Icon and Axe

REFERENCES

PREFACE

1. Webster’s Second New International Dictionary, unabridged (Springfield, Mass., 1959), 643: a somewhat more succinct definition than that given in the third edition, but not at variance with it, or with the use of the term by Malinovsky (ESS, IV, 621—46) or its definition by Ushakov (TSRIa, I, 1546) and by current Soviet lexicography as “the complex of accomplishments of a human society in its productive, social and mental life.” (SSRIa, V, 1827).

2. These three usages are to be found, respectively, in Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West; in widespread popular usage in both the West and the USSR; and in Pitirim Sorokin, Social Philosophies in an Age of Crisis, Boston, 1950, 187 ff.

3. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged (Springfield, Mass., 1961), 552. This is the first edition to include a definition of “cultural history.”

4. V. Belinsky, Izbrannye filosofskie sochineniia, M, 1941, 163.

5. N. Berdiaev, Idea, 2.

6. Berdiaev, Idea, 196—7 ff.

7. V. Rozanov, cited in Weidlé Russia, 149.

I. BACKGROUND

1. KIEV

1. V. Adrianova-Peretts, ed., Povest’ vremennykh let, M, 1950, ch I, 20; N. Voronin, Drevnerusskie goroda, M, 1945, 15. See also M. Tikhomirov, The Towns of Ancient Rus, M, 1959.

Important works dealing exclusively with the Kievan period are G. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, NY, 1960, p (a second volume, to be published posthumously by the Harvard University Press, will cover the early Muscovite period.); M. Karger and N. Voronin, Istoriia kul’tury drevnei Rusi, domonogol’sky period, M-L, 1948—51 (I deals with material culture, II with social and spiritual culture. Together they represent the first part of a projected history of Russian culture never continued beyond this point); and B. Grekov, The Culture of Kiev Rus, M, 1947.

Among more comprehensive Soviet treatments—all stressing national continuity and downgrading Byzantine and Western influences— see particularly V. Mavrodin, Obrazovanie edinogo russkogo gosudarstva, L, 1951, which is relatively full in its treatment of the diverse strands in early Russia; and D. Likhachev, Kul’tura Rusi epokhi obrazovaniia russkogo natsional’-nogo gosudarstva, L, 1946, which is more clearly focused on cultural matters.

2. Dal, Poslovitsy, 329.

3. The eighth century appears to be the earliest sure date (see M. Karger, “Drevny Kiev,” in Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur: drevniaia Rus’, M, 1953 44—6), though there were earlier settlements of some kind on the site; and a case can be made for the existence in the region of a continuing civilization based on urban commercial centers in pre-Slavonic as well as pre-Christian times. See M. Rostovtsev, “The Origin of the Russian State on the Dnieper,” Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1920, Washington, D.C., 1925, 165—71. The first Russian dynasty and its retinue were almost certainly Scandinavians, but their cultural influence was slight. See N. Riasanovsky, History, 25—30, on this much-labored “Normanist” controversy.

4. Documented in N. von Baumgarten, “Généalogies et mariages occidentaux des Rurikides russes du X^e au XIII^e siècle,” OC, IX, 1927, May, 1—96; the oldest links of all with the West are examined and analyzed by Th. Ediger, Russlands älteste Beziehungen zu Deutschland, Frankreich und der römischen Kurie, Halle, 1911. The mission of the Western church to Kiev in the tenth century just prior to the formal acceptance of Eastern Christianity is discussed by M. Daras, “Les Deux Premiers Évěques de Russie,” Irénikon, III, 1927, 274—7. A fresh examination of the provenance of Kiev, emphasizing the pre-Christian, pre-Slavic settlements appears in M. Braichevsky, Kodga i kak voznik Kiev, Kiev, 1964. See also F. Dvornik, “The Kiev State and Its Relations with Western Europe,” TRHS, XXIX, 1947, 27—46; and B. Lieb, Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du XI^e siècle, 1924. V. Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva X–XII vv, L, 1964, shows trade links on the basis of recent archeological discoveries, including coin deposits. S. Cross, “Medieval Russian Contacts with the West,” Speculum, 1935, Apr, esp. 143—4, sees Western influence in Novgorod from the time of the building of its first cathedral, and the influence of romanesque architecture extending well into the Russian interior.

For the “material culture” of the early Slavs, balance B. Rybakov’s rich but nationalistic Remeslo drevnei Rusi, M, 1948, with H. Preidel’s characterization of generally similar conditions among the Western Slavs and in central Europe generally: Slawische Altertumskunde des östlichen Mitteleuropas im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert, Munich, 1961, part I. For a bibliographically rich historiographical discussion of periodical and geographical divisions within “Eastern Europe,” see J. Macurek, Dĕjepisectví evropského východu, Prague, 1946. For a comprehensive early history of the Slavs that stresses Russia’s common patterns of development and links with the West, see F. Dvornik, The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization, Boston, 1956; also his subsequent work which in effect continues the story from the thirteenth to the early eighteenth century, The Slavs in European History and Civilization, New Brunswick, N.J., 1962, with full bibliography. See also V. Koroliuk, Zapadnye slaviane i Kievskaia Rus’, M, 1964.

5. La Chanson de Roland, v. 3225 (ed. J. Geddes, Jr, London, 1914, 222); Das Nibelungenlied, v. 1339–40 (ed. K. Bartsch, H. De Boor, Wiesbaden, 1956, 216).

More than sixty references— largely favorable to the Russians— have been counted in the early chansons de geste, as against only four to Poland. See the use made of E. Langlois’ study by G. Lozinsky, “La Russie dans la littérature française du moyen âge,” RES, IX, 1929, 71, note 2; additional examples and references are discussed 71–88, 253–69.

6. L. Cherepnin (Paleografiia, 83–111) summarizes the still inconclusive controversies generated by the sudden appearance of two alphabets within a short space of time, and concludes that Glagolitic probably appeared earlier—a conclusion that is presented as the “almost unanimous” view of specialists by F. Dvornik in “The Missions of Cyril and Methodius,” ASR, 1964, Jun, 197, note 9. I. Shevchenko discusses sceptically the recently advanced idea that this sudden literary eflloresence must indicate a pre-Cyrillo-Methodian stage of literary activity in Glagolitic. “Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission,” ASR, Jun, 235–6, and notes. The discussion in this entire section on the mission (195–236, also includes H. Lunt’s “The Beginning of Written Slavic” and a short final statement by F. Dvornik) provides a valuable commentary and rich documentation of the extensive recent scholarship on the mission. Dvornik points out (here, 210–1, and in “Les Bénédictins et la christianisation de la Russie,” L’Église et les églises, Chevetogne, 1954 323–49) that in Catholic Bohemia prior to the dominance of centralizing tendencies in Rome, particularly under the pontificate of Gregory VII in the late eleventh century, the Slavonic liturgy existed side by side with the Latin, and that Benedictines made many of the copies of Slavonic texts, which were then transposed and uniquely preserved in Russian manuscripts.

7. Voronin, Goroda, 16–7. The pioneering study of Byzantine influence in Russia by V. Ikonnikov, Opyt issledovaniia o kul’turnom znachenii Vizantii v russkoi istorii, Kiev, 1869, overstated the case, considering Russia virtually part of the Eastern Empire until its collapse. Many subsequent Russian historians (and almost all in the Soviet period) have leaned far in the other direction to minimize the impact of Byzantium. They went so far in the High Stalin era as to contend that the Santa Sophia in Kiev was shaped after pre-Christian burial mounds, that the thickness of its pillars, pilasters, and apses gave expression to popular Russian feelings for the “materiality” and “bodily character” of buildings. N. Brunov, “Kievskaia Sofiia—drevneishy pamiatnik russkoi kamennoi arkhitektury,” VV, III, 1950, esp. 184, 186.

A balanced appraisal of Byzantine influence can be found in the works of Byzantinists of Slavic extraction. The problem posed by A. Vasiliev in “Was Old Russia a Vassal State of Byzantium?” Speculum, 1932, Jul, 350–60, is somewhat more fully dealt with in G. Ostrogorsky, “Die Byzantinische Staatenhierarchie,” SKP, VII, 1936, 41–61. For more general impact see D. Obolensky, “Russia’s Byzantine Heritage,” OSP, I, 1950, 37–63 and “Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow: a Study in Ecclesiastical Relations,” DOP, XI, 1957, 23–78; and F. Dvornik, “Byzantium and the Nort” and “Byzantine Influence in Russia,” in M. Huxley, ed., The Root of Europe, London, 1952, 85–106; and “Byzantine Political Ideas in Kievan Russia,” DOP, IX–X, 1956, 73–121. For comparative purposes see G. Ostrogorsky, “Byzantium and the South Slavs,” SEER, 1963, Dec, 1–14. For a well-documented, synoptic treatment that likens the relations of the Slavs with Byzantium to that of the Germanic tribes with the Western Roman Empire, see the excellent Vorspiel of a larger work by the Bulgarian scholar I. Duichev, Les Slaves et Byzance, Sofia, 1960.

For a critical analysis of Soviet attitudes on Byzantine influences see I. Shevchenko, “Byzantine Cultural Influences,” in Black, ed., Rewriting, 143–97; also A. Florovsky, “K izucheniiu istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii,” BS, XIII, 2, 1952–3, 301–11. Somewhat more balance is attained in such works of the post-Stalin period as M. Levchenko, Ocherki po istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii, M, 1956, with intr. by M. Tikhomirov; also D. Likhachev, Kul’tura russkogo naroda X–XVII vv, M-L, 1961, in contrast to some of his earlier works.

8. Chizhevsky, History, 33.

9. G. Florovsky, “The Problem of Old Russian Culture, “ASR, 1962, Mar, 14.

10. S. Zenkovsky, Epics, 67–8. See also Fedotov, Mind, 373, for the importance attached by Andrew Bogoliubsky to the beauty of Orthodox worship in impressing and evangelizing the Russian north.

11. A. Grabar, “Cathédrales multiples et groupements déglises en Russie,” RES, XX, 1942, 91–120; Znamensky, Rukovodstvo, 78–9; I. Likhnitsky, Osviashchenny sobor v Moskve v XVI–XVII vekakh, P, 1906.

12. Voronin, Goroda, 15. For other comments by Thietmar, Bishop of Merseburg, see his chronicle in MGH, IX, 1935, 488, 528–32. His statement that there were “more than 400 churches” in Kiev in 1018 (530) probably qualifies him as the first in the long line of Western reporters to produce exaggerated statistics of Russian accomplishments; and it does not strengthen the otherwise credible contention of H. Paszkiewicz (The Making of the Russian Nation, London, 1963, 94) that the Christianization of Russia was taking place from a variety of sources and that Christian churches were actually built in Kiev before Vladimir’s conversion. Concrete evidence of the minor influence of Western Christianity may be found in Vladimir’s institution of tithing (in a manner not completely identical with the West, but quite unknown in Byzantium). See A. Presniakov, Lektsii po russkoi istorii 1. Kievskaia Rus’, M, 1938, 114–5 and other referenced material note 1.

13. Gudzy, Khrestomatiia, 60.

14. Fedotov, Mind, 263.

15. N. Volkov, “Statisticheskiia svedeniia o sokhranivshikhsia drevnerusskikh knigakh XI–XIV vekov i ikh ukazatel’,” PDP, CXXIII, 1897, 24. This figure is incorrectly reproduced and inadequately referenced in Cherepnin, Paleografiia, 130.

16. See citations and discussion in Shchapov, Sochineniia, II, 586–7.

17. See discussion and references in Gudzy, History, 96–113, 225. For writings see S. Zenkovsky, Epics, 87–102. The valuable discussion of Theodosius, Boris, and Gleb in Fedotov, Mind, 94–157, considers them as seminal figures in a distinctively Russian form of “kenotic” spirituality, emphasizing a life of service and self-emptying love in imitation of Christ and in full expectation of persecution and suffering as against more traditional forms of Eastern asceticism.

Efforts to read Soviet virtues retroactively into figures of the past sometimes become almost ludicrous. Boris and Gleb become patriots and fighters for peace “warding off by ideological means, the perils threatening the government.” (Budovnits, Mysl’, 20, 162–3). Russian icons of St. George are said to be less conceited and warlike and “without that unrestrained boldness … [and] provocative fervor” of the picture as painted by other nations. M. Alpatov, “Obraz Georgii-voina v iskusstve Vizantii i drevnei Rusi,” TODL, XII, 1956, 310. (There is some truth in this.)

18. Epiphanius the Wise in Shchapov, Sochineniia, II, 584–5.

19. N. Trubetskoy, “Introduction to the History of Old Russian Literature,” HSS, II, 1954, 93. This is one of the best short introductions to Old Russian culture, 91–103.

20. V. Zenkovsky, History, I, 37.

21. Fedotov, Mind, 382.

22. The study which unravels most systematically and successfully the veiled propaganda and polemics contained in the chronicles is M. Priselkov, Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia XI–XV vv, L, 1940. See also Tikhomirov, ed., Ocherki istorii istoricheskikh nauk, 49 ff. and a forthcoming study of the chronicles by J. Fennell.

On Schlözer and his fascination with Russian chronicles in the late eighteenth century, see E. Winter, August Ludwig von Schlözer und Russland, 1961, esp. 45 ff.; also BE, LXXVIII, 698–701; and H. Butterfield, Man on His Past, Cambridge, 1955. 32–61, esp. 56–9, where Schlözer’s edition of the Nestor chronicle is seen as a decisive landmark in the development of modern historical study. For favorable comparison of Russian to Western chronicles see S. Volkonsky, Pictures, 43–4.

23. For analysis and references on this popular early-twelfth-century account by Hegumen Daniel of his pilgrimage to the Holy Land see Yu. Glushakova, “O puteshestvii igumena Daniila v Palestinu,” in Problemy obshchestvenno-politicheskoi istorii Rossii i slavianskikh stran: sbornik statei k 70-letiiu akademika M. N. Tikhomirova, M, 1963, 79–87, esp. 85–6. Also Gudzy, History, 114–17.

On the controversial stairwell frescoes see A. Grabar, “Les Fresques des escaliers à Sainte-Sophie de Kiev et l’iconographie impériale byzantine,” SKP, VII, 1935, 103–17.

24. For secular literature included in holy writings see Tikhomirov, Towns, 291–300; and, in the Lay, V. Rzhiga, “Slovo o polku Igoreve i russkoe iazychestvo,” Slavia, XIII, 1933–4, 422–33.

There has been a return recently in some scholarly circles to the position that has been periodically advanced for more than a century that the Lay is in fact an eighteenth-century forgery. Whereas a few years ago most seemed to acquiesce in the insistence on authenticity of Soviet scholars (see, for instance, Gudzy’s belligerent summary of the controversy, History, 149–58), and of G. Vernadsky, R. Jakobson, M. Szeftel, and H. Grégoire (La Geste du Prince Igor, AIOS, VIII, 1945–7. 217–360), doubts have recently been voiced by the émigré Bulgarian Slavicist V. Nikolaev; H. Paszkie-wicz, The Origins of Russia, London, 1954, 336–53; and H. Taszycki, RES, XXXVI, 1959, 23–8. The most sustained new argument for eighteenth-century authorship was advanced by the distinguished Soviet medievalist A. Zimin, who defended his position in a lively session of the Academy of Sciences on Jun 23–24, 1964. The printed account of the proceedings (VI, 1964, no. 9, 119–40) does not present Zimin’s arguments in a favorable light; and his principal opponent, D. Likhachev, has inveighed further against his thesis in “Kogda bylo napisano ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’?” VL, 1964, no. 8, 132–60.

Until all the evidence and argumentation of Zimin and others is made public and subjected to disinterested examination, the historian is bound to harbor lingering doubts about the authenticity of a medieval epic which was found during a time of national self-consciousness and antiquarian passion in a single manuscript copy, and then lost during the Moscow fire of 1812. Likhachev, however, seems on strong ground with the argument that the particular quality and style of this work would make it an even more unique and anomalous accomplishment for the eighteenth century than for the thirteenth.

Whatever its origin, this relatively short and readable epic is now available in a twentieth-century English version, V. Nabokov, Song of Igor’s Campaign, NY, 1960, p.

25. D. Likhachev, Letopisi, 8.

26. According to the ingenious argument put forth by N. Rozov on the basis of a newly found text of the sermon (of which more than forty separate early manuscript copies have been preserved): “Sinodal’ny spisok sochinenii Ilariona-russkago pisatel’ia XI v,” Slavia, XXXII, 1963, esp. 141, 147–8.

27. Gudzy, Khrestomatiia, 32. S. Zenkovsky, Epics, 78–83.

28. Abraham was much influenced by the fourth-century apocalyptical writer Ephrem the Syrian. See S. Rozanov, ed., “Zhitiia prepodobnago Avraamiia Smolenskago i sluzhby emu,” PDL, vyp I, 1912, 4. Ephrem was to enjoy a continuing influence in Russia, and his example of withdrawing from the world to a cave was one of the models for this form of monastic asceticism in Russia. The tradition of ascetic extremism and an almost masochistic acceptance of filth and self-mortification in Russia is more reminiscent of the Syrian tradition within early Byzantine Christendom and of the primitive monastic tradition of that frequently heretical center of early Christendom.

Our astonishment at this aspect of Syrian (and Russian) asceticism may well reflect the fact that “organized Christianity preferred to forget the beginnings of monasticism and later preferred to paint over them with an ecclesiastical brush.” (A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, Louvain, 1958, 169.) Whether or not some form of neo-Manichean dualism was as influential on Russian asceticism as original Manicheanism was on Syria (Vööbus, 109–69 and 152 ff. on Ephrem) remains a question that has never been systematically studied.

It is somewhat surprising that the influence of the Macedonian and Bulgarian Bogomils, the progenitors of many of the dualistic and prophetic heresies of the medieval West, was not greater in early Russia than has yet been demonstrated, because the Eastern Slavs were indebted in many other respects to the region. However, Fedotov minimizes the probability of Bogomil influence (Mind, 353–7), viewing Abraham as an idiosyncratic figure 158–75), and E. Anichkov sees almost all of neo-Manichean influence flowing in a westerly direction (“Les Survivances manichēennes en pays slavs et en Occident,” RES, VIII, 1928, 203–25). A Ukrainian student of early Slavic folklore, M. Dragomanov also minimizes Bogomil influence on Russian dualistic thinking and stresses the probability of parallel ideas developing independently in a variety of areas on the basis of older Manichean apocrypha from the East. Notes on the Slavic Religio-Ethical Legends: The Dualistic Creation of the World, Bloomington, Ind, 1963, 1–20, and esp. 94–140. This richly annotated study is translated by E. Count from the original Bulgarian manuscript written sometime prior to 1895.

29. Paszkiewicz, Making, 281 ff. Despite awkward exposition and considerable a priori antagonism for Great Russian historiography, Paszkiewicz argues persuasively that there was even less national unity in Kievan Russia than in early Poland and Czechoslovakia, that the only real cohesion was provided by the Orthodox faith, and that the Russo-Soviet idea of a “gathering in” of three different Russian nations “Great,” “White,” and “Little” reflects late-seventeenth-century Russian imperial propaganda rather than historical reality. See 307, 311–22; also the rich bibliography.

30. See the valuable illustrated study (with French résumé) by V. Lazarev, Freski staroi Ladogi, M, 1960.

31. S. Zenkovsky, Epics, 122–9, for text; also Gudzy, History, 46–50. For a special study of the legend see N. Bokadorov, Izbornik Kievsky, Kiev, 1904, 39–94; and for popular engravings illustrating the Virgin’s descent see D. Rovinsky, Kartinki, P, 1881, IV, 546–9.

32. F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge, Mass., 1958; A. Pogodin, “Povest o khozhdenii Apostola Andreia v Rusi,” BS, VII, 1937–8, 128–48; L. Goetz, Das Kiever Höhlenkloster als Kulturzentrum des vormongolischen Russlands, Passau, 1904; R. Stupperich, “Kiev-das zweite Jerusalem, “ZSPh, XII, 1935, Dec, 332–54; and A. Sipiagin, “Aux Sources de la piété russe,” Irénikon, II, 1927, 1–30.

The Andrew legend was, of course, not an ancient one even in Byzantium, first appearing there probably in the eleventh century and, in Russia, in the late twelfth. The discussion by Pogodin suggests that legends of the Christians in the Caucasus may have played a key role in the development of this idea in Russia.

