 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
It was Ruce-Ukraine and not Russia which was Christianized in 988.The research paper posted elsewhere on this forum on Russianinterpretation of Ukrainian Historical Source Materials sets the stagefor the following paper. It proved that Ukrainian nation and people donot share a common origin with Russia, disproving the "cradle" theory.The present paper posted herein argues that it was Ruce-Ukraine to whichthe celebration of a thousand years of Christianity and history isexclusively applicable and due. I believe it does so cogently,responsibly, and proves its thesis.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.I had not realized the wonderful power of this forum technically, thatit can accept and handle html coding. I will endeavor later to post thecorrected html version of the first paper here, with all itscorrections. Html is far easier to read, with italics properly handled,in such matters. In any case, this paper is very short. Supporting mapsand photographs will be later available on the web.
Responses:
Subject: praise
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 4:07 PM
PBS ought be praised for making such a powerful forum available for free discussion of its programs. While various viewers may have a multiplicity of perspectives and interpretations, all benefit by additional discussion and analysis of issues touched or raised by the program.
Indeed PBS is a tremendous source of education, and the internet extends its depth. Thanks, PBS.
Subject: research paper: It was Ruce-Ukraine not Russia who was Christianized in 988
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 4:12 PM
posted by permissionIT WAS RUCE-UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA WHICH WASCHRISTIANIZED IN 988
by
Frank B. Korchmaryk, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRONIC TEXTVERSION
E-text (electronic text) transcriber'snote:
This 4th edition document is an e-text of a translationof the author's 1988 monograph, prompted and released in response to atelevision documentary which mispresented Ukrainian history as Russian,and the Millennial celebration of Christianity in Ukraine as Russian inRussia--an historical and metaphysical impossibility.
Footnotes appear as end notes in this e-textversion.
In literature searches for the author's publications,variant transliterations of his name have been used in the past,including "Kortschmaryk", and various initials.
A number of photographs will shortly be made available,which complement this paper, as downloadable or viewable links at theend of this page. Check primary web site herein specified in severaldays.
This document, web and electronic versions areCopyright (C) 1985-1998 by P. Skorupsky, used by permission hereand at http://pluto.njcc.com/~max, where a current version of this andother papers may always be found. All rights are reserved worldwide.This work may not be translated, adapted nor reproduced, reposted,cross-posted nor otherwise published and disseminated in any media, formor means of storage except by permission, and then only in its entiretywithout redactions or changes of any nature or kind. If webmasters wishto link to this document/page, although linking is encouraged, priorpermission is required.
For permissions contact: app-tech@usa.netIT WAS RUCE-UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA WHICH WAS CHRISTIANIZED IN 988 by Frank B. Korchmaryk, Ph.D. [The abridged 3rd edition was revised in 1988 for the UkrainianMillennium celebration. This 4th edition for e-text web distributionwas created July 1998.]
Trenton, New Jersey USA Copyright (C) 1988-1998 by P. Skorupsky. All rightsreserved. IT WAS RUCE-UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA WHICH WAS CHRISTIANIZED IN 988
Frank B. Korchmaryk, Ph.D. In 1988 Ukrainians throughout the world celebrate their Millenniumof Christianization of Ruce-Ukraine.[1]
A thousand years ago, in the year 988, Ruce-Ukraine and itspeople formally accepted Christianity. Surprisingly, if not ironically,the atheistic government of the Soviet Union, the Moscow RussianOrthodox Church and the entire Russian Community in the diasporaare spreading historically unsubstantiated, unjustified propagandaand are desperately attempting to convince a misinformed worldthat in 988 it was Russia, and not Ukraine and the Ukrainian people,that accepted Christianity.
It is necessary, therefore, to explain some of the most significant,factual and well-documented information concerning the celebrationof the "millennium" of Russian Christianity. The Russiancelebration cannot withstand historical and scientific criticismsince this involves examination of accurately recorded history,particularly at the end of the first half and the beginning ofthe second half of the thirteenth century.
This is done for two basic and principal reasons. Firstly, to clearlyunderscore the historical fact that Kyivan[2] Ruce was not thecradle of three Slavic brethren nations.[3] as most of the Russianand pro-Russian researchers are, at all costs, trying toconvince a misinformed world; and secondly, that the reader mayclearly comprehend the historical fact that the commencement ofMuscovite-Russian national identity is rooted only, and exclusively,in the Principality of Muscovy, whose "true founder
. . . was the son of Nevsky, Daniel" (1263-1303), who almostthree centuries after Kyiv and Ruce-Ukraine formally adoptedChristianity, "made Moscow his political capital."[4]The distinguished Russian historian, V. O. Kluchevskii, emphasizesthat was precisely the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, "Daniel,(who) became the forefather of the Principality of Muscovy."[5]In particular, one must be clearly aware that when the northeasternlands of the European East, inhabited by heterogeneous Ugro-Finnictribes, were part of the vast Kyivan Empire, these tribes, according tothe chronicles, not only before the Mongolo-Tatar invasion, butalso after the complete fall of the Kyivan Empire, continued to preservetheir respective original territorial and ethnic identities consequentlyremaining "Chudian," Myrianian," "Muromian,""Mordovian," "Riazanian," "Rostovian," and"Rostovo-Suzdalian," but never "Muscovian" or"Great Russian."[6]
Certainly, a definite portion of the northeastern lands of EasternEurope that were former colonies of the Kyivan Empire may be consideredand called Muscovite as of the second half of the thirteenth century,but not yet Great Russian, concordant with the creation of thePrincipality of Muscovy, which appears no earlier than 1263 and1282 (i.e., in those times when Kyivan Ruce no longer existed asa singular multinational entity).
Concerning the beginnings of the true and factual creation ofthe Muscovite nation, at first within the framework of the Principalityof Muscovy and eventually within the boundaries of the alwaysaggressive Muscovite tsardom. (which at the time of Peter I wastransformed into the "Russian Empire"), the Englishlanguage edition of Outline History of the USSR, publishedin Moscow in 1960, clearly and unequivocally states that "theRussian nation began to take form in the 17th century."[7]
Clarifying these fundamental and well-documented historicalpoints, pertaining primarily to the creation of the Principalityof Muscovy and the beginnings of the formation of the Russiannation, it is also prudent to focus upon the erroneous and unfoundedemphasis of some researchers on the alleged fact, that in thesecond half of the 12th century Kyivan Christianity, already extant,was in opposition to "Christianity in Moscow."
This incorrect methodological approach is a matter of utmost importancemainly for the following reasons. Firstly, Moscow, until the creationof the Principality of Muscovy, had no significant political,let alone cultural-religious, role in Eastern Europe. Secondly,Muscovite Christianity began to separate from that of Kyiv onlyin the first half of the 14th century, after Constantinople authoritiestendentiously relocated the historically traditional Kyivan MetropolitanSee (Metropolitanate) to Moscow (1326). Moreover, this later epochis notable not only for the commencement of the formation of aseparate Muscovite nation, but also for the emergence of a separateRussian Church which progressively became the main tool of Russian(Muscovite) rulers in achieving their far-reaching politicalgoals. Ukrainian-Russian mutual relations began only afterthe creation of the Principality of Muscovy, and were initiallymade manifest by a struggle between the Halych-Volynian Kingdomand the Principality of Muscovy for the historically traditionalKyivan Metropolitan See.
Taking into account that the northeastern lands of Europe, inhabitedby heterogeneous Ugro-Finnic and Baltic tribes, continuedto preserve their respective territorial and ethnic identities,then by the same logic, Christianity and the highly developedKyivan culture spread directly from Kyiv to the lands of the Chudian,Myrianian, Muromian, Mordovian, Riazanian, Rostovian and Suzdalianpeoples, but in no instance to Muscovy or "Great Russia,"because the strict existence of such a territory prior to thecreation of the Principality of Muscovy is not confirmed by anyof the chronicles.
In light of the afore-cited facts, it is emphasized thatthe entire "millennial" celebration of Christianityin "Russia" does not withstand even the smallest scientificor historiographic criticism.
Furthermore, a most effective and convincing argumentation defendinghistorical truth (particularly in clarifying the tendentious celebrationof the "millennium" of Christianity by Russia) are threehistorically reliable and irrefutable facts. First, when Volodymyrthe Great, whom the Ukrainian Church recognized as its apostle-saint,with the aid of clergy from Kyivan Ruce-Ukraine, Bulgaria,and Greece in 988 conducted the official Christianization of KyivanRuce-Ukraine, neither Moscow, nor Russia, nor all the morea Russian nation, as such, existed.
Second, the basin of the Moscow river (the later nucleus of Muscovyand Russia) was initiated at that time by war-like Baltsknown as Galindians, who had successfully resisted incorporationinto Volodymyr's Empire, and owed him neither allegiance nor tribute.[8]These people manifested no inclination whatsoever towards an earlyimportation of Ruce-Ukrainian culture or spirituality. Mostof them were still sun-worshipping pagans with little knowledgeof Slavonic speech when Batu Khan's hordes conquered Kyiv andput an end to its brilliant medieval civilization (1240).
