Moskovskaia Rus': spetsifika razvitiia by Gyula s> Szvák (review)

756 SEER, 83, 4, 2005 and considered to be of consequence. This makes the book quite interesting and useful for furtherdiscussionsconcerning several controversialaspects of political, social, religious, cultural and economic dimensions of national life. There lies the realvalue of the book. Alas, the book also possessesmajor shortcomings.The most serious one is that it lacks a bibliography. In addition, numerous incorrect spellings, particularlyin the Index, areasirritatingastheyareinexcusable.Forexample, Chlopifnski, Jaruzelki, Kolakowsko,Legnice, Pradzifiski,Swaitio, Wielkopolski , Zulwy, Wittenburg, etc., etc. The titles of Copernicus' and Maciej of Miech6w's worksare given in incorrect Latin. There is also no uniformityin the names of the personslistedin the Index. Forno apparentreason, some are just surnames,some consist of both the firstand last names. Surprisingly,the maps taken from ThePalgrave Concise Historical Atlas of EasternEurope(Basingstoke , 200I) contain misspelled names of important Belarusian towns: Vitsebsk and Polatsk (pp. ix, xi and xii). Polish names are all, impressively, printedin theirauthenticPolishspelling,though printing'e' with the diacritic following the character ('ej') spoils the exercise. It is a great pity that shortcomingsof thiskinddetractfromthe realimportanceof the book. London J.J. TOMIAK Szvak, Gyula (ed.). MoskovskaiaRus'. spetsifikarazvitiia. Ruszisztikai Konyvek, 13. Magyar Ruszisztikai Intezet, Budapest, 2003. 222 pp. Notes. Price unknown. THIs volume contains selected papers presented at the international conference of historians in the Centre for Russian Studies of Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest in May 2002. The papers of scholars from Hungary, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada cover the period from the late fifteenth to the late seventeenth century. Several contributions are devoted to the economic foundations of Muscovite power. S. A. Kozlov points out that the Muscovite taxation system was geared primarily to the needs of the army. Kozlov's observations are in line with the recent views of Muscovy as a fiscal-military state, in which the central powers mobilized the financial resources of society for military purposes. R. G. Skrynnikov and Janet Martin convincingly show that such mobilization, however, did not mean complete suppression of local interests and peculiarities . According to Skrynnikov, the system of conditional land owning (pomest'e) was a form of social contract. Pomest'elands could be inherited within the family of a servitor as long as he and his sons continued to serve. Martin even suggests that there was no direct connection between holding a pomest'eand service, since the mid sixteenth-century Tver' surveys do not explain why some pomest'eholders did not serve at all. This assertion, however, should be treated with caution. The compilers of surveys could omit such explanations for various reasons. Martin relies on old publications of surveys which are notorious for numerous editorial errors. The new edition of the surveys of the Bezhetskaia piatina prepared by K. V. Baranov apparently appeared too late to be used in Martin's study. REVIEWS 757 Several papers in the book reveal the importance of private courts and retinuesin Muscovy. Skrynnikovnotes that from the reign of Ivan IV, ruined petty servitorsjoined the armed retinues of princes and boyars as bonded men. A. V. Beliakov examines the court and administrationof the Kasimov tsars,who enjoyed an autonomous statusin Muscovyfromaround I450 to the second half of the seventeenth century. Martin makes the interesting observationthat thepomest'e holdersin Tver' servednot only the tsar,but also variousclericsand princes. A number of papers included in the volume reflect the growing interest of historians in the Time of Troubles (Smuta). Skrynnikov elaborates on his revisionistinterpretationof the Smuta as a civil war. L. E. Morozova offersa multi-cause explanation of Boris Godunov's coming to power and the fall of his regime. I. 0. Tiumentsev examines the little studiedperiod of the Smuta from I607 to i 6I0 on thebasisofnew archivalmaterial.Likeotherrevisionists, Tiumentsev concludes that the Smutawas caused by internalsocial, political, and spiritual crises. D. V. Liseitsev demonstrates a promising cultural approach to the Smuta. He argues that despite its dramatic character, the Smuta exerted certain positive effects on Russia. It stimulated contacts between Russiansand Westerners,primarilyin the militaryfield. Viewing the Smuta as a cross-culturalencounter, Liseitsevexamines changes in Muscovite diplomatic terminology in the early seventeenth century. In particular, he thinks that the expression zemskoe deloappeared in the diplomatic records in I607 because of the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.