Abstract
In the age of ‘high imperialism’ during the late nineteenth century, the size of the imperial state and its population were increasingly perceived as complementary to economic and military power in asserting status in world power politics. This, however, stimulated a range of critical challenges to imperial legitimacy and cohesion for most European empires. The most pressing of these challenges was how to adapt to the spread of nationalist and democratic ideologies without dissolving their own territorial sovereignty. For a brief period during the late nineteenth century, elites in many European empires adopted similar approaches in an attempt to construct imperial states through the promotion of homogenous, though hierarchical and exclusory, national-imperial identities founded on shared racial or ethno-religious dynamics.
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.
Reference
2 W. Connor, ‘A Nation is a Nation, is a State, is an Ethnic Group is a…,’ in Ethnic and Racial Studies 1:4 (1978), 378–97.
6 The suppression of national ‘euphoria’ can be seen as a tacit awareness of the potential impact of self-aggrandizing nationalism on nation, state and empire building. See K. Kumar, ‘Nation and Empire: English and British National Identity in Comparative Perspective’, Theory and Society 29 (2000), 575–608.
8 See A. Stoler, ‘On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty’, Public Culture 18 (2006), pp. 125–46.
15 Burroughs, ‘John Robert Seeley and British Imperial History’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 1:2 (1973), 191–211, here p. 202.
18 K. Kumar, ‘Empire and English Nationalism’, Nations and Nationalism 12:1 (2006), 1–13, esp. 2.
26 R. F. Byrnes, ‘Kliuchevskii’s View of the Flow of Russian History’, The Review of Politics 55:4 (1993), 565–91.
28 On Klyuchevsky, see V. A. Aleksandrov, ‘Vasilii Osipovich Kliuchevskii (1841–1911): The 150th centenary of his birth’, History of the USSR 6 (1991), 57–69; M. V. Nevchika., Vasilii Osipovich Kliuchevskii: The History of his Life and Works (Moscow, 1981); R. A. Kireeva., Vasilii Osipovich Kliuchevskii as a Historian of Russian Historical Science (Moscow, 1968); A. A. Zimin, ‘The formation of Vasilii Osipovich Kliuchevskii’s historical outlook in the 1860s’, Historical Notes 69 (1961), 178–96; R. F. Byrnes, ‘The Survey Course that became a Classic Set: Kliuchevskii’s Course of Russian History’, The Journal of Modern History 66:4 (1994), 737–54; G. Vernadsky, Russian Historiography. A History (Belmont, MA, 1978).
34 Seeley, The Expansion of England, p. 9. See also M. Lee, ‘The Story of Greater Britain: What Lessons does it Teach?’, National Identities 6:2 (2004), 126.
50 See Mark Bassin, ‘Turner, Solov’ev, and the “Frontier Hypothesis”: The Nationalist Signification of Open Spaces’, The Journal of Modern History 65:3 (1993), 473–511, esp. 491–4.
72 O. Chadwick, ‘Historian of Empire’, Modern Asian Studies 15:4 (1981), 879.
73 E. H. Gould, ‘A Virtual Nation: Greater Britain and the Imperial Legacy of the American Revolution’, American Historical Review 104:2 (1999), 476–89, esp. 486.
132 A. Pagden, ‘The Empire’s New Clothes: From Empire to Federation, yesterday and today’, Common Knowledge 12:1 (2006), 36–46, 40.
133 The Expansion of England was in continuous publication until 1956, and was republished again in 1971. See also P. Horn, ‘English Elementary Education and the Growth of the Imperial Ideal 1880–1914’, in J. A. Mangan (ed.), Benefits Bestowed: Education and British Imperialism (London, 1988), p. 39. See also P. Yeandle, ‘Englishness in Retrospect: Rewriting the National Past for the Children of the English Working Classes, c.1880–1919’, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 6:2 (2006), 9–26.
137 D. G. Rowley, ‘Imperial versus national discourse: The case of Russia’, Nations and Nationalism 6:2 (2000), 23–42.
146 J. A. Pocock, ‘The New British History in Atlantic Perspective: An Antipodean Commentary’, American Historical Review 104:2 (1999), 490–500, here 491.
147 J. R. Tanner, ‘John Robert Seeley’, The English Historical Review 10:39 (1895), 514–517, 514; D. Armitage, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (Cambridge, 2000), p. 17.
148 See P. B. M. Blaas, Continuity and Anachronism: Parliamentary and constitutional development in Whig historiography and in the anti-Whig reaction between 1890 and 1930 (The Hague, 1978); N. Jardine, ‘Whigs and Stories: Herbert Butterfield and the Historiography of Science’, History of Science 41 (2003), 125–40.
150 See also J. Gascoigne, ‘The Expanding Historiography of British Imperialism’, The Historical Journal 49:2 (2006), 577–92.
151 For an excellent overview of the conceptual challenges of the new imperial history in Russia, see I. Gerasimov, S. Glebov, A. Kaplunovski, M. Mogilner and A. Semyonov, ‘In Search of a New Imperial History’, Ab Imperio 6:1 (2005), 33–56.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Andrew Mycock with Marina Loskoutova
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mycock, A., Loskoutova, M. (2010). Nation, State and Empire: The Historiography of ‘High Imperialism’ in the British and Russian Empires. In: Berger, S., Lorenz, C. (eds) Nationalizing the Past. Writing the Nation: National Historiographies and the Making of Nation States in 19th and 20th Century Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292505_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292505_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31526-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29250-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)