вторник, 20 марта 2012 г.

некролог в Slavic Review

Международный журнал Slavic Review, издаваемый в США Ассоциацией Славянских, Восточноевропейских и Евразийских Исследований, опубликовал статью-некролог Георга Михельса и Дэвида Голдфрэнка. Полный текст см. ниже.


Andrei Ivanovich Pliguzov, 1956 –2011

With the death of Andrei Pliguzov in Moscow on 26 March 2011, Russian historians lost
one of their most brilliant and independent minds. Following in the footsteps of his teachers
Nikolai N. Pokrovskii and Aleksandr A. Zimin, Andrei represented the best tradition of
Russian critical scholarship. His profound expertise in the study of manuscripts, intimate
familiarity with Russian archives and library collections, courage in asking provocative
questions, and passion for historical inquiry, writing, and teaching inspired many in Russia,
Europe, and the United States. Andrei’s most important scholarly legacies are his studies
of medieval Russian church history and his prodigious publication of sources from the
fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries. Andrei’s engagement and impact went far beyond his
specialization, however: he was a facilitator, organizer, and editor of scholarship, an outspoken
critic of the Marxist and nationalist discourses of Russian historiography, and a charismatic
individualist who won the admiration and affection of many colleagues and friends.

In his scholarly publications—which comprise twenty authored, edited, co-edited,
and translated books as well as countless articles—Andrei constantly invoked past generations
of Russian scholars. Much of his work can be understood as a resumption and continuation
of scholarly endeavors that had been interrupted, thwarted, or suppressed by the
Soviet regime. For example, he greatly admired the researchers at the Imperial Archeographic
Commission, most notably P. M. Stroev, A. S. Pavlov, V. G. Druzhinin, and S. A. Belokurov.
Following their paths through Russian archives and libraries, Andrei reexamined
the manuscripts they had studied and published. As editor in chief and principal author
of Russkii feodal nyi archiv XIV–pervoi treti XVI veka, vols. 1–5 (Moscow, 1986 –92), republished
as a cohesive whole in 2008, Andrei took up a very significant unfinished research
agenda: the reconstruction of medieval church archives, particularly the lost archive of the
Moscow metropolitans. His articles and commentary in this work comprise a masterpiece
of extensive research and codicological analysis based on a wide array of manuscripts
from collections all over Russia, especially the metropolitanate’s epistolary, “formulary”
codices. Andrei likewise helped publish the invaluable Sochineniia: Kniga glagolemaia Fotios
(Moscow, 2005), a collection of Metropolitan Fotii’s writings.

The monograph Polemika v russkoi tserkvi pervoi treti XVI stoletiia (Moscow, 2002) reveals
Andrei at his analytical best. Complementing and affirming Donald Ostrowski’s revisionist
work on the Synod of 1503 and Nil Sorskii, Andrei radically rethinks the problem of the
sixteenth-century “non-possessors” (nestiazhateli), identifies which of the works attributed
to Vassian Patrikeev are likely authentic, and shows that this seminal, alleged founding
father of a movement did not advocate confiscating church lands, but, rather, having episcopal
officials manage them, as per the church canons. Indeed, Vassian Patrikeev’s most
important work was his redaction of the Kormchaia kniga, Russia’s version of the Greek Nomocanon. Andrei’s book also shows that the alleged struggle over Russian church lands—a
notion first introduced by nineteenth-century historians—is a historiographic construction
derived from false analogies with western nation states and the flawed assumption
that the Kremlin’s centralization policies promoted secularization. In fact, Andrei demonstrates
that the size of church lands increased dramatically as the Kremlin expanded its
authority over church institutions.

Other contributions by Andrei address the Kulikovo Battle (Zhivaia voda Nepriadvy
[Moscow, 1988]), the Union of Florence, the Time of Troubles, early modern Old Belief,
regionalism in Russian history (in particular, the Siberian and northern frontiers),
documents from the reign of Empress Elizabeth, and the place of ethnic minorities in the
Russian imperial imagination (Tekst-Kentavr o sibirskikh samoedakh [Moscow, 1993]). His
essays on historiography (for example, in Russian History/Histoire Russe 25 [1998]) dissect
and expose the legends of Russian and Soviet scholarship. Using the example of medieval
church history, Andrei urges scholars to remain true to the historical evidence, abstain
from generalizations, and dare to formulate new research questions. His thoughts remain
very relevant today as a resurgent Orthodox nationalism once again makes the critical
study of church and religion diffi cult, if not impossible, within Russia. Andrei’s own scholarship
remains a model for others who do not want to participate in what Andrei termed
the Russian “carnival of history” (istoricheskii karnaval).

Andrei hoped that Russian medieval church history would remain an important subject
of analytical inquiry in Russia. That was the principal purpose behind his many publications
of sources. He also believed that keeping alive the memory of great scholarship
would inspire “a new generation of scholars . . . [for whom] church history had ceased
to be a forbidden zone for concrete historical knowledge [perestala byt zapretnoi zonoi dlia
konkretno-istoricheskogo znaniia]” (Russian History/Histoire Russe 25 [1998]: 408). He published
manuscripts by his late mentor Aleksandr A. Zimin and introduced the Russian
translation of John Fennell’s The Crisis of Medieval Russia (and added appendixes). Andrei’s
published commentaries on the scholarship of Viktor I. Buganov, Edward L. Keenan, and
Aleksandr I. Klibanov are dedicated to three historians for whom Andrei had the highest
regard and warm affection.

When he was at the top of his career—before the onset of his tragic illness—Andrei
was an intellectual powerhouse. His encyclopedic mind and singular archival knowledge
were shared generously with western scholars who sought him out for advice. His
responses to research papers—particularly in seminars at the Institute of History and
Harvard University—were polished lecture presentations in their own right. They were
incisive, thought-provoking, always cutting to the essence, and sometimes even a bit intimidating.
Andrei relished the spotlight, perhaps because he had been a successful television
journalist before becoming a historian, but few minded because he was stunning in
his eloquence. Andrei also wrote poetry, and there was something of the poet in his way
of speaking and writing. Those of us who were fortunate to experience Andrei’s dazzling
intellect, captivating personality, caustic but good-natured humor, and passion for historical
research will always be grateful for the time we had with him.

Georg B. Michels
University of California, Riverside
with
David Goldfrank
Georgetown University
September 2011

published in: Slavic Review, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Spring 2012), pp. 220-221.

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий