How Byzantine Was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498?

chapter 2 How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498? Alexandra Vukovich Byzance après Byzance is the paradigm that has often described the perceived continuation of Byzantine imperial culture (religious, political, or intellectual) in the centuries after the 1453 fall of Constantinople.1 The Byzantine inheritance, reception, or transfer of Byzantine style and culture to Rus and Muscovy has received attention, and scholars have pointed to the vast array of Byzantine texts, objects, and people who eventually arrived in the Eurasian north in the early modern period. By the fall of Constantinople, a state centered around Moscow had begun to emerge in the north from one of the Rus principalities.2 1 Initially coined by Nicolae Iorga in his 1971 book, Byzance après Byzance: Continuation de l’histoire de la vie byzantine, the term Byzance après Byzance described the context of Romania’s place in Europe, historically and culturally as a transmitter of Byzantine culture after the empire had ceased to exist. Iorga saw the role of Southeastern Europe as both a bridge between the “East” and the “West” and as possessing distinct national histories within the paradigm of the spiritual, spiritual, and institutional continuity of the Byzantine Empire within separate Balkan states. The concept itself relies on articulating continuity (through religion and cultural transmission) rather than revival or appropriation, even though this process began in the later years of the Ottoman period and during the period of nation-building in the 19th- and early 20th-centuries. The project of Byzantinization occurred at different points in the regions of the former Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine cultural sphere with Romania expressing its autonomy from the Ottoman Empire through a national architectural style that obscured obvious Ottoman influences and Byzantinized local features. However, Byzance après Byzance as a process, was seen to have deeper historical roots with the translation of Byzantine spiritual and cultural authority to Russia as well as the survival of Eastern Christian religion and religious communities across the Eastern Mediterranean which, to some degree, stultifies discussion of innovation, change, and transformation by insisting on continuity through endless comparison with Byzantine protypes, whether in art, letters, architecture, or even practice. For an analysis of Byzance après Byzance, see Diana Mishkova, Beyond Balkanism. The Scholarly Politics of Region Making (New York: Routledge, 2018), pp. 117–18, 285–87; Ada Hajdu, “The Search for National Architectural Styles in Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria from the Mid-nineteenth Century to World War I,” in Entangled Histories of the Balkans, ed. Roumen Daskalov and Tchavdar Marinov, (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 394–440, 420–28. 2 This translatio imperii from Kiev to Moscow was developed in the 16th century with the shaping of information about early Rus and Byzantium (and, to a lesser extent, medieval Serbia) © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004421370_004 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 36 4 May 2020 7:23:16 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 37 Over the preceding century, a Pax Mongolica had reigned in Rus (until about the 1350s), offering stable trade networks from Central Asia to the Baltic, across several khanates of the Chinggisid Dynasty.3 The role of commercial networks in the political economy of early Muscovy is often overlooked in studies of its cultural production, but the transfer of texts, artifacts, people, and technical knowledge (from the former Byzantine lands, as well as other places) was made possible by the advantageous place of Muscovy as a thoroughfare in trade, the as direct precursors to the nascent Muscovite principality, bypassing both the polycentric organization of the principalities of Rus and the more recent Mongol Empire. For an early and quite substantial evaluation of phenomenon of translatio imperii in the 15th century, see Vladimir Savva, Moskovskie tsari i viszantiiskie vasilevsy. k voprosu o vliianii Vizantii na obrazovanie idei tsarskoi vlasti Moskovskikh gosudarei (Kharkov: M. Zilberberg, 1901), pp. 110–157 (on inauguration). See also Gustav Alef, The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy: The Age of Ivan III (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986), pp. 90 note 131, and 206; and, for the general background on the transfer of Byzantine political culture to the north, Francis Dvornik, “Byzantine Political Ideas in Kievan Russia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9 (1956): pp. 73–121; and Sergei Ivanov, “The Second Rome as Seen by the Third: Russian Debates on ‘the Byzantine legacy,’” in The Reception of Byzantium in European Culture since 1500, ed. Przemsław Marciniak and Dion Smythe (Abingdon: Ashgate, 2016), pp. 55–81. From the mid-19th century, scholars in Russia began to offer an alternate vision to the theory of an unbroken and exclusive historical continuity from Kiev to Moscow. Nikolay Kostomarov postulated that Rus bequeathed a democratic heritage to Ukraine and an autocratic heritage to Russia via Muscovy, while Alexander Herzen depicted Novgorod as heir to Kiev’s communal republican tradition. Kostomarov, a historian and proponent of Pan-Slavism, outlined his position in an academic article, “The Two Rus’ Nationalities”, published in 1861 in the journal Osnova. There, Kostomarov (following the ethnographer Mykhailo Maksymovych) asserted that Rus had been divided into two separate entities with the northern favoring authoritarianism and collectivism and the southern (following Poland) favoring individual freedom and federalism, see: Serhii Plokhy, Lost Kingdom: The Quest for Empire and the Making of the Russian Nation (New York: Hachette, 2017), pp. 138–40. Aleksander Herzen, Russian philosopher, polymath, and socialist, skirted the 19th-century Slavophile/Westernizer debate by viewing the popular assembly (veche) of Old Novgorod and Pskov as autonomous institutions brutally centralized by the Muscovite grand princes in the 15th- and 16th-centuries. His view, following that of the Decembrists, saw Old Novgorod and Pskov as models for a national revival based on a pan-Slavic phenomenon. In the Slavophile/Westernizer debate, Herzen admonished both sides drawing on a wide range of disciplines, including history. On Herzen’s use of history, see Alexander Ivanovich Herzen, Sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1954–1966), vi 164–65, vii 113–14, 33; Aileen Kelly, The Discovery of Chance. The Life and Thought of Alexander Herzen (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), pp. 19, 98–100, 138–41 (for Herzen’s argument with Chaadaev on the philosophy of history), pp. 230–32. 3 See Donald Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 29–36. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 37 4 May 2020 7:23:16 pm 38 Vukovich expansion of settled territory, and the overall stability of the Pax Mongolica.4 Moreover, the dynastic politics of the princes of Rus fluctuated throughout the 14th century, but saw the conservation of power within the princely clan by means of alliances via intra-princely marriage, such as the 1367 union between Dmitrii Donskoi of Moscow (r. 1359–89) and Evdokiia, the daughter of Dmitrii Konstantinovich of Tver. The role of these alliances, most of which translated to military assistance, created a set of blocs that saw the rise of a Northern Coalition, which would be tested at Kulikovo.5 Throughout the 14th century Moscow pushed the boundaries of Mongol power, expanded into the western Chernigov region and the Oka river to the east, and neutralized opposition via a series of strategic alliances with its neighbors.6 The disaggregation of the Golden Horde in the first half of the 15th century saw previous attempts to gain ascendency come to fruition in a power vacuum, during which Moscow was bolstered by a new trade corridor connecting it with Italian colonies on the Black Sea.7 4 There were several axes of trade crossing Rus, from Novgorod to the Black Sea (under Italian control), from Moscow and Tver to Sarai joining the “silk road” across the Caspian Sea to Central Asia and India, or south to the Ottoman Empire and Mamluk Egypt. See Janet Martin, Medieval Russia, 980–1584 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 225–27. On the expansion of settled territory, the “Life of St. Stefan of Perm” describes the emergence of Perm via the conversion of the Vychegda Permians to Christianity and the monastic colonization of the Vologda area. See Jukka Korpela, “Stefan von Perm’: Heiliger Täufer im politischen Kontext,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 49 (2001): 481–99. 5 For example, Nizhny Novgorod was subordinated in 1392. See Nancy Shields Kollmann, “The Principalities of Rus’ in the Fourteenth Century,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Michael Jones (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 764–94. The Northern Coalition included Suzdal, Nizhny Novgorod, Iaroslavl, Kostroma, and Beloozero; it defeated Kahn Mamai at the battle of Kulikovo Field in 1380. On the battle, see Anton Anatolevich Gorskii, “K voprosu o sostave Russkogo voiska na Kulikovom Pole,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 6 (2001): 1–9; Gorskii, Moskva i Orda (Moscow: Nauka, 2000), p. 214; and Kati Parppei, The Battle of Kulikovo Refought: The First National Feat (The Hague: Brill, 2017), pp. 19–26. 6 On the Mongol border, Khan Mamai formed a coalition against Moscow (which had been withholding tribute), and the two sides clashed in three sieges between 1368 and 1372; see Martin, Medieval Russia, pp. 233–39. Grand Duchy Lithuania joined Moscow in a marriage alliance when Sofia, the daughter of Vytautas, married the Grand Prince of Moscow, Vasilii I Dmitrievich (r. 1389–1425), in 1391; see Robert Frost, The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, vol. 1, The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 1385–1569 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 80; and Stephen Christopher Rowell, Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295– 1345 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 19–25. 7 Martin, Medieval Russia, pp. 358–63. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 38 4 May 2020 7:23:16 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 39 Discussions of the transfer of knowledge, political and cultural power, and imperial legitimacy from Constantinople to Moscow (the “Third Rome”) have often failed to take into account the unique set of political and economic circumstances that concentrated military and economic power in the hands of the Muscovite princes.8 In the 15th century, the politico-territorial entity known as the Moscow Grand Principality was just beginning to emerge. The reign of Ivan III (r. 1462–1502) reflected a political program that sought both to promote the Grand Principality internationally and to secure power at home.9 Ivan III’s cultural program, developed over his long reign, was aided by the extension of his international diplomacy, one result of which was his 1472 marriage to Zoe/Sofiia Palaiologina.10 The marriage project with Zoe/ Sofiia has been viewed by historians as the source for the appearance of a set of Byzantine cultural and political symbols and sources in Muscovy. However, when reading the chronicle account of Ivan III’s long reign, one is struck by the single-mindedness and diplomatic tenacity of the prince, who cultivated support within the Church, in the court, and through diplomacy to promote his rule and to give prominence to Muscovy as a (re)emergent player on the international scene, rather than an arriviste principality hewn from within the Mongol superpower. Ivan III and his supporters within the court and the Church used whatever means at their disposal to cultivate an image of power that was both remote while comprehensible to those whom it was meant to impress, and ancient while entirely constructed from spoliated references, Byzantine or other. Whether in his diplomatic dealings or the ambitious building program in Moscow, Ivan III and his court actively sought to delineate the power of the prince and his entourage in that city and to demarcate the site of princely power via a built landscape meant to impress residents and visitors alike.11 This newly formed (or rebuilt, in the case of the Dormition Cathedral) 8 9 10 11 On the “Third Rome” theory, see Marshall Poe, “Moscow, the Third Rome: The Origins and Transformations of a ‘Pivotal Moment,’” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 49 (2001): 412–29; and Daniel Rowland, “Moscow—The Third Rome or the New Israel?” Russian Review 55, no. 4 (1996): 591–614. See Nancy Shields Kollmann, The Russian Empire 1450–1801 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 12–13. On Zoe/Sofiia’s arrival at the Muscovite court, see Silvia Ronchey, “Orthodoxy on Sale: The Last Byzantine, and the Lost Crusade,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London 21–26 August 2006), ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys (Aldershot: Routledge, 2006), pp. 313–42. On the princess’s life in the Muscovite court, see Paul Bushkovitch, “Sofia Palaiologina in Life and Legend,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 52 (2018): 158–80. Moscow was not an original fortified town of “old Rus,” it only appears in the sources in the mid-12th century. See Kollmann, The Russian Empire, pp. 141–44. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 39 4 May 2020 7:23:16 pm 40 Vukovich 15th-century landscape provided the setting for what would become an elaborate ceremonial, orchestrated by the court and elevated by the Church.12 Ceremonies of adventus, religious celebrations and feast days, and rituals of allegiance all benefited from a new histrionic setting, but none more so than the newly reconfigured ceremony of inauguration that deployed a remote set of references, real and invented, and brought the princely art of prestidigitation pageantry to the forefront of court ceremonial in Moscow. 1 The Rite of Inauguration of Dmitrii Ivanovich The major ritual that has been attributed to the reign of Ivan III is the rite of inauguration developed for the especially performative enthronement/ coronation of his grandson, Dmitrii Ivanovich (r. 1498–1502) in 1498.13 The rite, which is described in several chronicles, includes an array of sources and reflects the concertation of the court and the Muscovite Church.14 The study of 12 13 14 See Michael Flier, “Political Ideas and Ritual,” in Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 1, From Early Rus’ to 1689, ed. Maureen Perrie (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 387–408. I have reproduced the text, from the Patriarchal/Nikon’s Chronicle, with a translation, at the end of this chapter. For the chronicle, see Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 12 (Moscow: Izd. vostochnoi literatury, 1901/2000), pp. 246–48 (Patriarchal/Nikon Chronicle). The series title is hereafter abbreviated as PSRL. The text from the Nikon Chronicle (probably the oldest extant redaction, from the 1520s) is reproduced in several other chronicles, both in its long form (e.g., Voskressenskii Chronicle: PSRL 8 (1901/2001), pp. 234–36) and in a shorter form (e.g., Russkii Khronograf: PSRL 22, part 2 (1914/2005), pp. 512–13). The shorter form (reproduced below as the “First Account”) may have been taken from an earlier chronicle, as George Majeska discusses in “The Moscow Coronation of 1498 Reconsidered,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 26, no. 3 (1978): 353–61, 360–61. Nikon’s Chronicle is compilatory in character and quite lengthy. Globally, for the late 15th century, there is a shared account for the Nikonian, Patriarchal, and Voskressenskii chronicles. The narrative is shared until about 1520. However, already for the account of events in the late 15th-century, there are variations of which events are related and how information is shaped and conveyed, which will be discussed further on. As with previous chronicles, Nikon’s Chronicle interpolates a variety of sources (including other chronicles) and types of narrative, and its manuscript tradition dates to later than the period in which it was compiled. On textology, see Iakov Solomonovich Lur’e, “Iz istorii russkogo letopisaniia kontsa XV veka,” Akademiia Nauk SSSR, TODRL 11 (1955): pp. 156–86, 180–86; Boris Mikhailovich Kloss, Nikonovskii svod i russkie letopisi XVI–XVII vekov (Moscow: Nauka, 1980), pp. 190–95; and Iakov Solomonovich Lur’e, “Genealogicheskaia schema leteopisei XI–XVI vv.,” Akademiia Nauk SSSR, TODRL 40 (1985): pp. 190–205, esp. 193–96. On the relationship between the chronicle textology and the rite of enthronement of Dmitrii Ivanovich, see Majeska, “The Moscow Coronation of 1498 Reconsidered,” 356. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 40 4 May 2020 7:23:16 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 41 the 1498 rite of enthronement has displayed the common tension in the study of ritual, that between particularism and generalization.15 From this perspective, the 1498 rite of inauguration can be viewed as a composite entity, featuring a series of highly specific ritual elements (the cap of Monomakh, singing, interpolated scripts, and so forth), and as a snapshot, one element of an overall recuperation of Byzantine court culture.16 Exploring court practices from this angle upholds the commonly held notion that most advances in the formation of Muscovite (and Russian) culture and representation were mainly derivative and delayed, new to Muscovy, but old elsewhere, overlooking the spontaneous power of ritual to structure political life, to signal social change, and to invent tradition.17 Furthermore, the pageantry and display of collective effervescence during the ceremony must be read against the surrounding events, all of which suggest court conflict and contestation of Ivan III’s rule. Thus, the ceremony of 1498 mobilized Byzantine notions of cosmic order and transcendental hierarchy, featuring new symbols of power, while masking conflict and the actual workings of the Muscovite court. 15 16 17 See David Cannadine and Simon Price, eds., Rituals of Royalty Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 1–12. The inauguration of Ivan III has often been evoked as a step in Muscovy/Russia’s path to “autocracy,” a specter of “oriental despotism” that drew its sources from Byzantine (sometimes Mongol) sources. This framing is very much an artifact of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, hence the tendency toward generalizations about Muscovite “political culture.” See Alef, The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy, pp. 55–95, esp. 90–91; and Konstantin Vasilievich Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva: Vtoraia polovina XV veka (Moscow: Moscow University Press, 1952), pp. 72–88. More recently, studies of Muscovy and early modern Russia have taken a comparative approach to situate Muscovy within the paradigms of the formation of early modern empires, while also looking at the local circumstances governing the emergence of Muscovy, i.e., Mongol suzerainty. For the former, see Kollmann, The Russian Empire, pp. 2–7 (for a discussion of “oriental despotism”), pp. 130–35. For the latter, see Donald Ostrowski, “The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions,” Slavic Review 49, no. 4 (1990): 525–42; on trends in Muscovite “state-building” historiography, see Valerie Kivelson, “Culture and Politics, or the Curious Absence of Muscovite State Building in Current American Historical Writing,” Cahiers du Monde russe 46, no. 1–2 (2005): 19–28. The inauguration of Dmitrii Ivanovich should be seen as an “invented tradition” according to Eric Hobsbawm’s parameters: “It includes both ‘traditions’ actually invented, constructed and formally instituted and those emerging in a less easily traceable manner within a brief and dateable period—a few years perhaps—and establishing themselves with great rapidity … ‘Invented tradition’ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.” Eric Hobsbawn and Terrence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 1. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 41 4 May 2020 7:23:16 pm 42 Vukovich The coronation of Dmitrii Ivanovich by his grandfather was an innovation in very real terms: it was the first event of its kind in the chronicles of Rus/Muscovy about princely inaugurations to deploy this particular set of mixed symbols, accoutrements, choreographed movements, and dialogue.18 However, it can be characterized neither as an outlier nor as the ultimate evolution of the Rus ceremony of inauguration, as most ceremonies of inauguration responded more to immediate political demands and circumstances than to ritual requirements.19 The princely elite adopted certain rituals for its inauguration ceremonies; however, none of the attendant elements (such as enthronement on the princely seat) determined the success or failure of a ceremony.20 Rather, the ceremony, whether grandiose or humble, rendered a de facto situation de jure. Thus, in the case of Ivan III, the ceremonial of investiture deployed for his grandson can be read as a manifestation of his ability to rule and impose his candidate on the throne in Moscow. The deployment of ceremonial was an effect, an externalization of his puissance, but it was no substitute for the concurrence of good economic and political fortunes, which represented the real basis of his authority over the court. George Majeska portrayed the schema of a Kievan enthronement, in comparison with that of Dmitrii Ivanovich in 1498, thusly: “Prince (or Grand Prince) 18 19 20 Previous inaugurations, beginning in the 10th century, featured several ritual mainstays (including enthronement), but were relatively disparate and included a variety of rituals; for a chronological overview, see Fedir Androshchuk, “K istorii obriada intronizatsii drevnerusskikh kniazei (‘sidenie na kurganakh’),” in Druzhnni starozhitnosti tsentral’noskhidnoi Evropi VIII–X st. Materiali Mizhnarodnogo pol’ovogo arkheologichnogo seminaru (Chernihiv: Siverians’ka dumka, 2003), pp. 5–10; Alexandra Vukovich, “Enthronement in Early Rus: Between Byzantium and Scandinavia,” Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 14 (2018): 211–39; Vukovich, “The Enthronement Rituals of the Princes of Vladimir-Suzdal in the 12th and 13th Centuries,” FORUM University of Edinburgh Journal of Culture and the Arts 17 (2013): 1–15; and Vukovich, “Le Prince et son épée dans le Rous’ du Nord à la suite de l’exil byzantin de Vsévolod Iourevich,” in Byzance et ses voisins, ed. Élisabeth Yota (Bern: Peter Lang, 2019), forthcoming. For example, the 1206 enthronement of Konstantin Vsevolodich in Novgorod is especially elaborate compared with other medieval princely enthronements. Prince Konstantin is enthroned by his father, Prince Vsevolod Iurevich of Vladimir, and the ceremony includes biblical exegesis, the participation of the full clergy and people of Novgorod bearing crosses and standards, a focus on the princely sword (which I have posited as a Byzantine-inspired innovation), and enthronement at the Novgorod church of St. Sophia. See Vukovich, “Le Prince et son épée”; and Dvornik, “Byzantine Political Ideas in Kievan Russia,” pp. 118–21. See Oleksiy Petrovich Tolochko, Kniaz’ v drevnei Rusi: Vlast, sobstvennost, ideologiia (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1992), pp. 35–67, 127–50. For the overall ideological basis of the ceremony within the context of medieval Rus, see Igor Sergeevich Chichurov, Politicheskaia ideologiia srednevekov’ia Vizantiia i Rus (Moscow: History Institute SSSR, 1990). 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 42 4 May 2020 7:23:16 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 43 blank came to blank and sat (sede) on the throne of his forefathers.”21 Though not as pithy as Majeska claims, the enthronement ceremonies of early Rus received none of the ordines or theoretical exegeses that defined analogous ceremonies in Byzantium, the Latinate kingdoms, and, later on, Muscovy.22 In general, the chronicles of Rus include consistent details about ceremonies of inauguration through enthronements at the church of St. Sophia in Kiev or at analogous churches in other polities, a ritual that is absent in the 1498 inauguration ceremony. Enthronements in Rus designated new princes and invested them with seniority (in the case of sole rule) or higher status (in the case of co-rule with a senior prince). Representations of Church prelates, monks, notables, lay people, and foreign dignitaries as participants and witnesses to the enthronements of certain princes of Rus suggest that the authors or compilers of the chronicles of Rus were concerned with the externalization of the symbols of authority both to demonstrate hierarchy within the dynasty and to distance members of the dynasty from others.23 Although there does appear to have been a steady evolution in the ceremonial of investiture, particularly in the northeast of Rus with the 1206 investiture of Konstantin Vsevolodich by his father in Novgorod representing a point of departure, information (or lack thereof) about the ceremonial of investiture varies from prince to prince, depending on context (of both the event and its depiction) and, most likely, the conservation of source material.24 The enthronement of Dmitrii Ivanovich represents a real ceremonial innovation, especially compared to that of Ivan III himself, described as part of the testament of Vasilii II and stating simply that he ascended the throne, without further detail.25 The narrative about the coronation of Dmitrii Ivanovich at the Dormition Cathedral of the Kremlin (Fig. 2.1) described in the Nikon/Patriarchal Chronicle can be broken down into approximately ten parts: I. [First Account] Assembly of the clergy of all of Rus and the laying out of vestments, the cap (of Monomakh) and barmy (Figs. 2.2–2.4), and seats on a platform 21 22 23 24 25 Majeska, “The Moscow Coronation of 1498 Reconsidered,” p. 355. See Janet Nelson, “Symbols in Context: Rulers’ Inauguration Rituals in Byzantium and the West,” in Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1986), pp. 259–83. On the process of “role distancing” to create elite group identity, see Pierre Bourdieu, La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1979), pp. 1–23. For the 1206 investiture, see PSRL 1 (1962/2001), cols. 421–424. PSRL 12 (1901/2000), p. 115; PSRL 8 (1901/2001), p. 150. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 43 4 May 2020 7:23:17 pm 44 Vukovich figure 2.1 Cathedral of the Dormition, Kremlin, Moscow, 1479 photograph by Alexandra Vukovich II. Arrival of the princes wherein Dmitrii Ivanovich is thrice showered with gold and silver coins26 III. [Second Account] Assembly at the Dormition Cathedral with singing; the Metropolitan, Ivan III, and Dmitrii Ivanovich assemble on a platform before the clergy, boyars, and other spectators IV. Ivan III’s speech in which he mentions primogeniture27 26 27 George Majeska suggested that this was possibly a misinterpretation of the distribution of largesse following the coronation of Emperor Manuel II in 1392 as the emperor being “showered with staurata/small silver coins.” Ignatius of Smolensk, ‘The Journey of Ignatius of Smolensk’ in George Majeska (ed. & trans.), Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 1984), pp. 76–113. PSRL 12 (1901/2000), p. 246: “отци наши великие князи сыномъ своимъ первымъ давали великое княжство” (Our forefathers, the Grand Princes, would give the Great Principality to their firstborn son). The “tradition of primogeniture” finds its first clear articulation in this passage and would continue to be contested well into the 16th century; see Sergei Bogatyrev, “Reinventing the Russian Monarchy in the 1550s: Ivan the 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 44 4 May 2020 7:23:17 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 45 figure 2.2 Crown attributed to Monomakh, The Moscow Kremlin State Historical and Cultural Museum and Heritage Site photograph by Alexandra Vukovich V. Metropolitan’s blessing and prayer featuring veterotestamentary examples and common tropes about kingship28 VI. Ivan III vests his grandson with barmy and the cap of Monomakh while the Metropolitan prays VII. Litanies VIII. Metropolitan’s speech featuring an injunction for princes to care for “all Orthodox Christians” IX. Liturgy 28 Terrible, the Dynasty, and the Church,” Slavonic and East European Review 85, no. 2 (2007): 271–93, 283. Including elements from: Math. 25:4, 35, 36, 40; Ps. 111–112:5; Ps. 40–41:1, 2; and II Cor. 9:6. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 45 4 May 2020 7:23:18 pm 46 Vukovich figure 2.3 Barmy attributed to Aleksei Mikhailovich photograph provided by Wikimedia Commons / Shakko X. Ivan III and “Grand Prince” Dmitrii Ivanovich are again showered with gold and silver coins The ceremony of investiture is composed of several elements that interpolate past and present features of the symbolic landscape of Rus. The constitutional significance of enthronement and acclamation in a particular church remains in the first account and is included in the Nikon/Patriarchal Chronicle, but is superseded by new regalia and endorsement by the Metropolitan of Rus.29 Far from Wortman’s assertion of “foreignness” for these ritual developments, 29 Note that this particular church, the Moscow Dormition Cathedral, was one of Ivan III’s foundations, heavily rebuilt during his reign, and with input from the Italian architects Ivan III invited to his court. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 46 4 May 2020 7:23:19 pm 47 How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? figure 2.4 Portrait of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov (1629–76), The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg photograph by Vladimir Terebenin, provided by The State Hermitage Museum the overall ceremony reflects a composite reconstruction of past events and artifacts, reordered and enhanced to promote Ivan III’s current political needs and program.30 This reconstruction of the past becomes especially salient in 30 Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy from Peter the Great to the Death of Nicholas I, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 6: 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 47 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 48 Vukovich Muscovite chronicles, which reflect new ideological programs, including linearity of descent for Rus (as with Ivan III’s historicization of primogeniture as a traditional feature of princely succession) or the mythic regalia of the Muscovite princes.31 The regalia featured in the ceremony has received the most attention due to its emphatically constructed and Byzantinized elements. The barmy (of Monomakh) and cap (of Monomakh) appear here in their inchoate forms. Both pieces descend from the “Legend of Monomakh,” comprising a long tradition of items of “ancient” Byzantine regalia that were transferred to early Rus for princely coronations.32 According to the legend, Vladimir Monomakh (r. 1113–25 in Kiev) received imperial regalia from the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–55), his supposed grandfather, as a diplomatic gift. The regalia of Monomakh included the “life-giving cross,” a pectoral cross with a piece of the wood from the cross of the Crucifixion; the barmy, a counterpart to the Byzantine emperors’ shoulder pieces; and the crown, “Monomakh’s cap” (shapka Monomakha), which was very likely of Tatar origin.33 The earliest 31 32 33 “The princes of Moscow who consolidated power over a unified Russian state in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries understood sovereignty in terms of foreign images. Their forebears had looked to the Byzantine emperor and the Mongol khan as sovereign … The expansion of empire confirmed the image of supreme power and justified the unlimited authority of the Russian emperors. The religious, eschatological element enhanced their moral dominion.” Wortman’s substantial work on Russian ceremony features generalizations about early Rus and Muscovite “customs” and “traditions,” which are largely constructs of the early modern period. An example of the new Muscovite historiography is the Book of Degrees (Stepennaia Kniga), see Gail Lenhoff and Ann Kleimola (eds.), The book of Royal Degrees and the Genesis of Russian Historical Consciousness (Bloomington, Illinois: Slavica Publishers, 2011). Piotr Stefanovich has recently explored the Muscovite construction of the Christianization of Rus as a “national event” and the favoring of a Varangian descent for Rus (Voskressenskii Chronicle); see Stefanovich, “Kreshchenie Rusi v istoricheskhikh sochineniiakh XVI–XVII vv.,” in Narrativy Rusi kontsa XV–serediny XVIII vv.: V poiskakh svoei istorii, ed. Andrei Doronin (Moscow: Politicheskaia entsiklopediia, 2017), pp. 80–102; and Stefanovich, “Legenda o prizvanii Variagov v i istorografii XVI–XVII vv.: Ot srednevekovykh mifov k rannemodernym,” in Dreviaia Rus’ posle Drevnei Rusi: Diskurs vostrochnoslavianskogo (ne)edinstva, ed. Andrei Doronin (Moscow: Politicheskaia entsikopediia, 2017), pp. 326–44. [Please maintain my transcription here, as it was very carefully done: Стефанович Легенда о призвании варягов в историографии XVI–XVII вв.] It should be noted that coronation was not part of the inauguration rituals of early Rus; see note 16. The bibliography on the regalia of Monomakh is substantial. For a general outline, see Sergei Bogatyrev, “Shapka Monomakha i shlem naslednika: Reprezentatsiia vlasti i dinasticheskaia politika pri Vasilii III i Ivane Groznom,” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 1 (2011): 171–200; Bogatyrev, “Eshche raz o shapke Monomakha i kazne moskovskikh kniazei,” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2 (2011): 251–54; Guzel’ 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 48 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 49 mention of it is from 1341, in the “Testament of Ivan Kalita,” where it is called the shapka zolotaia (golden crown). It continues to be mentioned as the golden crown in the testaments of Ivan II, Dmitrii Donskoi, Vasilii I, and Vasilii II.34 Information about the regalia is sparse and appears intermittently in the chronicles; for example, the cap and barmy are mentioned at the investiture of Dmitrii Ivanovich, but not at that of his grandfather, and it is unclear, based on chronicle accounts, whether they should be attributed to Monomakh or not. The chronicle traditions for the investiture account do not agree on the Monomakh attribution, whereas they overlap otherwise. The designation of “Monomakh’s cap” in the Nikon/Patriarchal Chronicle or “Monomakh’s barmy” in the Voskressenskii Chronicle could be 16th-century projections onto the past, to strengthen historical claims about the regalia.35 In effect, the most 34 35 Fuadovna Valeeva-Suleimanova, “Shapka Monomakha—Imperskii symbol tatarskogo proiskhozhdeniia,” in Zolotoordynskaia tsivilizatsiia, ed. Il’nur Midkhatovich Murzaleev (Kazan: Institut istorii, 2008), pp. 22–29; and Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols, pp. 174–76. See Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols, p. 175. Majeska discusses the ideology of 16th-century chronicles and argues against a later attribution, in “The Moscow Coronation of 1498 Reconsidered,” pp. 360–61. Although some scholars (Lur’e and Zimin) accepted the “cap of Monomakh” reading as older, the disparate attributions of the vestments “of Monomakh” and their absence in previous enthronements, as well as in the first version of Dimitrii Ivanovich’s enthronement, suggest a later interpolation for the first account. On the relative relationships between the chronicles and their later emendation for specific political ends, see Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Zimin, Russkie letopisi i khronografy kontsa XV–XVI vv. (Moscow: MGIAI, 1960), 6–9. Lur’e describes this transitional period between the reigns of Ivan III (d. 1505) and Vasilii III (d. 1533) as a time of “fierce political struggle” that is reflected in the chronological boundaries of late 15th-century codices. In Lur’e’s view there was a “re-working” of chronicles under Vasilii III with a possible emendation of Vasilii’s removal from the line of succession and Ivan III’s promotion of his grandson, Dmitrii. However, the shaping of information about the beginning of the reign of Dmitrii Ivanovich appears to have either remained unaffected (after all, Vasilii’s place was restored and preserving the semblance of normalcy may have superseded the settling of scores) or may be a later interpolation to cohere the narrative of succession. As Lur’e saw it, the narrative of the rehabilitation of Vasilii, beginning in 1499, suggests that an editorial event took place during his reign. Therefore, it is curious that the chronicler kept (or inserted) both version(s) of Dmitrii Ivanovich’s enthronement, affording him additional legitimacy, while at the same time shaping a narrative that downplayed the court conflict that led to Sofiia and Vasilii’s disgrace and distancing from the court and line of succession. Lur’e saw this as a form of engaged (or journalistic/ публицистические) authorship that becomes obvious in the treatment of information about the restoration of Vasilii around 1500–1505 that reworked information about his disgrace without suppressing it entirely. Due to the ambivalent and dismissive view taken by the recension/свод of 1539 of Dmitrii Ivanovich, Lur’e concluded that any positive readings of the former and negative readings of Vasilii Ivanovich had to be the result of a late 15th-century redaction completed under Ivan III. Therefore, 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 49 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 50 Vukovich substantial information about the regalia, including its provenance, only appears in the first half of the 16th century in the Skazanie o kniaz’iakh vladimirskikh (Tale of the Princes of Vladimir).36 The Skazanie connected Muscovy to a double Roman and Hellenic heritage via early Rus and asserted that the Muscovite princes received their authority from Byzantine emperors and that they also descended from the family of Augustus Caesar. Proof of this Byzantine provenance included the “ancient” regalia of the grand princes. However, shapka Monomakha is obviously of Central Asian manufacture and most likely had no connection with Constantine Monomachos or Vladimir Monomakh, even if it already existed (in whatever form) prior to the period of Mongol suzerainty. It is difficult to state with certainty whether the attribution to Monomakh predates the appearance of the Skazanie, and it is quite likely that the Skazanie only provided documentary evidence for what had become a commonly acknowledged provenance for the regalia in courtly circles. The role of the Church in the promulgation of this tale was twofold: in the recording of the tale to provide textual evidence and in the sourcing of analogous texts, throughout the 16th century, to multiply the sites of legitimacy. In the 16th century, the cap is mentioned as the “crown of Monomakh” in the Epiphany Ritual of 1558; it appears in the testament of Ivan IV the Terrible; it featured on the murals on the ceiling of the Throne Room in the Kremlin’s Zolotaia palata (Golden Palace), which depict the transfer of the regalia;37 and the regalia are further depicted on the tsar’s throne (which becomes the “throne of Monomakh”) in the Kremlin’s Dormition Cathedral.38 From this 36 37 38 it is possible that the amplified reading of the enthronement of Dmitrii Ivanovich (mentioning the crown of Monomkah, etc.) was part of a late 15th-century redaction that has come down to us. See Lur’e “Iz istorii russkogo letopisaniia kontsa XV veka,” pp. 180–86. On the succession crisis, see John V.A. Fine, “The Muscovite Dynastic Crisis of 1497–1502,” Canadian Slavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes 8 (1966): 198–215. For discussion of the Skazanie’s date of composition, see Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols, pp. 170–78, who writes: “This complex of texts plays fast and loose with historical accuracy and is unconcerned with chronological impossibilities” (p. 171). See also David Miller, “Once Again about the Dating and Provenance of the Skazanie o Kniaz’iakh Vladimirskikh,” Russian History/Histoire Russe 25, no. 1–2 (1998): 65–77. See Ekaterina Boltunova, “Imperial Throne Halls and Discourse of Power in the Topography of Early Modern Russia (Late 17th–18th Centuries),” in Palaces from Augustus to the Age of Absolutism, ed. Michael Featherstone et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), pp. 341–53, 341; and Daniel Rowland, “Architecture, Image, and Ritual in the Throne Rooms of Muscovy, 1550– 1650: A Preliminary Survey,” in Rude and Barbarous Kingdom Revisited: Essays in Russian History and Culture in Honor of Robert O. Crummey, ed. Chester Dunning, Russell Martin, and Rowland (Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 2008), pp. 53–71. See Michael Flier, “The Throne of Monomakh: Ivan the Terrible and the Architectonics of Destiny,” in Architectures of Russian Identity: 1500 to Present, ed. James Cracraft and Daniel Rowland (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), pp. 21–33. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 50 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 51 perspective, the investiture of 1498 fits in with a set of nodal points of the cooperation between the Church and court, resulting in the reshaping of information about the past. The appropriation of Byzantine symbols in Muscovy went hand in hand with the transformation (Byzantinization) of texts and artifacts of local manufacture. The symbiotic relationship between tsar and Church reflected the late Byzantine concept of the “symphony” between secular and ecclesiastical spheres, as elaborated in the Byzantine book of canons, Kormchaia Kniga.39 The rhetorical complementarity between ruler and prelate is conveyed in the “speeches” of Ivan III and the Metropolitan (see below), in which the Grand Prince begins the proceedings by expounding on the patrilineal nature of princely rule in Muscovy, the Grand Prince’s authority to invest his chosen heir, and the extent of his patrimony. After the Grand Prince lays out the parameters for rule over Muscovy, the Metropolitan elevates princely rule, investing it with a sacred and eternal character by invoking veterotestamentary kingship in the form of King David, with Ivan III compared to King Saul. The ensuing exposition of a ruler’s duties includes the topoi of the ruler as justiciar, defender of Orthodoxy, and protector of the meek. The evocations of anointment with myrrh, of a “crown from the stone of honor,” and of the “scepter of Tsardom” are all rhetorical amplifications copied from the source text, and the Metropolitan’s speech is followed by the vesting of the prince with the barmy and princely cap. All of the topoi are standard for a ceremony of investiture but, considering the multicentric nature of the rule of Rus and the previous distribution of territories in the form of a testament, the investiture of Dmitrii Ivanovich appears to concentrate authority and territory. Efforts to realize the imperial vision of Ivan III and, more ostentatiously, of Ivan IV included the adoption of new and foreign symbols in the articulation of princely power. The investiture account, while featuring clear examples of Byzantine realia,40 deploys them as befits local requirements and understanding. The most obvious example is the showering of the newly inaugurated ruler with gold and silver coins, which happens six times on two occasions, before and after the ceremony of investiture. As mentioned above, this mostly likely occurred in imitation of Ignatius of Smolensk’s mistaken impression of the 39 40 Dvornik made the connection between chronicle texts and texts like the Kormchaia Kniga, which functioned as normative texts to represent rulership: see Dvornik, “Byzantine Political Ideas in Kievan Russia,” pp. 89–94. In reference to real Byzantine artifacts. What was manufactured in Muscovy was both an approximation of real objects and also an innovation according to local ideas of how a ruler/rulership should look. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 51 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 52 Vukovich symbolic largesse thrown to the people of Constantinople to celebrate the imperial coronation of Manuel II in 1392.41 2 Byzantine Antiquities, Real and Invented The most persuasive argument for Byzantine realia appears in the articulation of the second account of the ceremony of investiture. In this account, the ceremony follows on from rituals contained in a 15th-century manuscript known as the “Synodal Ritual,” with the addition of elements not mentioned in Byzantine texts.42 The chronicle text differs from the “Synodal Ritual” (as 41 42 See Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, pp. 111–13; and Stephen Reinert, “Political Dimensions of Manuel II Palaiologos’ 1392 Marriage and Coronation,” in Novum Millennium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck, ed. Claudia Sode and Sarlota Takacs (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), pp. 291–302, 291. However, this might not necessarily have been the case, since the account book of the Genoese colony in Pera, recounting the arrival of Manuel II’s bride just days before the ceremony, indicates that the podestà, Leonardo de Rosio, and his entourage attended the arrival of the bride and showered her with gold coins. It is entirely possible that Ignatius of Smolensk could have witnessed this event as well as the coronation and mixed up the two coin-throwing spectacles. Barsov reproduces an ideal text for the ceremony based on both ceremonial books (trebniki) and the texts from the chronicles. However, the general elements (reproduced below) are consistent in all of the accounts. See Elpidifor Vasilievich Barsov, Drevnerusskie pamiatniki sviashchennogo venchaniia tsarei na tsarstvo (Moscow: Imperial University Press, 1883), pp. 32–38. The original manuscript is held at the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius in Russia, MS 304.I. Службеник и Требник (1474). The attribution of the rituals to medieval Serbia may be somewhat overdetermined and deserves separate research. There is definite evidence for the transmission and interpolation of South Slavonic sources, about the Nemanjid Dynasty, in 15th- and 16thcentury chronicles (the Litsevoi Svod contains a life of Stefan Nemanja, d. 1199), but there are consistent mentions of ceremonies of inauguration in medieval South Slavonic literature. The ceremonies of enthronement of the Nemanjid kings were developed from the time of the earliest Nemanjids, and the description of regalia in the transfer of power from Stefan Nemanja to his son Stefan Prvovenčani (the first-crowned) includes a crown that was sent from Rome and placed on his head by an papal legate, or a locally sourced (or papal, depending on the account) crown that was placed on his head by St. Sava. Enthronement at one of the religious foundations of the Nemanjids is a further ceremonial feature described in a similar way to those of early Rus princes, e.g., “и по благословенıю светааго Сıмеона прѣдрьже ѡт оу ѥмоу прѣстоль дѣдинь и отьчинь” (and with the blessing of holy Simeon he took over the throne of his father and grandfather from him), in Domentijan’s Life of SS Simeon and Sava; see Aleksandar Solovjev, “Pojam države u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji,” Godišnjica Nikole Ćupića 42 (1933): 123. Compare with the 1176 account of Mikhailko Iurevich: “и седе на столе деда своего и отца своего” (and he sat upon the throne of his forefathers and his father), PSRL 2, col. 602. See Smilja 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 52 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 53 published by Barsov) in ways already outlined by