The Culture of Old Russia in Old Chronicles - Research Paper Example

? The Culture of Old Russia in Old Chronicles The nuances of Old Russian culture that are mirrored in the literature of the era represent the commencement of the period which lasted between the eleventh century and the departure of the seventeenth century.1As suggested by Mirsky, the foundations of these literary works failed to benefit from the progress and advancement of Latin Christendom which can be traced back to Greek traditions.2While, these observations can indeed play a critical role in shedding light on the developments of Old Russian literature the purpose of this paper is directed towards exploring the cultural aspects of Old Russia through the assessment and analysis of literary works and old chronicles that originated from the region during the epoch. Before approaching towards the key cultural implications that are to be examined in the paper, it is important to identify the meaning of the word “Old Russian”. According to Wachtel and Vinitsky, the most pertinent and credible sources assert that the beginning of a regime in Russia’s northwestern region which was governed by Norse war lords came to be known as The Rus’.3The state of the Rus’ boosted of a unified dynasty that was not initiated on the basis of nationalistic ideologies, this notion implies that characteristics of culture, customs and race did not bind the state as the associations that were shared between rulers were of greater importance to the members of the civilization.4 Wachtel and Vinitsky claim that this feature of The Rus’ is perhaps the most evident in the literary pieces of the time as they are reflective of the leaders’ unified understanding of the acquired territories however, the idea of the establishment of a homogenous and equal society remains in the shadows.5Even though, the Kievan culture has a distinct existence and identity of its own, Riha comments that its characteristics cannot be isolated from the embryonic Slavic culture which in turn emerged from the traditions of Byzantine.6It is a rather intriguing question which wishes to explore whether Kievan Russia embarked upon the journey of transforming its cultural dynamics by addressing the challenges that its customs faced. Riha summarizes the answer to the aforementioned question in a straightforward yet profound manner by stating that, “Literacy, not literature, was the upper limit of Old Russia”.7This notion refers to the standard procedures of the Eastern Church which supported vernacular translations of the Scriptures that left the clergy of various states with no incentive to become skilled at the Greek language.89Thus, the enlightened progress of secular Greek literary works and classical traditions that emerged in the pre-Christian era remained elusive from the culture of Old Russia.10 Ries understands that social stratification based on the differences of class was a distinct feature of the culture of the Kievan period which was categorized by the presence of bureaucrats in one strata and the inclusion of peasants and workers into what can be termed as the “low” strata.11The members who constituted of these strata had a varying degree of impact in shaping the overall culture of the society by the means of art and literature. However, it was the monastic clergy which enjoyed the ultimate authority of governing these mediums of expression, as a consequence of which the old chronicles and works were heavily marked by the presence of religious themes and elements.12 Baehr highlights the presence of such themes and elements in his book by reflecting on the primary teachings of the Eastern Church which promised the attainment of a “spiritual paradise” to those who showed unparalleled commitment and devotion to Orthodoxy.13A vivid example of this observation is present in the Primary Chronicle, in which the representatives of Prince Vladimir speak of their time in the Greek Orthodox Church and refer to the church as an embodiment of the idea of heaven or paradise.14 While the Primary Chronicle is highly regarded as the foremost source about the history of Kievan Rus, altered versions of chronicles that were produced subsequently have continued to highlight the cultural transformation of the Russian landscape. Wachtel and Vinitsky, however, emphasize the dilemma that is faced by modern audiences in thoroughly comprehending Old Russian culture through literary works and old chronicles. For Wachtel and Vinitsky this issue is rooted in the complete lack or nonexistence of individuality in the cultural system of Old Russia which is displayed through old chronicles.15This feature is most prominently present in the genre of biographical texts that have appeared in chronicle writings which provide an account of the life of a particular ruler. Wachtel and Vinitsky comment that descriptions of rulers in these accounts only view their actions in the light of strict standards of acceptable behavior which can also be referred to as the norm of society.16Furthermore, these texts are completely void of in-depth and profound meanings that are attributable to the evaluations of psychological and social stimulus that drive the course of an individual’s life. Yet again, this observation can be traced back to the unprecedented importance of religious forces in guiding the development of Old Russian culture. Wachtel and Vinitsky observe that the sole source of motivation behind an action, as seen in old chronicles and biographical texts is indicative of the persistent and enduring struggle between good and evil. The only exception to this principle of Old Russian culture came in form of the literary work of Archpriest Avvakum who challenged the lifeless and one-dimensional nature of biographical pieces to present a profound account of his life.17 Even though, scholars have been able to uncover that the underlying principles in the Primary Chronicle are essentially reflective of the dominance of the spiritual and religious culture in Old Russia Rzhevsky has assessed the impact of Christian ideologies that are present in old chronicles through an alternative perspective. This notion postulates that Vladimir’s influence in shaping the customs and values of society was not limited to his religious contributions, in fact, the Christianization of Kievan Rus also focused on changing the social and political landscape of the society through the integration of Christian values.18 The development of this notion is credited to the assessment of the Primary Chronicle which also focuses on advancing charity, education and democratic ideologies in addition to religious fundamentals.19 An intriguing aspect of Old Russian culture that is witnessed in the Chronicles answers the question as to why Vladimir chose Byzantine-rite Christianity amongst other religions. In fact, the ruler’s refusal to accept Islam and Judaism was also a consequence of cultural considerations that existed in Kievan Rus before its subsequent Christianization. For example, Vladimir did not embrace Islam because the religion prohibits the consumption of alcohol which was the love of The Rus’ state.20Moreover, Judaism faced rejection because the truth behind its Diaspora meant that Vladimir would not have been able to utilize the religion in order to infuse the element of politics in Old Russian culture.21 As noted by Wachtel and Vinitsky, Vladimir’s selection was crucial and is referred to by many as the most significant cultural occurrence which took place in the pre-modern era.22Indeed, the Christianization of Kievan Rus dictated each and every cultural development that took place on the soil of Russia for centuries to come. Addressing this aspect of the discussion, Hughes and Paperno refer to Vladimir’s emissaries’ religious epiphany, which enlightened them on the notion of heaven and paradise on earth. The authors claim that literary journeys that took place in seventeenth and eighteenth century Russia continued to explore and praise theocracy as a means of advancing the agendas of leaders who wished to safeguard the religious foundations of Old Russian society.23 Consequently, the transition between church and state did occur however, Vladimir’s conception of “heaven on earth” continued to survive as the focal point of society as it became immersed in Russian culture. The culture of Old Russia in old chronicles depicts a vivid picture to provide significant insights into the society of time. The developments of the Primary Chronicle are reflective of the fact that religious ideology holds the ability to command the cultural aspects of a state. Another aspect which is of particular interest to scholars of Russian literature is associated with the creation of a multidimensional piece of historical prose such as the chronicle that was gifted to the Kievan Rus by the Byzantine Empire. For Wachtel and Vinitsky, the splendor of chronicle writing is associated with the fact that it links legends, fables, historical accounts, biographies of saints and rulers, treaties and codes of living in a single, comprehensive, unparalleled source of information to provide an insight into a society which existed centuries ago.24 Reference List Baehr, Stephen L. The paradise myth in eighteenth-century Russia: utopian patterns in early secular Russian literature and culture. Stanford University Press, 1991. Hughes, Robert P., and Irina Paperno, eds. Russian Culture in Modern Times. Vol. 17. University of California Pr, 1994. Mirsky, Prince DS. A History of Russian Literature: From Its Beginnings to 1900. Northwestern University Press, 1958. Ries, Nancy. Russian talk: Culture and conversation during perestroika. Cornell University Press, 1997. Riha, Thomas, ed. Readings in Russian Civilization, Volume 3: Soviet Russia, 1917-Present. Vol. 3. University of Chicago Press, 2009. Rzhevsky, Nicholas, ed. The Cambridge companion to modern Russian culture. Cambridge University Press, 2012. Wachtel, Andrew Baruch, and Ilya Vinitsky. Russian literature. Polity, 2013. Read More