Religion and Language in Post-Soviet Russia

Religion and Language in Post-Soviet Russia

Church Slavonic, one of the world's historic sacred languages, has experienced a revival in post-Soviet Russia. Blending religious studies and sociolinguistics, this is the first book devoted to Church Slavonic in the contemporary period It is not a narrow study in linguistics, but uses Slavonic as a passkey into various wider topics, including the renewal and factionalism of the Orthodox Church; the transfonnation of the Russian language; and the debates about protecting the nation from Western cults and culture. It considers both official and popular fonns of Orthodox Christianity, as well as Russia's esoteric and neo-pagan traditions. Ranging over such diverse areas as liturgy, pedagogy, typography, mythology, and conspiracy theory, the book illuminates the complex interrelationship between language and faith in post-communist society, and shows how Slavonic has perfonned important symbolic work during a momentous chapter in Russian history. It is of great interest to scholars of sociolinguistics and of religion, as well as to Russian studies specialists.

Brian P. Bennett is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Niagara University, USA.

Routledge Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe Series

1 Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe StefanAuer

2 Civil-Military Relations in Russia and Eastern Europe David J. Betz

3 The Extreme Nationalist Threat in Russia The growing influence of western rightist ideas Thomas Parland

4 Economic Development in Tatarstan Global markets and a Russian region Leo McCann

5 Adapting to Russia's New Labour Market Gender and employment strategy Edited by Sarah Ash win

6 Building Democracy and Civil Society East of the Elbe Essays in honour of Edmund Mokrzycki Edited by Sven Eliaeson

7 The Telengits of Southern Siberia Landscape, religion and knowledge in motion Agnieszka Halemba

8 The Development of Capitalism in Russia Simon Clarke

9 Russian Television Today Primetime drama and comedy David MacFadyen

10 The Rebuilding of Greater Russia Putin's foreign policy towards the CIS countries Berti! Nygren

11 A Russian Factory Enters the Market Economy Claudio Morrison

12 Democracy Building and Civil Society in Post-Soviet Armenia Armine /shkanian

13 NATO-Russia Relations in the Twenty-First Century AurelBraun

14 Russian Military Reform A failed exercise in defence decision making Carolina Vendi! Pallin

15 The Multilateral Dimension in Russian Foreign Policy Edited by Elana Wilson Rowe and Stina Torjesen

16 Russian Nationalism and the National Reassertion of Russia Edited by Marlene Laruelle

17 The Caucasus- An Introduction Frederik Coene

18 Radical Islam in the Former Soviet Union Edited by Galina M. Yemelianova

19 Russia's European Agenda and the Baltic States Janina Sleivyte

20 Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe Development processes and policy challenges Edited by Grzegorz Gorzelak, John Bachtler and Maciej Sm~tkowski

21 Russia and Europe Reaching agreements, digging trenches /(jell Engelbrekt and Berti! Nygren

22 Russia's Skinheads Exploring and rethinking subcultural lives Hilary Pilkington, Elena Omel'chenko and Al'bina Gariftianova

23 The Colour Revolutions in the Former Soviet Republics Successes and failures Edited by Donnacha 6 Beachain and Abel Polese

24 Russian Mass Media and Changing Values Edited by Arja Rosenholm, Kaarle Nordenstreng and Elena Trubina

25 The Heritage of Soviet Oriental Studies Edited by Michael Kemper and Stephan Conermann

26 Religion and Language in Post-Soviet Russia Brian P. Bennett

Religion and Language in Post-Soviet Russia

Brian P. Bennett

!l Routledge ~~

Taylor&.FrancisGroup

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2011 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge ~ an imprint of the Taylor &

Franc~

Group, an informa business

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e.-Library, 20 ll. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routle-dge-'s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. ~

2011 Brian P. Bennett

The right of Brian P. Bennett to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Brit~h

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bennett, Brian P. Religion and language in post-Soviet Russia I Brian P. Bennett. p. ern. -(Routledge contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe series; 26) Includes bibliographical references (p. ). 1. Church Slavic language-Russia (Federation) 2. Russian languageReligious aspects-Christianity. 3. Language and culture-Russia (Federation) I. Title. PG615.B46 2011 2010043731 491.8'1701094709049---dc22 ISBN 0-203-81843-l Master e-book ISBN

ISBN: 978-0-415-78063-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-81843-5 (ebk)

Contents

List offigures Acknowledgements Note on translation and transliteration

1 Introduction

ix xi xiii

1

2 Religion, language, religious language

20

3 Az, buki, vedi: the ABCs of religious literacy

40

4 Translator, traitor? The debate over liturgical language

62

5 Logos: Slavonic letterforms and the graphic environment

85

6 From Marx and Lenin to Cyril and Methodius 7

Scripting Russian history: alphabet mysticism and conspiracy theory

8 Conclusion Bibliography Index

113 132 153 160 183

Figures

1.1 1.2 2.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1

Kiosks selling Western and Orthodox goods, St. Petersburg Anonymous prayer card with the Jesus Prayer in Church Slavonic Poster of Maria Devi Christos, St. Petersburg Store window with Slavonic Easter poster, Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior sign, Moscow Church kiosk, Moscow Slavonic Easter banner, Moscow "Chocolate History'' souvenir box Nationalist newspapers with various Slavonic typefaces Monument to Cyril and Methodius, Slavonic Square, Moscow

5 7 21 88 94 95 96 99 105 124

Acknowledgements

As a work that attempts to connect a wide range of materials normally canalized in separate disciplines- religion and language, mythology and typography, education and esotericism, Slavia orthodoxa and post-Soviet Russia- this book could not have been written without the kindness of academic strangers. Needless to say, only I am to blame if the end result falls short of what I believe remains an estimable goal. I would first like to thank Richard Sakwa, Peter Sowden, Jillian Morrison, and Philip Parr for their interest in the project and their advice and assistance in bringing it to completion. An anonymous reviewer made a number of valuable suggestions, for which I am most grateful. Research was carried out in Russia as well as at libraries and archives in the United States. I am indebted in particular to Ron Basich andAnatol Shmelev of the Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University; Harold Leich of the European Reading Room in the Library of Congress; and last but not least Samantha Gust and the Interlibrary Loan staff at Niagara University. Parts of the book were originally presented at different conferences, including those of the American Academy ofReligion (San Antonio and Philadelphia), Sociolinguistics Symposia 16 (Limerick) and 17 (Amsterdam), Societas Linguistica Europaea (Lisbon), and "KCTOS: Knowledge, Creativity and Transformations of Societies" (Vienna). The meetings - and meals - hosted by the American Society of Geolinguistics (New York) proved to be an especially congenial venue for trying out my ideas. I am grateful to David Schoen and the Niagara University Research Council for several grants that enabled me to travel to the above-mentioned libraries and conferences. I wish to acknowledge a number of individuals who were kind enough to answer my sometimes nai:ve questions and share their expertise with me: Kaarina Aitamurto, John Basil, John Dunn, Aleksandra Galasinska, Natalia Gorbel, Michael Gorham, Andrew Jenks, Sebastian Kempgen, Sophia Kishkovsky, Michal Krzyzanowski, Marlene Laruelle, Inna Naletova, Mark Sebba, Jiirgen Spitzmiiller, Ludwig Steindorff, and Maxim Zhukov. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank those who -long ago- introduced me to different aspects of the Church Slavonic tradition, especially Victor Friedman, Norman Ingham, Fr. Paul Lazor, and G. M. Prokhorov. Friends and family provided vital intellectual and emotional sustenance during every phase of this project. I would like to thank Paul de Hart and Peter Gottschalk

xii Acknowledgements for their early backing, as well as past and present colleagues at Niagara University: Mark Barner, Matt Jackson-McCabe, Sean Kelly, Nancy McGlen, Eduard Tsekanovskii, and the members of the Department of Religious Studies. Of course, I am forever indebted to my wife, Donna, and my children, Jacob and Camille, for their love, patience, and good-humored encouragement. Finally, I recall my mother's lifetime of sacrifice and support. A trip we made together to St. Petersburg at the start of this endeavor will always be a cherished memory. This book is rightly dedicated to her.

Note on translation and transliteration

Unless noted otherwise, all translations are my own. With the exception of some well-known names, such as Tchaikovsky, Russian and Slavonic words are transliterated according to the (modified) Library of Congress system.

1

Introduction

[L]ike civilizations, languages are mortal, and the abyss ofhistory is large enough for all. Nevertheless, from our perspective as finite beings, there is something completely different about the death of languages, something exhilarating when we come to realize it: languages are capable of resurrection! (Hagege 2009: vii)

What is the life expectancy of a sacred language? According to Orthodox tradition, Church Slavonic was codified in the year 863 by two brothers, Constantine (who would later assume the monastic name Cyril) and Methodius, as part of a Byzantine mission to the Slavs. The language would go on to become one ofthe hallmarks of Slavia orthodoxa, or Orthodox Slavdom, a civilizational zone that stretched from the Balkans through the Russian lands. According to Bodin (2009: 46), "Church Slavonic was the third most widespread written language in medieval Europe, after Latin and Greek, and its religious, historical, and cultural significance has been and continues to be far ranging." Orthodox missionaries brought the sacred language with them as the Russian Empire expanded across the Eurasian landmass and into Alaska. Church Slavonic eventually reached California, where it met up with its Old World rival, Latin, brought there by Spanish friars. For centuries Slavonic served as the language of liturgy and literature in Russia. Generations of schoolchildren learned the rudiments of both literacy and piety through Slavonic primers. Church Slavonic has been a major source oflexical enrichment for the Russian language, and the works ofPushkin, Dostoevsky, Chekhov and others in the literary pantheon are replete with Slavonicisms. The sacred language has also nourished the classical musical tradition. Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Rachmaninoff- and more recently the Estonian "holy minimalist" Arvo Pii.rt- all set Church Slavonic texts to music, while in one of his more pious moods, Stravinsky summed up the attitude of many Russians when he said, "The Slavonic language of the Russian liturgy has always been the language of prayer for me" (Stravinsky and Craft 1962: 65). Despite their hostility to Orthodox Christianity, even the Soviets could not dispense with the sacred language altogether. When Red Army soldiers "hoisted the banner of victory" over Berlin, this was expressed in words consisting solely ofSlavonicisms.

2 Introduction In fact, the name of the Soviet Union itself (Sovetsldi Soiuz) was based on two Slavonic lexical items (Issatschenko 1980: 136). Despite these credentials, Church Slavonic declined in the twentieth century. Already weakened by the rise of Slavic nationalism in the nineteenth century, it waned even further under the anti-religious policies of the Soviet regime. (Relying on Slavonicisms is quite different from actually using Slavonic as a sacred language.) Reviewing these developments, Mathiesen (1984: 64) speculated: "It is not unlikely that the long history of Church Slavonic is finally drawing to its close, and that by its twelve hundredth anniversary in 2063 it will remain in use only marginally, if at all." What he did not foresee- along with just about everyone else- was the demise of the Soviet Union. Now a recent survey reports, "Church Slavonic is currently enjoying a revival with the resurgence of the Orthodox faith in the post-Communist world of the old Soviet Union and the Balkans" (Sussex and Cubberley 2006: 65). This book is about the revival of the Church Slavonic tradition in post-Soviet Russia. It is not a narrow study in linguistics or church history. It deals primarily with the external side of Church Slavonic- the methods by which it is taught, the debates that people have about it, the myths and monuments that support it, the ways that it is adapted for different cultural projects, the spiritual and linguistic qualities that are ascribed to it. I attempt to connect topics and materials that are typically canalized in different disciplines, linking Russian Orthodoxy with occult and Neo-pagan spiritual traditions, and ranging freely over such areas as liturgy, pedagogy, typography, mythology, and conspiracy theory. The book makes two distinctive contributions. First, it updates the history of one of the world's most important, yet least known, sacred languages. According to Dalby's (2001) model ofthe "linguasphere," the mantle oflanguages that covers the Earth, fifteen oftoday's "arterial" languages derive from or are closely associated with just five "classical" languages: Latin, Arabic, Classical Chinese, Sanskrit/Pali, and Church Slavonic. Slavonic would seem to be the least familiar of this august group. Burke (2004) is one of the few Western scholars (besides those in Slavic studies, of course) who have taken an interest in the language. By providing a historical and thematic conspectus of Church Slavonic, this book may serve as a kind of primer for those unable to access the tradition directly. Second, because it is a religious language- as the name itself indicates- Church Slavonic offers a prism for viewing both the religious and the linguistic changes that have transpired in Russia since 1991. For example, an investigation into how Church Slavonic is taught reveals some of the logistical and ideological challenges faced by the Russian Orthodox Church after seventy-plus years of government-sponsored atheism. The fact that the ornate Slavonic script, which is so redolent of "Holy Rus," has been appropriated by both advertisers and nationalists as a symbol of authentic Russianness illuminates broader changes in typography and visual culture. (Rus is the name of the medieval East Slavic polity that gave rise to modem-day Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. But the name has a mythic resonance as well, referring to a sacred land that -like the invisible city ofKitezh- somehow exists within or behind the visible "real world"; see Balashov 2001: 15). In these

Introduction 3

and other ways, Russians have been reclaiming their Slavonic heritage. 1bis is a story that has not been told before. Most of the specific topics dealt with in this book have been overlooked in the scholarly literature. Thus, by charting the various forms and expressions of the Slavonic revival, we can achieve a fresh perspective on post-communist religion, language, and society.

••• "All periods are transitional, but some are more transitional than others." Franklin's (1999) quip about Kievan Rus is in fact most apt for post-Soviet Russia, which has seen vertiginous changes in many areas oflife. Few transitions, though, have been as spectacular as those in religion and language. According to Filatov (2008: 187), "The revival of religiosity in post-Soviet Russia is a unique phenomenon in the history of Christian civilisation." After the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia became the first country in the world to install atheism as its official ideology (Lambert 2005: 21). For the next seventy-plus years, the state pursued an anti-religion policy that shifted between neglect and repression (and occasionally strategic alliance). The Orthodox Church bore the brunt of an attack unparalleled in history (D. H. Davis 2002: 659). Thousands of clerics were killed or imprisoned; churches and monasteries were destroyed or converted into warehouses or museums; the traditions of Orthodox chant and iconography were cut off at the roots. But since the early 1990s, there has been an "exponential diversification and vibrancy of the Russian religious landscape" (Agadjanian and Rousselet 2005: 31). The Orthodox Church has reclaimed a position of prestige, and a variety of occult and therapuetic spiritualities has filled the empty spaces left by the largely discredited Soviet experiment. 1bis remarkable turn of events can tell us much about the nature of religion. The breakup of the "atheistic Communist regime," writes Krindatch (2006a: 29), has provided social scientists with an unprecedented opportunity to see whether "a long period of enforced secularization would destroy religion." For students of cults and NRMs (new religious movements), post-communist Russia presents a veritable laboratory for emergent religious identities (Shterin 2004: 99). Just as it tried to engineer religion out of society, the Soviet regime also intervened in linguistic matters. Initially the USSR pursued a policy of''nativization" (korenizatsiia) that encouraged the cultivation of national languages and literatures. Starting in the 1930s, however, there was a backlash against incipient nationalisms and a shift toward Russian, which would become the lingua franca used in Soviet education, science, technology, publishing, and culture (Pavlenko 2008; cf. Mikhalchenko and Trushkova 2003). As the ideology of MarxismLeninism took on the attributes of religion, with its own myths and rituals, saints and temples, the Russian language came to be endowed with an almost sacred character: [T]he Soviet glorification of Russian went far beyond anything attempted in tsarist times. Beyond its role as the medium of interethnic communication and as the chief language of science, technology, and culture, Russian was now

4 Introduction

endowed with unique attributes as the language of October, of Lenin, and of the communist future. (Kreindler 1993: 263) No major language has metamorphosed as much as Russian over the past two decades. The "Russian spoken" signs found in the luxury boutiques of Paris, Berlin and London symbolize not only the geographical but the ideological space traversed by the former idiom of international communism (Haarmann 1998). Again, these events can tell us much about language. The breakup of the USSR "offers an incredible opportunity to a linguist" to study how a language responds to rapid ecological change, from the influx ofloanwords to changes in grammar and syntax (Comrie, Stone, and Polinsky 1996: 2). Furthermore, the collapse of the Soviet imperium has "created conditions for a unique sociolinguistic experiment," wherein a multitude of new nations have to implement language policies while forging new national identities (Pavlenko 2008: 276). In both the religious and linguistic domains, Russians have experienced new freedoms and opportunities. They have faced the perennial struggle between turning toward the West or toward their historic traditions (see Figure 1.1). Agadjanian (2006: 171) sees a broad social divide between a "pro-western liberal drive" and a "'culturalist' conservative response," with each side co-producing the other. Stites puts the matter in graphic terms: With the demise ofthe Soviet Union in 1991, the new symbols pushed out of the ground by the force of glasnost and perestroika of the previous five years created a landscape of multicolored vegetation. Old growths, savagely cut down by the Revolution or subtly camouflaged in late Soviet times- village ways, church architecture, Rus antiquities - sprung up again. But they were crowded by transplants from other climes- the "West." If a symbol is a visual statement of identity (among other things), then procapitalist T-shirts, BMWs, Rolex watches, and a hundred other visible and audible artifacts were truly symbols of a "rejoining" to the outer world . . How were Russians to define themselves as a nation symbolically in the swirl of this cultural deluge? (Stites 2005: 112) Negotiating the nation's historical identity and its place vis-a-vis the West has been an ongoing concern in the post-Soviet period, and has played out not only in the realm of politics but in film and literature (Marsh 2007), and even in such mundane genres as newspaper headlines (Danchenko 1998) and advertising slogans (Aleksandrov 2003). Of course, the "Russia versus the West" schematism is neater on the page than in reality. For one thing, Russian history is built in part on sedimentations from previous bouts of Westernization. For another, not every historic tradition is welcomed back. The spread of mat (Russian obscenity) and the resurgence of Rodnoverie ("native faith" or Neo-paganism) are equally unfortunate developments as far as traditionalists are concerned. What is more, the seemingly opposing trends of Westernization and Russification or Slavonicization have

Introduction 5

Figwe 1.1 Kiosks selling Western and Orthodox goods, St. Petersburg (photo by author)

sotretitres sounded in strange hannony. Merridale (2003: 21) describes the celebrations for the 850th anniversary of Moscow as a trelange of "reirnagined Tsarism, falre Slavicism, and gold-encrusted religious ceremonial." But the "shopping bag that evecyone was carcying back then announced, in Latin script, that 'Russia witt rise again."' A joint venture between Coca-Cola and the Hennitage Museum in St. Petersburg involved the apparently non-ironic slogan "Let's Save the Cultural Heritage Together!" (http://www.hennitagerrnseum.orglhtml_En/11/2007/hm11_ 1_182.html, accessed 28 August 2010). The revival of the Church Slavonic tradition should be seen as another expression of the "restorational evolution" of post-Soviet Russia (cf. Fitatov 2008: 189). It represents a tum to the past and reclamation of a historic national tradition, often in opposition to Western cultural and religious influences. Potting data demonstrate that those who know Church Slavonic best are most likely to read tredieval chronicles and literature. They are most appreciative of Russian folklore and painting (icons, lubki, etc.) and are most positive about popular customs and festivals. They are the least interested in borrowing from the West (Chesnokova 2005: 213-27). These data corroborate the evidence of discourse- the marrow of the present work- which shows that Church Slavonic is connected to traditional, at titres nationalist, attitudes and attachtrents. Those who are interested in Russian histocy, native folkways and handcrafts are more lilrely to know and appreciate Church Slavonic. Precisely, then, because it is a syrrbol of what Stites refers to as "vittage ways, church architecture, Rus antiquities," the Slavonic language has constituted a prestigious semiotic resource in the post-comrrnnist period, both within the Orthodox Church and, to a certain extent, throughout society more

6 Introduction broadly. Slavonic offers a counterweight to the influx and allure of Western cultural products.

*** Because this book is intended for those who do not read Russian or Church Slavonic, it may be helpful to provide some background on the language itself before delineating the aspects of its post-Soviet revival. I begin by reviewing the relationship between Church Slavonic and two other languages with which it is often paired: namely, Old Church Slavonic and Latin. Of course, it would be wrong to think of Church Slavonic as a monolithic entity. It is in fact a generic term for a number of closely related varieties of Slavic used in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Slavs but also by Roman Catholic Slavs who follow the Eastern rite, sometimes called Uniates (MacRobert 2005). Thus, the label "Church Slavonic" is a scholarly convention (Picchio 1980: 21). In North America, "Church Slavic" is preferred, while "Church Slavonic" is favored in the British Commonwealth. The language is sometimes called Old Slavonic (Old Slavic) or just Slavonic (Slavic). In Russian the name is sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not: Tserkovnoslavianskii iazyk or Tserkovnoslavianskii iazyk (Kornilaeva 2005: 80). The language of Church Slavonic is often confused or conflated with Old Church Slavonic. One sometimes encounters this error in otherwise commendable scholarship. EvenEthnologue (SIL International2010), a valuable compendium of information about the world's languages, makes this mistake. (It also categorizes the language as "extinct" and lists the writing system as Glagolitic, which is far from accurate.) The name "Old Church Slavonic" (staroslavianskii iazyk) refers to the language extrapolated from a limited corpus of texts stemming from the earliest stratum of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission (ninth-tenth centuries). It is rightly esteemed as "a literary language capable of expressing the most profound and abstract human ideas and of being the medium for works of great poetic beauty" (Thomson 1986: 111 ). This corpus of texts is often called a "canon," signaling its foundational authority (Picchio 1980: 19). Old Church Slavonic is primarily Balkan in nature but with a quantity ofMoravianisms (Huntley 1993; cf. Schenker 1996). The earliest texts were translations from ecclesiastical Greek, to which it hews very closely: Old Church Slavonic is veritably loaded with Graecisms and calques (Thomson 1986). Church Slavonic (tserkovnoslavianskii iazyk) emerged out of Old Church Slavonic. This evolution was marked by an oscillation between national and supranational tendencies. On the one hand, as it was reproduced by clerics in different locales, Slavonic came under the influence of local vernaculars, resulting in different national versions or "recensions" -Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Russian, and so on. On the other hand, from time to time, there were attempts to standardize the language in order to reinforce the unity of Orthodox Slavdom. During the Second South Slavic influence, for example, Serbian and Bulgarian bookmen wanted to return Church Slavonic to what they imagined was the golden age of Cyril and Methodius. This resulted in Slavonic texts that have "an archaizing appearance and moreover [that] are usually formidably scarred with signs of

In traduction 7

abbreviation, 'decorative' Greekbreathings and accents" (Vlasto 1986: 38). These scriptorial conventions largely continue to this day (see Figure 1.2). In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with the Balkan countries under Ottoman rule, the Russian variety prevailed and became the standard used throughout Slavia orthodoxa. In the eighteenth centucy, a further codification occurred in conjunction with the so-called Elizabethan Bible. (Elizabeth was the daughter of Peter the Great and Empress of Russia.) This variant is sometimes called New, Modern, or Synodal Church Slavonic (a reference to the Holy Synod, the governing council of the Russian Church). From that point on, the language became something of a closed system (MacRobert 2005). While the history of Old Church Slavonic has been the object of in-depth research, Modem Church Slavonic -the focus of this book- has been largely ignored. As Kravetskii (2009) says, we know more about Slavonic 1000 years ago than we know about the language of today. There are several reasons for this. One is that the study of Church Slavonic (as opposed to Old Church Slavonic) could not proceed under the ideological constraints of the Soviet Union (Plahn 1978: 8-9). Old Church Slavonic remained prestigious because it was associated with the beginnings ofliteracy, but the exclusively religious coloration of Church Slavonic made it off limits for Marxist scholarship. This does not, however, explain the neglect of Church Slavonic in Western scholarship. Partly it is a reflection of the general ignorance of Orthodox Christianity in the West (cf. Berclren 1999). Students and scholars have typically been fixated on the Catholic and Protestant traditions, which they know in exquisite detail, while Slavia

.....,

--Figw-e 1.2 Anonymous prayer card with the Jesus Prayer in Church Slavonic (''Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner'')

8 Introduction

orthodoxa remains terra incognita, relegated to a token chapter in surveys or histories of Christianity. More specifically, linguists and philologists have tended to view Church Slavonic as a corrupt or calcified form of Old Church Slavonic (cf. Izotov 2007: 12). Old Church Slavonic is very much a part of the modern secular academic world; as mentioned above, this was true even in Soviet times (Suprun 1999: 10). It is regularly taught in Russia and abroad as part of Slavic language and literature programs. Anyone with an advanced degree in those fields has probably struggled through a course (usually just one) in Old Church Slavonic. Modem or Synodal Church Slavonic has typically enjoyed no such institutional position (cf. Zhuravlev 1994; Kravetskii and Pletneva 1993). It was widely taught in pre-revolutionary Russia, but even then did not enjoy high academic prestige. Things have begun to change in recent years, though, as Church Slavonic has become appreciated in its own right. In fact, this is one sign of its revitalization.

*** Church Slavonic is often compared to Latin. Every comparison is necessarily limited and aspectual. Indeed, the two languages are similar with respect to some criteria. Each was an ecclesiastical language that fi.mctioned as a supranational linguistic medium for a swath of medieval Europe, Latin mostly in the Catholic West, Slavonic mostly in the Orthodox East (though there are exceptions in the middle). But comparisons must also account for differences, including differences that emerge over time. In fact, Slavonic started out very unlike Latin. Eventually, it did become more like Latin, although, of course, never completely. There are two key differences, one having to do with the contents associated with Slavonic and Latin; the other with the relationship between these sacred languages and their respective vernaculars. Languages of wider communication - such as Latin, Sanskrit, French, and German- are typically viewed "as depositories of privileged information- be it religious, legal, or technological- and as vehicles for the transmission and expansion ofthat information" (Bruthiaux 2002: 133). If we compare the depositories of Latin and Slavonic, we see rather different profiles. Issatschenko articulates the key difference: Unlike Latin which, through its use in profane contexts, could serve as the means of expression in scientific and secular matters, CS [Church Slavonic] had a narrow thematic range. It was difficult to write in this language on mathematics or physics or to use it for good secular literature. Late (eighteenthcentury) attempts to write mathematical textbooks in CS strike us today as parodies. (Issatschenko 1980: 125) Latin had a mixed background. It was both Classical and Christian in makeup, and these dueling identities have been essential to the history of the language. Slavonic, on the other hand, was "created to be a written language with the express purpose

Introduction 9

of transmitting the sacred Word to the Slavs" (Milner-Gulland 1997: 140). It was designed to spread the teachings of Christ, not Aristotle. Latin was a conduit to Classical Antiquity. Though it was a language that united Christendom, it also helped unlock the riches of Horace, Cicero, and Virgil. Slavonic, on the other hand, was an almost exclusively religious language. It provided the Slavs no direct pathway to the Classical tradition. Some scholars attribute the alleged "intellectual silence" of pre-modern Russia at least in part to Slavonic, which acted as a bridge to the Christian half of Byzantine civilization but a barrier to the Classical heritage (see the studies collected in Thomson 1999). Devotees of Slavonic counter that the language is purer as a result. In fact, it is even holier than Greek because it was created by Saints Cyril and Methodius expressly for the purpose of evangelization. The Slavonic inheritance has spared Russian Orthodox civilization from the spiritually desiccating path of Latinate scholasticism. According to the hagiographies of Cyril and Methodius, Slavonic was initially viewed in opposition to Latin. As the language of the people, it is said to have posed a challenge to the "Trilinguist" doctrine of the Frankish (Catholic) clergy, who insisted that only Latin, Greek, or Hebrew could be used for the worship of God (cf. Franklin 2002: 87). It was only much later, starting in the sixteenth century, that, as Mathiesen says (1984: 61), Slavonic "abandoned this company and went to stand with Greek and Latin." This move was a reaction in part to Catholic polemicists who argued that Slavic civilization was inferior due to its reliance on Church Slavonic and not one of the Classical tongues. This spurred the production of grammars aimed at standardizing the language and the accompanying metalinguistic doctrine that Slavonic was the equivalent of Latin ( cf. Bouchard2004: 17). Although it can be said to have suffered from the "latinate pattern" of attrition, whereby a language progressively loses its place in different domains down to the point where it is retained only in ritual (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 17), Church Slavonic never had the wide usage that Latin enjoyed at one point in European civilization. It was never used for science or diplomacy, and very few people could ever write in Slavonic. The language consisted primarily of a more or less fixed repertoire of texts that was read and recited. According to Fedotov (1997: 8), Church Slavonic had a kind of "spectral existence" (prizrachnoe sushchestvovanie), as it was created not for the production of new texts but the translation of existing ones; not entirely dead, it was not entirely alive, either. Latin is still used in a limited way in the Catholic Church. Moreover, because of its Classical heritage, it continues to be written and even spoken by aficionados in academic and artistic circles (Bandarovska-Frank 2002). But one would be hard pressed to conduct a round-table discussion in Church Slavonic. The playful erudition that often accompanies Latin is missing here and would be out of step with the tradition. Case in point: the translation of the Harry Potter novels into Latin- Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis (Rowling 2003) -would be unthinkable in Church Slavonic. The standard comparison of Church Slavonic with Latin also needs to consider the differences between these sacred languages and vernaculars with which they are historically associated. Old Church Slavonic, the language attributed to Cyril

10 Introduction and Methodius, is South Slavic, whereas Russian is East Slavic. The two languages certainly share a genetic history and have much in common: Zhuravlev (1994) claims that more than 55 percent of the Russian language (lexis, syntax, etc.) can be traced to Slavonic. But there are also some important differences. The current Church Slavonic alphabet has 40 letters, plus numerous diacritical marks, compared to the 33 unadorned (except for the rare e) letters of Russian Cyrillic. Slavonic has three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) and three numbers (singular, plural, dual), compared to Russian, which has two of each. The verbal system in Church Slavonic is more complicated than in Russian. Certain aspects of Slavonic syntax (e.g. the dative absolute) adapted from Greek (Gopenko 2009: 61-3). Russian did not come from Old Church Slavonic in the way that, say, French emerged out of Latin. Calvet (1998: 101) mischievously suggests that, today, "French and Spanish are Latin but Latin deformed by fifteen centuries of popular usage . . a bastard Latin, split into dialects, riddled with borrowings from other languages, rendered unrecognizable, but still Latin." No such contention could be made about Russian and Church Slavonic. The two languages did, however, interpenetrate each other to a considerable degree. Aspects of East Slavic/Russian filtered into Slavonic, resulting in what is known as the Russian recension of Church Slavonic. At the same time, Slavonic was for centuries a source of lexical enrichment for Russian. To the native East Slavic/ Russian tongue, it "offered en bloc, ready-made, a large abstract and intellectual vocabulary" (Vlasto 1986: 9). Thus, the relationship between the two languages has always been rather convoluted. Many scholars would contend that, early on, the relationship between Church Slavonic and Russian could be characterized as diglossia, with Slavonic as the "high" variant reserved for spiritual and literary matters, and Russian as the "low" variant used for domestic and commercial affairs. Over time, the languages continued to diverge and eventually reached a situation characterized as a kind of bilingualism ( cf. Uspenskii 1994). Not everyone, however, would agree with this schematic account. Orthodox traditionalists, for instance, claim that Slavonic has always been a "native" language for Russians, a high register for lofty matters of faith and culture, but nonetheless always intelligible, especially to the churchgoing common folk. More liberal clerics and lay people insist that Slavonic has diverged from Russian so much that, while it no doubt served an invaluable civilizational purpose, it has become largely unintelligible to ordinary churchgoers, and a fortiori to converts. We will return to this topic in Chapter 4. For now, it suffices to say that, throughout Russian history, many texts would combine imported/Slavonic and indigenous/Russian elements (see, especially, Vlasto 1986). According to Gasparov (2004: 139), the presence of Slavonic would constitute "the principal indicator of the spiritual bent of a text"; increasing the Slavonic quotient would "immediately cause the spiritual temperature of the text to rise in the writer's and readers' intuitive perception." Chekhov's story, "Peasants," famously describes a devout girl who reads the Bible aloud and is brought to tears even by such commonplace Slavonic words as ashche (if) and dondezhe (until) (1986: 205). We might think of Slavonic and Russian as two poles, with a spectrum of mixed or blurred positions in the middle. The

