__TITLE__
A
HISTORY
OF
OLD
RUSSIAN
LITERATURE
__TEXTFILE_BORN__ 2007-04-08T18:46:43-0700
__TRANSMARKUP__ "Y. Sverdlov"
COPY 2
Progress Publishers
Moscow
[1]
__TRANSL__
Translated from the Russian by Ronald Vroon
Designed by Vladimir Khodorovsky
B. KycKOB
HcTOpws npeBHepyccKoft jiHTepaiypu
__COPYRIGHT__ Translation into English © Progress Publishers 1980
[7]
~
[8]
__ALPHA_LVL1__
Introduction
__ALPHA_LVL2__
[introduction.]
``...Only a precise knowledge and transformation of the culture created by the entire development of mankind will enable us to create a proletarian culture,'' said V. I. Lenin in his speech at the Third All-Russia Congress of the Young Communist League.~^^1^^ He stressed the necessity for critical assimilation of the cultural heritage of the past and the need for a partisan evaluation of it from the perspective of the most progressive, most revolutionarilyminded class, the proletariat.
``You can become a Communist only when you enrich your mind with a knowledge of all the treasures created by mankind,"^^2^^ Lenin continues.
Lenin's premises on the role of cultural heritage in the creation and development of proletarian culture were further amplified in the resolutions of the Communist Party on ideological questions. The role of progressive national traditions in the development of a new socialist culture, in particular literature, is _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 287.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
[9] consistently stressed in these resolutions and literature is viewed as an important means for the communist education of the Soviet people.Medieval Russian literature can be most instructive and is of profound educational value as the natural historical point of departure for Russian literary development. Its origins are closely tied to the process through which the early feudal state was shaped. Despite its position of subordinance to the political task of consolidating the feudal system, the literature reflects successive periods in the development of social relations in Rus from the eleventh to the seventeenth centuries.
Soviet scholars have not finally resolved the problem of defining the chronological boundaries of Old Russian literature. We view it as the literature of the period from the eleventh to the seventeenth centuries closely linked to the historical processes of the state's development, the literature of the developing Great Russian people who were gradually uniting to become a nation.
Our conception of Old Russian literature is still far from a complete one. We know only a fraction of the works written in Rus during this period.
Many manuscripts perished in the frequent fires or during the devastating raids of nomads from the steppes, the invasions of Tatars, the intervention of Poles and Swedes.
As recently as 1737 the remains of the library belonging to the Moscow tsars were destroyed by a blaze that flared up in the Grand Kremlin Palace. A fire demolished the Kiev library in 1777. The war of 1812 saw the demise of the manuscript collections of Musin-- Pushkin, Buturlin, Bauze, Demidov and the Society for the Advancement of Russian Literature in Moscow.
Old Russian books were stored and copied primarily by monks; naturally they were less interested in preserving or duplicating secular texts. This no doubt helps to explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of surviving Old Russian works are religious in character. Of the 1,500 parchment manuscripts extant dating from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries only twenty do not deal with religious concerns. We must remember that ``this supremacy of theology in the entire realm of 10 intellectual activity was at the same time an inevitable consequence of the fact that the church was the allembracing synthesis and the most general sanctions of the existing feudal order".^^1^^
The medieval scholar recognised two categories of writing: profane and sacred. The latter conveyed what the church viewed as unsurpassed treasures: religious dogma, philosophy and ethics. Naturally these sort of writings were encouraged and circulated as much as possible. Profane texts, with the exception of official legal or historical documents, were dismissed as vanities. As a result Old Russian literature appears more ecclesiastical than it may, in fact, have been.
In our study of Old Russian literature we should always remember certain factors which distinguish it from more modern literature.
One such factor is that Old Russian literature existed and was disseminated in manuscript form. As a rule the text was not issued as an individual manuscript, but as one component of an anthology or collection; these collections were designed to pursue specific goals, and each had its purpose. ``Whatever serves no purpose but that of adornment,'' writes St. Basil the Great, ``shall be subject to condemnation as vanity.'' His words in many respects characterise the attitudes of Old Russian feudal society toward written works. A manuscript book was evaluated in terms of a practical purpose, its usefulness. In his entry for the year 1037, the chronicler teaches:
``The study of books is of great benefit for books reveal and teach the path to repentance, and we learn wisdom and temperance from books; these are the rivers that water the world, the founts of wisdom, their depth cannot be measured; they console us in time of grief and are the bridles of intemperance.... If you seek wisdom zealously in books your soul shall derive great benefits.''
Another factor to be reckoned with is the impersonal nature of Old Russian works which are frequently anonymous. This was due to medieval Christian _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 408.
11 attitudes held in feudal society regarding the individual and in particular, the work of writers, artists and architects. At best we know of individual authors or scribes who modestly included their names at the end of a manuscript, in its margins, or very infrequently in the title of a work; invariably the name was followed by such subjective epithets as ``humble'', ``unworthy'', and ``sinful''. In most cases the author preferred to remain unknown; at times he hid his identity behind the authority of a Church Father like St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil the Great.Biographical data on known Old Russian writers and information regarding the volume of their works and their social functions are extremely sparse. Scholars dealing with eighteenth, nineteenth or twentieth century literature are able to present extensive biographical material and to trace an author's political, philosophical and aesthetic views; by investigating manuscripts they can reconstruct the creative history of a work and draw a creative profile of a writer; in dealing with Old Russian texts another approach must be taken.
Medieval society had no conception of copyright and the writer's personality was far less obtrusive than in modern literature. The only vehicle for a text's dissemination was the manuscript. Scribes often did not merely copy texts, but edited and rewrote them altering the original viewpoint, making stylistic changes and abbreviating or expanding the text according to the tastes and needs of the times. Often this resulted in new redactions of the text being copied; even when the scribe intended only to copy the text the new manuscript always differed in some way from the original. Mistakes crept into the copies; letters and words were inadvertently left out; the scribe's native dialect inevitably was reflected in his work. This obliges scholars to distinguish recensions (a given manuscript may belong to the Pskov-Novgorod, or Moscow recension, or it may be part of a broader Bulgarian or Serbian recension).
As a rule the original texts of these works are not extant. Only later copies have been preserved, and these may be separated by two hundred or more years from 12 the original. The primary chronicle known as The Tale of Bygone Years (Povest vremennykh let), for example, was written by Nestor between 1111 and 1113. The earliest surviving version, however, is Silvestr's redaction of 1116 as incorporated in the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377. The Lay of Igor's Host written in the late 1 ISO's was discovered in a sixteenth century manuscript.
The Old Russian specialist is accordingly obliged to perform painstaking textological labours; he must study all existing copies of a given text and establish the time and place of their writing. This is accomplished by comparing various redactions or variants of manuscripts and by determining which manuscript of a given redaction is closest to the original text as composed by the author. The branch of philology dealing with such problems is known as textology.~^^1^^
Paleography is another branch of historical philology that helps to answer difficult questions involved in dating a work or a given manuscript. By studying the forms of letters, handwriting, the writing material, watermarks on paper, illuminations, ornaments and miniatures the paleographer is able to derive a relatively precise date for the manuscript being studied and to determine the number of scribes who worked on it.
From the llth century to the first half of the fourteenth century the basic writing material was parchment made from the hide of young animals, primarily calves and lambs. In Old Rus parchment was often called telyatina or kharatya. This expensive writing material was naturally accessible only to the propertied classes; craftsmen and tradesmen used cheaper materials for their business correspondence---nature's gift of birchbark. Birchbark was also used for learning the alphabet as is evidenced by the remarkable documents of birchbark found by archeologists in the Novgorod area.^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ See D. S. Likhachev's Tekstologiya (Textology. Based on Russian Literature From the Tenth to the Seventeenth Centuries), M.-L., 1962.
~^^2^^ See L. V. Cherepnin, Novgorodskie berestyanye gramoty kak istorichesky istochnik (Novgorod Birchbark Documents as Historical Sources, M., 1969; V. L. Yanin, Ya poslaltebe berestu (I Sent You a Birchbark Letter...), 2nd edition, M., 1975.
13In order to save space words were not separated; each new paragraph was usually marked by a large cinnabar rubric---initials, headings and paragraphs. The most commonly encountered words were abbreviated; this was indicated by a- tilde -above the line (titlo in Russian). The word glagolet (``speaks'') would be written glet; the word Bog (``God'') was shortened to Bg and Bogoroditsa (``Theotokos'') to Btsa.
The scribe first marked lines on the parchment by means of a special ruler with a chain; he then placed the book on his lap and began to carefully copy each letter. Writing with well-formed, almost squared letters is called uncial (ustav). Work on a manuscript was laborious and time-consuming and required great skill. When a scribe finished his labours he would record it with joy and relief.
The finished leaves were then sewn into quires and bound with wooden boards (which is why Russians still speak of reading a book from ``board to board''). Leather was then stretched over the boards and at times a special case would be crafted of silver or gold for the book. Such casings (called oklads in Russian) are in themselves magnificent examples of Old Russian applied art. The superbly crafted oklad of the Mstislav Gospels, for example, was created early in the twelfth century.
Parchment was replaced in the fourteenth century by a cheaper and more convenient writing materialpaper. The use of paper accelerated the copying process and lowered the cost of books. Uncial writing gave way to a more slanted, rounded type of script known as semi-uncial. More words were abbreviated and individual letters stretched above the line. Official texts came to be written in a cursive hand which gradually took precedence over semi-uncial script and finally became the predominant style in seventeenth century manuscripts.~^^1^^
The invention of the printing press in the mid-- sixteenth century played a tremendous part in the development of Russian culture. But up to the early eighteenth century printed books were predominately liturgical or _-_-_
~^^1^^ See V. N. Shchepkin, Russhayapaleografia (Russian Paleography), M., 1967.
14 religious in content; secular literature and fiction continued to be put out in manuscript form.There is one final important factor to be dealt with in the study of Old Russian literature. Medieval fiction was not accorded a separate place in society's mentality but was inseparably bound to medieval philosophy, science and religion.
We cannot therefore mechanically apply the artistic criteria used to evaluate modern literature to Old Russian texts.
The historical development of Old Russian literature involved the gradual crystallisation of fiction, its gradual separation from the stream of written texts, democratisation and secularisation, that is, the process of freeing itself from the wardship of the church.
Another special feature of Old Russian literature is its ties with ecclesiastical or official writings, on the one hand, and with oral folk poetry on the other. At each stage of development of Russian literature and in each text these ties differ, but broader and pro founder exploitation of folk art led to a clearer reflection of reality and to a larger sphere of conceptual and artistic influence.
The literature of Old Rus is inseparably linked to the history of the development of a Russian state and to the Russian national character; it was composed in a spirit of profound patriotism and a desire to immortalise heroic deeds. One of its central themes is that of the beauty and grandeur of the Russian motherland `` brightly shining and beautifully adorned'', the Russian land ``known'' and ``renowned'' all over the world. It glorifies the constructive labours of forefathers who selflessly defended the great Russian land from foreign invasions and consolidated a mighty sovereign state, ``great and spacious'', and shining brightly ``as the sun doth in the heavens".
The voice of Old Russian writers rings with harsh 15 condemnation of princes whose politics sowed bloody feudal strife that undermined the political and military power of the state.
Old Russian literature likewise celebrates the moral code of the Russian, people who were prepared to sacrifice their dearest possession, their lives, for the common good. It expresses profound faith in the power and triumph of goodness and in man's capacity to elevate his spirit and vanquish evil.
The Old Russian writer was not inclined to give a dispassionate presentation of facts ``to good and evil equally indifferent''. Any genre of Old Russian literature, whether a historical tale, vita or sermon, had some elements of polemic.
Primarily concerned with political or ethical problems, the writer believed in the power of the word and of conviction. He addressed not only his contemporaries, but posterity in his concern that the glorious deeds of their ancestors be remembered by succeeding generations and that the heirs of Rus not repeat the grievous mistakes of their fathers and grandfathers.
Old Russian literature is steeped in history; its heroes are historical figures; it demands that the facts be adhered to and almost excludes invention. Even the many tales of miracles that belonged for medieval man to the realm of the supernatural were not invented by writers, but rather represented records of accounts by witnesses or those who experienced the miracle.
For six centuries Old Russian literature was primarily concerned with historical genres. Only in the seventeenth century did these become secondary in relation to the increasingly popular fictional genres.
The historicity of Old Russian literature is medieval in character. The course and development of historical events are explained in terms of Providence from a religious perspective; its heroes are princes, men who rule the state and stand at the top of the hierarchy of feudal society. By discarding the religious casing, however, the modern reader will easily discern the living historical essence of Old Russian literature whose true creator was the Russian people.
The literature of Old Rus expressed and defended 16 the interests of the feudal ruling class. But it could not overlook the cruel class struggle that took the form of spontaneous uprisings or the various religious heresies typical of the Middle Ages. Literature gave a vivid picture of the struggle between progressive and reactionary groups within the ruling class as each sought support from the people.
Insofar as the progressive forces of feudal society reflected the interests of the state and these interests coincided with the interests of the people, we can speak of Old Russian literature's affinity with the people.
The question of artistic method in Old Russian literature was first raised by Soviet scholars I. P. Eremin, V. P. A'drianova-Peretz, D. S. Likhachev and S. N. Azbelev.
Likhachev believes that there was a variety of methods used even by one writer as, for example, Vladimir Monomakh. ``Any artistic method,'' he writes, ``is a system of primary and secondary means for attaining specific artistic ends."^^1^^ Accordingly, he continues, each artistic method has many features which interrelate in a given way. Artistic methods differ according to the individual writer, the epoch, the genre, and the nature of their connection to official or non-literary writings. It is obvious that such a broad concept of ``artistic method" strips the term of its concrete meaning and prevents us from speaking of it as a principle for the figurative reflection of reality.^^2^^ If we examine the term as a principle for the figurative reflection of reality then we must agree with those scholars who contend that Old Russian _-_-_
~^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, ``K izucheniyu khudozhestvennykh metodov russkoi literatury XI-XVII vv.'', TODRL, vol. 20 (``On the Study of Artistic Methods in Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Centuries'', Transactions of the Department of Old Russian Literature), M.-L., 1964, p. 7.
~^^2^^ See G. N. Pospelov, Problemy istoricheskogo razvitiya literatury (Problems of Literature's Historical Development), M., 1972.
17 literature had one artistic method. S. N. Azbelev defined this as a syncretistic method and I, P. Eremin as a `` pre-realistic" method. These are by no means exhaustive definitions. Eremin did, however, very astutely distinguish two basic aspects of Old Russian literature's artistic method: the reproduction of isolated facts and attention to concrete details, on the one hand, and the presentation of life transformed in accordance with an ideal, on the other.^^1^^If we are to understand and define the artistic method of Old Russian literature we will have to discuss medieval man's outlook on the world.~^^2^^
It was an integral view of the world and far more complex than that of the tribal system. It included both a religious conception of the world and man, and a concrete image of reality derived from daily labours performed by the members of a feudal society.
Each day man confronted the realities of nature, economics, politics and social relations. Christianity declared that the world around him was temporal and fleeting; it placed that world in striking opposition to an invisible, ideal, eternal world. Man himself combined the temporal and eternal principles. Thus in the Miscellany (Izbornik) of 1073 one writer speaks of the merging of flesh and spirit in one human being. Spirit is the higher principle which gives life to the flesh and inspires it. The flesh is a burden to the spirit, coarsening the mind and conveying earthly passions and the resulting diseases to the spirit.
``The light of a rational spirit,'' writes St. John Damascenus in The Fount of Knowledge (translated in twelfth century Rus under the title A Sermon on the True Faith), ``is knowledge, and ignorance is darkness. Just as the absence of light is darkness, so the absence of knowledge is the obscuring of reason.''
Man learns about the world around him with the _-_-_
~^^1^^ See I. P. Eremin, Literatura Drevnei Rusi ( The Literature of Old Rus),M.-L., 1966, pp. 245--54.
~^^2^^ For a detailed discussion see A. Y. Gurevich's Kategorii srednevekovoi kultury (Categories of Medieval Culture), M., 1972.
18 help of five senses; this is the sensual cognition of the external, visible, material world. The invisible, spiritual, ideal world can be understood, or rather grasped only through the mind, ``the eyes of the spirit''. The mysterious veils obscuring the ideal world are lifted only with the aid of inner spiritual vision which is the result of Divine revelation.The binary thought of the Middle Ages, based on the opposition of material to ideal, temporal to eternal, flesh to spirit, evil to good and darkness to light, to a great extent determined the nature of Old Russian literature's artistic method and its leading principle: symbolism.^^1^^
The visible, material world is only a sign, a symbol of the ideal world. The visible, material, medieval symbol conveyed the essence of the invisible and ideal. The word as such was viewed as the ``only-begotten son of God'', logos, by means of which God created the world. Just as the signs of the world around man have many meanings, the word is polysemantic; it can be interpreted literally or figuratively. This determines the nature of symbolic metaphors and similes in Old Russian literature.^^2^^
We should note that for a man of Old Rus Christian symbolism was closely bound with the symbolism of folk poetry. Both had one source: man's environment. While the life of the peasant lent this symbolism an earthly concreteness, Christianity contributed an element of the abstract.
The Holy Scriptures were understood and interpreted, not only as history, but as allegory, trope, and analogue in the Middle Ages. The Old and New Testaments did not, in other words, merely tell of historical events; _-_-_
~^^1^^ See A. N. Robinson, ``Literatura Kievskoi Rusi sredi evropeiskikh srednevekovykh literatur. Tipologiya, originalnost, metod'', in Slavyanskie literatury. VI Mezhdunarodny syezd slavistov (``The Literature of Kievan Rus Among Other Medieval European Literatures: Typology, Originality, Method'', in Slavic Literatures. Sixth International Congress of Slavists), M., 1968, pp. 82--116.
~^^2^^ See V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, Ocherki poeticheskogo stilya Drevnei Rusi (Essays on the Poetic Style of Old Rus), M.-L., 1947, pp. 9-132.
19 each fact was an analogue of another event, a model of moral behaviour; at the same time each contained a hidden sacred truth.This explains why the overwhelming majority of Old Russian literary works abound with references to the Scriptures. To the medieval scribes and writers the Bible was an incontrovertible authority, a source of analogues to the events being described and a means of bolstering his moral evaluation of a character's actions.
The authoritarian nature of the medieval writer's thought is inseparably bound to the concept of Providence. All events of a man's life are seen as manifestations of God's will. God sends heavenly signs such as solar or lunar eclipses to warn men of His wrath or of misfortunes that threaten them if they do not cease their transgressions and repent. God calls forth foreign hosts ``because of our sins'', and sends a country a merciless ruler or grants it a victory as a reward for piety. Demons incite men to perform evil deeds; God is the source of good thoughts and actions. Demons create all sorts of stumbling blocks and abominations to turn man away from the straight and narrow path and urge him down the path of sin. But medieval literature did not divest man of his responsibility for his own actions. Just Measure (Merilo pravednoe) stresses the special responsibility of a king or prince before God. They must answer for the welfare of their country and people.
Ethical and aesthetic categories were fused in the mind of the medieval writer. Goodness was always beautiful and filled with light; evil was bound to darkness and the obscuring of reason. An evil man was like a wild beast and even worse than a demon, for a demon feared the cross while an evil man committed foul deeds but feared no man or thing.
Medieval works were usually structured around the opposition of good to evil, of ideal characters to villains. The writer demonstrated that high moral standards came from constant, stubborn labours, good deeds, a ``lofty life''. He was convinced that ``glory and renown are of greater merit to a man than beauty, for glory endures unto the ages while a face withers after death''.
The supremacy of the corporate principle in feudal 20 society left its mark on medieval literature. Writers composed their works according to a certain hierarchy: only members of the ruling classes, ecclesiastical and worldly feudal lords, could function as heroes. They are depicted strictly in accordance with their official position. The prince is endowed with the traits of an ideal warrior and pious Christian; a church hierarch is distinguished by his learnedness and wisdom.
Decorum (chinnost) and custom or rank (uryadstvo) were characteristic of medieval life, both for society as a whole and for the individual. A man's daily and community life were strictly governed by ``the order of things'', by rules and rituals. This ``order'' began from the moment that a man appeared on earth and accompanied him to his dying day. Medieval man, like every thing, was obliged to take his assigned place in the great ``chain'', in the order of society. Ugliness was the violation of order a'nd decorum; beauty and awe were based on their maintenance. The Old Russian word for decorum (chin) corresponds to the Greek ritmos. The strict observance of rhythm, of an established order is, in fact, the actual foundation for the etiquette that informs the entire corpus of Old Russian literature.~^^1^^
The Old Russian writer was primarily concerned with composing his works according to a specific, strict order: to tell it in the proper order (skazat po ryadu) , to put things in the proper way (polozhit po ryadu). This also led him to transform facts.
Ritual and symbol, Gurevich observes, functioned as forms into which feudal life was poured.^^2^^ Ritual and symbol were the primary principles of the reflection of reality in medieval literature.
As he composed the Old Russian writer always filled a sort of social order; his works were meant to be didactic. He spoke for the edification of listeners and readers, often viewing his works as ``medicine for the soul''. He was convinced that his discourse would be understood and would be of moral and social benefit.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See D. S. Likhachev, Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury (The Poetics of Old Russian Literature), 2nd edition, L., 1971, pp. 95--122.
~^^2^^ A. Y. Gurevich, op. cit., p. 185.
21Thus symbolism, ritual or etiquette, and didacticism are the main principles of Old Russian literature's artistic method. This method has two aspects: strict attention to facts and the idealistic transformation of reality. Although this is the sole artistic method of medieval Russian literature it is manifested differently in various works. The correlation of these principles and their stylistic expression depends on a work's genre, the date of its composition and the author's talents. Historically Old Russian literature developed by gradually destroying the integrality of its method and freeing itself from etiquette, didacticism and Christian symbolism. In the seventeenth century literature widened its range of themes and began to embrace new aspects of life. Didacticism was replaced by the desire to entertain, etiquette by zhivstvo--- the depiction of every day re alia; sumbolism gave way to the realism of typage.
The concept of a system of genres was introduced to literary scholarship by D. S. Likhachev. ``Genres,'' writes Likhachev, ``are a sort of system in that they are generated by a common aggregate of reasons and because they interact, support each other's existence and simultaneously compete with each other.~^^1^^
Old Russian literature worked out a system of genres which did not, however, remain constant throughout its historical development.
Until the seventeenth century medieval Russian literary genres remained closely bound to their practical function. But in the seventeenth century they begin to take on purely literary functions.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries a system of literary genres takes shape. Ecclesiastical genres are more conservative than worldly genres and interact the least with forms of official writing and folk genres.
The Holy Scriptures occupy the highest rung in the hierarchy of medieval genres. These are followed by _-_-_
~^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury, p. 43. 22
22 hymnology and various types of sermons---exegeses of Scripture and encomia in celebration of various Christian feast days. Such sermons were usually collected in anthologies known as torzhestvenniki (festal collections), the Festal Triodion and the Lenten Triodion. Next in the hierarchy are vitae and tales of great deeds performed by ascetic monks. Vitae are collected in prologues (sinaksaria) and menologies (Chetyi-Minei); tales of monks are found in patericons. Between ecclesiastical and secular genres is the ``journey'', a description of pilgrimages made to holy places.Historical genres are most prominent in secular literature; historical tales and legends were collected in chronicles (the letopis dealing primarily with Russian history and the khronograf dealing with the history of the world---7>.). These genres intermixed with official writing, folklore and ecclesiastical genres, but were less consistent than the latter.
The epos predominated in both religious and secular literature. There were neither lyrical, nor dramatic works until the second half of the seventeenth century, although one must note that epic genres contain elements of drama and lyricism. Hymnology, for example, has a unique lyrical quality and the worship service is highly dramatic.
Ecclesiastical genres were tied to religious ritual and historical genres bound up in the social and political life of the feudal state which exerted a constant influence on their development.
Each Old Russian literary genre had a set inner compositional structure, its own canons and, as A. S. Orlov observed, ``its own stylistic cliches".
The most important works of Old Russian literature however, departed from the established canons and stylistic cliches. This facilitated the development and alteration of genres' structure and style.
By the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries the system of genres underwent great changes. These affected the structure and style of historical genres. In addition new genres of a purely fictional nature were formed; syllabic verse was introduced, as were court theatres and mystery plays. Another genre that came to 23 prominence was democratic satire.
Old Russian literaty genres also entailed stylistic considerations. D. S. Likhachev has made a thorough study of the historical development of style in this period^^1^^ and concluded that the eleventh and twelfth centuries are dominated by a monumental, historicallyoriented style as well as by the style characteristic of folk epics; the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries lean towards emotional, expressive language and the sixteenth century witnesses the style of idealised biography or, as Likhachev calls it, a second surge of monumentalism.
We find, however, that Likhachev's conception is somewhat schematised and therefore cannot totally reflect the complex development of Old Russian literature.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries monumentalism predominates in historical genres; epic folk elements may be observed in certain works as well. At the same time we can speak of the development of an expressive, emotional style in the sermons of llarion and Kirill of Turov, and in the anonymous Tale of SS Boris and Gleb. Such works as Vladimir Monomzkh's Instruction and Daniil the Exile's Supplication are different in style.
During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries at first only hagiographical literature manifests an expressive, emotional style while historical tales are written in a ``documentary'' sort of style. One might also mention the problem of the development of local styles in Novgorod, Tver, Murom and Ryazan, and Moscow.
In the sixteenth century local styles begin to merge into one common Russian style of official literature which Likhachev calls a second monumentalism. At the same time various polemics give rise to their own styles which make extensive use of allegory, depict everyday life and allow increasing use of artistic invention.
Influenced by the general secularisation of culture in the seventeenth century literature abandons its _-_-_
~^^1^^ See his Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi (Man in Old Russian Literature), M., 1970 and Razvitie russkoi literatury X-XVJI vv. (The Development of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Centuries), L., 1973.
24 monumental, historically-oriented style and develops a fictional style. Tradesmen and craftsmen begin to develop a more democratic style; court literature becomes more bookish, artificial and refined.The collection of Old Russian texts began in the eighteenth century. Historians Tatishchev, Schletzer and Miller devoted much attention to their study. Tatishchev's superb Russian History from Ancient Times is still consulted by modern scholars for it was based on material later irrevocably lost. In the late eighteenth century Old Russian texts began to be published. Novikov's Old Russian Bibliotheka (the first edition of 1773--1774 issued in 10 parts, the second of 1788--1791 in 20 parts) contained many works of Old Russian literature. An Historical Dictionary of Russian Writers, also by Novikov, was published in 1772 and contained entries on the lives and works of over 300 writers from the eleventh to the eighteenth centuries.
One of the great events in the history of the study of Old Russian literature was the publication of The Lay of Igor's Host in 1800. This led the Russian public to take an increasing interest in the past.
Poet Alexander Pushkin called writer N. M. Karamzin ``the Columbus of Medieval Russia''. Karamzin's History of the Russian State was based on manuscripts, many of which later were lost (including the Trinity Chronicle); the history's commentary contains many precious quotations from these sources.
Count Rumyantsev's circle played a great part in the collection, publication and study of Old Russian manuscripts in the early nineteenth century. Many invaluable scholarly works were published by Rumyantsev's colleagues. In 1818 K. Kalaidovich issued Kirsha Danilov's Medieval Russian Verse, in 1821 Twelfth Century Russian Texts, and in 1824 the study John, Exarch to Bulgaria. With the publication of the Annals of St. Sophia (Sofiysky vremennik) in 1820 P. Stroev established a 25 model for the scholarly publication of chronicles. From 1829 to 1835 he headed a series of archeographical expeditions to the norhern regions of Russia.
Evgeny Bolkhovitinov took on the colossal burden of compiling bibliographical references. Based on his study of manuscript materials in 1818 he published a Historical Dictionary of Orthodox Clerics Who Lived and Wrote in Russia in two volumes and including 238 writers; the dictionary was reprinted in 1827. His second work, a Dictionary of Russian Secular Writers: Russians and Foreigners Who Lived and Wrote in Russia, was issued posthumously. The first part came out in 1838 and the entire work in 1845 under the editorship of M. P. Pogodin.
Alexander Vostokov's Description of Russian and Slavonic Manuscripts in the Rumyantsev Museum, published in 1842, was the first scholarly attempt to classify and describe Old Russian manuscripts.
At the end of the 1830's scholars and enthusiasts had gathered an enormous collection of manuscripts. A special Archeographical Commission was created in 1834 under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences for the study, processing and publication of these materials. This commission began the publication of the most important texts: the complete Russian chronicles (beginning in the 1840's and still proceeding to make at present total of 32 volumes), legal works, hagiography and in particular the publication of Metropolitan Makary's Grand Chetyi-Minei, among others.
Announcements of newly discovered manuscripts and materials and the progress of research in the area were published in the Chronicles of the Proceedings of the Archeographical Commission.
At Moscow University in the 1840's the Society of Russian History and Antiquities was formed; its materials were published in special Readings. In St. Petersburg the Society for the Advancement of Old Writings was formed and in turn issued its own series: Old Russian Literary Texts (Pamyatniki drevnei pismennosti) and A Russian Historical Library (Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka).
The first attempt to systematise this historical 26 literature was made in 1822 by N.~I. Grech in A Short History of Russian Literature.
Prof. M. A. Maksimovich of Kiev University took a great step forward with his History of Old Russian Literature, published in 1838. He divided the literature into periods that corresponded to historical periods and the bulk of his book dealt with bibliographical information on the writings of each period.
The first major attempt to popularise Old Russian literary works was made in the late 1830's and early 1840's by I. P. Sakharov in a series entitled Tales of the Russian People. Belinsky gives a detailed review of the nature of this edition in Otechestvennye zapiski.~^^1^^
A special course was taught at Moscow University by Prof. S. P. Shevyrev and subsequently published under the titled History of Russian Literature, Primarily Medieval in the late 1840's; a second edition was published from 1858 to 1860 and a third in 1887. This course gave an overview of oral folk works and covered Old Russian literature up to the early sixteenth century. Shevyrev gathered a great number of facts, but approached literature from the perspective of a Slavophile. Still his course gave a good idea of the mass of materials that had been collected by the 1840's. Shevyrev's student N. S. Tikhonravov regarded this as the book's chief virtue.
The systematic study of Old Russian literature began in the mid-nineteenth century. Russian literary scholarship was represented at this time by F. I. Buslaev, A. N. Pypin, N. S. Tikhonravov and A. N. Veselovsky, each distinguished in his own right.
Buslaev's most important works on Old Russian literature are his Historical Chrestomathy of the Church Slavonic and Old Russian Languages (1861) and Historical Essays on Russian Literature and Art in two volumes (1861).
Buslaev's chrestomathy was a remarkable work, and not only for its time. It contained texts of many Old Russian works based on manuscripts with variants given.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See V. G. Belinsky, Collected Works in thirteen volumes, vol. 5, M., 1954, pp. 289--450 (in Russian).
27 The scholar strove to represent the variety of genres in Old Russian literature, including not only literary works, but official and ecclesiastical writings as well.Historical Essays dealt with oral folk texts (volume 1) and Old Russian literature and art (volume 2). A follower of the historical school of the Grimm brothers and Franz Bopp, Buslaev sought to go beyond the work of his teachers. In his investigations of folklore and literature he not only looked for the historical, mythological basis of each work, but explored its ties to Russian life, customs and geography.
He was one of the first Russian scholars to point out the need for aesthetic studies of Old Russian literature, treating the nature of its poetic images and the important role of symbols. Some of his most interesting observations concern the interrelationship of medieval literature and folklore, and of literature and the fine arts. He attempted a new interpretation of Old Russian literature's affinity with the people.
In the 1870's Buslaev turned away from the historical school and came to share the theories of those who investigated influences and borrowings; many of these theories were worked out in Theodor Benfey's Pancha Tantra. Buslaev's new approach was expressed in his article ``Migrating Tales" (1874) which dealt with the historical process of literature in terms of borrowed plots, and motifs which migrated from one people to another.
His most important works were later collected in three volumes published from 1908 to 1930 and in the collection My Leisure Hours (Moi dosugi).
A. N. Pypin began his scholarly career with the study of Old Russian literature. In 1858 the twentyfour-year-old Pypin published his master's dissertation A Literary History of Old Russian Tales and Folk Tales; this dealt primarily with Old Russian translated literature.
Then Pypin turned to the study of apocrypha. He was the first to treat this fascinating area of Old Russian letters in scholarly fashion, writing a series of articles on the subject and publishing a collection entitled Apocryphal and Forbidden Books of Old Rus (in the third issue 28 of Kushelev-Bezborodko's anthology Old Russian Literary Texts).
Pypin summed up his many years' study of Russian literature in a four volume History of Russian Literature, first issued from 1898 to 1899. The first two volumes dealt with Old Russian literature.
A proponent of the cultural-historical school of literary scholarship, Pypin did not distinguish literature from culture as a whole. He refused to organise texts according to chronology, insisting that ``due to the conditions under which our literature developed it is virtual ly independent of chronology''. In classifying texts Pypin tried to unite works that were of one type regardless of temporal discrepancies.
Pypin's book provides a wealth of facts and of historical, cultural and literary material. His interpretation is based on a. liberal bourgeois philosophy of culture, however, and the ``artistic specifics" of Old Russian texts remain outside of his perspective.
Significant in the development of scholarly textology in both Old and Modern Russian literature are the works of Academician N. S. Tikhonravov, a professor of Moscow University. From 1859 to 1863 he published seven installments of the Chronicle of Russian Literature and Antiquities containing many texts. In 1863 Tikhonravov edited a two volume set: Russian Literary Apocryphal Texts. It contained a more complete selection and the texts were prepared with greater care than those published by Pypin. Tikhonravov also began a study of the history of Russian theatre and dramaturgy in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century; this led to the publication in 1874 of two volumes of Russian plays dating from 1672 to 1725.
His review (written in 1878) of A. D. Galakhov's History of Russian Literature (first put out in the early 1860's) was extremely important with regard to methodology. Tikhonravov criticised Galakhov's basic conception of the history of literature as the history of exemplary writings. In contrast to the subjective approach that emphasised ``aesthetic'' evaluation of literature, Tikhonravov proposed a historical approach and maintained that this was the only way to arrive at a true 29 picture of literary development. His works were issued posthumously in 1898: three volumes in four installments.
A tremendous contribution to the development of Russian literary scholarship was made by Academician A. N. Veselovsky.
Developing the principles of a comparative, historical approach to literature in the first period of his career, Veselovsky published his doctoral dissertation, Slavic Tales of Solomon and Kitovras and Western Legends of Morolf and Merlin, in 1872. Here he established ties between the Oriental apocryphal story of King Solomon and Western European tales of chivalry that dealt with King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table.
Veselovsky was particularly interested in the relations between literature and folklore. Among his works on this topic are A History of the Development of Christian Legend (1875--1877) and Exploring the Realm of Russian Religious Verse (1879--1891). In the latter study Veselovsky applies sociological principles to literature; these subsequently dominated his most important theoretical works.
Naturally Veselovsky's general conception of literature was idealistic in nature; but it contained many valuable observations which were subsequently adopted by Soviet scholars.
In discussing the study of Old Russian literature in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries we are obliged to mention the remarkable Russian literary scholar and historian, Academician A. A. Shakhmatov. A vast store of knowledge, a gift for literary criticism and an insistance on scrupulous textological analysis allowed him to make great strides in the study of Old Russian chronicles.
At the turn of this century the achievements of Russian literary scholarship in the study of Old Russian texts were consolidated in the following literary histories: P. Vladimirov's Old Russian Literature in the Kievan Period (Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries) (Kiev, 1901); A. S. Arkhangelsky's Lectures on the History of Russian Literature (vol. 1, 1916); E. V. Petukhov's 30 Russian Literature: the Medieval Period (3rd edition, Petrograd, 1916); and M. N. Speransky'sT/zstory of Old Russian Literature (3rd edition, Moscow, 1920). We should not fail to mention V. N. Perets's A Concise Methodological History of Russian Literature last published in 1922.
While all these books contained a wealth of factual material their conception of Old Russian literature was rather static. They viewed it as a succession of influences: Byzantine, first and second South Slavic, and Western European (primarily Polish). They did not apply principles of class analysis to literary phenomena and failed to examine such vital facts in the development of democratic literature of the seventeenth century as satire.
After the Great October Socialist Revolution Soviet literary scholarship was confronted with a difficult essential task: the creation of a Marxist course in the history of Old Russian literature.
Among the most interesting efforts in this area was the work of Academician P. N. Sakulin in two parts entitled Russian Literature (1929). The first part dealt with the literature from the eleventh to seventeenth centuries.
P. N. Sakulin concentrated on style; he divided all literary styles into two groups: realistic and irrealistic. He examined the literature of the Middle Ages as the expression of the cultural content and style of the epoch. Advancing the proposition that style was conditioned by the psychology and ideology of the ruling classes Sakulin distinguished two major styles in Old Russian literature: religious (primarily irreal) and secular (primarily real). Within the category of religious style he distinguished apocryphal and hagiographical styles, each having corresponding genres and typical images that determined the artistic teleology of that style.
Thus insofar as the ``artistic specifics" of Old Russian literature was concerned Sakulin's book was a great stride forward, although his conceptions did tend tc schematise the historical-literary process. Many phenomena turned out to be more complex and could not be jammed into the Procrustean beds of one or 31 the other style.
Also of great significance in the creation of a scholarly Marxist history of Old Russian literature were the works of Academicians A. S. Orlov and N. K. Gudzy. Orlov's Old Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries. A Course of Lectures ( supplemented and reissued in 1945 as Old Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Centuries) and Gudzy's History of Old Russian Literature (published in seven editions from 1938 to 1966) combined a historical approach to literary phenomena with their class and sociological analysis; they also dealt with the ``artistic specifics" of texts, particularly A. S. Orlov. Gudzy gave valuable bibliographical material for each section of his book and continued to systematically update it.
The publication of the USSR Academy of Sciences' ten volume history of Russian literature summed up the achievements of Soviet scholarship during the twentyfive years' existence of the Soviet state. The first two volumes dealt with the history of literature from the eleventh to the seventeenth centuries.
During the last thirty years Soviet literary scholarship has been extremely successful. Its success is a result of the important work of the Old Russian Literary Section of the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkinsky dom); the head of this section is presently D. S. Likhachev, and the Old Russian literature study group affiliated with the Gorky Institute of World Literature is led by A. N. Robinson.
Regular archeographic expeditions are sent to various regions throughout the country. These help to add new valuable manuscripts and books printed before the eighteenth century to the archives, Dr. V. I. Malyshev's enthusiasm and labours have been crucial to the organisation of this work.
Since the 1930's Old Russian Literary Section has published the series Transactions of the Department of Old Russian Literature (TODRL) which in 1977 put out its thirty-first volume; here new texts are published and manuscripts are issued in scholarly form. The series also contains important articles.
In recent years the problem of studying the ``artistic 32 specifics" of Old Russian literature has come to the foreground: its method, style, system of genres and relation to the fine arts. Among the most prominent contributors have been V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, N. K. Gudzy, I. P. Eremin, V. D. Kuzmina and V. F. Rzhiga.
D. S. Likhachev's books Man in Old Russian Literature, The Poetics of Old Russian Literature, and The Development of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Centuries are important as postulates in raising and resolving theoretical, historical and literary questions related to both ancient and modern literatures.
The works of Soviet scholars A. N. Robinson, L. A. Dmitriev, O. A. Derzhavina, Ya. S. Lurye, N. I. Prokofiev, A. V. Pozdeyev, O. V. Tvorogov and A. M. Panchenko afford a more profound, broader notion of the nature and artistic features of literature from the eleventh to the seventeenth centuries. These achievements in many respects simplify the task of organising a course for the study of Old Russian literature.
The specific features of Old Russian literature determine the relation of its development of fundamental stages in the historical path taken by the Russian state.
Traditionally we distinguish three basic periods in the development of Old Russian literature:
I. Literature of the medieval Russian state from the eleventh to the twelfth centuries (also known as the literature of Kievan Rus);
II. Literature of the period of feudal sectionalism and the struggle for the unification of Northeast Rus (from the thirteenth to the early fifteenth centuries);
III. Literature of the period when a centralised Russian state was being created and in the process of its development (from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries).
The first period was undoubtedly preceded by a long process of the conception and formation of literature in close connection with the emergence of the early __PRINTERS_P_32_COMMENT__ 3---315 33 feudal state and the appearance of a written language. In the mid-eleventh and early twelfth centuries Old Russian literature already manifested systems of genres both secular and religious. Literature itself was largely located in two cultural centres---Kiev and Novgorod. The division of the Kievan state into various feudal principalities, beginning in the late eleventh century, resulted in the formation of new cultural and political centres to the southwest, west and northeast of Kiev. Literary texts of this period are primarily connected with Kiev and the southern Russian states closest to it, where the most important secular and religious genres were composed: the chronicle, the historical tale, vitae, sermons (both homilies and panegyrics), the journey, and The Lay of Igor's Host.
The literature of this period has many ties to oral folk poetry which lends it epic elements and heroic themes. At the same time it makes extensive use of Byzantine and Bulgarian literature in order to develop its own sophisticated artistic forms on their example.
The inexorable process of feudal division whereby the empire of the Rurik dynasty disintegrated into feudal states resulted in various local literary schools, which sprang up in the late twelfth century. Among them were the school of Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volhynia and Novgorod. This already indicated the beginning of a transition to the next period of Old Russian literature.
We should stress that the literature of the eleventh and twelfth centuries was the basis for the subsequent formation and development of three closely related literatures: Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian.
The second period of Old Russian literature's development, from the thirteenth to mid-fifteenth centuries, was marked by the efforts of the feudal leadership to isolate regional literatures. But progressive members of the population and the people maintained an awareness of the unity of the Russian land, language and culture which grew stronger in the struggle with foreign oppressors---the Mongol-Tatar hordes. It also led to a renewal of the heroic, epic traditions of eleventh and twelfth century literature and to the realisation of Northeast Rus's vital ties to Kiev.
34The formation of the Great Russian people in this period was reflected in the culture and literature of Vladimir, Moscow, Tver, Murom, Ryazan, Novgorod and Pskov.
In order to consolidate the progressive forces of society in the struggle with the foreign oppressors, each man had to maintain high moral standards. Accordingly the art and literature of the period worked out a moral ideal of an individual able to triumph over the animosities of the time, the main obstacle to the unification of all forces in the struggle with the hated Mongol-Tatar yoke.
Epifany the Wise revived the emotional, expressive style developed in Kievan hagiographical literature and the rhetorical writings of Met. Ilarion and Kirill of Turov and developed it, reaching a new level of artistic perfection. The development of this style was conditioned by the historical demands made by life itself and not by the second South Slavic influence although the experience of Bulgarian and Serbian literatures was taken stock of and used by writers in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.
Historical narratives were further developed in this period, their style influenced by democratically-minded craftsmen and tradespeople, on the one hand, and by ecclesiastical circles, on the other. Fantasy and the concern with entertainment began to infiltrate historical narratives, and the first elements of artistic generalisation began to appear.
The third period of Old Russian literature is related to the creation and consolidation of a centralised Russian state. Two stages can be clearly distinguished: from the late fifteenth up to the late sixteenth centuries and the seventeenth century.
The first stage is marked by the process of the merging of regional literatures into one Russian literature and also by an unparalleled development of polemical literature born of bitter domestic political strife linked to the consolidation of an absolute rule, first by the great prince and then by the tsar of Muscovy and All Rus.
The official style of this period was the 35 representative, elaborate, uplifted prose of Met. Makary's literary school. Polemic literature gave rise to freer, vivid forms close to those of official writing and reflecting the tenor of daily life. Literature's concern with history changes with the appearance of fictional tales perceived as genuinely historical; such pseudo-historical works include the Dracula Tale, the Tale of the Georgian Empress Dinara and historical allegories.
Two tendencies can be traced in the literature of this period: the observance of strict rules and canons in writing, religious ritual and daily life and the violation of these rules, the destruction of traditional canons. The second tendency prepared the way for the triumph of new principles which in turn give rise to seventeenth century literature.
The seventeenth century was a period marked by the beginning of an accelerating process of the differentiation of fiction, the literature of the young Russian nation. This process was connected to the secularisation of culture, its democratisation and liberation from the ideology and morality of the church. It was conditioned by the growing role of city tradesmen and craftsmen in the social, political and cultural life of the country. A new popular audience began to demand literature. Literature responded by greater attention to reality and by changing its system of genres. Above all traditional hagiographical and historical genres changed, becoming more democratic in form and content. History was gradually crowded out of the literary scene by fiction, the depiction of individuals' daily life and interrelations. Vitae began to describe, not only daily life, but the passionate confessions of rebellious hearts.
Traditional ecclesiastical and official genres became the objects of literary parodies: the worship service was parodied as a tavern service, saints' lives in the vita of a drunkard, petitions and legal proceedings in the Petition of Kalyazin Monastery and the Tale of Ruff Ruff son.
The awakening consciousness of personal elements was reflected in a new genre, the tale of daily life which prefigured the picaresque novel. Translated literature also underwent major changes.
Folklore became an integral part of literature with 36 the advent of such genres as the satirical social tale and the lyrical song.
But the ruling classes encountered the processes of literature's democratisation with a reactionary response. To counterbalance democratic tendencies court circles fostered an artificially archaic baroque style, counterposing the living folk lyric with artificial syllabic poetry, the vivid humour of the democratic satire with abstract didactic satires on morality in general, and folk drama with mystery plays and court ``comedies''.
Syllabic poetry, mystery plays and court theatres were also, it is true, signs of the times for they bore witness to the triumph of new social principles.
Thus the seventeenth century ended and the eighteenth century began in a struggle between two trends: democratic tendencies and those of aristocratic, court circles.
1. A. Y. Gurevich. Kategorii srednevekovoi kultury [ Categories of Medieval Culture], M., 1972.
2. I. P. Eremin. Literatura Drevnei Rusi [The Literature of Old Rus], M.-L., 1966.
3. D. S. Likhachev. Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi [Man in Old Russian Literature], M., 1970.
4. D. S. Likhachev. Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury [The Poetics of Old Russian Literature], L., 1971.
5. D. S. Likhachev. Razvitie russkoi literatury X-XVII vv. [The Development of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Centuries], L., 1973.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE EMERGENCE OF OLD RUSSIAN LITERATURELiterature can emerge only under the conditions of the development of a class society. Prerequisites include the formation of a state, the development of a written language and the existence of advanced forms of oral folk art.
The emergence of Old Russian literature is linked to the process of the creation of the early feudal state. Soviet scholars have disputed the theory that the Old Russian state was originated by Normans, showing that 37 it was not the result of the summons of Varangian rulers, but of an extended process during which the East Slavic tribal system disintegrated. Peculiar to East Slavic historical development is the fact that the tribes did not enter the stage of the slave-owning system but went directly into feudalism.
The new social system, based on the class supremacy of a minority over the majority of the working population, needed an ideological foundation which could not be supplied by paganism or oral folk art---the ideological and artistic bases of the tribal system.
Political, economic and trade relations developed, creating a need for a system of writing; this is also one important prerequisite for the emergence of literature.
Soviet linguists and historians have gathered evidence to show that Rus had a writing system long before the official adoption of Christianity as the state religion. The testimony of the Monk Khrabr and the Pannonian Vita of Cyril show that some form of writing existed among the Slavs in the late ninth century.
The creation of the Slavic alphabet in 863 by SS Cyril and Methodius was of cardinal cultural and historical significance, promoting the development of South and East Slavic cultures. The late ninth and early tenth centuries saw a renaissance of Bulgarian literature and art. Among the remarkable writers of the period were John, Exarch to Bulgaria, Clement, Constantine and Simeon the King himself. Their works were vital in the development of Old Russian culture. The closeness of Old Russian to Bulgarian (``...for Russian and Slavic are one tongue,'' wrote the medieval chronicler) was conducive to the gradual assimilation of the new writing system by East Slavs.
Powerful impetus for the dissemination and development of a written culture was provided by the official espousal of Christianity in 988; this helped to consolidate the new ideological relations of the feudal society that was taking shape.
One important factor in the development of an original Old Russian culture is that Rus was christened by Byzantium---at the time the bearer of an extremely highly developed culture. At the time the Byzantine 38 Orthodox Church had in effect separated from Roman Catholicism (although the formal split occurred in 1055) and allowed much greater leeway for the development of regional, national features within its framework. While the Catholic Church opposed the development of regional literary languages and favoured Latin, the Greek Orthodox Church allowed for the free development of national literary languages. The liturgical language of Old Rus was the Old Bulgarian or Church Slavic language, with close similarities in lexicon and grammar to Old Russian. The emerging original literature helped to develop this language, enriching it with elements of conversational, colloquial speech and Church Slavic.
In the late tenth century a system of education begins to develop in Rus: the reading of books.
Christianity played a vital, progressive role in the development of Old Russian culture. Kievan Rus was among the most advanced states in Europe. Adam of Bremen writes that in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries Kiev rivalled Constantinople in wealth and population.
In the 1030's and 1040's skillful Kievan translators conveyed books directly from the Greek language into Church Slavic. This tells us that education was fairly widespread at the time. Yaroslav's son Vsevolod had mastered five foreign languages; his sister Anna, who became Queen of France, was able to sigh her own name (``Anna Regina'') at a time when her royal husband had to content himself with drawing a cross.
In the development of a system of learning through books and of literature, for that matter, a vital role was played by monasteries which sowed the seeds of the new Christian culture in the first years. Particularly significant was the Kiev Crypt Monastery, founded in the mid-eleventh century.
Thus the formation of the earliest Old Russian feudal state and the development of a writing system were necessary historical prerequisites to the emergence of literature.
39Two cultures were instrumental in the formation of this literature: oral folk poetry and literary Christian culture conveyed by Southern Slavs, in particular Bulgaria, and directly from Byzantium.
The relatively recent efforts to study folklore have shown that by the tenth century Eastern Slavs had developed a sophisticated oral culture. Scholars believe that it was a period marked by a transition from mythological to historical subjects. Leading themes of folklore at the time were historical tribal legends, toponymical legends, legends about burial grounds, heroic tales and songs of military campaigns.
No doubt the formation of the folk epic about princes' warriors, so crucial to the formation of an original Old Russian literature, dates back to this period.
The druzhina, the prince's army seems to have included bards who entertained the warriors during feasts, creating songs honouring the victors and paying tribute to the prince and his brave warriors. The heroic songs and epic tales of battles and campaigns created a sort of oral chronicle; some were latter recorded.
Thus folklore was one source that provided heroes and themes for the developing original Old Russian literature. Folklore gave it both the imagery of oral poetry and certain stylistic elements, as well as a people's spirit.
As they assimilated the ideology of Christianity, the people adapted it to their pagan concepts and outlook. This resulted in the profession of two faiths at once, long characteristic of the people's consciousness and reflected in Old Russian literature. Throughout the entire historical development of literature oral folk poetry was the life-giving source that helped to enrich it.
The art of oral speech and official writing were also important in the formation of literature. Speeches were commonly given in early feudal society. Before a battle the commander delivered a speech to his men, urging them to perform great exploits. Speeches were an important part of diplomatic negotiations. The envoy was usually obliged to memorise a message given by a ruler in carrying out a diplomatic mission. These speeches 40 contained fixed phrases and were laconic and expressive.
Official documents also worked out verbal formulas. The brevity and precision of speech and official writing promoted the development of a concise, aphoristic style in literary texts.
Inevitably the Christian literary culture assimilated by Russian writers was of great influence in the formation of an original literature.
In conjunction with the Russian espousal of Christianity many liturgical books were translated in order to inculcate new religious and ethical concepts in the newly converted pagans. These included the Gospels, setting forth the basis of Christianity and ``historical'' events connected to the miraculous birth, sacrifice, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Parables in the Gospels taught new moral norms; the central hero, Jesus Christ, was presented as an ideal model for human behaviour. The earliest Old Russian text extant is the Ostromir Gospels copied by Grigory the scribe for the Novgorod mayor Ostromir in 1056 and 1057 (it is preserved in the Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library in Leningrad). This version of the Gospels is known as an aprakos, a selection of readings from the Gospels for each day of the week according to the liturgical calendar. The Arkhangelsk Gospels of 1092 (located in the Lenin State Library in Moscow) also belong to this category. The most ancient such text arranged in the usual manner (the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is the Galich Gospels which date back to 1144.
Among the books of the New Testament the first to appear in Rus following its christening was an aprakos Apostol, including twenty-one canonical epistles written by Christ's disciples and a description of their acts in the dissemination of Christianity.
From the eleventh century we also have several menologies, including the Novgorod Menology of 1095 to 1097 for September, October and November. Such collections, as well as the Lenten Triodion (containing services up to the advent of Easter) and the Festal Triodion (containing services for Easter and thereafter) included prayers and hymns of which many were composed by such talented Byzantine Christian poets as 41 St. Romanus the Melode and St. John Damascenus. The poetic images of religious hymns gradually became part of daily life and of the source of artistic means for an original Old Russian literature.
Immediately after the christening of Rus excerpts from the Old Testament were translated into Old Russian and collected in anthologies known as parimiyniki designed to be read during the worship service. The entire Old Testament was translated into Old Russian in 1499 at the initiative of Novgorod's archbishop Gennady.
The most popular of all Old Testament books was the Psalter. People learned to read by studying this text and memorised the psalms. The Psalter attracted Old Russian readers by its profound lyricism its artful narration, its allegories and universal images. It reflected many elements of daily life and the real world, as N. N. Rozov observes, expressing the subtlest details of a person in suffering and torment and comprising an encyclopedia of human psychology.^^1^^
Special Psalters for instruction and prediction appeared quite early in Rus. So-called Interpretive Psalters (Tolkovaya Psaltyr} contained explanations of the allegorical meaning of the psalms and Divining Psalters (Gadatelnaya Psaltyr} were designed to help people make the ``proper'' decisions and resolve their doubts. Vladimir Monomakh's Instruction mentions his use of such a Psalter for divining.
The texts of canonical church books were revered and regarded as ``God-inspired''; their authority could not be questioned. They were considered to be the source of Divine Wisdom whose profoundly hidden meaning had to be properly interpreted. Accordingly Old Russian writers turned for help to the literature of such Church Fathers as SS John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory the Great, Ephrem the Syrus, John Climacos and John Damascenus, among other authors of Greek ecclesiastical literature of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See N. N. Rozov, ``Drevnerussky miniatyurist za chteniem Psaltyrya'', (``An Old Russian Miniaturist Reads the Psalter''), TODRL,vol.22,p.65.
42The teachings of the renowned Constantinople orator St. John Chrysostom were circulated in Old Russian collections known as Zlatostrui, Zlatoust and Margarit; the collection of Bulgarian King Simeon contained excerpts from his sermons which in the eleventh century were copied in Rus and called Svyatoslav's Miscellany (Izbornik) of 1073. The Zlatostrui compiled under the guidance of King Simeon of Bulgaria contained almost exclusively the sermons of St. John Chrysostom. This collection was extremely popular in Rus. Russian authors wishing to give weight to their own works introduced them into such collection under the name of the renowned Byzantine preacher. The Zlatoust collection interpreted the texts of aprakos Gospel readings.
Among the works of Basil the Great known in Rus was his Hexaemeron (Shestodnev) in the translation of John, Exarch to Bulgaria. This work told the reader about the ``six days" of creation in great detail. It included information on nature, plants, animals and man---the crown of God's creation.
Among the earliest works excerpted and circulated in Rus were the sombre ascetic sermons of St. Ephrem the Syrus which were included in the Byzantine collection Parenesis. This anthology included sermons on ``evil women'', and on the ``last judgement and coming of the Antichrist''. The first sermon gave a vivid denunciation of evil women; the second painted a gloomy picture of the world's last hours.
St. John Climacos' Ladder to Paradise taught how the human soul could ascend the path of spiritual perfection toward God (the saint's soubriquet is derived from the title of his work).
The Fount of Knowledge (A Sermon on the True Faith) by St. John Damascenus systematically presented Christian dogma; it too was translated in Bulgaria.
Most of the works of the Church Fathers followed the traditional rules of the art of oratory. Employing age-old rhetorical devices they steeped their sermons in vivid imagery in order to make the maximum emotional effect on their listeners and readers. They lent their sermons an element of timeless universality, addressing them to people of various social standing and origin. All 43 patristic literature concentrated on men's spiritual life and called for a renunciation of the fleeting pleasures of earthly existence.
One of the most important means of religious and moral education used by the church was hagiographical literature: descriptions of the lives of so-called ``saints''. It was obvious example of the practical application of abstract Christian dogma cloaked in an entertaining form. It drew a moral ideal of a man who had achieved total triumph of spirit over sinful flesh, total victory over earthly passions.
The beginning and development of hagiographical literature occurred in the first centuries of Christianity; vitae contain elements reminiscent of Plutarch's historical biographies^^1^^ and many features of the Hellenistic novel. At the same time the roots of hagiography are linked to the eulogy. The vita combines an entertaining narrative with didactic and panegyric elements. It centres around an ideal Christian hero who follows in Christ's footsteps.
The flowering of hagiographical literature in Byzantium took place from the eighth to the eleventh centuries, at which time the canonical structure of the vita and the principles of depicting its characters were developed. A Byzantine vita was divided according to types of heroes and the nature of their spiritual feats.
The type of hero determined the genre of the vita. In this respect a saint's life resembles an icon where each image has fixed features: the outlines of the head, the arch of the brows, the beard and moustache, the slant of the eyes, the size and shape of the nose, and so on. Like an icon the vita presents the hero in as abstract form as possible, concentrating on his spiritual, moral qualities which are constant and unchanging. The composers of a _-_-_
~^^1^^ See S. S. Averintsev, Plutarkh i antichnaya biografiya ( Plutarch and Biography in Antiquity), M., 1973.
44 vita consciously transform the facts of life in order to show the beauty of the Christian ideal in all of its splendour. This ideal leaves its mark on the composition and style of the genre.The saint's vita usually begins with a note on his origins. As a rule he is the son of pious, honourable parents and rarely of impious parents (the latter only serve as a contrast to set off the hero's piety). In childhood he already differs from his fellows; he does not play idle games or join in idle talk; he keeps to himself; once he learns to read he begins diligently to study Holy Scriptures and writings and to understand their wisdom. He then refuses to be married or, according to his parents' wishes, marries but remains pure. Finally he secretly leaves his parents' home, goes off into the wilderness and becomes a monk. The saint usually founds a monastery and wages a successful struggle against demonic temptations. Brothers gather around the saint; he predicts the day and hour of his end, exhorts the brothers, dies. After death his body is found to be imperishable and to exude a sweet fragrance---one of the main proofs of the saintliness of the deceased. Various miracles occur in connection with his relics: candles light of themselves, the lame, blind and deaf, among others, are healed. The vita is usually completed with a brief eulogy listing the virtues and high moral standards of the saint. Thus a radiant image of a saint was created: a figure adorned with all the Christian virtues, shorn of individual qualities and divorced from all things fortuitous and fleeting.
With the acceptance of Christianity vitae began to be disseminated in Rus in two forms: the short vitae inserted into prologues (Sinaksaria) and used in the worship service, and the extended vitae of the menologies. The latter were included in the menologies (Chetyi-Minei), that is in anthologies of readings for each month designed to be read aloud in monasterial refectories and for individual reading as well.
One branch of hagiographical literature was the patericon (otchechnik) with deeds or events in the lives of monks that were important in illustrating their holiness. The Egyptian Patericon was apparently known in 45 eleventh century Rus; this was composed on the basis of the Cloister Roll written by Palladius of Elenopolis in 420 and contained tales of Egyptian monks who had triumphed over the temptations of demons. Also popular was John Moschos's Limonar or Spiritual Meadow composed in the seventh century (known in Russian as the Jerusalem or Sinai Patericon); later the Roman Patericon also became known.
The tales of patericons were highly entertaining with complicated plots that attracted readers by combining naive fantasy with episodes from daily life. Later these stories were included in the prologues.
A typical example of such stories is the tale of Elder Gerasim and his lion and that of Taisa. The first tells of the lion's touching gratitude and love for the elder, the second of a girl's great spiritual endeavour.
Small wonder that the tales of patericons fascinated such nineteenth century writers as Lev Tolstoy, Nikolai Leskov, Gustave Flaubert, and Anatole France.
Translated hagiographical literature was a vital source for the creation of Old Russian vitae. The Old Russian writer, as we shall see, made his own very original contribution to the development of this genre.
Old Rus assimilated the new Christian outlook not only through translating canonical Christian works, but through apocrypha. The word ``apocrypha'' is Greek and means hidden, secret. It originally referred to works written for a narrow circle of elect, educated readers. With the advent of various heresies, however, apocryphal works were used by heretics to criticise orthodox dogma. As a result the official church established the canon of Holy Scriptures in the fourth century and began to list apocrypha circulated by heretics among ``false'' or ``repudiated'' books. Those apocrypha which orthodox Christians felt did not contradict canonical writings were allowed to be read. Still there were no precise regulations on any given apocrypha's status. The first Index of ``false'' books appeared in the sixth 46 century, it is ascribed to Anastasius of Sinai. This Index was later combined with a list of permissible books. We have eleventh century South Slavic Index in fourteenth century manuscript included in Nomocanon. This was then used by Met. Kiprian for his Molitvennik. The Russian metropolitan supplemented the Index with a list of false books used to tell fortunes that were ``vile in the eyes of the Lord''. During the sixteenth century Kiprian's list was expanded; its final redaction was contained in Kirill's Book (Kirillova kniga) of 1664 which has a detailed list of ``true'' and ``false'' books. Many apocryphal works are placed among the true books.
Apocrypha, then, are legendary religious narratives thematically related to canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, but greatly differing with the latter in their treatment of events and characters. Apocrypha incorporate many popular notions and devices from oral poetry.
Apocryphal works entered Rus both in written and oral form. Pilgrims who visited ``holy'' places conveyed such tales to medieval Russians.
Themes may be divided into Old Testament, New Testament and eschatological. Old Testament apocrypha develop themes of Old Testament books; their heroes are Adam, Eve, the patriarchs Enoch, Melchisidek and Abraham, and Kings David and Solomon. New Testament apocrypha tell about Christ, and wanderings and acts of his apostles. Eschatological apocrypha are related to fantastic tales of the Last Judgement and the life beyond the grave.
A special group of apocryphal vitae describe the lives of SS Theodore Tyrone, Nicetas and George---the dragon fighter.
Most apocryphal literature was transmitted to Rus via Bulgaria and was connected with the Bogomil heresy. This heresy is named by its founder, the Bulgarian priest Jeremiah Bogomil who re-examined orthodox monotheistic teachings. The Bogomil heresy was a religious form of social protest made by the popular masses against exploitation by ecclesiastical and feudal lords; it developed a dualistic doctrine about two equal forces that ruled the world: the power of God-Goodness and 47 the Devil-Evil. Man was born of these two forces; he has a divine, spiritual principle and a diabolical, material principle. According to Bogomil teachings each man must wage a constant struggle with the material principle of life, the source of evil, in the name of the triumph of the spirit. They preached asceticism voluntary abstinence from material wealth and the pursuit of moral perfection.
The dualistic philosophy of the Bogomils was reflected in many apocrypha; the concrete, vivid images of such tales made them extremely popular in Rus. One such narrative was recorded in The Tale of Bygone Years under the entry for 1071; a pagan magus tells the manichean tale of the creation of man.
Also related to Bogomil manicheanism is an apocryphal tale called How God Created Adam. Giving details to Biblical legend the tale depicts God and the Devil as equal forces, although God remains the primary Creator of man. While according to Genesis God created man from a handful of earth in His image and likeness and the process of creation occurred momentarily, in the apocrypha it takes some time because God is depicted as having created man in eight parts; the body from earth, the bones from stones blood from the sea, eyes from the sun, thought from the clouds, light from light, breath from the wind and warmth from fire. This catalogue is astounding in its reflection of the poetic imagery of popular thought. Each ``part'' is a metaphor, true, one that is not extended; but in time such metaphors would be common in poetry.
During the process of creation the Devil tries to trick his enemy, God in any way he can. When God is absent the Devil smears Adam's body with all sorts of vile substances. God makes a dog from these foul things and leaves it to guard His creation; the Devil, who fears dogs, decides to keep his distance---and pierces Adam's body with sticks. He justifies his deed by claiming that it is to God's advantage. Bestowing 70 ailments on man the Devil claims that he was above all concerned that man never forget his Creator. Man does indeed ``recall'' God on time of ailment and trouble.
Thus Biblical legend took on concrete form in 48 apocrypha and was more accessible for yesterday's pagan than the dry, laconic tales of the Scriptures.
Most Old Testament apocrypha were collected in the Paleya (meaning ``old'' in Greek)---a collection of Old Testament tales. These dealt with Abraham Melchisidek, Joseph and King Solomon.
King Solomon was very popular among peoples of the Near East where the basic apocryphal legends appear to have been composed. In Rus readers first became familiar with the Tale of Solomon and Kitovras, the Judgements of King Solomon and Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.
The Tale of Solomon and Kitovras describes how Solomon forced a demonic being to serve him, Kitovras was half human and half bull (this was the Russian transcription of centaur). When he constructed his temple Solomon could not do without Kitovras who was the only being to know how to work stone without using iron. Caught by Solomon's crafty nobles, Kitovras helps to find the stone called shamir---(diamond) which is used to polish the stones for the ``Holy of Holies".
Two heroes are contrasted in the apocrypha: Solomon and Kitovras. Although Kitovras is a demon with supernatural strength he is as wise as Solomon and is endowed with human qualities: goodness and sympathy. Kitovras is the protagonist of the apocrypha, while Solomon plays a fairly passive part. The Tale gives a series of aphoristic sententiae which are quite close to folk proverbs.
The Tale of Solomon and Kitovras was evidently known in Rus by the late eleventh or early twelfth centuries. In the early thirteenth century Kitovras was carved in stone among the bas reliefs of St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky. The ``Golden'' Vasily Doors made in 1336 for the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Novgorod depict the last episode of the Tale where Kitovras shows Solomon his demonic power.
A. N. Veselovsky showed that the Slavic tales of Solomon and Kitovras were close to the Talmudic apocrypha about Solomon and Asmodeus which can be traced back to Persian and ultimately Indian legends. But the Slavic tales seem to have been based on a lost 49 Byzantine text where Asmodeus was replaced by a centaur. This Byzantine text was also a source of Western European tales about Solomon and Morolf.
Also popular in Rus were apocryphal tales about the judgements of Solomon; the Russian reader was drawn to the image of the wise judge who primarily ruled on civil suits. The apocryphal tale Solomon and the Queen of Sheba told of how Semiramis tested Solomon's wisdom.
Among the New Testament apocrypha are the Gospels of Nicodemus, James and Thomas which supplemented the canonical Gospels with many details related to the Theotokos' parents Joachim and Anna, the birth of Christ, His childhood and passion. The Gospels of Nicodemus and James were even used for liturgical purposes and inspired many frescoes and icons with such themes as: ``The Meeting of Joachim and Anna by the Golden Gates'', and ``The Annunciation at the Well".
Another New Testament apocrypha isAphroditian's Tale of a Miracle in Persia. This stressed the inevitable victory of the new Christian religion over paganism which led to the end of ``paying tribute to idols''. This was particularly topical for Rus in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries where there were significant elements of paganism remaining.
Of great interest to the Old Russian reader were eschatological apocrypha that painted fantastic pictures of life in the other world and the last judgement. These were an effective means of educating people and propagating the new Christian morality, making the idea of being justly rewarded in the age to come a concrete one.
Among the eschatological apocrypha are The Vision of Paul, the Tale of Macarius of Rome, the Revelations of Methodius ofPatara and the Journey of the Virgin to Purgatory, one of the most popular in Rus.
Accompanied by the Archangel Michael, the Virgin pays a visit to Hell where she witnesses the torments of sinners. Those who did not believe in the Trinity are plunged into a fearful darkness. This is the realisation of the metaphor of the darkness of paganism. Typically the Old Russian text of the apocrypha places those who 50 worshipped the sun in Hell, as well as those who worshipped the moon, the earth, the water, beasts, reptiles, Troyan, Khors, Veles and Perun.
Hung from red-hot iron hooks are gossips (by the teeth), slanderers (by the tongue) and profligates (by the feet); snakes come forth from their lips and prey upon their flesh. Idlers and those who loved to sleep are nailed to red-hot iron beds. Those who broke vows, children cursed by their parents and cannibals are submerged in a fiery river, depending on the gravity of their sins---some to the breast, others to the neck and others are covered by the fiery waves from head to toe. Hell, though located far beneath the earth's surface, has its own geography in the apocrypha: North, South and West.
The Journey paints a lurid pucture of Hell's torments. It is quite different from the abstract notions given in canonical writings which say only that in the world to come sinners will find ``cold'', ``the gnashing of teeth'', and ``the worm that never sleeps".
The form of the journey allowed the torments of Hell to be changed, depending on the social milieu for whom the version of the apocrypha was designed. Once it began to be circulated among democratic circles the apocrypha was supplemented with new pictures of the torments of cruel, merciless boyars and their wives, evil princes, kings and patriarchs, bailiffs and stewards.
The Theotokos is portrayed in human terms as a woman and mother deeply sympathetic to the torments of the human race, her heart overflowing with love and pity for the suffering sinners. She herself is ready to share their torments and hurries to help them. Her maternal heart is unable to forgive only those who betrayed and crucified her Son.
She is contrasted in the apocrypha to the cruel God, indifferent to human sufferings. He is severe and apathetic to the tormented sinners. Thrice the Theotokos and the entire Heavenly Host implore the unyielding, harsh Lord to be merciful. And only the third time does God heed their request and agree to send His Son, Christ, to appear before the sinners. Christ grants the sinners respite from Maundy Thursday to Pentecost (eight weeks).
__PRINTERS_P_59_COMMENT__ 4* 51The apocrypha's treatment of Divine justice, love and mercy represents a considerable departure from that of canonical writings. Its depiction of the torments awaiting sinners consoled the suffering and overburdened people with the concept of the powerful men of this world being obliged to account for their sins.
Their interesting plots, attention to detail, vivid presentation and closeness to folklore contributed to the popularity of apocryphal tales. Gradually incorporating details of Russian life some became folklore, being passed on as oral legends and religious verse.
Byzantine historical chronicles and ``scientific'' works were translated in the process of working out new Christian views about nature and history.
Among the Byzantine chronicles circulated in Rus the most popular was that of Georgios Hamartolos, written in the ninth century and supplemented by Simon Logothetes in the tenth century. The chronicle of world history began here with the creation of the world and then the history of the Hebrews; this was followed by an account of By/antine history up to the year 948. Both chroniclers were particularly concerned with church history. Their treatment of events stemmed from a religious, didactic perspective and was permeated by a belief in Divine Providence. Russian readers learned of events in the history of the world from this chronicle, which also served to edify them. The materials were used by Russian chroniclers to determine the place and role of Rus in the context of world history. Frequently there are references to Hamartolos' Chronicle in The Tale of Bygone Years.
Less widely read were the Chronicle of John Malalas (sixth century) and the Chronicle of Georgios Sincellus (eighth century) since the latter Chronicle only went up to the reign of the Emperor Diocletian in the third century and both were predominantly secular.
In eleventh and twelfth century Rus the Chronicles of Hamartolos and Malalas were reworked; this resulted 52 in the first redaction of the Hellenic and Roman Chronicle. In the thirteenth century the second redaction oi this text served as the basis for the development of Old Russian chronicles of world history (khronograf).
Two medieval ``scientific'' encyclopedias were the Hexaemeron and Phisiologus which contained many fantastic and at the same time poetic essays on plants and animals.
The Phisiologus, for example, I old of the wondrous Phoenix bird that lived in India near the Sunlit City and of the fantastic unicorn. It is not confined to simple descriptions of animals, but gives the symbolic meaning of their traits.
Old Russian learned of the structure of the universe from the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indikopleustes (``Sailor to India''). Formerly an Alexandrian merchant who journeyed to the East in the sixth century, this monk wrote a work that became known in Rus in the late eleventh or early twelfth centuries (the oldest extant copy is from the fifteenth century). Cosmas attacks those who try to prove with the help of special instruments and logic that the heavens are spherical and that they rotate; he believes that only Divine Scriptures can give a true notion of the structure of the Universe.
In the late twelfth century a collection of aphorisms culled from Holy Scripture, works of Church Fathers and ancient philosophy was translated. It was called Melissa (The Bee) because the sayings were collected with great diligence as a bee gathers nectar and as nectar is extracted Irom flowers, so wisdom was extracted from these books. The primary purpose of liie collection was didactic: the norms of the Christian and feudal ethic were presented in aphoristic form.~^^1^^ Russian writers used it as a source of aphorisms which they used to support their own thoughts. At the same time they added new aphorisms taken from works of Old Russian literature and also from ``worldly parables'', that _-_-_
~^^1^^ See V. P. Adnanova-Peretz, ``Chelovek v uchitelnoi liter.i lure Drevnei Rusi'' (``Man in the DiUacik- Literature ot Old Kus''). Tf)I)RL,vo\. 27, 1972.
53 is folk sayings.Thus the emergence of Old Russian literature was due to the demands made by the political and religious life of the Old Russian state. On the basis of folk art and the artistic traditions of Christian literature Old Russian writers of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries created original works. Most of them were clergymen: the priest and then Metropolitan Ilarion, the Kiev Crypt Monastery monks Nikon, Feodosy and Nestor, and Silvestr, Hegumen of Vydubitsky Monastery, Bishop Kirill of Turov, Bishop Luka Zhidyata of Novgorod, the priest Vasily and Hegumen Daniil. Only Vladimir Monomakh and the unknown author of The Lay of Igor's Host are not members of the clergy.
Despite the fact that primarily religious functionaries created the literature of this period and that their greatest praise was ``the reading of books'', their works extend far beyond the framework of religious interests and, in the words of Dobrolyubov, serve as a weapon for worldly powers.
1. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, Drevnerusskaya literatura i folklor [ Old Russian Literature and Folklore ], L., 1974.
2. N. K. Gudzy, Istoriya drevnerusskoi literatury [ A History of Old Russian Literature}, 7th edition, M., 1966.
3. I. P. Eremin, ``O vizantiiskom vliyanii v bolgarskoi i drevnerusskoi literaturakh IX-XII w.'', in Literatura Drevnei Rusi [``The Byzantine Influence on Bulgarian and Russian Literatures in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries'', in The Literature of Old Run],M.-L., 1966.
4. I. Kryvelev, Kniga o Biblii [A Book on the Bible], M., 1958.
5. D. S. Likhachev, Vozniknovenie drevnerusskoi literatury [The Emergence of Old Russian Literature], M.-L., 1952.
6. D. S. Likhachev, Razvitie russkoi literatury X-XVH vv. [The Development of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Centuries], L., 1973.
[54] __NOTE__ LVL1 moved from here two pages forward.
[55]
~
[56]
__ALPHA_LVL1__
Literature
The first surviving works of Old Russian original literature date from the mid-- eleventh century. Their creation was conditioned by the growth of a political, patriotic consciousness on the part of early feudal society in its efforts to consolidate new forms of government and to affirm the sovereignty of the Russian land. Substantiating the idea of Rus's religious and political independence literature strove to fix new norms of Christian feudal ethics and secular and spiritual authority as well as to show the stability and ``immortality'' of feudal relations and norms of law and order.
The literary genres of this period were primarily historical (legends, tales) and religious, with didactic intent (panegyric sermons, precepts, vitae, pilgrimages). Historical genres, drawing on corresponding folk genres for their development, worked out specific literary forms of narration ``according to the events of the day''. The leading genre of this type was the historical tale that gave an extremely detailed account of events.
Didactic, religious genres were influenced by Byzantine literature, but at the same time display original Old Russian features.
[57]Vladimir Monomakh's Instruction and The Lay of Igor's Host have a special place in the system of genres. The first is tied to the religious tradition of the precept and yet it deals with secular matters, boldly injecting autobiographical elements into the narrative. The second develops a new genre, the lyric-epic narrative based both on the traditions of the folk epic and the historical military tale.
Depending on the events related in the tales they could be ``military'', or tales of the crimes of princes. Each type of historical tale acquired its own stylistic features.
As a rule historical genres were not found in isolation, but as part of the chronicles, while religious, didactic works were included in special collections ( Svyatoslav's Izbornik of 1073, Zlatoust, Zlatostrui, Izmaragd, Chetyi-Minei and Prologue). These collections contained edifying sermons and hagiographical literature, vitae designed to instruct monks and laymen and to be used in the worship service. The chronicle should not be seen as a literary genre, but rather as a form which contained primarily secular genres. The principle of yearly entries allowed for the inclusion of a variety of material: the so-called pogodnaya zapis (resume of the events of a year), and the short or extended tale. These historical genres were concerned with important events connected with military campaigns, the struggle against Rus's foreign enemies, buildings constructed during the reign of a given prince, civil wars and extraordinary natural phenomena---signs from heaven. At the same time the chronicle included religious legends, elements from saints' lives, vitae, and legal documents.
One of the oldest extant historical-literary texts is The Tale of Bygone Years, composed in the early twelfth century.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE TALE OF BYGONE YEARSThe Tale of Bygone Years reflected the formation of the Old Russian state, its political and cultural flowering 58 and likewise the process of feudal division. Composed in the first decades of the twelfth century, it has survived in chronicles compiled in later times. The oldest of these compilations (svods) is the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377; it is also contained in the Hypatian Chronicle dating from the 1420's and the First Novgorod Chronicle of the 1330's.
All subsequent chronicles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries included The Tale of Bygone Years, subjecting the text to editorial and stylistic changes.
More than one generation of Russian scholars have studied the history of the primary Russian chronicle; the first was V. N. Tatishchev. Only the distinguished Russian philologist A. A. Shakhmatov, however, was able at the turn of the century to develop a scholarly hypothesis regarding the structure, sources and redactions of The Tale of Bygone Years. Shakhmatov's hypothesis was a shining example of the application of comparative-historical methodology to the study of literature. The results are elucidated in his studies In Search of the Oldest Russian Chronicles(St. Petersburg, 1908) and The Tale of Bygone Years, volume I, (Petrograd, 1916).
In 1039 a metropolitanate was erected in Kiev. The Most Ancient Kievan Chronicle (svod) which stops at 1037 was written in the chambers of the metropolitan. Shakhmatov believed that this version of the chronicle was based on translations of Greek chronicles and local folklore. In 1036 a Novgorod Chronicle was begun; on the basis of the Kievan Chronicle and this early Novgorod text the so-called Ancient Novgorod Chronicle emerged in 1050. In 1073 Nikon the Great, a monk at the Kiev Crypt Monastery, compiled the First Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle using the Most Ancient Kievan Chronicle; he included entries on historical events occurring after the death of Yaroslav the Wise (1054).
59The First Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle and the Ancient Novgorod Chronicle of 1050 were the basis foi the Second Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle of 1095, or, as Shakhmatov first called it, the Primary Chronicle (Nachalny svod). The author of this second Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle supplemented his sources with material from the Greek Chronicle, the Paremiynik, oral tales of Jan Vyshatich, and the vita of St. Anthony of the Caves.
The Second Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle was' the basis for The Tale of Bygone Years; the first redaction was compiled in 1113 by the Kiev Crypt monk Nestor; the second redaction in 1116 by Silvestr, Abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery. The third redaction was compiled by an unknown author, one of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich's confessors.
Nestor's first redaction of The Tale of Bygone Years focused on events of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, highlighting the role of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, Great Prince of Kiev, who died in 1113. The heir to the throne of Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh, had the seat of the chronicles transferred to his patrimonial Vydubitsky Monastery. Here Abbot Silvestr edited Nestor's text, making Vladimir Monomakh into the most prominent figure. Shakhmatov made a fascinating attempt to reconstruct the text of Nestor's redaction which did not survive (see his The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1). The second redaction, in Shakhmatov's opinion, is best seen in the Laurentian Chronicle, and the third in the Hypatian Chronicle.
Shakhmatov's ingenious hypothesis for the reconstruction of the emergence and development of the primary Russian chronicle remains to be proved.
Soviet scholar D. S. Likhachev^^1^^ has made some _-_-_
~^^1^^ See D. S. Likhachev, Russkie letopisi i ikh kulturno-- istoricheskoe znachenie (Russian Chronicles: Their Cultural and Historical Role), M.-L., 1947.
60 interesting corrections in Shakhmatov's hypothesis. Likhachev rejects the theory of the Most Ancient Kievan Chronicle of 1093, and relates the emergence of chronicles to the struggle waged by the Kievan state in the mid-eleventh century against Byzantine political and religious pretensions. Byzantium wished to transform the Church into its political agent; this threatened the independence of the Russian state. The Great Prince actively resisted Byzantine demands and was supported in his struggle for political and religious independence by the bulk of the population. The struggle between Rus and Byzantium grew particularly tense in the mid-eleventh century. Great Prince Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev managed to greatly increase the political authority of his principality and the Russian state. He laid firm foundations for Rus's political and religious independence. In 1039 Yaroslav was granted the right to establish a metropolitanate in Kiev. Thus Byzantium in effect acknowledged the authority of the Russian Church, but still required that the metropolitan be Greek. Yaroslav also succeeded in having Olga, Vladimir and his brothers Boris and Gleb (killed by Svyatopolk in 1015) canonised. When Byzantium finally recognised Boris and Gleb as Russian saints, the concession marked a triumph of Yaroslav's Russian national politics. Veneration of these first Russian saints took on the character of a national cult related to the condemnation of internecine strife and the call to preserve the unity of the Russian land.'The political struggle between Rus and Byzantium developed into armed conflict; in 1050 Yaroslav sent troops to Constantinople, commanded by his son Vladimir. Although Vladimir was defeated, Yaroslav nevertheless consecrated the Russian priest Ilarion as Metropolitan of Kiev in 1051.
The struggle for independence embraced all spheres of culture, including literature. Likhachev observes that the chronicles were compiled gradually as a result of growing interest in the history of the motherland and in the effort to retain the memory of great events for posterity.
According to Likhachev's hypothesis in the 1030s 61 and 1040's Yaroslav the Wise ordered that folklore on the spread of Christianity be recorded. The resulting cycle, called by Likhachev the ``Tales of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'', formed the skeleton of future chronicles. It included oral tales of Olga's christening in Constantinople, the death of two Varangian martyrs and Vladimir's test of various faiths and eventual baptism. These tales were anti-Byzantine in nature. Thus the tale of Olga's christening in Constantinople stressed the superiority of the Russian princess to the Byzantine emperor. Olga managed to avoid the emperor's attempts to marry her through a clever trick. She did not, as the tale emphasises, find any great honour in the proposed match. Olga's encounters with the Byzantine emperor reveal a wit and resourcefulness that are purely Russian. She retains a sense of her own dignity, defending the honour of her native land.
The legend of Vladimir's test of various faiths shows that Rus's adoption of Christianity was the result of a free choice and not a gift from the Greeks.
As Likhachev sees it the ``Tales of the Spread of Christianity in Rus" were recorded by scribes of the Kievan metropolitanate in the Cathedral of St. Sophia. Constantinople did not, however, agree to the consecration of the Russian Ilarion as metropolitan (in 1055 the Greek Ephrem took his place), and the Tales were not developed further.
In the mid-eleventh century the centre of Russian culture moved to the Kiev Crypt Monastery which was in opposition to the Greek metropolitan. Here in the 1070's the Russian chronicle was begun by Nikon the Great. He used the ``Tales of the Spread of Christianity'', supplementing them with oral historical legends, tales of witnesses (including the testimony of Voyevoda Vyshata), and information about recent and contemporary events.
Evidently influenced by the Paschal Tables compiled in the monastery Nikon organised his narrative in the form of yearly entries.
In the First Kiev Crypt Chronicle compiled in 1073 Nikon included tales of the first Russian princes and their many campaigns against Constantinople. He also 62 apparently used the legend of Vladimir Svyatoslavich's 988 attack on the Greek city of Korsun (Chersones of Tauris). The Korsun legend tells of Vladimir's demand to be married to Anna, sister of the Greek emperor.
As a result the version of 1073 was much more antiByzantine in tone than the ``Tales of the Spread of Christianity''. Nikon made the chronicle political, historical and patriotic to an unprecedented degree. The chronicle emphasised that the Kiev Crypt Monastery had been erected without any participation of the Kievan metropolitan. The tale of the uprising of the pagan priests in 1071 shows how Rus was able to conduct its own campaign against the recurrencies of paganism and had no need of help from the Greeks. Nikon's version condemned wars between princes, and emphasised the major role of the people in defending the Russian land from foreign enemies.
Thus the First Kiev Crypt Chronicle expressed the thoughts and mood of the middle and even lower classes of feudal society. From this time on the Russian chronicles would be marked by polemicism, firm principles, a broad historical approach and patriotism.
After Nikon's death the chronicle was continued in the Kiev Crypt Monastery. Yearly entries were recorded describing current events; these were later reworked and compiled by an unknown author in the Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle of 1095.
The Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle continued to propagandise the unity of the Russian land, as Nikon had before. This version also condemned internecine strife and demanded that princes join in the struggle against the Polovtsy, the nomads of the steppes. The compiler of this version had clear polemical aims: to preach patriotism, chiding the present princes by pointing out the deeds of past princes.
Like Nikon, the author of the Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle incorporated many tales of witnesses, in particular the tales of Vyshata's son Jan. He also used Greek chronicles, in particular the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos, which allowed him to include Rus's history in the chain of events from world history.
When Kievan Rus experienced the fiercest attacks of 63 the steppe nomads, the Polovtsy, society had to fair ilieneed to consolidate its forces for the struggle against the invaders; if the princes could not resolve their differences they would lose the Russian land ``built with the blood and sweat of their fathers and forefathers''. In this period, when the consciousness of a need for a unified Russian land became clearest to the people, The Tale of Bygone Years was composed.
In 1098 Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, Great Prince of Kiev, made peace with the Kiev Crypt Monastery; he began to support the monastery's anti-Byzantine activities and realising the political significance of the chronicle, tried to control its writing. It was for Svyatopolk that the Monk Nestor composed the first redaction of The Tale of Bygone Years in 1113 on the basis of the Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle. Nestor ascribed to the ideology of the preceding version and continued to attempt to convince Russian princes to leave off fighting each other; in the foreground of his redaction he placed the idea of brotherly love among princes. Under Nestor the chronicle became a state document.
Although Nestor made Svyatopolk Izyaslavich the central figure of events from 1093 to 1111, the prince was not popular among his subjects. After his death Vladimir Monomakh became Great Prince of Kiev in 1113. Under the aegis of this ``great champion of the Russian land" the second redaction of The Tale of Bygone Years was written.
Vladimir had the keeping of the chronicle entrusted to Silvestr, Abbot of his patrimonial Vydubitsky Monastery, who in 1116 compiled the new, second redaction of the Tale, stressing Monomakh's great contributions to the defeat of the Polovtsy and the establishment of peace among princes.
In 1118 an unknown author from the same monastery compiled the third redaction of The Talc of Bygone Years, the narrative stopped at 1117. This redaction has been best preserved in the Hypatian Chronicle.
64A new, somewhat different theory for the development of the primary chronicles has been proposed by Rybakov.~^^1^^ Rybakov's study of the chronicles has led him to conclude that yearly entries were recorded in Kiev beginning in 867 during the reign of Askold; this was the date that Christian clergy first appeared in Kiev. In the late tenth century, from 996 to 997, the First Kicvan Chronicle was compiled; this version generalised upon diverse sorts of material found in short yearly entries and oral talcs. It was written in the Desyatinnaya Church and among the compilers were Anastas of Chersoncs, Dean of the cathedral, Bishop of Belgorod, and Vladimir's uncle Dobrynya. This was the first historical summary of the events in Kicvan Rus's century-and-- ahalf existence; it ended with a tribute to Vladimir. At the same time, according to Rybakov's hypothesis, the Vladimir cycle of bylinas (Russian folk epics---Tr.) was being created where the people were evaluating events and personalities; the chronicles, on the other hand, offered the court view, a sampling of written culture, the military epos and folk tales.
Rybakov shares Shakhmatov's view on the existence of a Novgorod chronicle of 1050, and believes that this was compiled with the active participation of the Novgorod mayor Ostromir; this Ostromir Chronicle should, as he sees it, be dated from 1054 to 1060. It was opposed to Yaroslav the Wise and the Varangian mercenary, soldiers and stressed the heroic history of Novgorod, glorifying the deeds of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Novgorod Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich. This was a purely secular chronicle and expressed the interests of the Novgorod boyars.
As to the further stages of the Old Russian chronicle Rybakov agrees with Shakhmatov and with contemporary Soviet scholars. He does suggest an interesting reconstruction of the text of Nestor's Talc of Bygone Years. He also believes that Vladimir Monomakh _-_-_
~^^1^^ See B. A. Rybakov, Drevniaya Kus. Skazaniya. Byliny. Letopisi (Old Rus: Tales, Epics, Chronicles), M.-L., 1963.
65 personally took part in the writing of the second redaction (Silvestr's) and that the third redaction is connected to Monomakh's son, Mstislav Vladimirovich, who tried to set Novgorod in opposition to Kiev.Thus the question of the first stage of Old Russian chronicle-writing and the contents and sources of The Talc of Bygone Years is a complex problem, one that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.
There can, however, be no doubt that the Tale is the result of the work of many editors and several generations of chroniclers.
In the very title ``This tale of bygone years, of the origins of the Russian land, the first to rule in Kiev and how the Russian land came to be" we can find the theme of this chronicle of Rus's history from its very beginnings to the first decade of the twelfth century. Chroniclers inserted ``legends of great antiquity" and accounts of recent events according to their patriotic desire to emphasise the might of the Russian land, its political independence and its religious independence ol Byzantium.
The entries were extraordinarily topical, polemical and contained harsh condemnation of princely feudal wars and the internecine strife that weakened the power of Rus. The major theme, of course, was that of the Motherland, whose interests dictate the evaluation of princes' deeds and serve as the measure of their glory and magnificence. His keen sense oi the Russian land and people made the Russian chronicler's political views encompass a far greater range than those of West European chroniclers.
Work on the compilation of the chronicles began in the 1030's and 1040's; its compilers were not only scholars, but writers of history. Above all they had to find material about the past, select among sources, rework them into literature and systematise them--- polozhit po ryadu.
66Primary materials were oral historical traditions, legends, epic heroic songs; written sources were Greek and Bulgarian chronicles and hagiographical literature.
Chroniclers borrowed a Christian, scholastic conception of history from the written sources and thus related the history of the Russian land to the history of the world. The Tale of Bygone Years begins with a Biblical legend about the distribution of -land between Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japhct, after the great flood. The Slavs were the heirs of Japhet; for like the Greeks they belonged to the family of European peoples.
Among other information on the Slavic peoples in the chronicles are entries on their lives in the fifth and sixth centuries, on the migration of East Slavic tribes to the basin of the Dnieper and its tributaries, the Volkhov and Lake Ilmen, the junction of the Volga and Oka rivers, the Southern Bug and the Dniester. It describes the mores and customs of these tribes, distinguishing the Polyanye tribesmen as the most developed. The chorniclers sought explanations for the names of tribes and cities in oral legends, and related events occurring in Rus with events in Greek or Bulgarian history. They acknowledged the great cultural mission of the first Slavic teachers and philosophers, SS Cyril and Methodius, and record the deeds of these eminent brothers who developed the first Slavic alphabet.
On the basis of the Greek chronicle, they were able to establish the first date of the Russian land's existence---6306^^1^^ (852). This date allowed them to order the entries according to years. When they could not assign any events to a given year, they simply recorded the date itself (``in the year 6368'', ``in the year 6369'', and so on). This chronological structure allowed a greater freedom in shaping material and permitted new tales and narratives to be included, and older entries that did not correspond to the interests of the epoch and the author to be excluded; the chronicle could be supplemented with recent events witnessed by the compiler.
_-_-_~^^1^^ This is based on the medieval system for counting years from the creation of the world; the modern equivalent can be calculated by substracting the number 5508.
67The system of making yearly entries gave rise to the conception of history as a constant, successive chain of events; this was consolidated by the geneological, hereditary succession of Russian rulers, beginning with Rurik and ending (in the primary chronicle) with Vladimir Monomakh. At the same time this approach gave the chronicle a fragmentary appearance which, as I. P. Eremin observed, makes each fact seem like a separate unit.~^^1^^
Chronological entries allowed the chroniclers to include materials whose nature and genres differed greatly. Within the chronicles one finds: historicallegendary tales reflecting the people's views on events in the distant past; tales of military.campaigns, steeped in the glory of epic heroic (druzhina) poetry; tales of princely wars and internecine strife, written by eyewitnesses; religious and secular precepts and vitae, reflecting the perspective of the feudal ruling classes; and brief yearly entries about campaigns, the building of churches, the birth of royal children, mysterious occurrences in nature---heavenly signs interpreted from a religious viewpoint. Each genre had its own style of narration. A correspondence between form and content was established creating a norm and convention which D. S. Likhachev labelled ``literary etiquette".^^2^^
The genre of historical folk traditions played a primary part in the chronicle. Materials about the remote _-_-_
~^^1^^ See I. P. Eremin, ``~`Povest vremennykh let' kak pamyatnik literatury '', in Literature Drevnei Rusi (``The Tale of Bygone Years as Literature'', in The Literature of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966, p. 75.
~^^2^^ D. S. Likhachev, ``Literaturny etiket Drevnei Rusi" (``The Literary Etiquette of Old Rus''), TODRL,\o\. 19, 1961.
68 past were drawn from the treasurehouse of the people's memory. The Tale of Bygone Years makes use of toponomical legends, tribal lore, ritual poetry, tales about burial grounds, epic tales, druzhina poetry and religious legends created from ancient folklore.The chronicler's efforts to find the origins of the names of Slavic tribes, cities and the word Rus led him to investigate toponomical legends. Thus the Radimichi and Vyatichi Slavic tribesmen were connected to the legendary brothers Radim and Vyatko who were of Lyakh origin. This legend arose in the period when the tribal system was breaking down. In order to establish tribal seniority that might give a basis for their political primacy over other tribesmen, a legend was created showing foreign descent. An analogous legend, dated in the chronicles 6370 (862), is that of the summons of Varangian princes to rule Rus. The figure of three brothers---Rurik, Sineus and Truvor---shows the reliance of the legend upon folklore; three is an epic number. This legend stems from a local Novgorod tradition reflecting the relation between the feudal city-state and the princes. Novgorod often summoned princes to act as military governors. This local legend was included in the chronicle and came to serve as a basis for the princes' right to rule over the entire Russian land. The single ancestor of the Kievan princes was the half-legendary Rurik; this allowed the chronicler to present the history of the Russian land as the geneology of the House of Rurik. The legend of the summoning of the princes stressed the absolute political independence of Kievan rule from the Byzantine empire, and thereby served as a vital argument in proving the sovereignty of the Kievan state.
Another typical toponomical legend is the tale of the founding of Kiev by three brothers---Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv---and their sister Lybed. The chronicler himself pointed to the oral source for this material, writing: ``Others say that Kiy was a ferryman.'' The chronicler indignantly denied this folk version of Kiy's occupation, stating in no uncertain terms that Kiy was a prince who led successful campaigns against Constantinople, was honoured by the Byzantine emperor and founded the 69 township of Kievets on the Danube.
Echoes of ritual poetry from tribal times can be found in the chronicle accounts of Slavic tribes, customs, wedding and funeral rites.
Devices of oral folk epics can be seen in the accounts of the first Russian rulers: Oleg, Igor, Olga and Svyatoslav. Oleg is characterised in folk terms as the courageous, wise warrior. His military aptitude helped him to vanquish the Greeks by placing his ships on wheels and sailing them across dry land. Thwarting the designs and stratagems of his Greek enemies he concludes a peace treaty with Byzantium. To symbolise his victory Oleg nails his shield to the gates of Constantinople so as to shame the defeated enemy and glorify his motherland.
The fortunate prince and warrior was given the folk epithet veshchy, that is, ``sorcerer'' (although the chronicle stressed that he was called this by ignorant pagans); still he could not escape his fate. The entry for 912 contains a poetic legend concerning the grave of Oleg which was still extant at the time. The plot of this legend was traditional; its narrative laconic, but highly dramatic. It expressed the power of fate which could not be escaped by any mortal, even a ``sorcerer''-prince.
Igor is depicted on another level. He is also courageous and bold, and wages a successful campaign against the Greeks in 944; he attends to the needs of his druzhina. But he is greedy, and this greed leads him to extort as much tribute as he can from the Drevlyane tribesmen, which in turn leads to his death. Igor's greed is condemned by the chronicler through the lips of the Drevlyane, who cite a proverb: ``Once a wolf gets into the habit of raiding the flock, he'll carry off every last sheep if he isn't killed.''
Igor's wife Olga was a wise woman who remained faithful to the memory of her husband; not only did she reject the suit of the Drevlyan prince Mai, she also refused the hand of the Greek emperor. She cruelly revenged the murder of her husband; but this revenge was not condemned by the chronicler. The description of Olga's four reprisals stressed the wisdom, firmness and inexorable will of this Russian woman. Scholars pointed 70 out the folk basis of this account long ago. D. S. Likhachev, for example, notes that it is structured around riddles which the unfortunate Drevlyan emissaries cannot guess. Olga's riddles are allusions to wedding and funeral rites: both honoured guests and corpses were carried in boats; Olga's proposition that the envoys take a bath was both a sign of ultimate hospitality and a symbol of a funeral rite. Olga's funeral feast was both for her husband and for the murdered envoys of the Drevlyan prince. The unsuspecting Drevlyane interpreted her words in their literal sense, and did not divine the hidden meaning of this wise woman's riddles; for this they were doomed. The entire account is based on vivid, laconic dialogue between the princess and the Drevlyan envoys.
The heroic poetry of the druzhina epos helped to create the image of Svyatoslav the warrior: severe, simple, strong, courageous and straightforward. The qualities of his enemies, the Greeks,---cunning, cajolery and stealthiness (which, the chronicler notes, still characterise them ``to this day'')---are foreign to Svyatoslav. His small druzhina defeats the superior enemy forces. With a brief, courageous speech, he inspires his men to fight on: ``Do not shame the Russian lands, but lay down your bones for your country; for the dead know no shame.''
Svyatoslav despised wealth and valued only arms and his men with whose help he could obtain any treasure. His image is characterised in laconic, but expressive terms by the chronicler:
``He was light on his feet like a leopard and fought many wars. On campaigns he took no carts, or pots, and cooked no meat; but would cut the meat of horse, beast or cow into thin strips and roast it over the coals, and thus sustained himself. Nor did he have tents, but spread a groundcloth and used his saddle as a pillow. Thus did all the rest of his men.''
Svyatoslav was guided by the interests of his men and even rejected the admonitions of his mother Olga, refusing to become a Christian for fear that his men would mock him. His constant involvement in wars of conquest, his neglect of Kievan interests and attempts to 71 transfer the site of the Russian capital to the Danube were condemned by the chronicler who placed his reproaches in the lips of the Kievan people.
The straightforward prince and warrior fell in a battle against superior Pecheneg forces at the Dnieper Rapids. Kurya, a Pecheneg prince, killed him and then ``took his head and made a goblet of it, binding it, and drank from it''. Although the chronicler draws no moral, he lets us know that Svyatoslav's death is the result of disobeying his mother Olga's wish that he become a Christian.
Also based on folk tales is the Korsun legend, the account of Vladimir's marriage to the Polotsk Princess Rogneda, as well as his frequent, lavish feasts in Kiev. Two styles of narrative are apparent in the chronicle: epic folk narrative and monumental, medieval historiography.^^1^^ We see, on the one hand, a pagan prince with uncontrollable passions, and, on the other, an ideal Christian ruler, endowed with all virtues; humility, meekness and love are apparent in his dealings with the indigent, and the clergy. Comparison of the pagan prince with the Christian ruler was intended by the chronicler to show the superiority of the new Christian morality over the ethics of paganism. Already in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, Vladimir's reign was wreathed in laurels by folklore. The chronicler could not ignore this.
Also steeped in epic heroic tradition was the tale of young Kozhemyaka's victorious battle against the Pecheneg giant. As in folk epics, this tale stressed the superiority of the peaceful labourer, the simple craftsman, over the professional soldier, the Pecheneg bogatyr. The images were structured in terms of contrasts and generalisation. At first the Russian youth seemed to be undistinguished; but he incorporated the great, gigantic power of the Russian people who adorned the earth with their labours and defended their land on the battlefield from foreign intruders. The Pecheneg warrior was so large that spectators were terrified. This boastful, arrogant enemy was contrasted to _-_-_
~^^1^^ See D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi.
72 the modest Russian lad, the youngest son of a tanner. The tale coincides with the toponymic legend of the origins of the city of Pereyaslavl: ``since that youth found glory (pereya slavu)." But this is clearly an anachronism since Pereyaslavl is mentioned more than once before the recording of this event.The legend of the Belgorod kissel (a sort of oatmeal porridge---Tr.) was also tied to folk sources. This tale glorified the wit, resourcefulness and acuity of medieval Russian man.
Both the tales of Kozhemyaka and the Belgorod kissel are narratives built on the contrast between the inner strength of the labourer and the boastfulness of an enemy who is frightening only in appearance, between the wisdom of an elder and the credibility of the Pechenegs. Both tales culminate in a duel, the first---- physical, the second---a duel of wits. The plot of the Kozhemyaka tale is close to the heroic plots of bylinas, that of the Belgorod kissel to folk tales.
There was a clear folklore basis for the religious legend about the apostle Andrew's visit to Rus as well. This legend was placed at the beginning of the chronicle to ``historically'' substantiate the religious independence of Rus from Byzantium. It claimed that Rus was christened, not by the Greeks, but by one of Christ's disciples, the apostle Andrew, who once travelled along the path ``from Varangia to Greece'', along the Dnieper and the Volkhov. He was the precursor of Russian Christianity. The lege'nd of how Andrew blessed the hills of Kiev corresponded to a folk legend of Andrew's visit to Novgorod. This tale was related to the North Slavic custom of taking steam baths in hot wooden bath houses.
Thus most chronicle tales about events of the ninth and late tenth centuries were related to oral folk art and epic folk genres.
As the chronicler moved from events in the remote past to more recent times, his material became more 73 precise, factual and official.
The chronicler was concerned only with historical personalities at the top of the feudal hierarchy. His depictions of these people followed the principles of medieval historiography. Only official events with historical significance for the state were to be included in the chronicle: military campaigns, treaties, internecine strife, the erection of churches and state buildings, concern with enlightenment, and the like. Events from private life and daily existence were not of interest to the chronicler.
The chronicle worked out a clear image of an ideal ruler, the good champion of the Russian land. He was the incarnation of love for one's native land, its honour and glory, the personification of its might and dignity. All his deeds and actions were determined by the good of people and country. Therefore the prince, as depicted in the chronicles, could not be his own man. He was primarily a historical figure and always appeared in official circumstances, adorned with all the trappings of princely power. Likhachev compared the image of the ideal prince in the chronicle with the frescoes and mosaics of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries. He noted that the prince was always official in the chronicle and was presented to the spectator in his most significant functions. His virtues were his dress uniform; they were mechanically affixed to each other. This allowed religious and secular ideals to be mixed: fearlessness, courage and military valour were combined with humility, meekness and other Christian virtues.
When a prince acts for the good of his country, he was glorified by the chronicler and endowed with all the ideal qualities. If he went against the interests of the state, the chronicler spared no colours to paint him as the personification of all mortal sins: pride, envy, ambition, selfishness, and so on. The negative character was determined according to the role he played in the feudal struggle.
The principles of medieval historiography were vividly embodied in historical tales included in The Tale of Bygone Years: the tale of Svyatopolk's murder of his brothers Boris and Gleb (1015) and Yaroslav's revenge, 74 the uprising in Kiev of 1068, and The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl (1097). This tale was recorded by the priest Vasily who witnessed the villainous blinding of Vasilko by his first cousins Svyatopolk and Davyd.
The tale begins with the announcement of a congress of princes at Lyubech in 1097 to conclude peace. Each prince vows to keep to his own land and swears by the cross that he will allow no internecine strife to develop. The people approved this. Unfortunately the unity proved to be temporary and weak. The terrifying example of Vasilko's blinding by his first cousins showed the consequences of princes breaking their word.
The motivation was traditional and based on Divine Providence. The devil, miserable at the brotherly love displayed by the princes, crept into the heart of certain men and they began to tell Davyd false stories of how Vladimir Monomakh allegedly conspired with Vasilko to overthrow Svyatopolk of Kiev and Davyd. This religious motivation then becomes a purely psychological one. Davyd believed these men and inspired Svyatopolk with doubt. The latter was confused and hesitated; he was reluctant to believe these claims, but finally agreed with Davyd that Vasilko had to be taken.
The plot is an epic one; Vasilko accepts his cousin's invitation only after it was stated three times.
Vasilko is warned by one of his men that his cousins are plotting against him, but cannot believe this: ``How can they be plotting to take me? They just swore an oath by the cross!~"
The tale of Vasilko's meeting with Svyatopolk and Davyd is imbued with high psychological drama. As he leads his guest into the chamber Svyatopolk tries to strike up a conversation; he asks him to stay until Yuletide. But Davyd sits as though deaf, a detail which vividly shows his psychological state. Svyatopolk cannot bear the tension and leaves under the pretext of seeing to the guest's breakfast. Left alone with Davyd Vasilko tries to engage him in talk, ``but Davyd neither spoke nor listened''. At this point Vasilko begins to suspect what is going on. He realises the deception and is 75 overcome with horror. After sitting a bit, Davyd leaves. Vasilko is fettered, locked into the room and left with a guard overnight.
The author shows Svyatopolk's hesitations by explaining that he cannot bring himself to make the final decision about Vasilko's fate. He calls together the boyars and men of Kiev and tells them of Davyd's charges against Vasilko. But the boyars and Kievans refuse to take moral responsibility: ``Prince, you must watch out for yourself. If Davyd speaks the truth, Vasilko should be punished; if Davyd speaks falsely, then God will take vengeance and he must answer before God.'' Obliged to make the decision himself Svyatopolk hesitates. The abbots beg him to release Vasilko, but Davyd insists that he be blinded. Svyatopolk is almost ready to set Vasilko free. Then Davyd's words tip the balance: ``If you do not blind Vasilko, then neither I nor you shall rule.'' The decision is made and Vasilko is hauled by cart from Kiev to Belgorod and taken into a hut. The plot is brought to a masterful climax when Vasilko sees the torchin sharpening the knife and guesses that they want to blind him. And he ``lifted up his voice to God with sighs and lamentation.''
The climax has a dynamic resolution. Verbs play a predominant role in the narrative, making a ``speech gesture'', in Alexei Tolstoy's words. Svyatopolk's groom Snovid Izechevich and Davyd's groom Dmitr enter:
``And they commenced to spread a rug,
And upon spreading it, grabbed at Vasilko
And tried to pin him down;
And he fought them stoutly,
And they could not pin him down.
And others came in, got him down
And bound him,
And taking a board from the stove,
Placed it on his chest.
And Snovid Izechevich and Dmitr sat on either side,
And two others came up,
And took another board from the stove,
And sat down,
And pressed against his shoulders so that
his chest cracked.''
The Russian text keeps to a strict rhythm created by anaphoric repetition of the conjunction ``and'', which conveys the temporal succession of the actions; the rhymed verb endings also contribute to the rhythm.
The tale is slowly describing an event without any emotional evaluation. But the reader witnesses a concrete, dramatic scene:
``And the torchin approached with a knife in his hand and tried to hit him in the eye, but missed and struck his face instead, and the wound can be seen on Vasilko even now; and then he hit the eye and plucked it out, and then he hit the other eye and plucked it out; and all this time Vasilko lay still as a corpse.''
Vasilko, unconscious and barely breathing, is loaded onto the cart and taken to the market place, past the Bridge of the Exaltation, to the marketplace where they remove his bloody shirt and give it to a priest's wife to wash. Now the tale that displayed no emotion gives way to a lyrical episode. The woman has profound sympathy for the unfortunate; she laments him as though he were dead. When he hears the heartfelt weeping of the woman, Vasilko comes to: ``And feeling for his shirt he said, 'Why did they remove it? Better that I die in that bloodstained shirt and stand before God.'"
Davyd did as he has intended. He brings Vasilko to Vladimir ``like a trapped animal''. The very simile reflects the condemnation of this crime committed by brother against brother.
Unlike hagiographical narrators, Vasily does not moralise or quote the Bible. His narrative of Vasilko's fate ends with a tale of how the crime reflected on the fate of the Russian land. Vladimir Monomakh takes the foreground at this point. For Vladimir embodies the ideal prince, ``the good champion of the Russian land''. Vasily conveys his feelings through hyperbole: `` Vladimir was horrified and wept, saying, 'Such evil has never been seen in the Russian land, neither in the time of our forefathers, nor in the time of our fathers.'' Vladimir tries to peacefully undo the consequences of the deed in order to prevent the ruin of Rus. The men of Kiev beg him to come to peaceful terms and take care of their land, and Vladimir weeps and says, ``In truth our 77 fathers and forefathers watched over the land and we want to destroy it.'' At this point, however, Monomakh begins to take on hagiographical features. His obedience to his father and stepmother are emphasised, as well as his respect for the metropolitan, and the orders of episcopate and clergy.
The artistic leitmotif of the tale consists of two opposing symbolic images: the cross and the knife.
The cross and ``kissing the cross" symbolise fraternal love and unity among princes, strengthened by a vow. The knife is not only the weapon in a given crime---the blinding of Vasilko---but the symbol of princely strife and internecine wars.
Thus The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl strongly condemns those princes who break their own agreements; such treachery leads to terrible, bloody crimes that wreak evil on the entire land of Rus.
As he includes accounts of military campaigns the chronicler either limits himself to a simple statement of the facts (``in the year ... a certain prince attacked the Bulgarians, or the Yatvyags'', etc.) or describes individual battles using certain characteristic stylistic formulas. These laconic, but pithy cliches were consistently used and they reflect the military tactics and technology of the times.^^1^^
The battle usually took place in the morning, at dawn, and began with the forces moving toward each other: ``As the sun rose both armies moved forward.'' Then the battle itself was described: ``And there was a fierce and terrible battle" or ``a fierce and mortal struggle''. Then the chronicler described the ring of weapon against weapon, the crack of breaking spears and the noise of the battle that made it impossible for people to hear anything: ``And the cracking of spears and clashing of swords rendered it impossible for people to hear each other.'' Hand-to-hand combat was decisive and was described in the following way: ``...and grabbing each other they locked arms and began to fight". _-_-_
~^^1^^ See A. S. Orlov, Ob osobennostyakh formy russkikh voinskikh povestei (konchaya XVII v.) (Features of Russian Military Tales up to the Seventeenth Century), M., 1902.
78 Hyperbolic quantities of blood flowed like rivers ``as though through the vallies''; mountains of corpses lined the battlefield. The battle ended with victory; ``and the enemy was deterred''. Those who fled were pursued: ``some were taken captive" and ``others were slain''. The picture of the battle looked like this:``For on Friday at sunrise both sides advanced; and there was fierce fighting as had not been seen in Rus, and they grasped at each other and fought hand-- tohand, and met thrice; blood flowed in torrents down the valley.''
(1019, Yaroslav's battle with Svyatopolk)
Such description of battles occur frequently in The Tale of Bygone Years and show the emerging genre of the military tale in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries; such tales describe campaigns and battles.
The compilers of The Tale of Bygone Years also included hagiographical works: Christian legends, lives of martyrs (the tale of the two Varangian martyrs), the tale of the founding of the Kiev Crypt Monastery in 1051, the tale of the death of its Abbot, Feodosy of the Caves in 1074 and many other narratives of Crypt monks. The chroniclers also used stylistic devices of hagiography in describing the ethics of the princes.
In the chronicles the spiritual feats of the founders of the Kiev Crypt Monastery were glorified. The monastery was erected without the help of the princes, the boyars, or the wealthy through ``tears, fasting and vigils" of SS Antony and Feodosy of the Caves. After the tale of Feodosy's death under the year 1074 the chronicler told of the Crypt monks who ``like heavenly bodies shone throughout the land of Rus''. While glorifying the Christian virtues of the Crypt monks, the prophet Yeremei, the sagaceous Matvei and the monk Isaky, the chronicle also noted the darker aspects of monastic life. The attempts of several monks to leave 79 the Crypt monastery and return to the world are recorded in the tale of Yeremei.
Praise of the monks' sanctity is combined with just condemnation of certain aspects of monastic life; these go beyond the framework of hagiographical style.~^^1^^
The chroniclers also applied elements of hagiographical style to describe princes. This was particularly evident in princely obituaries. The death of a prince was usually followed by the lament of the nation and a short eulogy praising the departed's moral and religious virtues. One example was the eulogy of Princess Olga.
The virtues of the dead prince were praised by an unusual combination of secular and religious ideals. Often religious traits predominated. The ``deification'' of secular rulers was naturally encouraged and supported in the ruling circles of feudal society.
From Christian literature the chronicler took sententiae and similes, bolstering his judgements with quotations from Holy Scripture. Often he would compare events and personalities in history with those of the Bible. Such comparisons and reminiscences had various functions. They stressed the importance and greatness of the Russian land and her rulers, and at the same time allowed the chroniclers to transfer the narrative from the temporal, historical plane into the realm of the eternal (which is to say that they served as a means of symbolic generalisation). In addition such comparisons were a means of giving a moral evaluation of historical events and the deeds of historical figures.
The Tale of Bygone Years combines various sorts of material written by different authors. In accordance with the demands of ``etiquette'' facts were set forth in _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, ``Zadachi izucheniya ' agiograficheskogo stilya' Drevnei Rusi" (``Toward the Study of Old Russian Hagiographical Style''), TODRL, vol. 20, 1964.
80 a strictly regulated fashion. Various genres and styles were united by a common patriotic theme, by the chronological principle of narration, and by one historicalphilosophical conception, which is religious in nature and derived from Christian teachings about Divine providence. It is based on the conviction that history has a beginning and an end in time; its movement is directed by God toward this end, the Last Judgement. The fate of men and nations, however, does not depend totally on the Divine Will, but on men themselves. Each person is free to choose between good and evil. He can choose the difficult path of service to good, that is God, a path demanding rigorous obedience to Divine commandments, that is, the norms of Christian morality; and restraint of sinful passions. Or man can choose the easier path and indulge his passions and evil intentions by choosing the road to evil, that is serving the devil.God is the source of goodness and beauty; He allows for the existence of evil (the devil) in order to test man's constancy and the strength of his faith. When men show themselves to be unworthy and, yielding to demonic temptations, take the path of iniquity, God hastens to send them warning signs, and then, as a guiding ``rod'', uses disease, famine, drought, swarms of locusts, foreign legions and cruel rulers. The all-merciful God afflicts men with such trials in order to make them mend their ways; out of His great love for man He wishes to guide him along the righteous path.
The chronicler was deeply convinced of the final triumph of good and justice. The evil deeds and iniquities of men and nations would be punished by God; good deeds were always rewarded. The chroniclers saw goodness and beauty as equivalent.
Not only did the chroniclers record worthy events, many of them passed sentence (at times this human verdict was presented as a Divine judgement, but this was part of the philosophy of the chroniclers) in their efforts to influence the morality of their contemporaries. They believed that history taught vital moral lessons for the present and future; by the example of the princes of old, they wished to correct the mistakes of the contemporary princes.
81This all lent the chronicles an air of polemicism. True, it was a religious, didactic sort of polemic; but their arguments are never a goal in themselves. The chroniclers sought support in concrete, accurately recorded facts. Therefore their basic efforts were directed at conveying facts with as much precision and expression as possible. They concentrated on the ``speech gesture'', which, as was evident in our analysis of the Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl, was the basic artistic means for acting on the reader's or listener's emotions.
In the chronicles the past was portrayed as a chain of events---the deeds of princes and short yearly entries recording facts.
At the same time the chronicler tried to stress the family ties between princes who were the primary heroes of historical events. As D. S. Likhachev observed, the chronological succession of events from the creation of the world and the ancestral theory of the chroniclers were the first attempts to comprehend history as a process.
Princes were depicted in terms of conventions and schemes. They were flat like the figures in Old Russian frescoes and icons. Their images were built on a contrast between Christian virtues (adorning the positive heroes) and vices fixed by constant subjective epithets which at times were transformed into proper names (Svyatopolk the Cursed, for example).
The chronicles praised military prowess and Christian virtues in a prince. The prince's glory was seen by the chroniclers as the glory of the entire Russian land.
Folklore sources for the reconstruction of the most ancient history of Rus gave the chronicle accounts a heroic character, an epic range, and a profound patriotic spirit.
In their reliance on concrete facts and literary traditions the chroniclers worked out the genre of historical narration and created the necessary prerequisites for the genre of the military tale.
The language of The Tale of Bygone Years reflects the conversational speech of its times. Almost every speech was delivered before being recorded by the chronicler. Direct speeches made by historical personalities 82 comprise a great percentage of the chronicle accounts. The prince addressed his druzhina; envoys memorised speeches in order to conduct diplomatic exchanges; speeches were made at the veche meetings, and during feasts. These speeches evidence a mastery of the art of oratory: they are brief, laconic and usually expressive. For example, Vasilko of Terebovl says: ``Either I shall find glory for myself or I shall lay down my head for the Russian land!~" The chronicle never used imaginary speeches, but insisted on a precise, factual rendering of the words of historical figures.
The chronicles abound with special terms connected to war, hunting, legal documents and religious life. Certain expressive phrases are repeated such as: ``to take a city by the spear" (seize a city), ``to mount one's steed" (start on a campaign), to ``wipe away the sweat" (return victorious), ``to eat the bread of one's grandfathers" (to sit on the throne of one's ancestors), to ``kiss the cross" (swear an oath) or to ``drive in the knife'' = __ERROR__ Missing close double-quote in original. (start warfare or strife). Often the chronicler used folk sayings or proverbs. The language of The Tale of Bygone Years gives evidence of an extraordinarily high level of oral and written speech in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
The Tale of Bygone Years laid the foundations for features characteristic of Russian chronicles as a whole: patriotic pathos, polemical treatment of historical material, vivid imagery, laconicism and expressive narration. It was important in the development of regional chronicles and in the creation of all-Russian chronicles during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Invariably it was included in these chronicles and served as an introduction to the history of Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, and later Moscow and the Muscovite state.
In the literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries The Tale of Bygone Years often served as a source of plots and images. When Sumarokov wrote his 83 classical tragedies he turned to Russian national history and the chronicles rather than to classical subjects (see his tragedies Sinav and Truvor, Khorev). Knyazhnin wrote his tragedy Vadim of Novgorod, a condemnation of tyranny, on the basis of The Tale of Bygone Years.
The images of Vladimir, Svyatoslav and Oleg were prominent in the romantic ballads of Ryleyev, steeped in love for freedom.
Pushkin was captivated by the language and simplicity of the Russian chronicle which inspired his ``Song of Oleg the Wise" and the image of Pimen in the tragedy Boris Godunov.
In our times the chronicle still has a great historical and educational significance. It continues to preach noble patriotic ideals and to teach people to have a profound reverence for the glorious historical past of the Russian nation.
1. M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, Povest vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years], M., 1971.
2. I. P. Eremin, ``~`Povest vremennykh let' kak pamyatnik literatury '', in Literatura Drevnei Rusi [``The Tale of Bygone Years as Literature", in The Literature of Old Rus], M.-L., 1966.
3. D. S. Likhachev, Russkie letopisi i ikh kulturno-istoricheskoe znachenie [Russian Chronicles: Their Cultural and Historical Role], M.-L., 1947.
4. D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi [Man in Old Russian Literature], M., 1970.
5. Povest vremennykh let, part I-II, prepared by D. S. Likhachev and B. A. Romanov, ed. by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1950.
6. M. D. Priselkov, Istoriya russkogo letopisaniya XI-XV vv. [The History of Russian Chronicles from the Eleventh to the Fifteenth Centuries], L., 1940.
7. B. A. Rybakov, Drevniaya Rus. Skazaniya, Byliny, Letopisi [Old Rus: Tales, Epics, Chronicles],M.-L., 1963.
8. M. N. Tikhomirov, ``Nachalo russkoi istoriografii'', Voprosy istorii [``The Beginning of Russian Historiography'', iaProblemy Istorii], No. 5, 1960.
9. L. V. Cherepnin, ``Povest vremennykh let, ee redaktsii i predshestvuyushchie ei letopisnye svody'', Istoricheskie zapiski [``~~`The Tale of Bygone Years': Redactions and Previous Chronicles'', in Historical Transactios], No. 25, 1948.
10. A. A. Shakhmatov, Povest vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years], vol. I, Petrograd, 1916.
11. Istoki russkoi belletristiki. Vozniknovenie zhanrov 84 syuzhetnogo povestvovaniya v drevnerusskoi literature [Sources of Russian Fiction: The Emergence of Plot in Old Russian Literature], L., 1970.
12. O. V. Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy [Old Russian Chroniclers], L., 1975.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE PANEGYRIC SERMONThe acceptance of Christianity in Rus led to the development of a homiletic tradition. Sermons were an important means of spreading the new religious dogma. Didactic sermons, such as those of Feodosy of the Caves or Luka Zhidyata, have no artistic significance and lie beyond the limits of literature.
Alongside the homilies we find solemn, emotional panegyric sermons with clearly political intentions.
One of the finest examples of oratorical prose in the eleventh century is the Sermon on Law and Grace, written between 1037 and 1050 by Ilarion, priest of the royal cathedral at Berestovo. He was evidently a man of extraordinary intelligence, a well-educated, talented writer. His sermon was probably delivered either at the Desyatinnaya Church or in the Cathedral of St. Sophia where it deeply moved Prince Yaroslav the Wise. At his command in 1051 Ilarion was consecrated as metropolitan of Kiev, a post which he did not fill for long. After Yaroslav's death, the succeeding prince was obliged to make a concession to Byzantium, and Ephrem, a Greek, assumed the office of metropolitan in 1055. Ilarion retired to the Kiev Crypt Monastery and was tonsured under the monastic name Nikon.
The Sermon on Law and Grace is a profoundly patriotic tribute to Rus and the Russian people who are proclaimed as equals to all Christian peoples and states. Ilarion contrasts the Byzantine concept of a universal empire and Church with the concept of the equality of all Christians. After pointing out the opposition 85 between Judaism (Law) and Christianity (Grace) Ilarion shows that Grace is superior to Law, for the Law was confined to the Jewish people and God gave Grace to all nations. The law of the Old Testament was given by God to the Prophet Moses on Mt. Sinai and applies only to the Jews; the Christian teachings of the New Testament, on the other hand, have a universal significance and each nation is entitled to freely elect this Grace. In this way Ilarion denied Byzantium's alleged monopoly as the exclusive bestower of Grace. D. S. Likhachev views Ilarion's sermon as a patriotic interpretation of world history: a hymn to Rus and Prince Vladimir who brought enlightenment to his people.
Vladimir's role in the acceptance and dissemination of Christianity in Rus is magnified by Ilarion, for Vladimir brought Rus into the family of Christian lands as a sovereign state. Vladimir ruled, ``not a miserable or unknown land'', but ``the land of Rus which is known and heeded to the very ends of the earth".
Ilarion's tribute to Vladimir enumerates the prince's services to his native land. He speaks of his contributions to the glory and might of Rus, emphasising that the Russian freely chose Christianity as a result of Vladimir's efforts, rather than those of the Greeks. The sermon even compares Vladimir to the Emperor Constantine with the former in a distinctly more favourable light.
The Sermon on Law and Grace called for Vladimir's canonisation. At the same time it glorified the deeds of Yaroslav who continued the work of his father with great success, helping to spread Christianity in Rus. Ilarion praises Yaroslav for building many churches and for helping to promote a Christian education.
The Sermon is composed according to a logical, well-considered plan which is laid out in the extended title: ``Sermon on the law, given to Moses, and the grace and truth that dwelt in Jesus Christ, and how the law departed and grace and truth filled the land, and the faith spread in all tongues and in our Russian tongue, and a tribute to our Lord Vladimir, who christened us, and a prayer to God from all our people.''
The first part contrasting Law to Grace is an 86 extensive introduction to the second and central part: the tribute to Vladimir, which concludes with the author's call for Vladimir to rise from his grave, awake and gaze upon the deeds of his son George (the Christian name of Yaroslav). The second part is intended to glorify Ilarion's contemporary, the Prince of Rus and his accomplishments. The third part is a prayer for ``all our land".
The Sermon is above all addressed to people `` well-versed in the pleasures of learning and books'', and accordingly the author clothes his work in literary rhetoric. He constantly cites the Bible and compares Biblical texts. The first part opposes Law to Grace, a theological argument illustrated by examples from the Bible itself, in particular the Biblical legend of the patriarch Abraham. Sarah, Abraham's wife, had no children and so Abraham sired his son Ishmael by the slavewoman Hagar. Soon afterwards Sarah gave birth to Isaac. Ilarion likens Law to the slavewoman Hagar and her enslaved son Ishmael, and Grace to the free Sarah and her son Isaac.
These parallels are supplemented with the images of Joseph's sons: Ephraim and Manassah: Manassah is the Law, for he has given up his birthright at the command of his father to Ephraim, who is Grace. These symbolic parallels are intended to give a clearer illustration of Law's inferiority to Grace.
In the first part of his sermon Ilarion maintains a consistent antithesis. This is a typical rhetorical device.
In the tribute to Vladimir he compares the deeds of the Russian prince to those of Christ's apostles:
``For the land of the Romans praises Peter and Paul who led them to believe in Jesus Christ, Son of God; Asia and Ephesus and Patmos praise the Apostle John; India---Thomas; Egypt---Mark; all lands and cities and people revere and glorify the teacher who taught them the true faith. Let us too, in accordance with our strength, give what faint praise we are able to that great and wondrous teacher and mentor, our Grand Prince Vladimir, grandson of ``old Igor'', son of the glorious Svyatoslav, who ruled with courage and bravery and was renowned in many lands for victories and strength and are remembered and honoured even today.'' Ilarion 87 shares the view of the chronicler who stressed that Vladimir was the son of the famed Svyatoslav and grandson of old Igor. He comments on the prince's military prowess and his purely Christian virtues.
Ilarion makes much use of literary metaphors in his sermon, both allegory and simile: Law is a dried-out lake, paganism is idolatrous darkness, the obscurity of demonic allegiance; Grace is a source that overflows, and so on. He frequently employs rhetorical questions and exclamations, typical devices of panegyric oratory which lend emotional power to a speech. The rhythmic organisation of the sermon serves a similar purpose. Ilarion often introduces repetitions and rhyming verb forms, as for example, in the following passage:
``... Ratnye progoni,
mir utverdi,
sir any ukroti,
glad ugobzi,
bolyary umudri,
grady razseli,
tscrkov tvoyu vozrasti,
dostoyanie svoe soblyudi,
muzhi i zhcny i mladentsy spasi.~"
[``He drove the soldiers off,
and made a lasting peace,
and subdued the land,
and ended famine,
and enlightened the boyars,
and sowed cities,
and increased the church,
and cared for his inheritance,
and saved men, women and children.''
This device gives the sermon a powerful emotional impact. The art evident in Ilarion's Sermon on Law and Grace made it one of the more widely read medieval texts and it became a model for writers from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries; they borrowed both devices and stylistic formulas from Ilarion's work.
The tradition of the panegyric sermon so magnificently worked out by Ilarion, was continued by Kliment Smolyatich and Kirill of Turov.
88If we judge by the chronicle description, Kliment Smolyatich was distinguished by his great learning and was known as a ``philosopher''. This evidently led the Council of Russian Bishops to elect him to the metropolitanate in 1147. His most famous work is an Epistle to Presbyter Foma. Foma accused Kliment of vainglory and pride, claiming that he wrote in the tradition of ``Homer and Aristotle and Plato who were famed for their Greek deceits''. Kliment's epistle refutes this, particularly in the second part with a ``subtle interpretation of Holy Scriptures'', that is symbolic and allegorical, in the form of questions and answers.
This sort of allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures was also employed by Kliment's younger contemporary, the talented late twelfth century writer known as Kirill of Turov. His vita in the prologue gives scant information. His parents, we learn, were wealthy and he was born in the town of Turov. Kirill became a monk and then retired to a tower; later he was consecrated Bishop of Turov. With regard to his literary efforts, the vita notes: ``...He told of many things from the Holy Scriptures and was renowned throughout this land.'' ``...A second Chrysostom came to teach us in Rus and was best of all.'' Thus did Kirill's contemporaries judge his writing.
Among Kirill's works are a condemnation of Rostov bishop and heretic Fedorets, an epistle to Andrei Bogolyubsky (not extant), eight panegyric sermons, two homilies, some twenty-two prayers and one canon.
Kirill's panegyric sermons were written on the occasion of various religious holy days, and lack the political polemicism and topicality of Ilarion's Sermon. Kirill's goal is to clarify the meaning of a given Christian holy day, to ``sing'', ``glorify'', ``adorn with words'', and ``praise''. This is accomplished through allegory and symbolic parallels. His imagery is wielded with taste and skill, and is distinguished by a unique lyrical quality and a flair for the dramatic. He alternates monologue, dialogue and lament. Kirill also interprets natural phenomena from a symbolic perspective, as in his Sermon on 89 the First Sunday after Easter.
All of his sermons are composed in three distinct parts: an introduction, a statement, and a conclusion.
The introduction is intended to capture the listener's attention, create a certain mood and prepare him for the following fundamental portion of the speech. This explains the anaphoristic aphorisms in, for example, the introduction to the fifth Sermon: ``How unmeasurable are the heights of the heavens; how unfathomable the depths of the abyss; how unknowable the mysteries of Divine Providence. Great and inexpressible is God's mercy which He bestowed upon the human race....''
Often Kirill begins a sermon with an extended metaphor; this permits him to use the images in the ensuing statement. An interesting example of this can be lound in the introduction to the eighth Sermon:
``Just as writers of history and orators, that is, chroniclers and songwriters, attended to battles and fighting among kings, and adorned them with words and magnified those who fought courageously for their king and did not flee from the enemy in wartime, glorifying them and crowning them with praise; how much more fitting is it that we heap praises upon the brave and magnificent warriors of God....''
Subsequently this comparison of the fathers at the Ecumenical Council smiting the impious heretic Arius with warriors is extended by the author into a unique song of victory.
Kirill of Turov's sermons are organically related to ecclesiastical music and painting. He brings the action out of the distant, dim past into the present and forces all who listen to become witnesses of events taking place ``here'' and ``now''. Through amplification the orator conveys spiritual trepidation and ecstasy to his audience. As one of the leading authorities on Kirill of Turov, I. P. Eremin, notes this gives the Biblical plots in his sermons the air of lyrical poetry in prose.~^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ See I. P. Eremin, ``Oratorskoe iskusstvo Kirilla Turovskogo'', Literatura Drevnei Rusi (``The Oratorical Art of Kirill of Turov'', in The Literature of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966.
90The concluding part of his sermons was generally either a tribute or a prayer in accordance with the holy day and sounded a final chord in the festive symphony.
Kirill of Turov's sermons were extremely popular in Rus and were included in the miscellanies known as Zlatoust and Torzhestvennik alongside the sermons of the famed Byzantine orator John Chrysostom. They show the artistic heights of Russian oratory in the late twelfth century.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ VLADIMIR MONOMARK'S INSTRUCTIONA special place in the literature of the eleventh and twelfth centuries is accorded to Vladimir Monomakh's Instruction included in the Laurentian Chronicle under the year 1096. Apparently the chroniclers regarded this as the prince's last testament written shortly before he died or about 1117. It was, however, entered in the chronicle under the year 1096, rather than 1125, the actual date of Monomakh's death.
This can be explained as follows. Monomakh's letter to Oleg of Chernigov, which follows the Instruction, was dated 1096. In Addition events described in the chronicle under the year 1097---the conference of princes at Lyubech, the blinding of Vasilko, Monomakh's peace treaty with Svyatopolk and the people of Kiev---clearly affirmed the justice of many of the teachings regarding the necessity for princes to fulfil their obligations and keep their word when they ``kissed the cross".
The renowned Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (1052--1125) introduced policies that temporarily halted internecine warfare between princes. He was famed for his victories over the Polovtsy whom he drove back far beyond the River Don and who used to frighten their children by telling them that Monomakh was coming. In 1113 he became Great Prince of Kiev and proceeded to work in every possible way to unify the Russian land; he fulfilled the demands of the newly established feudal order to the letter.
The central theme of his Instruction is a call to his children and all who read or heard the document to 91 abide by feudal law rather then act out of personal, selfish, family interests. The Instruction goes beyond the confines of a family will and has a great social significance.
Vladimir's wealth of personal experiences provides a lofty example of how a prince might serve the interests of his country.
The Instruction alternates between didactic and autobiographical elements. Monomakh's teachings are confirmed, not only by sententiae from Holy Scripture, but above all by concrete examples from his own life.
First and foremost the Instruction is concerned with the interests of the state. A prince's sacred obligation is to look out for the good of his land, to unite it, and to strictly observe all vows and treaties. The main thing is not to violate things over which one has kissed the cross, says Monomakh, that is, to keep one's word. A prince must concern himself with ``Christian souls'', ``the humble serf'', and ``the poor widow''. Internecine strife undermines the political and economic might of the state. Only peace can lead to the flowering of a land. Therefore the ruler is obliged to keep the peace and should not permit ``burning villages" as a result of internecine wars.
No less obligatory for the prince, as Monomakh sees it, is attention to the good of the Church. He was well aware of the Church's role as the prince's trustworthy helper. If a prince wishes to consolidate his power he must constantly attend to the order of the priesthood and of monks. Monomakh does not, it is true, recommend that his children attain salvation by entering a monastery. This life-affirming, energetic man was no ascetic. But he does call for the strict observance of religious ritual for he believes that through ``repentence, tears and charity" one can atone for one's sins.
In accordance with Christian morality Monomakh calls for his children to care for the poor. A prince must also maintain justice and not permit ``strong men to kill another'', just as Vladimir himself never let the strong ``offend'' either the ``humble serf" or ``the poor widow".
A prince has to set an example of lofty morals. The 92 most fundamental virtue in man is industriousness. Labour for Monomakh is, above all, exploits in battle, and then the hunt where man's body and soul are tempered in the constant struggle against danger.
Among examples from his own life Vladimir mentions eighty-three major campaigns, not bothering to speak of minor forays, and twenty peace treaties. He speaks of how he constantly risked his life hunting: ``Two aurochses charged me and my horse with their horns; a stag butted me, and of two elk, one trampled me with his hooves and the other gored me, ... a wild beast leaped at my thigh and knocked me and my steed to the ground....''
For Vladimir the worst vice is laziness: ``For laziness is the mother of all others: the lazy man forgets what he knows and cannot learn what he knows not.''
Sloth can lead to sudden death during military campaigns and can harm the economy of a prince's country. An experienced proprietor and military leader, Vladimir tells his children never to trust stewards or servants, but to examine everything themselves. Likewise in time of battle one should not rely on the voyevoda, but should ``array'' his sentries himself and sleep alongside his men without disarming. Vladimir also warns against falsehood, drunkenness and fornication which ``destroy both body and soul".
Monomakh's Instruction shows him to be an extremely active man: ``I did what my orderly should have done and did not rest at war or on a hunt, day and night, summer and winter.''
Vladimir was also a determined advocate of learning: ``Forget not what good you know and that which you know not, learn,'' he says pointing to his father Vsevolod who learned five languages ``sitting at home'', that is, in Kiev; this earned him ``honour in other lands".
A prince should be generous and never cease to worry about his good name. Vladimir notes that a prince must present a guest, be he of simple or noble origins, with gifts, feed him and quench his thirst because such people ``spread a man's glory through all lands as they pass and will speak either good or 93 bad of their host".
A prince's daily life should be a model for those around him: he should visit the sick, bid farewell to the dead---for all men are mortal. His family relations should be based on respect for women: ``Love your wife, but do not let her dominate you.''
Thus Monomakh's Instruction embraces many aspects of life. He answers numerous social and moral questions of his day and his teachings are directed, not only to his children, but to everyone who reads the testament.
At the same time the Instruction tells us many things about the author himself, the first known secular writer of Old Rus. Above all Vladimir was well educated and thoroughly acquainted with the literature of his day. He uses the Psalter, the Parimiynik, the teachings of St. Basil the Great, Xenophon's and Theodore's precepts to their children (which can be found in the Miscellany of 1076) and the Hexaemeron. The Psalter is used by Monomakh as a means of conveying his psychological state. In his grief at encountering envoys from his brothers who urge him to unite and drive out Rostislavich, Vladimir takes up the Psalter: ``Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me?~" (Ps. 42 : 5). His soul is cast down because his brothers want to kindle internecine war and because they are outraged that he, Vladimir, has refused to join them and break his vow. The encounter of 1098 inspired Monomakh to write his Instruction. It was precisely then that he ``gathered his words and organised them and began to write''. These words help us to reconstruct the process of composing the Instruction: first the choice of necessary material from books, then ordering the material, and finally the process of writing.
The Instruction is organised according to a clear plan: the introduction addressing the writer's children has typical self-denigration, characteristic of the Old Russian writer, and Monomakh asks the reader not to mock his work, but to take it to heart. His final request is: ``If you are not pleased by the last part, then at least heed the first.''
The central didactic part of the Instruction begins 94 with a philosophical discussion of God's love for man and His mercy, the necessity for triumph over evil and the possibility of this triumph, and its pledge of beauty and harmony of God's created world. With great lyrical inspiration Vladimir speaks of ``how the heavens were created and the sun and moon and stars, and light and darkness and the firmament placed in the midst of waters...''. He marvels at the miracle of man, ``how he formed different human faces, enough to fill the whole world, not in one image, but each with his own image...''. He admires how ``heavenly birds come from paradise, and first into our hands, and do not settle in one country, but both the weak and the strong go forth into all lands, by God's command, so that the forests and fields should be filled".
After praising the harmony of the universe Vladimir once again addresses his children, asking them to attend to his own teachings based on his own weak reason. He first speaks of the benefits of prayer and then offers practical instructions concerning the functions of a prince and his economy, and finally daily behaviour. The last chord of the Instruction is an inspired call to praise God in the morning at sunrise, when deciding on matters of state, or hunting, going off to battle or lying down to sleep.
At this point the Instruction would seem to be logically concluded, but Monomakh instead appends a list of his ``labours'', a unique diary of military campaigns in the manner of chronicle entries lacking only dates. His travels are arranged in strict chronological order, beginning in 1072 and ending in 1117: seventy-four campaigns are enumerated.
Then Monomakh lists peace treaties, followed by a catalogue of hunts which reveal him to be a bold, passionate trapper.
Once again Monomakh concludes by addressing his children and others who may read his document; he asks them not to condemn him. Vladimir then explains that he is not praising himself or his courage, but God who guarded this ``miserable sinner" from death for many years and created him ``not slothful and vile, but capable of any human deed''. In this way Monomakh 95 avoids accusations of being a proud writer or of boasting about his own virtues. He expresses his faith that his children will read his testament and strive to do good deeds, exhorting them not to fear death whether in battle or from wild beasts, but to fulfil their ``manly duties" without trembling.
The Instruction is followed directly by a letter from Vladimir to Prince Oleg Svyatoslavich of Chernigov, notorious for constantly stirring up internecine strife (the author of The Lay of Igor's Host rightly calls him ``Goreslavich''-that is ``Son of Woe''). Defeated by Vladimir and Svyatopolk, Oleg was forced to abandon Chernigov and retreat to Rostov where he clashed with Vladimir's son Izyaslav. Oleg killed Izyaslav in the course of the battle and captured his wife. This event which occurred on September 6, 1096 was the reason for Vladimir's letter to Oleg of Chernigov.
Vladimir writes that his son Mstislav sent him a message begging him to smooth things over and make peace rather than avenge the death of Izyaslav so as to save the Russian land. Vladimir's letter paints a vivid picture of the grief of a father who has suffered the untimely loss of a son. Appealing to his enemy's human feelings, Vladimir asks him to imagine his reaction had he seen the body of his own son before him and calls upon him to share the grief in his heart.
Vladimir, who wishes the best for his ``brothers'' and the ``Russian land'', speaks of reconciliation with Oleg and asks only that he release Izyaslav's wife ``so that we can mourn together and then I can settle her in my home, weeping like a turtle-dove on a dried-out branch; I myself would find consolation in the Lord".
The image of a weeping turtle-dove is traditional in oral folk poetry and gives evidence of Vladimir's poetic perception of reality.
The letter to Oleg of Chernigov supplemented the Instruction and may have been appended by the author himself. It shows the triumph of common state obligations over the personal feelings of a father destroyed by grief.
On the one hand, Vladimir's Instruction has many literary elements derived from a judicious choice of 96 sources, and on the other hand, the living language is evident, particularly in the description of the many dangerous hunting expeditions. Vivid laconic aphorisms characterise the style of the Instruction.
On the whole both Instruction and epistle reveal an extraordinary state figure from the Russian Middle Ages and an incarnation of the ideal prince, guarding the honour and glory of his native land.~^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ HAGIOGRAPHYOriginal hagiographical works appeared in connection with Rus' political struggle to confirm religious independence and show that the Russian land had its own intermediaries and intercessors to bring their pleas to God. By swathing the prince in an aureole of holiness vitae helped to consolidate the feudal system.
The anonymous Tale of SS Boris and Gleb was the model for Old Russian royal Vitae. Although it was probably written in the late eleventh or early twelfth century it has survived in late twelfth century copies. It is based on a historical event: Svyatopolk's murder of his younger brothers Boris and Gleb in 1015. This was recorded in the chronicles in the form of a historical tale. Later in the 1040's Yaroslav induced the Byzantine Church to canonise the murdered brothers; a new text glorifying the spiritual achievement of the martyrs and Yaroslav's vengeance for their death was then required. On the basis of the chronicle account the anonymous Tale of SS Boris and Gleb was composed.
This Tale retains its historicism, recounting in detail all of the circumstances of the murder. Like the chronicle the Tale sharply condemns the murderer, `` Svyatopolk Okayanny" (the Accursed), and speaks against all fratricides, defending the patriotic ideal of the unity of _-_-_
~^^1^^ T. N. Kopreyeva makes some interesting remarks on the style of the Instruction in her essay ``K voprosu o zhanrovoi prirode 'Poucheniya' Vladimira Monomakha" (``On the Genre of Vladimir Monomakh's Instruction''), TODRL. vol. 27, 1972.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---315 97 ``the Great Land of Rus".Byzantine hagiography had none of the historical concreteness of the Russian Tale which also propounded the critical political concept of familial seniority in the system of royal succession. One goal of the Tale was to consolidate feudal law and order and glorify the obedience of vassals: Boris and Gleb could not go against their older brother who took the place of a father for them. Thus Boris will not consent to the urgings of his guardsmen to take Kiev by force. Similarly Gleb voluntarily goes to meet his killers, despite the warning of his sister Predslava; he keeps his faith with his older brother. The servant youth Georgy, who shields his prince with his own body, is likewise praised for his loyalty.
Traditional vitae describe the entire life of the saint, from birth to death. The Tale, however, recounts only one episode from the lives of the heroes: their foul murder. SS Boris and Gleb are portrayed as ideal Christian martyrs who willingly accept the ``crown of thorns''. The glorification of this Christian feat is accomplished in the traditional hagiographical manner. There are many monologues in the narrative: laments of the heroes, prayers, and so on. These serve as a means of expressing their religious sentiments. Boris' and Gleb's monologues are in the tradition of ecclesiastical literature. They are not devoid of imagery, dramatic power and lyricism. Rhetorical questions and exclamations, characteristic of religious oratorical prose, are also evident in these monologues. At the same time we find many vivid elements from oral folk laments which lend additional lyricism and give clearer expression to the emotions.
Gleb's tearful plea to his murderers is particularly moving: ``Do not cut me down for I have not yet lived out my time! Do not cut down the unripe ear of corn, that holds the milk of innocence! Do not cut down the vine that has not yet matured but still bears fruit!~" The pious thoughts, prayers and laments uttered by SS Boris and Gleb help to reveal their inner world and psyqhology.
Many such monologues are pronounced ``in their 98 thoughts" or ``in their hearts''. These are the product of the author's imagination and give a unique picture of the pious emotions and thoughts of these ideal heroes. The monologues also include quotations from the Psalter and the Parimiynik.
Descriptions also show the heroes' psychological state, as, for example, in the scene where Boris has been abandoned by his guardsmen: ``with grief and sorrow and a downcast heart he entered his tent, weeping, sick at heart, but rejoicing in spirit, and said with plaintive voice....'' Here the author is attempting to show opposing feelings experienced by the hero: sorrow due to foreknowledge of impending death and joy in his capacity of ideal martyr awaiting the crown of thorns. Here true feelings constantly conflict with etiquette. When Gleb catches sight of ships at the mouth of the River Smyadin sailing toward him, he rejoices with youthful trust, ``expecting a warm greeting''. Then evil murderers begin to leap into Gleb's boat with bared swords that glisten like the water: ``the oars fall from their hands and all go numb with fear''. At this point Gleb realises their intentions and with tears in his eyes, ``weakened'' in body, implores the murderers: ``Do not touch me for I have done you no evil, my dear beloved brothers! Lay not your hands upon me, my lords and brothers, touch me not!~" This is genuine living truth; later it mixes with etiquette fitting the behaviour of a saint.
Boris and Gleb are wreathed in a halo of sanctity in the Tale. This is accomplished not only by glorifying their Christian virtues, but by describing many fantastic posthumous miracles connected with the saints, a typical hagiographical device which can be seen in the Tale's conclusion. Posthumous miracles magnify and glorify the saints as does the tribute with which the Tale ends. Here the author employs traditional Biblical similes, forms of prayerful address, and citation of Holy Scripture (these also abound in the heroes' monologues).
In addition the author attempts to give a general picture of the appearance of his heroes---a fairly mechanical catalogue of virtues. Boris is described as follows: ``Tall and handsome of corpus, round-faced, broad-- __PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1980/HORL354/20070408/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.04.09) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ shouldered, with a narrow waist and beautiful eyes; a cheerful face; a slight beard and moustache, for he was still a young man and shone forth like a king, firm of limb, adorned in every way, and blossomed forth in his youth; courageous in battle, giving wise counsel and sound judgement, and God's grace shone in him.'' Obviously the author is attempting to recreate only the most general positive features of this saint and prince, the ideal hero.
The ideal Christian heroes---princes and martyrs---of the Tale are placed in opposition to a negative character: ``Svyatopolk the Accursed'', possessed by envy, pride, love of power and a violent hatred of his brothers. These vices are explained by the author in terms of his origins: Svyatopolk's mother was a nun taken from her cloister and given in marriage to Yaropolk. When Yaropolk was killed by Vladimir she became the latter's wife. Thus Svyatopolk was born of two fathers, a fact which helps to create the antithesis between him and his brothers Boris and Gleb. Svyatopolk embodies all negative human and Christian traits. The author spares no colours to depict this. Svyatopolk is ``accursed'', ``thrice accursed'', ``a second Cain'', whose thoughts are caught up by the devil; he has ``most foul lips" and ``a vile voice''. For his crime Svyatopolk is fittingly punished. Beaten by Yaroslav he takes flight in panic. ``His bones were weakened so that he could not even sit on his horse and was carried on a stretcher.'' He constantly imagines the sound of horses' hooves as though Yaroslav was coming after him: ``Run! They're coming closer! Alas,'' he would cry, ``I cannot bear to stay in one place.'' In the wilderness, among Czechs and Poles he ``gave up his evil ghost''. While the brothers murdered by him will ``live throughout the ages" and remain the ``tower'' and ``affirmation'' of the Russian land, with imperishable bodies that exude a sweet fragrance, Svyatopolk's grave which ``remains to this day" gives forth ``a foul stench so that all may bear witness''.
Svyatopolk is contrasted, not only to the ``earthly angels" and ``heavenly mortals" Boris and Gleb, but? to the ideal earthly king Yaroslav who avenges his brothers. Yaroslav's piety is emphasised by having him utter a 100 prayer, allegedly spoken before the battle with Svyatopolk. The battle itself occurs on the very site of Boris' murder on the River Alta; this has symbolic significance. Yaroslav's victory is related to the end of internecine strife in the Tale, evidence of its political topicality.
The dramatic, emotional narrative coupled with mention of recent political events (Svyatopolk's murder of his two brothers) made the Tale extremely popular among medieval readers. It is no wonder that the Tale has survived in 170 copies.
Due to its extensive narrative and detailed historical facts the Tale was not conductive to liturgical purposes. In the 1080's a special service was composed by Nestor and entitled the Lection of the Lives of SS Boris and Gleb. The Lection corresponds to traditional hagiographical canons. On the basis of Byzantine models Nestor begins with an extended rhetorical introduction which is somewhat polemical. In accordance with literary etiquette he speaks of his ``vulgarity and lack of understanding" and particularly stresses Vladimir's role in the adoption of Christianity as the state religion.
The central part of the Lection presents the vitae of Boris and Gleb; these lack the concrete details of the Tale and are more abstract. The death of the martyrs represents the trimph of Christian humility over diabolical pride which leads to enmity and internecine warfare.
Numerous miracles testifying to the glory of the martyrs, a tribute and a prayer to the saints conclude the Lection.
Comparison of the Lection and the Tale show that Nestor was primarily concerned with religious, didactic aims. The cult of SS Boris and Gleb had great political importance due to this, treatment. At the same time Nestor's faithfulness to Byzantine models, in particular the vitae of SS Romanus and David, deprived his work of the vividness and emotional qualities characteristic of the anonymous Tale.
101Apart from princely vitae we find purely religious hagiography. The Kiev Crypt monks not only kept a chronicle record of events, but took pains to collect legends about the lives and deeds of their fellows. These legends served to explain the monastery's leading role on Russian religious life and its active interference in areas of secular life. In the mid-thirteenth century these legends and tales were collected in the anthology which, in the fifteenth century, was given the name Kiev Crypt Patericon.
The Patericon was started when Simon, Bishop of Suzdal, began a correspondence with the Kiev Crypt monk Polikarp, and also contains an epistle from Polikarp to Hegumen Akindin, written in the 1220's.
Not content with being a simple monk Polikarp dreamed of the episcopal mitre and attempted to use his influence with Prince Rostislav Rurikovich's wife Anastasia (Verkhuslava) to attain a higher ecclesiastical position. His intrigues and pride disturbed Bishop Simon of Suzdal who wrote to Polikarp criticising the monk for ``loving high rank" and reminding him of the sanctity of the Kiev Crypt Monastery. Simon declared that he himself was willing to give up his bishop's rank for a quiet undisturbed life in the holy cloister. The monastery was so renowned for its holiness that the mere fact of being buried in its confines, as Simon saw it, absolved one of all sins.
Simon emphasised the cultural role of the Kiev Crypt Monastery for all the Russian land: it had given the country many renowned Christian teachers, Leonty and Isaiah of Rostov, Metropolitan Ilarion, Bishops Herman and Nifont of Novgorod, and Efrem of Suzdal, among others. He notes that there were at least fifty such figures.
In order to support his contentions Simon relates a ``Tale of the Holy Crypt Monks" which contains nine accounts of the holy fathers ``who, like the sun's rays, shone forth to the ends of the universe'', and the story of the building and adornment of the Crypt Cathedral.
Under the influence of Simon's epistle Polikarp in 102 turn writes to Akindin, Hegumen of the Kiev Crypt Monastery, telling of the feats of thirty other monks so that others could learn of ``the holy life of sainted fathers''.
Later the tales of Simon and Polikarp were put together, supplemented with the vita of St. Feodosy of the Caves (written by Nestor in the late eleventh century) and a chronicle tale of the Crypt monks (entered in The Tale of Bygone Years under the year 1074). This was the form of the oldest surviving manuscript of the patericon dating to 1406; edited by Arseny, Bishop of Tver, this redaction is known by his name. In 1460 and 1462 Hegumen Kassian of the Kiev Crypt Monastery issued another, fuller redaction under the name the Kiev Crypt Patericon.
The Patericon begins with a story of how the frescoes in the Crypt Cathedral were painted. The stone church was built in 1073 in the name of the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos. It served as an architectural model for many later Churches of Dormition built in Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir-on-the-Klyazma, and Vladimir Volynsky. Its construction was wreathed in legends, many of them fixed in the Patericon.
The Patericon contains short stories of spiritual feats performed by the Crypt monks---``brave men in the service of God''. Based on oral monasterial legends, the tales are often fantastic, describing miracles, visions and struggles with demonic powers. At the same time many dark sides of daily monastic life can be viewed beneath the fantastic narratives. The legends contain many historical details and deal with political questions as well.
Much space is devoted to portraying the relations of the monks with the Great Prince of Kiev. As a rule in clashes between the monastery and secular authorities, the monks are victorious. Prokhor the Elder puts Svyatopolk Izyaslavich to shame by transforming ashes into salt. This tale of fTokhor-lebednik (the man who carried lebeda [orach] collected for baking bread---Tr.} reflects the competition between the Great Prince, the Kievan merchants and the Monastery in the salt trade and the efforts of Kievan merchants to get the Great Prince to support their monopoly in this trade. By producing his 103 own salt and distributing it to the population, Prokhor triumphs over them and Svyatopolk is forced to make peace with the Hegumen.
Elders Fedor and Vasily are so strong in spirit that no tortures can make them reveal the secret of a treasure discovered by Fedor in the Varangian Cave to Prince Mstislav. Here the Patericon condemns the selfishness and greed of Mstislav Svyatopolkovich who is punished accordingly. After shooting Vasily, the prince himself is killed in a battle with Igor Davydovich by the same arrow, just as the elder predicted.
All those who fail to venerate the monastery and its elders are cruelly punished. This is the mpral of the tale about the monk Grigory who was ordered drowned in the Dnieper by Prince Rostislav. As he fled from the Polovtsy, the prince himself was drowned in the same river, a fitting fate. As to the monk, he was seen in his cell miraculously rescued. ``He was bound, with a stone tied to his neck. His clothes were dripping, but his face radiant, and he looked safe and sound.''
Princes Svyatoslav, Vsevolod and Vladimir Monomakh are treated with great sympathy in the Patericon. ``Faithful'' Prince Svyatoslav began to dig the foundations of the Crypt Cathedral with his own hands and gave 100 grivnas of gold toward its construction. Vsevolod and Vladimir Monomakh venerated the monastery and its monks.
Many takes relate struggles against demons, personifying the lower impulses, passions and motives. Demons take on various forms: dogs, a foreign invader, a monk and even an angel. Usually the pious monk triumphs and the demon is put to shame and forced to labour for the holy cloister: grind grain, bake bread, or drag heavy logs. Beneath the religious, fantastic elements one can discern many details from monastic life. Monks were also hypocritical, envious, selfish, and desirous of the pleasures of worldly life.
One such hypocrite was the spiritual son of the Blessed Onisifor who ``pretended to fast and abstain, but secretly drank and ate and lived in vice''. The Elder Fedor dreams of returning to his previous wealthy worldly life when he finds a treasure and is kept on the 104 path of righteousness only by heeding the teachings of Vasily.
The monastery's renown was gained not only through ascetic feats of its monks, the Patericon stresses, but through their ability to heal (Agapit), their literary mastery (Nestor), their beautifully composed canons (Grigory), their knowledge of Scripture (Nikita), their grasp of foreign languages (Lavrenty spoke Latin, Hebrew and Greek) and their master icon-painters (Alimpy). Their glory spread ``throughout the land of Rus''.
Under conditions of feudal disintegration when Kiev had already lost its role of a political centre, the Patericon was extremely important for it recalled a former glory, the grandeur of Kiev and the role of the Kiev Crypt Monastery as a symbol of the unity of the Russian land.
Pushkin praised the art of the Patericon which delighted him with its ``charming simplicity and imagination''.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE PILGRIMAGE OF ABBOT DANIILWith the establishment of direct ties between the Russian Church and the Christian East the genre of religious journies arises. As they mastered the tenets of the new Christian religion the Russian began to long to see the places described in the Scriptures. Already in the eleventh century we find Russians making pilgrimages to the Christian East to see these ``holy places''. As a sign that he had been in Palestine, the traveller returned with a palm branch, thus the name ``pilgrim'' (palomnik in Russian); pilgrims were also called kalikas, a word derived from the Greek term for a particular kind of footware (kaliga) favoured by such travellers. Pilgrimages helped to broaden and consolidate Kievan Rus' international relations and helped to work toward national consciousness.
When pilgrimages began to be widespread, however, the secular authorities attempted to curtail them, for they caused serious harm to the state economy. 105 Gradually not only laymen, but monks as well were forbidden to make the journey to Palestine and all were advised ``not to seek God and salvation with their feet'', but to perform their vows and fulfil their obligations at home. Those people who could not go to Palestine had to be satisfied with descriptions of pilgrimages. One of these was The Pilgrimage of Abbot Daniil to the Holy Land written in the early twelfth century.
Abbot Daniil journeyed to Palestine in 1106, stayed for sixteen months in Jerusalem and returned to his native land in 1108. He describes this sojourn in Palestine in his Pilgrimage.
The long journey was undertaken at the compulsion of ``thoughts and impatience" to see the holy city of Jerusalem and the promised land. ``Due to my love for these holy places,'' writes Daniil, ``I have described everything that I have seen with my own eyes.'' The work is designed for a certain readership, ``for the faithful'', so that those who have heard of these holy places might visit them in their thoughts and hearts and thus gain equal reward from God as those who travelled to the places themselves. Thus Daniil intended his Pilgrimage as both a source of information and a means of moral instruction: he wishes his readers to make the journey in their minds and to receive the same spiritual benefits as the traveller himself.
Daniil's Pilgrimage is of great interest for its detailed descriptions of ``holy places" and due to his own personality as author.
It begins with the topos of self-denigration: Daniil refers to himself as ``unworthy'', ``most miserable of monks'', and asks that the reader not condemn his poor reason and vulgarity. At the same time he emphasises his status as a Russian Hegumen, which is to say that throughout his journey he sees himself as the plenipotentiary of the entire land and not merely his own region or monastery.
In his account of the difficult journey Daniil notes that it was difficult ``to experience and witness all the holy places" without ``a good guide" and a knowledge of the language.
He is extremely eager to learn about the landscape, 106 the location of cities, the architecture of Jerusalem and the irrigation system around Jericho. He gives a good deal of interesting information on the River Jordan whose banks are flat on one side and steep on the other and bear a strong resemblance to the Russian river Snov. The Russian pilgrim notes that he has ``measured and drank of" this famed river and crossed from one bank to the other. To give a clearer picture of the Jordan for his Russian audience Daniil repeatedly stresses that ``in all ways it is like the River Snov in breadth and depth, and in that it has a swift current and many bends, just like the Snov River''. He notes that the small trees growing on the Jordan's banks are like the Russian pussy-willow and that the bushes resemble Russian willow-bush. Apparently the Russian abbot also sampled the water which he describes as ``very cloudy and sweet to drink and those who do cannot get enough: no one falls ill from it or suffers untoward effects''.
There are many descriptions of the fertile lands about Jerusalem where ``good wheat grows" because ``the soil is good and fertile, and the fields beautiful and even, and nearby there are many date palms which grow quite tall and all sort of fruit trees''. His zealous eye for economic details can be seen in his accounts of the island Samos, rich in fish, and Ikos, rich in cattle and well-populated.
Daniil likewise tries to convey the feelings of a pilgrim as he approaches Jerusalem, the ``great joyfulness" and ``abundant tears''. He gives a detailed description of the road to the city gates, past the Tower of David, and of the architecture and dimensions of churches.
As many specialists have observed Daniil's description allows us to get a good idea of the topography of Jerusalem in the early twelfth century.
There are many religious-fantastic legends in the Pilgrimage. Daniil either heard these during the pilgrimage or read of them beforehand and accordingly resolved to verify them on the spot. He easily combines canonical writings and apocrypha. With utter conviction he writes that outside the walls of the Church of Ressurrection behind the sanctuary is the ``navel of the earth'', 107 and twelve sazhens further lies the site of the crucifixion with a stone higher than a spear that has an opening about one lokot deep---here the cross upon which Christ was crucified was placed. Beneath this stone lies Adam's skull and when Christ was crucified the stone split in two and Christ's blood washed Adam's skull, thus cleansing the human race of its sins. Daniil hastens to ``prove'' this ``fact'' in the manner of the chronicle: ``And that cleft can be seen in that stone to this very day.'' This apocryphal legend gives a vivid illustration of the dogma that Christ died for man's sins and was firmly entrenched in Old Russian painting as well.
Although Daniil's attention is mainly focused on religious questions he nevertheless thinks of himself as the representative of the Russian land in Palestine. He proudly states that he, a Russian Hegumen, was received with honour by King Baldwin (at the time Jerusalem was in the hands of the Crusaders). He prays at the Holy Sepulchre for the entire Russian land. When the icon lamp placed by Daniil in the name of the Russian land is lighted by the Holy Light and the Prankish lamp is not, he sees this as a sign of God's especial mercy and goodwill toward Rus.
Thus a journey undertaken with purely religious goals displays the same patriotism as the chronicle and other works of literature written in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
1. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, ``Zadachi izucheniya agiograficheskogo stilya Drevnei Rusi" (``Problems of Studying the Hagiographical Style in Old Rus''), TODRL, vol. 20, 1964.
2. N. K. Gudzy, htoriya drevnerusskoi literatury (A History of the Old Russian Literature), 7th edition, M., 1966.
3. I. P. Eremin, ``Skazanie o Borise i Glebe. K kharakteristike Nestora kak pisatelya'', Literature Drevnei Rusi (``The Tale of Boris and Gleb. Nestor as a Writer'', in Literature of Old Rus), M.-L. 1966.
4. D. S. Likhachev, Velikoe nasledie (The Great Heritage), M., 1975.
5. A. S. Orlov, Vladimir Monomakh, M., 1946.
6. B. A. Rybakov, Skazaniya, Byliny, Letopisi (Tales, Bylinas, Chronicles), M., 1963.
7. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literature XI-XVII vehov (Anthology of Old Russian Literature from the Eleventh to 108 Seventeenth Centuries). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, 8th edition, M., 1973.
8. Khudozhestvennaya proza Kievskoi Rusi XI-XIII vekov (The Literature of Kievan Rus from the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Centuries),M., 1957.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE LAY OF IGOR'S HOSTThat immortal work of Russian and world literature, The Lay of Igor's Host, was discovered by the collector of Old Russian manuscripts A. I. Musin-Pushkin in the late 1780's. Archimandrite loel, Father Superior of the Monastery of the Saviour at Yaroslavl (non-active by Catherine II's command) handed over a manuscript miscellany to Musin-Pushkin which, if we judge by the description, was written in the sixteenth century somewhere in Northwestern Rus (around Pskov or Novgorod). Many of the works included in the miscellany were secular including the World Chronicle, The Short Chronicle of Russian Princes and the Russian Land, the Tale of the Wealth of India, the Tale of Akir the Wise, The Lay of Igor's Host and The Deeds ofDigenis.
Musin-Pushkin's discovery was first mentioned in 1792 by the journalist and playwright P. A. Plavilshchikov. Early in 1797 M. M. Kheraskov in his commentary to the sixteenth song of poem Vladimir informed readers that a medieval work had been discovered. In October of that year the French journal Spectateur du Nord featured a note by N. M. Karamzin reporting the discovery of the Lay of Igor's Warriors which he felt compared with the best poems of the Ossian cycle.
Scholars A. F. Malinovsky, N. N. Bantysh-- Kamensky, and N. M. Karamzin (as a consultant) were requested by Musin-Pushkin to work on the manuscript and as a result of their labours in 1800 the text of the Lay together with a modern translation, introduction and notes was published.
In either 1795 or 1796 a copy seems to have been made for Catherine II which was then lost in the archives and published only in 1864 by P. P. Pekarsky.
109The great Moscow fire of 1812 destroyed MusinPushkin's manuscript collection, including the copy of the Lay and a good portion of the first printed edition. Scholars were left with the printed text and the notes made by the first men to work with the manuscript. One hundred and seventy-five years have elapsed since the first edition saw the light, but to this day there remains a tremendous interest in this work. The clearest evidence of this are the many articles and monographs, both Soviet and foreign, which continue to treat The Lay of Igor's Host.~^^1^^
The plot is based on genuine historical events. From 1061 on the southeastern borders of the Kievan state were subjected to devastating attacks by the nomadic Polovtsy from the steppe. Often Russian princes themselves urged the ``pagans'' to attack in the heat of internecine strife. Early in the twelfth century Vladimir Monomakh undertook a series of major campaigns against the nomads and managed to throw them back, far beyond the River Don.
After Monomakh's death, however, the feudal disintegration of the Kiev state increased and the Polovtsy commenced regular attacks on South and Southeast Rus. South Russian princes were compelled to take emergency measures to defend themselves against the nomads from the steppes. In 1170 a conference of South Russian princes was convened at which Mstislav _-_-_
^^1^^ See ``Slovo o polku Igoreve''. Bibliografiya izdanii, perevodov i issledovanii (The Lay of Igor's Host. A Bibliography of Editions, Translations and Research). Compiled by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1940; ``Slovo o polku Igoreve'', Bibliografiya izdanii, perevodov i issledovanii 1938--1954gg. (The Lay of Igor's Host. A Bibliography of Editions, Translations and Research from 1938 to 1954). Compiled by L. A. Dmitriev, M.-L., 1955; L. A. Dmitriev, ``Problemy isslcdovaniya 'Slova o polku Igoreve'~" (``Problems in Researching The Lay of Igor's Host''), TODRL, vol. 20, 1964. For a study of the language see also V. L. Vinogradova's as yet uncompleted Dictionary of the Lay of Igor's Host, vols. \A, L., 1965--1973.
110 Izyaslavich declared: ``The Polovtsy are taking over the Greek Road (along the Dnieper), the Road along the Don, and the Road along the Danube.''Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Great Prince of Kiev, managed in 1183 to form a small coalition of South Russian princes; they attacked the Polovtsy in summer 1184. The campaign was successful; Khan Kobyak was captured and executed in Kiev. Heartened by this victory, Svyatoslav and his allies prepared for a second assault in summer 1185. The pricnes of Novgorod-- Seversky, led by Igor Svyatoslavich, had also agreed to participate in the campaign of 1184 but were unable to reach South Rus in time due to ice-crusted roads. Thus they did not participate in this campaign.
As he prepared to join the battle against the nomads in the spring of 1185, the prince of Novgorod-Seversky was eager for a victory, and dreamt of personal glory and possibly of recovering the ancient land of Tmutarakan which had once been ruled by the princes of Chernigov, in particular, Igor's grandfather Oleg. But the campaign ended in a stunning defeat. The Russian princes were captured and only 16 men remained to tell the tale.
These historic events---the campaign and defeat of the Seversky princes, Igor Svyatoslavich, his brother Vsevolod of Kursk, his son Vladimir of Putivl and nephew Svyatoslav Olgovich of Rylsk---form the basis for The Lay of Igor's Host.
Two historical tales describing this campaign have survived in the North Russian Laurentian Chronicle and in the South Russian Hypatian Chronicle.
The tale of Prince Igor of Novgorod-Seversky's campaign against the Polovtsy in the Hypatian Chronicle gives a detailed, consistent description of the event. The narrative is steeped in sorrowful sympathy for the participants of the campaign and their defeat. It is an artistic, dramatic, vivid account and its author was apparently either a participant in the event or a man close to the Prince of Novgorod-Seversky.
The Laurentian Chronicle gives a laconic, general account. The chronicler clearly condemns Igor and his brother Vsevolod, and the narrative shows a clear 111 religious, didactic colouring with abundant citations from Scripture.
Of these two different redactions one was composed in Southern Rus by a man who took the defeat of the Seversky princes and the South Russian principalities to heart; the other appeared in the northeast where the misfortunes of the distant south failed to move the chronicler, who used the defeat of Igor for religious, didactic purposes.
If we compare The Lay of Igor's Host with the historical entries in the chronicle we can more readily appreciate its consummate art.
The Lay of Igor's Host was written between 1185 and 1187 which can be established on the basis of the text. The author speaks of Prince Vladimir Glebovich of Percyaslavl as being among the living; the chronicle tells us that he died in 1187.
Igor Svyatoslavich escaped from captivity in 1185 and accordingly the Lay could not have been written before his return to Rus. In 1187 Vladimir Igorevich, together with his young wife Konchakovna and son, was released by the Polovtsy; the concluding part of the Lay proposes a toast in honour of this prince. These considerations determine the chronological framework of The Lay of Igor's Host. N. S. Demkova has proposed other dates.~^^1^^
Our unknown author composed his work right on the heels of the event and accordingly assumed that his contemporaries were well aware of historical details. His goal was to offer a fitting political evaluation of the campaign, to show his contemporaries the significance of Igor's defeat for the fate of the entire Russian land.
_-_-_^^1^^ ``K voprosu o vremeni napisaniya 'Slova o polku Igoreve''', Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta (``On the Date when The Lay of Igor's Host Was Composed'', in Leningrad University Bulletin. Series: History, Language, Literature), No. 14, 1973, issue 3.
112For the author of the tale the Russian defeat on the River Kayala did not indicate God's wrath and desire to punish Igor for his reprisals against the inhabitants of the city of Glebov (which he captured earlier), but as an indication of the great evil of feudal disintegration, the lack of unity among princes and the breaking of faith between vassal and suzerain---the Great Prince of Kiev. It condemns the egoistic policies of princes hungry for personal glory. As a result Rus was faced with a ``sad year'', when princes began to praise their own small deeds and victorious pagans entered the Russian lands to demand tribute.
Igor's defeat inspires serious thought on the part of the patriotic poet with regard to the fate of the Russian land; the message of the tale is a passionate ``call on the Russian princes for unity---just before the invasion of the Mongolian hordes proper..."^^1^^, as Karl Marx noted in a letter to Frederick Engels when he became acquainted with this magnificent work of Russian literature. This theme is embodied throughout the artistic structure of the tale, above all in its plot and composition.
The tale begins with a brief introduction, an address to Boyan, a poet of ancient times. This introduction is not directly connected to the narrative, but deals with artistic principles of narration and is a sort of dialogue with the reader or listener. It stresses the sorrowful, solemn pathos of the work. Subsequently the author begins the actual narration of events of the campaign including a laconic, expressive portrait of Igor with emphasis on his patriotic goals. The author stresses that he undertook the campaign in the name of the entire Russian land: Igor ``led his brave host beyond the Russian land to the land of the Polovtsy''.
The tale commences with a description of how the Russian warriors embark upon the campaign. As opposed to the chronicle account the initiative is taken not by Igor, but by Vsevolod who calls for his brother to saddle his spirited steeds. The author does not tell us when Igor set off or from what point, nor does he follow the path of the Russian host; but he does insert a _-_-_
^^1^^ Marx/Engels, Werke, Ed. 29. S. 23.
113 vivid picture of the landscape that has profound symbolic meaning. In comparison with the chronicle account events come swiftly to a head. After a brief emotional tale of the first conflict between the Russian and the Polovtsy and the many trophies taken by the Russian, there is a sharply contrasting scene with a symbolic description of nature on the eve of the second battle: bloody twilight, clouds coming in from the sea, and other evil portents. When he describes the battle the author focuses on the heroic figure of Vsevolod-fcuz tur (courageous aurochs) and briefly mentions that Igor is attempting to get his forces back to the battlefield and prevent them from fleeing.The plot culminates in the defeat of the Russian forces. Here the author shows the consequence of this defeat for the entire Russian land, stressing that as a result of Igor's disaster the chances of success for Kievan Prince Svyatoslav's coalition campaign have been reduced to zero.
Kiev and the Great Prince emerge as symbols for a unified Russian land. For this reason the action shifts to the Russian capital. Svyatoslav then has ``obscure'' symbolic dream which is interpreted by his boyars: Igor has been defeated. In the chronicle account Svyatoslav learns of the defeat in Chernigov from Belovod Prosovich. The prince expresses his sorrow at the events in his ``golden speech" mingled with tears. The monologue of the Great Kievan Prince becomes a passionate polemical call addressed by the tale's author to the Russian princes and urging them to stand up for the Russian land, to avenge the wounds of Igor Svyatoslavich, and finally to cease the incessant internecine warfare.
This polemical address is then followed by the lyrical lament of Igor's wife Yaroslavna. It functions as a vital link in the development of the plot by foreshadowing the denouement---Igor's flight from captivity. Igor returns to Kiev (in the chronicle he first goes to Novgorod-Seversky) and thus acknowledges his guilt for betraying his obligations to his sovereign and the Russian land. The Lay concludes with a proclamation of a tribute to princes Igor, Vsevolod, Vladimir Igorevich and their guardsmen.
114Thus The Lay of Igor's Host does not offer a consistent tale of the campaign and even contradicts certain historical facts. The author chooses the most significant episodes and thus is able to express his own relation to events more vividly and convey his basic theme to the reader. The civic patriotic theme is precisely the means for fusing the parts of the work into an artistic whole. Its clear political thought, lyrical agitation, polemical passion and broad historical philosophy make The Lay of Igor's Host ``a magnificent, fragrant flower of Slavic folk poetry worthy of attention, remembrance and respect.~^^1^^
The author of the tale constantly strives to evaluate contemporary events in terms of history. He attempts to explain Igor's defeat by relating the events of 1185 in historical perspective, comparing past and present, `` contrasting the glory of both times''.
In a resume of the plot he declares that he will tell of events ``from old Vladimir to our contemporary Igor''. Scholars have not yet determined who he means by Vladimir. Some believe that he is referring to Vladimir Monomakh, others---Vladimir Svyatoslavich. The latter would appear to be more justified in their opinions since there is no mention of events after the death of Vladimir Monomakh in 1125 in the tale, but many references to events in the mid and late eleventh century which would link the allusion to the name of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. The author would thus be comparing this ``sorrowful year" of feudal internecine strife with the period of the flowering of the Kievan state.
Furthermore when the author does mention Vladimir Monomakh he does not refer to him as ``old''. Ilarion uses the same epithet in his Sermon on Law and Grace, calling Vladimir the grandson of ``old Igor''.
The author of the Igor tale creates his own poetic, _-_-_
^^1^^ V. G. Belinsky, Collected Works in thirteen volumes, vol. 5, p. 333 (in Russian).
115 but nevertheless precise periodisation of the history of Rus: ``the age of Troyan" marks the distant pagan past; it is followed by the flowering of Rus under Vladimir and his son Yaroslav; their deaths mark the period of princely strife and internecine war continuing to the time of ``our contemporary Igor''.The beginning of princely wars is connected by the author to the activities of Oleg Svyatoslavich of Chernigov, Igor's grandfather. This is the reason that at the climax of the tale during the battle between the Russians and the Polovtsy the author introduces a historical episode dealing with strife in Oleg's reign. It was the grandfather of Igor who began ``to forge strife with his sword and sow arrows throughout the land''. Episodes in Oleg's internecine war are recalled with laconic expressiveness. It was Oleg who first called upon the Polovtsy to help him and attack the Russian land. The author also recalls the bloody battle on Nezhatina field in 1078 when both sides suffered heavy losses and Oleg's young and conceited ally Boris Vyacheslavich fell in battle. His main concern was, of course, the serious consequences of Oleg's civil wars for the Russian land: ``Under Oleg, Son of Woe, civil war was sown and grew among us; the good of Dazhdbog's grandson was lost; and man's age was cut short in princely strife; then the ploughman was rarely heard on the Russian land, but ravens croaked and divvied up the corpses and jackdaws chattered. They want to fly off to get their prey!~" Oleg's constant warfare was above all harmful to the people whose peaceful labours were interrupted. Internecine strife robbed the country of its economic resources and decimated the population. The author calls Oleg ``Son of Woe" because the aggressive prince earned a bitter renown in the Russian land.
Like the chronicler the author takes a tribal view of history. He believes that the politics of strife and alliance with the Polovtsy and the violation of feudal obligations begun by Oleg will be continued by his grandsons, the princes of Seversky. Igor's defeat is seen as a consequence of that policy begun by the prince of Chernigov, the progenitor of the brave nest of the Olgoviches (descendents of Oleg).
116The author also recalls another instigator of feudal strife: Vseslav Bryachislavich of Polotsk. The tale of Vseslav is connected to the author's plea to his contemporaries, the grandsons of Yaroslav and Vseslav, to end old enmities and abandon their grandfather's notoriety, to unite their forces for a struggle against Rus' foreign enemies.
Princes of Polotsk first took a hostile view of Kievan princes, according to the chronicle, when Vladimir Svyatoslavich married Rogneda, Princess of Polotsk. Legend has it that she tried to murder her hated husband as revenge for his killing of her father and brothers. Her grandson, Vseslav Bryacheslavich of Polotsk, was born of ``magical charms'', and had a pellicle on his head which, the chronicler explains, made him prone to spill blood without mercy. In 1066 Vseslav attacked the sons of Yaroslav and took Novgorod ``with women and children and hauled down the bells of St. Sophia''. The author of the Lay mentions this with laconic expressiveness: ``... he opened the gates of Novgorod and shattered Yaroslav's glory''.
In 1067 the armies of Vseslav and the Yaroslaviches (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod) clashed on the Nemiga: ``there was a fierce battle and many fell''. Vseslav had to flee. Soon the princes made peace, ``kissing the cross''. But Izyaslav, who did not trust Vseslav, broke the oath; he seized Vseslav and threw him into a Kievan dungeon.
In 1068 for the first time the Polovtsy defeated Russian princes Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod. The people of Kiev held a veche and demanded that Izyaslav supply arms and horses so that they could attack their enemies. When the prince refused the citizens rebelled and on September 15 freed Vseslav from the dungeon since the latter had promised them mounts. This episode is narrated at length in The Tale of Bygone Years; our author relates it as follows: ``He [Vseslav] through cunning, relying on horses, galloped to the city of Kiev and touched the golden throne with his spear.'' After a week as Great Prince Vseslav was obliged to flee. The Lay describes this symbolically: ``He galloped off in the form of a wild beast at midnight from the white city 117 wreathed in blue mist.''
Events are not always in chronological order in the Lay. First the author speaks of things that occurred in 1068, then of 1066 and 1067. He is concerned with showing the disastrous consequences of the strife between the Yaroslaviches and Vseslav when ``the bloody banks of the Nemiga were sown, not with good seed, but with the bones of the sons of Rus''.
As D. S. Likhachev notes, Vseslav is depicted in the Lay not only with condemnation but with a certain warmth: the restless prince darting about Rus like a hunted beast astouned his contemporaries with his swiftness and was nicknamed veshchy---a. magician and werewolf. At the same time he was also an unhappy, unlucky victim; Boyan composed the following refrain about his fate: ``Neither the cunning, nor the capable, nor the able bird can escape God's judgement.''
When speaking of the strife between the descendants of Vseslav of Polotsk and Yaroslav's family in Kiev the author notes that it led to glory for no one and only helped to strengthen the enemies of Rus---the Polovtsy and the Lithuanians.
Among the author's sources were The Tale of Bygone Years and folk epics. But the author of The Lay of Igor's Host never treats facts from the chronicle from a religious, moralistic point of view; he evaluates them from the perspective of the people's interests. His historical digressions and excurses are intended to remind his contemporaries, the descendents of the ill-fated Vseslav and the warring Oleg, of the consequences of a policy of civil strife and to restore a firm, peaceful coalition of princes for a united struggle against the enemies of Rus.
In order to better comprehend and explain current events the Lay's author recreates a picture of the past. He also attempts to give a historical explanation for the attacks of the Polovtsy: they are trying to avenge Sharuakan, grandfather of Konchak, who was routed by Vladimir Monomakh in 1106. This is what the song of the Goth ``beautiful women" ``on the blue sea" tells us; they ``sing of Booz's time'', that is of the days when Vinitar, leader of the Goths, defeated the Ants and 118 executed their leader Booz.
Thus the author of The Lay of Igor's Host examines each current event in historical perspective, comparing the present with the past, and drawing a poetic picture of Russian history in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Much of the Lay deals with the deeds of Igor and Vsevolod, the main figures in the campaign (Vladimir Igorevich is mentioned only toward the end in the toast and Oleg Svyatoslavich is not mentioned at all). The author clearly sympathises with his heroes and sees them as the finest representatives of his generation of princes.
Above all Igor is extraordinarily courageous, an illustrious warrior who has decided to stand up for the Russian land: ``Igor ... strengthened his wits with his will and honed his heart with courage, and was filled with the spirit of battle.'' For the good of his native land he is ready to undergo any sacrifice or trial. His speech to his druzhina is courageous and noble: ``~`My brothers and druzhinal It is better to be killed than captured; thus, brothers, let us mount our swift steeds and look upon the dark blue Don.'... 'I wish,' he said, 'to break a lance on the edge of the Polovtsian land, together with you men of Rus; I wish to lay down my head, or else to quaff of the Don from my helmet.'~" Igor delivers this inspired speech at the time of a solar eclipse when ``darkness obscured all his men''. The dire omen could not influence the prince who had made up his mind with passionate firmness to ``quaff of the great Don'', and defend the Russian land.
We do not see Igor in the battle at the Kayala, but the author does mention his courage and nobility when turning back fleeing troops to help his brother Vsevolod.
Vsevolod is just as valiant a soldier and cannot be separated from his brave, experienced troops who ``were swaddled to the call of trumpets, rocked to sleep beneath helmets, fed from the tip of spears, and knew 119 every road and ravine; their bows were drawn, their quivers open, their swords sharpened; they leap like grey wolves in the field seeking honour for themselves and glory for their prince''.
Vsevolod's valour at the battle on the Kayala is unequalled. Like the Russian bogatyrs in byliny Vsevolod-bui tur rains arrows on the enemy and thunders against their helmets with steel swords. His gold helmet gleaming, he gallops about the battle field, striking down his foes. He is utterly absorbed in the battle, forgetting his own wounds and his father's golden throne, and even the caresses of his beautiful wife Glebovna. This hyperbolic depiction of Vsevolod's behaviour in battle and the transfer of the soldiers' feats onto his persona is based on the artistic principles of oral folk literature.
The author also praises the military prowess of princes from ``Oleg's good nest'', closely related to their ``brave forces'', the brave men of Rus. Svyatoslav, Great Prince of Kiev, values their courage highly. His address, ``Your valiant hearts are forged of strong damask steel and tempered in courage,'' expresses his thoughts toward those princes defeated on the River Kayala.
Such epithets as ``suns'', ``light'' and ``falcons'' symbolise the protagonists, Igor and Vsevolod. Symbolically they are in clear contrast to images of ``darkness'', ``clouds'', ``jackdaws'', and ``black ravens" representing the enemy, Polovtsy.
``Black clouds approach from the sea, wishing to obscure four suns.''``For it was dark on the third day; two suns were eclipsed; both purple pillars were extinguished and sank into the sea, and with them both young moons, Oleg and Svyatoslav, were obscured.'' These symbolic pictures of the defeat of the princes of Seversky are employed by the nobles who decipher Svyatoslav's ``obscure dream''. ``On the river, on the Kayala darkness overcame light.'' This triumph of darkness and the enemies' ``great boldness" is only temporary. As soon as Igor returns to Kiev ``the sun shines in the heavens, for Prince Igor is in the Russian land''. ``As the body needs a head,'' says the author, ``so the Russian land cannot do without Prince Igor.''
120The princes' deeds are evaluated from the people's point of view. Igor and Vsevolod are condemned for wanting personal glory. When they decide to see the city of Tmutarakan, which belonged to Chernigov before being seized by the Polovtsy, these ``falcons'' flew away from their father's ``golden throne" and ``conquered without honour, spilling pagan blood without honour''. ``Already pagan swords have clipped the falcons' wings and have captured them in iron traps.'' They began to ``assault the Polovtsian land too early with their swords'', without waiting for the coalition of princes organised by Svyatoslav of Kiev and thus reduced to nil the earlier successful campaign. Thus these two brave sons of Svyatoslav, Igor and Vsevolod, aroused an evil which their father had subdued earlier.
The author stresses the tremendous harm done by the defeat of Russian forces on the Kayala, not only to the princes of Seversky, but to the entire Russian land whose ``times turned for the worst''. Therefore Igor has exchanged his golden saddle for that of a slave and is condemned by Germans, Venetians, Greeks and Moravians.
For their failure to keep feudal obligations to the Great Prince of Kiev and their desire for personal glory, Igor and Vsevolod are condemned by the author. Gripped by a thirst for personal renown they resolved to ``screw up their courage and steal past honours and secure those of the future''.
One cannot place personal, princely glory above the honour and glory of the Russian land, says the civic poet. For this reason he has Igor flee first to Kiev, in effect confessing his guilt before the sovereign and the Russian land. Both through events and their evaluation the author calls upon the princes to strictly observe their feudal obligations to their sovereign, the Great Prince of Kiev, who embodies the honour and glory of the entire Russian land.
At the same time the author is deeply sympathetic to the plight of the princes of Seversky. Together with nature, the Russian women, Yaroslavna and the Russian land, the poet expresses his pity and sorrow on the occasion of the defeat of Igor, Vsevolod and their brave 121 men. Like Kievan Prince Svyatoslav the author cannot allow the molting falcon to leave his nest unprotected; for the civic poet Igor's wounds become a symbol of the consolidation of all forces in the Russian land for the struggle with foreign enemies.
Svyatoslav, the ``great and terrible Kievan prince'', is more the embodiment of an ideally wise and powerful Russian ruler, a guardian of Rus' honour and glory, than a historical portrait. Svyatoslav is idealised. Historically Svyatoslav did not play an essential role in the politics of the time. A protege of the more powerful and active Prince Rurik Rostislavich, he governed Kiev alone and at times his rule was only nominal.
In The Lay of Igor's Host Svyatoslav's victory over the Polovtsy in 1184 is celebrated. Then, at the head of his valiant forces, ``he marched on the land of the Polovtsy, over hills and ravines, stirring up rivers and lakes, drying out streams and swamps. Then the pagan Kobyak was wrested by him like a whirlwind from the cove, from the iron ranks of the Polovtsy regiments''. Svyatoslav's victory is praised by the Germans, Venetians, Greeks and Moravians for it guaranteed safe trade routes between Rus and Southwestern Europe.
Svyatoslav's image is developed in his ``obscure dream" and ``golden speech''. Here the wise ruler expresses his grief over his imprudent vassals and ``sons'', and his bitter distress that his vassal-princes do not help him, their sovereign. His ``golden speech" is filled with civic sorrow at the discord among princes, their lack of unity, and above all their neglect of their obligations to their father's ``golden throne'', the Russian land. The author finds it simple to transform the ``golden speech" into a polemical, passionate call for the most powerful princes of Rus to stand up ``for the land of Rus and the wounds of Igor, bold son of Svyatoslav!~"
With a sober assessment of contemporary politics the author addresses those princes on whom the fate of the nation depends, above all Vsevolod Great-Nest of Vladimir-Suzdal. This mighty prince had just completed a successful campaign against the Kama Bulgarians; his forces could ``stir up the Volga with oars, and pour out the Don with helmets!~" By calling him ``Great Prince" 122 the author appears to be reminding Vsevolod of his obligations to Kiev and the Russian land to ``guard the paternal golden throne''. Perhaps these words contained a subtle political allusion. People of the times still recalled the events of 1169 when Vsevolod Ill's brother Andrei Bogolyubsky sacked Kiev (this was how the princes of Suzdal guarded the golden throne! ): ``If you were here then there would be slavewomen for a nogata and slaves for a rezana," says the author to Vsevolod. (The hyperbole stresses that if Vsevolod were in Kiev, slavewomen would cost about thirty cents---and slaves---about twelve cents---Tr.). We should note that in the Old Russian Legal Code (Russkaya pravda) the value of a slave was estimated at about 35 roubles (twenty-six dollars---Tr.}.
In case Vsevolod does not wish to fly to distant Kiev the author mentions that he will have the opportunity to ``shoot living spears (no one has yet deciphered this word, sherishiry---Tr.) over land by means of the bold sons of Gleb''. That is he can send his vassals like ``living spears" against the Polovtsy; thus the princes of Ryazan would perform their duties to their ``paternal golden throne''.
Knowing that prince Rurik Rostislavich and his brother Davyd of Smolensk also had an interest in Kievan and South Russian affairs, and praising the courage of their men who ``roar like aurochses wounded with tempered swords on unknown fields'', the author calls upon the princes to put their feet in the ``golden stirrups and avenge the insults of the day, the Russian land, the wounds of bold Igor Svyatoslavich!~"
The author gives credit to Prince Yaroslav Osmomysl of Galich. His iron men stopped the King of Hungary from attacking Rus and participated in the Crusades, ``from the patriarchal golden throne shooting sultans of distant lands''. His power extends as far southwest as the Danube; even Kiev is dependent on this prince who opens its gates. The author is well aware that Yaroslav remained in his native Galich all his life and never himself participated in one military campaign. He therefore asks the prince to send his army against Konchak, but not to join the battle himself.
The author also addresses the brave prince Roman 123 Mstislavich of Volhynia, renowned for his valour, with an appeal to help his motherland, asking him and the princes of Lutsk and Peresopnitsk---Ingvar and Vsevolod---to close the gates so that the nomads cannot enter Rus.
These appeals to the princes reveal an estimate of each principality's strength. The author asks that forces be consolidated, not calling for a united state; he merely wishes feudal obligations to be honoured and reminds the vassals of their duty to remain faithful to their sovereign, the Great Prince of Kiev. As an example of the consequences of not fulfilling these obligations the author points to Oleg ``Son of Woe'', Vseslav of Polotsk and the bitter fate of his contemporary Igor.
The appealing character of Yaroslavna, a Russian woman who remains true to her husband Igor, represents one of the finest artistic achievements of the Lay. She embodies the loftiest features of Old Russian womanhood. The author does not take the religious view of woman propagandised by the Church as a ``vessel of the devil'', a source of all male misfortunes and sorrows, but sees her as a faithful helpmate who deeply loves her beloved husband and with the power of true womanly love helps him to return from captivity. In her lyrical lament Yaroslavna sends her thoughts both to her husband and his soldiers. Her sorrow at Igor's defeat is the sorrow of all women and mothers of Rus made universal in one magnificent, sublime image!
The Russian landscape is an independent character in The Lay of Igor's Host, for its author's poetic view of the world is that of the folk epic. Nature has its own existence here and at the same time serves as an artistic means for commenting on events. One of the oral folk devices is the personification of forces of nature. Although the author is a Christian, his Christian views remain beyond the borders of his poetry. He finds a certain aesthetic value in paganism and thus incorporates many images from pagan mythology in his poem. 124 Pagan mythology serves as a poetic repository of images. ``The whole lay is Christian-heroic in character though heathen elements are still very much in evidence,'' wrote Karl Marx.~^^1^^
Before going into battle Igor and his forces are warned by nature of the dangers that threaten them: ``The sun barred his path with darkness; with moans of a storm the night woke the birds; the whistling of beasts rose in the air: the Div awoke and called from the treetops....
``Wolves call to the storm from along the ravines; eagles cry for the beasts to come to the bones; vixens yelp at the scarlet shields.''
The author of the Lay is well versed in flora and fauna of the steppe. But the animal world takes on symbolic meaning in the poet's writing. Together with the mythological Div who warns the Polovtsy that Igor has begun his campaign, the forces of nature foreshadow the defeat of the Russian warriors.
A symbolic picture of nature that bodes ill begins the description of the second battle: ``Bloody dawns foretell the light; black clouds approach from the sea,... within them quivers blue lightning. There will be a terrible storm! Rain will flow like arrows from the great Don!~" Stribog's grandsons the winds blow from the sea like arrows at Igor's brave men. In fact the winds did favour the Polovtsy during the battle; thus we see both a reflection of reality and a vivid symbol.
After Igor's defeat nature grieves along with the Russian people: ``The grass droops with pity and the tree bends to the earth in its melancholy.''
Yaroslavna turns to nature to vent her sorrow and at the same time to make the bright and thrice-bright Sun, Wind and Dnieper Slovutich help Igor to escape from his hated captivity.
In this regard Yaroslavna's lament also takes on the function of a magical charm designed to harness the forces of nature. The love of this Russian woman triumphs and she forces these powers, that had been hostile during Igor's campaign and the battle, to serve her dear husband. The Donets River has a tender talk _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 29, S. 23.
125 with Igor, glorifying and justifying the hero: ``Prince Igor! Great is your glory and your hatred for Konchak and the joy in the Russian land!~" The river lulls the prince in its waves, making him a bed of green grass on its silver shores and covering him with warm mists beneath a canopy of trees.When Igor is fleeing ``the ravens don't croak, and the jackdaws are silent, and the magpies stop their chatter; only the grass-snakes crawl; the woodpeckers beat out the path to the river, and the nightingales proclaim the light in joyful song''. When Igor reaches the Russian land ``the sun shines in the heavens''. Thus the forces of nature participate directly in the development of events. These personifications of nature help the author to give vivid, poetic expression to his political ideas: by wilfully launching a campaign Igor violated his obligations to the Russian land and nature turned from him and joined his enemies; when Igor confesses his guilt before his native land and escapes in order to submit to Svyatoslav in Kiev, the forces of nature joyfully welcome the prince and actively help him.
The author of the Igor tale calls upon princes to serve the interests of the Russian land, rather than their own personal- selfish interests. The Russian land and its people, Dazhdbog's grandsons, are the true heroes of the Lay. For it is in the name of the interests of his native land and people that the poet lifts his passionate voice. He is well aware of the complexities of Russian politics of his age and conceives of Rus' fate in a broad historical perspective. The honour and glory of his motherland profoundly concern him. This is why he depicts Igor's defeat as a terrible insult to the entire Russian land, a theme vividly embodied in the poetic image of the Deva-Obida (Maid Ire) who rises among the forces of ``Dazhdbog's grandson'', that is, the Russian people.
In The Lay of Igor's Host the Russian land is not only Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Novgorod-Seversky, Putivl and Kursk, as some scholars believe, but Great 126 Novgorod, Vladimir, Suzdal, Ryazan, Polotsk, Gorodensk, Smolensk, Turov, Pinsk, Galich, Vladimir-- Volynsky, Lutsk and Peremyshl. Even distant Tmutarakan, held by the Polovtsy, is seen by the author as part of the Russian land. Its wide expanses are bounded on the south by the sea and the Danube, on the west by the Carpathian Mountains and the Western Dvina River, on the northeast by the Volga, on the east by the Donets and the Great Don, and on the southeast by the Sula.
He traces the roots of the Russian land's might to the deeds of ``old'' Vladimir and ``old'' Yaroslav, and focusing on Russia's ``present, sorrowful year" expresses his regret that ``old Vladimir can no longer be held at the hills of Kiev''.
As a passionate patriot and citizen the author conceives of the Russian land in terms of one mighty feudal state whose political centre is in Kiev and whose vassals are strictly loyal and obedient to their sovereign.
If the Russian land is to flourish economically it must have peace; the internecine wars where princes begin to make much of molehills must cease. The ingenious poet expresses the interests of Russian peasants and craftsmen, while condemning the egoistic policies of the princes. In this respect he is the opposite of Boyan, a court singer who composed panegyrics in honour of Russian princes.
For the author Boyan is the ideal bard: the prophetic grandson of Veles, that is, a man endowed by God with a talent for song. His songs are like the trills of nightingales. He uses many images and expresses lofty thoughts. Boyan's prophetic fingers pluck out a hymn of glory to princes on the living strings of the human soul. He is master at weaving the past into the present. Among those praised in Boyan's songs are old Yaroslav and brave Mstislav who conquered Rededya, Prince of the Kasogs, as well as the handsome Roman Svyatoslavich, the wars of Vseslav Bryachislavich whose fate was described in the ``refrain''. These facts permit us to 127 conelude that Boyan probably lived and worked in the period from 1020 to 1080, during the lifetime of the princes glorified in his songs.~^^1^^
The author cites a few examples of Boyan's poetic speech in his discussion of artistic narration, and shows how Boyan would have begun the tale of Igor: ``It is not a storm that brought the falcons across the broad fields ---flocks of jackdaws hurry to the Great Don.'' Or, he continues, Boyan might have expressed it in this way: ``Steeds neigh beyond the Sula---glory sounds in Kiev. Trumpets blare in Novgorod and banners fly in Putivl.'' If we judge by these images Boyan's style was based on negative similes, symbolic comparisons, and was aphoristic and abundant in imagery. While he admires Boyan's work, the author still chooses another means of expression.
The author calls his work a Slovo (sermon, address---Jr.), a ``sorrowful'' or ``military'' (depending on how one interprets the adjective trudny---Tr.) ``tale'', and a ``lay''. In his essay, ``The Lay of Igor's Host: A Model of the Political Oratory of Kievan Rus'', Professor I. P. Eremin notes that such a combination of terminology was used only in reference to oratory, that is, works of a panegyric, rhetorical = __ERROR__ Superscript "1" in original should be "2". nature.^^2^^ Professor Eremin is, therefore, inclined to view the work as representing predominantly an oratorical genre. In fact oratorical style is prominent in the Lay. It is addressed to an audience, ``brothers'', to whom the author constantly appeals using rhetorical questions and exclamations.
The oratorical, polemical message of the poem is _-_-_
^^1^^ Information regarding Boyan was unearthed in an inscription on St. Sophia in Kiev regarding the purchase of Boyan's land by Maria Mstislavna, wife of Vsevolod Olgovich in the late twelfth century (see S. A. Vysotsky, ``Nadpis o Boyanovoi zemle v Sofii Kievskoi'', Istoriya SSSR (``An Inscription about Boyan's Land in St. Sophia in Kiev'', in The History of the USSR), No. 3, 1964.
^^2^^ See L P. Eremin, Literatura Drevnei Rust, pp. 144--63.
128 embodied in the call for the Russian princes to defend the Russian land. The clear poetic design of the work, consisting of an introduction and three parts, resembles the design of Ilarion's Sermon. This undoubtedly brings The Lay of Igor's Host close to oratorical works. But there are also many elements of the military tale in the Lay as well. Its subject is a campaign, its heroes---- warrior-princes and their brave druzhinas who seek honour for themselves and glory for their sovereigns. Like a military tale the Lay rings with military glory and its author devotes a great deal of attention to heroic battles. __NOTE__ mother-fucking traitorsMany images and symbols characteristic of military tales can be found in the Lay: ``breaking the tips of the nomads' spear'', meaning to rout the enemy; ``drinking with a helmet from the Don"---to triumph over the foe at the Don; ``to lay down one's head"---to fall in battle; ``to put one's foot in the golden stirrup"---start a campaign; ``rain flows like arrows''; ``banners cry out"---the army says; ``Oleg forges strife with a sword''. These and other military terms are used to show the moral qualities of the characters. Igor ``strengthened his wits with his will and honed his heart with courage, filling himself with the spirit of battle''. Vsevolod's men are described as being ``swaddled to the call of trumpets, rocked to sleep beneath helmets, fed from the tip of spears''.
But the saga of Igor is not only a military tale; it is a song according to the events of the day, which is to say it follows the facts. At the same time these facts are the foundation of the epic genre presented in the author's lyrical, emotional perspective. By means of folklore imagery he expresses his admiration for the princes' valour, grieves at their fate, reproaches their blindness, passionately calls upon them to unite in defense of the Russian land, rejoices at Igor's return from captivity and glorifies the prince.
Certain symbols are related to the poetic traditions of folk songs: the sun and young moons, the falcons (representing the princes); ten falcons loosed on a flock of swans (Boyan's prophetic fingers on his psaltery), and the lonely cuckoo lamenting (Yaroslavna). The 129 description of Igor's flight is also based on symbols and parallelisms frequently found in folk songs.
Traditional folk symbols are also found in the description of Svyatoslav's dream: the black cloth---a symbol of the funeral, the pearl---symbolising tears, boards without a roof-ridge in the golden-topped tower---a sign of misfortune, and the croaking of gray daws---an evil omen.
The personification of nature is part of the oral poetic tradition, as is the wonderful lyricism of Yaroslavna's lament. Personification of abstractions, including the Deva-Obida (injury) and Kama and Zhlya (grief and sorrow) who gallop across the Russian land, are also rooted in folk poetry, as are many of the Lay metaphors, similes and epithets. Among those tropes commonly found in folk poetry are ``spirited steeds'', ``beautiful women'', ``open country'', ``damask swords'', and ``gray wolf''.
We find comparisons of battle to a bloody marriage feast (``...here the brave Russians finished the feast: they gave the matchmakers to drink and laid themselves down for the land of Rus''), to the sowing (``beneath the hooves the black earth was sown with bones and watered with blood: the grief sprouted throughout the Russian land...''); and to the threshing (``on the Nemiga sheaves are formed from heads; threshed with damask flails and one's life is given on the threshing floor, the soul winnowed from the body...'').
The comparison of a bloody battle to peacetime agricultural work stressed the incompatibility of war and peace, and the necessity for peace if the country was to achieve a flourishing, strong economy.
Such vivid similes and parallelisms as ``it is not a storm that brought the falcons across the broad fieldflocks of jackdaws hurry to the Great Don''; ``...carts cry out at midnight like frightened swans''; and `` Polovets prince Gzak runs like a gray wolf" are also tied to folk song traditions.
Other similarities to folk songs include the refrains that separate one episode from the next. For example the refrain ``Oh, Russian land, you are already over the hill!~" accompanies the movements of the Russian 130 forces and increases the narrative tension. The author's addresses to the Russian princes are consistently ended with the refrain ``For the Russian land, for the wounds of bold Igor Svyatoslavich!~" which expresses the basic theme of the work. Each of the three stanzas of Yaroslavna's lament begins with the refrain: ``Yaroslavna laments early in Putivl by the wall, saying...''
The style of the Lay is based on literary images and symbols which are rooted in both folk and written traditions. The author not only tells of events, he shows them through a colourful combination of contrasting hues and sounds. V. F. Rzhiga commented on the poetic significance of sound-imagery in the Lay which is filled with the voices of birds and beasts, with songs and resonance.
No less important are colours as, for example: the golden throne, the golden helmet, the gold-topped tower, the golden saddle, golden arrows and finally the ``golden speech''. This epithet is related to the symbolism of the colour of gold in Old Russian icon painting and monumental art. Gold symbolises magnificence, glory, eternity. When he calls Svyatoslav's speech ``golden'', the author is stressing its moral significance; when speaking of Igor's exchange of a golden saddle for that of a slave he is presenting a tangible image of the prince's misfortune. One superb example is the image of the death of Izyaslav Vasilkovich, Prince of Polotsk: ``he dropped his pearly soul from his brave body through a golden necklace''. This is comparable to the image of St. Demetrius of Salonika in twelfth century icon painting.
Among some of the contrasting colours consistently found in Old Russian painting are: silver-gray hair, silver shores, silver streams, green cape, green grass, green tree, dark-blue sea, dark-blue Don, dark-blue mist, dark-blue wine, crimson shields, crimson banners, white standard, gray wolves, steel-blue eagles, gray ravens. These colourepithets made written images more tangible.^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ On colour in Old Russian literature see: A. M. Panchenko, ``O tsvete v drevnei literature vostochnykh i yuzhnykh slavyan" (``Colour in Medieval East and South Slavic Literatures''), TODRL,\o\. 23, 1968.
131While the Lay is not written in verse, its rhythms still form an organic unity with its content. Scholars note many assonances, consonances and alliterations.
The author thus does not follow Boyan's style, neither does he go beyond the events of his time, that is, historical tales. Rather he bases his work on traditions of folk poetry. His familiarity with the finest models of original and translated literature helped the ingenious poet to create a heroic poem that was original in form and content, profoundly lyrical, passionately patriotic, and a fine example of polemical oratory.
He chose a form that would allow for the freest possible arrangement of material and provided plenty of room for personal meditation and direct addresses to the audience---his contemporaries and distant posterity.
Comparison of The Lay of Igor's Host with La Chanson de Roland, Das Nibelungenlied, El Cantar de Mio Cid and The Knight in the Tiger's Skin reveals common typological features of the medieval epos and at the same time sets the specific features of the Old Russian work in relief.~^^1^^
The medieval epos was created in the age of chivalry on the basis of national folk and literary traditions. It elevates military glory and honour, and is based on the _-_-_
^^1^^ See A. N. Robinson, ``Literatura Kievskoi Rusi sredi evropeiskikh srednevekovykh literatur. Tipologiya, originalnost, metod'', Slavyanskie literatury. VI Mezhdunarodny syezd slavistov. Doklady sovetskoi delegatsii (``The Literature of Kievan Rus Among Other Medieval European Literatures: Typology, Originality, Method'', in Slavic Literatures. Sixth International Congress of Slavists. Prague, August 1968. Reports of the Soviet Delegation), M., 1968; see his ``O zakonomernostyakh razvijiya vostochnoslavyanskogo i evropeiskogo eposa v rannefeodalny period'', Slavyanskie literatury. VII Mezhdunarodny syezd slavistov. Doklady sovetskoi delegatsii (``The Laws of Development of the East Slavic and European Epos in the Early Feudal Period'', in Slavic Literatures. Seventh International Congress of Slavists. Warsaw, August 1973. Reports of the Soviet Delegation), M., 1973.
132 struggle for national unity, the idea of a vassal's loyalty to his sovereign, and a condemnation of treachery, feudal strife and selfish battles. The medieval epos depicts man in close contact with nature; nature takes an active part in the heroes' lives; its forces heed their supplications and sympathise with their fate.Despite the many common features, each work has its own distinctive characteristics. In La Chanson de Roland and Das Niebelungenlied there are many fantastic elements; both heroes have miraculous swords; Siegfried conquers a dragon and becomes invulnerable after washing himself in its blood with the exception of one place where a leaf has adhered to him; he triumphs over the valkyry Brunhilde; Roland stops the movement of the sun for three days, and so on. The Lay of Igor's Host, on the other hand, concentrates on historical events.
La Chanson de Roland, Das Niebelungenlied and El Cid deal with the past, often the very distant past. The Lay of Igor's Host is written close on the heels of events and is understandably far more historical.
La Chanson de Roland has a predominantly Christian ideology (together with Roland, Archbishop Turpin fights; the battle between Christian and infidel-Saracen is stressed, etc.); pagan elements are integral to all of the poetic conceptions of the Lay.
The cult of chivalry and military glory is not a goal in itself in The Lay of Igor's Host, but is closely bound to the fate of the Russian land and subservient to the interests of the motherland, the idea of defending the peaceful labour of the people.
In The Lay of Igor's Host the political, civic spirit is organically fused with artistic pathos which makes the work immortal and lets it consistently ``keep its aura of modernity" as the renowned Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz observed in the last century.
The political topicality of the poem and its close bond to vital questions of the day as well as the 133 consummate artistry of its expression in the best traditions of folklore guaranteed The Lay of Igor's Host immortality through the ages. It was popular among contemporaries and exercised a definite influence on the development of Russian literature. For it was precisely to the Lay that the author of the Zadonshchina (Don Tale) turned when he wished to glorify the victory of Rus on Kulikovo Field.
The discovery of the Lay in the eighteenth century inspired A. N. Radishchev to compose Songs Sung at Competitions in Honour of Slavic Deities. It was widely reflected in the works of romantic poets in the early nineteenth century, and in those of Pushkin.~^^1^^ In his stories A Terrible Vengeance and Taras Bulba Gogol turned to the imagery of the Lay. Among other poets who have been drawn to it are Zhukovsky, Maikov, Minaev, Gerbel, Kozlov and Mei. Soviet writers have also manifested a profound interest in this epic. A. N. Tolstoi chose the epigraph ``Oh, Russian land!~" for one of the books of his trilogy Ordeal. Eduard Bagritsky uses images from this immortal work of Old Russian literature in his Ballad of Op anas.
During the Second World War the Lay took on new meaning. Ukrainian writer O. Honchar's trilogy Standard-bearers opens with an epigraph from The Lay of Igor's Host.
Soviet poets and prosaists N. Zabolotsky, I. Novikov, V. Stelletsky, S. Shervinsky and N. Rylenkov have made interesting translations of the Lay into modern Russian.
``The Lay of Igor's Host", writes Soviet poet Pavel Antokolsky, ``is an eternally flowering trunk extending branches laden with fruit into the future. Therefore we _-_-_
^^1^^ See Y. M. Lotman, ``~`Slovo o polku Igoreve' i literaturnaya traditsiya XVIII-nachala XIX v.'', Slovo o polku Igoreve-- pamyatnik XII veka (``The Lay of Igor's Host and the Literary Tradition of the 18th and Early 19th centuries'', in The Lay of Igor's Host-A Twelfth Century Epic), M. L., 1962; L. A. Dmitriev, ``~`Slovo o polku Igoreve' i russkaya literatura'', Slovo o polku Igoreve (``The Lay of Igor's Host and Russian Literature'', in The Lay of Igor's Host),L., 1967 .
134 hear direct and indirect echos of this work in many monuments of our culture and art.... From an ancient artefact, it has been transformed into the living property of a constructive culture.''^^1^^1. L. A. Dmitriev, ``Vazhneishie problemy issledovaniya 'Slova o polku Igoreve'" (``Main Problems in Researching The Lay of Igor's Host''), TODRL, vol. 20, 1964.
2. D. S. Likhachev, Slovo o polku Igoreve (The Lay of Igor's Host), M.-L., 1955.
3. A. S. Orlov, Slovo o polku Igoreve (The Lay of Igor's Host), M.-L., 1946.
4. B. A. Rybakov, Russkie letopistsy i avtor ``Slova o polku Igoreve" (Russian Chroniclers and the Author of the Lay of Igor's Host) M., 1972.
5. The Lay of Igor's Host. Edited By V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1950.
6. Slovo o polku Igoreve-pamyatnik XII veka (The Lay of Igor's Host-A Twelfth Century Epic), M.-L., 1962.
7. Dictionary for The Lay of Igor's Host. Compiled by V. L. Vinogradova, vols. 1-4, L., 1965--1973.
8. V. G. Fedorov, Kto by I avtorom ``Slova o polku Igoreve" i gde raspolozhena reka Kayala (Who Wrote The Lay of Igor's Host and the Whereabouts of the River Kayala), M., 1956.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ TRANSLATED LITERATUREWith the acceptance of Christianity, as we mentioned earlier, Kiev began a period of intensive translation of literature which reached its zenith in the 1030's and 1040's..
Works to be translated were chosen according to the needs of the feudal rulers, above all the task of consolidating the new Christian religion and morality. As a result religious literature predominated over secular texts. Nevertheless Russian translators did not pass over those secular tales whose ideas and artistic form expressed the spirit of the age. Old Russian scribes translated many Greek military, historical and didactic tales in order to affirm secular ideals propagandised by the originals. They did not aim at an exact reproduction of _-_-_
^^1^^ P. Antokolsky, ``The Fate of a Poem'', Pravda, May 9, 1938. 135
135 the Greek texts, but strove to bring them as close as possible to works that would serve the needs of their age and milieu. Accordingly translated works were subjected to periodic editing (each newly edited text being known as a ``redaction''---TV.). __ALPHA_LVL2__ MILITARY TALESAmong the most widely read translated works was the tale of the life and exploits of that famed ancient military leader Alexander of Macedon (known to Western readers as Alexander the Great---TV.) The Alexander Talc was evidently composed soon after its hero's death (323 B.C.) on the basis of written sources and oral legends of his exploits. In ancient times it was ascribed to Callisthenes, a pupil of Aristotle. But Callisthenes died before Alexander and subsequently this oldest redaction came to be known as the `` Pseudocallesthenian" edition. In the fifth century the Alexander Tale was known in By/antium and in the West, where it was translated into Latin. It was translated into Old Russian in the eleventh or twelfth centuries. This Byzantine chivalric novel was seen in Old Rus as a purely historical talc of the life and deeds of a historical figure.
Alexander, the protagonist, is depicted as a man extraordinary in all respects. Born as a result of the sorcery of Egyptian Pharaoh Nectanebus, he also has a rather unusual appearance: a lion's mane (symbolising valour), a snake's sharp teeth (symbolising wisdom) and one eye turned down, while the other looked to the side. Due to his great physical strength Alexander wins at an Olympic contest, a race on the chariots, over Nicholas, King of Arkania; he also conquers a horse with the head of an ox, a ``man-eater'', takes part in many battles and defeats Porus, King of India, in single combat. His quick wits, self-possession and resourcefulness are evident in his struggle with Darius the Great of Persia. Alexander also could sympathise with the grief 136 of his fellows.
While he proves himself to be a bold, fearless emissary to Darius, he is also capable of magnanimity to his defeated enemies. We see an interesting side of his character in his relations with Darius' satraps. The latter treacherously wound their sovereign in hopes of winning Alexander's mercy. Alexander, however, orders that the disloyal servants who have betrayed their ruler be executed.
Alexander is not only hungry for glory and adventure, but longs to see foreign lands. To satisfy his curiosity he journies to the land of the Rachmans--- wisemen with whom he has a philosophical discussion about the meaning of life. The tale constantly asserts the superiority of Hellenic culture to that of barbarian peoples.
In the tale Alexander's image is Christianised; he comes to Jerusalem, pays his respect to the patriarch and acknowledges his faith in the One, Invisible God. At the sanctuary of Lusa the hero attempts to gain entrance to Heaven but, upon hearing a voice forbidding this, refrains from carrying out this bold idea.
The Alexander Tale is composed of a series of episodes describing various events and military exploits in the hero's life, as well as his travels to foreign lands. The narrator, however, subordinates his material to a religious, moralistic purpose: the demonstration of the vanity of earthly life. Thus the dying Darius tells Alexander not to be seduced by the enticements of victory and good fortune. The Rachmans also speak of the vanity of life. Much of the tale is devoted to descriptions of the numerous battles in which Alexander fought; these are depicted in accordance with the traditions of the military tale.
