M-P, “Grisha” – look up again comments of Kiseleva. Ardalion in fact mysterious and negative character, who seems to exploit Grisha’s naïveté to gain riches of the Gusyatnikovs, leading to the fall of the family. M-P depicts secret Russia, where characters yearn for yet more secret Russia (only seen by righteous). Uses ethnographic details – trade, disputes between soglasiya, and the like, language, stream of wandering visitors to the G. home. At same time, much duality – the pagan celebrations of the girls, the devious and hypocritical conduct of many of the startsy (contrast the humble, victimized Dosifei). It is the highly suspect Ardalion who talks of the tropa Batyeva, which is presented rather differently from Klyuev’s. Kiseleva notes that Ardalion is suspect, btw.
V Lesakh – again, hidden Russia. The duality of characters. The disappearing Russia, again – how things used to be made. The strannik story – belovod’e, Oponskoe tsarstvo, travel abroad, secret passages. But note that, as with Grisha, Sutokolov in fact is a profoundly negative character.
M-P quite different in presentation of Russian popular religion from turn-of-the-century, but, clearly, one of points on way.
Some things, at least, in common with NAK. Reputation, duality, relative isolation. Relationship to people. Interest in ethnography and language. Idea of hidden Russia. Prosperity, perhaps loss, too. Emphasis on relative learning of people. OB as self-regulating, popular form.
Anninskii sees M-P as having two interlocking identities – civil servant and writer, and remarks on rapid about-change in attitudes to OB. Story of Saltykov (Tri eretika, 161).
Shapovalov – not a whole lot of good on her subject, but v. interesting on background. M-P’s detailed (and, by look of it, hostile) materials on skopchestvo. His big a/c not in Coll. Wks, but his shorter pieces were. Andrei Mel’nikov – Belyi met and consulted him, and when Merezhkovskii and Gippius went to Svetolyar they met him. Gippius Sokatil.
First page of V lesakh has the Tropa Batyeva. Opening pages describe Ovsen’, and, in general, the peasant calendar is very prominent.
Note, absence of any kind of complete works. The late-nineteenth-century edition is still the largest, I think (starts with Usov’s long essay).
MSU has the whole thing, by the looks of it. PG3337 .M45 1970 . But Klyuev probably had access to the 1909 edition (which is probably less complete – check).
Mel’nikov’s Otchet (1854), where his most hostile remarks on the OB are made, and which is product of his persecution of OBs, was published (first published?) n the memorial sbornik of 1910, published as Deistviya Nizhegorodskoi gubernskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, Vol 9, Sbornik v pamyat’ P.. I. Mel’nikova. K. might well have known this, too, and surely knew of Mel’nikov’s ambiguous reputation.
Sheshunova (teaches at Dubna U., linguistics, seems to be involved in “patriotic” movement) – “Bytovoe povedenie”. Interesting analysis of elements of “Old Russian” behavior (ustavnyi, as she puts it), side-by-side with elements of modernity. Also fits certain Klyuev features.
In Zhivaya starina, 1, 1998, Yu. Novikov published songs recorded in 1975 by student, who taped 73-OB woman in Lithuania. In 3, 2001, published article acknowledging that M-P was the source for many: the Razin song comes up in I:15 of V lesakh, the Ovsen’ song in the opening chapter, the marriage song in II:18, for example (used downloaded version to search – v. handy, try that for Klyuev terms). Novikov suggests – M-P source for re-folklorized material, rather than falsification. If true (and seems a bit dubious), proof that the anti-OB M-P, anathematized by official OB sources, could be treated with sympathy by ordinary OBs.
Andrea Zink, “Bindung durch Pfannkuchen”, shows how Mel’nikov, in contrast to other authors of period, emphasizes prosperity of his peasant heroes, through the food motifs. Also that patriarchal – men/women divide strong. Indeed, a great deal of food emphasis in the celebratory and ethnographic elements of the novel.
По керженской игуменье Манёфе – Сердце 325-6. Note – second line, По рассказам Мельникова-Печерского. Келарник Яков? Only two characters of that name in dilogy – one a merchant, other a khlyst prophet, mentioned once (both in Na gorakh). Керженский ветер. Poem begins and ends with M-P refs (Kerzhenskii veter).
Наша собачка (536) – Nasten'ka, with Svetlana, Mamelfa Timofeevna, Brothers Eliseev. Again, prosperity and culture. Incident with pyaltsy early in V lesakh recalls end of poem.
“Respublika” – Керженец в городском обноске opening line (note prominence of these references in openings, apropos items). Kerzhenets – this echoes M-P surely.
“Pesnya Gamayuna” – the burning of green Kremlins. Respublika (384-5). Kerzhenets v gorodskom obnoske, repeated in Pesn’. Yatskevich counts these occurrences as two separate items (40). In her article, she gives the adjective kerzhenskii six occurrences. Counted – Po k. M., K. veter (325-6); Est’ v Lenine kerzhenskii dukh (377-8),. Article in almanac seems to have seven references in total.
In Pogorel’shchina Naten’ka (Romanovna), ill-fated.
Role of M-P in K’s fascination with Kitezh.
In “Psaltyr’ tsarya Aleksiya”, rasskazy pro Kitezh-grad. Stories told in and by M-P, inter alia. Psalter – acceptable to OB? One of first discussions of legend (which was formulated in the ms by OBs, for whom legend is specially significant), was in 1840s. M-P probably played major role in its distribution. See АВТОР ПЕРВОЙ ПУБЛИКАЦИИ О ГРАДЕ КИТЕЖЕ НА СВЕТЛОЯРСКОМ ОЗЕРЕ С. П. МЕЛЕДИН
Korloenko – 1890s (В. Короленко СВЕТЛОЯР) – note that Korolenko comes to it po rasskazam Mel’nikova…, , check his text; Rimsky; Durilin, 1916 ( СКАЗАНИЕ О НЕВИДИМОМ ГРАДЕ КИТЕЖЕ) , all going back to M-P to a degree. According to the site on Kitezh, M-P seems to have mentioned legend in his Otchet, and twice in V lesakh. According to linked site, Rimsky found story in the 1840s Moskovityanin publication. Prishvin – Svetloe ozero.
M.-P. provides an important counterweight to the familiar Modernist appropriations of OB, which tend to emphasize exotic, as well as the rebellious nature, and to associate it with sectarianism, which probably interests OB more. M.-P. – prosperity, but of past (decline of cottage industry, passing of era emphasized), relationship to modernity and to past (see German article), language, secret knowledge, patriarchal.
Prokof’eva – in her opening remarks, quotes Nikitenko on M-P (as, but less, does Anninsky). Плутоватый, рассказывает интересно… Icon story (from Ivan Groznyi) frequently quoted – also fits Klyuev. Look at his unfinished autobiography.
Miller – III («Русские писатели после Гоголя», first edition, 1887, this edition 1908).
71 -- «В лесах» -- written at behest of Crown Prince who died in 1865.
80 – set just before the repression of the скиты in 1853. Evidence, eg, when Chapurin talks of plans in Pbg to close them (p. 34 of my edition). Other places also cited by Miller;
OB presented as ritual, not dogma; like Shashunova, cites discussion of Aleksei Lokhmatyi with Englishman on каноны;
98 – Fr Mikhail as forger (note the constantly ambivalent presentation of narod and especially of OB, though, as Miller points out, Chapurin, with his relatively moderate attitudes to belief, consistently sympathetic figure).
99 – for Miller (contrast others, eg Sheshunova) both Nastya and Flenushka are victims of skit upbringing.
Sheshunova – “Poryadok/besporyadok” (revisits her earlier article).
613 – role of ustav and ritual (cf Klyuev’s presentation of both), especially emphasized for birth, death, marriage.
616 Dualities of presentation of schism – resistance to willfulness and open space (eg, to classic Russian elements), but, at same time, can make people easy victims – eg, Dunya, who falls for sect.
Chapurin’s visit to the Krasnoyarskii skit involves elaborate descriptions of abundant food, NB. Ca 266-72.
Note, too, that the origins of the Volga OB settlements are linked to the Solovetskoe sidenie (ca 315).