Introduction 11

intertwined nature ofthe Slavonic-Russian relationship is epitomized by a recent dictionary of some 2000 paronyms -words that are close or cognate in Slavonic and Russian but that have differing meanings. As the compiler observes, "the main thing is that the relationship itself between the two languages, Church Slavonic and Russian, is thoroughly complex - and has been so since the beginning" (Sedak:ova 2008: 9). Already we have seen that Church Slavonic can be classified in different ways - as sacred, classical, dead, extinct. Categorizing the language in this way or that might open up different possibilities for analysis and comparison. Therefore, it is worthwhile to spend a few moments trying out different classifications. Thus far, I have referred to Church Slavonic as a "sacred language," although it must be admitted that this is potentially problematic. For one thing, as we will see in Chapter 4, one theological camp within Orthodoxy rejects the very idea of a sacred language. It asserts that- unlike Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism- Christianity has never insisted on the inherent holiness of any one specific language, emphasizing instead the message over the medium. These religionists claim that dichotomizing the world into sacred and profane is contrary to the very spirit of Christianity. Sociolinguists, who are loath to attribute intrinsic properties to any language, follow suit. Nevertheless, it is simply a fact that Slavonic is considered "sacred" by many insiders and outsiders, in the sense that it is a special idiom used for texts and rituals that are also deemed special and holy (Gol'berg 1999). This is not an essentialist argument, but a historico-constructivist one, in much the same way as we say English is a "prestige" language. English is not inherently prestigious; it has become so for much of the world as a result of its associations with capitalism, technology, and so on. Similarly, Church Slavonic has a reputation of being sacred. Therefore, from our perspective, it is a sacred language. Some call Church Slavonic a "dead" language, but this overlooks the fact that new texts continue to be composed in it, albeit on a very limited scale (Bodin 2009: 50). Ethnologue labels Slavonic "extinct"- as if it were on a par with Sumerian or Aquitanian- even though it is still used in the religious domain (cf. Hagege 2009: 63). Both "dead" and "extinct" are inappropriate classifications. Slavonic is sometimes termed a "classical" language (e.g. A. Dalby 1998: 473). But the connotation of learning, which is not central to the Slavonic tradition, as well as the residual association with Greek and Latin make this term less fitting; it seems to ignore the "Church" in Church Slavonic. Fishman (1991) introduced the accurate, if awkward, term "religious classical," which for him includes Church Latin, Koranic Arabic, Luther Bible German, Coptic, Ecclesiatic Greek, and- in a common lapse - "Old Church Slavonic." In his account, religious classicals are languages that may be studied in school, but in most cases are simply learned through ritual repetition. They "remain additional languages for narrow, specific purposes without becoming mother tongues" (Fishman 1991: 360). This description fits Church Slavonic rather well. In Russian discourse, Church Slavonic is often termed a liturgical language (bogosluzhebnyi iazyk), which it certainly is. This category is helpful for bringing Slavonic into relation with such languages as Latin, Coptic, Ge 'ez, and so on, but

12 Introduction it may be too tinctured by Christianity to have broader cross-cultural utility. I prefer to describe Church Slavonic as "hieratic." Gopenko (2009: 9) defines a hieratic tongue as "an archaic version of a vernacular marked by non-secular usage" (une version archai'que du vernaculaire marquee par un usage nonseculaire). Although some Orthodox traditionalists question whether Slavonic was ever a vernacular, I believe this designation is empirically based and largely unobjectionable. Wexler (1989: 142) also uses the term, glossing hieratic languages as ''unspoken languages of liturgy and culture." He contends that hieratic languages are typically sources of"lexical enrichment," which, as we saw earlier, has been (and in some ways continues to be) an important aspect ofthe SlavonicRussian relationship. Wexler also discusses two additional properties of hieratic languages that will be vital to our treatment of Church Slavonic: ritual and script. Church Slavonic is a ritual or sacerdotal language. All Russian Orthodox priests must learn it and use it in the liturgy. The same goes for many other ecclesiastics, by which I mean icon painters, choir directors, Sunday school teachers, and so on -people who work in some capacity for the Church. Along with sviashchennik, the word ierei (related to hiereus, "priest") is a term for priest in Russian Orthodoxy. Thus, Slavonic is hieratic in the sense that it is closely attached to the priestly milieu. Indeed, Krylova (2005) argues that, when priests leave the ritual domain and speak to people in schools or hospitals, their language constitutes a sociolect heavily colored by Church Slavonic, including the preponderance of archaisms, the bookish use of genitive, and the use of such rhetorical devices as anaphora. Bugaeva (2009: 5-12) suggests that habitual exposure to Slavonic, through either reading or hearing canonical texts, influences the speech patterns of the "churched." These studies confirm the ritual, sacerdotal ''niche" of Church Slavonic in Russian society ( cf. Calvet 2006). The term "hieratic" is useful because it can also refer to a style that is lofty, formal, or ceremonial - all adjectives commonly applied by native Russian speakers to Slavonic. This quality helps explains why, despite the overt atheism of the regime, the number of Church Slavonicisms increased with the pompous speechifying of the Stalin era (Issatschenko 1980: 136). The sense of elevation and formality pertains not only to the sonic dimension but to the visual appearance of Church Slavonic (cf. Fedotov 1997). In this connection, let me say a word about terminology. Throughout the book, I will use the term "Slavonic" to refer to the original Cyrillic alphabet, now associated with Church Slavonic, and "Cyrillic" to refer to the modern Cyrillic alphabet, now associated with Russian (cf. Cubberley 1993). Slavonic letters have a thick, numinous "look and feel" (see Figure 1.2, above). Russian Cyrillic was modernized- and secularized- under Peter the Great and later under Lenin. Unlike the old Slavonic alphabet, it has no breathings or ligatures, it has fewer letters, and those letters are thinner and more Latinate in complexion. Slavonic writing can be hard to read, especially in some of its denser calligraphic stylizations. Polling data suggest that some people can read the Slavonic language only if it is written in the modern Cyrillic script (Sinelina 2006: 103). This difference between Slavonic and Cyrillic - high and low, sacred and secular, ornate and ordinary, old and new - is essential not only to traditionalists

Introduction 13 who cherish the language and want to maintain its use in Orthodox liturgies. Both advertisers and nationalists who want to brand something - be it a group or a product- as "authentic" also capitalize on it. The old Slavonic script has a stereotypically "Russian" appearance (cf. Haarmarm 2002). Thus, the advantage of treating Slavonic as "hieratic" is that the term foregrounds two salient (and empirically verifiable) attributes of Slavonic: the sacerdotal dimension ofthe language and the stylistically formal nature of the script. All of this raises the question of the extent to which Church Slavonic is known. This topic will be reviewed in more detail in Chapter 3, but a few preliminary remarks are in order here. There are two related issues: the number of users and the extent of their knowledge. MacRobert (1998: 86) cautions, "It is difficult to estimate the number of people who use Church Slavonic as a liturgical language today, and still harder to gauge their knowledge of it, which is normally passive and restricted." First, how many people know Slavonic? Based on the membership of the various Slavic Christian churches, MacRobert (1998: 87) proposes a figure of80 million, but acknowledges that this "may well be wide of the mark." Indeed, this strikes me as a very high estimate. In terms of Russia, the number may be something like 10 million (although even that is probably too high), but of course this depends on how one determines membership- for example, according to selfidentification or active participation. Most experts would concur that knowledge of Slavonic among Orthodox churchgoers is typically "passive and restricted." An active knowledge may be found among ecclesiastics who paint icons or compose hymns, but in both cases production occurs within very limited parameters. There are handbooks that give instructions for the texts, ranging from inscriptions to sermon excerpts, which are inscribed on icons (Filatov and Kamchatnova 2004). Slavonic hymns are being composed again, especially in honor of the "new martyrs" who perished under Soviet totalitarianism. Most of these hymns are akathists, a genre that straddles official and popular Orthodoxy. The fact that it involves the ritual repetition of the imperative raduisia ("rejoice") with different epithets of the saint's name makes it relatively easy to master by contemporary authors (Bodin 2009: 50). Most people, however, do not write or even read Church Slavonic; they hear it sung and chanted in church. Evidence about understanding is anecdotal, and is used by both camps in the ongoing liturgical language debate. It seems reasonable to suppose that this passive knowledge depends in part on the clarity of liturgical cantillation, as well as the kind of text involved. The daily round of prayers and the fixed parts of the liturgy would be more familiar and thus easier to understand than certain parts of the Bible (like the Pauline epistles) or the thousands of pages of liturgical text that vary each year according to a 532-year cycle (Gopenko 2009: 56).

*** In the post-Soviet period, Russians have been reclaiming their Slavonic heritage. As the official liturgical language of the Russian Orthodox Church, and more broadly a symbol of the nation's religious and linguistic roots, Slavonic is a privileged semiotic resource that has been drawn upon for a variety of(sometimes

14 Introduction incompatible) cultural projects, often as a counterweight to allegedly harmful influences emanating from the West. The language is being studied once again. Its hieratic script is used to convey tradition or authenticity. The Day of Slavonic Writing and Culture has become a national holiday. Slavonic is called upon to cleanse and replenish the Russian language. At the same time, the pre-revolutionary debate about replacing Slavonic with Russian in the liturgy has returned within the Russian Orthodox Church. And Neo-pagan discourses challenge the primacy of Church Slavonic and the regnant versions of Russian history that go with it. Our purpose will be to survey these developments, to determine the "place" of Slavonic in the post-Soviet landscape. Goethe's maxim provides a guiding principle: "In nature we never see anything isolated, but everything in connection with something else which is before it, beside it, under it and over it." In much the same way, we need to see which other languages are being used or spoken of in conjunction with Slavonic, and which other social and cultural processes are contiguous with its revitalization (cf. Calvet 2006). Thus, the books and programs designed to promote the study of Church Slavonic will be compared to broader "abecedarian" efforts by Russians to master the new languages required of postSoviet existence (Chapter 3). The reappearance of Slavonic lettering across the cityscape will be situated in relation to developments in typography, advertising, and visual culture (Chapter 5). Discourses about the mystical meaning of the Slavonic alphabet are linked to popular esoteric spiritualities and conspiracy theories (Chapter 7). In addition to placing different aspects of Slavonic in contemporary context, each chapter provides some historical background for the topic at hand. The chronological parameters of the study coincide overall with the reign of Patriarch Aleksii II, the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) from 1990 to 2008. He is widely credited with leading the Church through the difficult transition out of communism. Aleksii was directly involved in a number of the issues and events treated here: he actively promoted the Day of Slavonic Writing and Culture (Chapter 6) and he quashed the vernacular experiments of the mid1990s (Chapter 4)- perhaps in order to appease the right-wing camp within the Church, perhaps because he is said to have personally loved the Church Slavonic language, perhaps for both reasons (Pospielovsky 1995: 256). The enthronement of his successor, Patriarch Kirill, has been widely seen as inaugurating a new phase in post-Soviet Orthodoxy. Different chapters explore the Slavonic revival in terms of education, liturgy, typography, mythology, esotericism, and conspiracy theory. They may be read individually or seriatim. Though the topics covered are wide ranging, a certain consistency is developed by a focus on texts. Church Slavonic has long been understood not as a spoken idiom but as the "language of the [sacred] texts" (Picchio 1984: 12). The seventeenth-century Grammatica Russica by H. W. Ludolf is often quoted in this regard: "loquendum est Russice & scribendum est Slavonice" (Russian should be used for speaking and Slavonic for writing) (Dunn 1993: 201). In what follows I will consider a wide range of Slavonic-related texts, including

Introduction 15 prayer books, grammars, newspapers, product labels, street signs, posters, sermons, and monumental inscriptions. Because of the rarity or obscurity of some of these materials, as well as a desire to make my analysis accessible to those who do not read Russian or Slavonic, a good portion of the book is devoted to the quotation and explication of these texts. Chapter 2 sets the stage by discussing the parallel trajectories of religion and language in post-communist Russia. In both spheres, a period of relative freedom -or chaos, depending on your perspective- was followed by one of consolidation and restriction, of "managed pluralism." In both cases the Russian government passed legislation that provided a ranking of languages and religions, ultimately giving priority to Russian Orthodoxy and to the Russian language and Cyrillic alphabet. The chapter ends with a discussion of puristic discourses that proclaim Church Slavonic as a solution to both the linguistic and spiritual problems said to be afflicting post-communist Russia. Chapter 3 looks at the first years of post-communist transition, which were characterized by a multitude of "abecedarian" discourses, as Russians were in catch-up mode and striving to learn the ABCs of topics long denied them by the Soviet system. The era saw a profusion of how-to manuals and advice columns on everything from sex to the supernatural. A similar situation obtained in the ecclesiastical domain, as the Church has had to restore the rudiments of religious literacy to a populace raised on Marxism-Leninism. Along with a stream of edifying books and pamphlets, many new Slavonic grammars and dictionaries have appeared. Slavonic has even returned to the secular classroom through the controversial curriculum known as the Foundations of Orthodox Culture. Because there is a frustrating lack of specificity in both liturgics and sociolinguistics when it comes to the question of how sacred languages are actually taught, I go into some detail when discussing these Slavonic pedagogical materials. The "importance of the liturgy in Eastern Christianity is difficult to overestimate," remarks Serban (2005: 78). The centrality of the liturgy became even more pronounced during the Soviet era, since other expressions of Orthodox theology and piety were restricted or eliminated altogether. Thus, when certain reform-minded clerics began to replace Slavonic with Russian in the liturgy, there was a tremendous outcry from Orthodox traditionalists who viewed this as a catastrophic betrayal of Russia's historic faith. Tensions familiar from other liturgical debates in the history of Christianity - for instance, mystery versus intelligibility - were intensified by the Soviet legacy as well as the chaotic experience of the post-Soviet period. Church Slavonic became the symbolic battleground between competing visions of Orthodoxy and society. The debate became something of a cause celebre, as well-known writers and intellectuals weighed in on the matter. Chapter 4 discusses all of these issues. Chapter 5 investigates how the hieratic Church Slavonic script has come to function as a kind of"logo" not only for the Orthodox Church but for the Russian nation as a whole. In the post-Soviet graphic environment, Slavonic-style lettering shows up not only on church fac;ades and ecclesiastical books, where it would be expected, but on store signs, newspaper mastheads, restaurant menus, cigarette

16 Introduction labels, and postage stamps. To paraphrase Billig (1995), a kind of "banal Slavonicism" pervades the post-Soviet landscape- a fact that cannot help but have a subtle impact on Russians' sense of identity. We will look in particular at the place of Slavonic in commercial advertising and Orthodox fimdamentalism, noting a number of continuities between them. A myth is a narrative about superhuman beings that serves as a sacred charter for a particular community. Chapter 6 considers how the myth of Cyril and Methodius has been reactivated in the post-communist period. As Russians have cast off the structure of Soviet mythology, there has been a "search and rescue" mission for a viable set of national symbols and stories. The myth of Cyril and Methodius is important becomes it helps define Russia in terms of both religion (the Orthodox faith) and language (the Cyrillic alphabet). Statues of Cyril and Methodius have been unveiled in a number of cities across the Russian Federation, including one in Slavonic Square, just blocks from the Kremlin. The myth is also commemorated every year on 24 May, known as the Day of Slavonic Writing and Culture, which, as Bodin (2008: 65) rightly remarks, heralds "a special rapprochement between the church and the profane powers in Russia." Equally important, the example of Cyril and Methodius is applied in sermons and in "publicistic" discourses to different aspects of post-communist life, including perceived cultural threats emanating from the West. Chapter 7 locates Church Slavonic in that part of the post-Soviet landscape where "the interest in Slavic prehistory, and the trend toward alternative history, conspiracy theories, and paranormal phenomena" (Laruelle 2008: 299) converge. Beliefs about the mysterious nature of letters have a long history not only in Christianity as a whole but specifically in Russian Orthodoxy. In the post-Soviet period, the Orthodox discourse has been joined by other forms of alphabetic mysticism, often in combination with conspiracy theories about Russian history. For some Orthodox nationalists, the country is under the spell of Jewish Kabbalah, signs of which may be detected from the Kremlin to the Moscow subway system. Some New Age discourses suggest that the modem Cyrillic alphabet is the masterplan of the universe, a kind of cosmic table of elements; others claim it is the oldest alphabet in the world, and that all writing systems - including Egyptian hieroglyphics- ultimately derive from it. Neo-paganists speak of ancient "Russian runes" or the Vseiasvetnaia azbuka (Planetary Alphabet), a supernal script whose 147 unusual glyphs were supposedly "transcribed" from the cosmos eons before Christ. Such discourses attempt to find the source - and thus the meaning - of Russian existence before the advent of Slavonic Orthodoxy. In the Conclusion, I ponder the future of Church Slavonic and ask whether its revival is merely an epiphenomenon of post-communist transition. What lessons can be drawn from comparisons with the fate of Latin in Catholicism? What impact will the Internet have on the future of the hieratic language? The future is unclear. What we can say is that the Slavonic tradition has been called upon to perform important symbolic work during a momentous period in Russian history.

***

Introduction 11 Church Slavonic is a religious language. In my discussion of Slavonic in the postSoviet world, I have drawn on both religious studies and sociolinguistics, but I admit that I have not been able to do so ambidextrously. My training is in the comparative and historical study of religion, and that obviously affects the presentation Nevertheless, I have tried to compose the book in such a way as to be useful to sociolinguists, even if this means simply pointing out places where their expert attention would be welcome. Different chapters engage certain strands of sociolinguistic research, including religious literacy (Chapter 3), languageideological debates (Chapter 4), the linguistic landscape (Chapter 5), and language myths (Chapter 6). I have benefited from my forays into the field of sociolinguistics, and hope the book gives something in return. Although the connection between religion and language has been an ongoing concern in religious studies, it is still relatively new to sociolinguistics. Of course, there have been some notable exceptions, including- interestingly- some of the titans ofthe discipline: Crystal (1964, 1966), Ferguson (1982), Fishman (1997), and Spolsky (2003). We now have the Concise Encyclopedia ofLanguage and Religion (Sawyer and Simpson 2001) and an increasing number of studies that take religion seriously (e.g. Marti et al. 2005; Omoniyi and Fishman 2006; Edwards 2009). In general, sociolinguists have tended to depict the relationship between religion and language in simple, stable terms. Some treatments do not get much beyond the notion that Sanskrit goes with Hinduism, Arabic with Islam, Latin with Catholicism, and so on. One of the goals of the book, then, is to provide a case study documenting the complex interrelations between a religion (primarily Russian Orthodoxy) and a language (primarily Church Slavonic), thereby contributing to the "sociolinguistics of religion" (Spolsky 2006: 8). The study of Church Slavonic itself has been hampered by a "big-bang" approach that measures validity in terms of proximity to origins. Similar views long prevailed in religious studies. According to Wilfred Cantwell Smith, this is the outlook, predominant last century and early in this, that perceived each of the so-called religions of the world as a particular entity, an object, introduced at a particular time and place, usually by a so-called "founder," with eclat; with subsequent generations of"believers" living at increasing distance from that originating explosive moment as its echoes reverberated down the centuries. (W. C. Smith 1993: 83) If we view Church Slavonic as the "entity" and Cyril and Methodius as the "founder[s]," then this aptly describes most treatments ofthe Slavonic tradition. In this scholarly mythologization, the pleroma of the beginning gives way, over the course of centuries, to linguistic depletion and confusion, perhaps as a result of Orthodox sacerdotalism or Russian "intellectual silence." The essence of the tradition is equated with the golden age of Cyril and Methodius and their hearty band of disciples - from whom the further one gets, the more benighted the tradition becomes. Fortunately, this lopsidedness is beginning to change, thanks

18 Introduction in large part to A. G. Kravetskii and A. A. Pletneva (2001), whose study of Church Slavonic in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries marked a salutary shift in scholarly perspective. As the first full-fledged study of the policies, practices, and polemics involving Slavonic in the post-Soviet era, this book contributes to this new research agenda. While there are some excellent studies of religion in post-communist Russia (e.g. Ellis 1996; N. Davis 2003; Knox 2005; Daniel2006; Garrard and Garrard 2008)- studies on which I rely extensively- most are dominated by a politicalinstitutional orientation that emphasizes questions of civil society, Church-state relations, and ecclesiastical politics and personalities. But the religious landscape is considerably more terraced and variegated than typically represented. The sociological studies ofChesnokova (2005) and Sinelina (2006) are valuable insofar as they demonstrate gradations of "churchness," but both use official Orthodox canons (regarding prayer, fasting, church attendance, etc.) as their point of departure. There has been very little work, for instance, on lived religion, though that is beginning to change (e.g. Agadzhanian and Russele 2006). Naletova's (2007) work is particularly helpful in this regard. Her project comes from the desire to identify and describe the sphere of Orthodox religious life which is neither opposed to the Church nor restricted within the Church's institutional life but includes in itself religious ideas, beliefs, practices and activities that are identified as Orthodox but are loosely connected to the Church's institutional structures. (Naletova 2 007: 1) Attempting to go beyond the focus on church attendance, she explores a number of popular Orthodox practices, such as pilgrimages and trading fairs (yarmarki). The end result is a portrait of Russian religion that, while recognizing the institutional Church, includes nuances and gradations. In a sense, I am trying to do something similar- fashioning a portrait of"lived Slavonic" by demonstrating how aspects of the Slavonic tradition have been revived not only within the Russian Orthodox Church per se but extended in state rituals, public education, commercial advertising, and elsewhere. Following the "trail" of Slavonic, for instance, allows us to move from official church business (the teaching of Slavonic in seminaries, the debates about Slavonic carried out in ecclesiastical journals) to more nebulous phenomena, such as the discourse of "spiritual culture" (dukhovnaia kul'tura)- the notion that art, literature, and music, as well as elements of folklore, are irradiated by a spiritual ambience that is related to Orthodoxy though not in a strictly confessional sense- a discourse that figures prominently on the Days of Slavonic Writing and Culture. Following the "trail" even further allows us to see how Orthodoxy begins to blur or overlap with esoteric or New Age traditions, though if we go far enough we enter into "enemy territory" - Neo-pagan discourses that are hostile to Orthodoxy and privilege supposedly pre-Christian forms of Slavic writing. But this, too, is important. We need to see not only the gradations within Orthodoxy and the areas of overlap

Introduction 19

between Orthodoxy and other traditions, but the tensions and oppositions between different religious practices and discourses in post-communist society. The single topic of Slavonic provides a lens to achieve this kind of synoptic or panoramic view, thus helping us to achieve a better understanding of the interrelations between religion and language in post-Soviet Russia, and perhaps beyond.

2

Religion, language, religious language

Few will deny the close association of godliness and cleanliness, or holiness and purity. Indeed, priestly functions often include acts of linguistic purification. . Perhaps then, of all the self-images the sacerdotal comes closest to capturing the true essence of the purist's role. (Thomas 1991: 23) In 1993 a strange visage began to appear across Russia, plastered on walls, on the sides of buildings, in metro stations. The face was that of a woman calling herself Maria Devi Christos or "Virgin Mary Christ" (see Figure 2.1 ). Dressed in a manner that suggested a cross between an Orthodox nun and an Egyptian priestess, the image was accompanied by urgent warnings: Brothers and sisters! The Lord is in our midst! Maria Devi Christos, the Mother of the World! Repent your sins, for time is growing short. Judgment Only she can save you. Without Day is coming on 24th November 1993 her, you will die a gruesome death from the Antichrist. She will give you, people, your last chance for salvation. Whoever does not accept her with his heart and repent for his sins, will go to HELL! Whoever worships Satan, who has already come into power and walks the Earth under the name Emanuel, will go to HELL! Do not accept his monetary system, which is 666 (personal code in the unified computer financial credit system in the form of cards and radiant insignia on his wrists and forehead). REMEMBER! Only Maria Devi Christos, the Mother of the World, can save your soul and protect you from Emanuel. (Quoted in Plutser-Sarno 2007: 160) Who was this "Virgin Mary Christ" and where did she come from? Another poster charted her incamational genealogy: Ein Sof, the Unrevealed God- Adam- Seth- Noah- Shem- AbrahamJacob- Isaac -Joseph- Prophet Aaron- Moses- Prophet Elisarius- Joshua - Twelve Tribes oflsrael -Prophet Eli- Prophet Isaiah- Prophet EzekielProphet Jeremiah- Prophet Daniel- The Twelve Prophets- Joseph- Virgin

Religion, language, religious language 21

Figwe 2.1 Poster of :Maria Devi Cbristos, St. Petersburg (photo by author)

22 Religion, language, religious language Mary- John the Baptist- Jesus Christ- Peter- Judas- Prince VladimirPrincess Olga- Price Igor- Murderer of Prince Igor- Natalia GoncharovaAlexander Pushkin- d 'Anthes -Madam Blavatsky- Saint-Germain- Yelena Roerich -Maria Devi Christos, the Revealed God. (Quoted in Plutser-Sarno 2007: 180) Before her spiritual mission, however, her name was Marina Tsvigun and her profession was journalist. Together with Yuri Krivonogov, a doctor from Ukraine who came to be called loann Svami, she formed a "cult"- or, better, new religious movement - known as the Great White Brotherhood that garnered attention far out of proportion to the number of members involved. The name refers not to race but to a cohort of spiritual guides, a number of whom, including Jesus and SaintGermain, appear in the genealogical list above. Hybridizing Christian, Eastern, and occult elements, the religion focused on Maria Devi Christos, who, it was claimed, was the living embodiment of Jesus and Mary. It was predicted that the world would end on her 33rd birthday. She and loann Svami would be slain and resurrected on the third day. The world would be judged, with believers given a heavenly reward and unbelievers sent to eternal torment. A strict regimen inspired by Asian religions was enumerated for her followers, including limitations of food (one vegetarian meal a day) and sleep (four hours a day). The group expressed an extreme antipathy to government authority, and warned members to avoid contact with any kind of media. The denouement occurred in October 1993, when members tried to seize the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. Many were arrested, including the "divine duo" of Maria Devi and loann Svami, who were sent to prison (Filatov 1999b). Coming in the early stages of post-communist transition, the Maria Devi phenomenon caused alarm among those raised on dialectical materialism, for here were large numbers of intelligent young people apparently giving up their lives in order to follow a homegrown charismatic leader. The teachings of Maria Devi Christos included a dualistic conception of language. She referred to a mystical idiom called samskryt, meaning "self-hidden" (sam skryt), an obvious play on Sanskrit. It was, she claimed, "the most ancient Language in the World, which the proto-Slavs, the ancient Rus'ians, the children of Beautiful Hyperborea, spoke." Against this, she posited a numerical language associated with the Antichrist: The names of streets, regions, and countries will have their numerical sign, a string of numbers. There will be a unified international language of Satan, a numerical one. For example, "a human" is number 6; "to drink" is number 1; "to eat" is number 2 and so on. In the course of several months humans will unlearn how to speak, love, and feel, and will turn into the dead slaves of Satan, into zombies. (Quoted in Akhmetova 2008: 11) Although such linguistic speculation seems to have played a relatively minor role in the theology of Maria Devi Christos, the example speaks to the consternation

Religion, language, religious language 23 felt - by no means limited to cult members - as a result of sudden changes in language: the new names for streets, metro stations, cultural institutions, even entire cities; the inundation of foreign-language signs and billboards; the appearance of global currencies, credit cards, and the numerical armature of capitalism. We will return to the notion of an ancient Slavic language opposed by a malignant global code in Chapter 7. Our concern at present is not withsamskryt but with the Slavonic revival in post-Soviet Russia. In a way, however, what Maria Devi said about samskryt is not too different from what some Orthodox traditionalists have said about Church Slavonic -namely, that it is a noble tongue with deep ties to the ancient Russians and their homeland yet surrounded by threatening forces. Each of the subsequent chapters will examine a different aspect of the Slavonic revival. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, it sketches the key religious and linguistic developments of the post-communist period. Second, it offers a brief look at the discourses of Slavonic-language purism. For its devotees, Church Slavonic is an essential remedy to such events as the appearance of Maria Devi Christos and the general religious and linguistic pandemonium of post-Soviet life. Religion and language have both undergone remarkable transformations since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although a number of prominent scholars have examined the main features of religious change (e.g. Agadjanian, Filatov, Knox, Krindatch) or linguistic change (e.g. Dunn, Gorham, Ryazanova-Clarke, Zemskaia), there have been few attempts to connect or compare the two, to see how the religious and the linguistic go together. A synoptic perspective, however, shows that both religion and language have followed similar trajectories in the post-communist era. In both, there was an initial period of innovation and instability, as Soviet strictures were discarded and Western forms welcomed; this was followed by a period of constriction and consolidation, as Russian (and some Soviet) values and traditions were reasserted, culminating in legislation aimed at "managing" the new pluralism by protecting the privileged position of Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian language and Cyrillic script. The revival of the Slavonic tradition, broadly construed, needs to be seen in relation to these two trajectories. More so than in the West, religion and language have been closely intertwined in Russian history. Given this historical linkage or association, it is understandable that those distressed by the dramatic changes unfolding in both religion and language would call upon Slavonic to protect and purity Russian national traditions.