Majeska.43 Moreover, the text of the Nikon/Patriarchal Chronicle is a departure from what has been posited as its prototype, the coronation of Manuel II in 1392, described by Ignatius of Smolensk who traveled to Constantinople in 1389–92.44 The coronation of Manuel is described in a Byzantine source referred to as the “Anonymous Tract” and found in a 15th-century compendium.45 This source roughly depicts what Ignatius of Smolensk noted, with the addition of specific prayers, which suggests that it was influenced by a liturgical source (perhaps Byzantine ordines 43 44 45 Marjanović-Dušanić and Sima Ćirković, Vladarske insignije i državna simbolika u Srbiji od XIII do XV veka (Belgrade: Serbian Academy, 1994), pp. 23–37; and Jovanka Kalić, “Pretece Žice: Krunidbena mesta Srpskikh vladara,” Istorijski Časopis 44 (1997): 77–87. However, despite the basic similarities of the inaugurations, for the 1498 enthronement in Moscow, it is the potential overlap between medieval Serbian ordines, sermons, and prayers for investiture that is most intriguing. These ordines are not interpolated into medieval Serbian hagio-biographies and are preserved separately (Marjanović-Dušanić, 36). The ordines/službe (much like the hagio-biographies) contain disquisitions on the nature of princely rule as representative of the heavenly kingdom on earth and its symphony with the Church. It would need to be further studied whether the sermons/prayers of the 1498 enthronement are interpolated (i.e., feature intertextual elements) from a medieval Serbian source, or if there is merely a thematic overlap. Majeska, “The Moscow Coronation,” p. 361. Here, Majeska was careful in delineating the differences found in 16th-century chronicle narratives that reflect the notion of princely autocracy, a departure from 15th-century practice. I am not entirely convinced that a purely “ideological” approach can dispel any inconsistencies in the manuscript tradition for this passage. As I have pointed to above, the regalia, separate rituals, and discourse of investiture based on ancestry are all close enough to previous accounts. Furthermore, the attribution of already-known regalia to Monomakh may well be a 15th-century development that came to full fruition in the first half of the 16th century, so only about twenty to forty years after the 1498 inauguration account. Moreover, it should be noted that the first and second account are not mutually exclusive and, in the case of the Nikon/Patriarchal Chronicle, complement each other well, which is perhaps why both accounts were kept: one as the bare bones, a typical chronicle-style account of the ceremony; the second, a sort of ritual or an interpolation from another source, supplying the content for a future restaging. The Byzantine ceremony for 1392 contains both of the wedding rituals for the marriage between Jelena Dragaš (the grand-niece of Tsar Sefan Dušan) and Manuel II Palaiologos. The marriage alliance and the conclusion of a pact with Sultan Bayezid I were attempts to thwart his nephew’s ambitions to take Constantinople. Reinert writes, “Placing Manuel’s marriage and the ensuing coronations against these background developments, scholars have surmised that their underlying logic entailed not only conformity with tradition, but at least some degree of political calculation” (the same could be written for Ivan III). Reinert, “Political Dimensions,” p. 292. See Peter Schreiner, “Hochzeit und Krönung Kaiser Manuels II. im Jahre 1392,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 60, no. 1 (1967): 70–85, 76–79. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 53 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 54 Vukovich that no longer exist) interpolated by the author, who may have been a member of the clergy at St. Sophia.46 A disambiguation of the overlap of sources, in terms of both interpolations and inspiration, demonstrates the scale of the problem. The narrative of the investiture of 1498 is loosely based on a Byzantine ceremony of investiture from 1392 that exists in both a Byzantine text (very likely unknown in Muscovy) and an eyewitness Slavonic version that was known in the 15th century. The eyewitness text for the Byzantine ceremony is not interpolated into the investiture of 1498 but inspires it. However, there are intertextual elements in the form of the Byzantine-style sermon of investiture pronounced by the Metropolitan. This sermon has been attributed to a Byzantine source, perhaps via medieval Serbian rituals. However, there is no consensus or definitive proof that this is the case, and it is further possible that, as with the eyewitness text for the Byzantine ceremony, it may be a question of inspiration and interpretation rather than intertextuality. The ceremonial overlap between Byzantine practice, as recorded by a Rus traveller, and the 1498 investiture is undeniable, but it should not be overdetermined. The link between the 1498 ceremony of investiture in Moscow and the 1392 Byzantine ceremony has repeatedly been made, largely because the text of the Byzantine coronation rite was available in Rus.47 However, looking more closely at the content of the Byzantine ceremony, it becomes clear that it is not a template for the 1498 rite of investiture, rather, that particular elements from the Byzantine ceremony and the order of proceedings are loosely borrowed. The 1498 ceremony includes the following elements from the Byzantine ceremony described by Ignatius of Smolensk:48 – the arranging of congregants ahead of the proceedings – the singing of hymns at the commencement of the ceremony – the presence of two thrones on a platform (note that the platform in the Byzantine ceremony is located in a separate chamber, the metatorion) – the patriarch vests the emperor on the ambo before the thrones (note that unlike in the 1498 ceremony, the patriarch does not have a throne), giving 46 47 48 Ibid., 76. On the manuscript transmission of Ignatius of Smolensk’s account, see Majeska, “Russian Travelers,” pp. 67–73. Majeska, “Russian Travellers,” pp. 105–13. There are several points of divergence between Ignatius of Smolensk’s report and Byzantine sources, including the ‘Anonymous Tract,” and Byzantine accounts also diverge from each other. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 54 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 55 him a cross and placing the crown on his head (in the 1498, it is the Grand Prince who does this)49 – the liturgy is celebrated, and the emperor is showered with gold coins The overlapping elements are fairly schematic, and even in terms of language, the 1498 account does not appear to interpolate any significant portion of Ignatius of Smolensk’s report. Furthermore, the most significant interpolation appears to be the text of a prayer attributed to the Constantinopolitan coronation and preserved in the chronicle account of Ignatius of Smolensk’s journey, which is not mentioned in any known Byzantine source.50 And yet, this sermon is the only clearly interpolated element attributed to the 1392 coronation of Manuel II and is preserved in the rituals for Muscovite inauguration ceremonies.51 Thus, it appears that the most often reproduced Byzantine artifact preserved from Ignatius of Smolensk’s account of Manuel II’s coronation was created by churchmen in Rus.52 3 Conclusion Ceremonies of inauguration, whether in Constantinople or in Moscow, were usually very public affairs, meant to advertise the new ruler and fashion consensus. These ceremonies had to be both familiar and remote, and their performance had to be practicable within the given cultural landscape. The 1498 ceremony in Moscow mixed both well-known rituals and new idioms for the expression of power, it featured invented traditions and ancient artifacts, and, like its Byzantine predecessor, it responded to a broader political program and imperative. Searching for the template of the 1498 inauguration, whether in Byzantine sources or normative Church texts (such as trebniki/liturgical books) misses the most common feature of this type of ceremony, namely, its constant reinvention. Certain characteristics are consistently repeated; in the case of Rus these include enthronement, elevated seating, and churches of dynastic significance. However, the shifting significance of any one or all of these constituent parts of the ceremony and the interpolation of words and acts from 49 50 51 52 Manuel II does crown his consort himself, so the 1498 Muscovy coronation of a co-ruler may have used this as its model. See Majeska, “Russian Travelers,” p. 433 note 114. See Barsov, Drevnerusskie pamiatniki, pp. xxix–xxxi, discussed below. See Majeska, “Russian Travelers,” pp. 433–34; Savva, Moskovskie tsari, p. 153; Barsov, Drevnerusskie pamiatniki, pp. xxix–xxxi; and Khrisanf Mefodievich Loparev, O chine venchaniia russkikh tsarei (St. Petersburg: V.S. Balasheva, 1887), pp. 312–19. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 55 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 56 Vukovich disparate source material expose a key feature: tradition is generated through performance. Rather than viewing this ritual as a demonstration of Muscovite antiquarianism, a compilation of Byzantine sources, we should view the inauguration of Dmitrii Ivanonvich as a political action that performed the new political and social order. When Iorga coined the term “Byzance après Byzance,” he also referred to the fixedness of the transmission of Byzantine artifacts across space and time with the phrase “l’immuable pérennité byzantine.”53 The phrase, which can be roughly translated to the sempiternal permanence or persistence of Byzantium, conveys the long-term durability and solidity of Byzantine ideas and material culture. This paradigm has been useful for its descriptive quality, making salient the numerous appropriations by the groups that entered the Byzantine cultural sphere via the adoption of Eastern Christianity. The notion of the immutability of Byzantine inheritance, whether via text, image, or idea, anchors the received artifact in space and time and estranges the possibility of adaptation and interpretation.54 The case of court rituals in Rus/Muscovy and the Byzantine Empire demonstrates that court actors themselves undertook an excavation and, failing that, an invention of rituals and ritual elements. In effect, the Byzantine books of ceremonies were created both to document extant ceremonies and to compile sources for ceremonial practices based on previous examples (whatever traces were left) and contemporary procedures.55 In the case of Rus, the 1498 investiture of Dmitrii Ivanovich and ensuing ceremonies of inauguration also attempted to excavate and create a series of practices that featured appropriations from preceding ceremonies, the disappearance of certain elements, and the adoption or adaptation of both existing and new practices, as well as the interpolation of new source material based on need and availability. In each case, the ritual element and the overall ceremony were meant to appear ancient, remote, and authentic. In certain cases, certain factors were obfuscated, such as the Mongol origins of the cap/crown of Monomakh, and others promoted, such as Byzantine connections or ancestral 53 54 55 Nicolae Iorga, Byzance après Byzance: Continuation de l’histoire de la vie byzantine (Bucharest: Institut d’études byzantines, 1971), p. 9. See Simon Franklin, “The Reception of Byzantine Culture by the Slavs,” in Byzantium— Rus—Russia: Studies in the Translation of Christian Culture (Variorum Collected Studies Series 754) (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2002), pp. 383–97. Franklin discusses pitfalls of terminology in describing the Byzantine heritage of Rus, stating that language is not aesthetically or socially neutral, which necessitates an alternative imagery for an alternative culture, and that notion of cultural translation could also be applicable to the Byzantines’ treatment of their own past. See András Németh, The Excerpta Constantiniana and the Byzantine Appropriation of the Past (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. 