impact on the history of the country and its development.Realizing this, many scientists and artists have used the image of the first Russian tsar in their works and promoted the image of the tyrant and despot, because these qualities of his personality aroused the greatest interest among the public. Savoring the bloody facts of tsar’s biography, they counted on the increased interest in their works.However, all agree that the personality of the tsar was interesting and unusual and an imprint of violence was due to his unhappy childhood, which was held in isolation because of the early death of his parents.References1. L.N. Gumilyov. From Rus to Russia: Essays on ethnic history. - St. Petersburg: Yuna, 1992. - 272 p.2. V.V. Kargalova. History of Russia in the people: A Biographical Dictionary. - M.: Russian word, 1997. - 544 p.3. A.N. Sakharov. Russian history. From ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century - Moscow: AST, 2008. - 1263 p.4. R.G. Skrynnikov. Third Rome: Tutorial - St. Petersburg: Petropolis, 1994. - 190 p.5. V.V. Fortunatov. Russian history in the people - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2009. - 576 p.6. Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Personality and destiny - M.: Publishing house “Dar”, 2005. - 768 p.7. D.N. Alshits. Start of autocracy in Russia: State of Ivan the Terrible. L.: Nauka, 1988. – 241p.8. R.G. Skrynnikov. Ivan the Terrible - M.: LLC“Publishing house AST”, 2002. - 480 p.9. S.V. Fomin. The truth about the first Russian tsar: who and why distorts the image of Ivan the Terrible - M.: Russian Publishing Center 2012.
Список использованной литературы. 1. Л.Н. Гумилев. От Руси до России: Очерки этнической истории. - СПб: Юна, 1992. - 272 с. 2. В.В. Каргалова. История России в лицах: Биографический словарь. - М.: Русское слово, 1997. - 544 с. 3. А.Н. Сахаров. История России. С древнейших времен до начала XXI в. - М.:АСТ, 2008. - 1263 с. 4. Р.Г. Скрынников Третий Рим: Уч.пособие. - СПб: Petropolis, 1994. - 190 с. 5. В.В. Фортунатов. Российская история в лицах. - СПб: Питер, 2009. - 576 с. 6. Царь Иоанн Грозный. Личность и судьба. - М.: Изд-во «Даръ», 2005. - 768 с. 7. Д. Н Альшиц. Начало самодержавия в России: Государство Ивана Грозного. Л.: Наука, 1988. – 241с. 8. Р.Г. Скрынников. Иван Грозный. - М.: ООО "Издательство АСТ", 2002. - 480 с. 9. С. В. Фомин. Правда о первом русском царе: кто и почему искажает образ Государя Иоанна Васильевича (Грозного). - М.: Русский издательский центр, 2012. список литературы
Пожалуйста, внимательно изучайте содержание и фрагменты работы. Деньги за приобретённые готовые работы по причине несоответствия данной работы вашим требованиям или её уникальности не возвращаются.