Ivan the Great of Moscow by J. L. I. Fennell (review)

79. TI• CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW cover thesixteenth andtheseventeenth centuries andthree hundred andtwenty- •vepages "the last 150 years ofseffdo,,m." The final twenty-page chapter presents 'some conclusions andgeneralizations withspecial reference to thereasons for theabolition of serfdom. Thevolume also includes a Glossary, a Bibliography in the form of a "listof workscited,"an Index,andthreemislabelled andmiserable maps. LordanclPeasant in Russia is a majorundertaking dealing with a hugeand rofoundlsi illcantsub'ectIt isnotsurprising, therefore, thatit hasalready p y gn ] . evoked a strong response ranging from exlxava•ant praise toforceful condemnation .Professor Blumhasbeenjusfiycongratulated onproducing a significant work,notable at thesame timeforit•breadthanditsclar-ity of e•pression- . Perhaps stillmoreimportant, in addition tosummarizing anengrmous literature, he hasconsistently presented hisown,o•tenunorthodox, viewsontheissues under discussion.In a certain sense it is unkind to ask for moreß Unfortunately Lord and Peasant in Russia hasthe vicesof itsvirtues.The scope issovastthattheauthor cannottreateverysubject underdiscussion with the samemastery. In generalhe is betterin the morerecentperiod,and on economic andsocial, ratherthanonpolitical orlegal,issues. Therearea considerablenumber ofmistakes andmisprin•s Professor Blum's insistence oninte retin ß rp g aswellaspresenting thematerial andonhisownindependent judgment also has i•s reverse side.The troubleis that whilehe states strong opinions on crucial ma•ters, suchasthenature, weight,andevolution of theobligations of theserfs in thedecades preceding theemancipation, hedoes nothavethespace toargue hiscase fully,nortopresent adequately divergent views. Asa result some ofhis conclusions tendtobemisleading, oratleast highly questionable. Perhaps inevitably most thoughtful readers will thinkof waysto kinprove this book. Buttheywillbeatthesame timegrateful toProfessor BlumforhisaccorapUniversity of California Berkeley NICHOLAS V. RIASANOVSKY IvantheGreatol½ Moscow. ByJ.L. I. FENNELL. London: Macmillan & Co.Ltd. [Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited].1961.Pp.xiv, 386, map.$10ß50. THEAUTHOR HAS PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED MERIT by translating, editing,andintroducing to western readers thefamous correspondence ofPrince Andrew Kurbsky with Ivar•, IV.Henow devotes asubstantial and inmany ways valuable work to thelatter s grandfather. The title wouldindicate a full biographical study. This ambition, however, the authordisclaims in hisPreface, wherehe limitshisgoals tothe"study of theexpansion of thegrand principality of Moscow," without any detailed discussion ofIvan's internal policy oroftheeconomic andsocial structure of thecountry during hisreign.It ishardlylegitimate tocriticize a writerfornot having donewhatheneversetoutto do.Nevertheless onemayperhaps express regretthat this limitationgivesthe wholework a somewhat two-dimensional character. It seems evendoubtful whether theprocess of expansion itself-Ivan's "gatherinoftheRussian lands" -is full understandable in allitsmotivations and g Y implications withouta somewhat morethan cursory glanceuponthe internal situation and development in the Muscovy of the laterfifteenthcentury. Yet r•vmws 73 Fennell goes sofarin hisself-limitation that-in a book withthistitle-thenameof Sophia Paleologus does notmakemorethana fleeting appearance until,at the veryend,herroleisdiscussed in connection withthedynastic crisis of 1497,a quarter of a century afterherarrival in Moscow. Fennell issurely rightwhen,in agreement withtheviewsexpressed earlier by Sawa,Bazilevich, andVernarisky, he considers Sophia's influenceas lessimportantthan had previously been assumed. Yetthewhole issue oftheByzantine marriage brought •tbout withsuch unrealistic expectations bytheHolySeemighthaveratedsome attention evenin a workdevoted mainlyto issues of Muscovite foreign policyandexpansion. The fre uenfly heard older versionregardingIvan's attitudedurin the Tartar invqasion of 1480-accusing the grand prince of confusion and cowardice-is rightly disposed of by Fennell,againin agreement withBazilevich. The sequence of eventsthat reallystands in the centreof the bookis the development oftherelations between thetwogrand principalities thencontaining the bulk of the Russian peoples-Muscovy and Lithuania.With impressive thoroughness andclarityFennell des'cribes thewas in whichIvanbuiltu what Y was meant to be asystem of alliances against the western neighhour, an• what at leastprovided himwith greater freedom of action. In evengreater detailhe treatsthe diplomatic andmilitarywar of attritionthat Ivan wagedsosuccessfully against hisson-in-law, Alexander theJagiellon. He builds up hisevidence fromsources someof whicharenaive,laconic, andcontradictory, but the total picture emerging isclearenough: it isthatofanoutstanding leader ofthepolitics andstrategy of hiscoun , cautious andpatientyet determined, a manwho neverceases to concentrate all hismeans andto labourwith an imperturbable sense of purpose towardhisgreatgoalof national unification. It is difficult to judgewhether Fennell does notoverdraw a littlethepicture of a rational statesmanof a rathermodern calibre. Yetit mustbesaidthatin general Fennellisfar fromidealizing hisobject-hecertainly brings outclearlyenough Ivan'sreligious narrowness andhiscomplete lackof understanding for anyvalues notpurely Russian. Thuswe probably cantrust,with few exceptions (like occasional modernizing anachronisms in hismilitaryterminology), Fennell's over-all judgment on Ivan's stature and role. Therearesome minorquestions. Why didFennell-ffhisbibliographical list includes the bulk of the materi.]l providing the basis of his research-make so little...