Working with Russian Archival Documents

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages Working with Russian Archival Documents by Olga E. Glagoleva Review by: William Edgerton The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 513-514 Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/309619 . Accessed: 27/12/2014 14:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:31:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions  Reviews 513 exploration of her identity as a Turkish6migre,novelistYeshimTernarassertsthatshe embracedfeminism, not as an ideology,but exclusively as a meansto explainwomen's oppression, arguingthatonlyself-reflection hashelpedheradaptto inequities inhercountry oforiginandCanada.Whileacknowledging thepossibilityofa morewoman-centered inter- pretation ofIslam,HaidehMoghissi criticizesthestrong support amongmanyIslamic6migre womenforfundamentalist regimes despitecontinuing inequitiesandabusesofwomeninthese countries. Authors fromAfrican andLatinAmerican countriescontribute equallydiverseviewpoints on numerous relatedissuesand concerns.As an 6migr6fromUganda,Nakanyike Musisi stressestheimportance ofstatebuilding anddisintegration on theemergence ofclass,gender, racial,and ethnicconflicts in Africa,whileSouthAfricanfeminist exile Linzi Manicom contrastsherownAnglo-American feministtraining indiversitywiththelargely unquestioned acceptanceof statefeminism in SouthAfrica.In contrast to otherauthors,Chilean6migre VeronicaSchildemphasizes thepositiveinfluence oftheWestin providing fiscalsupportto fledglingwomen'sorganizations. Emigr6feminist YvonneBobb Smithconsiderspositive strategiesofresistance adoptedduringthecolonialperiodthatremainusefulto Caribbean womenas feminists and 6migr6s, suchas theexperience ofcommunity organizing to effect socialchange. A number ofarticlesconfront oftheglobalpervasiveness criticism andinfluence ofWestern feminism byexploring diversityamongfeminisms in differentcountriesof theWest.As an emigre andfeminist, SmaroKamboureli drawsonherknowledge ofbothCanadaandGreeceto exposethecultural assumptions implicitinthetravelwritings aboutGreeceofCanadianwriter KarenConnelly. Finnish immigrant VappuTyyskia's researchonchildcare policyinScandinavia uncovers significantdifferences betweenAnglo-American andotherWestern feminisms. Her research on childcare issuesintheCanadianandFinnish contextsrevealsdifferinglabelsand typologies ineachcountry theauthor's thatfrustrate attemptstoconstructproductive compari- sonsandconclusions. Thisfascinating collection ofessaysoffers a fruitfulapproachtotheexploration offeminism in a global contextby examiningthe multicultural experiencesof immigrants. Alena Heitlinger, Professor ofSociologyat TrentUniversity, deservespraiseforherworkas orga- nizeroftheoriginal conference, as wellas editorofthisvolumeofgenerously referenced and thought-provoking essays.In attempting to treatfeminism in a broadtransnational context, thisbook represents a significantcontribution to researchon feminist theoryand practice, whilepresenting newperspectives forresearch on theexperiences ofimmigrants. Karen Rosneck, University of Wisconsin-Madison Olga E. Glagoleva. WorkingWith Russian Archival Documents. WorkingPaper No. 2. Ontario:The Stalin-Era Toronto, ResearchandArchives Project,1998.$15.00(paper). This reviewof Olga E. Glagoleva's WorkingwithRussian ArchivalDocumentsis fairlyshort becauseitcanonlybe written insuperlatives.All thereviewer needsto do is brieflydescribe itscontentsandthenpersuadeall personsexpecting to do anyseriousresearch involvingthe use ofhandwrittenRussiandocuments fromanyhistorical periodto startbyacquiring their ownpersonalcopy. ThelittlebookI madeupforuseinthegraduate courseon archivalmethods I taughtinthe mid-1980s,usingthelettersin theAmfiteatrov archiveat IndianaUniversity's LillyLibrary, appearedtobe usefultomystudents. NotuntilI encountered Olga Glagoleva'sWorking with RussianArchivalDocuments did I realizejust how crudeand primitive mybookletwas. This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:31:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 514 Slavic and East European Journal Glagolevabeginsherbookwithtwolongchapters entitled "TwoMethodsofReadingArchi- valDocuments." Thefirst chapter, "TheGraphical Method,"concentrates ontheevolutionof Russianhandwriting and itsspecificcharacteristics-richlyillustratedwithexamplestaken fromphotographs of realdocuments. The secondchapter, entitled"The LogicalMethod," begins,inGlagoleva'swords,"beforewestartreadingit."Theexterior ofthedocument - the writing materialsand media,the hand'sindividuality, the ornaments, decorations, seals, stamps, etc.- givetheresearcher a hintaboutthetimeofitscreation, itsauthenticity, official or privatecharacter,and so on. In page afterpage offascinating examples,Glagolevacalls attentiontomeaningful detailsaboutthedocuments thatforeign eyesmight haveoverlooked. Eversincethefirst ofmyvisitsto Sovietarchives, in 1955,I havefoundthatwhenever I encountered a bitofdifficult Russianhandwriting therewasalwayssomepersonon thestaff whowasbycommonconsentthelocalexperttowhomall ofus,whether Russianorforeign, wouldturnforhelp.Glagoleva'sindispensable publication nowmakesitpossibleforeachof us to takewithus inprinted formfromarchivetoarchiveourownpersonalcopyofthebook thatis thenearestpossibleequivalentofthosehelpful personalexperts ininterpreting Russian documents. William IndianaUniversity Edgerton, HoraceG. Luntand MosheTaube. TheSlavonicBook of Esther:Text,Lexicon,Linguistic HarvardSeriesin UkrainianStudies.Cambridge: Analysis,Problemsof Translation. HarvardUkrainian 1998.xii+ 311pp.,$39.95(cloth). ResearchInstitute, Thesubjectofthismonograph is theearliestChurchSlavonicversionoftheBiblicalbookof Esther.Thistranslated texthas longbeen famousnotonlyforthedifficult historical and philological problemsthatit poses, but also forthebroadimplications thathistorians of cultureandofliterature havedrawnon thebasisofone or another possiblesolutionto these problems. LuntandTaubehavegivenus thefirst reallyusableeditionofthetext,andhave shedmorelightthananyotherscholarson thecircumstances underwhichit wastranslated andenteredthemanuscript traditionoftheChurchSlavonicBible. LuntandTaubedo notclaimto haveprovided a definitive editionofthetext-nor critical couldanynon-Russian scholarsrealisticallybe expectedto have done so in thetwentieth century.Although theylist31 manuscriptswritten before1600,theywereabletoexamineless thanhalfof them(howeverbriefly), and to citeevenfewerof themsystematically. Under thosecircumstances theyhave not troubledthemselves to providea technicalstemmatic analysis e.g., byPaulMaas inhismagisterial (as specified, Textual Criticism[Oxford:Claren- donPress,1958])ofthe10 manuscripts thattheytreatmostfully, butinsteadhavemadea diagram oftheirpresumed descentandlabeledit"stemma ofwitnesses" (15). But theseare onlyminorpoints.Luntand Taube'seditionrestssolidlyon thetwooldest manuscripts ofthetext(eachwritten around1400),extensively emended.As ithappens,the originaltranslationwas bothfreeand loose; moreover, all theextantmanuscripts havede- scendedfroma lostmanuscript writtenbya remarkably carelessor incompetent scribe.Any editorwhowishesto providean intelligible textofthisparticular translation,anda textthat standsinsomerecognizable relationtoitssource,willhaveto emendtheextantmanuscripts frequentlyanddrastically.Lessermeasures yieldonlygibberish. Fortunately, theeditorswere up to thetask:theirtextis convincing, and theiremendations willhave to be takeninto accountbyanyfuture editor. Themostinteresting ofthemanyproblems posedbythistextare(1) whenandwhereitwas translated,and(2) whether itwastranslated fromtheGreekortheHebrew.LuntandTaube's carefulhistorical andphilological investigationhas demonstrated thattheavailableevidence This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:31:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions