Yury Zaretskiy
Two Reflections on Aron Gurevich’s Legacy
Thinking about Aron Gurevich’s legacy I usually focus on two subjects. First, I ask
myself a question: how it was possible for this person to produce such groundbreaking pieces of
historical scholarship living in the Soviet Union and being a part of Soviet academia? Second, I
reflect on some striking parallels between Gurevich’s life experience and historical topics he
explored in his writings.
***
The first subject obviously needs a special inquiry, so at present I can only offer a few
preliminary remarks and suggestions. In my view the miracle of appearance of Categories of
Medieval Culture, Medieval Popular Culture, Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages1 and
other Gurevich’s books and articles in the Soviet Union became possible because of fortunate
coincidence of two groups of factors: “inner” and “outer”.
By inner factors I mean some personal characteristics of the historian. In the first place
these are: his discontent with the practice of history writing strictly controlled by Marxist
ideology, his openness to novelties, his stubborn persistence in reaching his scholarly goals, his
prudence in social behavior, and finally, his firm confidence in the scholarly significance of his
work.
As for outer factors, I would first mention the shift in the Soviet humanities to culture
studies associated with Khrushchev’s “Thaw” in late 1950s – 1960s. At that time studies of
“world culture” gained official recognition. This resulted in establishment of the Scientific
Council on the History of World Culture at the Soviet Academy of Sciences and of the journal
Herald of the World Culture. But may be the most significant indicator of this shift was the
formation of a small group of scholars on the periphery of official academia who practiced new
theoretical approaches to the study of the past. For instance, in the 1960s several scholars united
under the leadership of Yuri Lotman to form what would become known as Moscow-Tartu
school of semiotics; pioneering studies of historical poetics, comparative literature and myth
were launched; and Mikhail Bakhtin’s immensely influential book on Rabelais was published
after years of oblivion.2 As Aron Gurevich noted later in his autobiography, these works strongly
influenced the emergence of his own approach to history.
1
Aron Gurevich, Categories of Medieval Culture, G.L. Cambell, trans. (London, 1985); Aron Gurevich,
Medieval Popular Culture: Problems of Belief and Perception, J.M. Bak & Paul A. Hollingsworth, trans.
(Cambridge, 1990); Aron Gurevich, Historical Anthropology of the Middle Ages, J. Howlett, ed. (Chicago, 1992).
2
Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, trans. Helene Iswolsky (Bloomington, 1984).
1
***
Now a few words about parallels between Gurevich’s life experience and historical topics
he explored. His study of the medieval individual will be taken as an example here.
Gurevich’s persistent attention to “personality” as the central category of medieval
culture is closely related to the concrete circumstances of his life and work. His disapproval of
official Soviet ideology, his decades-long forced isolation from the international scholarly
community and his lack of recognition in his home country led to his focus on the inner personal
world of a “medieval man.”
Tight connection between the historian’s life and work are pretty well documented by
Gurevich’s own revelations in his last works.
In The Origins of European Individualism he states that the book was due first and
foremost to the author’s reflections about the country in which he lived:
This book is the work of a Russian historian, and I must confess that the subject
of the individual and individuality is now coming into its own unprecedented
force in my country… Russia cannot be drawn into European civilization…
without adopting certain values fundamental to that civilization.3
And in the expanded Russian version of the same book he emphasizes that his studies of
medieval personality were closely interconnected with his thoughts on his own life:
At certain stage of my work on the medieval individual I felt the need to write
about myself. I tried to look at my own development as a historian…At this point
I realized that the subject of the book emerged not only because of my interest for
medieval culture…but also as a result of my reflections on myself.4
***
And a final remark. Maybe it is too biased, but I cannot resist from sharing it in
this audience.
While reading Aron Gurevich’s autobiography, I was amazed with its striking
parallels to Peter Abelard’s Historia calamitatum. The Russian historian speaks about his
misfortunes in a manner very similar to that of the French medieval philosopher (this is
especially clearly seen when Gurevich refers to fights with his opponents). And from his
autobiography also comes out that he is a winner, that his fame will live by far more than
the names of his enemies.
3
4
Gurevich, OEI, p. 4.
Gurevich, Individual and Society in the Medieval West, 372.
2