Iurodstvo in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rus'

我的博士研究旨在从圣徒传、政治和社会的角度来定义莫斯科的圣愚（iurodstvo）及其在15和16世纪的功能。俄罗斯的圣愚（iurodivye）起源于拜占庭的萨洛伊传统及其最著名的代表，埃梅萨的西缅和君士坦丁堡的安德鲁。圣徒传中定义的萨罗斯将界限推向了极端，他存在于一个矛盾的空间中，既有公众的丑闻，又有救赎的使命，既有个人的奉献，又有社会的干预：一方面，这个傻瓜令人震惊的行为是一种苦行，吸引了人们的殴打和惩罚，让人想起基督所经历的那些;另一方面一个神秘的谜语，旨在向他的教友们展示精神救赎的道路。罗斯的Iurodstvo-与拜占庭的对应物不同-发展成为一个与今天相关的主要文化范式。从17世纪开始，特别是在苏联和当代，神圣的傻瓜被解释为社会政治的反叛者，这一内涵往往无助于对前现代iurodstvo的分析，学术倾向于对神圣的愚蠢行为进行跨时期的概述，这强化了这种追溯性偏见。从革命前的时代（Aleksii（Kuznetsov）1913年）开始出版了高标准的俄语作品，并采取了现象学（Likhachev，Panchenko，Ponyrko 1984）和历史（Ivanov 2006，俄语再版2019）的方法来理解iurodstvo。英语语言奖学金倾向于文学（Kobets 2001）或文化（Thompson 1987; Hunt & Kobets 2011）分析，最近补充了一项具有挑战性的拜占庭神圣愚蠢的跨学科研究（Rotman 2016）。虽然这种主题或年代叙述是必不可少的，但它们必然会消除特定时期的细微差别，掩盖地区差异，因此我的研究将把研究框架缩小到15和16世纪被认为是iurodivye的个人，主要活跃在俄罗斯北方。我的哲学硕士论文研究了罗斯托夫的伊西多尔和乌斯秋格的伊安的生活和崇拜，在此基础上，我将研究莫斯科的马克西姆、克洛普斯克的米哈伊尔、诺夫哥罗德的阿尔谢尼或阿特米·特雷蒂亚克等神圣傻瓜的个人职业生涯。人们经常指出，拜占庭的“模范”在行为上比莫斯科的模范更令人震惊，而不是将圣徒与之进行比较，我将把iurodstvo作为一个光谱来呈现，在这个光谱中，如果被他们的同时代人这样称呼的话，那些更让人想起神人阿莱克修斯而不是埃梅萨的西缅的轻度愚蠢的个人被认为是合法的iurodivye。在每个案例研究中，我将使用圣徒传-尽管它与历史现实的关系有问题-以及物质文化，特别是图标和神殿。后者，往往只知道通过文字或视觉描述，是一个重要的体现，圣人的关系与社区，他们重视。此外，16世纪的旅行者记录--包括弗莱彻、霍尔西、斯塔登、陶贝和克鲁斯的作品--让我们得以一窥iurodstvo在早期现代莫斯科社会中的地位。最后，礼仪文本（sluzhby），大多未经编辑，已被忽视的学术，虽然他们提供了独特的见解邪教作为执行仪式，这可以与那些“主流”圣徒。神圣的傻瓜往往是孤立地研究：通过研究地区邪教集群，我还打算把iurodivye的受欢迎程度-往往被更强大的thaumaturges，如主教粉碎-到透视。

My doctoral research intends to define Muscovite holy foolery (iurodstvo) and its functions in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, considering it from hagiographical, as well as political and social perspectives.Russian holy fools (iurodivye) descended from the Byzantine tradition of saloi and its most famous representatives, Symeon of Emesa and Andrew of Constantinople. Pushing liminality to the extreme, the hagiographically defined salos existed in an ambivalent space between perceived public scandal and salvific mission, private devotion and social intervention: the fool's shocking behaviour was, on one hand, an ascetic exercise attracting beatings and humiliations reminiscent of those endured by Christ; and, on the other, a mystical riddle intended to show his coreligionists the way to spiritual salvation.Iurodstvo in Rus' - unlike its Byzantine counterpart - developed into a major cultural paradigm relevant to this day. From the seventeenth century, and especially in Soviet and contemporary times, holy fools have been interpreted as socio-political rebels, a connotation often unhelpful to the analysis of pre-modern iurodstvo.This retrospective bias is reinforced by the scholarly tendency to produce overviews of holy foolery across time. High-standard Russian-language works have been published from pre-revolutionary times (Aleksii (Kuznetsov) 1913), and taken phenomenological (Likhachev, Panchenko, Ponyrko 1984) and historical (Ivanov 2006, Russian reedition 2019) approaches to iurodstvo. English-language scholarship has tended towards literary (Kobets 2001) or cultural (Thompson 1987; Hunt & Kobets 2011) analysis, recently complemented by a challenging interdisciplinary study of Byzantine holy foolery (Rotman 2016). Though such thematic or chronological narratives are indispensable, they necessarily iron out period-specific nuances and gloss over regional variation.My research will therefore narrow the framework of study to fifteenth- and sixteenth-century individuals perceived as iurodivye and primarily active in northern Rus'. Building on my MPhil thesis, which examined the Lives and cults of Isidor of Rostov and Ioann of Ustiug, I will look at the individual careers of holy fools such as Maksim of Moscow, Mikhail of Klopsk, Arsenii of Novgorod, or Artemii Tret'iak. Rather than measuring saints against Byzantine 'models', who, it has often been pointed out, were considerably more shocking in behaviour than their Muscovite counterparts, I will present iurodstvo as a spectrum where mildly foolish individuals more reminiscent of Alexius the Man of God than of Symeon of Emesa are regarded as legitimate iurodivye if referred as such by their contemporaries.In order to arrive at a definition of iurodstvo as performed in each case study, I will use hagiography - despite its problematic relationship with historical reality -, as well as material culture, especially icons and shrines. The latter, often known only through textual or visual descriptions, are an important embodiment of the saint's relationship with the community they were attached to. Furthermore, sixteenth-century travellers' accounts - including the works of Fletcher, Horsey, Staden, and Taube and Kruse - offer a glimpse of the place of iurodstvo in early-modern Muscovite society. Finally, liturgical texts (sluzhby), mostly unedited, have been neglected by scholarship though they offer unique insights into cults as performed rituals, which can be compared with those of 'mainstream' saints. Holy fools are too often studied in isolation: by looking at regional cult clusters, I also intend to put the popularity of iurodivye - often crushed by that of more powerful thaumaturges like bishops - into perspective.