Rossijskaja imperija ot istokov do načala XIX veka. Očerki social’no-političeskoj i ėkonomičeskoj istorii. Red. koll. A. I. Aksenov [etc.]. Moskva: Russkaja panorama, 2011. 879 S., Abb. ISBN: 978-5-93165-267-2

Rossijskaja imperija ot istokov do načala XIX veka. Očerki social’no-političeskoj i ėkonomičeskoj istorii. Red. koll. A. I. Aksenov [etc.]. Moskva: Russkaja panorama, 2011. 879 S., Abb. ISBN: 978-5-93165-267-2.

From an editorial point of view, this is an ugly collection. It is obviously based on papers presented at some large-scale domestic conference, but its origin, as well as its purpose, is not explained anywhere. It is also obvious that this collection was prepared in haste, without screening of manuscripts for quality (the collection includes 26 chapters), and without coordination between the authors in terms of concept, style, and volume. Some authors contributed 105, 93, and 88 pages, others just 11, 12, and 14. The author of the largest chapter with 105 pages (N A. Soboleva), following the Soviet tradition, does not divide it into sections, so it is almost impossible to read. There is no list of the contributors’ biographies. What is amazing is that the Institute of Russian History, RAN (among others, its director until 2010 Andrei Nikolaevich Sakharov) initiated this project. Possibly, this collection was compiled to commemorate Sakharov’s retirement.

The collection’s focus on the medieval and early modern periods of Russian history attracts our attention. Imperial studies of Russia have mainly addressed the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries or, to a lesser extent, the eighteenth century. Recently, even the Soviet period is being included in the scope of the imperial approach (e.g., Terry Martin), but Russia’s pre-modern period still seems to be left outside this scope. This neglect of pre-modern Russia as an embryo of empire marks a clear contrast to, for example, studies of the British Empire, in which the “composite monarchy school” (J. G. A. Pocock, David Armitage) plays a significant role. What shall we come to know if we analyse pre-modern Russia via the prism of imperiology? ‒ Many readers will reach for this collection with this anticipation. Yet we barely find an answer to this question. For example, chapters on state institutions (N. M. Rogožin, A. I. Aksenov) provide an ordinary history of state institutions, without asking how Russia’s transformation into an empire affected, and was affected by, institutional reforms. Transportation (E. G. Istomina) is an important topic in imperiology, but this chapter only describes the development of road and river transportation corresponding to Russia’s territorial expansion. Part I (Geopolitics) focussing on Russia’s activities in its frontier zones is perhaps the most interesting part of this collection, but the authors do not seem to share a common approach to Russia’s frontier policy during the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries. It seems urgent for specialists in pre-modern Russia to ponder the applicability and merits of the imperial approach to the period of their research.

Perhaps the only consistent idea integrating this collection is that Russia’s territorial expansion was motivated not by some ‘imperial ideas’ allegedly shared by ruling elites, but by concrete geopolitical situations. Constantly surrounded by stronger and more efficient enemies, Russia’s will to survive drove it towards obtaining one or another new territory. The authors (for example, N. I. Nikitin) criticize Andreas Kappeler’s ideational interpretation of Russia’s expansion. By the same token, N. A. Soboleva traces a huge historiography on the concept of “Moscow – the Third Rome” and argues that the function of this concept in the religious and political discourse of Russia was much more complex than is usually understood. It is strange that Soboleva does not seem to follow John Meyendorff (1926–1992), the harshest critic of the exaggeration of the role played by the Third Rome concept in Russian Orthodox and secular history. If the Russians had asserted that Moscow was the Third Rome, it would have been an overt violation of one of the decisions made by the Chalcedon Council, which determined Constantinople’s status as “primus inter pares”. Even though scepticism of the presence of Russia’s consistent imperial idea is the other side of the collection’s apologetic tone towards the Russian Empire, understanding this empire as a “vulnerable empire” or an “empire of expediency” is a persuasive idea.

We should try to understand the present Russian historians’ apologetic mood vis-a-vis the Russian Empire, but advocacy should be based on sources. For example, Ia. E. Vodarskii quotes from a book of G. V. Forsten published in St. Petersburg in 1893 when he refers to Karl IX’s letter, in which Karl argues that Russia’s Time of Troubles was a chance for Sweden to expand territorially (p. 60). These kinds of politically arguable statements should be quoted from the original language sources, not from literature published in Russian.

Kimitaka Matsuzato, Sapporo