Возвращаясь к вопросу о том, было ли Русское государство «долгого XVI века» «композитным»?
Returning to the question of whether the Russian state of the «long 16th century» was «composite»?

Summary/Abstract: J. Elliott published an article «A Europe of Composite Monarchies» in 1992. He developed the ideas put forward fifteen years earlier by H. Koenigsberger in his article, «Monarchies and Parliaments in Early Modern Europe Dominium Regale or Dominium Politicum et Regale». The concept substantiated by these scholars, which proposed to consider early modern European states as «composite states or monarchies», has firmly entered the methodological arsenal of Western historical science. And although more than 20 years have passed since then, this concept remains one of the most discussed issues of early modern European history. In modern Russian historical science, however, the Koenigsberger–Elliott idea has not received wide distribution. This was apparently due to several reasons. Firstly, in post-Soviet historiography there is notendency toward broad historical generalizations. Secondly, there are doubts about the applicability of the findings based on European materials to the Russian realities of the pre-Petrine era. However, interest in this concept remains, as evidenced by A. I. Filyushkin’s article «Why Russia Did Not Become a Composite State». As the title of the article suggests, its author doubts if the Koenigsberger-Elliott concept is applicable to the Russian realities of the early modern period. Its publication became a start point for an absentia discussion around the problem raised. This article analyzes the arguments «for» and «against» the applicability of the concept of «composite states or monarchies» to the realities of the Moscow period of the history of the Russian state.

• Details
• Contents