Dubrovskii, S. "Protiv idealizatsii deiatel'nosti Ivana IV" ["Against Idealization of Ivan I V's Activities"]. Voprosy istorii [The Problems of History], no. 8 (1956): 121-28.
Eberhard, Wolfram. "Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power by Karl A. Wittfogel." American Sociological Review 23, no. 4 (1958): 446-49.
Egorov, D. "Ideia turetskoi reformatsii v XVI veke" ["The Idea of a Turkish Reformation in the Sixteenth Century"]. Russhaia mysl' [Russian Thought], no. 7 (1907).
Eisenstadt, S. N. "The Study of Oriental Despotisms as Systems of Total Power." The Journal of Asian Studies 17 (May 1958): 435-46.
Fennel, J. L. I. Ivan the Great of Moscow. London, 1961.
, ed. and trans. The Correspondence Between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar
Ivan IV of Russia, 1564-1579. Cambridge, Engl., 1955.
, ed. and trans. Prince A. M. Kurbsky's History of Ivan IV. Cambridge,
Engl., 1965.
Fletcher, G. О gosudarstve russkom [On the Russian State]. St. Petersburg, 1905.
Of the Russe Common Wealth. Reprinted from the Hakluyt Society Publications. New York, n.d.
Gerberstein, S. Zapiski о Moskovii [Notes on Muscovy]. St. Petersburg, 1866.
Zapiski о moskovskikh delakh [Notes about Muscovite Matters], St. Petersburg, 1908.
Gershenkron, Alexander. Continuity and Change in Russian and Soviet Thought. Edited by E.J. Simmons. Cambridge, Mass., 1962.
Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, Mass.,
1962.
Gershenzon, M. P. Ya. Chaadaev; Zhizn' i Myshlenie [P. Ya. Chaadaev: Life and Thought], St. Petersburg, 1908.
Gorskii, S. Zhizn' i istoricheskoe znachenie kniazia A. M. Kurbskogo [The Life and Historical Significance of Prince A. M. Kurbskii], Kazan', 1856.
Grekov, B. D. Krestiane na Rusi s drevneishikh vremen do XVII veka [Peasants in Rus' from the Earliest Times to the Seventeenth Century]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1946.
Grobovsky, Anthony N. The "Chosen Council" of Ivan IV: A Reinterpretation. New York, 1969.
Heer, Nancy Whittier. "Political Leadership in Soviet Historiography." In The Dynamics of Soviet Politics, edited by Paul Cocks, Robert V. Daniels, and Nancy Whittier Heer. Cambridge, Mass., 1976.
Hegel, G. W. F. Lectures on the Philosophy of History. London, 1861.
Hellie, Richard. "In Search of Ivan the Terrible." Preface to S. F. Platonov, Ivan the Terrible. Gulf Breeze, Fla., 1974.
"Ivan the Terrible: Paranoia, 'Evil Advisors,' Institutional Restraints
and Social Control." Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual Southern Conference on Slavic Studies, November 1978.
"The Muscovite Provincial Service Elite in Comparative Perspective."
Paper presented at the Ninety-third Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, December 1978.
Herzen, A. I. Kolokol; gazeta Gertsena. 1857—1867 [The Bell: Herzen's Newspaper, 1857-1867]. 6 vols. Moscow, 1962-64.
Sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works]. Moscow, 1954.
Iarosh, K. Psikhologicheskaia parallel' [A Psychological Parallel]. Khar'kov, 1898.
Istoriia srednikh vekov [A History of the Middle Ages]. General editor: S. D. Skazkin. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1954.
Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR]. Moscow, 1966.
Ivan IV, Tsar. Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo [Epistles of Ivan the Terrible]. Prepared for publication by D. S. Likhachev and la. S. Lur'e. Moscow, 1951.
Karamzin, N. M. Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo [History of the Russian State], St. Petersburg, 1821.
Kareev, N. N. Zapadno-evropeiskaia absoliutnaia monarkhiia XVI, XVII i XVIII vekov [Western European Absolutist Monarchy in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries]. St. Petersburg, 1908.
Kashtanov, S. M. "Ogranichenie feodal'nogo immuniteta pravitel'stvom rus- skogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva" ["The Limitation of Feudal Immunity by the Government of the Centralized Russian State"]. Trudy Moskov- skogo gosudarstvennogo istoriko-arkhivnogo instituta [Transactions of the Moscow State Institute of Historical Archives], vol. 2. Moscow, 1958.
Sotsial'no-politicheskaia istoriia Rossii kontsa XV—pervoi poloviny XVI v. [A
Sociopolitical History of Russia in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries]. Moscow, 1967.
Kavelin, K. Sochineniia [Works]. Moscow, 1859.
Kazakova, N. A. Vassian Patrikeev i ego sochineniia [Vassian Patrikeev and His Works]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1969.
Kazakova, N. A., and Lur'e, la. S. Antideodal'nye ereticheskie dvizheniia na Rusi XlV—nachala XVI veka [Antifeudal Heretical Movements in Rus' from the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Century]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1958.
Keenan, Edward L., Jr. The Kurbskii-Groznyi Apocrypha. Cambridge, Mass., 1971.
"Vita: Ivan Vasil'evich, Terrible Tsar, 1530-1584." Harvard Magazine, January-February, 1978.
Kirchner, W. The Rise of the Baltic Question. Newark, Delaware, 1954.
Kliuchevskii, V. O. Boiarskaia duma drevnei Rusi [The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus']. Moscow, 1909.
Sochineniia [Collected Works], lsted. Moscow, 1936-39.
Sochineniia [Collected Works]. 2nd ed. Moscow, 1956—59.
Kopanev, A. I. Istoriia zemlevladeniia Belozerskogo kraia v XV—XVI vekakh [History of Land Tenure in Belozersk Krai in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.
. "Ustavnaia Zemskaia Gramota trex volostei Dvinskogo uezda 25 fev-
ralia 1552" ["A Regional Constitutive Decree for the 3 Volosts of Dvina Uezd, February 25, 1552"]. Istoricheskii arkhiv [Historical Archive] 8 (1952).
"K voprosu о strukture zemlevladeniia na Dvine v XV-XVI vv" ["On
the Question of the Structure of Land Tenure on the Dvina in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries"]. Voprosy agrarnoi istorii: Materialy nauchnoi kon- ferentsii po istorii sel'skogo khoziaistva i krestianstva Evropeiskogo Severa SSSR [Problems of Agrarian History: Proceedings of a Scholarly Conference on the History of Agriculture and the Peasantry in the European North of the USSR], Vologda, 1968.
Kostylev, V. I. Ivan Groznyi [Ivan the Terrible]. 3 vols. Moscow, 1944-47.
Kotoshikhin, Grigorii. О Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha, Sochinenie Grigoriia Kotoshikhina [On Russia in the Reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Written by Grigorii Kotoshikhin]. 4th ed. St. Petersburg, 1906.
Kritika burzhuaznykh kontseptsii istorii Rossii perioda feodalizma; Simpozium [Critique of Bourgeois Conceptions of the History of Russia in the Period of Feudalism: Symposium]. Moscow, 1962.
Krizhanich, Iurii. Politika [Politics]. Moscow, 1965.
Kurbskii, A. M. Perepiska Ivana Groznogo s Andreem Kurbskim [The Correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbskii]. Leningrad, 1972.
Skazaniia kniazia Kurbskogo [Stories of Prince Kurbskii]. St. Petersburg, 1833.
Kurmacheva, M. D. "Ob otsenke deiatel'nosti Ivana Groznogo" ["On the Evaluation of the Activities of Ivan the Terrible"]. Voprosy istorii [The Problems of History], no. 9 (1956): 195-203.
Latkin, N. V. Zemskie sobory drevnei Rusi [The Assemblies of the Land in Ancient Rus']. St. Petersburg, 1885.
Lenin, V. I. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works]. 4th ed. 35 vols. Moscow, 1941-60.
Likhachev, D. S. "Ivan Peresvetov i ego literaturnaia sovremennost'" ["Ivan Peresvetov and the Literature of His Time"]. In Sochineniia Ivana Pe- resvetova [Ivan Peresvetov's Works]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1956.
Lomonosov, M. V. Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Collected Works], Moscow-Leningrad, 1956.
Lunin, M. S. Dekabrist Lunin, sochineniia i pis'ma [Lunin the Decembrist, Writings and Letters]. Petrograd, 1923.
Lur'e, la. S. Ideologicheshaia bor'ba v russkoi publitsistike kontsa XV—nachala XVI w. [The Ideological Struggle in Russian Public-Affairs Writing in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries]. Leningrad, 1960.
Makovskii, D. P. Razvitie tovarno-denezhnykh otnishenii v sel'skom khoziaistve rus- skogo gosudarstva v XVI veke [The Development of Goods and Monetary Relationships in the Agriculture of the Russian State in the Sixteenth Century], Smolensk, 1960.
Maksim Grek. Sochineniia prepodobnogo Maksima Greka v russkom perevode [The Works of the Venerable Maxim the Greek in Russian Translation], Part 1. Troitse-Sergievskaia Lavra, 1911.
Malinin, V. Starets Eleazarova monastyria Filofei i ego poslanie [Elder Filofei of the St. Eleazar Monastery and His Epistle]. Kiev, 1901.
Manglapus, Raul. "Asian Revolution and American Ideology." Foreign Affairs 45 (January 1967).
Marx, Karl. Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected Works]. Moscow, 1933.
. Secret Diplomatic History of the XVIII Century. London, 1969.
Sochineniia [Works]. 2nd ed. 48 vols. Moscow, 1955—77.
, and Engels, F. Izbrannye pis'ma [Selected Letters]. Moscow, 1948.
Mikhailovskii, N. K. "Ivan Groznyi v russkoi literature" ["Ivan the Terrible in Russian Literature"]. In Sochineniia [Works]. St. Petersburg, 1909.
Miliukov, P. N. Ocherkipo istorii russkoi kul'tury [Outlines of the History of Russian Culture]. St. Petersburg, 1896.
Ocherki po istorii russkoi kul'tury [Outlines of the History of Russian
Culture]. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1909.
Miuller, R. В. Ocherki po istorii Karelii XVI-XVII vekov [Outlines of the History of Karelia in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries]. Petrozavodsk, 1947.
Moiseeva, G. I. Valaamskaia beseda—pamiatnik russkoi publitsistiki XVI v. [The Conversation of Valaam—A Document of Sixteenth-Century Russian Public-Affairs Writing], Moscow-Leningrad, 1938.
Montesquieu, Charles de. О dukhe zakonov [L'esprit du loi]. St. Petersburg, 1900.
Nosov, N. E. О dvukh tendentsiiakh razvitiia feodal'nogo zemlevladeniia v Severo- Vostochnoi Rusi v XV—XVI vekakh [On the Two Tendencies in the Development of Feudal Land Tenure in Northeastern Rus' in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries], Moscow, 1970.
Stanovlenie soslovno-predstavitel'nykh uchrezhdenii v Rossii [The Establishment of Institutions Representing Estates in Russia]. Leningrad, 1969.
Obolensky, Dimitri. "Russia's Byzantine Heritage." In Readings in Russian History, edited by Sidney Harcave. New York, 1962.
Pamiatniki russkogo prava [Sources of Russian Law], edited by L. V Cherepnin, vols. 3—4. Moscow, 1955—56.
Pavlenko, N. I. "K voprosu о genezise absoliutizma v Rossii" ["On the Question of the Genesis of Absolutism in Russia"]. Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR], no. 4 (1970).
Pavlov, A. S. Istoricheskii ocherk sekuliarizatsii tserkovnykh zemel' v Rossii [A Historical Sketch of the Secularization of the Church Lands in Russia]. Odessa, 1871.
Pavlova-Sil'vanskaia, M. P. "K voprosu ob osobennostiakh absoliutizma v Rossii" ["On the Question of the Peculiar Features of Absolutism in Russia"]. Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR], no. 4 (1968).
Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, N. P. Feodalism drevneiRusi [Feudalism in Ancient Rus']. Pe- trograd, 1924.
Gosudarevy sluzhylye liudi, liudi kabal'nye i zakladnye [Service Landholders of the Sovereign, Debt Slaves, and Indentured People]. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1909.
Perelomov, L. S. Imperiia Tsin—pervoe tsentralizovannoe gosudarstvo Kitaia [The Ch'in Empire—First Centralized State of China]. Moscow, 1962.
Pipes, Richard. Russia under the Old Regime. New York, 1974.
Platonov, S. F. Ivan Groznyi [Ivan the Terrible], St. Petersburg, 1923.
Ocherki po istorii smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVI—XVIII vekov [Outlines of the History of the Rebellions in the Muscovite State in the Sixteenth—Eighteenth Centuries]. Moscow, 1937.
"Problema russkogo Severa v noveishei istoriografii" ["The Problem
of the Russian North in Current Historiography"]. Letopis' zaniatii arkheo- grafocheskoi komissii [Chronicle of Studies by the Archeographic Commission], no. 35. Leningrad, 1929.
Plekhanov, G. V. Sochineniia [Works]. 24 vols. Moscow-Leningrad, 1923-27.
Pogodin, M. P. Istoriko-kriticheskie otryvki [Historical and Critical Fragments]. Moscow, 1846.
Sochineniia [Works], vol. 4. Moscow [18-?].
Pokrovskii, M. N. Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected Works], book 3. Moscow, 1967.
Ocherkh istorii russkoi kul'tury [Outline of the History of Russian Culture], Moscow, n.d.
Polosin, I.I. Sotsial'no-politicheskaia istoriia Rossii XVI—nachala XVII veka [Sociopolitical History of Russia in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries]. Moscow, 1963.
Porshnev, B. F. Feodalizm i narodyne massy [Feudalism and the Popular Masses], Moscow, 1964.
Pushkin, A. S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works]. Leningrad, 1977.
Raev, M. "O knige Allena Bezansona" ["On Alain Besangon's Book"]. Novyi Zhurnal, no. 130 (1978).
Rannie slavianofily [The Early Slavophiles]. Moscow, 1910.
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V History of Russia. New York, 1977.
'"Oriental Despotism' and Russia." In The Development of the USSR:
An Exchange of Views, edited by Donald W. Treadgold, pp. 340—45. Seattle, 1964.
Rubin, V Ideologiia i kul'tura drevnego Kitaia [The Ideology and Culture of Ancient China]. Moscow, 1970.
Rubinshtein, N. L. Russkaia istoriografiia [Russian Historiography], Moscow, 1941.
Russkoe proshloe. Istoricheskii sbornik [The Russian Past: A Historical Collection]. Petrograd-Moscow, 1923.
Ryleev, K. F. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works]. Moscow, 1934.
Rzhiga, V. "Maxim Grek как publitsist" ["Maxim the Greek as a Publicist"]. In Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury [Transactions of the Ancient Russian Literature Section], vol. 1. Moscow-Leningrad, 1934.
Sadikov, P. A. Ocherkipo istorii oprichniny [Outlines of the History of the Oprichnina]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1950.
Sakharov, A. M. "Ob evoliutsii feodal'noi sobstvennosti na zemliu v Russkom gosudarstve XVI veka" ["On the Evolution of Feudal Land Ownership in the Russian State of the Sixteenth Century"]. Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR], no. 4 (July-August 1978).
Sakharov, A. N. "Istoricheskie faktory obrazovaniia russkogo absoliutizma" ["Historical Factors in the Formation of Russian Absolutism"]. Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR], no. 1 (1971).
Samarin, Iu. "O mneniiakh Sovremennika istoricheskikh i literaturnykh" ["On the Historical and Literary Opinions of the Contemporary"]. Moskvitianin [The Muscovite], no. 2 (1847).
Sergeevich, V. I. Russkie iuridicheskie drevnosti [Russian Juridical Antiquities], vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1900.
Shapiro, A. L. "Ob absoliutizme v Rossii" ["On Absolutism in Russia"]. Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR], no. 5 (1968).
Shcherbatov, M. M. Istoriia Rossiiskaia s drevneishikh vremen [History of Russia from Ancient Times]. St. Petersburg, 1903.
Sheviakov, V. "K voprosu ob oprichnine Ivana Groznogo" ["On the Question of Ivan the Terrible's Oprichnina"]. Voprosy istorii [The Problems of History], no. 9 (1956): 121-28.
Shmidt, S. О. "K izucheniiu agrarnoi istorii Rossii XVI veka" ["Toward the Study of the Agrarian History of Sixteenth-Century Russia"]. Voprosy istorii [The Problems of History], no. 5 (1968).
Stanovlenie Moskovskogo samoderzhavstva [The Formation of the Muscovite Autocratic State]. Moscow, 1973.
Skazkin, S. D. "Osnovnye problemy tak nazyvaemogo 'vtorogo izdaniia' kre- postnichestva v Srednei i Vostochnoi Evrope" ["Basic Problems of the So- called 'Second Edition' of Feudalism in Central and Eastern Europe"]. Voprosy istorii [The Problems of History], no. 2 (1958).
Skrynnikov, R. G. Ivan Groznyi [Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow, 1957.
Oprichnyi terror [Oprichnina Terror]. Leningrad, 1967.
. Perepiska Groznogo i Kurbskogo: Paradoksy Edwarda Kinnona [The Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible and Kurbskii: The Paradoxes of Edward Keenan]. Leningrad, 1973.
Slovo kratko v zashchitu monastyrskikh imushchestv [A Brief Word in Defence of Monastic Properties], Moscow, 1902.
Smirnov, I. I. Ivan Groznyi [Ivan the Terrible]. Leningrad, 1944.
Ocherki politicheskoi istorii russkogo gosudarstva 30—50kh gg. XVI veka
[Outlines of the Political History of Russia from the 1530s to the 1550s]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1958.
Solov'ev, S. M. Istorii otnoshenii mezhdu russkimi kniaz'ami Riurikiva doma [History of the Relationships Between the Russian Princes of the House of Rurik], Moscow, 1847.
Istoriia Rossii [History of Russia]. 3rd ed. 10 vols. St. Petersburg, n.d.
Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen [The History of Russia from Ancient Times]. 29 vols. (15 books). Moscow, 1959—66.
Spuler, Bertold. "Russia and Islam." In The Development of the USSR: An Exchange of Views, edited by Donald W. Treadgold, pp. 346—51. Seattle, 1964.
Staden, Heinrich. О Moskve Ivana Groznogo [On the Moscow of Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow, 1925.
Stalin, J. V. Voprosy leninizma [Problems of Leninism]. 9th ed. Moscow, 1931.
Strumilin, S. G. "O vnutrennem rynke Rosii XVI—XVIII vekov" ["On the Internal Market in Russia in the Sixteenth—Eighteenth Centuries"]. Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR], no. 4 (1959).
Preface to the 2nd edition D. P. Makovskii's Razvitie tovarno-denezh-
nykh otnoshenii v sel'skom khoziaistve russkogo gosudarstva v XVI veke [The Development of Goods and Monetary Relationships in the Agriculture of the Russian State in the Sixteenth Century], Moscow, 1963.
Svirskii, Grigorii. Na lobnom meste [At the Place of Execution], London, 1979.
Szamuely, Tibor. The Russian Tradition. London, 1976.
Tarle, E. V. Padenie absoliutizma [The Fall of Absolutism], Petrograd, 1924.
Tatishchev, V. N. Istoriia Rossiiskaia s samykh drevneishikh vremen [History of Russia from the Very Earliest Times], Moscow, 1768.
Teoriia gosudarstva и sbvianofilov [The Theory of the State among the Slavophiles]. St. Petersburg, 1898.
Timofeev, Ivan. Vremennik Ivana Timofeeva [Chronicle of Ivan Timofeev]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.
Toynbee, Arnold. " 'Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power' by Karl A. Wittfogel." American Political Science Review 52 (March 1958): 195-98.
"Russia's Byzantine Heritage." Horizon 16 (August 1947).
Treadgold, Donald W., ed. The Development of the USSR: An Exchange of Views. Seattle, 1964.
Troitskii, S. M. "O nekotorykh spornykh voprosakh istorii absoliutizma v Rossii" ["On Some Debatable Questions in the History of Absolutism in Russia"]. Istoriia SSSR [A History of the USSR], no. 3 (1969).
Twain, Mark. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Edited by Bernard L. Stein. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1979.
Ustrialov, N. T. Russkaia istoriia [Russian History]. St. Petersburg, 1845.
Vernadsky, George. The Mongols and Russia. New Haven, Conn., 1953.
Veselovskii, S. B. Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny [Studies in the History of the Oprichnina], Moscow, 1963.
К voprosu о proiskhozhdenii votchinnogo rezhima [On the Question of the
Origin of the Patrimonial Regime]. Moscow, 1926.
Vipper, R. Iu. Ivan Groznyi [Ivan the Terrible]. Tashkent, 1942.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origin of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, 1974.
Willan, T. S. "The Russia Company and Narva, 1558-81." Slavonic and East European Review 31 (June 1953): 405-19.
Wittfogel, Karl A. Oriental Despotism. New Haven, Conn., 1957.
"Russia and the East: A Comparison and Contrast." In The Development of the USSR: An Exchange of Views, edited by Donald W. Treadgold, pp. 323-39. Seattle, 1964.
Yanov, Alexander. "Al'ternativa" ["The Alternative"]. Molodoikommunist[The Young Communist], no. 2 (1974).
Detente After Brezhnev: The Domestic Roots of Soviet Foreign Policy. Berkeley, 1977.
"The Drama of the Time of Troubles." Canadian-American Slavic
Studies 12 (Spring 1978).
The Russian New Right: Right-wing Ideologies in the Contemporary USSR.
Berkeley, 1978.
Zaozerskaiia, E. I. U istokov krupnogo proizvodstva v russkoi promyshlennosti XVI—XVII vekov [At the Sources of Large-Scale Production in Russian Industry in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries]. Moscow, 1970.
Zimin, A. A. Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo [The Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow, 1964.
"O politicheskoi doktrine Iosifa Volotskogo" ["On the Political Doctrine of Iosif of Volotsk"]. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury [Transactions of the Ancient Russian Literature Section], vol. 9. Moscow-Leningrad, 1952.
Reformy Ivana Groznogo [The Reforms of Ivan the Terrible]. Moscow,
1960.
INDEX
Absolutism: in Russian history, 10-11, 137, 142, 149-51, 162-73, 183-91; as a class of political system, 44-52; the Soviet concept of Russian, 76-95, 139 Adashev, Aleksei, 179, 238, 265 Adashev, Daniil, 265 Akhmat, khan of the Golden Horde, 7 Akindin, the elder, 157 Aksakov, K. S., 73-74, 255, 257-58 Alef, Gustav, 126, 132 Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda, 69-70 Aleksei, archpriest of Arkhangel'skii cathedral, 163, 166 Aleksei Mikhailovich, tsar, 38, 49, 56, 64 Aleksandr, king of Poland, 124 Alexander 1, emperor, 63-64 Alexander II, emperor, 63, 181 Alexander III, emperor, 55, 57, 65 Alodial property, 116-17 Anastasia Romanovna, first wife of Ivan
IV, 230, 233 Anderson, M. S., 2 Anderson, Perry, 154 Andreev, N„ 222 Andreski, S„ 35-36 Appanages, 114, 118 Aristocracy: service gentry, 11-13, 20, 80, 88-89, 114, 117, 148, 151, 15354; the boyardom, 11-13,46, 53-54, 60, 67, 77,80, 102, 114, 118, 131-32, 152, 155, 177, 181, 273, 278, 282-83, 314, 317; the formation of (aristocra- tization of the elite), 22, 53-57, 226; "new new class," 54-59, 63, 110; serf- holding (dvorianstvo), 54-59, 112, 116, 248; "new class," 54-59, 273-74, 291 Aristotle, 29, 31-34, 38, 47-48, 76, 247,
302, 317 Artemii, the elder, 170,17-7 Assembly of the Land, 11,52, 63-64, 82, 85-86,91, 113, 115,212, 227, 230, 258, 279,314 Astrakhan', 10 Avrekh, A. Ia„ 77, 79-91
Bacon, Francis, 47, 73
Bakhrushin, S. V., 16, 215, 219, 300, 305
Balazs, E., 36
Baltic coast, 14-15, 106
Baltic Sea, 129, 132
Barmin, A., 292
Bashkin, Matvei, 178
Basmanov, Aleksei, 304, 315
Basmanov, Fedor, 304
Baudeau, Nicolas, 256
Bazilevich, К. V., 145
Begunov, Iu. K., 171
Belinskii, V. G„ 235, 241
Belov, E. A., 215, 255, 267-68, 273
Berdiaev, N. A., 73-74
Bersen'-Beklemishev, I. N.. 227
Bestuzhev-Riumin, K. N., 215
Bezborodko, A. A., 232
Bezhetsk (region), 5
Black, Cyril E., 29
Blum, Jerome, 139-41
