Exhibiting Kustar’ Industry in Late Imperial Russia/Exhibiting Late Imperial Russia in Kustar’ Industry

  • Lewis H. Siegelbaum
Part of the International Council for Central and East European Studies book series (ICCEES)

Abstract

Much recent Western historiography of late Imperial Russia has emphasised the indeterminacy of socio-economic positions and processes stemming from the peasant Emancipation and subsequent industrial development. Unlike an earlier generation of historians who frequently employed the metaphor of the ‘path’ to underscore the telos of revolution, the preferred imagery nowadays is one of suspended animation. If, previously, increasing social polarisation and class consciousness seemed paramount, historians now tend to stress interstertiality and identity-confusion. To cite some recent titles, the Russian clergy is said to be ‘between estate and profession’, peasant women were ‘between the fields and the city’, the city was ‘… between tradition and modernity’, while its educated strata sought a public identity ‘between tsar and people’. Urbanisation in Moscow produced a confrontation between ‘muzhik and Muscovite’, with the former’s ‘nomadic, seemingly purposeless, and dissolute way of life’ posing ‘a threat to the discipline, stability, and commitment needed to hold a city of one million together’. Not surprisingly, the ‘search for modernity’ among physicians and legal experts was impeded not only by the structures of absolute governance, but their own ambivalence about whether the Russian peasants and the partly deracinated migrants to the city could adjust to the modern civic order these professional groups otherwise craved.2

Keywords

Fatigue Migration Manifold Europe Income 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 12.
    Katalog Tekhnicheskogo otdela Moskovskoi politekhnicheskoi vystavki (Moscow, 1872) and Marietta Shaginyan, Pervaya Vserossiiskaya (Moscow, 1965), pp. 127–9, 212. Shaginyan’s historical novel – part of a cycle on the Ul’yanov family – includes a photograph (p. 176) of the kustar’ pavilion. For two brief and quite critical assessments of the kustar’ section, see P. Ye. Pudovikov, ‘Kustarnaya promyshlennost’, Trudy lmperatorskago Vol’nogo Ekonomicheskogo Obshchestva, 3/1 (1874), p.65, and Trudy Komissii po izsledovaniyu kustarnoi promyshlennosti v Rossii (hereafter TKIKP), 15 vols (St. Petersburg, 1879–86), vol.1, p.5.Google Scholar
  2. 13.
    On the ‘labour question’ and the role of the strikes in provoking it, see Reginald E. Zelnik, Labour and Society in Tsarist Russia: The Factory Workers of St. Petersburg, 1850–1870 (Stanford, 1971), chapter 9, and idem., Law and Disorder on the Narova River: The Kreenholm Strike of 1872 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995), especially pp.214–20. On the co-operatives and arteli (indigenous producers’ co-operatives), see Pamela Sears McKinsey, ‘Kustar’ Metalworking: The Tver’ County Nailmakers and the Zemstvo Co-operative Movement’, Canadian Slavonic Papers 27, no.4 (1985), pp.365–84; W. Louguinine [V. F. Luginin], Les Artèles et le mouvement co-operatif en Russie (Paris, 1886); A. Isaev, ‘K voprosu o kustarnoi promyshlennosti v Rossii’, Russkaya mysl’, 1881, no. 11, pp.73–125, and idem., ‘O merakh k podderzhaniyu i razvitiyu kustarnago proizvodstva’, Russkaya mysl’, 1890, no.2, pp. 104–19.Google Scholar
  3. 19.
    Wendy Salmond, ‘The Solomenko Embroidery Workshops’, The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, 5 (1987), p. 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 21.
    Salmond, ‘The Solomenko Embroidery Workshops’, p.94; Hilton, pp.223, 233; N. Ivanova, ‘O sozdanii Muzeya narodnogo iskusstva’, Sbornik trudov NIIKhP, 1972, no.5, p.719. The museum’s long-time director, Sergei Morozov (brother of the textile magnate, Savva), established close relations with the Abramtsevo workshop and the Moscow zemstvo’s toy-making workshop at Sergiev Posad. In 1892, the Ministry of Agriculture and State Domains opened a kustar’ museum in St. Petersburg under the directorship of Yurii Diagilev, brother of the impresario, Sergei.Google Scholar
  5. 24.
    I.T. Tarasov, Opisaniye kustarnykh otdelov na Yekaterinburgskoi i Khar’kovskoi vystavkakh 1887 goda s ukazaniyem na mery podderzhaniya i razvitiya kustarnykh promyslov voobshche (Moscow, 1888); Katalog Kazan’skoi nauchno-promyshlennoi vystavki 1890g. sostoyashchei pod pokrovitel’stvom ego Imperatorskago Vysochestva Gosudarya Naslednika Tsarevicha (Kazan’, 1890), quotation on p.26; Programma sel’sko-khoziastvennoi kustarnoi Vystavki v g. Vil’ne v 1895 godu (Vil’na, 1895). For a list of regional, All-Russian and international exhibitions from 1883 to 1904 see Appendix (pp.320–23), in L. Suprun, ‘Professional’nye khudozhniki i narodnoe iskusstvo v Rossii kontsa XlX-nachala XX veka’ (Dissertation, Research Institute of Artistic Industries, Moscow, 1971), cited in Hilton, p.321.Google Scholar
  6. 25.
    A. Pogosskaya, ‘Kustari na Vserossiiskoi vystavke’, Novoe slovo, 1896, no.l, p.5. This is almost identical to the description offered by N.A. Filippov, Kustarnaya promyshlennost’ v eksponatakh Nizhegorodskoi vystavki (Moscow, 1896), p.2.Google Scholar
  7. 34.
    Pogosskaya, ‘Kustari na Vserossiiskoi vystavke (okonchanie)’, Novoye slovo, 1896, no.2, p. 14. This aspiration ran counter to much of the exhibition which offered vistas of the Utopian city: see Brower, pp.72–5.Google Scholar
  8. 54.
    For the distinction between display and performance, see P.F. Kornicki, ‘Public Display and Changing Values: Early Meiji Exhibitions and Their Precursors’, Monumenta Nipponica XLIX, no. 2 (1994), pp.171–2.Google Scholar
  9. 59.
    59. Ukazatel’ Vserossiiskoi kustarno-promyshlennoi vystavki, pp.445, 509, 513–20. For the activities of these institutions, see Bradley, pp.312–17; Kn. F. S. Golitsyn, Kustarnoe delo v Rossii, 2 vols (St. Petersburg, 1904–13), vol.1, pp.375–99; and Trudy s”yezda deyatelei po kustarnoi promyshlennosti, 1910g. v S.-Peterburge, 2 vols (St. Petersburg 1910), vol.1, pp.596–610. On the participation of women in charity see Adele Lindenmeyer, ‘Public Life, Private Virtues: Women in Russian Charity: 1762–1914’, Signs 18, no.3 (1993), pp.562–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 66.
    The scenario was reinforced by the sculptured imperial eagle, ‘rendered in the style of Emperor Alexander I’s time’, which hung above the main entrance to the exhibition: I. Yampol’skii, ‘Vtoraya Vserossiiskaya Kustarnaya Vystavka’, Otchety i izsledovaniya po kustarnoi promyshlennosti v Rossii (hereafter OIKP), vol. 11 (Petrograd, 1915), p.498.Google Scholar
  11. 82.
    82. Yampol’skii, pp.528–9. One activist, writing a month before the exhibition, noted that ‘our peasants … are quite poor archeologists. They neither value nor preserve their antiques [stariny]’: Natalya Semplikevich, ‘Postepennoe vymiranie i nachalo vozrozhdeniya narodnogo uzora v zhenskikh rukodeliyakh’, Vestnik Vserossiiskikh s”yezdov deyateleipo kustarnoi promyshlennosti (hereafter VVSD), 1913, no.4 p.40.Google Scholar
  12. 86.
    M. Reinke, ‘Vystavka izdelii russkikh kustar’ei v Berline’, VVSD, 1914, no.3, pp. 1’18; RGIA, f.395, op.l, d.2643 (O vystavke russkikh kustarnykh izdelii v Berline). See also V. Rodzevich, ‘Kustarnaya promyshlennost’ na Vserossiiskoi vystavke v Kiyeve’ VVSD, 1913, no.10, p.43–50.Google Scholar
  13. 88.
    S.A. Davydova, ‘Kustarnaya promyshlennost’ v Podol’skoi gubernii (Otchet 1902g.)’, OIKP, vol.7 (St. Petersburg, 1903), pp.7–12; Izvestiya Glavnago Upravleniya Zemleustroistva i Zemledeliya, 1913, no.13, p.1376. In a letter to the organising committee, Polovtsova described the ‘complete helplessness’ of the embroiderers and their dependence on the skupshchik Vinokur, ‘an exploiter, millionaire, Jew who has converted to Catholicism in order to obtain the right to travel and trade more freely’: RGIA, f.395, op.l, d.2464,11.108–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lewis H. Siegelbaum

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations