President and Fellows of Harvard College

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology

The icon as performer and as performative utterance: The sixteenth-century Vladimir Mother
of God in the Moscow Dormition Cathedral
Author(s): MARIE E. GASPER-HULVAT
Source: RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 57/58 (Spring/Autumn 2010), pp. 174-185
Published by: President and Fellows of Harvard College acting through the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25769978
Accessed: 17-01-2016 21:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

President and Fellows of Harvard College and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 RES 57/58 SPRING/AUTUMN 2010

Figure 2. Constantinople, The VladimirMother of Cod, early twelfthcentury.Tempera on canvas

and wood, 104 x 69 cm. Tretiakov Moscow.
Gallery,

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The icon as performer and as performative utterance

The sixteenth-centuryVladimirMother of God in theMoscow

Dormition Cathedral

MARIE E. GASPER-HULVAT

Within the nine-sentence catalog entry for a sixteenth
century Russian icon (fig. 1) in the Guggenheim's 2005
"Russia!" exhibition, only two sentences pertain to
this particular object. Such a choice by curator Valerie
Hillings was hardly an omission: The other seven
sentences concern the twelfth-century icon (fig.2) from
which the sixteenth-century one was copied, and detail
the former's prominent place inRussian history.1 Indeed,
the meaning of the sixteenth-century icon is tightly
bound to itsprototype, which did not come to New
York. Inmost conventional accounts, the image on both
icons is important because of the history Hillings recites;
however, Ipropose that the history ismade important
by the sixteenth-century icon and the political program
of itscreators. This icon can be understood as both
performer and performative utterance, participating in
and enacting a narrative that established Moscow as the
site for the teleological conclusion of Christian history. I
seek to pursue the implications of the twentieth-century
discipline of performance studies for this particular icon
as a case study for furtherelucidating the meaning and
function of icons ingeneral.2
Such an approach is not unprecedented; recent
on
scholarship Byzantine and Russian icons includes
several examples where authors utilize terms and ideas
related to performance studies. Alexei Lidov organized
a significant body of work related to "hierotopy," a term
Thisarticle isexpanded froma presentation
givenat theApril
2008 FrickSymposium.Iam deeply indebtedtoDale Kinney, whose
this project possible.
mentorship made
1. V. Hillings, "The Virgin of Vladimir/' in Russia!:
Exhibition(NewYork:Solomon R. GuggenheimFoundation,2005), pp.
he coined to designate the study of the ongoing creation
of sacred space, particularly within the Byzantine
sphere; this field of research broadly encompasses
performances in such locations and the means by
which such performances cocreated the spaces in
which theywere enacted.3 The philologist Boris
Uspensky, in an article discussing liturgicalmovement
within ecclesiastical space, compares the iconostasis
and solea of theOrthodox church to "something not
unlike a proscenium/' a term that typically denotes the
architectural structure that surrounds the visible areas of
a theatrical stage.4 In her discussion of Byzantine vision,
Nicoletta Isar describes one image as "conflating speech
act and visual sign,"5 thereby making use of the term
conventionally used as equivalent to the "illocutionary
act" coined by the progenitor of performativity studies,
J.L. Austin.6 Most extensively, Bissera Pentcheva devotes
an entire article to "The Performative Icon," inwhich she
discusses the multi-sensory experiential characteristics of
the dynamic icon in its intended ecclesiastical context.7
3. Specifically with respect to the dynamic aspects of hierotopical
projects, Lidov notes, "Performativity, dramatic changes, [and] the lack
of strict fixation shaped a vivid, spiritually intensive, and concretely
influential environment/' A. Lidov, "Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred
as a Subject of Cultural History," in
Spaces as a Form of Creativity and
The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval
Hierotopy:
Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Indrik, 2006), p. 39. See also,
A. Lidov, "The Flying Hodegetria: The Miraculous Icon as Bearer of
Sacred Space," in The Miraculous Image in the Late Middle Ages and
Renaissance, ed. E. Thunoe and G. Wolf (Rome 2004), pp. 291-321; A.
Lidov, "The Sacred Space of Relics," inChristian Relics in theMoscow
Kremlin, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Radunitsa, 2000) pp. 13-18.
4. B. A. Uspensky, '"Khozhdenie i Struktura Sakral'nogo
posolon'
Catalogue of the Prostranstva v Moskovskoi Rusi," inHierotopy, ed. A. Lidov (ibid.), pp.
544_545.

6-7, no. 13. 5. N. Isar, "The Vision and Its 'Exceedingly Blessed Beholder':
Idraw upon the work of J. L. Austin, Judith Butler, and Rebecca
2. 2000): 62.
Of Desire and Participationinthe Icon,"RES 38 (Autumn
Schneider. Other useful sources for the theoretical grounding of Italics mine. Isar entitled her article in Lidov's Hierotopy "Chorography
H. Bial, The Performance Performative Paradigm of Creation of Sacred Space
performance and performativity include: (Chora, Choros)?A
Studies Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 2004). J. Loxley, in Byzantium."
The Sage 6. J. L. Austin, Howto Do Things with Words (Cambridge, Mass.:
Performativity (London and New York: Routledge, 2007);
Handbook of Performance Studies, ed. D. S. Madison and J.Hamera Harvard University Press, 1962).
Oaks, Calif.; London;and New Delhi: Sage Publications,
(Thousand 7. B. V. Pentcheva, "The Performative Icon," The Art Bulletin 88, no.

2006). 4 (December 2006):631-655.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 RES 57/58 SPRING/AUTUMN 2010

Historical contexts

In the case of the aforementioned sixteenth-century

icon, the central image depicts theVladimir Mother of
God, or Vladimirskaia, framed by a border of alternating
images of important saints and the twelve main annual
liturgical feasts. Itwas painted around 1514, and, for
purposes of brevity and clarity, I hereafter refer to this
icon as the "1514" Vladimirskaia, with the caveat
that the 1514 dating is far from conclusive.81 refer to
the early twelfth-century icon, of which the "1514"
Vladimirskaia is a copy, as the "Tretiakov Vladimirskaia,"
due to itspresent location in the Tretiakov Gallery
collection inMoscow.
The Tretiakov icon was not Russian-made, but was
imported from Byzantium to Kyiv between 1125 and
1131, a gift from the Byzantine patriarch to the Grand
Prince of Kyiv. During the third quarter of the twelfth
century, theMother of God began to perform miracles
through this icon. Itwas observed levitating inmid-air
in the center of itschurch of residence, in southern Rus'
near Kyiv. This was interpreted as a sign that theMother
of God desired that her icon be relocated, causing
Andrei Bogoliubski, the son of the grand prince, to
move the icon north toVladimir, the point past which
his horses refused to advance due to another Marian
intervention.9 She then proceeded to enact further
miracles through this icon, intervening in history to
protect the icon's present city of residence. In 1395, the
icon firstvisited Moscow, when itperformed itsmost
renowned miracle, the delivery of Moscow from the
impending Mongol attack led byTimur. In each of these
events, the miracle-working properties of the Tretiakov
Figure 1.The School of Dionysius, The VladimirMother of Cod
with Feasts and Saints, early sixteenthcentury.Tempera on
canvas and wood, 107.5 x 69 cm. Dormition Cathedral of the
Kremlin, Moscow.
8. Russian chronicles note a flurryof activity in 1514 with respect
to the twelfth-century Vladimirskaia, a
including significant renovation
and a new frame.
involving cleaning, repainting, adding Additionally,
between 1513 and 1515 the interior of the Kremlin Dormition
Cathedral was redecorated
by members of the School of Dionysius,
However, in the firstthree of these examples, the the same group towhich the sixteenth-century icon is attributed. It
use of performance and performativity terminology is entirely plausible that the icon was created in conjunction with
this commission or to commemorate the renovation of the Byzantine
primarily serves to convey more effectively the authors'
Vladimirskaia. However, other sources may indicate itsproduction
arguments with respect to a variety of theoretical
prior to 1511, under the tenure of Metropolitan Simon; and twentieth
frameworks, performance not among them. And while century scholar Engelina Smirnova dates the icon to 1519.1. Bentchev,
Pentcheva's article explicitly takes performativity "Zum Verhaltnis von
Original, Kopie und Replik am Beispiel der
as its focus, ithighlights the experiential aspects of Gottesmutter von Vladimir und anderer russischer Ikonen," in Russische
Ikonen: Neue Forschungen, ed. Eva Haustein-Bartsch
performance with reference to Byzantine image theory. (Recklinghausen:
In comparison to previous studies, I seek to amplify the Verlag Aurel Bongers, 1991), p. 162, fn. 57. E. Smirnova, Moscow
Icons: 14th-17th centuries, trans. Arthur Shkorovsky-Raffe (Oxford:
use of performance and performativity theory inorder to
Phaidon, 1989), p. 298.
illustrate the value of such application within the iconic 9. E. Sendler, Les Icones de laMere de Dieu (Paris: Desclee de
milieu. Brouwer, 1992), pp. 143-144.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gasper-Hulvat: The icon as performerand as performativeutterance 177

Vladimirskaia were consistently large-scale, public, and
political, as opposed tomany other Russian miracle
working icons thatwere credited with personal, healing
miracles.10
Ideliberately avoid invoking the term "original"
to describe the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia, despite the
significant temptation to do so.When describing Russian
icons, this term is highly problematic and ambiguous.
For a medieval Orthodox Russian, every icon was in fact
a copy, with the "original" being the icon's prototype,
the person in flesh and spiritwho was represented in the
iconic image. Yet this unity of flesh and spiritwas itself
an icon of the ultimate prototype, with humanity having
been made in the image (eikon) of the likeness of God.
For icons depicting Christ and Mary, such duplication
becomes even more complex, since the Incarnation
was an occasion where God purposefully adopted
human flesh in the body of Christ. InChrist, then,we
encounter a visible image of God; inMary, we find the
fleshlymateriality intowhich the logos entered inorder
to create the visible Christ.11 Thus, as a reference to the
Incarnation, every icon ofMary is a justification of the
orthodox (in the etymological sense of "right belief")
veneration of all icons.
An iconofMary isdependentupon the identity
of
itsprototype?Mary's human body?for itsvalidity
as an object suitable forveneration. However, when
dealing with copies of a miracle-working icon such
as theVladimirskaia, the identityof the prototype
isdestabilized. The miracle-working icon acquires
In the medieval context, there is
Eastern Orthodox
easy slippage between the categories of sacred and
miracle-working?for every object within the church
has the potential towork miracles at any moment.12 It
is unclear towhat extent the medieval Russian viewer
understood the copies of theVladimirskaia to be
equivalent to the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia. For example,
shortly after the 1395 miracle defeating Timur, two
copies of the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia were painted,
one each for theMoscow and Vladimir Dormition
Cathedrals (figs. 3 and 4). Scholars have proposed that
during the fifteenthcentury, the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia
traveled repeatedly between these two cathedrals, and
the copies were used as replacements for the Tretiakov
Vladimirskaia when itwas visiting the other city.13 Ifthis
was the case, we can understand the copies as taking
on the role of the twelfth-century icon in itsabsence?
performing theVladimirskaia image in itsstead and
through its repetition. The replica purportedly granted
the same access to theMother of God and her protective
powers.
However, ifthe copies were entirely equivalent to
the older icon, why would the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia
have needed to travel between the two cities at all? In
an entirely anachronistic analogy, could we understand
the copy to be acting as a sort of understudy, taking on
the role of the "star" at times when the more famous
actor was unable to play the title role in the liturgical
drama? When the understudy takes the stage, the
performance is no less valid an execution ifthe leading

something akin to the status of a relic due to the miracles actor had played the role. However, ifthe audience
ithas performed. Itscopies depict not only the image of seeks to behold the renowned performer, not the
theMother of God, but also the tangible miracle-working understudy, the performance can never be quite as
icon itself.The "original" thus becomes ambiguously authentic without the aura of the star on stage. Yet if
multiple. The singular identityof the miracle-working the audience ismore attentive to the ensemble
or the nuances and talent of the
object is inscribed by means of significant historical production
events. Such an identityexceeds the conventional icon's understudy's performance, the absence of the star
status as a simple representation of a saintly prototype, performer's aura becomes much less significant.
as more recent history is implicated in itsmeaning.
with the iconwithin thecontextof its
By interacting
miracle-working and inexpectation of future similar 12. Lidov, "The Sacred Space" (see note 3), p. 14.

miracles, theworshippershelped toestablishthe identity

13. A. I.Anisimov proposed this theory; see Bogomater'
K 600-letiyuSreteniiaikonyBogomateriVladimirskoi
Vladimirskaia:
of the icon and itscopies performatively.
vMoskve 26 avgusta (8 sentyabrya) 1395 goda (Moscow: Avangard,
1995), p. 48; L. A. Shchennikova, "Chudotvornaia Ikona 'Bogomater'
Vladimirskaia' kak 'Odigitriia Evangelista Luki,'" inChudotvornaia
Ikona: VVizantii iDrevnei Rusi (Moscow: Martis, 1996), p. 265.
10. P. Bushkovitch, Religion and Society in Russia: The Sixteenth David also attempts to discern the use and location of the
B. Miller
even questions
and Seventeenth Centuries (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Tretiakov Vladimirskaia during the fifteenth century, and
1992), p. 103. itspermanent placement inMoscow prior to Ivan IV's reign: D. B.
11. Isar, "The Vision" (see note 5), pp. 58-59. B. V. Pentcheva, Miller, "Legendsof the IconofOur LadyofVladimir:A Studyof the
Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park: Development of Muscovite National Consciousness," Speculum 43,
The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), p. 1. no. 10 (October 1968):659-660.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 178 RES 57/58 SPRING/AUTUMN 2010

Figure 3. Andrei Rublev (?), The VladimirMother of God, early Figure4. The VladimirMother ofGod, early fifteenth
century.
fifteenth century. on canvas and wood, 102 x 68 cm. on canvas and wood, 102.2 x 69.5 cm. Vladimir and
Tempera Tempera
Dormition Cathedral of the Kremlin,Moscow. Suzdal Museum of History,Art, and Architecture,Vladimir.

The value of the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia, and
the equivalence of itscopies to their prototype,
would entirely depend upon the expectations of its
audience: clergy, state leaders, soldiers, commoners.
The "scripts"?the acts of worship, the liturgical rites,
and the processions inwhich she participated?
significantly established and maintained the identity
of theVladimirskaia. The "understudy," or replica,
could meaningfully, or happily, participate in these
performances without making them "infelicitous" or
to borrow terms fromAustin.14 Nevertheless,
"hollow,"
14. Austin proposed six conditions thatwere "necessary for the
smooth or 'happy' functioning of a performative," the second of which
was that "the in a given case
particular persons and circumstances
the renown of the specific miracle-working object, the
Tretiakov Vladimirskaia, continued to be utilized by
clergy and statesmen to enact performances symbolically
to help unify Russian lands ideologically. It is significant
that the auratic twelfth-century icon found itspermanent
home inMoscow, while a replica remained in the icon's
namesake city of Vladimir.
must be appropriate for the invocation of the
particular procedure
invoked." In this situation, itappears the duplicates were appropriate
for the procedure of granting access to the Mother of God. This would
be in contrast to, for example, a contemporary Catholic image of the
Virgin Mary, which could not provide the Orthodox believer the same
kind of access, or be used in liturgyor worship without committing
heresy, therefore constituting an "unhappy" functioning of procedures.
See Austin (note 6), pp. 14-15.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gasper-Hulvat: The icon as performerand as performativeutterance 179

The identityof any one of these iterationsof the
Vladimirskaia wavers between singularity as object and
multiplicity as replicated image. Inperformativity theory
of theembodied selfcomes tobe definedby
the identity
the repeated enactment of behaviors that are socially
defined by self and others simultaneously defining their
own identities. Identity is an action, rather than a state,
The replicas of theVladimirskaia were collective
iterations created through the combined effortsof
their icon painters, spiritual guides, and beholders. It
was in the repeated enactment of its image that the
Vladimirskaia also established its identity.Paradoxically,
the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia became more significant and
more singular as itwas copied repeatedly. By marking

doing rather than being. Identity isperformed by

an actor the prototype's absence as significant, as requiring
existpriorto theact itself.
subjectwho did notentirely The remediation by means of a duplicate, the duplicate itself
entity that embodies?or does?an identity isboth subject performatively crafted the identityof the prototype. And
and object, simultaneously acting and acted upon.15 itscopies acquired greater significance as the singular
Human beings "do" performative identities in the prototype continued to be revered and to perform more
as Judith miracles. The identityof embodied repetition applies not
ontological constructions of theorists such
Butler. However, one questions whether ascribing only to the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia, but even more so to
performative characteristics to an object, instead of the "1514" Vladimirskaia. For the "1514" icon repeated
a person, fundamentally alters the nature of those theVladimirskaia image, but italso puts fortha unique
characteristics. In the case of theVladimirskaia icons, the combination of repetitions with the addition of the
objects were certainly acted upon by socially defined framing images painted upon the same board.
forces; their identitieswere activated by theworkings of Both the saints and the feasts on the frame of the
people or spiritual beings. They also performed actions; "1514" icon duplicated images that occupied tiers of the
in anthropological terms, they constituted "objects with iconostasis, or icon screen, that separates the altar from
agency."16 Lastly, the actions of Mary become the actions the nave inOrthodox churches. The festal images?but
of her icon and vice versa, because an icon and the not the saints?were specifically copied from a gold
spiritual entity itdepicts are not entirely distinguishable. frame or oklad donated to the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia at
Furthermore, the iconic object explicitly participated thebeginningof thefifteenth
century(fig.5). Thisoklad
in the citation of repeated cultural codes, as each was brought in 1410 fromConstantinople toMoscow
a ecclesiastic
singular miracle cited and built upon the iterative power by Metropolitan Photius, Byzantine newly
of previous and futuremiracles. The miracle-performing appointed Metropolitan of all Russia by the patriarch of
icon participates in an oscillation between the singular, Constantinople.18
present apprehension and the pervasive, ongoing The replication of the oklad upon the sixteenth
collective history of repetitions. In addition, the miracles century icon leads us to consider how the icon might
themselves take part in a similar tension, as inexplicable have been useful as a performative utterance by the
interventions of the immaterial and everlasting into Muscovite ruling elite. In the early sixteenth century,
material, temporal existence. The miracle represents a Muscovite rulers, both sacred and secular, attempted
vivid moment of inutterability,a space in a narrative that to establish a teleological narrative placing Moscow
can always only be partially filled. The narrative can only at the center of the end of Christian history.19After
hope to bracket the indescribable with meaning, and Constantinople's fall in 1453, Russia came to see itself
thatmeaning can only be constructed by appropriating as the only trulyChristian nation lefton earth, and
evocative brackets from previously uttered narratives.17
The miracle requires a co-construction of comprehension
in partnership with other forms of comprehension 18. A. Gordine, "En quete de la composition originelle de la

Viergede Vladimir,"inCahiersArcheologiques50 (2002):141. The

already in existence and coming into existence. Nikonian ed. Serge A. Zenkovsky, trans. Serge A. and Betty
Chronicle,
Jean Zenkovsky (Princeton, N.J.: The Darwin Press, The Kingston
15. J.Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Press, 1988), vol. 4, p. 175. Alternatively, it is possible that the frame

Identity(NewYork:Routledge,1990), pp. 17,24-25. was created inMoscow by Greek artisans, seeT. V. Tolstaya, The
16. A termdescribedbyA. Gell inArtandAgency:An Assumption Cathedral of theMoscow Kremlin (Moscow: Iskusstvo,

Anthropological Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). 1979), p. 67.

ofmiracles issignificantly
17.My interpretation by a
influenced 19. This included the tracing of the Muscovite princes' genealogical
line to a certain Prus, a mythical brother of the Roman Emperor
discussion of death's performative nature: P. Phelan, "AndyWarhol:
Ivan III to the last
Performances of Death inAmerica," in Performing the Body Performing Augustus, and the marriage of Grand Prince
the Text, ed. Amelia Jones and Andrew Stephenson (London, New York: who had spent
Byzantine emperor's niece, Sophia Ralaeologina,
1999), p. 229. her youth in Rome and who introduced Byzantine court ceremony
Routledge,

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 180 RES 57/58 SPRING/AUTUMN 2010

Jerusalem?the location of Christ's return at the imminent

end of theworld.20 This belief was also based on a
perceived inheritance of the legacy of Constantinople.
Muscovite leaders amassed a significant quantity of
relics related both to Constantinople and Jerusalem in
an attempt to transfer these cities' holiness toMoscow.21
Additionally, both state and church leaders sought to
reaffirmthe Byzantine legacy by marking the importance
of the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia. This monument
functioned as the palladium of the Russian people in
ceremonies and ideologies adopted from Byzantine
practice and connected Moscow to Constantinople via
a geographical route of succession thatMuscovite rulers
sought to establish as canonical.
In preceding centuries, Constantinople had given
the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia to Kyiv, and subsequently
itmoved through Vladimir toMoscow. The seat of the
Metropolitan, along with theMuscovite ruling dynasty's
ancestors, followed this same path. Muscovite rulers
sought to promote this transference as an indication
of the divine plan to bring the locus of Christian holy
power toMoscow, which their dynasty was destined to
lead. Furthermore, in its reiteration on the "1514" icon,
the gold oklad?a gift fromConstantinople toMoscow
by means of a Metropolitan?supported the symbolic
argument forMoscow as heir to the Byzantine legacy.
It reminded viewers of Constantinople's continued
involvement in Russia's, and specifically Moscow's,
development through history, not just once in the giftof
the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia in the twelfth century, but
actively and regularly through the era of Constantinople's
Figure 5. Constantinople, Oklad for theVladimirMother of decline, presumably inorder to prepare itssuccessor for
God, early fifteenthcentury. Embossed gold and gold filigree, the monumental
105 x 70 cm. Museum of the Kremlin, Moscow.
charge of protecting the faith.
Constantinopolitans had developed an elaborate
cult and ceremonial practice devoted to theMother of
God. This included the renowned "Tuesday miracle"
Muscovites as inhabiting the "Third Rome/' following inwhich, every week, the Hodegetria icon levitated
Constantinople as the second. Furthermore, Muscovite and spun inmid-air, in conjunction with a procession
leaders envisioned themselves as guarding the New around the city. By incorporating the entire urban
space, these processions actualized thewhole city as
and symbolism toMoscow. The most
important document of this the Heavenly Jerusalem, a sort of massive living icon.22
narrative came from a monk Filofei, who wrote a letter some
named Muscovites adopted the Constantinopolitan practice
time between 1515 and 1523 inwhich he built a theological defense
of Moscow as the
only legitimate capital of the only remaining
autonomous Orthodox nation and itsprinces as divinely ordained 20. M. S. Flier, "Till the End of Time: The Apocalypse in Russian
protectors of the faith. "Filofei's Concept of the 'Third Rome/" in Historical Experience Before 1500," inOrthodox Russia: Belief
Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700, ed. Basil Dmytryshyn, and Practice under the Tsars, ed. V. A. Kivelson and R. H. Greene
3d ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991), p. 260; N. V. (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), pp.
Riasanovsky and M. D. Steinberg, A History of Russia, 7th ed. (New 127-158.
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 99-100, 115; A. 21. Displayed during important liturgies throughout the church
Voyce, Moscow and the Roots of Russian Culture (Norman: University year, these relics reassured the populace of their country's holiness and
of Oklahoma Press, 1964), p. 151; S. Zenkovsky, Medieval Russia's itspivotal place in salvation history. See Lidov, "The Sacred Space"

Epics, Chronicles, and Tales (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1974), p. 24. (note 3), p. 13.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gasper-Hulvat: The icon as performerand as performativeutterance 181

of processing through the citywith icons, particularly
theVladimirskaia, inorder to actualize the Heavenly
Jerusalem in their own midst, and even reenacted the
"Tuesday miracle/'23 Justas the Constantinopolitans had
perceived the miracles of the Hodegetria?the palladium
of the Byzantine empire?as assurance of theMother of
God's continued active protection, Muscovites also took
the persistence of miracles associated with theMother
of God as indication of her adoption of the new capital
of Orthodoxy. And as had been the case in Byzantium,
devotion to herwas powerfully connected to loyalty to
the state.24 In citations of previously established codes,
Muscovites observed and created the perception of their
city as destined to assume the mantle of Constantinople.
Such effortsattempted to substantially transfer the
sacred space that had been the city of Constantinople
toMoscow, not simply to recreate the image of
Constantinople (and, by extension, the Holy Land), but
also to fashion the Russian city upon the prototype of
these holy cities?as ifcities could model a prototype
in the same way as icons. For these Christians, two
spaces could fully participate inone another and not just
symbolically. In the justification ofMoscow's place as
Constantinople's rightfulheir, in the collection of relics,
and in the adoption and performance of processions and
rituals based on Constantinopolitan models, Moscow
became Constantinople and the Heavenly Jerusalem,
thus ensuring thatMoscow was the appropriate
geographical location forChrist's arrival at the End
of Days.
Within the frame of the "1514" Vladimirskaia, the
addition of the images of the saints to the oklad's feasts
furthersupplemented Moscow's claim to the legacy of
Constantinople. Each saint isdepicted in identical scale
and style, despite the fact that the saints range from
fourth-centuryChurch fathers such as Basil the Great
and JohnChrysostom to fourteenth-century Russian
Metropolitans Peter and Alexei, who were key figures
22. See Lidov, "The Flying Hodegetria" (note 3), and Pentcheva
(note 11).
23. A 1498 podea, or embroidered panel that hangs below
icon as adornment, illustrates this miracle with recognizable
contemporary Russian dignitaries. See Lidov, "The Flying Hodegetria"
(note 3), pp. 294-295, and A. Lidov, "Miracle-Working Icons of the
of theVirginin
MotherofGod," inMother ofGod: Representations
in helping Moscow rise to itspresent prominence.25 The
depicted saints are exclusively ecclesiastics, an obvious
fact for contemporary viewers, due to the sharp visual
contrast in contemporary Russian painting between
priests' brightly ornamented robes and the somber,
plain robes of monastics. Lidov argues that liturgical
vestments of the period can be read as microcosms of
ecclesiastical space,26 and although the means by which
these robes were depicted iconographically departs
significantly from the objects' actual appearances,
we nevertheless can treat the icon's
images as citing
a similar meaning. The elaborate cross patterns make
reference to the interiorchurch space and liturgical
movements contained therein. The scalloped decoration
that delineates the top edge of each of the festal scenes
reaffirmssuch a symbolic connotation by abstractly
representing the domes that characteristically towered
above contemporary Russian churches.
The depicted saints' ecclesiastical identityalso
pointed toMoscow's direct apostolic inheritance to
protect and nurture the Christian faith. Justas military
saints surrounding a Byzantine icon of theMother of
God emphasized the intimate connection she maintained
with the empire's military campaigns, the bishop saints
surrounding her image in the Russian context make
explicit her direct connection to the leaders of the
church, past and present.27 As the Eucharistic liturgy
was regularly reenacted in the presence of this icon, the
priests drew their authority from the figures depicted
upon the icon. Apostolic authority had been passed
on throughthehandsof thedepictedbishops to their
successors by means of ordination.28 Robert Taft, a
preeminent scholar of Byzantine liturgies, notes that
bowingdown) in
theChurch Fathersdepicted (typically
25. Peter iswell known formoving the Metropolitan's seat to
Moscow fromVladimir; Alexei served as ambassador to the ruling
and played a
Mongols leading role during the minority of Dmitrii
Donskoi (1359-1389), the firstMuscovite prince to pose a serious
to rule since the thirteenth-century invasion. See
challenge Mongol
R. O. Crummey, The Formation of Muscovy 1304-1613 (London and
New York: Longman, 1987), pp. 117-118; L. Nersesjan, The Splendour
an ofCreation:The IconsofDionisij (Milan:R. C. Edizioni,1998),pp. 5,
images of 10; and N. V. Riasanovsky and M. D. Steinberg, A History of Russia, 7th
ed. (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 91-92.
26. See Lidov, "Hierotopy" (note 3), p. 46.
27. For a discussion of an icon of the Mother of God surrounded by

Byzantine Art, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Milan: Skira Editore, 2000), p. 53. military saints, see Pentcheva (note 11), pp. 94-97.
24. This connection originated inMary's replacing Roman civic 28. This contrasted with the Latin Church's notion of apostolic

goddesses such as Tyche and Victory. See Pentcheva (note 11), p. 11. succession through the papal office. Such
a contrast is
particularly
In Russia, military generals visited the Vladimirskaia before battle and at this moment when Moscow was
significant increasingly responding
state servants swore allegiance to to political and heretical forces related to the Catholic Church. In the
following victory; princes and other
Moscow before the icon. SeeTolstaya (note 18), p. 14. fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Lithuania and Poland held control

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 182 RES 57/58 SPRING/AUTUMN 2010

an Orthodox church's apse are actively concelebrating
with the priest at the altar.29Given that the
the liturgy
"1514" Vladimirskaia was located upon the ambo of the
Dormition Cathedral,30 we might read itsbordering saints
as participating along with the performance of liturgical
activities which took place upon the ambo. The postures
of the icon's bordering saints, many of whom are holding
books, could easily be interpreted as sharing in the
reading of Scripture, delivery of sermons, and leading
of hymns.31
We also should not ignore the fact that these figures
encircle theMother of God on this icon. Framing is
never inconsequential, and in this case, the bordering
ecclesiastics represent the mediation of Mary's holiness
the aforementioned podea, and even veils, all of which
obscured the icon's painting, in some cases almost
completely. As such, the framing and decoration of an
icon functioned in a manner analogous to the iconostasis
by shieldingthemost holy space of the icon (orchurch)
from the view of all but a few select clergy.
and liturgical contexts
Architectural
Turning to the architectural context of the "1514"
Vladimirskaia, it is important to understand justwhere
the ambo was located spatially within the church edifice,
since thiswas the location upon which the "1514" icon
was placed. According to the sixth-century poet Paul

through church leaders to the body of the faithful.32 the Silentiary, inHagia Sophia inConstantinople, a
These figures also seem to guard her, just as saints were raised, half-walled passageway connected the ambo in
known to stand guard at the border of the Heavenly the middle of the nave to the solea, the raised platform,
Jerusalem.33Additionally, as a replica (at least in part) which ran along the chancel barrier, a precursor to the
of the Tretiakov icon's precious metal revetment, it iconostasis.35 However, by the fifteenthcentury, when
serves as a painted citation of the valuable applied art the Dormition Cathedral inMoscow was built, the ambo
objects, which decorated most contemporary miracle had retreated to occupy the center portion of the solea.36
working icons.34 Icon decorations in general could be This was the area directly in frontof the iconostasis's
quite elaborate, comprising not only frames, but also Royal Doors, and also the location at which the faithful
metalwork and jewels attached to the icons' surfaces, received communion. Hence, the "1514" Vladimirskaia
was situated in frontof the iconostasis inone of the most
significant places along its local, lowest tier.On the
over Kiev and the southern and western lands of former Rus'. As other hand, the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia was situated next
nations with powerful militaries, they represented serious
bordering to the altar, and therefore behind the iconostasis.37
political opposition to the rise of the Muscovite state, but as Catholic
The "1514" icon served as a portal to the sacred space
countries they also represented the encroachment of religious heresy
upon Russian territories. Over the course of the fifteenth century,
of the sanctuary?a function of the entire iconostasis,
Lithuania effectively severed itsOrthodox populace from the control in fact. However, unlike the iconostasis ingeneral, this
of Moscow a separate in Kyiv to individual icon gave access to a very specific object
by successfully installing metropolis
control the archbishoprics in itsdomain. At the close of the sixteenth
within the sanctuary. Inother words, while the entire
century, this subsection of theOrthodox Church would accept the
iconostasis served as a signifier to infinite signifieds
authority of the pope in the Union of Brest. B. A. Gudziak, Crisis and
Reform: The Kyivan Metropolinate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, within the holy domain, the "1514" icon gives special
and the Genesis of the Union of Brest (Cambridge, Mass.: Ukrainian
priority to one particular signified. Moreover, the
Research Institute, Harvard University, 1998). Tretiakov Vladimirskaia not only held great significance
29. R. F. Taft, Through Their Own Eyes: as the
Liturgy Byzantines for the Russian land through her miracles, but she
Saw It (Berkeley, CA: InterOrthodox Press, 2006), pp. 150-153.
30. Russkaia Istoricheskaia Biblioteka
also gazed upon the altar inwhich the most important
(Saint Petersburg, 1876), vol.
3, pp. 309-310, 422. monarchical documents of the landwere kept, and
31. H. Faensen andV. Ivanov, Early Russian Architecture, trans.

MaryWhittall (London:Paul Elek,1975), p. 512.

32. As Glen Peers argues: "Frames, or simply edges, margins, dragotsennogo ubora v pochitanii sviatykh ikon/' inChudotvornaia
transitional were sites of Ikona (see note 13); and "Dragotsennyi ubor russkikh ikon XIV-XV vvv"
spaces generally, interpretation and
complementary [. ..] The edges of Byzantine art were not inDrevnerusskoe iskusstvo: Sergii Radonezhskii i khudozhestvennaia
signifying.
only places where multiple interpretations were provided; they were kul'tura Moskvy XIV-XV vv. (Saint Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1998),
also where the reality of an was declared, where itsemergence pp. 217-228. See also Lidov, "Miracle-Working" (see note 23), p. 53; L.
image
and existence as a quasi-animate A. Shchennikova, "The Miracle-Working
entity took place." G. Peers, Sacred Icons of the Moscow Kremlin"
Shock: Framing Visual Experience in Byzantium inChristian Relics (see note 3), pp. 236-237.
(University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), pp. 5-6. 35. Raul the Silentiary, "Description of the Ambo," inDescription of
33. Lidov, "The Sacred Space" (see note 3), p. 18. Hagia Sophia, lines 221-224, seeTaft (see note 29), pp. 78-79.
34. Much recent Russian literature examines such decorations 36. Faensen and Ivanov (see note 31), p. 512.
added to icons as pious donations. I.A. Sterligova, "O znachenii 37. Bogomater' Vladimirskaia (see note 13), p. 11.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

