what it is to be European, but extending these ideas to the colonial sphere remains an arena characterized for the most part by silence. In sum, there is much promise to A History of the European Restorations, and its impressive cast of contributors have made important interventions. At the same time, however, we are well past the point at which we can write about Europe and ignore its many entanglements away from the continent itself. These two volumes will no doubt be of great benefit for scholars wishing to challenge the intellectual borders of the Restorations; a reckoning with the geographical borders, however, and an acknowledgement that writing about a European topic does not in and of itself demand exclusive Eurocentrism might have to wait for a future work.

中文翻译：

---

书评：现代早期俄罗斯的王位继承：1450-1725 年权力的转移，保罗·布什科维奇着

什么是欧洲，但将这些想法扩展到殖民领域仍然是一个主要以沉默为特征的舞台。总而言之，《欧洲复兴史》大有希望，其令人印象深刻的撰稿人也做出了重要的干预。然而，与此同时，我们已经远远超过了可以写欧洲的地步，而忽略了它与欧洲大陆本身的许多纠葛。这两卷无疑对那些希望挑战维新知识边界的学者大有裨益。然而，考虑地理边界，并承认关于欧洲主题的写作本身并不需要排他性的欧洲中心主义，这可能需要等待未来的工作。