Deeds, Not Words: The Origins of Women's Philanthropy in the Russian Empire. Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, 37 by Wendy Rosslyn (review)

Abstract

reviews 559 example,careful study ofRussia'spotashtraderevealsthatitwas developed byforeigners undera speciallicensegranted bythetsarand apparently promisedtoyieldhighreturns . Bymid-century, Russia'srapidly growing potash industry reachedsucha largescalethatitresulted in significant deforestation in severalparts of Russia while simultaneously enrichingTsar Aleksei's favourites, including theMorozovand Miloslavskii clans,as wellas Charles IPs personalenvoyto thetsar. Department ofHistory Chester Dunning TexasA&M University Rosslyn, Wendy. Deeds,Not Words:The Origins of Women's Philanthropy in the Russian Empire.BirminghamSlavonic Monographs, 37. CREES, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 2007. 516 pp. Tables. Notes. Bibliography. Index.£38.00 (paperback). The subjectofWendyRosslyn's Deeds, NotWords is one thathistorians have touched upon,butfailedtoexploreindepth:namely, theparticipation ofelite womenin philanthropic societiesin theearlynineteenth century. Rosslyn's workis a thorough examination offemalephilanthropy which,she argues, providedwomenwitha 'pathintopubliclife'and ultimately 'redefined the boundariesbetweenmasculineand feminine spheres'in imperialRussia (p. 454).The voluntary associations thatappearedinresponse to theNapoleonic invasionof 1812weresmallin numberand oftenshort-lived, Rosslyn admits, yetthey represented thefirst instance whenRussianwomen'emerged from theprivate domestic sphere'(p. 1)and 'claimeda place in associational lifeand in civilsociety' (p. 189). Rosslyndividesherbook intothreeparts:in PartOne she exploresthe context fortheemergence ofwomen'sassociations byexamining theconcept ofpublicand privatein imperialRussia,discussing the history of Russian philanthropy, and offering a comparative surveyoffemalephilanthropy in Western Europeand theUnitedStates.She goes on in PartTwo to survey therangeofwomen'sbenevolent associations, whicharosefirst as an expressionofwomen 'spatriotism in 181 2 and were,Rosslynasserts, the'equivalent ofmilitary service'(p. 177)and an important manifestation of'femalecitizenship '(p. 173).PartThree is devotedto case studiesofwomen'sassociations throughout the empire.Of these,Rosslynfocusesparticularly on the St Petersburg Women'sPatriotic Society, for whichthemostextensive documentationsurvives . She also,however, examinestheworkofwomen'sorganizations inSimbirsk, Rigaand Orel,whichwere,bycomparison, motivated more byreligious and humanitarian imperatives, rather thantheobjectofwarrelief thatbrought theSt Petersburg society intoexistence. Amongthemanyfascinating topicsthatRosslynconsiders in thisworkis herattention totheinteraction between stateand society through themedium ofwomen'sassociations. As Rosslynobserves, thePatriotic Societymade use ofbothmaleandfemale channels ofcommunication tosolicit patronage from 560 SEER, 87, 3, JULY 2OO9 Alexander I and hisconsort, ElizavetaAlekseevna. To a lesserextent, access tolocalofficials was also significant inthesurvival ofwomen'sassociations on a provincial leveland dependedas wellon networks ofwomen- inthiscase, thewivesofgovernors and otherofficials. Rosslynpointsout,however, thatfeminine initiative rather thanimperial largessewas instrumental in the successof the Women's PatrioticSociety in raising fundsin theaftermath of 1812;she also notestheresistance ofits members to a merger withtheImperialPhilanthropic Society.Amongthe achievements ofwomen'sassociations weretheir contributions to poorrelief, therehabilitation ofprisoners, and theirrolein providing educationforgirls from disadvantaged families. Indeed,inlight ofthenumber offemaledonors tothePatriotic Society, Rosslyn suggests thattheworkofthelatter 'mobilized a newsegment ofthebenevolent public'(p.279).Womencomprised theboard and membership of the Patriotic Society,althoughboththe secretary and treasurer were male - a curiousfactin lightof noblewomen's economic independence in imperialRussia. Rosslynpaysmeticulous attention to the activities of each society, placingparticular emphasison women'srole in decision-making, theirresponsibility fortheuse of fundsand evaluationof applications forassistance, and theirinteraction withthepublic.In contrast totraditional almsgiving, Rosslyn asserts, participation inphilanthropic societies endowedtheirmembers withca senseofworking in a teamwithother women' (p. 245) and a senseof authority. She also considersthe benefits and liabilities forwomenwho tookpartin societiesthatincludeda male membership. Rosslyn is careful notto overstate thesignificance offemalephilanthropy. She remarks that,in contrast toWestern Europe,women'sassociations were rare,thattheir workwas 'essentially apolitical'(p. 243),and thatitcannotbe arguedthatthe societiesachieveda significant change 'in women'ssocial role' (p. 188).Thus,herconclusion thatfemalephilanthropists succeededin redefining 'theboundaries betweenmasculineand feminine spheres'and,in effect, 'challengedallegationsof women's essentialintellectual inferiority' seemssomewhat at odds withherevidence.She is on firmer groundwhen she asserts thatphilanthropic societies maynothave overturned thegender order,yetsucceededin widening women's'sphereofactivity' and acted as forerunners forlaterbenevolent societies withmoreexplicitly feminist goals. If thereis, however,a weaknessin thiswork,it is Rosslyn'suse of the concept of domesticity. On more than one occasion Rosslynmaintains thatbenevolent associations offered womenan opportunity to overcomethe 'isolation'ofrestriction in theirhomes(p. 257)and challengetheirexclusion fromthepublicsphere.And yettheprotagonists of her workwere,overwhelmingly , womenoftheelite,manyofwhomheldpositions at courtand whosesocialstatus madepossible the'channels offemale communication' that Rosslynvividly depicts.For Russiannoblewomen in thesecircles,the line between 'public'and 'private' wasoften ill-defined, and their roleat thecourt and as property ownersin theirown rightmeantthattheywerefarfrom confined to the 'domesticsphere.'Rosslynis well aware of thisambiguity, acknowledging that the boundarybetweenpublic and privatewas 'not REVIEWS 561 clearly differentiated' inearlynineteenth-century Russiaand thatwomen,like men,'functioned within a private realmthathad a publicface'(p.28).A more forceful and sustained consideration oftheproblematic status of'domesticity' for noblewomen wouldhavestrengthened parts ofthis fine andwell-researched book.Byraising important questions aboutthemeaning ofwomen'scivicand political identity...