Abstract
As late as 1991, the collapse of communist rule in Russia seemed no more probable to many seasoned observers than it had to Trubetskoi, writing in exile in Sofia seventy years earlier. In the eyes of the outside world, and indeed of many native Russians, the restoration of Russian statehood remained a pipedream cherished only by a small minority of nationalists who were widely dismissed as dissident cranks. Yet in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s unexpected demise on 31 December 1991, at least a part of their dream was finally realized and it is worth noting some of its similarities with the ‘miracle’ mocked by Trubetskoi. First, though the West may not have rushed into diplomatic pacts with the emergent Russian Federation, its leaders have been willing both to offer the Russian government a measure of economic aid and to turn a blind eye to its military activities in Chechnia in the interests of political stability in Europe and Central Asia. Only such an unaccustomed degree of international insulation has permitted Russia’s politicians to launch peacefully into their predictably chaotic search for the domestic solution that will divide Russians least. That quest has been self-consciously conducted in terms designed to emphasize that the resultant regime must be ‘Russia’s Choice’, to quote the revealing title of the most uncompromisingly reformist party.2
The ‘restoration of Russia’, as Russian political émigrés depict it, would be nothing less than a miracle. One fine day we shall all wake up to discover that everything that is now happening in Russia has simply been a nasty dream, or that it has all suddenly vanished at the wave of a magic wand. Russia will once again be a great power, feared and respected by everyone, and offered, in the short term, the most tempting political and economic alliances, leaving her free to choose the best form of government, and then to live happily ever after, bringing fear to her enemies and glory to herself. What would this be, if not a miracle?
Prince N.S. Trubetskoi (1921)1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
N.S. Trubetskoi, ‘Russkaia problema’, in Na putiakh: Utverzhdenie evraziitsev, book 2, Moscow/Berlin, 1922, p. 294.
For the other end of the political spectrum, see Nikolai Pavlov, ‘Russkie: bremia vybora’, Nash sovremennik, 1995, no. 1, pp. 146–66.
Michael Urban, ‘The Politics of Identity in Russia’s Postcommunist Transition: The Nation against Itself’, Slavic Review, vol. 53, 1994, no. 3, pp. 733–65.
Yuri Slezkine, ‘The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism’, Slavic Review, vol. 53, 1994, no. 2, especially pp. 424–5, 434–5, 443–4.
Hugh Seton-Watson, ‘Russian Nationalism in Historical Perspective’, in Robert Conquest (ed.), The Last Empire: Nationality and the Soviet Future, Stanford, California, 1986, p. 27.
For the sake of simplicity, I employ the masculine singular form throughout.
A thesis might be written on the origins of the term rossiiskii: for signposts, see Michael Cherniavsky, Tsar and People: Studies in Russian Myths, New York, 1961, pp. 118–21.
Gregory Freidin, ‘Romans into Italians: Russian National Identity in Transition’, Stanford Slavic Studies, vol. 7, 1993, pp. 241–74, reflects on the changing meanings of the term russkii in modern Russia.
See, for example, E.A. Bagramov et al., Razdelit li Rossiia uchast’ Soiuza SSR? Krizis mezhnatsional’nykh otnoshenii i federal’naia natsional’naia politika, Moscow, 1993, pp. 31, 62, 235–6.
Dmitrii S. Likhachev, Reflections on Russia, ed. N.N. Petro, trans. C. Sever, Boulder, Colorado, 1991, passim.
A prolific exponent of this view has been Alisa Rusakova: ‘O statuse russkikh v Rossii’, Molodaia gvardiia, 1994, no. 3, pp. 8–14; ‘Konstitutsiia poraboshcheniia russkogo naroda’, ibid., 1994, no. 4, pp. 102–8; ‘Russkie i evraziiskii soiuz’, ibid., 1994, no. 9, especially p. 7; and ‘Glavnaia natsiia Rossii i kak ee ekspluatiruiut’, ibid., 1995, no. 2, pp. 141–50. In less strident form, the same view has penetrated academic writings.
See, for example, A.I. Vdovin, ‘Etnopolitika i formirovanie novoi gosudarstvennosti v Rossii’, Kentavr, 1994, no. 1, pp. 10–11.
John B. Dunlop, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993.
Walter Laqueur, Black Hundred: The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia, New York, 1993.
For example, V.D. Solovei, who collaborated with Laqueur, makes extensive reference to Dunlop in ‘Russkii natsionalizm i vlast v epokhu Gorbacheva’, in P. Goble and G. Bordiugov (eds), Mezhnatsional’nye otnosheniia v Rossiia i SNG, Moscow, 1994, pp. 46–72.
Laqueur, Black Hundred, pp. 175, 160, 105. The term ‘russophobia’ was coined by Solzhenitsyn and gained currency in the 1980s as the title of a book by the dissident nationalist mathematician, Igor Shafarevich, Rusofobiia, published in abbreviated form, shorn of its critical apparatus, as ‘Rusofobiia’, Nash sovremennik, 1989, no. 6, pp. 167–92.
F.I. Tiutchev, Stikhotvoreniia, Leningrad, 1957, p. 230.
For an important recent study by a sophisticated nationalist writer, see Vadim Kozhinov, Tiutchev, Moscow, 1988.
V.P. Buldakov, ‘Rusofobiia: proiskhozhdenie psikhoza’, in A.L. Litvin (ed.), Fenomen narodofobii. XX vek, Kazan’, 1994, p. 15;
Harriet Murav, ‘A Curse on Russia: Gorenshtein’s Anti-Psalom and the Critics’, Russian Review, vol. 52, 1993, p. 214.
Moskovskii sbornik, Moscow, 1896, passim; Robert F. Byrnes, Pobedonostsev: His Life and Thought, Bloomington, 1968, pp. 22–4, 291–2. Like Gladstone (whose work he translated), Pobedonostsev recorded his daily reading in his diaries: for the period 1896–1903, see Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv, fond 1574, opis’ 1, delo 2a.
I.A. Il’in, ‘Pochemu my verim v Rossiiu’, reprinted in Il’in, Nashi zadachi: Stat’i 1948–1954gg., 2 vols, Paris, 1956, vol. 1, p. 85.
V. Agafonov and V. Rokitianskii, Rossiia v poiskakh budushchego, Moscow, 1993, p. 297.
‘Homecoming’, BBC1, 10 April 1995.
Compare, for example, the different categorizations of John Hutchinson, Modern Nationalism, London, 1994, pp. 1–38,
and Anthony D. Smith, ‘Gastronomy or Geology? The Role of Nationalism in the Reconstruction of Nations’, Nations and Nationalism, vol. 1, 1995, no. 1, pp. 3–23, an incisive critique to which I am indebted for the typology which follows.
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, revised edn, London, 1991, p. 4.
Among students of the former Soviet Union, this model has found its most powerful (though not uncritical) exponent in Ronald Grigor Suny, The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Stanford, New Jersey, 1993.
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Oxford, 1983 is more materialist than his earlier Thought and Change, London, 1964, ch. 7.
Anthony D. Smith, National Identity, Harmondsworth, 1991, pp. 68–70;
id., The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Oxford, 1986.
Smith, ‘Gastronomy or Geology?’, p. 18.
A classic text in this tradition is Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914, London, 1977.
Gregory L. Freeze, ‘The soslovie (Estate) Paradigm in Russian Social History’, American Historical Review, vol. 91, 1986, no. 1, pp. 11–36.
See, for example, B.N. Mironov, Russkii gorod v 1740e–1860e gody: demograficheskoe, sotsial’noe i ekonomicheskoe razvitie, Leningrad, 1990, ch. 4;
Dominic Lieven, The Aristocracy in Europe 1815–1915, London, 1992, pp. 43–6, 56–7;
Alfred J. Rieber’s legitimate insistence on the interpenetration of Russian elite and peasant cultures is insufficient justification for his conclusion that ‘The social distance between the upper classes and the peasant masses was never so great in Russia as in Western Europe’: ‘The Sedimentary Society’, in E.W. Clowes, S.D. Kassow and J.L. West (eds), Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, Princeton, New Jersey, 1991, p. 347.
Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992, pp. 235–50;
Il’ia Serman, ‘Russian National Consciousness in its Development in the Eighteenth Century’ in Roger Bartlett and Janet M. Hartley (eds), Russia in the Age of the Enlightenment, London, 1990, pp. 40–56.
V.G. Belinskii, ‘Obshchee znachenie slova literatura’, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 13 vols, Moscow, 1953–9, vol. 5, pp. 633–4 (emphasis in the original).
On the self-evidently Germanic origins of these ideas, see Victor Terras, Belinskij and Russian Literary Criticism: The Heritage of Organic Aesthetics, Madison, Wisconsin, 1974, pp. 92–101.
Wayne Dowler, Dostoevsky, Grigor’ev, and Native Soil Conservatism, Toronto, 1982, pp. 55–7, 59, and passim;
Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860–1865, London, 1987, ch. 4.
Excellent though it is, current American scholarship on individual reforms lays so much emphasis on bureaucratic processes that this fundamental point is often obscured. It emerges, however, in W. Bruce Lincoln, The Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia, DeKalb, Illinois, 1990, pp. 168–9, 191–7.
See Adele Lindenmeyr, ‘The Rise of Voluntary Associations during the Great Reforms: The Case of Charity’, in Ben Eklof, John Bushnell and Larissa Zakharova (eds), Russia’s Great Reforms, 1855–1881, Bloomington, Indiana, 1994, pp. 264–75.
Leopold H. Haimson, ‘The Problem of Social Identities in Early Twentieth-Century Russia’, Slavic Review, vol. 47, 1988, no. 1, pp. 1–21.
Richard S. Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness, Chicago, Illinois, 1976;
Cathy A. Frierson, Peasant Icons: Representations of Rural People in Late 19th Century Russia, New York/Oxford, 1993, ch. 3.
Whether one believes in noble decline with Roberta Manning, The Crisis of the Old Order in Russia: Gentry and Government, Princeton, New Jersey, 1982,
or in noble adaptability with Seymour Becker, Nobility and Privilege in Late Imperial Russia, DeKalb, Illinois, 1985, the evidence for growing group-consciousness is overwhelming.
Richard S. Wortman, ‘Rule by Sentiment: Alexander II’s Journeys through the Russian Empire’, American Historical Review, vol. 95, 1990, no. 4, pp. 745–71.
The classic statement, a starting-point for much subsequent research, remains Leopold H. Haimson, ‘The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905–1917’, Part One, Slavic Review, vol. 23, 1964, no. 4, pp. 619–42 and Part Two, ibid., vol. 24, 1965, no. 1, pp. 1–22.
F.M. Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 30 vols, Leningrad, 1972–90, vol. 18, pp. 41–61 passim, especially p. 57: ‘Vsiakii russkii prezhde vsego russkii, a potom uzhe prinadlezhit k kakomunibud’ sosloviiu.’
Guides to the social history of 1917 include Daniel H. Kaiser (ed.), The Workers’ Revolution in Russia, 1917: The View from Below, Cambridge, 1987;
and Robert Service (ed.), Society and Politics in the Russian Revolution, London, 1992.
R. Suny, ‘Nationalism and Class in the Russian Revolution: a Comparative Discussion’, in Edith Rogovin Frankel, Jonathan Frankel and Baruch Knei Paz (eds), Revolution in Russia: Reassessments of 1917, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 219–46, seeks plausibly to blur the boundaries between nation and class, but is concerned almost exclusively with the non-Russians.
Orlando Figes, Peasant Russia, Civil War: The Volga Countryside in Revolution, 1917–1921, Oxford, 1989, pp. 151, 224–5.
The phrase is Moshe Lewin’s: see M. Lewin, The Making of the Soviet System, London, 1985, p. 265.
For important recent contributions on this highly controversial question, see J. Arch Getty and Roberta T. Manning (eds), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, Cambridge, 1993, especially part IV on the numbers involved. Robert Conquest stoutly maintains that the revisionists underestimate the fatalities.
Compare Evan Mawdsley, ‘Portrait of a Changing Élite: CPSU Central Committee Full Members 1939–1990’, in Stephen White (ed.), New Directions in Soviet History, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 191–206,
with the standard accounts of social mobility: Sheila Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union 1921–1934, Cambridge, 1979;
id., The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia, Ithaca, New York/London, 1992, especially ch. 7;
and Kendall E. Bailes, Technology and Society under Lenin and Stalin, Princeton, New Jersey, 1978.
John Barber and Mark Harrison, The Soviet Home Front 1941–1945: A Social and Economic History of the USSR in World War II, London, 1991, ch. 6, passim.
See, for example, Boris Shiriaev, ‘Nadnatsional’noe gosudarstvo na territorii Evrazii’, Evraziiskaia khronika, no. 7, Paris, 1927, pp. 10–11.
Graham Smith, ‘Privilege and Place in Soviet Society’, in D. Gregory and R. Walford (eds), Horizons in Human Geography, London, 1989, pp. 320–40.
Mervyn Matthews, Poverty in the Soviet Union: The Life-styles of the Underprivileged in Recent Years, Cambridge, 1986, pp. 148–55;
Michael Voslensky, Nomenklatura: Anatomy of the Soviet Ruling Class, trans. E. Mosbacher, London, 1984, p. 239.
Michael Cherniavsky, ‘Russia’, in Orest Ranum (ed.), National Consciousness, History and Political Culture in Early-Modern Europe, Baltimore, Maryland/London, 1975, pp. 118–43, quoted at p. 135.
Anatolii Lanshchikov, ‘Budet li sushchestvovat’ Rossiia? Starie voprosy i novye otvety’, Moskva, 1995, no. 1, p. 114. Interestingly, Lanshchikov uses the word ‘soslovie’.
Olga Kryshtanovskaya, ‘Rich and Poor in Post-Communist Russia’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, vol. 10, 1994, no. 1, pp. 3–24, traces increasingly rapid social differentiation since 1987, when capitalist operations in Russia were legitimized. One might also note that Chernomyrdin, whilst abolishing the restrictive propiska, replaced it with a suspiciously similar system of ‘registration’: Rossiiskaia gazeta, 27 July 1995.
As a masterly recent history of Rus’ argues, there was already evidence by the 12th century of an elite culture that ‘came to look and sound less and less like an obvious superimposition, more and more like an effective and distinctive synthesis of three originally quite separate strands — Byzantine, Scandinavian, and Slav’. See Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard, The Emergence of Rus 750–1200, London, 1996, p. 319.
The 1989 census revealed that whilst ethnic Russians constituted only 82 per cent of the population of the Russian Federation, some 25 million Russians remained outside its borders.
Dunlop, Rise of Russia, p. 123, and ch. 4, passim.
A.I. Vdovin, ‘Rossiiskaia natsiia. K nyneshnym sporam vokrug natsional’noi idei’, Kentavr, 1995, no. 3, pp. 9–11.
On the embarrassing connotations of federalism for Russian nationalists, see my ‘The Russians and the Russian Question’, in Graham Smith (ed.), The Nationalities Question in the Post-Soviet States, London, 1996, pp. 62–3.
See, inter alia, Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, ‘The Emergence of Eurasianism’, California Slavic Studies, vol. 4, 1967, pp. 39–72;
Charles Halperin, ‘George Vernadsky, Eurasianism, the Mongols and Russia’, Slavic Review, vol. 41, 1982, no. 3, pp. 477–93;
and Jane Burbank, Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917–1922, Oxford, 1986, pp. 208–22.
On links with Solov’ev, see G. Nivat, ‘Du “Panmongolisme” au “mouvement Eurasien”’, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, vol. 7, 1966, no. 3, pp. 460–78.
The most stimulating account remains Mikhail Agursky, The Third Rome: National Bolshevism in the USSR, Boulder, Colorado, 1987. For Eurasianist reaction to other émigrés’ charges of ‘closet Bolshevism’, see, for example, ‘Po povodu polemiki s evraziitsami’, Evraziiskaia khronika, no. 6, Paris, 1926, pp. 18–19.
Roman Jakobson (ed.), N.S. Trubetzkoy’s Letters and Notes, The Hague/Paris, 1975, p. 21, 28 July 1921; p. 135, 24 June 1929. In the same vein, one wonders whether the distinguished Glasgow journal Soviet Studies clarified its field of interest by renaming itself Europe-Asia Studies.
P.N. Savitskii, Rossiia — osobyi geograficheskii mir, Prague, 1926.
On Savitskii, see Mark Bassin, ‘Russia between Europe and Asia: The Ideological Construction of Geographical Space’, Slavic Review, vol. 50, 1991, no. 1, pp. 14–17.
For comparisons with Mackinder, see Milan Hauner, What is Asia to Us? Russia’s Asian Heartland Yesterday and Today, London, 1992, part 3,
and W.H. Parker, Mackinder: Geography as an Aid to Statecraft, Oxford, 1982.
Pending the study he deserves, the notes to his correspondence with Pasternak, published as an appendix to Vadim Kozovoi, Poet v katastrofe, Paris-Moscow, 1994, pp. 187–286, and Kozovoi’s discussion of their relationship, pp. 23–118, serve as a guide to Suvchinskii’s place in Russian culture.
John M. MacKenzie, Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts, Manchester, 1995, pp. 154–5, 170–1, 198–9. A convincing account of Russian music in its cultural-historical context remains to be written.
For a Soviet interpretation, see T.N. Livanova, ‘Russkaia muzyka v period obrazovaniia russkoi natsii’, in N.M. Druzhinin and L.V. Cherepnin (eds), Voprosy formirovaniia russkoi narodnosti i natsii, Moscow/Leningrad, 1958, pp. 347–87.
Conference discussion was diverted into complex gastronomic metaphors by my suggestion that although a Eurasian restaurant might offer both Oriental and European menus, no-one would expect borshch as its dish-of-the-day.
See, for example, A.A. Saltykov, Evraziitsy i ukraintsy: k probleme edinstva russkoi natsional’noi kul’tury, supplement to Karpatskii svet, Uzhgorod, 1930.
Smith, National Identity, pp. 35–7.
Gregory L. Freeze, The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform, Princeton, New Jersey, 1983 is the definitive treatment.
See, for example, John D. Morison, ‘The Church Schools and Seminaries in the Russian Revolution of 1905–06’, in Geoffrey A. Hosking (ed.), Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine, London, 1991, pp. 193–209;
and John Meyendorff, ‘Russian Bishops and Church Reform in 1905’, in Robert L. Nichols and Theofanis George Stavrou (eds), Russian Orthodoxy under the Old Regime, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1978, pp. 170–82.
See, for example, Hans Rogger, Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881–1917, London, 1983, p. 65; Marc Szeftel, ‘Church and State in Imperial Russia’, in Nichols and Stavrou (eds), Russian Orthodoxy, pp. 136–7;
and A.M. Davidovich, Samoderzhavie v epokhu imperializma: klassovaia sushchnost’ i evoliutsiia absoliutizma v Rossii, Moscow, 1975, p. 84.
I have sought to open up these neglected questions in part 1 of ‘Church, State and Society in Late Imperial Russia: The Diocese of St Petersburg, 1880–1914’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, 1993.
I suggested that this would be so in an essay written in 1990: ‘What Price an Orthodox Revival? The Dilemmas of the Russian Church’, in Peter J.S. Duncan and Martyn Rady (eds), Towards a New Community: Culture and Politics in Post-Totalitarian Europe, Hamburg/Münster, 1993, pp. 81–92. For further explorations of this theme, see Jonathan Sutton, Traditions in New Freedom: Christianity and Higher Education in Russia and Ukraine Today, Nottingham, 1996.
N.V. Riasanovksy, ‘N.S. Trubetskoy’s “Europe and Mankind”’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 12, 1964, no. 2, p. 217. Bassin, n. 62 above, also emphasizes that the Eurasians ultimately failed to break the Russian custom of distinguishing between Europe and Asia.
See Hans Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960, passim.
Quoted in Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, Stanford, California, 1994, p. 208.
W.F. Reddaway (ed.), Documents of Catherine the Great: The Correspondence with Voltaire and the Instruction of 1767 in the English Text of 1768, Cambridge, 1931, p. 216, article 6.
Quoted in F. Kazemzadeh, Russia and Britain in Persia, 1864–1917, New Haven, Connecticut, 1968, p. 27.
D. Geyer, Russian Imperialism: The Interaction of Domestic and Foreign Policy, 1860–1914, trans. B. Little, Leamington Spa, 1987, p. 94. Count Reiset, sometime French diplomat in St Petersburg, was determined ‘to drive [the Russians] back into Asia whence you came.
You are not a European Power; you ought not to be one, and you will not continue to be one if France remembers the part she ought to play in Europe.’ Quoted in W. Bruce Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia’s Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825–1861, DeKalb, Illinois, 1982, p. 170.
I.S. Rybachenok, Soiuz s Frantsiei vo vneshnei politike Rossii v kontse XIXv, Moscow, 1993, pp. 184–5.
Quoted in G.A. Hosking, The Russian Constitutional Experiment: Government and Duma 1907–1914, Cambridge, 1973, p. 218. Even Struve believed, however, that ‘the area which is genuinely open to the influence of Russian culture … is the whole Black Sea basin: that is, all the European and Asian countries bordering on the Black Sea’.
A. Pyman, The Life of Aleksandr Blok, vol. II: The Release of Harmony 1908–1921, Oxford, 1978, pp. 291–4, quoted at p. 293.
Carol Avins, Border Crossings: The West and Russian Identity in Soviet Literature 1917–1934, Berkeley, California, 1983, pp. 29–34, quoted at p. 31.
Jakobson, Notes and Letters, p. 21.
For critiques, from different perspectives, of the widespread coverage of Eurasian ideas in the Russian press, see Valerii Senderov, ‘Evrazii: proshloe ili budushchee, realnost’ ili mif?’, Grani, no. 175, 1995, pp. 247–78;
Appolon Kuz’min ‘Evraziiskii kapkan’, Molodaia gvardiia, 1994, no. 12, pp. 149–60;
Natal’ia Narochnitskaia and Kseniia Malo, ‘Eshche raz o “evraziiskom soblazne”‘, Nash sovremennik, 1995, no. 4, pp. 128–37.
In the context of the present chapter, perhaps the most relevant work by this prolific and idiosyncratic scholar is his last, Ot Rusi k Rossii: Ocherki etnicheskoi istorii, Moscow, 1992. Readers of English have access to his most explicitly methodological book in translation, Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere, Moscow, 1990. See also Bruno Naarden, ‘“I am a genius, but no more than that.” (Lev Gumilëv, 1912–1992): Ethnogenesis, the Russian Past and World History’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 44, 1996, no. 1, pp. 54–82.
See, inter alia, Iver B. Neumann, Russia and the Idea of Europe: A Study in Identity and International Relations, London, 1996, pp. 181–3.
Cynthia H. Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian Education: An Intellectual Biography of Count Sergei Uvarov 1786–1855, DeKalb, Illinois, 1984, pp. 19–24;
Uvarov quoted in Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, ‘Asia through Russian Eyes’, in Wayne S. Vucinich (ed.), Russia and Asia: Essays on the Influence of Russia on the Asian Peoples, Stanford, California, 1972, p. 12.
Striking studies include John Pemble, The Mediterranean Passion: Victorians and Edwardians in the South, Oxford, 1987,
and James Buzard, The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature and the Ways to ‘Culture’ 1800–1918, Oxford, 1993.
Susan Layton, Russian Literature and Empire: Conquest of the Caucasus from Pushkin to Tolstoy, Cambridge, 1994 is an original and significant study.
‘Pis’mo o russkikh romanakh’, Severnaia lira na 1827 god, eds T.M. Gol’ts and A.L. Grishunin, Moscow, 1984, p. 140. Gol’ts claims (p. 308) that Pogodin here first raised the possibility of Russian novels modelled on those of Sir Walter Scott. Yet earlier in the same year, one of Scott’s most celebrated Russian admirers, Denis Davydov, told him that a visit to the Caucasian spas had prompted thoughts of a novel to compare with St Ronan’s Well (1824). Davydov also wrote to Pushkin, presumably inspiring the surviving fragment of a planned ‘Roman na Kavkazskikh vodakh’. See M.P. Alekseev, ‘Val’ter Skott i ego russkie znakomstva’, in Russko-Angliiskie literaturnye sviazi (XVIII vek-pervaia polovina XIX veka), Literatumoe nasledstvo, vol. 91, Moscow, 1982, pp. 286, 288.
Greenfeld, Nationalism, p. 250, takes ressentiment as her guiding theme.
Greenfeld, Nationalism, is a masterly recent treatment.
Richard S. Wortman, ‘Moscow and St Petersburg: The Problem of Political Center in Tsarist Russia, 1881–1914’, in Sean Wilentz (ed.), Rites of Power: Symbolism, Ritual and Politics since the Middle Ages, Philadelphia, 1985, pp. 244–74.
‘Mainstream’ journals representing the ‘Muscovite’ viewpoint are Moskva, Molodaia gvardiia and Nash sovremennik, all of which have been closely associated with the Russian nationalist revival since the 1960s.
Valerii Khatiushin, ‘Satanizm demokratii’, Molodaia gvardiia, 1994, no. 9, pp. 143–69, at p. 146.
Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, On the Corruption of Morals in Russia, ed. and trans A. Lentin, Cambridge, 1969, p. 115 and passim.
For a recent summary of the views one of the most significant derevenshchiki, see Valentin Rasputin, ‘Gde moia derevnia?’, Moskva, 1995, no. 2, pp. 3–5.
Aleksandr Ianov, Posle El’tsina: ‘Veimarskaia’ Rossiia, Moscow, 1995.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1998 School of Slavonic and East European Studies
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dixon, S. (1998). The Past in the Present: Contemporary Russian Nationalism in Historical Perspective. In: Hosking, G., Service, R. (eds) Russian Nationalism Past and Present. Studies in Russia and East Europe . Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26532-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26532-9_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-26534-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-26532-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)