 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
The research paper below, posted in two parts, part one and part two, isa corrected and updated html version of THE RUSSIAN INTERPRETATION OFUKRAINIAN HISTORICAL SOURCES by Frank B. Korchmaryk, Ph.D.This landmark research paper proves that Ukrainian nation and people donot share a common origin with Russia, disproving the popular "cradle"[of three (Slavic) brotherly peoples] origin theory propagated bytendentious or naive historians, and proves that Russia has appropriatedearly Ukrainian history as its own. Rus', Kyivan Rus' are not the sameas "Russia" nor were ever Russia's ancestors.If I find time, I will later quote Encyclopedia Britannica, 1962 edition,which has some interesting things to say about Novgorod, which aparticipant here assumed was always Russian, and the Muscovite dukes.
Responses:
Subject: part 2 of 2, research paper
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 2:29 AM
*** part two of two parts of html version ***
In no other or different way from that in the above-quotedchronicles, as well as in the later compilations of the chronicles (from1497 and 1518) which were arranged on Muscovite territories and which,as was indicated in their introductions, regarded as "the all-Russianchronicle compilations," were the northeastern lands of the EuropeanEast described. For instance, the Chronicle Compilation of 1497recorded the following: "In this winter the Tatars under Czar Batu camefrom the northern side through the forests to the Riazan land." Andfurther, "And the Tatars came to Moscow, took the city and capturedPrince [Princeling] Vladimir Yurievich," or, it continues,
". . . and they conquered all of the towns in the Riazan and Suzdalianlands. . . . "[32] The identical terminology was also usedin the Chronicle Compilation of 1518, or in the so-calledUvarov Chronicle under the date of 1237, where the following wasentered: "In this winter. . . the Tatars came to theRiazan land. . . and began to destroy the Riazan land."Then further on,". . . and from there on they spreadthroughout the whole land: towards Rostov and Yaroslav and Gorodets, andalong the Volga River; they took all towns. . . throughoutfthe Rostovian and Suzdalian lands."[33]Moreover, the northeastern territories of the EuropeanEast continued to use their old and proper names, without calling themselvesRuce or parts of Ruce, even immediately after the fall ofthe Kyivan Empire. Hence, for example, the Vladimirian Chroniclerecorded under 1256: "In the winter Gleb Vasilkovich came from the Khanland, from the Czar, after having married into the Horde," meaning herethe Mongol land. And, one can read further: "In this winter many peoplecame from the Horde and, after having counted the whole lands of Suzdaland Riazan and Murom, they appointed the tenners, hundreders,thousanders and officials; only nuns and monks and priests and deaconswere not counted."[34]
Consequently, after having cited a whole series of examples,based on many of the oldest Ukrainian and then Muscovite chronicle sourcematerials, the following questions quite naturally may arise: Why, in whatway, and on what grounds did the Russian and the pro-Russian historiansdare to identify Kyivan Ruce with Russia and, by the same token, to adoptfor the Russians the entire Ukrainian historical inheritance?
Of course, these questions could be answered in a verydirect and simple way. Namely, Russian scholars have identified KyivanRuce with 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 analyticallysuperficial and making unfounded statements, some examples to prove thepreceding assertion should be brought forward.
It is an interesting fact, that the very first victimof that tendentious and subjective interpretation of Ukrainianhistorical source materials was one of the most beautiful and preciousliterary creations of Kyivan Ruce, namely the Slovo o polkuIhoreve (Song about Ihor's Host), which was forged andadapted on Muscovite territory, at a later date, to correspond to itslocal political circumstances. On the basis of the Slovo,Zadonshchina (Beyond the Don River) was subsequentlyprepared and later became a kind of "historical" source material forRussian interpreters of very complex socio-political processes of thepeoples of the European East.[35] Even previous Russian, as well aspresent-day Soviet historians and linguists have concurred in the proofthat Zadonshchina was but a forged and distorted version ofSlovo, fabricated on Muscovite territory and preserved as anoriginal literary 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 Slovo opolku Ihoreve (which, of course, does not refer to 1380), butrepeated it. At the same time he understood poorly his own scheme andpossessed an inadequate comprehension of the Slovo as a poeticcreation. He was using it only from the point of view of its terms andsentences, which he inserted into his work without skill orsensibility."[36]
Ignoring the passage in the Slovo o polku Ihorevewhich states "Let us begin, brothers, that very tale from old Vladimirand carry it to the Ihor of today, who reinforced his mind with hisstrength and sharpened his heart with his manliness and led hiscourageous regiments against the Cumans in defense of theRuce-land,"[37] (i.e., in defense of the central regions of contemporaryUkraine), the author of Zadonshchina equated the term Ruce-landwith the "concept of the Muscovite principality, headed by Grand DukeDimitrii Ivanovich, who united around himself the Ruce princes for thestruggle against the Tatars."
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 weknow well that it was not that way, and that instead, Oleg of Riazan wasin alliance with Yagailo Olgerdovich of Lithuania and with Mamai againstthe coalition of the princes, headed by Dimitrii Ivanovich. Remarkablealso was the fact," continues Gudzii, "that princes Dimitrii Ivanovichand Vladimir Andreievich in Zadonshchina called themselvesgreat-grandchildren of Kyivan Vladimir Sviatoslavich on three occasionsfor the obvious reason of raising their prestige by pointing out thisfamily genealogy." Thus, "in Zadonshchina, the Muscovitetendency, which at that time, by virtue of the historical developments,already aspired to become an all-Russian one, was clearlyexhibited."[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 to illustrate thepolitical achievements of the princes, starting with VolodymyrSviatoslavich up to Ivan Vasilovich." The simple idea "of a community ofall Slavic peoples was expressed,"[39] indicating beyond doubt that itbecame the very foundation of ideas formulated later about "the cradlesof three brotherly peoples" and about "the three-in-unity Ruce"(tryiedinoi Rusi), which was imposed and is still being imposedupon world historical studies by Russian and pro-Russian historians andstudents of the East European affairs.
