Content area
Full text
The Cambridge History of Russia: Volume I: From Early Rus' to 1689. Ed. by Maureen Per-rie. Cambridge University Press Cambridge [usw.] 2006. XXE, 777 S., Abb., Ktn., Tab. ISBN: 978-0-521-81227-6.
The Cambridge History of Russia. Volume II: Imperial Russia, 1689 1917. Ed. by Dominic Lieven. Cambridge University Press Cambridge [usw.] 2006. XVIII, 765 S., Abb., Ktn. ISBN: 978-0-521-81529-1.
The Cambridge History of Russia. Volume III: The Twentieth Century. Ed. by Ronald Grigor Suny. Cambridge University Press Cambridge [usw.] 2006. XXIV, 842 S., Abb., Ktn. ISBN: 978-0-521-81144-6.
Noting the tendency of current unnamed "Eng¬lish language histories of Russia to be based on outdated and ill-informed studies," MAUREEN PERRIE, editor of the first volume of the new Cambridge History, promises instead "the most recent interpretations of serious scholars in or¬der to provide an authoritative and reliable new account of pre-Petrine Russia." By and large she succeeds: both novice and seasoned schol¬ars will find, with few exceptions, solid, well-written, state-of-the-art scholarship here.
After a smart overview of the geographical environment by DENIS J. B. SHAW, JONATHAN SHEPARD surveys a wide range of archeological and written sources to make sense of the origin of Rus' through the reign of Vladimir and Christianization. The chapter on Rus' itself, 1015 1125, by SIMON FRANKLIN, is a model of clarity and organization, even if the depicted reality is 'grubbier' than its image. To MARTIN DMNIK falls the untidy fragmentation of the twelfth century, and almost unavoidably his ac¬count is dense and difficult. All three authors struggle to balance theory with obvious excep¬tion in Kiev's dynastic system. Wisely Maureen Perrie assigns both the age of the Golden Horde (1240 1359) and the rise of Moscow (1359 1462) to JANET MARTIN, whose earlier Cam¬bridge textbook serves her well as she struggles to provide the rationale for continuity between Kiev and Muscovy, largely on the basis of Church and dynasty. At this point the chrono¬logy is broken by V. L. IANIN'S essay on Novgorod, which ably documents just how ali¬en, how uniquely non-Kievan the northern en¬trepot really was. An essay on the other Rus', medieval Lithuania, would also have been wel¬come.
DON OSTROWSKI writes on Moscow 1462 1533, and predictably the influences of the steppe are everywhere apparent in an essay fully consonant with recent...