Printer Friendly

Gail Lenhoff and Ann Kleimola, eds., The Book of Royal Degrees and the Genesis of Russian Historical Consciousness.

Gail Lenhoff and Ann Kleimola, eds., The Book of Royal Degrees and the Genesis of Russian Historical Consciousness. 348 pp. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2011. ISBN-13 978-0893573775. $39.95.

Aleksei Vladimirovich Sirenov, Stepennaia kniga i russkaia istoricheskaia mysl' XVI-XVIII vv. (The Book of Royal Degrees and Russian Historical Thought in the 16th-18th Centuries). 547 pp. Moscow: Al'ians-Arkheo, 2010. ISBN-13 978-5988740513.

Andrei Sergeevich Usachev, Stepennaia kniga i drevnerusskaia knizhnost' vremeni mitropolita Makariia (The Book of Royal Degrees and Old Russian Book Culture in the Time of Metropolitan Makarii), ed. A. A. Gorskii. 760 pp., ill. Moscow: Al'ians-Arkheo, 2009. ISBN-13 978-5988740391.

Scholars have long since realized the uniqueness of Stepennaia kniga tsarskogo rodosloviia (The Book of Royal Degrees, hereafter SK) in the history of medieval book, church, and political culture. SK was created by experienced scribes guided by a single design; uncovering this design reveals the attitudes held by the leading ideologues of the Russian tsardom toward supreme spiritual and secular power.

This literary text also has a unique history. No fewer than 145 copies are known today. The earliest of these were made soon after the text's creation, while the latest belong to the recent past and are linked to official interpretations of the concept of power. These interpretations, incorporating received views of a tsardom preserved by God and imperial universalism in the Russian Empire, were quite foreign to the ideas of SK.

The edition of SK prepared by Nikolai Pokrovskii, Gall Lenhoff, Aleksei Sirenov, and Ol'ga Zhuravel' has already received high marks from their colleagues. (1) The works discussed in this review comprise the most recent achievements in this field: A. S. Usachev (Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow) and A. V. Sirenov (St. Petersburg State University) continue to develop their extensive and fruitful research into the history of Russian book culture. The editors-in-chief of the proceedings of the 2009 Stepennaia kniga conference in Los Angeles, Gail Lenhoff (University of California, Los Angeles) and Ann Kleimola (University of Nebraska, Lincoln), are prominent U.S. Slavists with long experience in studying various aspects of the ideology and politics of the Russian tsardom.

The principal question--and stumbling block--in discussions about SK has always been the time and place of its creation and initial existence, as well as early traces of its reception. Today an enormous volume of sources is enlisted in support of various arguments to answer this question, a tendency especially encouraged by the "codicological turn" in manuscript studies. Significant progress has been made in the codicological study of SK, which makes possible a full-scale inquiry into the history of its cultural appropriation. This history is the focus of my review.

First, let me note that the efforts of Pokrovkii, Sirenov, Lenhoff, Usachev, and Zhuravel' have revealed which manuscripts stand closest to the protograph in the manuscript tradition of SK. These manuscripts are the Volkov (V), Tomsk (T), and Chudov (Ch) copies. Second, in an act of solidarity remarkable in the academic world, all these scholars--of different generations and working on dissimilar problems using different methods--reach the same conclusion regarding the controversial question of the place and date of origin of the earliest copies of SK They agree that its oldest redaction can be traced to the Chudov Monastery in the Moscow Kremlin; that Metropolitan Makarii played a part in the project, as did his successor, Metropolitan Afanasii (Andrei before his appointment as metropolitan); and that it dates to sometime between the mid-1550s and 1563.

