Alexey Mikhailovich: The Quietest Sovereign of the Rebellious Age or On the Threshold of the Empire

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, a change in ideas about the nature of royal power occurs. The correspondence of Russian realities to the Byzantine cultural standard comes to the fore.
Historian E.V. Skripkina

Time as an ally

Article "The Tragedy of Boris Godunov, or: The Tsar is "not real"!" We stopped at the death of False Dmitry. In the popular imagination, he was seen as a sacrilegious tsar playing, not deserving of a Christian burial, or rather, not deserving of burial at all.

The fate of his remains is well known. As is the election of Mikhail Fedorovich to the throne by the Zemsky Sobor, which became the starting point associated with overcoming the Time of Troubles – at least at the level of ideas formed from school days.

Although the tragic fate of his predecessors did not give the first Romanov peace on the throne. One can understand him. Elected by the Zemsky Sobor? So were Godunov and Shuisky. But in the eyes of the common people this meant little: not "natural" tsars, therefore impostors.

Boris Godunov understood that the threat of being considered illegitimate in the eyes of the people was quite real, and he tried to raise the status of his family. Surprisingly, Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov would be concerned with the same thing at the end of his life. Both elected sovereigns would strive to marry their daughters to natural-born sovereigns, in order to create a new quality of dynasty, securing the legitimacy of their rights to the throne,
– writes medievalist A.L. Yurganov

Neither of them had any luck with the latter.

However, time was on Mikhail's side. Starting from the Deulino truce, twenty-seven years of peace, if you do not count the Smolensk war, and even that did not look so losing in terms of political consequences: Vladislav renounced his claims to the Russian throne, rule, the reluctance of essentially all categories of the population to repeat the Time of Troubles, the need to restore the country gradually strengthened the position of the Romanovs, largely due to their support from the provincial nobility, whose military and political role began to grow.

Accordingly, when Alexei Mikhailovich ascended the throne in 1645, his legitimacy was not questioned.

The new dynasty became so strong that

Any hint, writes the leading expert on the era, military historian O. A. Kurbatov, of imposture or “intent” against the royal family was persecuted and severely punished (“Word and Deed: State”).

But the sovereign, as well as the entire century, was unlucky with the assessment of his descendants.

Until recently, in Russian historiography, the autocrat nicknamed the Quietest was overshadowed by the deeds of his eccentric son. There were false ideas about Russia in the 17th century: a sleepy kingdom, jackdaws on the snow-covered domes of churches, portly boyars dozing at Duma sessions, yawning clerks in office huts with cobwebs on the windows, and also riflemen with berdyshes and red caps askew.

It was into this world that Peter burst in, in German dress, with his sleeves rolled up and smoking a pipe.

In the new millennium, a galaxy of military historians is fruitfully working to destroy ideas that are far removed from the realities of the Age of Revolt.

First of all, this concerns the subject of wars and the development of the Armed Forces. We are talking about O.A. Kurbatov, A.V. Malov, A.N. Lobin, N.V. Smirnov, V.S. Velikanov. The materials of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, previously inaccessible to both researchers and the general public, introduced by them into scientific circulation significantly correct the ideas about the era of Alexei Mikhailovich and about him himself.

Between two worlds

We will pay attention to the following: the earthly path of the Quietest One ran through the boundary of two worlds. For when he was born, there were still alive, albeit very old men, who remembered the times of Ivan the Terrible and who had already witnessed the weak echo of pre-Mongol Rus', which had almost dissolved in the realities of the centralized state, brilliantly reflected in the epistolary legacy of A. Kurbsky.

At the time of Alexei Mikhailovich’s death, Peter was in his fourth year, and those who would build with him the building of the Petersburg Empire, which still causes so much controversy today, were also growing up.

"Foreign envoys in the Ambassadorial Office". Painting by V.G. Schwartz

In fact, the empire, only the Muscovite one, was started by the Quietest. It is important to emphasize here: in the article “The Terrible: Tsarist Service on the Edge of the Abyss,” we talked about Ivan Vasilyevich’s perception of autocratic power as a katechon – at least, this is how the historian D.M. Volodikhin writes about it – on the eve of the end of the earthly stories and the coming of the Antichrist.

Let me remind you: our ancestors then thought in terms of “clean” and “unclean” lands, and eschatological expectations seemed to them to be as obvious a reality as fallen leaves outside the window seem to us today.

This kind of worldview gave rise to cultural isolationism, when it would never have occurred to the tsar to make a tour to a neighboring “unclean” – and there were no other – country.

