Advertisement

The Time of Troubles as a Cultural Mechanism: Toward a Typology of Russian Cultural History

  • Juri Lotman
Chapter

Abstract

Discussing the unique features of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin wrote that all bourgeois revolutions go through a stage of preliminary, spontaneous preparation, when their economic structure experiences a “gestation” period within the economy of the previous order. Unlike those revolutions, the socialist economic structure, according to Lenin, did not experience a period of gestation. As a result, the transition from capitalism to socialism was understood, according to this model, as a unique phenomenon, an explosion, destroying the foundations of the previous social structure and creating a new, until then impossible, order atop the rubble. The goal of this article is to show that this was not a unique phenomenon, the particularities of which were determined by a situation “unprecedented in the history of humankind”—namely, the shift from a class-based society to a classless one—but rather this transition exhibited one of the defining features of all binary systems, in particular, that of the Moscow-Petersburg period. Therefore, we should speak not of the specificity of this transition from one economic order (capitalism) to another (communism), but rather of a certain constant in the development of binary social structures.

References

  1. Anderson, Lindsay (dir.). 1968. If. London: Memorial Enterprises.Google Scholar
  2. Blok, Alexander. 1966. “The Intelligentsia and the Revolution.” In Russian Intellectual History: An Anthology, Marc Raeff (ed.), 364–371. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  3. Chukovsky, Kornei. 2005. Diary, 1901–1969, Marian Schwartz (trans.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Isachenko, Aleksandr. 1973. “Esli by v 1478 godu Novgorod porazil Moskvu (Ob odnom nesostoiavshemsia variante istorii russkogo iazyka).” In VII Miedzynaroodowy kongres slawistów w Warszawie 1973. Streszczenia referatów i kommunikatów, Witold Doroszewski et al. (ed.), 85–86. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
  5. Lotman, Ju. M. and B. A. Uspenskij. 1984. “Echoes of the Notion ‘Moscow as the Third Rome’ in Peter the Great’s Ideology.” In The Semiotics of Russian Culture, Ann Shukman (trans. and ed.), 53–67. Ann Arbor: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  6. Platonov, Sergei. 1970. The Time of Troubles: A Historical Study of the Internal Crisis and Social Struggle in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Muscovy, John T. Alexander (trans.). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  7. Pushkin, Alexander. 1986. Pushkin on Literature, Tatyana Wolff (ed.). London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  8. Turgenev, Ivan. 1917. A House of Gentlefolk, Constance Garnett (trans.). New York: P. F. Collier & Son.Google Scholar
  9. Uspenskij, Boris. 2012. “Tsar and Pretender: Samozvanchestvo or Royal Imposture in Russia as a Cultural-Historical Phenomenon.” In Boris Uspenskij and Victor Zhivov, “Tsar and God” and Other Essays in Russian Cultural Semiotics, Marcus C. Leavitt, David Budgen, and Liv Bliss (trans.), 113–152. Boston: Academic Studies Press.Google Scholar
  10. Uspenskij, Boris and Victor Zhivov. 2012. “Tsar and God: Semiotic Aspects of the Sacralization of the Monarch in Russia.” In Boris Uspenskij and Victor Zhivov, “Tsar and God” and Other Essays in Russian Cultural Semiotics, Marcus C. Leavitt, David Budgen, and Liv Bliss (trans.), 78–112. Boston: Academic Studies Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juri Lotman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations