The prolific Iurii Vasil’evich Seleznev of Voronezh State University, author of more than eighty scholarly works, has now provided scholars with an invaluable biographical dictionary of the elite of the Juchid ulus from the time of its creation through the first third of the fifteenth century when that ulus began to fragment. This book will become an essential reference tool in all future research on the Juchid ulus and Rus’-Tatar relations.
Seleznev’s “Introduction” (Pp. 5-23) is a concise social history of the Juchid ulus and a political history of its elite. These themes could easily be the subject of an entire monograph. He highlights the interaction of social status, military office, and genealogy in determining the careers of the aristocracy of the Juchid ulus. Seleznev defines the elite to include Chinggisids; non-Chinggisid aristocrats called noyon in Mongol, bek in Turkic, emir in Arabic and Persian, and prince (kniaz’) in Rus’ sources; and Muslim clergy. Although obviously drawing upon his previous research, he also makes many original observations about individuals, events, and processes. Seleznev compares the charges for which Grand Prince Mikhail of Tver’ was executed to the accusations against Grand Prince Vasilii II of Moscow used to justify his overthrow. He draws an analogy between the procedure of installing a Rus’ prince who had received a charter (yarlyk) to a throne and the Mongol ceremony for raising a noble to the rank of noyon. Seleznev’s comments on the tension between the autocratic authority of the khan and the power of the elite would have been enhanced by situating them within the context of recent Western scholarship on the collegial and consensual elements of the Mongol Empire and its successor states and of Inner Asian pastoral nomadic empires in general. I am skeptical that Grand Prince Aleksandr Nevskii assuaged Tatar chagrin at the urban revolts of 1262 by persuading the Tatars to accept financial contributions in lieu of all future conscription. That there was a monetary penalty payment in 1262 is highly likely, but the chronicle does not mention recruitment (the Rus’ chronicles never mention conscription per se) rather than taxation as the precipitating factor of the 1262 revolt and it is most plausible that the 1327 uprising in Tver’ against Chol-khan was connected to conscription. Seleznev’s stimulating analysis always raises interesting questions.
The bulk of the book is a biographical dictionary of the elite (Pp. 24-226), whose entries are enhanced by maps (not all equally legible) and genealogical tables (Pp. 227-231). Some entries or parts thereof were written by A. V. Kuz’min. Each entry presents, when available, the individual’s ancestry and progeny, a narrative of his or her activities, and to the greatest extent possible a comprehensive list of relevant sources and secondary works. This is an impressive feat of collecting and collating massive data from Rus’ and Oriental written sources, numismatics, archaeology, and art history. The value of such a reference work will be immediately apparent to all historians. The most extensive entries describe (in descending order) Idegei (Pp. 78-88), Nogai (Pp. 138-145), Mamai (Pp. 119-124), and Tokhtamysh (Pp. 182-186). Each entry requires to a greater or lesser degree reconciling and synthesizing the evidence into a straightforward encyclopedia-style entry. Not all specialists will agree with each of the innumerable judgments Seleznev had to make to compose such narratives. His candidate for the “real” Petr, tsarevich of the Horde, is certainly intriguing. I am dubious that the Rus’ chronicle notation that Metropolitan Maksim left Kiev in 1299 for Vladimir-on-the-Kliazma because of Tatar oppression “in all likelihood” alluded to the Muslim Nogai’s harsh attitude toward Christians, for which no evidence is advanced.
Seleznev assiduously informs the reader when different names might pertain to the same person or when different sources present different genealogies of the same individual. When he does so he usually analyzes the reliability of each source. Different transliterations of the same name are included separately and cross-referenced, although I do not know what purpose was served by twice referencing “Mukhammed Uzbek” (Pp. 209, 213) when the entry under that name merely cross-references the entry under “Uzbek.” Sometimes but not always Seleznev indicates the specific source cited from such anthologies as Tizenhausen or Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv. Unfortunately not all entries follow Seleznev’s template. The entry for Buval, son of Juchi, does not include the names of his sons, which is significant because in Seleznev’s exposition one son, Tatar (Tutar), fathered Nogai. This example dovetails with a second occasional issue, that Seleznev finesses some scholarly disputes. One would not know from his depiction that Nogai’s ancestry as a Chinggisid has been disputed. Similarly, Seleznev cites the version of Tokhtamysh’s ancestry in Muizz from Batu’s son Teku Timur without mentioning the alternative genealogy in Zambaur from Batu’s son Orda.
It would be impossible within the compass of a book of this length to present exhaustive references to sources or secondary works. The citations for Rus’ chronicles, which I know best, are not always comprehensive. Seleznev’s citations to scholarly works in Western languages are extremely sparing, although, to be sure, a few salient English- or German-language works are utilized via Russian translations. His references to Tatar-language studies, inaccessible to me, are even more sparse.
In recognition that this book will be consulted at random, identical narrative segments are repeated for each individual involved in the same event, although there is a flaw in the quotation of the charges brought against Grand Prince Mikhail of Tver’ in 1318 (on P. 200); a clause mentioning his desire to flee to the pope in Rome has been deleted. However, this appreciation of how the book will be utilized was not taken into account in fashioning the apparatus. After the first full bibliographical entry, Seleznev employs abbreviated references. To be sure, there are also not immediately understandable exceptions when he repeats the full entries. Therefore, historians entering the book in medias res will have to backtrack abbreviations to find full citations to publications. There is no “List of Abbreviations” or, what would have been better still, comprehensive bibliography with both long and short references. Finally, secondary works are cited in alphabetical order; whereas in tracing the evolution of scholarship, chronological sequence might have been more useful.
As in his previous work “A peremenit Bog Ordu...” (russko-ordynskie otnosheniia v kontse XIV – pervoi treti XV vv.),^[1] Seleznev continues to believe that the Yasa was a single law code issued by Chinggis Khan; to date the Zadonshchina following Rzhiga, which has few adherents among specialists in Old Rus’ literature nowadays; and to cite the Trinity Chronicle as if it were a source, not a reconstruction. Although in that volume Seleznev admirably eschewed use of the anachronistic term the “Golden Horde,” here he takes a step backward and indiscriminately uses “Juchid ulus” and “Golden Horde” as synonyms.
In his “Introduction” Seleznev provides no statistical analysis whatsoever, not even an estimate of the total number of entries; my guess is between 1,500 and 2,000. He counts neither the numbers of Chinggisids versus non-Chinggisids among the secular elite nor the number of clerics. He does not track tribal or geographic names, for which an index would have been extremely helpful. As in the Great Mongol Empire, women in the Juchid ulus could exercise decisive political influence, enough to be executed if their schemes failed, so Seleznev rightfully includes women among the elite but he does not provide a total. There is no total of the number of Tatars who became Orthodox Christian converts. A definitive prosopographical study should entail quantitative analysis.
From the perspective of source study, it would be intriguing, at least to this reviewer, to aggregate how many individuals are known only from Rus’ sources, how many only from Oriental sources, and how many are found in both, which might provide very intriguing insights into how reliable each group of sources is. Additional source types, such as treaties with Venice, are also of interest.
Of course, just by themselves the names in the dictionary will provide much food for thought for linguists and specialists in onomastics. But in addition, buried within the biographical entries, if read from cover to cover, one can find a wealth of anecdotal information of great relevance and utility for constructing an entertaining and enlightening social history of the Juchid ulus. Here one can find divorces and marital discord, and family feuds galore. My favorite is the story of Tuguldzha, daughter of Nogai, husband of Emir Taza, who in 1301 reputedly mounted a horse and fought in battle against her husband on behalf of her brother Dzheki.
This is an outstanding contribution to medieval Rus’ and Tatar history. Seleznev indicates that this project is a work in progress that he hopes to supplement. For this purpose he invites colleagues to send him corrections and additions. It is to be hoped that this solicitation does not go unanswered and that eventually a definitive catalogue of the elite of the Juchid ulus can be compiled.