REVIEWS 763 Russian-American Company) and as a site to develop agricultural products for the benefit of Russian colonists in Alaska. The catastrophic collapse of the sea otter population and the wavering fortunes of the agricultural experiments at Ross form important subplots in the documents. The ebbs and flows of Russian relations with local indigenous peoples — some of whom integrated with the Russians — are another important topic. In sum, this promises to be the standard interpretive work and documentary base on Russian California for many years to come. Meticulously edited, the work comes with four nicely drawn maps and numerous attractive illustrations (someincolour).Itwillbeofinteresttoanyoneseekingauthoritativescholarship on Russian colonialism in the Pacific but especially valuable to non-Russian speaking scholars of general colonial history seeking to incorporate Russian California in their work. Finally, it should be added that the translations of a handful of the documents from Rossiia v Kalifornii that are excluded from the present collection — because they deal with Russian views of Spanish California — can be found in California through Russian Eyes (Norman, OK, 2013), also edited by James Gibson. Department of History Ilya Vinkovetsky Simon Fraser University Šedivý, Miroslav. Metternich, the Great Powers and the Eastern Question. University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, 2013. 1033 pp. Figures. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Price unknown. The historian Thomas Babington Macaulay once witheringly observed, of a book he had to review, that he thought it unfair of the author to demand of his reader so large a portion of so short an existence. Similar sentiments must be aroused by Miroslav Šedivý’s enormous study of Metternich’s Near Eastern diplomacy, from the Greek revolts of 1821 to the conclusion of the second Mohammed Ali crisis in 1841. The text alone, divided into thirty-one chapters, comes to 986 pages. The apparatus of notes, some of which take up half a page, referring almost exclusively to unpublished primary sources, represents a species of overkill; one sentence (pp. 52–53) has seven separate references in it, and a typical footnote contains references to twenty or thirty documents. The bibliography is awe-inspiring, and a useful update on the literature, but does not contain several items referred to in the notes. The translation from Czech is in general grammatical, but not always felicitous, in that the author’s long-winded sentences are faithfully preserved, and there is a characteristically Slav uncertainty about the use of definite and indefinite articles as well as prepositions. The narrative is a classic example of what gives diplomatic history a SEER, 93, 4, OCTOBER 2015 764 bad name, being overly detailed and convoluted, despite its good and consistent analytical overview; a typical example (pp. 513–17) is the absurdly detailed account of a spat over diplomatic credentials in Mohammed Ali’s Egypt. Even the most dedicated specialist in the Metternich era, surely, must question the point of so exhaustive a recapitulation of events. All this said, it would be a pity if Šedivý’s work were to be ignored, because it has considerable virtues, not least as a corrective to the hackneyed view of Metternich as a small-minded reactionary, so common among previous generations of British historians like Sir Charles Webster, who specialized in the foreign policy of Palmerston and who, in Šedivý’s opinion, insensibly absorbed their principal’s jaundiced view of Metternich. As a piece of research, Šedivý’s book deserves the epithet ‘monumental’. For what is clearly a revised doctoral thesis, the author has mined to good effect a huge array of primary source material from some fourteen archives across Europe, from Moscow to London to the Vatican. There are important new revelations (pp. 930–32), from hitherto uninspected parts of Metternich’s published papers, on the Tanzimat reforms of Reshid Pasha and Metternich’s support for these. Šedivý makes good use of quotes, especially Metternich’s often lapidary formulations, even if many of the quotations are over-long. To some extent Šedivý is a victim of what might be called Metternich syndrome: he tends to see everything through Metternich’s eyes, but he is still capable of criticizing his subject, particularly with regard to the Greek revolts. Šedivý is also critical of the more absurd, because so...