Bodin, Jean, 33, 43-44, 118
Borodin, S., 218
Bourgeoisie, 28, 80, 88-89, 115
Boyar Duma, 53, 69, 82, 85-86, 227,
229, 249, 268, 271, 315 Bracton, Henry de, 33 Bukhara, 148 Bukharin, N. I., 62, 299
Catherine 11, the Great, 58, 64, 116, 118 Censorship, 62, 90; Soviet, 59 Chancellor, Richard, 2 Chargoff, Erwin, 19 Cheliadnin-Fedorov, I. P., 179, 315 Cherepnin, L. V., 76-77, 86, 94, 309 Cherkasov, N. K„ 293 Chernigov, 15
Chicherin, B. N„ 73-74, 140-41,
244-45 Chistozvonov, A. N., 81, 88 Chosen Rada, 235, 284. See also Government of Compromise Christian III, king of Denmark, 154
Chukhontsev, Oleg, 263 Church reform, 10-12; Non-Acquirers, 130, 151-53, 159-63, 168, 170-78, 228; Josephites, 151, 160-62 passim; secularization, 153-54, 156, 160, 162, 168, 171, 173 Confucius, 256—57 Constantinople, 110 Corv6e, 148-49 passim, 177 Crimea, 107
Crimean khanate, 12-13 Crummey, Robert, 20-21
Daniil, Metropolitan, 176-77 Dashkovich, Ostafei, 125 Davidovich, A. I., 87, 89, 91 Derzhavin, G. R„ 58 Derzhavin, N. S„ 218-19 Despotism: as a class of political system, 27, 46, 48, 61, 68, 73, 75, 78-79 passim, 247; concepts of Russian, 96-99 passim, 123, 128, 172, 274, 320 De Thou, Jacques Auguste, 15 Diakonov, I. M., 35 Diakonov, M. A., 126, 141, 161 Dimitrii, grandson of Ivan III, 158, 166, 267
Dimitrii Donskoi, 146, 226 Dimitrov, 5
Dionisii, archpriest of Uspenskii cathedral, 163 Dnieper River, 15 Druzhinin, N. M., 6, 303 Dubrovskii, S. M., 306-09 Dvina River, 15 Dvina volost', 150
Eisenstadt, S. N„ 98
Elena Stefanovna, daughter-in-law of
Ivan III, 158, 165-66 Elizabeth I, queen of England, 14-15, 91, 94
Engels, Friedrich, 27-28, 71, 75, 78-80,
84, 89, 94 Eurasianism, 73 Eurocommunists, 233
Fennel, John L. I., 133-35, 245 Feodorit, abbot, 178 Fiefs, 114-17
Filipp, Metropolitan, 179, 313, 315 Filofei of Pskov, monk, 176 Fortescue, John, 43 Fotii, Metropolitan, 157 Funikov, N. A., 315
Gennadii, archbishop of Novgorod,
164-65, 170 Gerontii, Metropolitan, 163 Gershenkron, Alexander P., 53, 66 Godunov, Boris, 62, 127 Golden Horde, 7-9, 12, 99, 128, 156, 178
Golitsyn, Dmitrii, 57, 62 Golitsyn, Ivan, 127 Golitsyn, Vasilii, 62 Golubov, S. N„ 218 Gorbatyi, Aleksandr, 313 Gorskii, S., 260-61, 265-66, 285, 309 Government of Compromise, 115, 14344, 159, 177-79, 229, 266, 272, 283, 314-17 Greek polis, 33
Grekov, B. D„ 141, 145, 289, 314 Grobovsky, Anthony N., 18
Heer, Nancy Whittier, 291 Hegel, Georg W. F., 34, 36, 42, 243 Hellie, Richard, 21 Herberstein, Sigismund, 2, 106, 228 Heretics, 158-59, 164, 170, 176 Herzen, A. I., 47, 63-64, 261-62 Horsey, Jeremiah, 58 Hungarian plain, 7
Iarosh, K., 253, 282 Iaroslavl', 128 Ilovaiskii, D. I., 215
Intelligentsia, 50, 64, 167, 170, 172, 175,
178, 180 Ioakim, patriarch of Moscow, 30 Iosif of Volokolamsk, 161, 164, 170, 176
Ivan III: foreign policy, 106—07; immigration question, 124-28; personality, 130-32; Novgorod expedition, 132-38; policies toward the peasantry, 141-44, 149; relations with the church, 145-46, 157-82
Jenkinson, Anthony, 2 Jones, Richard, 34, 36
Karamzin, N. M., 17, 58, 217, 219, 230, 233-34, 236, 253, 264, 281, 304, 308 Kareev, N. N., 45 Kareliia, 106, 137
Kashtanov, S. M„ 171, 174,318-19 Kassian, bishop of Riazan', 178 Katkov, M. N„ 114 Katyrev-Rostovskii, I. M., 231
Kavelin, К. D„ 215, 241-52, 255, 259, 281, 286 Kazan', 10, 106
Kazimir, grand prince of Lithuania, 62,
133
Keenan, Edward L., Jr., 145, 222, 230, 235
Khlynov (Viatka), 128 Khrushchev, N. S., 56-57, 59, 62-63, 276
Kirchner, W., 3
Kirillo-Belozerskii monastery, 145 Kiprian, Metropolitan, 157 Kiuleksha, 93
Kliuchevskii, V. O., 105, 115, 180, 22238, 255-56 passim Kolomna, 5
Kopanev, A. I., 142, 145 Kormleniia, 268 Kostomarov, N. I., 16 Kostylev, V. I., 218, 303-05 Kotoshikhin, Gregory, 127 Krizhanich, Iurii, 33-39, 42, 64, 106, 231, 317
Kurbskii, Prince Andrei, 14, 33, 54, 67, 115, 129, 221-22 passim, 252, 262-63 passim, 310, 312, 317 Kuritsyn, Fedor, 158, 164-66 Kurliat'ev, Dimitrii, 238, 265
Ladoga Lake, 15 Langet, Hubert, 2
Law code: of 1497, 142-43; of 1550,
227, 239, 272, 310; of 1649, 144 Lenin, V. I., 28, 52, 55, 57, 63, 70-71,
78-82, 87-90, 94, 115, 262, 265, 290 Leont'ev, K. N.. 223
Likhachev, D. S., 75-76, 80, 94, 261-62, 309
Limitations on power, 41, 48-49, 51-52, 59, 61, 138, 152, 155, 239, 257, 266, 270, 276; economic, 10, 36, 40, 46, 56, 64, 131, 144, 152, 155, 177; ideological, 10, 38-40, 56, 64, 176, 178; political, 52, 73; social, 11, 46, 54, 56, 64, 131, 152, 155, 177-78, 247, 274 Livonian Order, 134 Livonian War, 15-17 Local self-government, 113, 115, 149 Lomonosov, M. V., 231-32 Louis XI, 92, 234 Louis XIV, 44, 47 Lunin, Mikhail, 235 Lur'e, la. S„ 158, 161,237, 262 Luther, Martin, 9
Maikov, A. N„ 235
Makarii, Metropolitan, 177-78
Makovskii, D. P., 4, 143-44, 147, 150,
153, 318-19 Manglapus, Raul, 41-42 Manifesto of the Freedom of the Nobility, 115
Marx, Karl, 27-28, 43, 71, 75, 78-80
Maxim the Greek, 169, 174-76, 228, 312
Middle class, 8, 46, 77
Mikhail Fedorovich, tsar, 52
Mikhailovskii, N. K„ 17, 216, 235
Miliukov, P. N., 62, 64, 73, 88, 244-45
Mill, John Stuart, 34
Moiseeva, G. N„ 168
Mongol empire, 84
Mongolian steppes, 7
Montesquieu, Charles de, 33-34 passim,
69,94, 109, 256, 273,317 Mornay, Phillipe de, 266-67 Mozhaisk (region), 5
Narva, 3, 10, 14 NEP, 63
Nicholas I, emperor, 55, 57, 61, 65-66,
83, 180 Nikitin, Afanasii, 147 Nil Sorskii, 160, 163, 167-68 Nogai steppe, 7
Nosov, N. E., 4, 86, 149-53, 289, 318-20
Novgorod, 15, 113, 128-38, 145, 16265, 172-73, 318
Old Believers, 50 Oligarchy, 33, 267-68, 272 Oprichnina: as a "revolution from above," 31, 54-55, 59; as a structure of power, 67-73, 314; in historiography, 74-77, 85-86, 90-93, 113, 160, 217-18, 254-55, 270, 274, 278, 280, 282-307; as an institution, 115, 127, 136, 142-44, 266, 269, 290, 313-19 Otchina, 131, 135, 137, 145-46 Ovtsyn Andrei, 305
Paisii Yaroslavov, 163, 170 Patrikeev, Vassian, 159, 169, 172, 174, 228, 312
Paul I, emperor, 57, 61, 65, 83, 90, 180, 233
Pavlenko, N. I., 229 Pavlov, A. S., 168
Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, N. P., 43, 105, 123, 244-45
Pavlova-Sil'vanskaia, M. P., 83-85, 89, 94 Peasant differentiation, 8, 12, 148, 155, 177, 290
Peasant self-government, 142, 144 Peresvetov, Ivan, 228, 312 Peter I, the Great, 1, 4, 6, 15, 21, 52-53 passim, 83, 86, 92, 109, 138, 180-81, 222, 230-31, 247, 257, 259, 295 Pipes, Richard, 7, 96-97, 111-19, 123, 141
Platonov, S. F„ 148, 216-17, 276-89,
295, 297, 309, 313, 318 Plekhanov, G. V, 58, 73, 84, 105, 123,
172-73, 244-45, 262 Pogodin, M. P., 1, 5, 215, 235-36 passim Pokrovskii, M. N., 82, 87, 89, 97, 217,
281-82 passim, 295-96 Polish uprising (1863), 63 Political stagnation, 65, 180 Polosin, I. I., 52, 68, 217-18, 280, 289,
292-93, 296, 300, 316 Pomeshchiki, 149, 151 Pomest'ia, 53, 117 Porshnev, B. F., 80-81 Posadnik, 132 Prikazy, 227 Protestantism, 175
Proto-bourgeoisie, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12-13, 77,
82, 94, 144, 148-55, 160, 172, 177 Pseudoabsolutism, 86 Pseudodespotism, 61-64, 71, 86, 239,
247, 291 Pskov, 15, 128, 136, 138, 173 Pushkin, A. S„ 73, 234
Radishchev, A. N., 64 Raskol'nikov, Fedor, 292 Re-Europeanization, 8-13, 57, 102, 153, 272
Reformation, 175 Reform of 1551-56, 149 Reform of 1861,95 Revel', 3, 10
Riasanovsky, Nicholas, 14 Riazan', 128, 131, 145 Riga, 3, 10
Riviere, Mercier de la, 33, 43 Rostov, 128, 172 Rubinshtein, N. L„ 298 Ryleev, K. F„ 215, 235
Sadikov, P. A., 68, 295-96, 300 St. George's Day, 60, 139-42, 252, 279 St. Joseph monastery of Volokolamsk, 141
Sakharov, A. N., 64, 81-82, 90-94,
117-18, 268 Samarin, Iu. F., 259 Sergeevich, V. I., 238 Shapiro, A. L., 85-86, 90-91 Shapiro, Leonard, 28 Shcherbatov, M. M., 17, 33, 216, 232-33 Shelon' River, 134 Shemiaka, Dimitri, 129, 133 Sheviakov, V. N., 306, 309 Shmidt, S. O., 86, 139, 318-20 Shuiskii, Vasilii, 62, 227-28, 267, 272-79
Sil'vestr, 75, 178-79, 235, 238, 315 Simon, Metropolitan, 162 Skazkin, S. D., 290 Skrynnikov, R. G., 86, 136, 145, 222,
263-65, 286, 289, 313-18 Skuratov, Maliuta, 294, 315 Slavophiles, 30, 223, 241-44, 247, 249, 255-60
Smirnov, I. I., 16, 215, 219, 254, 261,
289, 300, 307, 316 Smolensk, 4, 150, 174 Solov'ev, S. M., 1, 5, 17, 86, 124, 216, 218, 220, 244, 251-52, 255, 259-60, 308-10, 318 Solovki, 138
Solzhenitsyn, A. I., 30, 55, 92, 109, 233, 256
Staden, Heinrich, 14, 141, 301 Stalin, I. V., 52-53 passim, 70, 98, 290,
293-94 passim, 308 Staritsa, 15
Staritskii, Vladimir, 315 Stoglav, 142 Strumilin, S. G., 147 Suleiman the Magnificent, 48-49 Svoezemtsy, 149
Szamuely, Tibor, 43, 96, 102-05, 107, 119, 123
Tatar yoke, 100, 102, 171 Tatishchev, V. N„ 231-32, 236 Tiaglo, 116
"Time of Troubles," 61, 63-64, 113,
117, 275 Timofeev, Ivan, 231 Tocqueville, Alexis de, 34, 36 Tolstoi, A. K„ 253
Toynbee, Arnold, 35, 73, 96-97, 10818, 156, 163 Trans-Volga Elders, 130, 158 Troitse-Sergeevskii monastery, 145, 163 Troitskii, S. M., 88-91, 94
Trotsky, L. D., 73 Trubetskoi, N. S., 73-74 Tver', 128, 131, 134, 145, 157 Twain, Mark, 18
Tysiatshii, 132
Uglich, 5 Ugra River, 7, 14 Urals, 132 Urbanization, 3, 5 Urgench, 148
Ustiuzhnia Zhelezopol'skaia (posad of), 5 Ustrialov, N. G„ 230, 232
Valdenberg, V., 161 Varlaam, Metropolitan, 174 Vasilii II, the Dark, 129 Vasilii III, tsar, 106, 173-77 Veche, 132-33 Velikie Luki, 15 Vernadsky, G. V., 100-01 Veselovskii, S. В., 17, 150, 216-17 passim, 253, 255, 285-86, 313, 319 Viazemskii, Afanasii, 304, 315 Viaz'ma uezd, 156 Vil'no, 127, 146
Vipper, R. Iu., 16, 68-69, 216-19, 291, 294-96, 300, 304, 306, 316
Volga khanates, 107 Volga River, 10, 147 Volkhov River, 136 Vologda, 138
Volokolamsk monastery, 161 Volost' mir, 151
Votchiny, 53-54, 114, 118, 131, 137, 144-46, 226-27, 287, 290
Wallerstein, Immanuel, 154—55 Westernizers, 241 White Sea, 10, 129, 132 Whittier, John Greenleaf, 20 Willan, T. S., 3
Wittfogel, Karl A., 34-36, 40-42, 7374, 96-97 passim, 154
Xenophon, 29
Yarlyk, 168 Yaroslavl', 2
Zaozerskaia, E. I., 5 Zavoloch'e, 15
Zemshchina, 68-69, 269, 314-15 Zimin, A. A., 18, 86, 168, 217, 289, 308,
312, 318-19 Zosima, Metropolitan, 163
Designer: Compositor: Printer: Binder: Text: Display:
Eric Jungerman
G & S Typesetters
Vail-Ballou
Vail-Ballou
Baskerville
Perpetua
1. Cited in V O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (2nd ed.), vol. 4, p. 206.
9. Ibid., p. 60.
10. Angliishie puteshestvenniki, p. 56.
13. Cited in A. A. Zimin, Reformy Ivana Groznogo, p. 158.
14. D. P. Makovskii, Razvitie tovarno-denezhnykh otnoshenii v sel'skom khoziaistve russkogo gosudarstva v XVI veke\ N. E. Nosov, Stanovlenie soslovno-predstavitel'nykh uchrezhdenii v Rossii.
20. A. I. Herzen, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p. 132.
21. According to the latest edition of Professor Nicholas Riasanovsky's textbook, "The Oprichnina . . . came to stand . . . for a separate state administration . . . paralleling the one in existence which was retained for the rest of the country, now known as the zemshchina. . . . New men under the direct control of Ivan the Terrible ran the Oprichnina, whereas the zemshchina stayed within the purview of the boyar duma and old officialdom. . . . The term Oprichnina also came to designate especially this new corps of servants to Ivan the Terrible—called oprichniki—who are described sometimes today as gendarmes or political police" (Nicholas Riasanovsky, History of Russia, pp. 165-66).
29. A. Grobovsky, The Chosen Council of Ivan IV; A Reinterpretation, p. 25.
31. A. Herzen, Sobranie sockinenii, vol. 3, p. 403.
32. Erwin ChargofF, "Knowledge Without Wisdom," p. 41.
34. Richard Hellie, "The Muscovite Provincial Service Elite in Comparative Perspective," p. 1.
13. Wittfogel speaks of it as "routine terror in managerial, fiscal, and judicial procedures that caused certain observers to designate the government of hydraulic despotism as 'government by flogging"' (ibid., p. 143). In another place he speaks of "the standard methods of terror" (ibid., p. 149). Nevertheless, it may be in order to note here that both Montesquieu, with his "principle of fear," and Wittfogel, with his "routine terror," are somewhat simplifying the picture. They never make the distinction between the elites of the despotic states, the "governors," for whom the terror was indeed routine, and the population, "the governed," for whom the terror was at least to a degree tempered by ancient tradition.
14. "Unpredictability is an essential weapon of absolute terror," Wittfogel notes (ibid., p. 141).
15. Of course, the world which seemed to Aristotle an impenetrable darkness may seem to people of another culture a world of eternal equilibrium and harmony—if not entirely just, then at least a tolerable alternative to the restless, dynamic world of "progress." For example, Senator Raul Manglapus, a well-known Filipino politician, and at
16. I understand that the argument about the differences between European political structures and despotism is customarily conducted within the limits of the concept of feudalism. But there is a problem here, inasmuch as there is as yet no agreement as to one small detail: namely, what feudalism is. In one authoritative source, it is defined as follows: "Feudalism is primarily a method of government ... in which the essential relation is not that between ruler and subject, nor state and citizen, but between lord and vassal" (Feudalism in History, pp. 4-5). The forefather of the Russian "absolutists," N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, in attempting to demonstrate the membership of Russia in the European family, thought it sufficient to assert (in his monograph Feodalism v drevnei Rusi), that a feudal hierarchy—that is, relations between lord and vassal—also existed in Russia. Correspondingly, the "despotists" try to show that in Russia—as distinct from Europe—such relations did not exist (see, for example, Tibor Szamuely, The Russian Tradition).
However, the authoritative definition of feudalism quoted above is criticized both in the West and in the East. On the one hand, we encounter the following conclusion: "The existence of a hierarchy is no longer thought to be a prerequisite to feudalism in the West, largely because the neat hierarchy assumed to have existed in the West is found to have been virtually a phantom" (Oswald P. Backus III, "The Problem of Unity in the Polish-Lithuanian State," p. 650). On the other hand, Soviet historians have attempted to make the concept of feudalism universal, by declaring it to be one of the stages in the development of mankind and thereby extending it not only to Russia but to the entire oikumene: "the Marxist-Leninist conception of the fundamental features of feudalism ... as a special socioeconomic order ... is formulated with extreme clarity in Capital by Karl Marx and in The Development of Capitalism in Russia by V. I. Lenin.
18. Quoted in N. N. Kareev, Zapadno-evropeiskaia absolutnaia monarkhna XVI, XVII i XVIII vekov, p. 330.
19. Ibid., p. 130.
3. P. N. Miliukov, Ocherkipo istorii russkoi kul'tury, p. 147.
6. D. S. Likhachev, "Ivan Peresvetov i ego literaturnaia sovremennost'," pp. 30, 36,
11. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Sochineniia (2nd ed.), vol. 21, pp. 171, 172. Engels wrote elsewhere that the equilibrium between the landed nobility and the bourgeoisie is the basic condition for absolute monarchy (ibid., vol. 18, p. 254).
12. Avrekh, p. 83.
16. Avrekh, p. 82.
17. Ibid., p. 87.
23. Ibid., p. 92. This contradiction on Avrekh's part is so glaring that Sakharov, of course, immediately jumped on him, commenting ironically: "It turns out that when serfdom was weaker, 'Asiatic despotism' was stronger; but when serfdom became more severe, 'Asiatic forms of government' were relaxed to such a point that 'external' analogies to Western European absolutism appeared" (A. N. Sakharov, p. 113).
25. M. P. Pavlova-Sil'vanskaia, "K voprosu ob osobennostiakh absoliutizma v Rossii," p. 77.
26. Ibid., p. 85.
40. Ibid., p. 143.
43. S. M. Troitskii, p. 148.
4. Ibid., p. 332.
6. Tibor Szamuely, The Russian Tradition, p. 87.
7. Treadgold, ed., p. 332.
8. Ibid., p. 336.
10. Tibor Szamuely, p. 88.
11. Conversely, the resources of Russia were meager only while it remained a relatively small country. When it became gigantic, Russia simultaneously became one of the richest nations in resources.
4. The "Byzantine" Interpretation
Wittfogel takes very seriously the argument that it was the Tatars, and not the Byzantines, who were the forefathers of despotism in Russia. "Byzantium's influence on Kievan Russia was great, but it was primarily cultural," he writes.
14. A. Toynbee, "Russia's Byzantine Heritage," pp. 83, 87, 94, 95.
12. K. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism, pp. 224-25.
13. Treadgold, ed„ p. 355.
25. Ibid., p. 70. 26. Ibid., p. 23.. 27. Ibid., p. 95.
35. Ibid., p. 69. 36. Ibid., p. 112. 37. Ibid., p. 69. 38. Ibid., p. 104.
39. A. M. Sakharov, "Ob evoliutsii feodal'noi sobstvennosti na zemliu v Rossiiskom gosudarstve XVI veka," p. 28.
40. R. Pipes, p. 106.
41. Ibid., p. 65.
1. N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, Gosudarevy sluzhilye liudi, liudi kabal'nye i zakladnye, p. 223.
11. J. L. I. Fennel, Ivan the Great of Moscow, p. 36.
13. Ibid., p. 47.
14. R. G. Skrynnikov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 150.
15. R. G. Skrynnikov, Oprichnyi terror, p. 54; Ivan Groznyi, p. 150.
16. Skrynnikov, Oprichnyi terror, p. 59.
20. Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century, p. 97.
28. D. P. Makovskii, Razvitie tovarno-denezhnykk otnoshenii . . . , p. 96.
29. Ibid., p. 97. In fact, Article 60 of the 1497 law code states: "If any person dies intestate and leaves no sons, then all his movable property and land [will pass] to his daughters, and if he leaves no daughters, then it is his relatives who inherit [movable and immovable property]" (Pamiatniki russkogo prava, vol. 3, p. 371). The fact that this law, for the first time in Russian history, protects not only the movable property of the peasant but also his land, seems to me even more significant and innovative than the absence of privileges in terms of inheritance to which Makovskii calls attention. This does not look like attachment of the peasants to the land, but rather like attachment of the land to the peasant. It thus confirms once more the contradiction between the social policy of the grandfather and that of the grandson, whose reign was marked by almost complete expropriation of peasant lands. Before the Oprichnina, the peasants in the central regions of the Muscovite state cultivated seven or eight chetverti (three or four hectares) per household. After the Oprichnina, their cultivated lands were catastroph- ically reduced, approximately to the limits of the modern-day kolkhoz household plot.
Turkey, Iran, Bukhara, and Urgench, expeditions are undertaken to establish trade relations with China. Just as, in the fifteenth century, the Russian merchant was the first . . . European to penetrate into India, so, in the sixteenth century, two cossack hetmans sent by the Russian government arrived in Peking. Stable trade relations are established between Russia and all the European countries. Russia has emerged into the world market and has been transformed into a great world power (ibid., pp. 487-88).
on them, had come to life (S. F. Platonov, "Problema russkogo Severa v noveishei istoriografii," pp. 112-13).
It is important to note that the North became the most flourishing part of the country precisely after Ivan Ill's expedition, when
the Muscovite regime transformed the boyar votchiny which it had confiscated . . . into peasant communities and, having freed their population from dependence on private persons, introduced in them the communal organization and self-government which prevailed in peasant communities generally. As the final result of this, the entire North took on the character of a peasant country (ibid., p. 107).
7. The mir is the traditional designation for the Russian peasant commune and its governing body, the assembly of shareholding, and originally arms-bearing, males. It should be noted that the mir was not necessarily coextensive with the village; some villages included two mirs, the members of which held land on different bases.
10. In Istoriia srednihh vekov, vol. 2, we read: "The lands of the clergy [in Denmark] passed to the king, and subsequently, by gift and sale, from the king to the feudal nobility . . . the service gentry received complete police power over the holders; [they] seized the commune lands, drove off some of the peasants from the allotment land, and increased the corvee, [as a consequence of which] there was a corresponding increase in serf dependence" (pp. 354-55). "Soon after the Reformation, the Swedish kings, like the Danish, resumed the distribution ... of land to the nobility . . . the land distributions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had the characteristics of naturally guaranteeing state service by the nobility, which became like the Russian service gentry. . . . Correspondingly, corvee obligations began to grow" (pp. 361-62). Though undoubtedly belonging geographically to the region east of the Elbe, i.e., to Eastern Europe, Denmark and Sweden are for some reason excluded from consideration by historians of the region. This is a pity, since in certain circumstances it dooms the historian to the same kind of bipolar view of European history which did so much harm to Wittfogel's interpretation on a global scale. A good example is Immanuel Wallerstein's model of "world-wide division of labor" designed to explain the emergence of serfdom in sixteenth-century Eastern Europe by the fatal influence of rising Western capitalism. True, there is not much evidence presented for such a model in his book The Modern World-System. In fact some experts come to quite opposite conclusions. Perry Anderson, for one, argues that "while the corn trade undoubtedly intensified servile exploitation in Eastern Germany or Poland, it did not inaugurate it in either country, and played no role at all in the parallel development of Bohemia or Russia" (Lineages of the Absolutist
State, pp. 196-97). But even if Wallerstein is correct in relation to some parts of Eastern Europe, his model still fails to explain why in its other parts (Denmark and Sweden) serfdom did not prevail at all. Indeed, the sixteenth-century boom in the Baltic grain trade intensified not one but two different patterns of sociopolitical development, which we may arbitrarily call Polish and Swedish. This again certifies that the choice between Polish and Swedish patterns was still open for sixteenth-century Muscovy. And, having in mind that its political structure was much closer to Sweden than to Poland, one may say that the chance of avoiding serfdom was rather high for Muscovy before the Oprichnina.
11. M. N. Pokrovskii, Ocherk .... p. 218.
13. A. S. Pavlov, Istoricheskii ocherk sekuliarizatsii tserkovnykh zemel' v Rossii, p. 113.
14. I am compelled to admit that my point of view about the conflict between the Non-Acquirers and the Josephites (and about the fundamental role of this conflict in Russian political history) is not shared either by the "despotists" or by the "absolutists." The position of the despotists is at least consistent: what serious ideological struggle, what talk of reformation or counter-reformation can there be in a "totalitarian" or "service" state? The absolutists are in worse shape, since, asserting categorically, as is required by genuine science, that "Soviet scholars first posed the question of the social role of Nil and his followers," they contradict themselves so desperately that they get mixed up and lead their readers into complete confusion. "One need only throw open the monastic robes of any of the Non-Acquirers," wrote Academician B. A. Rybakov, "in order to see the brocade of a boyar's kaftan. Trying to ward off the looming spectre of the Oprichnina, the boyar pointed the way to the patrimonial estates of the 'un- buried dead' [the monks]." (Quoted from Lur'e, p. 293.) Rybakov unfortunately does not explain what is bad about trying to ward off "the looming spectre of the Oprichnina"—that is, national ruin and humiliation. Nevertheless, the authors of practically all the general textbooks of Russian literature and history agree with him. In Istoriia russhoi literatury, published by the USSR Academy of Science, we read that "the ideas of Nil Sorskii were a cover for the reactionary struggle of the great patrimonial boyar- dom ... a struggle against the strong grand prince's regime, which was emerging victorious." We read the same thing in Ocherkipo istorii SSSR: "Under the religious integument of the doctrine of Nil Sorskii there was hidden an intraclass struggle, directed particularly against the power of the grand prince, which was growing stronger" (quoted in ibid., p. 293;
16. The secularization of church land in Switzerland began in 1523. In 1525, the grand master of the Teutonic Order resigned his holy office and converted his holdings into a secular dukedom. In 1527, Gustavus Vasa secularized church lands in Sweden; in 1536, secularization began in Denmark, Norway, England, and Scotland, and in 1539 in Iceland.
