Printer Friendly

Private lives and public spaces in Imperial Russia.

Katherine Pickering Antonova, An Ordinary Marriage: The World of a Gentry Family in Provincial Russia, xv + 304 pp. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. ISBN-13 978-0199796991. $74.00.

Andrew Kahn, ed., Representing Private Lives of the Enlightenment, x + 346 pp., illus. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation (SVEC), 2010. ISBN-13 9780729410038. $105.00.

S. Iu. Malysheva, Prazdnyi den', dosuzhii vecher: Kul'tura dosuga rossiiskogo provintsial'nogo goroda vtoroi poloviny XIX-nachala XX veka (Day of Celebration, Evening of Leisure: The Leisure Culture of the Russian Provincial Town in the Second Half of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries). 192 pp. Moscow: Academia, 2011. ISBN-13 978-5874443894.

In recent years, historians have increasingly concentrated on the history of private life, inspired by the traditions established by the Annales school and Jurgen Habermas. (1) The historiography of imperial Russia has been enriched by dozens of studies of various aspects of private life in cities and in rural Russia. This review focuses on three recent studies of private everyday life in Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries. They have three elements in common. First, they examine how the idea of private life was interpreted by various social strata and under different circumstances. Second, most of their materials concern Russian provincial life. (2) Finally, all the works employ the microhistorical method and are based on little-used letters, diaries, and memoirs.

Microhistory as a methodology in historical writing first appeared in Europe and the United States in the 1960s and 197Os. (3) The USSR, then Russia, were latecomers, and the first similar studies based on Russian materials began to appear only in the late 1980s. Philological and cultural studies were the first disciplines to deploy this method (above all, Iurii Lotman's Tartu school); among historians, the first were medievalists studying Western Europe (for example, Aron Gurevich with his Categories of Medieval Culture). (4)

Over the last 20 years, historical anthropology has finally become prominent in Russianist studies, both in Russia and in the West. But despite hundreds of articles of this kind, larger studies are still rare. This dearth relates to the difficulty of finding a compact and complete set of sources, such as the diaries of the US midwife Martha Ballard or the Russian merchant Ivan Tolchenov, which enable a full-scale microhistorical study. (5)

The three books under review concern different historical epochs and different levels of practices of private life. The earliest chronologically is the collection edited by Andrew Kahn, which deals not only with Russia but other countries as well--France, Italy, and England. The 4 articles out of 14 that deal with Russia interpret the period from Peter the Great to Catherine the Great as the age when individualistic aspirations and desires first ripened within Russian society. The collection is interdisciplinary and includes articles from historians and philologists studying different aspects of private life: religious experience (Viktor Zhivov), gentry writing (Irina Reyfman), gardens as public space (Andreas Schonle), and the acquisition of self-knowledge through sexual experience accompanied by infection from venereal disease (Andrei Zorin).

The monograph by Katherine Pickering Antonova presents virtually all aspects of the private life of a middling noble provincial family in the 1820s-60s: birth and death, illness and health, motherhood and fatherhood, economic life and interaction with neighbors, and the conceptualization of one family's position in provincial society and in Russia's estate hierarchy.

Svetlana Malysheva's book examines the sphere of leisure and cultural communication, attempting to trace the development of free time and entertainment in the public sphere in 1860-1914, the period when Russian urban space became municipalized after the Great Reforms. Considerable attention is given to the discourse of dialogue and conflict among the multiconfessional population of Kazan, in which the cultural preferences of Russian Orthodox and Muslim Tatar inhabitants did not always coincide.

All three books address crucial methodological and empirical questions. How can one use private life to understand the rigidly hierarchical structure of Russian society? And just how rigid was this social matrix? To what extent did it permit individual development in the age of modernity? (6) Each of the authors constructs an argument about Russian models of public space formation, separate spheres, domesticity, and so on.

Representing Private Lives of the Enlightenment is a lively and engaging work that deserves an important place in contemporary social studies of European bourgeois culture. In the introduction, Andrew Kahn notes, "by bringing Russia into the fold, the case studies offer a comparative framework with more instructive symmetries and asymmetries than might have been the case if other Western European countries had been set alongside the English and French material that traditionally dominates" (3-4). Also, the authors of the volume seek to demonstrate how figures from very diverse social groups mapped their social and domestic world. The points of conjunction between private and public are particularly important for the conceptualization of private life.

"Handling Sin in Eighteenth-Century Russia," by the late Viktor Zhivov, examines the issue of religious discipline as a reflection of larger state and ecclesiastical policy. In detecting individuals' attempts to evade confession in the 18th century, through which the state increased its control over the church, Zhivov sees contradictions between institutionalized methods of penance and traditional notions of piety. It must be added that the search for the negligent Orthodox was connected, above all, with the persecution of Old Believers. Zhivov's study is attractive for its depiction of the trajectory of attitudes toward confession in various social strata from peasants to nobles from the 18th century onward as a transformation from private to common intimacy, which in the early 20th century found expression in the practice of communal confession introduced by Father Ioann of Kronstadt.

The issue of confession as a social practice of comprehending one's sins fits with Andrei Zorin's study of the emotional sufferings of the nobleman poet Andrei Turgenev, who interpreted as sin his sexual adventure with a prostitute and his practice of masturbation. (7) In the Christian teaching the concept of willful and ignorant sin as the cause of mental anguish, and of illness as punishment for sin, was axiomatic in the 18th and 19th centuries. Turgenev's emotional history is based on an uncommonly frank diary that demonstrated the entire spectrum of the young nobleman's feelings as he experienced the tragedy of the contradiction between Romantic love and the crude physical desire that led Turgenev to illness.

Irina Reyfman and Andreas Schonle write about the social practices of nobles outside service. (8) Reyfman analyzes autobiographical letters and diaries by Aleksandr Sumarokov, Andrei Bolotov, and Ippolit Bogdanovich, and their reflections upon their official duties as connected to the issue of social status within the service hierarchy and the patronage system.

Social status is also a crucial aspect of Schonle's analysis. Schonle examines gardens and parks in the period from Elizabeth to Catherine II as public spaces that created a sense of collective noble identity and "more spontaneous forms of behavior, including courtship." Using as his sources legislative materials regarding public admission to the parks, as well as letters and diaries, Schonle notes the strict dress code for visiting imperial and public parks, which precluded commoners from visiting (we must add that in the 18th and 19th centuries London parks were likewise closed to members of the "lower orders"). Therefore, the mode of leisure was closely related to social hierarchy and its dilution. The conditions of being open or closed to the public in this case can be considered as an articulation and "exchange of political messages" (185).

Antonova's An Ordinary Marriage uses daily life on the estate of one middling noble family over the course of a half-century (between ca. 1820 and ca. 1875) to show the functioning and evolution of private spaces and intimate relations. The strengths of Antonova's book lie not only in its detailed presentation of the inner world of the Chikhachev family but also in its illuminating analysis of the family's daily material, intellectual, and emotional life. The research is based on letters, diaries, and account books from the Ivanovo state archive, where the author spent nine months in 2005. The book follows up on earlier influential studies of serfdom as a system of social control by Stephen Hoch and of provincial gentry life by Mary Cavender. (9)

Antonova defines her book as a microhistory that "seeks to understand one family in as much depth as possible, so that it may serve as a yardstick by which to measure greater or lesser variation in other cases that are often far less thoroughly documented but which can be better understood in light of it" (3). She links noble identity to the "ethos of state service and the institution of serfdom" (4). Moreover, she places the Chikhachevs' history in a transnational context, comparing its allocation of gender roles with family models of Victorian England, as well as the United States, France, and Eastern Europe. Her focus on the concepts of domesticity and separate spheres enriches our understanding of women's and family history in the 19th century. (10) Her promising approach is close to the claim, offered by another set of scholars, that "the separate spheres ideology was but one among many forms of gender identity co-existing and overlapping in nineteenth-century Europe." (11)

