entitlement, and also too committed to the idea of autocratic authority which ensured its status, to enable or even to countenance the sort of change which part of the educated elite, and initially also the Emperor, understood was needed and hoped to bring about; while without it Alexander had neither administrative nor political capacity to drive reform. The tsar’s character, and the conservatism of some prominent courtiers, were significant additional problems. ‘Decembrism’, idealistic dissatisfaction with the status quo, was widespread among educated strata – there is an excellent discussion of ‘Decembrists without December’ – but the insurgents’ resort to violence alienated almost all of society and destroyed the possibility of gradual liberal reform for years to come. O’Meara is concerned to name his sources and authorities in the text, but also states his own opinions clearly. Some of his judgements may raise questions, and the treatment in some places would benefit from better context. The book is also not without occasional errors: these range from the minor (on pp. 166–7, for instance, O’Meara confuses P. V. Chichagov with his father, V. I. Chichagov, and unaccountably switches the name ‘Vorontsov’ to ‘Volkonskii’) to the more substantial (the account of the Baltic emancipation, p. 185, has errors and omissions and reverses the meaning of pro-serfdom Shishkov’s well-known lament about Alexander’s ‘unfortunate prejudice’ against serfdom). But these observations do not undermine the argument: overall this book gives us a persuasive, vivid and extensive exposition of its specified subject. It is an impressive scholarly achievement and will be required reading for those interested in Russia in the early nineteenth century. It is also well written, a good read, and a well-produced volume, though unconscionably priced. An interesting brief tail-piece discusses Russia’s historical path determination, her addiction to centralized power and personalized rule, and reflects on the significance of the 2014 erection by the Kremlin wall of a statue to Alexander I, ordered by Vladimir Putin. It is worth noting that Tsar-Liberator Alexander II has been similarly commemorated with a statue erected under the same regime in 2005, next to the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour – itself an Alexandrine pantheon to 1812 resurrected near the Kremlin 1995–2000 – while Putin unveiled a statue to Alexander III in the Crimea in 2017; and monuments have been raised across Russia and Europe to the alleged ‘passion-bearer’ Nicholas II.

中文翻译：

---

书评：纳丁·迈斯纳：马里乌斯·佩蒂帕：皇帝的芭蕾舞大师

权利，也过于信奉确保其地位的专制权威理念，以促成甚至支持一部分受过教育的精英，最初也是皇帝，理解需要并希望带来的那种变化；而没有它，亚历山大既没有行政能力也没有政治能力来推动改革。沙皇的性格和一些著名朝臣的保守主义是重要的额外问题。“十二月主义”，即对现状的理想主义不满，在受过教育的阶层中很普遍——“没有十二月的十二月党人”有很好的讨论——但叛乱者诉诸暴力几乎疏远了整个社会，破坏了逐步自由改革的可能性。未来几年。奥米拉担心在文本中说出他的消息来源和权威，但也清楚地表达了自己的观点。他的一些判断可能会引起问题，而某些地方的处理会从更好的上下文中受益。这本书也不是没有偶然的错误：这些错误包括未成年人（例如，在第 166-7 页，O'Meara 将 PV Chichagov 与他的父亲 VI Chichagov 混淆，并且莫名其妙地将“Vorontsov”这个名字改为“Volkonskii” ）到更实质性的（波罗的海解放运动的叙述，第 185 页，有错误和遗漏，并颠倒了支持农奴制的希什科夫对亚历山大对农奴制“不幸的偏见”的著名哀叹的含义）。但是这些观察并没有削弱这个论点：总的来说，这本书为其特定主题提供了一个有说服力、生动和广泛的阐述。这是一项令人印象深刻的学术成就，是 19 世纪初对俄罗斯感兴趣的人的必读之书。它也写得很好，读起来很好，而且制作精良，尽管价格不合理。一个有趣的简短尾声讨论了俄罗斯的历史路径决定、她对中央集权和个性化统治的沉迷，并反映了 2014 年克里姆林宫墙为弗拉基米尔·普京下令为亚历山大一世竖立的雕像的重要性。值得注意的是，沙皇-解放者亚历山大二世也同样在 2005 年在同一政权下竖立了一座雕像来纪念，旁边是基督救世主大教堂——它本身就是一座 1812 年的亚历山大万神殿，于 1995 年至 2000 年在克里姆林宫附近复活——而普京2017 年在克里米亚为亚历山大三世的雕像揭幕；