Nikolai Leskov’s Eccentric Wanderers and the Tradition of Religious Wandering in Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a number of minor infelicities in you use of English. I have included a full list of these in the attached document.

Author Response

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your comments which let me improve my article. Below see my answers to the comments.

Comment 1: "The author takes a long time to arrive at Leskov, and the section devoted to analysis of his work is quite short. Like the preceding contextual sections, it also largely has the character of an overview which takes its cues from existing scholarship rather than defending an original argument"

Response 1: As this comment was present in both reviews, I enlarged this section of my article, focusing more on Leskov's works, especially "The Enchanted Wanderer". However, I would like to emphasize that the observations about wanderers in Leskov's works are mainly mine, as the scholarship about wanderers in the writer's oeuvre is limited to "The Enchanted Wanderer"

Comment 2: "Section 3, a review of wanderers in the Russian literary tradition (pp. 4-5) is rather unsatisfactory"

Response 2: As it was suggested in both reviews, I decided to remove this section, and instead focus on Leskov's literary works

Comment 3: "this section would be much more useful as an overview for the non-specialist if the author provided dates for the authors mentioned and dates of publication of the works discussed (this applies to the Leskov analysis to in large part)."

Response 3: I added the dates where needed

Comment 4: "The author makes a number of broad claims about the origin and development of the tradition of pilgrimage and wandering in Russia without substantiation. Examples include: 2: 53-57; 2: 95-3:102; 3: 115-118"

Response 4: I added substantiations where they were missing; however, lines 2:95-3:102 present the hypothesis of my article and therefore the article as a whole is the substantiation.

Comment 5: "Support from scholarship is needed for claims made in the paragraphs on 4: 175-183; on 6: 259-267; and on 7: 339-342."

Response 5: I added it in the first case (4: 175-183); in two others, I present my own observations which I can support with my own scholarship

Comment 6: "The Orthodox attribute the book of Hebrews to Paul, but I believe this is not the view of current biblical scholarship. It would be worth checking and removing the reference to Paul’s authorship if I am right"

Response 6: I removed the reference

Comment 7: "Old Believers (passim). This term is never defined or explicated for the reader unfamiliar with Russian religious culture"

Response 7: I explicated the term (3:120-124)

Comment 8: Providing dates, references, improving English language and transliteration

Response 8: I am very thankful for these comments and for the list of grammatical infelicities. I followed these suggestions. However, I did not provide the reference to the English translation of "The Way of the Pilgrim", as there are six of them, and in my work I used the Russian original text

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a brief overview of the motif of wandering in Russian history and literature, and also analyzes the figures of wanderers and vagabonds in Leskov’s works. Parts 2 and 3 of the article (up to 3.1) set out well-known general facts that have already been stated many times in previous publications on the history of Russian culture and literature. The section of the article devoted to the motif of wandering in Russian literature (including Gorky) is much less informative than the Russian Wikipedia on the same topic. I would advise that the introductory part of the article be significantly improved, including the introduction, where instead of a short and rather incomplete list of the works of predecessors, a critical review of their research should be made.

However, first of all, I would like to see in the article a more in-depth analysis of Leskov’s texts themselves. A more detailed discussion, for example, of the text of “The Enchanted Wanderer” would allow us to raise the question of the motives that pushed the character of the story to wander throughout his life: social oppression, the influence of asocial layers of society (criminals), a psychological tendency to wander, religious motivation itself, mystical predestination hero's fate. All these factors are visible in the life of Ivan Fliagin, however, the strongest in it are mystical motives and the role of fate, destiny, determined by the prayer of his mother, who promised her son born through prayer to God (the author mentions that this motive is found in the lives of saints, but does not develop this thesis). The most important place in the plot of “The Enchanted Wanderer” is occupied by the appearance of the character in dreams or even in reality of two people he killed: the first conveys a message from Fliagin’s deceased mother and predicts his fate, the second becomes for him a kind of guardian angel. Supernatural destiny plays a central role in Fliagin’s life, and other factors rather cover up the true driving force of his fate. The hero becomes a wanderer, first of all, because he does not accept his fate, does not believe in it. Otherwise, immediately after the first mystical sign, he would have gone to the monastery, and his wandering would not have been necessary. Wandering here, of course, is a metaphor for the path to religious salvation (and death at the hands of others or in war is a shorter path to achieving it), but it is not a means, an “instrument” of salvation. This is rather evidence of the character’s mistakes and delusions, a consequence of his rejection of his true path. Fliagin's wanderings are not a form of asceticism, a way to get closer to God. Rather, they are a consequence of the fact that the hero refused to come to God in a direct way. As Dorofeev writes (2022: 56), Fliagin “runs from everywhere that is not his authentic self, in order to “run”, come to himself and return to God.” First, the hero, due to his erroneous choices and rejection of his destiny, finds himself in difficult, dangerous situations, and from these situations he runs back to himself, and thereby to God.

The conclusion of the article about the ambivalence of Russian wandering as a phenomenon described by Leskov is generally correct, but it would need a more detailed and illustrated analysis, which would be placed in both an ethnographic and religious-mystical perspective. For example, in the book by Shchepanskaia (2003), an entire chapter is devoted to wandering from the point of view of ethnography and anthropology. In particular, it provides evidence that 19th-century peasants clearly distinguished between “divine” beggars and ordinary vagabonds. It seems that the ambivalence and vagueness of these characters in literature reflects the view of educated people from the upper classes of society, writers for whom it was more difficult to distinguish between these categories. See the same monograph on the connection between wandering beggars and death and dead people. This is just one example of how a more careful consideration of the existing literature can add something to the author's analysis. In general, in my opinion, the author needs, on the one hand, to expand and deepen the history of the issue, not limiting himself to simply providing an incomplete list of the works of predecessors, and on the other hand, to provide a more detailed analysis of Leskov’s texts with a study of the motives that lead his heroes to wandering. In its current form, the article is too short and superficial to fully cover the topic.

The article does not mention or take into account a number of classical and modern historical, ethnographic, religious and anthropological works on pilgrimage and wandering in Russia and the Slavic world in general, for example:

Бернштам Т.А. Странничество в практике народного домостроительства. Почитаемые места и ближние богомолья. Дальние богомолья. В кн.: Приходская жизнь русской деревни. Очерки по церковной этнографии. Санкт-Петербург, 2005. С. 311-352.

Веселовский А.Н. Калики перехожие и богомильские странники: I-III. Вестник Европы: журнал историко-политических наук, 1872. Т.2. Кн. 4, апрель. С. 682-722.

Громыко М.М. Мир русской деревни. Москва, 1991 (см. с. 116-120).

Громыко М.М. Традиционные нормы поведения и формы общения русских крестьян XIX в. Москва, 1986 (см. с. 100-105).

Громыко, М.М., Буганов А.В. О воззрениях русского народа. Москва, 2000 (глава "Паломничество").

Дорофеев Д.Ю. Русские странники. Образы православного служения на дорогах. В кн.: Logos et Praxis. 2022. Т. 21, № 3. С. 45–59.

Дутчак Е.Е., Из "Вавилона " в "Беловодье ": адаптационные возможности таежных общин староверов-странников (вторая половина XIX - начало XXI в.). Томск, 2007.

Ильина А.Ю. Странничество на Руси. В кн.: Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. Тамбов, 2016. № 5 (67). C. 92-95.

Калеки перехожие: Сборник стихов и исследование П. Безсонова.  Москва, 1861-1863. 2 т.

Корнилов С.В. Древнерусское паломничество. Калининград, 1995.

Миллер В.Ф. Калики или калеки перехожие. В кн.: Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона : в 86 т. Санкт-Петербург, 1895. Т. XIV. С. 27-28.

Михайлова Катя, Странстващият сляп певец просяк във фолклорната култура на славяните (2006) (Polish translation: Dziad wędrowny w kulturze ludowej Słowian (2010)).

Неустроев Д.В. "Очарованный странник" Н.С. Лескова: генезис и поэтика. Дисс. ... канд. филол. наук. Москва, 2007.

Поплавская X.В. Народная традиция православного паломничества в России в XIX — XX веках: По материалам Рязанского края. Дисс. ... канд. ист. наук. Москва, 2000.

Поплавская X.В., Паломничество, странноприимчество и почитание святынь (по материалам Рязанского края) В кн.: Православная жизнь русских крестьян XIX-XX веков: Итоги этнографических исследований. Отв.ред. Т.А. Листова. Москва, 2001. С. 251-300.

Пругавин А.С., Раскол и сектантство в русской народной жизни. Москва, 1905.

Пры­жов И.Г. Ни­щие на свя­той Ру­си: Ма­те­риа­лы для ис­то­рии об­ще­ст­вен­но­го и на­род­но­го бы­та в Рос­сии. Ка­зань, 1913.

Раскина Е.Ю. Странничество и паломничество как формы духовного совершенствования героя в произведениях Н.С. Гумилева. В кн.: Вестник Северного (Арктического) федерального университета. Серия: Гуманитарные и социальные науки. № 1 2009. С. 113-116.

Розов А. И. Странники, или бегуны в русском расколе. Вестник Европы: журнал историко-политических наук. СПб., 1872. Т. 6, № 11. С. 260-302, № 12. С. 520-542; 1873. Т. 1. С. 262-295.

Срезневский И.И. Крута каличья. Клюка и сума, лапотики, шляпа и колокол. В кн.: Записки Императорского русского археологического общества. 1863. Т. 4. Вып. 2. Стб. 308-310.

Срезневский И.И. Русские калики древнего времени. Т. 1. Кн. II. 1862.

Трофимова Е.А. Образ странника в русской культуре Серебряного века. В кн.: Регионология. Regionology. 2014. Т.4, №89. С. 233-245.

Щепанская Т.Б., Культура дороги в русской мифоритуальной традиции XIX-XX вв. Москва, 2003.

For Russian folk pilgrimages, see also: Кремлева И.А. Обет в религиозной жизни русского народа. В кн.: Православие и русская народная культура: Сб. статей. Москва, 1993. Вып.2. С. 147-153; Алексеева Н.В. Покаяние в православной традиции русских крестьян XVIII-XIX вв. (по материалам Европейского Севера России). Дисс. ... канд. ист. наук. Вологда, 1998. С. 109, 130, 171-177.

P. 122: The 18th century also witnessed a developing interest in the hesychasm in Russia, with Philokalia translated into Slavonic by Paisius Velichkovsky.

In today’s political situation, it would be more correct to say not “in Russia,” but “in the Russian Empire,” and also to add that the translation of the Philokalia was carried out in the then Principality of Moldavia, and in that part of it that now belongs to Romania. Paisius was from Poltava, studied in Kyiv, in Ukraine he became a monk. He came from that part of Ukraine, which at his time was already part of the Russian Empire. However, the main period of his life and activity is associated with the Mount Athos and the Principality of Moldavia. The monasteries in which he labored are now located on the territory of Romania. Thus, the activities of Paisius Velichkovsky are not geographically connected with the Russian Empire. He was a cleric of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and did not submit to St. Petersburg in church terms. Of course, it is clear that the Church Slavonic language was then the common language of the Orthodox Slavs and Romanes (Moldavians), so Paisius’s translation spread throughout the territories of both Moldavia and the Russian Empire, but he himself is connected with the Russian Empire only by his Ukrainian origin and his followers who lived in Russia.

Typo:

P.6: Pogashee  delo, 1862 – it should be Pogasshee

Author Response

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the valuable comments and suggestions. Below I present my answers:

Comment 1: " Parts 2 and 3 of the article (up to 3.1) set out well-known general facts that have already been stated many times in previous publications on the history of Russian culture and literature. The section of the article devoted to the motif of wandering in Russian literature (including Gorky) is much less informative than the Russian Wikipedia on the same topic. I would advise that the introductory part of the article be significantly improved, including the introduction, where instead of a short and rather incomplete list of the works of predecessors, a critical review of their research should be made"

Response 1: As this suggestion was common for both reviews, I decided to remove the section devoted to the motif of wandering in Russian literature. I also added some of the suggested works to the literature review; however, I decided not to expand this part very much, and focus on Leskov's oeuvre instead. 

Comment 2: "first of all, I would like to see in the article a more in-depth analysis of Leskov’s texts themselves."

Response 2: I expanded my analysis of Leskov's text (as it was suggested in both reviews)

Comment 3: "The conclusion of the article about the ambivalence of Russian wandering as a phenomenon described by Leskov is generally correct, but it would need a more detailed and illustrated analysis, which would be placed in both an ethnographic and religious-mystical perspective. For example, in the book by Shchepanskaia (2003), an entire chapter is devoted to wandering from the point of view of ethnography and anthropology. In particular, it provides evidence that 19th-century peasants clearly distinguished between “divine” beggars and ordinary vagabonds. It seems that the ambivalence and vagueness of these characters in literature reflects the view of educated people from the upper classes of society, writers for whom it was more difficult to distinguish between these categories."

Response 3: Thank you very much for this comment, I have taken it into account when revising my article. I also got acquainted with some of the suggested works which discuss ethnographic aspects of wandering; however, given the limited time for revising the article, I decided to focus on the literary aspect of my research, that is analysing Leskov's works more attentively

Comment 4: "The article does not mention or take into account a number of classical and modern historical, ethnographic, religious and anthropological works on pilgrimage and wandering in Russia and the Slavic world"

Response 4: I added some of these works in my literature review; however, as my article focuses on literary works, not all of them were taken into account

Comment 5: "In today’s political situation, it would be more correct to say not “in Russia,” but “in the Russian Empire,” and also to add that the translation of the Philokalia was carried out in the then Principality of Moldavia, and in that part of it that now belongs to Romania."

Response 5: I changed "Russia" to "Russian Empire"; however, I did not add further details suggested, as they are not essential for my article

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking my comments into account as much as possible.