The paper provides an attempt of a comprehensive reconstruction of the absolute chronology of Rurikid’ polity in the first half of the 10th century, its historical geography and territorial organization during this period. Separately, is made an attempt to recreate the model of the social structure of communities of Rus’ in the first half – the middle of the 10th century by simultaneous written sources in a comparison with the data of first Russian chronicles.
The paper substantiates that the Rurikid’s polity was created in the half a century between the conventional 910 and 960 years. Geographically this polity consisted of two of nuclear territories — the «southern» around Kiev and the «northern» around Novgorod, around which had been formed the zones for racketeering by Rus’. Rus’ was quite homogeneous society in which varied hereditary and acquired individual status, but had not yet been established rigid social hierarchy. It was a militant political community with a hereditary position of its leader (ruler). By the middle of the 10th century there was an allocation of the princely family of Rurikids as a conical ruling clan.
: History of Muscovite estate shaping in “German towns” in 1550s–1580s is closely connected with Novgorod, Pskov, Rzheva Pustaja as servicemen communities. These servicemen were the source for new landowners in the lands taken by Muscovites to the West from Narova river. Only Rzheva Pustaja was more or less studied already. The paper is an attempt to generalize the data on number and personal content of “German towns” landowners (mostly on sources of 1582) and to study the issue of the significance of the experience of making estates in Livonian lands for the day-to-day culture of Muscovite servicemen. Geography of Russian landownership in Livonia is under consideration. Also the historiographical discussions of the reasons of Russian Livonia project fail is studied in the article. Special attention is paid to the issue of Muscovite landowners evacuation from Livonia after military defeats of 1580–1582. Record books of Rzheva Pustaja and Novgorod Vodskaja pyatina included notes of the towns and districts in Livonia that have been left by the landowners. Other record books of North-Western Muscovy only mention the new strata of servicemen “new landowners of German towns”. Special groups of “Rugodiv and Jurjev newly baptized [tartars]” and “Cossacks from Govje” were also separately mentioned in the record books. In the last period of Livonian War not only Livonia itself but also some border districts of former Novgorod land were left by Muscovites. In 1582 – 1583 the Moscow Government also took responsibility for the landowners from that lost districts. V. A. Arakcheev noted the order on the land security of those servicemen issued between January 23 and March 4, 1583. In early 1580s the landowners of “German towns” received estates in “abandoned lands”. Later Court lands were spread between them.
This article (as part of a panel discussion) develops the thesis that Byzantine-Christian traditions shaped the Orthodox culture of Eastern Europe as typologically profoundly different from culture of the “Latin” world; in this respect medieval Rus’ did follow, actually, a “peculiar path” (Sonderweg) as part of Europe in the Middle Ages.
Eugenij Anisimov notes the high level of research made by Tatiana Tairova-Yakovleva, in particular considering the pieces about Ukrainian history. He notes that the problem of treason by I. Mazepa can be interpreted more generally and the fact of treason undoubtly took place.
Alexander Besov believes that the book about Hetman Mazepa by Tatiana Tairova-Yakovleva focuses rather on teleology than history. However, he fi nds the way of the author’s interpretation of the «Russia-Ukraine relations» in late 17th - early 18th centuries quite mistakable.
Alexander Kamenskii thinks that Tatiana Tairova’s book is a serious attempt of constructing a scholar biography of Ivan Mazepa. In several cases she has managed to refute some myths in historiography. One may hope that the book will stimulate other historians to conduct further research. However, they will not be able to ignore Tairova’s conception.
A. S. Karevin considers that Tairova-Yakovleva’s book is full of numerous mistakes, contradictions and baseless conclusions. The drawbacks make us not to regard the book as established scientifi c study.
Kirill Kochegarov fi nds that Mrs. Tairova-Yakovleva’s book combine several interesting observations with unacceptable and controversial points. In generally the very idea of the study seems to idealize the Mazepa personality as well as his policy. The author also overestimates the importance of the so-called Moscow clauses, grossly exaggerates Mazepa’s participation in the Russian foreign affairs, and erroneously regards centralizing military administration measures of Russian government as large-scale administrative reform in Ukraine. Moreover, active role in Church reform of Peter the Great declared by Mrs. Tairova-Yakovleva Mazepa’s has not been proved.
Igor Kurukin: Despite the information on administrative reform of 1707 (s.322-330) given by the author, it isn’t clear, was the Ukrainian autonomy liquidated or not. There is a disputable question on what extend was Mazepa supported by the Ukraine people as well as cossack «starshina». Provinces being attached to Russia Baltic were able to remain independent for one and a half centuries. Being different by birth Ukrainian elite did’t manage to develop rules of corporate behavior and solidarity.
Plokhii Serhii: The myth of Mazepa as betrayer have been solidly examined in Mrs. Tairova-Yakovleva’s scientifi c and creative lab. The author has succeed in showing — and more carefully than her redecessor — the diffi culty of both personal and public, geopolitics, choice which Mazepa had to make. The book is, if it is a proper name, the most balanced judgment of the hetman I have ever read.
Chukhlib Taras. The violation of oath to the Russian monarch by Ukrainian Hetmanstate was interpreted by Ivan Mazepa and his government as tyrannical action of Peter the Great. Therefore, the hetman received the right to refuse from «the high hand» of tsar and look for another suzerain to maintain his vassal autonomy.
T. H. Tairova-Yakovleva finds this decision quite adequate and revealing us the logic of actions of the Ukrainian leader.
The subjekt of interest is so-called "helmet of Ivan the Terrible" (Livrustcammaren< Stockholm). Text put some arguments conserning new belonging an date of the helmet and connect it with political struggle of late 15 - early 16 st.