Khan or Basileus: An Aspect of Russian Mediaeval Political Theory Author(s): Michael Cherniavsk y Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1959), pp. 459-476 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707886 . Accessed: 22/10/2011 18:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Pennsylvania Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Ideas. http://www.jstor.org
KHAN OR BASILEUS: AN ASPECT OF RUSSIANMEDIAEVAL POLITICAL THEORY
BY MICHAEL CHERNIAVSKY
Every historian nterestedn Russia has to deal with one of themost vivid and fundamentalfacts of Russian history: the TatarYoke, when the largerportionof Russia was conquered n the thir-teenth entury,nd remainedforovertwocenturies, e jure at least,a provinceof an Asiatic empire. Completelywithinthe area con-queredby the Tatars or Mongolswas northeastRussia, the founda-tion of the later Muscovite tsardom and of Imperial Russia. The
historiansof Russia generally nterpret he Mongol conquest andyokeas a diabolusex machina, n externalfactor,which nterruptedor distorted henatural, nternal ogicofRussian historicaldevelop-ment. As such the Tatar Yoke was mainly significantor ts impli-cations n laterRussian history;the chiefhistoriographicuest wasto find ut in whatwayand to whatextent t actually nterruptedrdistortedRussian history. Underlyinghisprocedurewas, ofcourse,the particularview each historianhad of the patternand logic of
Russian history s a whole." A corollary f this view of the his-toriographyorRussia's thirteenth,ourteenth,nd fifteenthentu-ries is a relativepaucity of works on the Tatar state and Tatar-Russianrelations; a corollary, ecausethere eemsto have prevaileda vague desireto getridof,to by-pass, hewholeproblem s quicklyas possible, nd to getback to the " naturalcourse ofRussian his-tory o matter owbadly thad become istortedythe ong nter-ruption.
The concern f the presentpaper is to deal withonlyone aspectof thegeneralproblem fthe Tatar Yoke and thechanges nRussiansocietyand life inducedby it. What consequencesdid it have for
1An excellentummaryftheopinionsf thegreathistorianss givennV. D.Grekovnd A. I. Iakubovskii,olotaiaOrda ee padenie TheGoldenHordeandIts Fall] (Moscow, 950),247-61. Threeviews re in evidence: hat theTatarconquestmeant general arbarizationKaramzin, estuzhev-Riumin,latonovinthe ense f solation,s well s theByzantinistsiakonov ndSavva); that he
Tatars contributedo the political nd administrativenificationKliuchevsky,Kostomarov,he urist ergeevichnd the Marxist okrovsky); inally,hattheYokewasof ittlemportanceSoloviev, ozhkov, nd, nparticular,hegreatRus-sian historianf the20th entury,resniakov).
2The first erious tudywas thecollectionfsources n theGoldenHorde n-cludingts Russian elationsdited yBaronV. G. Tizengausen,bornikmaterialovotnosiashchikhsiaistorii olotoiOrdy CollectionfSources eferringotheHis-toryof the GoldenHorde], (St. Petersburg,884), I (Leningrad, 941). B.Spuler's ie Goldene orde Leipzig, 943)doesnot concentratenTatar-Russianrelations rimarily;hethreemajorworks nownomeareall very ecent:A. N.
Nasonov,MongolyRus' [TheMongolsndRussia] (Moscow, 940); Grekov ndIakubovskii,p. cit.; and G. Vernadsky,he Mongols nd Russia (New Haven,1953).
Russia's imageof herruler, he GrandPrinceand laterTsar ofRussia? To answerhis nemust tart y askingwhatwas themed-iaevalRussian mageof the ruler? Whatmodels frulership ereavailable?
The traditionalnd largely orrectnterpretationas beenthat,formediaeval ussia, hesuprememage fabsolute ower ndrulewastheByzantine mperor,hebasileus,he " tsar." From hemo-mentof St. Vladimir's aptism heRussianstate entered he Uni-versalChristian mpire, ivingunder ne holy emperor,he imageofGodonearth, hesource forthodoxynd law and thusof salva-tion. During heensuing enturies, hateverhepolitical ealitiesmight e, Russians cknowledgedhe egitimacyfat leastthe pirit-ual or eschatologicalovereigntyfthe basileus.3The dialectic fthis acknowledgmentas finally ompletedfter he fall of Con-stantinoplendthedeathofthe ast RomanEmperor n its walls,whenMoscow theThirdRome) anditsorthodoxuler cquired,nRussian yes, heprerogativesftheformermpire.4
3The problemfdeterminingn detail ustwhat mage heRussians ad ofthe
emperorndhowmuch f tthey ccepted t differentimess a very omplexne.MuchofByzantine olitical heology as unknowno theRussians r, fknown,incomprehensible.he letter f theEmperor ohn antacuzenen 1347toGrandPrince imeon heProud, uoting he atter, robablyxpressedhegeneral ndrather agueRussian iew ftherole ftheemperor: Yes,as youwrote,heEm-pire ofthe Romans nd the mostholygreatChurch fGodarethesources fallpiety ndtheschool fsanctityndlawgiving." . Miklosichnd I. Muller,ActapatriarchatusonstantinopolitaniVienna, 860), , 263. Despite ll theattemptsat ideologicalebellion,asil II, as late as 1451-2, fter heUnion of Florence,whichmarked heapostasy f theByzantines,nd on the eveoftheempire's all,
acknowledgedn detailthesupremacyf theemperormpliedn Simeon's tate-ment. Cf. letter f Basil II to Emperor onstantineI, Russkaia storicheskaiaBibliotekaSt. Petersburg,880), VI, no. 71,p. 575. On thegeneral roblemfRussianrelationswith and views of Byzantium,ee F. Ternovskii,zucheniievizantiiskoistorii eiia tendentsioznoerilozhenie drevnei usi [The StudyofByzantine istorynd ts Tendential pplicationnAncient ussia] (Kiev,1875);M. A. Diakonov,Vlast'MoskovskikhosudareiThePower ftheMuscoviteov-ereigns]St.Petersburg,889); V. Val'denberg,revnerusskiecheniia predelakhtsarskoi lasti Old-Russianeachingsn theLimits fTsarist ower] Petrograd,
1916); A. A.Vasiliev, WasOld Russia VassalStateofByzantium? Speculum,VII (1932),350-360;C. Chernousov,K voprosu vlianii izantiiskogoravanadrevneisheeusskoe" " On the Problem f the Influencef Byzantine aw onthe EarliestRussian ], Vizantiiskoe bozrenie Iurev, 1916), II, 303-322; I.Rev'enko, A Neglected yzantineourceofMuscovite olitical deology," ar-vardSlavicStudies I (1954),141-181.
