Letters to the Editor

Where’s Fyodor?

To the Editors:

You seem to go out of your way to avoid the subject of Fyodor M. Dostoevsky. OK, in your Petersburg issue you give one full page devoted to him, a quote of his under a picture from some anonymous street scene in Petersburg.

Besides that, zero.

Is it true that Russians avoid Dostoevsky’s work as it brings to light a side of Russia known too well to Russians already? He is the sole reason I’ve ever set foot in Russia, the greatest trip of my lifetime.

I’ve read all his works, some more than once.

I think it is the ultimate irony that he is more beloved in the West than in his own homeland, considering how he rejected the West and considered Russia God-bearing.

I plan to go to Omsk someday to find out more about him. Can you print a travel piece to that city in Siberia?

A faithful reader for many years,

Michael McKenna

Chicago, IL

Mr. McKenna:

Most of our historical articles are published in connection with a “round” (usually 5 or 10 year multiple) historical anniversary. Sometimes we miss the anniversary (like Brodsky’s 65th birthday last year), and will make it up later.

In fact, it is our plan to run a story on Fyodor Dostoyevsky later this year, in connection with the 185th anniversary of his birth.

As to Omsk, we published a story on that city by William C. Brumfield in our Nov/Dec 2000 issue.

Safe travels,

The Editors

Lacquer Boxes

To the Editors:

...At least three times I have visited the Vladimir/Suzdal area, mainly with officially sanctioned groups and visits. In fact I have a second cousin residing in Suzdal to this day. In any of those visits, I was never alerted or suggested that we visit on the four villages – Palekh, Fedoskino, Kholuy and Mstera. .... I have reviewed your issues of the last decade. The closest your publication has come to covering this topic was the March/April 2005 issue with an article entitled “Off  the Ring.” I was thoroughly excited by the title, but in substance, not what I have been waiting for for 40 years.

So what is the problem with emphasizing, reporting on, even featuring and presenting an area of very popular Russian Arts and Crafts – Palekh? Are the villages still “closed Villages”? I am sure other readers as well as myself would be interested in a comprehensive article on the villages.

Walter Litven

by email

Mr. Litven:

We did actually run a story on Russian Lacquered Miniatures in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Russian Life. But, unfortunately, all back issues of that publication are sold out, so you would have to track down a copy on eBay or at a local library.

Be sure to also see the review of a topical book in our Under Review section of this issue (page 58).

Sincerely,

The Editors

Revising Nevsky?

To the Editors:

In her article entitled “The Battle on the Ice”... [Mar/Apr 2006], Tamara Eidelman makes a number of statements that run counter to what has always been the accepted portrait of Alexander Nevsky. I would be very interested in finding out what materials she used to research the article, as I have never encountered such a negative assessment of a heretofore undisputed national hero and much-revered saint of the Orthodox Church. Where did she get those allegations of his cruelty and deception, thirst for power, contradictions in personality, lack of concern for the Novgorodians? Certainly not from the chronicles! The business about executions and cutting off of noses smacks of pure fabrication – does she really think the Church would have canonized someone who had committed atrocities? And there was indeed dissatisfaction among the other princes regarding his conciliatory policy toward the Mongols, but it was Alexander who had to beg the Khans for mercy and forgiveness toward them after they had crushed their rebellions. As for the battle on Lake Chudskoe, the reason it is given such importance by “generations of chroniclers and historians” is because it decisively halted the incursion of the Teutonic Order, which was bent on replacing Orthodoxy with Latin Christianity throughout the Russian lands. So to the Orthodox this was certainly no exaggeration.

What the article does not mention are Alexander’s qualities that the Church took into consideration in deciding to canonize him – his great courage, great piety and espousal of Orthodox Christian values, especially humility, which the Church rightly saw as being behind his realistic policy toward the Mongols. Sacrificing his safety and honor, he spent three years traveling, first to Turkmenistan and then to Karakorum in Mongolia, to make sure there was security for his subjects and the Church. This was not being “ingratiating” but the only realistic course, for he could see that outright opposition would have been counterproductive.

In fact, Ms. Eidelman’s cavalier attitude toward the Orthodox Church, with her snide comments, borders on the offensive. She says the Church “lost no time” after Alexander’s passing and that “he soon was declared a saint.” But the fact is that he was canonized locally in 1380 and by the whole Russian Church in 1547 – 300 years after his death! Most canonizations of Russian saints have taken place much sooner. And, I must add, the article trivializes the whole process of canonization, which millions of Orthodox Christians in Russia and elsewhere take very seriously. It’s simply appalling that the article equates the motivations of the bishops who canonized St. Alexander with those of Stalin – he would never have been canonized for mere political expediency, or simply because he was a successful defender of the country and one of its most far-seeing rulers. No, he was canonized because he was a Christian of exceptional integrity and faith. It is ironic that while Ms. Eidelman has few kind words for Stalin, she employs the same historical revisionism that was prevalent under Stalin, when every attempt was made to sully those whom the Orthodox Church held in great esteem.

Archpriest Alexander Lisenko

Chaplain, St. Barbara Monastery

Santa Paula, CA

Tamara Eidelman responds:

Dear Father Alexander:

First of all, I would like to say that I had no intention of disputing the sainthood of Alexander Nevsky. In the first instance, this is none of my business. That was a church decision and it is clear why, as one who defended the Orthodox Church, he was canonized. As concerns the personality of Alexander Nevsky, you are incorrect to call him an “undisputed national hero,” since this historical individual, evoked, continues to evoke, and will always evoke sharp debate among historians. Let me therefore respond in order:

1. The significance of the Battle on the Ice has been overblown. According to one of the top specialists on the Russian Middle Ages, V.T. Pashuto, it was the Battle of Siauliai [Shavli] – which occurred six years prior to the Battle on the Ice – that played the main role in halting the Livonian Order. And Nevsky had no role in that battle. The numbers associated with the Battle on the Ice are questionable. In the Russian Chronicle it is said that between 400 and 500 Germans were killed and 50 taken prisoner. But in the German Chronicle at the end of the 13th century it was written that 20 were killed and just 6 taken prisoner. I do not dare say which of the Chronicles is true, but point out that the question is in dispute.

2. Alexander Nevsky’s relationship with the Novgorodians is not a simple issue. Historians are not exactly sure why Alexander was thrown out by the Novgorodians, but there is a story in the Chronicle in which Nevsky insisted that the Novgorodians submit to the Tatars. Here is a citation from the first Novgorod Chronicle (I have put the text into contemporary language):

In the summer of 6766 [1257] Rus’ received the bad news that the Tatars wanted to conduct a census in Novgorod, and the people worried all summer long... That very winter, the Tatar emissaries arrived with Alexander [Nevsky], and Vasily [Nevsky’s son] fled to Pskov, and the emissaries began to demand tribute, and Prince Alexander drove his son from Pskov and Alexander [the head of the Novgorodian resistance, not Nevsky] and his retinue were punished: some had their noses cut off, some their eyes plucked out – those whom Vasily incited to partake in his evil deeds died in every evil manner that could be conceived.

3. Alexander’s relationship with the Horde was also unquestionably complex and cannot be judged by contemporary norms. However, I would like to underline that they were not limited to Alexander’s intercession for the captive Russian people and similar charitable acts. Here, I cite the respected historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyev, from his book, A History of Russia:

Andrei [Nevsky’s brother] stayed in Vladimir for two years... In 1250, Andrey formed a close alliance with Daniil Galitsky, who had married his daughter [Such an alliance was significant, since Galitsky, like Andrei Yaroslavich, sought to resist the Tatars], but in 1252 Alexander [Nevsky] went to the Don, to the son of Batiev Sartak, to complain about his brother, who had taken away his seniority and was not fulfilling his obligations to the Tatars. Alexander was granted seniority and hordes of Tatars, led by Nevrui, attacked the land of Suzdal. Andrei at this news said, “Lord, what is this?! If we will be fighting and attacking one another with Tatars, it would be better for me to flee to a foreign land, than to make friends with the Tatars and serve them.” Gathering his troops, he went out against Nevrui, but was defeated. He fled to Novgorod, but was not accepted there, so he went to Sweden, where he was accepted with honor. The Tatars took Pereyaslavl, capturing there the family of Yaroslav (Andrei’s brother), killing the town’s governor, enslaving the residents and sending them back to the Horde. Alexander arrived to serve as prince in Vladimir.

Thus, Alexander Nevsky, in denouncing his brother to the Horde, was complicit in the death and enslavement of many Russians, including his relatives. After this, he, instead of his brother, was awarded the esteemed princedom of Vladimir.

It therefore seems to me that the facts demonstrate the ambiguity and complexity of Alexander Nevsky’s character. This, however, does not in any way belittle his unquestioned merit and service to the Orthodox Church. Greater detail on the debate surrounding Nevsky can be found in a course of lectures by the excellent modern historian Igor Danilevsky, “The Russian Land through the Eyes of Contemporaries and their Offspring (12th-14th centuries),” published in 2000 in Moscow.

Respectfully,

Tamara Eidelman