Authors

Discussion

This paper argues that mid-sixteenth-century Muscovy’s diplomacy with the Holy Roman Empire was shaped not only by rulers and envoys but also by German merchants who mobilized genealogy as political currency. By following Hans Schlitte, Georg Liebenauer, and Veit Seng across courts and Reich forums, the study uncovers a merchant-driven circulation of dynastic myths that reframed Muscovy’s place within imperial hierarchies.

Newly published letters (2009) reveal that Schlitte, traditionally cast as a lone speculator, acted with Ivan IV’s knowledge and brought to Charles V (Augsburg, 1547/48) an appeal that fused three familiar aims—anti-Ottoman cooperation, technical recruitment, and trade—with a bold fourth component: a genealogical claim of shared German origin. Echoing narratives gaining authority under Metropolitan Makarii (the Stepennaia kniga and Skazanie o kniaziakh vladimirskikh), the appeal portrayed the Rurikids as heirs to Roman and Prussian lines, thereby elevating Muscovy to a status commensurate with imperial houses.

After Schlitte’s arrest removed him from the diplomatic scene, Liebenauer (for Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria) and Seng revived his project amid the Livonian War and intensified Ottoman pressure. Their memoranda amplified matrimonial scenarios—invoking Henry IV’s marriage to Eupraxia of Kiev, the Jadwiga–Jogaila precedent, and rumored northern matches—and once again leaned on a narrative of German–Rus’ common descent. Though unofficial and often financially motivated, these intermediaries succeeded in pushing Muscovy into princely correspondence and Reichstag discussions, presenting it as a plausible ally and marital partner.

The paper makes three interventions. First, it shifts attention from the well-studied Byzantine-kinship paradigm to a competing idiom of Germanic shared origin that resonated more effectively within Reich politics. Second, it shows how non-state actors edited, repackaged, and exported Muscovite genealogical constructions, allowing courtly narratives to acquire new diplomatic trajectories. Third, it reconceptualizes Muscovite diplomacy of the 1540s–1570s as a hybrid field where commercial brokerage, confessional agendas, and dynastic storytelling intersected.

Drawing on Schlitte’s, Liebenauer’s, and Seng’s correspondence, Reichstag records, and Muscovite narrative compilations, the study demonstrates how genealogy functioned not as ornamental myth but as a flexible diplomatic instrument with real consequences for alliance-building—and for its failure.