The author presents the story of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth's cities in the nineteenth century as one of decline and loss. The factors responsible for this development were not wars or less favourable social, economic or cultural conditions compared to western and central Europe, but enlightened politics of rational statehood and centralism. They stifled civic activity and urban economies, made the cities rather wilt along in comparison with their western counterparts, and turned citizens into subjects. Rulers saw only ‘disorder, chaos, and inefficiency’ where actually there had been pluralism, complex balancing of interests and conditions for flourishing economies; they did not understand the objects of their policies, forced order and reforms upon the cities which were alien to their social and cultural conditions, and finally proved to them be dysfunctional.

Only one of the six chapters of Murphy's book deals with the period before the eighteenth century and tries to make the point that cities in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had similar starting conditions like cities in pre-modern central and western Europe. Based on the ‘Magdeburg Law’, these cities developed ‘civic spaces’, and urbanites frequently referred to the rights and freedoms granted by this framework in petitions and legal documents. These references even seem to have increased during the eighteenth century when first the Polish crown and then the partition powers tried to bring the cities under more centralized control. They displayed ideas of ‘civic identity’, ‘urban republicanism’, ‘citizenship’ and the concept of the city as a community set apart from the countryside and separated by traditional rights from higher powers. Murphy provides the reader with abundant examples for this language and invokes Quentin Skinner to strengthen his point that these representations give us insights into the self-perception and identity of citizens in the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth which survived well into the nineteenth century.

It is not completely clear whether Skinner would agree. After all, he reminds us that we need to put texts into their discursive context and to think rather about their performative function than about what they literally say. It might not be too surprising that urban representatives referred to traditional rights and freedoms when cities increasingly came under pressure from states and their enlightened reformers. But what does this tell us about how they saw themselves and constructed the urban community? If there is one recurring theme in Murphy's analysis, then it is the emphasis certain urban groups put on particular rights and privileges. Once again, this is not too surprising because that was very much what was in place and economically highly significant, especially for the Jewish communities. The author convincingly shows that the enlightened drive for equality as a matter of fact disadvantaged the Jews, especially in the Russian part of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Christian–Jewish divide which is so typical for many of the cities in this region is not the main topic of this book, however, which focuses rather on the relation between centralizing state power and cities. However, it is, of course, important when we talk about citizenship and civic identity. Murphy suggests that the relationship in practice was much better than historians thought; that there was co-operation when it came to the defence of the city's rights, and that even Christian–Jewish conflicts often demonstrated a common regard for law and urban institutions. The significance of the fact that Jews and Christians often made use of concepts like the common good and the city as frame of reference, however, should not be overestimated. Did Christians include Jews in their idea of urban citizenship? Did Jews identify themselves as an integral part of a community together with their Christian neighbours? If the answer to both questions is negative (and with reference to the existing literature I think it is), then the implicit equation of the pre-modern Polish–Lithuanian city with its western counterparts seems to be less plausible than the author suggests, not to speak of his concept of citizenship. Centralization might have done the cities of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth no good, but there were other reasons why they became backwaters in the nineteenth century, the conditions for Jews in the Russian pale of settlement being one of them.

Murphy's book is an example of passionate revisionism. He wants to ‘de-orientalize’ the picture historians have given of the urban world of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and put it back where it belongs according to the author: in the heart of Europe. As is often the case with revisionist projects, valid points seem to be overstated and opponents painted in darker colours than they deserve. Most historians working on east central and eastern European cities and urban communities are far from orientalizing their subject, but rather aim to carve out differences and alternative functionalities of cities in the eastern European imperial peripheries. However, Murphy's fascinating and refreshing study opens new perspectives and may trigger a debate on the topic.