Nikoletta Marčalis: Ljutor” iže ljut”. Prenie o vere carja Ivana Groznogo s pastorom Rokitoj [Luther, der Bösewicht. Der Glaubensstreit zwischen Zar Ivan dem Schrecklichen und dem Pastor Rokita]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 2009. 376 S. = Studia philologica. ISBN: 978-5-9551-0340-2

Nikoletta Marčalis [Marcialis]: Ljutor” iže ljut”. Prenie o vere carja Ivana Groznogo s pastorom Rokitoj [Luther, der Bösewicht. Der Glaubensstreit zwischen Zar Ivan dem Schrecklichen und dem Pastor Rokita]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 2009. 376 S. = Studia philologica. ISBN: 978-5-9551-0340-2.

Nicoletta Marcialis, ordinary professor at Rome 2 Tor Vergata University, gives us a case study in philology and textology which offers large and new perspectives about Ivan the Terrible’s reign. The historical event her book is about, a theological dispute between Ivan the Terrible and Jan Rokyta, a protestant preacher, held in Moscow in May 1570, seems to have had little practical lasting effects. Yet its importance is not to be neglected and there have been already a lot of studies or comments on this controversy by famous Russian specialists (JA. S. Lur’e and D. S. Lichačev among them) and by foreigners (V. Tumins, C. De Michelis, L. Ronchi De Michelis). Its implications are wide for contemporary research, because it touches many fields in the history of Eastern Europe during the second half of the 16th c., such as the religious polemics following the Lutheran Reformation, Russian diplomacy, Ivan the Terrible’s government of Russia during the opričnina terror period, and his legacy as a writer.

Chapter 1 is devoted to the historical context of the encounter between tsar Ivan and his opponent. On March 3, 1570, a numerous delegation from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth reaches Moscow to negotiate a peace settlement with Russia. They are made to wait 16 days before Russian officials tell them to wait again, because Ivan the Terrible is “busy” with his lands of Pskov and Novgorod. Indeed, as we know from other sources, Ivan the Terrible is perpetrating one of the worst slaughters of his tormented reign. He returns to Moscow on May 3 (or 4) and grants the ambassadors a reception on May 7. From then on, frequent meetings with Ivan’s diplomatic personnel are held. On June 23, the keeper of the Russian seal, Ivan Viskovatyj, checks with the Polish-Lithuanian ambassadors the exact formulation of king Sigismund II’s royal title. After a last meeting on June 26, the delegation quits Moscow on July 3. A fortnight later, a major public execution is ordered by Ivan in Moscow. One of its most prominent victims is Ivan Viskovatyj himself (July 25). Meanwhile, among the members of the Polish delegation Jan Rokyta has a special agenda. As a member of the Unitas Fratrum, an active protestant group, and a Czech by birth, but knowing very well Polish, he is eager to “illuminate” to his faith the Russian nation living in “deep darkness” (pp. 24–25). His wish is granted, in a way, but he meets stubborn opposition. After a short first discussion, Ivan orders him to write a brief note about his religion. On another audience (May 10?), Rokyta receives a written answer from the tsar who prohibits him to preach in Moscow and calls him a servant of the Antichrist. Some details of the chronology are still disputed (p. 20, n. 10), yet the most interesting fact is that the written documents have been preserved in copies quite close to the period, in their original language and in translation.

N. Marcialis checks carefully all the Russian and foreign narrative sources telling this episode. In the process she shows great command of these documents. But the best part of her study is the complete dossier of the textological tradition of Jan Rokyta’s “Confession of faith” (Ispoved’ very) and of Ivan the Terrible’s “Response” (Otvet) (ch. 2–3). At the end of the volume, Rokyta’s Confession is published in parallel Polish and Latin versions (pp. 191–201). Regarding tsar Ivan’s Response, N. Marcialis studies the seven known manuscripts (five in Slavic version, one in Latin, one in Polish) and publishes a full transcription of the so called Manuscript of Chełm (Cholmskaja rukopis’) of the late 16th c. (pp. 217–376). As always, Ivan the Terrible is much more prolific than his opponent! This valuable document (now kept in Houghton Library, Harvard University) is not the one Ivan offered to Rokyta, as some specialists thought (p. 70), yet it is a very accurate copy. These pages can be considered as the definitive edition of both texts, replacing the very disappointing publication of Ivan’s Otvet in the 11th volume of “Biblioteka literatury Drevnej Rusi” (2001) and Valerie Tumin’s first edition of the Chełm manuscript (1971). The defects of these previous publications are exposed by N. Marcialis (p. 12, 59). Translations from Latin, Polish, or Old-Russian, are most of the time very accurate. One is all the most surprised to see “tyrannus” translated in Russian as “pravitel’” instead of “tiran” (p. 52).

Chapter four analyzes in-depth the structure and the arguments of Ivan’s “Response” and opens a discussion on the tsar’s competence as a theologian. The sources used by Ivan the Terrible are thoroughly identified, as is the process of quotation in itself. In this particular field, one can regret that N. Marcialis does not use the similar study of Ivan’s epistle to the monks of St. Cyril abbey in Beloozero (Marcel Ferrand: Ivan le Terrible écrivain: l’Épître aux moines du Lac Blanc (1573), in: Mélanges offerts à François de Labriolle. Paris 1997, pp. 99–139 = Slovo 17). One could also compare the literary technique of Ivan to the style of archpriest Avvakum and patriarch Nikon who wrote a century later. It is clear, as N. Marcialis points out, that Ivan assumed a unique role as a sovereign-writer (pp. 100–104), yet his taste for mélange des genres is not so exceptional. One has to mention also prince Andrej Kurbskij, Ivan’s most immediate literary opponent. Both use almost simultaneously imprecation and lament, high style and personal attack, both seem to enjoy playing with words (p. 108. See also my article, Ironie et jeux de mots dans les textes narratifs vieux-russes, in: Nel mondo degli Slavi: incontri e dialoghi tra culture: studi in onore di Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, a cura di M. Di Salvo, G. Moracci, G. Siedina, Firenze 2008, t. 1, pp. 255–265. = Biblioteca di studi slavistici 8).

Finally, two worthy addenda shed light on the treatment of Martin Luther in the works of the famous Maksim Grek (Michael Trivolis) and on the enigma of one Parphenius the Holy Fool (Parfenij Urodivyj), who has been considered as a pseudonym used by Ivan the Terrible. Following I. A. Šljapkin (in 1911) and later D. S. Lichačev, some Russian specialists have reconstructed a not so small body of liturgical works attributed to Ivan under this name (p. 7–11). N. Marcialis gives us a careful assessment of the known manuscripts and reaches rather skeptical conclusions. The only sustainable hypothesis is that Ivan the Terrible could have signed only one liturgical opus, the “Canon to the Formidable Angel” (Kanon Angelu Groznomu) as Parfenij Urodivyj. Then, some decades later, another writer could have used the same pseudonym to lead us to think that the tsar was the author of “Letters to an unknown against the Lutherians” (Poslanija neizvestnomu protiv ljutorov, p. 172). In 16th century Muscovy, literary pseudonym was not yet in use, and it was only taking roots in nearby Lithuania (p. 174). N. Marcialis thinks that there was a real Parfenij or Porfirij/Perfirij Malyj, member of the circle of Artemij and Fedor Kosoj, two famous Russian clerks who were convicted of heresy in the middle of the 16th century. He could very well have evaded such fate by posing as a holy fool (p. 177). This book is certainly a step further in understanding the ways of Russian late medieval religious culture.

Pierre Gonneau, Paris