Sostoianie Rossiiskoi imperii. Zh. Marzheret v dokumentakh i issledovaniiakh. (Teksty, kommentani, stat'i) (review)

Abstract

reviews 555 unexpectedrecipients. A recurring themeis thatof the 'secretservant'of God, often abusedor condemned to menialwork, whosetruestatus is either revealedto a singleconfidant or remains hiddenuntilafter hisor herdeath. Ivanov'sanalysisfocuseson thetheological interpretations ofholymadness presented bythehagiographies, sincethisis themostcommontypeofsource inwhichtheyappear.But,as he himself freely admits, texts and their readers toan extent createdtheinstitution ofholyfoolery anditiswhenhestepsaway fromthetextsthathe presents hismostinteresting insights. As he remarks, theholyfoolis 'beyondhagiography' andbecomeswhatever peoplewanthim to be. Thus whendealingwiththemoremodernRussianexamples, Ivanov demonstrates how local enthusiasm and veneration, as in the case of the peasantAlekseiVoroshin(d. 1937)couldlead to canonization in 2000,even if,as in thiscase,itis possiblethepersonin questionwas genuinely insane. Butwhyshouldthistypeofbehaviour or condition producesucha strong popularresonance and response? Whilepresenting manyexamplesofpopular admiration ofholyfools,Ivanovdoes notreallyexplainit.Here one wishes he had probed a littlemore into the social and ecclesiastical contextof Byzantine holyfoolery, whichappears,in theOrthodoxtradition at least,to be somewhat likean underground stream; alwaysthere, butbubbling to the surface from timetotime.But,whywas therea resurgence ofinterest in,and hagiography about,holyfoolsin Byzantium in thelate tenthcentury after a relatively thinperiodfollowing the condemnation of such behaviourat theCouncilin Trullo(692)?Whydoes holyfoolery seemto be in declinein the Late ByzantineEmpire?Ivanov suggests thatsince issuesof religious 'uniformity' and 'conformity' wereofsuchimportance duringtheiconoclast period(as indeed theywere to be laterwhen Turkishexpansionput the survivalof the ChristianEmpire under threat),unconventional spiritual behaviour was notencouraged. Buthe doesnotdiscuss thepossiblecorollary: thatreligious eccentricity might, in fact,flourish at periodsof spiritual and political'confidence'. Ivanov seemson muchfirmer groundwhenhe deals withtheRussianmaterial; Ivan theTerrible 's espousing of'holyfoolery' as a form ofpoliticalexpression and PetertheGreat'sabhorrence ofitare both precisely locatedagainsttheirsocialand politicalbackgrounds. Thoughone couldhavewishedformorediscussion ofthe'why?'and 'wherefore?' ofholy foolery, Ivanov'sstudyis nonetheless an invaluableguideto thesourcesfor one ofthemostintriguing aspectsofOrthodoxspirituality. Department ofHistory RosemaryMorris University ofYork Marzheret, Zhak [Jacques Margeret]. Sostoianie Rossiiskoi imperii. %h.Marzheret v dokumentakh i issledovaniiakh. (Teksty, /commentarii, stat'ï). Pod redaktsiei An. Berelovicha,V. D. Nazarova, chl.-korr. RAN P. Iu. Uvarova. Studia Histórica.Iazyki slavianskikh kul'tur,Moscow, 2007. 552 pp. Genealogicaltable.Illustrations. Notes.Indexes.Priceunknown. CaptainJacques Margeret is one ofthebestknownoftheforeign participantsin theRussianTime ofTroubleswho leftaccountsoftheseturbulent 556 SEER> 87> 3> JULY 2009 events. A newscholarly edition ofhisState ofthe Russian Empire, first published in Paris in 1607,comprises onlyone sectionof the volumeunderreview, thewelcomeproduct ofa Russo-French research projectdevotedtorelations betweenMuscovyand Francein thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Margeretfirst wentto Russia in 1600,and enteredthe serviceof Tsar BorisGodunov.After Boris'sdeathin 1605and theoverthrow ofthegovernmentof his son Fedor,Margerettransferred his loyalty to the FirstFalse Dmitrii and becamea commander ofthepretender's palace guard.Following Tsar Dmitrii's assassination inMay 1606Margeret returned toFrance,where his accountof Russia was written at the requestof King Henri IV. The presenteditionof the workis based on a copy of the first editionin the NationalLibrary ofFranceon whicheighteen corrections and sixerrata(all fairly minor)are notedas marginalia. The Frenchtextis followed bya new Russiantranslation withdetailedcommentary on thecontent; itis preceded byan article bythethreeeditors outlining thepublication history ofthework through itsvariousFrencheditions and foreign translations (theonlyEnglish version is ChesterDunning'sannotated translation of1983). The secondsectionof theworkis entitled 'J.Margeretin Russianand foreign archives'.Most of the documents publishedhere,whichare again providedwith usefuleditorialcommentaries, relate to Margeret'slater activity. The Frenchcaptainreturned to Russiain 1609-11as a memberof HetmánStanislawZóHriewski's invadingforcewhichoccupiedtheMoscow Kremlin.He subsequently made an unsuccessful bid tojoin PrinceD. M. Pozharskii's militiawhichliberated Moscow fromthePoles in 161 2; and in 1613 he sentKingJamesI a letter proposing English intervention inthenorth ofRussia.Thisintriguing proposalwasfirst attributed toMargeret byChester Dunning,who publishedtheFrenchoriginal withan Englishtranslation in theSlavonic andEastEuropean Review in 1989;theworkunderreviewcontains itsfirst translation intoRussian. The third sectionofthebookcomprises accountsofMargeret's activity in Muscovy inextracts from works bythree contemporaries: JacquesAuguste De Thou's History ofhisTime; Isaac Massa's Short History; and Conrad Bussow's MoscowChronicle. The finalsectioncontainstwo scholarlyarticles.André Berelowitch presents the results of his carefulinvestigations in the French archivesinto Margeret'sbiography:he demonstrates that the genealogy presented bytwomembers oftheMargeret family in 1699,withtheaim of claiming noblestatus, doesnotcorrespond withtheinformation contained in earlier sources about'our'CaptainMargeret, andhespeculates onthereasons forthesediscrepancies. VladislavNazarov'sarticleon Margeret's activity in Russiaengages inplausible conjecture onthesources oftheinformation which Margeret conveyed inhisState ofthe Russian Empire. Nazarovalso suggests that Margeret's'illness'on the nightof Tsar Dmitrii'smurdermay have been simply a pretext forthebodyguard's defection from thepretender's cause to thatofhissuccessor, VasiliiShuiskii; and he arguesthatPozharskii's claim thatMargeret servedtheSecondFalseDmitrii at Tushinowas incorrect, and was intended onlyto discredit thecaptain. Although Margeret's biography providesan instructive case-study of...