4 Theamount f iteraturen this ubjects considerablendrepetitive. ee H.Schaeder, oscaudasDritteRom(Hamburg,929);V.Malinin,tarets leasorovamonastyriailofei egoposlaniiaTheElderoftheEleazarMonastery,hilotheusand hisEpistles] (Kiev, 1901); I. Sev'enko, IntellectualRepercussionsf the
Council f Florence," hurchHistory, XIV (1955), 291-323;M. Cherniavsky," TheReceptionftheCouncil fFlorencenMoscow,"bid., 47-359.
Thoughthe basileus determinedhe imageof rulership ormedi-aeval Russia, this did not necessarilymean that the Russians alsoacknowledgedhis sovereigntyver them; on the contrary,imeandagain, Russian princesusurped the privilegesof the emperor. InKievan Russia, princesweresometimesportrayed s Byzantinepa-tricians r despots,hierarchicmembers ftheuniversalChristian o-ciety,and sometimesportrayedn the garb and with the regalia ofthe emperors hemselves.5 The coins of Kievan Russia, patternedon Byzantinemoney,show the Russian princein the place of thebasileus.6 Finally, n the liturgy f the eleventhand twelfth entu-ries the name of the Russian princefrequently eplacesthat of theemperorn thediptychs-thecommemorationists-where thepriestpraysfor nd glorifiesheruler nd all Christendom.7But thisveryusurpationof the formal nd basic attributes f rulership-regalia,coinage, iturgy-is in itselfthe best proofof the poweremanatingfrom he imageof the basileus. Recogniitionnd usurpation reated,withinthe image of the ruler, tension whichfound ts expressionin the inconsistencyfthe Russian view itself.
The same inconsistencyppearsperhapsevenmorecrudelywhenthe Russian acknowledgment ould be exploitedafter1453, whenthereno longerwas a Byzantine-Roman mperor,while the vacantthronewhichremained foras longas the world asted " demandeda basileus.8
5SeeN. P. Kondakov,zobrazhenieusskoi niazheskoiem'iv miniaturakhIveka [TheRepresentationfa Russian rincelyamilyn Miniatures fthe11thCentury] St. Petersburg,906); Kondakov,RusskieKlady [RussianTreasure-
Troves] St. Petersburg,896), , 61f.;Russlkierevnosti pamiatnikakhskustva
[RussianAntiquitiesnMonumentsf Art], d. I. A. Tolstoi nd N. P. Kondakov,vol. III, fig.166,vol. IV, 35f.;A. Grabar, Les fresques es escaliersa Sainte-Sophiede Kiev et l'iconographiemperiale yzantine,"eminariumondakovia-num,VII (1935),103-119.
6A.V. Oreshnikov,enezhnyienaki omongol'skoiusi Moneys fPre-MongolRussia],TrudyGos. Istor.muzeia Moscow, 936); see also Oreshnikov,usskieMonety o 1547 goda [RussianCoins till1547], mp.Ross. Ist. Muzei,OpisaniePamiatnikov (St. Petersburg910),1-5,pl. I., hereaftereferredoas Monety.
7Diakonov, p. cit., 4,note2, argues, n the basisofthree re-Tatarmissals,
that thenameof theemperor as usually mitted rom he iturgy; f.also A.Gorskiind K. Nevostruev,pisanie lavianskikhukopisei oskovskoiinodal'noibibliotekiDescriptionfManuscriptsf theMoscow ynodal ibrary] Moscow,1894), II: 1, p. 2f.,p. 250f. Consideringhe aterhistory f thediptychs,ow-ever, hisargumentrom ilences not very onvincing. n diptychsn Easternliturgy,eeI. M. Hanssens,nstitutionesiturgicaeeRitibusOrientalibusRome,1932), II, 1340-1, 354-5.
8The monkPhilotheos,deologue f Moscowthe ThirdRome,expressedhisidea most learly; f.Malinin, p.cit.,Appendix,0f. tpassim.FortheByzantine
conceptionf he mperor,ee0. Treitinger,ie Ostromischeaiser- ndReichsidee
(Jena,1938). The Russiansnever cknowledgedhe mperial oleor position f
The steps whichthe Russian GrandPrincetooktoward histhronewereslow and hesitant. Far morefrequentlyhanin the
Kievanperiod o theprayer-booksontain prayer or heemperorwhennfact herewasno enmperor;nd onlywith hecoronationfIvan IV as Tsar, n 1547,does the confusionn the diptychsease.9Titulaturehows he ameambivalence. t is true, imitrii onskoiis called sar npraise orhis victoryver heTatarsat Kulikovon1380,butthetitlereferso his tsarlike ualities nd achievementsrather han ohis actual tatus.10 he fallfrom race f theByzan-tineEmpire t the Council f Florence nd ts final all n 1543does
notresultna consistentdoption fthe mperialitle nthepartoftheGrandPrince. Onlywith he reign f Basil III (1505-1533)doRussian"schoolmen,"writing or nternal onsumption,egintocall the GrandPrince "tsar" withany regularity;"1nd, again,onlybythecoronationf 1547 was the Russianruler stablished,
theWesternmperors,wardingo them he ubordinateole f caesar tsesar); cf.D. I. Prozorovskii,0 znacheniisarskogoituladopriniatiiausskimiosudariamititula nperatorskogo[" On theMeaning f theTitle of Tsar' tilltheAdoption
by Russian overeignsfthe Titleof Emperor '], Izvestiiamp. Russkogo rk-heologicheskagobshchestva,III (1877), 449f.9 In a service ook f1457, or xample,wice heprincesmentionednstead f
the emperor,ndthen wice gaintheemperors referredo: Gorskii ndNevos-truev, II: 2,no. 501,pp. 266-7,273-4, n Chteniia Obshchestvestorii Drev-nosteiRossiiskikh1917), 4. While missal fca. 1500enjoins hepriest o "me-morialize . . ourprinces nd not thetsar,forthere s no tsardom ere n ourRussia (Izvestiia mp. Arkheologicheskogobschestva, , 138),a service ookofaboutthe samedate speaks nly f thetsar GorskiindNevostruev,II: 1, 48).Theemperors memorializednprayer ooks f1462 GorskiindNevostruev,II:
1, 46), 1481 Gorskii nd Nevostruev,II: 1, 199) and in a numberfcodices fthe ate 15th nd early16th enturiesGorskii nd Nevostruev,II: 1, 66; II: 2,182; I. Sreznevskii,vedeniia zametki maloizvestnykhneizvestnykhamiat-nikakh Studies nd Notes Concerning nknownndLittleKnownSources],no.LXXIX, in Sbornik tdeleniia usskagoazyka slovesnostimp.Akademii auk,XX: 4, 558). On theotherhand, he princes mentionedn a number f servicebooks Gorskii nd Nevostruev,II: 1, 37; III: 1, 53; III: 2, 259; III: 1, 45 whereboth prince nd tsararementioned; amiatniki revneiPismennosti,II, 1880,Protokol asedaniiaKomiteta, pril4, 1880) and even n onemissalof 1551 or
later, .e.,after he coronationf van IV as tsar Gorskii nd Nevostruev,II: 1,60). It is probable, owever,hat, ythemiddle fthe 16th entury,he distinc-tionbetween tsar" and prince " kniaz' ) was slowly bliterated; ee, forex-ample, heMineaof 1567 where he emperors called prince,n Kh. Loparev,OpisanieRukopiseimp. Ob. Liubitelei revnei ismennostiDescriptionf Man-uscripts fthe mperial ociety fLoversof Ancient iterature] St. Petersburg,1892),45 et passim.
10Cf.PolnoeSobranieRusskikhetopisei, I, app. " B " 90f.; S. Shambinago,"Povestio Mamaevom oboishche" " Tales of Mamai's Battle"], Sb. otd. russ.ias. slov., XXXI, no. 7. Hereafter,.S.R.L. referso the first ork.
universally nd formally, s tsar. Even this coronation,however,presents us with problems. The first mperial coronation12 wasanticipated with what seems to be typical ambiguity,when GrandPrince Ivan III, in 1498 crownedhis grandsonDimitrii as co-rulerand Grand Prince. A glance at the coronation eremony hows thatit was a copy of the Byzantine coronationritual for a caesar only,a juniorco-emperor.'3 This implies that Ivan III, as GrandPrince,performedherole of the senioremperor, he augustus,the basileus.
What all this amountsto is that Russianreception f the basileusimage oscillatedbetween the need to acknowledge nd the desiretousurp this very image. The processof assimilating his image,ofidentifying he Russian rulerwiththe basileus took a long time.'4
12Comparevan's coronation ite (E. V. Barsov,Drevne-russkieamiatnikioviashchennagoenchaniiasareina tsarstvoOld-Russianources orthe SacredCoronation f theTsars],Chteniia, 883: I, 42-90) withConstantineorphyro-genitus, e Livre des Ceremonies, d. A. Vogt Paris, 1939), I, lf.,and CodinusCuropalates, e Oflicialibusalatii Constantitopolitani,d. I. Bekker, .S.H.B.,XIV (Bonn,1839),86f. Cf.Val'denberg,p. cit., 75f.;G. Olsr, Chiesae Statonell'incoronazioneegli ultimiRurikidi,"OrientaliaChristiana eriodica,XVI
(1950), 290f. uggests hat thecoronationite ncluded heceremonyfunction;howeverhe statementbout unction n the chronicle as probablyddedafterthe coronationfMichaelRomanovn 1613 (cf. " Tsarstvennaianiga" [" TheImperial ook ], P.S.R.L.,XIII, 452,note1).
13 Olsr, p. cit.,285f., rgues hatthecoronationrdoforDimitrii iffersig-nificantlyrom heByzantinemperial oronation,nd explainst by thegreaterreligiosityf theRussianswhothereforessigned greater 8le o theclergyhanwas done nConstantinople.he coronationrdoofDimitrii,owever,s a trans-lation f a Serbianmanuscriptfthe14th entury,hichnturnwasa translationof theByzantineoronationrdofor caesaror junior mperor.Cf.Barsov, p.cit., or hecoronationfDimitrii,3f.; for heSerbian ndByzantine ites, 5f.
14 The title By the GraceofGod" was ntroducedy Basil II stillwithin he"Byzantine period,n 1449, n his diplomaticocumentsDukhovnye Dogo-vornyeGramotyVelikikh Udel'nykh niazeiXIV-XVIIvv. [Testaments ndTreaties fGrand nd Appanage rinces f the14th-16th enturies],d. L. V.CherepninMoscow, 950],160,163,hereaftereferredo as Gramoty). The title" tsar appears n diplomatic ocumentsPamiatniki iplomaticheskikhnosheniiDrevneiRossii DerzhavaminostrannymiSt. Petersburg,851), , 46, 47, 59-61,87,96,98,114),but,fornternalonsumption,he itle f" Tsar" isusedto signify
spiritual ualities cf. Paschaliafor heyear7000,Russkaia storicheskaiaiblio-teka,VI, no.118, 95f.). Despite van's marriage1472) to theByzantine eiress,SophiaPaleologus, hichssupposedohave nfluencedussian oliticalhoughtro-foundlycf. G. Olsr, Gli ultimi urikidi le basi deologicheellasovranita ellostatorusso," rientalia hristianaeriodica, II [1946],322-73),Byzantine ourtrankswere ntroducederygradually, eginningith1495; V. Prokhorov, hris-tianskie russkie revnostiarkheologiaChristian nd EarlyRussianAntiquitiesand Archeology]St. Petersburg,872),36f. Theproblem fthenewRussian ealwith hetwo-headedmperial agleon it is a very omplex ne. There s no doubtthat the eagle stoodfor he state ymbol f theempire cf. A. V. Soloviev, Les
So muchso that forover a century he throne f the ideal " universalempire" remained vacant before the Russian Grand Prince wascrowned s tsar and autocrat.
If the central, upreme mage of rulership or he Russians was thebasileus,whatwas thesignificanceorRussian political theory f thefact that after 1240 another concrete mage of rulershipwas avail-able-that of thekhan,who ruledover a vast empireofwhichnorth-easternRussia was only a province? Whatmodifications,uancesordistortionsn theRussian ruler-imagewere nducedby this fact?
Fromthebeginning ftheMongol orTatar period n Russia, theTatar rulerwas alwaysreferred o in thechronicless " tsar."15Rus-sianpetnamesfor he Tatars arehardlypolite,'6but even whenusedas epithets or heruler, hekhan,'7 hey reused in conjunctionwiththe titleof tsar. This is to say that the Russians assignedto theirconqueror nd his heirsthe title which,both before and aftertheTatar Yoke, was reserved oronlyone ruler-the universalChristianemperor.'8 Some proof hat theRussians used this titledeliberatelyand withfullawarenessofits implicationsies in thecarefuldistinc-tions they drew between the various titles: the khan of Chingizideblood, was always tsar; his heir and co-rulerwas referred o as"tsesar," i.e., the caesar or junior emperor. Members of the khan's
emblemeseraldiques e Byzance t les Slaves," eminariumondakovianum,II[1935],149f.). A. V. Oreshnikovrgues hat van III beganto use thedouble-headed agle n 1472, mmediatelyfterhismarriage ith ophia (" Materialyrusskoi umizmatikeo-tsarskogoerioda [" Sources orRussianNumismaticsfthePre-Tsar eriod"], TrudyMoskovskogoumizmaticheskagobshchestva,I[1901],12),butthefirst nown seofthenew eal datesfrom uly 497;Gramoty,
no. 85,p. 341.15 t is curious hatdespite he ong associations ith hesteppenomads heSophiachronicleridnotrecognizekhan as a titlebutthoughtt partofthenameoftheTatar eaders;P.S.R.L., V, 175etpassim.
16P.S.R.L., XXV, 126-7,143,et passim. However, heRussianswithgreat m-partialityndgood ogic ssignedhesameepithetso Germans, atholicsngen-eral, and Lithuaniansibid., 150,193,et passim). On the popularviewof theTatarssee I. U. Budovnitz, Ideinaiaosnovarannikharodnykhkazanii tatar-skom ge [" The IdeologicalBasis of Early PopularTales Aboutthe TatarYoke"], TrudyOtdelaDrevnerusskoiiteratury kademiiNauk,XIV (1958),169-175.
17P.S.R.L.,XXV, 136. See,however,heverynterestingtudy f R. Jakobsonwhere e shows hattheepithet dog (sobaka)wasnotreally denigratingnebutderived rom atar tribe amesO. Jansen,SobakaKalinTsar,"Slavia,XVII[1939-40], 2-89). (Jakobson rote nder hepseudonymf 0. Jansen.)
18For theRussian ttitudeoward he title f" tsar seeProzorovskii,p. cit.For thegeneral uropeanviewof thetitleand its significance,ee E. Stengel," Kaisertitel ndSuverinitiitsidee,"eutsches rchiv,II, 1939, -57.
familywere "tsarevichi."19 But Mamai and Edigei, powerfuldefactorulersof the GoldenHorde in the 1380s and the 1410srespec-tively,but not of the blood,were called onlyprinces;Mamai par-ticularlywas considered o be a usurperof the tsar's authority verRussia.20 Iconographicsources are as consistent s the chroniclesabout the mperial tatusofthekhan. In all images, ncludingminia-tures showingRussian victories ver the Tatars, the khan is alwaysshown wearing radiatecrown, ontrastedwith the grandprince nhis cap.21
That the title" tsar" as applied to thekhan carrieddefinite on-notations f egitimacy,s revealedby the chroniclesn otherways aswell. In 1245-6princeMichael ofChernigov ravelled o theHorde.Upon arrival,beforebeing admitted o Khan Batu, he was requiredto perform purification itual, passing betweenlines of fires ndstone idols. He was informed hat the khan orderedhim to gothrough he ceremony ut the princewas stubborn;according o thechronicle, owever,he prefacedhis finalrefusalwith the words: " Ibowtoyou,oh Tsar,forGod has givenyou the tsardomnnd thegloryof thisworld... 1
22 He will submithimself o thekhan, he" Tsar'"but not to the pagan gods; for thisMichael gladlysufferedmartyr-dom. The Pauline noteof all powerbeing fromGod and thus egiti-mate was also sounded in the summonsof Batu to Grand PrinceAlexanderNevski,thedefender nd the " sun" of Russia, recordednthe Grand Princely chronicle: " God has subjected to me manytongues. Do you alonewish not to submityourselfo my power;yet
19 .S.R.L.,XXV, 151,152,155,238.20 "
I razgordeesia kannyiMami i mnia sia iako tsaria. . . ,"
P.S.R.L., XXV,201.21 See theminiaturesftheNikonChronicle,. V. Artsikhovskii,revnerusskie
miniatiuryak istoricheskiistochnikOld-RussianMiniatures s a HistoricalSource] Moscow, 944),53,129,144,180; fordiscussionfregaliangeneral,eeibid., llf. ForrepresentationsfRussian rincelyaps, ee,e.g., conofSS Borisand Gleb,P. Mouratow, 'Ancienneeinture usse (Prague, 925),fig. 3. ForRussian onceptionf a crown,ee, .g., hecrown fKingSolomonn15th-centuryfresconthe athedral ftheAssumptionnMoscow,bid., ig. 1; thecrown ftheByzantinemperorn the fresco f 1500-2 n the FerapontMonastery,storiia
RusskogosskustvaHistory fRussianArt],ed. I. Grabar,A.N.SSSR (Moscow,1955), II, 511. Aninterestingdeologicalroblems raised y a frescof1508 nthecathedralftheAnnunciation,oscow,howing randPrince t. Vladimirna princelyap,while aroslav heWise s wearing tsar's rown,bid., 45. Howclosely hecrownwasidentifiedith sardomanbe seen n a miniatureromheTsarstvennaianiga,1560-70s,howinghe coronationf Ivan IV. The youngtsar sshownntheradiate rown,ust ike hekhans nd theemperorsibid., 01).Thepoints, ofcourse,hat van IV wascrowned ith he Cap ofMonomachos"andRussian egalia idnot nclude radiate rown.
ifyou wish opreserve our and, hen ome o me and witnessheglory fmyreigntsarstviia)." 23 As " Tsar" thekhanwas therulerordained yGod and he acquired he deological reightfChristianconceptionsf the ruler. " Fear God and honor heprince. Andwhosoeverpposed herulerwillbe subject o Divine ustice, ecausehe opposed he commandfGod" states thirteenth-centuryrac-tate; I to attacktheprince s to defyGod,and this sentimentsechoednone oftheearliest ussian pics n which heepichero,liaMuromets, nowsthat one is not allowedto,that one cannotactuallykilltheTatar " tsar." 5
There was a fundamental ifference,owever, etween he basileusand the khan. The one was the orthodoxChristian mperor ulingover all men insofar s the world was a Christian ociety;the otherwas a pagan or,evenworse,from he fourteenthentury n, a Mos-lem infidel. What effect id this difference ave for the Russianimage of the khan? In 1393 patriarchAntoniosof Constantinoplewrotehis famous etter o GrandPrinceBasil I in whichhe outlinedthewholedoctrine fByzantine mperial deology. The occasion forthis etterwas the disrespect upposedly hownby Basil to the patri-arch and the emperor; among other things,the patriarch wrote:" people say that you do not allow themetropolitan o mention hedivine nameof the emperorn thediptypchs, hat is, youwant to dosomethingwhich s quite impossible nd you say: 'yes, we have thechurch, ut we have no emperor nd do not wish to know him . 28
The letterbelongs properly o the history f Russo-Byzantinerela-ions,ofRussian ambivalencetowardsthe imperial dea, and as suchdoes notconcern s here. But it raises an interestinguestion: whatofthe mperialnameinthe iturgywhileRussia was partof the Tatarstate? The sources re extremely parse,but exceptforthe personalmissal of theGreekmetropolitan yprian 7 (1374-1406) there s nomention of the emperorduring the thirteenth nd fourteenth en-turies n any case.28 If we consider, owever, hat the liturgy f the
Kievan periodfrequentlymitted heemperorn thediptychs, asil'sdefiance eemsto be thefloggingf a verydead horse, nless t was inresponse o an attemptbythe Greekmetropolitano re-introducehebasileus into the liturgy. Could this longomission astingtwo cen-turies have been affected, hen,by the existence f the khan? TheRussian mediaevalistGrekovgivesa verydefinitenswer: " The pub-licprayer f theclergy or he khans nculcated nthe masses the deaof thenecessity f submission o Tatar power." 9 The khan'snamedoes not actuallyappear in anyofthemissals and servicebooks,butthere s impressive vidence o supportGrekov.
This evidence s contained n a number f arlyks rcharters ivenby various Tatar khans to the Russian church n the personof themetropolitan f all Russia.30 The contents f thesecharters re vir-tually identical: all of them are immunitygrants,exempting hemetropolitan nd the entire lergywith all theirpossessions rom llcivildutiesand taxes. The khansbased this mmunity n thetradi-tionestablished ythe aw codeofChingiz-khan imself,31nd it wasgranted gainst the officialsf the khan and against all Russian offi-cials and princes,ncluding heGrand Princehimself.32The Russianchurchwas placed underthe immediateurisdiction fthekhan-tsar,retaining universal ather hana national-territorialharacter ndera rulerofmany states and peoples. In return or ll theseprivilegesthe churchhad but one duty-to pray for hekhan: " That theymaypray God in peace . . . and pray to God for Us and Our House(plemiia) fromgeneration o generation."3 And, as if anticipatingpossiblereservations,harter fter harterwarns: " If any clergymanprayswithmentalreservations,e commits mortal in."34
Even though the servicebooks of the liturgy re silent on thisquestion, t is difficulto escape the conclusionthat in practicetheprayerforthe khan did replacethememorialfor the basileus. Thefact that thisdid notenter ntothe missals s comprehensible,onsid-
diptychs,eeDiakonov,p.cit., 4,note ; GorskiindNevostruev,II; 1,no.347,p. 29; no. 371,p. 130; no. 431,pp. 555-564,heretheword tsar" is replaced,throughout,ythewords GrandPrince ; no.350,p. 46 where he fifthfferingis for he" tsars, rincesndall laics but ntheremembrancesndprayersnlyprincesrementioned. ompare hiswith erbianmissals ftheearly15th en-tury,when, nder heTurks, tephan 1389-1427) s calleddespot nd tsar (no.373,p. 154; no.374,p. 168).
29 Grekovnd akubovskii,23. Thestatementoesgotoofar n tsdefinitive-nessconsideringhe ackofproof.
3OThebestedition s by M. D. Priselkov, hanskii arlykiRusskimMitro-politamTheKhans'ChartersoRussianM1etropolitans]Petrograd,916).
ering hatthe ruler orwhom neprayedwas an infidel, " godlessone." As suchhe couldnotbe enterednto heofficialult,he couldnotbecome art f he ommemorationf llChristians,uthecould,and did, ccupy hetraditional81e ftherulerwho s from od, p-pointed yGod and thereforerayed or o God. It is notnecessaryhere o argue heneedfor onsistencyn thepart ftheRussians, ortoimpose n them heneedfor clear hoice etween hebasileus rthekhan. In fact, uch a clear-cut hoicewouldbe impossiblendideological stigmatismould nd did occur. Whatdid existwasyetanother ind ftension,n atmospherehere he mage f thekhanoverlappedhat fthebasileus, aguely usedwith he atter; xactlybecause tdid notreplace he atter,he mage fthekhan ouldbor-row the attributesf the imageof thebasileus nd could becomeidentifiednthepopularnd ntheofficial indwith t. Allthis stosay that,throughhe encounterfpolitical eality nd ideologicaltradition,hekhan s " tsar acquired,nthe iturgys intitulature,theattributesftheuniversalndunique mperor.
One more reawithmplicationsndpossibilitiesf mage-makingremains-that f numismaticconography. ussiancoinage f the
Kievanperiod,atternedn Byzantinemodels, ppears o haveceasedtowardshemiddle f he welfthentury.35orthenext 50years rso Russianprinces idnotmint nycoins. Themintingf coinswasresumed ometimeetween he sixties nd the eighties f the four-teenth entury,n Moscow.36A purely conomic ause for he re-sumption f coinage s notveryconvincing.37 f political auses,three resuggested: esire n thepartoftheTatarsfor nother on-crete cknowledgmentytheRussians f Tatar sovereignty;esire
onthe partof Dimitrii onskoi, he GrandPrince, n the 1360s nd1370s o express ascentRussiannationalism hich ulminated iththebattle fKulikovon1380; and (for hosewho uggest he 1380sas thestarting ate) desire o celebrate he new national onscious-ness won on thefield f Kulikovo.38The evidencewhichwe shall
35Oreshnikov,Denezhnyenaki,76f.; G. B. Fedorov, Den'gi MoskovskogoKniazhestva remeni imitriia onskogo Vasiliia " [" Coinsof the MoscowPrincipalityuringtheReignsof Dimitrii onskoiand Basil I "], MaterialyIssledovaniia o ArkheologiiSASR, kademiiaNauk,Moscow,XII (1949), 145(here fter eferredo as Fedorov).
36 Fedorov, 56f.;V. L. IaninandS. A. Ianina, Nachal'nyi eriodRiazanskoimonetnoihekanki" " The BeginningfRiazan Coin-Minting"], umizmatich-eskii bornik, oscow, (1955),116f.
37 In order obe able topaythetribute.Cf.A. A. Il'in,Klassifikatsiausskikhudel'nykh onetTheClassificationfRussianAppanage oins] M.L., 1940),32,in Fedorov, 57. TheRussians, owever,adbeenpaying ribute orover cen-tury ythis ime.
nowexamine ppearsto support he first f the political auses.Briefly, ussian oinage romhereign f Dimitrii onskoi ill1480,theformalndoftheTatar
Yoke,falls nto woperiods: hefirston-sistingfthereignsfDimitrii, asilii , and the arlyyears fVasiliiII; 39and thesecond, f about50years,madeup of thegreaterartof Vasilii I's reign nd of the firstwenty ears f van III's. Thecoinage fthefirsteriod hows consistentattern: nthe obverseofthecoins s thename ofthereigning randPrince nd one ofalimited umber fsymbols,sually nimals rbirds;on the reversetheres, nArabic,henameof thereigninghan, ometimesccom-paniedbytheslogan:"Mayhe live ong ; sometimes
ya
profiledhead whichwas, n all probability, portraitfthekhan.40Onlyinfrequently,n thecoins fthisfirsteriods there ound,nthere-verse,ninscriptionhichs usta scribbleesignedo mitate rabiclettering-at est n attemptocopyArabic ysomeone hodidnotknow the language.41The secondperiodpresents s withcoinson which hemeaninglessopyof an Arabic nscriptions therulerather han heexception;2 inaddition, numberfcoins fBasil Icarry,n the reverse,nstead f thenameofthe khan nArabic,heinscriptionnRussian:" Grand rinceVasiliiofallRussia." 3
What significancean be attached o the evidence f Russiancoins? In 1383, t thebeginningfthegreat truggleetween am-erlaneand the ruler of the GoldenHorde of the Tatars,KhanTokhtamysh,neofTamerlane's rievances asthemintingfcoinswithTokhtamysh'same nKhwarezm hich amerlaneonsideredtobepart fhisown mpire.44n 1399, uringhecourse fnegotia-tions etweenheGoldenHorde ledbyprince digei)andLithuania(underGrandPrinceVitovt), theRussianchronicleells us that
" . Vitovt desiredthat in all the Horde, thereshouldbe on themoney ftheHordehismark, issign orimage),"while digeide-manded hat: "In all yourprincipality,n yourLithuanian oinsthere hould emyHordemark." There s little oubt hen, hattheTatars, heLithuanians,nd, onsideringheorigin fthechron-icle,theRussians, ecognizedhe nscriptionf a ruler's ame on a
39Thisperiodizations suggestedotonlybythegreat hangesn thepoliticalsituationnthe1430s,which rementionedelow, utalsobythevirtualmpossi-bility f distinguishingetweenmostcoinsofBasil I and Basil IL. The datingsuggesteds basedon thepremisehattheres a regular attern fdiminutionfweightfthecoins hroughouthereignsfBasils andII.
40 Monety, os.320,321,367,329,749,327; Fedorov, l. 1,16; pl. 2,23,27,28.41Monety, os.32a,336; Fedorov, l.2,21.42Monety, os.374,375-8,383.43Fedorov, l. 2, 19,22. 44Vernadsky,69.45TheNikonChronicle,.S.R.L.,XI, 173.
One final onsiderationemains. hesourcesndicateuite learlythattheconsentf thekhan nd theparticipationf hisrepresenta-tive werenecessarynd customaryorthe coronationf Russian
Grand rinces uringheTatarperiod.50 hus,partoftheritualn-volved heformalnd ceremonialecognitionfthe uzeraintyfthekhan. Moreover,he estament1339) ofthefounderftheMoscowdynasty,van I Kalita,mentions or hefirst ime he" golden ap"which, rom heearly ixteenthenturynbecameknowns thecapofMonomachos.5" he consensusfscholarlypinionseems obethatthecap orcrownfMonomachoss not ofByzantinerigin utis CentralAsiatic, erhaps gift rom hanUzbekto GrandPrince
Ivan 1.52 Whatbecamewith hecenturieshemainregaliaoftheRussianstatewas originally,n thiscase, an expressionf thesov-ereign ositionftheTatarkhan.
Mypurpose asnotbeentodocumentheobvious-that or vertwocenturieshe Tatar GoldenHorde nd tsruler xercised ore rlesseffectiveolitical ontrolverRussia. The evidence havead-ducedpresupposeshe political ealities f the TatarYoke. TheGrand rince fMoscowhad tobecrowned ith heparticipationf
theTatar envoy, o matterwhat theRussian deological ationalemay havebeen. The church ecessarilyepended n thesupremepolitical owerfor ts rights nd possessions,nd, n therealmofpolitical ealitieswas so much wareofthis, hat as late as 1500 tusedthekhan'sarlyksnorder odefendtselfgainst heexpropria-tions of theRussianruler.53No matterwhatRussian deologistswouldhave iked othink,he mage f heRussian rince as imitedbythepoliticalituation,ytheneed opaytributendacknowledge
suzerainty.Mypresenturpose,ather,s todemonstrateheconse-quences f thepolitical ealities n therealm f deas. Whatthese50Troitskaiaetopis' The Trinity hronicle],d.M. D. Priselkov,kademiia
Nauk (1950), 434; P.S.R.L.,V, 264; P.S.R.L.,XXV, 211. Moreover, iththedeath fthereigninghan, new onfirmationasnecessaryor heRussian rince(P.S.R.L.,XXV, 181); seedescriptionfminiaturehowinghecoronationfBasilI, Artsikhovskii,p. cit.,130.
51Gramoty,.552ForheByzantineriginfthe
cap,see
Kondakov, usskie lady, , 7Sf.;fortheopposite iew, ee Vernadsky,86,and thesummaryfthe iteraturen theproblemy K. V. Basilevich,Imushchestvooskovskikhniazei XIV-XVIvv[" ThePropertyfthe Moscow rinces uring he14th-16thenturies], TrudyGosudarstvennogqostoricheskogouzeia (Moscow, 926), II, 20-21.
53Cf. A. S. Pavlov," Istoricheskiicherk ekuliarizatsiiserkovnykhemel'vRossii [" A Historicalketch ftheSecularizationfChurch ands nRussia ],Zapiski mp.Novorossiiskogoniversiteta,II (1871),41f.;V. Zhmakin,Mitro-politDaniil i egoSochineniiaThe Metropolitananiel and hisWritings]Mos-cow,1881),196f.
consequences ere uringheTatarYoke tself, as been hown: heimage ftheTatarkhan s tsar, eplacingrmerging ith he mageof thebasileus n respect o the prerogatives-coronation,iturgy,titulature,conography.With hefallofConstantinopleheRussianrulerbegins o emerge s the Christiansar, n the imageof thebasileus. Whatdidthe mage ftheTatar khan ignifyor heRus-sianGrand rincendtsar fter 480, fterhe iftingftheYoke?
That the khan's magecouldnotbe dismissedasually, hatthepolitical ealitiesreated strongraditionfTatar overeignty,54anbe seenfrom rather ramatic ieceofevidence: he mmediatee-action f van III, in 1480, o the nvasion fkhanAkhmet asap-
parently desire o abandonMoscow ndretirewithhisfamilyndtreasureo thenorth. To forestallhis, o nduce heGrand rince ofight,rchbishopassian fRostovwrote isfamous Epistle o theUgra [River] " The letterbegins: " To thepious and Christ-loving,nobleand God-crowned,onfirmedyGod, n piety hiningo theends of theuniverse,ertainlyhemostgloriousmong sars, heGloriousovereign rand rincevanVasilievich... 155 Such stheimageoftheRussianruler hatVassiantries o create; t is in this
r'le ofa God-crownedsar, basileus, hat vanIII ought oface heenemies fhisstate ndfaith. TheGrandPrinces theshepherdftheflock fChrist,nd thearchbishopoints uttheresponsibilityassumed y past eaders ftheflock,hegreatGrand rinces fRus-sia whofoughtor heChristianeople. He tries o anticipate nypossible rgumentsnthepartof theadvisers f van III: " And fsomewill rgue hatyouareunder heoathofyour ncestorsottoraiseyourhandagainst hetsar; istenGod-lovingsar If an oath
is madebecauseofnecessity, e areallowed o forgivehebreakingofit and to blessfor t,themetropolitannd we,thewholeGod-lovingynod, theoathbeing]nottoa tsarbuttoa brigandndsav-age andfightergainstGod.... Andwho f heprophetsf heproph-ecies orwhooftheapostles rsaintshavetaughtyouto obeythisGod-shamedndmost vil o-calledsar, ou, hegreat hristiansaroftheRussian ands? " The archbishops trying ereto destroythe mage fthekhan-tsaryraisinghe mage fthetsar-basileus;
only netsar spossible,heorthodoxhristianne, ndtheothersan impostor.Yet inorder ofighthis mpostort is necessary,as-
54Cf.D. Likhachev,K voprosu teorii usskogo osudarstvakontse V i vXVI vv." [" OntheProblemf theTheory ftheRussian tateat theEnd ofthe15thand During he 16thCenturies], Istoricheskiihurnal, 944,no. 7-8, pp.31-39. Thistraditionccounted,npart, or he atedate oftheofficialiberationconsideringhedecline fTatarpower.
sian felt, o raise theGrand Prince to theroleof tsarhimself. WhatVassian was trying o do was to solve an ideologicalproblem. IvanIII's reluctance o face the khan n battle was causedby politicaland
military ears,not by his awe beforehis sovereign. Yet, politicallyand militarily,heTatars remained most seriousdangerforRussianot onlyduringthe 15thbut also duringthe 16thcentury.57Vas-sian's problem, he ideologicalproblem,was not just to defeat theTatars inbattle-it was todestroy he mnagef the khanas tsar. Thefall of Constantinople, y makingavailable, suddenlyand immedi-ately,a wholenew world of the " Byzantineheritage forRussianpoliticaltheology, orced he issue and, at the same time,providedsolution:the basileus versus hekhan. That thissolutionwas at leastpartially dopted,can be seenin the case ofthecap ofMonomachos.The fourteenth-centuryatar crownwas drawn into the legend ofRussia's Byzantineheritagentheearly ixteenthentury;8 inaccord-ance withthe Vassian solution,with the birthof the Russian tsar-basileus, he Tatarperiod houldcome toan end,thecontinuity houldbe broken.
The thesisthatthe continuitywas not brokenwas thegreatcon-tributionfthe" Eurasian " schoolof Russianhistoriansn the1920s,and particularly f the distinguishedmediaevalist,ProfessorGeorgeVernadsky. But if Russia became heir to the empire of ChingizKhan,59 t remains o be seeninwhatsensethis was true. What doesseemclear is that,forRussians of the sixteenth entury, he title of" tsar" was firmlyonnectedwiththe image of the khan; more sothanwiththat of thebasileus. A Russian diplomaticnote of1556 toPoland and Lithuania justified van IV's title not onlythrough he
Byzantineheritagebut also throughhis possessionof Kazan andAstrakhan,nd " thethrone fKazan andAstrakhan as beena tsar'ssee from heirorigins."0 The seventeenth-centuryriterGregory
57Cf. K. V. Basilevich,Vneshniia olitika RusskogoTsentralizovannogoGosudarstvaThe ForeignPolicyof the RussianCentralizedtate] (Moscow,1952),36ff.
58Baron . Herberstein,apiskio moskovitskikhelakh Memoirs fMusco-viteAffairs],. I. Malein, rans. St. Petersburg,908),p. 32,cited nVernadsky,
386.59 . R. (princeE. Trubetskoi)Nasledie ChingiskhanaThe HeritageofChenghishan] (Berlin, 925),27f. tpassim.
0Sbornik ukkkogostoricheskogobshchestva,IX, 437; 452. For a moststrikingllustrationfthis, ee Ivan's letter o thepatriarchfConstantinoplen1557, sking or onfirmationfhis mperialoronationndstatus n thepart ofthe Greek orthodox atriarchatend clergy, obornaiagramotadukhovenstvaPravoslavnoiostochnoiserkviTheSynodal etter ftheClergyftheOrthodoxEasternChurch],d.M. ObolenskyMoscow, 850),32-33.
the mageof thebasileus,tmaywellderive rom he mageofthekhan.
Psychologically,he exaltation f one's ownconquerors quiteunderstandable.67fRussiawas tobe subject,et herbe subject oagreat uler, legitimatesar. The consequencefthis, fcourse,sthe exaltation f theRussianprincewhocouldsuccessfullypposethetsar. Thisnote salready uite lear fterhevictoryfDimitriiDonskoi t Kulikovon 1380. Contrasted ith hepower ndgloryof theTatars s thepower ndgloryf the eader f all Russia,whoinrealitywasonly heGrandPrince fMoscow.68 hisnote, oo, ssounded ndproclaimedn1480bythenew oinage f van III wherethename Ivan" replaces henameof thekhan. Whattakesplaceis not so much he iberationf Russia as a change fdynasty,heconquest fRussiafromtsformeregitimateuler ythenew egiti-matetsar, heGrandPrince fMoscow. TheArabic Ivan" onthecoinmayhavebeenaddressed,or conomiceasons,o theeasternsubjects ftheHorde;but tothem, rtotheRussians,t alsomeantthat n addition o theRussianGrandPrince n the obverse herewas a newkhan, till, raditionally,nthereverseide.
I amnotprepared,fcourse,oargue hat deasdetermine ate-rialconditionsndreality; utevoked ythose onditions,deashavea logic nd ife ftheir wn ndcarryheir onsequencesntoreality.Thatthe deaofconquest, ftheRussianruler s thekhanexisted,implicitlyt least, s suggestedythe logan fBasil II's timemen-tioned bove. It wasmadequiteexplicit y Ivan IV theTerrible,when fficial ythologyepartedromhetraditionalievanorigin,fromheemphasisnSt.Vladimir,ndcreatedhefantasticescent
oftheRussianrulers rom rus, hebrotherfAugustus.69van IVhimselfointedlyisclaimednyRussianblood nhisveins.70 t isdoubtfulwhetherheconquestdea expressedhroughheRomandescent vergainedmuch urrency. he image fthekhan n thatcontext,owever,idreceive n expression,oth ickly ndfantasticthoughtwas,whenvan IV " abandoned the tate, ividedRussiainto woparts, akingnehimselfnder guise fgreat umility,ndgiving heother, hegreaternd traditionalarta ruler, Grand
Prince,n theperson fa Tatartsarevich romKasimov, imeon.7Theironywas not nthedivision,r ntheuseof a Tatarprince,utin the reversal f roles. For it was thetraditional,rthodoxhris-tianRussia that got theChingizide rince,nd the newabsolutistsecularRussiathatgot he God-crownedsar.
Speculationsn the Asiatic-barbariclementn Russianhistoryhave been nnumerablen the course fthe asttwocenturies,etshould iketo add one more. Barbarism,fcourse,s not the ssue;Western istoryas shownufficientlyhatbarbarisman beattainedwithoutnAsiaticmage rmyth. fthe mage fthebasileus toodfor heorthodoxndpiousruler,eading isChristianeople owardsalvation,hen he mage f thekhan, erhaps,waspreservedn theideaoftheRussian uler s theconquerorfRussiaand of tspeople,responsibleo no one. If thebasileus ignifiedhe holytsar,the"mostgentle (tishaishii) sar nspiritualnionwithhisflock,henthekhan, erhaps,tood or heabsolutistecularizedtate, rbitrarythroughtsseparationrom hesubjects.72 he two mageswerenotreally ynthesized;othexisted eparately,f in a state of tensionwhich hefirst ussianTsar, van IV, exemplifiedo tragically: ill-ingbydayand praying ynight.
Wesleyan niversity.
71On thedivisionfRussia nto heOprichninaf van IV and theZemshchinaand tsmeaning,eeV. 0. Kliuchevsky,ursRusskoistorriLectures nRussianHistory]Moscow, 937), I, 199f. ndhisBoiarskaia uma [TheBoyarCouncil](Moscow, 883),334f.
72 Carryinghis peculationurther,nemightrgue hat he dealoftheortho-doxruler ftheorthodoxeoplewastheoneretainedythemasses cf.my tudy" HolyRussia:A StudyntheHistory fan Idea,"American ist.Review, XIII[1958],no. 3, 617-637),while hegovernmentfimperial ussiarelied ponthepractice ftheconqueringhan.
![DEP 5202 IT in Education [Presentation Package] Choy Sau Ying Denise Ng Yuk Ying Becky Wong Yuk Han Amy.](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5697bfbc1a28abf838ca1856/dep-5202-it-in-education-presentation-package-choy-sau-ying-denise-ng-yuk.jpg)
