Historians uncover distinctions in the meaning of 'narod' during Ivan IV's rule, suggesting deeper implications for understanding collective agency.
Historians investigating the reign of Ivan IV frequently employ the word narod (“people”) in their exposition. Indeed that word does occur in sources about Ivan IV ’s reign. However, no one has ever compared the meaning projected onto that term by historians to the meaning it had during the sixteenth century. While it is true that both the historiographic and historical narod can be used inclusively, for all Muscovites, or exclusively, to denote a segment of the population on social, geographic, or simply coincidental criteria, there is a major distinction between its inclusive meaning in historiography versus history. In the historiography the narod sometimes thinks and acts collectively, whereas in the history the narod does neither. The historiographic narod exercises a group agency which the historical narod conspicuously lacks. It would behoove historians referring to the narod during Ivan IV ’s reign to acknowledge this disparity between “the People” and “people.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Charles J. Halperin (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: