No less than by revolution, Russian history is haunted by the specter of roads not taken. Historians of late imperial Russia might seek to avoid teleological shadows cast by 1917, but the denouement of revolutionary collapse and violent civil war inevitably looms on the horizon of all attempts to explain what became of the Great Reforms. Why did the 1860s apparently fail to deliver the promise, cherished by Russian liberals, of a law-bound, constitutional order underpinned by individual rights and representative government, which would integrate the peasantry and the non-Russians into a cohesive and stable society and withstand the dislocations of rapid modernization and ultimately of World War I? And what did liberals themselves make of the opportunities afforded to them during the turbulent decades before 1917? Were they the hapless victims of historical forces beyond their control or the authors of their own political failure? Taken together, David Feest’s Ordnung schaffen, Stefan B. Kirmse’s
{"title":"Liberalism and the Law in Late Imperial Russia","authors":"D. Beer","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0023","url":null,"abstract":"No less than by revolution, Russian history is haunted by the specter of roads not taken. Historians of late imperial Russia might seek to avoid teleological shadows cast by 1917, but the denouement of revolutionary collapse and violent civil war inevitably looms on the horizon of all attempts to explain what became of the Great Reforms. Why did the 1860s apparently fail to deliver the promise, cherished by Russian liberals, of a law-bound, constitutional order underpinned by individual rights and representative government, which would integrate the peasantry and the non-Russians into a cohesive and stable society and withstand the dislocations of rapid modernization and ultimately of World War I? And what did liberals themselves make of the opportunities afforded to them during the turbulent decades before 1917? Were they the hapless victims of historical forces beyond their control or the authors of their own political failure? Taken together, David Feest’s Ordnung schaffen, Stefan B. Kirmse’s","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41653313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Both of the books reviewed here share commonalities not only in their essaycollection format but also in their subject (cultural interactions between Russia and Europe in the 18th century). Russian-language scholarly work on this problem in the field of art history owes much to the pioneering research of D. V. Sarab ́ianov, who studied 19th-century Russian painting in the context of European schools.1 Before this book, scholars of art tended to consider Russian and European art in isolation from one another. Sarab ́ianov aimed both to identify the general features of artistic processes common to both and to reveal the national specifics of concrete phenomena; in the process, he uncovered a variety of links among different traditions, inaugurating a methodologically novel approach. He considered not only general problems (the specifics of Russian Romanticism, Realism, Impressionism, and Modernism in the European context) but more specific ones as well (comparing artists of A. G. Venetsianov’s circle and German Biedermeier art, A. A. Ivanov and the
这两本书不仅在散文集的形式上有共同之处，而且在主题(18世纪俄罗斯与欧洲的文化互动)上也有共同之处。在艺术史领域，关于这一问题的俄语学术工作在很大程度上归功于d.v.萨拉尼亚诺夫的开创性研究，他在欧洲学派的背景下研究了19世纪的俄罗斯绘画在这本书之前，艺术学者倾向于孤立地考虑俄罗斯和欧洲艺术。Sarab ø ianov旨在确定两者共同的艺术过程的一般特征，并揭示具体现象的国家特征;在这个过程中，他揭示了不同传统之间的各种联系，开创了一种方法论上的新方法。他不仅考虑了一般问题(在欧洲背景下俄罗斯浪漫主义、现实主义、印象派和现代主义的具体情况)，而且还考虑了更具体的问题(比较A. G. Venetsianov圈子的艺术家与德国比德迈尔艺术、A. A.伊万诺夫和苏联画家)
{"title":"Connections between 18th-Century Russian and European Culture","authors":"I. A. Abramkin","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0022","url":null,"abstract":"Both of the books reviewed here share commonalities not only in their essaycollection format but also in their subject (cultural interactions between Russia and Europe in the 18th century). Russian-language scholarly work on this problem in the field of art history owes much to the pioneering research of D. V. Sarab ́ianov, who studied 19th-century Russian painting in the context of European schools.1 Before this book, scholars of art tended to consider Russian and European art in isolation from one another. Sarab ́ianov aimed both to identify the general features of artistic processes common to both and to reveal the national specifics of concrete phenomena; in the process, he uncovered a variety of links among different traditions, inaugurating a methodologically novel approach. He considered not only general problems (the specifics of Russian Romanticism, Realism, Impressionism, and Modernism in the European context) but more specific ones as well (comparing artists of A. G. Venetsianov’s circle and German Biedermeier art, A. A. Ivanov and the","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43518749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1761, Mikhail Lomonosov astutely noted that among other causes of population loss in Russia—such as diseases, murders, and accidents—was the issue of the “living dead” (zhivye pokoiniki): “From border provinces, people leave for other countries, especially for Poland, and, as a result, the Russian Crown loses its subjects.” He subsequently compared the RussoPolish border to a “great hole [velikaia skvazhina] that was impossible to seal” to prevent ordinary people from slipping out of the country. Some fled because of seigniorial demands and conscription, while others, affected by the Schism, moved to the Polish town of Vietka. Finally, he proposed that the Russian government should alleviate the tax burden and eliminate conscription to make borderland residents less likely to flee and use troops to bring the “living dead” back to the empire.1 Lomonosov’s concern with population loss was widely shared by his contemporaries and further accentuated by several official reports that mentioned “over a million people”
{"title":"Millions of Living Dead: Fugitives, the Polish Border, and 18th-Century Russian Society","authors":"Evgenii Akelev, A. Gornostaev","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0016","url":null,"abstract":"In 1761, Mikhail Lomonosov astutely noted that among other causes of population loss in Russia—such as diseases, murders, and accidents—was the issue of the “living dead” (zhivye pokoiniki): “From border provinces, people leave for other countries, especially for Poland, and, as a result, the Russian Crown loses its subjects.” He subsequently compared the RussoPolish border to a “great hole [velikaia skvazhina] that was impossible to seal” to prevent ordinary people from slipping out of the country. Some fled because of seigniorial demands and conscription, while others, affected by the Schism, moved to the Polish town of Vietka. Finally, he proposed that the Russian government should alleviate the tax burden and eliminate conscription to make borderland residents less likely to flee and use troops to bring the “living dead” back to the empire.1 Lomonosov’s concern with population loss was widely shared by his contemporaries and further accentuated by several official reports that mentioned “over a million people”","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43400569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Europeanized elite, the Russian nobility, the provincial nobility, the court nobility, elite and lesser nobles, hereditary and service nobles, landowning and landless nobles, educated society (obshchestvo or publika), and “people of various ranks” (raznochintsy)—these familiar terms illustrate the multiplicity of social realities that defined Russia’s educated and service classes in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Historians and literary scholars long have understood that the Russian elite cannot be equated solely with the service and/or landowning nobilities. Merchants and educated non-noble servicemen, though bounded by institutions such as serfdom and the Petrine Table of Ranks, also aspired to the legal and cultural status of hereditary noble. Whatever the economic circumstances and cultural accretions attained by upwardly mobile individuals, hereditary nobility writ large remained the primary embodiment of the state-initiated project of Europeanization. The significant number of unrequited claimants to noble status illustrates the dynamics of aspiration: 560 out of 1,000 petitioners seeking to enter military service with noble rights in 1820; 3,215 petitioners seeking confirmation of noble status by the Ministry of Justice in 1845 (compared to 3,332 who were
欧化的精英、俄罗斯贵族、地方贵族、宫廷贵族、精英和下层贵族、世袭贵族和服务贵族、拥有土地和无土地的贵族、受过教育的社会(obshchestvo或publika)和“不同阶层的人”(raznochintsy)——这些熟悉的术语说明了18世纪末和19世纪初界定俄罗斯受过教育和服务阶层的社会现实的多样性。历史学家和文学学者早就明白，俄罗斯精英不能仅仅等同于服务和/或拥有土地的贵族。商人和受过教育的非贵族军人，虽然受到农奴制和Petrine Table of Ranks等制度的限制，但也渴望获得世袭贵族的法律和文化地位。无论向上流动的个人所获得的经济环境和文化积累如何，世袭贵族仍然是国家发起的欧洲化计划的主要体现。大量要求获得贵族地位的人没有得到回报，这说明了渴望的动力:1820年，1000名请愿者中有560人希望以贵族权利服兵役;1845年，有3215名请愿者要求法务部确认贵族身份(相比之下，有3332名请愿者要求法务部确认贵族身份)
{"title":"State Power, Social Life, and Russian Nobles in the 18th Century","authors":"E. Wirtschafter","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0020","url":null,"abstract":"The Europeanized elite, the Russian nobility, the provincial nobility, the court nobility, elite and lesser nobles, hereditary and service nobles, landowning and landless nobles, educated society (obshchestvo or publika), and “people of various ranks” (raznochintsy)—these familiar terms illustrate the multiplicity of social realities that defined Russia’s educated and service classes in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Historians and literary scholars long have understood that the Russian elite cannot be equated solely with the service and/or landowning nobilities. Merchants and educated non-noble servicemen, though bounded by institutions such as serfdom and the Petrine Table of Ranks, also aspired to the legal and cultural status of hereditary noble. Whatever the economic circumstances and cultural accretions attained by upwardly mobile individuals, hereditary nobility writ large remained the primary embodiment of the state-initiated project of Europeanization. The significant number of unrequited claimants to noble status illustrates the dynamics of aspiration: 560 out of 1,000 petitioners seeking to enter military service with noble rights in 1820; 3,215 petitioners seeking confirmation of noble status by the Ministry of Justice in 1845 (compared to 3,332 who were","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46401896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Primary Chronicle’s entry for 1071 CE (6579 in the chronicler’s reckoning of the years since Creation), the reader learns that volkhvy (sorcerers, sing. volkhv) led a rebellion against ecclesiastical and secular authorities across Rus ́.1 The following events occurred: a volkhv appeared in Kiev and convinced the populace that within five years, the Dnieper River would run backward and various countries, like Greece and Rus ́, would change geographic positions; near Rostov, two magicians supposedly led a crowd of onlookers in the murder of several women, potentially as a sacrifice, to stave off a famine; the same magicians then moved to Beloozero, where they and their supporters fought a pitched battle against princely forces before they were captured and executed; a Novgorodian man went out from the city and found a Chud ́ sorcerer to help him divine his future; and, finally, a Novgorodian magician led an armed rebellion against the bishop, which was ultimately put down by the city’s prince, Gleb.2 The chronicler’s fascination with sorcery during the year 1071 has traditionally been read as pointing to (a) the anxieties of a fragile Christian hierarchy insistent on its own supremacy over the continued popularity and subversive potential of indigenous beliefs; and (b) a description of a local rebellion against the political authority of the Varangian princes.3 1 The Primary Chronicle here is a shorthand for the collection of records known as Povest ́ vremennykh let (henceforth PVL), typically anglicized as The Tale of Bygone Years, a text that was compiled, rewritten, and altered in several stages over the 11th and 12th centuries. For the purposes of this article, I follow the standardized version in D. S. Likhachev and V. P. Adrianova-Peretts, eds., Povest ́ vremennykh let, 2 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1950). All translations in this article are my own. 2 PVL 1:116–21. Additional depictions of magic can be found in entries for the years 912, 1024, 1044, and 1091. 3 Additional readings of the volkhvy in the PVL can be found in Rachel May, “The Power of Speech: Dialogue as History in the Russian Primary Chronicle,” in Dialogue and Critical
在公元1071年的《初级编年史》条目中（编年史家对创世以来的年份进行了统计，为6579年），读者了解到沃尔科夫（巫师，sing.volkhv）领导了一场反抗俄罗斯各地教会和世俗当局的叛乱。1发生了以下事件：一位沃尔科夫出现在基辅，并说服民众在五年内，第聂伯河将向后流动，希腊和俄罗斯等国将改变地理位置；在罗斯托夫附近，据说两名魔术师带领一群围观者谋杀了几名妇女，这可能是为了避免饥荒而做出的牺牲；同样的魔术师随后转移到贝洛泽罗，在那里他们和他们的支持者与王子部队进行了一场激战，然后被抓获并处决；一个诺夫哥罗德人从城里出来，找到了一个Chud́巫师来帮助他预测自己的未来；最后，一位诺夫哥罗德魔术师领导了一场反对主教的武装叛乱，最终被该市的王子镇压，Gleb.2这位编年史家在1071年对魔法的迷恋传统上被解读为：（a）脆弱的基督教等级制度的焦虑，坚持自己的至高无上地位，而不是土著信仰的持续流行和颠覆潜力；以及（b）对当地反抗瓦朗吉王子政治权威的描述。31这里的《初级编年史》是被称为Povest́vremennykh let（以下简称PVL）的记录集的缩写，通常被英语化为《逝去岁月的故事》，该文本在11世纪和12世纪分几个阶段进行了汇编、改写和修改。为了本文的目的，我遵循D.S.Likhachev和V.P.Adrianova Peretts，编辑，Povest́vremennykh let，2卷中的标准化版本。（莫斯科：Akademia nauk SSSR，1950年）。这篇文章中的所有翻译都是我自己的。2 PVL 1:116–21。关于魔法的其他描述可以在912、1024、1044和1091年的条目中找到。3关于PVL中volkhvy的其他解读可以在Rachel May的《对话与批判》中找到，“演讲的力量：对话是俄罗斯初级编年史中的历史”
{"title":"Slavic Seiðr? Reconsidering the Volkhvy of Northern Rus´","authors":"Jay T. Bell","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0015","url":null,"abstract":"In the Primary Chronicle’s entry for 1071 CE (6579 in the chronicler’s reckoning of the years since Creation), the reader learns that volkhvy (sorcerers, sing. volkhv) led a rebellion against ecclesiastical and secular authorities across Rus ́.1 The following events occurred: a volkhv appeared in Kiev and convinced the populace that within five years, the Dnieper River would run backward and various countries, like Greece and Rus ́, would change geographic positions; near Rostov, two magicians supposedly led a crowd of onlookers in the murder of several women, potentially as a sacrifice, to stave off a famine; the same magicians then moved to Beloozero, where they and their supporters fought a pitched battle against princely forces before they were captured and executed; a Novgorodian man went out from the city and found a Chud ́ sorcerer to help him divine his future; and, finally, a Novgorodian magician led an armed rebellion against the bishop, which was ultimately put down by the city’s prince, Gleb.2 The chronicler’s fascination with sorcery during the year 1071 has traditionally been read as pointing to (a) the anxieties of a fragile Christian hierarchy insistent on its own supremacy over the continued popularity and subversive potential of indigenous beliefs; and (b) a description of a local rebellion against the political authority of the Varangian princes.3 1 The Primary Chronicle here is a shorthand for the collection of records known as Povest ́ vremennykh let (henceforth PVL), typically anglicized as The Tale of Bygone Years, a text that was compiled, rewritten, and altered in several stages over the 11th and 12th centuries. For the purposes of this article, I follow the standardized version in D. S. Likhachev and V. P. Adrianova-Peretts, eds., Povest ́ vremennykh let, 2 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1950). All translations in this article are my own. 2 PVL 1:116–21. Additional depictions of magic can be found in entries for the years 912, 1024, 1044, and 1091. 3 Additional readings of the volkhvy in the PVL can be found in Rachel May, “The Power of Speech: Dialogue as History in the Russian Primary Chronicle,” in Dialogue and Critical","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46837413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jay T. Bell, Evgenii Akelev, A. Gornostaev, Maureen Perrie, Clemens Günther, F. Schenk, E. Wirtschafter, Maike Lehmann, I. A. Abramkin, D. Beer, C. M. Moore, Francis King, Olena Palko, J. Bushnell, S. Fitzpatrick
{"title":"Coping with Disaster: History and Historians in the Wake of War","authors":"Jay T. Bell, Evgenii Akelev, A. Gornostaev, Maureen Perrie, Clemens Günther, F. Schenk, E. Wirtschafter, Maike Lehmann, I. A. Abramkin, D. Beer, C. M. Moore, Francis King, Olena Palko, J. Bushnell, S. Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45697661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During World War I, Russian officials seemed obsessed with assessing popular moods. The police were required to compile monthly reports that summarized the moods of the population under their jurisdiction, in addition to the separate incident reports that documented criminal activities.1 Starting in October 1915, the Ministry of the Interior ordered the empire’s provincial gendarme administrations (the secret police) to fill out a monthly questionnaire that solicited Russian subjects’ attitudes on a wide variety of issues connected with the war effort: the food supply situation, the resettlement of refugees, the presence of prisoners-of-war in the rear, and the spread of the cooperative movement, to name just a few.2
{"title":"Patriotism and Culture during World War I","authors":"C. M. Moore","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0024","url":null,"abstract":"During World War I, Russian officials seemed obsessed with assessing popular moods. The police were required to compile monthly reports that summarized the moods of the population under their jurisdiction, in addition to the separate incident reports that documented criminal activities.1 Starting in October 1915, the Ministry of the Interior ordered the empire’s provincial gendarme administrations (the secret police) to fill out a monthly questionnaire that solicited Russian subjects’ attitudes on a wide variety of issues connected with the war effort: the food supply situation, the resettlement of refugees, the presence of prisoners-of-war in the rear, and the spread of the cooperative movement, to name just a few.2","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43813755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Histories of the “Russian” Revolution have often either largely ignored developments in the periphery of the empire altogether or appended them to the main narrative as interesting case studies of secondary importance. The major all-Russia parties (the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party [RSDRP], the factions of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries, the Constitutional Democrats, etc.) have been comprehensively studied in the literature, and the relations among them have been exhaustively analyzed. However, the smaller parties of the nonRussian national minorities, their relationships with one another and with the major all-Russia parties have received considerably less attention. Before the collapse of the USSR in 1991, in Soviet historiography the revolution in the non-Russian periphery was presented almost exclusively as the story of how the local Bolsheviks won power. In this narrative, the Bolsheviks’ rivals, whether all-Russia or regional/national parties, were generally depicted as amorphously “petty-bourgeois” or “counterrevolutionary,” and the details of their ideas were almost never explored. In English-language works of that time, only the revolutionary process in Ukraine could have been said to have a “historiography,” produced mainly by diaspora scholars.1 Since 1991, the newly independent former union republics have had
