Stephen Pax Leonard The Word as an : the Embodied Spirituality of Slavonic

abstract How do Russian Orthodox frame their understanding of semiotic ideologies of worship? That is to say, how do worshippers interpret liturgical language ‘signs’ and how do these interpretations colour their views as to which language is ‘right’ for the Church? There are to be found two semiotic ideologies of worship in Moscow. There are traditionalists for whom the liturgical language is embodied; it becomes the language of God through its vocalisation and enactment. Then, there are those who believe that is not an indelible part of Russian Orthodox life and that in terms of its semiotic status its relation to the world it represents is an arbitrary one. Those who invoke the former, folk understandings of semiotic perceive the Holy language as an icon or experiential portal that makes the presence of God more presupposable. Conceptions of language and linguistic register vary intra-culturally. Fieldwork showed how different perceptions of form map onto consciousness, raising questions of intentionality as assumptions about who is speaking (God or the priest) are bound up with the form that is used.

Keywords: liturgical language, embodiment, semiotic ideology, worship, icon

‘I am interested in the power of words from an interlocutor can set the ethnographer and images over their beholders. I am off on long journey of epistemological interested in the voice of the word, not the discovery. For this interlocutor, Church Slavonic meaning of the word’ (Husserl 1958: 242). (what he called старый русский ‘old Russian’) words spoken by a priest during a church service Introduction were experiential portals for they facilitated a closer relationship with the divinity. In his The title of this article ‘the word as an icon’ came view, the hanging on the walls of the from a discussion with a served a similar function.2 They were worshipper in Moscow. In response to a question gateways to spirituality, and like removing the about proposed reforms of the liturgical icons, if you changed the language of the church language, he responded by saying that changing you changed the spirituality of the people the language of church services in would (Shargunov 2008: 17–26; Kaverin 2008: 7–16). be unacceptable for the ‘words were icons’.1 As It was such deeply held essentialist views is so often the case with fieldwork, one utterance regarding the ideological status of the liturgical

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 30 Stephen Pax Leonard

language that formed the starting point for for the interiority of speakers with reference to this ethnographic research. It should be noted Russian Orthodox Christians’ interaction and that his comments only related to the language spiritual engagement with the Church Slavonic used in the church, and not for instance when language. Panchenko (2019) has recently reading the in Church Slavonic at home. published a series of articles relating to semiotic The broad question relevant to anthropo­ ideologies and religious practice in Russia. It is logical theory I am asking in this article is, hoped my work on language and experience will how do Russian Orthodox worshippers frame complement this body of research. their understanding of both linguistic and Firstly, a few words should be said about semiotic ideologies of worship? By linguistic Russian Orthodox liturgical practice and the ideologies of worship, I mean the package of ever-changing status of the Church Slavonic beliefs that instruct church-goers that using language. The is celebrated in a certain language is appropriate in relating accordance with a standardised traditional ritual their thoughts to God (and indeed God relating and is always chanted; the chanting highlights our thoughts to them). In order to answer this, the sensory and aesthetic dimensions of the I will need to make reference to both linguistic liturgical language. Even now that some reforms and semiotic ideologies of worship (Keane have been implemented, the liturgical texts must 2018: 64–87) because the evidence relates not still be in Church Slavonic. The idea is that just to the motivation behind the choice of idiom a spiritual language leads the believer towards (linguistic ideology) but also to the perceived a spiritual consciousness. At the priest’s discre­ semiotic status of the liturgical language as tion (and priests’ views on what should be the used in the church. It should be borne in mind language of church services vary considerably), that my informants did not themselves speak large parts of the service can now be conducted explicitly of ‘semiotic ideologies of worship’: in Russian as opposed to the liturgical language this is simply my means of unpacking what their which for reasons of its linguistic conservatism reflections on the liturgical language meant is fully understood by a small minority of implicitly. worshippers.3 One strategy to get around the According to Keane (2018: 64–87), semi­ problem of intelligibility is for a parishioner to otic ideology builds on the notion of language hold a Russian in their hands whilst ideology by focusing on the dynamic inter­ listening to the service. I often witnessed this connections among different modes of signifi­ during my fieldwork. Readings from the Old cation within a specific context. At stake here Testament as well as from the Acts and Epistles is the relationship between the exteriority of the Apostles which are part of the New of language and its implications for the Testament can now be in Russian. The same interiority of speakers (Keane 1997b: 674–693; applies for readings from the Gospel and for the Leonard 2020b: 271–296). Keane used semiotic reading of the entire text of the Four Gospels ideologies to describe the efforts of Dutch during Holy Week.4 Protestant missionaries in Indonesia to It is fair to say that Church Slavonic has ‘disenchant’ language, and thus his model is been an important feature of Orthodox of particular relevance here. I will answer linguistic consciousness for centuries not just the question of the relationship between the vis-à-vis the but also the prestigious exteriority of language and the implications of sacred languages (, Greek, and

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 31 Stephen Pax Leonard

Hebrew) (Goldblatt 2007: 149–192). The tend to support the use of Russian in church written form of Church Slavonic was designed on pragmatic grounds. I have no intention by the monks Kirill and Methodius so that of contributing to this debate in any way. My could be disseminated among the intention is solely to use the ethnographic data whereas the spoken language was not I collected to add new dimensions to work initially connected to . Throughout conducted elsewhere on linguistic and semiotic the , the language was a literary ideologies of worship (Robbins 2001: 591–614; language, but is now an exclusively liturgical Keane 1997a: 47–71; 2008: 64–87). language (Uspenskyi 1987: 23). In the four­ In particular, I will take Keane’s (2018) teenth and fifteenth centuries, the sacrality of work on semiotic ideologies in a new direction Church Slavonic was intimately bound up with by using a phenomenological approach. This the notion that its letters were not symbols, but approach has been chosen because the ‘signs’ actual manifestations of the divine (Goldblatt of the liturgical language were ‘experienced’ in 2007: 160). As sacred texts of the divine spirit, it different ways depending on the worshipper’s was believed these signs became non-arbitrary opinion of the liturgical language’s ontological and the language of revelation. This view status. What is more, my interlocutors described appears to reverberate in subsequent centuries. metaphorically vocal sound in ways that The semiotic ideology of Church Slavonic has resembled the terminology of phenomenology. therefore a long, but only partially documented Parishioners’ views on the liturgical language’s history. Now that ecumenical heritage and ontological status coincided with their views on linguistic patrimony are arguably being used to liturgical language reform, and I felt that this meet political ends (Solodovnik 2014: 55–83; specific relationship was worth exploring in Leustean 2017: 201–216), the symbolic status a little more detail. of the Church Slavonic language is as important Phenomenology brings to the foreground as ever before. The views of contemporary the importance of what one might call ‘zones worshippers, as discussed in this article, have of perception’ in the background. By ‘zones of become more acute of late now that the partial perception’, I mean the subtle layers of spatial and reforms relating to the language of the church acoustic awareness that we might not encounter referred to above have been introduced. everyday. The starting point is the idea that It is worth noting that the ‘language debate’ ‘enactments of language are themselves modes in Russia pitted what I will call traditionalists of experiencing the world’ (Ochs 2012: 142; against reformists (this is an oversimplified Leonard 2021: 1–26). Phenomenology is the taxonomy—not everybody I worked with philosophy of experience, a method of reflective fell into one of these camps and even some attentiveness that focuses on the individual’s reformists did not wish to simply do away first-hand inner ‘lived’ experience (Merleau- with Church Slavonic) and has been running Ponty 2012; Moran 2000; Heidegger 1962 for many decades now (indeed it goes back to [1927]; Konurbaev 2018; Leonard 2013: 151– the nineteenth century) becoming something 174). Phenomenology allows us to focus on of a cause célèbre (Fedotov 1991: 66–101; Kott the ways experience is embodied. By ‘embodied’ 2000: 32–64). I take traditionalists to refer to I mean being involved in one’s ‘lifeworld’, those worshippers who strongly oppose reform inherently connected to one’s environment in of the liturgical language whereas reformists an ongoing, sensual interrelation. The physical

