Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:29:49.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ministry of Asiatic Russia: The Colonial Office That Never Was But Might Have Been

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Willard Sunderland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The late tsarist state was a colonial empire, Willard Sunderland argues, yet it never established a colonial ministry like the other colonial empires of the era. Sunderland asks why this was the case and proposes that, while there are many explanations for Russia's apparent uniqueness in institutional terms, historians should also consider how the country's institutional development in fact approximated western and broader international models. The late imperial government indeed never ruled through a colonial ministry, but an office of this sort—a Ministry of Asiatic Russia—might have been created if World War I and the revolution had not intervened. Sunderland sees the embryo of this possibility in the Resettlement Administration, which emerged as a leading center of Russian technocratic colonialism by the turn of the 1900s.

Type
Forum: Colonialism and Technocracy at the end of the Tsarist Era
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , Spring 2010 , pp. 120 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The arguments in this article were first presented in a lecture at Princeton University in December 2006 and later at the workshop “Imperium Inter Pares: Reflections on Imperial Identity and Interimperial Transfers in the Russian Empire,” organized by the German Historical Institute in Moscow in September 2008. I thank the gracious audiences at these two meetings for their helpful feedback and, in some cases, good-spirited disagreement. Additional special thanks to Peter Holquist, John LeDonne, my colleagues in the History Department at the University of Cincinnati, and David MacLaren McDonald and the second anonymous reader for Slavic Review for their constructive criticism. Finally, I thank the Taft Research Center of the University of Cincinnati for its generous funding of my research.

1. For suggestions of these artistic motifs, see Wortman, Richard, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, 1995), 1:32Google Scholar; and Tomasik, M. I. comp., Nagliadnaia karla Evropeiskoi Rossii, 2d ed (Warsaw, 1903)Google Scholar. A large painted wall map of the Russian Far East of the type I am describing here also appears on the wall of the V. K. Arsen'ev Regional History Museum in Vladivostok. It was originally commissioned for the Vladivostok office of the Resettlement Administration. For the uniforms, see Shepelev, Leonid, Tituly, mundiry i ordena rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow, 2004), 294 Google Scholar.

2. For a discussion of the “spirit of colonialism,” see Osterhammel, Jürgen, Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Princeton, 1997), 16 Google Scholar. For some recent studies that analyze tsarist Russia as a colonial empire and explicitly apply terms such as colony and colonialism to the tsarist context, see Bassin, Mark, Imperial Visions: Nationalist Imagination and Geographical Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840-1865 (New York, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, Virginia, Law and Custom in the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century (Richmond, Eng., 2001)Google Scholar; Mostashari, Firouzeh, “Colonial Dilemmas: Russian Policies in the Muslim Caucasus,” in Geraci, Robert P. and Khodarkovsky, Michael, eds., Of Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and. Tolerance in Tsarist Russia (Ithaca, 2001), 229-49Google Scholar; Jersild, Austin, Orientalism and Empire: North Caucasus Mountain Peoples and the Georgian Frontier, 1845-1917 (Montreal, 2002)Google Scholar; Khodarkovsky, Michael, Russia's Steppe Frontier: The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 (Bloomington, 2002)Google Scholar; Crews, Robert D., “Civilization in the City: Architecture, Urbanism, and the Colonization of Tashkent,” in Cracraft, James and Rowland, Daniel, eds., Architectures ofRussian Identity: 1500 to the Present (Ithaca, 2003), 117-32Google Scholar; Brower, Daniel, Turkestan and the Fate of the Russian Empire (New York, 2003)Google Scholar; Auch, Eva-Maria, Muslim-Untertan-Bürger: Identitätswandel in gesellschaftlichen Transformationsprozessen der muslimischen Ostprovinzen Südkaukasiens (Ende 18.-Anfang 20. Jh.); Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Nationalismusforschung (Wiesbaden, 2004)Google Scholar; Breyfogle, Nicholas B., Heretics and Colonizers: Forging Russia's Empire in the South Caucasus (Ithaca, 2005)Google Scholar; Sahadeo, Jeff, Russian Colonial Society in Tashkent, 1865-1923 (Bloomington, 2007)Google Scholar; and Morrison, Alexander, Russian Rule in Samarkand, 1868-1910: A Comparison with British India (New York, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. On this point, see the insightful articles by Remnev, A. V., “Rossiiskaia vlast' v Sibiri i na Dal'nem Vostoke: Kolonializm bez ministerstva kolonii; russkii ‘Sonderweg'?“ (forthcoming); and “Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov v poiskakh ‘sibirskogo seperatizma,'“ in Lichnost’ v istorii Sibiri XVIII-XX vekov: Sbornik biograficheskikh ocherkov (Omsk, 2007), 64–80 Google Scholar.

4. Though he uses the term in a slightly different context, I borrow the notion of “family resemblance” from Mark Beissinger. See his “Soviet Empire as ‘Family Resemblance,'“ Slavic Review 65, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 294-303Google Scholar. For a range of arguments on the suggestive parallels between Russian and western imperialisms, see Miller, Alexei, “The Value and Limits of a Comparative Approach to the History of Contiguous Empires on the European Periphery,” in Kimitaka Matsuzato, ed., Imperiology: From Empirical Knowledge to Discussing the Russian Empire (Sapporo, 2007), 24–25 Google Scholar; Lur'e, S. V., “Russkie v Srednei Azii i Anglichane v Indii: Dominanty imperskogo soznaniia i sposoby ikh realizatsii,” Tsivilizatsii i kul'tury, 1995, no. 2: 252-73Google Scholar; Holquist, Peter, “Violent Russia, Deadly Marxism: Russia in the Epoch of Violence, 1905-1921,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 4, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 634 Google Scholar; Morrison, Alexander, “Russian Rule in Turkestan and the Example of British India, c. 1860-1917,” Slavonic and East European Review 84, no. 4 (2006): 666–707 Google Scholar, and Morrison, Russian Rule in Samarkand. The historian whose wide-ranging work has done the most to consider tsarist Russia in the light of overseas empires (in particular, Great Britain) is Dominic Lieven, though he ultimately argues that the differences outweigh the convergences. See, for example, Lieven, , “Russia as Empire and Periphery,” in Lieven, ed., The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2, Imperial Russia, 1689-1917 (Cambridge, Eng., 2006), 17–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as well as Lieven, , Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals (New Haven, 2001)Google Scholar.

