Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, C. 950-1300 by Simon s> Franklin (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 7I5 variousgrammarsand dictionariesthe author then offersa new model for the lexicographicaldescriptionof thisverb. In all the chapters of this book the author has thoroughly researched the existingliteratureon the points covered and provideda conclusion on modern usage which willbe invaluableforgrammariansand lexicographerswho often treatthese subjectsin a cursoryfashion. This book will be a welcome addition to the field of Serbo-Croatianscholarship. Department ofSlavonic Studies PETER HERRITY University ofNottingham Franklin, Simon. Writing,Societyand Culturein Early Rus, c. 950-I300. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2002. xvi + 325 pp. Map. Notes. Illustrations.Bibliography.Index. ?45.o0. YURII LOTMAN famously developed the concept of the 'semiosphere'; that universe of meaningfulnessthat envelops our lives. By the same token Simon Franklincould be said to have taken as his subjectthe 'graphosphere'of Rus in its early centuries: its world of graphic signs, most obviously but not exclusivelyusing coherent alphabetic script,and certainlynot limited to what was once termed 'literature'.Simply listing and briefly describing the many graphic phenomena involved takes up the firstpart of his remarkablebook; the second ranges more deeply into culture generally, linkingwriting in turn with socialorganization,learning,picturesand magic (fertiletopicsall,though not necessarilythose that other scholarsmight have chosen). These are exciting times for the history of writing in Rus. Till the midtwentieth century 'writing', as Franklinreminds us, largely meant books studied,as I seem to recollectfromfar-offundergraduatedays, to some extent as examples of literature (few satisfiedthe criteria),partly as rather unsatisfactoryhistoricalsources , largely as specimens relatingto the development of the Russianlanguage. But 'thanksto the successesof archaeology,the quantity and range of availablewritten sourcesgrow year by year' (p. 9), and Franklin makes an up-to-date report on, particularly,the wealth of objects recovered from the anaerobic Novgorod subsoil. The first Novgorodian birchbark documents were identified c. 1950, to general incredulity; now roughly a thousand are known, including examples from several other Old Russian cities and even one or two in non-Slavonic languages or scripts. One from Smolenskcarriesa Scandinavianrunic inscription;one from Novgorod (midthirteenth century) carries, in Cyrillic script, 'the earliest survivingspecimen of Baltic-Finnishlanguage, pre-datingall other examples by severalcenturies' (p. i i 6; however, this ignores the fourteenth-century'Old Testament Trinity' icon now in Vologda that carries a long inscription in the Komi or Permian language, sole relic of St Stephen of Perm's missionary activity). Franklinis even able to discuss a unique, and very early, pre-Io3os, wooden 'book' of wvaxed tablets that emerged from the Novgorod excavations of 2000. These and many other kinds of objects, mostly on a much humbler level than expensiveparchmentmanuscripts,aregraduallyproducing a roundedpicture of early culture in Rus: meanwhile Russian scholars need no longer be 7I6 SEER, 8i, 4, 2003 constrained by a Marxisant socio-historical determinism in the interpretation of these early culturalphenomena (hence the wild theories that nowadays get an airing). The birchbark documents, largely concerned with domestic matters and trade transactions,are interestingnot only for what they say but forwhat they omit to say. 'Deconstructing'them and otherpieces of evidence, Franklincomes to the interestingconclusion that in complete contrastto its culturalmentors, Byzantium and Slav Bulgaria Rus scarcely used writing for administrativepurposesat all:a sign of the strengthof itspre-literatesocial organization. So much has been discoveredor clarifiedrecently about the 'graphosphere' of Rus that it may come as a surpriseto realize that several older problems, mostly to do with the origins of Russian and Slav writing, remain unsolved. To what extent was writing a developed activity before the Conversion of 988-89? Sceptics assertthat Rus (like several northern European lands) had no past in classical antiquity and hence lacked awareness of any tradition of writtendocumentsand inscribedstonework;theywill admitasearlierevidence (e.g.) odd scratchedletterson pottery.The counter-argumentwould point out that fromitsearlyyearsas a tradingoutfit,Rus in facthad importantfootholds on the classicalGreek territoryof Crimea and elsewherealong the BlackSea, including the whole of one of its constituent principalities (Tmutorokan where significantearly finds have been made). Rus was in close contact with all three 'religions of the book', and Kiev had a Christian faction, implying literacy, from at least the time of the regent Olga. Franklinmentions and illustratesan astonishing early ninth-century document that has found its wayto CambridgeUniversityLibrary relatingtoJewish merchantsresident in Kiev; it is in Hebrew with a brief endorsement...