A Different Approach to the Intellectual
The reasons for intellectual silence in Rus have been a topic of much debate
among distinguished professors over many years without yielding conclusive results.
Though the question is of such a nature that it may never be given a definitive answer,
perhaps the difficulty in answering it arises from the fact that the nature of
intellectuality in Rus is being misunderstood. So far, the intellectual silence has been
described, as Georges Florovsky put it in his essay “The Problem of Old Russian
Culture,” as “nothing original and outstanding ... in the realm of ideas, theological or
secular,” (12). This was based on the assumption that the Rus had no exceptional ideas
because we can’t find any evidence of them in writing, and stemmed from the
assumption that the Rus should have presented their intellectual activity in the same
way that their neighbors did. The true intellect of Rus can be uncovered by examining
their approach to thought through their adaptation of other cultures and organization
of books. The phrase “intellectual silence” is only appropriate for describing Rus when
speaking of Western thought and expectations. It is more relevant to ask what the
intellectual developments of Rus were, if they are not immediately apparent to an
outsider.
When Rus converted to Christianity it also inherited many of the attached
cultural developments of Byzantium. Among these were art and architecture, areas that
the Rus learned to thrive in both stylistically and creatively (Andreyev 20-21). These
advances were themselves evidence of intellect in Rus, requiring ingenuity and cultural
expression. However, in many ways the Byzantine influence was neither necessary nor
helpful in the development of intellectual expression in Rus. Florovsky suggests that
Byzantium offered too much to the Rus at once and that not all of it could be absorbed
(13). Perhaps a more accurate interpretation would be that not all the aspects of
Byzantine culture were conducive to Russian intellectual voice. The Igor Tale, despite
originating in a Christian nation, uses many pagan references as literary devices, calling
the Rus “Dahzbog’s Grandchildren” and using animals common in Russian folklore as
symbols (“Igor”; Haney). This shows that, though ultimately representing God’s
power, the author of the tale didn’t have adequate tools from Christian Byzantine
literature to express his ideas in the form of quality literature. Thus, the Rus took from
Byzantium what they could use and stuck to their old traditions where it was the best
outlet for expression.
This utilization of the useful aspects of Byzantine culture is reflected in many
significant texts from the Kievan period. Hilarion’s “Sermon on Law and Grace”
describes how the law comes before grace and truth and cites as example the coming of
the law through Moses, followed by the coming of grace with Jesus (“Law,” 87). A
parallel can be seen in history with Byzantine Christianity as the law and the Russian
interpretation and integration as grace. This shows that Rus didn’t just accept outside
cultures blindly, but rather fit the relevant parts into their own traditions. It would be
unfair to expect the Rus to adapt Byzantine culture entirely and to express their ideas in
the same way.
The Rus drew from many different cultural influences besides Byzantium.
Florovsky explains that, “Kievan Russia was not isolated from the rest of the Slavic
world, as it was not separated from Byzantium and the West, or from the East,” (7).
This contradicts Nikolay Andreyev’s assertion that the Rus were cut off from the West
by the Mongols (21). However, Florovsky’s argument is more realistic because
Novgorod and Galich weren’t destroyed and trade didn’t cease (Andreyev, 20). Also,
many princes and princesses married outside of Rus, making Polovtsian, European, and
Byzantine connections (Waugh, “Regional”). This collection of cultural sources that the
Rus drew on is reflected in the number of sources that were used when making books
in the Chetii Sborniki category, as William R. Veder described them in his “Old Russia’s
‘Intellectual Silence’ Reconsidered.” These books are disorganized, containing excerpts
from different sources in a seemingly random order. Veder suggests that these texts
“may function merely ‘as its catalyst,’ or as ‘a kind of reminder,’” and that the reader
“’is not only a listener, he is a creator,’” (5). Thus the seemingly disorganized, limited,
and rare books of Kievan Rus could have really been tools to stimulate thought, rather
than the misunderstood copies of an underdeveloped literacy. This practice of drawing
on old, respected texts shows that the Rus valued their past and the ideas of their
ancestors. Instead of writing lots of new texts, the Rus reinterpreted their old favorites.
The practice of finding new interpretations for old texts is related to the artistic
custom of copying divinely inspired icons (Waugh, “Christian”). Rather than writing
and circulating new texts, the old were kept and recopied, though often only partially,
out of order, and combined with other texts. Readers could interpret the revered texts
in a different way every time they read, but the material was the same. The Chronicle
quotes the Bible in many places, giving interpretation to an excerpt by connecting it
with an event. When Vladimir converts to Christianity, the Primary Chronicle asserts
that this “fulfilled in the Russian land the prophecy which says: ‘In those days, the deaf
shall hear words of Scripture, and the voice of the stammerers shall be made plain,’”
(“Chronicle” 71). This passage from their translated Bible was not written with the
conversion of the Rus in mind, but nevertheless, its application here gives it a new
meaning. Hilarion also brought new meaning to a Bible passage when he connected the
story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar to his message about law and grace (87). Thus old
texts were given new life through different intellectual interpretations.
Quoting texts to support a point is an aspect of intellectual debate that we use
even today in scholastic writing. The texts from Rus mostly quote the Bible, but even
this shows that they had some concept of structure similar to the ideals of the West. In
his “Instruction,” Vladimir Monomakh supported the points that he made about being
good Christians with many Bible passages, showing his extensive knowledge of the
psalms (“Monomakh” 94-96). This doesn’t necessarily mean that Monomakh could
read and write because he could have memorized the Psalms and dictated his
“Instruction.” However, the fact that he mentions reading his psalter and then copying
the passage is strong evidence that he could do both. Nevertheless, the uncertainty of
his literacy shows that it was not necessary in order to have a knowledge of the Bible
and interpret it.
Knowledge was transported throughout Rus even when many people were not
literate. According to Alexander N. Konrad, pilgrimages to Jerusalem and
Constantinople were common by the eleventh century. Even the blessed Theodosius
wanted to follow the pilgrims and see the holy places, against the will of his mother
(“Theodosius” 121). These people “were often considered synonymous or closely
comparable with heroic figures,” and “were in a favorable position of being able to
communicate knowledge otherwise accessible only to the limited group of the
educated,” (Konrad, 8). This shows that the pilgrims served to spread knowledge
where books and literacy could not. As seekers and spreaders of knowledge, they were
respected and even treated as heroes, showing that the Rus valued wisdom. It also
implies that the pilgrims were the Russian version of the West’s intellectuals. This
interpretation shows that the Russian intellect was one of active, physical searching and
the spread of knowledge orally and through stories of experiences. Of course, this was
not the only method employed, but it seems to be the best for relating to the masses.
Despite their rarity, books were very important and valued by the Rus. The
Primary Chronicle praises Yaroslav the Wise because he “wrote and collected many
books through which true believers are instructed and enjoy religious education,”
(“Chronicle” 72). This shows that books were used and respected among the princes
and clergy, since a member of the church probably wrote this passage. Konrad
explained that later Church lists of apocrypha testify that “’these heretical works were
often saved by their readers, preserved in thick volumes in village libraries, and
distributed to readers at large, many of whom were themselves members of the
clergy,’” (5). The mention of the village library shows that eventually the greater public
had access to books and their knowledge.
Access to books would not necessarily mean that they were widely read. One
reason that thought and the spread of knowledge are not obvious in medieval Russia is
that “every attempt to lean on the secular sciences and education was considered
heresy,” (Konrad, 3). Also, literacy was not “stimulated by any specific needs or
requirements, whether juridical, commercial, administrative, political, or “feudal”... or
in the habits of thought,” (Franklin, 38). Thus writing was neither necessary for the
spread of ideas nor appropriate for the task, considering the views of the Church.
At first glance Rus may seem to have an “intellectual silence” to our minds trained in
Western thought, but if we listen carefully we will see that this is not true. The
intellectual noise of Rus is in most cases not written, but the thought-stimulating
arrangement of the books of the elite as well as the popularity of the apocrypha among
the masses show that intellect was alive. The pilgrims to the holy lands served as
conveyors of knowledge as they searched for meaning and became the Russian
equivalent to the Western intellectual. Despite the Church’s power, there is still
evidence of pagan traditions, especially where the cultural offerings of Byzantium were
not adequate for Russian expression. Thus there is evidence of weak intellectual
activity among the Rus, even if there is little to no output. There is enough here to make
it inappropriate to speak of the “intellectual silence” of Rus, though further
investigation needs to be made into just how “loud” the intellectual noise of Rus was.
Certainly, their lack of written intellectual material makes their communication of ideas
with the outside world practically nonexistent, so if “intellectual noise” is defined as
what outsiders hear, then Rus was exceedingly “soft.” However, if “intellectual noise”
is valued by its uniqueness, the Rus were at a high level. By not simply accepting
complete, pre-made culture from Byzantium or its other connections, Rus showed that
it was original. Also, by becoming literate but not relying on writing for the purposes of
government and circulation of ideas, the Rus showed that they had a memory oriented
intellect rather than a written one. This approach is in some ways better, since they
were not dependent on books to think and learn. The Rus were intellectually softspoken, so the noise they made deserves careful listening rather than dismissal.
Works Cited
Andreyev, Nikolay. “Pagan and Christian Elements in Old Russia.” Slavic Review, Vol.
21, No. 1. (Mar., 1962). 16-23. JSTOR. University of Washington Libraries. 27
October 2004. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6779%28196203%2921%3A1
%3C16%3APACEIO%3E2.0.CO%3B>.
“Commentary” Trans. J. A. V. Haney and Eric Dahl. Russian 321. 1992. 21 October
2004. <http://faculty.washington.edu/dwaugh/rus/texts/igorcm.htm>.
Florovsky, Georges. “The Problem of Old Russian Culture.” Slavonic Review, Vol. 21,
No. 1. (Mar., 1962). 1-15. JSTOR. University of Washington Libraries. 27
October 2004. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6779%28196203%2921%3
A1%3C1%3ATPOORC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%>.
Franklin, Simon. “Literacy and Documentation in Early Medieval Rus.” Speculum, Vol.
60, No. 1. (Jan., 1985). 1-38. JSTOR. University of Washington Libraries. 27
October 2004. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-7134%28198501
%2960%3A1%3C1%3ALADIEM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S>.
Konrad, Alexander N. “Forbidden Literature in Old Russia: Its Rivalry with “Holy”
Writings.” Russian 321. 1972. 21 October 2004. <http://faculty.washington.
edu/dwaugh/hstam443/materials/texts/konrad.html>.
“On Igor’s Campaign.” Trans. J. A. V. Haney and Eric Dahl. Russian 321. 1992. 21
October 2004. <http://faculty.washington.edu/dwaugh/rus/texts/
igortxt2.htm#3>.
“Life of our Blessed Father Theodesius, Abbot of the Crypt Monastery.” Zenkovsky
116-134.
“Metropolitan Hilarion: Sermon on Law and Grace.” Zenkovsky 85-90.
“Stories From the Primary Chronicle.” Zenkovsky 43-77.
Veder, William R. “Old Russia’s ‘Intellectual Silence’ Reconsidered.” California Slavic
Studies. XIX (1994): 18-28. 27 October 2004. <http://faculty.washington.edu/
dwaugh/hstam443/materials/texts/veder.html>.
“Vladimir Monomakh: Instruction to his Children.” Zenkovsky 92-100.
Waugh, Daniel C. ”The Origins of Byzantine Christian Iconography.” Russian 321.
2000. 21 October 2004.
<http://faculty.washington.edu/dwaugh/hstam443/materials/art/xticon.htm>
.
---. ”Regional Centers.” Raitt 121, Seattle. 25 October 2004.
Zenkovsky, Serge A., ed. Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Group, 1963.