There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor ... more There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor will there ever likely be again. Five extraordinary students in Michael Karpovich's seminars of 1946-1947 at Harvard University went on to dominate the Russian historical field in America for some four decades. 2 They took the lead at the three preeminent centers of Russian historical study in postwar America-Martin Malia and Nicholas Riasanovsky at Berkeley, Leopold Haimson and Marc Raeff at Columbia, and Richard Pipes at Harvard. At these institutions, they collectively trained the overwhelming majority of prominent Russian historians and between them much of the broader field. They also opened or creatively developed many fields and periods of Russian historical inquiry-more than any other cohort then or since. This study is deeply personal. At Harvard in the late 1980s and early 1990s, my graduatestudent colleagues and I often debated who were the "most important" historians of Russia. Our lists usually included all five. After I finished my PhD in 1992, I frequently exchanged letters with Pipes, an exemplary correspondent. The Pleiade continued to fascinate me, the term suggesting itself quite naturally: Terrence Emmons around the same time referred to the cohort as "a remarkable pleiad." 3 In a diary entry I penned on June 9, 1995, I had already laid out the basic premise of this study. "In the field of Russian history in America," I wrote,
Page 1. TSAR'S COLONELS and Subversion in ate Imperial Russia DAVID ALAN RICH Page 2. Page 3... more Page 1. TSAR'S COLONELS and Subversion in ate Imperial Russia DAVID ALAN RICH Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. (dvifyjuq uo panuyuoo ) [EUOIJEUJajUI pUE AJlTjqEJS DIUIOUO39 JO SUIJ ui AjjEap ajEjs aqj JSOD AoajEjjs ...
Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2017
There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor ... more There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor will there ever likely be again. Five extraordinary students in Michael Karpovich's seminars of 1946-1947 at Harvard University went on to dominate the Russian historical field in America for some four decades. 2 They took the lead at the three preeminent centers of Russian historical study in postwar America-Martin Malia and Nicholas Riasanovsky at Berkeley, Leopold Haimson and Marc Raeff at Columbia, and Richard Pipes at Harvard. At these institutions, they collectively trained the overwhelming majority of prominent Russian historians and between them much of the broader field. They also opened or creatively developed many fields and periods of Russian historical inquiry-more than any other cohort then or since. This study is deeply personal. At Harvard in the late 1980s and early 1990s, my graduatestudent colleagues and I often debated who were the "most important" historians of Russia. Our lists usually included all five. After I finished my PhD in 1992, I frequently exchanged letters with Pipes, an exemplary correspondent. The Pleiade continued to fascinate me, the term suggesting itself quite naturally: Terrence Emmons around the same time referred to the cohort as "a remarkable pleiad." 3 In a diary entry I penned on June 9, 1995, I had already laid out the basic premise of this study. "In the field of Russian history in America," I wrote,
uses active verbs as if what she claimed to have happened actually happened: “What happened next ... more uses active verbs as if what she claimed to have happened actually happened: “What happened next Maria observed with her own eyes. . . . Even if Maria could not recall the precise date, she distinctly remembered Khanna asking for a ‘good Christian boy.’ . . . Maria went down to the basement and saw the boy on the ground wrapped in linen” (62–63). If caution may sometimes lead to clunky language at the expense of otherwise elegant prose, it is a cost worth paying. These quibbles notwithstanding, The Velizh Affair is a noteworthy example of microhistory that sheds light onto broader issues of the history of Nicholaevan Russia and its Jewish past, paradoxically both reinforcing and challenging common stereotypes about this expansive state, its bureaucracy, and its culture.
The French Revolutionary Tradition in Russian and Soviet Politics, Political Thought, and Culture, 2019
Because they were Marxists, the Bolsheviks in Russia, both before and after taking power in 1917,... more Because they were Marxists, the Bolsheviks in Russia, both before and after taking power in 1917, believed that the past was prologue: that embedded in history was a Holy Grail, a series of mysterious but nonetheless accessible and comprehensible universal laws, that explained the course of history from beginning to end; those who understood these laws would be able to mould the future to conform to their own expectations. But what should the Bolsheviks do if their Marxist ideology proved to be either erroneous or insufficient—if it could not explain, or explain fully, the course of events that followed the revolution they carried out in the country they called the Soviet Union? Something else would have to perform this function. The underlying argument of this book is that the Bolsheviks saw the revolutions in France in 1789, 1830, 1848, and 1871 as supplying practically everything Marxism lacked. In fact, these four events comprised what for the Bolsheviks was a genuine Revolution...
