Russia and Orthodoxy: Volume 2 The Religious world of Russian culture 9783111396736, 9783111034188

Citation preview

SLAVISTIC PRINTINGS AND REPRINTINGS 260/2

THE RELIGIOUS WORLD OF RUSSIAN CULTURE RUSSIA AND ORTHODOXY: VOLUME II Essays in Honor of Georges Florovsky

ANDREW BLANE Editor

1975 MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1975 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG

CARD NUMBER:

Printed by N.l.C.I.

72-94520

PREFACE

Though intended as a work in its own right, this book is also meant to serve as one of three volumes which form a Festschrift in honor of Georges Florovsky. The first is devoted to Florovsky's life and thought; the second and third, respectively, to the fields in which he has made his fullest and finest contributions to scholarship—Russian religious culture and Orthodox ecumenical thought. The articles were solicited for the individual volumes with these themes in mind. It was thereby hoped that each study would be much more than a collection of disparate writings bound only by honorific occasion. As for the language of the various essays, commonality has been of little concern. Here diversity rules, with the language of original composition retained in the final publication. The purpose is less to underline the international character of the contributing community than to preserve a multi-tongued and cosmopolitan flavor in keeping with the life and scholarship of Georges Florovsky. Of necessity, an enterprise of this magnitude has been long in the making. Hardships and compromises have been inevitable; but it is gratifying to record that the final reality surpasses the original dream. A word about two of the contributors to this volume: although it seems meet and fitting that at the end of a long and distinguished career, shortly before his death, Antony Florovsky completed what was to be his last scholarly work and sent it as his contribution to a volume honoring his brother, it is to be profoundly regretted that he as well as Oswald P. Backus III did not survive to share the gladness of accomplishment. To the essayists, to the general editor, and to the publisher, whose longsuffering patience has been nothing short of stoic, the editor offers his profound gratitude. Others to whom heartfelt thanks belong are

6

PREFACE

Sharon Arndt, Martha Mock, Sylvaine Casalis, Marina Keijzer, Rima Shore, and Ursula Hoffmann for technical assistance; to Nina Birnbaum, Madeleine Morris, and Natasha Belinkova for editorial advice; to Thomas E. Bird for ready and valued aid from start to finish; and, most especially, to Masha Vorobiov for wise counsel and sure support whatever the moment or place. Without all these, this volume — and its companions — would never have come forth to do honor to a good and worthy man and, hopefully, to further the life of the mind. Andrew Blane

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

5

Essays: P. O. flKOBCOH T h m h b cJiOBe UjiapHOHa o 3aKOHe h 6 j i a r o a a T H

9

DMITRIJ TSCHIÍEWSKIJ

Euhemerismus in den altslavischen Literaturen

23

DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

Popular Religion in Medieval Russia

43

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

The Meeting of Moscow and Rome in the Reign of Vasilij III

55

t OSWALD P. BACKUS

Evidences of Social Change in Medieval Russian Religious Literature

75

MARC SZEFTEL

The Epithet Groznyj in Historical Perspective

101

H. E. AHflPEEB

O XapaKTepe TpeTbeñ IIckobckoh JleTonncH

117

EDWARD L. KEENAN

Isaiah of Kamjanec'-Podol'sk: Learned Exile, Champion of Orthodoxy

159

WILLIAM K. MEDLIN

Cultural Crisis in Orthodox Rus' in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries as a Problem of Socio-Cultural Change . . .

173

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

JAMES H. BILLINGTON

Neglected Figures and Features in the Rise of the Raskol

189

PIERRE PASCAL

La Personnalité d'Avvakum

207

T A. B. «TJIOPOBCKHFT

IÎ3 HCTOpKH pyccKHx "BCTpen c 3anaflOM" Ha nepejioMe

XVII H XVIII BeKOB

223

IO. n . HBACK

HeH3ÄaHHbiii JleoHTteB Appendix: "IIocjieflHHH JiyV' (KoHCTaHTHH JleoHTteB)

235 . .

242

HEINRICH A. STAMMLER

Vasilij Rozanov und die Kirche

249

ANDREW BLANE

Protestant Sects in Late Imperial Russia

267

NIKITA STRUVE

Les Thèmes chrétiens dans l'Oeuvre d'Osip Mandel'Stam. .

305

FAIRY VON LILIENFELD

"Ost" und "West" als Kategorien im ökumenischen Sprachgebrauch in Bezug ihre Behandlung in der russischen Geschichtsphilosophie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts . . . .

315

Personalia

349

Index

351

r H M H B CJIOBE

O 3AKOHE H

HJIAPHOHA

EJIArOffATM

P. O. JIKOECOH

B flomeameM flo Hac 6oraTOM KyjibTypHOM HacJie/um KneBCKofi P y c a CAOBO O 3QKOH€ u 6/iazodamu,

cjioaceHHoe HjiapHOHOM 6jih3ko k c e p e -

flHHe oflHHHaOTaToro BeKa, He3a,aojiro flo e r o HacrojioBaHHa b KiieBCKHe MHTponojiHTM (1051 r . ) , 6eccnopHO npHHaflJieacHT k BepniHHHbiM naMHTHmcaM. Cjioeo HnapHOHa — 3aMeHaTeJibHtiH o 6 p a 3 e u apeBHeflm e r o p y c c K o r o nponoBeflHiraecTBa He TOJibKo n o r j i y 6 n H e 6 o r o c j i o B c k o 0 h h c t o p h o c o 4 ) c k o h c h m b o j i h k h , h o TaKace h , MoaceT 6 b i n . , aaace b nepByio o i e p e i p . n o CBoeMy xyfloxcecTBeinioMy MacTepcTBy, wcKycHO COHeTaiOmeMy K0Mn03HUH0HH0e eflHHCTBO C HHflHBHflyaJIbHOH, H3BICKaHHO p a 3 H o o 6 p a 3 « m e H TpaKTOBKoft e r o nocjieaoBaTejiBHHx 0Tfleji0B h c 6epe)KHbiM BHHMaHHeM k Meju>HaiimHM aeTaJiHM. B ocHOBy flajibHefiniHx ccbuioic Ha CAOBO HaMH nojioaceHa n y 6 j m Kaioia H . H . P030Ba "CHHoaantHLiH

cthcok

cohhhchhh

HjiapHOHa

— pyccKoro nncaTena X I b . " (Slavia, X X X I I [1963], 152-173), a Taicace ee nepeaana b n0Jie3H0M noco6ma — A Historical

Russian

Reader,

eds.

J . Fennell a n d D . O b o l e n s k y (Oxford, 1969), TeKCT 1-20, npHMenaHHH 154-158. BbicoKoijeHHafl n o t o h h o c t h CHHO^ajibHaa pyKoiracb CAOBO, n p e BOCXOOTO H3flaHHaa H . H . P030BHM coaepacHT eflHHCTBeHHbiii noJiHbiii TeKCT H3 flOineflUIHX flO Hac MHOrOTHCJieHHWX CnilCKOB H OTpblBKOB 3HaMeHHToro naMjmnnca, h o , pa3yMeeTca, He MoaceT 3aMeHHTb e r o KpHTHHecKoro H3flaHHK n o BceM coxpaHHBniHMca BapnaHTaM, nepeHHCJieHHbiM b KHHre H . K . HmcoJibCKoro, MamepuaAH HOZO cnucKa pyccmix

6AH noepeMeu-

nucameAeii u ux commeuuu (CaHKT n e T e p 6 y p r ,

1906), 75-90, h b CTaTbe H . H . P030Ba, "PyKoimcHaa rpa/pmHa CjioBa o 3aKOHe h 6jiaroflaTH", Tpydu

AKadeMuu nayn CCCP,

OmdeAa dpeenepyccKou

Aimepamypu

X V I I (1961), 42-53. IIpeflBapHTejibHbiM maroM

K KpHTHHeCKOMy H3flaHHK) CAOBO, flOHHHe OTCyTCTBytOUieMy, HBJIHeTCH Blane (ed.), The Religious World of Russian Culture, Vol. II, pp. 9-22. © Mouton Publishers 1975.

10

P. O. FLKOBCOH

COAEPACATEUBHAA KHHTE Jlyqojib^a Miojuiepa, Des Metropoliten

Ilarion

Lobrede auf Vladimir den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis nach der Erstausgabe von 1844 neu herausgegeben, eingeleitet und erläutert (Wiesbaden, 1962). B oacimaHHH RpirraiecKoro cpaBHeiraa BapHaHTOB H onwTa peKOHCTpyKUHH nepBOHanajibHoro TeKCTa, MU noKaMecT

orpaHHHH-

BaeMca HA6JIK>,NEHH5IMH HAA OAHHM TOJIBKO CNHOFLAJIBHWM CIIHCKOM, OTOaBaa ceöe nojiHbiH OTHCT B HeoöxoflHMOCTH HX npoBepKH, KOR^a nojiHoe HayMHoe lö/jaHite floac^eTca CBoero ocymecTBJieHH«. B iiHTaTax H3 C/ioea MH cjie^yeM npaBonacaHHio h nyHKTyaijHH ChHOflajibHoro cnacKa no JO/jaHmo H. H . P030Ba, nojib3yacb oaHaico ¿pía aaHHoii paöoTbi 6e3BpeflHOH noflCTaHOBKOH rpaamaHCKoro mpH(J)Ta B3aMeH iiepKOBHOCJiaBaHCKoro nHCbMa h, Bocjiefl BbiineHa3BaHHOMy OKC(J)OpaCKOMy nocoöino, paCKpblBaa THTJia. ToJIbKO OpHrHHaJIbHblH TeKCT ravTHa, BJioaceHHoro B CAOBO

H nocjiyacHBiuero OCHOBHOH TCMOH

npefljiaraeMOH CTaTbH, nepe^aH 3flecb uepKOBHOcjiaBsiHCKHM ajiaBHTOM. 3ar0Ji0B0K onyßjiHKOBaHHOü P030BMM pyicoiracH CAOBO

npeBocxoaHO

noflbiToacHBaeT ero cocTaB: 168r O 3aKOHÍ MOHcioMi flaHÜMl. H O ÖJiarOaiTH H ÍCTHHÍ icyci. XpHCTOMT» 6biBiniH. H Kaxo 3aKOHT. OTHfle. ÖJiarofliTb »ce H Udima. BCK> 3EMMO HCÜOJIHH. H ßtpa Bt BCH A3HKM npocrpecH. H flo Harnero JöMKa pycKaro. H noxBajia KaraHy HameMy BJiOflHMepy. OT Hero ace icpememi 6bixoMb. H MOJIHTBE KÍ> 6ory. OT Bcea 3eMJia Harnea. rocnoflH 6narocJioBH OTie. B TeKCTe CAOBO

aaHO pa^HKajibHoe oöbacHeHHe iimpoicoro pacnpo-

CTPAHEHHS EBAHREJIBCKOII HCTHHH: 180r He BwiHBaioTb 6o no cjioBecn rocnoamo [MapK II. 22], BHHa Hoßaaro yiema ÖJiaroflaTbHa. BI> M&XM BETXM. ***. HT> HOBO yieHie HOBM M4XW HOBM H3BIKBI. h o6oe 180v ciÖJnofleTCH. HKoace H ecTb. ßipa 6o ÖJiaroflaTbHaa no Bcea 3eMJiH npocTpica. H ao Harnero a3í.nca pycKaaro flOHfle. 3^ecb BnepBbie CAOBO

BBO^HT pyccKyio TeMaTHKy, AAJIEE cjieayiOT

MHoroHHCJieHHbie, Gonbuieñ nacTbio KopeHHiimec« B KHpmui0-Me4)0flbeBCKOH rpa^HUHH H3BJieHeHHH H3 npOpOKOB H IlcajITbipH, TOJIKyeMbie KaK npeacKa3aHiia MHpoBoro TopacecTBa ÖJiaroflaTH. C acKycHBIM ÜOflÖOpOM JIHpmeCKHX ÜHTaT H3 nCajIMOB B03paCTaeT H JIHpH3M KHeBCKoro nponoBeAHHKa. nrypa ceMHKpaTHoro noBTopeHHa HMnepaTHBHbix (J)opM rjiarojia nimu: noume

ixapeBH HameMy noume.

183v "noume 6ory HameMy noume. ÄKO ijapb BceH 3eMJiH 6orb.

***.

noume

pa3yMHO. * * * . H BCH 3EMJIHFLAiiOKjiOHHTb TH CH H noemb To. aa noemb ace HMEHH TBoeMy BHIUHÍH." HenocpeACTBeHHO cjieayeT 3THMOJiorHHecKafl (jjHTypa, oxBaTbmaiomaa Ha 3TOT pa3 caKpajibHyio fleBOTKy

RHMH B CAoee HJIAPHOHA O 3a.K0He u Snazodamu

11

npHMepoB 6jiH3Koro no 3HaieHHio KopHS xeaji-: 183v "xeajime rocnofla ***. h noxeaAvne ***". 184r "xeaAKO hmk rocnoflHe. *** xeaAa

TBoa Ha KOHbiíHx 3CMJI9. ***. fía. xeaj«m> HMH rocnoflHe." BcJiea 3a OTptiBKaMH ncajiMOB (Jjurypa nepe6pacbiBaeTca Ha 3aBe/i0M0 jiHHHbiií TeKCT caMoro ÜJiapHOHa, noflaBaeMtm KaK 6 H OT HMCHH "Bcea 3EWÜIH Harnea". 184v "xeaAKih »e noxffcwHbiHMH rjiacw. pHMbcicaa CTpaHa neTpa H nayjia. ***. noxeaAWMb ace H MM. no croit Harnen. MajibiHMH noxea/iaMH. BeJiHicaa H jiHBHaa ctTBOpbmaaro. Harnero yHHTeJW H HacTaBHHKa. Bejimcaaro KaraHa. Harnea 3eMJin BOJioflHMepa." CjieayeT OTMeTHTb B 3THX CJIOBaX HaCTOHHHBblH nepeXOfl K nepBOMy JIHIiy MHoacecTBeHHoro HHCJia, T.e. K 3ANHHY "noxBajibi KaraHy HarneMy BjiOflHMepy", B03BEMEHH0H B BbimenpHBefleHHOM 3arojioBKe (noxBajiHMb ace H MBI. ***. Harnea. ***. Harnero. ***. Harnea). 3aecb OTHeTJiHBO cKa3biBaeTca cymecTBeHHoe ceMaHTEraecKoe pa3jiHroe Meacay flByMa TepMHHaMH — empana H 3eMAH. MHoacecTBeHHoe empanu Hocamee /ipo6Hbiñ, AHCTpiíSyTHBHbiñ xapaKTep, flBaacnw BbiCTynaeT B BOJD>HOH nepeflane CJIOB HcañH (LI. 4-5), 3aMbiKaiomHx eBowey 6H6JICHCKHX mrraT — 184r "H cyffb MOH CB^TI. empanaMb empar-v naMb ***." 184 "MeHe ocrpoBH acnnyrb. H Ha Mtiuibuio MOKD empanu ynoBaioTb." OTCioaa HenocpeacTBeHHbiií nepexoA K BCTymrre;ibHbiM cjioBaM noxBajibi Bojio/niMepy: 184v "xBajiHTb ***. pHMbCKaa empana neTpa H nayjia.", npoHHe CTpaHbi CBOHX npocBeTHTeJieií, "BCH empanu h rpa^H H jnoflHe. HTyn. h cjiaBHTb. Koeroamo HXI> yHHTejia. Hace HayiHina n npaBocjiaBHÍH B T P I . noxBajiHMb ace h MH. ***. BejiHicaaro KaraHa. Harnea 3eMAU BOJioflHMepa." TepMHH 3eMAx, HeH3MeHHO B eflHHCTBeHHOM HHCJie, oflapeH TpeMH, TecHO conpaaceHHbiMH 3HaneHHSMH. TpoiícTBeHHaH HTypaMH H TpOeKpaTHblM nOBTOpeHHeM THTyjia Kazan: 184r "BejiHKaaro KaraHa Harnea 3eMJiH bojio/jHMepa"; 185r "Kaeam Hauib BJioaHMepb."; 186r "cbBjikne »ce cu y6o KÜZÜHb Hauib". IlepBblH KOMüOHeHT CJIOJKHOrO HMeHH BOAOÓVIMSPB o6pa3yeT CHOBa TpoiÍHyK) nenb c poflCTBeHHHMH rjiarojibHbiMH 4>opMaMH, 184v e^aábiHecTByiome, 185r «jfflóbiHbCTBOBama. CBH3b c npe^KaMH b cboio onepeab mwiepKHyTa TpoíícTBeHHMM coHeTamieM 185r "ponchen. ójiarppodeHb oTb 6jiaropodHbiHX." B reHeajiorra BjiaOTMHpa, BTOpOH KOMüOHeHT OTHOBCKOrO HMeHH flBa»CHbI BblfleJieH TpoñcTBeHHbiM nocTpoeHHeM: 184v "c/zaeHaaro CBflTOCAaea."; 185r "npocvzyma *** h CAOSyTb"; "CAOShhh oti> CAAEMAYIXB". 3aMeHa «3biMeCKOrO HMeHH XpHCTHaHCKHM flaeT nOBOfl K CeMHKpaTHOH napOHOMa3HH — 185r Bjio^Kjwepb — 186r "UMH npHUMT> b£iho imíchhto * * * w.wace HanHcaca bt> khhtm »CHBOTHbia. Bb bmuihíwaít. rpaat h HetjiÍh'hÍwa«) IepycajiMAít." ¿JajibHeHuieH 3HaMeHaTejitHOH penjiHKoñ Ha to »ce poflHoe, H3unecKoe hmh H0B006pameHH0r0 noABH»cHHKa 6biji cxo»chh aeBHTHKpaTHbiñ noBTop: 186v 3anoBÍflaBT> no bccji 3eMJiH h KpbCTHXHCH bi. UMSI OTua h cbiHa h cBHTaaro flyxa. h jicho h BejiernacHO bi> bcÍxt. rpaflixb cnaBHTHCa cbhtÍh tpohuh. H BCÍmT. 6bITH XpHCTÍaHOMT». MajlHUMb H BejIHKblMA«,. pa6oMb H CBoSoflHbUMfb. ynblUMb h CTapwttjwb. 6oapoMb h npocTbiumí. 6oraTH«^n. h y6orbi«.wb. IToflo6Ho napOHOMacTHnecKOMy o6paMJieHHK> nepBOHanaJibHoro khh»cecKoro hmchh, ero BTopHHHoe, xpHCTHaHCKoe hmh OKa3biBaeTca Bjio»ceHHbiM B napoHOMacTHHecKHe K j i a y 3 y j i H n p H n e p B O M

Henocpea-

CTBeHHOM o6pameHHH k noKOHHOMy BJia^biKe h yHHTejiio: 187v "Te6e »ce KaKO noxBajiHMb ***. npí>My»cbCTBeHbiH Bacíwíe. KaKO fl06p0TÍ nOHIOflHMCH KpinOCTH »Ce U CMjíÍ." Bo3BbimeHHoe noBecTBOBaHHe o KpemeHHH Pycn HaHHHaeTca c Tpex aopHCTOB eflHHCTBeHHoro HHCJia c noane»camHM, o6o3HanaK)mHM flyxoBHbiíí HMnyjibc, noBJieKiHHH 3a co6oií GjiaronecTHBoe peuieHHe

THMH B Cnoee HJIAPHOHA o 30K0He u ÔAazodamu

13

BojioflHMepa: 185v "npHfle Ham> ***. npH3pi Ham. ***. h Bi>cna pa3y\n> bï> cepflUH ero." flajiee, BCJiefl 3a 6c3jihhhoh naccHBHOH KOHCTpyicuHeH "nane ace cjiwmaHo eMy 6 t " , caKpajibHan ceMepKa npH^aTOHHtix cica3yeMtix MHoacecTBeHHoro HHCJia HacToamero BpeMeHH, acHBonncyeT rpenecKoe xpucTOJHoôtie: 185 v — 186 r "KaKO *** nmymb h KAanxwmcn. KaKO *** diwmcH ***. Kaico *** ucnomenbi. icaico bch rpaflH ônazoeípbHU. bch bt> MOJiHTBaxi. npedcmonmb. bch 6oix>bh npicmonmb." B Tpex aopHCTax eflHHCTBeHHoro HHCJia c noflpasyMeBaeMbiM nofljieacamHM eojiodtiMepb cocpeflOToneHa flyxoBHan oTnoBeflb Kazana uaxuezo: 185 v "h ch CAbiiua"; 186 r "ebxcdeAa cepflueMb. et3Zop\ flyxoMb." CeMb aopncTOB noBecTByioT o icpemeHHH BojioflHMepa — H3 hhx TpH nepBbix 06 OTKa3e o t H3binecKoro npoiujioro — 186 r "cbBJiine ace ch ***. cijioacH ***. onpace", — flanee "ezAÍse bt¡ CBHTyio icynijib. H nopoducn o t flyxa h BOflbi. *** bt> xpHCTa oÔAÎnecx. h mude orb KyntnH". ITepexofla o t Kazma uautea 3eMAa k cyflb6aM ecea 3eMAH uatuea, Cjiobo npHÖeraeT k flByM coqeTamiaM oTpHuaTejibHbix npefljioaceHHH c yTBepflHTejibHMMH 3aKjiK»HeHHHMH: (1) 186 r "He floctjie cmaeu ***. hh o tond, tokmo neu ***." 186V "hi. nodeuMcecn naie." (2) 186v "h He 6bi h h eflHHoroac npoTHBamacH ***. h bt> eflHHO BpeMH. bch 3eMJia Hama mcAaeu xpHCTa ***." TopacecTBO xpHcraaHCTBa Hafl H3binecTB0M 06pnc0BaH0 naTtio napHblMH npOTHBOnOCTaBJieHHHMH aOpHCTOB C O B e p H i e H H O r O BHfla b flByx nepBbix cjiynaax, HMnepeKTOB HecoBepmeHHoro BHfla b Tpex OCTaJIbHMX, npHHeM H3 Bcex flecara JIHHHblX rJiarOJIbHblX (J)OpM POBHO nojioBHHa npHHaflJie»CHT B03BpaTH0My 3ajiory: 187 r "Torfla Hanan. MpaKt haojibckbih oti> Haci o t x o a h t h . h 3opt 6jiaroBÌpia HBHiuacH." ßajiee "nortiSe. — ocia.; pa3pyuiaaxycH. — nocTaBjiaaxycH. ; cwcpymaaxycH. — HBjraaxycH.; npoôiraaxy. — CBHmaame.". riocjieflyiomaH KapTHHa noBceMecTHoro h BceHapoflHoro 6orocjiyxceHHH o x B a T M B a e T flBa T p o n c T B e H H b i x p f l f l a a o p n c T O B b T p e T b e M JIHHe MHOHCeCTBeHHOrO HHCJia c 3ByKOBBIMH n O B T O p a M H , CKpenJMÏOIimMH BHyTpeHHee cahhctbo OTflejibHbix npeflJioaceHHñ: 187 r (1) "nacmycn cjioeecHHHxi. osenj. xpHcmosb ***. cmama. ***. h Becb Kjmpocb. yjcpacHHia h bï. JitnoTy ofltrna" — (2) "MaHac/wbipeBe Ha ropax cmama. *** neuiua ch. *** ecu 4ioflHe ebCA&euiua ***." Meacfly o6ohmh paflaMH 3pnMbix ynacTHHKOB TopacecTBa bkjihhchm o6pa3bi xpaMOBbix 3BynaHHH h ÖJiaroyxaHHH c flByMH a o p n c T a M H e f l H H C T B e H H o r o HHCJia b n p o T H B o n o JioacHOCTb MHoacecTBeHHOMy rnecTH O K p e c T H b i x rjiarojioB: " e B a H r e j i b C K b i zpoMb bch zpafííi ozAacR. TeMiaHi 6ory escnymaeMb e&3flyxi> ocenTH." KapTHHa noGeflbi npaBOBepra oTJiHnaeTCH o t npeflbiflymero H30-

14

P. O. ÜKOBCOH

öpaaceHHH 6opb6bi JHOACKHX

flByx

Bep Bo-nepBbix, noHBJieHiieM h

HaHMeHOBaHHH (KaK HanpHMep noftneacamae

H

oÔHjmeM

npanoaceHH«

K HHM: "nacTycH, enHCKonii, nonoße, fliaKOHH, nepHoprabUH, MyacH, aceHbi, JiioaHe"), B0-BT0pbix, 6ojibmeñ HarjumHOCTbio acHBonacaHiw, HCHe3HOBeHHeM TaKHX OTBJieneHHblX MeTa(J)Op, KaK "MpaKb HflOJIbCKblH, TMa ôtcocJiyraHHa", h cooTBeTCTBeHHoñ 3aMeHoñ aôcTpaKTHbix nofljieacaiixHX KOHKperabiMH npH oflHHaKOBbix rjiarojiax (cnepBa

"3opt

6jiaroßipia aBHiuacn", 3aTeM ace "HepHopH3bim HBHinaca"), h HaicoHeii, OTMeHOH HMnepcjjeKTOB, CJiyaCHBUIHX COnOCTaBJieHHK) OflHOBpeMeHHblX 06pa30B coKpymaeMoñ cTapHHbi h HOBoro CTpoHTejibCTBa. B TopacecTBeHHOM paccKa3e o kohchhom BOii,apeHHH hoboh Bepu Ha PycH Haa6ojiee cmkhh, 3aioiioHHTejibHbiH cyöbeKT — 3KeHbI. H MajlÍH H BejIHUÍH BCH JIIOflHe" 187 v "BbCJiaBHiua

raarojiiome".

187 r "MyacH h

COHeTaeTCH C npeflHKaTOM

3acHM HenocpeacTBeHHo cjieayeT t c k c t

KpaTKoro cjiaBocjiOBM, bo Been nponoBeAH eflHHCTBeHHbiñ, He CHHTaa ÖHÖJießcKHX UHTaT, npHMep nyacon npHMoñ penH c xipeflBapHTejibHOH ccbiJiKOH Ha peKyuiHx: e-^H-HTi CBA-TTi. e-^H-Niv re-tno-^K H-COy-Ch X?H-CT0-C1V Kii-C/id-BOv Bo-roy O-TK-l^W d-/HH-NK. XÇH-CTO-CTv nO-B^-^H. XÇH-CTO-CTJ. o-AO-'í'b. X0H-CTO-CK BTi-l^d-pH CA. XÇH-CTO-CK nÇO-t/ld-BH CA. Be-dH-KTv e-CH ro-cno-^H H MW-^iv-Na Aiv-/id TBO-ra B0-JK6 Hd-U1K C/td-Bd TG-E'b.

THMH COCTOHT H3 Tpex CTpO(J), HaCHHTbIBaiOmHX B o6meñ CJI05KH0CTH ABeHaOTaTb

CTHXOB.

üopaflOK

crpocj)

flBaayibi

cjieayeT

npnHUHiiy

apntjJMeTHHecKOH perpeccmi; Kaxytaa nocjieayiomaa CTpoa Kopone npeflbiflymea raeTca H3

H

ÜHTH,

Ha

OAHH CTHX, H

BTopaa

H3

Ha ¿isa cjiora. ü e p B a a CTpoero JiHu;a B nepBoe romo MHoacecTBeimoro HHCJia, T.e. K BHeiiiHeMy aapecaTy CjiOBa, "MHHxy H npo3BHTepy HJiapHOHy", npacoeflHHHeTca HOBMÌÌ, BHyTpeHHHH aApecaT, rjiac "Bcea 3eMna Hamea", o6pameHHbiH K TOMy HJXH HHOMy H3 flByx BHyrpeHHHx aflpecaTOB. HTaK 3aKjiK»TOTejn>Hbie cjiOBa rauma — "modus, flijia TBoa 6oace Hamb cnaea meôi," — HaxoßHT ce6e OTKJIHK H pa3BHTHe B HanajibHbix (J)pa3ax nocjieAyiomero aÖ3aaa, BocnoJiHaiomero npocjiaBJieHHe XpHCTa noxBajioii xpncTOJiK>6uy: 187 v "meôe ace KaKO noxBajiHMi. o necTHbiH H cnaeHbiH BI> 3eMJieHbiHxi> BJiaflbiKaxi.. npiMyHCbCTBeHMH Bacarne. KaKO floôpoTi ïiOHwdiJMCH. KpinocTH »ce H c a n i . " 3a 3THMH flByM« BonpocaMH, CKpenjxeHHbiMH nap0H0Ma3Heñ HX 3aKjiioHHTejibHbix cjioB, HenocpeacTBeHHO cjieflyeT ijem. flaJibHeìiiiiHX fleBSTH PHTOPHHECKHX BonpocoB, oöpameifflbix K TOMy « e aapecaTy, npeMyacecTBeHHOMy Bacarono. H3 3THX OAHHHa,ZWATH BonpocoB nepBbie n e r a p e nocBHmeHbi TeMe, KaK BonpomaioimiM cnpaBHTbca co CBoeio BMCOKOH 3aflaieñ: 187 v "KaKO noxBajiHM * * * . KEKO flo6po-ri nonioflHMCH. * * * KaKOBO TH ÖJiaroaapie BUAA^HMT. * * * JIH HTO TH npHpeieMb xpHCTOJiJOÔHe." 3a HeTbipbMa nep^eKTHBHbiMH opMaMH nepBoro Jirnja MHoacecTBeHHoro HHCJia HacToamero BpeMeHH, B rjiaBHbix irpeAJioxceHHHX AajibHeHiiJHX BonpocoB cjie^yeT Beperoma aopHCTOB BTOporo H rpeTbero j u q a eflHHCTBeHHoro MHCJia, npocjiaBJiaiomHX MyflpocTb BonpomaeMoro npaBe/jHHKa, KOToptra 188 r "He BHAÌBI. BtpoBa". 3aKjiioHHTejibHaa

lacTb

"noxBajiw

KaraHy

HameMy",

npH3biBHaa

MOJiHTBa y c o n i u e M y , n o c T p o e H a c a r c o i i i b H a n o 6 y w i T e j n > H b i x aceHHHX c no

TpeMH a e c H T K a M H

HMnepaTHBHbix

CpaBHeHHK) C BOnpOCOM pa3HOBHflHOCTH

(requisitive)

BHCKa3biBaHHH.

AÌBHIJÌH. ö y f l e T b H vpady rocnoflb c

flBOHKHX

Apyroìi

npocHTejibHbix

B c T y m i e H H e M K MOJIHTBC cjiyxcHT

rHpHK cjiaBHOMy r p a a y K n e B y H e r o x p a M a M , CKOMy H E j i a r o B e m e H C K O M y :

npefljio-

(JïopM, T . e . Ha

flecaTHHHOMy,

192 v " f l a e»ce uijioBame apxaHrejii.

flacTb

padyvicsL

o6padoB3.aaa.

6jiaroßipHbiH

rpads rocnoflb

c e M y . KI> OHOH 6 0 .

T06010. KI» r pady »ce padymn

naHe-

COhh-

c T 0 6 0 K ) . " 3 T H flBa B a p H E H T a c J i 0 B - B 0 3 3 B a H i m , H M n e p a T H B b i c

rpaM-

MaTHHeCKH C03ByHHbIMH BOKaTHBaMH, p e j I b e ^ H O BbIflejIHK)TCa H a (J)OHe n p e f l b w y i m i x o ô m i b H b i x (J)opM H 3 i . a B H T e J i i . H o r o HamiOHeHHa H c j i y a c a T 0 6 p a 3 i í 0 M fljia T e x H M n e p a T H B H b i x KOHCTpyKUHñ, H3 K O T o p b i x c j i a r a e T c a MOjiHTBa, HaHHHaa c e e n e p B b i x CJIOB: 1 9 2 v "wbcmmìi

o necmnaa.

rjiaBO.

18

P . O.

FLKOECOH

o n . rpo6a TBoero. vbcmam.. orrpacH coHb." TpoHCTBeHHaa STHMOJIOraHecKaa 4>nrypa "paAoynca 06pa£0BaHaa * * * . paayHca" noflCKa3biBaeT Bcjiefl 3a BecTbio pafloeTH aeBe H 6jiar0BepH0My rpafly Ty »ce BecTb Tpen>eMy H36paHHHKy: 193 r , v "Bb3paflyH CH H Bi3BecejiHca «bis». *** paflyncfl H BECEJIHCH. * * * paayHca BT. BJiaflbiKaxb anocTone." 194 r "paflyacx ywrejiio Harnb H HacTaBHHHe 6jiaroBÍpiio." TeMa paflocTH, 3acjiyaceHHoií HacTaBHHKOM, KOTOpbiií 191R "BI, pycH * * * uapbCTBo 6ory noKopH", HenocpeacTBeHHo cBH3aHa c o6pa30M, npeflCTaiomHM nepea ayxoBHbiMH onaMH yconiuero: 192 r "cjiaBHbin rpaAt TBOH KbieBi»" C uepKBaMH, He HaxoflamHMH ce6e nofloóna "BT> BceMb nojiyHomn 3eMHÜMb OTO BbCTOKa flo 3anaaa". 3/jecb B TpeTHH pa3 H B cx02Gíx nepTax pHcyeTCH KapTHHa TopxcecTByiomero 6jiaroBepna. IlepBbiH BapnaHT anoeo3a HCXO^HT H3 noyiemiH o HOBOM BHHe, HOBbix Mexax h HOBbix «3biKax: 180 v "jiKOHce h ecTb. Btpa 6o 6jiaroflaTbHa no BceH 3eMJiH npocrpica. h a o Harnero «3biKa pycKaaro flonne." HjiapaoH pa3BepTbiBaeT TpoñcTBeHHyio aHTHTe3y H no/jKpenjiaeT ee BeTxo3aBeTHbiMH ccbijiicaMH: 1 8 0 V ce 6o yace H M H CT> BCÍMH xpncriaHbiMH. CJIABHMI CBHTyio Tponuy. a iyjxea M O J I N M » . XPHCTOCB ANABHMB 6bmaeTb. a iyaeH KJICHOMH. H3BMN npHBefleHii. a iyflen OTpiiHOBeHH. «Koace ripopola. Majiaxia pew. Hecn. HH xorfema BI. cbraexi. HspaixteBÍxb. H McepTBU O N . pyict HXT> He npiHMy. noHeace OTO BtcroKT» »ce h 3ana,ai>. HMH Moe C.WBUMO ecrb BI. cTpaHaxi.. H Ha BCHKOMT. M Í C T Í TeMiaHb HMCHH MoeMy IIPHHOCHTCH. JOCO HMH Moe eeAmo BI. CTpaHaxi. [Manaxmi, I . 1 0 - 1 1 ] . 1 8 1 R H AABHFLT. ecn 3EMJM na NOKJIOHHTB TH E S . H noerra T O 6 Í . H zocnoòu zocnoòb nautb. HKO HWÒHO HMH meoe no Bcen 3eM/tu. [ILE. L X V I . 4 H V I I I . 1],

Te x e cjioBecHbie o6pa3bi yMbiuiJieHHO noflXBaieHbi BO BCTyiureHHH K rHMHy H B caMOM necHoneHHH: 187r yKpacHina H BI. jitnoTy oflirna cexmbta UEPKBH. anocTOJibCKaa TpySa H eBaHrejibCKM rpoMi.. ecu zpadbi ozjiacu. meMiam 6ory BI>cnymaeMb. BT»3flyxT. ocenmu. *** ecu jnojme HcnonHeine cenmbia aepKBH. 187 v ebCAaeuiua maroJiiome. eflHHb cenmb. eflHHb eocnodb *** eb erney *** npoc/iaeucf\. eeAUKb ecn zocnoòu H ntoóna ¡afana meoa SoMce nautb cjtaea Te6i.

HaKOHen;, TpeTb«, HacKB03b noBTopHaa TpaKTOBKa Toro »ce MOTHBa npH3BaHa noGyAHTb anocTOJia pyccKoá 3eMJiH K paAOcra H BecejiHio: 1 9 3 R "BHACFLB zpaòb

miMimoMb

HKOHAMH cenmbiuxb

o6yxaeMb. H xeanaMu

O C B T M A E M B H 6JIHCTAIOMECH H

óoMcecmeemaMu

H nínuu

cenmbiuMu

ozAauiaeMb." TpexHjieHHbrií napajuiejiH3M — ocBtmaeAopMaMH, b oGpameHHH k Bory hhoh pa3 HaHH3aHHbiMH 6e3 HHTepBajiOB: 196v "cnaca yme/tpw. npH3pH. noctra. yMHJiocepaacH noMHJiyH." B OTJurare o t npeflbmymero TeKCTa, "moJiHTBa Kb Gory" nocTpoeHa rjiaBHMM 06pa30M Ha HMneparaBax nepeXOflHblX TJiarOJIOB C HaCTblMH OpMaMH Hbl, Hacb, HQMb, B pOJIH P.OnojiHeHHH npaMbix hjih kocbchhwx. B mojihtbocjiobhh k BojiOflHMepyBacHJiHio hh b KaKHx naflexcax HeT MecTOHMeHHa Mbi 3a oahhm eflHHCTBeHHblM HCKJIIOHeHHeM (193 v "flymeio Hbl MepTBbI * * * BbCKptcHBb").

20

P. O. ÄKOECOH

HanpoTHB, MÜAÍU U eejutfiu juodie M3biKa pycnaazo, 199 v "Bwcyni. Becejio h paflocTHo" cjiaBÄiime Tocnofla, BnepBbie BbMBHHyrbi Ha nepeflHHÖ njiaH toju>ko b 3aKjiK>iHTejibHoií mojihtbc CAOBO, KaK 6bi b OTBeT Ha Ty yBemeBaTeJibHyio 4>pa3y, c KOTopoü HaraHajic« npH3biB k npocjiaBJiemno BojioflHMepa, — 184v "noxBajiHMi. ace HMU *** bcjihKaaro KaraHa Harnea 3eMjra" — BcmibmaeT b 3aiuii0HHTejn>H0H moJiHTBe HeTbipexKpaTHoe no^Jieacamee MM (HanpHMep 196 r h 198 r "MM Jiioflie tboh"), a H3 npoHHx 4>opM t o h xce napaflurMbi no TpaHamaTH npHMepoB npHXOflHTca Ha HM h naa>, h ceMb pa3 noflBjiaeTCfl HÜMb.

He JiHmeH 3HaneHHa nun chmbojihkh CjiOBa t o t OpMaMH: 196r npHHMH hh oöpamaromacH Kt moóí. ***. yicpora rH^Bt HM'ace pa3raiBaxoMT. im. HenoßtKomoÖHe. mu 60 ecn rocnoflb BJiaflbnca H TBopeqb. h bi. moßi ecTb BJiacTb. ***. MU nioflie tboh. meöe HmeMb. moßi npnnaflaeMb. moßi ca mbjihflieMb.— 197 v ycraBHraiBHUHmeou nnaMeHb. npocrnpaiOTCH Ha Hbi pa6bi meoa. ca\n> HanpaBJwa hm Ha hcthhy meo10. 198 r Haynas hm tbophth Bojno meow. hko mu ecn 6on> Haim>. h MU nroflHe meou. meoa Isen«, meoe AOCTOHHi'e. IloHHH 3THM flByM MecTOHMeHHbiM rpynnaM yace 6bui aaH b KOHue rHMHa: 187 v " h Hio^Ha flijia meoa 6ozce Hauib cjiaßa meóí." B np0THB0n0Ji0)KH0CTb 3aicjii0HHTejibH0H MOJiHTBe "kt> 6ory", o6e THpaflbi, o6pameHHwe k "xaraHy HameMy", HacTOÜHHBO noBTOpaiOT HOMHHaTHB »267. B HepBOH, BOnpOCHTejIbHOH THpafle HHTb H3 HieCTH HpHMepOB BXOflHT B HpOTHBHTeJIbHOe COHeTaHHe mbl Otee (HaHHHaH c 188v "mm Mce hh 3axoHa hh npopoKt noiHTaBi. pacnjrroMy nomiohhcä." h flo 191 r , v "mbi nee cb 6a6oio TBoeio ojibroio. *** yTBepflHCTa ßipy"). Bo BTopoñ, HMnepaTHBHoii Tapare, nocneflHHH H3 npH3HBOB "pa^yHca" oßocHOBbiBaeTca nepeiHeM 3acJiyr yHHTejw h HacTaBHHKa, pa3Ae;ieHHbiM Ha BOceMb napajuie^bHbix KOHCTpyKUHü: 194 r , v mu 6 i C COCTaBHbIMH CKa3yeMblMH. Ecjih npeanojioacHTb, hto h flajibHefluiHe nacTH CaHOflaJibHoro cnHCKa, T.e. Chmboji Bepbi c ero TOjiKOBaHHeM, nocjiecjioBHeM h aBTOpCKOü aBTOÖHorpa^JHHecKOH noflnncbK), BxoflHJUi yace b nepBHHHbiñ t c k c t CjioBa, t o 6pocaeTca b rjia3a nepexofl k MHOxecTBeHHOMy HHCjiy aapecaTOB

RIIMH B Cjioee HJIAPHOHA

O 30K0M

21

u ònazoòamu

H K eflHHCTBeHHOMy HHCJiy aapecaHTa: 203 R "Mojurre o MUÍ. n e c r a i a y w r e j i e H BJiaabiKbi pycKbi 3eMJia." Hepe3 o6o6meHHoe nepBoe JIHUO juoöoro Bepyiomero nponoBe^HHK npHÔJiitacaeTCH H npHCTynaeT K pena OT CBoero co6cTBeHHoro JiHua, o6o3HaHeHHoro HMeHHTeJitHLiM nafleaCOM JIHHHOrO MeCTOHMeHHH,

COOTBCTCTBCHHOH JIHHHOÍÍ (J)OpMOH

rjiarojia H CO6CTBCHHHM IÏMÊHCM B Kanecrae rpaMMaranecKoro npHjioaceHiw:

"Û3&

MHJIOCTÍIO

HEJI0BÍK0JIK>6HBAAR0

6ora.

MHHXI

H

npo3BHTepT> umpioHb * * * CBHmeHt 6bixb." 06o3HaHeHHe, BbicTynaBiuee B noxBajie noKOÜHOMy KaraHy — 194R " y w r e j u o Haim>" — HbiHe nepeflHT K caMOMy aBTOpy noxBajibi: 203 1 "ÄKO 6MTH MH * * * yHHTejno." HMeHa

BOcxBajiHBiiiHXCH BnaflbiK HeSecHoro H 3eMHoro rpaMMaTH-

necKH OTCTynawT Ha 3aflHHH njiaH B npHHMeimoM reHHTHBe —

"MH-

H B npHTHacaTeJibHOM npanaraTeJibHOM, KOTopHM

JIOCTÍIO * * * 6oza"

3aBepmaeTca nocJieaHHH pa3a pyKonncH, npoAOjixcaromaa reHeaJioraiecKyio JXHHHK) (184 V ) KaraHOB "Harnea 3eMna": 203 R : "BJiaAtinecTBylomy 6jiar0BtpbH0My KaraHy apocjiaBy. cbray eAaduMupto. aMHHb." npo6jieMbi cocTaBa H xyaoxcecTBeHHon KOMTIO3HHHH CjiOBa, oco6eHHO Bonpoc o COOTHOIHCHHH MHoroo6pa3HH lacTeË c HecoMHeHHbiM eflHHCTBOM iiejioro, TpeßyeT flajibHeömeH, 06cT0jrrejibH0H pa3pa6oTKH. B MacTHOCTH, TaKOBaa Heo6xo^HMa ÄHH noaroTOBKH HCTHHHO KPHTHnecKoro H3flaHHa. CTporo pa3MepH0e necHoneHHe, aomeflinee flo Hac B paMKax

CAOBO.

o

3AKONE

u 6/iazodamu H nocjiyacHBiiiee HCXOAHOH

TeMOH HaniHx npeflBapHTejibHbix 3aM6TOK oÔHapyjKHBaeT TecHyio opraHHHecKyio CBH3b c oiqpyxcaiomHM KOHTeKCTOM H TßM caMbiM npeceKaeT B03M05KH0CTb floraflOK o ero no3AHeñmeM BKJHOHCHHH B pa36HpaeMbrä naMHTHHK. B 3TOM rHMHC Mbl HaXO^HM nOHbIHe eflHHCTBeHHbffl B OpHTHHajibHOH nHCbMeHHOCTH flpeBHeii PycH npHMep Toro

caMoro

Ha-

neBHoro cjioroBoro CTHxocjioaceHHa, KOTOpoe a o CHX nop HaM 6buio 3HâKOMO TOJIbKO nO TBOpieCKHM OHblTaM 3anaflHbIX H lOHCHblX oóJiacTeñ UepKOBHOCJiaBSHCKOH TpaflHUHH.

EUHEMERISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

DMITRIJ TSCHlZEWSKIJ

In diesem, dem Jubilar gewidmeten Artikel1 möchte ich auf ein Problem hinweisen, das in der russischen wissenschaftlichen Literatur noch kaum Beachtung gefunden hat. Dieses Problem betrifft eine der am wenigsten geklärten Fragen der russischen Geistesgeschichte — die Frage nach dem Wesen des altrussischen Heidentums und seiner Überwindung. Nur wenig ist uns über das altrussische Heidentum bekannt; Skeptiker sind sogar bereit zu behaupten, dass unsere Kenntnis fast ausschliesslich auf die Namen der heidnischen Gottheiten beschränkt ist; unter diesen Götternamen gibt es noch immer neben solchen, die keine Zweifel mehr hervorrufen (Perun, Svarog, Xors, Daz'bog, Stribog, Volos oder Veles), andere, die zweifelhaft geblieben sind (Mokos\ deren Namen M. Vasmer überzeugend mit dem Stamm mok wie in mokryj oder moknut' in Verbindung bringt, aber auch den gänzlich unerklärlichen Simar'gl oder Semar'gl und den ebenso problematischen Trajan oder Trojan). Den Bemühungen der Sprachwissenschaftler ist es gelungen, die Funktionen der Gottheiten mehr oder weniger glaubhaft zu erklären. Roman Jakobson entwirft in seinen recht "optimistischen" und, wie immer, glänzenden Arbeiten, denen auch einige Gelehrte in der Sowjet-Union gefolgt sind, sogar ein bestimmtes System des altrussischen "Olymps", er kann jedoch nicht alle Rätsel lösen, die mit dem altrussischen Heidentum verbunden sind. Eine Lösung dieser Rätsel wird besonders dadurch verhindert, dass die Beschreibungen der altrussischen Prediger sehr unklar sind, die natürlich gar kein Interesse an detaillierten Informationen über die "teuflischen Verführungen" oder "Teufeleien" des vorchristlichen "Aberglaubens" hatten. Die Forscher haben in den letzten andert1

Mit der Erlaubnis des Verfassers ist dieser Artikel ebenfalls in der russischen Emigrantenzeitschrift Novyj zurnal, 92 (1968), 254-272, auf Russisch erschienen.

Blane (ed.), The Religious World of Russian Culture, Vol. II, pp. 23-42. © Mouton Publishers 1975.

24

DMITRIJ TSCHI^EWSKIJ

halb Jahrhunderten sehr oft die ziemlich unbegründete Behauptung aufgestellt, dass in Russland nach der Christianisierung eine Art "Doppelglauben" geherrscht habe, d.h. eine gleichzeitige Verehrung des christlichen Gottes und der "abgeschafften" heidnischen Gottheiten. Elemente eines solchen "Doppelglaubens" suchte und fand man sogar im Volksglauben der letzten Jahrzehnte. Dazu ist zu bemerken, dass zu dem Material, das als Begründung für einen so postulierten Doppelglauben vorgelegt wird, fast ausschliesslich Mitteilungen über volkstümliche Vorstellungen von dämonischen Wesen gehörten, wie z.B. von Hausgeistern, Waldgeistern, Nymphen u.a., also Quellen, die nicht nur von ihrer "Verehrung", sondern auch von der Furcht vor ihnen Zeugnis ablegen. Ohne uns allzu eingehend mit diesen interessanten Quellen zu beschäftigen, müssen wir feststellen, dass wir einerseits in allen Ländern Westeuropas genügend Parallelen für den Aberglauben der Ostslaven finden, die aus der gleichen Zeit (d.h. den letzten Jahrhunderten) stammen, und dass wir andererseits nirgendwo in diesem neuen slavischen Material den Namen der heidnischen Gottheiten begegnen, während Haus- und Waldgeister typische Elemente der "niederen Mythologie" sind, deren Erhaltung auf keinen Fall als Zeugnis für die Existenz eines "Doppelglaubens" im wahren Sinne des Wortes dienen kann. 2 Die Forscher haben jedoch den Zeugnissen über die Beziehung der Ostslaven zu ihren "abgeschafften", gestürzten Göttern keine oder doch nicht genügend Beachtung geschenkt. Solche Zeugnisse liefert uns die altrussische Literatur, d.h. das Werk mehr oder weniger gebildeter Kreise. Diese Zeugnisse stützen sich auf die byzantinische Tradition, doch ist es kaum statthaft, sie deswegen ausser Acht zu lassen. Sie finden sich über einen ziemlich weiten Zeitraum, bis zum 16. und sogar 17. Jahrhundert. Diese Quellen zeugen davon, dass zweierlei Vorstellungen von den heidnischen Gottheiten existierten: nach den Vorstellungen in den Kreisen der Kirche handelte es sich um "Teufel" (solche Vorstellungen finden sich z.B. an einigen Stellen in der Chronik, bei der Mitteilung über die von Vladimir errichteten Götzenbilder und in der Erzählung über die ersten varägischen christlichen Märtyrer in Kiev, ebenso in der Rede über Gesetz und Gnade des ersten russischen Metropo2 Der einzige von den oben erwähnten Götternamen ist Perun: nach dem Zeugnis von D a l ' wird der Name bei den Großrussen kaum in der Bedeutung 'Blitz, Blitzschlag' gebraucht, ein Gebrauch, der im Polnischen existiert und, wahrscheinlich unter dem Einfluß des Polnischen, auch im Belorussischen und Ukrainischen; doch ist in diesen beiden Sprachen das Wort selten. Darum scheint es, daß das Wort perun, peruny mit der Bedeutung 'Blitz', das in der russischen Dichtung des 18.—20. Jahrhunderts vorkommt, ein Produkt der poetischen Wortschöpfung ist.

EUHEMERISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

25

liten Ilarion um das Jahr 1050); nach einer anderen Vorstellung dagegen war die Verehrung der heidnischen Götter eine Art "Missverständnis", in ihnen wurden die alten Herrscher und hervorragenden Persönlichkeiten verehrt, die dann irrtümlicherweise und vielleicht nicht ganz ohne den Einfluss einer "teuflischen Verführung" für göttliche Wesen gehalten wurden. Ein solcher Gesichtspunkt ist Religionshistorikern wohl bekannt und wird als Euhemerismus bezeichnet. Wie ist er in die altslavischen Literaturen eingedrungen und wie hat er sich in der altrussischen so lange gehalten ? Euhemeros war ein griechischer Schriftsteller aus Messina (wir wissen nicht aus welcher der beiden Städte mit diesem Namen, die eine befand sich in Sizilien, die andere auf dem Peloponnes); er lebte um die Wende des 4. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts und legte seine Ansichten in dem Roman Hiera anagrafe dar, der am Anfang des dritten vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts geschrieben wurde. In diesem Roman, der uns nicht erhalten, der uns aber aus zahlreichen Anmerkungen und Zitaten aus seinen Werken bekannt ist, berichtet Euhemeros von Inschriften, die er angeblich auf Kreta gefunden hat und die seine Theorien bestätigen. Der Roman wurde von Ennius ins Lateinische übersetzt und erreichte beträchtliche Popularität, denn schon früher bediente sich die "rationalistische Interpretation" älterer und für spätere Generationen wenig anziehender Mythen (wie z.B. der Mythen über Zeus' Liebesabenteuer) einer solchen Erklärungsmethode, die zwar nicht den Glauben an Götter im allgemeinen, aber doch wenigstens den Glauben an die "ärgerniserregenden" Göttermythen erklärte. So schreibt bereits Herodot die Entführung der Europa nicht Zeus in der Gestalt eines Stieres zu, sondern einfach den "Kretern". Schon in der klassischen Antike wurde der Euhemerismus verschieden beurteilt, zum einen einfach als leichtsinniges Geschwätz eines Romanschriftstellers, zum anderen als Theorie über den Ursprung der Religion, die Aufmerksamkeit verdiente. Zitate und Auszüge aus Euhemeros sind in beachtlicher Zahl erhalten, vor allem bei Diodoros von Sizilien. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wurde ihm jedoch offenbar zuteil, als die christlichen Denker — die Kirchenväter und Apologeten — seine Theorien benützten; er wird bei Clemens von Alexandrien, Augustin, Lactantius, Justin, Tertullian u.a. erwähnt. Besondere Bedeutung mass dem Euhemerismus Lactantius bei, der uns eine ganze Reihe von dessen Aussagen aufbewahrt und dessen Theorien in seiner Polemik gegen den antiken Polytheismus benützt hat. Der Euhemerismus ist auch nach Byzanz gedrungen — doch ist

26

DMITRIJ TSCHI^EWSKIJ

dort seine Rolle noch nicht genügend geklärt (siehe darüber unten) — und ebenso in den Westen. In der modernen wissenschaftlichen Literatur reicht die Beurteilung des Euhemerismus von der Behauptung, dass es sich um ein literarisches Motiv handele, bis zu der Meinung, dass er eine der Formen des antiken Atheismus darstelle und dass ihm ernsthafte Bedeutung zukomme. Die Slaven haben ihn zweifellos aus Byzanz übernommen. Wahrscheinlich ist der griechische Euhemerismus schon früher mit althebräischen apokryphen Erzählungen über die Entstehung des Polytheismus und der Götzenverehrung in Berührung gekommen. Auch diese apokryphen euhemeristischen Motive sind den Slaven bekannt geworden. Wie schon gesagt, wissen wir sehr wenig über seine Rolle in der byzantinischen Literatur. Die bis heute grundlegende Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur von Krumbacher (erschienen 1891) erwähnt den Euhemerismus nur im Zusammenhang mit späten Kommentaren zu Homer aus dem 13. Jahrhundert; die neueste (für Slavisten übrigens unersetzliche) Geschichte der byzantinischen religiösen Literatur des Münchner Professors G.-G. Beck (1959) übergeht ihn mit Schweigen. Lactantius ist, soweit mir bekannt, nicht ins Griechische übersetzt worden. Die Slaven wurden mit dem Euhemerismus bereits im 10. Jahrhundert bekannt. Betrachten wir nun die wichtigsten slavischen Denkmäler, die von seiner Anwendung und Verbreitung zeugen.

1 Das älteste slavische Denkmal, in dem wir einen Euhemerismus finden, ist die sogenannte Handschrift von Suprasl' (sie ist später in drei Teile zerlegt worden und befindet sich in verschiedenen Bibliotheken). Es handelt sich um eine Sammlung von Heiligenleben, deren Gedenktag im März gefeiert wird, d.h. es ist eine "Lese-Menäe", sie enthält daneben noch eine Reihe von aus dem Griechischen übersetzten Predigten. Die griechischen Originale aller Werke in der Handschrift sind bekannt. Die Handschrift ist nicht vor dem Anfang des 11. Jahrhunderts entstanden. Ihre Übersetzung ist jedoch aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach um ein Jahrhundert älter und ist offenbar in Bulgarien im 10. Jahrhundert angefertigt worden. Einige Blätter am Anfang der Handschrift sind verloren gegangen, und der erste Text, der uns begegnet, ist eine Geschieh-

EUHEMERISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

27

te des Martyriums des heiligen Paulus und der heiligen Juliana. 3 Beide stehen vor dem römischen Richter Aurelianus, und dieser verlangt von Paulus die gewöhnliche Formel der Lossagung vom Christentum und das Opfer für die heidnischen Götter. Darauf antwortet ihm Paulus: Dieser Zeus, den du für einen Gott hältst, war ein Mensch und der Schüler des Teufels, er hat die Zauberkunst erlernt und war ein grösserer Ehebrecher als alle anderen Männer. Wann immer ihm ein schönes Weib oder eine schöne Jungfrau begegnete, überkam ihn die Lüsternheit, er näherte sich ihnen und vereinigte sich mit ihnen. Dank seiner Zauberkunst konnte er sich einmal in einen Stier, ein anderes Mal in einen Vogel, einen Adler oder eine Elster verwandeln, und mit Hilfe solcher Verwandlungen verführte er die edlen Frauen; anderen erschien er in der Form des Goldes und versprach ihnen Reichtümer. Ich werde nicht mehr sagen, da du sonst zornig wirst. Und der, den du Apollo nennst, wurde er nicht im Ehebruch geboren von einem Weib mit Namen Litojes, die ihn in der assyrischen Wüste zwischen zwei Eichen gebar; und er vollbrachte, seinen Vater nachahmend, lasterhafte Taten. Ebenso Dionys — einer von euren besonders verehrten Göttern — wurde er nicht als Frucht des Ehebruchs von der Tochter des Kadmos geboren? Kann der Gott sein, der vom Weibe geboren wurde? Aurelian antwortet zwar, dass auch der Gott der Christen ("euer Gott", der Name Christi wird nicht genannt) vom Weibe geboren sei — doch der Autor des "Martyriums" hat vergessen, die Antwort darauf aufzuzeichnen. Der ganze Text ist einö genaue Übersetzung des griechischen Originals, der zum ersten Mal in den zwanziger Jahren unseres Jahrhunderts von R. Trautmann und R. Klostermann herausgegeben wurde. Der Ursprung des griechischen Textes ist mir nicht bekannt. Seinem Charakter nach handelt es sich um einen Bericht über einen Gerichtsprozess, der tatsächlich stattgefunden und mit der Todesstrafe für die beiden Heiligen geendet hat. In jedem Fall war der Autor des "Martyriums" mit dem christlichen Euhemerismus bekannt, und die Leser seines Werkes sollten daraus mit dieser Theorie über den Ursprung des Heidentums bekannt werden. 4

3

-Das "Martyrium" ist eine spezielle Gattung der hagiographischen Literatur: die "Martyrien" handeln nur vom Gericht über die Heiligen und von ihrer Hinrichtung. 4 Der Inhalt dieses Aufsatzes war Gegenstand meines Vortrages auf dem 2. Kongress der slavischen Historiker in Salzburg im September 1967. Die Protokolle des Kongresses enthalten ausführlichere Zitate aus den Quellen und aus der wissenschaftlichen Literatur.

28

DMITRIJ TSCfflZEWSKIJ

2 Eines der Kiever Denkmäler aus dem 11. Jahrhundert ist die sogenannte Nestor-Chronik, die in ihrer endgültigen Fassung ganz zu Beginn des 12. Jahrhunderts abgeschrieben wurde. Hier linden wir in der Erzählung über die Taufe des Fürsten Vladimir, die unter dem Jahre 986 eingetragen ist, eine ausführliche Predigt eines griechischen Missionars und "Philosophen"; dieser Name bezeichnete in Byzanz einen Professor der Hochschule von Konstantinopel, der wir den Namen einer Universität nicht absprechen können. Diese Predigt wurde sehr wahrscheinlich nicht bei der ersten Redaktion (ungefähr um das Jahr 1036/7) in die Chronik eingetragen, sondern später, am Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts, und die Vermutung, dass diese Predigt ein bulgarisches Werk aus dem 10. oder 11. Jahrhundert darstellt, ist nicht unbegründet. Ihr Autor war kaum ein wirklicher "Philosoph", oder Theologe: die Predigt enthält in einer kurzen Darstellung die gesamte Heilsgeschichte des Alten und Neuen Testaments, und es gibt darin eine ganze Reihe von Stellen, die nicht aus der kirchlichen Literatur entlehnt sind, sondern aus der apokryphen. In einigen von diesen Stellen finden sich mindestens Andeutungen auf den Euhemerismus, allerdings nicht nur auf den griechischen, sondern auch auf den althebräischen.5 Nach der Erzählung dieser Predigt entstand die Götzenanbetung nach der Teilung und "Vermischung" der Sprachen beim Turmbau von Babel. In der Predigt lesen wir, dass "Seruch der Begründer der Götzenanbetung war"; der Name des Seruch ist aus der Bibel bekannt; er wird im 1. Buch Mose (11, 20-22) erwähnt und im Evangelium des Lukas (in der Genealogie Christi, 3, 34-35) und gilt als der Urgrossvater Abrahams. Die Predigt in der Nestor-Chronik nennt ihn den Grossvater Abrahams und berichtet folgendes über ihn: "Seruch fertigte Statuen zu Ehren von Verstorbenen an (im Text steht "Götzen", aber aus dem gesamten Inhalt wird ganz klar, dass er diese Statuen keinesfalls für Abbilder von Göttern hielt. D. Tsch.), von denen einige Könige, andere Helden oder Zauberer oder unzüchtige Frauen waren." Der Vater Abrahams, Tharah, 5

Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach stammt dieses Material aus einer byzantinischen Quelle, wenn die Predigt von einem bulgarischen oder Kiever Chronisten geschrieben wurde. Die Apokryphen oder "Verbotenen Bücher" sind Werke, in denen Nachrichten über solche Persönlichkeiten und Ereignisse des Alten und Neuen Testaments dargestellt werden, die in der Bibel nur kurz oder undeutlich erwähnt werden. Die Apokryphen wurden nicht in den biblischen Kanon aufgenommen, aber einige von ihnen wurden auch von orthodoxen Lesern gern gelesen, während die Lektüre anderer, "von Gott abgefallener Bücher" von der Kirche verboten wurde.

EUHEMER ISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

29

der bei seinem Vater gelernt hatte, begann auch, Statuen anzufertigen, er jedoch hielt sie für Abbilder der Götter. Abraham blickte gegen Himmel, nachdem er erwachsen geworden war, sah die Sterne und den Himmel und sprach zu sich selbst: wahrlich der ist Gott, der Himmel und Erde geschaffen hat, und mein Vater betrügt die Menschen. Und Abraham beschloss: ich werde die Götter meines Vaters versuchen. Und er sprach zu seinem Vater: Vater, warum betrügst du die Menschen, indem du hölzerne Götzenbilder anfertigst? Gott ist der, der Himmel und Erde geschaffen hat; und er nahm einen Feuerbrand und zündete die Götzenbilder an.

Diese Erzählung beruht nicht auf der Bibel, sondern auf einer apokryphen Darstellung des Lebens Abrahams. Aus derselben Quelle stammt auch die Mitteilung darüber, dass Aron, der Bruder Abrahams, zusammen mit den Götterbildern verbrannte, als er versuchte, sie zu retten. Über den althebräischen Euhemerismus, der hier erkennbar wird, werden wir weiter unten noch sprechen. An einer späteren Stelle in derselben Predigt wird auch die Götzenanbetung der Israeliten nach Salomon erwähnt: sie begannen, Baal zu verehren, d.h. den Gott des Krieges Ores (in anderen Varianten auch Ares); die Erwähnung des griechischen Kriegsgottes Ares weist darauf hin, dass hier bereits eine Verknüpfung des griechischen und althebräischen Euhemerismus zugrunde liegt. Die Bedeutung dieser Stelle wird uns klar, wenn wir sie einer deutlicheren Stelle aus einer anderen Chronik, der sogenannten IpatiusChronik gegenüberstellen.

3 In der Ipatius-Chronik bildet die sogenannte Nestor-Chronik den ersten Teil, nur ist sie dort etwas überarbeitet; die Überarbeitung betrifft in erster Linie die letzten Jahre der Chronik, die mit dem Jahre 1110 abschliesst. In dieser Überarbeitung haben zweifellos die Wünsche, vielleicht sogar der Befehl des Fürsten Vladimir Monomax (auf dem Kiever Thron von 1113-1125) eine Rolle gespielt und wahrscheinlich auch die Wünsche seines Sohnes und Nachfolgers Mstislav (auf dem Kiever Thron von 1125-1132). Der Vater Vladimir ist uns als Autor bekannt; Mstislav, Vladimir's Sohn aus seiner ersten Ehe mit Gita, der Tochter des angelsächsischen Königs Harald, hatte mehr oder weniger ernsthafte literarische und politische Interessen. Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass auf seine Anregung hin in die Fortsetzung der Nestor-Chronik unter dem

30

DMITRIJ TSCHI2EWSKIJ

Jahre 1114 Berichte aus der Geschichte des Fürstentums Novgorod aufgenommen wurden, dessen Thron Mstislav bis zum Tode seines Vaters innehatte. Diese Berichte mögen entweder auf seine eigenen Erzählungen zurückgehen, oder auf die seiner Mitarbeiter aus Novgorod. Auf diese Novgoroder Nachrichten und einen Hinweis auf den Xronograf (darüber unten mehr) folgt jedoch eine "euhemerische Seite". Ihr Inhalt steht im Zusammenhang mit einer vorausgehenden Erzählung über Gegenstände, die vom Himmel fallen. Nach der Sintflut und nach der Aufteilung der Sprachen regierte am Anfang Mestrom aus dem Geschlechte Harns, nach ihm Jeremias, nach ihm Feosta, den die Ägypter Svarog nannten. Während der Regierung des Feosta in Ägypten fielen Zecken vom Himmel und danach begannen die Ägypter Waffen zu schmieden, denn bis dahin hatten sie mit Stöcken und Steinen gekämpft. Derselbe Feosta verkündete ein Gesetz darüber, daß sich die Frauen mit einem Mann verheiraten und rechtschaffen leben sollten, und für den Ehebruch befahl er die Todesstrafe; darum wurde er Svarog genannt. Vorher aber kamen die Frauen zusammen, mit wem sie wollten, wie Tiere. Wenn eine Frau ein Kind gebar, übergab sie es dem, den sie liebte: das ist dein Kind. Der Mann aber richtete ein Fest und nahm das Kind an. Feosta schaffte diese Sitte ab und bestimmte, das ein Mann eine Frau haben und eine Frau sich mit einem Mann verheiraten sollte und daß der, der dieses Gesetz brach, in den Feuerofen geworfen werden sollte. Darum nannten ihn die Ägypter Svarog und verehrten ihn. Nach ihm regierte sein Sohn mit Namen Sonne, den sie Daz'bog hießen. Er regierte 7470 Tage, das heißt zwanzig Jahre. 6 Der König Sonne, d.h. Daz'bog, der Sohn Svarogs, war ein starker Mann. Nachdem er durch einen der Ägypter von einer schönen und reichen Frau gehört hatte und durch denselben erfahren hatte, daß jemand ihr Buhle werden wollte, suchte er eine Gelegenheit, sie auf frischer Tat zu ertappen, weil er das Gesetz seines Vaters Svarog nicht brechen wollte. Er nahm einige Männer mit sich und erfuhr die Zeit, wann sie nachts Ehebruch betrieb, überfiel sie und fand nicht ihren Mann bei ihr, sondern fand sie liegend mit einem anderen, mit wem sie wollte. Er unterwarf sie der Marter und befahl, sie zur Strafe im ägyptischen Land herumzuführen, aber den Ehebrecher ließ er enthaupten. Und es begann ein reines Leben im ganzen ägyptischen Land und sie begannen, ihn zu loben. Diese Erzählung bricht ab mit den Worten "wir werden diese Erzählung nicht fortführen". Diese Seite, die den Eindruck einer gewissen Hilflosigkeit in der Darstellung erweckt, ist aus einem kompilierten Chronographen übernommen, der uns nicht erhalten ist und der auf der Grundlage griechischer "Chroniken" zusammengestellt wurde. Die Idee des Euhemeris6 Hier folgt eine Erzählung über den ägyptischen Mondkalender, die für uns nicht von Interesse ist.

EUHEMERISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

31

mus selbst ist aus diesen "Chroniken" übernommen, dazu die Identifizierung griechischer Götter mit ägyptischen Herrschern und schliesslich mit den slavischen heidnischen Göttern. Wenn wir uns den griechischen Quellen zuwenden, finden wir dort natürlich sowohl Hermes (-Jeremias) als auch Hephästos, der in unserem Text mit dem slavischen Svarog identifiziert wird, wie auch den griechischen Helios-Sonne, der hier unter dem Namen des slavischen Daz-bog erscheint.

4 Woher das alles stammt, ist nicht schwer zu sagen, da sich die Chronik auf den Xronograf bezieht. Und was die "Chronographen" waren, ist uns wohl bekannt: sie waren Kompilationen der Weltgeschichte, die auf der Grundlage solcher "historischen" Werke wie der Bibel und übersetzter griechischer Chroniken zusammengestellt wurden. Zwar sind uns nur die späteren Bearbeitungen der Chronographen bekannt und nur einige der spätesten Handschriften sind ediert. Aber gerade die Quelle der zitierten Stelle ist leicht festzustellen: es ist der Euhemerismus der byzantinischen Chroniken und besonders einer von diesen: der Chronik des Malalas. Sie wurde aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach im 10. Jahrhundert in Bulgarien übersetzt, während der Blütezeit der altbulgarischen Literatur. Es handelt sich nicht um eine Chronik im wahren Sinne des Wortes, sondern um eine populäre, dazu leichtgewichtige und wenig wertvolle Darstellung der allgemeinen (hauptsächlich altgriechischen und byzantinischen) Geschichte. Das griechische Original ist uns bekannt, obwohl es schlecht erhalten ist; das Buch wurde von den Byzantinern nicht sehr hoch geschätzt. Über den Autor bestehen nur nicht ganz zuverlässige Vermutungen. Der Inhalt schliesst mit dem 6. Jahrhundert ab (genauer mit der Mitte des 6. Jahrhunderts), aber das Original reichte wahrscheinlich bis zum Jahre 575. Die Edition des slavischen Textes verdanken wir dem unermüdlichen Herausgeber altrussischer Texte, V. Istrin. In kirchlichen Fragen ist Malalas nicht immer ganz rechtgläubig. Das Buch war offensichtlich für weite Leserkreise bestimmt und der Verfasser räumt neben den historischen Fakten der Mythologie und allerhand Anekdoten und Legenden ziemlich viel Platz ein. Die Übersetzung der Malalas-Chronik wurde bei den Ostslaven zu einem der Grundelemente des Typus von Chronographen, die später "Hellenische" (d.h. griechische) oder "Römische Chronographen"

32

DMITRIJ TSCm^EWSKlJ

genannt wurden. Selbstverständlich fanden in diesem Werk neben der griechischen Mythologie auch Erzählungen aus der Bibel ihren Platz. Und hier war fruchtbarer Boden für den Euhemerismus. In seiner Darstellung der allgemeinen Züge der griechischen Mythologie betrachtet Malalas die griechischen heidnischen Götter als Helden des Altertums, die durch Unkenntnis und Irrtum zu Göttern gemacht wurden. Die Namen der griechischen Götter erscheinen bei Malalas zuerst als Namen der Planeten. Wir kennen sie inzwischen in ihrer lateinischen Form. Unsere Vorfahren nannten die Planeten mit ihren griechischen Namen: nicht Mars, sondern Ares, nicht Venus, sondern Aphrodite usw. Nach Malalas war es Seth, der dritte Sohn Adams und Evas, der den Planeten diese (griechischen) Namen gab. Und die Namen der Planeten (d.h. die Namen der griechischen Götter) wurden nach der Erzählung des Malalas später den Kindern von Herrschern und bemerkenswerten Menschen gegeben. Es waren Menschen, die die Namen der Planeten trugen. Später begann man, sie für Götter zu halten, da man sie als Begründer der "kulturellen Werte" der Menschheit ansah: der Moral (wie wir aus der Erzählung in der Ipatius-Chronik gesehen haben), der Schriftkunst, Landwirtschaft, Kriegführung usw. Chronos (lateinisch Saturn) war der Enkel des biblischen Noah und empfing seinen Namen von dem Planeten Chronos-Saturn. Und wie in der griechischen Mythologie fürchtete Chronos, dass sein Sohn, wie es prophezeit war, ihn vom Thron stossen würde, und er begann, seine Kinder zu verschlingen, bis seine Frau die List erdachte, ihm an Stelle des neugeborenen Zeus (in den altrussischen Texten Zeves, Zoves oder Dij) einen Stein unterzuschieben; Zeus erhielt dann den Namen des strahlenden Planeten Jupiter-Zeus. Er wurde gerettet und stiess seinen Vater vom Thron. Seine Liebesabenteuer werden von Malalas als Ereignisse eines Menschenlebens erklärt. Auf Euhemeros geht wahrscheinlich auch die Mitteilung zurück, dass sich das Grab des Zeus auf der Insel Kreta erhalten hat. Auch andere Götter erscheinen bei Malalas nur als Menschen: Hermes (Jermij oder Ieremija) trug den griechischen Namen des Planeten Merkur und erfand, ein "kluger und gelehrter Mann" die Kunst, Metall, besonders Gold, zu schmieden. Und als "gelehrter Mann" sagte er bereits die Trinität voraus. Die einzelnen Elemente der griechischen Mythologie werden in die Plattheit des menschlichen Lebens übertragen: so war der Schmied Hephästos (lateinisch Vulkan) deswegen lahm, weil ihm ein Pferd den Fuss verletzt hatte. Weiter werden die Helden erwähnt, die auch die Heiden nur für Menschen hielten: Perseus der Stammvater der Könige

EUHEMERISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

33

von Babylon und Begründer der Feueranbetung; Malalas kennt Dädalus und Ikarus, aber auch sie werden von Malalas vom Himmel auf die Erde gebracht: Ikarus fiel nicht im kühnen Flug vom Himmel, sondern ertrank auf der Flucht aus Kreta, sein Vater Dädalus wurde einfach hingerichtet. Auch Herakles, Ödipus und andere griechische Helden werden erwähnt. Manchmal werden in die Erzählungen von ihnen christliche Motive eingeflochten: so empfangen die Argonauten von Pythia eine Prophezeiung über die Gottesmutter und schreiben diese beim Bau ihres Tempels auf einer Marmorplatte nieder (übrigens mit einer Darstellung des Erzengels Michael). Auf dieselbe Weise werden auch die Götter, die am Trojanischen Krieg teilgenommen haben, vermenschlicht, die Göttinnen erscheinen ganz einfach als Zauberinnen. Auch die griechischen Philosophen (Plato und "Anaximander") und die Dichter werden erwähnt. Aber alles das ist schon nicht mehr eine "euhemeristische" Überarbeitung der Mythen, sondern einfach eine christliche "Stilisierung" von Erzählungen über die altgriechische Kultur und Geschichte. 7 Dem Chronographen, aus dem die Ipatius-Handschrift diese "euhemeristische Seite" übernommen hat, hat an dieser Stelle aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach das zweite Buch von Malalas zu Grunde gelegen, und wahrscheinlich hat es schon der bulgarische Übersetzer für nötig gehalten, die Namen der heidnischen Götter durch slavische Namen zu erklären: Hephästos (feosta) und Helios (Sonne) werden durch die slavischen Namen Svarog und Daz'bog erklärt. Uns ist der Chronograph nur in einem Text aus dem 13. Jahrhundert bekannt. Aber der Verfasser dieser euhemeristischen Seite aus der Ipatius-Handschrift hatte noch einen älteren Text zur Verfügung, und dieser Text enthielt, wie uns die Forschungen von V. Istrin und A. Saxmatov zeigen, ausser der Chronik des Malalas noch eine zweite in Russland bekannte byzantinische Chronik. Diese zweite griechische Chronik, die dem slavischen Euhemerismus als Grundlage diente, war ein Werk Georgs des Mönches, mit Beinamen Hamartolos (griech. Hamartolos = Sünder, der Beiname ist eine Variante Nach meinem Vortrag auf dem Salzburger Kongreß erschien (völlig zufällig) im Archeographischen Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1968 ein Artikel von Z. Udal'covaja über die Chronik des Malalas. In diesem Artikel wird auch Malalas' Interpretation des Heidentums erwähnt. Der Euhemerismus ist der Autorin unbekannt. Sie macht zuviel aus der Tatsache, daß man sich in Rußland die griechischen Götter als Herrscher der Vorzeit vorstellte, denn sie vergißt, daß Malalas ein übersetztes Denkmal ist. Von den Zeugnissen des Euhemerismus in anderen Denkmälern ist bei ihr nicht die Rede. 7

34

DMITRJJ TSCHlZEWSKIJ

der "Topoi der Bescheidenheit", erinnern wir uns auch an den Namen des Jermolaj Peregresnyj, des Schriftstellers aus dem 16. Jahrhundert). Das Werk Georgs des Mönches (Die zeitlichen und sinnbildlichen Bücher) ist in einer Reihe selbständiger ostslavischer Abschriften erhalten, die sich über den Zeitraum zwischen dem 13.-14. und dem 16. Jahrhundert erstrecken; es wurde aber zweifellos bereits im 11. Jahrhundert übersetzt. Die Übersetzung wurde entweder in Kiev unter Jaroslav dem Weisen oder auf "Bestellung" Jaroslavs in Konstantinopel angefertigt, möglicherweise unter Beteiligung von Angehörigen verschiedener slavischer Völker. Auch diese Chronik ist eigentlich keine Chronik, sondern eine Weltgeschichte, sehr viel ausführlicher und gründlicher und "trockener" geschrieben als das Buch von Malalas; die Übersetzung ist ebenso trocken und nicht ohne Fehler. Neben der "russischen" Übersetzung existieren auch serbische Abschriften, die aber bis jetzt noch nicht genügend erforscht sind und die uns nicht erlauben, Rückschlüsse auf die Existenz noch anderer südslavischer (serbischer oder bulgarischer) Übersetzungen zu ziehen. Hamartolos ist nicht nur in verschiedenen Abschriften erhalten, sondern auch in Zitaten und längeren Auszügen, die ebenfalls in den "Hellenischen" oder "Römischen" Chronograph und in die kommentierten Zusammenfassungen der Geschichte des Alten Testaments, die sogenannten Kommentierten Paleen einverleibt wurden. Auch Hamartolos ist von V. Istrin ediert worden. Leider wissen wir sehr wenig über die Illustrationen, mit denen die älteste Handschrift aus dem 13.-14. Jahrhundert reich geschmückt war. Nach einigen Mitteilungen gab es 16 Abschriften, doch sind einige davon, die noch im 19. Jahrhundert erhalten waren, inzwischen verloren gegangen. Im Gegensatz zu Malalas ist das griechische Original vollständig bekannt. Die Darstellung reicht bis ins 11. Jahrhundert; die letzten Teile sind wahrscheinlich die Arbeit eines späteren Verfassers, der das Werk des Hamartolos fortgesetzt hat. Hamartolos war den Chronisten ebenfalls bekannt, und nicht wenige Eintragungen in der Nestor-Chronik sind von ihm entlehnt. Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass diese Entlehnungen erst am Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts als Ergänzungen zum ursprünglichen Text in die Chronik aufgenommen wurden und dass sie möglicherweise, wenigstens zum Teil, aus demselben Chronographen übernommen wurden, aus dem auch der Auszug zum Jahre 1114 stammt. Wie Malalas ist auch Hamartolos ein Euhemerist. Auch hier finden wir die Namen der griechischen Götter zuerst als Namen der Planeten, die ihnen von Seth, dem Erfinder der althebräischen Schrift, gegeben

EUHEMERISMUS IM DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

35

wurden. Ausführlicher als bei Malalas bezeichnet die Darstellung die Namen der Gottheiten und Helden ebenso als Namen von altorientalischen, ägyptischen und griechischen Herrschern und "Erfindern" (dieses scheinbar so moderne Wort ist bereits so alt). Wir können hier nicht auf Einzelheiten eingehen. Es fehlt, jedenfalls in den Handschriften, die von Istrin benutzt wurden, die Identifizierung der Namen der alten heidnischen Gottheiten mit den Namen der slavischen. Im Hinblick auf den grösseren Umfang des Denkmals ist das Bild detaillierter und "bunter"; wie auch bei Malalas sind die Fakten oder Legenden der griechischen Geschichte mit der Geschichte des alten Orients verflochten. Die Darstellung des gesamten Materials ist hier für uns nicht von Interesse. Wesentlich ist nur eins: es steht ausser Zweifel, dass der Euhemerismus des Hamartolos aus derselben Quelle stammt wie der des Malalas. Diese Quelle zu finden, ist Aufgabe der Byzantinologen, die sich für diese Frage bisher nicht interessiert haben (ich habe schon oben über die flüchtige Erwähnung eines späten Euhemerismus bei Krumbacher und über die Tatsache, dass Beck dieses Thema nicht behandelt, gesprochen). Der Name des Euhemeros wird in beiden Chroniken nicht erwähnt, doch bezieht sich Malalas an verschiedenen Stellen auf seine Quellen: auf den "weisen" Palaiphatos, einen griechischen Schriftsteller aus dem 4.-3. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert, auf "Lukanos" (das ist natürlich der spätgriechische Schriftsteller Lukian) und auf Apollonius, den Autor der Argonauten-Sage. Hamartolos verschweigt seine Quellen oder Vorbilder.

5 Die Eintragung unter dem Jahr 1114 in der Nestor-Chronik wurde zweifellos am Ende der Arbeiten am Text über das 11. Jahrhundert gemacht, sie ist inhaltlich mit der Erzählung über die "Wunder" im Nordosten des Novgoroder Fürstentums verbunden, d.h. mit der Zeit von Vladimir Monomax oder Mstislav Vladimirovic. Von der Chronik können wir uns einem Denkmal zuwenden, das um einige Jahrzehnte jünger ist und zwischen 1185 und 1187 niedergeschrieben wurde: dem Igorlied. In diesem bemerkenswerten Denkmal begegnen uns die Namen einiger heidnischer Gottheiten. Die Erwähnung dieser Namen in einem Text der christlichen Zeit könnte das beste und einzig überzeugende Zeugnis dafür sein, dass wir es in dieser Zeit mit einem wirklichen "Doppelglauben" und nicht mit einfachem "Aberglauben" zu tun haben,

36

DMITRIJ TSCHliEWSIOJ

das heisst also mit dem Glauben an heidnische Götter und nicht an "Dämonen" der "niederen Mythologie" gleichzeitig mit dem Glauben an den christlichen Gott. Aber der Kontext an allen den Stellen im Igorlied, wo die heidnischen Götternamen erwähnt werden, veranlasst uns dazu, den Verfasser nicht für einen "Doppelgläubigen" zu halten, sondern für einen Vertreter des weltlichen Euhemerismus. Diese Stellen seien hier angeführt. Wir finden vor allem Bojan, den "Sänger" (Dichter) des 11. Jahrhunderts; die Stellen, an denen auf die Werke Bojan's verwiesen wird, sprechen von Ereignissen des 11. Jahrhunderts. Bojan ist der "Weise", d.h. ein Prophet oder Seher, er ist die "Nachtigale der alten Zeiten". Schliesslich spricht der Autor des Igorliedes ihn direkt an: "du musstest so singen, Bojan, Enkel des Veles". Es folgt ein Zitat, das offensichtlich eine Nachahmung des Stils von Bojan darstellt: "Pferde wiehern jenseits von Sula, Ruhm erklingt in Kiev, Posaunen blasen in Novgorod, Banner stehen in PutivF". Veles ist uns aus den Erwähnungen seines Namens in den Predigten und Legenden bekannt: er ist ein Gott des Viehes oder Reichtums (das Wort skot bezeichnete nämlich nicht nur Tiere, sondern auch alle Arten von Schätzen, ebenso hatte das Wort skotnica auch die Bedeutung einer fürstlichen Schatzkammer); es wird erwähnt, dass es Kultstätten des Veles in Kiev und im nördlichen Rostov gab. Hamartolos erwähnt Apollo als Erfinder der Kunst der Musik. Offensichtlich wurde Veles mit Apollo identifiziert, und der Verfasser des Igorliedes hält darum den "Sänger" Bojan für den "Enkel des Veles". Danach erscheint vor uns Daz'bog; er ist der Ahnherr der Russen im allgemeinen: während der Zeit der Fehden unter Oleg Svjatoslaviö (dem der Verfasser den Beinamen Gorislavic gibt, den er wahrscheinlich schon bei Lebzeiten, vor seinem Tode im Jahre 1115, erhielt), in jenen Zeiten, "als die Enkel Daz'bogs verdarben, als die Fehden der Fürsten ihnen das Leben verkürzten". (Im Originaltext finden wir das Wort dostojanie in der Bedeutung von 'Leben', die gewöhnliche Wortbedeutung jener Zeit). Die Heere des Fürsten Igor, des Helden des Igorliedes, wurden von den Polovtzern geschlagen: "es fielen die Banner Igors". Die "Jungfrau Kränkung" (Deva-Obida) erscheint (ich halte dieses Wesen für eine Gestalt aus der niederen Mythologie), sie "erhob sich inmitten der Heere des Enkels Daz'bogs, plätscherte mit Schwanenflügeln im blauen Meer am Don, plätschernd vertrieb sie die üppigen Zeiten". Hier stehen die Worte "Enkel Daz'bogs" für einen Sammelnamen der Ostslaven, der "Russen": sie verloren ihr Leben in den Zeiten der Fürstenfehden, die "Jungfrau Kränkung" erscheint in ihren Heeren,

EUHEMER1SMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

37

in ihren Besitzungen in den Steppen des Südens oder sogar am Asowschen Meer, am Don, denn Fürst Igor, der Held des Igorliedes, suchte ja die verlorene Stadt und das verlorene Fürstentum Tmutorokan' am Asowschen Meer. Daz'bog ist in der Chronik und der Übersetzung des Malalas irgendein alter Herrscher des Ostens, hier ist von ihm die Rede, als ob es sich um einen slavischen Fürsten der Urzeit handelte: er ist, wie auch in der Chronik, der Sonnengott, Helios-Daz'bog, der Spender des Reichtums. Die dritte euhemeristische Genealogie des Igorliedes betrifft den Gott der Winde, Stribog; schon bei Beginn der Kriegshandlungen "schleudern die Winde, die Enkel Stribogs, Pfeile auf die tapferen Heere Igors" und prophezeien die Niederlage wie auch eine Reihe von anderen Omen. "Es erdröhnt die Erde, die Flüsse fliessen trübe, Staub bedeckt die Felder." Hier scheint es tatsächlich, als ob der Verfasser des Igorliedes Stribog noch wirklich für einen Gott hält. Aber wir sollten dabei bedenken, dass die ukrainische Bevölkerung der Karpathen bis in die jüngste Zeit die Winde für reale Wesen, für Zauberer hielt, die von darauf spezialisierten Zauberdoktoren bekämpft wurden. Die "Enkel Stribogs" waren offensichtlich für den Verfasser des Igorliedes ebensolche, für ihn zeitgenössische Zauberer, die die Winde regierten wie ihr Ahnherr Stribog, der uns schon aus der Chronik bekannt ist; wie die Chronik mitteilt, stand sein Götzenbild in Kiev.8 Wir werden noch mit einem anderen "Vorfahren" der Zeitgenossen des Igorliedes bekannt gemacht, mit Igor selbst, dem "Enkel des Trojan". Das Problem des Trojan ist nicht ganz geklärt. Wenn es sich bei Trojan einfach um den römischen Kaiser Trajan handelt, dann hätten Erinnerungen an ihn leicht aus den bekannten griechischen Chroniken nach Russland eindringen können. Er wird natürlich bei Hamartolos erwähnt, als guter Herrscher, der "das Böse hasste und die Gerechtigkeit liebte". Es ist bemerkenswert, dass ihm die Äusserung in den Mund gelegt wird, die an den Waffenschwur des älteren Igor (10. Jahrhundert) im Vertrag mit den Griechen erinnert: dort sagt Trajan, indem er seine Waffe vor den Würdenträgern entblösst (offenbar ein Schwert — D.Tsch.): "wenn ich gut regieren werde, so sei das für mich, wenn ich schlecht regiere, so sei das gegen mich." Osteuropa, oder wenigstens der südliche 8

Ein Vortrag, den Prof. R. Hampe kürzlich in der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften gehalten hat, könnte hier erwähnt werden: der Autor des bereits gedruckten Aufsatzes weist darauf hin, daß sich bei den Griechen die Verehrung von Winddämonen bis in unsere Zeit erhalten hat. Es ist darum nicht verwunderlich, daß man im Rußland des 12. Jahrhunderts mit Winddämonen rechnete.

38

DMITRIJ TSCHI^EWSKIJ

Teil davon, das "blaue Meer am Don" im Igorlied, ist das "Land Trojans". Wenn der Verfasser des Igorliedes glaubte, dass Osteuropa zum Römischen Imperium gehörte, so waren seine geographischen Kenntnisse nicht gut, aber sein Geschichtsbewusstsein war nicht unbedingt eines tieferen Sinnes bar. Und dann waren natürlich die Fürsten des alten Russland Nachfolger Trajans. Aber eine völlig andere Möglichkeit, den Namen Trojans zu interpretieren, ist nicht ausgeschlossen. Trojan kann eine heidnische Gottheit der Ostslaven gewesen sein, ein steinernes Standbild des Gottes Trojan wird in der "Schmerzenswanderung der Muttergottes" erwähnt (dieses Denkmal ist eine Übersetzung aus dem Griechischen, doch sind die Namen der Götter, die in der Übersetzung genannt werden, slavisch: "Trojan, Xors, Veles, Perun"; ihre Betrachtung hier ist weit vom Euhemerismus entfernt: die Götter erscheinen als "böse Geister"). Wenn Trojan eine heidnische Gottheit war, wäre die Bezeichnung Igors als "Enkel des Trojan" mehr als eine phantastische Genealogie, wie z.B. die spätere Ableitung der Dynastie Rjuriks vom Kaiser Augustus, sondern ebenfalls ein typischer Euhemerismus. Schliesslich wird im Igorlied noch eine letzte heidnische Gottheit erwähnt: Xors. Freilich erscheint sein Name nicht in einem euhemeristischen Zusammenhang: Vseslav, der Zauberfürst der Polovzer (der nach R. Jakobson vielleicht sogar ein Werwolf war) trabte nachts als Wolf umher, "aus Kiev trabte er bis zum Hahnenschrei nach Tmutorokan" (am Asowschen Meer!), "dem grossen Xors durchtrabte er als Wolf den Pfad". Nach unseren Informationen war Xors ein Sonnengott, und hier wird sein Name als Synonym für die Sonne erwähnt; der Verfasser des Igorliedes stellte sich offenbar vor, dass sich der nächtliche Weg Vseslavs mit dem nächtlichen Weg der Sonne kreuzte. Diese Stelle über Vseslav, einen Fürsten des 11. Jahrhunderts (1022-1101), ist übrigens sehr wahrscheinlich ein Zitat aus einem Werke seines Zeitgenossen Bojan, oder mindestens eine Nachahmung Bojans. Der poetische Euhemerismus des Igorliedes ist sehr viel bemerkenswerter als die schwerfälligen Darstellungen des Hamartolos und das leichte Geschwätz des Malalas und, schliesslich, viel klarer als die wenig gelungene Nacherzählung in der Chronik. 9

9

Ich habe auf den Euhemerismus des Igorliedes in meiner auf Deutsch geschriebenen Geschichte der altrussischen Literatur hingewiesen (Altrussische Literaturgeschichte im 11. 12. und 13. Jahrhundert [Frankfurt, 1948], 342).

EUHEMERISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

39

6 Wir brauchen hier die Geschichte des Euhemerismus in der späteren russischen Literatur nicht weiter zu verfolgen: der "Hellenische" und "Römische" Chronograph gehörten mindestens bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts zu den wichtigsten Denkmälern der altrussischen wissenschaftlichen Literatur, nach dem, was man damals darunter verstand. Eine weniger wichtige Rolle spielten die sogenannten "Paleen" oder "kommentierten Paleen", die Darstellungen des Alten Testaments in wesentlicher Verkürzung und mit einigen Kommentaren waren. In ihnen findet sich jedoch noch anderes euhemeristisches Material, nämlich Material zum althebräischen Euhemerismus. Auch ein anderer Typ von Chronographen, der sogenannten Jüdische Chronograph, in dem die biblische Geschichte mit Ergänzungen aus anderen Quellen verknüpft wurde, enthielt natürlich althebräisches euhemeristisches Material. Leider ist diese ganze Gruppe von Denkmälern noch nicht endgültig erforscht und nur vereinzelte Texte sind bisher ediert: eine späte, zum zweiten Mal überarbeitete Fassung des Chronographen, die unter der Bezeichnung Der Chronograph des Jahres 1512 bekannt ist, ein zweiter Chronograph, der von einer Handschrift aus der Sammlung des Fürsten Vjazemskij kopiert wurde, zwei völlig zufällig für die Edierung ausgewählte "Paleen", Handschriften aus den Jahren 1407 und 1477. Dabei steht es ausser Zweifel, dass die Chronographen bereits im 13. Jahrhundert existierten, wenn wir schon nicht über den etwas zweifelhaften "Chronographen" sprechen wollen, der in der Chronik unter dem Jahr 1114 erwähnt wird, obwohl es durchaus möglich ist, dass eine Reihe von Zitaten aus der galizisch-volhynischen Chronik des 13. Jahrhunderts auf diesen Chronographen zurückgeht. Und die "Paleen" sind kaum viel jünger. A. Saxmatov behauptet sogar, dass diese Texte von Kommentaren zum Alten Testament schon im 10. Jahrhundert in Bulgarien bearbeitet wurden; diese Meinung wird allerdings von der Mehrzahl der Spezialisten abgelehnt. Für uns ist ausser dem "Hellenischen" und "Römischen" Chronographen der schon oben erwähnte "Jüdische" Chronograph von besonderem Interesse. In diesen Denkmälern finden wir Material, das uns schon zum Teil bekannt ist, wir haben allerdings oben nur Beispiele angeführt, indessen ist in den Chronographen das Material aus den Chroniken des Malalas und des Hamartolos manchmal verändert und manchmal ergänzt. Besonders in den Bearbeitungen des Chronographen aus dem 16.

40

DMITRIJ TSCHI^EWSKIJ

Jahrhundert erscheinen auch einige westliche Quellen, wie zum Beispiel die polnische Chronik des Martin Bielski. Hier erscheinen die Westslaven vor der Christianisierung natürlich als Götzenanbeter, doch ohne Erwähnung der euhemeristischen Voraussetzungen des Heidentums. Gleichzeitig damit entfaltet sich vor unseren Augen das ganze euhemeristische Bild der griechischen Mythologie und Legende: wirkliche Herrscher und Helden des alten Griechenland ziehen an uns vorbei, doch sie unterscheiden sich in nichts von den Göttern, die wir im Überfluss antreffen: Athene, Artemis, Demeter, Poseidon, Aphrodite, Asklepia, Apollo u.ä.; sie stehen neben Homer, Solon, Lykurg und ausserdem neben ägyptischen und altorientalischen Göttern und Helden, wir finden z.B. auch Zarathustra. Dieser ganze bunte Pantheon blieb den Lesern natürlich nicht im Gedächtnis, aber sie erhielten jedenfalls den allgemeinen Eindruck von der Entstehung der Götzenanbetung "aufgrund eines Irrtums". Andere Elemente bereicherten den sogenannten Jüdischen Chronograph, der in der Hauptsache auf historischen Nachrichten aufbaut, die aus der Bibel entnommen sind. Nachrichten über den Ursprung des althebräischen Heidentums werden hier aufgrund althebräischer apokrypher Quellen ergänzt. So erfahren wir von neuem etwas über Seruch, der dem achten Glied nach Noah angehört; er lebte 200 Jahre und begann als "erster, Statuen anzufertigen, da er Männer aus der Vergangenheit als Erfinder wertvoller Gegenstände und als die ersten Weisen verehrte; viele, die nach Seruch geboren wurden, verstanden seine Absicht nicht und begannen, leblose Körper zu verehren und ihnen Opfer darzubringen". Diese naive Erklärung ruht natürlich auf einer Beweisführung, die im Kreise herumführt: konnten doch die Angehörigen einer neuen Generation nur in dem Fall irgendwelche Bildwerke für Abbildungen von Göttern halten, wenn sie schon die folgenden Vorstellungen hatten: 1. die Vorstellung von einer Vielzahl von Göttern, 2. eine Vorstellung davon, dass göttliche Wesen menschliche Gestalt haben oder haben können und schliesslich 3. Kenntnis davon, dass es irgendwo Götzenanbetung gibt und dass man den Abbildungen der Götter "Opfer bringen" kann, das heisst, dass diese Abbildungen auf irgendeine Weise göttliche Eigenschaften und Kräfte in sich verkörpern. Selbstverständlich erscheinen an einigen Stellen des Chronographen "Dämonen" und "Teufel" als "Helfer" bei der Entstehung der götzenanbetenden Verirrung, und an anderen Stellen sind die Götzen oder heidnischen Gottheiten nicht mehr nur einfach das Produkt einer "teuflischen Verblendung", sondern erscheinen selbst als Teufel.

EUHEMERISMUS IN DEN ALTSLAVISCHEN LITERATUREN

41

Die heidnischen Götter treten in einzelnen Fällen als Menschen, Helden oder Zauberer auch in der Darstellung der jüngeren Geschichte auf. So erwähnt zum Beispiel der Chronograph bei der Darstellung der Regierung des byzantinischen Kaisers Roman-Diogenes (zweite Hälfte des 11. Jahrhunderts) den griechischen Kriegsgott Ares als Menschen und Teilnehmer am Kriege mit den Persern: "überall erschien der Kämpfer, der "Verfolger", Ares, der sich mit Blut benetzte und seine Hände purpurrot färbte, als ob er alle Meere mit Blut füllen wollte". (Ich bin hier gezwungen, nur eine ungefähre Übersetzung dieser schwierigen Stelle zu geben). In diesen späten Redaktionen der Denkmäler finden wir neben Spuren des griechischen Euhemerismus auch Spuren des althebräischen. Neben den Apokryphen über Abraham übte wahrscheinlich auch die althebräische Bearbeitung der alttestamentlichen Geschichte, das Buch der Jubileen, Einfluss aus. Die Forscher weisen auch auf Spuren eines hebräischen Euhemerismus im Buche der Weisheit Salomonis hin. Die Eltern fertigten Skulpturen von ihren geliebten verstorbenen Kindern an, und "mit der Zeit begann die gottlose Sitte zu herrschen, diese Statuen als Gottheiten zu verehren". Die Gründe für die Verehrung waren verschiedenartig: "Befehle der Herrscher" (es wurde nicht angedeutet, warum solche Befehle ausgegeben wurden), "die Eitelkeit der Künstler" (offenbar ihr Wunsch, den Wert ihrer Schöpfungen zu erhöhen) und schliesslich die Schönheit der Abbilder. 10 Es ist zweifellos unmöglich, die byzantinische Literatur für die einzige Quelle des altslavischen Euhemerismus zu halten. Ist doch der Euhemerismus auch aus irgendwelchen anderen Quellen in die nördlichen Literaturen eingedrungen: in der isländischen Edda finden sich Spuren des Euhemerismus, Saxus Grammatikus führte den Glauben an Odin auf die Ahnenverehrung zurück. Aber diese Erscheinungen sind für uns nur als Parallelen zum slavischen Euhemerismus interessant.

7 In jedem Fall können wir in den slavischen Literaturen vom 10. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert eine euhemeristische Interpretation des heidnischen Glaubens finden: im 10. Jahrhundert in der Vita von Paul und Juliana 10 Materialien über den althebräischen Euhemerismus sind zum Beispiel in dem bekannten Buch von E. Kautsch, Die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen zusammengefaßt.

42

DMITRIJ TSCHI^EWSKIJ

in der Handschrift von Suprasl'; im gleichen Jahrhundert in der übersetzten Chronik des Malalas; im 11. Jahrhundert in der Übersetzung der Chronik des Hamartolos; in demselben Jahrhundert in der Predigt des "Philosophen" in der Nestor-Chronik; am Anfang des 12. Jahrhunderts (1114) in der Ipatius-Chronik, etwas früher in einem der Chronographen; am Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts (1186-7) im Igorlied; spätestens im 15. Jahrhundert gelangte die bulgarische Übersetzung der Manasse-Chronik nach Moskau, die auch euhemeristische Elemente enthielt; diese Denkmäler, wie auch die Chronik des Hamartolos wurden bis zum 17. Jahrhundert abgeschrieben; eine wichtige Abschrift des Chronographen ist im Jahre 1512 angefertigt worden. Schliesslich gab es seit dem 13. Jahrhundert auch den Jüdischen Chronographen. Wir wissen, dass die Chronographen und Paleen in jedem Fall noch im 17. Jahrhundert gelesen wurden. Der Erfolg der euhemeristischen Motive bei den Slaven, jedenfalls im 10.-12. Jahrhundert, hängt wahrscheinlich mit der Tatsache zusammen, dass bei den Slaven zweifellos eine Tradition der Ahnenverehrung existierte. Dass allein der slavische Herrscher Fürst Igor aus dem Igorlied als Nachkomme eines möglicherweise göttlichen Vorfahren Trojan erwähnt wird, ist wahrscheinlich nur ein Zufall, wie auch der Umstand, dass das Igorlied, anders als die zweifellos zahlreichen verlorenen Denkmäler, dem Verlust entging. Die Theologen können die Frage lösen, ob nicht der Euhemerismus ein bewusst angewandtes Motiv der christlichen Mission und "Propaganda" war. Materialien, um diese Frage zu beantworten, besitzen wir nicht, trotz der beträchtlichen Zahl von "Reden", die von geistlichen Persönlichkeiten und "Christusliebhabern" gegen das Heidentum gerichtet wurden. (Ob diese letztere Bezeichnung, wie einige Forscher annehmen, weltliche Schriftsteller beschrieb, die für das Christentum kämpften, ist eine ungelöste Frage.) Möglicherweise könnte die Erklärung einiger Stellen in diesen Schriften, durch die uns übrigens die Namen der heidnischen Gottheiten erhalten geblieben sind, die Frage im positiven Sinne beantworten oder im negativen Sinne festeilen, dass der Euhemerismus in dieser Literatur keine Rolle gespielt hat. In jedem Fall ist die Existenz eines slavischen Euhemerismus im allgemeinen nicht zu bezweifeln, und die historische Literatur muss auf die altrussischen Leser Einfluss ausgeübt haben. Weitere Arbeit der Byzantinologen (und nicht nur der slavischen) muss noch klären, auf welchem Wege euhemeristische Anschauungen in die byzantinische Literatur eingedrungen sind und welche wichtige Bedeutung ihnen in den byzantinischen Chroniken zukam.

POPULAR RELIGION IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIA

DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

Medieval Russian Christianity arose out of the impact of Byzantium upon the Slavonic nations of eastern and south-eastern Europe. This impact was itself the result of the expansion of the Graeco-Roman and Christian civilization of Byzantium across the Balkan peninsula and into the plains and forests of European Russia. Both at the point of origin and at the receiving end, this expansion and consequently its impact were confined, at least at first, to narrowly defined social groups. The encounter between Byzantium and the Slavs in the realms of religion and culture was primarily an encounter of men who belonged to the cultural elite of their several countries, essentially to the upper levels of Church and State. And the channel through which Byzantine sacred and secular literature was borrowed and adapted by the most cultured and articulate circles in the Slavonic lands, was the vernacular tradition of Cyril and Methodius. Christian doctrine and the political theory of the East Roman Empire, two essential features of Byzantium acquired by the Orthodox Slavs, affected at first no more then the ruling classes of these countries, and indeed were accepted by their sovereigns only after political negotiations with the Empire at the highest diplomatic level. Monasticism was also a Byzantine legacy bequeathed to the Orthodox Slavs; and though, from the beginning, it attracted men of widely different social origins, it, too, at least at the summits of the religious life, was confined to an élite: an élite distinguished not by power in the land, and not always by cultural superiority, but by pre-eminence in the realm of the spirit. However, this spiritual pre-eminence poses a problem for the historian of medieval Slavic religion: it is not always safe to draw a picture of a people's religious life from the example of those impelled by the words of Christ: "If thou wouldst be perfect. Blane (ed.), The Religious World of Russian Culture, Vol. II, pp. 43-54. © Mouton Publishers 1975.

44

DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

A picture of a people's religious life: to attempt such a thing is hard enough in periods for which the evidence is abundant and accessible; but in the case of the Middle Ages in Eastern Europe, where the sources are seldom plentiful and tend to illumine no more than the peaks of spiritual achievement, it is an especially difficult enterprise. It is no wonder that it has been but seldom attempted. The late Norman Baynes once complained that students of Byzantine religion have paid too much attention to the circus parties in Constantinople, and not enough to the faith of humble provincial folk. 1 In his admirable essay "The Hellenistic Civilization and East Rome" he made this point more forcibly still: "Time", he wrote, "has preserved the thoughts of the master minds: do you not as you follow panting in the wake of that thought sigh at times for something less mountainous — a little more of thought's foot-hills?" 2 It is mainly to the foot-hills of Russian medieval religion that this article is devoted. From the summit, formed by the tradition of Orthodox spirituality, we will descend gradually, through four stages on to four different levels of religious life. On the first we shall still be in sight of the summit. Here the vision of sanctity, without losing its fullness and purity, will be seen partly through the eyes of simple folk: this stage or level is the popular cult of saints. At the second stage, lower down the imaginary mountain, the purity of Christian tradition is diluted by a certain admixture of legend and myth. Here we shall see Christian doctrine transmuted through the popular imagination into poetry and song. Still further down, at the third stage, we shall reach a level at which religious consciousness has been but slightly touched by the influence of Christianity. Old pagan beliefs and rites still survive and reassert themselves whenever the new order relaxes its hold. Christianity and paganism are often curiously intermingled, and the religious outlook of the peasants reveals a certain fusion between the old and the new faiths. Finally, at the lowest stage of all, the teaching of the Christian Church is powerless to attract men's loyalty and to assert its authority. This, from the standpoint of the Church, is the darkest and most turbid of regions: it is the realm of anti-Christ, the domain of heresy. These, then, are the four aspects of our subject: (1) the popular cult of saints, (2) the impact of Christianity upon folk poetry, (3) the coexistence of Christian and pagan beliefs, and (4) heresy. 1

"The Thought-World of East Rome", in: N. H. Baynes, Byzantine Studies and other Essays (London, 1955), 46. 2 Byzantine Studies and other Essays, 7.

POPULAR RELIGION IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIA

45

1

In the year 1015 two political murders were committed in Russia. Vladimir, who had converted his land to Christianity, had just died. A violent struggle for succession immediately broke out between his sons, in which two of them, the princes Boris and Gleb, were killed by order of their elder brother Svjatopolk. The Russian Primary Chronicle, which describes this event in some detail, suggests that Boris, as his father's favourite, seemed the likely successor to the throne of Kiev and that Svjatopolk consequently regarded him as a dangerous rival. Boris, however, refused to take arms against Svjatopolk, and neither he nor Gleb offered the least resistance to those who came to murder them, meeting their death in the spirit of humble and voluntary sacrifice.3 Internecine strife between princes was common enough in Kievan Russia, and political murders were far from unknown. Yet the death of Boris and Gleb immediately and powerfully struck the imagination of the people of Russia, and soon after their murder in 1015 the belief in the sanctity of these two brothers arose and spread in the Russian land. This belief was actively promoted by yet another brother, Jaroslav, who finally defeated and drove out the villainous Svjatopolk, and in 1019 became prince of Kiev. The cult of Boris and Gleb, fostered by successive rulers of Russia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, all belonging to the same family of Vladimir's descendants, naturally enhanced the prestige of this ruling dynasty and, to that extent at least, acquired political significance. Yet the cult of Boris and Gleb was much more than a family concern. There is no doubt that men and women of widely differing classes and station in life, including the humblest, came to believe that Boris and Gleb were indeed numbered among the saints of God. Contemporary sources relate that shortly after their death miracles were observed over their bodies: a pillar of fire rose up; the singing of angels was heard; miraculous healings took place through the supernatural intervention of the saintly brothers; blind men regained their sight; the lame were healed; a poor man, one-legged and dumb, was made whole; a slave woman, whose arm was paralysed, was restored to health.4 We cannot, of course, check 3

Povest' vremennyx let, ed. D. S. LixaCev, vol. I (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), 90-93; English translation by S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetsor (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1953), 126-128. 4 ¿itija svjatyx muienikov Borisa i Gleba, ed. D. I. AbramoviC (Petrograd, 1916), 53-60; A Historical Russian Reader, ed. J. Fennell and D. Obolensky (Oxford, 1969), 39-46.

46

DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

the accuracy of these stories or know whether these marvels actually occurred. Nor is it the task of the student of history to affirm or to deny the possibility of miracles. But, whatever personal views one may hold on these matters, we must surely make the effort of sympathetic understanding necessary to think ourselves back to a time when men took seriously the words of Christ: "He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do." Norman Baynes once wrote: "If for you a world where miracles happen is hopelessly and irredeemably repellent, East Rome will remain a closed book." 5 This is equally true of the medieval Slav lands. For our purposes here, then, it is sufficient to note that the eleventh-century Russian writer who related the miracles that were performed by Boris and Gleb believed in their reality; that according to these stories the recipients of the posthumous miracles of the saints were mostly people of humble origin; and that these stories, therefore, provide evidence of the existence of a popular cult of the two brothers arising soon after their death. Let us now examine more closely the nature of this cult. Boris and Gleb were canonized by the Russian Church in the first half of the eleventh century. In the course of the next hundred years, three written works devoted to them were composed in Russia: an historical account of their death, later incorporated into the Primary Chronicle; a fulllength Vita, written by Nestor of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves; and an anonymous description of their murder, entitled S"kazanie i strast' i poxvala svjatuju muceniku Borisa i Gieba.6 The learned and highly articulate authors of these works can scarcely be regarded as exponents of a "popular cult". Yet the last of these three works, the anonymous S"kazanie, shows a sensitivity so immediate and spontaneous to the events it describes that we cannot doubt that it mirrors faithfully a veneration for the two heroes which, at the time of writing, had acquired a national dimension. The S"kazanie is a work of considerable artistic merit. It tells the story of the two murders with a fine command of dramatic tension. This is enhanced by the complete absence of the heroic element, and by the stress which the author lays on the pitiful helplessness of the two young princes. Both are afraid to die, are filled with pity at the thought of their 5

E. Dawes and N. H. Baynes, Three Byzantine Saints. Contemporary Biographies Translated From The Greek (Oxford, 1948), xiii. 9 ¿itija..., 27-66; A Historical Russian Reader, 21-51. Cf. L. Müller, "Neuere Forschungen über das Leben und die Kultische Verehrung der heiligen Boris und Gleb", Opera Slavica, Band 4 (Göttingen, 1963), 295-317.

POPULAR RELIGION IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIA

47

youth about to be sacrificed, and cling desperately to their last moments on earth. Gleb's death especially is described with genuine poignancy. Confronted with his murderers, he pleads for mercy in terms reminiscent of folk laments: "Have mercy on my youth, have mercy, my lords! You shall be my masters, and I, your slave. Do not reap me from my life that has not ripened, do not reap the unripe ear of corn. Do not cut down the vine that has not yet grown up ... This is no murder, but a butchery." 7 On the human plane, this is a moving and tragic story whose power to instill terror and pity in the reader has after nine centuries diminished little. But there is another side to the story. Boris and Gleb are shown in this S"kazanie to have made a conscious and voluntary sacrifice of their lives. This is partly because they refuse to resist their elder brother, but even more because in the manner of their death they seek to imitate Christ's sacrifical death. Boris prays that he be counted worthy to follow the example of Christ's passion; and Gleb's last words reveal his belief that he, too, dies in the name of Christ. Thus the basic idea of the whole work — an idea that expresses the true significance of the cult of Boris and Gleb in medieval Russia — is that the two brothers are martyrs, not because they were killed for their Christian faith, but because in an act of non-resistance to the physical power of evil they chose to die as innocent and voluntary victims in imitation of Christ.8 This somewhat unconventional view of martyrdom implies a veneration of, and pity for, innocent suffering which the Russian people has displayed at different moments of their history. This conclusion when related to the evidence of a widespread veneration of Boris and Gleb in all classes of the population of medieval Russia, suggests that we have here the elements of a truly popular cult. In the light of more recent developments in Russian history, it is perhaps useful to remind ourselves that the Russian people have in the cult of Boris and Gleb, their earliest canonized saints, expressed their deep-rooted compassion for human suffering.

2 The same compassion illumines the second stage of our journey. Further down the slopes of our imaginary mountain, somewhere between the cult of sanctity (in which popular elements are controlled and directed 7 8

¿itija..., 41; A Historical Russian Reader, 30. See G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind (New York, 1960), 94-110.

48

DlMlTRI OBOLENSKY

by the teaching of the Church) and the pagan survivals that lie beneath, we encounter a region in which Christian doctrine is seen refracted through the prism of individual creation, in particular through folk poetry. In relatively modern times one could see on the roads of Russia, in monasteries and by the doors of churches, groups of wandering singers, some of them crippled or blind, earning a precarious livelihood by chanting oral poems on religious subjects. These itinerant singers have a long history. In medieval Russian sources, they appear organized in confraternities which enjoyed the protection of the Church. They often in this time accompanied pilgrims travelling to the Holy Land, to Constantinople, or to Mount Athos. This role which they played in these pilgrimages has been perpetuated in their Russian name kaliki, which comes from the Greek Ka^iyvov, itself derived from the Latin caliga, meaning 'a boot'. The principal repertoire of the kaliki consisted of the so-called "spiritual poems" (ayxoBHbie CTHXH), which were widely recited in Russia at least until the Revolution, and many of which were probably composed between the fifteenth and the seventeenth centuries. Internal evidence suggests, however, that some of the "spiritual poems" go back to an even earlier time. In form and metrical structure they closely resemble the byliny (or heroic poems) of ancient Russia. But their content is religious, not heroic. They embody not the heroic ideal of self-sufficient manhood, but the Christian vision of man's humble submission to God and His saints. 9 Professor and Mrs. Chadwick, in their chapter on Russian "spiritual poems" in the second volume of their work The Growth of Literature, have plausibly suggested that the medieval kaliki were by no means as poor and uneducated as their modern descendants have been. 10 This view is supported by the fact that the materials of the "spiritual poems" are mostly derived from literary sources — from hagiographical and apocryphal writings, less often from the Bible and the liturgy. But this traditional subject matter is often interpreted with considerable poetic licence, and thereby brought into close relation with the outlook of the simple people. To illustrate this we will briefly consider three favourite themes of these poems: the love of poverty, the cult of asceticism, and pity for human suffering. 9

See M. N. Speranskij, Russkaja ustnaja slovesnost' (Moscow, 1917), 358-392; G. P. Fedotov, Stixi duxovnye (Paris, 1935); H. and N. Chadwick, The Growth of Literature II (Cambridge, 1936), 180-206. 10 The Growth of Literature II, 186.

POPULAR RELIGION IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIA

49

The ideal of poverty is vividly expressed in a poem on Christ's Ascension, which exists in several versions. It describes the poor folk lamenting on the eve of the Ascension: "To whom are you abandoning us?", they ask of Christ. "Who shall give us to eat and drink? Who shall clothe us, provide us with boots, and protect us from the dark night?" Christ responds with the promise of a mountain of gold to provide for their needs. At this point St. John Chrysostom intervenes with a piece of shrewd wordly wisdom: it is no good giving a mountain of gold to the poor, he tells Christ. The authorities will only take it away from them. Instead, he urges, "let us give to the poor and to the beggars, Your Holy Name. The poor will go begging through the world, glorifying you, O Christ, every hour of the day. Then they will be fed, clothed and happy, and be protected from the dark night." Christ then praises John Chrysostom for his wisdom and pays him the delicate compliment of referring to his name, which means 'the Golden Mouth'. 11 A good example of a poem in praise of the ascetic life is "Carevic Iosaf, Pustynnik", based on the medieval romance of Barlaam and Josaphat which was translated into Russian from Greek. The dialogue recorded between the young Carevic Iosaf and Fair Mother Desert, who symbolizes the ascetic life, reveals an unassuming but genuine poetic sensitivity. CareviC Iosaf begs Fair Mother Desert to accept him into her service. She demurs by reminding him of his worldly obligations, of his sovereign realm, of his palace of white stone and his treasury of gold. Iosaf assures her that he would gladly forsake them all, if only he could live in the desert and serve her. Mother Desert replies: "O young Carevic Iosaf. You will not live in the desert: when Fair Mother Spring comes, and the pools and ponds overflow, and all the trees clothe themselves in leaves, and all the birds from paradise start singing, then you will come forth out of the desert, and will forsake me, the Fair Mother." But Iosaf assures her that not even the advent of Fair Mother Spring will cause him to forsake the desert. And the poem ends on a note of triumph: "And all the righteous saints marvelled at the Carevic Iosaf and at his young royal understanding. To him we sing glory for ever and ever. Amen." 12 Pity for human suffering is a third basic theme of the Russian "spiritual poems". One example is the moving lament uttered by Joseph who has been sold by his brothers into captivity. From distant Egypt he sends his father Jacob a bitter plaint, filled with the sorrow of separation. 11

P. Bezsonov, Kaleki perexozie I (Moscow, 1861), 3-7. Kaleki perexozie, 213-214; The Penguin Book of Russian Verse, ed. D. Obolensky (London, 1962), 44-46. 12

50

DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

Only God and Mother Earth, he claims, can know how deep his sadness is. His lament ends with these words: "Earth, O earth, you who cried out to the Lord on behalf of Abel, cry out now to Jacob, to my father Israel!" 13 Another favourite subject is the martyrdom of Boris and Gleb. No less than thirteen versions of a poem devoted to them are recorded by Bezsonov in his monumental edition of the "spiritual poems". 14 But the deepest compassion and the greatest reverence in the poems are reserved for the Mother of God, for the torments she endured transcend all other human suffering. In one group of poems she is shown wandering over the earth in search for her crucified Son. In another she speaks with her dead son, and their dialogue combines the style of popular laments, the simplicity of the Gospel narrative, and the dramatic lyricism of the liturgical hymns of Holy Saturday. O light most fair, everlasting dawn! Whither has your beauty set, your radiant beauty that has no evening?... Alas, my light, my most beloved beauty! How can I look at you, Christ and King, now crucified on the Cross?... Where is your most sweet countenance?... How shall I bury you, my Son, you who are immortal and eternal? — D o not weep for Me, My Mother: for I will rise from the tomb, and I will raise you up with glory higher than all creatures in heaven and earth. 15

The "spiritual poems" of the kaliki, despite the freedom with which their authors used religious material, seem always to have enjoyed the patronage of the Church. Not every kind of oral poetry in medieval Russia was similarly privileged. Indeed, against much of the oral poetry the Russian Church fought a never-ending war. The sermons of medieval ecclesiastics are full of denunciations of what they called "demonic songs" and "diabolical games", generally associated with the skomoroxi, a confraternity of wanderering minstrels and jesters who performed at public festivals. The Church's hostility towards these songs and games was due partly to their secular content and, even more, to their pagan background. The medieval "Legend of Saint Nifont" relates how the saint saw a company of musicians coming down the street with songs and dances. They were celebrating the rusalii, a summer feast whose very name goes back to the ancient Roman rosalia, or festival of the roses. As the company passed, a nobleman leaned out the window of his house and gave a piece of silver to the chief musician. The eyes of the saint alone saw what remained hidden to everyone else: he saw the singers and 13 14 15

Kaleki perexozie, 187-188. Kaleki perexozie, 625-669. Kalekiperozie II (Moscow, 1863), 234-235.

POPULAR RELIGION IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIA

51

dancers surrounded by a group of demons who took the piece of silver and carried it off to present it as an offering to the Devil himself.16

3 We have now reached the third stage on the journey down our imaginary mountain. Christianity, at this level, contends against the rites and beliefs of an older, pagan religion. In Russia this struggle was fought throughout the Middle Ages, even though old Slavonic paganism had been outlawed by Vladimir. The Primary Chronicle gives a picturesque description of the official overthrow of the idols in Kiev. The chief god of the pagan Olympus, Perun, made of wood, except for his head of silver and a golden moustache, was tied to a horse's tail, dragged down to the Dnieper, and thrown into the river. The prince, we are told, appointed twelve men to beat the idol with sticks, "not because he thought the wood was sensitive, but in order to insult the demon who had been deceiving men in this guise".17 This did not, of course, end Russian paganism. Christianity in Russia, as in the Balkan Slav lands, was imposed from above and remained for perhaps a century primarily the religion of the ruling classes. The spread of this new religion was slow and gradual, especially in the remote north-eastern areas of the country. It was perhaps not until the fifteenth century that the conversion of the countryside was virtually complete, and that Christianity succeeded to a considerable extent in remoulding peasant culture. As well as slow, the process was difficult, especially at first. Active reistance to the Christian faith broke out several times in the eleventh century, led by shamans (volxvy) who claimed to possess secret knowledge supernatural powers, and the gift of prophecy. These revolts were ruthlessly put down by the secular authorities. After the eleventh century resistance to Christianity was mostly passive. Its character is exemplified by those remnants of pagan rites and customs in the countryside which even as late as the seventeenth century Russian Churchmen were still fighting to uproot. In their sermons they speak of magic rites of fertility, sacrificial offerings of food and animals, the continued popularity of soothsayers, the belief in vampires, the cult of fire, and the wild revelry of popular feasts. Sometimes a curious blending would occur between Christianity and pagan survivals — a blending described by the Russian word dvoeverie, or 'dual faith'. Its more harm19 17

E. V. AniCkov, Jazyiestvo i drevnjaja Rus' (St. Petersburg, 1914), 190. Povest' vremennyx let I, 80; English translation, 116.

52

DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

less forms were tolerated by the Church: for instance, the prophet Elias in popular belief took the place of Perun as the maker of thunder, and St. Blasius (Vlasii), the protector of cattle, assumed the functions of his quasi-namesake Veles, the pagan god of cattle. But the danger of this syncretism must have been apparent to many. We know, for example, that when some village priests sanctioned the pagan festival of Rozanicy, spirits presiding over childbirth, and tried to Christianize it by introducing a hymn to the Mother of God, they were roundly rebuked for this scandalous practice in a public sermon. The evidence which extant sermons provide of pagan survivals in medieval Russia relates solely to rites, customs, and behaviour. Of the doctrines of paganism we know next to nothing. It is true that the Primary Chronicle, in its account of a pagan revolt in Northern Russia in 1071, relates that the two "magicians" (or shamans) who instigated it responded to the question "How was man created?" as follows: "God washed himself in a bath, and, having perspired, dried himself with a rag and threw it down from heaven onto the earth. And Satan began to argue with God as to who would create man out of it. And the Devil created man, and God placed a soul in him. That is why, whenever man dies, his body goes to the earth and his soul to God." 1 8 But it is doubtful whether this curious doctrine was actually part of pagan religion in eleventhcentury Russia. 4 The teaching that man is a compound whose body was fashioned by the Devil and whose soul was created by God is, however, recognizable enough. It is the doctrine of dualism, preached by well-known medieval heretics. We have now descended to the foot of our imaginary mountain, and are faced with the final level of popular religion in medieval Russia: the Bogomil heresy. Bogomilism, the most powerful heretical movement in the history of the Eastern Church between the defeat of Iconoclasm to the rise of modern nationalism, was a form of Dualism. Dualism arose out of an attempt to find a rational answer to the problem of the origin of evil, which had long preoccupied men. Whence evil, and why? Or more particularly, how can God, the Supreme Good, be the cause of evil? In contrast to Christian and Jew, who believe in a fundamental relation18

Povesf vremetmyx let, 117-119; English translation, 150-153.

POPULAR RELIGION IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIA

53

ship between God and the created world, the dualist assumes an ontological gulf between the spirituality and unity of God and the opaqueness and multiplicity of created matter. It is in the material world, a world outside God, where disorder and suffering are dominant, that the origin of evil lies. Man, himself, in microcosmic form, mirrors this cosmological dualism: his soul is of divine origin; his body, ineradicably evil, is the creation of an alien force hostile to God. Man's body is "the tomb of the soul", the instrument whereby the powers of evil seek to imprison light in the darkness of matter and to prevent the soul from ascending back to the realm of the spirit. How did this doctrine come to be voiced, albeit in elementary and fabulous form, by a North Russian shaman in the eleventh century? The answer to this question takes us back to tenth-century Bulgaria. There, sometime between 927 and 969, a Bulgarian priest by the name of Bogomil founded the medieval sect that bears his name. Its teachings, which combined a neo-Manichaen form of dualism imported from the Near East with a specifically Slavonic revolt against the authorities of Church and State, are known to us in some detail from the testimony of the tenth-century Bulgarian priest Cosmas. The central doctrine of the Bogomils was that the visible, material world was created by the Devil. This led them to deny the Incarnation and the entire Christian conception of matter as a vehicle for Grace. Cosmas tells us that the Bogomils rejected baptism, the eucharist, the order of priesthood, and the visible organisation of the Christian Church. Their moral teaching was also consistently dualistic, for they condemned all functions of man which brought him into close contact with matter, especially marriage, the eating of meat, and the drinking of wine. Though it is doubtful that the same degree of continence was enforced on all members of the sect, the moral austerity of the Bogomils was, until the decline of the sect in the fourteenth century, invariably acknowledged by their fiercest opponents. Consequently, it is with some justification that they have been called "the greatest puritans of the Middle Ages".19 No wonder then that Bogomilism in early medieval Bulgaria presented a challenge equally to Church and to State. A teaching that so unequivocally condemned married life as sinful threatened the foundations of the family, the community, and the realm. The Bogomils are even accused by Cosmas of preaching civil disobedience: "they teach their own people 19

See D. Obolensky, The Bogomils. A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism (Cambridge, 1948).

54

DIMITRI OBOLENSKY

not to obey their masters, they revile the wealthy, hate the elders, ridicule those in authority, reproach the nobles, regard as vile in the sight of God those who serve the monarch, and forbid every serf to work for his lord". 20 No doubt these and other features of Bogomilism underwent some change when in the course of the next few centuries the movement spread across the Balkan peninsula and promoted the rise of the Cathar (or Albigensian) heresy in Italy and Southern France. But in its early phase Bogomilism was primarily a peasant movement, attracting and directing into heterodox channels the religious and social aspirations of a large dissatisfied section of the community. For this reason, if for no other, it may fairly be described as a form of popular religion. It seems likely enough that the North Russian shaman of the eleventh century, who maintained that man was a joint creation of God and the Devil, was in fact a Bogomil. Although, in contrast to the Balkan Slavonic lands, dualism never took root in medieval Russia, it was not unknown to Russian churchmen. And in times of trouble, during famine or plague, or in the midst of human misery so vastly increased by the Mongol invasion of the thirteenth century, many of the humble folk of Russia must have asked themselves the question which, Cosmas tells us, preoccupied so many Bulgarians in the tenth century: "Why does God permit the Devil to attack men?" 21 Our journey from the summit of popular piety down towards the foothills of Russian popular religion has led us through the cult of innocent suffering, through folk poetry and pagan survivals, to a dualistic revolt against the material world. In the course of our descent we have gradually parted company with the tradition of Orthodox Christianity. It is not surprising, then, to note that the Russian Church actively promoted the first of these forms of popular religion; offered support to the second; fitfully tolerated the third; and, in alliance with the State authorities, fought against and eventually suppressed the fourth.

20

Le Traité contre les Bogomiles de Cosmos le Prêtre, trans, with an essay by H.-C. Puech and A. Vaillant (Paris, 1945), 86; Obolensky, 137-138. 21 Obolensky, 142.

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME IN THE REIGN OF VASILIJ III

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

Toward the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries a remarkable ecclesiastical and political struggle ensued in Russia that might be said to mark the close of the Russian Middle Ages. Three religious movements came into conflict, with a severity that soon called into the fray the chief political power of the land, the grand prince of Moscow. One of these religious groups was the Trans-Volga Elders (starcy) who, partly under the influence of Byzantine Hesychasm, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries developed into an intellectually and socially vigorous current within Russian Orthodox Christianity. During the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505), an heretical group called by their opponents "Judaizers" appeared first in Novgorod and then in Moscow. The "Judaizers" were attacked by a faction led by St. Joseph of Volokolamsk and Archbishop Gennadij of Novgorod. They were called Josephites and later "Possessors" (stjazateli) as opposed to the "Non-Possessor" (nestjazateli) Trans-Volgans. The latter refused to join in the Josephite campaign against the "Judaizers", and their position can even be said to have served as a protection for the heretics, though there is no evidence that St. Nil of Sora or other Trans-Volgans accepted "Judaizer" doctrines.1 Ivan III, the Grand Prince of Moscow, at first stood close to the heretics but at last yielded to Josephite pressure; early in the reign of his successor, Vasilij III (1505-1533), the heretics 1

J. L. I. Fennell suggests that there was affinity between the Trans-Volgan and "Judaizer" religious views, but goes no farther here, though he does emphasize the similarity of their political outlooks and the personal ties between them: "The Attitude of the Josephians and the Trans-Volga Elders to the Heresy of the Judaizers", Slavonic and East European Review, XXIX, No. 73 (June, 1951), especially pp. 503-509. On the struggle during the reign of Ivan III, see: N. A. Kazakova and Ja. S. Lur'e, Antifeodal'nye eretiíeskie dvizenija na Rusi XIV-na£ala XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955); A.I. Klibanov, Reformacionnye dvizenija v Rossii v XlV-pervoj polovine XVI vv. (Moscow, 1960); Ja. S. Lur'e, Ideologiíeskaja bor'ba v russkoj publicistike Blane (ed.), The Religious World of Russian Culture, Vol. II, pp. 55-74. © Mouton Publishers 1975.

56

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

disappeared. The contest between the Josephites and the Trans-Volgans, however, continued throughout his reign and was not finally decided until the time of Ivan IV (1533-1584). It is in the sense that ecclesiastical autonomy was weakened and princely resistance to the progress of Muscovite centralization was ended, that this remarkable ecclesiastical and political struggle might be said to mark the close of the Russian Middle Ages. From the cultural standpoint it inaugurated the modern period in which Russia has experienced successive waves of West European influence. It is the aim of this essay to trace the cultural encounter between Moscow and Rome, begun under Ivan III and deepened in the reign of Yasilij III. 1. THE CULTURAL SITUATION AT IVAN HI'S DEATH

Up to 1505 the Trans-Volga Elders exhibited no significant Western influences; they represented the main strength of the indigenous Orthodox tradition as well as at least one tendency of Byzantinism. Their position was deeply rooted in the revival that had taken place in the Russian Church under Mongol rule. As for the "Judaizers" or Novgorod-Moscow heretics, their doctrines had points of similarity with such proto-Protestant, anti-clerical, and semi-rationalist groups as the Hussites before them and the later AntiTrinitarians of Poland and Transylvania, although no causal connection can be shown with either. However, the "Judaizers" were at least willing to go along with and perhaps even to undertake with enthusiasm the effort to construct a new official ideology of the autocratic state on the basis of pseudo-Western and non- or even anti-Byzantine claims. This is seen in the role of Fedor Kuricyn in Ivan's exchanges with Western rulers, his possible authorship of the Tale of Dracula, the calendrical work of Metropolitan Zosima, and the like. The clearest Western influence on this burgeoning dispute was on the Josephites, both through the Gennadij circle and others. In attacking heretics and defending monastic property, their willingness to draw on the aid of Dominicans, on the precepts and practices of the Inquisition, 2 kortca XV-tialala XVIveka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960); William K. Medlin, Moscow and East Rome: A Political Study of the Relations of Church and State in Muscovite Russia (Geneva, 1952). 2 Élie Denissoff suggests that Joseph himself was inspired by the Inquisition in action, but does not explain how, in "Aux origines de l'église russe autocéphale", Revue des études slaves, 23 (1947), 81. An English version, "On the Origins of the Autonomous Russian Church", is given in Review of Politics (April, 1950).

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME

57

and on such false Western documents as the false Donation of Constantine is plain enough. Through Jurij Traxaniot, at least, they also participated in setting forth sweeping claims for the grand-princely power. The emphasis on tradition over Scripture in the Josephite Svodnaja Kormcaja (Collection of the Pilot) has been pointed out by N. P. Popov as a reflection of Roman Catholic influence.3 Ja. S. Lur'e sets himself the task of criticizing Popov's views and in general questioning the extent of Roman Catholic influences — its existence he does not deny — on Gennadij's circle. However, he approaches the question in a curiously inverted form, stating "we have no basis whatever for asserting that any of the Russian 'accusers' [i.e., the Josephite leaders] sympathized with these [Roman Catholic] tendencies."4 He refers to the very interesting and curious missive sent to Pope Sixtus IV (1473-1484), probably in 1473, from "all of us true (suscix) Russian Slavs", which contains an unconditional recognition of papal supremacy,5 as the only Russian document which reflects sympathy for the Union of Florence, and asserts that it has nothing to do with Gennadij. It is true that no such link has been proven. (Sedel'nikov, who mentions this missive, does hint that the brothers Dmitrij and Jurij Traxaniot, who were heavily involved in the negotiations regarding Ivan Ill's betrothal to Sophia and who were members of Gennadij's circle, may have been behind it.) Whether Gennadij and Joseph were animated by a desire themselves to become, or to make the Russian Orthodox populace become, Roman Catholics or Uniats is not our concern, but rather whether they were influenced by Roman Catholic thought and scholarship. Lur'e here points out that the whole seventh chapter or discourse of Joseph's Enlightener is directed against the views of Latinizing heretics. But that is no more disproof of Roman Catholic influence on Muscovy than would be the claim that if a given Soviet writer attacks "Western capitalists" it shows he is not influenced by the West, or even by persons Party officials might consider "capitalists". 3

N. P. Popov, "Afanas'evskij izvod povesti o Varlaame i Ioasafe", Izvestija ORlaS, XXXI (1926), 222-224. Lur'e, Ideobgiieskaja bor'ba..., 278, challenges much of Popov's argument but not this point. 4 Lur'e, Ideobgiceskaja bor'ba..., 279. 6 A. D. Sedel'nikov, "OCerki katoli&skogo vlijanija v Novgorode v konce XVnaCale XVI veka", Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, Ser. B, No. 1 (1929), 16. This abstract of a book "which has been prepared for the press" was evidently never followed by the promised publication, for Lur'e as recently as 1960 ([Ideologiceskaja bor'ba..., 23) refers only to the abstract.

58

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

It is of little use to speculate whether for Gennadij and Joseph Western ideas about the primacy of the ecclesiastical power, the obligation to deal with heresy, and the necessity to use tradition to interpret and understand Scripture, were as attractive as what they were able to learn about the methods of the Spanish Inquisition or about other instruments of power in the Roman Catholic church. There is evidence that both ideas and methods were influential, but it does not require us to suspect that the Josephite leaders were crypto-Catholics or crypto-Uniats. Joseph was concerned to exterminate the "Judaizer" heresy, which he saw as a new phenomenon in Russia. (Not once does he mention the precedent of the Strigol'niki, and he wrote that "never before were there tidings of heresy in our land...".) 6 The Church had the preservation of orthodoxy and other important prerogatives to uphold and defend, and could do so properly only with the support of substantial monastic properties. It must act in close coordination with a single state power, not as part of the whole of Christendom or even of Eastern Orthodox Christendom. Muscovy must reject the Second Rome and become a Rome itself, a Third Rome. 7 As for allies, the position of the bojars as close advisers to the grand prince was suspect and dubious, perhaps in principle, but certainly in the persons of the Patrikeevs and Rjapolovskijs, who along with the Trans-Volga Elders defended the Second Rome, the Byzantine heritage. The bojars must be replaced by monks. (This view was protested by Vassian Patrikeev although he was already a monk.) 8 In the last days of Ivan III this Josephite position seemed to have carried the day.

2. VASILIJ III A N D MAXIM THE GREEK

When Ivan died the persistent if irregular protection he had given the "Judaizers" disappeared. Indeed, not long afterwards the heretics themselves seem to have disappeared. It is known that in 1511 Joseph summoned Vasilij III to chastise them; and in 1512 a Josephite publicist polemizes with anti-Trinitarians in the foreword to the Xronograf; and that is nearly all.9 Fennel points to a certain "Isaac the Jew, magician, 6 "Ize preze nize sluxom slySasja v nasej zemli eres'...", Nazakova and Lur'e, Antifeodel'nye eretiieskie dvizenija..., 428; in "Prostrannaja redakcija" of "Poslanie igumena Iosifa Volockogo episkopu Nifontu Suz'dalskomu". The statement implies that Joseph was not acquainted with Gennadij's epistle to the council of 1490. 7 See p. 68. 8 Denissoff, "Aux origines"..., 85-87. 9 Klibanov, Reformacionnye dvizenija..., 252

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME

59

sorcerer and seducer",10 who was condemned by a council of 1520, as having been "in all likelihood the last of the Judaizers to be detected and brought to trial". But this has been questioned.11 What is certain is that the support Ivan III had shown the TransVolga Elders soon found an echo in the policy of his son, who in 1505 became Vasilij III. In 1509 the monk Vassian Patrikeev, who since St. Nil's death the previous year was recognized as the leader of the TransVolga Elders, was permitted to return to Moscow and to reside in the St. Simon monastery. Its archimandrite, Varlaam, who sympathized with the Non-Possessors though he evidently was not one himself, replaced Metropolitan Simon of Moscow at his death in 1511.12 Meanwhile, Joseph of Volokolamsk was biding his time. In 1507, perceiving a danger to his monastery in the ambitions of the prince of Volok, he placed it under the protection of the grand prince, fop which he was chastised by his archbishop but saved by Metropolitan Simon and the Council of Bishops, who removed and interned the archbishop, Serapion. Joseph died in 1515 at the age of 76. Before his death his successor as abbot of Volokolamsk was chosen, the monk Daniel, who before long began to recoup the Josephite fortunes. Vasilij III soon became friendly with him. It was also in 1515 that Metropolitan Varlaam decided, evidently in agreement with the Trans-Volga Elders, to seek out monks from Mount Athos who could assist in raising the intellectual level of the Muscovite church. Perhaps this came in connection with the disputes with the "Judaizers", 13 but it may be doubted that the anti-heretic campaign was the main consideration in the minds of such men as Varlaam and his ally Vassian. That the Trans-Volga Elders had all along condemned the use of capital punishment against the heretics, argues in support of such doubts. It is of course possible that the Trans-Volgans wished to transfer the debate from the realm of punitive measure to the literary arena. Probably fundamental in their minds was the aim of renewing and strengthening the intellectual and ecclesiastical connections with 10

Fennell, "The Attitude"..., 494, citing Maksim Grek, Sodinenija, 1 (Kazan', 1894), 42-45. 11 Lur'e considers it "fully possible" that this Isaac "was in reality a Jew", and not a "Judaizer". IdeologiCeskaja bor'ba..., 497. 12 N. A. Kazakova, Vassian Patrikeev i ego socinenija (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960), 57. 13 George Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn of the Modem Age [ = Vol. IV of A History of Russia by George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich] (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1959), 156.

60

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

Byzantium. Since the establishment of de facto autocephaly in 1448, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Russian Church had known only the feeblest of relations with the senior Orthodox patriarchate. The Muscovite embassy reached Constantinople at the end of the summer of 1515. The Turks showed a suspicion of their guests, but also a great interest in the sumptuous gifts the Russians had brought for Mt. Athos. Many obstacles were at first placed in the way. Finally, however, after his preferred candidate had declined and suggested in his own place Maxim the Greek, Sultan Selim I chose the latter to go to Moscow. The embassy returned in 1518, accompanied by a number of Greeks hoping for additional Russian aid and support, but its chief cargo was Maxim. Maxim the Greek has been identified as Michael Trivolis, a remarkably learned monk who spent more than half his life in the West.14 Born at Arta in present-day Greece about 1470, he came from one of the great families of Byzantium, whose members included friends and counselors of emperors and even a patriarch of Constantinople (Callixtus I, 13501363). About 1492 he went to Italy and became immersed in the philosophical currents of Neoplatonism which owed much to Marsilio Ficino. Of this Denissoff writes, "One may even say that it was Marsilio Ficino and his disciples who, through the interpretation of Maxim the Greek, turned Russian thought in a Neoplatonist direction at the dawn of its philosophical history." 15 This conclusion may not be easy to substantiate from the history of Russian thought in the decades or even centuries that followed Maxim's stay in Muscovy, but Maxim's own Platonism remained firm enough. In Florence he learned of the discovery of America — which information he was to transmit to the Russians decades later —, studied with John Lascaris, and was powerfully influenced by the preaching of Savonarola. The total result was that he became a humanist with pagan overtones, and this he remained during stays in Bologna, Venice, and Milan and the four years he spent with Giovanni Francisco Pico della Mirandola, nephew of the great humanist (who died in 1494). Experiencing a religious conversion about 1501, he returned to Florence to enter the Dominican monastery of San Marco. His own long-standing admiration for Savonarola had been stimulated by his stay at Mirandola, "the last 14

£lie Denissoff, Maxime le Grec et ¡'Occident. Contribution a I'Histoire de la pensee religieuse et philosophique de Michel Trivolis (Paris-Louvain, 1943). 15 Denissoff, Maxime le Grec et VOccident, 7-8.

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME

61

foyer of the defeated Savonarolian revolution",16 and this was reflected in his choice to enter Savonarola's own monastery, but the conversion was lasting whereas his Dominican monkhood was not. He never revealed his Dominican period to the Muscovites. Nor did he dare cite St. Thomas Aquinas, whose works he had studied carefully for a much longer period than his two years in San Marco; but he found a substitute in St. John of Damascus, one of Thomas's own Greek sources. It is unclear why he left San Marco, though the monastery was rent by division while he was there and no doubt disappointed his expectations. At any rate, in 1505 or 1506 he returned to Greece to become a monk at the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos. His writings there reflect his continuing Platonism in their radical dualism of soul and body and their treatment of the soul.17 Chosen now to go to Moscow, he thus brought in a fashion doubtless unknown or not fully comprehended by either the Turks or Russians the best scholarly training in philosophy, theology, and patristics available in his time. As Denissoff wryly puts it, "a malicious destiny thus brought the ex-Dominican Maxim Trivolis to succeed the Dominican Benjamin" 18 — referring to Gennadij's chief translator. When Maxim arrived in Russia he did not know Church Slavonic, and no one he worked with knew Greek; but a system was worked out by which he translated Greek originals into Latin and Russian translators rendered the Latin into Slavonic. His gift for languages before long enabled him to translate directly, but under both systems errors were made which his enemies were later to use against him. He promptly became very friendly with both Vassian and Metropolitan Varlaam. The influence he had may be reflected in the charge later levied against Vassian that he followed the teachings of Aristotle and Plato: the name of Aristotle was already known in Russia, and Plato may well have been the more offensive name to his Josephite accusers. The charge of Monophysitism, a heresy in which the primacy of the spiritual is an important ingredient, might also, whether or not justified, mirror Maxim's Platonism. However speculative these observations might be, there is no doubt that Maxim's personality made a tremendous impression on all who knew him in Moscow, and since he was an intellectual of stature, his ideas must have been communicated to some extent to his friends. Before Denissoff identified Maxim with Trivolis, it was known that 16 17 18

Denissoff, Maxime le Grec et ¡'Occident, 236. Denissoff, Maxime le Grec et ¡'Occident, 309. Denissoff, Maxime le Grec et ¡'Occident, 336.

62

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

Maxim had spent time in the West, and his chief biographer even produced a generally accurate account of where he had been, deducing, for example, that he had not visited Paris but had been only in Italy. 19 Scholars unaware of the identification naturally tended to concentrate on what he actually wrote and did in Muscovy. Nevertheless Ikonnikov manages to identify, as the men who chiefly influenced Maxim, John Lascaris (who, according to Maxim's statement to Prince Andrej Kurbskij, had been his mentor in philosophy) and, above all, Savonarola, with whom he compares Maxim at length.20 In his writings Maxim took a line critical of the Roman Church. However, it is noteworthy that he also openly praised certain aspects of Roman Catholicism and was silent about some aspects which others criticized. Whereas the accepted Muscovite enumeration of Roman heresies ran to 32, Maxim criticized only the Filioque doctrine (of the Procession of the Holy Ghost), belief in purgatory, and the use of unleavened bread. 21 He recognized the Roman Catholic Inquisition as beneficial to religion; nor did he hesitate to speak of the popes as the legitimate heirs of St. Peter and of the primacy of Peter among the apostles.22 He held up the morals of the French and Italian monasteries as a model for Russians to follow, though he made a practice — Ikonnikov suggests, as a concession to those around him 23 — of adding phrases like "although they are Latin by faith". But Maxim went still further: Thus the Latins, although in many ways they have yielded to temptation and invented certain strange doctrines, having been tempted by their own great learning in the Greek sciences, nevertheless have not finally fallen away from faith, hope, and love for Jesus Christ, and therefore those among them who have dedicated themselves to the monastic life assiduously order their service to God according to His holy commandments, since their harmony of belief, brotherly love, nonpossessorship (nestjazatel'nost'), silence, lack of concern for worldly things, and care for salvation in many ways ought to be imitated by us, so that we would not show ourselves worse than they. This I say in respect of the assiduous fulfillment of the commandments of the Gospels. 24 19

V. S. Ikonnikov, Maksim Grek i ego vremja. Istoriceskoe issledovanie, 2nd ed. (Kiev, 1915), 105-108. Denissoff's study of Trivolis appears to confirm this deduction. 20 Ikonnikov, Maksim Grek i ego vremja, 561-573. 21 Soiinenija prepodobnago Maksima Greka v russkom perevode, Svjato-Troickaja Sergieva Lavra, 3 parts, 1910-1911, Slovo X, "Slovo poxval'noe Apostolam Petru i Pavlu", II, 100-120; see discussion in Ikonnikov, Maksim Grek i ego vremja, 239; also Denissoff, Maxime le Grec et I'Occident, 376. 22 Soiinenija... Maksima, Slovo XVI, "Poslanie k gospodinu Feodoru Ivanovidu Karpovu", II, 220; see Denissoff, Maxime..., 376. 23 Ikonnikov, Maksim..., 222. 24 Soiinenija... Maksima, Slovo XXVI, "Povest' strasnaja i dostoprimeiatel'naja", II, 133.

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW A N D ROME

63

Maxim worked in Moscow for seven years. His first task was to translate the Tolkovaja Psaltyr' (Interpreted Psalter), for which purpose he had assigned to help him Dmitrij Gerasimov and one Vlasij. Maxim translated from Greek into Latin and the latter two translated from Latin into Russian. Gerasimov, born perhaps in the 1460's, had learned Latin and German as a child in Livonia, and served on diplomatic missions. Before being named Maxim's assistant he had been, as a youth, one of Gennadij's circle in Novgorod, and may have been responsible for transmitting the essence of the Donation of Constantine to Russia. In 1525, after Maxim's fall, he was sent to Rome by the grand prince with a missive in which Vasilij III expressed to the pope his willingness to enter into an alliance against the unbelievers. Returning the next year, he continued his translation work, producing in 1535 another version of the Psalter with commentaries by the Latin Fathers. Gerasimov thus lived into the reign of Ivan IV. 25 Outside of his translation work, Maxim entered into polemics with several persons, including the interesting figure, Nikolaj Bulev, known as "Nemcin" ('the German', or better 'the Westerner'), the personal physician of Vasilij III, 26 and also his admirer, the Russian bojar Fedor Ivanovic Karpov. 27 It was not a very sharp kind of polemics. Karpov favored the union of churches and, being strongly attracted by the notion of an inalterable order of nature, had a strong interest in astronomy and astrology. Maxim cautioned him of the need to separate questions of faith and science. Another participant in these exchanges was the d'jak of Pskov (appointed 1510), Mixail Grigor'evid Misjur'-Munexin, also something of a Westemizer with whom Dmitrij Gerasimov corresponded at the time he was assisting Maxim.28 It was in these very polemics with overt Westernizers that Maxim showed the restraint already referred to in his criticism of Rome. In the second decade of his reign Vasilij III may have begun to weary of Metropolitan Varlaam's intervention in favor of persons he believed unjustly accused, and through the shrewdness of Daniel, the new abbot 25

"Dmitrij Gerasimov", Russkij Biograficheskij Slovar'. See A. A. Zimin, "Doktor Nikolaj Bulev — publicist i ufienyj medik", in: V. D. Kuzmina (ed.), Issledovanija i materialy po drevnerusskoj literature (Moscow, 1961), 78-86. 27 See V. F. Rziga, "Bojarin-zapadnik XVI veka (F. I. Karpov)", Rossijskaja Associacija Nauino-Issledovatel'skix Institutov Ob55estvennyx Nauk, Institut Istorii, JJienye Zapiski, 4 (1929), 39-50, as cited in Vernadsky, Russia..., 164; see also Ikonnikov, Maksim..., 233fF. 28 Nikolay Andreyev, "The Pskov-Pechery Monastery in the 16th Century", Slavonic and East European Review, XXXII, No. 79 (June, 1954), 318-324. 26

64

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

of Volokolamsk, began again to draw nearer to the Josephites with whom his mother had been allied. In 1521 Varlaam was deposed, and shortly afterward Daniel became Metropolitan of Moscow.29 By sanctioning Vasilij's divorce from Solomonia (of the bojar family Saburov) and his subsequent marriage to Elena Glinskaja in 1525-1526, Daniel bound Vasilij firmly to himself and his party. Early in 1525 Ivan Bersen-BeklemiSev, an outspoken courtier and friend of Maxim's, was executed. Soon afterward Maxim himself was condemned and incarcerated in the monastery of Volokolamsk. Though forbidden to write, he nevertheless managed to compose a number of works defending himself and attacking abuses in the Russian Church. Thereupon Daniel had Maxim tried and condemned again in 1531; the same council also condemned Vassian for good measure. Maxim was moved to the Otroc monastery in Tver; Vassian was confined in the cell Maxim had just vacated, where he died, probably not of natural causes, about 1532. Maxim lived until 1556, and thus twenty-one years of the life of this remarkable savant were spent in confinement and largely wasted as a result of the victory of the Josephites and the customs of doctrinal dispute in the Tsardom of Muscovy. As Sobolevskij points out, however, even during Maxim's imprisonment "his authority did not decrease in the eyes of his contemporaries". He was widely considered a pillar of Orthodoxy and of orthodoxy; just after his death someone wrote that he was "a truly pious man and in him there was not a single heretical flaw".30 His exceptional spiritual qualities were posthumously recognized as those of a saint. A cult of Maxim as "blessed" appeared a century after his death (1651), and both the ikons of the Old Believers and the official Church depict him as a saint, even though the official Church, while acknowledging his sanctity, denies his formal canonization. 31 However, Maxim's intellectual qualities, his breadth of outlook and devotion to truth, were not so widely appreciated until modern times. 29 See Vasilij Zmakin, "Mitropolit Daniil i ego sotfnenija", Ctenija OIDR, 1881, Jan.-Mar. and Apr.-June, Bks. 1 and 2. ¿makin counterposes the Josephites as conservatives and formalists to the liberal and critical Trans-Volgans, standing "higher than Luther, Calvin, and other renowned Western Reformers" (in the address he gave in defense of the work as a dissertation, "Bor'ba idej v Rossii v pervoj polovine XVI veka", ¿urnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosvesienija, CCXX (1882, MarchApril, Otdel Nauk), 150. 30 A. I. Sobolevskij, Perevodnaja literatura XIV-XVII vekov (St. Petersburg, 1903), 260. 31 Denissoff, Maxime..., 391. Denissoff in "Maxime le Grec et ses vicissitudes au sein de l'église russe", Revue des études slaves, 31 (1954), 7-20 deals with the treatment of Maxim in Russian literature after his death.

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW A N D ROME

65

In his preface to the Psaltyr', Maxim wrote that the book "is instructive for those studying theology and enlightening for those studying nature", 32 thereby making a distinction not widely recognized in sixteenth-century Muscovy. He pleaded against objections that he had been guided "not by audacity or pride but by zeal for the best of everything and love for the truth". Translators, he said, must be "perfectly instructed in grammar, poetics, rhetoric, and philosophy itself"; though he freely confessed that he himself fell short of this ideal.33 "Thus", concludes Ikonnikov, "Maxim the Greek was the first man in Russia to treat the tasks of literature from all aspects and critically."34 Metropolitan Makarij (Bulgakov) argued that "in the person of Maxim the Greek, for the first time, European enlightenment, then already having begun to develop, penetrated to us and cast its rays, although still weak ones, on the dense gloom of ignorance and superstition enveloping Russia." 35 A few men in his own day perceived his gifts and, inspired by his example, continued after his condemnation to make their own contributions to culture begun under his guidance. Among these were the monk Silvan, who learned Greek well enough to become a translator on his own; Dmitrij Gerasimov, who was to accomplish important translations in Novgorod in the 1530's under Archbishop Makarij; Zinovij Otenskij, who until his death around 1570 followed Maxim's teaching in many respects; Vassian; and, perhaps most important of all, Prince Andrej Kurbskij, who when he fled from Ivan IV to Lithuania requested that a number of his books be sent him, with Maxim's foremost among them. 36 The result of Maxim's work was chiefly to strengthen the party of the Trans-Volga Elders, whom he inspired despite his condemnation. But his influence was not confined to them; Gerasimov, who had worked with the Josephites earlier and was to do so again, reveals this. 32

Soiinenija... Maksima, Slovo XXV, "Blagoverneijsemu i vySemu carju i Bogoxranimomu Gosudarju Velikomu Knjazju Vasiliju IoannoviCu vseja Rusii", 191. 33 Quoted in Ikonnikov, Maksim..., 173 and 178. 34 Ikonnikov, Maksim..., 182. 35 Makarij, Mitropolit Moskovskij, Jstorija russkoj cerkvi v period razdelenija eja na dve metropolii, 12 vols. (Ann Arbor, 1965) VII, 254. (Volumes in this set include reproductions from all three Russian editions. The original was finished in 1882). For a much more reserved view of Maxim's intellectual sophistication, see Dmitrij Ciievskij, History of Russian Literature from the Eleventh Century to the End of the Baroque [= Slavistische Drukken en Herdrukken, XII] ('S-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1960), 298-299. 36 Ikonnikov, Maksim..., 580. Sobolevskij, Perevodnaja literatura..., 279-282 doubts that Kurbskij had much personal contact with Maxim, but does not attempt to minimize Maxim's influence upon him.

66

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

In Maxim is to be seen a kind of humanism which owed much to the Italian Renaissance, but his influence on Russian thought in his day was minimal. Denissoff's suggestion that his neo-Platonism had substantial influence on Russian thought does not seem to warrant serious consideration, for in the person of Maxim, the Renaissance, in the same Denissoff's own words, was only "a light zephyr incapable of melting the layer of ice which covered the land of Moscow". 37 The depth and subtlety of Maxim's training and thought eluded most, though by no means all, of those about him. Such qualities did not prevent, and perhaps even promoted, his being condemned, and an air of tragedy surrounds the story of this man who had so much to give to Russian culture and was permitted to give so little. However, Maxim was condemned not as a Westernizer, but as "the Greek". It was not any external taint of the West that doomed Maxim, for he had none recognizable to Russians; in this respect he somewhat foreshadows Patriarch Nikon of the seventeenth century, whose intellectual antecedents were also somewhat misunderstood by his contemporaries. If he was not formally punished for being a Greek, it was at least known that the Trans-Volga party with which he had become identified was inspired by Byzantine teaching and example. Maxim has been called "the only learned man of Muscovite Rus'" 3 8 and, despite his deep roots in the Byzantine heritage, may be considered one of the earliest precursors of Westernization in Russia. But his persecutors, the Josephites, also have their debt to the West. Their ready resort to Roman Catholic assistance, their willingness to borrow from the methods of the Spanish Inquisition, their use of Roman arguments and legends to buttress the position of church and state in Muscovy, their eagerness to replace bojar with cleric advisers to the grand prince, their insistence on retaining large monastic properties, all owed much to Western inspiration. If Maxim drew on Italian humanism, the Josephites drew on Spanish and other Roman Catholic super-orthodoxy; if Maxim provides a reflective flicker of the Renaissance in Russia, the Josephites give more than an inkling of the influence of the same trends from which the Counter-Reformation would develop. By the victory of the Josephites, a heavy blow was dealt the strongest and most vital elements in the Russian Church — the monastic currents derived from the great northeastern colonization, which had been reinforced by Byzantine 37

Denissoff, Maxime.... 379. N. Kapterev, Patriarx Nikon i ego protivniki v dele ispravlenija serkovnyx obrjadov; Vremja patriarsestva Iosifa, 2nd ed. (Sergiev Posad, 1913), 47.

38

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME

67

contact and then found their highest expression in the Trans-Volga Elders. The way to further Western borrowings was opened, but not necessarily to contacts that would bring into Russia the finest fruits of Western Christian culture. 3 9 Vasilij III himself was not a prime mover in all these events, but he was by n o means averse to the changes that were appearing in Russia's cultural orientation. Florovsky stresses that Sophia raised him "in the Western manner". 4 0 H e was willing to have as his personal physician Maxim's friendly antagonist, Nikolaj Nemcin, w h o was adept in astrology and astronomy and a supporter of the reunion of Eastern and Western churches. 4 1 His second marriage, to Elena Glinskaja, which was accompanied by the triumph of the Josephites, strengthened his Western connections. H e had earlier welcomed to his court a number of Lithuanians w h o had been in the West, including the controversial and restless Prince Mixail L'Vovic Glinskij, uncle of Elena. Glinskij came from a clan of Tatar background; he was in the sixth generation of direct descendance from Mamaj, khan of the Golden Horde. H e had spent twelve years in the West, having served in the armed forces of Albrecht of Saxony and Emperor Maximilian I. In Italy he had converted t o R o m a n Catholicism and learned the major European languages. Re39

Ikonnikov, Maksim..., 593, writes: "(S. M.) Solov'ev places his name among the early predecessors of the drawing closer together (sblizenie) of Russia and the West", and footnotes Solov'ev's article, "Slecer i anti-istorideskoe napravlenie", Russkij Vestnik, VIII, Bk. 2 (April, 1857). Solov'ev, polemizing with Schlozer, actually writes (after a discussion of Gennadij, Maxim the Greek, and others): "if in the sixteenth century, for the correction, direction, and collection of Russian treasures whose value was not realized, it was impossible to manage without a pupil of foreign universities, then on what basis can one consider a drawing closer together with foreign universities in the eighteenth century to be some kind of deviation from the rightful path?" (456) This assault on Schlozer's consistency cannot be easily twisted into the positive statement that Ikonnikov puts into Solov'ev's mouth; it may simply be better to consider the opinion Ikonnikov's own. 40 Georges Florovsky, Puti russkago bogoslovija (Paris, 1937), 13. 41 There has been some scholarly confusion about this man's identity. The chronicles mention a "Nikolaj Ljuev" as present at the time of Vasilij's final illness in 1533; the imperial envoy Francisco de Collo writes of a "Dr. Nikolaj Ljubdanin" (i.e., the man from Liibeck); Maxim the Greek writes of a "Nikolaj Nemiin" (i.e., the German, or West European); Nikolaj Shonberg (Nikolaus von Schonberg) was a papal envoy to Russia in 1518. How many men were there, one, two, three, or four? (There is also an alternative spelling of "Ljuev" as "Bulev".) Some time ago a consensus existed that Nikolaj Shonberg was not to be identified with anyone else, but A. A. Zimin has recently returned to the conclusion, held by several scholars before a confusing document was published in 1868, that there was only one Dr. Nikolaj Bulev of Liibeck and that he was located by Jurij Traxaniot's mission to Rome in 1490-1491 and was persuaded to leave the papal court for Novgorod, where he served with the Gennadij circle for a time before coming to Moscow. See Zimin, "Doktor Nikolaj Bulev".

68

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

turning to Lithuania, he was one of the closest advisors to Grand Prince Alexander, who married Elena Ivanovna, daughter of Ivan III. After Alexander died in 1506, Glinskij fell out with the new ruler, Sigismund, and found it wise to flee to Moscow for protection. Although Yasilij found these Western connections useful, Glinskij's personal ambition almost undid him. When the Muscovites took Smolensk in 1514, Glinskij demanded the governorship of the new area, but in vain, and in his chagrin he planned to re-defect to Lithuania. He was caught, however, and saved his life by reconverting to Orthodoxy (though it should be noted that as long as he remained loyal to Vasilij his Roman Catholicism had been no obstacle to his success). He was imprisoned, but when Vasilij chose Glinskij's niece as a second wife, he was released and again appointed to important governmental posts. 42 Vernadsky has suggested that the birth of a son in 1530 (the future Ivan the Terrible) strengthened Vasilij's confidence that he had chosen the right path, and led him to support the strong measures taken in 1531 against his critics Vassian and Maxim the Greek. 43 He shaved his beard to make himself look more of an age with his young bride, but in sixteenth-century Moscow shaving was also of religious and cultural meaning which implied Western leanings. He died when his son Ivan was three, with the result of an immediate dynastic crisis.

3. THE DOCTRINE OF "MOSCOW, THE THIRD ROME"

It was near the outset of Vasilij Ill's reign that the doctrine of "Moscow, the third Rome", was set forth in fully developed form. Although the doctrine has probably received more attention than it deserves in comparison to its official use or even to the seriousness with which cotemporaries took it (difficult as that is to assess), it does serve as a convenient marker on the path of several complex historical developments: the formation of the official ideology of the Muscovite autocracy; the transformation of the Josephites from critics and even attackers of the power of the grand princes into its defenders, paradoxically replacing in that position the "Judaizers" of the reign of Ivan III; and the growth of Western influences in Russia. In a letter of M. G. Misjur'48

After Vasilij's death, when Glinskij reproached his niece for becoming the mistress of I. F. OvCina-Telepnev-Obolenskij, he was again punished by imprisonment. He died in 1534. See "Mixail L'vovii Glinskij", Brokgaus-Efron, 'Ertciklopediieskij Slovar'. 43 Vernadsky, Russia..., 163.

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME

69

Munexin,44 the elder of the Eleazar monastery, Filofej (Philotheus) of Pskov wrote: All Christian monarchies have come to an end and have been gathered into a single monarchy of our sovereign, according to the books of the prophets, that is to say the Russian monarchy; for two Romes have fallen, the third stands, and a fourth there cannot be.45 In a roughly contemporary epistle to Vasilij III, Filofej repeated the same idea. He also concerned himself with two other major points: the desirability of filling the vacancy in the archbishopric of Novgorod and Pskov which the removal of Archbishop Serapion in 1509 for opposing Joseph's transfer to grand-princely protection had left, 46 and the inviolability of monastic properties. In addressing Vasilij Ill's governor in Pskov (1510-1528), Misjur'-Munexin, and the grand prince himself, Filofej in effect is pleading with the established authorities not to listen to the Trans-Volga Elders — in particular Vassian Patrikeev — who are urging measures to secularize monastic properties. At the same time Filofej is glorifying the grand prince's power, which he hopes will be used in other ways.47 Filofej must be regarded, on the basis of both his personal connections and his general argumentation, as a Josephite. Various sources for the doctrine of "Moscow, the third Rome", have been indicated. D. Str6mooukhoff concludes that the idea was taken from the Gennadij Bible, and was based on the image of the threeheaded eagle interpreted as "three kingdoms" in IV Ezra 11 and 12:1-39. IV Ezra was translated from the Latin Vulgate by the Dominican monk Venjamin, assisted by Dmitrij Gerasimov, with whom Filofej was in close touch. Lur'e confirms this conclusion with additional evidence, in particular a gloss on IV Ezra in a copy of the 1493 collection of Veniamin which he has located, and which appears to have been the work of Venjamin himself.48 The most exhaustive examination of the 44

Seep. 63. Malinin, Starec Eleazarova monastyrja Filofej i ego poslanija (Kiev, 1901), "Poslanie Filofeja k Munexina protiv zvezdoietxev i latin", Prilozenija VII, 45. This letter and the one to Grand Prince Vasilij himself (Malinin, Prilozenija, IX) were first published in Pravoslavnyj Sobesednik II (1861), 78-98, and I (1863), 337-348. 49 Seep. 63. 47 Lur'e, Ideologiieskaj borb'a..., 485, points out that A. S. Pavlov in Istoriceskij ocerk sekuljarizacii cerkovnyc zemeV v Rossii, Pt. 1, 83, first advanced the notion that Filofej was concerned with the influence of Vassian Patrikeev at court. Lur'e finds unconvincing Malinin's challenge to this idea, in Starec... Filofej..., 645. 48 Dimitri Strimooukhoff, "Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine", Speculum, XXVIII (January, 1953), 91-101; Lur'e, 487. See also Hildegard Schaeder,

45

70

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

work of Filofej is that of V. Malinin, who concludes that one of the chief sources of the doctrine was Dmitrij Gerasimov's Tale of the White Cowl. Still other suggestions have been made. In order to disentangle the evidence about its sources, what needs to be done is to analyze the idea of "Moscow, the third Rome", into its component parts. The doctrine has five overlapping but distinguishable elements: (1) the idea of a translatio imperii, or a replacement of one seat of universal empire by another; (2) the translatio from Constantinople to Moscow; (3) the translatio from Rome (to Constantinople to Moscow), (4) the justification of translatio on the basis of the faithlessness of the previous seat of empire; and (5) a suitable scriptural basis for regarding the translatio as fulfilled prophecy. The idea of translatio imperii was as old as Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire — it was not needed when the capital of the same empire was simply moved from Rome to Constantinople. The Bulgarians also expressed it on behalf of Trnovo. Translatio from Constantinople to Moscow was first expounded, as far as is known, by Metropolitan Zosima in 1492 in his Exposition of the Easter Cycled The accusation of faithlessness against the Byzantines and the explanation of their fall by it are made repeatedly very soon after 1453; for example, an epistle of 1471 from Metropolitan Philip to the citizens of Novgorod stated: "The Greeks reigned, the Greeks gloried in piety; they united with Rome, and now they serve the Turks." 50 But translatio is neither justified nor mentioned in such passages. Justification of translatio on the basis of faithlessness is finally given in Gerasimov's Tale of the White Cowl in 1492,51 but it is translatio to "Russia", not to Moscow, and the author's concern is actually with Novgorod instead. Moskau das dritte Rom, Studien zur Geschichte der politischen Theorien in der slawischen Welt, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt, 1957), and Mediin, Moscow and East Rome. Nikolay Andreyev in "Filofey and his Epistle to Ivan Vasil'yevich", Slavonic and East European Review, XXXVIII, No. 90 (December, 1959), 1-31, argues that the letter mentioned in the title of the article was written not to Ivan IV, as Malinin held, but to Ivan III, and that it was thus written before the letters to Vasilij III and Misjur'Munexin. In it the scriptural prophecy used is Revelation 12:1-13:1. If the letter was indeed addressed to Ivan III, it would appear that Filofej later decided that IV Ezra was preferable as a scriptural basis for the doctrine. 49 Izlozenie pasxalii; Zosima referred to Moscow "and the whole Russian land" as a "new city of Constantine" in the sense of replacing Constantinople in its universal significance. 50 N . M. Karamzin, Istorija gosudarstva rossijskago, IV, 5th ed. (St. Petersburg, 1844), col. 23. 51 Povest' o belom klobuke; according to this work a white cowl, symbolizing purity of faith, was presented to Pope Sylvester I by Constantine the Great. After the Apol-

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME

71

Filofej combines Zosima's idea of translatio from Constantinople to Moscow with Gerasimov's idea of translatio from Rome to Constantinople to "Russia", and the result is a clear "third Rome" in Moscow. He also provides an adequate scriptural prophecy for this event. He states that he composed his argument according to "the prophetic books" though he refers to IV Ezra by name only in another epistle.52 Krizanic later unhesitatingly identified the notion of "Moscow, the third Rome", with the three-headed eagle of IV Ezra.53 The book was translated with the participation of Gerasimov, who was close to Filofej. Thus Filofej has combined all five elements. The idea of translatio had been current in the West since Charlemagne. The idea of translatio to Russia was contained in the Tale of the White Cowl, which was brought direct from Rome; in it a Roman pope pronounces Russia to be the third Rome. IV Ezra was translated into Slavonic from the Latin Vulgate (it is not in the Septuagint) by a Roman Catholic monk; the notion that Constantinople fell because it betrayed the faith was at any rate reinforced by another Roman Catholic, Bulev. Taken together, these elements form a basis for holding that the theory of "Moscow, the third Rome", was inspired by Rome itself — that is to say, by Roman Catholic influences operating on the Josephites. Filofej proclaims "Moscow, the third Rome", but he also boldly holds that the state guarantees to the clergy its properties. This, too, he linarian heresy had triumphed in Rome, an angel frightened a later pope into returning it to Constantinople. Another vision was needed to make Patriarch Philotheos transmit it to Novgorod to Archbishop Vasilij Kalika (in office 1331-1352). Constantine and Sylvester appeared in the vision, with the latter telling the former that the third Rome was now in Russia ("Na tret'em ze Rime, eze est' na Ruskoj zemli"). The authorship of this work has been questioned, but the manuscript is prefaced by a letter from Gerasimov to Gennadij in which he claims to be presenting the translation of a document given him during a visit to Rome. A contemporary of Filofej's, Nikolaj Bulev, wrote that if Constantinople had fallen, it showed that the Byzantines had abandoned the true faith, while if Rome survived, that proved it was faithful. Filofej in a letter to Misjur'-Munexin attacked Bulov for advancing this argument, which became well known. Peresvetov a little later writes that the Catholics (presumably Bulev) said that Constantinople fell to the Turks because of God's judgment; see V. F. Rziga, "I. S. Peresvetov", Ctenija OIDR I, Pt. 2 (1908), 77. Str6mooukhoff in "Moscow the Third Rome", 95, seems to have missed the point by suggesting that Filofej was chiefly engaged in combating Bulev's contention that Rome survived because it kept the true faith. The most obvious explanation is rather that Filofej simply turned the argument to his own advantage, repeating just what Bulev said about the Greeks: they were faithless and they perished for it. This was quite consonant with the view of the Tale of the White Cowl. 52 Malinin, Starec... Filofej..., "Poslanie Filofeja k Munexinu o pokorenii razuma Otkroveniju", Prilozenija, V, 34. 63 Cited in Str&nooukhoff, "Moscow the Third Rome", 97-98.

72

DONALD W. TREADGOLD

does on Roman authority. Medlin points out that the first authority Filofej invokes in support of his position is the Donation of Constantine,5i and several after him were to cite this document as if it were Orthodox canon law. The Byzantine heritage was cast into the shadow; the position of the Byzantine Empire had been forever compromised by the treason of the Council of Florence; the Byzantine tradition, one version of which the Trans-Volga Elders were endeavoring to defend and perpetuate, was not something the Josephites cared to glorify. Roman Catholic influences were more acceptable. The fact that the fully developed idea of "Moscow, the third Rome", was advanced in Pskov by a Josephite just at the time of Vasilij Ill's annexation of this city-state in 1510 is not surprising. The Josephites were bidding for influence over the rapidly centralizing Muscovite state. The replacement of boyar advisors by monks of their own party 55 was the means of attaining such influence. Moscow was to be glorified; but the Josephites were to retain their ecclesiastical properties, on the basis of which alone the monks might have some firm claim to be taken seriously. Fortified by Roman Catholic learning of a sort they themselves could not provide, the Josephites hoped to gain ascendancy in church and state. The glorification of the Muscovite principality was a cheap price to pay for such an objective. They made their offer of support near the beginning of the reign of Vasilij III, in the epistles of Filofej of Pskov. By the end of that reign, Maxim, in 1525, and Vassian, in 1531, had been condemned and sentenced; the Josephites doubtless thought they were, and appeared to be, victorious. In the final assessment they were wrong; Ivan IV's reign was to witness their disappearance. The ultimate victor was neither the Josephites, nor their Trans-Volga opponents, but the Muscovite autocracy and its power.

4. CONCLUSION

The reigns of Ivan III and Vasilij III were marked by the progress of Western influence. It would be an exaggeration to suggest that the intellectual influence was deep; it was certainly less noticeable than the work of the technicians who had built churches and introduced a knowledge of astronomy and pharmacy. The intellectuals from abroad had done little more than to translate books, though that in itself was im84 58

Medlin, Moscow and East Rome..., 94. Seep. 58.

THE MEETING OF MOSCOW AND ROME

73

portant. It became accepted, however, that the world of Roman Catholicism — i.e., the world of the West, for the Reformation made an impact on Russia only after Ivan IV came to the throne — had learning that could be of use to Russians. Despite such xenophobic moments as would come with the ascendancy of Filaret in the early seventeenth century, no intelligent Russian was ever to challenge that proposition again. The questions that remained were what exactly ought be borrowed, and how ought this be put to use? For Ivan III and Vasilij III, for the Gennadij circle and Joseph of Volokolamsk, it was primarily a matter of deciding what might serve their interests, what might help tsars rule more effectively or what might enable clerics to achieve greater influence in the state and defeat challenges to their views or to their authority in the Church. For Maxim the Greek it was not quite the same; Maxim had experienced profound Western influences in Italy, and had formed an intellectual humanism partly from Byzantium and partly from his Italian experiences. Once in Russia, for him it was a question of deciding which aspects of this formation could be safely exposed in his cultural work and which it would be better to conceal, not what ideas or formulas to borrow. Then and later one can note the differences between Russians who propagandized for some sort of Westernization without clearly understanding what the West was like and those who had a real knowledge and experience of the West; at any rate one can distinguish persons in a continuum of which those were the two extremes. Clearly attempts to discover who in Russia most loved the West will not be of much help to the cultural historian, and those Soviet historians who tend to equate Western influence during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries with a favorable attitude toward the Roman Catholic faith risk moving up a blind alley. Maxim was certainly more Westernized than Gennadij of Novgorod, but Gennadij seemed far more eager than Maxim to borrow from Roman Catholicism. Maxim, the most Westernized man in Russia in the sixteenth century, was identified with the strongest indigenous currents in Russian religion and culture. He wanted nothing to do with the heresy-hunting, wealth-cherishing Josephites, who wanted to turn the Russian church to a new sort of path and who found certain Roman Catholic models useful in so doing. Finally, it may be asked whether Western influence during this period was actually intended and organized and, if so, to what extent. It appears that the marriage of Zoé Paleologos to Ivan III was the brain child of Cardinal Bessarion, who was charged with the rearing of both Zoe and

74

DONALD W. TREAD GOLD

her brother, Andrew, 56 though Ivan III certainly had his own reasons for agreeing to the proposal. There is also evidence that some Roman Catholics had plans for a crusade of the West and Russia against the Turks as the result of a bargain struck by recognizing the Muscovite grand princes as heirs to the Byzantine Empire; in 1519 Nikolaus von Schonberg was ordered by the pope to suggest this possibility to Vasilij III. 57 Doubtless not merely zeal against the infidel but also the fearful threat of Lutheranism and all that the Reformation meant to Rome impelled such overtures to be made. Baron Herberstein, writing to Pope Clement VII, urged attention to what Muscovy could contribute to a campaign against the Turks, pointing out — he was the first to do so — the use that the Christian populations of the Balkans might be as auxiliaries, and frankly urging "direct relations with Moscow, removing [the necessity for] any mediation in this affair by the King of Poland". The Poles were made anxious by such a possibility, and in 1553 Sigismund Augustus even threatened to break off political relations with Rome and, if Rome pursued it, to conclude a pact with the Sultan. 58 But before long Poland was facing the Livonian War with Ivan the Terrible. Obviously Rome cannot be credited with planning the education of Maxim the Greek, and it is uncertain whether those at the papal court who assisted Dmitrij Gerasimov and others to peruse the Donation of Constantine and similar documents did so with the intention of fixing any intellectual mortgages on Russia. There appears no warrant for believing that during the reigns of Ivan III and Vasilij III anyone in Rome, let alone in the various European states, had any serious notion that the revival and successful implementation of the Union of Florence might be a reasonable hope, or that anyone drew up any other plan for mass conversion of the Muscovites. And yet during this thirty-year period the influence of the Roman Catholic culture of Western Europe became perceptible in Russia. The meeting of Moscow and Rome was accomplished, beginning a long story with fateful consequences for Russia.

56

F. Uspenskij, "Kak voznik i razvivalsja v Rossii vostoCnyj vopros", Izvestija Sanktpeterburgskago slavjanskago blagotvoritel'nago obscestva ,No. 7-8 (1886), 309. Uspenskij, "Kak voznik i razvivalsja v Rossii vostoCnyj vopros", 314; the document is here quoted at length. 58 Uspenskij, "Kak voznik i razvivalsja v Rossii vostoCnyj vopros", 315-316. 57

E V I D E N C E S O F SOCIAL C H A N G E I N M E D I E V A L RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

OSWALD P. BACKUS

The purpose of this essay is to examine examples of medieval Russian religious literature, primarily to determine the validity of analyzing such materials for insight into the historical process of social change. 1 By religious literature, I mean that body of literature which was composed in Russian or translated into Russian from the Greek (and occasionally from other languages) in order to advance the Orthodox faith. 2 I wish to consider the changes in h o w men lived, in h o w men regarded each other, and in what men thought to be of ultimate importance. I a m concerned with the nature and trends of Russian society during that period when religious literature was the dominant mode of literary expression, i.e., from the Russia of Kiev in the eleventh century to the Russia of M o s c o w in the seventeenth century. 3 1

Part of the substance of this article was delivered as a lecture at University College, Oxford, November 30, 1965 under the title "Medieval Russian Religious Literature and the Law", and again at the University of Münster, July 11, 1966 under the title "Russische Religiöse Literatur des Mittelalters und das Recht". Thanks are due to the Institut russkogo jazyka Akademii Nauk SSSR in Moscow for substantial assistance, including making notes available to me, and, as well, to the manuscript division of the Library of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad and the Leningradskoe otdelenie instituta istorii Akademii Nauk SSSR for the opportunity to read texts. 2 Among the most thorough works which give attention to the monuments of medieval Russian religious literature are G. Florovskij, Puti russkago bogoslovija (Paris, 1937), and A. M. Ammann, S. J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Kultur und des religiösen Lebens bei den Ostslawen, Heft 1: Die Ostslawische Kirche im jurisdiktionellen Verband der byzantinischen Großkirche (988-1459) (Würzburg, 1955) — Das Ostliche Christentum, Neue Folge, Heft 13. 3 The predominance in medieval Russia of a set of other-worldly attitudes, and my own conviction that attitudes most often determine the functioning of institutions, together have led me to pay particular attention to how at this time men regarded each other and what they thought was of ultimate importance. These are elements in social change which receive only subsidiary emphasis in that current sociological theory which focuses on institutions and social structures. Cf. W. E. Moore, Social Blane (ed.), The Religious World of Russian Culture, Vol. II, pp. 75-100. © Mouton Publishers 1975.

76

OSWALD P. BACKUS

So treated, the subject may be said to include one matter of primary significance. Because a tendency toward the secularization of much of Russian society emerged more noticeably after the middle of the sixteenth century, it is especially important to consider the extent to which religious literature then reflected the actual life of the day. In this regard it should be noted that the secularization of Russia was gradual; it parallelled and partially resulted from the process of westernization which did not reach a crescendo until the time of Peter the Great — that is, at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries. Father Georges Florovsky has properly emphasized the crisis of Russian Byzantinism in the sixteenth century, when there occurred a decisive departure from the tradition of theological dependence upon the writings of the Church Fathers and from "faithfulness to the patristic spirit".4 He believes the influence of Latin logic and rhetoric and of Western ideas was significant in the development of the crisis and led to an increase in secular emphasis.5 The matter has been stated somewhat differently by the Soviet scholar, A. I. Klibanov. He suggests that a Russian humanism crystallized in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and posits as components of this humanism the affirmation of the value of man or the existence of man as his own master, joie de vivre, and the equality of peoples and faiths. 6 Concerning this same period, the emigré scholar G. P. Fedotov has stated: "The mid-sixteenth century" divides "the era of the Orthodox empire". 7 Though I consider this statement too strong because it suggests a dramatic change, instead of a gradual, albeit accelerating, process of secularization, it does indicate clearly the special influence of the midsixteenth century. Fedotov also notes that at this time regulated piety, or "ceremonial confessionalism", came to dominate the religious life, and it did for a long time.8 With such a development one might expect that religious literature would become less sensitive to social change, for expressions of piety might wither into formulas. In fact, however, despite Change (Englewood Cliffs, 1963), 5-21; T. Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, 1966), 5-27. 4 G. Florovskij, 506. 5 G. Florovskij, 15ff. 6 A. I. Klibanov, Reformacionnye dvizenija v Rossii v XlV-pervoj polovine XVI vv. (Moscow, 1960), 333-383. 7 G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, Vol II: The Middle Ages. The Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries, ed. with a foreword by John Meyendorff (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 391. 8 Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, Vol II.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

77

the emergence of "ceremonial confessionalism", despite the rise of humanistic tendencies, and despite the departure from the patristic tradition, the late sixteenth century — and the seventeenth century also, notwithstanding interruptions from social upheavals, saw an increasing stress on the translation of religious texts of both Western and Byzantine origin and, at some times, even on the native composition of religious literature. Therefore, one may feel some hope of finding indubitable reflections of social change even in the religious literature of this period. 1 In the past, social change in early Russian history has not been the object of adequate attention. The deficiency has stemmed partly from the older conception of history as consisting of the description of important political developments, wars, and governments. To be sure, such a serious eighteenth-century scholar as Tati§5ev did consider social change in his description of tribes at the dawn of Russian history,9 as did a number of popular writers of the age.10 Despite these early instances, the predominant tendency was to ignore social changes, especially those that occurred from Kievan through late Muscovite times. There is yet another possible cause for the lack of concern with social change: the materials which the historian would be driven to use, were he to examine social change, would include religious materials, and Russian historians seem to have hesitated to examine Orthodox religious material for such a profane purpose. No doubt, in the early nineteenth century, under the impact of "official nationality", their hesitation was increased by the assertion that Orthodoxy was one of the basic values of Russian civilization and one of the cornerstones of the Russian state. In the later nineteenth century, however, a mounting concern with social change appeared in historical works, though these virtually equated it with the varying state of public morals. Paramount among such works is the monograph of the historian V. A. Jakovlev on the Izmaragd, an important early collection of religious literature. By imaginative analysis he makes clear the utility of drawing upon religious materials for the study of society. 9 V. N. Tati&Sev, Istorija Rossijskaja, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1764-1848); modern edition, 7 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962-1967). 10 Veiernie Casy ili Drevnija Skazki Slavjan Drevljanskix, 6 parts (Moscow, 17871788).

78

OSWALD P. BACKUS

It is not important that we determine precisely the degree to which the Izmaragd is an independent creation of the compiler; rather we should show what kind of life in contemporary society interested him. From the fact that the collection became popular ... we may decide what questions were of interest to society and, with the help of this collection, establish for ourselves an image of the moral state in the circles through which our monument was once broadly distributed.11 Although Jakovlev shows by example that one may thus gain insights, his work discloses two limitations: (1) he focused attention upon the moral state, a concept easily accepted from the theological point of view, rather than upon the broader concept of social conditions; and (2) he implied that one may learn of this state only as it existed within those circles in which the Izmaragd was read. Insofar as medieval attitudes were in fact moral attitudes, the first limitation is not significant: it becomes so only when it causes a disregard of attitudes toward life which, though occurring in religious literature, are disjunct from moral judgments. In contrast, the second limitation is important, for it implies an assumption that religious literature offers no information about society as a whole. Nevertheless, Jakovlev's method represented an advance: he emphasized attitudes and changes in attitudes as a significant aspect of social development. He was not the only historian to use such an approach to social history, nor the only one to exhibit a certain caution, probably politically or theologically induced, about examining religious writings for evidence of social change. Among those who made careful use of such materials, Jakovlev was probably the boldest, i.e., the most willing to recognize reflections of society in the texts.12 Soviet scholars have also sought in religious materials for evidence of social change, but their approach has often been constricted by Marxist preoccupations. Their work has centered upon monasteries, monastic life, and the exploitation of peasants by the monastic establishment. In a recent monograph, I. U. Budovnic has emphasized the strong antagonisms existing between the people and the monasteries. He appears unwilling to examine religious literature except to see there a reflection of the desire of monastic circles to dominate and to exploit the peasants. He acknowledges no examples of a friendly attitude toward the church 11

V. A. Jakovlev, K liternaturnoj istorii drevne-russkix "Sbornikov" (Odessa, 1893) (= Zapiski imperatorskago Novorossijskago universiteta, LX). 12 Works deserving mention are E. Golubinskij, Istorija russkoj cerkvi. 2 vols, in 4 pts. (Moscow, 1880-1917); S. I. Smirnov, Materialy dlja istorii drevne-russkojpokajannoj discipliny (= II. Materialy istoriko-literaturnye, Ctenija v obscestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix, 242) (St. Petersburg, 1912).

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

79

on the part of the people, nor, apparently, does he ever consider that the literature of the monasteries might reflect a sympathetic concern with conditions among the people.13 His approach illustrates the circumspect emphasis of Soviet scholars upon the class struggle and their Marxist tendency to neglect evidence of collaboration between those elements of society which they assume to have been locked in mortal combat. In particular, it reflects a rigid rejection of the concept that the church may actually strive to improve the life of the humble and the weak. Occasionally, however, one does encounter Soviet work which hints at a less hostile view of the church and in which religious materials are acknowledged to reflect a genuine concern with the problems of the people.14 In recent Western writing there are several somewhat different emphases which deserve mention here. The German scholar, Günther Stökl, has recently published a work on the image of the West in the Old Russian chronicles. He suggests that Mentalität (i.e., la mentalité) and public opinion in Russia should be investigated, a point of view perhaps obvious to those schooled in Western historiography but one relatively novel among Russian historians. Stökl's concepts of Mentalität and public opinion are broader than the concepts employed by Jakovlev. They embrace not only the views current at a given time in a society, but also the totality of the spiritual existence of the constituent individuals, which from time to time may exercise varying and disparate influences upon the society. Stökl then investigates the chronicles for their successive images of the West, and discloses how superficial and inaccurate these images were. This is a significant contribution. His method is to compare a reasonable number of the variants of the chronicle texts. He admits that a thorough investigation of hundreds of such variants would be necessary to depict more precisely the image of Europe reflected in the chronicles during any given period and to uncover the numerous changes in that image from one period to the next. But though, in Stökl's opinion, the images of the West mirrored in the chronicles may not provide a

13

I. U. Budovnic, Monastyrja na Rusi i bor'ba s nimi krest'jan v XIV-XVI vekax (po zitijam svjatyx) (Moscow, 1966). 14 N. A. Kazakova and la. S. Lur'e, Antifeodal'nye eretiieskie dvizenija na Rusi XIV-naiala XVI veka (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955); A. I. Klibanov, Reformacionnye dvizenija... Also see my review in American Historical Review LXVIII (1963), 10601062.

80

OSWALD P. BACKUS

definitive picture of the views of medieval Russia, he considers them to be certainly suggestive and possibly of central significance.15 Michael Cherniavsky in a recent book has examined Russian myths, giving particular attention to those recorded in religious literature. He has focused upon those political myths concerning the tsar which stemmed from the Russian people and which, therefore, in his view, with some element of distortion do reflect reality — in the sense of the history of society. Cherniavsky postulates a need among Russians for some sort of personal and collective identity, which led them to create an exalted image of themselves as members of a tsar-centered, power-oriented society. He notes that the more the power of the government grew, the more extreme became the myths used to justify it. Myths about the kindness of the tsar and the great goodness of the people together grew steadily: the tsar thus became the link between the people and God, and the people became the key element in "Holy Russia". Of particular importance was the emergence of such concepts as saintly princes and the "most gentle" tsar. The real test for the myths of the saintly princes, as Cherniavsky puts it, occurred in the sixteenth century when the centralized Russian state experienced its greatest crisis; that they survived then and also throughout the subsequent Time of Troubles in the early seventeenth century testifies to their deep roots in the popular consciousness.16 Although these Russian, Soviet, and Western works all exhibit approaches designed to uncover more information about the early attitudes of the Russian people and to generate a deeper understanding of social changes in medieval Russia, they all have defects in method. The sparsity of available sources causes one. If any meaningful patterns are to be defined, a large volume of material must be investigated; otherwise, one runs the risk of attributing overly broad significance to discrete pieces of information, one of the more serious changes frequently leveled against a sociological approach to history. The shortage of material has another consequence, namely, that one can only precariously differentiate patterns by periods of time. Cherniavsky's book, excellent in many ways, may not always appear convincing because he supports temporal differentiations by the use of folklore material, and the dating of folklore is necessari15

G. Stökl, Das Bild des Abendlandes in den altrussischen Chroniken (Köln-Opladen, 1965) ( = Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Geisteswissenschaften, Heft 124). 16 M. Cherniavsky, Tsar and People. Studies in Russian Myths (New Haven-London, 1961), 53ff.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

81

ly controversial.17 Also, a scarcity of material makes it difficult to distinguish between patterns from different geographical areas or regions. Certainly local differentiations may not be ignored. Such matters as soil types, water, climate, the presence or absence of forests, the types of crops, and the availability of ores make a fundamental impress on the populace of specific regions and the attitudes they adopt. Ethnic and cultural differences between specific sub-groups inhabiting a region are admittedly important in the history of Russia, because not all of the tribes were Slavic. Many had Turkic, Iranian, Finnic, and other backgrounds, and such tribes were only slowly, if at all, assimilated by the Slavic Russians. Again, the assimilated peoples each had a specific influence on the life of the regions in which they lived.18 In addition to the shortage of available material, the historian of social change in medieval Russia encounters the problem of the incompleteness of any social image derived from religious literature, — that is, practically speaking, from the extant literature of the time. It should be quite clear that religious writers emphasized what they believed or thought they should believe, or what they felt most needed attention. Consequently one might assume that the changes in attitudes reflected in religious materials could well exclude a host of attitudes which the religious writers regarded as of minor or lesser importance, particularly those attitudes prevalent in society which did not provoke theological apprehension. Even if these issues are minimized, the historian of social change is still confronted with a rather basic problem. To what extent are changes in attitudes truly indicative of social changes ? Is it not possible that a society may experience changes in attitudes which foreshadow imminent social changes, and that these changes in attitudes may become ancillary causes of imminent social changes? In a theologically-oriented society, like that of medieval Russia, is it not possible that such changes in attitudes may have arisen through the intellectual absorption of religious points of view, through the discovery that these views were in conflict with traditional practices, and through a consequent recognition that social change was theologically urgent ? Such a sequence of events, hypothetically proffered here, may well have been of considerable importance in the history of Russia and is a point of departure in this investigation.

17

Cherniavsky, Tsar and People, 115-127. L. V. Alekseev, Polotskaja zemlja (oierki istorii severnoj Belorussii) v IX-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1966), 24, 32-34, stresses the impress of early Lithuanians and Finns upon the Slavs. 18

82

OSWALD P. BACKUS

One basic assumption is that in early times the degree of attention given to Christianity among the Russian mass was much lower than the clerics wished. Pagan practices long survived and pagan attitudes survived even longer. Yet at some time in the early Muscovite period paganism at last became truly weak. The process of attempting to reconcile pagan and Christian attitudes may then have brought to the fore fundamental changes in attitudes not previously noted by religious thinkers but which were now thought to be worthy of comment, polemical critique, or even violent attack. Another basic assumption is that knowledge may be drawn from the comparison of available religious materials from various periods.

2 Although I will consider and compare different works set down in different periods of Russian history, I will focus attention on variants in the works that appear and reappear over several centuries, if only because there the job of sorting out shifts in attitudes is initially much easier and more certain. But there is one hazard which at the outset requires a particular warning. Early Russian religious literature was largely Greek in derivation and consequently in the values which it reflected. It seems virtually impossible to deduce much about Russia from the works of Greek origin, except those which later appeared in modified texts. Among such works potentially valuable for the clarification of attitudinal changes is the Nomokanon of Photius. Other useful items containing extracts of Greek origin are The Enlightened Prophets, an Explanation of the Psalms, and the Izborniki (or Selections) of 1073 and 1076, dedicated to Great Prince Svjatoslav, which include selections written by such great persons as Basileios, Kyrillos of Alexandria, Isodoros of Pelusion, Justin Martyr, Maximus the Confessor, and Anastasios Sinaites, as well as by others.19 In addition to the large number of works wholly or partially of Greek origin, there are works essentially Russian in origin or which increasingly became Russian in nature as they evolved from prototypes translated from Greek. The last group includes the Izmaragd, the Prologues, the Minei-Cet'i, the Sinodik, the Kormcaja Kniga, the Trebnik, and the Chronicles; these are probably among the most useful works for this investigation.

19

Ammann, 59-62.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

83

The Izmaragd is an interesting religious work, largely made up of sermons and didactic stories, which was widely distributed in four main versions from the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries. I take it up first because of all the collections named above, the second and fourth versions of the Izmaragd contain the largest number of works of Russian origin; and also because, if we may judge from the number of extant copies, these versions were second in popularity only to the sermons of St. John Chrysostomos. The first version of the Izmaragd is available in only a few copies (the oldest being a fourteenth-century parchment in the Rumjancev collection of the Lenin Library in Moscow). A distinct majority of its works are of Greek origin. The second version is available in some hundred copies (the earliest dating from the fifteenth century): here, certain items included in the first version have been excluded, many new items have been introduced, the headings have been changed, and a number of words in the text substituted. Although I shall later make use of various versions of the Izmaragd in relation to my main purpose, I wish here to indicate a change of probable readership between the first and second versions. The first version seems to have been designed for clerics; and the second was designed for laymen, as is suggested by certain new items which place emphasis upon hard work and the maintenance of the family. The compiler of the second version also wrote of the necessity of mercy, especially to relatives, and opposed such customs as excessive weeping over the dead, the disgraceful burial of the unworthy dead in churches, and the thoughtless condemnation of others. He stressed the approaching end of the world, the obligation to fast and do penance in order to achieve salvation, the need for respecting the clergy, and the importance of attending church and listening to sermons. Among the vices of the unjust, he gave particular note to drunkenness and cupidity.20 These differences in emphasis between the first and second versions of the Izmaragd may well reflect changes in attitudes which occurred both within society and within the clergy. I think that in the second version we find something more appropriate to the contemporary Russian scene, something which more nearly reflects existing Russian reality. The third and the fourth versions of the Izmaragd (both from the sixteenth century) are reworkings of the first and second versions, respectively. The Prologues are collections which, like the Izmaragd, were designed for religious instruction; they are based on Greek collections of brief lives of saints, and are set forth in the order of the church year. Russian Prologues (the oldest stemming from the twelfth century) differ from 20

Jakovlev, K literaturnoj

istorii...

84

OSWALD P. BACKUS

their Greek prototypes, the Synaxarions, by the inclusion of didactic stories, and by the addition of lives of Russian saints and essays of Russian origin. A related genre are the Minei-Cet'i (the two oldest originating at the end of the eleventh century and in the twelfth century), which differ from the Prologues in that they contain much fuller lives of the saints and, frequently, sermons inserted to aid in the understanding of the saints' lives or specific events in these narratives. The early Greek Sinodik, originally a statement of moderate length on the merits of Orthodoxy, contains anathemas against heretics which were to be read on the first Sunday in Lent. The two principal early Russian versions of this Sinodik (from the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries) add, the first a few, the second many, memorials to the virtuous dead. The seventeenth-century Russian versions also include stories, judgments of particular acts, and other items in which penance is emphasized. The most elaborate seventeenth-century Russian form of the Sinodik, strongly influenced by the Prologues, was the full size of a book. Another type of collection common to medieval Russia was the Kormcaja Kniga; it contained church law of both Greek and Russian origin to which were added, especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, princely degrees and charters, decisions of church councils, epistles of metropolitans, and accepted, if at times conflicting, answers to theological questions. One of the most frequent and important bodies of canons to be found in the kormcie knigi was the Nomokanon. At various times a number of different kormcie knigi were put together, but in the sixteenth century an effort to make an authoritative compilation culminated in the official Kormcaja Kniga of 1650. Still another religious collection, the Trebnik, was at first a service and prayer book for the clergy, but with the passage of time gained various appendices including elements of canon law (i.e., the rules of most practical use to the clergy). All of the collections listed above have certain characteristics in common: (1) they were designed for frequent use; (2) they appeared over many centuries in a number of versions; and (3) they contain much information about the duties of Christians, the sins to which Christians were most inclined, and the penalties likely to be imposed. Together they offer considerable insight into the problems which confronted the clergy when they dealt with the laity. The variants from different centuries and different places make it possible to distinguish, however roughly, changes in the way medieval Russians handled their problems and changes in the nature of the problems themselves.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

85

The Chronicles represent a different type of source.21 Composed by monks in various times (beginning at least in the eleventh century), they were, until the seventeenth century, the dominant genre in which to set down events and their significance. Though no longer the major form of historical record, they continued to be composed until well into the nineteenth century, especially in remote monasteries. Later chronicles were often based in part on earlier chronicles, yet nevertheless they came to vary in the delineation and explanation of one and the same event. From the fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries, the chronicles were compiled in a wide array of localities : thus an event contemporary with the lives of several chroniclers would often be depicted with substantial variations in detail and perspective, and occasionally with contradictions. The variants between chronicles of earlier and later eras and between chronicles of the same time but of different places afford information relating to changing attitudes.

3

There is evidence in medieval Russian religious literature that with the passage of time life in Russia was becoming more difficult to endure and that, as a result of the increasing difficulty, mores and attitudes tended to change. One bit of evidence is the seeming emergence of a less strict attitude on the part of the church toward priests, at least according to a fourteenth-century version of the Nomokanon, a collection of canon law partly of Greek origin. It is written that if a priest (who, by Orthodox canon, had to be married) committed adultery with another's wife, he might not perform the liturgy and must do penance for six years although he might "from Easter to Easter" take communion. 22 However, Smirnov labels this concept that a priest guilty of adultery need not be unfrocked as "a bad, anticanonical thought probably of Greek origin". 23 Moreover, there are numerous versions of the zakon sudnyj ljudem ("a court law for the people", which appeared in the Kormcaja Kniga of the fourteenth century and also later) and other documents as well which contained a rule regularly restated in the sixteenth century, with apparently only inconsequential modifications, that if a priest was caught 21

See A. A. Saxmatov, Obozrenie russkix letopisnyx svodov XIV-XVI vv. (MoscowLeningrad, 1938), and D. S. Lixaiev, Russkie letopisi i ix kul'turno-istoriceskoe znaienie (Moscow-Leningrad, 1947). 22 Smirnov, XXI, art. 11. 23 Smirnov, 371 and 397.

86

OSWALD P. BACKUS

with another's wife, he should be unfrocked. 24 The persistence of this traditional provision in the sources might properly argue that there was in fact no relaxation in the late medieval period of the standards to which priests were held. One might from this view simply accept Fedotov's statement that the durations of imposed penances were long and even tended to increase through the centuries. If this be the case, then a fallen priest's penance (supposing he were not unfrocked) would probably have been longer at the later time. But Fedotov has also observed that, even if the prescribed periods of penance lengthened in later years, they were at the same time enforced less rigorously.25 Indeed this latter observation, joined with my own general impression that in its attitude toward several categories of evil the Russian Orthodox Church in later times displayed lenience and tolerance, suggests that the implication of the fourteenthcentury Nomokanon, namely, that wayward priests may have then been treated by the church less severely, should not be dismissed out of hand. It is possible, of course, that a relaxation of standards in the relation of priests to women reflects less a relaxation in the general standards of behavior expected of clerics than an unwillingness on the part of the church to face the consequences of unfrocking clerics or of prohibiting them from performing the liturgy for an extended period of time; the first practice might cause a shortage of clerics and the second would require the authorities to maintain clerics idling on probation. There is additional evidence of the continuity of harsh penalties. For example, in several texts dated two centuries apart it was provided that at the time of a priest's marriage his wife had to be a virgin; this was a prerequisite to his admission to ecclesiastical service.26 Notwithstanding this adverse data, one must still somehow account for the unexpected deviation of the fourteenth-century Nomokanon from centuries of tradition. It presents a problem, although perhaps one local in nature. A solution can be obtained only after comparing all extant versions of the Nomokanon and other relevant statements in the various collections, which has yet to be done. For the time being we have here only a clue. That life was becoming more difficult to tolerate in Muscovite times seems even more clear from the increasing problem of alcoholism. In numerous religious collections from the fourteenth through the six24

Zakon sudnyj ljudem (prostrannoj i svodnoj redakcii) (Moscow, 1961), "O pope i epskpe" (variously spelled), 39, 69, 106, 131; cf. Smirnov, Xllla, art. 33; X l l l b , art. 13;XIVb, art. 13. 25 Fedotov, 145ff. 26 Smirnov, XUIa, art. 37; XIX, art. 61.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

87

teenth centuries an austere attitude toward the priest who is drunk while performing the liturgy may be found. He is to fast for forty days, and to pray, and to abstain from performing services for a thousand days. However throughout this period another, earlier rule is cited in other works by which the guilty priest is to abstain from performing services for a mere forty days.27 The emergence of a harsher rule implies that the church was being confronted with a serious problem of alcoholism which it was trying to combat, and the existence of this problem suggests a change in attitudes. In Kievan times the consumption of alcohol had been encouraged, particularly as a stimulus to thought and conversation, though at the same time excessive use was discouraged by the claim that the seventh cup was dangerous.28 Later it was apparently necessary to discourage more strongly the excessive consumption of alcohol. Viewed from another angle, the problem of drunkenness yields further insight. Although it was a perennial problem in Russia, drunkenness seems to have become more common late in the Muscovite period, both among priests and the people in general. This can be inferred from references in saints' lives, and from the greater attention paid in sixteenth-century literature to the theme of drunkenness. Thus, for example, a sixteenthcentury text is the first version of the Izmaragd to stress the problem of drunkenness.29 The greater difficulty of life in Russia in the later Middle Ages seems also reflected in a shift in the depiction of St. George, who traditionally (e.g., in various Minei-Cet'i) was celebrated as a protector of widows and a shepherd of those in the wilderness, an enlightener and a defender of faith. A recurrent theme is that he suffered for Christianity; but his sufferings seem less painful in the earlier accounts, whereas by the fifteenth century they had become quite horrible, including punishment on the wheel.30 This shift suggests a gloomier view of life in fifteenth27

Smirnov, II, art. 42; Xllla, art. 13; XlVa, art. 13; XVa, art. 7; XXVII, art. 7. G. P. Fedotov, [signed E.M.J.], "Old Russian Views on Inebriety", Quarterly Journal of Studies of Alcohol, III (1943), 666. The relevant passage is quoted from a translation from the Russian of "An Admonition of St. Basil the Great on the Seemliness of Abstaining from Drunkenness". 39 A. Popov, Vlijanie cerkovnago uienija i drevne-russkoj duxovnoj pis'mennosti na rosozercatiie russkago tiaroda i v iastrtosti na narodnuju slovesnost', v drevnij dopetrovskij period (Kazan', 1883), 303; Smirnov, XVI. One should bear in mind the possibility that increased drunkenness may at times have been caused by crop surpluses which made it more profitable to sell alcohol than grains at the market. 30 Popov, 122-128. Although Popov's work contains only indirect references to variances in image at different periods, it can be helpful because one may ascertain the dates of the unpublished texts he used and from his numerous comments re-

28

88

OSWALD P. BACKUS

century Russia than before. Similarly, somewhat later one of the oldest of the Russian saints, St. Elijah (i.e., the Old Testament prophet Elijah) was presented less heroically than before. Earlier versions of his career, including those in the Soloveckij Prologue and the Izmaragd, show him in traditional fashion ascending to heaven in a flaming chariot. The later Minei-Cet'i contain no mention of a flaming chariot. 31 Perhaps life had become too drab for a writer to retain the heroic image of Elijah in his flaming chariot. It is also impossible, and equally undemonstrable, that this change in the image of Elijah reflects a rise in secular emphasis, although this speculation conflicts with the basic awe consistently manifested toward the saints. Another piece of evidence arguing the increased difficulty of life is the changing treatment of miracles in stories about St. Nicholas-on-theSea. With the passage of time there appears less hope that miracles can bring great benefits, a greater pathos, and even a greater disregard for life — all reactions one might expect in a time when life seemed harder to endure. As they first appeared in successive variants of the MineiCet'i and the Prologues, the stories recount that St. Nicholas saved numerous people in danger on the seas. In certain sixteenth-century texts, however, the saint saves only some of those in trouble, and by the midsixteenth century one source tells of a man who commits suicide because others had not been saved. 32 This act reveals a sympathy on the part of a man for the plight of those near him, and by extrapolation a sympathy for the troubles, trials, and tribulations of all mankind. Sympathy for the plight of mankind and a growing sense of duty toward one's neighbor may also be seen in the constant preoccupation with prayer: numerous prayers, both public and private, were said day and night, especially on behalf of others. 33 It is possible to interpret this preoccupation as a response to a society which was becoming more and more difficult to tolerate. One might expect that the desire for spectacular miracles would increase in direct proportion to hard times. Cherniavsky has shown clearly that the spectacular aspects of the saintly prince tended to be emphasized in the harsher, late Muscovite times, a finding that seems psychologically appropriate. Yet there is evidence of a counter-trend. For example, construct an evolution in the images. This and the subsequent notes referring to Popov depend upon this method. 31 Popov, 105. 32 Popov, 136. 33 Popov, 238-239, and 317ff.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

89

in general the variant versions of the story of St. Nicholas-on-the-Sea show a transition from complexes of miracles to single miracles which are more modest in result, though more immediate.34 It is true that often in troubled time there is a loss of concern for mankind, which suggests that some sort of stability and security is a prerequisite to the existence of sympathy for those who suffer misfortune. May one not, then, see in the unusual reaction, i.e., the emergence of social sympathy in troubled times, evidences of the development of a social consciousness among the Russian people, and a social consciousness of heroic proportions ? Indications of the existence of such a social consciousness can certainly be seen in the writings of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Trans-Volga hermit, St. Nil Sorskij, as well as in the works of writers of later times. The testimony which has been set forth here does not point to a desire on the part of medieval Russians to obtain an exalted image of themselves, as Cherniavsky has hypothesized. Rather these people seem progressively to sink deeper into a slough of difficulties. Further investigation of these clues and the search for other clues are indicated. For the present it seems that with the passage of centuries the average Russian's lot grew worse and life became more difficult to endure. Such a postulate contradicts those scholars who see economic improvement in Russia from the fourteenth to the late sixteenth century; 35 it also implies that the economic difficulties commonly found by analyses of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are also appropriate to an earlier time. Most of the examples that I have cited above are linked with the questions how in medieval Russia men regarded each other and how men lived. Almost all of the examples are connected with some moral judg34

The emphasis on petty miracles in the sixteenth century is reflected in Polnoe Sobranie russkix letopisej, XX, 397-398, and 438. Earlier chronicles do not reveal the same or analogous preoccupations with petty miracles. 35 Such an approach has been especially characteristic of Soviet historical writings which have even gone so far as to minimize the depressing social effects of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. See P. A. Xromov, Ocerki ¿konomiki feodalizma v Rossii (Moscow, 1957); also numerous articles in the various Ezegodniki po agrarnoj istorii vostoinoj Evropy (1962-1967). This emphasis seems to be linked with the wish to discover early manifestations of capitalism in Russia and to suggest that Eastern Europe's economic evolution was analogous to that in contemporary Western Europe during the period of the voyages of discovery. In earlier Russian historiography a related emphasis is linked with the economic advantages which allegedly served as a basis for the rise of Muscovy. However, some important dissident voices have recently been heard, e.g., A. M. Saxarov, Goroda severo-vostolnoj Rust XJV-XV vekov (Moscow, 1959), who, while subscribing to the idea of beneficial economic development at the time, paints a picture of the economy which is, nonetheless, bleak.

90

OSWALD P. BACKUS

ment. This may reflect nothing more than the nature of the materials used. Alternatively, it may reflect an excessive attention on my part to penitential elements in the religious literature. It is admittedly surprising that there are not more examples analogous to the shifting image of St. Elijah, examples which are free of a moral judgment, expressed or implied. The examples I have adduced here throw only a little light on what medieval Russians thought to be of ultimate importance. Various shifts have been noted, some in the direction of greater austerity, some in the opposite direction. One may argue that clues to social changes are present therein, but one must also admit that complete delineations of social changes are not.

4 The sparse results of this preliminary inquiry into changes in attitudes revealed in medieval Russian religious literature can be supplemented by a description of early Russian attitudes toward the crimes of theft and robbery, which I have had occasion to investigate in greater detail.36 A basic premise in Kievan times was "Thou shalt not steal". Theft, that is, the taking of another's property without violence, was regarded as a sin.37 The story of the Virgin's visit to Hell recounts that, after having seen lesser sinners, she saw many, many worse sinners "in a river which was flowing as though of blood": among the worst of these were the sodomists, the adulterers, and the thieves.38 Robbery, that is, the taking of another's property with violence, was regarded as the opposite of brotherly love, which should replace it — so wrote the anonymous author of the famous medieval Sermon on Justice and Injustice. 39 In contrast to modern societies, which regard robbery more seriously than theft, Kievan Russia made no clear distinction between them: the eleventh-century compilation of laws, Pravda Russkaja, contains no definitions,40 and Russian religious literature does not indicate that one 36

Cf. O. P. Backus, "Folklore and History of Old Russia", Folkways, III (1964), 67-69. 37 Velikie Minei-Cet'i IX, Part I, column 2065 (hereafter VMC); ms. Biblioteka Akademii Nauk SSSR 4.9.31, 14-VIII (hereafter BAN); ms. BAN.4.9.31, 3-VIII, leaf 1.7. column 4. 38 "Xozdenie Bogorodicy po Mukam", Pamjatrtiki Starinnoj Russkoj Literatury, 4 vyp. (St. Petersburg, 1860-1862), vyp. Ill, 121. 39 VMC, XVI, Part I, column 169. 40 O. P. Backus, "Theft, Power Structure, and Continuity in the History of Russian Law", Slavic and East European Studies VII (1963), 156.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

91

of these crimes is worse than the other, despite the use of distinct words to denote theft and robbery. Although the robber is described as a coward who will flee and who should be tried, if caught, 41 he is more often called a danger, like one of the natural elements, which ought to be avoided (but advice of this sort was usually ignored).42 Or he is depicted as a torment of the saints, one not to be avoided.43 The life of Daniil, Abbot of the Russian Land (1106-1108), includes in a description of his pilgrimage from Jerusalem to Jordan the statement that near Eleon Hill "there are high stone hills and there is much robbery and they rob in those hills and in the terrible Debrex". 44 If it proved impossible to avoid the depredations of robbers, at least one should try to protect potential victims and to rescue those victimized.45 The reaction most frequent in the religious literature is that the criminal should be redeemed. Father Ilarion went to robbers "beyond Cyprus" in an effort to persuade them to mend their ways.46 Robbers, it was suggested, should first be tested, 47 and then a serious attempt should be made to reform them. 48 The thief or despoiler should do his utmost to avoid the last judgment prior to having seen the error of his ways.49 A robber might be partially redeemed if he refrained from beating his victims,50 and then might be completely saved if he saw the error of his ways. But this could occur only after a prescribed series of acts. First, through the agency of God, His Word, and the Church, the robber should renounce his ways, confess his sins, and beg forgiveness.51 His plea for forgiveness might assure his salvation, if he should die shortly thereafter. 52 But if he lived on, some act of penance was required. Forgiveness did not come to a robber-chief merely because he begged for it. 53 Becoming a monk seems to have been the only truly effective act of

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 81 52 53

Ms. B A N 4.9.20, 18/X, leaf 1.14, column 1; 26/IX, leaf 1.7, column 4. VMC, VII, column 1685. VMC, XVI, Part 1, 39-40; ms. B A N 4.9.20, 26/IX, leaf 1.8, column 1. VMC, XV, Part 2, 441. Pravoslavnyj Palestiniskij Sbornik, vyp. Ill (1883), 41-42. VMC, VII, columns 1727-1728. VMC, XI, column 1061. VMC, Part 3, column 1131. VMC, IX, column 2065. Ms. B A N 4.9.20, 26/IX, leaf 1.8, column 1. VMC, XIV, Part 1, column 2770. VMC, XIV, Part 1, column 2770. VMC, III, columns 1582-1584.

92

OSWALD P. BACKUS

penance, as in the story of the robber-captain David, 54 or in a story of a man who robbed and murdered a child.55 On the basis of the foregoing image of attitudes toward thieves and robbers reflected in the literature of Kievan sockty, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that punishments for theft and robbery were not systematically imposed in accordance with the law. Although the criminal might be tried when caught, and although society may have regarded robbery as one of the worst crimes, still if, in fact, the emphasis on forgiveness and redemption so prevalent in the religious material was determinative of the standards accepted by the Russian masses, it seems likely that they might have offered protection to thieves and robbers or at least refrained from actively aiding authorities in capturing them, with the result that thieves and robbers would not often have been brought to trial. This hypothesis finds support in a provision of the Pravda Russkaja under which a village was to be liable, if a thief who was followed to this village could not be found. 56 These suggestions are admittedly obvious: indeed, they or their like might be made about the law of many a society into which Christianity had been recently introduced. More significant conclusions, it seems to me, result from examining the subsequent evolution of religious attitudes in Russia and from comparing their evolution with existing law. In the thirteenth century robbers and thieves continued to be regarded as serious sinners. Stealing was probably regarded as one of the worst crimes, because stealing was listed in the penitential literature of the time parallel with heresy ("denying eternal life"), lying, usury, rage, slander, lechery, drunkenness, and sodomy. 57 Robbers for their part were described as "craven people". 58 If an implicit admiration of robbers existed in the literature, it seems limited to a comment that a man was made a robberchief because he was "great in body". 59 In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a slight change occurs in the image. Although robbers and thieves are still abhorred, their crimes do not seem to be regarded so seriously in the religious literature as before. Perhaps it is because these crimes were becoming more common. In a fourteenth-century Prologue the injunction not to loot was linked 54

Ms. BAN 4.9.31,10-15. VMC, XI, column 1005. 56 G. Vernadsky, ed. and trans., Medieval Russian Laws (New York, 1947), 49, Art. 77. 67 Prologue (of the 13th century), ms. BAN 4.9.31, 31/VII, leaf 7, column 4. 58 Prologue (of the 13th century), ms. BAN 4.9.31, 31/VHI, leaf 14, column 1. 59 Prologue (of the 13th century), ms. BAN 4.9.20, 26/IX, leaf 7, part 4. 55

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

93

with an injunction not to do favors for others or to give alms to the poor. The implication seems to be that some had looted in order to help the poor. 60 This is made clear beyond any doubt in a parallel passage from a Prologue of the fifteenth century. 61 Or again, robbery is listed in certain fourteenth-century texts with fornication, lechery, slander, drunkenness, and graft, 62 and with lechery, poisoning, usury, slander, and the remembrance of evil.63 The parallel passage in a Prologue of the fifteenth century lists theft with lechery, usury, slander, and the remembrance of evil, whereas poisoning and robbery are omitted from the series. In yet another fifteenth-century Prologue theft is also emphasized, but less seriously: it is listed in series with anger, envy, the lechery of panderers, the hatred of brothers, and unmercifulness.64 To harmonize these different mentions of theft is difficult. The first seems to reflect the custom of previous centuries, when theft and robbery were regarded equally seriously, both during the Kievan era when they were compared with the most serious crimes, and during subsequent centuries when they were paired with major but less serious crimes. The second mention allows alternative interpretations: it signifies either a differentiation between robbery and theft, in which theft is regarded as less serious than robbery, or it suggests the demotion of both to a lower level of sins, which is simply the continuation of the historical process already noted. The latter seems the more probable alternative, especially in view of later developments. It is interesting that sodomy appears in none of the later series cited. It was at all times regarded by religious works as one of the greatest of crimes, and in Kievan times was listed in series with theft and robbery. Since it was not later so listed, we have another hint that theft and robbery came to be regarded as less serious crimes. There are other clues that robbers were regarded a little differently in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than they had been earlier. For example, there is the noteworthy addition to a Sermon of Chrysostomos: "And again if they saw a sinner looting and using force and committing evils by the tens of thousands and living in plenty, they were not astonished but spoke, 'This is a sinner who has committed evils by the tens 80

Prologue (of the 14th century), ms. BAN 24.4.33, 24/1 (Pouienie Ioanna Zlatousta), leaf 94, column 2. 61 Prologue (of the 15th century), op. cit., leaf 235, column 1. 62 Prologue (of the 14th century), ms. BAN 17.11.4, 11/11, leaf 78, column 3. 63 Prologue (of the 14th century), ms. BAN 17.11.4, 11/11, leaf 127, column 4. 64 Prologue (of the 15th century), ms. BAN 24.4.33, 29/X.

94

OSWALD P. BACKUS

of thousands..."'. 65 Apparent indifference to looting and to the use of force was probably the obverse of a concern about why people stole, of a dominant reaction of sympathy and worry — sympathy with those people who felt a compulsion to steal and worry lest the causes for such compulsions might never be eliminated, and one become the victim of a thief or a robber. Another interesting clue is the appearance of another motive, compulsion, in the story of a thieving blind man in an eastern country who every night went out to steal from men lying under date trees.66 In another case, the devil is seen as the source of the impulse to rob — a motivation which implies some justification: "On the same day the sermon about usurers and robbers and bribetakers. A usurer, a greedy person, a looter, and a single chariot are a foursome. They have a proud driver — Satan." 67 The devil might also deceive a man into stealing: "many are the snares of the sleek devil. With them he lies people into knots. He deceives one in God's heaven ... and another also into committing theft. He is bound to offend." 68 Whatever the reasons for theft or robbery, the Izmaragd makes it clear that, "It is no secret to God how riches are gathered up, whether by one's own work or by injustice."69 Therefore, despite any interest in the motives of a thief or robber, despite any sympathy for him, he was still despised as a fierce and savage person, who while committing his crimes would destroy property with fire70 and water 71 and would even sink so low as to steal from a grave.72 The thief and the robber were still in later times regarded so unfavorably that, according to the Izmaragd, even "The gifts of looters, adulterers, ... thieves and robbers" were unacceptable to God. 73 Stealing should end because in order for a country to flourish (i.e., to be a land "in which starlight will be visible by night") it must "control with mercy" lawlessness and fornication, the strangling of children, robbery, and theft. 74 On the other hand, whatever they did or however much they were despised, the thief and the robber were still worthy of redemption. There 65

Prologue (of the 14th century), ms. BAN 17.11.4, 13/11 leaf 132, column 2. Izmaragd, ms. BAN 13.2.7, (JaS£ik 7), leaf 318, column 2. 67 Prologue (of the 15th century), ms. BAN 24.4.33, 12/X leaf 73, column 3. 68 Izmaragd. ms. BAN 13.2.7 (JaSCik 7), leaf 14. 69 Izmaragd. ms. BAN 13.2.7 (Ja&ik 7), leaf 137. 70 Izmaragd. ms. BAN 13.2.7 (Ja5£ik 7), leaf 10, column 4. 71 Izmaragd. ms. BAN 13.2.7 (Jasdik 7), leaf 137. 72 Prologue (of the 15th century), ms. BAN 24.4.33,15/XX, leaf 4, column 1, leaf 59, column 2. 73 Izmaragd. ms. BAN 13.2.7 (JaSiik 7), leaf 64. 74 Izmaragd, ms. BAN 13.2.7 (Ja&ik 7), leaf 28. 66

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

95

is a story from the thirteenth century in which a cleric named Johann went into the hills, came upon a man committing robbery, and was seized by robber guards. This story is repeated in a Prologue of the fifteenth century with the supplement that Johann led a robber who had returned from robbing in Ephesus into a church, obviously to redeem him. 7 5 A redeemed robber could even become a saint. "And this our Father David is among the saints who was formerly a robber living in the wilderness.'"76 This obviously refers to the robber-chief David, who, according to a story from Kievan times, joined a monastery. In the sixteenth century the problem of robbery and theft seems even greater than it had been before. Although comments in the religious literature preserve much of the earlier disdain for such crimes, they were apparently regarded even less seriously than they were in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Thus, for example, we read of a robber who is compared to a deceitful slave 77 whose wrongdoing in no circumstances can be regarded among the worst of sins. Again, a thief is depicted simply as an evil man, 7 8 or as one who lived "not an orderly life but a rowdy one: indeed he is a robber". 7 9 These descriptions suggest that such criminals or sinners were now judged less harshly, and the last portrayal supports the hypothesis advanced earlier, that in Russia thieves and robbers were looked upon with equal distaste. One may even infer that the church or one of its servants was prepared, at least in certain circumstances, to view a robber with respect: the letter of a robber was among items deemed precious enough to be purchased and to be listed in the account books of the Antonovskij Monastery. Under the year 1584, there is the entry: They exchanged at the gates the letter of the robber Iksentij Nekovitin and the image of the most pure mother of God which is on a throne, and also an Odigiteria [i.e., literally, 'a guide', in Russian iconography used to describe a type of icon depicting The Mother of God as Guide, which was commonly carried into battle on two-wheeled chariots] and some piad'nicyi [i.e., objects with a surface of about one square inch] for four rubles, twenty-four altyns, and three dengi.80 75

Prologue (of the 15th century), ms. BAN 24.4.33, 15/XX, leaf 43, columns 3-4. Prologue (of the 15th century), ms. BAN 24.4.33, 15/XX, leaf 10, column 3. 77 Kormiaja Balaseva (from the first quarter of the 16th century), ms. BAN 21.5.4, leaf 127. 78 The miracles of Zosima and Savatij in the text of 1548, ms. Vaxrameeva (from the beginning of the 17th century), leaf 193. 79 Vaxrameeva, leaf 116. 80 Kniga prixodno-rasxodnaja Antonovskogo Monastyrja (for the year 1584), N. 1, ms. Leningradskoe otdelenie instituta istorii Ak. Nauk SSSR, leaf 172. 76

96

OSWALD P. BACKUS

It must be emphasized, however, that the tendency to regard thieves and robbers with sympathy and to adopt a mild attitude toward them was not universal. For example, "Whoever has a family and tenderhearted children, thereby has established for himself a memorial, as Chrysostomos says. If any children shall be thieves or robbers or slanderers, they will thereby spoil the memorial of their ancestors and they [themselves] shall be empty and without a memorial..." 81 Also, thieves of churches were still regarded as extremely evil: "Church thieves are like dogs:... they steal from people and from big churches and especially from little churches... [ordinary] thieves should be punished less than church thieves and those who steal directly from people's houses." 82 Somewhat unclear are the implications of a Trebnik of the KandalakSskij Monastery of the North which tells of a man who "has sinned in indecent games, and in quarrels [i.e., rather minor offenses], and in theft, and in secret teaching [i.e., heresy, a very serious offense]".83 That such lesser sins, as indulging in indecent games or in quarrels, were placed on the same level as theft and secret teaching does not necessarily mean that these sins are all considered to be of equivalent seriousness, which would imply that suddenly and unexpectedly a dramatic change in attitudes had emerged in the North. More likely, certain thieves who were also heretics were engaged in gaming and quarreling or certain heretics who were also thieves were so engaged. If the latter be the case, we may have a foreshadowing of a seventeenth-century tendency to equate thieves with the Old Believers and other heretics who threatened church and state. On the basis of examples cited it appears that theft and robbery were regarded less seriously in the religious literature of Muscovite times than they had been in earlier religious literature, especially that of the Kievan era. This change of viewpoint manifest in the religious literature may reflect both a change in public opinion and an attempt on the part of the church to adapt its teaching and practices to this opinion. Because of the paucity of material from Kievan times it is impossible to establish precisely whether people grew less willing from Kievan through Muscovite times to struggle energetically against theft and robbery and to count thieves and robbers among the greatest of sinners, or whether instead 81

Sinodik (of the Niznj-Novgorod PeCerskij Monastery, 1552), ms. of the Gorkij Oblast' Historical Archive, leaf 5, part 2 (from notes on deposit in the Moskovskij institut russkogo jazyka Ak. Nauk SSSR). 82 Kormiaja Balaseva, ms. BAN 21.5.4, leaf 209, side 2. 83 Trebnik (from the second half of the 16th century), ms. BAN Arxangel'skij Oblast' (KandalakSskij Monastery) D 72, inv. 4146.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

97

popular attitudes modified slowly towards a greater sympathy with thieves and robbers and even a certain respect for them. It is noteworthy that the modest shift of attitudes evident in the religious literature is in striking contrast to the tendency of lay legislation to punish theft and robbery more severely in later than in earlier times. The presence of more severe punishments in Muscovite legislation would seem to imply an increase in the incidence of criminal activity against which the lawmakers were fighting. This may reflect a change in public opinion, but it equally permits the conclusion that even in Kievan times the masses resisted efforts to combat theft and robbery, which would mean that the people were not fully sympathetic to the views of the Church. This line of reasoning results in a paradox: although the less severe penalties for theft and robbery set forth in the lay law of the Kievan epoch may have harmonized more nearly with popular attitudes than did the stricter position of the Church, the decision of subsequent Muscovite legislators to oppose theft and robbery with more severe measures regardless of public opinion represented in part an adoption which may well have occurred at the very time that the Church itself was departing from these attitudes. One may hazard here the heretical deduction that the Church had over the centuries been attempting some sort of modest compromise with thieves and robbers, which consisted of a greater tolerance of such criminals. I suggested at the start that medieval Russian religious literature may serve as a source for light on social change, and the same might be said for the development of the law and its application. It seems to me that the religious background reflected in the religious literature cited above may help us better to understand the mind of the lawmakers, especially those of Muscovite times. We may safely assume that these legislators were influenced by prevailing religious thought to look upon theft and robbery with a certain degree of antipathy. They even went so far as to substitute for the fines, common in Kievan law, such sanctions as whipping for a first theft and death for theft by an habitual criminal. These specific penalties of Muscovite law, however, cannot be attributed to the influence of the Russian Church. Clearly some other source, whether Byzantine, Mongol, or German, inspired these harsh punishments and the many other similar harsh punishments strewn throughout the Muscovite codes of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.84 84

See V. A. Rjazanovskij, "K voprosu o vlijanii mongol'skoj kul'tury i mongol'skago prava na russkuju kul'tura i pravo", Izvestija juridiceskago fakul'teta. VysSaja skola

98

OSWALD P. BACKUS

Concerning the application of law, it seems to me that since the Church may have made some modest compromise with popular views by progressively adopting a more tolerant attitude towards theft and robbery it may have become harder for judges and other state officials to enforce the harsher Muscovite legislation. If the Church was willing in later times to regard thieves and robbers somewhat less seriously than before, it does not seem likely that the lay believer who was aware of the Church's views would have been encouraged thereby to respect these severe provisions of the law of Muscovy. Of course, law in practice could well have been different from the law in the law books. Case reports would certainly help us determine what the law was like in practice, but in the absence of such reports the religious literature can offer helpful supplemental information. Paradoxically, the compromise of the Church with thieves and robbers may ultimately have weakened the ability of the Church to retain the support of the people. The Church may in this have also helped to encourage an estrangement between the rulers and the people of Muscovy, between those who made the laws and those who were expected to obey them. If this be the case, then the Church may well have contributed to the later seventeenth-century estrangement between a part of the people and itself, which estrangement was, inter alia, a reaction to the rise of a close collaboration between the official church and the state, which went well beyond even the views of the early sixteenth-century religious leader and protagonist of collaboration, Joseph of Volokolamsk. If the argument suggested here is sound, then we may see in the modest increase of tolerance displayed by the church towards the thieves and robbers of Muscovite Russia one reason for the serious threat of dissent to which the Church became subject, a threat which culminated in the schism of the dissident Old Believers who clung to more traditional religious practices and concepts. Moreover, the validity of analyzing religious materials for evidences of social change — on the grounds of what has been suggested in greater detail through the narrower focus

v Xarbine, IX, Harbin, 1931, 16-29, who states "... it is difficult to establish a fundamental influence of Mongol law ..." on the increase in the severity of punishments in Russian law (17). Neither this statement nor alternative explanations are persuasive enough to permit us to exclude Mongol law as one of the possible sources for this increased harshness.

SOCIAL CHANGE IK MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE

99

of theft and robbery — may be more certain. Nonetheless, it is clear that many more inquiries and examinations, with a candid consideration of the difficulties encountered, are needed before any final judgment can be made on the actual utility of this method of approach.

T H E E P I T H E T GROZNY J I N HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

MARC SZEFTEL

The epithet Groznyj customarily applied to Ivan IV has been usually interpreted in the sense of ruthlessness. 1 Moreover, in isolated instances it has been identified with the German Tyranne, or the Latin Tyrannns.2 The stress in these interpretations was placed exclusively o n the undeniable cruelties displayed by Ivan IV in his government o f Muscovy. 3 However, closer examination of the epithet's historical background shows a m u c h more complicated origin of this term, and its m u c h richer signifiance. 4 In exploring this background n o attempt will be made here to evaluate Ivan IV, the carrier par excellence of the epithet Groznyj, in his role of ruler and statesman. This is a different and m u c h more

1

This is exemplified by the German reference to Ivan IV as "der Schreckliche". Cf. Wilhelm Reeb, Russische Geschichte, Sammlung Göschen (Leipzig, 1903), 35. 2 Karl Bussow, Die Moskauer Chronik, 1584-1613 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961), 200: "Eigentümlicher Bericht, daß Demetrius primus nicht des Tyrannen Sohn, sondern ein Fremdling gewesen"; with the Russian form on p. 76: "byl öuzezemcem, a ne synom Groznogo". (Everywhere else tiran in Russian is the equivalent of the German Tyranne). Cf. also G. Trauer, Apologia pro Joanne Basilide II, Magno Duce Moscoviae Tyrannidis vulgo falsoque insimulato (Vienna, 1711), title page. That Groznyj and Tyrannus might not be identical has been felt, however, by Pierre-Charles Levesque who gave his chapter on Ivan IV the title: "Ivan IV Vassilievitch, premier tsar sunomm6 par les Russes, le Terrible et par les Etrangers, le Tyran" (Histoire de Russie 2 [Paris, 1782], 388). 3 Alexander Traöevskij has directly connected this epithet with the impression produced by the opricnina: "the trembling people calling the Tsar Groznyj because of it" (Ucebnik russkoj istorii, pt. 1 [St. Petersburg, 1900] 2nd ed., 204). 4 Werner Philipp has already drawn attention to the necessity of stressing in the interpretation of groznyj elements transcending the features of personal character of Ivan IV. He warned especially against emphasizing in the translation of this term its negative connotation ("Ivan Peresvetov und Seine Schriften zur Forschungen des Moskauer Reiches", in: Osteuropaeische Forschungen, N.F., Band 20 [Berlin, 1935], 68-69 and n. 291). Blane (ed.), The Religious World of Russian Culture, Vol. II, pp. 101-116. © Mouton Publishers 1975.

102

MARC SZEFTHL

difficult problem, independent from that of the epithet, and one which still awaits a non-controversial answer.5

1

First among the queries whose answer will throw more light on the meaning of the epithet is whether and how the term Groznyj was ever applied to other Russian rulers. The oldest instance is that of Dimitrij Mixailovic, Grand Prince of Tver' (1299-1325), who was called Groznyja Oci (i.e., awe-inspiring eyes). The second instance is that of Vasilij Davidovic Groznyj, Prince of Jaroslavl' (1321-1345), who competed with Prince Simeon of Moscow for the Grand Principality of Vladimir in 1340. (He, too, appears in certain texts as Groznyja Oci).6 We have no evidence of the details of the rules of these two princes, but it is probable that in their cases the epithet only described their stern physical aspects. The third instance is much more illuminating to our concern, for it is that of Ivan IV's grandfather, Ivan III. According to Karamzin, "he was the first in Russia to be called Groznyj, but in a sense of praise: groznyj (i.e., awe-inspiring, M. S.) to enemies and to stubborn refractors". To understand Karamzin's comprehension of the term the sentence that follows is also important: "Besides, though not a tyrant like his grandson, Ivan Vasil'evic the Second, he undoubtedly was of a naturally cruel disposition, tempered by his power of reason." 7 Important again is the final paragraph of the chapter Karamzin devotes to Ivan IV: 5

The latest work summarizing the numerous appraisals of Ivan IV is that of 1. Budovnic, "Ivan Groznyj v russkoj istoriieskoj literature", Istoriieskie zapiski, 27 (1947). 6 A. 'Ekzempljarskij, Velikie i udeVnye krtiaz'ja severnoj Rusi v tatarskij period, 2 (St. Petersburg, 1891), 84-87. The Nikon Chronicle mentions a Novgorodian voevoda called Mixailo Groznyj among those defeated in 1372 by Prince Mixail of Tver' in the battle of Torzok (Polnoe Sobranie Russkix Letopisej, tt. XI-XII [Moscow, 1965], 18). 7 Istorija gosudarstva rossijskago, 6, 5th ed., (St. Petersburg, 1842), 125. Karamzin quotes as his source the Petrus Petrejus' Muscovite chronicle (published in Stockholm, 1615, and in German translation, in Leipzig, 1620). Karamzin (in n. 588) also refers to the Latuxin Stepennaja Kniga (written in the second half of the seventeenth century), where there is the phrase: "Sei bo velikij knjaz' Ioann, imenuemyi Timofei Groznyi" (Ivan IV's second, monastic, name was Iona, M.S.), and to A. Mankiev's Jadro rossijskoj istorii (written in 1715, but not published until 1768). It is possible, however, that the information in these latter works goes back to the same Petrejus, among others (cf. S. PeStii, Russkaja istoriografija XVIU v., pt. 1 [Leningrad, 1961], 106 and 109 and D . LixaCev, Russkie letopisi [Moscow-Leningrad, 1947], 376). Even so it is perhaps useful to include what Mankiev has concerning Ivan III and this epithet. He calls him Groznyj four times: at the beginning of the chapter devoted to

THE EPITHET GROZNYJ IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

103

... Ioann's good reputation (slava) has remained longer in the people's memory than his bad reputation: ...the people... have rejected or forgotten the name of Tormentor, which his contemporaries gave to him, and the dark rumors of Ioann's cruelty up to this moment made the people call him only GroznycrBOBam.i 3aecb TBepflo: c. 189, 190, 209, 210, 211" (CTp. X , X I I , X T V - X V ) . O cymecTBeHHbix Heaocrancax 3T0r0 H3^aHH« CM II.JI., I , I V - V . 6 IICPJI., I V . CymecTBeHHM 3aMeiaHM o JieronHCHHX crmcicax, H3BecTHwx H3flaTeiwM: CTp. 169-172. B 0CH0By ÍOJKIHHH 6bijra B3HTbi HaH6oJiee nojmbie COHCKH, ApXHBCKHH I V H CrpOeBCKHfi I I . 7 IICPJI, V . PeaaKTopw oTMerann, ITO JieTormcb 3Ta "ouiHHaeTca noflpo6HOCTHK>" H B Hefi ecrb "H3BecTHa, o K0T0pbix ynoMHHaeTca TOJH>KO B 03HaieHH0á neroimcH" (CTP. V). 8 n.Ji., i, v - v i .

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEft nCKOBCKOft JIETOriHCH

119

JieTonaceñ, HO "no ycjiOBHHM pa6oTbi He Mor CTaBHTb ce6e qejibio HcnepnbiBaiome coSpan» IICKOBCKHH JICTOIIHCHBIH MaTepHaji".9 TeM He MeHee pe3yjn>TaT ero HCCJieflOBaHHa OKa3ajica HpesBbnaiÍHO BAXCHBIM: H A C O H O B CMor B B M E J I H T B HanGojiee nonHMe CHHCKH, ycTpaHHTb KonHH c KOIIHH H Tan «ajiee, a, rJiaBHoe, OH «ají cxeMy B3&HMOOTHOineHHií jieTonHCHUx naMHTHHKOB IIcKOBa. HacoHOB npameJi K y6e»fleHHio, HTO " T C K C T ÜCKOBCKHX jieTonaceH cjieayeT pa3flejiHTb Ha TpH JieTOnHCH: IlCKOBCKyiO 1-K>, IICKOBCKyiO 2-K> H IICKOBCKyK) 3 - K ) " . 1 0 MbicJib 3Ta He HOBaa: ee BbicKa3biBajiH HaieTimcH H 3HaTOKH MaTepHajia, KaK npeocBameHHbiií OmiapeT (FyMHJieBCKHií) H KHH3b H. H. F O J I H U M H , HO HMeHHO HacoHOB npoH3Beji aHajiH3 H KjiaccH4>HKauHio ncKOBCKoro JieTonHCHoro 30BaHHbiH yneHbiMH TaK Ha3biBaeMbrií TuxaHOBCKHH CIIHCOK, npeflCTaBJisaoiimH co6oií CBOA 1469 rofla, HflonojiHHJiero IIoroflHHCKHM cnHCKOM c BapnaHTaMH no cnHcxy 06ojieHCKoro H ApxHBCKOMy 3-My.12 B OCHOBaHHH BTOpOH JieTOüHCH HaCOHOB OCTaBHJl CHHOflaJIbHblH CIIHCOK, KOTopbrií 6bui yace Hcn0Jib30BaH noroflHHHM B 1837 roay H H3flaH, KaK ncKOBCKaa BTopaa JieTonacb B 1851 rofly. 13 TpeTbH jieTonacb BbiflejieHa HacoHOBbiM Ha 6a3e TaK Ha3biBaeMoro OrpoeBCKoro cnucKa 1556 roga c nocjie/iyiomHMH npHnncKaMH flo 1567 rofla H C BapHaHTaMH no ApxHBCKOMy 2-My eiiHCKy H c ero " O K O H naHHeM" (o CO6HTHHX KOHua XVI H XVII BeKOB); Tyaa «ce npHcoeaHHeHM 0TpbiB0K H3 KoneHrareHCKoro c6opHHKa (c 3aMeiaTejn>HbiM "pecny6jiHKaHCKHM" 3aiHHOM paccKa3a — O ncKoecKOM 63Jimuu) H B BHfle npHJioaceHHñ: BBeaeirae K paccKa3y o ÜCKOBCKOM B3HTHH noa 1510 (7018) r. no Eaju>3ep0BCK0My H ropioinKHHCKOMy ciiHCKaM H npimHCKa Ha nocjieaneM JiHCTe ncKOBCKoü jraaeBoñ IlajieH XV BeKa.14 IICKOBCKHX

11

TaM ace, V I . /I.e{tCTBHTejibHO, HecKOJitKO CIIHCKOB TaK Ha3biBaeMoro CBtxna 1547 rosa CTano H3Becnn>iM (a Tarace ncKOBO-HOBropcwcKoro CBoaa) no3flRee onyójinKOBaHHa nepBbix pa6oT A. H. HacoHOBa, 6jiaroflapa HaxoflKaM M. H. TaxoMapoBa H A. A. 3HMHHa (II. JI., II, 5). 10 n.Ji., i, X X V I - X X V I I I , ixi-ixm. 11 IIpeocB. OmiapeT apeonaran Ha3BaTb Tpembeü ncKOBCKoft jieTonacbio CBOfl 1547-1568 roaos. 06 STOM »ceflyMajiH. H. ronmibiH, CM Apxue ucmopmecmx u npanmuiecKiix ceedemiü A. H. Konmeea (1860-61), V-VI: "063op...", 233. 12 P,. C. JlaxaieB, yKcuaHHoe conunenue, 462, cnpaBefljiHBO ncwiepKHyji 4>aKT, HTO "IICKOBCKaa nepBaa neToiracb, infaman A. H. HacoHOBMM, ue C00TBeTCTByeT FICKOBCKOÍÍ nepBofl, H3flaHHoK B IV TOMe üojraoro coópama pyccicax jieTonnceS". 13 IT.JT., I I , ÜCKOBCKafl 2-st jieTonHCb, 9-69. 3aMeiaHEH o Hefi: n.JI., I , X I I - X I V . 14 TeKCT Tpembeü jieTOiracH: n.JI., I I , 7 8 - 2 9 0 ; "IIpii6aBJieHHe H npanoaceHHfl". 9

TAM »CE, 2 9 1 - 3 0 3 . 0 6 OCHOBAMRAX juw BBMENEHHA Tpembeü JIETONACH CM. n.JI., I, " O cnacKax HCKOBCKHX JieTonHceft", X X X I X - X X X V I I , I X I I - I X I I I ; A . HaCOHOB,

120

H. E. AHFLPEEB

Ä H a j i H 3 B i H 3aKjnoHeHHH H a c o H O B a n p o H 3 B e j i H 6 o j n > m o e B n e n a T J i e H H e Ha T e x y n e H b i x , KOTOpbie HHTepecyiOTCH H C T o p a e i i I l c K O B a , H6O o n p e a e JIEHHOÄ c x e M e H c H c r e M e O K a 3 a j i n c b noflHHHeHHbiMH AAACE nepBOHCTOHHHKH:

nocTpoeHHÄ

HacoHOBa

6MJIH

npHHjrra

K p a H H e S M e p e , a o a B T o p a STOH CTaTbH He

6e30r0B0p0HH0,

flouiJio

no

KaKHX-JiHÖo B 0 3 p a a c e -

HHH HJIH coMHeHHH B a , n p e c H c c j i e ß O B a T e J i H n c K O B C K o r o

jieTonHCHoro

HacjieacTBa. Meacfly

T e M , B nocTpoeHHHx HacoHOBa e c T b K a K - 6 w

rjiaBHefimnfi,

OCHOBHOH,

nccjieaoBamie

OTfleJIbHbIMH JieTOnHCHblMH CnHCKaMH,

flBa njiacTa: Mexmy

B3AHM00TH0MEHHH H 3fleCb e r O

Ha6jIKWHHH

B e c b M a cymecTBeHHbi, n o KpaHHeä Mepe, w i n a a H H o r o 3 T a n a 3HaHHft; H B T o p o f i n j i a c r —

KaK 6 b i n p 0 H 3 B 0 f l H H H , —

BbiHBHTb He TOJibKO c o i y i a j i b H y i o

H nojiHTHHecKyio

OTflejIbHblX nCKOBCKHX CBOflOB, HO H n o n b i T K a

ero

HaniHX

nonbiTKa

HanpaBJieHHOCTb

OnpefleJIHTb MeCTO HX

noaBJieHHH H — 6 o j i e e T o r o — n e p c o H H ^ H i m p o B a T b HX n p e a n o n a r a e M b i x C03AATEJIEÖ, yTBepacAeHHH

ABTOPOB HJIH p e a a K T o p o B . HacoHOBa

npoGjieMaTmeH

4>aKTHHecKH oiraiGoHeH, n o c K O J i b K y p e n b

HMCHHO B H, B nneT

STOH n a c r a

HeKOTopbix o

ncKOBCKOH

pa#

nyHKTax, TpeTbeft

Ü3 ucmopuu... (CM. npHMenaHHe 2), 261-270, 293-294. H a CTp. 261 HecKOjn>KO rpy6bix oneiaTox, 3aTpyaHjnomHX HTeime: HaoneacHT w r a T b BMCCTO "CBOÄ 1467 r . " — CBOÄ 1567, BMecTO " B 80-X roflax X V B . " — B 80-X ixwax X V I B. 15 HHTEPECHO OTMCTHTL, ITO B HOBeftnrax paöoTax, Kacaiomnxca ITcKOBa H MHC H3BecTHbix, KomremiM A . H . HacoHOBa npHMTa noJiHocTbio, HanpHMep, B BectMa CHCTeManwecKoß h OTHeumBoft CBOflKe ncTopmecKHx /laHHtrx B . B . KaeHray3a,

ffpeeHuü IIcKoe. OiepKU no ucmopuu fßeoda/ibuoü pecnyÖAUKU, ÜHCTHTyT HCTopHH,

AxaaeMHH HayK C C C P (MocKBa, 1969), 4, 90-91. P . R. CKPMHHHKOB, Hatajio onpuvHUHbi, H3Ä-BO JleHHHrpaflCKoro yHHBcpcHTGTa (1966), 34, ÄononHHJi coo6paxceHHfl HacoHOBa HOBMM HMeHeM: "IlcKOBCKHfl jieTonncHbifi CBO« 60-X ROFLOB cocTaBJieH 6biJi B CTeHax NCKOBO-IIeiepcKoro MOHacTbipa H3BecTHbiM KHHJKHHKOM BacbHHOM MypoMueM H HryMeHOM K o p m j m e M " . Haflo noOTepicHyTb, HTO STO Toate CTapaa Mbicjn., BbiCKa3aHHaa B 1908 ro/ry B . C . HKOHHHKOBBIM, Onum..., 833 (HTO He OrOBOpeHO CKPBIHHHKOBMM), HO HH OflHH H3 3THX HCTOpHKOB He npHBeJI HHKEKHX flOKa3aTejn>CTB B 3amHTy npaBflonoflOÖHOCTH TaKoro npeflnojio»eHM. CKPMHHHKOB B CBoefl cjieayiomefl KHHre, Booßme He MeHee ueHHOfi, TOM nepBa», OnprnmiH meppop (HeHHHrpaa, 1969), 58-59, KaK-öyzrro 6bi OTKa3braaeTCH OT 3Tofi mien PlKOHHHKOBa, roBopa: " M H o r a e roflbi KopHHJmfi peflaKTHpoBaji MecTHbiit jieToimcHwfl CBOA..." "KHHXCHHK BacbHH MypoMiieB" (a He MypoMeu, KAK B Hma/ie onprnnmu, CM. UHTaTy Bbime), OKa3bmaeTCH, BMecTe c HryMeHOM KopmumeM, pyKOBOflHJi "cmapeüuiuM B POCCHH IIcKOBO-IIeiepcKHM MOHacTwpeM..." A6COJTK)THO 6pe«0B0E coo6meiffle. B n p o w M , H BCH xapaKTepHcnnca KOPHHJIHH H BaccaaHa n o m a y CKPWHHHKOBa aBTopcKHx (JiaHTa3Hfl, n3-3a HexpHTHHecKoro noflxofla K rnnoTe3aM H a c o HOBa. IIoBHflHMOMy, eAHHCTBeHHbiit pa36op rHnoTe3 HacoHOBa 6biJi caeJiaH aBTopoM HacToameö pa6oTbi: N . Andreyev, " T h e Pskov-Pechery Monastery in the 16th century", Slavonic & East European Review, X X X I I , 79 ( L o n d o n , 1954), 3 1 8 - 3 4 3 ; Idem, " W a s the Pskov-Pechery Monastery a citadel o f the non-Possessors?", Jahrbücher für die Geschichte Osteuropas, 17, 4 (Wiesbaden, 1969), 481-493.

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEfï ÜCKOBCKOfi JIETOIIHCH

121

jieTonHCH.15 ^ÍTO ace yTBepayiaeT HacoHOB H noneMy xapaKTepHCTHKa, cflejiaHHaa HM 3TOMy CBOfly 1567 roaa, noflJiexcHT nepecMOTpy?16

III A. H. HacoHOB B CBoeñ nepBoñ nyôjiHKauHH, B 1941 ro^y, Ha TeMy O nCKOBCKHX CBO/Iax BbICKa3bIBaJI CBOH HaGjIIOfleHHH B OCTOpOaCHOH, non™ranoTeTHHecKOH(jjopMe. O nepBoö jieTonncn OH Bbicica3aji npeanojioxceHHe: " C B O A 1469 r., npeflCTaBJiaeMwií TnxaHOBCKHM CTHCKOM, B03M0acH0, 6biji cocTaBJieH, corjiacHo MoeMy HccjieAOBaHHio, J I H U O M , ÔJIH3KHM K 'KyneUKOMy CTapOCTe'."17 OTHOCHTeJIbHO CHHOflaJIbHOrO cnncKa, BCJieA 3a H3,aaTe.JiHMH ero B 1851 ro^y, HacoHOB O T M C T H J I HHflHBHflyaJIbHOCTb 3TOÌJ JieTOIIHCH, AOXOflHIUeHflOH3JIO«eHHH COÔbITHH B 1486 roay, H H B H O C flonojmeHHe iiHCbMeHHbix H C T O H H H K O B ycTHbiMH paccKa3aMH.18 ToBopa o CrpoeBCKOM cnncKe H ApxHBCKOM 2-M, T.e. o TpeTbeñ JieTonncH, HacoHOB o6paran BHHMaHHe Ha 3aMenaHHe pejjaKTOpOB H3flaHHH 1848 TOfla O TOM, HTO "cnHCOK, Ha3BaHHbIÍÍ HaMH CTpoeBCKHM II Heicor.ua npHHa^jieacaji ÜCKOBCKOMy üenepcKOMy MOHacTbipio". 19 OcHOBbiBaacb Ha S T O M , H B H O no3flHeHuieM — "Ha nocjie^HeM 6ejioM jiHCTe apyrHM nonepicoM" — coômeHHH nofl 7060 (1552) roflOM o KOJioKOJiax, " C J I H T W X B üenepcicoH MOHacTbipb", a TaioKe Ha HaöjiioaeHHH, HTO OCHOBHOH TeKCT OrpoeBCKoro ciiHCKa " K O H H Ü J I C H Ha 7064 (1556) r. BKjiioHHTejibHo", a 3aTeM "flonojiHHTejibHbiü MaTepnaji BHOCHJICH B IIcKOBO-IIeHepCKOM MOHacTbipe", npHHeM onHCbiBajiacb noa 1560 roflOM "pemaiomaH pojib HryMeHa KopHHJina npn B 3 H T H H BejibHHa (fejufflH)", 20 HacoHOB, cpaBHHBaa H3BCCTHH ApxHBCKoñ 2-h jieTonHCH H CipoeBCKoro ciracica, npmiieji K BajKHOMy A J I H ero cxeMbi BbiBOfly, H T O OflHaKO, nepBafl MOS CTaTba 6bina HaimcaHa ao Bbixoaa B CBCT 77.77., II, a BTopaa Kacajiacb aajieKo He Bcex BonpocoB, B03HHKaK>mHX npH BHHMaTejibHOM 03HaK0MJieHHH C MaTcpHajiaMH H 6biJia HanpaBJieHa, rjiaBHbiM 06pa30M, Ha TeMbi, CBH3aHHbie c HCTopneit IIcKOBo-IIeiepcKoro MOHacTwpa. 16 HacTOjn>KO, no MHCHHIO HeKOTopbix HCTOPHKOB, HenorpeniHMa KOHueimmi HacoHOBa, HTO jno6bie HHbie OÒMCHCHHJI B OTHOOICHHH ero ranora* "He MoryT 6biTb npHSHaHbi yaaiHbiMH" (A. A. 3HMHH, H. C. Ilepeceemoe u eeo coepeMemuKU [MocKBa, 1958], 154), h, 6ojiee Toro, OHH "nponraopeiaT BceM 4>aKTaM" (A. A. 3HMHH, Onpmmma Heaua rpo3Hozo, Mocraa, 1964, 74). KaK 6yaeT n0Ka3aH0 raxe, "(J>aKTbi" noJiHocTBio nowiepxcHBaiOT coMHeHHA B cnpaBeAJiHBOCTH ecex npeanoJioJKeHHÄ HacoHOBa. 17 18 19 20

n.Ji., n.JI., n.Ji., n.Ji.,

I, I, i, i,

XXVII. XIIV-XIV. XXXIII. XXXIV.

122

H. E. AHFLPEEB

CTpOeBCKHÖ CnHCOK C03^aBaJICH HMeHHO B IlcKOBO-IleHepCKOM MOHacTbipe. 2 1 B CBoeft CTaTbe 1946 r o a a 2 2 Haui aBTop cnirraji B03M0xcHbiM yTBepacnaTb, HTO "CBOfl, COCTaBJieHHMÌÌ B riCKOBO-IleHepCKOM MOHaCTbipe B X V I B . " Mor OTpaXCaTb "HaCTpoeHHH H3BCCTHOrO CJIOH, 0nn03imH0HHoro rocnoflCTBOBaBiueñ B J i a c r a " H HTO

roynemie

CBOfla 1567 r o a a ,

"onpeflejieHHe e r o KaK c B o a a nryMeHa K o p r n u m a , Ka3HeHHoro r p 0 3 HbiM (B 1570 r o a y ) , OTKpbiBaeT HOBMH HCTOHHHK n o HCTOpHH couaajibHonojiHTHHecKOH 6opb6bi B X V I B . " . 2 3 HacoHOB oTÖpocHJi npezuiojioaceHHH HeKOTopbix CBOHX npeflineerBÊHHHKOB n o TeMe, ayMaBiuHx, HTO ncKOBCKaa nepBan jieTonacb, n p e a CTaBjiHK>maa CO6OH TaK Ha3WBaeMbrii CBOA 1547 r o a a , Monna 6HTB pe^aKTHpoBaHa uryMeHOM K o p m u i n e M H3 ricKOBO-üeiepCKoro MOHaCTbipa. 24 OH n p m n e j i K 3aKJnoieHHio, HTO flamme, H3BJieKaeMbie royneinieM CTpoeBCKoro cmicxa, ocoôeHHO nocjieflHHX CTaTeñ ero, B coBOKynHOCTH c noxasamieM "IIoBecrH o üeiepCKOM MOHacTbipe H»e BO IICKOBCKOK 3CMJIH", cocraBJieHHOñ B 80-X ro^ax X V I BeKa, 25 aaiOT ocHOBaHHC npeanonaraTb, HTO cocraBHTeJieM CTpoeBCKoro cnncxa 6bui HryMeH IIcKOBO-IIeHepcKoro MOMacrapH, n o r a 6 n m ö HacHjn>CTBeHHoñ CMepTbJO B 1570 r . , HTO 3TOT CIIHCOK 6HJI HamicaH ecJiH He HM caMHM, TO nop, ero pyKOBOflCTBOM.26 HacoHOB flajx xapaKTepHCTHKy CBO/ja 1547 r o a a , KaK "coHeTamte n o x B a j i BeJIHKOMy KHH3K), nOHTH 0eK)".31 B "npeAHCJioBHH" KO BTopoMy TOMy IIcKoecKux Aemonuceü HaCOHOB noBTOpHJi Te ace M H C J I H , KHor^a eme öojiee 3aocTpHB HX: "CrpoeBCKHH cnHcoK npeACTaBJiaeT coöoio opnnÍHaji JieTomicHoro CBoaa HryMeHa I l c K O B O - n e n e p c K o r o M O H a c T b i p a . " 3 2 HaCOHOB 0 x a p a K T e p H 3 0 B a j i 3 f l e c b 3TOT CnHCOK, KaK "naMaTHHK OCTpOH BHyTpHKJiaCCOBOH 6 o p b 6 b I BpeMeH

ÜBaHa rpo3Horo, flomefliuHH flo Hac B opHrHHajie".33 B CBOK) KHHry Hcmopux pyccKoeo Aemonucauun XI — Hanajio XVIII ONYÔJIHKOBAHHYIO

eem,

nocMeprao,

A. H.

HaCOHOB

HE

BKJIIOHHJI

"pa6oTbi öojiee paHHHx jieT (o JxeTonncaHHH TBepa H IlcKOBa)", HO N O B T O P H J I CBOH B b i B O f l b i : " B OTJiHHHe O T NCKOBCKORO CBOfla 1 5 6 7 rofla, COCTABHTEJIB K O T O P O R O H e C K P B I B A E T B P A » c f l e 6 H o r o OTHOUIEHHA K BJiacTH

BejIHKOrO 1547 r.

KHH3a M O C K O B C K O r O

coneTaeT n o x B a j i w

(HBAHA

rp03H0r0),

NCKOBCKHH

CBOa

BENHKOMY KHH3K>, NOHTH o(|>HimajibHoe O T H O -

HieHHe K MOCKOBCKOH BejlHKOKHHaCeCKOH BJiaCTH C OÔJIHHeHHeM MOCKOBCKHX H a M e C T H H K O B H

flbaKOB."34

3HaHHT, HaAJieaCHT BbiaCHHTb, B HeM H KaK BbWBHJiaCb aHTHMOCKOBCKaa TeHfleHiiHK IICKOBCKOH Tpembeû jieToriHCK h nonbiTan>ca onpeflejiHTb, KTO Mor 6bi 6biTb peaaKTopaMH 3Toro cBOfla 1567 roaa. 29

so 31 32 33

34

TaM ace, 268. TaM ace, 269-270, 294. B . C. HKOHHHKOB, Onbim..., 821-823. n.JI., II, 6. TaM « e , 7.

A. H. HaCOHOB, Hcmopun pyccKoeo Aemoruicamn Xl-mtam XVIII eem. Aica-

aeMHH HayK (MocKBa, 1969), 10, 327.

124

H. E. AHflPEEB IV

P Ï 3 ycTaHOBJieHHbix

H a c o H O B b i M 4>aKTOB, H e n o f l j i e x c a i u H x COMHCHHIO,

H a f l o 3 a n o M H H T b T p H . I l e p B b i H flaioTca floöpaa B naMHTH" H "fla He npiaflyT BO rjiyÖHHy 3a6Bema OMpanaeMa OHa ßHBHaa Boacia Hiofleca i Ero poxemia npenacTbia Eoropo/pma". KOPHHJIHH OÖBACHAET, HTO 3TA SATANA 6wjia B03JI0ACEHA Ha Hero, BMecTe c Bocco3,qaHHeM paHHeñ MOHacTbipCKOö HCTOPHH, " o Hanajit cero CBHToro M-fecTa", óparaen O6HTCJIH: "no 6jiarocjiaBIJoeecmb ony6nmcoBaHa B "npHJioaceinmx" K paôoTe, HanôoJiee noflpoöaofl no CHX nop He3aMeHHMoö no CHCTCMSTHHHOCTH B oxBare MaTepaaJia Ha 3Ty Teiny: H. Cepe6p5iHCKHíí, Ouepxu no ucmopuu MouacrmapcKou OKU3HU e ilcKoecKOü seu/ie c KpumuKO-öuÖAuozpafßwiecKUM oôiopoM Aumepamypbi u ucmowuKoe no ucmopuu JJcKoacKoeo Monamecmaa [ = H.meiiu.i e ÜMnepamopcKOM oôufecmee Ucmopuu u ffpeeHocmeü POCCUÜCKUX npu MOCKOBCKOM ymeepeumeme, 1908), KHHra I I I H IV, KH. 226 H 227, 545-551. KoMMeHTapHH o üoeeemu Tain »ce, 39-46. MM He ciHTaeM B03M03KHMM OÔCyîKflaTb 3/ieCb BOnpOCbl, OTHOCJIUIHeCa K peflaKUHHM OTflejIbHHX cnHCKOB üoeeemu, HO npHHHMaeM H "IIocjiecjioBHe" K üoeeemu, xax Texcr caMoro KopHOJiHH, HanHcaHHwft, B KOHue 1550 roflOB, — He B CBJI3H JIH C oÔHapyjKeiraeM npH B3HTHH HapBbi B 1558 rosy lyaoTBopmix HKOH? Onncaime YcneHCKoro xpaMa (nemepHoro) H KaTaxoMÔ B rope CBHfleTenbCTByer o nepaoae no JIHBOHCKOÜ BOAHM, Korfla TaM erano noipeòaTtca MHoro jnogeft HeHHOiecKoro hhhe, — HecJiyiaflHo HMeHHo Torna 6I>IJI saBefleH CHHOAHK MOHacTbipa (RAOÔONWTHO OTMCTHTI., ITO "noa I-M HHCjioM reHBapa" sanHcaH (c 1572 rofla ?) 'TpnropHfl JlyKbHHOBOT MajnoTa CicypaTOB... Toro ace AHH naMSTb no xceHe ero HHOKHHH MapHHMHH" (üepeoKMcetmü ÜCKoeo-üetepcKuü Momcmwpb, HS^aHHe BTopoe, flonojmeHHoe, npn HacTOJiTejie ApxHMaHflpHTe ÜHHOKeHTHe [OcTpoB, 1893], 146-147).

47

H

48

üoeeemb,

551-552.

128

H. Ê. AHflPEEB

jieHijo OTeu H HXC npexe MEHE ÔHBIIIHX

HRYMEH H CBHIIXCHHOHHOK

/],opoIIUIMH",

HO H

" c HHOBtpHBIMH, CHpeHB OT JiaTMHH HeMeiJKÍa 3eMJUí".51 Bect 3TOT OTptiBOK H3 üoeecmu

aaeT KpacHopeiHBWH oTBeT Ha BO-

npocw, nocTaB^eHHbie Btirne: fleñcTBHTejiBHaa KapTHHa nepecTpoñKH o6HTejiH, HapHCOBaHHan KopHHJiHeM, n o j i y m j i a B O6OHX JieToniíCJix HeToiHoe OTpaaceHHe H He MOACET 6HTI> oraeceHa K aBTopcTBy co3flaTejM

üoeecmu.52

n p H conocTaBjieHHH Bcex Tpex TeKCTOB, H3Jia-

noeecmb, 549-551. Mbi npaBOflHM 3Ty npocTpaHHyK) OHraTy BBany TpyflHocTH HañTH nojiHbiñ TCKCT üoeecmu H ana Toro, HTO6H HanoMHHTb o xapaKTepe 3Toro TCKCTa, Ha KOTopwfi HHace HaM npufleTca ccbiJiaTbca. 51 T a M ace, 551. 50

52 CTpaHHbiM 06pa30M HacoHOB, Ü3 ucmopuu..., 262, He paccMOTpeji 3TO8 üoeecmu, XOTH saHHMajic« ee nepeaejucoñ, npoH3Be^eHHO& B 80-x roflax X V I Bexa,

N0BHFLHM0MY, HKOHHHKOM rpHropHeM. Cp. Cepe6pHHCKHÜ, OuepKu...,

46-55. n o -

ieMy OH eio ne 3aHHJica? He noTOMy JIH, MTO paccMOTpeHHe ee HaHocHJio caabHeñmHñ yflap Bceñ KoimeimHH o Tpembeü jreToimcH, KaK co3flaHHM KOPHHJIHH? HJIH »ce HCCjieAOBaTem» HCRperae BocnpnMJi, KaK flOKa3aHHiie, yTBepameHHa HKOHHHKa RPHROPHH, HOCKOJIBKY OHH Ka3amicb B03M0acH0ñ npHMoñ UHTaToñ H3 TeKCTa, «KO6H, HanHcaBHoro nryMeHOM B CrpoeBCKOM cracKe?

130

H. E. AHflPEÉB

raiOIlIKX 3TOT CymeCTBeHHblH MOMeHT MOHaCTbipCKOH HCTOpHH, CTOJIb TmaTeJibHo h peajiHCTHHecKH onncaHHbiH K o p m u m e M , hbho

bhaho,

hto, xotä 06a p e a a K T o p a o ô e n x JieTonHceM 3HajiH tckct Tloeecmu, XOTH 6 m B H3BJICH6HHHX, BKJIKDHeHHblX B "npOTOrpaij)", KaK 0 6 3TOM CBHAeTejibCTByeT yKa3aHHaa HaMH Bbiuie Hyio He3aHHTepec0BaHH0CTb (TpyflHJiHCb "He M3flbi paflH Koea", cm. t c k c t Bbime), npHBeJi k TOMy, h t o cjieflyioiimn HryMeH, BbiSpaHHbiô b 1529 r o f l y , 6biJi yace He h 3 mccthmx h h o k o b ( / J o p o ^ e ñ ) h He H3 nepeBeaeHHbix B oGHTejIb CBHmeHHHKOB, T.e. HepOMOHaXOB, H3 flpyTHX nCKOBCKHX MOHacTbipefi (repacHM), a mojio^oh — eMy TOJibKO 28 jieT — n o c T p n jkêhhhk, rpaMOTefi, 3HTy3HacT, HeJiOBeK cHCTeMaTHHecKoro yMa h ckjiohHOCTH K 0praHH30BaHHbIM UIOH

CTeneHbio BepoHTHoera

npeanojioaam»,

HTO corjiaiuemce o Ha3Hane-

HHH HOBoro HryMeHa 6WJIO oöycjiOBjieHO H eme OAHHM HeMajioBaacHbiM OÖCTOJRREJÜCTBOM: MOJIOAOH KOPHHJIHH He 6MJI ÜCKOBHHOM. 0 6

CBHAeTejibCTByeT Ta nacn»

Floeecmu,

3TOM

Bbime UHTHpoBaHHas, rfle

ee

aBTop n03B0Ji$teT ce6e HeB03M0»CH0e B ycTax ncKOBHHa 3aHBJieHHe, HTO "BCSI 3eMjiH pycKaa np0CJiaBJieHa BoroMb ... cia ace 3eMJia nycTa 6ama H CKyflHa TaKOBbia 6jiaro,2jaTH". 3aaBjieHHe, no cymecTBy cnpaBeflJiHBoe, H6O HCTOPHKH HACHHTAJIH n o HAHHHM B NCKOBCKHX JIETONHCHX 3A n e p n o f l

flejia,

O^HHM TOJU.RO OT KOHIIA X I I I

He-

ynoMHBEKA

flo

BTOpOH nOJIOBHHbl X V I CTOJieTHfl OKOJIO TpHflUaTH MOHacTbipeñ, a no flpyrnM flOKyMeHTaM HX 6Í>IJIO H Gojibiue H, HecMOTpa Ha BceB03MO»CHbie OrOBOpKH, HeKOTOpbie H3 HHX, KaK HanpHMep, flOBMaHTOBCKHIÍ MOHacTbipb (cymecTBOBaji AO X V I I B.), HoaHHO-npeflTeneB (B npocTOpeHHH HßaHOBCKHH Ha 3aBejiHHbe), Cnaco-MapoaccKHñ, CHeToropCKHH, Ejnia3apoB H apyrae, n0Jib30BaJiHCb 6ojibmoií cjiaBoií H 6MJIH rjiy6oKo yKopeHeHbi B ncKOBCKOH HCTOPHH.55 Cica3aTb, HTO "CÍH 3eMJia IICKOBCKaa" öbijia OTHyacfleHa "OT EOXCHHX aapOB" a o T o r o MOMeHTa, KaK 3a nocTpoHKy ncKOßo-IIEHEPCKORO MOHacTbipa npraanca

"rocyflapa

Harnero H BejiHKoro KHH3JI flHaK", 6btuo e^Ba JIH ecTecTBeHHbiM fljia "ypoaceHua

CBO6OAHOH

3CMJIH

ÜCKOBCKOH".

ÜOHTeHHe

K

BejnncoMy

KHÄ3K), noflnepKHBaHHe, HTO IICKOB — "oTHHHa" BacHJiHH III, nepeH.®2

P o j i b MHciopH-MyHexHHa B oraoiiieHHH NCKOBO-neiepcKoro MOHa-

CTblpfl ÖbIJia, KaK Mbl B b i m e BHfleJIH, HCKJIlOHHTeJIbHOH: HMeHHO OH OTKpbLn HOByio — NPOMOCKOBCKYK) H oômepyccKyio — rjiaBy B HCTOPNH o6HTejiH. ECJIH T p e T b « J i e T o n n c b c o s a a B a j i a c b 6bi K o p r o u r n e M , B MOHacTbipe, rae Harneji BeHHoe ynoKoenne 3HaMeHHTbiñ BejiKKOKHíDfcecKHH COTpyflHHK, He TOJIBKO nCKOBCKHH aflMHHHCTpaTOp, HO B npOIHJIOM H Ka3HaneH H /mruiOMaT, a — rjiaBHoe — npeaaHHbiìi 3HTy3HacT Hflen: MocKBa — TpeTHH P H M , HCCOMHCHHO, KOHiHHa ero H norpeöemie B KaTAKOMÖAX ITcKOBO-IIeHepcKOH O6HTCJIH (Bepoarao, no ero COÖCTBCHHOMy acejiaHHK)) 6wjia 6bi OTMENEHA B TeKCTe, NOCKOJIBKY B Iloeecmu MyHexHH H3o6paaceH, KaK CTpoHTejib, nocJiaHHbra B o r o M . 6 3 Iloeecmb 6buia HanacaHa B 1531 ro^y, TO ecTb TPH ro^a nocjie CMepTHflbHKaH, 3HaHHT, 6e3 B03M05KH0H OrJlHflKH aBTOpa Ha MHCIOpa, KaK B 0 3 M 0 a C H 0 r 0 HHTaTejiH Iloeecmu. B TeKCTe Koprnuraa npocTO OTpaacajxocb BOCXHmeHHe

fleaTejibHOCTbK)

flbJiKa

H yBaaceHHe K HeMy. OH 0 T 0 3 B a j i c a

B J i e T o n a c H Ha CMepTb M n x a a n a T p H r o p b e B H i a , m

6w

K TOMy ace C K o p o -

nocTHacHyio. Ho B TpeTbeñ JieToniicH HeT HH cjioBa o KOHHHHC Mnciopfl, xoTH cocTaBHTeJib TOjibKO HTO Ha rrpeflbwymeM J i i i c T e y n o M H H a J i o HeM, rOBOpH 0 6 OCHOBaHHH MOHaCTbipa, 3HaHHT, 3HaJI HTO-TO o MHCIOpe, HO TaKace 3HaHHT, Majio H H T e p e c o B a j i c a npH no^öope M a T e p n a j i a a a H HblMH, OTHOCamHMHCa K HCTOpHH OÔHTejIH. S T O HaÔJIIOfleHHe, yace 62 63

n.Ji., i, ios.

Iloeecmb, 550.

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEft n C K O B C K O f l JIETOIIHCH

135

noflHepKHyToe HaMH Bbime, noflTBepayiaeTCH Taicace OByMH c j i e a y i o m H M H C006meHHJ!MH. ITepBaa j i e T o n n c b , n o a 1 5 3 7 roflOM, c o o ö m a e T : T o r o »ce Jikra b o IIcKOBe CTapubi neiepcicHe o y cbocm s B o p e npae3KeM, nocTaBHina uepKOBb KaMeHoyio Ha n o r p e ô e 3a H h k o j i o i o c b h t h m npeHHCTbie OflerHTpiie, Ha HBaHOBe aBopnme Il03HHK0Be TBepnxHHa CBefleHoro. 64 T p e T b a jieronHCb n o a TeM ace r o f l O M : B j i Ì t o 7045. n o c r a B H m a qepicoBb ... a a p o y r o y i o Ha IleiepcKOM rtepBaa

JieTonHCb,

noa

1540

toaom,

flaeT

CBeaeHira

o

flBope.65

nocTpoöice

uepKBen: . . . a neTBepTaa, b I l e i e p e E j i a r o B Í m e m i e c b h t c h E o r o p o a m i b i c Tpane30K>, a c b h t h h 4 0 Myremnci» CHecoina Ha r o p y . 6 6 T p e T b a JieTonHCb n o M e m a e T t o »ce c o o ô m e H H e c npHÔaBJieiuieM T p e x cjiob: ... B npHÌ)K«eH

flBOp...67

OneBHAHO, u ma u dpyzan aaHHbiMH, CJioBa " b

ho

npaiacaceH ABop",

noBTopeHHeM Bbiuie

b

npoTorpa({)e

UHTHpoBaHHbix:

e3»ceM..."

j i e T o n n c H nojib30BajiHCb o a h h m h h t ê m h »ce

peztaKTopbi r i e p B o i i JieTonHCH He b k j i i o h h j i h b noBHflHMOMy, c w r a a cjiob h

PaBHOflyuiHbrii p e a a i r r o p

npoTorpaa

3tot

coo6meHH$i

" . . . C T a p i ; H nenepcKKe

tckct

TpeTbeö

nojiHocTbio,

oy

sto noa

tckct

ohih6ohhwm 1537

rogoM,

CBoeM A B o p e

npH-

JieTonHCH b k j i i o h h j i HS

nocKOJibicy

nofl

7045

roflOM

c o o ô m e H H e 6biJio flaHO yace b yceneHHOM BHae, a , c r a j i o 6biTb, y H e r o h He M o r j i o noHBHTbca c o m h c h h h , aHajioniHHbix c o m h c h h a m cocTaBHTejieñ IlepBOH JieTonHCH OTHOCHTeJibHO c j i o b " b n p d b o c e H EcJXH 3TH npHMepbl nOKa3bIBaiOT OTCyTCTBHe

flBop".

3aHHTepeCOBaHHOCTH

MOHacTbipeM y cocTaBirrejiH T p e T b e ñ JieTonHCH, t o e m e ö o j i e e icpacHOpeHHBa 3 a n n c b n o a

1 5 4 7 r o ^ o M b o ô o h x jieTomiCHX c ynoMHHaHHeM

ITcKOBO-IleHepcKOH oÔHTejiH. n p H B e ^ e M o 6 a Teiccra nojiHOCTbio. r i e p B a a JieTonHCb paccKa3biBaeT: B j i Í t o 7055. r o c y a a p b Hanib KHH3b bcjiukhh HßaH BacHJibeBHH 6 w b b BejiHKOM H o B e r o p o f l e h 3 cbohm 6paTOM khh3Cm l O p b e M ; fla h b o IIcKOBe 6bin b BOTHHHe CBoen Ha noKJioH K KHBOHanajibHeH Tpoinjbi, aeicaôpH b 2 8 , Ha 64 65

68 67

n.JI., n.JI.,

1,108. 11,229.

n.Ji., i, 109. n.JI., II, 229.

136

H. E. AHFLPEEB

naMen. npenoflo6iio(ro) MyneHmca Cre^aMa. HoBoro, fla oy nperacTbie 6tui B üeiepcKOM MOHacrbipe, H flepeBem MOHacTwpK) «ají MHoro, H HcaaaMH noacanoBaji MHoraMH...68 Tpen>a JieTonacb BKJiioTOJia HHOÍÍ TCKCT: KH»3b BejiHKHñ HoaH BacHJibeBHi «a SpaT ero khh3b Teopren 6bima B HoBeropofle h B IIcKOBe, Meama fleica6pfl 28 (aem.), B Helenio, oflHoy Homb Ho^eBaBt h Ha apoyryio HOHO» Ha BopoHaiH 6BIH, a TpeTbJoio HOIIH 6HJTI> oy

IlpeiHCTeH oy ITenepe, naKH BT> IIcKBe B cpe^y, H 6MB He MHoro, h noeae K M o C K B M C C060K> B3eM KHH3H BOJIOflHMepa OHflpteBEraa, a KH»3b lOpbH 6paT ero ocTa, H TOH 6BIB HeMHoro H noeae h TOH K MOCKBH, a He oynpaBHB-B CBoeH OTiHHbi tunero. A KHH3b BejiHKHH Bce roHHJi Ha MCKax (HMCKHX), a XpnCTHaHOM MHoro npOTOpi. H BOJIOKHflM OyiHHHBÍ...69 ECJIH aBTop IlepBOH JieTonHCH, c paflocrabiM yAOBJieTBopeHHeM, OTMeiaeT, fleñcTBHTejibHO, iieHHbie noHcajiOBaHHH ÜBaHa I V (OCO6CHHO pbiÓHwe JIOBJIH) NCKOBO-IIeMepcKOMy MOHacrapro H npn 3TOM onycKaeT ynoMHHaHue o nocemeHHH rocy^apeM Taioice H "CHHHHbeñ r o p b i " , 7 0 TO peflaKTop TpeTbeíí He HHTepecyeTCH cnemiaJibHO aerameM MaciopHMyHexHHa, HO, KaK 6bi CMOTPH Ha CBOflKy jjaHHbix o nepe,OBH»ceHH«x BejiHKoro KHH3H no IIcKOBmHHe, OTMenaeT HX, n o ero MHCHHK), 6ecIIOpjmOHHOCTb H HHKieMHOCTb, XOTFL (JiaKT IIOHCaJIOBaHHH "IIpeHHCTHH", Ka3ajiocb 6bi, HaxoflHTca B OCTPOM npoTHBopeHHH c ero o6BHHeHHeM B aapec BejiHKoro KHA3H, KOTopbrií He 3aHHMajics aeJiaMH CBoeñ OTHHHM, a TOJibKO "Bce roHHJi Ha HMCKHX". He c w r a j i ace peflaKTop TpeTbeíí JKTOIIHCH nCKOBO-IleiepCKHH MOHaCTbipb, HaXOflHBUIHHCK nofl oco6eHHHM nOKpOBHTeJIbCTBOM MOCKOBCKHX BJiaCTeií, BbMejieHHOH, 0C060ÍÍ TeppHTopHeií ? B o BCHKOM cjiynae MONCHO 6MTB yBepeHHbiM B OAHOM, HTO H 3FLECT TEKCT 6 b u i B 3 S T H3 K a K o r o - T O n p o T o r p a < I > a , H6O B " O K O H -

HaHHH" cnncKa 06ojieHCKoro,

noMemeHHoro

HacoHOBbiM B

"IIpH-

6aBJieHHHX" K IlepBOH JieTOHHCH, Mbl HHTaeM CJieítyiOmyiO HCTOpHJO, nacTb KOTopoíi H nproeji peflaKTop TpeTbeá: B JIÍTO 7 0 5 6 - r o . ,HeKa6pa BT> 2 8 « e m , KH»3B BCJIHKHH ÜBAH BacHjn>eBHH

aa 6paT ero KHÜ3L r e o p n m npnixajm c MOCKBM B iwTb .MÍEN B BenHKHH HoBrpafl, H HCBÍ^OMO icaitt> yBÍ«a Ka3Hy apeBHioio coKpoBeHy B CTCHÍ

C03FLATENEM CBHTMH Cofyín IlpeMyflpocTH BOXCHH KH«3H BnaffHMHpa BenHK a r o , H HEBÍ/JOMO 6BICTB o ceMi> HHKÍMI., HH»e cJiyxoM, HNWE IMCAHEEMB.

H Toraa npnexaB HOHI^IO H HaiaT m>iTaTH npo Ka3Hy KJHOHapa co^tncKoro H noHaMapa, h MHoro M y m i HX He «onbiTaca, noHeace He Btaaxy; H npinme caMt KHa3b BenuKHH Ha Bcxofl, Ky«í Bocxoacaxy Ha qepKOBHbiH nojiara, H Ha caMOMi Bcxofle, Ha npaBOH crpaHi, noBeni criHy JioMara, H npocbmaca 68 89

n.JI., 1,112. n.JI.,

I I , 230-231.

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEft IICKOBCKOfÌ JIETOnHCH

137

Berne coKpoBHme, apeBHHH CJIHTKH B rpnBHy H B nojiTHHy H B py6m>, h HactmaB BO3H, H nocJia K MoCKBe. H 6UA e Hoeieopode oduy HOHb, uaioeaA e Hede/ao, ua dpyeyto HOH. Ha BOPOHOHH 6HJI y FtpeiHCTeH E o r o p o j o m b i Ha CHHHHBH r o p w , a TpeTHio uoufb 6UA y Tlpenucmbie Bozopoduifbt a Ilevopaxb, a eo IIcKoee e cpedy ne MHOZO 6biji, u noixaA K Mocxee; u KHH3B BoAodimupb C HUM, a KHH3B K>pbU OCmaACH 60 IICKOee, U nOÓUA HGMHOZO, U CbixaA K MocKee,70

B TpeTbeft JieTOiwcK TCKCT npoTorpa^a coKpameH a o HeBiurnmbi: "6wuia B HoBeropoae H B IlcKOBe, Mecsixa ppicaGpa 28, B Heflejno, o f l H o y HOMB HONEBAB". —

TAE HoneBaji? OFLHOBPEMEHHO B O6OHX

ropoaax? CnncoK 06oJieHCKoro pa3i>acHHeT 3Ty HeacHOCTb, aaeT 6ojituie aeTajieH, onymeHHbix peaaicTopoM TpeTbeii jieTonncH H noaTBepacaaeT, HTO 6biji KaK0H-T0 npoTorpa4>, B KOTopbift, B03M0)KH0, BXOFLHJI H 3nH30fl O BCKpbITHH TaHHHKa B CTeHe JieCTHHUbl, BEFLLLIEH Ha

xopbi

B HOBropo^cKOM

CO4>HHCKOM c o 6 o p e .

H a j u r u i e B O6OHX

TeKCTax peAKO yn0Tpe6jiaeM0H (J)opMi>I HMCHH — reopraii BMÌCTO KDpim — B oTHomeHHH 6paTa BejiHKoro KHH3H Toace noKa3biBaeT Ha cymecTBOBaHHe npoTorpa^a. Bea ace noe3flKa, B CONPOBOKFLEHHH H flBoiopoflHoro 6paTa rocyaapa, Bjia/uiMiipa AHflpeeBHHa khh3» OrapimKoro, HOCHJia Ha caMOM aejie xapaKTep 6oroMOJiba nepea BCJIHKHMH Co6bITHHMH B 5KH3HH HBaHa IV, BeHHaHHJI, "reHBapH B 16 fleHb", Ha uapCTBO, a 3aTeM "(JieBpajra B 3 aeHb" »ceHHTb6a Ha AHacTacHH PoMaHOBHe 3axapbHH0ii-K)pbeB0H. 71 EFLBA JIH M02CH0 6 b u i o 6 b i NPEFLCTABHTB c e 6 e , HTO B STOT MOMCHT

cnoKoiÌHbiH H yMHbiii raaBa MOHacTbipa, TOjibKO HTO ocbinaHHoro flapaMH BejiHKoro KHH3H, CTaJi 6bi OTMenaTb B JICTOIIHCH TaKHe "nper p e m e m n i " B e j u n c o r o KHJOH, KaK "roHbGy Ha HMCKHX". ÌICHO, HTO n o c e -

meHHe CBHTbiHb IIcKOBa ("Ha noKJioH K acHBOHanajibHoy Tpoaubi" H npOMOCKOBCKOTO MOHaCTbips) BCeMH TpeMH B03rJiaBHTeJIHMH flHHaCTHH (Bee Tpoe, KCTaTH CKa3aTb, eme IOHOIIIH, MBaHy BacHJibeBHiy HcnojiHHTCH 17 jieT TOJibKO 25 aBrycra Toro ace ro^a) Tpe6oBajio 6bicTpbix nepeflBHaceHirii H HMCHHO OJIH STOH ueJiH cymecTBOBajia » M a t a » c j i y » c 6 a , 70

CueayeT OTMeraTb, HTO STO cooómeime B TpembeU JICTOIIHCH CBH^eTenbCTByeT nojn>3y npeflnojiosKeHHH, HTO OHO BHCceHo B TCKCT no 1563 roaa, nocKOJibKy, HOBHflHMOMy, MOHaCTbiph "IlpeHHCTeH EorOpOflHLtbl Ha CHHHHbH ropbl" B03HHK OKOJIO 3TO0flaTHh, CTajio 6bm>, HBaH IV He MOT B 1547 roay HoieBan. B HecymecTBOBaBmeii o6HTenH. Cp. Cepe6paHCKnfl, OuepKu..., 355-357. 3Ta nonpo6Hocn» o CBHToropcKOM MOHacTwpe 6bina BHeceHa no3flHee, noHBHBnmcb B crmcKax O60jieHCKoro H CHernpeBCKOM, 0ny6jiHK0BaHHbix, cooTBeTCTBeHHO, B IT.JT., I, 116 H B

B nCPJI,

IV, V, 342. Kax 6yaTO 6bi, A. H. HACOHOB, B CBOHX KOMMeHTapaax, npomeji

3to8 xpoHOJiormecKoii H HCTopniecKoit fleTajra. 71 G. V. Vernadsky, "The Tsardom of Moscow 1547-1682", A History of Russia, V, I, 30-31. MHMO

138

H. E. AHflPEEB

cTOJib n o p a a e a B u i a g

BooôpaaceHiie

KHH3H 3 a H c n 0 J i b 3 0 B a H H e

HHOCTpaHueB: ynpeKaTb

ee, aeiicTBHTeabHO,

Kpafme

BSJiHKoro

MeaoiHaa

flHpKa, coBepmeHHO, KaK KaaceTca, He B a y x e aBTOpa Tloeecmu. 0 / m a K 0 , Tloeecmb

1 5 3 1 r o a a B CBOHX

ranoTe3ax

HENPHHHBIIIKH BO BHH-

MaHHe, BKJiioHUJi 3TO, TOjibKO HTO p a 3 o 6 p a H H o e JieTOnHCH B CnHCOK Tex BpaacaeÔHoe

cooßmeHHe

TpeTbeö

H3BeCTHH, KOTOpbie XapaKTepH3yiOT

oraoiiieHHe

K

BJiacTH

npn-

HacoHOB,

BejiHKoro

KHH3H

"pe3KO

MOCKOBCKOI-O"

HryMeHa KopmuiHa.72 Haao

noanepKHyTb,

HTO n o a o 3 p e B a T b

3Ty BpaacaeÖHOCTb

Booöme

Her ocHOBaHHH. K a K noKa3biBaeT TCKCT Tloeecmu, Bbime

pa3o6paHHoii

H OÖHJIbHO

OÖmepyCCKHX,

UHTHpOBaHHOií,

MaKapbeBCKHx,

MOJIOflOH HTyMeH

HacTpoeHHH

H

noa^epKHBaeT

nOJIOH noMomb

MOHacTbipio,

0Ka3WBaeMyi0 B a c m r a e M III. CoxpaHHJiocb ii3BecTHe (TOHHee rpaMOTa), HTO B 1 5 3 9 r o a y KopHHJiHô nojiyMHJi OT MocKOBCKoro rocyaapa

Jieca Ha TPH BepcTM OT

HeMeuKoro pyßeaca, Ha w r o BOCTOKe OT HbiHeiimero Heftray3eHa, B ITaHHKOBCKOÜ BOJIOCTH. 3aecb, Ha NEPHOM necy, B 1541 r. OH nocTaBHJi n a n , aepeBeHb, B KOTopbix, c y a « n o HX Ha3BaHHHM, nocejiHjracb aaTbimH, t y f l b H pyccKHe. OHH njiaTHJiH K o p m u m i o OT BCHKOTO xneöa H H3 M e m o r o OSNJIBH LETBEPTB HJiH BMECTO LETBEPTH no I a e m r e NCKOBCKOFT C porana, T.e. C COXH. 73 3HaHHT, KopHiuiHH Bee pacuiHpaeT TejiH, MOCKOBCKHe BJiacTH

xo3añcTBeHHyio 6a3y

noaaepacHBaioT

ero

CBoeñ

O6H-

"noacepTBOBaHHHMH".

OflHO H3 HHX OTMeneHO B 1 5 4 7 r o a y riepBoii a e T o n n c b i o , KaK M M B u r e a u Bbiiue. )KajioBaHHbix iura aapcTBeHHbix rpaMOT B MOHacTbipe He c o x p a HHJiocb,

HO

cymecTByeT

"peecTp"

ÜCKOBO-IIeHepcKoro

MOHacTbipa,

KOTOpbiit 6biJi BbinHcaH H3 nHcuoBoii KHHrH 1 6 3 9 r o a a . r p a M O T b i 3TH ÔblJIK, B OCHOBHOM, pa3JIHHHbIMH 5KajIOBaHHbIMH rpaMOTaMH I f o a H a I V nryMeHy K o p H H a m o . 7 4 r p a M O T a OT 4>eBpajia 1 5 4 7 r. acaayeT HryMeHa acaaoBaHbH

aepeB-

"Ha nepraMeHe" acaayeT o c o ô y i o

necTb:

KopHHJiHH "npOTHB c B o e r o r o c y a a p e B a x a e Ô H o r o HHMH". r p a M O T a

1563 roaa

"BejieHo e3anTH K r o c y a a p i o c o CBHTOK) BOAOIO B r o a aBaacaw Ha T p e x n o a B o a a x ; n o a c a a o B a a r o c y a a p b u a p b H BCJIHKHH KHH3b HßaH B a c n a b e BHHb Bcea P y c H . " O c o 6 o e öaaroBoaeHHe K ÜCKOBO-IIeHepcKOMy M O H a CTbipK> BHaHO H3 rpaMOTbi

1539

roaa,

coraacHO

KOTOpOH BeaHKHH

KHH3b "He B e a e a c y a n r a nenepcKoro MOHacTbipa HryMeHa KopHHaHH 3 ÔpaTeiO H UepKOBHHKOB H C a y r H KpeCTbHH H HIOXHOB, KOTOpbie y i H y T HacoHOB, H3 ucmopuu..., 267-268. Cepe6pHHCKHft, Onepm..., 442, cwraeT, ITO yKaaaHHtift pa3Mep aeHeacHoft noBHHHOCTH "oiem. He6ojn>moft, nocHJH>m>iS AJIH 3eMJiefleJibua". 74 H. H. MacJieHHHKOBa, IIpucoedmeHue IIcKoea K pyccKOMy ¡FEUMPAAUIOEAHHOMY zocydapcmey, H3-BO JleHHHrpaflCKoro yHroepcHTeTa (JleHHHrpafl, 1955), 129. 72

73

O XAPAKTEPE T P E T i E f l Ü C K O B C K O H JIETOriHCH

139

3KHTH b o I I c K O B e B C p e ^ H e M r o p o f l e H a I l e H e p c K O M a B o p e h b . n e p e B H a x " , peAKHH

(JjaKT c y a e Ô H H x

npHBiuiermi,

KOTOpwH

no/inepKHBaeT

nojio-

»ceHHe o Ö H T e j i H , KaK j n o Ô H M o r o a e r a m a m o c k o b c k h x B J i a c T e ñ . B r o f l y b C o t h o h rpaMOTe k h j o b A . H . E j i c u k h h , n o noBejieHHio o n n c a j i BJiaAeHHH M O H a c r a p a n o ncKOBCKHM K H H r a M n H C b M a OnHHa-rijiemeeBa b

6hbuihx

h

Ajiexcea

jihbohckhx

CTaporo

"c

TOBapamn",

3CMJIHX, n p r a i H c a H H b i x

H . H . MacjieHHHKOBa yKa3biBaeT,

"k

a

1563 uapa,

3axapHH TaKHce

h

ry6e".

TaSjiOBCKOH

hto

H3 n o c j i e a y i o m H x rpaMOT CTaHOBHTCH h c h m m , h t o 3eMJiH ÜCKOBO-IIeHepcKoro MOHacTBipa HaxoflHJiHCb y c a M o r o

p y ô e a c a , a c a p y r o i i CTopoHbi k

sthm

3eMJiHM npHMbiKajm S B o p u o B b i e 3eMJin B e m i K o r o k h h 3 h h 3eMJiH i t c k o b c k h x nOMeiUHKOB, KaK 0 6 3TOM rOBOpHTCH B OTMOKHOM CIIHCKe, COCTaBJ16HHOM n o yKa3y I f e a H a I V B . B . MocajibCKHM h Y i n a T b i M

MnxaftnoBbiM

cmhom

niaToro b 1 5 6 6 r o a y . 7 5 H h h m h cjioBaMH: MOHacTbipb, B03rjiaBJiaeMbiH nryMeHOM K o p m u i H e M , öecnpepbiBHO

öoraTeji,

öjiaroßapa

noKpoBHTeJibCTBy

Bacroina

III

HßaHa I V . H e y a H B H T e j i b H O , h t o b K o p M O B O Í í KHHre M O H a c r a p » ,

h 3a-

BeaeHHOH K o p H H J i H e M b 1 5 5 8 r o a y , r p o 3 H M H 6 h j i O T M e n e H , KaK " b h i u u i h h n o J i H H T e j i b h i i o c o ö h k k b o b c c m CTpoeHHH MOHacTbipK) c e M y " . 7 6 MoacHO 3Ha3Ma

Jin H,

BpaacfleôeH

ayMaTb, B

hto

HaCTHOCTH,

mockobckoh

Kophhjihh,

nojiHbrä

MHCCHOHepCKOrO BepxoBHon

BJiacra,

m e f l p o noaqepacHBaBuieH o6irreJib? O t

peJiHrao3Horo

BOO/iyiUeBJieHHfl, CTOJib

öecnpepbiBHO

1538 ro^a a o

1565 ro;ia

h h j i h h n e p e c T p o H j i h j i h c o 3 , a a j i HOBbie uepKBH b c a M O M

H Haß

MyAOTBopua.

Bo

"IleHepCKHH

KpenOCTHblMH

ITcKOBe

flBOp"

6bijio

BOpOTaMH

ycTpoeHO

6bl h

Kop-

MOHacTbipe

B HeCTb CeBaCTHHCKHX MyneHHKOB, BO HMH B j i a r O B e m e H H H BorOpOflHUbl

3HTy-

6bIJI

npeCBHTOH

BO HMH CB.

HHKOJiaH

MOHacrapcKoe

noABopbe

C KaMCHHOH n e p K O B b K ) BO HMH OflHTHTpHH BoHCHeH

M a T e p H , b K O T o p o H eaceOTeBHO c o B e p i n a j i a c b c j i y a c 6 a . B t o t ace n e p H o a Kophhjihh

npeflnpHHHJi CTpoHTejibCTBO o r p o M H o r o p a 3 M a x a : c o 3 f l a j i

nepBOKJiaccHbie

yKpenjieHHH

Boxpyr

MOHacTbipa,

MHMO

KOToporo,

HaHHHa« c ÄHBapa 1 5 5 8 ro,qa, i h j i h Ha 3ana,n m o c k o b c k h c p a r a h b "KaTaKOMÔax"

KOToporo,

b

nora6uiHx b J I h b o h h h . 7 7 75

rope,

HanajiH Bee n a m e

xopOHHTb

bohhob,

M o H a c r a p b CTaji KpenocTbio: CTeHbi o 6 m e ñ

TaM * e , 129-130. Cepe6pHHCKHñ, OuepKU..., 349. 77 CepeópHHCKHÜ (TaM ace, 497) noaiepKHBaet y ncKOBCKoro MOHamecTBa OTCyTCTBHC MHCCHOHepCKOfi H K0JI0HH3aT0pCK08 AeJITeJIbHOCTH, TaK HTO paÖOTa K o p HHJIHH, b o BpeMH JIHBOHCKOH BOÍÍHBI b ocoöeHHocTH, n o paCnpOCTpaHeHHK) npaBOcjiaBHH (TaM ate, 342-343) Kax 6 h HJiJiiocTpHpyeT Hame npeanoJioaceHHe, BbicKa3aHHoe Bbime npH pas6ope Iloeecmu, o t o m , h t o Kopmumö He 6WJI iickobhhom 76

140

H. E. AHFLPEEB

npoTíDKeHHOCTbK) OKOJIO T p e x H C T B e p T e á B e p c r a H FLO n a r a

caaceHeií

B w c o T b i , a e B A T b 6 o e B b i x 6 a i u e H . 7 8 H e T c o M H e H H » , HTO B c e 3TO r p a n m i o 3 Hoe

CTpOHTeJibCTBO,

3aK0HHeHH0e

TOJibKo c B e f l O M a u a p a

H "no

K 1565

roay,

np0H3B0,¡iHji0Cb

6jiar0CJi0BJieHHK)" M H T p o n o j i H T a

He Ma-

K a p H H , HO H C nOMOim>K) H C COBeTOM UapCKHX B O e H H O H a q a j I b H H K O B , n p H e 3 « a B i i i H X B 3Ty npaBOCJiaBHyK) T B e p f l b m i o " y JlHBOHCKoro p y 6 e a c a " . BoeBoaa

IlaBeji

üeipoBUM

3a6ojiowcHÍí,

no3í(Hee

n p H H H B IIIHIÍ 3 f l e c b

n o c T p n r h C T a B i i m i í HHOKOM I l a i j í H y T H e M , H e a a p o M HHCJIHJICH B " 6 j i a r o T B o p H T e j i a x o 6 H T e J u i " . O H H HHKOJTbCKyK) u e p i c o B b " H a B p a T e x " CTPOHJI, H a x o f l a c b e m e H a K O M a H f l H b i x n o c T a x B a p M H H . 7 9 Y K p e n j i e H H H IICKOBOn e n e p c K o r o M O H a c T b i p a O K a 3 a j i H C b H e n o a CHJiy a a x e e y a a p H b i M n a c n i M apMHH

Creiii aHcaM6jib IlcKOBO-IleiepcKoro MOHacTwpa, ApxumeKmypHoe uacAedcmeo, 6 (MocKBa, 1956),

57-86. K co*aJieHHK>, HCTopmecKHe aaHHwe, npraoAHMbie B CTaTte, HHOr^a CTpaHtai:

HanpHMep, BMCCTO TepMHHa "JIHBOHIIM" H "JIHBOHHS", aBTop irameT "IRAIIIJIJIHIIM" H "JlHiit 3a«yMaji CTPOHTejacrBO yxpenjieHHit n c K O B o - r i e i e p c K o r o MOHacTbipn", 0AHaK0, flBe CTpaHauw n e p e f l TeM c o o 6 m a n o c b HCHTO HHOC, a HMCHHO: " B 1547 r . MOHacTbipb n o c e m u HteaH rpo3Hbiii. CTpaTeriwecKaa pcrnb MOHacTbips K 3T0My B p e M e r a HacTOJibKO B03pocjia, MTO 6wno npmwTO p e m e i m e o erpoHTenbCTBe Boxpyr Hero KpenocTHbix CTCH" (?) ... ABTOP onHCbiBaeT, Meawy HHbiMH, "TropeMHyio" 6amHK>. Taicoit HHKORAA He 6biJio: OHa KasbiBanacb HJIH KpyrjioS HJIH OcrpoxHoii (OT apeBHepyccxoro "ocTpor", T.e. o6brmo ocTpoyrojibHoe coieTaime CTCH 3a TJiaBHbiMH BopoTaMH, TaK MTO BopBaBiimflca CKB03b BopoTa Bpar nona^aji, 6yxBaJibHO, "H3 oriw aa B nojibiM»"). He 6bino H Hmcaxoro "HHKOJIH BpaTapa", HO HHKOJiaii HyaoTBopeu H UEPKOBB ero HMCHH. H Tax flanee. KTO OTBETCTBEHEH 3a Taxyio 6ecBKycHyio &HTHHCTOPHHECKYIO 0Tce6flTHHy? ABTOP HJIH PEAAIA^A? 79

Andreyev, "Was the Pskov-Pechery Monastery...", 490.

80

CM. CBO/PCY AAHHLTX B: nepeoKAaccnuu

HcKoeo-IIeHepcKuu

Andreyev, "Was the Pskov-Pechery Monastery...", 327.

MOHacmupb,

28-39;

O XAPAKTEPE TPHTBEH I I C K O B C K O f l JIETOI1HCH

141

ayxoBeHCTBa, c o B e p m a B i n e r o nepeHoc n o pacnopaaceHHio u a p a , HaxoAHJicH HryMeH nenepcKHH Kophhjdih H3 IlcKOBa. 8 1 B o bcakom cjiynae KopHUJIHH HBHO IIOHHMaJI TOCyflapCTBeHHyK) BaaCHOCTb 6 o p b 6 b I c J I h -

BOHHen h noAaepacHBaJi ee c o nOCTpOHKOH

yKpeiUICHHH,

H

Been

eMy cbohctbchhoh aHeprneii (h

HeMeflJieHHOH MHCCHOHepCKOH

fleHTeJIb-

HOCTbK) Ha HOBblX TeppHTOpHHX, H BCJIHeCKOH nOflflepHCKOH flyxa pyCCKHX paTHHKOB).82 H 3 n a c e M K y p 6 c K o r o K c r a p u y BacbaHy OflHOMy

H3

BblCOKO

06pa30BaHHbIX

HCHblM KpaCHOpeHHBblH (J)aKT,

MOHaXOB

MypoMueBy,

o6HTeJIH,

MTO MOHaCTblpb OTKa3aJI B

CTaHOBHTCH nOBTOpHOM

3 a H M e KaKOH-TO CyMMbI KHH3K) A H f l p e K ) MHXaHJIOBHHy, nOCJiaHHH KO-

Toporo

H3 l O p b e B a

JlHBOHCKoro

coAepacajra HeKOTOpyK) KpHTHKy

COCTOflHHH flejl B "HOBOM BaBHJIOHe", KaK 6bIJIO MOflHO H a 3 b I B a T b C p e f l H KHHXCHblX JIJOfleH MoCKBy.

IlOBHflHMOMy, TaKaa KpHTHKa BbI3BaJia

y nenepcKHX CTapueB comhchuh b xapaKTepe

h cy/y>6e K y p 6 c K o r o .

83

flajibHefimero

noBeaeHH«

Tpy,HHO oGtacHHTb otk33 hhbimh npHHHHaMH,

nocKOJibKy M O H a c r a p b flaBaji ccyzjbi, no^xoAH k hhm c hhcto xo3«hctBeHHOH TOHKH 3peHHfl. 84 BepOflTHO, TaKOH OTKa3 BOeBOfle, 6o«pHHy,

KHH3K), CBOHCTBeHHHKy n a p « flejiajica c BeaoMa h c corjiacHH HryMeHa, KOTopbiii — HaAO 3to coo6paaceinie oco6chho noflnepKHyTb — eflBa jih Beji JXHMHyio a p y a c 6 y c Kyp6cKHM, 6yfly»ra 3HaHHTem>H0 CTaprne n o TOMKa "apocjiaBCKHX yaejibHbix" (pa3HHua b B03pacTe Sbijia 6 o j i b i u e HeTBepTH BeKa). 85 O t 3 M b KypGcicoro o K o p H m u r a b e r o Hcmopuu AUKOM

KHH3E

MOCKOSCKOM

o ee-

He o6Hapy»CHBaeT 3HaHHH B3rjMAOB HryMeHa,

a CKopee noica3biBaeT Ha HeicoTopyjo AHCTaHijHio Meatfly rjiaBOfi " I l p e HHCTbie y IleHepbi" h npocBemeHHbiM, hmchhtbim mhphhhhom: Torfla ace y6aeH o t Hero K o p m u m f i , HryMeH, IleHepcKoro MOHacTtipa HanajibHHK, Myac cbht h bo npenoflo6Hio MHor h cnaBeH: 6 0 o t MJiaaocrH CBoefi bo MHHinecKHx Tpyflex np0B03CHHJi, h MOHacrapb o h npeflpeieHHHfl B03ABH»ce h e r o mhohimh Tpy^ti h MorarrBaMH k Bory, nneace h 6ec*mc.neHm>ie lyfleca npeacae HCTeicajra 6jiaroAaTHio X p a c r a B o r a Hamero h npeiHCTbie E r o MaTepn mojihtbbmh, noKom. 6hjio HMeHeft ko MOHacrapK> TOMy He B3HTO, h HecTHacaTejibHo mhhch npe6biBajm; erfla ace mhhch CT«acaHM nonaira jik>6hth, n a i e ace HeflBiuKHMbie Bemn, cnpe cejia h Been Torga y r a c o m a 6oacecTBeHHaa HK>«eca.86 81

N.JI.,

II, 235-236. CM. Andreyev, "Was the Pskov-Pechery Monastery...", 338-

340.

82

TaM ace, 327-329. Cepe6pHHCKH«, Onepm..., 342-344. Andreyev, "Kurbsky's letters", 416-417. 84 Cpe3HeBCKHlt, Onepm..., 404-406. Cp. H. H. MacjieHHHKOBa, H'pucoeduueme ncKoea, 131-132. 85 Andreyev, "Kurbsky's letters", 434. 86 Khh3h A. M. Kyp6cKoro: Hcmopun O SCAUKOM KHNIE MOCKOSCKOM (H3BJieieHO 83

H. E. AHflPEEB

142

XapaKTepHCTHKa B a c w r a a M y p o M u e B a , icoTopbiH 6MJI HeMHoro CTapiue K y p 6 c K o r o H K KOTopoMy nocjieflHHH o 6 p a m a j i c a , KaK K paBHOMy: "ITpejiK)6e3HbiH MOH flpy>Ke",87 6ojiee KOHKpeTHa: Torfla BKyne y6HeH c HHM flpyruft MHHX, yreHHK Toro K O P H H J I H H , BacbHH HMAHeM, n o HapeieHHio MypoMucm; My» 6HJI yneHbiii H HCKycHHft H BO CBHmeHHtix imcaHHHx nocjieflOBaTejib. 88 KaK MM BH/jejm Bbime, He TojibKo pacijBeT M O H a c r a p c K o r o xo3$mcTBa na^AET

rofla

Ha BpeMH HryMeHCTBa

OH

KOPHHJIHH,

caM npH3HaBaji 6jiar0TB0pH0e

HO B

cBoeii Tloeecmu

3HANEHNE

/yia

OGHTCJIH

1531 MaTe-

pHajibHoii 06ecneHeHH0cra. B c a e r o HryMeHCKaa .aeaTejibHOCTb npoTHBopeHHT npHHUHnHajH>Ho-HecTH»caTejibCKHM paccyacfleHHAM K y p 6 c K o r o , KOTopbiii B CBoefi Mcmopuu, 0C06eHH0

raajica

TOJIBKO K

caMOMy

3a

HanpaBJieHHoii npoTHB HBaHa IV, He OTTeHKax

HCTHHOH B

raaBHOMy

—

K

H

noapo6HOCTax, c r p e M s c b

CMemeHHio caMoii

BO3MOXCHOCTH AJIH

r p 0 3 H 0 r 0 KaHflHAaTHpOBaTb B nOJIbCKHe KOpOJIH.89 TaKHM 0 6 p a 3 0 M ,

npeflCTaBJiaeTCH HecoMHeHHbiM,

HTO H3BecTHbie

HaM 4>aKTbI 3CH3HH H fleflTeJIbHOCTH KopHHJIHfl He flaiOT MaTepHaJia OTH noflTBepacfleHHK

ranoTeTHiecKHX

TOjiKOBaHHH A . H .

HacoHOBa,

Bbirne H3JioxeeHHbix.

VI H o KaKOBa ace o 6 m a a HfleiiHaH HanpaBJieHHOCTb C T p o e B c x o r o cnacKa, T.e., n o HacoHOB,

HacoHOBy, ncKOBCKOH TpeTbeii jieTonncH, ,ao 1552 KaK

6HJIO

yKa3aHO,

cpaBHHBaji

TCKCT

TpeTbeii

roaa?

jieTonHCH

c IlepBOH. M b i CAeJiaeM TO ace cpaBHeHHe cennac. PaccMOTpHM cooSmeHHH JieTonHceii c MOMeHTa

BKJUOHCHHH

B M0CK0BCK0e rocyflapcTBo, T.e. c 1510 r o ^ a . B nepByio paCCMOTpHM C006meHHH

IlepBOH JieTonHCH,

IlcKOBa onepeflb

"npOMOCKOBCKOH",

no

MHeHHK) HaCOHOBa. IICKOB, XOTH H H3flaBHa OnHpajICH Ha MOCKBy B CBOeft nOCTOHHHOii 6 o p b 6 e c jiHBOHuaMH H jiHTOBuaMH, 90 6biJi noflnepKHyTo " H a p o f l o H3 CoHUHenuu khh3h Kyp6cKoao), M3flaHne HMnepaTopcKOii ApxeorpaiJiHiecKOll KOMMHCCHH (CaHKT IIeTep6ypr, 1913), 160-161. 87 Andreyev, "Kurbsky's letters", 434. 88 KftMH A. M. Kyp6cKoro: Hcmopun..., 161. 89 A. A. 3HMHH, "Koraa Kyp6cKHii Harmcan Hcmoputo o EEAUKOM MN3E MOCKOSCKOM?", Tpydu omdena dpeeuepyccKoii Aumepamypbi, XVIII (MocKBa-JIeHimrpafl, 1962), 305-308. 90 MacjieHHHKOBa, TIpucoeduHeme IIcKoea..., 180; Andreyev, "Filofey...," 17.

O XAPAKTEPE TPETtEÍt IICKOBCKOfl JIETOnHCH n p a B n e c K H M " B CBOCH B H Y T P E H H E Ñ o p r a m m i ^ R A .

143

I I C K O B C K H E JICTOIIHCH

3a nepHOA 1 1 3 8 - 1 5 1 0 ro,noB, T.e. 3a 3 7 2 r o a a , OTMeiaioT 2 2 0 HapoflHbix co6paHHií, KaxceTCH, He MeHbiiie, neM B H o B r o p o a e . 9 1 JleTonncH AO 1510

rofla

nojiHbi

OTCTaHBaHHa

"06mencK0BCKHX

HHTepecoB",

KaK

noHHMano HX Bene, H, B HaeTHoeTH, He JIIOGHT uepKOBHbiñ Kompojib, HCXOA»mHS

OT

HOBrOpOflCKHX

BJiaflbIK.

IICKOB,

"MCHiUIOH

6paT"

rocnoflHHa BejiHKoro H o B r o p o a a , HeoflHOKpaTHO BpaacflyeT c o "cTapUIHM", CTpeMHCb K 3amHTe CBOHX co6cTBeHHbix HHTepecoB, H aaace OTKpbiTO noMoraeT

MOCKBC B ee 6 o p b 6 e c

HoBropoflCKoñ

pecny-

GJIHKOH.92

IlpeAHyBCTByeMbiH

HexoTopuMH,

KaK,

HanpHMep,

CTapueM

4>H-

jioHOCTH:

H Torfla ORBHTUA cjiaBa NCKOBCKAA. O cjiaBH^umBH BO rpa^ex BCJIHKHH IIcKOBe, noHTo 6 o cÍToyeiira, IIOHTO 6O ruiaHeum? H oTBÍma rpaa IICKOB: KaKO MH He C^TOBaTH, Kaxo MH He roiaKaTH; npHJitrtn Ha MeHe MHoro KpmibHbra open, HcnoJiHb Kpwjie (jibBOBbix) HorTen, H B3H OT MeHe (TPH) Keflpa ApeBa xmBaHOBa (H KpacoTy MOIO H 6oraTecTBo H nasa MOA BOCXHTH), nonycTHBmy Boroy 3a r p i x n Harna, H 3eMJiio Hamy noycry corBopauia, H rpa/i Haun> pa3opHca, H JIMAH HauiH njiemnua, H Topaamia Harna pacxonarna, a HHbie Topxcnma KanoM KOHCBBIM 3aMeTauia, a o m a H 6paTHio Hamy po3Beaouia, r a e He 6breajiH OTUM Hanm H AÍAM HH npaaifl Haunix, TaMo OTUW H 6paTHio Hamy H flpyra Hama CBeaoiiia, a MaTepw H cecTpw Hama B nopoyraHHe aama. A HHMe BO rpa^e MH03H nocrpHraxoyca B HepHtuM, a aceHbi oy HepHimM H B MOHaerbipn noH^oma, He xoTaiiie B nonoH IIOHTH OT CBoero rpaaa BO HHtie rpaflbi.94 Ilocjie

3Toro

noaBJiaerca

TpaflHUHOHHoe o6i>HCHeHHe COGMTHH:

3a

rpexH HaiiiH HHcnocjiaHbi "Ka3HH", a, ecjiH He noxaioTca, MoaceT 6brn» H xyauiee

91 93

93 94

HaKa3aHHe.

H,

MKOHHHKOB, Ornam..., 811. Andreyev, "Filofey...", 17. n,JI.y I , 9 2 - 9 7 . T a M xe,

95-96.

nepeiHCJiaa

nepBbie

MOCKOBCKHC

Ha?Ha-

144

H. É. AHFLPEEB

neHHfl H MeponpHHTHH, JieTonnceu HeMeflJieHHO n03B0JweT ce6e 0 6 o6meHHe, HanpaBJieHHoe npoTHB HOBoro peaoiMa: H o y HaMÍCHHKOB E O y H X THOyHOB H o yFLBFLKOBBejIHKOrO KHH3H n p a B f l a HX,

xpecTHoe uejioBaHHe, B3JieTÍjio Ha He6o, H icpuBaa Haiaina B HHX XOAHTH, H 6bima HEMHJIOCTHBUFLOHCKOBHH; a ITCKOBHHH 6TFLHBIA HE S^AMA npaB^BI MOCKOBCKHFL

H Tbie HaMtcHHKH, HX THyHM H JIMFLH n m n a H30 ÜCKOBHHB

KpOBH MHOrO; a KOH HH03eMUbI JKHJIH BO I l c K O B e , H T ^ p a 3 b m o m a c H BO CBOH

3EMJM, AHO HE MOHHO BO IICKOBC XCHTH, TOJIMCO O^HH IICKOBH™ ocTarna, AHO 3eMJiH He p a c T y n H T q a , a o y B e p x i . He B 3 J i e T e T b . 9 5

PeaaKTop IlepBOH JieTonncH 6ojxee neM OTHCTJIHBO noHHMaji HeoTMeHJieMOCTb "nCKOBCKOrO B3HTHH" H HeoGxOflHMOCTb nOflHHHHTbCH BCeM MOCKOBCKHM TpeSoBaHHHM, HTO6H "rocyAapt Hami> KHH3B BCJIHKHH" "Hac He noryGiux « o KOHua". H o h noHKMan 3Ty He06x0flHM0CTb npHHHTB HCTOpHHeCKHH (JiaKT, MeHKBIIlHH cy,m>6y IlCKOBa, peflaKTOp He CKpbIJI MOTHB "iUiaia H pblflaHH«", npOHH3bIBaiOmHH Becb 3TOT JieTOnHCHbiñ paccKa3 n o a 1510 roflOM, Korfla IICKOBHHH "njiaKajin no CBoeñ CTapHHe H no CBoeñ BOJIH", OCO6CHHO 13 siHBapa, Kor^a " c n y c r a i n a BEHHOH (BENEBOH) HaÜTH B

KOJIOKOJI CBHTW»

TaKOM CKOpÓHOM TeKCTe

TKHBOHAQAJIBHBIH "npOMOCKOBCKHe

Tpomja".96 HaCTpOeHHa",

noacajiyñ, flejio 6e3HaAe«Hoe. B ncKOBCKOíí IlepBOH JieTonHCH, H3flaHHoñ B 1848 ro^y, 6MJIH H eme ABa MOTHBa, HBIHE nepe6pomeHHbie Hac0H0BMM B "IlpH6aBJieHHH" K TpeTbeñ, HO HEBXOFLHMNE B CTpoeBCKHií CIIHCOK: O T H a n a n a y 6 o P y c K i a 3 e M j r a c e f i y 6 o r p a f l i ITCKOBI HH KOHMI « e KHjneMi»

HO Ha CBoefi BOJIH xuiBJixy BT> HEMI. c y m m n i o f l i e . . . H 6 b i c r b RNIEHEH He HHOBCPHMMH, HO CBOHMH EFLHHOBIPHBNVRA JIIOAMH. M KTO cero He BoauiaieT H He B03pbmaeT?97 BJiaflOMt 6 i ,

0 6 m e e HacTpoeHHe c Hanajia KOH(j)jiHKTa n AO ycTaHOBjieHiM HOBMX nopaAKOB B IlcKOBe B b i p a a c e H o B cneAyiomHX, eflBa JIH " n p 0 M 0 C K 0 B CKHX" cjiOBax: H Hanafle Ha HHX (ncKOBiraefi) crpax H TpeneT, H TaKOBbie CMHTH npanum Ha HX o y e r a , H M H o r a » w b i n p H x o f l m r a H Í M H H KO I l c K O B y , a TaKOBbie

H cyxoTbi He óbiBajio; H BeXHy AHH npHexama r o c r a CBe^eHBie

MOCKBHHH

3

flecara

CBe^EHO; H H a i a u i a HM ABOPH B T M P O B A A N M A H3 CBOHX

Iloa o

ROPOFLOB

flaBara

300

ceMeH,

a

IICKOBHH TOJIMCO

ace

B Cepe^HEM r o p o ^ e , a HCKOBHI BC£X

FLBOPOB."

1512 r o f l O M n o M e m e H o , eflBa jih "npoMOCKOBCKoe" c o o ö m e H H e IICKOBCKHX

r a 6 e j i H MHorHx

6BIJI aim

HHX TEATP BOCHHMX

raimajibHHKOB

FLEÖCTBHH

noa

CMOJICHCKOM, RAE

H E O Ô W I E H " H GBICTI. H M

THÄKO

BEJIBMH" H M H o r o HX n o r n ó j i o , " 3 a H e ace OHH NBFLHM JIÍ3JIH" B 6 o i i , a MEA H HUBO " « a m e

nofl

roflOM

KHH3B B C J I H K H H " . 1 0 0

1514 roAOM

noMemeHo

eme

o^ho

npHMenaTeJibHoe

H3BecTHe: BbiCTb no6omn Bejme MOCKBHHCM c JIHTBOK» nofl ropoflOM nofl O p m o i o ; H B03KJiHiama h BO30nHina acem>i o p i m a m a i Ha TpoyÖM MOCKOBCKHa, h cjibrraame 6MTH cryKoy h rpoMoy BemncoMoy H Meacy MOCKBHH H JIHTBOK). H Bflapmna MOCKBHHH Ha JlHTBy, pycicira khh3H H 6oape 3 AHBHHMH oyflaubuw pOyCKHMH CbmOBaMH Ha CHJIbHyW paTb JIHTOBCKyiO, H TpicHyjiH KOnbH MOCKOBCKaa, H rpeMJiTb M e i n öoyjiaTHbie o mejiOMM jiHTOBCKHa Ha nojiH OpmHCKOM. H 6bicTb HenocoÔHe Eocene MOCKBjiiaM, H noHMania JlHTBa noraHaa ôojibiimx BoeBOfl, HBaHa OHflpieBHHa H KHHSA M n x a r a a T o m m o y , H HHbix KHA3eH H 6oap H fleTeft ôoapcKHx oyflanbix, a mn>ie n o ô e r o m a Kb CMOJieHbCKy, a HHbie B perai HenpoxoflHMbia 3a6eroma. 101 3anHCb 3Ta, KaK HaM npeflCTaBJiaeTC«, He ecTb npocTO "3anHCb 4>aKTa" o

nopaaceHHH MOCKOBCKHX BOHCK, HO conepacHT B ce6e

HeKOTopyio

HpoHHK) B oTHomeHHH MOCKBHHCH: JiHTepaTypHoe o4)opMJieHHe Hanajia cooômeHHH OTpaacaeT

MOTHBH

H

cjioBapb 3adomifUHbi, nosMbi o p y c -

CKOH n o ô e a e , H Bflpyr npeBpamaeTCH B a x o Cnoea BejiHKoii

nosMbi

npoHBJiHeT,

o

oTKpbiTO

pyccKOM

nopaaceHHH.

o noAKy

Hzopeee,

JleTonHcen-peflaKTop

aHTHMOCKOBCKHX HyBCTB, HO KaK-6bi

He

CHHacaeT

BOHHCKyiO CJiaBy MOCKOBCKHX BOHHOB H nepeBOflHT B o n p o c B " H e n o coÔHe EoacHe MOCKBHMaM".102 3TOT MOTHB Boacbero penieHHH n p o x o f l H T TaM ace, 96-97. T O M ace, 97. 101 TaMace, 98. 102 O 6 3TOM TeKCTG CM.: M . A. CaJiMHHa, "PaccKa3 o 99

100

ÔHTBC

nos Opmoñ

ITCKOB-

146

H . E. A H f l P E E B

Hepe3

BCK>

üepByio

JieTonHCb.

HpoHHa

B

OTHomeHHH

MOCKOBCKHX

BJiacTeñ A e M O H C T p n p y e T C H e m e TOJIMCO OAHH p a 3 , B c o o ö m e H H H o

no-

cjieflCTBHHX

CO-

cMepra

nyBCTBeHHoe eiracKona

H

flbjuca

BHHMaioie no3flHee

MnciopÄ-MyHexHHa.103

Bbi3HBaeT

y

peaaKTopa

MHTponojiHTa

EoJibinoe

H

fleaTejibHOCTb

MaKapaa.104

apxH-

HnrepecHO,

HTO

HeH3MeHHO noAHepKHBaeTCH p o j i b H ß a H a I V , H a H H H a « , KaK e M y C T a j i o "iiHTb

JieT

B03pacT0M"

—

3aMenaHHe,

3Bynamee

Toace

apoHHeñ

KOHTpaCTy Meacfly naTHJieTHHM BeJIHKHM KHH3CM H CJIOHCHOCTbK) ÖJieM, H M " p e m a e M B i x " . 1 0 5 TaKoro

HecooTBeTCTBM,

Ilofl

1 5 4 1 TOAOM, KaK 6 M jijih

noMemeHO

3AMENAHHE,

" M J i a a a B 0 3 p a c T 0 M , 11 J i i r b , h C T a p e n m a HHLIMH

cjioßaMH,

riepBaa

HaMHHaeTca Ha cyryöo CHJH»HOH

CKopÖH

Hjui

JieTonHCb,

ÜCKOBCKOM

HTO

no npo-

OßTACHEHH«

BCJIHKHH

KH«3I>

yMOM".106 3a n e p a o f l

roflOB,

1510-1547

MaTepHajie, nofliac nojiHOM 6ec-

pHTopHHecKoro capKa3Ma, HO BCKOpe OHa

Ha-

nojiHaeTca HH^opMauHeii TaioKe oömepyccKoö, BejiHKOKHSxecKOH H H3 MaKapteBCKHX KpyroB. Mbi He 3HaeM npoTorpa4>a 3Toro cBOfla, HO nCKOBCKHH MaTepHajI B HeM HJ1H crporo 4>aKTHHeH,

HJIH

»ce, KaK

Mbi BblUie BHflejlH, OCTaBaJICa HpOHHHeCKHM B OTHOUieHHH MOCKOBCKHX BJiacTeö BO IIcKOBe, —

HecoMHeHHoe HCKjnoieHHe flejiajiocb fljia

HeMHOrHX, B TOM HHCJie flJM RhUKa M . r . MHCKDpb-MyHeXHHa. CBOA 1547 rofla co3flaBajica, no Bcen BepoaTHoeTH, npa coöope üpeCBÄTOH TpOfflJbl BO IlCKOBe, — MbICJIb KoCTOMapOBa, C KOTOpOH corjiacHbi Bce flpyrae HCCJieaoBaTejw, BKJiKmH H HacoHOBa. CTpoeBCKHH cnncoK, T.e. TpeTba JieTonHCb, 6bui co3flaH, no

MHCHHHJ

HacoHOBa, Ha 6a3e Toro ace npoTorpaa, KaKOH Jier B ocHOBaHHe IlepBOH JieTonHCH. B neM ace pa3HHii;a Meac,ay flByM« CBOßaMH? H o neM CBHueTejibCTByioT HHflHBHflyaJibHbie

OCOÖCHHOCTH

CKOÖ JieTOiracH H 3adoHUfUHa", CAOBO O noAKy Hzopeee

CBOfla 1567 ro,qa?

u naMHmHUKU

KyjtmoecKozo

ifUKna (MocKBa-JIeHHHrpafl, 1966), 524-525. H a M npeflCTaBJweTCH 3aMeiaTeJii>HbiM caMBiil noBopoT paccxa3a — oimcaime, B xom^e KOHUOB, nopaiKeHHa: B STOM, xaACETCFL HaM, noflTBepaweHHe, HTO aBTop jieTonHCHoro cooömeHHfl 3HQA O cymecTBOBAHHH CAoea o noAKy Hzopeee,

— pa3yMeeTC«, STO oco6aa TEMA, HO EE cneuyer

OT-

METHTT ITAACE MHMOXOÄOM. 103

n . J I . , I, 105. KcTara, ynoMHHaeMbiü noflbiWHfi OpTioma IICKOBHTHH, noMom-

HHK M . r . MHCiopa-MyHexHHa, CTaJi, NOBH^HMOMY, HHOKOM Apeoü, HTO cooTBeTCTBOBano 6bi TpaflHiiHH, HTOÖH nocTparaeMbiÄ npHHHMaji HM« CB«Toro,

Hara-

HaBmerocfl Ha Ty « e 6yKBy, B flaHHOM cjiyiae ApTeMHü H Apea. B CHHOflHKe Ha# Ape(j)Ofi HaAüHcaHO "noabxwß"

n noMeiqeH OH BCJie,q 3a HMCHCM CBoero HanajibHHKa,

" M H x a a n a Mncropa M y H e x r a a " . 104

T a M ace, 103, 104, 106, III.

105

T a M x e , 107.

106

T a M »ce, 110.

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEÍl IICKOBCKOtt JIETOI1HCH

147

C o 6 h t h s 1510 rofla, HBjiaioiimeca, ecTecTBeHHo, MepraoM "iickobckoh HanpaBJieHHOCTH" B JieTonHCHbix cooômeHHax, CBeaeHti b OrpoeBCKOM cnHCKe, KaK 6bi, k KOHcneKTy co6wthh, k nepecKa3y hx, nocKOJibKy Mbi 3HaeM hx no hsjiokchhio b nepBoií JieTOnHCH: B JieTO 7 0 1 8 . IIpHexaji bi> ITckobt> KHíi3b BenmceH Bacrnien MoaHOBHi, Mecada remap» 24fleHb,h o6bmen iickobckoh nepeMemurt, h CTapraoy nopoynnun., 3a6biB oTua ero h pprob ero cjiOBa h acanoBam.» ao ncKOBin h K p e c T H o r o uejioBaHHa, pa BCTaBHnt cboh oSbrien n nonuiHHBi hobbm oycTaBHJii. h flbHKa Mhcioph, h TpHCTa Jiwaen, aa c Craporo 3acreHHa BtmpoBaflHJi ncKOBira, zia ToyTO Bejiiji »chth npHBe^eHHUM t, rocTeMt; a b 3acTeHbH 6hjio flBopoBi 6500; a c KpoMy Benin miera BtmpaTaTH, h KpoM ôbiCTb noycrb. H 6biCTb Bi» IlbCKOBe unan h CKopöi» Bejimca pa3JiyneHHH pa^H. fía b HoBeropofle %aji06HHK0B'b 3acaflmn>, H3biMaBT> 300 iejiOBeia>, ncKOBim nee. A Bee DHCajI IICKOBOy MHXKO: H3fleHKHH3b BejIHKHH BaCHJieH UBaHOBHH Bac OTHHHOy CBOK) xohk) jKajiOBaTb no CTapHHe, a xohk> no6biBaTb oy cbotoh TpomiH, oynpaBbi BaM xohio yHHHHra.107

fleHCTBHTeJIBHO, HOBblX MOTHBOB B 3T0M COOÖLHeHHH HCT. ECTb pa3HHua b TepMHHOJiorHH: BMecTO — CepeflHHÌi ropofl, 3Aecb HanHcaHO — CTapoe 3acTeHHe, 3acTeHbe. EflHHCTBeHHaa (JjaKTHiecKaa fleTaJib, KOTOpaH OTCyTCTByeT H B IlepBOH JieTOnHCH, H B "OKOHHaHHH" ApXHBCKoro 2-ro cnHCKa,108 h b "OrptiBice" h3 KoneHrareHCKoro cGopHHKa,109 BbipaxceHa b h3bccthh (cm. Buine) o KpoMe, T.e. fleTmme. 3 t o h3BecTHe HOJiHOCTbK) noATBepxcfleHO noBecTbio B3nmue IJcKoea, HamiCaHHOH C MOCKOBCKOH TOHKH 3peHHH H He BOUieflUieH B JieTOIfflCH, Tfle Mbi HHTaeM: "...a H3 KpoMy Bejieji ncKOBHHeM BceM CTaTKH cboh h xjie6 BbiBecTH no aomom, aa h kjicth cboh hc KpoMy Bejieji BbiBecra. A b KpoMy He Bejieji 6mth hh y KOKOBa ncKOBHTHHa HHKaKOH pyxjieflH, HH 3anacy." u 0 Yace npeacTaBJiaa ce6e MaHepy cocTaBHTeJia TpeTbefi JieTOnHCH, mm BHflHM h 3flecb ee npoAOjraceHHe: coKpameHHe HMeBiiraxca MaTepHajioB iijih TeKCTa npoTorpa^a. B TpeTbeä JieTOnHCH HeT hh "Ilnana" no BOJibHOCTH, hh paccyacaeHHH o HeoöxoflHMOCTH noKaHHHH b ipexax: "a Mbi HenoaKOXOMC», ho Ha 6ojh>hioh r p t x npeBparaxoMCH, ho Ha 3Jimk h jihxhh noiuienbi h oy B^HbH KpHMaHHe, a He ßifloyme rjiaBa, hto jbmkt, raarojieTb, He yMiiomy CBoero flOMy crpoara, a rpaflOM HapaacaTH."111 Bce s t o 107 108

109

n.JI., II, 225.

TaMxe, 258.

TaM »ce, 229. H. H. MacJieHHHKOBa, Ilpucoedmeme..., "IIpHJioHceHHe", 194. . n.JI., I, 96.

110 U1

148

H. E. AHflPEEB

CBE^EHO B OFLHY pa3y: " A Bee TO 3a Harne cbrpiiueHHe TaKb

Eon>

BEJITJI 6 H T H " . 1 1 2 H o 3aTeM B TeKCTe cjieayeT KaK-6bi KOMMenrapnií K COSMTHHM, NPHMO npOTHBOnOJIOXCHMH

TOJÜKO

HTO

IlpHBefleHHOMy

"npHMHpHTejIbHO-

CaMOKpHTHHeCKOMy" B riepBOH JieTOnHCH: ...3aHe »ce HanncaHo IlaKajmcneH rnaBa 54: nsTb 6o ijapen MHHoyjio, a mecTtm ecn», HO He oy 6e npmneji; inecroe 6o ijapcTBO HMeHoyeT B Poyen CKiiBCKaro ocrpoBa; CH 6O HMeHoyeT luecrbm, H ceflMbi no TOM eme, a OCMWH aHTHxpncr. Ce 6o XPHCTOC BT> CBHTOM EyaHrejiHH rjiarona: « a He 6oyfler 6ixcecrBO Bame 3HMe HH B coyóoToy; ce oy6o ijapcTBoy pa3nmpHTHCfl H 3JioflencTBoy oyMHoacHTHca. Ox, oyBH, flo Hac Hcyc XpncToc B o r t Hamb H36aBHTi. on» OT Bcero 3Jia H BinHaro Myiemia H cnoao6HT Hac BenHtix Snar, MOJIHTBaMH CBflTbia EorOpOflHUa H Bctx CBHTMX, aMHHb.113 C a M n o ce6e STOT Bbinafl npoTHB H^en uapcTBa He yzyiBHTejieH npH nafleHHH ÜCKOBCKOH pecny6jiHKH, H MM Bbime yace BCTpenajiHCb c pecny6jIHKaHCKHMH MOTHBaMH B HeKOTOpblX JieTOnHCHblX CnHCKaX. HaCOHOB Ha3MBaeT STOT TeKCT "NAPOAHEÁ Ha cjioBa OHJIO^CH", noBHAHMOMy, OH HMeeT BBHfly nocjiaHHe cTapua

EjiHa3apoBa MOHacTbip»

ÜBaHy

BacHJiteBHHy.114 ECTI. JIH B TpeTbeñ JIETONHCH eme HHOH MaTepHaji TaKoro ace 3ByiaHHH? H MOJKHO JIH CHHTaTb ero BcraBKaMH pe^aKTopa CBOfla, npHHaflJieacamHMH ero JiHHHOMy TBopiecTBy, HOT npHHafljieacaumMH KaKOMy-TO npOTOipa^y? n o « 1523 roflOM Mbi HHTaeM: KHH3B BEJIHKHH BacmreH MOAHOBM nocTpnace KHHTHHK) CBOIO COJIOMOHOO, a EneHy B3HT 3a CO6H; a Bee TO 3a Hame corpimemie, HKO xce Harmcairb anocTOjn.: nycra »ceHy CBOIO, a oacemrrcfl HHOIO, npejiio6bi TBOPHT.115 3HaHHT, cocTaBHTejib JieTonacH BbmBHraeT 3flecb MOTHB O HeflonycraMOCTH

BToporo

6paKa:

TeMa

3Ta

nojiymna

HeicoTopoe

3ByHarare

B IIcKOBe cnenHajibHO B OTHOUICHHH CBSHXCHHHKOB. K 3TOMy MM BepHeMCfl HeCKOJIbKO HHHCe. Ilofl o

1547 TOflOM noMemeHO Bbiine HaMH pa3o6paHHoe

npnesfle Ha IIcKOBiimHy BejiHKoro KHH3« HBaHa I V ,

H3Becrae

B KOTOPOM

COCTaBHTeJH. JieTOnHCH KpHTHKOBajI, C OHeBHflHOH HeOCHOBaTejIbHOCTb K>,

112

n.JI., II, 225.

TaM ace, 225-226. NOFLPA3YMEAAETCH "AnoicajmncHc", raaBa 17, CTHXH 10-12. 114 HaCOHOB, Ü3 ucmopuu..., 267. 06 3TOM IIOCJIEHHH CM. N . Andreyev, "Filofey and his Epistle...", in: Studies in Muscovy. Western Influence and Byzantine inheritance (London, 1970). 115 II.JT., II, 227. IIOFLPA3YMEBAETCH "EBAHREJME OT MapKa", RJIABA 10, CTHXH 2-12. 113

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEÍt nCKOBCKOtt JIETOITHCH FLEÑCTBHFL M o j i o ^ o r o

rocyaapa 1 1 6

H

HENOEPEFLETBEHHO

149

nocjie

STOTO

npH6aBJiHJi: FÍ,A TOA 3HMe, Mecaua (J)eBpajia 2, K w n b BCJIHKHH » e i r a c a , H noflT KHHTHHK» Hacracbio

BO BAOBBIH o y

POMAHOBICKHA

UAPCKHMH oyTBapMH, H BOCXOTÍ qapcTBO

KDPBEBINA,

oyCTpoHTH

H 6HMA

B&HHAHM

Ha MocKBe; H HKO »ce

HaimcaHo B ITaKanenceH, rJiaBa 54: rom» 6o qapeBi. MHHoyjxo, a mecTOH ecTb, HO Hey6o 6e npHnuio, HO ce a6ne oyace naCTajio H n p n a e ; a BEHIAJINCFL

Mecaiia remapa 16 «EHB, a 6paK0MT, ciHTamica Mecaua (j>eBpajia 2.117 H e MoaceT He oSpaTHTb Ha ce6a BHHMaHaa (JJEKT, HTO 3flecb cjiHBalOTca flBa MOTHBa: yace H3BecTHbiH HaM "pecny6jiHKaHCKHH npoTecT" npoTHB

Haen uapcTB h HeK0T0p0e

pa3flpaaceHHe aBTopa

B cbh3h

c »ceHHTb6oH M o j i o f l o r o uapa. H e HaxoflHTca jih B coneTaHHH STHX flByx MOTHBOB "KJIIOH" K BbwcHeHHK) Bonpoca, K KaKoñ rpynne ncKOBCKoro o6mecTBa Mor 6bi npHHaflJiexcaTb peflaKTop CBO^a 1567 r o ^ a ? M b l MOXCeM 3aKJIK)HHTb H3 BblUie pa306paHHbIX TeKCTOB, HTO COCTABHTEJIB TpeTbeií JICTOIIHCH BOBce He 6bui 3aHHTepecoBaH B cyzu>6e IlcKOBO-ITeHepcKoro

MOHacrbipa,

OH B 0 0 6 m e

H e 6HJI CJIHIIIKOM BHH-

MaTejibHbiM aBTOpoM B H3Jio»ceHHH (J)aKTOB H npeHMymecTBeHHO 3aHHMajica coKpameHKeM TCKCTOB npOTorpacjm, OH 6biJi Hyacfl oGmepyccKHx HacTpoeHHH H He BHAEJI B MocKBe TpeTbero PHMa, BeHua H CBeTona npaBocjiaBHH, a O^HO H3 MpaHHbix BoruiomeHHH anoKajirnicHiecKHx BHFLEHHÜ.

HaM

NPEFLCTABJIAETCH,

HTO p e a a K T o p

CTpoeBCKoro

enHeKa

6bw H3 paflOB ncKOBCKoro 6ejioro ayxoBeHCTBa H, MOKHO npe#noj i o a c H T b TOHHee, 6HJI OAHHM H3 "BJJOBMX n o n o B " , K O T o p b i x , n o y c T a H O -

BHBUIEMYCA B IlcKOBe o6biHaio, OTnpaBJisJiH B KaKon-jni6o H3 MOHacTbipeá. 118 HMCHHO n03T0My Mbi Ha6jiK>AaeM B c03flaHH0M HM cnHcice CBoeo6pa3Hoe OTHOineHHe K STOH TeMe. B IlepBOH jieTonHCH noA

1504

ro^OM 6btn noMemeH nejibra TpaKTaT o TOM, HTO "MHorae CBameHHHKH, nonw H flbflKOHbi, BflOBUbi 3a6jioyAHjiH OT HCTHHM", aepacajiH y ce6a HanoacHHu. CHMOH, MHTPOÜOJIHT B c e a P y c H , B STOM CBOCM n o c j i a H H H ,

cneunajibHO aapecoBaHHOM IlcKOBy, CTpoacañuie 3anpemaji nofloSHoe noBeaeHHe H yica3biBaji cnocoGw HacopeHeHHa TSKIIX HpaBOB, penoMeHflya npHHarae B HeKOTOpwx cjiynaax HHonecKoro HHHa.119 JleTonacb yKa3WBajia, HTO " a CHH rpaMOTa jierjia npea nocaflHHKH HCKOBCKHMH H CBHmeHHHKH o y JiaBHUbi aBrycTa b í 11 aeHb". 3TOH cnpaBKoií nofl116

TaM ace, 230-231.

117

TaMHte, 231. Cepe6p«HCKHft, OnepKu..., 482-483.

118

119

n.JI., I, 88-89.

150

H. E. AHflPEEB

HepKHBajiacb

¿uia

IlcKOBa

BaacnocTb

flOKyMeHTa.

XapaKTepHO,

hto

TpeTba J i e T O i m c b o r p a H H H H B a e T c a oahoh JiaKOHHHHOíi 4 > p a 3 o ñ : "Toro 120 »ce jitTa OTCTaBHina BAOBbix n o n o B o t cjioy»c6bi". Co3flaeTca B n e n a T J i e H H e , h t o p a c n o p a a c e H H e MHTponojiHTa C H M O H a , caeJiaHHoe, KaK oh c a M innneT, b corjiacHH c Ü B a H O M III h "c chhom e r o , bcjihkhm KH33CM

BaCHJIbeM

HBaHOBHMeM"

H C HOBrOpOflCKHM H

nCKOBCKHM

apxHenHCKonoM r e H H a f l H e M , " h co bcÍmh enHCKOira pycKHH Harnea MHTpOnOJIBH,

apXHMaHflpHTBI H C b i r y M e H b l H CO B C Í M

CBaiyeHHblM

c o G o p o M " , He c j i k i u k o m H f f r e p e c y e T p e / j a K T o p a CBOfla, x o t h o h o c n e xmajibHO

aApecoBaHO

"HaMicTHHKy

ncKOBCKOMy khjoio

^MHTpeio

BojIOflHMHpOBHHIO, H B c Í m nOCaflHHKaM nCKOBCKHM H C 0 6 0 p 0 y CBHTbIH

Tpornja h co6opy CBaTbia CobH h co6opy CBaToro Hhkojim h bc4m CBameHHHKOM".

Hjih,

MoaceT

6bin>,

3to

pacnopaaceHHe

eMy

He

no

flyme?

Hmchho Ha T a K o e o 6 i > a c H e H i i e H a T a j i K H B a i o T y a c e B b i m e n p H B e a e H H b i e i m T a T b i n o f l 1523 toaom, b cb«3h co B T o p b i M 6 p a K O M BacHjihh III, h n o , n 1547 toaom, b c b « 3 H c 6paKOM J Í B a H a IV, K o r / j a , KaK M b l BHfleJIH, COCTaBHTejIb CBOfla, nOBHflHMOMy, «BHO OTXOflHT OT K a -

Koro-To n p o T o r p a í J i a h n 0 3 B 0 j i a e T ce6e He m n b K O "pecny6jiHKaHCKyio" HOTy H p O T e c T a n p o T H B H O B o r o n a p c T B a , h o h a o n o j i H a e T

KaKHM-TO

pa3apaaceHHeM, He HanpaBJieHHbiM n p o T H B jihhhoctch z m y x mockobckhx r o c y , z i a p e H , a n p o T H B 4>aKTa hx 6 p a K O B , H e c o M H e H H o B a x Hbix pfls. yKpemieHHH rocyaapcTBa. Ecjih m u npnnoMHHM, h t o a e a T e j i b HOCTb Maicapn», KaK H O B r o p o , 5 C K o r o h n c K O B C K o r o a p x H e n H C K o n a , 6wjia HanpaBJieHa Ha n o A H a r a e HpaBCTBeHHOCTH c p e f l H u e p K O B H b i x jiKDAeñ, mm c M o a c e M n o H H T b pa3flpa>KeHHOCTi> cocTaBHTejia C T p o e B C K o r o

jniHHbiM

oiHCKa

npoTHB

jBbicoKonocTaBJieHHbix

HapyuiHTeJieñ

ee.

npHBejieM

npHMepw. B IlepBOH JieTOüHCH no/i; 1523 roflOM nHcajiocb: "... a BeJiHKOMy khsoio CBoa 6bicTb KpyHHHa o CBoeií BejiHKOH KHarHHe...", h aajibuie H3Jiarajiacb noBecTb " o HeruioflUH Cojiomohhh", KOHnaBinaaca: "H noBejii io n o c i p r n i p i b HepHHuw." TaM »ce, nofl 1524 r o a o M coo6maJiocb: Toa ace 3hmbi o CBa^eSHimax oaceimcH rocyziapb Haiut khh3i> bcjihkhh BacmieH HBaHOBHHb, uapb Bcea Poycim, oy baobbi oy khhthhh AhhÍ, oy khjdk BaCHJibeBti TeMHoro JlBOBina, Bejnncoio khhthhck) Ejichoio; h oxceimcH, hko jiino 6 i uapeM xcchhthch.121 Hmchho Ha 3 t h cooGmeHHa pearapoBajia TpeTba jieTonacb yace H3BecTHbiM HaM 3aMenaHHeM o "npenio6ofleaHHH". 120 121

n.Ji., II, 224.

N.JI., I, 103. A . A . 3HMHH, POCCUH na nopoze noeozo epeMenu (MocKBa, 1972), 294-299, «aeT HHTepecHyio CBOflKyflaHHiix06 o6cToaTejn>cTBax pa3Boaa BacaniM III.

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEÍÍ IICKOBCKOfì J I E T O n H C H B

151

r i e p B o i i j i e T o n n c H , n o f l TeM ace r o g o M , M H o r o M e c T a

OTBeßeHO

BOCXBäJieHHIO M a K a p H H , TOJIbKO HTO HOCTaBJleHHOrO B HOBrOpOflCKHe apxHenHCKonbi,

H cooômaeTca,

HTO a p x H e n n c K o n

c p a 3 y H3

MOCKBM

n o c j i a j i p a c n o p a a c e H b e " B BeJimcHH H o ß r o p o f l H IICKOB" B CKTCHHHX "MOJIHTH B o r a H n p e n a c T e n e r o E o r o M a T e p H , H H i o f l O T B o p a o B o r o c y flape

H a r n e M BCJIHKOM KHJOH BacHJXbe lÎBaHOBHHe H e r o

6jiar0ßtpH0H

KHHrHHe E j i e H e , HTOÔM T o c n o f l b B o n a a j i HM m í o s n p e B a H X " . 1 2 2 r i o B H Ä H M O M y , n o T e M ace n p i r a r a a M , HTO H B a p y r a x c j i y n a s x , c o 3 aaTejib CTpoeBCKoro

TeKCTa B3HJI H3 n p o T o r p a ^ a

HecKOjn>KO

m e H H b i x CBefleHHH o n o c T p o H K a x n e p K B e ö H K a M e H H o r o Ha r p e M a n e a

rope

coKpa-

yKpemieHHH

(BHKHHyB, Meacfly n p o H H M , HMH CTPOHTEJW,

T.e.

HMH M H c i o p H - M y H e x H H a ) , a B e c b 6 o J i b i n o H H p a 3 H o o 6 p a 3 H b m M a T e p a a j i o M a K a p H H CBeji K OAHOH J i a n i i ^ a p H o n pa3e: " T o r o ace J i t r a BHiua

Maicapbio

apxnenHCKonoM

Hejib35i o ô t a c H H T b ^opMyjiHpoBKH

B BejuncoH H o B r o p o a

TaKOTO p o f l a c o K p a m e H H H

TOjibKO " p e c n y ô J i H K a H C K o i i

HJiH

H

nocTa-

IICKB."123

pa3apaaceHHbie

TpaflHüHeñ"

cocTaBHTeJia

C B o a a : e c j i H 6 b i STO 6WJIO c n p a B e f l J i H B O , T o r a a y H e r o 6 H J I O 6 M H e H3MepHM0

ÖOJIbUie

ofluaKO, peaaKTOp

BbIXOAOK BnaaaeT

IIpOTHB

MOCKOBCKOTO

B Hejcyio a p o c T b

npaBHTejibCTBa,

HMSHHO T o r a a ,

Kor.ua

3 a T p o H y T a T e M a BejiHKOKHaacecKoro ô p a K a , K O T o p a a , KOHCHHO, T e c H o CBH3aHa c H A e e ñ u a p C T B a . I I o c K O J i b K y MOTHB 3TOT NOBTOPAETCH, OH ne cjiynaeH. IlepBaa

JIETONHCB n o f l TOAOM

1534,

onncbiBaa

COÔHTHH B CBH3H

c o C M e p T b i o BacHJiHH I I I , c o o 6 u m J i a : T o r o »ce B p e M e m i npHHKina (CXBETHJIH, a p e c T O B a i m H. A.) KHH3b Bejimarií H e r o npmcauiHKH ahrio c B o e r o KHH3H î O p b f l H B a H O B m a n o c j i e C M e p r a OTua CBoero B B o a t . 1 2 4 TpeTbH

JieTonHCb,

cocTaBjiHBiuaaca,

no

paay

npH3HaKOB,

no3»ce,

HeMeflJieHHO c o o ô m e m i e n p o f l o j i a c H J i o : J I Í T a 7 0 4 2 - o r o . F I p e c r a B H c n KHiOb BenHKHH B a c i m e l i ÜBaHOBiw .neicaSp» B 4, H nocraBHixra Ha KHaaciiHbH B Ì j i m c o M b Ha M o c K B e H o a H a BacHJibeBHHa: a flamo e r o KHH3H I O p b f l o y K p e n o c T b n o c a f l H i n a H o y M o p m n a . 1 2 5 ECJIH MbI BCnOMHHM, HTO HOBOMy BejIHKOMy KHH3K) GbIJIO B 3 T 0 T MOMeHT TOJibKO 3 r o ^ a , TO, OHCBHAHO, OTBeTCTBeHHOCTb 3 a TaKHe M e p o NPHHTHH 6 b i J i a He CTOJibKO e r o , CKOJibKO M a T e p H e r o , E j i e H b i TJIKHCKOH, 122

123 124 125

ace, 103. n.JI., II, 227. n.JI., XXI, 106. n.JI., II, 227-228.

TOM

152

H. E. AHflPEEB

t o h caMOH, KOTopaa "coyMaBCTBOBajia" b "npejiioGoflHHHHH" BTOporo 6paKa BacanHH I I I . E h j i o jih coo6meHHe o CMepra t O p n a HBaHOBHHa, KOTopBifi yMep 3 aBrycTa 1536 ro.ua "b bi3biMaHÌH",126 b npoTorpahh b 26, nocaflmna ToTap uapa IIlHrajiia Jiroaen 73 b TroptMoy b CepeflHeMi. ropofle n o « EoypKOBCKHM koctpom o t BejiHKHe peKH, Ha CMepTb, h Manbix a Ì t o k 7 b tom »ce Hiicne, h t Ì H30Mpoma b aeHb H B HOrnj., H BBIKHfla HX BOH, a BOCMT» »CHBBI OCTaCH B TIOpbMe HH HOeHM HH KopMJieHbi Ha MHorn ahh, a t£x npnómna: a KaTyHen (TaTapKH H.A.) nocaflmna b bmoyio TiopbMoy, Jieriee h BHflHee oy TpynixoBbix Boporc> k BaCHJtbK) cBATOMy Ha Topicoy. 128 0 6 a 3TH H3BecTHH, noMemeHHbie b "np0M0CK0BCK0M", n o Hac0H0By, CBO^e, nponiJiH KaK Sy^TO 6bi He3aMeneHHbiMH cocTaBHTejieM TpeTbeii jieTonHCH, ho o h HeMefljieHHO pearupyeT, w r a f l b npoTorpae cjieayiomyK) HHtJjopMaiiHK), BbipaaceHHyio b CBO/ie 1 5 4 7 r o ^ a TaK: Toh »ce 3hmbi (1536 r o a a H.A.), no Kpememm rocnoflHH, apxHenHCKon BeJiHKoro HoBaropoaa h IIcKOBa BJia,m>iKa Maicapen npnexan bo IIckob Ha 4 rofl (b neTBepTbifi pa3 H.A!), h oynpocn oy Bemucoro kikqh MBaHa BacHJibeBma Bcea PoycHH h oy ero MaTepn BeJiHKon khhthhc EneHbi, bo baobh, Ha CBoe 6peMH ToTap uapa miirajiiji jiioflen aceH, koh ch/iÌjih b TiopMax b HoBeropofle h bo IIcKOBe, h noaaBame hx cBHmeHHHKOM, h noBeni hx kpccthth bo KpecTbHHbCKoyio BÌpoy: n 6biCTb pagocrb Benna b nioflex o HOBOKpemem>ix, n Haiaina hx CBHmeHHHKH flaBara 3aMoy»c, a o h ! k Bipe KpecTbHHbCKon flo6pbi 6bnna. 1 2 9 126 127

nCPJI, XIII, 90. n.JI., I, 106.

128

TaM » e , 107. M . 3>acMep, SmuMo.iozunecKuù

cAoeapb pyccKoeo X3bwa,

ne-

peBOfl c HeMemcoro h flonojiHema O. H. Tpy6aneBa, tom II (E-MY3K) (MocKBa, 1967), 211, nnmeT: "mmyHa 'TaTapica', tojiìko b Qca3. MaM. 3" h t.a. Ho, KaK BHflHO, OHO eCTb H B BCKOBCKOfi JieTOIfflCH. 129

TaM » e , 107-108.

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEft ÜCKOBCKOñ JIETOI1HCH

153

Yace b 3HaKOMOH HaM, npeaejibHO cxcaToñ, Cí>6jiK)flauie, MH03H T o m a CB$imenHHHbi 060Bfl0Bema, Mpoma Toraa MHorna npocTwa jiioflH acene30KD. Ebicrb bo rpa/ji njian HeoyTiuiHMbra, o t u l i miaKama no fliTexi, a í j Í t h no o m a x h no MaTepexi, a Marepu no H a f f t x i , aceHbi »ce no M y » a x cbohxt», a Moyacn no aceHax cbohx: h b r o a n o n o » ™ ™ oy CKoyaejiHHuax nojn> TpeTbanaTb Tbicjrab, a no 6 y « M He BÍMb kojiko hhcjiom. 131 Ee3ycji0BH0, TeKCT 3 t o h

3anncH HecpaBHeHHO

6ojiee

3MomioHajieH,

neM HHbie, h s m h QHTHpOBaHHBie Bbmie, a rjiaBHoe: t c k c t /uiHHHee, neM flpyrae,

cKJiOHHbie k cacaTocra h nosTOMy HHoraa ymep6Hbie b o t h o -

rneHHH n o f l p o 6 H o c T e ñ , h KpoMe T o r o 3íiecb ynoTpe6jieHa (J)opMa nepB o r o junta npH oniicaHHH, "He b£mi>". 3a £Ba r o ^ a a o 3 T o r o onHcaHHH M o p a onncaH 6ojibiuoH noacap b o IIcKOBe, h 3,necb o n j r n . nyBCTByeTCX HenoqjeacTBeHHan smouhh, c r o j i b peaKaa b T p e T b e i í JieTonncH: JIÍTa 7058. Mecana MapTa 23 «em», Harnero pa.nn cbrpimeHna, 3aropecH K TOMoy « H a Homnio oy IlecKax, oy cBjrraro MnxaHJia oy MaHacTbipe; H norope o t EoJibmon CTeHe h ao Craporo 3acTeHbfl, h hhhto »ce He ocra, ho tokmo oy TpynexoBbixT. oy noneBbixi. Boporb ocra 5 flBopoBt « a noyiuenHen capan Ha K o h c b o h rniomann. A KaMeHbixi» uepKBeñ noropeno 31, a b ^OMaHTOBbi CTeHbi 2 nepKBH oropejio, EpoycajiHM jia Oeflop, t o j i (cxonb H.A.) «ce cTpaniHo 3ananeHne n TpocKOTa, roperoie, ®co 6 t r a r a h mscthch o t cTpaxa h TpeneToy n 6o«3hh, h MHornM xcHBOxaM npiiropeBuraM, joco y mi» nejiOBeib ne ncnoBÍcTb. A Memuiia jhohh Hanama rpa6nTH GoraTbDfb moflen XHBOTbi, a racHTb He oyHajm, a Bce t o 3a Hame cbrptmeHne, paro3a h HemoSoBi.; a flpeBXHbix uepKBeH 15, a Mnxanjia cbhtmh o y n i c i c a Kax aepKOBi. pa3BajnuiacH, a Bo3flBH»ceHbe n Bjiacen nepKBn nopacceflaunca. 132 HaM

npeflCTaBjiaeTCH, mto

HeJioBeKOM,

TaKoe

HenoepeflCTBeHHO

130

n.JI., II, 228.

131

TaM »ce, 233.

132

TaM ate, 231-232.

onncaHHe

nepeacHBniHM

aojikho TaKoe

6biTb

caeJiaHO

"3anajieHHe"

h

154

H. E. AHflPEEB

npeicpacHO 3HaK>mnM FICKOB. Onem> HHTepecHO n o a B J i e m i e

"counajib-

H o r o MOTHBa": r p a ô e x c "MeHbiHHMH JIK>AI>MH" H M y m e c T B a

6oran>ix.

ITocKOJibKy JIETONHCH

3TOT MOTHB B p a c c M a i p n B a c M O H OKa3biBaeTCH

HOBHM,

aceHHe, HTO c o c T a B H T e j i b

cBo^a

BO3HHKECT

HaMH n a c r a

ecTecTBeHHoe

TpeTbeñ npefluojio-

c a M H a ß j i i o f l a j i STB " p a r o 3 y

(ccopy

H H e j u o ô o B b " . H e M o r JIH 6 b i T b , B TaKOM c j i y n a e , TaKHM H a ö j i i o -

H.A.)

s a T e j i e M , a no3AHee o n n c b i B a T e j i e M B T p e T b e ñ JieTonHCH CBHIUCHHIIK HßAH A M Ô p o c b e B ,

ÖMBIIIHH n p o c o j i O M ,

T . e . CKynutHKOM M n e p e i c y n -

I U H K O M , HHANE r o B o p n , THNHHHBIH n p e ^ C T A B H T E J I B /LEIRREJIBHORO I I C K O B -

CKoro ô e j i o r o a y x o B e H C T B a ? 0 6

HeM T p e n . a j i e T o i r a c b n n u i e T c j i e A y -

KJIHHM O 6 P A 3 0 M : B J i k r a 7 0 5 6 - r o . M e c j n j a HKJJIH BT> 8 a e H b n o c T a B J i e H a ÔMCTB u e p K O B b B ^ O B MAHTOBM c r e i n . 1 H OCBAMEHA CBHTOFO BEJIHKOMYNEHHKA T e o p r n a , n p a

AAP«

B6JIHKOM KHJBH l Í B a H e B a c H J i b e B H H e CAMOFLPBMTBI B c e a P o y e n ; a CTPOHJI n o n TOH IiepKBH H ß a H A M Ö p O C b e B I I p O C O J l nepKOBHOIO K a 3 H O K > . 1 3 3

CaMO

co6oii

p a 3 y M e e T c a , HTO, e c j i n

OH OBflOBeji —

H, BO3MOHCHO,

HMeHHO BO BpeMH M o p a 1 5 5 2 r o f l a — OTCKwa s r a HecKOJibKO JiHHHbie

onacaHHH:

aeTajiH B Mjiaflbie,

a

CTapbie

60

"Mpaxoy Bori,

M H o r n e CB«meHHHm»i H

crböjiioflaiiia",

3xo

JIHHHMX

flHaicoHbi

BnenaTJieHHii,

a 4>pa3a "MHO3H T o r a a CBameHHimbi o ô o B f l O B e i n a " B coneTaHHH c y n o MHHaHHeM n j i a n a Myacen " n o

aceHax CBOHX" 3BYHHT, KaK

ropecraoe

npH3HaHH6 HeB03HarpaflHM0H y r p a T b i . B onHcaHHH n o a c a p a 1 5 5 0 r o f l a nOHBJIHeTCH MOMeHT 3a)KHTOHHOCTH, KOTOpblH, B COeflHHeHHH C HHblMH MOTHBaMH, n o f l K p e n j i a e T Harne n p e a n o j i o a c e H H e , HTO p e n b HfleT o CBÄmeHHHKe-npacojie, "B

floBMaHTOBe

KOTOpbiií

nocTpoHJi

uepKOBb

CB.

BJIM.

Teopraa

CTeHe". HMH c T p o i r r e j i a — " n o n H ß a H " . H e K HeMy JIH

aApecoBaHO nncbMO K o p m u m a , HHOKa C H e T o r o p c K o n r o p b i , " K cwHy e r o n o n y HßaHHy x o T J i m y B T o p o M y 6 p a i c y c o H e T a r a c a " ? CKHÍÍ KopHHJiHH

yôeacflaeT

CBoero,

He cHATb caH paflH B T o p o r o

noBHflHMOMy,

6 p a i c a H BMCOKO oiieHHBaeT

cBHuieHHHKa H B a H a , Ha3biBaa e r o

CHeTorop-

ayxoBHoro

cbraa

JiHHHOCTb

nejioBeicoM " B e J i H K o r o p a 3 y M a " H

TAK a a j i e e . E c T b ocHOBaHHH n o j i a r a T b , HTO STO nocjiaHHe 6 b u i o HanncaHO OKOJIO 1 5 6 2 r o f l a , MoaceT 6 b r r b , HecKOJibKO p a m > m e . 1 3 4 B b i n i e , B HauieM npHMenaHHH 7 0 , MM ycTaHOBHJiH, HTO c o o ö m e m i e 1 5 4 7 r o a a B T p e n > e H JieTonHCH ( 0 HoneBKe BeJiHKoro KHH3» B B o p o r a n a x ) He M o r j i o 6 b i 6 b i T b HanncaHO no3flHee HTO n o n Ü B a H , 133 134

1 5 6 3 r o f l a . 3HaHHT, MM B n p a B e

flapoBHTbiñ

npeanojioacHTb,

H npeanpHHMHHBWH, n p a c o j i ,

TaMHce, 231. CepeôpjjHCKHfi, OnepKu..., 68-69.

CTpoHTejib

O XAPAKTEPE TPETbEft IICKOBCKOfl JIETOIIHCH

155

uepKBH, nejioBeK "BbicoKoro pa3yMa", noTepiui cboio « e n y bo BpeM« Mopa h 3aTeM, no npaBHJiaM, ycTaHOBJieHHtiM mockobckhmh iiepKOBHblMH BJiaCTHMH, 6bUI OTnpaBJieH B CHeTOrOpCKHH MOHaCTbipb, rae ero ayxoBHbiM HacTaBHHKOM CTaji hhok h no3flHee HryMeH Kophhjihh, oueifflBiiiHH xajiaHTbi

"nona

HBaHHa".

üocKOJibKy

CHeToropcKHñ

MOHacTbipb Bceraa 6biji b t c c h o h .ayxoBHoii cb»3h c ITeHepcKoM o6hTejibK), 135 BflOBbiñ cbhiuchhhk 6bjji nocTaBJieH Ha paGoTy, eMy noflxoflamyio, — cocTaBJieHHe Toro ouiCKa ncKOBCKOfi JieTonncH, KOTopbiñ HaM H3BeCTeH, KaK CTpOeBCKHH. MOHCHO flyMaTb, HTO 3TO np0H30UIJI0 okojio 1558 rofla, Korga AeHTejibHOCTb nryMeHa Kophhjihh b IIckoboIleHepcKOM MOHacTbipe HaHHHaeT ocoGemio pacuiHpHTbca: s t o

roa

HanaJia JIhbohckohbohhh, Haiajio CTpoirrejibCTBa MOHacTbipcKHX yKpenjieHirií, pa3pacTaHHe MHCCHOHepcKoñ aeaTejibHOCTH, co3flaHHe K o p moboh KHHm, rofl nyTeiuecTBHH HryMeHa Kophhjihh c hbjichhhmh HyflOTBOpHbIMH HKOHaMH, HaHfleHHblMH BO BpeMH B3HTHH HapBbl, b HoBropoA h MocKBy. Cbshuchhhk baobwíí, Hbeh AM6pocbeB nepeb o a h t c h b ITckob, b noflBopbe ITeiepcKoro MOHacTbipa, rae oh Jienco MoaceT n0jn>30BaTbCH TeM »ce np0T0rpa0M, K0T0pwM nojib30Bajincb cocTaBHTejiH IlepBOH jieTonncH, pa6oTaBnjHe npn co6ope

Cbhtoh

TpoHHbi. 3flecb non PfBaH h co3flaji CrpoeBCKHH ciihcok (flo 1556 roaa), nojiHbiií, KaK Mbi noKa3ajin Bbirne, pa3JiHHHbix nojiHTHHecKHX h jihhhmx KOMnjieKCOB. H o okojio 1562 r o s a Haiajica KpH3HC b HacrpoeHHíix "BflOBOrO CBHmeHHHKa", KaK HBCTByeT H3 nOCJiaHHH CHeTOrOpCKOrO KopHHJIHH, H KpH3HC KOHHHJIC» 0TKa30M OT CBJHIieHHHHeCKOrO CaHa. HacoHOB, KaK m h noMHHM, t o h h o OTMeTHJi, HTO nocjie 3anHceá " j i t r a 7060 neTBepTaro" HaninraeTCH b cnncKe flpyroñ noiepK, flpyrae nepHHjia h — npHÓaBHM OT ce6a — hhoíí t o h h cmhcji JieTonHCHbix cBefleHHií.

VII BepoHTHO, cnpaBeflJiHBO cKa3aTb, h t o Ctpocbckhh cnncoK nocjie 1556 rofla h no nocjieOTeñ 3amtcH n o a 1567 roaoM, noiiHOCTbio npoHHKaeTca o6mepyccKHM HacTpoeHHeM h b 3amicHX Hcne3aioT pecny6jiHKaHCKIie OTrOJIOCKH HJIH KaKHe-TO npHMbie HJIH KOCBeHHbie o6jIHHeHHH "anoKajinncHHecKoro uapcTBa".

CTpoeBCKHií cnncoK

npeacfle Beerò

OTMeiaeT rocy^apcTBeHHbie ycnexH Mockbm, 1 3 6 6ojibnioe BHHMamie 135

TaM ace,

n.JI., II, 233-234. OTMeieHbi npHCoeOTHeHHH Ka3aHH, ÁCTpaxaHH, floroBopw c JIhbohckhm op^eHOM h co UbeiiHett. 136

156

H . E. AHFLPEEB

nocBHmaeT

CO6MTHHM

OTMenaioTCH

BC«Kiie

JIHBOHCKOH

nyaecHbie

BOHHH,

3HaMeHM,

ycepflHO, cyjiamae,

KaK B

H

c j i y n a e B , BCHKHÊ 3JiOBemHe C O 6 M T H H , H He CJIHUIKOM n a c T O KDTCfl nCKOBCKHe

COÔblTHH

(3a

11

JKT

TOJIBKO

npHMbix c o o ö m e H H H o I I c K O B e : n o f l 1 5 5 7 , aaMH).137 HaioTCH

ncKOBO-IïeHepcKHH nofl

nHTb p a 3 :

1558

MOHacTbipb roaoM

B

1561, HJiH

CBJBH C

UieCTb 1562, ero

OGMMHO,

öojibiiiHHCTBe onHCbiBa-

nOÂpOÔHblX H 1563,

HryMeH

oñpeTemieM

1565

ro-

ynoMHHKOH

B

H a p B e , 1 3 8 n o a 1 5 6 0 R O A O M B CBH3H CO B 3 5 M I E M OeJUiHHa: A

npHJiHHHCH BOJKHHMI) H3BOJieHHeMt B3flTte T a x : npHCJian H r o y M e m .

ne-

nepcKHH KopHHJien CBameHHHKa OeoKTHCTa, 6 t i B i n e r o HroyMeHa KHPHJIOBCKoro, K BoeBOflaM o npa3HHKe n p e r a c T b w E o r o p o f l i m a H e c r a a r o e a O y c n e H H a c npocKoypaMH H CO CBHTOKJ BOÄOKJ. H n p n e x a j i CTapeq O e o K T H c n . B Heaejiio BBeiepe, H T o r o B e i e p a r p a f l t Benbairb 3 a r o p t j i c a OTO o r H e m i x

asept

H

B M T o p t j i B Becb, HH x j i i ô a He o c T a j i o c a ; H OHH H Í M U H o y i a n H 6 H T H TCJIOM r o c y f l a p i o , H r o p o « 3 f l a j m , a Hxb BbmoycTHJiH. H BoeBOflH nperacTOH B o r o poflHUH B MOHacTbipb npHCJiajiH KonoKOJib BenbHHCKOH cepeflHeH n o f l 6 o j i t IHHM.139 K a K M M noKa3ajiH B a p y r o i i Haiueñ p a ö o T e , nocjieayiomHe, »capa

OTMeiaiomne

1562 r o a a

BO

BpeMa

HenoBpexcAeHHOcn.

o 6 e A R A 3aMeTKH, KaK H

6oJibiuoro

nenepcKoro

NCKOBCKORO

noflBopb«,140 B

no1565

r o a y H a ö e r JIHTOBIXCB Ha nCKOBCKHe T e p p H T o p H H H B T O M HHCJie " n p e HHCTbw n e i e p b C K o r o M O H a c T b i p a y Ì 3 f l " , 1 4 1 a TaKHce n o ß 1 5 6 4 r o a o M : Toro

»e

Jifrra c o B p i i u e H a

ôbicTb

uepxoBb

jcaMeHaa

B

ITenepcKOM

MO-

HaCTbipH Ha BOpOTeX BO HMH CBflTOrO HHKOJIH HlOflOTBOpUa, 1 4 2 Bee CÔeJiaHbl BOeBOflOH IlaBJIOM ü e T p O B H i e M 3a60JI0UKHM, IIpHHHBIIIHM B

ITeiepax

MaTb, no

HTO

1556

nocTpnr

H CTABUIHM HHOKOM na