Chester Dunning Rezension uber Lijudmila Morozova Rossija na puti iz Smuty Izbranie na carstwo Michaila Fedorowicza 2005 Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 58 H 2 2010

Rezensionen

Staatsgewalt einerseits und eine Zunahme der
organisierten Befassung mit öffentlichen Belan
gen jenseits des Staates andererseits aus. Auch
wenn „Staat“ und „Gesellschaft“ keine strikt ge
trennten Sphären waren und stets heterogene
Gebilde sind, so hieße es wohl das Kind mit
dem Bade auszuschütten, wollte man auf sie als
historische Kategorien gänzlich verzichten.

Jörg Ganzenmüller, Jena/München

JUDMILA

E. M

OROZOVA

Rossija na puti iz Smuty:

Izbranie na carstvo Michaila Fedoroviča.
[Russland auf dem Weg aus der Smuta. Die
Wahl von Michail Fedorovič zum Zaren.] Izdat.
Nauka Moskva 2005. 467 S. ISBN: 978-5-02-
033508-8.

Lyudmila Evgen’evna Morozova has written
several interesting books about Russia’s Time
of Troubles. In “Rossiya na puti iz Smuty“ she
deals with the serious problem of establishing
political legitimacy after the death of Tsar
Fedor Ivanovich in 1598. The extinction of the
Danilovichi dynasty and the “election” of Tsar
Boris Godunov triggered the Time of Troubles,
a period of civil war and foreign intervention
that nearly destroyed Russia. Why did the Time
of Troubles occur? One reason is that early
modern Russia’s non-secular political culture
was centered around the God-chosen tsar. Rus
sian Orthodox Christians had difficulty accept
ing the idea of an elected ruler. As a result, es
tablishing legitimacy during the Time of
Troubles proved to be extremely difficult. Tsar
Boris faced a powerful rebellion in the name of
the “true tsar” Dmitriy who claimed to be Ivan
the Terrible’s youngest son. The Godunov dyn
asty was overthrown in 1605, and Dmitriy ruled
for about a year as the God-chosen tsar; no one
ever suggested that he needed an election. After
Tsar Dmitriy’s assassination, the usurper Va
siliy Shuyskiy was “elected” tsar but was never
able to control more than half of the country.
He was challenged by rebels supporting an im
postor claiming to be Tsar Dmitriy, and Russia
descended into chaos. Only after invasions by
Polish and Swedish armies did competing nat
ive factions lay aside their differences to choose
a Russian prince as tsar. The election of Mikhail
Romanov by an Assembly of the Land in 1613
traditionally marks the end of the Time of

Troubles. For many of the new tsar’s support
ers, however, establishing and maintaining Mi
khail’s legitimacy in the eyes of the Russian
people remained a major concern because there
was no guarantee that an elected tsar would be
able to put an end to Russia’s Troubles.

After a brief look at the accession, support

ing factions, and degree of legitimacy achieved
by earlier rulers during the Time of Troubles,
Morozova examines in detail who Tsar Mi
khail’s supporters were and how they went
about choosing him and establishing his legit
imacy. The greatest strength of Morozova’s
book is the inclusion of many documents (some
published for the first time) associated with the
election of Mikhail Romanov. Unfortunately,
Morozova does not use these sources to chart a
new interpretation of Romanov’s election or the
nature of his regime. Instead, she clings to old
ideas that have been strongly challenged by re
cent scholarship. For example, Morozova ig
nores evidence of significant cossack participa
tion in Romanov’s election. Mikhail was the
candidate of cossacks who adored his father,
Filaret, for having been Patriarch in the court of
the second false Dmitriy. Curiously, Morozova
also fails to credit the complex marriage alli
ances forged with other boyar clans by the Ro
manovs for helping to promote Mikhail’s can
didacy. Instead, she repeats the old theory that
Mikhail’s relationship to the extinct ruling dyn
asty led to his election. Although that became
the official explanation in Romanov histori
ography, the fact that Mikhail was the grand
nephew of Anastasiya Romanovna was not
nearly as important in 1613 as it was later pro
claimed to be. It was the fact of Mikhail’s elec
tion by the representatives of the Russian
people that conferred legitimacy on him. It is
easy to understand why the Romanovs quickly
discarded the concept of vox populi, vox dei that
brought Tsar Mikhail to power; they wished to
rule as God-chosen autocrats. It is not so easy to
understand why Morozova chooses to credit
Romanov propaganda about Mikhail’s election.
Fortunately, scholars such as Isolde Thyrêt,
Isaiah Gruber, and the late Aleksandr Stan
islavskiy offer more perspicacious interpreta
tions of the end of the Time of Troubles.

Chester Dunning, College Station, TX

287