“Those who likened themselves unto God”: reflections on the book “I am the tsar. The history of imposture in Russia” by Claudio Ingerflom

The author of the article offers a critical analysis of the monograph “I Am the Tsar. The History of Imposture in Russia” by Claudio S. Ingerflom, a well-known Franco-Argentine historian. The book, originally published in French in 2015, was released in Russia in 2021. The article starts with a brief review of Russian historiography on imposters, which is aimed to better understand the place and importance of C. Ingerflom’s historical conception in the research of imposture in Russia. The article also contains the scholar’s brief biography and professional profile. What is considered a special asset in the monograph is the reconstruction of the first global history of continuous Russian imposture in the course of its existence in the 17th - 20th centuries. The author’s reconstruction is positively assessed as an effective cognitive instrument used for identifying and exploring the structural idiosyncrasies of Russian political culture, among them being a lack of civic consciousness and civic society, i.e. a modern policy of Western type based on the concept of popular representation. The author of the article goes on to consider C. Ingerflom’s thesis as to its verification that the phenomenon of imposture is the reverse side of the religious conception of divine legitimacy of Russian Tsars, as from that time on anyone could as well declare oneself as one chosen by God. Thus, C. Ingerflom argues that imposture can be viewed as a symptom of Russian autocracy and a norm of Russian political history. The author of the article debates with the author of the monograph on the most problematic issues of the above historical concept, for instance, the correctness of treating any adventurers acting under false names and status as imposters, or pretenders. Also, criticism is expressed as to the Russian terms “samozvanstvo” (imposture), “samozvanchestvo” and “samozvanshina” being used as synonyms. The article concludes that, despite some critical remarks, C. Ingerflom’s monograph is sure to become a significant historiographical phenomenon and a considerable contribution to one of the most debatable problems of Russian history.