No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
How does one go about describing briefly a large and complex society in the process of rapid change? The problems involved are not only of space but also of conceptualization. To be comprehensive yet succinct one must fall back on generalizations, which always run the danger of concealing the very nuances that make up the richness and diversity of a culture. Moreover, the nature and direction of change in modern societies is a matter of continuing controversy, and a common basis of theory and terminology cannot be taken for granted. No society in modern times has been more subject to conflicting assumptions and interpretations than that of Russia. Under these circumstances, perhaps the best solution is to adopt an approach sufficiently general to do justice to the complexities involved and at the same time definite enough in its point of view to offer a consistent interpretation—as well as a reasonably clear basis for controversy.
1 Brutzkus, Boris, “Die historischen Eigentümlichkeiten der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklung Russlands,” Jahrbücher für Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, X (1934), 62–99 Google Scholar, and Coulborn, Rushton, “Der europäisch-russische Gegensatz,” Die politische Meinung, II (February, 1957), 13–26, offer suggestive interpretations of imperial Russian society.Google Scholar
2 Vernadsky, George, “The Expansion of Russia,” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, XXXI (July, 1933), 391–425 Google Scholar, provides a succinct account. The very extensive development of the lands beyond the Urals after 1861 is described in Donald Treadgold, W., The Great Siberian Migration: Government and Peasant in Resettlement from Emancipation to the First World War (Princeton, 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3
(Moscow, 1943) offers what is probably the most perceptive discussion of Peter's reforms.
4
(Petrograd, 1916) develops this theme.
5 Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855 (Berkeley, 1959)Google Scholar, and Monas, Sidney, The Third Section: Police and Society in Russia under Nicholas I (Cambridge, Mass., 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar present in graphic detail the theory and practice of autocracy in the reign of Nicholas I, and offer a valuable guide to the large literature on this subject.
6 Sumner, Benedict H., A Short History of Russia (New York, 1943), pp. 84–85.Google Scholar
7
(2 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1913), I, 274-368, provides the best analysis of the formal system of stratification; the historical background is discussed in 
(3rd ed.; Petrograd, 1918).
8 The structure and functioning of the stratification system are discussed in K. Koia 
(Prague, 1926); 
(Paris, 1933), pp. 78-108, 258-79;
Feldmesser, Robert A., “Social Classes and Political Structure,”
The Transformation of Russian Society: Aspects of Social Change Since 1861, ed. Black, Cyril E. (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), pp. 235-52Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Transformation of Russian Society); and
Tucker, Robert C., “The Image of Dual Russia,“
Transformation of Russian Society, pp. 587–605.Google Scholar
9 Haimson, Leopold H., “The Parties and the State: The Evolution of Political Attitudes,“ Transformation of Russian Society, pp. 110-45.Google Scholar
10 For a discussion of this important question see Szeftel, Marc, “Aspects of Feudalism in Russian History,” Feudalism in History, ed. Coulborn, Rushton (Princeton, 1956), pp. 167-82;Google Scholar and Coulborn, Rushton, “Russia and Byzantium,” ibid., pp. 344-63.Google Scholar The extensive controversy in Russian historiography on this issue is reviewed by Marc Szeftel in ibid., pp. 413-19. A similar conclusion is reached in George Vernadsky, “Feudalism in Russia,“ Speculum, XIV (July, 1939), 300–323.
11 Blum, Jerome, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, 1961)Google Scholar, provides a comprehensive account of the origins and development of serfdom.
12 Pavlovsky, G., Agricultural Russia on the Eve of the Revolution (London, 1930)Google Scholar, and Robinson, Ceroid T., Rural Russia Under the Old Regime (New York, 1932).Google Scholar
13 These developments are reviewed in Strakhovsky, L. I., “Constitutional Aspects of the Imperial Russian Government's Policy Toward National Minorities,” Journal of Modern History, XIII (December, 1941), 467-92.Google Scholar
14 Čiževskij, Dmitrij, History of Russian Literature from the Eleventh Century to the End of the Baroque (The Hague, 1960)Google Scholar, chaps, vi and vii, provides a valuable discussion of early European influences.
15 The literature on this subject is virtually inexhaustible. Among recent American contributions, Von Laue, Theodore H., “The Industrialization of Russia in the Writings of Sergej Witte,” American Slavic and East European Review, X (October, 1951), 177-90Google Scholar, and Raeff, Marc, Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772-1839 (The Hague, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, are examples of a renewed interest in the thought of reforming bureaucrats.
16 This subject has been studied recently in Yaney, George L., “The Imperial Russian Government and the Stolypin Land Reform,” unpubl. Ph.D. diss. (Princeton, 1961).Google Scholar
17 The adaptation of Marxism to the Russian environment is a matter of particular interest. See especially Ulam, Adam, “The Historical Role of Marxism and the Soviet System,” World Politics, VIII (October, 1955), 371–401;Google Scholar and Wittfogel, Karl A., “The Marxist View of Russian Society and Revolution,” World Politics, XII (July, 1960), 487–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Gerschenkron, Alexander, “The Rate of Industrial Growth of Russia Since 1885,“ Journal of Economic History, VII, Supplement (1947), 144-74;Google Scholar and Goldsmith, Raymond W., “The Economic Growth of Tsarist Russia, 1860-1913,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, IX (April, 1961), 441-75.Google Scholar
19 See Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Problems and Patterns of Russian Economic Development,“ Transformation of Russian Society, esp. pp. 42–61 Google Scholar, for a discussion of the underlying economic policies of the imperial government.
20 Eason, Warren W., “Population Changes,” Transformation of Russian Society, pp. 72–90 Google Scholar, summarizes and interprets Russian statistical materials; Bill, Valentine T., The Forgotten Class: The Russian Bourgeoisie from the Earliest Beginnings to 1900 (New York, 1959)Google Scholar has performed a useful service in calling attention to the role of the entrepreneur; Rimlinger, Gaston V., “Autocracy and the Factory Order in Early Russian Industrialization,“ Journal of Economic History, XX (March, 1960), 67–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discusses the status of the workers in the last decades of the empire.
21 Hans, Nicholas, History of Russian Educational Policy (1701-1917) (London, 1931), pp. 229-42Google Scholar, provides a convenient summary of educational statistics.
22 Garthoff, Raymond L., “The Military as a Social Force,” Transformation of Russian Society, pp. 326-27Google Scholar, reviews the available evidence on the changing social status of the officer corps.
23 A valuable introduction to this subject will be found in Kluckhohn, Clyde, “Recent Studies of the National Character of Great Russians,” Human Development Bulletin (February 5, 1955), pp. 39–60;Google Scholar Dicks, Henry V., “Some Notes on the Russian National Character,” Transformation of Russian Society, pp. 636-52;Google Scholar and Inkeles, Alex and Levinson, Daniel J., “National Character; The Study of Modal Personality and Socio-cultural Systems,“ Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Lindzey (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., 1954), II, 977-1020.Google Scholar
24 Von Laue, Theodore H., “Die Revolution von aussen als erste Phase der russischen Revolution 1917,” Jahrbiicher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, IV (1956), 138-58Google Scholar, stresses the differences between the Russian and French revolutions, in contrast to Deutscher, Isaac, “The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution: Some Suggestive Analogies,” World Politics, IV (April, 1952), 469-81.Google Scholar