The Elusive Empire: Kazan and the Creation of Russia, 1552–1671

Notes

Notes Introduction 1. This chapter’s second epigraph comes from “Catherine to Voltaire, Kazan, 29 May/ 9 June 1767,” in Voltaire and Catherine the Great: Selected Correspondence, ed. A. Lentin (Cambridge, 1974), 48. 2. For an overview of Russian expansion, see Andreas Kappeler, The Russian Empire: A Multi-Ethnic History (Harlow, Essex, 2001). 3. “Middle Volga Region” refers to the land alongside the Volga River between Nizhnii Novgorod and Saratov, as opposed to the “Upper Volga” lands, which were Muscovite possessions before 1552. 4. For an introduction to the population of the region, see R. G. Ganeev, M. V. Murzabulatov, and L. I. Nagaeva, Narody Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia: Istoriko etnograficheskie ocherki (Moscow, 1985); Bulat Khamidullin, Narody Kazanskogo Khanstva: Etnosotsiologicheskoe issledovanie (Kazan, 2002). 5. For the Muscovite explanation of right by conquest, see Jaroslaw Pelenski, Russia and Kazan: Conquest and Imperial Ideology (1438–1560s) (The Hague, 1974), 88–91. For a comparative discussion, see Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice (Oxford, 1996). 6. For a discussion of the difficulties of communication in early-modern empires, see Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans. Siân Reynolds (Berkeley, 1995), 2:355–94; and Tonio Andrade and William Reger, eds., The Limits of Empire in the Early Modern World (forthcoming). 7. Here I borrow from Clifford Geertz, “Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power,” in Culture and Its Creators: Essays in Honor of Edward Shils, ed. Joseph Ben-David and Terry Nichols Clark (Chicago, 1977). 8. For the use of “institutional bricolage” in the creation of the Ottoman Empire, see Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge, 2008), esp. 7–8. 215 9. Laura Benton discusses layered sovereignty in her A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (New York, 2010), esp. 30–39. See also Charles Tilly’s discussion of “fragmented sovereignty” in early-modern states in his Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992, rev. ed. (Malden, MA, 1992). For a discussion of another “imperial network,” see Kerry Ward, Networks of Empire: Forced Migrations in the Dutch East India Company (Cambridge, 2009). 10. For a broader discussion of composite states, see H. G. Koenigsberger, Politicians and Virtuosi: Essays in Early Modern History (London, 1986), 1–25; J. H. Elliott, “A Europe of Composite Monarchies,” Past and Present 137, no. 1 (November 1992); and Daniel H. Nexon, The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton, NJ, 2009), esp. chap. 2. 11. Conceptualizing imperial space as both an ideological construct, and a social and political sphere of interaction, follows the work of Edward W. Soja, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory (London, 1989), and Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Malden, MA, 1991). 12. See, for example, Pelenski, Russia and Kazan; S. Kh. Alishev, Kazan’ i Moskva: Mezhgosudarstvennye otnosheniia v XV–XVI vv. (Kazan, 1995); D. M. Iskhakov, Tiurko-tatarskie gosudarstva XV–XVI vv. (Kazan, 2009). 13. See, for example, I. P. Ermolaev, Srednee Povolzh’e vo vtoroi polovine XVI–XVII vv. (Upravlenie Kazanskim kraem) (Kazan, 1982); A. G. Bakhtin, XV–XVI veka v istorii Mariiskogo kraia (Ioshkar-Ola, 1998); Damir Iskhakov, Ot srednevekovykh tatar k tataram novogo vremeni (Kazan, 1998); E. P. Lezina, Goroda na territorii mordovii v XVI–XVII vv. (Saransk, 2002). For other regional studies, see a special issue of Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 63 (2004), edited by Andreas Kappeler, Die Geschichte Russlands im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert aus der Perspektive seiner Regionen, though the individual articles tend to treat each group in isolation. 14. However, several of these studies still make noteworthy contributions. See, for example, S. Kh. Alishev, Istoricheskie sudby narodov Srednego Povolzh’ia XVI–nachalo XIX v. (Moscow, 1990); Aidar Nogmanov, Tatary Srednego Pololzh’ia i Priural’ia v Rossiiskom zakonodatel’stve vtoroi poloviny XVI–XVIII vv. (Kazan, 2002). 15. In addition to those mentioned above, see E. L. Dubman, Khoziaistvennoe osvoenie Srednego Povolzh’ia v XVII veke: Po materialam tserkovno-monastyrskikh vladenii (Kuibyshev, 1991); A. Akhmetov, Agrarno-krest’ianskie otnosheniia i sotsial’no-politicheskoe razvitie simbirsko-ul’ianovskogo zavolzh’ia v XVII–XX vekakh (Ul’ianovsk, 2004). 16. The exception is Andreas Kappeler, who took a broad view of the region, but considers the era between 1552 and the eighteenth century one...