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 32 Stephen Pax Leonard

demands of Orthodox worship (at the Divine Arabic in countries where these languages are Liturgy and all Orthodox services worshippers not the vernacular. In this research, I am not stand for several hours—sometimes on empty focusing on ‘magical’ language in the way that stomachs as in the case of the forty day Lent Malinowski was or indeed ritual per se, even leading up to Easter) are themselves one if Church Slavonic is a ritual or sacerdotal way in which experience is embodied for the language. Even if I am not analysing ritual worshipper. The body is the locus from which specifically, one might note that most of the our experience of the world stems and language Orthodox service is chanted and that ritual is part of this. Ochs (2012: 147) makes the language generally speaking can be associated case for language forms themselves seeping with a ‘heightened poetic function’ (Silverstein into the world of signification. As we will see, 2004: 621–652). I mention this because these these observations are particularly pertinent two factors influenced to some degree my when analysing how some Russian Orthodox informants’ linguistic ideologies of worship. traditionalists relate to the liturgical language. Amongst some worshippers, there was a sense Language and experience are indeed conjoined, that only certain formulaic language (specific and that is the spirit in which this research was phonemic combinations) could fulfill this poetic undertaken. function and therefore have the desired sanctity. In this research, I am asking more Research questions generally what are the cultural and semiotic representations of the nature of language in This article is concerned with an ethnography the context of Orthodox worship and ritual? of both linguistic and semiotic ideologies I am interested in the linguistic aspect of of worship. One such linguistic ideology of religious aesthetics, the embodied praxis of worship might be that a ‘sacred’ language religion, the holistic process of making meaning can only be ‘sacred’ if it is obscure, that is, not from a spiritual experience. My interlocutors entirely intelligible to most listeners. It is clear spoke of how the experience of liturgy can be that linguistic forms can restrict access to sensorially and corporeally felt, but what role certain discourses (Briggs 1993; Urban 1996; does language play in this? How important is it Basso 1990). Adherents to such ‘a sacred as an element? How significant is the ritualised language ideology’ would presumably resist aspect of language in the Divine Liturgy to the any liturgical language reform as for them overall experience? How do worshippers engage the relationship between ‘sacred’ words and at a cognitive, sensorial and semantic level? their meanings is primordially defined and These were some of the issues I was trying to therefore cannot be recalibrated. According tease out of the descriptions of regular church- to this interpretation, the liturgical language goers whom I got to know in Moscow during is a matter of divine design and as such is the my fieldwork. language of ‘sincerity’ (Haeri 2017).5 This might represent what Malinowski (1935: 218– Methodology 223) called the ‘coefficient of weirdness’ and could apply to an array of sacred methods of This ethnographic fieldwork started in communication ranging from Vedic chants to November 2018. All of my interlocutors are the liturgical languages of Latin and Classical based in Moscow, and many of them attend

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 33 Stephen Pax Leonard

my local parish church where I was made to where most of this fieldwork was carried out, feel very welcome. Over the course of about there are relatively few young people who 18 months, I have been attending services are what one might describe as прихожанин at a number of churches in central Moscow. or ‘churched parishioner’. Only subsequently I collected qualitative data through participant (through the network I established) was I able observation as well as non-experimental, to meet younger church-goers. The interviews empirical data through interviews focused were carried out in Russian for the most part. on worshippers’ relationship to the liturgical Some of my younger informants were very language.6 My data was borne from my competent in English. Discussions with them empirical observations: subjective responses to tended to switch between English and Russian. certain linguistic behaviour and speakers’ self- To protect my interlocutors’ indentities, I have reports on their perception of language usage. used pseudonyms throughout and intentionally I employed the ethnograhic approach because do not name the churches where I have been I wanted to discover how people use language, doing fieldwork. I am not myself Orthodox, how they respond to it, what they think about but for many have felt very drawn to it, and why they hold these beliefs (Heller Orthodoxy for its aesthetic and experiential 2008: 250). dimensions, and for the sacred aura which its A few words should be said about the churches exude. Here, it seems to me, it is still context I have been working in. It can be possible to experience God Incarnate. rather sensitive for a foreigner to go round asking questions about religion and faith in Ethnographic data contemporary Russia, and therefore great care was taken when undertaking this research.7 Vigil lamps hang from brass chains. Mystical Through a network of friends, it was not difficult and heavenly, the First Antiphon is chanted to meet regular church-goers, priests, nuns, from somewhere high above me in a capella and theologians. I met all of my interlocutors harmony; fragments of a mystical vision, through one intermediary or another who was a bridge to the beyond. Rooted in past traditions already known to me and who could vouch for and with the immediate symbolism of the relics, the authenticity of my academic interests. All of the voices seem to transcend time and the my interlocutors were and continue to be very world: immutable and indifferent to temporal supportive of my work. Given what some may necessities. The Liturgy remains virtually perceive as sensitive, I did not raise any political unchanged, still enshrouded in the mystery of questions during the course of this fieldwork the Church Slavonic language whose zig-zagging and have focused purely on the relationship sentences and repetitive poetics are just beyond between the liturgical language and experience. the reach of the standing worshippers. They have After first having got to know them, been standing for over an hour now. I too stand, I interviewed informally 25 people of different with the upright poise of the spiritual man, lost ages, both men and women. Approximately in borrowed thoughts and indulged in the inner seventy per cent of my interlocutors were women lyrical grace of the words issuing forth. Bearded (church attendance is higher amongst women) men in heavy emerge from hidden and most of them were between the ages of doorways in the gilded , swinging 50 and 70. At the handful of parish churches chinking censers. Then they disappeardragging