33. For Mongol influences supplement Vernadsky, Mongols, 333–90; with M. Cherniavsky, “Khan or Basileus,” JHI, 1959, Oct–Dec, 459–76; and N. Veselovsky, Tatarskoe vliianie na posol’ sky tseremonial v moskovsky period russkoi istorii, P, 1911. See also A. Sakharov, “Les Mongols et la civilization russe,” in Contributions à. l’histoire russe (Cahiers d’histoire mondiale), Neuchâtel, 1958, 77–97. Prostration was, of course, also used in Byzantine ritual.

34. Karl Wittfogel considers prostration “the great symbol of total submission” of Oriental despotism. (Oriental Despotism: a comparative study of total power, New Haven, 1957, 152–4). But other characteristics of this type (control of water supply, and so on) do not really seem applicable to Russia, and the whole concept (which includes Byzantium as well as Russia) does not seem rigorous enough to be of much help in explaining Russian peculiarities, let alone in concluding that Mongol influence was as all-pervasive in Russia as the somewhat romantic “Eurasian” school has contended. See the symposium led by Wittfogel on “Russia and the East” in ASR, 1963, Dec, 627–62, esp. the rejoinder by N. Riasanovsky, “ ‘Oriental Despotism’ and Russia” and B. Spuler, “Russia and Islam.” For earlier links with Islam (from the mid-seventh to late tenth century) see A. Harkavy Skazaniia musul’manskikh pisatelei o slavianakh i russkikh, P, 1870; and dopolneniia, P, 1871.

35. O. Spengler, Decline of the West, NY, 1928, II, 435, mt.

36. Ibid.

37. Zenkovsky, History, I, 23.

2. THE FOREST

1. G. Florovsky in ASR, 1962, Mar, 35. This article and that of D. Likhachev (“Further Remarks on the Problem of Old Russian Culture,” ASR, 1963, Mar, esp. 115–7) stress the continuities between the Kievan and Muscovite periods (in contrast to my stress on discontinuity, “Images of Muscovy,” ASR, 1962, Mar, esp. 24–7). Although the changes are clearly evolutionary rather than mutational (in contrast to the situation in the West depicted in E. Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art, Stockholm, 1960, I, 162), there is a real need to modify the relatively rigid mold of integral continuity superimposed by Great Russian historians (partly overreacting to the claims of Polish and Ukrainian nationalist scholars that ancient Kiev really belongs to their national tradition) on a very fragmentary historical record. Professor Florovsky’s distinction between changing societies and a relatively unchanging culture implies that the two can be separated more clearly than I would feel to be the case. Architecture—a medium in which the evidence is plentiful and the changes from Kiev–Vladimir to Moscow striking— clearly belongs to both “culture” and “society.” Professor Likhachev’s contention that historical continuity is proved by the fact that later generations “turned to their own national past” in times of trouble actually weakens his argument. Nostalgic efforts to stress (and artificially create) links with the past are often the best sign that living historical continuity has been broken (see, for instance, E. Panofsky, “Renaissances and Renascences,” KR, 1944, Spring, esp. 227–9). A continuing sense of history is not the same thing as historical continuity.

2. Lozinsky, “La Russie,” 269.

3. V. Mavrodin, Proiskhozhdenie nazvanii “Rus’,” “Russky,” “Rossiia,” L, 1958, 17–19. Note that the references to “Rus’ in the broader sense of the word” occur mainly in the epic literature, and are not prominent in the chronicles. This broader usage of Rus’ expressed a religious rather than a political identity. See Paszkiewicz, Making, 313–14, and esp. note 322.

4. Tikhomirov, ed., Ocherki istoricheskikh nauk, 59, 65.

5. For recent discussions, see N. Andreev, “Pagan and Christian Elements in Old Russia,” ASR, 1962, Mar, 16–23, and works referenced 18, note 8; and L. Sadnik, “Ancient Slav Religion in the light of recent research,” ER, 1948, Apr, 36–43. Also of great value (precisely because it is largely a collection of material rather than an attempt to sustain a theory about pagan influences) is the work of D. Zelenin, “Tabu slov u narodov vostochnoi Evropy i severnoi Azii,” SMAE, VIII, 1929, part 1; and IX, 1930, part II. See also his Le Culte des idoles en Siberie, 1952; and Znamensky, Rukovodstvo, 11–13.

6. Tikhon Zadonsky, cited in N. Gorodetzky, Tikhon Zadonsky, London, 1952, 163. Also, on the importance of Easter, Trubetskoy, “Introduction,” 95–6.

7. Rodina, narod—rod; otechestvo or otchizna, otchina or votchina—otets. For various uses of “startsy” (elders) see Brian-Chaninov, Church, 102, note 1. It is possible that the verb “to try” (starat’sia) comes from this root (REW, III, 4).

The patronymic also served as the basis for many family names, which, on the whole, came late to Russia. See B. Unbegaun, “Family Names of the Russian Clergy,” RES, XXX, 1942, 41–62, and materials noted in his A Bibliographical Guide to the Russian Language, Oxford, 1953, 68–72, as well as V. Chichagov, Iz istorii russkikh imen otechestv i familii, M, 1959, esp. 109–25.

8. A. Gezen (Heesen), Istoriia slavianskogo perevoda simvoly very, P, 1884, 90–102; also Brian-Chaninov, 14–8.

The Slavophil A. Khomiakov first insisted on the importance of the distinction in the course of his polemic controversy with Russian converts to Catholicism. See his 1860 “Pis’mo k redaktoru ’l’Union chrétienne’ o znachenii slov: ‘kafolichesky’ i ‘soborny,’ ” in his PSS, M, 1900–1907, II, 3d exp. ed., 307–14. Writers like N. Berdiaev (Russian Idea, 156–6) saw in sobornost’ an underlying principle of Russian life in which familial spiritual consensus replaces formal legalisms of all sorts. Despite the vague, romantic usage of the word in both thinkers, the change in the creed combined with the multiple and idiosyncratic early uses of sobor above implies some early importance for the concept.

W. Weidlé (Russia, 130–4), influenced by such works as S. Aksakov’s Family Chronicle and L. Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina and Family Happiness, elevates family feeling into a basic Russian characteristic. V. Varshavsky (Nezamechennoe pokolenie, NY, 1956, 384) accuses Weidlé of exaggeration, suggesting that his view is more appropriate for China than Russia. N. Arsen’ev, Iz … traditsii, 15–65, makes a more convincing case for the importance of the family.

9. In the one case where romance is at the center of a Russian epic, The Life of Peter and Fevronia (Zenkovsky, Epics, 236–47) the emphasis is on the healing and sanctifying loyalty of the wife.

10. See I. Zabelin, Domashny byt russkikh tsarits v XVI i XVII st, M, 1869, 299–300; the important study by P. Smirnov, “Znachenie zhenshchiny v istorii vozniknoveniia raskola,” MS, 1891, Nov-Dec, 330–65; and Claire Claus, Die Stellung der russischen Frau von der Einführung des Christentums bei den Russen bis zu den Reformen Peter des Grossen, Munich, 1959.

11. See, for instance, V. Dunham, “The Strong Woman Motif,” in C. Black, ed., Transformation, esp. 467–75; and the powerful war poem of Boris Slutsky, “Everyone grew weaker. But the women did not weaken …” “Schast’e,” NM, 1956, no. 10, 160.

12. Fedotov, Mind, 13 v. On popular terminology for “Tsar” and “Russia” see Cherniavsky, Tsar, 93–4, 101 ff. For the mat’-syra cult (echoed in the character of Maria Lebiadkin in Dostoevsky’s Possessed) see in addition to Fedotov, 11–15, V. Komarovich, “Kul’t roda i zemli v kniazheskoi srede XI-XIII vv,” TODL, XVI, 1960, esp. 97–104, and works referenced therein. Note also the special importance of the Mother of God in the earliest religious charms and medallions of Christian Russia. E. de Savitsch, “Religious Amulets of Early Russian Christendom,” GBA, 1943, Feb, 111–16.

For the presence of similar cults in other primitive civilizations see A. Dieterich, Mutter Erde. Ein Versuch über Volksreligion, Leipzig-Berlin, 1925, 3d exp. ed. Following through on Dieterich’s comparative method, M. Alekseev suggests that the cult in Russia was derived not from indigenous pagan mythology but from Indian and Greek dualistic cosmologies. See his “ ‘Prenie zemli i moria’ v drevnerusskoi pis’mennosti,” in Problemy … Tikhomirova, esp. 32 ff.

On the idea of “universal motherhood” in Russian reverence for Mary and the blending of older fertility rites into the cult of the Virgin see D. Strotmann, “Quelques aperçus historiques sur le culte marial en Russie,” Irénikon, XXXII, 1959, esp. 184–7; also S. Chetverikov, “Piété orthodoxe. De l’esprit religieux russe et de la dévotion du peuple russe pour la Mère de Dieu,” Irénikon, III, 1927, 385–90, 459–67.

13. On the folksong (transcribed in 1619 by the Englishman Richard James) see K. Kuznetsov, “Iz muzykal’nogo proshlogo Moskvy,” SM, 1947, no. 5, 39. “Volga, Volga, Mat’ rodnaia, Volga Russkaia reka” begins the last verse of the nineteenth-century harmonization of an earlier folk song.

14. M. Tikhomirov, Towns, 415, note 1 and ff. The importance of the forest for the formation of Russian culture is stressed by Sumner, Survey, Chapter 1; and (with a somewhat stronger suggestion of environmental determinism borrowed in part from Buckle’s History of Civilization in England) in Solov’ev’s epic Istoriia. Both of these authorities relate the long history of Russian political and military conflict to the geographical division between the forest and the steppe. New interest has recently been shown by W. Benesch, “The Use of Wood as a Building Material in Pre-Modern Russia: Its Extent and Potential Cultural Implications,” Cahiers d’histoire mondiale, 1964, part 1, 160–7 (an interesting but uninterpretive collection of testimony); and M. Devèze, “Contributions à l’histoire de la forět russe,” CMR, 1964, Jul-Sep, Oct–Dec.

15. S. Maksimov, SS, P, 1909, XII, 39 and ff; see also his “Lesnaia glush’ kartiny narodnago byta,” which appears as vols. XIII and XIV, P, 1909. Even today, the Russian language has special words for groups of trees just as other languages have for animals: sosnovy bor (pine), berezovaia roshcha (birch), etc.

16. M. Tikhomirov, Towns, 272. F. Locatelli, one of the first in a long line of urbane French visitors to be ill-impressed with Russia, pointed out (Lettres moscovites, Königsberg, 1736, 287) that Russia was, psychologically speaking, not so much a land of cold as a land of fire— because its people spent three fourths of the year locked up in insufferably overheated houses and huts.

17. The primary chronicle depicts St. Andrew noticing sauna-type baths in Novgorod, and Oleg insisting on provisions for baths “in any volume needed” during his negotiations with the Greeks. See S. Cross and O. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary Chronicle, Cambridge, Mass., 1953, 54, 65; also 79–80. Dragomanov (Notes, 96) relates the old Slavic legend that God made man from a towel after taking a bath. Finnish folklore often portrays the birth of Christ as taking place in a sauna.

18. D. Zelenin, “Tabu slov,” I, 99–103; V. Dal, PSS, M-P, 1898, X, 402 ff; also N. Voronin’s richly documented “Medvezhy kul’t v Verkhnem Povolzh’e v XI veke,” KZY, IV, 1960, 25–93, with seals illustrated on 70; also in Kamentseva, Sfragistika, 129–30. On early wood-carving and animal figures thereon see V. Vasilenko, Russkaia narodnaia rez’ba i rospis’ po derevu XVIII–XIX vv, M, 1960, 24–33, 47–51.

19. The secretly admired “qualities of dogged persistence and patient diligence” that H. Zinsser attributes to the louse (Rats, Lice and History, Boston, 1935, 227) are, interestingly enough, rather close to the qualities of long-suffering perseverance most admired by the monastic writers. Russian monks were occasionally accused—only partly in jest—by foreigners of having some hidden admiration for lice in view of their reluctance to rid themselves of the creatures. For a useful if impressionistic “natural history of the louse” see ibid., 166–88; however, Zinsser’s conclusion that typhus did not appear in Europe until the fifteenth century (218) probably needs to be modified in view of the mention of infections similar in description to typhus in the Russian chronicles.

20. As in the case of typhus, there has been no serious attempt to trace the early epidemiology of Russia from the fragmentary but repeated references to epidemic diseases in the chronicles. Careful studies of the statistical and psychological affects of plague and famine in the seventeenth century, however, give some idea of the astonishing impact of this phenomenon. See (on the “Time of Troubles” at the beginning of the century) N. Firsov, Istoricheskie kharakteristiki i eskizy, Kazan, 1922, I, 5–17; and (on the plague of the 1650’s) A. Brückner, Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Russlands im XVII Jahrhundert, Leipzig, 1887, 33–57.

21. N. Nikitina, “K voprosu o russkikh koldunakh,” SMAE, VII, 1928, 321.

22. This warning, says the Earl of Carlisle, “put some of us on a sudden desire to know if the Rats were so big at Mosco.” Charles Howard, First Earl of Carlisle, A relation of three embassies from his Sacred Majestie Charles II to the Great Duke of Muscovie, the King of Sweden, and the King of Denmark. Performed by the … Earle of Carlisle in the years 1663 & 1664, London, 1669, 140.

23. V. Kravchinsky (Stepniak), The Russian Peasantry, NY, 1888, 128.

24. See R. Matlaw, “Recurrent Imagery in Dostoevsky,” HSS, III, 201–25, who follows Chizhevsky in attributing this interest in insects to the influence of Schiller rather than to older Russian folk tradition.

25. See particularly Sot, 1930 (Eng. trans. Soviet River, NY, 1933), Skutarevsky, 1932 (translated excerpt in G. Reavey and M. Slonim, Soviet Literature: An Anthology, NY, 1934, 195–203); and R. Hingley, “Leonid Leonov,” Su, 1958, Jul–Sep, 69–74.

26. Zelenin, “Tabu,” II, 62; Golubinsky, Istoriia, I, 619. See also the large section on fire and furnaces in Sadovnikov, Zagadki, 41–50. Note the elaborate, rather ghoulish immolation rites of the pre-Christian Russians on the Volga reported by a tenth-century Arab traveler (Spector, Readings, 16–19); and the Russian rebuke to the Arabs for leaving a man’s “remains to be eaten by insects and worms” rather than “burn him in the twinkling of an eye so that he immediately enters into paradise” (19).

27. The Celestial Hierarchy, book XV, cited in Payne, Fire, 241. For the Greek text with French translation and a full analysis of the derivation and history of the image of sacred fire see Denys l’Aréopagite, La Hiérarchie Céleste, 1958, 166–71, notes by M. de Gandillac.

28. Luke 12:49; Acts 2:3.

29. S. Collins, The Present State of Russia, London, 1671, 25, also 8–9.

30. pozhar. N. Gudzy, ed., Zhitie protopopa Avvakuma im samim napisannoe i drugie ego sochineniia, M, 1959, 313, 448, 464. The designation was used well into the seventeenth century.

31. See the official publication of the Moscow patriarchate, The Russian Orthodox Church, 47.

32. Simeon the new theologian, cited in L. Uspensky and V. Lossky, The Meaning of Icons, Boston, 1952, 36. The metaphor originates with Origen (see G. Prestige, Fathers and Heretics, London, 1940, 221–2).

33. Cited in Payne, Fire, 241–4.

34. Soviet River, 347.

35. “Slavonic Cities IV, Moscow,” SEER, 1947, Apr, 336–55; Voronin, Goroda, 8.

36. Carlisle, Relation, 301; for similar testimony by earlier Western visitors, see Hamilton, Art, 106–7.

37. On the peshchnoe deistvo, see M. Velimirovich, “Liturgical Drama in Byzantium and Russia,” DOP, XVI, 1962, 351–85, esp. 365, for differences between the Byzantine and Russian versions. In addition to extensive materials cited therein see A. Famintsyn, Skomorokhi na Rusi, P, 1889, 100–5 and references for the way in which the wanderings of the three saved from the furnace often turned into general merrymaking lasting throughout the twelve days of Christmas. Note also the insistence of the Russians on having furnaces in the churches they were permitted to build in Baltic cities under Hanseatic control. N. Kazakova, “Ganzeiskaia politika russkogo pravitel’stva v poslednie gody XV v,” in Problemy … Tikhomirova, 153.

38. Luke 3:16. P. Pascal, Avvakum et les débuts du raskol: la crise religieuse au XVII^e siècle en Russie, 1938, 9–12.

39. A. Pokrovsky, “K biografii Antoniia Podol’skogo,” Cht, 1912, 11, ch 3, 33–8.

40. The institution of “self-immolation” has been analyzed and discussed with full documentation by D. Sapozhnikov, Samosozhenie v russkom raskole, M, 1891; and even more in I. Syrtsov, Samozhigatel’stvo sibirskikh staroobriadtsev v XVII i XVIII stoletii, Tobol’sk, 1888. Self-destruction was, however, opposed by many Old Believers. See the 1691 tract by a certain Evfrosin, Otrazitel’noe pisanie o novoizobretennom puti samoubiistvennykh smertei, repr. with valuable intr. and bibliography by Kh. Loparev in PDP, CVIII, 1895.

41. E. H. Carr, Michael Bakunin, NY, 1961, p, 187–8; R. Wagner, My Life, NY, 1911, I, 465–99, 527–32. On the contact between the two, which is strangely overlooked by most Wagnerian scholars, see Carr, 195–203.

42. Viacheslav Ivanov in “A Correspondence Between Two Corners,” between him and M. Gershenzon, PR, 1948, Sep, 955. Also his reference to the need for “fiery death in the spirit,” 1045.

43. N. Gumilev, Ognenny stolp, P, 1921. On him, see S. Makovsky’s invaluable, posthumously published, “Nicolas Gumilev (1886–1921). Un Témoignage sur l’homme et sur le poéte,” CMR, 1962, Apr-Jun, 176–224, which places the origin of the title in his earlier lines “henceforth I am ablaze with the flame which reaches up to heaven out of hell.” (209)

44. Cited by B. Rybakov, Remeslo drevnei Rusi, M, 1948, 183. Technically there was a distinction between the working axe (sekira) and the weapon (topor), but the latter term became generally used for all axes. Nor was the term supplanted in popular usage by the term for ceremonial axe (protazan) taken over along with its shape from the Polish partyzana, introduced by the courtiers of the False Dmitry and placed on the famous seal of Yaroslavl, showing the bear carrying an axe. BE, L, 505; Kamentseva, Sfragistika, 128–9.

45. “S toporom ves’ svet proidesh’,” Russkie narodnye poslovitsy i pogovorki, M, 1958, 236. “Toporvsemu delu golova,” V. Vasilenko, Russkaia narodnaia rez’ba i rospis’ po derevu XVIII–XX vv, M, 1960, 25. Sadovnikov begins his famous collection of Russian riddles with a section on the axe (not including the one cited by Vasilenko) Zagadki, 31 and 263 notes.

46. Shchapov, II, 508. See also 486 for additional testimony to the psychological importance of the axe, drawn from Shchapov’s unique reading of the archives of the Solovetsk Monastery.

47. Saws were considered a “foreign” or “German” implement and were not accepted for general use until the late seventeenth century. See N. Voronin, Ocherki po istorii russkogo zodchestva XVI–XVII vv, M-L, 1934, 101–3. Even in the late eighteenth century, the axe was still used exclusively for all woodwork in many parts of the country. See Putnam, Britons, 256–7. On Perun’s axehead, see BE, LXVI, 532–4.

48. Mashkovtsev, ed., Istoriia, I, 56 and table 28g.

49. For a detailed study of this remarkable institution (and of much else about pre-Petrine society) see A. Yakovlev, Zasechnaia cherta Moskovskogo gosudarstva v XVII veke, M, 1916.

50. “Chai pit’—ne drova rubit’”; “Chto napisano perom, to ne vyrubish’ toporom.” Russkie … poslovitsy, 259, 158.

51. B. Chicherin to A. Herzen in 1858, in the latter’s PSS i pisem (ed. Lemke), IX, 418–20.

52. F. Venturi, Roots of Revolution, NY, 1960, 295–6, also 169; and Carr, Bakunin, 398 and 390–409.

53. L. Leonov, “Concerning Large Chips of Wood,” LG, Mar 30, 1965, in CDSP, Jun 9, 1965, 13. Khrushchev’s remarks (addressed directly to Leonov) cited in CDSP, May 24, 1961, 6. Speech first given Jul 17, 1960, and reprinted in Kommunist. For a more negative appraisal of Leonov’s Russky les, M, 1954, see A. Gerschenkron, “Reflections on Soviet Novels,” WP, 1960, Jan, esp. 165–76. For earlier important literary efforts to use the forest as a symbol of old Russian values see Ostrovsky’s play, Les (P, 1871) and P. Mel’nikov (Pechersky)’s long novel, V lesakh (M, 1868–74) recently reprinted and adapted for the stage in the USSR. For details on the cult of the forest in popular folklore and an appreciation of similarities and differences with other parts of Europe, see D. Zelenin, Totemy-Derev’ia v skazaniiakh i obriadakh evropeiskikh narodov, M-L, 1937; also his “Totemichesky kul’t derev’ev u russkikh i u belorussov,” IAN (O), 1933, no. 6, 591–629.

54. The basic account of E. Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm,” DOP, VIII, 1954, 83–150, can be enriched by the recent finding in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai of a substantial number of these early icons. The provisional account given by K. Weitzmann, “Mount Sinai’s Holy Treasures,” NG, 1964, Jan, 104–27, is based on the first findings from the unprecedented collection of some 2,000 icons from various periods which will provide the material for a six-volume history of icon painting to be published by the Princeton University Press. The fullest collection of illustrations from Sinai yet published is G. Soteriou, Eikones tēs Monēs Sina, Athens, 1956–8, 2v.

55. J. Tixeront, Les Origines de l’église d’Edesse et la légende d’Abgar, 1888; P. Perdrizet, “De la Véronique et de Sainte Véronique,” and J. Myslivec, “Skazanie o perepiske Khrista s Avgarom na russkoi ikone XVII veka,” SKP, V, 1932, 185–90; and other materials referenced Hamilton, History, 273, note 7.

56. Uspensky and Lossky, Meaning, 46. In addition to this excellent semidevotional analysis see E. Trubetskoy, Umozrenie v kraskakh, M, 1916; B. Meshchersky, Russian Icons, NY, 1941; P. Muratov, Les Icones russes, 1929, Trente-cinq primitifs russes, 1937; and L’ancienne peinture russe, Rome, 1925; H. Gernard (pseud, of H. Skrobucha), Welt der Ikonen, Recklinghausen, 1957; J. Myslivec, Ikona, Prague, 1947; and K. Onasch, Ikonen, Gütersloh, 1961, which contains many new illustrations and is scheduled to appear in English translation. In addition to the already cited general works of Kondakov (still the outstanding authority), see his Ikonografiia Isusa Khrista, P, 1905, and Ocherki i zametki po istorii srednevekovogo iskusstva i kul’tury, Prague, 1929 (this last work having benefited from the new riches of color and technique revealed by the massive cleaning and restoration of Russian icons on the eve of the Revolution).

57. V. Lazarev, Andrei Rublev, M, 1960, 19. Among other recent Soviet studies see M. Alpatov, Andrei Rublev, M, 1959; and, for a spiritual interpretation of Rublev’s “Old Testament Trinity,” Evdokimov, Orthodoxie, 233–8. For a vivid illustration of Rublev’s accomplishment contrast his famed Old Testament Trinity with the sixteenth-century Rumanian icon on the same theme in D. Wild, Les Icones, Lausanne, nd, plate XVIII.

Perhaps the best characterization of the differing schools and their historical interrelationships is in P. Schweinfurth, Geschichte der russischen Malerei im Mittelalter, The Hague, 1930, 198–353. See also T. Rice, Icons, London, 1961; Hamilton, Art, chapters 10–13; Uspensky and Lossky, Meaning, 47, note 3; and V. Lazarev, Russian Icons, NY, 1962, p.

58. This is evident from the evidence presented (though somewhat obscured in the discussion) by A. Romm, Russkie monumental’nye rel’efy, M, 1953, 16–22, and appears to have been one of the important consequences of the transfer of power from Vladimir-Suzdal to Moscow. On the imaginative, epic themes of sculptured reliefs in Vladimir-Suzdal, see G. Vagner, Skul’ptura Vladimiro-Suzdal’skoi Rusi, M, 1964; and (more generally and with an accompanying French text) his Dekorativnoe iskusstvo v arkhitekture Rusi X–XIII vekov, M, 1964.

59. The correlation between these two phenomena is particularly stressed by Russian students of the still inadequately researched iconoclastic movement (in addition to references and discussion in Vasiliev, History, I, 251–65, see A. Schmemann, “Byzantine Iconoclasm and the Monks,” SVQ, 1959, fall, 8–34.), and may reflect an awareness that, however true of Byzantium, such a correlation did in fact come to exist in Russia. The posthumously published valedictory on this subject by K. Uspensky (“Ocherki po istorii ikonoborcheskogo dvizheniia v vizantiiskoi imperii v VII–IX v.: Feofan i ego khronografiia,” VV, III, 1950, 393–48 and IV, 1951, 211–62) includes references to recent work on iconoclasm (notes 393–4) and a plea for investigating a wide range of phenomenon not usually related to the controversy (261–2). A. Grabar, L’Iconoclasme Byzantin—dossier archéologique, 1957, is a ranging illustrated study and far more than a mere archeological dossier.

60. This last clause is a paraphrase of G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate 451–1204, London, 1947. 111. The insistence of Eastern iconography on stressing the Chalce-donian formulation on the dual nature of Christ was a principal theme of K. Weitzmann’s lecture “Icons from Mt. Sinai,” Apr 15, 1964, Princeton, N.J.

61. See the excellent and succinct illustrated study by A. Anisimov, Our Lady of Vladimir, Prague, 1928; also V. Antonova’s illustrated “K voprosu o pervonachal’noi kompozitsii ikony vladimirskoi bogomateri,” VV, XVIII, 1961, 198–205. Contrast the devotional approach of Skazanie o chudotvornoi ikone bogomateri imenuemoi vladimirskoiu, M, 1849, with the sociological-historical approach to the legends in V. Kliuchevsky, Skazanie o chudesakh vladimirskoi ikony bozhiei materi, P, 1879. For a general study of the iconography of the Virgin, N. Kondakov, Ikonografiia bogomate; i, P, 1914–5, 2v.

62. Uspensky and Lossky, Meaning, 94, note 3; Platonov, Histoire, 163; D. Uspensky, “Videniia smutnogo vremeni,” VE, 1914, May, 134–71.

63. According to the section on old Russian art of the Tret’iakov Gallery, Jan 1965; N. Scheffer (“Historic Battles on Russian Icons,” GBA, XXIX, 1946, 194) counts more than 200. One cannot, of course, attach any great precision to such computations, because it is often unclear what is a separate type and what merely a variation.

64. J. Stefănescu, L’illustration des liturgies dans l’art de Byzance et de l’Orient, Brussels, 1936, 22 ff.

65. V. Georgievsky, Freski Ferapontova monastyria, P, 1911, 98 ff.

66. Ibid.; the subject was apparently taken over from Mt. Athos—see Stefănescu, 177–9. See also Myslivec, “Ikonografiia: akatistu panny Marie,” SKP, V, 1932, 97–130; N. Scheffer, “Akathistos of the Holy Virgin in Russian Art,” GBA, XXIX, 1946, 5–16; and, on the general translation of hymns into icons in Russia, her “Religious Chants and the Russian Icon,” GBA, XXVII, 1945, 129–42.

The Akathistos hymns were originally designed for the fifth Saturday of Lent, but came to be sung on other occasions as well— always standing (akathistos meaning “not sitting”).

67. See Scheffer, “Battles.” This aspect of Russian icons has never been systematically studied, though there has been an effort to extract the extra-theological historical source material from miniatures in A. Artsikhovsky, Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istorichesky istochnik, M, 1944.

68. For early illustrations of icons panneled onto beams see Soteriou, Eikones, figures 95, 107, 111; for a thirteenth-century Russian carved beam, which already includes many more panels than was customary on a contiguous beam in Byzantine practice see Romm, Rel’efy, figure 21. Romm insists (18) that this tiablo form is in no way related to the earlier traditions of bas relief craftsmanship.

69. Mashkovtsev, Istoriia, I, 83–91; Uspensky and Lossky, 59, 68. The development of the iconostasis has been generally neglected in Soviet scholarship, and its importance underestimated. G. Filimonov (Vopros o pervonachal’noi forme ikonostasov v russkikh tserkvakh, M, 1889) refutes the pioneering work of E. Golubinsky (“Istoriia ikonostasa,” PO, 1872, Nov), which played down Russian originality and dated the appearance of the continuous (sploshnoi) iconostasis in the seventeenth century. Filimonov’s-findings are generally upheld and usefully amplified in the general history by D. Trenev, “Kratkaia istoriia ikonostasa s drevneishikh vremen,” in his Ikonostas smolenskago sobora, M, 1902, 1–50. The importance of the iconostasis for the subsequent development of Russian art is discussed in Muratov, Peinture, 77–107. Much the best study of the entire subject is N. Sperovsky’s “Starinnye russkie ikonostasy,” which contends that the first iconostasis appeared in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century; Kh Cht, 1891, Nov–Dec, 347–8. See also continuations of this article in Kh Cht, 1892, Jan–Feb, 1–23; Mar–Apr, 162–76; May–Jun, 321–34; Jul–Aug, 3–17; Nov–Dec, 522–37.

70. Uspensky and Lossky, 59.

71. Ibid., 39.

72. An admiring study of the Russian Church by R. Korper is entitled The Candlelight Kingdom, NY, 1955.

73. Mark 9:2–8; Matthew 17:1–9; Acts 2:1–4.

74. Matthew 11:28. Sperovsky, “Ikonostasy,” 1892, Jul–Aug, 17; Nov–Dec, 537.

75. For the biblical and patristic authorities and the apologetic theology for Orthodox icon veneration (carefully distinguished from worship, which is addressed only to God), and the contrast with the West, see Evdokimov, Orthodoxie, 216–33. In actual practice, however, the popular attitude was often so idolatrous that even intelligent foreign visitors in the seventeenth century could write that “monks are not even permitted to pray except in front of icons.” A. Mayerberg, Relation d’un voyage en Moscovie, Amsterdam, 1707, 89.

76. Fedotov, Mind, 208.

77. On the concept of chin see, in addition to material and references in my “Images of Muscovy,” 31–2, esp. note 22, the partial English translation of Alexis’ chin for falcons (with highly inaccurate commentary) in SEER, 1924, Jun, 63–4.

78. Belinsky, letter to Gogol of 1847, in Selected Philosophical Works, M, 1948, 507.

79. Paintings discussed in The Idiot and A Raw Youth respectively. The print of the Sistine Madonna is still over his desk in the Dostoevsky Museum in Moscow. Dostoevsky’s view of the Holbein painting is discussed at length in Z. Malenko and J. Gebhard, “The Artistic Use of Portraits in Dostoevsky’s Idiot,” SEEJ, 1961, Fall, 243–54; the Lorraine picture is also discussed with the same meaning in “Stavrogin’s Confession,” the suppressed chapter of Dostoevsky’s Possessed.

80. V. Bonch-Bruevich, cited in M. Gorlin’s excellent article, “The Interrelation of Painting and Literature in Russia,” SEER, 1945, Nov, 140: See also TODL, XXII, 1966.

81. Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 596–7. Note also the way in which icon painters began to double as military map makers in the Muscovite era. Voronin, Ocherki, 63–4, 73–4.

82. V. Riabushinsky, “Russian Icons and Spirituality,” TH, V, 1951, 48.

83. According to a Dutch visitor at the time of Boris Godunov, cited in N. Oslovianishnikov, Istoriia kolokolov i kolokoliteinoe iskusstvo, M, 1912, 40–1. In this invaluable and richly documented study of bells in Russia, see esp. 41–55 for the various early methods of bell ringing.

Paul of Aleppo tells how ringing bells on the eve of feasts would “rouse the whole city” and continue “in the common churches, from midnight till morning,” The Travels of Macarius, London, 1836, II, 31.

84. Oslovianishnikov, Istoriia, 40. N. Fal’kovsky, Moskva v istorii tekhniki, M, 1950, 243–53.

85. R. Fry, “Russian Icon Painting from the Western-European Point of View,” in M. Farbman, ed., Masterpieces of Russian Painting, London, [1930], 58, 38.

86. N. Kompaneisky, “O sviazi russkago tserkovnago pesnopeniia s vizantiiskim,” RMG, 1903, 825; also 661–3, 733–41, for suggestion of deep discontinuity between the Byzantine kondakarnoe penie that prevailed from the eleventh through the fourteenth century in Russia and the znamennoe penie that was dominant thereafter.

Early Russian church music has not been as intensively studied as that of Byzantium in recent years, and the relationship between the two remains a largely unexamined question. Among the still basic studies of V. Metallov on the Russian “signed chant” see Osmoglasie znamennogo raspeva, M, 1900. See also the useful collection of articles edited by the leading Soviet authority M. Brazhnikov, Puti razvitiia i zadachi rasshifrovki znamennogo rospeva XII–XVIII vekov, M-L, 1949. For an English-language introduction see A. Swan, “The Znamenny Chant of the Russian Church,” MQ, XXVI, 1940, 232–43, 365–80, 529–45; also, for secular music, see the discussion and references in his “The Nature of the Russian Folk-Song,” MQ, XXIX, 1943, 498–516.

87. A valuable English-language course of instruction in the signed chant together with illustrations of these and other of the kriuki, or “hooked” notes, used therein is provided in the mimeographed study of the Rev. V. Smolakov, leader of an Old Believer community in Erie, Pa.

88. Archimandrite Leonid, Pis’ma sviatogortsa k druz’iam svoim, P, 1850, 11, 78–80. On the institution of the icon procession (obraznoe khozhdenie) see Yarushevich, Sud, 450, also Oslovianishnikov, Istoriia, 17–18.

89. J. Smits van Waesberghe, Cymbala (Bells in the Middle Ages), Rome, 1951, 17–20; also 13–17 for the history of the metal bell in the West already being cast by the seventh century); and A. Bigelow, Carillon, Princeton, 1948, 25–57, for the subsequent refinement of the bell and incorporation into ordered carillons in the West, principally in the Low Countries. Like so many works in other fields, these outstanding volumes pay no attention to concurrent developments in Eastern Europe, but B. Unbegaun has suggested that the term malinovy zvon “mauve ringing” is derived from “Malines” in Belgium, thus indicating the probability of close borrowing from the West.

90. Voronin, Goroda, 84–5. For the advanced state of forging in Westward-looking Tver, whence Boris apparently came, see Rybakov, Remeslo, 603.

91. Oslovianishnikov, Istoriia, 38, 41; 103–4, 164–7; A. Voyce, Moscow and the Roots of Russian Culture, Norman, Oklahoma, 1964, 106–8. The contemporary Swedish description of stoning is in the valuable unpublished dissertation of H. Ellersieck, Russia under Aleksei Mikhailovich and Fedor Alekseevich, 1645–1682: The Scandinavian Sources, UCLA, 1955, 355, note 17.

92. Syrtsov, Samozhigatel’stvo, 6–15.

93. V. Odoevsky, as cited in A Koyré, La Philosophie et le problème national en Russie au début du XIX’ siècle, 1929, 31.

94. “Zvuchal kak kolokol na bashne vechevoi/Vo dni torzhestv i bed narodnykh.” Lermontov, “Poet” (1839) in PSS, M, 1947, I, 34. Lines also in widespread Soviet usage. See Krylatye Slova, 228.

95. Kolokol, Jul 1, 1857, 1.

96. Nabat first appeared in 1875; and like Kolokol was published abroad. On the meaning and development of the bell itself see D. Uspensky, “Nabatny Kolokol,” RS, 1907, v. 129, 614–20.

97. M. Creighton, “The Imperial Coronation at Moscow,” in Historical Essays and Reviews, London, 1902, 321. Oslovianishnikov reports (Istoriia, 51–2) that the coronation of Fedor was the first at which the characteristic ringing of bells was incorporated into the ceremony. Paralleling Chaikovsky’s insistence on using real cannon was Stanislavsky’s insistence on using real cathedral bells onstage for the Moscow Art Theater production of A. Tolstoy’s Tsar Fedor.

98. Stalin, “Groznoe oruzhie krasnoi armii,” KZ, Nov 19, 1944, 2. Stalin also referred to artillery as “the God of War.” See Major General I. Prochko, “Artilleriia—Bog voiny,” Bol’shevik, 1943, no. 18, 19–32.

See also R. Garthoff, Soviet Military Doctrine, Glencoe, Ill., 1953, esp. 301–7; L. Hart, The Red Army, NY, 1956, 344–66; and, on the early history of artillery in Russia, A. Chernov, Vooruzhennye sily russkogo gosudarstva v XV-XVII vv, M, 1954, 13, 35–46; V. Danilevsky, Tekhnika, 123–5; and BSE (2), III, 132–46. Vernadsky points out (Mongols, 365–6) that, whereas hand-firing weapons came from the East, artillery came from the West, presumably via the Czechs.

99. Margaritov, Istoriia sekt, 142–6, and references, esp. those in MO, 1906, nos. 10, 11, discuss Il’in’s sect, which was variously called “The Tidings of Zion,” “The Jehovahites,” and the “Brotherhood of the Right Hand.” See also V. Bonch-Bruevich, Izmirasektantov, M. 1922, 192–203.

100. See Fedorov’s posthumous Filosofiia obshchego dela, I, Verny (Alma Ata), 1906, 656–76; II, M, 1913, 248–53; Florovsky, Puti, 322–31; SSt, 1958, Oct, 129–31.

II. THE CONFRONTATION

I. THE MUSCOVITE IDEOLOGY

1. Northern origins of the tent roof seem implied in the analysis of J. Strzygowski, Early Church Art in Northern Europe, NY-London, 1928 (suggesting similarities of appearance despite different construction methods in a text that unfortunately does not consider Great Russia); and in the analysis of Finno-Karelian wooden architecture by L. Pettersson, Die kirchliche Holzbaukunst auf der Halbinsel Zaonež’e in Russisch-Karelien, Helsinki, 1950. The possibilities of Caucasian and Mongol derivation are sugested in materials referenced Hamilton, Art, 277, notes 21 and 22 respectively—the somewhat more plausible Mongol theory being supported by the apparently Tatar derivation of the Russian word for “tent roof,” shater.

W. Born doubts both the Iranian derivation of the onion dome suggested by Strzygowski (Die altslawische Kunst, Augsburg, 1929) and the widely held theory of Mongol derivation, suggesting that the form had emerged indigenously in Russia by the thirteenth century at the very latest. See Born’s “The Origin and the Distribution of the Bulbous Dome,” JAH, 1943, no. 4, esp. 39–45, and illustrations opposite 32; see also his “The Introduction of the Bulbous Dome into Gothic Architecture and Its Subsequent Development,” Speculum, 1944, Apr, 208–21.

For the peculiarities of Muscovite architectural development see I. Evdokimov, Sever v istorii russkogo iskusstva, Vologda, 1921, esp. 30–5; also A. Voyce, “National Elements in Russian Architecture,” JAH, 1957, May, esp. 11 ff; Moscow and the Roots of Russian Culture, Norman Okla., 1964, 95–121; M. Krasovsky, Ocherki istorii moskovskago perioda drevne-tser-kovnago zodchestva, M, 1911; and the excellent, illustrated study of wooden architecture by S. Zabello et al., Russkoe dereviannoe zod-chestvo, M, 1942.

2. Cited from E. Trubetskoy, Umozrenie in Evdokimov, Sever, 31.

3. Population estimate by M. Tikhomirov, Rossiia v XVI stoletii, M, 1962, 66. Paul of Aleppo estimated in the mid-seventeenth century that Moscow had “more than 4,000 churches and 10,000 chapels or sacristies where mass was celebrated,” Travels, 11, 31.

4. P. Struve, “Nazvanie ‘krest’ianin’,” SRIP, 1929. I; also Vernadsky, Mongols, 375. Evidence for the continued interchangeability of the two terms (questioned by some authorities) is provided by the use of the term khristiianin for peasant in the first Russian military manual of 1647. See the analysis of C. Stang in SUN, 1952, 86.

5. Likhachev, Kul’tura, 24.

6. For an invaluable study of hesychasm by an Athonite monk, see Basil Krivoshein, “The Ascetic and Theological Teaching of Gregory Palamas,” ECQ, III, 1938–9, 26– 33, 71–84, 138–56, 193–214; see also J. Meyendorff, St. Grégoire Palamas et la mystique orthodoxe, 1959; and the more historically oriented account by I. Smolitsch, Leben und Lehre der Starzen, Cologne-Olten, 1952, 23–63, with critical bibliography 234–9 and additional material referenced in his Mönchtum, 107–8. Other important studies with critical documentation are A. Ammann, Die Gottesschau im palamitischen Hesychasmus, Würzburg, 1938; I. Hausherr, La Méthode de l’oraison hésychaste, OC, XXXVI, 1927; G. Ostrogorsky, “Afonskie isikhasty i ikh protivniki,” ZRNIB, V, 1931; F. Uspensky, “Filosofskoe i bogoslovskoe dvizhenie v XIV veke,” ZhMNP, 1892, Feb.

7. “Tam ved’ es’-to, skazhut, stoit tser’kva sobornaia,/Tam sobornaia tser’kva vse Priobrazhen’skaia,” S. Shambinago, Pesni-pamflety XVI veka, M, 1913, 262.

8. See plate in Chizhevsky, History, opposite 190. See also material discussed in Voronin, “Kul’t,” 46, note 5.

9. Sumner (Survey, 182) gives this figure for 1340–1440. J. Řezáč (“De monachismo secundum recentiorem legislationem Russicam,” OC, CXXXVIII, 1952, 6) gives the figure 180 for the fourteenth century alone. Journel (Monachisme, 39, 43) estimates that from the beginning of the fourteenth through the mid-fifteenth century there were 180 new monasteries and that in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as a whole 300 were added. Smolitsch follows Kliuchevsky in suggesting a smaller over-all total of 104 large monasteries and 150 small ones (pustyn’) for the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries inclusive, with the total numbers for each century almost identical and the principal change being the great increase in the relative number of smaller cloisters between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. (Mönchtum, 81–2 note 2).

10. On Stephen, see L. Leger, La Russie intellectuelle, 1914, 36–50; M. Dane, “Epiphanius’ Image of St. Stefan,” CSP, V, 1961, 77–86; and text in Zenkovsky, Epics, 206–8.

11. E. Golubinsky, Prepodobny Sergei Radonezhsky i sozdannaia im Troitskaia Lavra, Sergiev Posad, 1892; A. Gorsky, Istoricheskoe opisanie Sviato-Troitskoi Sergievoi Lavry, M, 1890, 2v; P. Kovalevsky, Saint Serge et la spiritualité russe, 1958, p (fitting Sergius into the general context of early Russian religious development); N. Zernov, St. Sergius—Builder of Russia, London, 1938; and text in Zenkovsky, Epics, 208–36.

12. Volkov, “Svedeniia,” 24–5.

13. On the pletenie sloves see S. Zenkovsky, Epics, 205; on the less generally discussed pletenie remnei in fourteenth-century ornamentation (which like the “weaving of words” seems largely derived from Southern Slav models) see A. Nekrasov, “Ocherki iz istorii slavianskago ornamenta,” in PDP, CLXXXIII, 1913, 10.

14. Kondakov, Icon, 92. For an interpretation of Russian literary development that puts greater stress on discontinuities between Kievan and Great Russian literature than is customary among most historians of Russian literature see I. Nekrasov, Zarozhdenie natsional’noi literatury v severnoi Rusi, Odessa, 1870.

15. D. Likhachev has traced this migration of anti-Catholicism through Cyril in his “Galitskaia literaturnaia traditsiia v zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo,” TODL, V, 1947, 49–53. The story of the Latin sack of Constantinople also found its way into early Russian literature. See N. Meshchersky, “Drevnerusskaia povest’ o vziatii tsar’grada Friagami v 1204 godu,” TODL, X, 1954, 120–35; for other early anti-Roman tracts see A. Popov, Istoriko-literaturny obzor drevne-russkikh polemicheskikh sochinenii protiv latinian (XI–XV vv), M, 1875.

16. Mashkovtsev, ed., Istoriia, I, 84–5, table 39; Chizhevsky, History, 191–201; Gudzy, History, 244–57.

17. This contrast becomes particularly striking if one views The Lay of Igor’s Raid, which bears many similarities to the Zadonshchina, as an authentic work of the Kievan period. See the new edition relating it closely to The Lay by R. Jakobson and D. Worth, Sofonija’s Tale of the Russian-Tatar Battle on the Kulikovo Field, ’s Gravenhage, 1963. Tikhomirov insists that the Zadonshchina was a product of Moscow, not Riazan as is often contended, Moskva v XIV–XV vekakh, M, 1957, 256–60.

18. Tikhomirov, ed., Ocherki istorii istoricheskikh nauk, 63 ff. and esp. 68–9. A good recent Soviet student of historical songs and genealogical-political oral folklore contends that the introduction of epics alongside (and in amplification of) the chronicles must be dated from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries rather than the sixteenth, as had been previously contended by Sokolov and others. See M. Skripil, “Voprosy nauchnoi periodizatsii russkogo narodnogo poeticheskogo tvorchestva (X–XVII vekov),” I, 1956, 33–4. For an analysis distinguishing the historical song from the byliny see C. Stief, Studies in the Russian Historical Song, Copenhagen, 1953.

19. See references in D. Stremooukhoff, “Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine,” Speculum, 1953, Jan, 85, and 84–6; also Val’denberg, Ucheniia, 287; and W. Hammer, “The Concept of the New or Second Rome in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, 1944, Jan, esp. 52–5 on Constantinople. The idea was also applied to Western cities, particularly Treves (Trier), ibid., 57 ff.

20. A contrast between Augustine and the “Christian progressivists” of the East is made by T. Mommsen, “St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of Progress,” JHI, 1951, Jun, 346–74. On Origen’s prophetic and allegorical philosophy of history see R. Milburn, Early Christian Interpretations of History, London, 1954, 38–53.

The discussion of the early Russian understanding of heaven by A. Sedel’nikov suggests a greater belief in the final attainability of heaven on earth than was present in the medieval West: “Motiv o rae v russkom srednevekovom prenii,” BS, VII, 1936, 164–73.

21. Golubinsky, Istoriia, II, ch. 1, 297–356, on Cyprian and other key ecclesiastical figures; PSRL, XII, for Cyprian’s Life of Peter, the first metropolitan of Moscow.

On the Balkan principalities see Vasiliev, History, II, 301–19; and added material in Smolitsch, Mönchtum, 86, note 1; Stremooukhoff, “Rome,” 85, note 8. On Serbia see G. Soulis, “Tsar Stephen Dushan and Mount Athos,” HSS, II, 125–39. For the Byzantine-Bulgar derivation of the Russian sense of destiny see H. Schaeder, Moskau das Dritte Rom, Darmstadt, 1957, 2d ed., 1–12; and R. Wolff, “The Three Romes: The Migration of an Ideology and the Making of an Autocrat,” Daedalus, 1959, spring, 291–311. See also K. Radchenko’s generally neglected Religioznoe i literaturnoe dvizhenie v Bolgarii v epokhu pered turetskim zavoevaniem, Kiev, 1898.

The basic work on the “second South Slav influx” into Russia is still A. Sobolevsky, Iuzhno-slavianskoe viliianie na russkuiu pis’mennost’ v XIV–XV vekakh, P, 1894; and Perevodnaia literatura moskovskoi Rusi XIV–XVII vekov, P, 1903, 1–14. More recent surveys are M. Tikhomirov, “Sviazi,” in Slaviansky Sbornik; and V. Moshin, “O periodizatsii russko-iuzhno-slavianskikh literaturnykh sviazei X–XV vv,” TODL, XIX, 1963, 28–106.

For linguistic influence see G. Vinokur, Izbrannye raboty po russkomu iazyku, M, 1959, 59–62; religious influence, S. Smirnov, “Serbskie sviatye v russkikh rukopisiakh,” Iubileisky sbornik russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva v Iugoslavii, Belgrade, 1936, 252–64; artistic influences, V. Lazarev, Feofan Grek i ego shkola, M, 1961.

There were also, of course, Byzantine influences transmitted without other Slavic intermediaries from the so-called Paleologian renaissance. See D. Likhachev, Die Kultur Russlands während der Osteuropäischen Frührenaissance, Dresden, 1962, 31–41; I. Duichev, “Tsentri vizantiisko-slavianskogo obshcheniia i sotrudnichestva,” TODL, XIX, 1963, 107–29. Tikhomirov contends that there was a Greek monastery in Moscow and other centers of Greek learning at the Monastery of St. Sergius and elsewhere inside Russia. “Rossiia i Vizantiia v XIV–XV stoletiiakh,” ZRVI, VII, 1961, 36.

22. Text and notes on this legend by Pachomius Logothetes in Stender-Petersen, Anthology, 252–8; see also xiv–xv.

23. Golubinsky, Istoriia, II, ch. 1, 414–91; also G. Alef, “Muscovy and the Council of Florence,” ASR, 1961, Oct, 389–401, and works referenced therein, esp. M. Cherniavsky, “The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow,” CH, XXIV, 1955, 347–59.

24. Tikhomirov, “Rossiia i Vizantiia,” 33–4. The author rightly points out (38) that Russo-Byzantine relations during the period of Byzantine collapse have been very inadequately studied. Evidence that the Russian church was tending to exalt the Muscovite princes and derogate the Byzantine emperor during the fourteenth century is set forth in Wolff, “Migration,” 297–8, and references.

25. PSRL, VI, 232. Tikhomirov, “Rossiia i Vizantiia,” 38, proposes Serbian authorship.

26. V. Malinin, Starets Eleazarova monastyria Filofei i ego poslaniia, Kiev, 1901, appendix, 50, 54–5.

27. See G. Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn, 166–7 and references. Ivan III’s increasing use of the title of Tsar provides an indication, but not conclusive proof, that he viewed himself as a kind of successor to the Byzantine emperor. The term “Tsar” had a complex earlier usage (summarized in Miliukov, Outlines, I, 18–9 note 4) and—until used in the full coronation service by Ivan IV in 1547—no necessarily imperial significance. For the best discussion of the complex links between Byzantine precedent and Russian practice see V. Savva, Moskovskie tsari i vizantiiskie vasilevsy. K voprosu o vliianii Vizantii na obrazovanie idei tsarskoi vlasti moskovskikh gosudarei, Kharkov, 1901.

G. Alef suggests (in an unpublished manuscript, “The Adoption of the Muscovite Two-Headed Eagle: a discordant view”) that the seal may have been adopted by Ivan III in the 1490’s as a result of establishing relations with the Hapsburg emperors (who also used this Byzantine emblem), and not simply as an automatic consequence of his marriage to the niece of the last Byzantine emperor.

28. Joseph Sanin of Volokolamsk as cited in J. Fennell, “The Attitude of the Josephians and the trans-Volga Elders to the Heresy of the Judaizers,” SEER, 1951, Jun, 492 and note 26. For the prophetic writings at the end of the church calendar which encouraged chiliastic expectations see Smolitsch, Mönchtum, 131–2 and V. Zhmakin, “Mitropolit Daniil,” Cht, 1881, II, 361–7; also I, 1–226.

29. Letter of Archbishop Gennadius of Novgorod to Archbishop Ioasaf of Rostov and Yaroslavl, 1489, Feb, in Cht, 1847, no. 8, separate pagination at the end, 3.

30. Chizhevsky, History, 161; Stremooukhoff, “Third Rome,” 96. Chizhevsky cautions (229) against transposing the “eschatological psychosis” of later periods back into the fifteenth century, but the prophetic words at the end of the church calendar indicate that this psychosis was already well developed. In addition to Zhmakin, “Daniil,” see V. Sakharov, Eskhatologicheskie sochineniia i skazaniia v drevne-russkoi pis’mennosti i vliianie ikh na narodnye dukhovnye stikhi, Tula, 1879.

N. Ul’ianov’s argument (“Kompleks Filofeia,” NZh, XLV, 1956, 249–73) that the “Third Rome” idea is more a retroactive projection of nineteenth-century romantic nationalism than a real force in Old Russian thought (at least prior to usage by the Old Believers) requires some modification in view of the use of the term in the basic Kormchaia Kniga.

31. Budovnits, Publitsistika, 172; and Revelation xvii: 10–1, cited in PSRL, IV, 282, and interpreted in Vernadsky, Dawn, 146.

32. I. Kovalevsky, Iurodstvo o Khriste i Khrista radi iurodivye vostochnoi i russkoi tserkvi, M, 1900, 136, note, and 132–50. See also A. Kuznetsov, Iurodstvo i stolpnichestvo, P, 1913.

G. Fedotov, Sviatye drevnei Rusi, Paris, 1931, 205, counts six holy fools in the entire history of the Byzantine Church; Hieromoine Lev (“Une Forme d’ascèse russe. La folie pour le Christ,” Irénikon, III, 1927, 15) counts “four or five” in Byzantium from the second to the tenth century.

33. G. Fedotov (“The Holy Fools,” SVQ, 1959, fall, 2–4) counts four holy fools in Russia of the fourteenth century, eleven in the fifteenth, fourteen in the sixteenth, and seven in the seventeenth (during which prohibitions on canonizing this form of sanctity were introduced).

This useful study emphasizes the qualitative as well as the quantitative distinctions between Russian and Byzantine “holy fools.” The texts cited in support of holy folly are all Pauline: I Corinthians 1: 18–27; 4: 9–13; and Colossians 2: 8.

34. Ya. Shchapov, “‘Pokhvala Gluposti’ Erazma roterdamskogo v russkikh perevodakh,” ZOR, XX, 1958, 102–17, documents the large number of French and Russian editions and digests that began to appear in Russia beginning in the eighteenth century. For the tradition of “praising folly” by the early fathers and references to Tertullian see the section “The Primacy of Faith,” in E. Gilson, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, NY, nd, p, 3–33.

35. Dostoevsky in speech on Pushkin in 1880, just before his death, (F. Dostoevsky, The Diary of a Writer, NY, 1954, 967–80); Musorgsky in Boris Godunov; and Berdiaev in The Russian Idea, 196–200, 225. See also the romanticized but valuable (and influential) study by S. Maksimov, “Brodiachaia Rus’—Khrista radi,” which appear as vols. V, VI of his SS.

36. On Nil, see Smolitsch, Mönchtum, 101–18, and Leben, 64–80; Chizhevsky, History, 216–22; and selection in Fedotov, Treasury. Also, A. Arkhangel’sky, Nil Sorsky i Vassian Patrikeev, ikh literaturnye trudy i idei v drevnei Rusi, P, 1882; and for his code of the monastic life, Nil Sorskago predanie i ustav, PDPI, CLXXIX, 1912, with introductory article by M. Borovkova-Maikova. For his links with Hesychasm see A. Orlov, “Iisusova Molitva na Rusi v XVI veke,” PDPI, CLXXV, 1914, 29–92; also F. von Lilienfeld, Nil Sorskij und seine Schriften, 1961.

37. On Dionysius and the Spaso-Kamenny cloisters, Smolitsch, Mönchtum, 97–9 and table 534. See also Smolitsch, Leben, 57–63; B. Grechev, “Zavolzhskie startsy,” BV, 1907, Jul-Aug.

38. See G. Florovsky, “Empire and Desert: Antinomies of Christian History,” The Greek Catholic Theological Review, 1957, winter; G. Ostrogorsky, “Otnosheniia tserkvi i gosudarstva v Vizantii,” SKP, IV, 1931, 121–32. T. Parker says that “to speak of church-state relations in the East is really a glaring anachronism.” Christianity and the State in the Light of History, NY, 1954, 78, and section 54–80.

39. The first use of prikaz to mean an established institution rather than an order apparently occurs under Vasily III in 1512 (see documentation for Russkaia povest’ XVII veka, M, 1954, 450). General use of this term for institutions is usually traced to the reign of Ivan IV (see Gr. XXXIII, 460–2.) The research of V. Sawa (O posol’skom prikaze v XVI v, Kharkov, 1917) makes it clear, however, that this prikaz at least was a full-time chancery from the late fifteenth century despite his hesitation about generalizing (iii–iv and note iv, note 1) and the uncompleted nature of his research. The treasury (Kazenny dvor) must also have been operating on a continuing basis.

40. Fedotov, Mind, 208. Fedotov’s suggestion that the Orthodox conception of tsardom as a “social extension of the dogma of iconveneration” fits in with the trend already well marked in Byzantine iconography to depict emperors with the divinized attitudes of Old Testament kings and even of Christ Himself. See A. Grabar, L’Empereur dans l’art byzantin, 1936, 93–122. Myslivec, Ikona, 47, sees in the icon “an everlasting memorial … of the victory of Platonic idealism” in the East.

41. Shchapov, Sochineniia, II, 593–4, for full discussion and usages of pamiat’. The emphasis on epics rather than romances in early Russian literature also betrays a preference for tradition rather than innovation. As Max Remppis has said, in another context, “the epic searches out the old, the romance aspires towards the modern.” Die Vorstellungen von Deutschland in altfranzösischen Heldenepos und Roman und ihre Quellen, Halle, 1911, 146, also 168.

42. Chizhevsky, History, 161–2.

43. Legends about the transfer of the true seal of empire from Babylonia to Byzantium lent added pedigree to the imperial line. See Gudzy, History, 257–69; and, in addition to material referenced 269 note 14, see articles by M. Speransky and M. Skripil in TODL, X, 1954, 136–84, on Russian writings about the fall of Constantinople; and (particularly for the Russian borrowings of South Slav and even Rumanian writings on this subject) I. Duichev, “La conquěte turque et la prise de Constantinople dans la litérature slave contemporaine,” BS, XIV, 1953, 14–54; XVI, 1955, 318–29; and XVII, 1956, 276–340, esp. 316 ff.

44. V. Zenkovsky, History, I, 37.

45. The religious and devotional nature of Joseph’s teaching is stressed by G. Florovsky, who likens (Puti, 18) the compulsion to give up one’s riches to that of the renunciation of wealth and privilege in the 1870’s. For a sympathetic Roman Catholic appraisal sec Th. Špidlík, “Joseph de Volokolamsk. Un chapitre de la spiritualité russe,” OC, CXLVI, 1956; for a concise summary of the controversy with Nil, see J. Meyendorff, “Partisans et ennemis des biens ecclésiastiques au sein du monachisme russe aux XV^e et XVI^e siècles,” Irénikon, XXIX, 1956, 28–46, 151–64. Joseph’s principal polemic work is Prosvetitel’, ili oblichenie eresi zhidovstvuiushchikh, Kazan, 1904; see also A. Zimin and Ya. Lur’e, Poslaniia Iosifa Volotskogo, M–L, 1959, esp. the essay by Lur’e, “Iosif Volotsky kak publitsist i obshchestvenny deiatel’.” His political views are characterized by M. Shakhmatov, Politická ideologie Josefa Volokolamského, sborník vĕd právních a státních, Prague, 1928; and in Zhmakin, “Daniil.”

The general role of the clergy in developing imperial ideology is discussed in V. Sokolovsky, Uchastie russkogo dukhovenstva i monashestva v razvitii edinoderzhaviia i samoderzhaviia v Moskovskom gosudarstve v kontse XV i pervoi polovine XVI vv, Kiev, 1902.

46. N. Andreev suggests that fear of confiscation of church lands was a principal motivation behind Philotheus’ appealing so powerfully to the Tsar. This could be true, even though his supporting suggestion that Philotheus may have first propounded the theory in an earlier correspondence with Ivan III (“Filofey and His Epistle to Ivan Vasilyevich,” SEER, 1959, Dec, 1–31) seems untenable in the light of the careful argument advanced by N. Maslennikova for believing that this correspondence (and indeed Philotheus’ fullest exposition of his views) was in fact with Ivan IV. See the referenced work and amplification of the argument in Ya. Lur’e’s Ideologicheskaia bor’ba v russkoi publitsistike kontsa XV–nachala XVI veka, M–L, 1960, 346–57, 482–97.

47. Malinin, Filofei, appendix, 50.

48. In discussing the Josephite use of this passage from the sixth-century Byzantine work, Agapetus, I. Shevchenko remarks that “though autocracy was a native creation, the garb it donned was of foreign making.” “A Neglected Byzantine Source of Muscovite Political Ideology,” HSS, II, 1954, 172. On the obligation to inform under the tradition of “slova i dela gosudareva,” BE, LIX, 413–14, discusses its development in the eighteenth century; N. Evreinov, Istoriia telesnykh nakazanii v rossii [M, 1913?], 23, traces its origins to the sixteenth century.

Lur’e argues convincingly that Joseph was not himself a “Josephite” in the sense of advocating autocratic centralization until late in life. See his Ideologicheskaia bor’ba; also discussion by Szeftel in JGO, 1965, Apr, 19–29.

49. Budovnits, Publitsistika, 199–201, for Philotheus and Silvester on sodomy; for the exhortations on this subject in the church decrees of 1551, see L. Duchesne, ed., Le Stoglav ou les cent chapitres, 1920, 92–3; for typical foreign observations, M. Anderson, Discovery, 26–7.

50. For more details see N. Krasnosel’tsev, K istorii pravoslavnogo bogosluzheniia, Kazan, 1889; N. Odintsov, Poriadok obshchestvennago i chastnago bogosluzheniia v drevnei Rossii do XVI veka, P, 1881; and Smolitsch, Mönchtum, esp. 266 ff.

51. Tradition said to be typical of Russia by G. Fedotov. See his Mind, 94–131; introduction to (and selections for) his Treasury; and N. Gorodetzky, The Humiliated Christ.

V. Rozanov (“Vozle ‘Russkoi Idei’,” Izbrannoe, NY, 1956, 144–50) contends that Russia cherished a love of pure, but always humiliated and usually despoiled femininity as opposed to the strident masculinity of Western Europe. He cites the sense of identity Russians felt with Cordelia in King Lear, and with the characters of Dickens (“almost a Russian writer”), whose humiliations set them off from the typical English ideal of a beefeater. In French literature, Rozanov contends that Russians much prefer the suffering underworld characters of Eugène Sue’s novels to “the kings and ministers of Racine, Corneille, Victor Hugo and Dumas.”

52. The modern word “ascetic” is derived from the Greek word for athlete (askētēs), for which podvizhnik is the Russian equivalent. The podvig, or disciplined holy deed, is represented as the cornerstone of Russian spirituality by S. Graham, The Way of Martha and the Way of Mary, NY, 1916, iii ff; and of early Russian political life by M. Shakhmatov, who sees the ruling prince as an idealized podvizhnik vlasti (title of the first part of his “opyt”). See also Sipiagin, “Sources,” 18; Behr-Sigel, Prière, 30; Arsen’ev, Iz … traditsii, 81.

53. Interpretations of Ivan IV are complicated by the fact that most of the crucial documents and almost everything written in his own hand were lost amidst the fire and fighting of his last years and those of his ill-fated successors. For critical introductions to the immense literature on his reign see articles by G. Bolsover (TRHS, series 5, VII, 1957, 71–89) and L. Yaresh (on the oprichnina in C. Black, ed., Rewriting, 224–41).

The historiographical guide provided by I. Budovnits in the Stalin era (“Ivan Grozny v russkoi istoricheskoi literature,” IZ, XXI, 1947 271–330) has been superseded by the valuable first chapter of A. Zimin, Reformy Ivana Groznogo, M, 1960, 7–62. See also the convenient summary in S. Veselovsky, Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny, M, 1963, 11–37.

54. On Peresvetov, see W. Philipp, Ivan Peresvetov und seine Schriften zur Erneuerung des Moskauer Reiches, 1935; A. Zimin, I. S. Peresvetov i ego sovremenniki, M, 1958; and the review by Ya. Lur’e in IAN(L), XVIII, no. 5, 1959, 450–3.

On the more general problem of Turkish influences see G. Vernadsky, “On some parallel trends in Russian and Turkish history,” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, XXXVI, 1945, 25–36.

55. Gudzy, History, 269–75.

56. From the unpublished report of an admiring Venetian visitor to Moscow of about 1565, “Relatione del Gran Regno di Moscovia,” MS, 963, Venicia, Biblioteca Nationale, Madrid. I am indebted to Professor Hamm of Vienna for this reference.

57. Oath cited in P. Sadikov, Ocherki po istorii oprichniny, M-L, 1950, 23. This is a relatively early use of the term “government” in official Russian documents.

58. Kliuchevsky, Skazaniia, 85–6. See also Veselovsky, Issledovaniia, 38–53.

59. Kovalevsky, Iurodstvo, 143 and note 2, 144; also 137–42 on the iurodivy Nicholas Salos, whose prophetic reprimands of Ivan IV were popularly credited with saving Pskov from the same destruction that Ivan visited on Novgorod in 1470. Although these tales of “holy fools” were adorned with apocryphal detail in popular folklore and romanticized à la Walter Scott by Karamzin, the activities of these fools were also noted by sober foreign visitors, such as Giles Fletcher, and their historical importance in the late sixteenth century is beyond doubt. M. Tikhomirov speaks of the “blessed hooliganism” of Vasily in Rossiia v XVI stoletii, M, 1962, 78.

60. E. Maksimovich (“Tserkovny Zemsky Sobor 1549,” ZRNIB, 1933, IX) argues that the sobor of 1550, which approved the law code (Sudebnik) of 1550, was in fact a direct outgrowth of the previous church council and retained its essentially ecclesiastical character.

61. Budovnits, Publitsistika, 188–207, for details and references on these compendia. On the officially sponsored gathering in of literature from the appanages to Moscow under Ivan see P. Pascal, “Le Métropolite Macaire et ses grandes entreprises littéraires,” Russie et Chrétienté, 1949, no. 1–2, 7–16.

62. Ya. Lur’e, “O putiakh razvitiia svetskoi literatury v Rossii i u zapadnykh slavian v XV–XVI vv,” TODL, XIX, 1963, 282–3. The discussion and documentation, 262–88, illustrate the extent of earlier and later links.

63. Ya. Lur’e and N. Kazakova, Antifeodal’nye ereticheskie dvizheniia na Rusi XIV-nachala XVI veka, M-L, 1954, 109–10; also Fennell, “Attitude,” 498; Budovnits, Publitsistika, 52.

64. AAE, I, 1836, 479, cited in E. Denisoff, “Aux Origines de l’église russe autocéphale,” RES, XXIII, 1947, 81; and see the entire discussion 66–88. For a Russian version of the reply and discussion thereof, see A. Sedel’nikov, “Rasskaz 1490 ob inkvizitsii,” Trudy Komissii po drevne-russkoi literature Akademii Nauk, I, 1932, 33–57. Early Russian contact with Spain was more extensive than might seem likely. See, for instance, the flurry of diplomatic contact in the 1520’s documented in A. Lopéz de Meneses, “Las primeras ambajadas rusas en España,” Cuadernos de historia de España, Buenos Aires, V, 1946, 111–28. Much the best discussion of the entire Russo-Spanish contact is in Alekseev, Ocherki … ispano-russkikh … otnoshenii.

65. The term “purge” (purgieren, purgiren) was also used by German visitors to Muscovy. See K. Schreinert, Hans Moritz Ayrmanns Reisen durch Livland und Russland in den Jahren 1666–1670, Tartu, 1937, 56.

66. Denisoff, “Origines,” 88.

67. D. Davydov, Opyt teorii partizanskogo deistviia, M, 1822, 2d ed., 22–38; also V. Lamansky, “O slavianakh v Maloi azii, v Afrike i v Ispanii,” UZIAN, V, 1859, 365–8, and references therein. For material published in Russia about the Spanish resistance movement see Ocherki po istorii zhurnalistiki, I, 200.

Davydov was not only an important, neglected theorist of partisan warfare (with his basic idea being to combine Asian primitiveness with a European command system on the model of the Cossacks, Opyt, 42), but also a poet. See V. Zherve, Partizan-poet D. V. Davydov, P, 1913.

Actually, Alexander I had sent troops to fight with Napoleon against the Spanish partisans, and later sent frigates to repress the democratic revolutions in Spanish America. Napoleon sensed a similarity between Spain and Russia even before his defeat in Russia. When he rebuked a Russian general en route to Moscow in July, 1812, that the excess of churches in Moscow was a sign of backwardness “in an age when no one is even Christian!” he was told by the general “the Russians and the Spaniards still are.” Finding “insolence” in the suggested comparison of his forthcoming adversary with his troublesome preceding one, Napoleon noted in his diary “… he is wrong. The Russians will never be Christians. The Spanish never have been.” J. Lo Duca, ed., Journal secret de Napoléon Bonaparte, 1962, 125.

68. P. Shchegolov, “Katekhizis Sergeia Murav’eva-Apostola,” MG, 1908, no. 11, 63–7; S. Volk, Istoricheskie vzgliady dekabristov, M-L, 1958, 270–2; and M. Nechkina, “Revoliutsiia napodobie ispanskoi,” K i S, 1931, no. 10, 3–40; and M. Alekseev, Ocherki, 116 ff. In the early nineteenth century, Nadezhdin compared the role Russia was about to play in spiritually awakening Europe to that which Spain had played in bringing Europe out of the Middle Ages. See N. Koz’min, Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin, P, 1912, 184–5. See also V. Botkin, Pis’ma ob Ispanii, P, 1847.

69. J. Ortega y Gasset, Invertebrate Spain, NY, 1937, 71 mt; see also 155. One also detects in such critiques of “indolent and stupidly fatalistic” Russia as that of F. Araujo, “Nitchevo,” La España moderna, 1904, Dec, 177–80, a certain understanding born of similarity.

Spanish fascination with Russia was probably originally stimulated by close Spanish links with Catholic Poland, and produced a flurry of books and pamphlets on Russia in the early seventeenth century (see Lamansky, “O slavianakh,” esp. 352). Russian figures appear in Spanish literature of the later seventeenth century (the Duke of Muscovy, for instance, in Calderón’s Life Is a Dream); and another great Spanish writer, Lope de Vega, wrote the first in a long line of Western dramatic elaborations of the story of the false Dmitry: El Gran Duque de Moscovia y Emperador Perseguido in 1607 just a few months after Dmitry’s death, though it was not published until 1612 and has (for good artistic reasons) never become popular.

There was renewed Spanish interest in Russian literature in the late nineteenth century. See G. Portnoff, La literatura rusa en España, NY, 1932.

70. F. Dostoevsky, PSS, P, 1895, X, 114; also “the most magnificent and saddest of books ever created by the genius of man.” (XI, 306.) See L. Turkevich, Cervantes in Russia, Princeton, 1950, for the extraordinary impact of the work on nineteenth-century Russian literature and criticism; and N. Evreinov, The Theater in Life, NY, 1927, 83–97, for an ecstatic, early-twentieth-century paean to “Don Quixotism.” See also G. Schanzer, “Lazarillo de Tonnes in Eighteenth-Century Russia,” Symposium, 1962, spring, 55–62.

71. See “La literatura española en Russia,” La España moderna, 1900, Oct, 186. A convert to Orthodoxy of Spanish extraction has emphasized the concomitant antipathy of Spanish Christendom to Rome: Archimandrite P. de Ballester, “The Subconscious Orthodoxy of the Spanish Race,” ROJ, 1960, Dec, 4–7. The Muscovite attitude that the twin agents of the Antichrist were the Turkish Sultan and the Roman Pope was concurrently widespread in Spain (and present in both countries prior to the Reformation). See P. Alphandery, “Antichrist dans le moyen âge latin,” in Mélanges Hartwig Derenbourg, 1909, 274–7.

72. E. Lehrman, ed., Turgenev’s Letters, NY, 1961, 21–2.

73. “La causa es, que de mi pecho/ tan grande es el corazon,/ que teme, no sin razon,/ que el mundo le viene estrecho.” Cited in G. Brenan, The Literature of the Spanish People, Cambridge, 1953, 277, in the midst of a good general discussion of “Calderón and the Late Drama,” 275–314.

74. Lamansky, “Istoricheskiia zamechaniia k sochineniiu ’O slavianakh …’,” UZIAN, V, 1859, second series of pages, 100–11.

75. An opera seria by Francesco Araja, La forza dell’amore e dell odio. See Findeizen, Ocherki, II, 12–13; M. Cooper, Russian Opera, London, 1951, 10 ff. Part of the musical fascination with Spanish themes may come from the fact that many musicians and composers imported with the first professional companies in the eighteenth century were Spaniards.

In the world of poetry, Lermontov wrote a youthful melodrama, “The Spaniards,” and originally set his masterpiece “The Demon” in Spain. D. Chizhevsky sees a parallel between the dream of absolute freedom in Calderón and the utopian expectations of Maiakovsky, the poetic troubador of Bolshevism, in “Majakovskij und Calderon,” Aus zwei Welten, 308–18.

The Russian sense of identification with the grotesque art of Goya, which was to become particularly strong during the Soviet period, was already anticipated in Constantine Balmont’s essay on Goya (“Poeziia uzhasa,” Mir Iskusstva, 1899, nos. 1–12, 175–85) which called the Spaniard the prophet of an altogether new world that puts “in place of the divine harmony of the spheres the irresistible poetry of horror” (176).

76. Cherepnin, Paleografiia, 107; Introduction by P. Blake to “New Voices in Russian Writing,” Encounter, 1963, April, 32–5.

77. Malinin, Filofei, appendix, 63.

78. See the neglected study by N. Efimov, “Rus’-Novy Izrail”’: Teokraticheskaia ideologiia svoezemnogo pravoslaviia v do-petrovskoi pis’mennosti, Kazan, 1912. See also I. Zabelin, Russkoe Iskusstvo. Cherti samobytnosti v drevnerusskom zodchestve, M, 1900, 16–17.

79. See, for instance, “Skazanie o mamaevom poboishche,” in Russkie povesti XV–XVI vekov, M-L, 1958, 17.

80. The dating of the New Year from September was a later, sixteenth-century innovation, which was apparently related to the growing importance of celebrating the “Farewell to Summer” (letoprovodstvo) on September 1 (on which see B. Unbegaun, “Remarques sur l’ancien calendrier russe,” in Mélanges Georges Smets, Brussels, 1952, 641–7). There is no evidence of a Jewish derivation; but September 1 (Feast of St. Simeon) would not seem to be either intrinsically or ecclesiastically a good time to celebrate the coming of the New Year. Nor should one automatically assume Byzantine derivation. V. Moshin has concluded (TODL, XIX, 1963, 46) that the previous Russian system of dating the new year from March 25 (the Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin) was taken from Western Europe rather than Byzantium. The adoption of this new system occurred long after the fall of Byzantium and the initial flight of monks to Muscovy. The only other apparent example of New Year’s Day being celebrated on September 1 was in pre-Christian Greece. See A. Giry, Manuel de diplomatique, 1925, 108. The proclamation of the New Year on September 1 in Old Russia was associated with the scriptural passage (Luke 4: 18) in which Christ entered the synagogue and read the passage from Isaiah proclaiming “the year of the Lord’s favor”; and was accompanied by an elaborate procession into a cathedral, symbolically re-enacting the divine entry into the synagogue.

81. S. Zenkovsky, Epics, 81.

82. A. Poppé, “Russie,” 28–30; E. Bickermann, “Sur la Version vieuxrusse de Flavius Josèphe,” AIOS, VI, 1936, 53–84; N. Meshchersky, “Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny,” Iosifa Flaviia v drevnerusskom perevode, M-L, 1958.

83. A. Harkavy, Hadashim gam Yechanim, P, 1885, cited in N. Slouschz, “Les Origines du Judaïsme dans l’Europe Orientale,” in Mélanges Derenbourg, 79.

84. On the puzzling matter of the Khazar decline and legacy see D. Dunlop, A History of the Jewish Khazars, Princeton, 1954, 222–63; also S. Szyszman (“Les Khazars: problèmes et controverses,” RHR, CLII, 1957, 174–221), who berates the lack of attention paid to the Khazar legacy (220–1); also the bibliography in BNYL, 1938, Sep, 696–710.

Present-day differences in assessing the role of the Khazars in the development of Russian civilization seem to reflect a kind of historiographical sparring between Muscovite chauvinism and Leningrad cosmopolitanism. For the former, B. Rybakov speaks of Khazaria as “parasitical” and devoid of cultural significance (SA, XVIII, 1953, 147); for the latter, V. Mavrodin gave, even in the Stalin era, a more positive appraisal, demonstrating their influence on subsequent place names (Obrazovanie, 184–5). M. Artamanov has taken vigorous issue with Rybakov and much of Stalinist scholarship on the subject in his important Istoriia khazar, L, 1962, but feels that Khazar influence on Russian culture was largely shortlived and superficial, 365–495, esp. 458–9. See also 366, note 5, for Russian use of the Khazar title in the first half of the ninth century; and the section from Artamanov translated in Spector, Readings, 3–13.

For Jewish literary influences in the Kievan period, the sketchy discussions in Gudzy, History, 183, and Chizhevsky, History, 161–2, should be supplemented by the long if somewhat rambling and inconclusive study of Kievan texts by G. Baratts, Sobranie trudov po voprosu o evreiskom elemente v pamiatnikakh drevne-russkoi pis’mennosti, Berlin-Paris, 1924–7, three parts in 2v. See also the neglected study by I. Malyshevsky, “Evrei v iuzhnoi Rusi i Kieve v X–XII vv,” TKDA, 1879, Sep. Some reciprocal early Russian influence on Jewish letters is suggested by A. Harkavy, Ob iazyke Evreev zhivshikh v drevnee vremia na Rusi i o slavianskikh slovakh vstrechaemykh u evreiskikh pisatelei, P, 1865. N. Meshchersky sees substantial evidence of Khazar influence, “Vizantiisko-slavianskie literaturnye sviazi,” VV, XVII, 1960, esp. 67–8.

85. On this 174-word glossary of 1282 appended to a Novgorod copy of the church canon see A. Karpov, Azbukovniki ili alfavity inostrannykh rechei po spiskam solovetskoi vivlioteki, Kazan, 1877, 12, also 43–4.

86. V. Beliaev, “Kastalsky and his Russian Folk Polyphony,” ML, 1929, Oct, 387–90.

Among the similarities between Jewish and Russian folk music are the repeated reliance on augmented seconds and the setting of songs of joy and humor in a minor key rather than a major; but the interrelationship between the two musical traditions has never been systematically studied.

87. N. Kompaneisky suggests that the decline of the authority of the Greek (kondakarnoe) chant in the fourteenth century may be related to the fact that Russia had a pre-Byzantine musical culture derived from the Jewish chant; and that the Greek system of notation was never able to superimpose itself completely on this tradition. (“O sviazi,” 733–8, 820–7).

Some links between Jewish and Eastern Slavic cantillation are apparently hinted at for the seventeenth century by Rabbi S. Margolis, Chibbure Likkutim, Venice, 1715. Some other similarities are noted by E. Werner in E. Wellesz, ed., Ancient and Oriental Music, Oxford, 1957, esp. 317. 329–32; and A. Idelsohn, in Acta Musicologica, IV, 1932, 17–23; and in MQ, 1932, Oct, 634–45. The question seems never to have been seriously studied from the Slavic side.

88. On their influence see Vernadsky, Dawn, 216–9 and references.

89. Dubnov, History, I, 93. A Latin derivation is possible for arrendare and a Turkish one for kabala, though the latter term also has the meaning “secret contract” as well as “secret teaching” in Hebrew. See the early use in the sense of “service contract” in I. Sreznevsky, Materialy dlia slovaria drevne-russkogo iazyka, P, 1893, I, 1169–70; see also REW, I, 494.

On the influx from the West and the coming of Yiddish culture from Poland into West Russia see Y. Hertz, Die Yiden in Ookruyne, NY, 1949; Slouschz, “Origines,” 70–81; L. Wiener, “Evreisko-nemetskie slova v russkikh narechiiakh,” ZhS, V, 1895, 57–70.

90. An excellent (though unhistorical) picture of small-town Yiddish culture in Eastern Europe is presented by M. Zborowski and E. Herzog, Life Is with People. The Culture of the Shtetl, NY, 1962, p. See J. Raisin, “The Jewish Contribution to the Progress of Russia,” The Jewish Forum, 1919, Feb, 129–38; Apr, 870–80; May, 939–51, for many little-known illustrations from the modern period. A hostile but sometimes revealing Orthodox treatment is N. Gradovsky, Otnosheniia k evreiam v drevnei i sovremennoi Rusi, P, 1891.

91. Compare the chronicle account in PSRL, XX, 354–5, with that in W. Leonhard, The Kremlin Since Stalin, NY, 1962, p, 45–9.

92. Margaritov, Istoriia, esp. 128–33.

93. A. Castro, The Structure of Spanish History, Princeton, 1954, 529; and 524–44 for a classic characterization of the Jewish impact on Spain.

94. See L. Shapiro, “The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement,” SEER, 1962, Jun, 148–67.

95. H. von Eckhardt, Ivan the Terrible, NY, 1949, 49.

96. J. Fennell, ed., The Correspondence between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, 1564–1579, Cambridge, 1955, 46.

97. Ibid., 35; see also 33, 47–9.

98. Ibid., 21–3.

99. Ibid., 2–3.

100. Ibid., 207–9, referring to I Samuel 27.

101. Shevchenko, “Source,” 172–3.

102. See the new interpretation advanced by G. Mozheeva, Valaamskaia Beseda, pamiatnik russkoi publitsistiki serediny XVI veka, M-L, 1958, 89–93, 98–105; for another discussion of this puzzling document, see Val’denberg, Ucheniia, 299–307.

103. Shevchenko, “Source,” 173.

104. Citations from Rzhiga edition of Peresvetov’s works in Cht, 1908, I, otd II, “Skazanie o tsare o Konstantine,” 70–1; “Skazanie o magmete-saltane,” 72.

2. THE COMING OF THE WEST

1. Noting these influences, Nekrasov insists (Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, 113 ff.) that the major idiosyncracies of the art of Vladimir-Suzdal are explicable either from Eastern influences or from the primitive, semi-animistic predilections of the native Finnish and Slavic population of the northern region. See also M. Alpatov, “K voprosu o zapadnom vliianii v drevnerusskom iskusstve,” Slavia, III, 1924–5, 96–7. This is an invaluable survey.

2. Nekrasov, Iskusstvo, 222 ff.; Likhachev, Die Kultur, 31 ff.; also the seminal new study of I. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, Ital’ianskoe Vozrozhdenie i slavianskaia literatura XV–XVI vekov, M, 1963, which points out how Western ignorance of Eastern Europe has limited Western scholarly understanding of the Renaissance period.

3. Dal, Poslovitsy, 329.

4. Kovalevsky, Manuel, 90–1 and ff. for a succinct discussion of the integration of Novgorod into Muscovy. There was a German-Scandinavian merchant quarter in Novgorod by the early eleventh century and at least one Western church by the twelfth. See A. Stender-Petersen, Varangica, Aarhus, 1953, 255–8.

5. N. Porfiridov, Drevny Novgorod. Ocherki iz istorii russkoi kul’tury X1–XV vv, M-L, 1947, 14, 226–7.

6. BE, XLI, 248. The studies of M. Lesnikov (referenced Och (5), 88, note 1) cast doubt on the assumption of many Great Russian historians that the Hanseatic link was an unequal one of—in effect—colonial dependency. The studies of N. Kazakova (referenced ibid., 88, notes 2 and 3) trace the series of actions taken by Ivan III and Vasily III to break the link. See older studies of the connection by M. Berezhkov, O torgovle Rusi s Ganzoido kontsa XV veka, P, 1879; and L. Goetz, Deutsch-russische Handelsgeschichte des Mittelalters, Lübeck, 1922.

One interesting illustration of the links is the Slavonic inscriptions on a processional cross of the North German town of Hildesheim, revealing an apparently twelfth-century gift to the town by the Archbishop of Novgorod. See BLDP, I, 1914, 36–40. For more illustrations M. Alpatov, “K voprosu,” 97 ff. For early German literary influences see E. Petukhov, “Sledi neposredstvennogo vliianiia nemetskoi literatury na drevnerusskuiu,” ZhMNP, 1897, no. 7, 145–58. Novgorod’s link with the East also left traces on its folklore and architecture. See, for instance, A. Nikitsky, “Sledy vostoka v Novgorode,” Trudy Vgo Arkheologicheskago S’ezda v Tiflise 1881, M, 1887, 262–3.

7. Compare the account in Poppé, “Russie,” 22–7, with the estimate here cited from Likhachev, Die Kultur, 24. The latter purports to hold true for the Russian north generally; but because the evidence is drawn almost exclusively from the extensive recent excavations in Novgorod, it would seem more reasonable to limit its application there.

8. Artsikhovsky views the extensive excavations at Novgorod (which he has headed) as confirming the existence of a mixed government prior to the fourteenth century, and of a pure republic by the end of the fifteenth. XI Congrés International des Sciences Historiques. Résumés des communications, Uppsala, 1960, 93–4. D. Obolensky (ibid., 92) emphasizes the concurrent hugeness of the ecclesiastical establishment.

9. PSRL, III, 83. See also A. Nikitsky, “Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode,” ZhMNP, 1879, Jul, 39–41. Nikitsky’s discussion, 34–86, remains a solid and subtle reading of the complex political-ideological tensions of the period. Also valuable is Zhmakin, “Daniil,” 38 ff. On the archbishop who defended the faith and his ideas see A. Sedel’nikov, “Vasily Kalika: l’histoire et la légende,” RES, VII, 1927, 224–40.

It seems fairer to speak of a “Muscovite fifth column” than of Russian and Lithuanian factions within Novgorod (as Great Russian historians generally do), because Moscow was the aggressive party. Expanding ties with Lithuania was in the traditional Novgorodian pattern, and the real pressure for change in Novgorod came from the Muscovite party and its allies

10. Budovnits, Publitsistika, 75–7 and references; also D. Stremooukhoff, “La Tiare de Saint Sylvestre et le klobuk blanc,” RES, XXXIV, 1957, 123–8; Gudzy, History, 278–95.

11. Nikitsky, “Ocherk,” 41 ff. for discussion and references.

12. See Cht, 1847, no. 8, 1–6 (separate pagination at the end), especially Gennadius’ allegation that (2) “Novgorod is not one in Orthodoxy with Moscow.” See also his call to the Metropolitan of Moscow to make his prince worthy of the Old Testament kings (AAE, I, 480) “for the sake of his eternal salvation” and “our pastorship” (482). Also later letters of Gennadius to Metropolitan Simon of Moscow in AI, I, 104, 147.

G. Vernadsky stresses the considerable sympathy Ivan felt for the heretics because of their congruent opposition to ecclesiastical wealth (“The Heresy of the Judaizers and Ivan III,” Speculum, 1933, Oct, 436–54).

13. Fedotov, “Fools,” 9–10.

14. Tver also served, however, as an intermediary, like Novgorod and Pskov, for the “third Rome” doctrine. See Stremooukhoff, “Third Rome,” 88, note 25; Gudzy, History, 302–5, esp. note 4.

15. Zhmakin, “Daniil,” 1–2 note 2, 23.

16. Cited in Nikitsky, “Ocherk,” 60.

17. B. Parain, “La Logique dite des Judaïsants,” RES, XIX, 1939, 315–29; A. Sobolevsky, Logika zhidovstvuiushchikh i “taina tainykh,” PDPI, CXXXIII, 1897.

There is still no comprehensive analysis of the Judaizers, and their history (like that of the far more numerous Albigensians in the West) may never be properly written, because many of their own writings have not been preserved. For a recent study which presents some new material but tends to minimize Western influence by largely neglecting the problem of origins see Lur’e and Kazakova, Antifeodal’nye dvizheniia, esp. 87, 109–224. For a general survey of recent Soviet work see A. Klibanov, “Les Mouvements hérétiques en Russie du XIII^e au XVI^e siècles,” CMR, 1962, Oct-Dec, 673–84. For bibliography of earlier works and still valuable discussion of basic sources, see L. Bedrozhitsky, “Literaturnaia deiatel’nost’ zhidovstvuiushchikh,” ZhMNP, 1912, Mar, 106–22.

18. The population of Novgorod has been estimated for the mid-sixteenth century to have been somewhat in excess of 20,000 by N. Chechulin (Goroda Moskovskago gosudarstva v XVI veke, P, 1889, 50–2), which is considerably less than the total of 72,000 said to have been deported from Novgorod to Moscow by V. Zhmakin (“Daniil,” 48 note 1, following Kostomarov). Although this latter figure is almost certainly inflated, it seems probable that early deportations exceeded the numbers left behind.

19. M. Tikhomirov, Srednevekovaia Moskva v XIV–XV vekakh, M, 1957, esp. 125–31, 147–53, for discussion and references on the Italians and their agents (collectively known as surozhane, from Surozh or Sudak, one of the two principal Crimean-Italian ports). Tikhomirov’s otherwise valuable section on urban culture of the period (238–71) offers no speculation on, or investigation of, possible cultural influences of this foreign community. On the use of paper with Italian (and subsequently other foreign) watermarks see N. Likhachev, Bumagi i drevneishiia bumazhnyia mel’nitsy v moskovskom gosudarstve, P, 1891, esp. 93; and his restated conclusions in Diplomatika, P, 1901, esp. 174–5, 181–3, 191.

For further details on the Genoese links with Muscovy see G. Brătianu, Recherches sur le commerce de Gěnes dans la second moitié du XIII^e siècle, 1929; Levchenko, Ocherki, 522 ff.; and Kovalevsky, Manuel, 97–102 and references. On fourteenth-century Genoese charting of Russia see Lubimenko, “Role,” 41. E. Skrzhinskaia points out (“Petrarka o genueztsakh na levante,” VV, II, 1949, esp. 246–7) that Genoa was in effect trying to counter Venetian dominance of the Adriatic by gaining dominance over the Eastern sea approach to Slavdom: the Black Sea. M. Tikhomirov (“Rossiia i Vizantiia,” 32–3) points out that because of the developing Genoese alliance with the Mongols, Russia increasingly cultivated the Venetian side in this dispute.

20. For the discussion of this little-known church at Volotovo, just south of Novgorod, which was built in 1352, restored and studied just before World War II, and apparently destroyed during it, see N. Porfiridov, “Zhivopis’ Volotova,” NIS, VII, 1940, 55–65. The outward appearance seems to have been that of a conventional small church of the Kievan period (ibid., 48–54).

21. Veselovsky, Vliianie, 14; and his “Italianische Mysterium in einem russischen Reisebericht des XV Jahrhunderts,” Russische Revue, X, 1877, 425–41; and A. Popov, 100–6. On the Russian participation in the Council of Florence see (in addition to previously referenced works) (from the Catholic point of view), G. Hofmann, “S. I. Kardinal Isidor von Kiev,” OC, XXVII, 1926; and O. Halecki, From Florence to Brest 1439–1596, Rome, 1958, which has made fresh use of Vatican archival materials; and (from the Orthodox) Kartashev, Ocherki, I, 349–62, 517–29. The first translation from Latin to Russian was apparently made in connection with the Council. See A. Sobolevsky, Perevodnaia literatura, 39, note 1.

22. V. Snegirev, Aristotel Fioravanti i perestroika moskovskogo kremlia, M, 1935. There is also believed to have been some indigenous sculpturing in Moscow in the 1460’s, prior to Sophia’s arrival, probably of Italian inspiration. See “Iz istorii russkoi skul’ptury,” IL, 1914, no. 7, 874–5; also Tikhomirov, Moskva, 211–14. New material on Russo-Italian contacts during the High Renaissance is discussed and referenced in M. Gukovsky, “Soobshchenie o Rossii moskovskogo posla v Milan (1486 g),” in S. Valk, ed., Voprosy istoriografii i istochnikovedeniia istorii SSSR, M-L, 1963, 648–55.

For the Italian and Roman Catholic impact on Russia during this early period the basic works of P. Pierling, La Russie, I, II, should be read in the light of the detailed review essay based on Pierling’s earlier work on this subject by F. Uspensky, “Snosheniia Rima s Moskvoi,” ZhMNP, 1884, Aug, 368–411, Oct, 316–39. See also the archival materials, excerpts, and references assembled for the Academy of Sciences under the editorship of E. Shmurlo, Rossiia i Italiia, P, 1907–15, 3v, each in two parts. Except for the second part of the third volume (which deals with Spanish relations with Russia in the late sixteenth century), almost all of these materials pertain to Russo-Italian relations prior to the seventeenth century, many of them from libraries unused by Pierling. For the contact and struggle with Latin and Italian influences in Pskov see Kliuchevsky, Otzyvy i izsledovaniia, M, (nd), 71–87.

23. See the discussion of Sophia’s influence in Vernadsky, Dawn, 18–26, 122–33; also referenced works of V. Sawa and K. Bazilevich.

24. The translation of the Bible by Skorina (published in Prague, 1517–9, and Vilnius, 1525) was into a kind of embellished White Russian which was not intended to be the vernacular tongue of anyone and could be read only with difficulty in Great Russia. A number of partial, vernacular translations subsequently appeared; but the fullest and best was the Ostrog Bible of 1580, which was based on the translation of Gennadius. See basic discussion and references in BE, VI, 690–6; also I. Evseev, Gennadievskaia bibliia 1499, M, 1914.

The importance of Latin influences on the Novgorod hierarchy is stressed by Denisoff, “Origines,” 77–88; and (in addition to works cited therein) by A. Sedel’nikov, “Ocherki katolicheskogo vliianiia v Novgorode v kontse XV-nachale XVI v,” DAN, L, 1929, 16–19. On the Croatian Dominican Benjamin see Budovnits, Publitsistika, 102, esp. note 1, suggesting that he was the author of the influential Slovo kratko, defending church landholding (text in Cht, 1902, Kn. II, otd. ii, 1–60).

25. The fact that the Donation came into general Russian usage a century after Lorenzo Valla’s exposure had discredited it in the West is a good illustration of the extent to which the Eastern Slavs were out of touch with contemporary Western intellectual life. For the extensive sixteenth-century Russian use of the Donation see Val’denberg, Ucheniia, 212, note 4, 270, 284–9. It was officially incorporated into the “Hundred Chapters” by the church assembly of 1551; see Duchesne, Stoglav, 171–3.

26. Letter of October 1490 to Metropolitan Zosima of Moscow, AAE, I, 480.

27. I. Bloch, Der Ursprung der Syphilis, Jena, 1901, 280–1; and V. Ikonnikov, “Blizhny Boiarin Afanasy Ordyn-Nashchokin,” RS, 1883, Nov, 289, note 1. M. Kuznetsov, Prostitutsiia i sifilis v Rossii, P, 1871, 68, points out that syphilis arrived in Cracow shortly before Russia.

28. The term used was friaz rather than latinian; but the former was used in Muscovy with a meaning closer to “Latin” than to “Frankish,” from which it is technically derived. Friaz was generally used for secular Latin elements in Moscow; latinian, to designate the more distinctively ecclesiastical West. Volpe was renamed Friazin in Muscovy; and Gennadius spoke admiringly of how the Friazove kept their faith firm in the face of heresy (AAE, I, 482).

29. According to G. Uspensky (Opyt povestvovaniia o drevnostiakh russkikh, Kharkov, 1818, 2d corr, ed., 77–8) the distillation of vodka was perfected on the island of Majorca, and transmitted to the Genoese by Raymond Lully, the alchemist-philosopher and bitter foe of Dominican rationalism.

The early history of alcoholic beverages has never been adequately written. A process of distillation sounding very much like that used for aqua vitae is described by Bernard of Gordon, Tractatus de gradibus in 1303, and was almost certainly known even earlier to Arnold of Villanova. If knowledge of aqua vitae in the West probably predates Lully, the transmission of the knowledge to Russia may well have occurred later than the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century—particularly in the absence of references to it in the sources of the period. Nevertheless, the substantial early Italian links with Moscow, the Russian interest in Lully, and Uspensky’s own stature as an eminent professor of history and geography at Kharkov (see the appraisal by I. Zil’berman, Kniga G. F. Uspenskogo “Opyt povestvovaniia o drevnostiakh russkikh” 1818 g. i eia chitateli, Kharkov, 1916) give an air of authority to his derivation. He mentions (83) the prohibitionary regulations introduced by the khans in the late fourteenth century after their conversion to Islam; and this could be one of the reasons for the relative paucity of information on alcoholic drinks in the documents of the time. There are ample references to vodka and other drinks beginning in the late sixteenth century. But the first clear listing of the term “vodka” in a dictionary is in Polikarpov’s Leksikon of 1704 (SSRIa, II, 507). Whether or not vodka was actually introduced through alchemistic channels, it did acquire a kind of magical aura for the Russian national mentality, as the pseudonymous Soviet writer A. Tertz recently affirmed in characterizing drunkenness as “our idée fixe. The Russian people drink not from need and not from grief, but from an age-old requirement for the miraculous and extraordinary—drink, if you will mystically, striving to transport the soul beyond earth’s gravity and return it to its sacred noncorporeal state. Vodka is the Russian muzhik’s White Magic; he decidedly prefers it to Black Magic—the female.” “Thought Unaware,” NL, 1965, 19 Jul, 19.

On early drinking in Russia see E. Bartenev et al., Tekhnologiia likero-vodochnogo proizvodstva, M, 1955, 3; Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 717; and I. Pryzhov, Istoriia kabakov v Rossii, Kazan, 1914, 2d ed., 5–24. Wine arrived late in Russia (the first native production dating from the mid-seventeenth century) and was regarded as a foreign drink down to modern times. See B. Raikov, Ocherki po istorii geliotsentricheskogo mirovozreniia v Rossii, M-L, 1947, 2d ed., 53–65, for the influence of Lully.

30. M. Alekseev, “Zapadnoevropeiskie slovarnye materialy v drevnerusskikh azbukovnikakh XVI–XVII vekov,” in Akademiku Vinogradovu, 41. Danckaert, Beschrijvinge van Moscovien ofte Rusland, Amsterdam, 1615, 63; cited in J. Locher, Gezicht op Moskou, Leiden, 1959, 22.

31. D. Tsvetaev, Mediki v moskovskoi Rossii i pervy russky doktor, Warsaw, 1896, 11–12; see also works referenced in the full bibliography, 3–6, esp. the studies by Richter and Novombergsky.

32. Rainov, Nauka, 264–5; Raikov, Ocherki, 78.

33. Veselovsky, Vliianie, 91, note 2; Kliuchevsky, “Vliianie,” 144, 151–2.

34. Raikov, Ocherki, 55–7. Vucinich’s useful survey (Science, 3), which pays less attention to pre-Petrine science, errs in saying that “Russia was noted for the absence of persons engaged in [alchemy].”

35. Nikitsky, “Ocherk,” 72, note 3.

36. See Budovnits, Publitsistika, 139–40, note 1, for full references and a short biography; also 59, 172, 183.

37. Ibid., 183.

38. A Cambridge mathematician, Dee was well known as a spiritist throughout Eastern Europe, having spent most of the 1580’s in Poland and Bohemia. A study of Dee by the Russo-German student of occult lore, Carl Kiesewetter, is inadequately referenced in Veselovsky, Vliianie, 20, and I have been unable to locate it in book form in any major library in the United States, Western Europe, or the USSR.

39. Most of these practices were of Byzantine and Eastern origin, and many were specifically outlawed by the “hundred chapters” and again by the Ulozhenie of 1649 (ch. 21, g. 15). See Raikov, Ocherki, 72–4; and V. Peretts, “Materialy k istorii apokrifa i legendy. I. K istorii gromnika,” ZPU, ch. LIX, vyp. 1, 1899, which stresses Jewish as well as Greco-Byzantine sources.

40. This quasi-religious attitude toward science in early Russia is discussed in my “Science in Russian Culture,” American Scientist, 1964, Jun, 274–80.

41. Cited in V. Zhmakin, “Daniil,” ch. II, 376; and Val’denberg, Ucheniia, 302, note 1. See also discussion by Zhmakin (366–77) of the long campaign of the church against astrology dating from at least the early fifteenth century. Val’denberg suggests (228, note 1) that Daniel was less versed in Byzantine history than Joseph, and raises the implication that this influential metropolitan may have been even more influenced by Roman Catholic doctrines.

42. Val’denberg, 302.

43. Vucinich, Science, 7. For a scientific analysis of “The Six Wings” (Shestokryl), which was apparently translated directly from the Hebrew of Immanuel ben-Jacob, and for signs that the group had links with Crimean Jews as well as Novgorodian circles see D. Sviatsky, “Astronomicheskaia kniga ‘Shestokryl’ na Rusi XV veka,” Mirovedenie, 1927, May, 63–78; and Rainov, Nauka, 265 ff.; Raikov, Ocherki, 65, 88.

Some idea of the considerable extent of the Jewish mediation of classical, Arab, and even Persian scientific knowledge with Russia between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries is provided in I. Gurliand, “Kratkoe opisanie matematicheskikh, astronomicheskikh, i astrologicheskikh evreiskikh rukopisei iz kollektsii firkovichei,” TVO, XIV, 1869, 163–222.

44. On church opposition to systematic measurement, yet willingness to make extensive practical uses of mathematics, see the introduction to the sixteenth-century mathematical manuscript Schetnaia mudrost’ in PRPI, XLIII, 1879, esp. 11–13. Also A. Kol’man. “Zachatki matematicheskogo myshleniia i vyrazheniia v dopetrovskoi Rusi,” Slavia, XVIII, 1947–8, 306–15, who points out (308) that even in the early period Russia acquired mathematical knowledge from the West rather than Byzantium.

45. Veselovsky (Vliianie, 16) also includes the Pskovian correspondent of Philotheus, the d’iak Misiur-Munekhin, among the freethinkers. The re-examination of I. Viskovaty’s career by N. Andreev (“Interpolation in the 16th century Muscovite Chronicles,” SEER, 1956, Dec, 95–115, esp. 102 ff.) suggests that Viskovaty was an Orthodox Josephite, but does not deal with the reasons for the forced penance imposed on him in 1553–4 or his sudden execution by Ivan in 1570. Since these were both times in which Ivan was systematically purging Westward-looking ideological dissent from his realm, it would seem reasonable (though, of course, far from certain) to assume that Ivan at least identified him to some extent with that point of view.

Perhaps the best study of Russian humanism is I. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, Gumanizm u vostochnykh slavian, M-L, 1963; but the richness of its picture depends largely on the inclusion of Ukrainian and White Russian cultural activity, which he agrees bore little connection with Great Russian culture until the late seventeenth and the eighteenth century.

46. V. Adrianova-Peretts, Khozhenie za tri moria Afanasiia Nikitina, M-L, 1948; discussion in A. Klibanov, Reformatsionnye dvizheniia v Rossii v XIV-pervoi polovine XVI vv, M, 1960, 367–83.

47. Klibanov, Dvizheniia, 291–4.

48. Quoted by A. Klibanov, “Istochniki russkoi gumanisticheskoi mysli,” VIMK, 1958, Mar-Apr, 60; also 45–61 for summary of heretical ideas in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Russia. See also R. Lapshin, “Feodosy Kosoi—ideolog krest’ianstva XVI v,” TODL, IX, 1953, 235–50.

49. Paradoxa 4 and 6, in Fennell, Correspondence, 218–27. See also I. Yasinsky, “Sochineniia Kurbskago, kak istorichesky istochnik,” KUI, 1888, no. 10–1; Skazaniia Kurbskago, P, 1868, 3d ed., 93–4; Veselovsky, Vliianie, 16–7; and references in Vernadsky, Dawn, 282–3, note 36.

50. Budovnits, Publitsistika, 183, and note, for the use of “Homeric” as a term of praise in Muscovy.

51. Chizhevsky, History, 271–5; Budovnits, 182–6; and V. Rzhiga, “Boiarin-zapadnik XVI veka (Fedor Ivanovich Karpov),” UZ RANION, IV, 1929.

52. Cited without reference in Budovnits, 185; for text see LZAK, XXI, 106–13. Muchitel’stvo was the standard Russian rendering of the Greek tyrannis, but also carried some of its present meaning of torture.

53. Budovnits, 221–9. For text of Erazm’s Blagokhotiashchim tsarem pravitel’nitsa i zemlemerie see appendix to V. Rzhiga, “Literaturnaia deiatel’nost’ Ermolaia Erazma,” in LZAK, XXXIII, esp. 184–97. Erazm used the term rataeve for peasant. For a more detailed study superseding Budovnits’ see T. Kolesnikov, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskie vzgliady Ermolaia Erazma,” TODL, IX, 1953, 251–65. The theme of a utopian heaven on earth appears to have been first sounded on Russian soil by the heretical strigol’niki (shorn-heads) in fourteenth-century Novgorod. See the discussion of the Poslanie Episkopa Fedora o zemnom rae in Lur’e and Kazakova, Dvizheniia, 30 ff.

54. Cht, 1880, Kn. IV, 63–7; discussion in Klibanov, Dvizheniia, 288–9.

55. For the Russian side of Maxim’s activities see V. Ikonnikov, Maksim Grek i ego vremia, Kiev, 1915, 2d ed. For the Western side see N. Gudzy, “Maksim Grek i ego otnoshenie k epokhe ital’ianskogo vozrozhdeniia,” KUI, 1911, no. 7; K. Viskovaty, “K voprosu o literaturnom vliianii Savonaroly na Maksima Greka,” Slavia, XVII, 1939–40, 128–33; and E. Denisoff, Maxime le Grec et l’Occident, 1943. See also the documented discussions of his polemic activities in Russia by D. Tsvetaev (Literaturnaia bor’ba s protestantstvom v Moskovskom gosudarstve, M, 1887, 8–21), V. Rzhiga (“Opyt po istorii publitsistiki XVI veka. Maksim Grek kak publitsist,” TODL, I, 1934, 5–120), and Budovnits, Publitsistika, 136–66.

It remains unclear how much of the Russian version of Maxim’s writings was done by him (or even subject to his review), because his basic literary language was Greek (a form far closer to the elegant language of the humanists than to contemporary, vernacular Greek). See the analysis by Kh. Loparev in BLDP, 1917, III, 50–70. For a synoptic discussion of recent Greek and Soviet writings on Maxim see R. Klostermann, “Legende und Wirklichkeit im Lebenswerk von Maxim Grek,” OCP, 1958, no. 3–4, 353–70.

56. The first detailed information on the discovery of America did not reach Russia, however, until the first translation (in 1584) from the original Polish of Marcin Bielski’s Kronika Polska. See the introduction to the N. Charykov edition of Kosmografiia 1670, P, 1878–81, 69.

57. Raikov, Ocherki, 88–96.

58. Sochineniia prepodobnago Maksima Greka v russkom perevode, Sergiev Posad, 1910, ch. I, 100.

59. Budovnits, 137, note 1; M. Speransky, Istoriia drevnei russkoi literatury, M, 1914, 2d ed., 474–7 and notes. Denisoff contends (Maxime, 245 ff.) that Maxim was in fact a Dominican during his stay in Italy.

60. Sochineniia Maksima, ch. I, 114.

61. Ibid., ch. III, 51.

62. Ibid., ch. I, 110.

63. Cht, 1847, no. 7, 10. Zhmakin, “Daniil,” ch. I, 151 ff. for the conflict between Maksim and Daniel.

64. Sochineniia Maksima, ch. I, 72.

65. Ibid., 101.

66. Ibid., 117.

67. Ibid., 224.

68. B. Dunaev (Pr. Maksim Grek i grecheskaia ideia na Rusi v XVI v, M, 1916), contends that Maxim continued to be preoccupied with freeing the Greek church from Turkish bondage, and relates his difficulties in Russia less to ideology than to changes in Russian policy toward Turkey (unconvincing to me and to the critical reviewer in BLDP, 1917, III, 13–15).

69. Sochineniia Maksima, ch. I, 108.

70. Ibid., 213; text 203–14; derivation from Savonarola discussed in K. Viskovaty, “K voprosu.”

71. A. Solov’ev, Holy Russia: The History of a Religious-Social Idea, The Hague, 1959.

72. M. Cherniavsky, “‘Holy Russia’: A Study in the History of an Idea,” AHR, 1958, Apr; and his review of Solov’ev in AHR, 1961, Jul, 1121–2.

73. Sochineniia Maksima, 214.

74. E. Denisoff, “Une Biographie de Maxime le Grec par Kourbski,” OCP, XX, 1954, 44–84; and “Maxime et ses vicissitudes au sein de l’église russe,” RES, XXXI, 1954.

75. Veselovsky, Vliianie, 13.

76. T. Livanova, Ocherki i materialy po istorii russkoi muzykal’noi kul’tury, M, 1938, 55–7; and A. Swan, “Chant,” XXVI, 1940, 539–42. Among other things, the codification by Shaidurov introduced the red diacritical marks over the black hook notes as a guide to pitch, the so-called Shaidurovskie pometki.

77. For an interpretation of Fedorov’s historical role different from others published in the USSR in connection with the recent four hundredth anniversary of the first published volume in Muscovy (his Acts of the Apostles) see N. Ivanov’s consideration in terms of the development of religious knowledge in Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarkhii, 1964, no. 4, 69–75; no. 5, 75–8; no. 6, 68–77. See also R. Jakobson, Ivan Fedorov’s Primer, Cambridge, Mass., 1955.

78. Cited in Denisoff, Maxime, 244–5.

79. Zhmakin, “Daniil,” I, 254 note 5.

80. B. Unbegaun, La Langue russe au XVI^e siècle (1500–1550), 1935, 20–8. The Latinized German of the Imperial Ambassador was called the “Caesarish language” (tsezarsky iazyk).

81. Deemed probable by M. Tikhomirov, Srednevekovaia Moskva, 212.

82. Discussion and text in P. Berkov, “Odna iz stareishikh zapisei ‘Tsaria Maksimiliani’ i ‘Shaiki razboinikov,’ (1885),” RF, IV, 1959, 331–74. The first emperor with whom formal diplomatic arrangements were established was Maximilian’s father, Frederick III; but Maximilian became the symbol of Latin emperor for the Russian imagination.

The play is usually thought to have originated in the seventeenth or early eighteenth century (Lo Gatto, Teatro, I 120–1), but may be even older. It is variously connected with Peter the Great, Alexis Mikhailovich, and Ivan IV (Evreinov, Histoire, 133–5); and was also presented in variant forms under the title Tsar-Herod. See the illustrated study by I. Eremin, “Drama igra ‘Tsar Irod,”’ TODL, IV, 1940, 223–40.

83. Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 569–72. Of the many histories of the Russian Church, L. Boissard’s otherwise outdated L’Église is particularly perceptive in relating Russian Church history to that of the Western European religious wars (see esp. II, 56–129). A similar approach at a much higher level of scholarship was projected by N. Chaev, but was never brought to fruition because of his death during the siege of Leningrad. See, however, his posthumously published “Moskva-Trety Rim v politicheskoi praktike moskovskago pravitel’stva XVI veka,” IZ, 1946, esp. 3, 17–8, for indications of his approach.

84. Harkavy, “Ob iazyke,” 119–20; Popov, Obzor, 111, for use in the early twelfth. On the German suburb see Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 30–1; see also, for the sixteenth-century confrontation with Protestantism in the Baltic region, W. Kahle, Die Begegnung des baltischen Protestantismus mit der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche, Leiden-Cologne 1959; L. Arbusow, Die Einführung der Reformation in Liv-, Est-, und Kurland, Leipzig, 1921; and the extensive material—much of it never used, even by Tsvetaev—in H. Dalton, Beiträge zur Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche in Russland, Gotha, 1887–1905, 4v.

85. Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 122, 584, also 6, 25–31, 41–8, 115–23; Dalton, Beiträge, I, 16, note. Russians distinguished between different “Germans” by affixing the adjective English, Dutch, Hamburgish, and so on, before nemtsy. (See, for instance, the petition for the closing of the “German suburb” in 1646; AAE, IV, 14–23.) The term is usually derived from nemoi: “mute” or “not speaking Russian.” The term “Saxon” was a common synonym for “German” in Northeast Europe—saksa even today being the Finnish word for German.

86. Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 212–13; Yu. Tolstoy, “Pervye snosheniia Anglii s Rossieiu,” RV, 1873, no. 6; and works by I. Gamel’ and I. Lubimenko referenced in Bibliografiia po istorii narodov SSSR, M-L, 1932, ch. II, 35.

87. See S. Polčn, “La Mission religieuse de P. Antoine Possevin S. J. en Moscovie (1581–1582),” OC, CL, 1957. In keeping with the shifting opportunities of the era Possevino, who eventually ended up as an ideological ally of Poland, had previously played an important role in the diplomatic-ecclesiastical effort to win Scandinavia back for Catholicism. See O. Garstein, Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia, Bergen, 1963, I (up to 1583).

For the introduction of ideological overtones into the Livonian War see V. Vasil’evsky, “Pol’skaia i nemetskaia pechat’ o voine Batoriia s Ioannom Groznym,” ZhMNP, 1889, Jan, 127–67; Feb, 350–90; and P. Pierling, Bathory et Possevino, 1887 for documents, and Le Saint-Siège, la Pologne et Moscou, 1582–1587, 1888, for careful analysis. Of the numerous studies of Ivan, the work of the Latvian scholar, R. Vipper, Ivan Grozny, M, 1947 (3d ed. in English trans.) is particularly full on the Livonian Wars. See also Florovsky, Chekhi, 367–98.

88. Jan Rokyta as cited in Lur’e “O putiakh,” 279–80.

89. S. Avaliani, Zemskie sobory, Odessa, 1910, ch. II, 38–42, 127, sees a parallel between the chiny of this sobor and the états, Stände, and ordines of the West. His careful study shows (11) that one fifth of the representatives were moneyed tradesmen and that (38) at least one seventh (and probably considerably more) were from provincial cities including those traditionally subservient to Lithuania.

For an historiographical guide to the controversies surrounding the thinly documented history of the zemsky sobors see I. A. Strationov’s survey in UZKU, 1906, Mar, 1–32; and Avaliani, 1–134. It has long been believed that the “council of reconciliation” in 1550 was the first zemsky sobor (see E. Maksimovich in ZRIB, 1933, vyp. 9, esp. 14–15), and S. Shmidt has recently shown its representation to have included military figures belonging to the lower estates (PRP, IV, 1956, 261–3). However, the nature of this council was falsified by later forgers for political purposes (see the analysis by P. Vasenko and S. Platonov in ZhMNP, 1903, Apr, 386–400), and it appears to have been closer in spirit to the old ecclesiastical councils (on which see I. Likhnitsky, Osviashchenny sobor), of which there were some twenty-eight between 1105 and 1550 (according to V. Latkin, Zemskie sobory drevnei Rusi, P, 1885, 23, note 1).

The term zemsky sobor was not actually used at the time, but does usefully suggest the blending of the older ecclesiastical osviashchenny sobor into a council “of all the land” (vseia zemlia) assembled on any of a variety of representative principles to approve of important decisions of law or tax assessment. The only full-length Western study of the sobors is F. de Rocca’s posthumously published and now-outdated Les Zemskie Sobors, 1899. See also J. Keep’s study of the seventeenth-century sobors (and comparison therein to parliamentary bodies in the West): “Decline of the Zemsky Sobors,” SEER, 1957, Dec, 100–22.

90. Avaliani, Sobory, 65–87. Kliuchevsky suggests that Dmitry summoned two councils in 1605 (Opyty, 549–50; and Rocca (Sobors, 25, 57–8) contends that the council confirming Fedor’s succession to the throne in 1584 also passed on broader financial questions. Neither of these views is generally accepted; but Kliuchevsky demonstrates that representation was more widespread in terms of both regions and social classes in 1598 than in 1566 (Opyty, 476–500).

91. For the constitutional background of the new Polish republic and the contribution thereto of Lithuanian conciliar bodies the general account in Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn, 171–89, 220–49, should be supplemented by M. Liubavsky, Litovsko-russky seim, M, 1901, 509–850.

The balance between conscious borrowing from the West and parallel independent improvisation has never been systematically assessed and may never be determined in view of the fragmentary documents available. The only hint of any link with previous Russian political traditions lies in the requirement in the imperial charter of 1616 that delegates to a new sobor be “self-supporting” (postoiatel’ny): the stipulation previously attached to participation in the Novgorodian veche. See A. Kabanov, “Organizatsiia vyborov na zemskikh soborakh XVII v.” ZhMNP, 1910, no. 9, 107–8. Avaliani suggests, however, that conciliar ideas may have been more prevalent in sixteenth-century Russia than is generally assumed. Sobory, 3–17.

92. This sum was far in excess of anything comparable in the sixteenth century. Vasily III had given only 60 rubles in memory of his father, Ivan III; Ivan IV gave 100 for his son Vasily in 1563, and 1,000 for his wife Anastasia; and Ivan’s successor, Fedor, despite his own compulsive piety and some debasement of the currency, gave a total of only 2,833 for his father. S. Veselovsky, Izsledovaniia, 330, note 11. Ivan also gave large sums to Sinai, Athos, and Jerusalem, ibid., 339.

93. On the facts of the Tsarevich’s death and Ivan IV’s subsequent contrition see Veselovsky, 337–40; on the echoes in folklore, B. Putilov, “Pesnia o gneve Ivana Groznogo na syna,” RF, IV, 1959, 5–32.

94. “U vsenarodnykh chelovek,” N. Ustrialov, ed., Skazaniia kniazia Kurbskago, P, 1842, 39; “vsenarodnago mnozhestva,” text of the official opredelenie of the sobor of 1598 in Yu. Got’e, Akty otnosiashchiesia k istorii zemskikh soborov, M, 1909, 13.

95. For the best study of this sad if colorful exodus see N. Golitsyn, “Nauchno-obrazovatel’nyia snosheniia Rossii s Zapadom v nachale XVII v,” Cht, 1898, IV, ch. III, 1–34 and supplements 1–2. See also Sokolov, Otnoshenie, ch. 10; and on German admiration for Boris see I. Lubimenko, “Un Précurseur de Pierre le Grand: Boris Godunov,” La Revue du mois, 1909, Feb, esp. 210–12.

96. Particularly by Arnold Toynbee. See the abridgment by D. Somervell, A Study of History, NY-London, 1947, 12 and chart 561.

97. M. Roberts, The Military Revolution, 1560–1660, Belfast, nd, 32. Roberts, like the generally complementary work by G. Clark (War and Society in the 17th Century, Cambridge, 1958) and by J. Nef (War and Human Progress, Cambridge, Mass., 1950, esp. 3–370), excludes Eastern Europe almost completely. Roberts’ argument can be extended east on the basis of the account of military changes in Russia provided in Bobrovsky, Perekhod, together with such basic accounts as A. Grishinsky and V. Nikol’sky (Istoriia russkoi armii i ftota, M, 1911, I, 44–79) and W. Hupert (Historja wojenna porozbiorowa, Lwow 1921, I, 150–248) and A. Chernov in TIAI, 1948, no. 4, 115–57.

98. On this recently discovered document see the unpublished Radcliffe Doctoral dissertation of V. Tumins, Polemics of Tsar Ivan IV against the Czech Brother Jan Rokyta. For the text of Ivan’s reply to Rokyta see “Drevnerusskiia polemicheskiia sochineniia protiv protestantov,” Cht, 1878, II, esp. 2–20; see also discussion and references in A. Yarmolinsky, “Ivan the Terrible contra Martin Luther,” BNYL, 1940, Jun, 455–60.

99. For the growing correspondence and sense of identity between Counter-Reformation Spain and Poland see Don Guillén de San Clemente, Correspondencia inédita sobre la intervención de España en los sucesos de Polonia y Hungria 1581–1608, Zaragoza, 1892, esp. xiv ff. in the introduction; correspondence and other materials in Cht, 1848, IV, ch. III, 1–14; and 1915, IV, ch. I; as well as the text of the Polish-Hapsburg treaty of 1613 together with commentary by F. Barwinski, Przewodnik naukowy i literacki, XXIII, 1895, 984–1003. For the basic documents showing the rise of Protestant-Catholic conflict in the Baltic see G. Forsten, Baltiisky vopros v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh, P, 1894, 2v; and his Akty i pis’ma k istorii baltiiskago voprosa, P, 1889, 2v (esp. I, 245–56, 275–83 for Spanish-Polish royal correspondence of the 1620’s).

100. See A. Berga, Les Sermons politiques du P. Skarga, SJ., 1916, for French translation of, and sober commentary on, the sermons of 1597. See also a series of articles by two different authors, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ Petra Skargi,” KUI, 1902, no. 9; 1903, no. 2–3; 1905, nos. 7, 10; 1906, nos. 5, 11, 12; 1907, no. 3–4.

101. See Pierling, La Russie, III, 36–310; and “Barezzo Barezzi ou Possevino?” RS, 1900, Oct, 193–200. See also A. Florovsky, čeští Jesuité na Rusi, Prague, 1941, esp. 97, note 5 (as well as much general material on Jesuit activities 3–103); and Chekhi, 402–3, notes.

102. S. Grochowski, Rzym nowy szczēsliwszy nad stary, Cracow, 1610, as quoted in the valuable article by Ambroise Jobert, “Les Polonais et le rayonnement intellectuel de Rome au temps de la Renaissance et de la Contre-Réforme,” RES, XXVII, 1951, 183, also 168–83.

103. Letter of January, 1612, reprinted in Cht, 1915, IV, ch. I, 121–2. For the ambitious and conspiratorial Polish plan to establish hegemony in the late stages of the interregnum see the text of Sigismund’s secret dispatch to his military leader Hetman Z#x00F3;lkiewski, together with commentary by A. Romanovich in IM, 1936, 92–6.

104. This process is chronicled in three well-documented articles by L. Lewitter, “Poland, the Ukraine, and the 17th century,” SEER, 1948, Dec, 157–71; 1949, May, 414–29; and “Peter the Great, Poland and the Westernization of Russia,” JHI, 1958, Oct, 493–506.

105. On the complex problem of origins (which have sometimes also been traced to the more general influence of late medieval guilds) see E. Medynsky, Bratskie shkoly Ukrainy i Belorussii v XVI-XVII vv i ikh rol’ v vossoedinenii Ukrainy s Rossiei, M, 1954, 26–9. This book makes the familiar error of using modern concepts to describe medieval institutions, labeling the brotherhood schools a “national” and “anti-Polish” movement rather than a religious movement with tinges of concern for local rights and traditions, as is made clear in K. Kharlampovich’s excellent Zapadno-russkie pravoslavnye shkoly v XVI i nachale XVII veka, Kazan, 1898, and Zapadno-russkie tserkovnye bratstva i ikh prosvetitel’naia deiatel’nost’ v kontse XVI i v nachale XVII vv, P, 1899. For other valuable materials on the brotherhoods see articles referenced in Veselovsky, Vliianie, 17–18; and Bibliografiia po istorii, ch. II, 161–3. For an exposition that seeks to dissociate their history from that of Great Russia altogether see Hrushevsky, History, 188–276. For the general struggle between Catholic and Orthodox in Russia see A. Arkhangel’sky, Ocherki iz istorii zapadno-russkoi literatury, M, 1888, 2v.

106. See M. Koialovich, “O snosheniiakh zapadno-russkikh pravoslavnykh k litovsko-pol’skim protestantam vo vremia unii,” Kh Cht, 1860, Sep, esp. 225–38. See also the massive study of P. Zhukovich, Seimovaia bor’ba pravoslavnago zapadno-russkago dvorianstva s tserkovnoi uniei, P (till 1609, 3v, 1901; from 1609 to 1632, 6v, 1903–12). He paints on the whole a less diabolic picture of Sigismund than most Russian historians, indicating that 1611 was really the turning point in Sigismund’s reign; and that his program of joint persecution of Protestant and Orthodox elements in the East was in large measure an attempt to compensate, himself for Polish Catholic losses and persecutions in the West. (See second series, I, 54–115 and esp. 78–89). For more recent analyses of Protestant-Orthodox attempts at common action and mutual support see B. Lel’avsky, “Popytka unii evangelikov s pravoslavnymi v Pol’she,” Voskresnoe Chtenie, Warsaw (Year 11, no. 32); and D. Oljančyn, “Zur Frage der Generalkonfoderation zwischen Protestanten und Orthodoxen in Wilna 1599,” Kyrios, 1936, no. 1, 29–46; and the important document on this meeting with Oljančyn’s notes in Kyrios, 1936, no. 2, 198–205. See also S. Kot, “La Réforme dans le Grand-Duché de Lithuanie. Facteur d’occidentalisation culturelle,” AIOS, XII, 1952, 201–61, with maps of Protestant churches and lists of converts and students in Western universities.

107. Medynsky, 22–4.

108. B. Unbegaun, “Russian Grammars before Lomonosov,” OSP, VIII, 1958, 98; Medynsky, 52.

109. Based on Gennadius’ earlier work in Novgorod, A. Arkhangel’sky, Ocherki, I, 345.

110. For the origins and spread of the anti-papal and anti-Catholic use of the Antichrist symbol see H. Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik, Leipzig, 1906. For text of Zizanius’ Kirillova Kniga see Pamiatki polemichnogo pis’menstva kintsia XVI i poch XVII v, Lwow, 1906, I, 31–20; for discussion A. Balanovsky, Stefan Zizany, Pochaev, 1887; Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 611–46; and Literaturnaia bor’ba, 104–9.

The author of the second Slavic grammar, Miletius Smotritsky, moved in the opposite direction, accepting union after writing in 1610 his famous Lament of the Eastern Church against Rome. He became Bishop of Polotsk and a foe of Cyril Lukaris. See E. Shmurlo, “Milety Smotritsky v ego snosheniiakh s Rimom,” Trudy Vgo s’ezda russkikh akademicheskikh organizatsii za granitsei, Sofia, 1932, 501–28.

111. According to the balanced appraisal of his career by Germanos Strenopoulos (the Orthodox Exarch of Western and Central Europe), Kyrillos Loukaris 1572–1638, London, 1951, 21. For Lukaris’ links with England, Journal of Religion, XVI, 1936, 10–29; for his links with Russia, O. Vainshtein, Rossiia i tridsatiletniaia voina, L, 1947, 110 ff.; and for his correspondence and other basic materials, E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique du XVII³ Siècle, 1896, IV, 161–521.

112. Letter of Rudolf Schmid reprinted in E. von Hurmazaki, Fragmente zur Geschichte der Rumänen, Bucharest, 1884, III, 106.

113. Florovsky, Chekhi, 408–10.

114. Medynsky, Shkoly, 76–86.

115. An event celebrated in the famous Finnish novel Juho Vesainen by Santeri Ivalo (Valitut Teokset, Porvoo, 1953), which had considerable impact on Finnish national self-consciousness after its first appearance in 1894.

116. Swedish documents in G. Forsten, “Politika Shvetsii v smutnom vremeni,” ZhMNP, 1889, Feb, 333.

117. Fronsperger’s Kriegsbuch. P. Bobrovsky, Perekhod Rossii k reguliarnoi armii, P, 1885, 131–7; Och (6), M, 1955, 572–3. By the time Wallhausen’s more elaborate treatises appeared a few years later in Germany, they were almost immediately translated into Russian.

118. Appeals of Jun 15 and Sep 24, 1608, and Jun 3, 1609, in Forsten, “Politika,” 339–41.

119. See the important posthumously published study of G. Bibikov, “Opyt voennoi reformy 1609–1610 gg,” IZ, XIX, 1946, 3–16. Skopin-Shuisky was the hero of the most authentic folk ballads and tales of military heroism of the period (see Gudzy, History, 369–72; I. Eremin, ed., Russkaia povest’ XVII veka, L, 1954, 28–38 for text of the tale of his death and 344–9 for commentary), and was probably not replaced in popular favor until the rise in acclaim of Minin, Pozharsky, and the campaign of 1612–13 in the nineteenth century.

120. See G. Zamiatin, K voprosu ob izbranii Karla Filippa na moskovsky prestol, Tartu, 1913, with historiographical discussion 1–7. See also V. Bochkarev, Shvedo-russkie otnosheniia v smutnoe vremia i osada Pskova 1615 g, Pskov, 1916; and for valuable additional details from the Swedish side see H. Almquist, Sverige och Ryssland, 1595–1611, Uppsala, 1907; “Die Zarenwahl des Jahres 1613,” ZOG, 1913, III, 161–202; from the Russian side, P. Liubomirov, Ocherk istorii nizhegorodskogo opolcheniia 1611–1613 gg, M, 1939.

121. I. Lubimenko, “A Project for the Acquisition of Russia by James I,” EHR, XXIX, 1914, 246–56.

122. Florovsky, Chekhi, 355–6 on the kuranty (from courante and also meaning in Russian “peal of bells”). A. Shlosberg, “Nachalo periodicheskoi pechati v Rossii,”, ZhMNP 1911, Sep, 75–6, implies that the kuranty were in circulation even earlier. For reproduced texts and analysis see Shlosberg, 78–118, and Cht, 1880, II, 37–46. On the Anglo-Dutch rivalry see I. Lubimenko, “The Struggle of the Dutch with the English for the Russian Market in the Seventeenth Century,” TRHS, VII, 1924, esp. 38–50; and other articles by her in RH, 1922, Sep-Oct, 1–22; and RES, IV, 1924; also articles by Lappo-Danilevsky in ZhMNP, 1885, Sep, and S. Arkhangel’sky in IS, 1936, no. 5. English investment never reached even one third the level of Dutch investment in the early seventeenth century; and English involvement declined precipitously during the English Civil War. By 1631 even the Vatican was relying on a Dutchman, the Catholic Nicholas Jansen, for information from Moscow. See E. Shmurlo, Kurie a Pravoslavný východ v letech 1609–1654, Prague, 1928, 316–17, part 2, 78–83.

123. For these and other attempted Western marriages see D. Tsvetaev, “Iz istorii brachnykh del v tsarskom sem’e moskovskogo perioda,” RV, 1884, no. 7, 8.

124. For the program of Lutheran education in Livonia see Dalton, Beiträge, I, 50–132. On Skytte and the specifically Swedish role in Livonia see R. Liljedahl, Svensk förvaltning i Livland 1617–1634, Uppsala, 1933, esp. 273–80; 487–540.

The Swedish-Russian confessional warfare in the 1630’s and 1640’s has been analyzed for Ingermanland (the region in which St. Petersburg was later built) by C. Öhlander, Om den Svenska Kyrkoreformationen uti Ingermanland (1617–1704), Uppsala, 1900, esp. 9–15, 29–121; and A. Soom, “Ivangorod als selbständige Stadt 1617–1649,” Opetatud Eesti seltsi Aastaraamat, Tartu, 1937, esp. 242–64.

On the essentially defensive Orthodox activities in the region see I. Chistovich, Istoriia pravoslavnoi tserkvi v Finliandii i Estliandii, P, 1856; also J. Salenius, Kreikanusko Suomessa, Porvoo, 1873; E. Bäckman, “Den Kalvinska kyrkans trosbekännelse och katekis,” Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen Seuran Vuosikirja, 1938, 30–2; and the historical section (1–178) of N. Berg, Exercitatio historico—theologica de statu ecclesiae et religionis Moscoviticae, Stockholm, 1704 (Lübeck, 1709). Written by the head of the theological academy at Uppsala, this work is the first thorough study written anywhere of the Russian Church, and is still an invaluable source. See Rushchinsky, Byt, 33–4.

125. All were apparently built after the destruction by the Polish occupation of all suspected Protestant places of worship. Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 49–66. Olearius (Voyages, Amsterdam, 1727, 382–3) identifies two Lutheran, two Dutch reformed, and one English church in Moscow of the 1630’s, and estimates the Protestant population of the city to be in excess of a thousand households. See also A. Fechner, Chronik der Evangelischen Gemeinden in Moskau, M, 1876. I, 20–369, and map, opposite vii.

126. B. Silfversvan (“Eräs poliittinen haaveilija 1600–luvulla,” Historiallinen Aikakauskirja, Helsinki, 1934, 161–83) believes the catechism to have been prepared for the Tsar’s entourage by the adventurer-diplomat, Jacob Roussel, who had a French Huguenot background and was an intriguing adventurer who played a leading role in bringing Russia into the anti-Catholic coalition of the early 1630’s. This conclusion is questioned by E. Bäckman (“Den trosbekännelse”), who views it as a late-seventeenth-century work, but whose investigations reveal other interesting evidence of Protestant proselyting on Orthodox Russian soil. (See esp. material cited 30–2.) Unreferenced, added arguments for Roussel’s authorship are given by I. Mikkola, “Un Zélateur du Calvinisme auprès du Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich,” Mélanges Jules Legras, 1939, 215–19. The catechism (in the Finnish National Library at Helsinki) is bound with a number of materials pertaining to Holland in the late seventeenth century and was apparently from the library of the Matveev family, but this is no reason to rule out the calligraphic and stylistic reasons for assuming that the early seventeenth century was the time of original composition—with one of the many Dutchmen in the Muscovite service probably the translator. There was a 1577 edition of Calvin’s Institutes in the library of the Valaam monastery prior to World War I (“Redkosti valaamskoi monastyrskoi biblioteki,” IL, 1914, no. 2, 242–3; no longer in the library now at Kuopio, Finland, when consulted in Feb, 1961).

127. Muliukin, Priezd, 111–5; Tsvetaev, Protestantstvo, 4, 173–8.

128. For the attempts to expand Catholic influence in West Russia and the Ukraine after the Time of Troubles see the materials and analysis in E. Shmurlo, Kurie; also I. Chistovich, Ocherk istorii, 98 ft. For concurrent efforts in Orthodox Moldavia see R. Ortiz, Per la Storia della cultura Italiana in Rumania, Bucharest, 1916, 67 ff. For the complex Swedish diplomacy which subsidized and recruited mercenaries to help bring Russia into the Thirty Years’ War as, in effect, an Eastern ally in 1632, the basic work is now D. Norrman, Gustav Adolfs politik mot Ryssland och Polen under tyska kriget (1630–32), Uppsala, 1943, which is supplemented from Russian and Hungarian materials by Vainshtein, Rossiia, esp. 102–62. See also materials in numerous articles by B. Porshnev on this subject, esp. IAN(I), 1945, no. 5, 319–40; IZh, 1945, no. 3; and SKS, 1956, I. Porshnev’s rather myopic view that the main interest of everyone concerned was persecuting Russia (made explicit in UZAON, 1948, 110) is partly countered by A. Arzymatov’s article in SkS, 1956, I, esp. 77–93, and, implicitly, by Vainshtein’s far more sophisticated analysis. The general neglect of the religious factor, common to all Soviet treatments, can be redressed by consulting the articles by A. Szelagowski (KH, 1899, IV, 685–700) dealing with Swedish links with Polish Protestants and G. von Rauch dealing with the Protestant-Orthodox conflict (AR, 1952, II, 187–98).

Muliukin’s detailed study of personnel, and Platonov’s invaluable Moskva i Zapad, make the extent of the Northern European Protestant influx into Russia in the early seventeenth century abundantly clear. Additional material stressing Swedish economic contacts and influence (always less appreciated than those of the Dutch, English, Danes, and Holsteiners, who were more likely to write books about their impressions) are K. Yakubov, “Rossiia i Shvetsiia v pervoi polovine XVII veka,” Cht, 1897, III; A. Soom, Die Politik Schwedens bezüglich des russischen Transithandels über die estnischen Städte in den Jahren 1636–1656, Tartu, 1940; and the important documents from the Novgorod and Pskov region published in Russko-shvedskie ekonomicheskie otnosheniia v XVII veke, M-L, 1960. For much documentary material on the Scottish impact see A. Francis Steuart, Scottish Influences; and Papers Relating to the Scots in Poland, Edinburgh, 1915. On the structure of the foreign settlements in Moscow see the analysis by E. Zviagintsev in IZh, 1944, no. 2–3.

129. Olearius, Voyages, 352–4.

130. See articles by A. Chernov (IZ, XXXVIII, 1951, 281–90) and A. Zimin (IZ, LV, 1956, 344–59). N. Shpakovsky points out (ZhMNP, 1898, Sep, 146) that there were foreigners as well as Russians in the streltsy from the beginning.

131. My estimate from the figures in Och (6), 441.

132. Bibikov, 7–15; Rainov, Nauka, 380–4. Military map making had apparently begun in Eastern Europe under Stephen Báthory. Roberts, Revolution, 27.

133. These figures, which Kliuchevsky (Skazaniia, 96) suggests for the general increase from a peacetime to a wartime army, seem applicable to this period, because the estimates on which the 300,000 figure is based are drawn from the period of the 1654–67 war with Poland. This figure is actually lower than overall figures suggested for maximum wartime strength by E. Stashevsky (Smeta voennykh sil Moskovskogo gosudarstva v 1663 godu, Kiev, 1910, 13–16) and R. Boussingault (BRP, V, 1859, 3–4, 28). P. Miliukov (Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo Rossii v pervoi chetverti XVIII stoletiia i reforma Petra Velikago, P, 1905, 52–3) puts the strength of the army in 1681 at 260,000.

Bobrovsky (Perekhod, 75–6) estimates the size by 1676 to be 255,000; Och (6) (450) estimates “more than 200,000” after the absorption of the Left Bank Ukraine in 1667. Even if one is mindful of the tendency to exaggerate military strength in early periods (see Nef, War, 91–2) and insists on the core figure of 215,000, which Stashevsky establishes from a document of 1663 (Smeta, 13, but considers it unrepresentatively small), there is no real increase in size of the army between this date and that of the next firm estimate made by V. Kabuzan (“Materialy revizii kak istochnik po istorii naseleniia Rossii XVIII-pervoi poloviny XIX v,” ISR, 1959, no. 5, 136 and table), which is 219,000 for 1719. Thus, the Petrine reform emerges as essentially one of administrative restructuring rather than of massive population changes and social rearrangement such as occurred under Alexis. Of course, Peter’s reform provided a firmer basis for further expansion, which led to the doubling of the size of the army by the time of Catherine’s accession (Kabuzan, 13).

134. Stashevsky (Smeta, 12–14) counts 60,000 out of an army of 215,000, exclusive of Cossacks, in 1663. The Austrian emissary Mayerberg in 1662—without making any systematic computation of foreigners—counted four generals, more than one hundred colonels, and innumerable lesser officers (Kliuchevsky, Skazaniia, 96). V. Picheta (Istoriia moskovskago gosudarstva, M, 1917, 71) estimates that the percentage of mercenaries rose from 6 per cent of the relatively small army of 1632 to 27 per cent of the much larger army of 1663. E. Trifil’ev (Novyia kul’turnyia techeniia v moskovskom gosudarstve v XVII veke, Odessa, 1913, 10) estimates that the foreign contingent numbered 90,000 by 1681.

135. See M. Yablochkov, Istoriia dvorianskago sosloviia v Rossii, P, 1876, 216–17; and bibliographical article by V. Beneshevich in RBS, XXII, 214–15 (which estimates him to have been the richest man in Muscovy) and, for his father, 195–6. For itemization of some of the gifts given him (and Sheremetev, who enjoyed a parallel and equally spectacular rise) see Savva, Archbishop of Tver, Sacristie patriarcale dite synodale de Moscou, M, 1865, (2d ed. with plates), 24–30; also Och (6), 157.

136. I. Gurliand, Prikaz sysknykh del, Kiev, 1903, esp. 8–9, 15–19, for the functioning of this “bureau for investigative affairs” (whose leaders were known as “strong-men,” sil’nye) and Cherkasky’s control thereof; also A. Chernov, “K istorii pomestnogo prikaza,” TIAI, IX, 1957, 227, for indications of another prikaz that Cherkasky controlled on the basis of more recent investigation.

137. From a letter of consolation to the governor of Livonia on the occasion of the death of Gustavus Adolphus, in N. Golitsyn, “K istorii russko-shvedskikh otnoshenii,” Cht, 1903, IV, 6–7; see also Vainshtein, Rossiia, 134–5.

138. He communicated directly with the Tsar in a secret alphabet created by Patriarch Philaret “for our governmental and secret ambassadorial affairs.” See A. Popov, Russkoe Posol’stvo v Pol’she v 1673–1677 godakh, P, 1854, 268, 271.

139. On the Uchenie i khitrost’ ratnogo stroeniia pekhotnykh liudei see A. Sidorov, Drevnerusskaia knizhnaia graviura, M, 1951, 252–5; illustration from it in Och (6), 455. For an appraisal of its influence see the study by P. Epifanov in UZMGU, CLXVII, 1954, 77–98. See analysis of the language (and illustrations of the borrowings of Dutch military terms) by C. Stang in SUN, 1952, 1–86; the text was republished in P, 1904, ed. Myshlaevsky. It is a Wallhausen translation.

140. See A. Yakovlev, Cherta, 5–14 and detailed maps in the back of the book, as well as Och (6), 467–77. On the continued menace from the Tatars, Nogai, and other steppe invaders in the early seventeenth century see A. Novosel’sky, Bor’ba moskovskogo gosudarstva s tatarami v pervoi polovine XVII v. M-L, 1948, 222–7.

141. See the valuable study by E. Kvashnin-Samarin, Morskaia ideia v v russkoi zemle, istoriia dopetrovskoi Rusi s voenno-morskoi tochki zreniia. P, 1912, for full discussion of Russia’s largely forgotten pre-Petrine naval interests; and for the role played therein by Holland (and to a lesser extent England and Denmark) see esp. the summary 147. For further details of the efforts under Michael see the article by V. Druzhinin in ZhMNP, 1917, Feb, esp. 234–9; under Alexis that of N. Popov in Russkaia Beseda, 1858, TV, 2–5.

142. Nauka, nauk, see Stang, SUN, 1952, 84.