Bibliographic record
Abstract
Janet M. Hartley. A Social History of the Empire, 1650-1825. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998. xi, 312 pp. Chronology. Glossary. Maps. Select Bibliography. Index. $44.00, paper.The two overarching themes of Janet Hartley's Social History of the Empire will be familiar to any student of history: namely, the relationship between state and society and the degree of stratification and mobility within and between social groups. She sets out to examine how successful the state was in moulding society to suit its needs and where intervention failed. Her conclusions-that Russia remained, in many respects, minimally governed until the nineteenth century, despite gradual administrative reform, and that, ultimately, the regime became victim of its own success (p. 261)-are also standard judgments in the literature she surveys.Hartley's goal, however, is not to challenge historians' views, but to offer a richly detailed synthesis of recent scholarship on society during the long eighteenth century. Each chapter examines some dimension of state and society: the division of society into legal categories, or estates; the rights and obligations of each; the viability of local institutions; the beliefs, lifestyle, and occupations of each estate, and family life. Although structured as narrative, Hartley's work introduces the primary historiographical debates to general readers. She devotes considerable attention to the porosity of social groups, as well as their heterogeneity, despite the best attempts of Russia's rulers to simplify social structure into four legal categories (nobles, clergy, townspeople, and peasants) and to define the role each would play. In contrast to many historians, who contend that the Petrine reforms resulted in a cultural schism between noble and peasant, Hartley argues that the gulf between a Europeanized nobility and Russian ordinary people should not be exaggerated (p. 195). Emphasizing continuity over change, Hartley also demonstrates that progress in many areas was incremental and uneven, especially in the realm of education and the development of corporate institutions and identity. Given Hartley's extensive research in legal history, her discussion of law and order stands out in particular: she presents vivid examples of the state's efforts to implement the rule of law and to combat peasant flight, brigandage, and corruption among officials, as well as the extent to which the population managed to elude these efforts. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".