descriptive nineteenth-century regional histories. She uses them, in conjunction with primary documents and secondary texts related to initiatives from the crown, to indicate the ways in which the provincial nobility attempted to shape their identity vis-à-vis the center in the period leading up to, and immediately following, the abolition of serfdom. Smith-Peter’s approach has its limits. The study is at least implicitly interdisciplinary; intellectual history, political and cultural history, and economic history at the local, regional, and imperial levels are all part of the larger narrative. Yet, a more consistent attempt to link the ideas with realities on the ground might have shed interesting light on the appeal of Smith and Hegel, two highly individual thinkers, for Russians. Moreover, network analysis could have helped to show the extent to which the circles of educated elites overlapped, as well as the paths via which their chosen ideas spread. A deeper discussion of the Russian interpretation of these ideas would also have been helpful for understanding what made them so compelling. Were the proponents of Smith and Hegel aware that the philosophies of these two men were conceived in social circumstances much different from those in Russia? What was it about their particular conceptions of civil society that resonated with provincial elites? Related to a broader Smithian theme of political economy, an explicitly political-economic framework for thinking about elites’motivations for adopting certain ideas or rhetoric about civil society could help to explain the projects and political stances that elites selected, as well as the apparent contradictions between their words and deeds. It might also help to identify the concrete interests motivating their various political outlooks relative to the center, which have been attributed, in Smith-Peter’s approach, mainly to abstract ideas about the role of elites in government and society. Smith-Peter’s book treats an important subject relevant to historians working in a variety of subfields, including intellectual history, political thought, social and economic history, and the history of localities and regions. It does not, however, engage all of these aspects consistently; its natural interdisciplinarity remains undeveloped, in a way bound to frustrate readers of this journal. But the interdisciplinary questions that it raises provide fertile ground for future research.

中文翻译：

---

斯大林主义犯罪者在审判：来自苏联乌克兰大恐怖的场面

描述性的19世纪地区历史。她将其与王室倡议相关的主要文件和次要文本结合使用，以表明省贵族在直至和随后的时期试图以中心为中心塑造其身份的方式。 ，废除农奴制。Smith-Peter的方法有其局限性。该研究至少是隐含的跨学科的。地方性，区域性和帝国性的思想史，政治和文化史以及经济史都是较大叙事的一部分。然而，将思想与实际联系起来的更加一致的尝试可能为两位高度个人化的思想家史密斯和黑格尔吸引了俄罗斯人。此外，网络分析本可以帮助显示受过教育的精英圈子重叠的程度，以及他们所选择的思想传播的途径。对俄罗斯对这些想法的解释进行更深入的讨论也将有助于理解使它们如此引人注目的原因。史密斯和黑格尔的拥护者是否意识到这两个人的哲学是在社会环境中构想的，与俄罗斯的情况大不相同？他们与省级精英共鸣的公民社会特殊概念是什么？与更广泛的史密斯主义政治经济学主题相关，一个明确的政治经济学框架，用于思考精英采取某些公民社会观念或言论的动机，可以帮助解释精英所选择的项目和政治立场，以及他们言行之间明显的矛盾。这也可能有助于确定激发他们相对于中心的各种政治观点的具体利益，这在史密斯·彼得的方法中被认为主要是关于精英在政府和社会中的作用的抽象观念。史密斯·彼得（Smith-Peter）的书论述了与在各个子领域中工作的历史学家相关的重要主题，包括知识史，政治思想，社会和经济史以及地方和地区的历史。但是，它并没有始终如一地参与所有这些方面。其自然的跨学科性仍未得到发展，这一定会使该杂志的读者感到沮丧。但是它引起的跨学科问题为将来的研究提供了沃土。