*** Without doubt, one of the most remarkable aspects of the post-communist transition has been the revival of religion. The 1990s, in particular, witnessed a remarkable burst of religious activity. Between 1991 and 2004, the number of state-registered religious institutions - not only churches but mosques and synagogues as well as theological institutions and administrative centers -rose from 6600 to 21,600 (Krindatch 2006b: 312). Most notable was the resurgence of the Russian Orthodox Church. Depending on the criteria used, it seems that between 50 and 70 million Russians identify with the Orthodox Church (Knox

24 Religion, language, religious language 2005: 5). Scores of churches have been built, refurbished, or reconverted from warehouses, natatoriums, and museums. Over the last 20 years, the number of churches in Moscow alone has mushroomed from 40 to 872. The Russian Orthodox Church now has over 23,000 parishes, 20,000 priests, 800 monasteries, 60 educational institutions, as well as hospitals, orphanages, and other outreach facilities (Krindatch 2006a, 2006b; Burgess 2009). It controls some 600 publications and has a presence on radio, television, and the Internet (H. Davis 2005: 77). Religious symbolism and imagery have returned to the public square. Politicians appear in church, lighting candles and crossing themselves (not always correctly), while clerics bless troops en route to Chechnya. Airports now have Orthodox chapels and tax collectors their own patron saint (D. H. Davis 2002). In sum, since the 1990s, Orthodox "concepts, images, and rituals, however vaguely conceived, [have] formed the most conspicuous part of the Russian religious ambience" (Shterin 2000: 180). Of course, this remarkable metamorphosis did not happen overnight. The revitalization of Russian Orthodoxy really began in the late 1980s under the auspices ofperestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness). Many observers consider the millennia! celebration of the baptism ofRus in 1988 as a watershed in the societal standing of the Orthodox Church and its rapprochement with the state. In fact, many observers would say that, since then, the Russian Orthodox Church has become the de facto state Church. According to Papkov (2004: 38), the Russian Orthodox Church has secured a "hegemonic position as the dominant national religion." Noting the cooperation between the Russian government and the Moscow Patriarchate, Knox (2003: 591) calls the Russian Orthodox Church a "pseudo-state church." D. H. Davis (2002: 667) speaks of "Orthodox preferentialism." For a number of analysts, the post-Soviet position of the Church suggests continuity not only with the pre-revolutionary past but even with the more proximate Soviet era. For instance, Krindatch (2006a: 54, 63) suggests that the "nationalized" Church is a constitutive part of Russian history. He contends that, "despite entirely different political systems and ideologies, both in the monarchic Russian Empire and in the Communist Soviet Union, the state was always seeking for thorough control, and for administration of the religious affairs of society." Thus, after a short-lived free market place of faith in the early post-Soviet years, the situation has returned to the "historically more familiar pattern" of Churchstate affairs. Many scholars contrast the high societal prestige and political influence of the Russian Church with the low levels of ritual participation and theological knowledge characteristic of the populace. N. Davis (2003: 227) suggests that there are about 6 million regular churchgoers, or about 3 percent of the total Russian Orthodox population: "All the polls tend to confirm that focused, informed belief is found among relatively few in the population, whereas vague, uninformed religious sentiment is quite widespread." Another scholar concurs: "Russian Orthodoxy has many of the privileges of a state religion but post-Soviet society is profoundly secular and unreceptive" (H. Davis 2005: 65-6). Many Orthodox visit a church only for a major calendrical rite (Easter, Christmas) or a life-cycle rite

Religion, language, religious language 25 (baptism, marriage). Only 3.4 percent say they are ''very religious" (Krindatch 2006a: 43-4). These numbers are roughly equivalent to what is found in Western Europe (Filatov 2008). The fact that more people say they are Orthodox (76 percent in one major poll) than say they believe in God (59 percent) suggests that religion is interpreted above all in terms of Russian national or cultural identity (Sinelina2006: 21, 95). These facts have led some scholars to call the post-Soviet religious revival a "mere phantom" (Agadjanian 2001a: 352). However, we still cannot ignore the remarkable turnaround experienced by the Moscow Patriarchate -the fact that an institution once left for dead is now one of the most trusted in society, and is actively extending itself into schools, the military, and other domains. Furthermore, as the work of scholars like Chesnokova (2005) and Naletova (2007) demonstrates, involvement with Orthodoxy is not an ali-or-nothing situation. We need to be more aware of processes and intermediate positions. There are various gradations of Orthodoxy within and beyond the church walls. The 1990 Law on Religious Freedom and the 1993 Russian Constitution allowed for a wide range of religious freedoms. The country became a kind of hothouse for domestic and exotic religions. Missionaries and monks and preachers and gurus arrived from around the globe: From the West, these included various Evangelicals, Pentecostals, mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Moonies, Scientologists, and others. From the Middle East, they included Shi 'ite, Sunni, and Sufi Muslims, together with some Baha'is. From the East, they included Presbyterians and Methodists from Korea; Hindus, Hare Krislmas, Rastafarians, and Buddhists from the Indian subcontinent; members of the Aum Association, Shri Chinmoy, the Rerikh Movement, and other groups from Japan. (Witte 2006: 117) These preachers and proselytizers handed out literature, held lectures and demonstrations, organized ceremonies and tent meetings, and staged massive concerts and revivals in soccer stadiums. They also established schools, hospitals, charities, and youth groups (Witte 2006: 117-18). The freedom that the Russian Orthodox Church finally enjoyed allowed these other groups to enter and alter the landscape, creating a competitive atmosphere and challenging the Russian Church to articulate its identity (Agadjanian and Rousselet 2005: 29). Let us look more closely at the Christian missionaries and new religious movements (NRMs), as these appeared to pose the greatest threats to the Russian Church (Walters 2004: 86). Russia in the 1990s witnessed a sudden upsurge in new religions, both imported and indigenous. hnports included the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON, or the Hare Krishnas) and the Church of Scientology. It may be remembered that Gorbachev himself had once met with Sri Chinmoy, the leader of a Hindu-derived new religion. A photo ofGorbachev ''namaste-ing" the guru is preserved on the group's website (http://www.srichinmoy.orglkind_words/gorbachev, accessed 15 February 201 0). Gorbachev also spoke positively about Nikolai Rerikh

26 Religion, language, religious language (Roerich), a key personage in Russian religious thought (Lunkin and Filatov 2000). After a meeting with the Reverend Moon, head of the controversial Unification Church, the "Moonies" seemed to make inroads in the Russian school system. The leader of Aum Shinrikyo, notorious for its use of sarin gas in the Tokyo subway attacks, spoke at the Kremlin as well as at Moscow State University (Knox 2005: 88). In addition to these high-profile foreign religions, the landscape was altered by scores of minor Russian groups promoting novel teachings and practices. PlutserSamo's collection of post-Soviet ephemera vividly captures the zeitgeist of this percolating religiosity, as Russians converted "palaces of culture" and other staid Soviet venues into sites for expansive spiritual investigation. Here is a sample of signs and flyers from the 1990s: Reincarnation The Institute for Science of Identity invites you to video lectures by Chris Butler on the 7th, lOth, and 14th February at 6:00p.m. Address: Express Palace of Culture, 26 Ligovsky Prospekt, Ploshchad Vosstaniya metro station. Free admission

*** Pastor of the Russian Christian Church from the city of Angarsk will preach on 14th, 15th, and 16th November. His service will be accompanied by many signs and miracles. 6 p.m. The Circus.

*** From 19th June to 2nd July The Russian Grail Blood of Martyrs The golden treasure of the 1st- 20th cent. The grail in Rus The Imperial Dynasty The Na Pushkinskoy Social and Cultural Centre. 9 Pushkinskaya St. Metro: Ploshchad Vosstaniya, Mayakovskaya (Quoted inPlutser-Samo 2007: 168, 171) The religiously empty spaces of the Soviet era were being filled by a "multidirectional" search for truth and meaning (cf. Brougher 1997: 111 ). Although some "cult" leaders- such as Maria Devi Christos- are remembered for the sensationalism of their appearance, and others- such as Vissarion, leader of the Church of the Last Testament- have gone on to achieve reasonable success,

Religion, language, religious language 27 most ofthe early post-Soviet groups and gurus are now forgotten, their appearance on the religious landscape as ephemeral as the homemade signs offering their services: Panteleimon, the Supreme Shaman of the North Altair, Magician and Psychic Elina Lois, the Sorceress Prois Occult Healing Center of Bishop Raphael, permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Russian True Orthodox Church under the leadership of Leonid Prokopiev Contact Center, the Supreme White Magic of Success Russian Reika School, the Vladimir Savenkov Center for Russian Energy Healing Salon of Occult Sciences of Master of Higher Magic, Bio-Energy therapist, Mikhail Kars Russian University of Sorcery, Magic, and Healing Anna Gamayan's Center of Good New Orophet, Master of White Black Magic Institute ofValeology Cosmic Consciousness of the International Academy of Informatization Boris Son, the Oriental Sorcerer, Head of the Center for Applied Extrasensory Knowledge (Cited by Plutser-Sarno 2007: 167) These textual shards evidence a strong interest in Asian religious traditions as well as Russia's own esoteric lore. East is mixed with West, Orthodoxy with occultism, Soviet scientism with Siberian shamanism. Surveying these signs, one comes to appreciate Borenstein's quip (1999: 441): "in spirit ifnot in climate, the country appears well on its way to becoming the Southern California of Europe." (Of course, those who make condescending remarks about Russia's alleged penchant for mysticism and magic, a "dual faith" combining Christianity and paganism, and the like, ignore the fact that America- statistically one of the most Christian nations on earth - is similarly fascinated with the occult and New Age spiritualities.) The Rerikh Movement, dedicated to studying and promoting the work of Nikolai and Yelena Rerikh, has provided an important channel for the introduction of alternative religious thinking. Rerikh was a well-known painter and spiritual seeker who developed a system of thought that synthesized elements of Orthodox Christianity (e.g. saints, icons) with those of Asian religions (e.g. reincarnation, karma, spiritual masters) (Lunkin and Filatov 2000: 142). As someone who achieved much in the pre-revolutionary era (among other things, he made the sets for Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring ballet) yet also venerated Lenin, the figure of Rerikh bridges the past, present, and future of Russian cultural history ( cf Menzel 2007: 5). His notions of"vital energy," spiritual self-improvement, and the salvific nature of art have been eagerly adopted by study groups and quasi-religious organizations across Russia. Note that Yelena Rerikh figures in the incarnational

28 Religion, language, religious language genealogy of Maria Devi Christos, quoted above. The Rerikhs, Maria Devi, and a number of other Russian NRMs gave Russia a special messianic role in the coming fusion or transcendence of world religions (Filatov 1999b: 167, 177-9; Shterin 2 000: 181 ). All roads lead to the Third Rome. The exponential increase in new religious groups and alternative spiritualities and the resulting "war for souls" led to consternation not only on the part of Russian Orthodox leaders but among many ordinary citizens. Despite the alarm, though, interest in Eastern religions or New Age therapeutic spiritualities never translated into significant "cult" membership (Shterin 2000: 186-7). Membership numbers for new religions are notoriously hard to determine, as both believers and non-believers have reason to inflate them. Shterin suggests that there were probably never more than 40,000 committed members (or 0.025 percent of the population) at any given time in the 1990s. However, because the introduction of these groups occurred along with the efflorescence of the "cultic milieu," it seemed that Russia was being veritably flooded by foreign and deviant religions (Shterin 2004: 103). (The cultic milieu encompasses all manner of heterodox science and religion, from witchcraft and astrology to UFOs and lost civilizations, sustained and propagated through loose, overlapping networks of institutions, bookstores, newsletters, workshops, and the like; see Kaplan and Loow 2002.) In Europe and North America, citizens have had decades to get used to the presence of alternative faiths. Furthermore, NRMs arose in the post-war West against the backdrop of the general decline of mainline Christianity, whereas in post-Soviet Russia they appeared at the same time as the revival of the Orthodox Church, thus sharpening the sense of competition (Shterin 2000: 187). The demise of what US President Ronald Reagan had called the "Evil Empire" catalyzed a host of Christian missionary campaigns. Churches that had long prayed for the fall of the Iron Curtain saw an opportunity to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to a population purportedly sunk in spiritual darkness. Funds were raised, evangelical teams organized, Bibles and theological tracts were printed. Postcommunist Russia appeared to be a wide-open missionary field. The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Salvation Army, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more commonly known as Mormons), as well as mainline Protestant denominations, all dispatched teams to Russia. By 199 5, there were some 3190 missionaries from 25 church bodies active in the country (Knox 2004: 98). Some of the qualities that seemed to make these missionary groups attractive in the first place -their novelty, financial resources, and connections to an alluring life abroad- eventually came to be held against them. In addition to the theological critiques delivered by Orthodox ecclesiastics, missionaries were widely criticized for using their material advantage at a time when many Russians were struggling simply to survive. They were accused of arrogance- acting as if Russia had never known Christianity - and cultural insensitivity - being ignorant of Russian language and lifeways and resorting to meretricious techniques to spread their message. "The brazen missionary tactics of Westerners seemed both alien and offensive to the Russian Orthodox Church and to many ordinary Russians" (Baran 2006: 640). Russians tend to put great emphasis on the cultural and artistic

Religion, language, religious language 29 dimensions of religion. Protestantism as a whole is deemed by many to be devoid of high culture (Filatov 1999a: 46), and the homespun style of some missionaries in the early post-Soviet years- relying on mime shows, sock puppets, and the like -seemed to reinforce this assessment. In the Russian Orthodox imaginaire, Catholicism is often associated with a drive for universal hegemony, whereas Protestantism is linked to schism and factionalism. There is an important linguistic dimension here. Since at least the nineteenth century, Protestant Christianity has been identified with vernacularism. The singing of hymns and the reading of scriptures in vernacular languages are thus often linked, at least in some Orthodox discourses, with division and external agents. As we will see in Chapter 4, the themes of novelty, factionalism, and low cultural merit have colored the debate within Russian Orthodoxy over replacing Church Slavonic with the vernacular in the liturgy. The backlash against Protestant missionaries could take many fotms. Notices about evangelical meetings were not immune from hands-on critique: The Sports and Concert Arena 8 Gagarina Prospekt The American (HORNED) pastors, Billy Joe & Sharon Dougherty September 6, at 7:00p.m. Free Christian literature and children's books (DON'T) come and God will change your life! (Quoted by Plutser-Sarno 2007: 176) Criticisms in the media and in ecclesiastical literature often conftated Protestant denominations with NRMs under the catch-all label "sects" (Filatov 1999b: 164; Agadjanian2000: 259). According to Borenstein (1999: 453), this term "connotes factionalism and obscurantism dating back to the Schism of the seventeenth century, thereby implicitly relativizing any new religious movement's claim to global truth." NRMs came to be labeled "totalitarian sects," a phrase coined in 1993 by Aleksandr Dvorkin, an ex-pat who was familiar with the anti-cult movement of the West and who played an important role in adapting that discourse to the post-communist milieu (Baran 2006: 643-6). Just as labeling a linguistic variety a "dialect" instead of a language can deprive it of legitimacy, labeling a group a "sect" rather than a religion can have harmful real-world consequences (cf. Kravchouk 2004: 507). Another aspect of the backlash was the way that new religious phenomena were linked to issues of national identity and security. Anti-sectarian discourse focused on the themes of spiritual aggression and cultural subversion. Sectarianism was said to undermine statehood (Shterin 2004: 105). "Sects" were often depicted as externally induced agents meant to divide and conquer from within. Some charged the United States with deliberately exporting its cults in order to derail the mighty

30 Religion, language, religious language Russian nation as it attempted to get back on its feet (cf. Baran 2006: 653). The anti -sectarian movement merged with other forms of anti-Western discourse, with complaints that "cultural imperialism" or "cultural genocide" was being perpetrated against the Russian nation (Bacon 2002: 112). For a while, the Snickers candy bar became a symbol of all that was afflicting the country in the throes of post-communist transition- the littering ofRussia with cheap but alluring Western products alien to the nation's materially poor but spiritually noble traditions (cf. Gorham 2000). As Borenstein ( 1999: 441) puts it: "In terms of sheer variety, then, foreign new religious movements seem to be a manifestation of the same 'cultural invasion' that characterizes the Russian marketplace: 'cults' are to churches what Snickers bars are to kiosks." The anti-sectarian discourse was taken up not only by members of the clergy and media but by the government (Baran 2006: 650). The end result was the passage of the 1997 federal law On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations. Supported by the Moscow Patriarchate as well as various nationalist organizations, the law "manages" the newfound situation of post-communist pluralism by articulating a hierarchy of faiths in relation to Russian history and society. The 1990 Russian Federation law on Freedom of Worship, which was crafted at the end ofthe Soviet era but survived the fall, had "set forth sweeping guarantees of liberty of conscience and freedom of exercise for all citizens" (Witte 2006: 116). The 1993 Constitution had confirmed and strengthened those provisions. Now the 1997 law superseded the wide latitude granted by previous legislation in favor of a more delimited disposition of religious groupings. The law declares Russia to be a secular state. At the same time, the preamble hails the unique role of Orthodoxy in Russian spirituality and culture. It recognizes the traditional religions of Christianity (listed separately from Orthodoxy), Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. Religions that have been in Russia for more than fifteen years are deemed "organizations" and are vested with full rights; others are termed "groups" and granted restricted rights. Some of the language is clearly targeted at NRMs (Shterin 2004: 102). Witte (2006: 130) sums up the impact of the law as follows: "Today in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church is free and favored by the state. Indigenous Russian Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists are largely free but on their own. Foreign religions, particularly from the West, are neither free nor welcome." The details of the law merit specialist treatment. The key point for our purposes is that the religious chaos or "carnival" of the early 1990s led to legislative constriction and consolidation, freedom to fixity. Since 1997, there have been numerous reports of harassment against Baptists and other Protestant denominations, as well as rallies and court cases against Scientologists and the Salvation Army. The Russian Orthodox Church may have won the war, but battles continue to be waged.

*** The post-Soviet Russian semiotic landscape has undergone a metamorphosis as dramatic as the religious landscape. Some changes have been obvious- the

Religion, language, religious language 31 toppling of Lenin statues, the removal of Soviet emblems, and the reappearance of religious imagery and symbolism. But, as Neidhart (2003) has documented, there have also been less sensational changes in clothing, finniture, briefcases, uniforms, telephones, eyeglasses, and hairstyles - the totality of semiotic codes. Russia looks different from the way she used to. Her smells have changed, as have her sounds. Her inhabitants' eating habits, and thus her tastes, are changing. And Russia's texture is undergoing a transition, too. The former Soviet cities have become noisier, faster, livelier, and much more variegated. They used to appear gray and monotonous; nothing but dullness met a foreigner's gaze. These same cities have turned out -acoustically and optically. Passersby are bombarded with music, with announcements, with visual screams, billboards, and fashion extravaganzas. For Russia this is new. The level of semiotical background noise has grown enormously. It required and still requires an extra effort by the people, so used to stability, to adjust. (Neidhart 2003: 31)

In this section, I will focus on changes in the Russian language, and on various efforts to adjust and respond to those changes. There are many indications that the Russian language has undergone deep "transformational processes" (Ryazanova-Clarke 2002: 117) since the end of Soviet communism. Although a number of important changes have been observed, including the weakening ofthe traditional case system (Ryazanova-Clarke 2002: 131 ), the tectonic shifts are most evident in the realm of vocabulary. The Russian lexis has witnessed a swift and massive influx of new words to go along with the new post-Soviet realities (Comrie, Stone and Polinsky 1996: 185; Ferm 1994: 21). In many cases, these words have also arrived dressed in the Roman alphabet. As in religion, the repressed has returned. What was forbidden or marginalized under Soviet censorship has returned with a vengeance. Gorham (2000: 614-15) writes that post-communist Russian is characterized by a "broadened range of permissible registers, from the lofty language of the Church to prison argot and youth slang," plus "an influx of foreign words and phrases into a variety of spheres, from business and governance to all areas of popular culture" (cf. Ryazanova-Clarke 2009: 105). Two broad trends can be observed: on the one hand, indigenous elements that were marginalized in the Soviet era have (re)entered mainstream linguistic culture; on the other hand, thousands of words have been imported from foreign languages. Let us take a closer look at each development. The Russian language has been transformed in the post-communist era by the introduction of native but non-normative elements. Elements of criminal argot, youth slang, and the baroquely rich system of obscenity known as mat can now be encountered in public discourse. Mokienko (1999: 73-8) reports that "jargonization" and ''vulgarization," as he calls them, may also be observed in other postcommunist societies, such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Slovakia. At the same time, the proliferation of "low" elements has been counterbalanced by ''the resurrection of archaic and obsolete words and phrases" belonging to high or bookish registers.

32 Religion, language, religious language Closely related to this development is the revival of religious terms, including those of Church Slavonic. "The changed role of religion," note Ryazanova-Clarke and Wade (1999: 76), "has propelled ecclesiastical words, which had been either half forgotten or tied to very specific contexts, into wide and active use." Words like "altar" and "temple," which had been metaphorically adapted to the secular religion of communism ("altar of the motherland," "temple of art"), began to be widely used again in their primary, literal sense. Many of the words have a solid Church Slavonic pedigree. Some are related to spiritual or moral topics: blagotvoritel'nost' (charity), dukhovnost' (spirituality), miloserdie (mercy), chelovekoliubie (love of humanity). Others are related to ritual and ecclesiastical matters: bogosluzhenie (liturgy), venchanie (wedding, literally "crowning"), and prikhod (parish) (Ferm 1994: 34-5). Chapter 3 investigates how the "return of the repressed" has been accompanied by a profusion of abecedarian literature intended to help Russians master these new vocabularies. Although the return of religious vocabulary in public discourse is certainly noteworthy, observers agree that the most significant development affecting the Russian language has been the massive influx ofloanwords. As Ryazanova-Clarke says, The overwhelming presence of foreign words, both new and earlier loans, is The rate of the distinguishing feature of modem Russian discourse borrowing into Russian over the past decade has been unprecedented and can only be compared with that of the era ofPeter the Great, when Russia for the first time opened up to the West. (Ryazanova-Clarke 2002: 120, 123) Most of these loanwords- Ustinova (2005: 241) puts the number at 10,000- come from English. Ferm (1994: 141) divides them into transliterations (e.g. kaprichchio), internationalisms (e.g. kul'tura), borrowings in the proper sense ofthe term (e.g. lider), and barbarisms- words that remain untranslated and in their original graphic form (e.g. good-bye). Borrowings relate to matters of business, politics, technology, and popular culture or "lifestyle." Examples include file, browser, printer, CD, realtor, off-shore, electorate, impeachment, rating, bestseller, talk show, and cheeseburger (Ferm 1994: 248). The widespread interest in esoteric and Eastern traditions has also left its mark, as words like karma, aura, reincarnation, and yoga have all become common (cf. Brougher 1997: 112). Thus, we have two seemingly contradictory trends at work. Words associated with the history and spirituality of Russia were revived, but at the same time terms reflecting the latest technological and cultural realia ofthe West were introduced. Dann (1995) provides an interesting analysis of these changes as evidenced in the early post-Soviet mass media. He notes three patterns: Westernization; a new tolerance for different kinds of jargon, even obscenity; and a "return to the past." He also remarks (1995: 128) on the "rather widely diffused use ofletters in an old, quasi-Slavonicized appearance (oblike)." He reports that there are three uses of Slavonic words and expressions in the media:

Religion, language, religious language 33 The use of Slavonicisms: Slavonic-related words and expressions but not in true Slavonic form The use of Slavonic forms (e.g. the dual number) but in the contemporary Russian ("civil") script The use of Slavonic in the Church Slavonic script (Dann 1995: 130) Dann's analysis suggests that the first type is the most common. The other two types are encountered above all in quotations from ecclesiastical sources (liturgical, patristic, etc.) where there is no readily available Russian translation (as there is, say, with the Bible). On one level, the appearance of Church Slavonic is not surprising in religious contexts. What is unusual in the post-Soviet situation is the appearance of Slavonic in secular print and on television. Even more surprising is that the Slavonic elements appear cheek by jowl with substandard elements, such as jargon, prison slang, and mat. For Dann, there is a postmodem quality to such hard juxtapositions (cf. Dunn 1999: 20). He concludes by suggesting that, ironically, the presence of Slavonic elements in the media is another example of Westernization. What he means is that the words have been moved from their religious context and stripped of their transcendental orientation. They are just another fashionable style to be playfully arranged on the page in jarring combination with other outre elements. For Dann, this kind of deracinated approach to religious language is typical ofthe West- or at least Western Europe. But, of course, as we shall see below, not everyone follows the rules of the secular media, and not everyone takes such a cavalier or "transgressive" approach to the Slavonic language. The lexical changes sketched above have been mirrored in the realms of script and spelling. The graphic monotony of the Soviet era has been replaced by "orthographic pluralism" (Grigor'eva 2004: 229). As with vocabulary, there has been an influx of indigenous and imported graphic elements. The Latin alphabet is omnipresent in the media, business, and popular culture. Printed materials mix and match Cyrillic and Latin letters in a variety of ways. Additionally, there has been a limited return of the "old" or "tsarist" orthography- that is, the alphabet before the Bolshevik reforms of 1917-18 (see Bennett, forthcoming; cf. Sullivan 1996-7). Chapter 5 looks at these issues in more detail. In the post-Soviet period, especially the early 1990s, Russia experienced a kind of semiotic "carnival" (Neidhart 2003). The linguistic order, which had been strictly regimented in the Soviet era, exploded. Firm boundaries blurred or disappeared altogether, allowing for the mixture of previously demarcated elements. Depending on your point ofview, this was either a period of creativity and innovation or one oflawlessness and mayhem. For those of the latter disposition, it was a linguistic katastroika- a play on the words "perestroika" and "catastrophe" (Mokienko 1999: 72). It is therefore not surprising that, as in the case of religion, the boom was followed by a backlash. Naturally, there was much handwringing over the state of the language in academic and "publicistic" publications, with calls to protect the Russian language from the "pollution" of non-normative

34 Religion, language, religious language or foreign elements. Scores of articles, tracts, and open letters were published, voicing concerns about the flood of new and unfamiliar words, the proliferation of grammatical mistakes, and the seepage of slang into the literary language. Predictably, these debates were connected to larger struggles over issues of identity and authority (Gorham 2000). The state began to take an interest in these linguistic matters as early as the Yeltsin years. The impulse strengthened under Putin and may be related to other forms of consolidation characteristic of his presidency, including "controlled democracy" and the "power vertical" (Ryazanova-Clarke 2006b: 39). Various institutions and programs were created to counteract what was taken to be unbridled linguistic freedom. In 1997, the same year as the law restricting religious organizations, a federal program called Russkii iazyk (Russian Language) was established. In 2000, the Russian Language Council was set up to monitor the linguistic situation and make policy recommendations (Ryazanova-Clarke 2002: 135). One of its projects is the Internet portal gramota.ru, which provides information about the history and usage of Russian. There is also a television program with a substantial budget called Russian Language, along with various government and non-governmental radio programs that discuss the state of the language and offer advice about proper usage (Gorham 2006). Examples include Kak pravil 'no (What's Correct), Na kalwm iazyke my govorim? (What Language Do We Speak?), and Likbez (Liquidation of Illiteracy). In contrast to the freewheeling mixture of scripts and registers characteristic of the 1990s, these programs tend to emphasize the "values of language purity, correctness and the observance of the norm" (Ryazanova-Clarke 2009: 107). In a similar vein, Putin designated 2007 as the Year of the Russian Language, involving symposia, exhibits, festivals, and commemorative postage stamps - all intended to bring people back to an understanding and appreciation of the national tongue. As happened in the religious domain, eventually federal legislation was introduced to bolster the position of the Russian language and the Cyrillic script. Motivated in part by the attempt of Tatarstan to switch to the Latin alphabet, in 2002 the Duma passed legislation requiring all state languages used in the Russian Federation to be based on the Cyrillic alphabet. Of course, a long and complex history lay behind these developments. The discourses in favor ofLatinization suggested that Latin letters could act as a bridge to technological and economic opportunities. Opposing discourses emphasized, among other things, the need for a unified cultural and educational space (Sebba 2006). Three years later, the Duma passed On the National Language of the Russian Federation. According to Chevalier (2006: 29), this law was "borne out ofthe social, linguistic and political upheaval of the post-Soviet era." It involves both status and corpus planning in that it concerns not only the role or position of Russian in the government and society but the norms or standards according to which the language is to be used. Controversially, it tries to restrict non-normative and foreign elements. The law stipulates, among other things, that the Russian language should be used in accordance with literary (i.e. standard) norms, and the use ofloanwords should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (Chevalier 2006: 30).

Religion, language, religious language 35 The Russian spiritual and semiotic landscapes have undergone dramatic changes over the past two decades. Both realms have witnessed a period of pluralism followed by a governmental ''managed pluralism." The perception of threat, of invasion, was followed by one of reaction, of limits being set and order reestablished. Beneath the broadly parallel trajectories, some further similarities can be specified. One involves territoriality. A kind of cartographic specter haunts popular and legislative discourse about religious and language change in the postcommunist era. On the religious side, one discourse concerns "canonical territory," a notion that has become increasingly prominent in Russian Orthodox literature since the collapse ofthe USSR (Agadjanian and Rousselet 2005: 40-1). Within Orthodox ecclesiology (that is, theories about the Church), a canonical territory is the independent and mutually exclusive geographical region "belonging" to a certain Orthodox Church. Thus, the Bulgarian, Russian, and Georgian Orthodox Churches each claims a unique territory that is not to be trespassed upon or interfered with by the others. This means that, while other "traditional" faiths such as Islam and Buddhism - are tolerated on Russian Orthodox canonical territory, other Christian groups represent rivals and interlopers, and their evangelical programs are viewed as poaching (Witte 2006: 134). Russia's "canonical territory" became a sensitive topic for the Moscow Patriarchate with the losses resulting from the breakup of the Soviet Union, especially in Ukraine and Estonia (N. Davis 2003: 74-80), and the arrival of missionary groups from the West. The 1997 legislation made Russia into a kind of "spiritual protectorate" for the Orthodox Church (Witte 2006: 134 ). The connection between language and space or territory is also marked in postSoviet discourse and legislation. The preamble to the language law of 2005 stipulates the use of Russian on the entire territory (na vsei territorii) of the Federation. Furthermore, as Ryazanova-Clarke (2006b: 4 7-8) has pointed out, collocations such as "post-Soviet space" and "information space" have become common in both academic and media discourses. The spatial component has been especially prominent in the debates concerning the Cyrillic script, with references to the "Russian graphic expanse," a "united alphabet expanse," and the like. Such talk is no doubt linked to the loss of territory. The breakup ofthe USSR resulted in sizeable parts of the Russian Orthodox Church's canonical territory ending up outside the Russian Federation. The Church tried to respond to this situation with an approach summarized by the motto "several states but one patriarchate," but it has nonetheless had to make concessions to other local churches that seek independence (Curanovic 2007: 303-4). A roughly similar situation has obtained with the Russian language. The breakup of the Soviet empire left some 20 million Russian speakers in the former republics. There have been statements from leaders of both Church and state about the need to protect this "diaspora." The projection of territory necessarily entails boundaries, a sense of what belongs inside and what should remain outside. Space is demarcated into the sacred and the profane, the clean and the contaminated (cf. Parthe 2004: 23; Thomas 1991: 24). In the discourses concerning post-Soviet religion and language, these borders are viewed as porous or breaking down, with the result that the

36 Religion, language, religious language territory is now under threat. Russia is positioned as a "besieged and threatened entity, surrounded by unwarranted freedoms" (Ryazanova-Clarke 2006b: 46). Images of violation, intrusion, invasion, war, and even genocide multiply in the discourse. The threat is twofold. On the one hand, it is viewed as coming from outside. Russia was being invaded by all marmer of foreign missionaries and exotic new religions. If at first they were viewed as novel kulturtragers, bringing fresh products to a spiritually hungry populace, the discourse of Church and state soon turned against them as unwanted and dangerous interlopers. In the linguistic sphere, the alarm has been directed above all at the number ofloanwords that have proliferated since 1991. Interestingly, some puristic discourses anthropomorphize these words, depicting them a "foreigners," "emigres," and "strangers" who have invaded the Russian linguistic space (Ryazanova-Clarke 2009: 113). But the threat also comes from substandard elements within. In terms of language, it stems from the purported breakdown of linguistic hierarchy and the inversion of values. Low, non-normative elements that were kept separate and out of sight have now entered the system. The literary (standard) language is thought to be tainted by "colloquialisms, demotic elements, different kinds of slang, argot, obscenities" (Ryazanova-Clarke 2006b: 50). In terms of religion, various forms of occult, magical, or Neo-pagan spirituality have proliferated on what is taken to be Russian Orthodox canonical territory. "Totalitarian sects," like that of Maria Devi Christos, are thought to have snatched believers from the Church. The nebulous cultic milieu threatens to drag down the ascendant Orthodox Church. These perceived threats engendered calls to protect the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox religion as a matter of national security and survival. The period of rumbustious religious and linguistic innovation led to laws meant to contain and control the situation. The 1997 law creates order by delineating and ranking religious organizations and groups, giving a certain preference to Orthodoxy due to its integral role in Russian spirituality (duklwvnost) and culture (kul'tura). The laws relating to language perform a similar function. Also referencing the notion of"spiritual culture" (dukhovnoi kul'tury) (Article 1.5), the 2005 law establishes Russian as the language of the land and limits the number of non-native elements that should be used. The text emphasizes mutuality and unity (Article 1.4). The importance of establishing and protecting borders is central to the 2002 law requiring Cyrillic to be the graphic basis of all state languages. The "trans-alphabetical boundary" is supposed to help prevent the penetration of English and ensure a unified cultural and educational space (Ustinova 2005: 241 ). In both the religious and linguistic legislation, the spiritual culture of Russia is meant to be protected and purified.

*** We have seen above how religion and language have followed roughly parallel paths in the post-Soviet era. But there are also places where the lines of religion and language intersect, most notably involving the religious language of Church Slavonic. Subsequent chapters will explore different areas of this intersection, from

Religion, language, religious language 31 the Orurch-state holiday known as the Day of Slavonic Writing and Culture, to the ecclesiastical debate over Slavonic versus Russian, to conspiracy theories about antediluvian alphabets buried by Slavonic Orthodox civilization. In the remainder of this chapter, I shall look at discourses of purism that called upon Church Slavonic as an answer to the diversification and perceived degradation of the religious and linguistic landscapes of post-communist Russia. As the language of cultus and culture, Slavonic figures in debates about protecting both Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian language. Let us start with the latter. In the post-Soviet era, two images or metaphors tend to recur in the discourses oflinguistic purism: one has to do with ecology, the other with hierarchy. Both are projections of an ideal order, a felicitous distribution and interrelation of elements. Hierarchy involves a pyramidal or vertical configuration. while ecology suggests more of an organic interdependency. The enemy of ecology is invasion and pollution or contamination; for hierarchy, it is insubordination and chaos. For religious and cultural conservatives, Slavonic is crucial to the hierarchical ordering or- to switch metaphors- the healthy interrelation of languages. Though this word is not (to the best of my knowledge) used in Russian discourse, Slavonic is a kind of keystone - remove it and the entire structure crumbles to the ground - or a keystone species- kill it and the whole ecosystem is thrown into disarray. Some supporters of Church Slavonic do speak in ecological tones. Slavonic, they say, is a pure cultural resource (Kondrat'eva 2002: 365). Mironova (2009: 6) compares Slavonic to the pure air one breathes in the countryside after leaving the smoggy city. Her grammar textbook contains woodcut-style illustrations of idyllic rural church scenes. According to the medievalist Likhachev (1999: 279), it is impossible to speak rudely Slavonic. While the everyday language is being dragged down by vulgarity and prison argot, Slavonic elevates and ennobles all who come into contact with it. According to one advocate (Suprun 1997: 45), Slavonic can help cleanse Russian, which is getting "clogged up" with unnecessary borrowings from Western Europe and America; at the same time, it can augment the lexis and provide a hedge against excessive "slangification" (slengizatsii) of the national language. In sum, Slavonic is an "ecologically pure" resource with no harmful admixtures (Nazvanov 1999: 307). Other devotees of Slavonic speak of a hierarchy oflinguistic values. For example: The severance of the Slavonic language [under the Soviets] changed the overall linguistic situation: the sacred language was excised - and the hierarchy of values was changed, all accents and proportions being mixed up. Thus, what earlier was lodged underground and feared to come out into the light of day now impudently strikes the eye and the ear: nothing is sacredand no one is ashamed any more. (A. M. Kamchatnov quoted in Mechkovskaia 2000: 13) In the following passage, the discussion shifts to the specific issue of liturgical language. The claim is being made that Slavonic is integral not only to the Church but to the very survival of the Russian and other Slavic Orthodox nations:

38 Religion, language, religious language Where the Slavonic liturgy is preserved, there the government is strong not only spiritually but materially (such was the Great Orthodox Russian autocracy). And, conversely, changes to the sacred ordinances of the saintly enlighteners [Cyril and Methodius] have led to bitter consequences in the fate of the Slavs: the Tatar-Mongol yoke in Russia, the Time of Troubles, the Napoleonic invasion, the contemporary breakup and lamentable situation of Eastern Slavdom. (N. P. Sablina quoted in Mechkovskaia 2000: 13)

In short, the abandonment of Slavonic leads to political crisis and subjugation. The question of liturgical language is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Here, we will simply note a few statements illustrating the discourse that sees Slavonic as the answer to the religious crisis of the day. Zhuravlev, a linguist who in the 1990s became an advocate for teaching Church Slavonic in public schools, begins his 1994 tract with a recitation ofthe civilizational role of Slavonic. Comparing it to Latin, Arabic, and Sanskrit, he sees it as the foundation of both literary and spiritual culture. It is essential to Russian history, culture, and education. He sees a return to the study of Slavonic as a solution to the endangered ecology of Russian verbal and spiritual culture (ekologii russkoi rechevoi i dukhovnoi k:ul'tury). Studying Church Slavonic reconnects people with their history. "We can say without exaggeration," avers Zhuravlev ( 1994: 24 ), "that the spiritual rebirth of our people is in the closest fashion tied to the fate ofthe Russian Orthodox Church, to a significant degree with its language." In a later statement (Zhuravlev 2000:5), he compares Russian youth to a flock in need of guidance. Fortunately, though, we "have in our possession a sacred hom [rozhok], the Church Slavonic language. It will call back Russian youth to the temple of God." In these formulations, the Church Slavonic language will draw people back to their spiritual and cultural roots. Church Slavonic will spur the rebirth of the Russian nation. The discourses of purism were most in circulation in the 1990s, when Russia seemed overwhelmed by foreign missionaries, cults, jargons, and loanwords. But similar themes continue to echo in conservative publications. By way of example, consider the following excerpt from an Orthodox prayer book containing Slavonic prayers alongside Russian translations. It is worth quoting at length, because it broaches a number of themes that are relevant to our investigation: Church Slavonic is a priceless inheritance Created by Saints Cyril and Methodius this powerful, vivid, mighty language is for us a sacred language, never used in everyday life for the expression of worldly needs. Rather in it the mysterious communion of every Orthodox Christian with God is accomplished. Created by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church Slavonic language, from the beginning having a reverential purpose, and chosen to express theological truths, the prayerful movements of the soul and the most refined nuances of

Religion, language, religious language 39

thought, teaches us to llllderstand the spiritual meaning of things and events. By its entire structure and spirit, the language of our Church elevates the person, enabling him to transcend the ordinary into the higher sphere of religious feeling. Unfortllllately, the present generation has folllld itself tom from the centuriesold traditions of Russian culture. The Russian literary language, one of the substantive factors of Russian consciousness, lived through a brutal reform, while the life-giving Slavonic language, which had nourished it over the course of many centuries, was reduced to school instruction in only a few catechetical institutions. As a result the hierarchy oflinguistic values was changed . . in the minds of many people the intimate link between the Russian literary language and Church Slavonic was slllldered. The present publication is intended to help people who are making their first steps to the Church and experiencing difficulties in llllderstanding. (Pravoslavnyi molitvoslov dlia novonachal'nykh c perevodom na sovremennyi russkii iazyk 2009: 2) While validating the importance of Slavonic for the wellbeing of Russia, this excerpt also touches on: the divinely inspired role of Cyril and Methodius in creating the language; the use of Slavonic as a medium of prayer but also as a font for Russian language and culture; and the traditional role of Slavonic in education and the need for the current generation to relearn the language after the Soviet hiatus. I shall discuss these and related themes in the following chapters.

3

Az, buki, vedi The ABCs of religious literacy

[M]ost religious traditions assume that religious literacy must be connected to faith development and religious growth, and it assumes some kind of understanding of the dominant language in use, for language is the primary means by which people come to know anything. (Watt and Fairfield 2008: 362) Revolutions are good for the dictionary business. Because novel social and cultural realities come wrapped in a new language, dictionaries - along with advice columns, how-to manuals, and other pedagogical genres- are promoted to help people acquire the new words for their new world. The more this new-fangled vocabulary is mastered, the more one is able to negotiate the altered landscape. When, in the early twentieth century, it became clear that the majority of peasants did not understand- and often could not even pronounce - such words as "regime" and "Bolshevik," great efforts were made to instruct them in the lexicon of social revolution: The democratic intelligentsia set out with the passion of civic missionaries to break down these linguistic barriers and communicate the gospel of their revolution to the peasantry Dictionaries were published to explain the revolution's strange vocabulary. And there was a whole new range of pamphlets for the people telling them what they should know to become citizens . . Many papers had a column such as "Letters from the Village," or "Answers to Your Questions," in which issues raised by peasants were explained . [One newspaper] printed explanations of political terms and articles with titles such as "What is freedom and why has it been given to us?" or "What is socialism and will it arrive soon?" (Figes and Kolonitskii 1999: 131-2) The collapse of the Soviet Union and the new realities that followed in its wake entailed a corresponding expansion of "how-to" discourse, as Russians struggled to learn a variety ofnew "languages." One area where people needed help was in sorting out the bewildering variety of religious ideas and practices that appeared so swiftly on the scene (e.g. Pokrovskii 1995). Different publications offered explana-

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 41

tory pieces and question-and-answer columns. A short-lived newspaper called Vozrozhdenie (Rebirth) may serve as an example. Published by the Party of the Spiritual Rebirth of Russia (a group connected to Zhirinovsky), it offered a semiregular feature called "Our Dictionary" (Nash Slovar '), aimed at providing explanations of then-exotic religious terms. Columns discussed such words and phrases as "Palm Sunday," "Reincarnation," "Holy Week," "Astral Plane," "Vedanta," "Karma," and "Aura." (The mixture of Orthodox and Asian terms is revealing.) The distance traveled in just a few years is evident in a 2002 dictionary of some 14,000 entries covering all the world's major religious traditions (Azarov 2002). A more recent dictionary that gives guidance on how to pronounce Russian words relating to religion and decodes some 600 religious abbreviations (Bugaeva 2009) shows that the learning process is ongoing. Question-and-answer columns have been a staple of both the secular and the ecclesiastical media in the post-Soviet period. White (2000: 200-3) provides a fascinating survey ofletters written to the paper Argumenty i fakty (Arguments and Facts) in the 1990s. The letters cover an extraordinarily wide range of topics, from economics (What is a "golden share"? Can one license a brothel?), to "lifestyle" (How can women lose weight? Is it legal for two cousins who are in love to marry?), to culture and spirituality (What is wrong with Michael Jackson's skin? Did the soul of Lenin enter Gorbachev?). The tenor of ecclesiastical papers is obviously quite different, but reflects the same tentativeness about unfamiliar forms and practices. For instance, an article called "Six Questions" from the Parish Messenger tackles the Orthodox practice of fasting: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ofwhat value is fasting? Why is it called the Great Fast? Must every baptized person fast? Who regulates the strictness of the fast? Why, exactly, do many try to go to confession during the Great Fast? What would you recommend for those who are fasting for the first time or who have not yet decided on this spiritual endeavor? (Prikhodskoi Viestnik" 2009, no. 4: 2)

The post-Soviet press has been full of such "teaching moments." The abecedarium or alphabet book (azbuka in Russian) is the genre par excellence for disseminating the rudiments of new knowledge. For centuries, it was the principal means of teaching Slavonic Orthodox literacy. Under the Bolsheviks, the genre was modified to become "a critically important political tool for organizing and building society" (McEneaney 1997: 218). The change was reflected on the level of graphic design. Pre-revolutionary abecedaria often contain a frontispiece image of Christ welcoming the children (see Luke 18:16), along with illustrations of huts, animals, and other elements of agrarian life. But in the new communist exemplars, "Portraits and busts of Soviet leaders appeared in obligatory fashion, and landscapes were as likely to be adorned with industriously smoking factories or political monuments as they were playgrounds and bucolic

42 The ABCs ofreligious literacy

scenes" (McEneaney 1997: 219). A spate of metaphorical "alphabets" was also published in the early Soviet years: Azbuka leninizma, Azbuka kommunizma, and so on (Kelly 2001: 261 ). The post-Soviet period has seen a fresh burst of what we may call abecedarian discourse. Condee and Padunov (1995: 136), for instance, detect an increase in alphabetic tropes as Russia entered its "elementary-school years of capitalism." This "alphabet methodology'' was evident in the names of stores and companiesAl'fa Art, Shkola (School) Gallery, A+ B Gallery- as well as the "pedagogic undertone" of television shows about managing money in a free-market system. Numerous Orthodox "alphabets" have also been published:

Abecedariumfor Orthodox Children (Orlova2003) Orthodox Abecedarium for Children and Grown-ups (Krupin 2002) Abecedarium of Orthodoxy for Children and Grown-ups (Shvedova 2001) Some invoke the traditional names of the first three letters ofthe Slavonic alphabet: Az, buki, vedi - the equivalent of ABC ( cf. Cubberley 1988). The old-time letter names convey a sense of schooling, of getting back to basics, of reclaiming a body of knowledge from times gone by:

Slavonic Alphabetary: a poetic history of the alphabet with the ABCs of Church Slavonic grammar (Sablina 2000) A B Verses: a book for reading the Church Slavonic language for middle school and older children (Dorofeeva 2008) As the epigraph at the beginning of this chapter suggests, learning a faith means mastering its language. Church Slavonic instruction was an integral part of prerevolutionary life. As documentary, ethnographic, and autobiographical evidence indicates, the great majority of the population had some knowledge of the hieratic language (Kravetskii and Pletneva 2001: 13). To adopt a modern descriptor, we could say that Church Slavonic acquisition entailed a multi-sensory approach. Priests, teachers, and scholars produced a massive collection of Slavonic abecedaria, primers, grammars, chrestomathies, and dictionaries (Shumskikh 1998: 10). But beyond that, the words read on the page were also seen on church walls and icons, and heard in church songs and chants. Slavonic was very much part of the visual landscape and "soundscape" oftsarist Russia (Zhivov 1996: 6). "It is a joyous thing that in recent years many more people are starting to study Church Slavonic," claim proponents of the language (Bugaeva and Levshenko 2009: 3). This chapter looks at the study of Church Slavonic in the post-Soviet period, ranging from abecedaria for neophytes to the highest echelons ofliturgical and philological study. Who learns Church Slavonic and why? What materials and programs are available for such study? How does one go about teaching a liturgical language after more than seventy years of governmental atheism? And how does this tie in with the broader "catechetical imperative" of the post-communist

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 43 Church? In what follows, some preliminary theoretical remarks about liturgical literacy lead into a historical sketch of Slavonic pedagogy in Russia. I then examine Slavonic-language pedagogy in post-Soviet Russia. Instruction in the language of faith can come in different shapes and sizes. It can demand several years of seminary study, but it might also be exemplified in a parallel RussianSlavonic prayer book or even a simple footnote glossing the meaning of an unknown Slavonic word. It is important, I think, to get a sense of the range of teaching methods involved With a few notable exceptions (e.g. Rosowsky 2008), there is a frustrating lack of specificity in both liturgics and sociolinguistics when it comes to the question of how sacred languages are actually taught. Therefore, I go into some detail when discussing the case of Church Slavonic textbooks and teaching materials. The teaching of Church Slavonic is not just a seminarian concern. The subject has returned in a limited way to public schools through the controversial curriculum known as the Foundations of Orthodox Culture (Osnory pravoslavnoi kul'tury). This an elementary school version of the larger field of culturology, an important disciplinary trend (somewhat comparable to cultural studies in the West) that extends up and down the Russian educational system and is, additionally, a "bookshop hit" (Laruelle 2004: 21). I conclude with some sociological data concerning knowledge of Slavonic in post-Soviet Russia.

*** To date, little sociolinguistic research has been done on the pedagogy of ritual or hieratic languages. Fishman (1991: 360), one ofthe few sociolinguists who writes much about religion, makes some pertinent observations regarding instruction in what he calls "religious classicals." In some cases, he says, they are "target" languages and their texts are studied in schools. But other times "they are 'merely' learned by virtue of repeated use in religious services and in home rituals, with no explicit school time being assigned to them." Rosowsky's (2008) ethnographic study of Muslim "liturgical literacy'' provides a valuable case study that helps flesh out Fishman's generic observations. Perhaps because he is not only a scholar but an "insider," Rosowsky offers a sophisticated portrait of this special kind of literacy. He understands that it is not just a matter of learning the words on the page, but an embodied, material, and social practice. Thus he pays attention to, among other things, the layout, furniture, and appurtenances ofthe mosque where students study; the panoply oflaminated alphabet cards, primers, and Qur'ans that they use; and the familial and communal factors that shape and support the study of Arabic in a given society. Against his detailed ethnographic research, this chapter takes a more conspectual approach, surveying in short order a wide range of texts and programs related to Church Slavonic liturgical literacy. The roots of liturgical literacy in Russia go back, of course, to Cyril and Methodius, the "Teachers" or "Enlighteners" of the Slavs. Indeed, these saints provide an authorizing presence in many ofthe texts discussed below. Their image usually appears near the beginning of the text- or even before, on the cover (e.g. Oleinikova 2008; Shevchenko 2007). The account of their missionary labors in

44 The ABCs ofreligious literacy creating and disseminating Slavonic is a textbook topos (e.g. Suprun 1999: 5, 12; Sablina2000: 10-16; Surova2004: 1; Kravetskii andPletneva 1996: 13) The legacy of Cyril and Methodius profoundly shaped Russian literacy. For much ofRussian history, literacy had to do with the Slavonic language and script, not the Russian language and Cyrillic script (Marker 1994: 8; Smith-Peter 2007: 393). This Slavonic literacy was produced and perpetuated through the so-called primer system, which had parallels throughout much ofEurope (Marker 1990: 77). In his memoir, Up from Serfdom, Aleksandr Nikitenko paints a colorful picture of this system in early nineteenth-century Russia: The first part covered the ABCs. Letters were pronounced in the old style: az, buld, vedi, and so on. From syllables the children progressed to the Book of Hours, then to the Psalter, and last of all to writing. Some schools taught only reading. At the conclusion of each part ofthe curriculum, the pupil brought the teacher a jug of milk pudding. The pupil's parents, in addition to paying a contractual fee, rewarded the teacher with a bundle of bubliks [bagels] or a knish Regardless of the pedagogical method used in those schools, all instruction was backed up by lashes (with three or four thongs) and by rulers for blows on an upturned bare hand. (Nikitenko 2002: 28) As Nikitenko indicates, the primer system entailed a progression through three stages. The emphasis was on reading and memorization, focusing on key devotional texts that were gone over and over again, stitching the words into the student's memory. Students usually began with an abecedarium (azbuka) or primer (bukvar'). The former consisted ofthe alphabet, syllables, and little else; the latter contained more substantial texts for reading (Cleminson 1988: 1). From there, the student would advance to the Breviary and conclude with the Psalter. This "threetext course" would usually take two to three years (Marker 1990: 78). The introduction of the civil script, designed under Peter the Great for scientific and academic pursuits, altered the system in a decisive way. From that moment on, the primer system became a fortiori identified with the Slavonic language and with liturgical literacy (Marker 1994: 18; cf. Zhuravlev 1994: 10-11 ). This pattern was extended and entrenched in Zakon Bozhii (God's Law), the dominant system of religious education in imperial Russia (Marsheva 2010).

*** As Russian Orthodoxy began to revive in the late 1980s and early 1990s, ecclesiastics hastened to promote the study of Church Slavonic- the language ofthe faith- once again. But these early efforts were hampered by a shortage of teachers and teaching materials (Zhuravlev 1994: 3). After all, Slavonic had been cast out of the public school system, and the majority ofpre-1917 churches and gymnasia had been closed. As with other kinds of religious literature, the first solution was to dust off and reprint books from the pre-revolutionary period. By way of example, consider the 1992 reprint of Slaviansldi, iii, tserkovnyi bukvar' (Slavonic

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 45 or Church Primer), originally published by the famous Kievan Caves Monastery in 1908. Its new preface is very much "of the moment," reflecting the zeitgeist of newfound religious freedom, but also the competition that came with it. It notes that societies with other belief systems have their believers, but they do not have the Orthodox Church. The Russian people are once again on the path to God. It is hoped that they will not disregard the Slavonic language, but apply themselves with love to its study and let it accompany them on their journey to Orthodoxy. No contemporary language, it is asserted, can be compared to the spiritual language of Slavonic. Thus, the preface attempts to relate an antiquated textual artifact to fin-de-regime seekers who for the first time find themselves confronted with a variety of religious options. The 1916 dictionary of Svirelin has also been popular in the post-Soviet period, being reprinted several times (e.g. 2006). The most important and copious Church Slavonic dictionary is that of D'iachenko, originally published in 1900 and reprinted in 1993. The 1909 lexicon of Solov' ev has been reprinted (2007) and also made available on CD. The liner notes of the latter read:

It's easy and simple. Listen to the words in Church Slavonic with the translation into Russian and repeat them during the pauses. We recommend not listening to the dictionary as a whole. For starters, take one section (1, 2, or 3 letters) and master it, then move on to the next. May God aid you! (Kurs obucheniia tserlwvno-slavianslwmu iazku, Disc 31) For Church Slavonic grammars, the gold standard for many years was the textbook ofHieromonk Alipii, reprinted several times (e.g. 1991) and reworked into a more accessible abridgement (Andrei 2008). The fact that this particular text was actually produced for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which refused communion with the Moscow Patriarchate because of the latter's alleged acquiescence to Soviet power, reflects the dire position of Church Slavonic during the communist era (Suprun 1999: 10). In addition to reprints, a spate of new abecedaria and textbooks has been published since 1991 (for a partial list, see Kornilaeva 2005; cf. Marsheva 201 0). Slavonic is being taught in earnest again in Sunday schools, in newly founded Orthodox gymnasia, in distance-learning courses, and in some cases in the public school system. New teachers have been trained, and there are ongoing seminars and conferences where educators, publishers, librarians, and even computer experts gather to exchange ideas and develop new curricula (Kazantseva 2001; Bugaeva 2005; Marsheva 2007). All of this points to a revival of the hieratic language. In both cases, the study of Church Slavonic (tserkovnolavianskii iazyk) and of Old Church Slavonic (staroslavianskii iazyk) is oriented toward the reading of canonical texts, not conversation. But there are notable differences in terms of which texts are studied, who studies them, and what they do with them. The academic study of Old Church Slavonic focuses on the earliest canon of texts of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. Church Slavonic pedagogy, on the other

46 The ABCs ofreligious literacy hand, primarily targets texts that are used in Orthodox liturgies. The difference is neatly summed up by Izotov in the preface to his textbook, Staroslavianskii i tserkovnoslavianskii iazyki, which is unique in combining Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic. The manual is intended "to fill the requirements of students of higher education - Russianists and Slavicists for whom OCS is a required linguistic subject; and the needs of those who study the liturgical language in order to participate more fully in church life" (Izotov 2007: 7). The key word here is "participate." Obviously, different degrees of ecclesiastical involvement will require different levels of Slavonic mastery. The liturgy may be a "public work," but there is a division of labor (Lukken 1992: 45). According to Pllihn's (1978: 39) calculations, priests are responsible for 10.42 percent ofthe total quantity of Slavonic during Orthodox liturgies; deacons for 11.76 percent; readers for 29.14 percent; choirs for 45.57 percent; and the congregation for just 2.48 percent, which includes the Creed (or Symbol of Faith) and the Our Father (or Lord's Prayer). Accordingly, some pedagogical materials are expressly designed for ecclesiastics (sviashchennosluzhiteli) in particular. For example, a DVD called Tekhnika tserkovnogo chteniia (Technique of Church Reading; 2000) is intended to improve the cantillation of priests and deacons, making the point that rapid-fire or muffled reading is a factor that contributes to the unintelligibility of Slavonic. It aims to instruct those seeking to master the texts in the proper art of correct, beautiful, and sensible enunciation. The majority of religionists, however, adopt a more passive orientation to the language. We might imagine a spectrum of Slavonic liturgical literacy, moving from passive parishioner to active cleric. We will use this spectrum to structure the following discussion. The post-Soviet period has seen an explosion of how-to literature designed for neophytes. The Soviet emphasis on hard-bound literary classics sold in state-run bookstores gave way to a mushrooming of kiosks selling self-help and reference materials, often alongside soap, beer, cigarettes, and souvenir trinkets (Lovell 2000: 138). Kelly points to the sheer quantity of advice literature printed, and its vast range, embracing everything from cat-breeding to palm-reading, and including not only mindless trivia, but also serious and helpful books - guides to crime prevention, advice for the victims of crime, particularly sex crime, information on legal issues, telephone directories, Who's Who collections ofthe biographies of prominent Moscow business, and so on and so on. The parsimonious trickle of practice books under Soviet power swelled to a vast deluge. (Kelly 2001: 369) The top bestseller was Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, which went through an astonishing sixty-eight Russian editions between 1989 and 1997 (Kelly 2001: 371). On a smaller and narrower scale, we see a similar phenomenon repeated in church kiosks and bookstalls. In an insightful study of post-Soviet religiosity, Weichert (2007: 455) describes the scene thus: "Russian Orthodox conduct

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 41 manuals, alongside saints' Lives, prayer books, church newspapers and journals, and a wealth of Orthodox artefacts, are on sale not only in churches but also on every street comer and underground passage." Books are sold alongside icons, candles, crosses, headscarves, and cassettes or CDs of Orthodox chant. Prominent among the items for sale are all kinds of abecedarian booklets and brochures. Many of these edifying pamphlets cost the equivalent of a dollar or two, sometimes less. They are simple and straightforward and often contain explanatory diagrams or photographs. Most ofthe books are 50-150 pages in length, with an average print run of 15,000 (Agadjanian 2003b: 165). Books that relate to Slavonic would appear to be a small portion of the overall inventory. Weichert's impressionistic account suggests that saints' lives and the apothegmatic works of spiritual fathers like St. John ofKronstadt and St. Serafim of Sarov are the most popular. Agadjanian's (2003b: 171) statistical count supports this view. Some of these edifying booklets deal with theology, but most focus rather resolutely on praktika (praxis). On one level, this is a reflection of the liturgical ethos of Eastern Christianity. Orthodox writers often make the point that right belief is inextricable from right praise. On another level, the fixation on praxis can be traced to the rupture in religious education and practice during the Soviet period. Russians do not know how to worship in church because they have not been worshiping in church- the liturgical sense of what to do, how to kiss an icon, when to cross yourself, and so on, is learned incrementally over many years of repetition. Understandably, when faced with a complex liturgical tableau of unfamiliar words, gestures, objects, and personnel - and with a babushka or "grandmother" near by who is all too pleased to dole out criticism or advice- the neophyte responds with anxiety and trepidation (cf. Weichert 2007: 452). Anyone nervous about going to church might find comfort in the 30-page pamphlet Orthodox Alphabet: the first steps to a church (Azbuka pravoslavnaia: pervye shagi k klzramu; 2009), a guidebook designed to help one overcome uncertainty and doubt by teaching proper conduct in church. The simple text is accompanied by painting-by-numbers-style diagrams of Orthodox praktika. Orthodoxy for All (Khariton 2000) is a stubby 400-page book that fits in the palm of your hand. Despite its diminutive size, it covers the following topics:

•

God - Trinity - Christ Christ's Church (apostles, martyrs, saints, etc.) Orthodox Church- Moscow Patriarchate Orthodox holidays miracle-working icons saints clergy and vestments sacred scripture and the Church Slavonic language interior and exterior configuration of a church mistakes made while bowing/making sign of cross dress and behavior goodorder

48 The ABCs ofreligious literacy use of cameras and camcorders women and their monthly periods the liturgy- daily, weekly, yearly cycles the sacraments different kinds of prayer service fasts morality some common prayers. For about one dollar, the neophyte has a handy compendium of the faith. The text has a purported print run of 100,000. I will return to what it says about Slavonic shortly. The Very First Steps in a Church: instructions for the beginner Christian (Samye pervye shagi v khrame 2008: 4-5) begins by lamenting the fact that the majority oftoday's Christians show up in church just three times in their lives: in a baby carriage, a Mercedes (i.e. for a wedding), and a hearse. It covers many of the familiar topics- bowing, lighting candles, writing out prayer requests (zapiski), and so on. It also offers some rules regarding talking, sitting, smoking on church grounds, leaving early, and so on. We are also told, "Cell phones should be turned off or put on vibrate" (Samye pervye shagi v khrame 2008: 136). The profuse selfhelp literature deals with queries regarding attire, for instance whether tracksuits, t-shirts, or sports jerseys can be worn to church. (No.) Can an icon comer be set up near a television? (No.) Is it permissible to enter a church with shopping bags? (Not ifthey contain meat) (Weichert: 2007: 457-8). Such admonitions indicate that "post-Soviet reality" is impinging on Orthodoxy in new and unaccustomed ways. Not all of these little booklets and how-to guides mention Church Slavonic. For example, the brochure You've Come to an Orthodox Church (Vy prishli v pravoslavnyi khram 2003) covers the basics. What is the Church (Tserkov ')?How does one prepare to visit a church (khram)? What is read in church? And so on. It concludes with the prayers that every Orthodox Christian must know. The texts are in Slavonic but are printed in modem Cyrillic, and no mention is made of the language involved. Other texts do include explicitly Slavonic materials. This typically involves an alphabet chart (e.g. Shvedova2001: 93; Davydova 2007: 92; Krupin 2002: frontispiece), along with some of the core texts of the tradition, usually with a Russian translation near by (e.g. Khariton 2000: 373-84; Davydova 2007: 94-5; Surova 2004: 31, 40, 43). A book for youngsters called 0 Biblii i Tserkvi (About the Bible and Church; Surova 2004) contains a simple Slavonic grammar that is cut out and made into a little booklet (knizhechka). As we have come to expect, it starts with a miniature icon and an account of Cyril and Methodius, then moves on to the alphabet and the basic round of prayers: the Trisagion (Trisviatoe), Doxology (Slavoslovie), the Creed, the Jesus Prayer, and so on. A more sophisticated version is found in the richly illustrated Kniga o Tserkvi (Book about the Church; Lorgus et al. 2008). This book is designed to instruct novices, young or old, about the praktika of the Church. It begins with the church

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 49 structure itself -layout, furniture, paraphernalia, and so on- then moves on to church piety - how to comport oneself, make the sign of the cross, address the clergy, and so on. Subsequent chapters deal with the Orthodox sacraments and rituals, holidays and fasts. There is a section on the Church Slavonic language with the sanctioning presence of Cyril and Methodius that introduces readers to the basics: the letters, the rules of reading, punctuation marks, nomina sacra, and so forth. Although these various alphabet books, primers, and how-to manuals may contain comparatively little grammatical content, they often contain important ideological statements about the meaning and value of Church Slavonic. We will encounter these themes again in our discussion of the bitter post-Soviet liturgical language debate (Chapter 4 ). Given the fact that the production of new pedagogical materials has overlapped with the language debate, it is not surprising to see oblique references to the controversy or inoculative statements meant to prepare newcomers for the debate. One typically finds the following four discourses about the merits of Slavonic in various combinations. Slavonic as a unifying historical tradition. One of the recurring points in the defense of Slavonic is that it links Russians or Slavs through time. The hieratic language is a unifying force, binding together the Orthodox Slavs past, present, and future. In the introduction to his book on Church Slavonic, Suprun (1999: 7) says that Slavonic promotes the spiritual unity of generations. ludin (2008: 375-6) suggests that during many centuries of Orthodox worship there was an organic unity (organicheskoe edinstvo) of thought and spirit as a result of the inherent qualities of Slavonic. In this remarkably good and melodious language, he says, Russians' forefathers prayed to God and the Virgin Mary, and asked for assistance in expelling the wild enemies of medieval Rus. Another catechetical text echoes this theme: "Every day the language of our forefathers and saints of the Russian language sounds on the lips of millions of people, connecting the living and deceased members of the Church in one prayer to the Lord" (Lorgus et al. 2008: 271). Slavonic as a sacred tongue for sacred things. This fittingness of a certain language for a certain religious task is certainly not unique to Slavonic -in a sense, it is the raison d' etre of any sacred language. Traditionalist discourse tends to emphasize the melodious and sublime nature of Slavonic. Discussing the prayers that accompany lighting a candle, one guidebook suggest that the Church Slavonic language, "with its lofty pitch and beauty," is "much better suited for communion with God than everyday [povsednevnyz] Russian" (Samye pervye shagi v khrame 2008: 23). Here are some further variations on this theme: By its lofty character, by its inherent vigor and resonance, Church Slavonic is a more perfect means for the expression of the religious moods of the Russian Orthodox person. The higher strivings ofthe spirit and deep feelings, removed from the earthly [domain] and directed to the heavenly, to the pure and eternal, receive a more fitting expression in this language. (Sidorov and Ushkov 2002: 4)

50 The ABCs ofreligious literacy You would agree that it is not right to use one and the same words to converse on the street with a friend and to turn to God, the Virgin Mary, the saints, and to commune with the heavenly world! It ought to be an entirely special language. And just such a language was created by the saintly brothers Cyril and Methodius with aid from the Holy Spirit - that is, was a gift to people from the Lord Himself. It is called Church Slavonic. (Davydova 2007: 91) This powerful, vivid, and majestic language is sacred for us, never used in quotidian life, for the expression of earthly needs. (Lorgus et al. 2008: 271) The elevation of Slavonic as a holy language fitting for holy things entails a concomitant downgrading or denigration of other languages that might possibly be in contention. Khariton (2000: 139) expands on this point: It is necessary to remember that church services are meant to turn our souls and minds to God, to a higher spiritual realm; all of that is filled with inner spiritual content and cannot be compared with everyday life. Therefore, too, the language of worship cannot be a regular conversational speech- it must as it were be elevated above everydayness, at the same time matching the melodic strain of Orthodox worship. Archimandate Rafail (2008: 221) says a new language is like water- it can quench thirst but leaves the heart cold - while an ancient language is like wine, which gladdens the heart. Slavonic as beneficent force in the world. The sense that words have real-world effects is a widespread religious belief and again is not confined to Slavonic Orthodoxy. The basic idea here is that you can do things with words because words do things. In traditionalist discourse, the Church Slavonic language is not understood as an arbitrary and artificial sign system; the letters and the words they make up mystically partake of the phenomena to which they refer. The word is active. It has power. It makes its presence felt in the world- and in the case of Slavonic, this is always for good. It beneficently influences the souls of those who pray in it (Iudin 2008: 372, 376). For Mironova (2009: 3), language is not just a combination of sounds and grammatical structures. Every word has an internal energy with realworld ramifications. The word (slovo) is also the deed (delo ). Slavonic as a resource that must be preserved intact. For the above reasons because of its rich history and socially unifYing effect; because of its suitability for holy things; and because it is always a force for good - Slavonic should be preserved from reform or translation. The little compendium Orthodoxy for All (Khariton 2000: 138) anticipates the reformists' objections: "One often hears the question: why are all services done in the Church Slavonic language, which is difficult to understand and contains many obscure words; is it not permitted to translate all the liturgical texts into contemporary Russian?" The answer is

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 51 that, despite the richness of contemporary Russian, translating Slavonic into Russian could be done only with great labor- and much would be lost (Khariton 2000: 139). Mironova (2009) finds evidence ofthe inherent goodness of Slavonic in the fact that it is constantly under attack by various reform movements. From her perspective, this is proof of the language's sanctity. "They" push the tempting (lukavaia) idea that Slavonic has become old, decrepit, and unintelligible, and therefore needs to be translated into modem Russian. (Note the wording of the Lord's Prayer in Slavonic: 'lead us not into temptation," izbavi nas ot lukavago.) According to Mironova (2009: 5), though, Church Slavonic may be old- indeed a thousand years old- but it is not weak or decrepit; rather, it is strong and mighty and above all a force for good. Sanctified by the Holy Spirit, Slavonic was a path to divine enlightenment for the people of ancient Rus. It can be that for contemporary Russians as well. But it cannot be learned right away. An infant in a cradle hears his mother's song and only over time begins to understand the words. Similarly, the Church is the mother singing the song and thus, slowly, we understand by repetition (Mironova 2009: 6). It is not to be abandoned in a spirit of prideful quick-temperedness (Mironova 2009: 7). Translation leads to distortion, and distortion of the biblical or liturgical texts leads to heresy and dissensions (razdory) within the Church (Mironova 2009: 34). Looking back on the ground we have traversed thus far, we see that post-Soviet Russia has experienced an explosion of interest in abecedarian and how-to literature. Orthodoxy has seen its own version ofthis phenomenon, with a plethora of booklets and advice columns aimed at helping neophytes learn the "language" of the faith. Though such texts often contain some rudimentary grammatical and lexical information about Church Slavonic, their real contribution lies in the ideology they articulate. As Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 13) say, "Revitalization almost always requires changing community attitudes about a language." These pamphlets and brochures play a role in explaining why Church Slavonic is valuable and why it is important to learn and maintain it. Moving further along our spectrum from passive parishioner to active ecclesiastic, we note that there are several options for those wishing to obtain a deeper understanding of Slavonic. It seems to me that this next class of pedagogical literature might be profitably viewed in relation to the sociolinguistic study of languages of special purpose (LSP). Basturkmen and Elder (2005: 672) define the field as follows: LSP is generally used to refer to the teaching and research of language in relation to the communicative needs of speakers of a second language in facing a particular workplace, academic, or professional context. In such contexts language is used for a limited range of communicative events. Many religionists think of Slavonic in a similar way - as a language of special purpose. From the beginning, it was designed for the translation of the Christian message as embodied in the liturgical and scriptural texts. It always had a "special

52 The ABCs ofreligious literacy lexical makeup" (osobyi slovarnyi sostav; Mironova 2009: 29). One bishop calls it a "confected, technical language [iazyk iskustvennyi, tekhnicheskii] created especially for the liturgy" (http://www.blagovest-info.rulindex.php?ss=2&s=7& id=3967, accessed 2 September 201 0). On one level, studying Church Slavonic is perhaps not that dissimilar to studying "Business English." One strand of LSP research concerns genre analysis, which involves identifying key genres and analyzing them for second-language learners (Basturkmen and Elder 2005: 678). Certain instructional aids, such as interpretive prayer books, seem to exemplify this kind of targeted and pragmatic analysis. In the case of the Church Slavonic tradition, the key genres include a range of devotional and liturgical texts. A variety of devotional texts are readily available at Orthodox church kiosks. Examples include:

Interpretive Orthodox Prayer Book (Tolkovyi pravoslavnyi molitvoslov 2008 [1914]) Short Orthodox Prayer Book with Explanations (Kratkii pravoslavnyi molitvoslov s poiasneniiami 2008) Interpretive Orthodox Prayer Book with Short Catechetical Notes (Tolkovyi pravoslavnyi molitvoslov s kratkimi katekhizicheskimi svedeniiami 2008) Orthodox Prayer Bookfor Beginners, with Translation into Contemporary Russian (Pravoslavnyi molitvoslov dlia novonachal'nykh c perevodom na sovremennyi russkii iazyk 2009) These manuals use a variety of devices - including en face printing, parallel columns, footnotes, and glossaries - to help contemporary Russian readers make sense ofthe ancient Slavonic texts (cf. Kornilaeva 2005: 76-8). Some resort to a textual device that appears to be increasingly common yet remains controversial. This involves printing the ancient Slavonic text not in the traditional church script (tserkovnyi shrift)- see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1 -but in the civil script (grazhdanskii shrift). In other words, the Slavonic language is rendered in modemday Cyrillic, usually with accents to indicate stress, which can differ from modern Russian. This typographic device reduces the archaic or exotic quality of Church Slavonic and makes it appear closer to Russian. It should be noted, however, that most Slavonic educators seem to frown on this development on philological/ historical grounds (cf. Kravetskii and Pletneva 1993: 92), while for some Orthodox traditionalists the current Cyrillic script is a product of the apostate Soviet regime, and therefore deserves no place in the sanctum of Church Slavonic textuality (Novikova 2003). Liturgical texts comprise another genre that receives targeted instruction. Catholicism used to be a culture of "little books" -missals, novenas, prayer books, devotional texts, and the like (Sweeney 2008: 116-21) -connected with its Latinate liturgical piety. A similar, though Slavonic-based, situation still obtains in contemporary Russian Orthodoxy. Copies of the central liturgical texts, such as the Trebnik and Sluzhebnik, are readily available at church stalls and kiosks. This makes it possible, for those who wish to do so, to study different parts of the

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 53

Slavonic liturgy before coming to church. If that is too daunting, there are more accessible options. For example, a little (50-page) booklet for the Easter service is "Designed for deeper understanding of the depth and figurative richness of the paschal liturgy. The Church Slavonic text of prayers and hymns is accompanied by and pertinent excerpts from Sacred translation into contemporary Russian Scripture" (Chemov 2009: 3). The preface to a similar book for the Divine Liturgy attempts to stave off any charge of illicit translation: "The published Russian translation ofthe liturgy is not called upon to replace the Church Slavonic translation, which is traditional for our Church; its goal is to give the believing reader a deeper understanding of the foundational liturgy of Christ's Church" (Bozhestvennaia liturgiia 2004: 10). To that end, it presents the Slavonic text (in bold civil type) and the Russian translation in a "stereotypographic" (stereotipnoe) arrangement. The various prayer books and liturgical aids could be used by a parishioner who is interested in learning more about the canonical texts of the Orthodox tradition. There is very little emphasis on grammar in such literature. But the study of Slavonic grammar is unavoidable for the serious student. As the author of a Slavonic manual (Vorob'eva 2008) contends, "Solid results cannot be obtained by use of accompanying Russian translations- the Slavonic text remains an enigma [rebus]." The last 20 years have seen a number of new grammar textbooks published for more advanced study of Slavonic (e.g. Pletneva and Kravetskii 1996; Shumskikh 1998; Andrei 2008; Vorob'eva 2008; Mironova 2009; Bugaeva and Levshenko 2009). This, in itself, is a noteworthy sign of revival. A detailed analysis of these texts would exceed the limits of this chapter, so a few simple observations will have to suffice. One commonality is that these textbooks want to minimize the differences - and hence difficulties - between Russian and Church Slavonic. "When you pray," writes Davydova (2007: 91) in her Orthodox Primer, "you probably notice that many of the words sound unusual. Partly they are like Russian words, but not completely." Supporters quote statistics indicating a high degree of overlap between Russian and Slavonic. Zhuravlev (1994: 2) says that 55 percent ofRussian- words, syntactic features, and so on- goes back in one way or another to Slavonic. Mironova (2009: 29) notes that 70 percent of Church Slavonic words are common to all Slavic languages, including Russian. What remains, then, are only "certain" small matters that can be dealt with expeditiously. Incantations of "certain peculiarities" (e.g. Izotov 2007: 17, 23, 85; ludin 2008: 376), "certain differences" (Mironova 2009: 31 ), and "certain semantic and grammatical differences" (Bugaeva and Levshenko 2009: 3) between Slavonic and Russian recur throughout these texts. Indeed, there is a tendency in all kinds of Slavonic-related materials to capitalize on the presumed closeness between the hieratic language and modem vernacular. For instance, a tried-and-true custom in Church Slavonic pedagogy involves starting with the letters that Slavonic and Russian have in common, and then moving on to those that are different (e.g. Davydova 2007: 93; Shvedova 2001: 93; Shevchenko 2007: 113). One note of caution, however, has to do with "false

54 The ABCs ofreligious literacy friends": words that appear to be the same but actually mean something different. For example, in Russian, trebovat' means to demand; in Slavonic, trebovati means to be in need of something. Tselovanie means kiss, but originally meant greeting. There is now a special lexicon consisting of 2000 such terms: Sedakova's (2008) Dictionary of Difficult Words from the Liturgy: Church Slavonic-Russian paronyms. The emphasis on the similarities between the hieratic and the vernacular may simply be a matter of good pedagogical practice- to proceed from what is better known (Russian) to what is lesser known (Church Slavonic). But there is also an ideological motivation: to show that Slavonic is not so foreign, and therefore unintelligible, as it is sometimes made out to be. At the same time, there are some salient differences that even a superficial study needs to address. One of the most prominent has to do with stress, which often runs counter to standard pronunciation of Russian. Church Slavonic classes often involve cantillation practice and correction. For example, we read at the start of one alphabet book: Recitation [of Church Slavonic] must not be similar to the declamation of secular literary works. In ecclesiastical recitation there should be no personal emotions, as these always have an untoward affect on the congregation It is necessary to pay careful attention to stress, which does not always correspond with the Russian. (Tserkovno-slavianskaia azbuka 1990s: 6) All in all, Slavonic educators negotiate a kind of Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand, they endeavor to show that Church Slavonic is much like Russian, so as not to frighten off neophytes; on the other, they stress the special, sacral nature of Slavonic. Russian is one of the mightiest languages on the planet, yet not fit for sacred things. In her textbook, Vorob'eva (2008: 5) compares Slavonic to a magnificent palace and Russian to a humble abode, but then hastens to add that this is not because Russian is impoverished, but rather because of the historical divergence between the two languages.

*** The study of Church Slavonic is oriented toward canonical texts, not conversation. Different kinds of religionist relate to those texts in different ways. The Slavonic known by the majority of parishioners is based on ritual repetition, on hearing, and in some cases on reciting a fixed repertoire of texts. Some go above and beyond this and purchase a bilingual Russian-Slavonic prayer book or missal. The more diligent or adventurous might try to work through a traditional grammar textbook. Still others strive for - or are required to obtain- a more active knowledge of the language. This is done at school. Severely restricted during the Soviet period, Church Slavonic is being taught again in various ecclesiastical settings, from Sunday schools to Orthodox seminaries to institutes of higher learning (Komilaeva 2005: 71). A number of Orthodox gymnasia have sprung up. In such settings one finds modestly dressed

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 55

boys and girls (often with their heads covered), priests and icons in the classroom, and Slavonic on the curriculum. The pedagogical materials surveyed above, especially the grammar textbooks, are used in these scholastic venues. Church Slavonic is also a constituent element of seminary education, which has expanded in the post-Soviet climate. In 1990, there were just three theological schools in Russia; ten years later, there were fifty. For seminarians, Slavonic is usually studied during the first two years of a five-year program, along with such topics as church history, scripture, and theology (see, e.g., http://www.mpda.ru/, accessed 18 March 201 0). Grammatical work on gobbets of Slavonic leads by the second year to the study of complete texts, such as Psalms or liturgical hymns (cf Griffiths 1999: 97). The language itself may present many difficulties and opacities. Additionally, there is a "hypertextual" dimension to Slavonic texts insofar as every hymn can be related to Orthodox theology, church history, and even iconography. More advanced study relates Slavonic to the Greek tradition that lies behind (and within) it (Marsheva 2010). The post-Soviet period has also witnessed a new phenomenon - namely, theological education for laypeople. St. Tikhon Orthodox Theological Institute in Moscow and the Russian Christian Institute for the Humanities in St. Petersburg are representative examples of this trend (Bercken 2004). Students at such institutes (which are similar to American colleges, as they focus primarily on undergraduates) are trained in a variety of ecclesiastical areas, including mission work, icon painting, and choral singing. Some train to become teachers in the curriculum known as the Foundations of Orthodox Culture (Glanzer and Petrenko 2007: 277)- on which, more below. There are other semi-official outlets, as well. For example, the Church Slavonic Seminar in St. Petersburg offers various courses for different levels. "Church Slavonic for All" meets for several hours a week in a local church. It covers the following topics: Mastery of the reading of Church Slavonic Study of the basics of grammar Acquaintance with the vocabulary of the language Interpretation of texts. (http://paerok.narod.ru/studlforall.htm, accessed 31 December 2009) Online tutorials and distance-learning courses have expanded the repertoire of options for Slavonic study. As a general rule, Church Slavonic is still not taught in secular university settings, except in such courses as the History of the Russian Language (Marsheva 201 0). In religious contexts, the consistent focus is very much on reading and interpreting canonical texts. Grammar is often in the background and, depending on the context, may be taught in an ad hoc way. The purpose of such study is ultimately pastoral, not philological. The goal is to be able to speak and interpret the "language" of the faith to those who do not yet know its idioms. As one textbook puts it:

56 The ABCs ofreligious literacy whoever uses this language - readers, singers, ecclesiastics, and priests -must perfectly understand what they are pronouncing with their lips. For without a full understanding ofthe language ofMother Church it is impossible to give an answer to those questioning the unintelligible words and expressions of the church language. (Sidorov and Ushkov 2002: 4) In short, what the post-Soviet Russian Church needs, and what these various educational facilities and programs ideally produce, are what Griffiths (1999: 61) calls "virtuoso religious readers." It is helpful to pause here for a moment to consider what Griffiths has to say about "religious reading," as this has a direct bearing on Church Slavonic pedagogy and especially the role of liturgical literacy in public schools. According to Griffiths, religions (by which he means the so-called world religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity) have traditionally created institutions- ashrams, seminaries, monasteries, yeshivas- that are characterized by a reverent attitude toward the tradition's sacred texts. These institutions are designed to cultivate religious reading and produce religious readers. The syllabus is shaped by the strong hand of clerical authority, which culls what is deemed salubrious and banishes the rest as spiritually worthless or dangerous (Griffiths 1999: 60-72 ). Characterized by loving and reverential repetition, cantillation, memorization, and exegesis, religious reading is the polar opposite of the consumerist and instrumentalist mode of reading that prevails in academia and society as a whole. Consumerist reading "uses up" a book and moves on to the next thing. In the early 1990s, there were some awkward attempts to reintroduce Church Slavonic into public schools (Basil 2007: 28). Zhuravlev (1994) published a manifesto supporting this movement. Church Slavonic, he claimed, is the passkey to the nation's history, language, and spiritual culture- indeed, the whole life and ethos of the Russian people. The critical condition of the "ecology of Russian verbal and spiritual culture" (ekologii russkoi rechevoi i dukhovnoi kul'tury) requires government intervention, specifically reversing the Soviet ban on Slavonic and reinstating it as an academic subject (Zhuravlev 1994: 3). Zhuravlev recommends a kind of"liturgicalliteracy" (Rosowsky) or "religious reading" (Griffiths). Students should engage in a deep, line-by-line probing of sacred texts from both a grammatical and a theological perspective. The proximate goal is academic - a deeper appreciation of Russian literature and culture - but the ultimate goal is the "churching" (votserkovlenie) of the Russian people. However, this kind of approach was not in step with the times. The sacred and the secular still seemed immiscible, like oil and water. Later years would see the - still controversial introduction of Slavonic under the rubric of"Orthodox culture." To understand the place of Slavonic in the post-Soviet educational landscape, it is helpful first to establish what has happened overall. The end of the Soviet Union resulted in the erosion of certain long-standing educational expectations and practices. In terms ofmoral education (vospitanie), the Soviet system had relied on

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 57 schools as well as youth groups like the Octobrists and the Pioneers. The category of spirituality (dukhovnost') was approached not through religion per se but through the cult of culture, with its emphasis especially on classical literature, music, and art. When the Soviet system ended, the Russian Ministry of Education sought out new curricula in the areas of religion and spirituality. A number of foreign religious groups, including Campus Crusade for Christ and the Unification Church (pejoratively known as the "Moonies"), offered programs that initially were implemented in some places. During the tumultuous 1990s, which were often compared to the 1930s in Chicago, there was much talk of the need for a kind of vospitanie that would counteract the perceived lawlessness, moral depravity, and foreign intervention of the times. There was a push for the teaching of specifically Russian values and traditions in the service not only of education proper but national security. The Orthodox Church, which had been anxious to return to the Russian classroom, encouraged this train of thought (Glanzer 2005). In response to these developments, in 2002 the Russian Ministry of Education unveiled a new curriculum called the Foundations of Orthodox Culture (Osnory pravoslavnoi kul'tury), with a corresponding textbook ofthe same name written by A. V. Borodina. The textbook ignited a firestorm of controversy. Critics assailed it as xenophobic and obscurantist, claiming that Borodina wanted to turn the clock back to the tsarist curriculum known as God's Law, and that her work was out of step with the multi-ethnic and multi-confessional nature of modern Russia. Orthodox supporters rallied to her defense, countering that, with all due respect to the different religious traditions within the Federation, the entire history and culture of Russia is not intelligible without placing Orthodoxy front and center. Other textbooks, including one on comparative religions, were proposed as alternatives. These, in tum, were assailed by Borodina's defenders. No consensus was attained (Basil2007: 51) At the time of writing, the whole question of religion in schools is still being debated. Discussing the details would take us too far afield. What concerns us here is the place of Slavonic in these matters. Slavonic reentered the educational arena with the promotion of the Foundations of Orthodox Culture curriculum. Interestingly enough, Borodina's textbook itself says very little about Church Slavonic; but other manuals representing the same discourse do. Let us take a brief look at two examples. I. G. Arkhipova's 2007 handbook Tserkovnoslavianskii iazyk: posobie dlia uchitelei 5 klassa (The Church Slavonic Language: handbook for students of the fifth grade) is produced by the publisher of the Borodina Foundations curriculum. Arkhipova begins by noting that Slavonic is foundational for the history and culture ofRussia. The post-Soviet deterioration ofRussian culture and the revival of Orthodoxy and authentic national traditions have catalyzed the need to study Slavonic again. The curriculum consists of an hour per week for a total of 34 hours. Individual lessons treat the story of Cyril and Methodius, the nature of the Slavonic alphabet, the dictates of Slavonic recitation, and so on. Arkhipova (2007: 11) recommends that students take field trips to their local church to hear Slavonic

58 The ABCs ofreligious literacy in the liturgy and to see it on icons. The last lesson is set to coincide with the Day of Slavonic Language and Culture- 24 May (see Chapter 5). Orthodox Culture (Pravoslavnaia lad 'tura), by L. L. Shevchenko (2007), is also designed for the fifth grade. Starting with the cover, which has a photograph of the Cyrillo-Methodian monument in Moscow, the text touches on a number of Slavonic-related themes. The prevailing discourse of the book has to do with the "spiritual culture" of Russia. The student is asked to look around and see beautiful examples of art and architecture, to read books by Pushkin, Tiutchev, and other great Russian authors, to listen to the music of Tchaikovsky and Glinka, and to realize that Orthodox Christianity shapes and infuses them all. It is Orthodoxy that lies behind this glorious spiritual and cultural legacy (Shevchenko 2007: 5). In a similar vein, Shevchenko (2007: 108) devotes a section to "The Beautiful World of the Church Slavonic Alphabet," in which he proclaims, "The Church Slavonic language speaks of the joy, wisdom, happiness, and beauty ofthe person's life with God." Focusing on the medieval period, he discusses manuscript letters, and how they are often adorned with animals, plants, shapes, and so on, to indicate their essential spiritual meaning. The section concludes with some questions for the student, including: "Wherein lies the beauty of Church Slavonic?" and "What (or who) might ruin this beauty?" (Shevchenko 2007: 112)- a wisp of conspiratorial discourse we will see fully formed in Chapter 7. As these examples indicate, Slavonic has reentered the classroom through the study of culture. It would be possible to study Slavonic in secular schools in the way that Latin is studied in the West- that is to say, as a matter of history and culture (Kravetskii 2009). And, on one level, that's what seems to be happening here. But a closer look reveals a submerged religious dimension. The abovementioned textbooks, from Borodina to Shevchenko, are part of a broader disciplinary trend in Russia known as "culturology" (Willems 2007). In this academic discourse, which bears a passing resemblance to Western cultural studies, cultures are typically viewed as self-contained monadic entities. Thus, Egypt was a riverine culture, Greece was maritime culture, the West is an oceanic culture (Laruelle 2004: 30-1 ). Since culture is related to cultus, religious factors are viewed as essential to the generative matrix of each culture. Art and literature are not autonomous enterprises, but rooted in the institutionalized religion of that culture. Faith is apprehended as a collective phenomenon which involves the nation, and not as an individual choice that belongs to the private sphere: the link between Russia and the Orthodox Church is thus presented as a self-evident fact that no good citizen can evade. (Laruelle 2004: 32-3) Drugs, crime, prostitution, televisual violence, and the other problems afflicting post-communist Russia are associated with the liberal West, and as such are inherently alien to the nature of Russia's spiritually rich, Orthodox-based culture (Willems 2007: 236). Thus, the return of Church Slavonic to the classroom must be seen in relation to this broader, influential direction in Russian academics.

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 59

*** For many Russians, the post-Soviet era has been one of abecedarianism. Cut off from developments abroad as much as from their own past, Russians have had to master the ABCs of novel forms of knowledge in the bracing context of postcommunist transition. Dictionaries, lexicons, self-help manuals, and how-to guidebooks have proliferated as Russians have sought to learn- or relearn- the "languages" of everything from capitalism to Christianity. The various programs and curricula to teach Church Slavonic, the traditional language ofRussian religion -some successful, some not- should be seen against these broader patterns. For much of Russian history, literacy meant Slavonic literacy. Generations of students learned Slavonic by painstakingly working through a series of canonical texts. Book learning was reinforced not only by ritual repetition but by the sonic and iconic presence of Slavonic throughout the semiotic landscape. The Bolsheviks put an end to that long-standing tradition While Old Church Slavonic - the oldest stratum associated with Cyril and Methodius and their immediate disciples - continued to be held in high regard in Soviet scholarship, Church Slavonic was quarantined in the ecclesiastical domain, which itself was left for dead by the theory of Marxism-Leninism. Knowledge of the hieratic language faded. The post-Soviet period has seen a burst of enthusiasm for studying the ancient language. Dictionaries, primers, and grammars of all kinds have been reprinted or created anew. More recently, CDs, DVDs, and computer programs have provided innovative means for Slavonic instruction. As the language ofRussian Orthodoxy, Slavonic is being learned by new generations of believers and clerics, sometimes through formal courses of study, other times simply through a text with glosses, footnotes, or parallel columns in Slavonic and Russian. As the traditional language of Russian history and culture, Slavonic has even made its way back in a limited way to the public school system. It is extremely doubtful that Slavonic will ever be studied in the same way and to the same degree that it was in the pre-revolutionary period, but there are some signs of general catechetical maturation. Naletova (2007: 52-3) observes, "While, at the beginning of the 1990s, small booklets were most popular, today they do not satisfy customers' interests, and many-volume editions of theological and historical works have become more popular." Further evidence that Slavonic has achieved a newfound status is provided by the Center for the Study of Church Slavonic, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Formally established in 2009, the Center brings together experts with both secular/academic and religious/ecclesiastical orientations. It is currently headed by Aleksandr Kravetskii, one of the leading authorities on Modem Church Slavonic. The Center's mandate is to produce authoritative Church Slavonic dictionaries, grammars, bibliographies, and critical editions of Slavonic texts (http://oroik. prokimen.ru/newsarchive/5 87-cslav 191 009, accessed 31 December 2009). The very existence of such an institute suggests that the study of Church Slavonic has made substantial progress since the quick reprinting of prerevolutionary primers in the first light of post-communist society.

60 The ABCs ofreligious literacy What are the end results? How many people know Slavonic? How many have mastered the language of the Orthodox faith? To the best of my knowledge, "before and after" studies are not available, but thanks to the sociological research ofChesnokova (2005) and Sinelina (2006), we can form a rough picture of Church Slavonic today. Both sociologists object to the ali-or-nothing characterizations that are made about Orthodoxy in Russia. They suggest that the connection to Orthodoxy is a matter of degrees of "churching." It is a process involving different stages of involvement in Orthodox beliefs and practices. The criteria they use are: church attendance, confession and communion, Bible reading, prayer, and observation of fasts. Based on these criteria, they posit five cohorts of self-described Orthodox religionists ranked on a spectrum: the churched, the half-churched, the neophytes or novices, the weakly churched, and the unchurched. In addition to the criteria of church attendance, fasting, and so on, a number of supplemental questions were asked to participants in the polls, including: do you know the Church Slavonic language? Possible answers were as follows: don't know don't know but would like to study understand when I hear it (especially known texts) and can read it if the text is printed in civil type understand Church Slavonic and have the ability to read it hard to answer no answer (Chesnokova 2005: 56)

The results show that knowledge of Church Slavonic generally increases with "churchness": 98.8 percent of the unchurched claim no knowledge of Slavonic, while the figure drops to 92.7 for the weakly churched, and 87.2 for beginners or neophytes. Shifting the perspective, 10.3 percent of the half-churched and 7.4 of the churched claim they "understand" Slavonic when they hear it and can read it in civil (i.e. modem Cyrillic) type. And 26 percent of the churched say they understand and can read Slavonic (Chesnokova 2005: 191 ). Sinelina 's (2006) research confirms and extends the work of Chesnokova. A survey consisting of 1794 respondents in urban and rural settings across 14 areas of the Russian Federation yielded interesting results. Of the respondents, 76 per cent called themselves Orthodox. However, 59 per cent said they were "believers," which suggests that, for a particular sector of Russian society, Orthodoxy is primarily a means of cultural identity (Sinelina 2006: 95; cf Agadjanian 2001a). Using Sinelina's figures, 76 percent of the population is Orthodox (about 107 million people). Of that number, 13 percent (14 million) qualify as "churched," with 33 percent ofthem (4.6 million) claiming a good understanding of Slavonic (another 8 percent of this group expressed a desire to learn it). Those claiming an understanding tended to be female, elderly, educated, and urban. Of the "halfchurched," 14 per cent (again, about 4.6 million people) said they could understand

The ABCs ofreligious literacy 61 Slavonic, while 10 percent of the neophytes (2 million people) claimed they could read Church Slavonic. All told, perhaps 10--12 million Orthodox religionists claim some ability to understand Slavonic and read it in some form or another, depending on the text and the context. Although there are no data comparing Soviet and postSoviet knowledge, these figures clearly indicate a noteworthy revival of Church Slavonic. Progress has indeed been made in increasing knowledge of the language ofthe faith.

4

Translator, traitor? The debate over liturgical language

Wherever fidelity is well defined, there apostasy is likely to be well defined as well. Where language maintenance is viewed as moral rectitude, there language The shift is likely to be viewed as tantamount to moral transgression language which is a companion, key and expression of the faith may, indeed, become not only an article of faith but a faith in its own right. (Fishman 1997: 19) Brian Moore's 1972 novel Catholics concerns a liturgical language controversy that arises after "Vatican IV." It seems that a group ofmonks from Muck Abbey have maintained the Latin Mass. Pilgrims from all over Europe and as far away as America have been coming to hear the ritual done in the "old way," to pray the Rosary, and to go to private confession "in the box" with a priest. A BBC special has made a spectacle of the affair. All of this has put the Catholic Church in an awkward position, given the prevailing ecumenical zeitgeist. The performance of the Latin-language Tridentine Mass- "Backs to the congregation, vestments, introibo ad altare dei" (Moore 2006: 17) - not only contravenes the spirit of aggiornamento characteristic ofVatican II. It also distracts and undermines the position of the Church just at the moment of so-called apertura: "when interpenetration between Christian and Buddhist faiths is on the verge of reality" (Moore 2006: 53). The Latin Mass, a demode symbol of myth and miracle, cannot stand. Enter James Kinsella, a Harvard-trained American priest and advocate of liberation theology, who is dispatched with cease-and-desist orders from his superior at the "Amsterdam Ecumenical Center." Sporting a paramilitary dispatch case and wearing gray-green fatigues and a flying jacket, he arrives by helicopter at the remote and rugged Muck Island. In the course of his visit, one of the monks confronts Kinsella and bursts into a full-throated defense of the Latin Mass: if the Mass was in Latin and people did not speak Latin, that was part of the mystery of it, for the Mass was not talking to your neighbor, it was talking to God. Almighty God! And we did it that way for nearly two thousand years and, in all that time, the church was a place to be quiet in, and respectful, it was a hushed place because God was there, God on the altar, in the tabernacle

The debate over liturgical language 63 in the fonn of a wafer of bread and a chalice of wine . this new Mass isn't a mystery, it's a mockery, a singsong, it's not talking to God, it's talking to your neighbor, and that's why it's in English, or Gennan or Chinese or whatever language the people in the church happen to speak. It's a symbol, they say, but a symbol of what? It's some entertainment show, that's what it is. (Moore 2006: 57-8) In Kinsella's mind, such views are sadly out step with "today's best thinking," which has seen "the disappearance ofthe church building as a place ofworship in favor of a more generalized community concept, a group gathered in a meeting to celebrate God-in-others" (Moore 2006: 85). Moore's slim masterpiece brilliantly illustrates how contestations over liturgical language come to epitomize different visions of religion and society. Which is more important - the vertical relationship with the divine, or the horizontal engagement with community? Is the liturgy a blessed refuge from a sinful world, or an engine of social transfonnation? There is also the matter of change and development. The Second Vatican Council is widely seen as moving the Catholic Church away from a vertical and toward a more horizontal orientation, from a self-contained sanctuary marked off by clear borders - distinct clerical dress, demanding rules of ritual propriety, prohibitions against entering non-Catholic churches, and so on- to a more open and appreciative encounter with other faiths and with secular culture as a whole. The move was epitomized for many in the shift from the hieratic language of Latin to vernaculars in the Mass (Austin 2008: 51). In the 1990s, Russian Orthodoxy experienced a divisive debate over liturgical language that echoed (and invoked) the experience of the Catholic Church at Vatican II. As in the Catholic case, the question oflanguage was "bundled" with a number of other proposed refonns, including switching to the Gregorian calendar (the Russian Church still uses the Julian), introducing pews (members are expected to stand during the long church services), moving the iconostasis (the icon screen that separates the mysteries at the altar from the main part of the church), and developing a more dynamic social-outreach and inter-faith profile. But, as was also the case in Vatican II, it was the issue oflanguage that became the symbolic fiashpoint in these complex and hotly disputed issues, the topic that summed up and symbolized two entire theological (or ideological) complexes. The issue of whether the traditional Church Slavonic liturgy should be maintained or in some measure "Russified" started as an in-house debate. But it quickly spilled into the public arena, where it was taken up in newspaper articles and radio shows. It even became something of a cause celebre when such high-profile intellectuals as Dmitrii Likhachev, Valentin Rasputin, and Igor Shafarevich weighed in on the matter. (As it happens, all three were in favor of maintaining Church Slavonic.) Although a number of progressive Russian Orthodox priests have advocated replacing Slavonic, the debate in the 1990s was catalyzed by one particular parish in Moscow that experimented with using Russian in the liturgy. Fr. Georgii

64 The debate over liturgical language

Kochetkov and his small but active congregation wanted to introduce the vernacular in order to make the faith more accessible and meaningful, especially to the many neophytes who, post-communism, were entering churches for the first time. When traditionalists heard of these innovations, they reacted with vehemence. Like the monk's defense of Latin in Catholics, they insisted on the sacredness and immutability of the archaic Church Slavonic language. They viewed any attempt at change, especially when done without the approval of church authorities, as tantamount to apostasy. They denounced the translations of liturgical service books done by the "Kochetkovites" as a betrayal of Orthodoxy and indeed of Russia. Though the traditionalists typically celebrated the Russian language in other contexts and lobbied for its defense against the incursion of loanwords and non-standard elements (see Chapter 2), they feared that replacing Slavonic with Russian in the liturgy heralded a nightmarish future of the kind depicted in Catholics: rampant heresy, secularization, and ecumenism - "the ecclesiastical counterpart to EU integration" (Ramet 2006: 155). Traditionalists worry about "forces" (sily) that conspire against the Russian Church (e. g. Tikhon 1999: 5). The imagined experience of Catholicism after Vatican II - empty pews, defrocked priests, guitar Masses -was held up as a cautionary tale. Meanwhile, the reformists also looked to Vatican II, but saw things differently. They noted that even the Catholic Church, which used to be decried in Orthodox catechisms for using a dead language, had made the move to the vernacular in keeping with its more positive relationship with the surrounding world. They accused traditionalists of turning their backs on religious seekers and making a false idol out of the Slavonic language. The question of liturgical language, of course, has been a persistent one in the history of Christianity. Wainwright (2006: 17) refers to a set of "historically recurrent tensions" in the practice of Christian worship "between mystery and intelligibility, between sacral and mundane, between inheritance and novelty, between universality and particularity, between unity and diversity, and between fixity and freedom." Many of these themes will be sounded in the Russian Orthodox controversy. Indeed, many secular communities are similarly divided between a "traditionalist" constituency and a "modernizing" one that seeks greater integration with the wider world (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 3). But saying this drains the post-Soviet Orthodox debate of its details and drama. For one thing, it does not do justice to the complicated polemics of the debate. Both sides advanced a cluster of arguments that converged and crisscrossed in fascinating and not always consistent ways. Moreover, although the question of language may be a perennial one, each debate is framed by particular non-replicable circumstances. Just as the context of Vatican II was vitally different from that of the Protestant Reformation, in part because it was self-consciously after the Reformation, so too the context of the post-Soviet debate differed from that of mid-century Catholicism, in part because it was self-consciously after Vatican II. I would suggest, then, that although it resembles those previous debates, the controversy in the Orthodox Church was shaped by circumstances very much distinctive to post-Soviet Russia.

The debate over liturgical language 65

To understand the intensity of the debate, one must first appreciate the place of liturgy within the Russian Orthodox Church. The Bible, creed, and doctrines that are thought to form the hard skeletal structure of Western Christianity are understood by Eastern Christians as being "embodied" in the organic fullness of the liturgy. In his classic introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy, Timothy (Kallistos) Ware writes: The Orthodox approach to religion is fundamentally a liturgical approach, which understands doctrine in the context of divine worship: it is no coincidence that the word "Orthodoxy" should signify alike right belief and Orthodoxy sees man right worship, for the two things are inseparable above all else as a liturgical creature who is most truly himself when he glorifies God, and who finds his perfection and self-fulfillment in worship. Into the Holy Liturgy which expresses their faith, the Orthodox peoples have poured their whole religious experience. It is the Liturgy which has inspired their best poetry, art, and music. (Ware 1963: 271-2) One consequence ofthis orientation, Ware goes on to suggest, is that any changes to the liturgy can be seen to threaten the entire faith. The Soviet handling of religion actually magnified the customary liturgical piety of the Orthodox Church. A Church that was already conservative became even more so during the parlous Soviet reign (Ramet 2006: 150). Theological study, which was never cultivated to the extent that it was in the West, was cut short in 1917 (Ivanov 1994: 37). With other channels of religious expression eliminated, the liturgy became that much more important (Bodin 2009: 37). As Billington (1999: 59) explains: Soviet regulations permitted only liturgical worship and sought to prevent all broader teaching of the faith or even reading of the Bible in the hopes that Christianity would die by becoming simply a theatrical artifact. On the contrary, the intensity of devotion invested in the liturgy became even greater, since there was no other point of contact with the Church. Add to this state of affairs the vertiginous changes taking place in post-communist religion and language (sketched in Chapter 2). Just as the Russian Orthodox Church was trying to reestablish its position in society, a variety of foreign missionary groups, as well as the more exotic "Moonies" and Scientologists, appeared in Russia. Previously unknown or forbidden words and styles were altering the complexion of the Russian language. The country seemed to be drowning in tawdry Western products. Therefore, a move to replace Russia's hieratic language - Church Slavonic - seemed catastrophic to religious and cultural conservatives. Another crucial factor was the legacy of communism. From public allegations of clerical collaboration with the KGB (reaching all the way up to the leader of the Russian Church, Patriarch Aleksii II) to the growing cult of "new martyrs," the 1990s were a time of reflection on the Church's tangled

66 The debate over liturgical language relationship with Soviet power (see, especially, Ellis 1994). In terms of liturgical language, this means, above all, coming to terms with Renovationism, a movement that- not entirely correctly- is associated with a Bolshevik-inspired push for liturgical vernacularization. "The experience of the Renovationist schism caused deep trauma in the ROC [Russian Orthodox Church] and its spectre continues to haunt the hierarchy today'' (Walters 2004: 89). Thus, the thorny legacy of communism, the perceived threat of Western cults and culture, and the relationship between Church and society in a pluralistic environment were all thrown into the crucible ofthe 1990s liturgical language debate. Though a number of works on post-Soviet religion reference the controversy (e.g. Ellis 1994; Knox 2005; N. Davis 2003), there has been no full-fledged explication of the arguments involved. Gopenko (2009) helpfully situates the postSoviet case in relation to the longue duree of liturgical reform in Russia. Bodin's sensitive treatment (2009) delineates some- but by no means all- of the arguments. Elsewhere, I have discussed certain aspects of the debate (Bennett 2009). The goal ofthis chapter is a more detailed exposition of the arguments involved. Such an account may be of particular value for students of liturgy and church history, for whom the topic has a kind of self-evident importance; but it may also prove beneficial for those interested in language policy, who are less used to the minutiae of ecclesiastical polemics. With a few exceptions (e.g. Spolsky 2004), religion is scanted in most treatments of language policy (e.g. Wright 2004; Ricento 2006; Shohamy 2006). Yet, as Crystal (1990: 122) notes, ''No imposed linguistic change has ever affected so many people at once as when Latin was replaced by the vernacular in Roman Catholic Christianity." The case of postSoviet Russian Orthodoxy is not of that magnitude. For one thing, the Russian Church is considerably smaller than the Catholic Church. For another, unlike at Vatican II, the debate did not culminate in a change of policy- hieratic Slavonic was not replaced by vernacular Russian. Nonetheless, with tens of millions of members, the Russian Church is larger than many of the nations that regularly receive attention in the sociolinguistic literature. And the fact that the Church stayed with Slavonic instead of moving quickly to the vernacular has no doubt had a profound effect on its status and standing in Russian society. Finally, Blommaert's comments (1999: 10) are applicable in this case: "Some debates, however, remain inconsequential. In terms of power effects, they failed. Still they may be highly illustrative of political and ideological traditions in the field of language in a particular society at a particular moment." An examination of the liturgical language debate provides a unique window into the Russian Orthodox Church in post-Soviet times.

*** When approaching the post-Soviet liturgical language ruckus, I have found Blommaert's discussion of "language ideological debates" to be a particularly helpful starting point, even though he does not discuss religion per se. Language debates, suggests Blommaert (1999: 2), are

The debate over liturgical language 61

organized around issues of purity and impurity of languages, the social "value" of some language(s) as opposed to (an)other(s), the sociopolitical desirability of the use of one language or language variety over another, the symbolic "quality" of languages and varieties as emblems of nationhood, cultural authenticity, progress, modernity, democracy, self-respect, freedom, socialism, equality. These debates do not happen in a vacuum; rather, they occur against a wider societal backdrop where these or similar issues are being contested in different ways and on different levels. Care must be taken to delineate the relation between the language debate and broader sociopolitical positions and contestations. Drawing on Braudel's notions of longue and courte duree, Blommaert further suggests that time is uneven when it comes to language-ideological debates. Extended periods of stasis are interrupted by rapid interventions: The patterns in which these interventions occur are discontinuous: there are crucial moments in history during which languages become targets of political, social and cultural intervention, and there are moments in which very little in the way of drama and crisis seems to happen. (Blommaert 1999: 425) The post-Soviet period is one of these "crucial moments" or "critical junctures" (Bennett 2009), when the issue of Church Slavonic became vital again after decades of Soviet-enforced quietude. Both aspects ofthe debate- the largely static long term and the dramatic short term- need to be considered. Finally, Blommaert ( 1999: 10) notes that language debates are "textual/discursive, they produce discourses and metadiscourses, and they result in a battery of texts that can be borrowed, quoted, echoed, vulgarized, etc." In what follows I sketch the longue duree of the Slavonic issue leading up to the 1990s. I then turn to the main texts and discourses that appeared in the post-Soviet period. In a way, the status of Slavonic has been debated since its inception, when the "rights" of Slavonic propounded by Cyril and Methodius were rejected by the Frankish (Catholic) clergy. Subsequent centuries saw a number of phases in the Slavonic "language question," as Church Slavonic was pitted against Greek, Latin, and finally the titular languages of the emerging Slavic nations. Much of this, however, focused on the merits of Slavonic as a literary tongue (Picchio 1984 ). The question of Slavonic as a liturgical language became an explicit point of controversy in the early twentieth century. Most of the arguments developed in the pre-revolutionary period have been recycled in the post-communist period. The qualities and deficiencies of Slavonic versus Russian; the priorities of intelligibility, sacrality, beauty, and mystery; the importance of Slavic Orthodox unity; the examples of other languages and churches; the threat of foreign "sects"; the Cyrillo-Methodian principle; the tasks of education and translation- all of these overlapping themes carry over from the pre-revolutionary to the postcommunist debate.

68 The debate over liturgical language

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, questions began to be asked about the intelligibility of Church Slavonic. At that time, the Russian Church was beginning to prepare for a local council. Though not on a par with the seven Ecumenical Councils that are considered authoritative across the Orthodox world, a local council can be of great consequence for the practice and organization of a particular canonical territory. In 1905 Russian bishops were canvassed about the state of the Church, though not about Church Slavonic in particular. Their "Responses" ( Otzyry) expressed a wide range of opinions. Of the prelates who responded, 28 of 48 commented on the incomprehensibility of Church Slavonic (Gopenko 2009: 134). Most favored a fresh Slavonic translation of the service books or a capital revision of the existing ones. Some called for the texts to be composed in ''New Slavonic," a Russified variety of Slavonic, while still others advocated wholesale translation into Russian (Balashov 2 001 : 24-31 ). These Otzyry have been published and continue to be mined by both traditionalists and reformists in the post-communist period. Pre-revolutionary Russia enjoyed a vibrant religious press, and between 1905 and 1917 the issue of liturgical language was widely discussed in ecclesiastical publications (Balashov 2001: 117-18). When the council of 1917-18 finally convened, the issues involving Slavonic and liturgical language had been debated off and on for a decade. The question of liturgical language reform was debated in meetings of a conciliar sub-section, though not in the plenary sessions (Prokschi 2007). The end result ofthese discussions was a doklad (article) that included the following planks: The Slavonic language is a great heritage and treasure and should therefore be retained as the basic language of the liturgy. In order to bring the liturgy closer to the people, the right of Russian to be used in the liturgy is acknowledged. The quick and complete introduction of Russian is impractical and undesirable. The partial application of Russian (in certain prayers, for instance) is acceptable if it helps comprehension Church authorization is required for the introduction of Russian. Parallel and explanatory texts, as well as the study of Slavonic in school, are encouraged. (Balashov 2001: 136-45) Kravetskii (1996: 121) notes an intriguing parallel with the key document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Cone ilium, in which the traditional status of Latin is confirmed yet provision is made for the vernacular in the Roman rite. The doklad was eventually submitted to the ruling body of the council. According to Kravetskii ( 1996: 121 ), this means that the recommendations could be introduced into the life (proveden v zhizn ')of the Church. Balashov (2001: 158) stresses that the Church could, but was not required to, implement the doklad. The disputed status of the recommendations will figure in the post-communist debate.

The debate over liturgical language 69

The issue is unsettled in part because the Church was soon overtaken by events. The Bolshevik Revolution and then the Civil War meant that issues of ecclesiastical reform were put aside in the struggle for sheer survival. In fact, information about the 1917-18 council and the various documents attached to it were not well known even within Russian Orthodox circles until the 1990s (Kravetskii and Pletneva 2001: 164). Reform-minded clerics in the post-Soviet period have looked to reclaim the spirit of the council after the Soviet interregnum, while traditionalists cast doubt on its validity or on interpretations of its specific rulings. The next phase in the history of the Church Slavonic language question involves the controversial subject of Renovationism. This was a reform movement that arose within the Russian Orthodox Church after the revolution of 1917, although its roots go back considerably farther (Roslof 2002). As the name indicates, it sought to renew - renovate -Russian church life. While the official Church was mostly on its heels following the revolution, the clerics in the Renovationist camp sought to blend Russian Orthodoxy with Soviet ideology, even adapting Bolshevik language and organization for religious purposes (Roslof 2002: 69, 72). Some peripheral groups within the movement sought to invigorate church life by introducing the Russian vernacular into liturgical services, making the ritual more accessible to the common people. For their efforts, the Renovationists received the hedging support of the Communists and the enmity of religionists. They were vilified as "red priests" and "commissars in cassocks." In the eyes of its opponents, Renovationism was "the religion of the Antichrist." Icons were said to dim and lose their luster in Renovationist churches (Roslof2002: 147, 152, 166). To this day, the very term "Renovationism" is radioactive in Russian ecclesiastical circles, and attempts to introduce liturgical reforms are branded as ''Neo-Renovationist" by traditionalists. However, as the research of Kravetskii and Pletneva demonstrates (2001: 180-223), Renovationism was primarily a political, not a liturgical, phenomenon. Renovationists did not work out a consistent program ofliturgical reform, and any linguistic experiments, including using Russian in worship services, were carried out by marginal groups and not sanctioned by the movement's leaders. Yet, regardless of what historians say, in popular and traditionalist discourse the Renovationists are simply and unequivocally associated with schismatic liturgical reform. The Kochetkovites are, in turn, consistently described by their opponents in terms ofRenovationism. If, before the revolution, the vast majority of Russians had some knowledge of Church Slavonic, this ceased to be the case the further the Soviet Union moved away from the ancien regime. Slavonic, of course, was no longer taught in state schools, and a great many churches and seminaries were shuttered. The ecclesiastical press was largely eliminated; some 400 periodicals had ceased to exist by 1922 (Bakina 2003: 9-13). The liturgy was treated as a relic from a superseded past. Issues ofliturgicallanguage reform were put on the back burner; they were discussed, but not openly or officially. In fact, between 1945 and 1988, only one article on the topic was published in the Journal ofthe Moscow Patriarchate. The question of liturgical reform was broached in the samizdat literature of the 1950s

70 The debate over liturgical language and 1960s, but of course its readership was quite limited (Kravetskii and Pletneva 2001: 241-4). The issue was raised again in earnest only in 1988, at the time of the millennia! celebrations of Christianity in Russia. Two well-known philologists debated the issue. Sergei Averintsev was in favor of translating the service books into Russian, and he would later contribute to this task as part ofKochetkov's Moscow parish. Gelian Prokhorov countered that Church Slavonic should be preserved, and that those who needed to study the language should do so (Gopenko 2009: 167). In the 1990s, Prokhorov would be supported by other philologists at the prestigious Pushkin House in St. Petersburg, including Dmitrii Likhachev. Mechkovskaia (2000: 11) suggests that the majority of Slavonic philologists favor retaining Church Slavonic in the liturgy out of their professional love for the language as well as an educator's optimism that it could be learned. As I noted above, the liturgical language debate flared up again in the 1990s in conjunction with the pastoral work ofFr. Kochetkov. Daniel (2006) offers the best account of these events. My focus will be on the arguments involved. While utilizing various pieces in print and online, I will rely above all on two key publications: one published by reformers associated with Fr. Kochetkov (Iazyk tserkvi; The Language of the Church), the other compiled by Fr. Tikhon and conveying the traditionalist arguments (Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: istoriia, popytki reformatsii; The Liturgical Language of the Russian Church: history, reform attempts). In the previous chapter, I delineated some of the main arguments in defense of Church Slavonic as found in textbooks and other abecedarian literature: Slavonic is a majestic language fitting for sacred worship. Slavonic unites the Orthodox Slavs through the ages. Slavonic is an ambrosial language that exerts a positive force on the world. Slavonic is a precious historical and linguistic resource. Since the reformists put the issue back on the table, as it were, I will give precedence to their arguments, and then discuss the responses or refutations of the traditionalists. It should be borne in mind that the following account, as complicated as it is, is still a simplification, for neither camp- traditionalist or reformist - is a monolithic bloc.

Intelligibility The rituals of the Russian Orthodox Church are performed in Church Slavonic. The crux of the debate is whether this hieratic language is intelligible to the average churchgoer. Right away it must be said that both reformists and traditionalists seem to envision only Russian speakers in their arguments, even though many other languages and ethnicities fall within the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. The entire debate essentially revolves around the relationship between adult native (L 1) Russian speakers and the hieratic language of Church Slavonic.

The debate over liturgical language 71

Liddicoat (1993: 123) provides a helpful starting point. Most religions, he says, have come to or passed through a stage where the religious language is not the native idiom of some or all ofthe practitioners ofthe religion. The religious language may be either an archaic idiom, as in the case ofCranmerian English in the Anglican Communion, a foreign language, as in the European language liturgies of missionaries in the Pacific and elsewhere, or even a dead language, as in the case ofLatin in the rites of the Catholic Church. Both reformists and traditionalists agree that Church Slavonic is different from Russian. The question is: how different? And is this difference a good or a bad thing? Does it enhance the sense of mystery or impede simple comprehension? Orthodox traditionalists would claim that Church Slavonic is perhaps comparable to "Cranmerian English," which is to say they consider it an appropriately elevated yet still understandable idiom for Russian speakers. The reformist position, on the other hand, would be that Church Slavonic has become the "Latin" of the Russian Church - a dead language that has become remote and unintelligible to the majority ofbelievers, and a fortiori to neophytes. Although some suggest that this or that part of the liturgy is more or less intelligible than the rest, in general the discourse ofboth sides consists of sweeping generalizations backed by anecdotal evidence. Sociolinguistic data have never really figured in the debate. Both sides start from the position that conscious participation in the liturgy is a good and necessary thing; the debate revolves around how that goal is best achieved (Pletneva 1997: 106). Everything else flows from that. If the liturgical language is understandable, then nothing need be done. If, however, it is not, then this raises the questions of what needs to be done - Translation? Education? Better church attendance?- and who should do it. The starting point of the reformist position is that Church Slavonic is largely unintelligible to the contemporary believer, and that this is a problematic state of affairs. Orthodox reformists would concur with Crystal's judgment (1966: 15) that unintelligibility is the "linguistic original sin." They may recognize that Church Slavonic has played a vital role in the course of Russian civilization, but insist that it has, in effect, outlived its usefulness. It is now an impediment. The Gospel message is being obscured by a thick fog ofbeautiful but opaque liturgical hymnody. This is true not just for neophytes, but even for those raised in the faith (Mikhail (Mud'iugin) 1997 [1993]: 82). Borisov (1994: 122-3) reports a kind of "experiment": an example of a text read every day in church that was unintelligible to a philologist -therefore even more so for a "grandmother." Historical reasons are usually adduced to explain this situation. A common assumption of the reformist camp is that the relationship between Church Slavonic and Russian could be characterized in terms of diglossia that over time gave way to bilingualism (cf. Uspenskii 1994). If Slavonic and Russian are not just different registers, but separate and distinct languages, then translation becomes necessary.

72 The debate over liturgical language The chief reformist complaint about Slavonic presumes that intelligibility is a desideratum in the religious or liturgical context. This may seem obvious, but in fact a number of traditionalists will chip away at this assumption, suggesting that there is more going on in the liturgy than the simple transmission of information. Traditionalists would concur with Heretz (2008: 23) when he says that "to frame the language question in terms of intellectual comprehension- as opposed to the evocation of a certain psychological state - is to accept the premises of Protestantism." The liturgy, some say, is an enveloping mystery that cannot be reduced to the verbal-semantic level (R.afail2008: 218). Reformists, on the other hand, suggest that without intellectual comprehension, without the mind being engaged, the ceremony is meaningless (Kostromin 1997: 112). They acknowledge the beauty of Church Slavonic, but contend that aesthetic qualities are not a priority, and moreover that the price to be paid for such beauty- namely, a loss of comprehension- is too steep (Zuttner 1997: 91). Reformists also link the issue of intelligibility to the competition that the Russian Church faces in the post-Soviet "market place of faiths." For instance, Krylezhev (1997: 39) juxtaposes the experience of newcomers at "evangelical meetings" with that of a Russian Orthodox service, with its paki i paid (a recurring phrase meaning "again and again" that is intoned a number oftimes during the Slavonic liturgy). Averintsev (1997 [1994]: 11) warns that people will leave the Church. The chief contention of the traditionalists is that Church Slavonic must be maintained in the Russian Orthodox liturgy. They object to Kochetkov on a number of grounds, blending odium theologicum with ad hominem vituperation: Kochetkov behaved without the endorsement of the church hierarchy; he fostered a cult-like atmosphere in his parish; his translations ofliturgical texts into Russian were at best poorly done and at worst a desecration of sacred tradition; abetted by "forces" hostile to Russia, the Kochetkovites represent a kind of fifth column intent on destroying Russian Orthodoxy from within. But let us focus on the arguments instead of the personal attacks. For traditionalists, reports ofthe death of Church Slavonic have been greatly (and maliciously) exaggerated (cf. Shurtakov 1995: 11 0). Slavonic is not Latin. It is beloved - and understood - by all good churchgoing people, just as it has been for a millennium. Traditionalists believe that holy things require holy words. They would agree with the following statement by Crystal (1964: 150) regarding liturgical speech:

In general, the care we take over our language is in proportion to the importance we credit the situation- which usually means the person(s) to whom we are addressing. The more careful our language, the more respected the recipient of it The product ofthis extra care is thus a formally abnormal style which one does not expect to meet in ordinary situations, and which is valuable because its unfamiliarity signals the extra-ordinary purpose of the liturgical situation and demands added concentration. However, Crystal (1964: 151) goes on to warn against "a style so formally esoteric that it cannot be understood." Now, some traditionalists do acknowledge that

The debate over liturgical language 13 comprehension of Church Slavonic is a problem for contemporary believers. But translation is considered far too radical and dangerous, especially when simpler solutions - such as increased education and attendance- are at hand. The opacities ofthe liturgical service books perhaps should be corrected, but the contribution of Church Slavonic should not be questioned tout court (Kozlov 1997: 22-3). A related argument is that any confusion that arises in the liturgy stems not from the language per se, but from the biblical or doctrinal content of the texts; therefore, switching to Russian would not necessarily solve the problem (Pletneva 1997: 100-1; Kozarzhevskii 1999: 234). As in the legal, medical or philosophical domains, the ecclesiastical domain has a specialized vocabulary that is distinct from everyday speech and must be learned (Kondrat' eva 2002: 364). Why do people believe they should be able to drop into a worship service at any time and immediately understand what is being said (Mamonov 1999: 266)? Why should the Church have to make concessions to philistines and not the other way around (Likhachev 1999 [1998]: 276)? Traditionalists note that there is no shortage of textbooks or Slavonic-Russian prayer books. In any event, Slavonic is ultimately rodnoi (native) and therefore easily grasped by Russian speakers. The core words of the Christian faith- Trinity, God, Mother of God, faith, hope, love, evil, sin, patience, and so on - are known to all and require no translation (Nazvanov 1999: 294). As a recent textbook would have it: "The Church Slavonic language is in large part understandable even without special study, when a believer really listens reverently to it" (Vorob' eva 2008: 4 ). Traditionalists observe that people are willing to spend a great amount of time and energy studying English or German or Chinese - so why not Slavonic, which is much more important? Some impute laziness to those who do not bother to acquire the language ofthe faith. According to traditionalists, Slavonic is intelligible to people who attend church on a regular basis; it is only the neophyte intelligentsia who do not understand it, and constitute a vocal minority agitating for change. The image ofthe narod- the people, the masses, das Volk- plays an important role in traditionalist discourse. The people are the ballast of history. Intellectual fashions come and go, but the people remain constant in their piety and practice. "Standing among the simple people and looking at their faces, one sees that they understand the liturgy" (Kozarzhevskii 1999: 235). Slavonic is intelligible to "illiterate old folks who conscientiously attend church" (Mamonov 1999: 268). If it were not, they would have decamped for the Renovationist Church earlier in the twentieth century (Koroblin and Mikhailova 1999: 48). And here is another key component in the traditionalist argument: churchness (votserkovlennost). Comprehension of Slavonic varies according to the degree of one's churching (po mere votserkovleniia) (Pletneva 1997: 99). For those schooled in the faith, who regularly pray and attend the liturgy, there is basically no problem. Thus, traditionalist discourse projects a scenario of asymmetrical opposition between the churched masses, who are for Church Slavonic, and unchurched intellectuals, who are against it.

74 The debate over liturgical language

Merits of Church Slavonic and Russian Part of the liturgical language debate hinges on the putative qualities of Russian versus Church Slavonic. According to reformists, Russian is perfectly acceptable for use in the liturgy- in fact, any language is. In the pre-revolutionary period, it was common to point out that the Orthodox liturgy had already been translated for many of the peoples of the Russian Empire- Tatars, Mordvianians, Finns, et al.yet, ironically, not for the Russians themselves (Balashov 2001: 63-6). But this argument is not heard in the post-Soviet period. One of the main tactics ofthe reformists is to call into question the very idea of a "sacred" language. It is not that they are particularly enamored of Russian or feel that it is somehow superior to Church Slavonic. Rather, they question the sacralization of Slavonic. Christianity, it is asserted, is not a religion of the book in the mold of Islam or Judaism, but a religion of a person: Christ (Borisov 1994: 125). The idea of a sacred language is actually inimical to Christianity. Any sacred-profane schematism is an artificial imposition, for no thing is inherently sacred or conveys sacrality (Kostromin 1997: 109). The true language of the Church is always an interior matter (Zaidenberg 1998: 63). Calling this or that language "sacred" is tantamount to idolatry (cf. Borisov 1994: 132). The traditionalists do not see things that way. For them, there is a clear and vital distinction between the sacred and the profane. They mark off Church Slavonic as a sacred language, distinct from - and superior to - Russian. Church Slavonic is not an idol, but "our verbal icon" (nasha slovesnaia ikona) (Kamchatnov 1999: 229). According to Mamonov (1999), Church Slavonic is a ceremonial language (torzhestvennyi iazyk) intended for the collective worship of God. It is a special kind of language, just as church architecture and vestments are different from everyday buildings and clothing. The difference between Russian and Church Slavonic is comparable to the architectural difference between a dom (house, building) and a khram (temple, church). As for clothing, should the Orthodox, asks Mamonov, start wearing jeans to church services as the Protestant sectarians do? Similar comparisons are echoed in the traditionalist discourse: for example, the idea that mixing Church Slavonic and Russian would be like having a bishop's miter adorned with an Adidas logo (Mamonov 1999: 31 0). Such statements clearly reflect circumstances beyond church walls. In the eyes of the traditionalists, the sacrality of Church Slavonic derives from several interrelated factors. First, it was devised by Saints Cyril and Methodius under divine inspiration. Second, due to its linguistic properties, Church Slavonic faithfully preserves the contents of the Greek biblical and liturgical literature. Third, Slavonic has been hallowed by a millennium of prayer and worship by pious Russians. The valorization of Church Slavonic depends in part on its purported qualities. It is said to be pure, subtle, and complex - capable of expressing all the shades and nuances of Orthodox theology. Russian, on the other hand, is deemed impoverished. It changes - and not always for the better. In this connection, traditionalists point to the startling transformation of Russian since the fall of communism (see Chapter 2). The language has become beclouded by loanwords,

The debate over liturgical language 75

obscenities, and prison argot. Switching to Russian would result in a diminution of the rich, multifaceted Orthodox tradition. Thus, although they defend it in other contexts, the logic of the traditionalist position is such that they must denigrate Russian as a vehicle for Orthodox worship. The language of the street is altogether out of place in the sanctuary. The late Metropolitan Ioann, a notoriously right-wing prelate, called Russian a language of prostitutes and thieves (Pospielovsky 1995: 261 ). More moderate voices question whether the Church would have the literary resources to undertake the monumental task of translating Slavonic into Russian. The efforts ofKochetkov and Averintsev were deemed a failure.

Orthodox Tradition The concept of Tradition- with a capital T-is central to Orthodox Christianity. The drive to get "back to basics," which we often associate with Protestantism, generally runs counter to the agglutinative character of Orthodoxy. "The Orthodox Christian oftoday sees himself as heir and guardian to a great inheritance received from the past, and he believes that it is his duty to transmit this inheritance unimpaired to the future" (Ware 1963: 204). Tradition encompasses not only the Bible, but the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of great monks and theologians, as well as creeds, liturgies, and even icons. In Orthodox discourse, Tradition is the Spirit-guided unfolding of the Gospel through time. Those who support the maintenance of Church Slavonic and those who propose some manner ofRussification both appeal to Orthodox Tradition, but they adduce different personages and periods to bolster their cases. Because the Bible is understood as embedded within the Tradition, it will be treated here and not under a separate heading. However, even though the same could be said for the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage, it is treated separately below because of its special pertinence to the topic. In general, biblical precedents and prescriptions figure more prominently in the discourse ofthe reformists than that of the traditionalists. For one thing, they look to the Bible itself as a piece of evidence in their favor. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Bible was composed in Koine Greek in order to make it more accessible to people living around the Mediterranean. This, say the reformists, has always been the way with Christianity (e.g. Averintsev 1997 [1994]: 10). Specific New Testament sayings or parables are also brought to bear on the language question. For example, Jesus' remark that nothing on the outside can defile a person (Mark 7:14-15) leads some to the conclusion that it is wrong to create a dichotomy that posits Church Slavonic as sacred and Russian as profane (Kostromin 1997: 112). Lapkin ( 1997: 44) warns that to maintain the Gospel in the unintelligible Slavonic idiom is to keep it under a bushel (cf Mark 4:21); it is to give a stone to a child who asks for bread (cf. Matthew 7:9). He compares contemporary defenders of Slavonic to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' time. Zaidenberg (1998: 55) asserts that if even one out of99 lambs (cf. Luke 15:3-5) does not understand Church Slavonic, then it must be abandoned and replaced by Russian. All of these statements go back to the intelligibility issue. On this issue, the reformists repeatedly invoke St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (14:5-19), to the effect

76 The debate over liturgical language that clarity is paramount. They also refer to the passages when Jesus commands his disciples to spread the Gospel to all nations (e.g. Matthew 28: 19). This passage is often linked with the story of Pentecost (Acts 2), which reformists see as sanctifying all languages. Since every language can be a vehicle for the dissemination of the Good News, this necessarily includes Russian. Traditionalists generally do not invoke specific biblical precedents to the same degree. Some suggest, however, that while Jesus spoke in Aramaic, he prayed in Hebrew - thus setting a pattern for the use of sacred languages in Christian worship. Others contend that Slavonic is indispensible because it has faithfully preserved the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament used throughout Orthodox Christianity. Beyond the Bible, reformists tend to emphasize two aspects of Orthodox Tradition: the missionary and the reforming. After Cyril and Methodius, they probably refer most frequently to St. Stephen of Perm, a fourteenth-century missionary who is credited with creating a new alphabet for the Permic (Komi) people (Pletneva 1997: 102). Cyril and Methodius, Stephen of Perm- the reformists gladly situate themselves in this stream of the Tradition. Meanwhile, their opponents create a different lineage for them, connecting them with such radical figures as Luther, Calvin, and- closer to home- Tolstoy (Murav'ev 1996: 242-3). Beyond specific saints, reformists above all emphasize the council of 1917-18. The basic idea is that the Church was on its way to Russifying the liturgy if only it had been allowed to fulfill its mandate. Contemporary translations ofthe service books are therefore a legitimate extension and implementation of the spirit of the council. According to the reformists, the Otzyvy of the bishops in 1905 show that a majority wanted something to be done to make the liturgy more intelligible, with a minority even supporting the radical idea of replacing Slavonic with Russian altogether (Borisov 1994: 131 ). They also suggest that the do/dad from the council legitimated liturgical reform. In the Orthodox view, councils are not some kind of man-made apparatus artificially attached to biblical truth (as they might be caricatured from a certain Protestant perspective), but organic outgrowths of revelation guided by the Holy Spirit. The reformists attempt to authorize their actions by claiming that they are, in effect, the delayed implementation of the 191 7-18 council's wishes. This puts the traditionalists in an awkward position, since they would appear to be the ones who are most keen on upholding the authoritative traditions of the Orthodox Church. They make several replies. Some claim that the reformists distort the council record, magnifying the number of bishops who truly favored reform. Some go further and cast doubt on the council itself. They note that reforms of the early twentieth century were infected by the Western ideologies of humanism and secularism, which are inherently alien to authentic Orthodox Tradition. The council had a democratic- even secular- character, lacking in the Holy Spirit. There was a kind of"Presbyterianist" mutiny on the part ofthe parish priests against the bishops, who had all spoken in defense of Church Slavonic (Koroblin and Mikhail ova 1999: 60-1 ). Proof of the alien and unacceptable nature of the council is the fact that the people (narod) rejected it. Here, were come to

The debate over liturgical language 77

another important aspect of the Orthodox imaginaire. Church councils are legitimate only ifthey meet with the approval of the people, who act as a kind oflitmus test and safeguard pure Orthodox doctrine. Traditionalists contend that, although the Synod (the hierarchy) did initiate efforts to refonn the liturgy, this program was decisively rejected by the people. According to Bufeev (1999: 156), the Synodal attempts to correct liturgical books were rejected by "church folk" (tserlwvnym narodom), thereby invalidating the results of the council.

The Cyrillo-Methodian myth In Chapter 6, we will see how the myth of Cyril and Methodius has been reactivated in post-Soviet Russia. By "myth" I mean a story about superhuman beings and events that serves as a charter for a given community. Myths are treated as true and paradigmatic narratives. Since 1991, statues in honor of the "Apostles to the Slavs" have been unveiled in Moscow and other cities. Their legacy is teted in the annual Day of Slavonic Writing and Culture. Myths are important stories that are "proof-texted" to explain or justify this or that aspect of society. As charters, they can provoke different - even opposing - interpretations within a community, and the myth of Cyril and Methodius is no exception. Both refonnists and traditionalists endorse the myth, but they disagree about its meaning. In the mythic narrative of Cyril and Methodius, the "Trilingualists" are the enemy. They were members of the Frankish (Catholic) clergy who opposed the use of Slavonic, ostensibly claiming that God can be worshiped only in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. In the Cyrillo-Methodian hagiographies, the Trilingualists are depicted as heretics. Although scholars have questioned the existence of this "heresy" - it may have been a kind of theological straw man (most vigorously Thomson 1992) - it is alive and well in post-Soviet polemics. Garrard and Garrard's assertion (2008: 13) about Orthodox religionists- that the "vocabulary, heroes, villains, and myths of their mind's eye are linked to medieval history"has some validity in this case. The refonnists claim that Russifying the liturgy is the modem-day equivalent and extension of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission. Just as the missionary brothers translated Byzantine Christian texts into Church Slavonic in order to make them intelligible to ninth-century Slavs, translation into Russian is necessary for the current post-Soviet age. The myth of Cyril and Methodius thus serves as a charter for the contemporary situation. Zuttner (1997: 91) suggests that the current defenders of Church Slavonic are like the Trilingualists who opposed Cyril and Methodius and fought to maintain Latin. Kochetkov (1998: 44) notes that Cyril and Methodius rejected the trilingual heresy, but now there is the "monolingual heresy" - the idea that the liturgy can be done in only one language, namely Church Slavonic. In the reformist reading of the myth, all who have labored to spread the Gospel in local languages are operating in the true spirit of Cyril and Methodius. The traditionalists parse the myth differently. For them, the key point is not that Cyril and Methodius created a vernacular language (which happened to be Church

78 The debate over liturgical language Slavonic) but that they created, through divine inspiration, Church Slavonic - a special, sacred language. It was designed specifically for the Slavs and it could not be otherwise. The traditionalists make several additional arguments. One is that Church Slavonic was never a vernacular idiom. According to Klimenko (2001: 98-9), for instance, it was inspired by and modeled on the Greek literary language of the time. The reformists misinterpret the mission of Cyril and Methodius: they had a choice between the "high" and "low" Greek of the time, and they chose the former. Thus, from the beginning, there was an attempt to make the language special (Asmus 1999: 224). Some traditionalists also reinterpret the point about trilingualism. Instead of denouncing this purported heresy, as the reformists do, they acknowledge that Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are sacred languages, but insist that Church Slavonic should be considered on par with them. It was God's grace, asserts Klimenko (2001: 99), that placed Slavonic alongside the other three sacred tongues. In sum, the traditionalists dispute the characterization that Cyril and Methodius created a vernacular language; therefore, by the power of mythic thinking, they reject the idea that Russian is the modern counterpart of medieval Slavonic.

Soviet legacy In the historical sketch above, I have touched on Renovationism. Regardless of the historical record, in terms of the post-Soviet debate the important thing is that those who advocate liturgical reform are branded as "Renovationists" or ''NeoRenovationists." The traditionalists see no difference between the Renovationists of the 1920s and the "Neo-Renovationists" -meaning Kochetkov et al. - of the 1990s. Their ideas are said to be one and the same (Bufeev 1999: 152). Such associations - or accusations - put progressive religionists in a very difficult position. They claim to want to energize and enable the Church to meet the challenging conditions after the fall of communism, yet they also need to distance themselves from the reputation of the Renovationist movement. One strategy is to try to reclaim the idea of authentic renovation- to differentiate renovation (which is said to be an essential element of church life) from Renovationism (which is acknowledged to have been a schismatic movement). Kochetkov invokes the dictum Ecclesia semper reformanda (the Church is always to be reformed! renovated). He provides a roster of church figures who, he says, represent true renovation, from Cyril and Methodius to Prince Vladimir and beyond. Traditionalists typically repudiate the need for reform. For them, the Church is not in need of change or improvement. The deposit of faith must be safeguarded and transmitted intact from one generation to the next. They suspect renovation is simply a cover for the importation of Western ideologies (freedom, democracy, humanism, modernism) that are inimical to authentic Orthodox Tradition. Linked to secularism and sectarianism, reform can disrupt and ultimately destroy the faith. They see Renovationism as a lethal schism that, by Divine Providence, did not destroy the Church. The agenda of reformists such as Kochetkov is too close for comfort, and they categorically reject it.

The debate over liturgical language 79

Traditionalists are greatly concerned with the threat of schism. They point not only to the Renovationists but to the Old Believers, who broke away from the Orthodox Church in response to liturgical reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon in the seventeenth century. In traditionalist discourse, this sundering of the Church is evidence of what happens when reformists are allowed to tamper with the liturgical service books. In a kind of doomsday scenario, traditionalists warn that the ispravlenie (correction) of the service books proposed by the likes of Kochetkov could well produce another cataclysmic schism. This point is crucial. In the post-Soviet period, the Russian Church has had to contend with a variety of divisions, turf wars, and contestations (N. Davis 2003). It has faced the peeling away of church organizations in former Soviet territories, most notably Ukraine, and their calls for autocephaly, as well as the appearance of different "catacomb" churches that claim to have preserved the true flame of Orthodoxy, unlike the collaborationist Moscow Patriarchate. Thus, the possibilities of "schism" were acutely felt in the 1990s, especially by traditionalists. The reformists answer that no schism will happen as a result ofliturgical reform; in fact, introducing the vernacular could prevent such a development because it will stop members from leaving the Church in favor ofProtestant "sects." They also point to the Orthodox churches of Bulgaria and Serbia, where "parallel liturgies" done in Slavonic and the national languages have not led to schism.

Other churches As this last point suggests, the debate about liturgical language inside Russian Orthodoxy often proceeds by reference to what has happened in the history of Protestantism and Catholicism. For instance, Nazvanov (1999: 192) complains that the Kochetkovites act like a sect: they separate themselves; they have a charismatic leader; they espouse a proselytizing brand of Orthodoxy; they wish to return to putatively apostolic practice - in sum, they peddle a kind of "EasternRite Protestantism." This is a consistent line of attack on the part of the traditionalists: the push for the vernacular is something straight from the Protestant Reformation, and it will yield the same bitter fruits on Russian soil - secularization, fragmentation, and more (e.g. Koroblin and Mikhailova 1999: 11). But the reformists do not wish to accede to this equation. For them, the use of the vernacular is an authentically Orthodox principle. Not surprisingly, then, the reformists do not look for much support from Protestantism. They do, however, occasionally invoke Catholicism. One of the recurring reformist arguments goes as follows. The Orthodox Church used to upbraid the Catholic Church for its use of Latin - a dead language that was unintelligible to the people. Yet, ironically, the Russian Church now maintains its own "Latin"- namely, Church Slavonic (Averintsev 1997 [1994]: 11; Mikhail 199 3: 82). They note that the Catholic Church survived the transition to the vernacular. Russia, so the argument goes, has fallen behind the West, where individual national languages are now widely used and utterly uncontroversial in Christian

80 The debate over liturgical language worship (Bersenev 1996: 13-14; cf. Ustinov 1996: 61). The traditionalists, however, do not feel that Russia should be following the West's lead. As for the Catholic Church, they contend that the loss ofLatinhas been disastrous. The great heritage ofLatin culture has been lost (Likhachev 1999 [1998]: 277). As a result, the Catholic Church has become much more Protestant in character. One is now confronted with the spectacle of the rock-and-roll Mass and other such debased forms of worship. The turn to the vernacular has also meant a rapprochement with Judaism and involvement in the ecumenical movement. Furthermore, traditionalists point to the existence of such schismatic groups as the followers of Archbishop Lefevre and the Society of Pope Pius X, which broke away in order to preserve the Latin Mass. Thus, a move that was supposed to bring the Church closer to the people ultimately had disastrous unforeseen consequences. In a deft rhetorical move, Kaverin (1999: 205) identifies "renovation" with aggiornamento, the watchword of Vatican II meaning- "bringing up to date." Participants in the liturgical language debate also adduce Orthodox examples. The reformists note that different Orthodox churches in the West- in America, France, Finland, and elsewhere- make use of their respective national languages. The cases of Serbia and Bulgaria are particularly important, because they are Slavic Orthodox churches that share the Church Slavonic patrimony, and therefore are the closest in history and ethos to the Russian Orthodox Church. The reformists claim that the introduction of Serbian and Bulgarian, in addition to Church Slavonic, has been largely successful. But the traditionalists beg to differ, even though this means criticizing those sister churches. For instance, Bufeev (1999: 309) claims that translation into the national languages in those two countries has resulted in confusion and regret. The traditionalists hold up the examples of other Eastern communities, such as the Armenian, Georgian, Coptic and Syrian churches (Murav'ev 1996: 64), suggesting that these are more fitting role models than the Protestant and Catholic West. Both sides, then, wish to align themselves with the purportedly successful language policies of different churches.

Language ontology Reformists argue that the Orthodox Church has always been a missionary Church, that it has always met the needs of its flock by presenting the Gospel in a readily understandable language. The message, not the medium, is paramount. Themessage does not change, but the form of expression does. The same Gospel has been translated into different languages, from Aramaic to Greek, from Greek to Church Slavonic, and from Slavonic to a host of others. For traditionalists, the medium is part of the message. Church Slavonic is considered an essential element of the Russian Orthodox Church (e.g. Mironova 2009: 3). If you change the language, you change the Church. Some traditionalists contend that Slavonic is not a conventional or arbitrary sign system. The idea has deep roots in the Church Slavonic tradition. According to Mathiesen (1984: 56-8), a new "metalinguistic doctrine" arose within Orthodox

The debate over liturgical language 81 Slavdom in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Associated with the Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius, it proposed that the relationship between a word and its meaning is neither arbitrary nor conventional, but "inherently and indivisibly linked to one another" (cf. Cassedy 1994). Mechkovskaia (2000) suggests that the history of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Russia is marked by a dialectic or oscillation between groups espousing a conventional theory of the linguistic sign and those, such as Euthymius and his followers, who espouse a non-conventional view. The Old Believers who broke away from the Moscow Patriarchate in the seventeenth-century schism adhered to a Euthymian ideology, as do the traditionalists in the post-Soviet debate. For them, the word is like an icon, mystically partaking of what it depicts. Therefore, it cannot be changed or discarded without doing harm to the doctrine. To change the language is to change the spiritual condition of the people (Shargunov 2008; Kaverin 2008). Traditionalists contend that the reformists subscribe to the "Protestant" linguistic theory of Saussure (Kamchatnov 1999). The fact that the two camps advance such radically different ideologies oflanguage makes a resolution hard to imagine .

••• In the 1990s, the Russian Orthodox Church experienced a bitter and divisive debate over liturgical language. On one side were reformists who argued that Church Slavonic, the traditional language ofthe liturgy, was incomprehensible to the great majority of people. They proposed translating the liturgical service books into modern Russian and were supported by Russian Orthodox clerics, especially parish priests, as well as ecclesiastics from abroad, where the shift from Slavonic to English, French, and other vernaculars had been largely successful (Meiendorf 1994; cf. Della Cava 2001). These translations, however, were denounced by traditionalists, for whom Slavonic is an indelible part of Russian Orthodox life. Traditionalist critiques were supported by nationalists, who variously attacked Kochetkov and his parish as Renovationists, Protestants, Catholics, or even Jews who are conspiring, in the manner of a fifth column, to destroy the Russian Church -and thus Russia- from within (cf. Christiakov 2005). The post-Soviet debate covered some familiar ground. Similar arguments for and against a hieratic language had taken place earlier in the twentieth century within Catholicism. In fact, the debate over Church Slavonic has been percolating in the Russian Orthodox Church for over a century. The various arguments for and against Slavonic - historical, theological, pastoral - were revived almost in toto from the pre-revolutionary era. But they were compressed and colored by the intervening Soviet experience, especially the so-called Renovationist schism, as well as the spectacular religious and linguistic changes taking place in Russia at the time ofthe debate. The main issue in both the pre-revolutionary and post-communist versions of the debate is that of intelligibility. Since it is difficult to appreciate this matter out of context, perhaps a comparison might help. Consider the following excerpt from Handel's oratorio, Messiah:

82 The debate over liturgical language Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned . Ev'ry valley shall be exalted, and ev'ry moutain [sic] and hill made low; the crooked straight and the rough places plain. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Thus saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of His coming, and who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner's fire. And He shall purify the sons of Levi, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness .

0 thou that tell est good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain. (http:/I opera. stanford. edu/iu!libretti!messiah.htm, accessed2 September 2010) Understanding this passage would present a challenge to many native English speakers. In just over 100 words there are multiple archaic locutions (iniquity, saith, ye, 0 thou, tallest, tidings), biblical references (Lord of Hosts, Zion, sons of Levi), and metaphors (rough places plain, shake all nations, refiner's fire). And this is to say nothing of the discourse of Heilsgeschichte (salvation history) that provides the hidden scaffolding for the selection and sequence of scriptural passages. Finally, of course, the words are conveyed through song and recitative, complicating the task of comprehension. Someone coming to the text for the first time, without the libretto in hand, without a background in biblical theology and poetry, might be hard pressed to make sense of these words. What is to be done? Traditionalists might argue that it would be a travesty to modify in any way, let alone "translate," Handel's opus. It is a spiritual and poetic masterpiece that, over the centuries, has become a beloved and meaningful part of the holiday season for many people. Furthennore, simply translating the text into contemporary English would not elucidate the biblical and theological substance that is there. Rather, traditionalists might say that the answer lies in greater study and participation. The score is readily available. And those who regularly attend performances of the Messiah imbibe the words and are even able to sing along with the perfonnance. The words themselves are only part of the total musical-spiritual experience. Refonnists would take issue with the entire thought experiment because the liturgy cannot be compared to something that, despite its quasi-liturgical profile, is ultimately from the classical music repertoire. Indeed, they criticize traditionalists for giving undue importance to the aesthetic qualities of Slavonic. There is a vital difference, they would say, between church and theater - footlights create an

The debate over liturgical language 83

inherent separation between performers and audience. Reformists would agree with Lukken (1992: 45): "Liturgical language is by definition as well as in an active sense a community language." This fact naturally leads to "demands for the approachability ofthe liturgical language." For reformists, at stake is not an artistic arrangement of texts pertaining to salvation history, but salvation itself. As this (admittedly inadequate) comparison makes clear, the liturgical language debate involves a number of factors- history, beauty, tradition, intelligibility, community- that are hard to reconcile. Attempting to do so in the crucible of postSoviet transition was even harder. It seems as if the bitterness of the 1990s debate has diminished (Kravetskii 2009). Indeed, the official websites of the Moscow Patriarchate betray no hint of tension or turmoil over this issue (Gopenko 2009: 16-17). But the debate has probably only been deferred, not decided. A number of other factors may influence the next flare-up. One has to do with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), an emigre group that was formed in reaction to the perceived collaborationist stance of the Moscow Patriarchate with regard to Soviet power. In the United States, the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) pursued a path of integration and engagement with the surrounding culture. ROCOR., on the other hand, took a more isolationist approach. The respective postures were reflected in differing language policies. Nine out of ten OCA parishes eventually switched to English. At the same time, the OCA tends to be open to converts and inter-faith affairs. On the other hand, 85 percent of ROCOR parishes have maintained Church Slavonic. ROCOR tends to be neutral regarding converts, and negative when it comes to ecumenical endeavors (Krindatch 2002: 544). There is a natural affinity between the OCA and the Russian reformists, just as there is between ROCOR and traditionalists. In this connection, it is noteworthy that ROCOR signed an accord with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007, ending some 80 years of estrangement and antipathy (Turunen 2007). It is not clear whether this will bolster traditionalist attitudes within the Moscow Patriarchate. The reconciliation of ROCOR with the Russian Orthodox Church was overseen by Patriarch Aleksii II. His own relationship to the liturgical language debate was contradictory. Early on, he seemed to give some latitude to the reformists; however, perhaps because he personally loved Church Slavonic or because he feared schism, he ended up supporting the traditionalist side and put an end to Kochetkov's linguistic experiments. Late in his life, however, he also criticized those who cling, like the seventeenth-century Old Believers, to the letter of the liturgical texts (Bodin 2009: 43). When Kirill was installed as Patriarch in 2009, it was widely reported in the media that some reform of the liturgical language might be in the offing. In an interview with Protestants, Krill cautioned that there would be no full-scale reform, though he suggested it was possible to replace individual words whose meanings have changed so much that they cause confusion for Russian speakers. He also seemed to envision the possibility that scriptural readings could be done in Russian and the rest of a service in Slavonic. (A number oftraditionalists have backed this idea.) But the bigger issue, says Kirill, is that people need to learn the "language" of the faith in the broadest sense ofthe

84 The debate over liturgical language

telTil. He called for more catechesis (http://www.bamica.info/index.php, accessed 6 July 2010). Full-scale translation of the liturgical books continues, though their use in the liturgy is prohibited. "In this way," warns one traditionalist, "everything is in place for a certain 'zero hour' [chas X] when the conservative hierarchy is replaced by a liberal one." Then Neo-Renovationists will be ready with their corpus of translated texts (Kaverin 2008: 25). Traditionalists remain on guard for a Catholics-like takeover of the Russian Church.

5

Logos Slavonic letterforms and the graphic environment

Scripts are particularly powerful identity markers, as they often have associations with particular secular and- especially- religious cultures, and this may evoke strong positive or negative reactions. (Sebba 2009: 39) The graphic environment of Russia has changed dramatically in the past two decades, and one of the notable changes has been the reappearance of elaborate Slavonic letterforms. By "graphic environment," I mean the different scripts and symbols that are used, as well as the materials and spaces where these are inscribed and displayed (cf. Calvet 2006; Kress and Leeuwen 2006; Franklin 2002). I use "script" and "letterforms" to refer not only to the Slavonic alphabet, but to the iconic, calligraphic, and typographic stylizations thereof. The name "Slavonic" applies to the original Cyrillic alphabet, now associated with the language of Church Slavonic, while "Cyrillic" means the modern Cyrillic alphabet, now associated with Russian ( cf. Cubberley 1993). "The Slavonic script is very closely connected with the preaching of Christianity," observes Bercken (1999: 33), "and therefore acquired an important position in Russia's national religious consciousness." Used not only in ecclesiastical literature but as a kind of sacred applique on bells, icons, banners, graves, monuments, and liturgical vessels and vestments, Slavonic letterforms are central to the "look and feel" of Russian Orthodoxy. As the number of sacred surfaces has increased since the fall of communism -measured inter alia by the publication of new texts, the building of new churches, and the production of new icons- the sheer quantity of Slavonic lettering has also increased. Slavonic has even crossed from sacred space to outer space. While, in the Soviet era, Russian cosmonauts proclaimed that they saw no evidence of God in the heavens, in the post-Soviet period they have adorned the International Space Station with Orthodox icons, which contain small snippets of Slavonic text (Pop 2009). But we need not go to such extremes to follow the "trail" of Slavonic in the post-Soviet period. The sacred script now appears on a wide range of non-religious surfaces. The democratization of type design tools and computer technology means that Slavonic fonts are readily available and adaptable (cf. Zhukov 2002: 45). Slavonic lettering shows up not only on church fa.;ades and liturgical service books -where it would be

86 Slavonic and the graphic environment expected- but on commercial advertisements, store signs, newspaper mastheads, restaurant menus, sports jerseys, cigarette labels, political posters, and postage stamps. Adapting Billig's (1995) well-known phrase, we can say that a "banal Slavonicism" is found throughout the post-Soviet environment, reflecting in various and sundry ways the reclamation of the nation's religious and historic roots. Oushakine (2007) offers an intriguing interpretation of post-communist culture that can help us understand this phenomenon. He argues that the adoption of various older symbolic forms represents a kind of post-communist societal aphasia. The inability to articulate a fresh symbolic discourse commensurate with the new conditions of society impels a turn to the past. Oushakine suggests that the "various post-Soviet attempts to revisit the recent and remote past" reflect "a longing for the positive structuring effect that old shapes could produce, even when they are not supported by their primary contexts" (Oushakine 2007: 453-4). Revivals, impersonations, simulacra, nowstalgia - these are the symptoms of a culture that has stalled and is unable to move forward in a dynamic way. It could be that Russians have turned to the Slavonic alphabet because it provides a ready-made form - a script, if you will - until an authentically post-communist "language" can be articulated. While I find this line of thought suggestive, the revival of Slavonic is not just a matter of assuming old established forms. The phenomenon of post-Soviet "Slavonicization" also needs to be seen in relation to other developments, in particular the way that Russian identities have come to be negotiated in and through different alphabets. One of the notable features of the "linguasphere," the mantle of communication that enwraps the earth, is the "geographic expansion of scripts" (D. Dalby 2001: 23). Adopting a prophetic tone, Fischer writes: The Latin alphabet is certainly not writing's pinnacle, but it is clearly writing's crest. It alone is now meeting the unprecedented requirements of our modem world, leaving all other writing systems and scripts behind . Within two or three centuries, only a small number of minority writing systems and scripts will survive, however, whereas the Latin alphabet will dominate the planet. It will be the World Script. (Fischer2001: 314-15) Just as English has attained a "semi-sacred" status as a result of imperial ascendancy (as Asker (2006) semi-seriously proposes), the concomitant Latin script has attained a hallowed status- derived not from its divine origins or mythic past but from its seemingly unstoppable world mastery. According to Eira (1998: 180), the status of the Roman alphabet as "axiomatically superior arises" not from religion in a narrow sense but "rather from its symbolism as an emblem of the power of Western culture and the particular areas in which that culture has specialised, in particular rationalism and technology."

Slavonic and the graphic environment 81 Latinization is an important aspect of post-Soviet life and one that has a direct bearing on the revival of Slavonic. There are two related matters here. First, a number of former Soviet republics, such as Turkmenistan, have moved toward the Latin script (Clement 2008), while some Russian regions, such as Tatarstan, have attempted to do the same (Sebba 2006). This latter development spurred legislation stipulating that Cyrillic be the "graphical basis" for all languages of the Russian Federation (see Chapter 2). More pertinent to the Slavonic revival, however, is the second mode of Latinization. This is the precipitous appearance of the Latin alphabet across the landscape, in the media, in advertising - even in graffiti (Bergmann 2002: 148). According to Ustinova's estimates (2006: 268), by 2004 Moscow was blanketed with some 50,000 signs, billboards, and overhead streamers. Her analysis also shows that most advertisements, except for certain religious and civil topics, combine the Russian and English languages in the Cyrillic and Roman scripts (Ustinova 2006: 270-4). Grigor'eva (2004: 238-9) demonstrates how Latin characters have even penetrated Russian words used in advertising, creating novel Latin-Cyrillic hybrids. This kind of transformation of the graphic environment inverts the scenario envisioned by Anthony Burgess in his dystopian novel, A Clockwork Orange, with its famed "Nadsat" lexicon suggestive of a Soviet invasion. But this is precisely how some have interpreted these graphic developments. As one critic declaimed: "Do not our cities resemble cities subjugated by alien countries, their streets made gaudy by foreign language advertisements and signs, not infrequently appearing in Latin letters" (L. I. Skvortsov quoted in Gorham 2000: 622). Evocative of"village ways, church architecture, Rus antiquities" (Stites 2005: 112), the Slavonic script constitutes a privileged semiotic resource that has been drawn upon for various projections of Russian/Orthodox identity. Its decorated letterforms seem to be a natural counterpoint to the slick Roman alphabet emanating from the West and, to a lesser extent, Cyrillic- the Latinized version of the Slavonic script that became linked to, and propagated by, the "faith" of Soviet communism (Gaur 2000: II 0). Across the graphic environment, these scripts meet, merge, and compete (see Figure 5.1 ). As Calvet (2006: 34) says of another context, "A whole discourse can thus be seen on the walls of our cities." Although a banal Slavonicism is part of the graphic environment, Slavonic writing appears thickest in three domains: the ecclesiastical, the commercial, and the nationalist. It is here that Slavonic is doing the most symbolic work. Although we might suppose these to be mutually exclusive zones, in reality they overlap and blur into one another. The Russian Orthodox Church has a strong nationalist orientation, but it has also been involved in a number of capitalist ventures (Zolotov 1997). Commercial advertisements promote certain products by playing with religious and nationalist imagery and stereotypes. Patriots praise Russia above all other nations, but in doing so they perform a kind "branding" that is akin to what they decry in the West. In this chapter, I delineate how the Slavonic script is used and elaborated in each ofthe domains, noting continuities and gradations within and between them. I will not discuss the "old orthography," the pre-revolutionary Cyrillic spelling system

88 Slavonic and /he graphic environment

Figure 5.1 Store window with Slavonic Easter poster ('Cluist is Risen!") amid Cyrillic- and Roman-alphabet signage, Moscow (photo by author)

that has also enjoyed a minor revival in the post-Soviet period (see Bennett, forthcoming) . The overall point of the chapter is that the Slavonic revival is not limited to the ecclesiastical milieu; as a syrrbol of ''Holy Russia" or "Orthodox Rus," the hieratic script has filtered out into broader society, where it has been

Slavonic and the graphic environment 89

adopted and adapted for a range of cultural projects. But before delving into the post-Soviet materials, it is necessary to provide some historical background on the development of the Slavonic script vis-a-vis Latin and Cyrillic.

*** Writing systems or scripts have received comparatively little attention in sociolinguistic research (Sebba 2009). Recently, however, this has begun to change, and there have been studies of writing (Coulmas 2003), spelling (Johnson 2005; Sebba 2007), typography (Leeuwen 2005; Stockl2005), and linguistic landscape (Shohamy and Gorter 2009). Unfortunately, religion tends to be treated rather superficially in these otherwise commendable studies. On the other hand, while students of religion have typically devoted a great deal of attention to sacred texts and languages, they have paid far less attention to matters of typography, graphic design, and linguistic landscape (but see D. Kantor 2007). The example of the Slavonic script in post-Soviet Russia may help redress these gaps in the literature. From a historical and comparative perspective, there is a close connection between religion and script. As Ferguson (1982: 95) notes, "The distribution of major types of writing systems in the world correlates more closely with the distribution of the world's major religions than with genetic or typological classifications of language." Over time, then, the Arabic script has become a symbol of Islam, Devanagari of Hinduism, square Hebrew of Judaism, and so on. However, a closer look reveals great complexity on both sides ofthe equation. For one thing, a religion is never a monolithic entity, but is always marked by internal complexity and division. Furthermore, a sacred script is "sacred" in part because social groups vest it with certain qualities when comparing it with other forms of writing. No script exists in isolation. Laitin's classic study (1977) of the three scripts in Somalia- the hieratic Arabic, the modem Latin, and the indigenous Cismaaniya - offers a good example of this interrelationship. Both religions and scripts are dynamic entities, moving in complex interrelation with each other. There is a close relationship between Russian Orthodoxy and the Slavonic script; but having said this, we immediately need to complexify the picture. First, the return of Slavonic letters to the post-Soviet Russian landscape must be seen in relation to the other sociolinguistic transformations that have occurred since 1991, in particular the explosion of the Latin alphabet across the graphic environment. At the same time, it must be remembered that there is diversity within the Russian Church. Traditionalist publications tend to favor the Slavonic script, while those on the progressive end of the spectrum do not. Furthermore, Slavonic letterforms have been drawn upon by both commercial advertisers and nationalist groups for their respective cultural projects. Borrowing the terminology ofBoym (1995), I will suggest that the Slavonic script in nationalist literature constitutes a form of utopian nostalgia, while in commercial contexts it tends toward ironic nostalgia. In the hands of Russian Orthodox nationalists, the Slavonic script evokes the mythologized world of Holy Rus. For commercial advertisers and graphic designers, Slavonic is a stereotypical form that can be mixed and matched with other referents, such as Constructivist typography or Brezhnev-era symbolism.

90 Slavonic and the graphic environment But in each case, Slavonic lettering, as a symbol of pre-revolutionary Russia, is counterpoised not only to the Latin script but, in a way, to Russian Cyrillic (cf. Sebba 2007). To understand this state of affairs, it is necessary to sketch some of the history of Slavonic writing and typography. Between 1708 and 1710, Peter the Great, the Emperor of Russia, worked in conjunction with several typographers to revise the Slavonic script. The end result of this imperial intervention was the so-called civil script (grazhdanskii shrift), which moved the Slavonic script closer to Latin, just as the country was opening up to European cultural influences. The story is well known (e.g. Shitsgal 1959; Kaldor 1969-70; Yefimov 2002; Grigor'eva 2004). The visual appearance of Slavonic letterforms had evolved from the so-called ustav to poluustav, which was the dominant book form of Peter's day. Like the German textura, it was based on manuscript writing. Y efimov (2002: 129), a contemporary typography expert, offers this assessment: Poluustav was rather black in colour and very ornamental, but not very useful for the needs of the new era. The character set of the alphabet no longer matched the phonetics ofthe living Russian language, and it contained a lot of additional diacritical marks (stresses, marks of aspiration, abbreviations), which considerably complicated the work of the compositor.

Peter wanted "clean print," similar to the kind he saw in foreign books and maps, especially the beautiful Latin text of one of his favorite Aesop volumes (Kaldor 1969-70: 316, 323). But his motivation was ideological, not aesthetic. A simplified script would facilitate the publication of useful secular and scientific literature, and in the process move Russia away from the archaic Church Slavonic script and language. To that end, Peter personally intervened in the typographic development process. The number of letters was reduced and the shape of the letters themselves made smoother and rounder - in sum, more Latinate; diacritical marks were abandoned (Sullivan 1996-7: 9). Peter also introduced Arabic numbers to replace the traditional tsifir' system, which employed letters surrounded by various diacritical marks to denote numbers. The whole process is surprisingly well documented- even in Peter's own hand. Thus, we may conclude that the imagined sacrality of the Slavonic script is due in part to imperial fiat, which created its secular counterpart. The creation of the civil script entailed a decisive shift westward. Henceforth, Russian writing "took on the form of roman serif type, in much the same way that Muscovy was dressed up in European clothes" (Yefimov 2002: 128). Tellingly, the first book published in the new civil script was a geometry textbook. Meanwhile, the old writing system would come to be called the "church script" or "church letters" (Marker 1994: 7). Over time, the two scripts would become affixed to two languages or registers (the amount of difference between the varieties is moot)namely, Russian (civil script) and Slavonic (church script). The former became the mark of modernity and secularity, while the latter's associations with religion and tradition were reinforced. A kind of digraphia emerged, with the ornate Slavonic

Slavonic and the graphic environment 91 script in the H (high) position, associated with such prestigious traditional domains as religion, and the more streamlined Cyrillic in the L (low) position, linked to business and secular pursuits. The term digraphia, however, typically refers to a situation where one language is written using two different scripts. Classic examples are Serbian/Croatian, Hindi/Urdu, and Romanian and Cyrillic Moldavian (Coulmas 2003: 233; cf. Grivelet 2001). The Russian case is perhaps better characterized as "orthographic diglossia," which Wexler (1971: 340) describes thus: "Different scripts may be used by a single ethnic group for different purposes (e.g. secular versus religious literature)." The closest parallel may be the old "dual script" arrangement between blackletter and roman materials in German-speaking lands (Bain and Shaw 1998). In any event, this arrangement did not solidify immediately. The grazhdanskii shrift of the eighteenth century still contained many graphic "Slavonicisms" (Shitsgal 1959: 74). It would take another century or so for the Cyrillic letterforms to stabilize (Yefunov 2002: 141). Once the civil script had stabilized, it underwent various outward permutations through typographic elaboration. Here, again, Russia was following the West. Cyrillic typography echoed most of the stylistic stages found in Western typography: Classical, Romantic, Victorian, Art Nouveau, and so on (Yefimov 2002: 140; Zhukov 2002: 56--7). These changing fashions further distanced Cyrillic from the comparatively static Slavonic script. (Many of these historical styles can now be seen in the sphere of post-Soviet typography- jumbled together pell-mell.) During the Soviet era, typography was quite restricted. In part because of the centralized control of advertising and design, it was "hard to spot the difference between shop-signs, packaging, and posters produced in the 1940s and those produced in the early 1980s" (Kelly 1998: 227). Much as in the domains of religion and language, which have seen exponential growth and diversification, typography changed dramatically in the first decade after communism. Zhukov, a leading expert on Russian typography, writes: For seven decades, only a dozen typefaces were available to most printers and publishers. In Soviet times very few new typefaces were introduced into typographic usage. (Many more had been trashed, done away with, for their alleged "bourgeois decadent aesthetics.") Today the Russian typographic palette is quickly growing richer in variety and sophistication. In the last five years more faces have been added to the Russian typographic repertory than in the seventy-four years of Soviet rule. (Zhukov 2002: 55) Post-Soviet Russia has experienced a veritable explosion of typographic innovation There is a great revival in everything that is not associated with the "tatty gray quality" of Soviet type, spanning from "hip Western postmodern type" to "pre-Revolutionary Art Nouveau" to the "deep roots of Cyrillic orthography preserved largely in ecclesiastical documents" (Berry 1999: 178). We will be principally concerned with these "deep roots of Cyrillic"- that is, with the Church Slavonic script.