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 34 Stephen Pax Leonard

their shadows behind them, only to reappear spoke of a ‘special’ relationship with an icon at moments later from another concealed door, home or in their wallet, say, but just because they grasping a heavy, ancient tome with marbled did not talk explicitly of this does not mean that foredges. The booming basso profondo of the it should be ruled out. priest’s voice resonates from the ambon. We As we will see, for Masha words were not stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the packed nave. just icons, but icons were words. She confesses I met Masha through a friend of mine. her sins to icons and asks them for forgiveness. Masha is in her early fifties and a yoga teacher. This was a form of очищение (‘cleansing’) for She lived in Bali for 10 years before returning her. Becoming a прихожанин was for her like to Moscow. It turned out that we had been a therapeutic homecoming: she described the attending the same church services but had church as her ‘home’ and the parish as her ‘family’. not met there. I asked her if she might join me As with a number of my informants, Masha did for the Divine Liturgy. Afterwards, we met on not have a theistic upbringing but found God a number of occasions and she would speak at after having ‘a spiritual experience’ with an icon length about what Orthodox religious practice in a church.10 Subsequently, she studied Church meant for her. She spoke passionately about the Slavonic in order to understand the Divine ‘energy’ of the church and the agency of certain Liturgy and became a more integrated member icons which she had personalised and developed of the church community. In our discussions communicative relationships with.8 To have and interviews, she described the Church a reciprocal communicative experience with an Slavonic language which she understood quite icon was never construed as culturally something well as something магический (‘magical’) (but beyond an experience.9 Icons have generally speaking, no references were made to a sacramental value and make present the person the ‘magical power of words’ (Tambiah 1990)), or event depicted on them (Lepakhin 2002). поэтичный (‘poetic’), and изящный (‘delicate’): The veneration paid to the icon passes over to the prototype. In popular Orthodoxy icons came Author: How would you describe your to be seen as possessing a power of their own relationship to the liturgical language and could protect cities in times of war or bring (Church Slavonic)? healing to sick people. They might be perceived Masha: Well, as I told you, I chose to to act as links or semiotic conduits between this study this language. And that changed world and the other, a correspondence between entirely my experience of the Church. I felt microcosm and macrocosm. The earliest closer to God for knowing this language. icons were images of individuals or events in It was like a door opening for me. For me, the gospels, and their significance is bound the words of the Liturgy have an energy. inextricably with the sacred, liminal appeal of I feel a warmth (literally) when I hear these Russian Orthodox churches. Icons are found in words. I know others who have this feeling. all shapes and sizes, in peoples’ homes (often in I think this warmth must come from a prayer corner), hanging from car rear mirrors, the fact that this is a language bound to in peoples’ wallets etc. My comments in this holiness. This language is not just sounds article only relate to the role of icons as found and grammar. There is another layer to it. in churches as these places of worship were the Each word has хитросплетения (‘intricate context of my research. None of my informants subtleties of meaning’)

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 35 Stephen Pax Leonard

Author: Could you say something about more abstract but nonetheless it was felt that the appeal icons have for you? words of the Holy language brought the believer Masha: Just as you have to learn the closer to a form of divinity. In this sense, the Church Slavonic language, you have Church Slavonic words were serving a similar to learn the ‘language of the icons’. function to the icons on the wall for they both I worked with icon artists for some years helped reveal the image of God. I am not the to understand how they were made before first to make observations about the revelatory I was able to converse with them. I study quality of the . In the context of in detail the histories of the saints that the Russian Orthodoxy, the ‘word as an icon’ is infact icons depict. I then feel as if I am talking to a subject that has already been discussed from a a special individual, but also a person who number of rich and complementary perspectives I have come to know. Now, after many (Lepakhin 2005; Trubitsyna 2010), but remains years, I have special relationships with mostly understudied within the anthropological a small number of icons. I confess my sins literature on Russian Orthodoxy (Engelhardt to them. I pray to them. They give me 2014; Kormina and Luehrmann 2018: 394–424). advice. I feel a warmth and energy when I Neither traditionalist nor reformist, Masha approach these icons. I feel blessed for this. believed the Church Slavonic language was (Interview with Masha, translated by sanctified by the Holy Spirit. For her, the appeal author) of the liturgical language was its linguistic sanctity. Informants such as Masha advanced Again and again during my research, informants various linguistic ideologies of worship, all spoke of their relationship to icons as if it were of which settled on the notion that the analagous to how they related sensorially to the liturgical language permitted not necessarily an liturgical language. The icons and the words of unmediated prelapsarian conduit to God (Kelley Church Slavonic were experiential portals to a 2004: 66–87), but a ‘proximity to God’ (близость phenomenological and embodied spirituality for к Богу) at least. For these worshippers, the they became entangled with the ‘authentic inner sacredness of Church Slavonic lay partly in its life experiences of individuals’ (Tiaynen-Qadir immutability and this correlated generally with 2017: 1–14).11 The icon has phenomenological their overall view of what Orthodoxy stood for. attributes: the imagined gaze watching the There was an isomorphism here: the liturgical worshipper. For some of those who had language and the ethos of Orthodoxy interacted studied the liturgical language and Orthodox with one another to create a spiritual continuity.12 iconography, both icons and the words of the For many of my church-going informants, the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic could act for essence of Orthodox worship was that ‘things them as a gateway to a transcendental, heavenly had to be done the right way’, and this meant realm. In the case of icons on the wall, these that the old, spiritual language should be used as were concrete gateways. The idea is that the a means of accessing God’s grace.13 icon reveals something rather than represents One linguistic ideology of worship that something: this revelation was seen as a ‘spiritual many Russian Orthodox worshippers I worked opening’. In the case of liturgical words uttered with (not just traditionalists, but particularly in Church Slavonic by a priest during a service, those who had studied the liturgical language) the notion of transcendence was admittedly invoked was the idea that Church Slavonic

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 36 Stephen Pax Leonard

was the правильный (‘right’) language for of my interlocutors spoke of intercorporeal the church because of its ‘depth’, ‘beauty’, and sensations, embodied experiences, and a sense of ‘poetry’. Generally speaking, worshippers and apparent familiarity leading to an overwhelming theologians were in agreement that this peace, an awareness of a hidden dimension of sense of ‘poetry’ came from the language’s reality. This was particularly felt during prayer remarkable conciseness, its ability to express to icons that adorn the church walls. For many, complex feelings and sentiments in a very it was a feeling of being part of a higher world small number of words. It was suggested its order. This was perhaps coupled with the belief ‘depth’ was due to the fact that it is extremely held by many in the Russian Orthodox Church difficult to translate into Russian, and this is that Orthodoxy is the original Christianity. My often used as an argument against reform of hunch is that such comments were not meant the liturgical language. The translator needs as political. Worshippers hinted at religious to have a good knowledge of Greek as well superiority, but they did not speak explicitly as Russian and the Church Slavonic language. of the Greater Russia (or its rebuilding). I was frequently told that it was not always Nonetheless, these comments could be possible to achieve a satisfactory translation of perceived to map onto semiotic ideologies the Church Slavonic into Russian. Worshippers (discussed subsequently) for it was once again spoke of this as if the language’s opacity had predominantly the traditionalists who imbued an appeal in and of itself and that there was an Church Slavonic with a sacred essence that intangible link between opacity and святость harbored these feelings. (‘sacredness’) or духовность (‘spirituality’).14 Another worshipper, Tatiana, who is in her In turn, this opacity gives the Liturgy some 60s and has been attending the same church for of its aesthetic power (aesthetics appear 30 years, also perceived both the icons and the prominently in Russian religiosity): you can liturgical language as portals to the Kingdom of still feel an aesthetic connection to a language Heaven:16 even if you do not understand it fully (Rastall 2008: 103–132). When one cannot quite grasp Author: How important is it for you that the meaning, the non-semantic features of the the liturgical language is not the same language, perhaps certain paralinguistic features as the vernacular (Russian as a spoken or the stress, rhythm, and intonation patterns language)? become perceptually more prominent. Tatiana: When I hear the priest chant Indeed, the first encounters with Orthodox the Divine Liturgy (in Church Slavonic), materiality are often recollected as experienced I hear the voice of God. It is His voice that on a sensory and intuitional level, connecting I hear. I do not understand every word. But, to ‘something familiar and seemingly known, I think that is the point. God is speaking to that one had been longing for’ (Tiaynen-Qadir me through the priest. If He were speaking 2017: 2). Some of the Orthodox Christians Russian to me, I would be surprised. I don’t I met referred to the sensorial atmosphere of think it would seem right. a church as an intercorporeal phenomenon. Author: In our discussions, you have often Eisenlohr (2018) shows too the importance described the Church Slavonic as ‘beautiful’. of sonic atmosphere, in this case in relation to What is it that makes it ‘beautiful’? Islamic religious practice in Mauritius.15 Many