Third, Volodymyr, as the distinguished Russian academician E.Golubinskii states clearly, "Christianized only half of theRuce," that is, only Ruce proper, "and left unchristianizedthe other half," that is, the colonial lands, "whichby its population was foreign as the provinces of Rostov and Muromwith the greater part of the province of Novgorod, or even ifSlavic, was not Rucen, as the land of the Viatichians."[9]
Finally, when taking into account that "the beginnings of theformation of the Russian (or more properly, Muscovite) nation aretightly intertwined with the creation of the Principality of Muscovy andconditioned with the voluntary and forced intermixing of the"slavonicized" Ugro-Finnic tribes withMongolo-Tatars,"[10] by the same token the actual and true"cradle" of the Muscovite nation was not Kyivan Ruce, butonly, and almost exclusively, the Mongolo-Tatar Empire with whichthe Muscovite rulers fostered intimate cooperation,[11] and whosepolitical principles they absorbed and made their own. The consequencesof this Mongol training have endured until current times, and havebecome a major threat to the entire free world.
It is a historical truth that the Kyivan Ruce (Old Ukraine) wasalready a powerful nation in the mid-ninth century, whenit became a major concern even to Byzantium itself. The fact thatthe great Kyivan prince, Askold, in 860 waged a naval campaignagainst Constantinople (his fleet being comprised of 200 warships,as written in the chronicles), bears witness to the undisputedstrength of Kyivan Ruce in the ninth century.
During the rule of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), the sonof Volodymyr the Great, the Kyivan Ruce Empire was at the peakof its development and ranked among the greatest, strongest, richestand most cultured world powers.
It has to be noted that medieval historians, both Ukrainian andforeign, have very perceptively characterized the opinion of Europeanrulers about the might of Kyivan Ruce, by emphasizing that forthat very reason these rulers strived to become dynastically linkedwith the Kyivan Ruce monarchs.
The French historian Levesques, quoting the words of Bishop GautierSaveraux (who as the head of the French royal delegation traveledto Kyiv to ask for the hand of Anna, the daughter of Yaroslavthe Wise), wrote: 'This Land," namely the Kyivan Ruce, "ismore unified, happier, stronger and more civilized than Franceherself" (1048).
The contemporary English historian E. A. Harvey, explaining amongother things, why European rulers strived at all costs to becomedynastically related to the Kyivan imperial throne, echoes thisancient evaluation when he enthusiastically exclaims:
Let us now go East to Old Ruce, to Kyiv, Golden Kyiv, secondonly in glory to the Imperial City of Constantinople itself. Standingon her three hills above the broad Dnipro, she knew a civilizationand culture that most nations of the West only dreamed about.She was rich, prosperous, progressive, and deeply religious.. . . As has been shown, the 988-1988 Millennium of Christianity celebrationis historically, uniquely and exclusively an Ukrainian, not Russian,celebration and heritage. Ukrainians world-wide welcome others to sharein their proud celebration.
END NOTES 1. Geoffrey Chaucer's (c.1340-1400) spelling of the termRuce is used for three fundamental and important reasons.First, Ruce is an historical and natural term native tothe English language of the Medieval period, its usage being almostcontemporaneous with the existence of the Kyivan Empire-stateitself. Second, the term Ruce cannot be readily confusedwith the term Russia. Finally, the term Ruce cannotbe manipulated by the distorters and falsifiers of Ruce-Ukrainianhistory as can be the terms Rus or Rus'.
2. Transliterated from the Ukrainian, the terms Kyiv, Kyivan,and Dnipro are used in lieu of the russified terms Kiev,Kievan, and Dnieper throughout this paper.
3. B. F. Kortschmaryk, Russian Interpretation of UkrainianHistorical Source Materials, Shevchenko Scientific Society,Paper No. 37, New York, 1974, pp. 6-10.
4. V. Milkovich, "Vostochnaia Yevropa" IstoriaCheloviechestva, G. Gelmolt, second edition, SPB., 1903, Vol. V,p. 509; V. Kluchevskii, Kurs russkoi istorii, 3rd ed.Moscow, 1925, No. 2, p. 13; Patriarchal (Nikon) Chronicle,Polnoie sobranie russkikh letopisei, Moscow, 1965, Vol. X,p. 143; F. B. Kortschmaryk, Christianization of the EuropeanEast and Messianic Aspiration of Moscow as the "Third Rome."Toronto-New York, 1971, p. 10; V. A. Kuchkin,Formirovanie gosudarstvennoi territorii severno-vostochnoi Rusiv X-XIV vv. AN SSSR, Inst. Istorii. Moscow, 1984, p. 316;Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasants in Russia. Princeton UniversityPress. Princeton, 1961, p. 67: "The story of the rise of theMuscovite dynasty
. . . began. . . whenDaniel, youngest son of Alexander Nevsky. . . was madeprince of the provincial town of Moscow, thereby converting it into thecapital of an independent albeit small and unimportant,principality."5. V. Kluchevskii, Ibid., p. 6.
