FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2766378178> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2766378178 endingPage "732" @default.
• W2766378178 startingPage "732" @default.
• W2766378178 abstract "Slavonic and East European Review, 93, 4, 2015 REVIEW ESSAY Russia’s Soslovie (Estate) Paradigm Revisited SIMON DIXON Smith, Alison K. For the Common Good and Their Own Well-Being: Social Estates in Imperial Russia. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York 2014. ix + 278 pp. Illustrations. Figures. Tables. Notes. Selected bibliography. Index. £47.99: $74.00. When Vasilii Kliuchevskii delivered his lectures on the history of Russian sosloviia in 1886, he can hardly have imagined that the subject would still be so vigorously debated in the early twenty-first century.1 The concept itself seemed securely established — Kliuchevskii explicitly equated it with the Latin ordo or status, the French état and the German Stand — and he used it with reference to the legally recognized hierarchy of four social estates: nobility, clergy, townspeople and peasantry. Two of them had been defined by Catherine II in her charters of 1785, whose centenary prompted Kliuchevskii’s course.2 But the empress’s legislation was not the focus of his investigation. Fascinated by comparisons between the momentum and results of social development in Russia and the West — ‘Our social process is always more complicated, but our social forms are simpler and social Simon Dixon is Sir Bernard Pares Professor of Russian History at UCL. This essay was prepared under the auspices of a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (RSF), ‘Borders and markers of social stratification in Russia, XVII–XX centuries’, No. 14-18-01873. 1 V. O. Kliuchevskii, ‘Istoriia sosloviia v Rossii’, in his Sochineniia, 8 vols, Moscow, 1956–59, vol. 6, pp. 276–466, first published in 1887. 2 The most opportunistic publication to appear in the centenary year was A. D. Pazukhin, ‘Sovremennoe sostoianie Rossii i soslovnyi vopros’, Russkii vestnik, January 1885, pp. 1–58, a paean in praise of Muscovite autocracy and plea for noble influence which may have been written four years earlier. See Richard S. Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. Volume 2: From Alexander II to the Abdication of Nicholas II, Princeton, NJ, 2000, pp. 258–60. RUSSIA’S SOSLOVIE PARADIGM REVISITED 733 estates less sharply defined’3 — he reached the eighteenth century only in his final lecture, devoting most of the preceding twenty-one to a history of social fragmentation in Russia from the end of the first millennium. Even if 1785 did not signal ‘the end of history’ for Kliuchevskii, Catherine II’s reign marked, not only for him but for many of his contemporaries, the zenith of Russian estate formation. After that, or so many Anglo-American historians long continued to assume, came disintegration and a degree of stagnation. A century after Kliuchevskii’s lectures at Moscow University, a very different picture was painted by Gregory Freeze. Though the two historians shared one crucial assumption — both understood Russia’s social development as an essentially organic process, influenced but not artificially imposed by the state, as Kliuchevskii’s critics maintained — their emphases were otherwise at variance. Whereas Kliuchevskii, like so many others, had used the terms ‘estate’ and ‘class’ more or less interchangeably,4 Freeze insisted on the conceptual distinction between them. Whereas Kliuchevskii stressed the simplicity of Russia’s social structure and regarded consolidation as more or less complete by 1800, Freeze insisted on complexity and continuing dynamism. And whereas Kliuchevskii had devoted but a single final sentence to the nineteenth century, Freeze located the key ‘semantic breakthrough’ in its early decades, when the term ‘soslovie’ first acquired the meaning of a legally constituted estate and came to be used with reference to all social groups rather than merely the conventional four-fold hierarchy. He went on to claim not only that ‘the soslovie system — whether defined as legal, social, or cultural-psychological — was maturing, not dissolving, in the first half of the nineteenth century’, but that it retained its vitality and significance to the end of the Russian old regime. Even when traditional legal categories proved too rigid to encompass rapidly changing social realities, particularly beyond the confines of the empire’s most privileged groups, the soslovie system ‘remained largely intact in consciousness and law’ and offered, in the era of the Dumas, a basis for both electoral..." @default.
• W2766378178 created "2017-11-10" @default.
• W2766378178 creator A5053652066 @default.
• W2766378178 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2766378178 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2766378178 title "Russia's <em>Soslovie</em> (Estate) Paradigm Revisited" @default.
• W2766378178 cites W2333118207 @default.
• W2766378178 cites W2799804815 @default.
• W2766378178 doi "https://doi.org/10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.93.4.0732" @default.
• W2766378178 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2766378178 type Work @default.
• W2766378178 sameAs 2766378178 @default.
• W2766378178 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2766378178 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2766378178 hasAuthorship W2766378178A5053652066 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C15708023 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C2779105800 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C2780495726 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C6303427 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C138885662 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C144024400 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C154775046 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C15708023 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C166957645 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C17744445 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C199539241 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C2779105800 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C2780495726 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C6303427 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C74916050 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C94625758 @default.
• W2766378178 hasConceptScore W2766378178C95457728 @default.
• W2766378178 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2766378178 hasLocation W27663781781 @default.
• W2766378178 hasOpenAccess W2766378178 @default.
• W2766378178 hasPrimaryLocation W27663781781 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W1969320920 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W1981342146 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W2315259906 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W2330377567 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W2496845703 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W2680184555 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W2899323753 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W3023513038 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W4226086415 @default.
• W2766378178 hasRelatedWork W4237004355 @default.
• W2766378178 hasVolume "93" @default.
• W2766378178 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2766378178 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2766378178 magId "2766378178" @default.
• W2766378178 workType "article" @default.