The book continues the discussion of domesticity in Russian history begun by Michelle Lamarche Marrese in her book, A Womans Kingdom, and developed further by Lee Farrow. (12) The chapter on domesticity and motherhood is the longest one in Antonova's book and the most important one conceptually. It examines the views of the husband and the wife in the family on their respective obligations with the then current theories of domesticity and separate spheres and examines the dynamics of the contemporary norms and the realities the Chikhachevs lived by. The concepts of "public" and "private" and the debates on domesticity are more complex than expected. From this perspective Antonova also analyzes the husband's publicistic writings, especially those in the Agricultural Gazette (1845-59) that addressed the "Importance of a Khoziaika (mistress) in the House." It was Natalia Chikhacheva who managed the property and kept detailed diaries and account books. Antonova's microhistorical approach confirms earlier observations made mostly on the basis of sources drawn from legislation, statistics, and court cases and adds to that picture with the depth of valuable detail. (13)

Antonova also considers the degree to which gender roles in Russia were distinct from and similar to those in Britain and those among East European Jews. Antonova acknowledges that the "Anglo-French model of domestic ideology was widely propagated in the Russian periodical press and advice books of the middle decades of the nineteenth century. These sources disseminated images of family closeness and happiness, and recommended piety, purity, and submissiveness to girls and women" (136). Yet the reception of these images was not straightforward. Antonova concludes that "early importations of Western domestic ideology were filtered through to Russia in a relatively limited way in the 1820s and 1830s, making it easier, perhaps, to ignore or reinterpret its tenets. Print culture in those decades was so disproportionately occupied with defining the role of the nobleman newly freed from state service that the female half of domesticity may have simply been neglected" (148).

Antonova's book is well structured and elegantly written, and it provides a clear picture of the Chikhachevs' lives. Their estates were located within the larger geographical framework between local district towns of Kovrov and Shuia in Vladimir Province, an area poorly suited for agriculture. The Chikhachevs grew cereals and flax for their own consumption and for the market. The spouses taken together held between 240 and 350 serf male "souls." Most of these serfs owed quitrent (obrok) rather than the more onerous direct labor services, and "thus the estate comprised a continuum of authority, with the male patriarch at the top of a many-layered hierarchy" (47).

The second chapter, "Society," raises the question of provincial life as a system of family, friendship, service, and economic ties that formed over the course of decades and even centuries. The Chikhachevs' genealogy, compiled by Andrei, shows that the first family member to inhabit the same village in the middle of the 17th century was Andrei's great-grandfather, also named Andrei. Antonova concludes: "This provincial network, maintained by complicated ties of friendship, family, favors, debt, and commerce, in meaningful ways extended beyond its gentry leadership to include state officials, merchants, petty industrialists, doctors, students, teachers, people of religious vocation, and impoverished nobles without land or serfs. Although non-nobles interacted with the landed gentry on deferential terms and largely in connection with commercial, religious, or official transactions, such transactions also took on a social aspect in the insular world of the provinces, and together the gentry and the other free estates in the provinces shared common interests, needs, and fears" (26).

The book also examines the question of the role of letters as the communicative mechanism of the provincial social network. Daily correspondence was a way to safeguard one's position in that hierarchy. Provincial nobles rarely visited Moscow because of financial constraints, and letters were a mental substitute for travel and a way to explore the world. An exit from the private space could also be accomplished through publicistic writings and through participation in voluntary associations such as agricultural, Bible, charitable, and other nonpolitical societies, as well as through reading new works of literature. (Even landowners from remote villages subscribed and read newspapers and ordered books from booksellers in Moscow and Petersburg.)

A chapter on "The Village" painstakingly reconstructs the relations between the noble family and its serfs based on the Chikhachevs' diaries and letters, as well as Andrei's articles in the Agricultural Gazette. Antonova notes that in his writings Andrei Chikhachev created an ideal model of concord in the village, one that emphasized "mutual advantages," "respect," "religion," "order," and the supposed "neatness" of rural life. At the same time, the family archive preserved evidence of serf flight (some of the runaways were eventually recaptured), of the peasants' theft and illegal logging. Some disobedient peasants were sentenced to terms in the workhouse in the provincial capital, Vladimir; Andrei on occasion compared them to "ancient Novgorodians." The author characterizes this dynamic as paternalistic, in which the masters viewed their serfs as children. Antonova places Chikhachev's views in the context of the contemporary Westerner-Slavophile debate. Unlike Slavophiles, Chikhachev, who spent almost all of his life on his estate, did not idealize Russian peasants, even while he clearly did idealize rural life in general.

The chapter on "Sociability, Charity, and Leisure" examines in detail the role of reading in a noble family's life, paying particular attention to the family ritual of reading together in the evenings. The entire family read, for example, Austen's Emma, Burney's Camilla, and Scott's Rob Roy. Very popular was the literary journal Biblioteka dlia chteniia (The Library for Reading). Among Russian authors, the Chikhachevs preferred Pushkin and Bulgarin, whose works were reread and discussed. Also important was Karamzin's Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskogo (History of the Russian State). The Chikhachevs' reading was thus (perhaps surprisingly) broad, and their papers demonstrate that in addition to subscribing personally to books and periodicals, provincial readers shared texts widely, so that real readership must have been substantially larger than subscription numbers alone tell us. Provincial readers were also, in this account, not nearly the undiscerning or indifferent mass that urban editors often portrayed.

In her analysis of childrearing and especially of the husband's and the wife's respective roles, Antonova draws comparisons with the Victorian model, using the diaries that the son of Andrei and Natalia, named Aleksei, kept between the ages of 10 and 23. These diaries show the father's leading role in introducing the son to intellectual work and to the noble way of life. Many of his ideas seem to have come from Francois Fenelon's Adventures of Telemachus, whose influence is also noted by Catriona Kelly in her study of 18th- and 19th-century advice literature. (14)

In recent years, the theme of illness, pain, and physical suffering has attracted the interest of social historians. (15) Antonova addresses it in a separate chapter on "Illness, Grief, and Death." Particularly interesting is the fact that Natalia managed her family's estates energetically while giving birth to at least four children (two of whom died in infancy), and while frequently falling ill. (Her diary notes the many days that she spent in bed sick.) Both spouses' diaries mention Natalia's migraines, illnesses related to pregnancy and childbirth, and her periodic "hysterical fits." Among "male" diseases, Andrei mentions his depression.

Through the phenomenon of the Chikhachevs' "ordinary" marriage, the monograph examines the economic and cultural factors of a noble family's daily existence. It appears that the important element--securing partnership and mutual tolerance within the marriage--was above all a function of their mutual love and psychological compatibility. The marriage lasted for 46 years, and when Natalia died in 1866, the widower was heartbroken. Remembering his wife in his diary, he tenderly calls her "my unforgettable little dove, my assiduous little old care-taker" (142). In sum, this study is a cultural history of Russia's Europeanized provincial nobility, describing their way of living in detail and arguing that this very mode of living was a complex strategy for social enhancement.

The subject of leisure and entertainment has also been recently developed on the basis of Russian materials. (16) A recent contribution is the book by Svetlana Iurievna Malysheva, a professor at Kazan University. The monograph's strongest feature is the broad range of sources, because the author uses archival documents (for example, police arrest protocols of students who engaged in wild drunkenness on Tat'iana's Day), memoirs, fiction, and press accounts.

In the first chapter of the book, which examines the sphere of leisure as the space of cultural communication, the author focuses her attention on three issues: first, on the reflection of attitudes to leisure and entertainment in language; second, on the conceptualizing of "Self" and "Other" in leisure practices; and third, on the presence of conflict and dialogue in the sphere of leisure.

Malysheva notes that the period from the second half of the 19th to the early 20th centuries, both in Russia and in Europe, is marked by significant changes both in the structure of leisure and in the urban population's conceptions of rest and idleness. The models of leisure formed among the nobility (travel, concerts, swimming, playing cards) gradually spread to non-privileged estates, including the growing bourgeoisie, townspeople, and peasantry. Malysheva analyzes the vocabulary of various states of "non-work" and concludes that the individualization of leisure during the time period of her study led to a reduction in the negative connotations of vocabulary associated with idleness, which characterized "the emergence of mass urban leisure as an autonomous sphere of activity" (25).

When examining the issue of "Self" and "Other" in the leisure practices of inhabitants of Kazan, Malysheva identifies three leading dichotomies: capital v. province, noble v. commoner, and European v. Tatar. In the 1860s, these dichotomies were clearly polarized: for example, leisure for the nobility meant balls, concerts, and horse races, while the common people sought entertainment in taverns and at amusement fairs (balagany). But these antagonisms were already reduced by the 1890s, and the educated public's contempt for crude commoner entertainment was replaced by a sense of the necessity of elevating the emerging mass culture. At the same time, European forms of leisure were accepted by well-to-do Tatar families in Kazan: both men and women attended theater and literary salons, received guests, played the piano, and conversed in French.

As regards the discourse of dialogue and conflict, Malysheva's examples show the dividing line that separated the cultural preferences of Kazan's Orthodox Russians and Muslim Tatars. Using newspaper accounts, Malysheva shows that the Tatar holiday of Sabantui had become common across the entire city by the early 20th century, and that Russians participated in the feasting and wrestling contests. In this way, the transcultural leisure communication of Tatars and Russians emerged and was strengthened.

The chapter on "Leisure Time of a Russian City-Dweller" contains a detailed survey of the legislation on holidays. The regulation of laborers' time during the last third of the 19th century was aimed at limiting the merciless exploitation of the workers by entrepreneurs, especially after a routine of British-inspired factory inspection was introduced in 1882. (17)

The central chapter of the book on the "Leisure Space of a Provincial City" contains two main theses. The first one maintains that urban leisure space was distinguished by its hierarchical and segregated nature. The second claim is that the emerging trend was toward homogenization. The chapter examines how public leisure spaces such as parks, museums, libraries, theaters, cinemas, clubs, restaurants, and racetracks both united and "segregated" members of different social groups. The author illustrates her theses with a mass of interesting evidence found in the archives and in Kazan's press.

The book discusses the development of clubs and club life in Kazan, and especially the citizens' engagement with sports, including clubs and societies for equestrian sport, bicycling, yachting, hunting, and fishing. (18) The author gathered rich material concerning the activity of the city museum and public libraries, more than 30 of which existed in the early 20th century. She also examines the emergence of temperance societies, which she correctly interprets as "attempts to place popular leisure under social control" (97).

The issue of "segregation" includes the example of access to Kazan's city parks. As already noted in regard to Schonle's article, it would be appropriate to compare Russian rules with their European counterparts: in many European capitals access to parks was rigidly controlled until the end of the 19th century, and many were closed to members of nonprivileged social groups.

It is a pity that Malysheva examines the activities of Kazan's voluntary societies exclusively in the area of leisure and does not utilize Habermas's concept of the public sphere. Within such a framework it would have been fruitful to examine the correlation of leisure and the development of civil society in Kazan. (19) It would also be interesting to learn about the author's view on the degree to which Kazan's voluntary societies corresponded to the categorization offered by Joseph Bradley in his Voluntary Associations in Tsarist Russia. (20)

The section of the book addressing leisure among Kazan's Tatars, which as a rule took place within their community, is innovative. She illustrates this with numerous examples of such forms of leisure as visiting and attending teahouses (chaikhana). After the revolution of 1905, secular public spaces also appeared, but unfortunately Malysheva does not examine the ways in which the Temporary Rules on Societies and Unions of 4 March 1906 (which permitted the establishment of private societies through simple registration or simply filing a statement of the society's formation), influenced the number and varieties of Kazan's societies.

The fourth chapter of the monograph examines forms of leisure in Kazan outside the provincial capital, such as the coexistence of old and new forms, and the leisure forms of various population groups. Malysheva successfully uses vivid memoirs by Fedor Shaliapin and Maksim Gor'kii, whose youth took place in Kazan. Reading is one form of leisure examined here. The book also addresses the visitation of brothels and taverns as a form of leisure. More doubtful, in our view, is the inclusion as forms of leisure of such activities as observing public executions (based on the memoirs of Taras Shevchenko who visited Kazan in 1857), the springtime rush of ice on the Volga river, fires, and the participation of citizens in fights and brawls (as opposed to organized mass fistfights more akin in form to sporting events). Malysheva writes about the "prevalence of fights as a form of entertainment both among the Russian and the Tatar populations" (147). Is it correct to assign all events (such as executions, fires, and debacles) and all forms of time free from work (fights, sleep, walks) to the sphere of leisure? In particular, does sleep count as leisure (the author mentions sleep as a "cheap form of leisure" on 165)? Malysheva also mentions "forms of leisure prescribed by religion and religious tradition" such as "temple visitation and prayer, and meals related to religious holidays." In my view, the question of whether these activities belong to the sphere of leisure--and hence a general definition and theory of leisure--is still open to discussion. Malysheva defines "leisure" a bit too broadly.

Another shortcoming of the book is the isolation of its rich and varied material from the context of the most important social and political events of the age. There is no discussion of whether leisure practices changed during the revolution of 1905-7 and World War I, although the book contains material dating from that period.

The conclusion to Malysheva's monograph returns to the theme of individuality and leisure and states that the individual moved from the previously narrowly circumscribed leisure space into a more extensive one. It also draws attention to the importance of anonymity in urban settings: such anonymity, combined with the minimal controls, ultimately promoted the "formation of citywide leisure practices."

In the last 20 years, studies of imperial Russia have become more variegated with a shift from grand panoramic stories toward cultural history, including the history of private lives and history of emotions. Historians began their quest for a Russian individuality and identity based on the Enlightenment's philosophy of human rights, with attempts to discover what was the rule and what were exceptions.

Studies of the practices of private life offer an opportunity to understand the social order and society's value system, explaining them not only in economic and social terms but defining them with reference to the cultural codes of the past.

An obvious achievement of the reviewed works is in their masterful interpretation of various ego-documents. This has allowed the authors to turn from the depersonalization in macrohistory to personalization in a microhistoric framework, and to look at the history of private lives as a promising field of further exploration, especially in the aspects of individuality embedded in a web of social bonds.

Institute of Russian History

Russian Academy of Sciences

ul. Dm. Ulianova, 19

Moscow 117036 Russian Federation

galina.ulianova@mtu-net.ru

(1) Michelle Perrot, Philippe Aries, and Georges Duby, eds., A History of Private Life, 4: From the Fires of Revolution to the Great War, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Jurgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989).

(2) Some of the other recent works on Russian provincial life are Susan Smith-Peter, "Bringing the Provinces into Focus: Subnational Spaces in the Recent Historiography of Russia," Kritika 12, 4 (2011): 835-48; and Catherine Evtuhov, Portrait of a Russian Province: Economy, Society, and Civilization in Nineteenth-Century Nizhnii Novgorod (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011).

(3) Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller, trans. John and Anne C. Tedeschi (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980); Giovanni Levi, "On Microhistory," in New Perspectives on Historical Writing, ed. Peter Burke (Cambridge: Polity, 1991), 93-113; Hans Medick, ed., Mikro-Historie: Neue Pfade in die Sozialgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1994).

(4) A. J. Gurevich, Categories of Medieval Culture, trans. G. L. Campbell (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985).

(5) Laurel T. Ulrich, A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812 (New York: Vintage, 1991); David L. Ransel, A Russian Merchant's Tale: The Life and Adventures of Ivan Alekseevich Tolchenov, Based on His Diary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009).

(6) A historiographic analysis was provided by Martina Winkler, "Rulers and Ruled, 1700-1917," Kritika 12, 4 (2011): 787-803.

(7) Andrei Zorin, "Schiller, Gonorrhoea and Original Sin in the Emotional Life of a Russian Nobleman."

(8) Irina Reyfman, "Writing, Ranks and the Eighteenth-Century Russian Gentry Experience"; Andreas Schonle, "Private Walks and Public Gazes: Enlightenment and the Use of Gardens in Eighteenth-Century Russia."

(9) Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia: Petrovskoe, a Village in Tambov (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989); Mary Cavender, Nests of the Gentry: Family, Estate, and Local Loyalties in Provincial Russia (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007).

(10) Amanda Vickery, The Gentlemans Daughter: Womens Lives in Georgian England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998); John Broad, Transforming English Rural Society: The Verneys and the Claydons, 1600-1820 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Rebecca Steinitz, Time, Space, and Gender in the Nineteenth-Century British Diary (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

(11) Robert Beachy, Beatrice Craig, and Alastair Owens, "Introduction," in Women, Business, and Finance in Nineteenth-Century Europe: Rethinking Separate Spheres, ed. Beachy, Craig, and Owens (New York: Berg, 2005), 9.

(12) Michelle Lamarche Marrese, A Womans Kingdom: Noblewomen and the Control of Property in Russia, 1700-1861 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Lee A. Farrow, Between Clan and Crown: The Struggle to Define Noble Property Rights in Imperial Russia (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2004).

(13) William G. Wagner, Marriage, Property, and Law in Late Imperial Russia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994); Marrese, A Womans Kingdom; Farrow, Between Clan and Crown.

(14) Catriona Kelly, Refining Russia: Advice Literature, Polite Culture, and Gender from Catherine to Yeltsin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

(15) See Joanna Bourke, The Story of Pain: From Prayer to Painkillers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

(16) Louise McReynolds, Russia at Play: Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003); Ocherki istorii russkoi kul 'tury: Konets XIX-nachalo XX veka, 1: Obshchestvenno-kuTturnaia sreda (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 2011), 340-415, 455-526.

(17) A. P. Pogrebinskii, "Finansovaia politika tsarizma v 70-80-kh godakh XIX v.," Istoricheskii arkhiv 2 (1960): 135-64; Andrei Volodin, "Russian Factory Inspection (1882-1918): Cui Bono?" Paris School of Economics Working Paper, no. 60 (2008).

(18) See the pioneering work by Lutz Hafner, Gesellscbaft als lokale Veranstaltung: Kazan ' und Saratov (1870-1914) (Cologne: Bohlau, 2004). A comprehensive historiographic survey is provided in Adele Lindenmeyr, "'Primordial and Gelatinous'? Civil Society in Imperial Russia," Kritika 12, 3 (2011): 705-20.

(19) Jurgen Habermas, "Zur Rolle von Zivilgesellschaft und politischer Offentlichkeit," in Faktizitdt und Geltung, ed. Habermas (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992), 399-467. Malysheva mentions communication but does not refer to Habermas's foundational Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1981).

(20) Joseph Bradley, Voluntary dissociations in Tsarist Russia: Science, Patriotism, and Civil Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 5, 8-16.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:"An Ordinary Marriage: The World of a Gentry Family in Provincial Russia," "Representing Private Lives of the Enlightenment" and "Day of Celebration, Evening of Leisure: The Leisure Culture of the Russian Provincial Town in the Second Half of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries"
Author:Ulianova, Galina
Publication:Kritika
Article Type:Book review
Date:Jan 1, 2016
Words:5046
Previous Article:Foreign faiths, toleration, and religious freedom in the Russian empire.
Next Article:Nationalism, triumphalism, and the final months of the Soviet Union.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters