The Memoirs of Princess Dashkova are unique in that they are a first hand account of eighteenth century Russia from the point of view of a noblewoman close to the centers of power at the court of Catherine the Great. As all memoirs do, Dashkova's words present a particular bias-that of an intelligent and privileged upper-class woman in a deferential society who has an agenda she wishes to impress upon the reader. Yet within this memoir are glimpses of Russia in a time of radical and fast-paced changes, in some of which Dashkova herself has a hand.

It is difficult to credit Dashkova's convictions that she was the first to even conceive of the possibility of Catherine's overthrow of Peter III since Dashkova was eighteen and one of the younger members of Catherine's circle. Although Dashkova was a supporter of Catherine and did have a hand in the plot to over throw the czar, Catherine's memoirs imply that such a coup was envisioned long before the death of the Empress Elizabeth and that Catherine herself was merely waiting for the right moment to act. More plausible is the idea that Catherine had cultivated the young Princess purposely to have a ear in the Vorontsov camp. Dashkova's rendition of events would have her personally picking the conspirators, sending for Catherine's carriage, ordering the Orlovs to bring Catherine to speak to the regiments and almost single-handedly arranging the entire series of events. The most noteworthy point in this account of the coup of 1762 is the fact that it could take place at all in a monarchial state. That the Emperor with the appropriate Russian bloodline could be overthrown by his wife, a Princess of Germany, is remarkable in itself and speaks more of Catherine's perspicacity than of Dashkova or any other supporter.

Dashkova paints a picture of the Russian court under Catherine as both a place of sycophants and personal favor seekers and of great new ideas and plans for the state as a whole; of wealth and luxury taken for granted by the aristocracy while at the same time there are ongoing economic problems of national significance. Dashkova's Russia has two faces-that of an elegantly coifed and gowned Europeanized noblewoman and that of the peasant-serfs, themselves living in hovels, who out of gratitude for being allowed to work volunteer their labor so that she could build a fine house. The clearest impression of Dashkova and her contemporaries is that typical of the majority of eighteenth century aristocracy-of the disparity between the classes and of the general obliviousness of the upper-class to the misfortunes of the lower.

Dashkova's lesson to Diderot of the importance of serfdom-as a method by which the enlightened aristocracy protects the hapless peasants for their own good-gives a clear perspective of the hierarchy between the social classes in eighteenth century Russia. Whether the conversation actually took place is less believable than the fact that she, like the vast majority of Russian aristocracy, wholeheartedly subscribed to the theories of absolute sovereignty and enlightened despotism. Even less believable are Diderot's thanks to Dashkova for educating him on the advantages of serfdom. When she meets Voltaire she describes him as being infatuated with her and begging her not to leave. A possible explanation of Dashkova's need to portray herself as such a close confidante and friend to Diderot and Voltaire may lie in a desire to be seen in some respects as Catherine's equal.

The Princess portrays herself as a highly-educated liberal thinker about ideas she is not willing to put into practice; while at the same time her intention is obviously self-serving propaganda and a desire to share with her audience the esteem she feels she is held in by nearly everyone she meets. In one aside she states: "I would remind my readers that this will only appear after my death, so they cannot tax me with vanity because I repeat things as they were said." This intent to impress is typical of the Russian Court as a whole, especially in their pursuit of Western European approval.

To give Dashkova some benefit of the doubt it must be pointed out that much of the style of her writing, particularly the overt humility that comes across as insincere, is actually an affectation typical of women writers of the eighteenth century. For women to be accepted as authors or thinkers of any note was rare indeed, and most women of that period, whether writing on political issues like Mary Wollstonecraft or on women's lives like Frances Burney, found it necessary to preface much of what they had to say with some apologizing for simply being female. In that respect Dashkova's memoirs are fairly similar to some of her contemporaries. Where Dashkova must be taken with some skepticism is in those areas where her own accounts differ with the historical record and fortunately Jehanne Geith, Kyril Fitzlyon, and A. Woronzov-Dashkoff have done an admirable job of reporting such issues in the introduction, afterword, footnotes and index of the text. To them belongs the real praise for this fascinating glimpse into eighteenth century aristocratic Russia.

In this book Dostoevsky seems to take his time to criticize capitalism ( or so I find), takes as an example French society,
criticizes the accumulation of money and the adulation of god money (Baal), the servilism that comes with it, analyzes the way marital relations are, that is in relation with capitalism (Bribri and Ma biche ).

I found it pretty good, although it requires you to have knowledge of many things of the time it was written, (for instance can you remember who is Guizot?) and be used to the style of Dostoevsky.

Vivid impressions of the author during his travel all over Europe in the second half of the 19th century. His main targets are France (Paris) and England (London).
He gives us a biting and cynical portrait of the French: parvenus and bourgeois who make a mockery of 'liberté, égalité, fraternité'.
In England, he is confronted with child prostitution in London's Haymarket: a most terrible and moving scene of a child of only six, black and blue beaten, barefoot, who tries to lure him to have sex with her. On the contrary, the Anglican clerics preach a religion for the wealthy and don't even hide it. A most pregnant portrait of the fat and the meagre.
A book to recommend.

This is another book from the barrow on 14th Street. I've read all the other reviews and I have to agree with the reader who said what was the publisher thinking of.

Nijinsky was a wonderful dancer by all accounts. [Though, you know, if he came back tonight and danced Spectre de la Rose at Lincoln Centre we'd be rolling on the floor, screaming with laughter, and Isabella Fokine would be there, too, complaining that he hadn't done the right steps - but hey, don't get me started on her.] I digress.

I am not studying schizophrenia/dementia whatever, so it's all a bit lost on me. I love to read about Nijinsky dancing, and his extraordinary creativity both as a dancer and a choreographer, but his ramblings in this diary make me wonder if a mad person's ramblings worth the ink. Is he Nijinsky or a mad person? I'm sure there are people who read these ramblings and see it as a sign of Nijinsky's genius. I read it with increasing frustration. If someone came and sat next to me on the subway and babbled on like this, I'd move away. [And, believe me, I do.]

I am alone, I'm curious about this, in finding Nijinsky offstage just a tiny bit of a prig? I gained this impression, little by little, from reading his wife's [so bad it's a sin] book, Buckle's "Nijinsky" and, oddly enough, from Bronislava Nijinska's early memoirs.

this book is highly through in it's full translation of Nijinsky's diary, but best part of this book are the inclusion of the never before published "fourth book" which included poems and letters written by Nijinsky as well as an introduction which helps to clarify not only the historical background but also delves into the mental state Nijinsky was in as he wrote his diary.

Nijinsky, hombre posesionado por el genio, hace algun tiempo visiti en el museo de orsay, en Paris, la exposicion sobre él, de lo mejor al igual que su apasionada vida