Author’s Response to Commentaries

Jeffrey Brooks

doi:10.30965/18763316-12340014

Abstract

Abstract The author of The Firebird and the Fox: Russian Culture under Tsars and Bolsheviks (Cambridge University Press, 2019) responds to comments of Michael David-Fox, Muireann Maguire, Kevin Platt, William Mills Todd, and Olga Velikanova. He expresses appreciation for the reflections provided and elaborates on several points raised by the commentators individually and collectively: the theoretical framing of the work and the importance of agency; continuity of culture over episodes of political disjuncture; the applicability of the term “cultural ecosystem;” an alternative treatment of the topic that would have accorded greater emphasis to political power and the life cycle of revolutions; and the relationship of the work to analysis of institutional history and cultural theory. He finds the five commentaries to be valuable companion pieces for readers of The Firebird and the Fox and stimulants to further scholarship.

Highlights

I thank the editors of Russian History for devoting space to discussion of The Firebird and the Fox, and my colleagues for their careful, critical, and creative interpretations of the work
Notions of the Russian soul, dualism, and geo-schizophrenia have been offered as interpretive frames, and the firebird and the fox enter the ranks of the codebreakers
Velikanova notes the work within Russian studies that sees 1917 as a decisive break with the past, including with past culture, and endorses the book’s rejection of this view. She accepts the framing of the interactions in a cultural ecosystem over the period covered but notes that in the Soviet period key actors from outside of its boundaries, in particular the Central Committee and Stalin personally, exerted outsized influence

Summary

Introduction

Russian culture – cultural history – cultural ecosystem – age of genius – firebird – fox – agency I thank the editors of Russian History for devoting space to discussion of The Firebird and the Fox, and my colleagues for their careful, critical, and creative interpretations of the work. Via free access of their reflections greatly enlarges the sphere of relevance of the book, and at the same time presents challenges to the respondent.

Results

Conclusion