1837: Russia's Quiet Revolution by Paul Werth

Abstract

Reviewed by: 1837: Russia's Quiet Revolution by Paul Werth Valeria Sobol (bio) Paul Werth, 1837: Russia's Quiet Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). 213 pp., ill. Index. ISBN: 978-0-19-882635-4. Paul Werth's new book offers an intriguing reinterpretation of Nicholas I's reign, typically viewed as a stagnant and oppressive period of Russian history, sandwiched between the Decembrist uprising of 1825 and the era of Great Reforms that followed Russia's catastrophic defeat in the Crimean War. Focusing on one specific year, Werth argues instead that the 1830s in Russia was a time of "dynamism, innovation, and consequence" (P. 2), when a "quiet revolution" took place "that unified and integrated the country, while also serving to embody a Russian nation in institutions and practices" (P. 201). On the surface, the year 1837 was relatively inconspicuous, lacking the dramatic ruptures and transformations we typically associate with a revolution. And yet, the argument goes, that year was punctuated by developments that, when viewed in retrospect, had long-term consequences and ultimately proved critical to the formation of modern Russia. The book consists of ten chapters, each telling the story of a particular event in Russian history that occurred in 1837 and, as the author argues, played a crucial role in ushering Russia into the modern age. It starts with the death of Alexander Pushkin in a duel in January 1837, prompting the creation of the myth of the national poet, and ends with the December 1837 fire that destroyed the Winter Palace, which then was quasi-miraculously restored by Easter of 1839. In between the reader will find chapters examining a range of important developments: the creation of the first Russian opera, the future Alexander II's tour of the empire, the birth of the provincial press, and the construction of the first railroad in Russia, among others. Each of these events, to a lesser or greater degree, as Werth shows, unified the Russian population not just as imperial subjects but also as a nation–both physically, through its first railroad, and symbolically, through its first national poet and first national opera, as well as the first intense philosophical inquiry into the essence of the Russian national character by Petr Chaadaev (chapter 3). According to Werth, "a Russian nation, in short, was emerging within the empire" as a result of the confluence of these individual events (P. 3). In the introduction to the book, Werth explains that its chapters can be read separately or consecutively, depending on the reader's interests and background. Indeed, each chapter follows the same structure, [End Page 295] starting with an intriguing "hook" that introduces the topic and ending with a conclusion and notes; each can be read as a self-contained piece. In some cases, the author draws connections between the chapters, with varying degrees of success. (I personally did not find his attempt to link the publication of Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letter" to the cult of Pushkin and the veneration of Glinka's opera A Life for the Tsar particularly convincing.) In general, while the individual analyses do add up to support the overarching argument about the significance of 1837 (and the 1830s more broadly), more conceptual links between chapters would have strengthened the author's central claim. Overall, the chapters are somewhat uneven in regard to the use of primary research and the level of originality. The chapter on Pushkin is based largely on secondary sources and tells a story that is rather familiar to most Russian literary scholars and Pushkin aficionados. The author makes it clear that each sketch is addressed less to specialists who "may take issue with simplifications designed to keep the text accessible and brief" (P. 4) than to general readers and is intended to pique their interest in the subject. And yet I cannot help but wish for a more nuanced analysis of Pushkin's famous poem "I have built myself a monument," which is part of a long "Exegi Monumentum" tradition going back to Horace, rather than an original and prescient work as it appears from Werth's discussion. Closer attention to the translation of the original text would also be welcome...