584 Рецензии/Reviews rable part of the Russian Empire. Jane Burbank, in an article on the local courts of the Russian Empire, stresses the phenomenon of legal pluralism: “This principle of the plurality of standards in legislation reflected the real existing diversity of social norms and legal practices in the different parts or social strata of the empire.” These works call to attention, in particular, the interest of a comparative approach within the frontiers of a single empire, which shows the variations among the imperial regions. They propose a reflection on center and periphery taken in a subjective sense, as linked to a sense of identity as opposed to a geopolitical conception. This collective book contains a plethora of ideas and should interest historians of empire and nationalism, political scientists, and historical sociologists. It is regrettable that the book does not include studies on international relations and the diplomatic history of empires, as these would have helped to illuminate the phenomena of the balance of power and therefore the sustainability of empires (an explicit focus of the book), and might have offered a level of comparison that would have been more historically informed than the broad typological approach. Nonetheless, taken together these studies are an interesting and significant contribution to the field of imperial studies. Thomas SANDERS Alter L. Litvin, Writing History in Twentieth-Century Russia: A View From Within (Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave, 2001). xi+201 pp. Translated and Edited by John L. H. Keep. Appendices, Notes, Bibliography . ISBN: 0-333-76487-0. This book is as difficult to characterize as it is to put down. Part personal reflection, part historiographical review, and part political and intellectual prolegomenon, it is an odd, yet extraordinarily moving, work. This opportunity to peek behind the curtain of Soviet historical practice reminds those of us privileged enough to live in open societies how much we have been smiled upon by fate. At the same time, it yields a great hopefulness about both humanity and the post-Soviet order. The decency, fair-mindedness, and generosity that characterizes Professor Litvin’s assessment of both the Soviet experience and the practice of history in twentieth-century Russia is testimony to the endurance of what Lincoln called “our better angels” in the face of totalitarian attempts to efface them. There is here, too, a pulsing devotion to the “historian’s craft,” as Marc Bloch would have it, that revives memories of the grander vistas of our calling, of “that noble dream” of objectivity and service to society writ large 585 Ab Imperio, 3/2005 that once undergirded the historical profession. Finally, the essay’s few shortcomings serve as a cautionary tale of work that still needs to be done to bring native Russian historiography into the mainstream of global Russian studies. A rich work, indeed. Alter Litvin is a professor of history and historiography at Kazan State University in Tatarstan. He has authored, co-authored, or edited over twenty works on Russian history. In Soviet times his works were on predictable topics (today oddly dissonant sounding), such as Zashchishchaia revoliutsiiu: chekisty Tatarii v pervye gody Sovetskoi vlasti, 1917-1922 (Kazan, 1980). Since glasnost and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, however , he has produced a stream of works, testifying to his analytical sophistication and source mastery. They range from a study of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, to works on the NKVD’s dealings with Evgeniia Ginzburg and Boris Savinkov, to an essay on historical sources. The work under review here was evidently facilitated, as well as translated and edited, by John Keep, former professor at the University of Toronto and author of some interesting studies of Russia and the USSR. In fact, Litvin and Keep have another collaborative work just now appearing on Stalinism, so it remains a fertile collaboration. One curious aspect of Writing History is the shifting “valences,” or combinations of considerations, that characterize the work. As Litvin details, his father was declared an “enemy of the people,” and the political discrimination this entailed was further complicated by the fact of their Jewishness. Despite the hardships and hurdles this personal history produced, Litvin argues throughout the work for objectivity and against the enduring Russian question...
Read full abstract
Dec 1, 2008
Mahjoob Zweiri + 1
Open Access