540 SEER, 8o, 3, 2002 to bear his/her own values and particularnational perspective, a fact which, in fairness,Bojt'arimplicitlyrecognizes in his frequentasides.Above all, he is careful to avoid taking up 'the ridiculous banner of the champion of truth' (p. 356) and claiminga monopoly on genuine scholarship.Rather,he declares the more modest ambition of satisfyinghis readers'curiosityand producing a work which will aid future scholars working in the field. In both of these endeavourshe seems certainto succeed. Department ofEuropean Studies D. J. SMITH University ofBradford Lunde, Ingunn (ed.). Kirillof Turov.Bishop,Preacher, Hymnographer. Slavica Bergensia, 2. Department of Russian Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, 2000. 230 pp. Notes. Index. 8.oo: $I3.00 (paperback). IFone acceptsas authenticmost of theworksattributedto him, Kirillof Turov is the most prolific and varied known author from Pre-Mongol Rus, yet he occupies only a small niche in modern studies of the period. The reason for this comparative neglect is plain. Kirill was a churchman's churchman. His works -mainly prayers,hymns and festal homilies -are part of the inner historyof monasticworship,not partof (andnot sourcesfor)the outer history of public events, biographical narrative or political ideology, nor is he a particularlydistinctiveor influentialfigurein the broaderhistoryof Orthodox theology. Though his skillsas a practitioner are from time to time acknowledged (sometimes grudgingly), he has rarely compelled scholarly attention simply on the basis of what he has to say. The mainstream concerns of the medieval bookman are not necessarily the mainstream concerns of postmedieval academic research. All the more reason, therefore,to welcome this collection of essays.As far asI am aware,it isthe firstsbornik devoted exclusivelyto Kirillin anylanguage. Ingunn Lunde has assembled nine contributions from scholars in Norway, Sweden, Russia, Britain and the United States, illustrating a range of approaches to what she terms the CorpusCyrillianum. David Kirk Prestel examines Kirill's views on monasticism. Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath contributes a substantial investigation of Kirill's implied attitude to Jews. FedorDviniatin, Vladimir Kolesov (both of whose essaysare in Russian)and Ingunn Lunde herself analyse elements of Kirill's style and rhetoric. Mary MacRobert and Robert Romanchuk consider aspects of the manuscript traditionof his works,whileJoy Bache and EkaterinaRogatchevskaiaexplore hispresentationof selected themes (time,and sin). In herbriefforewordIngunn Lundeis cautiousin herclaimsforthevolume. She states no overall purpose, nor does she propose any general conclusion. Such reticence is sensible, and significant.It does not reflecton the qualityof the contributions,but it highlightsa persistentproblem in 'Kirillicstudies', a kind of endemic frustration.One would like to hope that, given the attention which he obviously merits, Kirill of Turov would emerge as a more clearly delineated individualwriter. The result,however, is the opposite. The closer the analysis,the harderit becomes -sometimes despite the intentions of the REVIEWS 541 scholar- to distinguishKirillfrom 'Kirill',to drawclearboundariesbetween the authenticand the spurious,the personaland the conventional. Forsome of the contributorsthe blurringof boundariesis in fact the point. Prestel, for example, argues that Kirill's conception of monasticism is very close to, and not paceFedotov -to be contrasted with, that which is conveyed in writingsfrom the Caves monasteryin Kiev. Pereswetoff-Morath maintainsthatthe anti-Jewishtheme in Kirill'ssermonsisnot a contemporary polemic against actualJews but merely a conventional mode of theological exegesis (typological,contrastive),promptedby the festalcontext (inan Easter cycle of sermons)ratherthan by currentsocial conflictor personalanimosity. Dviniatin, Lunde and Kolesov investigate the inner workings of Kirillic rhetoric but do not directly address the question of whether or how Kirill's methodsmight be distinctfromgenericconvention. Sometimesthe frustration becomes almost palpable, as when Dviniatin, after allowing that 'much in [Kirill's] text is inherited, borrowed, appropriated'exclaims 'but with such understanding!'(p. 93) as if Kirill's distinction and distinctivenesslies in the fact that he understoodwhat he was doing. The two textual studiesunderscore,in differentways, the mutabilityof the Kirillictradition.Romanchuk shows, in a nice piece of manuscriptdetectivework , that the Kirillic cycle of homilies was introduced into the KirilloBelozerskii monastery by the well known scribe Efrosin in the early I470S (though Romanchuk's claim that this was in the context of a 'rationalist bibliographicaltrendthatperceived texts quatexts' (p. I68) is lesspersuasive). MacRobert's collation of variantversionsof the cycles of prayersand hymns has wider implications. She demonstrates that the extant cycles are 'not necessarily the recognizable...