Abstract
When analyzing the most archaic socio-cultural models, we can distinguish at least two that are of particular interest in light of their extended transformations in the history of culture. Acknowledging a certain degree of relativity, we will call the one magic and the other religion. It should be stressed from the start that we are not discussing actual cultures but rather typological principles. Indeed, the religions that have emerged throughout the course of history typically represent a complex amalgam of these two elements.
Originally published as “‘Dogovor’ i ‘vruchenie sebia’ kak arkhetipicheskie modeli kul’tury,” Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii 32, 1981: 3–16. The translation here is from Iurii Lotman, Istoria i tipologia russkoi kul’tury, 22–33. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo—SPB, 2002.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
What is meant here is precisely power and not goodness insofar as a religious inclination toward evil powers is also possible.
- 2.
Lotman is referring here to an essay published by Dostoevsky in February of 1867 in his column Diary of a Writer, in which he offers a very negative portrayal of lawyers, citing the folk expression “Advokat – naniataia sovest’,” or “a lawyer is a hired conscience” (1994, 361). (Translator’s note).
- 3.
In a contract with an unclean power, the usual way of breaking the contract is through repentance (see “The Tale of Savva Grudstyn”). A more complex variant is presented in the Apocrypha of Adam. According to this text (which A. N. Pupin claims is taken from an Old Believers’ manuscript, but doesn’t provide any details), Adam concludes a contract with the devil in exchange for the redemption of Eve and Cain: “And the Devil said[:] ‘You will sign a contract about yourself[:] In life I belong to God, in death I belong to you [i.e., to the Devil (translator’s note)]’” (Tikhonravov 1863, 16). Also characteristic, however, is another, more widely circulated text, in which Adam consciously deceives the devil when concluding the contract. After his expulsion from paradise, Adam harnesses an ox and begins to plow the land: “And the Devil came[.] ‘I will not give you any land to farm, because the earth belongs to me, whereas heaven and paradise belong to God[.] Sign a contract that you are mine, and then farm my land[.]’ Adam said[:] ‘To him who owns the land belong I and my children.’” Later, the author explains that Adam had cleverly deceived the devil for he knew that the land belonged to Satan only temporarily and that in the future Christ would be incarnated (“that the Lord will come down to earth and be born by a virgin”) and with his blood would redeem the land and the people from the devil (4). In the Western European tradition, a contract is neutral; it can be good or bad, and in the specific chivalric version with its cult of the sign, keeping one’s word became a matter of honor. Characteristic of this are plots involving a knight who keeps his word to Satan (see the inversion of this in the legend of Don Juan; in violating all the obligations of religion and morality, he keeps his word given to the statue of the Commodore). In the Russian tradition, a contract acquires its “force” from a sacred object or place, which guarantees the keeping of the contract. A contract that has not been sanctified by the authority of a non-conventional power has no “force.” And so one’s word given to Satan (or to his earthly deputies) must be broken.
- 4.
The Russian translation (“is never entirely arbitrary”) sounds less categorical than the original: “n’être jamais tout à fait arbitraire” (Saussure 1962, 101). For arguments distinguishing a sign from a symbol, see Todorov (1972, 275–286) and Todorov (1982, 16–18). In filling in the concept of “symbol,” we are following Saussure and not Peirce, who contrasted the symbol to the “icon,” which is based on social convention. The non-conventional nature of the symbol, however, does not remove its differences from iconic signs. While both are derived from the principle of similarity, there exists an important difference between them. Similarity in a symbol is rhetorical in nature (the invisible is transmitted through a visible resemblance, the infinite through a finite resemblance, the non-discrete through a discrete resemblance, etc., so that the subject and object of comparison are located in conceptual fields with a different number of dimensions), while similarity in iconic signs is more rational in nature. With iconic signs, it is possible to monosemically reconstruct from the representation what is being represented, which is fundamentally impossible in a system of symbols.
- 5.
Compare this with “Death on the field of battle is often called a ‘judgement’” (Meshcherskii 1958, 85).
- 6.
It was precisely the symbolic nature of the authority of tsarist power that excluded any possibility of playful behavior on the tsar’s part. In this respect, moments of play in the behavior of Ivan the Terrible were perceived both subjectively and objectively as satanism.
- 7.
The verse Lotman refers to reads: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). (Translator’s note).
- 8.
See, for example, the following note written by Catherine II: “A very amusing idea has come into my head. We must have a ball at the Hermitage. We must tell the women to come in deshabille and without petticoats, and without big wigs on their heads […]. In this hall there will be four stalls with clothes and masks on one side and four stalls with clothes and masks on the other, one side for the men and the other for the women. Above the stalls with men’s clothing we must put the sign ‘Dressing rooms for the women’ and above the dressing rooms with women’s clothing: ‘For the men’” (Catherine II 1907, 659).
References
Afanas’ev, Aleksandr. 1936. “149. Zmei i tsygan.” In Narodnye russkie skazki A. N. Afanas’eva v 3 tomakh, M. K. Azadovskii, N. P. Andreev, and Iu. M. Sokolov (eds.), I, 362–363. Leningrad: Academia.
Catherine II, Empress of Russia. 1907. Sochineniia imp. Ekateriny II (v 12 tomov), Vol. 12, A. N. Pypin (ed.). St. Petersburg: Tipografiia imperial’noi Akademii nauk.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. 1994. “Something on Lawyers in General. My Naïve and Hasty Assumptions. Something on Talented People in General and in Particular.” In A Writer’s Diary. Volume 1. 1873–1876, Kenneth Lantz (trans.), 359–365. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Dmitriev, L. A. and V. L. Vinogradova (eds.). 1952. Slovo o polku Igoreve (copy of the 1880 edition). Leningrad: Sovetskii Pisatel’.
Galitskii, Danil. 1908. In Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Eduarda Pratsa.
Gromov, Gleb. 1798. Liubov’. Knizhka zolotaia. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia pri Gubernskom Pravlenii.
Ivan, Tsar of Russia. 1951. Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo, D. Likhachev and Ia. Lur’e (eds.). Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Khrapovitskii, Aleksandr. 1779. Liubovnoi leksikon. [Translation of Dictionnaire d’amour (1741), by Dreux du Radier]. Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia [u N. Novikova].
Kuz’mina, Vera. 1962. Devgenievo deianie. Deianie prezhnykh vremen khrabrykh chelovek. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Lomosonov, Mikhail. 1986. “Nadpis’ 1. K statue Petra Velikogo.” In Isbrannye proizvedeniia, A. A. Morozov (ed.), 208. Leningrad: Sovetskii Pisatel’.
Lur’e, Iakov (ed.). 1964. Povest’ o Drakule. Leningrad: Nauka.
Mandelstam, Osip. 1977. “The Nineteenth Century.” In Osip Mandelstam: Selected Essays, Sidney Monas (trans.), 94–100. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
Meshcherskii, Nikita A. 1958. Istoriia “Iudeiskoi voiny” Iosifa Glviia v drevnerusskom perevode. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR.
Monte Santa Maria, Ugolino di. 1958. “How St. Francis Tamed the Very Fierce Wolf of Gubbio. In The Little Flowers of Saint Francis, Raphael Brown (trans.), 88–91. New York: Doubleday.
Peter I, Emperor of Russia. 1893. Pis’ma i bumagi imperatora Petra Velikogo, Vol. 3. St. Petersburg: Gusudarstvennaia tipografiia.
Povest’ o poboishi izhe na P’ian. 1908. In Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, Vol. 14. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Eduarda Pratsa.
Prokopovich, Feofan. 1961. Sochineniia. Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka.
Reichler, Claude. 1979. La diabolie, la séduction, la renardie, l’écriture. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics, Wade Baskin (trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1962. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
Solov’ev, Sergei. 1993. Sochineniia v 18 knig. Moscow: Mysl’.
Sumarokov, Aleksandr. 1935. Stikhotvoreniia. Leningrad: Sovetskii Pisatel’.
Tikhonravov, Nikolai. 1863. Pamiatniki otrechennoi russkoi literatury, Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia Pol’za.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1972. “Introduction à la symbolique.” Poétique 11: 272–308.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1982. Theories of the Symbol, Catherine Porter (trans.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lotman, J. (2019). The “Contract” and “Self-Surrender” as Archetypal Models of Culture. In: Tamm, M. (eds) Juri Lotman - Culture, Memory and History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14710-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14710-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14709-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14710-5
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)