Printer Friendly

Putting Kurbskii in his rightful place.

Konstantin Erusalimskii, Sbornik Kurbskogo (Kurbskii's Miscellany), 2 vols. Moscow: Znak, 2009. 1: Issledovanie knizhnoi kul'tury (A Study of Book Culture). 888 pp. ISBN-13 978-5955103051. 2: Issledovanie knizhnoi kul'tury (Intended title Publikatsiia tekstov [Publication of the Texts]). 536 pp. ISBN-13 978-5955102894.

Historical knowledge is a paradoxical thing. (1) For more than 200 years, the work of the fugitive prince Andrei Kurbskii and his polemical exchange with Ivan the Terrible have been a major source for the history of Russia's first tsar. The importance of these works is a function not just of the completeness and veracity of the information they contain--indeed, there are major issues here--but of the insights they offer scholars. Without too much distortion, one could say that even now scholars and ordinary readers look at the Russian 16th century through the lens given us by Andrei Kurbskii, political emigre. Likewise, there are adherents of the diametrically opposite view, who take their perspective from Ivan the Terrible.

Soviet historians' intense reaction to the work of the American Slavicist Edward Keenan--in which he rejects the authenticity of Ivan the Terrible's correspondence with Kurbskii as well as Kurbskii's other texts--may well have been elicited by precisely these circumstances. (2) Keenan's hypothesis destroyed basic perceptions of the Russian 16th century, eroded its foundations, and, instead of an orderly sketch of Ivan's reign, left behind only ruins. It was entirely unacceptable, because it eliminated the whole of the Russian historical tradition, beginning with Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin.

Why do we bring together Karamzin and the Soviet historiographical tradition? Kurbskii laid out, in his works, the concept of "two Ivans": the good ruler assisted by the virtuous advisers Aleksei Adashev and the priest Sil'vestr, the "Chosen Council"; and the terrifying tyrant who appeared after their exile from the court under the influence of "evil counselors"--the Basmanovs, heading the oprichniki. Historians' views varied considerably. Some considered the Chosen Council a progressive government; others regarded its members as traitors to the state. Some unmasked the oprichniki, whereas others, following Stalin, wrote about the "progressive army of oprichniki." But without question, a single thread connected Nikolai Karamzin to the Soviet historians Aleksandr Zimin and Ruslan Skrynnikov: the history of Ivan the Terrible was a history of the "two Ivans." We might argue that Kurbskii defeated Ivan in their famous debate, because for 200 years historians have viewed the second half of the 16th century through Kurbskii's glasses.

In this context, we must revisit Keenan's deconstruction of the myths about the Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible and Kurbskii. Soviet historians harshly criticized his work, because it questioned the authenticity of the main source available for studying the government of Ivan the Terrible and, in doing so, destroyed existing historical models. Had Keenan concentrated on critiquing the Correspondence as a historical source and proved the mythical nature of many of its constructions, founded solely on the "testimony" of Ivan the Terrible or Andrei Kurbskii, it would have been much more difficult to criticize his work. But he hypothesized the complete falsity of the Correspondence, which he attributed to 17th-century authors. This hypothesis had many weak spots that attracted the attention of Keenan's critics in reviews and debates. In the struggle with Keenan, Soviet historians missed the rational core of his argument: a critical reassessment of the historiographical myths generated by the Correspondence. In this sense, Russian historians have undervalued Keenan's work.

As a result, despite criticisms of the Correspondence as a historical source, most historians and philologists still consult these texts--which are known to be far from flawless. But few scholars actually work from the manuscripts; most use the published works of Groznyi and Kurbskii. At the same time, there is no guarantee that the existing publications correctly represent the authentic texts or accurately convey the words that emerged so long ago from the pens of the first Russian tsar and the first Russian dissident. Nor is it certain that, from them, one can adequately and fully reconstruct the creative personalities of these men.

Scholars have not yet come close to resolving serious issues of how to identify what exactly Ivan the Terrible and Kurbskii wrote. Their writings have been obscured by later editing, by layers, by distortions, and by tendentious interference. Dictation is also a problem. Although there have been efforts to identify the tsar's own handwriting, it is now clear that Ivan the Terrible dictated his "writings." (3) The same problem pertains to Kurbskii's "heritage": There are no copies written in the prince's own hand, either of his famous epistles to Ivan the Terrible or of his equally famous History of the Grand Prince of Moscow. To what degree did scribes participate in their compilation?

From an archeographical and textological perspective, Iu. D. Rykov and Ia. S. Lur'e's edition of the Kurbskii-Groznyi correspondence (five letters) is the best; it was published in 1979 and reissued in 1981 and 1993. (4) But the rest of Ivan the Terrible's work and that of his opponent, Prince Andrei Kurbskii, has, until recently, been available only in publications that do not correspond to modern editorial standards. For example, the N G. Ustrialov and G. Z. Kuntsevich editions of Kurbskii's principal work, Istoriia o kniazia velikogo moskovskoga delekh (The History of the Grand Prince of Moscow), are hopelessly out-of-date; a more recent edition by John Fennell also needs elaboration; and the recent publication by A. A. Tsekhanovich in the Library of Old Russian Literature series is based on late copies and not the most authentic ones. (5)

The appearance of a two-volume work by the Moscow historian Konstantin Erusalimskii provides us with an edition that will remain standard for many years to come and raises "Kurbskiana" to a new level. A great deal has been said about Kurbskii over the last 200 years, and one would think that a historian who could identify even some nuances that are new in the biography and writings of the prince could have counted him- or herself satisfied with the results. But Erusalimskii has achieved some real breakthroughs, so that further developments in this area will make no sense unless they take Erusalimskii's ideas into consideration.

Erusalimskii's principal contribution, in my opinion, lies in his demonstration of the multilayered and complex composition of texts attributed to Kurbskii, the uncovering of their organic development and "genetic" nature (presented as proven concepts or as hypotheses). Of course, Erusalimskii's predecessors have detected various versions (redaktsii) of Kurbskii's works dating to different periods. But he has elaborated on the classification of these versions based on his study of 85 copies of Kurbskii's collected miscellanies, which include the History of the Grand Prince of Moscow and a collection of Kurbskii's letters to various persons, including 5 recensions (izvody) and 15 types (vidy).

The closest to a hypothetical protograph, he believes, is Uvarov no. 301, a manuscript from the collection of the State Historical Museum in Moscow, which Erusalimskii used as the main text for his publication of Kurbskii in the second volume of the book under review here. Erusalimskii further suggests that several other copies may also stem from the protograph (Tikhonravov no. 639; St. Petersburg Seminary no. 309-1, Viazemskii no. 6040, and Muzeiskii no. 3090). Some fragments of text from the protograph were also reconstructed based on copies of the Barsov type and of Khar'kov no. 168 (1:744-48). Using these, Erusalimskii revised the traditional scheme for linking versions and copies, a scheme that emerged from the first publication of Kurbskii's texts by N. G. Ustrialov. The scholar takes Uvarov no. 301 as closest to the archetypal text, then reconstructs omissions in that copy using other copies. The result is a serious and convincing revision of the existing archeographical tradition--based, of course, on the studies of his predecessors (in particular Iu. D. Rykov). Even as Erusalimskii advances new claims, his argumentation remains correct and well reasoned.

The presence of layers in Kurbskii's writings--layers originating in different periods--has been suggested by other scholars more than once (especially with reference to Kurbskii's second and third letters to Ivan the Terrible). (6) Nonetheless, it has been common practice among historians, and especially philologists, to refer to the texts ascribed to Kurbskii as a single entity, an authentic and homogeneous whole. The potential of the entire corpus of texts as historical sources was not questioned; challengers addressed only particular details. Nor was any doubt cast on the possibility of reconstructing Kurbskii's own perspective and philosophy based on this narrative. At the same time, the texts of the Kurbskii-Groznyi correspondence that have come down to us were edited in the 17th century; pieces of text dropped out, and interpolations were made. As a result, the use of these texts as historical sources without first identifying the protograph is highly problematic.

The first to strike a blow against this fanciful picture, as I noted above, was Edward Keenan, who demonstrated an undeniable link between Kurbskii's works and the literary context of the 17th century. Here I will not parse the controversy between Keenan and his opponents--that subject now doubtless deserves a monograph of its own, which might be altogether fascinating and instructive. I will only say that it seems to me that Keenan's opponents offer the more serious arguments. Keenan did not succeed in demonstrating that the texts ascribed to Kurbskii derive from works written in the 17th century. I do not see the existence of the correspondence between Ivan and the fugitive prince in the 16th century as doubtful. We have evidence of the existence of this correspondence in sources that without question date from the 16th century.

Even so, one conclusion definitively follows from Keenan's argument that, in my opinion, scholars have overlooked in the heat of the controversy: that the texts we are dealing with may have been modified by later scribes and editors. Unquestionably, the texts stem from authorial writings that belong to Ivan the Terrible or to Andrei Kurbskii. But it is impossible to deny that serious editorial or "co-authorship" meddling took place, not only editing by the authors themselves at various points but also the emendation and overwriting of texts by copyists and self-appointed "co-authors" in the 17th century. As I have opined elsewhere:
   if a text exists only in later copies, then to what degree can we
   consider this a document of an earlier period? This situation
   applies to many old Russian narratives, from the Tale of Bygone
   Years to the Testament of Vladimir Monomakh and Ivan Groznyi's
   will. How do we "peel away" later distortions from the original
   text? Textual history methods have largely been used for this
   purpose. At the same time, little attention has been paid to the
   nature and methods of textual distortions and additions. In this
   respect, the disputes over the authenticity of the famous
   correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Andrei Kurbskii are not
   coincidental. They arose in protest against the method (used by
   many authors in their approach to the works linked with the names
   of the tsar and the fugitive boyar) and against the narrative (of
   an absolutely authentic original communication between Kurbskii and
   Ivan in the 16th century, that does not take into account
   distortions and accretions by 17th-century copyists).... This
   should hardly serve as the basis for announcing that these
   documents are false, as Keenan did. But posing the question--what
   period and what book culture do these copies of Kurbskii's work
   represent?--is, we believe, entirely legitimate. These copies have
   sketched in the epistolary and historiographic traditions of 15th-
   and 16th-century Rus'; they carry a significant imprint of
   Renaissance influence and of Polish-Lithuanian literary and
   historiographic culture. And they were close to and evocative for
   17th-century readers.... As a result, it is appropriate to accept
   that Kurbskii's authorship cannot be conclusively proven and to
   discuss the degree to which his literary heritage belongs to both
   the 16th and the 17th centuries. Alas, contemporary knowledge does
   not have adequate methodologies to determine authorial
   contributions in compilations of epistolary and literary monuments
   if these only survived in later copies. (7)


Erusalimskii's contribution lies in his offering what is, in principle, an original approach to the study of Kurbskii's work: beginning not from the literary "monument" (parniatnik), artificially attributed to a particular author (artificially, because in the absence of the original, it is unavoidable that we should ask which existing copy is closest to the author's text, and solutions offered on this point by scholars cannot always be considered verifiable). Instead, he begins with the manuscript tradition, with artifacts of book culture.

As Erusalimskii writes: "This work sets out to research the place of Prince Kurbskii's miscellany in book culture and the historico-cultural issues related to this collection of literary works.... In studying Kurbskii's miscellany, the 'text of Kurbskii's miscellany' itself is the object of research" (1:3, 5). Erusalimskii tries to follow--and to understand at a deeper level--the historical formation of these collections; to compare versions of the texts and thence reconstruct their evolution; to study them in their various cultural and literary contexts, which differ in era and in relevance. The task is both difficult and innovative, because, as Erusalimskii correctly notes, "Textual history research methods for dealing with major, complexly constructed works in the Russian manuscript tradition are nearly nonexistent." (8)

As noted above, Erusalimskii is not the first to identify and compare various versions and multiple variants of Kurbskii's writings. But the scale involved in this case is very different from previous efforts. Erusalimskii looked at tens of thousands of variants; such breadth has been achieved by no other investigator of Kurbskii's work. The results of such comparisons were normally published in archeographical appendices to critical editions (let us here recall Iu. D. Rykov's serious research on Kurbskii's texts), but these were little used by either historians or philologists, who preferred to cite just the published works, without bothering to refer to complex and boring archeographical appendices.

Erusalimskii's research demonstrates unequivocally that any work about texts attributed to Kurbskii as a historical source should take into account the existence of versions and readings. Thanks to Erusalimskii's two-volume work, we have the most complete compendium to date of these various readings and a publication of Kurbskii's work of the highest scholarly standards. This permits us to conduct an accurate accounting of the text's transformations and to take the source study of Kurbskii to new heights. It is to Erusalimskii's publication that historians and philologists must now refer when they cite and reference Kurbskii.

Erusalimskii himself describes his method as follows:
   We divide the whole text into fragments. In each fragment, we
   undertake a special search for space-time indicators; then we
   relate the "landmark" indicators to one another for each of the
   fragments and ask the question: within what limits are the
   indicators of context valid--only within a particular limited
   fragment, for a series of fragments, for significant pieces of the
   text, for the whole of the particular text, or for Kurbskii's works
   in their entirety? (1:24)


Here a hermeneutical issue arises:
   The "ideal text," which appears in the copyist's mind, turns out to
   be one of those contexts that one can use to construct divergent
   impressions of the manuscript tradition. In search of the ideal
   text, we move in a hermeneutical circle: from the human imagination
   behind the text to the text within its historico-cultural givens,
   in its concrete performance, and to its manuscript tradition as a
   single text--and back. The path from the texts of "Kurbskii's
   miscellanies" to Kurbskii's miscellany as a literary work takes
   place through the reconstruction of the development of "Kurbskii's
   miscellanies" as a unified symbolic system, whereas the return path
   will be an experience of reading an individual miscellany, as
   distinguished from its closest archetype. (1:8-9)


This approach, which demonstrates the multiple layers and complex construction of the texts, helps us study their origin. Here we should draw attention to one of the merits of Erusalimskii's work: in compiling the genetic dossiers of the texts, he tries to identify sources of direct borrowing, direct literary source material. This effort deserves enthusiastic support, because it is a genuine step forward by comparison with Erusalimskii's predecessors, especially in the genetic analysis of Kurbskii's works.

Erusalimskii's attempt to identify the direct literary sources of Kurbskii is unusually important, since it allows for the identification of the prince's range of reading and the intellectual context of his work. Scholars have done a lot of work on indentifying biblical citations in Kurbskii. At the same time, it is clear that the author probably took them not directly from the Bible but from other ecclesiastical, liturgical, and literary texts. In those contexts, the citations may have carried a different meaning. (9) The culture of Old Russian society was verbal; the Gospels were more often heard than read. Our conclusions about what served as the direct source of a biblical source will always remain hypothetical, because there were no canonical biblical texts in 16th-century Rus' (there was no generally accepted, uniform printed version of the Gospels, and manuscript versions transmitted many distortions and discrepancies). Kurbskii was also heavily influenced by the church fathers and other ecclesiastical authors. Erusalimskii's work contains many interesting observations and propositions about the genetic origins of the various "fragments" of Kurbskii's work, even if not all of them can be verified.

In discussing Kurbskii's authorship, Erusalimskii addresses a problem posed by Inge Auerbach. Many scholars have implied, by default, that Kurbskii wrote his works in his own hand. Auerbach suggested that the prince dictated to scribes. (10) Erusalimskii poses the issue of authorship as a dialogue between author and scribe, which explains the appearance in the text of some terms and the ways in which they were interpreted (1:52 n. 200).

Erusalimskii understands the text he studies as a symbolic field (1:7). This involves posing questions not only about the author and copiers/ editors but also about readers, precisely since the "reader introduces his own expectations, ideals, knowledge, and mental categories while reading" (1:9). Such categories are exceedingly difficult to reconstruct, but Erusalimskii succeeds in identifying a circle of Kurbskii's readers (1:96-110, 130-70). This allows one to evaluate anew several aspects of the prince's literary work, the degree of public demand for his ideas, and their targeting. Erusalimskii's conclusion seems absolutely correct to me: the "number of times that this collection was copied can be seen as an indication of Kurbskii's participation in Russia's social and literary life" (1:11). The fugitive prince had an unhappy personal life, an unsuccessful career and a "broken fate," but his literary biography is unquestionably one of the most successful in Russian literature (in terms of influence, demand, and impact on intellectual life).

Erusalimskii analyzes the use of Kurbskii's works in Russian historical writings, and more broadly in Russian culture and literature in the 17th-19th centuries (1:96-329). Along the way, he draws attention to little-known or unknown works by Fedor Polikarpov (a historian of Peter the Great's era) and Vasilii Timkovskii (the failed first publisher of Kurbskii, 1781-1832) (1:189-99). His full examination of existing Kurbskiana, encyclopedic in its breadth, is in effect a historiographical review of work dedicated to Kurbskii. Erusalimskii places Kurbskii, as the author of both literary works and historical sources, in the cultural, historiographical, and political contexts of various eras and shows a connection between these tendencies and the interpretation and character of demand for the work of the dissident prince.

Erusalimskii aptly demonstrates an incontrovertible link between Kurbskii's views and Karamzin's historical conceptions. As mentioned above, it is Karamzin who is usually credited as the author of the concept of the "two Ivans": the good leader with his Chosen Council (Izbrannaia rada) and the erratic tyrant after the Chosen Council's fall, during the oprichnina. Historians have repeatedly criticized this interpretation, but it continues to reign in the historiography of Ivan the Terrible's era. (11) First, Erusalimskii shows that the image of the Chosen Council did not appear in Kurbskii's writings before his preface to the collection of sermons by St. John Chrysostom titled Novyi Margarit--that is, in 1575 (1:49). In Kurbskii's earliest works, he knew of no "rada." Second, it is obvious that Karamzin borrowed the concept of the Chosen Council from Kurbskii. Erusalimskii devotes a special section to this question, titled "Karamzin Publishes Kurbskii" (1:171-89), in which he examines Karamzin's Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskogo (The History of the Russian State) as an adaptation of lengthy published excerpts from Kurbskii's History. Erusalimskii himself is tempted to justify Karamzin and, citing S. F. Platonov, asserts that Karamzin's works "can be confusing precisely because much in them is reliable" (1:186). Nevertheless, it seems to me that both of Erusalimskii's conclusions represent additional arguments against the concept of the Chosen Council and in favor of its being understood as an historical myth created by Kurbskii, whether Erusalimskii sees it that way or not.

I would like to emphasize that Erusalimskii is invariably careful in his conclusions and reaches them only after comprehensively checking his hypotheses from the most diverse perspectives. This responsible and balanced scholarship is the greatest merit of his work. Even so, his conclusion about Kurbskii's authorship and the originality of his work is quite unequivocal, because "to deny Kurbskii authorship would require that we find intellectuals who might have occupied that role, 'as Kurbskii'" (1:755). Every attempt to date to find such personages seems absolutely unconvincing.

I believe that Erusalimskii, of all the representatives of Kurbskiana, comes closest to "Putting Kurbskii in His Place"--not only as a real historical person of the 16th century but also as an historigraphical entity and a cultural phenomenon in a variety of different eras. That is the merit and the significance of Konstantin Erusalimskii's book on "Kurbskii's Miscellany."

Dept. of Slavic and Balkan Studies

Historical Faculty

St. Petersburg State University

Vasil'evskii ostrov, Mendeleevskaia liniia, 5

St. Petersburg 199034, Russian Federation

ilich_fil@mail.ru

The author acknowledges the support of St. Petersburg State University for Research Grant no. 5.42.551.2011.

(1) The title of this piece echoes that of one of Edward L. Keenan's controversial articles in which he rejects the authenticity of Andrei Kurbskii's work: "Putting Kurbskij in His Place; or: Observations and Suggestions Concerning the Place of 'The History of the Grand Prince of Muscovy' in the History of Muscovite Literary Culture," Forschungen zur Osteuropaische Geschichte 24 (1978): 131-62.

(2) Edward L. Keenan, The Kurbskii-Groznyi Apocrypha: The Seventeenth-Century Genesis of the Correspondence Attributed to Prince A. M. Kurbskii and Tsar Ivan IV, with an appendix by Daniel C. Waugh (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). The controversy over Keenan's hypotheses includes several dozen articles as well as two monographs: Niels Rossing and Birgit Ronne, Apocryphal--Not Apocryphal? A Critical Analysis of the Discussion concerning the Correspondence between Tsar Ivan IV Groznyj and Prince Andrej Kurbskij (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1980); and Ruslan Skrynnikov, Perepiska Groznogo i Kurbskogo: Paradoksy Edvarda Kinana (Leningrad: Nauka, 1973). The controversy deserves a separate bibliography, since, as Konstantin Erusalimskii says in the book under review, "the scholarly potential of this discussion significantly exceeds the original goals of both the 'heretics' and the 'orthodox'" (Sbornik Kurbskogo, 1:755).

(3) All attempts so far to find a sample of the tsar's writing or texts written by him personally remain speculative. See, e.g., Daniil Al'shits, "Ivan Groznyi i pripiski k litsevym svodam ego vremeni," Istoricheskiezapiski 23 (1947): 251-89; Al'shits, "Istochniki i kharakter redaktsionnoi raboty Ivana Groznogo nad istoriei svoego tsarstvovaniia," Trudy Gosudarstvennoi publichnoi biblioteki im. M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, vol. 1/4 (1957): 119-46; Al'shits, "Proiskhozhdenie i osobennosti istochnikov, povestvuiushchikh o boiarskom miatezhe 1553 g.," Istoricheskie zapiski 25 (1948): 266-92; Nikolay Andreyev, "Interpolations in the 16th-Century Muscovite Chronicles," Slavonic and East European Review 35, no. 84 (1956): 95-115; and Andreev, "Ob avtore pripisok v litsevykh svodakh Groznogo," Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury 18 (1962): 117-48.

(4) Dmitrii Likhachev, Iakov Lur'e, and Iurii Rykov, eds., Perepiska Ivana Groznogo s Andreem Kurbskim (Moscow: Nauka, 1993).

(5) Nikolai Ustrialov, Skazaniia kniazia Kurbskogo (St. Petersburg: Ekspeditsiia zagotovleniia gosudarstvennykh bumag, 1883); G. Z. Kuntsevich, ed., Sochineniia kniazia Kurbskogo, 1: Sochineniia original 'nye, Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 31 (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1914); John Fennell, ed., The Correspondence between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, 1564-1579 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955); Fennell, Prince A. M. Kurbsky's History of Ivan IV (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965); Dmitrii Likhachev et al., eds., Biblioteka literatury Drevnei Rusi, 2: XVI vek: Sochineniia tsaria Ivana Groznogo i kniazia Andreia Kurbskogo (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2001), 310-480, 659-67.

(6) V. V. Kalugin, Andrei Kurbskii i Ivan Groznyi (Teoreticheskie vzgliady i literaturnaia tekhnika drevnerusskogo pisatelia) (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1998); Kh'iu Grekhem [Hugh Graham], "Vnov' o perepiske Groznogo s Kurbskim," Voprosy istorii, no. 5 (1984): 174-78; S. O. Shmidt, "K izucheniiu 'Istorii' kniazia Kurbskogo (o pouchenii popa Sil'vestra)," in Slaviane i Rus': Sbornik statei k 60-letiiu akademika Borisa Aleksandrovicha Rybakova, ed., Evgenii Krupnov (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), 366-74; Shmidt, "O zhestokoi letopisi kn. Kurbskogo," in Problemy istorii, russkoi knizhnosti, i obshchestvennogo soznaniia: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov k 70-letiiu akademika Nikolaia Nikolaevicha Pokrovskogo, ed. Elena Romodanovskaia (Novosibirsk: Sibirskii khronograf, 2000), 406-15.

(7) A. I. Filiushkin, Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbskii: Prosopograficheskoe issledovanie i germenevticheskii kommentarii k poslaniiam Andreiia Kurbskogo Ivanu Groznomu (St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2007), 580-81. Erusalimskii expresses the same idea: "Acknowledging Kurbskii's authorship does not dispose of the question that is particularly hard to resolve with respect to the manuscript tradition of Kurbskii's works: What in the manuscript tradition is original; and what is the result of copying, reading, and editing?" (Sbornik Kurbskogo, 1:755).

(8) Erusalimskii, Sbornik Kurbskogo, 1:4. Erusalimskii describes his methods on 341-54.

(9) Riccardo Picchio, "Re Function of Biblical Thematic Clues in the Literary Code of Slavia Orthodoxa," Slavica Hierosolymitana: Slavic Studies of the Hebrew University, no. 1 (1997): 1-33; Andrei Karavashkin, "Ponimanie drevnerusskogo istochnika (Traditsii i sovremennost')," Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo gumanitarnogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, no. 2 (2004): 79; Karavashkin, "Bibleiskie tematicheskie kliuchi: Predely verifikatsii," Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo gumanitarnogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, no. 3 (2005): 378-79.

(10) Inge Auerbach, Andrej Michajlovic Kurbskij: Leben in osteuropaischen Adelsgesellschaften des 16. Jarhunderts (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1985), 375-76.

(11) Antony Grobovsky, The "Chosen Council" of Ivan IV: A Reinterpretation (Brooklyn, NY: Theo. Gaus's Sons, 1969); A. N. Grobovskii, Ivan Groznyi i Sil'vestr (Istoriia odnogo mifa) (London: Multilingual Printing Services, 1987); A. I. Filiushkin, Istoriia odnoi mistifikatsii: Ivan Groznyi i "Izbrannaia Rada" (Moscow: VGU, 1998).
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
Title Annotation:'Sbornik Kurbskogo/Kurbskii's Miscellany, 2 vols.'; Andrei Kurbskii
Author:Filjushkin, Alexander
Publication:Kritika
Article Type:Book review
Date:Sep 22, 2012
Words:4397
Previous Article:Miscellanea attributed to Kurbskii: the 17th century in Russia was more creative than we like to admit.
Next Article:Bulat Raimovich Rakhimzianov, The Khanate of Kasimov [1445-1552]: Essays in History/Kasimovskoe khanstvo (1445-1552 gg.): Ocherki istorii.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |