history of sixteenth-century Russia

Imperium and sacerdotium in sixteenth-century Russia: Filofei of Pskov and Maximus the Greek

The relationship between imperium and sacerdotium was a fundamental issue in Russia between the 15th and 16th centuries, when the autocephaly of the Russian Church was established and the great principality of Moscow became an empire. Among the most significant reflections on the relationship between imperial power and the priestly function are two works that have marked the cultural history of Russia in very different ways: the Letter of the monk Filofei of the Eleazar Monastery of Pskov to the d'jak M.G. Misyur-Munekhin, considered the manifesto of the Moscow-Third Rome doctrine, and the Discourse on Instabilities and Disorders, one of the most important writings of Maximus the Greek.
In his short treatise, in the form of an epistle, Filofei sets out to illustrate the upheavals of the cosmic and world order by articulating a complex reflection that can be reconstructed based on quotations from Holy Scripture and, more generally, from the ‘holy books’ at historical and theological level. In the Russian monk's argument, Rome's universal mission is not based on the ‘unshakeability’ of power, but rather on doctrinal orthodoxy, guaranteed by fidelity to ecclesiastical canons. The Moscow ruler has now become 'the sole emperor of Christians' and his role is to 'hold the reins of the divine holy thrones of the holy universal apostolic church, which in place of the Roman and Constantinopolitan churches, is in the city of Moscow, saved by God'.
In his Discourse, Maximus the Greek, taking his cue from the songs of Girolamo Savonarola, develops a complex argument that, in the wake of Holy Scripture and tradition, seeks to interpret the crisis of the present times by illustrating the exercise of power and the role of the ecclesiastical magisterium. His reflection, however, does not develop at historical and sacramental theological level, as philosophy does, but rather in the exegetical and moral sphere. The careful choice of passages, especially from the Old Testament, above all from the Book of Wisdom, serves to develop a radical critique of the moral behaviour of the rulers of his time. From this perspective, the function of the priest does not appear to be primarily sacred, but rather prophetic, which prompts Maximus to expound a severe criticism of the rulers. The form of the dialogue, the cogent argumentation, and above all the implicit references to themes and concepts present in modern Western thought, illustrate the development of an original reflection urging the renewal of Eastern Christian thought.
Despite their different approaches, both writers come together in the image of the widow in the desert, recalling the apocalyptic and eschatological dimension. Their different interpretations of the relationship between imperium and sacerdotium, moreover, do not appear to contradict each other, but are easy to integrate, complementing each other and illustrating enduring constants in the cultural history of Russia and, at the same time, a drive for renewal within the Eastern tradition.

The article examines the organization and the state of Russian-French trade in Narva in the 60s of the 16th century, in the context of the struggle of North-Eastern European states for hegemony in the Baltic region. Based on analysis of correspondence, mainly of the French Ambassador to Denmark Charles de Danzay with the Kings of France, the author concludes that the Russian state and the French kingdom are mutually interested in building and strengthening bilateral commerce. It proves that in the mid 1560s French trade routes to Narva in Russia intensifed despite resistance from the Polish and Swedish kings, but that commerce declined after the Swedish navy was liberated from military action following the Seven Years’ War of 1563–1570 and the blockade on Narva was subsequently reinforced. It is therefore concluded that it was in the political international scenario of the 1960s that the French were forced to fnd an alternative route for commercial communication with the Russian state via the Baltic.

В статье рассматривается организация и состояние русско-французской торговли в Нарве в 60-е годы XVI в. в условиях борьбы государств Северо-Востока Европы за гегемонию в Балтийском регионе. На основании анализа переписки, главным образом, французского посла в Дании Шарля де Данзе с королями Франции, автор приходит к выводу об обоюдном интересе Русского государства и Французского королевства в построении и укреплении двусторонней коммерции. Доказывается, что в середине 1560-х годов происходит интенсификация французского торгового трафика в русскую Нарву, несмотря на противодействие со стороны польского и шведского королей, а затем наблюдается явное снижение коммерческой активности, связанное с освобождением шведского флота от боевых действий по окончании Северной Семилетней войны 1563-1570 гг., с последующим усилением нарв ской блокады. В связи с этим делается заключение, что именно в политическом международном раскладе 60-х годов XVI в. нужно искать причины, побудившие французскую сторону искать альтернативный балтийскому маршруту путь коммерческой связи с Русским государством.

This article is an analytical review of five letters by King Henry III of France and Poland to the Russian tsars Ivan IV and Fyodor I between 1574 and 1588. The author reconstructs their content based on extant sources from archive collections in Russian and French libraries. The appendix provides evidence about the attribution of one of Henry III’s letters from 1588, which was previously considered to have been addressed to Fyodor by Henry IV de Bourbon in 1589: its transcription based on three copies with a Russian translation. Based on the materials of royal and diplomatic correspondence, the article also traces the evolution of relations between the monarchs of the two countries in the second half of the sixteenth century.

Представлен аналитический обзор пяти писем короля Франции и Польши Генриха III де Валуа, адресованных русским царям Ивану IV Васильевичу и Федору I Ивановичу в 1574–1588 гг. Содержание большей части из них реконструируется по отрывочным источникам из отечественных и французских библиотечных и архивных собраний. В приложении приводятся доказательства атрибуции письма Генриха III 1588 г., прежде считавшегося адресованным Федору Ивановичу в 1589 г. от Генриха IV, а также его транскрипция с учетом трех сохранившихся списков и с русским переводом. Основываясь на материалах монаршей и дипломатической переписки, автор прослеживает эволюцию отношений между монархами двух стран во второй половине XVI в.