1–20, 77–88. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 56 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 57 Rus practice. Furthermore, as with most court ceremonial, there is an immediacy of the adoption and improvisation based on need. Byzantine ceremonies of investiture, which have been thoroughly studied by historians, have been shown to be melanges of ritual arrangement, histrionic setting, and accoutrements used.56 In effect, practically every recorded ceremony of investiture differed slightly or radically from its predecessor. Likewise, the 1498 investiture of Dmitrii Ivanovich was both a radical departure from Rus/Muscovite practice (if such a thing existed) and an innovation of Byzantine ritual elements. The immediacy of ritual is thus emphasized as a practice or set of practices generated based, first and foremost, on the aims of those in power. The content could be excavated or invented based on current ideological requirements, thereby demonstrating the active role of Muscovite bookmen and princely entourage in shaping the social, cultural, and political life of the court and its practices. The paradigms of Moscow as “Third Rome” or of Byzance après Byzance are both as attractive as they are grandiose, but both obfuscate the sparse and select elements of verifiable Byzantine provenance that appeared in 15th-century Muscovite court culture. Furthermore, these paradigms conceal the degree of invention and originality fostered at the Muscovite court. The deployment of past fictions, staged as present facts in the form of the inauguration sermon, and the invention of regalia and incorporation of new spaces were all part of a strategy of rule and a result of recent economic and political fortunes in the Muscovite north.57 The image of Muscovy as a “Byzantium of the North” is mostly a result of the reign of Ivan IV in the 16th century, which achieved a process of appropriation and transformation of court culture that had begun almost a century before.58 The reigns of Vasilii II (r. 1425–62) and Ivan III saw innovations on several fronts, the concertation of political and 56 57 58 See George Ostrogorsky, “Evoliutsiia vizantiiskogo obriada koronovaniia,” in Vizantiia iuzhnye Slaviane i Drevniaia Rus’ zapadnaia Evropa: Iskusstvo i Kul’tura; Sbornik statei v chest’ V.N. Lazareva, ed. Vladimir N. Grashchenkov, Tatiana B. Kniazevskaia, et al. (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), pp. 32–43. A compelling corollary can be found in the 1953 coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Tom Nairn writes that “the hearers were invited to revere … that moment itself [the coronation] as the culmination of a communal collectivity which had endured since … well, the paterfamilias of Britannic clichés, ‘time immemorial.’ In the cinema film which followed, after a decontaminatory blast from Shakespeare, Sir Laurence Olivier’s script (by Christopher Fry) went on to describe the moment of anointing—‘the hallowing, the sacring’—as so old that ‘history is scarce deep enough to contain it.’” Nairn, The Enchanted Glass: Britain and Its Monarchy (London: Verso, 1989), pp. 124–25. See Pierre Gonneau, Ivan le Terrible ou le métier de tyran (Paris: Tallandier, 2014); Andrei Pavlov and Maureen Perrie, Ivan the Terrible (London: Longman, 2003); Isabel de 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 57 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 58 Vukovich religious authorities, the claim to protection over Eastern Orthodoxy, a marriage strategy with a scion of the Palaiologan clan, the deployment of new symbols (like the double-headed eagle), inchoate centralization of power around the prince and principality of Moscow, the construction of a new built landscape within the precincts of the Moscow Kremlin, and the development of a new court culture focused on Byzantine cultural artifacts.59 Zoe/Sofiia and her entourage could not have been the sole agents for the development and importation of Byzantine practices and symbols (e.g., the double-headed eagle). After all, the princess had been a ward of the Pope and had grown up in Rome, which was not known as a site for the preservation of late Byzantine court culture. It should be noted further that by the time Ivan III concocted the investiture ceremony for his grandson, he had fallen out with his Palaiologan wife, who had been estranged from the court along with her partisans. In spite of the innovations presented here, certain customs remained, such as collective dining with the boyars and avowal of mutual fealty and rule by consent, which were central to the preservation of peace.60 In this respect, the inauguration ceremony of 1498 was not a display of autocratic power, but a mask for political weakness at a time of strained relations between Ivan III and his wife, his eldest son’s illness and death, and increasing factionalism within the court. Thus, it was in a time of political crisis that an impressive Byzantine-style coronation ceremony was orchestrated and heightened ritual increasingly a feature of the Grand Prince’s rule. 4 Text and Translation of the 1498 Inauguration of Dmitrii Ivanovich in Moscow According to the Patriarchal/Nikon’s Chronicle61 [First Account] Тоя же зимы Февраля 4, въ неделю, князь великий Иванъ Васильевичь благословилъ и посадилъ на великое княжение Владимерское и Московское и всея Руси внука своего князя Дмитрия Ивановича, а посажение его бяше въ церкви Пречистыя на Москве. По благословению Симона митрополита всея Руси, и архиепископа Тихона 59 60 61 Madariaga, Ivan the Terrible: First Tsar of Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005); and Sergei Bogatyrev, “Ivan IV (1533–84),” in The Cambridge History of Russia, pp. 240–63. See Robert Oliver Crummey, The Formation of Muscovy (London: Longman, 1987), pp. 133–35. See Kollmann, The Russian Empire, p. 137. PSRL 12 (1901/2001), pp. 246–48. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 58 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 59 Ростовскаго, и епископовъ Нифонта Суздалскаго, Васиана Тверскаго, Протасия Рязанскаго, Аврамия Коломенскаго, Евфимия Сарского и всего освященнаго собора, возложиша на него бармы Мономоховы62 и шапку, и осыпа его князь Юрьи Иванович, дядя его, златомъ и сребромъ трижды: предъ Пречистою, и предъ Архангеломъ и предъ Благовещением. [Second Account] В лето 7006 Февраля 4, в неделю о Мытари и Фарисеи сие бысть. О поставлении внучне на великое княжение. Среди церкви уготовиша место болшее, на чемъ святителей ставятъ, и учиниша на томъ месте три стулы: великому князю Ивану, да внуку его Дмитрию, да митрополиту. И егда приспе время, и облечеся митрополитъ и архиепископъ и епископы и архимандриты и игумены и весь соборъ во священныа ризы. И повелеша посреди церкви поставити налой, и на немъ положиша шапку Манамахову и бармы. Егда же вниде въ церковь князь великий со внукомъ, и митрополитъ со всемъ соборомъ начаша молебенъ пречистой Богородици и святому чюдотворцу Петру. И после Достойно есть и Трисвятаго и по тропарехъ митрополитъ и князь великий вшедъ, седоша на своихъ местехъ, а внукъ сталъ предъ ними у места на вышней степени, не восходя на место. И князь великий Иванъ рече: « Отче митрополитъ! Божиимъ изволениемъ отъ нашихъ прародителей великихъ князей старина наша, то и до сехъ местъ, отци наши великие князи сыномъ своимъ первымъ давали великое княжство и язъ былъ своего сына перваго Ивана при себе же благославилъ великим княжствомъ; Божя пакъ воли сталася, сына моего Ивана не стало въ животе, а у него остался сынъ первой Дмитрей, и язъ его ныне благославляю при себе и опосле себя великим княжствомъ Володимерскимъ и Московскимъ и Новгородскимъ; и ты бы его, отче, на великое княжество благословилъ ». И после речи великого князя велелъ митрополитъ внуку въступити на место и, въставъ, благославилъ его крестомъ, и поставляемому преклоншу главу. И митрополитъ положилъ руку свою на главу его. 62 In the Voskressenski Chronicle this is given as “и Манамахову шапку” (Monomakh’s cap) in PSRL 8 (1901/2001), p. 235. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 59 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 60 Vukovich И рече молитву сию во услышавше свемъ:63 « Господи Боже нашь, Царь царствующимъ и Господь господьствующимъ, иже Самуиломъ Пророкомъ избравъ раба своего Давида и помазавъ того въ царя надъ людми своими Израиля. Святый, ныне услыши молитву нашу недостойныхъ и виждь отъ святаго жилища твоего, и верна Ти раба Дмитрия, еже благоволилъ еси въздвигнути царя во языце твоемъ святомъ. Егоже стяжалъ еси честною кровию Единороднаго ти Сына, помазати сподоби64 елеомъ въ здравие; одей того силою свыше, положи на главе его венець отъ камени честна, даруй тому длъготу дний, дай же въ десницу его скипетръ царствия, посади того на престоле правды, огради того всеоружествомъ Святаго ти Духа, утверди того мышцу, покори ему вся варварския65 языки, всей въ сердце его страхъ твой и еже къ послушнымъ милостивное, съборныя церкви веления ихъ, да судя люди твоя правдою и нищихъ твоихъ, спасетъ сыны убогыхъ и наследникъ будетъ небеснаго ти царствия. » Възгласъ: « яко твоя есть дръжава и твое есть царствие и сила и слава Отца и Сына и Святаго Духа ныне и присно и въ веки векомъ, аминь. » По молитве велелъ къ себе митрополитъ съ налоя принести бармы двема архимандритомъ, да вземъ ихъ далъ великому князю, и знаменалъ митрополитъ бнука крестомъ, и князь велики положилъ бармы на внука. Молитва втай: « Господи Боже Вседержителю и царю векомъ, иже земный человекъ тобою царемъ сътвореный поклони главу свою тебе помолитися, Владыко всехъ! Съхрани того подъ кровомъ твоимъ, удержави того царство, благоугодная ти творити всега того сподоби, възсияй въ днехъ его правду и множество мира, да въ тихости его тихо и безмлъвно житие поживемь въ всякомъ благочестий и чистоте. » Възгласъ: « ты бо еси Царь мирови и Спасъ душамъ нашимъ. » По « амине ». Велелъ къ себе митрополитъ приснести съ налоя шапку двема архимандритомъ да вземъ ее далъ великому князю, и знаменалъ митрополитъ внука крестомъ, глаголя: « въ имя Отца и Сына и Святаго 63 64 65 As Barsov demonstrated, the Metropolitan’s sermon is an interpolation of the text from the “Молитва благословити царя и князя” (The Sermon on the blessed tsars and princes) in MS 304.I. fols. 159r–159v. The text of the sermon only minutely diverges from that of the chronicle. Although not the exact phrasing, the terms reflect the Byzantine Καταξίωσον Κύριε found in the Horologion and, more generally, in Byzantine hymns, used in monastic rites. See Jeffrey Anderson and Stephano Parenti, A Byzantine Monastic Office, A.D. 1105 (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2016), pp. 177–78, 313. For example, the sermon uses the term “поганы” (pagan) here, fol. 159v. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 60 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 61 Духа ». И князь велики положилъ шапку на внука, и митрополитъ благословилъ внука. И потомъ октения: « Помилуй настъ Боже » по обычю, молитва пречистей Богородици: « пресвятая Госпоже Дево Богородице. » И по молитве селъ митропилитъ да князь велики на своихъ местехъ, и вшелъ на амбонъ архидиаконъ и глагола велегласно многолетие великому князю Дмитрию. И священники въ олтари и дияки поютъ многолетие по обычаю. И по « многолетии » митрополитъ, и архиепископъ, и епископы, весь съборъ, въставъ поклонишася и въздравиша обоихъ великихъ князей: « Божиею милостию радуйся здравствуй православный царю Иоане, великий князь всея Руси на многа лета. » И великому князю Дмитрию митрополитъ рече: « Божиею милостию здравстуй господине и сыну мой князь велики Дмитрей Ивановичь всея Руси самодержцомъ на многа лета. » И потомъ дети великого князя поклонишяся и въздравиша великихъ князей обоихъ, и потомъ бояре и вси людие. Поучение митрополиче « Господине и сыну князь велики Дмитрей! Божиимъ изволениемъ дедъ твой князь велики пожаловалъ тебя и благословилъ княжествомъ; и ты, господине и сыну, имей страхъ Божий въ сердци. Люби правду и милость и судъ праведенъ, имей послушание къ своему государю и деду великому князю, и попечение имей отъ всего сердца о всемь православномъ християанстве; а мы тебя, своего господина и сына, благословляемъ и Бога молимъ о вашемъ здравии. » По семъ князь велики рече: « внукъ Дмитрей! Пожаловалъ есми тебя и благословилъ великим княжествомъ; и ты имей страхъ въ сердци, люби правду и милость и судъ праведенъ., и имей попечение отъ всего сердца о всемъ православномъ християнстве. » И митрополитъ свершилъ отпустъ молебну, и потомъ начаша литоргию; и по съвершении литургии пошелъ князь велики Иванъ къ собе. А князь велики Дмитрей въ шапке и въ бармахъ исъ церкви изъ Пречистые какъ идетъ изъ дверей, и ту его осыпалъ денгами златыми и сребряными З-жды великого князя сынъ князь Юрий, а дети великого князя идутъ съ нимь и бояре съ нимъ; такоже предъ Архаггеломъ осыпалъ его З-жды, и предъ Благовещениемъ З-жды денгами златыми и сребряными. Тое же зимы, февраля, прииде Михайло Плещевъ изо Царягорода на Москву. […] 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 61 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 62 Vukovich Translation66 [First Account] During that same winter, on the fourth of February, which was a Sunday, Grand Prince Ivan [III] Vasilevich blessed and enthroned his grandson, Dmitrii Ivanovich, to rule over all of the lands of Vladimir and Moscow and over all of the lands of Rus. The investiture ceremony took place in the Church of the Assumption of the Most Pure Mother of God in Moscow. Following the blessing by the Metropolitan of all Rus, Simeon, and by the Archbishop of Rostov, Tikhon, and by the bishops Nifont of Suzdal, Basian of Tver, Protasius of Riazan, Abraham of Kolomna, Euthymius of Sarai, and by the entire sacred synod, he received the barmy of Monomakh and was crowned with the cap.67 His uncle, Prince Iurii Ivanovich, showered the prince thrice with gold and silver, before entering the Church of the Assumption of the Most Pure Mother of God, then, before the Church of the Archangel Michael, and, finally, before the Church of the Annunciation. [Second Account] This happened in 7006, the fourth of February, on a Sunday of the week of the Publicans and the Pharisees. On the Inauguration of the Grandson Over the Grand Principality In the middle of the church they erected a large platform, upon which prelates usually stand, and they placed three seats there, for Grand Prince Ivan III, for his grandson, Dmitrii, and for the Metropolitan. Thus, when the time came, the Metropolitan, archbishop, bishops, archimandrites, abbots, as well as the entire congregation donned festal vestments. They ordered a lectern to be placed in the middle of the church, where they laid out the cap of Monomakh and the barmy. When the Grand Prince entered the church with his grandson, the Metropolitan and the entire congregation began singing prayers in honor 66 67 The Nikonian Chronicle is one of few Rus/Muscovite chronicles to have been translated with notes. I undertook my own translation of this section with notes, which does not completely diverge from that of the Zenkovskys but reinterprets some of the terminology. For comparison, see The Nikonian Chronicle, ed. and trans. Serge Zenkovsky and Betty Jean Zenkovsky, 5 vols (Princeton: Kingston Press/Darwin Press, 1984–1989), 5: 256–60. The barmy is the equivalent of the Byzantine loros, as seen in paintings of Muscovite princes, such as the 1670 portrait of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich (Fig. 2.4). The crown, most likely of Mongol origin, is attributed to the 12th-century Prince of Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh, and may have been associated with the 11th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos. See Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols, pp. 171–77, for a comprehensive discussion of this accoutrement in the Steppe context. [Ostrowski only writes about the crown of Monomakh, so I think that is should remain in the singular] 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 62 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 63 of the Most Pure Mother of God and Holy Wonderworker Peter. And, following the singing of the “Dostoinno est,” the “Trisviatoe,” and the “Troparia,” the Metropolitan and the Grand Prince entered and took their seats on the platform, while the grandson stood on the upper step without ascending to the platform.68 The Grand Prince Ivan III pronounced the following: “O father, the Metropolitan! By the will of God, from the time of our forefathers, the grand princes, our ancestors, to the present time: our fathers, the grand princes, have always rendered the Grand Principality to their first son. Thus, did I bless my first son, Ivan, to rule the Grand Principality together with me. By the grace of God, my son, Ivan, did not remain alive. But his own first son remained, Dmitrii, and now I bless him in my lifetime and for the time to come, to be Grand Prince of Vladimir, Moscow, and Novgorod. May you, Father, also bless this investiture over the Grand Principality.” Following the Grand Prince’s words, the Metropolitan entreated the grandson to step up onto the platform, and once he had done so, he blessed him [the grandson] with the cross and bowed his head to him. The Metropolitan put his hand on his head and said the following prayer so that all could hear: “Lord God, King of those who rule and Lord of those who lead: Thou, through the prophet Saul, chose Thy servant, David, and anointed him King of Thy people of Israel. O Holy one, now hear our prayer, the unworthy ones, and look out from Thy holy abode upon Thy faithful servant, Dmitrii, and by your blessing may he be raised to the rank of Tsar of Thy holy people. With the Most Pure blood of Thy only-begotten son give him strength and anoint him with the myrrh of joy. Endow him with divine power; place on his head the crown from the stone of honor; give him long life; place the sceptre of Tsardom in his right hand; enthrone him on the seat of justice; defend him with all of the weapons of the Holy Ghost; strengthen his arm; submit to him all of the barbarian peoples; inspire fear of Thee in his heart and make him merciful toward those who obey him; may he know the rules of Thy Church, so that he may render justice to the people according to Thy justice, and may he protect the sons of the poor and the weak. May he reign over Thy heavenly kingdom.” All together the congregants exclaimed: “For Thine is the authority and the 68 “Dostoinno est’,” the “It is meet” hymn (Ἄξιόν ἐστιν), has been part of the Divine Liturgy, and its message is reflected in an icon of the Holy Virgin of the Eleousa or “merciful” type. “Trisviatoe” or Trisagion/Τρισάγιον (Thrice Holy) is a standard hymn of the Divine Liturgy: “Святы́ й Бо́ же, Святы́ й Крепкий, Святы́ й Безсмертный, помилуй нас.” “Troparia” or Troparion/Τροπάριον is a repeated short hymn, here perhaps serving as a Dismissal hymn. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 63 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm 64 Vukovich kingdom and power and the glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost now and ever through ages and ages.” Having pronounced the prayer, the Metropolitan ordered two archimandrites to bring him the barmy from the altar, which he took and gave to the Grand Prince. He blessed the grandson with the cross, and the Grand Prince lay the barmy on his grandson. And the Metropolitan [said], quietly: “God Almighty and King for ages and ages, this earthly man whom Thou has made Tsar has bowed his head to pray to Thee, Lord of all! Give him shelter, uphold his rule, may his deeds be pleasing to God. May righteousness and great peace shine on all of the days [of his reign], so that during his tranquil [reign] we may live our lives tranquilly and peacefully in piety and purity!” All together: “Thou art the King of the world and Savior of our souls.” Followed by: “Amen.” The Metropolitan ordered two archimandrites to bring him the cap [of Monomakh], which he took and gave to the Grand Prince, and the Metropolitan blessed the grandson with the cross, saying, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” And the Grand Prince placed the cap [of Monomakh] on his grandson’s head, and the Metropolitan blessed him. The litany followed: “Have mercy on us, o Lord!” And, as is the custom, the prayer to the Most Pure [the Holy Virgin] followed: “Most Pure, Our Lady, Virgin, Mother of God.” Following the prayer, the Metropolitan and the Grand Prince sat down on their respective seats and the archdeacon, ascending the ambo, proclaimed loudly: “Long life to Grand Prince Dmitrii!” The prelates behind the altar also sang, “Long life!” as is the custom. After the “Long life!” the Metropolitan, archbishop, bishops, and congregants stood, bowed, and congratulated both Grand Princes, [saying]: “By the grace of God, rejoice, and be well, Orthodox Tsar Ivan, Grand Prince of all Rus and many years.” And to the Grand Prince Dmitrii, the Metropolitan said: “By the grace of God, be well, lord and my son, Grand Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich of all Rus, sovereign [with your grandfather] for many years!” Then, the Grand Prince’s children bowed and congratulated both Grand Princes, and then the boyars and all of the other people present did the same. The Metropolitan’s Sermon “Our lord and son, Grand Prince Dmitrii! By the will of God, your grandfather, the Grand Prince, has favored you and blessed you with rule over the Grand Principality. And you, lord and son, keep the fear of God in your heart. Love truth and mercy and righteousness and justice. Show obedience to your lord 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 64 4 May 2020 7:23:20 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 65 and grandfather, the Grand Prince, and take care, with all of your heart, of all Orthodox Christians. We bless and pray to God for your health, our sovereign and son.” Then, the Grand Prince said: “Grandson Dmitrii! I have favored you and blessed you with dominion over the Grand Principality. Keep the fear of God in your heart; love truth and mercy and righteousness and justice, and care with all of your heart for all Orthodox Christians.” The Metropolitan read the final prayer before commencing the celebration of the liturgy. After the liturgy had been sung, the Grand Prince went home, and Grand Prince Dmitrii, still wearing the cap [of Monomakh] and the barmy, went out through the doors of the Church of the Most Pure Mother of God, and here he was showered three times with gold and silver coins by Prince Iurii, son of the Grand Prince. The children of the Grand Prince went with him [Dmitrii], along with the boyars, and they also showered him with gold and silver coins, three times, before the Church of the Archangel Michael and before the Church of the Annunciation. That same winter, in February, Mikhailko Pleshchev arrived in Moscow from Constantinople. Bibliography Primary Sources Herzen, Alexander Ivanovich. Sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1954–1966. Hypatian Chronicle: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 2. Moscow: Izd. vostochnoi literatury, 1908/1962. Ignatius of Smolensk. “The Journey of Ignatius of Smolensk.” In Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Edited and translated by George Majeska. 76–113. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 1984. Laurentian Chronicle: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 1. Moscow: Izd. vostochnoi literatury, 1962/2001. Lenhoff, Gail and Kleimola, Ann (eds.). The book of Royal Degrees and the Genesis of Russian Historical Consciousness. Bloomington, Illinois: Slavica Publishers, 2011. The Nikonian Chronicle. Edited and translated by Serge Zenkovsky and Betty Jean Zenkovsky, 5 vols. Princeton: Kingston Press/Darwin Press, 1984–89. Patriarchal/Nikon Chronicle: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vols 11–12. Moscow: Izd. vostochnoi literatury, 1901/2000. Russkii Khronograf: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 22, part 2. Moscow: Izd. Vostochnoi literatury, 1914/2005. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 65 4 May 2020 7:23:21 pm 66 Vukovich Voskressenskii Chronicle: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 8. Moscow: Izd. vostochnoi literatury, 1901/2001. Secondary Sources Alef, Gustav. The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy: The Age of Ivan III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986. Anderson, Jeffrey, and Stephano Parenti. A Byzantine Monastic Office, A.D. 1105. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2016. Androshchuk, Fedir. “K istorii obriada intronizatsii drevnerusskikh kniazei (‘sidenie na kurganakh’).” In Druzhnni starozhitnosti tsentral’no-skhidnoi Evropi VIII—X st. Materiali Mizhnarodnogo pol’ovogo arkheologichnogo seminaru, 5–10. Chernihiv: Siverians’ka dumka, 2003. Barsov, Elpidifor Vasilievich. Drevnerusskie pamiatniki sviashchennogo venchaniia tsarei na tsarstvo. Moscow: Imperial University Press, 1883. Bazilevich, Konstantin Vasilievich. Vneshniaia politika russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva: Vtoraia polovina XV veka. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 1952. Bogatyrev, Sergei. “Eshche raz o shapke Monomakha i kazne moskovskikh kniazei.” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2 (2011): 251–54. Bogatyrev, Sergei. “Shapka Monomakha i shlem naslednika: Reprezentatsiia vlasti i dinasticheskaia politika pri Vasilii III i Ivane Groznom.” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 1 (2011): 171–200. Bogatyrev, Sergei. “Ivan IV (1533–84).” In The Cambridge History of Russia, ed. Maureen Perrie, 240–263. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Bogatyrev, Sergei. “Reinventing the Russian Monarchy in the 1550s: Ivan the Terrible, the Dynasty, and the Church.” Slavonic and East European Review 85, no. 2 (2007): 271–293. Boltunova, Ekaterina. “Imperial Throne Halls and Discourse of Power in the Topography of Early Modern Russia (Late 17th–18th Centuries).” In Palaces from Augustus to the Age of Absolutism, ed. Michael Featherstone, Jean-Michel Spieser, Gülru Tanman, and Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt, 341–353. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Bourdieu, Pierre. La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1979. Bushkovitch, Paul. “Sofia Palaiologina in Life and Legend.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 52 (2018): 158–180. Cannadine, David, and Simon Price, eds. Rituals of Royalty Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Chichurov, Igor Sergeevich. Politicheskaia ideologiia srednevekov’ia Vizantiia i Rus. Moscow: History Institute SSSR, 1990. Crummey, Robert Oliver. The Formation of Muscovy. London: Longman, 1987. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 66 4 May 2020 7:23:21 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 67 Dvornik, Francis. “Byzantine Political Ideas in Kievan Russia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9 (1956): 73–121. Fine, John V.A. “The Muscovite Dynastic Crisis of 1497–1502.” Canadian Slavonic Papers/ Revue canadienne des slavistes 8 (1966): 198–215. Flier, Michael. “Political Ideas and Ritual.” In The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 1, ed. Maureen Perrie, 387–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Flier, Michael. “The Throne of Monomakh: Ivan the Terrible and the Architectonics of Destiny.” In Architectures of Russian Identity: 1500 to the Present, ed. James Cracraft and Daniel Rowland, 21–33. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003. Franklin, Simon. “The Reception of Byzantine Culture by the Slavs.” In Byzantium— Rus—Russia: Studies in the Translation of Christian Culture (Variorum Collected Studies Series 754), 383–397. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2002. Frost, Robert. The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, vol. 1, The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 1385–1569. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Gonneau, Pierre. Ivan le Terrible ou le métier de tyran. Paris: Tallandier, 2014. Gorskii, Anton Anatolevich. “K voprosu o sostave Russkogo voiska na Kulikovom Pole.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 6 (2001): 1–9. Gorskii, Anton Anatolevich. Moskva i Orda. Moscow: Nauka, 2000. Hajdu, Ada. “The Search for National Architectural Styles in Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria from the Mid-nineteenth Century to World War I.” In Entangled Histories of the Balkans, ed. Roumen Daskalov and Tchavdar Marinov, 394–440. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hobsbawn, Eric, and Terrence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Iorga, Nicolae. Byzance après Byzance: Continuation de l’histoire de la vie byzantine. Bucharest : Institut d’études byzantines, 1971. Ivanov, Sergey. “The Second Rome as Seen by the Third: Russian Debates on ‘the Byzantine legacy.’” In The Reception of Byzantium in European Culture since 1500, ed. Przemsław Marciniak and Dion Smythe, 55–81. Abingdon: Ashgate, 2016. Kalić, Jovanka. “Pretece Žice: Krunidbena mesta Srpskikh vladara.” Istorijski Časopis 44 (1997): 77–87. Kelly, Aileen. The Discovery of Chance. The Life and Thought of Alexander Herzen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. Kivelson, Valerie. “Culture and Politics, or the Curious Absence of Muscovite State Building in Current American Historical Writing.” Cahiers du Monde russe 46, no. 1–2 (2005): 19–28. Kloss, Boris Mikhailovich. Nikonovskii svod i russkie letopisi XVI–XVII vekov. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. Kollmann, Nancy Shields. The Russian Empire 1450–1801. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 67 4 May 2020 7:23:21 pm 68 Vukovich Kollmann, Nancy Shields. “The Principalities of Rus’ in the Fourteenth Century.” In The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Michael Jones, 764–794. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Korpela, Jukka. “Stefan von Perm’: Heiliger Täufer im politischen Kontext.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteruropas 49 (2001): 481–499. Loparev, Khrisanf Mefodievich. O chine venchaniia russkikh tsarei. St. Petersburg: V.S. Balasheva, 1887. Lur’e, Iakov Solomonovich. “Genealogicheskaia schema leteopisei XI–XVI vv.” Akademiia Nauk SSSR, TODRL 40 (1985): 190–205. Lur’e, Iakov Solomonovich. “Iz istorii russkogo letopisaniia kontsa XV veka.” Akademiia Nauk SSSR, TODRL 11 (1955): 156–186. De Madariaga, Isabel. Ivan the Terrible: First Tsar of Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Majeska, George. “The Moscow Coronation of 1498 Reconsidered.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 26, no. 3 (1978): 353–361. Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja, and Sima Ćirković. Vladarske insignije i državna simbolika u Srbiji od XIII do XV veka. Belgrade: Serbian Academy, 1994. Martin, Janet. Medieval Russia, 980–1584. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Miller, David. “Once Again about the Dating and Provenance of the Skazanie o Kniaz’iakh Vladimirskikh.” Russian History/Histoire Russe 25, no. 1–2 (1998): 65–77. Mishkova, Diana. Beyond Balkanism. The Scholarly Politics of Region Making. New York: Routledge, 2018. Nairn, Tom. The Enchanted Glass. Britain and its Monarchy. London: Verso, 1989. Nelson, Janet. “Symbols in Context: Rulers’ Inauguration Rituals in Byzantium and the West.” In Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, 259–283. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1986. Németh, András. The Excerpta Constantiniana and the Byzantine Appropriation of the Past. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Ostrogorsky, George. “Evoliutsiia vizantiiskogo obriada koronovaniia.” In Vizantiia iuzhnye Slaviane i Drevniaia Rus’ zapadnaia Evropa: Iskusstvo i Kul’tura. Sbornik statei v chest’ V.N. Lazareva, ed. Vladimir N. Grashchenkov, Tatiana B. Kniazevskaia, et al., 32–43. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. Ostrowski, Donald. Muscovy and the Mongols. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Ostrowski, Donald. “The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions.” Slavic Review 49, no. 4 (1990): 525–542. Parppei, Kati. The Battle of Kulikovo Refought: The First National Feat. The Hague: Brill, 2017. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 68 4 May 2020 7:23:21 pm How Byzantine was the Moscow Inauguration of 1498 ? 69 Pavlov, Andrei, and Maureen Perrie. Ivan the Terrible. London: Longman, 2003. Plokhy, Serhii. Lost Kingdom: The Quest for Empire and the Making of the Russian Nation. New York: Hachette, 2017. Poe, Marshall. “Moscow, the Third Rome: The Origins and Transformations of a ‘Pivotal Moment.’” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 49 (2001): 412–429. Reinert, Stephen. “Political Dimensions of Manuel II Palaiologos’ 1392 Marriage and Coronation.” In Novum Millennium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck, ed. Claudia Sode and Sarlota Takacs, 291–302. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Ronchey, Silvia. “Orthodoxy on Sale: The Last Byzantine, and the Lost Crusade.” In Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London 21–26 August 2006), ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys, 313–342. Aldershot: Routledge, 2006. Rowell, Stephen Christopher. Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295–1345. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Rowland, Daniel. “Architecture, Image, and Ritual in the Throne Rooms of Muscovy, 1550–1650: A Preliminary Survey.” In Rude and Barbarous Kingdom Revisited: Essays in Russian History and Culture in Honor of Robert O. Crummey, ed. Chester Dunning, Russell Martin, and Rowland, 53–71. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 2008. Rowland, Daniel. “Moscow—The Third Rome or the New Israel?” Russian Review 55, no. 4 (1996): 591–614. Savva, Vladimir. Moskovskie tsari i viszantiiskie vasilevsy. k voprosu o vliianii Vizantii na obrazovanie idei tsarskoi vlasti Moskovskikh gosudarei. Kharkov: M. Zilberberg, 1901. Schreiner, Peter. “Hochzeit und Krönung Kaiser Manuels II. im Jahre 1392,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 60, no. 1 (1967): 70–85. Solovjev, Aleksandar. “Pojam države u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji.” In Godišnjica Nikole Ćupića 42 (1933): 64–123. Stefanovich, Piotr. “Kreshchenie Rusi v istoricheskhikh sochineniiakh XVI–XVII vv.” In Narrativy rusi kontsa XV–serediny XVIII vv.: V poiskakh svoei istorii, ed. Andrei Doronin, 80–102. Moscow: Politicheskaia entsiklopediia, 2017. Stefanovich, Piotr. “Legenda o prizvanii Variagov i istorografii XVI–XVII vv.: Ot srednevekovykh mifov k rannemodernym.” In Dreviaia Rus’ posle Drevnei Rusi: Diskurs vostrochnoslavianskogo (ne)edinstva, ed. Andrei Doronin, 326–344. Moscow: Politicheskaia entsikopediia, 2017. Tolochko, Oleksiy Petrovich. Kniaz’ v drevnei Rusi: Vlast, sobstvennost, ideologiia. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1992. Valeeva-Suleimanova, Guzel’ Fuadovna. “Shapka Monomakha—Imperskii symbol tatarskogo proiskhozhdeniia.” In Zolotoordynskaia tsivilizatsiia, ed. Il’nur Midkhatovich Murzaleev, 22–29. Kazan: Institut istorii, 2008. Vukovich, Alexandra. “Enthronement in Early Rus: Between Byzantium and Scandinavia.” Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 14 (2018): 211–239. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 69 4 May 2020 7:23:21 pm 70 Vukovich Vukovich, Alexandra. “Le Prince et son épée dans le Rous’ du Nord à la suite de l’exil byzantin de Vsévolod Iourevich.” In Byzance et ses voisins, ed. Élisabeth Yota. Bern: Peter Lang, 2017, forthcoming. Vukovich, Alexandra. “The Enthronement Rituals of the Princes of Vladimir-Suzdal in the 12th and 13th centuries.” FORUM University of Edinburgh Journal of Culture and the Arts 17 (2013): 1–15. Wortman, Richard. Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy from Peter the Great to the Death of Nicholas I, vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. Zimin, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich. Russkie letopisi i khronografy kontsa XV–XVI vv. Moscow: MGIAI, 1960. 36-70_Rossi and Sullivan_03-Vukovich.indd 70 4 May 2020 7:23:21 pm