Jurij V. Anchimjuk Častnye razrjadnye knigi s zapisjami za poslednjuju četvert’ XV – načalo XVII vekov [Private Dienstlistenbücher mit Aufzeichnungen für die Zeit vom letzten Viertel des 15. bis zum Anfang des 17. Jahrhunderts]. Izdat. Drevlechranilišče Moskva 2005. ISBN: 5-93646-083-5

Jurij V. Anchimjuk Častnye razrjadnye knigi s zapisjami za poslednjuju četvert’ XV – načalo XVII vekov [Private Dienstlistenbücher mit Aufzeichnungen für die Zeit vom letzten Viertel des 15. bis zum Anfang des 17. Jahrhunderts]. Izdat. Drevlechranilišče Moskva 2005. 463 S., 16 Abb. ISBN: 5-93646-083-5.

Historians have long drawn upon the military service registers (razryadnye knigi), official logs of appointments compiled by the Muscovite Military Chancellery, for various types of data, ranging from individual career patterns to studies of particular campaigns, the system of state and local governance, or larger questions of social structure and mobility. Iu. V. Ankhimyuk’s book gives researchers codicological analyses of manuscripts containing the Military Service Register for 1475–1605, other permutations of the service registers (1487–1577, 1478–1603, 1586–1604, 1557–1601, 1479–1605, 1598–1602, 1600–1605, 1564–1604, 1479–1609, 1375–1609, 1471–1631, 1375–1581, 1493–1605, 1559–1605, 1550–1636, 1485–1599), and a number of unique compilations surviving in single copies. Using this overview of the available source base, Ankhimyuk sets up a framework for categorizing these manuscripts, and goes beyond the more technical aspects to raise broader questions about the complexities involved in their composition and subsequent recompilation.

Drawing upon unpublished copies of the registers, Ankhimyuk follows I. D. Belyaev, P. N. Milyukov, N. P. Likhachev, and Iu. N. Mel’nikov in concluding that, until the early seventeenth century and the appearance of a new form of annual registers, the military service chancellery kept only one ‘state service register,’ compiling books at the end of each reign on the basis of working files. The so-called “Expanded” (Prostrannaya) register reflects private compilations rather than a second ‘official’ version. Families created these anthologies for practical use. The Muscovite system of precedence (mestnichestvo), which was based on a combination of clan status as evidenced in previous service appointments and the individual’s position within his clan, made it vital for families to document their history so as to safeguard their standing. Therefore, clans created their own reference collections of service orders, precedence litigation records, entries copied from the official registers, genealogies, notes of appointments evidently recorded from memory, wedding ceremony lists, and family legends, along with excerpts from chronicles and other narrative sources.

As Ankhimyuk points out, some of the data in the private compilations have not been preserved elsewhere (e.g., military assignments later changed for various reasons, with only the final version preserved in the official register, and wedding lists such as those for the marriages of Duke Magnus in 1573 or Ivan IV and Mariya Nagaya in 1580). Other entries suggest that later compilers perhaps ‘improved’ the service standing of their ancestors. Even if the data must be used with caution, the private ‘family chronicles’ generally preserve a wider range of information and include assignments of lesser status than the official registers. In broader perspective, the existence of so many private anthologies raises the larger question of how their compilers were able to copy extensive excerpts from such a variety of documents and literary materials. In Ankhimyuk’s view, gaining access to official records was difficult and compilers supplemented their own archives with material borrowed from relatives and friends or paid clerks to make copies. Whether this was the case deserves more study, as does the question of how compilers were able to make use of chronicles and literary narratives. Ankhimyuk has opened a window onto a vital archival resource, reminding us that issues of literacy, record-keeping, and access to written materials among the Muscovite elite are fundamental to a deeper understanding of early modern Rus’. We will all profit greatly from further investigation of this important set of sources.

Ann M. Kleimola, Lincoln, NE