Formation of the Ideological Foundations of the Moscow Princes’ Power (The End of the 14th — the Beginning of the 15th Centuries)

Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates


Release:

2018, Vol. 4. №4

Title: 
Formation of the Ideological Foundations of the Moscow Princes’ Power (The End of the 14th — the Beginning of the 15th Centuries)


For citation: Shevchenko M. N. 2018 “Formation of the Ideological Foundations of the Moscow Princes’ Power (the End of the 14th — the Beginning of the 15th Centuries)”. Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates, vol. 4, no 4, pp. 180-192. DOI: 10.21684/2411-197X-2018-4-4-180-192

About the author:

Maksim N. Shevchenko, Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Lecturer, Omsk Theological Seminary of the Omsk Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate); maxsh1978@yandex.ru

Abstract:

This study aims to discover the mechanisms of representation of the power ambitions of the Moscow princes in the Old Russian literature of the end at the 14th — beginning of the 15th centuries. To achieve this goal, the article identifies the specificity and conditionality of the structural elements of the works’ text composition; reveals the semantic meanings of the key components of the Moscow sovereigns’ image; and determines the direction and nature of actions of the tools used in the literature of Ancient Rus of the specified period and focused on the formation of a unique image of power. Historical-genetic and comparative-historical research methods are used in the work.

The author concludes that the literature of Ancient Rus was a form of retransmission of the power image of the Moscow princes to the mass consciousness, through which the unshakable foundations of autocracy were revealed in detail, and the questions of origin and prerogatives of the authority of the Moscow dynasty were explained. Representation of the unique image of power in the works of Old Russian literature during the specified period was based on a number of semantic components, among which the key ones included determination of the sovereign status of Moscow rulers; fixing the dynastic and political continuity in relation to the Vladimir-Suzdal and Kiev religious and political traditions; and consolidation of the all-Russian significance of the Moscow princes in the titular element of “All Russia”, among others. The various configurations of these elements worked to form the image of the Moscow princes as the only legitimate political and church-religious leaders of the Old Russian society.

References:

  1. Bauer E. A. 2011. Ideya “Moskva – tretiy Rim” v russkoy obshchestvennoy mysli kontsa XV — nachala XVII vv.: otechestvennaya istoriografiya XX stoletiya: Monografiya [The Idea “Moscow is the Third Rome” in Russian Social Thought of the End of the 15th — The Beginning of the 17th Centuries: Russian Historiography of the 20th Century: Monograph]. Nizhnevartovsk: The Bulletin of Nizhnevartovsk State University.
  2. Vinokurov D. A. 2012. “Iosif Volotskiy v otechestvennoy istoriografii XIX-XX vv.” [Joseph Volotsky in Russian Historiography of the 19th-20th Centuries.]. Cand. Sci. (Hist.) diss. abstract. Kazan. 
  3. Vitlin V. E. 2017. “Kontseptsiya velikoknyazheskoy vlasti v russkoy publitsistike pervoy treti XVI v.” [The Concept of the Grand-Ducal Power in the Russian Journalism of the First Third of the 16th Century]. Cand. Sci. (Hist.) diss. abstract. Saint Petersburg. 
  4. Adrianova-Peretts V. P. (ed.). 1949. Voinskiye povesti Drevney Rusi [Military Tales of Ancient Rus]. Moscow, Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Science.
  5. Grebenyuk V. P. 1996. “Svyatitel’ i knyaz’. K voprosu o roli mitropolita Kipriana i velikogo knyazya Vasiliya Dmitriyevicha v sobytiyakh 1395 g.” [Prelate and Prince. On the role of Metropolitan Cyprian and Grand Prince Vasily Dmitrievich in the Events of 1395]. Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury, vol. 50. Saint Petersburg.
  6. Cherepnin. L. V., Bakhrushin S. V. (eds.). 1950. Dukhovnyye i dogovornyye gramoty velikikh i udel’nykh knyazey XIV-XVI vv. [Spiritual and Treaty Documents of the Great and Appanage Princes of the 14th-16th Centuries]. Moscow, Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Science.
  7. Chernobaev A. A. (ed.) et al. 2014. Istoriografiya istorii Rossii: ucheb. posobiye dlya bakalavrov [Historiography of the History of Russia: Manual for Bachelors]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Yurayt. 
  8. Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey [The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles]. 1925. Vol. 4, part 1, no 2. Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Science.
  9. Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey [Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles]. 1913. Vol. 18. Saint Petersburg: Printing House of M. A. Aleksandrov.
  10. Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey [Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles]. 1853. Vol. 6. Saint Petersburg: Printing House of Edward Pratz. 
  11. Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka [Russian Historical Library]. 1880. Vol. 6, part 1. Saint Petersburg: Typography of the Imperial AS.
  12. Likhachev D. S (ed.). 1982. Skazaniya i povesti o kulikovskoy bitve [Tales and Stories About the Kulikov Battle]. Leningrad: Nauka.
  13. Solovyev A. V. 1957. “Vizantiyskoye imya Rossii” [Byzantine Name of Russia]. In: Vizantiyskiy vremennik, vol. 12. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Science.
  14. Stadnikov A. V. 2007. Vzaimootnosheniya gosudarstva, tserkvi i obshchestva v russkoy politicheskoy i pravovoy mysli vtoroy poloviny XIV — pervoy poloviny XVII vekov [The Relationship of the State, Church, and Society in the Russian Political and Legal Thought of the Second Half of the 14th — The First Half of the 17th Centuries]. Dr. Sci. (Jur.) diss. abstract. Moscow.
  15. Nauka. 1979. Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury` [Proceedings of the Department of the Old Russian Literature], vol. 34. Leningrad: Nauka.
  16. Usachev A. S. 2012. “‘Tretiy Rim’ ili ‘Tretiy Kiyev’? (Moskovskoye tsarstvo XVI veka v vospriyatii sovremennikov)” [“The Third Rome” or “The Third Kiev”? (Czardom of Moscovy of the 16th Century in the Perception of the Contemporaries)]. Obshchestvennyye nauki i sovremennost’, no 1, pp. 69-87.