Frances Nethercott. Writing History in Late Imperial : Scholarship and the Literary Canon. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. 296 pp. $115.00, cloth, ISBN 978-1-350-13040-1.

Reviewed by Orel Beilinson (Yale University)

Published on H-Russia (February, 2021)

Commissioned by Oleksa Drachewych (Western University)

Frances Nethercott has produced a welcome and memory, and to the development of European contribution to a growing cohort of books dealing historiography. with historical thinking and writing in the Russian Nethercott starts by discussing the institution‐ Empire and its successors. These works—most not‐ al context. By virtue of cohabitation within the ably Historians and Historical Societies in the Pub‐ same historical-philological faculty, the study of lit‐ lic Life of Imperial Russia (2017) by Vera Kaplan, erature was historical and the study of history was whose praise is featured on the back cover—ad‐ institutionally closer to the literary than the social vance our understanding of the historical practice scientific disciplines, even as Rankian and positiv‐ in the empire by considering not only its intellec‐ ist turns made their way from the Continent. tual and political dimensions but also exploring its Equally important, however, was that historians cultural and social aspects. In eight densely argued established extra-institutional forums for learning chapters, Nethercott explores the relationship and discussion, such as associations and seminars. between literature and history and, in so doing, In these parallel “sites of learning,” “the study of complicates our understanding of the late imperial history never entirely vacated its common ground historiography to a great extent. with belles lettres" (p. 33). Hovering over these sites Such a project is especially appreciated in a of learning were master historians, the focus of the field whose graduate students—and even the pub‐ book’s second chapter. These historians were not lic in Russia—still draw on the works of nine‐ only praised for combining a careful examination teenth-century historians like Sergey Solovyov of the facts with literary ability, but also saw their and Vasily Klyuchevsky, whose weighty tomes of vocation as one of enlightenment and thus related literary classics star in their stories of coming to to the general reading public. It is a consequence choose Russia. Both of these features can be attrib‐ of this perceived role that allowed no “differenti‐ uted, to a certain extent, to the academic genea‐ ated discourse” in Russia between “‘textbook his‐ logy that connects the late imperial historians with tory,’ lectures, and the public addresses” that are their émigré students who occupied key positions usual components of the professionalization of the in English-speaking academia. Much of the current historical practice (p. 56). historiography has focused on reading the devel‐ Her third chapter focuses on style. For the stu‐ opment of Russian historiography in relation to dent of and history, whose train‐ political issues, to the creation of official history ing must have included at least portions of H-Net Reviews

Klyuchevsky’s five-volume Kurs russkoy Istorii from Klyuchevsky to Grevs is done masterfully (1904), this chapter is highly revealing. Her analys‐ and elegantly. Grevs and his students contributed is demonstrates how mastery of style was per‐ not only to a man-centered approach to history ceived as crucial for the writing of good history but also to its local and topographical study. These and the extent to which literature could substitute were not separate endeavors. Unlike Marc Bloch’s for “law-based, empirical enquiry” when desired emphasis on enduring structures (to whom Russi‐ (p. 75). A public enlightener, Klyuchevsky’s beauti‐ ans often compared Grevs), Grevs saw the local as ful portraits of figures like Ivan the Terrible were a way of “total immersion … into the spiritual cul‐ much needed and appreciated, but, expectedly, ture” (p. 136). His method was thus of visualization, were later rejected by Soviet historians who fo‐ of using its “material trace” to reconstruct its cul‐ cused on the empirical and the scientific. Thus, for tural world (p. 137). Following the turn to the local fulfilling their purposes, historians were able to and the tangible and its connection to Russia’s draw “upon a rich inventory of sources including, unique form of historical-literary scholarship is in addition to fiction, legal record, memoir, notes certainly one of the book’s strongest and most in‐ and impressions by foreign visitors” (p. 97). This lit‐ teresting points. erary toolbox and its perceived merits and limita‐ In chapter 7, Nethercott explores the corpus of tions is the subject of chapter 4. writings produced by historians on the “modern The fusion of literary and historical writing literary pantheon” of modern Russia (p. 141), fo‐ was aided by the idea that “a work of realist art cusing on Alexander Pushkin, , Mikhail could be treated as a phenomenon of actual life,” a Lermontov, and Ivan Turgenev. Their affinity, prevalent idea in the 1860s (p. 99). Historians like proved on the methodological level so far, seems a Ivan Grevs employed works of literature like Hor‐ natural match to the reader: historians were inter‐ ace’s lyric poetry not only when the sources for ested in the values of history and in what the re‐ “external facts” were missing but also as “social- construction of mental environments has to offer psychological observations” that made for a more and thus were interested in the values and atmo‐ complete portrait (p. 100). Such sentiments were spheres created by these men of letters. As literati heeded by Jacob Burckhardt in central Europe, for put in charge of the writing of history, they were whom poetry was “one of [history’s] purest and also interested in contextualizing the authors and finest sources” (p. 113). Nethercott shows how discussing the philosophies of history that eman‐ Klyuchevsky and Grevs differed in their use of lit‐ ate from their work. The latter, and more expected, erature, with the latter using literature to supple‐ role better conformed to western European con‐ ment records that were not available to him and ceptions of how literature and history should coex‐ the former more liberal in making “fictional prot‐ ist, with literature being a cultural artifact that is agonists no less than historical ‘great men’ viable shaped by the author’s background and times. candidates for his deepening interest in national The entire spectrum of possibilities and con‐ character” (p. 115). In many respects, Grevs’s tradictions is well encapsulated in this quote of achievement in the “anthropologization of eco‐ Klyuchevsky from an unsigned review of Sergey nomic research” (Anton Sveshnikov’s words, p. Platonov’s Ancient Russian Tales and Stories about 116) was well ahead of its time. the Times of Troubles of the 17th Century as a His‐ Chapter 6, perhaps the most surprising to the torical Source (1888), which I find useful to repro‐ contemporary historian, discusses “tangible rem‐ duce here in full: “There is not one historical nants of the past” and Grevs’s fieldwork (p. 117). source, which does not require critical verification. This is a Grevs chapter; the transition in focus Besides, what does factual material for the history

2 H-Net Reviews entail? Historical facts are not simply events: the Writing History in Late Imperial Russia is a ideas, viewpoints, feelings, impressions by people tightly argued and pleasantly presented study that in a given period are also facts, they are very im‐ abounds in fascinating insights. Its primary audi‐ portant and equally require critical study” ence is mainly historians of historiography or, (quoted, p. 158). Thus, Nethercott claims convin‐ even more likely, of Russia, as it assumes some ba‐ cingly to show a differentiation—even if one unin‐ sic knowledge (an assumption of which the reader tuitive to us—between “literary-critical” and “his‐ is implicitly reminded by the phrase “of course” torical skills” (p. 158). with which the text is checkered) of Russia’s his‐ The final chapter turns to the historical study tory. Those who are in possession of such know‐ of literature. Unlike in France, where the adoption ledge will hear many pennies drop during the read‐ of positivism produced a sharp distinction ing. The short epilogue, which brings these issues to between the study of history and the study of liter‐ their resurfacing during the Thaw, testifies to the ature, Nethercott adopts Lidiia Lotman’s term to continuing relevance of literature to the Russian- describe a “hybrid philological-historical science” speaking historical discipline. in which folklore and oral traditions were em‐ ployed in the study of social and cultural history (p. 167). A series of case studies show the notion of narodnost’ allowed nationalists and Slavophiles to continue some of the tendencies of the Romantic era in their study of folklore. Nethercott demon‐ strates how, more perhaps than in many other, parallel academic spheres, historians of literature and mainstream historians shared the same con‐ cerns and many of the same convictions. Having said that, this chapter brings her main point to completion: literature was exceptionally useful to historians in the late , ranging from “verbal art, supporting evidence, to source, and resource in the study of man’s attachment to his environment” (p. 187).

3 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-russia

Citation: Orel Beilinson. Review of Nethercott, Frances. Writing History in Late Imperial Russia: Scholarship and the Literary Canon. H-Russia, H-Net Reviews. February, 2021.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55497

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

4