In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

238 Рецензии/Reviews ХХ вв. городских видов одежды, автор отмечает, что “главным тор- мозом диффузии инноваций оста- валось традиционное отношение к костюму” (С. 351), “диффузия инноваций ‘пробуксовывала’ из- за традиционалистской критики” (С. 352), “низкая покупательная способность сельского населе- ния оставалась тормозом распро- странения инноваций и в начале ХХ в.” (С. 357), но в результате приходит к выводу, что “перцеп- ция народной средой посредством щегольства европейской одежды привела к изменению содержания самого этого понятия: оно все более наполнялось европейским содержанием” (С. 360). Возника- ет вопрос: если бы вместо слова “диффузия” автор использовала такие понятия, как “заимствова- ние”, “адаптация”, “рецепция” и пр., вывод был бы иным? Высказанные сомнения ни в коей мере не снижают научной значимости предпринятой ека- теринбургскими коллегами по- пытки теоретизировать одну из ключевых проблем российской истории. Они лишь подчеркива- ют, что на этом направлении еще много предстоит сделать. Charles J. HALPERIN Б.Р.Рахимзянов.Касимовское ханство (1445–1552 гг.): Очерки истории. Казань: Татарcкое книжное издательство, 2009. 207 c. Библиография. Приложе- ния. Цветные иллюстрации. ISBN: 978-5-298-01721-3. Bulat Rakhimzianov is a senior research fellow of the Institute of History of theAcademy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan and lecturer in history at the Russian Islamic University. This excellent monograph delivers more than its title promises, studies in the history of Muscovy’s vassal khanate of Kasimov. It not only comprehensively analyzes the early history of the Kasimov khanate but also sheds considerable light upon the histories of Russia, the Crimea and Kazan during this period. Kasimovskoe khanstvo consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography, and appendices . There is no index. In his Introduction, Rakhimzianov articulates the goals and limitations of the book. This study ends in 1552 when the Muscovite conquest of Kazan rendered Kasimov an anachronism. Kasimov was not called “Kasimov” until the seventeenth century. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it was called Gorodets, Gorodets Meshcherskii, 239 Ab Imperio, 1/2010 Meshchera, or the Meshchera yurt, in Turkic Khan-Kirman. Rakhimzianov proposes that the word “khanate” best reflects its status as one of the successors of the Golden Horde (it would be better to discard this anachronistic Russian term and use “Juchid ulus”). Rakhimzianov poses the central question of Kasimov history, how a Muslim Tatar khanate arose and continued to exist on Orthodox Russian soil. Rakhimzianov’s monograph is based primarily on Russian sources, since sources from the Kasimov Court are almost totally lacking. He consulted Russian- and English-language scholarship. In Chapter 1, Rakhimzianov notes that most Russian archival materials on Kasimov date to the second period of its history, 1552–1681. He follows those historians who accept the authenticity of the yarlik of Khan Ahmed of the Great Horde to Ivan III and who date the “Kazan History” to 1564–1565. He comments upon nearly every previous historian who has ever expressed any opinion about Kasimov’s history. Chapter 2 discusses the formation and structure of the Kasimov khanate. Rakhimzianov convincingly argues that the creation of the Kasimov khanate (Pp. 47–65) could only have occurred at the conjuncture of the nascent breakup of the Juchid ulus and the Muscovite “feudal” (i.e., civil) war of the midfifteenth century. The establishment of the Kasimov khanate was part of Grand Prince Vasilii II’s payoff to Ulug-Muhammed for his release after he was captured at the battle of Suzdal in 1437.At this time, Muscovy could hardly have been thinking of creating an advance post against steppe raids or using Kasimov as a tool in the battle for succession to the legacy of the Juchid ulus. Only under Ivan III did Muscovy transform the “minus” of Kasimov into a “plus” in its foreign policy. Kasimov began as a tribute-receiving state, not a “vassal ” of Muscovy. There is a peculiar pattern to the titles ascribed by the Russian sources to rulers of Kasimov. Rulers of Kasimov who had not previously sat on the throne of another khanate are called tsarevich, which usually translated the title “sultan” (son of a khan), not “khan.” In the period covered by Rakhimzianov’s book, the exceptions are Nur-Daulet, who had previously been khan of the Crimea, and Shakh-Ali, after he had served as khan of Kazan. Why the Russian sources did not treat the ruler of Kasimov as a khan, when all such rulers were Chingisids, requires explanation. Unfortunately, we cannot know if the Kasimov Tatars called the ruler of Kasimov “khan” because we have no written sources in Tatar from Kasimov from this period. However, it remains odd reading a history of a “khanate” that 240 Рецензии/Reviews seems to have been ruled most of the time by a sultan. Kasimov occupied a different status than the “feedings” (kormlenie) assigned to Tatars in various Russian cities because it could only be held by Chingisids. Rakhimzianov endorses Mikhail Tikhomirov’s intuitive insight that in respect to their Russian subjects, the rulers of Kasimov nevertheless acted as kormlenshchiki but those same rulers of Kasimov were sovereigns vis-àvis their Muslim Tatar subjects. Unfortunately , no sources corroborate this intriguing theory. The structure of...

pdf

Share