Боярские списки 1645–1667 гг. как истори-ческий источник по М. Р. Белоусов (review)

400 Рецензии/Reviews cord, and family feuds galore. My favorite is the story of Tuguldzha, daughter of Nogai, husband of Emir Taza, who in 1301 reputedly mounted a horse and fought in battle against her husband on behalf of her brother Dzheki. This is an outstanding contribution to medieval Rus’ and Tatar history. Seleznev indicates that this project is a work in progress that he hopes to supplement. For this purpose he invites colleagues to send him corrections and additions. It is to be hoped that this solicitation does not go unanswered and that eventually a definitive catalogue of the elite of the Juchid ulus can be compiled. Matthew ROMANIELLO М. Р. Белоусов. Боярские спи- ски 1645–1667 гг. как истори- ческий источник. Т. 1. Казань, Институт истории АН РТ, 2008. 315 с. ISBN: 978-5-94981-112-2. Maksim Belousov has written an index and analysis of the existing “boiar manuscripts” from the Razriadnyi Prikaz, a chancellery with sweeping responsibilities in the seventeenth century that controlled varied military and foreign policy concerns. By the mid-seventeenth century, the prikaz was one of the oldest and largest chancelleries, and it had interests in business, trade, personnel, local governance, inheritance, and land distribution, to name just a few of its areas of control. Belousov’s focus on the sources rather than on the issue of military development or logistical transformation of the seventeenth century presents the Razriadnyi Prikaz first and foremost as a Muscovite chancellery rather than only an army office. This decision brings the study into conversation with the scholars of the Muscovite government and its early modern bureaucratization1 1 These works include S. K. Bogoiavlenskii. Prikaznye d’iaki XVII veka // Istoricheskie zapiski. 1937. № 1. Pp. 220-239; N. F. Demidova. Biurokratizatsiia gosudarstvennogo apparata absoliutizma v XVII – XVIII vv. // Absoliutizm v Rossii (XVII – XVIII vv.). Moscow, 1964. Pp. 206-242; N. V. Ustiugov. Evoliutsiia prikaznogo stroia Russkogo gosudarstva v XVII v. // Ibid. Pp. 135-167; Peter Bowman Brown. Early Modern Russian Bureaucracy: The Evolution of the Chancellery System from Ivan III to Peter the Great, 401 Ab Imperio, 4/2009 a result, uncovers the broad sweep of the Razriad’s authority. The book begins with a brief discussion of the historiography of the manuscripts, followed by a critical guide to the contents of the individual works. Anyone using these sources would do well to consider Belousov’s work, as his analysis of the entire breadth of extant manuscripts helps to contextualize the various observations, policies, and ideas in the sources. Similarly, the third section makes considerable progress uncovering the communications between the more than with the historians who have focused upon the prikaz as an agency of military revolution.2 In this way, Belousov’s interest in the boiars’ participation in the government adds new information to the growing body of evidence that the Muscovite state relied upon building consensus between the tsar and his government to function politically, rather than the state being a product of autocratic dictates.3 Belousov systematically discusses the many issues and topics raised in these boiar manuscripts, and, as 1478–1717 // Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Chicago, 1978; George G. Weickhardt. Bureaucrats and Boiars in the Muscovite Tsardom // Russian History. 1983. Vol. 10. Pp. 331-356; Borivoj Plavsic. Seventeenth-Century Chanceries and Their Staffs // Walter McKenzie Pintner and Don Karl Rowney (Eds.). Russian Officialdom: The Bureaucratization of Russian Society from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill, 1980. Pp. 19-45; Gosudarstvennye uchrezhdeniia Rossii XVI – XVIII vv. / Red. N. B. Golikova. Moscow, 1991; and P. V. Lukin. Narodnye predstavleniia o gosudarstvennoi vlasti v Rossii XVII veka. Moscow, 2000. 2 Recent works along this argument include Dianne L. Smith. Muscovite Logistics, 1462–1598 // Slavonic and East European Review. 1993. Vol. 71. Pp. 35-65; Marshall Poe. The Consequences of Military Revolution in Muscovy:AComparative Perspective // Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1996. Vol. 38. Pp. 603-618; several articles from Eric Lohr and Marshall Poe (Eds.). The Military and Society in Russia, 1450–1917. Leiden, 2002; and Michael C. Paul. The Military Revolution in Russia, 1550–1682 // Journal of Military History. 2004. Vol. 68. Pp. 9-45. 3 These works include GustaveAlef. The Crisis of the MuscoviteAristocracy:AFactor in the Growth of Monarchical Power // Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte. 1970. Bd. 15. S...