316

The Schism in the Russian Church
and Its Meaning

p In the seventeenth century the church remained the only institution in the feudal state which violated the principle of centralisation. Its resistance to this process was facilitated by the establishment of the patriarchate in 1589. The patriarch placed all church organisations under his command and exercised great influence on the tsar. The state tried to make the church subordinate to itself, and it took the first step in this direction through the Monastery Office set up in 1649, which made people living on church-owned lands no longer subject to the legal jurisdiction of the church.

p The ruling circles of the church were very concerned about the gradual loss of its former authority in public and private life and the growing immorality among the clergy. It was in this connection that the question of ecclesiastical reforms arose in the 1640’s. A group of “Zealots of Ancient Piety" gathered around the tsar’s confessor, Stefan Vonifatyev; the group included representatives of the Moscow clergy (Nikon, Archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery, Ivan Neronov, Archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, Fedor Ivanov, deacon of the Cathedral of the Annunciation), secular authorities (okolnichy  [316•1  F. M. Rtishchev) and priests from the provinces (Awakum, Daniil, Loggin).

p The goal of the “zealots” was to raise the religious and moral level of the clergy, to bring decorum and solemnity to the disorderly service of worship. The “Zealots of Ancient Piety" replaced “reedy” polyphony with singing in unison and introduced the preaching of original sermons in the church.

p At the same time the “correctors” of the royal printing house decided that it was necessary to reform the service books in accordance with the Greek originals; this work was begun in 1650 by monastic scholars 317 who had come from Kiev. Some of the “zealots” believed that it was necessary to correct the books, not according to the Greek texts, but in accord with old Russian manuscripts and the decrees of the Conclave of the Hundred Chapters.

p In 1652 Patriarch losif died, and the man elected patriarch to succeed him was Nikon, Metropolitan of Novgorod, an active, energetic and power-loving ecclesiast. As patriarch he carried out the proposed church reform. In a “memorandum” sent to the churches on March 14, 1653, he ordered that full prostrations be replaced by bows from the waist, and that Christians should cross themselves with three instead of two fingers, in correspondence with the practice of the Greek church of the time. Thus the reform concerned matters of purely external ritual, though its goal was to strengthen the feudal organisation of the church. In essence this reform marked a new stage in the submission of the church to the secular authorities, and therefore it received the active support of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: it was firmly established by the councils of 1654 and 1655. When Patriarch Nikon tried to oppose the tsar and proposed his own doctrine—“the clergy over the monarchy"—he was removed from the patriarchal throne, condemned, and banished in 1666 to the Ferapontov Monastery in Belozersk.

p The reform provoked a powerful, anti-feudal, antigovernment movement: the schism, or the Old Believer movement. From the moment of its inception it was democratic in scope, for it received the active support of the peasantry and the democratic strata of the urban population. Rejecting Nikon’s reforms the popular masses expressed their opposition to feudal exploitation, which had received the church blessing.

p The rural clergy, which constantly suffered at the hands of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, took an active part in the movement. The schism was also supported by part of the hereditary boyar class (Boyarina F. P. Morozova, her sister E. P. Urusova, princes Khovansky, Myshetsky, Potemkin, and Sokovnin), who viewed the reform as a way for the tsar to increase his power.

318

p Thus at its initial stages the schism united representatives of various classes and various social groups. This temporary union of all the opposition forces lent tremendous strength to the movement, but different class interests were concealed behind the common struggle for the “old faith”. “Although the class struggles of those days were clothed in religious shibboleths, and though the interests, requirements, and demands of the various classes were concealed behind a religious screen, this changed nothing at all and is easily explained by the conditions of the times,” wrote Engels.  [318•1 

p Although their social protest was expressed in terms of religion, the schismatics nevertheless saw their ideal in the receding life of the past. Therefore they actively opposed everything new and gradually became a bulwark of reaction (in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries). They attempted to turn back the clock of history and prevent the Europeanisation of Russian life.

The contradictory nature of the schism was also reflected in the activities of its ideologist, Archpriest Awakum, the most talented writer of the second half of the seventeenth century. His works attracted and continue to attract the attention of many Russian, Soviet and foreign scholars.  [318•2 

Awakum
(1621-1682)

p The fiery archpriest wrote about eighty works, sixty-four of them during the last fifteen years of his life, which he spent in captivity, confined to an earthen pit in Pustozersk on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, a “land of tundra, freezing and without forests”. Awakum himself described the prison where he was held along with his fellow believers, Priest Lazar, Elder 319 Epifany and Deacon Fedor: “They threw earth on us: a framed pit in the ground, and nearby another pit, and around them all a fence with four locks.” From this dungeon in the earth, fenced about by “sharp paling”, Awakum led the struggle of his fellow believers, sending out his “talks” and “epistles” to all the cities of Russia, teaching and “encouraging my spiritual children”, exposing the enemy, calling on his fellow believers to be staunch in the struggle for the “ancient piety".

p Awakum maintained his ties with the outside world through his guards, the streltsy, who apparently felt some sympathy for their prisoners and possibly even shared their religious convictions.

p Awakum was by nature a passionate and tireless fighter, a man who wrathfully denounced those in positions of authority, including the boyars, the patriarch and even the tsar himself; he empathised with the grief of the people and was a fiery fanatic who regarded himself as an apostle of the “true faith”. All these conflicting traits were reflected in his works.

Neither torture nor exile nor persecution nor the promise of material blessings made by the boyars and the tsar in return for renouncing his faith could force Awakum to give up the struggle against the “heretical lechery" of Nikon’s reform. “I keep them even unto death as I received them; I shall not shift the eternal boundaries. That which was laid down before our time, let it so remain to all eternity! " Such was Awakum’s motto throughout his life, graphically recounted in his best work, the Life, written in 1672 and 1673.

The Life of Archpriest Awakum,
Written by Himself

p Awakum defines the temporal frame of his narration in the following words: “I present my life from my youth to the age of fifty-five.” He selects only the most important, major landmarks in his life: his birth into the family of a rural priest and drunkard; his first period of trial during his stay in Lopatitsy and Yurievets- Povolsky; the beginning of the struggle against Nikon 320 followed by his exile to Tobolsk and then to Dauria; his return to Russia, his sojourn in Moscow and monastery dungeons on the outskirts of the city, and finally his defrocking and final exile to Pustozersk.

p One of the main themes of the Life is Awakum’s personal life, indivisibly united with the struggle for “ancient piety" against Nikon’s innovations. This theme is tightly interwoven with that of the cruelty and arbitrariness of voyevodas, the evils of that “fig of Antichrist" Nikon and his stooges, who enforce the new faith with the “knout and the gallows".

p From the pages of the Life there emerges the gigantic figure of an extraordinary Russian man of astonishing determination, courage, conviction and steadfastness. Awakum’s personality is revealed both in his personal life and in his social ties and relations.

p The archpriest reveals his character in the way he relates to his “little ones”, his staunch and faithful wife Anastasia Markovna, and in his relations to the tsar and the patriarch, and to the simple people, his fellow believers and comrades-in-arms. One is amazed by the extraordinary sincerity of his impassioned confession. Condemned to death, the unfortunate archpriest has no reason to be cunning and has nothing to hide. He recounts quite openly how he resorted to deception in order to save the life of a fugitive threatened by death. He recalls periods of despondency and hesitation and despair when he was worn out by persecution and trials and was ready to pray for mercy and even to give up the struggle.

p Awakum champions justice; he cannot tolerate the use of violence by the strong against the weak. He stands up for a girl whom a “boss” is trying to take away from a widow; he defends two old widows whom a petty tyrant, voyevoda Pashkov, wants to marry off. In championing the cause of the weak and oppressed, Awakum turns the social issue into a moral and religious one, developing the idea set forth in the Gospels concerning the spiritual equality of all men before God.

p Awakum is severely and irreconcilably opposed to his ideological enemies, Nikon and his followers. Making use of irony and the grotesque, he paints them in a 321 satirical light. He brings out the hypocrisy and greed of Nikon, who behaves “like a fox" before his election to the patriarchal throne; afterwards he “didn’t even let his friends into the reception room" (of the patriarchal palace). Awakum depicts Nikon as a “rogue”, a “borzoi dog with a big snout and a big belly”, a “fig of Antichrist”, a “wolf” and a “shifty beast”, a “hound of hell”. He stresses Nikon’s cruelty, the fact that he “burns men with fire" and tortures his opponents; Awakum also speaks of the patriarch’s dissolute life. Nikon’s comrades are described in the same way.

p Awakum also denounces the greed for money that characterises the clergy under Nikon: the secretary of Archbishop of Tobolsk, Ivan Struna does not punish a man who has committed incest when he is given half a rouble.

p The secular authorities are also depicted in Avvakum’s Life. One of them beats the archpriest in church, and at home “chomped with his teeth on my hand like a dog, and his teeth did not let go of my fingers until his throat was filled with blood”. This same “authority” tries to shoot the archpriest with a harquebus, and taking advantage of his power, drives out Awakum after “robbing him blind" and not even giving him “bread for the road”. When he refuses to bless the “beardless” son of boyar Sheremetyev, the latter orders that the obstinate archpriest be thrown into the Volga, and in the freezing water they “tormented me to no end and pushed me under”. Crueler than all the other “authorities” is voyevoda Pashkov, “stern man" who “constantly burns and torments and beats people”. He mercilessly beats Awakum, administering three blows with an iron and 72 with a knout, after which the archpriest is thrown into the Bratsk dungeon, where he lies on his belly because his back is “rotting”. Awakum is “beaten out" of a flat-bottomed boat by Pashkov, who ridicules him and forces him to go on foot through the impenetrable wilds of the taiga. The merciless voyevoda works his subordinates to death. Awakum describes their living conditions in the following words: “A small river, heavy rafts, harsh superintendents, large sticks, pronged cudgels, sharp knouts, cruel 322 torture, fire and shock.”

p In denouncing secular and ecclesiastical authorities, Awakum does not spare the tsar himself, though he regards tsarist rule as something unshakable. He first met the tsar in his youth, after he was driven from Lopatitsy by the local voyevoda and “trudged” to Moscow. Awakum’s flight from the rebellious parish of Yurievets-Povolsky enrages the tsar, but he greets Awakum like an “angel of God" upon his return from exile in Dauria. “His majesty ordered that I be brought before him and kiss his hand and had kind words to say: ’Are you all right, Archpriest? It was God’s will that we should meet again!’"

p At the same time he orders boyar Streshnev to persuade Awakum to keep silent. But this runs counter to the character of the fiery archpriest, and he continues to speak out, petitioning the tsar to return to the “ancient piety".

p This provokes Alexei Mikhailovich to anger. Exiled to Pustozersk, Awakum begins to denounce the “evil and unfortunate tsarlet" who continues to support the “heretics”. Defying the tsar’s authority, Awakum says that Alexei Mikhailovich will suffer the torments of hell. It is not surprising that when the tsar Fedor decided in 1682 to have Awakum executed, he decreed that the former archpriest be burned at the stake “for greatly abusing the house of the tsars".

p But while Awakum is merciless and irreconcilably opposed to his enemies, he is gentle, responsive, sensitive and solicitous toward his comrades-in-arms and his family. In his Life he speaks with great sympathy and love about Ivan Neronov, Daniil Loggin, Lazar, Epifany, Deacon Fedor, Fedor the Fool in Christ, “Christ’s martyrs" Feodosya Prokopyevna Morozova and Evdokia Prokopyevna Urusova.

p Awakum is an exemplary husband and father. He loves his “kids” and is grief-stricken by their bitter lot in life and his parting with them (his wife and children were exiled to the Mezen). Awakum speaks with sorrow about his sons, Prokopy and Ivan, who, fearing death, accepted “Nikonianism” and are undergoing torment, “buried alive in the earth" (in an underground dungeon) 323 along with their mother. He speaks lovingly of his daughter Agrafena, who, while living in Dauria, was forced to go up to the window of the voyevoda’s daughter-in-law and plea for alms, which were sometimes very generous.

p The most remarkable figure in the Life is Awakum’s wife and companion Anastasia Markovna. She accompanies her husband into exile in Siberia without uttering a word of complaint: on the way she gives birth to and buries her children, rescues them during a storm, sells her only treasure, a Moscow caftan, for four bags of rye so that the family will not starve; then together with her husband she digs up roots, makes meal out of pine bark, and gathers up scraps of food left by wolves to save her children from starvation. She provides her husband with moral support in putting up with the adversities that constantly surround them. Only once does a cry of protest and despair rise to the surface from her tormented breast: “How long, Archpriest, must we live with these tribulations? " Instead of words of comfort, her husband declares, “Till death itself! " and summoning up her strength and willpower, Anastasia responds simply, “All right, Petrovich, we’ll keep plodding along.” What beauty, nobility and selflessness lie behind the words of this simple response uttered by a Russian woman who is ready to share all the torments, anxiety and adversities of life with her beloved! When he first returns from exile, the archpriest is dismayed that “nothing is getting done, mostly just talk”, and he wants to decide what he should do: preach the Word of God or go into hiding because his wife and children are tying him down. Seeing how sad he is, his wife says, “I bless you along with the children: dare to preach the Word of God as before, and don’t grieve on our account. Go ahead, go to the church, Petrovich, show up their heretical errors.”

In describing his everyday domestic life, Awakum makes a point of stressing the indissoluble bond between the church and one’s way of life. He defends the patriarchal system maintained by the old rite. He is intent on demonstrating that the old rite is intimately tied up with life itself and its national foundations, and 324 that the new rite will lead to a crumbling of these foundations. His passionate defence of the “ancient piety" transforms the Life into a documentary, polemical record of the epoch. It is no coincidence that Awakum begins his Life by setting forth the basic tenets of the “old faith”, citing the authority of the Church Fathers and declaring resolutely: “This do I, Archpriest Awakum, hold true, and confess, and hereby shall I live and die.” His very life exemplified the truth of the tenets he set forth, promulgated and defended.

The Genre and
Style of the Life

p Avvakum’s Life is the first autobiographical confession in the history of Russian literature. In it the author combines an account of his own misfortunes with a wrathful, satirical expose of the ruling class and an expository defence of the “old faith".

p The interweaving of personal and social motifs transforms the Life from an autobiographical narrative into a panoramic account of the social and political life of the times.

p The Life has only a few things in common with traditional hagiographical literature: the introduction, appeals to the authority of the Church Fathers, miracles (though here they are quite different in character from those that occur in traditional vitae] and a number of hagiographical figurative devices—for example, likening destiny to a ship and life to a journey.

p Interesting new traits make their appearance in Avvakum’s Life. They reflect a growing awareness of the individual, thanks to which hagiobiography is transformed into autobiography, a spirited confession of the human heart, staunch and unbending. Another peculiar feature of the Life is the accurate description of everyday life and human sufferings, and also the presence of satire. The Life is also suffused with ethnographic descriptions of distant Siberia, its rivers, flora and fauna.

p Traditional elements of the supernatural are 325 transformed by Awakum and acquire entirely realistic contours. Consider, for example, the “miracle” that takes place in the dungeon of the Androniev Monastery: for three days Awakum sits here in chains, racked by hunger, when suddenly a creature appears—an angel or a man—and offers him some cabbage soup which is “very tasty, really good! " Or consider the commander who tries to kill Awakum with his harquebus: it misfires three times, which the archpriest interprets as a manifestation of Divine Providence. And yet another miracle: God helps Awakum catch a lot of fish in a place where no one had been able to catch them before. In all these cases the miracles described by Awakum in no way run contrary to the natural course of events.

p The innovativeness of the Life finds graphic manifestation in the language and style of the work. Awakum writes in his “native Russian tongue”. He describes his love for the language in the opening section of the Life: “And if things are said simply, for God’s sake ... do not despise our popular speech, for I love my native Russian tongue, and I am not used to adorning my speech with philosophical verses.” He also calls on the tsar to speak in his native tongue: “After all, Mikhailovich, you’re not a Greek, but a Russian, so speak in your native tongue, and don’t disparage it in church, or at home or in proverbs.”

p The Life takes the form of a skaz— an unhurried first person narrative addressed to a specific person, the elder Epifany, but at the same time including in its range a far greater audience of fellow believers. But as V.V. Vinogradov has rightly noted, the skaz style of the Life is interwoven with the style of a sermon, and this accounts for the mixture of literary Church Slavic elements with colloquialisms and even dialectisms.  [325•1 

p Typical for Avvakum’s style is the absence of any measured, epic narration. His Life consists of a number o f masterfully executed, accurate dramatic scenes consistently based on sharp conflicts of a social, 326 religious or ethical nature. These dramatic scenes are joined together by lyrical and expository digressions. Here Avvakum grieves or complains or makes ironic comments about his opponents or about himself, or expresses fervent support for his comrades and mourns their fate.

p The Life is a story told by a masterful narrator; it is not confined by rules. The narrator often runs ahead of himself or goes back to’ earlier episodes; he does not adhere to strict chronological sequence. Awakum makes use of proverbs and sayings and plays on words which sometimes conceal a subtle irony.