Moreover, cultural isolationism has become so deeply ingrained in the flesh and blood of the Russian collective unconscious – I, of course, mean this in a cultural, not a narrowly ethnic sense – that a certain part of our society does not want to overcome it to this day.

With truly imperial scope

However, it was Alexei Mikhailovich who began to destroy the corresponding barriers with Europe, without eroding Russian cultural and religious identity, except perhaps by supplementing it with the Byzantine one, which represented, albeit with a number of insignificant reservations, the matrix of Russian culture.

As a geopolitician, he thought no less broadly than his son:

Moscow has established itself as the Orthodox capital, and at this stage the concept of Moscow as the Third Rome acquires not a theocratic but a political meaning. This presupposes a rejection of cultural isolationism and a return to the idea of ​​a universal Orthodox empire. Accordingly, the Byzantine cultural heritage becomes relevant again. Alexei Mikhailovich strives in principle for the revival of the Byzantine Empire with its center in Moscow as a universal monarchy uniting all Orthodox Christians into a single state. The Russian tsar must now not only occupy the place of the Byzantine emperor, but also become one,
– writes the outstanding philologist B.A. Uspensky.

In light of what Boris Andreevich said and in the context of our previous conversations about the reign of the first Russian autocrat, the difference between Ivan the Terrible and the Quietest is clearly visible. The former viewed his political task as overcoming the separatism of the aristocracy and the sacred one, expressed in the symbolism of the oprichnina palace, as preparation for the meeting of the Savior, who, according to the sovereign's hopes, should come to Alexandrov Sloboda.

Yes, a remark: understanding that the above statement may raise questions and even criticism, I recommend a very interesting study – a doctoral dissertation, published as a monograph – by A. L. Yurganov “Categories of Russian Medieval Culture”, on the pages of which and within the framework of scientific methodology the symbolism of the Oprichny Palace in Aleksandrova Sloboda is analyzed in detail.

But Alexei Mikhailovich has a broader scope. A truly imperial one. The revival of the Eastern Roman Empire, albeit in a different geographical space, but within the framework of the concept of Translatio imperii – “transfer of the empire”. See the reflections of the historian S. Devochkin, cited in the article dedicated to the tragedy of the Godunovs.

The Quietest One thought in the corresponding paradigm of Translatio imperii. The Empire in its true dimension exists only within the framework of the supranational messianic idea.

In this regard, publicist V.V. Kozhinov is right:

The Byzantine Empire can therefore be quite appropriately defined as an ideocratic (meaning the power of Orthodox ideas) state; meanwhile, the West is characterized by what should be defined by the term nomocracy – the rule of law (from the Greek nomos – law); from this point of view, Asian societies can be appropriately defined by the term “ethocracy” (from the Greek etos – custom).

And if the messianic idea as a whole was alien to Ivan the Terrible, and his conquest of the fragments of the Golden Horde should be thought of, in my opinion, within the framework of a survival strategy rather than expansionism based on messianism, then Alexei Mikhailovich saw it as a kind of guiding star in foreign policy, which we will discuss in the next article.

Yes, regarding Ivan the Terrible: another remark that requires some digression from the topic; I will nevertheless clarify, anticipating the possibility of criticism in my address in the context of the question: isn’t the conquest of the Siberian and Kazan khanates an example of the implementation of precisely the imperial messianic idea?

I think that, in general, no. The fight against Kuchum was waged not so much by the Russian state as by the Stroganov clan, which financed Yermak's campaign and was guided by purely economic interests.

As for Kazan, it seems to me not entirely correct to see in its conquest the realization of a messianic idea, especially considering the rather rapid incorporation of the Tatar (this, however, concerns all fragments of the Golden Horde that found themselves under the scepter of the two-headed eagle, not only the Kazan people) Muslim elite into the Russian one, while preserving the former's religious and cultural identity.

A striking example is the fate of Kuchum’s nephew, the talented military leader Mametkul, as well as the actions of the Tatar and Bashkir Islamic, as well as Buddhist Kalmyk, detachments in the tsarist army.

By comparison, after the end of the Reconquista, there were virtually no Muslims left in Spain. And this despite the fact that in the Middle Ages, the Pyrenees, under the rule of first the Cordoban and then the Granadan emirs, were a pillar of not only culture and education in the world of Islam, but also in the vastness of Europe as a whole.

But – back to the Quietest. It is appropriate to compare him, who returned the lands that were once part of Kievan Rus, with Justinian, who restored the political space of Pax Romana.

A century will pass, and Catherine II will give this idea a different content within the framework of the Greek project and by reviving Eastern Rome on its original lands, setting the goal of driving the Ottomans to the borders of Asia Minor. But the idea, which was never realized, would have been unthinkable without the development of the corresponding geopolitical concept of Alexei Mikhailovich.

For the incorporation of the Orthodox territories located in the Dnieper basin into Russia inevitably awakened hopes among the Christian peoples of the Balkans, especially the Bulgarians, who had once exerted a significant influence on the formation of Russian culture, to take up the legacy of a contemporary of Dmitry Donskoy and a friend of St. Sergius of Radonezh – Metropolitan Cyprian, formally of Kyiv, but essentially of Moscow.

Accordingly, the reunification with Little Russia posed new challenges for our state – much more ambitious than in the 16th century.

In fact, even earlier, the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius, who visited Moscow in 1649, called on Alexei Mikhailovich to liberate the Balkan Christians who were under the Sultan’s rule:

The Holy Trinity bless your sovereign kingdom, may it multiply you above all kings and show you as a winner and conqueror over your visible and invisible enemies, as well as the ancient and new kings - King David, King Hezekiah and the great King Constantine, may it strengthen you and multiply your years in the depths of old age, may it safely grant you to receive the most exalted throne of the great King Constantine, your great-grandfather, may you free the people of pious and Orthodox Christians from the hands of the wicked, from the fierce beasts that devour mercilessly; may you be a new Moses, may you free us from captivity, as he freed the sons of Israel from the hands of Pharaoh with the rod, the sign of the honorable life-giving cross.

And if Ivan the Terrible, as we remember from previous conversations, tried on biblical allusions to himself, then in relation to the Most Quiet, this is done by the head of one of the Eastern Churches, as if handing him a staff that fell from the hands of the last Byzantine emperor - also Constantine.

Here we smoothly move on to adjusting ideas about royal power – both by the sovereign himself and by his subjects.

B.A. Uspensky emphasizes an important detail:

Russian traditions are seen as provincial and insufficient, hence the positive attitude towards the Greeks, who can be perceived as bearers of the Byzantine cultural tradition.

By way of Caesaropapism

Parting with provincialism, turning to the Byzantine heritage, Alexei Mikhailovich reproduces the mysticism of the service of the Eastern Roman basileuses, taking communion, as did his son Theodore later, during the coronation of the throne in the altar, which, according to the canons of the Church, only priests can do, but was carried out by emperors in Constantinople.

For some of my esteemed readers who are far from religion, the Communion of the Tsar at the altar may not seem important. However, in the context of the categories of medieval culture – in the 17th century they were not completely eradicated – this step of the monarch was not only religious, but also political in nature, demonstrating the triumph on Russian soil of the Caesaropapist idea, within the framework of which the autocrat took upon himself the functions of Pontifex maximus, once inherent to the Roman emperors, only with a different content.

However, the policy of Caesaropapism, characteristic of the basileus, was implemented by Alexei Mikhailovich in quite mundane steps: for example, in the creation of the Monastic Order, which was in charge of church property and caused a protest from Patriarch Nikon.

Regarding the Caesaropapism that existed in the Eastern Roman Empire: as a counterargument, I can cite the idea of ​​the same Justinian about the symphony of powers – spiritual and secular. However, in practice, nothing like this ever happened in the history of Eastern Rome or Russia. And it could not have happened.

An important remark in the context of the statement of the Caesaropapist nature of power in Russia in the 17th century: as is well known, the opposite of it is papocaesarism, which is more characteristic of the relationship of the Roman pontiff with some monarchs of Western Europe than of the Russian state.

However, an argument in favor of the latter regarding the political realities of the Russian Tsardom of the Age of Revolt can be, on the one hand, the title of the patriarchs Philaret and Nikon - "Great Sovereign", on the other - the so-called procession on a donkey on Palm Sunday, when the tsar led by the bridle a horse stylized as a donkey, on which the first hierarch sat.

"Palm Sunday in Moscow under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Procession on a Donkey." Painting by V.G. Schwartz

It would seem that in such a visible way, in the language of a symbol, the primacy of spiritual power over secular power was demonstrated, or more precisely, the claim of the former to take upon itself the prerogatives of the latter, that is, papocaesarism. Everyone knows from school Nikon's comparison of royal power with the moon, and patriarchal power with the sun, which has become a textbook example.

