Printer Friendly

Hunting for dogs in 17th-Century Muscovy.

In their introduction to the anthology that grew out of their pioneering conference on human--animal bonds in modern and postmodern Russia, Jane Costlow and Amy Nelson position the collection within the rapidly emerging field of "animal studies," which focuses primarily on examining "how animals shape and inform the human experience in real and symbolic ways." By the imperial period, Russian intellectuals often were preoccupied with issues of identity and uniqueness, their complex relationship with the "West," and, with regard to animals and the environment, a sense that part of being Russian lay in enjoying a more "natural" relationship with the world around them than did their Western counterparts. (1) While these themes first clearly emerge in 18th-century Russia and seem to indicate a sharp shift away from the concerns of Muscovite society, evidence of a cultural transition had already appeared in 17th-century Rus'. The Muscovite elite began an increasingly rapid transition toward convergence with the West European aristocracy, a shift that can be traced, if only in chiaroscuro, in the surviving fragments of documentary and material evidence.

Costlow and Nelson end their introduction with the hope that the anthology's essays will stimulate further work, "turning our attention to the place of animals within human history, beginning to imagine what a history of animals in Russia might be." (2) Given the millennia in which dogs have shared human existence, canines should have played a prominent role in this history. Yet this species remains surprisingly invisible in 17th-century Russian sources. Richard Hellie's exhaustive compilation of price data sheds light on the market for horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, and other varieties of fowl but turned up no sales records for dogs and only one entry that apparently records some kind of kennel expenses, probably the sum Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich spent for dog food in 1676. (3) Given the absence of such data, one might be tempted to conclude that few if any canines ever lived in Muscovy.

The presence of dogs is undocumented in other sources as well. Official records do not mention working dogs' functions, such as herding livestock or catching vermin. There are no Muscovite accounts of agricultural practices or animal husbandry of the sort found among classics of the ancient world. The Romans Varro (writing c. 37 BC) and Columella (first century AD) agreed that a farmer needed dogs to guard both his property and his flocks. The Roman dog's job was not to round up and control the flock but to guard against predators, especially wolves. (4) For millennia shepherds from China to Spain have generally had four or five such dogs working for them. (5) Livestock, including large numbers of sheep, constituted an important part of the Russian economy. A 1676 inventory of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich's property counted 203 Tatar (ordyn) sheep and 1,690 Russian sheep. (6) Wool was a major domestic textile fiber, mutton "was present in some abundance," and sheepskin was a common commodity. (7) In 1605-6, for example, the Kirillov Monastery's expense book (raskhodnaia kniga) lists payments to three hired local "sheepmen" (ovchinniki) for processing 1,520 sheepskins. (8) Large landholders also seem to have had a substantial stock of such hides. When V. V. Golitsyn, the influential advisor of Peter the Great's half-sister Sophia, fell from power in 1689, the inventory of his confiscated property listed a cache of 518 sheep-skins. (9) One of the components of Moscow's Zamoskvorech'e district in 1695 was a "sheepskin-processing" settlement (ovchinnaia sloboda). (10) Despite ample documentation of a substantial sheep population, however, no evidence survives to indicate that shepherds used herding dogs to help move this stock out to pastures and to market or to guard livestock, although the long-standing practices of Eurasian shepherds suggest the probability that Muscovites also relied on dogs for protecting flocks from predators.

There is no entry for "sheepdog" (ovcharka) in dictionaries of old Russian. (11) In one instance, however, context suggests that another term, losh'aia sobaka, may have been used for some livestock-guarding dogs. One of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich's experiments aimed at Muscovite economic improvement was a project to introduce new varieties of livestock. The expense books of the tsar's Private Chancellery (Prikaz tainykh del) for 1664-65 record the purchase of good Circassian cattle for the royal herds. The newcomers were accompanied by imported sheepdogs (losh 'ie sobaki) that evidently had been raised with the cattle and probably were a type of Eastern Molosser from the Caucasus, mastiff-type dogs noted for their protection of both livestock and territory. The chancellery also had to purchase chains, hooks, and mats (rogozhi) for the dogs, for tethering until they settled into their new environment or while the cattle were penned. The dogs, their equipment, and their handlers were dispatched to the estate where the best royal native and imported herds were kept. (12) Given the general rule that effective livestock-protection dogs must be raised with the flock or herd they are going to guard, this would have been an unusual case. When the term losh 'aia sobaka appears in other contemporary documents, it often indicates a hunting dog, most frequently an elkhound. (13) Ovcharka first turns up in 18th-century Russian translations of French and German dictionaries, where it is defined as a livestock-guarding dog while ovcharskii is a peasant/village sheepdog. (14) Later, another common function of working dogs, serving as ratters or earthdogs killing various "varmints," likewise becomes part of the Russian lexicon with the adoption of ter 'er and taksa to designate dogs who handled these tasks.

Many patterns of Muscovite domestic life and daily routine remain largely undocumented, resulting in a lack of data on household dogs and, more specifically, pets. The few references to canines in the noted 16th-century manual on household management Domostroi reflect an assumption of dogs residing in the household compound. All scraps, peelings, and crumbs should be used for animal feed (workhorses are listed first, dogs last). Kitchen gardens should be walled against dogs, pigs, fowl, and other animals, both to protect the produce and to forestall quarrels with neighbors. Strong fences and closed gates keep animals in their owners' compounds. (15) While good care for useful animals will benefit the household, there is no mention of the human-dog relationship. Companion dogs may have been common among women in the terem, but there are few details on everyday life within these secluded surroundings. The Russian term for such animals, pastel'nye sabaki, instead turns up in a report on China. In 1669, the Tobol'sk governor, the stol'nik Petr Ivanovich Godunov, drew on testimony from anyone in his area with knowledge to compile an account of the Chinese administrative system, religious customs, population, and trade. Dogs appeared in the discussion of the livestock market, which offered large hunting dogs resembling bulldogs, sight hounds, scent hounds, companion dogs, and guard dogs, along with small cats and kittens of various colors. (16) Bernhard Tanner, in Moscow with a Polish diplomatic mission in 1678, remarked that on walks around town he had seen boys playing with dogs they had trained to pull small carts, with nice harnesses similar to those used for horses, sometimes three lads sitting in the wagon, and he often saw boys using dogs to haul water home. (17)

The guard dog (dvorovaia sobaka) has left more traces in the records. The Dutch adventurer Jan Struys, arriving in Muscovy in 1668, recounted an incident on the road that suggests dogs probably accompanied many travelers and were expected to come to their aid if needed. Struys and his associates had completed the first leg of their journey by sea, and he mentioned no dogs or horses as part of their baggage. But they left the Baltic shore with transport and a dog, apparently provided locally. On the road from Tver' to Moscow they fell into a dispute with two Muscovites who tried to pick a fight over right-of-way and were not satisfied when the foreigners tried to stand aside. When the Dutch party tried to proceed, the Russians rushed at them with axes at the ready. The Dutch responded by unleashing their big dog, who knocked one of the Russians down, tore his clothes to pieces, and would have continued to attack had the Dutch not dragged him off. When the second Russian tried to run away, the dog left his first victim, quickly caught the fugitive, blocked the man's attempt to use his axe, and returned to his human companions after demonstrating the sharpness of his teeth. Freed from these troublemakers, the Dutch continued their journey. (18) Conversely, dogs could work with the assailants, as revealed in testimony regarding a schismatic peasant, Ivan Kozel, arrested in the Russian North in the early 1690s. Kozel and his family had withdrawn to the Pomor'e wilderness evidently not from religious conviction but "to join a band of robbers armed to the teeth with rifles, bows and arrows, knives, and axes." The local peasants lived in fear of their lives because Kozel and his associates "walk around with weapons and large dogs and defame our Orthodox Christian faith ... and people who need to go into the forest cannot do so because they are terrified." (19)

