Between Clan and Crown: The Struggle to Define Noble Property Rights in Imperial Russia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lee A. Farrow. Between Clan and Crown: The Struggle to Define Noble Property Rights in Imperial Russia. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2004. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Cloth.After a long famine of work on imperial Russian law, we are able to enjoy a feast of two monographs in the space of two years. Lee Farrow's book on noble rights follows the publication of a path-breaking monograph on women and in imperial Russia by Michelle Marrese (A Woman's Kingdom: Noblewomen and the Control of Property in Russia 1700-1861 [Cornell, 2002]). Farrow's study covers a shorter period of time and rests on a thinner source base than Marrese's but is nevertheless useful for setting out the basic contours of law in the eighteenth century.Farrow concentrates on two aspects of Russian law-redemption and confiscation-that she believes were especially salient and consequential in imperial Russia. This study, she writes, seeks to demonstrate two things-that noble life, including possession and control of the all-important resource of land, was inextricably intertwined with clan life, and that this often stifling influence combined with the significant power of the ruler to restrict the of private and political freedom. What she means by the growth of private property is the individual's right to dispose freely of his or her property, a right that was hedged round in Russia by the claims of members of one's extended family to redeem land sold or mortgaged to others and by the ruler's right to confiscate land (and other property) on a number of pretexts.Farrow walks the reader through the seventeenth-century legal background and the changes introduced in the period of Peter the Great's reign. She has a chapter on the Single Inheritance Law and, more important, on the legislation passed in the subsequent reigns of Catherine I and Anna that refined and partially overturned it. The Single Inheritance Law is well known to historians. The details of the legislation that altered it are less well understood and well worth knowing better. We are in Farrow's debt for clarifying them.The chapter on Catherine the Great's legislation is titled Fool's Gold. Farrow argues here that the nobles did not wrest any great concessions out of Catherine on rights and that the Charter to the Nobility, despite the claims of historians about a new plateau of rights, provided no guarantee of property.The core of Farrow's book and its thesis about the insecurity of nobles' control of lies in her discussion of redemption and confiscation. The source base for the first is redemption suits. While Farrow references her cases, she does not tell us how typical they were. It is hard to provide a balanced view of noble rights on the basis of a limited number of purely conflictual instances. It would be interesting to know the proportion of redemption challenges that occurred in what was a highly active market in property. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,024 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».