17. Pavlov, p. 29.
18. S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, Bk. 3, p. 185.
21. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, p. 190. The doctrine of the Russian heretics in its organizational aspect can be reduced to the denial of the church establishment with its hierarchy, churches, rituals, and so forth. Its theological aspect consisted in the denial of the canonical Trinity (and, consequently, in denial of the divinity of Christ). There is nothing original in all of this: anyone at all familiar with the history of European heresy will recognize its twin in Russian heresy. It is considerably more interesting to look at how the representatives of the Russian right, as early as the fifteenth century, explained the origin of heresy. In Iosif's opinion, heresy was brought to Novgorod in 1470 by Jews coming from Kiev. In the opinion of Gennadii of Novgorod, on the other hand, "this evil came from those places through which Kuritsyn traveled from the Ugrian [i.e., Hungarian] lands" (quoted from I. U. Budovnits, Russkaia publitsistika XVI veka, p. 51). These two explanations—the one Jewish (kikeish) and the other European—both propose a foreign, non-Russian provenance for the dissident movement. Over the course of the half millennium which has elapsed since that time, the Russian right has not changed its mind.
26. Iu. K. Begunov, '"Slovo inoe'—novonaidennoe proizvedenie russkoi publi- tsistiki XVI v. о bor'be Ivana III s zemlevladeniem tserkvi," p. 351.
30. Cited in ibid., p. 68.
31. Maksim Grek, Sochineniia prepodobnogo Maksima Greka v russkom perevode, p. 72.
36. G. V Plekhanov, Sochineniia, vol. 20, p. 144.
38. This thought first arose among the Non-Acquirers. Even the most peace-loving of them, Maxim the Greek, who was known for the fact that he taught the sovereign: "Honor not him who, contrary to justice, encourages you to quarrels and wars, but him who counsels you to love peace and quiet with neighboring peoples" (Maksim Grek, p. 102), recommended an attack on the Crimea. "It is difficult and ruinous—not to say impossible—to stand against both tormentors [i.e., the Crimea and Lithuania], the more so since there is a third wolf coming against us. This is the serpent whose nest is in Kazan'," he wrote (V. Rzhiga, "Maksim Grek как publitsist," p. 113). Hence his recommendation to attack Kazan' immediately and then to attack Crimea (ibid., p. 114).
41. Daniil (a pupil of Iosif's and his successor as abbot of Volokolamsk), who was made a metropolitan by Vasilii in 1522, proved, aside from everything else, to be the inventor of an effective political tactic, used with great success many generations later by another leader (who had also had theological training). While his opponents wrote books, made inspired speeches, and edited the canonical texts, Daniil methodically and stubbornly placed his own men in the key positions in the hierarchy. The majority in the assembly consisted of men who were personally loyal to him, and when matters came down to a vote, the Non-Acquirer leaders proved to be generals without an army. Only a month after he became a metropolitan, Daniil appointed Iosif's brother Akakii to be bishop of Tver', and then appointed Iosif's nephew Vassian Toporkov as bishop of Kolomna; later, the ordained monk Savva Slepushkin of the Volokolamsk Monastery was appointed bishop of Smolensk, and Makarii (the future metropolitan and comrade- in-arms of Ivan the Terrible) was made archbishop of Novgorod. Thus, exactly as Stalin did later, Daniil smothered the opposition in its cradle, and made it voiceless in the church assemblies.
43. M. Raev, "O knige Allena Bezansona," p. 220.
9. Nosov, Soslovno-predstavitel'nye, p. 344.
10. Ibid., pp. 365-66.
14. According to the prevailing stereotype, the cavalry of the service gentry revealed its technological backwardness only in the seventeenth century. However, this backwardness was obvious even two centuries earlier, in the time of Ivan III. For example, in 1501, when Plettenberg, the master of the Livonian Order, attacked Pskov, a huge army under the best Muscovite voevoda, Daniil Shchenia, was sent against him. Though many times superior in numbers to the small Livonian detachment, this army could not defeat it, indicating that the Muscovite military organization suffered from some organic defect which compelled it to yield before the German infantry. The army of Ivan the Terrible, which knew only how to attack in a mass, and was quite lost when its furious assault did not lead immediately to decisive success, was on the Tatar level of military action, and not only was not capable of waging a European war, but needed European modernization even to win victories over the Tatars. All this was apparent even during the Kazan' War at the beginning of the 1550s. Russian historians, without a single exception, admit the technological, tactical, and organizational backwardness of the Muscovite army during the period of the Livonian War. Thus, in terms of technology and military organization, the modernization of the army became an urgent question as early as the middle of the sixteenth century.
5. Russia Versus Europe
Livonia had regressed so thoroughly since the time of Ivan III that it
must have seemed an overripe fruit which would fall of its own accord
into the hands of the conqueror. In practical terms, it had ceased to be
a unified state, and had been transformed into an amorphous con
glomerate of commercial cities and the fiefs of bishops and knights.21'
P. Berezhkov, Plan zavoevantia Kryma, p. 68.
Lester Hutchinson, Introduction to Karl Marx's Secret Diplomatic History of the
Eighteenth Century, p. 19.
"The multilayered and divided government was extremely weak: five bishops, a
master of the order, eight commanders, and eight governors owned the land; each had
his cities, districts, staff, and customary laws," writes N. M. Karamzin (Istoriia gosudarstva
Rossiiskogo, vol. 8, p. 261).
37. Edward Keenan, "Vita: Ivan Vasil'evich, Terrible Tsar 1530-1584," p. 49.
39. R. Iu. Vipper, p. 130.
12. Ibid., p. 14.
14. Vipper, p. 31.
15. Veselovskii, pp. 36-37.
16. I. I. Smirnov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 5.
25. Ibid., pp. 167, 169.
26. Ibid., p. 170.
28. Ibid., p. 180.
31. G. N. Moiseeva, Valaamskaia beseda . . .
41. Cited in Zimin, Oprichnina . . . , p. 10.
43. Iu. Krizhanich, pp. 594, 597.
45. V. N. Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia s drevneishikh vremen, bk. I, pt. 2, p. 544.
61. Ibid., p. 247. 62. Ibid., p. 256.
1. K. Kavelin, Sochineniia, pt. 2, p. 112.
11. G. V. Plekhanov, Sochineniia, vol. 20, pp. 87-88.
30. Solov'ev, Istoriia otnoshenii. . . , p. 597.
33. S. B. Veselovskii, Issledovaniia . . . , p. 336. True, in moments of repentance, the tsar ordered that the names of those of his victims who could be remembered be written down. But this was by no means always possible. Hence notations in the Sinodik of the type: "Remember, Lord, 50 [or 40 or 100] souls who perished in such-and-such
ceeded by new attacks of royal fury and, consequently, new hecatombs of nameless
victims.
34. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii. . . , bk. 3, p. 713.
38. Cited in E. V. Tarle, Padenie absoliutizma, p. 99.
45. Iu. Samarin, "O mneniiakh Sovremennika istoricheskikh i literaturnykh," p. 163.
49. Ibid., p. 412; D. S. Likhachev, "Ivan Peresvetov i ego literaturnaia sovremen- nost'," p. 35; I. I. Smirnov, p. 18. Emphasis added.
53. Ibid., p. 71.
68. V. O. Kliuchevskii, Boiarskaia duma . . . , p. 296.
69. V. O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (1st ed.), vol 2, pp. 192-93. Emphasis added.
71. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (1st ed.), vol. 2, p. 197.
9. Platonov's Argument With Kliuchevskii
In nothing else, perhaps, does the dualism of Russian political life appear so strikingly as in the events of the first Time of Troubles, which followed the death of the tyrant and reached its height in the national crisis of 1605-13. And in nothing else has the transfixing of Russian historiography in the hypnosis of the "myth of the state" manifested itself so vividly as in its inability to explain these events. I cannot discuss the Time of Troubles in detail here. Let us merely consider one example.
When the new tsar, Vasilii Shuiskii, ascended the Russian throne on May 19, 1605, the first thing he did was to make a public declaration in the cathedral Church of the Holy Virgin: "I kiss the cross before the whole world that I will take no action against anyone without the approval of the assembly; and that if the father is guilty, I will take no action against the son; and if the son is guilty, no action against the father." One need only remember the Sinodik of Tsar Ivan, with its requests to remember the soul of so-and-so, killed "along with his mother, and his wife, and his sons, and his daughters," for it to become entirely clear what the new tsar is promising the people. He
6. Pokrovskii, vol. 1, p. 313.
12. Platonov, Ocherki . . . , p. 157. Emphasis added.
13. Platonov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 122. Emphasis added.
14. Platonov, Ocherki . . . , p. 157. Emphasis added.
17. Pokrovskii, vol. 1, pp. 271-73.
18. Ibid., p. 313. 19. Ibid., p. 307.
20. Ibid., pp. 317-18. Emphasis added.
21. Ibid., p. 319.
25. R. Iu. Vipper, p. 3. On the importance of the legitimizing function of historical studies in the Soviet context, Nancy Whittier Heer notes correctly: "Historical writings in the Soviet Union have come to perform vital sociopolitical functions of a degree and scope perhaps unique and certainly beyond those found under other political systems" ("Political Leadership in Soviet Historiography," p. 12).
26. Fedor Raskol'nikov, one of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party, was Soviet ambassador to Bulgaria during the 1930s. In 1937, he, like the then Soviet ambassador to Greece, A. Barmin, refused to return to Moscow to certain death, and instead wrote Stalin a sharply denunciatory letter from abroad. An analogous letter, incidentally, was written two days before his arrest by Nikolai Bukharin, who, unlike Kurbskii and Raskol'nikov, returned from abroad in 1936, to receive a martyr's crown from the hands of tyrant, as Ivan the Terrible had presaged.
30. Vipper, pp. 113-14.
33. Cited in Vipper, p. 123. Emphasis added.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., p. 75. Emphasis added.
40. Polosin, p. 137.
45. Polosin, p. 182.
46. S. V. Bakhrushin, Ivan Groznyi, p. 5.
49. Vipper, p. 174.
50. Ibid., p. 105.
69. Skrynnikov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 114.
74. Ibid., pp. 144-45. Emphasis added.
[1] Ibid., pp. 206-7.
[2] Ibid., vol. 5, p. 340.
[3] S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, Bk. 5, p. 560.
[4] M. S. Anderson, "English Views of Russia in the Age of Peter the Great."
[5] Angliishie puteshestvenniki v Moskovskom gosudarstve v XVI vehe, p. 55.
[6] Ibid., p. 78.
[7] Cited in R. Iu. Vipper, Ivan Groznyi, p. 83.
[8] Biblioteka inostrannykh pisatelei о Rossii XV—XVI vekov, vol. 1, pp. 111-12. Emphasis added.
[9] Here is a clear example of the dynamics of this abandonment of the land: in the region of Bezhetsk, in Novgorod Province, in 1551, only 6.4 percent of the land was abandoned (grown up to woods); in 1564 this figure was 20.5 percent, and in 1584,95.3 percent (S. G. Strumilin, "O vnutrennem rynke Rossii XVI-XVIII vekov"). As a whole in Novgorod province at the beginning of the sixteenth century, living plowland made up 92 percent of the whole, and, in the 1580s, not more than 10 percent (Makovskii, Razvitie . . .). So much for agriculture. In industry and trade, the differentiation of entrepreneurs and merchants into the "best" (that is, largest-scale), the "middle," and the "younger" had already gone quite far at the beginning of the sixteenth century. According to the data of the Soviet historian E. I. Zaozerskaiia, who studied the posad of Ustiuzhnia Zhelezopol'skaia and the population employed there in metal-working and in the trade in metal articles in 1567, 40 shops there belonged to the "best," 40 to the "middle," and 44 to the "younger" people. "After the passage of 30 years," the author writes, "which were no less difficult for Ustiuzhnia than for the rest of the Russian state, in the census of 1597 in Ustiuzhnia there were no 'best' households, the 'middle' ones did not number more than a dozen, and in addition the census-takers registered 17 empty farmsteads and 286 vacant lots. The posad had become deserted" (E. I. Zaozerskaiia, U istokov krupnogo proizvodstva v russhoi promyshlennosti XVI—XVII vekov, p. 220).
[10] D. Egorov, "Ideia turetskoi reformats» v XVI veke," p. 7.
[11] No one any longer considered him great or mighty. On the contrary, he was laughed at—both in Asia and in Europe. The khan of the Crimea wrote him when leaving burning Moscow: "And you did not come out and did not stand against us and still boast that, forsooth 'I am the sovereign of Muscovy.' Had there been shame or dignity in you, you would have come out and stood against us." And the Polish King Stefan Batory echoed him: "Why did you not come to us with your troops, and defend your subjects? A poor chicken will cover her chicks with her wings against a hawk or an eagle, but you the two-headed eagle (for such is your crest) hide yourself" (Vipper, p. 161).
[12] Ibid., p. 175.
[13] A. A. Zimin, Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo, p. 55.
[14] Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, pp. Ill, 110.
[15] Robert Crummey, "The Seventeenth-Century Moscow Service Elite in Comparative Perspective," p. 1.
[16] Aristotle, Politika, p. 136; quoted from the Russian edition.
[17] Cited in Donald W. Treadgold, ed., The Develoment of the USSR, p. 202.
[18] Aristotle, p. 112.
[19] C. de Montesquieu, О duhhe zakonov, p. 27; quoted from the Russian edition.
[20] Cf. Wittfogel: "The men of the apparatus state are a ruling class in the most unequivocal sense of the term; and the rest of the population constitutes the second major class, the ruled" (p. 303).
[21] Cf. Hegel: "In China we have the realm of absolute equality, and all the differences that exist are possible only in connection with the administration, and by virtue of the worth which a person may acquire, enabling him to fill a high post in the government. Since equality prevails in China, but without any freedom, despotism is necessarily the mode of government. . . . The emperor is the center, around which everything turns; consequently, the well-being of the country and people depends on him. . . . There is no other legal power or institution extant, but the superintendance and oversight of the emperor. ... In China the distinction between slavery and freedom is necessarily not great, since all are equal before the emperor—that is, all alike degraded. . . . And though there is no distinction conferred by birth, and everyone can attain the highest dignity, this very equality testifies to no triumphant assertion of the worth of the inner man, but a servile consciousness" (Lectures on the Philosophy of History, pp. 130, 133-4, 137, 145).
[22] To the best of my knowledge, this subject was first discussed on a theoretical level by Iurii Krizhanich in the seventeenth century. A Croatian by nationality and a gradu-
chy. In the face of this dilemma, insoluble at first glance (at least, as we shall see below, for Soviet historians), Krizhanich does what a scholar must do: he differentiates among privileges. There are three kinds of political structures, he reflects. In some, "immoderate privileges" lead to anarchy (Poland); in others, the absence of privileges leads to "tormenting of people," which is what Krizhanich calls despotism (Turkey). The optimum, from his point of view, is a state which permits "moderate privileges" to the aristocracy, which serve as a guarantee against despotism, defending the people against arbitrary action by the authorities, and the king himself against arbitrary action by his own servants. "Among the French and the Spanish," he says,
the rulers have decent hereditary advantages and privileges, and for this reason neither the plain people nor the military cause the kings any dishonor. And among the Turks, where there are no privileges for people of noble birth, the kings are dependent on the brazen impudence of their simple soldiers. For what the janissaries want, that the king must do (ibid., p. 599).
In other words, what we now call social limitations on power were, in Krizhanich's eyes, "the only method of maintaining justice in the kingdom," and "the only means by which subjects can be defended against the abuse of the king's servants" (ibid., p. 593).
Montesquieu, pp. 31-32.
Ibid., p. 64.
one time (in 1965) even a candidate for the presidency of that country, described the despotic mode of existence in the following terms only a decade ago: "Once all of Asia was in a state of equilibrium, with its agrarian societies relying for survival on a delicate balance between land and population. Land suitable for rice-growing was limited and rice-eating populations struggled for subsistence; they had neither the time, ability nor energy to think of governing themselves or even of participating in government. The task of governing was left to the few, a small, specialized class of scholar-officials. To labor and obey was left to the many. Thus the centralized state came into being, strong enough to protect these precarious balances from ever-threatening natural or artificial forces, skilled enough to undertake the control of the flow of water, the life-blood of the staple production. . . . Confucius gave this stability a philosophic base which sanctified harmony and reverence for authority. . . . This kind of equilibrium was to last four thousand years, until one day Western man arrived with ideas more explosive than the powder the Chinese had invented for firecrackers at the harvest festival (and which the Westerner would later push into the mouths of cannon)" ("Asian Revolution and American Ideology," pp. 344-45).
Sigmund Freud asserted that there are no accidental slips of the tongue, and the fact that Senator Manglapus uses the word "survival" instead of "life" serves, it seems to me, as an exhaustive commentary on the passage quoted here.
... Its [the social order's] essence is determined by the character of the socioeconomic relationships. The concentration of the means of production, and primarily landed property, in the hands of a ruling class of feudal lords is decisive" (Kritiha burzhuaznykh kontseptsii istorii Rossii perioda feodalisma, pp. 30, 31). Unfortunately from this it follows "with extreme clarity" only that both despotism and absolutism are equally based on the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a ruling class of feudal lords. Among "feudal lords," the Soviet historians indiscriminately include English barons, Chinese mandarins, Polish pans, and Turkish effendis. But if the "base" was the same, how their "superstructures" come to differ from each other is mysterious. For all these reasons, I have thought it better not to broach this delicate and painful subject here.
[26] It is said that when a French diplomat referred in conversation with a British colleague to the well-known declaration of Louis XIV as to the wealth of kings ("Everything which is within the limits of their state belongs to them . . . both the money in their treasuries . . . and that which they leave in circulation among their subjects"), the Englishman replied haughtily: "Did you study public law in Turkey?"
[27] Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, p. 160.
[28] Ibid., p. 159.
[29] Here and below, when Russian political history is spoken of, reference will be only to its autocratic period—that is, the time following the Oprichnina revolution of 1564.
[30] Under despotism, the state's intervention in the economic process was connected with its primitive condition, with the dispersion of the rural communes, and their subsistence economy, and thus served the goal of integrating the stagnant economic organism. In Russia, on the contrary, the intervention of the state increased and became more active as the economic process became more complex, until, finally, in the twentieth century, in the period of its radical modernization and industrialization, the state took this process under its complete control. But even in the twentieth century, as we know, the intensity of this control continued to vary, now hardening and then relaxing.
[31] This peculiarity of the economic development of Russia was first described by Alexander Gershenkron (in Continuity and Change in Russian and Soviet Thought; see also his Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective). Gershenkron did not, however, connect it with the specific character of the Russian political structure.
[32] The complex character of the "new class" perhaps helps us to understand the stubbornness of the insistence of the Russian new right in general, and Alexander Sol- zhenitsyn in particular, that the October revolution was violently imposed on the Russian nation by foreigners and thus is totally alien to Russian culture and tradition (see Alexander Yanov, The Russian New Right). While international adventurers indeed played a conspicuous role in the revolution of 1917, they played a no less distinguished part in the Oprichnina revolution, as well as in the Petrine one. Consequently, the role of international adventurers in the October revolution only confirms its national—one might say traditional—character, and Solzhenitsyn's argument falls apart. True, as distinct from all previous instances, Stalin's "new class" had a brutally nationalistic thrust (because of which, incidentally, some modern right-wingers could not help but sympathize with Stalin). It is perhaps explained by the fact that this time the "new class" was intended to destroy and replace an obviously "internationalistic" elite.
[33] The problem of the aristocratization of the elite in the contemporary Soviet Union is the subject of chapter 1 of my monograph Detente After Brezhnev.
[34] While I was still in the Soviet Union, I devoted to this topic a monograph titled "The History of the Russian Political Opposition," which is still in manuscript; some parts of it are used in this book.
[35] G. V. Plekhanov, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 21, pp. 36—37. Two centuries before Karamzin, and three centuries before Plekhanov, the director of the London "company of merchants trading to Muscovy," Jeremiah Horsey, wrote, in characterizing the period which began with the death of Ivan the Terrible: "The state of affairs in the administration and the state changed completely; every person lived in peace and quiet, and knew what he owned and what he could use; everywhere good officials were appointed, and everywhere justice was established. Russia became, even in outward appearance, a different country from what it had been under the previous tsar" (quoted in N. V. Latkin, Zemskie Sobory drevnei Rusi, p. 87).
[36] I have tried to describe this phase in some detail in my essay "The Drama of the Time of Troubles."
[37] The reader will find a chronological table of these hypothetical cycles of Russian political history in Appendix 2.
[38] Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (Isted.), vol. 2, pp. 191, 188, 189-190.
[39] "In Russia Eastern despotism served as a model," asserted Chicherin categorically in his fundamental work О narodnom predstavitel'stve, p. 531.
[40] Cited in G. Vernadsky, The Mongols in Russia, p. 389.
[41] N. A. Berdiaev, Istoki i smysl russhogo kommunizma, p. 7.
[42] K. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism, p. 225.
[43] L. V Cherepnin, "K voprosu о skladyvanii absoliutnoi monarkhii v Rossii," p. 38.
[44] Ibid., pp. 24-25.
[45] Istoriia SSSR, p. 212.1 am neither an orthodox nor a rebellious Marxist—I simply don't have anything in common with this mode of thought. But even a bitter opponent of Marxism would scarcely parody it as brutally as do these writers who claim to have custody of the pure Marxist flame.
[46] A. Ia. Avrekh, "Russkii absoliutizm i ego rol' v utverzhdenii kapitalizma v Rossii," pp. 83, 85. Emphasis added.
[47] V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 9, pp. 333-34.
[48] Avrekh, p. 89. Emphasis added.
[49] It should be noted that, in direct form, the category of political progress is lacking in Soviet historiography (and before Avrekh it was lacking even in indirect form). Therefore the criterion of political development is also lacking. And there is no knowing what is good or bad here, what is positive and what is negative, or what is moving from what direction and toward what. I emphasize that what is being spoken of is not the trivial Marxist postulate that the replacement of one socioeconomic order by another is inevitable, but political progress—that is, the fact that different political structures possess different dynamic potentials. And, for this reason, Avrekh's attempt to declare "St. Petersburg absolutism" (even if it never existed) capable (unlike "Muscovite despotism") of political dynamism, was for its kind a remarkably partisan action in Soviet historiography, as well as a risky one.
[50] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Izbrannye pis'ma, p. 79.
[51] A. L. Shapiro, "Ob absoliutizme v Rossii," p. 71.
[52] A. I. Davidovich and S. A. Pokrovskii, "O klassovoi sushchnosti i etapakh razvi- tiia russkogo absoliutizma," p. 65.
[53] Ibid., p. 62. 34. Ibid., p. 65.
[54] Ibid., p. 142.
[55] V. I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 9, p. 381.
[56] A. N. Sakharov, p. 148. 45. Ibid., p. 111. 46. Ibid., p. 112.
[57] S. N. Eisenstadt, "The Study of Oriental Despotisms as Systems of Total Power," p. 446.
[58] Donald W. Treadgold, ed., The Development of the USSR: An Exchange of Views, pp. 352-53.
[59] Ibid., p. 331.
[60] See, for example, S. V Veselovskii, К voprosy о proukhozhdenii votchinnogo rezhima\ S. M. Kashtanov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaia istoriia Rossii kontsa XV—pervoi poloviny XVI v.; Horace Dewey, "Immunities in Old Russia."
[61] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Sochineniia, vol. 25, pt. 1, p. 354. Emphasis added.
[62] "[The struggle between the church and the state in Byzantium] ended in the Church's becoming virtually a department of the medieval East Roman State; and a State that has reduced the Church to this position has thereby made itself 'totalitarian'—if our latter-day term 'totalitarian State' means a state that has established its control over every side of the life of its subjects" (Toynbee, ibid., p. 93).
[62] Ibid., p. 95. 17. Ibid., p. 91. 18. Ibid., p. 94.
[63] Ibid., p. 23. 23. Ibid., p. 97. 24. Ibid., p. 71.
28. Ibid., p. 85. Emphasis added.
[65] Ibid., p. 86. 30. Ibid., p. 94. 31. Ibid., p. 89. 32. Ibid., p. 90.
33. Ibid., p. 21. 34. Ibid., p. 94.
[67] Ibid., p. 112.
[68] S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, Bk. 3, pp. 174-75.
[69] Cited in M. A. D'akonov, Vlast' moskovskikh gosudarei, pp. 187-88.
[70] Ibid., p. 189.
[71] Ibid., p. 191.
[72] Gustav Alef, "Aristocratic Politics and Royal Policy in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries," p. 1.
[73] Cited in G. V. Plekhanov, Sochineniia, vol. 20, p. 233.
[74] G. Kotoshikhin, О Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha, Sochinenie Grigoriia Kotoshikhina, p. 53. Emphasis added.
[75] Of course, extrahistorical and, so to speak, personalistic explanations are possible. In his time, V. O. Kliuchevskii considered the Oprichnina, though monstrous, to be an episode in Russian history which was in a certain sense accidental, and in considerable degree conditioned by the personality of Ivan the Terrible. In developing this line of reasoning, the leading modern historians of the Muscovite period in the United States, Richard Hellie and Edward Keenan, offer medical explanations for the Oprichnina. According to Hellie, Ivan the Terrible's actions are to be explained by paranoia; according to Keenan, by physical disease, arthritis and spondylitis, which made him incapable of fulfilling his duties as tsar. (See Edward Keenan, "Vita: Ivan Vasil'evich, Terrible Tsar 1530-1584," p. 49; Richard Hellie, "In Search of Ivan the Terrible," Preface to S. F. Platonov's Ivan the Terrible, and "Ivan the Terrible: Paranoia, 'Evil Advisors,' Institutional Restraints and Social Control"). We will deal with this view in the appropriate place, when analyzing the modern phase of Ivaniana. For the time being, it may be noted that Peter I was an epileptic, and, it is said, suffered from a severe form of syphilis, while Stalin was an indubitable paranoiac. Tyrants usually have their occupational diseases. Yet, it would not be easy to explain Stalinism by paranoia, or the reforms of Peter by epilepsy. It must be admitted, further, that the comparative paucity of information about Ivan the Terrible is more conducive to medical speculation, and to the mixing of despotology with pathology, than the analogous cases of Peter and Stalin.
[76] Ibid., p. 46.
[77] S. O. Shmidt, Stamwlenie Moskovskogo samoderzhavstvA, p. 309.
[78] Ibid., p. 247.
[79] Ibid., p. 249. Emphasis added.
[80] Ibid. Incidentally, it was not only the lawyer Chicherin who recognized that peasants had freedom of movement in Russia up to the last decade of the sixteenth century. M. A. D'akonov and B. D. Grekov were very prominent, if not the most prominent, specialists in the history of the Russiian peasantry. They disagreed about everything except one point. Both of them (contrary to Blum's assertion) thought that despite all the "traps" set by the landlords, St. George's Day worked in a very real way for almost a century after the issuance of Ivan Ill's law code. D'akonov says that until the second half of the sixteenth century, the peasants took advantage of the right of movement (see M. A. D'akonov, Ocherki po istorii sel'skogo naseleniia v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVI—XVII vekov). Grekov, citing the extant books of the St. Joseph monastery of Volokolamsk, gives concrete figures for peasant movement by years. Incidentally, Blum knew this just as well as I do: at least, he cites figures from Grekov's work on pages 250-51 of his book. We also have the testimony of an eyewitness. Heinrich Staden, an Oprichnik of Ivan the Terrible's who fled abroad before the introduction of the "forbidden years," categorically asserts: "All the peasants in the country had the free right to leave on St. George's Day" (see H. Staden, О Moskve Ivana Groznogo, p. 123). Staden can hardly be suspected of idealizing Muscovite ways (he was a fierce enemy of Russia's) or of being insufficiently informed (he was himself a landowner and knew the force of St. George's Day from personal experience).
[81] Pamiatniki russhogo prava, vol. 3, p. 366.
[82] Pamiatniki russkogo prava, vol. 3, p. 359. The same is true of Article 46 (ibid., p. 369).
[83] Pamiatniki russkogo prava, vol. 4, p. 238.
[84] Both of the large-scale works on the period of Ivan III—Fennel's Ivan the Great of Moscow and К. V. Bazilevich's Vneshniaia politika ritsskogo tsentralizovannogo gosudar- stva—are devoted almost exclusively to foreign policy.
[85] B. D. Grekov, Krest'ane na Rusi s drevneishikh vremen do XVII veka, p. 604.
[86] A. I. Kopanev, Istoriia zemlevladeniia Belozerskogo kraia v XV—XVI vekakh, p. 181.
[87] The North in the sixteenth century not only represented half of all the territory of Russia, but had also, as S. F. Platonov writes,
from a remote backwater of the state become one of its liveliest regions. The entire country, in its relation with the cultural world, had, so to speak, turned its face northward. The commercial and working population . . . streamed toward the northern ports. . . . Not only the routes along which moved the traffic provoked by trade, but entire regions, which served these routes or were dependent
[88] Ivan III confiscated only the church lands and the lands of the "great" boyars, while the middling and petty boyar families, the so-called svoezemtsy (small landowners), underwent "peasantization"—that is to say, defeudalization. "The lands of the svoezemtsy," Kopanev writes, "were first strictly separated from those of the peasants and of the grand prince, then apparently merged with them, and then disappeared, and the svoezemtsy came to be on the same footing with the peasants, [which] basically changed the social relationships here" (see A. I. Kopanev, "K voprosu о strukture zemlevlad- eniia na Dvine v XV-XVI vv.," pp. 450-51). In a brilliant genealogical study of one boyar family, the Amosovs, N. E. Nosov has clearly traced all the details of the "rapid and intensive adaptation of the Amosovs' economy, and that of the peasantized boyars like them, to the new economic conditions" (N. E. Nosov, Stanovlenie soslovno-predsta- vitel'nykh uchrezhdenii v Rossii, pp. 270-71, 274).
[89] One of Kopanev's most important conclusions is that "the active mobilization of peasant lands shown in the Dvina documents of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries had as a result the concentration of great resources of land in the hands of some peasants, and land shortage for others." It was not just a matter of a few more scraps of land coming into the hands of rich peasants; they bought entire villages: "The Dvina documents show that villages [and] parts of villages become the objects of purchase and sale, with no limitations whatever." And "the land passes from one holder to another . . . 'forever'"—that is, as property, as an allodium, having lost all traces of feudal tenure (Kopanev, "K voprosu о strukture," pp. 452-53; emphasis added).
[90] Nosov, Stanovlenie, pp. 283—84. Emphasis added.
[91] Ibid., p. 11.
[92] Ia. S. Lur'e, Ideologicheskaia bor'ba v russkoi publitsystihe kontsa XV-nachala XVI w., pp. 183, 185. Admitting that "Fedor Kuritsyn stood at the head of this 'heretical' circle," Lur'e finds it necessary to add that the Russian heresies at the end of the fifteenth century were, like the urban heresies of the West, one of the forms of 'revolutionary opposition to feudalism.'" Inasmuch as Kuritsyn is spoken of in one document of the chronicles as "a person who is listened to by the sovereign in all things," it seems that it was the sovereign himself who headed the "revolutionary opposition to f eudalism."
emphasis added). One small question still remains: how are we to reconcile the struggle of the Non-Acquirers against the grand prince with the fact that the Non-Acquirer movement was itself the handiwork of the grand prince? The authors cited above cannot help knowing this. They have at least read in Kliuchevskii that "behind Nil and his Non-Acquirers there stood Ivan III himself, who needed monastery lands" (V. O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (1st ed.), vol. 2, pp. 303-4). Even Lur'e declares that "Nil Sorskii's action was staged by Ivan III; Nil spoke as a sort of theoretician of the policy of the grand prince on this question" (Lur'e, p. 281). So there is no need whatever to offend modesty by parting the monastic robes of the elders in order to establish the real political meaning of their actions. But, after all, in Lur'e's work we have already seen Ivan III in the role of leader of the "revolutionary opposition" directed against himself. Why, then, shouldn't the grand prince at the same time head the "reactionary opposition," also directed against himself?
15. Pavlov, p. 97.
[94] N. A. Kazakova and la. S. Lur'e, Antideodal'nye ereticheskie dvizheniia na Rusi XlV—nachala XVI veka, p. 381.
[95] Ibid., p. 378.
[96] Pavlov, p. 50.
[97] Slovo kratko v zashchitu monastyrskikh imushchestv, p. 25.
[98] V. Malinin, Starets Eleazarova monastyria Filofei i ego poslanie, p. 129.
[99] Kazakova and Lur'e, p. 438.
[100] The assembly of 1503 is described by at least seven different sources, some Josephite, others Non-Acquirer. Naturally, they contradict one another. In regard to one of them, investigators hold diametrically opposed opinions: A. A. Zimin ("O po- liticheskoi doktrine Iosifa Volotskogo") assumes that this document is of Non-Acquirer origin, and Lur'e (p. 414), and G. N. Moiseeva (Valaamskaia beseda—pamiatnik russkoi publitsistiki XVI v., pp. 22-3) think that it was written by Josephites. The version set forth here is based essentially on Pavlov's classic work, with minor corrections based on an eighth source found by Iu. K. Begunov in the library at Perm' in the 1960s.
[101] Pavlov, p. 46.
[102] Cited in ibid., p. 46.
[103] Cited in Pavlov, p. 71.
[104] Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, Bk. 3, p. 122.
[105] S. M. Kashtanov, "Ogranichenie feodal'nogo immuniteta pravitel'stvom russ- kogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva," pp. 270-71.
[106] Iu. K. Begunov, "Sekuliarizatsiia v Evrope i Sobor 1503 v Rossii," p. 47.
[107] S. M. Kashtanov, Sotsial'no-politicheskaia istoria Rossii kontsa XV—pervoi poloviny XVI v., p. 257.
[108] A. A. Zimin, "O politicheskoi doktrine Iosifa Volotskogo," p. 175.
[109] Malinin, p. 128.
[110] Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, Bk. 3, p. 556.
[111] A. A. Zimin, Reformy Ivana Groznogo, p. 435.
[112] The author of the classical work on the history of Russian law, V. I. Sergeevich, holds precisely this point of view on Article 98. "In order to add new provisions to the law code," he writes, "a verdict by all the boyars is required. This is undoubtedly a limitation of the tsar's power, and a novelty; the tsar is only the chairman of the College of Boyars, and cannot issue new laws without its agreement" (Russkie iuridicheskie drevnosti, vol. 2, p. 360).
[113] V. O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (1st ed.), vol. 3, p. 37. "Kissing the cross" was the customary old Slavic form for taking an oath in any context, whether judicial or political.
[114] Ibid., p. 44.
[115] B. N. Chicherin, О narodnom predstavitel'stve, p. 543.
[116] Until recently, the Muscovite government of the 1550s has been identified with the "Chosen Rada," a term used by Kurbskii in his History of Ivan IV: "And at that time those counselors of his were named the Chosen Rada; in truth according to their deeds they had this name, for by their counsel they produced all that was select and distinguished, that is to say true impartial justice, both for rich and for poor, such as is best in the tsardom" (p. 21). This term has become so firmly established in classical historiography that many historians have even adduced lists of the members of the "Chosen Rada," although Kurbskii mentions no names other than the Archpriest Sil'vestr, Ohol'nichii (the second rank below that of boyar at the Muscovite court) Aleksei Ada- shev, and Metropolitan Makarii. For example, V. I. Sergeevich compiled the following list: Sil'vestr, Adashev, Makarii, Prince Andrei Kurbskii (a boyar since 1556), Prince Dmitrii Kurliat'ev (a boyar since 1549), Prince Semen Rostovskii, and the three Moro- zov brothers—Mikhail (a boyar since 1549), Vladimir (an okol'nichii since 1550), and Lev (an okol'nichii since 1553). M. V Dovnar-Zapol'skii also included in the Chosen Rada Maxim the Greek (who lived out his last years in a monastery), Abbot Artemii, and Bishop Kassian—that is, all the major representatives of the fourth generation of Non- Acquirers, as well as others, to a total of sixteen (Vremia Ivana Groznogo, p. 173). S. V.
[117] By "coalition," I am referring here not so much to actual political alliances as to blocs of interest groups whose goals at the given historical stage were identical. In this sense, it is more a matter of latent, or potential, coalitions. Nevertheless, a cautious hypothesis may be appropriate here as to the correlation between the degree of actualization of the latent coalitions and the intensity of change in the autocratic system.
[118] I understand that some of my readers—particularly those who cherish a weakness for Marxism—may now be asking a puzzled question (if they have not asked it already): is it really possible that in the historical conflict between "money" and ."corvee," the boyars, which is to say the feudal lords, should suddenly turn up on the side of "money"? How can it be that they would struggle against the immunities which make up the essence of the feudal order? I would like to ask these readers in turn: how did it happen that the intellectual and political elite of the Russian serf-holding aristocracy rebelled in the mid-nineteenth century against serfdom, which was the essence of the feudal order? How could it be that this elite not only supported the Great Reform in the struggle against the mass of service landholders who were interested in retaining serfdom, but also became one of the prime political movers in this reform? Standard Marxist criticism is obviously powerless to explain this paradox. But in the case of the Great Reform of the 1860s, it is nevertheless not prepared to deny the facts. On the other hand, what basis do we have for denying the analogous—that is to say, essentially anti-feudal—position of boyardom, or at least of its intellectual and political elite, in the mid-sixteenth century? Why should what was possible in connection with one great reform not be possible in connection with another? Why should the Decembrists and the Slavophiles (most of whom, after all, were serf-owning landholders) turn up on the side of "money" and against "corvee" in the nineteenth century, and the same not be true of the leaders of boyardom in the sixteenth century?
[119] M. N. Pokrovskii, Izbrannyeproizvedeniia, bk. 1, pp. 320-21. Posad: the commercial and artisan district of a Russian town, usually situated outside the city walls.
[120] Here, for example, is how B. D. Grekov explains the enserfment of the peasants in his classical work Peasants in Rus': "As the economic dislocation of the seventies and eighties increased, the number of peasant migrations grew. . . . The mass of service people could not remain calm. The state serving the interests of these landholders also could not be silent. A radical and immediate solution of the peasant question became inevitable. The abolition of St. George's Day was carried out in the interests of this stratum, and for the purpose of strengthening their material position" (Krestiane na Rusi s drexmeishikh vremen do XVII veka, vol. 1, p. 297). True, this murky passage raises more questions than it offers answers. The fact that enserfment was neither in the interests of the peasants nor in those of the boyars to whom the peasants went when they left the service landholders is obvious. But how is it that the "progressive service landholders" suddenly turn out to be the bearers of feudal reaction? The logical implication of what Grekov says is, furthermore, that if there had not been the "economic dislocations," neither would there have been serfdom in Russia. But if the fate of Russia, or at least the fate of the peasantry in Rus', depended on these "dislocations," would it not have been fitting for an expert on the Russian peasantry to give some thought to the question of where these determining "dislocations," which changed the entire character of Russian history, originated? He did not, and neither did the Soviet historiography which he headed during the Stalinist period.
[121] Cited in R. Iu. Vipper, p. 115. 22. Ibid., p. 116.
23. H. Staden, Zapiski . . . , p. 20.
[123] Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii, bk. 3, p. 657.
[124] Pokrovskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, bk. I, p. 450.
[125] Vipper, p. 69.
[126] Bakhrushin, Ivan Groznyi, p. 84.
[127] A. M. Kurbskii, History of Ivan IV, p. 126.
[128] Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo, p. 317. Emphasis added.
[129] The main objection usually set forth against the feasibility of such an "open frontier" strategy is that a hundred years after the Livonian war, in the 1670s, Muscovy made an attempt to conquer the Crimea which ended in failure. Was it then possible for the Muscovy of the sixteenth century to have succeeded? My answer is essentially given in the introductory chapter of this book. What was indeed impossible for "weak, poor, almost unknown" pre-Petrine Muscovy, in a "state of nonexistence," was quite possible for pre-Oprichnina Muscovy, then at the height of its power. I am not speaking in terms of a single military operation, as in the 1670s, but of a national, long-range anti-Tatar strategy over a period of decades, which would have required detente with Europe as well as the continuation of the Great Reform, the reformation of the church, and the modernization of the army.
[130] D. P. Makovskii, Razvitie tovarno-denezhnykh. otnoshenii . . . (2nd ed).
[131] M. D'akonov, Vlast' moskavskikh gosudarei, p. 151.
[132] G. Fletcher, Of the Russe Common Wealth, p. 34.
[133] K. D. Ravelin, Sochineniia, pt. 2, p. 112.
N. K. Mikhailovskii, "Ivan Groznyi v russkoi literature," p. 134.
S. B. Veselovskii, Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny, p. 35.
S. F. Platonov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 5.
[134] Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossiis dreveneishikh vremen, bk. 3, p. 713.
cratic "revolution from above" at the beginning of the eighteenth century). Literally all historians of Russia, native and foreign, proceed from this stereotype. (The reader will find an excellent formulation of it, for example, in Dmitri Obolensky's "Russia's Byzantine Heritage," pp. 93-117.) In the mid-nineteenth century, the Slavophiles turned this stereotype into their ideological banner, calling the Russian elite "home" to pre-Petrine Russia. In the 1880s, their follower Konstantin Leont'ev laid bare the real essence of this appeal—the concept of "Russian Byzantinism," but since that time it has not entered anyone's head to doubt the validity of the stereotype itself. However, the dualism of Russian political culture goes back, as I have tried to show here, to roots in the structure of early medieval Russian society which have nothing to do with either "Western- ism" or "Byzantinism" (which is not to deny important cultural influences from both sides). Two hundred years before Peter, this dichotomy was already an accomplished fact. The first decisive struggle between the two tendencies was the Oprichnina revolution of Ivan the Terrible.
24. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (2nd ed.), vol. 2, pp. 165, 166, 167.
[136] Ibid.
[137] Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (2nd ed.), vol. 2, p. 392.
[138] S. Herberstein, Zapiski . . . , p. 28.
[139] The well-known Soviet historian N. I. Pavlenko admits with a sigh that "about the Boyar Duma of the second half of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth, we know no more than was known to Kliuchevskii almost ninety years ago. The situation with regard to the study of the Assemblies of the Land is equally unsatisfactory" ("K voprosu о genezise absoliutizma v Rossii," p. 54).
[140] Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia (2nd ed.), vol. 2, p. 166. Emphasis added.
[141] Ibid., p. 392. Emphasis added.
[142] Cited in Belov, p. 49.
[143] N. M. Karamzin, Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, vol. 8, p. 308.
[144] Ibid., vol. 9, p. 5.
[145] Kliuchevskii, p. 198.
[146] This word cannot be literally rendered into English. It is derived from liudi (people) and drat' (to tear, to skin), but as the text indicates, it means something more than mere cruelty or atrocities, even of the most extreme kind.
[147] M. V. Lomonosov, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, p. 66.
[148] M. M. Shcherbatov, Istoriia Rossiiskaia s drevneishikh vremen, vol. 2, p. 832.
[149] Ibid. Emphasis added.
[150] Karamzin, who had begun his History during the Time of Troubles which occurred after the Oprichnina of Paul, was certainly aware of the need to prevent a new tyranny. As an adherent on principle of autocracy, he saw no better means of doing so than by threatening the potential tyrant with the "eternal curse of history" (vol. 9, p. 439).
[151] Shcherbatov, vol. 5, pt. 3, p. 222.
[152] Karamzin, vol. 9, pp. 438-39. 51. Ibid., p. 440.
Ibid., pp. 440-41,443.
A. S. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p. 303.
63. Cited in Mikhailovskii, pp. 160-61.
[156] M. P. Pogodin, Sochineniia, vol. 4, p. 7.
[157] Ibid., p. 10.
[158] V G. Belinskii, Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh, vol. 3, p. 644.
[159] Kavelin, pt. 1, p. 308.
[160] Ibid., pt. 2, pp. 454-55.
[161] Ibid., pt. 1, p. 333.
[162] Ibid., p. 321.
[163] S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii, bk. 3, p. 664.
[164] B. N. Chicherin, О narodnom predstavitel'stve, pp. 524-25.
[165] P. N. Miliukov, Ocherki . . . , pp. 113-14.
[166] N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, Gosudarevy sluzhitye liudi . . . , p. 223.
[167] Kavelin, pt. 1, pp. 355, 362. Emphasis added.
Terrible, who routed this nobility, and Catherine II who restored it? After all, they were
working in opposite directions—from the point of view of Ravelin's criterion. They were united by another criterion of progress—also one of Ravelin's: the expansion of the might of the Russian state. The problem, however, lies in the fact that these two criteria contradict each other, which Kavelin does not even notice.
15. Kavelin, pt. 1, p. 310. 16. Ibid., p. 357. 17. Ibid., p. 361.
[171] Ibid., p. 362. 19. Ibid., p. 361. 20. Ibid., pp. 361-62.
[172] Ibid., pt. 2, p. 597.
[173] S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia otnoshenii mezhdu russkimi kniaziami Riurikova doma, p. 597. Emphasis added.
[174] K. Kavelin, pt. 2, pp. 597, 596.
[175] Ibid., p. 610.
[176] Ibid., pp. 656, 645-46, 678.
[177] K. Iarosh, Psikhologicheskaia parallel', p. 31.
votchina in such-and-such village." Unfortunately, moments of repentance were suc
[179] I. I. Smirnov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 93.
[180] S. B. Veselovskii, p. 23.
[181] K. S. Aksakov, Sochineniia istoricheskie, vol. 1, p. 284.
[182] V. Rubin, Ideologiia i kul'tura drevnego Kitaia, p. 84. The conception of the destiny of the doctrine of Confucius given here is that of the author of this book, which is remarkable in many respects.
[183] Ravelin, pt. 1, p. 355.
[184] Kavelin, pt. 1, p. 410.
[185] Ibid., p. 412.
[186] S. Gorskii, Zhizn' i istoricheskoe znachenie kniazia A. M. Kurbskogo, p. 15.
[187] S. Gorskii, p. 373.
[188] Quoted from A. Yanov, "Al'ternativa," p. 72. This article, in which the struggle of the emigr6 Herzen was represented as the only worthy alternative to the pseudopa- triotism of the "slavish majority," was one of the causes of my own expulsion from Russia, and the issue of Motodoi kommunist in which it appeared was suppressed.
[189] Ibid., p. 74.
[190] Cited in Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo, p. 459.
[191] Cited in ibid., pp. 469, 471.
[192] R. G. Skrynnikov, Perepiska [Ivana] Groznogo г Kurbskogo, pp. 57, 59.
[193] One honorable exception should, however, be mentioned. In a remarkable poem published the year (1968) of the Prague Spring, when the discussion of Russian absolutism analyzed above was aboil, a young poet (not a historian, a poet!) actually defended Kurbskii: "How but by infidelity can you repay the tyrant when this tyrant is ruining your state?" asked Oleg Chukhontsev, with these words ruining his own career in official literature and winning admiration from the Moscow intelligentsia ("Povestvo- vanie о Kurbskom'," p. 29). According to Grigorii Svirskii, the official response was crushing. Among other things, a group of Soviet generals wrote a letter to the Party Central Committee, asserting that Chukhontsev had "called our youth to treason." Not a single historian since has let fall a word in defense of the poet (Grigorii Svirskii, Na lobnom meste, p. 431).
[194] Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo, p. 286.
[195] Ibid., p. 47. 64. Ibid., p. 52. 65. Ibid., p. 47.
[196] S. Gorskii, p. 413.
[197] E. A. Belov, Ob istoricheskom znachenii russkogo boyarstva, p. 69.
[198] V. O. Kliuchevskii, Boiarskaia duma . . . , p. 340.
[199] Ibid., p. 195.
[200] Ibid., p. 198.
[201] Ibid., p. 198.
[202] S. F. Platonov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 19.
[203] M. N. Pokrovskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, vol. 3, pp. 239-40.
[204] K. Iarosh, Psikhotogicheskaia parallel', p. 28.
[205] Platonov, p. 125. Emphasis added.
[206] Platonov, p. 119. 8. Ibid., p. 133. 9. Ibid., pp. 124-25.
[207] Ibid., p. 120.
[208] Ibid., p. 121. Emphasis added.
[209] N. E. Nosov, О dvuhh tendentsiiakh . . . , p. 5.
[210] Ibid., p. 12.
[211] S. D. Skazkin, "Osnovnye problemy tak nazyvaemogo 'vtorogo izdaniia' kre- postnichestva v Srednei i Vostochnoi Evrope," p. 104.
[212] I. I. Polosin, p. 132.
[213] N. Cherkasov, Zapiski sovetskogo aktera, p. 308. The authenticity of the quote is beyond doubt, since the book was prepared for the press during Stalin's lifetime.
[214] Polosin, p. 132.
[215] N. Cherkasov, p. 380.
[216] I. V. Stalin, Voprosy leninizma (9th ed.), p. 359.
[217] Platonov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 105. 37. Pokrovskii, vol. 1, p. 302.
For P. A. Sadikov the "formation of the Oprichnina corps" was directly "dependent on the conditions of military defense." Furthermore, quoting the testimony of eyewitnesses, Taube and Kruze, he confirms that the service landholders were considerably less competent farmers than the boyars: "the lack of skill of the Oprichniki in farming on their new holdings" led to the fact that "huge properties were destroyed and
plundered in such a short time that it seemed as if the enemy had passed through" (P. A. Sadikov, Ocherki po istorii oprichniny, p. 113).
[220] Pokrovskii, vol. 1, p. 319.
[221] Vipper, p. 174.
[222] I. V. Stalin, Voprosy leninizma (11th ed.), p. 329.
[223] Ibid., p. 328.
[224] N. L. Rubinshtein, Russkaia istoriografiia, p. 634.
[225] V. I. Kostylev, Ivan Groznyi.
[226] Cheka is the Russian abbreviation for the Extraordinary Commission for Combatting Counterrevolution, Sabotage, and Speculation, the main political police organ of the early revolutionary period, which functioned from 1917 to 1922. The derivative of this dreadful term, "Chekisty," is an honorary title for all the successors of the Cheka, that is, all members of the Soviet political police to this day.
[227] Cited in ibid., pp. 121-22.
[228] Bakhrushin, pp. 52, 54.
[229] A. A. Zimin, Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo, pp. 4-5.
[230] Cited in S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii, bk. 3, pp. 756-57.
[231] Ibid., pp. 27, 20.
[232] It is sufficient to mention his well-known works: Nachalo oprichniny, Oprichnyi terror, and Ivan Groznyi.
[233] Grekov, Krestiane na Rusi, vol. 1, p. 297.
[234] Skrynnikov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 114.
[235] Cited in ibid., p. 138.
[236] Skrynnikov, Oprichnyi terror, p. 223.
[237] Skrynnikov, Oprichnyi terror, pp. 247-48.
[238] Skrynnikov, Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo (author's abstract of doctoral dissertation, Leningrad, 1967, p. 41).
[239] Skrynnikov, Ivan Groznyi, p. 121. Emphasis added.
[240] Ibid., p. 152.
[241] Makovskii, Razvitie (1st ed.), p. 212.
ТЕЛЕГРАМКанал с обзорами, анонсами новинок и книжными подборками
Книжный Вестник
Бот для удобного поиска книг (если не нашлось на сайте)
Поиск книг
Свежие любовные романы в удобных форматах
Любовные романы
О психологии, саморазвитии и личностном росте
Саморазвитие
Детективы и триллеры, все новинки
Детективы
Фантастика и фэнтези, все новинки
Фантастика
Отборные классические книги
Классика
ВКОНТАКТЕБиблиотека с любовными романами, которая наверняка придётся по вкусу женской части аудитории
Любовные романы
Библиотека с фантастикой и фэнтези, а также смежных жанров
Фантастика
Самые популярные книги в формате фб2
Топ фб2
книги