p Awakum sets forth his aesthetic credo in the fourth “talk” on icon painting.  [326•1  He rejects the new school of painting founded by two outstanding seventeenth century artists, Simon Ushakov and losif Vladimirov, who set forth the theoretical foundations of the school in their aesthetic tracts. Awakum indignantly rejects the new style. He is disturbed by icons which are based on “fleshly designs by heretics [Nikonians] who love fleshly plumpness and reject what is lofty”. He believes that icons should not be painted “as though from life”, in a “foreign, that is, German manner”. Foreigners, notes Avvakum, “make the Mother of God look pregnant at the Annunciation, and Christ on the cross has chubby cheeks, a sweet little plump creature, and his legs look like the legs of a chair. O, poor Russia, whatever made you want to follow German ways and customs! "

p While theoretically rejecting “life-likeness" in icon painting, Avvakum’s works constantly reflect this quality. He presents abstract religious concepts and ideas in extremely concrete terms, giving them the real substance of everyday experience, which permits him to arrive at broad psychological, moral and philosophical conclusions.

p Avvakum depicts the heavenly hierarchy in very real, earthly terms. He describes himself as a beggar 327 going about to rich households to gather spiritual food with which to feed his “children”: “I ask a rich man, Tsar Christ, to give me a slice of bread from the Gospels; I ask the Apostle Paul, a rich merchant, to give me some bread from his store; I receive bits of a sermon from the tradesman Chrysostom; I asked for quarter-loaves from two tradesmen, King David and Isaiah the Prophet; I gathered a bagful, and now I give it to you who reside in the home of my God.” (Italics mine—Auth.)

p Holy Scripture as interpreted by Awakum acquires that everyday concreteness so typical for the author’s style, combined with broad generalisations. In treating the Book of Genesis, for example, Awakum depicts the fall of Adam and Eve. What happened in paradise, says the archpriest, “happens to this very day in weak-willed men: they treat each other to an undissolved potion, that is, green wine that has been filtered and other drinks and sweet brews. And afterwards they laugh at each other as they get drunk.” Having committed the first sin, Adam is ashamed of sincerely acknowledging his guilt before God, his “bad conscience" does not tell him to do so, and he “smooths over his sin with perfidy and transfers it to other men”. Adam hastens to place the guilt on Eve, and Eve on the serpent. “The wife takes after the husband; they are both revellers, and their children are not all the more answerable for they live helter-skelter,” concluded Awakum.

p The stylistic features of the Life and of certain other works by Awakum permit one to speak of the unique creative individuality of this most talented writer of the second half of the seventeenth century, whose works graphically reflect typical traits of this transitional period.

p Avvakum’s close ties with those democratic elements of the population which participated in the Old Believer movement accounts for the democratism and newness of his style. That style intrigued many nineteenth century writers. Turgenev, for example, while disapproving of Avvakum as a person, was enraptured by the “living Muscovite style" of the archpriest, and remarked that “he wrote in a language that every writer should study".

328

At the beginning of the twentieth century certain decadent writers tried to extol the image of the innocent martyr and saw in him an expression of the essence of the national spirit, including an immeasurable love for suffering. Gorky came out against this viewpoint, noting the militant democratic nature of Awakum. “The language and also the style of Archpriest Avvakum’s letters and his Life represent an unsurpassed example of the fiery and passionate speech of a fighter, and in general there is a good deal to be learned from reading our ancient literature,” he wrote.  [328•1  A. N.Tolstoy also rated the style of the Life very highly. In writing Peter I he made use of the living colloquial speech of Awakum in order to convey the historical flavour of the period.

The Tale of the Life
of Boyarina Morozova

p One of the works in the Old Believer tradition which stands out is the Tale of the Life of Boyarina Morozova, written in the late seventies or early eighties of the seventeenth century. At first glance it appears to be written in the traditional hagiographic manner of the sixteenth century, with a bookish, rhetorical style clearly dominating. But in Boyarina Morozova there is no rhetorical introduction, no lament, no panegyrics and no posthumous miracles. The heroine herself does not perform any miracles in her lifetime, and the only proof of her sanctity is Melania’s “vision”. Boyarina Morozova is not so much hagiography as biography, revealing the courageous and steadfast character of a Russian woman standing up for her convictions. The tale stresses the moral beauty of Feodosya Prokopyevna Morozova who does not yield to persuasion or threats. She suffers every sort of torment—separation from her son, his death, her own imprisonment. She suffers “a wrongful and useless death" in the Borovsk dungeon.

