Adoption of the imperial title by Peter I in the context of the evolution of representations on the Moscow tsars’ power

The article deals with the ideological justification for the adoption of the imperial title by Peter I and the problem of correlating between the titles of “tsar” and “emperor”. In particular, the authors argue that Grand Prince Ivan III had renounced the offered royal title because he cherished ambitions for an equal status with the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The title of tsar adopted by Ivan IV was perceived in the Moscow state and countries of Western Europe as equal to the title of emperor. But over time, the status of Moscow rulers was interpreted as royal by Western Europeans, and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire officially addressed to them as «blissfulness», the same title that he used for other European kings. In this context the authors highlight the imperial ambitions of the pretender False Dmitry I who called himself «Caesar», and coronated his wife Marina Mniszech as a «Cesarean Empress». They focus on the unsuccessful attempt of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov who persuade the Roman emperor to recognize the Muscovite tsar as an equal ruler and to address the Muscovite tsar as «majesty» (instead of king’s title «luminosity»). This example reveals that the first Romanovs had managed to convince the population of Moscow state that they were the truly successors to Rurik dynasty, but they could not restore the status of the Russian monarchy in the eyes of European rulers. In this paper, special attention is focused on the differences between the semantic load of the titles «king» and «emperor», which were determined by the evolution of social thought. In modern times, not only God was viewed as a source of power; the Senate asked Peter I to accept the supreme power on behalf of society. The emperor in modern times was viewed not only as the executor of the will of the God, but also as a servant to the state for a sake of ideals of the public good and welfare of his subjects. The authors come to the conclusion that the idea of succession of supreme power from the Byzantine Empire at the early 18th century lost its former relevance; the imperial title was perceived in political culture as a designation of the highest power and the expression of ambitions for leadership in world politics.