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.
This collection of archival material and scholarly articles sheds light on new aspects of the establishment of education in Russia in the first half of the eighteenth century - one of the key processes in the history of Petrine modernisation. The material printed in this volume - much of it previously unknown or difficult to access - encompasses a wide range of texts (personal, administrative, legislative) that contain projects for the establishment or reform of educational institutions, curriculums, and pedagogical programmes suggested by academics, bureaucrats, teachers, and even fortune-seekers. The volume's authors use these texts to demonstrate how the establishment of Western-style education in Petrine and post-Petrine Russia was not so much a state endeavour as the work of administrative entrepreneurs, 'projectors' who used state resources to further their own goals. The articles in this volume consider the typology of educational projectorship, the projectors' modes of behaviour, their relationship with the state and the monarch.
The article contains an attempt to apply the concept of "a history call" to Russia of 17-19th centuries. The Peter`s hyper mechanical and Old Belief possible answers realized in the history on such call are compared. In the words of V.N. Toporov, under Peter the chance of "organic development of the Russian society" has been completely lost. The old believers’ answer to calls was based on reconsideration of orthodox tradition in new civilization conditions and development of doctrinal provisions of pre-Pertine labor ethics and also the installations of the Russian peasantry and city layers which have developed earlier. In fact social innovation of old believers at early stages of society modernization had larger spread and, in this sense, had more efficiency, than the state efforts. As a result, in relation to the state modernization the Old Belief represented by itself the realization of parallel and alternative national modernization – non-statist by character, based on tradition and realized out of the European system of values