Moreover, while in all previously quoted chronicles andchronicle compilations from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries thenortheastern lands of the European East, in particular during theMongol-Tatar 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 geographical namesof the northeastern regions and territories have been completely linkedwith the central lands of Kyivan Ruce and covered by the one common termRuce," although there are still no references to any Muscoviteprinces or the Muscovite principality similarly, as in all other earlierand already-cited chronicles.
And so, in that "all-Russian" chronicle compiled in thefirst half of the sixteenth century under the year 1237, one can read:
Czar Batu came from the North, through the woodsand without being preceded by any news, into the Ruce-land with an armyof a great force. It happened on the seventh of February, on the day ofSt. Father Paphennii, in the morning hours. And there occurred a greatbattle, a wrath of God; the Ruce princes were taken into captivity orslaughtered, and Ruce-lands occupied. Then Prince Yurii Vsevolodovichand his children and nephews were all killed, and Vladimir was ruinedand 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, womenand children, nuns and monks, and priests and deacons were killed; nunsand wives of the priests, and other women and virgins were raped infront of their mothers. That was the misery permitted by God and imposedupon 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 chroniclecompilation does not even mention the terrible destructions suffered atthat time by the central regions of Ruce proper, and the awful "Kyivanruin," so extensively described by all the other, earlier chronicles, ashereinbefore quoted.
It would be very appropriate at this point to emphasizeone particular instance which would vividly illustrate how tendentiouslyand unilaterally present Soviet historians and students interpret historicaldetails and facts, which have been rather inconvenient for the centralistproclivities of the Moscow of today as well as of yesterday, and whichthe old chronicles described unambiguously. For example, although it hasbeen clearly asserted, without ambiguity, in the Novgorod PergamentChronicle, that "the Muscovites fled and did not see anything, whilethe Tatars took the city,"[41] the Soviet historian V. Pashuto, claimingto refer to the Lavrentian Chronicle, where there is not the slightesthint of any battle of the Muscovites with the Tatars in 1237, presentsthe following interpretation of the event: "the Muscovites, led by PhilipNianka, the governor, heroically defended the land of their own."[42]
As clearly illustrated by the above quotations, the Soviet'sneed to utterly disregard the facts and invent their own proves the futilityof any attempts at identifying the central territories of Kyivan Ruce properas "Russia." These attempts are without historical basis. For example,the Russian historian A. Nasonov asserted that:
The term Ruce-land, which sometimes was appliedonly in reference to the South-Russian land, with the passing of time,was applied to the whole country. This all-Russian meaning was alsomaintained at the time when the South-Russian land was no longer rulingover other "lands." The name Russian has been applied to theentire country and with that name, the idea of the common social role ofthe South-Russian land and of Kyiv was closely connected.[43]
Subsequently, the academician Tikhomirov, although fullyconscious of the fact that the term Russia has been based on all kindsof literary wheeling-dealings of the Muscovite scribes, and that "itappeared first in the fifteenth century,"[44] still dared to assert thenomenclature Russia in identifying that entire country and,equated it with the Muscovite Czardom "which included the territories ofalmost all of Eastern Europe [at that time--only of northeasternEurope], an identity he claims had been firmly accepted at the end ofthe sixteenth century, having gradually forced out the old nameRuce."[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 impose thatnewly created nomenclature and that new concept on world historiographyand politics when, as recently as the time of Peter I, the northeasternterritories of the European East continued to be called the MuscoviteCzardom. This becomes apparent from Peter's order, issued in 1713through Menshikov and delivered to V. Dolgorukii in Copenhagen, in whichthe following was maintained: "In all publications our state is calledMuscovite and not Russian, and because of that you are requested to calltheir attention to print it as Russian. All concerned and all courtswere also advised as to this point."[46] The manner in which the aboveundertakings of the Muscovite rulers--who developed long-range politicalplans--were carried out practically, and forced upon world literatureand politics, 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 thepresent time to renew efforts regarding recognition of the imperialtitle in order to achieve success here; it is imperative to giveChancellor Holst 10,000 gouldens, secret councilman. . . 6,000, secret councilman Lent 6,000, and to the administrator offoreign affairs, von Hagen, 3,000, since in an identical manner, theHanover court persuaded Denmark not to ally herself withRussia.[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 editionof the remarkable French History of Charles XII written by F.Voltaire, the famous French philosopher and historian, and which by theend of the nineteenth century reached over 100 editions, the territoryof present-day "Russia" was identified by the term Muscovy andthe people which populated that territory as Muscovites. Neitherin its 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,whenever the people are mentioned, the original name Muscoviteswas "corrected" and changed to Russians. In the English editionof 1908 the original and old names Muscovy and theMuscovites were fully eliminated and tendentiously replaced bythe improper terms Russia and Russians.[48]
The preceding are undeniable historical facts, supportedby numerous historical sources: contra factum non est argumentum.
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------
END NOTES1. C. H. Andruyshen and Watson Kirkconnell, translators,The Poetical Works of Taras Shevchenko, (Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1964), p. 252.
2. We are using Geoffrey Chaucer's spelling of the termRus' for three fundamental and important reasons. First, Ruceis a historical and natural term native to the English language of theMedieval period, its usage being almost contemporaneous with the existenceof the Kyivan Empire-state itself. Secondly, the term Ruce cannotbe readily confused with the term Russia. Finally, the term Rucecannot be manipulated by the distorters and falsifiers of Ruce-Ukrainianhistory as can be the terms Rus or Rus'.
3. Istoria Russov yly Maloi Rosii, ed. O. Ohloblyntrans. V. Davydenko, (New York, 1956), p. 275.
4. A. Margolyn, Ukraina i polityka antanty, (Berlin,1921), p. 161.
5. L. P., Jersey City (NJ.) Svoboda, February 10,1968, No. 28.
6. M. Braichevsky, Koly i yak vynyk Kyiv, (Kyiv:Academy of Learning, Ukr. SSR, 1963), p. 132.
7. I. Shovkoplas, Arkheolohichni doslidzhennia na Ukraini(1917-1957), (Kyiv: Academy of Learning, Ukr. SSR, 1957), p. 91.
8. M. Braichevsky, Pokhodzhennia Rusi (Kyiv: Academyof Learning, Ukr. SSR, 1968), p. 10.
9. S. Bernstain, Ocherk spravnitielnoi gramatiki slavianskikhyazykov, (Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1963), p. 62.
10. P. Tretiakov, Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki vostochnoslavianskikhplemen v sviazi problemoi etnogenezy, No. 1 (Moscow-Leningrad: Academyof Learning, USSR, 1939.)
11. V. Dmytrychenko, "Narys z istorii suspilno-politychnoita filosofskoi dumky narodiv SSR doby feddalizmu," KOLDU, (Kyiv,1961), p. 8.
12. B. Rybakov, Drevnia Rus'. Skazania-Byliny-Letopisi(Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1963), p. 35.
13. M. Rudynsky, Kamiana mohyla, (Kyiv: Academyof Learning, Ukr. SSR, 1961), p. 138.
14. P. Tretiakov, Drevnierusskii gorod Kleshchin. Problemyobshchestvenno-politichiskoi istorii Rosii i slavianskikh stran, (Moscow:Academy of Learning, USSR, 1963), pp. 49-50.
15. Braichevsky, Op. cit., p. 139.
16. I. Nahaievsky, "Kyrylo-Metodivske Khrystianstvov Rusi-Ukraini," Zapysky CSVV, Series II, (Rome, 1954), p. 9.
17. V. Milkovich, "Vostochnia Yevropa," in Istoriacheloviechestva, 2d ed. edited by G. Gelmolt, (St. Petersburg, 1903),V, 509.
18. Braichevsky, Op. cit., p. 194.
19. V. Shcherbakivsky, Formatsia ukrainskoi natsii,(New York, 1958), pp.
137-138. 20. V. Kluchevskii, Kurs russkoi istorii, (Moscow-Petrograd,1923), I, 362-363.
21. V. Tatishchev, Istoria rossiiskaia s samykh drevnieishikhvriemen, Bk. III, (Moscow, 1774), p. 76.
22. M. Chubatyi, Ukrainska istorychna nauka, (Philadelphia,1971), p.
3. 23. Hipatian Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikh letopisei(Moscow, 1962), II, 715.
24. M. Chubatyi, Kniazha Rus'-Ukraina ta vyneknenniatriokh slovianskykh natsii, (New York, 1964), p. 63.
25. Novgorodskaia Kharateinaia Letopis, (Moscow:Academy of Learning, USSR, 1964), pp. 56-57.
26. Hipatian Chronicle, Ibid., II, 308-309,468-476.
27. Lavrentian Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikhletopisei, (Moscow, 1962), I, 446-447.
28. Ibid., pp. 460-470.
29. Hipatian Chronicle, Ibid., II, 778-784.
30. Patriarchal (Nikon) Chronicle, Polnoie sobranierusskikh letopisei, (Moscow, 1965), X, 105-106, 109 and 114.
31. Vladimirian Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikhletopisei, (Moscow, 1965), XXX, 87-90.
32. Chronicle Compilation of 1947, Polnoie sobranierusskikh letopisei, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1963), XXVIII, 52-53.
33. Uvarov Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikh letopisei,(Moscow-Leningrad, 1963), XXVIII, 210-211.
34. Vladimirian Chronicle, Ibid., XXX, 92.
35. I. Vinogradov, Slovar-spravochnik "Slovao polku Igoreve", (Leningrad: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1967),p. 128.
36. M. Speranskii, Istoria drevniei russkoi literatury,(Moscow, 1921), II, 36-37.
37. Slovo o polku Ihoreve ta yoho poetychni perekladyi perespivy, ed. L. Makhnovets, (Kyiv, 1967), p. 51.
38. N. Gudzii, Istoria drevniei russkoi literatury,6th ed., corrected, (Moscow, 1956), p. 226.
39. D. Myshko, Ukrainsko-rosiiski zviazky v XIV-XVIc., (Kyiv: Institute of History, Academy of Learning, Ukr. SSR. 1959),p. 145.
40. Ustiug Chronicle Compilation, ed. K. Serbinoi,(Moscow-Leningrad: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1950), pp. 46-47.
41. Novgorod Pergament Chronicle, ed. M. Tikhomirov(Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1964), p. 250.
42. V. Pashuto, Ocherki po istorii Galitsko-VolinskoiRusi, (Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR), 1950, p. 56.
43. A. Nasonov, Russkaia ziemla i obrazovanie territoriidrevierusskavo gosudarstva, (Moscow, 1951), p. 220.
44. M. Tikhomirov, Rossia v XVI stolietii, (Moscow:Academy of Learning, USSR, 1962), p. 25.
45. Ibid., p. 27.
46. S. Soloviov, Istoria Rossii s drevnieishikh vremien,(Moscow, 1862-1879), XVII, 404.
47. Ibid., XVIII, 109.
48. M. S. Gambal, Rus, Ukraine and Muscovite Russia,(Scranton, PA., 1937), p.
14., citing F. Voltaire,History of Charles XII.
----------------------------------------------------- ------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY Andruyshen, C. H. and Kirkconnell, Watson, translators.The Poetical Works of Taras Shevchenko. Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 1964.
Bernstain, S. Ocherk spravnitielnoi gramatiki slavianskikhyazykov. Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1963.
Braichevsky, M. Pokhodzhennia Rusi. Kyiv: Academyof Learning, Ukr. SSR, 1968.
Chubatyi, M. Kniazha Rus'-Ukraina ta vyneknennia triokhslovianskykh natsii. New York, 1964.
----, Ukrainska istorychna nauka. Philadelphia,1971.
Chronicle Compilation of 1947, Polnoie sobranie russkikhletopisei, Vol. XXVIII. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.
Dmytrychenko, V. "Narys z istorii suspilno-politychnoita filosofskoi dumky narodiv SSR doby feddalizmu." KOLDU. Kyiv,1961.
Gambal, M. S. Rus, Ukraine and Muscovite Russia.Scranton, PA., 1937. Citing F. Voltaire, History of Charles XII.
Gudzii, N. Istoria drevniei russkoi literatury,6th ed., corrected. Moscow, 1956.
Hipatian Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikh letopisei,Vol. II. Moscow, 1962.
Kluchevskii, V. Kurs russkoi istorii, Vol. I. Moscow-Petrograd,1923.
L. P., Jersey City (NJ.) Svoboda, No. 28, February10, 1968.
Lavrentian Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikh letopisei,Vol. I. Moscow, 1962.
Makhnovets, L., ed. Slovo o polku Ihoreve ta yoho poetychnipereklady i perespivy. Kyiv, 1967.
Margolyn, A. Ukraina i polityka antanty. Berlin,1921.
Milkovich, V. "Vostochnia Yevropa." In Istoriacheloviechestva. Vol. V. 2d ed. Edited by G. Gelmolt. St. Petersburg,1903.
Myshko, D. Ukrainsko-rosiiski zviazky v XIV-XVI c.Kyiv: Institute of History, Academy of Learning, Ukr. SSR, 1959.
Nahaievsky, I. "Kyrylo-Metodivske Khrystianstvo v Rusi-Ukraini."Zapysky CSVV, Series II. Rome, 1954.
Nasonov, A. Russkaia ziemla i obrazovanie territoriidrevierusskavo gosudarstva. Moscow, 1951.
Novgorodskaia Kharateinaia Letopis. Moscow: Academyof Learning, USSR, 1964.
Ohloblyn O., ed. Istoria Russov yly Maloi Rosii.Trans. V. Davydenko. New York, 1956.
Pashuto, V. Ocherki po istorii Galitsko-Volinskoi Rusi.Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1950.
Patriarchal (Nikon) Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikhletopisei. Vol. X. Moscow, 1965.
Rudynsky, M. Kamiana mohyla. Kyiv: Academy of Learning,Ukr. SSR, 1961.
Rybakov, B. Drevnia Rus'. Skazania-Byliny-Letopisi.Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1963.
Serbinoi, K., ed. Ustiug Chronicle Compilation.Moscow-Leningrad: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1950.
Shcherbakivsky, V. Formatsia ukrainskoi natsii.New York, 1958.
Shovkoplas, I. Arkheolohichni doslidzhennia na Ukraini,(1917-1957). Kyiv: Academy of Learning, Ukr. SSR, 1957.
Soloviov, S. Istoria Rossii s drevnieishikh vremien,Vol. XVIII. Moscow, 1862-1879.
Speranskii, M. Istoria drevniei russkoi literatury,Vol. II. Moscow, 1921.
Tatishchev, V. Istoria rossiiskaia s samykh drevnieishikhvriemen, Bk. III. Moscow, 1774.
Tikhomirov M., ed. Novgorod Pergament Chronicle.Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1964.
----. Rossia v XVI stolietii. Moscow: Academy ofLearning, USSR, 1962.
Tretiakov, P. Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki vostochnoslavianskikhplemen v sviazi problemoi etnogenezy, No. 1. Moscow-Leningrad: Academyof Learning, USSR, 1939.
----. Drevnierusskii gorod Kleshchin. Problemy obshchestvenno-politichiskoiistorii Rossii i slavianskikh stran. Moscow: Academy of Learning, USSR,1963.
Uvarov Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikh letopisei,Vol. XXVIII. Moscow-Leningrad, 1963.
Vinogradov, I. Slovar-spravochnik "Slova o polkuIgoreve". Leningrad: Academy of Learning, USSR, 1967.
Vladimirian Chronicle, Polnoie sobranie russkikh letopisei,Vol. XXX. Moscow, 1965.
----------------------------------------------------------- --------
Maps and illustrations may be posted shortly to complement thispaper on the below web site.
Contact information: app-tech@usa.net
Copyright (C) 1985-1998 by P. Skorupsky, all rights reserved worldwide.
Web site of origin URL is http://pluto.njcc.com/~max
*** end of part two of two parts ***
Subject: erratum
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 3:27 AM
In part two, fthe ought be and was the. In posting the message a mouse click pasted the letter "F" into the text.
Subject: part 1 of 2, research paper
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 2:31 AM
*** part one of two parts of corrected html version ***
THE RUSSIAN INTERPRETATION OF
UKRAINIAN HISTORICAL SOURCESby Frank B. Korchmaryk, Ph.D. INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRONIC TEXT VERSION E-text (electronic text) transcriber's note: translated from theUkrainian, the terms "Kyiv" and "Kyivan" are used in lieu of therussified terms "Kiev" and "Kievan". Also, in literature searches forthe author's many publications, variant transliterations of his namehave been used in the past, including "Kortschmaryk", and variousinitials. In this text, "B.F.K." refers to the author's initials.
Footnotes appear as end notes in this e-text version.
This document is an e-text English language version of the author's1974 monograph, prompted and released in response to a televisiondocumentary which mispresented Ukrainian history as Russian. Thisdocument is in the process of a final proofreading and revision atpresent.
This document is Copyright (C) 1985-1998 by P. Skorupsky andis used by permission for posting to this web page and athttp://pluto.njcc.com/~max
All rights are reservedworldwide. This work may not be translated, adapted nor reproduced,reposted, cross-posted nor otherwise published and disseminated exceptby permission, and then only in its entirety without redactions orchanges of any nature or kind. Although linking by other web sites isencouraged, prior permission is required.
For permissionscontact: app-tech@usa.net
--------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
The Russian Interpretation of Ukrainian HistoricalSources by Frank B.Korchmaryk, Ph.D. Ukrainian language edition, New York, 1974 revised, Trenton, NJ, 1985 Copyright (C) 1985-1998 by P. Skorupsky
------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------PREFACE < BR>It might appear that a brief paper concerning The RussianInterpretation of Ukrainian Historical Sources would not require apreface. Considering this publication's importance amidst today'sliterature, which is voluminously permeated with this theme in the Westand which forcibly conforms solely to Moscow's interpretations, Dr. F.B. Korchmaryk's work certainly must be welcomed as one absolutelyneeded, and one that dares to refute the injustice which challengesUkrainian scholarly truths throughout Western historical literature.
Before us are two new editions: Book of Sources forRussian History from Ancient Times to 1917, edited by G. Vernadskyand R. Fisher of Yale University, and Medieval-Age Russia, A SourceBook, 900-1700, edited by V. Dmytrychyn, Hinsdale, Ill., The DrydenPress, 1973.
Traditionally, these two publications and Nestor'sLetopis, Russian Truth, and Song of Ihor's Host, areconsidered to be historical sources of Russian history, rights andliterature. They make no mention that there exists a second school ofscholarship which considers these historical sources to be Ukrainian, orat least "Little Russian." Neither is anything said about the scholarswhich defend the Ukrainian interpretations "in the name of objectivescholarship." These sources are tendentious.
And these two new publications are not isolated manifestations,but continuations of obstinate bias in "scholarly" historical studies.
With his work, Dr. F. B. Korchmaryk endeavors to impassionatelydefend academic objectivity by illumining issues in the early history ofEastern Europe.
-- [Dr.] M. Chirovsky
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------The Russian Interpretation of UkrainianHistorical Sources Frank B. Korchmaryk, Ph.D. While commemorating the one-hundredth anniversary of our oldestscholarly institution, [Shevchenko Scientific Society---Web Ed.] whichhas been a guardian of truth and which has been placed under thepatronage of our national prophet, Taras Hryhorovych Shevchenko, itwould be quite proper to remind ourselves of his thoughts concerninglearning, and scholarship and his demands of them. This should be doneall the more so today since his meaningful injunctions expressed in the"Epistle to My Fellow Countrymen Living in Ukraine and BeyondUkraine," are no less timely and urgent than they were at the end ofthe first half of the nineteenth century, when his thoughts and wordsresounded for the first time in all corners of our then oppressedFatherland. In particular, today, just as then, we must heed hismeaningful and provident warning:
If you would train yourselves alone,
you'd have some wisdom of your own;
but you must prattle from the sky:
We are not we, and I not I![1]These words refer to the historical and national identification ofthe Ukrainian people, misrepresented in its entirety by our so-called"older brothers," whom Shevchenko fearlessly called by their historicaland traditional name: Muscovites. In fact, if we would learn the way weshould, then we would be able to represent our wisdom and scholarlyknowledge, based on strong and undeniable historical facts, before theoutside world, and surely, no one would ever dare to call us a peoplewithout a history, or the Texans of Russia, or nationalistic product ofthe nineteenth century.
If it would be taken into consideration that the authors,of the History of the Rusiv published in 1846 in the very centerof the Russian Empire, having ignored the rigid censorship of the Russianrulers, dared to assert frankly that "
. . . it has beenknown, that once we were what the Muscovites are today; that thegovernment, the preeminence and the name Ruce[2] itself, wereadopted from us by them," and that also "nowadays we are for them anunnecessary ballast,"[3] then it may become a most pressing need thatthe representatives of Ukrainian historical studies in the free worldbecome morally obligated to establish scientifically the historicalidentity of the country and people who have had their foundation in theoldest and undeniable source materials since time immemorial. Thesescholars should not waste their time deliberating whether to use theterms Muscovy and the Muscovites, or Russia and theRussians in their writings in the Ukrainian language.More than a half-century ago Robert Lansing, the Secretary of Stateof the United States of America, in meeting with the Ukrainiandelegation to the Paris Peace Conference, asserted, among other things,that "he knows only about one Russian people"[4] who populate theterritories of the European East. At that time, that kind of politicalignorance of Western political leaders could have been excused to someextent. However, if today the so-called "experts" of East-Europeanproblems not only identify Kyivan Ruce with Russia and continue to applythe name Russia when referring to the entire USSR,[5] but evendoubt that Kyivan Ruce was really Ukraine, then this is certainly andonly the fault of the scholars of the free world.
It is the fault, in particular, of the better known Ukrainianhistorians, who, living and working in the free world, up to the presenttime could not objectively and scientifically prove that the Ukrainianpast has its own national and political foundation in historical sourcematerials, and that Kyivan Ruce-Ukraine really never was and is not thecradle of the "three brotherly peoples," as has been tendentiously doneby Russian and pro-Russian Western historiographies when interpretinghistorical source materials pertaining to the early past of SlavicEastern Europe.
