On Words, Sources, and Historical Method: Which Truth

about Muscovy?
ValerieA.Kivelson

OnWords,Sources,andHistoricalMethod:
WhichTruthaboutMuscovy?
ValerieA.Kivelson

WhenIuseaword,HumptyDumptysaidina
ratherscornfultone,itmeansjustwhatIchooseit
tomeanneithermorenorless.
LewisCarroll,ThroughtheLookingGlass1
Wordscarrymeaningsandconnotations,regardlessofhowcarefullywetryto
redefinethemandhedgetheminwithcaveats.MarshallPoesurelyisawareof
thatwhen,toprovokedebate,hechoosestodeploytheexplosivetermdespot
isminhisattackonwhathecallstheHarvardSchool.Despotismisnota
neutralterm.Itisanegativedescriptorofanevilgovernment,ofabsolutismrun
amok.TheAmericanHeritageDictionarydefinesthewordasfollows:Absolute
power,especiallywhenexercisedunjustlyorcruelly.Thedictionaryentrypro
ceedstoprovideanunfriendlylistofsynonyms:a.dictatorship;b.tyranny;c.
autocracy;d.totalitarianism.TheShorterOxfordEnglishDictionaryoffersthis
definitionofadespot:Anabsoluterulerofacountry;hence,anyrulerwhogov
ernsabsolutelyortyrannically;anypersonwhoexercisestyrannicalauthority;a
tyrant,oppressor.2Despotismisnotatermthatcanbeusedwithanydegreeof
culturalrelativism;itisahardandfastcondemnationofcruel,arbitrary,andun
trammeledrule.ThisiscertainlythesenseinwhichPoesWesterntravelers
employedtheterm,asacondemnation,atermofopprobrium,hammeringin
thebottomlinelogicofthemoralandpoliticalsuperiorityofWesternsystems.
Canthelabelofdespotismbeausefulstartingpointforhistoricalinquiry?
Asasystemicdescriptor,itobscuresfarmorethanitreveals.Likethetermher
esy,despotismisappliedbythosewhodonotacceptasystemofvaluesand
practices.TowriteoffthevariousheresiesthathavecoloredthehistoryofChris
tianityassimplyheretical,pureandsimple,wouldbetomissthemarvelous
1 Thequestionis,saidAlice,whetheryoucanmakewordsmeansomanydifferentthings.
Thequestionis,saidHumptyDumpty,whichistobethemasterthatsall.LewisCarroll,
ThroughtheLookingglass,andWhatAliceFoundThere(n.p.,n.d.),124.
2TheShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1973),1:530.

Page 2
488
VALERIEA.KIVELSON
varietyinbeliefsystems,theparticularitiesofsocial,political,andtheological
critique,reaction,andexpressionmanifestedinparticulartimesandplaces.Ifwe
couldnotlookbeyondthehereticalnametag,wewouldneverhavegainedin
sightintotheroughcosmologyofCarloGinsburgsMenocchioorEmanuel
LeRoyLaduriesMontaillou.TowriteoffMuscoviteruleasdespotic,andto
leaveitatthat,wouldbetoabandonthemostinterestingchallengesofhistorical
investigation.KnowingthatMuscoviterulewasabsolute,tyrannical,andcruel,
wewouldbeabletomarvelatthelastingsuccessofsuchanarbitrarysystem,as
Poedoes,butwewouldpushnofarthertowardunderstanding.
Fortunately,Poeistoogoodascholartoacceptaschematic,flattenedcarica
tureofMuscovitedespotism.Eveninthepolemicalpiecehehaswrittenhere,
Poeiseventuallyforcedtodistancehimselffromconventionaldefinitionsofdes
potism,asitwasinventedbyopiumsmoking19thcenturyEnglishpoets(???).

1/10
Instead,hecomesupwithaconvolutedformulationaccordingtowhichdespot
ismisnotdespotism,butsomethingelse.LikeHumptyDumpty,Poeimperi
ouslyredefinesthetermtomeansomethingfarmoreencompassingandmuch
watereddownfromitsoriginalmeaning.Muscovitedespotism,heconcludes,
includednotonlythetsardespot,butalsohiscourt,army,chancelleries,provin
cialadministration,and,mostsurprisingly,allMuscovites,exceptslaves.The
tsardespotdidnotusehispowerarbitrarilytofulfilhisownpersonaldesiresor
fantasies.Thetsardespotmayhaveagreateropportunitytoactcapriciously
thanamonarchorpresident,buthewouldbewisenotto,fortheconsequences
aregrave(???)Sothetsardespot,likeanyotherruler,hadtoruleinconjunction
withhiselite,and,indeedwiththecooperationofsocietyatlarge.Ifthiswere
thecase,isdespotismausefulterm?EvenPoedoesnotseemconvincedthatitis.
Insteadheattemptstostretchthetermtoencompassmanyoftheimportantin
sightsofhisHarvardSchoolers,concedingthatdespotismwasanegotiated,
delicatelymaintained,andinclusiveaffair,andhetherebyevacuatesthetermand
theentiredebateofmeaning.Hisbroadenedconceptofdespotismprovidesan
adequatedefinitionofautocracy,butautocracyshouldnotbeconflatedwith
eitherdespotismortyranny.Theselattersystemsaredistinguishednotbythe
degreetowhichpowerisconcentratedinthehandsoftheruler,butratherbythe
degreetowhichtheruleractsarbitrarilyandflauntsevenhisownlaws.
Ashislastminutesofteningofhisdefinitionreveals,Poesproposaltoadopt
thetermdespotismwouldmoveusagiantstepbackwards.IndeedtheMuscovite
tsarenjoyedthebenefitsofanideologyofdivineselection.Heoperatedina
largelyundefinedpoliticaluniverse,inwhichlimitstohispowerremainedun
stated,customary,andpracticalratherthanconstitutionalorlegal.Hewasan
autocrat,tothefullestdegreeofanyrealworldautocrat.Attimes,certaingrand
princesortsarsviolatedthemissionentrustedtothembytheirpeopleandby

Page 3
ONWORDS,SOURCES,ANDHISTORICALMETHOD:WHICHTRUTHABOUTMUSCOVY?489
theirdivinemandate,andactedinwaysthatbyanystandardmightbecalled
cruelandarbitrary.YettounderstandthetrulyheroicsuccessesoftheMusco
vitestateinsurviving,growing,andthrivingagainstalloddsintheearlymodern
period,whatweneedtounderstandishowthatautocraticmonarchmanagedto
winthesupportofallrelevantelites,andevensomedegreeofpassiveoractive
acceptancebythepeasantmajority.Nastyrulershavespoiledthepoliticalland
scapeofhistory,presumablysincethebeginningoftime.Shouldwetherefore
slaponthelabelofdespotacrosstheboardandbedonewithit,assumingthat
weunderstandauniversalphenomenon?Orwoulditbemoreusefultodifferen
tiatebetweentheexcessesandtechniquesofIvanIVandPolPot,orbetween
IvanIVandHenryVIII,whoarbitrarilyexpropriatedland,violatedtherightsof
theChurch,choppedoffheads,anddidawaywithwivesnearlysynchronously,
butleftsuchverydifferenthistoricallegacies?Surelyfromahistorians(asop
posedtoasociologists)perspective,itistheparticularitiesratherthanthegen
eralcategoriesthatareofinterest.
Fortunately,recentscholarshiphaspushedusfarbeyondsimplisticconclu
sions.Attheforefrontofsuchinvestigation,oddlyenough,standsacertainMar
shallPoe,authorofsuchcarefullynuancedworkasWhatDidRussiansMean
WhenTheyCalledThemselvesSlavesoftheTsar?andAPeopleBorntoSlav
ery.3Intheselesscontentiousworks,PoeexaminesWesternideasaboutRussiain
theearlymodernperiodandanalyzesthecombinationofdirectobservation,pre
conceivednotions,andborrowingsfrompreviousworksthatintertwinedto
shapeEuropeansimpressionsofMuscovy.HedemonstratesthattheWestern
writersoftenprovedtobekeenobservers,buttheycouldnottranscendthecul
turalmodels,andessentiallyAristotelianpoliticalcategories,availabletothemat
theirtime.AfterexplainingtheconstraintsthatshapedtheWesternersaccounts,
Poeaddressesthequestionofwhatitwasthathisforeignobserversactuallysaw.
AcknowledgingtheintelligenceandperceptivenessofhisWesternvisitors,he
simultaneouslyexploresthewaysinwhichtheMuscoviteculturalsystemwasso
alientothemastobeincomprehensible.HeexposesthewaysinwhichWest

2/10
Europeanswereforcedtogropeforstrainedfitsbetweenthecategoriestheyhad
availabletothemandthepuzzlingphenomenatheyobserved.Mosttellingly,Poe
explorestheverydifferentmeaningsofslaveryintheWesternandthe
Muscoviteculturalsystems.InMuscovy,subservienceboundbothmasterand
servanttoasetofreciprocalobligations,andthemodelofservitudetoGod
madebondageablessedcondition.Thispositivevaluationofservitudemade
MarshallPoe,WhatDidRussiansMeanWhenTheyCalledThemselvesSlavesoftheTsar?
3

SlavicReview57:3(1998),585608;idem,APeopleBorntoSlavery:RussiainEarlyModern
EuropeanEthnography,14761748(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,2000).