The Alexander Tale combines the traditions of the military tale and those of the ``journey''. One rather unusual stylistic feature is the inclusion of letters exchanged by Alexander and Darius, Olympiada, Roxana, Porus and Candacia, Queen of the Amazons.
Its descriptions of distant lands, miracles and heroes made the tale beloved by Old Russian readers. As early as the thirteenth century a second Russian redaction 137 appeared supplemented with new descriptions of miracles and extended moralistic passages. In the fifteenth century the so-called ``Serbian redaction" appeared which was distinguished from earlier editions by a heavily rhetorical style and a greater emphasis on Christian morality. Thus did the Russian translation of the Alexander Tale stray further and further from the original as it was adapted to the needs of the times.
This translated tale centres around a courageous Christian warrior, the defender of his country's borders. It has survived in three copies from the eighteenth century (the miscellany of the Yaroslav Monastery of the Saviour, also containing The Lay of Igor's Host, was destroyed by the fire of 1812---thus a fourth copy from the sixteenth century has been lost to us). Apparently it was translated into Russian directly from the Greek in the eleventh or twelfth centuries.~^^1^^
The translation is a fairly free rendering of a tenth century Greek narrative poem relating the exploits of Basil Digenis, transformed in our tale to the handsome Devgeny. Many facts of Byzantine history were eliminated in the process of translation, and the depiction of the hero's loves was substantially altered. The Russian translator turned a Byzantine love novel into a heroic military tale of the struggle between Christian and pagan. At the same time he was attentive to fairy tale elements.
The Deeds of Digenis is composed of two independent tales. The first tells of Digenis' parents. His father, Amir, King of Arabia, abducted his Greek mother. Her brothers force Amir to become a Christian and marry her. The second tale describes Digenis' adventures. The name itself means ``born of two" and refers to his Greek and Saracen parentage.
Digenis is described as a handsome youth: ``His face _-_-_
^^1^^ For a detailed discussion of this text see V. D. Kuzmina's book Devgenievo deyanie (The Deeds of Digenis), M., 1962.
138 was like snow, and his cheeks bright as poppies; his hair was golden and his eyes as large as cups. He was awesome to gaze upon.''Young Digenis' courage and strength was depicted in the hyperbolic manner of Russian bylinas. One characteristic folk motif found in the tale is the battle against a snake, here four-headed. Like Russian bogatyr Ilya Muromets, Digenis does not anticipate dying in battle, but fearlessly conquers thousands of foes, leaping rivers and boldly engaging in single-handed combat, and outwitting King Filipat and his Amazon daughter Maximiana who wanted to catch handsome Digenis ``like a rabbit in a snare''. Digenis wins a bride in a way characteristic of Russian folk tales: he marries the beautiful Stratigovna after sustaining a victory over her father and brothers.
At the same time Digenis is a pious Christian hero: all his triumphs are attributed to his faith in the power of God.
The style of the tale is a complex combination of oral folk elements and literary traditions. Russian readers were attracted to the heroic image of Digenis and his exciting adventures, all the most so since he was close to images of bogatyrs in bylinas.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries Hebrew historian Joseph Flavius' account of the Jewish War was translated as the Tale of the Destruction of Jerusalem. It encompassed a fairly broad range of events from 167 B.C. to 72 A.D.
Central to the narrative was the dramatic description of the Jewish revolt against the Roman legions. Among the most vivid scenes are the sieges of Jotapata and Jerusalem.
Scholars have shown that the Old Russian translators freely adapted the Greek original or at best retold it in abbreviated form; at times they added their own supplements.
Another interesting feature of this tale is the use of 139 traditional formulas of military tales, not present in the Greek originals, but corresponding to those found in Old Russian literature, including The Lay of Igor's Host. Old Russian readers no doubt enjoyed the glimpse of history and colourful descriptions of battles.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ DIDACTIC TALESChristian morality was also propagandised by di-', dactic translated tales, among them the Tale of Akir the Wise and the Tale ofBarlaam and Josaphat.
The Tale of Akir the Wise was translated into Russian directly from the Syrian original. The Old Russian translator was attracted by the image of the wise, virtuous Akir, ideal counsellor to the king. Akir was constantly concerned with the good of the state and in this sense could serve as an example for the advisors of the Kievan prince. Part of the tale was a collection of parables, each ending in an aphorism with a moralistic purpose.
In Russian translation the tale was altered to fit traditional conception of Christian moralistic literature. Akir took on certain traits of the Christian righteous man driven away when King Sinagrip believed the slanders of Anadam, Akir's dishonourable nephew who acted at the instigation of the devil.
Other purely Russian features are reflected in the tale. Akir teaches his nephew how to read Russian; at times the King is replaced by a prince. The Novgorod redaction inserts many elements of Novgorodian life: the Pharaoh calls a veche and rules with the help of aldermen.
The parables and aphorisms eventually acquired independent significance and were included as proverbs in the miscellany Melissa (The Bee).
The Tale ofBarlaam and Josaphat glorified the victory of Christianity over paganism and served as a sort of reminder of recent events related to the christening of Rus. It also served as a means in the struggle against remnants of surviving paganism which still had a certain resonance in Old Russian life. It is a translation from a 140 Greek, Christianised life of the Buddha.
In the fifteenth century the tale was adapted into a typical vita of a Christian hero. It contained many parables related by Barlaam to his pupil Josaphat in order to convince him of the truth of Christianity.
Obviously translated works were closely connected to the original literary genres, primarily with the historical military tale, the precept and the vita. Translations were not exact reproductions of the original, but rather free renderings and in that capacity incorporated many elements of folk poetry and original writings. In this respect translated tales helped enrich and develop original literature.
Sources
1. ``Alexandria~''. Roman ob Aleksandre Makedonskom po russkoi rukopisi XV veka (The Alexander Tale: A Novel of Alexander of Macedon based on a Fifteenth Century Manuscript). Edited by M. N. Botvinnik, Ya. S. Lurye and O. V. Tvorogov, M.-L., 1965.
2. V. D. Kuzmina, Devgenievo deyanie (The Deeds of Digenis), M., 1962.
3. N. A. Meshchersky, ``Istoriya ludeiskoi voiny" losifa Flaviya v drevnerusskom perevode (Joseph Flavius' ``History of the Jewish War" in Old Russian translation), M.-L., 1958.
4. A. S. Orlov, Perevodnye povesti feodalnoi Rusi i Moskovskogo gosudarstva XII-XVII vekov (Translated Tales of Feudal Rus and the Muscovite State from the Twelfth to the Seventeenth Centuries), L., 1934.
[141] ~ [142] __ALPHA_LVL1__ Literature
[143]
~
[144]
The desintegration of Rurik's empire into a spate of independent feudal states was part of the historically conditioned process of the development of the productive forces of feudal society. The division of the medieval Kievan state was connected with the growth of certain of its areas, the development of local productive forces, and the formation of new political, economic and cultural centres. In the final analysis this was conditioned by a new stage in the feudal mode of production: the appearance of farming, new agricultural crops and the growth of large feudal estates. The entire territory of the Old Russian state was divided, into parts, each of which gravitated to separate centres: the Rostov-Suzdal, Murom-Ryazan, Smolensk, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Galich, Volhynia, Polotsk, Turov-Pinsk principalities. Other centres included the feudal city-states of Novgorod and Pskov.
With the development of local economic and political centres the power of the great Princes of Kiev declined and Kiev became far less of a centre for the entire Russian land.
In this period culture and literature take on local features. Based on the literature of the preceding period each 145 feudal principality developed its own literature. These local tendencies in literary development cultivated by the feudal ruling classes were opposed by the people who expressed an interest in a united Russian state.
``The warring, separate principalities,'' notes N.G. Chernyshevsky, ``left no traces in the people's memory because they were never rooted in their hearts: the people merely submitted to familial decrees of the princes."^^1^^
The growth of a common Russian principle of unity, born by the struggle against the Mongol-Tatar yoke, acted as a substantial counterbalance to the feudal disintegration of culture. National awareness was forged in the struggle against the invaders and the Great Russian people developed certain characteristics expressed in the literature of this period.
One of the finest literary works of Northeastern Rus in the early thirteenth century is Daniel the Exile's Supplication which is extant in two redactions preserved in copies from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The first redaction is addressed to Yaroslav Vladimirovich who ruled Novgorod from 1182 to 1199. Here the Supplication is abstract and aimed primarily against ``evil women''.
The second redaction is addressed to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Pereyaslavl from 1213 to 1236. It abounds in concrete social polemics against the boyars and the monks. This redaction was composed on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion which is evident in the prayer: ``Oh Lord, spare our land from being captured by the pagan who knows not God.'' This redaction gives a fuller conception of the author's social views.
An extended scholarly polemic still surrounds the question of how one redaction of the Supplication relates to the other. The archaic language of the first _-_-_
^^1^^ N. G. Chernyshevsky, Collected Works, vol. 3, M., 1947, p. 570 (in Russian).
146 redaction corresponds to our notions of Old Russian works at the close of the twelfth century; this has led scholars like S. P. Obnorsky^^1^^ and B. A. Romanov^^2^^ to conclude that it is older. On the other hand the social polemics of the second redaction and its vivid reflection of the author's persona could speak for the seniority of this version and its closeness to the protograph. Such considerations have been expressed with much justification by N. K. Gudzy^^3^^ and V. M. Gusov.^^4^^One feature characteristic of Daniel's Supplication is his effort to establish new criteria for the evaluation of a man's social position. Literature of the previous period judged men according to their rank in the feudal hierarchical ladder; the Supplication speaks out against this tradition. For the first time in Old Russian literature the author affirms man's right to be respected on the basis of personal merits. For Daniel the Exile the primary merit is a man's wisdom and the Supplication begins with a rhetorical tribute to the human mind:
``Let us sound forth, as from a gold-forged trumpet, in the reason of our mind and play upon silver organs that wisdom be known, and hit the tambourines of our minds, singing in inspired pipes, that salutary thoughts might cry within us.''
Daniel protests against defining a man in terms of his social standing or his membership in a given section of the population:
``A rich man is known everywhere, even in a strange city, but a poor man is unknown even in his own city.''
``Look not upon my exterior, but attend to my inner self. For I am poorly clothed, but rich in wisdom; I am young in years, but old in wisdom, and have soared _-_-_
^^1^^ S. P. Obnorsky, Ocherki po istorii russkogo literatumogo yazyka starshego perioda (Essays on the History of Literary Russian in the Ancient Period), M.-L., 1946.
^^2^^ B. A. Romanov, Lyudi i nravy Dreonei Rusi (The People and Mores of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966.
^^3^^ N. K. Gudzy, Istoriya drevnerusskoi literatury (History of Old Russian Literature), 7th edition, M., 1966, pp. 178--88.
^^4^^ V. M. Gusov, ``Istoricheskaya osnova 'Moleniya' Daniila Zatochnika" (``The Historical Basis of Daniel the Exile's Supplication''), TODRL, vol. 7, 1949.
__PRINTERS_P_146_COMMENT__ 10* 147 on the wings of thought like an eagle in the sky.''Thus Daniel considers that a man should be measured by personal, inner qualities, most importantly, intelligence. The Supplication contrasts wisdom to valour in battle, in an attempt to show the superiority of the first. Daniel himself confesses that he is ``not particularly brave in battle, but strong in the art of words''. On the examples of King Solomon and Daniel the prophet he shows that ``one wiseman is better than ten brave men who can't think''.
Daniel advises the prince to surround himself with wise counsellors and to judge them by their personal merits rather than by their wealth. Incompetent advisors only bring a prince to grief and regiments perish due to their inefficiency.
At the close of his supplication Daniel resorts to the traditional topos of self-denigration: ``Perhaps, my prince, you will say that I have lied like a dog. But both princes and noblemen love a good dog.'' Daniel reserves his most stinging criticisms for arrogant boyars who are unable to value a man and spend their time humiliating him. It appears that Daniel himself is materially dependent on the noblemen for he asks that the prince take him into his service.
He condemns wealth for leading to pride and ruthlessness. He himself has suffered from ``great want and misery and has suffered the yoke of slavery''. Now he serves a master who does not value his wit and lowers his dignity. Therefore Daniel asks the prince to free him of his dependence on a boyar and take him on as a servant: ``I would rather wear bast sandals in your home than crimson boots in the court of the boyar; I would rather serve you in rags than wear purple cloth in the boyar's home.''
Daniel rejects another means of freeing himself--- taking the tonsure of a monk. He says with indignation: ``I would better end my life being myself than take the angelic habit and thus lie to God.'' Here are the first elements of satire, in particular satire on monastery life in Old Russian literature. When they retire from the world monks return to worldly temptations, ``like a dog to his own vomit''. They go around to the villages and 148 homes ol the powerful ``like tender-hearted dogs''. Monks imariably turn up at leasts and banquets, giving themselves up to gluttony and fornication.
Nor will Daniel agree to a second means of freeing himsell horn want: marriage to a wealthy woman. To enter the home of a rich father-in-law would be to lower oneself. ``I would rather shake with fever than be forced to live with a wife whom I do not love; the fever would stop racking me, but an evil woman would keep at me till I gave up the ghost.'' He quotes ``worldly sayings" (folk proverbs) which warn: ``A man isn't worth his salt if he listens to his wife.'' And he would rather lead an ox into his home than an ugly woman.
The Supplication focuses on the image of an ideal prince, a wise ruler capable of establishing social justice. Only such a prince, Daniel assures us, can save him from dependence on boyars and from poverty---and poverty forces a man to resort to thievery and plunder. As Daniel sees it, a prince is the sun that warms his subjects with the rays of his favour. Only fear of a princely storm can defend Daniel's dignity from abuse like a strong wall.
In order to praise the prince's virtues Daniel borrows from the Song of Songs of King Solomon. A city is strengthened by the power ol a prince as an oak is by a multitude of roots. The prince is the helmsman and head of his people. His main source of wealth is his people: ``For you cannot get good men with gold, but with men you can get gold, silver and cities.'' The prince adorns his subjects with his favour, as spring adorns the earth with flowers; like the sun he warms his subjects with the rays ot his grace.
Daniel calls upon the prince to turn the cloud of his favour ``to the earth and my own miserable person''. Heasks that the prince gaze upon him, not like a wolf upon a lamb, but like a mother upon her child. Only the prince, as Daniel sees it, can free him from the constraints of serving boyars and guarantee material independence.
Although he speaks of the need of the prince to surround himself with capable, wise counsellors, Daniel does not pose the question of social equality. He is for 149 retaining ``serfdom''. No matter how proud or bold the serf ``he cannot avoid reproaches in the name of a serf'', just as a pot with golden rings cannot avoid blackness and scorching.
On this basis I. U. Budovnitz^^1^^ believes that Daniel was a representative of the feudal military class---a new social stratum of the ruling class---the nobility in the capacity of civil servants striving to reach the helm of the government and crowd out the boyars.
Scholars have not agreed on the social position of the Supplication's author. In the text we find the following statements: ``...I am your slave and the son of your slave,'' he repeats asking the prince to recall that he ``eats dry bread" and is clothed in tatters, ``dying each winter and pierced with drops of rain like arrows''. He is poverty-stricken and works like a slave. He begs the prince to save him from his poverty ``like a goat from a trap'', ``like a bird from a snare''. This has led scholars to view him as a boyar's serf who places all of his hopes on a prince---the only one able to alter his fate. This is the opinion of N. K. Gudzy.
Still the dispute over Daniel's social origins remains open. As we see it I. U. Budovnitz' conclusions that the Supplication is the expression of the growing ideology of noblemen in the civil service seems most convincing. But as Belinsky rightly observes: ``No matter who Daniel the Exile was we have every basis for concluding that he was a person too wise for his own good, too gifted, too well-informed and that he could not hide his superiority from others and therefore was a constant thorn in the side of mediocre men; he was a man whose heart ached and was eaten away with worry about others' affairs; who spoke when he would better have remained silent, and was silent when it would have been wiser to speak out: in a word a person whose fellows at first praise and care for and then edge out of the scene, and after exhausting them, once again praise...."^^2^^ _-_-_
~^^1^^ I. U. Budovnitz, ``Pamyatnik rannei dvoryanskoi publitsistiki" (``An Early Nobleman's Polemic''), TODRL, vol. 8, 1951.
^^2^^ V. G. Belinsky, Collected Works in thirteen volumes, vol. 5, M., 1954, p. 351 (in Russian).
150 Belinsky perceptively noticed the author's passionate defense of his personal rights, his dignity, and his right to be respected, not for his social position, but for his personal merits.The author is an extraordinarily well read man. Daniel says that he did not grow up in Athens and was not taught by philosophers, but like the diligent bee gathered literary nectar, accumulating ``wisdom like the waters of the sea in a sack''.
In his Supplication Daniel uses Holy Scripture, the miscellany Melissa, historical examples from The Tale of Bygone Years (on Svyatoslav Igorevich, Yaroslav the Wise's struggle against Svyatopolk, Khan Bonyak's victory over the Hungarians) and folk sayings. D. S. Likhachev has shown the relation between Daniel's aphorisms and the art of medieval Russian troubadours ( skomorokhs).^^1^^ But we can hardly claim that the author was a troubadour striving to attain the prince's favour. B. A. Rybakov sees him as a chronicler^^2^^ who is well versed in history; but Daniel does not write in the manner of the chronicles.
Another complex question is that of the Supplication's genre. The first redaction is called a ``sermon'', the second a ``lament'' or ``supplication''. Daniel begins by addressing his audience; later in the ``supplication'' he addresses the prince alone. The phrase ``My Lord and Prince" serves to separate one concept from the next. Often he engages in an imaginary dialogue or polemic with the prince in order to convince him that he is right. A panegyric to the prince's might and grace alternates with a plea to be spared poverty and dependence on boyars and a wrathful condemnation of the arrogance of the nobles and the hypocrisy of the clergy. In Daniel's plea to the prince we hear the voice of a man who has experienced the conflict between his ideals and _-_-_
^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, ``Sotsialnye osnovy stilya 'Moleniya' Daniila Zatochnika" (``The Social Basis of Daniel the Exile's Supplication), TODRL, vol. 10, 1954.
^^2^^ B. A. Rybakov, ``Daniil Zatochnik i vidy letopisaniya XII veka'', Arkheologichesky ezhegodnik (``Daniel the Exile and Forms of Chronicle Writing in the Twelfth Century'', mArcheological Annual), M., 1971.
151 reality. In this respect B. A. Romanov was right when he called Daniel the first misanthrope in Russian literature.The Supplication is a protest against social injustice. But as Daniel sees it only the prince is capable of remedying such abuses.
Above all one is struck by the many aphorisms which inform the style of the Supplication more than any other element; they are primarily literary, but we do find a few folk proverbs:
``Any man can say wise things about another's sorrow, but he can't begin to think about his own.''
``Rust devours iron and misery---man's mind.''
``The feeble-minded are neither planted, ploughed, spun or woven---they grow in and of themselves.''
Many of the proverbs rhyme which gives the work a strong rhythmic element: Komu Pereslavl, a nine goreslavl (You may take Pereslavl, but I have only woe); Komu Bogolyubovo, a nine gore lyutoe (Some may take Bogolyubovo, but I have only misery); Muzh mudr smyslennym drug, a nesmyslennym nedrug (A wise man befriends other thinking men, and shies away from the unthinking); Dobru gospodinu sluzha, dosluzhitsya svobody, a zlu gospodinu sluzha, dosluzhitsya bolshe raboty (If you serve a good master, you'll earn your freedom, a bad master will only reward you with more work); Ne vozri na vneshnyaya moya, no vonmi vnutrennaya moya (Look not upon my face, but attend to what is within me).
Many varied and pithy similes are used by Daniel; these too can be traced both to literary and folk sources. For example: ``The eagle is king of all birds, the sturgeon king of fishes, the lion king of the beasts and you, prince, rule the people of Pereslavl;" `` Psalteries are strung by fingers, and our city by your power.''
Daniel the Exile's vivid aphorisms and imagery guaranteed his Supplication great popularity in Old Rus. Many of his sayings were included in the miscellany Melissa and were later cited in historical and polemical texts.
152 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE GALICIAN-VOLHYNIAN CHRONICLEThe principality of Galich-Volhynia achieved economic, political and cultural heights in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. The princes of Galich controlled Rus' trade routes with Europe, opening the gates of Kiev, and held back Hungarian and Polish feudal lords who were eager to control the rich Carpathian land.
In Galich and Vladimir-Volynsky literature, the fine arts and stone architecture flourished. Unfortunately, out of all the literary works of this principality, only the chronicle has survived, and even it is not complete. We can explain this by the fact that Carpathian Rus was seized by Polish feudal lords, who sowed Catholicism and the Catholic clergy systematically destroyed works of Old Russian culture.
The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle is extant in the Hypatian Chronicle and consists of two parts: 1) the Galician Chronicle, recording events from 1205 to 1264, and 2) the Volhynian Chronicle---dealing with the period from 1264 to 1292.
The Galician Chronicle is a unified, artistic tale of the reign of Prince Daniil of Galich. Its compiler did not arrange his work in ``yearly entries'', but focused on the historical figure of the prince, writing, in effect, a biography. Political and military events are central to the narrative: Daniil Romanovich's struggle against the boyars and the Tatar invasion. Church affairs have no interest for this chronicler.
The narrative style is absolutely secular. There are no religious morals or quotes from Scripture in the Galician Chronicle; instead we find a style characteristic of the military epos and traces of literary rhetoric. This lends the work a vivid poetic flavour. The chronicle begins with a tribute to Prince Roman of Galich: ``For he rushed against the pagans like a lion, raged at them like a leopard, and destroyed them like a crocodile, and swept across the land like an eagle, for he was brave as a wild aurochs.''
The tribute is comprised of a series of poetic similes rooted in the tradition of the military epos.
153In the course of his tribute to Roman, the chronicler reminisces about his grandfather Vladimir Monomakh who had conquered all the Polovtsian land and ``drank water out of the Don from a golden helmet''. Then he recounts a legend about Polovtsian khans Syrchan and Otrok. Beaten by Monomakh, Otrok fled to Obeza (Abkhazia). After Vladimir's death Syrchan sent the singer Or with a bouquet of steppe wormwood to Otrok. The smell of the wormwood made Otrok think of his native land: ``For it is better to lay down and die on your own land than to be honoured in an alien country,'' he says as he returns to his native steppes. This poetic fragment let Vs. Miller to hypothesise that it was a fragment of a separate heroic epic which did not survive (see his book Vzglyadna 'Slovo o polku Igoreve' (A View of 'The Lay of Igor's Host').
The Galician Chronicle gives a fairly detailed account of the capture of Kiev in 1240 by Mongol-Tatar hordes. Batu came to Kiev in ``heavy force'', ``teeming multitudes" surrounded the city, and ``nothing could be heard but the creaking of his carts, the roaring of his camels and neighing of his steeds. And the land of Rus was filled with warriors''. Batu employed battering rams to knock down a portion of the wall at the Lyatsky Gate: ``...and here one could see the breaking of spears and the cleaving of shields; arrows obscured the light of those defeated.'' After a cruel battle, despite the heroism of the populace, the city was seized by the enemy. In admiration for the heroism of the defenders, Batu spared the life of the wounded Dmitry, ``for his courage''.
This tale has no religious tendentiousness, but uses the formulas of military tales to recount the facts of the seige and the storm of Kiev by enemy forces.
Prince and warrior Daniil of Galich, praised for his valour in battle, is portrayed in the tale about his journey to the Horde in 1250.
Scholars have repeatedly commented on the resemblance of the Galician Chronicle to The Lay of Igor's Host: similes based on images from the animal kingdom, the use of military terminology such as ``drink water out of the Don from a golden helmet'', ``rush on 154 the pagans'', and the like. Like the Lay the Galician Chronicle glorifies military exploits.
The Volhynian Chronicle describes the reign of Vladimir Vasilkovich using the familiar chronicle arrangement of material. Its religious, literary style abounds in quotations from Scripture. Portraits of princes emphasise religious virtues.
The poetic, heroic style of the Galician Chronicle had a great influence on the narrative style of Northeast Rus and in particular on the style of Alexander Nevsky's vita.
1. I. U. Budovnitz, ``Pamyatnik rannei dvoryanskoi publitsistiki---'Molenie Daniila Zatochnika'" (``An Early Nobleman's Polemic-Daniel the Exile's Supplication''), TODRL, vol. 8, 1951.
2. I. P. Eremin, ``Volynskaya letopis 1289--1290 kak pamyatnik literatury'', Literatura Drevnei Rusi (``The Volhynian Chronicle as Literature'', in The Literature of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966.
3. D. S. Likhachev, ``Sotsialnye osnovy stilya 'Moleniya Daniila Zatochnika'" (``The Social Background of the Style of Daniel the Exile's Supplication''), TODRL, vol. 10, 1951.
4. B. A. Romanov, Lyudi i nravy Drevnei Rusi (The People and Mores of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966.
5. Khudozhestvennaya proza Kievskoi Rusi XI-XIII vekov (The Fiction of Kievan Rus from the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Centuries), M., 1957.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ TALES OF THE MONGOL-TATAR INVASIONSIn the mid-thirteenth century the Russian land was subjected to the Mongol invasion. Terrible hordes of nomads from the steppes, under the banner of Genghis Khan, swept westward. In the course of three years, from 1237 to 1240, the Russian people waged a courageous struggle against overwhelming enemy forces. But the feudal disintegration of Rus worked to her enemies' advantage. Nevertheless the selfless heroic struggle against Mongol-Tatar hordes waged by the Russian people saved European civilisation from disaster.
Events related to this invasion were widely reflected in the literature of the day.
155Russian troops first clashed with the nomads in 1 223 on the River Kalka (Kalmius). We have two redactions of chronicle tales about this battle. This particular tale appears to have been composed in druzhina environment and, according to several scholars, its author is from Galich-Volhynian Rus, since it also contains an apologetica for young Prince Daniil of Galich who participated in the battle.
The tale records the course of events in detail. Polovtsy brought the news to Kiev that an unknown people were approaching; they were the first to clash with hordes of nomads coming from the Caucasus under the direction of Genghis Dzhebe and Sabute. OnlySouth Russian princes took part in the battle, and they could not agree or unite. This, explains the tale, is the true reason for the defeat on the Kalka.
We get a good idea of the mood of the Russian people upon hearing of the approach of Mongol-Tatar armies. They greeted the news with bewilderment: ``People have appeared who are unknown to us; no one can say what language they speak, what tribe they belong to, what faith they profess, and some call them Tatars, others say Taumens, and still others---- Pechenegs....'' The author of the tale quotes the Revelations of Methodius of Patara, written in Byzantium .during the late seventh century (the Revelations surveyed the fate of mankind from Adam t<5 the Second Coming). On the basis of this work, the author of our tale gives a religious interpretation of events: the advent of this unknown people is the result of God's wrath at the sins of Rus.
People connect the tale of the battle on the Kalka with the legend of the death of Russian bogatyrs. Traces of a bylina telling how the bogatyrs disappeared from the Russian land can be found in copies of the historical tales dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries which tell us that, not only Russian princes (six relatives of Mstislav), but Alexander Popovich, his servant Toropets, Dobrynya Golden-Belt of Ryazan and seventy brave bogatyrs perished on the Kalka.
156In 1237 the bulk of the Golden Horde, headed by Genghis' heir Batu-Khan, reached the boundaries of Northeast Rus. The steppe nomads leveled their first stroke at Ryazan and then conquered Vladimir.
The heroic defence by the Russian people of their native land was given vivid expression in The Tale of Batu's Arrival in Ryazan. This tale is extant in sixteenth century chronicles and is related to the cycle of tales about St. Nicholas of Zaraisk.
A tribute to the courage and heroism of the defenders, the tale praises Ryazan prince Yury Ingorevich, his brothers David and Gleb, and the druzhina of Ryazan, ``brave men---the pride of Ryazan'', and the renowned bogatyr Evpaty Kolovrat. The author sees the reason for the defeat of Ryazan in the feudal disintegration of Russian principalities and the egoistic policies of the princes. Yury Ingorevich calls in vain upon Prince Yury Vsevolodovich of Vladimir; the latter refuses to help the men of Ryazan and resolves to wage an independent struggle against Batu.
Religious reasons for the defeat of Ryazan seem to be organically removed from the contents of the tale: God's will, punishment for sins. These thoughts on the author's part cannot overshadow the main reason: the Great Prince of Vladimir has forgotten about the interests of the entire Russian land.
The Tale of Batu's Arrival in Ryazan has four parts: 1) Batu's appearance at the borders of the Ryazan land, the Ryazan embassy to Batu headed by Prince Fedor, the death of Fedor and his wife Kvpraksia; 2) Yury Ingorevich's heroic defence of Ryazan, the tragic fate of the defenders and Batu's destruction of the city; 3) the feat of Evpaty Kolovrat; 4) Ingvar Ingorevich's restoration of Ryazan.
Yury Ingorevich's son Prince Fedor and his young wife Evpraksia are among the heroes of the first part ol the tale. Fedor heads a delegation to Batu. Fearlessly he defends the honour of both his spouse and all women of Ryazan. With bold humour Fedor challenges the profane khan: ``We Christians have no need to bring our 157 women to you, impious king, for fornication. When you conquer us, then you can try to conquer our women.'' This proud answer enrages Batu who orders Fedor and his messengers killed.
Fedor's young wife Evpraksia is smitten by the news. As she stands in her tower, holding her young son Ivan, ``she heard the words of death and was filled with grief, and threw herself from her tower with her young son, Prince Ivan, in her arms and fell to her death''. Thus does the tale recount a courageous act of faith and love, the suicide of this Russian woman, in a few words. The first part concludes with the bitter lament of Yury Ingorevich and all the citizens of Ryazan.
The second part glorifies the courage of the forces of Ryazan and their prince Yury Ingorevich who inspires his men with a heroic speech: ``We had better buy our lives with our deaths than be captured by the pagans. For I will drink the cup of death at your head, brother, for God's holy Church and the Christian faith and the lands of my father, Great Prince Jngor Svyatoslavich.'' This speech combines a heroic motif with a religious call to die for God's Church and the Christian faith. Before the battle Yury acts in a way befitting a religious man: he prays to God and is blessed by the bishop.
The central episode of the second part is a hyperbolic description of the battles between the men of Ryazan and the Tatars. One man fights against a thousand, two against ten thousand. In the battle druzhina change horses and astound the Tatars with their courage. After causing heavy losses to their enemies, the men of Ryazan perish: ``...all the same they died and drank from one cup of death.''
The devastation of the city is shown with great drama in the tale: ``And in all the city not one man was left alive, all the same they died and drank from one cup of death; for there were none to moan, or weep; neither fathers or mothers for children, nor children for fathers and mothers, nor brother for brother, nor one kinsman for another, but all lay dead together.''
The third part glorifies the exploit of Evpaty Kolovrat, an epic hero who is a match for any bogatyr from 158 Russian bylinas. He has extraordinary strength and courage, and is a living embodiment of the heroic exploit of the entire Russian people who cannot make peace with the enslavers and strive to revenge their devastation of the land. Attention is focused on Evpaty's feats in battle; the deeds of the entire druzhina are represented in his person. Fearlessly galloping about the Tatar regiments, he strikes without mercy, and is so zealous that his sharp sword grows dull. Even Batu fears him and sends his brother-in-law Khostovrul to fight Evpaty. Here is a typical epic situation.
Evpaty wins the duel; he ``had the strength of a giant and sliced Khostovrul in half right to his saddle and began to cut down the Tatar forces and killed many of Batu's bravest men, some slicing in half, and others to the saddle''.
The terrified Tatars had to use their battering rams ``and they began to attack with hundreds of battering rams and hardly managed to kill him...''.
When Evpaty's body was brought to him, Batu ``marvelled at the man's bravery and strength and courage''. He gave his enemy his due: ``Oh, Evpaty Kolovrat, your small band of men has put up a good fight against me, killing many of my strongest bogatyrs, and many regiments have fallen. If such a man served me I would take him to my heart.''
Evpaty's brave men were a match for him. When the Tatars managed to take five soldiers captive, in spite of their wounds, they displayed irony and a sense of moral superiority when they told Batu: ``We are Christians, servants of Great Prince Yury Ingorevich of Ryazan, and we belong to Evpaty Kolovrat's regiment. We were sent by Prince Ingvar Ingorevich of Ryazan to meet you and honour you, oh mighty king, and pay our respects to you. Do not wonder, king, that we cannot fill the goblets of this great force, the Tatar army.''
Their answer shows traces of folk epics (cf. Ilya's dialogue with King Kalin).
Just as Batu marvels at Evpaty's feats, the wisemen and princes of the Horde admire the exploits of the Ryazan army: ``We have followed many kings to 159 many lands and taken part in many battles, but have never seen such bold, brave men, nor did our fathers tell of such. For these were winged men who could not be killed, riding with might and courage, and fighting one against a thousand, two against thousands.''
Due to the enemy's acknowledgement of the Russian's might, the tale has an optimistic note; its author stresses that eventually the Mongol-Tatar yoke would be overthrown and that the people had the strength for their struggle against their enslavers.
The final part of the tale begins with the lament of Prince Ingvar Ingorevich, constructed according to the rules of rhetoric. He bitterly weeps for the dead ``crying out in a loud voice that sounded like a trumpet, like a sweet organ playing''.
The tale ends with an account of the rebirth and renewal of Ryazan, burnt to ashes by the enemy. As a result ``Christians rejoiced...''. This ending shows the optimism and resilience of the Russian people, their unswerving faith in their ultimate salvation from the Tatar yoke.
As a whole the work is a model of the military tale; at the same time it has many features of folklore. Not always precise in its presentation of historical facts (the author, for example, mentions Vsevolod of Pron, who died before 1237, as being one of the participants in the battle; or the death in battle of Oleg the Fair, although he survived), the tale gives a faithful picture of the mood of the times and is astoundingly vivid and dramatic.
Far more laconic and lacking in imagery is the chronicle tale of Batu's capture of Vladimir in 1238 and the battle on the River Sect with Prince Yury Vsevolodovich who fell in the battle.
Also interesting is the short chronicle account of the Tatar seige of Kozelsk. The citizens held out for seven weeks. As a result of their resistance Kozelsk was dubbed an ``evil city" by the enemy, who took cruel revenge of the defenders when they took the city.
160The Mongol-Tatar invasion was reflected in both didactic and hagiographical religious writings. Serapion, Abbot of the Kiev Crypt Monastery, and beginning in 1274, Bishop of Vladimir (he died in 1275), was a talented preacher. His contemporaries knew him as a man ``well versed in the Holy Scriptures''. Serapion left five sermons: the first was written around 1230, after the battle on the Kalka, and the last four in Vladimir, from 1274 to 1275.
For Serapion the invasion of alien tribesmen represents the chastising finger of God, avenging sins and calling upon people to repent. It also speaks of the approaching end of the world.
He shows the approach of the ``merciless pagan" in lively, rhythmic prose, with vivid imagery: ``...for the merciless pagan is upon us, unleashed by God, and they have devastated our lands and captured our cities, and destroyed our holy churches, and killed our fathers and brothers, and defiled our mothers and sisters.''
His second sermon describes the terrible wrath of God, recalling the past in a series of rhetorical questions: ``Was not our land enslaved? Did not they capture our cities? Fell not our fathers and brothers to the earth as corpses? Were not our women and children led into captivity? Were not we sold into bitter slavery by the alien people?~"
The third sermon describes the misfortunes of the Russian land.
The fourth and fifth sermons condemn prejudices and superstition. They are aimed against the custom of testing witches by fire and water, and the refusal to bury victims of drowning who, it was believed, spoiled the harvest. Here Serapion's pessimism gradually disappears, which shows the general mood in Rus, including that of ecclesiastical circles.
In his studies of the work of Serapion of Vladimir, E. V. Petukhov remarks on the simplicity and bluntness of his sermons which lack any signs of literary rhetoric. He regards Serapion as among those Northeast Russian thirteenth century writers who linked their region with __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11---315 161 Kiev, preserving the traditions of the Kievan school, in particular the sermons of St. Feodosy of the Caves and Kliment Smolyatich, yet drawing material from the new reality and developing independently.~^^1^^
In this way events from 1237 to 1240, related to the invasion of Mongol-Tatar hordes, were reflected in the basic literary genres of the time: the military historical tale and the sermon.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE TALE OF THE RUIN OFEvidently the Mongol-Tatar invasion also engendered the poetic Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land, discovered in the 1870's by K. G. Evlentiev and published in 1892 by Kh. M. Loparev. A new copy was found in the late nineteen-forties by I. N. Zavoloko and published by V. I. Malyshev, a scholar employed in the Old Russian literature section of Pushkinsky Dom.
The Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land is filled with lofty patriotism. The central image is the Russian land, ``bright beyond all brightness'', and ``beautifully adorned''. Our unknown author composed a hymn in honour of his native land. He speaks of its natural beauties and resources, and its pride---the great cities, marvellous villages, monastery gardens, and churches. Rus' glory was forged by mighty princes, honorable boyars and many'noblemen. The author speaks of the might of Vsevolod (Big-Nest), his father Yury Dolgoruky, and grandfather Vladimir Monomakh.
Like the author of the Igor tale, our author compares the former grandeur of Rus with its present decline: ``And in these days, Christians suffer, from Great Yaroslav and to Vladimir, and to today's Yaroslav and his brother Yury, Prince of Vladimir.'' This appears to be an attempt to divide Russian history into periods, as if continuing parallel attempts in the Igor tale whose _-_-_
^^1^^ E. Petukhov, Serapion Vladimirsky, russky propovednik XIII veka (Serapion of Vladimir, a Russian Preacher of the Thirteenth Century), SPb., 1888.
162 author connected the flourishing of political might with ``old Yaroslav" and then spoke of the ``sorrowful year" of princely strife and internecine war which led to the strengthening of pagan forces. Our author seems to further develop the idea of the great singer: from ``Great Yaroslav'', that is, Yaroslav the Wise, to Vladimir Monomakh, he tells, strife between princes continued to devastate the Russian land. Monomakh stopped the civil wars and united the forces of Rus for a struggle against the nomads of the steppe whom he dealt a killing blow. For this reason Monomakh's image is given heroic, epic resonance in The Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land. After Vladimir to today's Yaroslav and his brother Yury the period of princely civil wars continued which lead to the ruin of the land of Rus, that is, its Tatar captivity.If we compare the Tale with the chronicles we note that people began to speak of the ruin of Rus only after Batu seized Kiev, which for the people remained the centre of the Russian land (as seen in bylinas). For this reason we may assume that the Tale was probably written no earlier than 1240, after the Tatars took Kiev, by a Southerner who had resettled in North Rus. The author's purpose was to sow courage, boldness and pride in the land in his readers' hearts; he wanted to inspire them in their struggle against the enemy which could be won only if the evils of the time, princely strife and civil warfare, could be overcome.
Over 150 studies of this work have been written.~^^1^^ Scholars have expressed interesting, at time contradictory, opinions about the time and place of this work's writing and its connection with the vita of Alexander Nevsky. As we see it the Tale was originally an independent work and only later was affixed to the life of Alexander Nevsky.
_-_-_^^1^^ N. K. Gudzy, ``O 'Slove o pogibeli Russkoi zemli'" (``On The Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land''), TODRL, vol. 12, 1956; Yu. K. Begunov, Pamyatnik russkoi literatury XIII veka ``Slovo o pogibeli Russkoi zemli" (A Landmark of Thirteenth Century Russian Literature: The Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land), M.-L., 1965.
163 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE LIFE OF PRINCEAlexander Yaroslavich, who conquered the Swedish feudal lords on the Neva River and the Teutonic knights on the ice of Lake Chudskoye, was a very popular figure. After his death in 1263 it appears likely that a vita was written. D. S. Likhachev^^1^^ has shown that its author was from Galich-Volhynian Rus and had moved, together with Metropolitan Kirill III, to Vladimir.
The Life was designed to glorify the prince's courage and to create a portrait of an ideal Christian soldier, a defender of the Russian land. It focuses on the battles of the Neva River and the battle on the ice of Lake Chudskoye.
It explains the Swedish invasion of Rus somewhat naively: after learning of the miraculous height and courage of Alexander, the Swedish king decided to capture Alexander's land.
With a small druzhina Alexander marches against enemy forces that are far superior to his own. The battle is described in detail with much attention given to the exploits of Alexander and six of his warriors. Alexander himself shows extraordinary courage and fearlessness in battle, ``leaving a mark on the face (of the Swedish king) with his sharp spear''. His men were no less heroic: Gavrilo Aleksich rode his horse up a plank onto an enemy ship and killed innumerable men; he was pushed overboard, but swam to safety; young Savva of Novgorod cut the pole of the Swedish king's gold-roofed tent and the collapse of the tent made the Russian camp rejoice; in the infantry Ratmir waged a heroic struggle against the enemy and died of his wounds of the field; Sbyslav Yakunovich hacked at the enemy with an axe, ``with no fear in his heart''. The prince's harbourer Yakov Polochanin rode with his sword into the regiment. Misha, together with his infantrymen, destroyed three ``Romish ships''. The author notes that their lord Alexander _-_-_
^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, ``Galitskaya literaturnaya traditsiya v Zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo" (``Galich Literary Tradition in The Life of Alexander Nevsky ''), TODRL, vol. 5, 1947.
164 Nevsky told of his men's heroic feats.The Battle on Lake Chudskoye against the Teutonic knights is depicted in traditional phrases from the military tale: ``It was Saturday, and when the sun rose, both sides advanced; and there was a fierce battle and the crack of breaking spears and ring of swords sounded as though the frozen lake was moving; the ice was invisible, for it was covered with blood.''
In this battle Alexander revealed his military genius, for he anticipated the enemy's tactics (Soviet divers and archeologists have established the site of the historic battle). He entered Pskov in triumph, leading prisoners.
Alexander also vanquished the Lithuanians who repeatedly invaded Rus. He was obliged to go to the Horde and pay his respects to Batu. His Life tells us that Tatars frightened their children with Alexander's name, saying ``Alexander is coming!~" (cf. The Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land where the Polovtsy frighten their children in cradles with the name of Vladimir Monomakh).
Batu honours the Russian prince and sends him to Suzdal, where Alexander put an end to the abuses of the Tatar official Nevrui. He held talks with the emissaries of the Pope, who offered Western help to Rus if the country would adopt Catholicism. Alexander categorically rejected this proposal, which the author views as a triumph of the national policies of the Russian prince.
Thus The Life of Prince Alexander is composed basically of secular elements; it has, however, many religious stylistic elements as well.
A small introduction is written in the tradition of the vita where the author speaks of himself as a ``miserable, sinful and unworthy" person who will write about Alexander because he was personally acquainted with the prince, and not only on the basis of tales told by ``my father''. Alexander's descent from a pious family is stressed: his father was the humble Prince Yaroslav who loved the poor, and his mother the pious Feodosia.
In portraying the hero, the Life likens him to Biblical figures: he is as handsome as Joseph, as wise as King Solomon, as strong as Samson and as brave as the 165 Roman Emperor Vespasian.
Fantastic religious images are introduced into the battle scenes. On the eve of the Neva battle one of Alexander's men, the elder from Izhora, has a vision at dawn: SS Boris and Gleb hurry to Alexander's aid. After the battle, on the other side of the Izhora river, countless enemy corpses were found. During the ``Battle on the Ice" a heavenly host that was invisible vanquished Alexander's enemies.
In his discussion with the Pope's emissaries, Alexander backs up his arguments with quotations from the Holy Scriptures, from Adam to the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
Alexander's pious end is also written in the vita style. In his address, Metropolitan Kirill proclaimed: ``My sons, heed me, for the sun of the land of Suzdal has already set!~" ``Then we are done for,'' answer the people around him. They grieve for their beloved prince so loudly that ``it was as if the earth shook''. Then a miracle occurs: when Metropolitan Kirill wanted to place a testament in the coffin, Alexander stretched out his hand, as though alive, and took the testament himself. In traditional hagiographical style posthumous miracles are described.
The Life of Prince Alexander Nevsky combines elements of both the military tale and the vita. Scholars have shown that it is also related to The Deeds of Digcnis, the Galician Chronicle, Josephus Flavius' History of the Jewish War, on the one hand, and to the Tale of SS Boris and Gleb and parimiyny readings on Boris and Gleb, on the other hand.
In turn, The Life of Prince Alexander Nevsky became a model for lives of later princes, including The Life of Dmitry Donskoi. Alexander Nevsky was extremely popular in Muscovy. As the patron of the Russian land he helped Dmitry Donskoi to conquer the Mongol-Tatars and Ivan the Terrible in the seige of Kazan. Peter the Great made Alexander Nevsky the patron of Russia's new capital: St. Petersburg.
1. Yu. K. Begunov, ``Pamyatnik russkoi literatury XIII veka 'Slovo o pogibeli Russkoi zemli'" ('Russian Literary 166 Monument of the Thirteenth Century', The Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land"), TODRL, vol. 12, 1965.
2. Voinskie povesti Drevnei Rusi (Military Tales of Old Rus) M.-L., 1948.
3. N. K. Gudzy, ``O 'Slove o pogibeli Russkoi zemli'" (``The Tale of the Ruin of the Russian Land''), TODRL, vol 12, 1956.
4. D. S. Likhachev, ``Galitskaya literaturnaya traditsiya v Zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo" (``Galich Literary Traditions in The Life of Alexander Nevsky''), TODRL, vol. 5, 1947.
5. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literature XI-XVII vekov (Anthology of Old Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Seventeeth Centuries). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, 8th edition, M., 1973.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ MUSCOVITE LITERATURE OF THE FOURTEENTHFounded in 1147 by Prince Yury Dolgoruky, Moscow was long considered a provincial town belonging to the principality of Vladimir. In 1237 steppe nomads burned the town as they passed. But thanks to its geography---Moscow was in the centre of the Volga and Oka river junctions---and its many forests and swamps that foiled invaders, Moscow was elevated in status. Already in the late thirteenth century refugees fromlhe southeast borders of Vladimir-Suzdal land began to pour into the Muscovite principality. Muscovite Prince Daniil Alexandrovich (1276--1303), youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, almost doubled the territory of the principality. His sons began a political struggle against the princes of Tver for the title of great prince of Vladimir. Ivan Danilovich (known as Kalita, the Moneybag) vanquished his rival Prince Mikhail of Tver. He persuaded the Russian metropolitan to support him and turned the khan into an obedient tool of his policies.
In 1328 the Horde granted Kalita the title of Great Prince of Vladimir; from that point on for a century every great prince was from Muscovy.
The birth of Muscovite literature was conditioned by the political elevation of Moscow and the Muscovite princes.
The formation of a Russian centralised state facilitated the establishment and development of elements 167 of national culture. The main theme of literature became the construction of a unified state. The compilers of Muscovite chronicles turned to the traditions of Kievan chronicles. In both folklore and literature Vladimir's Kiev became a symbol of Rus' independence, glory and magnificence. The idea of a struggle against the hated Mongol-Tatar yoke became of increasing concern to the population at large.
In 1380 Muscovite prince Dmitry Ivanovich united almost all of Northeast Rus under his banner and dealt a killing blow to the Golden Horde. His triumph showed that the Russian people had the power for a decisive struggle against their enemy, but only under the centralised rule of the great prince. After the victory at Kulikovo Field, the final defeat of the Tatars was merely a matter of time.
Muscovy's victory over Mamai led to a significant increase in authority before the Russian people. Muscovy played an important role in the development of literature and art, assisting the flowering of the works of Theophanus the Greek, Andrei Rublev and Epifany the Wise.
The historical events of 1380 were widely reflected in oral folk art and also in literary genres: chronicle tales, the Don Tale, the Tale of the Battle with Mamai, and the Discourse on the Life and Passing of Dmitry Ivanovich.
The Tale of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich's Battle with Mamai on the Don was, evidently, written on the heels of the event. Basic facts are given: the gathering of enemy forces and the Russian army, the battle on the river Nepryadva, the return of victorious Prince Dmitry to Moscow and the death of Mamai. At the same time these facts are evaluated in an emotional, expressive polemic. The central hero of the chronicle tale is Dmitry Ivanovich, Great Prince of Muscovy. His piety and military prowess are stressed.
168This ideal Christian soldier is counterposed to the ``Godless'', ``impious'', ``old villain'', ``asp'', ``headless beast" Mamai and his ally, the ``impious'', ``pagan'', Lithuanian Prince Jagailo and that ``sweet-tongued apostate" and traitor, Prince Oleg of Ryazan. Typically the treachery of the Russian prince who has made a treaty with the enemy is particularly distasteful to the author who bestows the most negative epithets on Oleg: ``fighter for the pagans'', ``flattering agent of Satan'', ``covered in sin'', and ``counsellor to the devil''.
Among models for the tale are The Life of Alexander Nevsky, parimiyny readings on SS Boris and Gleb and the apocryphal Discourse on the Birth of Christ and the Coming of the Magi. The means' for depicting Mamai's invasion of Rus, Dmitry's mobilisation of troops and pious meditations, the battle and the help from heavenly forces make the tale close to The Life of Alexander Nevsky. The readings on SS Boris and Gleb are the basis for the idealised portrait of Dmitry and the means of depicting his enemies: Mamai and Oleg of Ryazan are called ``new Svyatopolks''. The Discourse on the Birth of Christ is the model for the expression of the grief of Russian women and Mamai's rage and lament.
Although he has many literary sources, the author still conveys a good deal of historical detail connected to the movement of forces and course of the battle. Facts on the organisation of regiments were taken by the author from the razryadnaya kniga (a book listing participants in battles and describing battles themselves---TV. ) and the names of the leaders who fell in battle from the Synodik (book listing the names of the dead to be remembered in prayer---TV.).
The battle itself is depicted through characteristic phrases from military tales: ``There was a fierce battle and a hard struggle and a great noise... blood flowed like rain from both sides... corpses fell upon each other, and Tatar bodies fell upon the bodies of Christians.'' The basic purpose of the chronicle tale was to show the superior bravery of the Russian forces and the arrogance and violence of the ``beasts'', ``Godless Tatars" and ``vile Lithuania'', to brand Oleg of Ryazan as a traitor.
169In the early fifteenth century, the priest Sofony of Ryazan wrote a poetic tale of the battle at Kulikovo Field known as the Zadonshchina (the Don Tale), which has survived in six copies, forming two redactions. The older redaction dates to the 1470's; it has lost the ending and there are many omissions. Sixteenth and seventeenth -century copies also have defects. On this basis S. K. Shambinago reconstructed a compiled text of the Don Tale. Detailed textual analysis of all extant copies was done by R. P. Dmitrieva.^^1^^
The Don Tale glorifies the victory of Russian forces over the Mongol-Tatar hordes; its material is taken from the chronicle tale and its imagery from the Igor tale.
The use of artistic devices from The Lay of Igor's Host is due to the theme and artistic design of the Don Tale. Sofony consciously compared the events of the past with current events: while the Igor tale summoned the Russian princes to unite for the struggle against the ``Steppe'', the Don Tale glorified the unification of Russian princes which allowed them to triumph over the foreign invaders. Sofony not only juxtaposed events from past and present, but set them in opposition. As D. S. Likhachev notes, ``the spirit of the Don Tale's historical conception lies in the convergence of events from past and present''. The struggle with the Polovtsy and the struggle against the Mongol-Tatars were seen as one struggle against the ``Steppe'', for national independence.
The poetic plane of the Don Tale has two basic components: grief and tribute. These are preceded by a brief introduction. The introduction not only tries to set a solemn mood, but to define the theme of the work---a ``tribute'' to Dmitry Ivanovich, and his brother Vladimir Andreyevich---and to make the East grieve. Sofony stresses that his tale is intended to gladden the _-_-_
^^1^^ R. P. Dmitrieva, ``Vzaimootnoshenie spiskov ' Zadonshchiny' i 'Slova o polku Igoreve''', Slovo o polku Igoreve i pamyatniki Kulikovskogo tsikla (``The Relation of Copies of the Don Tale and The Lay of Igor's Host'', in The Lay of Igor's Host and Texts from the Kulikovo Cycle], M.-L., 1966.
170 Russian land and to praise the great-grandsons of Kievan princes Igor Rurikovich, Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich ``with songs and gay words sung to the psaltery''. Thus the Don Tale establishes the genealogical relations between the Muscovite princes and the Kievan princes, stressing that Rus' new political centre is Moscow, the heir of Kiev and its culture. With this in mind Sofony praises prophetic Boyan ``the best bard in Kiev''. In his address to the Russian princes, Dmitry counts them as part of the ``nest'' of Great Prince Vladimir of Kiev. In an effort to raise the Muscovite prince's political prestige, the author of the Don Tale calls Vladimir Svyatoslavich ``the tsar of Russia''.The first part of the Don Tale---the ``grief of the Russian land"---describes the assembling of Russian warriors, their departure on the campaign, the first battle and the defeat. The Don Tale depicts the assembling of Russian troops by the same means as we saw in the Igor tale: ``Horses neigh in Moscow; glory sounds all over the land of Rus. Trumpets blare in Kolomna; tambourines are beaten in Serpukhov; banners fly over the Great Don by the shores.''
The warriors of Andrei of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk, like those of Vsevolod, are ``swaddled to the call of trumpets and rocked in helmets, and fed on the tips of spears in the land of Lithuania''.
Nature's forces side with the Russian host in the Don Tale and foreshadow the defeat of the Tatars: ``Their misfortune is watched for by winged birds soaring beneath the clouds; ravens croak without cease; the jackdaws chatter in their language; eagles scream; wolves howl terribly; and the vixen barks at the bones.'' For Dmitry Ivanovich, however, ``the sun shines clearly toward the East, showing the way''.
In the first bloody battle with the Tatars, the Russians are defeated: ``For it was terrible and sad to watch; the grass streamed with blood, and the trees bent toward the earth in grief.'' ``In the land of Ryazan and by the Don, neither soldier nor shepherd did cry, but ravens croaked over human corpses, and cuckoos wept.''
Princesses and noblewomen grieved for their husbands. The laments of the voyevodas' wives are 171 based, like Yaroslavna's lament, on appeals to the wind, the Don and the Moscow rivers.
The second part is a tribute to the victory of the Russians in the second battle when Dmitry Bobrok of Volhynia led his troops in an ambush.
The Tatars fled and the Russians took trophies: ``...Russian women splashed about in Tatar gold''. ``There was gaiety and rejoicing in the Russian land and they praised the Russians and reviled the pagans.''
The Don Tale is written in a joyous, major key. Its author has an acute awareness of the end of ``grief'' and ``woe''.
By comparison to the Igor tale, this story is more abstract and tends to be concerned with the psychology of actions.^^1^^ This is achieved through wide use of direct speech, which at times can be very abstract. For example the Novgorodians complain that they will not arrive in time to help Dmitry. The assembled Russian princes address Dmitry. Andrei of Polotsk converses with Dmitry of Bryansk, Dmitry Ivanovich with Vladimir Andreyevich, brave Peresvet with Oslyabya, and so on. Dmitry delivers a solemn speech ``over the bones" after his victory.
Christian elements are much stronger in the Don Tale than in the Igor tale; there are no pagan mythological images. The heroes deliver pious speeches and prayers; there are fantastic religious elements (SS Boris and Gleb pray for their countrymen). The Russian armies fight for ``the holy Church, for the Orthodox faith''. Dmitry Ivanovich and Vladimir Andreyevich fight ``for the land of Rus and the Christian faith''. This all shows the growing role played by the Church in the Muscovite state.
Complex methaphorical images, like those in the Igor tale, that are connected to pagan mythology are alien to the author of the Don Tale.
As opposed to The Lay of Igor's Host he makes broader use of devices from folk poetry. Negative similes are, for example, fairly common in the Dem Tale. Symbolic images found in folk poetry such as goose, _-_-_
^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, Cheloveh v literature Drevnti tt&i, p. 81.
172 swans, falcons, gerfalcons, wolves and eagles, occur repeatedly in the Don Tale.Its style shows traces of the prose of fifteenth century documents and official records with chronological specifications, the titling of princes, genealogical formulas, lists of the dead, and a monotonous way of introducing direct speech.
At the same time the poetical structure of the Don Tale tends, to a certain degree, to fall into stanzas, which is stressed by similar beginnings: ``And said the prince...'', ``And said Andrei...'', ``And quoth the prince...'', ``Already the eagles are flying...'', ``Already strong winds are blowing...'', ``Already carts are creaking...", ``Already falcons and gerfalcons and Belozersky hawks...'', ``Already those falcons and gerfalcons...''.
In stressing the political role of Moscow and the Muscovite prince in the struggle against the MongolTatars, the Don Tale deliberately did not mention the treachery of the Ryazan prince Oleg. All of its spirit and lyricism were directed by Sofony towards propagandising the unity of all forces of the Russian land around Moscow and the Muscovite prince; he stressed that only thanks to this unification did the Russian conquer their enemy and the princes gain honour and glory.
In the mid-fifteenth century, based on the chronicle tale of the Kulikovo battle, the Don Tale and folk legends, The Tale of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich's Battle was written; it has survived in over 100 manuscripts, forming four redactions. Legends introduced many details and poetic episodes to the tale: the sending of Zakhary Tyutchev to Mamai with gifts, Dmitry's visit to the Trinity Monastery, bogatyr Peresvet's duel with the Tatar Telebei, Dmitry's fortune-telling before the battle (he listens to the earth, the cries of beasts and birds, and gazes at the fires in the enemy camp), Dmitry's exchange of clothing and horses with boyar Mikhailo Brenko, who resembles the great prince and dies heroically, the tale of Yurka the shoemaker's exploit, 173 and finally the search for the great prince after the battle (he is discovered badly wounded beneath a birch tree).
The religious element is significantly emphasised in the tale. Dmitry's piety is stressed through numerous prayer-monologues. One redaction focuses on the figure of Metropolitan Kiprian whom the great prince respects and obeys---he is Dmitry's father confessor. Actually Dmitry had ordered Kiprian to be exiled from Moscow and during the Battle of Kulikovo he was in Kiev. The tale attempted to show the total unity of secular and religious authorities.
The tale is constructed so as to contrast the steadfastness, courage and Christian piety of the Russians with the boastfulness, pride and impiety of the Tatar Mamai and his allies, Olgerd (Jagailo), and Oleg of Ryazan. The author spares no dark colours to depict the enemies of Rus. He creates numerous speeches exchanged, via messengers, between Oleg, Mamai and Jagailo. True, Oleg of Ryazan later repents his behaviour, his treachery to the Orthodox faith, and refuses to unite with Olgerd (Jagailo).
Shamed and accursed on the field at Kulikovo, Mamai flees to Kafa. ``Raging and very angry" he again prepares to attack the Russian land, but his armies are beaten on the Kalka by the King Tokhtamysh. Mamai is murdered in Kafa by a merchant; this is seen as just punishment for this impious king who devoted his life to evil.
The tale is distinguished by its fictional plot, the ``speeches'' of the characters, and elements of psychology. This shows the author's efforts to change the nature of historical narrative, make it more interesting and fictional. The style is rhetorical and literary, with elements of military tales and official writing. Steeped in the patriotic pathos glorifying a heroic exploit of the Russian people, the tale stresses the political significance of Moscow and the Muscovite great prince who united all the Russian princes and therefore was able to emerge victorious.
The Tale of the Battle Against Mamai was included in a seventeenth century Synopsis, and subsequently 174 underwent many literary reworkings: nineteenth century playwright V. A. Ozerov used the tale for the basis of a patriotic tragedy called Dmitry Donskoi; Soviet writer S. Borodin used it for a historical novel, also called Dmitry Donskoi; V. Sayanov wrote a long poem, The Tale of the Battle with Mamai. In Alexander Blok's cycle On Kulikovo field we also find traces of this work.
The Russian victory at Kulikovo Field encouraged the growth of national awareness, stressing the idea that princes must conquer their differences if they were to conquer their enslavers. This theme was vividly embodied in the historical Tale of how King Tokhtamysh Took Moscow and Captured the Land of Rus. Written in 1382, the tale has two redactions: the first was probably composed in ruling circles, the second is extant in the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle, the Sophian First Chronicle, and the Voskresensky Chronicles, and is democratic and factual in nature. This redaction was probably written by townsmen and reflects a new tendency: the democratisation of the historical tale. Attention is focused on a collective hero---the ordinary participants in the event: craftsmen and merchants. Citizens convene a meeting and take the initiative in the fight against the Tatars who have beseiged Moscow. They end the disorder in the city: Dmitry Ivanovich, who has not been supported by the other princes, leaves Moscow to gather strength. The populace refuses to let out those who want to leave the beseiged city and begin a courageous struggle against the enemy. The tale glorifies the exploit of Muscovite Adam the Weaver, who spotted an enemy soldier fighting gloriously and well ``loosed an arrow at him and wounded his wrathful heart and killed him'', causing great woe for the beseigers.
Only by cunning and deceit do the enemy forces capture the city: the Muscovites believe the Suzdal princelings who have joined the Tatar camp and open 175 the gates. The violence of the enemy is vividly depicted; they destroy everything with fire and sword, sparing neither the elderly, the young, nor women.
The Tale of How King Tokhtamysh Took Moscow condemns the quarrels of the princes with one another, the treacherous politics of Oleg of Ryazan who has let Tokhtamysh cross his lands, and the betrayal of the sons of Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal who convinced the Muscovites to open the gates to the enemy.
Facts are combined with expressive artistic details, and a lyrical, emotional lament for the devastated city. There are neither miracles nor pious sentiments; only at the very beginning does the author speak of a heavenly sign---a star with a tail appears, rising like a spear.
The democratic tendencies in this tale were not developed in the historical genres of Muscovite literature during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. One can find them later in the literature of Pskov, but they do not appear in full force until the seventeenth century.
1. Voinskie povesti Drevnei Rusi (Military Tales of Old Rus). Ed. by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1949.
2. Povesti o Kulikovskoi bitve (Tales of the Kulikovo Battle). Ed. by M. N. Tikhomirov, V. F. Rzhiga and L. D. Dmitriev, M.,1959.
3. Russkie povesti XV-XVI vv. (Russian Tales of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries). Compiled by M. O. Skripil, M., 1948.
4. 'Slovo o polku Igoreve' i pamyatniki Kulikovskogo tsikla. K voprosu o vremeni napisaniya 'Slova' ('The Lay of Igor's Host' and Works of the Kulikovo Cycle: The Date when the Lay Was Composed), M.-L., 1966.
5.Ya. S. Lurye. Obshcherusskie letopisnye svody XIV-XV vv. (Common Russian Chronicle Compilations of the fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries), L., 1976.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ HAGIOGRAPHICAL LITERATURE OFIn the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries Russian hagiography underwent a rebirth and 176 development of the Kievan rhetorical-panegyric tradition, called by D.S.Likhachev ``expressive-emotional''. Thisphenomenon is related to the rise in national awareness, as a consequence of the triumph over foreign enslavers, the formation of an ideology calling for a centralised state, and the consolidation of princely power in one great prince. Service to the Russian land and the need to overcome internal strife set the tone of the times. This theme was embodied in literature and in art; elevated to the foreground was the moral ideal of a man who was purposeful, steadfast, and ready to sacrifice himself for the good of people and state. The glorification and magnification of this ideal was served by the panegyrical style of the period, based on the traditions of Kievan literature and the considerable South Slavic tradition.
Usually scholars regard this as a manifestation of the Second South Slavic influence. In the fourteenth century Serbia and Bulgaria had a cultural renaissance. Patriarch Euphemius of Tyrnovo ordered certain orthographical and linguistic reforms which, above all, affected the translation from Greek to Church Slavic. Translators were obliged to follow the Greek example in every way possible. Particular attention was paid to form, graphics and calligraphy. Patriarch Euphemius and his colleagues believed that the word was part of the essence of a phenomenon which it defines, and declared that one could not understand a thing if one did not, first of all, give it the proper name; each letter had a certain significance and if it were changed it would change the meaning of the word. Elevated Church Slavic was contrasted to colloquial speech.
Patriarch Euphemius' reforms were reflected in new translations of Scripture from the Greek, and likewise in hagiographical works composed -by himself and his students: solemn, rhetorical panegyrics. This style, known as the ``weaving of words" (pletenie slaves) was adopted by the Russians in the late fourteenth century when South Slavic emigrees, such as Metropolitan Kiprian, Gregory Camblak and Pakhomy Logofet, arrived in the country. Furthermore Russian scribes learned the norms in Mt. Athos and Constantinople, cultural centres of the Eastern Church, where they 177 associated with both South Slavic and Greek monks.
This widespread theory however is, at the time, subject to a re-examination.~^^1^^
Saints' lives became panegyrics, ``solemn tributes" to Russian saints, embodying the spiritual beauty and power of their people. The structure of the vita changed: there was a small rhetorical introduction, a central biography---reduced to minimum length---and the lament for the dead saint and final tribute, which now occupied the main place in the work.
In this sort of hagiography, authors focused on various psychological states. D. S. Likhachev has observed that the writers still ignore human psychology and character as a whole, and merely describe various feeling which seem to have a life of their own.
Even this abstracted attention to psychology was a great step forward in the development of Old Russian literature. Heroes' deeds began to have psychological motivation; there was an interplay of feelings. The biography of a Christian ascetic was now seen as the history of his inner development. Lengthy and elaborate monologues became an important means of expressing man's spiritual condition and motives.
Feelings overshadowed events. Facts from the life of the saint had, therefore, little meaning; if they were insufficient then the author simply made them up, since writers of the time preferred inductive to deductive reasoning, that is, they strove to take universal truths as the point of departure. Extensive authorial digressions on morality and theology were introduced.
The work was composed in order to evoke a certain mood. Subjective epithets and tropes, as well as Biblical allusions, served this purpose.
The first work of this period to be written according
to the above criteria was Kiprian's Life of Metropolitan
_-_-_
^^1^^ See D. S. Likhachev, Nekotorye zadachi izucheniya vtorogo
yuzhnoslavyanskogo vliyaniya v Rossii (Toward a Study of the
Second South Slavic Influence on Russia), M., 1958; L. A.
Dmitriev, ``Nereshennye voprosy proiskhozhdeniya ekspressivno--
emotsionalnogo stilya XV v.'' (``Unsolved Problems in Determining
the Origins of Fifteenth Century Expressive-Emotional Style''),
TODRL, vol. 20, 1964.
Kiprian's work is in sharp contrast with the Life and Passing of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, Tsar of Rus evidently composed soon after the prince's death (May 19, 1389).^^1^^ It is a solemn speech glorifying the Great Prince of Muscovy and conquerer of the MongolTatars; not only is he seen as a saint with all Christian virtues, but as an ideal ruler. This had great political significance.
The vita consists of three parts: the prince's biography, Evdokia's lament and a eulogy.
Dmitry's biography is presented in a religious light; only the most important facts are mentioned---his marriage at the age of sixteen to Evdokia, the building of the stone walls of the Kremlin, the battle with the Tatars on the river Vozha, and the Battle of Kulikovo. There is no mention of Dmitry's relations with Metropolitan Kiprian; nor is Metropolitan Aleksy, the regent at the beginning of Dmitry's reign, spoken of; even St. Sergius of Radonezh is left out. Evidently the author generalised all the facts so as to stress the primacy of the secular power of this ``tsar of Russia''.
_-_-_^^1^^ M. A. Salmina dates the writing of the vita in the 1430's. (See ``Slovo o zhitii i o prestavlenii velikogo knyazya Dmitriya Ivanovicha, tsarya Russkogo" [``Discourse on the Life and Passing of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, Tsar of Rus"],TODRL, vol. 25, 1970). But we cannot agree. Russian society was concerned with other problems at this time. The Life was probably ordered by his widow Evdokia, whose lament plays an important part in the glorification of Dmitry.
179The pious prince is contrasted with the godless, shameless Mamai. The presumptious monologues of Mamai are set in opposition to the pious prayer of Dmitry and his speech to the princes of Rus and the nobles. This speech was composed by the author, which is evident in its rhythmic construction.
The Life and Passing conveys the unanimous support of princes and noblemen for Dmitry as ``tsar'' of Rus; they are ready to lay down their lives for him.
The Battle of Kulikovo is described in very general terms by means of traditional formulas from military tales.
It is compared with Yaroslav Vladimirovich's battle with Svyatopolk, and, as in the chronicle tale, the infamous Mamai is called a ``second Svyatopolk''. Our author emphasises the role of heavenly forces in Dmitry's victory: the intercessor for the Russian land Mitropolitan Peter, SS Boris and Gleb. The results of the victory over Mongol-Tatar hordes, in the author's estimation, is peace in the land of Rus and the consolidation of the authority of Moscow's tsar: ``...all bowed to his will, and the sectants and rebels against his reign perished.'' These words express the political theme of the work.
In his hagiography of Dmitry, the author does not merely speak of the prince's pious origins ``from noble and honourable parents'', but establishes a genealogy, stressing that Dmitry is the grandson of the ``convener of the land of Rus" Ivan Danilovich, ``and the outgrowth of a saintly garden planted by God, the fruit and flower of Prince Vladimir, a new Constantine...''. Already at the end of the fourteenth century and in the beginning of the fifteenth century, Muscovite writers are trying to promulgate the idea that the Muscovite princes had inherited their power from Kiev.
In addition the Life consistently maintains that Dmitry received his scepter through inheritance.
An extended, rhetorical catalogue of Christian virtues embodied in the prince ends with this didactic address: ``...those who hear this, princes and tsars, act likewise.''
180Much of the Life consists of lament by Princess Evdokia and a eulogy.
Evdokia's lament begins with a long rhetorical phrase wherein the author describes the psychological state of the widow, almost dead with grief for the untimely loss of the husband. Evdokia ``wept bitterly, fiery tears slipped from her eyes, kindling her womb, and beating her chest with her fists, like a trumpet call to battle and like an organ's sweet playing''.
V. P. Adrianova-Peretz^^1^^ has noted that her lament goes back to oral traditions. It begins with rhetorical addresses and questions characteristic of folk laments:
``Why did you die, my dear one, leaving me a lonely widow? Why did I not die before you? Why did the light of my eyes depart? ... My beautiful flower, why did you wither so early? ... My sun, you set early; my beautiful moon, you waned too soon; my eastern star, why did you travel westward? ...'' Evdokia addresses the dead man as though he were alive, and seems to converse with him. We often find such comparisons of the departed to the sun, moon, falling stars and withering garden in folk poetry.
But folk elements are rhetorically reworked and the lament, on the whole, takes on the air of a luxuriant, solemn panegyric, whose purpose is to eulogise the prince's Christian virtues. It blends into the eulogy which is designed to inspire the reader or audience with the moral and political greatness of the departed. The author strives to stress that Dmitry's virtues cannot be described in simple, human terms.
``To whom shall I compare...'' is the rhetorical question t!' it precedes a long list of comparisons between D. dtry and Biblical figures: Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. Dmitry, it is affirmed, was a greater man than these Biblical patriarchs and prophets.
Some stylistic formulas seen in Ilarion's Sermon on Law and Giuce are employed here. Once again the author speaks of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, but emphasises _-_-_
^^1^^ See V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, Ocherki poeticheskogo stilya Drevnei Rusi (Essays on the Poetic Style of Old Rus), M.-L., 1947, pp. 144--47.
