The Medieval Nation of Rus’: The Religious Underpinnings of the Russian Nation
Michel Bouchard
There are a number of people and funding agencies that I would like to thank. I owe a debt of
gratitude to Dr. John-Paul Himka. His talk at the University of Northern British Columbia
challenged my assumptions of nation and nationhood and inspired me to do this work. Dr.
Himka comments were invaluable to my writing of this article. Likewise, Dr. Oleg Kharkhordin
was instrumental in my completing this paper. His comments and his expertise was greatly
appreciated. Dr. James McDonald, Chair of Anthropology at UNBC and Sarah Ramage, a
graduate student at this same university were equally kind enough to read the text and provide
comments and corrections. I also want to acknowledge my Ph.D. committee who has been
overseeing my work these past years. This includes Dr. Cliff Hickey, my supervisor, and Drs.
Derek Sayer and Claude Denis. Finally, I want to thank a number of funding agencies for their
contribution to the research that lead to this paper: the Estonian Studies Fund, the Canadian
Circumpolar Institute and the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.
INTRODUCTION
Russians often speak of the “1000-year history” of Russia. In the past, I have been quite willing
to disregard this as purely nationalistic fantasy. After all, had not Modernist theorists
demonstrated that nationalism did not exist before the French Revolution and, in the words of E.
Hobsbawm, citing a Polish nationalist Colonel Pilsudski, more states had created nations than
nations states.[1] How could there be a Russian nation before the Russian state, an occurrence
that L. Greenfeld[2] links with Peter the Great. But is this truly the case? For reasons I will
explain, I now recognize that modernist theory overlooks the rich medieval history that precedes
the arbitrary cut-off point to modernity. Prior to Peter the Great, there is a rich literary tradition
that spans six centuries and is closely linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Despite the
important work of some Western authors who have attempted to better understand this rich
historical period, notably Charles Halperin who examined the ancient concept of “Russian land”
and the role of the Mongol invasion in the development of medieval Russian history,[3] their
research has not influenced the development of theory on nation and nationalism. Even if one
concurs that nationalism is a modern phenomenon, there is increasing evidence that a sense of
nation was being consolidated in the medieval period. It could be argued that without this
medieval sense of nationhood modern Russian nationalism could never exist. Also, if Russian
nationhood existed in the medieval period, then it could be argued that nation and nationalism
cannot be studied as a purely political phenomenon, rather that it must equally be understood as a
cultural phenomenon, one that was deeply influenced by the Christian religious tradition of
Eastern Orthodoxy. Russian nationhood, then, is from this perspective the result of 1000 years of
history.
This paper will focus on a very limited and narrow aspect of medieval history. The goal is to
trace the earliest origins of the Russian term best approximating the English concept of nation,
the word narod – among others – in Old Slavonic (or Old Church Slavonic) texts. One type of
text of particular importance is the Psalter. The significance of this Biblical text cannot be
underestimated in that it was central to the religious practice of Christians both in the East and
the West. More importantly, this text delimits the meaning of nation: a community sharing a
common God, language, territory and traditions. Adrian Hastings demonstrates how nation and
nationalism would have not been possible had it not been for the Bible that served as a template
for nationhood.[4]
The words in the Bible and Psalter may change, from the original Semitic text, to Greek, Latin
and a variety of other languages including Church Slavonic, but a sense of nationhood is
consistently evoked in the Bible. The words evolve in the Russian Orthodox Church, until their
culmination in the translation into the modern Russian usage where the word narod is present
throughout. In the modern Russian Psalter, God is depicted as judging the nations, narody,
reinforcing the importance of the nation in the minds of Russian Orthodox Believers – which, at
the time of the Revolution would have included the overwhelming majority of the [ethnic]
Russian population. This tradition is present in the earliest of the Psalters, including the Sinai
Psalter dating back to the 11th century. Other texts, which I will analyze, will serve to flesh out
the understanding of nation in this early medieval period. It is clear that the Psalter and other
religious texts shaped the ways in which nationhood was understood. These early religious texts
do not use the word narod to signify nation, rather they consistently use the older term yazyk –
not to be confused with the usage of the word as signifying language – when translating the
Greek term ethnos. The word narod was in use in other contemporary texts, but it’s meaning was
not national, but rather signified a multitude, a gathering of large numbers of people.[5] In
addition to these texts, I will also examine the Russian Primary Chronicle to better understand
the ways in which the terms for nationhood were applied to Kievan Rus’.
Drawing upon the ideas put forward by Hastings, I will examine the emergence of nationhood
among Russians using medieval texts, notable early Slavonic religious texts, and the earliest
recorded texts, notably the Primary Chronicle, dating back to the 11th century. Although I began
this research with a modernist slant, a close reading of these medieval texts clearly demonstrate
that the foundation of the Russian nation is to be found not in the Modern period, but several
centuries earlier in the era of Kievan Rus’. The nation was defined in this very early period
through the prism of Biblical texts, although many of the words expressing nationhood clearly
predate the Christian period. The idea of a Rus’ nation, later renamed the Russian nation, was
maintained into the modern period, at which time much older ideas and concepts were integrated
into the continually evolving political discourse. Having demonstrated that the idea of
nationhood was well entrenched in the medieval period, I will suggest ways in which these ideas
of nationhood could have been shored up in the peasantry: again, as these terms are widespread
among Slavic populations East, West and South, and likely indicate that they predated the arrival
of Christianity (both Catholicism and Orthodoxy), there is no reason why they could not have
been maintained in the peasantry. The arrival of Christianity would not have displaced these
words, simply reaffirmed their meanings, consolidating a national sentiment among a preexisting ethnic population.
BACKGROUND AND THEORY
For close to two decades, the modernist school of thought has been predominant in the theory of
nation and nationalism. Such authors as B. Anderson,[6] E. Gellner,[7] E. Hobsbawm,[8] J.
Breuilly[9] and others, ushered in the modernist position. However, in the last few years,
dissenting voices have emerged and a new school of thought is beginning to take shape. Scholars
of medieval history have led the charge. One of the leading authors in this revisionist school is
Adrian Hastings whose work “The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and
Nationhood”[10] challenges the very assumptions that have guided the modernist analysis of
nationhood. Hastings demonstrates the way in which the Bible served as a mirror for the nation.
Adrian Hastings’ research clearly demonstrates that a new approach is necessary to the study of
nations and nationalism. An element that has been overlooked in the study of nations is the role
of religion in the formation of nations. Certain ‘modernist’ authors such as Anderson have
examined religion, yet rarely is the actual content of the Christian message ever examined.
Hastings work is original in that he examines the actual content of the Bible in order to fully
appreciate its impact of on the formation of nations. He demonstrates the ways in which the
Vulgate Latin “natio” translated into the Early English word “nacioun”. Prior to this, the Vulgate
word “natio” was translated from the Greek word “ethnos” and was not as prevalent in the
Vulgate Bible as the word “nation” is in the King James Bible: the words “gens” and “populus”
were used more frequently in the Latin Vulgate Bible than they are in English translations of the
Bible.[11] Nonetheless, the impact of the Bible cannot be underestimated, as Hastings notes:
“No other book had half so wide or pervasive an influence in medieval Europe as the Vulgate
Bible and it is simply perverse to seek odd meanings for the word ‘natio’ elsewhere while
ignoring its use in this absolutely central text.”[12] According to Hastings, by the Middle Ages
the word ‘natio’ was being used in a very modern sense as representing a people “distinct by
‘language, laws, habits, modes of judgement and customs.’”[13] Later I will demonstrate that at
virtually the same time as Bernard, Norman Bishop of St. David’s, was using the term ‘natio’ as
described by Hastings in reference to the Welsh ‘natio’, the Chroniclers of Rus’ were defining
the equivalent term in their language in virtually the same ways.
Hastings clearly demonstrates that in the English language by the 14th century the word ‘nation’
was already being used in virtually the same sense as a post-19th century nationalist would have
used it.[14] The question remains as to why Christianity, and especially the New and Old
Testaments, proved to be particularly amenable to the creation, if not the maintenance, of ethnic
groups and nations. The answer lies in part in one biblical verse: Matthew 22:19 which reads as
follows in the King James Bible: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”[15] Though different versions of the
English Bible – the New American Standard, the American Standard, the Basic English Bible,
Webster’s Bible, etc. – have phrased this verse in slightly different ways, each version contains
the word “nations”. If we examine this verse in the Biblical languages, the Latin Vulgate Bible
prefers the term “gentes” rather than “natio,” this does not necessarily imply that the English
translators inserted the word “nation” inappropriately. The Biblical Greek New Testament uses
the word “ethnos” – closer in meaning to natio than gentes – the word that was translated as
“nation” in the English Bibles.
This cursory analysis of Biblical texts demonstrates that Christianity did conceive of the
possibility of a number of Christian nations as it does not specify that the nations would become
one Christian nation after their conversion. This is in direct contrast with the Islamic faith. The
Koran, a text that appeared many centuries after the Christian texts, specifies: “(All) people are a
single nation; so Allah raised prophets as bearers of good news and as warners, and He revealed
with them the Book with truth, that it might judge between people in that in which they differed;
and none but the very people who were given it differed about it after clear arguments had come
to them, revolting among themselves; so Allah has guided by His will those who believe to the
truth about which they differed and Allah guides whom He pleases to the right path.” [16]
Whereas the faith of Islam militates against nations among the believers of Islam, the central
Christian text – the New Testament – allows for the existence and maintenance of different
Christian nations. Admittedly, there are passages in the New Testament that could be used to
justify a unified Christendom, these include Colossians Chapter 3 verse 11: “Where there is
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free:
but Christ [is] all, and in all.” However, even this passage does not specifically state that there
must be one Christian nation. Rather, in its context, this passage is affirming that Christians need
not follow Jewish ceremonial law, thus denying Jewish religious privileges, and opening the
Christian church to Jew and Gentile where even the “Barbarian” can gain redemption in
Christ.[17] Overall, the Christian Bible does provide, as Hastings argues, a model for
nationhood, whereas the Koran provides few positive references to nationhood: the few times the
word appeared in the online search I conducted, it usually had negative connotations and referred
to those who were not Muslims.[18] Although this does not preclude a sense of nationhood
among Muslims, the Koran would not have facilitated the emergence and maintenance of
nationhood in the same fashion as the Christian Bible would have done, as the primary texts
present nationhood in different ways.
It is only through examination of the actual Biblical texts that it is possible to understand how the
concept of nationhood was propagated in medieval times both in Western Europe, and as I shall
argue, in Eastern Europe. Modernist theorists of nation and nationalism point to the utilization of
Latin, the universal language of communication, as the major stumbling block towards national
self-consciousness. According to Anderson, it was through the propagation of vernacular texts
produced in large quantities with the printing press that nations could truly be imagined.
Hastings refocuses the debate by examining not simply the language of communication, but
equally if not more important, the actual content of the message. Hastings’ central argument is
that the Bible served as a mirror for emerging nations and nationalism with the Biblical nation of
Israel serving as a model for all future nations. To cite Hastings: “Perhaps it was an almost
terrifyingly monolithic ideal, productive ever after of all sorts of dangerous fantasies, but it was
there, an all too obvious exemplar for Bible readers of what every other nation too might be, a
mirror for national self-imagining.”[19] Although Hastings does use the existence of a written
vernacular as the defining distinction that separates an ethnic group from a nation, he nonetheless
does not accept Anderson’s argument that the translation of the Bible in a vernacular and its
wide circulation are enough to understand nation and nationalism. Hastings writes: “Not enough,
because it remains less important for us whether a translation was made than whether and how it
was used. Only extensive use can bring with it a nationalizing effect, and that means use at a
popular, and not merely academic, level.”[20] Later, I will examine how religious texts could
have influenced the “nationalizing” of the peasantry, even if rates of literacy remained quite low.
This revisionist theory may account for the existence of national sentiments as observed by
historians. Josep Llobera a historical sociologist at the University of London is equally critical of
the nation as modern theory that predominates the study of nation and nationalism. As is the case
with Hastings, Llobera is critical of modernist theory that presents the nation as if created ex
nihilo. Rather, he views the nation as the product of a longue durée which necessitates an
examination of medieval structures in order to fully understand its origin. Llobera writes: “To
say, then, that nation and nationalism as we understand them today, did not exist in the Middle
Ages is mere truism. To abandon for this reason any search into the process of national
formation and into the forms of national identity in this period is a recipe for sociological
disaster.”[21] Llobera argues that powerful national forces were emerging by the end of the
Middle Ages and that it is important to study medieval structures in order to understand how
nations were formed. Llobera’s central argument states that the idea of nation existed in the
Medieval period and that there was a clear sense of national identity in many Medieval polities,
even though this was necessarily widely shared among the entire population. It is this medieval
sense of nationhood and the accompanying national identity, that would have served as the
foundation for nationalism witnessed in the modern period.
In another article by Llobera, “State and Nation in Medieval France,”[22] a clear link can be
made between Llobera’s work and that of Hastings. In this article, Llobera cites Kerhervé in that
there is little doubt that by the 14th century a clear sense of Breton identity existed expressed in
terms of natio and pais. As Hastings emphasizes, the word natio figures in the Latin Vulgate
Bible. Additionally, the Latin Vulgate Bible also the term patria to designate “homeland” a term
that would be associated with “pais,” or land, or country.[23] In addition to Llobera and
Hastings, other researchers examining the Middle Ages likewise conclude that there was a
process of nation formation that predates the modern epoch. Some of the best known researchers
include Anthony Smith and John Armstrong, who both share the conviction that the precursors to
modern nations existed in the medieval period even if the ideological concept of nationalism is
modern.[24]
MEDIEVAL OR MODERN: THE CASE OF THE SLAVIC NATIONS
As is the case for other regions, the study of Russian nationalism and the origins of the Russian
nation by Western scholars has been dominated in recent years by the modernist stance. A great
many authors would argue that there was not a Russian nation prior to the Soviet period, let
alone prior to the 18th century. Recent publications by David Laitin[25] and Rogers
Brubaker,[26] building upon the works of authors such as R. Suny[27] and Hobsbawm,[28]
present theories of nation and nationalism as being dependent upon institutions for their
formation. Naturally, as is the case with most modernist writing, the primary institution that is
seen as responsible for nation-building is the state. Liah Greenfeld allows for a somewhat earlier
emergence of the Russian nation, locating its origins in the reign of Peter the Great. To cite
Greenfeld: “It is indeed disconcerting to realize, when one thinks about the huge territory bearing
the name of Russia today, and 150 million people seeing themselves as belonging to it in the
deepest sense of the word, or deriving their very identity from it, that it all began with two
people – a seven-foot tall, wild-tempered Russian tsar and Sophia Augusta Frederika, a comely
German princess-who started speaking words [such as otechestvo or fatherland] which few
around them understood and drummed them into their subjects’ heads.”[29] I too examine the
origins of words in the section to follow, beginning with the 11th century rather than with the
18th century. I will demonstrate that some of the “new” words that Greenfeld uses to prove the
modern origin of the Russian nation are, are in fact centuries older.
In this study, I intend to examine the modernist analysis of Russian nationhood using Hastings’
revisionist theory of nation and nationalism. If Hastings’ basic theory is correct, then there
should be ample evidence which demonstrates how Biblical texts contributed to shaping the
Russian nation, serving as a template for the emerging nation of Rus’, and later, Russia. There
should also have been an emerging national consciousness as certain segments of the population
became literate. From this perspective, the emergence of nation and nationhood need not be
limited to state intervention: the Church, by promoting an understanding of certain Biblical texts,
may have promoted a deep understanding of the nation in a given population. I will argue that
this is possible even in circumstances in which the population is largely illiterate. Taken as a
whole, the Russian medieval period will provide evidence of an emerging concept of nation that
should have been accepted by, at the very least, the educated elite, and perhaps seeped down into
the popular culture. The texts that I have chosen to analyze for the purposes of this discussion
include a number of Orthodox Psalters including an Early Slavonic Psalter from Rus’ dating
back to the 11th century; several Early Slavonic apocryphal texts whose were likely composed in
the same period from the 11th to the early 12th century, the Primary Chronicle (although the
surviving copies date back to the 14th century, this Chronicle was likely composed at the turn of
the 12th century) and finally, a number of other texts predating the 17th century. This is but a
small sample of the texts written during the Russian medieval period, however, they are adequate
to demonstrate the existence of a concept of Russian nationhood (or more accurately for the early
period, a concept of the nation of Rus’). By examining the words used to describe the “nation”
and the “patria”, I will demonstrate that Peter the Great and his followers added little to the
Russian understanding of nation and nationhood. By the 12th century, the major words
describing nation and people in Russian were already in circulation. There were competing
words, but the fundamental meaning of natio as understood in medieval Europe was virtually
identical to the ways in which words such as narod and yazyk – in the old sense of “people” –
were understood in both Kievan Rus’ and medieval Russia. Likewise, the central Christian texts
of Eastern Orthodoxy propagated and reaffirmed the importance of these words in both medieval
and modern Russia.
THE PSALMS
The importance of the Psalms in Christian belief cannot be overstated: “The most widely read
book was, however, not the Gospel, but the Psalter, thanks to its extensive liturgical use. It was
the first reader for the child, a common devotional book for the layman and a book used even for
divinations.”[30] The psalter or “psaltyr” was one of the first texts to be translated into Old
Church Slavonic. If there was one text that the greatest numbers of Christians were be familiar
with, it was the Psalter, and this tradition dates back to the first centuries of Christianity.
According to Shchepkina “The reason for the wide usage was that the themes and characters
from the Psalter were traditionally interpreted as preceding and foretelling the New Testament
events. The text of the Psalter formed the nucleus of the divine service of the early Christian
community, which also helped its spreading.”[31]
The importance of the Psalter was maintained throughout Christian history. During the early
modern period, in the wills of wealthy Muscovites, money was set aside to pay for an individual
to read the Psalms day and night for a period of 40 days and 40 nights.[32] D. Scheffel notes, for
example, that the Psalter was one of the core texts of the Old Believers.[33] Likewise, Vera
Shevzov, in her analysis of chapels and the religious practices of Russian peasants in the
prerevolutionary period notes that according to ethnographic data collected in the late 19th
century, peasants would often gather in a village chapel and spend the day reading from the holy
books that included the Psalter.[34] What is particularly interesting is the role of the literate in a
largely illiterate society. According to one source cited in the Vologodskoi Oblast State Archive
(GAVO): “Some of the literate peasants would read books of a spiritual-ethical content, while
others would listen and learn.”[35] All of these examples demonstrate the importance of the
Psalter in the daily lives of Orthodox believers, but further examination is required. Shevzov
notes that little research has been done in the history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity and how it
was understood and observed by the peasantry. Nonetheless, the actual words of the Psalms can
shed light into how the concept of nation would have been understood by the peasantry and these
examples demonstrate the ways in which knowledge of the Psalms would have been transmitted
to peasant populations, from medieval period onward.
Before turning to the medieval Psalters, it is important to understand the language of the Psalters
and the ways in which the biblical nation of Israel – as depicted in the Psalms – served to define
nationhood. In order to fully review the impact of the Psalms, I will examine a turn of the
century Psalter published in 1904 in order to demonstrate the use of the word narod – for all
practical purposes the most direct and widespread equivalent of the word “nation” as it is
understood in English – in a few key psalms. One of the most enlightening psalms when it comes
to understanding Russian concepts of people and nations is Psalm 7, verses 8 and 9. In the 1904
Psalter, these verses read as follows: “сонмъ людей станеть вокругь Тебя; надъ нимъ
поднимись на высоту. Господь судитъ народы. Суди меня, Господи, по правде моей и по
непорочности моей во мне”[36] (1904 official Russian Orthodox Psalter printed in Saint
Petersburg). Psalm 7, verse 8 is particularly meaningful: in this verse we read: “The Lord shall
judge the nations (i.e. narody).”
It should be noted that in the English translations of this verse, there is some ambiguity. In the
King James Version of the Bible, we read: “The LORD shall judge the people”. In other
versions, we read that God shall judge the peoples (plural, signifying different nations). The
Russian version is particularly powerful in that is seems to indicate that nations will be judged as
a collective entity. This belief in the judgement of nations is central to Orthodoxy in general and
Russian Orthodoxy in particular. To cite George P. Fedotov’s classic work, “The Russian
Religious Mind (I): Kievan Christianity. The 10th to the 13th Centuries”:
All peoples are called by God, and Russia among them. It is a view taken from a universal,
oecumenical standpoint, and not from a national one. On the one hand, the nation is not an
indifferent category in the kingdom of God. As man stands before God, responsible for his own
life, so stand all nations, as spiritual entities, with their sins and their holiness, in the earthly
Church and in eternity.[37]
Fedotov continues that such religious ideas of the nation could not have emerged in medieval
Western Europe, but that it was a natural development within the Eastern Church with its
plurality of languages and cultures. If Hastings is, as I believe, correct in his interpretation of
medieval history, this may not be entirely correct. However, I hypothesize that this concept of a
national spiritual entity that is to be judged by God is expressed in Russian culture through the
concept of the Russian Soul. Again, as the Psalter states that God shall judge the nations
individually, it could logically be presumed that individuals within the nation would share
certain propensities, based on this shared collective entity. Fedotov himself states this when he
uses the term “soul of the people.”[38]
The occurrence of the word nations (narody) is not isolated to the 7th psalm. In the first verse of
the second psalm, we read: “Зачемъ мятутся народы, и племена замышляютъ тщетное?” and
followed by verse 9: “Отъ Господа – спасение. Надъ народом Твоимъ благословение Твое”.
Psalm 4:7 reads: “Не убоюсь темъ народа, которыя со всехъ сторонъ ополчились на меня.”
Psalm 9:6 reinforces psalm 7:8 as it reads: “Ты вознегодовалъ на народы, погубилъ
нечестиваго, имя ихъ изгладилъ на веки и веки”. (1904 Psalter cited above) The first line of
this psalm is translated in the King James Bible as follows: “Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou
hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.” Again, as was the
case for Psalm 7:8, God rebuked not only a collective of individuals, but rather rebuked, in the
Russian Psalter, nations. I could continue with excerpts from the prerevolutionary Psalter, as
there are 150 psalms in a Psalter. However, what is evident in these first Psalms is that by the
end of the 19th century, the Russian Psalter has subsumed most collective identities under the
rubric nation/narod,[39] and that nations stand before God as collective entities to be judged. It is
also clear from the Psalter that even a cursory reading would have inculcated a very clear
understanding of nationhood to the reader – or as Shevzov’s research indicates – to the illiterate
listening to the psalms being read and then explained to them. This counters the arguments put
forward by the extreme modernists such as Laitin, Brubaker and N. Melvin[40] that see the
Russian nation/narod as a creation of the Soviet state. Given the importance of the Russian
Orthodox Faith in the life of the average Russian peasant, and the central importance of the
Psalter in Orthodox religious practice, it is difficult to conceive how the peasantry could not have
understood that they belonged to a nation/narod. The question would not be whether a peasant
belonged to a particular nation, but simply to which nation they belonged whether it be Russian,
Georgian, Armenian, German to name but a few possibilities.
I contend that the late prerevolutionary Psalters – along with other religious documents –
effectively reaffirmed nationhood among all believers (and likely non-believers of other faiths
given the weight of Russian Orthodox Culture in Imperial Russia). The question remains as to
whether this was the case in the first Psalters, those dating back to the 11th century. The
argument that I will be making, based upon these original documents, is that these early Psalters
do convey a sense of nation and nationhood.
A case in point is the Old Slavonic Sinai Psalter containing this passage: “Възвратять ся
грешьници въ адъ: въси языци забываящин ба[41] [Бога]”. The meaning is simple: sinners
will be sent to hell along with those nations that have forgotten God. The King James Bible
presents this passage, Psalm 9:17, thus: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the
nations that forget God.” The 1904 Russian Orthodox Psalter I consulted labels this passage
Psalm 9:18 and reproduces it thus: “Да обратятся нечестивые въ адъ, – все народы
забывающие Бога.” The Sinai Psalter, dating back to the 11th century, does depict a world
being peopled in part by nations, as expressed in the basic term языкъ/yazyk (though the word
often appears as языци/yazytsi[42]).
Additionally, the Sinai Psalter introduces the term отъчъство or отечество (otechestvo), the
term that in modern English is translated as the “Fatherland”. Psalm 22:27 in the Sinai Psalter
reads as follows: “И поклонять ся предь нимъ въсе отъчъства язъчъна.”[43] The King James
Bible translates this passage as follows: “and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before
thee.” In this psalm, the Greek patria – signifying lineage, kindred and family – was translated as
“otechestvo”. As noted previously, the Greek patria is not to be confused with patris, the word
signifying native country, fatherland or native place, which was translated in Old Slavonic as
simply “land” or “zemla.”[ href="#smt"onclick="openWin(44)">44] In this passage we can see
the clear origins of the term “fatherland” though it is clear that the meaning of the word shifted
over time. Interestingly enough, the word designating “kindred” came to be seen in Russian as an
equivalent for “fatherland”. It may not be all that surprising in that kinship metaphors are often
used to describe nationhood. Closer analysis and attention to the use of the word “otechestvo”
will help to clarify the origins and use of the word through the centuries. Nonetheless, we can see
that the term predates Peter the Great by well over 6 centuries, and demonstrates that Greenfeld’s
analysis is somewhat misplaced. Peter the Great may have begun using the term in the 18th
century, but the word had a long pedigree in the religious texts of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The final term that is important in our understanding of nation in the psalms is the general word
for “people”. In Old Slavonic, both demos and ethnos were translated as “nation” whereas the
Greek term laos was translated as people, or in modern Russian люди (lyudi). Strong’s Lexicon
defines the Greek term laos as: “1) a people, people group, tribe, nation, all those who are of the
same stock and language 2) of a great part of the population gathered together anywhere.” [45]
The Sinai Psalter uses the term, for example, to refer to an individual’s or God’s people. The
term is often used in a psalm when addressing God, and referring to “His people.” It can also be
used to refer to people in the more general sense. However, over time, the term narod replaces
the term lyudi even in the Psalters. Psalm 67 in the Sinai Psalter[46] uses the word for people or
laos on a number of occasions, whereas the 1904 Psalter uses only the term narod in the same
Psalm, completely excluding the term lyudi.[47] This does not mean that the word did not exist
in Old Slavonic, simply that as the language evolved, as it moved towards modern Russian, the
word narod came to be used in the place of a number of words signifying people/nation. I will be
examining the first traces and use of the word narod and will then demonstrate how the words for
“nation” in Old Slavonic had within them the meaning associated with the word “natio” or
“nation” in both medieval and modern Western Europe.
THE ORIGINS OF THE WORD NAROD
Even though the word narod does not appear in the Sinai Psalter, it was in use in other equally
old religious texts. One of the most striking examples of this is the Apocalypse of Abraham, an
apocryphal text that was translated into Church Slavonic. The composition of the original text
written in a Semitic language, likely Hebrew, dates to the period between 70 A.D. and 120 A.D.,
and, according to Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, likely between between 79 and 81 A.D. Interestingly,
no Greek copy of this text has been located and the first Old Slavonic translation appears at the
turn of the 12th century. As is often the case with such documents, the existing copies date to a
later period: mainly between the 14th and 16th centuries. Nonetheless, this text does provide an
indication of the origins of the central words describing nation and people among the Slavic
populations of Russia and elsewhere.
The word narod is a relatively archaic word if we examine its dispersion across the various
Slavic populations: variations of the word exist in Russian, Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Serbian,
Czech and Polish[48] which indicates the widespread use of such words before their conversion
to Christianity. By examining this particular apocryphal text, it is possible to understand how the
word would have been used by the 12th century. This Apocalypse of Abraham is a useful text
not only for understanding the linguistic history of Slavic languages, but equally to better
understand the origins of Russian Orthodoxy: the apocrypha were popular religious texts among
early Christian Slavs. These apocrypha included Jewish and Christian legends that were rejected
by the Greek Orthodox Church, but which were never entirely banned in Russian Orthodoxy.
According to Fedotov, the Russian Orthodox Church considered all religious writings divine –
except those deemed heretical. The impact of the apocrypha cannot be underestimated. Fedotov
believed: “The Russian people had a particular prediliction for the apocryphy because of its
fabulous content which appealed to their imagination.”[49] The only other writings that would
have equalled in importance to the Psalms, other books from the Holy Scripture and the
apocrypha were the highly popular accounts of the lives of the saints. Other apocryphal writings
include the Book of Enoch, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Gospel and Nicodemus, the
Gospel of Saint James and a number of other such texts. The importance of such texts in the
shaping of a national consciousness cannot be underestimated, even among the largely illiterate
peasant populations of Kievan Rus’ and medieval Russia. The Book of Enoch, for example,
makes continuous use of two terms: people/lyudi and nation/yazyk. The first term – lyudi –
refers to the people of Enoch whereas the second is used when describing the times in history
when nation fought nation (yazyk na yazyk) and people fell upon people in war.[50]
The Apocalypse of Abraham parallels the Sinai Psalter in that it does use the word yazyk in all
its various forms to designate the nation. However, the word narod is sometimes used to
designate a multitude of people. An example of the use of these terms: “оть страны шюяя
язычныя и изыдоша моужи и жены и дети отъ страны языкъ народ<ъ> многъ и
покланяхуся емоу.”[51] Rubinkiewecz translates this as meaning from the side of the Pagans
there emerged a nation with a multitude of men, women and children that bowed before him.[52]
The Apocalypse uses the expression много народ/mnogo narod to signify a multitude, a crowd.
At times, there is some ambiguity – the Apocalypse for example seems to use the term narod to
signify a nation of pagans – народ<ъ> языченъ/narod yazychen.[53] The term narod is equally
used when describing a collection of people that is not yet known. Abraham asks the angel
accompanying him: “То кто естъ народъ въ образавании...?” or “What is this nation on one
part and another of the painting?” Abraham asks, using the word narod on its own to describe the
group of people he was seeing in this painting depicting future events shown to him by an angel
sent by God.[54]
What is clear is that narod, by the 12th century, had become an important word in its own right
in Old Slavonic, and by extension, Old Russian, though it does not clearly indicate nationhood.
Though the term narod is rarely used in medieval Psalter, I encountered the word once, for
example, in the 11th century Chudovskaya Psalter, which refers to the narod in jubilation
(“народа празднующа/naroda prazdnuyushcha”).[55] However, the Psalters do seem to
maintain the use of yazyk in preference to narod until the 17th century: upon examination of a
Psalter dating to the year 1640[56], I noted that the words and phrasing when referring to the
“nations” had remained largely unchanged with the terms yazyk, in all its forms, still
predominant to the exclusion of narod. However, the term narod was in use quite early, possibly
as early as the 12th century and perhaps prior to then. In Metropolitan Ilarion’s Sermon on Law
and Grace the word is used to signify a gathering of people, a crowd, whereas this same text uses
the term yazyk to denote the nation. In all of these Old Slavonic texts, the word narod is never
used on its own to designate nationhood.[57]
The question arises as to why the term narod eventually displaced the term yazyk. It may be due
to outside influence – the impact of Polish or other Slavic languages – or it may simply be due to
the internal evolution of the Russian language in which one word supplants another. The process
by which narod acquires the meaning of “nation” and gradually eclipses the word yazyk is
visible in the 1683 translation of the Psalter into the “simple language” as the Russian vernacular
was called, by Avramii Firsov.[58] Whereas the word narod only made a rare appearance in
earlier Psalters, in this translation, the term is dominant, though not exclusively used. The
competing term yazyk is used in this translation and at times both words are used in the same
verse of a psalm. Likewise the term “otechestviya” is used in this psalter: “вся отечествия
языковъ/vsya otechestviya yazykov or all the kindreds of the nations.[59] The presence of both
narod and the competing terms does suggest that the term narod was gaining in usage whereas
yazyk was in decline. To put the date of 1683 in perspective, it must be remembered that Peter
the Great was only 11 years old when this first translation of the Psalter was published and
though he was officially the Tsar, along with his brother, he was too young to have any real
influence on either the state or the language. However, I can only speculate as to whether this
Psalter influenced Peter: if Peter read this Psalter he would have been influenced by this essential
Christian text, thus ensuring a sense of nationhood in the young Tsar.
THE PRIMARY CHRONICLES
Having demonstrated that the concept of ethnos/natio existed in both Kievan Rus and medieval
Russia, the questions remains as to how these terms were understood. In Western Europe,
authors such as Hastings have demonstrated that by the 14th century, the term natio was being
used in a variety of countries with a meaning very similar to the modern usage of the term. By
carefully examining one of the earliest texts – the Primary Chronicle – I will demonstrate that the
Chroniclers did have a clear conception of a nation, similar to that of other Europeans, and that
they had already conceived of a nation of Rus’.
In reading the first few pages of the Primary Chronicle, it is clear that the terminology used to
describe nations is identical to that being used by the Sinai Psalter. The Chronicle, however,
identifies what would have been contemporary peoples, naming a number of nations (or
“yazytsi”) whom were still Pagan: the Merya, the Muroma, the Chud’ and many others.[60] It
then goes on to equate the nation of Rus’ with other nations that are said to be descended from
the Biblical Japeth: “the Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Gotlanders, the Russes
[Rus’], the English, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Romans, the Germans, the French, the
Venetians, the Genoese, and so on.”[61] The Chronicle then uses the term “yazyk,” and specifies
that while building the Tower of Babylon there was one nation (“yazyk”) and that following
God’s dispersion of this one nation into 72 different nations (“yazyki”) and scattered them across
the earth, with the Chronicle tracing the origin of the Slavs.
In the Chronicles, I would argue that the term “nation” refers to more than the ruling elite based
on this prior analysis of the Old Slavonic religious texts. The Chronicles are quite specific in
identifying who belongs to the Slavic nation of Rus’ and who is excluded. S. Cross and O.
Sherbowitz-Wetzor translate one passage from the Chronicles thus:
For the Slavic race in Rus’ includes only the Polyanians, the Derevlians, the people of
Novgorod, the Polotians, the Dregovichians, the Severians, and the Buzhians, who live along the
river Bug and were later called Volhynians. The following are other tribes which pay tribute to
Rus’: Chud’, Merya, Ves’, Muroma, Cheremis’, Mordva, Perm’, Pechera, Yam’, Litva,
Zimegola, Kors’, Narva, and Liv’. These tribes have their own languages and belong to the race
of Japheth, which inhabits the lands of the north.[62]
In the original text, the wording is somewhat different. The term that the authors translate as race
is, in actuality “yazyk”. The Chronicle states: “Словянескъ языкъ в Руси”[63] (Slovyaneski
yazyk in Rusi) or put another way, that there is a Slovyanian [Slavic] nation in Rusia, what has
been referred to previously in the Chronicles as the nation of Rus’. The term that the authors
translate as “tribes” is, in the original text, “yazytsi”; or to use the Biblical terminology, it would
be best to translate the Chronicle as indicating: “The [Heathen] nations pay tribute to Rus’.”[64]
A few comments on the ways in which these two terms are used, noting that nationhood is
associated with language. The Primary Chronicle, specifies that each of the yazytsi paying
tribute to Rus’ has its own language. The Slovyanski yazyk of Rus, although they were divided
into different territorial units they nonetheless shared a common language (in this case, the word
used is грамото/gramota).[65]
The Chronicle thereby indicates the geographical contours of Rus’ by defining the territories of
the various groups of Slavs making up the Slavic yazyk. Populations are not only associated with
specific territories and languages, they also share particular customs, traditions and laws.