{"title":"Marxists in a Declining Empire","authors":"F. King","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0025","url":null,"abstract":"Histories of the “Russian” Revolution have often either largely ignored developments in the periphery of the empire altogether or appended them to the main narrative as interesting case studies of secondary importance. The major all-Russia parties (the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party [RSDRP], the factions of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries, the Constitutional Democrats, etc.) have been comprehensively studied in the literature, and the relations among them have been exhaustively analyzed. However, the smaller parties of the nonRussian national minorities, their relationships with one another and with the major all-Russia parties have received considerably less attention. Before the collapse of the USSR in 1991, in Soviet historiography the revolution in the non-Russian periphery was presented almost exclusively as the story of how the local Bolsheviks won power. In this narrative, the Bolsheviks’ rivals, whether all-Russia or regional/national parties, were generally depicted as amorphously “petty-bourgeois” or “counterrevolutionary,” and the details of their ideas were almost never explored. In English-language works of that time, only the revolutionary process in Ukraine could have been said to have a “historiography,” produced mainly by diaspora scholars.1 Since 1991, the newly independent former union republics have had","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43846773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Recent Studies on Early Rus´ Chronicles","authors":"D. Ostrowski","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47014393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Founded in 2018, the Center for the Study of Cultural Memory and Symbolic Politics—part of the History Department at St. Petersburg’s European University—has already produced an impressive output of original and translated monographs as well as collections of articles. This anthology, compiled by Aleksei Miller and Dmitrii Efremenko, is probably its most significant contribution to date, and certainly the most voluminous. It attests to the increasing institutionalization of memory studies and related fields such as public history in Russia, which have come a long way since an earlier wave of publications in the 2000s that was dominated by translations from other languages.1 The bulk of the volume is made up of empirical studies of different mnemonic actors, contexts, themes, and genres in Russia and several neighboring countries. Almost invariably well researched and amply documented, the chapters present up-to-date insights on a large variety of topics. Some of these have long been objects of international scholarly attention, such as the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in memory politics, discussed by Marlène Laruelle. Others are only beginning to attract serious interest. These include the Last Address initiative to commemorate victims of Stalinist terror,
{"title":"Dissecting Post-Soviet Memory Politics","authors":"Mischa Gabowitsch","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.0011","url":null,"abstract":"Founded in 2018, the Center for the Study of Cultural Memory and Symbolic Politics—part of the History Department at St. Petersburg’s European University—has already produced an impressive output of original and translated monographs as well as collections of articles. This anthology, compiled by Aleksei Miller and Dmitrii Efremenko, is probably its most significant contribution to date, and certainly the most voluminous. It attests to the increasing institutionalization of memory studies and related fields such as public history in Russia, which have come a long way since an earlier wave of publications in the 2000s that was dominated by translations from other languages.1 The bulk of the volume is made up of empirical studies of different mnemonic actors, contexts, themes, and genres in Russia and several neighboring countries. Almost invariably well researched and amply documented, the chapters present up-to-date insights on a large variety of topics. Some of these have long been objects of international scholarly attention, such as the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in memory politics, discussed by Marlène Laruelle. Others are only beginning to attract serious interest. These include the Last Address initiative to commemorate victims of Stalinist terror,","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44354302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：