Aleksandr Filjuškin: Vasilij III. Moskva: Molodaja Gvardija, 2010. 346 S. ISBN 978-5-235-03379-5

Aleksandr Filjuškin: Vasilij III. Moskva: Molodaja Gvardija, 2010. 346 S. ISBN 978-5-235-03379-5.

With the exception of A. A. Zimin’s, Rossiia na poroge novogo vremeni (1972) there have been few studies devoted to Vasily III and his reign as grand prince of Muscovy (1505–1533). Aleksandr Filiushkin’s Vasilii III seeks to fill that gap. The volume covers the well known events of Vasily’s career: his succession to the throne; the westward expansion of his realm; relations with the Tatar khanates; reform of central and provincial government institutions; Church controversies and politically influential ideologies; and, finally his divorce, remarriage, and death. Filiushkin’s presentation of these issues reflects the difficulties of compiling a biographical study of Vasily as much as it provides a launching point for his interpretations not only of Vasily’s reign, but of the longer era including the reigns of both Vasily’s father, Ivan III, and his son, Ivan IV, “the Terrible.”

Filiushkin attempts to capture the tenor of the times and to personalize his leading characters. Thus, he encourages the reader to imagine what Vasily’s mother, the young Sof’ia Palaeologa, must have observed and felt when she arrived from Rome to marry Ivan III and encountered the unfamiliar images and customs of Moscow. He similarly invites the reader to imagine Vasily’s personal conflicts and challenges when, as a monarch who had to set the interests of his dynasty and the stability of his realm above personal feelings, he prevented his brothers from marrying and producing sons before he had sired his own or when, provoking the disapproval of Church hierarchs, he divorced his wife after a childless 20-year marriage in order to remarry and produce the politically necessary heirs.

Despite these devices, the biography provides little insight into Vasily the man or Vasily the monarch. Filiushkin characterizes the reign as a transitional one, and examines it by describing general trends that continued to unfold during it or by comparing conditions and situations that preceded it to those that followed. The daily activities at court, which Filiushkin tries to portray, are extrapolated from accounts of later periods. Filiushkin’s understanding of Vasily’s purposes in undertaking particular actions is derived from their outcomes, which are assumed to be preconceived goals. Filiushkin thus perceives Vasily’s policies as deliberate contributions to the transformation of his father’s grand principality into his son’s tsardom. Vasily’s subordination of the loyal principality of Pskov or his relationship with the Orthodox Church and its hierarchs, for example, are understood not in terms of immediate problems and options available for their solutions, but in terms of Vasily’s determination to lay the foundations for the unified, centralized Muscovite monarchy that emerged decades after his reign. Vasily’s importance as a ruler is likewise evaluated in terms of how steadfastly he did what was necessary in pursuit of that goal. To what degree Vasily actually conceptualized, anticipated, or even desired the eventual outcome is not examined.

Some of the coverage and analyses, most notably the treatment of foreign affairs, are nonetheless detailed and informative. Discussing diplomatic exchanges between Muscovy and European powers, most significantly Lithuania, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Vatican, Filiushkin emphasizes the wars that resulted in Vasily’s greatest triumph, the conquest of Smolensk. Filiushkin, moreover, considers how Europe’s view of Muscovy changed. Setting Muscovite-Lithuanian relations in the context of turbulent European affairs, caused by Turkish expansion, the Jagiellons’ rivalry with the Holy Roman Empire, and Martin Luther’s challenge to the Catholic Church, he explains that the western powers and Muscovy approached the negotiations with different objectives. While Muscovy hoped to win support against Poland and Lithuania, the emperor and pope were trying to convince the Muscovites to convert to Catholicism, accept a crown from the emperor, and join an anti-Turkish league. The results were unsuccessful and had, in Filiushkin’s view, long-lasting consequences. The Holy Roman Emperor, operating from poor, even antiquated notions about Muscovy, had high hopes of bringing this “newly discovered” realm into the European, Christian community. Muscovy’s rejection of his offers, coupled with Polish accounts that discredited Muscovy by characterizing it as a barbaric, Asian country and with the mid-century publication of Sigismund von Herberstein’s account of a tyrannical Muscovy, resulted in a shift in European attitudes toward Muscovy. The favorable view was converted into a negative one of an alien nation that shared none of the values and characteristics of the European community.

This analysis offers astute insights, but not into Vasily III. Filiushkin dwells on descriptions of Muscovy that circulated in Europe and on their unreliable sources: imaginations, preconceived notions, and the biased accounts of foreign visitors. He does not, however, examine any contributions Muscovites in general or Vasily in particular may have made to prompt the changes in Europe’s attitude.

Filiushkin also explores Muscovy’s diplomatic and military interactions with the Tatar khanates and the Ottoman Turks. He observes the breakdown of the Muscovite-Crimean Tatar alliance and its replacement by declarations of friendship accompanied by repeated raids and, as in 1521, by direct military confrontation. The political changes in Kazan’, whose khans became less dependent upon Muscovy, are also traced in detail. In these cases too, however, the changes are attributed primarily to the Tatars; Vasily’s role in provoking or reinforcing them are given little attention.

Written in an informal, casual style, Filiushkin has aimed Vasilii III at a general audience. While elaborating upon rumors that Vasily’s first wife gave birth to a child after she entered the convent, for example, he refrains from exploring the more complex political consequences of the methods Vasily employed to dissolve the marriage or the full implications of broad circulation of the rumors. This is typical of an avoidance of in-depth discussions of scholarly analyses and debates. References to studies authored by western scholars are few. There is no index or bibliography. Nevertheless, this volume is a welcome reminder that Vasily III, who might well be considered not just a passively transitional figure, but a pivotal one in the development of early modern Muscovy, deserves greater attention than he has received.

Janet Martin, Miami, FL