Broox Anderson

HUM 3100

Professor Buhler

3 December 2017

Russian Symbolism: The Bogatyrs of Vasnetsov, Vrubel, and Pushkin

To a beholder distanced by time and culture, Viktor Vasnetsov’s ​Bogatyrs s​ eems

an innocent attempt at illuminating the figures of olden lore. However, there is an

inherent depth in the subject matter. In vivid colors, with spear, sword, and bow,

Vasnetsov depicted the mythical ​bogatyri​. Akin to the knights-errant of Western Europe,

they peer out into Russia’s heartland upon horseback with arms readied in her defense

(Vasnetsov). This Romantic-era work exalts the folkloric warriors, reflecting on the

culture of the time. The canvas, whether intentionally or not, perpetuates the idea of the

heroic and fantastical Bogatyrs—patriotic defenders of Russian culture and preservers

of a unique identity.

Vasnetsov portrayed them in perhaps their “truest” form. Originating as subjects

of ancient oral tales, called​ byliny ​(Dmitriev), the Bogatyrs came to embody an idealized

Russia and became intertwined with the ethos of a distinct nation and people. As author

Gautam Mech said, “​Folklore is a representation of culture and tradition. It reflects the

moral value of a particular culture and society” (Mech). ​In various oral tales, and in

Vasnetsov’s painting, the Bogatyrs are depicted as three unique men: Ilya Muromets,

Dobrynya Nikitich, and Alyosha Popovich. Each figure represents a venerable human

character trait—Ilya, strength; Dobrynya, courage; and Alyosha, wit (Bogatyrs).

 Specifically, the composition and position of the subjects is telling of intrinsic

Russian values. Likely a conscious act, Vasnetsov depicts the three ​bogatyri ​in a way

that provokes reflection upon cultural identity. If the Bogatyrs​ ​are truly symbolic of

Russia, then Vasnetsov allows us a glimpse into those traits which are most held in

esteem: Ilya Muromets, representing strength or endurance, is the focal point of the

painting, followed by Dobrynya Nikitich as a symbol of courage, and, lastly, Alyosha

Popovich as an icon of intelligence. Consider that Ilya is shown as the largest and most

central figure, holding a spear and flail. He is flanked on the right (viewer’s left) by a

bravely disposed Dobrynya pulling a sword from a sheath and on the left by a curious

and nonchalant Alyosha with an arrowless bow pointing downward (Vasnetsov). Thus,

Vasnetsov’s depiction of the Bogatyrs suggests a particular importance of both

individual character and national identity: foremost strength, followed by courage and

intelligence. All of the figures are steeped in this folk-symbolism.

By reminding the Russian peoples of the traits which were ostensibly so vital in

the preservation of the Russian land, Vasnetsov achieves two aims: A) the artwork

coincides with the distinctly Romantic era focus on nostalgia, nature, individualism, and

fantasticism, and B) the artwork captures some semblance of hope in a time riddled by

political upheaval and economic hardship (Dewdney). Drawing on folklore passed down

through generations, the painting aims to supersede the volatile political and economic

struggles of the time. Vasnetsov, then, uses the ​bogatyri ​as a model of the nostalgic

ideal, reflecting on the past to aspire in the present—a quintessential Romantic focus.
 Nearly fifty years prior to Vasnetsov, the poet Aleksandr Pushkin, an

immortalized figure in Russian culture, also reflected on the​ ​Bogatyrs and repurposed

their folkloric imagery in his poem, “Tale of the Dead Princess and the Seven Knights.”

(The word “knights,” in this context, is interchangeable with the term ​bogatyr​.) In

Pushkin’s work, the Bogatyrs or “knights” take the form of seven brothers who abide in a

remote woodland cottage. The protagonist of the story, the princess (or ​tsarevna​),

stumbles upon them in a stroke of good fortune after evading a murderous plot by the

jealous queen (or ​tsarina​). Here, Pushkin describes her encounter with the cottage:

Meanwhile [the princess] kept walking

Through the forest until morning,

Vague as to her whereabouts.

Suddenly she spied a house.

Out a dog ran growling, yapping,

Then sat down, his tail tap-tapping.

At the gate there was no guard.​ (Pushkin)

There are two important observations here with respect to the Bogatyrs’ symbolic

nature. First, Pushkin’s specific inclusion of a dog at the cottage borrows from the

Renaissance tradition of depicting loyalty. As Edgar Peters Bowron states about art:

“​Dogs have been widely interpreted as symbolic of [virtues] like fidelity” (Bowron). Thus,

Pushkin is immediately associating the ​bogatyri​ with a modernized sense of duty,

loyalty, or fidelity, even before they are introduced in the text. Given their folkloric

origins, this is an apt parallel. Second, Pushkin emphasizes that “at the gate there was
no guard.” This is an inherently Romantic description alluding to the individuality and

independence of the Bogatyrs, and it pays homage to their mythical strength and

prowess.

Physically, Pushkin describes the Bogatyrs as “thick-moustached,”

“ruddy-skinned,” and “lusty”—all importantly masculine traits so far as romanticizing

these loyal heroes and protectors of the Russian people. Moreover, if the ​bogatyri​ are

symbolic of the Russian identity, this paints an image of a strong and healthy

constituency. Further on, Pushkin reminisces about the folkloric origins of the Bogatyrs

as he describes,

Darkness would the earth still cover

When at dawn the seven brothers

Would ride out to try their luck

With a long-bow, shooting duck,

Or to ply their sword in battle

And a Saracen unsaddle,

Headlong at a Tartar go,

Chop his head off at a blow,

Or give chase to a Circassian,

From the forest send him dashing. (​ Pushkin)

This excerpt aligns with the pseudo-historical tales that describe the ​bogatyri ​as the

chief defenders against the Tatars and other foreign cultures (Bogatyr), as well as with

Vasnetsov’s painting of the Bogatyrs gazing out upon Russia’s border. It is said, “To the
bogatyr'​ the Tatar is an enemy against whom all ruses and violences are permissible”

(Rayfield). All of the character descriptions of Pushkin’s ​bogatyri​ seem to be parallel

with common folk-myth and create depth and context as the events of the story unfold.

The ​bogatyri​ play an important role in the rising action of Pushkin’s story, but, for

the purpose of this paper, how they are portrayed is of more significance. As discussed,

Pushkin describes the knights in typical Romantic verse. He often refers to the Bogatyrs

as masculine, robust, good-natured, dutiful, and heroic, and this is also in keeping with

their folkloric heritage. Interestingly, though, no other characters in Pushkin’s story

receive as much description as the ​bogatyri​—not even ​tsarevna,​ the protagonist. Of her,

he simply states: “Like a flower into bloom: / Raven-browed, of fair complexion, /

Breathing kindness and affection” (Pushkin). This remarkable finding suggests Pushkin

was concerned with precision in depicting the Bogatyrs and is another point of evidence

of their importance to Russian art and literature.

The years immediately following Pushkin and, to an extent, Vasnetsov, were

filled with political upheaval and social unrest. Their artworks arose in a time that

approached the last rule of a tsar in Russia, Nicholas II (Dewdney). Near the end of his

life, the great poet was caught in the crossfire of revolution. An encyclopaedic article

states: “Aleksandr Pushkin, Russia’s greatest poet, got into trouble with the police for

his opinions in 1824; he was also a friend of some leading Decembrists. After 1826 he

lived an unhappy life in St. Petersburg, tolerated but distrusted by the authorities and

producing magnificent poetry until he met his death in a duel in 1837” (Dewdney). Thus,

it was only a few years before his death that Pushkin wrote “Tale of the Dead Princess
and the Seven Knights,” and this provides some insight into the nostalgic subject matter

Pushkin and the rest of the Romantics were concerned with.

While Vasnetsov and Pushkin depicted the ​bogatyri​ as symbols of nostalgia,

hope, and Russian idealism, it was another artist, Mikhail Vrubel, who commented more

directly on the cultural discord. In 1898, Mikhail Vrubel painted an artwork called simply

Bogatyr i​ n the memory of the mythical knights to represent a modern view of the state of

Russia as a nation and a people. The Russian Museum in St. Petersburg states that

Vrubel “was drawn to the mystery, primordial purity and spirituality of the bylina—a

traditional Russian heroic poem. The ancient hero in his decorative attire and his trusty

horse are inseparable from their environment—a morose forest closely guarding its

secrets” (Mikhail). This description is important in that it underlines a sentiment

previously discussed: the “inseparability” of the Bogatyr from the Russian land and

people—in both folklore and modernity.

Vrubel, acutely aware of the importance of the ​bogatyri​ as symbols in Russia,

paints the Bogatyr as something unexpected and in strict contrast to the Bogatyrs of

Vasnetsov and Pushkin. Rather than depict them as strong, courageous, or intelligent

like Vasnetsov, or ruddy, robust, or loyal as Pushkin did, he strays intentionally from the

Bogatyrs’ Romantic image to demonstrate what can only be described as Russia’s

cultural atrophy. Vrubel’s Bogatyr​ i​ s depicted as a squat, ornamented figure riding upon

an equally heavy-set horse. The knight is concerned more with a decorative image than

practical worth. Thus, Vrubel makes a statement that the ​bogatyri​ have become

something purely aesthetic and lacking substance.

 It is also significant that there is a single Bogatyr as opposed to the three and

seven of Vasnetsov and Pushkin, and other folkloric versions. This precludes any

alternative interpretation: by painting a single figure, Vrubel aims to envelop all

variations of the ​bogatyri​. This is a “stepped” form of symbolism: the figure represents

all Bogatyrs and, in turn, the Bogatyrs represent the Russian culture and people. Vrubel

plays with the Romantic process by flipping the rules: the subject matter is still

fantastical and idealized, but in a strictly adverse way. It is inherently symbolic.

Vrubel’s depiction of the Bogatyr as an incapable and aesthetic figure echoes the

philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche during the same time period. Nietzsche, in ​Thus

Spoke Zarathustra​, tells of the importance of the “übermensch,” a man of intrinsic

superior ability and action. As a folkloric symbol, the Russian ​bogatyri​ loosely correlates

with the Nietzschean übermensch. Though one is inherently realistic while the other is

fantastical, both are important proponents of culture, and the literal English translation of

übermensch, “super-man,” is fitting of the Bogatyr. At a fundamental level, these cultural

icons are interchangeable.

The antithesis of the übermensch, to Nietzsche, was what he termed the “last

man.” These are they who are weak and fail to act or progress in a decaying society.

Thus, without the übermensch, society becomes decadent (Nietzsche). Vrubel’s

Bogatyr conveys a distinct sense of the weakness and decadence similar to the

Nietzschean “last man,” and “according to Nietzsche, all philosophies, religions, and

arts which spring from weakness are decadent” (Huszar). Thus, Vrubel’s choice to

depict the Bogatyr in such a way aligns with the decline of Russian culture.
 The decline or death of the Bogatyr is a rare subject touched upon by Donald

Rayfield in “The Heroic Ethos of Russian and Georgian Folk Poetry” in ​The Slavonic

and East European Review​. Rayfield states that “the Russian ​bogatyr'​ is frequently

given the choice of three roads: the road to wealth, the road to beautiful women, or the

road of duty that leads to Kiev and possibly death. He chooses the third” (Rayfield). The

Bogatyr of Vrubel ostensibly does not choose the third road. As a “last man” figure in

Nietzschean context, Vrubel associates the ​bogatyri​ with decline and eventual death.

On the precedence of this theme, Rayfield states:

Although the death of the ​bogatyr'​ is one of the less common themes [in the

bylina]​ , it is nevertheless important. The essential pathos and interest of the

bylina​ to its singer and audience lies in the distance and difference of its subject

matter and times from the present: the ​bogatyri,​ their supernatural powers and

Kievan Russia are extinct; that they are dead is as relevant as that they once

lived. (Rayfield)

​ s cultural symbols in Russia.

Rayfield underlines again the importance of the ​bogatyri a

Though Vrubel depicted the Bogatyr’s decline, it is important for the viewer to remember

the place from which its descent began.

In conclusion, the steep contrast of Vasnetsov and Pushkin’s Bogatyrs with

Vrubel’s requires the viewer to comprehend their symbolic meaning. As representatives

of Russian culture, the ​bogatyri​ are irrevocably tied to the land and people. Thus, they

are a sort of barometer of Russia’s art and culture. As Rayfield said, “[Russia’s] heroic

ethos is a universal response to extreme tribal or national tribulation and that once the
bogatyr'​ is extinct, he cannot be reinvented” (Rayfield). Thus, the Bogatyr is vitally

important to the identity of Russia, and its recurrence in art from olden folklore through

Vasnetsov, Pushkin, and Vrubel is a testament to Russia’s dependence on the

Bogatyr’s image. As a symbolic and folkloric mechanism, the ​bogatyri ​shine. The author

Gautam Mech reminds us: ​“Folklore can produce a feeling and a strong sentiment

towards culture and unity. What is more interesting and unique is, this sentiment is

devoid of disadvantages and criticality of patriotism and competitive nationalism. The

reason is: Folklore is about common human values and they signify universal

characteristics of mankind” (Mech).​ As discussed with Nietzsche’s übermensch, the

concept of the ​bogatyri ​is not exclusive to Russia. ​Like Don Quixote in Spain, Arthurian

legend in Britain, and the superheroes of modern America, the Russian ​bogatyri​ are

symbolic of our ideal selves and culture regardless of the national borders guarded by

them.
 Works Cited

“Bogatyrs.” ​Web Gallery of Art​, All Art, allart.biz/photos/image/Bogatyrs_1898.html.

Bowron, Edgar Peters. “Renaissance Art: An Artist’s Best Friend—The Dog in

Renaissance Painting.” ​Bark​, vol. 1, no. 36, May 2006,

thebark.com/content/renaissance-art.

Dewdney, John C., and Richard Hellie. “Russia from 1801 to 1917.” ​Encyclopædia

Britannica​, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 22 Oct. 2017,

www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Russia-from-1801-to-1917.

Dmitriev, Oleg. “Of Russian Origin: Bogatyr.” ​Russiapedia​, Russiapedia,

russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/bogatyr/.

Huszar, George de. “Nietzsche's Theory of Decadence and the Transvaluation of All

Values.” ​Journal of the History of Ideas​, vol. 6, no. 3, 1 June 1945, pp. 259–272.

JSTOR​, JSTOR.

Mech, Gautam Bikash. “Importance of Folklore in School Education.” ​Pulse,​

LinkedIn, 3 Oct. 2015, www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-folklore-

school-education-gautam-bikash-mech/.

“Mikhail Vrubel (1856–1910).” ​The Russian Museum: Virtual Branch,​ The Russian

Museum,

www.virtualrm.spb.ru/en/resources/galleries_en/The_Turn_of_the_Cent

ury/Vrubel.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. ​Thus Spoke Zarathustra.​ Edited by Graham Parkes,

Oxford University Press, 2008.

Pushkin, Aleksandr. “The Tale of the Dead Princess and the Seven Knights.” Edited

by Michael Terletski,​ Russian Crafts,​ russian-crafts.com/russian-folk-tales/

tale-about-dead-princess.html.

Rayfield, Donald. “The Heroic Ethos of Russian and Georgian Folk Poetry.” ​The

Slavonic and East European Review​, vol. 56, no. 4, 1978, pp. 505–521. ​JSTOR​,

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4207719.

Vasnetsov, Viktor. ​Bogatyrs.​ 1881, The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia.

https://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/