Page 4
490
VALERIEA.KIVELSON
MuscovitesincomprehensibleandreprehensibletoWesternerssteepedinan
ideologyoffreedom.
ThissamekindofacknowledgmentofandendeavortounderstandaMus
coviteframeworkofvaluesandtraditionsinformsmuchoftheworkthatPoe
placesundertheHarvardSchoolrubric.Poeisontosomethingwhenheiden
tifiesalooselyalignedschoolofthoughtamongthesedisparatescholars.Al
thoughsomemayresistbeinglumpedtogether,andmanymaybalkatthelabel,
IacceptPoeshistoriographiccategorization.Workingwithacommoncommit
menttolearningthecodesandstructuresofthoughtthatgovernedMuscovite
cultureandpractice,allofthesehistorianshavetriedtoshedingrainedWestern
standardsandsetasidenormativejudgements,aimingtoreconstructaMuscovite
logicfromwithin.Theirresearchhasdeepenedourunderstandingofhowthe
Muscovitesystemworked,inspiteofitsgeographicandeconomicdisadvantages
anditstendencytowardautocracy.
Togeneralize,theHarvardSchoolhascontributedvaluableinvestigationsof
thepracticalmechanismsbywhichthetsaristregimefunctionedandthrough
whichitmanagedtocooptandintegratemembersofMuscovitesociety.AsPoe
notes,giventhemanylimitationsandchallengesthatfacedtheregimeharsh
climate,lowagriculturalyields,vastdistances,poorcommunications,undevel
opedmonetaryinstrumentsitssuccessesareextraordinary.TheHarvardSchool
studiesthathecriticizesattempttounderstandhowtheregimeovercamesuch
challenges.Todoso,theydelveintothewaysinwhichideasweretransmitted,
enacted,understood,andincorporatedintolivingpractice.Throughthese
studiesofpractice,wecannowhaveasenseofhowtheregimessuccesseswere
achieved,atmanylevels,fromthecourtandcounciltothepeasanthut.
TheHarvardSchoolcollectivelyhasrecastthevisionofMuscoviterulein
severalways.Inplaceofanallpowerfuldespotwieldingarbitrarypowerover
coweringslaves,thesestudieshavefoundamonarchrulingincouncilwithhis
boyarsandelites,constrainedtoruleaccordingtocustom,tradition,piety,and
evenlaw,andenjoyingahighdegreeoflegitimacyintheeyesofhissubjects.Let
usbeginwithlegitimacy,which,asPoeacknowledges,derivedinlargepartfrom
GreektraditionandOrthodoxpoliticaltheory.Ashesays,tsardomwasunder
stoodasthenaturalorderofthings,theruleofthetsarwasapartofGods
benevolentcreation(484).HeisquiterightthatRussianOrthodoxyandthe
KremlinpropagandiststaughtthatdivinelyappointedprincesareGodsvicars
onearthandnottobecontradictedunderpainofdamnation(484).Butifone
acceptsthattheMuscovitepopulationtrulybelievedthispoliticaltheology,then
itishardtomaintainamodelofdespotism.4Despotscannotrulewiththein
ItwouldalsobepossibletorejectentirelythenotionthatOrthodoxideologyplayedanimportant
4

roleinshapingMuscovitepoliticalbehavior,asKeenandoes,butPoedoesnotfollowthatlineof

Page 5
ONWORDS,SOURCES,ANDHISTORICALMETHOD:WHICHTRUTHABOUTMUSCOVY?491
formedconsentandfundamentalapprobationofthegeneralpopulationandstill
bedespots.
Furthermore,asMichaelFlier,DanielRowland,andotherHarvardtypes
haveshown,Kremlinimageryandcourtritualconveyedcomplexmessages.

3/10
Courtceremonynotonlyreinforcedideasofdivinelegitimacy,butalsore
mindedtherulersoftheirobligationstoGodonhighandtotheirpeopleinthis
world.OldTestamentkings,forinstance,appearfrequentlyinfrescocyclesand
inpoliticaltexts,servingasamodelofdivineanointment,withallofitsawesome
burdensofpiety,justice,modesty,andduty.5Muscovitesdidnotturntobiblical
figuressuchasSolomonandDavidasexemplarsoftyranny.Rather,theylooked
tothesekingsasavatarsofwisdomandjustice.Otherbiblicalrulerswereavail
ableascautionaryremindersofthedangersoftyranny.Petitionersinvoked
SolomonandDavidwhentheywishedtoremindtheirrulersoftheircovenant
withGodandpeople,andtheirobligationtorulemercifullyandwell.Inthe
absenceofatraditionofformal,writtenconstitutionsorofadedicatedgenreof
politicaltheory,wehavetolistenattentivelytothealternativemodesofpolitical
expression,suchasritualandbiblicalallusion,andappreciatetonalitiesof
meaning.Ifwemisreadthemessagesorexaminethemoutofcontext,ourhis
toricalenterprisewillstumble.
Courtceremoniesandfrescocyclesalsoemphasizedtheimportanceofcon
sultationwithwiseadvisers.Suchadmonitionsdidnotremainsimplyinthe
realmofceremony,butratherformedthecoreofMuscovitepoliticalpractice.
EdwardKeenan,NancyKollmann,DonaldOstrowski,andDanielRowland
drawonMuscoviterecordsandchronicleswhentheywriteofthecentralityof
adviceandcouncilinthetsarscourt.6ContraPoe,thesescholarshavedemon
stratedthatcollectiveconsultationwasthenorminMuscovy,inbothrepresenta
reasoninghere.SinceheacknowledgestheimportanceofOrthodoxideology,hecannothaveit
bothways:hecannotarguethatthepiecesofOrthodoxythatfithismodelwereimportantand
ignoretherest.
5MichaelFlier,BreakingtheCode:TheImageoftheTsarintheMuscovitePalmSundayRit

ual,inMedievalRussianCulture,vol.2,ed.MichaelS.FlierandDanielRowland(Berkeleyand
LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994),21342;DanielRowland,BiblicalMilitary
ImageryinthePoliticalCultureofEarlyModernRussia:TheBlessedHostoftheHeavenlyTsar,
inibid.,182212.SeealsoRobertO.Crummey,CourtSpectaclesinSeventeenthCentury
Russia:IllusionandReality,inEssaysinHonorofA.A.Zimin(Columbus,OH:Slavica,1983),
13058;DavidMiller,TheVelikieMineiChetiiandtheStepennaiaKnigaofMetropolitan
MakariiandtheOriginsofRussianNationalConsciousness,Forschungenzurosteuropischen
Geschichte26(1979),263382.
6NancyShieldsKollmann,KinshipandPolitics:TheMakingoftheMuscovitePoliticalSystem,

13451547(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1987);DonaldOstrowski,MuscovyandtheMon
gols:CrossCulturalInfluencesontheSteppeFrontier,13041598(Cambridge:CambridgeUniver
sityPress,1998).

Page 6
492
VALERIEA.KIVELSON
tionandpractice.Muscoviterulerswentoutoftheirwaytostresstheirdevotion
totheirboyaradvisersandthecollectivenatureoftheirrule.Thisisasevidentin
theDmitriiDonskoisemotionaltestimonialtohisboyarbrethrenasinthe
1497Sudebniklawcode,whichbegins:Intheyear1497,inthemonthof
September,theGrandPrinceofallRusIvanVasilevich,withhischildrenand
boyars,compiledacodeoflaw.7AlmosteveryMuscovitedecreebeginswith
theredolentphrasethetsardecreedandtheboyarsconfirmed.Inofficial
decreesandlawcodes,grandprincesandtsarsreferredtotheirdecisionsas
resultingfromcollectivewisdomandconsultation,sometimesevenexendingbe
yondconsultationwiththeboyareliteandrespondingmorebroadlytopopular
initiativesanddemands.[T]hepeopleofMedyntownanddistricthave
petitionedusandI,TsarandGrandPrinceIvanVasilevichofAllRussia,
havebestowedmyfavorinaccordancewiththeirpetition.8Whetherornot
thetsarsactuallylistenedtotheirpeopleswoesorrespondedtothem,theycer
tainlychosetopresentthemselvesinthatlight,andtobuildtheirimageamong
theirpeopleasresponsive,concerned,andattentiverulers.
Perhapsmostimportantindifferentiatingadespotfromamorelegitimate
monarchisanarbitraryandhighhandeddisregardforthelaw.Extensivestudy
oflegalpracticeinMuscovybymembersoftheHarvardSchoolandothersjeop
ardizesthenotionoframpantcontemptforthelaw.Quitethecontrary,the
tsaristregimeuseditsextensiveandhighlyarticulatedlegalsystemeffectivelyin

4/10
cooptingsocietyatlargeintoabroaderfunctioningunit.9TheUlozhenie,which
7TheSudebnikofIvanIII(1497),inMuscoviteJudicialTexts14881556,comp.,trans.,anded.
H.W.Dewey(AnnArbor,MI:MichiganSlavicMaterials,1966),9.OnthedatingoftheDonskoi
tales,seeCharlesJ.Halperin,TextandTextology:SalminasDatingoftheChronicleTalesabout
DmitriiDonskoi,SlavonicandEastEuropeanReview79:2(2001),24863.
8TheMedynAntiBanditryInstruction,August25,1555,inMuscoviteJudicialTexts

14881556,37.
9RichardHellie,EnserfmentandMilitaryChangeinMuscovy(Chicago:UniversityofChicago

Press,1971);idem,SlaveryinComparativePerspective,RussianHistory/HistoireRusse6:2
(1979),133209;andidem,SlaveryinRussia,14501725(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,
1982);NancyShieldsKollmann,ByHonorBound:StateandSocietyinEarlyModernRussia(Ithaca,
NY:CornellUniversityPress,1999);DanielH.Kaiser,TheSeasonalityofFamilyLifeinEarly
ModernRussia,ForschungenzurosteuropischenGeschichte46(1992),2150;EveLevin,Suppli
catoryPrayersasaSourceforPopularReligiousCultureinMuscoviteRussiainReligionandCul
tureinEarlyModernRussiaandUkraine,ed.SamuelH.BaronandNancyShieldsKollmann
(DeKalb,IL:NorthernUniversityPress,1997),96114;V.B.Kobrin,Vlastisobstvennostvsred
nevekovoiRossii(Moscow:Mysl,1985),16198;GeorgeG.Weickhardt,DueProcessandEqual
JusticeintheMuscoviteCodes,RussianReview51:4(1992),46380;idem,PrePetrineProp
ertyLaw,SlavicReview52:4(1993),66379;HoraceW.Dewey,JudgesandtheEvidencein
MuscoviteLaw,SlavonicandEastEuropeanReview36:86(1957),18994;idem,The1550
SudebnikasanInstrumentofReform,JahrbcherfrGeschichteOsteuropas10:2(1962),16180;

Page 7
ONWORDS,SOURCES,ANDHISTORICALMETHOD:WHICHTRUTHABOUTMUSCOVY?493
Poecitesasevidenceofthetsarsarbitrarypower,openswithadescriptionofthe
processofconsultationthatproducedthelawcodeandthewidepublicitythatit
wasgiven,withtheexplicitintentionofwinningsupportandlegitimacyforthe
newlaws.Evidently,thepubliclistened.Insubsequentyears,petitionerswould
remindthetsarthataccordingtoyourSobornoeUlozhenielawcode,acertain
processshouldhavebeenfollowedoracertainappealgranted.AlthoughPoe
dwellsonthefactthatnoMuscovitetextboundthetsartoobeyhisownlaws,
thelawsthemselvesharpedontheneedtofollowproperprotocolandprocedure,
andspelledouttherightsofappealforlitigantswhosecaseswerenotjudgedac
cordingtodueprocess.Whileitistruethatthetsarwasnotsubordinatedex
plicitlytohisownlawsandcouldviolatethematwill,mostpeopleencountered
thelawnotthroughthewhimofthetsar,butinthelessarbitraryandmorecon
trolledjudicialsystem,withitscomplexrulesandprocedures.Courtsandjudges
wereobligatedtofollowthelaw,orelsesuffertheconsequences.Inthe17thcen
tury,thecourtswereoverflowingwithcasesretriedortransferredonappeal,be
causeofsomeproceduralinfraction.Suchinsistentacknowledgementbythe
Muscovitesthemselvesoftheimportanceoflegalitymustbetakenseriously.
Theybelievedintheircourtsystemandlawsenoughtousethemandtoturn
legalstricturestotheirownadvantage.Thisisnotthebehaviorofslavesbound
byfearandunquestioningsubservience,butratherofsubjectsofalegitimatere
gime.TheseworkstakeusbeyondtheOrthodoxideologyofobediencetodi
vinelyordainedhierarchyandthefearfulmentalitythatPoeoffersusinexplana
tionoftheRussianssurprisingcomplianceandsubmissiveness.
Furthermore,oneshouldnotunderestimatethedegreetowhichtsarsand
grandprinceswereboundinveryrealwaysbycustomandtradition,andbycul
turalnorms,tofollowinthepathsoftheirforefathersandtorespectthestatus
andentitlementsoftheirsubjects.Weseethepowerofcustominthefewdocu
mentsinwhichMuscoviteelitesarticulatedaselfconscioussetofpoliticalprin
ciples:theconditionsissuedtoPrinceWadysawduringtheTimeofTroubles,
thetalesthatattemptedtomakesenseoftheTimeofTroubles,thepetitions
submittedduringthe1648riots.Intheseraremoments,boyarsandcourtactors
expressedacommitmenttocustom,whichshouldstandfirmagainsttsarist
meddlingunlesstheboyarsasawholeshouldconsenttoalteration.Muscovites
rarelyroseupandthrewoutalegitimateruler,butthisfactunderscorestheex
tenttowhichlegitimacywascrucialtosuccessfulrule,andlegitimacyhadtobe
won,orbought,throughconcessionstotheruledandconformitytotradition.
andmyMuscoviteCitizenship:RightswithoutFreedom,JournalofModernHistory(forthcom
ing);Cartography,AutocracyandStatePowerlessness:TheUsesofMapsinEarlyModernRus
sia,ImagoMundi51(1999),83105;AutocracyintheProvinces:RussianPoliticalCultureandthe
GentryintheSeventeenthCentury(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1997).

5/10
 Page 8
494
VALERIEA.KIVELSON
IhesitatetospeakforthevariegatedsetofHarvardSchoolhistorians,butI
suspectthateveryoneofthemwouldacknowledgethatthetsarscustomary
moralobligations,soconsistentlyinvokedbyMuscoviteritualandimagery,did
nothavethesameefficacyasformalinstitutionalorconstitutionallimitationson
hispower.Further,Iassumethatnonewoulddenythatcertaintsarsexercised
theirpowerinunbridledandarbitraryways,withIvantheTerribleofcourse
leadingthelist.Withinthecustomaryrestraintsofpiety,consultation,andpro
ceduralnorms,thetsarsdivinelygrantedauthoritycouldbecreativelyandself
servinglyinterpreted,hismoralconstraints,onoccasion,completelyignored,and
hispowervindictivelyanddestructivelyexercised.10Thisbringsustotheques
tionofcomparativemethod.
Poeshistoriographicreviewraisesimportantquestionsaboutcomparative
historyandaboutwhatconstitutesappropriateandproductiveunitsofcompari
son.PoereprovestheHarvardSchoolforitsproclivitytowardcomparative
thinking,butconstructshisowncomparisononthebasisofanunmeasurable
andultimatelyunquantifiableassessmentofthecrueltyorgeneralunpleasantness
ofrulers.HeisrightthatmostoftheHarvardSchoolersadmitahigherdegreeof
comparabilitythanthosewhowouldargueforaRussianSonderweg,buthevastly
overstateshisassertionthattheyrepresentMuscovyasidenticaltoWestern
monarchies.Comparisonhastobeundertakenwithcare,andtheappropriateor
relevantcomparisonwillnecessarilydifferdependingontheparticularproblem
athand.KollmannandRowlandlooktoearlymedievalEuropeformodelsof
consultativeandgodlyrule;MichaelCherniavskylookstotheRenaissancecourts
oftheBorgiasforcomparableexamplesofregalabuse;Iturntoearlymodern
newmonarchiesinexaminingtheriseandlimitationsoftheRomanovstate.
VictorLieberman,acomparativehistorianfromoutsidetheMuscovitefieldal
together,takesasweepingperspective,trackingthenearlysimultaneousriseand
fallofmedievalandearlymodernmonarchiesacrossallofEurasia.Eventhe
mosthostileofPoesWesterntravelerstoMuscovyfounditusefultoanalyzethe
regimeinfamiliarterms,pointingoutwhereEuropeanmodelsfitandwhere
theydidnot.GilesFletcher,forinstance,whilecallingtheRussianstatetyran
nical,devotedachaptertothemannerofholdingtheirparliaments,suggest
ingaproductiveuseofcomparison.11
Ineachofthesecases,thecomparisonsproveusefulandenlightening,but
imperfect,andintheirimperfections,theyrevealmuchabouttheparticularities
10DanielRowland,DidMuscoviteLiteraryIdeologyPlaceAnyLimitsonthePoweroftheTsar?
RussianReview49:2(1990),12556.
11GilesFletcher,OftheRusseCommonwealth,inRudeandBarbarousKingdom:Russian

AccountsofSixteenthCenturyEnglishVoyagers,ed.LloydE.BerryandRobertO.Crummey
(Madison,WI:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1968),13538.

Page 9
ONWORDS,SOURCES,ANDHISTORICALMETHOD:WHICHTRUTHABOUTMUSCOVY?495
ofeachsociety.Muscovysharedmanyimportantcharacteristicswithotherearly
modernmonarchies,notonlyinEuropebutacrossEurasia.Almostallearly
modernmonarchiesendowedtheirmonarchswithextraordinarypersonalpower
backedbytheologicallegitimacy.Spectacularpublicpunishmentdrawingand
quartering,headsonstakes,theusualgorymaterialofperiodmoviesservedto
undergirdandreinforceroyalpoweracrossEurope.LiketheMuscovitegrand
princesandtsars,Europeanmonarchstempereddisplaysofroyalwrathwith
equallytheatricaldisplaysofroyalclemency.Favoritism,corruption,andarbi
trarinesscharacterizedallearlymodernregimes.Shouldwethenconcludethat
MuscovywasidenticaltoEuropeanpowers?Certainlynot.Todosowouldbeto
abdicateourresponsibilityashistorianstoexploredifferenceswithincategoriesas
wellastoestablishthosecategoriesinthefirstplace.Comparisonisasusefulin
illuminatingdifferencesassimilarities,andanexerciseincomparisondoesnot
implyaquestforlikeness.Wecanadmitfamilyresemblancesamongearlymod
ernEurasianmonarchieswhilecarefullydifferentiatingamongthem.

6/10
Theuseofstarkdichotomies(East/West;Europeanornot?)doesadisservice
tothepursuitofthetruthaboutMuscovy.Thepainfulquestionofwhetheror
notRussiaresemblesagenericEuropehasbedeviledthestudyofRussianhis
toryforcenturies.Yesornoquestionslikethisdonotyieldproductiveanswers.I
wouldarguethatmoreinterestingquestionsprobethewaysinwhichparticular
societiesresolvedcommonissues.Forinstance,historianshavepolemicizedat
lengthoverthequestionofwhetherornotMuscovydevelopedaconceptofpri
vateproperty,andpolarizedconclusionshavefedintoahighstakesandhighly
politicizeddebateoverfreedom,individualism,communism,andRussianexcep
tionalism.MystudyofpropertyrightsasexpressedbyMuscovites,whohadno
ideaofwhatWesternrealestateclaimsmightlooklike,suggeststhattheseland
holdersworkedoutanidiosyncraticconceptofpropertyholdingthatdidnotfit
eitherendoftheclassicaleither/ordebate.Inspiteofthewidespreadpracticeof
conditionallandholdingandinspiteofgrandclaimsofeminentdomainbythe
tsar,Muscovitelandholdersmanifestedapowerfulattachmenttoprivateprop
erty,whichwasupheldincourtsandinlaw.Theirconventionsofprivate
propertyholding,however,differedfromWestEuropeantraditionsinsignificant
ways.Notably,thepresenceofserfsaspartofthepropertycastrealestateclaims
inanentirelydifferentlight.Settingasidetheexpectedoutcomes,onecanseea
systemoflandholdingthatallowedforstrongprivateclaims,whileaccom
modatingtoaMuscovitesystemofnestedhierarchiesandpossessionofhuman
beings.ThequestionofinteresthereisnotwhetherRussiawasorwasnotlike
theWest,butrather,howdidpropertyholdingworkinMuscovy,andwhatdoes
thattellusinturnaboutMuscoviteideasaboutpolitics,rights,freedom,and
society.

Page 10
496
VALERIEA.KIVELSON
InhisdiscussionoftheHarvardSchoolsallegedproclivityformakingRus
sialookidenticaltotheWest,Poeraisesanexamplespecificallyfrommywork,
soIwilltakethisopportunitytoclarifyanymisunderstanding.Hecharacterizes
myexplorationsofanascentcivilsocietyin17thcenturyMuscovyasaclaim
oflikenesstoaWesternprototype.Myargumentinthebookisactuallyquite
different.Thepremiseofthebookisthattheconceptofcivilsocietyisauseful
oneinraisingquestionsusuallynotaskedinMuscovitehistory,andspecifically
inencouragingustolookfornonstatecollectivitiesinavarietyofhistoricalset
tings.Uponcloseinvestigation,itturnsoutthatMuscovites,likeotherpeoples,
carvedoutautonomousspacesandindependentactivitieswithintheirautocratic
state,butthosesocialformationsandactivitiesweretheirown,notmoldedtoa
Westernpattern,ofwhichtheywereunaware.Idonotarguethat17thcentury
MuscovywasidenticaltoHabermass18thcenturyGermanyorEnglandorthat
aprovincialtownbrawlwasequivalenttoaLondoncoffeehousedebate.Todo
sowouldnotonlybeabsurd,butwouldobscurethefascinatingvarietyofways
inwhichhumansocietiescanimaginecollectivityandactivity.Myargument
doesnotattempttoresolveinblackandwhitethestatusofRussiaasEuropean
orOther,alikeordifferent,asifthoseweretheonlychoices.Ratheritrefusesthe
assumptionthatahistoricalsocietymustfitinaEuropeanmoldorelsebe
doomedtodarkandprimitivestasis.Muscovyproducedalternativemodesof
property,autonomy,anddynamism,andthusdestabilizesthatobfuscatoryand
unedifyingEast/Westdichotomy.
Whilehisdesignationofaschoolisquiteproductiveinsortingouthisto
riographictendencies,someofPoesaccusationsagainsthiscolleaguesmisrepre
senttheirscholarship.Forinstance,hecondemnsHarvardSchoolersfortheir
putativerefusaltoacceptthevalidityofforeignersaccounts.Heclaimsthatthese
scholarswillfullyignoretheforeignersaccountsandworkupspuriousjus
tificationsfortheiromissionbecausetheyareuncomfortablewiththeWestern
ersnegativeassessmentsofMuscovy.Nogoodhistorianacceptsasourceofany
kindwithoutsomedegreeofskepticalscrutiny.Ontheotherhand,noreason
ablehistorianwoulddismissaverifiablesourceoutofhand.Certainlythisisthe

7/10
balancedapproachtakenbytheindividualscholarsPoecriticizes.OftheHarvard
Schoolers,EdwardKeenandiscountstheforeignersreportsbecausetheir
experiencesinMuscovywerecircumscribedandstagedbyKremlinpropagan
dists.Noneoftheotherscanbeheldguiltyofdisregardingforeignersaccounts.
Instead,theyemployforeignerstestimonyjudiciously,settingasidethemore
tendentious,judgmentalaspectsoftheaccountsbuttakingseriouslytheirreports
onwhattheysaw.Athisbest,Poetooapproacheshissourcesrespectfullywhile
retainingskepticaldistancefromthejudgmentsandlabelstheypropose.Taking
seriouslyWesternersobservationsontheuntrammelednatureoftsaristrule,he

Page 11
ONWORDS,SOURCES,ANDHISTORICALMETHOD:WHICHTRUTHABOUTMUSCOVY?497
ponderswhatthedespotismtheysawwouldhavelookedlikefromtheinsideand
howMuscovitesthemselveswouldhavemadesenseofthepowerofthetsar.But
atothertimes,asinthispiece,hesetscautionaside,andturnsadeafeartowhat
hissourcesaresaying.Forinstance,heinvokesPaulofAleppo,aSyriancleric,to
showthatevennonEuropeanssawthetsarasadespot.However,whilePaul
describedthesameextraordinaryconcentrationofpowerinthehandsofthetsar
thatWesternerssaw(nodisputethere),heinterpreteditthroughanOrthodox
culturallens.HeapplaudedMuscovyasapraiseworthymanifestationofgodly
Christianrule.PaulprovidesakeytounlockingthepuzzlesoftheMuscovite
system,asPoehimselfunderstands.Inhisbook,heobserves:
PaulwasnotaEuropean,andthushedidnotcometoRussiawiththe
samementalfurnitureasdidmensuchas[theFrenchmanJacques]
Margeret.TheEuropeantravelersbroughttoRussiaabstractpolitical
scientificideastyranny,despotism,absolutemonarchythat
theyused,consciouslyorunconsciously,toconceptualizeMuscovite
monarchyPaulwasunlikelytohavebeenfamiliarwithanysuchpo
liticalscientifictext.Thetwovisitors,inessence,sawthesamething,but
theyinterpreteditthroughdifferentconceptuallenses.12
Sincetheaccusationofdespotismisamoralone,surelythemoralandcul
turalframeworkinwhichasocietyoperatesaffectswhetherornotthelabel
shouldapplytoagivenregime.Arulerwhoreignedaccordingtotraditionand
custom,inthiscase,OrthodoxtraditionandMuscovitecustom,andwhosesub
jectsreadilyconferredlegitimacyonhisregime,cannotbesaidtohavereigned
arbitrarily.Asnotedearlier,thequalityofarbitrarinessisnecessarytodistinguish
despotismfromautocracy,butthisispreciselytheelementthatdropsoutof
Poesexpansivedefinition.Poespresenteagernesstoseedespotismatwork
blindshimtotheimportofhisownpreviousinsights.
OneofPoesmostintriguing,butmostbizarre,contributionsinthispieceis
hisprofferedattemptatpsychopoliticalexplanationoftheviewsofhisHarvard
School.Inaconvolutedpassage,heexplainsthataleftsympathizing,antiCold
WarreactionspurredSoviethistoriansandtheHarvardSchooltoden[y]the
truthaboutMuscovy(485).Europhilicandxenophobic,theseidealistsfelt
compelledtoprovideRussiawithaproper,andhenceEuropeanlike,history,in
ordertodenyitsfundamentalstrangenessandotherness.Thisargumentisun
characteristicallyillogical.ItistruethatKeenanspictureofaconsensuallybased
governmentprovidedwelcomerelieftothetotalitarianmodelsthattendedtoslip
backwardsfromStalinismtoMuscovyduringthehighyearsoftheColdWar.
ButKeenanscontribution,andwhatmadeitsoattractivetootherhistorians,
12 Poe,APeopleBorntoSlavery,146.

Page 12
498
VALERIEA.KIVELSON
wasnotthathemadeMuscovylookliketheWest,butratherthatheexplained
Muscovyinitsownterms.Inthistradition,HarvardSchoolersseektoidentify
andunderstandaMuscovitelogic.
ItistheDespotismSchoolthatholdsMuscovytoaWesternmeasuring

8/10
stick.Theyofferusachoiceofonlytwopossibleoutcomesinhistoricaldevel
opment:asuccessfulone,thestandardearlymodernWesternmonarchy;anda
failedone,whichdoesnotmatchtheirimaginedstandardmodel.Thisdichot
omyisflawedatbothends.Thestandardmodelthattheyofferasthenorm
requiresustoimagineauniform,lawabidingWest,anachronisticallycommitted
toEnlightenmentprinciplesinapreEnlightenmentage.Thefailedalternative
presumesthatasocietywoulddeviatefromWesternpracticesonlyasanaberra
tion.IncastingMuscovyasafailedeffortatastandardmonarchy,theydeny
thatanyhistoricalsocietycouldorderitsvaluesystemandpoliticalimagination
inwaysthatfundamentallydifferedfromthoseoftheirownimaginedWest.
AsPoenotes,KeenanssignalcontributioninhisPoliticalFolkwayspiece
wastolegitimizethenotionthatMuscovitesdevelopedtheirown,suigenerispo
liticalculture,profoundlydifferentfromthoseofitsWestEuropeancounter
parts,butwithequallypersuasiveinternallogicandwithequallyeffectivedomes
ticramifications.Whilehistoricalinvestigationhasmovedonintheintervening
decadesandhasdivergedinsignificantwaysfromKeenansoriginalformulation,
thatcontributionretainsitsfreshnessanditsimportance.Itwouldbeashameif,
forthesakeofargument,Poereplacedhisnuancedinterpretationwithintem
peratepolemicanddrownedoutKeenanslegacyoflisteningattentivelytothe
voicesofthecultureitself.
Towardtheendofhispiece,PoeresuscitatesKeenansideaofapessimistic
estimationofmanandskirtsonHelliesneurobiologicaltheoriesofaprimitive
ethnostoexplaintheRussianswillingnesstoaccepttyrannicalrule.Ifthe
amorphousHarvardSchoolsharesanything,Iwouldimagineitwouldbea
commitmenttosettingasidesuchinvidious,valueladen,andunprovableas
sumptionsabouttheRussiansoulorsynapsesandturninginsteadtothehard
butfruitfulworkofexploringMuscovitesideasaboutthepoliticaluniversein
whichtheylivedandthewaystheymadesenseoftheharshsocioeconomicin
equitiesandtheologicalimperativesthatshapedtheirworld.
Insum,PoesquestforthetruthaboutMuscovyaccomplishestwogoals,
oneuseful,andonedistinctlylessfruitful.Onthepositiveside,hehassetouta
sensiblehistoriographicframeworkforsortingthroughthemajorcurrentsin
MuscovitehistoryinAmericanacademiccirclesoverthelastseveraldecades.
Withhisusualperspicacity,hehasidentifiedaschoolortrendwherethepartici
pantsthemselvesmightnothaveacknowledgedone,andhehascharacterized
someofthedominantmodelsandapproachesthatunifytheirwork.Lesspro

Page 13
ONWORDS,SOURCES,ANDHISTORICALMETHOD:WHICHTRUTHABOUTMUSCOVY?499
ductiveishisresuscitationofthetermdespotism,eveninitsredefined,attenu
ated,kinder,gentlerform.Withhisbroadeneddefinitionofdespotism,hein
effectendorsesmostoftheimportantcontributionsoftheHarvardSchool.In
fact,withhisattackontheHarvardSchool,heactuallyacceptstheessenceof
theirargumentsbutcloakshisacceptanceascriticism.Wherehepartscompany
withthemisinhisuseofthedespotismlabel.Twistingthedefinitionbeyond
utilityorrecognition,herestsatthelevelofrepresentation,andimage.Hestops
shortofdelvingintothepracticaloperationsoftheMuscovitestateandsociety.
Surelyitwouldbefarmoreusefultosetasidethebusinessoflabeling,andin
steadtoworktofigureoutwhatcombinationofideology,cooptation,rewards,
coercion,fear,andprocessmadeMuscovytick.
Dept.ofHistory
UniversityofMichigan
1029TischHall
AnnArbor,MI481091003USA
vkivelso@umich.edu

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?
q=cache:CsBdtZMCvQMJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

9/10
ensuite pour le rsultat en pdf :
more=>view as html
tu regardes dans les rsultats le bon (probablement le
14:18:17 ffx
premier), tu cliques sur "all (x) versions"
14:17:29 ffx tu tapes le titre de ton article

14:17:21 ffx tu vas sur scholar.google.com

10/10