“Whomsoever He Wishes As His Successor”: Paul Bushkovitch on Succession and Absolutism in Early Modern Russia
In: Russian HistorySearch for other papers by Russell E. Martin in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Paul Bushkovitch’s study of succession in Russia challenges a number of received historiographical traditions about succession and absolutism in early modern Russia. He questions the common view that power transferred from one ruler to the next by primogeniture and instead sees a long and largely uninterrupted tradition of parental designation. He also rejects the view that the concept of absolutism is useful for understanding monarchical power in Muscovy. Instead, Bushkovitch joins a growing group of historians who see the tsar ruling collaboratively with his boyars, making this a study as much about political culture as it is about succession. Some readers may find the conclusions about primogeniture to be highly revisionist and in need of further investigation, but the arguments about absolutism will no doubt influence in significant ways future works on power and politics, as historians continue to expand their understanding of pre-modern Russian political culture.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 309 | 47 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 48 | 8 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 122 | 16 | 0 |
“Whomsoever He Wishes As His Successor”: Paul Bushkovitch on Succession and Absolutism in Early Modern Russia
In: Russian HistorySearch for other papers by Russell E. Martin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Paul Bushkovitch’s study of succession in Russia challenges a number of received historiographical traditions about succession and absolutism in early modern Russia. He questions the common view that power transferred from one ruler to the next by primogeniture and instead sees a long and largely uninterrupted tradition of parental designation. He also rejects the view that the concept of absolutism is useful for understanding monarchical power in Muscovy. Instead, Bushkovitch joins a growing group of historians who see the tsar ruling collaboratively with his boyars, making this a study as much about political culture as it is about succession. Some readers may find the conclusions about primogeniture to be highly revisionist and in need of further investigation, but the arguments about absolutism will no doubt influence in significant ways future works on power and politics, as historians continue to expand their understanding of pre-modern Russian political culture.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 309 | 47 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 48 | 8 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 122 | 16 | 0 |
