Natsionalism. Polemika 1909–1917 ed. by M. Kolerov (review)

Ab Imperio, 1-2/2001 489 ством. Думается, что работу мог- ло бы украсить заключение, обобщающее выводы отдельных глав. Можно смело утверждать, что трехтомник “Население России в ХХ веке”, займет достойное ме- сто в историографической тради- ции, как одно из наиболее полных и объективных исследований, по- священных актуальной в совре- менном мире теме – демографи- ческой истории народов России. Serguei GLEBOV Natsionalism. Polemika 1909-1917/ Antology edited by M. Kolerov. Moscow: Dom Intellektual’noi Knigi , 2000. 238 p. Notes. Antologies are only rarely well received. They are often criticized for simplistic approach, wrong kind of selectivity or lack of organization and scholarly apparatus. The collection of articles and essays put together by a well known specialist on the period of 1909-1917 Modest Kolerov deserves attention and praise as an example of superb work. Kolerov’s editorial work is also known for the annual publication Issledovania po istorii russkoi mysli. Although many of the texts presented in the collection have been available to scholars and public for a long time, their combination in one volume allow us to follow a line in the debate on nationalism during one of the crucial periods of Russian history. Even more interestingly, this particular collection of articles brings some light upon the controversy of intelligentsia’s assimilationism and the moral stance behind intelligentsia’s nationalizing projects . It was during this period that the Russian intelligentsia came to realize the acute necessity to come to terms with issues of national identity and their relation to the fact of the multinational character of the empire . Political language of nationalism became a highly contested ground as liberals entered the debate . At the same time, Struvian interpretations of “free” nationalism that “alone was capable of creating ‘imperium’” put additional pressure on the participants in the debate to elaborate more on their visions of the future of nationalities, ethnic or civic nature of Russian nationalism, and the relationship between differently understood nationalist projects and the tsarist regime. Our under- Рецензии 490 standing of the fact that national(ist) mobilization during the period accounted for a significant part of instability in the empire does not discount the research into the social underpinnings of these processes; rather, we are more and more tempted to look at the combination between social issues and national grievances to better understand the dynamics of the collapse of the Old Regime in Russia. Sharp debates fought out in the press reflect this dynamics and we are lucky to have a professionally composed exposition . The collection draws on two important debates, both related to Petr Struve: the first, in 1909, followed Struve’ article about Russian national identity (o natsional’nom litse) and drew much of its inspiration from the so-called “Jewish question”; the second, in 19161917 , focused on the “moral and ethical elements” of the Russian national project. The editor precedes the texts with a thoughtful, although unfortunately too brief, introduction that outlines main positions in the debates and contextualizes them in terms of the imperial authority’s policies with respect to nationalities. Hopefully, the editor will expand the introduction: unfortunately, there is not too much of secondary historical literature on the subject except for the Vekhi controversy. The first part of the collection reflects the controversy that surrounded the appearance of Petr Struve’s article in which the author, who in the course of his life slowly moved rightwards, problematized the relationship between “Russian” as “rossiiskii ” and “russkii”. Struve, undoubtedly one of the first and most prominent Russian liberal nationalists , in a highly controversial and disputed article pronounced the emergence of “something that came forever: the national individuality (natsional’noe litso). For Struve, the national individuality of the Russians emerged in the opposition to the supranational, imperial identity of Russia as “Rossia”. Struve disagreed with the part of intelligentsia that accepted the imperial design of the concept “rossiiskii” and argued in favor of the “Russian national feeling”. Struve’s position triggered a range of responses. Vinaver and Miliukov, Zhabotinsky and Golubev presented their own arguments. Considering the fact that the focus of the polemics was the so-called “Jewish question”, the publication can also be of value for those studying Jewish history in Russia. As Modest Kolerov argued in his inroduction , Jews, Germans and Ukrainians were indispensable for the Russian national project as they were major empire builders in Russia . Their position came under governmental attack at the end of the 19th century. This assault served, as it were, a precondition and messen- Ab Imperio, 1-2/2001 491...