Iurodstvo in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Rus'

我的博士研究意在定义莫斯科人的圣愚行(Iurodstvo)及其在15世纪和16世纪的功能，从圣徒传记以及政治和社会角度考虑它。俄罗斯圣愚人(Iurodivye)从Saloi及其最著名的代表，Emesa的Symeon和君士坦丁堡的安德鲁的拜占庭传统下来。将极限性推向极端，圣徒传记定义的Salos存在于感知的公共丑闻和救赎使命、私人奉献和社会干预之间的矛盾空间：一方面，愚人的令人震惊的行为是一种苦行练习，吸引着令人想起基督所忍受的殴打和羞辱；另一方面，一个神秘的谜语，旨在向他的同教信徒展示精神救赎的道路。与拜占庭的同类作品不同，《Rus》中的Iurodstvo发展成为与当今相关的主要文化范式。从17世纪开始，尤其是在苏联和当代，圣人被解释为社会政治叛逆者，这一内涵往往无助于分析前现代的iurodstvo。这种追溯偏见因学术倾向而得到强化，即随着时间的推移对圣人的愚蠢行为进行概述。从革命前时代(Aleksii(Kuznetsov)1913年)开始出版高水准的俄语作品，并采取现象学(利哈乔夫、潘琴科、波尼尔科1984)和历史学(伊万诺夫2006,2019年俄罗斯再版)的方法接近iurodstvo。英语学术已经趋向于文学(Kobets 2001)或文化分析(Thompson 1987；Hunt&Kobets 2011)，最近又得到了一项具有挑战性的跨学科研究拜占庭神圣愚蠢行为(Rotman 2016)的补充。虽然这种主题或时间顺序的叙述是不可或缺的，但它们必然会消除特定时期的细微差别，并掩盖地区差异。因此，我的研究将把研究框架缩小到15世纪和16世纪被认为是黑神和主要活跃在北宫的个人。在我的MPhil论文的基础上，我研究了罗斯托夫的伊西多尔和乌斯提格的约安的生活和邪教，我将看看圣傻瓜的个人职业生涯，如莫斯科的马克西姆、克洛普斯克的米哈伊尔、诺夫哥罗德的阿尔谢尼二世或阿尔特米·特雷特亚克。人们经常指出，拜占庭的圣人比莫斯科的圣人行为更令人震惊，但我不会把圣人与拜占庭的“模范”进行比较，而是将其描述为一种光谱，在这种光谱中，稍微愚蠢的人如果被同时代的人称为iurodvo，就会被视为合法的iurodvo。为了得出每个案例研究中所执行的iurodstvo的定义，我将使用圣人--尽管它与历史现实存在问题--以及物质文化，特别是偶像和神殿。后者通常只能通过文字或视觉描述才能知道，是圣人与他们所依附的社区关系的重要体现。此外，16世纪旅行者的记述--包括弗莱彻、霍西、斯塔登、陶贝和克鲁斯的作品--让我们得以一窥伊洛德斯特沃在早期现代莫斯科社会中的地位。最后，礼仪经文(Sluzhby)，大多未经编辑，一直被学者忽视，尽管它们提供了对邪教的独特见解，作为表演的仪式，可以与“主流”圣徒的仪式相比较。圣人经常被孤立地研究：通过观察地区性的邪教集群，我也想让人们对iurodivye的受欢迎程度有一个正确的认识--iurodivye往往被主教等更有权势的圣徒的人气压垮。

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.