181 that while Vladimir ruled over Kiev alone, Dmitry Ivanovich was the sovereign of the entire land of Rus.Based on models like the Life of Alexander Nevsky, parimiyny readings on SS Boris and Gleb, the Life and Passing had, above all, a clear political purpose: to eulogise the Muscovite prince as the conqueror of Mamai and ruler of the entire land of Rus, the heir of the Kievan state, and to surround the power of the prince with an aureole of saintliness and thus lift his political authority to a level far above that of other princes.
Most talented writer of the period was Epifany Premudry (the Wise) who spent most of his thirty-one years of life in the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery. He was first educated in Rostov, where he was admitted as a monk to the Monastery of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, which boasted an extensive library. Here he met the protagonist of future works, St. Stefan of Perm, with whom he conversed frequently, ``arguing about words or lines or phrases''. Epifany made a pilgrimage to the East, stayed at Mt. Athos, and acquainted himself with the finest models of Byzantine, Bulgarian and Serbian literature. His many interests brought him close to artist Theophanes the Greek, believed to have worked in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. In a letter to Kiprian, Bishop of Tver, Epifany gave an interesting description of Theophanes who amazed him by his method of painting: he did not look at models. It is likely that his conversations with Theophanes influenced Epifany and the former's expressive brush corresponds to the latter's expressive style. We do not know whether Epifany knew other renowned contemporaries, such as Andrei Rublev, but beyond doubt the moral atmosphere of the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery and the person of its abbot, St. Sergius of Radonezh, exercised a beneficial influence on their work. Both express the general rise in national awareness as a result of the historic victory on Kulikovo Field. Epifany died about 1420.
182We know two of his works: the Life of St. Stefan of Perm and the Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh.~^^1^^ In .his vitae of these renowned contemporaries whose names, in the words of V. O. Klyuchevsky, shine forth like bright constellations in our fourteenth century and make it the dawn of the political and moral rebirth of Rus, Epifany shows the grandeur and beauty of a moral ideal of a man who is primarily concerned with consolidating the Russian state.
The Life of St. Stefan of Perm was written soon after the subject's death in 1396 and praises the Russian monk's missionary work; St. Stefan was named Bishop of Komi and Perm and worked to convert pagans to Christianity. After painstakingly collecting facts on Stefan, Epifany reworked them into a refined, solemn panegyric.
The Life of St. Stefan of Perm corresponds to all the rules: it opens with a rhetorical introduction, then has a biographical section, and closes with three laments (the lament of the Perm people, the Perm Church and Epifany himself).
In his introduction, Epifany gives extensive descriptions of his motivations for writing the work: ``...If this is not written in commemoration, then it will not be remembered, and in years to come and among future generations it will be consigned to oblivion....'' He then names his sources and recounts some of the obstacles.
The biographical section contains certain concrete facts about Stefan's life and work. He was born in Ustyug to a church cleric. He learned to read and read much of the Old and New Testaments. He was particularly interested in writing. Not only did he read the Bible, listened to tales and didactic discourses, but with his own hands set to work writing out holy books, beautifully and with great energy. He began preparing for a missionary career early in life, ``himself studying the language of Perm and creating a grammar of Perm, and an alphabet,... and translating books from Russian to the language of Perm, and copying them and rewriting _-_-_
^^1^^ A. V. Solovyev believes that Epifany wrote the Life of Dmitry Ivanovich as well. See TODRL, vol. 17, 1961.
183 them''. Furthermore, in his desire for ``greater understanding" Stefan learned Greek and ``studied Greek writings and always carried them with him...''.Before going to the land of Perm, Stefan prepared himself for the task of teaching and made enlightenment the goal of his life.
Central to the work is Stefan's missionary activity. He lived for many years among the people of Komi, and Perm and tried to set a personal example for the pagans. He waged an energetic struggle against pagan rites, smashing idols, cutting down a magic birch tree worshipped by the pagans, and shaming the shaman Pam. Epifany shows Stefan's great strength of will, patience, tolerance and conviction. For these qualities enabled him to win a moral victory. Stefan proclaims his rivalry with Pam, proposing that the magician walk with him over a bonfire and go through a hole in the ice. Pam categorically refuses to undergo such trials and loses his authority. The victorious Stefan then defends Pam from the wrath of the Permians, who demand his execution, and convinces them to merely exile the discredited shaman.
Epifany takes a new approach to his negative hero. Stefan's antagonist Pam is an extraordinary personality who has much influence with his constituents. He attempts to convince them not to accept Christianity and sees Stefan, above all, as a pawn of Muscovy: ``What good can come to us from Moscow? Are not all our woes from there, and heavy tributes and violence and governors and tax collectors and overseers?~" Pam's speech makes him a convincing figure. Stefan does not easily triumph over him, which makes him even a stronger personality in his own right and stresses the significance of his moral example.
Epifany also incorporates elements of criticism of his clerical contemporaries in the Life, showing how hierarchs of the Church attain their positions by struggling against their rivals, ``riding over" each other, and acting through bribery and rewards.
Stefan's main service, as Epifany sees it, is his work to enlighten the people: his development of an alphabet for the Perm language and his translation of 184 Scriptures into Permian:
``How many years did Greek philosophers compile and create the Greek grammar and hardly left many works and spent much time in the process; one monk created the alphabet and grammar of Perm; he compiled it alone, composed it alone; one monk, one monastic, one cenobite. Stefan, I tell you, the revered bishop, alone at one time, and not a long time, as they did, being one monk, alone and secluded, alone asked help from the Only God, alone calling the One God to aid him, and praying alone and addressing the Only God....'' Here is a typical example of rhetorical speech, constructed on the unified principle of ``oneness'' (edin), employing synonyms and parallel expressions as widely as possible.
We can see Epifany's great mastery of `` word-weaving" in the ``Lament of the Permians'', ``Lament of the Perm Church'', and the ``Lament and Eulogy of the Monk Who Wrote This''. Rhetorical questions, and addresses to the reader, and exclamations alternate with comparisons to Biblical figures, similes and anaphorae. He cannot find words to glorify the work of the Bishop of Perm: ``What can I say of this bishop, how shall I describe him, what name can I give him, and what shall I declare or proclaim of him, and how shall I praise, or honour, or relate his work and what eulogy shall I weave for him?~" Indeed Epifany weaves words as one mi. it weave delicate lace in praise of Stefan. One is struck by his extensive vocabulary and artful choice of synonyms. At times we find up to twenty-five synonyms in the eulogy, helping the author to express his deep respect and admiration for the hero.
The ``Lament of the Permians" conveys the ``heartfelt sorrow" of newly converted Christians who have been deprived of a ``good lord and teacher'', ''a benevolent pastor and ruler''. The literary rhetoric of this lament also displays some motifs from folklore which are found in laments of widows, for example: ``Why has your goodness gone from us, and why have you left us, and abandoned us like orphans.... Who shall console us in our grief, to whom shall we turn or to whom shall we look....''
185Here too the Permians express their offense at Muscovy which for many scholars testifies to the antiMuscovite tendencies in the Life of St. Stefan of Perm and its author's opposition to Moscow. But close study of this text and its general political tendencies show that like Epifany's other work---the Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh--- provides no grounds for such conclusions. Epifany stresses that Stefan and Sergius devoted themselves to the good of the land of Rus.
Laments in the Life of Stefan of Perm express both the grief of the people of Perm and their awe at the grandeur of the saint's work.
The ``Lament and Eulogy of the Monk Who Wrote This" contains certain elements from Epifany's own life (his meetings and arguments with Stefan) and lyrical thoughts on this account. There is a traditional hagiographical modesty topos: ``For I am the least among brothers, and the worst of men, and least among mortals, and the last of Christians, the most useless of monks and illiterate.'' The traditional topos stresses, on the one hand, the grandeur of the hero's deeds and, on the other, the art of the author himself whose love for the hero compels him ``to eulogy and weaving of words''. Epifany describes his style as follows: ``For I, the sinful and ignorant author, have written a eulogy for you, weaving words and multiplying words, and wishing to honour in words, and composing a tribute in words, and gathering words and weaving them....''
Epifany gathered his words from various sources including Scriptures; he also cites from memory the works of Church Fathers, patericons, the Paleya, the World Chronicle and the work of the Monk Khrabr.
His solemn rhetoric is based on Kievan traditions and, in particular, on Ilarion's Sermon on Law and Grace. His eulogy for Stefan expands a familiar formula used by Ilarion:
``For the Romans praise apostles Peter and Paul, and the Asians honour the apostle John, Egypt the apostle Mark, Antiochia the apostle Luke, Greece the apostle Andrew, and the land of Rus Great Prince Vladimir who christened Rus, and Moscow venerates and honours Metropolitan Peter as a new miracle-worker, and Rostov 186 its Bishop Leonty; the land of Perm venerates and praises you, Stefan, as a leader, teacher, guide, and preacher, for through you we came out of our darkness and through you we came to know the light.''
Epifany violated many canons in his Life of Stefan of Perm: length, factual material, ethnographic notes on the region of Perm and criticism of simony, as well as a new treatment of negative characters, the lack of miracles, both in the saint's life and after his death, and the compositional structure differ from previous models. Evidently Epifany intended his work to be read individually and, like his friend Theophanes the Greek did not look at canonical models.
In either 1417 or 1418, Epifany wrote the Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh with consummate historical accuracy. The style is less rhetorical than that of his life of Stefan. Sergius' biography is well narrated; Epifany speaks warmly of his work against the hated internecine strife and aimed at consolidating a centralised Russian state.
Epifany the Wise's literary work helped to make the ``weaving of words" a dominant literary trend. This style enriched the literary language and contributed to the further development of literature in its depiction of human psychological states and the dynamism of emotions.
Another central figure in the development of a rhetorical, panegyric style was Pakhomy Logofet (``Arranger of Words''). A Serb by nationality, Pakhomy was educated on Mt. Athos. He arrived in Rus in the 1430's and remained until the end of his life (148.4). In response to orders from Moscow and Novgorod, Pakhomy gladly reworked many vitae in a rhetorical vein, according to the tastes of his customers, the ruling classes of Moscow and Novgorod.
He reworked Epifany's Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, and also the vitae of Metropolitan Aleksy, St. Varlaam of Khutyn, Archbishop loann of Novgorod, 187 Archbishop Moisei of Novgorod, and the Tale of Mikhail of Chernigov and His Boyar Fedor. These were all revisions and new redactions of earlier works. He wrote vitae of Abbot Nikon of the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery (Sergius* successor), Evfimy, Archbishop of Novgorod, Sawa of Vishera and Kirill of Belozersk.
All these works were composed according to Church canons. Educated in the philosophy of Hesychasm, Pakhomy made an effort to spread these ideas, both in his editing and in his original works. He gave the vita a luxurious, solemn rhetorical form and extended descriptions of miracles.
At times the rhetorical form was so exaggerated by Pakhomy that content suffered.
In 1453 Turkish forces took Constantinople. Nestor-Iskander composed a tale interpreting the universal historical significance of this event. He was Russian, but had been captured by the Turks and had converted to Islam. He took part in the seige of Constantinople and recreated the seige and defense of the city through personal observations and tales of witnesses.
Nestor-Iskander begins his narrative with the founding of Constantinople by the Emperor Constantine Flavius. He borrows from the chronicle of George Hamartolos the symbolical image connected with the city's founding. A snake crawls out of a cave and is attacked by an eagle, who seizes the reptile and flies away; exhausted by the struggle with the snake, the eagle falls to the earth. But people rush to the spot, kill the snake and free the eagle. This was interpreted in the following way: the eagle symbolised Christianity, the snake---Islam; Islam conquers Christendom, but it is a temporary victory. The final triumph will be that of the Christians.
This introduction had a profound philosophical and political import. In his conclusion Nestor said that if the first part of the prophecy came true---the city begun by 188 Constantine ended with Constantine---then the second part would aslo be fulfilled---``the Russians and the former creators would triumph over Ishmael and would recover the city of Seven Hills, earlier belonging to it, and rule in it''. This second part was interpreted in Moscow as a sign that the Russians were to liberate Constantinople from the infidels. Church circles tried to point the politics of Muscovy in this direction, but the chancellory of the Great Prince created its own theory of the sovereignty of the Russian state.
The Tale of the Taking of Constantinople focuses on the course of the seige. Not only does Nestor-Iskander state facts, he evaluates them, attempting to convey the psychological state of the beseiged citizens and concentrating on the figure of the Emperor Constantine. This courageous warrior despised death; the interests of the state superceded all others for him. His valour and heroism are emphasised by terrifying heavenly omens: the city is sheathed in darkness, a flame rises from the cupola of St. Sophia and ascends to the heavens. These show that God's grace has abandoned the city. Nevertheless Constantine resolves that he will remain in the doomed city and die a hero's death in battle. Nestor describes his behaviour in hyperbolic terms: Constantine kills 600 Turks singlehandedly, and then himself falls, struck down by the enemy.
A match for Constantine is his faithful ally, Prince Zusteneya (Justinian) of Genoa. He is the only one to respond to the emperor's call to Western powers; he arrives to help the beseiged city and conducts himself like a hero in the course of the battle. He dies with his weapon in hand.
Constantine's enemy, the ``Godless King Magmet" is not entirely a villain in the tale, which represents a significant break with tradition. Magmet is also courageous in battle; he is cruel, but just. Recognising the courage of his opponent, he kisses the head of the dead Constantine and sends it to the patriarch so that it can be encased in gold and silver and buried with honours.
Much space in the tale is allotted to a colourful description of the battle and the many attempts to storm the city walls. Nestor makes his audience feel the 189 tension and grandeur of the battle: ``What tongue can confess or speak of the woes and misfortunes: corpses fell on both sides like sheaves that had been harvested and their blood flowed like rivers along the walls; howls and human cries and the clatter of weapons and the gleam of steel made the city seem transformed; pits were filled with human corpses to the very top and the Turks crossed over them like ladders as they fought; for the dead made a bridge and ladder to the city. Thus did all the rivers fill and their shores were strewn with corpses and their blood flowed like streams....''
Images of battles and the scenes of heroic defenders of Constantinople battling the enemy host alternate with terrifying omens---symbols that the city is doomed. The author interprets these as signs that God is angry at the city and wishes to punish it for its many sins and transgressions. At the same time the omens help the author to describe the unparalleled heroism of the city's defenders. His view of the event as part of Divine Providence does not prevent him from showing the true reasons for the fall of this world power: unequal forces and lack of help from the West.
The author sympathises with the Greeks: ``Who does not weep and lament this?~" he asks as he shows devastation of the city by the forces of the accursed Magmet.
The Tale of the Taking of Constantinople represents an important stage in the development of the historical tale as a genre. The combination of concrete descriptions of real events and imagined events (omens, fictional monologues) depicting the inner state of the characters as well as the broad historical and philosophical interpretation of events distinguish the tale. Extremely popular with readers, it served as a model for historical narratives in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
Evidence of the change in the form of historical narration in fifteenth century literature are tales of the Kingdom .of Babylon, which played an important role in 190 the development of the political theory of the Muscovite state. These include the Fable of the City of Babylon, which tells legendary information on King Nebuchadnezzar, the city of Babylon which he founded and its desolation after it had developed into a world power, and the Tale of the City of Babylon. M. O. Skripil believes that the Tale was disseminated in the fifteenth century and the Fable written in the sixteenth century.^^1^^
N. K. Gudzy believes that both tales originated in Byzantium during Constantinople's efforts to establish its rights to world primacy.^^2^^
The Tale of the City of Babylon shows how the coronation regalia were gotten from the desolated Babylon for Greek Emperor Basil by three youths: a Greek, a Georgian and a Russian. The equal participation of representatives of three Christian peoples in this exploit stressed the equal rights of these three Christian powers: Byzantium, Georgia and Rus. When Constantinople fell and Georgia had almost lost its independence, all the coronation regalia were ceded to the Russian Great Prince. Thus the Tale of the City of Babylon anticipated the Tale of the Crown of Monomachus.
These tales of Babylon were like fairy tales: here we have symbolical snakes, a miraculous sword, a gigantic sleeping dragon guarding the wealth of the desolated city of Babylon ruined by snakes, a magic cup with a Divine drink, a miraculous voice giving instructions to the youths, and the like. This tale is therefore close in many respects to fairy tales. Only the names of Kings Nebuchadnezzar and Basil are historical---the rest is fiction.~^^3^^
Thus Muscovite literature of the early fifteenth century shows a development of emotional-expressive style in hagiographical literature, which served as an _-_-_
^^1^^ M. O. Skripil, ``Skazanie o Vavilone grade" (``The Tale of the City of Babylon''), TODRL, vol. 9, 1953.
^^2^^ N. K. Gudzy, Istoriya drevnerusskoiliteratury, p. 261.
^^3^^ N. F. Droblenkova, ``Po povodu zhanrovoi prirody 'Slova o Vavilone'" (``The 'Tale of Babylon' as a Genre''), TODRL, vol. 24, 1969.
191 important means of affirming the moral ideal of the saint and likewise the ideal of the prince or ``Russian tsar" who dedicates himself to serving the interests of the all-Russian state. Gradually this style began to penetrate historical narrative and polemics, changing their form considerably. Fiction began to play an important part in historical narrative. In their attemtps to draw broad generalisations, authors of historical tales gave their works political and philosophical orientation.1. V. A. Grikhin, Problemy stilya drevnerusskoi agiografii (The Style of Old Russian Hagiography), 1974.
2. L. A. Dmitriev, ``Nereshennye voprosy proiskhozhdeniya i istorii ekspressivno-emotsionalnogo stilya XV v.'' (``Unsolved Problems of the Origins and History of Fifteenth Century Expressive-Emotional Style''), TODRL, vol. 20, 1964.
3. O. F. Konovalova, ``Printsip otbora fakticheskikh svedeniy v 'Zhitii Stefana Permskogo'" (``The Principle for the Choice of Facts in the 'Life of Stefan of Perm'''), TODRL, vol. 24, 1969.
4. D. S. Likhachev, Kultura Rusi vremeni Andreya Rubleva i Epifaniya Premudrogo (konets XlV-nachalo XV v.) (Russian Culture in the Age of Andrei Rublev and Epifany the Wise. Late Fourteenth-Early Fifteenth Centuries), M.-L., 1970, chapters four and five.
5. Russkie povesti XV-XVI vv. (Russian Tales of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries). Compiled by M. O. Skripil, M., 1958.
6. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literature (Anthology of Old Russian Literature). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, 8th edition, M.,1973.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE LITERATURE OF FIFTEENTH CENTURYIn the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Novgorod was a major political, economic, and cultural centre of Northwest Rus. Its territory extended to the Ural Mountains and enterprising Novgorodians penetrated as far as distant, wealthy Siberia.
In terms of its political structure Novgqrod was a typical feudal republic. The highest organ of power was the veche---the town meeting. The Council of Lords comprised of boyars and wealthy merchants had the power to carry out laws and was headed by the archbishop of Novgorod. In fact the city was ruled by 192 merchant aristocracy. Relations with princes were based on agreement: from time to time the people of Novgorod summoned a prince to command their armed forces in the struggle against their Western neighbours who continued to covet the wealth of this great merchant city. The prince acted as commander-in-chief of the army, but was not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of the republic. If he made the slightest attempt to gain political power, the prince met with resistance from the people of Novgorod and was immediately driven away.
The constant struggles against the Livonian knights and Swedish feudal lords obliged the people of Novgorod to acknowledge a certain political dependency on the principality of Vladimir-Suzdal. Later, in particular after the Battle of Kulikovo, Novgorod became dependent on Muscovy.
Two parties were formed in the city: the Muscovite ``party'' and the Lithuanian ``party''. Most craftsmen, tradesmen of lower and middle class and peasants (chernye lyudi) supported a centralised system of rule and wanted to unite Novgorod and Moscow. Thus they were called the ``Muscovite party''. The noblemen and trade oligarchy, as well as princes of the church wanted to retain their priveleges. They supported the earlier feudal system and leaned politically to Lithuania, thereupon earning the name ``Lithuanian party''. Often the parties clashed; it is not difficult to see this as a reflection of a heated class struggle.
The oldest work of Novgorodian literature is the chronicle. The Novgorod Chronicle began in the 1030's and since that time was kept without a break until Novgorod lost its political independence in 1478.
The oldest Novgorod Chronicle recorded purely local events; its style was dry and unusually laconic. In the thirteenth century this chronicle was significantly broadened in its range of themes: in accordance with the idea of the land of Rus, the chronicler began to follow events in other principalities. Important events related to the Swedes', Germans' and Tatars' military and political life were also included. We see this widening in scope of a chronicle originally limited to events in __PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13---315 193 one city, in the First Novgorod Chronicle's account of the 133O's.
Further development of chronicle-writing and literature in Novgorod occurred from the 1430's to the 1450's under Archbishop Evfimy II (1429--1459). He wanted to find an ideological foundation for the Novgorod upper classes' desire to remain a separate republic. With this in mind Novgorod writers gathered historical lore and legends in order to strengthen the authority of local shrines.
At Evfimy's order the St. Sophia Chronicle (Sofiysky vremennik) was compiled in 1432. Here Novgorod was shown as the centre of Russian history. But this was a Novgorodian chronicle and gave little notion of the life of other principalities. It also contained historical justification for the political pretensions of Novgorod. To counter this proponents of unity with Muscovy created a new chronicle in 1448 with clearly expressed all-Russian, democratic political views.
Evfimy II established a cult of Archbishop loann (1163--118-3) in Novgorod. His name was connected with legends about Novgorod's miraculous salvation from-the attacking men of Suzdal in 1169.
At Evfimy's request Pakhomy Logofet composed an extended rhetorical Tale of the Sign from the Icon of Our Lady (Skazanie o znamenii ot ikony Bogoroditsy}. This tale glorifies Archbishop loann of Novgorod and the city itself as being under the protection of the Virgin herself; they shame the ``violent Pharaoh" Andrei Bogolyubsky, who is defeated at the walls of Novgorod. We can easily see the connection with politics of the time in this tale: Novgorod is specially protected by Heaven and every attempt made by Muscovy to infringe on its political independence will be harshly punished.
The tale of loann's journey on a devil to Jerusalem was designed to glorify the Novgorod archbishop. Its 194 plot is typical for medieval literature: the struggle between righteous man and a devil. However in this fantastic plot it is not difficult to observe real features of the life of the clergy of the times.
The sly devil decides to tempt the archbishop. He conceals himself in a vessel of water which loann usually uses to wash up. When he realises the devil's intentions, loann imprisons him in the vessel by making the sign of the cross. Unable to bear it even for an hour, the devil begins to howl and beg to be released. loann agrees, providing that the devil take him from Novgorod to Jerusalem and back in the course of one night. Here before us is a typical episode from a fairy tale which here takes on religious, moral overtones. After his fantastic journey, the devil makes loann promise that he will keep silent: it would be frightfully embarrassing for the devil if anyone found out that he had carried an archbishop on his back, and not to a witches' sabbath or to Hell, but to Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre. But (and this is a true stroke of psychology) vainglory overcomes the fear of demonic revenge. And in a conversation with pious men loann tells about how a certain man went to Jerusalem and back in one night. He has violated his oath of silence and given the demon carte blanche to resume tormenting him. The devil's tricks are concrete and redolent of daily life. Visitors to loann's cell see a woman's necklace on his bench, or a woman's shoes or clothing; a harlot appears repeatedly leaving his cell. These, it goes without saying, were all illusions perpetrated by the devil although the daily life and morals of the Church Fathers are faithfully portrayed in these scenes!
The people of Novgorod resolve that a person leading such an improper life should not serve as a hierarch. They drive away their archbishop and he has to leave the city on a raft. loann's prayers make the raft float against the current, a sign of his innocence and saintliness. Upon witnessing this the people of Novgorod repent and with tears in their eyes implore loann to forgive them.
Not only is the plot of the tale entertaining, it is lively and full of images and details from daily life.
__PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195Dialogue and direct speech between loann and the devil plays a major part in the tale's structure.
As a student in the Lyceum Pushkin was charmed by the tale and it inspired his comic narrative poem, The Monk, telling about the adventures of a monk and a skirt. Gogol also used certain motifs from the story for his tale ``The Night Before Christmas''.
Also connected with loann is The Tale of Shchil, Mayor of Novgorod (Povest o novgorodskom posadnike Shchile). It is based on a legend of ShchU, a moneylender and monk, who built the Church of Intercession in Novgorod in 1320. In the Church environment this legend was altered: the monk turned into a mayor, and the tale was made to show how prayers for the dead lead to salvation and how contributions for this purpose are necessary. The heretical strigolniks began to deny this in fourteenth century Novgorod. It was a rationalistic city heresy and is called by this name because its founder is believed to be the strigolnik (clothier) Karp; strigolniks criticised orthodox Church teachings, such as Church hierarchy, claiming that priests who are paid cannot function as intermediaries between man and God. They cast doubts upon prayers for the dead, believing that if man committed sins on earth he would be punished in the other world. These heretics criticised priests for their improper lives and denied the sacrament of communion. Under the religious wrapping of this heresy, it is not difficult to discover a social protest made by the city's democratic lower classes against the feudal lords of the Church.
The Tale of Shchil defends the interests of the latter, openly propagandising the necessity and usefulness of prayers for the dead on the example of its hero Shchil the money-lender, and the need to contribute for the dead's commemoration: the Church and its priests could gain forgiveness for any sin, even the terrible sin of usury. When Shchil's son gave all his father's 196 possessions to various churches so that they would pray night and day for his soul, the usurer's sin was, in the end, forgiven. After the first forty days a head appeared from the hellfire; after forty more days, his body was clear to the waist, and forty days after that his body was freed of the torments of Hell. This gradual process of liberating the hero from Hell's fire was shown in the ``vision'' painted by the iconpainter depicting Brother Shchil in Hell's depths. This tale shows the close ties between the word and the image in Old Russian literature.
After Novgorod lost its independence and was finally united with Muscovy in 1478, legends began to arise about the end of Novgorod, showing that the event was inevitable. Thus in the chronicles under 1045 a legend was introduced telling of the painting of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Novgorod by Greek masters: the iconpainters should have depicted Christ Pantocrator in the cupola of the cathedral with his hand opened in a blessing, but miraculously that hand formed a clenched fist, although the artist redid it three times. On the third day the iconpainters heard a voice from Heaven: ``Painters, oh painters! Do not paint me with my hand making the sign of a blessing, but with my hand clenched, for in this hand I hold Great Novgorod, and when me hand opens, then will Novgorod come to an end.''
And in truth the image of the Saviour in Novgorod's St. Sophia is painted with a clenched hand (the fresco was destroyed by nazi shellfire in 1941).
Under the year 1471, the chronicle tells of a terrible storm which broke the cross on St. Sophia, of the appearance of blood on two graves, and tears from the icon of the Virgin. All of these terrible signs foretold the defeat of Novgorod at the hands of the Muscovites on the River Shelon in 1472. As a result of this loss, Novgorod was finally united to Muscovy.
Many legends of Novgorod's fall are found in hagiography. Thus, in the Life of Mikhail of Klopovo we find 197 an interesting episode where Mikhail meets with Archbishop Evfimy of Novgorod, Mikhail tells him that an heir (Ivan III) was born in Moscow who will be terrible for many lands and will take control of Novgorod. He advises the people to send emissaries to Moscow and mollify the prince, or else he would attack them. The archbishop did not listen to St. Mikhail and all came true as he prophesied.
The Lives of SS Zosima and Sawaty of Solovki contained a scene where Zosima visits the home of Marfa Boretskaya (one of the leaders of the Lithuanian party). She does not receive him, and Zosima says in defeat: ``The time is drawing near when the inhabitants of this home will not walk about this courtyard and the doors of the home will be closed, and they will not open and their courtyard will be desolate.'' Later invited by Marfa to a feast, Zosima sees that six boyars are sitting without their heads. Later they were executed by Ivan III.
In the description of posthumous miracles appended to St. Varlaam of Khutyn's vita we find an extended account of a vision by the sexton Tarasy. This legend stresses that human transgressions and sins had led God to destroy Novgorod: to flood Lake Ilmen, exterminate people by plague and fire. Only through the intercession of St. Varlaam could his native city avoid destruction. But in fact for three years in Novgorod there was a plague and then a great fire. Thus did the people of Novgorod try to explain and justify the loss of their independent feudal republic.
In the 1470's when Novgorod was being united with Moscovy, a new, widespread heretical movement emerged, named by its opponents ``Judaisers'' ( zhidovstvuyushchie). No works by these heretics survived. We can only judge the nature of the heresy by the works of their opponents: losif of Volotsk's Enlightener 198 (Prosvetitel) and Archbishop Gennady's epistles.
The author of the Enlightener, losif connects the new heresy with the arrival in Novgorod of Lithuanian Prince Mikhail Olelkovich's retainer the Jew Skhary. But Ya. S. Lurye has shown that the Abbot's contentions have little foundation.^^1^^ Trying to obtain the permission of Ivan III to wage a resolute struggle against the heretics, losif accused them of ``Judaising''. In fact the new heretical movement was a new version of the strigolniks' heresy and was based on a typical urban anti-feudal movement.
The heretics critically re-examined one of the basic dogmas of the Orthodox Church: the teachings about the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity. Christ, they declared, was not the God-man, the consubstantial God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but a prophet like Moses. They wanted to stop venerating icons, things made by human hands, and saw nothing divine in them. Following the teachings of the strigolniks the heretics were hostile to the Church hierarchy. They believed that man did not need special intermediaries between himself and God. Furthermore these intercessors (priests, monks) often lived a life very distant from the moral norms which they preached and bought ecclesiastical ranks and profited on worshippers' contributions for the remembrance of the dead.
The social essence of urban medieval heresies was well defined by F. Engels: ``The town heresies---and those are the actual official heresies of the Middle Ages---were directed primarily against the clergy, whose wealth and political station they attacked. Just as the present-day bourgeoisie demands a gouvernement a bon marche (cheap government), the medieval burghers chiefly demanded an eglise a bon marche (cheap church).~"^^2^^
The Novgorod heresy seized Pskov and then quickly spread to Moscow. This was also facilitated by Great _-_-_
^^1^^ See Ya. S. Lurye, Ideologicheskaya borba v russhoi publitsistike kontsa XV-nachala XVI veka (The Ideological Struggle in Russian Polemics of the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries), M.-L., 1960.
^^2^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 413.
199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1980/HORL354/20070408/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.04.09) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ Prince Ivan III himself, who supported the heretics. In 1480 he had two heretics, Presbyter Aleksey and Father Denis, brought from Novgorod to Moscow and assigned the first to the Cathedral of the Dormition and the second to the Archangel Cathedral in the Kremlin. Obviously the heretics approved of Ivan Ill's firm measures against the Novgorod boyars and the higher ranks of the clergy: the execution of the heads of the Lithuanian party, the confiscation of land from Novgorod bishops and major monasteries. In turn the great prince saw the tradesmen and craftsmen of Novgorod, whose interests the heretics expressed, as a force supporting his centralised policies.In the mid-1480's a circle of Muscovite freethinkers arose, including many helmsmen of the state: the royal scribe Fedor Kuritsyn, his brother Ivan Volk, scribe Mitya Konoplev, merchant Semyon Klenov and Ivan Ill's daughter-in-law Elena Voloshanka. This circle was not so clearly opposed to feudal politics and was purely secular in character.
Muscovite heretics did not criticise the Old and New Testaments. They acknowledged the unchallengeable authority of Scriptures, but criticised the works of the Church Fathers. According to Church Fathers the end of the world would occur in 1491. This did not happen. Heretics claimed that the Church Fathers lied and therefore their writings were not authoritative; this cast doubt on personal immortality and the resurrection of the dead. Metropolitan Zosima, consecrated in 1490, supported these views; losif of Volotsk called him ``a demonic wolf" and ``vile heretic".
Criticisms of the Moscow circle regarding the Church Fathers denied any basis for the tradition of the institution of monasticism; this hit at the interests of the Church.
The religious ferment that arose at the end of the fifteenth century was observed by losif of Volotsk: ``Today in their homes and on the streets and in the marketplace, monks and laymen express their doubts and question their faith.''
As Ya. S. Lurye showed, the formation of the ideology of the Muscovite centralised state was 200 connected, riot with losif of Volotsk, as earlier believed, but with the activities of heretical circles in Muscovy.~^^1^^
In 1488, answering German Emperor's ambassador Poppel, Fedor Kuritsyn, in the name of Ivan III, announced: ``By God's grace we rule our land, granted to our forefathers and issued to them by God, and as our forefathers ruled, so do we.''
Metropolitan Zosima calls Moscow the ``new city of Constantine" in his Paschal Tables (Izlozhenie paskhalii) of 1492, and calls Ivan III the new Constantine, stressing the idea of the transfer of world significance from the ``Second Rome" (Constantinople) to Moscow. This was practically embodied in the coronation of Ivan Ill's grandson Dmitry as tsar in 1498.
Novgorod Archbishop Gennady waged a constant, unceasing fight against the Novgorod heretics (he was consecrated in 1484); Abbot losif Sanin of the Volokolamsk Monastery joined him.
In 1488 Gennady had several Novgorod heretics subjected to a civic execution; a special Church council called in 1490 to judge the heretics excommunicated them from the Church and anathemised them. But Ivan Ill's government took no measures against the heretics. Their opponents, headed by Gennady and losif, were discontent. In 1494 they had the heretic Zosima dethroned as metropolitan and forced the government of Ivan III to face the need to take strong measures against the heretics; these steps were taken, however, only in 1504.^^2^^
Insofar as the Novgorod heretics had criticised the books of Holy Scripture, in order to wage a successful struggle with them, Novgorod Archbishop Gennady had a new, full translation of the Old Testament made: this task was completed in 1499.
To the idea of a centralised state worked out by the Muscovite heretics, the proponents of the Church Militant led by Gennady contrasted the idea of the primacy of ecclesiastical over secular power: ``The Church is _-_-_
^^1^^ See Ya. S. Lurye, op.cit.
^^2^^ On the reasons for the change in Ivan's politics and for his break with the Moscow heretics, see p. 222.
201 greater than the kingdom.'' To give this idea support, the Tale of the White Mitre of Novgorod (Povest o novgorodskom belom klobuke) was composed in the late fifteenth century.The tale has three parts. The first tells how the rru'tre came to be: it was created by order of the Emperor Constantine who was converted to Christianity by Silvester. To show his gratitude for being cured of an incurable disease and for enlightenment, Constantine made Silvester pope, gave him a white mitre, and put Rome under his power, after founding the new capital of Constantinople for he was opposed to Church and secular power in the confines of one city.
The second part tells of how the mitre went from Rome back to Constantinople. The impious pope Formus and King Carolus ceased to venerate the white mitre after the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Pope Formus abandoned the mitre and the Orthodox religion. After a long period of time, another pope, carried away by pride, and spurred on by a demon, vainly tried to burn the mitre or send it to distant lands so that there it would be ``defiled and destroyed''. An angel gave strict orders for the impious pope to send the mitre to Patriarch Philopheus in Constantinople.
The third part tells of the mitre's transfer from Constantinople to Great Novgorod. By order of a ``haloed youth'', who told Philopheus the history of the mitre, as well as Silvester and Constantine who appeared to the patriarch in a portentuous dream, he was obliged to send the white mitre to Novgorod, insofar as God's grace was taken away from Constantinople and ``all holy relics would be transferred by God to the great land of Rus" In Novgorod Archbishop Vasily received the mitre with proper ceremony; an angel had warned him of its arrival. ``And by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the blessing of the most holy Philopheus, Patriarch 202 of Constantinople, the archbishop of Great Novgorod fixed the white mitre on their heads.''
Scholars believe that the tale was written by translator Dmitry Gerasimov, who helped to translate the Bible under Gennady's direction, and went to Rome on the orders of the archbishop. In a letter addressed to Gennady preceding the tale, Dmitry Gerasimov writes that he has completed the task set by the archbishop to search out writings in Rome on the white mitre. This, he explains, was very difficult since the Romans, ``out of shame'', carefully hid all such documents. After begging Jacob, the archivist of the Church of Rome, Dmitry Gerasimov was able to obtain a Roman copy of a lost Greek manuscript. The text of the tale follows; Gerasimov presents it as a retelling of the Roman manuscript.
This appears to be a literary device designed to show the authenticity and historical accuracy of the tale. In fact only individual names are historically documented:: the emperors Constantine, Carolus and John Cantacuzene, popes Silvester and Formus, Patriarch Philopheus, and Archbishop Vasily. The tale does not name the impious pope who attempted to defile and destroy the mitre, but there is an interesting note that ``his name is hidden in writing and presented in another name; some say Gevras is his name, others say it is Eugene, and no one tells the truth''. Not only did the author use written sources, but also oral sources!
Central to the tale is the historical, philosophical and political theme of the transfer of the symbol of world ecclesiastical power---the white mitre---from ancient Rome, that had fallen through pride and wilfulness from the true faith of Christ, to Constantinople, where the Christian faith will perish at the hands of the Muslims, and finally to the third Rome ``which is in the land of Rus''. ``All other Christian kingdoms will cease to exist and there will be one Christian centre, the Kingdom of Rus for its Orthodox faith.''
Scholar N. N. Rozov had shown an exchange of ideas with works propounding the theory that Moscow 203 was the third Rome.^^1^^ It seems to us, however, that this is not merely an exchange, but a polemic with the political conception of the Russian state which developed among Moscow heretic circles and was officially acknowledged in the act of the coronation of Dmitry. It is no coincidence that the tale does not specify the location of the third Rome, which is located ``in the land of Rus'', and only there! Through a series of miraculous visions the tale stresses the idea that the transfer of the mitre occurred ``by God's will'', ``by the will of the Heavenly King Christ'', while the imperial crown was given to the Russian tsar ``by the will of earthly Emperor Constantine''. The heavenly King gives this mitre, not to the metropolitan of Muscovy, but to the archbishop of Novgorod!
A question arises as to whether this tale reflected the ideas of the Church Militant and the ambitious dreams of Gennady to set a ``new Constantine" and a ``new Constantinople'', Moscow, in opposition to the new Rome, the Great Novgorod, as the centre of true Orthodoxy.
The tale consistently advocates the primacy of the clergy over secular authority: the white mitre is ``more holy" than the imperial crown. With this in mind, the tale uses a ``document'' composed in the Vatican, known as ``Constantine's Gift''. In addition veneration of the mitre is equated with veneration of icons.
We can judge the tale's popularity by the many surviving copies (over 250} from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. In the mid-seventeenth century Patriarch Nikon attempted to oppose the power of the patriarchate to that of the tsar and used the theme of the tale proclaiming the primacy of the clergy to that of kings. The Moscow Church Council of 1666--1667, called to remove Nikon from the office of patriarch and condemn the Old Believers, denounced the tale of the mitre of Novgorod as ``apocryphal and false'', stressing that its author Dmitry Gerasimov ``wrote it from his _-_-_
^^1^^ See N. N. Rozov, ``~`Povest o novgorodskom belom klobuke' kakpamyatnik obshcherusskoi publitsistiki XV veka" (``The 'Tale of tlie White Mitre of Novgorod' as Example of Russian Fifteenth Century Polemics''), TODRL, vol. 9, 1953.
204 own idle fantasies''. Often found together with the tale of the white mitre of Novgorod are the Tale of the Tikhvin Icon of the Virgin and the final reduction of the Life of St. Anthony of Rome.We see that fifteenth century Novgorod literature shows clear separatist tendencies, cultivated by the ruling circles of feudal society: archbishops, mayors, and the like. To confirm the independence of the ``free city" they glorified local shrines and relics, archbishops loann, Vasily, Moisei and Evfimy II, while condemning the ``violent Pharaoh" Andrei Bogolyubsky, who encroached on their sovereignty. Novgorod literature on the whole made wide use of legends; legends play an important role in Novgorod hagiography and historical tales. Folk philosophy and artistic tastes reflected in such legends leave many traces on the literary tradition of Novgorod. The best works are concrete, with intriguing plots and a simple style, characteristic of Novgorod.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE LITERATURE OF PSKOVLike Novgorod, Pskov was a feudal city-state. Its veche led by the boyars determined local politics, supported the class interests of feudal nobility and supported old traditions and customs. In their struggle to retain privileges, the boyars looked to the princes of Lithuania. The lower classes of Pskov---craftsmen, small tradesmen, etc.---struggled against the repression by the local nobility and were, it goes without saying, great supporters of Muscovy.
When Novgorod was appended to Muscovy, Pskov was also threatened with the loss of political independence. In 1510 Pskov was finally united with Muscovy by Great Prince Vasily III.
Since the thirteenth century, and right up to the sixteenth century, Pskov kept its own local chronicle. The chronicle was laconic, factual and reflected colloquial speech with features of the Pskov dialect.
Towards the fourteenth century, we find an extended tale about Prince Dovmont-Timofey, a Lithuanian prince chosen as prince of Pskov in 6774 (1266) 205 developing. Dovmont is depicted as an ideal prince and warrior, possessing all the Christian virtues. Many elements of hagiography can be found in the narrative, together with those of the military tale; the Life of Alexander Nevsky is used as a model. Dovmont's military prowess is placed in the forefront' he triumphs over such enemies of Pskov as Lithuanian Prince Gerdenya (Lithuanian---Gediminas---Ed.), ``the amster of the land of Riga'', and the Teutonic knights. The tale is expressive and conveys the local dialect; proverbs and rhymed phrases show its connections with folklore. In his address to the people of Pskov Dovmont says: ``Brothers, men of Pskov, you older men are my fathers, and you younger men are my brothers!~" S. M. Solovyev describes the style of the Pskov Chronicle as a naive narrative whose authors are fond of using set expressions to describe well-known events.
In the fifteenth century Pskov Chronicles begin to treat material beyond their own boundaries. At this time literary activities increased and intensified in Pskov; the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, Tolkovaya Paleya (annotated excerpts from Old Testament books and apocrypha---TV.) and World Chronicle were copied. Scholars also believe that the miscellany containing The Lay of Igor's Host was copied in Pskov and based their contentions on a note made on a Pskov collection of the works of the apostles from 1307 and a tale from, the First Pskov Chronicle about a battle between the Muscovites and Lithuanians near Orsha.
In the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuriesm, hagiographical works were composed reflecting local Church life.
One of the finest works of Pskov literature is the Taking of Pskov by Great Prince Vasily Ivanovich in 1510 (Pskovskoe vzyatie, kako vzyat ego knyaz veliky Vasily Ivanovich}. This tale gives a detailed, consistent account of Pskov's final loss of its ``old traditions and customs''. The author not only tells about the fact of Pskov's annexation by Moscow, but attempts to explain the reasons for this. A passionate patriot of the ``most glorious'', ``great'', ``beautiful'' city of Pskov, he proudly recalls the city's former grandeur: ``from the 206 beginning of the Russian land ... it was never ruled by any prince, but its people lived at liberty.''
The atrocities of Muscovite regents who assault, rob and give false trial to the people of Pskov make them bitter and rebellious. The people are particularly distressed by the behaviour of Muscovite prince's regent Ivan Mikhailovich Repnya. Their patience snaps and the people send a petition to Great Novgorod at the time. But the petitioners of Pskov are not dealt with fairly by the Muscovite prince. Vasily Ivanovich hypocritically promises to defend the people of Pskov, but orders that the petitioners be seized, and sends his scribe Tretyak Dolmatov to Pskov with orders to destroy the veche, cut down its bell and force the people to obey the Muscovite regents.
The tale condemns the great prince's hypocrisy and the cruel and arbitrary Muscovite power. At the same time he sees no other recourse for Pskov. The annexation of the free city---state to Moscow is inevitable; otherwise Pskov would be threatened by Lithuania and Livonia and without the defense of Muscovy would have no chance of fortifying its borders against its neighbours to the West. Still as a patriot of a free city, the author cannot but lament the loss of independence. A sense of patriotic sorrow gripping the people of Pskov, who have lost their ancient rule by veche, is conveyed vividly by the author in a lyrical lament: ``Oh glorious city of Pskov, why do you lament and weep? The beautiful city of Pskov answered, 'How shall I not lament, how shall I not weep and grieve at my desolation? For the many-winged eagle has swooped down upon me with lion's claws and has taken from me three cedars of Lebanon, and my beauty and wealth; and has stolen my children, unleashed by God because of our sins; and has made the land desolate and destroyed our city and captured my people and dug up my marketplace, and smeared the other marketplaces with horse manure, and separated father from son, and in places where our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers never ventured, there have our fathers and brothers and friends been taken'captive; our mothers and sisters have been given over for defilement.'~"
207This lament of the city of Pskov shows the author's extraordinary poetic talent and his familiarity with Old Russian literature. He uses rhetorical devices, the sermons of Serapion of Vladimir, Bublical phraseology and the Deeds of Digenis.
The author tries to convey the psychological state of the people of Pskov: messengers from Novgorod bring the bad news, and their ``hearts sink" to their heels. The people learn that their petitioners have been detained by the Great Prince, and that they will have to face up to ``fear, and anxiety and despair, and their throats grew dry with grief and sorrow, and their lips became parched''. After Tretyak Dolmatov announced the will of the Muscovite prince, the people of Pskov wept bitterly: ``How did not the pupils of their eyes burn, filled with tears? How was it that their hearts were not torn out at the root?~"
At the same time the tale contains elements of chancellory style found in petitions and epistles.
It ends with religious conclusions, addressed to the people of Pskov: ``because of your licentiousness and lack of humility, all these evils have, come upon you''. The author then speaks of the abuses of Moscow governors, officials and scribes, introducing the folk images of Truth and Injustice (Pravda and Krivda): ``Truth ... flew up to Heaven and Injustice walked among them....''
Pskov and its citizens are the central heroes of the tale; their collective image is contrasted with that of Great Prince Vasily Ivanovich and his deputies.
The tale combines a factual approach with documentary accuracy, consistency and an emotional, lyrical, polemic, didactic evaluation of events.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE LITERATURE OF FIFTEENTH CENTURY TVERThe Tver principality, closely tied economically and politically with Vladimir and Suzdal, had a politically dominant position, due to its favourable situation on the crossing of merchant routes from East to West. Starting with the early fourteenth century, the Tver princes rivalled their Moscow counterparts striving to 208 win the title of great princes of Vladimir. In the first half of the fifteenth century, during the feudal strife between the princes Vasily the Blind and Dmitry Shemyaka, Tver grew especially important in terms both of politics, and of literature and architecture.
The Tver chronicles started from the late thirteenth century parallel to a number of vitae. One of the most noticeable works was the Life of Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich of Tver that extolled his feats, told of his outstanding political role, and traced the Tver dynasty back to the Kievan prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich. At about the same time the early fourteenth century tale of Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich's assassination in the Golden Horde was revised. The Genealogy (Rodoslovets), the forerunner of the sixteenth century Book of Generations, (Stepennay kniga), that substantiated the hereditary right of the Tver princes to the throne passed to them from the Kievan princes, is another important work of the local literature.
The Eulogy of the Pious and Great Prince Boris Alexandrovich was written about 1453 by the monk Foma, according to A. A. Shakhmatov's hypothesis, the court chronicler to the Tver prince. He took as his models the Discourse on the Life and Passing of Dmitry Ivanovich, the Life of Alexander Nevsky, the anonymous Tale of Boris and Gleb, and Marion's Sermon on Law and Grace to compose his ornamental laudation of Boris of Tver, the ``autocratic tsar enthroned by the Lord to succeed his father''. To make it more weighty, Foma made the participants to the Council of Florence praise the ``autocratic monarch'', an impressive gathering of John, Emperor of Byzantium, a patriarch and twenty-two metropolitans. He also compares the prince of Tver to the emperors Augustus, Constantine, Justinian, Leo the Wise sand the Scriptural Moses and Joseph. The author praises the prince's patronage of architecture as it was under his rule that the Kremlin was built in Tver as well as churches and monasteries likened by Foma to a ``glittering and shapely crown".
The prince is treated in The Eulogy as the ruler and monarch of the entire land of Rus. Foma describes the aid he rendered to Vasily the Blind, the prince of __PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---315 209 Muscovy, against Dmitry Shemyaka, and tells how their friendship was sealed by Vasily's marriage to Boris' daughter.
Thus The Eulogy emphasises the idea of Tver as the political centre of Rus and its princes as the autocratic tsars of the entire country, rightful heirs to the Kievan princes---an idea which could not but displease the Muscovite princes. That was why The Eulogy lost its actuality after Tver was incorporated into Muscovy in 1485, and only one copy, and that damaged, is now extant.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE LITERATURE OF MUROM AND RYAZANThe economic and political development of the principalities of Murom and Ryazan already in the fourteenth century leaned toward Moscow. In the late fourteenth century, Murom entered the Muscovite principality; Ryazan lost its independence in 1520.
Both principalities had their own local chronicles which unfortunately have not survived.^^1^^ They also composed works of literature.
One of the finest examples of Murom-Ryazan literature was the Tale of Peter and Fevronia, although it lacks local regional features. With extraordinary power and beauty, the tale glorifies the love of a woman capable of overcoming all obstacles and adversities of life in order to triumph over death itself.
The heroes are historical figures. Peter and Fevronia ruled over Murom in the early thirteenth century and died in 1228. But in the tale, only their names are _-_-_
^^1^^ A. G. Kuzmin describes the Ryazan Chronicle in Ryazanshoe letopisanie. Svedeniya letopisei o Ryazani i Murome do serediny XVI veka (The Ryazan Chronicles: What the Chronicles Tell about Ryazan and Murom to the Mid-Sixteenth Century), M., 1965. D. S. Likhachev and Ya. S. Lurye expressed their objections to the study.
210 historical and the plot is woven around a series of folk legends which sprang up around them. As M.O. Skripil has shown, two fairy-tale plots are combined in the tale: that of the fiery dragon and that of the wise maiden.~^^1^^ After Peter and Fevronia were canonised at the Moscow Church Council of 1547, a vita was composed on the basis of folk legends; it is extant in 150 sixteenth century copies, bearing witness to its popularity.The image of the heroine, Fevronia, is connected to oral folk traditions. This daughter of a peasant shows her moral and mental superiority to Prince Peter; her wisdom is put in the foreground. Peter's servant finds her in her izba at her loom, dressed simply. She meets the royal servant with strange words: ``It is not fitting that a home have no ear and a shrine no eye.'' When the youth asks her if any of the male inhabitants of the hut are at home, she answers: ``My father and mother went off to mourn in loan. My brother went to gaze on death through his legs.''
The servant cannot understand Fevronia's parables and asks her to explain her words. Fevronia does this gladly. The ears of a home are a dog, the eyes of the shrine or home are a child. She has neither one nor the other and so no one has warned her of the approach of the stranger, who found her unprepared to meet him properly. Her father and mother went to a funeral, to weep and they are giving a loan, since when they die other people will weep for them. Her father and brother are ``treeclimbers'', gathering wild honey, and today her brother went out for that purpose. When he climbs the tree and looks down through his legs, he always thinks how to avoid falling from such a height and not be dashed to death.
Fevronia also triumphs over Peter in a test of wits. In an attempt to check the girl's wits, Peter sends her a skein of flax, asking her to make him a shirt, trousers and towel while he bathes. In answer Fevronia asks Peter to make a loom from a chip of wood, while she _-_-_
^^1^^ M. O. Skripil, ''Povest o Petre i Fevronii Muromskikh v eye otnoshenii k russkoi skazke" (``The 'Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom' in Relation to Russian Fairy Tales''), TODRL, vol. 7, 1949.
__PRINTERS_P_210_COMMENT__ 14* 211 spins the flax. The prince is obliged to admit that this is impossible. ``And is it possible for a man to take one skein of flax, and during the time he is taking a bath to make a shirt and trousers and a towel?~" asks Fevronia. Peter is obliged to admit that she is right.Fevronia agrees to heal Peter's sores with one condition, that he marry her. She understands that it is not so easy for a prince to wed a peasant girl. When the prince is cured, he ceases to think of his promise: ``and did not want to marry her because of her low birth''. Fevronia was quite aware of such a possibility and for that very reason she had told him not to spread ointment on all of his sores. The prince's body once again is covered with sores and he is obliged to return to ask her help once again. She agrees to heal him after he gives her his firm promise to marry her. Thus the daughter of a Ryzan peasant forces Peter to keep his royal word. Like the heroines of Russian folk tales Fevronia fights for her love and happiness. To the end of her days she continues to love and revere her husband. When the boyars of Murom order her to quit the city she takes her dearest possession---her husband. For her he is more precious than power, honours or wealth.
On the ship Fevronia perceives that a married man is gazing upon her with lust in his heart. She forces him to taste the water from either side of the ship and asks: ``Is it the same, or is one side sweeter?~" He answers, ``The water is all the same, my lady.'' Fevronia replies: ``And women too are of one substance. Why, then do you abandon your wife and think of a woman who belongs to another?~"
Fevronia dies at the same time as her husband for she cannot conceive of life without him. After death their bodies are found lying in one coffin. Twice attempts are made to rebury them in separate graves, and each time they are found together.
Fevronia is a complex character. This daughter of a Ryazan peasant has dignity, womanly pride and extraordinary intelligence and will. She has a sensitive, tender heart and is able to love constantly and faithfully, and to fight for her love. Her marvellously attractive image overshadows the weak, passive figure of 212 Prince Peter. Only in the beginning of the tale does Peter fight for the defiled honour of his brother Pavel. With the help of Agrik's sword he kills the dragon that has been visiting Pavel's wife. But with this his active role in the development of the plot ceases and Fevronia takes the initiative.
There is a theme of social inequalitv in the tale. Prince Peter does not marry the daughter of a treeclimber right away. When the personal conflict is resolved due to Fevronia's wisdom, a political conflict arises. After the death of his brother Pavel, Peter becomes the ruler of the city. But the boyars do not love him because of his wife and because she was made princess of Murom, not through her descent, but due to her good deeds. She was accused by the boyars of not observing decorum and of behaving in a manner unbefitting a princess at the table. After eating Fevronia gathered up crumbs of bread from the table as though she was starving, in the manner of a peasant. Here we see a striking detail---the peasant girl is well aware of the value of bread!
Supporting the idea of an autocratic prince, the tale harshly condemns the boyars' willfulness. With rage, they tell the prince that they do not want Fevronia to rule over their wives. They give a feast and ``barking like dogs in their shameless voices'', the boyars demand that Fevronia quit the city. When Fevronia consents and takes her husband with her, each boyar thinks about his own chances for becoming prince. But after the ``autocrat'' Peter leaves, many died by the sword. Each wanted to rule and they killed each other. The remaining nobles and people beg the prince to return to Murom and rule as he did before. The political conflict between the prince and the boyars is resolved by life itself.
The tale has certain details of peasant and princely life: the description of a peasant hut, Fevronia's behaviour at the table. This attention to people's personal and daily life was new in literature and bore witness to changes which, already in the late fifteenth century, could be seen in the artistic reflection of reality.
Hagiographical elements do not play an important 213 role in the tale. In accordance with the traditions of hagiography, Peter and Fevronia are called ``pious'', ``blessed''. Peter is wont to go off alone to church. His servant shows him the miraculous sword of Agrik in the sanctuary wall of the Ascension Monastery. The tale does not have typical hagiographical descriptions of the pious descent of the heroes, their youth and feats of piety. Fevronia's miracles are rather curious themselves: the crumbs of bread that she gathers from the table are transformed into fragrant incense, and the wooden poles on which the cook hung the pots when he prepared dinner turn into great trees in the morning with branches and foliage, because Fevronia blesses them.
The first miracle is an everyday one and justifies Fevronia's behaviour; the accusations of the boyars that the princess is a bumpkin are invalidated by this miracle. The second miracle is a symbol of life-giving strength of Fevronia's love and marital faithfulness. An affirmation of this power and a negation of the monastic ascetic ideal is the posthumous miracle: the coffin with Peter's body is placed inside the city in the Church of the Mother of God and Fevronia's coffin outside the city in the Ascension Monastery. In the morning both graves are found empty, and the bodies are found in one coffin.
An aureole of holiness surrounds, not the ascetic monastic life, but the ideal marriage in the world and the wise autocratic rule of the kingdom; Peter and Fevronia rule theirs like a loving father and mother, with truth and humility and not by force.
Here the Tale of Peter and Fevronia overlaps with the Life of Dmitry Ivanovich, and anticipates the appearance of the Tale of Juliania Lazarevskaya in the early seventeenth century.
Thus the Tale of Peter and Fevronia belongs to the category of Old Russian original fictional works, posing burning social, political and moral questions. It is a genuine hymn to Russian womanhood, its intelligence, self-sacrificing and active love.
The extended, interesting plot is not related to any concrete historical events, but reflects the growing interest of society in personal lives of individuals. The 214 main character of the tale is unusual. Fevronia, a peasant girl, becomes a princess, not by Divine Providence, but due to her own good qualities. She undergoes various trials. The genre of this tale corresponds to neither the historical tale nor the vita. Its poetic conception, going back to the folk tale tradition, and the author's ability to artistically generalise various phenomena from life allow us to view it as the first stage of development of the genre known as the secular, everyday tale.
The Tale of Peter and Fevronia influenced the legend of Kitezh, greatly popular among Old Believers. This legend is retold in P. I. Melnikov-Pechersky's novel In the Woods, in the essays of V. G. Korolenko, and it also entranced Rimsky-Korsakov who used it for the basis of his opera, The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevronia.
Thus after examining several characteristic phenomena of regional literature in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, we should above all note the primary significance of Muscovite literature, with its basic theme of the creation of one, sovereign, centralised Russian state, affirming the moral ideal of a man wholly giving himself to the service of society.
Reflecting the growth of national awareness related to the struggle against foreign enslavers, the literature of this period resurrects the finest traditions of eleventh and twelfth century Old Russian literature (its civic, patriotic and heroic spirit, its epic, monumental, historical and expressive-emotional styles), and likewise uses the experience of the development of South Slavic literature in Serbia and Bulgaria.
The feudal lords of Novgorod and Tver tried to incorporate separatist, regional tendencies in the development of regional literatures. However the idea of the unity of the land of Rus opposed these tendencies, and was widely propounded among the masses, particularly among the tradesmen and craftsmen of the cities. This class gave birth to a new type of secular writer, above all, the unknown author of the democratic redaction of the Tale of how King Tokhtamysh Took Moscow, and Nestor-Iskander, forced to convert to 215 Islam, and, finally, the author of the Tale of Peter and Fevronia.
The emergence and development of the rationalist heretical movement in Novgorod, Pskov and Moscow show the shifts in the mentality of the tradesmen and craftsmen of the cities, the intensification of their activity both in the sphere of ideology and art, and in the sphere of politics.
Apparently, already in this period a new type of writer and reader had begun to appear; society began to take an interest in purely secular narrative with extended, interesting plots. This leads to the change in artistic structure of traditional genres like the historical tale and hagiography. In literature, as in the fine arts, there is a growing interest in man, his inner world and psychological state. The monumental, static depiction of the world was replaced by a dynamic one. Both the talented writer of hagiography Epifany and the master of the ``psychological portrait" Theophanes the Greek tried to convey and express this dynamic play of emotions. At the same time, both literature and the fine arts of the period embody the beauty of man's spiritual harmony, his readiness to selflessly give himself to the service of the idea of fraternity and peace (Epifany the Wise and Andrei Rublev). Thus, for example, Epifany combines the tense drama of Theophanes' heroes and the psychological harmony of Rub lev's subjects.
In connection with the formation of a centralised state, the genre of historical-legendary narrative is developed, preaching the idea of continuity of imperial power or that of the clergy. Chronicles and tales have increasing elements of polemic.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, regional literatures developed the traditions of literature from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, working out their own styles. While Soviet scholars have made many discoveries in the fields of the fine arts and architecture about the specific features of local schools, literary scholars have yet to work out these features. One can only speak in very general terms of the laconicism of Novgorodian style and its tendency toward interesting legendary folk plots, of the development of the rhetorical-panegyric 216 style in Muscovite and Tver literature, and of the special nature of the tale written in the principality of MuromRyazan.
We should particularly stress the emergence and development of democratic, secular tendencies in narrative literature of this period, the intensification of attention to man and his psychological state. In this connection scholars are treating the question of the `` Prerenaissance" in Russian culture of the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.~^^1^^
1. L. A. Dmitriev, Zhitiyniye povesti russkogo severa kak pamyatniki literatury XIII-XVH vv. Evolyutsia zhanra legendarno-biograficheskikh skazaniy (Hagiographical Tales of the Russian North as Literature in the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Centuries: The Evolution of Legendary-Biographical Narrative), L., 1973.
2. R. P. Dmitrieva, ``O strukture povesti o Petre i Fevronii" (``The Structure of the Tale of Peter and Fevronia''), TODRL, vol. 31,1976.
3. Ya. S. Lurye, Ideologicheskaya borba v russkoi publitsistike kontsa XV^nachala XVIveka (The Ideological Struggle in Russian Polemical Literature of the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries), M.-L., 1960.
4. Russkie povesti XV-XVI vv. (Russian Tales of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries). Compiled by M. O. Skripil, M., 1958.
5. M. O. Skripil, ``Povest o Petre i Fevronii Muromskikh i eye otnoshenie k russkoi skazke" (``The 'Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom' and Its Relation to Russian Fairy Tales''), TODRL, vol. 7,1949.
6. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literatury (Anthology of Old Russian Literature). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, M., 1973.
_-_-_^^1^^ See D. S. Likhachev, Razvitie russkoi literatury XI-XVII vv. (The Development of Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Seventeenth Centuries), M.-L., 1973;!. N. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, ``Gumanizm u vostochnykh slavyan (Ukraina i Byelorussia)'', Mezhdunarodny syezd slavistov. Sofia, Sentyabr, 1963. Doklady sovetskoi delegatsii (``Humanism Among the Eastern Slavs: the Ukraine and Byelorussia'', in International Congress of Slavists. Sofia, September 1963. Reports of the Soviet Delegation), M., 1963; M. P. Alexeyev, ``Yavleniya gumanizma v literature i publitsistike Drevnei Rusi (XVI-XVII vv.)'', Issledovaniya po slavyanskomu literaturovedeniyu i folkloristike (``The Phenomenon of Humanism in the Literature and Polemics of Old Rus, 16th-17th Centuries'', in Studies on Slavic Literary Scholarship and Folklore), M., 1960.
[217] ~ [218] __NOTE__ LVL1 moved forward.
[219]
~
[220]
__ALPHA_LVL1__
Literature
The process of uniting the Russian lands around Moscow was in fact finished in the late fifteenth century; in 1472-- 1478 Great Novgorod was united to Moscow; in 1485 the principality of Tver was annexed; in 1486 the VereyaBelozersk independent principality was dissolved; and with the arrest in 1491 of Prince Andrei of Uglich and the death in 1494 of Boris of Volotsk, all of the central Russian lands had been made part of one state of Muscovy.
``...The subjugation of the local princes went hand in hand with the liberation from the Tartar yoke and was finally brought about by Ivan III,'' writes F. Engels.^^1^^
With the growth of the political, economic and military might of the centralised Muscovite state, the Tatar-Mongol yoke was finally thrown off in 1480.
Consolidation of the centralised state involved a tense political and ideological struggle. A new feudal social stratum, the service nobility, the tradesmen and craftsmen and, in the final analysis, the working masses, had an interest in the centralisation of government. Old feudal structures _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Precapitalist Socio-Economic Formations,U.,1979,p. 471.
[221] were supported by the hereditary nobility, the boyars and estate owners, who strove to the feudal right to uncontrolled power in their own appanage or on their own land.In the struggle for the consolidation of a centralised state, the Church took an active role and in 1448 declared itself autocephalic and independent of the Constantinople Patriarchate.
The significant growth of monasteries and their ownership of land in the second half of the fifteenth century disturbed Ivan III and advocates of consolidation of a centralised state. After Novgorod had been annexed to Muscovy, as mentioned earlier, the great prince confiscated a great part of land belonging to the Novgorod archbishop and major Novgorod monasteries, as well as land belonging to the major northern monastery, the Kirillo-Belozersky. This led to opposition on the part of the black clergy and the head of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Geronty, all the more so since the final split between Ivan III and the Patriarch of Constantinople, after the latter sanctioned the separation of the West Russian Orthodox Church from the Muscovite Metropolitanate at the request of King Casimir of Lithuania, placed the power of the Moscow metropolitan in direct dependence on the power of the great prince.
Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod and losif Santn (1439--1515) spoke for the black clergy and the major ecclesiastical officials. In defense of the interests of the Church Militant, Gennady proposed the doctrine that the clergy was superior to the tsar, while losif attempted to show the tsars should be honoured only `` corporeally" and not spiritually, that they should be venerated as kings and not as God.
Actively opposing both Novgorod and Muscovite heretics, losif saw his task in consolidating the authority of the Church Militant and the authority of 222 monasticism. In answer to detractors of monastic life---the Muscovite heretics---losif composed his Rule (the ``short'' redaction). The Rule suggested monasterial reforms, in essence the following: the necessity for communal life, personal renouncement of goods and property, a commitment to labour, and, most importantly, strict discipline and subordination to the hierarchy.
In 1499 Ivan III made peace with his son Vasily and wife Sophia Paleologus. He banished supporters of his grandson Dmitry and that latter's mother Elena Voloshanka, who shared the views of the Muscovite heretical circle. Militant clerics persuaded the tsar to convene special councils to judge heretics*in 1503 and 1504. The main denouncer of the heresies was losif of Volotsk who, in the end, got Ivan III to take harsh measures against the heretics: leaders of the heretical movement were executed and most of their followers exiled.
Apparently at the initiative of Ivan III, the Holy Conclave of the Church of 1503 raised the question of lands held by monasteries; at the time, monasteries owned much more land than the state. At the council ``Elder Nil began to speak against lands belonging to monasteries and urged the monks to live in the wilderness and feed themselves by their own labours''. Nil Sorsky was opposed by losif of Volotsk who referred to the authority of Scriptures and the Greek and Russian saints who founded the monasteries to show the need for such lands: ``Church property is the property of the Lord.''
The abbot of Volotsk was supported by Metropolitan Simon and most delegates to the Conclave. Advocates of property became known as the iosiflyane or styazhateli (grabbers); their opponents were called the nestyazhateli (non-covetous) or the Elders from beyond the Volga; Nil Sorsky represented them.
In this way the Conclave of 1503 helped two ideological trends to crystallise in the Russian Church: the styazhateli and the nestyazhateli. Iosif's followers prevailed at the council, but were obliged to compromise with secular authorities and agree not to extend their land holdings without the prior consent of the great prince. Former owners would be allowed to buy 223 back their own lands from the monastery if they so desired.
Volokolamsk Monastery in 1507 was given by losif Sanin to the patronage of Vasily III; his enemies called him ``the great prince's courtier''. losif and his supporters began to actively back Vasily Ill's policies aimed at consolidating the centralised state. They developed a theory of theocracy, with a doctrine that the imperial power was God-given: ``For the tsar is of the same substance as all men, but in his power he is like God on high.'' Thus the ideologist of the Church Militant became, in the end, the ideologist of the service nobility.
Another trend in the Russian Church, beginning in the early sixteenth century, was headed by Nil Sorsky (1433--1508). He was born in Moscow and apparently belonged to the Maikovs, a family of major officials; he became a monk in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, journied to Constantinople and Mt. Athos and upon his return left the monastery ``because it gave him no spiritual benefits'', and he was unhappy with the rules. After choosing a likely place on the River Sora ``where children of the world did not often pass" in the late 1470's and early 1480's Nil founded a retreat. In 1490, at the suggestion of Novgorod Archbishop Gennady, Nil was persuaded to participate in the Holy Conclave of the Church condemning the Novgorod heretics. Like losif Sanin, Nil categorically condemned the heretics, their teachers and traditions.
Ya. S. Lurye notes that at the time there was no conflict between Nil and his associate, the severe elder of the Kirill Monastery, Paissy of Yaroslavl, on the one hand, and losif of Volotsk and Archbishop Gennady, on the other. losif even used Nil's ``Epistle to a Brother" in the introduction to his discourse on the veneration of icons, later included in the Enlightener. Nil Sorsky's fundamental writings were copied and preserved in the losif-Volokolamsk Monastery and were popular there.~^^1^^
Nil Sorsky's main works, his Rule (Ustav) written _-_-_
^^1^^ See Ya. S. Lurye, Ideologicheskaya borba v russkoi ptiblitsistike kontsa XV-nachala XVI veka, pp. 306--37.
224 after he returned from Mt. Athos and the Tradition of Small Retreats (Predanie o zhitelstve skitskom), were written in the late 1480's and early 1490's. They present a programme of moderate reforms in monastic life. In his Tradition, Nil justifies his preference for a secluded life to that of a large monasterial community, but his main call is for moderation in purchases and demands and in the acceptance of alms from those who love Christ. As Nil sees it, the basis of a moral monastic life should be labour. The Tradition forbids a monk to leave a monastery at his own will, the retention of valuable objects in cells, drinking and the presence of women or youths in the monastery.His Rule presents Nil's teachings on ``conscious acts'', necessary for a monk in his struggle against ``lustful thoughts" and for the achievement of moral perfection. These teachings are based on the works of SS Nilus of Sinai and John Climacos, as well as Byzantine and Mt. Athos Hesychasts. At the same time they show Nil's profound knowledge of man's inner world.
Nil Sorsky denied the political role of monasticism and emphasised its moral, spiritual meaning. Full of meditative, religious, mystical lyricism, his works, at first glance, seem far from worldly vanities. Their programme for the reorganisation of monastic life reflected the interests of the North Russian black clergy. North Russian monasteries constantly came into contact with peasants who were hostile to monastic colonisation and seizure of peasant lands. Nil's programme for `` non-covetousness" proposed at the Conclave of 1503 was in the interests of peasants and the boyar aristocracy. The latter hoped to secularise monastic lands which would then revert to the great prince and be in turn distributed to the service nobility, which would allow them to retain their own estates intact. Thus after Nil Sorsky died, he was passionately supported by the ``great nobles": prince and monk Vassian Patrikeyev, Ivan Okhlebinin and Grigory Tushin.
Vassian Patrikeyev asserted that ``monasteries should not keep lands'', and pointed out the interests of the peasants. His appeal to the people and defense of __PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---315 225 their interests is remarkable, especially coming from a member of the boyar opposition.^^1^^
The fight between the followers of losif and the Elders from beyond the Volga culminated in the early sixteenth century; the losiflyans triumphed. Men from losifo-Volokolamsk Monastery stood at the helms of state and Church; among zealous followers of losif were Metropolitan Daniil, the Bishop of Krutitsa, and the Novgorod, Tver, Smolensk and Kolomna archbishops.
This polemic between losif's and Nil's followers, arising in the early sixteenth century, left an indelible mark on literature and led to the development of a polemical tradition that flowered in the mid-sixteenth century.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY ANDCentral problems in the literature and polemics of this period are state power, the personality of the autocrat, and the nature and limits of his autocratic power. The resolution of these questions was attempted in the legendary historical tales of the Wallachian Governor Dracula, the Georgian Empress Dinara, and Basarg. These problems are raised by Archbishop Vassian in his Epistle to Ivan III (1480), by the Muscovite heretics and losif of Volotsk. They attract the attention of Maxim the Greek, Ivan Peresvetov and Ivan IV in his correspondence with Prince Andrei Kurbsky.
In the first quarter of the sixteenth century, the political theory of the Russian state is finally formulated in Spiridon-Sawa's Epistle on the Crown of Monomachus, the Tale of the Princes of Vladimir, and the Epistle of Filofei, Elder of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery, to Vasily III.
The political ideas of the centralised state, and the strong autocratic powers of its rulers find ``historical'' _-_-_
^^1^^ See N. A. Kazakova, Vassian Patrikeyev i ego sochineniya (Vassian Patrikeyev and His Works], M.-L., 1960.
226 basis in all-Russian chronicles of the mid-sixteenth century and in the Book of Generations (Stepennaya kniga).The Dracula Tale, written in the late fifteenth century, raises the question of the nature of power of an autocratic ruler, the meaning of his personality; it is one of the more important stages in the development of historical-legendary tales.
In the 1840's A. Kh. Vostokov proposed an interesting hypothesis that its author was Secretary Fedor Kuritsyn, who headed the Russian delegation to Moldavia and Hungary from 1482 to 1484. This hypothesis found support from Soviet scholar Ya. S. Lurye.^^1^^
The historical prototype of Dracula was Governor Vlad Tsepesh, ruler of Romania from 1456 to 1462 and in 1476. Many tales of his extraordinary cruelty circulated throughout Europe; in Germany a series of tales were published on Dracula. The text of the Russian tale probably goes back to oral tales heard by the author in Hungary and Romania.
Written in the form of state protocol, the Dracula Tale focuses on the actions of the despotic governor.
These deeds are narrated in the form of small anecdotes, where dialogue is of primary importance and the fate of the characters with whom Dracula converses depends on their wit and resourcefulness. The maleficent, but at the same time wise ruler values intelligence and resourcefulness above all in men: the ability to escape from a difficult position, military prowess, honesty; and he zealously guards the honour of ``the great prince''. The terrible, unbribable lord hates to see evil in his domain and punishes everyone, be he ``a great boyar, a priest, a.monk or a simple man'', for evil deeds; _-_-_
^^1^^ Ya. S. Lurye, Povest o Drakule. Issledovanie i podgotovka Ickstov (The Dracula Tale: A Study and Texts), M.-L., 1964.
227 no one can ``buy his life'', ``no matter how wealthy he might be".At the same time, Dracula (which in Romanian means ``devil'') is extraordinarily cruel: he orders that the hats of envoys who fail to remove them, according to the custom of their country, be nailed to their heads for appearing before the great prince with their hats on and thus shaming him; he punished soldiers who were wounded in the rear and not the front, and impales an envoy who condemns his cruelty; he burns old men, cripples and paupers for ``humane'' reasons (freeing them of poverty and disease)---``for no one will be poor in my realm''. He dines ``beneath the corpses of the dead'', and orders that a servant who held his nose because he could not bear the odour be impaled; he orders that the hands of a negligent, lazy wife, whose husband walks around in a torn shirt, be cut off. Even sitting in the dungeon of the Hungarian king, Dracula keeps up his ``evil habits" and kills mice and birds that have been specially purchased for him at the market.
The author almost never states his own attitude to Dracula's behaviour. At first the evil side of Dracula's wisdom and life is emphasised; then the author waxes indignant at the governor's sinfulness, when he kills the masters who made him barrels for gold. ``Only the devil could inspire such a deed,'' declares the author. When Dracula betrays Orthodoxy and becomes a Catholic, upon the demand of the King of Hungary, the author goes into a didactic tirade, condemning Dracula for ``abandoning the truth, and leaving the light and going into darkness'', and therefore ``paving the way for eternal torment".
On the whole the tale is bereft of Christian didacticism and does not view man from the perspective of Divine Providence. Dracula performs his deeds by his own will and is not incited by any other forces. These deeds show not only Dracula's evil genius, but the wisdom of the prince whose honour he defends.
Neither glorifying nor condemning his hero, the author seems to invite readers to participate in the resolution of the central question: how should a great sovereign whom God has put on the throne to punish 228 evil-doers and reward those who do good, conduct himself, should he be merciful or terrible.
It is characteristic that this question later became the most important one in the polemics of the sixteenth century; Ivan Peresvetov, Ivan the Terrible, Maxim the Greek and Andrei Kurbsky all attempt to answer it.
The Tale of Georgian Empress Dinara also centres around this question. It was composed in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century and glorifies the wise empress, Dinara (possibly Tamara, a renowned Georgian queen served as a prototype^^1^^) who ruled her land like a wise helmsman. Her distinguishing features are Christian piety and courage in battle, and they are revealed in the central episode dealing with Dinara's battle against the emperor of Persia. Threatening to take away her power, the emperor demands that she immediately send him gifts twice as great as those sent by her father Alexander. By way of an answer, Dinara, with the dignity and pride of a Muscovite prince, replies that she has received her power from God and that the Persian emperor cannot take it from her. She is contrasted, not only to the ``bestial'' Persian emperor, but to the indecisive nobles of Georgia who are afraid to attack the Persians. Dinara inspires them with a courageous speech.
First making a pilgrimage to a monastery, she then attacks the Persians and is victorious, decapitating the impious emperor.
As we see it, the Tale of Georgian Empress Dinara can be called historical only with certain reservations. The main thing in the tale is the apotheosis of the pious empress' autocratic power. The tale declares that only an autocrat can defend his realm from foreign enemies and rule in peace and quiet. For this he must be a pious _-_-_
^^1^^ L. S. Shepeleva, ``Kulturno-literaturnye svyazi Gruzii s Rossiei v X-XVII vekakh" (``Cultural and Literary Relations Between Georgia and Russia from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Centuries''), TODRL, vol. 9, 1953.
229 Christian and a courageous warrior. The power of the sovereign is begun to be wreathed in an aureole of holiness, and therefore Dinara is described in hagiographical terms which intermix with formulas from the military tale. To a certain degree the Tale of Georgian Empress Dinara prepares for the composition of those Christian idealised biographies of the rulers of Rus in the Book of Generations. At the same time it shows the strengthening cultural and literary ties between Rus and Georgia.Wisdom, boldness and resourcefulness are essential qualities for a ruler. This is the central theme in the fairy-tale ``historical'' narrative of Basarg, condemning the cruel, merciless and crafty emperor of Antiochia, King Nesmeyan the Proud, who hates Orthodoxy.
The political theory of the centralised Russian state was strengthened in official genealogies of the Muscovite princes, establishing their descent from Rurik, as well as in the Epistle on the Crown of Monomachus written by Spiridon-Savva and the legendary Tale of the Princes of Vladimir composed on its basis.
The tale attempts to establish genealogical ties between the Muscovite princes and the founder of the Roman Empire, Augustus Caesar. Augustus' brother Prus was sent by the Roman emperor to the Vistula, ``and from him the Prussians got their name''. (The Prussians were a tribe on the lower Vistula.) Prince Rurik. summoned by Novgorodians, was of the Prussian tribe, that is, the tribe of Augustus Caesar. Accordingly the rights to autocratic power of the Muscovite princes were inherited from their forefather, Augustus Caesar himself.
Then the Tale told how Greek Emperor Constantine Monomachus sent Kievan Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich (Monomakh) his crown, scepter and power. In fact Constantine Monomachus died when Vladimir was only two years old. Vladimir was crowned with this 230 crown and given the title ``Emperor of Great Russia''. ``From that time on, all of the great princes of Vladimir are crowned with the crown sent by Emperor Constantine Monomachus when they take the throne of the Great Russian kingdom.''
This legend, at the time considered to be historically authentic, was an important political means for justifying the right of the Muscovite princes to the title of tsar and to autocratic rule of the state.
On the basis of the Tale of the Princes of Vladimir, as though it were a historical document, Ivan IV declared himself tsar and was solemnly crowned with the crown of Monomachus in the Cathedral of the Dormition in 1547. In diplomatic talks, Ivan the Terrible more than once mentioned that he was descended from Augustus Caesar.
The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir provided a powerful ideological foundation for a new autocratic form of rule in Rus, helped to consolidate the internal political authority of this rule and to establish the international prestige of the Muscovite state.
In 1523, Filofei, Elder of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery wrote: ``Attend and heed, pious tsar, how all Christian kingdoms shall be reduced to your one, for two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there shall be no fourth; Christendom is yours, and there shall be no other.''
This was the laconic, simple formulation of the political theory of the sovereignty of the Russian state: ``Moscow is the third Rome.''
One of the finest works of the late fifteenth century is Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin's Journey Across Three Seas, included under the year 1475 in the St. Sophia Chronicle.
Nikitin travelled to India from 1466 to 1472, one of the first Europeans to reach the land of the Rachmans, whose great wealth and fantastic wonders are described 231 in the Alexander Tale and the Tale of the Wealth of India.
The Journey is a valuable historical document, the living testimony of a fifteenth century man and a superb work of literature. Unlike the journies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it has no religious, didactic purposes. Nikitin travelled to a land unknown to the Russians to see it and for purposes of trade. Thus, not only his own curiosity, but practical considerations inspired the merchant's voyage.
On the basis of the Journey Across Three Seas we get, above all, a picture of an extraordinary figure, a Russian patriot who braved the hazards of unknown lands for the good of Rus. No adversities or trials faced by Afanasy during his difficult journey could frighten him or break his will. When he loses his ships at the mouth of the Volga to Tatar bandits he continues his journey. Perhaps if he had returned to Tver he would be faced with nothing more than debtor's prison, whereas an unknown land beckoned him forward.
Sailing across the Caspian Sea, traversing Persia and crossing the Indian Ocean, Nikitin at last reached his goal: the centre of India. There he visited such cities as Chaul, Junnar, Bidar, Parvat.
Inquisitive about the mores and customs of the alien land, Nikitin still retains the image of his own country in his heart: the Russian land. His longing for it increases on alien soil and although there are many injustices in Rus, he cherishes his fatherland and cries out: ``May God preserve the Russian land! ... On this earth there is no other like it, although the Russian nobles are unjust. May the Russian land become orderly and may there be justice in it!~"
For Nikitin Orthodoxy symbolises his motherland. He laments his inability to observe religious rituals in this alien land. No threats can make him convert to Islam. To convert, for him, would be to betray his native land. But Afanasy Nikitin is no religious fanatic. He attends to the religious customs of the Indians, describing in detail the Buddhist shrines at Parvat and religious rituals and observes, ``Only God knows the true faith".
232The Journey Across Three Seas abounds in autobiographical information. Nikitin pays much attention to psychology. But the central theme is, of course, India.
This Russian man is interested in the daily life and mores of the foreign land. He is struck by the darkcoloured skin of the natives and their clothing: ``People walk around naked, with uncovered heads and barebreasted and their hair plaited in a braid.'' Particularly surprising for this man of Rus are the married women who do not cover their heads. This was considered shameful in Rus. The Indians do not eat meat, but dine twice a day, and at night neither eat nor drink wine. They eat cheese, carrots with oil and various greens. Before eating they wash their hands and feet and rinse out their mouths. They eat with their right hand and do not know of knives or spoons. While dining many cover themselves so that no one can see.
Afanasy was struck by social inequality and religious strife: ``...Country people are very naked, but the nobles are wealthy and have all luxuries; they are carried on their silver divans by horses harnessed in gold....''
Nikitin describes the luxurious hunt of the Sultan and his mother, the magnificence and wealth of the court with seven gates guarded by a hundred sentries and a hundred scribes who write down the names of all who enter and leave.
The Russian merchant is intrigued by the annual grandiose bazaar held near Bidar. Here the entire land of India comes to trade all sorts of goods for ten days. Nikitin sought goods which would appeal to Russian customers. At first he found nothing: ``...All the goods were for the pagan land, pepper and paints, and cheap.'' He is interested in the armed forces of India and the technique of fighting.
Afanasy also notes features of India's climate: ``...their winter begins on Trinity Day,'' and there is water everywhere, and dirt and they then sow their wheat and everything edible. Spring begins on the Day of the Intercession when in Rus the first inklings of winter begin. Nikitin is astounded that the Indians do not raise horses, but bulls or buffaloes.
233He pays a great deal of attention to people's behaviour, customs and mores, and is interested in the religion of the Indians, describing several religious rituals. He is also struck by the number of castes in India---84, and by the fact that people neither eat nor drink nor marry outside of their caste.
Nikitin's descriptions of India are strictly factual; only in two cases does he recount local legends. One is about the ghuggu, a bird which lives at Alland: ``...It flies at night, crying ''ghuggu'; whenever it settles on a house-top, someone dies in the house; and when anyone tries to kill it, it begins to spit fire...."^^1^^ The second legend is about the King of the Monkeys and is based, evidently, on the Indian epic Ramayana.
The Journey ends with a short diary about the hero's return to his native land, where he died near Smolensk, never reaching Tver.
It would be difficult to overestimate the literary significance of Nikitin's work. His Journey is devoid of literary, ornate language, but is written in colloquial Russian, interspersed with Arabic, Turkish and Persian words learned during the journey. Characteristically he uses foreign words when he expresses his innermost thoughts about the Russian land, his love for his native land, and when he condemns the injustices of the Russian nobility.
The main feature of the Journey's style is its laconicism, and the author's ability to note and describe the main things: precision and strict observance of facts. All this distinguishes the Journey Across Three Seas from European descriptions of India.
1. R. P. Dmitrieva, Skazanie o knyazyakh Vladimirskikh (The Legend of the Princes of Vladimir}, M.-L., 1955.
2. D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi (Man in Old Russian Literature), M., 1970.
3. Ya. S. Lurye, Ideologicheskaya borba v russkoi publitsistike
kontsa XV-nachala XVI veka (The Ideological Struggle in
_-_-_
~^^1^^ Afanasy Nikitin's Journey Across Three Seas 1466--1472,
M., 1960.
4. Povest o Drakule (The Dracula Tale). A Study and Texts by Ya. S. Lurye, M.-L., 1964.
5. Poslaniya losifa Volotskogo (The Epistles of losif of Volotsk). Prepared by A. A. Zimin and Ya. S. Lurye, M,-L., 1959.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ SIXTEENTH CENTURY POLEMICAL LITERATUREThe consolidation of a centralised Russian state occurred under tense conditions of a fierce political struggle between the hereditary nobility, gradually deprived of its role in government, and the service nobility, gradually becoming the basic class support for the autocratic power of the Muscovite tsar.
The struggle between the hereditary nobility, departing from the political arena, and the rising service nobility was vividly reflected in polemics. Discourses, epistles and pamphlets were put out by different groups to express their interests and expose their opponents.
In the early sixteenth century Vassian Patrikeyev and Maxim the Greek defended the interests of the hereditary nobility; their opponent was the ideologist of the service nobility, Metropolitan Daniil.
Maxim the Greek was a prominent figure in the history of Old Russian literature and social thought. He was born in Arta, Italy, to the noble family of Trivoli, closely related to the Paleologi. In Florence he ecstatically attended to the speeches of Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican monk, and became one of his admirers. Savonarola helped Maxim to clarify the difference between the former Christians and the papist interpretation of Christianity.^^1^^ His youth was spent wandering through the cities of Northern Italy: he lived in Ferrara, Padua, Milan and Venice where he joined the circle of _-_-_
^^1^^ See A. I. Ivanov, ``Maksim Grek i Savonarola" (``Maxim Greek and Savonarola''), TODRL, vol. 23, 1968.
235 the renowned publisher Aldo Manucci. He became a monk at the Dominican Monastery of St. Mark. After some time, Maxim the Greek returned to Orthodoxy and went to live in the Vatoped Monastery on Mt. Athos. In 1518 he was recommended to Vasily Ill's envoy.In the same year he arrived in Moscow. The great prince greeted the scholarly monk with great honours. By order of Vasily III, Maxim the Greek began a new translation and revision of the Russian Explanatory Psalter. He was provided with the help of other ``learned men": Dmitry Gerasimov and Vlasy, both of whom were well acquainted with Latin. Maxim the Greek first translated the Greek text into Latin, and his helpers from Latin into Russian. The entire project took a year and five months to complete. Maxim took a new approach to the translation; he discovered many mistakes in the Russian text of the Explanatory Psalter and boldly corrected them. His daring displeased the followers of losif. But the translation was approved by Vasily III and Metropolitan Varlaam (a follower of Nil); for his work, Maxim the Greek was rewarded handsomely. He was then assigned to translate compiled commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles and to correct the Triodions, the Book of Hours and the Service of Menaea used for the worship service.
Maxim's cell in the Miracle Monastery was the site of heated arguments and discussions, evidently not only about religious dogma, but about politics as well. He could not simply function as the great prince's librarian and translator, but actively participated in the social life and issues. He became close friends with Vassian Patrikeyev who persuaded him to join the followers of Nil Sorsky who were against accumulation of property.
Maxim the Greek's first original works dealt with an expose of the black clergy and a defense of noncovetousness. The Awesome and Edifying Tale of Life of Perfection Among Monks (Povest strashna i dostopamyatna o sovershennom inocheskom zhitelstve) discusses the fall of morals among Russian monks. Drunkenness, gluttony, greed for money, idleness and simony flourish in the monasteries. The debauchery of 236 Russian monks was contrasted by Maxim the Greek with the virtues of Catholic Cartesian monks and the religious-political reformer Savonarola. But Maxim the Greek was no sympathiser of the ``Catholic enticements''. His tale had a didactic purpose: to urge Russian monks to strictly observe the rule and try to be no worse than their Catholic counterparts.
His philosophical polemic Dialogue of Mind and Soul (Beseda Uma s Dushoi) is a defense of noncovetousness. Mind is an allegory for the highest moral principles of monasticism; Soul is the embodiment of vices. The soul perishes, as Maxim the Greek shows, from covetousness. Like Savonarola, he exposes the luxurious, idle life of the church hierarchs. This life was built upon the ``blood of the poor'', and through unjust, immoral deeds.
In his Sermon on Repentence (Slovo o pokayanii) Maxim the Greek speaks with great sympathy about the peasants of the monasteries, worn out from working beyond their strength. Here he echoes Vassian Patrikeyev.
A Debate of the Covetous with the Non-Covetous (Stezanie Lyubostyazhatelya s Nestyazhatelyem) depicts the harmful influence of estates on the morality of monasteries.
His active defense of ``non-covetousness'' and expose of monastic life were held against Maxim at the Holy Conclave of the Church of 1525. He was accused of heresy, and moreover, of relations with the Turkish sultan, and condemned to incarceration in the losif-- Volokolamsk Monastery. Under difficult conditions he remained there for sixteen years. His many requests to be released and handed over to Mt. Athos were never answered. When in 1531 Vassian Patrikeyev was convicted, Maxim the Greek was transferred to the Page's Monastery of Tver where he was released five years before his death due to the interference of Abbot Artemy of the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery. Maxim the Greek died in 1556.
Even during his imprisonment, Maxim did not cease his literary and polemical activities, but continued to write discourses and sermons criticising religious 237 formalism, abuse of courts, superstition, astrology, and the like; he demanded a logical approach to the texts of Scripture.
Maxim also dealt with political questions in his works, such as the Discourse Setting Forth at Length and with Sorrow the Disorder and Indecorum of Tsars and Authorities of the Latter Age (Slovo, prostranne izlagayushche s zhalostiyu nestroeniya i bezchiniya tsarei i vlasteiposlednego zhitiya) written between 1534 and 1539.
Maxim the Greek depicts the Russian state in the allegorical image of a lonely, disconsolate, weeping widow. Dressed in black she sits in the wilderness surrounded by lions, bears, wolves and vixens. After long, persistent questions, the woman tells the wayfarer her name and tells why she grieves. She is called Vasilia Kingdom. She has been made to mourn and grieve by unworthy rule where the tsars are made tormentors, and lovers of power and luxury command the kingdom. Through her lips Maxim mercilessly condemns the powerful and explains the allegory. The wilderness and wild beasts represent the last accursed age when there will be no pious rulers; today's rulers are only concerned with increasing their domains and for that purpose shed blood. Thus did Maxim the Greek denounce the disorders and chaos of the 1530's when the nobles took advantage of Ivan the Terrible's youth to squander the state's property and attempted to recover lost privileges.
But the Discourse has a wider application: Maxim the Greek discusses the need for rational government without bloodshed, cruelty and usury. ``Where people truly fear their lord there is no joy,'' writes Maxim. He believed that both imperial and ecclesiastical power were given by God and developed a theory of their close relation. The clergy should occupy itself with spiritual enlightenment; the king should defend the state and deal with the building of a peaceful society. The king should rule on the basis of truth and justice. Maxim propounded the idea of the king's moral responsibility before God for the fate of his country and his subjects. The king relies on the nobility and the military whom he generously rewards for their services. Thus Maxim 238 worked out a programme for compromise between two groups of the ruling class engaged in a struggle for power. This compromise was, to a certain degree, implemented during the rule of the ``Select Council".
All of Maxim the Greek's works are written in strict correspondence to the rules of rhetorical and grammatical art. He develops his ideas with logical consistency and argues each position. His language is literary and he permits no colloquialisms to creep in.
Maxim the Greek's style was extremely influential on his students and followers: Andrei Kurbsky and Zinovy Ottensky.
Quite different in style from Maxim the Greek was the zealous ideologist of the losiflyans and worthy follower of losif of Volotsk, Daniil, who served as metropolitan from 1522 to 1539. An active supporter of the secular authorities, he had no rest until he was rid of his opponents.
Daniil left us sixteen sermons dealing with religious questions of dogma, ritual and daily life.
Unlike Maxim the Greek, Daniil did not follow the rules of rhetoric in his works and was fairly free with his language. His sermons contain colloquial words and for this very reason help to pave the way for the subsequent democratisation of literary language and style.
His wide use of colloquial, vivid intonation makes Daniil's sermons lively and figurative in their depiction of life. One example is the vivid image of the debauchee and fashion plate in Daniil's twelfth sermon: ``You perform a great feat in your desire to please harlots: changing your clothing and impeding your movements with scarlet boots that are much too small so that your feet are terribly cramped because they are so tight, thus you gleam and gallop and hop, whinnying like a stallion.... You do not cut your hair with a razor and remove it from your flesh, but use a tweezers and pull it out from the roots shamelessly, as if you envied women, 239 and are trying to make your male face look like that of a female.''
By calling his sermons ``teachings'', Daniil stressed their didactic function. He addressed them to those being denounced and contrasted their behaviour to the ten commandments.
Daniil demanded a strict observance of Christian morality and condemned those who violated these norms. He was distressed by society's indifference to Holy Scripture and the worship service (a very noteworthy symptom!).
In his sermons religious moralising combines with a naturalistic description of vices. He attempts to create a collective portrait of drunkards, debauchees, gluttons, parasites, dandies, false prophets and ``teachers''. Typically, the main incarnations of these vices were the wealthy young noblemen.
Daniil's works are a vivid document of the morals of Russian society in the early sixteenth century. Their free literary manner foreshadows Ivan the Terrible's biting style. Daniil's passion for expose and vivid, figurative language have made his works very popular among Old Believers.
Ivan Peresvetov was a prominent writer, polemicist and ideologist of the service nobility. He came to Rus from Lithuania in 1538 during the heyday of boyar ``rule'', and immediately joined the political struggle: in ``insults'' and ``the hustle" ``frittering away" all of his property. Peresvetov repeatedly submitted petitions to the young great prince and wrote allegorical polemical tales showing the need for an autocratic form of rule and the elimination of boyar interference in state affairs. By means of historical parallels he depicted essential faults in Muscovy's political life and gave practical advice for their correction.
His own experience of the Lithuanian state and his stay in Muscovy convinced him that boyar rule had a 240 disastrous influence on the fate of the country. Peresvetov pointed this out in his Tale of King Constantine. He set forth his own positive political programme, a bold project for the transformation of the state, in a polemical pamphlet written in 1547: the Tale of Magme t-Saltan.
This pamphlet is constructed according to a fairly transparent historical allegory: Emperor Constantine is contrasted with Magmet-Saltan.
The description of the rule of Emperor Constantine, who inherited his kingdom at the age of three and was exploited by the nobility, was recognised by contemporaries as illustrative of recent events: Ivan the Terrible's youth, the struggle for power between boyar families of Belskys and Shuiskys. Until the tsar came of age, these noblemen ``grew rich from evil deeds'', they violated the tenets of justice, condemning innocent men for a price, and ``grew wealthy from the tears and blood of their fellow men''. The main reason for the fall of Constantinople was the behaviour of the boyars who ``surrounded the wise tsar with their enmities and tricked him with their cunning and subdued his army''. As Peresvetov saw things the nobility was the reasori for the impoverishment and disorder in the Russian state.
His political ideal is embodied in the terrible autocrat and wise leader Magmet-Saltan. Peresvetov seems to be offering a political lesson to the young Ivan IV, only recently solemnly crowned as the ``Tsar of all Russia".
Magmet-Saltan relies on the wisdom of Greek books and on his own ``army''---the service nobility. His motto is: ``A king can't rule without terror.... If a king makes a blunder and becomes meek, calms down even the slightest bit, his kingdom will be impoverished and another king will conquer it.'' The sultan's personal guard consists of 40,000 janissaries ``so that his enemies would not enter his land and ferment treason and did not fall into sin.'' Magmet understands that he is strong and glorious only thanks to his army---those who ``play the game of death against the enemy...''. ``And no one knows who their fathers are. Whoever serves me faithfully and fights against my enemy shall be highest 241 for me,'' declares Magmet-Saltan.
This is a clear expression of the viewpoint of a member of the service nobility who wishes to be rewarded by his sovereign for faithful service, for his personal merits and not the merits of his family. Magmet rewards his soldiers for military prowess, even those who are lowest in rank; these he raises to higher ranks.
Peresvetov believes that the army should be governed by means of special commanders which allows the morale of the men to be strengthened and therefore makes them a reliable source of support for the state. His pamphlet anticipates the institution of the oprichnina, a personal force of devoted janissaries, faithful dogs, ready to execute the king's every wish.
Peresvetov proposes a series of changes in the internal government of the country: the regional apparatus, the courts, and the king's treasury. He believed that the system known as kormleniye, ``feeding'', whereby the local regent could collect taxes for himself, should be destroyed and instead all taxes from the cities, regions and estates to be collected in the king's treasury; the collectors would be salaried, and the regents would, accordingly, become ordinary state officials.
City government was to be like that of the army which, in Peresvetov's view, would help fight against evildoers.
Magmet-Saltan fights for justice and truth. He gets to the roots of injustice, simony and bribery in the courts through harsh measures: judges who take bribes are to be skinned alive. ``If the skin on their bodies grows anew they will be judged not guilty.'' He orders that their skin be stuffed with paper and posted in the courts with the inscription: ``Without such threats, justice cannot be maintained in my domain.'' Such ``radical measures'', believes Peresvetov, will help to establish fair courts. Magmet-Saltan takes similarly cruel measures to stamp out the thievery and brigandage in his realm: ``The Turkish king has no prison for thieves or bandits; on the third day they are executed so that evil will not increase.''
Peresvetov opposes slavery, with serfdom in mind: 242 ``In a kingdom where people are enslaved, they will not be brave or daring in battle against the enemy; for a slave fears not shame and earns himself no honours whether he is strong or weak, but says, 'Since I am a serf I shall gain no other name.'~" This sixteenth century pamphlet-writer's position anticipates A. N. Radishchev's remarkable Meditations on Those Who Are Sons of Their Fatherland.
As A. A. Zimin notes^^1^^ Peresvetov's social, religious and philosophical views expand the limitations of the service nobility's viewpoint. He does not make the traditional references to the Church Fathers, or to theological arguments, and is a harsh critic of monasticism, opposing the Church hierarchy. People found heretical his declarations such as, ``God does not love faith, but truth,'' and ``Not God, but man governs the fate of a country.''
Peresvetov had a humanistic faith in the power of human reason, conviction and the word. His ideal autocratic regime of Magmet-Saltan is related to this humanistic faith. Himself a wise philosopher, Magmet adds Greek books to Turkish ones and for this reason ``the king gained great wisdom''. ``Thus should a Christian king conduct himself and stand up firmly for the truth and the Christian faith,'' concludes MagmetSaltan. These words summarise the themes of the work.
While the author of the Dracula Tale had a dualistic attitude toward his hero, Peresvetov has an apologetic approach to Magmet-Saltan. He shows the need for an ``awe-inspiring'' autocratic rule, the only way to ensure order within the country and defend it against foreign enemies.
His faith in the power of the word to convince forced him to write petitions and submit them to the tsar, as well as to compose political pamphlets.
Peresvetov did not explain his allegories as did Maxim the Greek, and they were purely secular and _-_-_
^^1^^ See A. A. Zimin, /. S. Peresvetov i ego sovremenniki. Ocherki po istorii russkoi obshchestvenno-politicheskoi my sit serediny XVI veka (I. S. Peresvetov and His Contemporaries. Essays on the History of Russian So do-Political Thought in the Mid-Sixteenth Century], M., 1958.
__PRINTERS_P_244_COMMENT__ 16* 243 historical. For history, as he saw it, gave a clear political lesson to the present. By means of antithesis he was able to reveal his basic political ideas. Vivid, colloquial language, with no rhetorical adornments, and abundant aphorisms made these ideas clear and extremely forceful.By means of pamphlets, Peresvetov tried to rely on the power of the tsar to change the status quo.
As D. S. Likhachev notes,^^1^^ in court polemics the spirit of social transformations was combined with the idea that the sovereign is responsible for the welfare of his subjects. The active nature of such views among the nobility was most fittingly expressed in active forms of official writing which began to abundantly penetrate literature and to enrich it.
The polemical pamphlets of Ivan Peresvetov presented a political programme which was, in part, implemented by Ivan the Terrible.
Ivan the Terrible's policies oriented to consolidating the autocracy, increasing the role of the service nobility and infringing upon the interests of the hereditary nobility were opposed by the latter. This struggle can be seen in the correspondence between Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible.
A descendant of the princes of Yaroslavl who could trace his line back to Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Kurbsky in 1563 fled to the Livonian city of Volmar after losing a battle and surrendered himself to the armies of Sigismund Augustus. From there in 1564 he sent his first epistle to Ivan the Terrible. The epistle was aimed at a wide audience and its purpose was to expose the autocratic policies of the tsar. A reproach could be seen in the address: ``To the Tsar, glorified by God, and who _-_-_
^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, ``Ivan Peresvetov i ego literaturnaya sovremennost" (``Ivan Peresvetov and His Literary Topicality''), in Works of Ivan Peresvetov. Ed. by A. A. Zimin, M.-L., 1956.
244 was more exalted in Orthodoxy, and today, for our sins, is acting in an unfitting manner.'' The tsar has lost his image of the ideal ruler.Kurbsky takes the part of the public prosecutor, accusing the tsar in the name of boyars who have ``perished or been murdered for no crimes, imprisoned and exiled unjustly''. He writes with a bitter heart, and his accusations are set forth severely and in measured tempo according to all the rules of rhetoric and grammar: ``Why, o Tsar, have you smitten the strong men of Israel and given up the regents provided by God to various forms of death? Why have you shed their triumphant, holy blood in God's shrines and festivals and made the porches of the churches scarlet with their martyr's blood? Why have you conceived of unheard-of miseries and exile and death for those who wish you well and have laid their lives down for your sake?~"
Kurbsky accuses Ivan of unjust exiles, of tormenting and exterminating the nobility who, as he sees it, are the foundation of the state and its strength. Then he accuses the tsar of abusing of his autocratic power. Kurbsky knew that it was impossible to re-establish the old order completely and did not demand decentralisation, but tried only to weaken the autocratic rule of the tsar, believing that power should be divided between the tsar and the hereditary nobility. Finally, he lists misfortunes which he has suffered at the hands of the tsar and speaks of his military services to the country which, he believes, Ivan does not value sufficiently.
The exiled boyar declares that the tsar will not set eyes on him until the Last Judgement and that he will take ``these writings, wet with tears" to the grave so that he can show them to the terrible, just Heavenly judges.
According to legend, the epistle was handed to the tsar himself by Kurbsky's faithful servant Vasily Shibanov on the Red Porch. The outraged tsar pierced the envoy's foot with his staff, and leaning on the staff listened to the text of his enemy's epistle. Overcoming his agonies, Shibanov did not so much as moan. Later he was thrown into a dungeon and tortured to death for he would give no evidence.
Kurbsky's epistle distressed and wounded Ivan. His 245 answer reveals his complex, contradictory personality. Ivan's epistle shows, first of all, his extraordinary intelligence, broad education, and familiarity with a wide range of books; at the same time it shows his proud, embittered, rebellious spirit. His response is addressed, not only to Kurbsky, but to ``the entire Russian kingdom''. For his rebuttal of Kurbsky's charges was to apply to all who broke oaths made by the cross. This resulted, on the one hand, in an emotionally charged condemnation of boyar traitors, and, on the other hand, in a passionate affirmation, justification and defense of autocratic rule.
Ivan is speaking as a politician, a statesman, and his speech is, at first, restrained and official. The answer to Kurbsky begins with a proof of the legality of his autocratic power, inherited from his forefathers: Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Vladimir Monomakh, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, his grandfather Ivan Vasilyevich, and his father Vasily. Ivan proudly declares: ``As I was born to reign, I did mature and become the tsar by God's will and with the blessing of my parents; I did not seize another's throne.'' This is his refutation of Kurbsky's charge that he has used his power illegally. Through quotations from Scriptures Ivan shows that the authority of the tsar is sanctified by God Himself, and that any man who opposes this, opposes God. losif's idea of the divinity of the rule of kings was firmly adopted by the tsar, and, on this basis, he characterises Kurbsky's deed as treason, apostasy, and a crime before the sovereign, and therefore before God. In the tsar's opinion Kurbsky has gained notoriety when he ``like a treacherous mut broke his oath on the cross'', thereupon destroying his own soul. The tsar contrasts the boyar's treason to the selfless devotion of his serf Vasily Shibanov who has died a martyr's death for his lord. Such loyalty is greatly admired by Ivan, and he demands the same from all of his subjects whom he views as his serfs. ``And we are free to take mercy on our serfs and to execute them,'' he declares.
Ivan is irritated by Kurbsky's venomous reproaches and the severe Condemnation in his epistle; in turn the tsar's answer is incendiary. He tosses sarcastic questions 246 at the traitor: ``Why are you writing and expressing your pain, you dog, when you have performed such an evil act?~" ``What can I liken your counsels to when they have a worse stench than excrement?~"
With sarcastic perplexity, Ivan says that he did not destroy the strong men of Israel and does not even know ``who is strongest in Israel''. He does not agree with Kurbsky's assessment of the nobility which does not, in his view, comprise the power and the glory of the state.
To give his arguments greater weight, Ivan includes many elements from his own life. He recalls how in his youth many of his father's supporters were exterminated; how his mother's, father's and grandfather's wealth was plundered by the boyars; how palaces and lands were taken from his uncles; and how princes Vasily and Ivan Shuisky ruled and took cruel measures against their rivals. ``My brother Georgy, may he rest in peace, and I were raised like alien or like the lowest members of the household,'' bitterly recalls Ivan. ``We play childish games while Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky sat on the bench, leaning on one elbow, his foot on our father's bed, and leaning down toward us, not like a parent, but as though he was a lord and we his slaves....'' Ivan bitterly asks his enemy, ``How can I count the miserable sufferings that I endured in my youth?~"
Ivan also recalls the great Moscow fire of 1547 when the treacherous boyars pretended to be martyrs and spread rumours that Anna Glinskaya set the city on fire by black magic; the rebellious Muscovites murdered Yuri Glinsky in church and were ready to murder the tsar himself.
No, Ivan concludes, the boyars do not support the tsars, but are inhuman dogs and traitors who oppose their sovereign in every way they can. Therefore, reasons Ivan, these and other dogs and traitors ``have nothing to brag about with regard to bravery on the field of battle''. In his attempts to parry Kurbsky's accusations Ivan often cites the former's letter in order to play upon his phrases. For example: ``What do you mean when you claim that your blood has been spilled 247 by foreign enemies for us, when with your sham insanity, you cry out against us to God; if foreigners spilled your blood, then cry out against them.'' Or: ``You write that you won't show your face to us until the Last Judgement. Who would ever want to gaze upon such an Ethiopian face?~"
Openly mocking his enemy without shame, Ivan pours out his heart in his epistle, ignoring the rules of rhetoric and poetics. His style is very close to that of losif's literary school: jerky, agitated, witty, sarcastic and filled with vivid, concrete images from daily life. To prove that he is right, he freely cites the Scriptures by heart. His freehanded style which ignored all the canons of literature was sarcastically mocked by Kurbsky. In the latter's brief answer, he does not attempt to refute Ivan, but merely continues to insist that his accusations in his first epistle are true. He repudiates the tsar's ``evil, biting" words and pictures himself as a man ``who has been greatly insulted and banished unjustly'', setting his hopes on Divine judgement.
A student of the Elders from beyond the Volga, raised in a strictly literary tradition, Kurbsky cannot adopt Ivan's ``broadcasting and noisy" style. He regards the style of Ivan's epistle as unworthy, not only of a great tsar praised throughout the world, but of a miserable, simple soldier. Kurbsky reproaches Ivan for his inability to quote: the tsar's epistle ``has seized words from many holy books with rage and violence,... and not lines or stanzas, as artful, learned men do... but beyond all bounds, unnecessarily and boringly, in whole books and whole parts from the Holy Writ and epistles".
Kurbsky also reproaches Ivan for mixing literary and colloquial styles: ``And at the same time you speak of beds and padded jackets and innumerable other things, like a foolish woman babbling; and so barbarously, not like a learned, artful man, but like a simpleton and a child with wonderment and laughter....''
In his reproaches Kurbsky claims that the tsar should be ashamed to send an epistle like that into a foreign land where ``some people are learned not only in grammar and rhetoric, but in dialectics and philosophical works".
248Kurbsky's polemic against Ivan's literary style shows the difference in their approaches to the word and to life.
After Kurbsky's answer, the correspondence ceased for thirteen years. It was renewed by Ivan in 1577 when Russian troops took the Livonian city of Volmar, behind the walls of which Kurbsky had sought refuge.
In his Volmar epistle, Ivan reiterated the misfortunes and adversities which he had suffered at the hands of the boyars during the rule of the ``Select Council" by Adashev and Silvestr. ``The miseries you have caused me cannot be listed,'' he cries out and painfully asks: ``And why have you separated me from my wife? Why did you want Prince Vladimir to rule and to exterminate me as a child?~" Sorrowful, bitter questions, setting for the crimes of the nobility, alternate with sarcastic mockery of the fugitive.
In his answer to this epistle, Kurbsky mainly justifies himself, with the help of abundant quotations from the Scriptures. His final blow to his enemy had been the historical pamphlet, The History of the Great Prince of Muscovy written in 1573. Here Kurbsky stresses morality: the tsar's personality is the cause of all evils and misfortunes. He was able to convince historians for a long time that Ivan the Terrible was the scion of ``a family that has long sucked the people's lifeblood'', and that although his reign began magnificently, its second period was possessed by malice and violence and stained his hands with the blood of innocent victims.
The contradictory complex character of Ivan and his remarkable talent as a writer can be seen, not only in his polemical epistles to Kurbsky, but in many other letters.~^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ In 1971 Harvard professor Edward Keenan wrote a book claiming that Ivan the Terrible's correspondence with Kurbsky was written in the early seventeenth century by Prince Semyon Ivanovich Shakhovskoi. According to D. S. Likhachev (``Were Kurbsky and Ivan Writers'', Russkaya literatura, No. 4, 1972) and R. G. Skrynnikova (Perepiska Groznogo i Kurbskogo. Paradoksy Edvarda Kinana [The Kurbsky-Ivan Correspondence: Edward Keenan's Paradoxes], L., 1973) the American scholar has no basis for his conclusions.
249Ivan's epistle to Abbot Kozrna of the Kirillo-- Belozersky Monastery (written around the year 1573) on the violation of monastic rule by boyars Sheremetyev, Khabarov and Sobakin, exiled to that monastery, is one of his more interesting efforts.
Steeped in biting irony which, at times, becomes outright sarcasm with regard to the disgraced boyars, the epistle describes how, when they arrived in the monastery, ``they introduced their own lecherous Rule".
Ivan's pen sketches a vivid, satirical picture of monastic life: ``Today in your cloister Sheremetyev sits in his cell like a tsar; Khabarov and other monks come to him and drink and eat as though they were laymen, and Sheremetyev---whether from weddings or births, I don't know---sends sweets and cakes, and other spiced delicacies around to all the cells, and behind the monastery is a courtyard, and in it are supplies for a year.'' On the basis of this picture, Ivan concludes that today boyars have violated the strict monastic Rule in all the monasteries for the sake of their own worldly pleasures. There should be no social inequality in a monastery: ``Or is that the path to salvation, that boyars do not give up their rank when they became monks and serfs do not give up their bondage?~"
Ivan pours out his irony on the monks who haven't the strength to rein in the wilful boyars. This irony is made more powerful by the self-denigration with which Ivan begins his epistle: ``Alas, I am a poor sinner! Woe to me, the accursed one! For I am vile ... and a stinking dog and whom shall I teach and what shall I preach and how shall I enlighten anyone?~" The more emphatically Ivan expresses his respect for the Kirill Monastery, the more stinging are his reproaches. He shames the brothers for allowing the boyars to violate the Rule, for, he continues, it is no longer clear whether the boyars took the vows at the hands of the monks or vice versa.
Ivan concludes his epistle wrathfully, forbidding the monks to bother him with such questions: ``And with 250 regard to Khabarov, I have nothing to write about: let hirn do whatever he wants ... and in the future don't bother us with reports on Sheremetyev and other nonsense....'' As D. S. Likhachev^^1^^ notes, the ``Epistle to Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery" is a freehanded improvisation, at first didactic and then incendiary; it turns into an accusation written with bitter conviction in its own justice.
Ivan's unusual personality and his unique style can be seen in his relations to one of his close companions and a member of his personal guard, Vasily Gryaznoy, to whom the tsar wrote in 1574.
The severe leader's disturbed soul, his pangs of conscience and his fear of approaching death can be seen in his repentent Canon to the Terrible Angel.
Ivan's closest descendants characterised him as ``a man of marvellous intellect, well read and eloquent''. All of his works show the profound, subtle and mocking mind of a Russian, a leading state figure and politician, and also a despot ruling according to his own autocratic desires. Ivan's lively powers of observation, temperament, benevolence, cruelty, ironic smile and trenchant sarcasm, sharpness and quick temper all are reflected in his works.
Ignoring literary canons and traditions, and boldly violating them, his works contained concrete scenes from life. To convey the scale of his emotions, Ivan made much use of colloquialisms, conversational intonation and even expletives. This made Ivan's style an unparalleled example of ``stinging'' prose which struck his opponents every time.
His epistles testify to the beginning of the disintegration of the old literary style developed in the fourteenth-sixteenth centuries. True, only the tsar of Russia could proclaim his individuality in the realm of style. In view of his position he could boldly violate the established stylistic norms and play the role, now of a wise philosopher, now of God's humble servant, now of _-_-_
^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, ``Ivan Grozny kak pisatel'', Poslaniya Ivana Groznogo (``Ivan the Terrible as a Writer'', in The Epistles of Ivan the Terrible), M.-L., 1951.
251 the cruel, implacable leader, free to execute or spare his ``serfs'' and subjects.Among the polemics of the sixteenth century, not only the defenders of various interests of the ruling classes spoke out. At the same time the first ideologists of democratic strata of Russian society began to appear. Matvei Bashkin, a nobleman, spoke out against slavery. Through citations of Scripture he showed that it was against the law to own slaves. Bashkin himself allowed his slaves to go free. The fugitive serf Feodosy Kosoy went even further: he denied Church dogma (the Trinity, veneration of shrines and icons, the Church hierarchy) and opposed all exploitation of one man by another, zealously defending full equality of all men and decrying war and civil authorities.
Feodosy Kosoy's heresy was ``exposed'' by two polemical works written by Zinovy Ottensky: Showing the Truth (Istiny pokazanie) and A Long Epistle (Poslanie mnogoslovnoye).
In 1554 the Holy Conclave of the Church condemned the ``heresies'' of Matvei Bashkin and Feodosy Kosoy, as well as Elder Artemy, former abbot of the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery, a zealous opponent of Church property connected with Maxim the Greek and Matvei Bashkin. They were sentenced to life's seclusion in various monasteries. But Artemy and Feodosy Kosoy were able to flee to Lithuania.
__b_b_b__In this way the polemics of the sixteenth century treated the cardinal political issues of the day: the nature of state government, the role of the tsar in government, as well as that of the nobility, the service nobility and the clergy. Here for the first time the question of the position of the Russian peasant was posed, and people spoke out against slavery.
Polemicists closely linked these political problems with moral and philosophical problems. In their efforts to prove their points and disprove those of their opponents, they did not confine themselves to the authorities of the Scriptures or the Church Fathers, but relied on logic and appealed to reason, drawing on facts from life and even their personal experience.
252Sixteenth century polemics were characterised by many genres: the polemic discourse, the teachings, the response, the dialogue, the petition and the pamphlet.
We find two trends: the first exemplified by Vassian Patrikeyev, Maxim the Greek and Andrei Kurbsky, the second by losif of Volotsk, Metropolitan Daniil and Ivan the Terrible.
The first sort of polemics were carefully composed in high literary style based on a literary lexicon, strict observance of syntax, avoidance of colloquial language and common conversational lexicon, abstract, symbolic images.
The second sort of polemics violated the norms of rhetorical art, and in these works literary style freely mixed with colloquial style. At times the exposes turned into satire; these writers boldy introduced elements of daily life and mores into their works, and even, as Ivan the Terrible did in his epistles, reveal their own personalities.
A special place is occupied by Ivan Peresvetov, who created a new genre: the pamphlet with a concrete-- historical allegory.
Sixteenth century polemics played an important part in the formation of the Russian literary language and Russian literature. The traditions were reflected in the historical tales of the late seventeenth century and in Avvakum's polemical epistles and dialogues.
1. I. U. Budovnitz, Russkaya publitsistika XVI veka (Russian Sixteenth Century Sixteenth Century Polemics), M.-L., 1947.
2. N. A. Kazakova, Ocherki po istorii russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli. Pervaya tret XVI veka (Essays on the History of Russian Social Thought in the Early Sixteenth Century), L., 1970.
3. G.B.Plekhanov, 1storiya russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli (The History of Russian Social Thought), vol. I. 2nd edition, M., 1925.
4. Poslaniya Ivana Groznogo (The Epistles of Ivan the Terrible). Prepared by D. S. Likhachev and Ya. S. Lurye, M.-L., 1951.
5. Sochineniya Ivana Peresvetova (The Works of Ivan Peresvetov). Prepared by A. A. Zimin, M.-L., 1956.
6. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literature (Anthology of Old Russian Literature). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, 8th edition, M.,1973.
253 __ALPHA_LVL2__ COMPILATIVE WORKS OFIn the sixteenth century Russian literature produced many compilative works, both secular and religious, ideologically securing the unity of the Russian lands around the political, religious and cultural centre of Muscovy. Works of regional literatures were united and reworked, both ideologically and stylistically, to create one all-Russian literature with a common state and political significance.
At the initiative of Metropolitan Makaiy, and under his direction, a herculean labour of collecting religious writings and reworking their style and ideology was accomplished. Makary, who was tonsured at the Pafnuty-Borovsky Monastery, was a zealous follower of losif of Volotsk; by the order of Vasily III, who ``loved him greatly'', Makary was appointed archbishop of Great Novgorod in 1526.
Here he began collecting and uniting all of the holy books to be found in the Russian land. Many scribes and writers were enlisted, among them Dmitry Gerasimov, with whom we are already familiar, and the nobleman Vasily Tuchkov. The first redaction of his Grand Chetyi-Minei (great menology) was composed in the course of twelve years (from 1529 to 1541) and placed in the Novgorod Cathedral of Saint Sophia as the archbishop's contribution.
When in 1542 he became metropolitan of all Rus, Makary was disinclined to support the boyar Shuisky who proposed him. Instead he worked to consolidate the autocratic powers of the Great Prince of Muscovy and in January of 1547 solemnly crowned the seventeen-year-old Ivan IV.
In Moscow, Makary continued to work on his Chetyi-Minei and in 1547 and 1549 convened two Holy Conclaves of the Church for the canonisation of 254 locally revered saints. With this in mind he commissioned lives of losif of Volotsk and Makary of Kalyazin, Alexander of Svir and others. Both Conclaves canonised forty saints. This was not only a religious act, but one of great political significance, for it ideologically supported secular and religious authorities.
After the Holy Conclaves, Makary commissioned new redactions of the lives of Alexander Nevsky, Sawa of Storozhevo and Metropolitan lona, among others. Sixty new vitae were written and introduced into the new redaction of his Chetyi-Minei which was completed in 1552 and placed in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin; a second copy was presented in 1554 to Ivan IV.
These twelve enormous folios arranged according to the days of each month included both Russian and translated hagiography and sermons from the Emerald (Izmaragd), Golden Chain (Zolotaya tsep), Abbot DaniiPs Pilgrimage, Joseph Flavius' Tale of the Destruction of Jerusalem and Kozma Indikoplov's Cosmography. As a result the Grand Chetyi-Minei formed a unique encyclopedia of sixteenth century religious literature, providing ideological support for the political unification of former appanage principalities into a centralised state.
The same role was played by Russian chronicle compilations including regional chronicles of former principalities and reworking them so that facts were evaluated from the political viewpoint of the Muscovite absolutism.
In the 1540's the Voskresensky Chronicle was compiled, telling the history of Rus from the moment when the Kiev state was formed up to 1541. But this chronicle did not entirely accord with the political interests of its day. Its compilers could not organically rework 255 material from regional chronicles and fully liquidate regional tendencies. They were not able to attain stylistic unity in their narration.
These faults were overcome by the compilers of the Nikonovsky Chronicle from 1550 to 1570, which, in comparison with the Voskresensky Chronicle, includes a greater quantity of new material from regional chronicles. This material was subjected to profound ideological and stylistic reworking; it had one political conception and a unified style. The Nikonovsky Chronicle traces the idea of the succession of autocratic power from the first Kievan princes to Ivan IV, following their descent back to Augustus Caesar; it glorifies the Muscovite kingdom and its autocratic rulers as being elected by God. Events are recorded up to 1567. Historical facts are presented didactically, framed in a luxuriant rhetorical style.
The chronicle constantly stresses that' the Russian land and its rulers are protected by God; the greatness of the Russian state is proclaimed and its history is joined to the course of world history. With this purpose the Nikonovsky Chronicle makes much use of the World Chronicle (Khronograf) and alternates between yearly entries and the chronicles of world history. Much space is devoted to tales, linked to various years. For example the lives of Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Ivanovich, the tales of the battle on the river Kalka, the arrival of Batu in Ryazan, the Battle of Kulikovo Field, the invasion of Tokhtamysh, the tale of Temir-Aksak, as well as translated tales of Alexander the Great, the Trojan War, and the destruction of Jerusalem are included.
The Lvov Chronicle, telling of events up to 1560, is close to the Nikonovsky Chronicle.
In the 1570's, on thebasis of the Nikonovsky Chronicle, a grandiose Nikonovsky Illustrated Compiled Chronicle (svod) was assembled. Ten thousand leaves have survived with 16,000 miniatures. It began with the creation of the world and aimed at confirming the universal grandeur of the Russian kingdom and its pious rulers. In its expression of the official ideology this 256 illustrated chronicle was a historical encyclopedia of sixteenth century Muscovy.~^^1^^
On the initiative of Metropolitan Makary in 1563 the royal confessor Andrei-Afanasy composed the Book of Generations of the Tsar's Genealogy ( Stepennaya kniga). This work attempts a systematic pragmatic presentation of the history of the Muscovite kingdom in the form of a family tree from Rurik, and then Vladimir Svyatoslavich to Ivan the Terrible inclusive.
The history of the Russian state is told through the vitae of its rulers according to the degrees of kinship from the first Kievan princes, Rurik and Vladimir Svyatoslavich. The period of each prince's rule comprises a distinct facet in history. In accordance with this, the Book of Generations is separated into seventeen degrees and facets; the introduction is an extended vita of Princess Olga. Each facet following the biographies of the princes tells of an important event of their times; the lives of such distinguished Church hierarchs as Petr, Aleksei and lona are also included.
Personalities of the princes are the central focus in the narrative of the Book of Generations. Each one is characterised as an ideal, wise ruler, a courageous warrior and an exemplary Christian. Their images are monumental; the compilers of the Book of Generations try to stress the greatness of their deeds and the beauty of their virtues. Reviving medieval monumental style, they modernise it by introducing psychological descriptions of the characters, striving to show their inner world, pious thoughts in imaginary monologues and prayers.
_-_-_^^1^^ See A. E. Presnyakov, ``Moskovskaya istoricheskaya entsiklopediya XVI veka'', Izd, Otd. russkogo yazyka i slavesnosti, imp. Akademii nauk (``A Sixteenth Century Muscovite Historical Encyclopedia'', in Transactions of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Royal Academy of Sciences), book 3, 1900.
__PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17---315 257The theme of autocratic rule in Rus is consistently presented; allegedly this form of rule was established by the first princes to take the scepter. Their rule is surrounded by an aureole of holiness and the necessity for unquestioning, absolute obedience to these rulers is proven; the unity of state and Church is also stressed.
Historical material is presented in a splendid rhetorical panegyric to the ``Divine tree" of the autocratic line of Rurik.
Both in the Book of Generations and in the chronicles historical material took on topical political and polemical resonance; it was subordinated to the goals of the ideological struggle for the consolidation of the autocratic rule of one Russian sovereign. Both the chronicles and the Book of Generations were official historical documents, providing a basis for sixteenth century Muscovite diplomats to hold talks in the international arena. They proved the right of the Muscovite princes to rule over the Russian lands once adjoined to the Kievan state, and the sovereignty of the Muscovite kingdom, its right to a leading role in European politics.~^^1^^
Among the compilative works of the sixteenth century is the Domostroi (Household Management) attributed to the priest Silvestr. Its purpose was to regulate people's behaviour both in state and family life. Each citizen's obligations to Church and tsar are clearly defined and the idea of absolute obedience to the tsar is stressed.
One imporant part of the Domostroi is the chapter ``On Worldly Life, How to Live with Wife, Children and Servants''. Just as the tsar is the supreme lord of his subjects, the man is the lord of the family. He is responsible before God and the tsar for his family and the upbringing of his sons to be faithful servants of the _-_-_
^^1^^ See V. V. Kuskov, ''Iz nablyudenii nad stilem Stepennoi knigi" (``Some Observations on the Style of the 'Book of Generations''', in Transactions of Maksim Gorky University), No. 28, Sverdlovsk, 1959.
258 state. The Domostroi recommends one method of bringing them up to be loyal and obedient: the rod. ``If you love your son, increase his wounds and later you will rejoice in him.... Punish children when they are young and you will have a peaceful old age. Don't give them authority in their youth but crack a few ribs....''Another of a man's obligations is to ``teach'' his wife, who should manage the household and bring up the daughters. Her will and personality is to be subordinate to that of her husband. Women's behaviour, whether at home or among friends, is strictly regulated as is the system of punishment. A lazy wife should first be ``reasoned with''. If verbal warnings give no result the man should put fear into his wife according to her guilt. The Domostroi also proposes rules for servants sent to a strange home, as well as practical advice for conducting a household: how to keep the home clean and convenient, how to hang icons and keep them clean, how to prepare food.
Thus the Domostroi was not only a set of rules for wealthy men of the sixteenth century, but the first encyclopedia of the household. It is valuable for its broad reflection of Russian daily life and language in the sixteenth century.
On Ivan IV's command and with the participation of Metropolitan Makary in 1551 the Conclave of the Hundred Chapters (Stoglavy sobor) was called to discuss the regulation of ecclesiastical and moral life; the Conclave came to be known as Stoglavy because the Novoye sobornoye ulozhenie (New Church Codex or Stoglav) adopted there, containing the tsar's questions and the answers of the Conclave ``regarding the many rules of the Church'', was divided into 100 chapters.
Like the Domostroi the Stoglav gives a vivid idea of the life of Russia in the mid-sixteenth century. The Conclave noted the presence and use of many uncorrected books and ordered presbyters and elders to supervise the work of scribes.
One of the reasons for the advent of printed books was apparently this great number of incorrect texts copied from poor translations; the church wanted to make sure that ``in the future holy books would be 259 properly copied''. A year after the Conclave of the Hundred Chapters in 1553 the Printing House was begun; no later than 1555 the first church books were printed. In 1564 Ivan Fedorov and his helper Petr Mstislavets ``in order to purify and correct unscholarly and poorly copied books" published an Apostol (writings of the Apostles) and the Chasoslov (Book of Hours) in 1565, designed for teaching people to read. The Royal Printing House and the new printed books had a great cultural significance. Soon Ivan Fedorov and Petr Mstislavets left Muscovy and resettled in Lithuania for reasons that are unclear. In 1574 Ivan Fedorov built a printing establishment in Lvov where he published an Apostol and a Primer; he then moved to Ostrog and published a Bible in 1581.
In the late 1560's a printing press was built at Aleksandrova Sloboda in Russia where Ivan Fedorov's example was continued by his students A. TimofeyevNevezha and N. Tarasyev.
This was the start of printing in Russia.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ HISTORY OF THE EMPIRE OF KAZANThe unification of Kazan with Moscow in 1552 was the most notable political and historical event of the century. Contemporaries saw it as payment for the twohundred-year Mongol-Tatar yoke. With the taking of Kazan, and in 1556 of Astrakhan, a trade route to the East was opened.
To commemorate this historical victory the great Russian architects Barma and Postnik created the renowned Cathedral of the Intercession (the Cathedral of Basil the Blessed). It was a symbol of a unified, mighty state protected by the Virgin herself. Its unusual, life-affirming style unites the styles of Muscovite, Novgorod-Pskov and Vladimir-Suzdal architecture, as well as folk wooden architecture. The religious symbol of the holy city of Jerusalem is subordinate here to the people's dream of the ``radiant city'', the kingdom of beauty, goodness and justice.
The taking of Kazan was widely reflected in oral 260 folk literature: legends, songs and folk tales. Literature could not pass this event by as well. Apart from chronical tales, in 1564--1566 the History of the Empire of Kazan or the Kazan Chronicle was composed. It was popular enough to have survived in 200 copies. The History of the Empire of Kazan is a coherent historical narrative steeped in historical-polemic conceptions. It tells of events beginning with founding of Kazan in 1172 by the legendary Bulgarian king Sain to the taking of the city by Ivan the Terrible in 1552; its purpose is to glorify the Muscovite kingdom and its ruler. The entire history of Kazan is viewed as the history of its increasing dependence of Muscovy. The Kazan Chronicle tells of events from the 1540's to 1550's: Ivan's campaigns against Kazan, the building of the city of Sviyazhsk, the military outpost of the Russian forces, on the right side of the Volga, the storming of Kazan's walls and the fall of the city.
The author himself witnessed these events. In 1532 he was taken prisoner by the ``barbarians'' and presented to Safa-Girei, king of Kazan, whom he served for twenty years, until Ivan the Terrible took Kazan. Then the tsar christened him, gave him a modest plot of land for ``coming over to his (Ivan's) service and serving faithfully''. Among the most important sources of the tale are wise and honourable citizens of Kazan and stories from the lips of the tsar himself. Literary models include Nestor-Iskander's Tale of the Taking of Constantinople and the tales of the battle with Mamai; historical facts are taken from the Nikonovsky, Voskresensky and Novgorod V Chronicles, as well as the St. Sophia I Chronicle, the Russian chronograph of 1512 and the Book of Generations. In addition the author used the razryadnyc knigi (book listing participants in battle and describing the course of campaigns---TV.), diplomatic correspondence, the epistles of Ivan to the Conclave of the Hundred Chapters and his first epistle to Kurbsky.
The central hero of the tale is Ivan the Terrible, who is wreathed in a halo of military and royal glory. He takes harsh reprisals against the rebels, traitors and unjust judges, but is merciful to the soldiers and the 261 people. His campaign to take Kazan was dictated not by a desire to capture foreign lands, but by the interests of the defence of his own country. The tale ends with an apotheosis of the victor solemnly riding into the great city of Moscow. Foreign emissaries, representing Babylon, Sweden, Denmark and Poland as well as messengers from the Nogai Horde, Wallachia, and English merchants marvelled at the sight: ``We have not seen the like, neither in our own kingdoms, nor in foreign lands, and no emperor or king can compare with this beauty and might and great glory.'' So as to better view the tsar the Muscovites crawl up on rooves of high churches and palaces, and along the walls; many run ahead; but the virgins, princesses and noble women ``could not join the crowd due to their sense of shame and decorum, and did not leave their homes and climb to the tops of churches, but remained where they sat and lived, like birds kept in cages, and leaned out from doors and windows and looked through peepholes and enjoyed much of the glittering wonder and goodness and glory of the sight''. This vivid picture of the Muscovites' reception of their victorious tsar offers a typical detail from the life of women in society at the time.
In his depiction of Ivan's triumph, the author affirms the political significance of the tsar's victory over the enemy and makes a series of attacks on the boyars, princes and voyevodas. He declares that Kazan was conquered by the tsar and the Russian army, and not by the voyevodas and boyars. Here is a clear polemic against the boyar ideology.
The tale employs many fantastic images: visions or omens foreshadowing the end of Kazan. In accordance with the Tale of the Taking of Constantinople and the tales of the battle with Mamai, the author paints colourful scenes of assaults and battle.
Set formulas from military tales are included in the general desciptions of the battles, and supplemented with new comparisons of soldiers with birds and squirrels. These comparisons allow the reader to imagine the major battles. The author also stresses the courage, not only of the Russian soldiers, but of their enemies, the men of Kazan: ``Some soldiers of Kazan overcame 262 their mortal fear and took courage, standing at the gates of the city and the places where the walls were broken; and the Russians and Tatars met in a great battle.... It was terrible to see the bravery and valour of both sides.... And spears and swords crashed in their hands like thunder, and the voices and cries from both sides rang out.''
This attempt to reveal the psychological state of the enemy in battle was a new contribution made by the author of the History of the Empire of Kazan to the historical narratives of the sixteenth century. Much of the tale is devoted to describing the psychology of the characters. One example is the description of the emotions of Tsarina Anastasia when she had said farewell to her husband setting on the campaign of Kazan; another is the grief of Kazan Empress Sumbeka as she laments her husband and takes leave of her subjects, as well as the lament of the people of Kazan themselves. The lament is both literary and rhetorical and abounds in folk imagery.
There are many elements of folklore in the tale, and the author uses expressions from folk epics, as well as the lyrical images of folk songs and laments and individual motifs from Tatar folklore. All this leads the author to call his work ``a beautiful, new and sweet tale" which he is attempting to tell in logical narrative form.
Its profound attention to describing the human psyche, wide use of folklore and violation of the norms of rhetorical style make the History of the Empire of Kazan a work on the threshold of early seventeenth century historical works.
Ivan's capture of Kazan was reflected in an unusual manner in the Tale of the Kievan Bogatyrs, an original literary reworking of an oral epic subject, which appeared in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. The tale has survived in five copies; the oldest is from the first half of the seventeenth century. Its 263 heroes are seven Kievan bogatyrs: Ilya Muromets, Dobrynya Nikitich, Dvoryanin Zaleshanin, Alesha Popovich, Shchata Elizynich, Sukhan Domentyanovich and White Mace (Belaya palitsa or polyanitsa}. Their opponents are forty-two knights from Constantinople (Tatars), including Idol Skoropeyevich and Tugarin Zmeyevich.
Vs. Miller observed that the Tale of the Kievan Bogatyrs reflects the political and social life of the Muscovite state in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Constantinople resembles Kazan; the Smugra river---the river Ugra where the great battle between the forces of Ivan III and Khan Akhmet occurred in 1480. Kazan is also replaced by Constantinople in folk songs about Ivan the Terrible.
The Tale of the Kievan Bogatyrs shows the development of the new tendencies in sixteenth century narrative: folklore was beginning to play an increasing role; it was democratised; and finally writers began to depart from historical plots in favour of epic generalisations and interesting stories.
__b_b_b__The development of the sixteenth century literature was characterised by the unification of regional literatures into one all-Russian literature ideologically supporting the political unification of the Russian lands around Muscovy. Official literature composed in ruling circles worked out a representative rhetorical style, a second monumentalism or idealised form of biography^^1^^ whose purpose was to eulogise the Muscovite kingdom, its pious autocratic rulers and ``new wonder-workers''. This was to testify to the fact that the Russian kingdom was chosen by God.
The style observed strict rules of ``etiquette'': it was ceremonious, and depicted heroes in primarily abstract terms. The latter stood before the readers in all the grandeur and magnificence of the virtues that adorned them. They pronounced solemn speeches in accordance with rank and the occasion, and their deeds are performed in _-_-_
~^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi, chapter 6, D. S. Likhachev, Razvitie russkoi literaturv X-XVII vv.
264 strict correspondence to their official position. But the pressures of life began to destroy this style; at times they consciously included concrete sketches of life, folklore, and colloquial language. Already in the literature of the sixteenth century we see a process of democratisation in the increasing influence of folklore and the use of forms of official writing. Historical narratives also undergo changes; they strive to generalise, and begin to allow for imaginary events and more interesting plots.The works of this time evidence a certain interest in daily life and questions of morality, which entails the introduction of living colloquial speech and even common parlance into the literary language. This enriches the literature and enables it to reflect reality with greater breadth and profundity.
1. A. P. Evgenyeva, ``~`Skazanie o kievskikh bogatyryakh' po spisku XVII veka. Zametki o yazyke i stile" (``The 'Tale of the Kievan Bogatyrs' According to a Seventeenth Century Copy: Style and Language''), TODRL, vol. 5,1947.
2. Kazanskaya istoriya (History of the Empire of Kazan}. Preparation of texts, introduction and notes by G.N. Moiseyeva, M.-L., 1954.
3. A. S. Orlov, Drevnyaya russkaya literatura XI-XVJ vv. (Old Russian Literature from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries), M.-L., 1937.
4. Povest o Dmitrii Basarge i o syne ego Borzomysle (The Tale of Dmitry Basarg and His Son Borzomysl). Research and preparation of texts by M. O. Skripil, L., 1969.
5. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literature (Anthology of Old Russian Literature). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, 8th edition, M., 1973.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ LITERATURE FROM THE PERIOD OFThe consolidation of centralised autocratic rule, based on the service nobility, led to the further growth of exploitation and the final enslavement of the 265 peasants. The growing economic oppression provoked mass peasant disturbances which, in the end, united into a broad people's movement---the Peasant War, led by Ivan Bolotnikov.
With the death of Tsar Feodor loannovich, the dynasty of Ivan Kalita ceased to exist (the heir to the throne, Tsarevich Dmitry, was killed in Uglich in 1591). The new tsar Boris Godunov continued the policy of Ivan the Terrible with regard to the service nobility and the hereditary nobility. This policy could not but provoke sharp opposition from the hereditary nobility, who rose against him. Their opposition was supported from without by Polish magnates who proposed the so-called False Dmitry for the Muscovite throne.
When Godunov died, the False Dmitry was able to occupy Moscow, but could not hold onto his power for long: the Russian people saw through the politics of the new tsar, the protege of Polish magnates. The False Dmitry was overthrown and the boyars placed Vasily Shuisky in his seat; the latter began to take harsh measures to put down the broad people's anti-feudal movement directed by Ivan Bolotnikov.
Polish, Lithuanian and Swedish feudal lords exploited these disturbances for their own purposes, proposing a new candidate for the tsar of Muscovy: the False Dmitry II. He was able to set up a military camp near Moscow in the village of Tushino. In 1609 King Sigizmund III began an open intervention and beseiged Smolensk. Swedish feudal lords attempted to take Pskov and Novgorod.
The Polish-Swedish intervention led to a mighty rise of a national liberation movement. The tradesmen and craftsmen of the cities took the initiative in the struggle against the foreign aggressors. The patriotic movement was led by merchant Minin of Nizhni Novgorod. Democratic forces of Russian society were able to fuse and unite all the power of the forming Russian nation for the struggle with the interventionists and defeated them in 1613.
Stormy events of the early seventeenth century, which were known as ``the troubles" (smuta) by their contemporaries, were widely reflected in literature. The 266 literature of this period became exclusively topical and polemical, answering the questions of the time and reflecting the interests of various social groups involved in the struggle.
Society had inherited a fervent faith in the power of the word from the previous century and in the power of conviction; writers attempted to propagandise certain ideas and to attain concrete, real goals.
Among the tales reflecting the events from-1604 to 1613 we can single out a group of works written by those expressing the interests of the boyars. The Tale of 1606 is a polemic written by a monk of the TrinitySt. Sergius Monastery. It supports the politics of the boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky and attempts to depict him as the people's choice, stressing his affinity with the people. Even the ruling circles cannot help but consider the force of the people's will. As proof of the legality of Shuisky's rule, his descent is traced back to Vladimir Svyatoslavich of Kiev.
The disorder and unrest in the Muscovite state are blamed on Boris Godunov who, according to the author, maliciously murdered Tsarevich Dmitry and ended the line of lawful tsars of Muscovy, and thus was elevated without the right to the Muscovite throne.
Later the Tale of 1606 was reworked into Another Tale (Inoe skazanie), a unified narrative of events from 1606 to 1613. The author defends the position of the boyars and depicts them as saviours of the Russian state froni the adversary.
Characteristically the Tale of 1606 and Another Tale are written in traditional literary manner. They are constructed on a contrast between Vasily Shuisky, pious fighter for the Orthodox faith and the ``sly, cunning" Godunov, and the ``evil, scheming heretic" Grigory Otrepyev. Their behaviour and actions are written from the traditional perspective of Divine Providence.
In contrast to these works, we find tales reflecting the interests of the nobility and tradesmen-craftsmen strata of the population. Here above all we should mention the polemical epistles exchanged between Russian cities as they unified their forces for the struggle against the enemy.
267One is immediately struck by the polemical title of this tale. Written in the late 1610 or early in 1611 when Moscow was occupied by Polish forces and Novgorod seized by the Swedes, the New Tale called upon all ranks of men to take part in the struggle against the aggressors. It sharply condemned the treacherous policies of the boyar government which, rather than guarding its native land, had been transformed into a domestic enemy; its members were unjust and devoured others' land. The tale exposed the plans of Polish magnates and their leader Sigizmund III, who through false promises strove to lull the Russians and decrease their vigilance, and glorified the courageous exploit of the men of Smolensk who selflessly defended their city and prevented the enemy from occupying this key position. Patriarch Hermogen is presented as the ideal patriot, a faithful Christian martyr and fighter for his faith against the apostates. With the examples of the courageous men of Smolensk and Patriarch Hermogen, the New Tale emphasised steadfastness as the necessary quality of a true patriot.
In distinction to other works of the period, the New Tale contains no historical excurses, it is filled with topical material and calls upon the Muscovites to take up arms against the aggressors. This also governs the nature of its style: businesslike, energetic speech is combined with an emotional call. The lyricism of the tale is found in its author's patriotic moods and effort to get the Muscovites to rise up against the enemy.
The New Tale is characterised by its democratic qualities, its new treatment of the image of the people as ``a great, dry sea''. The people are summoned and invoked by Hermogen; they terrify enemies and traitors; and it is to the people that the author of the tale appeals. But the people do not act here as a real force. N. F. Droblenkova, who has studied the New Tale, believes that its author was not expressing the ideology of the service nobility or the posad strata (craftsmen and tradesmen), since he acknowledged that the 268 privileges of boyars were just and underestimated the active movement of the cities.^^1^^
The New Tale presents a close interweaving of rhetorical, elaborate style with the style of the chancellory. Often the author writes in rhythmic prose and includes verse passages.
The generally emotional tone is accompanied by numerous psychological descriptions. For the first time in Russian literature we see an effort to discover and show the contradictions between a man's thoughts and deeds. This growing attention to the revelation of the thoughts that determine a man's actions makes the New Tale a significant literary phenomenon.
The Lament of the Capture and Final Destruction of the Muscovite State is close in theme to the New Tale; it appears to have been composed after the capture of Smolensk by the Poles and the burning of Moscow in 1612. In rhetorical form the tale laments the fall of the ``pillar of piety'', and the destruction of ``the vine planted by the Lord''. The burning of Moscow is seen as the ``fall of a multi-national state''. Rhetorical questions and exclamations express patriotic emotions, feelings of profound grief at the ``final'' fall of the ``glorious and wondrous state''. At the same time the author tries to clarify the reasons for the fall of ``most lofty Russia'', using the form of the didactic dialogue. In abstract generalising form he speaks of the responsibility of the rulers for the fate of ``most lofty Russia''. The author does not call for an active struggle, but merely grieves and convinces his readers to seek consolation in prayer and reliance on Divine aid.
_-_-_^^1^^ N. F. Droblenkova, ``Novaya povest o preslavnom Rossiyshorn tsarstve" i sovremennaya ei agitatsionnaya patrioticheskaya pismennost (``The New Tale of the Glorious Russian Kingdom" and Patriotic Writing of the Period), M.-L., 1960.
269The Tale of the Death of Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky is an immediate response to an event. For his victories over the second False Dmitry, Skopin-Shuisky was revered as a talented military leader. His sudden death in April 1610 (he was only twenty) provoked various rumours that he was poisoned by envious boyars. These rumours were reflected in folk songs and tales; this particular tale is a literary version. It begins with a rhetorical, literary introduction tracing the line of Skopin-Shuisky back to Alexander Nevsky and Augustus Caesar.
The central episode of the tale is a description of a christening feast at the residence of Prince Vorotynsky. With many details from life, the author gives an extensive account of how the hero was poisoned by the wife of his uncle Dmitry Shuisky, the daughter of Malyuta Skuratov. In the rhythms of epic folk songs the tale conveys this episode in the following manner: And after the honoured feast and gaiety, And ... that vilainess god-mother, Princess Maria Brought a goblet to the god-father And bowed and greeted the god-son Aleksei Ivanovich. And in that goblet was a terrible deadly potion. And Prince Mikhailo Vasilyevich drank the goblet to the dregs, And did not know that it was an evil deadly potion.
The excerpt obviously shows many elements of the bylina poetic style which also can be discerned in the following dialogue between mother and son (the latter had returned earlier than usual from the feast).
The second part of the tale describes the death of the hero and the grief of people across the land at his end; it is written in traditional literary style. The author conveys the reaction of various social groups to Skopin's death. The Muscovites, the German governor Yakov Delagardi, Tsar Vasily Shuisky, Skopin's mother and wife all express their grief and their perception of the deeds of the prince. The laments of his mother and wife are almost entirely from the 270 tradition of the oral folk lament.
The tale is clearly against the boyars: SkopinShuisky is poisoned ``on the advice of the evil traitors" the boyars.
Skopin-Shuisky is eulogised as a national hero who defended his native land from the enemy.
In 1620 the tale of Skopin-Shuisky's death was appended with the Tale of the Birth of Voyevoda Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky written in traditional hagiographical style.
The people have their own interpretation of the historical events of these years as is evident in the recordings of historical songs of the period made in 1619 for Englishman Richard James, including the songs ``Of the Dog-and-Thief Pretender, Grishka-rasstrizhka'', ``Of Marinka---the Evil Heretic'', and of Ksenia Godunova. The songs condemn the interventionists and their henchmen, the ``fat-bellied'' boyars, and glorify folk heroes bogatyr Ilya, and Skopin-Shuisky.
One of the finest works of the age was the historical Tale of Avraamy Palitsyn, cellarer of the TrinitySt. Sergius Monastery, written from 1609 to 1620.
A clever and shrewd dealer, Avraamy Palitsyn was close to the boyar tsar Vasily Shuisky and also held secret negotiations with Sigizmund III in order to persuade the Polish king to grant privileges to the monastery. In his tale he was above all trying to rehabilitate himself and to stress his services in the struggle with the foreign aggressors and the choice of Mikhail Fedorovich for tsar.
The tale consists of several independent works: 1) A brief historical essay surveying events from the death of Ivan the Terrible to the reign of Shuisky where Palitsyn explains the reason for the disorder as the usurpation of the throne by Godunov and his politics (chapters 1-6); 2) a selective description of the sixteen-month seige of the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery by the armies of Sapieha and Lisowski---a reworking of notes made by 271 those who took part in the defense of the fortress monastery (chapters 7-52); 3) a narrative of the last months of Shuisky's rule, the plunder of Moscow by the Poles, its liberation, the coronation of Mikhail Romanov and the peace treaty with Poland (chapter 53--76).
Thus the most important historical events from 1584 to 1618 are narrated in the Tale. They are elucidated from a traditional perspective---that of Divine Providence: the reasons for the misfortunes ``that occurred throughout Russia" were ``a just and swift punishment by God for all the evil we had done'', and the victories of the Russian people over the foreign aggressors were the result of the good deeds and the grace of the Virgin and the intercession of SS Sergius and Nikon. Religious, didactic thoughts are presented in traditional rhetorical form, a sort of sermon or discourse, supported by quotations from Scripture, and likewise by abundant religious, fantastic scenes of all sorts of miracles, and visions which, in the author's opinion, provide uncontestable proof of the special protection provided by the heavenly powers to the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery and the Russian land. Avraamy contrasts Mikhail Fedorovich, ``a great ruler elected and given to us by God" to the ``false tsars": Grishka Otrepyev, the ``false faith preacher'', ``false tsarevich" Petrushka, ``false tsar" Matyushka Verevkin, and Boris Godunov and Vasily Shuisky who were not the lawful rulers of the Russian state.
The tale is particularly valuable for its factual material on the heroic exploits of peasants from villages belonging to the monastery and monastery servants when ``even those who were not soldiers took courage and those who had never seen battle, and with the strength of giants they girded themselves for the struggle''. The peasant Sueta (Fussy) from the village of Molokovo, for example, was ``tall and very strong, and always mocked because of his inexperience in battle''. He stops the fleeing soldiers and fearlessly with a poleaxe in hand cleaves ``the enemy on either side" and holds back Lisowski's regiment saying, ``I shall die today or earn glory from my deeds''. Servant Pimin Teneyev shot an arrow at the ``fierce'' Alexander Lisowski who 272 fell from his steed. Servant Mikhailo Pavlov caught and killed voyevoda Yury Gorski.
Avraamy repeatedly stressed that the monastery was saved from the enemy by the ``common people" and that the ``increase of injustice and transgression in the city" was due to ``military'' men. The tale harshly condemns the treachery of monastery treasurer losif Devochkin and his protector voyevoda Aleksei Golokhvastov, as well as the treachery of the ``boyars' sons".
At the same time Avraamy hardly has any sympathy for the slaves and serfs who ``wanted to be lords''. He harshly condemns the rebellious peasants and their ``evil leaders'', serfs Petrushka and Ivan Bolotnikov. Still he is obliged to admit the decisive role of the people in the struggle against the intervention: ``All of Russia helped the capital city for all shared in the common misfortune.''
One of the striking features of the tale is the depiction of daily life in the besieged monastery: there was a terrible crush, and people dragged off ``all sorts of sticks and stones to make places to live'', and ``women gave birth in front of everyone''; because of the crowded conditions there was a fuel shortage, and in order to wash their clothes people were obliged to periodically leave the monastery; Avraamy describes an epidemic of scurvy as well. ``For it is not fitting to lie about the truth, but we should keep to it with great care,'' writes Avraamy in the seventh chapter of his Tale, which serves as an introduction to the central part. Although Avraamy conceives of religious-fantastic scenes as part of the truth, this cannot overshadow the main theme: the heroism of the people.
Avraamy narrates everything in order, striving to document his material; he provides the precise dates of events, the names of participants, and introduces documents.
On the whole the Tale is an epic work, but it has many lyrical and dramatic elements. On many occasions Avraamy begins a rhythmic monologue with rhymed speech.
The Tale devotes much attention to the depiction of 273 people's deeds and thoughts. Avraamy reveals the thoughts and describes the behaviour not only of the defenders of the fortress, but of the enemies and traitors.
Based on the traditions of the Kazan Chronicle and the Tale of the Taking of Constantinople, Avraamy Palitsyn created an original historical work and made a significant stride toward acknowledging the people as active participants in historical events.
Events of the first peasant war and the struggle of the Russian people with the Polish-Swedish intervention are related in the Chronicle Book (Letopisnaya kniga) ascribed to Katyrev of Rostov.^^1^^ It was written in 1626 and reflected the official view of ruling circles on recent events. Its purpose was to strengthen the authority of the new ruling dynasty. As opposed to Palitsyn's Tale, which consisted of a series of episodes, the Chronicle Book was a connected pragmatic narrative of events from the last years of Ivan the Terrible's reign to the choice of Mikhail Romanov as tsar. Katyrev tried to make his tale objective. The Chronicle Book lacks the polemicism of works written in the heat of events. It is almost devoid of religious didacticism or moralising; the narrative is purely secular. Unlike Palitsyn's Tale the Chronicle Book focuses on the figures of the rulers, the military commanders, and Patriarch Hermogen. The author tries to give more profound psychological descriptions and to remark on both positive and negative qualities of many historic figures. In this respect Katyrev of Rostov relied on the Khronograf redaction of 1617 where attention was turned to internal contradictions of human character for ``no mortal" can remain ``unmarred by vice in his life'', because ``the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. V. Kukushkina has shown that the author of the Chronicle Book was S. I. Shakhovskoi (see Pamyatniki kultury. Novye otkrytiya. Ezhegodnik. 1975 (Cultural Landmarks. New Discoveries. An Annual. 1975),M., 1976.
274 human mind is sinful and is seduced from good morals by evil ones".The Chronicle Book has a special section entitled, ``A Brief Discourse on the Muscovite Tsars, their Appearance and of their Age and Habits''. Here the author provides not only a verbal portrait of the historical personalities, but a description of contradictory sides of their characters.
One of the most interesting parts is the portrait of Ivan IV which coincides with his well-known image in a painting preserved in the Copenhagen National Museum:
``Tsar Ivan is not handsome, but has gray eyes, a long, loose-hanging nose; he is tall and lean of body with high shoulders, a broad chest and thick muscles.'' After this verbal portrait there follows a description of the tsar's contradictory character and the acts connected with it: ``... a man of great intelligence, well-read and eloquent, bold and ready to take up arms and a staunch defender of his fatherland. To the servants granted him by God he was very strict and bold and implacable when he set out to shed their blood and murder; he killed many of his subjects, both the lowest and the highest, and captured many cities, and banished many hierarchs and subjected them to cruel deaths, and did many such things unto his slaves and defiled many women and virgins in fornication. That same Tsar Ivan did much good, for he loved his army and gave generously to them from his treasury.''
In this way Katyrev of Rostov departs from the tradition of a one-sided depiction of man. He even notes positive qualities in the character of the ``one-time monk"---the False Dmitry I: he is witty, learned, bold and brave and only his simple appearance gives him a lack of ``royal dignity''. His ``darkened'' body shows that he is an impostor.
The author of the Chronicle Book introduces landscapes into the historical narrative which either contrast or harmonise with events. An emotionally coloured landscape glorifying the ``lovely time" of awakening nature contrasts sharply with the cruel battlefield where the armies of that ``predatory wolf" the False Dmitry meet the Muscovite forces. By 275 comparing this landscape to Kirill of Turov's Sermon on the First Sunday After Easter, we can immediately see the considerable changes in the method of reflecting reality that have occurred in literature of the first quarter of the seventeenth century. At first glance Katyrev of Rostov seems to use the same images as Kirill: winter, the sun, spring, the wind, the plowman. But these writers have different attitudes to these images. For Kirill they are only symbols of sin, Christ, the Christian faith, and the ``sower of the word''. Katyrev gives these images no symbolic interpretation, but uses them in their direct, earthly meaning. For this writer of the early seventeenth century they are only devices for the artistic evaluation of events.
This evaluation is also conveyed through lyrical digressions on the part of the author. Unlike earlier literature these digressions are neither Christian nor didactic and contain no references to the authority of Scripture. All this lends the style of the Chronicle Book ``an original, lovely, epic cast'',^^1^^ and has made it popular. Moreover, in his desire to give the narrative a beautiful climax, Katyrev of Rostov ends it with virshi (thirty rhymed lines). These pre-syllabic verses are an attempt to announce the author's individuality as a writer: he ``saw the events himself'', and heard other things from witnesses, and ``~wrote about that which he had investigated''. About himself he tells us that he belongs to the family of princes of Rostov and is the son of Prince Mikhail.
__b_b_b__While continuing to develop the traditions of sixteenth century historical narratives, works of the period of the Russian people's struggle against the PolishSwedish intervention and of the time of the Peasant War led by Bolotnikov vividly reflected the growth of national awareness. This was evident in the changed views on the historical process: the course of history was determined not by God's will, but by the deeds of men. _-_-_
^^1^^ S. F. Platonov, Drevnerusskie skazaniya i povesti o Smutnom vremeni XVII veka kak istorichesky istochnik (Old Russian Tales of Troubled Times in the Seventeenth Century as Historical Sources), 2nd edition, SPb., 1913, p. 273.
276 Therefore the early seventeenth century tales could not help but speak of the people, of their participation in the struggle for national independence of their motherland and of the responsibility of the entire land for what had happened.This determined their increased interest in the human personality as well. For the first time they tried to depict internal contradictions of character and to reveal the reasons for these contradictions. Straightforward descriptions of man found in sixteenth century literature began to be replaced by more profound depictions of the contradictory qualities of the human soul. As D. S. Likhachev notes, the characters of historical figures in early seventeenth century works are presented against the background of folk interpretations and views on them. Man's deeds are presented in historical perspective and for the first time are evaluated in terms of ``social function''.^^1^^
The events of the period from 1604 to 1613 made many essential changes in social consciousness. The attitude that the tsar was chosen by God changed for life showed that the tsar was chosen by the ``zemstvo'' and was morally responsible to his country and subjects for their fate. Therefore the deeds of the tsar and his behaviour are to be judged, not by Divine, but by human courts.
The events from 1604 to 1613 dealt a crushing blow to religious ideology and the Church's total domination in all spheres of life: not God, but man made his fate, not God's will but the deeds of men determined the historical fate of the nation.
Tradesmen and craftsmen took a greater part in social, political and cultural life. This was due in no small measure to the formation in the mid-seventeenth century of one all-Russian market, which led to the ecomomic unification of all the Russian lands and accordingly supported their political unification.
The intensified role of these people in cultural life entailed the democratisation of literature which gradually freed itself of adherence to views of Divine _-_-_
^^1^^ D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi, p. 21.
277 Providence, symbolism and etiquette---the major features of the Russian medieval artistic method. The integrality of this method began to break down in the literature of the sixteenth century, and in the seventeenth century symbolic depiction of reality was crowded out by a more realistic approach. The beginning of this process is related to the broad penetration of official style into literary rhetorical style, on the one hand, and to the influence of oral folk poetry, on the other.All this shows the intensification of process of secularisation of culture and literature, their gradual liberation from the wardship of the Church and religious ideology.
1. N. F. Droblenkova, ``Novaya povest o preslavnom Rossiyskom tsarstve" i sovremennaya ei agitatsionnaya patrioticheskaya pismennost (The New Tale of the Glorious Russian Kingdom and Patriotic Writing of the Period), M.-L., 1960.
2. D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi (Man in Old Russian Literature), M., 1970, chapters 1 and 7.
3. S. F. Platonov, Drevnerusskie skazaniya i povesti Smutnogo vremeni XVII veka kak istorichesky istochnik (Old Russian Tales of Troubled Times in the Seventeenth Century as Historical Sources), SPb., 1913.
4. Russkaya povest XVII veka (Russian Seventeenth Century Tales). Compiled by M. O. Skripil, M., 1954.
5. Skazanie Avraamiya Palitsyna (The Tale of Avraamy Palitsyn). Preparation of texts and commentary by O. A. Derzhavina and E. V. Kolosova, M.-L., 1955.
6. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literature (Anthology of Old Russian Literature). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, 8th edition, M.,1973.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE EVOLUTION OF HAGIOGRAPHICALThe process of the secularisation of Old Russian literature could be seen in the transformation of as stable a genre as the vita, whose canons were destroyed by the intrusion of daily realia and folk legends already in the fifteenth century as is evident in the lives of SS loannof Novgorod and Mikhail of Klopovo and in the tale of SS 278 Peter and Fevronia. In the seventeenth century the vita gradually evolved into the tale of daily life, and then into an autobiographical confession.
The changes in the early seventeenth century vita as a genre can be vividly seen in the Tale of Juliania Lazarevskaya, the first biography of a noblewoman in Russian literature. It was written by Juliania's son Druzhina Osoryin, a senior man (gubnoi starosta) of the city of Murom in the period from 1620 to 1640. The tale's author was well acquainted with the facts of the heroine's life and treasured her moral standards and human qualities. This positive potrayal of a Russian woman is set in the milieu of a wealthy country estate.
In the foreground is a model housewife, for young Juliania is obliged to shoulder the burdens of running the domestic life of the estate when she marries. In an effort to please her father-, mother- and sisters-in-law, she supervises the servants' work and the daily affairs of the household. Often she is obliged to resolve social conflicts arising between the staff and the masters. These conflicts result in an open rebellion of the ``slaves'' (although, it is true, the tale explains this in terms of a traditional motive---the intrigues of the devil). During such a spontaneous revolt Juliania's oldest son is killed. But Juliania bears all adversities of fortune without complaining. Twice she endures terrible years of famine: in her youth and in her old age when she is even obliged to let her ``slaves'' leave her to seek food for themselves.
The tale gives an authentic picture of the position of a married woman in a large noble family: her lack of rights and many obligations. So involved is Juliania in keeping the household that she is even unable to go to church; nevertheless she is a saint. The tale confirms the sanctity of a virtuous secular life spent in service to others. Juliania helps the starving, cares for the sick in time of plague and gives so much to charity that she is left without a single silver coin. This shows how the 279 earlier ascetic ideal of retirement from the world had lost its significance and become a thing of the past.
Not only does Osoryin depict real traits of his mother, he also paints an ideal image of a Russian woman as seen by an early seventeenth century Russian nobleman.
In his description of Juliania's life, Osoryin was not able to totally depart from hagiographical tradition. This can be seen, for example, in the tale's beginning. Juliania is born of parents who love God and the poor; she is raised in all piety and loves God from her earliest years. In her character the Christian virtues of humility, meekness, tolerance, love of the poor and generosity are stressed. As befitting a Christian zealot Juliania becomes an ascetic in her old age, although she does not enter a monastery: she refuses fleshly intercourse with her husband, sleeps on the stove, and places logs and iron keys under her ribs. In winter she goes about lightly clothed, ``barefooted in her boots in which she puts hazelnut shells and sharp potsherds to mortify her body".
Osoryin also introduces traditional hagiographical fantastic motifs: demons want to kill Juliania, but St. Nicholas intervenes to save her. In many cases, however, demonic machinations reflect concrete details of daily life and society. Such instances include the quarrels in the family and the revolt of the ``slaves'', which are explained in the tale as being due to demonic instigation.
As befitting a saint, Juliania herself predicts her death and dies piously. Ten years later her imperishable body is discovered and proves to be capable of working miracles.
Thus in the Tale of Juliania Lazarevskaya elements of the tale of daily life and the vita are closely interwoven; still elements of daily life already predominate in this narrative. It is telling that the tale lacks the traditional introduction, lament and eulogy characteristic of the vita. Its style is quite simple and reflects the chancellory experience of the senior man (gubnoi starosta) of the city of Murom.
The Tale of Juliania Lazarevskaya bears witness to 280 the growing social and literary interest in individual lives and in people's daily behaviour. These realistic elements penetrated the genre of the vita and gradually transformed it into a secular, biographical tale. This work is not an exception. Appended to it is the Tale of the Appearance of the Unzhensky Cross (Skazanie o yavlenii Unzhenskogo kresta).
All of the above shows the process of the destruction of canonical hagiographical genres. The pious, ascetic monk is replaced as the central hero of the vita by a new secular hero who is gradually depicted in a real, daily environment.
The next step in the convergence of vita and life was taken by Archpriest Avvakum in his celebrated life---an autobiography.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE EVOLUTION OF GENRESHistorical narrative genres, such as the historical tale and story, were altered significantly in the seventeenth century. Both their content and form were made more democratic. Historical facts were gradually crowded out by fiction; interesting plots, motifs and images from oral folk art began to play an increasing part.
The process of democratisation of the historical tale is vividly reflected in the poetic Tale of the Defence of Azov by the Don Cossacks. It was written by a Cossack and immortalised the selfless feat of a handful of bold men who not only seized the Turkish fortress of Azov in 1637, but managed to defend it in 1641 against superior enemy forces.
A. N. Robinson has proposed a convincing theory that the tale's author was Cossack Captain Fedor Poroshin who arrived with a Cossack embassy in 281 Moscow in 1641 in order to convince the tsar and state to take the fortress of Azov out of the hands of the Cossacks.^^1^^
Fedor Poroshin paints an authentic, detailed picture of the Don Cossacks' feat, using a familiar form: the Cossack- military report. He managed to lend the chancellory genre extraordinary poetic resonance, not only as a result of the mastery of the finest traditions of historical narrative literature (the tales of the battle with Mamai, The Tale of the Taking of Constantinople], but due to his broad, creative use of Cossack folklore and his authentic, precise description of the events themselves.
The hero of the Tale of the Defence of Azov is distinguished because he is not a renowned historical figure such as a ruler or military commander. Rather the hero is collective---a handful of courageous, bo'd Cossacks who have performed a feat of heroism, not tor personal glory, or selfishness, but in the name of their native land, the state of Muscovy, which ``shines forth with grandeur and spaciousness brighter than any other kingdom and the hordes of pagans, the Persians and the Greeks, as the sun does in the heavens''. They are inspired to perform their deed by lofty feelings of national awareness and patriotism. The great majority of Cossacks were former serfs who had run away from their owners to the free Don, ``from eternal slavery, from serfdom, from the boyars and the nobles in the service of the tsar''. And although in Rus they are not respected ``any more than stinking dogs'', the Cossacks love their motherland and cannot betray it. With biting irony they answer the Turkish envoys, who propose that they surrender the fortress without a fight and join the _-_-_
^^1^^ A. N. Robinson, ``Voprosy avtorstva i datirovki poeticheskoi povesti ob Azove'', Doklady i soobshcheniyafilologicheskoqo fakulteta MGU [``The Authorship and Date of the Poetic Tale'of Azov'', in Transactions of the Moscow State University Philological Department}, issue 5, 1948; see also his article `` Poeticheskaya povest ob Azovskom osadnom sidenii (kommentary geografichesky i istorichesky)'', Voinskie povesti Drevnei Rusi [``The Poetic Tale of the Defence of Azov (geographical and historical commentary)'', in Military Tales of Old Rus], M.-L., 1949.
282 service of the sultan. The Don Cossacks' answer to the Turks to a certain degree anticipates the famed letter of the Zaporozhye Cossacks to the Turkish sultan.With the purpose of glorifying the Cossacks' feat, the tale's author presents an exaggerated picture of the enemy's approach to the fortress:
``Where there was pure steppe, there sprang up such a crowd of people that the land looked like a great, impenetrable dark forest. From the number of men and the neighing of their steeds the land by Azov shook and buckled, and the waters of the Don splashed up onto the shores....''
Five thousand Cossacks were attacked by 300,000 soldiers of the Turkish sultan! Despite this, the Cossacks proudly and scornfully rejected the envoys' proposal that they peacefully surrender the city and entered an uneven battle. The siege lasted for 95 days; the Cossacks repelled 24 enemy charges and destroyed the tunnel by means of which the enemy attempted to take the fortress. The battle raged on day and night; the Cossacks were exhausted: ``And the blood caked on our lips, for we neither ate nor drank! ... For there was no one to relieve us---we had not one hour of rest!~" After collecting their strength, the Cossacks went out for the final, decisive sortie. First they bade farewell of their motherland, their native steppes and the quiet Don. Their farewell is the most poetic passage in the tale and reflects Cossack folklore:
``Farewell dark woods and green groves. Farewell open fields and quiet creeks. Farewell Dark Blue Sea and swift rivers. Farewell Black Sea. Farewell to our sovereign, the quiet Don; for no longer shall we follow you, our chieftain, with fierce warriors to battle, nor shall we shoot wild beasts in the open fields, or catch fish in the quiet Don.'' Not only did the Cossacks take leave of their native landscape, they said farewell to their sovereign who was, for them, the personification of the entire Russian land.
But in the final, decisive battle with the enemy, the Cossacks were victorious and compelled the Turks to abandon their siege.
The author of the tale pays tribute to tradition: the 283 victory of the Cossacks is explained by the miraculous intercession of heavenly powers led by John the Baptist. Religious fantasy here is only means of glorifying the patriotic feat of the defenders of Azov.
Traditional battle scenes, taken from the tales of the battle with Mamai and The Tale of the Taking of Constantinople, are combined with a large dose of Cossack folklore. The language of the tale has no literary, rhetorical elements, but is highly colloquial.
The author makes an effort to create the image of the masses, their emotions, thoughts and moods, and to affirm the power of the people triumphant over the forces of the Turkish potentate.
Speaking in the name of the entire Don Army, the author tries to persuade Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich to accept the city of Azov and take it under his rule. But Zemsky Sobor of 1641 to 1642 decided to return the fortress to the Turks and Fedor Poroshin, who zealously supported the annexation of Azov by Moscow and exposed the boyars and nobles as oppressors of the Cossacks, was exiled to Siberia.
The Cossacks' heroic defense of Azov in 1641 was also reflected in a ``documentary'' tale that lacked the artistic pathos of the ``poetic'' tale.
In the last quarter of the seventeenth century, the historical narratives of events of Azov in 1637 and 1641 developed into the folk tale version known as the Tale of the Siege of Azov and the Defence of the City from the Turkish King Bragim by the Don Cossacks (Istoriya ob Azovskom vzyatii i osadnom sidenii ot turskogo tsarya Bragima donskikh kazakov);^^1^^ it was highly influenced by Cossack songs about the Peasant War under the leadership of Stepan Razin.
In the second half of the seventeenth century, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ A. S. Orlov, Istoricheskie i poeticheskie povesti ob Azove (Vzyatie 1637 g. i osadnoe sidenie 1641 g.) (The Historical and Poetic Tales of Azov. Its Capture in 1637 and Siege in 1641), M.,
284 historical tale began to lose its historicism and took on the features of picaresque tales which, in turn, provided a foundation for the further development of picaresque novels. Attention was primarily focused on people's personal lives. Writers and readers began to take an interest in daily questions and ethics.Very telling in this respect are the Tales of the Founding of Moscow which S. K. Shambinago divides into three kinds: the chronicle tale, the story and the folk tale.^^1^^ These tales were based on the tale of the killing of Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1174 which, in the sixteenth century, was subjected to a fundamental reworking when it was included in the Nikonovsky Chronicles and the Book of Generations. Here the hagiographical description of the prince and the negative evaluation of his murderers, the accursed sons of Kuchka, were intensified.
The chronicle tale of the founding of Moscow is somewhat true to history: here the founding of Moscow is linked to Yury Dolgoruky who creates the city on the site of the lands belonging to boyar Stepan Kuchka whom he killed. Yury Dolgoruky exiles Kuchka's sons and daughter Ulita to Vladimir where his son Andrei rules. After becoming Andrei's wife, Ulita, possessed by lust, heads a conspiracy against her pious husband and, together with her brothers, kills him.
The ``story'' totally lacks historical foundation. Here Moscow's founder is Prince Andrei Alexandrovich, the date is given as June 17, 1291 (an attempt on the author's part to stress the ``historical accuracy" of his tale). The story centres around Ulita, here the wife of Suzdal Prince Daniil Alexandrovich, who illicitly loves the two young sons of the boyar Kuchka. (Actually Alexander Nevsky's youngest son was prince of Moscow from 1272 to 1303.)
The portrait of Princess Ulita, burning with ``lust inspired by the instigations of Satan'', is related to the tradition of moralistic literature about ``evil women''. In the hagiographical tradition we find the author's _-_-_
~^^1^^ S. K. Shambinago, ``Povesti o nachale Moskvy" (``The Tales of the Founding of Moscow''), TODRL, vol. 3, 1936.
285 attempt to depict Daniil as a martyr who ``accepted a martyr's death" from his wife and her lovers.Not only is the story's plot, based on a lovers' intrigue, new for the period, we also find a new effort to show the psychological state of the sons of Kuchka, their ``lamentations and grief and great sorrow" at the fact that they have let Prince Daniil escape alive and their growing repentence of their deed. Only after Ulita inspires them by telling them all of her husband's secrets do they once again become ``filled with evil" and commit the murder.
The tale combines traditional literary language and elements of folk narrative.
The ``folk tale" has not a hint of historical events. Its hero is Daniil Ivanovich who founds the Krutitsky family from which archbishops were traditionally elected.
We can see the transformation of the historical tale into the picaresque tale in The Tale of the Founding of the Page's Monastery of Tver. Its hero is the prince's servant Grigory, smitten by love for Ksenia, daughter of a sexton. After obtaining the consent of Ksenia's father and the prince to the marriage, Grigory joyfully prepares for the wedding; ``the will of God'', however has decreed that Ksenia marry Prince Yaroslav Yaroslavich of Tver himself, and Grigory is no more than the best man. The shaken Grigory takes off the princely robes and puts on peasant clothing; he retires to the forest where he makes himself a hiit and a chapel.
The reason for Grigory's flight into the wilderness and founding of the monastery is not a pious effort to dedicate his life to God, as in the case of Feodosy of the Caves, but unrequited love.
The heroine of the tale, Ksenia, in many ways recalls Fevronia: she is also a wise, prophetic girl with Christian virtues.
The tale makes wide use of folk wedding songs and 286 their symbolism. The prince has a prophetic dream: his favourite falcon catches a beautiful, shining dove, and then during the hunt when the prince releases his falcons and sends them after a herd of swans, his favourite falcon leads him to the village of Edimonovo and alights on the Church of St. Demetrius of Salonika where Ksenia and Grigory's wedding is to take place. Fate has the prince take Grigory's place.
The hagiographical elements at the end of the tale do not cancel its purely secular content based on an artistic fiction.
In search of new images and narrative forms connected with the heroic themes of the defense of the motherland from the enemy, late seventeenth century literature turned to the folk epic. The Tale of Sukhan was one result of the literary adaption of a bylina. (It is now extant oniy in a single copy dated late seventeenth century.) Its bogatyr hero struggles against the MongolTatar aggressors who, headed by King Azbuk Tavruevich, want to capture the Russian land. The author makes Sukhan's heroic feat poetic and has high praise for his faithful services rendered to the ideal sovereign Monomakh Vladimirovich. Only with the help of battering rams can the enemy mortally wound the bogatyr. Even when wounded Sukhan fights until he has routed the enemy. The sovereign wants to reward him for faithful service with cities and estates, but the dying bogatyr asks only that he, a poor servant, be granted a word of praise and farewell. He then dies. It is characteristic that the relations between the bogatyr and the king reflect the relations between a service man and the tsar.
__b_b_b__Thus having lost all historicism, the genres of historical literature in the seventeenth century took on new qualities, developing artistic fiction, interesting plots, and intensifying the influence of oral folk genres; 287 history itself became a form of ideology, gradually being transformed into a science.
1. F. I. Buslayev, ``Idealnye zhenskie kharaktery Drevnei Rusi'', Istoricheskie ocherki russkoi narodnoi slovesnosti i iskusstva (``Ideal Women of Old Rus'', in Historical Essays on Russian Folk Culture and Art), vol. II, SPb., 1861.
2. Voinskie povesti Drevnei Rusi (Military Tales of Old Rus), M.-L., 1949.
3. V. I. Malyshev, Povest o Sukhane. Iz istorii russkoi povesti XVII veka (The Tale of Sukhan. From the History of Russian Seventeenth Century Tales), M.-L., 1956.
4. Povesti o nachale Moskvy (Tales of the Founding of Moscow). Research and preparation of texts by M. A. Salmina, M.-L., 1964.
5. Khrestomatiya po drevnei russkoi literature (Anthology of Old Russian Literature). Compiled by N. K. Gudzy, 8th edition, M., 1973.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ TALES OF THE SECOND HALF OFThe process of secularisation in literature, a process that brought it closer to reality, was reflected not only in those changes which occurred in traditional genres, but also in the appearance and development of new forms, foremost among them the tale of everyday life. Making its appearance in the second half of the seventeenth century, this genre recorded important aspects of public and private life in this transitional period.
One of the outstanding literary works of the second half of the seventeenth century is the Tale of WoeMisfortune (Povest o Gore i Zloschastii). The main theme of the work is the tragic fate of the younger generation trying to break away from the old forms of everyday domestic life and the morality of a patriarchal society. The tale's opening lends this theme a universal character. The Biblical story of the fall of Adam and 288 Eve is interpreted here as a tale of disobedience and insubordination on the part of the first man and woman before the will of God their Creator. The source of this insubordination is not the Devil, the Tempter, but rather man himself, who is ``imprudent and discontented''. This treatment of the Biblical story reveals the author's new world view.
The plot is based on the sad story of a Young Man who rejects his parents' admonitions and wants to live as he will, ``as it pleases him''. The appearance of this generalised collective figure who represents the younger generation was extremely remarkable and innovative for its time. This is the first instance of a fictional hero replacing an historical figure and typifying the traits of a whole generation in this transitional period.
The Young Man grows up in a patriarchal merchant's family surrounded by loving parents who work indefatigably for him. But he breaks free from his hearth and home, wishing to live according to his own will instead of the exhortations of his parents. Their constant care and guidance has not taught the Young Man to understand life or the people around him, and he pays for his credulity and blind faith in the sacred ties of friendship. But the Young Man does not give up and return humbly to his parents' home. He wants to prove that he is right, and so he leaves for ``another distant unfamiliar land''. Personal experience has convinced him that one cannot live without the counsel of ``good men''. Humbly heeding their admonitions, the Young Man ``learned to live handsomely''. ``Through great strength of mind he acquired a life better than the old.''
The further adventures of the hero are the product of his own character. Boasting of his happiness and wealth proves to be his undoing. At this point in the tale the figure of Woe appears: as in folk songs, he personifies man's tragic lot and fate. But in the tale the figure of Woe also reveals the hero's inner conflicts and perturbation, his lack of confidence in his own abilities. The old traditional notions are still alive in the Young Man's consciousness. Thus he cannot overcome the old idea that a woman is ``the vessel of the devil''. He 289 remains true to the religious beliefs of his fathers. While initially distrusting the insidious advice of Woe, the Young Man is nonetheless unable to go against his counsel because it appears to be coming from the mouth of the Archangel Gabriel, whose form Woe has assumed.
One can easily discover the hero's distressing thoughts about life, about the instability of material wellbeing, in the advice he receives from Woe.
The tale stresses that the cause of the Young Man's ruin is the tavern, where he abandons his possessions and exchanges his ``merchant's dress" for ``tavern rags''. And thus the merchant's son is transformed into a homeless wanderer, joining the vast ranks of tramps journeying through the cities and villages of Rus. The tale presents a graphic picture of ``unfathomable poverty and nakedness''. Here one can hear motifs of protest on the part of the poor against social injustice. The great social significance of the tale lies in the accurate depiction of the process of emergence of declasse elements in society.
Having rejected parental authority and unwilling to submit to his mother and father, the Young Man is forced to bow before ``Woe-Sorrowful''. The ``good men" sympathise with the Young Man and advise him to return to his native hearth and beg forgiveness. But Woe now has no intention of freeing his victim. Insistently, without letup, he pursues the Young Man, scoffing at all his attempts to escape from his `` misfortunate lot''. Taking the Young Man in hand, Woe ``teaches'' him ``to live richly---to kill and rob''. This is what forces the Young Man to recall the ``path of salvation" and enter a monastery. For both the hero and the author of the tale, the monastery by no means represents the ideal of a righteous life, but rather the last chance to save oneself from misfortune.
The author sympathises with the hero but at the same time points out the inevitability of his tragic fate. The Young Man pays for his insubordination. Besides his own striving for freedom he can offer nothing counter the time-honoured, traditional way of life.
In the story we find two strongly conflicting attitudes to life, two different world views: that of the 290 parents and ``good men'', the majority who guard the public and private morality in a patriarchal society, and that of the Young Man, who embodies the strivings of the younger generation for a life of freedom.
It should be pointed out that the admonitions of the parents and the advice of the ``good men" concern only the most general and practical issues regarding human behaviour, and are devoid of any religious didacticism.
The life of the Young Man is set forth as a vita, but the tale has nothing in common with traditional hagiography. What we have here is a typical secular, biographical tale reflecting important aspects of life.
The author of the tale has mastered the poetics of folklore, its system of images and folk epic prosody. The figure of the good Young Man, and that of Woe, ``naked and barefooted'', the epic flavour of the feast, the song symbolism of the episode in which Woe pursues the Young Man---all these things are directly related to epic folk poetry and lyrical folk songs about Woe.
The interweaving of epic and lyric gives the tale epic dimensions and at the same time lyrical intimacy. Taken as a whole, the tale, in N. G. Chernyshevsky's words, ``follows the true course of folk poetic style'',^^1^^ and this is its characteristic trait.
The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn, written some time in the 1670's, is thematically close to the Tale of WoeMisfortune. It also treats the relations between two generations and sets two types of attitudes to life in opposition to each other.
The plot is based on the life of the merchant's son Sawa Grudtsyn, a life full of adventure and tense situations. The story is told against a broad historical background. Sawa's youth coincides with the Russians' struggle against Polish intervention; in his adult years _-_-_
~^^1^^ N. G. Chernyshevsky, Collected Works, vol. 2, Petrograd, 1918, p. 616 (in Russian).
__PRINTERS_P_291_COMMENT__ 19* 291 the hero personally takes part in the battle for Smolensk (1632--1643). Real historical characters are mentioned in the tale, among them the tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, boyar Streshnev, voyevoda Shein and sotnik (Cossack Lieutenant) Shilov; the hero himself belongs to the well-known Grudtsyn-Usov merchant family. But the tale is devoted primarily to the personal life of the hero.The story consists of a sequence of episodes covering the milestones in Savva's life: his youth, his adult years, old age and death.
In his youth Sawa is sent by his father to the city of Orel Solikamsky on a trade mission; there he gives himself over to amorous pleasures with the wife of his father's friend Bazhen the Second; in doing so he daringly flouts the sanctity of family ties and friendship. This part of the story centres on the hero's amorous intrigues and represents the first attempt to depict the emotional side of man's nature. Drugged by a love potion and driven out of Bazhen's home, Sawa begins to suffer the pangs of love: ``And it began to burn in his heart like a fire ... and he began to grieve in his heart and pine for another's wife ... and because of his great longing the beauty of his face began to wilt and he grew thin.'' In order to dispel his grief and assuage his longing heart, Sawa leaves the city and retreats to nature's bosom.
The author sympathises with Sawa and condemns the behaviour of that ``evil and unfaithful woman" who has so insidiously enticed him. But this traditional motif---the seduction of an innocent adolescent---takes on real psychological dimensions in the tale.
The story also incorporates the medieval motif of a pact with the devil: in a fit of despair and longing, Sawa calls on the devil to help him. The latter responds immediately to the call, appearing in the likeness of a young lad. He is prepared to help Sawa in every way if he agrees to make ``a certain little contract" (to sell his soul). The devil takes the form of a ``sworn brother" and becomes Sawa's true and faithful servant after the latter fulfils the devil's request (without giving much thought to it), he even bows before Satan himself in his kingdom.
292The artistic function of the devil in the tale is similar to that of Woe in the Tale of Woe-Misfortune. The devil represents the embodiment of the hero's fate, his inner conflicts and impetuous heart. Moreover the figure of the ``sworn brother'', the form assumed by the devil, is very closely tied to such figures in fairy tales.
With the help of his ``sworn brother" Sawa is once again reunited with his beloved; he is rescued from the anger of his parents, transported with miraculous speed from Orel Solikamsky to the Volga and the Oka. In Shuya Savva's ``sworn brother" teaches him the use of firearms, helps him to scout out the fortifications of Smolensk and to defeat three Polish ``giants'' in singlehanded combat.
In depicting Sawa's participation in the Russians' battle for Smolensk the author gives the character heroic dimensions. Savva's victory over the Polish bogatyrs is described in an heroic, folk epic style. As M. O. Skripil points out, in these episodes Sawa takes on the traits of Russian bogatyrs, and his victory in single-handed combat with the enemy ``giants'' is elevated to the level of a national heroic feat.^^1^^
It is characteristic that Sawa decides to enter into the tsar's service at the promptings of his ``sworn brother'', the devil. When the boyar Streshnev proposes that Sawa remain in his home, the devil is furious and says, ``So you scorn the tsar's grace and want to serve his servant! You yourself are now in such a position that you have made yourself known to the tsar. If the tsar learns of your faithful service you will receive a higher rank from him" (italics mine-Auth.). The devil views service to the tsar as a means for the merchant's son to achieve noble rank and become part of the court nobility. By attributing these ``sinful thoughts" of Sawa to the devil, the author condemns the ambitious plans of the hero. Sawa's heroic feats astonish ``all ... the Russian host" but enrage the commander, voyevoda Shein. In the story boyar Shein emerges as a zealous defender _-_-_
^^1^^ See Russkie povesti XVII veka (Russian Tales of the Seventeenth Century), M., 1954, with M. O. Skripil's afterword and commentary on the Tale of Sawa Grudtsyn.
293 of the inviolability of the aristocratic order. When he finds out that these feats have been accomplished by a merchant's son, he begins ``to revile him with all sorts of foul words''. Shein demands that Savva leave Smolensk immediately and return to his wealthy parents. This conflict between the boyar and the merchant's son vividly characterises the emergence of a new nobility, a process that began in the second half of the seventeenth century.The early episodes of the tale, dealing with the hero's youth, centre on his love intrigues and reveal the fiery, passionate nature of the inexperienced lad; the episodes which deal with Sawa as a grown man concentrate on his heroic traits, his courage, bravery and fearlessness. In this part of the tale the author successfully combines the devices of epic folk poetry and the traditional stylistic devices of the military tale.
The last part of the story describes Savva's illness; here the author makes considerable use of traditional demonological motifs. A host of demons bursts into the house where the sick man is lying and they begin to torment him.
The denouement is connected with the traditional motif of miracles wrought by icons of the Mother of God; the Virgin providentially rids Savva of the diabolical torments he is suffering after making him promise that he will enter a monastery. When he has recovered and received the expiatory contract, Savva becomes a monk. Here an interesting fact stands out: throughout the entire tale Sawa is referred to as a ``youth''.
Like the Young Man in the Tale of Woe-Misfortune, Sawa typifies the younger generation striving to throw off the yoke of centuries-old traditions, to live life to the hilt, giving free rein to all the energy and daring of youth.
The demonic figure makes it possible for the author to provide some rationale for the extraordinary successes and failures of his hero, and also to depict the restless soul of the young man, his thirst for a wild and rebellious life, his desire to distinguish himself.
The style of the tale combines traditional literary 294 devices and individual motifs from oral folk poetry. The innovation consists in the author's attempt to depict an ordinary human being in everyday surroundings, to reveal the complexity and conflicts within his character, to reveal the meaning of love in man's life. Critics are therefore quite right in viewing the Tale of Savva Grudtsyn as the first stage in the development of the Russian novel.~^^1^^
While the Young Man from the Tale of Woe-- Misfortune and Sawa Grudtsyn are eventually defeated in their attempts to break free of the traditional norms of morality, the poor nobleman Frol Skobeyev, hero of the tale that bears his name, brazenly flouts the old ethical norms and achieves personal success in lifematerial wellbeing and a solid position in society.
As an impoverished nobleman who acquires the financial means to establish a private solicitor's office, Frol Skobeyev makes ``fortune and a career" the goal of his life. ``I'll either end up a corporal or a corpse!~" he announces. Skobeyev balks at nothing to achieve his goal, including bribery, deceit and blackmail. There is nothing sacred for him except his belief in the power of money. He buys the conscience of the chaperon to seduce Annushka, the daughter of a rich courtier (stolnik) named Nardin-Nashchokin, and then abducts her---with her consent, of course---and marries her. Through craftiness and deceit the couple win their parents' blessing, and subsequently full forgiveness and the absolving of their guilt. Annushka's father, a haughty and conceited courtier, is finally obliged to acknowledge Frol Skobeyev, that ``thief, rogue and _-_-_
^^1^^ See V. V. Kozhinov, Proiskhozhdenie romana (The Origins of the Novel), M.,1963; Istoriyarusskogo romana v2-kh t., torn 1. U istokov russkogo romana, glava 1, ``Predposylki vozniknoveniya zhanra romana v russkoi literature" (History of Russian Novel, in 2 vols., vol. 1, The Origins of Russian Novel. Ch. 1, `` Prerequisites for the Emergence of Novel as Genre of Russian Literature'', by D. S. Likhachev), M.-L., 1962.
295 sneak'', as his son-in-law, to sit down with him at the same table and make him his heir.The tale reflects the beginning of a process involving the merger of the boyar landowners and the service gentry into a single class, the rise of a new noble class composed of scribes and scriveners, the replacement of ``ancient, noble lines" by men of ``humbler birth".
The author's sharp satire is aimed at boyar pride and arrogance: the noble courtier is unable to counter the impoverished noble; circumstances force him to make peace and acknowledge him as his heir. On these grounds there is reason to believe that the story was written sometime after 1682, when the order of precedence (mestnichestvo) was abolished.
The author of the tale is not in the least inclined to condemn his hero; rather, he admires his resourcefulness, his cunning and ambition. He rejoices in FroPs successes and by no means regards his acts as shameful.
Frol Skobeyev achieves the goals he has set for himself without the help of God or the devil; he relies only on his own energy, intelligence and practical attitude toward life. A man's actions are determined not by the will of God or the devil, but by his own personal qualities, and they are in strict conformity with the circumstances in which a man finds himself.
Annushka is a remarkable figure in the tale. She declares her own right to choose a bridegroom, boldly defies tradition, and participates actively in organising the couple's flight from home. She is quick to agree to pretense and deceit in order to regain the good will of her deceived parents.
Thus the lives of the heroes reflect typical social and everyday phenomena of the end of the seventeenth century, namely, the birth of a new noble class and the dissolution of the old traditional way of life.
The author of the tale was obviously a scrivener himself who, like Frol, wanted to get out in the world and achieve a solid material position and social status. The style of the tale is prime evidence of this fact; it is sprinkled with clerks' jargon: ``to have a place of residence'', ``to conceive of a binding love relationship with the aforementioned Annushka'', and so on. These 296 phrases alternate with archaic expressions of the high literary style and colloquialisms, especially in the dialogue, and also barbarisms, which were making broad incursions into the literary and colloquial language of the time.
The author has mastered free narration, which is why I. S. Turgenev had such a high opinion of the tale, calling it ``an extremely remarkable piece''. ``All the characters are superlative,'' he wrote, ``and the nai've style is touching.''
Subsequently the tale attracted the attention of eighteenth and nineteenth century writers. In the 1780's Ivan Novikov used it as the basis for his ``Christmas Eve Gathering of Novgorod Maidens, Played in Moscow for Nuptials''. N. M. Karamzin borrowed the plot for his story ``Natalya, the Boyar's Daughter''. In the 1860's playwright D. Averkiev wrote his Comedy of the Russian Nobleman Frol Skobeyev, and in the 1940's Soviet composer Tikhon Khrennikov wrote a comic opera entitled Frol Skobeyev.
Among the tales of the seventeenth century the Tale of Karp Sutulov occupies a special place as a work linking the genre of the picaresque and the satirical tale. In this work satire begins to assume the dominant role.
The tale unmasks the dissolute behaviour of the clergy and the wealthy merchant class. The story of the unsuccessful amorous adventures of an archbishop, a priest and a merchant is a subtle political satire of sorts. The author not only laughs at the behaviour of the ``cream'' of society, but also at the hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness of a religion which gives church men the ``right'' to sin and to ``absolve'' the sins of others.
A voyevoda, the secular head of a municipality, readily forgives the ``folly'' of the archbishop, priest and merchant, but he does not fail to take a colossal bribe from them for this ``forgiveness'': ``five hundred roubles from the merchant, a thousand from the priest and one thousand five hundred from the archbishop'', half of 297 which he gives to Karp Sutulov's wife.
The heroine of the tale is an energetic, intelligent and clever woman, the merchant's wife Tatyana. She is not embarrassed by the improper propositions of the merchant, priest and archbishop, and she tries to get as much out of them as she can. Thanks to her resourcefulness and wit, Tatyana manages to remain faithful to her husband and acquire some capital as well, for which she earns the praise of her husband, the merchant Karp Sutulov.
The whole structure of the story is based on the satirical, anti-clerical folk tale; here one finds the same slow, chronological narration with obligatory repetitions, fantastic happenings, sharp satire unmasking the distinguished but unsuccessful lovers, who are discovered hiding in trunks in their underwear.
The satirical depiction of the dissolute morals of the clergy and the merchant class makes the Tale of Karp Sutulov akin to the democratic satire of the second half of the seventeenth century.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ DEMOCRATIC SATIRE IN THE SECOND HALFOne of the most remarkable phenomena in the literature of the second half of the seventeenth century is the formation and development of satire as an independent literary genre,^^1^^ brought about by specific social conditions prevailing at the time.
The formation of a single all-Russian market in the second half of the seventeenth century created a greater role for merchants and craftsmen of the cities in the economic and cultural life of the country. But _-_-_
^^1^^ The characteristic features of seventeenth century Russian democratic satire were first researched in detail by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz in Ocherki po istorii russkoi satiricheskoi literatury XVII v. (Essays on the History of Russian Satirical Literature of the Seventeenth Century),]-,., 1937 and ``U istokov russkoi satiry" (``The Sources of Russian Satire''), in Russkaya demokraticheskaya satira XVII veka (Russian Democratic Satire of the Seventeenth Century), M.-L., 1954.
298 politically this part of the population still had no rights and was subject to merciless exploitation and oppression. The trade community responded to this increase in oppression with frequent uprisings in the cities, which helped to increase class consciousness. The appearance of democratic satire was a consequence of the active participation of democratic strata in the trade community in the class struggle. Satire also served the cause of this struggle.Thus the reality of insurrectionist tendencies in Russia in the seventeenth century served as the soil for the Srowth of satire. Its keen social conscience and antieudal orientation made it akin to poetic folk satire, which was an inexhaustible source of artistic means and devices.
Satire exposed the most important aspects of life in a feudal society of serfs and masters; these included unjust and venal courts; social inequality; the immoral life of the clergy and monastic community, their hypocrisy, sanctimoniousness and cupidity; the ``state system" of turning the people into drunkards through the ``tsar's taverns".
Two tales, Tale of an Unjust Trial (Shemyakin sud) and Ruff Ruffson, the Son of Bristle (Yorsh Yershovich, Syn Shchetinnikov), expose the evils of the court system based on the 1649 Assembly Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
In the Tale of an Unjust Trial (Shemyakin sud) the object of satirical exposition is the judge Shemyaka, a bribe-taker and pettifogger. Enticed by the possibility of a large bribe, he interprets the law casuistically. While formally levelling accusations against the defendant, a poor peasant, Shemyaka applies the re compensatory form of punishment prescribed by the Code of 1649. He does not in any way deviate from legal norms, but his verdict puts the plaintiffs---a rich peasant, a priest and a city dweller---in a comical position, and they are obliged to pay off the poor peasant so that he will not demand
299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1980/HORL354/20070408/354.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.04.10) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ the implementation of the court's verdict.Thus the poor man triumphs over the world of greed, cupidity and the arbitrary rule of the court. Thanks to his wits and resourcefulness the poor man receives justice in court. He places a stone wrapped up in a kerchief in his bosom and pulls it out to show to the judge as each suit is being decided. If the court had not decided in his favour, that stone would have undoubtedly been sent flying at Shemyaka's head. So when the judge finds out that instead of a fat bribe the poor man was holding a stone under his coat, he begins to ``praise God for judging in his favour".
So in the story the poor man triumphs over the powerful, and Right triumphs over Wrong due to a mistake on the part of the corrupt judge.
The artistic structure of the tale is based on the Russian satirical folk tale about the unjust judge, and the fairy tale about the ``Wise Diviners''; the plot develops rapidly, the series of crimes committed by the poor man lack any verisimilitude, and the judge and plaintiffs end up in a comical position. The apparently dispassionate tone of the narrative, which reads like a stenographic report of court proceedings, heightens the satirical effect of the tale.
The Tale of Ruff Ruff son, Son of Bristle (Povest o Yershe Yershoviche, syne Shchetinnikove), written some time between 1660 and 1690 and extant in four different versions, presents a graphic satirical picture of the practices of the voyevoda's (governor's) court. The first and oldest version is the most interesting because it reflects most fully the social conflicts of the period.
The tale deals with one of the characteristic features of the time, the property suits brought by peasants---in this case the suit brought by ``God's orphans" Bream and Chub (Leshch and Golavl) against that ``evil man'', ``slanderer'' and ``brigand'', Ruff the boyar's son.
Bream and Chub declare that Rostov lake rightfully 300 belongs to them and that it has been forcefully taken away from them by Ruff, and for this reason they are petitioning the great judges, ``boyar'' Sturgeon, White Sturgeon and voyevoda Sheatfish, to redress their grievances.
Ruff denies the charge; he not only tries to prove that the property he has seized is legally his, but also files a counter suit against Bream and Chub, declaring that they were his father's serfs. In this fashion Ruff not only has their suit withdrawn (serfs had no legal rights) but also tries to transform free peasants into his own serfs.
But when witnesses are questioned they establish Ruff's guilt; it turns out that he is not a ``boyar's son" at all, but a simple peasant. The court sentences Ruff to the pillory, to ``hang in the sun on hot days for his robbery and slander".
The tale unmasks the cunning, ambitious and arrogant Ruff who has tried to appropriate the property of others through force and deceit and to make the peasants around him his bond serfs. But at the same time the author of the tale shows Ruff's superiority over the sluggish, stupid and greedy judges. In another version of the story the author concludes by scoffing at the decision of the court. After hearing the sentence, Ruff announces that the judges did not come to a judgement on the basis of the law, but because they were bribed; he spits in their eye and ``jumped into the brushwood, and that was the last they saw of him''. Thus the object of satire in the story is not only the ``evil'' Ruff, but also the distinguished judges.
I. P. Lapitsky calls this tale a satirical fable where allegory has no place; the satire stems from the whole complex of purely mundane relationships depicted by the author.~^^1^^
The tale represents the first example of literary Aesopian satire wherein the fish act exactly as fish should, but their relations mirror human relations in _-_-_
~^^1^^ I. P. Lapitsky, ``Povest o Yershe Yershoviche" (``The Tale of Ruff Ruffson''), in Russkaya povest XVII veka (Seventeenth Century Russian Tales). Ed. by M. O. Skripil, M., 1954. pp. 428--40.
301 society. The author makes use of images from folk animal tales, increasing their social significance through satire. The satirical impact of unmasking vices is heightened by the successful form of the tale, that of a legal document, a stenographic record of the court proceedings. By adhering strictly to the legal jargon the author achieves a splendid satirical effect.Belinsky called this tale and the Tale of an Unjust Trial ``historical documents of inestimable value'', seeing in them a clear reflection of Russian wit with its subtle irony and sarcastic tone.^^1^^
The ABCs of a Poor Man (Azbuka o golom i nebogatom cheloveke), written in the traditional form of didactic ABCs, bitingly reveals social injustice and inequality. Its hero, a poor man, describes with bitter sarcasm all his misfortunes for whom he blames the ``rich evildoers'', those who possess ``plenty of everything, both money and clothing'', who ``live in luxury and spare nothing for us poor''. This socially topical tale, with its terse and aphoristic idiom, was widely popular in the democratic strata.
The anticlerical theme is one of the most important in the satirical literature of the seventeenth century. The Tale of Savva the Priest, written in rhymed verse, reveals the avarice and greed of priests. Another clearly denunciatory document, this one dealing with the life and mores of monasticism, is The Kalyazin Petition. It ridicules the satisfied, drunken, debauched life of monks. In withdrawing from the world and its vanities, their intention is by no means to subjugate the desires of the flesh and give themselves over to prayer and _-_-_
^^1^^ V. G. Belinsky, Collected Works, in thirteen volumes, vol. 5, p. 67 1 (in Russian).
302 penance. Behind the stone walls of the monastery they eat their fill and lead a life of drunken revelry. The tale selects as the object of satire one of the greatest monasteries of Rus, the Kalyazin monastery, which allows the author to disclose typical traits of Russian monasticism in the seventeenth century.The monks of the monastery write a tearful petition to Simeon, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin, to complain about their new archimandrite Gabriel. The monks have been used to a life of drunkenness, gluttony and debauchery, not prayer and fasting. Therefore they are roused to indignation by their new archimandrite, who suddenly introduces the old order and demands that the monastic rule be strictly observed. They complain that the new archimandrite does not give them any peace, ``forces us to go early to church and torments us, your devout servants''. The monks are also indignant about the fact that Gabriel has begun to strictly watch over their morals. ``According to the archimandrite's command the crooked Falalei has been stationed by the gates with a whip, and he does not allow us, your devout servants, to go past the gates, to go into town--- to watch over the cattle in the courtyard, drive the calves back to the herd, to set the cocks in the cellar and give our blessing to the cowgirls.''
The petition stresses that the main source of income for the monastery is brewing beer and wine, and Gabriel's ban can only bring ruin to the monastery treasury.
The petition also unmasks the formal piety of the monks, who are displeased about having to go to church and pray. They complain that the archimandrite ``does not watch over the treasury, lights lots of candles and incense, and in so doing he, the archimandrite, has made the church musty and blackened the censers, and for us, your devout servants, it irritates our eyes and sticks in our throats''. The monks themselves are quite willing not to attend church.
Nor does the author of the satire bypass the social differences typical for the monastic brotherhood, between the novices, the lowest ranking monks, and the ruling circle headed by the archimandrite.
The cruel, greedy, mercenary-minded archimandrite 303 is also the object of satirical exposure in the tale. The monks hate him for his oppressive treatment. He introduces a system of corporal punishment in the monastery, forcing the monks in his fanaticism to ``bellow out the canons under a whip''. ``He himself lives in grand style, but makes us monks put on penitential irons both on holiday and weekday. He has broken many a stick and torn many a whip on our backs.'' The greedy archimandrite starves the monastic brotherhood, serving up ``boiled turnips, dried radishes, home-brewed kissel, cereal that tastes like hemp and carrot soup, and he pours kvass into the winebowls".
In the petition the monks not only complain about the archimandrite, but demand that he be replaced by a man who is much more ``inclined to drink beer and wine and not go to church''. They even threaten to rise up in rebellion against their oppressors.
Behind the jesting of the drunken monks one senses the hatred of the people toward the monasteries and feudal ecclesiasts. The main satirical device is caustic irony concealed within the tearful complaint of the petitioners.
One of the characteristic traits of the style of the petition is its aphoristic quality; the sarcasm is often expressed in the form of popular rhymed ditties, which reveal in the author of The Kalyazin Petition ``the sly Russian wit, so inclined to irony, so goodhearted in its slyness".^^1^^
Employing the allegorical images of the Russian folk fable, the Tale of the Fox and the Cock unmasks the hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness of priests and monks, the inner falsehood of their external piety. In the sly hypocrisy of the Fox one can easily make out the typical priest, who hides his greedy, mercenary goals behind the facade of unctious ``divine words''. As soon as the Fox manages to fool the Cock and has him in her _-_-_
^^1^^ V. G. Belinsky, op.cit., p. 668. 304
304 clutches, her mask falls off and she is no longer the confessor mourning over the sins of the Cock. Now the Fox lists the personal insults levied by the Cock against her in preventing her from ravaging the henhouse.The tale also subjects Holy Scripture to criticism, underscoring its contradictions. In their logomachy the Fox and the Cock both quote Scripture to prove their case. The Fox accuses the Cock of committing the mortal sin of polygamy and failing to love his neighbour, basing her accusations on the Gospels. The Cock counters by quoting from the book of Genesis. The tale convincingly demonstrates that texts from Holy Scripture can be used to justify any sort of morality.
All these things point to the development of social consciousness, a critical spirit beginning to take hold in man's intellect as he attempts to put Christian dogmas to the test.
The Tale of the Drunkard is constructed on a bold antithesis between a drunken reveller and the saints dwelling in heaven. The tale demonstrates the moral superiority of the reveller over the ``righteous''. Among those accounted worthy of bliss in paradise are the apostle Peter, who denied Christ three times, the apostle Paul, who murdered the first Christian martyr Stephan, adulturous King David, a sinner whom God rescued from hell, King Solomon, and the murderer Bishop Nicholas. Setting up the drunkard in contrast to them, the author not only makes them equals, but stresses the moral superiority of the drunkard over the ``holy fathers''. The reveller, after all, finds them guilty of transgressions, whereas he has never committed such sins: he has not killed, or committed adultery, or denied God---on the contrary, every time he raises the cup he sings praises to Christ.
The reveller even accuses the saints of transgressing against the Gospel's law of love when they try to prevent him from entering paradise: ``Along with Luke you wrote in the Gospels, 'Love one another'; God loves __PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20---315 305 everyone,, but you hate the newcomer!~" the reveller boldly says to St. John. Driven into a corner, John is forced to admit, ``You're our man, reveller! Join us in paradise!~" And in paradise the reveller occupies the highest position, which the ``saints'' would not dare to contest.
In this jesting, fairy-tale-like situation we find a wrathful satire on the church and the reverence it pays to the saints.
The satirical Festival of Tavern Drunks, or Service to the Tavern, is constructed on a daring parallel between a drunkard and a Christian martyr. The tale denounces the ``state system" of promoting drunkenness through the ``tsar's tavern''. In order to supplement its income the state established its monopoly on the production and sale of alcoholic beverages in the middle of the seventeenth century. A network of ``tsar's taverns" was established across the country, governed by `` osculators'', who were so called because they vowed---by kissing the cross to ``fearlessly await the state's favour in working for profit.''
The ``tsar's tavern" became a source of deprivation for the people. Taking advantage of their rights, the ``escalators'' had no qualms about getting the working masses drunk and robbing them. For this reason the Festival of Tavern Drunks, in exposing this system, represents a keen and relevant commentary.
The tale does not take a religious, moralistic approach to drunkenness, but attacks the ``tsar's tavern" head on as an ``evil teacher" and ``robber of Christian souls''. Taking the form of a worship service (Greater and Lesser Compline) in honour of ``wine, beer and mead, the three blinders, fleecers of Christians and befoggers of human minds'', the tale allows the author to freely develop his theme. He denounces the tsar's tavern, that ``house of ruin'', the source of ``unending poverty'', an evil ``teacher'' leading men into ``poverty and despair".
306In denouncing the ``tsar's tavern" the author pours out his wrath on those who promote drunkenness, the ruling circles of society. The tale warns people about the evils of drunkenness, which can only bring misery and unhappiness, depriving men of their humanity and human dignity.
The caustic irony of the satire stems from the incongruity between the elevated form of the workchurch hymns and chants---and the ``tsar's taverns" which constitute the subject. The author speaks with irony of the ``new martyrs" of the tavern and concludes his tale with the vita of a drunkard. Employing the form of a saint's vita, the work paints a terrible picture of man's moral degeneration.
__b_b_b__Seventeenth century satirical literature was planted in the reality of the times and was the result of the growth of class consciousness within the democratic strata of Russia's urban population. Its appearance demonstrates that the church was losing its former authority in all spheres of human life.
Democratic satire treated the most critical aspects of feudal society, and it developed hand in hand with folk satire. Both had a common ideological orientation and definite class message, and both avoided abstract moralising.
Democratic literary satire borrowed from folk satire in its frequent use of chancellory forms (court records, minutes of legal proceedings, petitions) and ecclesiastical genres (the form of the worship service and the vita). The basic tools of satire were parody, exaggeration, and Aesopian language. A broad artistic picture was presented in the depiction of nameless satirical personae. It is true, of course, that these characters were lacking in individual traits and were merely collective images of the social milieu being depicted; but they were shown under everyday life conditions, and their inner world was revealed for the first time in satirical form.
One of the great achievements of democratic satire was its depiction---for the first time in Russian literature---of the downtrodden, the ``naked and barefoot" in 307 all their undisguised misery.
Democratic satire of the seventeenth century made enormous strides in bringing literature close to life, and it laid the foundations for the further development or satire in the eighteenth century and the unprecedented heights it achieved in the nineteenth century. Herein lies its significance.
1. F. I. Buslayev, ``Povest o Gore-Zloschastii" (``The Tale of WoeMisfortune''), in Istoricheskie ocherki russkoi narodnoi slovesnosti i iskusstva (Historical Essays on Russian Folk Literature and Art), vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1861.
2. D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi (Man in
Old Russian Literature), M., 1970 (chapters 8, 9 and 10).
3. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz (ed.), Russkaya demokraticheskaya satira XVII veka (Russian Democratic Satire of the Seventeenth Century), M.-L., 1954.
4. Russkaya povest XVII veka (Russian Tales of the Seventeenth Century). Compiled by M. O. Skripil, M., 1954.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ TRANSLATED LITERATUREThe seventeenth century saw a strengthening of economic and cultural ties between the Russian state and Western Europe. The reunion of the Ukraine with Russia in 1654 was a very important factor here. The Kievo-Mogilyansky Academy, founded in 1631 by Peter Mogila, became a real production centre for cultural cadres. Academy alumni founded a number of schools in Moscow. Epiphany Slavinetsky, for example, took part in the work of a school founded in 1648 by the boyar Rtishchev. Simeon Polotsky organised a school in the Spassky Monastery (Monastery of the Saviour) in 1664, and in 1687 the Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy was established in Moscow.
During this period the more progressive segments of society were clearly drawn to the European way of life and culture. All this was bound to have an effect on the nature of translated literature. From the eleventh to the fifteenth century most of the translated literature was 308 Greek in origin and religious and didactic in content; now purely secular works came to dominate, although individual works still retained traces of ecclesiastical influence. Most translations were now from Polish, and from Byelorussian. Translators were attracted by the Western European romance, and also by anthologies of didactic tales, adventure novels and humorous stories.
The Great Mirror (Speculum magnum), a collection of religious, didactic and moralistic tales was translated from the Polish original in 1677. It incorporated apochryphal and hagiographic literature, which was used to illustrate the gist of various Christian dogmas. The translator reshaped the material in accord with the tastes of his readers. He glossed over the Catholic tendencies of the original and introduced a number of characteristically Russian features.
A considerable portion of the collection is devoted to praising the Mother of God. One of the works dealing with this theme is a short story about a young warrior whom the Mother of God rescues from the ``temptation of the evil one''. Pushkin's poem ``There once lived a poor knight...'' is based on this tale.
Russian readers were familiar with the thematics of some of the material, such as the Tale of Bishop Udon, depicting the moral lassitude of the black clergy.
The Great Mirror also contains purely secular tales dealing with the stubbornness and maliciousness of women and denouncing ignorance and hypocrisy. For example, we find here the anecdotal quarrel between a man and his wife about whether a field is mown or clipped. The collection was popular because of the entertaining narrative material, and a number of the tales became the property of folklore.
In 1681 a collection entitled Deeds of the Romans, translated from a printed Polish text, appeared in 309 Byelorussia. The Russian version contains 39 works about historical figures associated with Rome. They are not homogeneous in terms of genre, but contain motifs from adventure tales, fairy tales, humorous anecdotes and didactic stories. Most of the material has an allegorical, moralistic slant. Despite the fact that certain stories come out in defence of medieval ascetic morality, the majority represent paeans to the joys of life.
A typical example is the Parable of Proud King Evinyan, which recounts the misadventures of a proud and arrogant king, describing with great sympathy the bitter fate of a helpless man, a ``bond serf'', who is cruelly beaten and thrown into a dungeon and persecuted from all quarters. True, the story is provided with a Christian moralistic interpretation: Evinyan is justly punished for his pride, and upon repenting he is once again made king. The moralistic ending calls on the reader to be a true Christian. We see here how one work combines motifs akin to those of an original secular tale with a Christian didactic input. In the nineteenth century the plot of the Parable was reworked by V. Garshin in his ``Tale of Aggeus the Proud".
Apothegms, a collection of excerpts from .the works of philosophers and instructive tales from their biographies, was translated into Russian in the second half of the seventeenth century. The original was a Polish collection compiled by Beniasz Budny, which first appeared in Poland in the beginning of the century.
In 1680 another anthology of tales was translated from the Polish. This was Poggio Bracciolini's famous Facetiae. With subtle humour it recounts funny anecdotal situations in the everyday life of ordinary people. The tales treat a wide range of themes such as the cleverness and craftiness of women,and ignorance.
Facetiae by no means condemns, but rather praises the resourcefulness, craftiness and wit of women. A wise woman rescues her husband from misfortune by ``teaching'' a bear how to read. Resorting to craftiness, 310 another woman acknowledges to her husband that he is not the father of her child, and so on. The sparkling wit of the stories made the collection popular among readers of the time.
Another very popular work was the History of the Seven Wise Men, translated from the Byelorussian, which had its origins in ancient Indian literature. The History consists of fifteen small stories united by a common plot: under the influence of his evil wife, who slanders her stepson Diocletian, the Roman emperor Elizar desires to have the boy executed. The wife tells seven stories to prove that she is right and convince her husband to execute the son; then the seven wise men, Diocletian's tutors, tell seven tales in order to save the life of the innocent boy. The last tale is told by Diocletian himself, who accuses his stepmother of being unfaithful.
All the tales which make up the History of the Seven Wise Men are purely secular in nature.
Western European romances became known in Russia via Byelorussian translations in the seventeenth century. These romances underwent considerable Russification in the process of translation and lost many of their chivalric qualities. Remarkable in this respect is the Tale of Bova Korolevich (Bova the King's Son), based on a French romance of chivalry. The story attracted readers because of the adventurous plot, similar in many ways to that of a fairy tale. Bova's life is full of adventure. He escapes the machinations of his evil mother Militrice and stepfather Dodon by running off to the Kingdom of Armenia, where he conceals his identity and enters into the service of King Zenzevey. Here he falls in love with Zenzevey's beautiful daughter Druzhnevna and has to fight with King Markobrun for 311 her hand. He kills bogatyr Lukoper, a son of King Saltan Saltanovich. He is imprisoned by the latter but does not yvish to win his own release by renouncing his faith and marrying Saltan's daughter Milchigria. After escaping from prison, Bova abducts Druzhnevna, routs the forces of Markobrun, and after fighting a duel with Polkan, befriends this strong bogatyr. After losing and once again finding Druzhnevna, he returns home and punishes his wicked mother and Dodon.
The hero and brave knight Bova Korolevich resembles the heroes of folk epics and fairy tales. He is brave, honourable, a fighter for truth and justice who is faithful in love and defends the Orthodox Christian faith. Like Russian bogatyrs, Bova possesses tremendous physical strength and beauty. He accomplishes his feats on a ``goodly steed" with a sword in his hand.
Bova's opponent Lukoper possesses the same traits as enemies in folk epic poetry: ``His head is like a beer cauldron, his eyes are a good span apart, a bow's length separates his ears, he measures seven feet from shoulder to shoulder.'' The bogatyr Polkan also has traits of an epic nature: ``From the waist down he has a dog's legs, and from the waist up he is like a man,~" and he can cover seven leagues in one leap.
There are many fairy tale motifs in the story: Militrice's attempt to poison her son with flat cakes mixed with snake's fat; Bova appearing in an old man's disguise on the eve of Markobrun's marriage to Druzhnevna; the sleeping potion that Druzhnevna gives to Markobrun; the faithful servant Licharda, and so on. The opening of the story is typical for fairy tales:
``Once upon a time, in a great kingdom, in the famous city of Anton, there lived a famous king named Vidon.''
The same may be said for the ending:
``And Bova lived to a ripe old age with Druzhnevna and their children, rid of evil and surrounded by good.''
Many purely Russian elements appear in the story. For example, the medieval castle castello in Russian translation comes out as the city of Kostel, whose reigning governor is muzhik Orel. He gathers his men together in the council chamber to seek their advice. Stylistically the story makes extensive use of techniques 312 common to folk tales: retarded narration and such verbal devices and images of folklore as hyperbole, fixed epithets and repetition. When he describes battles the translator uses stylistic devices borrowed from military tales.
Thus the West European romance in translation lost the traits of the original and became the property of Old Russian literature and folklore, passing from there into lubok (cartoon caricatures of the eighteenth century).
The Tale of Bova Korolevich was -popular in the eighteenth century, as evidenced by G. R. Derzhavin's well-known lines in the ``Ode to Felicia'', ``I'm reading Bova and Polkan.'' A. N. Radishchev and A. S. Pushkin both borrowed the plot for poems (neither of which were completed).
A number of other romances were also translated in the seventeenth century, including Peter of the Golden Keys, a French chivalric romance of the fifteenth century, recounting the adventures of a knight named Peter and his selfless love for beautiful Queen Magilena, and the Tale of Basil the Goldenhaired, a work translated into Russian from the Czech. The plot reads very much like a fairy tale---how a young man succeeds in winning his bride---but it has certain political overtones. The French queen, Polymestra, is indignant about Czech Prince Basil's proposal because she regards him as the ``son of a farmer''. After taking vengeance on the proud and arrogant beauty, he marries her. The story stressed the triumph of the Slav and appealed to the ethnic pride of Russian readers.
Other translated works were the tales of the Roman emperor Otton, of Melusine, Brunswick, and a fairy tale romance about Queen Persika. The main theme of all these tales is earthly love. They glorify constancy and faithfulness in love and speak of man's right to take pleasure in the joys of earthly love.
The Tale of Eruslan Lazarevich, another translated work, initially arose among the Cossacks. It was based 313 on an eastern tale going back to the Persian poet Firdousi's famous poem Shahnama (tenth century). In the Russian reworking the poem's hero Rustem is transformed into the daring bogatyr Uruslan, later Eruslan. He calls himself a Ruthenian and a peasant, is pious and devout, and sets off on his ``prophetic steed Arash, across the open field, to lead the life of a Cossack".
Eruslan possesses the strength of a bogatyr. He displays valour and prowess, does not tire in battle and always emerges victorious. He defeats the troops of Danila the White, who has imprisoned King Kirkous and his councillor Zalazar, Eruslan's father. He defeats the Russian bogatyr Ivan in single combat; with the help of a magic sword he kills the Green King; he also triumphs over the ``guardian'' of the borders of the ``Indian Kingdom'', bogatyr Ivashka the White Cudgel; he kills the man-eating ``three-headed monster" and engages in combat with his own son.
Eruslan is selfless, noble, and forgiving. Banished by King Kirkous, he rescues him from prison; he kills the Green King and restores the sight of Kirkous and his own father by rubbing their eyes with a paste made of the liver and blood of the Green King. When Kirkous proposes to reward him, he refuses, saying, ``Sire! He who seeks knightly fame must not pursue his greed.'' At the same time Eruslan is proud and touchy. He is proud of his knight's honour, and cannot ignore an insult, and so he ``knocks off the head" of the maiden-queen when she praises Ivashka the White Cudgel and abuses him, Eruslan. To Ivashka, who lies wounded on the ground, he says, ``Brother Ivashka, I wouldn't kill you otherwise, but I'm going to, because wenches boast about you.''
Cunning, deceit and greed are all alien to Eruslan. When he sees the bogatyr Ivan sleeping on the ground he decides not to kill him: ``It would be dishonourable for me, a bogatyr, to kill a man while he is asleep.''
Eruslan carries out his feats in the name of truth, honour and justice, but he is also propelled by the desire to find the most perfect embodiment of feminine 314 beauty on earth.
The Russian reader felt an affinity with the hero and understood him, seeing in him a reflection of his own ideal.
Because of their lively style and extensive borrowing of folk poetic devices, the Tale of Eruslan Lazarevich and the Tale ofBova Korolevich both entered the life of the people. According to Engels' words, ``the popular book has the task of cheering, reviving and entertaining the peasant when he returns home in the evening tired from his hard day's work, making him forget his toil, transforming his stony field into a fragrant rose garden; ...it also has the task ... of clarifying his moral sense, making him aware of his strength, his rights, his freedom, and arousing his courage and love for his country.~"^^1^^
Thus the nature of translated literature changed as a result of changes in the life, mores and mentality of men. Now most translated works were secular in content---stories of everyday life and love, humorous tales, romances. But as before, the translators' principal goal was not to give an absolutely accurate rendering of the original, but to adapt it to the tastes and needs of the times, sometimes incorporating purely Russian features and taking advantage of the achievements and discoveries made by original Russian literature in its depiction of man.
The characters of translated works are depicted from numerous angles, and their actions flow organically from their qualities and traits. The exceptional circumstances under which they operate serve only to accentuate the positive aspects of their character.
The characters which made their appearance in translated literature were often akin to those in the folk tradition. For this reason these translated works became the property of the national literary tradition of the people.
_-_-_^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, vol. 2, p. 32.
315 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD BELIEVERSIn the seventeenth century the church remained the only institution in the feudal state which violated the principle of centralisation. Its resistance to this process was facilitated by the establishment of the patriarchate in 1589. The patriarch placed all church organisations under his command and exercised great influence on the tsar. The state tried to make the church subordinate to itself, and it took the first step in this direction through the Monastery Office set up in 1649, which made people living on church-owned lands no longer subject to the legal jurisdiction of the church.
The ruling circles of the church were very concerned about the gradual loss of its former authority in public and private life and the growing immorality among the clergy. It was in this connection that the question of ecclesiastical reforms arose in the 1640's. A group of ``Zealots of Ancient Piety" gathered around the tsar's confessor, Stefan Vonifatyev; the group included representatives of the Moscow clergy (Nikon, Archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery, Ivan Neronov, Archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, Fedor Ivanov, deacon of the Cathedral of the Annunciation), secular authorities (okolnichy^^1^^ F. M. Rtishchev) and priests from the provinces (Awakum, Daniil, Loggin).
The goal of the ``zealots'' was to raise the religious and moral level of the clergy, to bring decorum and solemnity to the disorderly service of worship. The ``Zealots of Ancient Piety" replaced ``reedy'' polyphony with singing in unison and introduced the preaching of original sermons in the church.
At the same time the ``correctors'' of the royal printing house decided that it was necessary to reform the service books in accordance with the Greek originals; this work was begun in 1650 by monastic scholars _-_-_
~^^1^^ Okolnichy---member of a social group with status second to that of boyars-TV.
316 who had come from Kiev. Some of the ``zealots'' believed that it was necessary to correct the books, not according to the Greek texts, but in accord with old Russian manuscripts and the decrees of the Conclave of the Hundred Chapters.In 1652 Patriarch losif died, and the man elected patriarch to succeed him was Nikon, Metropolitan of Novgorod, an active, energetic and power-loving ecclesiast. As patriarch he carried out the proposed church reform. In a ``memorandum'' sent to the churches on March 14, 1653, he ordered that full prostrations be replaced by bows from the waist, and that Christians should cross themselves with three instead of two fingers, in correspondence with the practice of the Greek church of the time. Thus the reform concerned matters of purely external ritual, though its goal was to strengthen the feudal organisation of the church. In essence this reform marked a new stage in the submission of the church to the secular authorities, and therefore it received the active support of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: it was firmly established by the councils of 1654 and 1655. When Patriarch Nikon tried to oppose the tsar and proposed his own doctrine---``the clergy over the monarchy"---he was removed from the patriarchal throne, condemned, and banished in 1666 to the Ferapontov Monastery in Belozersk.
The reform provoked a powerful, anti-feudal, antigovernment movement: the schism, or the Old Believer movement. From the moment of its inception it was democratic in scope, for it received the active support of the peasantry and the democratic strata of the urban population. Rejecting Nikon's reforms the popular masses expressed their opposition to feudal exploitation, which had received the church blessing.
The rural clergy, which constantly suffered at the hands of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, took an active part in the movement. The schism was also supported by part of the hereditary boyar class (Boyarina F. P. Morozova, her sister E. P. Urusova, princes Khovansky, Myshetsky, Potemkin, and Sokovnin), who viewed the reform as a way for the tsar to increase his power.
317Thus at its initial stages the schism united representatives of various classes and various social groups. This temporary union of all the opposition forces lent tremendous strength to the movement, but different class interests were concealed behind the common struggle for the ``old faith''. ``Although the class struggles of those days were clothed in religious shibboleths, and though the interests, requirements, and demands of the various classes were concealed behind a religious screen, this changed nothing at all and is easily explained by the conditions of the times,'' wrote Engels.^^1^^
Although their social protest was expressed in terms of religion, the schismatics nevertheless saw their ideal in the receding life of the past. Therefore they actively opposed everything new and gradually became a bulwark of reaction (in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries). They attempted to turn back the clock of history and prevent the Europeanisation of Russian life.
The contradictory nature of the schism was also reflected in the activities of its ideologist, Archpriest Awakum, the most talented writer of the second half of the seventeenth century. His works attracted and continue to attract the attention of many Russian, Soviet and foreign scholars.^^2^^
The fiery archpriest wrote about eighty works, sixty-four of them during the last fifteen years of his life, which he spent in captivity, confined to an earthen pit in Pustozersk on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, a ``land of tundra, freezing and without forests''. Awakum himself described the prison where he was held along with his fellow believers, Priest Lazar, Elder _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 412.
^^2^^ A. N. Robinson, Zhizneopisaniya Avvakuma i Epifaniya (The Life Story of Awakum and Epifany), M., 1963; N. S. Demkova, Zhitie protopopa Avvakuma: tvorcheskaya istoriya proizvedeniya (The Life of Archpriest Awakum. Literary History), L., 1974.
318 Epifany and Deacon Fedor: ``They threw earth on us: a framed pit in the ground, and nearby another pit, and around them all a fence with four locks.'' From this dungeon in the earth, fenced about by ``sharp paling'', Awakum led the struggle of his fellow believers, sending out his ``talks'' and ``epistles'' to all the cities of Russia, teaching and ``encouraging my spiritual children'', exposing the enemy, calling on his fellow believers to be staunch in the struggle for the ``ancient piety".Awakum maintained his ties with the outside world through his guards, the streltsy, who apparently felt some sympathy for their prisoners and possibly even shared their religious convictions.
Awakum was by nature a passionate and tireless fighter, a man who wrathfully denounced those in positions of authority, including the boyars, the patriarch and even the tsar himself; he empathised with the grief of the people and was a fiery fanatic who regarded himself as an apostle of the ``true faith''. All these conflicting traits were reflected in his works.
Neither torture nor exile nor persecution nor the promise of material blessings made by the boyars and the tsar in return for renouncing his faith could force Awakum to give up the struggle against the ``heretical lechery" of Nikon's reform. ``I keep them even unto death as I received them; I shall not shift the eternal boundaries. That which was laid down before our time, let it so remain to all eternity!~" Such was Awakum's motto throughout his life, graphically recounted in his best work, the Life, written in 1672 and 1673.
Awakum defines the temporal frame of his narration in the following words: ``I present my life from my youth to the age of fifty-five.'' He selects only the most important, major landmarks in his life: his birth into the family of a rural priest and drunkard; his first period of trial during his stay in Lopatitsy and Yurievets-- Povolsky; the beginning of the struggle against Nikon 319 followed by his exile to Tobolsk and then to Dauria; his return to Russia, his sojourn in Moscow and monastery dungeons on the outskirts of the city, and finally his defrocking and final exile to Pustozersk.
One of the main themes of the Life is Awakum's personal life, indivisibly united with the struggle for ``ancient piety" against Nikon's innovations. This theme is tightly interwoven with that of the cruelty and arbitrariness of voyevodas, the evils of that ``fig of Antichrist" Nikon and his stooges, who enforce the new faith with the ``knout and the gallows".
From the pages of the Life there emerges the gigantic figure of an extraordinary Russian man of astonishing determination, courage, conviction and steadfastness. Awakum's personality is revealed both in his personal life and in his social ties and relations.
The archpriest reveals his character in the way he relates to his ``little ones'', his staunch and faithful wife Anastasia Markovna, and in his relations to the tsar and the patriarch, and to the simple people, his fellow believers and comrades-in-arms. One is amazed by the extraordinary sincerity of his impassioned confession. Condemned to death, the unfortunate archpriest has no reason to be cunning and has nothing to hide. He recounts quite openly how he resorted to deception in order to save the life of a fugitive threatened by death. He recalls periods of despondency and hesitation and despair when he was worn out by persecution and trials and was ready to pray for mercy and even to give up the struggle.
Awakum champions justice; he cannot tolerate the use of violence by the strong against the weak. He stands up for a girl whom a ``boss'' is trying to take away from a widow; he defends two old widows whom a petty tyrant, voyevoda Pashkov, wants to marry off. In championing the cause of the weak and oppressed, Awakum turns the social issue into a moral and religious one, developing the idea set forth in the Gospels concerning the spiritual equality of all men before God.
Awakum is severely and irreconcilably opposed to his ideological enemies, Nikon and his followers. Making use of irony and the grotesque, he paints them in a 320 satirical light. He brings out the hypocrisy and greed of Nikon, who behaves ``like a fox" before his election to the patriarchal throne; afterwards he ``didn't even let his friends into the reception room" (of the patriarchal palace). Awakum depicts Nikon as a ``rogue'', a ``borzoi dog with a big snout and a big belly'', a ``fig of Antichrist'', a ``wolf'' and a ``shifty beast'', a ``hound of hell''. He stresses Nikon's cruelty, the fact that he ``burns men with fire" and tortures his opponents; Awakum also speaks of the patriarch's dissolute life. Nikon's comrades are described in the same way.
Awakum also denounces the greed for money that characterises the clergy under Nikon: the secretary of Archbishop of Tobolsk, Ivan Struna does not punish a man who has committed incest when he is given half a rouble.
The secular authorities are also depicted in Avvakum's Life. One of them beats the archpriest in church, and at home ``chomped with his teeth on my hand like a dog, and his teeth did not let go of my fingers until his throat was filled with blood''. This same ``authority'' tries to shoot the archpriest with a harquebus, and taking advantage of his power, drives out Awakum after ``robbing him blind" and not even giving him ``bread for the road''. When he refuses to bless the ``beardless'' son of boyar Sheremetyev, the latter orders that the obstinate archpriest be thrown into the Volga, and in the freezing water they ``tormented me to no end and pushed me under''. Crueler than all the other ``authorities'' is voyevoda Pashkov, ``stern man" who ``constantly burns and torments and beats people''. He mercilessly beats Awakum, administering three blows with an iron and 72 with a knout, after which the archpriest is thrown into the Bratsk dungeon, where he lies on his belly because his back is ``rotting''. Awakum is ``beaten out" of a flat-bottomed boat by Pashkov, who ridicules him and forces him to go on foot through the impenetrable wilds of the taiga. The merciless voyevoda works his subordinates to death. Awakum describes their living conditions in the following words: ``A small river, heavy rafts, harsh superintendents, large sticks, pronged cudgels, sharp knouts, cruel __PRINTERS_P_321_COMMENT__ 21---315 321 torture, fire and shock.''
In denouncing secular and ecclesiastical authorities, Awakum does not spare the tsar himself, though he regards tsarist rule as something unshakable. He first met the tsar in his youth, after he was driven from Lopatitsy by the local voyevoda and ``trudged'' to Moscow. Awakum's flight from the rebellious parish of Yurievets-Povolsky enrages the tsar, but he greets Awakum like an ``angel of God" upon his return from exile in Dauria. ``His majesty ordered that I be brought before him and kiss his hand and had kind words to say: 'Are you all right, Archpriest? It was God's will that we should meet again!'"
At the same time he orders boyar Streshnev to persuade Awakum to keep silent. But this runs counter to the character of the fiery archpriest, and he continues to speak out, petitioning the tsar to return to the ``ancient piety".
This provokes Alexei Mikhailovich to anger. Exiled to Pustozersk, Awakum begins to denounce the ``evil and unfortunate tsarlet" who continues to support the ``heretics''. Defying the tsar's authority, Awakum says that Alexei Mikhailovich will suffer the torments of hell. It is not surprising that when the tsar Fedor decided in 1682 to have Awakum executed, he decreed that the former archpriest be burned at the stake ``for greatly abusing the house of the tsars".
But while Awakum is merciless and irreconcilably opposed to his enemies, he is gentle, responsive, sensitive and solicitous toward his comrades-in-arms and his family. In his Life he speaks with great sympathy and love about Ivan Neronov, Daniil Loggin, Lazar, Epifany, Deacon Fedor, Fedor the Fool in Christ, ``Christ's martyrs" Feodosya Prokopyevna Morozova and Evdokia Prokopyevna Urusova.
Awakum is an exemplary husband and father. He loves his ``kids'' and is grief-stricken by their bitter lot in life and his parting with them (his wife and children were exiled to the Mezen). Awakum speaks with sorrow about his sons, Prokopy and Ivan, who, fearing death, accepted ``Nikonianism'' and are undergoing torment, ``buried alive in the earth" (in an underground dungeon) 322 along with their mother. He speaks lovingly of his daughter Agrafena, who, while living in Dauria, was forced to go up to the window of the voyevoda's daughter-in-law and plea for alms, which were sometimes very generous.
The most remarkable figure in the Life is Awakum's wife and companion Anastasia Markovna. She accompanies her husband into exile in Siberia without uttering a word of complaint: on the way she gives birth to and buries her children, rescues them during a storm, sells her only treasure, a Moscow caftan, for four bags of rye so that the family will not starve; then together with her husband she digs up roots, makes meal out of pine bark, and gathers up scraps of food left by wolves to save her children from starvation. She provides her husband with moral support in putting up with the adversities that constantly surround them. Only once does a cry of protest and despair rise to the surface from her tormented breast: ``How long, Archpriest, must we live with these tribulations?~" Instead of words of comfort, her husband declares, ``Till death itself!~" and summoning up her strength and willpower, Anastasia responds simply, ``All right, Petrovich, we'll keep plodding along.'' What beauty, nobility and selflessness lie behind the words of this simple response uttered by a Russian woman who is ready to share all the torments, anxiety and adversities of life with her beloved! When he first returns from exile, the archpriest is dismayed that ``nothing is getting done, mostly just talk'', and he wants to decide what he should do: preach the Word of God or go into hiding because his wife and children are tying him down. Seeing how sad he is, his wife says, ``I bless you along with the children: dare to preach the Word of God as before, and don't grieve on our account. Go ahead, go to the church, Petrovich, show up their heretical errors.''
In describing his everyday domestic life, Awakum makes a point of stressing the indissoluble bond between the church and one's way of life. He defends the patriarchal system maintained by the old rite. He is intent on demonstrating that the old rite is intimately tied up with life itself and its national foundations, and 323 that the new rite will lead to a crumbling of these foundations. His passionate defence of the ``ancient piety" transforms the Life into a documentary, polemical record of the epoch. It is no coincidence that Awakum begins his Life by setting forth the basic tenets of the ``old faith'', citing the authority of the Church Fathers and declaring resolutely: ``This do I, Archpriest Awakum, hold true, and confess, and hereby shall I live and die.'' His very life exemplified the truth of the tenets he set forth, promulgated and defended.
Avvakum's Life is the first autobiographical confession in the history of Russian literature. In it the author combines an account of his own misfortunes with a wrathful, satirical expose of the ruling class and an expository defence of the ``old faith".
The interweaving of personal and social motifs transforms the Life from an autobiographical narrative into a panoramic account of the social and political life of the times.
The Life has only a few things in common with traditional hagiographical literature: the introduction, appeals to the authority of the Church Fathers, miracles (though here they are quite different in character from those that occur in traditional vitae] and a number of hagiographical figurative devices---for example, likening destiny to a ship and life to a journey.
Interesting new traits make their appearance in Avvakum's Life. They reflect a growing awareness of the individual, thanks to which hagiobiography is transformed into autobiography, a spirited confession of the human heart, staunch and unbending. Another peculiar feature of the Life is the accurate description of everyday life and human sufferings, and also the presence of satire. The Life is also suffused with ethnographic descriptions of distant Siberia, its rivers, flora and fauna.
Traditional elements of the supernatural are 324 transformed by Awakum and acquire entirely realistic contours. Consider, for example, the ``miracle'' that takes place in the dungeon of the Androniev Monastery: for three days Awakum sits here in chains, racked by hunger, when suddenly a creature appears---an angel or a man---and offers him some cabbage soup which is ``very tasty, really good!~" Or consider the commander who tries to kill Awakum with his harquebus: it misfires three times, which the archpriest interprets as a manifestation of Divine Providence. And yet another miracle: God helps Awakum catch a lot of fish in a place where no one had been able to catch them before. In all these cases the miracles described by Awakum in no way run contrary to the natural course of events.
The innovativeness of the Life finds graphic manifestation in the language and style of the work. Awakum writes in his ``native Russian tongue''. He describes his love for the language in the opening section of the Life: ``And if things are said simply, for God's sake ... do not despise our popular speech, for I love my native Russian tongue, and I am not used to adorning my speech with philosophical verses.'' He also calls on the tsar to speak in his native tongue: ``After all, Mikhailovich, you're not a Greek, but a Russian, so speak in your native tongue, and don't disparage it in church, or at home or in proverbs.''
The Life takes the form of a skaz--- an unhurried first person narrative addressed to a specific person, the elder Epifany, but at the same time including in its range a far greater audience of fellow believers. But as V.V. Vinogradov has rightly noted, the skaz style of the Life is interwoven with the style of a sermon, and this accounts for the mixture of literary Church Slavic elements with colloquialisms and even dialectisms.^^1^^
Typical for Avvakum's style is the absence of any measured, epic narration. His Life consists of a number o f masterfully executed, accurate dramatic scenes consistently based on sharp conflicts of a social, _-_-_
^^1^^ V. V. Vinogradov, ``K izucheniyu stilya protopopa Awakuma, printsipov ego slovoupotrebleniya" (``On Archpriest Avvakum's Style and the Principles Governing His Word Usage''), TODRL, vol. 14, 1956.
325 religious or ethical nature. These dramatic scenes are joined together by lyrical and expository digressions. Here Avvakum grieves or complains or makes ironic comments about his opponents or about himself, or expresses fervent support for his comrades and mourns their fate.The Life is a story told by a masterful narrator; it is not confined by rules. The narrator often runs ahead of himself or goes back to' earlier episodes; he does not adhere to strict chronological sequence. Awakum makes use of proverbs and sayings and plays on words which sometimes conceal a subtle irony.
Awakum sets forth his aesthetic credo in the fourth ``talk'' on icon painting.^^1^^ He rejects the new school of painting founded by two outstanding seventeenth century artists, Simon Ushakov and losif Vladimirov, who set forth the theoretical foundations of the school in their aesthetic tracts. Awakum indignantly rejects the new style. He is disturbed by icons which are based on ``fleshly designs by heretics [Nikonians] who love fleshly plumpness and reject what is lofty''. He believes that icons should not be painted ``as though from life'', in a ``foreign, that is, German manner''. Foreigners, notes Avvakum, ``make the Mother of God look pregnant at the Annunciation, and Christ on the cross has chubby cheeks, a sweet little plump creature, and his legs look like the legs of a chair. O, poor Russia, whatever made you want to follow German ways and customs!~"
While theoretically rejecting ``life-likeness" in icon painting, Avvakum's works constantly reflect this quality. He presents abstract religious concepts and ideas in extremely concrete terms, giving them the real substance of everyday experience, which permits him to arrive at broad psychological, moral and philosophical conclusions.
Avvakum depicts the heavenly hierarchy in very real, earthly terms. He describes himself as a beggar _-_-_
^^1^^ A. N. Robinson, ``Ideologiya i vneshnost (Vzglyady Awakuma na izobrazitelnoye iskusstvo)" (``Ideology and Appearance: Avvakum's Views on Painting''), TODRL, vol. 22, 1966.
326 going about to rich households to gather spiritual food with which to feed his ``children'': ``I ask a rich man, Tsar Christ, to give me a slice of bread from the Gospels; I ask the Apostle Paul, a rich merchant, to give me some bread from his store; I receive bits of a sermon from the tradesman Chrysostom; I asked for quarter-loaves from two tradesmen, King David and Isaiah the Prophet; I gathered a bagful, and now I give it to you who reside in the home of my God.'' (Italics mine---Auth.)Holy Scripture as interpreted by Awakum acquires that everyday concreteness so typical for the author's style, combined with broad generalisations. In treating the Book of Genesis, for example, Awakum depicts the fall of Adam and Eve. What happened in paradise, says the archpriest, ``happens to this very day in weak-willed men: they treat each other to an undissolved potion, that is, green wine that has been filtered and other drinks and sweet brews. And afterwards they laugh at each other as they get drunk.'' Having committed the first sin, Adam is ashamed of sincerely acknowledging his guilt before God, his ``bad conscience" does not tell him to do so, and he ``smooths over his sin with perfidy and transfers it to other men''. Adam hastens to place the guilt on Eve, and Eve on the serpent. ``The wife takes after the husband; they are both revellers, and their children are not all the more answerable for they live helter-skelter,'' concluded Awakum.
The stylistic features of the Life and of certain other works by Awakum permit one to speak of the unique creative individuality of this most talented writer of the second half of the seventeenth century, whose works graphically reflect typical traits of this transitional period.
Avvakum's close ties with those democratic elements of the population which participated in the Old Believer movement accounts for the democratism and newness of his style. That style intrigued many nineteenth century writers. Turgenev, for example, while disapproving of Avvakum as a person, was enraptured by the ``living Muscovite style" of the archpriest, and remarked that ``he wrote in a language that every writer should study".
327At the beginning of the twentieth century certain decadent writers tried to extol the image of the innocent martyr and saw in him an expression of the essence of the national spirit, including an immeasurable love for suffering. Gorky came out against this viewpoint, noting the militant democratic nature of Awakum. ``The language and also the style of Archpriest Avvakum's letters and his Life represent an unsurpassed example of the fiery and passionate speech of a fighter, and in general there is a good deal to be learned from reading our ancient literature,'' he wrote.^^1^^ A. N.Tolstoy also rated the style of the Life very highly. In writing Peter I he made use of the living colloquial speech of Awakum in order to convey the historical flavour of the period.
One of the works in the Old Believer tradition which stands out is the Tale of the Life of Boyarina Morozova, written in the late seventies or early eighties of the seventeenth century. At first glance it appears to be written in the traditional hagiographic manner of the sixteenth century, with a bookish, rhetorical style clearly dominating. But in Boyarina Morozova there is no rhetorical introduction, no lament, no panegyrics and no posthumous miracles. The heroine herself does not perform any miracles in her lifetime, and the only proof of her sanctity is Melania's ``vision''. Boyarina Morozova is not so much hagiography as biography, revealing the courageous and steadfast character of a Russian woman standing up for her convictions. The tale stresses the moral beauty of Feodosya Prokopyevna Morozova who does not yield to persuasion or threats. She suffers every sort of torment---separation from her son, his death, her own imprisonment. She suffers ``a wrongful and useless death" in the Borovsk dungeon.
_-_-_~^^1^^ A. M. Gorky, Statyi o literature (Essays on Literature), Collected Works in thirty volumes, vol. 27, M., 1953, p. 166.
328The last days of Morozova's life are described in striking dramatic form. Tormented by hunger, she appeals to her guard:
``Have mercy, slave of Christ! I have grown weak from hunger and I long to eat. Have mercy, give me a little cake!~"
``But he said, 'No, my lady, I am afraid.'
``And the martyr said, 'At least a little bread.'
``And he said, 'I do not dare.'
``And again the martyr spoke: 'At least a few biscuits.'
``And he said, 'I do not dare.'
``And Feodosya said, 'If you do not dare, then bring me at least a little apple or a tiny cucumber.'
``And he said, 'I do not dare.'"
In the second half of the nineteenth century the artist V. I. Surikov and the poet A. A. Navrotsky dealt with Boyarina Morozova in their works.
Besides hagiographical works, Old Believer literature was also well represented in polemic epistles, tracts and various appeals to the democratically oriented reader. In order to make these works more comprehensible to the reader, the authors ``worked out their own special type of written vernacular, which Awakum called 'blather' contrast to bookish language''.^^1^^
__b_b_b__And so a new democratic literature arose and developed in the second half of the seventeenth century. Reflecting the artistic tastes of the urban population, this literature concentrated on purely secular themes. It boldly borrowed from the oral poetic culture of the people, its images, slots, genres and stylistic peculiarities.
The new democratic literature focused on the life of the ordinary city dweller, who was trying to organise his life as he saw fit. And although these attempts were not always crowned with success and the young man occasionally suffered defeat, it was nonetheless _-_-_
^^1^^ I. P. Eremin, ``Russkaya literatura i yazyk na rubezhe XVII -XVIII vv.'' (``Russian Literature and Language in the Late 17th and Early 18th Centuries''), in Literatura Dreimei Rusi (The Literature of Old Rus), M., 1966, p. 206.
__PRINTERS_P_330_COMMENT__ 22---315 329 characteristic for the literature of this transitional epoch to deal with issues of this sort.The most remarkable trend to emerge from the literature of this period was democratic, anti-feudal satire directed against the principal bastions of aristocracy and monarchy: the church and the court system.
This democratic literature provided the setting for the works of Archpriest Awakum, which reflected a growing self-awareness of the human personality and affirmed its unique individual value.
The democratic literature of the seventeenth century brought an end to the previous integral artistic method that characterised Russian literature from the eleventh to the sixteenth century. ``Life-likeness'' and the symbolism of folk poetry came to replace the artistic principles that had reigned earlier---Christian symbolism and etiquette.
The new democratic literature brought about essential changes in the system of genres of Old Russian literature: old genres were transformed and new ones appeared which initially had no clear contours. The ``motleyness'' of the genres was matched by the ``motleyness'' of the styles employed: bookish literary language existed side by side with colloquial speech, the language of the courts and administration, and the language of oral folk poetry.
1. O.A. Derzhavina, ``Perspektivy izucheniya perevodnoi novelly XVII v.'' (``Prospects for the Study of Translated Tales of the Seventeenth Century''), TODRL, vol. 14, 1962.
2. O.A. Derzhavina, ``Zadachi izucheniya perevodnoi povesti i dramaturgii XVII v.'' (``The Task of Studying Translated Tales and Dramatic Works of the Seventeenth Century''), TODRL, vol. 20,1964.
3. O.A. Derzhavina, Facetiae, M., 1962.
4. I.P. Eremin, ``Russkaya literatura i yazyk na rubezhe XVII-XVIII vv.'' (``Russian Literature and Language in the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries''), Literatura Drevnei Rust (The Literature of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966.
5. Zhitie protopopa Avvakuma, im samim napisannoe, i drugie ego sochineniya (The Life of Archpriest Awakum Written by Himself, and Other Works of His), M., 1966.
6. V.D. Kuzmina, Rytsarskiy roman na Rusi. Bova. Petr Zlatykh Klyuchei (Romances of Chivalry in Russia: Bova and Peter of 330 the Golden Keys), M., 1964.
7. A.N. Pypin, ``Ocherki literatumoi istorii starinnykh povestei i skazok russkikh" (``Essays on the Literary History of Old Russian Stories and Tales''), in Uchonye zapiski vtorogo otdeleniya imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, Book IV, St. Petersburg, 1858.
8. A.N. Robinson, Zhizneopisaniya Avvakuma i Epifaniya. Issledovaniya i teksty (The Lives of Awakum and Epifany: Texts and Commentary), M., 1963.
9. A.N. Robinson, Borba idei v russkoi literature XVII veka (The Battle of Ideas in Seventeenth Century Russian Literature), M., 1974.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENTIn sharp opposition to the democratic literature of the townspeople in the second half of the seventeenth century stands the literature of the court and the aristocracy, which reflected the interests and aesthetic tastes of the upper strata of Russian society. It is here that the literary school of the Baroque was established and developed.
The problem of the Baroque, which arose comparatively recently in literary scholarship, has provoked a lively polemic, in the course of which some concrete methods for resolving this problem have been proposed.
The term itself was proposed by eighteenth century classicists to designate a type of vulgar, tasteless, ``barbaric'' art; initially it was used only in connection with architecture and the graphic arts. The term ``Baroque'' was introduced into literary scholarship in 1888 by Heinrich Wolfflin in his study Renaissance und Barock.^^1^^ He made the first attempts to define the _-_-_
^^1^^ Heinrich Wolfflin, Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Das Problem der Stilentwicklung in derneueren Kunst, Munich, 1918.
__PRINTERS_P_331_COMMENT__ 22* 331 features of the Baroque, citing such things as its picturesque quality, depth and openness of form, and other such features of a purely formal nature. The contemporary French scholar Jean Rousset, in a work entitled La literature de I'age baroque en France (Paris, 1954) reduced the Baroque in literature to the expression of two characteristic motifs: inconstancy and decorativeness. L.V. Pumpyansky was the first to apply the term to Russian literature.^^1^^In his Die slawische Barockwelt^^2^^ the Hungarian scholar A. Angyal gave a fuller treatment of the Baroque. His views were developed by A. A. Morozov, who was inclined to treat all the literature of the latter half of the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries> as part of the Baroque. He saw in this movement and expression of the national originality of Russian literature.^^3^^ Morozov's position provoked strong criticism on the part of P. N. Berkov, D. S. Likhachev, and the Czech scholar S. Mathauserova.
Berkov categorically denied the existence of a Russian Baroque and spoke of the necessity of viewing Russian syllabic poetry and drama of the late seventeenth century as manifestations of a new school of classicism.^^4^^ Mathauserova came to the conclusion that there were two Baroque schools present in Russian literature _-_-_
^^1^^ L. V. Pumpyansky, ``Trediakovsky i nemetskaya shkola razuma" (``Trediakovsky and the German School of Thought''), in Zapadny sbornik 1, 1937.
^^2^^ A. Angyal, Die slawische Barockwelt, Leipzig, 1961.
~^^3^^ A. A. Morozov, ``Problema barokko v russkoi literature XVII-nachala XVIII v.'' (``The Problem of the Baroque in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Century Russian Literature''), Russkaya literature, No. 3, 1962; ``Natsionalnoe svoeobrazie i problema stilei (k izucheniyu drevnerusskoi literatury i literatury XVIII v.)" (``National Peculiarities and the Problem of Style in Old Russian Literature and the Literature of the Eighteenth Century''), Russkaya literature, No. 3, 1967; ``Problemy evropeiskogo barokko" (``Problems of the Baroque in Europe''), Voprosy literatury, No. 2,1969.
~^^4^^ See IV Mezhdunarodny syezd slavistov: sbornik otvetov na voprosy po literaturovedeniyu (The Fourth International Congress of Slavists: Answers to Questions on Literary Criticism), M., 1958, pp. 83--84.
332 of the late seventeenth century: a national Russian school and a Polish-Ukrainian school.~^^1^^D. S. Likhachev has suggested that one should speak only of the existence of the Russian Baroque, which initially was borrowed from Polish-Ukrainian literature and later acquired its own specific features.~^^2^^
In the early 1960's I.P. Eremin gave a thorough and detailed analysis of Russian Baroque features in the poetry of Simeon Polotsky. The observations and conclusions of this scholar do much to elucidate this problem.^^3^^
As Likhachev has noted, since there was no Renaissance in Russia, the Russian Baroque assumed certain of its functions and served to secularise literature and culture. The fundamental differences between the Russian and Western European Baroque should be viewed in terms of this significant factor. Thus Western European Baroque art as a whole was tragic in nature and represented a return to medieval forms of artistic depiction; the Russian Baroque, on the other hand, is life-- affirming, and its medieval symbolism and didacticism are conjoined with rationalism. The Russian Baroque cultivated fantastical forms in the area of syllabic verse (poems in the form of stars and hearts, for example) and a refined, bookish, ``poetic'' style of speech in contrast to the vernacular, colloquial language and style of _-_-_
^^1^^ Svetla Mathauserova, ``Baroko v ruske literature XVII stoleti" (``The Baroque in Seventeenth Century Russian Literature''), in deskoslovenske pfedvdsky pro VI miezinarodni sjezd slavistu (Czechoslovak Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists), Prague, 1968.
^^2^^ D. S. Likhachev, Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury (The Poetics of Old Russian Literature), L., 1971; Razvitie russkoi literatury X-XVII vekov (The Development of Russian Literature from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Century), L., 1973; `` Natsionalnoe edinoobrazie i natsionalnoe mnogoobrazie" (``National Uniformity and National Diversity''), Russkaya literatura, No. 1, 1968; ``Barokko i ego russky variant XVII veka" (``The Baroque and Its Seventeenth Century Russian Variant''), Russkaya literaturcLNo. 2, 1969.
^^3^^ I. P. Eremin, ``Poetichesky stil Simeona Polotskogo; russkaya literatura i eye yazyk na rubezhe XVII-XVIII vv.'' (``The Poetic Style of Simeon Polotsky; Russian Literature and Its Language in the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries''), in Literatura Drevnei Rusi (The Literature of Old Rus), M.-- L., 1966.
333 democratic literature.^^1^^ The Baroque movement should be viewed as a sort of link between medieval literature and classicism.The Russian Baroque was most clearly manifest in the syllabic poetry of the second half of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century, and also in the court and school drama of this period.
One of the most important occurrences in the history of seventeenth century Russian literature was the appearance and development of learned poetry. Questions concerning its origins and the reasons for its rise continue to interest scholars. Already in the nineteenth century two opposing viewpoints took hold. A. Sobolevsky believed that syllabic virshi (from the Latin versus) arose under the influence of Ukrainian and Polish poetry.^^2^^ L. Maikov expressed an opposing point of view. He asserted that ``the first attempts at rhymed verse arose, so to speak, by themselves; in any case they were not imitations of Western European rhymed syllabic verse.~"^^3^^ Important contributions to the study of the initial stage of development of Russian poetry have been made by such Soviet scholars as A. V. _-_-_
^^1^^ See N. I. Prokofyev, ``O nekotorykh gnoseologicheskikh osobennostyakh literatury russkogo barokko" (``On Certain Epistemological Features of the Literature of the Russian Baroque''), in Problemy zhanra i stilya v russkoi literature: sbornik trudov (Selected Essays on Problems of Genre and Style in Russian Literature), Russian Literature Department of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, M., 1973.
^^2^^ A. I. Sobolevsky, ``Iz istorii russkoi literatury XVII veka" and ``K istorii russkikh stikhov" (``On the History of Seventeenth Century Russian Literature" and ``On the History of Russian Verse''), Bibliograf, Nos. 3-4, 7-8, 1891.
^^3^^ L. N. Maikov, ``O nachale russkikh virsh" (``On the Origins of Russian Rhymed Syllabic Verse''), Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya, No. 6, 1891; and ``K istorii o nachale russkikh virsh" (``Toward a History of the Origins of Russian Rhymed Syllabic Verse''), Bibliograf, No. 9-10, 1891.
334 Pozdneyev, L. M. Timofeyev and A. M. Panchencko.^^1^^Learned poetry arose in the first third of the seventeenth century in connection with the growing role of the cities in the cultural life of the country, the desire of progressive members of Russian society to assimilate European culture, and also, according to A. M. Panchenko, the decline of folklore. Russian `` phraseological" verse (rechevoi stikh) is based on the declamatory verse of the skomorokhs (wandering minstrels) and on models of Ukrainian and Polish syllabic poetry.
The first attempts to write literary verse occurred during the period of Polish intervention in Russia, when the emotional, publicistic element was gaining a stronger foothold in literature. We find many instances of rhymed narrative in Avraamy Palitsyn's Tale. The Chronicle Book ascribed'to Katyrev of Rostov ends with rhymed virshi. As L. I. Timofeyev remarks, in these works the verse is wholly based on the expressive means of speech without resorting to any elements of musicality. But the phraseological structure of the verse made it possible to convey something of man's inner state, his individual experiences. There was no rhythmic ordering here; the number of syllables varied from line to line without any feeling for alternation, and the rhymes employed were for the most part verbal, masculine, feminine, dactylic and hyperdactylic. This so-called ``pre-syllabic'' verse began to acquire greater and greater popularity in connection with the general process of differentiation of the human personality.
Already during the first third of the seventeenth _-_-_
^^1^^ See A. V. Pozdneyev, ``Rukopisnye pesenniki XVII-XVIII vekov" (``Manuscript Songbooks of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries'^, Transactions of the Moscow State Correspondence Pedagogical Institute, vol. 1, 1958; L. I. Thnofeyev, Ocherki teorii i istorii russkogo stikha (Essays on the Theory and History of Russian Verse), M., 1958; A. M. Panchenko, `` Perspektivy issledovaniya istorii drevnerusskogo stikhotvorstva" (`` Prospects for the Study of Old Russian Poetry''), TODRL, vol. 20, 1964; ``Knizhnaya poeziya Drevnei Rusi" (``Learned Poetry of Old Rus''), in Istoriya russkoi poezii v 2-kh tomakh (History of Russian Poetry in Two Volumes), vol. 1, 1968; Russkaya stikhotvornaya kultura XVII veka (Russian Verse Culture of the Seventeenth Century), L., 1973.
335 century syllabic verse began to appear alongside presyllabic verse. They gained a firm hold primarily in the epistolary genre. In 1622, for example, Prince S. I. Shakhovskoi concluded his ``Epistle to a Certain Friend, Being of Great Value, on the Holy Scriptures" with 36 rhymed lines of varying syllabic length.Priest Ivan Nasedka ended his polemic tract ``Exposition on Luther" with syllabic verses. Prince I. A. Khvorostinin wrote his ``Many Reproaches" in verse form. At the end of his life he wrote a thousandline poetic tract polemicising with heretics entitled ``A Foreword Set Forth in Two-Line Concordance in Acrostic Form.''
In the first half of the seventeenth century there appeared epistolary anthologies written in syllabic verse. One such anthology includes poems by editors of the Court Printers that vary widely in their thematics.^^1^^ Literary syllabic songs were written in the early 1650's by poets of the Nikonian school. One of those who stands out is Herman, who displayed exceptional virtuosity in writing acrostics which could be read from left to right, right to left, top to bottom and vice versa. Syllabic verse began to be used in the depiction of coats-of-arms, in the Royal List of Ranks of 1672, in icon inscriptions and in lubki.
Simeon Polotsky and his disciples Silvestr Medvedev and Karion Istomin played an important role in the development of syllabic poetry.
A Byelorussian by nationality, Simeon Polotsky received a well-rounded liberal education in the KievMogilyansky Academy. In 1656 he took monastic vows and became a teacher at the ``fraternal school" in his home town of Polotsk. In 1661 the town was temporarily occupied by Polish troops. Polotsky moved to Moscow in 1664. Here he taught Latin to scribes of _-_-_
~^^1^^ See L. S. Sheptayev, ``Stikhi spravshchika Sawatiya" (``The Verses of Editor Sawaty''), TODRL, vol. 21, 1965.
336 the Privy Section, for which a special school was established in the Spassky Monastery. In 1667 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich entrusted Polotsky with the task of educating his children.Polotsky participated actively in the struggle against the Old Believers. At the church council of 1666 he presented a theological tract entitled ``The Governing Staff''. On three different occasions he was requested by the tsar to visit and admonish Awakum.
Simeon Polotsky was committed to the spread of learning. He actively participated in the disputes between adherents of the Greek and Latin schools, taking the side of the latter since the defenders of the Greek system of education sought to place learning under the control of the church. Polotsky believed that in the development of education the schools should play the major role, and he appealed to the tsar to build schools and to ``court'' teachers. He worked out a project for the establishment of Russia's first institute of higher learning, an academy. Not long before his death he wrote a tentative charter for such an academy. In it he made provisions for the study of a broad range of sciences, both civic and religious.
Polotsky placed great store in the development of printing. ``Nothing can bring greater honour than printing,'' he said. At his initiative, and after his personal petition to Tsar Fedor Alekseyevich, a ``Superior'' printing press was opened in the Kremlin in 1678.
One of Simeon Polotsky's favourite activities was ``rhyme-making'', i.e., the writing of poetry. Many literary historians have been attracted by his works.^^1^^
Polotsky's first works were written during his tenure at the Kiev-Mogilyansky Academy; he continued to write poetry during his stay in Polotsk, but his art _-_-_
~^^1^^ See L. N. Maikov, Ocherki po istorii russkoi literatury XVII i XVIII stoletii (Essays on Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Russian Literature), St. Petersburg, 1889; I. P. Eremin, ``Simeon Polotsky---poet i dramaturg" (``Simeon Polotsky---Poet and Dramatist''), in Simeon Polotsky, Izbrannye sochineniya (Collected Works), M.-L., 1953; I. P. Eremin, ``Poetichesky stil Simeona Polotskogo" (``Simeon Polotsky's Poetic Style'', in Literatura Drevnei Rust (The Literature of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966.
337 reached its apex during his Moscow period.Polotsky's syllabic verse was written under the direct influence of Ukrainian and Polish verse. But the possibility of writing in Russian using eleven and thirteen syllable lines with obligatory paired feminine rhymes was the result of a long period of development of the Russian literary language's expressive means. Polotsky's syllabic verse was closely connected with the refined, bookish ``Slavonic language" which he consciously used in opposition to colloquial Russian.
Polotsky did not look upon his poetic works as a form of amusement or diversion. He ascribed great educational significance to them. The poet's high calling, as Polotsky saw it, lay in his ability to attract the ``hearts and ears" of men. The powerful weapon of poetry should be used to spread enlightenment, high culture and true moral concepts. Moreover virshi should serve as a model for all those writing in ``the Slavonic literary language".
Simeon Polotsky was Russia's first court poet, the creator of solemn panegyric verses which were the prototype of the panegyric ode.
At the centre of these panegyric verses stands the figure of the ideal enlightened monarch. He is the personification and symbol of the Russian state, the living embodiment of its political power and glory. In The Russian Eagle, (1667) for example, the poet lists all the positive qualities which a tsar should possess: he should dedicate his life to the good of the state and of his subjects, he should be concerned about their ``civic wants" and their education; he is stern and merciful, and at the same time fulfils all the provisions of the law.
Polotsky's panegyric verses are like a ``complex verbal architectural construct, a verbal pageant''.^^1^^ The poet attempts to make his verse more graphic by means of painting, graphics and architecture.
As Eremin has remarked in his studies of Polotsky, the poet selected primarily rare things, ``curiosities'', for his verses, but viewed them only as ``signs'', as ``hyeroglyphs'' of the truth. He constantly translates _-_-_
^^1^^ I. P. Eremin, Literatura Drevnei Rusi, p. 214.
338 concrete images into the language of abstract concepts, of logical abstractions. Polotsky's chimerical metaphors, similes and precious allegories are all fashioned on this basis.In his panegyric verses Polotsky introduces the names of gods and heroes of antiquity: ``golden Phoebus'', ``Zeus' bosom'', ``the Eagle-Zeus''. These figures exist side by side with those from Christian mythology and have a purely poetic role to play as instruments of hyperbole. Striving for greater expressiveness, Polotsky writes ``concrete verse" in the form of hearts, stars and labyrinths.
The peculiar features of Polotsky's style were a typical manifestation of the Baroque in literature. He collected all his panegyric verses (800 poems in all, dealing with various aspects of court life) in a collection which he called Rhymologian (1679--1680).
Besides panegyric verses Polotsky wrote poems on the most varied themes. In The Multi-Coloured Garden (1677--1678) he brought together 2,957 verses written in various genres (``likenesses'', ``images'', ``sayings'', ``discourses'', ``epitaphs'', ``image signings'', ``tales'', ``exposes'' etc.). The collection is put together like an encyclopedic poetic reference work: the verses are arranged according to topics in alphabetical order. All of them, whether secular or religious, are moralistic and didactic in nature. The poet regards himself as the guardian and preserver of the loftiest religious and moral values and tries to inculcate these values in his readers.
In his verses Polotsky poses moral questions, attempting to create abstract, generalised images .of maidenhood (``The Maiden''), widows (``Widowhood'') and so on, and raising questions concerning marriage, virtue, honour, and the like. At the same time the poet also deals with social and political issues. In the poem ``Citizenship'', for example, he declares that every man, including rulers, should strictly observe the law. Work is the foundation of society, and man's primary responsibility is to work for the good of society. Polotsky was the first to deal with a theme that came to occupy a prominent place in Russian classicism: the ideal, enlightened monarch in contrast to the cruel, self-willed, 339 unmerciful and unjust tyrant.
In the poem ``Virtue'' Polotsky raises the philosophical question of the meaning of life. True bUss for the poet lies not in the pursuit of fame, rank and honour, but in the opportunity to engage in the activities one loves.
A significant portion of Polotsky's verse is devoted to satirical exposes. The majority of his satirical works are of a moral, abstract nature. The poem ``The Ignoramus'', for example, criticises ignorance in general; ``Sorcery'' singles out old ``crones'' and ``wizards'' for criticism.
Polotsky's two best satirical works are ``Merchants'' and ``Monk''. In the former the poet lists the eight mortal ``sins of the merchant's rank''. These sins---deceit, falsehood, false oaths, theft, extortion---graphically reflect the real social practices of the merchant class. The poem, however, lacks any concrete satirical embodiment of the vices described. The poet merely lists the sins in order to conclude with words of admonition urging the ``cruel sons of darkness to give up their ways of darkness" that they might escape the torments of hell.
The satire ``Monk'' is built on the opposition between the ideal and reality. At first the poet describes what a real monk should be like, and then launches into satire, giving a vivid picture of the drunkenness, gluttony and depravity of monks:
Not only laymen work to fill their bellies,
But monks too eat and drink their fill.
Having chosen to lead a life of fasting
They strive thereto that they might eat and drink.From drinking too much wine they use foul language,
They ba'k, they slander, they put honourable men
to shame;
Ravenous wolves often wear sheep's clothing,
They work to fill their bellies, and perish in spirit.
Polotsky hastens to point out that his satire is not aimed at all monks, only the ``unseemly'' ones, whom 340 he satirises ``with a lament''. The satire has a moral and didactic purpose: to help improve men's moral standards. In conclusion the poet addressed the ``unseemly'' monks, calling on them to desist from their ``evil ways".
What distinguishes Polotsky's satire from the democratic satirical tale is the moralistic didactic tone, the desire to do away with society's vices and by the same token to strengthen its foundations. In the tales the satire is keener and more concrete.
Another of Polotsky's poetic works which should be mentioned is his versification of the Psalms in 1678. It was published in 1680 and set to music by choirmaster Vasily Titov, who laid the foundations for choral chamber music. The rhymed Psalter was one of Polotsky's most popular works.
Thus the setting for Polotsky's creative activities was the panegyric and didactic poetry of the Baroque with its abstractions and polysemantic symbolism, allegory, contrasts and hyperboles and didactic moral tone. Polotsky's language is exclusively literary, underscoring the poetry's isolation from the prose of life.
Polotsky made extensive use of rhetorical questions, exclamations and inversions. Closely bound up with the traditions of the archaic literary language, Polotsky's verses paved the way for the development of classicist poetry.
The poets Silvestr Medvedev and Karion Istomin were Simeon Polotsky's disciples and followers. Medvedev, a ``man of great intelligence and learned wit'', as he was characterised by his contemporaries, was an editor of the Court Publishers. He began to publish his poetry only after the death of his mentor Simeon Polotsky. He penned the ``Epitaph'' to Simeon Polotsky, panegyric verses to Tsar Fedor Alekseyevich (``Nuptial Greetings" and ``Lament and Consolation'', the latter on the death of the tsar) and Tsarevna Sofia (``Inscription to a Portrait of Tsarevna Sofia''), whom the poet 341 supported, as a result of which he was executed on the orders of Peter I.
As a poet Medvedev borrowed a good deal from the panegyric verses of his mentor, but in contrast to Simeon Polotsky he avoided allegorical and mythological images.
The more talented and productive of Polotsky's two disciples was Karion Istomin. He began writing poetry in 1681, when he penned panegyric verses to Tsarevna Sofia. In extolling this ``most pure and goodly maiden" the poet speaks of the importance of wisdom in governing the state and in people's personal lives.
Like Polotsky, Istomin used poetry as a tool of enlightenment. In 1682 he dedicated a collection of verse (16 poems in all) to Tsarevna Sofia, asking her to establish a school in Moscow where the ``free'' sciences---historical, pedagogical and didactical---could be taught. The collection Admonition (Vrazumlenie) (1683) contained words of admonition addressed to the eleven-year-old Peter.
Istomin's book Polis, which describes twelve sciences, is written in verse. He often wrote acrostic poems, and also used verse for pedagogical purposes: in 1694 he composed a Small ABC and two years later a Large ABC for teaching the tsarevich Aleksei Petrovich; for each letter he wrote a short didactic poem.
Thanks to the activities of Simeon Polotsky and his closest pupils syllabic verse became a widespread phenomenon in literature. A new poetic genre, the lyric, made its appearance, clearly testifying to the growing differentiation in the human personality. The principles of syllabic versification worked out in the second half of the seventeenth century were further developed in the works of syllabist poets of the early eighteenth century, Petr Buslayev and Feofan Prokopovich.
But syllabic verse did not totally supplant `` pre-syllabic" verse, which in fact outlived it and was 342 canonised in the rayoshnik--- rhymed, syllabically mixed verse that appeared later in folk poetry. Syllabic verse, on the other hand, was replaced by syllabo-tonic or syllabic-accentual verse as elaborated by V. K. Trediakovsky and M. V. Lomonosov.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ THE BEGINNINGSThe first court theatre appeared in Russia in the last third of the seventeenth century, and its existence served as an impetus for the establishment and development of a new literary genre: drama.
The initiative for the creation of the court theatre belonged to Artemon Matveyev, head of the Diplomacy Office. This outstanding statesman was one of the best educated men of the times and a fervent propagandist of secular literature and art.
Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich had a weakness for entertainments. Therefore he approved of Matveyev's initiative, and in the spring of 1672 active preparations began for the establishment of the first theatre.
The tsar decided to celebrate the birth of his son (his young wife Natalya Kirillovna gave birth to Peter on May 31, 1672) with a new ``entertainment'' previously unknown in Russia. The loft of Boyar Miloslavsky's mansion was adapted for use by the new theatre in May 1672, and Matveyev began to negotiate with Johann Gottfried Gregori, pastor of Moscow's German suburb, suggesting that the latter select a troupe of actors and begin training them. On June 4 the tsar issued an ukase: ``...the foreigner Magister Johann Gottfried is to make a comedy, and the comedy is to be acted on the basis of the Biblical book of Esther, and for this play a chamber is to be built anew.'' This ``chamber for comedy'', the first theatre, began to be erected immediately in the village of Preobrazhenskoye, a Moscow suburb where the tsar had a residence.
The first troupe of actors consisting of sixty men, was chosen from among ``foreigners of different ranks in the trade and service professions''. All the work of 343 adapting the Biblical plot for the stage, directing and training the actors fell on Gregori, and it was possibly at his behest that Matveyev instructed Lieutenant Nikolai von Staden, who was going on a trip to Courland and Sweden, to ``talk'' two ``learned and goodly trumpeters, two men capable of organising any comedies'', into coming to Moscow to serve the tsar. Staden's mission was not crowned with success; he managed to bring back only a few musicians. Afterwards Gregori invited two residents of the German suburb, Jacob Hiwner and Johann Paltzer, to work as his assistants.
Gregori was not only the first director, but also the first playwright. He penned the first play produced in the court theatre: the Comedy of Artaxerxes. This fact has been convincingly demonstrated by I. M. Kudryavtsev, who discovered the play, which was assumed to be lost; in a Vologda archive.^^1^^ Simultaneously a text of the play was discovered in Lyons by the French Slavist Andre Mazon.
All of the work involved in organising the theatre was carried out under the supervision of Matveyev. Funds were liberally spent on this new ``entertainment''. The interior of the ``comedy chamber" was lavishly decorated; costly costumes were made for the actors; the best painters worked on the sets.
The premier of the first production took place on October 17, 1672. The tsar and his closest boyar advisors were present. The tsaritsa and the ladies of the court sat in a special box behind latticed windows. The production lasted ten hours, and the tsar sat through it with satisfaction. At the end, however, the spectators headed for the public baths to ``wash away the sin" of their participation in such a shameful event.
In the winter of 1673 the theatre continues to work at a new location above the Chemist's Chamber of the Kremlin. Twenty-six young Russians, residents of the Novomeshchansky suburb, joined the troupe.
_-_-_^^1^^ See Artakserksovo deistvo. Pervaya pyesa russkogo teatra XVIJv. (The Comedy of Artaxerxes: the First Russian Play of the Seventeenth Century). Edited and with a commentary by I. M. Kudryavtsev, M.-L., 1957.
344After Gregori's death in 1675 Jacob Hiwner took over the post of director, and then Stepan Chizhinsky. When tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich died the following year, however, the court theatre ceased to exist.
The repertoire of the court theatre was fairly extensive. The most frequent productions were adaptions of Biblical stories: The Comedy of Artaxerxes (from Esther), Judith (from the Book of Judith), The Sad Comedy of Adam and Eve (from Genesis), A Small Fresh Comedy About Joseph, The Comedy of Goliath Slain by David, The Comedy of Tobias the Younger. One of the more popular historical plays was the TemirAksak Play about Tamburlaine and Biaset. The theatre's repertoire also included a play with a mythological plot: The Comedy of Bacchus and Venus.
The ``comedies'' (at the time the term ``comedy'' was used to designate any play) were divided up into genres; there were ``mournful'' or ``sad'' comedies (with a tragic denouement), ``fresh'' comedies (affording satisfaction, with a happy denouement) and ``amusing'' or ``happy'' comedies.
In borrowing plots from the Bible or from history, playwright-directors tried to make them as entertaining as possible. To this end they made use of lavish sets and costumes, melodramatic acting, and naturalistic stage effects (for example, a murder scene with ``rivers of blood" was acted by supplying a balloon filled with cow's blood for the actor to pierce).
Another feature of the first experiments in drama was the close interweaving of the tragic and the comic. Tragic heroes and comic fools played side by side, as were highly melodramatic and comical farcical scenes.
The action developed slowly since the plays were __PRINTERS_P_345_COMMENT__ 23---315 345 more inclined to epic narration than to scenic, dramatic works. They invariably ended with the triumph of religious and moral good over evil.
The heroes were in general tsars, commanders and Biblical characters, which corresponded to the aristocratic spirit of the court theatre.
In certain ``comedies'' the spectator clearly felt some connection between what was being depicted on stage and the contemporary life of the court. For example, the Comedy of Artaxerxes praises the wise, just and sensitive King Artaxerxes and his second wife, the beautiful Esther. This flattered tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich's pride, and Artaxerxes' selection of a new wife reminded him of his marriage to Natalya Naryshkina.
The play was provided with a preface which contained outright panegyrics to the tsar and revealed the basic idea of the play: ``how pride is crushed and humility receives her crown".
All these features may be traced in the Comedy of Judith, based on a Biblical story. It glorifies the heroic, selfless exploits of the beautiful Judith, who captivates the Assyrian commander Holofernes, cuts off his head and thereby saves her native city of Bethulia from the enemy.
The play consists of seven acts and 29 scenes. 63 dramatic personae are required. Judith appears only in the fourth act. The lofty pathos of the archaic literary language characterises the heroic figures of Judith and Holofernes.
But accompanying the lofty pathos of these tragic personae are the ``fools'': Judith's servant-girl Abra and the Assyrian soldier Susakim. They are overwhelmed by base feelings: cowardice and fear for their lives. In the play the comic quality of their position is revealed by means of farcical devices and the deliberately lowbrow, colloquial character of their speech.
The Comedy of Judith is provided with a preface which underscores the political overtones of the play. The triumph of Judith and the children of Israel over the Assyrians and their commander Holofernes symbolises the future triumph of the Russian tsar over his enemies, the ``godless Turks".
346The court theatre of the seventeenth century played an important role in the development of Russian theatre and drama. Its achievements and discoveries were put to good use in the court theatre of Peter the Great at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The appearance of the court theatre facilitated the rise and development of ``school'' theatre and drama (shkolny teatr) whose founder was Simeon Polotsky.
The genre of school drama was well known to pupils of the Kiev-Mogilyansky Academy, where it was put to pedagogical use. Simeon Polotsky also wrote school plays for educational purposes. His King Nebuchadnezzar and Comedy of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (1673--1675) were designed to edify pupils of the graduating classes.^^1^^
Based on Christ's parable in the Gospels, the Comedy of the Parable of the Prodigal Son consists of a prologue, six acts and an epilogue. The prologue represents a sort of theoretical declaration demonstrating that the visual perception of material is superior to verbal perception:
The word is not so well retained in the memory
As that-which appears in actuality.
Polotsky argues that gay interludes must be introduced ``for the delight" of the spectator so he will not tire of the serious content of the play. He also insists on _-_-_
^^1^^ The latest research in Simeon Polotsky's plays demonstrates that they lay on the border between court and school theatre of the seventeenth century. See O. Derzhavina, ``Russky teatr 70--80kh godov XVII v. i nachala XVIII v.'' (``Russian Theatre from^lGTO to 1700 and at the Beginning of the Eighteenth Century''), in Rannyaya russkaya dramaturgiya (XVII-pervaya polovina XVIII v.) (Early Russian Drama: the Seventeenth and First Half of the Eighteenth Century), vol. 1, M., 1972.
__PRINTERS_P_347_COMMENT__ 23* 347 the lofty moral value of theatrical productions:The parable can be of great benefit
If only you are pleased to listen attentively.
The basic conflict of the play reflects a situation well known to us from the secular tales: the clash between two world views, two differing attitudes to life. On the one hand there is the father and the elder son, who is prepared to ``carefully heed his father's will" and live ``to the end of his life in obedience'', and there is the prodigal son, who wants to leave his father's house and be free of his father's tutelage in order to ``see the wide world" and live freely, as he pleases.
The conflict is resolved in favour of the father's morality. After squandering his wealth in distant lands, the prodigal son is forced to work as a swineherd, and in order to forestall utter ruin he returns to his father's house and acknowledges his guilt. Vice is punished and virtue triumphs. The didactic purpose of the play is revealed in the epilogue:
The young should follow the example of their elders, They should not place their hope in their young minds; Elders should rightly admonish the young And leave nothing to the will of the young.
The play vividly reflected the desire of the younger generation to assimilate European forms of culture; at the same time it demonstrated that part of this younger generation was assimilating these new forms of culture in a purely external fashion.
Simeon Polotsky tried to raise drama to a vivid, didactic, abstract level. The personae do not possess concrete individual traits or even names: the father, the elder brother who is obedient and the willful young prodigal all represent abstract collective images. The play is written in syllabic verse, which permits the author to formulate clear didactic sentences, which he places in the mouths of his positive heroes. All this lends the play an abstract, moralistic tone.
In school plays the number of dramatic personae is limited, the action develops in strict logical sequence, the characters are either wholly positive or negative and 348 there are no allegorical figures. Each act ends with singing by a choir and a theatrical interlude, which, as we have noted, was designed to divert the audience and introduce some comic relief into the generally serious tone of the play.
None of the interludes written by Polotsky himself have been preserved, but we can judge what they were like by examining those that have come down to us. They are generally funny, comical scenes dealing with aspects of everyday life. They depict ordinary people and ridicule stupidity, dullness, ignorance, drunkenness and so on. In reflecting the more comical sides of everyday life these interludes served as the foundation for the further development of comedy as such.
School drama stands at the threshold of classical drama. The logical sequence of events, the strictly positive and negative heroes, the didacticism, the logically abstracted depiction of real events---all these ``classical'' elements can be traced back to the tradition of school theatre.
At the beginning of the eighteenth century Feofan Prokopovich continued to work with school theatre, transforming it into an instrument of political satire.
1. P. N. Berkov (ed), Virshi. Sillabicheskaya poeziya XVII-XVIII vekov (Virshi; Syllabic Poetry of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries), M., 1935.
2. A. N. Panchenko, Russkaya stikhotvornaya kultura XVII veka (Russian Verse Culture of the Seventeenth Century),I,., 1973.
3. A. N. Robinson, Borba idei v russkoi literature XVII veka (The Battle of Ideas in Seventeenth Century Russian Literature), M., 1974.
4. Rannyaya russkaya dramaturgiya (XVII---pervaya polovina XVIII v.). Pervye pyesy russkogo teatra (Early Russian Drama. The Seventeenth and First Half of the Eighteenth Century: the First Plays of the Russian Theatre), M., 1972.
5.Rannyaya russkaya dramaturgiya (XVII---pervaya polovina XVIII v.). Russkaya dramaturgiya poslednei chetverti XVII i nachala XVIII veka (Early Russian Drama. The Seventeenth and First Half of the Eighteenth Century: Russian Drama of the Last Quarter of the Seventeenth Century and the Beginning of the Eighteenth Century), M., 1972.
6. Simeon Polotsky, Izbrannye sochineniya (Selected Works), ed., with introduction and commentary, by I. P. Eremin, M.-L., 1953.
[349] ~ [350] __ALPHA_LVL1__ Conclusion
[351]
~
[352]
In the course of its seven hundred years of development Russian literature has consistently and faithfully reflected the fundamental changes which have taken place in our society. For a prolonged period literary thought was inextricably bound up with a religious and historical form of consciousness, but with the development and growth of national and class consciousness it gradually began to free itself from bondage to the church.
Beginning with monumental historicism, Russian literature worked out specific, clearcut ideals of spiritual beauty, the beauty of men who devoted themselves wholeheartedly to the common good, the good of the Russian land and the Russian state. Here we find the ideals of Christian zealot, staunch in spirit; here are valiant, courageous rulers, ``goodly sufferers for the Russian land''. To a certain degree these literary personalities filled out the popular ideal of man which took shape in epic oral poetry. D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak expressed very well the interplay of these two ideals. In a letter to Ya. L. Barskov dated April 20, 1986, he wrote, ``It seems to me that the Tiogatyrs' serve as a fine complement to the 'saints'. Both of them represent [353] their native land, behind them lies the same Old Russia which they guarded. The dominant feature of the bogatyrs is their physical strength: with their broad chests they defend their homeland. Therein lies the goodness of the 'bogatyr outpost' positioned on the battle line against the historical wandering despolers.... The 'saints' display another side of Russian history that is still more important; they represent the moral bulwark and holy of holies of the populous future nation. These chosen few foresaw the history of a great nation....''^^1^^
The primary concern of literature was the historical life of Russia and the state building. That is why epic historical subjects and genres are assigned a leading role.
Profound historicism accounts for the ties between Old Russian literature and the heroic folk epic; it also determined the manner in which man was depicted.
Old Russian writers gradually mastered the art of fashioning profound and many-sided characters, the ability to adequately explain the causes of human behaviour. They outgrew the static, immobile depiction of man and began to explore the inner dynamics of emotions, depicting various psychological states and bringing out individual traits of the personality. This tendency took on clear contours in the seventeenth century, when the human personality and literature began to free themselves from limitless power of the church; the gradual secularisation of culture brought about the secularisation of literature. This led not only to the creation of fictional heroes, abstracted but also to a certain degree socially individualised characters; it also led to the appearance of new literary forms---the lyric and drama---and new genres such as satirical and adventure tales and tales of everyday life.
The growing role of folklore in the development of literature facilitated its democratisation and brought it into closer contact with life. This tendency was also reflected in the language of literary works: a new, live colloquial form of speech flooded the literature of the second half of the seventeenth century, replacing the _-_-_
^^1^^ D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak, Collected Works in ten volumes, vol. 10, M., 1957, pp. 386--87 (in Russian).
354 already archaic literary language.A characteristic trait of Old Russian literature is its indissoluble ties with reality. These ties lent Old Russian literature exceptional social keenness, and an emotional lyrical spirit, making it an important instrument of political education and a factor of great significance in the succeeding centuries of development of the Russian nation and Russian culture.
It is no accident that eighteenth century writers such as Sumarokov, Knyazhnin and Radishchev borrowed material from Old Russian literature; in the nineteenth century Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Tolstoi, and Leskov also turned to Old Russian literature.
There is no clear line of demarcation between seventeenth and early eighteenth century Russian literature, which continued to develop the genres of the adventure tale, the secular tale of everyday life, secular syllabic lyrical poetry and school drama. The literature of the eighteenth century represents an unbroken continuation of the general process of literary development. The independent and original literature of the nineteenth century was capable of developing and perfecting itself only because it was undergirded by the greatest literary achievements of Old Russian literature.
[355] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS WILL SOON PUBLISH
KUZNETSOV F. Of Human Values (Soviet Literature Today)
Felix Kuznetsov, literary scholar and critic, examines in his new book the main trends in contemporary Soviet prose, shows its humanistic potency and characterises its moral seekings. The subject of analysis are books about Lenin, the Revolution, the Great Patriotic War, and today. Among the authors he studies are Fyodor Abramov, Yuri Bondarev, Vasily Belov, Vasil Bykov, Sergei Zalygin, Valentin Rasputin, and Yuri Trifonov.
[356]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS WILL SOON PUBLISH
Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics and the Arts
This collection of articles by major Soviet philosophers, aestheticians and art historians (A. Yegorov, M. Ovsyannikov, Y. Barabash et al.) has been timed for the opening of the 9th International Aesthetic Congress in 1980.
The two parts of the collection---Culture and Art and Aesthetics and the Problems of Artistic Creation---deal with theoretical issues of art regarding them in the light of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, sociologically analyse art as a form of cultural production and polemicise with bourgeois concepts of artistic creativity.
[357]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS WILL SOON PUBLISH
ORLOV V. Hamayun
Hamayun, the prophetic bird of ancient Russian lore, is in this book the symbol of its protagonist, the great poet Alexander Blok, prophet of the Great October Socialist Revolution that was to transform Russia.
An absorbing and well-documented story of Blok's unique road in literature and politics, demonstrating his inevitable evolution from Symbolism to revolutionary, civic spirit.
No doubt the book will be interesting for readers abroad.
[358]REQUEST TO READERS
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send all your comments to 17, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[359]