SEER, 94, 4, October 2016 750 probably have been interested in hearing more about the way in which Thomas (probably) fabricated some of the material in his second book on Travels in the Regions of the Upper and Lower Amoor (1860). It would also have been useful for specialists to know more about the light cast on Thomas and Lucy’s travels by the archival material in the Royal Geographic Society. Readers with a more casual interest in the subject will certainly appreciate the high production qualities of South to the Great Steppe. They may, though, find themselves confused by Fielding’s failure to provide his readers with the kind of clear historical framework needed to allow them to put the Atkinsons’ experiences in context. The book contains a foreword by Rupert Goodman, Chairman of the BritishKazakh Society, complete with a paean of praise to President Nazarbayev — and a note that the National Welfare Fund of Kazakhstan helped to fund production of the book. The sub-title of the book refers to ‘The Travels of Thomas and Lucy Atkinson in Eastern Kazakhstan, 1847–1852’ (a striking use of language, presumably designed to emphasize the contemporary resonance of a nineteenth-century cultural encounter, for the term Kazakhstan would have meant nothing to the Atkinsons who thought instead of ‘Central Asia’ and ‘The Kirghis Steppe’). There is of course nothing necessarily wrong in this. The development of better relations between countries can certainly be helped by building greater understanding of their past cultural connections. There is nevertheless a sense when finishing this book of not being sure exactly what it is designed to achieve. The story of Thomas and Lucy Atkinson is, though, a fascinating one that deserves to be known better. Fielding’s obvious enthusiasm for his subjects may help make that possible, despite the oddities of the book, and it certainly reminded this reviewer of the adventures of an unlikely couple and their baby son. Lancaster University Michael Hughes Gilbert, George. The Radical Right in Late Imperial Russia: Dreams of a True Fatherland? BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, 104. Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 2016. xxiii + 258 pp. Map. Illustrations. Glossary. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £100.00. The Russian political right was a sort of anomaly. It consisted mostly of actors who disliked — or at least professed to dislike — politics and who became active in support of a regime whose official defenders were often wary of autonomous political forces. In recent years, especially in Russia, scholars have devoted considerable attention to rightist activists and organizations, yet REVIEWS 751 our understanding of them, as opposed to their leftist counterparts, remains woefully underdeveloped. For this reason alone, the volume under review is most welcome. Yet The Radical Right in Late Imperial Russia has other virtues. It draws upon extensive research in the periodical press, a valuable yet perenniallyneglectedsource.Itengageswellwithmuchrelevanthistoriography. Gilbert has delved deeply into archival material, especially police reports, but also personal collections of rightist activists. He places the Russian right in European comparative perspective, and he pays close attention to regional developments, including case studies on Odessa, Kiev and Astrakhan´. The author combines a chronological and a thematic approach. Following an overview of nineteenth-century conservative thought, he focuses on an early nationalistic cultural organization, the Russian Assembly. Founded in 1901, it soon had branches in numerous provincial capitals. Its members celebrated ‘the greatness of Russian culture’ (p. 30) and disparaged non-Russians, especially Jews. Most government officials, who were often personally antipathetic toward Jews, worried about such attitudes inflaming ethnic tensions. Many activists of the incipient right, for their part, regretted what they considered the weakness of senior officials and even the tsar himself. The Revolution of 1905 energized right-wing activists and brought to life a constellation of rightist groups, like the Union of Russian Men and the Union of Russian People, which in two years had hundreds of branches across the empire. For the most part they opposed constitutionalism, limits on the monarchy, and the government’s agrarian reform; were suspicious of capitalism and vowed to protect the interests of peasants and workers, yet exhibited a lack of faith in the Russian people. Resort to...