In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Rude & Barbarous Kingdom Revisited: Essays in Russian History and Culture in Honor of Robert O. Crummey. Chester S. L. Dunning, Russell E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2008, 109–29.       Marfa Ivanovna and the Expansion of the Role of the Tsar’s Mother in the 17th Century Isolde Thyrêt Amongst  the  royal  women  of  Muscovite  Russia  in  the  late  16th  and  early  17th   centuries,   Marfa   Ivanovna,   the   mother   of   the   first   Romanov   tsar,   Mikhail   Fedorovich,  stands  out  for  her  harsh  treatment  in  historical  literature.  Previ-­‐‑ ous   tsaritsy,   such   as   Mariia   Grigor’evna   Skuratova-­‐‑Bel’skaia   and   Mariia   Fedorovna   Nagaia,   understandably   received   bad   publicity   because   of   their   association   with   unpopular   or   controversial   blood   lines   during   the   Time   of   Troubles.1  One  would  expect,  however,  a  positive  characterization  of  Marfa   Ivanovna,  who  after  all  was  the  matriarch  of  Russia’s  new  legitimate  dynasty   after   the   Time   of   Troubles.   Nevertheless,   prominent   scholars   of   the   early   Romanov  dynasty  have  few  good  words  for  the  tsar  mother.  V.  O.  Kliuchev-­‐‑ skii  calls  Marfa  “a  capricious  intriguer  who  kept  a  tight  hold  on  her  son,”  and   S.  V.  Bakhrushin  depicts  her  as  “a  power-­‐‑loving,  very  mean,  but  by  far  not  in-­‐‑ telligent   woman.”2   The   scholarly   prejudice   reflects   the   tone   of   17th-­‐‑century   sources,   notably   the   Pskov   Chronicle,   which   expresses   resentment   about   the   rise  of  some  of  Marfa’s  kinsmen  into  leading  positions  at  the  Romanov  court.3   Inquest  records  concerning  treasonous  activities  against  the  royal  family  also   contain  mean-­‐‑spirited  comments  about  Marfa  Ivanovna.  In  one  case  from  July   1626,  a  prison  guard  in  Mozhaisk  allegedly  blamed  Marfa  Ivanovna  for  Tsar   Mikhail’s  failed  wedding  to  Mariia  Khlopova  and  lamented  that  the  tsar  was   oblivious   of   the   intrigues   of   his   meddlesome   mother   and   did   not   have   her   sewn  into  a  bearskin  and  then  hunted  down  by  dogs,  as  previous  lords  would                                                                                                                             1  Isolde  Thyrêt,  Between  God  and  Tsar:  Religious  Symbolism  and  the  Royal  Women  of  Mus-­‐‑ covite  Russia  (DeKalb:  Northern  Illinois  University  Press,  2001),  103–17.   2  V.  O.  Kliuchevskii,  A  Course  in  Russian  History:  The  Seventeenth  Century,  trans.  Natalie   Duddington   (Armonk,   NY:   M.   E.   Sharpe,   1994),   82;   S.   V.   Bakhrushin,   “Politicheskie   tolki  v  tsarstvovanie  Mikhaila  Fedorovicha,”  in  Trudy  po  istochnikovedeniiu,  istoriografii  i   istorii   Rossii   epokhi   feodalizma   (nauchnoe   nasledie),   ed.   B.   V.   Levshin   (Moscow:   Nauka,   1987),  95.   3  Pskovskie  letopisi  (hereafter,  PL),  2  vols.  (Moscow:  Izdatel’stvo  Akademii  nauk  SSSR,   1941–55),  1:  132–33;  Bakhrushin,  “Politicheskie  tolki,”  98.   110 ISOLDE THYRÊT have  done.4  In  another  incident,  a  retainer  of  the  governor  of  Tobolsk  was  ac-­‐‑ cused  of  rejoicing  at  Marfa  Ivanovna'ʹs  death  in  1631,  saying  that  Russians  had   escaped  the  first  evil  and  now  only  had  to  get  rid  of  her  husband,  Patriarch   Filaret.5     The  negative  attitude  toward  the  Romanov  matriarch  results  from  the  fact   that  Marfa  Ivanovna,  who  had  never  been  a  tsar’s  wife  and  therefore  could   not  claim  having  the  blessed  womb  of  a  tsar  mother,  met  the  challenge  of  de-­‐‑ fining  her  unique  role  head  on.6  An  examination  of  Marfa  Ivanovna’s  role  in   the  events  leading  up  to  Mikhail  Fedorovich’s  coronation  in  1613  shows  that   in  order  to  appropriate  the  role  of  a  tsaritsa,  the  Romanov  matriarch  carefully   manipulated  a  Muscovite  political  ritual  of  pleading  with  a  tsar  candidate  to   assume  the  throne.  Marfa  Ivanovna  was  conscious  of  the  fact  that  the  delega-­‐‑ tion  of  the  Muscovite  Assembly  of  the  Land  to  Mikhail  Fedorovich  in  Kos-­‐‑ troma  in  1613  followed  the  protocol  a  previous  assembly  had  applied  to  Boris   Godunov   and   his   sister   Irina   in   the   succession   crisis   of   1598.   Using   this   knowledge,  she  inserted  herself  into  the  pleading  ritual  in  such  a  way  that  she   expanded  on  Irina’s  role  and  set  herself  up  to  assume  a  much  more  visible   position  at  the  future  royal  court  than  previous  tsaritsy  had  enjoyed.     Marfa  Ivanovna’s  potential  dynastic  significance  became  apparent  shortly   after  the  death  of  the  last  Rurikide  tsar,  Fedor  Ivanovich,  in  1598.  Boris  Godu-­‐‑ nov’s  subsequent  ascendance  to  power  was  accompanied  by  reprisals  against   the  Romanov  clan,  which  had  risen  to  political  prominence  after  Ivan  IV  had   married  Anastasiia  Romanova  in  1547.  In  order  to  forestall  a  rival  claim  to  the   throne   by   Anastasiia’s   influential   and   well-­‐‑liked   nephew,   Fedor   Nikitich   Romanov,  Boris  Godunov  forced  him  and  his  relatives  to  take  monastic  vows   in  1600.  Fedor’s  wife,  Kseniia  Ivanovna  Shestova,  who  later  took  the  monastic   name  Marfa,  was  forced  to  share  his...

Share