where, with each riteof consecration, the crucifixion
ofMary's child was reenacted through performative
utterance.38
During the Little and Great Entrances (moments of
the liturgywhen the Royal Doors were opened), the
congregation might also see the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia
next to the altar.39 Itwas only at such high points in
the regular liturgy,upon the four annual feast days
dedicated to theVladimirskaia, and during Holy
Week when the doors remained continuously open,
that anyone other than the most eminent ecclesiastics
could visually encounter the twelfth-century icon.
The iconostasis constituted a barrier, but one thatwas
permeable. Itprovided the officiants with bodily access
to the sanctuary, and the faithfulwith visual access both
through the Royal Door openings and through the icons
placed upon it.
Considering the iconostasis's function
as barrier begs
the question of justwhat thiswall concealed and for
what purpose. In his discussion of the theology of the
iconostasis, Nicholas Constas draws upon fifteenth
century religious thinker Symeon of Thessalonike's
comparison of the icon screen to the veil of the
tabernacle in the Hebrew Scriptures. Constas argues that
a veil of one sort or another?and even multiple layers of
veils?are in fact the only means by which humankind
can encounter the holy. Orthodox theology, particularly
that of icons, emphasizes the perception of the divine as
of thedivine is intensely
light.But the light blinding;
thatwhich enables sight also prevents vision when it
exceeds the viewer's capacity to behold it. "Veils," a
figurative term designating symbols ingeneral, enable
human perception of the divine. The iconostasis does
not conceal the sacred from the body of the faithful,
but rather reveals the sacred through a veil most
appropriate to the viewers' faculties of vision. It
constitutes one of an infiniteprogression of veils that
drape the holy of holies.40
In lightof this discussion of veils, we might consider
how the "1514" icon functioned as a veil as well. As a
38. Tolstaya (see note 18), p. 15.
39. The term "Little Entrance" marks the liturgical moment
theGospels are broughtout amid thecongregationand throughthe
into the sanctuary. The Great Entrance occurs when the
Royal Doors
unconsecrated offerings
are
brought
to the altar. See Faensen and
Ivanov (note 31), p. 48.
40. N. P. Constas, "Symeon ofThessalonike and the Theology of the
Icon Screen," in Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical,
on
Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives Religious Screens, East and
West, ed. Sharon E. J.Gerstel (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks,
2006), 163-183.
pp.
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gasper-Hulvat: The icon as performerand as performativeutterance 183
copy of themiracle-working Tretiakov Vladimirskaia, the
"1514" icon mediated the intense holiness of the object
placed next to the altar. Itgranted access to this sacred
object in a manner thatmarked the more ancient icon
as more sacred, just as the iconostasis itselfmarks the
sanctuary space as more sacred. Furthermore, the frame
of the "1514" icon acts as a sort of veil to the internal,
venerated image, just as other icon decorations served
as veils, both literally and figuratively, to the holiness of
their respective icons.
As the border between nave and sanctuary, the
iconostasis exists as a liminal entity between visibility
notunlikethebodyofMary herself,
and invisibility,
whose flesh contained the invisible spirit invisible
form.41But the division within the church structure is
of one sacred space separated from another sacred
space; it is somewhat confusing why these two spaces,
both sacred, are so different that they should be so
emphatically divided from one another. Uspensky
engages the complex semiotics of this division in
a recent article examining a seventeenth-century
controversy that concerned opposing liturgical
movements within and outside of the altar space. He
arrives at the conclusion that therewas an elaborate
system of analogous spaces and features within the
church structure. The Royal Doors of the iconostasis
and the doors leading into the church itself,along with
the icons surrounding both, "are as ifdoubles of one
another." The space behind the iconostasis and the upper
tiers of the iconostasis can be understood as the space
for turning to Christ, whereas the space in frontof the
iconostasis, including its lowest tier and the solea, can
be understood as the space for following afterChrist.42
For the "1514" Vladimirskaia and its twelfth-century
counterpart, Uspensky's distinction dramatically clarifies
the unique functions of copy and prototype. We can
understand the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia as turning directly
to Christ, simultaneously at the altar and in heaven,
and using her intercessory powers to protect Moscow
and its leaders. The "1514" icon allowed the public
to gain access to theVladimirskaia, while at the same
timekeepingher inthegeographicspace of thechurch
as close as possible to thebodyofChrist,as itcame
when
into existence upon the altar ineach consecration. The
"1514" icon followed after both Christ and the altar
dwellingprototype with precisionthe
by repeating
41. Ibid., p. 175.
42. See Uspensky (note 4).
 184 RES 57/58 SPRING/AUTUMN 2010

prototype's features and receiving petitions in the stead
of themiracle-working object. Like the doors, the two
icons are "as ifdoubles of one another/' but instead
of being located at the entry to each space, where the
spatial journey begins, the two icons
are each located
at the respective goals or culmination points of the
journeys. The Tretiakov Vladimirskaia resides at the place
of the consecration of the sacrament, which is the goal of
the priestly journey; the "1514" Vladimirskaia resides at
the place of the reception of the sacrament, which is the
goal of the communicant's journey.
As previously mentioned, Uspensky compares
the lowest tierof the iconostasis and the solea with
a theatrical proscenium. Although there are inherent
problems with this comparison,43 the practices of
concealment and revelation inherent to the proscenium
evoke theoretical concerns related to the liturgical
space and the role of its icons. As phenomenologist
Edward Casey notes, the distinct difference in perception
between here and there ispredicated upon the bodily
experience of the observer.44 However, in the theatrical
and ecclesiastical contexts, this distinction is somewhat
blurred: An audience member, or churchgoer, in
a successful act of theater or church attendance,
experiences a state of being elsewhere, or at least of only
partially being here. Performance theorist Gay McAuley
notes that in theater, the elsewhere becomes materially
at hand, yet there is a pervasive oscillation between the
elsewhere, towhich we are taken by the actors on stage,
and our bodily experience sitting in the theater seat.45
In the liturgical setting, theworshipper experiences the
continual vacillation between being overcome by the
eternal sacred presence that pervades the church and
the sensation of dwelling within a fragile and temporal
human body. Hidden from view from theworshipper are
not just thewings of the stage, or the altar space behind
the iconostasis, but the divine itself, in all its ineffability.
In terms of the two Vladimirskaia icons, we can
understand the "1514" copy as existing in the realm of
the embraceable "here" while providing access to the
"not-here" of the twelfth-century icon. It is this access
that raises the same sense of ambivalent oscillation;
while the two objects remain distinct, they also exist
together as one and the same. When the not-here is the
same as the here, theworshipper achieves the optimal
outcome of theworship experience by fully entering into
the space of the sacred inmind and body.46 The
imaginary worlds existing beyond the boundaries of the
proscenium in the theatrical production correspond to
the infiniteexpanses of the Heavenly Jerusalem in the
liturgical context. Always immune to the gaze, such
spaces exist nevertheless for full participants in the
dramatic performance. And as Isar argues, the goal of
the believer is never the achievement of sight of these
invisible spaces, but rather the tension and movement in
the spiritual attempt to see more fully.47For the
communicant attending a worship service at the
Moscow Dormition Cathedral, the aim was not to enter
the altar area physically inorder tomore closely gaze
upon the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia, but rather that the
"1514" Vladimirskaia became the Tretiakov
Vladimirskaia, as here and there, or me and not-me,
became a unified whole.
Nevertheless, the other, the not-me, persists both in
the form of the invisible and the visible. The twelfth
century icon and the sixteenth-century icon remain
distinct objects to apprehend, to behold, to comprehend.
Indeed, how these two objects were comprehended
cannot be isolated from the element of duplication,
for they remain distinct from one another and from
the bodies of their viewers. As performativity theorist
Rebecca Schneider discusses, the faculty of sight
itselfenables comprehension only when it is a matter

46. One could cite numerousByzantine mystics' visions that make

43. The proscenium is a device inherently imbued with the this optimization of the worship
experience concrete. For example,

Symeon the New Theologian an event

ideologies of humanist individualism, imperialism, and colonialism. (949-1022) experienced
one idealvantagepoint;graduallydegradedvantage
Itprioritizes whereby, "suddenly there shown upon him in great profusion
a divine

points radiate out from it.A relic ofWestern European paradigms far illumination. [...] Thereupon the young man was no longer aware of
removed from the Eastern ideologies that shaped the iconostasis, the himself. He could not remember whether he was in a house or even

proscenium is designed primarily as a frame surrounding the object of under a roof at all. [. ..] Even ifhis feet were on the ground he was
vision, whereas the iconostasis is an entity beholden to sight in itself not aware of it [...] he forgot the entire world and was
altogether
and also permeable to vision. R. Knowles, Reading theMaterial Theatre present in that immaterial light, and was even himself, or so itseemed
(Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 63-64. tohim,become light."
The not-here(thedivine light)
engulfsthe
44. E. S. Casey, Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed here, and even the self. Symeon, Catechesis 22.92-99, quoted inA.

Understanding of the Place-World(Bloomington: Indiana University Louth, "Light, Vision and Religious Experience in Byzantium," in The
Press, 1993), p. 51. Presence of Light: Divine Radiance and Religious Experience (Chicago:
45. G. McAuley, Space in Performance: Making Meaning in the University of Press, 2004), pp. 96-97.
Chicago
Theatre (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999), p. 86. 47. Isar, "The vision" (see note 5).

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gasper-Hulvat: The icon as performerand as performativeutterance 185

of seeing again. Comprehensibility is a function of assert spiritual and political authority over the country as
of thecomprehendedsightbeing replicated
narration, a whole. The historical and
liturgical contexts of this icon
and framed.48 It is in a visual image's repetition, in the converge as the "1514" icon transports itsvenerator not
selection of what to repeat and the story inwhich it is simply to the Tretiakov prototype, but moreover to her
repeated, thatmeaning isascribed to the image itself. It position within the spatial organization of the church,
is not in the image where we find or are given meaning, next to the altar. Both the icon and the altar transcend
but in itsduplication in context. the earthly plane in their immediate connection to
The Tretiakov Vladimirskaia was known to protect the Heavenly Jerusalem, but also, both connect to the
itscity of residence because of the stories told about ascendance of theMuscovite state through the miracles
it.Such narratives participated in the creation of the of theVladimirskaia and the documents granting
miracle-working icon as the palladium of the Russian rule toMuscovy thatwere contained within the altar
land, and the "1514" icon, with the repetitions itput space. The repetition of an object with a rich history of
forth,stands as a performative utterance in this program, performance?as a performer of miracles, as a
performer
inscribing meaning onto the seen and unseen images of within liturgical rites and processions, and as a
theVladimirskaia. The "1514" Vladimirskaia educated its performative subject and object?allowed for a nuanced
viewer as towhy the same image's earlier iterationswere and effective performative utterance to be delivered by
significant and how theywere meaningful. The "1514" means of the "1514" Vladimirskaia icon. Itsecured its
Vladimirskaia illustrated the teleological progression meaning backwards through the previous iterations of
of power toMoscow and of time towards the Last the same images and would sustain powerful meaning
Judgment. It implicated the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia in for future iterations.
these progressions, assigning purpose and meaning to
themiracle-working object through the paradigm of
Moscow as Third Rome and heir to
Constantinople.
Itscreation and display significantly transformed the
meaning of the Tretiakov Vladimirskaia inways that
were exceedingly evocative forMuscovy's political
transformation into Russia's leading city.
The "1514" Vladimirskaia was the product of a ruling
seekingto firmly
hierarchy establish itselfinpolitical
and ecclesiastical power structures by means of the
legacy of Russian and Christian history.The doing of
history?the act of making the story of the past through
the objects and events of the present?can itselfbe read
as performative.49 By securing the meaning and memory
of the past through the ritualized repetition of stories and
symbols related to their rise to power, Muscovite rulers
created the normative narrative that became the still
repeated story of Russian history. For it is not in the lived
experience of historical events thatmeaning is found, it
is in the narration of events past thatmeaning is created.
Through the "1514" Vladimirskaia, we can see how
Moscow's ruling elite successfully claimed ownership
of Russia's past?in effect, created this past?in order to

48. R. Schneider, "Never, Again," in The Sage Handbook of

Performance Studies (see note 2), pp. 25-26.
49. Schneider writes that, "To read 'history' as a set of sedimented
acts which are not the historical acts themselves but the act of securing

any incident backward?the repeated act of securing memory?is

to rethink the site of history in ritual repetition." R. Schneider,
"Performance Remains," Performance Research 6, no. 2 (2001):105.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:48:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions