А переменит Бог орду… по Ю. В. Селезнев (review)

428 Рецензии/Reviews Charles HALPERIN Ю. В. Селезнев. “А переменит Бог орду…” (Русско-ордынские отношения в конце XIV – пер- вой трети XV вв.). Воронеж: Воронежский государственный университет, 2006. 160 С. Карты, Таблицы, Приложение, Библи- ография, Именной указатель, Указатель географических имен. ISBN: 5-9273-1017-6. The Mongol conquest of and rule over the Rus’ principalities and пытается ответить современная “европеизирующая” часть исто- риографии, то ответ на него бо- лее проблематичен. Безусловно, Хефнер и Хаусманн отчетливо показали, что местная обществен- ность в царской России суще- ствовала в многообразии форм и что значение ее нельзя списывать со счетов. Однако в глобальном историческом масштабе проблема существования в России граж- данского общества представляет, видимо, не самый благодарный материал для общеевропейских сравнений и способна дать боль- шее удовлетворение скептикам, чем оптимистам. city-states remains a lively topic of historical research. Since 1991 both Russian and Tatar historians have made significant new contributions to our knowledge of the role of the Tatars in Russian history. This monograph by Iurii Vasil’evich Seleznev of Voronezh State University is devoted to the under-studied period of Russian-Tatar relations from 1382–1434, or approximately from after the sack of the city of Moscow by khan Tokhtamysh until the death of prince Iurii Dmitrievich of Galich two years after Horde Khan Ulug-Muhammed had ruled in favor of his nephew, grand prince Vasilii II, in their dynastic dispute. Most of the book is a narrative of political and military relations between Rus’ and the Horde, personified by an Appendix containing a chronological register of RussianTatar “conflicts “ (military encounters ) from 1387–1430. However, this narrative is framed by thematic subchapters which exceed the monograph ’s stated chronological limits and raise wider issues. The book begins with the usual obligatory surveys of historiography, which is quite selective of relevant Western publications, and sources. In general Seleznev does not regurgitate the often heated disputes among scholars on the dating of texts, such as the epic Zadonshchina, confining himself to citing secondary works, identifying alternatives, 429 Ab Imperio, 4/2006 Moscow, Tver’, Riazan’and Nizhnii Novgorod-Suzdal’ as captives in the Horde during the 1380s, which Seleznev interprets as a sign not of Tokhtamysh’s strength but of his vulnerability. Seleznev highlights the interplay between inter-Rus’and Rus’-Tatar relations; the provisions of treaties in which Tver’, Nizhnii Novgorod or Riazan’ princes promised not to deal separately with the Horde from Moscow impinged on Horde political privileges. Seleznev presents both Rus’ policy toward the Horde and Horde policy toward Rus’as often complex if not outrightly contradictory. He concludes that Vasilii I’s Tatar policy , given Edigei’s successful attack on Moscow in 1408, must be judged a failure. On a larger scale, Seleznev convincingly argues that the Muscovite civil war of the middle of the fifteenth century undermined progress in Rus’ aspirations toward national independence by reviving Horde influence. However, this setback should not be exaggerated. Juridically, Horde sovereignty was enhanced when Rus’ princes again traveled to the Horde for recognition of their thrones, but in practice the Rus’ princes did whatever they wanted. Payment of tribute, the defining trait of Horde sovereignty, continued until the 1470s. Less successful is Seleznev’s presentation of the possible presence of Vasilii I in Tokhtamysh’s and expressing his preference. He productively draws upon his numerous previous articles, but in his Bibliography modestly lists only six of the more than forty to his credit. (Not even all these six are readily accessible in the United States.) In general he pays the most attention to recent secondary works in Russian. When appropriate he draws upon recent scholarship in archeology, numismatics, and geography, and even the Idigu (Edigei) Turkic epic. Seleznev begins by repeating his observations on the place of the Russian principalities in the system of Horde administration and on the integration of Rus’ princes into the social and political hierarchy of the Horde.The general principles articulated here infuse the narrative which follows. One of the strengths of the monograph is precisely Seleznev’s expertise on the Horde and sensitivity to its point of view. In the narrative core of the volume Seleznev pays scrupulous attention to the interaction of the Rus’ with their Horde overlords, tracing the ebb and flow of political relations through chronicles and princely treaties and testaments. He focuses on all the north-eastern Russian principalities, not just Moscow, which facilitates his perspective on events. He emphasizes that there was no precedent for Tokhtamysh to have kept the heirs to the thrones of 430 Рецензии/Reviews forces fighting Timur in the battle on the Kunchurga (Kondurcha) river, which could have been clearer. Seleznev appreciates the social and political structure of the Horde, for example, that Edigei was not a khan and could never have aspired to become one, since he was not a...