12. Avrekh, p. 83.
16. Avrekh, p. 82.
17. Ibid., p. 87.
23. Ibid., p. 92. This contradiction on Avrekh's part is so glaring that Sakharov, of course, immediately jumped on him, commenting ironically: "It turns out that when serfdom was weaker, 'Asiatic despotism' was stronger; but when serfdom became more severe, 'Asiatic forms of government' were relaxed to such a point that 'external' analogies to Western European absolutism appeared" (A. N. Sakharov, p. 113).
25. M. P. Pavlova-Sil'vanskaia, "K voprosu ob osobennostiakh absoliutizma v Rossii," p. 77.
26. Ibid., p. 85.
40. Ibid., p. 143.
43. S. M. Troitskii, p. 148.
4. Ibid., p. 332.
6. Tibor Szamuely,
7. Treadgold, ed., p. 332.
8. Ibid., p. 336.
10. Tibor Szamuely, p. 88.
11. Conversely, the resources of Russia were meager only while it remained a relatively small country. When it became gigantic, Russia simultaneously became one of the richest nations in resources.
Wittfogel takes very seriously the argument that it was the Tatars, and not the Byzantines, who were the forefathers of despotism in Russia. "Byzantium's influence on Kievan Russia was great, but it was primarily cultural," he writes.
14. A. Toynbee, "Russia's Byzantine Heritage," pp. 83, 87, 94, 95.
12. K. Wittfogel,
13. Treadgold, ed„ p. 355.
25. Ibid., p. 70. 26. Ibid., p. 23.. 27. Ibid., p. 95.
35. Ibid., p. 69. 36. Ibid., p. 112. 37. Ibid., p. 69. 38. Ibid., p. 104.
39. A. M. Sakharov, "Ob evoliutsii feodal'noi sobstvennosti na zemliu v Rossiiskom gosudarstve XVI veka," p. 28.
40. R. Pipes, p. 106.
41. Ibid., p. 65.
11. J. L. I. Fennel,
13. Ibid., p. 47.
14. R. G. Skrynnikov,
15. R. G. Skrynnikov,
16. Skrynnikov,