Narrative, Identity, and Order
Tampere, September 2001
Mari Mäki-Petäys
University of Oulu
[email protected]
The political narrative of the Life of Alexander Nevskiy as an instrument of
Russian identity and order
Historical narratives are in the focal point when inventing and reshaping identities and
socio-political order, as it is often stated. There is one specific narrative in the Russian
history which gives us a detailed and illustrative picture about the development of one
such a narrative. There are few examples of narratives which appeals so profoundly to
national identity than the story of the great defender of the Russian lands, medieval
warrior hero, prince Alexander Nevskiy. The narrative I am referring to is the most
popular medieval princely description in the medieval Russia, the ‘Tale of the Life and
Courage of the Pious and Great Prince Alexander’ - or in short, ‘The Life of Alexander
Nevskiy’.1
The ‘Life’ tells us a story of a military hero Alexander Yaroslavich (1220-1263), who
was a duke of Novgorod, and after his fathers death the grand prince of Vladimir. As a
young man he won two great victories, one over the Swedes on the Neva (hence the
epithet - Nevskiy) in 1240 and another over the Livonian order on the ice of the Lake
Peipus in 1242. The victories over the Catholic Swedes and Germans are triumphantly
celebrated and ascribed in the hagiographical ‘Life’, written some 20 years after his
death, around the year 1280. It became very popular and has survived in about 15
different versions and numerous copies which date from 14th to 16th century.2 The
heroic image of Alexander has inspired Russians ever since the Tale was first written well up to our own days.
In this presentation I want to seek the narrative of this patriotic Russian hero presented
in Alexander’s ‘Life’. What is the narrative like? How was the narrative used and
altered during the long history of Russia? If the chief means of moral education is the
2
telling of stories, then the Life of Alexander Nevskiy reveals us very much about the
attitude and claims for each era, who refers to its examples. As narratives from distant
past supply us moral education and provide the historical memory, the heroic stories
like one of Alexander Nevskiy’s give us a chance to observe some integral parts of
Russian identity.
*
*
*
The ‘Tale of the Life and Courage of the Pious and Great Prince Alexander’ is a
narrative, which combines the techniques of the traditional saints life and earthly war
tale and uses annalistic style familiar in chronicles. It is therefore sometimes estimated,
that its first writer was a secular man, perhaps belonging to Alexander’s retinue, and
this secular war tale was later modified into a hagiographical saint’s life. On the other
hand, because the events are told using already well known formulas of the literature,
the writing did not require personal participation to the events and could therefore be
described straightforward by any cleric writing the hagiographical tale. Whichever was
the case, the narrative of the ‘Life’ was following the strict rules which regulated all
medieval storytelling.
What comes to the narrative patterns of the Medieval Age, I would like to emphasise
aspects connected with copying and editing of the medieval manuscript with an
emblem- for the medieval writer has often been compared with an icon painter.3 It was
customary in Russia that several masters were involved in the production of an icon.
Even after the icon was finished it would be retouched and repainted with colours and
style according to the ideals of each era. And of course, the icons were not signed, for
they did not represent the specimen of skill of their painters but symbolised different
kinds of divinity on earth. The function of icons was to embody the divine revelation on
earth, which the copyists of each era preserved and cherished according to the norms
and ideals set by their epoch.
Hagiographical literature had fundamental similarities with the icon painting tradition
described above, because the medieval scholar did not see the significance between
creating a text, writing it, redacting or translating it.4 The texts could be quite freely
3
modified by a copyist- taking advantage of the prevailing standards in literature. In
other words the medieval source does not give a precise picture of the ideas and
language in the exact epoch of the original text, but it does tell us a lot about norms and
language in the era of the origin of each copy.5 Indeed, because ideas of different eras
are reflected in the editions of Alexander Nevskiy’s ‘Life’ it is also possible to study the
changes in the narrative when every new edition was made. With the help of these
editions one can study ideas typical to each era and also how these ideas modified the
heroic image of Alexander Nevskiy.
The ‘Life’ tells us the deeds of Alexander and its main emphasis is in the two wars that
Alexander weighed against his western enemies. The longest independent section is the
description of the battle of Neva. The episode is introduced by the mention of an
ambassador from Livonia whose lavish reports of Alexander’s greatness (‘never have I
seen such a tsar amongst tsars or prince amongst princes’) inspire the king of Sweden to
invade his territory. The battle arises and Alexander, with mysterious angelic assistance,
is victorious.
The second episode describes Alexander’s victory over the Germans on the Lake Peipus
in 1242. All these battle descriptions are described conventionally, using ready made
sentences used in war tale genre and borrowing passages from the Bible as well as using
the well known Byzantine war tale6 in the plot line. Rest of the tale is composed of
several loose passages which describes Alexander’s relations with the Mongol khan
Batu, Alexander’s good deeds when elected to the seat of the grand prince, and the
emotional description of his death and lament in his burial.
The earliest narrative of the ‘Life’ was composed using the models of biblical
references and war tales of the time. The content of the story was quite simple,
emphasis being in presenting the well known formulas used in the war tales of the era,
rather than depicting an individual person.
*
*
*
*
4
In 1547 Alexander Nevskiy was canonised as a Russian national saint, and in response
several new editions of the ‘Life of Alexander Nevsky’ were written, initiated by
Metropolitan Makarij. In the same momentous year, Ivan IV was solemnly crowned as
the tsar of the whole Russia. During this period Metropolitan Makarij stimulated the
collection of extensive anthologies of hagiographic literature. These materials shed
interesting light on the political ideology of Moscow at the time, where the powers
invested in the tsar were legitimated by claims that the royal family lineage stretched
back to the glory days of Kievan Russia and even back to antiquity.
Alexander Nevskiy was one important link in this chain of glorious ancestors, and new
editions of his ‘Life’ were written for Makarij’s hagiographic anthologies. The
ideological messages and seeds of Russian national self-realisation were already
identified in the writings prompted by the Metropolitan Makarij. This writing process
had an unparalleled influence on the historical realisation of ‘Russia,’ where the
Metropolitan harnessed and synthesised Russia’s literary heritage and history to
emphasise unbroken ties between sixteenth century Moscow, the Kievan era and
Byzantium.7
In the sixteenth century, under the leadership of Moscow and its state ideology, the
nascent empire was transforming itself into ‘Holy Russia.’ As such, the state assigned
itself a messianic mission, led not only by the ruling tsar, but also his ancestors, who
had, with their deeds, prepared Moscow for its great role. Alexander Nevskiy was an
integral part of Russia’s world wide Christian mission: as standard bearer of the true
faith his image was used to legitimise Russian claims that Moscow had succeeded
Constantinople as the imperial capital of the Orthodox Christian world.
During this Muscovian era, the narrative of Alexander’s ‘Life’ changed profoundly.
Several editions of the narrative gave Alexander an extra emphasis on his religious
devotion, especially when confronting the pagan Mongol khan Batu. With the help of
several interpolations, the new writers of the Muscovian editions sought to explain the
happenings in the past, for example by condemning the democratic rule of Novgorod as
opposed to autocratic rule of Alexander and underlining the orthodoxy of Alexander
Nevskiy as opposed to the cruel and bloodthirsty pagan conquerors, the Tartars.8 It is
5
notable that Ivan IV used Alexander’s ‘Life’ as an encouraging example of high morals
which he himself used during his own campaigns against the Tartars of Kazan and
Crimea.
*
*
*
*
In the beginning of the eighteenth century Alexander's position, however, as a heavenly
warrior of Moscow changed profoundly. A whole new stage of historical knowledge
was developed after the Great Nordic War, in 1721, when Peter the Great adopted
himself a title of an Emperor. As Peter was eager to strip to Muscovian heritage and the
prestige of the orthodox church, we might rightfully ask, what happened to its heavenly
warrior? It appears, that the political narrative of the heavenly warrior survived, but lost
its religious features. One could say, that the defender of the Orthodox faith changed his
outfit to the armour of the war god Mars.
To break the old tradition of the cult of Alexander Nevskiy, after the victory over the
Swedes, sealed in the peace of Nystad in August 30th 1721, Peter ordered the relics of
Alexander Nevskiy to be transmitted from the old burial place of Vladimir cathedral to
his newly found capitol of the empire, St. Petersburg. Alexander was to become a third
heavenly protector of the imperial city, right after St. Peter and St. Paul. Instead of the
old date 23rd November, which was the burial date of Alexander, 30th August, the day
when the victory over the Swedes was sealed, was to become a new commemorate date
of Alexander Nevskiy’s new cult.9
In that way the point of the political narrative of Alexander’s ‘Life’ was directed
straight towards the Swedes. The Swedes were specified as an eternal enemy of Russia
in the area of the Baltic Sea, not only referring to the new commemorate date of
Alexander's cult, but also by the new liturgical texts and the new edition of Alexander’s
‘Life’, which greatly emphasised the image of Alexander as the conqueror of the
Swedes. The other western enemy, the German knights, were not emphasised, because
Peter did not want to irritate the Germans and in particularly the duke of HolsteinGottorp Karl Fredrich, to whom he wanted to give his daughter Anna to marry.10 It was
6
evident that Peter felt no need for the Muscovian narrative of the ‘Life’, but changed it
to correspond with the new demands of the new Empire’s rule.
*
*
*
*
Since the time of Peter and the time of enlightenment, there has been one new aspect
through witch the image of Alexander has been reflected to popular conscience. This
important vehicle for the distribution of power is - history writing. It is often repeated,
that Russia has always been an object of state centered history writing.11 This tendency
was visible already in Tatichev’s (1686-1750) production, and continued in the
milestones of nineteenth century historians. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766–
1826) had probably the greatest influence on descriptions of Alexander Nevskiy in the
books of Russian history. His magnum opus, Istoriya Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo (History
of the Russian State), was not only widely read at the time, but also ushered in a new
era of Russian historical analysis. Karamzin’s specialities were the literary skilfulness
and aesthetic sensitivity which he brought to his history books. As a result he had a
profound influence not only on historians, but also- among others- on the most famous
poets and writers of Russia’s literary golden age: Alexander Pushkin and Fedor
Dostoevsky.12
Karamzin’s views on the actions of Alexander Nevskiy came from the sources that were
the political manifestos of sixteenth century Moscow. It is also important to note that
Karamzin’s Istoriya was published from 1829 to 1833, during the reign of Nicholas I, a
time of national awakening and the genesis of the ‘Russian idea’. The Alexander myth
and the Russian idea are connected even to this day when we consider that one of the
leading authorities on the Nevskiy hagiographies, Yuri Begunov, has argued that the
image of Alexander Nevskiy includes most of the basic ingredients of the Russian idea,
such as high morals, loyalty to the fatherland and faith in national salvation.13
*
*
*
*
This idea was one of the key factors why also Stalin in 1930’s picked up Alexander
Nevskiy as one of the most admired leaders of Russian history. Alexander's position
7
was not only raised in school books, but especially through arts. One may even claim,
that the co-operation of Stalin and the film director Sergei Eisenstein launched the new
direction of Alexander’s cult and produced a Soviet narrative of the old heroic story.
This impression was confirmed by launching a premiere of the film ‘Alexander
Nevskiy’ in the old commemoration day, 23rd November in 1938. Eisenstein’s film
striped every inch of a saintliness and Orthodox influence from Alexander, and made
him an epic hero with a secular emphasis of loyalty to fatherland. Stalin interfered very
eagerly in the making of the movie while it was being made, and after it was finished,
he was so pleased, that he awarded Eisenstein an Order of Lenin for the film.14
We can see a clear similarity in the situation when Peter used the narrative of
Alexander’s ‘Life’ as a shield against the Swedes in the beginning of the eighteenth
century and how Stalin used it again when the enemy was threatening. The difference
was, that for Stalin the enemy was not the Swedes, but the Germans. Clear allegories
were being made with the description of the German knights armours and uniforms and
that of the national socialistic German army and their gestures. This allegory established
Alexander Nevskiy’s position in the history books as a model for a hero who fights for
the freedom of Russia, and he was seen as an inspiration for the Soviet soldiers who
bravely fought against the fascist intruder.15
*
*
*
*
Indeed, the image of Alexander as the warrior-saint is unavoidably tied to the Russian
national identity and its mission: life is temporary but deeds are eternal,16 like the most
prominent soviet medieval historian referred to the narrative of the ‘Life of Alexander
Nevskiy’. It is evident that one of the most important aspects in the narrative of
Alexander is his credits in defending the Russian nation. This makes Alexander a
mythical figure whose image was used in Moscow, in St. Petersburg as well as in the
later days, when the political situation of Russian or Soviet Empire demanded it.
What about today? Has Alexander place in the ideological plan of present day Russia?
When Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the ‘Russian idea’ was once again searched in the
new and confusing situation. Boris Yeltsin appointed a team of philosophers, political
8
scientists and other scholars to come up with a ‘Russian idea’. The chairman of the
group, Leonid Smiryagin stated that ‘our people often need to feel part of something
big, a great process, the country itself.’17 As a ‘New Russia’ wants to take its spiritual
strength from the past it also venerates the memory of its great warriors. In 1995 Yeltsin
gave an edict, according to which the birthday of Alexander Nevskiy was to be
venerated in churches in all the districts of Russia where he influenced in his lifetime.
The veneration of Alexander Nevskiy is especially manifested in the city of Pskov,
which in the western borders of Russia can also be seen as its taking of an attitude
against the Estonia’s NATO aspirations.18 There is no doubt, that the narrative of one of
the medieval Russia’s great hero finds resemblance today also.
As the most prominent Russian historians state that, ‘ancient Russian morals laid the
foundations of Russia’s history and for historic memory in politics and culture’19, so
Russian historical research has, in the main, preserved the same vision of history
conceived of in the ancient chronicles- where written history does not describe separate
events, but rather conveys a holistic picture of the world. In this approach, historical
events are important not in themselves but rather as moral lessons: either as a warning
or as a paradigm for future generations.20
Thus, each era has taken advantage of its own history, emphasising- either
unconsciously or deliberately- certain features, which support its own moral values,
justify its existence and indicate the direction of future development. Russian historians
have, therefore, often merely acted like medieval copyists of chronicles: they have
rewritten history again and again according to the requirements of their own era.
Nevertheless, a coherent and emotionally powerful narrative of Alexander Nevskiy has,
in all its harmony, hit on something that still appeals to the feelings of Russians to this
day.
The Life of Alexander Nevskiy proofs for Alasdair MacIntyre’s claims that a man is in
his actions and practice essentially a story-telling animal. With the help of the stories he
seeks to aspire the truth. Stories are raising children and myths help to give order in the
chaotic world. The ‘Life of Alexander Nevskiy’ continues the moral tradition in which
the telling of stories is an integral part in educating people into the virtues.
9
1
Povesti o zhitii i o khrobrosti blagovernago i velikago knyazya Oleksandra. The first edition of the Life
has been thoroughly recontructed bu Yu.K.Begunov in his Pamyatnik russkoj literatury XIII veka ”Slovo
o poggibeli russkoj zemli” (Moskva 1965) pp.187-194.
2
V.I.Okhotnikova, ’Povest’ o zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo,’ Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti drevnej Rusi
(XI-pervaya polovina XIV v.) Otv.red. D.S.Likhatchev (Leningrad 1987) pp.354-363.
3
B.A.Uspenskii, Istoriya russkogo literaturnogo yazyka (XI–XVII vv.) (Munich, 1987) p.58; See also
D.S.Likhachev, Pervye sem’sot let russkoi literatury: “Izbornik.” Sbornik prizvedenii literatury drevnei
Rusi, (Moscow, 1969) p.16.
4
Uspenskii, Istoriya, pp.56-57. Although the medieval writers felt free to edit the texts, they
distinguished the different ways of making a book. For example St. Bonaventure, a 13th century
Franciscan, noted that a man who wrote a book could be either scriptor, compilator, commentator or
author. J.A.Burrow, Medieval Writers and Their Work. Middle English Literature and its Background
1100–1500, (Oxford 1982) pp. 29-30.
5
Uspenskii, Istoriya, pp.56-57.
6
The Tale of Digenes Akrites.
7
D.B.Miller, ‘The Velikie Minei Chetii and the Stepennaya Kniga of Metropolitan Makarii and the
Origins of Russian National Consciousness,’ Forschungen zur Osteuropäischen Geschichte, vol. 26.
(Berlin, 1979) pp.325 & 361.
8
See three editions from the 16th century. The edition of the ’Life’ written in Stepennaya kniga, the book
which represented the imperial lineage of the Moscovian rulers’ in Kniga stepennaya tsarskogo
rodosloviya, Polnoe Sobranie russkih letopisej, Tom 21 (S.-Peterburg 1909) pp.279-295. The editions of
Vasili Varlaam and Jona Dumin in V. Mansikka, Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskago: Razbor redaktsii i tekst’
(S.-Peterburg 1913) pp.33-47, 50-124.
9
Yu. K. Begunov, ‘Drevnerusskie traditsii v proizvedeniyah pervoj chetverti XVIII v. ob Aleksandre
Nevskom,’ Trudy otdela drevnerusskogo literatura 26 (Leningrad, 1971) pp.73-82.
10
Walter Leitch, ‘Einige beobachtungen zum politischen Weltbild Alexander Nevskijs,’ Forschungen zur
osteuropäischen geschihte, no 25 (1978), p.203
11
See for example Osmo Jussila, ‘Venäjän keisarikunnan historiankirjoitus,’ Historiankirjoituksen
historia (Helsinki, 1983).
12
G.Vernadsky, Russian Historiography. A History, (Massachusetts, 1978) pp.45-49.
13
Yu.K.Begunov, ‘Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskogo v Russkoi literature XII–XVIII vekov,’ in Knyaz
Aleksander Nevskiy i ego epokha, (St. Petersburg, 1995) p.169.
14
David Bordwell, The Cinema of Eisenstein (Cambridge, 1993) p.212; Leon Moussinac, Sergei
Eisenstein: An Investigation into his Films and Philosophy (New York, 1970) p.185; Eisenstein at
Ninety. Eds. Ian Christie and David Elliot (Oxford, 1988) p.155.
15
Yu.F.Sokolov, ‘Aleksandr Nevskiy. Formirovanie litchnosti,’ Aleksander Nevskiy i ego epokha, p.43;
Yu.K.Begunov & A.N. Kirpichnikov, ‘Knyaz' Aleksandr velikii i ego epokha,’ Aleksander Nevskiy i ego
epokha, p.7; D.S.Likhachev, ‘Slovo ob Aleksandre Nevskom,’ Aleksander Nevskiy i ego epokha, p.14.
16
See D.S.Likhachev, ‘Slovo ob Aleksandre Nevskom,’ in Knyaz Alexander Nevskiy i ego epokha. eds
Yu. K. Begunov & A. N. Kirpitchnikov. (St. Petersburg, 1995).
17
Peter Ford, ‘Medieval city holds key to ’Russian idea’,’ Christian Monitor vol. 89 06/05 (1997).
18
Anti Selart, ‘Aleksander Nevski: Märkmeid ühe püha suurvürsti postuumse karjääri kohta,’ Akadeemia
no 1 (2000), p.141.
19
Begunov, ‘Zhitie Aleksandra Nevskogo,’ p.170.
20
About the rules concerning the medieval writing process, see D.S.Likhachev, Poetika drevnerusskoi
literatury (Leningrad, 1967); D.S.Likhachev, Pervye sem’sot let russkoi literatury: “Izbornik“ Sbornik
proizvedeniy literatury drevney Rusi, (Moscow, 1969) pp.5-26; V.P.Adrianova-Perets, Ocherki
poeticheskogo stilya drevnei Rusi (Moscow, 1947).