A residential area was the more usual environment for such canine--human interactions or for disputes between humans over canines, however. Our few references to practical canine management in early Rus' indicate that owners were expected to prevent their dogs from becoming a public nuisance while enabling them to carry out their guard duties. Evidently this requirement remained much the same over the centuries. A common practice, attested from the rules governing the Hansa compound in 15th-century Novgorod to the custom in Nadezhda Khvoshchinskaia's 19th-century provincial city "N," was to keep dogs chained during the day but let them loose in the household compound or streets at night. (20) The 16th-century Domostroi advised householders that as night approaches, the "gates should be locked and guarded by dogs." (21)

The Persian envoy Ulug Beg, known in the West as Don Juan of Persia, traveling in Muscovy in 1599-1600, noted that the same method of overnight security was employed everywhere. In Kazan', he reported, "in each house is a dog, as big as a lion, for they fear robbery by night from him who might be an enemy. In the daytime the dogs are chained up, but at the first hour of the evening the bells ring to warn people that the dogs are about to be let loose in the streets, and thus the passengers abroad must take care. For they now set their dogs free, and no one then dare go out of his house, lest he should be torn to pieces by them." (22) On arriving for his reception at the Kremlin, he found the same practice in Moscow: "When we had come to the palace, we found outside waiting for us the major-domo or chamberlain of the Duke, a man of gigantic stature, who held chained up at his side a most ferocious dog, which at night-time is let loose; and this chamberlain conducted us as far as the second palace door." (23)

Given assumptions about canine duties, it is not surprising to find references to dogs in legal provisions regulating cases of theft and questions of liability relating to protection of property. In general, theft of a dog led to fines and killing another's dog required replacement of the animal. Dogs were expected to protect the persons and property of their masters but not pose a danger to others. Under late 16th-century provisions, anyone who killed another's dog without cause had to pay the price demanded by the owner or, if he refused, guard the owner's property himself until the other had raised a replacement. The owner of a "dangerous dog" (s "edistaia sobaka), however, who did not keep his animal chained up, had to care for anyone the dog bit until the victim recovered. A traveler set upon by a feral dog on the road was not to be penalized for self-defense. (24) The 1649 Ulozhenie likewise required anyone who deliberately killed another's dog to compensate the owner while holding blameless a person who "kills a dog with his bare hands in self-defense, not with a weapon." (25) A person found conclusively in court to have sicced his dog on someone had to pay compensation for dishonoring the victim as well as the maiming fee and losses; but if it was a case of one man's word against another's, the dispute should be resolved by taking an oath. (26) "Dangerous dog" rules went into effect on the second offense. The owner of a dog, cow, bull, goat, or ram that had chased or made contact with a person or other animal had to keep his beast under control. If, as a result of carelessness, the animal caused loss to someone, the owner had to make compensation and thereafter keep his dog leashed or animal fenced. Subsequent offenses were to result in payment of claims without trial and handing the animal over to the plaintiffs. (27)

The Ulozhenie refers to the statutory price (ukaznaia tsena) of a dog as the compensation to be paid when someone kills another's canine without cause but does not provide any scale of recompense. There is a listing, however, in earlier 17th-century legislation: 3 rubles for a guard dog (zadvornaia); 6 rubles for a pointer to hunt animals (zverinaia); 2.25 rubles for a scent hound (gonnaia), a beaver dog (khodit za iaranom), or a tracking dog that works with hawks (ishcheia); 3 rubles for a gundog (podpishchal'naia); six rubles for a house dog (postel'naia); 6 rubles for a bull mastiff-style guard dog (medelianskaia); and 6 rubles for a greyhound (khort). (28) The categories are similar to those found in a clause of the Lithuanian Statute of 1588, but the differences suggest that varieties of hunting dogs differed (or were not categorized in quite the same way) in the two polities and that dog prices in Muscovy were a bit higher. (29)

The dogs with legally set value in 17th-century Muscovy reflect the two functions appreciated by the elite, protection of property and sporting activity, whether in hunting or in the staged animal fights that were a primary form of aristocratic amusement. Breeds in the modern sense had not yet developed (that was largely a 19th- and 20th-century phenomenon), but several types of dogs were available for these uses. The earliest clear indication of separation of dogs into distinct body types or behavioral types took place c. 4000-3000 BC, when "something that looks pretty much like what we would call a greyhound or a saluki starts to show up on pottery and paintings in ancient Egypt and western Asia." By Roman times, Pliny was able to divide dogs into six groups: villatici (house or guardian dogs), pastorales pecuarii (shepherd dogs), venatici (sporting dogs), pugnaces and bellicosi ("pugnacious" or war dogs), nares sagaces (scent hounds), and pedibus celeres (sight hounds). This pattern continued until relatively recently. "Any large dog was a mastiff, any dog that hunted small vermin underground was a terrier; there were foxhounds, and sheepdogs, and pointers, and retrievers, but pointers were just pointers, they weren't German shorthaired pointers and Vizslas and Weimaraners." (30) Large mastiff types could be used for guarding property or livestock, for fighting, or for hunting, and there were many varieties of sight hounds and scent hounds. The same dog might handle more than one task, or dogs from the same litter might be labeled differently, depending on skills and training.

Sporting dogs were of most interest to the 17th-century elite. The royal hunt apparently had fallen on hard times during the Time of Troubles, and its reconstitution became part of the new dynasty's efforts to establish its legitimacy and build ties to the traditional life of Russian rulers. In 1619, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich sent special agents, huntsmen and houndsmen, to the regions north of Moscow with orders to requisition dogs--by armed force if necessary--from boyars, aristocratic estate holders, and any other residents with suitable stock, whether sight hounds, scent hounds, mastiffs, or bear-dogs. The dogs gathered by the royal agents formed the nucleus for the new hunting pack. (31) By 1636, probably as a consequence of the growth of both the royal hunt and the city of Moscow, a new royal kennel was built out in Staroe Vagankovo to replace the one in the Belyi gorod section of town. (32)

Additional breeding stock arrived as part of the regular exchange of diplomatic embassies with other countries. Russian rulers, like their counterparts elsewhere, gave and received "exotics," including rare-breed dogs, as gifts sent with diplomatic envoys. Sir Jerome Horsey, in Muscovy in 1586 to deliver letters from Elizabeth I to Tsar Fedor and his wife, Irina, brought various presents including bulldogs (the old bulldogs, now extinct, perhaps closest to the modern pit bull or Staffordshire terrier) and "twelve goodly large mastiff dogs led with twelve men, decked with roses, collars." (33) English merchants brought purebred pointers, sight hounds, and bulldogs, along with two trained lions and the lion tamer; (34) while Fedor in turn sent the shah of Persia a live fox, sable, black bear, and two Medeliankas, large dogs of North Italian origin used for hunting and guarding. (35) Boris Godunov sent the Persian shah Abbas two sight hounds. (36) In 1647, an envoy from the English king Charles I brought Aleksei Mikhailovich dogs wearing copper collars engraved with "KarlusKorol'," while one of his own boyars in 1665 gave the tsar ten elkhounds. The royal kennel housed a wide variety: sight hounds, scent hounds, trackers, elkhounds, and bear dogs, Medeliankas, English dogs, and "other terrifying breeds," probably eastern and Caucasian fighting dogs. (37) A list of gifts that Aleksei Mikhailovich intended for the Persian shah included dogs (six sight hounds, eight scent hounds, two house dogs, six large guard dogs) along with such exotic items as a polar bear, two black bears, a coach with carriage horses and another with mica insets. (38) The pattern continued into the 18th century. In 1720, the girls to Persia included a large number of hawks and other exotic fowl, 2 polar bears, 2 performing black bears and their trainer, 4 live sables, 4 wolverines, 4 polar foxes, 4 beavers, 20 ermines, 30 squirrels, 12 big German horses (8 mares and 4 stallions), and 5 "couples" of Medeliankas. (39)

