Articles

Frithjof Benjamin Schenk, Aleksandr Nevskij: HeiligerFrstNationalheld. Ein Erinnerungsfigur im russischen kulturellen Gedchtnis (12632000). [Aleksandr Nevskii: SaintPrinceNational Hero. A Figure of Commemoration in Russian Cultural Memory (12632000)]. 548 pp. Kln: Bhlau, 2004. ISBN 3412069043. 68.90. Viktor Zhivov Frithjof Schenks book is one of the first efforts in our field of Slavic Studies to write a story of the reception and various discursive usages of one historical figure encompassing a very long period of time. The figure is Prince Aleksandr Nevskii and the span of time is over seven centuries. For studies of this type, the choice of figure is of crucial importance. Aleksandr Nevskii is, no doubt, a very good choice, because only a small number of Russian historical personages have so rich a pedigree of discursive manipulations. His image incorporated several discursive (or ideological) blocks, such as his sanctity, his role as a defender of the Russian land, as a founder of the ruling dynasty, as a saintly warrior, as a national hero, and so on. Each of these hypostases came to the fore in different historical periods under different historical circumstances; one interpretation superceded another but did not obliterate the previous one completely so that, as a discursively constructed entity, Aleksandr Nevskii is a multilayered palimpsest. The goal of the book is to read this palimpsest one layer after another and to analyze the numerous shifts and displacements of meaning that characterized its creation. The composition of the book is neat and transparent, in perfect accordance with its scholarly purposes. The first, introductory chapter deals with theoretical issues, the structure of the book, and some technical problems. The second chapter also functions as background: it treats Aleksandr Nevskiis biography as such. After that, the chapters are ordered chronologically. The third chapter deals with the sacralization of Aleksandr in the 13th through 15th centuries. The fourth chapter describes the Russification of Aleksandr in the 15th through 17th centuries (the Moscow period). The fifth chapter analyzes the transformation of Aleksandr into an embodiment of the imperial state (Verstaatlichung) in the 18th century. The next, sixth chapter encompasses the long 19th century (up to the Revolution of 1917) and demonstrates how Aleksandr turned into a symbolic figure of Russian
Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 8, 3 (Summer 2007): 66171.

662

vIKToR zHIvov

nationalism. This prerevolutionary part takes up approximately one-half of the book. The next six chapters deal with the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. This part begins with the seventh chapters description of the dethronement (Entthronung) of the saintly prince in the first two postrevolutionary decades (191737). Separate chapters are devoted to the return of Aleksandr to favor in 1937 (Die Sowjetisierung Aleksanders: Das Jahr 1937) and to Eisensteins film Alexander Nevsky (1938), proclaiming the new role of Aleksandr in the construction of Soviet patriotism (Der verfilmung Aleksanders). The tenth chapter analyzes the recruitment (Rekrutierung) of Aleksandr as part of the preparation for war and later war efforts (193945). Postwar developments until 1985 are concisely described in the 11th chapter under the title Consolidation and Criticism (Konsolidierung und Kritik). The last postrevolutionary chapter (the 12th) covers the years 19852000 and discusses the fate of the patriotic hero during the time of perestroika and post-Soviet reforms. The final chapter (the 13th) draws conclusions from the study as a whole. In the 14th section of the book, the reader finds the lists of sources and literature, the protocol of the Eisenstein film, and other documentary materials. The theoretical framework described in the first chapter is appropriate for the tasks of Schenks study. National, regional, or confessional history constitutes a part of the collective memory of various social groups. In this capacity, it can be regarded as a discursive construct changing over time. Historical memory includes images of important historical personages or, more exactly, of personages whose importance is created by the discursive needs of a certain period.1 They are memorialized in various ways: in sacred and secular narratives, monuments, portraits and icons, operas and films. In this way they constitute realms of memory (Errinerungsorten or les lieux de mmoire) or figures of memory (Erinnerungsfiguren) (here Schenk follows the guidelines set by the works of Pierre Nora).2 These places of memory are the means of constructing, refurbishing, and consolidating various collective identities. They serve the needs of both small and large communities or we-groups (Wir-Gruppen) in the terms borrowed

1 Importance is not always an intrinsic feature of a historical personage, but rather is a part of its changing construction. Ivan Susanin, for instance, was by no means an important figure during his lifetime. He became important only in the first half of the 19th century with the emergence of Russian nationalism. He lost his importance after the Bolshevik Revolution and regained it again in the empire-building discourses of the late 1930s. Aleksandr Nevskii is certainly more real than Susanin, but they have many traits in common and so there is no reason to overestimate the reality of Aleksandr. 2 Pierre Nora, ed., Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, ed. Lawrence D. Kritzman, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, 3 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 199698).

REvIEw oN ALEKSANDR NEvSKII

663

by Schenk from ethnological studies3 from the monastic community of a certain monastery (for example the one in which Aleksandr Nevskiis relics were preserved) to nations (which Schenk conceptualizes as imagined communities in accordance with Benedict Andersons definition).4 This scholarly apparatus is used to fulfill three interconnected tasks: (a) to define what features of the protagonist were memorialized or forgotten and what the privileged representations were in different historical periods; (b) to describe the we-groups that put forward various representations (realms of memory) and analyze what criteria they used to circumscribe their community; and (c) to discover what they-groups (enemy images) were used by different we-groups and how they affected the identities of the we-groups (27). our knowledge about the circumstances of Aleksandr Nevskiis life and deeds is not very extensive. The author summarizes it in a relatively short second chapter. He describes in very sober terms Aleksandrs main exploits (the battle with the Swedes in 1240 and the battle with the knights of the Livonian order in 1242 (The Battle on the Ice), as well as his dealings with the Mongol overlords and the price he paid for his status as the grand prince. The author wisely abstains from ascribing to Prince Aleksandr any far-reaching ideas concerning Russias tighter connections with the East rather than with the west (a Eurasian choice as surmised by some scholars). It seems likely that Aleksandr, like many other medieval statesmen, could act without any great political ideas or a lofty political vision. He had enough problems to solve on a day-to-day basis. His main efforts were always devoted to retaining, consolidating, and strengthening his power. The reader receives adequate information on all these topics with some discussion of existing views and opinions.

Cf. Stephen Mennell, The Formation of we-Images: A Process Theory, Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, ed. Craig Calhoun (oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 17597. 4 Perhaps the theoretical introduction slightly suffers from the authors propensity for terminological elaborations. Identity and community are well-established terms. They presuppose both internal consolidation and opposition to external entities. There is no real need for wir-Gruppen and Sie-Gruppen. Communities can grow around various solidifying principles; it is hardly productive (and reminds one of purely scholastic exercises) to distinguish between objective and subjective criteria (18). The distinction can only provoke fruitless discussions: whether, for instance, language is an objective criterion or, say, Bosnians subjectively consider their language to be different from Serbian. The same is true of the distinction between separatism (Separatismus) and regionalism (Regionalismus) (7879). The two words have different modalities: separatism is regionalism seen through the prism of a centralizing attitude. That is why Soviet historians were disposed to speak about Novgorodian separatism, whereas an unbiased scholar would prefer regionalism. Nevertheless, the signified is the same. The usefulness of such elaborations is doubtful, and they invariably contribute to scholarly boredom.
3

664

vIKToR zHIvov

The third chapter deals with the first period of Aleksandrs reception and memorialization. The author discusses various redactions of Aleksandrs life and pertinent entries in the chronicles. He analyzes the strategy of the first hagiographer who strove to harmonize Aleksandrs secular and spiritual virtues and to present him as a holy ruler. Later Novgorodian redactions placed the emphasis on Aleksandrs mission as the defender of Novgorod and suppressed the story of how Aleksandr compelled the Novgorodians to pay tribute to the Mongols in 1257 (1259). These changes were connected with the struggle of Novgorod for its independence from Moscow in the 15th century (especially under Archbishop Evfimii II). Muscovite bookmen who constructed their own Aleksandr Nevskii discourse countered these efforts by appropriating the saintly prince for their own cause. They underlined the roles of Aleksandr as one of the founders of the Danilovich dynasty and as a defender of the Russian land as a whole (and not of Novgorod in particular). Muscovite reinterpretations are more fully analyzed in the next chapter.5 The centralization of the Muscovite tsardom meant not only the growth of the princely and later tsarist power but also the appropriation of local cultural and religious traditions. with the destruction and annexation of Novgorod at the end of the 15th century, the discourse of Aleksandr Nevskii was finally translated to Moscow. The development of the memorialization of Nevskii on Muscovite soil is described in chapter 4. Therein emerged a certain bifurcation of Aleksandrs image into ecclesiastical and dynastic discourse. Particular features of both discourses and their development in the 16th and 17th centuries are described in the chapters main outlines (in a more cursory manner than usual). In the ecclesiastical discourse, represented by Muscovite versions of his life and the iconographic canon, Aleksandr figured as a holy monk and miracle-worker and symbolized the sanctity of the Church. The dynastic discourse represented by
It may be noted that Schenks analysis of the vita is rather linear. It does not take into account the peculiar nature of this biography as the first East Slavic hagiographic text the protagonist of which is a warrior prince (as distinct from SS. Boris and Gleb, who were martyrs or quasi-martyrs, and from St. vladimir, who baptized his land and on this ground was equal to the Apostles). It is true that, as do all other hagiographic texts, the Life of Aleksandr has typical formulas of authorial humiliation and is full of intertextual links with the Bible and the Pchela (Melissa), but these considerations do not downplay the importance of the fact that this is by no means a typical hagiographic text which demonstrates in the established manner its heros piety, religious upbringing, and so on. Schenk does not mention this fact and in general, following the writings of a number of literary scholars (such as Dmitrii Likhachev), does not recognize the exceptional nature of this early text. He mentions the influence of so-called military tales (in accordance with their treatment by v. okhotnikova and others), but military tales as a genre are a fictitious invention of literary scholars. The Life of Aleksandr deviates from many generic conventions. These deviations call for an explanation which is absent in the book under review.
5

REvIEw oN ALEKSANDR NEvSKII

665

official chronicles and genealogies, by a fresco in the Archangel Michael Cathedral in the Kremlin, and by a portrait in the Tituliarnik emphasized Aleksandrs dignity as a saintly grand prince, legitimized the Danilovich (and later the Romanov) dynasty, and focused on Aleksandrs secular achievements (not on his monastic vow and posthumous miracles). Some of the statements in this chapter (probably due to its conciseness) seem insufficiently sophisticated. For instance, it is hardly justified to oppose chronicles to saints lives or other ecclesiastical texts as devoid of any religious function (or even keine sakrale Funktion, as the author prefers to formulate it) (113). It is definitely wrong in relation to chronicle-writing as a whole. East Slavic chronicles were to a large extent written as demonstrations of the actions of Divine Providence in history. In this capacity they could and did serve for the purposes of religious edification.6 Such works of official historiography of Ivan Ivs reign as the Litsevoi svod (Illuminated Codex) and Stepennaia kniga (Book of Degrees) could probably be regarded in some respects as more secular than earlier chronicles (or at least more concerned with Russian statehood and dynastic legitimacy), but they do not evidence any discontinuity with the earlier tradition and there is no reason to believe that chronicles were conceptualized in a radically new way.7 The fifth chapter deals with the 18th century and the radical changes that the cult of Aleksandr Nevskii underwent in Petrine Russia. Aleksandr was, by and large, the favorite saint of Peter the Great (who was in general not a great admirer of saints). The evident and, it seems, the only reason for this favor was Aleksandrs achievements in his struggle with the Swedes. The Great Northern war (170021) was the main justification of Peters ambitious activities. He needed a predecessor to sanctify the war efforts hardships and exploits. Nobody could play this role better than Aleksandr Nevskii. Schenk minutely describes various changes in the representation of Aleksandr that resulted from his new memorialization as a progenitor of the great reformer, as the patron of his new capital St. Petersburg, and as one of the most prominent figures in the new Russian imperial pantheon (of imperial discourse). Peter ordered Aleksandrs relics to be transferred to the Aleksandr Nevskii Monastery newly founded on the shores of the Neva (presumably exactly in the place where Aleksandr won the battle of 1240).8
6 See a very eloquent passage in the Rogozhskii letopisets: Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. Xv (Moscow: Institut istorii AN SSSR, 1965), col. 185. on the problem in general, cf. I. P. Eremin, Literatura drevnei Rusi (Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1966), 6471. 7 The author erroneously speaks about the Nikon Chronicle as encompassing the reign of Ivan Iv (110). originally the chronicle was compiled in the 1520s under Metropolitan Daniil. It was enlarged later, but this enlargement did not affect the entries on Aleksandr in a crucial way. 8 Some interesting details of this solemn event and the preparations that were made by the church and state authorities could have been found in Opisanie dokumentov i del

666

vIKToR zHIvov

The portrayal of Aleksandr changed in the direction of the secularized representation of a military leader. Significantly, in 1724 the Holy Synod issued a decree concerning the icons of Aleksandr and prohibiting depicting him in his traditional monastic garb. His life was re-edited and provided with an introduction in which Peter and his victory over the Swedes were extolled. His liturgical service was changed along the same lines. I do not quite understand why the author thinks that Aleksandr Nevskii, having turned into the patron of vernderten Ruland (transfigured Russia), was connected to the new policy of relative tolerance and relative openness to the outside world (14647). There was nothing in the narratives of his life to support any claims for tolerance (except perhaps his dealings with the Golden Horde, but these biographical details were usually palliated in the texts of the 18th century). It would be wrong to think that Peter searched the past and always constructed it with the purpose of finding a precedent for his own deeds and policies. His general attitude toward the past was hostile, but he did not hold to it consistently and could appropriate certain figures or events as worthy of imitation. There is no need to straighten the lines of Peters policy, neither in this case nor in speaking about Petrine secularization (13536), which was, in a strange way, combined with sacralization and religious disciplining (cf. recent studies by Aleksandr Lavrov and Ernest zitser).9 In the 19th century, the perception of the new patron of St. Petersburg was more diversified than ever before. Schenk analyzes several of the most important interpretations. The sixth chapter begins with the discussion of different treatments that Aleksandr receives in the historical writings of Nikolai Karamzin and Nikolai Kostomarov. These can be regarded as different ways of inscribing Aleksandr into a nationalist paradigm. In the following sections, the author mainly analyzes imperial discourse (the discourse of imperial nationalism, always controversial because it had to reconcile the multinational character of the empire with the assertion of a Russian national identity and Russian historical memory) and church discourse. Though the saintly prince could have been an exemplary embodiment of the Uvarov triad, according to Schenks observations, his position in imperial discourse was rather marginal. The reason for that is likely the rich choice of figures available for the construction of nationalist heroes. They could be more functionally specific (as, for instance, Dmitrii Donskoi for Russo-Tatar relations) and in this respect preferable. In the 19th century, Aleksandr Nevskii was paradoxically glorified for the benefactions of
khraniashchikhsia v Arkhive Sviateishego Pravitelstvuiushchego Sinoda, 3: 1723 g. (St. Petersburg: Sinodalnaia tipografiia, 1878), col. 31929 [n. 331/71], col. CXXXICLII. 9 A. S. Lavrov, Koldovstvo i religiia v Rossii, 17001740 gg. (Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2000); Ernest A. zitser, The Transfigured Kingdom: Sacred Parody and Charismatic Authority at the Court of Peter the Great (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004).

REvIEw oN ALEKSANDR NEvSKII

667

his policy toward the Tatars (from an tatist and Eurocentric perspective this could be regarded as a civilizing mission). The emphasis shifted during world war I when, for evident reasons, Nevskii became a symbol in anti-German propaganda. Though the overview of 19th-century developments presented by the author is generally convincing, there are several points that could have profited from further elaboration. The author begins this chapter with a rather risky statement. Schenk claims that nationalist thought of the 19th century was tied up with a critical attitude toward the autocratic state (169).10 In the following sections, however, this anti-autocratic nationalism is never analyzed. The Slavophiles or Dostoevskii are not even mentioned, and the reader cannot help but be puzzled: were all these authors absolutely indifferent to the hero of Schenks book, or did the author decide to leave them in the dark? I would not claim without many reservations that the empire of Peter the Great was built on the principles of religious tolerance (209): persecutions of old Believers contradict the idea of tolerance. I am not sure that the fact that numerous orthodox Russian churches abroad (in Potsdam, Paris, Copenhagen, or Sofia) were dedicated to St. Aleksandr Nevskii is directly connected with anti-Catholic or anti-occidental trends in Russian politics (213). This dedication may be attributed to the fact that Aleksandr was the patron saint of the ruling monarchs or their heirs. The Bolshevik Revolution put an end to the peregrinations of the ghost of the saintly prince. For two decades (191737), he seemed to be almost totally forgotten, like many other symbols of the old regime, either imperial or nationalist. His relics were desecrated and his church in the Aleksandr Nevskii Monastery eventually closed. The seventh chapter of Schenks book, which deals with this period, is by necessity short: the grand prince was almost never mentioned in the Soviet press. The author discusses the Soviet cultural revolution in its anti-religious and anti-nationalist aspects (no substantially new facts or ideas figure in this discussion) and quotes an article from the Bolshaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia (Great Soviet Encyclopedia) of 1926 in which Aleksandr is treated as a feudal lord defending the interests of his class. The scarcity of material on the early Soviet Aleksandr is partly supplied by the discussion of Aleksandr
This statement may be partly true for the second half of this century (though there was hardly any space for the critique of autocracy in, for instance, Pobedonostsevs position), but it is definitely erroneous for the initial period of Russian nationalism. Neither Karamzin nor Fedor Rastopchin nor Sergei Glinka set national sovereignty against autocracy. Schenk seems to ignore Alexander Martins important book: Romantics, Reformers, Reactionaries: Russian Conservative Thought and Politics in the Reign of Alexander I (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997). There seems to be no reason to treat as entirely separate phenomena Karamzins nationalism and the theory of official nationality advanced by Karamzins disciple Sergei Uvarov.
10

668

vIKToR zHIvov

in exile, that is, in migr publications. Schenk focuses on the treatment of Aleksandr by Eurasianists (mainly George vernadsky), leaving aside traditional examples of the memorialization of the national hero. Aleksandr was of special importance for them because he presumably started a dialogue between the Russians and the Mongols which informed the Russian cultural and political Weltanschauung in a crucial way.11 The heroic image of Aleksandr Nevskii was resurrected in 1937 in the context of the new Stalinist imperialism. In the eighth chapter, Schenk gives a detailed analysis of the first publication that announced the miraculous return of the prince as a national hero, A. I. Kozachenkos article in Istoricheskii zhurnal titled A Remarkable Historical Lesson. The article demonstrated almost all the important features that characterized the renovated Soviet Nevskii discourse: Soviet patriotism, secularism, militarism, associations with anti-German (anti-Nazi) policy, and so on. The honor of introducing a quote from Marx in which the Livonian knights were called knights-hounds and of inventing special flanking tactics which testifies to the military genius of the heroic prince also belongs to Kozachenko. The whole ninth chapter, Die verfilmung Aleksanders, is devoted to Sergei Eisensteins film Alexander Nevsky. The chapter is the longest in the book and can be regarded as a separate study dealing not only with historical topics but also with the expressive devices and structural peculiarities of the film. The study is partly based on archival materials (various versions of the script written by P. A. Pavlenko and revised by Eisenstein) and reveals a number of new details that have not been elucidated by the extensive previous literature discussing the famous Stalinist film. The author analyzes the sources and constituent parts of the new patriotic discourse and the ways in which it incorporated Aleksandr Nevskiis heroic image. I would especially note an interesting observation concerning the use of biblical motifs in the film (32426). Any elements of religious discourse were utterly inconceivable in the texts with which the rehabilitation of the patriotic hero started (for instance, in the Kozachenko article of 1937). Schenk quite convincThe authors treatment of Eurasianism is fragmentary. Due to this circumstance, the author ignores a number of important similarities between the Eurasian and Bolshevik discourses or, in other words, the influence of Bolshevik rhetoric on Eurasianism. Nicholas Trubetskoi called the political system that was cherished by Eurasianism ideocracy (ideokratiia) and thought that the Bolshevik regime was an implementation of such a system. In his view, this implementation was aberrant; the Eurasianists had to produce a better example. Ideocracy is Eurasian in the sense that it is opposed to Romano-Germanic political models, is anti-liberal, and is a part of the Genghis Khan legacy. For Eurasianists (or at least for Trubetskoi), Eastern orthodoxy was not so much the traditional religion of the Russian people as the most important constituent part of the ideocratic ideology, an equivalent of Bolshevik Marxism. Aleksandr Nevskii was a cult figure in Eurasianist ideology in the same way as there were famous revolutionaries in the Bolshevik pantheon.
11

REvIEw oN ALEKSANDR NEvSKII

669

ingly ascribes this new strain in Nevskii discourse to Eisensteins interest in mythological structures, subconscious quasi-religious symbolism, and the possibilities of their aesthetic applications. At the same time, this aspect of Nevskii discourse could have emerged as a result of Eisensteins artistic sensibility: mythological patterns were indispensable for the paternalistic hero cult of the Stalinist epoch. (I would be even more skeptical than the author in discussing Bernd Uhlenbruchs hypothesis about the subversive character of Eisensteins mythology.) The next chapter begins with the description of a pause in the development of Aleksandrs veneration after the MolotovRibbentrop Pact of August 1939 and a curious elaboration of Aleksandrs mythology through a story of a campaign of Novgorodian troops in the Finnish lands during the SovietFinnish war. The fate of Aleksandr Nevskii during the Great Patriotic war (194145) is rather predictable he became an important tool of anti-German propaganda. A military medal of Aleksandr Nevskii, awarded for prowess in battle, was established in 1942. Schenk notes that Nevskii discourse in the days of the war was nationalized, militarized, and (re)-sacralized (395404). The heroic prince turned into a paternalistic figure reminiscent of Generalissimo Stalin. Some of these features were present in Nevskii discourse since 1937 but became more prominent in the context of the military confrontation. Some of them were new as, first of all, religious motifs (a struggle for the Russian faith, Aleksandr as a saintly figure). Their emergence, as Schenk convincingly demonstrates, was connected with Stalins new policy toward the Russian orthodox Church. Schenk assumes that there was a return to prerevolutionary discursive practices. This is probably not the most plausible explanation. There is no evidence that prerevolutionary sources were reprocessed. Both militarization and re-sacralization could reflect the new historical situation and have nothing to do with the practices of the past. New developments led to a result that was superficially similar to the prerevolutionary phenomenon. Aleksandr Nevskii continued to be memorialized as a national hero in the postwar years, all the way down to the fall of the Soviet Union. The period from 1945 to 1985 is covered in the 11th chapter of the book. No radical innovations affected Nevskii discourse during this time. The author registered minor changes in this discourse (for instance, the substitution of western imperialists for German fascists as the chief enemy-figure in the context of the Cold war). The main evolution, however, consisted not in such substitutions, but in the receding intensity of devotional practices (though monuments continued to be erected and textbooks continued to reproduce the mythology of Aleksandr as a great patriotic leader and outstanding military commander). This decline of veneration made possible the appearance of scholarly works in which the sources for Aleksandrs

670

vIKToR zHIvov

biography were analyzed and discussed. Schenk regards them as evidence of the existence of a separate wissenschaftlicher Diskurs (scholarly discourse) (43035). The 12th chapter brings the story to the year 2000. The author describes the changes that characterized the attitudes toward the past and to collective identity and historical memory in the period of perestroika. Though the anniversary of the 1240 battle with the Swedes was celebrated in 1990, Aleksandr Nevskii can hardly be regarded as an important figure of perestroika. Schenk devotes several pages to the discussion of the restitution of his relics to the Aleksandr Nevskii Monastery in 1989, the most remarkable event in the perestroika development of the Aleksandr Nevskii discourse. In the post-Soviet decade there was a greater demand for the image of the saintly prince. He was an ideal figure for the phenomenon that Schenk calls the patriotic consensus (patriotischer Konsens). Due to the long history of his veneration, he could unite elements of the prerevolutionary and postrevolutionary patriotic discourse. He could serve as a basis of several collective identities: state and national, regional, religious. All these possibilities were realized and peacefully coexisted in the 1990s. The final, 13th chapter gives a concise, accurate, and intelligible summary of the whole book. I would advise a hurried reader to begin with this summary. At the end of this chapter the author discusses the prospects of further research. He notes that in the case of Rus/Russia, Aleksandr is not a single patron saint of the nation (as St. Patrick is in Ireland). Aleksandrs memorialization is combined with the veneration of other figures, different in different discourses. It may be revealing to study how these combinations were carried out. There is also a prospect of a comparative research. As an example, Schenk offers an interesting comparison of Aleksandr Nevskii with St. wenceslaus of Bohemia. In conclusion, I would say that the book under review is definitely a success. Its purpose is to study the memorialization of a historical figure over a very long historical period and to analyze how this process is connected with the formation and dissolution of various collective identities. This plan has been carried out at a very high professional level. The book is rich in details and shrewd observations and the treatment of historical material is theoretically sophisticated. It may be added that the book is well written and readable. Perhaps the author took the ideal of readability somewhat too seriously. The narrative is good, but there are many pages in the book that do not give any new information but rather retell well-known facts and theories. These redundant passages (on icon worship and Joseph of volokolamsk, on churchstate relations in 16th-century Russia, on the intelligentsia in the 18th century, on Bolshevik nationality policy in the 1920s, on postwar Soviet patriotism, and so on) are based on secondary sources, not always of

REvIEw oN ALEKSANDR NEvSKII

671

the best sort. They serve as narrative links but, taking into account their subsidiary nature, they could have been made shorter. This is a minor drawback, however, and the book can be recommended to a wide range of readers interested in Russian history. Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures 6303 Dwinelle Hall #2979 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-2979 USA zhiv@berkeley.edu