Periodization is an ever-present feature of the grammar of history-writing. As with all
grammatical rules the order it imposes can structure but also stifle historical
interpretations. Though few historians consider their period boundaries as anything more than
useful guidelines heuristic artifice all too easily congeals into immovable structure
blinkering the historical gaze. In this cross-disciplinary volume an international group of
historians and cultural scholars considers different ways in which accepted period boundaries
in modern European history and cultural studies can be challenged and rethought. Alongside a
theoretical introduction and epilogue the volume contains seven case studies exploring
hitherto under-researched continuities and discontinuities in the social cultural
intellectual literary labour and art history of 19th- and 20th-century Europe with a
particular focus on the continent's East. Topics covered include French anti-communism peasant
memories of serfdom cosmopolitan art in a nationalist age the communist takeover of Poland
Russian literary history and national day traditions in East-Central Europe. To problematize
period boundaries the chapters in this volume adopt the perspective of social groups that
standard periodization schemes have ignored shine a light on awkward actors who have appeared
out of step with canonical understandings of their period consider how historical actors
themselves divide up history and how this informs historical practice and explore the
difficulties that the non-synchronicity of different historical processes can pose for
periodization.
