`Bordering` Historical Heritage: Rus` in 13

‘Bordering’ Historical Heritage: Rus’ in 13-17th century
Past is always a powerful tool in “skillful” hands, especially at times of the rise of nationalism
and emergence of nation states. Times when suddenly historic events and figures become particularly “somebody’s” and deliberately being inserted in one or the other version of national
(hi)story. Times when projects of national history with a help of historical sources being able to
“recognize” us/our state/our culture in an earlier state, ethnic or societal formations, to “privatize” historic events and figures, with a stroke of a pen making them a part of great history of this
or that state or nation. Past becomes a property, while history – a “battlefield” between varieties
of mythologized stories.
for an imperial historiography, since such sources itself already created certain history thread,
which helped to connect old Rus’ with later epochs and eventually Russian empire. As result Rus’
period with a relative ease is being inscribed into history of the contemporary Russian state (-›
Russian empire). In addition such conception is often backed by a religious factor (traditionally
strong in case of Russian state and culture), consisting in relocation of Kievan metropolitan to
Vladimir and later Moscow. All of the above supports the idea of a shift of political and religious
life from the old centre – Kiev – to former frontier lands of Vladimir-Suzdal principality.
The idea behind this presentation is to focus on one such problematic issue emerging from a conflict between national histories – issue of what is Rus’ [Русь] in the context of 13-17th century, or
in other words, how following historiographic traditions in 18-20th century tried to place historic
accents and appropriate heritage of past epochs.
The other Rus’?
Early eastern Slavic state, which with a help of Russian imperial scholars received most widely
used nowadays name – Kievan Rus’ [Киевская Русь], is a tidbit “ancestor”, so not surprising that
struggle for its cultural, political etc. heritage becomes a crucial element in agendas of various national histories, especially when dealing with an interim period between Rus’ (as mighty medieval
Eastern European state) and rise of Russian empire, which will “gather” and for a long time rule
over an essential portion of the lands once belonged to Rus’.
Behind the double-headed eagle…
History of Russia traditionally represents a type of historical description oriented on a state and
ruling family (dynasty) context. With such orientation in historiography it becomes essentially
important to stress continuity and succession (factors of legitimization and potential leverage), for
instance between Rus’ and Russian empire.
“Creators” of Russian imperial historiography, people like Vasily Tatischev with his ‘Russian
History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times’ (first chapters published in 1768) and Nikolay
Karamzin with ‘History of the Russian State’(1803-1826), not surprisingly “incorporated” Rus’
heritage into a history of Russian state. Hardly it is possible to doubt that there were a number of
predispositions for Tatischev, Karamzin and others to do so, for instance Riurik dynasty spanning
all the way till the 17th century, common religious grounds etc. But even more helpful to such
historiography was local chronicle tradition. Mainly due to the fact that late medieval chroniclers
as a base of almost any work would include Primary Chronicle, also known as Tale of Bygone
Years (Повесть Временных Лет), which besides being the earliest known Rus’ chronicle also
assumed to be compiled in Kiev. Next step of those chroniclers was expansion of their work using
local sets of peripheral chronicles, what at the end created an illusion not only of historical continuity (from Tale of Bygone Years to later chronicles), but as well represented gradual “flow” of
history from Kiev to the north-eastern frontiers of former Rus’ (Tolochko,O.Chimera «Kievskoi
Rusi»//Rodina, №8, 1999, s.29).
Probably most well-known example here is Laurentian codex prepared by a monk Laurentius for
Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich in 1377. At first readers find traditional Tale of Bygone Years, but further comes local chronicle providing information almost entirely about Vladimir-Suzdal lands. Taking into consideration who the author is and for whom this
codex of chronicles was compiled, presence of the later is rather obvious. In this regard Laurentian codex and later alike (in terms of composition) sets of chronicles were a convenient source
Pages from Laurentian Codex
Though “shift” of political and religious life did not happen only in the north-eastern direction from Kiev, it also was directed towards the territory of Galicia–Volynia principality (in
Latin known as Regnum Russiae or Galiciae et Lodomeriae), formerly a part of old Rus’ state.
Here once more possible to distinguish own chronicle tradition – Rus’ Chronicle [Лѣтописець
руский], which is a part of a second major codex - Hypatian Chronicle [Ипатьевская летопись].
Again traditionally Tale of Bygone Years is a starting point and after comes information focused
primarily on local context, so in terms of composition it is not very different from the VladimirSuzdal oriented Laurentian set of chronicles.
In regards to religious factor, in Galicia–Volynia principality almost immediately after
the departure of Kievan metropolitan from Kiev to Vladimir was organized separate Galician
Metropolinate with own metropolitan, and de-facto former territory of Rus’ state since the early
14th century was divided between two metropolitans – Kievan residing in Vladimir-Suzdal principality and metropolitan in Galicia–Volynia principality.
Though rise of Galicia–Volynia principality didn’t last long and already in the middle of
the 14th century it was divided between Polish Kingdom and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, with
a majority of lands included in the later. Around the same time Grand Duchy of Lithuania also
gained control of other former Rus’ lands (almost all the western and southern principalities
including Kiev). However such change of political status didn’t affect much neither cultural and
religious spheres, since all the record-keeping in the Grand Duchy was done in the language used
in former Galicia–Volynia principality – old Ruthenian (Chancery Slavonic), while on all the
newly included lands local Slavic dialects were also preserved. As well separate Lithuanian or
Kievan, Lithuanian and all Rus’ Metropolinate was organized, first it existed along with Galician
Metropolinate, but towards the second half of the 14th century absorbed the later. Thus all the Orthodox population of the Grand Duchy had their own metropolitan, first residing in Vilnius, later
in Kiev. This Metropolinate existed all the way till the late 17th century (1688), when Moscow
Patriarchate abolished it.
Additional arguments used by the proponents of viewing “Western Rus” as “descendant”
are grounded on various reports, notes and even maps coming from the contemporaries, many of
whom rather clearly distinguished the difference (both in terms of territorial and ethnical characteristics) between what is Rus’ and what is Moscovia (moscovits).
Authors coming from Polish and Lithuanian context almost exclusively used terms Rus’
and rusyn (or Russia[Руссия]/rutheni in Latinized version) to denote former southwestern principalities of Rus’ state, thus lands which were a part of Polish Kingdom, Grand Duchy of Lithuania
(later Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). For instance, in one of the first survived agreements
(dated 1352) between Lithuanian princes (Kestutis, Lubart Narimontivich, Yuri Koriatovich etc.)
and Polish king Casimir III reader can find both territorial denotement Rus’ [на русь] and note regarding people of the region [русинъ]. Almost two centuries later Maciej Miechowita in his Tractatus de duabus Sarmatis Europiana et Asiana et de contentis in eis (1517) particularly differentiates between the territory and inhabitants of what he calls Russia where people Ruthenorum live
and Moscovia (representing Asian Sarmatia for Miechowita). Few decades after Miechowita,
[Untitled Map of Poland, Russia, Hungary & Transylvania], Lorenz
Fries, Strasbourg (1535)
Taras Boyko, University of Tartu,
Department of Semiotics
([email protected])
Dalmatian historian Vinko Prebojevic in his De origine successibusque Slavorum (1532) also lists
separately Russia and Moscovia. German humanist Willibald Pirckheimer (Opera politica, historica, philologica et epistolica…, 1610) describing the region uses once more contrasting formula
Ruscia and Moscovia, although at the same time noting that Moscovitae and Ruteni both speak
lingua Sclavonica. In Sebastian Munster’s Cosmographia (1544) reader also finds an opposition
between Moscovia and Russia, etc.
Not a surprise to find similar ideas in cartography. For example, in the untitled map published in 1535 (Strasbourg) by Lorenz (Laurent) Fries, Russia marks lands obtained by Polish
Kingdom and Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the Galicia–Volynia pricipality. Few decades later,
in Giacomo Gastaldi’s Moscovia Nova Tabula (Venice, 1548) by Rossia Rossa denoted territories
corresponding to Kiev lands, while actual Moscovia is much farther north-east. At the same time
it is also possible to find maps like Mercator’s Russia (1594), where the whole map is titled as
Russia, though both Moscovia and Russia (territory of former Galicia–Volynia) as names of the
regions are also present.
Besides various reports and maps, also gains importance a viewpoint from “inside”, like
the fact that within the administrative division of Polish Kingdom (and later Rzeczpospolita) for
many centuries (from 1434 till 1772) existed Województwo Ruskie (or Pallatinatus Russiae),
which more or less corresponded to the lands received by Poland from Galicia–Volynia principality. Local record-keeping also fixates continuous use of phrases like ecclesia Ruthenicalis,
Ruthenica fides, ritus Ruthenicus, lingua Ruthenica etc., which directly correspond to Slavic notions used here before (Yakovenko, N. Vybir imeni versus vybir shliahy…//Migkyltyrnyi dialog.
Т.1:Identichnost, Kyiv, 2009, s.62). While in territories belonging to Lithuania use of Latin formulation wasn’t even necessary, since all the official documentation was done in old Ruthenian.
Another interesting example from after Union of Lublin (1569) times concerns Orthodox
magnates coming from lands incorporated by Lithuanian Duchy. Magnates like Konstantyn Wasyl Ostrogski start to create themselves genealogical trees rooted not even in the times of Galicia–Volynia principality, but much farther – reaching Kievan prince Vladimir the Great, Ruirik
dynasty and even mythological pra-slavic Rus, brother of Lech, Čech (Yakovenko, N., Paralelnyi
Svit, Kyiv, 2002, s.231-269). Such genealogical programs seemed to point rather clearly on desire
of Orthodox elite relate themselves to Rus’ heritage.
Last, but not least, is example concerning events almost a century later – in years 16581659, when after the multiple Cossack-Polish war campaigns the Treaty of Hadiach was signed.
Treaty is interesting since it basically turned Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into a PolishLithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth by creating Great Duchy of Ruthenia/Rus’ (Księstwo
Ruskie) as third equal part of the commonwealth state. For various reasons treaty didn’t last long,
but its very existence often used as proof that even during mid 17th century local Orthodox elites
were still relying (or wanting to rely) on continuity of tradition dating back to the times of medieval Rus’.
In between histories
Debate around Rus’ historical heritage seems to be an eloquent example of how and on what
bases various argumentations are being built. In the long-term dominant paradigm of Russian
imperial historiography preference is shifted towards the continuity-inheritance of state tradition
supported by the church institution factor, while in the opposing paradigm (mainly represented
by Ukrainian and partly Belarusian historiographies) attention is given to the sphere of culture.
Also it is difficult not to notice that in the situation of such parade of histories proponents of each
trying to prove erroneous nature of the opponent and even dismiss as much as possible opposing
argumentation, so in a way trying to “border” and monopolize the past in their own favor. Moreover the debate becomes an issue not only in the frame of scholarly discussions, but also in didactics and everyday life. Games with imaginary boundaries continue to be played.
Moscovia Nova Tabula. Giacomo Gastaldi, Venice (1548)
Russia. Gerardus Mercator, Duisburg (1595)