1. A map quiz, to be given in class October 13 at the beginning of the period.
2. Four short (max. 2 pp.) paper assigments, due at quiz sections on Oct. 8, Oct. 15, Nov. 5, and Nov. 12.
3. Three longer (4-5 pp.) papers one focussing around your reading of the Igor' Tale, one focussing on the Domostroi, and the third Avvakum's "Life." These are due October 22, Nov. 19 and Dec. 3 respectively.
4. A take-home mid-term essay (due at sections Oct. 29).
5. A take-home final exam essay (due on Monday, Dec. 13, by 5 PM).

1. Periodization.
2. Texts from Primary Chronicle relating to paganism and traditional belief.
3. Recommended: Ibn Fadlan on Rus funeral ceremony on Volga.
4. Texts from Primary Chronicle on origins of Rus and founding of Kiev (Zenkovsky, 48-51; a somewhat different version for origins is on website).
5. Ivanits, ch. 1.
6. Recommended (H--required): Jakobson on Slavic Mythology.
7. Chronology of early history.
8. At least skim for now: Lenhoff, "Protogenres" (JSTOR). This is to encourage you to start thinking about problems with the application of standard models of literary analysis to materials we will be covering in course. You likely will want to return to this article in connection with later assignments.
10. Recommended: At least skim some in the introductory chapters of an appropriate Russian history textbook such as Martin, Chs. 1-4. Keep her book in mind as you proceed in course if you feel you need a reference for political and socio-economic history.

1. Levin on dvoeverie. This is important to help you conceptualize how one might best discuss the often syncretic results of conversion of non-Christians to Christianity. Note that her key examples are from material very late in the period we cover in the course.
1. Primary Chronicle account of conversion.
2. Web page on conversion.
3. Primary Chronicle on Iaroslav the Wise (Zenkovsky, 71-73).
4. Recommended: Lunt on the Chronicle entry of 1037 about Iaroslav (JSTOR).
5. Primary Chronicle on founding of Crypt Monastery and St. Theodosius (Zenkovsky, 105-112).
6. Franklin on Literacy (JSTOR). You need to start thinking about issues of what it means to have formal literacy and the degree to which we have evidence about it from the Kievan period.
7. Recommended: Worth on Language.
8. Read more closely Lenhoff's article on "Protogenres," recommended for last week.
9. Make a first stab at reading Florovsky, "Problem of Old Russian Culture," with commentary by Andreyev and Billington and Florovsky's response. (JSTOR) Pay attention primarily to the lead article here by Florovsky, which you will want to re-read in preparation for writing your mid-term essay in Week V. This discussion is very stimulating, although many of the authors' statements are in need of revision. Florovsky's main point is not always clear, although he provides a good sense of the ways in which previous writers have interpreted or misinterpreted the "Old Russian" cultural experience. One needs to keep in mind that his particular concerns about "intellectual silence" reflect to some extent his expertise as a historian of Russian theology. Points he makes need to be re-considered in the light of Levin's arguments and especially those by Veder (see below in Week V). Levin also presents significant alternatives to some of Andreyev's assertions. One important point that crops up in the discussion is the idea that the Mongols cut Russia off from the West, which simply is not true, as you will learn in due course.

Is the Primary Chronicle "history" or "literature" or some combination of both? Obviously you will need to suggest some definitions in order to answer this. For your "evidence," be sure to consider the issue of how the text treats "fact" and "truth" in, for example, its treatment of traditional (pre-Christian) religion in the territory of Rus and the story of the "origins" of Rus. Can we reconstruct those pre-Christian beliefs and practices from the Chronicle? Is such a question relevant if we are reading the Chronicle as literature, not history? If we are reading it primarily as literature, what can or should we learn from it?

1. Review materials on The Conversion from last week. 2. Recommended (H--required): Iaroslav's Church Statute.
3. Lilienfield on Monasticism.
4. Recommended (H--required): Tales from the Kievan Paterik (Zenkovsky, 134-152).
5. Fedotov on Kirik.
6. Ivanits, ch. 2 (also, review her Ch. 1).
7. Art web pages: Byzantine architecture, Christian Iconography, Art of Kievan Rus, Cathedral of Sancta Sophia, Christian Imagery in the cathedral.
8. Recommended: Should you wish to gain some insight into ways of analyzing architecture, take a look at Lawrence Butler's discussion of Sancta Sophia in Constantinople. The best way to use this is if you have the Flash plug-in, which lets you listen to the audio as the various images change on the screen.
9. Recommended: Should you wish an overview of the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, one of the great political, economic and cultural centers of the European world and the source of Russia's Christianity, look at the web page "Istanbul/Constantinople, Part I"

While a closer study of examples from Kievan literature still lies ahead, you already have a substantial amount of information about the initial experience of Kievan Rus in its interaction with Byzantine culture. Assume for the sake of our discussion here that sometime in the second half of the 12th century independent commissions were established in Kiev and in Constantinople to assess the success of the Conversion of Rus and report the results to the respective political and religious leaders. The commissions were not only looking for evidence of what had or had not been accomplished but also were trying to analyze what seems to have worked and what might have been done better. Do you imagine that the two commissions would reach the same conclusions, or might not the perspective from Constantinople have looked different from that in Kiev? Would either commission, sitting in its major city necessarily have had enough information to write a good report? Be prepared to defend your observations with specific examples.

1. Metropolitan Ilarion's sermon on Law and Grace (Zenkovsky, 85-90; or web version).
2. The Life of St. Theodosius (Zenkovsky, 116-134).
3. Descent of the Virgin into Hell (Zenkovsky, 153-160).
4. Konrad on apocrypha.
5. Recommended: Boris and Gleb (Zenkovsky, pp. 101-105; web version).
6. Web pages on Art of the Princely Court and Vladimir-Suzdal.
7. Monomakh's testament (Zenkovsky, pp. 92-100, or, for text without the introduction, web version).
8. Recommended: Fedotov on Monomakh's testament.
9. The Igor Tale, including introduction and commentary, Haney/Dahl ed. Commentary has been somewhat awkwardly linked to the individual stanzas and can best be consulted by clicking on the stanza numbers as you are reading along.
10. Recommended for comparison and contrast with Igor Tale: The Zadonshchina (Zenkovsky, 211-223), for comparison/contrast with Igor Tale. Note: this text is substantially later than the presumed date of the Igor Tale, but it is instructive to examine here precisely because of the way it uses and changes some of the material in Igor.

What were the cultural values of the late 12th century princely courts? Is there any reason to think they differed significantly from cultural values in other segments of society? Among other things here you might wish to consider whether evidence in art and in the Igor Tale provides any new insights into the issue of popular religion about which you have read earlier.

1. Novgorod web pages; Novgorod's material culture
2. Read carefully Florovsky, "Problem of Old Russian Culture," with commentary by Andreyev and Billington and Florovsky's response. (JSTOR) Pay attention primarily to the lead article here by Florovsky. This discussion is very stimulating, although many of the authors' statements are in need of revision. Florovsky's main point is not always clear, although he provides a good sense of the ways in which previous writers have interpreted or misinterpreted the "Old Russian" cultural experience. One needs to keep in mind that his particular concerns about "intellectual silence" reflect to some extent his expertise as a historian of Russian theology. Remember, points he makes need to be re-considered in the light of Levin's arguments and especially those by Veder (see below). Levin also presents significant alternatives to some of Andreyev's assertions. One important point that crops up in the discussion is the idea that the Mongols cut Russia off from the West, which simply is not true.
3. Thomson, "Slavonic Translations". Thomson summarizes here his conclusions presented in an earlier article (in the process responding to Veder (below)), and then extends his investigation down through the seventeenth century. The details for that part of his argument have been omitted in this selection. This article will be worthwhile to re-read when we move into a consideration of Muscovite culture.
4. Veder, "Intellectual Silence Reconsidered". A response to Florovsky et al. and to Thomson. This article is important for raising basic questions concerning whether Slavic bookmen and their readers did not, perhaps, have a distinctive understanding of the function of the written text. Veder makes what some see as a defect of the early Rus compilations into a virtue. It is easy to read around his (for the general reader) somewhat abstruse examples for his main points.
5. Should you have time, start some of readings on the Mongols listed for next week.

1. Chronology of Golden Horde History.
2. Tale of Destruction of Riazan. (Zenkovsky, pp. 198-207, or, lacking introduction, web version)
3. Recommended: Waugh, "The Pax Mongolica" and "Karakorum."
4. Recommended (H--required): Mercurius of Smolensk (Zenkovsky, pp. 208-211).
5. The Zadonshchina, Zenkovsky, pp. 211-223.
6. Miller, "Monumental Building" (JSTOR)
7. Web pages on Emergence of Moscow as a Cultural Center

You have already encountered in some of your readings the idea that the Mongol invasion created some kind of cultural break between Kievan Rus' and what follows. Do you see any evidence to support such a notion? In answering this, be sure to consider the theoretical question of what (if any) kind of break a warfare and foreign rule might produce in a culture, but also look at the evidence you have in hand from works of literature written after the Mongol invasion, information about architecture and painting, etc. To use such evidence well will require some comparison and contrast with what went before.

1. Recommended (H-required): Life of St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow. Peter was one of the important early Metropolitans who was canonized, presumably in part because of the critical role he provided in support of the Muscovite princes.
2. Life of St. Sergius (Zenkovsky, pp. 262-290; or, less introduction, web version). An excellent example of Russian hagiographic literature from the early fifteenth century. Sergius was a particularly important saint for the Muscovite ruling house and the founder of what became the largest of all the Russian monasteries.
3. Peter and Fevroniia (Zenkovsky, pp. 290-300).
4. Haney on Peter and Fevroniia.
5. Afanasii Nikitin (Zenkovsky, pp. 333-353).
6. Lenhoff on Nikitin.
7. Recommended: Trubetskoy on Nikitin. You can contrast his analysis with the rather forceful critique of it by Lenhoff. Even if she is right, you may learn something about structural analysis of a literary text from his approach.
8. To anticipate continuing discussion of Muscovite culture, web page on Art and Technology of the Renaissance in Muscovy.

What might Muscovites who read (or heard) the 15th-16th century texts assigned for this week conclude about the Christian ideal as represented by the heroes/heroine? Does it seem at all odd that Peter and Fevroniia would be canonized and that Afanasii Nikitin's account would be included by Metropolitan Macarius in his Great Menologion of all that was fit for a good Orthodox Christian to read?

1. Crummey, Reform under Ivan IV. For an overview of the "good" part of Ivan's reign.
2. Cherniavsky, "Ivan as Renaissance Prince" (JSTOR). Also for next week. Regarding Cherniavsky's article:

Is there any real value in the "superficial" impressions by foreign observers of Muscovy? In establishing a kind of "Renaissance mood"?

Does his particular definition of "Renaissance" seem to highlight what is really important about the Renaissance?

What would happen to his argument if, say, Ivan's "Correspondence" with Kurbskii and Peresvetov's "Works" were in fact compositions of some time later than Ivan's reign?

3. Recommended: Ivan-Kurbskii correspondence (Zenkovsky, pp. 366-376, or web version). Probably written by neither and not until after Ivan was dead.
4. Rowland, Ivan as Carolingian Renaissance Prince. Consider carefully what we might best understand by "Renaissance" and whether, in making comparisons across cultures and histories, some comparisons might not seem more appropriate than others. Who is more convincing: Cherniavsky or Rowland?
5. Rowland, Third Rome (JSTOR); also some images on Blessed Host webpage.
6. Renaissance web page (Week VII, No. 9 above).
7. Thyrêt, Tsaritsa's Womb (JSTOR)
8. Pouncy, Domostroi, entire. The most important thing here is to focus on the Muscovite text, not Pouncy's introduction, which is not always helpful for our understanding of the text itself. Also, note that there is substantial detail in the Domostroi which can judiciously be skimmed. Selecting appropriate details for evidence in your paper though is important.
9. Alberti, Della famiglia, excerpts, for an Italian household manual to compare/contrast with Domostroi.
10. Re-read Thomson (assigned earlier).
11. Recommended [H--required that you read at Keenan and one of the other two. Kaiser is required of everybody in class in Week X.]:

Keenan on "Two Cultures," an argument about the supposed sharp division between the religious and secular cultures in Muscovy;

Waugh, Ivan's library. Is there sufficient evidence to conclude Ivan had a "Renaissance" library of the Classics? The point of this is not that you should remember details about which author said what, but rather that you think about the problems raised concerning methodology and the kind of questions historians should ask.

Kaiser, "Quotidian Orthodoxy," for the role of Orthodoxy in the lives of ordinary believers.

What are the cultural values of Muscovy as evidenced in the Domostroi? Are they those of society as a whole or only some portion of it? Does the evidence of the Domostroi help us to determine whether Muscovy experienced anything like the Renaissance? Be sure to think carefully about the evidence in the text of the Domostroi itself and not be overly influenced by suggestions Pouncy makes in her introduction about authorship.

Week IX (Nov. 22-24; Thanksgiving Holiday, Nov. 25-26, no class). The consequences of unrestrained absolutism? Origins of Serfdom; the Time of Troubles.

1. Accounts about the Oprichnina.
2. Recommended: Palitsyn and Katyrev-Rostovskii (Zenkovsky, pp. 379-390): examples of literary polemics inspired by the events of the "Time of Troubles."
3. Read ahead in anticipation of next week's paper.

Week X (Nov. 29-Dec. 3). Order and disorder in the 17th century; the Schism and Avvakum.

1. Iuliiana Lazorevskaia (Zenkovsky, pp. 391-399, or web version in different translation).
2. Avvakum (Zenkovsky, 399-448).
3. Recommended: Zenkovsky on Schism. Although rather dated, useful for context and at least one interpretation of reasons for Schism.
4. Kaiser, "Quotidian Orthodoxy" or Thyrêt, "Women and the Orthodox Faith."
5. Lenhoff on protogenres (see Week I).
6. Review Levin on dvoeverie (see Week II).
7. Recommended: Levin, "From Corpse to Cult"
8. Waugh on the construction of regional identity in Viatka, or, with some overlap, the more substantial Waugh, "Religion and Regional Identities"--concerning one of the phenomena of "popular" Orthodoxy.

Are there biographies and autobiographies in the literature of early Rus? Might we get a different answer depending on what period we examine? Why? To answer this question, you will need to consider just what constitutes biography and autobiography, and you will need to use on the one hand Iuliiana Lazorevskaia and Avvakum and on the other some of the earlier texts you have read. Should you conclude that Avvakum's "Life" is somehow substantially different from what came before, might we assume this is the result of changes in the seventeenth century that affected other aspects of Muscovite culture?