kers on the role of ‘lichnost’’ in Russian society. What stands out from these readings is the tension between cultivating individuality as an independent locus of ‘pravda’ and determining its worth in terms of service to something else, be it society, the people, historical, scientific and legal progress, or revolution. One may take issue with the notion that Putin continues the process of the disappearance of ‘lichnost’’ after the collapse of the Soviet Union by resisting the rhetoric of duty, as the discourse of patriotism has been recently intensified in the official media and popular culture, though its extensive borrowing from the sacrificial discourse of World War II perhaps is an indication of the cultural vacuum in which it currently operates. Although different in methodology and the choice of source materials, the two chapters on ‘lichnost’’ provide an important prequel and companion to Oleg Kharkhorin’s The Collective and the Individual in Russia. In Chapter 5, ‘Pravda and the Rhetoric of Moral Transcendence’, Wortman discusses the broad semantic field of the word ‘pravda’ with its potential for sacral meanings, and distinguishes it from the word ‘istina,’ which designated a more stable and objective sense of truth. Wortman makes it clear that ‘pravda’ was directly connected to power for those who claimed to represent it; thus, while the tsars were the conduits of divine justice, the Decembrist Pavel Pestel’s revolutionary programme, which embraced justice based on Christianity, was called Russkaia Pravda, while Lenin’s newspaper Pravda was meant to produce a revolutionary elite who would become the sole possessors of the truth. Seen through this lens, the intelligentsia’s truth-seeking may be viewed as a symbolic bid for power. In Chapter 6, ‘Tselost’ (Geographical Integrity) in the Rhetoric of the Russian State’, Wortman discusses how the notion of the state’s unity and integrity played into the political thinking from the reign of Peter I into the present. Wortman demonstrates that tselost’ is a cultural category that applies to more than just territory; rather, integrity is a part of symbolic representation of the state and its authority. Overall, this book is a wonderful contribution to intellectual and cultural history of pre-revolutionary Russia, whose focus on the ‘charismatic words’ creates useful signposts for one’s journey through the many pages of original writings. It should be indispensable to cultural historians and students of eighteenthand nineteenthcentury Russian literature, philosophy, and intellectual culture.

中文翻译：

---

杰弗里·T·扎拉尔 (Jeffrey T. Zalar)，1770–1914 年天主教德国的阅读与叛乱

kers 关于“lichnost”在俄罗斯社会中的作用。从这些解读中脱颖而出的是将个性培养为“真理报”的独立场所与确定其为其他事物服务的价值之间的紧张关系，无论是社会、人民、历史、科学和法律进步，还是革命。人们可能会对这样一种观点提出质疑，即普京在苏联解体后通过抵制责任修辞来继续“lichnost”消失的过程，因为爱国主义话语最近在官方媒体和流行文化中愈演愈烈。 ，尽管它从二战的牺牲话语中大量借用可能表明它目前运作的文化真空。虽然在方法论和源材料的选择上有所不同，关于“lichnost”的两章是奥列格·哈尔霍林 (Oleg Kharkhorin) 的《俄罗斯的集体与个人》的重要前传和伴侣。在第 5 章“真理报与道德超越修辞”中，沃特曼讨论了“真理报”一词的广泛语义领域及其潜在的神圣意义，并将其与“istina”一词区分开来，后者表示更稳定和客观真理感。沃特曼明确表示，对于那些声称代表它的人来说，《真理报》与权力直接相关。因此，虽然沙皇是神圣正义的渠道，但十二月党人帕维尔·佩斯特尔（Pavel Pestel）的革命纲领（包含以基督教为基础的正义）被称为《俄罗斯真理报》，而列宁的《真理报》则旨在培养革命精英，他们将成为唯一拥有正义的人。真相。透过这个镜头，知识分子的求真可能被视为对权力的象征性追求。在第 6 章“俄罗斯国家修辞中的“Tselost”（地理完整性）中，沃特曼讨论了从彼得一世统治到现在，国家统一和完整性的概念如何在政治思想中发挥作用。沃特曼证明了 tselost' 是一个不仅适用于领土的文化类别；相反，完整性是国家及其权威的象征性表现的一部分。总体而言，这本书是对革命前俄罗斯知识和文化史的精彩贡献，它对“魅力词”的关注为一个人通过多页原创作品的旅程创造了有用的路标。对于文化历史学家和十八世纪俄国文学的学生来说，它应该是必不可少的，