This conclusion about the date of SK's origin, however, is a hypothesis; not every contributor to the conference volume agrees with it. Pokrovskii, Usachev, Zhuravel', Sergei Bogatyrev, Edward Keenan, and Charles Halperin offer their views on the problem of the original context of SK. Other participants at the conference spoke about the language and semantics of the text, its understanding of history, historiographical allusions, the worship of saints and icons, and the religious and political contexts of its existence. (2)

The time and place of SK's composition are now being examined on the basis of data available in manuscript codices about Cyrillic book culture of the second half of the 16th century. Usachev is conducting a new codicological study of V, T, and Ch (including watermarks and handwriting, indicators of authorship and date of composition, literary sources, and literary context). Through this work, he is refining an idea proposed by M. Ia. Diev and P. G. Vasenko, who argued in the 19th and early 20th centuries that SK was composed no later than 1563 by Archpriest Andrei of the Annunciation Cathedral (later, Metropolitan Afanasii). Sirenov is studying the immediate cultural context and reception of SKin Russian culture among historians of the 16th and 17th centuries. Both scholars have revived the view of K. F Kalaidovich and N. M. Karamzin that Metropolitan Makarii initiated work on SK. A clear benefit of the Afanasii and Makarii theories lies in their rejection of the historical construct of the so-called "Cyprian redaction" of SK (allegedly produced under Metropolitan Cyprian at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries), an idea developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

There remains, however, a fundamental confusion about what "authorship" or "initiative" means in the composition of SK. For instance, if we accept the theory of Andrei-Afanasii's authorship, then how should we interpret the notation in the Chudov copy of SK: "The book of the Chudov Monastery, compiled by the humble Afanasii, metropolitan of all Russia" (Kniga Chudova monastyria, sobrana smirennym Afanasiem, mitropolitom vseia Rusii)? Even if this note pertains only to the composition of the Chudov manuscript itself, it does not disprove Afanasii's participation in the composition of SK in general. We still do not know whether this manuscript was the final version or an intermediate one, at which stage Andrei-Afanasii began working on the text, and what it means that he "compiled" it. Did he come up with the idea or put together the text? Did he supervise the authors and the editors? Did he edit and rewrite?

Usachev's efforts offer a variable answer to the question about SK's authorship and allow us to suppose that Andrei-Afanasii played a limited role in writing the text and that behind Metropolitan Makarii's blessing may lie the patricipation of Makarii himself and of his group of authors and compilers. One cannot but welcome the train of thought that drove Usachev to abandon the search for an "author" and turn to the question of the "compiler"--which he then expanded to include possible compilers (Usachev, 362-465, 563-687). We can also welcome Sirenov's comparative study (104-11), which demonstrates the close relationship between the compilers of SK and the secular and ecclesiastical powers of the 1550s, as well as the unity of authorial intent between Gosudarev rodoslovets (Royal Genealogy Book) and SK.

Studies of watermarks and handwriting, as well as textological and historiographical research, of the early manuscripts of SK link them to the book culture of the 1550s and 1560s. Usachev notes the paucity of watermark albums for 16th-century Russian codices and suggests a preliminary conclusion attributing the paper of manuscripts V (its earlier portion), T, and Ch to 1546/47-1560/61 (Usachev, 125-97; Lenhoff and Kleimola, 11-31). This dating does not contradict current assumptions about the preparation of materials for SK around 1554-56, perhaps in connection with the establishment of the archdiocese of Kazan (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 157-74), the transfer of the icon of St. Nicholas of Velikoretsk to Moscow and to the Viatka region, and the renewal of contact with the patriarchate of Constantinople on the matter of the recognition of Ivan IV as "tsar" (Sirenov, 66-70). Nor does it contradict a later dating for the early manuscripts of this work. It does, however, complicate the interpretation of codicological evidence found in the early manuscripts if we suppose that, although the paper of extant early manuscripts dates from the mid-1550s, these manuscripts reflect the early stages of a text that was still being composed in 1560 or 1563. Usachev (166-67) presents a more specific hypothesis about the "process in which paper was used" in the oldest manuscripts of SK and builds a sequence from V to T and Ch. In his view, Ch was composed using the last reams of the paper used for V and T plus paper that appears only in Ch. He presents this hypothesis gingerly. The poorly developed history of watermarks on paper used in 16th-century Russia also hampers his argument. Lenhoff accepts and refines the method of watermark dating and assigns the composition of a rough draft to 1557-58 and the conceptualization of SK to "1556-1557 or earlier" (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 159-61).

At present, it seems more appropriate to suppose that the paper of V, T, and Ch dates to somewhere around the late 1550s or 1560s. More detailed reconstructions of the relationship among these codices require textual analysis of the manuscript tradition. One interesting effort in this direction leads Usachev (167-97) to conclude that there were five stages in the formation of the early version of SK. This model, however, demands additional work to rule out the possibility of intermediate versions in the manuscript tradition of V, T, and Ch. In a later article, Usachev refuses to construct a sequence for work on the manuscripts based on the quantity ("leftovers") of paper with identical watermarks (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 22-23). Therefore, the sequence of editorial work on the extant SK manuscripts of the 1550s and 1560s constructed by Sirenov and Zhuravel' based on handwriting and textual analysis still needs further support from watermark analysis (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 33-49).

Given the evidence of extensive editorial intervention in all three manuscripts, the possibility that they may have been edited together during the late stage of the text's composition (according to Zhuravel's periodization; see Lenhoff and Kleimola, 45), and the distinct similarity in the codicological characteristics of the Tomsk and Chudov codices, it seems unlikely that the three manuscripts' dates of composition differ significantly and that work on them took place long after or long before February 1560. In this case, we may regard the 1563 addition as evidence of renewed work on SK after a hiatus. Less logical, but also possible, is the idea that work on the text took place not long before the February 1563 notation, but the compiler's design did not include a description of events from 1560 to 1563. None of the discussants has considered this possibility.

Sirenov's weighty textological arguments constitute a significant advance in the study of the early history of SK. Sirenov (121-202) argues that Iona Dumin produced his redaction of SK based on Ch and that T was used in the composition of the Litsevoi letopisnyi svod (Illustrated Chronicle Compilation). Possible locations during these manuscripts' early years were, respectively, libraries of the highest secular (T) and ecclesiastical (Ch) power. It seems that for some time both manuscripts were perceived as the final gala versions of the SK text. Perhaps an answer to Halperin's argument questioning the "official" (as opposed to church) origin of SK (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 81-93) lies here?

The 1550s-1563 date range has its critics. Pokrovskii disagrees with it in reference to Ch and T, and Bogatyrev and Keenan think it inaccurate with respect to SK in general. Bogatyrev argues that SK appeared during the tenure of Metropolitan Afanasii (1564-66) or even under Metropolitan Filipp (1566-68). He argues that arguments for an earlier composition of the text are weakened by being constructed ex silentio (the absence of any mention of the death of Ivan IV's first wife, Anastasia, in 1560 or the death of Metropolitan Makarii in 1563). The mention of Andrei-Afanasii as holding the rank of metropolitan in the Chudov manuscript notation proves that sometime between 24 February 1564 and 19 May 1566 (or, at least, no later than 1575, when his name was added to the memorial book of the Trinity Monastery [Troitskii sinodik]), the metropolitan himself or one of his subordinates added the notation to the codex. This notation is in contention for the status of one of the most authentic early attributions. The formulation of the note, however, suggests that work on all copies was already completed.

Bogatyrev rejects hypotheses about Metropolitan Makarii's involvement, arguing that SK contains anachronisms that reflect the condition of SK's sources rather than the state of things at the time of its composition. The similarities between SK and the Chronicle Compilation of 1560, discovered by Bogatyrev (and, independently, Usachev), provide considerable elucidation of the general context in which these two texts were composed. According to Bogatyrev, the fact that SK's compiler systematically reworked various pieces of chronicle information that appear in both SK and the Compilation of 1560 suggests a direct dependence of SK on the Compilation. He finds additional support for his conclusion in the codicological seam in SK between the descriptions of the Russo-Swedish and Livonian wars of the 1550s (between chapters 17 and 18 of the 17th "Step"), which corresponds to the codicological and informational seams in the Obolenskii manuscript of the Nikon Chronicle and the Compilation of 1560. An additional note about the conquest of Polotsk in SK and a note in the Obolenskii manuscript about the same events reflect, according to Bogatyrev, the protograph of the Compilation of 1560. This supposition leads to two related conclusions: first, that the excerpts of SK that match the Compilation of 1560 reflect the state of the protograph of the Compilation of 1560 in 1563; second, that the main text of SK could not have appeared before 1563. Following the dating of the Compilation of 1560 proposed by Boris Kloss, Bogatyrev dates SK to no earlier than 1564-68 (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 51-68).

