Was ist 'altrussische Literatur'? by Hans s> Rothe (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 321 (of nouns, for example), which would make the structure of the language easier to grasp. Some of the descriptionsand explanations are couched in the language of linguistic scholarship, rather than in terms accessible to the average language student, and are, at times, rather complex, requiring an efforton the part of a non-specialistuserof the book. The authors exercise circumspection in defining standardUkrainian. This is understandable,as the language was not allowed to develop freely for most of its modern existence. However, measures are now being taken in Ukraine to define and evolve standardsand to impose norms. Criticismsof these are frequently expressed by academics and the population but, apart from a limited number of contentious issues, one finds a significant degree of consensus as to perceptions of standard literary language among true Ukrainian native speakers,that is, those who learnt the language at home and were educated in it. A more coherent approachby the authorsto definingthe modern standardlanguagewould have been veryuseful,especiallyto students. Each grammarpoint is amply illustrated,but the examples are not always labelled as to register, variety, dialect, etc., or whether they are historical, outdated or used mainly in the diaspora. Some phrases are marked as being rareor archaic, but this stillleaves a large numberwhich are not labelled and are unlikelyto be used in currentspoken or writtenUkrainian. The inclusion of fewerexamples of thiscategory, and more from contemporarymassmedia, would have resulted in a more balanced view of current Ukrainian. An indication of which of two or more variants is the preferred choice of the average educated Ukrainianwould also have been very helpful. The infrequenttypographicaland othererrors,and inconsistenttransliteration of Ukrainian place names, do not create problems for the user and may easilybe correctedin futureeditions. Notwithstanding the above reservations, the publication of Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar is to be welcomed as a significantstep in assertingthe position of Ukrainianamong Slavonic and worldlanguagesand promoting its studyand teaching in the English-speakingworld. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies MARTA JENKALA University College London Rothe, Hans. Wasist 'altrussische Literatur'? Nordrhein-WestfalischeAkademie der Wissenschaften.VortrageG, 362. WestdeutscherVerlag,Wiesbaden, 2000. 9I pp. Notes. Appendix:Maps. Index. DM 24.00. ALTHOUGH modestly published as a 'lecture', this studyis far more than that: itsaim isto establishthepreconditionsand historicalbasisforthe development of literaturein Kievan Russia. In his preface Hans Rothe advises those who dislike scepticism to remember the Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe before he had seen the evidence (John 20:25). If Rothe is a sceptic, then this reviewer is a pyrrhonist, e.g. the charter and will of Anthony the Roman (t 1147) are almost certainlysixteenth-centuryforgeries,whereasRothe accepts their authenticity (p. 4', n. I I4); the idea that Xylourgou on Athos was an East Slav hermitage in the eleventh century (p. 74) owes more to Vladimir 322 SEER, 8o, 2, 2002 Moshin's chimerical historyof East Slav-Athoniterelationsthan to a studyof the facts, as a perusal of this reviewer'sarticle on the origins of the principal Slav monasterieson Athos (Byzantinoslavica, 57, I996, pp. 310-50) will reveal. Nevertheless, Rothe has rightlychallenged many widely held opinions which are not rooted in historicalfact and some of his sarcasticremarkswill amuse the unbiased reader, e.g. on Lidiia Zhukovskaia'scalculation that there must have been some I49,200 MSS in Kievan Russia he comments: 'Acalculation of the number of lambswhich would have to have been slaughteredeveryday for this has not as yet been published'(p. 68, n. 232). It is typical that he objects (pp. 27-31) to each constituent term in the expression 'the historyof Old Russian literature':'history'is misleading since most of the workscannot be chronologicallydated and hence there can be no portrayalof the development of ideas and genres;'old' is questionable since it is usuallyapplied to the seven-hundred-yearperiod down to Peterthe Great, which overlooks the fact that the Kievan period has its own peculiar characteristicsincludingcloserlinkswith theWestand greaterdependency on the patriarchateof Constantinoplethan in latertimes;with regardto 'Russian' he quotes Vasilii Istrin's statement that 'the literature of the eleventh to thirteenthcenturieswas neither Great Russian, nor LittleRussian, nor White Russian, but was 'Common Russian' (obshcherusskii) or, more accurately, simply 'Russian', on which he comments that it is a postulate with which Ukrainians and White Russians will scarcely agree and...