Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: February 12, 2021 at 1:06:00 PM EST > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Russia]: Beilinson on Nethercott, 'Writing History > in Late Imperial Russia: Scholarship and the Literary Canon' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Frances Nethercott. Writing History in Late Imperial Russia: > Scholarship and the Literary Canon. London Bloomsbury Academic, > 2019. 296 pp. $115.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-350-13040-1. > > Reviewed by Orel Beilinson (Yale University) > Published on H-Russia (February, 2021) > Commissioned by Oleksa Drachewych > > Frances Nethercott has produced a welcome contribution to a growing > cohort of books dealing with historical thinking and writing in the > Russian Empire and its successors. These works--most notably > _Historians and Historical Societies in the Public Life of Imperial > Russia_ (2017) by Vera Kaplan, whose praise is featured on the back > cover--advance our understanding of the historical practice in the > empire by considering not only its intellectual and political > dimensions but also exploring its cultural and social aspects. In > eight densely argued chapters, Nethercott explores the relationship > between literature and history and, in so doing, complicates our > understanding of the late imperial historiography to a great extent. > > Such a project is especially appreciated in a field whose graduate > students--and even the public in Russia--still draw on the works of > nineteenth-century historians like Sergey Solovyov and Vasily > Klyuchevsky, whose weighty tomes of literary classics star in their > stories of coming to choose Russia. Both of these features can be > attributed, to a certain extent, to the academic genealogy that > connects the late imperial historians with their émigré students > who occupied key positions in English-speaking academia. Much of the > current historiography has focused on reading the development of > Russian historiography in relation to political issues, to the > creation of official history and memory, and to the development of > European historiography. > > Nethercott starts by discussing the institutional context. By virtue > of cohabitation within the same historical-philological faculty, the > study of literature was historical and the study of history was > institutionally closer to the literary than the social scientific > disciplines, even as Rankian and positivist turns made their way from > the Continent. Equally important, however, was that historians > established extra-institutional forums for learning and discussion, > such as associations and seminars. In these parallel "sites of > learning," "the study of history never entirely vacated its common > ground with _belles lettres__"_ (p. 33). Hovering over these sites of > learning were master historians, the focus of the book's second > chapter. These historians were not only praised for combining a > careful examination of the facts with literary ability, but also saw > their vocation as one of enlightenment and thus related to the > general reading public. It is a consequence of this perceived role > that allowed no "differentiated discourse" in Russia between > "'textbook history,' lectures, and the public addresses" that are > usual components of the professionalization of the historical > practice (p. 56). > > Her third chapter focuses on style. For the student of Russian > language and history, whose training must have included at least > portions of Klyuchevsky's five-volume _Kurs russkoy Istorii _(1904), > this chapter is highly revealing. Her analysis demonstrates how > mastery of style was perceived as crucial for the writing of good > history and the extent to which literature could substitute for > "law-based, empirical enquiry" when desired (p. 75). A public > enlightener, Klyuchevsky's beautiful portraits of figures like Ivan > the Terrible were much needed and appreciated, but, expectedly, were > later rejected by Soviet historians who focused on the empirical and > the scientific. Thus, for fulfilling their purposes, historians were > able to draw "upon a rich inventory of sources including, in addition > to fiction, legal record, memoir, notes and impressions by foreign > visitors" (p. 97). This literary toolbox and its perceived merits and > limitations is the subject of chapter 4. > > The fusion of literary and historical writing was aided by the idea > that "a work of realist art could be treated as a phenomenon of > actual life," a prevalent idea in the 1860s (p. 99). Historians like > Ivan Grevs employed works of literature like Horace's lyric poetry > not only when the sources for "external facts" were missing but also > as "social-psychological observations" that made for a more complete > portrait (p. 100). Such sentiments were heeded by Jacob Burckhardt in > central Europe, for whom poetry was "one of [history's] purest and > finest sources" (p. 113). Nethercott shows how Klyuchevsky and Grevs > differed in their use of literature, with the latter using literature > to supplement records that were not available to him and the former > more liberal in making "fictional protagonists no less than > historical 'great men' viable candidates for his deepening interest > in national character" (p. 115). In many respects, Grevs's > achievement in the "anthropologization of economic research" (Anton > Sveshnikov's words, p. 116) was well ahead of its time. > > Chapter 6, perhaps the most surprising to the contemporary historian, > discusses "tangible remnants of the past" and Grevs's fieldwork (p. > 117). This is a Grevs chapter; the transition in focus from > Klyuchevsky to Grevs is done masterfully and elegantly. Grevs and his > students contributed not only to a man-centered approach to history > but also to its local and topographical study. These were not > separate endeavors. Unlike Marc Bloch's emphasis on enduring > structures (to whom Russians often compared Grevs), Grevs saw the > local as a way of "total immersion ... into the spiritual culture" > (p. 136). His method was thus of visualization, of using its > "material trace" to reconstruct its cultural world (p. 137). > Following the turn to the local and the tangible and its connection > to Russia's unique form of historical-literary scholarship is > certainly one of the book's strongest and most interesting points. > > In chapter 7, Nethercott explores the corpus of writings produced by > historians on the "modern literary pantheon" of modern Russia (p. > 141), focusing on Alexander Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, Mikhail Lermontov, > and Ivan Turgenev. Their affinity, proved on the methodological level > so far, seems a natural match to the reader: historians were > interested in the values of history and in what the reconstruction of > mental environments has to offer and thus were interested in the > values and atmospheres created by these men of letters. As literati > put in charge of the writing of history, they were also interested in > contextualizing the authors and discussing the philosophies of > history that emanate from their work. The latter, and more expected, > role better conformed to western European conceptions of how > literature and history should coexist, with literature being a > cultural artifact that is shaped by the author's background and > times. > > The entire spectrum of possibilities and contradictions is well > encapsulated in this quote of Klyuchevsky from an unsigned review of > Sergey Platonov's _Ancient Russian Tales and Stories about the Times > of Troubles of the 17th Century as a Historical Source _(1888), which > I find useful to reproduce here in full: "There is not one historical > source, which does not require critical verification. Besides, what > does factual material for the history entail? Historical facts are > not simply events: the ideas, viewpoints, feelings, impressions by > people in a given period are also facts, they are very important and > equally require critical study" (quoted, p. 158). Thus, Nethercott > claims convincingly to show a differentiation--even if one > unintuitive to us--between "literary-critical" and "historical > skills" (p. 158). > > The final chapter turns to the historical study of literature. Unlike > in France, where the adoption of positivism produced a sharp > distinction between the study of history and the study of literature, > Nethercott adopts Lidiia Lotman's term to describe a "hybrid > philological-historical science" in which folklore and oral > traditions were employed in the study of social and cultural history > (p. 167). A series of case studies show the notion of _narodnost'_ > allowed nationalists and Slavophiles to continue some of the > tendencies of the Romantic era in their study of folklore. Nethercott > demonstrates how, more perhaps than in many other, parallel academic > spheres, historians of literature and mainstream historians shared > the same concerns and many of the same convictions. Having said that, > this chapter brings her main point to completion: literature was > exceptionally useful to historians in the late Russian Empire, > ranging from "verbal art, supporting evidence, to source, and > resource in the study of man's attachment to his environment" (p. > 187). > > _Writing History in Late Imperial Russia_ is a tightly argued and > pleasantly presented study that abounds in fascinating insights. Its > primary audience is mainly historians of historiography or, even more > likely, of Russia, as it assumes some basic knowledge (an assumption > of which the reader is implicitly reminded by the phrase "of course" > with which the text is checkered) of Russia's history. Those who are > in possession of such knowledge will hear many pennies drop during > the reading. The short epilogue, which brings these issues to their > resurfacing during the Thaw, testifies to the continuing relevance of > literature to the Russian-speaking historical discipline. > > Citation: Orel Beilinson. Review of Nethercott, Frances, _Writing > History in Late Imperial Russia: Scholarship and the Literary Canon_. > H-Russia, H-Net Reviews. February, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55497 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#6326): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/6326 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80590229/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