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 37 Stephen Pax Leonard

Tatiana: Well for me, this is a language distinctiveness of the language which reflected devised under divine inspiration. This the relative authority of its words (Volosinov language enables us to hear the voice and 1973: 123). The switch to the sacred language words of God. For that reason, it is very could restructure relations between the ‘speech special. For us Slavs, this language is наша event and an other world’ (Keane 1997a: 60). словесная икона ‘our verbal icon’. According to her interpretation, chanting in (Interview with Tatiana, translated by Church Slavonic was thus (aptly) analogous author) to prayer as it sought to nurture interactions with entities or persons that would otherwise The phrase наша словесная икона is frequently not occur.17 The linguistic distinction between used in such discussions. It is a means of saying Russian and Church Slavonic was all-important the liturgical language should be considered as a for her and her views surely reflect the persuasive venerated feature of Russian Orthodoxy on a par nature of ritual speech and how it can index with church buildings and the icons on the walls divinity (Boyer 1990); it was only when she of the church. For Tatiana, the spoken Church heard Church Slavonic that she became God’s Slavonic language was the embodiment of God; addressee. It was the linguistic form that made the almost accessible words were reimagined the spiritual world manifest; the linguistic form in her inner speech, enabling both a physical was an experiential portal, for it had a similar and psychological interiority that constantly transcendental agency to that of certain icons manifested itself as a presence. In her opinion, hanging on the walls of the church. For Tatiana, had the words been in Russian it would not if liturgical speech practices were reformed, have resulted in the same embodied effect. The her implicit assumptions made about the liturgical language was part of the благодать participants would be shattered and the divine (‘grace’)—the sense of the connectedness to the agency would be lost. divine. This interpretation suggested the role of The default assumptions regarding speech the priest’s volitional agency in producing the (Hanks 1996: 168), participatory roles, and Church Slavonic words was diminished, leaving mutual intelligibility are suspended in this the discourse decentred (Bauman and Briggs spatio-temporal context. Relevant in this regard 1990). It would seem Tatiana was invoking here is De Certeau (1988) who asked whose voice is the distinction between a Holy language and it worshippers hear? God’s or the priest’s? For a holy language (Fishman 1997: 11) where Holy Tatiana who had a reasonable understanding languages are ‘those in which God’s Word, or of Church Slavonic, this depended on which the word of the earliest and saintliest disciples language was being spoken. When it was (…) was (or still is) received’ and holy languages Church Slavonic, she heard the voice of God— classified as those in which God’s Word is spread. the sounds of revelation; when it was Russian, it Tatiana was unusual in this regard and was the was the voice of the priest. The participants of only person I got to know who expressed the the conversation were thus present, but the true distinction in these terms. She was not, however, identity of the voices could not be presupposed the only informant who believed that the priest throughout. When Church Slavonic was had incremental authority and persuasiveness if spoken, the author of words appeared distinct he could only be heard (and not seen) (Briggs from their animator. And it was perhaps the 1993; Bledsoe and Robey 1986). As well as

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 38 Stephen Pax Leonard

many other things such as political structures up notions of worship which precede what and institutional arrangements, we might De Certeau called the ‘scriptural ’ perhaps remind ourselves at this point that (1984: 137) where writing was privileged over religion is founded on the subjective experience orality. For Tatiana, the prioritisation of orality of an invisible presence ( James 1902). as articulated through embodied chanting and In contrast to this, those in support of repetition (two of the many features that are liturgical language reform sought an unmediated perceived to ritualise the service) gave these access to this ‘invisible presence’ and perceived ancient Church Slavonic texts a primordial, Church Slavonic as representing a ‘closed’ transcendental appeal. The repetitiveness of register, an obstacle in their path. Traditionalists the liturgy hints at the power of the linguistic might think of this as a kind of ‘secularisation form as well as serving to perpetuate authority.18 of the word’ (Lepakhin 2005). In terms of And yet despite the effects of ritual speech’s linguistic ideologies of worship, they stood apart pragmatic properties, the text in the Russian from the traditionalists who tended to reiterate Orthodox Church remains significant; the music the ideology of the sacred appeal of ‘the not is arguably secondary, and the only instrument entirely accessible’. Traditionalists believed allowed in the Orthodox churches is the that a proximity to the Divine was facilitated human voice. But even if the text is key to the through the idiom of Church Slavonic, but that Divine Liturgy, the Orthodox service remains this proximity was largely acoustic and vocal as effectively a dialogue between priest and choir. opposed to one inextricably tied to semantic There is much less focus on the written word intelligibility. The idiom’s agency flourished in and its precise biblical interpretations than in the sonic atmosphere of the church, and not in Protestant churches, for example. any other context. The tension seems to revolve When it came to the ‘language debate’, around the powers of agency, and whether Tatiana was a traditionalist who felt it was access to the Divine should be intangible and important to preserve the use of Church spiritual, or more transparent and semantic. Slavonic language. She was concerned that if The latter and the emphasis on correct biblical the language was phased out, people would lose interpretation feels of course more Protestant. the connection, the bridge with God (связь с This sacred-profane distinction amounts to Богом) that Church Slavonic provided. At a continuum of religious consciousness: some another church, some reformists suggested such Russian Orthodox worshippers like the idea an attitude is effectively a form of fetishism of a separate spiritual world (the transcendent (my phraseology, not their’s) (Keane 1996), but appeal), others want a bridge to the spiritual presumably no more fetishistic than praying world but for it to be separate, while still others to icons and thereby imputing subjectivity aspire for the sacred to be entirely accessible in to inanimate listeners. She was not the only the pragmatic present. However, it should be person who described the liturgical language emphasised that the various views amount to a as наша словесная икона ‘our verbal icon’. For continuum, and not a simple binary dichotomy. these traditionalists, the words of the liturgical The powers of agency aside, what is clear language were sometimes compared to icons, is that the ancient texts used in the Russian mystically partaking of what they depict Orthodox Church are embodied through (Lepakhin 2002; 2005). From the worshippers serial chanting. This embodiment conjures I spoke to, it seemed that traditionalists and

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 39 Stephen Pax Leonard

reformists subscribed in fact to two quite and other somatic phenomena. This amounts different linguistic ideologies of worship.19 This to a semiotic ideology of worship because all brings me to the crux of my argument in this the church-goers agreed on the function of article. Church Slavonic, but disputed the ontological The underlying semiotic assumptions that status and effects of the liturgical language the traditionalists made about the liturgical signs. And yet the same worshippers shared language were quite different from those semiotic interpretations of church iconography worshippers who favoured liturgical language relative to the transcendental world. I do not reform (Mathiesen 1984: 56–58). In a semiotic wish to suggest that all the traditionalists sense, the latter tended to perceive Church assigned a non-arbitrary form-meaning inter­ Slavonic as any other language—a system of pretation to liturgical language signs, but it arbitrary signs and logical relations (in the was for them at least the semiotic ideology Saussurean sense) (Saussure 1916; Bennett that they subscribed to that lent these words 2011: 81; Kamchatnov 1999).20 On the other their ritual significance. Ritual meaning was hand, many Orthodox traditionalists regarded thus enmeshed with views regarding the role the liturgical language as something ‘embodied’ of signs. These opposing semiotic ideologies do and experiential with a divine appeal in and not have any real consequences as long as the of itself. For the traditionalists, the liturgical language of the Divine Liturgy remains Church language becomes the language of God in Slavonic. However, in the event of complete the manner of some kind of divine ordination liturgical language reform, it is a moot point as through its vocalisation and enactment, and not to whether traditionalists would recognise any through its powers of indexicality where a sign consequences in terms of the ‘felicity conditions’ points to its referent. Moreover, the liturgical of perceived sacred ‘performatives’ where certain language appears for them as something holistic formulaic words can bring about a concrete and semiotically indivisible: the ‘sacred’ words change in circumstances when uttered (Austin represent a phenomenological form-meaning 1962; Searle 1969; Leonard 2020a: 914–28; symbiosis. This effect came about largely Leonard 2019: 1–10). through the habitual linguistic practices of Both the traditionalists and the reformists chanting formulaic language: the fact that the are guided by their respective semiotic ideologies; words were barely intelligible gave the listeners they interpret the same signs in different ways. the impression they were hearing little more These different interpretations are grounded in than phono-semantic strings. Not being able to their respective linguistic ideologies (the belief quite grasp the meaning of the words appears to systems that indicate the choice of idiom to have contributed to the notion that they were be used in the church). For the reformists, the somehow divinely ordained. words of Church Slavonic do not show the way These traditionalists were invoking a semi­ to God anymore than Russian words do. These otic ideology of worship; the presuppositions signs do not represent a transcendent reality they were making about sign use were dictated and do not introduce us in any special way to to them by the specific spatial and spiritual the mystery of Christ. We can see therefore context where the liturgical language was that the reformists do not on the whole share heard. Such ‘sacred speech events’ triggered for the traditionalists’ phenomenological experience them sensory modalities that included voice of the liturgical words in Church Slavonic. For

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 40 Stephen Pax Leonard

them, the form of the words is just as arbitrary a different take on things, and for the purpose of as the equivalent words in Russian. Where this article at least their views are arguably more the reformists are concerned, the words of relevant than the presuppositions of theological the Liturgy cannot have any divine origin doctrine. and do not enjoy any heightened appeal just In the context of Russian Orthodoxy as because they are only partially understood. practiced in these Moscow parishes we can for­ However, one ardent reformist, a teacher in his mulate an ideological dichotomy between what fifties, occasionally expressed opinions which one might call Saussurean formalists (generally seemed to undermine or even contradict this speaking the reformists, that is, those in favour standpoint. In Sergei’s view, Church Slavonic of changing the liturgical language to Russian) was a ‘dead’ language that had outlived its and Merleau-Pontian phenomenologists (the purpose. Surprisingly perhaps, he could however traditionalists).21 There are those who wish to appreciate the appeal of a widely understood democratise the language of the Holy Writ (or liturgical language and to this end wished for phase it out through translation) and there are a new liturgical language to be created (surely those who wish to preserve what they perceive an unlikely undertaking): a language distinct to be the sanctity of the Holy language as often from both Russian and Church Slavonic that manifested through its relative inaccessibility would be taught to worshippers. and its embodied chanting. It should be noted According to the more traditionalist that I am only talking about semiotic ideologies semiotic ideology of worship, certain linguistic of worship as pertain here to the liturgical signs uttered in a specific context can become language. The opinions and comments that to an extent inseparable from what makes were articulated to me bear only upon Church them meaningful, and this is fundamental Slavonic, and not Russian or indeed any other to the Merleau-Pontian phenomenology of language that is not generally considered ‘sacred’. language (Merleau-Ponty 1945 [2012]; Inkpin Tatiana was careful to draw a distinction 2016). And so words do not just represent between what you might call the language objects but are objects. These spiritual words of Gods and the language of men (my do not objectify experience but are experience: characterisation, not hers). Another interlocutor, the liturgical words were integral to the image, Vladimir, whom I had got to know in a social and not just indexing the image. This might be context before discovering that he sang in perceived to be a Wittgensteinian (1961: § 5.6) a choir at a church not far from me, often view where language and world are coextensive alluded to a similar distinction. Vladimir is in with the liturgy resulting in an experiential his thirties and has lived all his life in Moscow: transcendence. It takes us away apparently from the ideology of the signification theory of Author: as a member of a choir at a language based on a form-meaning dualism. Russian Orthodox Church, how would One might pause to note at this point that the you say you relate generally to the Church nuns and theologians I worked with were quick Slavonic language? to remind me that transcendence came through Vladimir: Well, I had to study this language the Divine Liturgy as preparation for receiving first as I understood relatively little of it. communion, and not through icons or language It is of course closely related to Russian. specifically. Some worshippers, however, had When I sing this language, the feeling is

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 41 Stephen Pax Leonard

quite distinct from Russian. This is a sacred so inextricably to worship and prayer. Were language, and therefore I take greater care it to be used additionally as a vernacular, the when I sing it, articulating it more clearly linguistic perceptions forged would have surely perhaps. I feel as if it is something delicate been quite different. The notion of ‘shared that you should handle with care. For me, if practice’ (Gumperz 2009 [1968]: 66–73) is here the language of prayer is distinct from the extremely contextualized. normal language, it feels more истинный (‘true or authentic’) and has greater impact. Conclusions Maybe I think like that because that is all I know. I am not sure… Fieldwork amongst Russian Orthodox Chris­ (Interview with Vladimir, translated by tians adds to a long line of research which show author) that conceptions of language and linguistic registers vary widely, not only across cultures When discussing prayer with my informants, it but intra-culturally (Silverstein 1979; Woolard was common to invoke such a sacred-profane 1998; Schieffelin, Woolard and Kroskrity 1998). symbolic distinction when talking about Interlocutors framed their linguistic ideologies Russian and Church Slavonic and to reference of worship by invoking folk understandings of the liturgical language’s distinctiveness. Vladimir semiotic praxis: the embodied spiritual language warmed to the fact that the liturgical language permitted a proximity to God. This article has is отличительный (‘distinctive’) and for many, it shown how Russian Orthodox worshippers would seem, the appeal of this distinctiveness is perceive the linguistic form (at an acoustic, and enough to warrant its continued use. The service not semantic level). Unlike in Protestant circles, felt authentic when worshippers heard the language is not the vehicle of the truth, but has distinctive language being used for the Liturgy. an embodied value in ritual performance. As Hearing the prayer in the original language Robbins (2001: 591–614) shows, the internal gives it an essential connection to the text and relationship between ritual and verbal channels thus ensures authenticity. If they were cited of communication vary from one culture to (most Orthodox know the prayers of another. In a Russian Orthodox context, shades services by heart) in the vernacular, I was often of two opposing semiotic ideologies of told the link to the original would worship can be seen in the same culture. For not be the same. This appears to be significant the traditionalists, the words of the liturgical for many Orthodox Christians. Vladimir and language themselves had a phenomenological others felt as if the use of Church Slavonic undertone for they bore a certain relation to symbolized the sanctity of the word itself, and interior states. The same people wished to see in turn he felt a sense of sanctity when he heard a ‘de-secularisation’ (Lepakhin 2005) of the the words of this language. liturgical language as a means of (re)connecting The singer, Vladimir, in particular spoke as to the divine. if the ‘beloved language’ (Fishman 1997) had Many of the Russian Orthodox worship­ a soul or spirit of its own. Such assumptions pers I worked with navigated the semiotic of agency were widely shared amongst parish­ difficulty of communicating with an ‘invisible ioners. These perceptions must derive in part interlocutor’ (Keane 1997a: 48) by appealing from the fact that Church Slavonic is bound to an ideology of worship which perceived

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 42 Stephen Pax Leonard

the Holy language (Church Slavonic) as an use of Church Slavonic were often those whose experiential portal. The chanting of Church understanding of the language was incomplete. Slavonic throughout the Divine Liturgy was an embodied vehicle to access the Divine. For Acknowledgements the more ‘traditionalist’ worshippers, the Holy language was something that made the presence I would like to thank Prof. Alexander Kravetski, of God more presupposable. This research has Prof. Marklen Konurbaev, Natalia Manzienko shown thus the effects of form on consciousness: and Rev’d Hugh Wybrew for reading earlier assumptions about who is speaking are bound drafts of the article. Hugh was particularly up with the form that is used and the religious helpful in helping me understand better context in which the words are uttered. the Divine Liturgy and Russian Orthodox My fieldwork highlighted also the fact that iconography. I am also very grateful to all my in collective worship not all the participants interlocutors in Moscow, many of whom have shared the same assumptions about what become friends. Finally, I would like to thank was happening and where the voices were my three anonymous reviewers for all their emanating from. These insights from a very useful suggestions. specific language register help us understand how language works more generally by showing Notes us the assumptions made about who is actually speaking and listening to utterances. Such 1 Not everybody might wish to describe Church issues relate to questions of intentionality Slavonic as a ‘liturgical language’. Bennett (2011: 12) prefers to describe it as ‘hieratic’―an and authorship which might be the subject of archaic version of a vernacular marked by non- a subsequent article based on a larger sample of secular usage. interlocutors. 2 Church Slavonic should be distinguished It also came to light how sacred language from Old Church Slavonic with which it is often conflated. Studied by philologists, Old is deeply implicated with underlying notions Church Slavonic refers to the of transcendence, and for some worshippers of a limited corpus of texts. Church Slavonic at least the liturgical language indexes the emerged out of Old Church Slavonic but has transcendence of divinity. Hence, certain been influenced by local . It is an ecclesiastical language that can function as linguistic registers can lend support to religious a supranational linguistic medium (Russia, interpretations and conviction. The priest is , Belarus, etc.). Church Slavonic visible to the worshippers, but the words of his is the term used by Gamanovich (2001). Other language belong to the sacred domain hidden terms include Russian Church Slavonic (Worth 1984) and Synodal Church Slavonic (Mathiesen behind the iconostasis and thus for some may 1972). ‘feel’ like a command from God (the authority 3 About 20 per cent of the people I spoke to said and agency of the voice is heightened further if that they had a really good grasp of the Church the priest cannot be seen for the listener is more Slavonic language. Church Slavonic is of course a closely related language to Russian, and most inclined to ponder the source of the words). In Russians can understand partially the language this liturgical context, semantic intelligibility after a period of study. In the churches I attended, appears to be of secondary importance. Those it was common for parishioners to have open a who were most passionate about preserving the translation in front of them of the key liturgical

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 43 Stephen Pax Leonard

texts. Haugen (1966: 280–297) referred to and the establishment of the ‘’ communication between speakers of different (старообря́дцы). Scandinavian languages as ‘semi-communication’. 13 The literal meaning of Orthodoxy is ‘right belief ’ The same might be said of Orthodox worshippers’ or ‘right worship’. understanding of the Slavonic language. 14 The recent history of how this word is used is 4 At this stage, statistics are not available on the fascinating and is discussed fully in Rousselet number of parishes that now conduct services (2020: 38––55). largely in Russian. 15 See also Harkness (2014), Kapchan (2008); Wirtz 5 For Haeri, ‘sincerity’ is the relationship that the (2005) and Leonard (2021: 1–26); Leonard individual forms with the divine. (2016: 204–214) for anthropological studies of 6 Very recently, I have managed to attend the how people see value in non-semantic aspects of occasional service where a great deal of . was spoken. I think it is too early to draw any 16 Many informants spoke about bells as experien­ conclusions as to whether these parishioners tial portals too. The Russian Orthodox Church behave in any different kind of way. blesses bells. They often have particular 7 On the whole, I did not encounter many of the significance for workers in the countryside issues that Weaver (2011a: 145–157) discusses. who do not always have time to attend church. The reason for this might be that my fieldwork Working outside and hearing the bells made was conducted largely in Russian. Political issues them feel part of the church service. were of course raised by my interlocutors during 17 For a broader discussion of the nature in prayer in my fieldwork, but these observations bore little Russian Orthodoxy, see Kormina and Luehrmann relevance on semiotic ideologies of worship and (2018: 394–424). thus have not been included in my research. It 18 As an example, the word gospodi ‘Lord’ is might be noted that many of the people I spoke frequently repeated 12 or even 40 times. These to felt as if the alleged close ties between the repetitions are symbolic, referring to the Russian Government and the ROC had been 12 apostles and 40 days in the desert. somewhat exaggerated by the media and the 19 Ideally, it would be better to speak to far more western Press. people to make generalisations about linguistic 8 Her references to ‘energy’ may of course been ideologies of worship, but nonetheless I do motivated by her profession as a yoga teacher. not think it is unreasonable to speak of such 9 One of my informants, a nun at one of the an ideological dichotomy amongst Russian Moscow monasteries, broke her arm very badly. Orthodox worshippers. The doctors said they could do nothing for her. 20 As a tangent, one might note that some Protes­ She was advised to pray at a certain icon at a tant denominations tend to believe that language church in north Moscow. It was believed the is the only route to God. They reject the fetishism icon had special healing powers. She visited the of objects, and the Lutheran tradition (sola church everyday for 6 months and prayed to the scriptura) emphasises the idea that words in the icon. Initially, she did not pray for her arm to be form of the Christian scriptures alone are the sole healed. She just ‘got to know the icon’. After 6 infallible source of authority: the Bible contains months, her arm was miraculously healed without everything one needs to know in order to reach any surgery or medical assistance. She referred salvation. My concern here is solely linguistic to the reflexivity of the icon, and how the icon ideologies of worship, and not theological prayed for her. doctrine. 10 Cf. Weaver (2011b: 394–419) whose research 21 See Mathiesen (1984: 56–58); Cassedy (1994) shows how icons figure vividly in the experiences and Mechkovskaia (2000) who touched on of her informants. similar and related arguments. Cf. Fishman 11 The word образ can mean ‘window’ and ‘icon’: it (1997: 12): ‘In the West we tend to associate implies an icon is a window onto another realm. the transition from the Holy to the holy with 12 Changes were made to the liturgical texts under Protestantism, i.e. the move from the Holy Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century to make language of God to the vernacular of holy people’. the Slavonic texts closer to the Greek. Patriarch Nikon’s reforms led to a schism in the church

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 44 Stephen Pax Leonard

References

Austin, John Langshaw 1962. How to Do Things De Saussure, Ferdinand 1916. Cours de linguistique with Words: the William James Lectures Delivered générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Alert at Harvard University in 1955. London: Oxford Sechehaye with the assistance of Albert Riedlinger. University Press. Lausanne – Paris: Payot.

Basso, Keith H 1990. A Western Apache Writing Eisenlohr, Patrick 2018. Sounding Islam: Voice, System: the Symbols of Silas John. In Keith H. Media, and Sonic Atmospheres in an Indian Ocean Basso. Western Apache Language and Culture: Essays World. Oakland: University of California Press. in Linguistic Anthropology. Tucson: University of https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520970762. Arizona Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1h7zms9. Engelhardt, Jeffers 2014. Singing the Right Way: Bauman, Richard and Charles Briggs 1990. Orthodox Christians and Secular Enhancement in Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives Estonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. on Language and Social Life. Annual Review of https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: Anthropology 19 (1): 59–88. oso/9780199332120.001.0001. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. an.19.100190.000423. Fedotov, Georgy P. 1991. Tragediya intelligentsii. In Georgy P. Fedotov. Sud’ba grekhu Rossii: izbrannye Bennett, Brian 2011. Religion and Language in Post- stat’i po filosofii russkoi istorii i kul’tury, Volume 1. Soviet Russia. New York: Routledge. Saint Petersburg: Sofiya. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818435. Fishman, Joshua A. 1997. In Praise of the Bledsoe, Caroline H. and Kenneth M. Robey 1986. Beloved Language: A Comparative View of Positive Arabic Literacy and Secrecy Among the Mende of Ethnolinguistic Consciousness. Berlin: Mouton de Sierra Leone. Man 21 (2): 202–226. Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813241. https://doi.org/10.2307/2803157. Gamanovich, Archbishop Alypy 2001. Grammar Boyer, Pascal 1990. Tradition as Truth and of the Church Slavonic Language. Jordanville: Holy Communication: A Cognitive Description of Traditional Trinity Monastery. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521058. Goldblatt, Harvey 2007. The in the Context of the Study of Sacred and Vulgar Briggs, Charles 1993. Generic Versus Metaprag­ Tongues in Orthodox Slavdom. Harvard Ukrainian matic Dimensions of Warao Narratives: Who Regi­ Studies 29 (1–4): 149–192. ments Performance? In John A. Lucy (ed.). Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cam­ Gumperz, John 2009 [1968]. The Speech bridge: Cambridge University Press. Community. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.). Linguistic https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.011. Anthropology: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cassedy, Steven 1994. Icon and Logos: the Role of Haeri, Niloofar 2017. The Sincere Subject: Media­ Orthodox Theology in Modern Language Theory tion and Interiority Among a Group of Muslim and Literary Criticism. In Robert P. Hughes and Women in Iran. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory Irina Paperno (eds). Christianity and the Eastern Slavs, 7 (1): 139–161. Vol. II: Russian Culture in Modern Times. Berkeley: https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.1.014. University of California Press. Hanks, William F. 1996. Exorcism and the Descrip­ De Certeau, Michel 1984. The Practice of Everyday tion of Participation Roles. In Michael Silverstein Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: and Greg Urban (eds). The Natural History of Dis- University of California Press. course. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

De Certeau, Michel 1988. The Writing of History. Harkness, Nicholas 2014. Songs of Seoul. Berkeley: Translated by Tom Conley. New York: Columbia University of California Press. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520957404.

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 45 Stephen Pax Leonard

Haugen, Einar 1966. Semicommunication: The Keane Webb 2018. On Semiotic Ideology. Signs and Language Gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry Society 6 (1): 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/695387. 36 (2): 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1966. Kelley, Mary Jane 2004. Ascendant Eloquence: tb00630.x. Language and Sanctity in the Works of Gonzalo de Berceo. Speculum 79 (1): 66–87. Heidegger, Martin 1962 [1927]. Being and Time. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0038713400094732. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward S. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell. Konurbaev, Marklen 2018. Ontology and Phenome- nology of Speech: An Existential Theory of Speech. Lon­ Heller, Monica 2008. Doing Ethnography. In don: Palgrave Macmillan. Li Wei and Melissa G. Moyer (eds). The Blackwell https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfx055. Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Kormina, Jeanne and Sonja Luehrmann 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444301120.ch14. The Social Nature of Prayer in a Church of the Unchurched: Russian Orthodox Christianity from Inkpin, Andrew 2016. Disclosing the World: On the its Edges. Journal of the American Academy of Religion Phenomenology of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT 86 (2): 394–424. Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfx055. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10454.001.0001. Kott, V. 2000. ‘My berezhem zolotnik, a teryayem James, William 1902. The Varieties of Religious pud’: Ocherk istorii russkogo bogosluzhebnogo Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York: yazyka. Pravoslavnaya obschchina 56 (2): 32–64. Longmans, Green & Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10004-000. Leonard, Stephen Pax 2013. Phenomenology of Speech in a Cold Place: The Polar Eskimo Language Kamchatnov, A. 1999 Sakral’nyi slavianskii iazyk as ‘Lived experience’. International Journal of v tserkvi i kul’ture. In Arkhimandrit Tikhon (ed.). Language Studies 7 (1): 151–174. Bogosluzhebnyi iazyk russkoi tserkvi: istoriia, popytki reformatsii. Moscow: lzdanie Sretenskogo monastyria. Leonard, Stephen Pax 2016. ‘Spoken Language is a Prison’: Ways of Belonging and Speaking in Kapchan, Deborah 2008. The Promise of Sonic Northwest Greenland. Polar Record 52 (2): 204–214. Translation: Performing the Festive Sacred in https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247415000649. Morocco. American Anthropologist 110 (4): 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2008.00079.x. Leonard, Stephen Pax 2019. Voices from the Out­ side: The Instrumentality of Radio Messages in Kaverin, Nikolai 2008. Obnovlenchestvo pod Colombian Kidnappings. Language & Communica- maskoi ‘misionerstva’. Blagodatnyi ogon 18: 7–16. tion 69: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.04.005. Keane, Webb 1996. Materialism, Missionaries and Modern Subjects in Colonial Indonesia. In Peter Leonard, Stephen Pax 2020a. Doing Things with van der Veer (ed.). Conversion to Modernities: The Voices: Colombian ‘Kidnap Radio’ and the Sound of Globalization of Christianity. New York: Routledge. God. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie sociale 28 (1): 914–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12957. Keane, Webb 1997a. Religious Language. Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1): 47–71. Leonard, Stephen Pax 2020b. A Semiotic Approach https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.47. to Language Ideologies: Modelling the Changing Icelandic Languagescape. Sign Systems Studies Keane Webb 1997b. From Fetishism to Sincerity: 48 (2/4): 271–296. On Agency, the Speaking Subject, and Their https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.05. Historicity in the Context of Religious Conversion. Comparative Studies in Society and History 39 (4): Leonard, Stephen Pax 2021. Experiencing Speech: 674–693. Insights from Indigenous Ideologies of Language. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500020855. International Journal of Language Studies 15 (1): 1–26.

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 46 Stephen Pax Leonard

Lepakhin, Valerii V. 2002. Ikona i ikonichnost. St Robbins, Joel 2001. Ritual Communication Petersburg: Uspenskoe podvor’e. and Linguistic Ideology: A Reading and Partial Reformulation of Rappaport’s Theory of Ritual. Lepakhin, Valerii V. 2005. Ikona i slovo: tipy, urovni Current Anthropology 42 (5): 591–614. i formy vzaimosvyazi. Dikoe Pole No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1086/322557.

Leustean, Lucian N. 2017. Eastern Orthodoxy, Rousselet, Kathy 2020. Dukhovnost’ in Russian Geopolitics and the 2016 ‘Holy and Great Synod of Politics. Religion, State and Society 48 (1): 38–55. the Orthodox Church’. Geopolitics 23 (1): 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2019.1705086. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2017.1350843. Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul Malinowski, Bronisław 1935. Coral Gardens and V. Kroskrity (eds) 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands. Vol. II. New York: American Book Company. Searle, John 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Mathiesen, Robert 1972. The Inflectional Morphology University Press. of the Synodal Church Slavonic Verb. Doctoral https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438. Dissertation. New York: Columbia University. Shargunov, A. 2008. ‘Evangelizatsiia’ Mira i ‘kul’tur­ Mathiesen, Robert 1984. The Church Slavonic naia revolutsiia v tservki’. Blagodatnyi ogon 18: 17–26. Language Question: An Overview (IX–XX centuries). In Riccardo Picchio and Harvey Silverstein, Michael 1979. Language Structure and Goldblatt (eds). Aspects of the Slavic Language Linguistic Ideology. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Question, Vol. 1: Church Slavonic–South Slavic–West Hanks and Carol L. Hofbauer (eds). The Elements: Slavic. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: and Area Studies. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Mechkovskaia, N. B. 2000. Krillo-mefodievskoe Silverstein, Michael 2004. ‘Cultural Concepts’ and nasledie v filologia Slavia Orthodoxa i iazykovye the Language-Culture Nexus. Current Anthropology voprosy v russkom pravoslavii XX veka. Slavianove- 45 (5): 621–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/423971. denie 2: 3–17. Solodovnik, Svetlana 2014. Russia: The Official Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 2012 [1945]. Phenomenol- Church Chooses the State. Russian Social Science ogy of Perception. Translated by Donald A. Landes Review. 55 (6): 55–83. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611428.2014.11065567. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720714. Tambiah, Stanley J. 1990. Magic, Science and Moran, Dermot 2000. Introduction to Phenomenology. Religion and the Scope of Rationality. Cambridge: Abingdon: Routledge. Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, Elinor 2012. Experiencing Language. Anthro- Tiaynen-Qadir, Tatiana 2017. Glocal Religion pological Theory 12 (2), 142–160. and Feeling at Home: Ethnography of Artistry in https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499612454088. Finnish Orthodox Liturgy. Religions: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8020023. Panchenko, Alexander 2019. Nevidimyye partnery i strategicheskaya informatsiya: chenneling kak Trubitsyna, Galina 2010. Razmyshlenie nad tser­ ‘semioticheskaya ideologiya’. Gosudarstvo, religiia, kovnoslavianskim­ iazykom. Pravoslavie.ru, Decem­ tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom 37(4): 167–191. ber 15. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/43505.html ‘Cloudiness’ of Language: Is There an Aesthetic Function of Language? La Linguistique 44 (1): 103– Urban, Greg 1996. Metaphysical Community: The 132. https://doi.org/10.3917/ling.441.0103. Interplay of the Senses and the Intellect. Austin: University of Texas Press.

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 47 Stephen Pax Leonard

Uspenskyi, Boris 1987. Istoriya russkogo literaturnogo Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1961 [1921] Tractatus Logico- yazyka (XI–XVII centuries). Moscow: Aspekt press. Philosophicus. Translated by David Pears and Brian https://doi.org/10.3726/b12747. McGuinness. New York: Humanities Press.

Volosinov, Valentin 1973 [1930]. Marxism and Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. Introduction: Language the Philosophy of Language. Translated by Ladislav Ideology as a Field of Inquiry. In Bambi. B. Schieffe­ Matejka, I.R. Titunik. London: Seminar Press. lin, Kathryn. A. Woolard and Paul. V. Kroskrity (eds). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Weaver, Dorothy 2011a. Neither too Scientific nor Oxford University Press. a Spy: Negotiating the Ethnographic Interview in Russia. Comparative Sociology 10 (1): 145–157. Worth, Dean S. 1984. Toward a Social History of https://doi.org/10.1163/156913310X493069. Russian. In Henrik Birnbaum, Michael S. Flier and Daniel B. Rowland (eds). Medieval Russian Culture. Weaver, Dorothy 2011b. Shifting Agency: Male Berkeley: University of California Press. Clergy, Female Believers, and the Role of Icons. Material Religion 7 (3): 394–419. STEPHEN PAX LEONARD https://doi.org/10.2752/1751834 RESEARCH PROFESSOR 11X13172844496019. MOSCOW STATE LINGUISTIC UNIVERSITY [email protected] Wirtz, Kristina 2005. ‘Where Obscurity is a Virtue’: The Mystique of Unintelligibility in Santería Ritual. Language & Communication 25 (4): 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.03.008.

suomen antropologi | volume 45 issue 3 autumn 2020 48