Элита Золотой Орды: Научно-справочное издание по Ю. В. Селезнев (review)

396 Рецензии/Reviews Charles J. HALPERIN Ю. В. Селезнев. Элита Золотой Орды: Научно-справочное изда- ние. Казань: Издательство “Фен” Академии Наук Республики Та- тарстан, 2009. 232 с., ил., таб., карты. ISBN: 978-5-9690-0068-1. The prolific Iurii Vasil’evich Seleznev of Voronezh State University , author of more than eighty scholarly works, has now provided scholars with an invaluable biographical dictionary of the elite of the Juchid ulus from the time of its creation through the first third of the fifteenth century when that ulus began to fragment. This book will become an essential reference tool in all future research on the Juchid ulus and Rus’-Tatar relations. Seleznev’s “Introduction” (Pp. 5-23) is a concise social history of the Juchid ulus and a political history of its elite. These themes could easily be the subject of an entire monograph . He highlights the interaction of social status, military office, and genealogy in determining the careers of the aristocracy of the Juchid ulus. Seleznev defines the elite to include Chinggisids; non-Chinggisid aristocrats called noyon in Mongol, bek in Turkic, emir in Arabic and Persian, and prince (kniaz’) in Rus’ sources; and Muslim clergy. Although obviously drawing upon his previous research, he also makes many origiOverall , Pamiat’ o voine provides a good basis for those doing further research. Providing access to a wealth of well-established “memory studies” outside of Russia is an honorable endeavor, yet the contributions here clearly indicate that a literal translation and adaptation of this scholarship is impossible. As Halbwachs knew, all memory depends on the concrete social context. This is true of scholarly analysis as well, and I sincerely hope that readers and scholars in Russia approach the given analyses with caution and sufficient distance to identify gaps and problems. However, the book offers texts not previously available in Russian translation, a broad selection of recent research, and an innovative look at memory studies in the Russian context that can lay the groundwork for further studies on political, social, and cultural remembering in the post-Soviet space. 397 Ab Imperio, 4/2009 The bulk of the book is a biographical dictionary of the elite (Pp. 24-226), whose entries are enhanced by maps (not all equally legible) and genealogical tables (Pp. 227-231). Some entries or parts thereof were written by A. V. Kuz’min. Each entry presents, when available, the individual’s ancestry and progeny, a narrative of his or her activities, and to the greatest extent possible a comprehensive list of relevant sources and secondary works. This is an impressive feat of collecting and collating massive data from Rus’ and Oriental written sources, numismatics , archaeology, and art history. The value of such a reference work will be immediately apparent to all historians. The most extensive entries describe (in descending order ) Idegei (Pp. 78-88), Nogai (Pp. 138-145), Mamai (Pp. 119-124), and Tokhtamysh (Pp. 182-186). Each entry requires to a greater or lesser degree reconciling and synthesizing the evidence into a straightforward encyclopedia-style entry. Not all specialists will agree with each of the innumerable judgments Seleznev had to make to compose such narratives. His candidate for the “real” Petr, tsarevich of the Horde, is certainly intriguing. I am dubious that the Rus’ chronicle notation that Metropolitan Maksim left Kiev in 1299 for Vladimir-on-the-Kliazma because of Tatar oppression “in all likelihood” alluded to the Muslim Nogai’s harsh nal observations about individuals, events, and processes. Seleznev compares the charges for which Grand Prince Mikhail of Tver’ was executed to the accusations against Grand Prince Vasilii II of Moscow used to justify his overthrow. He draws an analogy between the procedure of installing a Rus’ prince who had received a charter (yarlyk) to a throne and the Mongol ceremony for raising a noble to the rank of noyon. Seleznev’s comments on the tension between the autocratic authority of the khan and the power of the elite would have been enhanced by situating them within the context of recent Western scholarship on the collegial and consensual elements of the Mongol Empire and its successor states and of InnerAsian pastoral nomadic empires in general. I am skeptical that Grand PrinceAleksandr Nevskii assuaged Tatar chagrin at the urban revolts of 1262 by persuading theTatars to accept financial contributions in lieu of all future...