There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor ... more There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor will there ever likely be again. Five extraordinary students in Michael Karpovich's seminars of 1946-1947 at Harvard University went on to dominate the Russian historical field in America for some four decades. 2 They took the lead at the three preeminent centers of Russian historical study in postwar America-Martin Malia and Nicholas Riasanovsky at Berkeley, Leopold Haimson and Marc Raeff at Columbia, and Richard Pipes at Harvard. At these institutions, they collectively trained the overwhelming majority of prominent Russian historians and between them much of the broader field. They also opened or creatively developed many fields and periods of Russian historical inquiry-more than any other cohort then or since. This study is deeply personal. At Harvard in the late 1980s and early 1990s, my graduatestudent colleagues and I often debated who were the "most important" historians of Russia. Our lists usually included all five. After I finished my PhD in 1992, I frequently exchanged letters with Pipes, an exemplary correspondent. The Pleiade continued to fascinate me, the term suggesting itself quite naturally: Terrence Emmons around the same time referred to the cohort as "a remarkable pleiad." 3 In a diary entry I penned on June 9, 1995, I had already laid out the basic premise of this study. "In the field of Russian history in America," I wrote,
Page 1. TSAR'S COLONELS and Subversion in ate Imperial Russia DAVID ALAN RICH Page 2. Page 3... more Page 1. TSAR'S COLONELS and Subversion in ate Imperial Russia DAVID ALAN RICH Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. (dvifyjuq uo panuyuoo ) [EUOIJEUJajUI pUE AJlTjqEJS DIUIOUO39 JO SUIJ ui AjjEap ajEjs aqj JSOD AoajEjjs ...
Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2017
There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor ... more There never was a more brilliant cohort of Russian historians in the English-speaking world, nor will there ever likely be again. Five extraordinary students in Michael Karpovich's seminars of 1946-1947 at Harvard University went on to dominate the Russian historical field in America for some four decades. 2 They took the lead at the three preeminent centers of Russian historical study in postwar America-Martin Malia and Nicholas Riasanovsky at Berkeley, Leopold Haimson and Marc Raeff at Columbia, and Richard Pipes at Harvard. At these institutions, they collectively trained the overwhelming majority of prominent Russian historians and between them much of the broader field. They also opened or creatively developed many fields and periods of Russian historical inquiry-more than any other cohort then or since. This study is deeply personal. At Harvard in the late 1980s and early 1990s, my graduatestudent colleagues and I often debated who were the "most important" historians of Russia. Our lists usually included all five. After I finished my PhD in 1992, I frequently exchanged letters with Pipes, an exemplary correspondent. The Pleiade continued to fascinate me, the term suggesting itself quite naturally: Terrence Emmons around the same time referred to the cohort as "a remarkable pleiad." 3 In a diary entry I penned on June 9, 1995, I had already laid out the basic premise of this study. "In the field of Russian history in America," I wrote,
uses active verbs as if what she claimed to have happened actually happened: “What happened next ... more uses active verbs as if what she claimed to have happened actually happened: “What happened next Maria observed with her own eyes. . . . Even if Maria could not recall the precise date, she distinctly remembered Khanna asking for a ‘good Christian boy.’ . . . Maria went down to the basement and saw the boy on the ground wrapped in linen” (62–63). If caution may sometimes lead to clunky language at the expense of otherwise elegant prose, it is a cost worth paying. These quibbles notwithstanding, The Velizh Affair is a noteworthy example of microhistory that sheds light onto broader issues of the history of Nicholaevan Russia and its Jewish past, paradoxically both reinforcing and challenging common stereotypes about this expansive state, its bureaucracy, and its culture.
The French Revolutionary Tradition in Russian and Soviet Politics, Political Thought, and Culture, 2019
Because they were Marxists, the Bolsheviks in Russia, both before and after taking power in 1917,... more Because they were Marxists, the Bolsheviks in Russia, both before and after taking power in 1917, believed that the past was prologue: that embedded in history was a Holy Grail, a series of mysterious but nonetheless accessible and comprehensible universal laws, that explained the course of history from beginning to end; those who understood these laws would be able to mould the future to conform to their own expectations. But what should the Bolsheviks do if their Marxist ideology proved to be either erroneous or insufficient—if it could not explain, or explain fully, the course of events that followed the revolution they carried out in the country they called the Soviet Union? Something else would have to perform this function. The underlying argument of this book is that the Bolsheviks saw the revolutions in France in 1789, 1830, 1848, and 1871 as supplying practically everything Marxism lacked. In fact, these four events comprised what for the Bolsheviks was a genuine Revolution...
Uploads
Papers by Jonathan Daly