The care and training of these animals came under the jurisdiction of the branches of the court bureaucracy entrusted with handling "amusements"--the Hunt Office (Lovchii put'/prikaz), the Stables Chancellery (Koniushennyi dvor), and later Aleksei Mikhailovich's Private Chancellery. The royal hunt was a large operation, employing 100-300 beaters and houndsmen, mounted and on foot, huntsmen, falconers, kennelmen, and gamekeepers. (40) In his account of the Muscovite administrative system, Grigorii Kotoshikhin noted that Moscow was surrounded by royal forest preserves and lodges; hunting game was off-limits to others, with severe penalties for poaching. (41) Little information has been preserved on hunting methods. In general dogs of various sorts pursued wild game, but this did not exclude use of nets and various snares. Wolves and bears were hunted in woodlands along the Zvenigorod, Mozhaisk, and Borovsk roads. (42) In addition to the kennels and forest preserves, the officials of the hunt maintained special compounds and game parks in which they kept beasts of prey to use in training young dogs. Known as "wolf courts" because the majority of the stock consisted of wolves, they also had bears and foxes. Many such establishments in the 17th century were located in villages near the venue of royal hunts, leading to speculation that on days when the search for wild game proved unsuccessful, animals were released from the compounds as a consolation prize. (43)

Among the pleasures enjoyed by the court, hunting, the traditional peacetime occupation of kings and aristocrats, flourished under the new Romanov dynasty. Patriarch Filaret, senior member of the clan, had been passionately devoted to the hunt in his secular life. In 1599, after he was sent to the far northern Siiskii Monastery and tonsured on orders of Boris Godunov, his monastic "minders" reported that the new monk was not living according to the community rule but instead "he laughs all the time, and talks about his secular life, about hunting with hawks and dogs, how he lived in the world." (44) Although commercial hunting gradually declined in the 17th century in European Russia, royal and private recreational hunting flourished and quickly expanded. As Jan Reitenfels, envoy from Rome in the 1670s, noted, the Russian rulers' primary leisure activity was hunting, whether with dogs or hawks. (45) The two forms developed along parallel tracks, with Tsar Mikhail preferring to pursue game behind dogs. He was particularly fond of hunting elk, which were tracked in the Domodedovo district and elsewhere, and there were special forest preserves (e.g., in the Shatskii uezd) with especially strong laws against poaching. (46) Aleksei Mikhailovich, as tireless a hunter as Vladimir Monomakh, at first continued his father's pursuits. He enjoyed hunting with hounds, trapping bears, riding after wolves and foxes, and racing pigeons (and betting on them). One of his first official tasks was his assignment in 1644 to take Valdemar, Count Guldenlere, hunting when the morganatic son of the king of Denmark came to Moscow to negotiate a proposed marriage to Aleksei Mikhailovich's sister Irina, and he spent part of most days in the field for the rest of his life. In August 1675, for example, when the Holy Roman Emperor's ambassador Bottoni arrived in Moscow, he realized that the tsar had already seen him because Aleksei Mikhailovich had been with the packs of hounds and huntsmen that Bottoni had noticed on his way into the city. (47) Gradually, however, falconry came to be the tsar's passion, shared with his Master of the Hunt, his Streshnev kinsman Afanasii Ivanovich Matiushkin. (48) The British visitor Samuel Collins reported that Aleksei Mikhailovich's "Recreations are hunting and hawking. He keeps above three hundred Falconers, and has the best Ger-Falcons in the World." (49) His correspondence with the two servitors in charge of the hunt, Matiushkin and Golokhvastov, deals with the finer details of hawking gear, the health and abilities of his birds, and the catch of the day. Beginning in 1650, he ordered that a daily record be kept of weather conditions at his hunting sites. He issued a detailed regulation on falconry, the Uriadnik, that outlines the proper care and training for his beloved birds. (50) Hunting with falcons, however, was an activity for the elite few. The boyars of the first Romanovs apparently continued to hunt primarily with dogs. Although firearms had been introduced for hunting large game in the reign of Ivan IV, Russian aristocrats up to the time of Peter III considered using guns shameful and continued to go after game, even bears and elk, with dogs, knives, and spears. They hunted wild birds with hawks, but acquiring a falcon remained very difficult. (51)

Because they housed both traditional game and a wide variety of more unusual species, the tsar's preserves outside Moscow became the site of staged animal entertainments as well as hunting. The royal estate at Izmailovo had the largest and most noted Russian collection of exotics in the 17th century. The animal compound, adjacent to the western side of the palace, housed elk, wild boar, wolves, bears, fox, porcupines, donkeys, hinneys, Siberian and American moose, and, according to foreign writers, live lions, tigers, snow leopards, lynx, and sables. There was also a bird court with swans, Chinese geese, peacocks, English hens, mallards, and other rare birds. (52)

The compound at Semenovskoe had polar bears, lynx, fallow deer, moose, and elk, which beginning in 1671 were housed in barns built specially for them. (53)

The menagerie compounds were the foundation of the form of entertainment that at times almost replaced hunting as an amusement. Known to English contemporaries as a "bear garden," it was an arena that featured animal fights, most frequently with dogs sent in against bulls, bears, or each other, supplemented with cockfighting, cockthrowing, or other forms of what Samuel Pepys called "rude and nasty pleasure." (54) Such arranged animal contests had become part of court life in the reign of Vasilii III, grew increasingly popular under Ivan IV, and were a common royal amusement for Fedor Ivanovich. The bear, wild or trained, played the main role. (55) In 1633 or thereabouts, Boris Morozov, Aleksei Mikhailovich's future tutor and guardian, arranged for the child to see a performance of bear-baiting (on record because the huntsman who baited the bear had his caftan torn and petitioned for a new one). (56) Toward the end of February 1648, the young tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich "made time to watch one of his huntsmen, Sila Zertsalov, confront a wild lion, and then a wild bear." (57) The Dutch adventurer Struys visited a village near Moscow, probably Izmailovo, on 19 January 1669, where there was a vast arena for animal fights near the palace, and "we were lucky enough to see a fight of bears and wolves, to which his majesty and the higher courtiers came by sled." Big logs edged the ring, so the countless multitude of spectators found it easier to see the action if they remained standing. The tsar and courtiers had a better vantage point on the palace gallery. Before the fight, about 200 wolves and bears were brought to the area near the arena in strong cages on sledges, and a huge pack of dogs also waited for the festivities to begin. At the signal, several wolves and bears were released from their cages and the dogs rushed at them. Thus began a contest that left some hounds dead, others maimed. (58) Bear-baiting and dog fights also took place in the winter on the frozen Moskva River. (59) Reitenfels described Aleksei Mikhailovich's arrangements for celebrating the Saturday before the beginning of Lent, when huge dogs, English and other types, fought polar bears on the ice, a sight that was particularly entertaining as the animals often could not retain their footing. The tsar returned to the river in the evening to enjoy the streaking lights of an artillery bombardment. (60) As in the West, enjoyment of such spectacles was not limited to the elite. In the 1695 Moscow police reports, Ivan Ivanov Kareev, in charge of the Zamoskvorech'e region from the left side of Piatnitskaia Street to Taganka, noted that those on the roster for night watch duty were not showing up, while the foreign interpreters and translators who lived on Taganka put on dog fights and threatened to beat the local officials to death. (61)