However, the sources do not give us sufficient grounds to see in Philaret’s title a diminution of Michael’s royal prerogatives:

As the discharge records show, - writes historian D. P. Isaev, based on an analysis of archival materials, - Mikhail Fedorovich sent sovereign letters, often independently instructed on military issues. For example, he ordered the governors to go to certain places of service. And this is a significant part of governance. Also, local disputes in the Tsar's Court were mainly considered by the Tsar.

Well, where Nikon's papal ambitions ultimately led is well known. Under Feodor Alekseevich, the procession on a donkey no longer carried any political meaning, and Peter I abolished it altogether, along with the patriarchate.

New Constantine on the Moscow throne

Gradually, not only the people's consciousness, but also the intellectual elite began to sacralize the image of the monarch, giving him imperial and biblical features in the Roman understanding. More than anyone else, Simeon Polotsky worked in this field, comparing the Quietest with Constantine the Great and even with Solomon: "The beauty of it (the Russian kingdom - I.Kh.) can be powerfully equaled by Solomon's beautiful palace."

Monument to Simeon in Polotsk

Here it is appropriate to recall the unsuccessful attempt of Godunov, noted in the previous article and condemned by the famous publicist and clerk Ivan Timofeev, to erect a temple dedicated to Solomon in order to demonstrate in the language of a symbol the transformation of Moscow into the New Jerusalem, and to compare himself - here, of course, I am stepping on the ground of assumptions, allowing for my part the possibility of an incorrect interpretation of Boris's motivation - with the biblical king.

But, as in the example with the Jerusalem Patriarch, it is Alexei Mikhailovich who is honored with such flattering comparisons.

Moreover, in Polotsky’s poetry and works addressed to the Quietest One:

the king, - writes philosopher M.S. Kiseleva, - is symbolized by an eagle. As a baroque concept of royal power, the eagle visualizes state power in heraldry. Its image contains an important allegorical meaning: the king is an eagle, for, like an eagle its children, in the sun, so teaches everyone to look at Christ.

Such ideas about the sacred status of the tsarist power, formed in the consciousness of Alexei Mikhailovich and becoming part of his political thinking, inevitably had to be reflected in foreign policy, the contours of which we have outlined, but we will talk about the ways of their implementation in the next material.

And finally, one more remark: in the previous article, dedicated to Godunov, I forgot to add a list of references. I am correcting myself and especially recommend to my esteemed readers the work of D.G. Khrustalev about False Dmitry, based on a scientific analysis of the investigative case, connected with the Uglich tragedy.

It will become clear from it why in our conversations, both about Ivan the Terrible and about Godunov, I devote so much attention to the infernal theme: the hostage dead, the expectation of the end of the world, etc.

Ultimately, in order to understand both the logic and the essence of the events that took place in the Middle Ages and the New Age, one must find oneself, as the outstanding cultural scientist Yu. M. Lotman wrote, having appropriately named one of his remarkable books, inside the thinking worlds.

References

Devochkin S. The Ottomans are the heirs of Byzantium?
Dushechkina E.V. "The Strict Joy of Contemplation." Articles on Russian Culture. Moscow: New Literary Review, 2022.
Isaev D.P. On the question of the nature of the co-government of Mikhail Feodorovich and Filaret (1619 – 1633).
Kiseleva M.S. War, Faith and Power in the Cultural Context of the Muscovite Kingdom in the 50s–70s: Simeon Polotsky and Yuri Krizhanich.
Kozhinov V.V. History of Rus' and the Russian Word. Moscow: "Mediarost", 2023.
Skripkina E.V. Yuri Krizhanich on the autocratic power of the Russian sovereign.
Skripkina E.V. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich – “The New Constantine”: The Byzantine Model of Power in Russian Practice in the Third Quarter of the 17th Century.
Bibliography for the article "The Tragedy of Boris Godunov, or: The Tsar is "not real"!"
Batalov A.L. The Holy Sepulchre in the design of Boris Godunov's "Holy of Holies".
Vinogradov A.V. Russian-Crimean relations during the second reign of Khan Ghazi Giray II 1597 – 1607.
Uspensky B.A. Tsar and Emperor. Anointing to the Tsardom and Semantics of Monarchic Titles. Moscow: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 2000.
Uspensky B.A. Semiotics of History. Semiotics of Culture // Selected Works. Vol. 1. Moscow: “Languages ​​of Russian Culture”, 1996.
Khrustalev D.G. The Death of Tsarevich Dmitry. Essays on Politics and Sorcery of the Late 2022th Century. St. Petersburg: "Kriga", XNUMX.
Yurganov A.L. Categories of Russian medieval culture. Moscow: MIROS, 1998.