Some Remarks on “Proprietary Dynasticism and the Development of the Concept of State in 17 th Century Russia

(Richard Pipes’ In terpretation of Muscovy and the European Perspective)

Abstract

H. H. Rowen termed “proprietary dynasticism” the early modern view that “public power was dynastic property”. Rowen’s work warns us not to read undue modernity into 17 th century Western monarchies, but at the same time challenges seriously R . Pipes’ contention that the patrimonial (concept of) state is a salient characteristic distinguishing Muscovite Russia from the West. I am convinced that the inclusion of “proprietary dynasticism” into historical analysis as an aspect of its own right wil l result in a better understanding of not only Western monarchies (as Rowen asserted) but also of Muscovite (and even Imperial) Russia. It should be viewed as a feature common to all monarchies. Then, not “proprietary dynasticism” itself, but its strength and endurance will be the distinguishing Russian characteristic. The strength of this view notwithstanding, important changes could and, indeed, did occur in the meaning of gosudarstvo in the 17 th century. And contrary to Pipes’ assertion, gosudarstvo coul d be distinguished from the person of the ruler even before the mid seventeenth century, i.e. before the westernization of Russian ideology.