Summary Why do the important political texts of the former Russia adopt a moralising tone? Why are they so often fragmentary, unfinished? Why do we not find some key ideas in the political thinking of the tsar empire present in almost all the monarchies of Europe, and sometimes these particularities are explained by the backlog of Russian society. The author proposes an alternative interpretation: Russian and Western thinking are inspired by different, albeit similar, sources. While the West takes the Aristothetic theory of policing as its starting point, Russian monarchy doctrine follows the late Greek tradition, transmitted by the Eastern Church theologists. According to the author, the preference for fragmentary style is part of a deliberate rhetorical technique, which seeks to imitate the founding texts of eastern patrology, in particular through the use of a particular form of quotation (here referred to as ‘global quotation’).As regards the right to resist the monarch, the author concludes that at the end of xvie and the beginning of the century. some Russian theorists, and even political leaders, saw literary narratives of confrontation between tyran and Christian heroes, as found by John Chrysostome and other authors of the Church’s early days, as a perfect example of how to deal with an impeded monarch. It follows that the right of resistance was in their view a duty of the belierer as an individual, not the prerogative of any political group. Cases of collective resistance have historically been documented, but in order to be considered legitimate, resistance had to be individual and non-violent.