Nil Sorsky: The Authentic Writings

The work of Nil Sorskii (d. 1508) is the culmination of medieval Russian monastic spirituality. A major figure in his own lifetime, he left a small body of writings that contained his conception of the monastic life and continued the traditions of Orthodox asceticism. After his death his followers turned toward a struggle over the propriety of monastic landholding, eventually losing to the followers of Nil's contemporary, Joseph Volotskii. Nil's heritage soon moved to the margins of Russian religious history and was revived only in the nineteenth century, leading to his recognition as a saint in the twentieth.

The study of Nil's work has long been burdened with the controversy over his own attitude to monastic landholding. Nineteenth-century scholars used the works of his followers and his own preference for hermitage as evidence for his rejection of landholding. This conception was at best a great exaggeration, and Ia. S. Lur'e demonstrated its limits as early as 1960. More recently, Fairy von Lilienfeld, G. M. Prokhorov, and other historians have turned to Nil's ascetic writings, correctly seeing them as the core of his legacy. Nil has inspired several translations into Western languages, including one into English by Father George Maloney (New York, 2003) in the series Classics of Western Spirituality. In this new translation Goldfrank offers two improvements over Maloney's version. One is a much more complete introduction, summarizing and discussing the latest scholarship on the various textual issues, Nil's use of Byzantine monastic writings, and the controversies about his relationship to Joseph Volotskii. The other improvement is a translation much closer to the original, not mediated by later adaptors and commentators as is the case with the Maloney translation, in Goldfrank's view. Goldfrank also places in italics the many quotations and references to earlier ascetic writers.

The result is a version of considerable interest to scholars, if somewhat less accessible to other readers. Goldfrank believes in more literal renderings and thus conveys more of the flavor of the text, its quirks as well as its rhetoric, than other translators. He takes the reader into the mental world of Russian monastic spirituality, emphasizing to what an extent Nil was part of a living and continuing textual tradition as well as a tradition of practice. He is very careful about the translation of the technical vocabulary, of words for mind and intelligence, and particularly the crucial term pomysl, which renders the Greek logismos.There were eight such pomsyly/logismoi, from gluttony to pride, the ancestors of the seven deadly sins of the West. Goldfrank departs from other translators, Maloney included, who employed "thought" for pomysl, which is literally correct, but somewhat misleading, and puts in its place the English "urge." This choice seems better, since "thought" excludes the association of desire in pomysl. Goldfrank might have overcorrected here, since American readers, at any rate, may take urge in a much too emotional, even carnal, sense. In any case, he provides a careful discussion (pp. 86–95) of the issues, and the reader will be able to make any mental adjustments that seem necessary. One wishes more translators were so conscientious.

In the introduction Goldfrank's rather colloquial style ("ascetic smorgasbord," p. 30) and American references (Kinko's student packets) may make it a bit inaccessible to the international reader. Its solid content, however, rounds out an exemplary edition and translation.