6 B. F. Kortschmaryk, Concepcia M. Hrushevskoho ta "orhanichna"cilist. W. Sh. London, 1977, No 6. p. 754; LavrentianChronicle, Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, Moscow, 1962,Vol. I, pp. 460 and 470; Patriarchal (Nikon) Chronicle, Ibid.,Vol. X, pp. 105, 106, 109 and 114; Vladimirian Chronicle,P.S.R.L. Moscow, 1965, Vol. 30, pp. 87-90; Uvarov Chronicle,P.S.R.L. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963, Vol. XXVIII, pp, 210 and211.
7. Outline History of the U.S.S.R., Translated from theRussian by George H. Hanna. Moscow, 1960, p. 85; Richard Hallie,Slavery in Russia, 1450-1725. The Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982, p. 392.
8. G. D. Knysh, "Eastern Slavs and the Christian Millenniumof 1988," Studia Ukrainica 3, University of OttawaPress, 1986, pp. 13-35. Also published in booklet form bythe Central Jubilee Committee of the Ukrainian Catholic Church(Winnipeg), 1987, pp. 15-18.
9. E. Golubinskii, Istoria russskoi tserkvi, Moscow,1901, Vol. I, p. 198.
10. V. Milkovich, Ibid., Vol. V., p. 506; V. Kluchevskii,Op. cit. Moscow, 1937. No. 1, p. 309; B. F. Kortschmaryk,Concepcia, Ibid., p. 754.
11. I. D. Byliaiv, 0 dokhodakh Moscovskaho gosudarstva. SPB.,1884. No. 4, p. 27; V. Kuchevskii, Ibid., Vol. II,pp. 22 and 44; M. K. Liubavskii, Lektsii po drevnei russkoiistorii do kontsa XIV veka. Moscow, 1915, p. 218.
Associated maps and photographs are to be made available in this textshortly. Check web site of origin next week.
Contact information: app-tech@usa.net
Copyright (C) 1988-1998 by P. Skorupsky, all rights reservedworldwide. Posted by permission.
Web site of origin URL is http://pluto.njcc.com/~max
Subject: It was Ruce-Ukraine and not Russia which was Christianized in 988
From: Dan Korolyshyn
Date: 07 Jul 1998 12:59 PM
Cardinal Liubachivsky is the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, a church which the former Russian occupiers of Ukraine had claimed no longer existed prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Prior to the celebration of the Christianization of Ukraine-Rus Cardinal Liubachivsky wrote a brief pamphlet titled "Was It Really Russia that was christianised in 988" ISBN 0 902322 32 X 1986 2nd rev. ed.Ukrainian Publishers Ltd. London, refuting Moscow's shameless claim to Kyivan history and to the celebration of the millennium of Ukrainian Christianity in Moscow, a city which did not even exist in 988 AD.
Liubachivsky wrote:
"it is incorrect, on the grounds of similarity between the name Rus' and Russia to assume that the Kyivan Sate (Rus') was the birthplace of Russia. The Muscovite Principality (later Empire) entered the scene of East European history only in the 16th century. This young state was known as Muscovy, and its inhabitants as Muscovites - the real predecessors of today's Russia. They created the actual basis of the later Russian state. Racially, the Muscovites (later Russians), unlike the Rus'men (Ukrainians) are primarily from a Hungarian-Finnish descent with a strong mixture of Mongol blood. Moscow developed into a powerful political and military state and raised pretensions to hegemony in Eastern Europe. For this purpose, it came forward as the alleged "heir" of the old-Ukrainian Kyivan State, and accepted, in a changed form, the name Rus', which was still the official name of Ukraine."
He later continues,
"Throughout the centuries Russia has tried to make the world believe that Ukrainians are merely the "younger brothers" of the Russians, whose history and culture are simply a "marginal aspect" of Russian history and culture, by asserting itself as the "heir" of the Kyivan State and its Church. But, inspite of what the Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet Russian authorities would have us believe, 1988 will see the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine, and it is the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Church (with its two denominations - the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church), the true descendants of Kyivan Rus' who will be celebrating this great event of monumental national and religious significance to which Russia has no rightful claim."