5. On the uses of “virtual history,” see Tetlock, Philip E. and Parker, Geoffrey, “Counterfactual Thought Experiments: Why We Can't Live Without Them and How We Must Learn to Live With Them,” in Philip E. Tetlock et al., eds., Unmaking the West: ‘What-If V Scenarios That Rewrite World History (Ann Arbor, 2006), 14–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ferguson, Niall, “Introduction: Virtual History; Towards a ‘Chaotic’ Theory of the Past,” Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (London, 1998), 1–90 Google Scholar.

6. Diakin, D. S., “Natsional'nyi vopros vo vnutrennoi politike tsarizma (XIX vek),“ Voprosy istorii, 1995, no. 3: 131 Google Scholar.

7. On the varieties of Russification that defined late imperial policies and expectations, see Miller, A. I., Imperiia Romanovykh i natsionalizm: Esse po metodologii istoricheskogo issledovaniia (Moscow, 2006), 54–77 Google Scholar.

8. For allusions to this transformation and its complexities, see Werth, Paul W., At the Margins of Orthodoxy: Mission, Governance, and Confessional Politics in Russia's Volga-Kama Region, 1827-1905 (Ithaca, 2002), 124-25, 259-60Google Scholar. See also Iakovenko, I. G., “Ot imperii k natsional'nomu gosudarstvu (popytka kontseptualizatsii protsessa),” Polis, 1996, no. 6: 117-28Google Scholar. For a suggestive description of the late empire as neither “traditional” nor “modern“ but “a state in transition,” see Miller, “Value and Limits,” 20.

9. See the interesting discussion on “the limits of modernizing empires” in Cooper, Frederick, “Empire Multiplied: A Review Essay,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 46, no. 2 (April 2004): 268-71Google Scholar.

10. Historians have disagreed recently over how best to qualify what came next. For the view that the USSR represents the continuation — in a new form — of a modernizing empire based on “colonial technologies,” see Hirsch, Francine, Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union (Ithaca, 2005)Google Scholar. For an argument stressing the self-conscious, practical administrative and ideological distinctiveness of the Soviet Union as a new kind of multinational state, see Martin, Terry, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (Ithaca, 2001)Google Scholar.

11. Cooper, Frederick and Stoler, Ann Laura, “Between Metropole and Colony: Rethinking a Research Agenda,” in Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler, eds., Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World (Berkeley, 1997), 10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. “Kolonii i kolonizatsiia,” in Arsen'ev, K. K., ed., Novyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar' (Petrograd, n.d.), 22:221Google Scholar.

13. A case in point: the finely detailed definition of colonialism and its various related “types” recently provided by the erudite Jürgen Osterhammel runs, in English, to 119 pages of text. (The German version is even longer.) See Osterhammel, Colonialism.

14. I take this phrase from Osterhammel, Colonialism, 119.

15. For a range of studies that emphasize the striking parallels between Russia and the other continental empires of Europe-Asia, in particular the Habsburgs and the Ottomans, see Lieven, Empire; Rudolph, Richard L. and Good, David F., eds., Nationalism and Empire: The Habsburg Empire and the Soviet Union (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Subtelny, Orest, “The Habsburg and Russian Empires: Some Comparisons and Contrasts,” in Teruyaki Hara and Kimitaka Matsuzato, eds., Empire and Society: New Approaches to Russian History (Sapporo, 1997), 73–92 Google Scholar; Hagen, Mark von and Barkey, Karen, eds., After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building; The Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires (Boulder, Colo., 1997)Google Scholar; Roshwald, Aviel, Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empires: Central Europe, Russia, and, the Middle East, 1914-1923 (New York, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rieber, Alfred J., “Sravnivaia kontinental'nye imperii,” in Alexei Miller, ed., Rossiiskaia imperiia, v sravnitel'noi perspective: Sbornik statei (Moscow, 2004), 36–37 Google Scholar; Stone, Norman, Podbolotov, Sergei, and Yasar, Murat, “The Russians and the Turks: Imperialism and Nationalism in the Era of Empires,” in Miller, Alexei and Rieber, Alfred J., eds., Imperial Rule (Budapest, 2004), 27–46 Google Scholar; Crews, Robert, For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia (Cambridge, Mass., 2006), 19, 354-55Google Scholar; and Kappeler, Andreas, “The Center and Peripheral Elites in the Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Empires, 1700-1918,” Ab imperio 8, no. 2 (2007): 17–58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. Miller, A. I., “Istoriia imperii i politika pamiati,” in A. I. Miller, ed., Nasledie imperii i budushchee Rossii (Moscow, 2008), 28–29 Google Scholar.

17. I borrow “conceptual squeamishness” from Anthony Pagden who uses the phrase to describe the general reluctance on the part of European states in the early modern period to invoke the word conquest when justifying their claims in the New World. See Pagden, , “The Empire's New Clothes: From Empire to Federation, Yesterday and Today,” Common Knowledge 12, no. 1 (2006): 40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA), f. 391, op. 6, d. 300, 1. 26. The cited phrase appears in a Resettlement Administration internal report from 1916.

19. Here I argue with Anatolii Remnev who offers a nuanced argument for this position in “Rossiiskaia vlast'.“

20. Schafer, Ernesto, El Consejo Real y Supremo de las Indias: Su historia, organizatión y labor administrativa hasta la terminatión de la Casa de Austria (Seville, 1935), 1:52-53Google Scholar; Elliott, J. H., Imperial Spain, 1469-1716 (New York, 1964), 160-64Google Scholar; Cardim, Pedro, “'Administração' e ‘governo’: Uma reflexāo sobre o vocabulário do Antigo Regime,” in Maria Fernanda Bicalho and Vera Lúcia Amaral Ferlini, eds., Modos de Govemar: Idéias e práticas políticas no Império português (Sao Paulo, 2005), 45–46, 50Google Scholar; and Caetano, Marcello, O Conselho Ultramarino: Esboço da sua história (Lisbon, 1968), 11–35 Google Scholar; and Serrao, Joaquim Verissimo, Historia de Portugal (Lisbon, 1982), 5:88–89 Google Scholar.

21. Furber, Holden, Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient, 1600-1800 (Minneapolis, 1976)Google Scholar; Niels Steensgard, “The Dutch East India Company as an Institutional Innovation,“ in Aymard, Maurice, ed., Dutch Capitalism and World Capitalism (New York, 1982)Google Scholar; Blussé, Leonard and Gaasua, Femme, eds., Companies and Trade:Essays on Overseas Trading Companies during the Ancien Régime (Leiden, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Vries, Jan de, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500-1815 (New York, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Hall, Henry L., The Colonial Office: A History (London, 1937), 13–15 Google Scholar; Meyer, Jean et al., eds., Histoire de la France coloniale des origines à 1914 (Paris, 1990), 1:639 Google Scholar; Smith, Woodruff D., The German Colonial Empire (Chapel Hill, 1978), 130 Google Scholar; Henderson, W. O., The German Colonial Empire, 1884-1919 (Portland, Ore., 1993), 100 Google Scholar; Goor, J. van, De Nederlandse Koloniën: Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse expansie 1600-1975 (The Hague, 1993), 195 Google Scholar.

23. On the India Office and the Indian Civil Service, see Kirk-Greene, Anthony, Britain's Imperial Administrators, 1858-1966(Basingstoke, Eng., 2000), 87–124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the administration of Algeria as a département, see Binoche-Guedra, Jacques, La France d'outre-mer 1815-1962 (Paris, 1992), 120, 132-33Google Scholar; and Aldrich, Robert, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion (London, 1996), 109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Quinn, Frederick, The French Overseas Empire (Westport, Conn., 2000), 116 Google Scholar. For entertaining criticisms of the drudgery and incompetence of the British Colonial Office in the nineteenth century, see the accounts in Hall, Colonial Office, 16-19.

25. Leroy-Beaulieu, P. P., De la colonisation chez les peuples modernes, 4th ed. (Paris, 1891), 831 Google Scholar.

26. On the “triple assault,” see Abernethy, David B., The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415-1980 (New Haven, 2000), 12 Google Scholar.

27. Leroy-Beaulieu, De la colonisation, 845.

28. Terry Johnson, “Expertise and the State,” in Gane, Mike and Johnson, Terry, eds., Foucault's New Domains (London, 1993), 140-41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Foucault, Michel, “Governmentality,“ in Graham Burchell et al., eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago, 1991), 87–104 Google Scholar.

29. Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 2, The Rise of Classes and Nation-States, 1760-1914 (New York, 1993), 378-79Google Scholar.

30. The “Great Acceleration” is C. A. Bayly's term for the long turn-of-the-century period from approximately 1890 to World War I. See Bayly, , The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914: Global Connections and Comparisons (Malden, Mass., 2004), 451-87Google Scholar.

31. Dernburg, Bernhard, Zielpunkte des deutschen Kolonialwesens (Berlin, 1907), 11–12 Google Scholar. On Dernburg's “colonial program,” see Schiefel, Werner, Bernhard Dernburg: Kolonialpolitiker und Bankier in wilhelminischen Deutschland (Zurich, 1974), 55–62 Google Scholar.

32. Jong, Janny de, “Kolonialisme op een kopje: Het Internationale Koloniale Institute, 1894-1914,” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 109, no. 1 (1996): 48–49 Google Scholar.

33. Kubicek, Robert V., The Administration of Imperialism: Joseph Chamberlain at the Colonial Office (Durham, 1969), 68, 141-53Google Scholar. Chamberlain was colonial secretary from 1895 to 1903.

34. Pomeroy, Earl S., “The American Colonial Office,” Mississippi Valley Historical Revieiu 30, no. 4 (1944): 525 Google Scholar. On the emergence of a new class of “American colonial experts“ within the U.S. bureaucracy and academia, see Kramer, Paul, “Empires, Exceptions, and Anglo-Saxons: Race and Rule between the British Empire and the United States,“Journal ofAmerican History 88, no. 4 (2002): 1348-49Google Scholar, and Go, Julian, “Introduction: Global Perspectives on the U.S. Colonial State in the Philippines,” in Julian Go and Anne L. Foster, eds., The American Colonial State in the Philippines: Global Perspectives (Durham, 2003), 10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some enthusiasts of U.S. expansion at the turn of the century called for the creation of an “Imperial Office,” a “Secretary of State for Imperial Affairs,” and a full-fledged “colonial service.” For these suggestions, see, for example, Snow, Alphaeus H., The Administration, of Dependencies: A Study of the Evolution of the Federal Empire with Special Reference to American Colonial Problems (New York, 1902), 588-89Google Scholar; and Edward Gaylord Bourne, “A Trained Colonial Service,” North American Review 169 (July/December 1899): 529.

35. Dudden, Alexis, ‘Japanese Colonial Control in International Terms,” Japanese Studies 25, no. 1 (2005): 6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beasley, W. G., Japanese Imperialism. 1894-1945 (New York, 1987), 144 Google Scholar; Duns, Peter, The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910 (Berkeley, 1995)Google Scholar; Schmid, Andre, “Colonialism and ‘the Korea Problem’ in the Historiography of Modern Japan,” Journal of Asian Studies 49, no. 4 (2000): 954 Google Scholar; and Narangoa, Li and Cribb, Robert, ‘Japan and the Transformation of National Identities in Asia in the Imperial Era,” in Li Narangoa and Robert Cribb, eds., Imperial Japan and National Identities in Asia, 1895-1945 (New York, 2003), 9–11 Google Scholar.

36. Dudden, Alexis, Japan's Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power (Honolulu, 2005), 132-34, 138-39Google Scholar. The colonial school was originally called the Taiwan Society School, then the Oriental Society Technical School, and then finally the Colonial Development University. On Nitobe, see also Dudden, ‘Japanese Colonial Control in International Terms,“ 4-5, 7; and Conrad, Sebastian, “Die Zivilisierung des ‘Selbst': Japans koloniale Moderne,“ in Boris Barth and Jürgen Osterhammel, eds., Zivilisierungsmissionen: Imperiale Weltverbesserung seit dem 18. Jahrhundert (Konstanz, 2005), 254 Google Scholar.

37. On the early history of the institution, see Cosmo, Nicola di, “Qing Colonial Administration in Inner Asia,” International History Review 20, no. 2 (1998): 294-96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crossley, Pamela Kyle, A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology (Berkeley, 1999), 214-15Google Scholar. The name of the department is also often rendered in English as the Colonial Office or the Court of Colonial Affairs. For a profile of the office following the reform of 1906, see Brunnert, H. S. and Hagelstrom, V. V., eds., Present Day Political Organization of China (Shanghai, 1912), 160-66Google Scholar.

38. Çetinsaya, Gökhan, Ottoman Administration of Iraq, 1890-1908 (New York, 2006), 24–48 Google Scholar; Stachel, Peter, “Der koloniale Blick auf Bosnien-Herzegowina in der ethnographischen Popularliteratur der Habsburgmonarchie,” in Johannes Feichtinger, Ursula Prutsch, and Mortiz Csáky, eds., Habsburg Postcolonial: Machtstrukturen und kollektives Gedächtnis (Innsbruck, 2003), 260-61Google Scholar; Oakey, Robin, Taming Balkan Nationalism: The Habsburg “Civilizing Mission” in Bosnia, 1878-1914 (New York, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanioglu, M. Sükrü, Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908 (Oxford, 2001), 302-5Google Scholar; Frank, Alison Fleig, Oil Empire: Visions of Prosperity in Austrian Galicia (Cambridge, Mass., 2005), 46 Google Scholar.

39. The quoted phrase is from Scott, James C., Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, 1998), 4 Google Scholar. “Development” emerged as a “global faith” after World War II, but its prehistory was closely linked to the new practices and ideologies of colonization that emerged in European overseas empires in the late nineteenth century. See Rist, Gilbert, The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith, rev. ed. (London, 2002), 48–58 Google Scholar.

40. Peter B. Brown suggests that “over 130” different “chancelleries” were created between 1613 and 1700, the “apogee” of the Moscow chancellery system, with an average of about 60 operating during any one decade. See Brown, Peter B., “Bureaucratic Administration in Seventeenth-Century Russia,” in Jarmo Kotilaine and Marshall Poe, eds., Modernizing Muscovy: Reform and Social Change in Seventeenth-Century Russia (New York, 2004), 64–66.Google Scholar

41. Michael Rywkin describes the Kazanskii prikaz as a Russian “colonial office … an accident of history not to be repeated again.” See Rywkin, , “Russian Central Colonial Administration: From the Prikaz of Kazan to the XIX Century, a Survey,” in Rywkin, ed., Russian Colonial Expansion to 1917 (New York, 1988), 9 Google Scholar.

42. Romaniello, Matthew Paul, “Absolutism and Empire: Governance on Russia's Early Modern Frontier” (PhD diss., Ohio State University, 2003), 44, 47-50Google Scholar. See also Brown, Peter B., “Muscovite Government Bureaus,” Russian History/Histoire russe 10, no. 3 (1983): 280–81Google Scholar. For a helpful description of the purview of the Kazan' Office and the Siberian Office, which was established as a separate institution in the late 1630s, see LeDonne, John, “Building an Infrastructure of Empire in Russia's Eastern Theater, 1650s-1840s,” Cahiers da monde russe 47, no. 3 (2006): 582-83Google Scholar; and Alekseev, V. V. et al., eds., Aziatskaia Rossiia v geopoliticheskoi i tsivilizatsionnoi dinamike XV1-XX veka (Moscow, 2004), 327-28Google Scholar.

43. Madariaga, Isabel de, Ivan the Terrible: First Tsar of Russia (New Haven, 2005), 99, 57Google Scholar. On late Muscovy as a “composite state” of a typical European sort, see Romaniello, Matthew, “Ethnicity as Social Rank: Governance, Law, and Empire in Muscovite Russia,“ Nationalities Papers 34, no. 4 (2006): 447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Andreas Kappeler, “Formirovanie rossiiskoi imperii v XV-nachale XVIII veka: Nasledstvo Rusi, Vizantii i Ordy,” in Miller, ed., Rossiiskaia imperiia, 108-9. Marshall T. Poe also sees the Muscovite state of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as a “quite typical premodern empire.” Poe, , The Russian Moment in World History (Princeton, 2003), 39 Google Scholar. On the empire of Charles V as a “mere aggregation of territories” without much of a common “imperial mystique,” see Elliott, Imperial Spain, 157-58.

44. Amburger, Erik, Geschichte der Behördenorganisation Russlands von Peter dem Grossen bis 1917 (Leiden, 1966), 118-20Google Scholar;

45. Anisimov, E. V., Gosudarstvennye preobrazovaniia i samoderzhavie Petra Velikogo v pervoi chetverti XVIfl vehe (St. Petersburg, 1997), 139 Google Scholar. On the Little Russian College, see also Sofronenko, K. A., Malorossiiskii prikaz russkogo gosudarstva vtoroi poloviny XVII-XVIII vv. (Moscow, 1960)Google Scholar.

46. On these institutions, in particular those with a territorial basis, see Babich, M. V., Gosudarstvennye uchrezhdeniia XVIII veka: Komissii petrovskogo vremeni (Moscow, 2003), 178–414 Google Scholar; and Gosudarstvennost’ Rossii: Gosudarstvennye i tserkovnye uchrezhdeniia, soslovye organy i organy mestnogo samoupravleniia, edinitsy administrativnogo-territorial'nogo, tserkovnogo i vedomstvennogo deleniia (konets XV veka-fevral’ 1917 goda): Slovar'-spravochnik (Moscow, 1999), 2:171-72, 206, 249, 273-74; and Amburger, Geschichte der Behördenorganisation Russlands, 75.

47. Khodarkovsky, , Russia's Steppe Frontier, 156-58; and Willard Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field: Colonization and Empire on the Russian Steppe (Ithaca, 2004), 46 Google Scholar.

48. The quoted phrase comes from Prince Kurakin's proposal in 1797 to create a united Russian American company. See Wheeler, Mary E., “The Russian American Company and the Imperial Government: Early Phase,” in Starr, S. Frederick, ed., Russia's American Colony (Durham, 1987), 56, 61Google Scholar; and Petrov, A. Iu., “Obrazovanie Rossisko-Amerikanskoi Kompanii (1795-1799),” in Bolkhovitinov, N. N. ed., Istoriia russkoi Ameriki 1732-1867, vol. 1, Osnovanie russkoi Ameriki 1732-1799 (Moscow, 1997), 356 Google Scholar.

49. For descriptions of these various bodies, see Amburger, , Geschichte der Behördenorganisation Russlands, 124-25; and Vysshie i tsentral'nye gosudarstvennye uchrezhdeniia Rossii, 1801-1917 (St. Petersburg, 1998), 1:37, 45-47, 50-51, 55, 66-67, 72-74, 78-79, 202-3Google Scholar.

50. Werth, Paul W., “Imperiology and Religion: Some Thoughts on a Research Agenda,” in Kimitaka Matsuzato, ed., Imperiology: From Empirical Knowledge to Discussing the Russian Empire (Sapporo, 2007), 52–53 Google Scholar; Crews, For Prophet and Tsar.

51. Svod zakonov rossiiskoi imperii (St. Petersburg, 1892), vol. 2, art. 208Google Scholar.

52. Zakharova, O. Iu., Svetskie tseremonialy v Rossii XVIII-nachala XX v. (Moscow, 2001), 38 Google Scholar. Zakharova's discussion focuses on Mikhail Vorontsov, viceroy for the Caucasus under Nicholas I.

53. Quoted in Yaney, George L., The Systematization of Russian Government: Social Evolution in the Domestic Administration of Imperial Russia, 1711-1905 (Urbana, 1973), 218 Google Scholar. For more examples of this kind of conflict, see Remnev, A. V., “Stepnoe general-gubernatorstvo v imperskoi geografii vlasti,” in Suvorova, N. G., ed., Aziatskaia Rossiia: Liudi i struktury imperii; sbornik nauchnykh statei k 50-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia professora A. V. Remneva (Omsk, 2005), 170-71Google Scholar. On borderland governors as “men of power” on the frontiers, see LeDonne, John, “Frontier Governors General, pt. 1: The Western Frontier, 1772-1825,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 47, no. 1 (1999): 58 Google Scholar.

54. Khodarkovsky, Russia's Steppe Frontier, 47-51.

55. Kivelson, Valerie, Cartographies of Tsardom: The Land and Its Meanings in Seventeenth-Century Russia (Ithaca, 2006), 174-77Google Scholar; Slezkine, Yuri, Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North (Ithaca, 1994), 40–41 Google Scholar; Khodarkovsky, Michael, “'Ignoble Savages and Unfaithful Subjects': Constructing Non-Christian Identities in Early Modern Russia,” in Brower, Daniel R. and Lazzerini, Edward J., eds., Russia's Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917 (Bloomington, 1997), 9–26 Google Scholar. On the Muscovite social taxonomy, see Hartley, Janet, A Social History of the Russian Empire, 1650-1825 (New York, 1999), 16 Google Scholar.

56. My reference to shaved chins is a play on Alexander Etkind's terminology. See Etkind, , “Bremia britogo cheloveka, ili vnutrenniaia kolonizatsiia Rossii,” Ab imperio 1, no. 1 (2002): 265-98Google Scholar.

57. Bassin, Mark, “Russia between Europe and Asia: The Ideological Construction of Geographical Space,” Slavic Review 50, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 6–8 Google Scholar. For an example of Tatishchev's pro-European enthusiasm, see the entry for “Evropa,” in his Leksikon rossiiskii, istoricheskii, geograficheskii, politicheskii grazhdanskii (St. Petersburg, 1793), 2:190.

58. Alekseev et al., eds., Aziatskaia Rossiia, 9; Mark Bassin, “Geographies of Imperial Identity,” in Lieven, ed., Cambridge History of Russia, 2:47.

59. Willard Sunderland, “Imperial Space: Territorial Thought and Practice in the Eighteenth Century,” in Burbank, Jane, Hagen, Mark von, Remnev, Anatolyi, eds., Russian Empire: People, Space, Power, 1700-1930 (Bloomington, 2007), 39 Google Scholar.

60. See, for example, the map of the “newly acquired territory” between the lower Dniestr and Dnepr published by the Institute of Mines: Rossiiskii atlas iz soroka chelyrekh kart sostoiashchii i na sorok na dva namestnichestva imperiiu razdeliaiushchii (St. Petersburg, 1792), 87 Google Scholar.

61. For these uses, see, for example, Khlebnikov, Kiril Timofeevich, “Zapiski o koloniiakh v Amerike,” in Fedorova, S. G., ed., Russkaia Amerika v “zapiskakh” Kirila Khlebnikova (Moscow, 1985)Google Scholar; and Kostlivtsov, S. A., Otchet po obozreniiu rossiisko-amerikanskikh kolonii (St. Petersburg, 1861)Google Scholar.

62. Yuri Slezkine, “Naturalists versus Nations: Eighteenth-Century Russian Scholars Confront Ethnic Diversity,” in Brower and Lazzerini, eds., Russia's Orient, 27-57; Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field, 60-61. For Catherine's reference, see “Pis'ma Ekateriny Vtoroi k Baronu Grimmu,” Russkii arkhiv 16, no. 9 (1878): 93 Google Scholar.

63. The term inorodtsy was not new—it appears in descriptions of non-Russian peoples from at least as far back as the sixteenth century. But it began its trajectory as a widely recognized legal category with Mikhail Speranskii's Siberian Statute of 1822. See Geraci, Robert P., Window on the East: National and Imperial Identities in Late Tsarist Russia (Ithaca, 2001), 31 Google Scholar; Sokolovskii, S. V, Obrazy drugikh v rossiiskoi nauke, politike i prove (Moscow, 2001), 52 Google Scholar; Belova, O. V, “Inorodets,” in N. I. Tol'stoi, ed., Slavianskie drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskii slovar’ (Moscow, 1999), 2: 414-18Google Scholar.

64. Alexei Miller, “The Empire and the Nation in the Imagination of Russian Nationalism,“ in Miller and Rieber, eds., Imperial Rule, 21; Charles Steinwedel, “How Bashkiria Became a Part of European Russia,” in Burbank, von Hagen, and Remnev, eds., Russian Empire, 94-124; and Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field. On the changing morphology of the center, see Leonid Gorizontov, “The ‘Great Circle’ of Interior Russia: Representations of the Imperial Center in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” in Burbank, von Hagen, and Remnev, eds., Russian Empire, 67-93.

65. Pravilova, Ekaterina, Finansy imperii: Dengi i vlast’ v politike Rossii na natsional'nykh okrainakh, 1801-1917 (Moscow, 2006), 107 Google Scholar; Suny, Ronald Grigor, The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Stanford, 1993), 24 Google Scholar; Arsen'ev, K. I., Statisticheskie ocherki Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1848), 25–26 Google Scholar; Berezin, I., “Metropoliia i koloniia,” Otechestvennye zapiski 117', no. 3 (1858): 81–99; 117, no. 5 (1858): 349-70; 118, no. 5 (1858): 74-115Google Scholar; Brower, Turkestan and the Fate of the Russian Empire, 29; Jeff Sahadeo, “Progress or Peril: Migrants and Locals in Russian Tashkent, 1906-1914,” in Breyfogle, Nicholas B., Schrader, Abby, and Sunderland, Willard, eds., Peopling the Russian Periphery: Borderland Colonization in Eurasian History (London, 2007), 155-56Google Scholar; 1.1. Rodigina, , “Drugaia Rossiia“: Obraz Sibiri v russkoi zhurnal'noi presse vtoroi poloviny XIX-nachala XX veka (Novosibirsk, 2006), 146 Google Scholar; Alekseev, et al., eds., Aziatskaia Rossiia, 431-32, 435-36; F. A. Brokgauz and I. A. Efron, eds., Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ (St. Petersburg, 1890), 1:231Google Scholar.

66. Sahadeo, , Russian Colonial Society in Tashkent, 5 Google Scholar; Sunderland, Willard, “The ‘Colonization Question': Visions of Colonization in Late Imperial Russia,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 48, no. 2 (2000): 210-32Google Scholar; Remnev, A. V, “Koloniia ili okraina? Sibir’ v imperskom diskurse XIX v.,” in Karpachev, M. D. et al., eds., Rossiiskaia imperiia: Strategii stabilizatsii i opyty obnovleniia (Voronezh, 2004), 133-35Google Scholar; Potanin, G. N., Oblastnicheskaia tendentsiia v Sibiri (Tomsk, 1907), 16 Google Scholar; Brokgauz and Efron, eds., Entsiklopedicheskit slovar', 14a: between pp. 738-39.

67. Slocum, John W., “Who, and When, Were the Inorodtsy? The Evolution of the Category of ‘Aliens’ in Imperial Russia,” Russian Review 57, no. 2 (April 1998): 173-90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hirsch, Empire of Nations, 31-32. For a title that reveals some of the range of peoples covered by the term by the early twentieth century, see Alektorov, A. I., Inorodtsy v Rossii: Sovremennye voprosy; finliandtsy, poliaki, latyshi, evrei, nemtsy, armiane, tatary (St. Petersburg, 1906)Google Scholar.

68. For a small hint of the wide-ranging public discussion on these issues, see Fortunatov, F., Natsional'nye oblasti Rossii (opyt statisticheskogo issledovaniia po dannym vseobshchei perepisi) (St. Petersburg, 1906)Google Scholar; Kokoshkin, F. F., Oblastnaia reforma i edinstvo Rossii (Moscow, 1906)Google Scholar; Novotorzhskii, G., Natsional'nyi vopros, avtonomiia i federatsiia (Moscow, 1906)Google Scholar; Ratner, M. V., O natsional'noi i territorial'noi avtonomii (Kiev-St. Petersburg, 1906)Google Scholar; Grushevskii, M., Edinstvo ili raspadenie Rossii? (St. Petersburg, 1907)Google Scholar; Korf, S. A., Federalizm (St. Petersburg, 1908)Google Scholar; and Evreinov, G. A., Natsional'nye voprosy na inorodcheskikh okrainakh Rossii: Schema politicheskoi programmy (St. Petersburg, 1908)Google Scholar.

69. Haxthausen, Baron von, The Russian Empire: Its Peoples, Institutions, and Resources (1847-1852; reprint, New York, 1968), 2:76, 1Google Scholar.

70. Remnev, “Stepnoe general-gubernatorstvo,” 175.

71. The most comprehensive study of the Ministry of State Domains in its formative period is Druzhinin, N. M., Gosudarstvennye krest'iane i reforma P. D. Kiseleva, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1946-58)Google Scholar. See also Istoricheskoe obozrenie piatidesiatiletnei deiatel'nosti Ministerstva Gosudarstvennykh hnushchestv, 1837-1887 (St. Petersburg, 1888)Google Scholar.

72. The quoted phrase is drawn from the Resettlement Administration's masterwork, Aziatskaia Rossiia (St. Petersburg, 1914), l:vGoogle Scholar.

73. On the history of the Resettlement Administration, see Treadgold, Donald W., The Great Siberian Migration: Government and Peasant in Resettlement from Emancipation to the First World War (Princeton, 1957), 120–21, 129CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Vysshie i tsenlral'nye gosudarstvennye uchrezhdeniia Rossii, 1801-1917 (St. Petersburg, 2002), 3:72, 91–92 Google Scholar. On GUZZ as the center for “new administrative techniques” and a “democracy of experts,” see Yaney, George, The Urge to Mobilize: Agrarian Reform in Russia, 1861-1930 (Urbana, 1982), 133-38Google Scholar. On “scientifically informed government” in Russia in this period, see Hirsh, Empire of Nations, 31, 47.

74. On these details, see the remembrances of one of the administration's new officials: Tatishchev, A. A., Zemli i liudi: Vgushche pereselencheskogo dvizheniia, 1906-1921 (Moscow, 2001), 34 Google Scholar.

75. For all of the above, see Andronikov, I. A., “Kolonizatsiia Sibiri v sviazi s zemleustroistvom mestnogo naseleniia,” Voprosy kolonizatsii (hereafter VK), 1907, no. 2: 119 Google Scholar; Kuznetsov, V, “Ekonomicheskoe rezul'taty pereseleniia v Sibir’ i Stepnoi Krai,” VK, 1907, no. 2: 83 Google Scholar; Vvedenskii, I., “Pereselenie i agrarnyi vopros,” VK 1909, no. 5: 78 Google Scholar; Shkunov, M., “Zemleustroistvo inorodtsev v Gornom Altae i ispol'zovanie svobodnogo fonda dlia kolonizatsii,” VK, 1909, no. 5: 171 Google Scholar; Skorniakov, E. E., Oroshenie i kolonizatsiia pustyn’ shtata Aidago v Severnoi Amerike na osnovanii zakona Keri (Carey Act): Otchet po zagranichnoi komandirovke, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1911)Google Scholar; Epanchin, N. N., Oroshenie i kolonizatsiia chernozemnykh prerii dal'nego zapada Kanady obshchestvom kanadskoi zheleznoi dorogi: Otchet po komandirovke v Kanadu v 1912 g., 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1913)Google Scholar; and Kaufman, A. A., Po novym mestam (St. Petersburg, 1905)Google Scholar.

76. Spisok izdanii Pereselencheskogo Upravleniia, s risunkami (St. Petersburg, 1914)Google Scholar. On mapping in particular, see Bagrov, L. S., Karty Aziatskoi Rossii (Petrograd, 1914), 28 Google Scholar.

77. The original instructions for the administration emphasized the new agency's responsibilities for organizing and supporting the movement of settlers and their establishment in their new homes. As a result, right until the end of the regime, most of the administration's work on the ground flowed from this basic mandate. See “Vysochaishe utverzhdennoe, 2 dekabria 1896 g., mnenie Gosudarstvennogo Soveta ob uchrezhdenii v sostave Ministerstva Vnutrennykh Del Pereselencheskogo Upravleniia; otdely I i II,“ Sbornik uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii opereselenii (St. Petersburg, 1901), 2–4 Google Scholar.

78. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv Dal'nego Vostoka (RGIADV), f. 702, op. 3, d. 347, pt. 1, 1. 216.

79. Gins, G., “Voprosy kolonizatsii Aziatskoi Rossii i ‘vystavka po pereselencheskomu delu,'” VK, 1912, no. 11:3–4 Google Scholar.

80. Ibid, 4. Gins returned to this idea in another publication: see Gins, , Pereselenie i kolonizatsiia (St. Petersburg, 1913), 29 Google Scholar.

81. Aziatskaia Rossiia, 1:viii.

82. For example, see ibid., 1:39, 42, 88-92; Glinka, K. D., ed., Predvoritel'nyi otchet ob organizatsii i ispolnenii rabot po issledovaniiu pochv Aziatskoi Rossii v 1908 godu (St. Petersburg, 1908), 4–8 Google Scholar; and RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 300, 11. 58ob. (reference to Asiatic Russia as Siberia, the Steppe Territory, and Turkestan), 88 (reference to Asiatic Russia as all of the above and Trans-Caucasia as well). Remnev notes that “Siberia” gradually disappeared from administrative discourse over the course of the nineteenth century, while the use of “Asiatic Russia” increased. See his “Koloniia ili okraina?” 115.

83. This definition of colonization (kolonizatsiia) appears in an administration document from 1916. See RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 300, 1. 26ob.

84. Krivoshein, K. A., Aleksandr Vasil'evich Krivoshein: Sud'ba rossiiskogo reformatora (Moscow, 1993), 126, 131Google Scholar; and Gins, Pereselenie i kolonizatsiia, 20. Krivoshein was also closely involved in eastern questions through his influential position on the Committee for the Settlement of the Far East, which was formed under the Council of Ministers in 1909. See Remnev, A. V., Rossiia Dal'nego Vostoka: Imperskaia geografiia vlasti XIX-nachala XX vekov (Omsk, 2004), 479-87Google Scholar. Krivoshein's influence over Far Eastern colonization was especially pronounced prior to 1911. After Stolypin's death, the committee met far less frequently and was closed in 1915.

85. “Rech’ glavnoupravliaiushchego zemleustroistvom i zemledeliem A. V. Krivosheina v Gosudarstvennoi Dume 10 noiabria 1908 goda,” in Guterts, A. V., ed. and comp., Stolypinskaia reforma i zemleustroitel’ A. A. Kofod: Dokumenty, perepiska, memuary (Moscow, 2003), 89 Google Scholar. Prior to his appointment as head of GUZZ, Krivoshein served eight years in the Resettlement Administration.

86. Poezdka v Sibir’ i Povolzh'e: Zapiska P. A. Stolypina i A. V. Krivosheina (St. Petersburg, 1911), 55, 11Google Scholar. On the tour with Stolypin, see Charles Steinwedel, “Resettling People, Unsettling the Empire: Migration and the Challenge of Governance, 1861-1917,” in Breyfogle, Schrader, and Sunderland, eds., Peopling the Russian Periphery, 134-41; and Treadgold, Great Siberian Migration, 153-83. On Krivoshein's inspections of the Caucasus and Turkestan, see Voshchinin, V., “Kolonizatsionnoe delo pri A.V. Krivosheine,” VK, 1915, no. 18: 3–24 Google Scholar; and [Krivoshein, A. V.], Zapiska glavnoupravliaiushchego zemleustroistvom i zemledeliem o poezdke v Turkestanskii krai v 1912 g. (Poltava, 1912)Google Scholar.

87. In 1906, GUZZ's, colonization budget was 5 million rubles. By 1914, it had risen to over 30 million. “Khronika,” VK, 1914, no. 14: 183; Aziatskaia Rossiia, 1:493 (graph)Google Scholar.

88. See, for example, the discussions in RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 300, 11. 28, 54ob.-55, 59ob.-60. As it turns out, despite their best efforts, administration officials were unable to stop a steep drop off in colonization investment during the war years. The year after the war began the administration's colonization budget declined by 10 percent to 27 million rubles. By 1916, it had fallen another 20 percent to 21.5 million. Ibid., 1. 28.

89. Ibid., 1.65.

90. Materialy po zemel'nomu voprosu v Aziatskoi Rossii, vol. 8, Zhurnaly komissii po voprosam pereseeniia i kolonizatsii (Petrograd, 1918), 18Google Scholar.

91. On this proposal, see RGIA, f. 391, op. 5, d. 735, 11. 1-8.

92. On colonization in Persia, see Sakharov, A., Russkaia kolonizatsiia Astrabadskoi provintsii v Persii (Petrograd, 1915)Google Scholar; Voshchinin, V., “Sovremennye zadachi Rossii na severe Persii,” VK, 1915, no. 17: 26–51 Google Scholar; Bezsonov, B. V., Russkie pereselentsy v Severnoi Persii (Petrograd, 1915)Google Scholar; and RGIA, f. 391, op. 5, dd. 306 and 307. See also Peter Holquist's discussion on Persian colonization in his article for this forum. On the administration's desks and bureaus, see Vysshie i tsentral'nye gosudarstvennye uchrezhdeniia Rossii, 1801-1917, 3:91-92. For archival materials on resettlement work in Uriankhai during the war years, see RGIA, f. 391, op. 5, dd. 1390, 2173, and 2174.

93. See, for example, the administration's agenda for 1915 in RGIA, f. 391, op. 5, d. 1557, 1. 12ob.

94. RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 300, 1. 5. The administration's involvement in Mongolian affairs was not new. As early as 1910, administration officials had had a seat on a secret interministerial commission created to study the issue of expanding Russian influence in the country. One of these officials was Gennadii Chirkin, soon to serve as the last head of the administration. On the commission and its members, see RGIA, f. 23, op. 8, d. 163, 1. 1. For Chirkin's description of the administration's Mongolian-oriented activities during the war, see his “Znachenie dlia Rossii Mongol'skogo rynka: K voprosu o sooruzhenii Mongol'skoi zheleznoi dorogi; Kiakhta-Urga,” VK, 1915, no. 17: 77-84.

95. As quoted in Sud'ba, veka: Krivosheiny (St. Petersburg, 2002), 130 Google Scholar.

96. This is the “dilemma of modern empire” identified by Lieven in “Russia as Empire and Periphery,” 19, 22.

97. See, for example, the grumblings of the military governor of the Amur Region in 1907: RGIADV, f. 1, op. 4, d. 2146, 1. 279.

98. Pahlen, Constantine [Palen], Mission to Turkestan: Being the Memoirs of Count K. K. Pahlen, 1908-1909, ed. Pierce, Richard A., trans. N.J. Couriss (Oxford, 1964), 191 Google Scholar.

99. By 1907-08, the Resettlement Administration had achieved the dubious distinction of being reviled by critics from all across the political spectrum and was, according to one account, “the most persistently abused state agency in the Third Duma.” See Voshchinin, V. P., Pereselencheskii vopros v gosudarstvennoi Dume tret'ego sozyva (St. Petersburg, 1912), 29–33, 57-58Google Scholar.

100. See the conclusions in Remnev, “Rossiiskaia vlast'.“

101. Krivoshein cites the precedent of the Far Eastern committee directly in his proposal. See RGIA, f. 391, op. 5, d. 735, 11. 5-6. And Krivoshein would have known about the committee because he was a member.

102. See RGIA, f. 1282, op. 2 (1903), d. 24. The report on administrative structures in the German, French, and British empires appears on 11. 266-303. My thanks to Anatolii Remnev for pointing me to this material.

103. Voshchinin, “Kolonizatsionnoe delo pri A. V. Krivosheine,” 24. In postrevolutionary retirement, former assistant minister of the interior Vladimir Gurko regretted that the empire had never created a “special ministry … colonies” as this would have been the appropriate way, in his view, to administer Turkestan and Russia's other “essentially colonial possessions” in the east. Gurko clearly did not imagine Krivoshein as the minister, however. See his Cherty i siluety proshlogo: Pravitel'stvo i oshchestvennost’ v tsarstvovanie Nikolaia II v izobrazhenii sovremennika (Moscow, 2000), 155-56Google Scholar. I thank David McDonald for this reference.

104. “Ot redaktsii,” VK, 1907, no. 1: i.

105. On the influence and implications of the phrase “united and indivisible” on imperial politics, see Remnev, “Okraina ili koloniia?” 121-22; and Peter Holquist, “Dilemmas of a Progressive Administrator: Nolde, Baron Boris,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 266-67, 271-72Google Scholar. The idea of “Greater Russia,“ embraced by Stolypin, Nolde, Petr Struve, and various politicians and commentators across the ideological spectrum, echoes the influential vision of a “Greater Britain” first voiced by the British historian John Seeley in 1883. For a brief discussion of Seeley and his influence, see Ward, Stuart, “Transcending the Nation: A Global Imperial History?” in Antoinette Burton, ed., After the Imperial Turn: Thinking luith and through the Nation (Durham, 2003), 44–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.