The semiotics of Russian culture

1s convmcmg. ‘~‘et though he ackno~idges thJt dlscusslons ot‘Pict:sh overiordshlp may not tell us much about tribal kingship. he makes little effort to explore this Io~lrr Ie~el, nor IS there any real attempt to explain the symbolism of pre-ChrIstian Pictlsh art. the evidence for their dual organisation or the dlstinctlve place-name elements present in Picrish areas. all features that add character to the Plcts. A further basic point of argument runmng through the book concerns the role of the church. As part of his stress on the essentiali]; Celtic nature of early Scottish societ>. Smyth underlines the extent to which ChrIstianIt) spread via the Celr~cchurch as opposed to the Roman or Saxon church. Furthermore. he emphasises the polltical role played bb church leaders like Columba and Adoman. not least in relations between the SCOWand Picts. Typical of the fresh eye which he applies to the problem is his assertion that Celtic priests from the Hebrides probably ‘discovered’ Iceland and the Faroes before the Vikings, and may even have guided early Viking voyages there and beyond. The \.ikings. in fact, are put firmly back in their place, uith recent stress on their trading function being rejected in favour of an oldfashioned stress on their role as raiders and looters. Having stressed the political and cultural importance of Iona. it seems as ifthr historian In Smyth cannot forgive their sacking of the abbey and other Hrbridean ecclesiastical centrcs. The later sections of the book deal with the success of the Scats at the expense of thr L’ikings, Pacts and Britons over the ninth century. a success that-as Smyth notes-is not easily understood given the strength of their rivals. These are closely argued sections that range over affairs as much outside as inside Scotland. Smyth’s capable handling of the archaeological evidence for early settlement make one wish he had broadened his survey so as to include a broader treatment ofsuch aspects, and of socio-economic matters generally. His concrntration on polItIcal and religious affairs hardly restricts the text, but it does leave dimrnslons of early Scotland relatively unexplored. Yet such quibbles apart. this is a most welcome book, one that \\111surely enrich many a debate. Robert Universiry

College

of Russian Culture, Ju.M. Lotman Contributions, I\;o. 1I (Ann Arbor: Department University of Michigan, 1984). xiv f34l pp.

The Semiotics

A. Dogshon

of Wales

and B.A. Uspenskij, of Slavic Languages

Michigan Slavic and Literatures,

This collection of thirteen essays written by two leading Soviet semioticians is an ambitious attempt at reinterpreting Russian cultural hlstory as an aggregate of several enduring themes whose pervasiveness in politics, literature, religion and other fields elevates them into dominant symbols of Russian culture. During this search for meaning the reader is taken on a comprehensive tour of Russian history which weaves together topics ranging from ‘The Decembrist in Everyday Life’ to ‘The Syriac QuestIon in Slavonic Literature’; the tour is conducted in the manner of anthropological field work whereby ‘The investigator ceases to be an outside observer, he enters this Lvorld [of Russian history], free of condescension and prejudice, ready to understand Its logic, remote though it is from ours’ (p. 39). The best exposition of this ‘remote logic’ is provided in two articles devoted to ‘The Role of Dual hlodels in the Dynamics of Russian Culture’ and “Agreement” and “SelfGivmg” as Archetypal Models of Culture’; the arguments developed in both essays give a semblance of unity to the entire collection. Lotman and Uspenskij suggest that unlike the culture of (Christian) Western Europe which was based on the three-fold system of holy, sinful and neutral behaviour-corresponding to the triad of heaven, hell and

purpator>-1;s

Russtan


hell or hoI> and ek11 conduct. Roman

and ChristIan

Church,

emphasised

(e p. ieudaitsm). RussIn.

conslderabl: Into

between

it the indivldusl

tloulng

Into

Russian narrotv

critlclsm

the

was

the

This

principle

innovator heresy.

change, brglnning

ot. the “old

oppobitc’

Ip

12).

Thib f’eter

SurrKrldKrKci

contr-act with their

and self-sacrlficr. knr\b

that

.Although

Soviet

VIOV of

the sinful.

culture

thK

chirn

to

values

v,as an autocracy

which

could

with example, Peter

Th-

authors

:lnd

th,* enlightened

itself

01‘

dtspla)’ Solzhrnitsyn

arc a stlmulatln Anybody parallels

RussIan

developed

by

lnterestmg

slmilarlties

r\irh

Hence. ‘The

[_cic] a5 2 complete I> cro\5:i
theor>. Into

Pet::

J

rulcf-s continued a breach

bv

the

and

hi\

Eurl?pean-llhc to demand

of the past: ‘.~lthough

consIdered

f p. 135). the idea>

In

Kntrrrd

the vocabulary

as a

to make

way. but aIs<> ,c~ved as

as an involution it.

from

ar.d ending

interpreted

‘anti-behaviour’.

at disproving

ot.

?re-empt

drs\vn

the Great.

,n a complex considering

_. . It \v;lj

but rather

accujations

was subjectl\cly

and sinful

N;L>S”

srirli-cllvlnit)

employing

to evoke

was verk

had to be kept alive in ord:r

hlbtor!

In practice.

In

of Christianity

under

revolution’

attempt

ot

not asa meremodificatlon

the introduction

sub~ectivrly

analysis orlg:nated

Since this ground

is demonstrated

with

in their

innovatIons

complex.

Rusian

the Great’s

subjects.

>ome

implications.

collection.

of water

beyond the

l‘;ilth

-\c~-yont‘

of good taste

to

it ‘IS ;I fact’

Dostoyevsky.

numerous

tsar’.

the Church:

a drop

in return.

to these distinctlons

beha\ Iour

Chile

w,tys”

albelt without

Russia

ortynal-the? essays

In

and the

of‘sflf-givinp’ for

ulth

nothing

Church/State

the “old

incorporated

gcncrator

~knowledge

he demands

was bound

‘cultural

betiveen proper

not only

successors

to a culture

in the II’sst

which

the past. the discarded

the bounda?

of

an2 the ruled

and the ‘hca;~nl~

that most cultural

of Muscovite

each successive

break with

examination

of and

oi‘a.gr:ement’. and Church

but comparable

the holy from

of existin, 0 conditions,

\vlth the ottic~al abandonment

“new way”

resewed

anv change tended to be regarded

argue that ahhough vislblc

postulate

reJection

01.sueeping

complete

God’

was iavourable

a cruc~nl role

zone separating

by redefining

periods

asslpn

to change. They

in Russia. unless

ofStats

State

[and] state sen~c‘e was trsnsformed

attrIbutes hlmsclf

berueen

132).

in the neutral

as a radical heresy

situation

sacred

15:: fusion

between the rulers

of the ‘earthly

i?:a\cn and

from

as an expression merger

IS not a party to a contract.

and Uspensk~~ responses

the iVest

with

betuecn

resultIns

of labour

contract’

~nteracr~on

to the sovsrrlpn,

the sea. \i’hen he submits

to do so’ (p.

Lotman

the roles

(p, 130). This

the State

‘Before right

social

were transferred

service”

endoMed

a dlvlslon

of a ‘social

t’acillrated

t~tthe contrus:

of the Li’cst.

hand, because of the Byzantine

overlap

religious

which

merei>

model

rtncourayed

the Importance

in short

fselinps

culturAi

tradttic3ns.

on the other

“Religious

cons!st_d

Tht

and numerous g and brave accustomed

other

mental to

eserclsc

reading

which-for

this

and

hypothcsrs

Russian

between the ‘old ways’dsscr!brd

culture

Lotman

L!bpenskiJ found

and western

on a topic

between

not

hardI?

irc)rks

01

intrllecru.~l~-tii~~r

of considerabi:

the lines

by the authors

reason’?-are

2ri‘

111 th-

political

~111 be aSle

to see

and the’ne1.b &n)b’oi

analysed

m

th<

present