The main merit of the new dates proposed by Bogatyrev, in my view, is that it takes into account a set of Muscovite chronicles of the 1550s and 1560s, instead of limiting itself to the terminus ante quem of codicological dating and textual details. At the same time, I can hardly agree with certain aspects of this model. The basis for the time frame that Kloss proposed for the composition of the Compilation of 1560 is the absence of information about Prince A. M. Kurbskii, who fled on 30 April 1564. Kloss, however, also demonstrates that the sources of the Compilation filtered out mention of the Adashevs in favor of the Basmanovs. This emphasis on the Basmanovs does not, in my view, indicate that the Compilation could have appeared only after Kurbskii's flight. Kurbskii's rivalry with the Basmanovs began long before his defection to Polish-Lithuanian service, and the tendency of the Compilation to present the Basmanovs in the best light could indicate the involvement of a Basmanov in its composition, which would make it hardly surprising that Kurbskii, together with other opponents, was omitted from the narrative of the recent past. (3) Kloss does not provide any other evidence showing that editorial work could not have taken place sometime between February 1560 and April 1564. (4) Bogatyrev notes that the omission of Kurbskii's name is typical of Muscovite chronicles composed after his flight (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 58). This observation, however, does not hold for all chronicles; exceptions include the Letopisets nachala tsarstva (Chronicle of the Tsardom's Beginning) and the Illustrated Chronicle Compilation, where Prince Kurbskii is both mentioned and depicted in miniatures several times. (5) Finally, as Bogatyrev himself has noted, interpolations describing the Polotsk expedition in SK and the Obolenskii manuscript have no textual similarities, which makes it doubtful that both or either of them contain specific features of the protograph of the Compilation of 1560 and demonstrate the organic nature of information about the conquest of Polotsk in SK.

Keenan also offers an alternative explanation of the emergence of SK. Here the issue is not a redating of the three early codices of this literary work (redating is implied, but it is unclear how it is realized). Rather, Keenan suggests that none of the early codices reflects the final stage of the text's composition. Keenan assigns the completion of the text to "around the time of Ivan [IV]'s death" (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 71, 79). The considerations that allow Keenan to give SK a prominent spot in the "Godunovian Renaissance" do not obviate or even reformulate the question of the "first draft of Stepennaia kniga," even if"only a few of its early copies" still survive today, all of them "incomplete" (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 74). Keenan's argument for a reassessment of the SK's early history relies on his insistence on the imprecision of watermark dating (but not of the approximate calculations of the dates of the paper being current) and his reduction of information about literary production in the reign of Ivan IV to the "dry residuum" (including certain controversial "sore spots": the literary abilities of Ivan IV, Prince Kurbskii, and Archpriest Sil'vestr of the Annunciation Cathedral and the dating of the Illustrated Chronicle Compilation). We can agree with or dispute his view. But in those instances where it reveals a certain understanding of the literary context of SK, the arguments reveal Keenan's perspective on what constitutes literariness, what meanings SK readers might have anticipated, and what its intellectual milieu was like if we assume that SK did not exist as a literary work addressed to a specific intellectual milieu. Keenan's thesis states that the redaction of Iona Dumin is the best reflection of authorial intent behind SK ("why not consider the Dumin text to represent authorial intent at the time of its final redaction?"--Lenhoff and Kleimola, 76).

And, indeed, why not? Except that Sirenov not only thinks (to quote Keenan) that the Dumin redaction arises from an earlier protograph but also demonstrates, using as his example the location of interpolations in the manuscripts of the Dumin redaction that most resemble the archetype, that this protograph draws on specific features of a manuscript similar to V, T, and Ch--especially Ch. In addition, "The Life of Aleksandr Nevskii," found in the archetype of Iona Dumin's redaction, does not occupy a stable position in this archetype. Therefore, it was probably added during the reworking of the original version of this redaction. Sirenov proves that Iona inserted his version of "The Life of Aleksandr Nevskii" into SK after 9 March 1591. (6) If we accept these arguments, then the authorial intent of SK belongs to the compiler (or compilers) of the earlier redactions rather than to Iona Dumin. If we do not accept them, we must either find a different explanation for Sirenov's data as a whole or discover new data.

The sources available to the initial compilers of SK, their understanding of history, and the ideological subtexts confirm, in my view, a dating that builds on the theories of M. Ia. Diev and P. G. Vasenko, with minor modifications. It appears that none of the scholars under review have noticed that the gallery of "all saints" of the Russian state in SK is related to the unique instance of the designation of Russia as "most holy" in the Greek letter of Maksim Grek (contrary to the belief of D. S. Likhachev, Russia is never called "holy" in SK). (7) As Usachev has demonstrated, Maksim's attitude toward the tsar's amusements and his "good and righteous" and "evil" advisers corresponds to the views expressed in SK (Usachev, 604-5, 615, 660). Could Maksim have been close to the (future) compilers? The only other man who dared call the Russian land "holy" or the "Holy Russian kingdom" (Sviatorusskoe tsarstvo) was his acquaintance Prince Kurbskii, but probably only under the influence of Polish-Lithuanian or German ideas. (8) It is telling that Kurbskii's History, even though it includes no direct citations from SK, recreates the model of the formation of the Holy Russian kingdom first formulated in SK. (9) In deciding whether Maksim Grek or Kurbskii could have been involved in the conceptualization of SK, we should remember that in 1553 one of the supposed compilers of SK, Archpriest Andrei, traveled to the Trinity--St. Sergius Monastery. There--together with the tsar, Prince Kurbskii, Prince I. F. Mstislavskii, and A. F. Adashev--he talked with Maksim Grek. Kurbskii's History contains a description of this trip and the "visions," foretelling the conquest of Kazan, whose only direct parallel can be found in the "Life of Daniil

of Pereiaslavl'" and SK. (10)

As a rule, one can find in the ideological subtext of SK a tendency to glorify the genealogy of the ruling Muscovite dynasty against a backdrop of military victories, imperial growth of the Russian tsardom, and the successful Orthodox Christianization of Kazan, Astrakhan, and Livonia. In this respect, the literary monuments that share SK's ideological orientation include the Letopisets nachala tsarstva, Skazanie o kniaziakh vladimirskikh (The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir), the icon "The Blessed Host of the Heavenly Tsar," the Tsar's Pew in the Dormition Cathedral in the Kremlin, and the wall paintings of the Kremlin's Archangel Cathedral, St. Basil's Cathedral, and others. Sirenov has made several keen observations about the Renaissance origin of these symbols and their ideological kinship with SK, in addition to clarifying the attribution and dating of a series of artistic monuments of the 16th century (Sirenov, 25-120; Lenhoff and Kleimola, 111-24). We can only encourage the idea of "outside influences" and again turn our attention to the influence exerted on "The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir" by Polish-Lithuanian and Prussian Renaissance culture. But Sirenov (58, 70) prefers to discuss the "unity of the mid-16th-century monuments of tsarist ideology" and the orientation of Ivan IV's ideologues toward "Greek, Moldavo-Wallachian, and Serbian culture." It is difficult to dispute the orientation thesis, but its examples in SKsuggest a borrowing of sources.

At the same time, it is unclear how this orientation manifested itself in the interpretation of the sources in SK. One telling "sore spot" in the conception of a Greek orientation is Sirenov's commentary on the letter of Patriarch Ioasaf (received in Moscow, rather than composed--as one might gather from Sirenov's book [66-67, cf. 115]--in 1561). Sirenov ignores the falsified translation that drastically alters the contents of the patriarch's epistle. (11) This is hardly a felicitous example of a Greek orientation (Usachev [519-25, 561-62, here 520] also writes, "in SK the descendants of Vladimir are contrasted with Byzantine emperors"). The ideological similarities between SK and the Serbian Tsarostavnik (Danilov sbornik) (Royal Genealogy: Daniil's Compilation) likewise do not necessarily imply the influence of the Serbian text on the Muscovite one (Sirenov, 96-104; Usachev, 467-71, Lenhoff and Kleimola, 125-39).

Less disputed is the question of the development of the manuscript tradition from the late 16th to the 19th and even 20th centuries. The textual analysis of SK conducted by Sirenov in his 2007 book is still of interest. The adjustments to certain elements of his view do not change his general conclusion regarding the closeness of Ch, T, and the oldest parts of V to the protograph(s) of SK and the development of the manuscript tradition after SK reached its readers in the 1590s. Unfortunately, there is a certain imbalance in the study of the manuscript tradition and historical study of this literary text. Sirenov, for the most part, focuses on links between the manuscript tradition and Russian historical thought and hagiography; he does not discuss the historical and cultural contexts of the various late redactions and individual manuscripts. This "gap" is filled to some degree by his new book (Sirenov, 203-502) and by the articles of Keenan, Elise Wirtschafter, and Nancy Kollmann (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 69-79, 333-40, and 341-48, respectively). Usachev has conducted a thorough study of SK scholarship in different countries (while saving from oblivion the works of two scholars of SK, M. Ia. Diev and N. F. Okolovich). But he does not, in any significant way, link his study to such questions as how exactly (through which texts and which performative characteristics of the manuscripts) the manuscript tradition influenced scholarly thought, which manuscripts were or could have been accessible to scholars, and how the specific features of the manuscripts influenced SK scholarship.

In conclusion, I must note that I find it difficult to agree with some of Usachev's and Sirenov's observations regarding the influences on SK and the reflection of certain parts of SK in later historical scholarship. These specific problems do not, however, diminish the impressive contributions of these scholars to the history of the manuscript tradition of SK and its place in Russian history and book culture. (12) The proceedings of the conference in Los Angeles provide an excellent illustration both of recent accomplishments in this field and the enduring controversial questions, although they dishearten the reader and, even more so, this reviewer by omitting an index.

Translated by Olga Greco

Veernaya 22-2-29

119501 Moscow, Russian Federation

kerusalimskii@mail.ru

(1) See, for example, David B. Miller, review of Nikolai Nikolaevich Pokrovskii and Gail D. Lenhoff, eds., Stepennaia kniga tsarskogo rodosloviia po drevneishim spiskam: Teksty i kommentarii, 3 vols., vol. 1 (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul'tur, 2007); and Aleksei Vladimirovich Sirenov, Stepennaia kniga: Istoriia teksta (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul'tur, 2007), Kritika 10, 4 (2009): 957-62.

(2) See also A. S. Usachev, "Mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferentsiia 'Kniga Stepennaia tsarskogo rodosloviia i russkoe istoricheskoe soznanie' (Los Angeles, 26-28 fevrialia 2009)," Drevniaia Rus': Voprosy medievistiki, no. 2 (2009): 121-24.

(3) In 1552 and 1566, Kurbskii was a target in the precedence disputes of D. I. Pleshcheev. See Iu. M. Eskin, Mestnichestvo v Rossii XVI-XVII vv.: Khronologicheskii reestr (Moscow: Arkheograficheskii tsentr, 1994), 49 (no. 101), 52 (no. 129). The scale of the confrontation between Kurbskii and Basmanov can be seen in Istoriia o kniazia velikogo moskovskogo delekh (History of the Deeds of the Grand Prince of Moscow, usually translated as The History of Ivan IV), where statements about A. D. and F. A. Basmanov demonstrate that Kurbskii blamed them for the defeat of the Chosen Council (Izbrannaia rada) and the repressive campaigns of the oprichnina. One of the Basmanovs may be mentioned in Kurbskii's first epistle to Ivan the Terrible as an informant, murderer, and sycophant on the tsar's council. See D. S. Likhachev, ed., Perepiska Ivana Groznogo s Andreem Kurbskim: Reprintnoe vosproizvedenie teksta izdaniia 1981 g. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 9, 11; and my Sbornik Kurbskogo: Issledovanie knizhnoi kul'tury (Moscow: Znak, 2009), 2:ft. 100v, 109, 130, 136v-137.

(4) B. M. Kloss, Nikonovskii svod i russkie letopisi XVI-XVII vekov (Moscow: Nauka, 1980), 199-205.

(5) Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 29 (Moscow: Znak, 2009), 78, 83, 99; E. A. Belkon', V. V. Morozov, and S. A. Morozov, eds., Litsevoi letopisnyi svod XVI veka: Metodika opisaniia i izucheniia razroznennogo letopisnogo kompleksa (Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 2003), 175.

(6) Sirenov, Stepennaia kniga: Istoriia teksta, 267-314; see also Sirenov's volume reviewed here, 16.

(7) P. Bushkovich [Paul Bushkovitch], "Maksim Grek--poet-'giperboreets,'" trans. D. M. Bulanin, Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 47 (1993): 228, 240.

(8) Konstantin Erusalimsky, "The Notion of People in Medieval and Early-Modern Russia," Sensus Historiae: Studia interdyscyplinarne 3, 2 (2011): 9-34.

(9) See A. A. Gorskii's article on the unification of the Russian lands (Lenhoff and Kleimola, 201-15). I have previously written on similarities and differences between Kurbskifs views on the history of the transfer of power from Kiev to Moscow and the organizing principles of land in the Russian tsardom ("Istoricheskaia pamiat' i sotsial' noe samosoznanie Andreia Kurbskogo," Sotsium: Al'manakh sotsial'noi istorii, no. 5 (2005): 226-29.

(10) A. S. Usachev, "Ob istoricheskoi tsennosti drevnerusskikh soobshchenii o chudesakh (na materiale chuda o svechenii pod Kazan'iu 1552 g.)," Drevniaia Rus', no. 1 (2010): 112-16.

(11) B. L. Fonkich, "Gramota konstantinopol'skogo patriarkha Ioasafa II i sobora vostochnoi tserkvi, utverzhdaiushchaia tsarskii titul Ivana IV," in Rossiia i grecheskii mir v XVI veke, ed. S. M. Kashtanov, 2 vols. (Moscow: Nauka, 2004), 1:381-88.

(12) Usachev's comparison of the views of SK's compilers with the works of Iurii Krizhanich (Juraj Krizanic) is too much of a stretch. It is precisely in the question of the "national roots" (in quotation marks in Usachev's book) "of the might of the Russian land" that Krizhanich's opinion differs substantially from the text of SK. These differences include the fundamental question of the transfer of Roman power from Augustus to Prus and Riurik (see Iu. Krizhanich, Politika [Moscow: Novyi svet, 1997], 380, 385). It is unclear why Sirenov concludes that SK "for a long time was known mostly in church circles" and that the "most important known historiographic works of the middle to late 17th century make no use of Stepennaia kniga" (289). This conclusion follows the author's observations on the fate of the Copying Chancellery (Zapisnoi prikaz), the literary projects of the Foreign Chancellery (Posol'skii prikaz), and the composition of the Book of Titles (Tituliarnik), but it does not match observations about such important historiographic works (were they not the most important?) as the Synopsis (Sinopsis), the Scythian History (Skifskaia istoriia), and the History of F. A. Griboedov. There is, then, no reason to see an elaboration of the projects of I. S. Peresvetov in the political views of SK's compilers. Usachev does not cite any reliable evidence that the compilers were aware of Peresvetov's views, and his example of SK's attitude to "sinful laws" (bogomerzkie zakony) in contrast to the "truth" (pravda) of Magmet-Saltan in Peresvetov's Compilation indicates opposing views between the compilers of SK and Peresvetov without confirming the familiarity of the former with the latter (Usachev, 634-35, 665, 693).
COPYRIGHT 2012 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Erusalimskii, Konstantin
Publication:Kritika
Article Type:Book review
Date:Jun 22, 2012
Words:4881
Previous Article:Eastern Europe as a "sub-Germanic space": scholarship on Eastern Europe under national socialism.
Next Article:Mark Bassin, Christopher Ely, and Melissa K. Stockdale, eds., Space, Place, and Power in Modern Russia: Essays in the New Spatial History.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters