Subject: research paper part 2
From: D. Miller
Date: 06 Jun 1998 3:55 PM
part twoMoreover, the northeastern territories of the European
Eastcontinued to use their old and proper names, without
callingthemselves _Ruce_ or parts of _Ruce_, even immediately after
thefall of the Kyivan Empire. Hence, for example, the
_VladimirianChronicle_ recorded under 1256: "In the winter Gleb
Vasilkovich camefrom the Khan land, from the Czar, after having married
into theHorde," meaning here the Mongol land. And, one can read
further: "Inthis winter many people came from the Horde and, after
havingcounted the whole lands of Suzdal and Riazan and Murom,
theyappointed the tenners, hundreders, thousanders and officials;
onlynuns and monks and priests and deacons were not
counted."[34]Consequently, after having cited a whole series of
examples, basedon many of the oldest Ukrainian and then Muscovite
chronicle sourcematerials, the following questions quite naturally may
arise: Why,in what way, and on what grounds did the Russian and the
pro-Russianhistorians dare to identify Kyivan Ruce with Russia and, by
the sametoken, to adopt for the Russians the entire Ukrainian
historicalinheritance?Of course, these questions could be answered in a
very direct andsimple way. Namely, Russian scholars have identified
Kyivan Rucewith Russia by means of a highly biased interpretation of
our oldesthistorical source materials and by distorting historical
truths.Yet, in order not to be accused of being analytically
superficialand making unfounded statements, some examples to prove
thepreceding assertion should be brought forward.It is an interesting
fact, that the very first victim of thattendentious and subjective
interpretation of Ukrainian historicalsource materials was one of the
most beautiful and precious literarycreations of Kyivan Ruce, namely
the _Slovo o polku Ihoreve_ (Songabout Ihor's Host), which was forged
and adapted on Muscoviteterritory, at a later date, to correspond to
its local politicalcircumstances. On the basis of the _Slovo_,
_Zadonshchina_ (Beyondthe Don River) was subsequently prepared and
later became a kind of"historical" source material for Russian
interpreters of verycomplex socio-political processes of the peoples of
the EuropeanEast.[35] Even previous Russian, as well as present-day
Soviethistorians and linguists have concurred in the proof
that_Zadonshchina_ was but a forged and distorted version of
_Slovo_,fabricated on Muscovite territory and preserved as an
originalliterary creation.For instance, M. Speranskii, in his _History
of Old RussianLiterature_, concluded on the basis of numerous
comparisons of thetwo works, that "the author of _Zadonshchina_, having
felt ananalogy between the theme of the _Slovo o polku Ihoreve_ and
thesituation on Kulikovo field, resolved to use the former for his
ownplans and simply forged the _Slovo_, describing developments of1185,
and adapted them in order to describe developments of 1380. Attimes he
did not even dare to change factual material in the _Slovoo polku
Ihoreve_ (which, of course, does not refer to 1380), butrepeated it.
At the same time he understood poorly his own schemeand possessed an
inadequate comprehension of the _Slovo_ as a poeticcreation. He was
using it only from the point of view of its termsand sentences, which
he inserted into his work without skill orsensibility."[36]Ignoring the
passage in the _Slovo o polku Ihoreve_ which states"Let us begin,
brothers, that very tale from old Vladimir and carryit to the Ihor of
today, who reinforced his mind with his strengthand sharpened his heart
with his manliness and led his courageousregiments against the Cumans
in defense of the Ruce-land,"[37](i.e., in defense of the central
regions of contemporary Ukraine),the author of _Zadonshchina_ equated
the term Ruce-land with the"concept of the Muscovite principality,
headed by Grand DukeDimitrii Ivanovich, who united around himself the
Ruce princes forthe struggle against the Tartars."Moreover, as N.
Gudzii asserts, imitating the _Slovo_, the author of_Zadonshchina_,
"contrary to historical reality . . . stated, that'all Ruce princes
join the Muscovite prince,' whereas we know wellthat it was not that
way, and that instead, Oleg of Riazan was inalliance with Yagailo
Olgerdovich of Lithuania and with Mamaiagainst the coalition of the
princes, headed by Dimitrii Ivanovich.Remarkable also was the fact,"
continues Gudzii, "that princesDimitrii Ivanovich and Vladimir
Andreievich in _Zadonshchina_ calledthemselves great-grandchildren of
Kyivan Vladimir Sviatoslavich onthree occasions for the obvious reason
of raising their prestige bypointing out this family genealogy." Thus,
"in _Zadonshchina_, theMuscovite tendency, which at that time, by
virtue of the historicaldevelopments, already aspired to become an
all-Russian one, wasclearly exhibited."[38]Under the influence of such
intentional acts and tendentiousinterpretations of our historical
source materials, we find theso-called _Stepennaia kniga_ (Book of
Grades) which was compiled inthe sixteenth century. In it, "a bold
attempt was made toillustrate the political achievements of the
princes, starting withVolodymyr Sviatoslavich up to Ivan Vasilovich."
The simple idea "ofa community of all Slavic peoples was
expressed,"[39] indicatingbeyond doubt that it became the very
foundation of ideas formulatedlater about "the cradles of three
brotherly peoples" and about "thethree-in-unity Ruce" (_tryiedinoi
Rusi_), which was imposed and isstill being imposed upon world
historical studies by Russian andpro-Russian historians and students of
the East European affairs.Moreover, while in all previously quoted
chronicles and chroniclecompilations from the eleventh to the fifteenth
centuries thenortheastern lands of the European East, in particular
during theMongol-Tartar invasion, were clearly identified by their
proper andoriginal names in the so-called _Ustiug Chronicle
Compilation_,arranged under the impact of the "all-Russian" tendencies
at thebeginning of the sixteenth century, the above-quoted
geographicalnames of the northeastern regions and territories have
beencompletely linked with the central lands of Kyivan Ruce and
coveredby the one common term _Ruce_," although there are still
noreferences to any Muscovite princes or the Muscovite
principalitysimilarly, as in all other earlier and already-cited
chronicles.And so, in that "all-Russian" chronicle compiled in the
first halfof the sixteenth century under the year 1237, one can read:
Czar Batu came from the North, through the woods and without being
preceded by any news, into the Ruce-land with an army of a great
force. It happened on the seventh of February, on the day of St.
Father Paphennii, in the morning hours. And there occurred a great
battle, a wrath of God; the Ruce princes were taken into captivity
or slaughtered, and Ruce-lands occupied. Then Prince Yurii
Vsevolodovich and his children and nephews were all killed, and
Vladimir was ruined and many towns such as Riazan, Kolomna, Murom,
Suzdal, Yuriev, Rostov, Yanoslavl, Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Moscow,
Voloklamsk, Dmitrov, Twer, Kashin and others were captured; many
princes and princesses, men, women and children, nuns and monks, and
priests and deacons were killed; nuns and wives of the priests, and
other women and virgins were raped in front of their mothers. That
was the misery permitted by God and imposed upon the Ruce-land.
After coming some 100 _versts_ [65 miles] before reaching
Novgorod, he turned away . . . .[40]It is most interesting to note
here, that the chronicle compilationdoes not even mention the terrible
destructions suffered at thattime by the central regions of Ruce
proper, and the awful "Kyivanruin," so extensively described by all the
other, earlierchronicles, as hereinbefore quoted.It would be very
appropriate at this point to emphasize oneparticular instance which
would vividly illustrate how tendentiouslyand unilaterally present
Soviet historians and students interprethistorical details and facts,
which have been rather inconvenientfor the centralist proclivities of
the Moscow of today as well as ofyesterday, and which the old
chronicles described unambiguously. Forexample, although it has been
clearly asserted, without ambiguity,in the _Novgorod Pergament
Chronicle_, that "the Muscovites fled anddid not see anything, while
the Tartars took the city,"[41] theSoviet historian V. Pashuto,
claiming to refer to the _LavrentianChronicle_, where there is not the
slightest hint of any battle ofthe Muscovites with the Tartars in 1237,
presents the followinginterpretation of the event: "the Muscovites, led
by Philip Nianka,the governor, heroically defended the land of their
own."[42]As clearly illustrated by the above quotations, the Soviet's
need toutterly disregard the facts and invent their own proves the
futilityof any attempts at identifying the central territories of
KyivanRuce proper as "Russia." These attempts are without
historicalbasis. For example, the Russian historian A. Nasonov asserted
that:The term _Ruce-land_, which sometimes was applied only in
referenceto the South-Russian land, with the passing of time, was
applied tothe whole country. This all-Russian meaning was also
maintained atthe time when the South-Russian land was no longer ruling
over other"lands." The name _Russian_ has been applied to the entire
countryand with that name, the idea of the common social role of
theSouth-Russian land and of Kyiv was closely
connected.[43]Subsequently, the academician Tikhomirov, although fully
consciousof the fact that the term Russia has been based on all kinds
ofliterary wheeling-dealings of the Muscovite scribes, and that
"itappeared first in the fifteenth century,"[44] still dared to
assertthe nomenclature _Russia_ in identifying that entire country
and,equated it with the Muscovite Czardom "which included
theterritories of almost all of Eastern Europe [at that time--only
ofnortheastern Europe], an identity he claims had been firmly
acceptedat the end of the sixteenth century, having gradually forced
out theold name _Ruce_."[45]Having finally achieved the "affirmation"
of that tendentious name,on the basis of which the identification of
"Russia" with _KyivanRuce_ was made possible for the Muscovite Czardom,
the Muscoviterulers never ceased to undertake all possible measures to
imposethat newly created nomenclature and that new concept on
worldhistoriography and politics when, as recently as the time of
PeterI, the northeastern territories of the European East continued to
becalled the Muscovite Czardom. This becomes apparent from
Peter'sorder, issued in 1713 through Menshikov and delivered to
V.Dolgorukii in Copenhagen, in which the following was maintained:
"Inall publications our state is called Muscovite and not Russian,
andbecause of that you are requested to call their attention to printit
as Russian. All concerned and all courts were also advised as tothis
point."[46] The manner in which the above undertakings of theMuscovite
rulers--who developed long-range political plans--werecarried out
practically, and forced upon world literature andpolitics, has been
convincingly illustrated by the letter of A.Bestuzhev, a Muscovite
diplomat, to Czar Peter I, dispatched fromDenmark in 1723, where among
other things the following was stated: . . . [it would be] better at
the present time to renew efforts regarding recognition of the
imperial title in order to achieve success here; it is imperative to
give Chancellor Holst 10,000 gouldens, secret councilman . . .
6,000, secret councilman Lent 6,000, and to the administrator of
foreign affairs, von Hagen, 3,000, since in an identical manner, the
Hanover court persuaded Denmark not to ally herself with
Russia.[47]Thus, Bestuzhev hoped to gain the allegiance, as Soloviov
indicated,of Holst, Lent, and von Hagen with a bribe of 25,000
gouldens.Finally, it must be understood that, in the original edition
of theremarkable French _History of Charles XII_ written by F.
Voltaire,the famous French philosopher and historian, and which by the
end ofthe nineteenth century reached over 100 editions, the territory
ofpresent-day "Russia" was identified by the term _Muscovy_ and
thepeople which populated that territory as _Muscovites_. Neither
inits Paris edition of 1802, nor in the Leipzig one of 1845, were
theterms _Russia_ and the _Russians_ used. In the 1831
Englishtranslation and edition of _Charles XII_, the territory
ofcontemporary Russia was still identified as _Muscovy_, but,
wheneverthe people are mentioned, the original name _Muscovites_
was"corrected" and changed to _Russians_. In the English edition
of1908 the original and old names _Muscovy_ and the -Muscovites_
werefully eliminated and tendentiously replaced by the improper
terms_Russia_ and _Russians_.[48]The preceding are undeniable
historical facts, supported by numeroushistorical sources: _contra
factum non est argumentum_.
Subject: paper available on website only in html
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 06 Jun 1998 7:42 AM
As a service to those equipped with graphical web browsers, an html
version with corrections has been posted on the web at this time. It
does not, however, offer the text-only format required by many, and is
not proximately placed as are the two posts here as an opinion or
dialogue in this forum ought be, to represent others views for those
interested in this fascinating subject, and does not provide invitation
or locus for further disucssion as is possible in this forum. Scholars,
however, will wish to visit the web site. The site URL
is:http://pluto.njcc.com/~max/
However, there has not been time to
post a revised text-only version as is posted here. Much of the world
and many unix users do not have graphical browsers and will not be able
to read the html web version. The small site also does not have the
capacity this site has to handle all interested parties' attempts to
view the web version. Moreover, the disabled and blind likewise require
a text-only copy. Therefore, the posting here ought be, in my opinion,
preserved until July 15th deadline, if not longer, and the web version
integrated with the PBS curriculae offerings which may be associated
with the PBS documentary. The research paper does not criticise the
program, it offers a cogent argument from prime sources which ought be
considered in a scholarly exploration of the issues raised by the
documentary. It does not detract from the greatness of the Russian
people or what they have achieved through hard work. It merely
addresses historiographic issues which arose from the reign of Peter I,
the Great, which continue to baffle and challenge historians to this
day.
Subject: research papers
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 3:14 PM
The following research papers by Dr. Korchmaryk are now available
atmy web site URL: http://pluto.njcc.com/~max- Russian Interpretation
of Ukrainian Historical Sources- It was Ruce-Ukraine and not Russia
which was Christianized in 988The former proves that Ukrainian nation
and people do not share a commonorigin with Russia, disproving the
"cradle" theory propagated bytendentious pro-Russian historians, and
proves that Russia hasappropriated Ukrainian history as its own.The
latter paper proves that it was Ruce-Ukraine to which thecelebration of
a thousand years of Christianity and history isexclusively applicable
and due, and not to Russia which has appropriatedboth Ukraine's ancient
name, history and heritage; maps and photographswhich accompany the
latter paper ought be available next week on theaforesaid web site.I
think it was part two of the program which may have mentioned that
themillennium of Christianity was Russian; this, and the
chronologytimeline on this forum, which claims 988 Prince
Vladimir converts to Christianity. 1037 Cathedral of St.
Sophia, Kiev. 1113 Primary Chronicle completedare all claims
which exclusively apply to Ruce-Ukraine and not Russia,and indeed as
the first paper proves, cannot apply to Muscovy/Russia.If you have not
read these papers, these are must-read documents forthose concerned
with historiographic truth.
