Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrowski

The Curious (and Happy) Story of an Important Source for Muscovite Cultural History: The Dormition Cathedral of the Mother of God Monastery in Sviiazhsk

Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrowski. Brian J. Boeck, Russell E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2012, 353–68.       The Curious (and Happy) Story of an Important Source for Muscovite Cultural History: The Dormition Cathedral of the Mother of God Monastery in Sviiazhsk   Daniel Rowland       Don  Ostrowski  has  been  something  of  a  fanatic  for  sources  since  I  first  met   him  in  1972.  In  fact,  he  was  the  first  person  ever  to  use  the  term  “fontologist”   to   describe   those   white-­‐‑hat   historians   who   paid   proper   attention   to   their   primary  sources.  Recently,  I  have  become  more  and  more  preoccupied  with   buildings  as  sources,  both  for  themselves,  as  architectural  monuments,  and  as   containers  for  precious  and  vulnerable  mural  programs. Buildings,  in  spite  of   their  apparent  mass  and  permanence,  are  often  more  perishable  than  books  or   manuscripts,  since  they  require  regular  (and  expensive)  maintenance,  and  of-­‐‑ ten  occupy  space  that  is  urgently  desired  for  other  uses.  This  little  essay  is  the   story  of  one  such  source,  a  building  that  tells  us  much  about  the  culture  of   Muscovy  in  the  16th  century:  the  Dormition  Cathedral  of  the  Mother  of  God   Monastery,  constructed  in  Sviiazhsk,  near  Kazan’,  shortly  after  the  conquest   of  that  city  by  Ivan  IV  in  1552.  (See  fig.  36  in  gallery  of  illustrations  following   p.  242.)  This  building  and  its  remarkable  murals  lead  us  into  several  themes   that   have   been   favorites   of   Don’s   for   many   years:   the   relationship   between   Muscovy  and  Central  Asia,  particularly  the  complex  relations  between  Mus-­‐‑ covites   and   Tatars;   the   line   of   demarcation   between   Islam   and   Orthodoxy;   and   the   changing   nature   of   the   Orthodox   cultural   system   (my   word)   that   Muscovy  and  Kiev  inherited  from  Byzantium.  Above  all,  though,  this  essay  is   a  study  of  that  cathedral  and  its  murals  as  a  source,  the  various  ways  it  has   been  “read”  and  interpreted  by  scholars  since  the  late  19th  century,  and  its   fate  at  the  start  of  the  21st  century.  This  fate  brings  into  view  one  of  Don’s  lat-­‐‑ est  passions:  historic  preservation.  My  hope  is  that  he,  together  with  all  en-­‐‑ thusiasts  for  the  culture  of  Muscovy,  will  be  heartened  by,  and  grateful  for,   the   strenuous   efforts   made   to   restore   this   important   monument   and   its   murals.     This   church,   with   its   murals,   precious   icons,   and   other   decorations,   as   well  as  its  architecture,  provides  important  evidence  about  several  issues  of   concern  to  historians.  First,  Muscovite  bookmen,  and  presumably  many  lay-­‐‑ men  as  well,  regarded  the  conquest  of  Kazan’  as  an  event  of  universal  impor-­‐‑ tance,  a  moment  when,  with  God’s  help,  the  Christian  kingdom  of  Muscovy,   led  by  its  pious  and  God-­‐‑chosen  tsar,  defeated  its  longtime  enemy  and  rival   354 DANIEL ROWLAND on  the  western  steppe,  the  Muslim  Tatar  Khanate  of  Kazan’.1  Sviiazhsk,  lo-­‐‑ cated  on  a  hill  near  Kazan’,  had  been  used  as  a  staging  point  for  Ivan’s  armies   and   was   ideally   placed   both   to   celebrate   the   victory   and   to   spread   Eastern   Orthodox  Christianity  among  the  newly  conquered  Muslim  population.  This   was  the  first  time  that  the  Russians  had  had  the  experience  of  incorporating  a   conquered  people  with  their  own  language,  traditional  and  effective  political   institutions,  and  religion,  into  their  state.  The  way  that  the  Muscovite  Church   chose  to  accomplish  these  tasks  should  tell  us  something  of  its  attitudes  about   the  conquest  and  the  conquered  population  during  the  second  half  of  the  16th   century.     In   addition,   the   church   and   its   murals   represent   provincial   church   con-­‐‑ struction   and   mural   decoration   during   this   same   period,   in   particular   cam-­‐‑ paigns  of  church  building  and  mural  decoration  closely  supervised  from  the   center   (Moscow)   that   had   the   intention   and   effect   of   helping   to   unite   the   quickly  expanding  Muscovite  state  through  common  building  styles  and  mu-­‐‑ ral   programs.   The   murals   represent   one   of   the   few   surviving   examples   of   what  may  have  been  a  quite  ambitious  program  of  church  decoration  carried   out   from   the   center   in   an   attempt,   typical   of   the   eras   of   both   Metropolitan   Macarius  and  Tsar  Boris  Godunov,  to  project  an  all-­‐‑Rus’  culture  out  into  the   provincial   spaces   of   the   Muscovite   tsardom.   We   know   that   there   are   other   surviving  murals  painted  in  the  second  half  of  the  16th  century  in  Yaroslavl’   and   Aleksandrovskaia   Sloboda   (both   involving   Moscow   artists)   and   in   the   Iosifo-­‐‑Volokolamsk   and   Kirillo-­‐‑Belozersk   monasteries,   among   other   loca-­‐‑ tions.2  Although,  as  we  shall  see,  local  leaders  (German  right  after  the  con-­‐‑ quest   or   Germogen   towards   the   end   of   the   century)   clearly   played   an   important  role  in  designing  the...