329

p The last days of Morozova’s life are described in striking dramatic form. Tormented by hunger, she appeals to her guard:

p “Have mercy, slave of Christ! I have grown weak from hunger and I long to eat. Have mercy, give me a little cake! "

p “But he said, ’No, my lady, I am afraid.’

p “And the martyr said, ’At least a little bread.’

p “And he said, ’I do not dare.’

p “And again the martyr spoke: ’At least a few biscuits.’

p “And he said, ’I do not dare.’

p “And Feodosya said, ’If you do not dare, then bring me at least a little apple or a tiny cucumber.’

p “And he said, ’I do not dare.’"

p In the second half of the nineteenth century the artist V. I. Surikov and the poet A. A. Navrotsky dealt with Boyarina Morozova in their works.

p Besides hagiographical works, Old Believer literature was also well represented in polemic epistles, tracts and various appeals to the democratically oriented reader. In order to make these works more comprehensible to the reader, the authors “worked out their own special type of written vernacular, which Awakum called ’blather’ contrast to bookish language”.  [329•1 

p And so a new democratic literature arose and developed in the second half of the seventeenth century. Reflecting the artistic tastes of the urban population, this literature concentrated on purely secular themes. It boldly borrowed from the oral poetic culture of the people, its images, slots, genres and stylistic peculiarities.

p The new democratic literature focused on the life of the ordinary city dweller, who was trying to organise his life as he saw fit. And although these attempts were not always crowned with success and the young man occasionally suffered defeat, it was nonetheless 330 characteristic for the literature of this transitional epoch to deal with issues of this sort.

p The most remarkable trend to emerge from the literature of this period was democratic, anti-feudal satire directed against the principal bastions of aristocracy and monarchy: the church and the court system.

p This democratic literature provided the setting for the works of Archpriest Awakum, which reflected a growing self-awareness of the human personality and affirmed its unique individual value.

p The democratic literature of the seventeenth century brought an end to the previous integral artistic method that characterised Russian literature from the eleventh to the sixteenth century. “Life-likeness” and the symbolism of folk poetry came to replace the artistic principles that had reigned earlier—Christian symbolism and etiquette.

The new democratic literature brought about essential changes in the system of genres of Old Russian literature: old genres were transformed and new ones appeared which initially had no clear contours. The “motleyness” of the genres was matched by the “motleyness” of the styles employed: bookish literary language existed side by side with colloquial speech, the language of the courts and administration, and the language of oral folk poetry.

Sources

p 1. O.A. Derzhavina, “Perspektivy izucheniya perevodnoi novelly XVII v.” (“Prospects for the Study of Translated Tales of the Seventeenth Century”), TODRL, vol. 14, 1962.

p 2. O.A. Derzhavina, “Zadachi izucheniya perevodnoi povesti i dramaturgii XVII v.” (“The Task of Studying Translated Tales and Dramatic Works of the Seventeenth Century”), TODRL, vol. 20,1964.

p 3. O.A. Derzhavina, Facetiae, M., 1962.

p 4. I.P. Eremin, “Russkaya literatura i yazyk na rubezhe XVII-XVIII vv.” (“Russian Literature and Language in the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries”), Literatura Drevnei Rust (The Literature of Old Rus), M.-L., 1966.

p 5. Zhitie protopopa Avvakuma, im samim napisannoe, i drugie ego sochineniya (The Life of Archpriest Awakum Written by Himself, and Other Works of His), M., 1966.

p 6. V.D. Kuzmina, Rytsarskiy roman na Rusi. Bova. Petr Zlatykh Klyuchei (Romances of Chivalry in Russia: Bova and Peter of 331 the Golden Keys), M., 1964.

p 7. A.N. Pypin, “Ocherki literatumoi istorii starinnykh povestei i skazok russkikh" (“Essays on the Literary History of Old Russian Stories and Tales”), in Uchonye zapiski vtorogo otdeleniya imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, Book IV, St. Petersburg, 1858.

p 8. A.N. Robinson, Zhizneopisaniya Avvakuma i Epifaniya. Issledovaniya i teksty (The Lives of Awakum and Epifany: Texts and Commentary), M., 1963.

9. A.N. Robinson, Borba idei v russkoi literature XVII veka (The Battle of Ideas in Seventeenth Century Russian Literature), M., 1974.