S. A. Stein
and foreign historiography from the first decade of the twentieth to the first decade of the twenty-first century. The most extensive chapter addresses the norms for representing national, confessional, and regional interests in the State Duma. Here Tsiunchuk provides precise data on the electoral advantages the inhabitants of European Russia had over the population of the peripheries of the empire. If a single delegate to the first and second Duma from the center represented 227,800 people, then from Poland that delegate represented 254,100, from Siberia and the Far East 274,200, and from Central Asia and Kazakhstan 336,800. The electoral law of 3June 1907 further increased this disparity by reducing the representation of the peripheral territories. The author thoroughly describes the electoral campaigns in the first two Dumas in multinational regions, noting the ambivalence of their results from the perspective of ensuring the social and political stability of the empire. On the one hand, the authorities did not succeed in obtaining a loyal majority of deputies. On the other, the ethnoconfessional composition of the Duma made possible representation of the main national, confessional, and regional interests in the legislative institution. The authorities saw a way out of this contradiction by limiting the representation of the peripheries and by forming a Duma majority from "pro-government, prosperous layers of the Russian [russkoi] part of society" (295). In the final chapter Tsiunchuk concludes, based on his analysis of the biographies of the members of the first and second Duma, that "the State Duma became the most important factor in uniting national social forces, and from this foundation promoted the formation of new national elites and the spread of political culture among the peoples of the Russian empire" (374). A valuable addition to the main content of the book are the appendixes, compiled on the basis of materials from all four prerevolutionary Dumas, which provide information on representation from separate regions, the national and confessional composition of the deputies, as well as their membership in national parties and organizations. An unquestionable merit of this work is its clear organization of the materials by chapter. Unfortunately, Tsiunchuk did not consider it necessary to delineate the finer structural elements, noticeably complicating our understanding of the text as a whole. Some disparity between the contents of the book and its title must also be noted. It is hardly correct when discussing "Duma models" to limit oneself to the materials of the first two Dumas. After all, in spite of all the negative consequences of limited representation, the changes in the electoral law of 3June 1907 permitted the formation of a body of deputies who really did take on the task of creating laws. There is every reason to agree with Tsiunchuk's opinion that "the repudiation of the first Duma model of representation and its replacement by the 3 June model allowed the authorities to temporarily create the illusion of control over the empire, although in fact this change furthered the stagnation of the political system, especially in its ethnoregional aspect" (373). Yet I would argue that the "first Duma model" failed to create even the "illusion of control." On the whole, the merits of the monograph under review far outweigh its shortcomings. Tsiunchuk has succeeded in producing a serious contribution to the study of both the Duma and the empire and has thus taken a notable step forward in the study of the history of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.