Byzantium as an Argument: Legitimizing Rule and War from the Reign of Ivan the Terrible to That of Feodor Alekseevich (16th and 17th Centuries)

At the beginning of the 16th century, three approaches to utilizing history were developed in Russian booklore (kniznost’). This was not an invention, but an adaptation of long-established and widespread methods. The first approach was chronological, placing the Slavic tribes and Russia within the broader narrative of world history (Chronograph, 1512). The genealogical method drew on a claim to Roman ancestry for the Russian Grand Dukes (Skazanie o Knjazjach Vladimirskich). The latter approach, based on the concept of translatio imperii, was prophetic-eschatological (the Third Rome cycle). Consequently, Russian booklore scholars (knizniki) engaged in a retrospective analysis, in which earlier eras served as a preparatory stage for the eventual apotheosis of Moscow. Evidently, these discourses were highly heterogeneous and fragmented. Moreover, the use of history was primarily characteristic of booklore. Nevertheless, these types of historical references for legitimation were sometimes employed in the official political sphere.

Accordingly, the aim of this doctoral dissertation project is to analyze argumentation strategies and historical references to Byzantium, primarily in the official discourse of the Tsardom of Russia, over a period of two centuries. Consequently, the project is primarily linked to the research training group’s thematic cluster, which focuses on strategies of justification and legitimation. For the most part, the study will focus on the period of the Tsardom of Russia from the reign of Ivan the Terrible (1547–1584) through that of Feodor Alekseevich (1676–1682). Nevertheless, it is crucial to emphasize that most of the mythologems were developed during the reigns of Ivan III (1462–1505) and Vasily III (1505–1533) and were adapted or modified in later periods. Therefore, it is possible to examine earlier sources within the framework of this research, since drawing chronological boundaries based on centuries or reigns seems inappropriate for the history of ideas. The situation is more complicated with regard to the terminus ante quem, as transformations in various social spheres may have occurred in diverse ways. Hypothetically, the Church Schism (Raskol, 1650–1660) is unlikely to have had an immediate effect on foreign policy discourse. On the other hand, argumentation strategies may have changed dramatically as early as the Time of Troubles (Smuta, 1598–1613).

The study will focus primarily on the ambassadorial sources (Posolskie knigi). The reason is that ambassadorial instructions (nakazy) and ceremonial protocols, rich in historical allusions and references, embodied the official ideology through discourse, emblematic objects, and rituals. Furthermore, the research will also actively examine narrative sources, particularly official chronicles (letopisi) and chronographs; the inclusion of texts from the religious sphere also appears necessary. The use of these sources must be grounded in the well-established approach of Russian source studies regarding genre-specific characteristics, textual history, and audience. In addition, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the spheres of religious and secular booklore from that of official texts. Nevertheless, a connection between them is possible, but must be handled with care.

The project will address questions such as: Were topoi based on attitudes toward a particular goal, or were they constant and entirely repetitive? Is it possible to trace the development of the details of certain topoi? Did the argumentation strategies and historical references differ in interactions with various Christian denominations or other religions? Was the change in formula related to the evolution of ideology, or was it simply a revision by a specific individual? To answer these questions, it is necessary to present the topoi in a dynamic context—as a reaction to a changing situation. It should be noted that it is crucial to differentiate and classify all historical references. The reason is that a single historical reference can have more than one possible semantic meaning. For example, a reference to the “Third Rome” may refer only to a city or to the entire Tsardom. Another important feature is the coexistence of various concepts. For this reason, it seems impossible to generalize and examine this as a single ideology. Through a comparative analysis of these sources, this doctoral dissertation aims to demonstrate that various methods of drawing upon history were employed during the Tsardom of Russia, and to assess the extent to which argumentation based on the Byzantine heritage—in a broad sense—was or was not emphasized.