Just a few highlights here from what I'm reading. At the height of Kievan Rus, the city of Kiev must have been something to see. It was a major European capital, being at the crossroads of the east-west Silk Road and the north-south trade between Scandinavia and Byzantium. Of course, most of the people did not live in glittering capitals, but in small villages; it's a sad fact of the medieval nut that we never find out nearly enough about these people as we'd like. In fact, we know very little about Rus at all, owing to a major event that decimated the brilliant jewel that was Kiev: the conquering Mongol "Golden Horde."
It is in the 15th century, as the Russian princes began to re-assert themselves, particularly the Muscovite princes, that Russian culture peaks once again. The summit on this peak might be thought of as the iconography of the monk Andrei Rublev. You may be familiar with his masterpiece, that silent vortex of prayer, the icon of the Trinity:

My textbook contrasts Rublev's iconography to the "crude" icons that came before him, slavishly copying the traditional work. While taking nothing away from Rublev, who himself was attentive to the tradition, I don't share the essayists' criticisms at all. The earlier icons shown in my text (Reinterpreting Russian History- an excellent survey) are not in any manner crude. Their simplicity is a tribute, not a detraction. In what sense may, for instance, the Vladimir Theotokos be called crude?

Even less exalted icons than this have their beauties. The writer's comments no doubt stem from his greater interest in artistic matters than in spiritual ones. There are too few historians who are both intimately familiar with and sympathetic to the life of the church and yet dedicated craftsmen of the discipline. At least, I have a hard time finding these people, and rejoice when I do (Jaroslav Pelikan, Regine Pernoud).

