Historiography in the Mode of Invectivity. The "Istoriia o velikom kniaze Moskovskom" of Prince Andrei Kurbskii (1528-1583) as a New Form of Historical Representation

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbskii was probably one of the most famous opponents of Tsar Ivan IV. Groznyi. Traditionally he was considered a traitor, but now he is also considered one of the first dissidents and exiles in Russian history. He owes his fame mainly to the transmission of his works. They became central sources on the history of the so symbolic first tsar, among them the famous polemical correspondence between the fugitive and his former master as well as Kurbskii's “Istoriia o velikom kniaze Moskovskom”. With regard to its division of the Tsar's reign into a good and an evil period, the Istoria attained special power in historiography. However, the “Istoriia” will not be focused on as a historical source, but rather as a work of historiography that was new for its time. Although traditionally attributed to Old Russian historiography, it could only have emerged in its present form outside Muscovy and in productive exploration of intellectual-historical developments from Western Europe and the legal and constitutional structures with which Kurbskii was confronted in Poland-Lithuania. His studies of Latin language allowed Kurbskii to become familiar not only with its stylistic peculiarities, but also with theoretical foundations of Latin historiography and later works of humanist writers based on it. He chose “Istoriia” as the name for his work on Ivan IV, thus distinguishing his text from the Old Russian genres of historical writing such as “letopis'”, “povest'” or “zhitie” for life descriptions of saints, and also princes. Kurbskii's work will be considered here in the context of his dispute with Ivan IV and the culture of dispute that is also tangible in his correspondence. Special attention will be paid to invectives: they had a great tradition in ancient literature, were a popular weapon in confessional controversies disputes and in intellectual disputes among humanists, and can also be found in the tsar's correspondence. Against this background, the innovations in the “Istoriia” will be determined in more detail according to their nature and scope: What kind of formal innovations in the structure and composition of the text can be identified? How do they compare with contemporary muscovite historiography? Are the innovations in the “Istoriia “the result of a transformation of literary models with which Kurbskii came into contact in Poland-Lithuania? What consequences does the finding have for the historical-theoretical assumptions and positions woven into Kurbskii's text? What narrative strategies, which procedures become tangible? Is Kurbskii's work an Old Russian equivalent of Latin biographies of princes, an anti-vita?