92 Slavonic and the graphic environment From religionists, who have started to read ecclesiastical literature, to typographers, who seek fresh inspiration for commercial typefaces, there is a renewed interest in and appreciation for Slavonic lettering. A number of scholars have observed this trend. Dann (1995: 128) refers to the "rather widely diffused use of letters in an old, quasi-Slavonicized appearance." Merridale (2003: 21) comments on the "fake Slavicism" surrounding the 850th-anniversary celebrations of Moscow. Two comments are necessary here. First, even though I will use these and similar terms- for example, "faux Slavonic" and "Slavonic-style" lettering it is not always possible to draw a firm line between Slavonic and Cyrillic. The two scripts share most letters. Moreover, we have already seen (in Chapter 3) that the Church Slavonic language can be written in the simpler Cyrillic script. Bodin (2009: 49) says that this practice began because Soviet printing houses lacked Slavonic fonts. In the post-Soviet period, though, the practice is a matter of catechesis- of making the Slavonic language more accessible to Russian speakers. While Slavonic can be written in modem Cyrillic, Russian can be dressed up in old Slavonic garb through the use ofhistoricizing typefaces, commonly referred to as "faux fonts." Second, although we might be tempted to view the spread of faux Slavonic on a beer bottle or cigarette pack as a degradation, such objects might be the closest that many Russians ever come to the hieratic script. Moreover, Slavonic is used on product labels precisely because it is perceived to be different (older, better, "higher") than ordinary Cyrillic writing - a valuation that is perhaps not too different from the standpoint of traditionalists who favor retaining Slavonic in the liturgy. The approach taken here is that the revival of the Slavonic script comprises the totality of uses, great and small, "authentic" and "faux."

The ecclesiastical domain In Orthodox Christianity, an icon is not simply a painting or a piece of art; it is a portal to the heavenly realm. Especially in traditionalist discourse, the hieratic Slavonic script is often referred to as an icon. References to the beauty (krasota) of the Slavonic script are common (e.g. Zhuravlev 1994: 21; Voskresnaia shkola 2004; cf. Fedotov 1999: 10). More specifically, the titlo, or ligature, used to abbreviate nomina sacra is likened to the halo of a saint. According to a booklet on Slavonic inscriptions, a titlo is an "orthographical nimbus. placed on sacred words to indicate their holiness and the divine mystery and wisdom concealed in them" (Sablina 2001: 7; cf. Krupin 2002: 4). Traditionalists contend that printing Church Slavonic in the civil script- as some prayer books do- is the equivalent of photocopying an icon (Kamchatnov 1999). While the Slavonic script is viewed as an icon, it is also used on icons. An Orthodox icon is not considered complete unless it has an inscription. Originally, Russian icons had Greek text, but this slowly gave way to Church Slavonic, although Greek is preserved in certain icons. This is comparable to the "layering" of languages found in ritual speech, as in the preservation of Greek or Hebrew phrases within the modem Christian liturgy (Ferguson 1982: 97). Icons can also contain sizeable chunks of text above and beyond mere inscriptions. Canons

Slavonic and the graphic environment 93

govern the placement and content of the text in coordination with the subject ofthe icon. Sometimes, the Slavonic text can be quite minimal- for example, a few letters placed near the sacred personage (Mother, Jesus, saint). Other times, the icon is adorned with additional or explanatory text, ranging from a scriptural passage to a liturgical hymn or troparion to an excerpt from a sermon. The text will be in Church Slavonic except in the case of sermons, which may be in Russian. The authors of a recent icon-painter handbook recommend putting sermonic text in the "old orthography'' to avoid the jarring juxtaposition of Cyrillic writing and saintly subject. Supplementary texts may be placed in a kind of cartouche or incorporated in the image of a book or scroll held by the figure represented by the icon- as they are, for instance, in icons of Cyril andMethodius (Filatov and Kamchatnova 2004). The revitalization of Orthodox icon painting is part of the Slavonic revival in post-communist Russia. Since 1991, thousands of churches have been built or renovated. In Moscow alone, the number of churches has increased from 40 to 872. Across the country, the number of monasteries has risen from 22 to 804 (Burgess 2009: 5). Since every church structure has multiple icons, the quantity of iconic Slavonic text has multiplied. Let us consider the most famous church building in post-Soviet times -the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow which is widely seen as a symbol of the resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy after the collapse of the USSR (cf. Franklin 2002: 233). It is a symbolically potent place, as the nationally televised scenes ofPutin and Medvedev attending the cathedral's Easter services make clear (cf. H. Davis 2005: 77). The interior of the colossal cathedral is saturated with signs and symbols. The walls are adorned with commemorative plaques as well as more prosaic instructions. The colors used throughout, the materials underfoot, the smell of incense and beeswax make the interior a multimodal semiotic environment. There is also a considerable quantity of Slavonic lettering throughout, both on icons and in form of inscriptions on the walls and cupolas. For example, the band going around the central dome has some of the great cosmological lines from the Bible: on the eastern side, "In the beginning was the word . ." and on the southern, "And the word became flesh. ."(Fond Khrama Khrista Spasitelia 2004: 46). At the very highest part of the building, on the vault of the main cupola, one sees the Lord Sabaoth (Lord of Hosts), with the Christ child on his lap holding a charter on which is written, in Greek, LOGOS- that is, the Word (Fond Khrama Khrista Spasitelia 2004: 44-5; photo between 48 and 49). Outside the church, the twelve massive bronze doors bear thematically appropriate Slavonic inscriptions. On the western side, one reads: "I am the door: whosoever enters by me shall be saved" (John 10:9) and "Enter His gates in faith" (Psalms 99:4) (Fond Khrama Khrista Spasitelia 2004: 37-8). If you were able to ascend the bell-tower, you would see that the larger bells all bear Slavonic inscriptions. Proceeding down to the entrance by the Moskva River, a sign made of gold letters in a Slavonic-style typeface reads: "Hall of Church Councils" (Zal Tserkovnykh Soborov) (see Figure 5.2). The 66,000-square-meter basement contains offices for the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, a dining hall for 800,

94 Slavonic and !he graphic environment recreational and rredia centers, and the ne plus ultra of smveittance and security systems (Sidorov 2000: 567). All of this has led sorre Muscovites to dub the corrplex the "Saviour Above the Garage" (Hughes 2004: 194). Thus, as we move from the dorre of the heavens to the underground facilities- the business side of the Church- the Logos becorres the logo.

Figure 5.2 Cathedral of Quist the Savior sign ("Hall of Church Councils''), Moscow (photo by author)

Slavonic and the graphic environment 95 The trail of Slavonic continues outside the church building itself and into the cityscape. Most churches have some kind of shop or stall, which may be located in the vestibule or in a nearby structure. There one typically encounters a cascade of Slavonic writing. The hieratic script is used on almost all the liturgical texts, often embossed in gold, and on many other titles as well, such as prayer books and saints' lives, and various local and national periodicals. Slavonic writing also appears on calendars, icons, holiday greeting cards, CDs, and jewelry. At Easter, you will find traditional cakes, cards, and egg-shaped images often with the letters or words (Kh)ristm (V)oskrese- "Christ has risen." Calvet (2006: 35) malres the obvious but important point that different scripts are distnbuted in non-random patterns across the landscape. In Russia, church bookshops tend to be islands of Slavonic in a sea of Cyrillic and Latin (see Figure 5 .3). If we take a closer look at some of the tomes for sale in a typical church bookshop, we see that Slavonic is consistently used to represent Russia's historic Orthodox faith. Books about churches (e.g. Matiushin 2008), regions (e.g. Gerasimov 1996), holy places (e.g. Khariton and Semenova 2004), and prelates in Russian church history (e.g. Lisovoi 2004) tend to rely quite heavily on Slavonicized typefaces. Such titles typically use an elaborate font accompanied by icons ofholy personages or images of church structures. If the book is intended for Western consumption as well, the English lettering might be in faux Slavonic (e.g. Bushueva 2001).

Figw-e 5.3 Church kiosk, Moscow (photo by author)

96 Slavonic and the graphic environment Religious organizations are increasingly branding themselves and resorting to professional typography and graphic design in order to articulate their identity in a pluralistic environment (D. Kantor 2007). The Slavonic script is found within the church milieu but also functions more broadly as the ''logo" of the Russian Orthodox Church. This becomes evident at conferences and exhibitions that have Orthodox themes or involve, or are supported by, the Church. In such contexts, you will often see banners or signs with Slavonic lettering. A good example is the annual "Orthodox Rus" (Pravoslavnaia Rus ')exhibition which brings together ecclesiastics and retailers of church-related items, from books and CDs to liturgical paraphernalia. Here, the sense of Slavonic as a kind of corporate logo is palpable (http://www.pravoslav-expo.ru/index.ru.html, accessed 4 August 2010). An interesting example of the use of Slavonic involves missionacy trains that are designed to carry the faith to remote parts of the country. Instead of displaying a typical destination sign, a prayer in Church Slavonic is written in large letters along both sides of the carriage, creating a moving icon (Moscow Times, 19 October 2000). At Easter, the amount of Slavonic lettering rmltiplies across the Russian landscape. Posters with the traditional paschal greeting- Khristos voskrese!appear in store windows (see Figure 5.1, above). Banners with the same words are hung across streets (see Figure 5.4). (Voskrese is a Church Slavonic verb form.) After the holiday, these expressions of Slavonic are removed. If Easter falls late in the year, these posters compete with notices for other calendrical rituals, such

Figure 5.4 Slavonic Easter banner ~'Christ is Risen"), :MOscow (photo by author)

Slavonic and the graphic environment 91 as the Day ofVictory (9 May). On those, instead of Slavonic words accompanied by eggs, flowers, and other symbols of Easter and springtime against a background of pastel colors, you will find bold Cyrillic writing with Soviet-era stars on lustrous red. Sociolinguistics has opened up a productive new sub-field known as "linguistic landscape," which concerns the language(s) used on "public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings" (Landry andBourhis 1997: 25). The focus to date has been on multilingualism in urban contexts. Recently, though, the understanding of linguistic landscape has been expanded to provide a broader and more dynamic field that encompasses images, sounds, graffiti, and other semiotic phenomena (Shohamy and Gorter 2009). Most of the discussion seems to revolve around permanent signs, inscriptions, and place names, usually in conjunction with governmental or commercial enterprises. Little attention has been given to the place of religion in general, or the ritual or cyclical nature of religious signage in particular. In their classic study, Landry and Bourhis (1997: 28) suggest that "linguistic landscape may act as the most observable and immediate index of the relative power and status of the linguistic communities inhabiting a given territory." Adapting this idea, we could conclude that the profusion of Slavonic across the landscape - from permanent church fa~ades to transitory holiday banners confirms the established place of Orthodoxy within post-Soviet culture and society. The appearance of a script on the linguistic landscape can vary, for example, by multiplying around the time of an important festival. Judging from Slavonic signage, Russians become "more" Orthodox around Easter. This is hardly surprising, but further empirical studies could illuminate more interesting patterns. Another manifestation of the Slavonic revival is the renewed interest in Slavonic calligraphy, a tradition that is almost completely unknown in the West. It is ignored in standard reference works (e.g. Gaur 1994; Sawyer and Simpson 2001 ). The most famous style is known as viaz' (or vyaz). This is a dense kind of interlaced writing in which the line extends from start to finish in an unbroken band, letters of different sizes are stacked and linked by ligatures or tucked inside the lines of other letters, and empty spaces are filled with ornamentation. The end result can be extremely hard to decipher, even for experts (Ptakhova 1997: 24-9). The post-Soviet linguistic landscape has seen a revival of viaz'-like writing. In 2008, a museum dedicated to the world's calligraphic traditions, including Slavonic viaz ', opened in Moscow. Sunday schools and other Orthodox venues also cultivate Slavonic calligraphy. Here, the motivation is not solely technical or historical, but devotional. Zhuravlev (1994: 21) recommends that Russian children learn how to write the Slavonic letters, for in doing so they experience the beauty of the Church Slavonic language and cultivate a love for the Word of God. Goriacheva's handbook (2009) first discusses the history of Slavonic writing, the tradition of viaz ', and illuminated manuscripts. It then provides practice pages for writing letters in calligraphic style. Pious words and sayings (God, Heaven, Glory to You) are used for practice. A little workbook (Voskresnaia shkola 2004) takes each letter of the Slavonic

98 Slavonic and the graphic environment alphabet, discusses its meaning, and provides illustrations of the letter from different medieval manuscripts. According to the authors, practicing writing out the letters enables one to discover wisdom, preserve one's faith, and fortify one's spirit (Voskresnaia shlwla 2004: 5). The renewed interest in Russia's calligraphic tradition carries over into the realm of typography, which has experienced a brilliant revival in post-Soviet times. Numerous foundries have cropped up in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and every year there are typography seminars, workshops, and competitions. Much of the work being done consists of Cyrillic extensions of Latin typefaces for commercial interests (Zhukov 2002). But a number of Church Slavonic typefaces have also been developed. The names alone - Innologion, Triodion, Akathistos, Evangelie, Psaltyr, Zlatoust, Bukvica - evoke different eras or aspects of Slavia orthodoxa (http://www.irmologion.rulfonts.html#atop, accessed 4 August 201 0). One typeface is called Kathisma, a name that hearkens back to a type suite used in publications from the eighteenth century. It was created by the Association of Slavonic Typography (Soobshchestvo slavianslwi tipografii), one of the most important groups in the post-Soviet revival of Slavonic. Interestingly, this particular font was distributed free of charge, but with the proviso that it not be used in contexts inconsistent with Orthodoxy or seriously against the principles of Christian morality (http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/print/452495.html, accessed 4 August 201 0). This dictum is difficult to enforce, for Slavonic has left the sacred precincts and entered the wider world.

The commercial domain Let us return for a moment to consider the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. This monumental structure, capable of holding 10,000 congregants, is a striking feature on the Moscow skyline, its burnished cupola visible from many points throughout the city. The magnitude and the materials involved are stunning. Funding for the project - $500 million at a time of severe economic dislocation for most of the populace - came from both the government and the so-called New Russians who made a fortune through privatization Alexander Smolensky, former head of SBSAgro Bank, donated 50 kilograms of gold for the cupola (Neidhart 2003: 76). Inside the cathedral, the "gift shop is one of the best in Moscow, offering models in a variety of materials, T-shirts, cardboard construction kits, and 'Christ the Saviour' exercise books" (Hughes 2004: 196). Religious ethics can impact economics, as Max Weber pointed out long ago. It used to be argued that the monastic, mystical, and liturgical orientation ofRussian Orthodoxy made it ill suited to capitalism (Buss 1989). Yet, as Marsh (2008: 182) has pointed out, in the post-communist era "the views of Russian Orthodox Christians toward work, economic life, and capitalism do not appear to be incompatible with modem economics." Indeed, the Church itself has a number of avenues for raising money, including the selling of candles (which in some cases comprises 50 percent ofparish income), donations associated withzapiski (prayer requests), commercial enterprises such as the Danilovskaia hotel and the Sofrino

Slavonic and the graphic environment 99

factory managed by the Patriarchate, special traveling exhibitions (e.g. of icons), and govemmmt subsidies (Chapnin 2001). But businesses also use religion. The Cathedral of Christ the Savior, for instance, has becorre a valuable marketing tool. Along with other monuments- such as St. Basil's Cathedral and Lenin's Mausoleum- it has corre 'to represent a kind of 'consumable Russianness,' providing evocative errblems of Mother Russia or other manifestations of the national persona for the marlreting of chocolates and cigarettes, vodka and package tours" (Hughes 2004: 172). More often than not, Slavonic letterforms accompany the cathedral image on the packaging of such goods (see Figure 5.5). What is irqxntant here is the pictorial elerrent of Slavonic- its exotic or archaic ''look and feel." Countries are increasingly branding themselves, creating a distinctive "national graphic identity" that can be propagated across t-shirts, souvenirs, shopping bags, and travel brochures. Script can be an important component of this process (Mattern 2008; cf. Bain and Shaw 1998). In the post-Soviet era, the Slavonic script- with its patina of history and religion- has errerged as a kind of logo for the Russian nation (cf. Leeuwen 2005). Slavonic-style lettering is widely used for packaging and promoting vodka, beer, cigarettes, and other such staples; by restaurants that proffer traditional Russian fare; and on books and videos relating to Russian history or religion. The name itself is also used: in addition to Slavianskaia Square (discussed in Chapter 6), there is Slavianskaia mineral water and Slavianskoe beer. Of course, this sort of

Figwe 5.5 "Chocolate History" souvenir box with image of Cathedral of Christ the Savior, with ''Moscow'' in Slavonic typeface (reproduced by kind permission oflnterko, LLC)

100 Slavonic and the graphic environment branding is not restricted to Russia. Sebba (2007: 38) notes that archaic or pseudoarchaic spelling is used for commercial purposes in many cultures. Sanskrit is appropriated in India to sell goods and services ranging from clothes to car insurance (Pandharipande 2006: 154-5). Heller (2003: 474) has discussed the "marketing of authenticity" and "the ways in which the globalized new economy has resulted in the commodification of language and identity." The market "accords new value to formerly stigmatized identities and products" (Heller 2003: 475). Although Heller's case study has to do with speech rather than script (in particular, the use of French in Canadian call centers), it provides a helpful perspective for interpreting the Russian situation. Stigmatized under the Soviet antireligious regime, Slavonic letters now seem to represent "authentic" Russianness. Being, as it were, more Cyrillic than Cyrillic (the script which, it may be remembered, has been following Western trends for 300 years), Slavonic seems to hearken back to the country's deepest roots. Of course, one of the ironies is that purported authenticity often comes wrapped in faux Slavonic fonts- that is, fonts that are presented as traditional Church Slavonic writing but in fact are modem confections (cf. Gorham 2006: 24). As with a number of other phenomena discussed in this book- the liturgical language debate (Chapter 4), the popularity of occultism (Chapter 7)- advertising in the post-Soviet period seems to have picked up where the pre-Soviet period left off. West has shown that advertising was booming in the decade leading up to the revolution. Her appraisal of the late imperial period would seem to apply mutatis mutandis to the post-communist era: Russian manufacturers responded to the international market in various ways. The centuries-old dilemma of Russia's identity vis-a-vis the West found its contradictory expressions also in advertising. Some companies appropriated and imitated Western styles as the ideal, while others proclaimed Russian goods as superior to any in the West. (West 1998: 355) Advertising is booming again, and some similar dynamics - such as the tension between external Western and internal Russian influences and styles- appear to be at work. This cultural negotiation is reflected through language in general and script in particular. Ustinova (2006: 275) shows that many advertisements today combine Russian and English and the Cyrillic and Latin scripts. But this is not true across the board: causes or groups that are social, civil, religious, or educational tend to be Cyrillic-only. There is also a difference in distribution across products, with Russian dairy products, beer, and medicines relying on Cyrillic lettering alone (Ustinova 2006). Beer, in particular, is a canvas on which competing Russian identities are projected. Morris (2007) delineates the stages ofbeer-related advertising in the post-Soviet period. Initially, there was a global orientation. But, spurred in part by the financial crisis of 1998 as well as by growing nationalism, advertisers then developed a more Russian style, emphasizing "us" versus "them" by plying

Slavonic and the graphic environment 101 various nostalgia-laden images. The association of specific products like beer with the "national question" (how Russia might regain the greatness of the Soviet Union) became explicit during the Putin era. While some beer advertisements appealed to an idealized Soviet Union, others plumbed the deeper recesses of Russian mythistory, albeit often in a humorous or ironic way. One brand, called Three Bogatyrs, imagined the legendary warriors returning to save Russia from its enemies- in a hockey game. Siberian Crown emphasized the glories of imperial Russia, with its candlelit balls and military uniforms. Advertisers returned "again and again to stories about history, the nation and its identity" (Morris 2007: 1392, 1402). Several beer brands- including Tolstiak, Pikur, Afanasii, and Russkoehave used a light Slavonic-style writing (http://www.suninterbrew.ru/; http://www. pitt.edu/-slavic/courses/russ1771/; both accessed 4 August 2010). Tobacco is also often tied to national identity (Morris 2005). Aleksandrov (2003) provides an interesting discussion of advertising in this area. The names of different post-Soviet brands alone demonstrate competing notions ofRussianness. Some refer to periods ofRussian history (Peter I, 1812, Russian Style), while others point to Western and/or Soviet phenomena (Memphis, Soyuz-Apollo). These are combined with various well-known emblems and images from the pages of Russian history, such as the double-headed eagle and the bronze horseman. Several brands use Slavonic-style lettering on their labels. One example is Otchizna, a rare archaic word for "Fatherland." The Bogatyry brand is used for papirosy- Soviet-era, tube-like cigarettes with a pungent taste and odor associated with "rough-and-tough virility" (Goscilo 2008: 251). The lettering is in a Slavonicstyle script, as is the warning: "Smoking is harmful to health" (see Goscilo 2008: fig. 49.6). The label for Rossiiskie cigarettes has a Slavonic-style script surrounded by handicraft decoration known as khokhloma (http://www.cigarettepacks.rwR/ R%205/1 %20F%20%20(2).jpg, accessed 5 August 2010). In the post-Soviet period, the wide-ranging discussions of national identity are reflected and refracted in the commercial sphere, in the names and logos of different products, and in the way those products are advertised. Again, we see a triangulation between the Soviet Cyrillic past, the Latin West, and Slavonic "Holy Russia." Although nationalist strains can be detected in certain products especially beer and tobacco - overall the commercial field is characterized by knowing, ironic references to Russian history (Kelly 1998: 228-9). Many products incorporate a mixture of seemingly contradictory scripts and design features communist and Orthodox, medieval and Constructivist. As one graphic designer says ofhis clients: "They demand a bit ofretro, some 1920s, something Czarist, The consumer is happy with this mix, something Russian, some churches because every morning the Soviet hymn plays, and then he pulls out a coin with the seal of the Czarist eagle. It works, such eclecticism" (quoted in Kishkovsky 2005: 99). Even a single typeface might cleverly contain references to different periods, from "Constructivism to Stalinist Baroque to the most modem postBrezhnev esthetics of the [metro] restrooms" (Berry 1999: 178). For advertisers and commercial typographers, the Slavonic script- used, elaborated, mixed, subverted- is but one historical referent in a postmodem pastiche. The incorporation

102 Slavonic and the graphic environment of Slavonic in a cavalier (or calculating) bricolage is one of the things that distinguishes the commercial from the ecclesiastical and nationalist domains.

The nationalist domain The demise of the Soviet Union resulted in severe economic, cultural, and societal dislocations. As the Soviet social safety net disintegrated, crime, poverty, alcoholism, and disease all spiked dramatically (Twigg 2002). A huge gap opened between rich and poor, with the New Russians becoming incredibly rich while many pensioners were reportedly reduced to eating dogs and pigeons (White 2000: 144-57). Russia in the 1990s was often compared to Chicago in the 1930s, complete with mafia, extortion, and gangland killings. Its international reputation plummeted. To this litany of woes must be added the drastic changes in the spheres of religion and language sketched in Chapter 2. A plethora of competing political groups arose in response to these distressing developments. They spanned the political spectrum: fascist, monarchist, anarchist, Eurasianist, imperialist, communist, neo-Nazi, and so on (Parland 2005: 74). All attempted to identify and reclaim the qualities that reportedly made Russia great. A helpful analytical distinction can be made between religious and secular varieties of nationalism. These two poles are well summarized by King (2006: 215-16): Russian religious nationalism follows the old Black Hundred slogans of "Orthodoxy, autocracy and the Russian national spirit" and "Faith, Tsar and Fatherland," and takes a sharply negative attitude to at least the early Soviet period of Russian history. Orthodox Christianity is seen as one of the defining characteristics ofRussianness, and antisemitism is very much the norm. On the other hand: Russian secular nationalism is mainly concerned with the state. Its adherents generally style themselves "patriots" rather than nationalists. Their attitudes to the Soviet period of Russian history are generally positive, although opinions of the Tsarist period vary . Antisemitism is prevalent, but not universal. Verkhovsky (2006: 299) makes a similar distinction, and uses "Russian Orthodox nationalists" as an umbrella term to encompass "religious nationalists, Orthodox monarchists, fimdamentalists, and ultra-conservatives." I will follow this usage, while recognizing that there are important differences between, say, monarchists and fundamentalists. Some groups are more extreme, promoting a vociferous brand of anti-Semitism, while others are closer to the generally conservative but largely apolitical outlook of many Russian Orthodox religionists (V erkhovsky 2004: 128-30). The picture is also complicated by the alliances, schisms, and regroupings that have characterized the Russian right, especially in the 1990s. As a whole, though, the discourses of Russian Orthodox nationalists tend to exalt a "Holy Russia," imagined as a pious land of priests and peasants under the guidance

Slavonic and the graphic environment 103 of a sacrosanct tsar. Holy Russia is always and everywhere opposed by an apostate and aggressive West. Conspiracy theories, based on the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are a common denominator across different Orthodox nationalist groups. There has been a rapport between the Protocols and Russian Orthodoxy from the start. An obscure St. Petersburg newspaper was the first to publish the rudiments of the Protocols, in 1903. The key edition appeared in 1905, edited by Nilus Sergei, who was associated with the Optina Pustyn' monastery, and was later printed at the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery (Hagemeister 2006: 243 Laqueur 1993: 35). In the early days of post-Soviet Russia, the Protocols gained a wide audience. Various editions have been sold on the streets of Moscow since 1990 (Devlin 1999: 28), and from church bookstalls in both city centers and the far provinces (Hagemeister 2006: 245). Russia's long history oftrials and tribulations, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the collapse of the Soviet Union, is interpreted by reference to an all-encompassing but protean conspiracy organized by Jews with the ultimate aim of subjugating and destroying Russia (Bennett 2007). By her steadfast faith and mighty resources, however, the Russian nation alone stands in the way of the one-world international state being secretly organized by the Jews. According to Verkhovsky (2002: 334): This is a world outlook based on extremely mythologised notions about the prerevolutionary Orthodox monarchy, and it is very widespread in the church. In essence it is a simplified and aggressive form of nostalgia for a Golden Age which came to a violent end at the 1917 revolution and which has been rejected both by communism and by postsoviet modernisation. Predisposed to looking for a worldwide conspiracy, this discourse has been able to make the transition to focusing on globalization. The ecumenical movement is similarly viewed with fear and loathing. The World Council of Churches (WCC), an organization dedicated to cooperation between different Christian traditions, is treated as the ecclesiastical equivalent of the European Union. For Russian Orthodox nationalists, the solution to such looming threats as the United Nations and WCC involves "repurification, revival and regeneration, returning Russia to the more pristine state supposedly characteristic of Russia eons ago" (Ramet 2006: 150). But returning to a state be fore the advent of secularism and pluralism can be accomplished only by a kind of totalitarianism (Berger 2005: 440). Perhaps for this reason, we often see these groups utilizing- in addition to Slavonic Orthodox symbols- military, fascist, and even Nazi gestures, clothing, and emblems. This may also explain their fascination with Stalin and Ivan the Terrible, both of whom are objects of grassroots canonization campaigns (Rock 2006). The primary carriers of Russian Orthodox nationalism are the various "brotherhoods," such as the Oprichnina Brotherhood of St. IosifVolotskii, the Brotherhood of St. Sergei ofRadonezh, the Resurrection Orthodox Brotherhood, and the Union of Orthodox Banner-Bearers. A brotherhood is usually a group of Orthodox laypeople with a cleric as leader or spiritual mentor. Historically, brotherhoods have

104 Slavonic and the graphic environment arisen during times of crisis for the Orthodox Church. Their relationship with the official Church is complicated. In the post-Soviet era, the Moscow Patriarchate has distanced itself from some of the extremist and xenophobic expressions of these groups. However, the reality on the ground is more complicated, as they have many supporters within the Church as a whole (Rock 2003). Newspapers were important during the Soviet era: "During communism's heyday, newspapers were vital parts ofthe political-economic apparatus. Publications had gigantic circulations" (Obermayer 2000: 50). Their significance continued in the post-communist period, especially the 1990s, as many new papers flooded the market. Peddled from kiosks, metro stations, and street vendors, established papers and new ones vied for readers. Papers were also responsible for "raising the temperature" in the ideological battles of the 1990s (Zassoursky 2009: 36). Each group- be it neo-Nazi, monarchist, fundamentalist, or whatever- had its own newspaper. Using a variety ofhistoricizing typefaces and emblems, each group attempted to project an identity for itself in a crowded field. Thus, some papers (e.g. Za SSSR) continued to use bold sans serif lettering and Soviet symbols like the star and the hammer and sickle. Explicitly fascist papers (e.g. Falanga) employed a fraktur font along with iron crosses or swastikas. The Orthodox nationalist papers, often published by one of the brotherhoods, tend to use some kind of Slavonic lettering and such symbols as the imperial double-headed eagle and the "Golgotha cross" (illustrated at the top of Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1). The use of Slavonic maybe interpreted as a kind ofarchaizing purism (Thomas 1991: 77), resurrecting a potent symbol of a utopian Holy Russia in order to counteract the West and its New World Order. Slavonic is a consistent and constitutive element of Russian Orthodox nationalist newspapers (see Figure 5.6). Although a few scholars (e.g. Laqueur 1993; Komblatt 1999) have observed the connection between nationalism and old Slavonic writing, they have not pursued the matter or situated it in the broader sociolinguistic context of post-Soviet Russia. Turunen's fieldwork (2007: 331) suggests that monarchists typically consider "Church Slavonic a more devotional language than modem language." It is therefore not surprising that monarchist papers assume a highly ecclesiastical, Slavonic-inspired appearance. On the other hand, Russkii vestnik is an important right-wing paper with an estimated print run of60,000 (Rock 2001: 66). During the "Kochetkov affair" (discussed in Chapter 4 ), it published a number of articles and open letters in support of Slavonic as the Church's liturgical language. Yet it employs an Art Nouveau masthead that evokes the imperial culture of old St. Petersburg. Thus, although there is a solid link between Orthodox nationalism and the Slavonic script, there is still variation. Many post-Soviet papers with differing ideologies have used Slavonic in different ways and to different degrees. In general, the use of Slavonic in these publications can be characterized as Displaytypographie (display typography), which relies more on the pictorial dimension of the script, as opposed to Lesetypographie (text typography), which is intended more for reading (cf. Stockl 2005: 207). In some, the masthead is quite straightforward, with barely a hint of historical or liturgical referencing; other times, the script is ornate in a manner that

Slavonic and thegraphicenvironment 105

IIPilROCAo\~H.ul HAP~.\.IhUI

r•: