On the translation of the nickname Grozny into Eng

On the translation of the nickname "Грозный – Grozny" into English for the Russian Tsar Ivan.

In the social network of the Internet, I asked a question about the naming of the first Russian Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich in English. Now it is possible to summarize it. Below I give that question and the answers. I think there is truth in every answer. And I also think that the simplest name is enough: Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, Tsar John. And the nickname, which was not in his lifetime, each author is free to add himself.
—Vyacheslav Marchenko.

Tsar Ivan I
QUESTION FOR NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS

The first Russian Tsar Ivan is called in English Ivan the Terrible, which is incorrectly translated from the Russian word Grozny (Грозный).

The same confusion arises when he is called Ivan IV, counting according to the Grand Dukes and belittling his Royal dignity. During his lifetime he was simply called Tsar Ivan. And it would be more correct for us to call him that, or Ivan I. There was no other Tsar Ivan in Russia. He is the first and only Tsar Ivan.

In Russia there is a city called Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, and it is not Terrible at all.

The word grozny (грозный) is closer in meaning to the words: strict, thunderous, formidable - it seems so to me.  The enemies of Christ were truly afraid of Tsar Ivan, they are afraid of his memory and slander him to this day.

So how to correctly translate into English what is the best name for the first Russian Tsar?

There is no negative connotation in the Russian word Grozny (Грозный).

I ask those who ill-wish Tsar Ivan not to answer this question.

—————

"Awesome" in the archaic sense can mean formidable
So
Ivan The Formidable
Or
Ivan the Awesome


Ivan The Great.
Terrible also carries the same connotations from a more archaic, Victorian, and pre-Victorian sense, same with the word Dread. Both convey power, authority, and the knowledge of prowess in accomplishments.
In the modern sense these words,Terrible, and  Dread have a very mundane, literal application, and lose much of their power, and meaning. And, both words convey a negative context. However, 18th and 19th Century Christians oft referred to God Himself as Dread, and Terrible, in terms or majesty, and power.
But to convey a better sense of Ivan, than the misunderstood Terrible, Great is a better word, used the same as Alexander the Great, or Frederick the Great.

"The dread judgement seat of Christ."

Judge Dread.  Kind of half joking because of the pun.  Of course, even a sentence of Hell would involve mercy, though not necessarily what seems so to us.

There already is an Ivan the Great (Ivan the Terrible's grandfather), though... so this formulation might be confusing

Problem being with the modern English speakers (mainly American) understanding of most of the words mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Great really is the easiest choice.

Is the title of Peter the Great in Russian, Pyotr Grozhny?

That or maybe Pyotr Velikiy.

If both Tsar Ivan and Tsar Peter were called Grozhny, why is the former called, the Terrible, and the latter, the Great? The answer might well be the liberal bias of Western historiography.

Ivan, Great Czar Father of Russia.

Ivan the Formidable, I'd say

Ivan the Iron Fisted

Ivan the Powerful?

The thing is, "terrible" WAS a word that captured that connotation. Its old use did not have to mean in a negative sense. Even old texts describing God would call Him "terrible in might"or something like that.

That's true as well in Portuguese, being that the Latin ‘terribilis’ already had this same ambivalence, in Scriptures as well. Even in popular language, such emphatic or hyperbolic words are very often used in a good sense, like awful, terrific and so forth. Context and usage are crucial, as always, and misunderstandings seem to be quite frequent across different generations or regions.

Ivan the Terrifying?

I did find two bible verses from the Old Slavonic version where грозни does appear in a negative sense, one of them as ‘horrible’, another one as ‘cruel’, ‘fierce’.
Jr 50:42 OCS луки и щиты имуще, грозни суть и немилостиви: глас их яко море возшумит, на кони возсядут, уготовани якоже огнь на брань противу тебе, дщи Вавилоня.
In English, Brenton version:
Jr 50:42 LXXE (27:42) the people is *fierce*, and will have no mercy: their voices shall sound as the sea, they shall ride upon horses, prepared for war, like fire, against thee, O daughter of Babylon.
Os 6:10 OCS В дому Израилеве видех грозная: тамо блужение Ефремово: осквернися Израиль и Иуда.
In English, Brenton version: Os 6:10 LXXE (6:11) I have seen *horrible things* there, even the fornication of Ephraim: Israel and Juda are defiled.

Ivan the Awsome.

Ivan the based.

Terrible in English need not have a negative connotation. It can mean something like awe-inspiring, beyond reckoning, great, grand.

It's interesting that "terrific" has a very similar etymology, yet "terrific" and "terrible" now have opposite meanings.  Ditto for "awesome" and "awful."

The epithet Terrible, as in "Great and Terrible is the Lord Our God," is apt.
Tsar Ivan Vasilyevitch  had plenty of Great and Terrible deeds, and glorious victories, and blood to earn His Majesty that distinguished title.

There are good answers here, I would just emphasize that there is an older usage of the word "terrible" that does not have the negative context that we mostly use today. We see Liturgically in English some older prayer books use the word "terrible" ascribing it to God and His Judgements.

Tsar Ivan. the greatest Tsar of Russia.

Ivan the Lawkeeper, or Firm, or Uncompromising, Stern.  Not sure how those go back into Russian, though.

Originally I don’t believe the word terrible was necessarily a bad meaning. It became that.

"Terrible" historically meant "inspiring terror," and "terror" historically meant something more like "awe."  So maybe "awe-inspiring."  But "formidable" is good, too.  "Terrifying" is probably still too negative.  "Terrific" is another word with a similar etymology, but positive connotation.  "Mighty" is a little less literal, but I think it fits the spirit of what the epithet is trying to convey.

Why must every non-English word be translated into English in the first place? – Because most English speakers don't speak Russian. Because that's the whole idea behind translation, my boy!

Ivan, Great Czar Father of Russia.

Great question, very well explained. My first thought was Ivan the Great and many here agree. But it also matches well with Peter the Great.

I always called him Ivan the Great or  Formidable in my teaching...and explained all that you say above.  But formidable is silly.
The English word "Great" best demonstrates his feats.  BTW In French  terrible has both positive and negative significations.