REVIEWS 965 government [. . .] passed to the elected institutionsof estate self-government' in the main territoryof centralRussia (p. 75). According to the authors, the boyars and embryonic social estates posed some constraintson the tsar'spower, somethingwhich causedIvan to establish his Oprichnina. 'The essence of the Oprichnina conflict lay [... ] in a disagreement between the tsar and his former associates concerning the way in which centralisationshouldbe implemented'(p. I 23).Since the Oprichnina was designed to suppressthe political independence of the estates, the I566 Assemblyof the Land 'cannotbe consideredto be a trulyestate-representative institution' (pp. 131-32). The authors agree with Platonov that Ivan's Oprichnina was directedagainstthe old princelyaristocracy. Not all readers will apparently be convinced by the social rationale for Ivan's politics proposed by Pavlov and Perrie. Their discussion of estates would have benefited from a definition of an estate. Muscovite local administrationwas a rathercomplex mixtureof elected and appointedofficials with considerableregionalvarietieseven in the heartlandof the realm. Pavlov and Perrie are very successful in integrating recent studies of Muscovite culturein theiraccount of Ivan'spolitics.Ivan'sregimemaintained itselfnot only through coercion, but also throughpublic ritualswhich 'helped to promote the integration and cohesion of the realm' (p. 205). The authors convincingly show that the I547 coronation enhanced the symbolic connection between Moscow, Kiev and Byzantium, but was irrelevantto the Third Rome theory. Pavlov and Perrie also examine the various interpretationsof the victory over Kazan' in icons, architecture,court rituals,and literaryand folkloretexts. They pay due attention to the semiotic and culturalinterpretation of the Oprichnina which explain Ivan's perversities in terms of eschatological expectations and preparations for the Last Judgement. It is, however, unclear why Ivan needed the Oprichnina to harness the princes if he was able to impose service obligations on them before the Oprichnina (cf. p. 70). On the whole, this book can be highly recommended as a balanced and comprehensiveaccount of Ivan IV's reign. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies SERGEI BOGATYREV University College London Edmondson, Linda (ed.). Gender in RussianHistoy and Culture.Studies in Russian and East European History and Society. Palgrave, Basingstoke andNewYork,200 I. XViii + 223 pp. Illustrations. Notes.Index.?52.50. THIS collection of articlesis based on papers presented at a I996 conference in Birmingham devoted to 'gender and perceptions of sexual difference in Russian culture and history'. As all but two of the authors are employed in Britishacademia, the volume presentsa good, if not comprehensive,overview of the contemporary state of the field. The contributorsinclude specialistsin history, literature, and politics, and the period covered ranges from the late seventeenth century to the 1970s. Perhapsthe main weaknessof this volume, as of most articlecollections, is thatit lacksa coherent and cohesive argument. Little attempt has been made either to analyse the state of the field or to 966 SEER, 82, 4, 2004 presentacomprehensive introduction toit.Indeed,astheeditoriswellaware, theprimaryfocusof thesearticlesremainson womenratherthangenderper se.Whiletheconstruction of masculinity is addressed atleastperipherally in severalcontributions, thisabsenceisnoteworthy inlightofthevolume'stitle. Furthermore, severalarticlesonly nod at genderapproachesand instead followthemoretraditional pathsofsocialhistory. Withthesecaveatsinmind, thebookdoespresentarangeofinteresting articles onawidevarietyoftopics. One ofthethemesrunningthroughmanyofthearticlesismotherhood or, perhaps moreprecisely, howmaternity canframeparticular kindsofidentities and strugglesfor power.CatrionaKelly thusexploresthe tensionsarising fromthelateeighteenth-century notionof'pedagogical motherhood'. Itcould legitimize,for example,both educationand independenceas well as the ideologyof separatespheres. Joe Andrewpursuesthissecondtheme,among others,in his examinationof the imageof the womanwriterin the early nineteenthcentury.Inheranalysis oftextsfromtheOldBelievermovement, Irina KorovushkinaPaert instead focuses on the shiftingmeanings of asceticismandmaternity,showinghow an asceticmodelempoweredsome womento aspireto a categoryof manliness andhencespiritual equalitywith men. The renunciation of the sexualizedfemalebodylikewiseprovidesthe backdrop forArjaRosenholm's analysis ofthe'sexless' andhighlymoral'new woman'ofthe i 86os.Yetfemalesexuality wasnotalwaysunruly,asPeterUlf Mollershowsinhisarticleonthecontemporary reception ofLeonidAndreev's controversial storiesof rape,prostitution, and suicide.At issuein the early twentieth century debatewasmuchmoretheanimalviolenceofmalesexuality imposedupon the passivefemalevictim.Sexualityis alsothe topicof Dan Healey'sinteresting pieceon theinventionoftheSovietlesbianin the I 920S, whenbotha tolerantanda repressive approachbrieflycompetedbeforethe victoryof the latterin the early I930S. Indeed,psychiatrists developeda potentiallypositiveimageof the lesbianas an intermediate genderwhose 'masculinity' madeherparticularly well-suited towork. Otherarticles examinewomen'sexperiences ofworkmoreclosely.Melanie Ilicthusdetailsthestate'sattempts toregulate theworkhoursofwomeninthe 1920s, an effortresistedby the supposedbeneficiariesof such protective intervention. Incontrast toIlic'sfocusonlegislation, LynneAttwoodexplores theStalinist pressby tracingrepresentations ofwomen'sworkandmaternity fromthe late 1920S to 1953. Finally,both MaryBuckleyand Sue Bridger probetherelationship betweenpropaganda andrealities. Despitetheidealistic view propagated in public life, women workers in the I930s were predictably enough -belittled and harassed.Yet Buckley also suggeststhat at least some...
Read full abstract