In Muscovy, as in other cultures sharing in the Old Testament inheritance, the term "dog" had few positive connotations. Most of the biblical references use "dog" to describe humans who do not measure up. Aleksei Mikhailovich, in a 1652 letter to the future patriarch Nikon, repented his own sinfulness: "By the grace of God ... I am called the true Christian Tsar, though because of my own evil, worldly actions I am not worthy [to be called] a dog." (62) The imagery was common, going back to the writings of the church fathers. (63) Patriarch Nikon, in turn, complained in 1658 "at having been excluded from the name-day feast of Alexis's sister Anna and at having been denied a piece of her name-day pie which was customarily sent to him if he could not attend. 'I alone was excluded from thy rich table, like a dog.'" (64) In July 1663, when Metropolitan Paisios Ligarides of Gaza, an eminent Greek learned in canon law, confronted Nikon at New Jerusalem, accusing him of popery and making mistakes in new service books, each called the other a dog (in Nikon's list of epithets, equivalent to an "unchristian knave, a peasant"). (65) In the anti-Petrine "Tract on Shaving" attributed to Patriarch Adrian, beards adorned the superior male; men who shaved made themselves resemble "dumb beasts or dogs" which could "grow whiskers but not beards." (66) But probably the most common usage is illustrated by Aleksei Mikhailovich's call to the troops when he was besieged by the mob at Kolomenskoe in July 1662 during the copper riots: "Save me from these dogs!" (67)

Muscovy likewise shared in the contradictions found in many societies between popular practice and official pronouncements. In the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions, dogs were considered unclean. As early as the Church Statute of Vladimir, dogs joined livestock and birds as forbidden presences within a church. (68) Belief that a dog defiled the sacred remained a commonplace in Orthodox Rus', and those who violated the rules would be held accountable. Martyn Stadnitskii, a Polish nobleman who accompanied Iurii Mnishek to Moscow, reported that among the many things Muscovites found unsuitable about Dmitrii I was his practice of bringing dogs to church. (69) The mercenary soldier Conrad Bussow expanded the "unclean" category, explaining that Dmitrii defiled Russian churches "in that he let the unclean Poles enter the churches with their dogs, into the sanctuaries of St. Nicholas and the Immaculate Virgin." (70) Adam Olearius, an envoy from Holstein in the 1630s, likewise noted in his comments on Russian religious practices, "If a dog or some other unclean thing enters the church, as soon as they become aware of it they immediately wash the defiled place and sanctify it anew with water, fire, and incense." (71) The author of Domostroi, who gave instructions on feeding the household guard dog, simultaneously warned about the dangers associated with animals and entertainment: "People who use destructive charms, who frequent sorcerers and wizards, who invite such to their houses--wanting to use them to see something unspeakable--who feed and keep bears, dogs, or hawks, for hunting or for the amusement and delight of simple folk ...--all such must be ordered banished from the church for six years, then to stand for four years among those who must prostrate themselves, and for two years more among the faithful. Only then can they receive communion. If they are unrepentant, and so not give up these cunning pagan ways even after their banishment, then they must be cut off completely from the church." (72) The great hunter and fan of animal fights, Aleksei Mikhailovich, in a 1648 decree to be read on Sundays and festivals in every church in Rus', warned people to desist from devilish acts. "They were not to listen to the mockery of itinerant minstrels or buskers; they must shun sorcerers; they must not play immoral and devilish games, nor bait bears or dance with dogs, nor sing diabolical songs." (73)

The passing references to dog training in the Muscovite sources put it in a negative context. When Aleksei Mikhailovich's ban on minstrels (the skomorokhi) apparently had little effect in the countryside, an order sent to northern villages in 1653 outlined penalties for such entertainment, noting that some minstrels were featuring small trained dogs in addition to bears. (74) Perhaps the best-known instance of dog training is Simeon Streshnev's reaction to Patriarch Nikon's pomposity, an incident that provides a glimpse of activities generally unremarked in surviving sources. Streshnev taught a huge mastiff to stand up on its back legs and wave its front paws about as if in patriarchal blessing (Nikon pronounced a curse on Streshnev when he heard about the dog). (75)

Names bestowed on animals often reveal human attitudes. Aleksei Mikhailovich, like Xenophon and other famous fans of falconry, recommended noble names for birds of such beauty, strength, and intelligence. The only two names for dogs that have turned up thus far in Muscovite sources do not suggest a similarly admiring view of canine talents. A pair of male Medeliankas from the royal kennels were among the gifts that Prince V. V. Tiufiakin was taking to Persia in 1597-98. The gold dog with the dappled chest and white-tipped tail was Stinker (Smerd), while the other dappled male was Dummy (Durak). (76)

Regarding dogs as "unclean" also had roots in the traditional image of dogs as scavengers, particularly in connection with the disposal of human bodies that did not receive proper burial. Commenting on the 1570-71 famine, the mercenary oprichnik Heinrich von Staden noted, "Here and there in the country, many thousand people who had died of the pestilence were eaten by dogs." (77) According to Bussow, after the uprising against the First False Dmitrii, the bodies of his Poles were left naked on the streets until the dogs began to eat them, at which point the boyars ordered that the corpses be carted away. (78) A Muscovite decree of 5 August 1640, outlining sanitation measures to be taken in an effort to halt the spread of an epidemic, ordered that all dead animals--from horses and cattle down to dogs and cats--be removed from Kitaigorod, Belyi gorod, Zemlianoi gorod, and all streets and settlements beyond Moscow's outskirts, taken to places away from habitation and buried, up to and after Dormition Day, thus in the "dog days" of August. (79) In 1654/55 Paul of Aleppo recorded that the "imperial dragoman, who had been sent from Moscow to attend us, reported that four hundred and eighty thousand souls had died there of the plague, making the majority of streets empty of inhabitants; that dogs and pigs were devouring the dead bodies." (80)

At the same time, however, such stereotypical remarks attest to the common presence of dogs as part of the Muscovite landscape. Despite the relatively few paw prints remaining in surviving sources, street and village dogs were almost certainly as well represented in Muscovy as they are now on the island of Pemba off the East African coast, where the cultural dislike of dogs has roots both in religion ("God doesn't like dogs," Mohammed advised against touching them) and in fear of disease (especially rabies). Ray Coppinger reports that when he first went to the island, he was told not to expect to see any dogs: "I offered a quarter to anyone in our group who could spot a dog. I nearly went broke in the first two hours." (81)

Foreigners who visited Muscovy made few comments about the presence of dogs there, but this in itself is a telling indication that they saw much the same canine presence as they did at home. Engravings used as illustrations in foreign travelers' accounts, primarily those by Olearius in the 1630s (Figure 1) and the Swedish diplomat Palmquist, there in the 1670s, provide some examples of inserting dogs into sketches of Muscovite scenes in accord with a convention found in Western art from the early Middle Ages on. (82) For example, a large mastiff/bulldog watched a holiday procession of the patriarch and tsar onto Red Square, dogs observed drunken humans, a horse-drawn sledge moved along a Moscow street with a dog running alongside, and a dog lay under the table at a bootmaker's stall. (83) The engraving from Olearius's travels of the Suzdal" archbishop's house in Kitaigorod included a dog pooping in the courtyard, perhaps a simultaneous reflection of reality, a conventional image, and a conscious or unconscious expression of an attitude foreigners felt on occasion while in Muscovy. (84) Taken together, however, the images suggest that foreign visitors found nothing unusual about the types or numbers of dogs that they saw during their travels.


Given the dominance of religious iconography in 17th-century Russian art, the limited number of very stylized "portraits" (parsuny) with none of the interior decor elements or pets common by then in Western work, and the mere trickle of secular art forms (zhivopis' as opposed to ikonopis') beginning to appear in Muscovy, Russian representations of dogs are relatively rare. The examples found thus far all fall into the category of "miniature" images. Among the seal rings listed in the inventory of Aleksei Mikhailovich's personal property was one of black enamel inset with an oblong ruby on which a sight hound was engraved. (85) In his study of the miniatures in illuminated manuscripts, A. S. Artsikhovskii concluded that the best depiction of the elite hunt was an early 17th-century illustration from the tale of Luka Kolotskii or Kolochskii, a peasant who found a miracle-working icon of the Mother of God in a tree and, enriched by gifts from those who were cured by the image's miracles, began living the boyar life. Accompanying the text passage, "And he went hunting with goshawks and hawks and gerfalcons, he had many dogs and bears and entertained himself with them," the miniature portrays Luka galloping on a white steed, followed by other horsemen, with a goshawk on his raised wrist poised for flight. One of his companions has another goshawk on his wrist, in reserve. Three goshawks circle above them, one with a bird in its talons. Two dogs run alongside Luka, chasing the rabbit ahead of them. Out in front, on the edge of a wood, three dogs are attacking a bear. (86) Although Luka eventually repented and donated money to found the Mozhaisk Kolotskii Monastery, the life of the secular aristocrat was clearly identified as one devoted fully to hawks and hounds. (87)

Even iconographic art incorporates a few images of dogs. Gurii Nikitin's fresco (1680) in the Church of St. Elijah the Prophet in Iaroslavl' depicting the story of Lazarus and the rich man shows two sight hounds, one white and one reddish, licking Lazarus's sores as he lies near the rich man's gate. (88) The most common scene to include dogs comes from the life of St. Nicholas, depicting the miracle wherein St. Nicholas returned a young boy to his grieving parents. The miracle was often included in narrative icons in the miniature scenes of "events in the life" arranged around the central panel representation of the saint. Usually Nicholas stands behind the boy as they approach the table where his parents wait. (89) Some Russian icon painters, however, added a canine or two to the waiting group to illustrate another point from the vita story, which says that the "dogs began to bark" when Basil returned. (90) Perhaps the fiercest-looking dogs in Russian iconography, resembling pit bulls, are found in the depiction of Basil's return on an 18th-century icon from the Uspenskii collection, now in the Hermitage Museum. Unfortunately, the provenance of the icon remains unknown. (91) This fierce canine depiction, however, is an exception because other versions of the "return of Basil" scene portray dogs that are almost as "unfrightening" as iconographic Russian dragons. One example includes a spectral-looking little sight hound, (92) while another has a more lifelike reddish hound. (93) In cases where the artist included a pair of dogs, one is usually light-colored while the other is dark. (94) Most artists portrayed sight hounds, but the dog on a Karelian icon of St. Nicholas looks remarkably like a Finnish Spitz, perhaps a natural choice for a northern icon painter. (95) The anonymous icon painter from the Kargopol' area who painted an icon in the late 16th/early 17th century depicting the fiery ascent of the Prophet Elijah, surrounded by miniature scenes from his life, probably drew details from the local streets in composing scene 7, which shows a pack of pariah dogs, two brown and two white, with beautifully detailed toenails, teeth, and tongues, tearing Jezebel's body to pieces outside the walls of Jezreel. Once again, however, the image is far from terrifying: the jaws around Jezebel's arm reveal a "soft mouth" that would bring the limb to hand "table-ready." (96)

Seemingly insignificant details can be revealing. Muscovite icon painters did not portray dogs as savage beasts or mankillers but seemingly empathized with fellow creatures. Those who inserted dogs into the scene depicting St. Nicholas returning Basil to his parents placed them beside the family's holiday table, not chained to a post or doghouse out near the gate or at the back of the compound. Domastrai assumed that a household would have a dog, including recommendations for keeping separate dog dishes and setting aside scraps for their food as part of the program for running a thrifty domestic economy. Relatively little private correspondence between individuals has survived. But even here there is an occasional reflection of hunting with dogs as a normal part of life. A mid-17th-century note from Ignashka Kovrigin, then residing in a "little Kashin village" (az v kashinskoi derevnishke) to his kinsman Panfilii Timofeevich Saltykov, a Iaroslavl' landholder, after the usual wishes for good health and inquiries about Panfilii's grandson, asks him to send both news and hunting hounds back with Ignashka's man Mitka. (97) The everyday casualness of the request suggests it was not an unusual occurrence.

A shared interest in sports involving animals and acquiring animals suitable for such activities, whether through breeding or import, contributed to the increasingly rapid convergence of aristocratic outlook and lifestyle between late Muscovite Rus' and the West. Not surprisingly, this trend is better documented with regard to horsemanship, racing, and breeding than it is with respect to dogs. By the late 17th century, aristocratic Russians in court circles were reading translations of dressage manuals and veterinary books, employing foreign riding masters, keeping stud books, racing, and laying the foundations for Count Orlov-Chesmenskii's achievement in breeding worldclass trotters in the 18th century. (98) Hunting and animal baiting were well-established in Rus' by the late 16th century, and even during the Time of Troubles the Polish courtiers of False Dmitrii I had their dogs in Moscow and Jacob de la Gardie brought his hunting dogs and falcons to Swedish-occupied Novgorod. (99) Such aristocratic entertainments became ever more popular thereafter. Peter the Great thus enjoyed familiar entertainment on his 1697-98 trip to the West. Frederick I of Brandenburg arranged a gala dinner for the embassy, complete with fireworks, a fight between bulls and bears, and a staged hunt during which Peter and his host shot about 70 deer from the huge herd rounded up by huntsmen and then set dogs on the wounded animals to the music of horns and drums. (100)

The more abundant sources for the imperial period suggest that canine culture in Rus' paralleled that farther west. As post-Petrine Russia increasingly adopted elements of European culture, lapdogs began to appear in portraits and as gifts to ladies, and dogs became a "fetishistic part of aristocratic material culture both in the flesh as fashion accessories and gifts and as images in painting and sculpture, as emblems for and guardians of fidelity, and as substitutes for humans." (101) A Russian engraving of Izmailovo by Ivan Zubov, done about 1730, shows how quickly Western conventions had been incorporated: it features ladies in a carriage and a mounted gentleman, hawk on wrist, with one dog gamboling alongside and another sight hound standing in the foreground. (102) As was the case with many other aspects of daily life in Rus', dogs also rapidly emerged from their "cloak of invisibility" as soon as the flood of new cultural influences engulfed Russian life.

The articles in this issue by Ann Kleimola, Isolde Thyret, and Donald Ostrowski will also appear in a volume on everyday life in Muscovy, to be published by Slavica Publishers later in 2010.--Eds.

I am indebted to the Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies, University of Illinois, and to the Slavic Reference Service and Interlibrary Loan Service, University of Illinois Libraries, for support that made writing this paper possible and to Shirley Glade and Charles Halperin for their assistance.

Dept. of History

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Lincoln, NE 68588 USA

(1) Jane Costlow and Amy Nelson, "Introduction," in The Other Animals: Beyond the Human in Russian Culture and History, ed. Costlow and Nelson (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 13-15.

(2) Ibid., 33.

(3) Richard Hellie, The Economy and Material Culture of Russia, 1600-1725 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 51. The presence of cats is attested only by the prices given for cat furs (55).

(4) The Three Books of M. Terentius Varro concerning Agriculture, trans, the Rev. T. Owens (Oxford: University Press, 1800), chap. 21; Douglas Brewer, Terence Clark, and Adrian Phillips, Dogs in Antiquity: Anubis to Cerberus--The Origins of the Domestic Dog (Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips, 2001), 87-91.

(5) Raymond and Lorna Coppinger, Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 102-3. Between 1977 and 1990, the Coppingers headed a livestock-guarding dog study at Hampshire College, breeding, placing, and tracking the work of over 1,400 canines. The dogs were primarily Italian Maremmano-Abruzzeses, Anatolian shepherds, and Yugoslavian Sarplaninacs, but the researchers also observed Tibetan mastiffs, Portuguese Castro Laboreiros, Pyrenean mountain dogs, komondorok, kuvaszok, pulik, and Transcaucasian ovcharkas.

(6) Hellie, Economy and Material Culture, 51.

(7) Ibid., 49, 96, 279-80, 313-27.

(8) "Knigi raskhodnye kaznacheia chemtsa Filareta s 13 marta 1605 g. po 28 fevralia 1606 g.," in Nikolai Nikol'skii, Kirillo-Belozerskii monastyr' i ego ustroistvo do vtoroi chetverti XVII veka (1397-1625), 1, no. 2 (St. Petersburg: Sinodal'naia tipografiia, 1910), OCLX, CLXIV, OCLXXVII, OCLXXVIII, OCLXXX, OCLXXXIV.

(9) Hellie, Economy and Material Culture, 610-12.

(10) A. N. Zertsalov, "Ob"ezzhie golovy i politseiskie dela v Moskve v kontse XVII v.," Chteniia v Imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri moskovskom universitete, bk. 3 (1894): 57.

(11) Slovar' russkogo iazyka XI-XVII vv., 12: O-Oparnyi (Moscow: Nauka, 1987); I. I. Sreznevskii, Slovar 'drevnerusskogo iazyka, 2, pt. 1: L-O (Moscow: Kniga, 1989).

(12) I. Ia. Gurliand, Prikaz velikogo gosudaria tainykh del (Iaroslavl': Tipografiia Gubernskogo pravleniia, 1902), 168.

(13) Slovar' russkogo iazyka XI-XVII vv., 8: Krada-Liashchina (Moscow: Nauka, 1981), 289; L. P. Sabaneev, Sobaki okhotnich 'i--Borzye i gonchie (Moscow: Fizkul'tura i sport, 1987), 402. O. A. Egorov, Ocherk istorii russkoipsovoi okhoty (XV-XVIII vv.) (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2008), 198-204, suggests that loshaia sobaka, volkodav, and gonnaia sobaka may all have been used as labels for sheepdogs, a plausible hypothesis but one in need of further substantiation.

(14) Slovar' russkogo iazyka XVIII veka, 16: Oblomit '--Ontsa (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2006), 157.

(15) The D, omostroi: Rules for Russian Households in the Time of Ivan the Terrible, trans, and ed. Carolyn Johnston Pouncy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994), 150 (chap. 42), 153 (chap. 45). The same rank-order of animal importance appears in 20th-century England. Looking back on his veterinary training in 1930s Glasgow, the noted chronicler of Yorkshire rural life James Herriot recalled that it paid little attention to small-animal cases. The care of horses always predominated in textbooks, laboratory, or hands-on practicum, whether the topic was anatomy, animal husbandry, or materia medica, while the treatment of dogs always was an afterthought: "Introduction," James Herriot's Dog Stories (New York: St. Martin's, 1987), xv-xviii.

(16) S. Dolgov, "Vedomost' o Kitaiskoi zemle i o glubokoi Indii," Pamiatniki drevneipis 'mennosti i iskusstva 133 (1899): 24.

(17) Berngard (Bernhard) Tanner, Opisanie putesheswiia pol'skogo posol'stva v Moskvu v 1678 godu, trans. I. Ivakin (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1891), 104.

(18) Ia. Ia. Streis, Tri puteshestviia, trans. E. Borodina, ed. A. Morozov (Moscow: Ogiz-Sotsekgiz, 1935), 152.

(19) Georg Bernhard Michels, At War with the Church: Religious Dissent in Seventeenth-Century Russia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 181-82 and 291 n. 108.

(20) In Novgorod, as evening approached, trade stopped at a given signal, all outsiders left, the Hansa compound gates were locked, and the dogs were released from their chains; M. Berezhkov, O torgovle Rusi s Ganzoi do kontsa XV veka (St. Petersburg: V. Bezobrazov i komp., 1879), 142, 144. In Khvoshchinskaia's town, the political exile warned the up-and-coming chinovnik: "It's eleven o'clock, and the dogs are being let out all over; if Your Honor stays much longer they'll tear your coattails off and perhaps even get at your legs." See Nadezhda Khvoshchinskaya, The Boarding-School Girl, trans. Karen Rosneck (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2000), 26 (Pansionerka [1861]; I thank Prof. Diana Greene for this reference).

(21) Domostroi, 153 (chap. 45).

(22) Don Juan of Persia, A Shi'Ah Catholic, 1560-1604, trans, and ed. with introduction by Guy Le Strange (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1926), 244.

(23) Ibid., 254.

(24) Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov, ed. R. B. Miuller and L. V. Cherepnin (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1952), 364-65, 558; Pamiatniki russkogo prava, 4 (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo iuridicheskoi literatury, 1956), 410, 412, 443,472.

(25) 1649 Ulozhenie, chap. 10, arts. 282-83, in The Muscovite Law Code (Ulozhenie) of 1649, Part 1: Text and Translation, trans, and ed. Richard Hellie (Irvine, CA: Charles Schlacks, 1988), 84.

(26) Ibid., art. 281.

(27) Ibid., art. 284.

(28) "Dopolnitel' nye stat'i k Sudebniku tsaria Ioanna Vasil'evicha," Arkhiv istoriko-iuridicheskikh svedenii, otnosiashchikhsia do Rossii, ed. Nikolai Kalachov, hk. 2, pt. 1 (Moscow: Aleksandr Semen, 1855), sec. 2, no. 3, art. 11, p. 82.

(29) For the provisions in the 1588 Lithuanian Statute, see I. I. Lappo, Litovskii statut v mos kovskom perevod-redaktsii (Iur'ev: K. Mattisen, 1916), art. 13 ("o grabezhakh i o platezhu grabezhei"), sect. 12, p. 371.

(30) Stephen Budiansky, The Truth about Dogs (New York: Viking, 2000), 30.

(31) N. V. Turkin, Okhota i okhotnich 'e zakonodatel 'stvo v 300-lemii period tsarstvovaniia doma Romanovykh (Moscow: Imperatorskoe obshchestvo razmnozheniia okhomich'ikh i promyslovykh zhivomykh i pravil'noi okhoty, 1913), 46; Sabaneev, Sobaki okhotnich 'i, 61, 337, 371. Sabaneev concludes that Kostroma province was already in the 17th century the source of the best sporting dog stock. It is possible, however, that the surviving document is part of a set of circulars sent with agents to various regions of the tsardom.

(32) Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoi kommissiei, 3 (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia II-go otdeleniia sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1841), no. 28.

(33) Sir Jerome Horsey, "Travels," in Rude and Barbarous Kingdom: Russia in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers, ed. Lloyd E. Berry and Robert O. Crummey (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), 324.

(34) N. I. Kutepov, Velikokniazheskaia i tsarskaia okhota na Rusi, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Ekspeditsiia zagotovleniia gosudarstvennykh bumag, 1896-1911), 1:109; Sabaneev, Sabaki okhotnich 'i, 60.

(35) "1594 dekabria 8--1596. Priezd ot Persidskogo shakha Abbasa i gontsa Andi beka i kuptsa Ali Khosrova--Tut zhe otpiski iz Astrakhani o vozvrashchenii iz Persii Rossiiskogo posla kniazia Andreia Zvenigorodskogo," Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh i torgovykh snoshenii Moskovskoi Rusi s Persiei, 1 [= Trudy Vostochnogo otdeleniia Imperatorskogo Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, 20] (St. Petersburg: Tovarishchestvo parovoi skoropechami Iablonskii i Perott, 1890), 305.

(36) Sabaneev, Sobaki okhotnich 'i, 60.

(37) Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, 2:60; Sabaneev, Sobaki okhotnich 'i, 58, 401-2.

(38) "O posylke pominkov kyzylbashskomu shakhu, k persidskomu shakhu i k angliiskomu, k datskomu i k inym korolem," Zapiski Otdeleniia russkoi i slavianskoi arkheologii Imperatorskogo russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva 2 (1861): 361.

(39) Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, 3:9 n. 22. The Medelianka was still found in Russia in 1889; see sketch in Sabaneev, Sobaki okhotnich 'i, 163, illus. 15 (from "Priroda i okhota," 1889, no. 9).

(40) "1610-1613, Zapiska o Tsarskom dvore," Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoi kommissiei, 2 (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia II-go otdeleniia sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1841), 424 (no. 355). On the royal hunt, see Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, and I. N. Paltusova, ed., Pridvornaia okhota (Moscow: Khudozhnik i kniga, 2002). For the text of Aleksei Mikhailovich's decree on poaching, see Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, 2:n. 74.

(41) G. K. Kotoshikhin, O Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha, ed. G. A. Leont'eva (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000), 106.

(42) Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, 2:69-70.

(43) Ibid., 61.

(44) Makarii, episkop arkhangel'skii i kholmogorskii, "Istoricheskiia svedeniia ob Antonievom Siiskom monastyre," Chteniia v Imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri moskovskom universitete, bk. 3 (1878): 105.

(45) Iakov Reitenfel's (Jan Reitenfels), "Skazaniia Svetleishemu gertsogu toskanskomu Koz'me tret'emu o Moskovii, Padua, 1680 g.," trans. Aleksei Stankevich, Chteniia v Imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri moskovskom universitete, bk. 3 (1905): 88.

(46) Kutepov, Tsarskaia akhota, 2:60, 70.

(47) Philip Longworth, Alexis, Tsar of All the Russias (London: Secker and Warburg, 1984), 224; Aleksandr Barsukov, Rod Sheremetevykh, 8 (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1904), 139-41, 146-47, 150-53; V. N. Berkh, Tsarstvovanie tsaria Alekseia Mikhailavicha (St. Petersburg: Kh. Gints, 1831), 1:297.

(48) Iv. Zabelin, "Okhomichii dnevnik Tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha, 1657 goda," Opyty izucheniia russkikh drevnostei i istorii, pt. 1 (Moscow: Grachev i Ko., 1872), 282. Matiushkin's mother was Fedos'ia Luk'ianovna Streshneva: see Barsukov, Rod Sheremetevykh, 8:330; and Kotoshikhin, O Rossii, 124.

(49) [Samuel Collins,] The Present State of Russia (London: John Winter, 1671), 58; Longworth, Alexis, 17, 25; Berkh, Tsarstvovanie Tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha, 1:22, 25-28. On the acquisition and care of the birds, see Kotoshikhin, O Rossii, 107-8.

(50) See Iv. Zabelin, "Tsar' Aleksei Mikhailovich (Ego pis'ma i uriadnik okhoty)," and Zabelin, "Okhotnichii dnevnik tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha," 1:202-300.

(51) Sabaneev, Sobaki okhotnich i, 62. On hunting gear, see Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, 2:64-66.

(52) I. M. Snegirev, Dvortsovoe tsarskoe selo Izmailovo, rodovaia votchina Romanovykh (Moscow: Shiuman i Glushkov, 1866), 33-34; Longworth, Alexis, 203-4.

(53) A. V. Artsikhovskii, ed., Ocherki russkoi kul'tury XVII veka (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1979), 2:62.

(54) On the English case and the beginnings of the anticruelty movement there, see Kathryn Shevelow, For the Love of Animals: The Rise of the Animal Protection Movement (New York: Henry Holt, 2008).

(55) Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, 1:167-68.

(56) Longworth, Alexis, 9.

(57) Ibid., 37.

(58) Streis, Triputesheswiia, 154-55.

(59) Barsukov, Rod Sheremetevykh, 8:96.

(60) Reitenfel's "Skazaniia Svetleishemu gertsogu," 89.

(61) Zertsalov, "Ob"ezzhie golovy," 56.

(62) Longworth, Alexis, 73.

(63) David Lloyd Armbruster, "The Letters of Tsar Aleksej Mixajlovic as Literature: A Study of Language and Style" (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1973), 142. On the use of the image, see Tsar Ivan IV's Reply to Jan Rokyta, ed. Valerie A. Turn ins (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), 37-38.

(64) Longworth, Alexis, 130; W. Palmer, The Patriarch and the Tsar, 6 vols. (London, 1871-76), 4:149-56.

(65) Longworth, Alexis, 166.

(66) "Drevne-russkaia boroda," in F. I. Buslaev, Drevne-russkaia narodnaia literatura i iskusstvo, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, Obshchestvennaia pol'za, 1861), 2:228. Another tract lumped together "Muslims and heretics, Lutherans and Poles, and other shavers of their ilk, with just whiskers, such as cats and dogs have"; see Lindsey Hughes, "Peter I's Laws on Shaving," in Russian Society and Culture and the Long Eighteenth Century: Essays in Honour of Anthony G. Cross, ed. Roger Bartlett and Hughes (Miinster: Lit, 2004), 26.

(67) Longworth, Alexis, 153.

(68) Pamiatniki russkogoprava, 1:240, 245,250-51.

(69) Martyn Stadnitskii, "Istoriia Dimitriia, tsaria Moskovskogo, i Marii Mnishkovny, docheri voevody Sandomirskogo, tsaritsy Moskovskoi," Inostrantsy o drevnei Moskve (Moscow: Stolitsa, 1991), 235.

(70) Conrad Bussow, The Disturbed State of the Russian Realm, trans, and ed. G. Edward Orchard (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1994), 59; Konrad Bussov, Moskovskaia khronika 1586-1613 (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1961), 116.

(71) The Travels of Olearius in 17th-Century Russia, trans, and ed. Samuel H. Baron (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967), 263.

(72) Domostroi, 118 (chap. 23).

(73) Longworth, Alexis, 54; Russell Zguta, Russian Minstrels: A History of the Skomorokhi ([Philadelphia:] University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), 60-61. Offenders were to be thrashed with switches and suffer exile for a third offense.

(74) Zguta, Russian Minstrels, 64.

(75) Longworth, Alexis, 129.

(76) "1595 maia 17-1598, Otpravlenie v Persiiu Rossiiskogo posla kniazia Vasil'ia Tiufiakina i d'iaka Semena Emel'ianova dlia postanovleniia s Persidskim shakhom krepkoi druzhby i nepodvizhnogo protiv obshchikh nedrugov soedineniia," Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh i torgovykh snoshenii, 1:391.

(77) Heinrich yon Staden, The Land and Government of Muscovy: A Sixteenth-Century Account, trans, and ed. Thomas Esper (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967), 29.

(78) Bussov, Moskovskaia khronika, 128.

(79) Zakonodatel'nye akty russkogo gusudarstva vtoroi poloviny XVI-pervoi poloviny XVII veka: Teksty (Leningrad: Nauka, 1986), 192 (no. 278).

(80) The Travels of Macarius: Extracts from the Diary of the Travels of Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, Written in Arabic by his Son Paul, Archdeacon of Aleppo; in the Years of Their Journeying, 1652-1660, sel. and art. Laura Ridding (London: Oxford University Press, 1936), 25.

(81) Coppinger, Dogs, 72-76.

(82) For a few examples from a long tradition, see H. W. Janson, History of Art (New York: Abrams, 1970), 175, 273,275, 290, 425, 433; Gilbert Creighton, History of Renaissance Art throughout Europe (New York: Prentice Hall, n.d.), 29, 73, 102, 107, 135, 187, 189, 191, 194, 223, 228, 239, 277, 287, 304, 316, 321, 344. I am indebted to Shirley Glade for advice on this theme.

(83) Adam Olearii (Olearius), Opisanie puteshestviia v Moskoviiu i cherez Moskoviiu v Persiiu i obratno, ed. A. M. Loviagin (St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1906), between 52 and 53, 193, 212, 228.

(84) Ibid., 132.

(85) "Plat'e i nekotorye veshchi tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha, 1676 goda," in Pavel Sawaitov, Opisanie starinnykh tsarskikh utvarei, odezhd, oruzhiia, ratnykh dospekhov i konskogo pribora (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1865), 73-74. His collection of ten seal rings included a St. George, two with the double-headed eagle, and one with a human figure surrounded by the inscription "velikogo gosudaria Tsaria i Velikogo Kniazia Alekseia Mikhailovicha, vsea Velikiia i Malyia i Belyia Rosii Samoderzhtsa."

(86) A. V. Artsikhovskii, Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow: Moskovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1944), 91. The illustration comes from the Second Ostermanovskii manuscript, 1620.

(87) For the tale, see "Povest" o Luke Kolochskom," (accessed 11 May 2010).

(88) I. L. Buseva-Davydova, Kul'tura i iskusstvo v epokhu peremen: Rossiia semnadtsatogo stoletiia (Moscow: Indrik, 2008), tables--reviewed in Kritika 11, 1 (2010): 161-72.

(89) See, for example, an icon from the upper Volga area, second half of the 17th century, in Liki russkoi ikony, plate 26. This scene appears with many variations (the table may be round or oblong, one or both parents may be present, with or without guests, Basil may be dressed in "foreign" clothing, he may or may not be carrying the wine cup and/or a towel); see Nancy P. Sevcenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (Torino: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1983), 144-45.

(90) Gates of Mystery: The Art of Holy Russia, ed. Roderick Grierson (Fort Worth, TX: Intercultura, [1992]), 167-68.

(91) No. 132 in the numeration of the Uspenskii collection; A. S. Kostsova and A. G. Pobedinskaia, eds., Russkie zhitiinye ikony XVI--nachala XX veka: Katalog vystavki Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha (St. Petersburg: Slaviia, 1999), plate 10.

(92) St. Nicholas the Miracle Worker with Scenes from His Life (Nikola Zaraiskii), 17th--beginning 18th century, painted in the "northern style" (severnye pis'ma), Russkie zhitiinye ikony, 38 (no. 7) and 41 (no. 7), scene 11. The spectral quality may be a consequence of paint loss over the centuries. A more substantial small white dog appears in a 16th-century Rostov depiction; Pochitanie Sviatitelia Nikolaia Chudotvortsa i ego otrazhenie v fol'klore, pis'mennosti i iskusstve (Moscow: M-Skanrus, 2007), illus. 3.8.

(93) Leaves of the Triptych "St. Nicholas the Miracle Worker," 16th century, and "The Miracle of the Son of Agricola," in I. A. Ivanova, ed., Muzei drevnerusskogo iskusstva imeni Andreia Rubleva (Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1968), plates 73 and 74.

(94) See, for example, a 17th-century icon from Kopor'e in the Novgorod region, in Ulf Abel and Vera Moore, Icons: Nationalmuseum Stockholm (Stockholm: Nationalmuseum, 2002), 90 and plate 99; I am indebted to John Barnes for this reference. See also a 16th-century icon from the Novgorod region in the collection of I. S. Ostroukhov, in Igor' Grabar', Istoriia russkogo iskusstva, 6 [=Istoriia zhivopisi, 1: Do-Petrovskaia epokha] (Moscow: I. Knebel', 1913), 33, and an icon frame (ikona-rama) with scenes from the life of Sc Nicholas, dated to the end of the 17th century, from the Church of the Prophet Elijah in the hamlet of Suisar', Prionezhskii region, Republic of Karelia, acquired by the Museum of the Karelian Republic in 1962 and restored by M. V. Kaznov in 1987; Obraz sviatitelia Nikolaia Chudotvortsa v zhivopisi, rukopisnoi i staropechatnoi knige, grafike, melkoi plastike, dereviannoi skul'pture i dekorativno-prikladnom iskusstve XIII-XXI vekov iz sobranii muzeev i chastnykh kollektsii severo-zapadnogo regiona Rossii: Katalog vystavok, Vologda, aprel'--mai 2004 (Moscow: SkanRus, 2004), cat. 212, 111.

(95) Icon of St. Nicholas with Scenes from His Life, first half of the 18th century, village of Novinka, in E. Smirnova and S. Yamshchikov, Old Russian Painting, Latest Discoveries: Obonezhye Painting, 14th-18th Centuries (Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers, 1974), plate 54; and Vadim Gippenreiter, Garmoniia vechnogo: Drevnee iskusstvo Karelii (Petrozavodsk: Karpovan sizarekset, 1994), plate 76. Briusova identifies this icon as coming from the St. Nicholas Church in the hamlet of Padanskii pogost: V. G. Briusova, Russkaia zhivopis' 17 veka (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1984), plate 89.

(96) Ikony Russkogo Severa: Shedevry drevnerusskoi zhivopisi Arkhangel'skogo muzeia izobrazitel'nykh iskusstv (Moscow: Severnyi palomnik, 2007), 1:472-73,479 (no. 103); see also a plate of the entire icon, not the separate scenes, ill Severnye pis'ma: Katalog (Arkhangel'sk: Severo-zapadnoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1999), 69 and no. 84 (dated here as first half of the 17th c.; restored by G. V. Tsirul', Moscow, 1970s).

(97) Gramotki XVII-XVIII veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), no. 76. The note is dated only 8 March, but Saltykov appears in service registers in the 1630s and 1640s and died in 1666; saa_sam.shtml#s175 and (accessed 11 May 2010).

(98) Ann M. Kleimola, "Cultural Convergence: The Equine Connection between Muscovy and Europe," in The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline, and Identity in the Early Modern World, ed. Karen Raber and Treva J. Tucker (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 45-62.

(99) Bussov, Moskavskaia khronika, 111; Elisabeth Lofstrand and Laila Nordquist, Accounts of an Occupied City: Catalogue of the Novgorod Occupation Archives, 1611-1617 (Stockholm: Riksarkivet, 2005), 261.

(100) Kutepov, Tsarskaia okhota, 3:10.

(101) Gitta Hammarberg, "Dogs and Doggerel: Gogol''s Eighteenth-Century Roots," in Russian Society and Culture and the Long Eighteenth Century, 171; T. A. Selinova, Portretnaia miniatiura v Rossii XVIII-XIX vekov iz sobraniia Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia (Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR, 1988), 103, 311; and E. N. Ivanova, Miniatiura kontsa XVIII-pervoi poloviny XIX veka iz sobraniia Vserossiiskogo muzeia A. S. Pushkina (St. Petersburg: Ego, 1996), no. 179; Semeon Ekshtut, "Love and the Lap-Dog," Women and Gender in 18th-Century Russia, ed. Wendy Rosslyn (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003), 105-10.

(102) A. Kuznetsov, Izmailovskii ostrov (Moscow: Russkii mir, 2007), 37.
COPYRIGHT 2010 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Kleimola, Ann
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:4EXRU
Date:Jun 22, 2010
Previous Article:An interview with Edward L. Keenan.
Next Article:Economic reconstruction or corporate raiding? The Borisoglebskii Monastery in Torzhok and the ascription of monasteries in the 17th century.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters