Suchergebnisse

The Socialist-Revolutionary (SR) party gained an overall majority in the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was dissolved by the Bolsheviks in January 1918. The SRs derived the bulk of their electoral support from the peasantry, and the gulf between the predominantly urban Bolshevik party and the rural masses was to create immense problems for the Soviet government in the 1920s, culminating in the horrors of forced collectivization. The SRs offered an alternative vision of the Russian peasant's path to socialism. They were closer to the peasantry than any other revolutionary party, and more aware of the problems involved in implementing a socialist transformation of Russian agriculture. In this study the author traces the development of SR agrarian policy in the party's formative years, from the period of disillusionment which followed the failure of the Populist 'movement to the people' of the 1870s, through the revolutionary years 1905–7, to the subsequent reaction under Stolypin

The concept of 'peasant wars' in 17th- and 18th-century Russia was borrowed by Soviet historians from Friedrich Engels' work on the Peasant War in Germany. The four peasant wars of the early modern period were identified as the uprisings led by Ivan Bolotnikov (1606-1607), Sten'ka Razin (1667-1671), Kondratiy Bulavin (1707-1708) and Emel'ian Pugachev (1773-1775). Following a debate in the journal Voprosy istorii in 1958-1961, the 'first peasant war' was generally considered to encompass the period c.1603-1614 rather than simply 1606- 1607. This approach recognised the continuities in the events of the early 17th century, and it meant that the chronological span of the 'first peasant war' was virtually identical to that of the older concept of the 'Time of Troubles'. By the 1970s the term, 'civil wars of the feudal period' (based on a quotation from Lenin) was sometimes used to define 'peasant wars'. It was recognised by Soviet historians that these civil wars were very complex in their social composition, and that the insurgents did not exclusively (or even primarily) comprise peasants, with Cossacks playing a particularly significant role. Nevertheless the general character of the uprisings was seen as 'anti-feudal'. From the 1980s, however, R.G. Skrynnikov and A.L. Stanislavskiy discarded the view that the events of the 'Time of Troubles' constituted an anti-feudal peasant war. They preferred the term 'civil war', and stressed vertical rather than horizontal divisions between the two armed camps. Western historians, with the notable exception of the American historian Paul Avrich, generally rejected the application of the term 'peasant wars' to the Russian uprisings of the early modern period, regarding them as primarily Cossack-led revolts. From the 1960s, however, Western scholars such as Teodor Shanin (following the American anthropologist Eric Wolf) began to use the term 'peasant wars' in relation to the role played by peasants in 20th-century revolutionary events such as those in Russia and China. Some of these Western historians, including Avrich and Wolf, used the term not only for peasant actions in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, but also for peasant rebellions against the new Bolshevik regime (such as the Makhnovshchina and the Antonovshchina) that Soviet scholars considered to be counter-revolutionary banditry. The author argues that, in relation to the 'Time of Troubles' in early 20th-century Russia, the term 'peasant war' is not entirely suitable to describe peasant actions against the agrarian relations of the old regime in 1905 and 1917, since these were generally orderly and non-violent. The term is more appropriate for the anti-Bolshevik uprisings of armed peasant bands in 1918-1921, as suggested by the British historian Orlando Figes.

The Editorial Board of the journal is rightly proud that it managed to persuade Professor Maureen Perrie, the eminent British historian of Russia, to write this memoir, intriguingly entitled 'From Poetry to Peasantry: my Early Adventures in Russian Studies'. The memoir is written with such candour, and in such a lively and entertaining style, that its appeal will extend beyond specialists in the humanities. The reader is presented with a portrait of an entire generation, with its insights and its delusions, its loyalty to its parents' moral code and its aspiration towards new visions of humanity. Maureen Perrie's remarkable memory for detail enables her to create a complex and dynamic picture of the attitude of British society towards Russia, of cultural interactions and the cruel political prejudice that played such a pernicious role. At the same time we have a valuable account of her youthful enthusiasms, heartfelt experiences and the role of personal relationships in her development as a historian. The author followed a complex path, beginning with an interest in Russian literature and the Symbolists (her favourite poet was Alexander Blok), and leading on to research on the Russian peasantry, pretenderism and the Russian monarchy. This trajectory provides evidence of her inquiring mind and her desire to get to the very heart of a phenomenon – because a true understanding of Russia involves first and foremost an understanding of the patriarchal mindset, the peasant world, popular utopias and the cruelty of the regime towards its own people. Maureen Perrie has brilliantly succeeded in her task. Her publications make a major contribution to international Russian Studies; and this autobiographical essay, which is so revealing of the author's personality, provides entertaining and moving reading for all lovers of Russian culture. ; Редколлегия журнала по праву гордится тем, что ей удалось заинтересовать выдающегося английского профессора истории России Морин Перри предложением написать воспоминания, интригующе озаглавленные «От поэтики литературы к истории крестьянства: мои ранние приключения в области русистики». Воспоминания написаны с таким доверительным чувством, настолько живо и занимательно, что должны привлечь внимание не только специалистов в сфере гуманитарной науки. Перед читателем возникает портрет целого поколения с его проницательностью и заблуждениями, верностью родительской морали и устремлением к новым горизонтам человечности. Удивительная память Морин Перри на детали позволяет воспроизвести объемную и динамичную картину отношения британского общества к России, культурных взаимодействий и политической античеловеческой ангажированности, играющей губительную роль. Вместе с тем перед нами драгоценные страницы, описывающие увлечения юности, тонкие переживания, роль человеческих взаимоотношений в формировании историка. Проделанный автором непростой путь, начавшийся с интереса к русской литературе и младосимволистам (любимый поэт – А. Блок) и приведший к изучению русского крестьянства, самозванчества и российской монархии, свидетельствует о пытливости ума и стремлении проникнуть в самую глубь явления, потому что действительно понять Россию – это, в первую очередь, понять патриархальное сознание, крестьянский мир, народные утопии и жестокость режима к своему народу. Это блестяще удалось Морин Перри. Ее работы являются важной страницей мировой русистики, а ее биографические заметки, раскрывающие личность автора, представляют занимательное и эмоциональное чтение для всех любящих русскую культуру.