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

安德烈·米哈伊尔洛维奇·库尔布斯基可能是沙皇伊凡四世最著名的反对者之一。格罗兹尼。传统上他被认为是叛徒，但现在他也被认为是俄罗斯历史上第一批持不同政见者和流亡者之一。他的名声主要归功于他的作品的传播。它们成为了这位具有象征意义的第一位沙皇历史的核心资料来源，其中包括逃亡者与他的前主人之间著名的论战信件以及库布斯基的《莫斯科战争史》。关于它的划分沙皇的统治分为一个好的和一个邪恶的时期，伊斯托利亚获得了特殊的权力，在历史编纂。然而，《Istoriia》不会被视为一部历史资料，而是一部在当时是新的史学作品。尽管传统上认为它是旧俄罗斯史学的产物，但它只能是在莫斯科之外，在对西欧思想史发展的富有成效的探索中，以及在对库布斯基在波兰-立陶宛所面临的法律的和宪法结构的探索中，以目前的形式出现的。他对拉丁语的研究使库布斯基不仅熟悉了拉丁语的文体特点，而且熟悉了拉丁语史学的理论基础和后来基于拉丁语的人文主义作家的作品。他选择了“Istoriia”作为他关于伊凡四世的作品的名称，从而将他的文本与旧俄罗斯历史写作的流派如“letopis”区分开来，“povest”或“之贴”是对圣徒和王子的生活描述。库布斯基的作品将在他与伊凡四世的争论以及在他的信件中也可见的争论文化的背景下被考虑。我们将特别关注谩骂：它们在古代文学中有着伟大的传统，是宗教争论和人文主义者之间知识争论的流行武器，也可以在沙皇的信件中找到。在这种背景下，在“伊斯托利亚”的创新将确定更详细地根据其性质和范围：什么样的形式创新的结构和组成的文本可以识别？他们如何与当代莫斯科史学比较？《伊斯托利亚》中的创新是库布斯基在波兰-立陶宛接触到的文学模式转变的结果吗？这一发现对库布斯基文本中的历史理论假设和立场有什么影响？什么样的叙事策略，什么样的程序变得有形？库布斯基的作品是古俄语版的拉丁文王子传记吗？

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?