Since the author does not have all the new and more completehistorical source materials at his disposal, as do present Soviet researchers,and as he could not learn directly about the numerous findings and resultsof the recent archaeological excavations carried out on Ukrainian and otherEast-European territories in the course of the last few decades, it wasnot easy to arrive at any final conclusions with respect to the subjectmatter. Yet, even on the basis of scanty historical materials and historicalliterature, frequently prepared in a tendentious way and sent abroad bySoviet authorities mostly for reasons of propaganda, an objective scholarcan easily come to the conviction that all the efforts of Soviet historiansto give incontrovertible evidence to the correctness of the theory of "one-but-three-unitedRuce," and the close "blood-relation" of the "brotherly" peoples of onecommon national origin, do not have any objective foundation and cannotsucceed.
On the contrary, instead of finding the source materials which wouldsupport the hypothesis of a common national origin of the Russian andUkrainian peoples from the so-called "Old Russian nationality"(drevnierusskoi narodnosti), the builder of the Kyivan state,Soviet scholars are being increasingly confronted with the evidence thatthe supposedly "Old Russian state," known in history under the name ofKyivan Ruce, "developed as a result of a continuous internal evolution,independent of any external influences, of the Eastern Slavictribes,"[6] which, engaged primarily in farming, populated the territoryof present-day Ukraine since neolithic times.[7]
It would not be out of place to mention here that this"theory of the indigenous evolution of the population of the very territory,which had been the nucleus in the building of "future Ruce,"[8] was suggestedfor the deliberations of the 12th Archaeological Convention in Kharkivby V. V. Khvoiko, a Ukrainian archaeologist, in 1902.
Moreover, if the assertions would be taken into consideration, "thatnorthwards of the Prypiat River the Slavonic tongue did not resounduntil the middle of the first millennium A.D.,"[9] and if "it could beassumed, that the colonization of the Slavs," and, in particular, "ofthe Krivichians and Radimichians" took place first "during the seventhto tenth centuries north of the Lake Ilmen in the direction of the WhiteLake, and from there along the Volga River down in the futureRostov-Suzdal region, and along the upper run of the Don River, andeven, perhaps, toward the middle-run of the Oka River,"[10] then howcould one attempt to maintain that "the Russian, Ukrainian andByeloruthenian nationalities originated from one root, the Old Russianpeople, which formed the Old Russian state, Kyivan Ruce,"[11] thebeginnings of which were closely interrelated with the era of Prince Kyiin Kyiv? All the more so, since academician Rybakov asserted that theera of the rule of Kyi, the Kyivan prince, took place in the "sixthcentury," which on its own "was featured by a whole series of mostessential changes in the internal and external history of the EasternSlavs,"[12] with whom the Ugro-Finnic tribes of the central regions offuture Muscovy had not yet come in contact.
The simple assertions that those tribes which then populatedthe northeastern territories of the European East had their own locallyspecific civilization[13] and that "the northeastern towns, developed bypeoples of other tongues," became, during the second half of the thirteenthand the first half of the fourteenth centuries, the very nucleus for theformation of the Muscovite state, "originally
. . . werenot Russian," meaning not Slavic, and that the so-called "Russian[Kyivan--B.F.K.] civilization began to affect those regions only sincethe eleventh century,"[14] doubtlessly indicate that any attempts bySoviet scholars to underscore a "blood relationship" between theUkrainian and Russian nationalities represent only a politicalhypothesis which cannot withstand any objective and scholarly criticalevaluation.Furthermore, when the Kyivan prince Askold, who has been consideredby some historians not only a Ruce prince, meaning a Slavic prince byhis origin, but even a direct descendant of Prince Kyi[15] of alreadyhistorically recorded Kyivan Ruce, was leading a military expeditionagainst Byzantium in 860,[16] at the same time the northeasternterritories of the European East were devoid of any contact whatsoeverwith the Kyivan state.
It is inadmissible to assert any "blood relationship" between theUkrainian and the "Russian" people in the prehistoric era and the earlyhistorical past, and to attempt to prove that Kyivan Ruce was allegedlythe cradle of the three [Slavic brethren nations--Web Editor]"blood-related" nationalities, because the incipient formation of the"Russian" people did not, in fact, go back further than the very time ofthe formation of the Muscovite principality. The first prince of thatprincipality and its "true founder
. . . was. . . Nevsky's son, Daniel (1263-1303), who received Moscow as hisappanage."[17] At that time, the prevailing ethnic stock(substratum) which composed the foundation of the "Russian"people was not at all Slavic. Even if the assertions of some present-daySoviet historians could be accepted that "all that alien non-Slavicpopulation" of the European Northeast "during [the inclusive periodfrom] the ninth to twelfth centuries became fully assimilated,[18] itmust be emphasized, as was stated by V. Shcherbakivsky, that "Ukraine,"or rather Kyivan Ruce proper:And Shcherbakivsky continues,. . . did not participate in the process ofthe formation of the Muscovite Slavs at all. The Krivichians supposedlyparticipated in the process, yet the chronicle of the ninth century hasnot even included them among the tribes of the "Slavonic tongue." TheKrivichians, nota bene, become involved in the assimilationprocess of the native Finns for the first time in the eleventh andtwelfth centuries.. . . Let us now ask thequestion, . . . how many Finns were actually present there,that needed to be assimilated, or to be Slavinized? The chronicle tellsus, that in Muscovy, that is on the territories of the EuropeanNortheast, there were the "Chud, Liv, Vod, Yam, Ves', Perm, Meria,Murom, Mordva, Moksha, Meshchera, Chermisi, Yugra, Pechora, Korel',Zyrian, Samoyed, Erza and other [tribes]. . . . "Consequently, if we take into consideration the simple factof the predominance of those masses of Finno-Uralian hunting peoples whorepresented the prevailing ethnic stock in the area, along with the factthat the ruling race in the region was mainly the tribe of theKrivichians, in addition to the rather innumerous Polovtsians andNovgorod Slovinians, who were largely merchants, we must then come tothe conclusion that the latter tribes must have dissolved anddisappeared very quickly in that Finno-Uralian ethnic sea. It wasbecause of the very primitivism of that Finno-Uralian ethnic mass, andbecause of the cultural superiority of the Krivichians and Slovinians,who, above all, already had a kind of learning and literature at thetime and who had been converted to Christianity, which brought withitself literacy and organization, that the small Slavic minority of theKulturtraegers superimposed their Slavic language over theFinno-Uralian ethnic substratum."[19]
What, in fact, were the results of that assimilation process isperhaps best described by Kluchevskii in his Course of RussianHistory. Although he intentionally and tendentiously identified thenorthern colonies of Kyivan Ruce with Russia, he not only underscores,that "in the Oka and Upper Volga region there lived three Finnic tribes,the Murom, Meria and Ves' in the eleventh and twelfth centuries," butalso admits, that "this country, which laid outside the old and originalRuce, even in the twelfth century was still more alien than a Russianone,"[20] (that is, being a part of the people of Ruce).
Finally, some contemporary Soviet historians have attempted toconnect the repetition of the names of important towns and places inUkraine, such as Pereyaslav, Starodub, Pryluky, Zvenyhorod, Yaroslav andHalych on the territories of the European Northeast, with allegedmigrations of the population from contemporary Ukrainian regions to theNorth. This groundless tendency of Soviet historiography had beendismissed long ago by V. Tatishchev, an outstanding Russian historian,who was then still able to use the oldest historical source materials,which later somehow "disappeared." He elucidates this point thusly:
After those many unsuccessful undertakings, GrandDuke Yurii Vladimirovich Dolgorukii came to Suzdal, and having realizedthat he was unable to govern the Ruce-land [e.g., the lands of Kyivan Ruceproper--B.F.K], dissociated himself from the Grand Duchy [of Kyivan Ruce],. . . [he] began to construct within his realm many towns,Yuriev in the Fields, Pereyaslavl at the Lake of Klushin, Vladimir onKlazma, Kostroma, Yaroslavl and many others, giving them the names asthey were in Ruce in order to suppress in this way his sorrow, that hehad to give up the Grand Duchy of Ruce, and began to populate thesetowns by calling people from all over. He gave these people largesubsidies in the form of construction materials and also assisted themin other ways, and to these towns came many Bulgarians, Mordovians,Hungarians; only the people from Ruce did notcome.[21]Proceeding to the next point, which is closely interrelated with thatjust made, let us accept the following conditional assertion, though itis based on natural and real foundations: If the Kyivan state, known inhistory under the name of Kyivan Ruce, which "developed as a result of acontinuous internal evolution of the Eastern Slavic tribes andindependently from any external influences," would have remained withinits original and natural boundaries, then it would not have beennecessary, to be sure, either to change the original name of theUkrainian state from Ruce to Ukraine, or for theMuscovites to adopt for themselves in a politically tendentious way thename Ruce, and then force upon the historical literature of theworld that original name as their "own."
However, the political plans of the Kyivan Grand Dukes extended farbeyond the natural and proper limits or boundaries of Kyivan Ruce, whichwas historically confined to the central regions of present-day Ukraine,and led to the formation of the huge Kyivan Empire that subsequentlydominated vast territories of the European East. This developmentprompted the question of the true and real title to the inheritance orthe adoption, through political expedience, of all those attributeswhich were once possessed by that world power. The question has beenparticularly disturbing to the present day, especially to the Ukrainiansand the Russians. All the more so because of the tendentious andhistorically wrong hypothesis, of a shared identity between Kyivan Ruceand Russia, which has struck such deep roots that today especially, evensome experts in Eastern European affairs are psychologically ready todoubt any organic connection or linkage, in the historical aspect,[22]between Kyivan Ruce and Ukraine.
Nevertheless, in current historical research and studies there isfull unanimity concerning the terms Ruce and Ruce-land,and it is generally accepted at present, that in their originalhistorical meaning, they referred exclusively to the central regions ofcontemporary Ukraine. This position has been supported and confirmed bythe old chronicles, the credibility of which cannot be easily doubtedand questioned. The subsequent extension of these terms over additionalterritories at later dates, and the extent to which these terms becamecommonplace as identification of other regions and parts of the KyivanEmpire, once it outgrew the original "Ukrainian" ethnic territories inEastern Europe, remains an open and still unanswered question.
As far as the author of this paper is concerned, the name Rucenever developed into an overall, permanent and concrete identifier ofthe vast territories of the European East (with the exception of thecentral regions of present-day Ukraine), and the use of the name Rucealmost in all cases was dependent upon and related to the extension ofthe political influences of Kyiv and the real political submission ofthe individual appanage principalities to the grand-ducal Kyivan throne.
It can be accepted that the political term Ruce alsoencompassed the regions of the European Northeast without anyinterruption, from the ninth to the middle of the twelfth centuries,since it was then a kind of colonial possession of the Kyivan Empire.Yet, according to the references and expressions of the chronicles, theterm was not generally used and was considered generally ineligible forthose northeastern regions prior to the Mongol invasion in the middle ofthe thirteenth century. On the other hand, at the end of the twelfthcentury the name Ruce became the most natural way of identifyingsome parts of the Galician-Volhinian [Halych-Volynian] principality inthe West, and the Galician-Volhinian ruler, Prince Roman Mstyslavych,was then called "Sovereign of all Ruce" (samoderzhavets vseiRusy).[23] Also, from that time on, as Chubatyi asserted
". .. Galicia was considered a part of Ruce."[24]It must be underscored here that until the complete collapse of theKyivan state, aside the extension of the name Ruce over theterritories of the Galician-Volhinian state, not even one instance hasbeen known which could have indicated that the term ever referred to anyother lands but the central regions of contemporary Ukraine. Forinstance, the First Novgorod Chronicle (older compilation) underthe year 1149 states: "Novgorod Archbishop Nifon goes to Ruce [Kyiv],after being called by Iziaslav and Metropolitan Klym there. Iziaslavwanted him to stand with the bishops of the Ruce regions and not tosubmit to Constantinople."[25] It is written under the year 1141 in theHipatian Chronicle: "Sviatoslav, fleeing from Novgorod, went toRuce, to his brother," who at that time was in Kyiv. Further, in thesame chronicle one can read under 1154: "During that summer Diurgi[Yurii] went with the Rostovians and the Suzdalians to Ruce, after heheard about Iziaslav's death" or "during that winter Diurgi went toRuce, after he had heard about Iziaslav's death."[26]
In the Lavrentian Chronicle compilation under 1223, not onlyhas a precise description of the territorial identification of the termRuce been given, which referred accordingly to the ancientregions of contemporary Ukraine exclusively, but also the absoluteindifference of the leading Rostov-Suzdalian upper class for the safetyof the essential vital interests of true Ruce is expressed by thefollowing words:
After having heard about it, the Ruce princes, Mstyslav ofKyiv and Mstyslav of Toropych and of Chernyhiv and other princes,planned to go against them [the Mongol-Tatars], considering how toproceed. And they sent a message to Vladimir [on Klazma] to Grand DukeYurii, son of Vsevolod, asking for his help; he sent to them, however,godfearing Prince Vasilii. . . with Rostovians. But he didnot hurry to join them in Ruce. Yet, the Ruce princes went and foughtagainst them," meaning against the Mongol-Tatar hordes at the KalkaRiver battle, "and after being defeated by them and scarcely havingescaped death. . . it has been said, that some tenthousand Kyivans alone lost their lives at the battle, and there wassorrow and lamenting in Ruce," but not in the Rostov-Suzdalian lands."After having heard all that happened in Ruce, Vasilii returned toChernyhiv, and from there he went back to his Rostov.[27]Undoubtedly, the most convincing evidence ofthe insistence in using the terms Ruce and Ruce-land inexclusive reference to the central regions of contemporary Ukraine untilthe very end of the Kyivan state can be brought fully to our attentionby the evidence given in the chronicles which were written and compiledat the time of the Mongol invasion and the first decades thereafter(i.e., at the end of the first half of the thirteenth century and alittle later). During that time the socio-political processes ofindividual nationalities of the European East were being affected byrather complicated geopolitical developments.
Thus, for example, in the Account of Bygone Years(povist' vremennykh lit) or the Lavrentian Chronicle thereis the following assertion under the year 1237:
In this summer, when the winter was close, thegodless Tatars came from the North through the forests upon the Riazanland and began to destroy the Riazan land. . . This verywinter the Tatars took Moscow and killed the governor, Philip Nianka. .. ." Again under the date of 1239 one can read there: "In the winter theTatars conquered the Mordovian land and marched through Murom and foughton Klazma River. . . Then fear was in all theland.[28]On the other hand, in the Hipatian Chronicle thefollowing was entered under the year 1237: "The godless Izmailtians, whofought before against the Ruce princes on the Kalka, came." This passagerefers to those Tatars, who defeated the princes of Ruce in 1223 on thebanks of the Kalka River, as was pointed out above, and then the passagecontinues: "But first they passed through the Riazan land
. . . having destroyed the whole land." A little later, under the sameyear the following was recorded: "From there on," meaning, from thelands of the Cumans (Polovtsians), "he [Batu--B.F.K.] began to send histroops against the Ruce towns, took the town of Pereyaslav by force. . . at the very time sent against Chernyhiv. . . led against Hlukhiv. . . while Mongka-Khan came tosurvey the city of Kyiv." Under the year 1240 one may read: "Batuapproached Kyiv with a great force. . . and the city wasin a siege. And Batu advanced toward the city and his warriorssurrounded the city. And one could not hear anything because of thenoise made by squeaking carriages and by the roaring of a great many ofhis camels and by the terrible neighing of herds of his horses, and theRuce-land was full of them."[29]In addition, in the Patriarchal or Nikon Chronicle,the following entry was made for the year 1237: "Having come from the Norththrough the forests to the Riazan land, the godless Tatars," or "And theTatars marched on Moscow and after having taken Moscow, they killed itsgovernor," and again,
". . . then in the Rostov and Suzdallands, took fourteen towns in addition to villages and hamlets." Whileon the other hand, under 1240 one can read:During that summer Batu began to send his troops against theRuce towns; the troops dispatched by Batu came and took the townPereyaslav Ruce [in the land of Ruce proper], and in Kyiv, theydestroyed the Church of St. Michael, and killed Bishop Simeon, and tookchurch golden and silver vessels with precious stones, and killed somepeople and took others captive, and ruined the city. During the samesummer Batu sent other troops in large number against Chernyhiv. Afterhaving heard that, Prince Mstyslav Hlibovych, grandson of SviatoslavOlhovych, moved against them with his own large force, and it came to agreat battle and a terrible slaughter. . .. [30]Again, the Vladimirian Chronicle described thefollowing under the year 1237: "During that summer the Germans invadedLithuania, the whole Chud' land
. . . " or "In this verysummer, when the winter was close, the Tatars under Batu came to theRiazan land and captured the whole Riazan land," and, he continued, "theTatars, having set themselves up at Vladimir, . . . movedagainst Suzdal and took Suzdal. . . . And a great evil wascreated in the Suzdalian land." Then further, one can read under 1239:"During this summer the Tatars took the Mordovian land, and conqueredMurom, and fought along the Klazma River. . . . At thattime fear spread through the whole land."[31]*** end of part one; text continues in part two posted here ***