Further Remarks on the Problem of Old Russian Culture

Abstract

The attempt of certain scholars to differentiate sharply between and and to see in them two distinct cultures with only tenuous historical and geographical connections with each other seems to me unjustified. Professor G. Florovsky already gave an answer on the essence of this problem; however, I should like to strengthen the decisiveness of his objections and somewhat supplement them. It is inaccurate to see a territorial break between Muscovite and Kievan Rus. is a conventional designation. Kievan Rus was not limited to Kiev and its immediate surroundings. The great political and cultural role of Novgorod, first in Kievan Rus and later in Muscovite Rus, is well known. In the twelfth century the VladimirSuzdalian land-the land in which Moscow developed-acquired outstanding importance in Kievan Rus. The architecture of VladimirSuzdal was perhaps the best in Kievan Rus, and the literature, composition of chronicles, and painting of Vladimir in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were not inferior to that of Kiev proper. Despite political fragmentation, in the realm of culture Kievan Rus constituted