MuscovyasaHypertrophicState:ACritique

CharlesJ.Halperin

ThetheoryofMuscovyasahypertrophicstateoneinwhichthestatedomi
natedsociety,ratherthanthereverseoriginatedinthemiddleofthe19thcen
turyamongadherentsoftheStateSchoolofRussianlegalhistorians.Ithas
survivedinavarietyofincarnationssincethen,includingthetyrannyor
despotismoftheearlymodernEuropeanethnographers,1MaxWeberspatri
monialstate,KarlWittfogelsOrientalDespotism,2andtotalitarianism,not
includingMuscovysownselfdefinitionasanautocracy.Obviously,theissue
remainscurrent,asthethoughtful,informed,andarticulateessaysbyMarshall
PoeandValerieKivelsonattest.3Itisnotmypurposeheretorejectthetheoryof
Muscovyasahypertrophicstateortodiscriminateamongitsvariousforms,4ex
cepttonotetwothings.First,thesetheoriesarenotalwaysmutuallycompatible
(totalitarianism,whichequatescommunismandNazismtypologically,erases
thecontrastbetweenEuropeandRussiaembeddedintheothertheories,for
example).Second,partofthedifficultyindefininganyofthesetheoriesisthat
theydrawatleastasmuchfromacommoncongeriesofimagesofunjustrulers
andoppressedsubjectsasuponobjectivecriteria.Ishalltreatthemallgenerically
undertherubricIhaveemployedinmytitle.Iamnotfoolishenoughtoenter
1MarshallPoe,APeopleBorntoSlavery:RussiainEarlyModernEuropeanEthnography,
14761748(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,2000).
2DonaldOstrowski,MuscovyandtheMongols:CrossCulturalInfluenceontheSteppeFrontier,

13041589(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),85107.Cf.LawrenceKrader,The
AsiaticModeofProduction:Sources,DevelopmentandCritiqueintheWritingsofKarlMarx(Assen,
TheNetherlandsandNewYork:VanGorcumandComp.B.V.,1975);MarianSawer,Marxism
andtheQuestionoftheAsiaticModeofProduction(TheHague:Nijhoff,1977),StephenP.Dunn,
TheFallandRiseoftheAsiaticModeofProduction(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1982).
3MarshallPoe,TheTruthaboutMuscovy,andValerieA.Kivelson,OnWords,Sources,and

HistoricalMethod:WhichTruthaboutMuscovy?above.
4Foravaluableanalysis,withhisusualcriticalinsightsandsoundjudgment,ofthestrengthsand

weaknessesofthese(andother)variants,seeRobertO.Crummey,SeventeenthCenturyRussia:
TheoriesandModels,inHansJoachimTorke,ed.,VonMoskaunachSt.Petersburg:Dasrussische
Reichim17.Jahrhundert(Weisbaden:HarrassowitzVerlag,2000=Forschungenzurosteuropaschen
Geschichte56),11331.Despitehistitle,Crummeydoesnotconfinehimselftothe17thcentury.
Hediscriminatesamongtheory,tendencies,andrealityindiscussingabsolutism;thesedistinctions
shouldbeappliedgenerally.

Page 2
502
CHARLESJ.HALPERIN
thefraybetweenPoeandKivelson.Rather,Ishouldliketopresentasynthesisof
somewellknownevidencecontrarytothetheoryofMuscovyasahypertrophic
statewhichIthinkitsadvocateshavenot,oratleastnotadequately,takeninto
account,organizedinanovel,andhopefullyhelpful,way.ThetheoryofMus
covyasahypertrophicstatewasbestdefinedbyVasiliiOsipovichKliuchevskii:
inRussia,unlikeinEurope,estates(orclasses,orwhatevertermoneappliesto
segmentsofsociety)weredefinedbytheirobligations,nottheirrights.5This
conceptioncanbeanalyzedunderthreeoverlappingpairsofantonymsitis
synchronic,ratherthandiachronic;basedupontheory,notpractice;anddealsin
abstraction,notreality.
First,synchronicvs.diachronic.Ofcourse,allmodelsaresynchronic,but
applyinganymodeltoMuscovyfacesthechallengeofperiodization.Inthe14th
andthefirstquarterofthe15thcenturytheobviousmodestyoftheMuscovite
state,andcertainlyofitsgovernmentalapparatus,isobscuredbytalkingabouta
nascentstate,risingautocracy,orwhatever,theevidenceforwhichinvariably
boilsdowntoasingletextinwhichthegrandprinceofMoscowiscalledtsar,
theSlovoozhitiiioprestavleniivelikogokniaziaDmitriiaIvanovicha,tsaria
ruskago,whichbythewaymostscholarsdatetothemiddleofthe15thcentury,

1/5
andwhichalsocontainscounterevidenceofrulereliteconsultation.6Inany
event,itisdifficulttoenvisagetheMuscovitestateofthesecondquarterofthe
15thcenturyashypertrophicorevenfunctionalwhenitwassubvertedbya
protractedandviciousdynasticcivilwar.ThenotionofMuscovyasahypertro
phicstatereallydoesnotattempttoincludewithinitscompasstheperiodbefore
thefallofConstantinoplein1453,i.e.,itdescribeshighMuscovyduringthe
secondhalfofthe15thcenturyuntilwheneveronewishestoendMuscovitehis
toryandbeginthePetrine,imperialera.7Theproblemhereisthatthe16thand
17thcenturiesinMuscovywerevastlydifferent.Itisvalidtoarguethatthe
MuscovitepoliticalsystemdidnotpreventIvantheTerriblesatrocities,butto
makeIvanIVtheposterboyoftheMuscovitehypertrophicstateistooverlook
thefactthatIvansetanegativeexamplefor17thcenturytsars,notoneofwhom
wouldhavedaredtotrytoimitatehisarbitrariness.IvanIVatemoreboiarefor
breakfastonabaddaythanmostoftheRomanovrulersdidduringdecadesof
5VasiliiOsipovichKliuchevskii,IstoriiasosloviivRossii(Hattiesburg,MS:AcademicInternational
Press,1969;reprintof3rded.,Petrograd,1916).
6CharlesJ.Halperin,TheRussianLandandtheRussianTsar:TheEmergenceofMuscoviteIde

ology,13801408,ForschungenzurosteuropischenGeschichte23(1976),6978;ondating,now
seeidem,TextandTextology:SalminasDatingoftheChronicleTalesofDmitriiDonskoi,
SlavonicandEastEuropeanReview79:2(April2001),24863.
7Ostrowski,MuscovyandtheMongols,1618,dividesthisperiodintwo,MiddleMuscovy

(14481589)andLateMuscovy(15891722).

Page 3
MUSCOVYASAHYPERTROPHICSTATE:ACRITIQUE
503
the17thcentury.8IvanIVwasthemostidiosyncraticrulerMuscovyeverhad;to
typifyhimasembodyingMuscovitepoliticalstructureisadistortion.Anygener
alizationrunstheriskofobscuringasmuchasitreveals,sinceitmustdecide
whichyearsweretypicalandwhichatypicaloftheperiodinquestion.How
peacefulwasearlymodernEnglishpoliticalprogress,judgedfromthePuritan
Revolutionwithitsattendantregicide?MuscovyduringtheTimeofTroubles
hadnostate,letaloneahypertrophicone.9EvenduringhighMuscovy,did
Moscowenjoymoreyearsofruleunderadult,mentallyandphysicallysound,
activemonarchs,orunderautocratswhodonotmeetthisstandard?Would
countingyearsreallytelluswhichwasmoretypicalorcharacteristicofMus
covitehistory,whichbetterrepresentsthedeepstructuresoftheMuscovite
politicalsystem?
Second,theory,notpractice.Itistruethatinautocratictheorytheauthority
oftherulerofMuscovywasdivinelyinspiredandnotlimited,andIwouldbe
thelastpersontodenythesignificanceoftheMuscoviterulercult.Butevenin
theorytherightsoftherulerwerealsonotdefined,andhisobligationsfigured
prominently,10andceremonyandritualemphasizedtheroleofsecularandre
ligiouselitesingovernance.11InpracticetheMuscoviterulerneededtotake
8AnnM.Kleimola,UpThroughServitude:TheChangingConditionoftheMuscoviteElitein
theSixteenthandSeventeenthCenturies,RussianHistory/Histoirerusse6:2(1979),21029;Paul
Bushkovitch,PetertheGreat:TheStruggleforPower,16711725(Cambridge:CambridgeUniver
sityPress,2001),4951,80.
9ChesterDunning,RussiasFirstCivilWar:TheTimeofTroublesandtheFoundingoftheRomanov

Dynasty(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,2001).
10DanielRowland,DidMuscoviteLiteraryIdeologyPlaceLimitsonthePoweroftheTsar

(1540s1560s)?RussianHistory/Histoirerusse49:2(April,1990),12555;SergeiN.Bogatyrev,
TheSovereignandHisCounsellors:RitualisedConsultationsinMuscovitePoliticalCulture
1350s1570s(Helsinki:AcademiaScientiarumFennica,2000).
11MichaelS.Flier,TheIconographyofRoyalProcession:IvantheTerribleandtheMuscovy

PalmSundayRitual,inEuropeanMonarchy:ItsEvolutionandPracticefromRomanAntiquityto
ModernTimes,ed.HeinzBuchhardt,RichardA.Jackson,andDavidSturdy(Stuttgart:F.Steiner,
1992),10925;idem,TheIconologyofRoyalRitualinSixteenthCenturyMuscovy,inByzan
tineStudies:EssaysontheSlavicWorldandtheEleventhCentury,ed.SperosVryonis,Jr.(New
Rochelle,NY:AristideD.Caratzas,1992),5376;idem,BreakingtheCode:TheImageofthe
TsarintheMuscovitePalmSundayRitual,inMedievalRussianCultureII,ed.MichaelS.Flier
andDanielRowland(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,1994),21342;idem,CourtCeremony
inanAgeofReform:PatriarchNikonandthePalmSundayRitual,inReligionandCulturein
EarlyModernRussiaandUkraine,ed.SamuelH.BaronandNancyShieldsKollmann(DeKalb,IL:
NorthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1997),7395;PaulBushkovitch,TheEpiphanyCeremonyof
theRussianCourtintheSixteenthandSeventeenthCenturies,RussianReview49:1(1990),

2/5
117.

Page 4
504
CHARLESJ.HALPERIN
accountofhiselitessensibilities,onewayortheother.12Inaddition,thetsars
authorityappearedlessabsoluteculturally,sincethewellbeingofthestatein
partdependeduponthepietyofhiswife,onwhoseintercessionhereliedcon
cerningthewellbeingoftherealm.13Moreimportant,givenproblemsoftech
nology,transportation,andcommunication,onemustaskhoweffectivethe
powerofthetsarwas,howefficienttheadministrationwas.NearlyallEuropean
travelersandmuchscholarshipcharacterizeMuscoviteofficialsascorrupt;by
definitioncorruptofficialscannotefficientlycarryoutofficialpolicy,sincethey
canbesubornedbythosewhowishtofloutthelaw.Intheoryeverylayland
ownerowedmilitaryservice,butinpracticesometimesevenafterdecadesofju
dicialwranglingtheadministrationcouldnotdecidewhoownedparcelsofland,
andtherefore,whoowedservicefromit.14Yes,17thcenturyMuscovydidsend
outpunitiveexpeditionstorounduprunawaypeasants,bondsmen,andser
vants,andtomobilizemilitaryservitorswhodidnotshowupwhensummoned.
Buttheseactionsdidnotdeterfuturedisobedience,andonthesouthernand
southeasternfrontiers,thegovernmentitselfforgotaboutitsownlawstoper
mitillegalimmigrantstoremainwheretheywere,ratherthanbereturnedto
theirpriorhomes,forsecurityreasons.15Inthe17thcenturyMoscowvirtually
gaveuptryingtocontrolitsvoevodyinSiberia,relyinguponrotationinofficeto
preventexcessivemalfeasancebyofficialssofarawaythatedictscouldbeobsolete
bythetimetheyweredelivered.DidMuscovypermittheexistenceof
autonomoussocialspheresinwhichMuscovitesofvariouslevelscouldcontrol
theirownhonor,16ordidthegovernmentlacktheresources,humanandfi
nancial,tointrudeintothesematters?Wasthegovernmentaladministrationin
capableofregulatingallaspectsofprivatelife,evenifunresolveddisputeswound
upbeingadjudicatedbythetsarorhisminions?Therulersdecreesnotinfre
quentlydirectofficialstosettlematterssothatthelitigantswillnotagainpetition
12NancyShieldsKollmann,KinshipandPolitics:TheMakingoftheMuscovitePoliticalSystem,
13451547(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1987);Bushkovitch,PetertheGreat,1448
andpassim.
13IsoldeThyrt,BetweenGodandTsar:ReligiousSymbolismandtheRoyalWomenofMuscovite

Russia(DeKalb,IL:NorthernIllinoisUniversityPress,2001),177andpassim.
14ValerieA.Kivelson,Cartography,Autocracy,andStatePowerlessness:TheUsesofMapsin

EarlyModernRussia,ImagoMundi51(1999),83105.
15CarolBelkinStevens,SoldiersontheSteppe:ArmyReformandSocialChangeinEarlyModern

Russia(DeKalb,IL:NorthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1995).
16MarshallPoe,reviewofByHonorBound:StateandSocietyinEarlyModernRussia,byNancy

ShieldsKollmann(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1999)inRussianReview59:2(April
2000),299300;andMarshallPoe,reviewofValerieA.Kivelson,AutocracyintheProvinces:The
MuscoviteGentryandthePoliticalCultureintheSeventeenthCentury(Stanford,CA:StanfordUni
versityPress,1996),inHarvardUkrainianStudies21:12(June1997),2025.

Page 5
MUSCOVYASAHYPERTROPHICSTATE:ACRITIQUE
505
thegrandprinceortsaraboutthematter,whichmightreflectanoteofoverwork
aswellasexasperationonthepartoftheharriedandhassledruler.Eveninthe
19thcenturyRussiawas,judgingbytheratioofofficialstopopulation,under
administered,whichwastrueduringtheearlymodernperiodaswell.Moreover,
whileintheorytherulerexercisedabsolutedecisionmakingauthority,inprac
ticetherulercouldbeaminorlikeIvanIV,amentalincompetentlikeFedor
Ivanovich,ormerelypassive,likeMikhailRomanov,inwhichcasesomeelite
hadtofillthepowervacuum.Thewordforadespotismwithoutadespotisan
oligarchy.ArguingthatitwastheMuscovitestatewhichwasomnipotent,not
theMuscoviteruler,soundscleverbutcreatesanunforeseendifficulty:theMus
covitepoliticaltheologyofanOrthodoxChristiantsarstvofocusedexclusively
upontherulercult,notthestate,17andwouldneedtobereinterpretedifone
wishedtoincludeitintheequationofMuscovyspowerfulstateandsubmissive

3/5
subjects.
Third,abstraction,notreality.Yesthegovernmentcoulddeportpopula
tions,requireserviceandtaxesfromallestates,depriveservitorsoflandsandin
comefornotcomplyingwiththedemandsthestateplacedonthem,andso
forth.AllearlymodernEuropeanmonarchieswereoppressiveregimes,atleast
towardsthelowerclasses;thepeasantsofthePolishLithuanianCommonwealth
wereenserfedduringthesameperiodasthoseinMuscovy,andnoonehasla
beledtheRzeczpospolitaahypertrophicstate.ThequestionforMuscovyis
whethertheregimeoppressedtheelite,itsownrulingclass,turningeventhearis
tocraticboiare,aswellasthegentry,intoservileinstrumentsofitsownwill.The
problemwiththisformulationisthatitreifiesthestate,whichisitselfan
abstraction.Thestateiscomprisedofpeople,itfunctionsonlyinandthrough
theindividualswhocompriseit.RecentstudiesinMuscovitesocialhistoryhave
examinedthesocialbondsamongsegmentsofMuscovitesociety,whetherone
callsthemclasses,estates,oranythingelse,namelytheboiarstvoandthe
dvorianstvo.18EvendiscussingonlytheMuscoviteperiod,itisdifficulttointer
pretthebehaviorofthosemembersofthesegroupswhoconstitutedtheperson
nelofthegovernmentitsdecisionmakingandadministrativeapparatusas
mindlesstoolsoftheregime,withoutfallingintotheargumentsforindividual
anomieandlackofsocialcohesionamongseemingelitesunderOriental
17MichaelCherniavsky,KhanorBasileus:AnAspectofRussianMedievalPoliticalTheory,
JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas20:4(1959),45976,reprintedinidem,ed.,TheStructureofRussian
History(NewYork:RandomHouse,1970),6579;idem,TsarandPeople(NewHaven:YaleUni
versityPress,1961),4453;idem,IvantheTerribleasaRenaissancePrince,SlavicReview27:2
(1968),195211;idem,IvantheTerribleandtheIconographyoftheKremlinCathedralofArch
angelMichael,RussianHistory/Histoirerusse2:1(1975),328.
18Kollmann,KinshipandPolitics;Kivelson,AutocracyintheProvinces.

Page 6
506
CHARLESJ.HALPERIN
Despotismortotalitarianism.Suchanalysis,basedupon20thcenturyevidence,
isincompatiblewiththesocialhistoryofthe16thand17thcenturies.Social
identityisdirectlyrelevanttotheissueofpoliticalloyalty,sincestateofficials
whoservetheirprivateclassinterestsratherthanstateprioritiescannotbeef
fectiveinstrumentsofcentralauthority.InfactthedominantWesternparadigm
oftheprocessofenserfmentinthe17thcenturyfollowspreciselysuchascenario:
theboiarewhodominatedgovernmentpolicyplacedtheirownprivategreed
aheadoftheneedtoguaranteetheeconomicsecurityofthegentryarmythestate
required,andwereforcedtodosoonlybyaconcertedcollectivepoliticalmove
mentofprovincialdvoriane.19Andthosegentry,whowantedpomestiadespite
theonerousserviceobligationswhichaccompaniedthem(justasmerchants
wantedtobecomegostidespitetheonerousfiscalobligationssuchastatusen
tailed),werenotsoacclimatizedtothenotionoflandforservicethattheydid
notbeginconvertingpomestiaintovotchinyinthe17thcentury.Bythe18th
centurytheysecuredtheirrighttokeeptheland,andthedependentpopulation
thereon,aftertheiremancipationfromservice.Evenintheeconomicsphere,
forallitsvaunteddominanceofresources,inthe17thcenturythestatedidnot
setprices,thefreemarketdidso,20anoddironyinasocietyinwhichthema
jorityofthepopulationwasserfs,andasignificantminorityslaves.21
Despiteitsahistorical,theoretical,andabstractpredilections,thetheoryof
Muscovyasahypertrophicstatecorrectlycontraststheinstitutionalmatrixof
MuscovywiththoseoftheWest.Muscovydidnothavefeudallaw,Roman
law,Magdeburglaw,corporateStnde,anelected,representative,constitutional
parliament,orestatesgeneral.NoWesternscholarhaseverarguedthatitdid,
andevenattheirworst,SovietscholarswhocategorizedMuscovyasanestate
representationalmonarchymanagedtoslipincaveatsthatconcededthediffer
encesbetweenMuscoviteinstitutionsandtheirEuropeananalogues.Muscovy
didlackthesecularRenaissancepoliticaltheorythatprovidedanalternativeto
divinemonarchy.22However,Muscovitesmanagedverywelltomanipulatetheir
owntheoryofanOrthodoxChristianempiretoachievetheirpoliticalgoalsto
19 RichardHellie,EnserfmentandMilitaryChangeinMuscovy(Chicago:UniversityofChicago

4/5
Press,1971).Thisisnottheonlypossibleexplanationofenserfment:cf.thesometimesoverlooked
JackM.Culpepper,TheLegislativeOriginsofPeasantBondageinMuscovy,Forschungenzur
osteuropischenGeschichte14(1969),162237.
20RichardHellie,TheEconomyandMaterialCultureofRussia,16001725(Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress,1999),e.g.63839.
21RichardHellie,SlaveryinRussia14501725(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1982).

22InWesternEuropeansecularabsolutistthought,therulerwasabovethelaw,atheoreticalpre

sumptionnotavailabletoMuscoviterulers,whocouldnotbesuperiortodivinelaw,theonlyform
oflawrecognizedinMuscovy.SeePaulBushkovitch,PetertheGreat(Lanham,MD:Rowmanand
Littlefield,2001),6367,especially64.

Page 7
MUSCOVYASAHYPERTROPHICSTATE:ACRITIQUE
507
opposeanillegitimaterulerlikeBorisGodunovorVasiliiShuiskii,ortojustify
urbanriotsorfrontieruprisings.WhiletheMuscovitescouchedtheirpetitionsto
therulerinservileandsubordinateterms,thecontentsofthosepetitionssuggest
thepoliticsofentitlement,notcharity.23Indeed,Muscovitesfromallclasses
domesticatedthediscourseofservilityinwhichtheypresentedthemselvesas
theslavesoftheruler.24Insum,inpracticeMuscovites,invokingbothscrip
tureandcustom,foundwaystoactthatshouldhavebeenforbiddenintheory.
Muscovylackedalternativepoliticalconceptionstoautocracy,butitseemsto
havecompensatedverywellforthatdefectbymanipulatingnotionsofhow
autocracywassupposedtofunction,letalonewhoshouldbetheautocrat.Itis
notthatsimple,therefore,totranslateevenavalidinstitutionalcontrastintopo
liticaltypology.WhighistoriographyandKadetpoliticshavenotlosttheirinflu
enceonRussianhistoriography
Finally,itisnotsufficienttoconcedethattheMuscovitestatesreachex
ceededitsgrasp,thatalthoughtheMuscovitestateintheorycontrolledallland
andmonopolizedpoliticalauthority,inpracticeitshanddidnotalwaysreachas
farorasfirmlyasonemightassume.Simplyput,apotentialhypertrophicstate,a
hypertrophicstatemanqu,awannabehypertrophicstate,ahypertrophicstate
intheorycannothavedominatedsocietythesamewayasanactualhypertro
phicstate.25Suchconsiderationsalmost,butnotquite,renderthetheoryof
Muscovyasahypertrophicstatemoot,sinceinpractice,thehistorianmust
alwayssubstantiatetheimplementationofstateauthorityinanysphereofMus
coviteliferatherthantakestateassertionsofcompetenceatfacevalue.Thedis
crepancybetweenthetheoryofMuscovyasahypertrophicstateanditsactu
alizationisfundamentaltoanyappreciationofthevalidityofthetheoryasa
historicalexplanation.Itsadherentsoughttorethinktheirarguments.
303East8thSt.,Apt.4
Bloomington,IN474083574USA
chalperi@indiana.edu
23Poe,APeopleBorntoSlavery,21314.

24MarshallPoe,WhatDidRussiansMeanWhenTheyCalledThemselvesSlavesoftheTsar?

SlavicReview57:3(Fall1998),585608.
25Insteadofastateconditionedsociety(Torkesfamousphrase,staatsbedingteGesselschaft),

onemightspeakofasocietyconditionedstate(inNancyShieldsKollmannsfelicitouswording,
asquotedbyRobertO.CrummeyinhistributetoTorke(Kritika2:3[Summer2001],697703,
here702).

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:T-fvCfG6fJcJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

5/5