How Muscovy appropriated the history of the Kyivan Rus’.
Geography is a fascinating field. Without it, history would be obsolete. Historical research therefore must always be backed up by maps. Logically, that is why history books are filled with maps. They are crucial for a clear understanding of our past – this is our country, this is us, this i our capital and major cities. As we turn the pages of our books filled with maps, we cement our knowledge of the past. In essence, old maps dating back to the XIV century, show that Rus’ was located on modern-day Ukrainian territory.
Not all modern nation states carry the same name as they did in the past, and we are no exception to this. We can engage in historical and linguistic debates and convince ourselves and the world in multiple theories that bind our national identity. But one can’t explain why the noun ‘Rus’’ translates to “Ruthenia” and “Ruthenian” in the Latin dictionary. The term “Ruthenia” has been in place since the mid XIV century and does not fall under the territories of modern Russia. Why did the lands of Lviv, Przemyśl, Halych, Syanok in western Ukraine from 1434 fall under the nomenclature of Rus’? The distance from Lviv to Moscow is too large, it is evident just by glancing on any map. Therefore, Rus’ and the Ruthenian language (not Russian!) have always been here.
A few centuries later, Muscovy appropriated the name of Rus’. In the blink of an eye, in the XVIII Muscovy openly named itself Russia in imperial terms. As all other empires, it was multi-ethnic. The inhabitants of Rome were just a fraction of the Roman empire which occupied the Mediterranean sea. Those who spoke early variants of German in IX-XIII centuries under the rule of the empire did not constitute a single nation and often even fought one another. A few hundred thousand Mongols were just a grain of sand in the great empire created by Chengis Khan in the early XIII century. The Ottoman empire, which began in the XV century and took over Constantinople in 1453, was not mainly populated by Turks (even within the modern borders of Turkey). Then why is the Russian empire an exception in the XVIII century? Was everyone who lived in the Russian empire part of Rus’ or “Ruthenian”? Evidently, not so. This is the essence of imperial power – to appropriate what is not theirs and maintain control of it.
However, appropriating land is not enough – the land must be filled with certain elements. The tendencies of forming modern nations after the French Revolution, always had a problem with naming. Ukraine is not an exception. Our national vision in name-choosing for Ukraine, which took place among the cossack commanders in the early XIX century, has been gaining ground amongst the people from the San to the Don rivers. The First World War and the war for independence have proven that many who live here are willing to die for Ukraine, whether it is for Przemysl in the west or Luhansk in the east. In his time, Ivan Bahrianyi, speaking with those who have lived half a century in the far east, asked: “Why don’t you speak Russian”? An elderly woman replied, “it doesn’t really work for me”.
Yes, it didn’t really work. The naming of Russia and its relevant myths did work, however. From first glance, this works well – the world sees a great power. A country which has so much territory, populated by many different ethnicities, culture, religion and history, has problems addressing its own myths. Does it question itself at all though? What is Russia? What should Russia look like? These long-lasting questions have been relevant since the XIX century. A Russian saying comes to mind – “что делать?” (what to do?). From what we observe based on the pseudoscientific nonsense of the Russian government, this country has difficulties in answering these questions. Russia exists, but no one can really get to the bottom of it.
Vitaliy Mykhaylovskiy, Doctor of History Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University / The Ukrainian Week