The Chronicle presents a quasi-anthropological account of the various Slavic peoples making up
the yazyk of Rus’ specifying that each had its customs. To cite Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor’s
translation: “These Slavic tribes [or simply Slavs] preserved their own customs, the law of their
forefathers, and their traditions, each observing its own usage.”[66] Not content with describing
the customs of the Slavs, the Primary Chronicle cites another Chronicler Georgius in describing
the customs of a variety of peoples both real and fantastic (the mythical Amazons). Nonetheless,
this extraordinary account leads to a description of how Rus’ came to be: the Chronicle specifies
that in the year 6360 (852), the land of Rus’ was first named,[67] though in the Primary
Chronicle, the land of Rus’ is referred to as “Руска земла/Ruska zemla.”[68]
It is interesting to note that the Chronicle demonstrates the role religion plays in defining and
validating the “nation”. The Primary Chronicle specifies that at the time of conversion (988
A.D.) there was still one Slavic people [yazyk] and that the princes asked for the translation of
the sacred texts into their language. Hearing their requests, the Eastern Roman Emperor Michael
sent two brothers – Methodius and Constantine – to the Slavic lands in order to begin the work
of translation. These brothers composed a Slavic alphabet, translated the Acts and the Gospel.
They then set about translating the Psalter and other religious texts.[69] This information in itself
is not new, however, the debate presented as to whether the Slavs should have these texts in their
own language only reaffirms the understanding of nationhood and the way in which the Bible
serves as a mirror for nationhood. The Chronicle cites the Roman Pope as saying:
Let the word of the Scripture be fulfilled that ‘all nations shall praise God’ (Ps. Lxxi, 17), and
likewise that ‘all nations shall praise God’ (Ps. Lxxi, 17), and likewise that ‘all nations shall
declare the majesty of God according as the Holy Spirit shall grant them to speak’ (cf. Acts ii, 4).
Whosoever condemns the Slavic writing shall be excluded from the Church until he mends his
ways.[70]
To communicate these Biblical passages, the Chronicle uses the term yazyki (and its variant
yazytsi).[71] The Bible only serves to reinforce the notion of nationhood, and in this case the
translation of Biblical texts into the Slavic language was allegedly acceptable to the Pope, as it
furthered the primary aim of Christianity, as set out in the New Testament, which was to convert
the nations to God.
In a preliminary reading of the Primary Chronicle, I did not encounter the term “narod”. This in
itself is not necessarily an indication that the word was not in use. The Primary Chronicle
follows the lead of the Sinai Psalter in using the terms yazyk to the exclusion of the narod.
Nonetheless, other chroniclers do make use of the term, notably in the Suzdal Chronicle.[72]
These early writings are composed of thousands of pages of text. More research is required to
fully understand all of the nuances and ways in which the terms for nationhood were used in
medieval literature both in Kievan Rus’ and later in Muscovy.
I will conclude with the final observation that in Metropolitan Hilarion’s Sermon on Law and
Grace we can find striking uses of both yazyk and narod. In this text, we find that the basic
patterns are maintained: yazyk is used to signify nationhood, whereas narod is used to indicate a
multitude of people. What is most striking in the Sermon on Law and Grace is the use of the
expression “Rusian nation” or Ruskii yazyk. In the opening passage of the Sermon, the
Metropolitan Ilarion recounts how Christianity had spread to all the nations (yazyky) all the way
to “our Rusian nation” (до нашего языка рускаго/do nashego yazyka ruskago).[73] The
importance of this sermon cannot be underestimated: Ilarion was the first non-Greek
Metropolitan to head the Orthodox Church in Rus’. He assumed this role in 1051, and this
sermon likely predates the Primary Chronicle. The fact that it is a Sermon equally indicates how
the concept of nationhood could have been disseminated in a largely illiterate population: the
clergy intended that all parishioners understand their sermons. Further research is necessary to
understand the impact this sermon and others would have had on the largely illiterate populations
of Eastern Europe.
CONCLUSION
If anything, this preliminary research into the roots of Russian nationhood demonstrated the
importance of studying the last 1000 years of Russian history in order to fully appreciate the
origins of nationality and nationhood in Eastern Europe. Additionally, all of Russian history
must be examined, notably the early Orthodox texts that shaped the emerging Russian national
consciousness. In the Psalms and the Apocrypha we can see clearly how religious texts were
instrumental in defining nationhood. As Hastings eloquently demonstrated: “Without it [the
Bible] and its Christian interpretation and implementation, it is arguable that nations and
nationalism, as we know them, could never have existed.”[74] Alhough Hastings’ research
concentrates mainly on Western Europe, the same could be said of Eastern Orthodox
Christianity. It is clear from the first Slavonic Psalters and other religious documents that the
concept of “nation” was prevalent and that it was transferred from the Bible to the extant
populations of Kievan Rus’.
The question that remains is how long would it have taken for this understanding of nationhood
to seep into the consciousness of the peasantry? The extreme view that this occurred during the
Soviet regime is untenable: by the time of the Revolution, the Psalter had been rendered into a
fully modern Russian, and the reading of these Psalms was central to the religious practice of the
Russian Orthodox faithful. If the peasantry could not read, then the literate would read and
explain the psalms to the illiterate, and this is applicable to the non-schismatic Orthodox. David
Scheffel’s research[75] demonstrates that the Old Believers (schismatic Orthodox believers), not
having any clergy, learned from childhood to read the Old Church Slavonic texts. All told, it is
difficult to imagine from a theoretical perspective how the peasantry could not have acquired a
national consciousness, as the Russian Orthodox Church taught that God judged nations. The
question, then, is not whether the late 19th century peasantry had acquired a nationality, but
rather how early the peasantry would have acquired this sense of nationhood.
There are some indications that believers were exposed to the psalms in the medieval period. As
D. Kaiser’s research[76] demonstrates, wealthy residents of the Muscovite principality would
pay for someone to read the Psalter at their graves for a period of 40 days and nights. There is no
reason why any person listening to the psalms being read at this period should not have
understood the meaning of the text and its use of the word yazyk. In addition to the funerary
readings of the psalms, other avenues existed. John-Paul Himka is doing highly original research
examining the icon of the Last Judgement. In a chapter currently in press, “On the Left Hand of
God: ‘Peoples’ in Ukrainian Icons of the Last Judgement”, Himka examines the ways in which
peoples – for example, Jews, Turks, Tatars, Poles, Germans, Armenians, and even the Rus’
themselves – are depicted in traditional Ukrainian culture. Of particular importance in this icon is
the representation of those peoples that are being judged. Invariably they include the Jews and
other non-Orthodox populations (Poles, Germans, Tatars, Moors, etc…), though problematically,
the icons also include the Rus’ from time to time.[77] What is interesting is the way in which
these populations are typically depicted in the icon: they tend to be grouped together, they are
wearing distinctive clothing – one could label it “national” or “ethnic” dress – and their
physiognomy is represented in a stereotypical manner (John-Paul Himka, personal
communication). Not only are these populations represented in a manner suggesting
“nationality”, they are named to ensure that there can be no confusion. The icons that Himka has
been studying date back to the 15th century and demonstrate how the concept of nationhood
could have been transmitted visually to a largely illiterate population. This suggests that it is not
necessary for the entire population to be literate in order for the impact of a written language to
be felt. It suffices for some of the literate to communicate the message to the remaining
population (Himka, in press).
As an anthropologist, my concern is to study history in order to understand the processes that
shape extant populations. My survey of medieval Russian texts does not pretend to be
exhaustive, but even a cursory review of the rich literary tradition of Rus’ and Muscovy
demonstrates a need for researchers to revise their assumptions about the formation of the
Russian nation and nationalism. It is clear that we cannot begin with the 18th century (or even
the 20th) if we are truly going to understand the origins of the Russian nation. By the 12th
century, the terminology describing nationhood was already clearly established by the Biblical
texts. These ideas were then integrated into the earliest Chronicles and maintained themselves
throughout the medieval period. If we are to fully understand what was occurring during this
period, then we have to seriously examine this historical legacy. Not only were the words for
nation in use in the Primary Chronicle, we also have various usages and forms of the term
“Russkaya zemla”, Russian land, indicating a sense of “patris” (patria in Latin). This is addition
to words such as otechestvo and otchina that were in use in the Old Slavonic religious texts. We
cannot exclude religion and culture in the formation of nations. Rather, we need more research
into the ways in which Orthodoxy influence the peasantry. Also, this reading into the Russian
Psalter and other texts indicates some interesting paths for future research into the more recent
past. Questions that come to mind are, among others, how Stalin’s training in the Georgian
Orthodox Church influenced his vision of nation. Did he acquire an Orthodox view of the world
in which God judges nations collectively? It is only by understanding processes of the longue
durée, and in particular how religion influenced the emergence of nationhood prior to the
Revolution that we will better understand the political history of the Soviet period and the
question of nation and nationalism in the modern Russian Federation and among Russians and
others in the Russian Diaspora.
[1] Eric J. Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge, 1990. Pp. 44 – 45.
[2] Liah Greenfeld. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge and London, 1992.
[3] Charles Jerome Halperin. Master and Man in Muscovy // Alexander Presniakov. The
Tsardom of Muscovy. Translated by Robert F. Price. Gulf Breeze, Fl., 1978.; Idem. Russia and
the Golden Horde. Bloomington, 1985; Idem. The Russian Land and the Russian Tsar: The
Emergence of Muscovite Ideology, 1380-1408. Columbia University, 1973; Idem. The Tatar
Yoke. Columbus, Ohio, 1986.
[4] Adrian Hastings. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism.
Cambridge, 1997.
[5] The word narod still signifies a multitude of people in modern Russian as well as having the
meaning of “nation.”
[6] Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. Rev. Ed. London, 1991.
[7] Ernest Gellner. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford, 1983.
[8] Eric J. Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge, 1990.
[9] John Breuilly. Nationalism and the State. 2[10] ed. Manchester, 1993.
[11] Adrian Hastings. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism.
Cambridge, 1997.
[12] Ibid. P. 17.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid. P. 18.
[16] For the present exegesis, I have relied upon Biola University’s web-based Biblical research
tool, The Unbound Bible. This site provides a powerful tool for the analysis of the Bible with
search engines. The Biblical texts are available online in a number of versions and languages,
including the oldest Biblical languages–Latin Vulgate and Greek. The site is located at the
following address: http://unbound.biola.edu. (Site visited in January, 2001)
[17] This citation was taken from the University of Virginia’s electronic text, the online Koran.
This passage can be found in the chapter “The Cow” verse 2.213. To go to the online Koran,
visit this site: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/koran.html. Site accessed on November 30, 2000.
[18] Matthew Henry, a 17th and early 18th Century minister of the Gospel in Chester, England,
understood this particular passage thus: “There is now no difference arising from different
country or different condition and circumstance of life: it is as much the duty of the one as of the
other to be holy, and as much the privilege of the one as of the other to receive from God the
grace to be so” –
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/comm_read/980743263.html, January 28, 2001.
[19] The Koran, as the Russian Orthodox Psalters, does indicate that those nations not true to
faith and word of Allah will be judged collectively. This passage from the Koran, “The Ant”
verses 27.82-85 provides a description of the Final Judgment: “And when the word shall come to
pass against them, We shall bring forth for them a creature from the earth that shall i wound
them, because people did not believe in Our communications. And on the day when We will
gather from every nation a party from among those who rejected Our communications, then they
shall be formed into groups. Until when they come, He will say: Did you reject My
communications while you had no comprehensive knowledge of them? Or what was it that you
did?” (Citation from the online Koran: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/koran.html. November 30,
2000).
[20] Adrian Hastings. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism. P.
18.
[21] Ibid. P. 23
[22] Josep R. Llobera. The God of Modernity: The Development of Nationalism in Western
Europe. Berg European Studies Series. Oxford and Providence, 1994. P. 3.
[23] Josep R. Llopera. State and Nation in Medieval France // Journal of Historical Sociology.
1994, Vol. 7. № 3. Pp. 342-62.
[24] The usage of the word patria in Latin diverges from the meaning of the word in the Greek
language. The Latin patria signifying land is equivalent to the Greek patris defined as one’s
native country, one’s fatherland or one’s native place – i.e. a city. The Greek word patria
signified lineage, kindred, family (see the Unbound Bible’s online Greek and Latin Lexicon for a
discussion of these words. Site, http://unbound.biola.edu, consulted January 26, 2001.
[25] See: John Armstrong. Nations Before Nationalism. Chapel Hill, 1982; Anthony D Smith.
The Problem of National Identity: Ancient, Medieval and Modern? // Ethnic and Racial Studies.
1994, Vol. 17. № 3. Pp. 375-99.
[26] David D. Laitin. Identity in Formation. Ithaca and London, 1998.
[27] Rogers Brubaker. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New
Europe, 1996.
[28] Ronald Grigor Suny. The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of
the Soviet Union. Stanford, 1993.
[29] Eric J. Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge, 1990.
[30] Liah Greenfeld. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge and London, 1992. P.
203.
[31] George P. Fedotov. The Russian Religious Mind (I): Kievan Christianity. The 10th to the
13th Centuries. // Collected works by George P. Fedotov. Vol. 3. Belmont, Mass., 1975. P. 42.
[32] M. V. Shchepkina. Miniatyury Khudovskoy Psaltyri. Moscow, 1977. P. 315.
[33] Daniel H. Kaiser. Death and Dying in Early Modern Russia // Nancy Shields Kollman (Ed.).
Major Problems in Early Modern Russian History (Articles on Russian and Soviet History 15001991). New York and London, 1992. P. 237.
[34] David Scheffel. In the Shadow of the Antichrist: The Old Believers of Alberta.
Peterborough, Ontario, 1991. P. 106.
[35] Vera Shevzov. Chapels and the Ecclesial World of Prerevolutionary Russian Peasants. //
Slavic Review. 1996, Vol. 55. № 3. Pp. 585-613.
[36] Ibid. P. 595.
[37] Prerevolutionary orthography was slightly different from modern Russian orthography. A
few additional letters were in use. To simply these citations, I have simply inserted the
equivalent modern Russian letters representing the sounds of the older Russian letters no longer
in use. Likewise, when presenting excerpts from Old Slavonic texts, I will substitute the modern
Russian letters in lieu of the archaic lettering, while striving to maintain the sound and integrity
of the original.
[38] George P Fedotov. The Russian Religious Mind (I): Kievan Christianity. The 10th to the
13th Centuries. P. 405.
[39] Ibid. P. 325.
[40] It should be noted that by this period the word nation (нация/natsiia) was already known in
Russia. However, in late 19[41] century dictionaries, the reader is directed from нация (nation)
to народ (narod). Likewise, when looking up национальность (nationality), the reader was
directed to the word народность (narodnost).
[42] Neil Melvinl. Nations Abroad : Diaspora Politics and International Relations in the Former
Soviet Union. Boulder, Colorado, 1998; Russians Beyond Russia: The Politics of National
Identity. London, 1995.
[43] Again, I have substituted modern Russian letters for the archaic letters of Old Slavonic and
Old Russian. It should be noted that in the older Psalms the word for God is rarely spelled out.
The name of God is presented as a contraction.
[44] When I first examined the Old Slavonic Psalms, I assumed the words языки(ы)/языци to be
the same word with perhaps variations due to factors that I did not understand. However, in
examining this word in its context and comparing it to various Biblical translations, I came to the
conclusion that these were two unique words, one representing pagan nations (языци). It seemed
that the two were used consistently with two slightly different meanings attached to them.
However, in conferring with other scholars, I was told that the two spellings are likely different
grammatical forms of the same word. Irregardless, whether one word or two, the essence does
not change: Old Church Slavonic had at least one word that clearly delimited the concept of
nation and this word is found not only in the Psalter and other Biblical texts, but equally in other
early Church Slavonic texts. At times, the meaning denoted is that of “Heathen nation” at other
times simply “nation”. This is not necessarily inconsistent with the original Greek texts as the
word ethnos depending on its context was used to signify Gentiles, nation, heathen, and people
(information gathered from the Unbound Bible Greek Lexicon (http://unbound.biola.edu) on
February 6, 2001. What is particularly interesting is that the word for ethnos in Old Church
Slavonic is the same as the principal word for language, which is not the case in Biblical Greek.
[45] Lavoslav Geitler. Psalterium Glagolski Spomenik Manastira Sinai Brda (Psalter From the
Mount Sinai Monastery). Zagreb, 1883. P. 43.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Information obtained from the Biola University online Greek and Hebrew Lexicon located
at the following site: http://unbound.biola.edu/.
[48] Lavoslav Geitler. Psalterium Glagolski Spomenik Manastira Sinai Brda. Pp. 134 – 135.
[49] Psaltyr'. St. Petersburg, 1904. P. 78.
[50] Franz Mikosich. Dictionnaire Abrégé De Six Langues Slaves (Russe, Vieux-Slave, Bulgare,
Serbe, Tchèque Et Polonais) Ainsi Que Français Et Allemand. (Abbreviated Dictionary of Six
Slavic Languages in Addition to French and German). Moscow, St. Petersburg and Vienna,
1885. Pp. 382-383.
[51] George P Fedotov. The Russian Religious Mind (I): Kievan Christianity. The 10th to the
13th Centuries. P. 43.
[52] For an example of the use of these terms, see: André Vaillant. Le Livre Des Secrets
D'Hénoch: Texte Slave Et Traduction Française. Paris, 1952. P. 70.
[53] Ryszard Rubinkiewicz. L'Apocalypse D'Abraham En Vieux Slave. Introduction, Texte
Critique, Traduction Et Commentaire. Lublin, 1987. P. 192.
[54] Ibid. P. 193.
[55] Ibid. P. 186.
[56] Ibid. P. 174.
[57] See Valerii Pogorelov. Chudovskaya Psaltyr' XI Veka, Otryvok Tolkovaniya Feodorita
Kirrskogo Na Psaltyr' v Drevne-Bolgarskom Perevode.C Prilojeniem Dvukh Fototipicheskikh
Snimkov. (Chudovskya Psalter XI Century). // Pamyatniki Staroslavyanskogo Yazyka. Vol. III.
Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1910. P. 19.
[58] Psaltyr’ so vozledovaniem. Moscow. 1640. Manuscript available at the University of
Alberta on microfilm.
[59] See John Fennell and Dimitri Obolensky. Metropolitan Ilarion: Sermon on Law and Grace //
John Fennell and Dimitri Obolensky (Eds.) A Historical Russian Reader. Oxford, 1969.
[60] Psaltyr' 1683 Goda v Perevode Avramiya Firsova / Preparation of text, lexical index and
introductory remarks by Elena A. Tselynova. München, 1989.
[61] Ibid. P. 60.
[62] See Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey. Leningrad, 1926. P. 4.
[63] Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Eds. and transl.). The Russian
Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Mass., 1953. P. 52.
[64] Ibid. P. 55.
[65] As was the case elsewhere in this text, I am reproducing the text using modern Russian
orthography. Barring any misspellings I may unintentionally introduce to any of these texts, the
meaning is nonetheless preserved in the transcription.
[66] See Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey. Leningrad, 1926. P. 11.
[67] Ibid. P. 6.
[68] Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Eds. and transl.). The Russian
Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. P. 56.
[69] Ibid. P. 58.
[70] See Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey. Leningrad, 1926. P. 18.
[71] Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Eds. and transl.). The Russian
Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Pp. 62-63.
[72] Ibid. P. 63.
[73] See Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey. Leningrad, 1926. P. 27.
[74] Ibid. Vol. 2. Leningrad, 1927. P. 313 as one example of the use of narod in the sense of the
people of Kiev.
[75] John Fennell and Dimitri Obolensky. Metropolitan Ilarion: Sermon on Law and Grace //
John Fennell and Dimitri Obolensky (Eds.) A Historical Russian Russian Reader. Oxford, 1969.
P. 1.
[76] Adrian Hastings. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism. P.
4.
[77] David Scheffel. In the Shadow of the Antichrist: The Old Believers of Alberta.
[78] Daniel H. Kaiser. Death and Dying in Early Modern Russia.
[79] Himka (in press) suggests that this inconsistency is the result of two iconic traditions being
merged. In one, the damned peoples are represented and in the other, those peoples waiting to be
judged are being represented by the icon painters. To cite Himka: “The presence of Moses and
the Jews probably inspired the painters to choose mainly condemnable nations for that section of
the icon, but the universality of the judgement probably led some painters to include Rus’ (and
Greeks and Cossacks)”.