the art and architecture of medieval russiaby arthur voyce
TRANSCRIPT
American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
The Art and Architecture of Medieval Russia by Arthur VoyceReview by: Victor TerrasThe Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer, 1968), pp. 259-260Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/304290 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 09:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:09:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reviews 259 Reviews 259
Church in 1917 is based on many hitherto unknown documents; I. Smolitsch, Geschichte der russischen Kirche 1700-1917, Vol. I (Leiden, 1964) should be con- sulted in addition. On the basis of captured German documents, V. I. Alekseev scrutinizes German policy against the Russian Orthodox Church in the occupied territories between 1941 and 1944 (158-177). A detailed treatment of the topic is forthcoming. Attention should be drawn to N. P. Poltorackij's essay explaining Tolstoj's judgment of Vexi, the 1909 manifesto of the religiously oriented intelli- gentsia, a contribution to a story yet to be written: Tolstoj's impact upon Russian thought (228-254). Recently published papers of N. K. Giers serve S. A. Zen'kovskij to describe a phase of the continuous Russian-Chinese conflict in 1880 (256-279). Evoking a recent visit to Kiev, S. T. Timosenko takes his reader on a melancholy trip into the past, in a moving document humain (332-356). Many of Timasev's friends have presented short essays to this volume; most of them reconsider earlier publica- tions.
This book bears testimony to the lasting ties of affection the Russian emigre community continues to preserve, even among the younger generation.
Peter Scheibert, Universitdt Marburg
Arthur Voyce. The Art and Architecture of Medieval Russia. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press [c. 1967]. xii, 432, $9.95.
With its lucidly written text, nearly 200 plates (with a separate description for each), an ample bibliography, an accurate glossary of relevant Russian terms, and a detailed index, this book will serve as a good introduction and guide to medieval Russian art and architecture. The book's scope is broad, perhaps too broad for even so well informed a scholar as Voyce to be equally strong in all of its aspects. To present the facts of art history against a rich background of general history has its advantages, but also its drawbacks, especially in this case, where even very basic issues are wide open.
For instance, Voyce accepts the notion that "Russia, as an organized state, existed long before the ninth century" (p. 29). It is a logical corollary of this position, a controversial one, to say the least, that the book includes a chapter on "Scythian art." Following the example of contemporary Soviet historians, Voyce extends the Russian Middle Ages to the age of Peter the Great, as a result of which he has to cover a space of one full millennium or better, a vast geographic area, and a large variety of foreign influences and styles.
A pragmatist in his historical approach and a positivist in his aesthetic vision, Voyce could not have been expected to succumb to the lure of Geistesgeschichte and seek to explain medieval Russian art and architecture from a hypostatized spirit (of a certain period, such as the Kiev or the Muscovite, or of Russia herself). Yet, inasmuch as Voyce does present Russian Kulturgeschichte as a whole, one would have liked to see a reaction to at least some of the more recent attempts to develop the various aspects of medieval Russian culture from one underlying prin- ciple (I am thinking of such works as D. S. Lixacev, Celovek v literature drevnej Rusi [M., 1958] or D. Tschizevskij, Das heilige Russland, 10.-17. Jahrhundert [Hamburg, 1959]).
Voyce's interest is quite justifiably focused on icon painting and church archi- tecture. Yet one would have liked to hear more about the art of calligraphy and miniature painting, about the highly artistic and technologically sophisticated prod- ucts of Kiev and Rjazan' gold- and silversmiths, and about secular art and archi-
Church in 1917 is based on many hitherto unknown documents; I. Smolitsch, Geschichte der russischen Kirche 1700-1917, Vol. I (Leiden, 1964) should be con- sulted in addition. On the basis of captured German documents, V. I. Alekseev scrutinizes German policy against the Russian Orthodox Church in the occupied territories between 1941 and 1944 (158-177). A detailed treatment of the topic is forthcoming. Attention should be drawn to N. P. Poltorackij's essay explaining Tolstoj's judgment of Vexi, the 1909 manifesto of the religiously oriented intelli- gentsia, a contribution to a story yet to be written: Tolstoj's impact upon Russian thought (228-254). Recently published papers of N. K. Giers serve S. A. Zen'kovskij to describe a phase of the continuous Russian-Chinese conflict in 1880 (256-279). Evoking a recent visit to Kiev, S. T. Timosenko takes his reader on a melancholy trip into the past, in a moving document humain (332-356). Many of Timasev's friends have presented short essays to this volume; most of them reconsider earlier publica- tions.
This book bears testimony to the lasting ties of affection the Russian emigre community continues to preserve, even among the younger generation.
Peter Scheibert, Universitdt Marburg
Arthur Voyce. The Art and Architecture of Medieval Russia. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press [c. 1967]. xii, 432, $9.95.
With its lucidly written text, nearly 200 plates (with a separate description for each), an ample bibliography, an accurate glossary of relevant Russian terms, and a detailed index, this book will serve as a good introduction and guide to medieval Russian art and architecture. The book's scope is broad, perhaps too broad for even so well informed a scholar as Voyce to be equally strong in all of its aspects. To present the facts of art history against a rich background of general history has its advantages, but also its drawbacks, especially in this case, where even very basic issues are wide open.
For instance, Voyce accepts the notion that "Russia, as an organized state, existed long before the ninth century" (p. 29). It is a logical corollary of this position, a controversial one, to say the least, that the book includes a chapter on "Scythian art." Following the example of contemporary Soviet historians, Voyce extends the Russian Middle Ages to the age of Peter the Great, as a result of which he has to cover a space of one full millennium or better, a vast geographic area, and a large variety of foreign influences and styles.
A pragmatist in his historical approach and a positivist in his aesthetic vision, Voyce could not have been expected to succumb to the lure of Geistesgeschichte and seek to explain medieval Russian art and architecture from a hypostatized spirit (of a certain period, such as the Kiev or the Muscovite, or of Russia herself). Yet, inasmuch as Voyce does present Russian Kulturgeschichte as a whole, one would have liked to see a reaction to at least some of the more recent attempts to develop the various aspects of medieval Russian culture from one underlying prin- ciple (I am thinking of such works as D. S. Lixacev, Celovek v literature drevnej Rusi [M., 1958] or D. Tschizevskij, Das heilige Russland, 10.-17. Jahrhundert [Hamburg, 1959]).
Voyce's interest is quite justifiably focused on icon painting and church archi- tecture. Yet one would have liked to hear more about the art of calligraphy and miniature painting, about the highly artistic and technologically sophisticated prod- ucts of Kiev and Rjazan' gold- and silversmiths, and about secular art and archi-
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:09:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 The Slavic and East European Journal 260 The Slavic and East European Journal
tecture in general. Voyce is not an archaeologist. Even his bibliography has some telltale lacunae; for instance, none of the works of M. K. Karger, most of which are highly relevant to both art and architecture, are listed.
Another dimension which remains fairly flat due to the wide scope of the book is the technical. The book has few plans, sections, technical data, and the like, to go with its generous supply of plates.
But all in all, Voyce has accomplished his objective: to give the interested layman a reliable introduction to Russian medieval art and architecture in a multi- dimensional historical and cultural perspective.
Victor Terras, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Lawrence Krader. Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkic Pastoral Nomads. (Indiana Univ. Publications, Uralic & Altaic Series, 20.) The Hague: Mouton, 1963. x, 412 pp.
The nomadic way of life is well described by E. D. Phillips as "an alternative to civilization, not a mere absence of it." Altaic peoples of Central Asia have been among the most notable exponents of this "alternative to civilization." While it is now generally held that the era of the Tatar Yoke did not exert the massive influence on later Russian history which is sometimes alleged, one should not forget that the physical presence of Turko-Mongol peoples-independent of the Golden Horde-close to and within Russian borders is relevant, at least in part, to the economic history of the Russian people. Moreover, many of the modern descendants of these Central Asian peoples are under the administration of the USSR and occupy vast areas of its territory.
Krader's book will be welcomed by historians and ethnologists who are inter- ested in the development of Turko-Mongol social institutions. It provides particularly useful information about their kinship and legal systems and the relationship between social units such as village and family. There are two appendices on kinship systems and terminology; the emphasis which Krader has placed on this aspect of his topic makes much of the book of more immediate use to the anthropologist than to the general historian. This anthropological bias is one of several ways in which Krader's work differs from B. Ja. Vladimircov's classic study of Eastern Mongol social history up to the eighteenth century, Obscestvennyj stroj mongolov: Mongol'skij kocevoj feodalizm (L. 1934; tr. by M. Carsow, Le regime social des Mongols [Paris, 1948]).
Krader describes his book as "an essay in cultural history" and has selected four Mongol peoples (the Ordos, Buryat, Volga Kalmuk, and Monguor of the Kansu-Tibetan border) and one Turkic (the Kazakh) for detailed treatment. He compares the modern status of specific social institutions with their structural organi- zation in earlier periods. Chapter IV on the Kazakhs begins with a survey of social organization among the eighth-century Yenisey-Orkhon Turks, and Chapter III contrasts the structure of Kalmuk society in the periods 1640-1771 and the twentieth century. Krader's section on the Volga Kalmuks (116-177) will probably be of more direct concern to the Russian historian than any of the other chapters and may now be supplemented by G. Doerfer's Altere westeuropiiische Quellen zur kalmuckischen Sprachgeschichte (Asiatische Forschungen, 18; Wiesbaden, 1965).
It is well-known that Turko-Mongol culture has been deeply affected as a result of Russian exploration and easterly colonization starting in the late 1500's. This expansion was directed through lands occupied by Altaic peoples. In the present
tecture in general. Voyce is not an archaeologist. Even his bibliography has some telltale lacunae; for instance, none of the works of M. K. Karger, most of which are highly relevant to both art and architecture, are listed.
Another dimension which remains fairly flat due to the wide scope of the book is the technical. The book has few plans, sections, technical data, and the like, to go with its generous supply of plates.
But all in all, Voyce has accomplished his objective: to give the interested layman a reliable introduction to Russian medieval art and architecture in a multi- dimensional historical and cultural perspective.
Victor Terras, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Lawrence Krader. Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkic Pastoral Nomads. (Indiana Univ. Publications, Uralic & Altaic Series, 20.) The Hague: Mouton, 1963. x, 412 pp.
The nomadic way of life is well described by E. D. Phillips as "an alternative to civilization, not a mere absence of it." Altaic peoples of Central Asia have been among the most notable exponents of this "alternative to civilization." While it is now generally held that the era of the Tatar Yoke did not exert the massive influence on later Russian history which is sometimes alleged, one should not forget that the physical presence of Turko-Mongol peoples-independent of the Golden Horde-close to and within Russian borders is relevant, at least in part, to the economic history of the Russian people. Moreover, many of the modern descendants of these Central Asian peoples are under the administration of the USSR and occupy vast areas of its territory.
Krader's book will be welcomed by historians and ethnologists who are inter- ested in the development of Turko-Mongol social institutions. It provides particularly useful information about their kinship and legal systems and the relationship between social units such as village and family. There are two appendices on kinship systems and terminology; the emphasis which Krader has placed on this aspect of his topic makes much of the book of more immediate use to the anthropologist than to the general historian. This anthropological bias is one of several ways in which Krader's work differs from B. Ja. Vladimircov's classic study of Eastern Mongol social history up to the eighteenth century, Obscestvennyj stroj mongolov: Mongol'skij kocevoj feodalizm (L. 1934; tr. by M. Carsow, Le regime social des Mongols [Paris, 1948]).
Krader describes his book as "an essay in cultural history" and has selected four Mongol peoples (the Ordos, Buryat, Volga Kalmuk, and Monguor of the Kansu-Tibetan border) and one Turkic (the Kazakh) for detailed treatment. He compares the modern status of specific social institutions with their structural organi- zation in earlier periods. Chapter IV on the Kazakhs begins with a survey of social organization among the eighth-century Yenisey-Orkhon Turks, and Chapter III contrasts the structure of Kalmuk society in the periods 1640-1771 and the twentieth century. Krader's section on the Volga Kalmuks (116-177) will probably be of more direct concern to the Russian historian than any of the other chapters and may now be supplemented by G. Doerfer's Altere westeuropiiische Quellen zur kalmuckischen Sprachgeschichte (Asiatische Forschungen, 18; Wiesbaden, 1965).
It is well-known that Turko-Mongol culture has been deeply affected as a result of Russian exploration and easterly colonization starting in the late 1500's. This expansion was directed through lands occupied by Altaic peoples. In the present
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:09:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions