Книга: Stolen Name. Why Rusyns Turned into Ukrainians

Stolen Name

Why Rusyns Turned

into Ukrainians

Yevgen Nakonechnyi

BVL Publishing

All rights reserved. Printed in Ukraine. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address BVL Publishing, 9-172 Motornyi provulok, Kyiv, 03083

Publisher

Veniamin Biliavskyi

Idea of the project

Galyna Novikova

Project director

Valerii Pavliuk

Translators’ Team leader

Nataliia Pavliuk

Published with the financial support of NGO Ukrainian Team of Reformers («YKR») Translated by LSP English Channel

Supported by B.Grinchenko Kyiv University

Yevgen Nakonechnyi (1931-2006) was a Ukrainian historian, bibliographer and linguist.

In January, 1949, he finished school and was arrested by KGB, sentenced to death but then, execution was replaced by 25 years of imprisonment. He spent several years in Stalin’s GULAG. In 1955 after Stalin’s death he was released. However, he was under pressure.

He graduated from I.Franko Lviv University (Ukrainian Philology and Linguistics). For a long time he worked as Chief of Ukraine Studies Department at Lviv Scientific Library.

He published papers on the history of Ukraine, library studies, history of Lviv and Ukrainian-Jewish relations during the World War II.

Stolen Name, Why Rusyns Turned into Ukrainians is one of his publications where history studies are combined with linguistic research, which made it possible to provide a complete picture of the Ukrainian history through the life of the name of our nation, starting from the earliest years to the present-day.

The books reveals precise facts from the history of Ukraine and Russia which make it clear, how easily imperial historians falsely interpreted the facts and even rewrote them deliberately for political purposes of the ruling regime.

Stolen Name is a book of outstanding power of persuasion, all statements supported by references to authentic materials and scientific research. Being a profound study, it is nonetheless read as an adventure story, full of exciting events and discoveries. Written in 2001, it seems to contain answers to a great number of questions of today, not only for Ukraine and Russia but also for the whole world.

ISBN 978-617-7332-00-7

The true purpose of history is to help us make sense of the present. A chance to look at the earliest years of history we can see present-day events from another angle.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi’s book is a means to put different epochs into a chain of a logic narration. Analysis and comprehension of the past facts are now of the greatest importance, as Russian-Ukrainian relations are being built on this basis. From this very point the official Kremlin is imposing an idea that Ukrainians are “younger brothers” of Russians, and they cannot claim to be fully independent, and moreover the Ukrainian nation has allegedly not been formed historically. With this purpose opportunistic reasons are provided by Russian historians to develop a chauvinistic world view of Russians. For Ukrainians it is of great importance not to go as low as to concentrate on mutual accusations and reproaches but grounding on scientific knowledge and reasoning show a real picture of the past. The fact is that “Rusyns” (former name of Ukrainians) had been mentioned long before Moskovia citizens, who several centuries later started to call themselves “Russian”. This book provides a complete picture with the help of historical parallelisms, interconnections of nations of our planet in different periods, depicting objectively the continuous history process of Slavic nations, as well as those historical events that made a basis for Ukraine’s future struggle for independence.

Georgiy Zubko,

Founder of NGO Ukrainian Team of Reformers

Contents

I. THE NAME (translated by S.Andrusyshyna) .................................................. 7

IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME (translated by S. Andrusyshyna) .............................. 21

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS (translated by N. Pavliuk) ...................... 30

IV. ZALISSIA (translated by N. Pavliuk) ......................................................... 46

V. “ELDER BROTHER ” (translated by N. Pavliuk) ....................................... 54

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY” (translated by M. Nikulin) ................ 66

VII. THE HATEFUL ETHNONYM (translated by M. Feofentova) ................ 85

VIII. “KRESTIANIN” (translated by M. Feofentova) ..................................... 92

IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA (translated by N. Pavliuk) ............. 99

X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS (translated by S. Andrusyshyna, Yu. Osokina) ....110

XI. THE MOSKOVITES (translated by A. Lakhtikova) ................................ 120

XII. SCRIBERS OF FENER(translated by S. Andrusyshyna)........................ 129

XIII. MOSKAL (translated by Yu. Vereta) ...................................................... 139

XIV. MOSCOVIA CHANGES ITS NAME (translated by Ye. Lobanov) ..... 150

XV. RUSYNS (translated by Ye. Lobanov) .................................................... 155

XVI. POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVE (translated by N. Pavliuk) ........................ 160

XVII UKRAINE (translated by V. Pavliuk) .................................................... 163

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY(translated by Yu. Vereta)....................... 173

XIX. GALICIA PIEDMOND (translated by N. Maliuk) ................................ 193

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’)

(tr-d by N.Chugreeva, K. Diuzhenko) ............................................................. 202

XXI. A МAGIC WORD (translated by N. Maliuk) ....................................... 217

XXII. KHAKHOL (translated by M. Lystopad) ............................................. 229

XXIII. KATSAP (translated by N. Pavliuk) .................................................... 245

XXIV. JEWS OR HEBREWS? (translated by N. Pavliuk)............................. 254

УКРАДЕНЕ ИМ’Я

Name

I. THE NAME

The name of a nation or the ethnonym is a special and sacred word to every nationality. Paradoxically a nation cannot exist without an ethnonym. Actually, no nation can exist without an ethnonym, as well as no person can live without a name. “Each ethnos and nation has a visible and an indispensable external feature: self-designation, its own name, ethnonym”. 1 The history of a nation should be closely related to the history of its ethnonym. Generally, the name of a group is of a primary importance among major attributes of any ethnic community. 2

Ethnonym is a common national name, forming and organizing people better than their common language, origin, territory, even better than their customs and beliefs. Nation’s name (that of a tribe, clan) indicates that the unity of members realized themselves as separated from other ethnic groups. «For each of the unities, big or small, the name is a feature uniting them as integrity and distinguishing them from others”. 3 The general national name is actually an external sign of people’s internal unity.

Sometimes ethnonyms are considered one of such abstract social and political terms as “progress”, “reaction”, “democracy”, “capitalism”, “socialism”,

“fascism”, etc. Such abstract terms are vague and polysemantic, their meaning depending on who and for what purpose they are used. One cannot equate them with ethnonyms, touching each person’s life directly. Ethnonyms include specific characteristic of peoples: assessments they contain are not always fair, although always historically grounded, and so, are valuable as a historical evidence. Ethnonym performs an ideological function being like a slogan, or a flag. 4 Thus, for instance, such ethnonyms as Gypsy, German, Polish, Georgian, and Tartar can cause among us certain specific, regular images, which are historically conditioned and known as “national stereotypes”. We know from our own experience, that other nationalities associate ethnonym Ukrainian with certain national stereotype, relating both to the physical appearance and character traits, manners, habits, behavior, tastes, preferences, beliefs, etc. In the following extract from a book, recently published in Moscow, one can see what content can be suggested to the term “Ukrainians”, “Ukrainians are usually characterized by dullness of mind, narrow horizons, stupid stubbornness, extreme intolerance, haidamak brutality and moral turpitude”. 5 Some groups of people in Russia see us like that.

1 Bromley, Yu.V., Podolnyi, R.G. Chelovechestvo – eto narody.- М.: Mysl, 1990.- P. 17.

2 Smith, Anthony. National Identity.- К.: Osnovy, 1994.- P.30

3 Ethnonimy.- М.: Nauka, 1970.- P. 5.

4 Ethnoniny.- М.: Nauka, 1970.- P. 3.

5 Ukrainskiy separatism in Rossia. Ideologia natsionalnogo raskola: Prilozh. k z. “Moskva”: Sbornik.- М., 1998.- P. 251.

“The national name is a voice of ancestors, talking to descendants and generations, bringing up their historical memory and self-esteem, binding them into a national community, able to become an internal and external power and create its own history and culture, raise interest and make others respect them.

Relations between the nation and its national name are not formal, but first of all internal, moral, spiritual, physical, full of love, intimacy and reciprocity.

A natural name of a nation is the basis of its morality and school. Patriotism itself, as one of the highest moral categories, is associated with the nation and its name”. 1

For those Ukrainian historians, who wrote in the post-Marxist discursive manner, such concepts as "ethnonym", "nation", "patriotism" are empty or almost empty words. Investigating the past, they did not mention that for nearly a century Ukrainian people were fighting intensely for the establishment of the new ethnonym, and this battle was tantamount to a struggle for the right to exist. In their studies, historians are guided by bookish, abstract constructions, far from realities of East Europe. No matter what newfangled discourses are now spread, the main units of nations remained East European political world in the 19th and 20th centuries were nations. It is national patriotism that was the strongest feeling, it is patriotism that has always contained a true cultural value. The class struggle is not the main driving force in the history. This power is rather the national feeling” 2, which is recognized even by biased liberal researchers.

Ivan Franko in the famous article Beyond the Possible warned against keeping to the newfangled illusions: “Everything which is not within the framework of nation is pharisaism of people, who would be happy to disguise their striving to set the superiority of one nation over another with their international ideals or sick sentimentalism of science fiction writers, who would be happy to cover their spiritual alienation from their native nation with extensive “universal” phrases.

Perhaps once the time will come when free international alliances will consolidate to accomplish the highest international goals. But this can happen only if all the national competitions are completed, and when national injustice and oppression depart into the sphere of historical records”. 3

Realities of East European life during the period of both World Wars and during the times of civil bloodshed resulted in the fact that for millions of human beings ethnonym often solved the dilemma of life or death. In fact, forced deportation of many peoples, Jewish genocide and other forms of mass ethnic cleansing and persecution were based on ethnonymic criterion.

A well-known proletarian internationalism that proclaimed the rule of class solidarity of the workers over the alleged reactionary limitation of national 1 Shelukhin, S. Ukraina – nazva nashoi zemli z naidavnishykh chasiv.- Praha, 1936.- P. 88.

2 Duroselle, J.-B. Istoria diplomatii vid 1919 roku do nashykh dniv.- К.: Osnovy, 1995.- P. 727.

3 Franko, I. Zibrannia tvoriv: U 50 t.- К.: Nauk.dumka, 1986.- V. 45.- P. 284.

I. THE NAME

feelings is one of the main principles of the theory of Marxism-Leninism. The theory of proletarian internationalism, however, did not prevent the communist regime from including into personal documents (passport, birth certificate) and identification forms, a notorious obligatory fifth column that clearly fixed the ethnonym, determined by parents’ nationality. Senior officials were obliged to

“submit not only their own nationality, but also the nationality of their parents and even wife’s”. 1 The ethnonym fixed in the fifth column was the ground for Bolshevistic “internationalists” to discriminate and repress individuals, as well as entire peoples. Blended families were on the list for deportation only because of the ethnonym of the head of a family. It was ethnonym rather than class origin, social status, political views, etc., that often determined human destiny in the Soviet empire. The General Secretary of the Communist Party Khrushchev clearly confirmed it, saying that they had conducted “mass deportation of entire peoples from their settled lands, not excluding the Communists and Komsomol members””. 2

Moskovshchyna (Moscovia) has experienced forced migration since Ivan the Terrible’s times. At that period the Tatars of Kazan and Novgorod Slovenes were partially deported. “Mass deportation began in Russia during the First World War: I refer to the eviction of the Germans from Volyn in 1916. Later Russia began to use such a method of “solving” national problems in both peacetime and wartime. I submit a list of peoples for which - fully or partially - the following measures were applied: Kuban Ukrainian, Meskhetian Turks, Germans from Southern Ukraine, Crimea and Volga region, Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians from Crimea, Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Balkars, as well as Romanians and Greeks, who were foreign citizens, from the North Caucasus.” 3

It is also necessary to mention the intention to deport all Kazan Tatars in 1944.

The devastated areas after the deportation in 1943-44 were inhabited mostly by Russians”. 4 It was called the “internationalism in action”.

Deportation did not spare Ukrainians. By the beginning of 1930’s Moscow applied tactics of “creeping deportation” to Ukrainians. Ukrainians were being evicted gradually, as counterrevolutionaries, as kulaks, kulak supporters or

“sympathizers” etc. Russians were massively settled in the sites where victims of Holodomor (1932-1933) had lived. The Second World War with its historical cataclysms had finally given, as the Kremlin thought, an opportunity to destroy the hated Ukrainians.

1 Bilkin, S. Masovyi terror yak zasib derzhavnoho upravlinnia v SRSR (1917-1941 rr.): Dzhereloznavche doslidzhennia.- К., 1999.- P. 184.

2 Pro kult osoby s yoho naslidky: Dopovid M.S. Khrushchova na XX ziizdi KPRS. - “Prolog”, 1959.- P. 58.

3 Dashkevich, Ya. Podzvinne operatsii “Visla” // Ukrainski problemy.- 1997.- № 2.- P. 116.

4 Nekrich, A. Nakazannyie narody.- New York: Chroniha, 1978.- P. 88.

During the above-mentioned special closed meeting of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party (1956) Khrushchev stunned the audience with his frank-ness, saying that during the war Stalin wanted to send out of the country the whole Ukrainian nation, just as they did it with Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, and others — all forty millions of Ukrainians, “if they were not so numerous and if had a location to send them to”. The delegates, who were involved in the mysteries of the Kremlin knew that Khrushchev meant the secret order dated summer 1944. For a long time the decree was being proclaimed to be a forgery, as well as the decree on the destruction of Polish officers in Katyn or secret Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Recently, Vasyl Riasnoi, the former People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR, the Commissar of State Security of the 3rd rank (Major General NKVD) said that in 1944 “comrade Stalin, ordered to deport all Ukrainians to the well-known place /hell/ specifically in Siberia for the hostile attitude to the Russian people”. Reproduction of this secret order was published in the work of the famous procommunist Moscow documentalist Felix Chuiev Soldiers of Empire. Here is the text of the order, given by F. Chuiev:

TOP SECRET

The Order # 0078/42

22 June, 1944

Moscow

FOR THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF INTERNAL

AFFAIR OF THE USSR AND THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR-

IAT OF DEFENSE OF ALLIANCE OF THE USSR

The human intelligence revealed:

Recently, in Ukraine, especially in Kyiv, Poltava, Vinnytsia, Rivne and other regions, a clearly hostile mood of the Ukrainian population against the Red Army and local Soviet authorities has been noticed. In certain districts and regions, Ukrainian population is resisting hostilely the fulfilment of activities of the Party and the government directed at restoration of collective farms and grain deliveries for the needs of the Red Army. They are killing the cattle ruthlessly in order to disrupt the construction of collective farms.

Bread is being buried in pits in order to disrupt the food supply of the Red Army. In many areas, Ukrainian hostile elements, mainly of fugitives from the military draft to the Red Army, have been organizing "green" gangs in forests, blowing up military trains, attacking small military units and killing local government offi-10

I. THE NAME

cials. Some Red Army soldiers and commanders, being under the influence of semi-fascist Ukrainian population and mobilized Red Army soldiers from liberated regions of Ukraine, began to decom-pose and move over to the enemy. From this, it follows that the Ukrainian population has stepped on the path of apparent sabotage of the Red Army and the Soviet power and is aspiring to return the German occupiers. Therefore, in order to eliminate and control mobilized soldiers and commanders from liberated regions of Ukraine,

I order:

1. To send all Ukrainians, living under the rule of the German occupiers, to distant edges of the USSR.

2. The eviction shall be undertaken:

а) primarily of Ukrainians, who have worked for and served the Germans;

б) secondly to send the rest of Ukrainians, who are familiar with the life during the German occupation;

в) to begin the eviction after harvesting, when crops are delivered to the State to satisfy the needs of the Red Army; г) evictions shall be carried out only at night, and suddenly, to prevent escaping, and prevent the members of the family of those who serve in the Red Army to know it.

3. The following control shall be set over soldiers and commanders from the occupied areas:

а) to register a special case for each of them in special departments;

б) to check all letters, not by censorship, but by the special department;

в) to attach a secret agent per 5 commanders and soldiers of the Red Army.

4. Relocate 12 and 25 punitive division of the NKVD in order to fight with anti-Soviet gangs.

The order shall be announced to the regimental commander inclusive.

The People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR: BERIIA

Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR,

Marshal of the Soviet Union: ZHUKOV. 1

1 Chuiev, F. Soldaty imperii: Besedy. Vosponinaniia. Dokumenty.- М., 1998.- P. 177-178.

As we know, the communist regime failed to execute the Order. However, analogous orders concerning smaller nations were fully implemented by Stalin’s satraps. The ethnonym, fixed in documents, was everywhere the main criterion for selecting people for deportation.

Note that fighting around the ethnonym “Ukrainian” was waged fiercely for a long time, which will be discussed below in this book. Prince Volkonsky wrote,

“There are those who believe they show broadmindedness, saying, “Little Russians or Ukrainians, we do not argue about words.” However, they are not just words, they are names. People not only argue about names, they die for them; and if a name lacks people, willing to die for it, the existence of such a name and a nation, bearing this name, will not be longlasting.” 1 Ukrainians were not just willing to die for the name; hundreds of thousands of people; men, women, children actually died.

“Ukrainians became victims of the largest man-made disasters on the continent and of total genocide. Their losses during the war of 1918-1920, collectivization of the 1930s, terror and famine of 1932-1933 and destructions of World War II are close to 20 million people”. 2 Ukrainian historians would probably say this number is larger.

According to Beriia, only in the period of 1944 to 1952 more than 500,000 people were exposed to various types of repression to prove the right to be a conscientious Ukrainian. Specifically, more than 134,000 people were arrested, more than 153,000

were killed, over 203,000 people were exiled from Ukraine forever. 3 That is what the ethnonym means in just a short period of Ukrainian history. Moreover, in the second half of the 19th century the territory of Ukraine, according to Russian researcher Miller, became the object of a true ethnonymic war. “Ukrainian activists had to introduce a new term “Ukrainians”, instead of the more common self-naming Rusyns, in order to overcome the a bicentennial tradition that alleged a common name for the whole Eastern Slavic population.” 4

Ethnonyms have long been attracting human imagination, creating numerous conjectures, often of quite irrealistic character. With the development of science, appeared ethnonymics, a new discipline on the border of linguistics, ethnography and history, dedicated specifically to ethnonyms,

Ethnonymics is a branch of science that deals with the study of proper names of ethnic groups; it has a number of nomenclature terms: autoethnonyms, i.e. self-namings, ektoethnonyms-names, given by other nations. There are also khoronyms, names of country and its population; kotoikonyms, naming people according the place of residence, etnoforonyms, ethnic name of its single representative in addition has his/her personal name and surname, etc. Ethnonymics helps people studying the origin of a nation (ethnogenesis) and studying the origin of a language (glottogen-1 Volkonsky А. V. Maloross ili ukrainets? - Uzhgorod, 1929.- P. 6.

2 Novaia i noveishaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 5.- P. 23.

3 Novaia i noveishaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 5.- P. 23.

4 Miller, А. Conflict “Idealnykh otechestv” // Rodina.- 1999.- № 8.- P. 82.

I. THE NAME

esis). “Common identity of any ethnic is usually automatically associated with the existence of a common self.” 1 The doctrine of ethnonyms (ethnonymics) studies not only the origin (etymology) of ethnonyms, but their whole history, the smallest changes which took place in the development of specific ethnonym during the centuries of its operation. All these changes for ethnonymics are more valuable than the frozen original form, because they are the eloquent testimony of the history. “There is no society that remains unchanged. If an ethnonym has existed for a couple of centuries, it will denote a bit different or totally different people afterwards. The historian who ignores this is inevitably doomed to gross errors.” 2

There are many facts when one and the same ethnonym serves to denote different concepts, names of completely different peoples. For example, in the 7th century the part of Turkic-speaking people of Bulgars came to the Balkan Peninsula. Their Khan became the head of the state, inhabited by Slavs. Although newcomers dissolved among Slavs, the ethnic name of Slavic population of the State was Turkic Bulgars. Northern neighbours of ancient Greeks were Macedonians, their country is called under their ethnonym Macedonia. In the 6th-7th centuries the Slavs, who got the name of Macedonians, because of the place name Macedonia, settled in this country; Macedonian language is Slavic, it has no references with the Macedonian language of ancient times. Nowadays an international conflict developed around this. 3 The government of modern Greece, referred to the history, rejecting in the UN the newly formed South Slavic state named Macedonia. It could lead to the war. Because of modern Greece claims concerning the modern name Macedonia, it has not been recognized yet; in 1993 the Republic of Macedonia joined the UN under a strange name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Ancient Romans (Romani), mixing with various conquered tribes, formed many Roman-speaking peoples: Italians, French, Portuguese, Spanish (not including the many Spanish-speaking nations of Latin America) and Catalans, Oc-citanians, Romanians and others. We know that the French ethnic name comes from the Germanic tribe of Franks, which left its name to France, but not the language. Although our southern neighbours, Romanians, are the farthest from the ancient homeland of Romans, i.e. Italy and its capital Rome, and Romanian language is the least similar to Latin, in 1861, when Wallachia and Moldova united, the Romanians got the ethnonym “Romani” as self-naming, and the name of their country, Romania means “Roman Land”. In the late 1930's Romanian authorities, incidentally, forced the Ukrainian Bukovynians to use in writing the term “Romania” but not “Rumunia”.

The given examples, whose number can be certainly increased, tell about et-nonimyc changes, which occurred by accident rather than by a conscious choice.

1 Alekseiev, V.P. Ethnogenesis.- M.: Vyshaia shkola, 1986.- P. 28.

2 Ethnonymy.- М.: Nauka, 1970.- P. 10.

3 Chesnov, Ya.V. Nazvaniie naroda: otkuda ono? // Sovetskaia etnografika.- 1973.- № 6.- P. 145.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Strangely, but there are also opposite situations, where the conscious choice plays a crucial role in changing the ethnonym. For example, a Byzantine state of purely Hellinic origin, existing from 330 to 1453, officialy called itself Romaian Empire, i.e. the Roman Empire, while its Greek-speaking subordinates were called (Romans), although all the surrounding peoples knew that they were Greeks. This name was of great ideological and political importance. Romeias considered their country to be the continuation of the Great Roman Empire, and all the former provinces, separated from the Byzantine Empire, were considered to be temporarily separated, that eventually would be united again. The influence of Byzantine on the expansionary political ideology on Moscow is well-known, and the “collection of Russian lands” is an eloquent testimony of it. Actually Byzantine Greeks “enjoyed the glory of the Roman name, clung to the imperial form of governing, without its military forces; they kept to the Roman law without being just, they were proud of the orthodoxy of their church, whose clergy turned into the vassals of the Emperor’s court. Such a society would inevitably fade away, although the process of extinction could go very slowly.” 1

The change of ethnonym is as if someone whims or needs to change his/her own last name. It is not easy to make everyone around you accept the change.

Not to mention a conscious change of a national name. It is an act of a big importance for any nation and has far-reaching results. By the way, the Chinese form of the term "revolution" - "e.g. " means "name change". In fact, the change of name for Ukrainians was not only a great spiritual revolution, but also the radical change of the political image of Eastern Europe.

The history of Russian people, and later Ukrainian, experienced a conscious change of their ethnonyms. “Ancient historical Ukrainian name “Rus” and the name of Ukrainian state of 9th-12th centuries “Kyiv Rus” have caused a passion-ate and protracted dispute between Moscow and Ukrainian historians, which is still going on. The main issues of the dispute are: what people and whose culture was embodied by “Kyivan Rus”, who adopted “Kyiv heritage”, continuing its cultural and historical traditions?

It would seem that the answer to this question is very simple: it has already been given in the very title of the Kyivan state. If Kyiv has always been and remains Ukrainian capital and a symbol of Ukraine, “Kyiv Rus” was the Ukrainian state and Ukrainians are its inheritors and successors to these days. However, in fact, the struggle for Kyiv heritage led to paradoxical consequences: Ukrainians lost not only their state but also was deprived of the name “Rus”, which was taken by the Northern winner, Moscow. Muscovia claimed itself the heir and successor of the Kyivan Rus and thus claimed its right for the “collection of Russian lands”, calling itself Russia or the Great Rus. Russian Empire was developing, accompanied with a whole masquer-1 Davis, Norman. Europe: History.- К.: Osnovy, 2000.- P. 400.

I. THE NAME

ade. Despite the fact that the formation of Muscovia in terms of ethnic, cultural and historical features differed from that of Kyivan Rus, the northern tribe of Muscovites recalled how they belonged to “Rus”, and grabbed the name “Rus” for its emerging state, referring to its Princes’ dynastic ties with the Kyivan dynasty.” 1

Tragic historical events, experienced by Ukrainian people as a result of the loss of political independence, marked it for life, including the ethnonym. My-chailo Hrushevskyi stated, “We are the people whose name was stolen”. It was important to change the ethnonym. Conscious change of the people’s ethnonym, as history shows has always been a rare phenomenon and been always driven by very complex political and cultural reasons. The change of ethnonyms by Ukrainians and Russians has remained unique, and has been quite an exceptional phenomenon for the last half of a millennium in the European history.

Russians unlike us, Ukrainians, have done it without any historical compul-sion, voluntarily and even kind of joyfully. Indeed, they have been awaiting for our old ethnonym for a long time, since ancient times they were aspiring the moment to change the historical semantics of our ethnonym and grab it with great pleasure, estimating the huge political importance of this fact. “Moscow land adopted our old name, seized our long-standing name, political, state name, and seized it quite consciously, carrying a political plan.” 2

The real process of ethnonym change began for Ukrainians and Russians about two hundred years ago and went on till the p times. For Ukraine the process ended up after World War II, although, it should be mentioned, that its final completion, perhaps, is still far away. 3 Over the outlined period Moscovia, or the Moscow State, was renamed into the Russian Empire (republic, federation) or simply Russia, while "Rus" etnotoponim or khoronym was renamed into Ukraine. Ethnonyms changed accordingly: Peasants-Moskovytians turned into Russians, and Ruthenians turned into Ukrainians. It should be noted that “ethnic substance of Ukrainians has not changed for centuries, and a formal change of a whole ethnonym did not affect the actual ethnical meaning of the concept”. 4

Moscow's ruling circles, brought up in the Mongol-Tatar state tradition, understood the magic power of the word and khoronym meaning. “The question of selfnaming of a state is the question of its international prestige and an am-ulet against foreign encroachments”. 5 Europeans were amazed with an unclear persistency and painful sensibility to a small formal mistake in the titles, a tiny 1 Golubenko, P. Ukraina i Rosia u svitli kulturnykh vzaiemyn.- New York; Paris; Toronto, 1987.- P. 93.

2 Tsegelsky, L. Zvidky vzyalysia s shcho znachat nazvy “Rus” and “Ukraina”? - Lviv, 1907.-

P. 28.

3 Mushinka, M. Rusynism na antiukrainskii osnovi.- Priashiv, 1992.- P. 15.

4 Dashkevich, Ya. Natsionalna samosvidomist ukraintsev na zlami XVI-XVII st. // Suchasnist.-

1992.- № 3.- P. 67.

5 Khoroshkevich, A.L. Rus, Rusia, Moskovia, Rossia, Moskovskoie gosudarstvo, Rossiyskoie tsarstvo //

Spornyie voprosy otechestvennoi istorii XI-XVIII vekov.- М.: In-t istorii SSSR, 1990.- P. 290.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

inaccuracy in political terms. In fact, behind an allegedly formalistic attitude to titles, terms, political formulas, etc. a deep understanding of language gravity in public life, adopted from the ancient East Asian, were hidden.

Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society”. 1 It may concern historical concepts as well.

Confusing the oldest ethnic names of Ukrainian people (Ruskii and Ruskyi) with Russkii (Russian with double "s") on purpose, 2 Russian great power chauvinists include the history of Ukrainian people and its culture into their own, creating the appearance of its thousand-year existence and even thousand-year Baptism of Russia, described below, which did not even exist, which is proven by the name.

Similar attempts were made by Polish assimilators, also described below. “The views of Moscovian and Polish scientists and publicists coincided in the following: there is no Ukraine, there are no Ukrainians, Poland and Russia are the only existing countries, Polish and Russian are the only existing nations”. 3

Verbal hypocrisy, intentional confusion of terms and concepts have been a beloved method of Russian imperialism ideologists for a long time.

The issue of changing the Russian ethnonym is considered to be a striking example of such confusion of terms and concepts. Through the change of theit ethnonym, Russian governmental circles and researchers tried to prove that the princely state of Rus, with its capital in Kyiv was Russian (Moscow) state. These assertions were aimed at proving that there was no separate Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples, and Russian nation was the only one, therefore, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages were just dialects of Russian.

“The science should finally get comfortable with the fact that its numerous theses on the old Rus are built on a convenient juggling with such words as “Rus”,

“Ruskyi.” 4 Russian historiography, filled with mythologemes, was created and is now operating as an integral part of the imperial state ideology. The concept of genealogical continuity of the ruling princely family in Moscow is the core of Russian historiography. On the basis of the 19th century such artificial, non-historical terms as

“Kyivan Rus”, “Volodymyr Rus”, “Moscow Rus” occured, originating in the names of the centers of power. These terms were unknown in the Middle Ages. “The concept of “Kyivan Rus” appeared in Russian science as part of some general ideas on the historical fate of Russia, being a necessary link in the periodization of its exist-1 Novoe v lingvistike.- М.: Nauka, 1960.- Vyp. І.- P. 114.

2 Poliek, V. “Russkii”, “rus’kyi”, “rosiis‘kyi”, “ukrains‘kyi”. Synonymy? Tak! // Berezil.- 1991.-

№ 9.- P. 160.

3 Rudnytskyi, S. Osnovy zemleznannia Ukrainy.- Uzhgorod, 1926.- P. 33.

4 Smal-Stotskyi, S. Naivazhniyshyi moment v istorii Ukrainy // Literaturno-Naukovyi Visnyk

[LNV].- 1931.- Vol. 107, b. 9.- P. 804.

I. THE NAME

ence. The status of a term as a tool has almost been forgotten, and slowly has turned into something much bigger, completely independent, controlling our ideas.” 1 When an official three-member formula or “the three pillars”: orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality (in fact: saesaropapism, despotism, chauvinism) was replaced by Marxism-Leninism doctrine, dogmas of so-called “ordinary scheme of Russian historiography” not only remained valid, but got to be perceived as a kind of “the Holy Scripture”. It would be impossible to omit an extremely spicy and telling fact that the work written by Marx Secret Diplomatic History of the 18th Century, analyzing the history of Russia has never been spread or translated in Marxist countries. A reference to the work of the Marxism founder was tacitly forbidden, by the authority, called Marxist.

This was in the country where no historical work, no article could appear without reference to the classics of Marxism. In fact, the alleged Marxist ideology masked Russian great-power chauvinism. “Having come to power Bolsheviks professed their faith in historical patterns and inevitable collapse of any empire, decided, however, to fight the history, recreate the empire forcibly under a new signboard and roof, as a result, making numerous peoples and nations, including Russia, hostages to his experiment. What was going on in the early 1990s in the USSR may be considered a revenge, taken by the history on the international revolutionary political party, and the evidence that the “collapse” of the Russian Empire in 1917 was not accidental.” 2

Imperial terminology was imposed to generations of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians at schools, higher educational institutions and other means of total control over the ideological life of society. It is worth adding that the Russian (Soviet) schools on the territory of Ukraine brought up foreign state citizens, and often national shapeshifters. They were more Janissaries barracks rather than scools. The history, studied at Russian (Soviet) schools, was an ideological poison. It crippled Ukrainian teenage souls, allowed them neither to understand nor to analyze their people’s destiny. Draconian censorship closely observed all publications, preventing the slightest deviation from the statutory terms, giving secial attention to the terminology of Kyivan Rus period.

Those Soviet Ukrainian historians, who had not accepted the Russian eth-nonymycal terminology, were severely repressed, and works by non-Soviet historians were banned as heretical. We know the kind of total physical extermination, conviction and deportation senior representatives of Ukrainian history experienced. It concerned not only history but other sciences as well. According to the director Yurii Illienko, the elite of Ukrainian nation, its gene pool was constantly shot back, sent forward to Siberia, they died in prisons, were exiled (often voluntary), persecuted by all kinds of censorship. They were not allowed to think over any serious or original thought. All independent actions were forbidden, 1 Tolochko, A. Khymera “Kyievskoi Rusi” // Rodina.- 1999.- № 8.- P. 29.

2 Sogrin, V.V. 1985-1995: realii i utopii novoi Rossii // Otechestvennaia istoriia.- 1995.- № 2.- P. 10.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

including thinking in one’s native language. For centuries, they were turning people into the crowd, indifferent to anything but food.

Unfortunately researchers from other countries, even those from some diaspora, often do not realize the role and importance of ethnonymic terminology in real conditions of Eastern Europe. A detached position of I. Lysiak-Rudnytsky is indicative. “The verbal polemic against the term “Kyivan Russia”

will do no good, and, probably, will not be productive.” 1 In fact, the problem of ethnonymic terminology in terms of East Europe is not only an everyday practice for tens of millions, but an acute problem of national identity. “Greatest representatives of Ukrainian science considered it extremely important to give explanations to this matter and paid it great attention.” 2 Z. Kuzelia, examining such terms as Rus, Ukraine, Little Russia, confirmed: “The terminology issue creates the starting point for the whole structure of Ukrainian history.” 3

In fact, all courses in The History of Ukraine begin with clarification of names in time and space, which belonged to Ukrainians and Russians through their history.

Ideologists of “Great Russia”, manipulating with in different manners with such ethnonyms “Russkii”, “Ruskyi”, “Rusyn”, tried to deprive Ukrainians of the right on Kyivan Rus, make them look like an ethnic mixture, having no historical roots and no traditions. Name manipulations have been known long ago. For example, during a special ritual in ancient Egypt people used to crash ceramics with enemy-nations names on them in order to draw death upon them. For the same purpose nowadays people prohibit native ethnic names and native language.

Moscow rulers wanted to take away our ancestors’ ancient long-lasting cultural heritage and their political gain, together with the name, a short word “Rus”.

Prof. O. Ohonovskyi affirmed rightly that Moscow imperialism “appropriated people’s name “Rus” from Ukrainian nation, has been using its ancient literature and proclaiming worldwide that Rus-Ukraine is a real Russia.” 4 Prominent Slavist O.

Briukner, also keeping to this view, noted in his History of Russia: “Cherished by Mongolian khans, primitive people with meager cultural heritage of oriental character suddenly became an ancient European nation with rich heritage.” 5

Thus, Moscow rulers, having grabbed our old ethnonym, achieved a mimetic effect, that is an assimilation of one thing to another.

The fact that Russians appropriated our ethnonym, regardless of its distorted phonetic form, made the understanding of East European History totally chaotic, 1 Lysiak-Rudnytskyi, І ochatky ukrainskoii natsii // LNV.- 1931.- Vol. 106, b. 4.- P. 351.

2 Chekhovych, К. Pochatky ukrainskoii natsii // LNV.- 1931.- Vol. 106, b. 4.- P. 351.

3 Kuzelia, Z. Nazva terytorii i narodu // Entsyklopediia Ukrainoznavstva: Zagalna chastyna / Za red. V.Kubiiovycha.- К., 1994.- Vol. 1: Perevyd. v Ukraini.- P. 13.

4 Ogonovsky, О. Istoriia literatury ruskoii. - Lviv, 1891.- P. 6.

5 Brückner A. Geschichte Russlands.- Gotha, 1896.- Bd. I.- S. 250.

I. THE NAME

brining “ambiguity and confusion”, 1 in particular, the boundaries between the two (Ukrainian and Russian) historical and cultural heritage have been vague for Western scholars. With few exceptions, these boundaries are not distinguished in the West, under the influence of official terminology. Western historians, linguists, literary scholars, art historians, archaeologists ascribe all our past to Russians without investigation. 2 These boundaries are also blurred in the studies of

“domestic” researchers because of ethnonymic mimetism. It would be enough to say that in the school textbook History of the USSR, published in Ukraine, for example, Ukrainian children read about “Russian” (!) Princes Oleg and Igor who ruled in Kyiv. Such facts, found in popular scientific and publicist literature as well as in fiction, could make up a number of books.

An ideological dispute on the ethnonym of “Rus”, and everything connected with it, has been ongoing since the second half of the 18th century. Yuri Venelin from the Zakarpattia used to call it the dispute between “southerners and northerners.” 3

We can compare this ideological struggle to some extent with the struggle of two historiographic schools, Romance and Germanic. It has been argued, whether Western civilization appeared against the backdrop of ancient Roman culture or it is a new civilization of Germanic origin. The dispute is of purely learned character.

However, the dispute of “southerners and northerners” does not and cannot have an academic, phlegmatically calm nature. Mykhailo Hrushevskyi used to warn that Ukrainian historian cannot be a neutral and skeptic researcher. Hence, we are sometimes overpolemic, overcategorical in our statements. It is about an important issue of the right of Ukrainians and Belarusians to exist as separate nations. The statement about allegedly common ethnonym is the means for Moscow imperialistic circles to legitimize ideologically the act of conquest and oppression of Ukraine and Belarus, a sweet dream of possessing them for ever, allegedly enjoing the right of heir to the Kyivan state of Rus. Propaganda in this regard has lasted in Russia until now.

The scheme of historical process, based on identification of “Rus” and “Russia” terms, appeared at schools of all the USSR Republics. 4 Such practice, after all, is still going on nowadays in Russia and partially in Ukraine.

Unprecendented, seventy-year-old anti-Ukrainian terror of Bolshevism, a period of outright falcification, rudimentary lie, cruel police and ideological supervision, when Ukrainian historians were physically exterminated along with 1 Hrushevskyi, М. Zvychaina skhema “ruskoii istorii” y sprava ratsionalnoho ukladu istoriii skhidnoho slovianstva // Statii po slavianovedeniiu.- SPb., 1904.- P. 5.

2 Krypiakevych, І., Dolnytskyi, М. Istoria Ukrainy.- New York: Vyd-vo Shkilnoii Rady, 1990.- P. 223.

3 Venelin, Yu.O. O spore mezhdu yuzhanami i severianami na schiot ikh rossizma.- М.: Izd-vo Imp. O-va Istorii i Drevn.Ross., 1848.- P. 9.

4 Isaievich, Ya. Problema pokhodzhennia ukrainskoho narodu: istoriografichnyi i politychnyi aspekt // Ukraina: Kulturna spadshchyna, natsionalna svidomist, derzhavnist.- 1995.- Vyp. 2.- P. 8.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

their forbidden studies, generations of Ukrainians were excommunicated from their past. Sometimes even educated people get confused, identifying and distinguishing ethnonyms “Rus”, “Ukraine” and their derivatives. Doctor Oleksandra Kopach in her book New Horizons of Ancient Ukraine aptly notes, “Throughout history, names of inhabitants and territory of Ukraine changed, which caused ambiguity and confusion, we experienced with the change of ancient name “Rus”

to “Ukraine. 1

The subject matter of the proposed research is an attempt to highlight briefly the issue, why and how the process of ethnonymic mimetism of Russians really occurred, and as this process is essential to the process of the change of the Ukrainian ethnonym, we will consider them together, in the inseparable in-terdependence, in which they actually appear in history. It should be noted, that the nature of the subject often requires quoting diverse sources. Abundant citation is also caused by the fact that no book devoted to this subject, has been publication for the last six decades. Drohobych reprint edition of S. Shelukhin’s Ukraine — the Name of our Land since Ancient Times which first appeared in 1936 in Prague, is an exception. The latest is the publication “Why are We Called Ukrainians: how and when rose up, what means and how long has existed our national name” by S. Boiarych. It saw the world in Lviv at the beginning of far 1939. In Upper Dnieper region, by all means, the censorship prohibited to raise the issue so specific for Russia. The ethnonymic problem, for the reasons we will talk about below, was not only ignored, but strictly forbidden to discuss. As a result, Ukrainian reader will not find most of studies and papers on the Ukrainian national name, cited here, even in large scientific libraries of Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, not to mention smaller cultural centers. In particular, these are studies of Bohdan Barvinskyi, Lonhyn Tsehelskyi, Mykola Andrusiak, Okun-Berezhanskyi and other Ukrainian researchers of national ethnonymic issues. Studies of the authors, mentioned above, were strictly prohibited and kept secret under the communist regime (as well as the tsar regime). In order to balance arguments of the dispute, convince modern reader that the examination is objective, respectful Russian studies and publications are cited here to reveal historical and political nature of the terms of ethnic identification.

Kopach, О. Novi obrii starodavnioi Ukrainy.- Toronto; Edmonton, 1980.- P. 3.

IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME

“Rus”, “Rus Land” was the name of the state that emerged in the second half of the 9th century in the middle flow of the Dnieper, among Polans’ tribe, centered in Kyiv. The name “Rus Land”, as well as other chronicle names (Lyadska (Polish) Land, Bulgarian Land, Hungarian Land), originated from the same name of nationalities, inhabited the lands, later the ethnonyms (names of nationalities) turned into politonyms (names of political unities). “For more than one thousand years this name was thundering over lands. Everyone knew it, knew what it meant; and as it often happens to generally known plain concepts, it was used without thinking, without a doubt about its clarity and intelligibility. However, the one who thought of the origin and ancient meaning of the name, could see how far from clear it was, and how difficult it was to answer the question, one of the basic questions for our science and curious national consciousness: how did Rus Land appear?”, wrote O. Trubachov, a famous Russian historian.

The first answer was found in our chronicles.

“Бѣ єдинь языкъ словѣнескъ: словѣни, иже сѣдяху по Дунаєви, ихьже

прияша угри, и морава, и чеси, и ляхове, и поляне, иже нынѣ зовомая

Русь…” ( There was a common language of Slavs: Slavs were already on the Denub, there also came Ugric, Mordva, Czech, Polish, Polians, now called Rus) — we can read in the chronicles from Lavrentiivskyi list. So Slavic tribes, united around Kyiv, lost their tribe names gradually (Polians, Drevlians, Siveri-ans, etc.) and, after they became a single community, went down in history with the ethnonym Rus.

“The oldest and the basic name of South Rusky people was Rus: it was the way people called themselves, since they grew to be a nation, even a nation with the state, out of a conglomerate of tribes; it was also how other peoples called it (Polish still use this name)”. 1

Historians have long been wondered about the origin of this famous name. It brought many conjectures and hypotheses, set out in historical, linguistic and cultural studies. 2 There is a plenty of linguistic and historical literature sources, devoted to the name Rus and accumulated over the past two centuries. 3 Their number has grown so much that “it almost defies description”. 4

1 Doroshenko, D. Narys istoriyi Ukrainy. — Munich: Dniprova khvylia, 1966.- Vol. I.- P. 19.

2 Krypiakevych, I. P. Istoria Ukrainy. - Lviv: Svit, 1990.- P. 307.

3 Kuzmin, A.G. Dve kontseptsii nachala Rusi v Povesti vremennykh let // Istoria SSSR. - 1969.- №

6.- P. 86.

4 Popov, A.I. Slaviane, Rus, Rossiya // Russkaia rech.- 1972.- № 2.- P. 107.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Nevertheless, both historical origin and etymological meaning of this enigmatic word are still quite unclear. 1 M. Hrushevskyi in the research, dedicated to this subject stated, “There is no full agreement on the meaning and beginning of this name”. 2 “Despite all persistent efforts of scientists, origin of the name Rus is rather dark”, — complained in the early 20th century academician Shakhmatov. 3

In the end of XX century American historian of Eastern Europe Richard Pipes came to a similar pessimistic conclusion: “The origin of the name “Rus”, however, is totally unknown”. 4 In other words, nowadays we have no precise, reliable and final definition of the name Rus. 5 “The history of the world ethnonymy knows a few sharp, complex, and confusing problems, hopelessly driven to deadlock, one of them is connected with the origin of the simplest Eastern Slavic ethnic terms, the word rus (Rus)”. 6 N. Polonska-Vasylenko notes, “The origin of this name is the biggest mystery of Ukrainian history, which still can not be considered completely solved”. 7 A historian of East Europe O. Briunker came to the conclusion that “a person, who will give the correct definition of the term “Rus”, will find a key to the ancient Rus history”. 8 A lot of scholars suggest that this problem does not have any scientific solution at all. 9 Historical science “will hardly ever be able to find a fully convincing solution of this complex and intricate problem”. 10

The above statements do not hinder scholars from creating new linguistic and historical variants of etymology of the name Rus. For example, the ethnonym Rus is interpreted as a tradition of men from Dnieper region to shave their heads. 11 Almost every year new publications appear with new interpretations of etymology of Rus term. 12 Recently, Yu. Knysh traced the word “Rus” from the Indo-Iranian cultural context. 13 There are also attempts to derive the name Rus from the Finnish language, as well as from Swedish, Danish, Gothic, Estonian, 1 Kliuchevskyi, V.O. Sochineniya: in 8 V.- M.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- V. I.- P. 167.

2 Hrushevskyi, M. Istoriya Ukrainy-Rusi: in 12 V.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991. - Vol. I.- P. 623.

3 Shakhmatov, A. Drevneishiye sudby russkogo plemeni.- Petrograd, 1919. - P. 52.

4 Pipes, Richard. Rossia pri starom rezhime.- М., 1993. - P. 52.

5 Krypiakevych, I.P. Istoria Ukrainy.- Lviv: Svit, 1990. - P. 36.

6 Stryzhak, O.S. Ethnonymy of Ptolemeievoii Sarmatii. U poshukakh Rusi.- K.: Nauk.dumka, 1991.- P. 3.

7 Polonska-Vasylenko, N. Istoria Ukrainy: in 2 V.- 3te vyd.- K.: Lybid, 1995.- Vol. I: Do seredyny XVIII stolittia.- P. 79.

8 quated from: Geller, M. Istoria Rossiyskoy imperii: in 3 V.- M.: “MIK”, 1997.- Vol. I.- P. 3.

9 Popov, A.I. Nazvania narodov SSSR.- L.: Nauka, 1973.- P. 56.

10 Shaskolsky, I.P. Vopros o proiskhozhdenii imeni “Rus” v sovremennoi burzhuaznoi nauke //

Kritika noveishei burzhuaznoi istoriografii.- L.: Nauka, 1967.- P. 176.

11 Chaplenko, V. Pokhodzhennia nazov “Rus”, “Ros” ta sporidnenykh iz nymy nazov i sliv //

Naukovi zapysky UTGI.- Munich.- 1973.- Vol. XXV.- P. 116.

12 Prytsak, О. O proiskhozhdenii Rusi // Khronika 2000. Nash krai.- 1992.- Vyp. 2.- P. 3.

13 Knysh, Yu. Taiemnytsia pochatkovoii Rusy v Kyievi.- Vinnipeg: UVAN, 1991. - P. 14.

IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME

Komi, Udmurt, Karelian, Hungarian, Khazar Celtic Lithuanian, Turkic, Arab, Jewish and even ancient languages of the Middle East. Figuratively, the initial meaning of “Rus” is said to “be dug out of the “foundation of the pyramid of Cheops or the sands of the Sahara, Palestine and Mesopotamia”. 1

The number of hypotheses is increasing. New variants, new bizarre assump-tions appear. Hypotheses, as they arise, are becoming more and more complicated. V. Shacherbakivskyi, assessing new hypotheses, aptly remarked: “They all have too many words and too many imagination but so little specific facts”. 2

Now there are almost fifteen scientific hypotheses on the etymology of ethnonym and khoronym (name of a country) “Rus”. There are more than hundred options.

Two of them are the most popular among others: the Scandinavian origin of the name Rus and its autochthonous (Slavic) origin.

Researchers studying the history of East Europe have disputed about the etymology of the term “Rus” since the 18th century. In 1749, on Queen Elizabeth's Name Day, an imperial official historian Gerhard Friedrich Miller spoke on “Origines gentis et nominis Russorum” (“The origin of tribe and the name of Russian”). It was in 1749 that the origin of “Rus” has become a mystery for scholars. 3 Following the previous imperial historian Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, who was also German, the Academy Fellow Miller suggested the theory on Norman origin of the Rus state, his idea was that the very name “Rus” was brought from the Swedish language. Miller asserted that the name Rus came from Norman tribe of Rus led by princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, who came in 862 from Sweden to Eastern Slavs and named the people “Ruskyi” and “marked the beginning of Ruthenian state”. 4 The Norman theory was officialy unveiled, which was based on the assumption that the Finnish called one of the Swedish tribes

“russ’”, and then the name of Finns moved to the Slavs. Norman theory is based, mainly, on a primary chronicle “Tale of Bygone Years”. Nestor the Chronicler wrote there, that “Rus” was a Varangian tribe, led by Rurik, as Slavs appealed.

Under year 862 AD Nestor wrote, “They (the Slavs) drove Varangians beyond the sea, did not give them tax, started to own and rule themselves, and they did not have truth, and stood family against family; there began internecine quarrels among them, and started to fight with one another and said: we will seek a Prince ourselves, for him to possess us and was just. — And they went beyond the sea to the Varangians, to the Rus, those Varangians were called Rus, and others were 1 Kosarenko-Kosarevych, V. Moskovskyi sfinks.- New York, 1957.- P. 86.

2 Shcherbakovskyi, V. Pro pivdenne pokhodzhennia imeni Rus // Zbirnyk pamiati Ivana Zilynskoho (1879-1952). Sproba rekonstruktsyii vtrachenoho yuvileinoho zbirnyka z 1939. – New York, 1994.- P. 495.

3 Prytsak, O.I. Proiskhozhdeniye nazvaniya Rus/Rus’ // Voprosy yazykoznaniya.- 1991.- № 6.- С. 115.

4 Podilskyi, A. Nainovishi pohliady na pokhodzhennia natsionalnykh nazv „Rus“ i „Ukraina“ //

Nova Zoria.- 1939.- Ch. 26.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

called the Swedish, and others — the Norwegians, Alges and others — Gotlan-dians. The Chud, Slovens, Krivichi and Ves, “Our land is great and fruitful, and there is no guard in it. Come and rule, and possess us”. Three brothers took their people and took the Rus, and came to their land, and the eldest Ryurik settled in Novgorod, the second Sineus, stayed on the White Lake, and the third, Truvor —

in Izborsk. Those three Varangians gave a name to Rus land. Novgorod people are of Varangian’s gender, though they used to be the Slovens …”. 1

According to Nestor the Chronicler, it was the way they called the overseas Normans. Medieval chronicle tradition, as we know, was formed by an overseas search of genealogical roots of the ruling dynasties. 2 All in all, from the earliest scientific research Nestor’s story about the beginnings of Ruthenian state was

“taken as a dogma, German scholars having been the first to startthe reseach”. 3 It sould be mentioned that non-Slavic origin of the name Rus should not be regarded to be a disrespect of national honour. Ya. Dashkevych was right to believe that national prestige should not be measured by the events that took place over one thousand years ago. “Norman state entities occupied their place in the history of England, France, Italy, and do not hamper national prestige of certain nations”. 4

Foreign origin of some European countries and peoples, for example, is a well-known fact. Thus, Roman Gallia and its inhabitants got the new name of France (the French) from a Germanic tribe of Franks, England and English people — from a Germanic tribe of Angls, Slavonic Bulgaria and Bulgarians —

from a Turkic tribe of Bulgarians. However, under specific conditions of the tsarist empire the matter of term origin acquired non-scientific political overtone.

“The so-called Norman theory of Russ calling was more than a simple theoretical problem from the very beginning. It played a role of the banner of aggressive German Court and served political goals exclusively”. 5 After Miller's speech, mentioned above, a sharp ideological dispute broke out all of sudden.

Miller's report was confiscated and destroyed under Lomonosov’s insistence.

That is how the struggle between “Normanists” and “Anti-normanists” began.

Normanists, proving that Rus was an old Swedish ethnic word, made a political conclusion that so-called Eastern Slavs were not capable of independent historical activity. That is why the issue is of clear political nature. 6

The way Normanists’views, even in their gentle form, are getting an anti Slavic taste is evident from the following quote: “Three main basins — the Baltic 1 Polnoie sobraniie russkikh letopisei, izdavaiemoie gos. Arkheograficheskoiu Komissieiu RAN

[hereinafter - PSRL].- Izd. 3-e.- Petrograd, 1923.- Т. 2, vyp. 1.- P. 15 (text is transcribed).

2 Mavrodyn, V. Proiskhozhdeniie nazvanii “Rus”, “russkiy”, “Rossia”. – L., 1958.- P. 7.

3 Hrushevskyi, M. Istoria Ukrainy-Rusi: U 12 t.- K.: Nauk.dumka, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 602.

4 Dashkevich, Ya. Ukrainski istorychni tradytsii: natsiia i derzhava // Ukrainskyi chas.- 1997.- № 1.- P. 4.

5 Tikhomirov М. Russkaia istoriografia XVIII veka // Voprosy istorii.- 1948.- № 2.- S. 95.

6 Melnykova E. A., Petrukhyn V. Ya. Nazvanye “Rus” v etnokulturnoi ystoryy Drevnerusskoho hosudarstva // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1989.- № 8.- S. 24.

IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME

and the Northern White Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea — these are trade ways and cultural joints, where alert, hardy and courageous common rulers of North Germanic origin formed a foundation for the state organization of peoples, being a part of the East Slavic language group”. 1

Normanists’ thesis transferred the issue of Rus origin “from the realm of Slavs history to the scope of Nordic of peoples’ history. Slavs got the role of inert mass, an underlayer for historical activity of Norman newcomers”. 2

As we have already mentioned, since Miller’s academic speech was pronounced, historians have divided into two antagonistic camps. Some of them (Baer, Miller, Schletzer, Kunick, Thomsen, Miahiste and others), followed by almost all Russian historians (Tatishchev, Karamzin, Solovyov, Kliuchevskyi Pohodin, etc.) acknowledge that the term “Rus” is of Scandinavian origin. Others, including a number of prominent Ukrainian historians (Maksymovych, Kostomarov, Antonovych, Hrushevskyi, Bahalii, Chubatyi, etc.) believe that the name of the Kyivan state and its people is of local, autochthonous origin.

Mykhailo Hrushevskyi expressed the views of Anti-Normanists in the best way: “Apparently “Rus” was a specific name of Kyiv outskirts, Polianska land, and as all samples to take the name of Rus from foreign peoples, northern and southern, are still failing, we have to consider it a native initial name of Kyiv outskirts”. 3

There are diverse compromise versions. For example, R. Smal-Stotskyi, H.

Vernadskyi, H. Pashkevych proved a dual (the Dnieper region and Scandinavian) origin of the name “Rus”. According to their versions, the name is connected with Normans and Slavs from the Dnieper region simulteniously. Smal-Stotskyi believed that after Normans’ conquest of the Dnieper region, the name of the Swedish Vikings “Ruotsi”, borrowed from the Finnish, in its slavonicized form of “Rus” came across the slavonic word “Rus”, which came from the hair color of “rusyi” ( red). H. Pashkevych agreed with him and proved that the term “Rus”

initially denoted “red” color. Normans are believed to have been mostly red.

Therefore the state, founded by Normans, was called Rus. In the 18th century Ukrainian historian Ya. Markovych wrote about blond hair of first Slavic settlers in the Dnieper region, as of the origin of the name Rus. 4

H. Vernadskyi assumpted that in the mid 18th century Norman gang came from Sweden to the Azov Steppe, and actually they established the state of Rus.

Later, in the 9th century, a new wave of Vikings came from Denmark to the territory of the Dnieper region. North (Danish) and Southern (Swedish) “Rus”

merged into a single state, bearing the same name.

1 Svientsitskyi I. Nazva “Rus” v istorychnomu rozvytku do XIII-ho viku.- Zhovkva, 1936.- S. 18.

2 Braichevskyi M. Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1968.- S. 7.

3 Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: U 12 t.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991.- T. I.- S. 192.

4 Markovich, Ya Zapiski o Malorossii, ee zhiteliakh s proizvedeniyakh.- SPb, 1798.- P. 7, 11.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

The concept of Normanists, despite its anti-patriotism for Russians, got to be an official version of Ruthenian state origin in Russian historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. M. Karamazin even considered it to be an advantage of Slavs, that they allegedly chose monarchy voluntarily, having called Norman rulers themselves. Throughout the pre-revolutionary period, Normanists occupied a dominant position in the Russian science. 1 Such undisguised, anti-patriotic posture of Russian historians had its own political reasons beyond history. It is a well-known that soon after Peter I had died only foregners ruled the Russian Empire. 2 Romanov dynasty in the direct male generation ceased to exist with the death of Peter II, in the female line, it was when Elizabeth I died. From 1761 and till March 1917, i.e.

until the renunciation of Nicholas II, Russian empire was ruled by German Hol-stein-Gottorp dynasty. Using genealogical equilibristic, it was officially called the Romanov dynasty, although researchers have always known the truth.

The tsars of the dynasty, whose family name Romanov was a historical pseudonym, “traditionally” married German princesses. As follows, Peter III married Princess Sophia Augustin- Frederitsi-Anholt-Tserbska, future Queen Catherine II.

Peter II and Catherine II were born in Germany. Their son Paul I married Princess Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg. Their son Alexander I married Princess Louise of Baden-Baden. About Nicholas I there is even a song: “Our German tsar of Russia, wears a uniform of Prussia”. Great-grandfather of Nicholas I, who married the daughter of Peter I, was a true German. “So his grandfather, Peter III, was only half Russian. Since he, in turn, married a German, his son Paul, father of Nicholas I, was 3/4 German and only 1/4Russian. However Paul married a German again, which means that his son, Nicholas I, was only 1/8 Russian and 7/8 German”. 3 Nicholas I married Princess Frederica-Louise-Charlotte-Wilhelmina. Their son, Alexander II, married princess Maksymiliana-Wilhelmina-Augusta-Sophia-Maria-Hessen of Darmsht. Alexander III married princess Dagmar of Denmark and last tsar, Nicholas II married Alicia of Hessen. By the way, this last tsar, who imposed a strict ban of Ukrainian language and culture, has recently been canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a saint, with his wife and children.

It was necessary to justify ideologically the German origin of Russian crowned heads. That is where Russian official circles took the line of Norman concept, which historically justified the domination of German foreigners in the tsarist empire.

Though the Germans in Russia of the 19th century made up only 1% of population, 57% of high officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were German.

Natives of Germany and the Germans, born in Russia or in Ostzeiski (Baltic) 1 Dovzheniuk, V.I. Ob etnicheskoi prinadlezhnosti naselennia Chertiakhovskoi kultury // Drevniie slaviane i Kyivskaia Rus.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1989.- P. 7.

2 Chukhonskaia dinastiia.- Nagasaki, 1906.- P. 5.

3 Shishko, L Rasskazy iz russkoi istorii.- SPb, 1906.- P. 5.

IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME

areas, made up 46% among the leadership of the Military Ministry, there were 62% of them among mail and railway authorities. There was, for example, a powerful head of the 3rd Department ( secret police) and a chief of German police, Alexander Benkendorf, did not know Russian. 1

There was no significant polemic against Normanists after the Revolution of 1917 and even until the mid 1930’s. Varangian question was considered to be finally

“resolved in favor of the Normans”. 2 However when Hitler came to power in Germany with his racist sermons, pro-Norman position of Soviet historians experienced diametric reorientation. It turned out that Norman origin of the term Rus gave a reason for German ideologists to make a political conclusion that the German racial element gave state and organizational structure to the Slavs, because the Slavs (particularly Russians) are not capable of state building. Since that moment the ruthless struggle with Normanists began. Marxists internationalists suddenly made Normans their avid class enemies. Normanists’ views were officially condemned as harmful for the ideology, and being a “Normanist” was politically dangerous. 3 Since then Soviet historians obtained positions, close to Ukrainian historiography of autochthonous theory. “Since 1940-1950’s a version of “Southern-Rus” origin of the name was established in the Soviet historiography. Its primary meaning was the territory of the Middle Dnieper region where Kyiv was situated (the so-called “Rus Land” in its narrow sense, revealed by chronicles of the 12th-13th centuries)”. 4

Soviet historians started associating the origin of the term Rus with the name of Dnipro influent of the Ros river or with the Dnieper region city of Roden, or both. 5 This idea goes back to Hustynskyi Chronicle of 1670. The author “among different guesses”, “why our people should be called Rus”, mentioned that it derived from “иныя от реки глаголемыя Рось” ( the river called Ros). 6

Since Normanists’ views were marked as fascist and bourgeois, Soviet historians wrote, “Soviet historiography finally disproved Normanists’ unscientific assertion that the term “Rus” comes from the Norman tribe, which penetrated East Europe in the 2nd half of the 9th century, founded a state there and gave it their name”. 7 In reality, the origin of the word “Rus” is connected with the territory and the population of modern Ukraine, especially with the Middle Dnieper River, in particular Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav. 8

1 Geller, M.J. Istoria Rossiyskoi imperii: V 3 t.- M.: “MIK”, 1997.- T. Sh.- P. 21; Zaionchkovskyi, P.A. Pravitelstvennyi apparat samoderzhavnoi Rossii v XIX v.- M., 1978.- P. 179.

2 Hotie, Yu.V. Zheleznyi vek v Vostochnoi Yevrope.- M., 1930.- P. 248.

3 Ageieva, R.A. Strany s narody: Proiskhozhdeniie nazvanii.- M.: Nauka. 1990. - P. 116.

4 Horsky, A.A. Problema proiskhozhdeniia nazvaniia Rus v sovremennoi sovetskoi istoriografii //

Istoriia SSSR.- 1989.- № 3.- P. 131.

5 Istoriia SSSR s drevneishikh vremion.- M.: Nauka, 1966.- Т. I.- P. 348.

6 Hrushevskyi, M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi: U 12 t.- K.: Nauk.dumka, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 193.

7 Radianska entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy. - K.: AN URSR, 1972. - Т.4.- P. 38.

8 Radianska entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy. - K.: AN URSR, 1972. - Т.4.- P. 38.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Historians of Ukrainian diaspora suggested a compromise solution to the problem. “The word Rus, as one might think, initially belonged to a foreign tribe, which defeated Southern tribes of the East Slavic group, dissolved among the Slavs, leaving behind the name, which got to be the name of our people and the new state. This name Rus grew to be our national name and we had it for a long time”. 1

Noting the Anti-Normanists historiographical position, they wrote, “It does not cross out the importance of first princes and their retainers of Norman origin in the formation of the state system in the state of Kyiv”. 2

Advanced Ukrainian research in history traditionally keep to Anti-Normanist approach. Thus, in the recent study it is said that “the ethnonym Rus appeared in the Middle Dnieper region and in the 9th century was firmly attached to the state of Kyiv and was well-known beyond its borders. Later the name

“Rus”, “Ruskyi” was considered to be Ukrainians’ selfnaming. “Ruskyi” in the ethnic meaning of “Ukrainian” was found in the 14th century and existed for centuries”. 3 Other modern researchers share this opinion, “The analysis of written evidence has shown that the theory of the Southern origin of the name Rus is the most plausible”. 4

Unexpectedly academician Omelian Pritsak announced an innovative version. He tried to connect the two opposite theories, those of Khazars and Normans. Until 930’s according to the Pritsak’ concept, Khazars dominated in Kyiv (and Kyiv was founded as an outpost of the Khazar Khanate on the western borders), later there came Normans. Pritsak believed that the name Rus was brought to the East Europe by a Ruthenian-Frisian-Norman trading company”. 5

In the dull whirlpool of so-called “Norman question”, mentioned here, the true problem of the term Rus was lost. As we can see, all efforts of the researchers were directed at elucidating its origin: whether it came from Scandinavian, Turkic, or some other. This situation enables Russian historiography, veiled by scholastic reasons, to hide another extremely important and topical issue: it is not about Norman, East or autochthonous origin of the ethnical term of a purely academic value, but about the history of its use, for “the origin of the name is less important than the meaning”. 6 The history of the use of the term Rus and its derivatives remains one of the fundamental problems of great importance in establishment of national consciousness among East European nations. In other 1 Doroshenko, D. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- Lviv, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 24.

2 Zhukovskyi А., Subtelny, О. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- Lviv: Vyd-vo NTSh, 1991.- P. 13.

3 Pivtorak, G. Ukraintsi: zvidky my i nasha mova.- K.: Nauka, 1993.- P. 66.

4 Tolochko, P. Rus – Mala Rus - Ukraina // III Mizhnarodny congress ukrainistiv. Istoria. - Kharkiv, 1996.- Chast. І.- P. 3.

5 Pritsak, О. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Oberegy, 1997.- Т. І.- P. 53.

6 Krypiakevych, I.P. Istoria Ukrainy.- Lviv: Svit, 1990.- P. 36.

IІ. ENIGMATIC NAME

words, despite the issue on the origin of the name Rus, being a mostly theoretical one nowadays, the issues of the term’s use and its semantics are scientific problems of an extremely topical political importance. Because, as we will see later, the whole thing reveals the mechanism of ethnonymic mimicry of Moscow imperialism. 1 This is why Moscow researchers, who have spoilt a lot of paper, creating a giant literature on the etymology of the term Rus, tell almost nothing about the history of its use, while this history is extremely interesting and telling.

Solovyov, who seems to be the only Russian researcher of the problem in the postwar period, complained, “in the 19th century all attention of Russian historians was absorbed by the notorious question of the origin of Rus and its name, although the issue of the development of the name remained untouched”. 2

It is not a coincidence that in the 20th century Russian historians did not investigate this matter. In contrast to Solovyov’s opinion, the reason was not the fact that they could not escape from the haunting “Norman issue”. The issue of the development of the name of Rus is ranked among dangerous “slippery”

topics, to study them meant to sway the foundations of a traditional ("normal") design of Russian historiography. Russian historians actually hesitate to get into the topic. Its objective consideration will result in the destruction of the imperial historical and philological myth of Moscow’s right for Kyiv heritage (Moscow is a second Kyiv), all the ensuing consequences.

1 Solzhenitsyn, A. Vystuplenia na ukrainsko-russkie temy // Zvezda.- 1993.- № 12.- P. 161-166.

2 Solovyov, A. Velikaia, Malaia i Belaia Rus // Voprosy istorii.- 1947.- № 7.- P. 24.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

In the prosperous times of the reign of Volodymyr the Great and Yaroslav the Wise, the state of Rus was the largest in Europe, embracing the territory from the Transcarpathia to Volga-Oka interfluve region, from Tmutarakan’ at the Azov Sea coast to the waves of the Baltic Sea. The population, inhabiting this vast and geographically various area, lived in different economic conditions. Medieval people were certainly dependent on the natural environment to a great extent, on the climate, they lived in. Historians of Kyiv state claimed that natural conditions made a dramatic effect upon the state forming process. 1

O. Dombrovskyi stressed, “The very fact that the historical process consists of three main components, universal in their range: time, space and person, makes the geographic factor a significant part of a complex composition of functions of historism”. 2

The vast Empire of Rurik’s descendants was divided by landscape into separate natural climate-and-vegitative zones. “No doubt, the European territory, occupied by the Eastern Slavs, is to be divided into belts, differentiated by the climate peculiarities, soil and vegetation covering, and give them individual characteristics.”3

In the North of grand East European Plain, around Novgorod, there was a taiga zone with cool moisturous climate, coniferous forests on poor ash gray soil.

Further, to the South-East, on the territory of today’s Moscow, there was a zone of mixed forest with low-yield soil and considerable marsh areas. Such natural conditions did not make it possible to grow high yield wheat crop. 4

In the South near Kyiv, the forest-steppe zone is located with well-known fruitful black soils, and further to the South, in the Greater Black Sea area, lied the Great Eurasian Steppe, from Mongolia, and the Great Wall, to the Denube Valley, not far from the Alps, thus embracing two parts of the world. A lot of authors keep to the hypothesis that the home land of Indo-Europeans was the Ukrainian Steppe.5 “Various sources make us believe that Eastern Slavonic statehood was maturing in the South, in a rich and fruitfull line of the Middle Dnieper area. Thousands of years before Kyivan Rus it saw cultivation of land. The historical development in the South was much more intensive than in the woody 1 Chubaty, М. Kniazha Rus-Ukraina ta vynyknennia triokh skhidnoslovianskykh natsiy // Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Shevchenko [hereinafter, ZNTSh].- 1964.- Т. 178.- P. 24.

2 Dombrovsky, O. Studii z rannioii istorii Ukrainy: Zbirnyk prats.- Lviv; New York, 1998.- P. 209.

3 Grekov, B.D. Kyivskaia Rus.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1953.- P. 60.

4 Soloukhin, V.A. Vozvrashcheniie k nachalu. - М.: Sovremennik, 1990.- P. 18.

5 Davis, Norman Europe: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- P. 104.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

and marshy Northern regions with their poor soils”. 1 Researchers claim that, “it was this area, the land of black soils, the line where forest turned into steppe, that had all conditions for the fast development of culture compared to the Northern forest line”.2 Significant density of people involved in the cultivation of land, compared to the neibouring territories, in the Dnieper area forest-steppe was accounted for by qualitatively beneficial natural-and-geographic conditions. “Ad-vantegeous for agriculture and crafts, the combination of forest-steppe and forest areas, a favourable river system and natural resources alongside other factors, ensured a successful development of productive forces and productive relations, determined qualitative diversity of economies of the region”. 3

Gentle temperate climate of the South was (and is) an additional economic resource, more important than natural deposits. For instance, in Moscow area the number of days beneficial for vegetation is 165, while in Kyiv area it is 200.

For the cultivation of land extra month of warm weather is of great importance.

“The harvest of the same crops in Kyiv is several times more than in Volgo-Oka interfluve”.4 To make a long story short, to the North of rich Kyiv forest-steppe the land is not so fertile, the climate is colder, the length of light is shorter. The lack of well-arranged roads made waterways of great importance for Rus. The East European Plain has three waterways (sometimes four waterways are mentioned). 5 The main river way, as well as the spine of all the transport system in Rus was “the way from the Varangians to the Greeks”. This way went from the Gulf of Finland to the Lake Ilmen, then it went along the rivers, in some parts the vessels were pulled on the ground, then it went along the Western Dvina, and after that it reached the upstream of the Dnieper and the Black Sea, which was the way to the magnificent centres of European civilization, those of Greece (Bez-antine) and Rome (Italy). There was a rival river way, going along the Mologa and the Sheksna to the Volga, which then reached the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus and the Muslim Asia. The future Suzdal-Moscow area was formed on this second river way, and this geopolitical fact played an important role in its further development. The third river-based communication system is the Niman river and the Western Dvina, flowing into the Baltic Sea. “The three above-mentioned river systems had a decisive effect upon the character, culture and national aspirations of the Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians. The main rivers, those of the Dnieper, the Volga and the Dvina, are certain to have a mysterious importance 1 Rybakov, B.A. Myr istorii: Nachalnyie veka russkoi istorii.- M.: Mol. gvardiia, 1984.- P. 39.

2 Grekov, B.D. Kyivskaia Rus.- M.: Gospolitizdat, 1953.- P. 78.

3 Rychka, V.M. Formirovaniie territorii Kyivskoi zemli (IX – pervaia tret XII v.).- K.: Nauk.

dumka, 1988.- P. 12.

4 Bushkov, A.А., Burovskyi, A.M. Rossia, kotoroi ne bylo-2. Russkaia Atlantida: Istoricheskoie rassledovaniie.- Krasnoiarsk: Bonus; М.: OLMA-Press, 2000.- P. 248.

5 Solovyov, S.M. Istoria Rossii s drevneishikh vremion.- SPb., Izd-vo “Obshchestvennaia polza”.-

Kn. pervaia. Т. I- V.- P. 12-13.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

for the historical life of these nations”. 1 All the waterways of East Europe were connected with one another. According to Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, “The system of the upper Dnieper is very closely connected with the system of the upper Volga, the Western Dvina and the system of the Northern Lakes. The system of the Pripyat River is linked to the systems of the Niman and the Western Bug and the Visla. The system of the Desna is connected with the system of the Oka, the middle Volga area and the upper Podon, while the Posemye and the middle сonfluent of the Dnieper, the Vorskla and the Samara are closely linked to the system of the Donets. As a result we have got a huge system of ways, whose main artheries are accumulated in the middle Dnieper in its natural centre, ancient Kyiv, founded here when the humans started inhabiting the Dnieper hills, gathering trade car-avans from all the main confluents of the Dnieper river”. 2 Rivers continuously attracted new inhabitants. It is here, over the rivers, where the first Rus towns grew. Along the big rivers, the principal trade ways, were accumulated people of the region. “Comparing the Dnieper area as the centre of the South-East European civilization with other Eurasian civilizations, we should remind that the river factor was of greatest importance for the earliy historical process on the territory of Ukraine. By its importance the Dnieper was similar to the Nile, the Euphrates and the Tigris, the Hindu and the Ganges, as well as that of the Yellow River, Huang Ho, correspondingly, for Egypt, the Middle East, India and China; it grew to be the centre of civilization for South-East Slavonic tribes, and in the course of time, for the society of Kyivan Rus. The Dnieper was mostly a communication-trade means, as well as that of defence, for the dwellings of autochthonous and land-cultivating population, located on the right bank, had a better defence system from the nomadism of the East. The Dnieper waterway was also a win-dow to the world of the Black Sea and the Mediterranian, in economic-and-cultural aspect, and later in economic one.”

Thus, the early history process on the territory of Ukraine was naturally connected with a great role of the Dnieper, which was also significant during later periods of Rus-Ukraine history. Such a role of the Slavuta ( old name of the Dnieper) in the life of people made it a sacred symbol of mystery in historical tradition, people’s creativity and literature of Rus-Ukrainian ethnos”. 3

A Polish historian Henryk Łowmiański calculated that the population of the state of Rus in the 10th century was about 4,500 thousand people. The population of then German was 3,500 thousand, that of Poland was 1,225 thousand.

“Primary chronicle” ( Old Church Slavonic “Повѣсть времѧньныхъ лѣтъ”) provided a detailed list of Slavonic and non-Slavonic tribes, inhabiting the 1 Chubatyi, M. Kniazha Rus-Ukraina ta vynyknennia triokh skhidnoslovianskykh natsiy //

ZNTSh. - 1964.- Т. 178.- P. 26.

2 Hrushevskyi, M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi: U 11 t., 12 kn.- K.: Nauk.dumka, 1991.- Т. I.- P. 11.

3 Dombrovsky, O. Studii z rannioi istorii Ukrainy: Zbirnyk prats.- Lviv; New York, 1998.- P. 93.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

state of Kyiv those days. In the West, in the Carpathians area, there lived the Croatians, along the Bug — the Volynians (the Dulebes, the Buzhans). The Drevlians, the Dregoviches were located on the right bank of the Dnieper.

There, on the territory of the modern Kyiv Province, also lived the well-known Polians, and nearby, along the river Desna there lived the Severians. By the Dniester river the Tivertsi built their settlements, and by the South Bug there were the Uliches. The territory of settlement of the above mentioned tribes (as well as their anthropological features) co-insides with the main national territory, and, which should be stressed, with the modern anthropological types of the Ukrainian people. The Radimichi, the Polochans lived along the left confluents of the Dnieper, while the Vyatichi’s settlements reached the Oka. The Krivichi, who had a hub in Smolensk, reached the upper Western Dvina, while the Slovens from Novgorod lived in the Lake Ilmen. “The analysis of various sources: chronicles, archeological findings, linguistic and anthropological sources, made it possible to picture an expressive ethnic structure of Rus in the period of its formation. The Rus of the 9th century, which stepped confidently into the world history, appeared as a unity of eight great ‘triban unions’ (the Polians, the Severians, the Drevlians, the Dregovichi, the Radimichi, the Vyatichi, the Krivichi, the Ilmen Slovenians), each of which consisted of several (the greatest number was six) smaller tribal groups”. 1

A lot of non-Slavonic tribes, including the Hungarian and Lithuanian, were conquered and included into Rus. The Chronicle gives their list: “А се суть инии

язици, иже дань дають Руси: чюдь, меря, весь, мурома, черемись, морьдва, пермь, печера, ямь, литва, зимигола, корсь, норома, либь: си суть свой

язык имуще, от колена Афетова, иже живут в странах полунощных”. 2 (Old Church Slavonic “and other peoples brought tax to Rus: the Chud, the Meria, the Ves, the Muroma, the Cheremys, the Mordva, the Perm, the Pechera, the Yam, the Litva, the Zymygola, the Kors, the Noroma, the Lyb: they are all different people, descendants of Japheth” ) The Lithuanian tribes inhabited the Baltic area, while the Finno-Ugric tribes occupied all the North-East territory, including the Volga-Oka interfluve, i.e. the core of modern Russia, where there lived no Slavonic tribes, mentioned in the chronicle. The chronicler pictures “the state of Kyiv as a political, not ethnic creation, built on the vassal devendence on the tribes and territories, subordinate to Kyiv”.3 Such a view is generally accepted in the historical science. “The borders of the land of Rus prove that Rus had neither tribal nor ethnic roots, but political and state-forming grounds”.4

1 Braichevskyi, M.Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- К.: Nauk.dumka, 1968.- P. 148.

2 Povest vremennykh let.- M.; L., 1950.- Т. I.- P. 10.

3 Vysotsky, S.O. Kyivska pysemna shkola X-XII st. (Do istorii ukrainskoi pysemnosti).- Lviv; Kyiv; New York, 1998.- P. 58.

4 Sovietskaia istoricheskaia entsyklopiediia: V 16 t.- M., 1969.- T. 12.- S. 417.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

The concept of state, and state territory of those days does not match the modern concept of the notions. A vast state territory of Rus was an expression of its might; however, it was also a weak point. According to A.Nasonov’s historical-and-geographical study, “The state of Kyiv was an unstable unity, which united a territory scattered on the vast spaces of the East European Plain, where some areas were still not domesticated. In the middle of the huge territory, there were great spaces, where actually the state had no power; in some areas the state was nominal or irregular. It would be correct to say that initially, the state of Kyiv was comprised of the territory of ancient “Rus Land” and the areas, scattered about the vast East European Plain”. 1

Following K.Marx, researchers believed that the state of Kyiv was to great extent “a non-continuous, patchwork unity”. 2 Scattered about the vast area, population of different ethnisities was hard to keep under control of a single power. “Different lands and tribes revealed their separative tendencies, wishing to live independently. The integrity of the state was kept by the dynasty”3 Giving characteristics to the internal nature of the state of Rus, Mikhalo Hrushevskyi stressed: “The bonds connecting the state, if only in a primitive way, were really weak. They had to be refreshed, renovat-ed by military campaigns, change of governors and subordinates, for the state not to be overburdened and destroyed”. 4 This gave B. Grekov grounds to call the state of Kyiv “an awkward (disorderly) state”.5

Since mid. 9th century, when a political formation with the capital of Kyiv emerged on the Dnieper banks, the term “Rus Land” appeared. Similarly, the chronicle mentioned such terms as “Liadska Land”, “Ugric Land”, “Greek Land”

etc. The word “land” meant “state”, for the word “state” was not used those days.

The word “derzhava” ( “state” ) is of Old Bulgarian origin and was brought to our language with church liturgy books. Its primary meaning coincides with the meaning of such words as “might”, “reign”, “power”. Thus, the beginning of the chronicle, which in the authentic text is called: “Се повѣсть временных лѣтъ, откуда єсть пошла Руськая Земля, кто въ Кієвѣ нача первѣє княжити і како

Руськая Земля стала єсть” ( This is the Primary Chronicle about the Origin of Rus Land, of Those Who First Reigned in Kyiv and How Rus Land Appeared).

The Primary Chronicle points out that the name of Kyiv state “Rus Land” first appeared in 852 AD, during the reign of Byzantine Emperor Michael. “В лето

6360, индикта 15, наченшь Михайлу царствовати, нача ся прозывати Руска

Земля”. 6 (Old Church Slavonic Summer 6360, indict 15, Michael came to reign, 1 Nasonov А. N. “Russkaia ziemlia” i obrazovanie territorii drievnieruskoho gosudarstva.- M.: Izdvo AN SSSR, 1951.- С. 25.

Istoricheskaia geografiia SSSR.- М., 1973.- S. 39.

3 Krypiakevych I. P. Istoriia Ukrainy.- Lviv: Svit, 1990.- S. 70.

4 Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: U 11 t., 12 kn.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991.- T. I.- S. 428.

5 Griekov B. D. Feodalnyie otnosheniia v Kiievskom gosudarstve.- M.; L., 1937.- S. 189-190.

6 PSRL.- Pg., 1923.- T. 2, vyp. 1.- S. 13.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

and Rus Land was called so). Approximately at that time Byzantine and Arabic sources started to use the name “Rus” for the unity of Polians. Not touching upon the question whether this name was given to Polians by Varyangians, or if this name was of local origin, it is sufficient to stress that primarily the name of “Rus”, from the enthnic viewpoint, belonged to the Dnieper tribe of Polians.

Nestor the Chronicler who of all Slavonic tribes gave preference to Kyiv Polians:

“men of wisdom and common sense”, pointed to a memorable change of their ethnonym: “поляни, еже ныне зовомая Русь”. 1 (Old Church Slavonic “Polans now called Rus” ). The Chronicler so fixed the new ethnonym (“Rus” in plural, which is, “Rusin” in singular) which was the beginning of a new ethnic formation, which was “based on territorial links rather than on tribal ones”. 2

According to V. Shcherbakovskyi, “Kyiv was a central capital of Polians and at the same time it was a centre and capital of Rus. Therefore Polians started to be called Rus”.3 The role of Polians in “the formation of Rus is admitted to have been significant; they can be considered to have been a core Rus consolidation”. 4 “The name of “Rus” is an ancient calling of Kyiv Land, a land of Pilians, known since the first half of the 9th century, long before Kyiv was conquered by the Northern princesses”. 5

According to the modern anthropology, the territory occupied by Polians also included the middle Dnieper, towns of Kyiv, Chernigiv and Pereyaslav. 6

From Polians the ethnonym “Rus” first expanded to the neighbouring tribe of Severians, occupying the area along the Desna. The tribal settlements of Polans and Severians were of the same origin. They are considered to have had Chern-yakhiv archeological culture and its relict, that of Volyntseva culture. The modern archeology believes that “the autochthonal areal of Volyntseva culture is the tribal territory of Rus, which should be identified as Rus Land in narrow meaning. 7 However the names “Rus” and “Rus Land” are found in historical sources in different meanings at a time, which makes it difficult to interpret them. The most complete classification of the term “Rus” was made by a classical Russian historian (the Mordva by origin) Vasyl Klyuchevskyi. He differentiated between four meanings of the word “Rus”: 1. Ethnographic: Rus as a tribe; 2. Social: Rus as a state; 3 geographical: Rus as a region, and 4. Political: Rus as a state territo-1 Poviest vriemiennykh liet.- M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1950.- T. І.- S. 2І.

2 Balushok V. Etnotsentryzm polian v “Povisti vremennykh lit” i problema vytokiv etnichnoi samosvidomosti ukraintsiv // Naukovi zapysky KDU:. Zbirnyk prats molodykh vchenykh ta aspirantiv.- K., 1999.- T. 3.- S. 10.

3 Shcherbakivskyi V. Formatsiia ukrainskoi natsii.- Praha, 1941.- S. 131.

4 Braichevskyi, M.Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- К.: Nauk.dumka, 1968.- P. 163

5 Tikhomirov М. N. Russkoie lietopisaniia.- М., 1979.- S. 45.

6 Alieksieieva Т. I. Etnogienez vostochnukh slavian po dannym antropologii.- М.: Izd-vo MGU, 1973.- S. 31.

7 Siedov V. V. Russkii kaganat IX vieka // Otiechiestviennaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 4.- S. 12.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

ry”. 1 One more meaning can be added to the list suggested by Klyuchevskyi, the church meaning: Rus as adepts of East Orthodox Church. In the church meaning the word “Rus” united all the peoples, both Slavonic and non-Slavonic, that belonged to “Rus religion”, i.e. orthodox faith. 2

Historians suggest that the term “Rus” was most often used both as an ethnonym and as the name of a state. 3 However the name “Rus” had ethnic meaning and was used as a collective nomination of a nation, therefore in the Slavonic text of Igor’s treaty with the Greeks in 945 AD “Rus” and “Rus Ancestry” acquired the similar meaning. “It is known that the names of states, mentioned in the chronicle, such as Liadska ( Polish), Bulgarian and Greek Lands, appeared after the names of the nations: Liakh (the Pole), the Bulgarians, the Greeks, inhabiting their ethnic territories. Thus, there is no doubt that the term “Rus Land”, “Rus”

was also formed from the name of the nation, the Rusins, who lived in Kyiv area.

The name “Rus Land”, “Rus” was sometimes used by chroniclers as a name of the whole country, though there are no grounds to claim that as ethnic it belongs to all the tribes and nationalities of Kyiv state, taking into account the fact that many of them were of non-Slavonic origin”. 4

Otherwise stating, the fact that the ethnic structure of Kyiv state had a polyethnic basis, was reflected in the use of the term “Rus”. 5 As in any multiethnic empire, the name of Kyiv state functioned in double meaning: in ethnic and state-and-political sense. B.Rybakov mentioned that the term “Rus” in ancient sources “was used in two meanings: a narrow (ethnic) and a broad (territorial) one”. 6 Similar phenomena of different use of names (ethnic — political) can be observed in the states, which possess not only their own, autochthonic, ethnic territory, but also alien lands. For instance: Rzeczpospolita of Poland in state-territorial understanding was the name of Poland itself but also of subordinate Ukrainian, Belorusian and other ethnically alien lands. However at those times neither Lithuania, no Samogitians, no Inflantians or, even Rus Voivodship ( Province) were called Poland in the sense of ethnicity.

The Denub Empire of Habsburgs was called Austria (since 1867 it was called Austria-Hungary). However Bohemia, Croatia, Galicia and other ethnically non-German lands, which were a part of the empire, were called Austria only in the state (political) sense. In the ethnic meaning Austria has always been the name for the lands, inhabited by the Germans. Similar dual use of the name 1 Kliuchievskii V. О. Tierminologiia russkoi istorii // Sochinieni.- М., 1959.- Т. 6.- S. 130.

2 Geller М. Istoriia Russkoi impierii: V triokh tomakh.- М.: “МIK”, 1997.- Т. 1.- S. 66.

3 Siedov V. V. Russkii kaganat IX vieka // Otiechiestvienaia istoriia.- 1998.- № 4.- S. 40.

4 Vysotskyi S. O. Kyiv: “Se budu maty hradomъ Ruskymъ” // Istoriia Rusi-Ukrainy: istoryko-arkheolohichnyi zbirnyk.- K., 1998.- S. 102.

5 Agieieva R. А. Strany i narody: Proiskhozhdieniie nazvanii.- М.: Nauka, 1990.- S. 119.

6 Rybakov B. А. Drievniie Russy // Sovietskaia arkheologiia.- 1953.- Т. 18.- S. 31.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

of the country (political and ethnical) can be traced in many countries, where metropoly is surrounded by colonies, or one state is comprised of polyethnic territories. The ethnonym “English” referred to all the people inhabiting Great Britain, where besides the English there live the Scottish, the Welsh and others.

All the inhabitants of India are called the Hindu in political sense, though the territory is inhabited by some nationalities which have nothing in common with the Hindu. The same concerns general political name of various ethnical groups of China, Pakistan, Indonesia etc.

The study of chronicles shows that the notions of “Rus” and “Rus Land” also had a dual meaning. “In the chronicles the names of “Rus” and “Rus Land” were used in two meanings: in a broad meaning, including all East Slavonic lands, and in the narrower one, nominating the Southern part of the land. The territory of Rus in the narrow meaning, according to the chronicles, embraced the lands from Kyiv and Bilgorod in the South-West to the towns of Starodub and Kursk in the North-East, and to the rivers Ros and Tiasmin in the South. This territory was inhabited by the Polans, Severians and Uliches that united in the 6th-7th centuries to resist nomads”. 1

It should be mentioned that Russian and, certainly, Ukrainian Soviet historiography of Rus omits the term “ethnic” in opposition to the term “political”.

(Especially notorious in this respect is the specialist in “Old Russian” literature D.Likhachov). 2 Instead, another pair of antonyms was used, which was not so expressive: “narrow” and “broad”. Such a vague form made it possible to veil the most important thing, i.e. the ethnic aspect of interpreting the name “Rus”.

“As noticed rather long ago, the term “Rus” was used in two meanings in Old Russian sources: in a narrow and broad meaning. In general, Rus is a territory of Kyiv state, and correspondingly, its population (including all groups of tribes, among which there were non-Slavonic ones). In this sense, all the parts of this country were Rus: including Novgorod, Zalissia, Galicia, Kyiv, and Tmutarakan and others. Alongside this, the term “Rus” is often used in such contexts, where it is opposed to some regions of Kyiv state, i.e. Rus in a broad meaning”. 3

The sources of the 9th-12th centuries prove that the names “Rus”, “Rus Land”

primarily belonged to the Dnieper Right Bank Area with the centre in Kyiv. 4 “This small triangle: the Dnieper, the Irpen and the Ros is the centre of historic life of our people and the land of its name is Rus itself”. 5 N. Polonska-Vasylenko proved, that “the term “Rus” was used mostly to name the Principality of Kyiv, and it was a symonym of Kyiv area”. The texts of chronicles suggest that “in mid. 12th century 1 Slavianie Yugo-Vostochnoi Yevropy v priedgosudarstviennyi pieriod.- К.: Nauk. dumka, 1990.-

S. 320-321.

2 Poviest vriemiennykh liet / Statii i kommientarii D. S. Likhachiova.- М.; L., 1950.- S. 238-241.

3 Braichevskyi M. Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1968.- S. 162.

4 Popov А. I. Nazvaniia gorodov SSSR.- L.: Nauka, 1973.- S. 50.

5 Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: U 11 t., 12 kn.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991.- T. 1.- S. 190.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

“Rus Land” included only the Great Kyiv Principate reigned by the Rurik dynasty, descendants of Volodimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise”. 1 In the 11th-12th centuries the chronicles accurately separated Rus — the Principality of Kyiv from other principalities. “To go to Rus” meant to go to Kyiv area. Under year 1149 Novgorod Chronicle script says: “the archbishop of Novgorod Niphon is going to Rus”, that is to Kyiv. In year 1165 Novgorod Chronicle (the third) specified “and igumen ( ab-bot) Yurnyevsky of Novgorod monastery went to Rus, to the town of Kyiv”2 The name “Rus” as a notion concerned Kyiv area and neighbouring lands, and was opposed to other territories of the state in all the issues of Rus chronicle (Ipatievskyi, Lavrentiyivskyi, and Novgorodskyi). In the science of history it has been already admitted that in the 12th-13th centuries the name “Rus” meant a certain country, i.e.

Kyiv Land. Examples of such word use are numerous and can be found in different Rus monuments”. 3 The fact that the names “Rus” and “Rus Land” primarily nominated only central part of today’s Ukraine, is commonly accepted by the Russian scientific literature. S.Solovyov considered the ethnic core of the state of Kyiv

“Rus is most narrow sense”. 4 He considered Rus to include the Principality of Kyiv, Pereyaslav, Chernigiv, Volyn, Smolensk, and Turov ”. 5 V. Klyuchevskyi, in his turn, believed that “Rus was initially just the name of Kyiv Province”6

To the same conclusion came M. Tikhomirov: “One can be sure that in the 12th-13th centuries the name “Rus” belonged to a certain region: Kyiv land in narrow meaning of the word”7 The name “Rus” as an ancient name of Kyiv land,

“a land of the Polans, was known since the 9th century”. 8

M. Prisyelkov based on the analysis of Kostyantyn Bagryanorodskyi’s “De administrando imperii” (10th century) and the text of Rus-Byzantine treaties in making a conclusion that in the second half of the 10th century the state of Kyiv consisted of the main core, which later gave grounds for establishing three Principalities: those of Kyiv, Chernigiv, and Pereyaslav, which was called Rus in a narrow (ethnic) meaning of the word, and the rest lands, which were called

“Outer Rus”. 9 The core of Rus statehood “included the Polian tribe, which might have been known as “the Rus” to the neighbouring country”. 10

1 Svientsitskyi I. Nazva “Rus” v istorychnomu rozvytku do XII-ho viku.- Zhovkva, 1936.- S. 13.

2 Polonska-Vasylenko N. Istoriia Ukrainy: U 2 t.- 3-tie vyd.- K.: Lybid, 1995.- T. 1.- S. 81.

3 Tikhomirov М. N. Russkoie lietopisaniie.- М.: Nauka, 1979.- S. 23.

4 Soloviiov S. М. Istoriia Rossii s drievnieishykh vriemion.- SPb.: Izd-vo Obshchestviennaia polza.- Kn. 1. Т. 1-5.- S. 20.

5 Soloviiov S. М. Istoriia Rossii s drievnieishykh vriemion.- SPb.: Izd-vo Obshchestviennaia polza.- Kn. 1. Т. 1-5.- S. 19.

6 Kliuchevskii V. О. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- Т. 1.- S. 110.

7 Tikhomirov М. N. Russkoie lietopisaniie.- М.: Nauka, 1979.- S. 24.

8 Tikhomirov М. N. Russkoie lietopisaniie.- М.: Nauka, 1979.- S. 45.

9 Prisielkov М. Kiievskoie gosudarstvo vtoroi poloviny X v. po vizantiiskim istochnikam //

Uchien. Zap. Lien. gos. un-ta. Sieriia istor. nauk.- L., 1941.-Vyp. VIII.- S. 235.

10 Zigoskin N. P. Istoriia prava russkogo naroda.- Kazan, 1899.- S. 474.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

Under the year 1175, the Laurentian Chronicle suggests, describing the meeting in the town of Vladimir after Andrеy Bogolyubsky had been killed:

“Князь наш убьен, а детей у него нету, сынок у него в Новегороде, а

братья его в Руси”. 1 (Old Churh Slavonic Our Prince has been killed, he has no children,his son is in Novgorod, and his brothers are in Rus) In 1187

Prince Rurik sent his daughter Verkhyslava to Suzdal to seek in marriage of Prince Vsevolod’s son Rostislav. Vsevolod agreed, gave a big fortune and let them go “to Rus”. Prince Rurik arranged the most luxurious wedding, Rus had seen, and then those who brought Verkhuslava from Suzdal “Якова

свата и с бояры одпустил ко Всеволоду в Суздаль” (Old Churh Slavonic he let those matchmakers and boyars go back to Vsevolod in Suzdal). That is, Vladimiro-Suzdal Land was expressively not “Rus”. In the Novgorod Chronicles Novgorod and the land was opposed to “Rus”, the south, Kyiv. “Inhabitants of Novgorod Land, i.e. the Slovens, were opposed to the Rusins of Kyiv.

For Novgorod inhabitants, to go to Kyiv meant to go to “Rus”, and they came back to their “Novgorod”, not to “Rus Land”. The same was characteristic of the population of the North-East Rus, for Vladimir-Suzdal (Laurentian) Chronicle. For Suzdal people, the Prince of Kyiv, coming back from a campaign to Rostov-Suzdal Land to his Kyiv, was coming back to “Rus”. For the Suzdal chronicler “Rus” was the South, the Dnieper area, Kyiv, while he was living in Suzdal Land”. 2

B. Rybakov stressed: “The words “Ruska Land” were used to denote only the South-East part of Rus ares, the Dnieper region, which embraced a forest-steppe line from Kyiv to Kursk”. 3 In the above-quoted work Rybakov fixed the mentionings of “Rus” as a southern region by years in the Rus chronicle of the 12th century. In the Hypatian Chronicle years: 1140, 1141, 1144, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1152, 1154, 1155, 1174, 1175, 1177, 1180, 1187, 1190, 1195; in the Laurentian Chronicle years: 1139, 1204, 1205, 1249; in the Novgorod Chronicle years: 1142, 1218, 1257. This list is not a complete list 4 Names “Rus” and “Rus Land”, according to Kostamarov, in a narrow, ethnic meaning were used to denote only the territories of Principalities of Kyiv, Chernigiv and Pereyaslav, later on they expanded to Volyn and Galicia. 5 “Actually, the name of Rus first belonged only to the Polans’ Land, between the Dnieper in the East, the Ros in the South, and Irpen in the North. The area beyond the Polans’ Land were not called Rus. Ac-1 PSRL.- L., 1927.- Т. 1, vyp. 2.- S. 371.

2 Mavrodin V. Proiskhozhdieniie nazvanii “Rus”, “russkii”, “Rossiia”.- L., 1958.- S. 17-18.

3 Rybakov B. А. Probliema obrazovaniia drievnierusskoi narodnosti v svietie trudov I. V. Stalina //

Voprosy istorii.- 1952.- № 9.- S. 57.

4 Rybakov B. А. Probliemy obrazovaniia drievnierusskoi narodnosti v svietie trudov I. V. Stalina //

Voprosy istorii.- 1952.- № 9.- S. 50.

5 Kostomarov N. Istorichieskiie monografii i issliedovaniia.- SPb., 1893.- Т. I.- S. 230.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

cording to Konsantin Porphyrogennetos, they were the lands beyond Russ. The Lands to the North (Moscow Lands), were excluded from Rus lands, according to the Suzdal Chronicle”. 1

When other territories were called “Rus Land” , this term had just a general political sense, i.e. a state. The terms “Rus” and “Rus Land” in ethnic meaning did not include any other territories. Suzdal and Novgorod Velikiy ( the Great) were not called “Rus” but were opposed to it”. 2

The name “Rus” had derivative adjectes: “Ruskyi”, for example “pravda Ruska”, “rous’koi semli”. In 1097 Kyiv citizens addressed Volodymyr Monon-akh: “Молимся княже, тобе и братома твоима, не мозете погубити Руськыя

земли”. 3 (Old Churh Slavonic We are praying for you and your brothers for you to protect Ruskyia lands). L. Cherepin claimed that “Rus Land”, “Rus”, “Russian princes”, “Russian Poltsy”, “Russian army”, “Russian sons” were all connected with the South-Rus (Ukrainian) lands”. 4

Nasonov mentioned: “Rostov-Suzdal Land, as well as Ryazan, were opposed to Rus by both the Southern Chroniclesa and the North-Eastern ones”. 5

Rostislav, a son of George of Rostov (the city of Rostov is now situated in the centre of today’s Russia) was expelled in disgrace from Kyiv by Izyaslav.

He came to his father in Suzdal and, upon making obeisance, complained:

“Слышалъ есмь, оже хощеть тебе вся Руская земля и Черныи Клобукы, и тако мольвять: и насъ есть обезчествовалъ [Ізяслав]; а пойды на нь”.

Гюрги [Юрій] же, въ соромѣ сына своего сжаливъ собѣ, рече: “тако ли

мнѣ части нѣту въ Руской земли и моимъ дѣтемъ”. 6 (Old Churh Slavonic) Which meant: there is no respect neither to me nor to my children in Rus.

For Prince George Rus is a territory of today’s Ukraine. Under year 1154, the Hypatian Chronicle fixed:

“Томь же лѣте пойде Дюрги (Юрій) съ ростовцы и съ суздальцы и съ

всѣми дѣтьми в Русь”. (Old Churh Slavonic) Here again, to go to “Rus” meant to go somewhere else, i.e to the territory of today’s Ukraine. Under year 1180:

“Вышедше же ему (Святославу Чернігівському) изъ Суздальской землѣ, и

пусти брата своего, Всеволода, и Олга сына своего, и Ярополка, въ Русь, а

самъ сыномъ съ Володимеромъ пойде Новугороду Великому”. (Old Churh Slavonic He (Svyatoslav of Chernigov) set off from Suzdal Land, and let his brother Vsevolod, and Olga let her son Yaropolk go to Rus, while he and his son Volo-1 Mishko S. Narys rannoi istorii Rusy-Ukrainy.- Niu-York; Toronto; Miunkhen, 1981.- S. 62.

2 Peretts V. Slovo o polku Ihorevim.- K., 1926.- S. 56.

3 PSRL.- Pg., 1923.- Т. 2, vyp. 1.- S. 235.

4 Voprosy formirovaniia russkoi narodnosti i natsyi: Sb.- М.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1958.- S. 62.

5 Nasonov А. N. “Russkaia Ziemlia” i obrazovaniie territorii drievnierusskogo gosudarstva.- М.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1951.- S. 29.

6 PSRL.- SPb., 1843.- Т. 2, vyp. 3.- S. 41.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

dymyr would go to Novgorod the Great). Here we can trace strick differentiation between “Rus” (Ukraine) and “Suzdal Land”, the today’s core of Russia. The hub of princes in this area was Volodymyr-upon-Klyazma (now the city of Vladimir, and the centre of Vladimir province) was not considered to be Rus, either.

“Володимирцы же, нетерьпяще голода, рѣша Михалку [told their prince]:

“мирися [з облягаючими місто ростовцями], любо промышляй о собѣ”. Он

же отвѣщавъ рече: “прави есте хощете дѣля погиноути. И поеха въ Русь”

[went to Ukraine]. 1 (Old Churh Slavonic) Merchants from “Constantinople, and other countries, from Rus land and Latin” came to Volodymyr”. 2 Here Rus was placed between Constantinople and Latin West. Thus the chronicles witnessed that neither Novgorod, nor Smolensk, nor Suzdal Lands (Zalissia) had not been called Rus until the 13th century. 3 If somebody went from Rostov or Suzdal to Kyiv, Chernigov or Pereyaslav, they said: “He is leaving for Rus”. A journey to “Rus” meant no other place but this. “In the 12th century in Rostov-and-Suzdal Lands, “Rus” was understood as South-West of today’s Russia in collective meaning”.4 Moscow in chroniclers’ view did not belong to Rus in the 13th century either. Thus, for instance, under year 1213 a chronicler of one prince wrote:

“Он же иде з Москви в Русь”. 5 (Old Churh Slavonic He went from Moscow to Rus). The host of Kyiv was called “Ruske host”. In the chronicle of 1159,

“Ruski princes” were understood as Southern (Ukrainian) princes. Their rivals were “сила ростовъская” і “помочь муромъская”. 6 ( Old Churh Slavonic the force of Rostov and Murom) So, all “chroniclers of the 12th century, including those of Novgorod, used “Rus” to denote the Dnieper region”. 7

According to the chronicle data, in the state of Kyiv, in the 10th-11th centuries, there existed over 24 settlements. These towns were situated beyond the borders of the ethnic Rus, were not called Rus towns. Among the towns, which were not included into Rus in a “narrow” (ethnic) meaning, there were Novgorod the Great, Volodymyr-upon-Klyazma, Rostov, Suzdal, Ryazan. “The towns of Volodymyr-Suzdal and Ryazan Principalities were excluded from the notion of Rus in a “narrow” meaning”. 8 In this connection a well-known researcher of the Old Rus script Sergei Vysotsky suggested, “Thinking about Rus Land and Kyiv, 1 PSRL.- L., 1927.- Т. 1, vyp. 2.- S. 373.

2 Poviest vriemiennykh liet / St. i kom. D. S. Likhachiov.- М.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1950.- Т. 2.- S.

242.

3 Trietiakov P. N. О drievnieishykh rusakh i ikh ziemlie // Slavianie i Rus.- М.: Nauka, 1968.- S. 179.

4 PSRL.- L., 1927.- Т. 1, vyp. 2.- S. 350.

5 PSRL.- SPb., 1859.- Т. 8.- S. 119.

6 Ipat. lit. 1154, 1175, 1177 rr.; Lavr. lit. 1175 r. ta in. dyv. PSRL.- L., 1927.- T. 1, vyp. 2.

7 Kuzmin А. G. Dvie kontseptsyi nachala Rusi v Pviesti vriemiennykh liet // Istoriia SSSR.- 1969.-

№ 6.- S. 105.

8 Rybakov B. А. Probliemy obrazovaniia drievnierusskoi narodnosti v svietie trudov I. V. Stalina //

Voprosy istorii.- 1952.- № 9.- S. 47-48.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

we cannot but notice some confusion. The chronicler told with Oleg’s mouth (912) a set phrase about Kyiv, “Се буди мати градомъ русьскимъ”. (Old Churh Slavonic it will be a town of Rus). These words are often understood and interpreted incorrectly and connected with the Northern towns. Upon saying so about Rus land and its purpose as political, ruling nucleus of Kyivan Rus, it would be wrong to think that in the mentioned statement from the chronicle all the towns of the state are meant, including those of the North, later Russian. Certainly, here towns of Rus in a narrow meaning are meant, characterized by the possessive adjective “Ruskym” (Dative case, masculine gender)”. 1

The expression “mother of Rus towns ” started to be used in the 20th century in line with the Russian imperial concept of the state. “The struggle of the White Guard for Kyiv in 1918-1919 was carried out under the slogan of “mother of Russian towns”. Not accidentally did General-leutenant Bredov during the negotiations with the Ukrainian general A.Kravs on 31 August, 1919 in Kyiv announce that “Kyiv is a mother of Russian towns”, it has never been Ukrainian and will never be one”. Thus, a short chronicle phrase-idiom turned into a political platform of Russia’s conquer of Ukraine. In accordance with this slogan a Russian writer, well-known for his anti-Ukrainian sentiment, M.Bulgakov, while describing Kyiv of those days, puts the following words into the mouth of one of the characters, Colonel Shchetkin, addressing Russian officers who are to defend the capital of formally Ukrainian hetman from S.Petlyura’s troops: “Justify the faith of the mother of Russian towns, which is being ruined”, while General Kar-tuzov formed brigades in Kyiv to protect “mother of Russian towns”. 2

So, the content of the Primary Chronicle saying: “Откуда єсть пошла Руская

земля, кто въ Киевѣ нача первѣе княжити, откуда Руская земля стала єсть”.

(Old Churh Slavonic How did Rus land appear, who was the first to reign in Kyiv, whence did Rus come from). The was sure chronicler to mean the Dnieper region of Kyiv. The ethnic meaning of the term “Rus” denoted only inhabitants of Kyiv land, who called themselves “People of Rus Land”, “the Rus”, or “the Rusyns”.

The latter term will be discussed below.

Omelian Pritsak in his fundamental research called “The Origin of Rus”, analyzing the history of the term “Rus” came to a conclusion: “Yaroslav started to turn Rus and territorial integrity by settling the princes’ nomadic troops in the lands of Kyiv, Chernigiv and Pereyaslav. As a result of this, the names of “Rus” and “Rus Land”, registered in the second half of the 11th century and were found in the 15th century, were now used in a new meaning, i.e. exclusively for the South Rus (today’s Ukraine)”. 3

1 Vysotskyi S. O. Kyivska pysemna shkola X-XII st. (Do istorii ukrainskoi pysemnosti).- Lviv; Kyiv; Niu-York, 1998.- S. 56.

2 Dashkevych Ya. Kyiv u tserkovno-natsionalnii ideolohii Rusi-Ukrainy // Rizdvo Khrystove 2000.- Lviv, 2001.- S. 30.

Pritsak O. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Oberehy, 1997.- T. I.- S. 100.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

Under year 1250 the chronicle told about Prince Daniel in the following way: “Данилови Романовичю князю бывшу велику, обладавшу Рускою

землею, Кыевом и Володимером, и Галичем”. 1 (Old Churh Slavonic to Daniel Romanovich, Prince the great, who possessed Rus land, Kyiv and Volodymir and Galicia) By the end of the 12th century, when Galicia-Volyn Prince Roman Mstislavovych got to be a “Sole Ruler of Whole Rus”, 2 and

“Galicia was called a part of Rus”. 3 Apart from the expansion of the name Rus to the lands of Galicia-Volyn state, we have not come across any mentioning of such expansion to any other areas. With the decay of Kyiv state in the 13th century the name “Rus” was transferred to Galicia-Volyn Principality. We cannot but ask about the reason, why some lands were called Rus in a “narrow” meaning, while others were called Rus in a broad meaning. The main reason was the factor of ethnic division. “The idea of national integrity was not complete and overwhelming in the 12th century: the southern Rus (in particular, Kyiv Land) was called Rus on purpose, to oppose the Northern and Western ones”. 4

The notion of ethnic Rus, according to the sources, had existed for the whole princes’ era. “It was not an ephemeral notion, once mentioned in a source. This notion was stable, strong, and well-known to all Rus chroniclers without exeption, no matter if they were from Kyiv, Volodymyr, Galicia, or Novgorod. The notion of Rus (in the meaning of the Dnieper region Rus) was widely used as a geographic reference, it was considered that people from Novgorod or Suzdal did not need any other explanations if they heard “идоша

в Русь”. 5 ( went to Rus).

The fact that names “Rus” and “Rus Land” belonged to the central Ukraine only, has been proved by such unambiguous chronicle witnesses, which are impossible to contradict. 6 “Summing up the information from the sources, one can be convinced that most of them use the names of Rus and Rus Land to denote Kyiv region. As far as the broad meaning of this name is concerned, it is of rhetoric character and referred to the territories, subordinate to Kyiv, not the ethnos of the state”. 7

PSRL.- Pb., 1908.- T. 2.- S. 807, 808.

2 PSRL.- M., 1962.- T. 2.- S. 715.

3 Chubatyi M. Kniazha Rus-Ukraina ta vynyknennia trokh skhidnoslovianskykh natsii // ZNTSh.-

1964.- T. 178.- S. 63.

4 Vladimirskii-Budanov М. V. Obzor istorii russkogo prava.- К., 1900.- S. 27.

5 Rybakov B. А. Probliemy obrazovaniia drievnierusskoi narodnosti v svietie trudov I. V. Stalina //

Voprosy istorii.- 1952.- № 9.- S. 53.

6 Shaskolskii I. P. Vopros о proiskhozhdienii imieni “Rus” v sovriemiennoi burzhuaznoi naukie //

Kritika novieishei burzhuaznoi istoriografii: Sb.- L.: Nauka, 1967.- S. 164.

7 Vysotskyi S. O. Kyivska pysemna shkola X-XII st. (Do istorii ukrainskoi pysemnosti).- Lviv; Kyiv; Niu-York, 1998.- S. 53.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Though, as we can see, Moscow historiography admits such a dual use of the tern “Rus” in the period of the state of Kyiv, it started to use a turning movement to hide its undesirable content, which lies in the fact that Moscow region has never been called Rus in ethnic meaning. In the 19th century there appeared and spread a number of artificial and historically ungrounded term, in particular those invented by historian Pogodin (“Pogodin’s hypothesis”). Thus, such terms as “Eastern Rus, Western Rus, Northern Rus, and South-Eastern Rus, Southern Rus, Cherlenaya Rus” — are later inventions of historical sources editors. 1 Old texts do not contain them. In other words, the terms Kyivan Rus, Southern Rus and derivatives, like: South Rus Princes, South Rus towns and so on, as well as Northern Rus, North-Eastern Rus, Rostov-Suzdal Rus, or, e.g. Moscow Rus and their derivatives, now constantle used in literature, are just a deliberate invention, aimed at claiming the rights for the heritage of Kyiv. “It should be mentioned, that now so widely used word-combination “Kyivan Rus” was never mentioned in Medieval chronicles”2. Deceitful is the reason that, so to say, terms Kyivan Rus and Moscow Rus became scientific in the course of time. These anti-historical terms are anti-scientific by their nature. They were made up in the 19th century by tsar’s ideologists for very political purposes, they served and still serve not the science of history but the goals of invasive imperial policy. “Both in mundane consciousness and in historical literature, the term “Kyivan Rus” has grown so strong that its artificial and anachronic nature are not realized. However the stated called “Kyivan Rus” (and even “Ancient Rus”) never existed! Our ancient ancestors would have been really astonished to hear such a name of the country they were destined to live in, for they called it “Rus Land”, and they called themselves “the Rus” collectively, and “the Rusin” individually. “Kyivan Rus” is a term of bookish and sophisticated character and originated not from sources but from the historical works of the first half of the 19th century”. 3 Our chroniclers, as well as foreign authors of those times, never added attributes like Kyivan or Rostov-Suzdal to the name Rus, and so on. Rus was the only and integral, and everybody knew for sure, what this term meant. Russian historiography fixed the artificial name of “Kyivan Rus” (in the meaning of Russian) in the historical literature, which caused a lot of confusion in the scientific world, in particular in the West. “Born in the heart of the Russian science, the term “Kyivan Rus”, got to be surprisingly popular in the Ukrainian historiography”. 4 According to I. Lysiak-Rudnytskyi: “Views and interpretations, traditionally protected by 1 Ukazatiel k piervym osmi tomam Polnogo sobraniia Russkikh Lietopisiei. Otd. vtoroi. Ukazatiel geografichieskii.- SPb., 1907.- S. 409-410.

2 Knysh Yu. Milleniium khrystyianizatsii Ukrainy i problemy istorychnoi terminolohii //

Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1988.- № 1-4.- S. 242.

3 Tolochko А. Khimiera “Kiievskoi Rusi” // Rodina.- 1999.- № 8.- S. 29.

4 Tolochko А. Khimiera “Kiievskoi Rusi” // Rodina.- 1999.- № 8.- S. 30.

III. ETHNIC OR “NARROW” RUS

the Russian sciences, grew to be widely-spread, trusted, without checking their founders. The concepts, originating in the orthodoxy are not regarded from the point of view of their historical value but automatically excluded from the attention as though they were engaged and “nationalistic”. 1

Besides an ethnic and political meaning, the term “Rus” had a significant religious importance. Since Volodymyr the Great adopted Christianity in 988, the organization of the Church began in Rus. The hierarchy from Byzantium came there: Patriarch of Constantinople appointed Metropolite of Rus in Kyiv, to whom Rus bishops of Rus were subordinated, and to them, in their turn, were subordinate priests and monarchs. The head of Rus Orthodox Church bore a title of Metropolite of Kyiv and Whole Rus. By the way, this title is still used by the church. Thus, adepts of the Orthodox Church of Rus got a name of Christians of Rus. Opposed to the western Catholics, people of the state of Kyiv were identified by historians as “people of Rus faith”. Otherwise stated, the one considered to belong to the Orthodox Church of Rus, was considered the Rus in a religious sense. It is the religious meaning that got such a great importance in the formation of the ethnonym “Russian”, which is described below.

1 Lysiak-Rudnytskyi I. Istorychni ese: V 2 t.- K.: Osnovy, 1994.- Tom. 1.- S. 166.

IV. ZALISSIA

According to archeological data, in the Neolithic epoch, there were three different race-enthnic groups. They had different life style: some caltivated land, others скотарством, and the third went hunting. In the Eastern Siberia and neighbouring steppe areas lived nomadic shepherd tribes. They were ancestors of numerous Mongol-Turk peoples. The territory of the South-Eastern Europe was inhabited by land-cultivating tribes of Hindo-Europeans (ancestors of the Greeks, Latins, Slavs, and Germans etc.) Hunting tribes of the North-Eastern Europe, the Trans-Ural area and the Western Siberia were the founders of the third ethnic-cultural group of Eurasia, called Finno-Ugric.

A historical fate of the Finno-Ugric was not so favourable as that of the Hindo-Europeans and the Mongol-Turks. They led a colourless plain life for thousands years, and when aggressive Mongol-Turk tribes became a “curse” for many peoples, there have been no traces of any activity of the Finno-Ugric in history of the that time. While Hindo-European cultivators of land were deprived of their land and temperate climate, the Finno-Ugric went deeper to the cold gloomy marshy woods of Eurasia, making it further from the wars of ancient civilizations.

Chroniclers of Rus called the Finno-Ugric tribes a common name of “the Chud” 1 The name “the Finnish” is of German origin and means an inhabitant of some marshy lands, humid low lands, and the Chud’s self-naming was “the Suomalainen”. During two thousand years, as archeologists witness, the areal of expansion of the Chud tribes in the East Europe remained unchanged. It included the Northern and middle Ural region, all the territory to the North from the upper Volga, all the middle Volga region, up to the Northern part of today’s Saratov Province and the region of the Volga-Oka interfluve, i.e. the centre of today’s Russia. “The Finnish, the Suomalainen, migrated through the subarctic taiga from their starting point in the Siberia. They occupied the lands between the Baltic Sea and the upper Volga, which later on became a heart of Russia”. 2

In ancient times the thicket of wildwood served a border between different enthic groups. Grand inpenetrable wood line, whose remains are still known as the woods of Bryansk (former Debryansk), separated the Chud from the Hindo-European world. 3 This line was a “kind of a Great Wall, even more 1 Barsov N. P. Ochierki russkoi istoriografichieskoi gieografii. Gieografiia nachalnoi (Niestierovskoi) lietopisi.- Varshava, 1885.- S. 44.

2 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 236.

3 Trietiakov P. N. Finno-ugry, balty i slavianie na Dnieprie i Volgie.- М.; L.: Nauka, 1966.- S. 109.

IV. ZALISSIA

unwinnable”. 1 The area between the Volga and the Oka was called Zalissia (“Zales’ka Land”) in Rus, i.e. in Kyiv and Chernigiv (i.e. “the land behind the woods”). 2 Sometimes Zalissia was called “Upper Land”. In Novgorod, from their geographic point, it was called “Ponizzya” ( low land). 3 The name “Zalissia” is also found in the region behind the Don river, where Dmitry of the Don addressed his voivodes: “Go to our Zalesskaya Land”. Zalissia in the region beyond the Don had a centre in Moscow: “Let us go … to our Zalesskaya Land, a glorious town of Moscow” . 4

It is hard to identify a precise date when Zalessye was included into the area of influence of the state of Rus, in any case, it happened rather late, no earlier that in the 9th-11th centuries. 5 We have just scattered data about this period, for the chroniclers of Kyiv were not interested in what was going on in the undeveloped North-Eastern region. It would be enough to mention that it was only since “the 1020s that our old chronicles give some information about Russian North-Eastern regions”. 6 Even if some Slavonic groups penetrated there, it happened spo-radically and was of no importance.

Ye. Goryunova, in her monograph devoted to this subject matter, stressed that “no Slavonic monument has been found in the interfluve which is older than the 10th century AD”. 7 Zalissia was long an unattractive land for the princes of Kyiv. “Marked by a severe climate, inhabited by poor Finnish tribes (the Ves, the Merya), it was considered to be the worst of regions”. 8 The princes of Kyiv thought of Zalissia as of a wild and nearly alien land, as something “like Turke-stan”, as Golubynsky put it. 9

Until the end of the 11th century Zalissia was an undeveloped corner on the ourskirts of the state of Rus. Distanced from the then main artery of East Europe (the Baltic Sea — the Dnieper — the Black Sea) made Zalissia a political and economic backwater. “The corner between the Oka and the Volga… was a hole, distanced from the great trade ways”. 10

Scattered in the forests between marches, the settlements of Zalissia long preserved their original non-Slavonic traits. “In the beginning of Rus-1 Bogdanovich А. Ye. Yazyk ziemli.- Yaroslavl, 1956.- S. 23.

2 Kliuchievskii V. О. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- М.: Gospolitizdat, І956.- Т. І.- S. 228.

3 Voprosy formirovaniia russkoi narodnosti i natsyi: Sb.- М.; L.: Izd-vо AN SSSR, 1958.- S. 82.

4 Voinskiie poviesti drievniei Rusi / Pod. red. V. P. Andrianovoi-Pierietts.- М.; L., 1949.- S. 33, 41.

5 Nasonov А. N. “Russkaia ziemlia” i obrazovaniie tierritorii drievnierusskogo gosudarstva.- М.: Izd-vо АN SSSR, 1951.- S. 173.

6 Priesniakov А. Ye. Moskovskoie tsarstvo.- Pg., Ogni, 1918.- S. 5.

7 Goriunova Ye. I. Etnichieskaia istoriia Volgo-Okskogo miezhduriechia.- М.: Izd-vо AN SSSR, 1961.- S. 5.

8 Ilovaiskii D. Kratkiie ochierki russkoi istorii.- М., 1898.- S. 29.

9 Golubinskii Ye. Istoriia russkoi tserkvi.- М., 1901.- Т. 1.- S. 442.

10 Liashenko P. I. Istoriia narodnogo khoziaistva SSSR.- М., 1952.- Т. І.- S. 47.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

sian history, in the 10th century, we can see that the whole region of future Rostov-Suzdal Land, a cradle of the Great Russian state, was inhabited by the Finnish tribes”. 1 Ethnic peculiarities of Zalissia were characterized by Klyuchevsky as follows: “It was a land, lying beyond old original Rus and in the 11th century it was more alien than Rus Land”. 2 “The Primary Chronicle” and other ancient written sources, as well as archeological, ethnographic, toponymic, and hydronymic data inform that the Chud tribe of the Merya lived in the upper Volga, the Chud tribe of the Muroma — upon the Oka river, and the Ves inhabited Vologda region, while the Mordva lived upon the middle Volga. “Upon the Lake of Rostov the Merya lived, and upon the Kleshchin Lake the Merya lived as well. While upon the Oka river, flowing into the Volga, the Murova people were”. 3

Thus the territory, which later became an ethnic core of Russian people was first a land of the Finno-Ugric (Chud) tribes.

From the late 11th century, after the Liubech congress (1097), Zalissia separated to become a principality. “Even during the ancient period there existed two centres: Rostov and Suzdal. In the 12th century the third was added, that of Volodymyr. Therefore the land itself has been called Rostov-Suzdal or Volodymyr-Suzdal Rus in literature. Ancient monuments did not know artificial names, and they used the name of Zalissia for the whole area in the Volga-Oka interfluve”. 4 M. Voronin believed that the term Zalissia was used to denote the towns of the Volga-Oka interfluve in the 13th-15th century. 5

Similar definition can be found in the encyclopedia of history: “Zalesskiy land with its ancient towns of Rostov and Suzdal, which lied on the outskirts of the state of Kyiv ”. 6 Some Russian encyclopedie did not follow an official ideology and gave more probable data, in particular those concerning the early years of Moskovia (Moscow region).

If the names of towns co-incided phonetically, e.g. Pereyaslav in Kyiv region (since 1953 Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky) and Pereyaslav in Yaroslav region, the latter was usually accompanied by the attribute “of Zalissia”. The same can be traced about the name Volodymyr (now Vladimir), the regional centre upon Klyazma river and Volodymyr in Volyn region, which joined Russia in 1792

only, and now has an additional attribute “of Volyn”, which was established by Russian administration in the 19th century.

1 Entsyklopiedichieskii slovar Brokgauza i Yefrona.- SPb., 1891.- Т. V.- S. 830.

2 Kliuchievskii V. О. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- Т. І.- S. 293.

3 PSRL.- L., 1926.- Т. 1, vyp. 1.- S. 10-11.

4 Tikhomirov М. N. Drievnierusskiie goroda.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1965.- S. 392.

5 Voronin N. Vladimir, Bogoliubovo, Suzdal, Yuriev-Polskoi.- М.: Iskusstvo, 1974.- S. 13.

6 Sovietskaia istorichieskaia entsyklopiediia v 16 t.- М.: Sov. entsyklopiediia, 1969.- Т. 12.- S. 333.

IV. ZALISSIA

Similar or close toponyms of Zalissia and Rus are often interpreted, according to the existing tradition, as the main proof of the fact that Rus colonists brought the memory of their motherland from the South to the NorthEast. They say, for example, that “migrant from the Kyivan Rus brought names of their dear towns, settlements, rivers, and even ravines, to the Northern Ukraine”. 1 Such statements are often found in the Russian popular historic literature. “However the toponyms have never been seriously analysed, just enumerated ”.2 Such toponyms, for instance, as the Denube, the Lybed, the Obolon, the Pletena, the Rudka, the Pochaina, Zvenigorod, Vyshgorod, Bilgorod and others, cannot be called transferred. The linguistic analysis of such names proves that they are of the local origin. According to the tradition, the toponyms denoting towns “Pereslavl Zalessky” (in Yaroslavl Province) and “Pereslavl Ryazansky” (modern city of Ryazan) were transferred from Rus, the toponym Pereyaslavl (modern city of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky in Kyiv Province). “The linguistic analysis of the three toponyms and historic circumstances of their emergence give grounds to state that there was no transference of the name” 3 Similar names of the cities appeared independently. Thorough linguistic analysis showed that only individual single names could be transferred in such a way but unlikely were. In most cases so-called “transferred toponyms” are common language co-incidences. At the same time the historians that are so excited by imaginary “transferred names”, usually ignore the fact that almost all the rivers, lakes, and water basins and most settlements on the territory of former Zalissia are still of the Finnish, not Slavonic origin. “A vast space from the Oka to the White Sea we come across thousands of non-Rus names of towns, villages, rivers and boundary-lines. Listening to the sound of these names one can notice that they come from one and the same word-stock, which belonged to the common languages spoken on the whole area, and the names belonged to it, it was native to those dialects, spoken both by the aboriginals of today’s Finland and by the Finnish inhabitants of the Volga region, called the Mordva and the Cheremis. So, in this area and in the Eastern line of European Russia, we can see a lot of rivers, whose names end in “-va”. “the Protva”, “the Moskva”,

“the Silva”, “the Kosva” and so on. The Kama river has about 20 affluants with the names ending in “-va”, which means “water” in Finnish. The name 1 Ukraina - eto Rus: Litieraturno-publitsystichieskii sbornik.- SPb.: LIO “Riedaktor”, 2000.-

S. 38.

2 Smolytska, G. Pro Tak Svani Pereseleni Toponimy z Pivdennoyi Rusi u Pivnichno-Skhidnu Rus

// Movoznavstvo.- 1993.- № 4.- P. 12.

3 Smolytska, G. Pro Tak Svani Pereseleni Toponimy z Pivdennoyi Rusi u Pivnichno-Skhidnu Rus

// Movoznavstvo.- 1993.- № 4.- С. 17.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

of the Oka river is of the Finnish origin: it is the Russified form of the Finnish

“jok” meaning “river” in general”. 1 On the territory of Moscow state by the Acts of the 14th-16th century “there is a great number of settlements (volosts and stans) with individual names, not derived from the names of rivers, lakes and other water basins with non-Russian names”. 2

No matter how the language circumstances changed, geographic names lived on. “Geographic nomenclature is of great importance not only for historical geography, but also to the study of the life of people in the course of history; this meaning was always realized, it was always felt that the land is a book, where the history of humanity is written in the form of geographic names”. 3

Just looking at the modern geographic map of central Russia (not taking into account the post-war mania of renaming), one can see that this territory was full of amazing and confusing geographic names of non-Slavoni origin.

Even Moscow (Moskva) is of the Chud origin, as well as that of Suzdal (Suzhdal), Ryazan (Erzya), Kostroma, Penza, Tambov, Perm, and numbers of other Russian cities. “It would be enough to say that nearly half of geographic names of the North European part of the USSR are of the Finno-Ugric origin. Such toponyms are thousands in number. They all are a part of Russian literary language word-stock: Vologda, Ryazan, Onega, Kama, Kholmogory, Vychegda, Vyatka and so on”. 4

Rivers and lakes are the best in preserving their initial names, and they are densely found in this area. Not to be boring, we would better quote the classical A. Uvarov’s study of the hydronymy of Yaroslavl and Kostroma Provinces (gu-bernias).

Yaroslavl Province. Lakes: the Karash, the Gadsh, the Surmoe, the Yagorba; rivers: the Pulokhma, the Gda, the Pechegda, the Sara, the Vorzha, the Shula, the Sulest, the Veksa, the Ishna, the Vashka, the Ukhtoma, the Lakhost, the Shopsha, the Mokza, the Volga, the Sherna, the Kurba, the Pakhna, the Tunoshna, the Telga, the Nora, the Tolgobola, the Vokshera, the Urdoma, the Voyga, the Marma, the Nakhta, the Inopazh, the Ukhra, the Redma, the Lushna, the Yoda, the Yukhot, the Utkosh, the Kukima, the Kongora, the Uk-eyma, the Vozhekhot, the Kisma, the Vorsma, the Mologa, the Zhabnia, the Sit, the Vierieksa, the Yana, the Udrus, the Pushma, the Soga, the Sogozha, 1 Kliuchievskii V. О. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- Т. І, ch. І.- S. 294.

2 Liubavskii M. K. Obrazovaniie osnovnoi gosudarstviennoi tierritorii Vielikorusskoi narodnosti.-

L.: Izd-vo АН СССР, 1929.- С. 11.

3 Barsov N. P. Ochierki russkoi istoriografichieskoi gieografii. Gieografiia nachalnoi (Niestierovskoi) lietopisi.- Varshava, 1885.- S. 255.

4 Lytkin V. I. Finno-ugorskiie zaimstvovaniia v russkom yazykie // Russkaia riech.- 1972.- № 3.- S.

131.

IV. ZALISSIA

the Yenglen, the Klar, the Lama, the Siebmia, the Sheksna, the Korozhichna, the Ilt, the Obnora, the Sot, the Uga, the Sharna, the Pieskoldish, the Kylza, the Kast, the Kenot, the Sakhmanda, the Shachebolka, the Soeksha, the Ye-shka, the Domanka, the Konsha, the Pielienda, the Korgatka, the Kieroma, the Shelsha, the Muzga, the Miaksa, the Vietkha, the Kieshtoma, the Shagot, the Segzha, the Tulsha, the Piertoma, the Konglis, the Solmaz, the Tsina, the Shelekma, the Patra, the Ushloma, the Sokhot, the Purnovka, the Kukholka, the Mosa, the Maravka, the Yega, the Ladeika, the Kiema, the Pachiebolka, the Korzha, the It, the Matlan, the Shchigolost, the Chemuzie, the Vongir, the Lat, the Lekhta, the Shula, the Liekhot, the Kutma, the Liga, the Vonoga, the Kuchebezh, the Uchara, the Shirienga, the Piera, the Sogma the Luta, the Vongila, the Vongil, the Sundoba, the Ushloma, the Ruma, the Pienouza, the Shuiga, the Rakha, the Volognia, the Songoba, the Vaga; settlements: Bikan, Chientsi, Kores, Karash, Chashnitsi, Riumino, Inery, Deboly, Vaulikha, Tara, Shemanikha, Mieriekovitsy, Veksitsy, Shurskala, Puzhbala, Shuliets, Shugar, Godienovo, Shiendora, Kusteria, Karagachievo, Chufarovo, Rokhovo, Vorzha, Sugost, Ugozh, Rieltsy, Chukholzy, Karachug, Pura, Sogila, Segalsk, Solomysh, Voiekhta, Kovtsovo, Poluievo, Klivino, Pobychevo, Redrikovo, Korieievo, Bulovo, Tarkhovo, Zhiechlovo, Tavino, SHakhlovo, Riedkosho-vo, Lakhost, Purlovo, Zhelakhovko, Koporie, Unimer, Shopsha, Kourtsovo, Kargash, Rakhma, Khpznitsy, Kurby, Tunoshka, Tolgobola, Gavshinka, Kuk-sienka, Kochielna, Chilchago, Chirikha, Sogor, Khovar, Poimash, Zhabnia, Maimori, Relishchi, Kaliaki, Lokhovo, Kulivy, Korosha, Budtaki, Uchma, Kariekhot, Vokshera, Tengola, Giebievtsh, Giekma, Kindiaki, Yakhrobola, Chuchki, Shielshiedom, Sora, Bobiaki, Babaiki, Kogurovo, Khkhdai, Pietki, Tiumba, Voroksa, Uchienzha, Sogozha, Karachino, Vologdino, Kochievstik, Luvie, Sherna, Koprino, Lushma and so on.

Kostroma Province. Rivers: the Lykishika, the Selma, the Tutka, the Pus-taia, the Shacha, the Koriega, the Monza, the Sot, the Vieksa, the Tiebza, the Poksha, the Miera, the Pistiega, the Mieza, the Toma, the Siendiega, the Kogba, the Kilienka, the Miedoza, the Nadoga, the Nieriekhta, the Shurma, the Shuia, the Ingarka, the Piesta, the Pasma, the Nomza, the Pieza, the Togma, the Nolia, the Andoba, the Lokma, the Voga, the Soldoga, the Kus, the Niemdokhta, the Kochuga, the Piechienga, the Purmsha, the Micha, the Shirmoksha, the Shmil-ia, the Uzola, the Kierzhieniets, the Kilna, the Liekoma, the Shaima, the Pizh-ma, the Tunbal, the Shuda, the Surtiug, the Ima, the Kaksha, the Viekhtoma, the Unzha and others settlements: Galych Mersky, Kostroma, Kinieshma, Shunga, Chukhloma, Tiemta, Khomkino, Baki, Uren and so on. 1

1 Uvarov А. S. Mierianie i ikh byt po kurgannym roskopkam // Trudy piervogo arkhieologichieskogo siezda v Moskvie.- М., 1871.- Т. 3.- S. 643-644.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Observing the rivers with the Finno-Ugric suffixes -ma and -va, meaning

“spring”, “river”, “water”, “we come to a conclusion that the tribe that nominated them, once expanded from the North-East Great Russian far to the South-West, including Kostroma, Kaluga, Vladimir, Moscow Provinces and even to the Dnieper basin, in particular to its headstream and left influents, up to the Desna”. 1

As far as settlements are concerned, a lot of them were renamed, especially after the Revolution.

An example of the mania of renaming is one of the well-known Russian regions. Till 1725 it had a Chud name of Saarska Miza, in 1725 it got a name of Tsarskoye Selo, then in 1918 it was called Detskoye Selo (Child’s Village), and it was renamed into the town of Pushkino.

If a region loses all the inhabitants, the initial names cannot remain. The name can be preserved only in case of continuous heredity of population, and rendering the name by word of mouth. The Chud names of small lakes, rivers and small boundary-lines (such as a hill, field) witnesses that “the native population remained there, who rendered new-comers from Slavonic Rus all these names, alien to them”. 2 According to M. Pokrovsky: “to create their own geographic nomenclature of the region, people have to stay there densely for a long while.

Slavonic colonizers penetrated into this area in the form of small pockets, though there is an opinion that just “pockets” of native people remained on the territories, conquered by the Slavonic invasion”. 3 Historian Barsov who studied Eastern Slavonic geography claimed that “the geographic names are the monuments of the population that created them and then disappeared, and in this meaning the information they bear about population and ethnic characteristics of this or that area is truthful and undeniable”. 4

Convincing traces of the Chud tribes left in the geographi names attracted Klyuchevsky’s attention: “A vast area from the Oka to the White Sea has thousands of non-Slavonic names of cities, towns, villages, rivers and bound-er-lines. Even the tribal names of the Meri and Vesi have not disappeared in the central part of Great Russia: here you can see a lot of villages and rivers with their origin. So the Finnish tribes were originally the inhabitants in the very centre of today’s Great Russia”. 5 Thus, Zalissia in the Volga-Oka interfluve for a long while belonged to the Chud language world. Before the state of Rus 1 Miliukov N. М. Ochierki po istorii russkoi kultury.- SPb., 1896.- Ch. I.- S. 40-41.

2 Liubavskii М. K. Obrazovaniie osnovnoi gosudarstviennoi tierritorii Vielykorusskoi narodnosti.-

L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1929.- S. 11-12.

3 Pokrovskii М. N. Vozniknovieniie Moskovskogo gosudarstva i “Velikorusskaia narodnost” //

Istorik-marksist.- 1930.- T. 18-19.- S. 18.

Barsov N. P. Ochierki russkoi istorichieskoi geografii. Gieografiia nachalnoi (Niestierovskoi) lietopisi.- Varshava, 1885.- S. 257.

5 Kliuchievskii V. О. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- Т. I.- S. 294.

IV. ZALISSIA

appeared “the Finnish tribes had inhabited the whole area from the Oka to the upper Volga. It was the area, which is now considered to be that of Great Russia”. 1

First, to get from Rus to Zalissia they took a long way, through Novgorod.

Later appeared a new way through Smolensk. The territory of Zalissia was extremely marshy. There were a lot of lakes and marshes, scattered around the region, which hindered the development of land cultivation and caused considerable difficulties in the construction of land roads. “Till the mid 12th century no connection of far Zalizzya and Kyiv was mentioned”. 2 Until this time Zalissia was not a separate region but was a part of Chernigiv and Pereyaslav Principalities.

1 Chierniaieva М. Kogda i kak stala Volga russkoi rekoi.- М., 1904.- S. 1.

2 Kliuchievskii V. О. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- Т. I.- S. 286.

V. “ELDER BROTHER ”

A set-phrase “elder brother” was perceived as a pseudonym or synomym of the word “the Russian” until recent times. The set-phrase “elder brother” started to be widely spread as a means of ideological chauvinistic propaganda in 1936, and since 1938 another set-phrase of “great Russian people” started to be spread.1 A Russian historian B. Volin in his work “Great Russian People”

claimed: “Peoples of the USSR are proud of their elder brother, the first of equal in the fraternal familt of peoples”. 2 Moscow made great efforts to make a phrase

“edler brother” and the Russian ethnonym indivisible. “The Communist chiefs liked to manipulate with the words from the family thematic group, thus for instance, the worst tyran of the 20th century was called “people’s father”, the Russian people was an “elder brother” for the rest, and the Communist party was

“native”. 3 The first to use the metaphor of “brothers” concerning the Ukrainian and the Russian was baron Korf, a gendarme colonel. 4 The equality of three

“native” East Slavonic “peoples-brothers”, however the censorship controlled them to be listed not in alphabetical order but for the “elder” brother to be the first on the list. 5 As R. Kis mentioned, “brother Slavs (“native generations”) are seen by Moscow not in the same plane but in hierarchical order, “vertically”, on an undisputably lower level”. 6

As far as the Ukrainians are concerned, ideologists of “elder brother” idea needed to make the following three steps: “First, to single out the Russians among other ethnic minorities, make them together with Ukrainians a special nation. Then name the Russian people an “elder brother”, “the first among equal”.

Then comes the third stage, when the Russian language and culture are superior in Ukraine”. 7 The fact that the notion “elder brother” is closely connected with the process of the Russian ethnicity formation and with the appropriate processes of the Belarusians and the Ukrainians, one cannot but have a look at some matters of ethnogenesis of East Slavs, which have been hardly known to public but are significant for understanding the issues of our history. From the point of view 1

Solzhenitsyn A. Rossiia v obvalie.- M.: Russkii put, 1998.- S. 135.

2 Volin B. Vielikii russkii narod.- M., 1938.- S. 3.

3 Masenko L. T. Mova i polityka.- K.: Soniashnyk, 1999.- S. 38.

4 Miller A. I. “Ukrainskii vopros” v politikie vlastiei i russkom obshchiestviennom mnienii (vtoraia polovina XIX v.).- SPb, Aleteiia, 2000.- S. 128.

5 Isaievych Ya. Mykhailo Braichevskyi i yoho kontseptsiia istorii Ukrainy // Ukrainskyi istoryk.-

1994.- # 1-4.- S. 195.

6 Kis R. Final Tretoho Rymu (Rosiiska ideia na zlami tysiacholit).- Lviv, 1998.- S. 52.

7 Yefimenko H. H. Zmina v natsionalnii politytsi TsK VKP(b) v Ukraini (1932-1938) // Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal.- 2000.- # 4.- S. 45.

V. “ELDER BROTHER ”

of ethnogenesis the term “elder brother” really meant that the Ukrainian and the Belarusians, called “younger brothers” evolved from the Russians. Otherwise stating, ethnogenesis of the Ukrainians and the Belarussians was, so to say, later than those of the Russians.

In fact, the historical chronology proves the opposite.

“The study of the origin of some East Slavonic peoples is one of the most politicized in the history of the East Europe. Unfortunately it was formed and solved mostly by politicians than historians. As a result, the historical truth was so twisted that the youngest ethnos of the East Slavs was proclaimed an “elder brother”. 1

The issue of formation of three East Slavonic nations is still extremely topical. “This problem is gaining greater importance since there is a position of some people who would like to have Ukraine re-integrated into the post-Soviet commonwealth. A number of Moscow authors are trying to prove the existence of the “primary state”, a primary Rus, whereof three East Slavonic states singled out, and give some historical grounds for the idea of the USSR restoration, political integration of three East Slavonic peoples. With this purpose they ground a mythological seniority of the Russian people, an “elder brother”. 2 Ukrianian historians appretiated the political value of ethnogenesis issue of Eastern Slavs.

“This question caused such longlasting practical consequences of political character that this solely historical problem was for a long while a live proof that historical truth can be a victim of political pressure of the regime”. 3

The Russian historians claimed that the issue of the origin of the Russian people had not been studied well enough. “It seemed important to make a connection between the appearance of the Russian state with the formation of the Russian (the Great Russian) people not only in specialized literature but also in general reviews and school textbooks. In textbooks they usually tell about the formation of the Ukrainian and the Belarussian people, not the Great Russian people. The reader is supposed to come to a conclusion that as soon as the Ukrainian and the Belarussian peoples were formed, the great Russian people had to appear as well. However, none of them mentioned, how and under what circumstanced it happened”. 4

In 1725 Saint-Petersburg opened Academy of Sciences called Academy of Sciences and Amusing Arts. Later they were kidding that the Russian natu-1 З Zalizniak L. Chy spravdi buv starshym “starshyi brat”? abo Etnichni protsesy v Kyivskii Rusi shchodo pokhodzhennia ukraintsiv, bilorusiv ta rosiian // Berehynia.- 1997.- Ch. 3-4.- S. 42.

2 Zavialov A. S. K voprosu o novieishykh tiekhnolohiiakh v issliedovanii probliem ukrainskoho praetnosa // Humanitarnyi zhurnal.- 1999.- # 2.- S. 9.

3 Chubatyi M. Kniazha Rus-Ukraina ta vynyknennia trokh skhidnoslovianskykh natsii // ZNTSh.-

1964.- S. 11.

4 Yushkov S. K voprosu ob obrazovanii russkogo gosudarstva v XIV-XVI viekakh // Voprosy istorii.- 1946.- # 4.- S. 67.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

ral scientists were expected to do science, while scholars of humanities field, in particular historians were supposed to produce “amusing arts”. It has been mentioned that the lack of Russian high-skilled scientists resulted in the fact that scientists from other countries were invided to the Academy, mostly the Germans. The Ukrainian cultural influence was replaced by the German cultural propogandism. As a result, the the first Russian historical journal, published by the Academy (1732) was in German (“Sammlung Rußischen Geschichte”.

German historians Miller, Schlözer and Stritter immediately doubted the Slavonic origin of the Russians. Catherine II sharply rejected this opinion, and decided to take up the pen. A secret official letter was sent to correspondent state bodies, which stated that all the Russian people, such as the Ves, the Merya, the Muroma are the Slavs and originate from ancient Roksolians, i.e. “scattered”

( rosseiany), whereof the name of Russia originated, and the Russians. The em-press also wrote in the letter: “For the whole Russia it might seem tempting (seductive) the interpretation of Herr Stritter saying the Russian people evolved from the Finnish”. 1 After such an imperial order the scientific research of the Russian origin stopped for a long time.

In the 19th century a Russian Professor Konstantin Kavelin, University of Saint-Petersburg, began studying ethnogenesis of the Russians. At that time his

“heretical” conclusions caused a lot of anxiety in the Russian society. There was a reason for it. Pr. Kavelin wrote: “Let us open the first Chronicle, written no later than in the 11th century. The author knew the inhabitants of Malorossia (Ukraine) and enumerated different divisions of this branch of Rus tribe; he also mentioned the North-Western branches of the same tribe: the Kriviches (Belarusians) and Slavs, remembered the Radimichi and Viatichi, evolving from the Polish; though as astonishing as it is, he did not know the Great Russians at all. To the East from the Western Rus tribes, where the Great Russians are living now, according to the chronicle, the Finnish tribes, some of which still exist, some have disappeared. Where were the Great Russians? They were not mentioned among the tribes, now inhabiting Russia… On the other hand, we know that the colonization of the Finnish East began in the 12th century. So we have all grounds to suggest that the Great Russians became a separate branch no earlier than in the 11th century”. 2 K.Kavelin’s concept about the emergence of the Russians in the 11th century was confirmed by the latest data of archeology, anthropology and ethnology. According to these data, Slav tribes, inhabiting the territory of today’s Ukraine (the Volynians, the Derevlians, the Polans, the White Croatians, the Uliches, the Tivertsi, the Severians), did not migrate and were the ancestors of the Ukrainian people. The tribes that occupied today’s Belarus (the Dregovichi, the 1 Sochinieniia impieratritsy Ekatieriny II: V 12 t.- SPb., 1906.- T. 11.- S. IV.

2 Kavielin K. D. Mysli i zamietki o russkoi istorii // Sobraniie sochinienii.- SPb., 1897.- T. 1.- S. 597.

V. “ELDER BROTHER ”

Krivichi, the Radimichi) were the ancestors of the Belarusian people. “The upper Dnieper region and the territory of today’s Belarus, according to expressive data of hydromynics and archeology, had been inhabited by Baltic language speaking tribes before the Slavs came here. These tribes did not leave the places of their living and gradually were assimilated by the Slavs”. 1 The Ilmen Slovenes formed a separate Pskov-Novgorod ethnos, which in the 15th-16th centuries was partially eliminated, and partially assimilated by Moscow. In Zalissia, upon the Slavonic colonists’ mixing with the Finnish, the youngest East Slavonic ethnos was formed, that of the Russians.

During the stagnation period of ethnogenesis of the Russians of Zalissia there appeared a number of principalities, among which Vladimir-Suzdal Principality was the most renowned. The land of Vladimir-Suzdal Principality was inhabited by a great number of the Finno-Ugric tribal unities called the Meria.

“This land colonized since late 10th century, the Meria was Russified and the Great Russian nationality was formed”. 2 The Russification of the Meria implied Christianization and language assimilation. It is proved by the archeological and, namely anthropological sources. “The issue of the Volga-Oka basin was solved comparatively simply. The Slavonic element in the Medieval times was not much found in the physical features of the people living there. In the modern epoch the ratio of the Finno-Ugric and Slavonic population is changing to the benefit of the Slavonic. However, there was no sharp change of population here. ”3 A famous Russian scientist and social activist P. Miliukov believed: “We are all ready to recognize Finnish features of a Great Russian’s type”. 4

Some authors prefer to say that there is just an adjective “merzky” ( both,

“that of the Meria” and “disgusting” in modern Russian), as a synonym of something despicable, detestable, while the “little folk” mysteriously disappeared all of a sudden. In this way they are trying to escape a “shameful”

theme concerning the role of the Mer and other Chud tribes (the Mordva, the Ves, the Muroma) in the formation of the Russians. “The chronicler who first mentioned the Mer, then seemed to forget about them. If the Mer migrated to another region, or were eliminated, the chronicle would have known about it, while for the Rus people the disappearance of this tribe was absolutely unno-ticed. However, the of the Rus inhabitants’ mixing with the Finnish tribals left a traced in the Russians”. 5

1 Siedov V. V. Yshchio raz o proiskhozhdienii bielorusov // Sovietskaia etnografiia.- 1969.- № 1.-

S. 105.

2 Sovietskaia istoricheskaia entsyklopiediia v 16 t.- M., 1963.- T. 3.- S. 528.

3 Alieksieieva T. I. Etnogienez vostochnykh slavian po dannym antropologii // Sovietskaia etnografiia.- 1971.- № 2.- S. 57.

4 Miliukov P. Ochierki po istorii russkoi kultury.- SPb., 1909.- S. 51.

5 Platonov S. F. Uchiebnik russkoi istorii.- Praga, 1924.- Ch. 1.- S. 72.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

B. Grekov speaking about this fact, suggested the following: “The Slavonic culture appeared to be more stable and was of much higher level than that of the Mer, which explains the fact that the Mer disappeared mingling with the Rus people of Rostov-Suzdal Land”. 1

K. Kavelin suggested a famous thesis that exactly “the Finns mingling with the Rus was a basis of an intimate inner history of the Russian people, which still stays in shade, and is almost forgotten, while it gives a clue of the whole course of Russia’s history”. 2 V. Klyuchevsky suggested the similar idea: “The question of interaction between the Rus and the Chud, how the two tribes, having met, influenced one another, is one of interesting and complicated questions of our history”. 3

Russian historians, as a rule, do not deny the role of the Meria in the Russian ethnogenesis.”Peculiarities of the dialect of today’s Great Russians in the Principalities of Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vladimir, their tribal character, life style, habits, folk festivals, traditions and superstitions, which make them different from other Russian peoples, give a right to assume that once the Chud folk of the Meria that used to live on the territory of the Principalities did not disappear completely: that the rest of the folk still live in these lands ”. 4 Ye. Goriunova stresses the role of the Meria in the ethnogenesis of the Russians: “Modern population of Great Russia’s Vladimir, Ivanov and especially Yaroslavl and Kostroma regions has preserved a lot of features of a local ancient nationality of Meria’s culture in the form of ethnographic relicts.”5 They also mention the importance of the Finnish-Ugric Mordva in the formation of the Russians. “Tambov and Penza Principalities are the Russified Mordva — it can be noticed in the appearance of local peasants and geographical names”. 6

The leading Russian historians M. Solovyov and V. Klyuchevsky supposed that the Russian ethnos could be considered to have been formed no earlier than in the second half of the 12th century, i.e. at Andrey Bogolyubsky’s times. “In the person of Andrey the Great Russian first entered the arena of history,” —

V. Klyuchevsky wrote. It was the time when “migrants from different regions of the ancient Kyivan Rus, having replaced the aboriginal Finnish, formed a compact mass, homogeneous and business-like, with complex style of life and even more complicated social composition, a mass that formed a core of the 1 Grekov B. D. Kriestianie na Rusi s drievnieishykh vriemion do XVII vieka.- M., 1952.- Kn. I.- S. 495.

2 Kavielin K. D. Mysli i zamietki o russkoi istorii // Sobraniie sochinienii.- SPb., 1897.- T. I.-

S. 599.

3 Kliuchievskii V. O. Kurs russkoi istorii v 8 t.- M., 1956.- T. I.- S. 296.

4 Korsakov D. Mieria i Rostovskoie kniazhestvo: Ochierki po istorii Rostovo-Suzdalskoi ziemli.-

Kazan, 1872.- S. 13.

5 Goriunova Ye. Etnichieskaia istoriia Volgo-Okskogo miezhduriechia.- M.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1961.- S. 248.

6 Kavielin K. D. Mysli i zamietki o russkoi istorii // Sobraniie sochinienii.- SPb., 1897.- T. I.- S. 602.

V. “ELDER BROTHER ”

Great Russian tribe.”1 Most researchers support this statement. “The population of the North-Eastern Rus, formed as a result of mingling, mutual assimilation of the Slavs of the forest line and the Finnish, turned into a special nationality called “Great Russians”. 2 Thus in the 11th-12th centuries young Eastern Slavonic ethnoses (those of Pskov-Novgorod, the Belarusians and Russians), separated from the leading Rus-Ukrainian ethnos of Kyivan empire. New young ethnoses emerged as a result of Slavonization, in particular Russification of the forests of East Europe, originally inhabited by the Balts and the Finnish. From this it follows that the Russians could never have grounds to be called “elder brother”.

The logic of the history suggests that “the “elder brother” was supposed to obtain a generic basic heritage, that of Kyiv, while younger brothers were to look for their place in other regions. The Ukrainian people was a real heir of the state of Kyiv”.3 So, the former metropoly, whereof colonizers came, was considered by the Russians to be a cradle of their nationality, not their autochthonous lands.

“As soon as the Russian ethnos emerged in the arena of history no early than in the 12th century, the claims of the official Moscow for Kyiv Rus as the first Russian state seem absurd. Thus, the Russian state had appeared before the Russians did”. 4 The folk, called “Rus” in the 9th century “had nothing to do with Moscow people, for Moscow people appeared as early as 12th century: four centuries divided the two peoples in the early years of history”. 5

The autochthonous Chud populated found in Zalissia in the epoch of Kyev state flourishing, put historians of Great Russian in an embarrassing situation. On the one hand, they could not make a correspondent conclustion, for the official historical doctrine could be doubted, on the other hand, the facts are stubborn and speak for themselves. The member of Academy M. Pokrovsky characterized this ambiguous situation in the following way: “So, the fact that the Finnish comprised the aboriginal settled and more or less culturally developed population of future Moscow region… was not disputed by bourgeois historians. However, Russian historians provided proven material and then asked their readers not to make conclusions from it, which they of course made. This comic technique could not fool anybody, and it did not fool a contemporary reader. Probably it was the reason, why the modern authors used other tactics: they either concealed the story itself, or suggested a reader (taking him for a fool) conclusions, which contradicted the facts”.6

1 Kliuchievskii V. O. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- M., 1956.- T. I.- S. 65.

2 Vykadorov Is. F. Istoriia kazachiestva.- Praga, 1930.- Kn. I.- S. 85.

3 Zavialov A. S. K voprosu o novieishykh tiekhnologiiakh v issliedovaniiakh probliem ukrainskogo praеtnosa // Humanitarnyi zhurnal.- 1999.- № 2.- S. 9.

4 Zalizniak L. Problemy davnoruskoi narodnosti // Istorychnyi kalendar‘98.- K., 1997.-S. 122.

5 Chihirin A. Ukrainskii vopros.- Parizh, 1937.- S. 16.

6 Pokrovskii M. N. Vozniknovieniie Moskovskogo gosudarstva i “Vielikorusskaia narodnost” //

Istorik-marksist.- 1930.- T. 18-19.- S. 18.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

M. Lomonosov once wrote that the Chut was from early years “into one nation with us united”. 1 Above mentioned was a contemporary of Lomonosov, an emperor’s historiographer Miller and his pro-Norman work “Origines gentis et nominis Russorum” (“The Origin of the Race and Name of Russia”). In the work Miller proved that the autochthonous people of Moscow region were the Finnish, and it was the reason why the book was banned, and the published copies destroyed. 2 The leading Russian historians and all objective researchers, to this or that extent have admitted the influence of the Chud on the Russian ethnogenic process (K. Kavelin, D. Korsakov, M. Liubasky, M. Pokrovsky, I. Tretiakov, Ye. Goriunova, L. Gumiliov and others). 3 Characteristic is the following statement: “The Great Russian nationality was formed as a result of the mingle of different Slavonic tribes, which settled in East Europe, with each other and foreigners, mostly the Finnish”. 4 One of the most eminent Russian historians S. Solovyov wrote that, to his mind, the Russians were formed as a nation from two tribes: “Slavonic and Finnish”.5 Similar were the words of M. Kostomarov: “Slavonic invadors mingled with an aboriginal Eastern Finnish tribe, and of this mixture the Russian nation formed”. 6 M. Pokrovsky, considering the ways of conquering the Chud Zalissia by the Rus troops, made a famous conclusion: “The Russian empire was called “a prison of peoples”. We now know that this name was deserved not only by Romanovs’ state but also its predecessor, a home of Kalyta’s descendants. Great Principality of Moscow, not only Moscow Tsardom, was “a prison of peoples”. Great Russia was built on the bones of “foreiners”, and the latter could hardly feel relieved by the fact that the Great Russians have 80%

of their blood”. 7 Pokrovsky’s astonishing statement about 80% of the Chud blood ruined the basic principles of Great State historiography, in particular, made an idea of panSlavonism and that of an “elder brother” a myth. “On the territory of Suzdal, Vladimir, and Moscow Principalities the main population were the Finnish tribes: the Meria, the Ves, the Muroma and others. They were merged by invadors from the South, Christianized, deprived of their language and provided with the language of colonizers. M.N. Pokrovsky, an orthodoxal Marxist, who did not pay attention to national problems considered Great Russians to be ethnical mixture, where the Finnish 4/5, and the Slavs - 1/5”. 8

1 Lomonosov M. Polnoie sobraniie sochinienii.- M.; L., 1952.- T. 6.- S. 200.

2 Koialovich O. Istoriia russkogo samosoznaniia po istorichieskim pamiatnikam i nauchnym sochinieniiam.- S.-Peterburg, 1901.- S. 102.

3 Gumiliov L. N. Ot Rusi k Rossii: ochierki etnichieskoi istorii.- M.: Ekopros, 1992.- S. 294.

4 Liubavskii M. K. Obrazovanie osnovnoi gosudarstviennoi tierritorii Vielikorusskoi narodnosti.-

L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1929.- S. 4.

5 Soloviev S. M. Istoriia Rossii s drievnieishykh vriemion.- M., 1959.- Kn. I.- S. 76.

6 Kostomarov N. Istorichieskiie monografii i issliedovaniia.- SPb., 1863.- T. I.- S. 615.

7 Pokrovskii M. N. Vozniknovieniie Moskovskogo gosudarstva i “Vielikorusskaia narodnost” //

Istorik-marksist.- 1930.- T. 18-19.- S. 28.

8 Geller M. Ya. Istoriia Rossiiskoi Impierii: V 3 t.- M.: MIK, 1997.- T. I.- S. 172.

V. “ELDER BROTHER ”

Ethnographist D. Zelenin made an attempt to neutralized M. Pokrovsky’s statement. He categorically refused any significant role of the Finnish-Ugric in the Russians’ ethnogenesis. 1 1927 in Berlin he published an ethnographic work Russische (ostslavische) Volkskunde, written in German, where he grounded his provision. It is interesting that in the Russian translation, published as late as in 1991, the word Russische disappeared. The title was East Slavonic Ethnography, as if there exists an integral East Slavonic nation. Zelenin considered the ethnography of East Europe as a whole, lumping all together. “The author confused a lot of term without differentiating, or marking which is which, not singling out Ukrainian terms, and the only aim was to erase from a European reader’s mind any difference between Eastern Slavonic nations”. 2 Zelenin used a simple method: all created by Slavonic nations of former Russian empire he announced Russian “no matter, which ethnic group really did it”. 3 Zelenin taught foreign researchers: “one cannot agree with an idea that the Russian nation emerged as a result of the Slavs mingling with the Finnish-Ugric tribes.” 4

Zelenin’s views were relentlessly criticized in Russia. At the beginning of 1930s, Bolsheviks did not accept criticizing Great State ideologists.

For instance, S. Tolstov wrote that Zelenin’s statements are “anti-scientific attempt to interpret facts tendentiously” in order to create a “scientific”

base fo the developmet of Russian chauvinism. 5 However Zelenin soon had a chance to publically call his opponents “Bukharinites” and “people’s enimies”. At that time NKVD secret police started total routing of M. Pokrovsky’s school”: Russian historiography of the USSR returned to the old Great State position. Pokrovsky was a convinced revealer of Russian imperialism, Russian colonialism, Russian sole ruling. Pokrovsky considered “Moscow imperialism” to have existed in the 16th century when “the South end of the great river way from Europe to Asia was grasped, from Kazan to Astrakhan, and there was an attempt to grasp the North end, the access to the Baltic Sea. Pokrovsky revealed wickedness of Russian tsars: a cyphilitic Peter I, inhuman Ivan the Terrible”. 6 Nearly simultaneously with Zelenin’s publication there appeared a work of a linguist and ethnologists emigrant Prince Trubetskoy “On the Problem of Russian Self-Congition”. In 1

Zelenin D. K. Prynymaly ly fynny uchastye v obrazovanyy velykorusskoi narodnosty? //

Trudy Lenynhr. obshchestva po yzuchenyiu kultury fynno-uhorskykh narodnostei.- 1929.-

T. I.- S. 18.

2 Shcherbakivskyi V. Retsenziia // Slovo.- Lviv, 1937/1938.- Kn. II.- S. 77.

3 Kurinnyi P. Sovietski kontseptsii pokhodzhennia velykoruskoi narodnosti ta “ruskoi” natsii //

Naukovi zapysky UVU.- 1963.- Ch. 7.- S. 180.

4 Zelenin D. K. Vostochnoslavianskaia etnohrafyia / Per. s nem.- M.: Nauka, 1991.- S. 33.

5 Tolstov S. K probleme akkulturatsyy // Etnohrafyia.- 1930.- № 1/2.- S. 87.

6 Geller M. Ya., Nekrych A. M. Utopyia u vlasty.- M.: MYK, 2000.- S. 289.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

his work Trubetskoy stressed that Russian folk (ethnographic) culture “is a special zone”, which includes besides the Russians themselves, the Fin nish-Ugric “foreigners”, as well as the Turki of the Volga basin”. 1

Trubetskoy stated that a national costume of the Russians is not of Slavonic origin but of the Finnish-Ugric. “In the Russian-Finnish costume there are a number of characteristic features: lapty ( straw shoes), kosovorotka ( shirt), women’s headwear, unknown to Romance-Germanic people and Slavs”. 2 Besidess non-Slavonic lapty, Prince Trubetskoy points at non-Slavonic five-tone gamut of Russian songs and certain non-Slavonic features of folklore, which belonged to rituals (lack of marmaid circle, koliadkas, Perun worshipping, Finnish cult of birch-tree instead of Hindo-European oak-tree and so on). We can add here characteristic features of architectural monuments, which witness that the main architectural type was tabernacular buildings and temples, and log-houses with “basement and porches”, a type of building found only in the Chud ethnographical territory. Neither koliada, not vesnianka, as well as Marmaid’s Day and Kupalo and so on, were unknown in Russia. It should be mentioned that after annexation of Western Ukraine Zelenin had to write that such type of clothes as “sarafan” and “lapty” was alien to Ukrainians. “The word

“sarafan” was new, of Persian origin. Sarafan was initially men’s clothing, not women’s; it was sleeved, then no sleeves were left. Sarafan became a part of the Russian national costume as an aristocratic Moscow costume, not earlier.

It is not a surprise that this type of clothing is alien to Ukrainians… In Ukraine there wer no lapty, made of bark,..thr use of them by Russians was accounted by the lack of leather and, in general, extreme poverty of people”. 3 A problem of the Finnish-Urgic importance in the Russian ethnogenesis was never purely scientific: there always was a political flavour. In the second half of the 19th century a Polish publicist, ethnograph and historian F. Dukhinsky introduced his scandalous theory, which was rather friendly accepted by Karl Marx.

F. Dukhinsky tried to prove that “moskals” ( Mostovites) belonged neither to the Slavs nor to Hindo-Europeans. “Moskals”, to his mind, have non-European tyranic type of governance, Asian collective type of community, tendency to nomadism.

They were a “nomadic” tribe and gained the name of “Rus” illegally, for it belongs to Ukrainians only. The Russian language, according Dukhinsky, was a spoilt Old Church Slavonic, therefore it is deprived of expressed dialect features, as distinct from all the rest Slavonic languages. 4 These views are supported by 1 Trubetskoi N. S. K probleme russkoho samopoznanyia: Sobr. soch.- [B. m.], 1927.- S. 28.

2 Trubetskoi N. S. K probleme russkoho samopoznanyia: Sobr. soch.- [B. m.], 1927.- S. 31.

3 Zelenin D. K. Ob ystorycheskoi obshchnosty kultury russkoho y ukraynskoho narodov //

Sovetskaia etnohrafyia.- 1940.- Vyp. III.- S. 29-30.

4 Duchiski F. Pisma.- Ruppersswyl, 1901.- T. I.- S. 170.

V. “ELDER BROTHER ”

an English-Polish historian G. PashKyivich. He considered the Russians to be almost purely the Finnish-Ugric, which after the Christianization accepted the Slavonic language but did not get any considerable Proto-Slavic population. 1

Dukhinsky, Pashkevich and their co-thinkers based on the well-known conclusion that ethnogenesis (origins of people) and glottogenesis (origins of language) seldom coincide. These are different processes. There is a widely spread opinion that enthos and language are similar and give historical examples, which is not correct. “If it were really so there would be no need in such a notion as ethnos, it would be enough to speak of language.”2 If fact it is proven by numerous facts.

For instance, as a result of Spainification of aboriginal population of Central and South America a lot of Spanish-speaking ethnoses were formed: the Mexi-cans, the Argentinians, the Chilians, the Cubans, the Venezuelians, the Colum-bians etc. Upon Portugal’s conquering a considerable part of South America, a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian nation was formed. Oversees expansion of the English resulted in the creation of a number of English-Speaking nations: the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians, and New Zealanders and so on. An Arabiс commander ‘Amr ibn al-‘As who conquered Egypt with multi-million population in the 7th century had just three thousand and a half riders. In one hundred and fifty years all Egypt was speaking Arabic. The same processes could be traced while the Turkic language family, the Mongolian family etc. It is assumed that by this pattern a nomadic Chud population of Zalissia was assimilated by martial and religious colonization.

It should be mentioned that there was a group of Russian linguists (B. Ser-ebrennikov, V. Litkin, P. Kuznietsov, A. Chelishchev and others) who explained some specific peculiarities of Russian folklore and language by the Chud influence. A linguist Ye. Levi introduced a theory of the Finnish-Ugric substrate (language base) of the Russian language.

Such phenomena of the Russian language as pronouncing [a] instead of [o]

in the unstressed position: “voda-vada” ( water), “Moskva-Maskva” ( Moscow).

The same is found in the Mordva language. Of the Finnish-Ugric origin is similar pronounciation of [ts] and [ʧ]. “The Russian language, as distinct from other Hindo-European and Slavonic languages, according to V. Zhuravlyov, has not cut the number of cases but vice versa, there is a tendency to increase their number: two genitive cases (vkus chaia and stakan chaiu ( taste of tea, a glass of tea) and two locative cases (zhivu v lesu and poiu o lese ( live in the forest, sing of the forest)”. Of all world languages the Finnish-Ugric languages are characterized by a great number of cases: Hungarian — 21-22 cases, Permic — 17-18, Finnish — 15-17. It give the grounds to see the Finnish-Ugric influence here.

1 Paszkiewicz H. The Origins of Russia.- New York, 1954.- P. 255-278.

2 Braichevskyi M. Yu. Teoretychni osnovy doslidzhen etnohenezu // Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal.- 1965.- № 2.- S. 46.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

As distinct from other Slavonic languages Russian subsequently eliminated gender in plural, in some dialects the category of neuter was “molten”. This is considered to be the Finnish-Ugric influence upon Russian because the Finnish-Ugric do not know gender category”. 1 This also concerns the use of such particles as “-to”, “-ka”. The construction “I have” of the Hindo-European and Slavonic languages corresponds to “u menia yest” ( there is by me) in Russian.

“This expression is characteristic of the Finnish-Ugric languages and the fact that Russian gained it is explained by such an influence”. 2 There are other language phenomena in phonetics and syntax, which are accounted for by the Finnish-Ugric influences. In any case such influences can be traced distinctly so one cannot but agree that there were mutual influences. Thus for instance, M. Khrushchov in 1960 at the meeting with the delegation from France promised to show “Russia’s Kuzka’s mother”. This scandalous expression caused a lot of discussions as of its origin. It comes from the Chud language where “kuzio” means a forest demon. 3 All the abovementioned data made it possible for Ya. Pasternak to come to the following conclusion: “Archeological, anthropological, historical and ethnographic materials prove that Ukrainian people have always been different from Moscow. It is expressed in the life style, spiritual and material culture, psychological and mental structure, as well as deep national individuality… The development of Moscow people went from different roots, under the influence of other climate conditions and geographical location. Its oldest ethnic base was Proto-Ugric nomadic tribes of hunters and gatherers”. 4 Even Russian nationalists admit that “the Finnish by nature and blood, some Russian people are characterized by a short head, broad face, prominent cheekbones, small eyes, middle height, short legs, fair hair and light eyes”.5

According to Ukrainian history science (M. Hrushevsky, V. Shcherbakivsky, M. Chubaty), a historiam Ya. Dashkevich has developed a logic and persuasive concept of the ethnogenesis of Eastern Slavs. It is based upon the idea of non-simultaneous and independent development of individual nations and the substrate (sub-base) theory. Ya. Dashkevich introduces symbolic signs to denote different nations to avoid the “antagonism in ethnonymy”: “Alpha” symbolizes the Ukrainian nation, “Beta” stands for Novgorod-Pskov, “gamma” is for the Russians, “delta” — for Belarusian. All nations have admixtures of other ethnic substrates: “alpha” includes the Iranian substrate and Norman superstrate,

“beta” — the Baltic substrate and Norman superstrate, “gamma” — the Fin nish-1 Zhuravlev V. K. Vlyianye bylo vzaymnym // Russkaia rech.- 1972.- № 3.- S. 126.

2 Zhuravlev V. K. Vlyianye bylo vzaymnym // Russkaia rech.- 1972.- № 3.- S. 127.

3 Kto takaia “kuzkyna mat”? // Rodyna.- 2000.- № 4.- S. 32.

4 Pasternak Ya. Vazhlyvishi problemy etnohenezu ukrainskoho narodu // Ukrainskyi istoryk.-

1970.- № 4.- S. 26.

5 Sykorskyi Y. A. Russkye y ukrayntsy.- K., 1913.- S. 11.

V. “ELDER BROTHER ”

Ugric substrate, “delta” — the Baltic substrate. 1 The Ukrainian ethnos (“alpha”) was formed earlier than other Eastern Slavonic nations (“beta”, “delta”

and “gamma”). Young historians of our country support this idea. “Ukrainians as ethno-cultural consolidated unity appeared when the first Ukrainian state of Kyivan Rus was formed, i.e. in the 10th century. Citizens of London, Paris or Gn-ezno of the 10th-13th century were correspondingly the English, the French, the Czech or the Polish, so were the citizens the citizens of Kyiv, Chernigiv, Galich the Ukrainians”. 2 European history witnesses that most great peoples of Europe began their own history when their independent states were formed in the 9th-10th century. After the 10th century the ethnic composition of the Medieval Europe has not been changed much as a result of foreign invasions. Ancestors of the Polish, Hungarians, Czech, Germans settled in the regions, which now belong to their descendants.

In conclusion it can be stated that there are no “native” nations in the world, and the Russians can by no means be an “elder brother” for Ukrainians.

1 Dashkevych Ya. Perehuk vikiv: try pohliady na mynule i suchasne Ukrainy. Natsiohenez -

natsionalne vidrodzhennia - natsionalna svidomist ukraintsiv na zlami XVI-XVII st. // Ukraina.

Nauka i kultura. - K., 1993.- Vyp. 26/27.- S. 49.

2 Zalizniak L. Chy spravdi buv starshym “starshyi brat”? abo Etnichni protsesy v Kyivskii Rusi shchodo pokhodzhennia ukraintsiv, bilorusiv ta rosiian // Berehynia.- 1997.- Ch. 3/4.- S. 46.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

Making use of the weakened tsarist censorship, Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi in 1904 published his famous research “Common Scheme of ‘Russian’ History and Issue of Rational Study of Eastern Slavonic History”. 1 This small work made a

“brave and thorough analysis of separation of the Great Russian and Ukrainian historical processes”. 2 The issue of separation of the mentioned processes belonged and still belongs to the most essential problems of historiography. “A key problem of the history of East Europe in general and Ukraine and Russia in particular is the historical and cultural legacy of the grand-ducal Kyiv. Fair resolution of this matter is an obligatory pre-condition of building up a firm historical foundation of independent Ukraine.” 3

In his research, M.Hrushevskyi did a rational analysis of the traditional “usual scheme” of the history of Russia, or, to be more precise, of the history of East Europe, synchronized in early 19th century by N.Karamzin — writer, journalist, and official courtier historian. The great-power scheme by this descendant of a Tartar nobleman — Karamzin — largely relied on the mythological ideas of Muscovian church scribes of the 15th-16th centuries. 4 First of all, these were the ideas of Innozenz Giesel described in the myth-making compilation Respected Book of Tsar’s Genealogy. 5 Karamzin was greatly influenced by the Innozenz Giesel’s Synopsys. For personal reasons, to make use of the conditions and opportunities existing at that time, in the Synopsys Giesel “showed the Moscow Tsardom as the heir to Kyiv Rus”. 6

Karamzin’s “scheme” built on the medieval genealogical and dynastic idea of the ruling clan and on constant mixing of the ethnonymic notions of “Rus” and

“Russia” made a great influence onto further development of Russian historiography. 7 For almost two hundred years its main dogmas have been injected into the mind of Russians as well as Ukrainians and Belarusians through literature, press, and the main thing — via school, church, and army. Foreign historians 1 Hrushevskyi M. Zvychaina skhema “russkoi” istorii y sprava ratsionalnoho ukladu istorii skhidnoho slovianstva // Sbornyk statei po slavianovedenyiu.- SPb., 1904.- T. 1.

2 Novytskyi V. Istorychna pratsia O. Ye. Presniakova i rozmezhuvannia velykoruskoi ta ukrainskoi istoriohrafii // Ukraina.- 1930.- Berez.-kvit.- S. 61.

3 Zalizniak L. Davnoruska narodnist: imperskyi mif chy istorychna realnist // Pamiat stolit.- 1996.-

№ 2.- S. 2.

4 Myliukov P. N. Hlavnye techenyia russkoi ystorycheskoi mysly.- M., 1913.- S. 177.

5 Ohloblyn O. Moskovska teoriia III Rymu v XVI-XVII stol.- Miunkhen, 1951.- S. 32, 33.

6 Hrytsak Ya. Y. Narys istorii Ukrainy: formuvannia modernoi ukrainskoi natsii XIX-XX st.- K.: Heneza, 1996.- S. 56.

7 Polonska-Vasylenko N. Dvi kontseptsii istorii Ukrainy i Rosii.- Miunkhen, 1964.- S. 24.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

also guided and continue to guide themselves with this “usual scheme”. “Due to the long use, everyone got accustomed to this scheme, while the school tradition made it firm”. 1 N.Karamzin produced not a theoretical concept but an acting myth of the Russian state ideology. The factual side did not attract his attention too much — Karamzin was interested only in the general course of events. 2

In spite of dramatic state and political disturbance, Karamzin’s scheme is still remaining an untouchable “sacred cow” for the Russian historiography. 3 It is known that the ruling powers in Russia constantly tried to influence the souls of conquered peoples, Ukrainians in particular, with imperial historical myths.

Political scientists note that for centuries, the Russian state had ideocratic nature, i.e. the power in Russia relied not onto a system of laws, but on a certain system of ideas: monarchy, orthodoxy, pan-Slavism, Marxism-Leninism, Eurasian idea etc. In an ideocratic state, historiography occupies a reputable place: it has to teach, explain, and justify the actions of the ruling political regime. The multi-volume “History of the State of Russia” by Karamzin was written in the ideocratic spirit needed for the tsarism. Karamzin faithfully dedicated his work “To Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, ruler of all Russia”, the foreword starting with a flattering phrase: “O Your Most Gracious Majesty!” To publication of History, Pushkin replied with a bitter epigram:

В его “Истории” изящность, простота

His “History” is exquisite and simple

Доказывает нам, без всякого пристрастия,

It proves to all of us

Необходимость самовластия —

That sole rule is a need

И прелести кнута.

As well as nicety of a whip

Without any hesitation, N.Karamzin announced Kyiv Rus to be the first Russian state. “Russian imperial historians announced Kyiv Rus being proto-Ukrianian according to all laws of European history, as the first Russian stage”. 4

Like his contemporary nobility, Karamzin himself did not recognize Ukrainians or Belarusians as separate peoples. As known, this was the official opinion up till the end of the Russian Empire. “Ukrainians used to be in a truly exceptional situation in Russia, for the ruling power objected to their existence as a people”. 5

The “usual scheme” — this “elevating falsehood” — is based on the assumptions that Moscow is the successor of the political and cultural legacy 1 Doroshenko D. Ohliad ukrainskoi istoriohrafii.- Praha, 1923.- S. 187.

2 Alpatov M. A. Russkaia ystorycheskaia mysl y Zapadnaia Evropa (XVIII - pervaia polovyna XIX

v.).- M.: Nauka, 1958.- S. 178.

3 Ohloblyn O. Problema skhemy istorii Ukrainy 19-20 stolittia // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1971.- №

1/2.- S. 5.

4 Zalizniak L. Davnoruska narodnist: imperskyi mif chy istorychna realnist // Pamiat stolit.- 1996.-

№ 2.- S. 2.

5 Diakyn V. Natsyonalnyi vopros vo vnutrennei polytyke tsaryzma (XIX v.) // Voprosy ystoryy.-

1995.- № 9.- S. 135.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

of Kyiv Rus and that the names Rus and Russia mean the same. Analysing Karamzin’s scheme, Hrushevskyi found out that it comprises a combination of several contradictory notions: the history of Russia’s formation as a state, the history of what had happened within the territory of Russia, the history of the three Slavonic peoples, and finally — the history of the Russian people. 1 This

“usual scheme” was built up in an illogical and fanciful way: at first, 2,000

years of the history of the Middle Dnieper, the adjacent Black Sea steppes, and the Crimea are viewed, up to the second half of the 12th century. From then on, the course of events on the Dnieper suddenly stops, the historical scene changing, and unexpectedly the Zalissia Interfluve is “tied” to the study. This means another land, other nature, and other ethnic groups. Interest towards the Dnieper suddenly fades, the events in this area becoming secondary and uninteresting to Karamzin.

For an official courtier historian as N.Karamzin, first of all the ruling dynasties were the object of historical study. Rus was ruled by the Rurik dynasty. A branch of this diverse dynasty (younger Monomakhovyches) started ruling in Zalissia from the year 1150 up till its end in 1598, when Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich died. All claims of the “usual scheme” for the political and cultural legacy of Kyiv Rus are based on Rurik dynasty inheritance.

The notion of people is substituted with the dynasty principle. Following this logic, Austrians and Spaniards are to be treated as “Habsburg people”

with common history, because both Austria and Spain were ruled by the Habsburgs for centuries.

Having mixed various territories and ethnic groups, the “scheme” leaves all the three Eastern Slavonic peoples without the true history of their roots, namely

“the history of the Ukrainian-Rusian people remains without a beginning”. 2 As for the history of the Belarusians — they remain completely outside Karamzin’s “scheme”. An important basis for this “scheme” is the non-differentiated Rus-Russia notion. The spelling difference of these two words hides a considerable ethnical discrepancy.

Hrushevskyi, followed by almost all Ukrainian historians, consider the ethnic factor to be more important than the dynasty.

Analysing the claims of the “usual scheme” for the legacy of Kyiv Rus, Hrushevskyy makes the following comparison: “Vladimir and Moscow state was neither heir nor successor of Kyiv Rus, it grew on its own root, and its relationship to Kyiv Rus can be most probably compared to that of Roman Empire and its province of Gaul, but not to succession of two peoples in the political life of 1 Hrushevskyi M. Zvychaina skhema “russkoi” istorii y sprava ratsionalnoho ukladu istorii skhidnoho slovianstva.- SPb., 1904.- S. 6 (okrema vidbytka).

2 Hrushevskyi M. Zvychaina skhema “russkoi” istorii y sprava ratsionalnoho ukladu istorii skhidnoho slovianstva.- SPb., 1904.- S. 3.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

France”. 1 Historian Dombrovskyi made another comparison: “Inclusion of the Kyiv Rus era into the Muscowite-Russian history is the same as, say, in theory, Portuguese historians started the history of Portugal from the foundation of Rome by the legendary Romulus and Remus only because the territory of future Portugal was colony of Ancient Rome.” 2

The same as Ancient Rome assimilated its barbarian provinces, Kyiv Rus did it with its northern territories. The powerful influence of Rome onto the empire periphery caused the formation of the Romance group of peoples. The impact of the Kyiv metropoly was similar. “In Kyiv Rus, the cultural influence was spread onto the provinces through Clerical Slavonic — the state language. It was in that language that the provinces received the state religion from Kyiv — Orthodox Christianity.” 3 Similar comparisons arouse sharp antagonism among Russians, almost a shock, as they cause crisis of the national consciousness. “It is frightening that Russia is something different to what we imagined for ourselves,” Solzhenitsyn uttered once. 4 “For many Russian readers, M.S.Hrushevskyi’s point of view may sound paradoxal because it destroys the usual idea of the “single” history of the “single Russian people”. 5 It is known that the “Russian historiography and Russian scientific and popular literature have never separated in concept or terminology the history of the Russian people from the Kyiv Rus era and the preceding period.” 6

If Kyiv Rus is recognized as the ancestor country to not the Russian but the Ukrainian people, then the official Russian political ideology, cultural stereotypes, Orthodox Church doctrine would require thorough re-assessment, resulting in the respective consequences. Torn away from Kyiv, the whole Russian tradition loses its roots. Then the process of formation of the Russian people would acquire a completely different interpretation, the beginning of the Russian statehood, church, Russian language, literature, art, law etc. would be different.

Then Russians would need, so to say, to change their registration data and passport, as well as to compose a new biography.

Though Karamzin’s “usual scheme” was quite pleasant for those supporting the great power, in the course of time “life itself made breaks in it”. 7 At the turn of the 19th century, historiography and the humanitarian sciences in general were 1 Hrushevskyi M. Zvychaina skhema “russkoi” istorii y sprava ratsionalnoho ukladu istorii skhidnoho slovianstva.- SPb., 1904.- S. 2.

2 Dombrovskyi O. Rannoistorychni peredumovy postannia Kyivskoi Rusi // Ukrainskyi istoryk.-

1977.- № 1/2.- S. 34.

3 Zalizniak L. Chy spravdi buv starshym “starshyi brat”? abo Etnichni protsesy v Kyivskii Rusi shchodo pokhodzhennia ukraintsiv, bilorusiv ta rosiian // Berehynia.- 1997.- Ch. 3/4.- S. 58.

4 Solzhenytsyn A. Rossyia v obvale.- M.: Russkyi put, 1998.- S. 110.

5 Presniakov O. E. Obrazovanye velykorusskoho hosudarstva.- Ph., 1918.- S. 2.

6 Badzo Yu. Znyshchennia i rusyfikatsiia ukrainskoi istorychnoi nauky v sovietskii Ukraini: Vidkrytyi lyst do rosiiskykh ta ukrainskykh istorykiv // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1981.- № 1/4.- S. 86.

7 Krupnytskyi B. Teoriia III Rymu i shliakhy rosiiskoi istoriohrafii.- Miunkhen, 1952.- S. 12.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

captured by the new powerful European ideology — romanticism. Historiography put the romantic principle in the centre of its attention: the people being the most important object of historical study. Not the history of ruling dynasties or genealogy of princes, tsars, and emperors, like in Karamzin’s work, but the history of the people became the object of study for romanticists. Romanticists believed that the present condition of each people is the result of long-term slow development, and therefore one should study the unique features, language, way of life, and mentality of each people, as every ethnos was created by God and has the holy right for its own state. Thus, not multinational empires but separate national countries were the ideal of a fair political system for romanticists, while the nation itself was the highest natural form of people’s union. Romanticism favoured folklore, folk traditions and customs, folk art, legends and historical songs. In view of ethnography and folklore science, it became more and more evident for romanticists that Ukrainians are a unique and ethnic group separate from Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians etc. Mykola Kostomarov remembered that epoch, “Love for the Ukrainian language captured me more and more; I felt sad that such a nice language is remaining without any literary treatment and moreover — is suffering from absolutely undeserved contempt. I heard rude sayings and sneering jokes regarding the ‘khokhly’ not only from Russians themselves, but also from the upper class Ukrainians who considered it normal to deride peasants and their way of expression. Such an attitude towards a people and its language looks like humiliation of human dignity to me.” 1 Ukraine, with its extremely rich folklore and heroic past, became for romanticists a lost idyl-lic Arcadia. Charmed by the unbelievable beauty and wealth of the Ukrainian folklore, foreigners created a sort of trends in the Polish and Russian literatures, called “Ukrainian schools” in the 19th century. Famous German romantic theoretician, ideologist of the “Sturm und Drang” movement Johann Herder in his

“Щоденнику подорожі” (1846) gave an inspiring prophecy: “Ukraine will become the new Greece — it has wonderful climate, generous earth, and its great people with music talent will awake one day for new life. Its borders would extend to the Black Sea, and from there — throughout the whole world.” 2 Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz called Ukraine “the capital of lyrical poetry, from where songs spread to the whole Slavonic world”. 3

The powerful development of comparative ethnographic studies commenced by the romanticists, led to the difference between the Ukrainian folklore and Ukrainian people from the Russian ones becoming evident.

Panteleymon Kulish, a writer, historian, ethnographer, literary critic, publicist, and public figure, author of the Ukrainian spelling rules, was a 1 Kostomarov N. Y. Ystorycheskye proyzvedenyia. Avtobyohrafyia.- K., 1989.- S. 450.

2 Herder Yohann Hotfryd. Yzbrannye sochynenyia.- M.; L.: Hoslytyz dat, 1959.- S. 324.

3 Mickiewicz A. Wykady o literaturze sowiaskiej.- Lwiw, 1900.- T. 1.- S. 30.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

famous Ukrainian romanticist. He belonged to the Cyrill and Methodius Fellowship, was friend of Shevchenko, Kostomarov, Hulak, and other fellows.

In 1858, Kulish wrote a private letter to Slavophile S.Aksakov, describing the true views of Kulish’s environment onto the relations between the Russians and Ukrainians. “Sometimes my words sound like a sharp cry, because they are not preceded by free explanations with a reading society; that we Ukrainians are deprived of freedom more than any other nationality in the Russian Empire; we sing our songs on someone else’s land… Not only the Government, but also your public opinion is against us. Even our stupid compatriots are against us. There is only a mere scattering of us preserving the belief into our future, which, we are deeply convinced, cannot be the same as that of the Russian people. Between you and us, there is the same great abyss like between drama and epos: both are great creations of godly genius, but it is strange to wish then to merge into one type! However your society does wish and puts blind trust in it. Your society thinks that Moscow Tsardom is the only good place for us, that we are created for Moscow Tsardom and moreover — that Moscow tsardom will create our future… If it were possible to write like in Gertsen’s magazine , each insulting phrase in your address would turn into a biographical, ethnographical, or social tractate, and a whole literature would appear from our outlook disagreeing with your idea now being discussed in the Moscow and St. Petersburg way for the whole Russian land. This time will come one day, but when we will not be alive any more… we are preserving the will of freedom of our independent development.” 1

Another famous person of the romanticism epoch, friend of Shevchenko and Kulish, outstanding historian M.Kostomarov wrote in his “Autobiography”

about his way through romanticism to patriotism: “I was impressed and excited by the sincere beauty of the Ukrainian folk poetry: I have never suspected that such slenderness, depth, and freshness of feelings would be met in songs of the people so close to me and of which, as it appeared, I knew nothing.” 2

Ukrainian romanticists published such a great number of studies in ethnography, folklore, linguistics, and history, that there was completely no doubt among the intellectuals that a separate Ukrainian people exists. “Influenced by romanticism arousing love for the native history, folkways, and nature, at the end of the 18th century, a pro-Ukrainian movement appeared in Ukraine, at first being far from politics and not going beyond idealization of Ukrainian folkways and Ukraine’s past.” 3 As O.Pritsak noted, it was under the influence of romanticism 1 Myller A. Y. “Ukraynskyi vopros” v polytyke vlastei y russkom obshchestvennom mnenyy (vtoraia polovyna XIX v.).- SPb.: Yzd-vo Aleteiia, 2000.- S. 72-73.

2 Kostomarov N. Y. Ystorycheskye proyzvedenyia. Avtobyohrafyia.- K., 1989.- S. 447.

3 Sydorov A. A. Ynorodcheskyi vopros y ydeia federalyzma v Rossyy.- M., 1912.- S. 25.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

that the intellectual idea and the new concept of Ukrainians as a separate people emerged in the Kharkiv and Kyiv university environments. 1

It became impossible to claim that a people which created over three hundred thousand songs does not exist. “Our song demonstrates to the whole world our high national spiritual culture, confirms that our nation is separate and different from other people, which means our great people, being separate and having its own high culture, has full right for its own existence as a state.” 2 Starting from the middle of the 19th century, in particular, due to the new political events (activity of the Cyril and Methodius Fellowship, pro-Ukrainian movement), Russian scientists not seized by the official propaganda, got deeper and deeper understanding that

“malorosy” (Small Russians, Ukrainians) are a separate people, with its own history. The issues of the time of emergence of the “malorosy” and “velykorosy” (Great Russians) and their place in the Kyiv Rus legacy was raised. These issues gave rise to sharp discussions, as the “History of Rusians” appeared. For supporters of Karamzin’s “scheme” it became an unpleasant discovery that the main ethnical territory of Kyiv Rus coincides with the Ukrainian (“Small Russian”) ethnical territory and not the Russian one at all. “How could one within the framework of the Russian history explain the paradox that the very heart of the Rus was lost without any clear reasons, and the political centre of the country was moved far to the northeast?” 3

For instance, people learned from school that Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereyaslav had always been Russian. Now they were surprised to find out these cities are Ukrainian. Such surprise and embarrassment still exist. A modern tourist from Vologda “is sincerely surprised, when admiring the St. Sophia Cathedral golden domes, “How did these khokhly manage to capture our truly Russian city?” 4

To save the situation and to continue Karamzin’s work, historian M.Pogodin (further followed by linguist A.Sobolevskiy) found a peculiar way similar to castling in chess. He created the theory proclaiming the Russians to be the native inhabitants of Kyiv Rus. These Russians were driven to the north by the Tartar-Mongolians in 1240, while the empty lands were occupied by the Ukrainian settlers from Volyn and Halychyna. 5 This way it looked like Russians in their existing way already existed in the Kyiv Rus epoch, while Ukrainians have nothing to do with the Kyiv Rus period. This was a truly great power concept, fully corresponding to the tsarist government policy in relation to Malorossiya (Ukraine). 6

1 Pritsak O. Istoriosofiia Mykhaila Hrushevskoho // Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: U 11 t.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991.- T. 1.- S. XL.

2 Pelenskyi O. Ukrainska pisnia v sviti.- Lviv, 1933.- S. 7.

3 Tolochko A. Khymera “Kyevskoi Rusy” // Rodyna.- 1999.- № 8.- S. 29.

4 Stepovychka L. Usmikh biloho yanhola // Dzvin.- 2000.- № 3.- C. 96.

5 Pohodyn M. P. Yssledovanyia, zamechanyia y lektsyy po russkoi ystoryy.- M., 1856.- T. 7.- S.

425-428.

6 Sakharov A. M. Ystoryohrafyia ystoryy SSSR.- M.: Vysshaia shkola, 1978.- S. 105.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

To confirm the link between Kyiv Rus and the Russian Empire, the point about the same Rurik dynasty was not enough. “Pogodin’s hypothesis was caused by the “ethnic” wave. It became useful in that epoch, when it was necessary to add an “ethnos” to the Orthodox Church and monarchy, as a third equally important element.” 1 Polemizing with M.Maksymovych, Pogodin objected to recognizing Ukrainian what, as he said, had belonged to the Russians for ever. 2 “That way, Pogodin deliberately did not recognize the possibility of such a division as such, objecting to the concept of the natural unity of the

“three Russian tribes”. 3

Seeing independence ideas spreading, Pogodin tried to scare Ukrainians that when they get their independence, “the Ukrainians with some Khmelnychen-ko or Holopupenko would have nothing to do but, scratching the back of their heads, address to the Moskal or Katsap (Russian) and, bowing low, say: please help us, dear brother! The Poles are conquering us, we are guilty before you, it is our fault; we will not do anything like that in future, we are your servants, brothers, and friends”. 4

In spite of its irrelevance, Pogodin’s and Sobolevskiy’s hypothesis was so attractive for Russian historians that it was generally accepted without any restrictions. 5 M.Maksymovych, B.Antonovych, P.Zhytetskyy, A.Krymskyy, I.Yaghich, O.Shakhmatov etc. took part in the discussion initiated by Ukrainian scientists over Pogodin’s hypothesis. O.Shakhmatov gave this hypothesis a shat-tering assessment: “We have to be as decisive as possible to reject the idea about Kyiv Region being populated not by the ancestors of the present-day Ukrainians, but those of other Russian peoples. It is absolutely fruitless to search for Russians in the 10th-11th centuries on the Dnieper, because the Russian ethnos is of new formation.” 6 T.Shevchenko also sharply objected to Pogodin’s theory in his verse “Стоїть в селi Суботовi” (Ukrainian In the Village of Subbotovo).

One should say it is not possible to reject that Pogodin’s hypothesis is unique, however proving it is an absolutely different matter. “Considering the absence of complete ethnic migrations during the 9th-13th centuries and the overall population stability, with partial movements and relocations occurring only in separate, 1 Olkhivskyi B. Vilnyi narid.- Varshava, 1937.- S. 19.

2 Pohodyn M. Otvet na fylolohycheskye pysma M. A. Maksymovycha // Russkaia beseda.- 1856.-

Kn. 4.- S. 124.

3 Myller A. Y. “Ukraynskyi vopros” v polytyke vlastei y russkom obshchestvennom mnenyy (vtoraia polovyna XIX v.).- SPb.: Aleteiia, 2000.- S. 70.

4 Pohodyn M. P. Polskyi vopros. Sobranye rassuzhdenyi, zapysok y zamechanyi.- M., 1867.-

S. 97.

5 Zhdan M. Kniazha doba istorii Ukrainy v interpretatsii radianskykh istorykiv // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1977.- № 1/2.- S. 37.

6 Shakhmatov A. Kratkyi ocherk ystoryy malorusskoho (ukraynskoho) yazyka // Ukraynskyi narod v eho proshlom y nastoiashchem.- Ph., 1916.- T. 2.- C. 588..

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

chronologically limited districts, one can state that in the process of ethnic ag-glomeration, the genetic inheritance tradition was the main factor, and therefore for the three modern Eastern Slavonic peoples, it is the population of the lands later forming their ethnic territories, that was their ancestors.” 1

Thus, judging from the historical situation of that time, there was no sense to move from the South to Zalissia. Having conquered Zalissia, Tartar-Mongolians made their frequent devastating raids to this territory to strengthen their rule. During the first 20-25 years, Mongolians made fourteen raids to Zalissia.

“The overall combination of written sources and archaeological materials give a picture of extremely hard consequences of the Tartar-Mongolian invasion of the 13th century for the rural areas of Northeastern Rus. Tartar hordes devastated the countryside. The raids destroyed the population and the agriculture. The population died from Tartar sabres, hunger, and diseases. A great number of settlements that suffered from Tartar hordes became empty. Arable land was covered with forests. This mass devastation of pre-Mongolian settlements in Northeastern Rus is confirmed archaeologically.” 2

However the pro-Russian historians tried and searched, there was no convincing proof of mass migration of the population from the Kyiv region to the far North as well as mass migration of the Carpathian population to the Dnieper.

Neither written sources of the 14th century nor ethnographic and linguistic data confirmed the fabricated story by Pogodin and Sobolevskiy. “From the fertile black soil, “ Russian archaeologist Spitsyn mocked, “to clay and sand, from steppe to woods, from warmth to coldness, from good harvests to poor ones, from ox to horse, from a clay to a timber house, from large villages to hamlets, from easy to hard work — few people would go this way willingly.” 3 According to a sharp observation of Y.Dashkevych, “there is however a piquant conclusion from Pogodin’s hypothesis that Ukrainians as an ethnic group already existed prior to Tartar-Mongolian assault, only occupying Halychyna and Volyn.” 4 One can meet an artistic reminiscence of Pogodin’s nostalgia for the idea of the Kyiv Rus precedence in a short story by a modern satirical writer, namely the following: “Order of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet on normalization of the names of the historical centres of the country. To strengthen its importance as the historical centre of all Slavonic peoples and against the Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists, the city of Kyiv shall acquire the name Moscow.” 5

1 Braichevskyi M. Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1968.- S. 189.

2 Karhalov V. V. Posledstvyia monholo-tatarskoho nashestvyia XIII v. dlia selskykh mestnostei Severo-Vostochnoi Rusy // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1965.- № 3.- S. 58.

3 Doroshenko D. I. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- Lviv: Svit, 1991.- S. 69.

4 Dashkevych Ya. Ukrainska istorychna tradytsiia: natsiia i derzhava // Ukrainskyi chas.- 1997.-

№ 1.- C. 7.

5 Serheev A. Yzghnanye besov // Novyi myr.- 1994.- № 6.- C. 101.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

Modern Russian historians now agree that the version on the great resettlement is not convincing. “Under a top secret, we have to admit: Rus did not move anywhere.” 1

Influenced by M.Hrushevskyi’s criticism, certain Russian scientists, such as O.Shakhmatov, O.Presniakov, M.Liubavskyi, V.Picheta started revising the “usual scheme” dogmas. They took not Kyiv Rus, but the Volodymyr and Suzdal Princedom as the real initial point of the Russian history, the same way as historians of France, Spain, Portugal, Romania etc. do not take Rome as their initial point.

After the October Revolution, proclaiming determined separation from the old monarchist historiography, the Russian historical science seemed to reject Karamzin’s myth. Marxist historians from Academician Pokrovskyi’s school sharply opposed the Russian imperialism and chauvinism and started research-ing the ethnical processes in Kyiv Rus from M.Hrushevskyi’s rational viewpoint of historical logic. “This theory which narrowed the whole sense of the Russian history to formation of a huge… state body named the Russian Empire and reflected in the “History” by Karamzin, one can say this theory was outdated from the moment of its creation.” 2 This did not contradict to the official ideology of that time. Dreaming of world rule, the Russian communists considered Russia to be only a means of achieving this aim. As soon as the Marxist illusions on the

“world revolution fire” faded, one had to return to the old myths. In an ideocratic country, important historiographic problems are resolved not by scientists but by the political leaders, while it was convenient for the latter to use historical chauvinism as the basis.

In 1934, the “Comments on the summary of the History of the USSR textbook” were published, signed by Stalin, Kirov, and Zhdanov. In politically single-biased remarks, the top Communist party heads instructed historians that further it would not be decent to view the Russian history without account of the data on the history of Ukraine and Belarus. “We need a textbook on the history of the USSR where the history of Russia would be shown inseparably from that of other peoples of the USSR.” 3 Thus, it was a veiled instruction to return to Karamzin’s “scheme”. The time required to go back to the great power chauvinism.

“International slogans were left only as a smoke curtain covering the real essence of the country continuing not only the policy but also the ideological traditions of the Russian Empire.” 4 Ideological accents were changing — they no longer called Pushkin the tsar’s chamber junker, Alexander Nevskyi — the working 1 Borysenok Yu. Bolshaia prohulka // Rodyna.- 1996.- № 6.- C. 31.

2 Pokrovskyi M. N. Ystorycheskaia nauka y borba klassov.- M.; L., 1933.- Vyp. I.- S. 29.

3 Stalyn Y., Zhdanov A., Kyrov S. Zamechanyia po povodu konspekta uchebnyka po “Ystoryy SSSR” // Propahanda y ahytatsyia v reshenyiakh y dokumentakh VKP(b).- M., 1947.- S. 321-323.

4 Isaievych Ya. Problema pokhodzhennia ukrainskoho narodu: istoriohrafichnyi i politychnyi aspekt // Ukraina: Kulturna spadshchyna, natsionalna svidomist, derzhavnist.- 1995.- Vyp. 2.- S. 6.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

class enemy, Napoleon — liberator of peasants from feudalism, Leo Tolstoy —

landlord acting like Christ’s madman, the Cyrillic alphabet — the relics of class graphics. “Stalin counted on the Russian chauvinism. This was demonstrated by the work of Russian historian B.Volin “The Great Russian People”, universally preaching the missionary role of the Russian people in the USSR, which was to be the example to be followed by all other peoples of the USSR, and in future —

of the whole world.” 1 Modern Russian historians write about it the following way: “The imperial outlook continued strengthening in the Soviet period. The nationalism of Stalinist historiography has always been more powerful than its vulgar Marxism, because where these two criteria were in conflict, patriotism has always won.” 2

One of the organizers of the 1933 famine in Ukraine, a zoological an-ti-Ukraine politician Postyshev who destroyed St. Michael’s Monastery and Desyatynna Church in Kyiv, legalized teaching Karamzin’s great power “scheme”

at Ukrainian schools with a special resolution at the November plenary session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine in 1934.

Another “high” resolution on history appeared in 1936, again signed by chairman of the government Molotov and “father of the nations” Stalin. It stressed that “historical education is important for our state, our party, and for teaching the younger generation.” This resolution resulted namely in destruction of M.Pokrovskyi’s Marxist historical school. One can also remember the notorious resolution “On political mistakes and unsatisfactory work of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic”. Ukrainian historians were constantly instructed: “The works by V.I.Lenin and I.V.Stalin, orders of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and of the Soviet Government on ideological matters are decisive for studying the history of the peoples of the USSR.” 3 A Ukrainian historian of that time remembers: “In Soviet times, a very queer concept appeared, governing the domestic historical science — the assumption that the past can be constructed upon somebody’s discretion; and that directives of heads of state comprise the historical truth.” 4

New school textbooks on history appeared in the mid 1930s. “Instead of previous curses addressed to the “Tsarist Russia — prison of peoples”, they proclaimed ideas which would have made the old revolutionaries turn over in their 1 Yefimenko H. H. Zminy v natsionalnii politytsi TsK VKP(b) v Ukraini (1932-1938) // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 2000.- № 4.- S. 44.

2 Svak D. O nekotorykh metodolohycheskykh problemakh synteza v “Ystoryy Rossyy” //

Otechestvennaia ystoryia.- 1998.- № 6.- C. 91.

3 Za hlubokoe nauchnoe yzuchenye ystoryy ukraynskoho naroda // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1955.-

№ 7.- C. 3.

4 Braichevskyi M. Pratsiuiu nezalezhno vid perspektyvy publikatsii // Khronika 2000.- Vyp.

17/18.- S. 369.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

graves: all invasions done by the Russian tsars were announced to be progressive and corresponding to the interests of the invaded peoples themselves.” 1

In such circumstances, the communist party nurtured the most valuable, important, and favourite myth of the Russian historiography, which acquired features of a political dogma of Stalin’s time, — the myth about Russia inheriting the political and cultural legacy of Kyiv Rus, or in other words: “Moscow being heir to Kyiv”. However, one can note that the existence of the Ukrainian people inhabiting the territory of the Rusian land described in the chronicles is the most demonstrative objection to this. By the way, present-day Russian historians are complaining about the “depressive contradiction the authors of the latest textbooks encountered — “the country’s name is Kyiv Rus, while it has been the fifth year since Kyiv is abroad”, and one cannot hide from this suddenly discovered reality.” 2

The rejected hypothesis of Pogodin-Sobolevskiy quietly disappeared from scientific use. The fate of this hypothesis demonstrated that the non-scientific

“usual scheme” cannot have any principal convincing justification in the historical realities. The way out was found in relocation of the matter into the field of linguistics, or, to be more precise, — ethnonymics.

Instead of the beaten points on dynasties genealogy, instead of the unproven theory of mass migrations, the ethnonymic ambiguity was the main defender of the “scheme”. The great power ethnonymic speculations are based on substitution of terminology according to the form and contents: the word

“Rus” was replaced by the newly invented term “Ancient Russian State”, and the ethnonym Rusyn — by the newly created name “Ancient Russian people”.

In the Russian historiography, it became a habit to interpret Eastern Slavonic ethnonyms in their own way. According to O.Tolochko’s valid observation, the

“re-naming technique” is used here. “In such a surprisingly labour-saving way, the necessary illusion is created. Re-naming is only a partial method of the overall acquisition technique.” 3 For instance, the Russian scientific literature contains frequently used phrases referring to the Kyiv Rus epoch: “Kyiv is the first Russian capital”, “single Russian people of the Kyiv Rus time”, “one thousand years to Russian literature”, “early period of the Russian history”,

“Russian tribes”, “Russian land”, “Russian state”, “Russian people”, “Russian language” etc. V.Kliuchevskiy already repented that these terms are incorrect, but “words people are used to”. “However, as for the “words people are used to” — they are not so innocent as they may seem. These terms were used by Russian scientists absolutely consciously with the aim to form the general pub-1 Radzinskii E. Stalin.- M., 1997.- S. 455.

2 Borisienok Yu. Bolshaia prohulka // Rodina.- 1996.- № 6.- S. 29.

3 Tolochko O. Dva svity, dva sposoby dyskursu // Ukrainskyi humanitarnyi ohliad.- 1999.- Vyp. 1: Krytyka.- S. 148.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

lic opinion on the eternal indivisibility of the Eastern Slavonic — say, Russian society within the boundaries of the Russian empire. This corresponded to the Empire’s political interests.” 1

It is notable that the Russian language does not have the word “руський”

( Ruskyi) contained in the chronicles, using the phonetically new Greek word

“русский”, while, as mentioned above, the small spelling difference conceals substantial ethnic differences. In other words, in the Russian language, both words — “Rus” and “Rosia” — form only one adjective — “русский” ( Russkiy), while the word “Rus” is used as the synonym to modern Russia. The words “drevnerusskiy” (Russian Old Russian) and “russkiy” (Russian Russian) are perceived as those denoting the same people in different historical periods, while the difference between the words “davnioRuskyi” (Ukrainian the Old Ruskyi) and “ukrainskyi” (Ukrainian Ukrainian) makes the impression that different ethnic groups are referred to. The term “Old Ruska nationality”

is employed only in literature written in the Ukrainian language and still has no equivalent in the literature in Russian or other foreign languages, where the term “drevnerusskiy” (Russian Old Russian) is associated with “russkaia”

(Russian Russian). 2 “In reality, Russian theoretical and practical politicians do not have stronger points in favour of Ukrainians (malorosy) being “the same Russian people”, than this insincere, one should say — purposeful play with the words “Русь” and “русский”. 3

This “re-naming technique” is especially visible in linguistics. “The homon-ymy of the definitions of the Rusian and Russian languages, Rusian and Russian people (Rus. русский язык, русский народ and similarly in other languages), which is certainly not perceived as such (a bright and instructive illustration of the influence of a language onto the consciousness!). Hence the non-differenciated operation of the term русский in two uniting meanings: a) “Rusian and Russian” (for instance, “Словарь русского языка XI-XVIII вв.”) and b) “Eastern Slavonic”. 4

The “ancient Russian nationality” was first mentioned by historian V.Mavrodin, who is rightfully called the ideologist of Stalinist imperialism. 5 One of the reasons to put forward this idea of the “ancient Russian nationality” was reluctance to further stick to the point about Kyiv Rus being the cradle of three brother peoples. “To avoid truly equal rights for the three peoples, the statement 1 Baran V. D. Davni sloviany.- K.: Alternatyvy, 1998.- S. 145.

2 Dashkevych Ya. Natsionalna samosvidomist ukraintsiv na zlami XVI-XVII st. // Suchasnist.-

1992.- № 3.- S. 68.

3 Chihirin A. Ukrainskii vopros.- Parizh, 1937.- S. 5.

4 Taranenko O. O. Mova Kyivskoi Rusi: vuzol istoryko-linhvistychnykh i polityko-ideolohichnykh problem // Movoznavstvo.- 1993.- № 2.- S. 36.

5 Kurinnyi P. Sovietski kontseptsii pokhodzhennia velykoruskoi narodnosty ta “ruskoi” natsii //

Naukovi zapysky UVU.- 1963.- Ch. 7.- S. 186.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

on the single ancient Russian nationality, language, and culture was invented. 1

In Mavrodin’s opinion, Eastern Slavonians in the 9th-13th centuries comprised a single ethnic group, the “ancient Russian nationality” being ancestors to the Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians — new peoples appearing as the result of disintegration of this “ancient Russian people” in the 14th-15th centuries. Only after the Tartar-Mongolian invasion and further political separaration of certain parts of Kyiv Rus, the common “Russian” people gave rise to the separate nationalities — Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Great Russian in approximately the 14th century. 2 This theory is described most precisely in the academic “Essays on the history of the USSR” published in early 1950s. “Separate Slavonic tribes formed the ancient Russian nationality: from it further grew the Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, having a common historical and linguistic background (ancient Russian nationality). The Russian people played the leading role in this process.” 3 It is not clear however why the Russians had to play the leading role in the formation of the “ancient Russian nationality” to then quit it. Or were the ancestors of the Lemky women from the Presov vicinity the same as those of the Ryazan women, or the ancestors of a Carpathian hutsul the same as those of a Mezen peasant? Historical facts contradict Mavrodin’s concept. “Apart from mere assertions, Mavrodin did not give any proof in support of his theory.” 4

Scientific facts demonstrate “deep historical identity of the Ukrainian people, uniqueness of its cultural and ethnic development, which did not merge with the Russian ethnic history either in the second half of the 1st millennium or in terms of Slavonic genetic in the first half of the 2nd millennium. All this substantial-ly undermines the “ancient Russian nationality” theory, which remains without its genetic sources in the Slavonic history of the I millennium AD, proves the rude political biased interpretation of the Eatern Slavonic history of the 6th-13th centuries as the Russian one, “русская”. 5 The reasons for disintegration of the

“ancient Russian nationality” as the result of the Tartar assault do not sound convincing. “The result of disintegration of Kyiv Rus itself, which was finally determined after the Tartar-Mongolian invasion and led to formation of the Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian peoples, indicates that the ethnic processes in the environment of separate cultural and language groups, even in the period of 1 Dashkevych Ya. Ukrainska istorychna tradytsiia: natsiia i derzhava // Ukrainskyi chas.- 1997.-

№ 1.- Ch. 7.

2 Pankratova A. Nasushchnyie voprosy sovietskoi istorichieskoi nauki // Kommunist.- 1953.-

№ 6.- S. 63.

3 Ochierki istori SSSR / Pod ried. akad. B. D. Griekova.- M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1953.- S. 252.

4 Chubatyi M. Kniazha Rus-Ukraina ta vynyknennia trokh skhidnoslovianskykh natsii // ZNTSh.-

1964.- S. 127.

5 Badzo Yu. Znyshchennia i rusyfikatsiia ukrainskoi istorychnoi nauky v sovietskii Ukraini: Vidkrytyi lyst do rosiiskykh ta ukrainskykh istorykiv // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1981.- № 1-4.-

S. 93.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

existence of one common country, were stronger and more stable than the general political and economic processes. Eastern Slavonians, spread throughout vast territories and separated with natural barriers (impassable woods and marshes, as well as lack of land routes) never felt as a single ethnic and language unity and never defended it.” 1

The theoretic conference on the “ancient Russian nationality” was held in Moscow in 1951. Leading specialists in Kyiv Rus history V.Zimin, V.Pashu-to, B.Rybakov, A.Sidorov etc. who spoke at that conference, rejected the term

“ancient Russian nationality”. A participant of the discussion O.Sanzhayev expressed their common opinion: “In Kyiv Rus, there existed three separate Eastern Slavonic unities, which in further centuries gave rise to the three brother Slavonic nationalities: Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. If in Kyiv Rus the tribal differences and dialects had been fully eliminated, then no Mongolian invasion or feudal disunity would have led to alienation of three though close but still separate peoples from one common ancient Russian nationality.” 2

Existence of an Eastern Slavonic people as a “common ancestor” would have meant that such a “people” would have been genetically fully included into all Eastern Slavonic ethnic groups. However even the orthodox Russian scientists admit that not all Eastern Slavonic tribes are the physical ancestor of each of the three peoples, but only its separate parts. Therefore each of the three present-day peoples has its own separate ancestor tribal groups, which became its physical basis.

Present-day historians say that the “statement on the single ancient Russian nationality in early Middle Ages gives rise to a series of objections… They note the difficulties for development of integration processes throughout such a large and comparatively low populated territory as the Eastern European Plain, the existence of visible differences in the material culture of the population of various districts, the fact that the language differences between separate groups of Eastern Slavonians might have been much deeper than assumed before. Among other proofs, it is also important to consider that in pre-Mongolian chronicles, the term “Rus” denoted the territory of the middle Dnieper and was opposed to other Eastern Slavonic territories.” 3 The participants of the Moscow discussion of 1951 proved that there could not be a common ancient Russian ethnic group, if the territory of Kyiv Rus reached the Black Sea in the south, Vistula River in the west, the Baltic tribes in the north, and Klyazma River in the east. Apart from that, Kyiv Rus included a great number of non-slavonic tribes. “The statement 1 Baran V. D. Davni sloviany.- K.: Alternatyvy, 1998.- S. 163.

2 Voprosy istorii.- 1951.- № 5.- S. 138.

3 Floria B. O. O niekotorykh osobiennostiakh razvitiia etnichieskoho samosoznaniia vostochnykh slavian v epokhu sriednieviekovia - ranniego novogo vriemieni // Rossiia - Ukraina: istoriia vzaimootnoshenii.- M.: Shkola “Yazyki russkoi kultury”, 1997.- S. 10.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

about the Kyiv Rus culture being equally the product of all Eastern Slavonic tribes from Tmutarakan in the south to the White Sea in the north, from the Carpathians in the west to Upper Volga in the east sounds queer and unconvincing. This means that the Kyiv metropoly did not play a bigger role in creation of the canonic examples of Kyiv architecture (Desyatynna Church, St. Sophia Cathedral), chronicles (“The Tale of Bygone Years”), literature (“Instruction”

by Vladimir Monomakh, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” etc.) of the 12th century than the Slavonic colonists appearing at that time in deep woods of the north Eastern Europe. It is an even more evident absurdity if one considers the undeniable fact that the majority of the mentioned masterpieces was created directly in Kyiv or in other cities of Southern Rus. Apart from that, the canonic samples of Kyiv Rus literature refer to the famous historical and cultural leaders as well as ordinary residents of Southern Rus.” 1

The period of disintegration is the weakest proof of the “ancient Russian ethnic group”. This disintegration must have occurred only within the 14th-15th centuries, while there is no confirmation of that. It is absolutely unclear “why only three peoples were formed, but not as many as the number of princedoms existing at that time.” 2

Mavrodin’s treacherous historical myth was approved by Stalin and Secretary for Ideology Suslov, while at that time it meant the term “ancient Russian nationality” became a political dogma. In 1954 the “Points on 300 years of reunion of Ukraine with Russia (1654-1954)” approved by the ideological department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were published. This was the Communist party canonic version of the history of Ukraine. These Points say that Ukrainians and Russians are brother and single-blood peoples descending from the common root — the “ancient Russian nationality”, which created their common cradle — Kyiv Rus — in the 9th century. According to the “Points”, all the three Eastern Slavonic peoples had equal rights for the Kyiv Rus legacy. However in practice such rules were ignored in Russian publications. At courses on literature history, Kyiv Rus literature of the 9th-13th centuries was straightly united with Muscovian literature of the 14th-17th centuries. The same referred to the history of art, law, language etc. The

“Points” had nothing in common with the Marxist view on class struggle as the drive of history. “It was a sort of a summary of Ukrainian history, written from absolutely teleological viewpoint: to prove that the Ukrainian history prior to 1654 was sort of preparation for “reunion with Russia”, and further constituted a transition from “friendship of great Slavonic people” to the “indissoluble friendship of the peoples of the USSR” headed by the Russian “elder brother”.

1 Zalizniak L. Davnoruska narodnist: imperskyi mif chy istorychna realnist // Pamiat stolit.- 1996.-

№ 2.- S. 13.

2 Braichevskyi M. Yu. Pokhodzhennia Rusi.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1968.- S. 190.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

The “Points” became obligatory for all Soviet Marxists, however only in Ukraine they were viewed as a directive not disputable till the smallest details, which was even more important that sayings by Marx and Lenin.” 1 These “Points” were widely, insistently, and continuously spread via mass media, school, scientific, popular, and fiction literature for transforming into an inalienable element of the historical consciousness. Not a single text in Ukrainian or Belarusian, about Kyiv Rus, could appear without reference to Mavrodin’s ancient Russian nationality preached in the “Points”. “The concept of ancient Russian nationality being the far ancestor of the single Soviet people, imposed administratively, supported the illusion of a harmonious unity of the Russian state, concealing its imperial essence. In this case, Moscow’s expansion onto the Ukrainian land looked “decent-ly” as the reunion of the “single Russian people”. 2 Historian M.Ryabchuk made a valid point, “Russian colonizers interpret the Ukrainian people as the “by-product of historical development”, a sort of “historical misunderstanding”, a result of “external intrigue” (Polish-German-Austrian-Hungarian-Jewish), while Russians, if not the only ones, but still are at least the main heir to Kyiv Rus, the

“great people” (“God bearer” in tsarist times), “bulwark of the world revolution movement” in the Soviet times, i.e. the people with a special historical mission — to unite around it all Slavonians (Slavophilism), Europeans and Asians (“Eurasianism”), and the whole world (Bolsheviks’ “world revolution”).” 3

Though the ancient Russian nationality was proclaimed to be the common ethnic ancestor of the three Slavonic peoples, “in reality it is qualified as only the Russian ethnos — “Russians”, “Russian people” etc. The “common root” (“ancient Russian nationality”) in practice appears to be not our common root, and the “common ancestor” — absolutely not common but only that of the Russian people.” 4

In early 1970s, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine Malanchuk forbid to use the term “Kyiv Rus”. Instead, the term “Ancient Russian State” was introduced into the school history course in Ukraine. The new term was forced onto Ukrainian schoolchildren and students, for their historical consciousness not to have even a reminiscence to the existence of some separate country of Kyiv Rus and its people. This way, 1 Isaievych Ya. Problema pokhodzhennia ukrainskoho narodu: istoriohrafichnyi i politychnyi aspekt // Ukraina: Kulturna spadshchyna, natsionalna svidomist, derzhavnist.- 1995.- Vyp. 2.-

S. 6.

2 Zalizniak L. Davnoruska narodnist: imperskyi mif chy istorychna realnist // Pamiat stolit.- 1996.-

№ 2.- S. 3.

3 Riabchuk M. Vid Malorosii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia.- K.: Krytyka, 2000.- S. 200.

4 Badzo Yu. Znyshchennia i rusyfikatsiia ukrainskoi istorychnoi nauky v sovietskii Ukraini: Vidkrytyi lyst do rosiiskykh ta ukrainskykh istorykiv // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1981.- № 1-4.-

S. 87.

VI. “OLD RUSSIAN NATIONALITY”

from high courtier monarchists Karamzin and Pogodin to the high communist Malanchuk, the ideology objecting to the existence of the Ukrainian people in Kyiv Rus era made its way.

Director of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR, historian M.Bromley invented one more ethnonymic term “Soviet people”, similarly to the “Yugoslavian people” and “Czechoslovakian people”. This “people” was to be formed of various ethnic groups, with, certainly, the Russian language being common for all of them. That is, like the “ancient Russian nationality”, the “Soviet people” was to be a synonym to the Russian people. The propagandist myth about the “new ethnic unity — the Soviet people” appeared as the attempt to ideologically justify the assimilation of first of all Ukrainians and Belarusians. Generally, according to the intent of its inventors, the term “ancient Russian nationality” deprived Ukrainians and Belarusians of their past, while the term “single Soviet people”

deprived them of their future. Within the framework of this ideology, Ukrainians were taught history (Ukrainian and Russian, but to be more precise — the Russian one with carefully selected and interpreted admixtures of the Ukrainian one), clarifying their present (colonial dependence as happy “brotherhood”) and future (to be more precise — no future, disappearing or “merger” as the supreme good for the queer “half-nation”).” 1

Supported by the false scientific theory of the ancient Russian nationality as the cradle of the three Eastern Slavonic peoples, “someone in Moscow still considers Kyiv Rus to be the first Russian state, and the Ukrainian lands — the inalienable part of the single and indivisible empire.” 2 In general, certain public circles in Moscow still crave for the Soviet Empire. “That Russian longing for the great and powerful empire, the nostalgia for the lost great power, the weeping over the so-called “broken parts” (this is how the Russians name their former

“republics”) of their mythic “thousand year state” (for Muscovy can hardly be called heir to our Kyiv Rus) — unfortunately, all this takes place nowadays not just on the psychological level. One could find a humane understanding of this certain psychological “embarrassment” of Russians in this context (it is worth remembering the trauma Germans received to their consciousness after loss of their colonies following World War I and the Versailles treaty). However in this particular case, we talk of the Russian “nostalgia” over the lost empire, which finds direct reflection in the Kremlin’s political praxeology and strategic intentions.” 3 Referring to the seeming former single ancient Russian people, modern supporders of the “single and indivisible empire” are trying to preserve it, ac-1 Riabchuk M. Vid Malorosii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia.- K.: Krytyka, 2000.- S. 200.

2 Zalizniak L. Davnoruska narodnist: imperskyi mif chy istorychna realnist // Pamiat stolit.- 1996.-

№ 2.- S. 10.

3 Kis R. Final Tretoho Rymu (rosiiska ideia na zlami tysiacholit).- Lviv, 1999.- S. 479.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

cording to A.Solzhenitsyn’s recommendations, at least within its Slavonic nucleus. One cannot help remembering Lenin’s words: “Black Hundreders and their supporters call Russia a great Slavonic power maybe only because this great Slavonic power practices the greatest suppression of Slavonic peoples.” 1 As one modern Kyiv historian writes, “first of all one should pay attention to the survival of the classical imperial myth about Kyiv Rus as a sort of proto-Russia, and on the single “(ancient) Russian” people, from which the unfavourable historical circumstances broke off the Ukrainian and Belarusian branches — which, however, have always longed to and are now longing to unite with the “general Russian” tree, contrary to the wishes of their nationalistic elites. In independent Ukraine, this myth lost its official status and became considerably less influential, though has not disappeared completely. It is still used among a part of Ukrainian elites, in a simplified, pragmatic and propagandist form — in diverse quasi-political concepts like “Orthodox Slavonic community”, “Eurasian space”,

“CIS integration etc.” 2 However, it becomes evident that after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and fall of the Communist ideology, one day it would be high time to throw this imperial myth on the fake ancient Russian nationality.

However this process would not go easily, because the present Russian historiography has got a distinct tendency to refuse the Ukrainians and Belarusians in their ethnic identity and therefore in their right for creation of independent national countries. This tendency is vividly expressed by Moscow scientists S.Sam-uylov 3 and A.Dugin. 4 However, Ukrainian scientists are not leaving the favour unanswered, which is demonstrated by a thorough monograph by Vasyl Kremin and Vasyl Tkachenko “Ukraine — the way to oneself”, 5 which proves and give a convincing dispel of the Ukrainophobic insinuations and twists of facts.

1 Lenyn V. Y. Sochynenyia.- M.: Partyzdat, 1937.- T. XVI.- S. 686.

2 Riabchuk M. Vid Malorosii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia.- K.: Krytyka, 2000.- S. 200.

3 Samuilov S. M. O nekotorykh amerykanskykh stereotypakh v otnoshenyy Ukrayny // SShA: Еkonomyka, polytyka, ydeolohyia.- 1997.- № 3.

4 Duhyn A. H. Osnovy heopolytyky. Heopolytycheskoe budushchee Rossyy. Myslyt Prostranstvom.- 3-e yzd., dop.- M.: ARKTOHEIa-tsentr, 1999.- 928 s.

5 Kremen V., Tkachenko V. Ukraina: shliakh do sebe (Problemy suspilnoi transformatsii).- K.: Vydavnychyi tsentr “DrUk”, 1999.- 447 s..

VII. THE HATEFUL ETHNONYM

It has been previously mentioned that politonym “Rus” did not require any additional clarification. Rus was the only one, and everyone knew well what meaning this name had. In the Russian chronicles it has never been mentioned about the historically incorrect term of Kyivan Rus, which is so popular now.

“The Name “Kyivan Rus” is an artificial one, invented by Russian historians as the antithesis of “Moscow Rus”.1

No less deliberately confusing is the ethnic name of the titular nation of Rus.

In accordance with the school textbooks, which are considered to be the most common way for many people to get information about the past, and in general, the nation is usually formed by its history textbooks, the titular population of the Kyivan Rus sometimes called themselves “рус” (“Rus”), and sometimes

“русси” (“Russy”).

“Руссы” (“Russy”) as a particular term is widely used by the Imperial historians since the 19th century and it is still strongly advocated in modern school textbooks, as a generally accepted ancient term since the days of the Kyiv Rus.

This is, for example, how it can be done, “The first historical data about Rus and about the people who called themselves the “Rus” or the “Ros” goes back to the 11th century AD - in the Middle Dnieper Ukraine, where the river Ros flows into the Dnieper, the Slavic tribe Rus was settled.

Let us not be embarrassed by the fact that in the name of these people the interchange of letters “o” and “u” can be observed (“Ros”, the river Ros’

and “Rus”, Rus) — these letters were changed in the middle ages in the same way (“the Russian land”, “the Ros’ka Pravda”), and still nowadays we also say it in two ways: “русский язык” (“Russian language”) and “Российская

республика” (“Russian Republic”). As for the Rus in the 6th century AD, it was mentioned that they are “men of tremendous height”. Later in the 9th-10th centuries they were described as follows: “The Rus are courageous and brave... the Rus Tribe was the leader of the Union of Slavic tribes of the Dnieper. Until the 9th century a great number of Slavic tribal unions was under the rule of Rus”. 2

The authors of the textbook claim that “one should not worry about the changing letters in the names of these people”, because there is almost no difference. Actually the difference is fundamental. The origin of the terms the “Russy”

1 Vysotskyi S. O. Kyivska pysemna shkola X-XII st. (Do istorii ukrainskoi pysemnosti).- Lviv; Kyiv; Niu-York, 1998.- S. 52.

2 Istoriia SRSR: Pidruchnyk dlia 8 kl. sered. shkil / Za red. B. O. Rybakova.- 3-tie vyd., doopr.- K.: Rad. shk., 1990.- S. 39-40.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

or the “Rus” is Oriental (Arab, Persian). In the phonetics of Oriental languages the name of the main residents of Rus sounds distorted. The Byzantine origin of the name: “Rossy” is also inaccurate. 1

“The Byzantine Greeks replaced the sounds “o” and “u” in the name of Rus and called the Rus people Ross or Rosses and their country — Russia (lit.: Rossiya)”.

This case has two explanations: either the Greeks, because of the scientific conjecture identified Rus by the mention of the prophet Ezekiel about the people of Rosh, or they adopted a pronunciation from a Turko-Tatar tribe, for example, from the Khazars, because the Turko-Tatars sometimes pronounce “u” like “o”. 2

In the Rus such names were not used neither in the Princely era nor later. “Sometimes we can see in the literature that the term “Russy” which has been founded by the academic historiographers has the unknown sources”. 3 So, the etonic information in the Russian school textbook is false. And the whole generations of schoolchildren are brought up with such a mess. Juggling all these names is made to not give a true name of the ethnonym of the titular nation of Rus. This ethnonym, which the textbook doesn't even mention, was the word “русин” (“Rusyn”).

The multi-tribal population of the Rus, the largest state of its kind in the ancient Europe, is ethnically divided into two parts: “Rusyns” and all other nationalities. It is believed that the name (ethnonym) “русин” (“Rusyn”) is derived from the name of the country “Русь” (“Rus”), although the reverse sequence is possible. When all the territory that was under the Princely rule with its main center in Kyiv was under the concept of “Rus”, then in the ethnic notion of “Rusyn” was only the population of the Dnieper region (the land of Polans), thus subsequently it has been spread to the population of the surrounding lands. This term has never been extended to the population of Zalissia. That’s why the ethnonym “Rusyn” is hateful for the Russian historiography. “While translating into Russian language the ancient Kyiv’s chronicles, existing in the original text ethnonym “русин” (“Rusyn”) was translated as “русский” (“Russian”)! At the same time, consumption of the concepts of

“Ukrainians”, “Ukrainian” in relation to the age of Kyivan Rus was considered as a manifestation of “bourgeois nationalism” and was severely persecuted”. 4 In the Medieval times, the ethnic groups of course, routinely called themselves quite differently: “people”, “locals”, “men”, and as a shorthand name - “citizens” or “subjects” — in a relation to the specific connection with the state. The international agreements required other — the accurate ethnic 1 Mavrodyn V. Proyskhozhdenye nazvanyi “Rus”, “russkyi”, “Rossyia”.- L., 1958.- S. 23.

2 Storozhenko A. V. Malaia Rossyia yly Ukrayna? - K., 1918.- Vyp. 1.- S. 9.

3 Nazarenko A. V. Ob ymeny “Rus” v nemetskykh ystochnykakh IX-XI vv. // Voprosy yazykoznanyia.- 1980.- № 5.- S. 54.

4 Isaievych Ya. Mykhailo Braichevskyi i yoho kontseptsiia istorii Ukrainy // Ukrainskyi istoryk.-

1994.- № 1/4.- S. 195.

VII. THE HATEFUL ETHNONYM

names. So for the first time, and there is no coincidence that the ethnonym

“роусинъ” (“Rusyny”) in the chronicles can be found in the clauses of the international contracts between Rus and Byzantium in 911-945. For exaple:

“аще кто оубисть кртыя на русинь” (here “Rusyn” is representative of Rus, not a Christian; a Christian is a Greek), “или християнин русина” (the 4th clause of the agreement dated 912 according to the Ipatiev chronicle list). Or:

“аще ли ключится оукрасти русину от грек что, или гречину от русина”

(from the agreement dated 945). 1 “И еще оубьєть крестянин русина или

русин крестыяна” (the 13th clause of the agreement dated 945 according to the Ipatiev chronicle list). Or according to the Laurentian chronicle list: “аще

оударить мечем или копьем или кацем любо оружьем русин гречина или

грьчинь русина”. 2

So, in the international Treaty of Oleg with the Greeks in the 911 the term

“Rusyn” is mentioned seven times, and in the international Treaty of Ihor in 944 - six times.

Christianity came to Rus from Byzantium, and during the long period of time the highest Church hierarchy of Rus consisted of sent Greeks. When finally the first native Metropolitan of Kyiv appeared, the chronicler proudly said:

“Митрополитъ Иларионъ Русинъ” (“The Metropolitan Hilarion Rusyn”).

From the main spiritual centre of Russia - Kyiv-Pechersk monastery came the first figures of a native episcopate. Thanks to the provided activities of the Ky-ivo-Pechersk monastery in the Rus Church “until the middle of XI century the majority of bishops were “Rusyns”. 3 In the Hustyn Chronicle in the 1225 was written: “Kyryll Rusyn, a well-educated and pious man, was oriented as a Metropolitan of Kyiv that summer”. In the 1355: “Alexy Rusyn was oriented to the Kyiv Metropolitan’s priesthood by Philotheos the Patriarch”.

As the origin of regional toponym “Rus” and so the origin of the ethnonym

“Rusyn” has a twofold interpretation: there is a Norman theory and various versions that deny this Norman theory. As to practice of the usage of the ethnonym

“Rusyn” in the Kyivan state era, there are no differences among the researchers.

All of them agree that Rusyn is a southerner (southern) from the Polans. 4 “Rus is the land of Polans, and Rusyns are Polans”. 5 Or that Rusyn is actually a native citizen of the Southern part of Kyivan Rus. 6 “Rusyn” is a Kyiv’s citizen, for example, Metropolitan Hilarion, “not in the definition of Varyag Rus, of course, 1 Pravda Russkaia / Pod red. B. D. Hrekova.- M.; L.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1940.- T. I.- S. 38.

2 Obnorskyi S. P., Barkhudarov S. H. Khrestomatyia po ystoryy russkoho yazyka.- M.: Uchpedhyz, 1952.- S. 109.

3 Tsypyn V. Ot kreshchenyia Rusy do nashestvyia Batyia // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1991.- № 4/5.- S. 40.

4 Romanov B. A. Liudy y nravy Drevnei Rusy.- L.: Yzd-vo LHU, 1947.- S. 145.

5 Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy: U 11 t.- Lviv, 1904.- T. I.- S. 168.

6 Kyevskaia Rus: Sb. / Pod red. V. N Storozheva.- M., 1910.- S. 547.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

but as a local native of Kyiv and the Dnieper Ukraine”. 1 Rusyn is a citizen of Kyiv’s region, “the mention of Rusyn in “The Novgorod Pravda” (transl. “The Novgorod Truth”) is natural in accordance with the communication that existed between Novgorod and Kyiv in the X-XII centuries”. 2 The Dictionary of the old Ukrainian language, within giving examples, states: “Rusyn — is the name of Ukrainian of the feudal era”. 3

Our nearest historical neighbours — the Poles — also don’t have the certainty in the usage of the ethnonym “Rusyn”. Buth in the Polish scientific literature and in everyday speech, the ethnonym “Rusyn” was used in the modern meaning of the Ukrainian for centuries, and as has been noted by the Polish researcher,

“it is one of those exceptional ethnic names that contain nothing mocking or offensive”. 4 For Ukrainians, the Pole was “Pole”, sometimes “liashko” (translit.), and sometimes “liashara” (translit., offensive). For the Poles the Ukrainians have always been only the “Rusyns”. 5 The first Polish chroniclers, Martin Gallus, and later, Kadlubek called the country, which was situated to the East from the borders of Poland, Ruthenorum regnum (the Kingdom of Rusyns). Maciej (Mat-thew) the canon of Cracow wrote to the Bernard of Clairvaux in 1150, “Gens ruthena multitudine innumerabili ceu sideribus adequata” (Latin the tribe of the Rusyns is as numerous as stars in the sky). So, in the Rus period, the ethnonym

“Rusyn” was used both by inhabitants of today’s Ukraine and by the neighbouring nations.

In West Europe in the second half of 11th century in the Latin sources the new translation of “Rusyn” appeared in the form of Rutheni. From the Latin, Ruthenia was taken as the name of Rusyns by the Germans, the French and the English — Ruthenen, Ruthenes, Ruthenians. The Ruthenus is Latin for the Greek

“Routhenos” that conveys the word “Rusyn”. In the modern Greek th (theta) is procounced as the sound [s] , аnd e (eta) as [e]. Rusyn is Greek Routhenos. In the Latin transcription th (theta) was transmitted as th , and e (eta) as e , that is where the name Ruthenus came from.

The process of forming the term “Rusyn”, filling it with the ethnic, religious, political and cultural content was constantly stimulated by our Western neighbours, which had some practical reasons, i.e. it was necessary to distinguish the foreign people. “This sense of community manifested itself very soon in a general common name of “Rusyn”. This name was used by all our ethnic people in 1 Pravda Russkaia / Pod red. B. D. Hrekova.- M.; L.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1940.- T. II: Kommentaryy.-

S. 37.

2 Pravda Russkaia / Pod red. B. D. Hrekova.- M.; L.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1940.- T. II: Kommentaryy.-

S. 39.

3 Slovnyk staroukrainskoi movy XIV-XV st.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1978.- T. 2.- S. 308.

4 Ficher A. Rusini.- Lwуw; Warszawa; Krakуw, 1928.- S. 1.

5 Matsyevych L. Poliaky y rusyny // Kyevskaia staryna.- 1882.- T. 1.- S. 301.

VII. THE HATEFUL ETHNONYM

the international relations, however inside the country local or tribal names were still used for a long time after that. The name “Rusyn” was firmly set among our ethnical tribes and regions, and especially strongly among those that were close to the borders to define and emphasize the opposition to the state, identify culturally and ethnically alien elements”. 1

The Russian historians are unable to reject the term “Rusyn” that was formed quite naturally by the rules of the Slavic word formation: rus + yn (lytvyn, mor-dvyn, etc.; trans.: Lithuanian, Mordovian) and which preserves the stressed in Western dialects initial syllable of the word Rusyn (one of the two ancient stresses), denies its plural form “Rusyns”. At the beginning the plural form of the word “Rusyn” was “Rus”. “The collective name of the nation is Rus, Chud, Serb, and singlular is Rusyn, Chudyn, Bolharyn, Serbyn, or Serblianyn”. 2 But later from the singular form of the word “Rusyn” the plural “Rusyny” was formed according to the rules of the Ukrainian language. Many other words can be formed in the same way, such as: syn — syny, sestra — sestry, vin — vony, pan — pany, mlyn — mlyny, etc. (transl.: son — sons, sister — sisters, he — they, lord —

lords, mill — mills).

“It is undisputed that Suzdal and Novgorod were definitely not associated with the name Rus in the 12th-13th centuries and later, and it is also undisputed that the Russians would never arrogate the ethnonym “Rusyn” to themselves, which existed continuously on the Ukrainian territories from 9th to 20th century”.

3 To neutralize the hateful ethnonym in the ancient texts, Russian researchers falsified, forming the term “Rusyn” into the adjective form of the Russian language as “Russkiy” (transl. “Russian”). The example of this can be as follows,

“the translation of “Ларионъ русинъ” (“Hilarion Rusyn”) from the chronicle of 1051 as “Иларионъ русский родом” (“Hilarion the Russian”) (“The Primary Chronicle” under the edition of V. Andriyanova-Peretz , M.-L., 1950). Here we can see that the particular concept was replaced by a vague one, because the

“Rusyn” defines a member of the complex, which consists of the family, plus territory, plus a conscious connection with it. Meanwhile, “The Russian” could be born even in China”. 4

The Academy Fellow Y. Isayevych wrote how ancient historical texts are published, or to be more precise, were published in the Soviet Union, “In Ukraine it was considered “nationalistic”, and thus the greatest crime was to use the words “Ukrainian” and “Ukrainians” for the Kyiv Rus period, but Russian historians used “Russian” as a synonym of the term “of ancient Rus”, and iden-1 Stakhiv M. Vplyv Khmelnychchyny na formatsiiu ukrainskoi natsii // ZNTSh.- 1948.- T. 156.- S. 75.

2 Maksymovych M. Sobranye sochynenyi.- K.: Typ. Frytsa, 1876.- T. 1.- S. 48.

3 Knysh Yu. Milleniium khrystyianizatsii Ukrainy i problemy istorychnoi terminolohii //

Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1988.- № 1/4.- S. 228.

4 Hordynskyi S. Nazvy “Rusychi” y “Rusovychi”.- Vinnipeh, 1963.- S. 8..

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

tified the ancient Rusyns with the Russians absolutely freely. For instance, in the most famous translation of the “Primary Chronicle” ( The Tale of Bygone years) the words “положити ряд межю Русью й Грекы” (Old Church Slavonic set a border between the Rus and Greece) were translated as, “to establish the agreement between the Greeks and the Russians”. Hereinafter, the word “Rusyn” was also consistently translated as “Russian”. Such a translation was considered to be mandatory; it was strictly demanded. One day, when the referees and the editorial Board of the scientific collection, printed under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union missed the fact that the author of one of the articles used the word “Rusyn” in relation to the population of Kyiv Rus, therefore before publication of the card Errata, “printed “Rusyns”. Must-be “Russians” had been added to all the copies. There are a lot of examples in the Russian scientific publications where the concepts of “ancient Rus” and “Russia” were identified. 1

One way to obscure the fact that the ethnonym “Rusyn” existed in Kyiv Rus is by replacing it by a bookish name of “Rusych”. The pseudoethnonymical name “Rusych” had been strongly eastablished in our public historical and cultural consciousness mainly because of the school education. The term “Rusych”

is well-known from The Tale of Igor’s Campaign. 2 About this poem it would be appropriate to say that “the classic example of the absurd claim on the cultural heritage of Ukraine-Rus is the proclamation of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign the ancient work of the “ancient Russian literature”, despite the fact that the events described there occured more than five hundred kilometers to the South of the Russian ethnic lands, on the ancestral homeland of Ukrainians. Beyond any doubts, not only vocabulary, artistic images, literary forms of the work, but also historical realities are Ukrainian. The absurdity of the allegations is even clearer if we mention that it was Vladimir-Suzdal Land that during the march of Southern Rusychy led by the Prince Igor against the Cumans, was Cuman’s closest ally against Kyiv. Consequently, Suzdaletsy were able to carry out a military campaign against the Cumans nor chant it, therefore there is no point for proclaiming The Tale the Russians’ work of art”. 3

The term “Rusych” invented in The Tale of Igor’s Campaign can be found only there. Some researchers explain, “it was the author's word, a kind of formula of a high style of the ancient Russian poet”. 4 If we do not take into consideration 1 Isaievych Ya. Problema pokhodzhennia ukrainskoho narodu: istoriohrafichnyi i politychnyi aspekt // Ukraina: Kulturna spadshchyna, natsionalna svidomist, derzhavnist.- Lviv, 1995.-

Vyp. 2.- S. 7.

2 Slovo o polku Yhoreve // Khrestomatyia po drevnei russkoi lyterature XI-XVII vekov / Sost.

N. Hudzyi.- M.: Uchpedhyz, 1947.- S. 110.

3 Zalizniak L. Davnoruska narodnist: imperskyi mif chy istorychna realnist // Pamiat stolit.- 1996.-

№ 2.- S. 13.

4 Kovalev H. F. Еtnonymyia slavianskykh yazykov. Nomynatsyia y slovoobrazovanye.- Voronezh, 1991.- S. 46.

VII. THE HATEFUL ETHNONYM

poetic and publicistic works, the term has hardly ever been as the ethnonym.

The point of interest is that the word “Rusych” has no feminine gender, unlike the ethnonym “Rusyn” -“Rusynka”. The famous French researcher Henri Mazón and a Russian scholar Zimin are against the ancient Rus origin of “The Tale”, considering it as a pastiche, written in the 18th century by the pupil of the Kyiv theological Academy Ivan Bykovskiy, refer to the term “Rusych” as to the argument for non-originality of the work. They cite the fact that the term “Rusych”

is not attested in any other ancient texts. 1 “The odd name “Rusychi” from The Tale of Igor’s Campaign in our opinion, comes not from Rus, but from the legendary Prince of the Rus, who had been made up by the Polish chroniclers. These

“Rusychi” is one of the proofs of non-authenticity of The Tale, because the legend of Prince Ruse appeared only in the 15th-16th centuries”. 2

A closer look at the term “Rusych” gave the researchers an idea of a possible mistake in writing. It is well known that in The Tale there are many undiscovered moments. There is an assumption that “in The Tale of Igor’s Campaign instead of the mythical “Rusychi” it would be more correctly is to read «русьци» (“Ruszi)”. 3

Therefore, so favorite among the poets and publicists term “Rusich” is losing its uncertain role of substitute for the ethnonym “Rusyn”. The term “Rusyn”, as we will see, has been used for centuries on Ukrainian ethnic territory.

1 Slovar-spravochnyk “Slovo o polku Yhoreve”.- L.: Nauka, 1978.- Vyp. 5.- S. 62.

2 Borshchak I. Retsenziia // Ukraina. Ukrainoznavstvo i frantsuzke kulturne zhyttia.- Paryzh, 1950.- Zb. 4.- S. 300.

3 Mylov L. V. Ruzzi “Bavarskoho heohrafa” y tak nazyvaemye “rusychy” // Otechestvennaia ystoryia.- 2000.- № 1.- S. 96..

VIII. “KRESTIANIN”

The Grand Prince of Kyiv Yaroslav the Wise before his death divided Rus into six parts: between his five sons and a grandson, the way private property is usually divided. Since that time the Kyiv Rus fragmentation process accelerated and soon it divided into 15 regions. Another medieval empire in Europe, the kingdom of Charles the Great, was divided into parts between three grandsons in a similar way.

The decline of Kyiv Rus was obviously caused by a number of different reasons, but especially by the collapse of the ethnic system, which led to the long union between the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal and Cumans against Kyiv. The new ethnos with its own political and social order and ambitions for separation from Kyiv was formed in Zalissia. Andrei Bogolyubsky (last name after Bogolyubovo location), the son of Cuman princess was a brilliant representative of the new ethnos, “the real northern prince, Suzdalets-Zalishanin (the man of Suzdal also known as Zalissia) with his own habits and notions, with his political education”. 1

In 1169 Andrei Bogolyubsky gathered a huge army and went for a campaign against Kyiv. — The chronicler wrote, “Kyiv was taken on the12th of March, in the middle of the second week of Lent. Ant they plundered the whole city for two days, Podil, and Hora (Castle Hill), and monasteries, and Sophia, and the Church of the Tithes. And there was mercy for no one and from nowhere: churches were burning, Christians were murdered and others were taken, women captured and forced to separate from their husbands, children cried looking at their mothers.

And they took a lot, and stole from churches taking away icons, books and vest-ments, and took off bells… And all the sacred things were taken away. Even the monastery of the Pechersk Virgin (the Dormition Cathedral of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra) was set on fire by evils, but God saved it from that disaster with the prayers of the Virgin. And there was a moan among all people, and anguish, and inconsolable sorrow, and incessant tears. All of these happened for our sins”. 2

No one had ever destroyed the capital of Rus so severely. Kyiv massacre testified that population of Zalissia lost its sense of ethnic and national unity with Rus. “In 1169 after capturing Kyiv Andrei let the city be plundered by his warriors. They had done so only to foreign cities until that moment. Nothing like that had been done to the cities of Rus at any infighting. The order of Andrei Bogolyubsky shows that for him and his army Kyiv of 1169 was just as alien as any German or Polish castle”. 3 Recently, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed Andrei Bogolyubsky Saint.

1 Kliuchevskii V. О. Sochinieniia: V 8 t.- М.: Gospolitizdat, 1956.- Т. 1.- S. 317.

2 Litopys ruskyi / Per. z davnorus. L. Ye. Makhnovtsia.- K.: Dnipro, 1989.- S. 295.

3 Humylev L. N. Ot Rusy k Rossyy: ocherky еtnycheskoi ystoryy.- M.: Еkopros, 1992.- S. 87.

VIII. “KRESTIANIN”

The chronicler’s above-mentioned phrase, about robbers from Suzadal, “and they took a lot, and stole from churches by taking icons, books”, was interpreted as follows: they took the Prince chronicles from Kyiv to Zalissia then. Or it is often claimed that the chronicles appeared in Zalissia after the Tatar invasion.

There is a common concept, both in science and in popular literature, both abroad and in our country, that Tatar invasion caused culturally active people move from Ukraine to the north, to Suzdal-Moscow Lands. In doing so they usually took cultural values along with them. In this way it came to the fact that Moscow took over cultural heritage of Kyiv; the proofs can be found in the manuscript chronicles in Moscow land and other cultural values that were not preserved in Ukraine. Now we can prove that this argument has no justification by considering the most important manuscripts of the Princely period, the “Hypatian Codex (Chronicle)” as an example. 1

In fact, according to O. Pritsak, the Hypatian Codex was brought to Moscow land no earlier than in the 17th century, while other compendiums of the

“Rus Chronicles” were brought from Ukraine to Moscow and St. Petersburg at the beginning of the 19th century.

Weakened by infightings with Zalissia, Kyiv Rus became vulnerable to external aggression. In the first half of the 13th century it suffered from the cat-astrophic Mongol invasion. In 1235 Kurultai (the congress of Mongolian officers-noyons) decided to undertake an aggressive campaign to the west. Land

"the farthest to the west from Mongolia" was for Jochi, Genghis Khan's eldest son, as an ulus (property). 2 The Mongols (they were called Tatars here) came to Rus in 1223 and defeated the Rus-Cuman army over the Kalka River, and then they returned to the far Mongolian steppes. For the second time Mongols came in 1237 under the leadership of Batu Khan and conquered Zalissia. Two years later in 1240 “hordes of Batu Khan went to Rus, destroyed Kyiv and went further to the west. United, well-organized and large Tatar army inflicted fatal strikes to the scattered Rus armies”. 3 Kyiv Rus with its capital in Kyiv was a heart of historical development of Eastern Europe for four centuries (since the middle 9th to 12th centuries) when it came to decline. After ravaging Poland, Hungary and the Northern Balkans Tatars came back to the lower Volga, where the Golden Horde (Ulus Jochi) was created. The Rus lands conquered by Tatars were not included directly to the Ulus Jochi — Tatar khans considered these lands to be vassal-dependent. Khans began to give Rus princes “yarlyk”, i.e. charters for ruling. They called princes to Sarai to their headquarters to do this and, Khans gave the “yarlyk”, depending on the degree of trust of Khan to the prince, the value of 1 Humylev L. N. Ot Rusy k Rossyy: ocherky еtnycheskoi ystoryy.- M.: Еkopros, 1992.- S. 87.

2 Hrekov B. D., Yakubovskyi A. Yu. Zolotaia Orda y ee padenye.- M.; L.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1950.- S. 215.

3 Pokrovskyi M. N. Russkaia ystoryia s drevneishykh vremen.- M.: Yzdanye T-va “Myr”.- T. I.- S.

220-221.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

gifts and bribes, regardless of prince’s traditional rights to the throne or the will of local citizens. All nations conquered by Tatars were obliged to pay them tribute. According to the laws of Genghis Khan's (Yassa) only the priesthood having a right of immunity were freed from paying tribute. Mongol Khans appreciated the Orthodox Church as a significant political force, using its influence to their advantage. The prayers for Khan’s prosperity were served in churches and this had to facilitate reconsolidation of local citizens and Tatar authorities. 1 In 1261

the Special Episcopate of Rus was organized in Sarai to reliably control the Byzantine-Rus Church. Bishops of Rus had to get “yarlyk” from Khan for the right to perform their functions.

Tatar oppression (or “yoke” as it was called in Rus) led to complete alienation of Zalissia from ethnic Rus. The political history of these two territories started developing into two different ways and ethnic history, as we have seen, from the very beginning was totally different.

After separation of Zalissia from Rus, at a time when it became the Western Ulus of Jochi, the name “Rus” for the territory was only half-forgotten sign to previous life, used mostly by the scribes of the Church, for whom the name “the Russian Church” served as a synonym to the Orthodox Church. This response was a kind of was feeding the arrogance of the dominant elite, which at the beginning consisted mostly of Slavic colonists. With the help of Tatar assistance Zalissia continued political fragmentation of the territory into small principalities, which were constantly in a state of enmity between each other. The most famous principalities of Zalissia were those of Rostov, Tver, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, Bilozersk, Mozhaisk, Dmitrovsk, Kolomensk. The Moscow Principality belonged to the little ones, and the khans liked it. The Mongols adhered to the principle of “divide and rule”, and therefore supported the weakest Principality.

This is the reason for the success of Ivan Kalyta. It was allowed to call yourself

“the Great” only if the Tatars would give you such a right.

The colonists of Zalissia were trying to be at least somehow involved in further fate of a wonderful heritage of Kyiv culture. This was facilitated by the policy of Mongol-Tatar invaders. Cruel and treacherous, Ivan Kalyta, Prince of a small Principality of Moscow at Zalissia was a loyal vassal and a faithful servant of Mongols; for his exceptional merits he received the title of Grand Prince “Of All Rus”from Khan Uzbek in 1328. A respectful Russian publication characterized Ivan Kalyta in the following way, “Ivan Kalyta was a fawning servant of the Horde Khans. He was fighting at their behest against Tver, Pskov, and Smolensk”. Describing Ivan Kalyta, who pursued a policy of inclusion of his country into the system of the Tatar state, Karl Marx wrote, “When Tver was trying to show even the slightest claim of national independence, he hurried to the Horde 1 Еntsyklopedycheskyi slovar Brokhauza y Efrona.- T. 20.- S. 8.

VIII. “KRESTIANIN”

with the denunciation”. 1 In the opinion of the famous English historian, the princes of Moscow, “while enjoying the caress of the Khan of the Golden Horde, got the yarlyk, which was giving them the right to be chief collector of tribute for the Mongols. They were also responsible either for all the payments or for the debts of princes. Ivan I (1325-1340 rules), known as Kalyta, spent more time of his reign not in Moscow, but oh his way to Sarai. Karl Marx wrote that he combined, “the features of the Tatar executioner, suck and a chief slave”. 2

With the name of Ivan Kalyta there linked the myth about so-called Monomakh's Сap. According to the work Legend about Princes of Vladimir, this hat (the substitute of the crown) was a gift from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomachus (1042-1055), symbolizing the transfer of power from the Byzantine emperors to Great Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kyiv, and his heirs.

Actually, it was given to Ivan Kalita by the Tatar Horde. It is well-known that

“Monomakh Cap was made by Central Asian artisans, and since the 14th century was kept in the Moscow Treasury”. 3

However “All Rus” for Ivan Kalyta meant the Tatar Rus. To say more precisely, it was that part of the Mongol Empire, where there was Rus (Orthodox) Church, unlike the unconquered territory of Rus-Lithuanian State, which was beyond the Mongol rule, and included modern Belarus and Ukrainian lands. Thus, by the grace of Sarai, the term “the main Tatar vassal” “of All Rus” appeared in Zalissia in the meaning of the chief tax collector. So, this term was understood in such a way by his contemporaries, and no one then gave it the importance which it acquired later. Over time, this term was forgotten and again began to be used under the rule of Ivan III. At that time the title appeared in political relations with Novgorod. 4

Following the tradition of Kings Roman and Danylo, the princes of Galicia-Volyn Principality continued to be called princes and owners of “Rus Land”

or “All Rus Land”: totis duces terrae Russiae in 1316, terrae dominus Russiae in 1320, dux et dominus Russiae in 1334; but the title of the king of Russ (Reх

Russiae) continued to be stamped on the seals in the letters of the years 1316, 1325, 1334, 1335. 5 Galician Prince Roman Mstislavovich was called by the chronicler “Autocrat of All Rus”. 6 For the fact that he gathered all the ethnic lands of the Rusyns.

1 Tsvybak M. M. Marksyzm-lenynyzm o voznyknovenyy vostochnoevropeiskykh mnohonatsyonalnykh hosudarstv // Problemy ystoryy dokapytalystycheskykh obshchestv.- 1934.- № 1.- S. 66.

2 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 406.

3 Zymyn A. A. Rossyia na rubezhe XV- XVI stoletyi (Ocherky sotsyalno-polytycheskoi ystoryy).-

M., 1982.- S. 148.

4 Kashtanov S. M. Sotsyalno-polytycheskaia ystoryia Rossyy kontsa XV - pervoi polovyny XVI st.- M.: Nauka, 1967.- S. 123.

5 Boleslav-Yurii II, kniaz vsei maloi Rusy: Sbornyk.- SPb., 1907.- S. 149, 153, 154.

6 PSRL.- Pb., 1908.- T. 2.- S. 715.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

On the request of Mongolian Khan Metropolitan of Kyiv, Maxim, Greek by his origin moved, to Zalissia, to Khan’s ulus in 1299. This Metropolitan, who was both elected and ordained in Constantinople in 1283, shortly after the arrival to Rus went to the Horde for the «yarlyk» to become the Khan. The Greek Metropolitans grounded upon “the two fundamental principles of Byzantine Christianity, those of Anti-Latin and Caesaropapism. It resulted in the psychological motivation of the transfer of Metropolitan of Kyiv under the patronage of the Khan's vassals - Vladimir-Suzdal and Moscow Princes”. 1 The Church entered into the Union with Moscow, because the friendship with Moscow meant the friendship with the Horde. 2

The Russian Orthodox Church was subject to the hierarchical authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the head of all Orthodox Christians. Since 1051

it was headed by the Metropolitan, who in accordance with Church Canon, he was ordained to this position by the Patriarch of Constantinople personally. The capital of metropolis became Kyiv “Mother of Rus cities”, and the Metropolitan had the title “of Kyiv and All Rus”. The Church itself was identified as “Russ”

because they were still Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian and other Orthodox churches.

It should be noted that until the 15th century almost all metropolitans and the majority of bishops had Greek origins. The preponderance of the Greeks in the Church of Rus irritated contemporaries, they upbraided them because Greeks often were more concerned about raising funds for the Patriarch of Constantinople than affairs of the Church of Rus. Rus patriotism of course was alien to Greek Metropolitans, and this was repeatedly demonstrated. Cut off from their native Byzantium which was considered at that time one of the most civilized countries in the world, living in a barbarian, in their view, Kyiv Rus, they became a kind of cosmopolitans, not worrying about Rus, but about the interests of the Orthodox Church. When these interests, in their opinion, were not consistent with the interests of Rus, it was just worse for Rus. “Greek Metropolitan of Kyiv believed himself to be a kind of Ambassador in Constantinople, who was primarily subject to political interests of Constantinople Emperor, and secondly to the church directives of the Patriarch, who was also fully dependent on the Emperor”. 3 These circumstances must be borne in mind to understand the history of the transfer of Metropolis and several other contemporary religious events.

According to the canon law the Metropolitan of Kyiv had to be fully subordinate to the Byzantine Patriarch. “It turns out, however, that they were like under sacred duress not to stay in Kyiv, not to stay even in Rus, but to travel through the foreign northern non-Rus lands, seek there for refuge in Pereslavl-Zalessky, Vladimir-Suzdal, Tver or, after all, in insignificant at that time Moscow. Moscow was probably 1 Paslavskyi I. Tserkva i kultura na Ukraini v seredni viky // Kyivska tserkva.- 2000.- № 1.-

S. 64.

2 Protyv antymarksystskoi kontseptsyy M. N. Pokrovskoho: Sb. statei.- M.; L.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1940.- Ch. 2.- S. 67.

3 Stakhiv M. Khrystova tserkva na Ukraini 988-1596.- Stenford, 1985.- S. 92.

VIII. “KRESTIANIN”

smaller than even destroyed Kyiv at that time. Metropolitans Kirill and Peter did so under the moral press of the Patriarch. The main reason why the Byzantine patriarchs chose to seat Kyiv metropolitans at the north, particularly in Suzdal-Moscow territory, was their belief that Byzantine Orthodoxy has the strongest support there and that the Metropolitans of Kyiv would remain loyal to Byzantium there. This Byzantium attitude was the last, fatal blow to Kyiv for his frequent opposition to Byzantium, its independent Christian identity and its Christian universum. Byzantine patriarchs wanted to destroy these signs of Rus-Ukraine and make Rus their political and religious subjects”. 1 Here's how Theodosius Greek taught our princes: “Do not join the Latin belief, do not keep their habits, run away from their sacrament and all their teachings, avoid their customs, take care of your daughters and neither let for them nor take their; don’t be friends with them, do not bow to them, do not congratulate them; do not eat with them from the same dish, neither drink nor take food from them”. 2 It meant to isolate Rus from the whole cultural world and to make it completely dependent only on Byzantium.

The Byzantium struggle against “Latins” and “Latinish” for Moscow clerics turned into the struggle not only against Catholicism, but against the whole European culture at all, which experienced a brilliant era of growth and rebirth. 3 “An active Kyivan Rus relationships with other Christian nations, besides cultural influences, had the benefit, that our nation was forced to recognize itself as part of European humanity, to keep some sense of world solidarity, though which were very weak at the beginning. For Moscow State the place of such beneficent influence was taken by hard and humiliating relationships with rapacious Mongol Horde”. 4

Even after moving to Zalissia, metropolitans of Kyiv continued to call themselves “Rusky” (as citizens of Rus). Some of them called themselves metropolitans of “All Rus”, others — of “Kyiv and All Rus”. Typical is that both the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Khan of the Golden Horde jointly participated in the creation of a separate metropolitan department in Zalissia (lands of Suzdal). “One of the clearest examples of Rus Church hierarchy used by the Horde to strengthen their power in Rus is a set of events associated with the struggle between principalities for a particular candidate for the post of “Metropolitan of All Rus” in the early 14th century, struggle, in which not only Horde’s diplomacy took the most active part, but also the Constantinople Patriarchate”. 5 Often on the recommendation of the wicked Byzantines, who fiercely hated Roman Catholicism, Tatars rejected the 1 Chubatyi M. Istoriia khrystyianstva na Rusi-Ukraini.- Rym; Niu York: Vydannia Ukr. Katol. Un-tu, 1965.- T. 1.- S. 676.

2 Velykyi A. H., ChSVV. Svitla i tini ukrainskoi istorii.- Rym, 1969.- S. 11.

3 Sakharov A. M. Tserkov y obrazovanye Russkoho tsentralyzovannoho hosudarstva // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1966.- № 1.- S. 62.

4 Solovev V. S. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb.- T. V.- S. 146.

5 Hrekov Y. B. Ocherky po ystoryy mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenyi Vostochnoi Evropy XV-XVI vv.-

M.: Mysl, 1963.- S. 34.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

proposal of military and ecclesiastical union, which was given in 1253 by Ambassador of Louis IX, monk Rubruk. On the other hand the rise of Islam spread among Tatars. At the beginning of the 14th century Mongolian Öz Beg converted to Islam.

Incidentally, the name of the famous Russian regional city of Tula was derived from Taidula, the name of the prominent Khan’s wife.

Conquered non-Muslim population required a special definition. Muslim rulers began to call them "rayat" (Christians, subjects) to mean "human flock". Since the 14th century non-Muslim population of Zalissia received from the Mongol Tatars another name, “krestiane” (“крестьяне” — Christians). 1 The origin of this word clear is "krestianyn", Christian, means a christened, baptised person. This word had had no other meaning before the Tatars came “Mahometan-Tatar considered himself a superior race compared to Christians. Christian became a symbol of belonging to the black bone. This is how this term appeared and then was fixed in the Northeast Rus”. 2 The term “krestianyn” remained in Russian to the present day and now means a farmer, peasant. Religious meaning of this word hence turned into the social. At the end of the 14th century the term “krestianyn” meant the entire Russian people opposed to the Mongol invaders. 3 “When the layer of winners was hanging over the mass of Russian Christian population along with the Tatar authorities in Rus, the majority of the Russian population was designated by the term “krestianyn” … Though the Russian people themselves firmly held on to this term, emphasizing their difference from the Tatars”. 4

From the 15th century the term “krestianyn” became commonly used on the territory of Zalissia. According to the researcher, the Russian language is perhaps the only language, “in which religious definition of “Christian” (“krestianyn”) became synonymous to a peasant, husbandman, farmer”. 5

Eventually there was an attempt to replace the term “krestianyn” with the neologism “kolkhoznyk” (collective farmer). Nowadays the more vague term

“muzhik” (man) is becoming popular in colloquial speech. However, the term

“krestianyn” in Tatar definition of a farmer, in the Russian language has stayed.

1 Laryn B. A. Paryzhskyi slovar moskovytov 1586 h.- Ryha, 1948.- S. 96.

2 Hrekov B. Opyt peryodyzatsyy ystoryy krestian v Rossyy // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1946.- № 8/9.-

S. 16.

3 Sovetskaia Ystorycheskaia Еntsyklopedyia v 17 t.- M., 1965.- T. 8.- S. 137.

4 Hrekov B. D. Krestiane na Rusy s drevneishykh vremen do XVII veka.- M.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1952.- Kn. 1.- S. 19.

5 Struve P. B. Nabliudenyia y yssledovanyia yz oblasty khoziaistvennoi zhyzny y prava Drevnei Rusy // Sbornyk Russkoho Ynstytuta v Prahe.- Praha, 1929.- T. 1.- S. 464.

IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA

The origin (etymology) of the name of “Moscow” is Finno-Ugric, rather than Slavic. 1 A linguist A. Preobrazhenskyi supposed that it was “rather Meira word, as Vladymyrska, Yaroslavska and all Moscow provinces made somewhen Meria region”. 2 There are three Cudian versions of this name interpretation.

According to one of them, the name comes from Meri moskbv avb — she-bear ( mosca — bear і ava — mother, woman). According to the other version, it is Finnish musta — black, dirty and va — water, that is “dirty water”. According to the third one it is moska — cow and va — water, that is “cow puddle”. 3

M. Fesmer insists that the last interpretation became popular thanks to the authority of V. Kliuchevskyi, who believed that it was the most reliable. 4 There are also other known etymological versions of this name. For example, the name of the river, which gave the name to Moscow, is translated from Buriat-Mongolian language as “swirling stream”.

From Finno-Ugric name of Moscow capital, which for the first time appeared as a small village only in the middle of the 12th century (1147), the whole state got its name. “As somewhen the Byzantine name transferred to Greece, Rome gave the name of the Roman Empire, thus, Moscow gave the name to the whole state, naming it Moscovia”. 5

Despite a kind of extensive comparisons, it should be noted that the author, we are quoting here, indicated the reasons of the emergence of the name of that new state in the right way. Speaking about population, “since it was united with Moscow politically, a specific name Moscovites, Moscow people, Moscow state (Moscovia) appeared there”. 6 The ruler of the country called himself Prince (further, the Great Prince, and then Tsar) of Moscow, and he called his subordinates Moscow people. Thus, for example, Vasyl Vasyliovych in his “epistle” to the Patriarch of Constantinople called himself “Great Prince of Moscow”. 7 In the decree of Zem-skyi Sobor of 1613 of Mykhailo Fedorovych, the first tsar of Romanov family, we can read the following thing: “All the orthodox Christians of the state of Moscow, 1 Kliuchevskyi V. O. Sochynenyia: V 8 t.- M.: Hospolytyzdat, 1956.- T. 1.- S. 294.

2 Preobrazhenskyi A. H. Еtymolohycheskyi slovar russkoho yazyka.- M., 1958.- S. 559.

3 Preobrazhenskyi A. H. Еtymolohycheskyi slovar russkoho yazyka.- M., 1958.- S. 559.

4 Fеsmer M. Еtymolohycheskyi slovar russkoho yazyka.- M., 1967.- T. 2.- S. 660

5 Snehyrev Y. M. Moskva, podrobnoe ystorycheskoe y arkheolohycheskoe opysanye horoda.- M., 1873.- T. 2. - S. 1.

6 Mykhalchuk K. P. K otvetu kn. E. Y. Trubetskoho na anketu “Ukraynskoi Zhyzny” // Ukraynskaia Zhyzn.- 1914.- № 11/12.- S. 29.

7 Russkaia ystorycheskaia byblyoteka.- SPb., 1880.- T. 6: Pamiatnyky drevnerusskoho kanonycheskoho prava. Ch. 1.- S. 525.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

from young to old, and to babies, said as one: let it be Volodymir, Moscow, Novhorod states, in tsardoms of Kazan and the Astrakhan, and Siberia”. 1 When Vasyl Shuiskyi was disposed from the thrown, the clergy made a range of requirements for a pretender to the throne: “to be a member of one of Moscow families, but not to elect any relatives of Lithuanian and German King to rule neither in Volodymyr, nor Moscow state”. 2 This epoch (15th -18th centuries) is known as “Moscovian” in all the studies of Russian history. “The phrase “Tsardom of Moscow” began to be used firmly by the contemporaries, and later, by publicists and scholars. The phrase

“in the epoch of the Tsardom of Moscow” occurred in Lenin’s works”. 3 It should be noted, omitting extra details, that the name “Moscow”, “the State of Moscow”, rather than “Rus” and “Russia” were official governmental names of the state.

Here is an example, an extract from the agreement with Turkey dates 3 July, 1700: “А понеже государство московское самовластное и свободное

государство есть, дача которая по се время погодно давана была крымским

ханам и крымским татарам, или прошлая или ныне впредь да не будет

должна от его священного царского величества московского даватись…”.

(Russian As the State of Moscow is an autocratic and independent one, their tribute to the Crimean Khans and Crimean Tatars, since this time shall not be provided by his holy majesty the tsar of Moscow anymore…). 4 Further, in the 12th Article of this agreement the following things were indicated: “The laity people of Moscow and strangers shall enter the holy city of Jerusalem freely…” 5

We are presenting here another extract from a Moscow newspaper “Bulletin of military and other matters, occurred in Moscow state and other countries, which are worth of knowledge and memory”, where the first January issue of 1703 informed: “Writing from Kazan. On the Sozhu river large deposits of copper ore were found, making a great profit for the State of Moscow”. 6

The whole Europe, from Lithuanian-Ruthenian Principality, Poland to England, countries of the East, Turks and Arabs used the only official name: Moscow Principality (tsardom), Moscovia or simply the Moscow. In the encyclopedia mentioned above: “Neighbours called the country Moscovia”. 7 The people were called Moscovites, Moskovitians, Muscovites, and as we will notice later, this name, Moscovshchyna, Moscovia (with its derivetives) was the only warrented traditional scientific name.

1 Serheevych V. Drevnosty russkoho prava.- SPb., 1909.- T. 1.- S. 100.

2 Lakyer A. Ystoryia tytula Hosudarei Rossyy // Zhurnal Mynysterstva Narodnoho Prosveshchenyia.- 1847.- Noiabr.- S. 143.

3 Shmydt S. O. Stanovlenye rossyiskoho samoderzhavstva (Yssledovanye sotsyalno-polytycheskoi ystoryy vremen Yvana Hroznoho).- M.: Mysl, 1973.- S. 13.

4 Lebedev V. Y. Reformy Petra I: Sb. dok.- M.: AN SSSR, 1937.- S. 246.

5 Lebedev V. Y. Reformy Petra I: Sb. dok.- M.: AN SSSR, 1937.- S. 247.

6 Lebedev V. Y. Reformy Petra I: Sb. dok.- M.: AN SSSR, 1937.- S. 331-332.

7 Sovetskaia ystorycheskaia еntsyklopedyia: V 17 t.- M.: Sov. еntsyklopedyia, 1969.- T. 12.- S. 333.

100

IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA

Here it would be necessary to remind the propaganda of the modern Russian Orthodox Church that loudly celebrated the 1000th anniversary of Christianity of Rus in Moscow, which in 988 did not even exist, which encouraged Ukrainian Church hierarchs make a statement, mentioning the use of the ethnonym Rus in Moscow period.

“Moscow Principality (further the empire) appeared in the Eastern Europe in the 16th century. This young state was known as Moscovia, and its people were known as Muskovites, who were actual ancestors of today’s Russia and made the base of the later Russian state. The dominating race was Finno-Ugric, and in particular, mixed with Mongol people and influence, the Moscow people developed to be a powerful factor and claimed the hegemony in Eastern Europe, acting as the successor of the ancient Ukrainian-Kyivan State.

The state assimilated a modified form of the present-day Ukrainian’s name: Rus, and the change of name was not the only basis for Moscow to give historical grounds for their powerful position. Another means for that was the propaganda of phantom “nativity” of all “Russians”: Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belorussians. Actually, they are different nations: Ukrainian, Belarusian and Moscovian”. 1

In the end of the 15th century after Tamerlane had defeated the Golden Horde, a new Moscow state gained power. These events have been depicted by the Russian historiography in deliberately twisted manner. “Sometimes the Aesopic language is so shadowy that it is difficult to understand clearly the thought. Thus, most conservatives wrote about the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) as of a turning point for the Russian history. Moscow Prince Dmitry Donskoy defeated the Tartar army on the Kulikovo Field; however those who know Russian history well enough, remember that the battle was not decisive. Tartars came back, destroyed Moscow and ruled Rus Principalities over a hundred years more”. 2

Two years after the Battle of Kulikovo Moscow was ruined and burnt by Tokhtamysh, Khan of the Horde. It was necessary to raise the importance of the Battle of Kulikovo to keep in shadow another significant battle, which had taken place 18 years before Kulikovo, it was the Battle of Blue Waters in 1362, headed by a Lithuanian Prince Algirdas, which resulted in liberation of the territory of modern Ukraine from Tartars.

Nearly three hundred years of Tartar Yoke effected considerably the newly established Moscovia. “Both for Russian and Tartars, tsar of Moscow was a legitimate heir of the Golden Horde, a head of former North-Eastern ulus, and when Chenghis Khan’s empire broke down, he was the only one who could claim 1 Myroslav Ivan Kardynal Liubachivskyi. Chy spravdi bulo khryshchennia Rosii 988 roku? - Rym; Miunkhen, 1986.- S. 15.

2 Laker Uolter. Chernaia sotnia: Ystoky russkoho fashyzma.- Vashynhton, 1994.- S. 147.

101

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

his heritage”.1 A Russian researcher Prince Trubetskoy announced categorically,

“Moscow State emerged thanks to the Tartar Yoke. The Russian Tsar was an heir of Mongol Khan. “Bringing down the Tartar Yoke” resulted in the replacement of the Tartar Khan by Orthodox Tsar and moving the Khan’s headquarters to Moscow. Even boyars and other servants of Moscow Tsar were mostly representatives of Tartar aristocracy. Russian stateness… evolved from the Tartar, and those historians who keep blind to this fact hardly have any reason, or try to reduce their importance”. 2

It is interesting to know an idea of a proletarian classic, Karl Marx, “In a bloody marsh of the Mongol slavery one should look for a cradle of Moscovia, and modern Russian is just a metamorphosis of Moscovia”. 3

K. Marx also mentioned in another work, “So Moscow grew up and developed in an ugly and disgusting school of Mongol slavery. It got its power by being a slave, it learnt to be a perfect enslaver. Even after liberation Moscow continued to play its traditional role of a slave in a master’s jacket. Only Peter the Great was able to unify a political energy of a Mongol servant and proud strivings of a Mongol master, to whom Chenghis Khan told in the will to conquer the world”. 4

K. Marx’s thought is partly proven by the modern researchers, “Moscow Princes of the first half of the 14th century made an alliance with Khans and in full consensus with them, they devastated their rivals in Rus”. 5

Similar words belong to a fashionable Russian historian L. Gumilyov, “Moscow did not continue Kyiv’s traditions… it replaced them by other patterns of behaviour, borrowed mostly from Mongols ”. 6 It is interesting to know the viewpoint of Mintimer Shaimiiev, the President of Tatarstan Republic, “Thanks to the Golden Horde Russian Principalities which were involved in internecine wars, were united around Moscow. But for the Khan and his severe laws, system of communication and population census, there would have been no Great Russia…

Empires emerge and break up. The Golden Horde had the same destiny, but on its basis Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberian, Crimean, Kasym Khanates appeared, as well as Moscovia, which united other Rus Principalities”. 7

In general, Russian historians keep to different points of view concerning the role of Mongol-Tartars in the formation process of Moscovia. Some of them 1 Vlasov F. Valdenberh. Ystoryia Rossyy.- Kharbyn, 1936.- S. 272.

2 Trubetskoi N. S. K probleme russkoho samopoznanyia.- [B. m.], 1927.- S. 49.

3 Marx K. Secret diplomatic history XVIII century.- London, 1878.- P. 77.

4 Tsvybak M. M. Marksyzm-lenynyzm o voznyknovenyy vostochnoevropeiskykh mnohonatsyonalnykh hosudarstv // Problemy ystoryy dokapytalystycheskykh obshchestv.- 1934.-

№ 1.- S. 69.

5 Novoseltsev A. P. Khrystyanstvo, yslam y yudayzm v stranakh Vostochnoi Evropy y Kavkaza v srednye veka // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1989.- № 9.- S. 31.

6 Humylev L. N. Ot Rusy k Rossyy: Ocherky еtnycheskoi ystoryy.- M.: Еkopros, 1992.- S. 296.

7 Shaimyev M. V ystoryy naroda - eho nastoiashchee y budushchee! // Rodyna.- 1997.- № 3/4.- S. 6.

102

IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA

(Boltin, Solovyov and others) do not think they were important. Other researchers (Kliuchevsky, Platonov, Pokrovsky and especially so-called “Eurasians”) stick to the opposite opinion and stress a decisive role of Mongol-Tartars for the formation of Moscow State. Karamzin considered Moscow was raised thanks to the Khans. Kostomarov explained Moscow’s strengthening by the help of Tartars: borrowing their sole ruling ideas. Bestuzhev-Riumin thought that communication of Moscow Princes with Khans developed their special agility and tact.

At any rate the importance was considerable. “Having the Khans’ support, i.e.

relying on their force and using for political purposes a religious influence of the Metropolitan of “All Russia”, who had power in Moscow, Moscow Principality formed a strong core”. 1

A Prince the Great of Moscow (title from 1462), Ivan Vasilyevich, following the advice of the Pope, who had wanted to unify the churches, married Sophia Palaiologina, an orphaned niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, an emigrant. By that moment Byzantine ceased to exist under the Turkish army strikes. “This Princess, known in Europe for its extreme plumpness, in Moscow revealed intelligence and gained great respect. Boyars in the 15th century blamed her for all unpleasant innovations, introduced in Moscow since that time”. 2

It is generally known, how important the Greek Sophia Palaiologina was for the history of Moscow, for instance, thanks to her, masters M. Ruffo and P. Solari were invited to build the walls and towers of the Kremlin, the Palace of the Facets for receptions. Aristotele Fioravanti (or Bon Friazin) built the Assumption Cathedral 3 — the Church Tower. It was during Sophia Palaiologina’s times when the two-headed eagle got to be the state coat-of-arms in Moscow, and under her influence Ivan III got a title of Prince the Great of “All Rus” after the death of Metropolitan Iona of “Kyiv and All Rus”. “Byzantine Princess of the Russian throne was a whole epoch in Moscow history. This event was connected with a lot of facts of later times: liberation of the Russian lands from the Tartar yoke, the increase of the territory of Ivan III’s land, and internal fight of political forces, and finally, the progress of arts in Moscow. Sofia Paliologina brought the Greeks and Italians. They took new ideas”.4 Italians, also called “Fryazins”, used to brilliant architecture of their homeland, to luxury of the Pope’s Rome, started to rebuild a chaotic pile of poor huts, which compiled the residence of Moscow Prince. By the way, later on, mostly Italian architects built a new Tsar’s residence in Petersburg. However the influence of Greeks from Sophia Palaiologina’s court was much deeper than that of Italians. Greeks brought to Moscow a historical hatred to the West, in particular, 1 Vykadorov Ys. F. Ystoryia kazachestva.- Praha, 1930.- Kn. 1.- S. 81.

2 Kliuchevskyi V. Kurs russkoi ystoryy.- M.: Sotsеkhyz, 1937.- Ch. 2.- S. 127.

3 Khoroshkevych A. L. Russkoe hosudarstvo v systeme mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenyi.- M.: Nauka, 1980.- S. 243-245.

4 Perlynh O. Rossyia y papskyi prestol.- M.: Sovremennye problemy, 1912.- S. 30.

103

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

to the Pope and the Catholic Church, the hatred, which is still living in Russia. According to the modern author, “Attempts to impose the West European understanding of the new world order do not have any grounds, do not meet religious-and-ethic values of the Russian people”. 1 It is at that time when Moscow the separation of Byzantine civilization to oppose the hostile Western world started. Therefore, Moscovshchina had been almost completely separated from Europe until the 17th century, having imposed a tyranny like that of the ruined Byzantine. Traditional Russian awareness was naturally oriented at stable rejection of the Western culture as alien, hostile and extremely dangerous, and brought by the Devil. The same has been preserved by the present moment.

“An astonished Europe which at the beginning of the reign of Ivan III could only guess that there existed a Moscovia, somewhere between Lithuania and Tartars, was absolutely taken aback by an emergence of a huge empire to the East from its borders”. 2 In 1523 a Moscow ambassador Gerasimov came to the Pope’s throne. In the court of the Pope Klement VII there was a famous doctor and writer Paolo Giovio. He wrote a book according to the spoken stories of the ambassador Libellus de legatione Basilii magni Principis Moschoviae ad Clementeni VII…, which was extremely popular. During the 16th century they published it over 20 times, and a lot of translations. It was a geographic discovery of unknown Moscovia in the Western Europe.”3 The state structure of this new country differed considerably from Kyivan Rus.

“Kyiv state was characterized by a distinct feature: it united mostly the Eastern, the Greek-Byzantine religious and cultural tradition and Western social and political structure. A very important fact was that a political Byzantism was absolutely alien to Kyivan Rus. The Byzantine theocracy later took root in Moscow Tsardom, during its prosperity, and it got combined with state organization, formed by the example of the Oriental tyranny of the Golden Horde.

In pre-Mongol Rus, as well as in the Medieval Europe, as distinct from Byzantine and Moscow, state and church were not integrated, they were divided, each of them living autonomously in its own sphere. The stateness of Kyiv had a feeling of freedom. This was caused by the following factors: a social structure, characterized by contractual relations; respect to rights and decency of a person, restriction of the Monarchic power of Prince by Boyars’ Council and Peoples’ Veche; self-government of townspeople; territorial decentraliza-tion of quasifederal manner. Such a liberal, European by its nature, spirit was characteristic of Ukrainian state authorities of later periods”. 4 Since 1458 Rus 1 Kontseptsyia natsyonalnoi bezopasnosty Rossyy v 1995 hodu.- M.: Obozrevatel, 1995.- S. 85.

2 Arkhyv Marksa y Еnhelsa.- M., 1946.- T. VIII - S. 159.

3 Brükner A. Geschichte Russlands bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts.- Gotha, 1896.- B. I.- S.

11-12.

4 Lysiak-Rudnytskyi I. Istorychni ese: U 2 t.- K.: Osnovy, 1997.- T. I.- S. 8.

104

IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA

Orthodox Church has been divided into two Metropoly: that of Kyiv and Moscow. Kyiv Metropolitans are titles as “Metropolitan of Kyiv, Galicia and Rus.”

The Head of a newly established Moscow Patriarchate, not to seem lower than Kyiv Metropolitan, started to use in his title the phrase “of All Rus”.

In his turn, Ivan III not to seem lower than the Patriarch, started to title himself “Great Prince of Moscow and All Rus”. The title has been preserved but it has nothing to do with the state. A famous researcher of history of Russian law V. Sergeievich wrote, “However, they did not use just the title “Lord of All Rus”, they add to it an old title “Great Prince of Volodymyr, Moscow, Novgorod and others”. 1 It is clear. For Moscow metropolitans the title “of All Rus” did not correspond the reality.

“First Ivan III was called “Lord and Sole Ruler of All Rus” in Izveshcheniie o Paskhalii by Metropolitan Zosimus (1492). In 1497 on the Great Prince’s seal first appeared the two-headed eagle, a Byzantine and Imperial emblem”. 2

Great Moscow Princes were in this state. “They owned nothing in Rus of Dnieper region and were not Princes for all Rus people”. 3 It should be mentioned that in 1246 the title “Of All Rus” was given by the Pope Innocent IV to Danylo Romanovych together with the king’s crown, and he really ruled over all Rus in the ancient ethnographic meaning of this term.

The fact that Ivan III Basiliovych got that purely church title “Of All Rus”, which, let us say it again, has been preserved till now in Kyiv and Moscow Orthodox Churches, was used to build all the speculations of Russian historians about renaming Zalissia into Rus. Neither the state of Ivan II, not that of his followers, until 1721, was never called Rus. To be precise, later on the name Rus after the decline of Kyiv empire, was never restored as a name of state, not taking into account the tsarist anthem. In 1833 Nicholas I ordered to create the anthem of Russia. Before it Russia had officially used the anthem of England since 1816.

The new anthem, where the first line is “Боже, царя храни!” ( God save the Tsar! ) is an accurate translation of the anthem of England: Перводержавную Русь православную, God save, the Orthodox Rus, Боже, царя, царя храни!

God save the Tsar!

“Rus” again appeared, though very archaic, in the text of Stalin’s anthem,

“Free republics were united forever by Great Rus”.

Old Princes’ traditions were saved only on the lands of Rus-Ukraine. In the restored Ukrainian state a heraldic symbol of Saint Volodymyr was restored, try-zub (trydent). Blue-and-yellow colours are also witnesses of old traditions of 1 Serheevych V. Drevnosty russkoho prava.- SPb., 1909.- T. 1.- S. 97.

2 Zymyn A. A. Rossyia na rubezhe XV-XVI stoletyi (Ocherky sotsyalno-polytycheskoi ystoryy).-

M., 1982.- S. 149.

3 Serheevych V. Drevnosty russkoho prava.- SPb., 1909.- T. I.- S. 97-98.

105

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Princes’ times. By the way, the Hollandish national colours, red-white-blue were taken for the Russian national flag during Peter the Great’s reign.

“When Ivan III ascended the throne, the Great Principality of Moscow was comparatively small. Its territory was up to 430 th sq km”. 1 After the conquest of vast lands of Novgorod the Great, which reached the White Sea and the Ural, the territory of Moscovia grew to over 2 mn sq km, i.e. got to be six times larger!

It strategically strengthened Moscow state, made it even more aggressive to other Slavonic lands. Exactly at that time, during his reign, the full title of the Princel “Of All Rus”. According to an English historian, “the title of “Lord of All Rus” could not be grounded either by history or by political reality. It belonged to the same category as claims of English kings to France. In 1490s, two and half centuries after all signs of the unified Kyivan Rus had disappeared, the title would have been as impossible as for the king of France would have been impossible to proclaim himself “Lord of All Franks”, while he was in a state of war with the German empire.

At that time the title contradicted the identity, gained by “Rusyns” of Lithuania, differentiating from Russians of Moscow. This title seemed so unreal to Lithuanians that they agreed to admit it as a tiny price for Ivan’s favour. Then they did not anticipate anything, though they left the ideological cornerstone of territorial ambitions, which Russian would establish for five hundred years.”. 2

The title “Of All Rus” very soon became grounds for the rulers of Moscovia to nourish annexation plans. Invasive policy of Medieval Moscovia is often disguised by the notion of “collecting Russian lands”. In the political history of Moscow Rus there is a great plenty of unproven “general places”, false knowledge and ideas, even tracks of direct falsifications, included into school textbooks and were widely promoted in literature and art”. 3 Among them there is a myth about so-called “collecting Russian lands”. So to say, Rus broke up and Moscow Princes started to gather it back. “But we know that one can say about the integral “Rus state” during Kyiv period only by confusion. The expression

“Rus land” of the chronicles and poetic works of that time was used to denote Kyiv region, for Kyiv was hegemon in the southern Rus. From Novgorod or Vladimir they went to “Rus” but neither Novgorod nor Vladimir were Rus. There was nothing to break up, there was nothing to “gather”.4

From the time of its creation and during many centuries Moscovia was an aggressive neighbor that was always aimed at conquering new lands. “Mos-1 Zymyn A. A. Rossyia na rubezhe XV-XVI stoletyi (Ocherky sotsyalno-polytycheskoi ystoryy).-

M., 1982.- S. 30.

2 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 480.

3 Lure Ya. S. Dve ystoryy Rusy XV veka. Rannye y pozdnye, nezavysymyie y ofytsyalnyie letopysy ob obrazovanyy Moskovskoho hosudarstva.- SPb., 1994.- S. 8.

4 Pokrovskyi M. N. Russkaia ystoryia s drevneishykh vremen.- M.: Yzdanye T-va “Myr”.- T. 1.- S.

208-209.

106

IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA

cow always was a military monarchy”. 1 According to a prominent Belarusian human right defender Zenon Pazniak, “roots of aggression go back to the times of the Golden Horde and Mongolian Yoke, to the ideology and school of tsar-and-church (subordination of church power to the state), taken from Byzantine together with the Eastern Christianity that suited the tyrannical way of thinking in the best way. In the end of the 15th century Russia took not only Byzantine symbols but also the main principles of Byzantine imperial policy (as distinct from Roman, it was made using others, breaking up neighbouring societies, instigating one against the other). In historical development the combination of such principles and cruelty of Mongolian-Horde traditions gave terrible results: the regimes of Peter, Arakcheev, Muravyov, Stalin, Lenin. A special type of cruel imperial society was formed with un-restricted servile consciousness, where a personality is not protected by anything, against anybody and anything. Personality is nothing in comparison with the state. Humiliation of human personality was a method of self-affirmation in this state”. 2

Novgorod, a trading town situated on the main waterway “from the Vare-gians to the Greeks”, preserved close connections with Kyiv. Princes of Kyiv ruled in Novgorod. From the mid 13th century, after the death of Volodymyr Monomakh, in the period of Princes’ internecine quarrelling, Novgorod and neighbouring lands (“piatinas”) separated into an independent republic “Lord Great Novgorod”. However, close connections with Kyiv were not torn, probably because “Novgorod citizens were of the Southern origin”. 3 Russian ethnograph D. Zelenin, following a prominent Russian linguist O. Shakhmatov, considered the population of Novgorod to belong to an individual, forth Slavonic nation in the East Europe (except the Russian, the Ukrainian, and the Belarusian). From ethnographic and language-and-dialect point of view, according to these respectful sources, “North Russian people” differed considerably from the people of Suzdal. 4 Further development of “Northern Russian people” was stopped by brutal aggression of Moscow. Having seized Novgorod Republic in 1478, Ivan III imposed on people a huge tax, carried out mass executions and deported 72 thousand people to Moscovia. Mass executions and deportations, caused by anti-Moscovian sentiment of Novgorod, were implied later as well. Kostomarov wrote, “When I heard for the first time Novgorod dialect, I thought the speaker was from Little Russia, who made efforts to speak Great Russian”. 5 Kostomarov made observations and came to a conclusion that 1 Geller M. Ya. Ystoryia Rossyiskoi Ymperyy: V 3 t.- M.: MYK, 1997.- T. I. - S. 189.

2 Pazniak Z. Pro rosiiskyi imperializm i yoho nebezpeku // Shliakh peremohy.- 1994.- Ch. 6.

3 Kostomarov N. Y. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb., 1903.- Kn. 1.- S. 207.

4 Zelenin D. K. Vostochnoslavianskaia etnohrafyia / Per. s nem.- M.: Nauka, 1991.- S. 29.

5 Kostomarov N. Y. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb., 1903.- Kn. 1.- S. 207.

107

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Novgorod people even in 19th century used a lot of words, not found in Russian, such as “koval”, “parubok”, “shukat”, “zhona”, “divytsia”, “travytsia”,

“shcho” and others ( all are found in Ukrainian). The main type of settlement in Zalissia was a “derevnia” ( village in Russian), while in Novgorod it was called

“selo” ( village in Ukrainian)”. 1

The history of republics of Great Novgorod and Pskov which were attacked by Moscow ended tragically. Novgorod-Pskov nation was eliminated by Moscow and assimilated to ashes. 2 By the way, K. Marx considered the conquest of Novgorod by Moscow to be a reactionary act. 3 “Ivan III was not satisfied with the removal of the bell and destruction of viche, and the title of governor. Ivan ruined Novgorod to the bottom, forced its citizens to move to different lands, subordinate to Moscow state and replaced the native inhabitants by newcomers, alien to the local reminiscences. Destruction of Novgorod Land was extraordinary by its scale and more important than it is usually thought to be”. 4

In 1570 during Ivan the Terrible’s reign, mass executions were held age-ing, great confiscations of property, and deportations. The latest Novgorod chronicler describe the cruelties of Moscow. Here is an extract, “And Tsar ordered to bring governing boyars from Great Novgorod, and many other boyars’ children at service, and guests, and different people of town authorities, and significant and prominent merchants, and their wives and children in front of him. And Tsar ordered to torture them severely and inhumanly in front of him, and ordered many of them who, he thought were the worst, to put on fire; then he told his boyars’ children to take those tortured and burnt people by their hands and heads, and tie to sleighs, one human per a sleigh, and ordered to pull them with the sleighs to the great Volkhovsky bridge and throw from the bridge to the Volkhov River. Their wives and children, both boys and girls, he told to take them to Volkhovsky bridge and take them to the top, to a specially arranged place, and tie up their hands and legs, and to tie babies to their mothers, and Tsar ordered to throw them all from the height to the waters of the river Volkhov. And others who were at tsar’s service those times were sailing in boats along the river Volkhov with the arms, in particular forks, spears, and harpoons, and hammers: if those people, men and women, of all ages, came up to the surface from the depth, they took their harpoons, and stabbed them with spears and forks, and cut them with 1 Zymyn A. A. Rossyia na rubezhe XV-XVI stoletyi (Ocherky sotsyalno-polytycheskoi ystoryy).-

M.: Mysl, 1982.- S. 31.

2 Dashkevych Ya. Perehuk vikiv: try pohliady na mynule i suchasne Ukrainy // Ukraina. Nauka i kultura.- K., 1966.- Vyp. 26/27.- S. 51.

3 Tsvybak M. M. Marksyzm-lenynyzm o voznyknovenyy vostochnoevropeiskykh mnohonatsyonalnykh hosudarstv // Problemy ystoryy dokapytalystycheskykh obshchestv.- 1934.-

№ 1.- S. 66.

4 Kostomarov N. Y. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb., 1903.- Kn. 1.- S. 209.

108

IX. THE EMERGENCE OF MOSCOVIA

the hammers, without mercy sending them to the bottom of the river, putting them to cruel and severe death”. 1

Ethnographs and dialectologists can differentiate even now between former Novgorod citizens, as well as those of Viatka, Vologda and other Norethern regions from the people of Riazan, Tambov, and Tula region and other central parts of Russia. Even now, there is a difference between descendants of Moscovia and those of Novgorod. Kostomarov believed that Novgorod Lands “had their own dialect, close to that of South Rus. This similarity is still astonishing for natives of the Southern Rus” 2

As has been mentioned above, the title of “Lord of All Rus” was taken by Ivan III in 1493 after he had seized Novgorod Lands. There are epic songs of Princes’ Age, connected with this ancient people, in the 19th century the songs were called “bylyny” (old name of “staryny”). These old songs are divided into cycles. Extraordinary are heroic-patriotic “bogatyr” songs of Kyiv cycle, where images and stories are about Kyiv, as well as Galicia-Volyn and Chernigiv Lands.

Ukrainian researchers think that bylyny disappeared from Ukrainian peoples’

memory in the 17th century, when new historical events resulted in heroic epos of Cassack’s dumas. Lack of bylyny in Ukraine caused speculations about Moscow being an heir of Kyiv. “As for the folklore, we can point out just one bright fact, that bylyny of the Kyiv cycle, where among the characters there are real Kyiv Princes in the steppes of Ukrainian South, were then forgotten in their homeland but were well preserved by the brother nation of Great Russians… A really rare fact for the history of nations”. 3

The study of geographic location of bylyny showed that they “were concentration mostly in the North of Europe, Arkhangelsk and Olonetska regions…

Nothing similar can be found in other regions of Russia”. 4 These old songs came to the North with Novgorod colonization. “All this makes it possible to suggest that bylyny that reached us, were in the past a gained by exclusively Novgorod Land, whereof they went along the colonization flow”. 5 On the territory of Zalissia, according to the researchers, in the 14th-15th centuries and later on, bylyny were not found. So, they were preserved only among the remaining Novgorod ethnos which was eliminated by Moscow. “Great Russians” had nothing to do with them.

1 Novhorodskyi pohrom 1570 hoda // Pokrovskyi M. N. Russkaia ystoryia s drevneishykh vremen.-

M.: Yzdanye T-va “Myr”.- T. 2. Prylozhenye.- S. 7-8.

2 Kostomarov N. Y. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb., 1903.- Kn. 1.- S. 202.

3 Zelenyn D. K. Ob ystorycheskoi obshchnosty kultury russkoho y ukraynskoho narodov //

Sovetskaia еtnohrafyia.- 1940.- Vyp. 3.- S. 32.

4 Dmytryeva S. Y. Heohrafycheskoe rasprostranenye russkykh bylyn // Sovetskaia еtnohrafyia.-

1969.- № 4.- S. 31.

5 Dmytryeva S. Y. Heohrafycheskoe rasprostranenye russkykh bylyn // Sovetskaia еtnohrafyia.-

1969.- № 4.- S. 38.

109

X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS

Ukrainians have been preserving their old name “Rus”, “rusyns” on the ethnic territory for centuries. People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania called themselves in a similar way, using the same name “Rus” or the “Ruthenian Voivodeship”, officially being used to name Galicia, seized by Polish in the 14th century. In the 15th century the Ruthenian Voivodeship included Lviv, Przemysl and Sanok lands; from the end of the 15th century or from the beginning of the 16th century Chelm land was also included. The name “Rus” was both official and national.

“They want us, the Rus, to convert to the Polish faith” — a citizen complained in 1511. 1 Doctor F. Skoryna in the preface to his Psalter, published in 1517, wrote that he did the translation to enable “my brothers, Rus, simple people, would understand better, while reading”. 2 At the same time Skoryna published the translated Bible, calling it “The Ruska Bible”. “He did not name it “Belarusian”, which means that Belarusian intelligentsia, clergy and nobility of that time considered themselves Rus people, rather than the Belarusian people”. 3

In 1562 Calvinist pastor Budnyj published Protestant catechism in Old Ukrainian language: “for common people, people of Rus and Christian children of Rus”. 4 Another protestant Vasyl Tiapynskyi in the preface to the Gospel translation of 1570 writes that he was working for the people of Rus. 5 In the eulogy, written at the beginning of XVI century at the Suprasl monastery near Bilostok, we may read the praise of Ruskyi prince Ostrozkyi for breaking “great Moscow power”. Apparently, “Ukrainian and Belarusian ancestors did call themselves Rusyns, but did not recognize Muscovites as Rusyns”. 6 The third edition of the Lithuanian Statute of 1566 has a certain indication, which obliged all scribes to know the language of Rus and to use only this language in all official documents:

“А писарь земський маєть по руску литерами і словы вси листи, выписы и

позвы писати” (Ukrainian The scribe must write all letters, extracts and claims in Rus letters and words). 7 In March, 1593, Lviv brotherhood pointed in their 1 Lytovskaia metryka.- SPb., 1903.- T. I.- S. 149.

2 Vladymyrov P. Frantsysk Skoryna.- SPb., 1888.- S. 30.

3 Andrusiak M. Terminy “Ruskyi”, “Roskyi”, “Rosiiskyi” i “Biloruskyi” v publikatsiiakh XVI-XIX

stolit // Zbirnyk na poshanu Ivana Mirchuka.- Miunkhen; Niu-York; Paryzh; Vinnipeh, 1974.- S. 1.

4 Zhurnal Mynysterstva Narodnoho prosveshchenyia.- SPb., 1893.- Avhust.- S. 407-408

5 Kyevskaia staryna.- 1882.- T. 1.- S. 2-3.

6 Andrusiak M. Terminy “Ruskyi”, “Roskyi”, “Rosiiskyi” i “Biloruskyi” v publikatsiiakh XVI-XIX stolit // Zbirnyk na poshanu Ivana Mirchuka.- Miunkhen; Niu-York; Paryzh; Vinnipeh, 1974.- S. 2.

7 Bezpalko O. P., Boichuk I. K. ta in. Istorychna hramatyka ukrainskoi movy.- K.: Rad. shkola, 1962.- S. 36

110

X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS

statement: “An ancient hostility of Polish against Rus people has been restored…

They want Lviv city, the most important in Ruskyi region, churches and people, shops and craftsmen to return to Papal obedience and to force people of Rus to the new calendar ”. 1 The complaint of 1598 to the Lviv City Council, submitted on behalf of “all people of Rus of Greek religion”. 2 Lviv Bishop Hedeon Balaban in his letter of 1598 wrote about oppression of “hated enemies and our villains — Poles, diligently trying to annihilate our poor Ruskyi people and to eradicate it totally”. 3 Lviv city books of 1599 proof the use of the term “Ruthenian nation” (Natio Ruthenica). 4 It was said about “ancient, natural (native) Ruthenian nation” at the "lament" of ambassadors of Lviv Brotherhood at Warsaw Sejm in 1609. 5 Lviv craftsmen in their statement in 1599 emphasized: “We are not vagrants, but live in our native land of Rus”. 6 In another document citizens blamed the Polish invaders: “до нас, Русі, прийшовши, з нами, Руссю, Русі

за давніми правами і фундаціями, звичаями та порядками не хочуть жити”

( having come to us — Rus — and with us, they do not want to live by our ancient principles, customs and rights). 7

In 1517 Polish scholar and humanist, Matviy Mehovita published his "Treatise on the two Sarmatias" in Latin. "Following Western humanists of the Ptolemy’s onomastic tradition, Mehovita refferes to Eastern Europe as "Sarmatia" and sees in it two different ethnohistorical formations - "Rus" and "Muscovy". Consequently, he calls the Ukrainians as the "Rusy" or "Ruthenians" and the Russians as "Moscs" or "Muscovites".8 Such etnonymic system of view on Eastern Europe was firmly established in Lithuanian-Polish state in XVI century.

Even during the Cossack period, the Ukrainians continued to call their land as in the old times - Rus, and themselves the Rusyns, because, as historians say, there was no and could not be the gap between Kyiv Rus and Cossack periods of history. Scientific facts conclusively show that the material culture of the Cossack Ukraine grew directly from the culture of Rus. This includes traditional Ukrainian ceramics, homes, church architecture, folk clothing. The Cossacks inherited 1 Arkhyv Yuho-Zapadnoi Rossyy [dali - AIuZR].- K., 1904.- Ch. 1.- T. 10.- S. 89-91.

2 Sotsialna borotba v misti Lvovi XVI-XVIII st.: Zb. dok.- Lviv: Vyd-vo LDU, 1961.- S. 49 [Dok.

№ 12.].

3 Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis.- Lviv, 1898.-T. 1.- S. 811 [Dok.

№ 470].

4 Sotsialna borotba v misti Lvovi XVI-XVIII st.: Zb. dok.- Lviv: Vyd-vo LDU, 1961.- S. 67 [Dok.

№ 20].

5 Krylovskyi A. Lvovskoe Stavropyhyiskoe bratstvo.- K., 1898.- S. 31 [Dok. № 17].

6 Sotsialna borotba v misti Lvovi XVI-XVIII st.: Zb. dok.- Lviv: Vyd-vo LDU, 1961.- S. 73 [Dok.

№ 23].

7 Sotsialna borotba v misti Lvovi XVI-XVIII st.: Zb. dok.- Lviv: Vyd-vo LDU, 1961.- S. 89 [Dok.

№ 29].

8 Nalyvaiko D. Retseptsiia Ukrainy v Zakhidnii Yevropi XVI-XVIII st. // Suchasnist.- 1993.-

№ 2.- S. 95-96..

111

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

the Russ military traditions. They are connected by knightly code of conduct, the family principle in band formation, the cult of the sword, horse, holy patron (Protection of the Mother of God, St. Yuriy), appearance (chub (crest), mustache, beard shaving) and other features. In the 1621 memorial of orthodox bishops to the Polish government, it was stated: "As for the Cossacks — we know these knightly people, and know that that they are our family, our brothers and orthodox Christians... They are born with witticism, God gifted mind and love for faith. Piety and churches have been existing and thriving in their lands probably for a long time. This is because the tribe is of glorious Rus people from the seed of Japheth, which fought the Greek Kingdom over the Black sea and land. This generation originates from the army, which in the days of Oleg, the Rus monarch, assaulted Constantinople in their monoxylons in the sea and on land (by fitting wheels to boats)."1 In 1649, Bohdan Khmelnytsky called himself the "Prince of Rus", "Zaporizhian Hetman and ruler of the entire Rus."2 He called his people

"Rus" and wanted to liberate "the whole Rus" from Polish domination. 3 He said,

"God has given me the responsibility of being Russ monocrat."4 In the minds of contemporary polemicists (Stanislaw Orzechowski, Jan Vyslytskyj) the Crown (Poland proper), and Rus were clearly ethnically delimited. "Lingual, religious, cultural and historical differences between Poland and Rus were not smoothened in the next century. In the XVIII century, they led to the emergence of the gentry political groups, who called themselves "Rus nation."5

So, in 1658 Khmelnytsky‘s successor hetman Ivan Vyhovsky negotiated on the establishment of the Federation of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine, the latter was called the Grand Duchy of Rus. The text of the Hadiach treatise (1658) was written in the macaronic Polish-Latin language, and it was interspersed with the terms: "Rus land", "Rus people ", "Rus army", "Rus language." All these terms relate to Ukraine and the Ukrainians, Russian Tsar was called "king of Moscow."

"The main points of the Hadiach Agreement are: Ukraine on the Dnieper River (the land that was made up Kyiv, Chernigov and Bratslav voivodships) should create the Grand Duchy of Rus.6 The Hadiach Treaty is signed by Vyhovsky:

“Jan Wyhowski Hetman woysk ruskich, rk wasn”, ie " Vyhovsky, the hetman of the Rus army, with my own hand."7 In 1669, Hetman Petro Doroshenko negotiated with the Poles about the separation of all Polish lands, where the Rus nation lived into an autonomous Cossack state. He outlined in detail the boundaries 1 Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy u 8 t.- Kyiv; Lviv, 1909. - T. 7.- S. 391.

2 Lipiski W. Z dziejуw Ukrainy.- Krakуw, 1912.- S. 181.

3 Michaowski I. Ksiga pamitnicza.- Krakуw, 1864.-S. 374.

4 Michaowski I. Ksiga pamitnicza.- Krakуw, 1864.-S. 374.

5 Tsyhanok O. M. Z istorii latynskykh literaturnykh vplyviv v ukrains komu pysmenstvi XVI-XVIII st.- K.: Ped. presa, 1999.- S. 33.

6 Hadiatskyi dohovir mizh Ukrainoiu i Polshcheiu 1658 r.- Lviv, 1933.- S. 7.

7 Herasymchuk V. Vyhovshchyna i Hadiatskyi traktat // ZNTSh.- 1909.- T. 89.- S. 83-90.

112

X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS

of the future state (from Putivl to Przemysl) which fully coincide with ethnic Ukrainian borders. 1 Ukrainian gentry thought this territory as their homeland. In the XV - first half of XVII centuries, the Ukrainian tribal nobility treasured ancient tradition of political separateness, regardless of religion, calling themselves

"Rus people". 2

The name "Rus" for determining present-day Ukraine was for centuries in use across Western Europe, while there was firm adherence to the tradition of the Latin terminology. In 1030, Hildeslei Chronicle speaks of Imrih’s death while hunting (Emeryk - the son of Hungarian King Stephen I), which was given the title of "dux Ruizorum", i.e. "Russ voivod (warchief)." In 1075 chronicler Ly-amberh tells about Emperor Henry’s IV meeting with expelled from Kyiv Grand Prince of Kyiv Izyaslav-Dymytrii and calls him Ruzenorum rex Demetrius (ruler, Dymytrii Prince of Rusyns).3

In another chronicles of 1089 it is referred to the marriage of Emperor Henry IV and the daughter of Ruthenorum regis (ruler, Prince of Rusyns).4 The later chronicler, known as Anonymous Hull (XI - the beginning of the XII century) also used these names: Ruthenorum rex (ruler, Prince of Rusyns), regnum Ruthenorum (Rus principality).

In 1131, the book called Vita Chuonradi (about the Salzburg archbishop Konrad) recorded that when Conrad’s ambassador arrived to the Hungarian king, the latter was then in marcha Ruthenorum, i.e. the country of Rusyns. The same name was used by British encyclopedist of the 13th century Bartholomew: Ruthenia magna opulentaque terra (Ruthenia is large and wealthy country).

In Monumenta Germaniae the King of Rusyns Lev is mentioned: Leonem regem Ruthenorum (Lev is the King of Rusyns).

On the occasion of the Union of Brest in 1596, Pope Clement VIII ordered to make a silver medal with the inscription "Ruthenis receptis 1596" (Medal on the occasion of the return). Pope Urban’s VIII words were: "O mei Rutheni, per vos ego Orientem convertendum spero (Oh my Rusyns! I hope that the East will be proselyted thanks to you)." Note that the name "Rutheni" is used not only in papal bullae, "but in all Western chronicles and documents that dealt with Rusyns." 5

Starting from the 14th-15th centuries, the name "Rusyns" — Rutheni often appears in Latin chronicles of Polish authors ("Historia polonicae" J. Dlugosz (Vol. 9, book 6) and others). As for the the Poles, we must remember that from the XV to the XIX century the terms "Moscow", "Moscowian", "Muscovite"

1 Bantysh-Kamenskyi D. Ystochnyky malorossyiskoi ystoryy.- M., 1858.-T. 1.- S. 208-212.

2 Lypynskyi V. Tvory.- Filiadelfiia, 1980.- T. 2.- S. 43.

3 Monumenta Germaniae Historica.- T. 5.- S. 219.

4 Monumenta Germaniae Historica.- T. 5.- S. 219.

5 Barvinskyi B. Istorychnyi rozvii imeny ukrainsko-ruskoho narodu.- Lviv, 1908.-S. 14.

113

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

existed in the Polish historical, artistic and journalistic literature, as well as in government regulations. The greatest Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz always used this ethnonym. Even his poem, supposedly devoted to Pushkin, was called "Do przyjaciu moskali", ie "To fellow Muscovites." Nowadays the ethnonym "Muscovite" is still unofficially widely used by Poles.

In the eyes of the Western Europeans, newly founded Muscovy could not be identified with the well-known Ruthenia, and Muscovites — with Ruthenians. "It must be said that foreigners who visited Russia in the second half of 17th century.

(Pavlo Aleppskyj, Augustin Meyerberg, Adam Olearius etc.), considered Ukraine and Muscovy to be different states and different nations with their own languages, life and people."1 The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used only the terms "Moscow principality", "Muscovy", "Moscow".

"In 1570 Ivan IV used the name “Moscow state” in his letter to the English Queen Elizabeth I. This happened after his communication with the ambassadors of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Such self-designation appeared in the Time of Troubles, more precisely in 1612-1617, when the territory of the Russian kingdom remained truncated, and its northwestern lands and Novgorod were ruled by the Swedes. Due to this fact, the election of the first king of the Romanov dynasty was done only in the Moscow state." 2 Consequently, starting from the 15th — until the end of the the 17th century foreigners used the term "Moscow state" instead of

"Rus". When Ivan III wanted to add to his title "Grand Prince of All Rus" not only honorable but also legal significance, it became the subject of heated diplomatic struggle with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.3

Western diplomats often called tsar’s ambassadors "les Ambassadeurs Moscovites", because Muscovy got the name “Russia” during the reign of Tsar Peter I".4 Kostomarov wrote about the foreigners’ use of the term "Rus": "The name of Rus of the current South-Ruthenian people became used by foreigners, so everyone started to mean not only the totality of the Slavic tribes of the continent at that time, but actually the southwest of Russia, populated by a part of the Slavic tribe, which is now called South-Ruthenian or Maloruskii (Little Rus)."5

In 1549 Herberstein, the Emperor Maximilian’s II ambassador, published Rerum Moskoviticarum commentarii ( Notes on the Moscow affairs), where he 1 Pushkarev L. N. Kulturnye sviazy Rossyy y Ukrayny vo vtoroi polovyne XVII veka // Voprosy ystoryy.- 2000.- № 7.- S. 139.

2 Khoroshkevych A. L. Rus, Rusyia, Moskovyia, Rossyia, Moskovskoe hosudarstvo, Rossyiskoe tsarstvo // Spornye voprosy otechestvennoi ystoryy XI-XVIII vekov.- M.: Yn-t ystoryy SSSR, 1990.- S. 291.

3 Liubavskyi M. K. Obrazovanye osnovnoi hosudarstvennoi terrytoryy Velykorusskoi narodnosty.-

L.: Yzd-vo ANSSSR, 1929.- S. 135.

4 Oreletskyi V. Dyplomatychnyi tseremoniial // Naukovyi Zbirnyk Ukrainskoho Vilnoho Universytetu v Prazi.- Praha, 1942.- T. 3.- S. 278.

5 Kostomarov N. Y. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb., 1903.- Kn. 1.- S. 27.

114

X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS

clearly separates Muscovy from Rus, i.e. the Ukraine, the western borders of which, he claims, are near Krakow.

Herberstein warns Austrian Archduke Ferdinand not to entitle the "Muscovite" as the Emperor of All Rus in his letters of credence.1 The similar is found in the notes of Mihalon Lytvyn (1550), De moribus tartarum lituanorum et moschorum ( Customs of the Tatars, Lithuanians and Muscovites) . In 1581, an Italian Huahnino published his famous work Sarmatiae Europae descripto (Description of Sarmatia and Europe), where he clearly delineated the names "Polo-nia, Russia, Livonia and Moschovia". The 15th century engraving of the German cartographer Sebastian Münster "Europa regina" depicted Muscovy (Moscovia) near Livonia, above Scythia. In the description of a 1650 European engraving it was stated that Ukraine is presented as a separate state, apart from Muscovy.2

As it is seen from the huge public response to the Treatise on the two Sarmatias (1517) of the Polish humanist M. Mehovita or Notes on Muscovia (1549) of the German scientist S. Herberstein, the descriptions of Eastern Europe, including Muscovy, were not less popular in European humanist circles than the newly discovered America. In the late XV and early XVI centuries, the geographers’

main issue was to find a convenient way to fabulous India and mysterious China.

They already knew about the sphericity of the Earth. The research was focused on the northeast, as they hoped to get to India and China that way. As a result, the newly founded Muscovia got the attention of cartographers. Some maps have been made, but their geographical veracity was very low. "Muscov was very poorly known in Western Europe: Martin Valdzeyemyuller’s map (1516), with its misunderstood merchant routes and outdated Claudius Ptolemy’s data clearly showed the helplessness of Northern European cartography. Even in neighboring Poland, the researchers imagined the depths of Russian lands very vaguely. For example, the rector of Krakow University Maciej Miechowita thought (1518) that the Volga River flows into the Black Sea."3 Muscovia was not perceived as the part of Europe. "In the XV century it was obvious for Western cartographers that the "Great Tartary" — i.e. Muscovy — was located outside Europe."4 In 1575, well-known French court geographer André Thevet published his Universal cosmography, among the Europe's first. He clearly distinguished Rus-Ukraine, Moscow and Poland. "The ancient geographers earlier than others began to use the folk names of cities, rivers, territories in their maps instead of literary ones. It was largely prompted by practical needs. In ancient times, merchants, diplomats, ambassadors and others traveled on horseback and had to 1 Herbershtein S. Zapysky o Moskovyy.- M.: Yzd-vo MHU, 1988.- S. 265.

Pereiaslavskyi O. Ukraina XVII viku v svitli tohochasnoho Zakhodu // Zapysky ChSVV.- 1935.-

T. 6, Vyp. 1-2.- S. 326.

3 Rybakov B. A. Russkye karty Moskovyy XV - nachala XVI veka.- M.: Nauka, 1974.- S. 7.

4 Burovskyi A. Evrazyistvo: dobrodetel // Rodyna.- 1996.- № 9.- S. 23.

115

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

ask locals about the way."1 Till the end of the 17th century, cartographers called Muscovia as Tartary. In 1690, a famous Holland geographer Nicolaas Witsen drew a map of Muscovy, which he named New Map of North and East Tartary in 1687, and later he wrote a book Northern and Eastern Tartary, which was dedicated to Peter I.2

In 1591-1592, Botero’s book Le Relationi vniuersali was published in Rome.

It was repeatedly issued in Italian and other European languages. While dwelling upon the origin of Orthodoxy, Botero emphasizes that it was adopted by "the entire Muscovia, Rus, Lithuania."3 In 1553 Italian description "Relazione dell

'Imperio Ducato di Moscovia" ("Moscow State Information") it is stated that Muscovy borders with the Tatars on the east, and with Russia (la Rossia) and Lithuania near the Dnieper River.4

The famous book of French engineer Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan, written in the early 50ies of XVII century, calls Ukraine in Latin as "Ukraina", and its parts (Podillya, Volyn, Kyiv region, Bratslav region etc.) as "pars Ukrainae".5 Beauplan writes about its territory that "depuis les confins de la Moscovie jusqu'aux limites de la Transilvanie", ie "they stretch from the borders of Muscovy to Transylvania." He completely differenciated Ukrainian people from the Poles and Moscowites, whom he called the Muscovites.

"Prior to the 18th century Muscovia had been marked on the foreign maps only as Muscovy, not Russia or Rus, and was not considered as such. Naming Muscovia as Russia originates from explanatory annexes from the beginning of the 18th century. "6 In the research of Western European publications about the Cossacks, the work of prominent Italian historian (XVII century) Majolini Bisachioni The History of the Latest Civil Wars (1653) was considered. This work is the first holistic and complete monograph on Ukrainian War of Liberation, which was included into a wide panorama of European history. In accordance with the Western onomastic tradition, Ukrainian land is called Rus (Russia). As for the Russian state, Bisachioni (like the majority of Western authors) calls it "Muscovia". Belarus was named "Lithuania".7

"Atlas novus" was published in Nuremberg in 1716. "The whole region from 1 Shelukhyn S. Nazva Ukrainy.- Viden, 1921.- S. 16.

2 Bushkov A. A., Burovskyi A. M. Rossyia, kotoroi ne bylo-2. Russkaia Atlantyda: Ystorycheskoe rassledovanye.- Krasnoiarsk: Bonus; M.: OLMA-Press, 2000.- S. 284.

3 Mytsyk Yu. A. Istoryko-heohrafichnyi opys Ukrainy u tvori italiiskoho humanista XVI st.

Dzhovanni Botero // Istorychni doslidzhennia. Vitchyzniana istoriia.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1992.- Vyp.

8.- S. 30.

4 Chtenyia v obshchestve ystoryy y drevnostei rossyiskykh.- M., 1863.- Kn. 1.- S. 128.

5 Kordt V. Materyaly po ystoryy russkoi kartohrafyy.- K., 1910.- S. 21.

6 Shelukhyn S. Nazva Ukrainy.- Viden, 1921.- S. 29.

7 Nalyvaiko D. S. Kozatska khrystyianska respublika (Zaporozka Sich u zakhidnoievropeiskykh istoryko-literaturnykh pamiatkakh).- K.: Dnipro, 1992.- S. 241.

116

X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS

the Dnieper River till the San River is reffered to as "Russia Rubra", which corresponds to the parallel name "Ukraina". The northern lands were called

"Russia Moscovitica ".1

In the “Baudraud” dictionary, issued in Paris in 1701 under the name

“Ukraine i Russie”, reading about Ukraine-Rus from the Black Sea to Lviv. Moscovia was named there “Moscovita”.

In 1600 in Frankfurt a team work “Rerum Moscovitarum autores varii”

(“Different authors of Muscovites’ history) was published, with corresponding name differentiation. “As for Italian and French monuments of the second half of 17 century, they were following the old onomastic tradition, defining Ukraine and Russia, i.e. the first one was named “Rus”, while the second one was named

“Moscovia”. The form “Little Russia” (Kleinrussland, Petite-Russie, Piccola Russia тощо) occurred among western monuments only since 17th century”. 2

There are lots of similar examples. Here is nother range of works of Western Europeans authors, issued in Russia, where the term “Moscovia”

was being used constantly: Korb Ioan Georg “The diary of a trip to Moscow (1698-1699)” (translation and comments by A. Malein, St. Petersburg, 1905); Pleier Otton “On current status of the state management in Moscovia (1710)” (Readings in the community of Russian history and antiquity. 1874, Vol. 2); “A trip of Kornelii de Bruin across Moscovia in times of Peter the Great” (Readings in the community of Russian history and antiquity. 1872, Vol. 1, 2, 5, 1873, Vol. 1); (Letters and reports of Jesuits on Russia in the late 17 and early 18 century), (St. Petersburg, 1904). In the later one terms “Muscovites”, “Moscovia”, “Moscow state”, etc. occurred constantly. We should also note such works as: Berberini Rafael, “The trip to Moscow by Rafael Berberin” in the Vol. “The Tale of foreigners on Russia of 16-17 centuries”

(St. Petersburg, 1840); Vitsen Nicolaas, “The trip to Moscovia. 1664-1665: Diary” (St. Petersburg, 1996); Heidenstein R., “Notes of the Moscow war of 1578-1582 years” (In 5th Vol., St. Petersburg, 1889); Maierberg A., “The trip to Moscovia” (Moscow, 1874); Oleiaryi A., “The description of the trip to Moscovia, Persia and back” (St. Petersburg, 1905); Reitenfels. Ya., “The Tale for his Highness Duke of Tuscany Kozma the Third about Moscovia”

(Moscow, 1905); Isak Massa, “Brief news of Moscovia in the early 17 century” (Moscow, 1937). The terms “Moscovia”, “Muscovites” also occurred in the book of relations of diplomats for the period from Ivan Groznyi to Oleksii Mykhailovych rulling. 3

1 Propamiatne pysmo NTSh.- Lviv. 1923.- S. 5.

2 Nalyvaiko D. Retseptsiia Ukrainy v Zakhidnii Yevropi XVI-XVIII st. // Suchasnist.- 1993.- № 2.-

S. 103.

3 Proezzhaia po Moskovyy (Rossyia XVI-XVII vekov hlazamy dyplomatov).- M.: Mezhdunar.

otnoshenyia, 1991.- S. 3.

117

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

“Moscovia, Moscovitia, as it was said in their encyclopedia, was the name for the State of Rus when princes and kings of Moscow were rulling by the end of the 18 century, accepted in all Western Europe”. 1

In 1716 in German Hamburg, paid agents of the Moscow government treacherously kidnapped a nephew of Ivan Mazepa, Swedish Guard Colonel Andrii. He was transported to Moscovia, at the casemates of Peter and Paul Fortress, and then, after being tortured, he was exiled to Siberia, where his trace was lost totally.

The Western society was stunned with the insidious kidnapping of Voinarovskyi.

A great number of German, French and English newspapers were outraged of the barbaric way “Moscow” government slaughtered their political opponent. We will present here only a short piece letter of the imperial ambassador von Kurtsruk to a Hamburg’s magistrate: “His Imperial Majesty with the great sorrow found that the Honorable Magistrate on the tsar’s unilateral statement violated the asylum of the imperial territory against Voinarovskyi, the cavalier, looking for protection here. Moreover, the Honorable Magistrate arrested Voinarovskyi and left him at the house of Moscowitischen resident, being guarded by Muscovites”. 2

Even after Peter I in 1721 renamed the “Tsardom of Moscow” into the “Russian Empire”, certain old common terms were being used in the Westren Europe for a long time”. Yet in 1869 a French politician K. de Liamar wrote: “There is a nation in Europe, left by historians, a nation of Rusyns: 121/2 millions of which are under the rulling of Russian tsar and 21/2 millions are under Austro-Hungarian monarchy. This nation is as numerous as the people of Spain, three times bigger than the Czechs and is equal in number to all subjects of the crown of St. This nation exists, it has its own history, different from the history of Poland and even more different from Moscovian history. It has its own traditions, own language, different from Moscovian and Polish ones, and fighting for its bright identity. The history shall remember that before Peter I the nation, we are calling Ruthenians, was being called ruskyi or Rusyns and their land was being called the Rus of Ruthenia, while the nation, we are calling ruskyi, was being called Moskvins, and their land — Moscovia. In the end of the past century the whole France and Europe were aware of the fact that Rus and Moscovia were different things”. 3 An outstanding modern French historian, Fernan Brodel, in his fundamental work “Financial civilization, economy and capitalism, 15-18 centuries”

constantly called Russia before Peter by the term Modcovia. The territory of Russia a map of virmenian traders of 17th century was called “Moscovia”, while the territory of Ukraine was called “Ruthenia”. 4 Sharl Monteksie in his work 1 Bolshaia Entsyklopedyia.- SPb., 1903.- S. 442.

2 Borshchak I. Aresht Voinarovskoho // ZNTSh.- 1925.- T. 138/140.- S. 157.

3 Sichynskyi V. Chuzhyntsi pro Ukrainu: Vybir z opysiv podorozhei po Ukraini ta inshykh pysan chuzhyntsiv pro Ukrainu za desiat stolit.- K., 1992.- S. 220.

4 Brodel Fernan. Materialna tsyvilizatsiia, ekonomika i kapitalizm, XV-XVIII st.: U 3 t.- K.: Osnovy, 1997.- T. 2.- S. 125.

118

X. PRESERVED TRADITIONS

The Spirit of Laws (1748) often used the term Moscivia. 1 Europeans believed, maybe even not without a reason, that only Catherine II through her “highest command” bestowed the name “Russkiie” ( Russians) to people of Moscovia and banned them from using the name “moskovytiany”. 2 It is known for sure that the Catherine II was the first one, who acutely opposed the use of official ethnonym

“Muscovites”: “The name Moskivia, Moscow, Muskovite, inhabitant of Moscow was recently used (!) because of ignorance and neighbor’s envy (!)”, — she taught sitting on her throne in St. Petersburg. 3

On the Christian East Muscovites and Rusyns were identified until the 17th century. Paul of Aleppo, determined Rus in his famous description of the trip to Moscow in 1654 as Ukraine, and the population of the former Zalissia was called Muscovites. 4

In 1659 Armenian merchants presented a throne to tsar Alexis with the following words; “Potentissimo et invicatissimo Moscovitarum imperatori Alex-io… Anno D. 1659” (“To the most powerful and most insurmountable emperor of Muskovites, to Alexis… of the year of the Lord 1659 ”). Here are some eloquent prases from the letter of Jerusalem Patriarch Dosifei to the tsar Peter I:

“Аще пріидуть отсюда или Сербы, или Греки, или от иного народа туды, аще бы и случайно были мудрейшія і святейшія особы, Ваше державное

и богоутвержденное царствіє да нікогда сотворить митрополитом или

и патріархом Грека, Серба или Русянина, но Московитянов, и не просто

Москвитян, но природных Москвитян” ( Serbs and Greeks will come from here, or from other nation, and some of them are the wise and saint, Your Stately and God-approved stardom should never make Metropolitan or Patriarch of the Greek, Serb or Rus, but Moskovites, not just Moskovites but natural Moskovites).

Futher: “Аще великое твое царствие имеет намерение учинити избрание

патріарха, да повелит, чтоб не учинилось избрание особых из Козаков и

Россіян и Сербян и Греков… но да повелит быти избранию особы из самого

Москвича” ( Your Tsar’s majesty intends to elect Patriarch, let you not Cossacks or Ross, or Serbs or Greeks be elected… but only somebody of Moskovites). 5

Those were some historical and terminological traditions until the end of the 17th century. The Congress of Polish organizations, held in June, 1917, in Kyiv showed that Polish terminological tradition was durable enough. They named themselves “The Congress of Polish organizations in Rus”, but not in “Ukraine”, as some delegates offered. The old ethnonymics was still power.

1 Taranovskyi F. V. Monteske o Rossyy // Trudy russkykh uchenykh za hranytsei.- Berlyn, 1922.-

T. I.- S. 181.

2 Ekateryna II. Zapysky kasatelno rossyiskoi ystoryy.- SPb., 1901.- T. 8.- S. 399.

3 Ekateryna II. Zapysky kasatelno rossyiskoi ystoryy.- SPb., 1901.- T. 8.- S. 399.

4 Puteshestvye Pavla Aleppskoho.- M., 1898.- T. 4.- S. 55.

5 Solovev S. Ystoryia Rossyy s drevneishykh vremen.- M., 1865.- S. 419-427.

119

XI. THE MOSKOVITES

In the Lithuanian state the name "Rus" defined only Belarusians and Ukrainians. Lithuanians (as well as Ukrainians and Belarusians) called the former Zalissia only by the term Moskovshchina. As A. Savich, a scholar of that era, writes, "Our sources unite all ‘Russian’ population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Belarusian as well as Ukrainian — connected by political and cultural unity — by the common term ‘Rus’ and ‘Russian’ opposing it to the term ‘Moscow,’ ‘Mosko-vytianyn’." 1 For example, in Gustynsky chronicles of 1406 we find, "Svydrygailo

... ran to ... the Grand Duke of Moscow and with Moscow caused much evil to the Lithuanian lands and Rus; or in 1415, "Vytold, seeing that the mytropolit came from Moscow ... and collected tribute from the prists (on the Lithuanian-Russian territory) ... for Moscow, regretted it, not yet understanding that the wealth of the Russian lands does not lessen." The prominent Russian linguist prince Trubetskoy confirmed that the term "Rus" defined only the dwellers of the South; he says, "Concerning the northerners, once they were politically united by Moscow, a special name of Moscovites, Moscow people, Moscow state (Moskovia), pre-vailed.2

Numerous sources of that time clearly show that the population of Ukraine and Belarus was clearly aware of its ethnic difference from the Moscovites. "Almost throughout their history Rusyns-Ukrainians remain a strange people to their Moscow neighbors.

And in several centuries, those two nations are defined by different names from the moment, when they were actually known in history ... Namely, former Slavic tribes in the present-day South-Western Russia from the 9th century on, and the current residents of Galicia and Volyn from the 11th century on were called Rus or Rusyns, while the tribes of Rostov and Suzdal regions ... from the 15th century on were called by the name of 'Moscow'."3

In his treatise "Palinodia," (Palinode) Zechariah Kopystensky cites Prince Ostrozky, who said that the creation of the church union between Orthodoxy and Catholicism should be not only Ruthenians' (Ukrainians and Belarusians) business, but also that of all the peoples of Orthodox religion. " 4 The polem-1 Savych A. Narysy z istorii kulturnykh rukhiv na Vkraini ta Bilorusii v XVI-XVIII vv.- K.: Vyd-vo AN URSR, 1929.- S. 5.

2 Mykhalchuk K. P. K otvetu kn. E. Y. Trubetskoho na anketu “Ukraynskoi Zhyzny” // Ukraynskaia Zhyzn.- 1914.- № 11/12.- S. 29.

3 Ohonovskyi O. Istoriia literatury ruskoi.- Lviv: NTSh, 1891.- T. 1.- S. 9.

4 Palynodyia, sochynenye Zakh. Kopystenskoho // Russkaia Ystorycheskaia Byblyoteka.- Pb., 1898.- T. 4.- S. 1142

120

XI. THE MOSKOVITES

ical essay "Obrona Verificaciey" of 1621 provides a list of nations that obey Patriarch of Constantinople, namely, Bulgarian, Serbian, Slovak, Russian, Moscow, and others. 1

The correspondence between Bishop Hypatia Potii and Prince Ostrog describes the fate of Christian captives in Crimea, "As Russians, Moscovites, Greeks, Polyatses, Vloshes, Germans, all the female slaves: all together must please Bayram Tatar ...".2

The ethnonyms "Rus" and "Moscow" are constantly opposed as two dis-parate concepts. In the essay Defense of the Union, Lev Krevza in 1617 says,

"Moscow chose its own patriarch to her liking, but our Rus, supporting the unity with Rome, accepted as their pastor Gergory from Pope Pius." 3

In the above-mentioned book "Palinodia," Zechariah Kopystensky informs that the Orthodox Church also has many scientists and writers. Listing initially various Greeks, he further states, "It was the same in Russia (in Rus that is) … In Mosow people are also wise and of orthodox religion ...". 4

One of the Russian chronicles of the mid-16th century tells about the events of 1500 as follows, "The great Moscow prince fought the Russian land and the great prince of Lithuania, Alexandr, sent his Lithuanian army, and the Lithuanian army clashed with the Moscow army at Vedrosh and they had a great battle amongst them."5

In "Samovydets's Chronicle" we find, "Getman Bryuhovetskyy went to Bila Tserkva with those Kolmyks, and Moscow, and the Cossacks."Or in another place, "There are four Muscovites. "In general, the "Samovydets's Chronicle"

mentions Moscow twelve times, Moscow army twenty-nine times, Moscow as a nation is mentioned twenty-six times. 6 The events of Michael Glinski's rebellion of 1508 the chronicle describes as follows, "And at that time, many Russian castles went to the Great Duke of Moscow." 7 And further: "The Great Duke of Moscow, Vasyley, forgot about the truce and his oath, sent his troops to the Russian kingdom and caused trouble as an enemy and himself went to Smolensk with his Moscow army." 8

1 Obrona Verificaciey // AIuZR.- K., 1887.- Ch. I.- T. 7.- S. 412.

2 Russkaia Ystorycheskaia Byblyoteka.- Pb., 1903.- T. 19.- S. 408..

3 Russkaia Ystorycheskaia Byblyoteka.- Pb., 1903.- T. 19.- S. 235.

4 Palynodyia, sochynenye Zakh. Kopystenskoho // Russkaia Ystorycheskaia Byblyoteka.- Pb., 1898.- T. 4.- S. 913-914.

5 PSRL.- Pb., 1907.- T. 17.- Spysok Hr. Rechynskoho.- S. 342.

6 Letopys Samovydtsa po novootkrytym spyskam…- K.: Yzd. Vrem. Komys. dlia razbora drevn.

aktov, 1878.- S. 64, 88, 172 y dr.

7 Letopys Samovydtsa po novootkrytym spyskam…- K.: Yzd. Vrem. Komys. dlia razbora drevn.

aktov, 1878.- S.345.

8 Letopys Samovydtsa po novootkrytym spyskam…- K.: Yzd. Vrem. Komys. dlia razbora drevn.

aktov, 1878.- S. 346.

121

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

One Italian, Olexandr Gvanini was in the service of teh Polish kings and teh Great Dukes of Lithuania in course of fifty years (1561 - 1611). For almost twenty years Gvanyini was a major of the Vitebsk fortress. Using diverse old sources as well as his own observations, he wrote a valuable chronicle “Description of the European Sarmatia” in Latin. He calls the territory of Ukraine and Belarus

"Rus". He calls the contemporary Russia only Moscow. 1

In the old sources, people of Moscow origin were named similarly.In contrast to the "Rusyns" they were called "Muscovites", "Moskvytyans". L. Krevza in his Defense of the Union, as well as Kosov in his Paterykon call Helen, the wife of Lithuanian Grand Duke Alexander, Moskovka."Metropolitan Macarius

... was the Queen Helena the Moskovka's first court patriarch." 2 "... Jonah who was first Archimandrite of Minks became a Metropolitan ... for the intention of Polish Queen Helena the Moskovka." 3 S. Kopystensky talks about the Metropolitan Macarius in Palinodia: "And he, apparently, was a Moskvitin by birth." 4

Petro Mogyla, a Metropolitan and a social activist, wrote in his treatise, "On the miraculous and wonderful phenomena ...", that Archimandrite El.Pletenetsky had "One elder named Theodosius a Moskvytyanyn by birth." Elsewhere in the same work he writes about a young man Stephan: "a Rusyn bu birth from Kame-nez Podolsky ...", and about one doctor, "One Aleksander Muzelya, a doctor, Greek by birth ... ". 5

As you can see, these writers clearly and precisely delineate here three ethnonyms "Moskvytyanyn by birth", "Rusyn by birth", and "Greek by birth."The same can be observed in "Rich Wine" (1621), where Metropolitans Hilarion and Clement are called Rusyns in contrast to the monk Pimen-Moskvytyn. 6 Later the same text narrates about the Jerusalem patriarch reproving the Cossacks for their recent raids to Moscovia, because "Moscovites" were [also] Christians." 7

One anti-Uniate polemical essay (1597) states, "Let them tell, when which priest preached in Greek, Moscow, Russian, Indian, or Persian church, Egypti-anm and which were in Europe." 8 Text "Litos" that came out in Kyiv, in 1644, says that "Moscow converts not only the Poles, but also Ruthenians." 9 It talks 1 Spornye voprosy otechestvennoy ystoryy XI-XVIII vekov.- M.: Yn-t ystoryy SSSR, 1990.-

S. 78.

2 Oborona uniy // Russkaia Ystorycheskaia Byblyoteka.- 1878.- T. 4.- S. 237.

3 Paterikon // AIuZR.- K., 1914.- Ch. I.- T. 8.- S. 469.

4 Palynodyia, sochynenye Zakh. Kopystenskoho // Russkaia Ystorycheskaia Byblyoteka.- Pb., 1898.- T. 4.- S. 1042.

5 Skazaniia Petra Mohyly o chudesnykh y zamiehchatelnykh yavlenyiakh… // AIuZR.- K., 1887.-

Ch. I.- T. 7.- S. 76, 84, 85, 119.

6 Sowita wina // AIuZR.- K., 1887.- Ch. I.- T. 7.- S. 449-450.

7 Sowita wina // AIuZR.- K., 1887.- Ch. I.- T. 7.- S. 485.

8 AIuZR.- K., 1914.- Ch. I.-T. 8.-S. 519.

9 Litos // AIuZR.- K., 1893.- Ch. I.- T. 9.- S. 26.

122

XI. THE MOSKOVITES

about the differences between the Russian Orthodox and Moscow churches.

There is a lot of information in the sources of that time.Everywhere the Moscow church is called Moscow and Ukrainian is called Russian.

During their debate, L. Krevza and the anti-Uniate author of "Bogata Vyna"

or "Great Guilt" used the arguments of both the Russian, as well as Moscow chronicles.The author of "Great Guilt" insists that in terms of the question that interest him, the chronicles coincide, therefore truth is on his side.This is how he words it, "... all this we are ready to prove by using not only the Ruthenian chronicles, but also the Moscow ones; which will quickly reveal the truth, as the authors from two different disagreeing nations that have for long disliked each other agree on this point." 1 Sebastian Klenovich, a 16th century Ukrainian poet, wrote in his poem Roksolaniya (1584), "glorious Rus stretches ... to the dark Moscow forest." 2

Neither Moscow State, nor Moscow society enjoyed popularity among the Ukrainian population.Here's how he wrote to Prince Constantine Ostrog on June 3, 1598, "Who is not aware of the Moscow people's great rudeness, stubbornness, and superstition." 3

And in 17th-18th centuries,Ukrainians call their northeastern neighbors

'moskali' (Muscovites), and their country "Moscow", "Muscovshchina",

"Muscoviya". Here are some excerpts from the correspondence of the borderland administration. In 1649 Yuri, Romny police chieftain, writes to Dmitry Ivanovich Kyriyeva, the governor of Nedrygailov, about the theft of some horses: "... because of your Moscovites Yvanka and Stepanka from the town of Ustrelets, who visited our town's fair ..." And further, "And these Moscovites came soon . .". 4 In 1650, Martyn Pushkar, Poltava colonel, wrote to Prince Ivan Petrovich Pronsky, the governor of Belgorod, "... you've sent to me in Poltava, governor, an outpost chief Epiphan with his comrades to search for Moskal Mishka who escaped from Belgorod after theft ...". 5 One should add that in Moscow state, particularly in the 17th century. Ukrainian Cossacks as well as general Ukrainian population were officially called "Cherkasy" (single noun — "cherkashenyn") 6 of which more later.

In times of Ivan Briukhovetsky (1666) Poltava Cossacks complain about Moscow governor Yakov Hitrovo "He orders Moscovites to take the tired horses to carts to do domestic chores; he is staying in a widow's house; puts his high 1 Sowita wina // AIuZR.- K., 1887.- Ch. I.- T. 7.- S. 451.

2 Yushchuk Yu. Yakoiu movoiu rozmovliala Kyivska Rus // Zoloti vorota.- 1993.- T. 6.- S. 122.

3 Russkaia Ystorycheskaia Byblyoteka.- 1903.- T. 19.- S. 1017.

4 Krypiakevych I. Z pohranychnoi ukrainsko-moskovskoi perepysky 1649-1651 r. // ZNTSh.-

1929.- T. 150.- S. 86.

5 Krypiakevych I. Z pohranychnoi ukrainsko-moskovskoi perepysky 1649-1651 r. // ZNTSh.-

1929.- T. 150.- S. 87.

6 Vossoedynenye Ukrayny s Rossyei.- M.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1953.- T. I.- S. 511.

123

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

ranking people in the houses of nobility; curses the colonel, whom we honor like our father; if one of us comes to him — he knock our eyes out with his club, spits, or orders his batmen to kick us out." 1

In the greatest Ukrainian historiographic monument of the Cossack era (second half of the 17th century), the so called "Litopysi Samovydtsya" ('Chronicles of the Eyewitness'), as has been mentioned above, repeatedly and constantly use the terms Rus, Rusyn, Ruskii meaning "Ukrainian", "Ukrainian", "Ukrainian"; and Moscow, Moscovskii in the present sense of "Russians", "Russian." 2

In the diary of the head paymaster, General James Markiewicz, in May of 1733, one encounters a mention of "one Moskvytyn" to denote a Russian. 3

At the end of the 17th century, in 1674, Synopsis, the first printed work on the history of Russian or, as the author explains, "Slavic-Russian" people came out in Kyiv. Synopsis was based on the chronicles of former teacher of Kyiv Academy, Theodosii Safonovych, that went as far back as the 13th century. In subsequent editions, rector of the Kyiv Academy, Inokentii Gisel' undertook to re-edit this work in the spirit agreeable to the Moscow tsarism. Gisel' turned "Synopsis"

into a scholastic treatise, dedicated to the legitimate needs of the Romanov dynasty in its relations with Poland.In particular, he payed special attention to the terms "Moscow" and "Muscovite". Gisel' invents a story about the existence of the forefather, the grandson of Noah, the sixth son of Japheth, the biblical Mo-sokh (Meshech) 4 "for convenient explanation of Moscow and Muscovites, and obviosly, for their greater glory." 5

Synopsis wound up in the royal library and became the most popular textbook on the history of the "Moscow state."It came out in about thirty editions, the last edition was published in 1836 In the preface for this edition, Metropolitan Evgenii wrote, "Due to the one-time weakness of other Russian histories in print, this book in its time was the only textbook of its kind."The fable of Mosoch was repeated throughout; it was received with understanding of the need to explain the origin of ethnonym "Moskal'. All the 18th and 19th century Moscow historians repeated the fable of Mosoch after "Synopsis." In 1728, a well-known Ukrainian Cossack chronicler, Samiilo Velychko, using some ancient manuscript, compiled Cosmographia, where, in particular, one finds a section about the "glorious Moscow kingdom". This is a very interesting section in view of those facts that Ukrainians had in their writing about the state and people, to whom this part of Ukraine (Livoberezhzhia (Left Bank)) started to belonged from the mid 17th cen-1 Solovev S. Ystoryia Rossyy s drevneishykh vremen.- M., 1961.- Kn. 6.- T. II.- S. 511.

2 Litopys Samovydtsia.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1971.- S. 184, 186 ta in.

3 Kyevskaia staryna.- 1882-1884.- T. 1-3.- S. 288.

4 Kn. Buttia, 10, 2.

5 Koialovych M. O. Ystoryia russkoho samosoznanyia po ystorycheskym pamiatnykam y nauchnym sochynenyiam.- Yzd. 3-e.- SPb., 1901.- S. 85.

124

XI. THE MOSKOVITES

tury."Great frightening forests, and in them there is untold multitude of all kinds of different beasts. Clever and wise hunters, such as are Moscow people, cannot be found anywhere." 1 "The Moscow state hasn't had different book schools, philosophical schools... Women live there in great need; they all stay locked up in their houses, and if one doesn't live in discreet custom, she is not considered a good and honest wife. "And further, "their drink is: beer, honey, hot wine, they drink too much ...".2

A famous representative of Baroque style in the Ukrainian literature of the 18th century, Klimentii Zinov'iiv, dedicated one of his poems to "interfaith" between "man and wife."The writer warns that marriages, where the husband and wife profess different faiths, will not have harmony.

It happens, for example, when sometimes

The husband is a Pole and wife is faithful (i.e., Orthodox).

It may happen that both are faithful (Orthodox) but not of "the same human breed" then they won't have a good life:

And although both are faithful but not of the same people, that is, the husband is a Moskal' or a Lytvyn ...

Or vice versa ... "and he is a truthful Rusnak, a Cossack Ukrainian of the malorossyiskoi breed" For then,

For where people are of not the same breed,

These have no agreement between them either. 3

The author of Istoriia Rusiv (The History of the Ruses') gives us the most significant evidence of how the ethnonyms "Rus" and "Moscow" were used in the post-Cossack era.This work, called Poem of Free People, was written not earlier than the second half of the 18th century and no later than the first quarter of the 19th. 4 According to the ever-present in the national imagination tradition that survived until the end of the XVIII century,the author of this work (historians still disagree about his identity) believes Ukrainians and Belorusians to be one people, who are called "Rusyns" as opposed to the "Moscow" people. Following 1 Orlenko L. Knyzhni vidomosti ukraintsiv pro Moskovske tsarstvo naprykintsi XVIII st. //

Ukraina.- 1914.- Kn. 3.- S. 69.

2 Orlenko L. Knyzhni vidomosti ukraintsiv pro Moskovske tsarstvo naprykintsi XVIII st. //

Ukraina.- 1914.- Kn. 3.- S. 72.

3 Klymentii Zinoviiv. O ynoviernoi ednoi personie mezhdu muzhem i zhenoiu. Virshi. Prypovisti pospolyti.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1971.- S. 116-117.

4 Kravchenko V. V. “Poema vilnoho narodu” (Istoriia Rusiv) ta yii mistse v ukrainskii istoriohrafii.-

Kh., 1996.- S. 117.

125

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

the Kyivan Chronicle of the 12th century, the author of The History of Ruses', understands under "Ukraine" the territory of the middle reaches of the Dnieper river and does not apply this term to the entire "Rus".

From this large in terms of scope work we will cite excerpts, which clearly confirm the existing contrast between the peoples of Russia and Moscovshchina.

For example, here is the speech by Vinnytsia colonel Ivan Bohun delivered after the debate with Bohdan Khmelnytsky at the council in Chyhyryn, "Slavery and servitude rule among the Moscow people to the extreme. They may have nothing in their possession except for what is God's or Tsar's, and people, in their opinion, are created supposedly in order not to have anything but to slave. Even the Moscow nobility and boyars themselves are titled tsar's slaves and in their requests always say that they beat their foreheads [on the ground by bowing low]; as for the commoners, they are all considered serfs, as though they do not come from the same people but are purchased from among the slaves and captives; and those serfs — or under this name peasants of both sexes, men and women with their children — are sold at the markets and in the houses of their owners and masters just like cattle for the unheard of rights and privileges, and not infrequently are exchanged for dogs, and while being sold they must remain conscientiously cheerful and stand out with their voice, kindness and knowledge of some trade, so that they could be sold faster and purchased dearer.In a word, to get united with such a people would be the same as to jump out of the frying pan into the fire." 1 In another place of "History of Ruses" we encounter, "The wars with Moscovia are inevitable and endless for all people, because, despite the fact that it came from under the Tatars only recently, exclusively through the Tatars' inner turmoil, which even now occur, despite that in it all officers and people almost illiterate and by the multiplicity or their faiths and chimeric temples - are similar to paganism and in their rage are worse than savages: despite, I say, the ignorance and rudeness it should be mentioned how touchy they are about trifles and imagined [things], for which they carried senseless and long fight and wars with the Swedes and Poles, finding something inappropriate in their words in correspondence with them, for which they are also constantly fighting and terrorizing each other, finding in their books and crosses something wrong and unrightful with everyone.We also should recall their craving for power and harassment, by means of which they appropriate even entire kingdoms, Greek and Roman empires, stealing at the end the State Emblem of those kingdoms, that double-headed eagle that supposedly their prince Vladimir, who was the son-in-law to the Greek king Constantine Monomakh, inherited; though that Vladimir was in reality the Kyivan Russian Prince and not Moscovite ... And it is proven already 1 Konyskii H. Ystoriia Rusovъ yly Maloi Rossiy.- M., 1846.- S. 98.- Tsyt. za vyd.: Istoriia Rusiv /

Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 142-143.

126

XI. THE MOSKOVITES

that without stable religion and good customs, there can be no stable governance, and our Ruses will be crawling among the Moskals like sheep among wolves ". 1

Another example, words from the speech of Cherkasy Archpriest Feodor Gursky to Bogdan Khmelnitsky, "And the Moscow gifts are all [dressed] in hessian, it is inevitable, therefore, that people too, living with them will be driven to such poverty that it will get into and under the hessian.These conclusions are true and exceed all oracles in the world. " 2 Hetman Ivan Vigovs'ky was prevented from re-joining Poland by "superstitious old men, who better prefer Moskovshchina to Poles and Turks, only because of the same religion, though, there are as many beliefs, as we have districts, and each one prosecutes and hates the others." 3

The author of History of Ruses talks about the theft of the ethnonym, "It is well known that once we were that which are now Moskovites: all, the government, the primacy, and the very name Rus passed on to them." 4

The mention of religious strife in Russia by the author of "History Ruses", meant a strange for Ukrainians phenomenon of "staroobryadstvo" (old Believer faith). Religious philosopher V. Soloviev explained the essence of the Russian Old Believer faith, "As you know, the Old Believer faith spread only in the northern and eastern Russia, i.e., within the settlement of the velykorusskii (Great Russian) tribe.The Old Believers who fled from persecution and established their colonies in Ukraine (Starodubya, Vitka et al.) could never turn their settlements into the center of divisive propaganda.Malorussians (as well as Belorussians) turned out to be completely inaccessible to the Old Believer faith, which generally spread only where the Russian population mixed with the Finns; and the thicker was this mix in a given area, the more rooted became the Old Believer faith in it (Bilomorsky (White Sea) and Olonetsky regions, the lower and middle Volga river, as well as the lower Oka river.) This fact, together with the main feature of the Old Believer faith, literalism, suggests a paradoxical idea, that the common original spirit in our religious movement has grown not from the Russian but from the Finnish ethnic background . Indeed, that absolute value that the Old Believers assign to the external side of the sacraments and the letter of the sacred books, regardless of all sense, best corresponds to the incantating magic nature of religion that is found in such a strong manifestation in no other tribe as with Finns." 5

In the years of 1605-1612, Moskovshchina lived through a period of so called "smuta" ("Time of Troubles"). Polish-Cossack army of hetman S. Zolk-iewski took Moscow, and Zemsky Sobor chose the Polish Prince Volodyslav to 1 Istoriia Rusiv / Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 182-183.

2 Istoriia Rusiv / Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 143.

3 Istoriia Rusiv / Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 192.

4 Istoriia Rusiv / Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 259.

5 Solovev V. S. Sobranye sochynenyi.- S.-Peterburh.- T. V.- S. 158.

127

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

be the king. The Cossacks were actively involved in the following wars between Moscow and Poland, on Polish side, which continued in the first half of the 17th century. Ethnonymics confirm the then alienation between the Moscow people and the population of the Dnieper region."In the 16th-17th centuries, in Russia they used the term "Cherkasy" before the Ukrainians of Zaporozhye and those on the territory on either side of the middle course of the Dnieper River, who called themselves

"Russian", "Cossack people", and "Ukrainians", in was used mostly in the term

"Cherkasy". This exotic ethnonym was widely applied in the Acts of the Moscow State (see, for example, T. I, St. Petersburg, 1890; V. II, 1896; V. III, 1901) and other written sources of that time as an official name for Ukrainians." 1

There are various etymological theories about the origin of this exotic ethnonym.According to the first, the earliest theory, this name was given to Cossacks by a handful of "Circassians", people from the North Caucasus. M. Maksimovic, strongly defending the idea of local, Ukrainian origin of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, linked the origin of the ethnonym "Cherkasy" with the name of the city Cherkasy. Karamzin connected the name "Cherkasy" with market and black hoods.There is a view that allegedly ethnonym "Cherkasy" comes from the Ossetian words "cherkas," which means eagles.Others insist that the word is of Greek origin.In the end, one can say that "used in relation to the Ukrainians of the Dnieper region, the ethnonym Cherkassy remained unexplained." 2

The fact that starting from the 16th and until the first half of the 18th century the deeds of the Moscow State officially call Ukrainians "Cherkasy" shows that the Moskovites' ethnic imagination in no way perceived Ukrainians as blood relatives.

1 Kotelevets I. O. Do problemy nazvy ukraintsiv “cherkasamy” // Etnohrafichni doslidzhennia Pivdennoi Ukrainy.- Zaporizhzhia, 1992.- S. 4.

2 Horlenko V. F. Ob еtnonyme cherkasy v otechestvennoi nauke kontsa XVIII - pervoi polovyny XIX v. // Sovetskaia еtnohrafyia.- 1982.- № 2.- S. 104.

128

XII. SCRIBERS OF FENER

Before 1686, a black year in the history of Ukraine, through a Turkish vizier, Dionysius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, conveyed Ukrainian church under the Moscow ruling for “furs and money” (“tri soroka soboliv s trista shervonykh”), so that Kyiv Metropolis was under the Ecumenical patriarch. “Unfortunately, Russian Orthodox church, having appeared on the historical scene in five centuries, claimed to receive a monnopolic right to the Kyiv heritage, while modern Russian propaganda is going out of its way to suppress competing claims and traditions, especially Ukrainian ones”. 1 An aristocratic district of Constantinople, located on the right bank of the Golden Horn bay, called Fener, became the place of residence for the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch, since Turkish turned the Saint Sofia Church into a mosque. The patriarch’s chancellery was located there, and different patriarchal letters, resolutions and guidelines were sent to Ruthenian Church, from Fener. Byzantine scribes of Fener did not know ethnonymics of Eastern Europe well. Local scribes preferred to make “barbarian”

ethnonyms, they used, sound Greek, instead of studying western realities. Their ignorance and misinterpretation resulted in contradictory ethnonymic chaos, lasted in Ukraine for so long.

The church clerks and church scribes, often being the only educated people in Europe, formed their names and titled, according to different famous historical analogs and precedents, with little regard for living language practice. A correspondence was going between the the Chancellery of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ruthenian Metropolis. The terms “Russia”, Little Russia” and

“Great Russia”, Moscow rulers’ titles, etc. were born in those conditions. 2 The term Russia, as all researchers assert, is an artificial term, made up by Byzantine Greeks. “It was obvious that the term was artificial, because previous names

“Rus”, “Rusiia” had been replaced with Byzantine Rossiia”. 3 Fener scribers, keeping an old greek tradition to pervert foreign languages, replaced the “u”

sound with “o” one, double “s” with no reason for that and added a greek ending

“iia”, instead of softening. Greeks also perverted the ethnonym Rusyn into the name Rus or Rossy.

Under the influence of the clergy, Ukrainian and Belarusian scribers were using the term Rosiia for some time. For example, in his letter to Pope Sixtus IV (1476) Metropolitan Mishael received the title of Metropolitan “Kyiv throne 1 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 343.

2 Barvinskyi B. Velyka y Mala Ukraina.- Lviv, 1925.- S. 4.

3 Еntsyklopedycheskyi slovar Brokhauza y Efrona.- 1891.- T. 5.- S. 828.

129

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and of all Rusia”. Grammar of Good Hellenes-Slavenes Language, published by Lviv Stavropihiiskyi brotherly printing house in 1592, said, “ко наказанію (для

навчання) много именытому Россійскому роду” ( to teach well-known Rossi-isky people). 1 Metropolitan Ipatii Potii in 1605 received the title of “Metropolitan of Kyiv, Galicia and All Russia”. Hetman Petro Konashevych Sahaidachny, before dying (in 1622), who assigned a thousand and a half of golden coins for the Lviv Brotherhood school, noted that he did it for teaching "our Russian children ”. 2 The name of the eulogy of Pylyp Orlyk’s general sriber, devoted to Mazepa Hetman, was “Alkid Russian”, (Alkid, a descendant of Alcaeus, i.e.

Hercules). Mazepa was called a Russian Hetman on a silver shroud, presented to the Temple of the Lord's Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

Such names as “Rosiia”, “Roksolaniia”, “Sarmatiia”, etc. “seemed to be sol-emn. They were used “in a high style mainly”. 3 M.Kostomarov said on this matter: “The word Russia or Rosia, Russian was literary, rhetorical at first, as well as the name Gaul for France, Sarmatia to denote Poland, Germania for Germany, Pannonia for Hungary and so on. Since the second half of the 17th century it became officious, although it did not become a commonly used one until the later times. Even now, despite the fact that the word “Russia”, denoting a state, is commonly used: but who would call themselves Rosiianyn in a serious way, instead of Russkii or would say: rosiiska language, instead of russkaia language?

This artificial Greek damage of our name was so alien for our language spirit and for our people, that Velykorossy (Great Russians) pronounce Raseiia instead or Rossiia even nowadays”. 4

A final division of the Church of Rus into Kyiv and Moscow ones, each with its own separate hierarchy, happened in 1458. Traditionaly since the 10th century Kyiv Metropolitans have been titled “Metorpolitan of Kyiv and All Rus”. The church of Rus and Lithania (Belorussia) was headed by “Metropolitan of Kyiv, Galicia and All Russia”. 5 In governmental Latin: Metropolita totius Russiae (Metorpolitan of All Rus). 6 Moscow Metropolitans, following Kyiv ones, repeated the name “Moscow and All Rus”.

Kyiv Metropolitan Iova Boretskyi’s document, published in Kyiv 1629, beginned with, “Iova Boretskyi, archibishop of Kyiv and Galicia and all Russia, with God’s honour, : “Іовъ Борецкій, милостію Божею архіепископъ

1 Andrusiak M. Terminy “Ruskyi”, “Roskyi”, “Rosiiskyi” i “Biloruskyi” v publikatsiiakh XVI-XIX stolit // Zbirnyk na poshanu Ivana Mirchuka.- Miunkhen; Niu-York; Paryzh; Vinnipeh, 1974.- S. 3.

2 Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy.- Kyiv; Lviv, 1909.- T. VII.- S. 489.

3 Olkhivskyi B. Vilnyi narid.- Varshava, 1937.- S. 6.

4 Kostomarov M. I. Davno-ly Malaia Rus stala pysatsia Malorossyei? // Zapysky Ukrainskoho naukovoho Tovarystva v Kyievi.- K., 1928.- T. XXVII.- S. 224.

5 Hrushevskyi M. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy.- Kyiv; Lviv, 1905.- T. V.- S. 459.

6 Halushchynskyi O. T. Mytropolyt Yosyf Yoan Veliamyn Rutskyi.- Stanyslaviv, 1938.- S. 1.

130

XII. SCRIBERS OF FENER

Кіевскій и Галицкій и всея Россіи, всѣмъ посполито Россійского рода, такъ

въ коронѣ Польской, яко и у великомъ князтвѣ Литовскомъ”. 1 The practice of such naming is still on. “Scholars, based near a board, found by Metropolitan Petro Mohyla, which became the academy in Ivan Mazepa times, Rus was often named “Russia”. 2

Petro Mohyla himself had a title “милостію Божею архієпископъ

митрополитъ Кіевскій, Галицкій и всея Россіи, екзархъ святого апостолского

трону Констянтинополского, архимандритъ Печерский”. 3 Pechersk typogra-phists congratulated Petro Mohyla with a panegyric “Evfonіia veselobriiachaia”, where they were encouraging him to take care of people’s honor: 4

Твоє о том старанє, в том твоя забава, -

Your effort and your joy

Якъ бы мѣла оздобу Россійская слава. 2

Is for rossiiskaia (Russian) glory

Two more notorious terms came from patriarchal scribers, and Kyiv book-men at the same time. We are speaking about names “Little Russia” and “Great Russia”. For the first time the name “Little Russia” was established on the patriarchal synod in 1303, when the patriarch established a new Galician metropolis at the request of Galicia-Volyn Prince Yurii. 5 The name “Great Russia” occurred for the first time in patriarch’s conduct in 1354. 6 “The terms had a pure artificial bookish nature”. 7 Before the second half of the 14th century the term “Little Rus”

meant Galicia-Volyn Principality, “in opposition to the whole state of Rus, found by Kyiv princes”. 8 Byzantine patriarch began to call Galicia-Volyn metropolis

“Little-Rus” (Micra Rosiia), and Zalissia “Big-Rus” (Megale Rosiia). 9 Patriarch and Byzantine emperor “began to call Kyiv and the Dnieper Rus as “Little” one, while Rus of Zalissia, appeared before their speculative vision, as Big Rus”. 10

Ancient Greeks used to call the country, which was the cradle of the nation, as a “Little” one, and the colonized country as a “Big” one. “Thus, the Little Asia, for ancient Greeks was an ancestral home of Asia, an unification of their colonies. The Little Greece was located in the South part of the Balkan Peninsula 1 Maksymovych M. Sobranye sochynenyi.- K., 1877.- T. II.- S. 308.

2 Andrusiak M. Nazvy “Rus” i “Ukraina” // Literaturno-naukovyi dodatok “Novoho chasu”.-

1939.- Ch. 20.

3 Zhukovskyi A. Petro Mohyla y pytannia yednosty tserkov.- K.: Mystetstvo, 1997.- S. 198.

4 Ohiienko I. Istoriia ukrainskoho drukarstva.- Lviv, 1925.- T. I.- S. 245.

5 Chubatyi M. Istoriia khrystyianstva na Rusi-Ukraini.- Rym; Niu York: Vydannia Ukr. Katol. Un-tu, 1965.- T. I.- S. 667.

6 Sichynskyi V. Vstup do ukrainskoho kraieznavstva.- Praha, 1937.- S. 19.

7 Doroshenko D. I. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- Lviv: Vyd-vo “Svit”, 1991.- S. 24.

8 Tsehelskyi L. Zvidky vzialysia i shcho znachat nazvy “Rus” i “Ukraina”? - Lviv, 1907.-

S. 60-61.

9 Storozhenko A. V. Malaia Rossyia yly Ukrayna? // Trudy podhotovytelnoi po natsyonalnym delam komyssyy, malorusskyi otdel.- Odessa, 1919.- Vyp. 1.- S. 52.

10 Storozhenko A. V. Malaia Rossyia yly Ukrayna? // Malaia Rus.- K., 1918.- Vyp. perv.- S. 10.

131

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

(that is Epirus, Thessaly, Attica, Peloponnese), while Greek colonies in Sicily and along the Puglia coast and Calabria was called the Great Greece”. 1 These notions passed to the Eastern Europe. This is a generally accepted definition of the terms. The view of V. Tatishchev was an exception. He insisted that the term

“Great Rus” was used to denote the Principality of the Great Novgorod. Since this term was grabbed by Moscow, was included to the tsarskyi title and this is why it was being used among Moscow rulers. 2 Though the view of Tatishchev was not valid. Most researchers, as it was mentioned, ere following the point of view that Ecumenical Patriarch and some Bizantian emperors, since the Metropolitan moved to Zalissia began “to call Kyiv metropolitan “the Little Rus”, that was the main Rus in Greek, while Moscow metropolitan was called “the Great Rus”, that was the colony of Rus, the new Rus, in Greek”. 3

The names Great and Little Rus and Great and Little Britain, Great and Little Poland were of similar origin. “According to the terminology of Greek geographies, known since 5th century BC, the name “Micro Rosie” denoted the part of the country, considered to be the first homeland of this nation. Our ancient East, Rostov-Suzdal lands, meant “Rosie me gale” in Byzantine, was the colony of the first homeland”. 4

There was a situation in ancient Greece, similar to the one, occurred in the state of. Along with the Hellada (Hellenic republic) metropolis they occurred in Italy, the Western Asia, in the Southern Ukraine and other regions of the Mediterranean basin, often with Hellenised population. There was an issue among terminological distinguishing of metropolis and colonies. The Greece (Hellenic republic) was called the “Little Greece” (Micra Gellas), while colonies of the Mediterranean basin were called as the “Great Greece” (Megale Gellas). For the first time the term “Great Greece” with the mentioned meaning was used by an ancient Greek historian Poblii.

“The terms “Rosiia”,”Little Rusia”, “Great Rusia” and all its derivatives are creations of Ecumenical Patriarchs, who had to distinguish such terms as “Ukrainians” and “Muskovites” and their territories , and as a result they created such terms as “Mega Rosiia” and “Micro Rosiia” “Термін “Росия”, “Малоросия”,

“Великоросия” та всі похідні від них слова, це витвір”. 5

Russian historiography does not enjoy considering the history of these terms.

There is almost no information no that matter in academic courses of Russian 1 Ukraynskyi separatyzm v Rossyy. Ydeolohyia natsyonalnoho raskola: Prylozh. k zh. “Moskva”: Sbornyk.- M., 1998.- S. 142.

2 Tatyshchev V. N. Ystoryia Rossyiskaia.- Petrohrad, 1918.- T. 7.- S. 64.

3 Chyhyryn A. Ukraynskyi vopros.- Paryzh, 1937.- S. 7.

4 Volkonskyi A. M. Predyslovye // Tsarynnyi A. Ukraynskoe dvyzhenye.- [Berlyn], 1925.-

S. XVII.

5 Bilaniuk P. Deiaki zauvazhennia do terminolohii ukrainskoi istorii v anhliiskykh naukovykh vydanniakh // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1988.- № 1-4.- S. 226.

132

XII. SCRIBERS OF FENER

history. The term “Great Russians” was first used in 1627 by the lexicographer Pavma Berynda in his “The Lexicon of Slav-Russian language”. It should be mentioned that Russian encyclopedia dictionaries do not include any of these mottos: “Great and Little Rus”, “Velykorossiia”, “Malorossiia”. “These terms somehow were omitted by the bourgeois science”, claimed historian А. Solovyov. 1 Let us add that they were also ignored by non- bourgeois Russian science.

The church terminology titulature was changed, which resulted in the change of Moscow rulers’ titles. Ivan III started a pompously-mannered Byzantine-Tatar royal ceremonial and took a new title. He called himself tsar (tsіsar, caesarean) with the church addition “of All Rus”. Before the second half of 15th century, tsars were called Byzantine emperors and khans of Golden Horde. “The unset of the Horde abolished a political reason for that, and the marriage with Sofia gave a historical excuse for that: from that moment Ivan III could consider himself the only orthodox and independent ruler of Rus, governed by the Horde Khans”. 2

In the 17th century in 1655, after the Pereiaslav Agreement Alexei, the tsar of Moscow, took the title “autocrat of all Great, Little and Bila Rus” (without Bila) offered to the Tsar of Moscow just during the times of the Pereiaslav Agreement.

A Russian researcher of this issue A. Solovyov had to admit that “the terms”

“Great” and “Little” Rus entered the Russian language and political terminology in 1654 under the influence of Kyiv scholars and gained Greek sounding “Great and Little Russia”. These names came to Moscow and Kyiv, having Byzantine origin”. 3

The creators, obviously, were the representatives of religious circles, people with the knowledge of Greek and Greek Church terminology, although the highest Ukrainian church hierarchy, headed by the Metropolitan Sylvester Kosivyi, perhaps, had no relation to that. A Metropolian Sylvestr did not take part in negotiations with Moscow, because he thought it was dangerous and undesirable political gamble. As a Chornobyl prototype said, when the Kyiv clergy and he had to meet Moscow ambassadors in Kyiv, they “did not see the world behind the tears, and were dying of sadness”. 4 Thus, the term “the Great and the Little Rus” used mudrahels (thinkers), who were standing on the lower levels of the church hierarchy, and did not think about the consequances of such a rash step.

In the study Great, Little and Bila Rus, specially devoted to this question, M. Hrushevskyi explaines the reason for such a development of names, “Leaving Ukraine under the tsar ruling and hoping to bring to the end their struggle with Poland with his help, the Hetman and the leading Ukrainian circles thought they would take all their lands back, “where pious Ruthenians lived” and churches 1 Solovev A. Velykaia, Malaia y Belaia Rus // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1947.- № 7.- S. 24.

2 Kliuchevskyi V. O. Sochynenyia: V 8 tomakh.- M.: Hospolytyzdat, 1957.- T. II.- S. 123.

3 Solovev A. Velykaia, Malaia y Belaia Rus // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1947.- № 7.- S. 387.

4 Chtenyia moskovskoho ystorycheskoho obshchestva.- M., 1861.- T. 3.- S. 4.

133

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

were “under the Hetman’s regiment particularly” (commander-in-chief), under the control of tsar, the supreme protector of Ukraine.

They gave him the title of “the ruler of Little Russia”, and probably thought that would be able to unify all the lands of Kyiv Mitropolis with the help of Moscow, to attach them to the Cossacks’ Ukraine, so that the tsar would become their Man and the Ruler of Great and Little Rus.

However, the recent months brought some disappointment in our politicians’

plans on Moscow. The tsar was not satisfied with the role, assigned by Ukrainians. They wanted him to be the protector and suzerain of the free Ukraine that would provide them with troops, using it for his own requirements, and the most important, to collect annual taxes through his title of suzerain and not to interfere in Ukrainian internal affair.

No, the tsar wanted to rule Ukraine, while those lands, acquired by common forces of Ukrainian and Moscow troops. He wanted to gather them under his power, rather than to leave them under the Hetman’s regiment. Soon, during the summer campaign of 1654, in Belarusia, where Cossacks’ troops headed by Ivan Zolotarenko were going to attach the acquired territories to the Hetmanate and turn people into Cossacks but Moscow government did not want that to happen.

All in all, it resulted in obvious competition between Moscow and Cossack’s leaders, which led to different collisians.

The same thing happened during the second year in common Cossack-Moscow operations led by the Hetman and Boyar Buturlin in Western Ukraine, and after all the Hetman ended those operations and left the war, in order to avoid Moscow bail, as Muscovites wanted but to remain independent from Moscow.

That was the way Hetman explained the situation to the Swedish king.

In this context, a change of tsar’s title happened, obviously not on the Ukrainian initiative. A trinominal form replace the twonominal “Great and Little”: in fact, they add “Bila Rus”. Moscow rulers needed that to outline the status of lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania as politically separate from the Hetmanate. Pressed by the imperial government, Cossack’s troops were inferred from that territory, the Chauskyi Cossack regiment was abolished, so that the only Starodubshchyna, belonging to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was left to the Hetmanate. Thus, according to a “divide-and-conquer” strategy, a notorious trinominal form “Great, Little and Bila Rus” appeared. 1 After Belorusian and Lithuanian conquest in 1655, it was included in the title of “all Great and Little and Bila Rossiia autocrat…” From Hrushevskyi’s point of view “when in 1654 Bohdan Khmelnytskyi united Ukrainian and Belarusian lands with Moscow, it seemed necessary to give a personal name to these lands, since then the name “Great, Little and Bila Rus” was used. 2

1 Hrushevskyi M. “Velyka, Mala i Bila Rus” // Ukraina.- 1917.- Kn. 1-2.- S. 15-16.

2 Hrushevskyi M. Khto taki Ukraintsi i choho vony khochut.- K., 1917.- S.3.

134

XII. SCRIBERS OF FENER

From the second half of the 17th century and until the first half of the 19th century “The Little Russia” and the Hetmanate (later Poltava and Chernihiv regions, and Kyiv) were the same land, in contrast to the lands of Zaporizhzhya Troops and Sloboda Ukraine. “Little Russia” in official governmental documents meant Poltava and Chernihiv regions almost everywhere. The tsarist government invented the name “Novorossiia” for the lands of Zaporizhzhya Troops (the steppe Ukraine). Slobozhanshchyna or the Sloboda Ukraine comprised modern Kharkiv, part of Sum, Donetsk, Luhansk regions and the South of Belgorod, Voronezh, Kursk and the North of Rostov region partially and was called “Sloboda Ukraine” according to the governmental language. For Skovoroda “Little Russia” was Poltava and Chernihiv regions, but not Slobozhanshchyna.

“In the 19th century the name “Little Russia” was spread to Volyn and Pod-olia. Until February revolution 1917 the territory of “Little Russia” according to different Russian school textbooks on geography was limited to six provinces: Volyn, Podillia, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Poltava and Kharkiv; while Bessarabia, Kherson, Katerinoslavschyna and Tavria formed “Novorossiia”. 1 Shevchenko’s fellow, historian and ethnographer Mykola Markevych believed that Little Russia included “those lands, which are inhabited by Little Russians even today, that is the nation, having similar beliefs and the same burden, the same way of life and, finally, the most important thing: the same dialect”. 2

Ilko Borshchak noted that the name “Little Russian” acquired a disdainful meaning only in the end of the 19th century “and before that loads of kind

“Ukrainians” called themselves “Little Russians”. 3 However, I. Borshchak should have exaggerated it. Not everyone enjoyed the ethnonym “Little Russian”. Lonachevskyi wrote that if someone spoke to him in Ukrainian and used the term “Little Russia”, he felt abused. Later, to protect the name “Ukraine” he provided a range of motives: “If take away the Little and Great parts, we will receive “a single indivisible Russia”. Do you really want this? It is time to quit Little Russia and leave this name for Russifiers only. The name “Ukraine” is national, while “Little Russia” is a clerical one. In order to approve your miserable invention, You added different numerous act. We do not care about their acts and chancelleries at all. Let them write what they want — people will not call themselves as little ones in all their born days, because it is a shame! They heard at least a little how Shevchenko called their lands, but they never heard of its office name”. Further he wrote that “Ukraine” was a “name from heart”. “Each Ukrainian considers Ukraine sweeter than the “Little Russia”, it appears, when the heart speaks. Even Hohol sensed it: “Do you know a Ukrainian night?” say-1 Podilskyi A. Nazva Ukraina // Nova zoria.- 1939.- 3 veres.

2 Markevych N. Ystoryia Malorossyy.- M., 1843.- T. 5.- S. 144.

3 Ukraina. Ukrainoznavstvo i frantsuzke kulturne zhyttia.- Paryzh, 1950.- Zb. chetvertyi.- S. 220.

135

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

ing this, when his heart was burning with love to his native land”. 1 Since 1832

tsarist government called the right-banked Ukraine the colonial name “SouthWest land”. However, as the name “Little Russia”, being the name of a separate administrative unit, reminded the past, people did not liked it too. In 1835, when the count Hurieva was appointed a military governor of Poltava and Chernohiv regions, the order did not include the name in Little Russian. At the same time a descendant of Cossack leaders, Shevchenko’s good friend Arkadii Rodzianko wrote an elegiac poem On the Destruction of Little Russians’ Name. Dedicated to the Memory of Little Russian nobles. 2

However tsarist satraps enjoyed the term Little Russia so much, that from the 19th century and up to the February Revolution of 1917 the name “Little Russia” was unofficially compulsory on the East of Ukraine. “There were no terms as “Ukraine”, “Ukrainian people”, “Ukrainian language” (even geographically Ukraine did not exist) in the pre-revolutionary, official Russian socio-political doctrine and in historiography. The following terms were used instead of them:

“South of Russia”, “Little Russia”, “Little Russian”, etc., which a priori denied the Ukrainian people as a separate collected cultural, historical and national identity on their native territory, inhabited for centuries, not to mention about political and public aspirations”. 3 The prominent British historian Norman Daivis, describing the attitude of Western authors on the matter of Ukrainian fate in the World War II and their understanding of Ukrainian ethnonym, wrote: “Ukrainians were not classified too. Although they, perhaps, had the largest casualties among civilians, and their main political objective was to escape from the Soviet and Russian domination. The best thing to do with that unfortunate nation was to ignore it and to take an old tsar’s invention that Ukrainians actually were “Little Russians”. 4

We cannot omit a ridiculous, in terms of historical perspective, Polish attempt to name the part of Ukrainian lands the Lesser Poland. Due to Ukrainian-Polish War of 1918-1919 Galicia and Volyn, as we know, were attached to the Polish Commonwealth. Since then, Polish chauvinists called them “Easter Little Poland” (Wschodnia Maopolska), while the term Western Ukraine was forbidden. In the late 30s Polish censorship prohibited “Galicia” and “Galician”

historical names. 5 We will return to Polish ethnonymical policy. Some Polish authors of the 15th century began to use a new, bookish name “Red Rus” (Russia 1 Olkhivskyi B. Vilnyi narid.- Varshava, 1937.- S. 86.

2 Nashe mynule.- 1918.- Ch. 1.- S. 155.

3 Dombrovskyi O. Do pytannia periodyzatsii y terminolohii rannoi istorii Ukrainy // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1975.- № 3-4.- S. 6.

4 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 59.

5 Shvahuliak M. Malovidoma storinka politychnoho zhyttia Zakhidnoi Ukrainy // ZNTSh.- 1994.-

T. 228.- S. 218.

136

XII. SCRIBERS OF FENER

Rubra) of lands of the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia. Chronicals did not know such a name, as well as the population of these lands. 1

As for the term “Bila Rus” (“Belorusia” and “Belarusians” — White Russia), it was constantly used only in the second half of the 19th century. 2 There are different variants of origin the term “Bila Rus”. For example, some researchers derive the name “Bila Rus” from Bielsk city, above the Bielianka river or from the Bielostok city. Famous Belorussian researcher Ye. Karskyi believe that it appeared after “Graet Rus and Little Rus” terms due to emula-tion and derived from people’s white linen clothing. 3 The name “Alba Russia” occurred in Litin documents in the 14th century; in the 16th century this name uccure “in all literature monuments ( Chronicle by Stryikovskyi, works of Starovolskyi, etc.) as generally known”. 4 There is a version that the name Bila Rus appeared during the Tartar yoke and meant that Belarusian lands were not under the yoke. 5 “As “bilyi svit (white world) means “free”, the same way

“Bila Rus” means “the free Rus”. Others believe that “Bila Rus” received its name from white clothing, they worn. Those were such clothes as white scrolls, skins and coats”. 6

In 1840 Nicholas I prohibited the use of names “Lithuania” and “Belarusia”

in official documents. In that way Russian bureaucracy was fighting against Belarusian separatism.

Belarisian peasants called their language “simple” and themselves “Ruthenian” or “Lithanian”. The term “Belarussian” was of bookish origin and became widespread only in the last decades of the 19th century. “At the end of the 19th century the word “Belarusian” did not have any ethnic character and was perceived as the toponym”. 7 The territory of today’s Belarussians generally coincides with the territory of Kryvychi from chronicles. This fact triggered to rename Belarussia into “Kryviia”. However, attemts to name Belarussians their old trible name “Kryvichy” failed. 8 Although the problem, perhaps, remains open: “we, Belorussians, need to think seriously about the possibility to change the name “Russians” on our native “Kryvich”. 9

1 Ysaevych Ya. D. O drevneishei toponymyy Prykarpatia y Verkhneho Pobuzhia // Slavianskye drevnosty: Sb.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1980.- S. 75-76.

2 Shyriaev E. E. Belarus: Rus Belaia, Rus Chernaia y Lytva v kartakh.- Mynsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1991.- S. 5.

3 Karskyi E. F. Belorussy.- Varshava: Typ. uchebn. okruha, 1903.- T. I.- S. 117.

4 Tsvikevich A. Adradzhenne Belarusi i Polshcha.- Mensk; Vilnia; Berlin, 1921.- S. 27.

5 Ezotov K. Belorussy y poliaky.- Kovna, 1917.- S. 7.

6 Koronkevych P. V. Belorussy.- Homel, 1917.- S. 4.

7 Radzik R. Samookrelenie jako element wiadomoci etnicznej ludu Biaoruskiego w XIX wieku //

Przegld Wschodni.- T. IV, z. 3.- S. 615.

8 Lych L. M. Nazvy zemli beloruskoi.- Minsk, 1994.- S. 43.

9 Stankevich Ad. Khrystsiianstva i belaruski narod.- Vilnia, 1940.- S. 62.

137

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

To sum up, we should note that Greek loan translation of the name of colony (“Great Greece” — “Great Russia”) does not give Russians any reasons for pride, vice versa, this fact emphisixes their colonial past and that their claims on political and cultural heritage of the Kyiv state are totally groundless.

The name “Little Russia” in Ukraine, despite all the attampts of tsar’s satraps, did not become rooted and was not used among common Ukrainians.

“Names “Little Rus”, “Little Russia” were bookish and our people would never aquire it”. 1 Ukrainian people did not call neither themselves, nor a part of territory that way. “Little Russia” is a farfetched, bookish and is not used by our people even now”. 2 The same thing happened in Moscovshchyna, concerning the term “Great Russia”, which was in use in official acts only and was completely absent in speech. “However, it should be noted that Russian people never call themselves “Great Russians”, “Little Russians” or “Belarussians”; these ethnographical names belong to science and are used by educated people only”. 3 Even implacable Black Hundreds do not try to revive the old names “Great Russia”

and “Little Russia”. These terms became a history for ever.

1 Vozniak M. Nash rodnyi yazyk.- Uzhhorod, 1923.- S. 19.

2 Еntsyklopedyia voennykh y morskykh nauk.- Pb., 1885.- T. 5.- S. 40.

3 Sobolevskyi A. Y. Russkyi narod kak еtnohrafycheskoe tseloe.- Lvov, 1911.- S. 7.

138

XIII. MOSKAL

Simple people of Muscovia were far from their rulers’ tricks with titles. They usually called themselves Christians. "In the great part of its territory the Russian people did not take any names". 1 Hence, as it was already mentioned, comes the strange fact that the name of peasants in Russian (one should remember that in the 19th century nearly 90 percent of Russia's people were peasants) comes not from their place of dwelling (village) and not from the type of activity (farming, cereal growing), but from the religious feature of Christians - "krestianyn"

(Russian word for "Christian"). This fact was mentioned by the author of History of Russians, and later by some other researchers. "Under the rule of the Golden Horde Russian lands remained Christian. Moreover, there are reasons to state that just during the Mongol-Tatar yoke Christianity truly became the religion of Russian people. The term "Christian" in the form of "krestiyanyn" became, since then, the definition of the bulk of the Russian population, while princes and other representatives of nobility gladly made families with Tartar nobility, considering it an honor to marry if not relatives of Khans, then noble maidens of the Horde". 2

Before the revolution, with the word "Christian" had a synonymic ethnonym

"orthodox". Famous Pan-Slavist Ivan Aksakov in his letter to the writer F. Dos-toevsky wrote about it: "The wise thing to write the call to the Russian people in the same way as it is written in other countries: "French people" or "British people" — "Russians!" is not good decision in this case, the language itself suffers from this words. And daily in all the territories of Russia people make speeches with an call: "Orthodox people". That's how Russian people determine their nationality". 3 No doubt this selfname is an additional evidence of the huge role of the church in the process of Slavicisation of Zalissia population.

The terms "Muscovy" and "Moskal" were often used in Ukraine-Rus and in Belarus. "Unfortunately I have to make the description of the Malorosians’ ( Little Russians’) unpleasant feature of morality, I should finally tell you about their hatred to Velikorossians ( Great Russians). You can easily see here that my words are true, because you can often hear them speak: A good man, but Moskal". 4

Then cited author writes that in Ukraine the mothers frighten their children with the word "Moskal". The same was mentioned by historian D. Semenov: "Mal-1 Sobolevskyi A. Y. Russkyi narod kak еtnohrafycheskoe tseloe.- Lvov, 1911.- S. 6.

2 Novoseltsev A. Y. Khrystyanstvo, yslam y yudayzm v stranakh Vostochnoi Evropy y Kavkaza v srednye veka // Voprosy ystoryy.- 1989.- № 9.- S. 31.

3 Pysma Y. S. Aksakova k F. M. Dostoevskomu // Yzvestyia AN SSSR. Ser. lyt. y yazyka.- 1972.-

Vyp. 4.- T.- 81.- S. 354-355.

4 Levshyn A. Otryvky yz pysem o Malorossyy // Ukraynskyi vestnyk.- 1816.- S. 47.

139

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

orosian ( Little Russian) people call Russian people "Moskals". "Good man, but Moskal. When you have a Moskal friend, keep a stone in you bosom", says Malorosian ( Little Russian) and expresses his opinion about Velikorossians ( Great Russians) in such sayings". 1 Ivan Sbitnev complained in "Progressive" magazine Vestnik Yevropy ( Herald of Europe) about Ukrainian people: "The natives ( Author remark: pay attention to colonialist phraseology) are sarcastic and do not like any Moskals or Zadesentsy ( people who live behind the river Desna), or Litviny as they name them. Having noticed those people going by, they stop working and start singing about them abusive and satirical songs, which are accompanied by loud laughing and long echoes". 2 In a note addressed to the Russian government circles in 1812 publicist P. Chuikevych informs, "The people do not like Russians, because they have different language, customs and manners.

Name Moskal serves as a mockery name".3

Ethnographer Symonov, who had the pseudonym M. Nomys, published the firs, in Ukrainian ethnographic science, book of sayings and proverbs. Among them Nomys recorded the following sayings, "Devilknowswhat in bast shoes, and that is Moskal. Moskal boasts with his face and shows it to everyone. Moscow is built on poverty, and is fed by poverty... Moskal is like a crow, but more cunning than devil. Moskal will tell the truth as soon as devil prays". 4

The names "Muscovite" and "Moskal" were always used by the classics of Ukrainian literature, Ukrainian linguists, historians and publicists. For example, in 1918 there was published quite famous in its time bilingual dictionary of V.

Dubrovsky, which is called Moscow-Ukrainian dictionary. 5 It was boomed as a

"practical textbook of Ukrainian talk and the collection of moskalizms (Moskal words). Dictionary is of a great need for those Ukrainians, who used to be on Moskals’ side, and after realizing what happened, learn their native language".

Vivid examples of the use of these ethnonymic terms have already been given by Ukrainian historians and publicists, and there is no need, in our opinion, to multiply them to infinity.

Moscow ruling circles had a constant struggle with the use of these words.

The royal censorship had the order to exclude words like "Moskal", "ukraine",

"ukrainian", "Sich", "Zaporozhzhye" from printing". 6 The struggle reached its 1 Semenov D. Otechestvovedenye. Rossyia po razskazam puteshestvennykov y uchenym yzsledovanyiam.- SPb., 1871.- T. II.- S. 106.

2 Sbytnev Y. Poezdka v Kharkov // Vestnyk Evropy.- 1880.- T. 2.- S. 224.

3 Kravchenko V. V. Narysy z ukrainskoi istoriohrafii epokhy natsionalnoho Vidrodzhennia (druha polovyna XVIII - seredyna XIX st.).- Kh.: Osnova, 1996.- S. 27.

4 Nomys M. Ukrainski prykazky, pryslivia i take inshe.- Kharkiv, 1928.- S. 32-33.

5 Dubrovskyi V. Slovnyk… - K.: Ridna mova, 1918. T. 1: Slovnyk moskovsko-ukrainskyi.- 546 s.; T. 2: Slovnyk ukrainsko-moskovskyi.- 366 s.

6 Stebnytskyi P. Ocherk razvytyia deistvuiushcheho tsenzurnoho rezhyma v otnoshenyy malorusskoi pysmennosty // Ukraina: Nauka i kultura.- K., 1993.- Vyp. 26-27.- S. 109.

140

XIII. MOSKAL

climax in Stalin's time, when people were executed as bourgeois nationalists for using such words as "Muscovy" or "Moskal". Why people in Russia were and still are so frightened of Ukrainian term "Moskal"? Why do they see terri-fying hostility in this word? To answer this question, one must scrutinize what emotional meaning it has. Actually, the name "Moskal" is never (there are very rare exceptions) used neutrally, as it befits a functional term, that is, without the emotional layering. In the term "Moskal" one can always feel hostility, disgust, contempt, arrogance, hatred to the signified. And there is nothing surprising here, because it is not because of the word itself, but because of the historical relationship that developed between Moskals and Ukrainians. The term "Turk", for example, has similar emotional meaning. Although Ukrainians have not fought with Turks for more than two centuries already, and have not even faced them, an echo of the Cossack era still remains. Calling someone a "Turk" means to swear, to insult, to mock, to humiliate someone.

In writing the word "Moskal" was officially replaced by new-adopted term

"Russian". It is characteristic that the Poles, as well as the Belarusians, and of course Ukrainians, failed being imposed with the name "russkiye" ("Russians"), which, incidentally, had succeeded among those West European peoples, who were not very knowledgeable in these matters. Evidently, ethnic imagination of the three nations neighboring Muscovy could not accept the usage of names

"Rus" and "Rusian", which were well known to them, for Muscovites. The Poles, as the least interested party, were first to compromise and to use the word "Russian", which was a derivative from Greek word "Russia". "In ancient times people wrote Truth Russian; Poland was the only country, which called us Russia and Russians, according to the Latin spelling, and we have adopted it, changed it in accordance with Cyrillic alphabet and write "Russian!". 1 Copying them, using this Greek intorted word, mainly due to censorship reasons, Ukrainian and Belarusian authors began to use the word "Russian" as well.

Among ordinary people neither in Ukraine nor in Belarus, up to the 20-ies of the XIX century, i.e. the time when this issue was drastically intercepted by administrative authorities, this word was not used a lot. And further, in the living, spoken language this word looks like an artificial, purely literary droplet.

As we know, pupils of Ukrainian schools when learning Shevchenko’s poem

"Kateryna", which has the following famous lines, "Moskal are strangers, they do evil to you" were given a ridiculous explanation of the word "Moskal", according to which it served to call soldiers. Line "will go to his Muscovy" should be understood as "will go to his barracks". "In all editions of Shevchenko's works during Russian communist occupation, the word "Moskal" in the poem "Kateryna" has the following added explanation: "Moskals are Tsar's soldiers, Muscovy 1 Dal V. Tolkovyi slovar zhyvoho velykorusskoho yazyka.- M.: HYS, 1955.- T. IV.- S. 114.

141

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

is Tsarist Russia" (T. Shevchenko. The complete collection of works in six volumes, Volume I, p. 604, Kyiv, 1949). But it is not true according to the text of the poem, as we have seen in abovementioned, because "Moskals" are "strangers"

and not "Tsar's soldiers". 1 There are still attempts to move the term "Moskal"

from ethnic sphere to domestic and social. For example, some people state that the word "Moskal" is synonymous with "civil servant". 2 Such statements ignore the practical use of this ethnonymic term by Ukrainian classical literature that has grown on people's linguistic basis. It is interesting that, for example, Lenin used the term Moskal not in the meaning of warriors (soldiers). Giving a speech at the XIII Congress of the Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), he insisted on recognizing the independence of Finland, because in otherwise people will say, "that Moskals, chauvinists, velikorossians ( Great Russians) want to strangle Finns". 3 Similarly he told about Poland "workers are intimidated there with the information that the Moskals, Velikorossians ( Great Russians), who always pressed Poles, want to amend Poland to their Velikorossian ( Great Russian) chauvinism, covered with the name of communism". 4 By the way, Lenin himself called the XV-XVII century the Moscow period of Russian history "according to the historiographical tradition of the XIX — early XX century". 5

After all, in his famous "Sednivsk introduction" Shevchenko clearly and unambiguously explained how he and all the Ukrainian intelligentsia representatives of that time understood the word Moskal. "Great sadness settled in my soul.

I hear and sometimes read: Liakhs ( Poles) publish, Czechs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Montenegrins, Moskals — all of them publish, and we don’t... They shout, ask-ing why don’t we write in Moscow language. And why Russians themselves do not write anything in their own way, but only translate, and Devil knows how...

They shout about brotherhood and fight with each other like rabid dogs. They shout about single Slavic literature, but do not even want to look what happens among the Slavs!

Have they understood at least one Polish, Czech, Serbian or our book? Because we are, thank God, not the Germans! They did not. Why? Because they don’t know how. When they have our book in their hands, they start shouting and praise what is the worst". 6 "Sednivsk introduction" ends with this Shevchenko’s appeal, "Do not pay attention to the Moskals, let them write in their way, and let 1 Lutsiv L. Taras Shevchenko pro moskaliv i Moskovshchynu // ZNTSh.- 1962.- T. 176.- S. 55.

2 Myller A. Y. “Ukraynskyi vopros” v polytyke vlastei y russkom obshchestvennom mnenyy (vtoraia polovyna XIX v.).- Sankt-Peterburh: Yzd-vo “Aleteiia”, 2000.- S. 37.

3 Lenin V. I. Tvory.- 4-e vyd.- T. 29.- S. 145.

4 Lenin V. I. Tvory.- 4-e vyd.- T. 29.- S. 153-154.

5 Khoroshkevych A. L. Rus, Rusyia, Moskovyia, Rossyia, Moskovskoe hosudarstvo, Rossyiskoe tsarstvo // Spornye voprosy otechestvennoi ystoryy XI-XVIII vekov.- M.: Yn-t ystoryy SSSR, 1990.- S. 291.

6 Shevchenko T. Povne zibrannia tvoriv: U 6 t.- K.: Vyd-vo AN URSR, 1964.- T. 6.- S. 312.

142

XIII. MOSKAL

us write in our way. They have people and the word, and we have people and the word". 1 It should be mentioned that Shevchenko never used the term "Russian".

Recalling the historical events T. Schevchenko writes about times: When Moskals, Horde, Liakhs ( Poles)

Fought with the Cossacks.

( Tarasova nich (Night of Taras))

For a better understanding of Shevchenko’s ethnonym usage it is worth mentioning the following passage from the poem The Dream: The civil servants hasten next

Their office desks to man,

To scribble — and to rob the folks

Of everything they can.

Among them here and there I see

My fellow-countrymen.

They chatter in the Russian tongue

And bitterly condemn

Their parents that when they were small

They didn't teach them how

To jabber German — that's the cause

They've no promotions now!

Oh leeches, leeches! It may be

Your father sadly sold

His last remaining cow that you

The Moscow tongue should know.

My poor Ukraine! My poor Ukraine!

These are your hapless sons,

Your youthful blossoms, splashed with ink,

In German reared salons,

On Moscow's silly-potions fed

Until they are inane!..

Another giant of Ukrainian literature — Ivan Franko also makes ethnonym Moskal unambiguous. In his poem This is not the time he wrote: This is not the time

To serve the Moskal or the Liakh (the Pole);

Old insult of Ukraine has finished,

— This is the time for us to live for Ukraine! 2

1 Shevchenko T. Povne zibrannia tvoriv: U 6 t.- K.: Vyd-vo AN URSR, 1964.- T. 6.- S. 314.

2 Franko I. Z vershyn i nyzyn.- Lviv: Nakl. Olhy Franko, 1893.- S. 73.

143

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Or let us remember Natalka-Poltavka by Ivan Kotlyarevsky:

" Petro. Moscow songs were sung in our voices, Klymovsky danced with Moskal. But it was difficult to understand what they said, because this thing was written by Moskal in our language, but very intertwistedly.

Vyborny. Moskal? It is nothing to speak about. Perhaps he confused everything, mixed peas and cabbage". 1

P. Hulak-Artemovsky in his work "Something about that Garasko" ironically states the following: "Well, this word, you see, is different in our language and in the language of Muscovy: in our language the word "vorovaty" means "thievish"

in their language it means "swift, smart". 2 Ievhen Hrebinka, the author of the romance "Ochi Chernyie" (" Dark Eyes"), translating Pushkin's poem "Poltava", uses the word "Moskal" instead of the word "Russian" and the word "Muscovy"

instead of the word "Russia". Pushkin's words, Without liberty and fame,

We bowed our heads for a long time,

Under the protection of Warsaw,

Under the selfpower of Moscow.

But this is the time for Ukraine

To be an independent country.

Ievhen Hrebinka translated it as follows:

We lived like oxen in the yoke,

Without father’s fame,

Under the protection of Warsaw,

Or great Moscow.

This is the time to stop dealing with Moskals,

Ukraine should become a tsardom. 3

Hrebinka translates Pushkin’s word expression When Russia is young using the word "Muscovia". The verse Cossack Goes to the North is translated as Cossack Flies to Muscovia. The words "And the trace of its existence is gone, like an empty sound" are specified by Hrebinka as follows "in foreign land — which is called Siberia" and so on.

And here it are, for example, excerpts from dramatic poem Boiarynia ( "Boyar" /female/) by Lesia Ukrainka:

" Ivan. It does not matter whose heels to lick — Liakh’s (Pole’s) or Moskal’s!

Oksana. I can not pronounce it. However, it is not bad in Moscow language if the person pronounces who can speak it well. And what is theirs for Oksana?

1 Kotliarevskyi I. Tvory: U 2-kh t.- K.: Derzhlitvydav URSR, 1960.- T. 2.- S. 53.

2 Tvory Ivana Kotliarevskoho, Petra Artemovskoho-Hulaka, Evheniia Hrebinky.- Lviv, 1908.-

S. 378.

3 Hrebinka Ye. P. Tvory u trokh tomakh.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1980.- T. 1.- S. 180.

144

XIII. MOSKAL

Anna. Aksynya or Aksiusha.

Oksana. Not so well.

Oksana. As I die, do not marry Ukrainian for the second time, you’d better marry Moskovka ( Moscow woman)... " 1

In 1860 Anatolii Svydnytsky created the famous song Vzhe bilshe nizh dvisti lit ( For more than two hundred years), which was very popular in its time in the Eastern Ukraine. Some excerpts added,

For more than two hundred years

Cossack is in captivity —

He walks near the Dnieper,

Calls his destiny:

Hey come out, come out from water,

Rescue me, my dear, from the trouble!

I will not come, Cossack,

I will not come, Accipiter!

Although I am happy to come,

I am captured as well —

Hey, captured, imprisoned,

Moscow guards me, I am in yoke.2

In another work, this A.Svydnytsky writes, "In religious schools in the af-ternoon they write exercises: they translate either from Latin or from Greek into Moscow language or from Moscow into Latin or Greek". 3

We can also mention here the popular song "Stoit yavir nad vodoyu" ("Syc-amore stands above the water") which has a sequel, Oh, a young Cossack went to Muscovia,

Nut saddle, and even black horse,

Oh, he went to Muscovy and died,

And left his dear Ukraine for ever.

Here is an excerpt from the correspondence of two classics of Ukrainian literature. In a letter to B.Grinchenko of the 22nd of February 1899, the leader of Ukrainian drama M. Kropyvnitsky wrote: "Everything Moskals tell us about brotherhood and affection is nonsense and lies. There is nothing of these: dress and speak like they do, but even then you will still be not the same nation for them. Those who live here, our people - they are not our in real; but just act like ours — it is useful for them. No, let someone else to go, and I do not want it 1 Ukrainka Lesia. Tvory.- K.: Knyhospilka, 1925.- T. 8.- S. 114, 128, 152.

2 Svydnytskyi A. Opovidannia.- K.: Knyhospilka, 1927.- Dodatky.- S. 8-9.

3 Svydnytskyi A. Tvory.- K.: Derzhlitvydav URSR, 1958.- S. 137.

145

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

any more. Thank you for bread, salt and quass. Do you know that some of native Katsaps think that we are Kalmyks or Kyrgyzes? One merchant asked me,

"Tell me please, are the Khokhols orthodox? And one woman from Moscow answering my wife’s question "why don’t you want to see Malorosians ( Little Russians)?" said, "But they are the Gypsies". 1

In his turn, Borys Grinchenko also constantly used the term Moskal, Moskals, Muscovy. For example, "It turned out that two peoples live in Ukraine, two nationalities: the common working people were Ukrainians and masters were the Russians". 2 In another place of this little book, which was written for this simple little-educated people, he uses this ethnonymic term with all its synonyms of that time, "Then began the dispute with the Moskals (Russians, Velikorosians ( Great Russians), Katsaps)".3 Regarding Russian language he always used the term "language of Moscow".

For not to overburden the text with quotations on this subject (and there are whole handfuls of them in the treasury of Ukrainian classical literature), we will confine here with the last quote from the work of the expert of Ukrainian language and terminology Ivan Nechui-Levytsky, "Are there any Kyiv residents who do not remember the time before Sevastopol war?

It was a difficult time for Ukraine, it was Ukrainian trouble. Common people moaned in captivity under severe masters, had to remain silent and suffer even worse then until Khmelnitsky times. And for every moan people were badly beaten by Moscow custom. Ukraine forgot historical legends and could not reach the lost thoughts with the knowledge.

On both sides of the Dnieper Ukrainian people found themselves in foreign orders, in foreign skin, used foreign language and forgot their own. Science per-ished, education fell, staying only in Latin scholastic theological schools. University science was only the ABC of European education, cut by official extent.

That science wanted to educate people to Moskals, to the army, to the government. Only cheaters, bribed governors, unjust judges that made right people guilty and guilty people righ, — those conservative teachers and professors, who twirled history according to Moscow order, and officers-Moskals, who bit their own nation were to graduate from Ukrainian universities and other schools.

And the people made serfdom and landlords-Liakhs (Poles) and Moskals

"flogged the last skin" of Ukraine, and meanwhile, our sincere-Ukrainians lived in captivity, in the far Moscow North for their young Ukrainian idea. It was a hard time, let it never be returned". 4

1 Kropyvnytskyi M. Tvory.- K.: DVU, 1929.- T. I.- S. 120-121.

2 Hrinchenko B. Yak zhyv ukrainskyi narod (Korotka istoriia Ukrainy).- Chernivtsi, 1908.- S. 46.

3 Hrinchenko B. Yak zhyv ukrainskyi narod (Korotka istoriia Ukrainy).- Chernivtsi, 1908.- S. 9.

4 Nechui-Levytskyi I. Prychepa.- Vinnipeh: Tryzub, 1955.- S. 89-91.

146

XIII. MOSKAL

We believe that the abovementioned examples from the works of such Ukrainian writers as I. Kotliarevsky, T. Shevchenko, I. Franko, P. Hulak-Artemovsky, Y. Hrebinka, Lesia Ukrainka, I.Nechuj-Levytsky, B. Hrinchenko, M. Kropyvnytsky, A.Svydnytsky, and a great number of other writers could be added to this list, quite convincingly show, that terms "Moskal", "Muscovy" and derivatives once were the norm of Ukrainian language. This norm was deduced from speaking language of Ukrainian people and was widely reflected in folklore.

For historical reasons the term Moskal encountered some difficulties in the western Ukraine. It was necessary to explain the origin of this name and the problems of ethnonym change. Prominent public figure, teacher, journalist and composer Anatolii Vakhnianyn explained ethnonymic Russian confusing in the following way, "To highlight further how Suzdaltsi, or northerners, strangers to us, took our name, we should make this little question: What name would Germany have today, if they invited Russian princes to be their governors, or if those princes themselves put German under their ruling? Just the same as other lands, the land name would be Rus, and people would be called Rusians.

Is it strange now that Suzdal now have the name of Rus? No. Suzdals being put under the will of those very Rusian princes, had forcely or unintentionally, take this name, however only in the political sense, but never in the ethnographic one, because the name Rus in the ethnographic sense was given by all the neighbours and by Sivers themselves only for our South-Western land. Northerners were called by our nation, as well as all the other neighboring ones, Moskals". 1

In Eastern Ukraine, where people were persecuted for the use of those terms, they are still prevalent today, what is actually really surprising. Here is, for example, the data of ethnographic expedition that explored the frontier regions of Sumy and Kharkiv regions, "In the past in the village of Aleshshi, as well as in all the other villages in the area of study, the Russians called the Ukrainians Khokhols, and the Ukrainians called the Russians — Katsaps or Moskals". 2

Further, the expedition report contains the record of conversation with "Obrusie-ly" Ukrainian (Ukrainian who became Moskal) peasant, "Our grandfathers were Khokhols — says Kucherenko (born in 1890) — And we are the mixtiure, were-wolves. Gradually, our language became mixed with Rusian one, we live among the Moskals and began to speak in Moskal language". 3

The ethnonymic term "Moskal" is very semantically wide in the Ukrainian language, it can be understood even on the basis of its fifty six meanings, forms and shades, which are presented in Hrinchenko Dictionary, "Moskalen-1 Dopysy z-nad Sianu // Meta.- 1864.- № 5.- S. 72.

2 Chyzhova L. N. Ob еtnycheskykh protsessakh v vostochnykh raionakh Ukrayny (Po materyalam еkspedytsyonnoho obsledovanyia 1966 hoda) // Sov. еtnohrafyia.- 1968.- № 1.- S. 24.

3 Chyzhova L. N. Ob еtnycheskykh protsessakh v vostochnykh raionakh Ukrayny (Po materyalam еkspedytsyonnoho obsledovanyia 1966 hoda) // Sov. еtnohrafyia.- 1968.- № 1.- S. 24.

147

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

ko, Moskalenka; moskalenia, moskaleniaty; moskalyk, moskalychka; moskaliv, moskaleva, moskaleve; moskalivna, moskalivny; moskal, moskalia; moskalnia, moskalni; moskalstvo, moskalstva; moskalcha, moskalchaty; moskalchyk, moskalchyka; moskalchuk, moskalchuka; moskaliuha, moskaliuhy; Moskva ( Moscow), moskvy (here it is in the ethnic sense, "Moskal, who was selling some old iron and did not hear that a spirited citizen pushed him:" Moskva, Moskva ( Moscow, Moscow) do you sell iron?"); moskvofil (Moscowphile), moskvofi-la; moskvofilstvo (Moscowphilism), moskvofilstva; moskvofilskyi, moskvofil-ska, moskvofilske; Moskivshchyna (Muscovy), Moskovshchyna (Muscovy), Moskovshchyny (Muscovy); moskovets, moskovtsi; moskovka, moskovky; moskowsky (Moscowian/Muscovian), moskowska (Moscowian/Muscovian), moskowske (Moscowian/Muscovian); moskovshchenia, moskovshcheniaty; moskovstvo". The dictionary has also two more phraseological expressions: "to let Moskal come closer", which means to lie, to cheat, and "Moscow fine", which means "to find fault with no reason". We can add that B. Grinchenko omited such forms as "moskalykha, moskalykhy" and demotic "moskofil, moskofilstvo".

The name "Moskal" was also used by Olexandr Herzen, "Well, and what if after all our reasoning, Ukraine, which remembers all Moskal oppression and serfdom, extortion and injustice, the prey and whip in one hand, but without forgetting in the other hand, how people lived during Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth epoch with its soldiers, lords and crown officials — does not want to be either Polish or Russian? In my opinion, the problem is solved very simply.

In this case Ukraine should be recognized as a free and independent country". 1

People in Russia never liked the word "Moskal". Belinsky once attempted to review Bodyansky work Our Ukrainian fairy tales and he managed to do nothing. Being angry he confessed, "This works excels with the purest Malorosian ( Little Russian) language, which is absolutely impossible to understand for us, Moskals". 2

The most important Russian lexicographer V. Dal writes that the term

"Moskal" is of the Malorosian ( Little Russian) origin and means "Muscovite, Russian, soldier, military man. Go away from Moskal, even though you have to cut off the flaps! Who is coming? The devil! Well, it is better than Moskal.

When you have a Moskal friend, keep a stone in you bosom (and hold the stake).

Мутит, как москаль, а чтобы концы хоронил. Moskal knows the way, but asks!

To moskal in Malorosian ( Little Russian) language means to cheat, to cheat in trade". 3

Sometimes people use offensive ethnonyms, but carriers of such ethnonyms do not feel resentment. For example, wide-used among Slavic languages 1 Hertsen A. Y. Sochynenyia.- M.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1958.- T. 19.- S. 21.

2 Belynskyi V. H. Polnoe sobr. soch.- M., 1953.- T. 1.- S. 239.

3 Dal V. Tolkovyi slovar zhyvoho velykorusskoho yazyka.- M.: HYS, 1955.- T. II.- S. 349.

148

XIII. MOSKAL

ethnonym "nimets" (" German") means a person who is speaks in an unclear or incomprehensible way. In general that is anyone, who speaks incomprehensible foreign language. Germans themselves (deutsch) do not feel offense because of this tart ethnonym. In the Polish language Italians are called Vlokhs —

the name comes from the word "valashyty", i.e. to castrate. But ethnonym

"Moskal" is understood by its carriers as offensive. Although Russia, Russian, Russians are artificial names, introduced only from the 16th century, based on the Greek form of Rhos 1, it gradually became a literary norm in the Ukrainian language. There is, of course, the difference between the literary norm and the actual use of ethnonyms in Ukraine (and eventually in Russia). But through school, literature and mass media Ukrainian started to use the terms "Russia"

and "Russian". And we stress, that it should continue to be this way, we shall use semantically neutral ethnonyms "Russia", "Russian" and their derivatives.

We should not insult peoples with ethnonym. Modern Ukrainians should not use ethnonyms "Moskal", "Liakh" (Pole) and "Zhyd" (Jew). We will separately mention the latter ethnonym.

1 Brükner A. Sownik etymologiczny jzyka polskiego.- Warszawa, 1957.

149

XIV. MOSCOVIA CHANGES ITS NAME

Titles taken by the Moscow Crown contained such ideologemes as "Great".

"Little" Rus, "All Great, Little and White Rus Sole Ruler" and others were so unnatural and histrionic for the Russian tsars that they could hardly get used to them. Having announced them to the world with clearly propaganda purposes as a certain imperial doctrine they continued using this adorable terminology, where a word "Moscow" appeared in different senses. We can meet a phrase "Moscow state" in the Treaty with Denmark as of January 12, 1701. To use phrases "Moscow Monarch", "Moscow war" etc was the habitual matter in the Treaty between Peter I and Polish and Lithuanian Commonwealth as of June 28, 1703.

As it has been already mentioned, in the beginning of 1703 the first newspaper was published in Moscow, it had the title "Gazette on military and other affairs happened in Moscow state and other neighboring nations important to know and remember", other titles were "Vedomosti Moskovskie", "Vedomost Moskovskaya" ( Moscow News).

When Moscow already became a hegemony in Eastern Europe in 1721, Peter I took sumptuous title the Emperor of All Russia, which was conveyed with these words: “On the 20th day of this October, on his majesty's advice, with regard to the testimony of his due thanksgiving, for his high mercy and fatherly care and diligence, which he for the time of his reign has expressed to provide welfare of the state especially at time of the Swedish war, and All-Russia state and such a strong and good condition, and his people citizens and a glory of the whole world united leadership led, as it all pretty known, the name of the people of Russia, so was pleased to accept, like the others, the title from them: the father of the fatherland, the All-Russia Emperor, Peter the Great ...". 1 Peter I as a historical figure has had different prospectives even for Russian historians. Along with the official laudations well-known to the public there have been a number of facts that Peter I killed his own son, that he was a hollandophile and a secret Lutheran, and a son of a court pharmacist from Germany. And the official cause of death of Peter I was old neglected syphilis which caused urinary tubule. 2

In 1725 “Vedomosti Moskovskie” was renamed to “Vedomosty Rossiiskie”

( Russian News). Peter’s I assistant Menshikov sent the following directive to the ambassador to Copenhagen: “All newspapers used to print the name of our state as Moscow state but not the Russian state, so please take into account that they should name it as Russian state, the same we ask other states to do”. 3 Thus 1 Polnoe sobranye zakonov Rossyiskoi ymperyy.- SPb., 1831.- T. 7.- S. 444.

2 Sbornyk statei v chest D. A. Korsakova.- Kazan, 1913.- S. 352.

3 Solovev S. M. Ystoryia Rossyy s drevneishykh vremen.- SPb., 1896.- T. XVII.- S. 638.

150

XIV. MOSCOVIA CHANGES ITS NAME

Moscow state changed its natural centuries-old name into the Russian Empire.

This name existed till March 1917, when the word Empire was replaced by the word republic.

“Using this name Moscow wished to demonstrate its culture before Western peoples and facilitate diplomatic relations of the Moscow government.

Peter I introduced name Russia to cheat Europe, as if it wasn't Moscovia to conquer Ukraine or Moscovites and Ukrainians are one and the same people with the same history and the struggle of Mazepa hadn't had national and liberation characteristics but was domestic struggle for power”. 1 Change of the name was a "result of seizure of Ukrainian territory by Moscow tsars, these territories were the essence of Kyiv Rus and Belarus and another name was the reason for a historian Mykhailo Hrushevskyi to state, “we are the people whose name was stolen”. 2

The ideological change of ethnonym with considerable ramifications was at times of Peter I, “…the name Rus itself was taken out from the Kyiv's heart with iron hand of Peter…”. 3 “Herr Peter”, as Peter I fancied to call himself, even had a thought to make Kyiv the capital. It is a well known fact that Peter I hated either Moscow or Moscow practices and he would eagerly agree to follow his favorite Dutch and German way and change his faith into Lutheran, take Latin alphabet etc.

“It was the reign of Peter I when Moscow tsardom took the name Russia, when he for the first time went, as they said incognito, to Europe where no Royal Household gave him a reception although he was present at the balls for nobility. At that time Moscow was considered as unknown Asian country. And then Asian people were treated negatively. But Rus had been known for a long time. That's why after his visit to Europe the Moscow tsar renamed its tsardom into Russia and moskals learned that they were Great Russians. Ukrainian Rus (Ukraine had been known in the West only like Rus) was already under Moscow's rule and this was helpful to Moscow. Great Russians - were the only people in the world who before 18th century were called Moscow servants”. 4 By changing ethnonym Peter I hoped not only to eliminate feeling of independence of Ukrainians and Belorusians from Moscovites but also to engaded the latter to European civilization. Such a trend was used by his followers, Catherine the Great 5 in particulat. In 1869 a famous Bukovina poet Osyp Yuriy Fedkovych wrote about it in the article “In order not to be late! A voice from the Russian people” the following: “After the Battle of Poltava (1709), Moskals got Rus, their tsar Peter appropriated the name of defeated people, took the title of tsar of Rus and made the following political declaration: From 1 R. – K. Ukrayna.- Shankhai, 1937.- S. 17.

2 Panchuk H. Poniattia “Rosiia” v zakhidnii kartohrafii // Ukrainskyi samostiinyk.- 1975.- № 210.-

S. 70.

3 Drach Y. Net, ne malorosy // Lyteraturnaia hazeta.- 1990.- 11 apr.

4 Moskovchenko V., Popravko A. Karma Ukrainy.- K.: Vyd-vo Prosvita, 1997.- S. 105.

5 Tsehelskyi L. Zvidky vzialysia i shcho znachat nazvy “Rus” i “Ukraina”? - Lviv, 1907.- S. 51.

151

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Moscow over Dnipro, from Dnipro over Vistula, from Vistula under Carpathian Mountains, from there over Danube, from Danube over Eastern Bosphorus. Could anyone doubt that he failed to follow this declaration to conquer all Slavs? —

But how? On one hand there was a wild Moscow horde, on the other — large and for that time enough highly culturally developed Slavdom... But adventurous tsars didn't care. Yet in XVIII they threw their hordes Christianity and Old Church Slavonic from which absorbing the then Russian script Moscow script originated which because of the ignorance of Slavs' history and indecent distortion of history by Moskals is still called Russian ( Germ. russische Sprache). I'd always call it as Moscow the same as the name Rus describes the Southern Russia only and name Rusyn belongs to present Ruthenians”. 1

It began in the age of Peter I and his successors. When Kyiv scholars had all doors wide open to convey their cultural impact (suffice to say that at times of Peter all Clergy consisted exclusively of Ukrainians and Belorusians) Russian scribes seemed it impossible to "Russianize" "Moscow barbarians" according to European views. They thought that common ethnonym could help them. Fifty years hadn't passed when a bitter disappointment came. Ideals of Cossacks' polity "couldn't exist together with autocracy and foundations of the Roman Civil Law with Asian tyranny". 2 Empire didn't develop according to the scribes thoughts and hopes, but according to the policy and laws of dominating people.

“Ukrainians were defeated because of their attempts to compete in the cultural environment, they wanted to reform Moscow state and make it closer to cultural and historic traditions of Kyiv Rus, in other words - to Ukrainian traditions, it was due to the state, political and cultural traditions. New Russian state in its style and ways had Moscow origin and couldn't be transformed with solely cultural impact and cultural traditions of other people. The style and organization of Russian state were deeply rooted in psychology and spirituality of the Moscow people. That's why all these attempts to reform and transform the state through cultural impact by other people with other culture were Utopian. Despite of the great Ukrainian impact to Russian culture, the Russian state adsorbed that was the only that matched the psychology of the Russian people. Ukrainian culture wasn't able to overcome trends and traditions of Russian people social structure, because it was foreign and met resistance, this resistance later turned to destruction of Ukrainian culture using all administrative and police measures of the state”. 3

1 Tsyt. za: Andrusiak M. Terminy “Ruskyi”, “Roskyi”, “Rosiiskyi” i “Biloruskyi” v publikatsiiakh XVI-XIX stolit // Zbirnyk na poshanu Ivana Mirchuka.- Miunkhen; Niu-York; Paryzh; Vinnipeh, 1974.- S. 12.

2 Riabchuk M. Vid Malorosii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia.- K.: Krytyka, 2000.- S. 54.

3 Holubenko P. Ukraina i Rosiia u svitli kulturnykh vzaiemyn.- Niu-York; Paryzh; Toronto: Ukrainske slovo, 1987.- S. 288.

152

XIV. MOSCOVIA CHANGES ITS NAME

Leading Cossacks community, which used to be proud and confident, now faded slowly in remote farmsteads aside of big roads of history. The main concerns of this community now were: — Mother, what shall we eat today? - Thus that leading community decayed in the life of old-world landlords. Hohol created a grim and ingenious caricature in his "Little Russia" stories. Other part of that Cossack's community couldn't find peace in such a vegetable existence. It came out to high roads of history, although the Ukrainian cart had gone, they took Russian imperial tarantasses.

Ukrainian land was taken over from the West world and its culture was in decline. Dm. Dontsov saw the reasons of Hetmanate decline in moral categories.

“Punishment is referred to as the punishment for a sin of indifference, because this sinful land carries instead of "Great great grandfathers" "foul grandsons"

who "allowed to make them prisoners". Because "these sinful people didn't change their minds", "it was righteous that the God Almighty ordered to forge the chains” for generation of men with little faith, men of mistrust, for "evil" and wicked generation, it was righteous "to use the beauty" of his marvelous country.

Why did they “devour sacrifices to foreign gods, and become lousy”? Why did turned aside from the way of their fathers, why did they become "indifferent" to their honesty, why did they become abjurers, why did they were "ready to serve anybody" as slaves and "lackeys"? Why weren't they "ashamed to die under the burden"? Why did they stop to be determined and become like "vines under the wind"? Why did they become lambs, men with "lambskin", with readiness to sell their own for a "slice of rotten sausage", with readiness to betray everything what their fathers adored, becoming "men of foreign homeland", spilling blood "not for Ukraine, but for its torturers"? 1

With the ethnonym change Moscow won everything; Ukrainians and Belorusians lost everything. "The ethnonym change gave Moscovites opportunity to appropriate amazingly rich and numerous worthy cultural and political gains, which were brought with sword and word by sons of Rus. The Tsar adopted the Greek term Russia to make ideological unity between Moscow and Ukraine. He hadn't used the word "Rus" before because in Moscow ordinary people didn't use the word "Rus", it was used in Rus-Ukraine (as well as in neighboring countries and in Europe) the word "Rus" had only one meaning — our Rus-Ukraine. The whole Europe knew that "Rus" — was the land between rivers San, Bug, Dnister, Dnipro, but Moscow was known then in Europe as "Moscowschina" (in Latin: Moscovita, in German: Moskowitien etc.).

If Peter the Great took "Rus" for a name of his Moscow state, it would resulted in turbulence at which he wouldn't count in his political intentions, because people might think that Moscovia was the part of our Rus. At the same time Peter 1 Dontsov Dm. Dukh nashoi davnyny.- Drohobych: Vidrodzhennia, 1991.- S. 21.

153

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

I wished to unite Rus-Ukraine with Moscow, but Moscow should be in the center and Rus-Ukraine like a pin to Moscow stem. That's why he stuck to the word

"Russia", which at that time some our church writers used (neither our people, nor Moscow people used this word) and he named with this word the whole Moscow country where left bank Ukraine was already united to. His plan was clear the new name should comprise both Moscow and Rus-Ukraine". 1

Thus the change of the name of Moscow state threw a challenge to Ukrainian people identity.

1 Tsehelskyi L. Zvidky vzialysia i shcho znachat nazvy “Rus” i “Ukraina”? - Lviv, 1907.- S. 57.

154

XV. RUSYNS

Since the 14th century there have been a great number of historic documents in scientific usage (political, legal, ecclesiastic), which leave no doubts that in Lithuanian-Russian and in Cossacks ages the national territory of Ukraine was referred to as Ruthenia and its inhabitants as Rusyns. It was mentioned in then chronicles, annals, memorials, land acts, tribute charters, last wills, Lithuanian birth record books, Ruthenia birth record books etc. For example Kyiv waywode Konstanty Ostrogski (1526-1608) in then documents was constantly referred to as Rusyn. 1 In early XVII Meletius Smotrytsky wrote about national identity: "It is not the faith which makes a Rusyn Rusyn, a Polack, a Lithuanian, but place of birth and the blood Russ, Polish and Lithuanian". 2 Smotryrsky referred to Rusyns as to Ukrainians. In 1620 Semen Lyko, a pidstarosta ( deputy starosta) from Cherkasy commented on the Royal lawsuit written in Polish in the following way, "Poles should fear this, but I'm a Rusyn The king sends it to me, the Rusyn, but writes in Polish". 3 A famous polemist Ivan Vyshensky signed like this, "Ioan Rusyn Vyshensky". 4 Or the writing dated back to 1616. "Either Poles or Rusyn shalt identify themselves on that way". 5 After analysis of a number of sources M. Hrushevskyi had reasons to state that Podilia and in particular Bar suburban Polish gentry in XVI was referred in official documents to "Rusyns". 6

In his work "Khmelnnytsky Uprising 1648-1649 in modern poetry", contradicting to Polish historians (we may add the Russians too) about clear social but not the national character of the uprising, I. Franko analyzed then Polish poems and came to conclusion "that it was uprising of Rusyn people. Ruthenia rebelled against Polacks, Ruthenia wanted to oust Poles beyond its borders". 7 Poems read: “Nigdy si Mazur z Rusinem nie zgodzi” ( Polack swill never agree with Rusyn). 8

A Polish poet B. Zimorowic (1597-1677) in his poems "Sielanki nowe ruski"

described Polish-Rus antagonism in the following way:

1 Yakovenko N. M. Ukrainska shliakhta z kintsia XIV do seredyny XVII st.: (Volyn i Tsentralna Ukraina).- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1993.- S. 75.

2 Yakovenko N. M. Ukrainska shliakhta z kintsia XIV do seredyny XVII st.: (Volyn i Tsentralna Ukraina).- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1993.- S. 83.

3 Yakovenko N. M. Ukrainska shliakhta z kintsia XIV do seredyny XVII st.: (Volyn i Tsentralna Ukraina).- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1993.- S. 103.

4 Shchurat V. Do biohrafii i pysan Ivana z Vyshni // ZNTSh.- 1909.- T. 87.- S. 48.

5 AIuZR.- K., 1887.- Ch. I.- T. 7.- S. 277.

6 Hrushevskyi M. Barskoe starostvo: Ystorycheskye ocherky.- K., 1894.- S. 178.

7 Franko I. Khmelnychchyna 1648-1649 rokiv u suchasnykh virshakh // ZNTSh.- 1898.- T. 23-24.- S. 17.

8 Franko I. Khmelnychchyna 1648-1649 rokiv u suchasnykh virshakh // ZNTSh.- 1898.- T. 23-24.- S. 18.

155

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Gdym go prosi, eby mi jak swemu folgowa,

Rzek na to, ety Rusin, kotiuho, niedoszy,

Bo misem lackim ruski koci twe obrosy. 1

In "Crusade to Moldavia" folk story nationality of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky was "Rusyn":

Hey Ivane Potosky, king of Poland.

You in glorious Ukraine drink and run around,

But you know nothing of my adventure,

That your hetman Khmelnytsky Rusyn,

Tore down all my land Wallachia. 2

In "Samovydets Chronicle" ( Eyewitness Chronicle) we can find claims to Polish pressure till 1648, when everybody lived better than "the best Christian Rusyn". In another place: "After duke Olelkovych death in 1340 the duke of Poland Casimir I recognized Kyiv the province of Poland, and all Little Russia was divided into provinces, he ordered to appoint Rusyns to woywode, chastelain, starosta, judge and other official offices". 3

If we trace the historic development of terminology the decline of old ethnonymics and in particular the term "Rusyn" began at time of Truce of Andrusovo.

According to ignoble Truce of Andrusovo made between Poland and Moscow in 1667 Ukraine was divided, Moscow got Left bank of Ukraine and "temporary"

for two years the city of Kyiv, and Poland got the rest of Ukrainian territories except Zakarpattia which then belonged to Hungary. The Zaporizhian Sich was recognized as a condominium of both Poland and Moscow.

Conspiracy behind the back of Ukrainian people by two imperialistic predators, one from the East another from the West, tore the body of Ukraine into two. Yet in the South of Ukraine there was the third, as much as aggressive power - Muslim Turkey and its satellite state the Crimean Khanate. In 1672 Podilia was under the Turks who aimed at Lviv and Kyiv. Thus Ukraine fell into deadly geopolitical "jaws". By the way the same pitiless mechanism of geopolitical "jaws" was used while dividing Poland in the recent history and defeating Germany in two world wars. Taking into account the force ratio at that time Ukrainian Cossacks state had no chances to resist geopolitical

"jaws". Eventually, no state in Europe had a chance to resist to an alliance of such powerful states as Moscow, Poland and Turkey with their huge military capacity.

1 Franko I. Khmelnychchyna 1648-1649 rokiv u suchasnykh virshakh // ZNTSh.- 1898.- T. 23-24.- S. 19.

2 Kolessa F. Ukrainska usna slovesnist.- Lviv, 1938.- S. 312.

3 Letopys Samovydtsa po novootkrytym spyskam…- K.: Yzd. Vrem. Komys. dlia razbora drevn.

aktov, 1878.- S. 212.

156

XV. RUSYNS

The Truce of Andrusovo gave start to a horrible period of Ukrainian history — "The Ruin", when people were suppressed heavily by external pressure and internal hassels. "The Ruin" finished with unfortunate for Ukrainians Battle for Poltava (1709.), after which Moscow military community was permanently bil-lited in Left-bank cities. At the same time (1721) Moscow Tsardom changed its name into Russian Empire. Thus ethnonymic uncertainty appeared: apart from ecclesiastic offices there was a daily mixture of Rus and Russia, Rusyn-Russian which led to a trouble threatening national identity. An diminutive term

"Maloros" ( Little Russian) implanted by Moscow was as much as dangerous.

Instead of "Rusyn" the "Elder brother" started naming us either "Maloros" or

"Yuzhnoros" ( South Russian), either "Cherkas" or "Cherkashanyn", or even just a "Khokhol". 1 The term "Cossack", denoting belonging to a social category, was an alternative in Left-bank Ukraine to disappearing term "Rusyn". "Cossacks, who always were more than a social category, denoted the whole people, thus there were terms: Cossack people, Cossack-Rus people and the substitution of meanings of Cossacks and Ukrainian-Rus people was common for the second half of XVII and XVIII centuries". 2 The following words in the national Anthem are resonance to these events,

We'll lay down our souls and bodies

To attain our freedom,

And we'll show that we, brothers, are

Of the Kozak nation.

(translated by Ihor W. Slabicky)

In the Ukrainian language the word "Cossack" started denoting free, proud, handsome, courageous men in general. In everyday Polish the word "Cossack"

means a very courageous person.

Due to these tragic events the country lost its long historically recognized name and its people — their name. The then weakness of identification of the national identity can be illustrated by records which were made by students.

"Ukrainian students entering university wrote in the graph national identity:

"Ukrainian of Greek-Russ faith", "Cossack", "Kyivan", "Russ from Ukraine",

"Ruthen", "from Kyiv in Ukraine" etc.". 3 After the Battle of Poltava and fierce Moscow purges a part of senior Cossacks understanding lack of historic prospectives in development became quickly Russianized hastily transferring into Imperial nobility. The views of O. Maros, a son of a famous sculptor are relevant here. He, "vailing before Hetman I. Mazepa's grave made a dusky remark that his 1 Matsyevych L. Poliaky y rusyny // Kyevskaia staryna.- 1882.- T. I/A 307.

2 Hrushevskyi M. Khmelnytskyi i Khmelnychchyna // ZNTSh.- 1898.- T. 23-24.- S. 18.

3 Dziuba O. M. Vykhidtsi z Ukrainy v universytetakh Nimechchyny u XVIII st. // Istorychni doslidzhennia. Istoriia zarubizhnykh krain.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1989.- S. 15.- S. 5.

157

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Homeland lost its name and brave Cossack nation, divided lot of other peoples used to be glorious ones". 1 The process of ruining of Ukrainian ethnic group and turning it into ethnographic crowd was completed when Serfdom was introduced under Catherine II.

In 1793 as the result of the next partition of Poland the Right-bank Ukraine was taken over by Moscow. Bonded, illiterate original people of the Right-bank still kept an old ethnonym "Rusyns". In the then drama play of Kyiv origin Polacks were allegedly blamed that a Jew to them was nicer "than a Rusyn". 2

We can find examples of Rusyn ethnonym use in the Right-bank of Ukraine in ethnography researches. There are several examples for illustration. "Once a man questioned a Turk: why do you marry many women? The Turk replied when the God gave women to men a Turk was the first to come: that's why the God gave several dozens to him. A Polack came and the God gave five to him.

A Rusyn came and the God gave three to him”. 3 The then folk tales of the Right-bank tell: "How a Polack a Rusyn strung" or "A Polack tells to Rusyn".

A folk ethnographist from Podilia A. Dyminskyi who recorded in 1850-s a great many of folk materials according to the academician A. Loboda, considered that

"term "Russian" is more likely related to "Rusyn" than to "resident of Russia".

A. Dyminskyi names Russians moskals or even "katsapy". 4 A Volynia folk tale about dragon tells "how dragon flew around Rus, saturated with Rus smell and a Rusyn stinks to him". 5 An author of "Spivomovky" short humorous folk verses of Podilia, in a verse "Three tsars" (1859) wrote: A Gypsy, Rusyn, the third was a Pole

Once had a concern

If somebody gave them a tsardom,

What would they do in turn 6

But on the Right-bank part the ethnonym "Rusyn" started falling into oblivion because of troubles created by the Russian administration.

This couldn't escape the attention of a famous ethnographist of XIX century Pavlo Chubynsky, "Little Rus" when meeting a Polack, Moldavian, Hungarian 1 Kravchenko V. V. Narysy z ukrainskoi istoriohrafii epokhy natsionalnoho Vidrodzhennia (druha polovyna XVIII - seredyna XIX st.).- Kh.: Osnova, 1996.- S. 29.

2 Hordynskyi Ya. “Mylost Bozhiia”, ukrainska drama z 1728 r. // ZNTSh.- 1925.- T. 136-137.-

S. 36.

3 Kazky ta opovidannia Podillia v zapysakh 1850-1860-ykh rr.- K.: Vyd-vo AN URSR, 1928.- S. 64.

4 Kazky ta opovidannia Podillia v zapysakh 1850-1860-ykh rr.- K.: Vyd-vo AN URSR, 1928.- S. 269.

5 Trudy еtnohrafychesko-statystycheskoi zkspedytsyy v Zapadno-russkyi krai.- SPb., 1878.- T.

II.- S. 172.

6 Rudanskyi S. Tvory.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1959.- T. I.- S. 200.

158

XV. RUSYNS

states clearly he is "Rusyn". 1 And when meeting a "Russian" he was embarrassed. In the early XX there were 112 villages in Khotynsk province where people called themselves "Rusyns" and 22 villages where the mixture with Moldavians was. 2

In the light of this brief information on ethnonym "Rusyn" usage in the 14th-19th centuries, the following information from modern school text-book looks strange, "Name of "Ukraine" originates from the stems "krai" ( edge) and "kraina" ( country)". Along with this name there were traditional local names: "Rus",

"Ruska zemlya" ( Ruska land), "Galicia Rus", "Carpathian Rus". Ukrainians of Carpathian Rus called themselves Rusyns". 3 In reality there wasn't any "traditional local name" of Carpathian Rus and of course people who called themselves Rusyns lived not only in this mythical Carpathian Rus but for a very long time all around Ukraine. The authors of this text book probably used information from the letter to "The Great Leader Comrade Stalin" which was sent in 1994

to Moscow by a knot of Zakarpattia White Russian emigres and Moscow-lov-ers. They asked Stalin to include Zakarpattia to the USSR under the name of

"Karpatorusskaya Soviet Republic". The letter read the following: "Desires and wishes of our ancestry was always that our region behind Carpathian Mountains was populated with Rusyns, that is. Sons of Rus, and this region got back to its mother Great Rus... People call themselves: “Karpatorus”, Rusyn, i.e. Son of Rus, faith is "Russian", a wife is "Russian", a mother is "Russian" etc. Our people were acquainted with the names: "Ukraine", "Ukrainian" only being under the Czech rule after the World War I and they were representative of intelligentsia layer came from Galicia". 4 That opportunistic idea didn't work at that time. We will get back to ethnonym Rusyn in Western Ukraine.

1 Trudy еtnohrafychesko-statystycheskoi еkspedytsyy v Zapadno-russkyi krai.- SPb., 1872.-

T. VII.- S. 357.

2 Nestorovskyi P. A. Bessarabskye Rusyny: Ystoryko-еtnohrafycheskyi ocherk.- Varshava, 1905.-

S. 9.

3 Serhiienko H. Ya., Smolii V. A. Istoriia Ukrainy (z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVIII stolittia): Navchalnyi posibnyk dlia 7-8 klasiv serednoi shkoly.- K.: Osvita, 1995.- S. 79.

4 Chorna knyha Ukrainy: Zb. dokumentiv.- K.: Prosvita, 1998.- S. 61.

159

XVI. POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVE

In Russian self-namings of all Slavic nations are nouns, i.e. answer the question “Who?” (for example, “poliak” (the Polish), “chekh”(the Czech), “slovak”

(the Slovak) etc. The Russians keeping to this rule for other peoples, use the adjective to name themselves. To answer the question about the nationality, they reply “russkii” , “russkaia” ( Russian), that is they answer the question “whose?”

They do not say Rusyn, as it was in the period of Kyiv state, they say Russkii. “If we look at the word “russkii” precisely one can understand a lot. The word means much more than we might think, it never tells lies. Lev Tolstoy once said, “We can be deceived but language never deceives”.

Thus all the nations are called by a noun in Russian — “nemets” (German),

“poliak” (Polish), “anglichanin” (English), Chuvash, Uzbek… Even those nationalities that consist of several hundred of people — “uduge”, “saami”. It is only Russian which is denoted by the adjective. It is of great importance ”. 1 This

“great importance” has always attracted researchers’ attention.

“The name “rus’kyi” (not “Rusyn”) in all Moscow lands is an artificial invention, imposed by the dynasty late though they bore a feeling of alienation towards Ukrainians ”. 2 It should be stressed that Moscovites neither in the past, nor in the present have used ethnonym Rusyn. Having taken the name of another nation, Russians had to change it, i.e. restore its old perverted form. The thing is that the present-day self-naming “ruskiie” (Russians) is a relict of a colonial nickname of Slavonized Chud. “Over a dozen Ural-Altai nomad tribes with no culture or state were defeated by Kyiv, and later Novgorod Kulturtregers in the 10-12th centuries and Christianized them, imposing God-worshipping language of Kyiv, serfhood (for economic development) and name, that pointed at belonging to Kyiv-Rus (“russkiie”)”. 3

So instead of the term “Rusyn” they started using the term Russian, which, as some researchers think, means “someone belonging to Rusyns”. “Being “Rus people” in colonial-imerial meaning of that time, converting to “Rus faith” after adapting Christianity and starting to use the “Rus language” of their culturally superior Rusyns, they started to name themselves with the help of adjective “Rus’skiie”, and later “Russkiie”, singular “Russkii” and the adjective also

“russkii”. 4 We cannot imagine that to the question about the nationality Сzech or Slovak reply with the adjective, the same about Ukrainets. “Rusyn” is a noun, 1 Kozhynov V. Russkaia ydeia // Dyaloh.- 1991.- № 7.- S. 24.

2 Stakhiv M. Vplyv Khmelnychchyny na formatsiiu ukrainskoi natsii // ZNTSh.- 1948.- T. 156.- S. 75.

3 Lypa Yu. Pryznachennia Ukrainy.- Niu-York: Hoverlia, 1953.- S. 153.

4 Kosarenko-Kosarevych V. Moskovskyi sfinks.- Niu-York, 1957.- S. 92.

160

XVI. POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVE

it is a word which means a person, acting and existing; “Russian” is an adjective, a word which means somebody’s possession, some quality of this or that noun; the word “Russian” means something that was possessed by Rus, or the Rusyn.

Rusyns were people who possessed not only their land, now called Ukrainian but also those Northern lands that are called “Russian”. 1

Historians studying Medieval times often link the word “Russian” to the Orthodox church. “The attribute “Russian” is to be considered in religious meaning, not only ethnic. Russians means first of all, Orthodox”. 2

One should not think that Russians do not understand the double meaning of the adjectival character of their present-day self-naming. A philosopher, linguist and historian V. Kozhynov wrote, “I pay attention to the fact that Russians seem to be one of the few people in the world, whose self-naming is adjective, not noun. By the way, the Russian language representatives of other nations (except Russian) are called by a noun: English, Georgian, Turmen, Chuvash. I think that the word Russian (if think about its meaning) can help us understand on the one hand, that it has no ancient steady roots, and on the other hand, the fact that Russians are just a unifying factor for many nationalities, living on the territory of Russia”. 3 Other Russian authors write it in the following way, “Russian is a possessive name, where the main idea is that people belong to the land, Russians belonging to Russia. While Rusyns is an integral name. The same as Poles, Eng-lishmen, or Catalons”. 4

In the 18th-19th century there attempts, though unsuccessful to correct the term “Russian” and use it in the form of a noun.

The most significant contribution was made by poets, inventing Rosses, Rossians, etc, though new inventions were not accepted. For instance, Pushkin used the terms in his poem Memories of Tsarskoye Selo: Не се ль Минервы росский храм? (rosskoi)

Воззрев вокруг себя, со вздохом росс вещает…

Бессмертны вы вовек, о росски исполины…

О, громкий век военних споров,

Свидетель славы россиян! (rossiian)

Царський трубадур Гаврило Державін писав:

Но что тебе союз, о Росс, (ross)

Шагни и вся твоя вселенна.

1 Onatskyi Ye. Nashe natsionalne imia. Nash natsionalnyi herb.- [B. m.]: Ukrainske vydavnytstvo

“Peremoha”, 1949.- S. 25.

2 Geller M. Ya. Ystoryia Rossyiskoi Ymperyy: V trekh tomakh.- M.: “MYK”, 1997.- T. I.- S. 117.

3 Molodaia hvardyia.- 1994.- № 2.- S. 204.

4 Bushkov A. A., Burovskyi A. M. Rossyia, kotoroi ne bylo-2. Russkaia Atlantyda: Ystorycheskoe rassledovanye.- Krasnoiarsk: Bonus; M.: OLMA-Press, 2000.- S. 82.

161

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Though the words “ross”, “rosskii”, signs of high style was considered to be archaic and they were not used. 1 Artificial and invented is the term “russy”.

“Sometimes in the literature one can see the term “russy”, invented by scientific historiography and unknown in the sources”. 2 G. Pomerants in this connection, said, “In the ethnonym “russkiie” one can feel something about being unfree, captured, not existing independently. Russian is an adjective. There were attempts to introduce other names, rusychi, rosy, though they did not survive.

People called themselves Russians (belonging to a master, a tsar, a state, Russia).

Russians do not own Russia, they are possessed by Rus”. 3

The Kremlin started to use the word “rossiane”. This word was made up in the period of Peter I by the Ukrainian Theophan Prokopovich. “This neologism got to be very popular in the late 20th century after the Soviet Empire had broken up”. 4 It means not an ethnonym, not the name of people but the state you belong to, in this case to Russian Federation.

1 Aheeva R. A. Strany y narody: Proyskhozhdenye nazvanyi.- M.: Nauka, 1990.- S. 152.

2 Nazarenko A. V. Ob ymeny “Rus” v nemetskykh ystochnykakh IX-XI vv. // Voprosy yazykoznanyia.-

1980.- № 5.- S. 54.

3 Bushkov A. A., Burovskyi A. M. Rossyia, kotoroi ne bylo-2. Russkaia Atlantyda: Ystorycheskoe rassledovanye.- Krasnoiarsk: Bonus; M.: OLMA-Press, 2000.- S. 82.

4 Geller M. Ya. Ystoryia Rossyiskoi Ymperyy: V trekh tomakh.- M.: “MYK”, 1997.- T. II.- S. 93.

162

XVII. UKRAINE

The term “Ukraine” goes back to the 12th century, from the well-known words of chronicler, who tells that in the year 1187, after the early death of the young prince Volodimir Pereiaslavskii “плакашася по немъ вси Переяславци… о

немъ же Украйна много постона” ( all the Pereiaslav people cried after him…

Ukraine groaned about his death as well). 1 This refers to a border territory of the Russian state and Ukraine, nowadays it is Poltavshchina. Two years later, in the year 1189, another border territory, Galicia, was called Ukraine, “Князь

Ростислав прийшов в галицьку Оукраину” ( Prince Rostislav came to the Galician Oukraine). 2

By its origin the word Ukraine is a people’s word, it was widely used in folk historical songs and ballads. V. Moroz thinks that the term Ukraine, perhaps, originates from the premodern era and in our historical folklore the word “Ukraine”

is associated with the term freedom. 3 In the folklore the term Ukraine “becomes alive, becomes something that is able to cry about its own misfortune”. In our chronicles, folk songs and other written works we see as it “groans”, “grieves”,

“is sad and crying”, “laments”. 4 Cossack songs of 15-18th centuries, where we find the word Ukraine, witness the high national consciousness connected to this word: “Ой є в мене родина - вся Україна” ( Oh, there is my motherland, all Ukraine). For cossack-knight “his Ukraine” was the most important thing: Ой і візьміть мене, превражі мурзаки,

Take me, tatar enemies

Та виведіть на могилу:

Take me to the grave:

Ой нехай же я стану, подивлюся

Let me stand and look

Та на свою Україну!

At my Ukraine!

“The name of Ukraine is the result of geographical and historical circumstances under which Ukrainian land and people existed, and the idea, with which it is connected most of all, is the dearest child of the Ukrainian world-view”. 5 The word “Ukraine” itself is seen as attractively harmonical — the combination of vowels and consonants, that is why it sounds so harmonical in the folk songs. In the folklore “Mother (Рідна) Ukraine” is feminine and personified as mother. “It is not only the grammatical but also a mythological category. Shevchenko, grown up on 1 PSRL.- Spb., 1843.- T. 2, vyp. 3.- S. 134.

2 PSRL.- Spb., 1843.- T. 2, vyp. 3.- S. 138.

3 Moroz V. Pokhodzhennia nazvy “Ukraina” v svitli ukrainskoho istorychnoho folkloru // Druhyi mizhnarodnyi konhres ukrainistiv.- Lviv, 1994.- S. 213.

4 Barvinskyi B. Nazva “Ukraina” ta yii poiava na Zakarpatti v XVII stol. // Dilo.- 1939.- 6 kvit.

5 Herynovych V. Narys ekonomichnoi heohrafii Ukrainy.- Kamianets na Podilliu, 1920.- S. 14.

163

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

folk songs, said: “Greet me, my mother, my Ukraine”. 1 By the way, it is not right to pronounce Ukraina, Vkraina instead of Ukraiina, because it is not possible to form derivative words from them. “Українці, українка, а не украйнці, украйнка, де йде накопичення немилозвучних приголосних” ( Ukrainci (Ukrainians), ukrainka (Ukrainian woman), not ukraynci (Ukrainians), ukraynka (Ukrainian woman), where are too many non-euphonic consonants). 2

The argument about the origin of ethnotoponym “Ukraine” is more than two hundred years old. As for now there are at least six different interpretations of its meaning. One could systematize them in following groups: 1) remote, border land; 2) land, that lies far from Kyiv; 3) land, that lies at the border of Slavic lands and Europe; 4) land … with plough and sword; 5) border, volost; 6) ancestral land, lot. 3 Besides, many non-scientific interpretations appear. Well-known linguist prof. Y. Rudnitsky, analyzing different views on “Ukraine” origins, made a conclusion, “Perhaps, not in any other part of Ukrainian science there was as much ignorance, dilettantism and self-will”. 4 So, for instance, lately is propa-gandized the interpretation of the term “Ukraine” with the help of half-mythical

“ukrs” or “ukrans”. One claims, that some small tribe of Polabian Slavs, that inhabited the territory next to the Baltic Sea in the Northern Germany (from 7th till 11th century), was allegedly called “ukrs” or “ukrans” in the premodern era, therefore “certainly has a connection to the name of Ukraine”. 5 Hence, with the help of intricate etymological operations, one comes to a conclusion, that the first meaning of the name “Ukraine” is a land of sworn brothers. However, first to talk about half-mythologicl “ukrs” or “ukrans” was a Russian journalist Nadezdin in the year 1837. Nadezdin thought, that Wends, in his opinion ancestors of slavs, came down from Carpatian Mountains and spread in all the directions, during this wend-slavic flow “ukrs-ukrans” went to the Brandenburg. Lovers of the Polab theory think, “It is possible, that they were somehow related to the choronym Ukraine”. 6 Worth mentioning is that a well-known imperialistic hypothesis of Pogodin-Sobolevskii about the Ukrainians as of the Carpatian aliens who came to the Dnipro coast and allegedly took the empty place, left after the Russians, serves as a basis for such a bizzare assumption of Nadezdin.

There is another interesting myth, “We succeded to determine, that uktriianes (уктріяни) are ukis (укі), i. e. educated triians (учені тріяни), that is how Brah-mins were called — the most educated and influential stratum of Trojan society.

1 Lutskyi Yu. Rozdumy nad slovom “Ukraina” v narodnykh pisniakh // Suchasnist.- 1993.- № 8.-

S. 122.

2 Okhrymovych V. Pro vyholos i naholos slova “Ukraina” // ZNTSh.- 1922.- T. 133.- S. 84.

3 Yaniv V. Vstupnyi kurs ukrainoznavstva.- Miunkhen, 1953.- S. 9.

4 Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva “Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh: Nakl. Ukr. knyharni, 1951.- S. 7.

5 Kichak I. Ukraina - ne okraina // Vyzvolnyi shliakh.- 1994.- Kn. 6.- S. 666.

6 Lavriv P. Ukry-Ukrany - nashi predky? // Prapor.- 1990.- № 1.- S. 170.

164

XVII. UKRAINE

Eventually the very prestigious name uktriians spread over all the stratums of triians and after some transformations became the contemporary form Ukrainians”. 1

To these myths one should add the stories of greatrussian chauvinists, who consider names “Ukraine — ukrainianness” (україна — українство) as a product of German, Austrian or Vatican conspiracy — besides they think, that it was finally invented by Polish people. For instance, they consider two polish counts Chatsky and Pototsky as the authors of name “Ukrainians” (українці). 2 The legend, that the name “Ukrainians” “was invented by polish people” or German or whoever else was meant: firstly to destroy the belief of the ukrainians themselves in the Ukrainian ideals, secondly to have a “legal” excuse, as M. Stsiborskyi said, “for the persecution of the most high-spirited and brave”. 3

The term “Ukraine”, determinant for an ethnos, produced two schools: followers of mezivskaia (межівської) theory and distinctive thinkers. 4 The last usually claim to be ultrapatriotic, often neglecting the historical objectivity. That is how Serhiy Sheluhin, the most famous of them, argues his position: “The sense and the meaning of the Ukrainian word “Ukraine” is impossible to explain through the same moscowian word, as prof. Hrushevskyi, prof. Linnichenko, Ceglinskyi, Barvinskyi, Svencickyi, V. Shulgin, prince Volkonsky, Storozenko, Shcheglov etc. used to do, by that helping a great political and cultural trouble-making and damage to the national, cultural, political and international renascence and life of Ukrainian people.

Prof. Maksimovich, in the fourties of the 19th century, decided to be truthful and scientific, explaining Ukrainian word not with Polish or moscowian, but with Ukrainian language, with which Ukrainian words are organically connected.

In Moscowian “ukraine” (україна), regarding land, is the same as “borderland” (окраїна) in Ukrainian. Meaning “borderland of moscowian land”. The word “ukraine” is used in moscowian (for example in Pskow) chronicles, laws, statements.

In the official moscowian usage word “ukraine” began receiving the meaning of “borderland” from the year 1654, when they had to use it in Ukrainian sense. They changed it with the word “borderland” to prevent confusions and misunderstandings according Ukrainian people and their territory.

Moscowian word “ukraine” was derived from “at the border” (у края). The land, which lies “at the border” of certain territory is therefore the “ukraine”

1 Bahrynets V. Pro pokhodzhennia natsionalnoho imeni ukraintsiv // Naukovyi zbirnyk Tovarystva

“Prosvita” v Uzhhorodi.- Uzhhorod, 1996.- S. 111.

2 Ukraynskyi separatyzm v Rossyy. Ydeolohyia natsyonalnoho raskola: Prylozh. k zh. “Moskva”: Sbornyk.- M.: Moskva, 1998.- S. 142.

3 Pankivskyi K. Roky nimetskoi okupatsii.- Niu-York; Toronto, 1965.- S. 437.

4 Moroz V. Pokhodzhennia nazvy “Ukraina” v svitli ukrainskoho istorychnoho folkloru // Druhyi mizhnarodnyi konhres ukrainistiv.- Lviv, 1994.- S. 212.

165

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

of this territory. In Ukrainian, however, such a land is called “borderland”

(окраїною), not “Ukraine” (україною). In Ukrainian you can not say “at the border” (у края) of something, you have to say “skraiu”, “okrai”, “o krai” (different ways of saying “at the border” in Ukrainian) of something. This is already a reason not to build Ukrainian word “ukraine” from “at the border” (у края) (порівн. окраєць, окрайка, окрайок).

In Ukrainian “borderland” (окраїна) and “ukraine” (україна) are totally different terms and they are derived from different words with different meanings, in particular from the words “okraiaty” and “ukraiaty”.

The word “ukraiaty” means to cut a piece from the whole thing, which can afterwards function as an individual independent object with its own edges, borders and outskirts. The word “ukraine” is a special term for a plot of the land, which was cut (vkraiano, ukraiano) from the whole thing, which turns into a whole thing itself and has an independent purpose, grows into a world (“The Ukraine is the great world, but there is no place to live in it…”), gets to be a separate land with its own edges, outskirts, and borders. This term is related only to the land”. 1

During the Revolution Serhiy Sheluhin joined the Central Council, a minister of justice in the Directorate government, later a Professor of Criminal Law at Ukrainian Free University and Ukrainian Dragomanov Pedagogical University in Prague. He was also published as a poet under the pseudonym S. Pavlenko and fought severely with the thesis of Russian historiography, that the name Ukraine means the borderland of Russia. In the year 1936 he published a book on this subject, it was published for the second time in the city of Drohobych in the year 1992. S. Sheluhin’s work is very popular now. “Since early nineties in Ukraine and among the eastern diaspora Sheluhin’s book became well-known: Ukraine is the Name of our Land from the Ancient Times. Analyzing numerous sourses of information, including foreign ones, the author comes to a conclusion, that the name Ukraine is primordial and people’s name for the historical lands of the Ukrainian folk. Linguistic and ethnografical analysis made it possible to explain the original meaning of the word as a “vkraiana (separated for the own usage) land”. Actually, in the contemporary linguistics words edge (край), country (країна), to cut (краяти), to shape (кроїти) are considered to be words the same root — the root is deducted from the initial (Indo-European) root “kriti” meaning to divide, to separate. The only difference is that for last 300

years multiple attempts have been taken to give to the word “Ukraine” the meaning of borderland of the foreign state, identifying words borderland (окраїна) and ukraine (україна), the meaning of borderzone derived from the phrase at the border (у края)”. 2 Ukrainians who live in Russia use Sheluhin’s vision with gratitude. It 1 Shelukhyn S. Nazva Ukrainy.- Viden, 1921.- S. 6-8.

2 Anisimova T. Do istorii nazvy “Ukraina” // Ukrainskyi vybir: Nezalezhna hazeta ukraintsiv v Rosii.- 1998.- № 1-2.- S. 10.

166

XVII. UKRAINE

seems to them, that there are no arguments, more convincing and more authentic, in the fight against the insinuations of Black-Hundreders, than those of Sheluhin. The myth about the meaning of “Ukraine” as the “Russia’s borderland” is for sure widely spread among Russian people. “Everyday understanding of Ukraine as of Russia’s borderland was formed relatively late and is not trustworthy, for the term “Ukraine”

was formulated in the 12th century, when Russia existed neither as a state nor as an ethnonym. Ukraine, firstly Pereiaslav (переяславська), then Podol (подільська) —

was found at the border of the Great Steppe, that played a gread and not always constructive role in the Ukrainian history”. 1

As A. Rusanivskyi claims, “the name Ukraine means “inner land”, “the land, inhabited by one’s people”. He comes to this thought because of its first fixa-tion in the Ipatievskyi chronicle “плакашася по нем (переяславським князем

Володимиром Глібовичем) вси переяславци, о нем же Оукраина много

постона” ( all the Pereiaslavians cried about him (Pereiaslav Prince Volodimir Glibovich), all the Oukraina grieved about him). This refers not to some “borderland”, “outskirt” (окраїну, околицю), as it is told sometimes — Rusanivskyi says — but to the pereiaslavian people — the closest fellow countrymen of Volodimir Glibovich and all their motherland. In other words, Ukraine is “the inner land; the land, inhabited by one’s people”. 2 One more author refers to Pereso-pnytsia Gospel, where the word “Oukraina” (Оукраина) is translated as “country” and claims categorically, “Deducing of origin of ethnotoponym “Ukraine”

from the words “Oukraina”, “krai” in the meaning of outskirts, the end of some land etc. by Polish, Russian and some of Ukrainian authors deeply contradicts the psychology of Ukrainian people”. 3 Y. Knish, diasporic historian, fights “pogranichniki” (followers of “borderland” theory) as well: “One should properly popularize the forgotten meaning of the term “Ukraine” as the “state”, “motherland”, “edge”, “oblast”, not only as “borderzone” (more accurately) “conquered borderzone” and understand that the term “Ukraine” was known and used in the middle ages as a people’s (democratic) counterpart to the “Russian Land”

in the narrower meaning as well as a counterpart to other political creations of Old Ukrainian ethnosocieties. There is no doubt, when attentively studying the context of the chronicle, that the chronicler in the year 1187 used the term

“Ukraine” in the narrower meaning of “Russian land”, in the meaning of his political “motherland”, not some indistinct borderzone”. 4 Norman Davies writes 1 Vovk T. V., Otroshchenko V. V. Problemy davnoi ta serednovichnoi istorii Ukrainy // Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal.- 1997.- № 2.- S. 3.

2 Rusanivskyi A. Ukraina i ukraintsi // Nauka i suspilstvo.- 1989.- № 2.- S. 35.

3 Makarchuk S. Ukraina i ukraintsi: poiava, poshyrennia ta utverdzhennia nazv // Druhyi mizhnarodnyi konhres ukrainistiv.- Lviv, 1994.- S. 206.

4 Knysh Yu. Milleniium khrystyianizatsii Ukrainy i problemy istorychnoi terminolohii //

Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1988.- № 1-4.- S. 228..

167

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

about it in the following way, “Ukraine is the land, where most of the European people came to their motherland. In the ancient times it was know by the name Scythia or Sarmatia — by the names of those people that ruled in the steppes next to the Black Sea before the Slavs came. Ukraine lies on the biggest part of the southern zone of European Plain — from the Volga passage till the Carpatian ravines; through the Ukraine runs the main terrestrial way from Asia to Europe.

Its contemporary Slavic name means “at the edge”, which is close to American term “borderzone”. 1 Ukrainian translator of English historian Petro Tarashchuk could not restrain himself and added such a comment, “Here author retranslates a widespread mistake, which is based on the likeness of the word “Ukraine” with the Russian word “outskirt” (окраина). Boris Hrynchenko in his Dictionary of Ukrainian Language gives “country” as the first meaning of the word Ukraine and there is no meaning as “border” or “outskirt”. This meaning was almost impossible for Slavic people, who thought of contemporary Ukraine as of the centre of Slavic lands”. 2

Regardless the arguments of distinctive thinkers most of the competent Ukrainian researches tracing the spreading of the name “Ukraine” in the space and time are “pogranichniki” (followers of the border theory). They think, that the name

“Ukraine” was at first the name of certain land (as Volyn, Halychyna, Bukowina etc.), as the name of certain (the part of the Left-bank) Russian borderland. “Стара

ся назва, уживана в староруських часах в загальнім значінню погранича, а в

XVI в. спеціалізована в приложеню до середнього Подніпровя, що з кінцем

XV віку стає таким небезпечним, в виїмкові обставини поставленим, на

вічні татарські напади виставленим пограничем, — набирає особливого

значіння з XVII в., коли то східна Україна стає центром і представницею

нового українського житя і в різкій антітезі суспільно-політичному і

національному укладові польської держави скупляє в собі бажання, мрії

і надії сучасної України. Ім’я “України” зростається з сими змаганнями і

надіями, з сим бурливим вибухом українського житя, що для пізнійших

поколінь стає провідним огнем, невичерпаним джерелом національного і

суспільно-політичного усвідомлення, надій на можливість відродження і

розвою. Літературне відродження XVI в. прийняло се імя для означення

свого національного житя”. 3 ( Old is this name, used in the ancient Russian times in the main meaning of borderzone, and in the 16th century specified as the part of Dnieper Ukraine, which became so dangerous at the and of 15th century, put in the extraordinary circumstances, borderzone, exposed to the constant tatar attacks. It becomes especially important in the 17th century, when eastern Ukraine becomes the centre and the representative of the new Ukrainian life 1 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 71.

2 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 71.

3 Hrushevskyi M. S. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1991.- T. 1.- S. 2.

168

XVII. UKRAINE

opposed to the socio-political and national tenor of the Polish state, and accumulates wishes, dreams and hopes of contemporary Ukraine in itself. The name

“Ukraine” merges with these rivalries and hopes, with this rapid explosion of Ukrainian life that becomes a leading fire, an inexhaustible source of national and socio-political self-understanding, hopes for renascence and development to the next generations. Literary renascence of 16th century received this name as an attribute of its national life).

An oustanding linguist Y. Rudnitskyi wrote: “…all the explanations of the name “Ukraine” trying to tie its origin with the verb “to cut” (краяти) — are unscientific, they are typical pseudologies”. 1 Professor Y. Rudnitskyi persuasively proves that the meaning of the word “Ukraine” development in the direction of

“land, country in general” through the middle phase of “smaller space unit, land part” originally had the meaning of “borderland, borderzone”. 2

There are multiple arguments about the interpretation of the ethnonym

“Ukraine”, regarding the initial loсation, however, there are no fundamental disagreements. Everybody agrees that the name Ukraine emerged as a name of the middle Dnieper Ukraine, which bordered with the Great Steppe. “Easy to notice, how the name “Rus” spread over all the lands of our people from Kyiv in the princely times, as well as the name “Ukraine” in the time of Cossacks”. 3 Vi-acheslav Lipnickyi mentioned, “It is very typical, that a call for a revival comes from the same upper Dnieper polanska land, which in the first period of time, in the times of Kyivan State was called Rus, and in the second period of time, beginning from 16th century, was called Ukraine”. 4 Actually, this was the major factor for a new ethnonym to spread.

One should remember that the term Ukraine went through the semantic evolution. “At the beginning of the 19th century official usage of the term Ukraine referred only to Slobozhanshchyna. This explains why the contemporary writers can oppose Ukraine (Slobodsko-Ukrainian province) to Little Russia (Chernihiv and Poltava provinces, which corresponded to the former Hetmanate). Polish sources of 19th century regularly speak of “Volyn, Podilia and Ukraine”, the latter referring to Kyivshchina”. 5 R. Shporliuk writes about the semantical evolution of the term Ukraine. “Wrong meaning interpretations of the name Ukraine are not less spread than the myth about the Ukraine being a part of Russia three and a half centuries. Certainly in the most literal understanding the name Ukraine actually means “outskirt”. How-1 Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva “Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh: Nakl. Ukr. knyharni, 1951.- S. 43.

2 Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva “Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh: Nakl. Ukr. knyharni, 1951.- S. 61.

3 Barvinskyi B. Nazva Ukraina ta yii poiava na Zakarpatti v XVII stol. // Dilo.- 1939.- 6 kvitnia.

4 Lipiski W. Nazwa “Ru” i “Ukraina” i ich znaczenia historyczne // Z dziejuw Ukrainy.- Krakuw, 1912.- S. 49.

5 Lysiak-Rudnytskyi I. Istorychni ese: V 2-kh t.- K.: Osnovy, 1994.- Tom I.- S. 44.

169

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

ever, this name in the nowadays, contemporary understanding is very different from the term Ukraine, which was used in the past by Polish and Russian people to speak about their borderzones, their pre-contemporary “Ukraines”.

(That is why the ancestors of contemporary Ukrainians also spoke about Ukraine and did not call themselves Ukrainians). Furthermore, what Polish people used to call “Ukraine” once was really different from what they called

“Ukraine” later; the same could be said about Russians and their “Ukrains”.

The most important thing is that at the end of the 19th century people now known as Ukrainians began to call themselves Ukrainian and its motherland — Ukraine”. 1 “The word “Ukraine” means, as many people think, borderland and at first was actually related to the border line, where Cossacks used to live. Transfer of Cossack system from borderzone to volost facilitated spreading and popularizing of the name “Ukraine”, now it was used in the conversational language as a name for the whole territory, which was under the Cossack’s jurisdiction. New name gradually changed traditional “Rus”, derived from the middle-age Kyivan state”. 2 The same views had Ukrainian geographers S. Rudnitskyi, M. Dolnitskyi, V. Kubyiovich. They emphasized, that Ukraine “is the border land of Europe, lies at the passage to Asia and to its steppe-desert part, lies at the outskirts of the Mediterranean Sea, lies at the border of forests and steppes ”. 3

From the Moscow-centric and Warsaw-centric point of view, probably, Ukraine looks like a modest terminological defect, like some outskirt of Poland or Russia. From the Kyiv-centric point of view the names Ukraine, Ukrainian looks like a term with a strong historical dignity, like a name of the land and people “located at the Great steppe border between Europe and Asia”. 4

Geopolitically Ukraine is divided into the three interconnected parts: Central European, East European and South-Mediterranean. Together they make the Great border between Europe and Asia, the border, which played and plays an exceptional role for the western civilization. In the interpretation of the Decalogue of the Ukrainian nationalist5 one feels a mystical pride 1 Shporliuk R. Ukraina: vid imperskoi peryferii do suverennoi derzhavy // Suchasnist.- 1996.-

№ 11.- S. 75.

2 Lysiak-Rudnytskyi I. Istorychni ese: V 2-kh t.- K.: Osnovy, 1994.- T. 1.- S. 6.

3 Kubiiovych V. Heohrafiia ukrainskykh i sumezhnykh zemel.- Krakiv; Lviv: Ukr. vyd-vo, 1943.-

S. 5.

4 Dashkevych Ya. Natsionalna samosvidomist ukraintsiv na zlami XVI-XVII st. // Suchasnist.-

1992.- № 3.- S. 67.

5 The Ten Commandments (Dekaloh) of the Ukrainian Nationalist 1. You will attain a Ukrainian State, or die in battle for it.

2. You will not permit anyone to defame the glory or the honor of Your nation.

3. Remember the Great Days of our struggles.

170

XVII. UKRAINE

when speaking of this border: “I am a spirit of the primordial element, which saved You from the Tatar flood and set you to create a new life at the border of two worlds”. 1 Eventually every argument between “distinctive thinkers”

and followers of border theory has no political significance. Russian and Polish interpretation of the name “Ukraine” as of the word “outskirt”, which caused such an irritation, has irreversibly lost any political sense of outskirt or periphery of anything. “Now Ukraine means a geographical area stretched out from the lands of Don Cossacks to the southern provinces of Hungary, from the outfall of the Danube to the points more northern than Sumy and Kharkiv”. 2 A prominent researcher and popularize of our new ethnonym B. Barvinskyi claimed: “from the 17th century there is a name, common for a nation: “Ukraine”, “Ukrainian” (українець), “Ukrainian” (український), which already embraced all our national lands ”. 3 The contemporary Ukrainian state is twice bigger than territory of Poland and bigger than a main ethnographical territory of so-called “Central Russia”. “A superficial glance at the map of Europe is enough to understand, that such a great territory can not be an “outskirt” or “periphery” of anything”. 4 In other words, all the speculations about the origins of an ethnotoponym “Ukraine” are of the mere academical, cabinet nature now. “For a contemporary Ukrainians, who feel with their hearts, and therefore realize semantics of a name of their land, Ukraine in its state status and cultural conquests has nothing to do with the border, and even less — with a periphery, because these terms in reference to Ukraine, if not forgotten, have no ground, reason for a further existence.

For them it becomes a motherland, therefore it is a citizenship position, an object of national pride and love, sorrow and concerns, and together with it becomes a way to join the internation federation of spiritual unity and the 4. Be proud of the fact that You are the inheritor of the struggle for the glory of Volodymyr’s Trident.

5. Avenge the deaths of the Great Knights.

6. Do not speak about matters with whom you can, but only with whom you must.

7. Do not hesitate to carry out the most dangerous deeds, should this be demanded by the good of the cause.

8. Treat the enemies of Your Nation with hatred and ruthlessness.

9. Neither pleading, nor threats, nor torture, nor death shall compel You to betray a secret.

10. Aspire to expand the power, wealth, and glory of the Ukrainian State.

1 Mirchuk P. Narys istorii Orhanizatsii Ukrainskykh Natsionalistiv.- Miunkhen; London; Niu-York, 1968.- T. I.- S. 126.

2 Shporliuk R. Ukraina: vid imperskoi peryferii do suverennoi derzhavy // Suchasnist.- 1996.-

№ 11.- S. 75.

3 Barvinskyi B. Nashe narodne imia // Z velykoho chasu: Voiennyi literaturno-naukovyi zbirnyk.-

Lviv, 1916.- S. 100.

4 Shporliuk R. Ukraina: vid imperskoi peryferii do suverennoi derzhavy // Suchasnist.- 1996.-

№ 11.- S. 75.

171

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

treasure house of values of the human civilization”. 1 All the interpretation of the origins of the term Ukraine are inferior to this one: Ukraine is the ethnographical territory of the great Ukrainian nation. Claims of a Polish historian Hrondsky (17th century) and of his followers that Ukraine is an

“outskirt of Poland”, as well of a Russian historian Karamzin (19th century) and of his followers that Ukraine is the “outskirt of the Russian Empire” are simply obsolete political tendencies, which play no role in the contemporary and, which is more important, if the future realities.

1 Franko Z. Obshyr zemli prashchuriv // Ukraina.- 1989.- № 33.- S. 23.

172

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

Some issues, which are extremely important for understanding the essence of the historical fate of the Ukrainian people, often disappear behind a rather low-efficient polemical curtain, which surrounds the problem of the etymology of the word "Ukraine". First, this is the issue about the cause that made people change ethnodetermining terms, and, secondly — the way these changes occurred in historical reality.

"The shift to the new ethnonim was, for the Ukrainian people, after all, nothing but the opposition to assimilation processes, politics of denationalization of Ukrainians, the dissolution of them in the "generally Russian sea", which was relentlessly carried out by the ruling circles of the Russian Empire. And it is characteristic that called shift actively preceded and ended earlier in those regions of Ukraine, which were closer to Russia, while in the western regions, which were contiguous with the Polish ethnic group, ethnic self-determinations "Rus" and

"Rusyn" have been preserved even recently. 1

Obviously, the spread of a new self-stimulated name was stimulated by hostile Moscow tactics of mimicry in etnonimic terminology. We had to "find a new name that would guarantee its national independence, which would not give Moscow swindlers the possibility to play with mingling of the names "Russia"

and "Rus". 2 To disrupt the deadly dangerous assimilatory onslaught of Moscow Tsars, in the circumstances of the complete political and cultural injustice, there was no other choice, according to many authors, than to replace the names "Rus"

and "Rusyn" with other (different) names. "To distinguish the nation and the territory from the Russian ones, our intelligentsia had to discard the old name "Rus"

and adopted for the nation our national name — "Ukrainian", and for the territory — the name of "Ukraine", found in folk songs". 3 Many Ukrainian patriots of that time expressed the idea of the need to change the ethnonym. Understanding this process was constantly growing: "As soon as the concept of Malorosian ( Little Russian) political nation, Malorosian ( Little Russian) rights and freedoms became part of history, national consciousness of Ukrainian elite began to focus on the other, in particular geographic and ethnic iconic characters. But in the late 18th — early 19th century this process was far from being complete. This is evidenced, in particular, by the presence of different names of Ukrainian territory 1 Nalyvaiko D. Retseptsiia Ukrainy v Zakhidnii Yevropi XVI-XVIII st. // Suchasnist.- 1993.-

№ 2.- S. 103.

2 Onatskyi Ye. Nashe natsionalne imia. Nash natsionalnyi herb.- [B. m.]: Ukrainske vyd-vo

“Peremoha”, 1949.- S. 28.

3 Chykalenko Ye. Shchodennyk (1907-1917).- Lviv, 1931.- S. 348.

173

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and people: not only "Malorosia" (" Little Russia"), but also "Ukraine", "Rus",

"Russia", "South Russia" and some others, derived from these". 1 But slowly and steadily, nevertheless, the process of selecting a single name took place.

"The name of the Rus became both for the north and for the east the same thing, which lasted for many years, as the exceptional heritage of the people of the south-west (i.e. Ukrainian). Then, the latter remained unnamed; its local private name, which was used by other people (Muscovites) only as a general (state) name, became for latter what it used to be for the former. The South Rusian (Ukrainian) people had their name stolen. The role was to be transformed in the opposite way. The same as in antiquity north-eastern Rus (Muscovy, Zalissia) was called "Rus" only in a general sense (in the sense of the state), and partially had its own name (Muscovia Zalissia), so now the south-Rus (Ukrainian) people could be called in general (state) sense, but partially, originally, had to find a different name". 2

That is how the famous professor of Kyiv (and St. Petersburg) University Mykola Kostomarov wrote. The need to find a different selfname was also pointed at by the famous professor of Lviv University Omelian Ohonovskyy, "Our people are not guilty that Moscow Tsars used the name "Rus" for their state, and that our homeland lost its specific name". 3

As one can see, two Ukrainian patriots and intellectuals, who simultaneously lived on different sides of imperial borders (one — in Russia, and the other — in Austria) agree in explaining the reason for the ethnonim change. Foreign scholars give the same reason, "Tryings of people of Southern Russia, the so-called Malorosians ( Little Russians), to use the names "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian"

again, — stated the prominent Austrian and Slavic-Croatian Slavonic scholar V.

Yahich, — is explained by the fact that they awakened national consciousness and they naturally want to indicate ethnic distinctiveness of Malorosians ( Little Russians) from official Velykorosian ( Great Russian) nationality as much as possible, using a completely different name that would exclude any confusion with Velykorosians ( Great Russians) and Malorosians ( Little Russians)". 4

This confusion has led, as noted by A. Miller, to the fact that "the territory of modern Ukraine in the 19th century turned to be the object of real terminology war". 5 Russian academician Korsch in 1912 in the newspapers Utro Rossii ( Morning of Russia) and Birzhevyie Viedomosti ( Stock Exchange News) gave the 1 Kravchenko V. V. Narysy z ukrainskoi istoriohrafii epokhy natsionalnoho Vidrodzhennia (druha polovyna XVIII - seredyna XIX st.).- Kh.: Osnova, 1996.- S. 29.

2 Kostomarov N. Y. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb., 1903.- Kn. I.- S. 37.

3 Ogonovsky, О. Istoriia literatury ruskoii. - Lviv, 1891.- Т. I.- S. 8.

4 Doroshenko D. Vatroslav Yahich pro ukrainsku movu i pro nazvu “ukraintsi” // Zapysky Istorychno-filolohichnoho viddilu VUAN.- K., 1927.- Kn. X.- S. 275.

5 Myller A. Y. “Ukraynskyi vopros” v polytyke vlastei y russkom obshchestvennom mnenyy (vtoraia polovyna XIX v.).- Sankt-Peterburh: Yzd-vo “Aleteiia”, 2000.- S. 36.

174

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

following explanation of ethnonymical situation of Ukrainians in Russia: "patriots are known to prefer sense to logic, and the ethnographic situation of Ukrainians, unfortunately, is the one, that gives a possibility of logical arbitrariness in assessing their breeding characteristics: on the one hand "Khakhol" — is not the same as "Katsap", but on the other hand, unlike the Polish, Czech, Serb and all the other Slavs, he is "Rusian". Logically thinking, a person will say, "Yes, he is "Rusian", but not "Velykorosian" (" Great Russian")". A Russian specialist in patriotic affairs will triumphantly exclaim: "Ah, he is "Rusian" and we are also "Russians". So it means that there is no different between us and one can not dare to demand anything special. Here on this dual sense of the word "Rus"

and "Rusian" the misunderstandings are based — not always true ones — of our politicians, theoretical and practical, relatively to Malorosians ( Little Russians) or "Ukrainians". 1

We can realize, how urgent the political necessity for our enslaved nation was the problem of transition to a new ethnonym with the help of the words of M. Hrushevsy, who personally — and not in small measure — is contributed to the fact that we are now called Ukrainians.

"Literary Revival of the 19th century takes the name of Ukrainian to indicate the new national life. A complex form of Ukraine-Rus and Ukrainian-Rusian appeared to emphasize the connection of a new Ukrainian life with old traditions of our people: old traditional name was associated with the new term of the Ukrainian revival and movement. Recently, however, the simple terms Ukraine and Ukrainian become more and more widely used in Ukrainian and in other literatures, not only when dealing with modern life, but also when talking about its previous phases and this name gradually displaces all the other ones. For defining the whole East Slavic groups, which are called by philologists "Rus’kyi", one has to use the name of Eastern Slavic, to avoid the confusion of "Russian"

in the meaning of "Velykorosian" (" Great Russian"), "Russian" in the meaning of "Eastern Slavic", and finally "Rusian" in the meaning of "Ukrainian" (as it is used until today in Galicia, Bukovina and Hungarian Rus). Such confusion gives the grounds for permanent unintentional and deliberate misunderstandings, and it has lately firmly and resolutely forced the Ukrainian society to take the names of Ukraine and Ukrainian.

A difficult historical fate of Ukrainian people was reflected in this uncertainty, in this confusion of terminology. Adverse historical conditions have deprived it of any significance in the contemporary cultural and political life, even though it belongs to the most numerous peoples of Europe. Ukrainians occupy large and fertile territory by the compact mass and with their history and works of their spirit they have shown, that they have outstanding capabilities, rich talent 1 Chyhyryn A. Ukraynskyi vopros.- Paryzh, 1937.- S. 4.

175

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and have the right to grasp their special place in the universal history. Having defeated the political life of the Ukrainian people, dropping it to the bottom of the economic, cultural, - together with the national - ruin, unfavorable historical conditions keeping in oblivion bright and glorious moments of its past, the manifestations of its activity, its creative energy, and for centuries threw it at the crossroads of political struggle as unarmed, defenseless prey of aggressive appetites of neighbours, as an ethnographic mass, devoid of national face, having no traditions, and even without a name". 1

On the first page of his fundamental work History of Ukraine-Rus Hrushevsky states, "Its old historical name: Rus, Rusyn, Rusian, during its political and cultural decay was awarded by the Velykorosians ( Great Russian s), whose political and cultural life evolved on the basis of the traditions of ancient Rus, so Muscovy State (mainly because of dynastic ties) esteemed itself to be its successor. When in the 17th century Ukrainian people also became a part of the Moscow State, there was a need to distinguish it from Moscow people, and as a result there began to appear more artificial and new names for it, of which the officially adopted terms "Malorosia" (" Little Russia") and "Malorosians" (" Little Russians") were kept quite long. Now, the name adopted in Ukrainian literature is "Ukrainian-Rusian". 2

Okun-Berezhansky and other Ukrainian scientists explained historical need of Ukrainians of ethnonym change in a similar way, "... for distinguishing the native Rus and Great Rus (known as Muscovy Rus) they started to name their Rus "Ukraine" and made from it derivative name of "Ukrainian". 3 This problem has become a regular story for Ukrainian authors in pre-revolutionary times. "Our nation within the Russian kingdom had to completely forget the word "Rus" (to denote our land and language) and instead of that it had to use only the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian" to distinguish its nationality from Moscow one. 4 Explaining the reasons for the change of ethnonym Professor Tomaszewski wrote, "We do not retract our name, we are the Rus people and Rus language is our language, but for no one to confuse our people and the people of Moscow — we are different - so we call ourselves Ukrainians. Because we are one nation, and Russian people "russkiie" are another nation; our history is not the same as theirs". 5

The same explanation is made in a special collection of articles published in the early 20th century in Bukovyna. "Our people are all well aware that the 1 Hrushevskyi M. S. Ylliustryrovannaia ystoryia ukraynskoho naroda.- SPb., 1913.- S. 4-5.

2 Hrushevskyi M. S. Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy.- Lviv, 1904.- T. I.- S. 1.

3 Okun-Berezhanskyi V. Chomu Rusyny abo Malorosy nazyvaiutsia ukraintsiamy? - Sambir, 1932.- S. 57.

4 Tsehelskyi L. Zvidky vzialysia i shcho znachat nazvy “Rus” i “Ukraina”? - Lviv, 1907.- S. 69.

5 Tomashivskyi S. Prytcha pro dvokh susidiv, shcho maly odne imia.- Lviv, 1909.- S. 16.

176

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

Rus person is not the same as Moskal. However, the Russians call themselves also "Russian people" and unlike our "Rus" write two "s" in their word. In writing, "Russian" (with two "s") means Russian or Moscowian, and "Rusian"

(with one "s") means our people. In writing these things are obvious - but when speaking, one has no possibility to understand in conversation whether one said "Russian" with two "s" or "Rusian" with one "s". So, with that comes pure misunderstanding". 1

The reasons for the usage of a new ethnonym were explained by well known Ukrainian publicist as follows: "The story gave us a new name, not only younger, but also better than the old one, taken by enemies, used for their bad oppressive purposes, and this new better name already does not allow any confusing, does not make our land neither Polish Toloka nor Muscovite freehold, but only our own ancestral good, using which our nation has to become its sole master". 2

One can also find similar arguments in the book, which was published at the beginning of the revolution. "There, where the Ukrainians had intercourse with Moscovians, they had to distinguish themselves, as a separate tribe". 3

More or less conscious process of name change could be observed since the 17th century.

Poltava disaster (1709) intensified the agony of Ukrainian statehood that ended with the abolition of Cossack Hetmanate (1764). Ukrainian state as a subject of international relations disappeared, but the Ukrainian nation showed the unprecedented firmness, because in this very period it began massively work with the plow on vast areas of South and East, which were won with Cossack sabers. And at the beginning of the 19th century Ukrainian ethnos took root from wetlands of Polissia to the waves of the Azov Sea and the Black Sea. "The formation process of Ukrainian national territory, as it is clearly evidenced by docu-mentary material, was the most actively held from the end of the 17th century till the end of the 18th century and mainly (though, of course, not finally) ended at the beginning of the 19th century. So, in time it actually coincided with the gradual consolidation of despotic absolutist monarchy in the Russian Tsar state and the elimination of all signs of Ukrainian statehood. But, despite these circumstances, geographical distribution of the name "Ukraine" continued to take place in all the lands inhabited by Ukrainian community. The term "Ukrainian" (in the sense of ethnicity) was increasingly mentioned in sources of that time. Maxims

"nation" and "national" became more commonly used in conversation as well as in the written documents (especially it took place during the second half of the 18th century). Indigenous people were classified as "Rusyn nation", "Malorosia 1 Rusyny a moskali: Zbirka statei i opovidan.- Chernivtsi: Ruska Rada, 1911.- S. 3.

2 Nazaruk O. Yak nazyvaietsia nash ridnyi krai i narid? - [B. m.], 1915.- S. 3.

3 Vankevych K. Khto my i vid koho pokhodym? - Proskuriv, 1917.- S. 66.

177

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

nation" (" Little Russia nation") or "Ukrainian nation", and so on. 1 It should be mentioned that heroic struggle of Cossacks and the steppe began a few centuries earlier. Famous English historian Arnold Toynbee noted that the Cossacks made

"unprecedented achievement", that the Cossacks formed a new social stratum,

"who organized their life in such a new and unusual way that it provided an opportunity to sedentary society for the first time in its history not only to survive in combat against the Eurasian nomads, not just punish them once or twice using revenge short trips, but to beat them completely: to win from nomads the territory and to change the landscape, transforming the nomadic pastures to peasant fields, and camps — to settled villages". 2

It must be emphasized that deliberately created confusion of ethnodefining terms made its destructive thing. Although ethnonym Rus is not identical to the term Russia, as the first one is natural, taken from the depths of centuries, and the second is an artificial, formed in Istanbul by Greek churchmen in the 16th century, but their false resemblance and dangerous similarity of ethnonyms Rusyn —

Rusian required from our nation distinctive changes. For the first time Hetman state (approximately Poltava and Chernihiv region today), which due to Cossack military alliance with Moscow since 1667 has gradually become the Tsar colony, viewed the issue of changing national name as an urgent political issue. In that very territory, in the Left bank of the Dnieper, people felt how the confusion of terms threatens the national distinctiveness, realized that "the Rusian name should be replaced by another name, identifyinf the different from the Eastern Rus, not similarities with it." 3

The usage of a new language symbol ethnotoponym "Ukraine" by people was painful and protracted process for Rus. From the Left bank of the Dnieper the proliferation of the new name came to the west along with the spread of the Russian empire. "Like self-defense of our people was the fact that for defining their land, they took a new national name: Ukraine, however, without retracting the rights for the old historical name “Rus”. 4 The researcher of Ukrainian history of second half of the 19th century noted that "Ukrainian activists initially used the term "Rus", which in their system, as well as in Polish, is fundamentally different from the concept of "Russia", which meant the whole empire. Gradually, they switched to the term Ukraine to avoid constant confusion between their interpretation of the concept of "Rus" as "Ukraine" and the meaning of the term as common to all East Slavonic lands. Ukrainophiles also had to establish a new term Ukrainian (Ukrainian people) instead of the more common self-name Rusyn in 1 Hurzhii O. Ukrainska kozatska derzhava v druhii polovyni XVII - XVIII st.: kordony, naselennia, pravo.- K.: Osnovy, 1996.- S. 92.

2 Toinbi Arnold D. Doslidzhennia istorii.- K.: Osnovy, 1995.- T. 1.- S. 123.

3 Kostomarov N. Y. Sobranye sochynenyi.- SPb.: Yzd-vo Lyt. fonda, 1903.- Kn. I.- S. 38.

4 Barvinskyi B. Velyka y Mala Ukraina.- Lviv: Nakl. Ukr. knyharni, 1925.- S. 4.

178

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

order to overcome the tradition of the past two centuries, which emphasized the common name for all Eastern Slavic population". 1

As it was already mentioned, the transition to the new name was a pro-longed, slow and dramatic process. "In Khmelnytsky (17th century), and especially in the Mazepa pogrom near Poltava (in XVIII century) people adopted and started to use words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" instead of the names "Rus" and

"Rusian". 2 However, Orlyk Constitution3 since 1710 established a structure for the future republic, which would bear the name of the state of "Cossack Army and the people of Rus'. The name "Ukraine", as we see, is absent for this time yet.

Until the second half of the XIX century Russian bureaucrats in far St. Petersburg, lulled by the sweet colonial myth of "the single, impartial" saw no danger to the assimilation policy in terms of "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian". 4 The new province established in 1764 on the territory of the Slobozhanshchina first had the official name "Ukrainian". Slobodsky-Ukrainian province was renamed to Kharkiv only in 1835.

At the beginning of the 19th century within the Russian Empire the books were published with the eloquent titles, Ukrainski Vestnik ( Ukrainian News) (1816-1819), Ukrainski Domovod ( Ukrainian housekeeper) (1817), Ukrainski Almanakh ( Ukrainian Almanac) (1831). Later came two issues of Ukrainski Sbornik ( Ukrainian digest) (1838, 1841), and almanacs Ukrainets ( Ukrainian) (1859 and 1864) reviewed by Maksymovych. M. Kostomarov published Ukrainian ballads, Ukrainian scenes of 1649 and wrote a program document of Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood The Book of Ukrainian People Lives. P. Kulish published poetic epic "Ukraine" (1843). The most essential was that most of these books contain songs and tales from all Ukrainian ethnographic regions, which gave national importance to the term "Ukrainian". 5

The Tsarist government not immediately realized that the name of Ukraine hid ideological-revolutionary force.

"Ukraine played for Russia a crucial and multifaceted geopolitical role: it pictured Russia more respectable, more European, transformed it into a state with certain national traditions, great cultural heritage, and served as a bridge for penetration through sea transport routes (Bosporus and Dardanelles) to the Mediterranean countries, and even more - particularly to the South, Southeast 1 Myller A. Y. “Ukraynskyi vopros” v polytyke vlastei y russkom obshchestvennom mnenyy (vtoraia polovyna XIX v.).- Sankt-Peterburh: Yzd-vo “Aleteiia”, 2000.- S. 43.

2 Tsehelskyi L. Rus - Ukraina, a Moskovshchyna - Rosiia.- Tsarhorod, 1916.- S. 86.

Pakty i Konstytutsiia prav i volnostei Viiska Zaporozkoho 4 Andrusiak M. Terminy “Ruskyi”, “Roskyi”, “Rosiiskyi” i “Biloruskyi” v publikatsiiakh XVI-XIX stolit // Zbirnyk na poshanu Ivana Mirchuka.- Miunkhen; Niu-York; Paryzh; Vinnipeh, 1974.- S. 13.

5 Makarchuk S. Ukraina i ukraintsi: poiava, poshyrennia ta utverdzhennia nazv // Druhyi mizhnarodnyi konhres ukrainistiv.- Lviv, 1994.- S. 209.

179

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and East Asia. All this led to the fact that, in the end, most Russians generally not imagine their existence without Ukraine, which also continuously supplied Russia with "ethnic material" to accelerate the growth of its population". 1 In Russian schools children studied a textbook memory verse of A.K. Tolstoy about

"Malorosia" (" Little Russia"), You know the land, where everything of plenty breathes, Where rivers, purer than the glint of silver, flow, Where feathergrass is ruffled by the steppeland breezes, Where cherry orchards round the homesteads grow,

And in these orchards fruit-clustered branches

Bend heavily to the ground below?

"Coming to Malorosian (" Little Russian") plain, — wrote a famous pedagogue K.D. Ushinsky - from whatever side you watch: from Velykorossian (" Great Russian"), from median territory, from rolling hills, from the Belarusian territories bounded to the south with the Desna, from wooded Lithuania situated on the banks of the Pripyat, from the southern newly populated steppes - you can not help notic-ing that you entered the special country, country of some sort of silence, stillness, briefly, — in the everlastingly farming country. This character of everlasting plain, which immemorialy fed and continues to feed many generations of the same tribe, is clearly reflected in the character of the population, strongly bound to the country, silent and motionless, in which all the life organization was developed according to the terms of agriculture, all the customs, all the traditions and all the songs of which are imbued with the agricultural character ... In Velykorossian (" Great Russian") person - you will not notice such a devotion to the land, he will not hesitate about leaving his village for a long time, and even forever ... ". 2

Leaders of national revival, who were marked by the history to change ethnonym, hesitated for some time. People of the older generation tended to name

"Malorosia" (" Little Russia") (Kotliarevsky, Kvitka-Osnovyanenko, Maksimovich, Hrebinka). But for ordinary people term "Malorosia" (" Little Russia") was unclear, vague and related only to the part of Ukraine. Younger people chose the term "Ukraine" (Hulak-Artemovskij, Sreznevsky, Bodyansky, Markevich, Kulish). The choice of a new national name was undoubtedly influenced by people, who lived near the Dnipro, who used the name "Ukraine" quite a lot and made it well-spread.

The effect on the selection of a new ethnonim made by Taras Shevchenko should be viewed separately, because his work undoubtedly played a crucial role 1 Zastavnyi F. D. Ukrainski etnichni zemli.- Lviv: Svit, 1993.- S. 11.

2 Otechestvovedenye: Rossyia po rasskazam puteshestvennykov y uchenym yzsledovanyiam.-

SPb., 1871.- T. 2.- S. 6.

180

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

in the spread of the ethnonym "Ukraine", though he personally (according to the information given in the Dictionary of Shevchenko Language never used the term "Ukrainian". But "due to the popularity of Taras Shevchenko works, there formed the term "Ukrainian" — as a derivative from the name "Ukraine", which was brought by a national genius from oral folk tradition preserved also in folk ballads". 1 However, names "Rusyn", "Rusyn writers" and "Rusyn language" are repeatedly used in the magazine "Osnova", which was written by Shevchenko friends. 2

"We do not meet the term "Ukrainian" in Shevchenko's "Kobzar", Shevchenko defines substantive and adjectival behalf of the Ukrainian nation using our traditional name "Cossack".

Give your hand to a Cossack

Give your clear heart as well!

or,

And the children of Cossacks

Are enslaved by bad people.

But the name "Ukraine" is used constantly. In the works of Shevchenko the name "Ukraine" covers the entire territory inhabited by our people". 3

J. Rudnytsky explains the lack of the word "Ukrainian" in the works of Shevchenko in the following way: "Shevchenko systematically avoided the name

"Ukrainian", because this name, in his time, did not contain any national-state tradition, did not remind of the historical heritage, it was rather to describe ethno-linguistic "nationality" than state-making nation — and Shevchenko wrote about state-making nation. Such phrase as "Ukrainian independence" did not yet exist in the times when Shevchenko lived and there was "Cossack will" for describing the same concept. And we must, first of all, view what linguistic expressions (of his time) great poet used in his works, and what ideological content he invested in them, and what the national-political constructive purpose he had". 4

We should also mention here another genius of Ukrainian nation, Nikolai Gogol. Gogol made an enormous influence on the young Ukrainian intelligentsia along with Shevchenko, folk songs and thoughts, where ethnotoponym

"Ukraine" was always used. In particular the great impact was made by his work about Cossacks "Taras Bulba", where he often used the term "Ukraine".

2 Dyv.: Levchenko M. Zametky o rusynskoi termynolohyy // Osnova.- 1861.- Yiul.- S. 183-185.

3 Fedenko P. Nasha natsionalna nazva u Shevchenka. Tsyt. za: Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva

“Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh, 1951.- S. 25.

4 Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva “Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh: Nakl. Ukr. knyharni, 1951.- S. 101.

181

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

"So here it is, Sich! Here's the nest, where all those proud and strong as lions people fly from! That's where freedom and Cossacks spread from, to all over Ukraine!". "...And what about my father, comrades and homeland?" - Andrey said, shaking his head and quickly straightening as a poplar... "Who said that my homeland is Ukraina?" 1 Or famous Gogol question: "Do you know Ukrainian night?"

О. Pritsak ties the popularity of the word "Ukraine" with the formation of Kharkiv University in 1805. "It was the first university of Western style. Radia-tion of secular ideas in Ukraine begins from there". 2

Study of Ethnography and Folklore, which thanks to the influence of life-giving ideas of romanticism, were broadly developed and showed strong ethnic indivisibility of the Ukrainian people, who were torn by the occupants apart. This fact, incidentally, embarrassed those dogmatic ethnologists who believed that the unity of ethnic communities is based on external attributes: common state, common economic market, common law, common army and so on. The expressions of surprise with untypical nature of Ukrainian people, who, despite the absence of these attributes, were ultimately able to unite the people, can be found even today:

"A striking example of the Ukrainian people, whose land during most of its history was a part of the states created by other ethnic groups". 3 Jews and Armenians look similar. Ukrainian unity manifested in homogeneous customs, beliefs, way of life, in songs, ballads, proverbs, sayings, tales and other forms of oral tradition, as well as in common ideals, similar grounds, in the similarity of expressions, phrases, in etymological similarity and in phonetic features of the language. 4

"Widespreading terms "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian", particularly in the 18th and the 19th centuries caused reactionary measures between the Ukrainian people from the side of the occupators of Ukraine, i.e. Russians, including the prohibition of its name and official-government administration of term Malorosia (" Little Russia") and Malorosian (" Little Russian"). But, despite all the bans, the name of Ukraine lived deep in the national consciousness, which found its formal completion at the beginning of the 20th century". 5

In the middle of the 19th century under Russian freehold was created patriotic social and civic movement that had the characteristic name "Ukrainophilism".

Later new trends with new names came in its place. "In general, representatives of the Ukrainian national movement of the times after reforms received different names in historical sources. In particular, there were named "Gromadivtsi", 1 Hohol N. V. Sobranye sochynenyi.- M.: Hoslytyzdat, 1949.- T. 2.- S. 49, 88.

2 Problemy doslidzhennia istorii Ukrainy: Zbirnyk materialiv pershoho kruhloho stola istorykiv.-

Lviv, 1993.- S. 152.

3 Bromlei Yu. V., Podolnyi R. H. Chelovechestvo - еto narody.- M.: Mysl, 1990.- S. 179.

4 Trudy еtnohrafychesko-statystycheskoi еkspedytsyy v Zapadno-russkyi krai.- SPb., 1872.- T.

VII.- S. 455.

5 Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva “Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh, 1951.- S. 93.

182

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

"Malorusofily" (" Little Russia — phils"), "Rusynophiles","Ukrainian hlopom-any", "Hohlomany", "Ukrainian socialists-federalists", etc. ". 1 Ukrainophiles made great efforts to preserve and study folk culture - language, songs, folklore, history, life etc. Actually, Ukrainophiles were the first to establish and dissemi-nate new national ethnonym. In a letter to Drahomanov in the year 1891 Lesya Ukrainka stated: "I will tell you that we rejected the name "Ukrainophiles" and we are called just "Ukrainian" because we are "Ukrainian" without any "philism". 2

In the late XIX century Ukrainophile movement gave birth to radical Brotherhood "Tarasivtsi". In their programmatic basis (1893) they noted: "In short, Ukrainophilism showed us and the whole world, and that there is and there suffers a constrained, enslaved people called Ukrainian". 3 One of the founders of the Brotherhood "Tarasivtsi", public and political figure Mykola Mikhnovsky, wrote in the brochure, published in 1900, entitled "Independent Ukraine", the following: "We do not want bear ruling of foreign people any longer, we do not want scorn on our land any more. There are not so many of us, but we are strong in our love to Ukraine". 4

Contemporaries remember how difficult it was in the pre-revolutionary times to start using the terms "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian". "From its very appearance in the language, the term "Ukrainian" was the subject of ridicule of Moskals and Malorosians (" Little Russians"). I remember an illustration, in the first Ukrainian gymnasium authority "Vidrodzhennia" ("Renaissance"), which we founded in 1907, together with Yevgen Neronovych and Petro Chykalenko, editorial page of Neronovych in the first issue began with the words: "Ukrainian man, what is it?"

and then the author wrote a conversation with Little Russian, who was surprised with this new-created word. 5

Frightened with activities of Ukrainophiles, Tsar Officers started on them total persecution from the second half of the XIX century. Personally, "Emperor because of shown Ukrainophiles’ activities" outlined government measures that had to destroy the Ukrainian people as a nation. 6

Thus, tolerant, or rather indifferent attitude to the term "Ukraine" and

"Ukrainian" at the second half of the XIX century changed into acutely hostile attitude. In his letter to Herzen Kostomarov complained that the name "Ukraine"

was considered to be "reprehensible". 7 In addition to the word "Ukraine", terms 1 Svitlenko S. I. Narodnytstvo v Ukraini // Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal.- 1997.- № 3.- S. 45.

2 Ukrainka Lesia. Tvory: V piaty tomakh.- K., 1956.- T. 5.- S. 47.

3 Ukrainska suspilno-politychna dumka v 20 stolitti.-Suchasnist.- 1983.- № 1.- S. 22.

4 Mikhnovskyi M. Samostiina Ukraina.- London, 1967.- S. 28.

5 Yeremeiv M. Polkovnyk Yevhen Konovalets na tli ukrainskoi vyzvolnoi borotby // Yevhen Konovalets ta yoho doba.- Miunkhen, 1974.- S. 121.

6 Savchenko F. Zaborona ukrainstva 1876 r.- X.; K.: Derzhlitvydav Ukrainy, 1930.- S. 211.

7 Pysmo k yzdateliu “Kolokola” // Literaturna Ukraina.- 1990.- 11 zhovt.

183

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Malorosia (" Little Russia") and "Hetman State" were considered to be offensive.

1 Since 1863 Tsar Officers started to prohibit usage of the terms "Ukraine" and

"Ukrainian", replacing them with terms "South of Russia", "South Russian", i.e.

with names without detailed ethnographic content. In the same 1863, by coincidence, Lviv magazine "Meta" (" Aim") published a poem of Pavlo Chubynsky

"Shche ne vmerla Ukraina" (" Ukraine is still alive") that was mistakenly placed with the name of Taras Shevchenko. This prompted the Galician composer Mykhailo Verbitsky to compose music. The song quickly gained great popularity. In 1917 the Central Council officially recognized it as the national anthem.

After the abolition of "Malorosia ( Little Russia) governor-general territory"

(1854) the term "Malorosia" (" Little Russia") was also gradually declined. For the Right-banked Ukraine, Russian bureaucrats created a new name "Southwest-ern territory". "Just like Lithuania and Belarus are called "Northwestern land", Poland is called "Land near the Visla", there also appeared the name "Southwest-ern land" instead of "Ukraine", but only to indicate the Right- banked Ukraine". 2

In 1897 Nicholas II ordered not to mention the Kingdom of Poland in the official documents. Russian bureaucrats preferred such names as "Land near the Visla", "Tbilisi province" and "Kutaisi province" - that means — they preferred only geographical names, no national ones. For the south of Ukraine they had created the name "New Russia" under the influence of classic records, "that were sweeping Catherine II and her entourage because of "Greek project" of Empress.

Here "New Russia" is simply tracing made the same as "New Greece". 3 One could write about the Ukrainian livestock or Ukrainian wheat, but the usage of the terms "Ukrainian people" or "Ukrainian language" was forbidden. 4

Officially it was only allowed to use the offensive term "Little Russian" in contrast to "Great Russian". "The censorship forbids Ukrainian people to call their nation with their name, and commands to use everywhere the word "Russian"- and with a protection "South Russian" or "Malorosian" (" Little Russian").5

There was also made a secret order, which required the strictest censorship for everything that was connected with Ukrainian language and nationality.

Works about Ukraine were considered to be dangerous even when they were written in Russian. In 1863 there was issued Valuev Circular that stated that the Ukrainian language "Never existed, does not exist and can never exist at all".

The decision of the Extraordinary Commission "for suppression of Ukrainofil-1 Stebnytskyi P. Ocherk razvytyia deistvuiushcheho tsenzurnoho rezhyma v otnoshenyy malorusskoi pysmennosty // Ukraina: Nauka i kultura.- K., 1993.- Vyp. 26-27.- S. 97.

2 Doroshenko D. Shcho take istoriia Skhidnoi Yevropy? // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1983.- № 2-4.- S. 114.

3 Ukraina. Ukrainoznavstvo i frantsuzke kulturne zhyttia.- Paryzh, 1950.- Zb. chetvertyi.- S. 220.

4 Okun-Berezhanskyi V. Chomu Rusyny abo Malorosy nazyvaiutsia ukraintsiamy? - Sambir, 1932.- S. 9.

5 Krevetskyi I. “Ne bylo, net, y byt ne mozhet!” // LNV.- 1904.- T. 27, kn. 7.- S. 9.

184

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

istic activities," added the notorious Ems decree (1876) to the Valuev Circular.

The brutal policy of open linguocide had started then: language of Ukrainian people (declared non-existent), was banned at school, at church, in public institutions and for general public use. Ukrainian spelling was prohibited. It was allowed to use only Russian spelling. It was forbidden to print scholarly and translated books in Ukrainian. Fiction had to be previously adopted by censorship institutions. Children and youth literature was also not permitted, as well as works about the life of intellectuals, merchants and middle class people. Any periodicals, theater performances, concerts and lectures in Ukrainian were also prohibited. Even printing of Ukrainian texts for music was forbidden. Professor Puliui repeatedly submitted requests to "Main Administration on Printing Affairs" to allow printing or sending to Naddniprianshchyna (territory of Ukraine, which is above the Dnieper) already printed books of the Holy Gospel, which would be understandable for the common people in the Ukrainian language and the only indispensable answer was "there can be no satisfaction," although the Gospel translations were allowed in the Christian Russian Empire in 36 languages, including Ossetian and others. It was forbidden to import from abroad any literature in the Ukrainian language. It was written then: "The censorship would like to destroy even the names "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian"; it crosses these words out from the manuscripts. Once, when there was completely no possibility to throw the words "Our Ukraine" out without changing the understanding, censor just crossed the word "our" out, apparently thinking: let read "Ukraine" and do not know that this is their land". 1

In general Ukrainian roots in Russia were doomed to destruction. "Maybe the question whether our nation should live or die was never so menacing as at that time"— wrote Franko. 2 The Russian Empire built the Tower of Babylon with violence and lie, breaking laws established by God, in particular the law of multiplicity of languages or even more —the law of required diversity. In the Bible (Book of Esther, 1.22) there are such words written: "And he sent letters to all the king's provinces, to every province — written in its language, and to every nation — having used their language, so every man should bear ruling in his own house, and speak the language of his nation".

In Russia during three centuries were published a series of decrees and circulars against the Ukrainian language, which in the late XIX century was called a "dialect of shepherds and hogherds." Even Peter I in 1720 forbade the printing press in Ukrainian. This year Peter I issued a decree "not to print any new books, except for clergy texts; and to edit old clergy texts according to the Velikorossian ( Great Russian) language, with no dialects or differences in them". 3 Catherine II 1 Narid v nevoli.- Lviv, 1895.- S. 38.

2 Franko I. Moloda Ukraina.- Lviv, 1910.- Chastyna persha: Providni idei y epizody.- S.8.

3 Smal-Stotskyi R. Ukrainska mova v Sovietskii Ukraini.- Varshava, 1936.- S. 27.

185

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

banned the Ukrainian language teaching at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy. In 1769

there appeared the Decree of the Synod of the Russian Church about the withdrawal of Ukrainian primer books from Ukrainian population. Later appeared already mentioned Valuev Circular and Ems decree. In 1908 decree of the Senate of the Russian Empire recognized Ukrainian cultural and educational activities harmful. "Even the idea of existence of the Ukrainian language always took Russians away from a sweet dream. Every manifestation of national consciousness and movement in Ukraine was considered to be a crime against the Russian state, and understood by any ruler, starting with Peter the Great and finishing with last Romanov, as "separatism". 1 In 1933 Ukraine received a telegram about Stalin's suspension of "Ukrainization". Then there came the document which allowed free "choice of teaching language"; the document issued by Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Verkhovna Rada ( Supreme Council) of USSR

(1958) on inappropriate teaching of Ukrainian language in higher education institutions. In 1978 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopted a resolution on strengthening of teaching the Russian language and literature. In 1983 there came the notorious Decree of the Central Committee on increased level of Russian language learning, the division of classes in Ukrainian schools into two groups and increasing wages by 15% for teachers of the Russian language. Evidently they remembered that until 1917 officials in Ukraine (on the Right bank of the Dnieper) were paid additional 50% sur-charge for "russianing the state." The next Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union adopted a resolution on "legislative consolidation of Russian as a national language" and Verkhovna Rada ( Supreme Council) of USSR adopted the Law on the languages of the USSR, where the Russian language got the status of an official language.

In such a way there was prepared the ground for the full assimilation of Ukrainian population. "Assimilation begins with the adaptation of the conquered population to the culture of conquerors through mastering their language as a means of communication with official authorities and is completed in two or three generations (who grew up in conditions of foreign domination) with transition to the language of the conquerors, and thus — the changing of the former ethnic consciousness. The presence of some features in clothing, life and customs does not have fundamental importance; they lose the role of perceived symbols — signs of ethnicity". 2

Ethnocide policy in Tsarist Russia was held to the accompaniment of un-bridled slander in the press of all areas, from "Vestnik Yevropy" ("Journal of Europe"), "Kyivlianyn" ("Kyiv resident"), "Russki Vestnik" ("Russian Journal") 1 Revoliutsiia v nebezpetsi! - Viden; Kyiv, 1920.- S. 49.

2 Razvytye еtnycheskoho samosoznanyia slavianskykh narodov v еpokhu zreloho feodalyzma.-

M.: Nauka, 1989.- S. 53.

186

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

to "Holos" ("Voice"). The most aggressive attacks were heard from the pages of

"Kyivlyanyn" ("Kyiv resident") that was published with the etnonimic epigraph:

"This land is Russian, Russian, Russian!" "Kyivlyanyn" constantly used mocking parody of the Ukrainian language, which, incidentally, is practiced in Russia until today. "Shock" example of clumsiness of the Ukrainian language became translation of the famous Hamlet question which is attributed to be made by M.P.

Starytsky in the following way: "To be or not to be, that's a hitch". In fact, the translation was: "To live or not to live? That's a question". 1

The author of Ukrainian-fobian digest, which recently was published in Moscow, with the surname Smolin, named one chapter of the book «"To be or not to be, that's a hitch" /using mistakable writing because of trying to render Ukrainian words by the means of Russian alphabet/, or "About the Ukrainian

"language"». Then Smolin angrily repeats old fiction and states that these are the words of the famous Hamlet question translated by M.P. Starytsky in "independent Ukrainian language". 2 One can answer here with chauvinistic mockery that, according to linguistics, foreign words of Church-Slavonic origin (i.e. Old Bulgarian) "make almost half of the entire vocabulary of the Russian language".

3 It is true what people say about languages: foreign language is always funny and own language is always beautiful.

Entire generations of Moscow journalists and scientists worked for making up evidence that the terms "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian" are artificial new-created words, resulting from foreign (German, Austrian, Polish, Vatican, etc.) intrigue: this term was odious for Moscow. "The clear meaning of the word "Ukraine" began to gradually darken with the malicious propaganda of Ukrainian separatism, and only in the first quarter of the 20th century it came into use in its present sense, in a very narrow circle of Russian society, when propaganda began to manifest itself in open and aggressive form, with broad financial support of Austrian, Polish and German imperialism". 4 New ethnonym caused much malicious objections from those who were hostile to the idea of national development of Ukrainian tribe.5 "Such terms as "Ukrainian people" and "the Ukrainian language" should be considered unauthorized and vague, lacking any ethnographic content" — wrote a famous Ukrainophobe — professor of Kyiv University Florynsky. 6 It is fair to 1 Myller A. Y. “Ukraynskyi vopros” v polytyke vlastei y russkom obshchestvennom mnenyy (vtoraia polovyna XIX v.).- Sankt-Peterburh: Yzd-vo “Aleteiia”, 2000.- S. 164.

2 Ukraynskyi separatyzm v Rossyy. Ydeolohyia natsyonalnoho raskola: Prylozh. k zh. “Moskva”: Sbornyk.- M., 1998.- S. 14.

3 Trubetskoi N. S. Obshcheslavianskyi еlement v russkoi kulture // Voprosy yazykoznanyia.-

1990.- № 3.- S. 118.

4 Ukrayna - еto Rus: Lyteraturno-publytsystycheskyi sbornyk.- SPb.: LYO “Redaktor”, 2000.-

S. 21.

5 Ukraynskyi vopros.- M., 1917.- S. 39.

6 Kyevskye Unyversytetskye Yzvestyia.- T. 8.- S. 38.

187

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

say that the policy of brutal assimilation with the prohibition of the use of the term

"Ukraine", with the oppression of Ukrainian written word and the language itself, was also performed by Hungarian, Polish and Romanian invaders in the XIX and XX centuries. This ethnosidal process was accompanied with joyous approval of social and public opinion of oppressors. It is a historical truth.

"Is there in the world at least one nation whose national name was so attacked, distorted and ridiculed as ours? Our name is called "ugly", "created by criminals" and so on… "Worthless, nasty…" ... it is even advised to be written in quotation marks". 1

In general, of course, Russian democracy ends where "Ukrainian question"

begins. Here is an eloquent example. One of the leaders of the Decembrists, Colonel Pestel, who advocated armed overthrow of the Tsarist regime, the abolition of serfdom and the establishment of the republican system, at the same time was categorically against the right of Ukrainian (and Belorussian) peoples for self-determination. As Decembrist ideologist Pestel was the author of the program "Russian Truth", where he demanded to destroy names (ethnonyms) of individual nations and merge them into a common name "Russian". "And that is why the special rule determines to name the residents, who live in the territories of Vitebsk, Mohylev, Chernihov, Poltava, Kursk, Kharkov, Kyiv, Podol and Volyn provinces, true Russians and do not separate them with any other special names". 2

One influential conservative journalist Katkov expressed the same idea:

"Polish revolution is nothing in comparison with the national-literary movement in Malorosia ( Little Russia). With the explosion of the Polish revolution Russia in the worst case can lose one province, but if this national and literary movement in Malorosia ( Little Russia) wins, it will shoot in the very heart of Russia, that is why separatist claims of Ukrainophiles must be destroyed". Applying unprecedented in the civilized world denationalizational measures, Russian Empire as an absolute Eurasian despotism, proved to be the largest and longest enemy of the Ukrainian people.

"The whole history of relations between Moscow and Ukraine for over 250

years, since the union of the two states there took place planned, reckless, shame-less destruction of the Ukrainian nation in all sorts of ways which aimed to erase the its traces, and even the name.

And, apparently, this policy was successful. First of all Ukrainian gentry, partly bribed by Moscow rulers, partly massacred by Moscow rulers, banished, terrorized or cosseted, quickly left their people, ran to the side of stronger opponent, merged, assimilated and became "Rusian". Intelligentsia had to fade when all the sources of their origin were destroyed: school, Ukrainian language 1 Shelukhyn V. Ukraina - nazva nashoi zemli z naidavnishykh chasiv.- Praha, 1936.- S. 84.

2 Pestel P. Y. Russkaia Pravda.- SPb., 1906.- S. 40.

188

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

in governance, literature. The nation was the only who left, without nobility, without literature, without schools, illiterate, exhausted, enlaced by laws and the exploitation of the state apparatus. The nation has forgotten its own history, its former struggle for social and national liberation from the Polish-Muscovite gentry, its own large institutions (such as the Republic of Zaporozhska Sich, its former high level of culture, its science and school, which surved as a model and the teacher of semi-Asian Moscow; it even forgot its name and meekly, stupidly responded that name, which his landlord called him". 1

The level of loss of national identity of our people under the royal yoke was written about by Kulish. "Malorosian ( Little Russian) commoners to the question: "Where are you from?" would answer: "From this or that province", but to the question: "Who are you? What nation?" they will find no answer except for: "people, such a nation and nothing else". "Are you Russians?" —

"No". —"Khokhols?" — "No, we are not." (Khokhol is a dirty word, and they reject it). — "Malorosians ( Little Russians)?" — "Who are Malorosians ( Little Russians)? It is difficult for us even to pronounce it" (Malorosian ( Little Russians) is a bookish word, and they do not know it). In short, our countrymen, being called Rus, Cherkasy and anything else, just call themselves people and not deforce any proper name". 2

Despite the frantic and systematic harassment, in the second half of the XIX century Ukrainophilist movement did not only remained, but had grown and strengthened. Actually, Ems decree in 1876 "pushed Ukrainian literature to broader political waters. Contacts with Galicia became practical guarantee of this process". 3

We have already mentioned Katkov that gave reasons to the hostile attitude of Russia towards allegedly fraternal peoples. We should also mention some other arguments of great-stated chauvinists.

To combat the spread of the ethnonym "Ukrainian" in Kyiv, on the initiative of the editor of the Black Hundreds’ newspaper "Kyivlyanyn" ("Kyiv resident") Professor D. Pikhna, there was created "Club of Russian nationalists". The club was created, as they wrote: "To defend Russian idea in the "South-West of Russia"

from Jewish and Ukrainian "intrigues and press". 4 Russian great-state ideologues have spent a lot of effort to prevent Ukrainians from using of a new ethnonym.

In the report on the meeting of the "Club of Russian nationalists in Kyiv"

the change of ethnonim was attributed personally to Hrushevsky, who "got rid of all sorts of vacillations regarding names that were historically formed for different parts of western and southern Rus: Hungarian Rus, Bukovyna, Galicia 1 Vynnychenko V. Vidrodzhennia natsii.- Kyiv; Viden, 1920.- Chast. I.- S. 34-35.

2 Zapysky o Yuzhnoi Rusy / Yzdal P. Kulysh.- K., 1994.- S. 235.

3 Hrabovych H. Do istorii ukrainskoi literatury.- K.: Osnovy, 1997.- S. 43.

4 Tsarynnyi A. Ukraynskoe dvyzhenye.- Berlyn, 1925.- S. 159.

189

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

or Red Russia, Kholmshchyna, Pidlashshia, Black Rus, Volyn, Podillia, Kyiv Ukraine, Livoberezhna Malorosia ( Little Russia), Sloboda Ukraine, Kuban, Black Sea territory; he rejected all of them and replaced with one, the most unfit one: "Ukraine". 1 Another author, who is also a member of the "Club of Russian nationalists in Kyiv" proved the unsuitability of the term "Ukraine" as follows:

"Ethnographic term "Ukrainian" in the absence of the object, that is, ethnographic distinct nation, has not right to exist, and the definition of the territory by the name "Ukraine" has lost its initial administrative need, so the term is useless, as well as the names "Holy Roman Empire" or "Moscow State". 2 Russian publicist Menshikov in the newspaper "Novoie vremia" ("New time") (the 26th of February 1911) indignantly shouted: "The most ardent Malorosians ( Little Russians) reject the historical names "Russia, Russian".They do not even recognize themselves as Malorosians ( Little Russians), and formed a special national title, "Ukraine, Ukrainians." Even after the revolution, the Black Hundred representatives continued shouting ""Ukraine" was created by the enemies of Russia and Malorosia ( Little Russia)". 3 Ethnonym "Ukrainian" was opposed not only in the press.

In 1912 there was published a big work by Shchegolev S., named Ukrainian Movement as a Modern Stage of South-Russian Separatism. According to contemporaries, instead of alienating people from the criminal "mazepynstvo"

(the national liberation movement of Ukrainians in the Russian Empire), book

"opened the eyes of many forced readers". 4 Opus of Shchegolev was distributed among the officials and clergy in Ukraine with the assistance of the authorities.

On the eve of World War I there was published the second edition of the book, which was abbreviated and more affordable. Shchegolev terribly outraged when Austrian Emperor addressed the ambassadors in Austria Reihsrat, who rallied in the Ukrainian embassy club, calling them "representatives of the Ukrainian people". Scheholyev wrote, "The use of the term Ukrainian, instead of the traditional

"Rusian" was interpreted by everyone as a sanction of the word "Ukrainian" in an official document, and caused general surprise. Such an innovation of the emperor, who gave his subservient nation an artificial name, which is synonymous with the cultural division of the nation, makes a sin against the old tradition". 5

Black Hundred representative Shchegolev not only theoretically denied Ukrainian self-name, language and culture of our people, but also put forward a program of increasing repressions and persecutions. V. Lenin criticized Shchegolev, he called him a "mad Black Hundred man" who "punishing Ukrainian people for "separatism", for the desire for separation, thus defends the privileges of Great 1 Storozhenko A. V. Proyskhozhdenye y sushchnost ukraynofylstva.- K., 1912.- S. 40.

2 Sykorskyi Y. A. Russkye y Ukrayntsy.- K., 1913.- S. 51.

3 Medvetskyi H. M. Edynstvo russkoho yazyka v eho narechyiakh.- Praha, 1924.- S. 11.

4 Doroshenko V. Ukrainstvo v Rosii. Noviishi chasy.- Viden, 1916.- S. 93.

5 Shcheholev S. Sovremennoe ukraynstvo. Eho proyskhozhdenye, rost y zadachy.- K., 1914.- S. 131.

190

XVIII. HISTORICAL NECESSITY

Russia landowners and the bourgeoisie to "his" state. The working class is against any privileges; that is why it defends the right of nations to self-determination". 1

As a result of the 1905 revolution the ban on Ukrainian ethnonym spontane-ously disappeared from the agenda for some time. Confused royal administration was temporarily helpless. But since 1907 the reaction became stronger. They zealously undertook to pursue the terms "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian" again. Various government officials, who were brought up in the tradition of "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" of course, being Russian people, were against a new ethnonim". 2

For example, Poltava governor Bohhovut, who was German, in a secret letter to the Minister of Interior Affairs, dated the 4th of February 1914, among other things, proposed the following means of combating Ukrainstvo:

"To appoint only Velikorossians ( Great Russians) to the posts of primary school teachers only (when possible).

To appoint only Velikorossians ( Great Russians) to the posts schools inspec-tors.. Directors of public schools, of course, should be also Velikorossians ( Great Russians) only.

Every teacher, showing a penchant for Ukrainian movement, should be immediately dismissed.

To perform teaching of Russian history at school in a correct way and strictly oblige teachers to introduce to young people the concept of a single and indivisible Russia, explaining the meaning of the word "ukraine", as a "suburb" of the State in the old days.

To pay special attention to the rural clergy and their political beliefs ... It is necessary to appoint to the major posts of diocese exclusively eminent Eparchs...

To see priests, and to have more communication with them. To make the steepest pressure on those who are infected with Ukrainophile aspirations. To appoint to the posts of diocesan observers of parochial schools exclusively Velikorossians To pay special attention to seminary...to appoint Velikorossians to the posts of the headmasters, rectors... Teaching staff should be formed from Velikorossians ( Great Russians) only. "

Governor Bohhovut suggests to "clarify that "ukraine" means "suburb"... that there never were any "Ukrainian" people in order "to fight against the Ukrainian movement".

Due to the fact that the name "Ukrainian" is a flag under which the movement is conducted, all the acts under it should be certainly prohibited and, con-versely, the acts that happen under Malorosian ( Little Russian) flag should not be constrained".

1 Lenin V. I. Shche pro “natsionalizm” // Povne zibr. tvoriv.- K., 1972.- T. 24.- S. 310.

2 Lyzanchuk V. Zasoby masovoi informatsii pro rusyfikatorsku polityku v Ukraini.- Lviv: LDU, 1993.- Ch. I.- S. 155.

191

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Bohhovut also added the following:

"As a result of the participation of Jews in any revolutionary movement in general, including Ukrainophile... all Jews... should be evicted". 1

The Russian ruling class never lacked people (like Bohhovut) who designed taking native language away from Ukrainian people, and thus the elimination of the Ukrainian nation. Adjutant of the Emperor - gendarme Colonel Baron Korf — presented to Alexander II in the 1863 the draft, in which there was proposed in particular the following: "Filling the territory with the extremely cheap Russian books". Korf strassed, "that if the government manages to make these books cheaper than those of Malorosians ( Little Russians), there will be no need for administrative ban. In the long term, pointed Korf, it would deprive the Malorosian ( Little Russian) literature any chance to significantly expand the range of readers". 2

That is how "with just extraordinary and universal voltage, iron discipline, terrible victims could exist this miserable, barbaric, endlessly expanding state", 3

which constantly committed ethnocide towards conquered peoples. At the end of the Tsarist empire existing the term "Malorosian" (" Little Russian") did not satisfy Black Hundred assimilators, they only wanted Ukrainian to name themselves only with the form of "Russian".

In the Upper Dnieper region the struggle for a new ethnonym continued until February 1917, i.e. until the collapse of the Tsarist regime. However, all sorts of Tsarist generals like Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak some time later, fiercely clinged to colonial terms "Malorosia" (" Little Russia") and "Malorosian" (" Little Russian"), but they were not able to break the people's will. 4

Vyacheslav Lypynsky, an active leader of Ukrainian revival, in 1912, stated:

"... today all conscious Ukrainian people adopted, as national, the following names: Ukraine, Ukrainian. The question thus for today is depleted: people recognize themselves as separate from other Slavic and non-Slavic nations and call themselves Ukrainian people". 5

The final victory of the new ethnonim in the Upper Dnieper region was achieved after the bloody Liberation Struggle of 1917-1921.

1 Sekretnyi donos Poltavskoho hubernatora Bohhovuta Mynystru Vnutrennykh Del.- Poltava, 1917.- S. 1-11.

2 Myller A. Y. “Ukraynskyi vopros” v polytyke vlastei y russkom obshchestvennom mnenyy (vtoraia polovyna XIX v.).- Sankt-Peterburh: Yzd-vo “Aleteiia”, 2000.- S. 135.

3 Fedotov H. P. Sudba y hrekhy Rossyy.- SPb., 1992.- T. 2.- S. 284.

4 Tsvetkov V. Zh. Beloe dvyzhenye v Rossyy. 1917-1922 hody // Voprosy ystoryy.- 2000.- № 7.-

S. 68.

5 Lipiski W. Nazwa “Ru” i “Ukraina” i ich znaczenie historyczne // Z dziejuw Ukrainy.- Krakuw, 1912.- S. 54.

192

XIX. GALICIA PIEDMOND

During the 7th-19th centuries, the ethnonym ‘rusyn’ gradually moved to the west, to those ethnographic regions that were beyond the reach of the tzar empire and its deliberate terminological re-naming. The Zbruch river became not only a geographic but, to a certain extent, an ethnonymic border too. To the west of the Zbruch there were Halychyna, Bukovyna and Zakarpattya — all outside Russia’s control. At the end of 18th century Halychyna and Bukovyna were within the borders of the Austrian Empire. In 1867, still under the Hungarian reign, Zakarpattya formally became part of the Dual Monarchy. In the 19th century the territory of Ukraine that was under Russian control constituted 85% of all ethnic Ukrainian territories. Western Ukrainian regions, as parts of Austria-Hungary, made up the remaining 15%.

When Austria, with its dynasty connections between the Habsburgs and the princes of Halychyna and Volyn, got hold of the ‘crown grounds’, it was absolutely unclear for the Austrians who populated Galicia. The people of Galicia were called either ‘Russen’ or ‘die Ruthenen’. The latter became commonly accepted. “When speaking German, every Rusyn uses the name Ruthene, which does not cause any offence.” 1 However, the attempt of certain Polish circles to change ‘Rusyn’ to ‘Ruthene’and call the people ‘the Ruthenes’ instead of ‘the Rusyns’ raised a strong protest on the pages of ‘Halytska Zorya’, the newspaper of the Rusyns. Count Holukhovsky, the Austrian governor of Halychyna, had to ask Vienna for an official governmental statement on “what is the Polish for Ruthene and Ruthenisch”, pointing out that it was the political meaning that was important, rather than the philological one.” 2

The case was studied by the state ‘Committee on the Stability of Slavonic Legal Terminology’. P.Shafaryk, a distinguished Czech Slavist, supported the Rusyns in their protest. According to the participants, the positive decision of the committee was partly influenced by the fact that everyone liked the Rusyn Halician choir who performed at one of friendly celebrations. Members of the committee especially liked the song Rusky lad by Lytvynovych, which began: I’m happy to have a Rusky mother

And earnest Rusyn is my father. 3

But the views of Czech intelligentsia carried the most weight in the case.

Gavlichek-Borovskyi, Shafaryk, Palatskyi — all the prominent Czech intellec-1 Hnatiuk V. Retsenziia // ZNTSh.- 1902.- T. 48.- S. 38.

2 Hnatiuk V. Retsenziia // ZNTSh.- 1902.- T. 48.- S. 256.

3 Bryk I. Shafaryk u roli suddi v terminolohichnomu ukrainsko-polskomu spori 1849 r. // ZNTSh.-

1929.- T. 150.- S. 262.

193

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

tuals were populists not only in their own country, but were “ardent Rusynophiles”, i.e. supporters of Ukrainian liberation movement. 1 This is what a famous Czech publicist Gavlichek-Borovskyi wrote in ‘Prague News’ in 1846:

“Malorus-Ukraine is a constant curse that the Polish and the Russians have put upon themselves. The downtrodden will of Ukraine is taking revenge on Poland and Russia.There will be no real international peace and Slavic understanding until the wrongs against the Ukraininans are rectified”. He also wrote that the Maloroses hate “moskal (katsap) and Pole (liach) people”. 2 It was back in 1850

when Gavlichek-Borovskyi, who once lived in Russia, said: “It is unbecoming for the Czech to contradict the existence of the Ukrainian nation using the same arguments which were not so long ago used to contradict our own existence. It is a claim typically used by all the enemies of national revival. The Germans thought the Estonian and Latvinian movements to be plotted by Moscow. The same is true for the Swedes and the national Finnish movement. England looked upon the Irish uprising as a German scheme.” 3

In Meta, the official newspaper of the Galicia populist group ‘The young Rus, there appeared an editorial by K.Klymkovych on the ethnonymics in Galicia. It read, “We have to heavily defend the national independence of the Rusky people and use the words ‘Rus, ‘Ruskyi’ in the meaning that our people attribute to them, i.e. to refer to the people who are known in scientific classification as the Malorusyns. We use ‘Moskovshchyna’ and ‘Moskovskyi’ to refer to Velykorusky people, no matter what they call themselves. So, we are proud to announce that we will use the words “Rus and ‘Ruskyi’ in their popular meaning, assigning them to the 15-million people who are known in ethnography and abroad as Maloruskyi, and we will regard the use of these words in reference to Moskovshchyna and the Moskovskyi people as a tendentious centralized ruining of our national Ruskyi independence.” 4

The attitude of Ukrainian intelligentsia to their ethnonym on the territories controlled by Austria was expressed by O.Ogonovskyi, Professor of Lviv University: “We are an independent people and have been called the Rusyns for nine hundred years, since X century. The name ‘Moskva’ got into use in XII century when to the north of Rus there first appeared a ceparate principality of Suzdal, and later — the great principality of Moskva, which in XVI century started to be known as Moskva tzardom. Our homeland remained to be called Rus till XVII century, when Moskva tzars gave this name to their land and the lands to the left of the Dnipro river. Just then our country was rid of its name by the wish of powerful tzars, and had to look for another name so as not to get lost among the 1 Brashchaiko M. Chesko-ruski vzaiemyny.- Uzhhorod, 1923.- S. 8.

2 Havliek-Borovskе K. Pitoly kutnohorski a vybrani lanky politicki.- Praha, 1906.- C. 43-44.

3 Za ridne slovo! - Mukachiv, 1937.- S. 60.

4 Rovesna litopys // Meta.- 1863.- № 2.- S. 175.

194

XIX. GALICIA PIEDMOND

countries of Europe. But any other name referred only to some part of our homeland and could not hold long. Some of thr names were ‘Mala Rus (as opposite to Velykorus or Moskva), ‘Poludneva Rus, ‘Hetmanshchyna’ (from the name of Ukrainian Cossak hetmans). The best name is ‘Ukraine’ because it refers to the bigger part of our native land. That is why some patriots call the whole of Rus — Halychyna, Ukraine and Podil — by the name of Ukraine, and therefore the Rusky language is called Ukrainian.” 1

In the far west of Ruskyi ethnic territory, which borders on Slovac and Polish lands and where these three nations have mixed up, they use ‘Rusnak’

or ‘Rusnyak’, by analogy with ethnonymic forms of ‘Slovak’ and ‘Polyak’. 2

Linguists argue that ‘Rusnyak’ is of Czech origin. 3 І.Verhratsky localized these terms to the western part of Zakarpattya in Pryashivshchyna. 4 The Czech poet Yan Kollar (Slovac by origin) published an old poem in Slovac transcription where the term ‘Rusnak’ (the Rusnaks) appeared first:

Rusnaks are merry folk

After all,

Singing hop-hop-hop,

Every Rusyn is a good lad. 5

Refereeing the work of the German ethnograph Kindl, V.Hnatyuk mentioned that the use of the term ‘Rusnyak’ can not be justified either by science, or tradition, or anything else.” 6

The local cross-border ethnonymic form ‘Rusnak’ (‘Rusnyak’) was not widely spread and was not used for a long time.All Ukrainian linguists were against the term ‘Rusnak’. In 1829 Mohylnnytskyi argued that “Rusnak’ is a disparaging name and should not be used.” 7 The same was stated by Levytskyi in his Grammar in 1834, where he pointed out that the use of ‘Rusnyak’ was groundless. 8 Since then, the long-standing term ‘Rusyn’ remained in public use in Halychyna, Bukovyna and Zakarpattya.

Rus Rada , formed in Lviv in the revolutionary 1848, addressed the people with a keen appeal, which expressed the national identity of the Rusyns in a clear 1 Ohonovskyi O. Markiian Shashkevych, pro yeho zhyttie i pysma.- Lviv, 1886.- S. 93-94.

2 Bahrynets V. Shcho v imeni tvoim, Ukraino? // Derzhavnist.- 1995.- № 1.- S. 46.

3 Kovalev H. F. Еtnonymyia slavianskykh yazykov. Nomynatsyia y slovoobrazovanye.- Voronezh, 1991.- S. 92.

4 Verkhratskyi I. Znadoby do piznannia uhroruskykh hovoriv // ZNTSh.- 1901.- T. 40.- S. 3.

5 Ukrainska literatura XVIII st.- K., 1983.- S. 91.

6 Hnatiuk V. Retsenziia // ZNTSh.- 1898.- T. 26.- S. 46.

7 Makovei O. Z istorii nashoi filolohii - try halytski hramatyky (Ivan Mohylnytskyi, Yosyf Levytskyi i Yosyf Lozynskyi) // ZNTSh.- 1903.- T. 51.- S. 14.

8 Makovei O. Z istorii nashoi filolohii - try halytski hramatyky (Ivan Mohylnytskyi, Yosyf Levytskyi i Yosyf Lozynskyi) // ZNTSh.- 1903.- T. 51.- T. 54.- S. 69.

195

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and distinct way. “ We, the Galician Rusyns, belong to the great Ruskyi people, speak the same language and number 15 million, one third populating Halychyna.” 1 The authorities of Rus Rada, with archbishop Yahymovych at the head, were very well aware of the fact that Galician ‘Rusyns’ and ‘Rusyn-Maloroses’

on the other side of Austro-Russian border were one and the same people. Back in 1837 linguist Y.Lozynskyi wrote: “The Rus language spans from the middle of Halychyna and northern Hungary up to the Kuban’ river”. 2 One of the most valuable scientific artifacts of the time is the brochure ‘A Word of Warning’ by a young priest Vasyl Podolynskyi, published in Polish in Syanoku (Lemkivshchy-na) in 1848. 3 Podolynskyi predicred: “Truly, we are the Rusyns and we firmly believe in the revival of the free independent Rus, sooner or later, and we are not dismayed at our destiny. Because what is a century in the life of a nation?

We want to be one nation and it will be so, because the voice of the people is the God’s voice”. 4 All our western neighbours called us the Rusyns at that time.

For example, in 1849, our neighbours in the west — the Slovaks — addressed people living in Zakarpattya and said:”Brothers Rusyns! Our neighbouring lands, and blood relations between our people encourage us, the Slovaks, to appeal to you, noble and vigorous Rusyns”. 5 In Zakarpattya, where the old ethnonym remained in use the longest, they sang as an anthem these words of the local educator O.Duhnovych:

I was a Rusyn, I am and will be a Rusyn,

I was born a Rusyn,

I will not forget my noble family,

Will always be its son,

My father and mother were Rusyn,

The family of Rusyns

Rusyn brothers and sisters,

And all the relations.

I first saw the world at Beskyd ,

Sucked in Rusky air

Was fed on Rusky bread,

Cradled in the arms of a Rusyn. 6

1 Zoria Halytska.- 1848.- № 1.- S. 28.

2 Makovei O. Z istorii nashoi filolohii - try halytski hramatyky (Ivan Mohylnytskyi, Yosyf Levytskyi i Yosyf Lozynskyi) // ZNTSh.- 1903.- T. 51.- S. 45.

3 Steblii F. I. “Slovo perestorohy” V. Podolynskoho // Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal.- 1966.-

№ 12.- S. 50.

4 Podoliski Bazyli. Sowo przestorogi.- Sanok, [1848].- S. 17; Lentsyk V. Dukhovna seminariia u Lvovi // ZNTSh.- 1996.- T. 211.- S. 298.

5 Krevetskyi I. Oboronna orhanizatsiia ruskykh selian na halytsko-uhorskim pohranychu v 1848-49 rr. // ZNTSh.- 1905.- T. 64.- S. 52.

6 Dukhnovych O. Tvory.- Priashiv, 1968.- T. I.- S. 248.

196

XIX. GALICIA PIEDMOND

“I was a Rusyn, I am and will be a Rusyn! These are the resolute words of the 19th century that a wounded Pidkarpattya Rus uttered through Duhnovych. —

You can try to turn us into the Magyars, you can try to wipe our people from the face of the earth — your efforts will fail. I was, am and will be a Rusyn. Against your will, against your power. — I was, am and will be a Rusyn! This protest, this strength was what made the name of Duhnovych dear to every Rusyn living in Prykarpattya”. 1 Another poet, the nightingale of Bukovyna, Fedkovych wrote about the people’s life in his homeland Bukovyna:

Where even a stone sings, will only a Rusyn keep silent?

Oh my dear God, this is where a Rusyn is to live. 2

The term ‘Rusyn’ was officially used in Bukovyna right till 1918 when it was substituted by a new term ‘Ukrainian’. After World War I, Romania expanded its territory over Basarabia, previously under Russian control, with the population of 650 thousand Ukrainians in its eastern part. According to eye-witness accounts, they did not even know what to call themselves. “Some say they are ‘Ruski’, others — ‘Maloros’, or ‘Rusyn’, especially those from Hotyn district…The bigger part of Basarab Ukrainians call themselves ‘Ruskyi’.

However, it should be stated that for them the name ‘Ruskyi’ or ‘Ruski’ is not the same as Moskva or Russian. If you say to our man: “You are Ruskyi, so you are Moskal”, he will answer immediately: “I am Ruskyi, not Moskal but Maloros”. So, there is a lot of confusion as for the national name, and unfortunately this chaos still persists among Basarab Ukrainians. Our people clearly differentiate between themselves and the Moskals; the confusion is only caused by the similarity of ‘Ruskyi’ and ‘Ruski’.3

The Western Ukrainian migrants brought the old ethnonym ‘Rusyn’ to the new places of residence over the ocean. They were known as Rusyns in Canada and the USA. The change occurred only in 1919, when the term ‘Ukrainian’

became to denote the migrants “conscious of their national origin”. 4 In his research on migrants in Bachka (Yugoslavia), V.Hnatyuk stated: “Bachvan Rusyns have not lost their national name,…they call themselves ‘Rusin’ and are known as such among their neighbours”. 5 Also, it can be mentioned that the classics of Marxism knew the Ukrainians under the name of Rusyn. In Engels’ lengthy letter 1 Birchak V. Literaturni stremlinnia Pidkarpatskoi Rusy.- Uzhhorod, 1937.- S. 98-99.

2 Fedkovych O. Yu. Tvory.- Lviv, 1914.- T. I.- S. 114.

3 O. K. Basarabski ukraintsi // Kaliendar-almanakh “Samostiinosty” na rik 1937.- Chernivtsi, 1936.- S. 87.

4 Hladyshevskyi M. Natsionalni nazvy pershykh ukrainskykh poselentsiv u Kanadi // Zakhidno-Kanadskyi zbirnyk.- Edmonton, 1973.- S. 16.

5 ZNTSh.- 1899.- T. 28.- S. 39.

197

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

to Marx (1851) we find the following on the Polish matter: “A quarter of Poland speak Lithuanian, another quarter speak Rusyn”. 1

Austria positively influenced the cultural, religious and political growth of Galicia, including the free development of the Rus-Ukrainian language and schools, which were prohibited by Moscow. In 1787 Lviv University opened a scientific institute called “Studium ruthenum”. At the beginning of the 20th сentury in Galicia there were 15 schools with Ukrainian as the language of tuition.

In 1912 “in Galicia there were 2420 Ukrainian state schools and 4600 Ukrainian teachers”. 2 At the same time, there was not a single Ukrainian school on the territories controlled by Russia. Lviv University had Ukrainian departments, and a separate Ukrainian University was to be established very soon. Myhailo Hrushevskyi, the future first president of Ukraine, was working at the department of History. Lviv Shevchenko Scientific Society grew into an unofficial Ukrainian Academy of Science.The fact that in 1772 Galicia was made part of Austria was regarded by the Ukrainians as ‘a blessing’, as it became an integral part of Europe. “Thank God not the whole Rus was ground down by Moscow; that under the scepter of our Austrian tzar there is a part of Ruskyi land, where Ruskyi people can seek the truth and freely raise their voice in defence of the trampled land.

Let us use it to our advantage”. 3

The logic of the long-lasting ethnocidal policy of tyrannical Russia demanded taking over Galicia, Bukovyna and Zakarpattya in order to completely destroy (assimilate) Rus-Ukrainian ethnos. Imperial Russian media reproached the tzar for “the short-sighted tolerance and condescension” at the time when Poland was divided and Halychyna, Bukovyna and Zakarpattya - “truly Russian lands” —

were missed, although they could have been trapped. A well-known Ukrainophobe Florynskyi, professor of Kyiv University, and the aforementioned Kyiv

‘Russian Nationalist Club’ were especially ardent supporters of this policy. The colonisers were constantly whimpering: “despite the genial foresight so typical of her, Catherine II had made a grave political mistake: she agreed to give Red Rus and Bukovyna over to Austria”. 4 It is interesting that in 1996 Solzhenitsin pensively repeated the accusations first made by Florynskyi and his group. The policy of assimilation made Stalin sign the Pact with Hitler in 1939, according to which Moscow gained control over the Western Ukraine.

In 1908, in Petersburg the activists organized ‘Galician-Russian Society’

with branches in all major cities of Russia. Count Bobrynskyi and other activists 1 Ulianov N. Zamolchannyi Marks // Yunost.- 1995.- № 4.- S. 54.

2 Pelenskyi Z. Mizh dvoma konechnostiamy // Yevhen Konovalets ta yoho doba.- Miunkhen: Vyd-vo fundatsii im. Ye. Konovaltsia, 1974.- S. 514.

3 Rovesna litopys // Meta.- 1863.- № 2.- S. 176.

4 Tsarynnyi A. Ukraynskoe dvyzhenye // Ukraynskyi separatyzm v Rossyy. Ydeolohyia natsyonalnoho raskola.- M.: Moskva, 1998.- S. 140.

198

XIX. GALICIA PIEDMOND

appealed to the tzar to start a war against Austria to join Galician ‘Ruski people’

to Russia. But opposing sober voices were also heard. For example, P.Durnovo, minister of Internal Affairs of Russia, was warning: “One must be mad to want to annex Galicia. He who annexes Galicia will lose the empire”. 1

In 1989, just before the break-up of the Soviet Union, Rumyantsev, head of Committee on national relations in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, complained to journalists that although Stalin had done right taking over the Baltic states, Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, and Moldova, he made a fundamental mistake by annexing the Western Ukraine”. “The western Ukraine, - he was complaining, - has been constatnt pain in the neck”. By the way, Halychyna was called Galicia only by invaders, either from the east or the west. The oldest Ukrainian names are ‘Halych’,

‘Halytska Zemlya’, ‘Halytska Ukraina’. The earliest when the name ‘Halych’ was documented was in 1188, when Volodymyr, son of Yaroslav Osmomysl, escaped to the Magyars. A year later, in 1189 we meet the name ‘Galicia’ for the first time in history. This name is adapted to the Latin pronunciation. Therefore, ‘Halychyna’

is the oldest historical and customary name of this land.

Russian Ukrainophobes of different kinds — from university professors to generals from the General Staff — eventually persuaded tzarist Russia to start a war against Austro-Hungary, which grew into World War I. “The Hankering to destroy Ukrainian Piedmond in Austrian Ukraine was the only and decisive reason for which Russia, under the pretence of defending Serbia, went to war with Austria”. 2 On the second day of the war (2 August, 1914) Russian troops realized the long-prepared march into Galicia. Caught unawares, the Austrian army temporarily withdrew to the Carpathian passes. It seemed, the imperial dream of Moscow to overtake the hated nest of Mazepa separatist movement and to put an end to Rus-Ukrainian ethnos was about to come true. At the beginning of August, 1914, right after Russia declared war to Austria, the so called ‘Carpathian-Russian Liberation Committee’ held a meeting in Kyiv. The committee published tens of thousands of proclamations to ‘the long-suffering Russian people of Galician lands’! In particular, the proclamation had the following passage:

“Vengeful Austria — your last sovereign and enemy — endangered your soul, your religion, your glorious name Rus, Russkii”. 3 Tzar’s uncle, who was the head of Russian army, addressed the population of Halychyna with a pathetic proclamation in line with pan-Moscow ideology: “Descendants of St.Volodymyr on the land of Yaroslav Osmomysl, princes Danylo and Roman, slip the collar 1 Zapyska P. N. Durnovo 1914 h. Paryzh, 1942 // Novaia y noveishaia ystoryia.- 1998.- № 1.-

S. 141.

2 Proty zasudu natsionalnoi smerty - za samostiinistiu i nezalezhnistiu ukrainskoho narodu!

Propamiatne pysmo ukrainskoi sotsiialdemokratychnoi partii v Avstrii do Sotsiialistychnoho Internatsionalu.- [B. m.], 1916.- S. 10.

3 Petrovych I. Halychyna pid chas rosiiskoi okupatsii.- [B. m.], 1915.- S. 7.

199

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and raise the flag of the great united Russia!… God help the anointed tzar Nikolai Aleksandrovich, emperor of Russia, to complete the work of Ivan Kalita ”. 1

Russian appeal to Galician Ukrainians of 1914 said: “The Rusyns and people of Galicia!” 2

Supporting the ‘historical rights’of a minor Zaliskyi princeling who owned a territory equal to two or three modern administrative districts, the proclamation indiscriminately urged the population of Halychyna to follow the banner of imperial chimera, “one and undivided”. But the real aim was to completely demolish Ukrainian ideas. In Halychyna and Bukovyna all kinds of Ukrainian institutions, publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, libraries, schools, university departments, nurseries, etc. were closed down by Russian gendarmes. The harsh dessolution of Ukrainian Greek-Catholic church was initiated. At the same time mass repressions of Ukrainian political, educational and spiritual figures took place. In less than a year of Russian invasion, more than 12 thousand people, including metropolite A.Sheptyt-skyi, were sent into exile to Siberia. In 1939-1944 NKVD were doing the same, but on a much larger scale.

The invasion of millions of Russian soldiers and swarms of gendarmes to Halychyna had a number of consequences. First, Ukrainian peasants of Galicia, Bukovyna and parts of Zakarpattya met face-to-face with masses of Russian peasants, and intelligentsia had their first experience of communication with Russian officers. It was a historic moment of getting to know each other and of disillusionment. Galician Rusyns clearly saw that ‘the Russian’ and ‘the Rusyns’

had different languages, songs, customs, ways of life, household and family principles, traditions, clothes and, in effect, religions. Seeing Ukrainian soldiers gave

“a deep impression to wide circles of Galician people who were for the first time aware and conscious of ‘Ukraine’ that had been just a theoretical concept before; they associated with it, felt to be related to it”. 3 Russian community, in their turn, found out that according to the census in Austria in 1910 there lived four million one hundred and seventy thousand people who described their national identity using the old princely ethnonym ‘Rusyn’. “In the far Austro-Hungarian monarchy, on the either side of the Carpathians, in Galicia, Bukovina and Hungary there live related to us folk — ‘the Rusyns’ ”. 4 Futher the author of this propaganda brochure explains that ‘Rusyn’ is the same as ‘Maloros’. Another similar brochure of the war period mentioned four million Rusyns in Austro-Hungary, and also said: “To the north of Syan there live the Poles, to the south — the 1 Rozanov V. V. Voina 1914 hoda y russkoe vozrozhdenye.- Petrohrad, 1915.- S. 95.

2 Kohut L. Ukraina i moskovskyi imperializm.- [B. m.], 1916.- S. 105.

3 Doroshenko D. Yak ukraintsi naddniprianski pomahaly svoim naddnistrianskym bratam u chasi Halytskoi Ruiny 1914-1916 rokiv // Na vyhnanni: Almanakh.- Lviv, 1925.- S. 22.

4 Vulfson Е. S. Halytsyia do Velykoi Evropeiskoi voiny.- M.: Panafydyna, 1915.- S. 3.

200

XIX. GALICIA PIEDMOND

Rusyns, i.e. Ukrainians, thirty million of them, populating the whole of southern Russia”.1

The above mentioned publications of the war period gave irrefutable evidence that over four million people lived on the territories independent from Moscow and called themselves by the annalistic (IX-X centuries) ethnonym

‘Rusyn’. The answer to the question ‘Who are those Rusyns and how are they related to the Russian?’ was straightforward: ‘Rusyn’ is Ukrainian (Maloros, Hohol), but ‘Russkii’ is Russian (Moskal’, Katsap). Historian Y.Isayevych pointed:

“It is characteristic that the historical ethnonym ‘Rusyn’ was longest in use on Ukrainian lands, of all others”. 2 As for the so called Velykoroses, never and nowhere did they call themselves Rusyn. The juxtaposition of the two terms —

‘Rusyn’ and ‘Russkii’ — has always irritated Moscow historians and publicists who try to twist their meaning. At the beginning of XX century, ‘Kyivskoye Slovo’, newspaper of the Black Hundred, complained that Russian media, “following the example of the foreign media”, wrongly calles the population of Galicia as some ‘Russyns’. 3 Under the Russian influence, a group of Hungarian writers (Milosh, Krno and others) wrote: “Some time in the past, bourgeois ideologists were trying to rechristen the Carpathian Ukrainians into the Rusyns to clip their wings. The wings that could take them to their homeland, to mother Ukraine, to Dnipro”. 4 I wonder how bourgeois ideologists of the X century could rechristen Ukrainians into Rusyns? Even the president of Czechoslovac Academy of Science Neyedli wrote that the name ‘Rusyn’ was artificially created by foreigners not so long ago, and that this name is not related to any folk. 5

Looking back at the invasion of imperialist Russia of Austria, we can say that it marked the time when common Ukrainian people came to understand the term ‘Ukrainian’, which led to their consolidation. National revolution was brewing up. Predictions of minister Durnovo proved true.

1 Bohdanovych M. Chervonnaia Rus.- Yaroslavl, 1914.- S. 3.

2 Isaievych Ya. Problema pokhodzhennia ukrainskoho narodu: istoriohrafichnyi i politychnyi aspekt // Ukraina: Kulturna spadshchyna, natsionalna svidomist, derzhavnist.- Lviv, 1995.- Vyp. 2.-

S. 12.

3 “Russkye” chy “Rusyny”? // LNV.- 1900.- T. 10, kn. 5.- S. 127.

4 Radianska Ukraina.- 1959.- 22 sichnia.

5 Needly Z. R. Ystoryia Zakarpatskoi Rusy do XIV st. // Yzvestyia AN SSSR. Seryia ystoryy y fylosofyy.- 1945.- № 4.- S. 209.

201

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) Ukrainian people have always striven to be united, one and indivisible nation. “United we stand, divided we fall”, — says the Ukrainian proverb. Unlike the Upper Dnieper retgion, Western Ukraine that had been a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire since the second half of the18th century did not long for the change of the ethnicity defining term. That change was not a burning issue for the “Silver Land” (the Zakapattia region) either. The principality epoch remained fresh in memory of the western Ukrainians, the traditions of the Russian Church were not abandoned, the language preserved some archaic features, the age — old ethnonym “Rusyn” (“Ruthenian”) still was used among the people in everyday communication.

It took more than half a century to adopt the ethnonym “Rusyn” in Galicia rich in historical traditions and in its administrative center Lviv that had been the second after Kyiv Ukrainian cultural center.

Neither ethnonym Rusyn, nor the Russian language, so obscure to Austrian Germans, were of (a) keen interest to Vienna — the Germanization of Rusyns (Ruthenians) after the Spring of Nations had been already left out of account.

The Zbruch River was a border between the Austrian Galicia on one side and Imperial Russia on the other. And historical processes on either side of the river revealed the disparity (dissimilarity) of these two nations. While Russia suppressed any slightest manifestations of the Ukrainian Renaissance, Galician cultural and political revival had been freely developing under the Austrian rule since 1848, the abolition of serfdom. However, in the stateless environment it was difficult to adapt the villagers of Western Ukraine to a new ethnonym. The main thing was to break down the opposition of the conservative, obstinate and persevering Galician Rusyns (Ruthenians) as well as of Galicia’s state administration which at that time remained in enemy Polish hands/was under hostile Polish rule. Moreover, the Tsarska Okhranka (Secret Political Police Department in Tsarist Russia) was actively involved in this process and supported a divisive movement among population. This movement was known as Moskvofilstvo (or Russophilism).

The core mission of the Moskvophiles (or Russophiles) was to struggle against the new ethnonym “Ukrainian” as the Russophile ideology based on complete negation of Ukrainian national independence. However, all their efforts were vain: “Traditionally known as Rusini or Ruthenians, they now began to adopt the ‘Ukrainian’ label in reaction to the misleading and insulting designation of

“Little Russians”, which tsarist officialdom had invented for them. (A Ukrainian simply meant a politically conscious Ruthene.) Their cultural awakening was 202

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) greatly stimulated by poetic writings of Taras Shevchenko (1814-1861); their political awakening gathered pace in later decades. In Russia they were faced by a regime which refused to recognize their existence, regarding them as a regional Russian minority, and allowing them only one religion — Russian Orthodoxy. In Austria, where they enjoyed greater cultural and political freedom they preserved the Unite Rite, and were slow to adapt the Ukrainian label. At the turn of the century, they organized the Ruthenian schooling on a large scale.” 1

Since the adoption of the new ethnicity defining term was purely an ideological movement, the intelligentsia (or the intellectuals) was to be on its forefront.

This movement required a generation of politically and ideologically experienced adherents (supporters) who could be strong and unswerving leaders. And such generation timely emerged in Galicia. As for the constellation of the then prominent national leaders who gave the Galician Ruthenians name Ukrainians, one can single out only three persons: Mykhailo Hrushevsky the historian, Ivan Franko the writer, Andriy Sheptytsky the metropolitan. The contemporaries considered these geniuses the highest authority and any other European nation could have been proud of them. They were those who finally turned the scales in favor of (the) ethnonym “Ukrainian”.

The Russian historiographers still believe that a new ethnonym was adopted in Galicia due to an Austrian — catholic intrigue. “Vienna and Vatican were hastily transforming Galicia into “Ukrainian Piedmont” throughsubstituting Ukrainians for Rusyns (the initial name of Galician people until the early 20th century, propagating the idea of all -Ukrainian unity and promising to separate Little Russia from the Russian Empire”. 2 As one can see, the Russian historians don’t even take into consideration such concepts as patriotism and national identity in terms of Ukraine. (Up to now) they still come across foreign intrigues and conspiracies.

Such correspondingterms as Rus — Ukraine, Rus-Ukrainian or Ukrainian — Rus had been used in Galicia for some time. Paulin Święcicki, descendant of Hetman Vygovskyi was the first to use these terms in 1866 in his “Siolo”

journal devoted to “the affairs of Ukrainian — Rus people”. The original title of this historical magazine was as following: “Sioo. Pismo zbiorowe, powicone rzeczomnludowym ukrainsko — ruskim”. The editorials placed great emphasis on the following statement in the introduction to the first magazine that came out in July 1866: “The territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea, from the Caucasus to and beyond the Carpathian Mountains is settled by a fifteen-million nation that has common language and customs. These people are faithful to their traditions and share common idea”. According to Ivan Franko ‘the term “Ukrainian —

Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 857.

Narochnytskaia N. A. Ystorycheskaia Rossyia y SSSR v myrovoi polytyke XX v. // Novaia y noveishaia ystoryia.- 1998.- № 1.- S. 141.

203

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Rus” was first introduced by Święcicki. 1 Pavlov Święcicki writing under the pseudonym Pavlo Sviy used khoronym Ukraine — Rus to designate the term

“Sobornost”(national unity), “to oppose the Great Rus and Belarus”. However, his invention was not recognized at once and became a norm for scientific and publicist styles of the Ukrainian language owing to Mykhailo Hrushevkskiy and Ivan Franko. 2 Many researchers write about Pavlov Święcicki’s contribution to the development of the Ukrainian national identity among Galicia’s population. 3

Stefan Kaczała Galician, a priest and one of the founders of the Prosvita Society was another pioneer (after Święcicki) who introduced the term “Ukrainian” along with the word “Rus”. P. Kulish and I. Pulyi published in 1871 a Rus-Ukrainian version of the New Testament. M. Hrushevsky called his fundamental work

“History of Ukraine — Rus”, I. Franko wrote an Essay on history of Ukrainian-Rus literature up to 1890(Narys istorii ukrainsko — russkoi literaturi do 1890).

The corresponding terms were coming into widespread acceptance. In 1880 M.

Drahmanov, M. Pavlyk and S. Podolynskiy published a Programm (Programa) in a sociopolitical journal Hromada (Geneva) according to which ‘Ukraine is the territory from the upper basin of the Tisa River flowing within the present Hungarian Kingdom in the west to the River Don in the east and the Kuban region of the present Russian Realm, - from the upper basin of the Nareva River in the north to the Black Sea in the south. We call this very territory Ukraine where people speak Ukrainian. The inhabitants of this area — the Ukrainians are mainly farmers and workers. But there is a lot of foreigners here: Poles, Jews (zhydy), Germans, Hungarians, Muskovits (Russians)…And now Ukraine is controlled by these very foreigners.’ 4

As it has been already mentioned, the Supreme Ruthenian Council (Holovna ruska rada, or HHR) founded in May 1848 in Lviv appealed to the people with manifesto that promoted the idea of the Ruthenian unity on all the ethnic territories. The People’s Council (the Rada Narodowa) a representative political body for Galicia headed by Yulian Romanchuk was established in October 1885 in Lviv. Ideologically, they proceeded with the course of the Supreme Ruthenian Council (Holovna ruska rada). Their Program (Programa) endorsed the idea of national identity but contained distinctive terminological alterations:

“We Galician Ruthenians are part of the Rus — Ukrainian nation numbering more than twenty million people and share a millenary historical past. Having lost control over our state, we has struggled for our political and constitutional laws for centuries; we have never given up and will never give up the rights 1

Franko I. Zibrannia tvoriv u piatdesiaty tomakh.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1984.- T. 41.- S. 320.

Franko Z. Obshyr zemli prashchuriv // Ukraina.- 1989.- № 33.- S. 23.

Radzykevych V. Pavlyn Svientsitskyi. Publitsystychna, naukova ta literaturna yoho diialnist.-

Lviv, 1911.- S. 117.

Hromada: Ukrainska chasopys.- 1880.- № 1.- S. 2.

204

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) for an independent nation in contrast to the first inhabitants of the Galician Rus which was annexed by Austria during the Partitions of Poland, as the Hungarian Crown had laid claim to it long since. Our national development was not hampered owing to support of the Austrian State, the Austrian nobility and later the power of the constitution. Under the present circumstances we stick to the program statements of the People’s Ruthenian Council (Rada narodna Ruska) from 1848, of the first general assembly of People’s Council (Narodna Rada) from 1888, of Ruthenian people’s envoys from 1890 and Ruthenian envoys of the State Council (Rada Derzhavna) from 1891, and hereby we decree: We demand full and free development of our Ruthenian nationality as an independent Slavic one…” 1

Short time afterward, the Ruthenian — Ukrainian Radical Party (Ukrainska Radikalna Partia) was founded in October 1890. The idea of national identity was reflected in the programs of the Brotherhood of Tarasovs 1893, and one of them is as following ‘We conscious Ukrainians recognize only Ukrainian —

Ruthenian nation’. Both Ukraine of Austria and Ukraine of Russia are native to us”. 2 Terms defining Ukrainian nation gained its final acceptance after a great centenary celebration of I. Kotlyarevsky’s poem Eneyida (1898) where people of Galicia and Bukovina took active part. The terms ‘Russian’, ‘Ruthenian’,

‘Rusyn’, ‘Rus ceased to be used and instead, such words as ‘Ukrainian — Rus,

‘Ukrainian’, and ‘Ukrainian — Rus ’were brought into usage on Ukrainian’s own will. (Ukrainians substituted such words as ‘Ukrainian — Rus, ‘Ukrainian’, and

‘Ukrainian — Rus ’for the terms ‘Russian’, ‘Ruthenian’, ‘Rusyn’, ‘Rus on their own will.) This (is) the way the terms ‘Ukrainian’ and ‘Ukraine’ were adopted.”3

Many historical and publicistic works, articles in periodicals and popular calendars spread the necessity to adopt a new (uniting) ethnicity defining term among Galicia’s and Bukovina’s population in the late 90’s of the nineteenth century. The new ethnonym was propagated through a wide network of the Prosvita’s reading rooms, schools, and even through sermons of the patriotic priests.

Ukrainian patriots realized the importance of sharing one common ethnonym.

However, it took long to get it over to the people’s mind. In Galicia the Narodovtsi were the first to switch from the term ‘Ruthenians’ to ‘Ukrainians’. 4 Annual March celebrations in honour of Taras Shevchenko, the great Ukrainian poet and freedom fighter made its contribution on this process. Having emerged in Galicia 1

Ukrainska suspilno-politychna dumka v 20 stolitti: Dokumenty i materialy.- [B. m.]: Suchasnist, 1983.- T. I.- S. 17.

2 Ukrainska suspilno-politychna dumka v 20 stolitti: Dokumenty i materialy.- [B. m.]: Suchasnist, 1983.- T. I.- S. 23.

Levytskyi K. Istoriia politychnoi dumky halytskykh ukraintsiv. 1848-1914.- Lviv, 1926.-

S. 308-309.

Radevych-Vynnytskyi Ya. Ukraina: vid movy do natsii.- Drohobych: Vidrodzhennia, 1997.- S. 24.

205

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and spread later throughout the Ukraine, the cult of Shevchenko was not a cult of personality but “a cult of idea underlying our Ukrainian national identity”. 1

The Holiday lectures held on this occasion contained the word ‘Ukrain’ in this or that form. There is a standard abstract taken from one of these lectures:”Genius Shevchenko is like a star at dawn for the Ukrainian people separated by the borders. Ukrainians on both sides of the border look at this star and recollect Taras, they take an imaginary trip to the country of his ideals, where they become close to each other, they feel that they are of one blood and perceive their national energy and strength surging up within their bodies. And they strongly believe that new generations will have better fortune than they did and one day these very generations will come and execute a will of our (Ukrainian) Genius and then speak well of him in new, independent Ukraine!” 2

Appealing to the Ukrainian youth, Ivan Franko said: “We must learn to be Ukrainians, not Galicia’s or Bukovina’s ones but Ukrainians without any official borders”. 3

The Greek — Catholic Church had an authority over the Ukrainian population in Galicia and actively assisted with the change of the ethnonym. In such circumstances Galician Russophiles accused metropolitan Sheptytsky of “being hostile to Russians”, reproached him for substitution (the) word “Ukrainian” for the “Russian” one. 4

Galician people gradually accepted the uniting terms “Ukraine”, “Ukrainian” as their national name. According to the sociopolitical and cultural collection Hromada (Geneva), “a group of young students called Ukrainians, national or loyal Ruthenians appeared in 1861 in Galicia. They said that Galician people were the same as the Ukrainians in Russia”. 5 One of those new patriots O. Barvinsky ‘introduced the name (term) “Ukrainian — Ruthenian” in his man-uals for Galician teachers’ seminaries and gymnasia. 6 That change of the name caused obvious inconveniences but it was aimed to emphasize a moral unity with the Dnieper Ukraine and to avoid future confusion of the terms “Rus” with

“Russia”. 7

The Shevchenko Scientific Society was founded in 1873 in Lviv by the Ukrainians from Kyiv. As well as / like the National Academy of Sciences of 1 Chykalenko Ye. Shchodennyk (1907-1917).- Lviv, 1931.- S. 119.

Kolessa M. Taras Shevchenko.- Lviv, 1898.- S. 24.

Franko I. Odvertyi lyst do hal. ukrainskoi molodizhi // LNV.- 1905.- T. 30, kn. 4.- S. 15.

Tsvenhrosh H. Natsionalno-derzhavotvorchi pohliady mytropolyta Andreia Sheptytskoho y polsko-ukrainska viina 1918-1919 rr. // Ukraina - Polshcha: istorychna spadshchyna i suspilna svidomist.- K., 1993.- S. 175.

Hromada: Ukrainska chasopys.- 1880.- № 1.- S. 95.

Studynskyi K. Oleksander Barvinskyi // Ukrainskyi iliustrovanyi kaliendar tovarystva “Prosvita”

na rik 1918.- Lviv, 1917.- S. 219.

Lysiak-Rudnytskyi I. Istorychni ese: V 2-kh t.- K.: Osnovy, 1994.- T. I.- S. 433.

206

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) Ukraine the Society published a periodical the Zapysky NTSh (Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society). In 1902 the editors of the NTSh made a following statement: “The publishers of the Shevchenko Scientific Society and most other publishers adopted the official names “Ukraine — Rus” or “Rus —

Ukraine”, “Ukrainian — Ruthenian” meaning “Ukrainian Rus” so that the Ukrainian Ruthenians could distinguish themselves from other Slavs who referring to themselves use Russian name, the name of Moskovia. The name Rus, Ruthenian can be used as a shortcut where it doesn’t lead to misunderstanding.

However the word “Ukrainian” isn’t entirely accepted as a national name. It may sound strange in contrast to the old name used in the past but in future it can be freely used in meaning of “Ukrainian — Rus”. The word “Ukrainian” suits perfectly for precise designation of our (Ukrainian) Rus because our first national awakening (XVII c.) is bound with this part “Ukrainian” territory and its people.

That is why this word had been used in literature since the times of the Ukrainian revival. Now it is part of our cultural history.”1

After the elections of 1907 the envoys to the Austrian Parliament had a disagreement over the representative name — Ruthenian, Little Ruthenian or Ukrainian. Which one should they choose? They fixed upon the Ukrainian name(one).

L. Tsegelskiy’s book imbued with spirit of unity was very influential at that time: “Our brethren in Russia had to neglect the name “Rus” and “Ruthenian”

and accept the name “Ukrainian” so that they could distinguish themselves from

“Russians”(i. e. Moskaliv (pejorative term for the Russians in the Ukranian language)). No, we Galician people can’t renounce (reject) the names “Rus”, “Ruthenian” as these are used in spoken language and writing and mean “Ukraine”,

“Ukrainian”. We know that the Rus and Ukraine are one and the same, that it is one and the same land as well as the Ruthenians and Ukrainians are one and the same nation.” 2

A special issue of the pedagogical journal was published for the teachers in Western Ukraine. This journal contained commentaries on the necessity to change the ethnonym:”If we want to be one nation with common language, we must use only national names. Whatever happens, we must introduce one national term “Ukraine” or “Ukrainian” into school and government. The old term must remain as it was and is — a historical one”. 3

Both well-known and secret agents of tsarist Russia actively hampered the adoption of a common name. They conducted their subversive activities through bribery on a large scale (they spared no rubles), promises, blackmail and recruit-ing of ignorant idealists as for example I. Naumovitch a priest was. The idealists 1 Hnatiuk V. Retsenziia // ZNTSh.- 1902.- T. 48.- S. 39.

2 Tsehelskyi L. Zvidky vzialysia i shcho znachat nazvy “Rus” i “Ukraina”? - Lviv, 1907.- S. 73.

Na porozi novoho shkilnoho roku. (“Ruskyi” chy “ukrainskyi”?) // Nasha shkola.- Lviv; Chernivtsi, 1913.- S. 195.

207

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

were the most dangerous “Moskovian obscurantists”. Being one of the major figures of the Russophile (Moskvophile) movement, the above mentioned I. Naumovitch was constantly argueing against the term “Ukrainians” and Ukrainian phonetics: “I consider phonetics of the Prosvita’s organ Pravda as the most severe God’s punishment that could be sent to the Rus”.1 Dissatisfied with the ideological development in Galicia, Naumovitch immigrated to Russia where he soon died disappointed with Tsarist regime. Meanwhile, Okhranka spared no expense for new supporters of “One and indivisible” nationality in Galicia. Assisted by the Poles, Russophiles founded the abovementioned Russophiles (Moskvophile) Party which for a long time polarized people in Austria — controlled Galicia.

Russian patronage was extended to the Russophile party organizers and later to the foreign communist ones. In general, the Russophile (Moskvophile) movement mainly considered as a clerical one wasn’t closely related to (the) people.

The tsarist government funded Russophile newspapers — Slovo, Prolom, Noviy Prolom, Chervonaya Rus, Halitska Rus, Halychanyn — upon the recommendation of the Gendarme Administration. (Proposed by the Gendarme Administration Russophile newspapers — Slovo, Prolom, Noviy Prolom, Chervonaya Rus, Halitska Rus, Halychanyn — were funded by the tsarist government.) Founded in 1875 the Anti-Ukrainophilia Board of the Russian southern provinces resolved

“to support the anti-Ukrainophilia newspaper Slovo published in Galicia and provide it with law but constant financial supply.” 2 For example, M. Raievsky, a priest of the Russian Embassy in Austria allocated 15 000 guilders to A. Dobryansky from the Zakarpattia region for Moskvophile propaganda.3 Coming out at different times, the above-listed newspapers suppressed the Ukrainian national revival, glorified the tsarist oppressive regime and inveighed against ethnonym

“Ukrainian”. The columns of these newspapers contained such inappropriate statements as is, for example, the following:”The Galician Ruthenians have become Russians and don’t consider themselves Ruthenians”. 4 Monchalovsky, another strong advocate of the Moskvophile movement associated using of the ethnonym with criminal action and stated in his denouncements that the Ukrainians ‘were obeying to Polish — Jewish — German socialists’.5

Galician civil life was for many years (practically up to 1918, in some memoirs this process lasted longer) paralyzed by the struggle between Ukrainians (Narodovtsi) and Moskvophiles. As it has been mentioned, the ethnonym problem was underlying this struggle. Following the instructions of their Russian masters, the Moskvophiles exploited traditional west-Ukrainian (for west 1

Mykolaievych M. Moskvofilstvo, yoho batky i dity.- Lviv, 1936.- S. 57.

Yavorskyi M. Na istorychnomu fronti.- Derzhvydav Ukrainy, 1929.- S. 91.

Za ridne slovo.- Mukachiv, 1937.- S. 7.

Savchenko F. Sprava pro shchorichnu, taiemnu subsydiiu lvivskomu “Slovu”.- Lviv, 1929.- S. 14.

Monchalovskyi O. A. Hlavnyia osnovy russkoi narodnosty.- Lviv, 1904.- S. 10.

208

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) Ukrainians) ethnonyms ‘Ruthenian’, ‘Rus and in such a way tried to prove that they were equivalents to names ‘Russian’, ‘Russia’. The Narodovtsi rejected such false equivalence. It was astounding that M. Drahomanov had taken the side of the Moskvophiles. He rewrote Kryvonis’s march ‘Hey, ne dyvuite, dobriie liudi…’, in hope that one day it would become a Ukrainian anthem: З північною Руссю не зломим союзу:

Ми з нею близнята по роду…

Ти, Русин північний, оден із всіх братів

Велике зложив государство. 1

Drahomanov adduced some intricate and historically inaccurate arguments in favor of “Moskvophile” ideas. Nevertheless, M. Drahomanov deserved respect due to his deep understanding of the ethnonym importance. “Here we deal mainly with the (scientifically) accurate works with/containing terminology accepted by the Galician Narodovtsi, according to which the Russian literature is a synonym to the Great Russian one and therefore, it doesn’t only differ from but is opposite to the Little Russian literature, or using the Galician locution, to the Ruthenian literature (one). This terminology is rooted in the distinction which Galician people draw between Rus and Russia. This distinction is of vital importance as owing to it/this formula we get the consequential issues referring not only to literary and cultural but also to political life of this great land from the Carpathian to the Ural Mountains”.2

We should also mention the ethnonymic exercises of O. Solzhenitsyn who called himself a “Half-Ukrainian” and was named “Literary Banderite” by his contemporaries.3 He provides the following “revelation” in the anti-Ukrainian article headed “How can we develop Russia?”: “In 1848 people of Austrian Galicia still called their Supreme Council the Holovna ruska rada.” By the end of 1993, Solzhenitsyn had published a series of articles on the “Ukrainian and Russian issues” where he again proved his unhealthy Ukrainophobia (anti-Ukrainian sentiment) with the ethnonymic arguments.4 “He does not understand that the Supreme Ruthenian Council (Holovna ruska rada) founded in 1848 in Galicia is not the same as the Union of Russian people (Glavniy russkiy soviet), that the Ruthenian language used by Galicia population is not the “Russian language”

and the Ruthenian doesn’t mean the “Russian”.” In his pervaded with chauvinistic imperialism article “How can we develop Russia?”, Solzhenitsyn laid the stress on the plans of the White Guard (Belogvardeytsi) to divide Ukraine 1

Hrushevskyi M. M. Drahomanov i zhenevskyi sotsialistychnyi hurtok.- Viden, 1922.- S. 8.

Drahomanov M. Literaturno-publitsystychni pratsi.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1970.- T. I.- S. 98.

Morozov E. “Banderovets v lyterature” // Voenno-ystorycheskyi zhurnal.- 1991.- № 3.- S. 3.

Solzhenytsyn A. Vystuplenyia na ukraynsko-russkye temy // Zvezda.- 1993.- № 12.- S. 164.

209

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

since 1919 into the “Novorossiiskiy Region”(Tauris (Crimea), the Yekaterino-slavschchina — the Yekaterinoslav Governorate, Khersonshchyna — the Kheson region)”.1 And Solzhenitsyn was the one who wrote:”Nations are the colours of mankind; if they disappear, the humanity will turn into a grey and uniform mass -

as if all people were of the same appearance and character. There is no doubt that the tribes emerged due to the Divine plan. Unlike human institutions, ethnos as well as family and personality were not originated by a man. The ethnos has less fundamental rights to exist than family and personality do. And nation is a kind of family on a higher level and a larger scale that has its own system of internal relations — common language and cultural traditions, one history and aims for the future. Is it sinful to protect a nation?/Where can be the sin in protecting a nation?” Well said, but for some reasons, Solzhenitsyn considered protecting and preserving of the Ukrainian nation and its ethnic territory as a kind of sin .

A long-term political prisoner S.Karavansky gave a dignified response to Solzhenitsyn. “Concerning the Russians and Russ’. To Your attention it should be mentioned that in the year 1848 the Galicians called their regulatory body The Chief Russ Council and it is necessary to add that the term Russ was wide spread in the language until the year 1916. However, the occupation of the Galicia by the Russian soldiers in 1916 along with Andrey Sheptytsky Metropolitan and several Russian public figures exile to the Siberia eventually induced the Galicians to abdicate the avital name Russ to avoid integrity with the imperial Russians in terminological respect.

Therefore, in this Ukrainian wordy self-defense Austria was not to blame unlike the Russian Empire. If the Ukrainians preserved their original determination (like Ukrainians in Zakarpatya did), it would be difficult for them to vindicate their Russ character from the one-day-sawn-off northern brothers — the present-day Russians. Such move should have given rise to admiration — an ancient nation which stood on the Baty-khan hordes’ way to Europe and put its glorious millennial name on the altar of the nation’s rescue! Does history know many examples similar to this one? I do not concede, when the Ukrainians evade the impending danger of national death within the pan-Russian kolkhoz they will restore their unfading name Russ in the form it appears in both the “The Song of Igor's Campaign” and in the Nestor’s chronicles”.2

Ultimately, the new general name was adopted across all the territory of Ukraine only in the beginning of the XX century. “Nothing but the national revival of the XIX century finally brought the terms Ukraine, Ukrainians and Ukrainian to paramount position even in Galicia, where, due to some particular historical factors, the terms “Russ”, “The Russ” and “Russian” were preserved 1

Tsvetkov V. “Belaia Rossyia” - ystoryia yly zavtrashnyi den? // Posev.- 1997.- № 5.- S. 11.

2 Karavanskyi S. Vidkrytyi lyst Oleksandrovi Solzhenitsynu // Vyzvolnyi shliakh.- 1991.- Kn. 1

(514).- S. 51-52.

210

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) much longer, the words ukrainian, Ukrainian, Galician or Western Ukraine became common for the locals. The old-variant determination Russ was preserved only in Zakarpatya region”.1 It can be easily seen that the grind, diligent discipli-nary work was necessary on the way to unionizing. “A lot of the Ukrainian people consider themselves to be Russians or Russ’. Indeed, it is our ancient name since our land used to be named Rus as well. But now such determination is inconvenient because the Moskal’s adopted the name Russians; they have assumed our name, despite the fact that they are of completely different nation. Since our land was called Ukraine and the people were called Ukrainians, we should use this very determination as well”. 2 In the abovementioned appeal to the Galician youth in the early XX century Ivan Franko pled: “The Ukrainian intelligentsia faces a new aim — to recreate the Ukrainian nation from a huge ethnical mass, recreate the one solid cultural body capable of autonomous cultural and political life, resistant to any kind of assimilation and also able to adopt at the most quick rate the widest range of universal cultural achievements which are vital for survival of both — present-day nations and even the most powerful states”. 3

The World War I appeared to be the turning-point for the establishment of the ethnonyms “Ukraine” and “Ukrainian”. As it was stated before, Russia has started its preparation to the imperialistic war with Austria a long time before “in order to set their brothers free from the Austrian oppression. Those brothers were four million of Ukrainians from Galicia and Bukovina.4 Indeed, there exist different reasons for Russian-Austrian antagonism which resulted in the World War I but among the main reasons there was the Ukrainian issue. “And till Galicia is alive, till the Ukrainian national movement remains under the guardianship of constitutional Austria yet no Moskal’ will break it down and manage to prevent its growth. That is why the Moskal’ wants to stretch his long arm to the Galicia.

Moscow wants to oppress the Ukrainian national life in Galicia to prevent its spread over the Ukraine. Moscow wants to get Galicia to put a long-term pressure over the Ukrainian nation. That was the reason Russia instigated the war with Austria”.5 At the very beginning of the War in August 1914 the volunteer military formation named Ukrainian Sich Riflemen (ukr. “Usususy”) was formed in Austria; those people have shed their blood to tighten the ethnonym of Ukrainian unity.

In July 1915 a group of Ukrainian parliamentary representatives of Galicia appealed to the Austrian government with memorandum concerning the use of the national name “Ukrainians” instead of “Ruthenes” in the governmental acts.

1 Doroshenko D. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- Miunkhen: Dniprova khvylia, 1966.- T. I.- S. 19.

2 Horbacheva L. Shcho musyt znaty kozhna ukrainka.- Lviv, 1937.- S. 4.

3 Franko I. Zibrannia tvoriv u piatdesiaty tomakh.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1986.- T. 45.- S. 404.

4 Levytskyi V. Yak zhyvetsia ukrainskomu narodovy v Avstrii.- Viden, 1915.- S. 3.

5 Viina za voliu Ukrainy.- [B. m., b. r.].- S. 9.

211

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

The “Memorandum” contained the information concerning the fact that the name Ruthenes was accepted by the Austrian government as a national designation for the Ukrainians who were included in the Austrian commonwealth.

The national name of the Greek Catholic Church was the main argument in this case. The accepted determination had one crucial imperfection — it was almost identical to the word “Russians”. The Memorandum states that the Galician Russophiles based their theory of the “solid and indivisible Russian nation”

on this very similarity of words. In peace-time the ambiguity in interpretation of the national determination arouse the local dispute while in the war-time it led to the tragic consequences. That is why the “Memorandum” stated that the word “Russ” can no longer serve as the determination for the Ukrainian nation and all the nationally conscious Ukrainians on the both border sides henceforth will use the term “Ukrainians” in the scientific works, publicistic writings and literature”.1

Earlier in the 1914-1917 the state figures from the Ukrainian territory which belonged to Russia established in the Western Ukraine the influential propaganda organization named the Union for the Liberation of Ukraine (ukr. Sojuz Vyzvo-lenia Ukrainy — SVU). The union played a prominent role in dissemination of such terms as “Ukraine” and “Ukrainian” particularly in the eastern Ukrainian lands.

At the end of the World War I the Ukrainian revolutionary movement made its presence felt. “At the time when the revolution of the year 1917 has started, Ukrainians in Petrograd and Kyiv got out to the streets in crowd of thousand, and then the Russians in Petrograd, the Jews in Kyiv doubted their own eyes, they could not believe that the great nation which representatives are named Ukrainians and the great country which name is Ukraine does exist”.2 Struggle for freedom had led to the fact that the term Ukraine was reflected in the name of the then established Ukrainian Public Republic on the 20th of 1917 and the Western Ukrainian Public Republic on the 1st of November 1918 and also in Sob-ornist’ Acts from 22nd of January of 1918 and 1919 years. With those acts “the definitions Ukraine and Ukrainian asserted themselves officially in both internal and external usage”.3

Unlike the White-Guard politicians Bolsheviks quickly realized the force of the awaken ukrainian nation which was reflected in the following allegation: “As to the national demands of the Ukrainians — the independence of their republic, 1 Rasevych V. Memorandum vid lypnia 1915 r. do Avstriiskoho uriadu pro neobkhidnist vzhyvan-nia natsionalnoi nazvy “ukrainets” // Ukraina v mynulomu: Zb. st.- 1994.- Vyp. 5.- S. 173.

2 Kleiner I. Vladimir Zhabotynskyi (Zieiev) i ukrainske pytannia.- Kyiv; Toronto; Edmonton, 1995.- S. 216.

3 Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva “Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh: Nakl. Ukr. knyharni, 1951.- S. 93.

212

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) its right to demand the federal relations — they are totally accepted by the Council of People's Commissars and raise no disputes”.1

According to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk from 9th February 1918 Soviet Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Empire (Turkey) officially recognized the term “Ukraine” to be the determination of the country.

And according to the Treaty of Riga which was signed 18th of March 1921the determination “Ukrainian” is recognized as “the only and the nationwide” instead of such previous determinations as: 1. Russ, 2. Ruthenian, 3. Polish-Russian, 4. Novorossian (Maloruss’), 5. Little Russian’, 6.Ukrrainian-Russian, 7. Russian-Ukrainian. Having accepted the new ethnonym the nation started its vigorous revival. “People who yesterday had no idea of that they are the Ukrainians then started to recon themselves among the Ukrainian nation and to fight actively for its freedom. The vivid evidence of the Ukrainian national identity had to persuade most of the Novorussians (Little Russians) who yet had undimmed eyes and open hearts. The Russophile core was destroyed by this fact and its power vanished into thin air”.2

Thus, even enemies had to recognize the terms "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian".

However, chauvinistic White-Guard counterrevolution stubbornly refused to recognize the term Ukraine. “Supreme commander of Poltava, Katerinoslavsk'

and Harkіv' regions general May-Majewski banned the Ukrainian language teaching in schools and issued a special order "to the Little Russ language,"

which destroyed the word "Ukrainian" as objectionable to the Moscow Black Hundreds”. 3 In chauvinistic scale over their eyes “the White Russians didn’t recognize even the existence of the Ukrainian nation and the term “Ukraine”

itself was crossed out from the Russian lexicon”. 4 As the participants of the Revolution of the 1917-1921 years complained “imperialistically-ambitious Russia attempted to destroy the very name and soul of the Ukrainian nation: its language, customs and culture”. 5 For the squalid rulers of the Belaya (White) Russia the fight with the ethnonym “Ukrainian” resulted in complete ideological and military defeat.

The attentive memories of “Bat’ko” (“Father”) Makhno testify of the Russian Bolsheviks’ reluctance to accept new terms:

“A young lady led me to the VTsIK (All-Russian Central Executive Committee) secretary office by a special pass… He inquired addressing me:

— So you are from the South of Russia, are you, comrade?

— Yes — I replied — I’m from Ukraine.

1 Velykaia Oktiabrskaia sotsyalystycheskaia revoliutsyia na Ukrayne.- K., 1957.- T. 2.- S. 212.

2 Stakhiv M. Khto vynen? - Lviv, 1936.- S. 162.

3 Dotsenko O. Litopys ukrainskoi revoliutsii.- Kyiv; Lviv, 1923.- T. II, kn. 4.- S. 173.

4 Tiutiunnyk Yu. Zymovyi pokhid 1919-20 rr.- Kolomyia; Kyiv, 1923.- Chast. I.- S. 10.

5 Nota do Narodnykh Predstavnytstv Derzhav Svitu.- Tarniv, 1921.- S. 1.

213

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

… The secretary held his words for a moment and then started the inquiry concerning the peasant population sentiment “on the South of Russia”, concerning their attitude towards the German army, the Central Rada’s troops and also what their attitude towards the Soviet regime was, etc.

Then he made a phone call and suggested me to go to the office of comrade Sverdlov the VTsIK chairman.

Sverdlov seemed to be more interested in what actually was going on in Ukraine during last two or three months. So he immediately ticked off to me: You, are from our tempestuous South, aren’t you comrade?”1

However in order to retain in power the Bolsheviks had to declare the existence of the so called “Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic” and to accept the ethnonym “Ukrainian”. The Bolshevik’s victory was conditioned by the ideals declared by them — the ones of the national equity and freedom including the right for self-determination for the nations of the former Russian Empire.

According Stalin’s words, they understood the impossibility of acting against history. Stalin admonished: “Not long ago the Ukrainian republic and Ukrainian nation are only phantoms of the German’s imagination. Meanwhile the existence of the Ukrainian nation is obvious and acting against history is impossible. 2

However, the Russian spirit of the word “Little Russia” was added to the term

“Ukraine” and the word Ukrainian was veiled with the former-existed meaning

“Khokhol-Maloros (Little Russian)”. “The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was organized by Moscow in form of Russian terrorists’ regiment aimed at systematic homicide of the Ukrainian nation and the idea of national identity. This determination is an artificial Russianizer of the Ukraine as a nation and a country and has nothing in common with the idea of Ukraine with Soviets and socialism — it has only phonetic determination of our native land: “Ukrainian means Ukraine”. Its aim is perfectly clear — to Russify the Ukrainian nation, to make it speak Russian language in Ukrainians own land and the term “Ukraine” is to be reduced to a plain geographical name.”3

It should be admitted that the assimilation work made by the Bolsheviks was quite successful — a great number of Ukrainians betrayed their native language and everyone is familiar with the methods applied.

One of the best specialists in the history of Central and Eastern Europe, the British historian Norman Davies wrote: “In the years 1932-1933 in Ukraine and its environs the Stalin's regime artificially created the famine as a part of Soviet collectivization campaign. All the food stocks were forcefully confiscated; a military borders left no opportunity to bring food in from the external territories and 1 Makhno N. Vospomynanyia.- Paryzh, 1936-1937.- S. 121-122.

2 Stalin Y. V. Sochynenyia.- M.: Hospolytyzdat, 1947.- T. 5.- S. 48-49.

3 Smal-Stotskyi R. Pravdyve znachennia sovietskoho terminu “Ukraina” // Pershyi Svitovyi Konhres Vilnykh Ukraintsiv.- Vinnipeh; Niu-York; London, 1969.- S. 286.

214

XX. NATIONAL INTEGRITY (SOBORNIST’) people were doomed to death. The main aim of this was to destroy the Ukrainian nation along with the “class enemy”. About 7 million people died. The Earth knew not only one case of severe famine the terms of which were aggravated by a civil war. But nevertheless, the famine created as an act of governmental politics’ genocide should be regarded as a unique one”.1

Unlike most of the historians of the Soviet school who now live and work in Ukraine and who, according to Y. Gritsak words, “abjured the old ideology and changed their colours”,2 but are not able to study the Moscow’s genocide politics towards Ukrainians; young Ukrainian historians are increasingly bolder to raise this topic. For instance, they write:

“By the Holodomor (forced famine), the “dekulakization” and exiles to Siberia the best part of the Ukrainian peasant population was annihilated. The Ukrainian clergy (UAPC (Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church) and all the members of the Central Rada were liquidated along with all the members of the Ukrainian governmental parties and organizations (including The Ukrainian Communists party) and almost all the participants of the National Writer's Union of Ukraine (from 200 people who were included into the NWU in 1934, only 36

remained alive in 1939). No one from the to-be-liquidated category had a chance to survive. All the society — layer by layer — was sifted through a tiny-holed grid. As a result — the best, the most active and educated the most productive part of that society was liquidated. For the purpose of reproduction only obedient

“black sheep” were left and they were intercrossed with the aggressive atheistic Soviet-loyal “mother-tongue-speaking people”, brought to Ukraine to govern this country. In the year 1934 solely, 24 000 families from Russia were resettled to the starved villages in the Eastern regions of Ukraine; it was called “comple-menting resettling”.

With the help of these actions the Communists created the “united Soviet nation” which still exists. Our society is really seriously ill which was made from the remnants of the Ukrainian people. The character of our society is marginal and it lacks the national bulk. It is still not prestigious to be Ukrainian because the most men of property are not Ukrainians; because the dominating culture and educational system are not Ukrainian ones; because the Mass Media are not Ukrainian; because the greatest Church is not Ukrainian either. Its parishioners pray for an alien Patriarch, alien government, alien country and for the victory of the alien army (in the annexation war in Ichkeria!). On the great part of the Ukrainian territories, including the capital city, being Ukrainian (at least to speak Ukrainian consistently) requires a considerable psychological effort”.3

1 Deivis Norman. Yevropa: Istoriia.- K.: Osnovy, 2000.- S. 994.

2 Hrytsak Ya. Narys istorii Ukrainy.- K.: Heneza, 1996.- S. 5.

3 PiK.- 2000.- № 4.- S. 60-61.

215

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

For the Bolsheviks the acceptance of the term “Ukrainian” was not more than ideological camouflage and face paint. In the V. Prystako’s and J. Shapov-al’s book “Mykhailo Hrushevsky and GPU-NKVD. Tragic decade: 1924-1934”

is noted: “In front of people the government imitated “Ukrainization”, “internationalism” and “national cultures’ support” but at the same time internally, in the secret documents, the regime-representatives spoke their native (Russian as a rule) language and used their traditionally imperial categorical apparatus in terms of which the word “Ukrainian” was synonymic to the word “nationalist”

and consequently — “enemy”.1

Since the 40th of XX century the term “Ukraine” was written by the Bolsheviks with a special almost ritual determinative supplements: "Soviet Ukraine",

"Socialist Ukraine", "Labor Ukraine", etc., “as if the word itself was something vague and almost dangerous”.2 And in addition, the vassal form “on Ukraine”

was used instead of “in Ukraine” (ukr. v Ukrainu), which was a governmental one.3 "The use of the preposition "in" with the word "Ukraine" in Soviet times, was qualified as a bourgeois-nationalistic one, and also a reference to the authority of "revolutionary democrat" T.G. Shevchenko didn't come to rescue; Shevchenko wrote:

Go to Ukraine, my homeless waifs!

Your way make to Ukraine.

(ukr.V Ukrainu idit, dity,

V nashu Ukrainu) 4

Some authors consider that the international events “impeded the Stalin’s plan aimed at merging the Ukrainian nation with the Russian one and depriving them of their own history, culture, and at last their language”. The approaching World War required the Ukrainians to be neutral if not loyal to the government. 5

At any rate, from the prospective of the past years it is clear that the Moscow’s necessity to recognize the terms “Ukraine” and “Ukrainian” inconvertibly and positively influenced the poess of the Ukrainian people consolidation.

1 M. R. [Retsenziia] // Dukh i Litera.- 1997.- № 1-2.- S. 418.

2 Lutskyi Yu. Rozdumy nad slovom “Ukraina” u narodnykh pisniakh // Suchasnist.- 1993.- № 8.-

S. 117.

3 Ridna mova.- 1939.- Ch. 2.- S. 90.

4 Radevych-Vynnytskyi Ya. Ukraina: vid movy do natsii.- Drohobych: Vidrodzhennia, 1997.- S. 32.

5 Yefimenko H. H. Natsionalni aspekty u formuvanni kompartiino-radianskoho aparatu // Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal.- 2000.- № 6.- S. 65.

216

XXI. A МAGIC WORD

Grinding his teeth, a famous Ukrainophobe Shulgin wrote in Denikin White Guard magazine: “It is well known that most revolutions were carried out by

‘magic words’ that common people did not understand. In 1917 one of such magisc words was ‘Ukraine’ ”. 1 It was in 1917 that the bloody strife to establish the new ethnonym started. “The fight around the name ‘Ukraine’ and the derivatives has been fierce because it is not a common word — it is a symbol that encodes the national idea and carries powerful energy of the people’s aspiration to live freely in their homeland in a united independent state”. 2 The magic word

‘Ukraine’ evoked hatered and fear in the invaders of Western Ukrainian lands at the time of liberation struggle.

No other national name has raised so much hatered, anger, accusations and propaganda as the name of the territory and the people: ‘Ukraine’, ‘Ukrainian’,

‘the Ukrainians’. 3 For a long time, the Russian as well as the Polish have been trying to boycott and restrict the terms ‘Ukraine, Ukrainian’. 4 At the beginning of XX century, Polish linguist professor Brinker protested against the name

‘Ukraine’, suggesting that the name ‘Rus should be given away to ‘the Moskals’, as he called them, and stick to the name ‘Maloros’. Ivan Franko gave him this response: “We can answer to the dear historian of the Polish language that the formation of names and new word forms in general is influenced by the tradition, which plays an important but not a decisive or primary role. A nation exists not for the sake of a language, but creates and changes its language adapting it to its needs; a historian who judges or even criticises the innovation should try to understand the reasons which brought it about and let it win over the older forms; without this insight a historian is in danger of turning into a doctrinaire who does not hesitate to twist the reality or use Procrustean methods. When it comes to the Polish language matters, professor Brikner is highly cautious not to slip into such doctrinarianism; but he can easily afford it against any other nationality. Though he should not”. 5 Professor Brikner was not the only one. “Some still pass off a vicious lie that the names ‘Ukraine’ and ‘Ukrainian’ were coined by the Prussians and Austria”. 6 Even today there are certain Polish forces who oppose the terms 1 Shulhyn V. V. “Malaia Rus” // Malaia Rus.- K., 1918.- Vyp. perv.- S. 4.

2 Radevych-Vynnytskyi Ya. Ukraina: vid movy do natsii.- Drohobych: Vidrodzhennia, 1997.- S. 25.

3 Shelukhyn S. Ukraina - nazva nashoi zemli z naidavnishykh chasiv.- Praha, 1936.- S. 26

4 Lipiski W. Nazwa “Ru” i “Ukraina” i ich znaczenia historyczne // Z dziejuw Ukrainy.- Krakuw, 1912.- S. 53.

5 Franko I. Retsenziia // ZNTSh.- 1903.- T. 56.- S. 30.

6 D-r K. ta M-K. Do istorii ukrainsko-polskykh vzaiemyn.- Stanyslaviv, 1926.- S. 4.

217

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

‘Ukraine’, ‘Ukrainian’ calling them either an invention of the Austrians or an artifice of the German General Staff, or a Moscow intrigue. 1 The main tactics of Polish assimilators was fight agaist the ethnonym ‘Ukrainian’. As for the population of Volyn and Polissya, they stated that there were no Ukrainians there but an ethnographic unity with no certain name. 2 In 1939 the Polish government approved of a secret plan to assimilate Ukrainians in Volyn. According to that plan, the very tems ‘Ukraine’ and ‘Ukrainian’ were banned. Instead, it was suggested the terms ‘Rusyn’, ‘Ruskyi’ and some neutral, not related to the nationality terms (‘orthodox’, ‘Volynyak’, ‘Polishchuk’,etc) should be used. The creators of this programme believed that it will eventually result in complete assimilation of the Ukrainians”. 3

In official state publications of post-Versailles Poland (1918-1939), including legislative acts approved by Seim, the term ‘Ruski’, and ‘Rusinski’

in brackets, was used to denote ‘Ukrainian’ to avoid confusion with Russian.

Similarly to Brinker, in an influential linguistic journal ‘Jzyk polski’ a reputable professor Nich appealed against the use of ‘Ukraine’, ‘Ukrainian’. Leon Vasylevskyi, a Polish liberal, answered that life itself disproved this ridiculous, short-sighted and, it must be added, absurd theory of the venerable Polish linguist. 4 A prominent Polish writer Maria Dombrovska joined the discussion on our ethnographic terms. In the article ‘September in Zalishchyky’ she wrote:

“ Today, the Ruskyi population within the Polish boarders call themselves Ukrainian and regard it as an offence to their national feelings when called the Rusyns. That is why conscientious Poles, especially those who realize how dangerous it is to offend people’s national feelings, use ‘Ukraine’, ‘Ukrainian’, even if they do not completely agree with the chauvinistic demagogy behind those terms. The less sensitive or those who do not support ethnic minorities stick to the use of ‘Rusyn’. It only adds to the heated national antagonism. The fact that the people accepted this name as their proper name to express their struggle for independence and sovereignty, to distance themselves from Russia, is accounted for by the ravenous ambition of the Russian, who we call Rusyn in Polish, to assimilate the Ukrainians with the Russian culture and history.

Tzarist Russia consistently refused to accept the names ‘Ukraine’, ‘Ukrainian’.

As for Poland, these names should be most appealing”. 5 The well-wishing attitude of the prominent Maria Dombrovska must have been influenced by 1 Sutowicz P. Mity czy za prawda czyli kilka suw o historii // Nowy przegld wszechpolski.- 1994.-

Czerwiec.- S. 42.

2 Z trybuny: Promovy ukrainskykh posliv i senatoriv u polskomu seimi i senati.- Lviv; Lutsk; Kholm; Berestie, 1925.- S. 106.

3 Ukraina - Polshcha: vazhki pytannia. Materialy II mizhnarodnoho seminaru istorykiv.- Varshava, 1998.- S. 28.

4 Wasilewski L. Ruski, rusiski czy ukraiski? // Sprawy Narodowociowe.- 1927.- № 4.- S. 31.

5 Wiadomoci literackie.- 1935.- 31 p.

218

XXI. A МAGIC WORD

the novel ‘Sons’ by her contemporary, a distinguished Ukrainian writer Vasyl Stefanyk. The novel had the following powerful scene:

“— The last time Andriy — he was educated, mind you — was here, he said: ‘Father, we are leaving to fight for Ukraine’. — ‘What Ukraine?’ To this, he picked a lump of soil with his sword and said: ‘This is Ukraine, and here, - he pointed his sword to his chest, - here is its blood; we are leaving to get our land back from the enemy . Give me a white shirt, and some water to wash, and I am off ”. His sword flashed and struck me blind. ‘Son, — I said, — I have Ivan, your younger brother, so take him with you, he is strong. I’d rather bury you both than let our enemy and its roots get into this land”.

However, anti-Ukrainian ruling circles of post-Versailles Poland did not pay any attention to solitary writers’ voices. When Halychyna became part of Poland in 1919, Polish chauvinists started to officially call it Wschodnia Maopolska, in common parlance Kresy Wschodnie. The chauvinists made up this insulting name by analogy with the German one. After the third division of Poland, the Prussian government called Warsaw region ‘New Southern Prussia’ (Neu Süd Preussen). “It should be noted that controversies about the names of different parts of Ukrainian lands always carried political implications. Although the term ‘Galicja Wschodnia’ was accepted without much protest when imposed on the old Galician Principality, to say nothing about the term ‘Western Ukraine’,the term ‘Maopolska Wschodnia’, introduced by Rzeczpospolita Polska during the Inter-War period, was never approved by the Ukrainian population. They looked upon this ‘Ma Polsk’ in the same way they previously did upon ‘Ma Rosj’. 1

In March 1923, the supervisory body of Lviv School District, which embraced almost all of Halychyna, published a circular letter announcing the ban on the word ‘Ukrainian’ and strictly ordering to use the word ‘ruski’ on seals, certificates and other documents instead of the commonly used word ‘ukrainski’ ”. 2 It sparked the ethnonymic war in Halychyna again. Galician Ukrainians used every means to fight against the Polish ban. They issued open protests against ‘the practice, unseen in the civilized world before, to rob a nation of its name and impose a new, unwanted one! This refers to the name ‘Ukrainian’

that school authorities forbid to use in Ukrainian schools!”. 3 The same writer pointed that Polish authorities removed all the passages mentioning Ukraine or anything Ukrainian from school books. 4 K.Studynskyi and V.Hnatyuk, on behalf of Shevchenko Scientific Society, signed the protest written by Bohdan 1 Serczyk W. A. Ukraina midzy Wschodem a Zachodem, czyli jeszcze raz o tym samym //

Warszawski zeszyty ukrainoznawcze.- Warszawa, 1994.- Z. 2.- S. 23.

2 Pokhid proty slova “ukrainskyi” // Dilo.- 1923.- 15 cherv.

3 Herasymovych I. Ukrainski shkoly pid polskoiu vladoiu.- Stanyslviv, 1924.- S. 9.

4 Herasymovych I. Zbroina i kulturna viina.- Lviv, 1925.- S. 12.

219

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Barvinskyi, which said: There is no such power in the world that could prohibit a nation from using its national name and impose the one that is unwanted or can not be used”. 1

The community of Western Ukrainian lands which were under the Polish rule saw through the great-power ambitions of Warsaw. “Today in Poland, the powers that be do not beat about the bush but force their way and openly, using no obscure language, state their aim to bring us down in our native land to a silent minority. To secure this ambition, they are trying to take away our national name.

In the same way as Russia once renamed Ukraine into ‘Malorosiya’, they are renaming Eastern Halychyna into ‘Malopolska’; schools have recently introduced

‘Rusinski’ isnead of ‘Ukrainian’.

They are determined to uproot the feeling of unity with the rest of Ukrainian lands”. 2 Chauvinistic Polish media of that time happily informed that Ukrainian inauthenticity was boundless. “The wretched Ukrainians, — wrote Polish newspapers, — are calm and respecrful. They are to be freed from the leaders. The name ‘Ukrainian’ originates from ‘ukradenyi’ (meaning ‘stolen’), because they have stolen a lot from us, the Poles. There is no such thing as Ukrainian intelligentsia, just some lads wearing ties and, occasionally, vyshyvankas, with swarms of lice in their bosom. Naturally, there is no such thing as Ukrainian language, just a Polish dialect, such as Kashubskyi or Huralskyi. It is the way lads and maids speak at the cowshed, in muck and slough. Expressions ‘Ukrainian pig’ or

‘damned Ukrainian’ were common”. 3

The term ‘Maopolska Wschodnia’ made up by Polish politicians did not have any historical connection to Halychyna. When Polish ruling circles wanted to apply assimilaton methods, they used Russian experience. “Not only did Polish media, science and public and political administration change the name

‘Malorosia’ to ‘Maopolska’, they also widely used similar ‘scientific’ achievements till the times of Valuev argumentation”. 4

The same was happening under Romanian ruling. Before World War I, Bukovyna was part of Austria. First, there were 216 folk schools with Ukrainian as language of tuition, 117 mixed schools, 4 grammar schools, 1 non-classical secondary school, 2 teacher seminaries, 4 technical schools, 4 departments at Chernivtsy University. After the invasion of Bukovyna in 1918, Romanian authorities started the destructive policy of complete assimilation of Ukrainians.

All Ukrainian schools and institutions were closed down. The Ukrainian lan-1 Propamiatne pysmo Naukovoho Tovarystva imeny Shevchenka u Lvovi z pryvodu zaborony polskoiu Kuratoriieiu Lvivskoho Shkilnoho Okruhu natsionalnoho imeni ukrainskoho narodu.-

Lviv, 1923.- S. 7.

2 Otvertymy ochyma! // Dilo.- 1923.- 3 serp.

3 Na vichnu hanbu Polshchi, tverdyni varvarstva v Yevropi.- Praha, 1931.- S. 80.

4 Kybaliuk Neofit. Rozsadnyky polskoho pravoslavia // Krakivski Visti.- 1940.- 19 lyp.

220

XXI. A МAGIC WORD

guage was banned, Ukrainian songs could not be sung, Ukrainian surnames were changed for Romanian ones, no one could carry blue-yellow distinction marks, and gendarmes beat those who were wearing shirts with Ukrainian embroidery.

“The name ‘Ukrainian’ is used only when speaking about the liberation movement. Otherwise, the name ‘Ruthens’ is used”. 1 The policy of ‘systematic forci-ble Romanisation’ was implemented in Bessarabia. 2 In the 30s it was prohibited to use the Ukrainian name of the town of Chernivtsy. Instead, it had to be called

‘Chernauts’. At that time “church services as well as administration in church governments had to be provided in Romanian only”. 3 According to orthodox principles, only national churches were allowed (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian, Romanian). Orthodox Christians of Bukovyna demanded to change the name of their archdiocese from ‘orthodox-romana’ to ‘Ukrainian-Romanian’, or just ‘oriental’. The proposal was rejected. 4 There existed only Romanian Orthodox church. “According to the official Romanian opinion, the Ukrainians are Ukrainisated Romanian people (!) who have to return to their national language”. 5 Romanian chauvinists announced their intention to turn a million Ukrainians into good Romanians in the timespan of one generation. As in an old saying: “Rus mother, Rus father, I’m Ivan Moldovan”. 6

Similar manifestations of ethnonymic war were observed in Transcarpathia under Hungarian control. Hungarian government, especially in XIX century, most severely restricted any contacts between the Ukrainians in Transcarpathia and Halychyna. Magyar media called the population of Transcarpathia by the term ‘orosz’, sometimes ‘Kisorosz’, ‘magyarorosz (‘Magyar-Russian),

‘uhrorusz’ (‘Hungarian-Russian), ‘ruszim’ (‘Ruski’) or ‘ruten’. However, the term ‘ruten’ that the Magyars used to contemptuously refer to Ukrainians in Transcarpathia was also withdrawn from use because of its “Russian root”. The name ‘Greek-Catholic Magyars’ was introduced to denote Ukrainians in Transcarpathia. 7 In March 1939, at the time when Hitler broke into Czechia and Moravia, he commanded that Hungary should intrude into Transcarpathia. Divisions of ‘Karpatska Sich’ came to defence, but their forces were ten times less powerful than the Hungarians. Transcarpathia was taken over by Hungary for the second time. We can learn about those events from the protest letter of Avhustyn Voloshyn, President of Karpatska Ukraina. “Hungarian authorities did not satisfy their appetites in Karpatska Ukraina even when they shot or tortured to death 1 Pid rumunskym postolom.- Paryzh, 1937.- S. 11.

2 Radianska Bukovyna. 1940-1945: Dokumenty i materialy.- K., 1960.- S. 126.

3 Pihuliak I. M. Ukrainska pravoslavna tserkva v rumunskim yarmi.- Vinnipeh, 1927.- S. 17.

4 Pihuliak I. M. Ukrainska pravoslavna tserkva v rumunskim yarmi.- Vinnipeh, 1927.- S. 26.

5 Kuzelia Z. Ukraintsi v Rumunii // Rozbudova natsii.- 1928.- Ch. 9.- S. 324.

6 Stotskyi S. Nauka ruskoi movy v shkolakh serednykh na Bukovyni.- Chernivtsi, 1893.- S. 7.

7 Zakarpatska oblast: Korotkyi dovidnyk.- Uzhhorod, 1947.- S. 35.

221

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

thousands of Ukrainians including young children of both sexes, closed down all Ukrainian cultural organizations and associations, among which are 300 reading halls of the cultural society ‘Prosvita’; banned all the publications of Ukrainian literature and media, closed down all Ukrainian folk, technical and secondary schools, persecuted the performance of official duties in Ukrainian, and moreover, it is now prohibited to speak or sing in our native Ukrinian language”. 1 As it happened, after the war, in 1945, Avhustyn Voloshyn was tortured to death in NKVD prison in Lubyanka in Moscow.

As early as April 1849, when Hungary was in the whirl of revolutionary events, Rus Rada in Lviv received a delegation from Transcarpathia with Adolf Dobryanskyi at its head. The delegation announced that the Rusyns in Hungary wish to be united with their Galician brothers and together form an administrative district within the borders of Austrian empire. But for a number of reasons that was not realised. After World War I, according to Saint-Germain treaty, Transcarpathia became part of Czechoslovakia. The treaty read: “Czechoslovakia takes on an obligation to organize the Rusyn lands in the south of the Carpathians into an autonomy with as wide rights as can be possible within the united state”. 2 The obligation was not fulfilled; Hungary could not put up with the loss of Transcarpathia and incited the population into action with ethnonymic arguments: “you should state unanimously that you do not want the Czechs, or Romanians, or Ukrainians, as you want to stay Rusyn under Hungary where you are now living”. 3

Democratic Czechoslovakia, with Transcarpathia as its part in 1919-1938, also implemented the policy of ethnonymic confusion. For some reason the name ‘Ukraine’ or ‘Ukrainian’ sounded unpleasant, harsh and rebellious to many Czechs. 4 ‘Pidkarpatska Rus was the official name for Transcarpathia. The names

‘Ukraine’, ‘Ukrainian’ were not welcome. ‘Rusin’ was the official name for the population, with corresponding adjectives “rusinsky” or “podkarpatorusky”.

The latter could also mean a Russian from Pidkarpattya, so when Czech official publications and documents use the term ‘rusky’, it is sometimes difficult to understand which one is meant: a Rusyn or a Russian. In Transcarpathia there always existed a Moscowphile movement (at some time supported by Russia, Hungary, and later Czechoslovakia), which followed the logic of the ethnonymic war and hated the term ‘Rusyn’. To make things more obscure, Moscowphiles in Transcarpathia used several other names: ‘Karpatoross’, ‘Ugro-Ross’, ‘Karpato Russian’ or just ‘Russian’. The latter two were particular favourires. “A lot of our 1 Vehesh M. M., Turianytsia V. V., Chavarha I. M. Smert prezydenta. (Ostanni dni zhyttia i smert prezydenta Karpatskoi Ukrainy Avhustyna Voloshyna).- Uzhhorod, 1995.- S. 36.

2 Za ridne slovo! - Mukachiv, 1937.- S. 41.

3 Proklamatsiia do Uhro-ruskoho naroda.- Budapesht, 1919.- S. 15.

4 Chas.- 1939.- 7 liut.

222

XXI. A МAGIC WORD

intellectuals can spend years speculating on whether they are ‘Ruskii’ or ‘Ugroross’ or ‘Karpatorusskii Russ’ or ‘Madyar-Oros’, but avoid anything Ukrainian like the devil avoids holy water, because that is a strong idea which demands work for the people ”. 1

It is known that in the first half of ХХ сentury common people of Transcarpathia traditionally called themselves ‘Rusyn’. 2 The first daily Ukrainian newspaper in Transcarpathia was called ‘Rusyn’ (it was in circulation in the 20s).

In the early works of V.Grendja-Donskyi and Y.Bartosh-Kumyatskyi, prominent writers of Transcarpathia, we only find the name ‘Rusyn’ which they were right to consider an archaism preceding the name ‘Ukrainian’. Rapid development of political events in the Czech Republic at the end of 1930s resulted in the formation a separate state unity of Transcarpathia. The elections took place, Soym of Karpatska Ukraina — legislative body — was organized.

On 15 March, 1939, Soym of Karpatska Ukraina passed the first law:

§ 1. Karpatska Ukraina is an independent State.

§ 2. The name of the State is Karpatska Ukraina.

§ 4. The state language of Karpatska Ukraina is Ukrainian.

§ 5. The colours of the state flag are blue in the upper part, yellow in the lower part.

§ 6. The national emblem of Karpatska Ukraina is the present regional emblem: a bear in the left red half, four blue and yellow stripes in the right half. And a TRIDENT of St.Volodymyr the Great with a cross above the middle tine.

§ 7. The state anthem of Karpatska Ukraina is: “Glorious spirit of Ukraine…”

“Thus, it became clear that different artificially introduced names for this part of Ukrainian land, like ‘Podkarpatska Rus, ‘Karpato-Rutenia’,etc. were the expressions of the invaders, not native people. So, in the memorable days in March 1939 the people of Transcarpathia had their legal representatives to express their wish for independent life and adopt the first Soym law to ratify the official name of the country — ‘Karpatska Ukraina’. First of all, the Ukrainians of Transcarpathia verified to the wide world their blood and spiritual connections with the rest of Ukraine, and their mutual aspirations and struggle for freedom”.

3 The declaration of freedom for Karpatska Ukraina encouraged optimism in Ukrainian liberation movement. “This silent and soulless people whose name has 1 Makovetskyi S. Slovo do brativ pid Beskydom.- Preshov, 1940.- S. 19.

2 Yizhak. Ukrainets chy russkii? - Mukachiv, 1938.- S. 7.

3 Barvinskyi B. Nazva “Ukraina” na Zakarpatti.- Vinnipeh: Nakl. Bratstva Karpatskykh Sichovykiv, 1952.- S. 5.

223

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

been altered by foreigners in every possible way - ‘Ruthene’, ‘Ugro-Ruski’, and even ‘Magyar speaking Ruski’, ‘Magyar of Greek-Catholic beliefs’, ‘Rusyn’,

‘Russki’ or just Lemkos, Boyk, locals,etc — this ‘non-existent’ people sparked the bright flames that dazzled other nations”. 1

Having invaded Transcarpathia for the second time in 1939, Hungarian assimilators resorted to the proven method — ethnonymic confusion. But “we no longer were blind ‘Ugroros’, we knew who we were and where we were heading.

Exploiting the names ‘Rusyn, Russkii, Ugroros’, the Magyars have always wanted to get us into the yoke”. 2 Budapest started to persuade the Ukrainians in Transcarpathia that their development was possible only under the crown of St. Stephen, i.e.

having close connections with Hungary. “It has been a year since people of Podkarpattya came back to their mother-state. They came back not only because it was the will of their heart, but also because the eternal laws of nature were striving for it.

Because the everyday life of Ruski people and the economic situation of the whole of Podkarpattya are closely connected with the lands of the state in the south”. 3

These hackneyed arguments of the invaders are far too familiar.

Anti-Ukrainian terror reigned in Transcarpathia. More than 10 thousand Ukrainians were sent to prison or concentration camps, almost half of them died. OUN divisions stood to defence against invaders. “Underground magazine

‘Chyn’ of the local executive organization of OUN in Transcarpathia, issued in the summer of 1941, filed 69 clauses of criminal charges of the henocide of the Ukrainians in Transcarpathia against the state of Hungary. Ukrainians in Transcarpathia continued their struggle against the enemies and did not let themselves be turned into yet another minority — the Rusyns, who had to be slaves to the St.Stephen’s crown. The magazine appealed: “Ukrainian men and women of Transcarpathia! We are not on our own any more! It is not only our wish, but of 50 million Ukrainian people. We all want Transcarpathia to belong to Ukraine”. 4

In Transcarpathia, the wide national transition to the names “Ukraine’,

‘Ukrainian’ became possible after 1945. “The old national names ‘Rusyn’,

‘Ruski’ held the longest on the western lands of former Rus… A handful of Rusyns in the Carpathians should be praised both for not having assimilated with foreign surroundings, and for keeping the old national name, traditions, heritage of their ancestors”. 5

The example of tiny Prykarpattya demonstrates how the invaders abused the living nature of Ukraine, using draconian administrative measures to 1 Karpatska Ukraina v borotbi.- Viden, 1939.- S. 229.

2 Makovytskyi S. Slovo do brativ pid Beskydom.- Preshov, 1940.- S. 13.

3 Za narod Podkarpattia.- Unhvar, 1940.- S. 4.

4 Myshanych O. V. Politychne rusynstvo: istoriia i suchasnist: Ideini dzherela zakarpat. rehion.

separatyzmu.- K.: TOV “Vyd-vo Oberehy”, 1999.- S. 15.

5 Krasovskyi I. Tilky z ridnym narodom…- Lviv: Obl. upr. po presi, 1992.- S. 9.

224

XXI. A МAGIC WORD

maintain the ethnonymic confusion, letting it turn into complete chaos, and hoping to destroy the Ukrainian nation or, at least, split it into minor parts,each with a separate name: Maloros, Rusyn, Rusnyak, Polishchuk, Lemko and so on. “Many call us Rusnak, Rusyn, Podkarpatoruskyi Rus, Ruten, Ros, Ugroros, Karpatoros, Tatroros, Hungarian Rusnak and hell knows what other kinds of ‘Ros’ ”. 1 The colonizers were screaming in touching unanimity that Ukrainian was not an ethnonym but a name of a dangerous political party which wants to drive them — strangers — away from their ancestral home. That is why the use of the terms Ukraine, Ukrainian must be strictly prohibited.

Assimilators have always been spreading a large-scale lie making the Ukrainian idea equal to chauvinism, i.e. they have been trying to liken the shy, peace-loving, humanist, fair Ukrainian idea, the idea of self-defence and right to self-determination to the violent orgy of hatred and wild greed for others’ lands which are typical of them: Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian great-power chauvinists.

At the beginning of 1991 there was a suddern burst of ethnonymic enmity in Transcarpathia and Pryashivshchina (Slovakia). Synonymic ethnonyms Rusyn — Ukrainian were sharply juxtoposed. The subject matter of the problem was revealed by Mykola Mushinka, famous scientist and public figure in Pryashivshchyna: “The modern tendency to “de-Ukrainisate the Rusyns”, consistently imposed by the society ‘Rusynska Obroda’ and supported by the official policy of Slovak government and Slovak media is regarded as a step to their complete Slovakisation. This policy is based on falsifying the recent past and is a political speculation”. 2

A respected expert on the Carpathians O.Myshanych was more precise and named the initiator of political Rusyn movement in Transcarpathia: “Abusing national Rusyn ideas and the commitment of the local population to the old ethnic name ‘Rusyn’, ideologists of political Rusyn movement look down on the people of Transcarpathia as a biomass, an ethnic-tribal unity which has not became a nation and at the end of XX century is allegedly incapable of national self-determination . As long as Russian empire looks for and defences its interests in the Carpathians, as long as Ukraine does not determine its attitude to imperial borders, political rusyn movement will be in existence”. 3

As we can see, the process of ethnonymic changes is still continuing on the western borders of ethnic Ukrainian territories. However, it was artificially slowered by anti-Ukrainian forces. “It is more beneficial to have a small ‘separate’ nation on your territory than part of a big nation living in the neighbouring 1 Makovytskyi S. Slovo do brativ pid Beskydom.- Preshov, 1940.- S. 12.

2 Mushynka M. Politychnyi rusynizm na praktytsi // Nove zhyttia.- 1991.- Ch. 47/48.- Dodatok.

3 Myshanych O. Politychne rusynstvo - ukrainska problema // Suchasnist.- 1996.- № 7-8.- S. 148.

225

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

country. Today this policy is convenient for Slovakia and Poland because they fear to face territorial claims on the part of Ukraine”. 1

There is no doubt that the vigorous actions of Rusyn movement “were pre-conditioned by a foreign policy factor because certain public-political forces in the countries on the border with Transcarpathia , near and far abroad, are directly or indirectly interested in it (this can be verified by numerous encouraging publications by ethnographs in Russia)”. 2

Political Rusyn movement, according to O.Myshanych, “although utterly dedicated to Hungarian interests, is actually the fifth column of Russia in the Carpathians, defending Russian interests. In this sense, it continues the work of previous ‘rusophiles’, ‘Moscowphiles’, recent ‘internationalists’ who understood internationalization as consistent and aggressive russification”. 3

It is interesting that during World War II several Hitler bonzes were against the name ‘Ukraine’. This is what a representative of Martin Bormann, head of party, at Central Command of Wehrmacht wrote in a secret report: “If we let the name ‘Ukraine’ settle in, it will give the Ukrainians certain rights and one day they will want to rule their own state; moreover, they will strive to unite modern Ukraine with the Ukrainian territories which are not within its borders now, like Transnistria, Lviv Halychyna and Karpatska Ukraina”. 4 It should be pointed out that the strategic failure of German policy in Ukraine in World War I, as well as World War II, was to a certain extent caused by incompetence of German historians who traditionally used great-power Russian schemes and gave inaccurate descriptions of ethnic processes in Eastern Europe.

Here is a dreadful fact which illustrates that part of the Russian society have been brought up as Ukrainophobes, fogged by chauvinistic fumes. At Verkhovna Rada of the Crimea, during the discussions of functioning of the Russian language in the Crimea, deputy M.Bahaev announced from the rostrum: “ There is no such thing as Ukrainian language. It is a language of common people. It is a language artificially created by Shevchenko and other adventurers. I will tell you more — there is no such nation as Ukrainian”. 5 Russian historian O.Miller pointed: “Independence of Ukraine means neglecting the links and values which were supposed to survive after the downfall of communism; that is why Russia was and still is so sensitive to Ukrainian undependence”. 6

1 Krasovskyi I. Tilky z ridnym narodom.- Lviv: Obl. upr. po presi, 1992.- S. 35.

2 Makara M., Myhovych I. Karpatski rusyny v konteksti suchasnoho etnopolitychnoho zhyttia //

Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal.- 1994.- № 1.- S. 124.

3 Myshanych O. V. Politychne rusynstvo: istoriia i suchasnist: Ideini dzherela zakarpatskoho rehionalnoho separatyzmu.- K.: TOV “Vyd-vo “Oberehy”, 1999.- S. 22.

4 Kamenetskyi I. Ukraina v totalitarnykh skhemakh natsyzmu // Ukrainskyi istoryk.- 1972.-

№ 3-4.- S. 114.

5 Biuleten Ukrainskoi Tsentralnoi informatsiinoi Sluzhby.- 1997.- 9 zhovtnia.- S. 3.

6 Myller A. Konflykt “Ydealnykh otechestv” // Rodyna.- 1999.- № 8.- S. 82.

226

XXI. A МAGIC WORD

The heroic struggle of Ukrainian Insurgent Army in 1942-1950 was the manifestation of the will of the Ukrainians to form an independent Ukrainian state and secured the new ethnonym on the Western Ukrainian lands. However, it shoud be mentioned that “although the bolshevist regime ‘united’ Ukrainian lands within one state, it did not put an end, in fact, it deepened the essential differences between ‘two Ukraines’ — western and eastern. The soviet regime did not restrict the rights of the Ukrainians from the ethnic point of view (in this respect it acted like tzarist Russia, regarding the Ukrainians as “a variety” of Russians) but they in every way limited the rights of those speaking Ukrainian and those living in the western part and thought them to be “nationalists”, i.e.

potential “traitors”. 1

Therefore, the ethnonym Ukrainian should be seen as a new step of Ukrainian ethnic consolidation at its highest national stage of development, i.e. at the stage in the life of our nation when we were fully ready to create our own national state. That is why our enemies had always been trying to numb down this collective notion ‘Ukrainian’, putting forward some local, often artificial names like Rusnak, Lemko, Novoros, Polishchuk, etc. For the same purpose they recently introduced the term ‘Russian-speaking’. But when the people are conscious of being a single nation, they are not afraid of any ideological sabotage in the field of ethnonymics.

“The name Ukraine is a symbol of Ukrainian national struggle for freedom, independence and unity. In this respect the origin or the original meaning of the name are no longer important, nor is the fact whether other nations accept it or not. The living Ukrainian generation still remember governmental nomenklatura prohibitions of Ukraine or Ukrainian on Western Ukrainian lands under Polish rule (Rusin), or Czechoslovakia (Podkarpatski Rus), same as it was earlier in tsarist Russia (Maloros).

However, despite the pressure, prohibitions, etc. the name Ukraine as a symbol of Ukrainian struggle for freedom, independence and unity has been deeply rooted among people, survived numerous troubles and eventually won. As a manifestation of collective triumph of the Ukrainian idea, the victory of the name Ukraine serves as a guarantee for complete victory and realization of the ideas for which the best sons of Ukraine fought and died”. 2 Foreign invasions often set the stage to national resurrection if the national spiril is still strong. “The Great Ukraine grew out of what the Poles called ‘Maopolska’ and the Russians called ‘Malorosia’. 3

1 Riabchuk M. Dylemy ukrainskoho Fausta: hromadianske suspilstvo i “rozbudova derzhavy”.- K.: Krytyka, 2000.- S. 18.

2 Rudnytskyi Ya. Slovo y nazva “Ukraina”.- Vinnipeh: Nakl. Ukr. knyharni, 1951.- S. 130.

3 Shporliuk R. Ukraina: vid imperskoi peryferii do nezalezhnoi derzhavy // Suchasnist.- 1996.-

№ 12.- S. 62.

227

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

XX century is not solely the time of totalitarianism and world wars, it is also the most important era of decolonisation. From the retrospect, it symbolizes the end of a certain epoch — epoch of colonial empires. The disruption of empires happened on an impressive scale: more than one hundred countries became independent.

On 24 August, 1991 the independence of Ukraine was announced. On 1 December, 1991 the all-Ukrainian referendum ratified the independence of Ukraine by 90% of votes. Ukraine as a country was soon acknowledged by the whole world. This marked the victorious end of our people’s struggle for their new national name.

Looking back at ethnonymic problems, we can say that the historical truth lies in the fact that despite consistent efforts anti-Ukrainian assimilation fell short of expectations. Ukrainophobes had numerous tactical achievements, but they never gained strategic aims. The policy of ethnocide, ethnonymic confusion which imperialist circles of Russia and Poland had been implementing for centuries failed. After Ukraine announced its independence, East European history acquired new dimensions: forces of confrontation are bound to disappear. In the same way as the everlasting confrontation between France and Germany ended to the benefit of the whole Europe, the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, and Poland and Ukraine should come to an end. We are moving into the era of civilized, good-neighborly relations. The time of Ukrainophobes in history has gone for good.

228

XXII. KHAKHOL

In the spoken everyday language an official ethnonym is sometimes replaced by a metaphor, pseudo-ethnonym or, in other words, by ethnic slurs, i.e. dubs.

For instance, the Germans call the French people “frog-eaters”, and the French people call the Germans “Bosches”. The Czechs are called “Tschecheien” by the Germans, and the Poles use “Schwaben” speaking about the Germans. The Italians’ dub is “guinea”, the Romanians are “guppies”, the Americans are “Yankee”

and so on. But there must be no other land, where the scornful ethnic slurs are so numerous and often-used as Russia. It was the author of “History of the Rus”, who first noticed this fact describing the Russian soldiery in following words:

“These soldiers, who at that time were still wearing simple clothes from the wool and bast shoes (lapti), unshaven and with beards, that means in all their peasant appearance, made much of themselves for no good reason and had a filthy manner to give all the people disdainful dubs, so as: poliachishki (scornful about the Poles, from Poliak — the Pole), tatatishki (the same about the Tatars) and so on”. 1 Such habit is still existing in Russia. The Mordvins, Mari people, Udmurt people, for instance, are called “chukhontsy” (“Chukhna”, from “Chukhna” —

an old name of the Baltic and Finnish people county), the inhabitants of the Central Asia — “tshurki” or “tshuchmeki”. The Caucasus Hillmans are dubbed as “the beasts”. „Look at the mocking dubs of our neighbours — a German (rus. Nemets) is a dumb person (from rus. nemoj — dumb), who even doesn’t speak Russian, khokhol constantly sticks his neck out, interferes in everything; Chukhnas are the people living without conveniences; the Tatar has a different faith”. 2 As the ethnographer Bogoraz noticed, the Russians use the names of the northern people only in their neglecting forms: chukchishki (Chukchi people), yakutishki (the Yakuts), lamutishki (the Evens, old name Lamuty) ans so on”. 3

Nowadays in Ukraine “the colonizers have elaborated a quite wide range of derogative names to call the aboriginal inhabitants, depreciated and diminished by them: “byki” (bools), “zhloby” (from rus. zhlob — a greed person), “koguty”,

“roguli”, “kolkhozniki” (from rus. kolkhoz — a collective farm in the Soviet Union) (and this is not a complete list)”. 4 But there is one general name. The Ukrainians, as it is known, are called “khakhly” from the ancient times. “According to that old habit, - continues the author of “History of the Rus”, — they 1 Istoriia Rusiv / Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 194.

2 Parnyk ydei // Rodyna.- 1997.- № 5.- S. 11.

3 Bohoraz V. H. Chukchy.- L., 1934.- Ch. I.- S. 71.

4 Riabchuk M. Vid Malorosii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia.- K.: Krytyka, 2000.- S. 224.

229

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

called the Cossacks “chuby” (from ukr. Chub, an element of traditional Ukrainian Cossack haircut) or “khakhly”, and sometimes “stupid khakhly” as well, and the Cossacks got angry for that and became enraged, quarreled and fought with them and as the result gained a deadly feud with them and breathed to them with an aversion all the time”. 1 Although it was common to befool nonsenses in the notes of foreigners about Russia, but at the same time “it wasn’t bad to tell a well-thumbed joke, rumor and a yarn while speaking about the “khakhly”

and “khakhlandia” (from land — a country)”. 2 The expression “Khakhlandia”

instead of “Ukraine” was quite spread among the educated Russian people at the time before the October Revolution. 3

According to the words of the Member of Ukrainian Culture Membership

“Slavutych” Ivan Shyshow, “nowadays everybody, form a street-cleaner and to the minister in Moscow the Ukrainians are called only as “khakhly” in the everyday life, it seems to be not very offending, but still shows a certain level of thinking and attitude of the Russian people to us”. 4

The Ukrainians living in Russian now, as for instance Andryi Okara, who was born in Moscow, notice a contempt for all Ukrainian at two levels of culture.

“On the one hand it is an everyday xenophobia — a sympathetic, but sometimes even not, mockery over the “khakhol - fatback eater”, “khakhol — bonehead”, over the Ukrainian language; this includes also the perception of Ukraine as a

“small brother”, who lives at the “big brother” cost, as well as the unveiled ma-levolence because of the Ukrainian economy crisis and other difficulties. On the other hand, it is a conceptual xenophobia — a quite complicated perception system towards Ukraine and the Ukrainian idea as a fabrication of the enemies of Russia, whose aim is to divide the “united Russian state”, “united Russian people”. The “revelation” of the “Ukrainian fiction” by the “devotees of the Russian unity” comes to life by a conspiracy model of the masonic plot, described by Dugin… 5

The lexicographer V. Dal stated the ethnic slur (dub) “khakhol” (“khakhlush-ka” (about a Ukrainian woman), “khakhlandia”) in the following words: Khokhol, the Ukrainian, maloros (from rus. malo — small, i.e. the small Russian); khokhlachka, khokhlushka. Khokhol is more stupid than a crow, but more cunning than the devil. Khokhol will not tell lies, but the truth as well. Both for water and chaff goes khokhol! The khokhol thresher bears in each side (the khokhols thresh by every other hand)”. 6

1 Istoriia Rusiv / Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 194.

2 Burchak L. Sluchainye zametky // Ukraynskaia zhyzn.- 1916- № 1.- S. 68.

3 Lukomskyi A. S. Ocherky yz moei zhyzny // Voprosy ystoryy.- 2001.- № 3.- S. 102.

4 Shyshov I. Ukrainska perspektyva v Rosii // Literaturna Ukraina.- 1991.- 31 zhovt.

5 Okara A. “Ukrainski tumany” ta “russkoe solntse” // Ukrainskyi vybir.- 1998.- № 5-6.- S. 10.

6 Dal V. Tolkovyi slovar zhyvoho velykorusskoho yazyka.- M.: HYS, 1955.- T. IV.- S. 563.

230

XXII. KHAKHOL

While the Modern dictionary of the Ukrainian language considers the word

“khakhol” to be a diminishing dub for a Ukrainian 1 the contemporary Russian dictionary states, that “khakhol” is an “expression of a Ukrainian, which at the beginning was used as a humiliation, then as a joke, familiarity”. 2

The historian B. Flora states that the term “khahol” to describe a man came to use in the written form since 1620. “In the “quarreling” correspondence between the voivide (the Slavic title that originally denoted the principal commander of a military force) of one of the Russian cities near the border and the

“derzhavets” (the lord, the ruler) of Serpejsk city (year of 1621) we can find the following: “And you call the orthodox peasants “non-baptized ones” and Ham-ites, but it is you, filthy khokhly, the servants of the Satan, the truly non-baptized ones, the grandchildren of Ham by your devils priscans (as in the text, original

“priscanami) khakhly”. “Filthy khakhly, — explains B. Flora, — is not a details of appearance any more, but the people of the other, the foreign and the enemy faith, which is seen from the addition of “the devil’s khokhly”.3

For the first time, the word “khokhol” is placed on record in the Russian dictionary of Polikarpov (the year of 1704). Since then one can find it in the most of the following Russian lexicons.

The reason why the Russian word “khokhly” appeared is quite clear. In July 971 the great prince (ukr. Kniaz) of Rus (Kyivan Rus) Sviatoslav the Conquerer and the emperor of Byzantium John I Tzimiskes met each other at the coast of the Danub. The historian Lev Diakon Kaloyskiy who was present at their meeting left for us a description of the prince Sviatoslav. He was “a man of a medium height, not very tall and not too short, with the bushy eyebrows and the light blue eyes, snub-nosed, without a beard, with a luxuriant and very long hair over the higher lip (moustaches). He had absolutely no hair on his head, but there was a piece of hair hanging down from one side of it — a sign of the noble generation (oseledets, “herring”). A robust neck, wide chest and all other parts of body were quite proportional. He looked very rugged and wild. One ear of him was adorned with a gold earring; the earring was chased with a gold carbuncle, framed with two pearls. His clothes were white and differed from the clothes of the other warriors only through its cleanness”. Not only Sviatoslav wore an oseledets as a sign of the noble generation. “In the ancient book miniature picture we can find a haircut that is similar to the Ukrainian oseledets. It is a long piece of hair hanging down from one side. Probably it was the princes’ haircut”. 4 У IX ст., за династії

1 Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy.- K., 1980.- T. I.- S. 134.

2 Slovar sovremennoho russkoho lyteraturnoho yazyka.- M.; L.: Yzd-vo “Nauka”, 1965.- T. 17.- S.

427.

3 Floria B. Kto takoi “khokhol”? // Rodyna.- 1999.- № 8.- S. 59.

4 Syromiatnykova Y. S. Istoryia prychesky: uchebnyk dlia teatr. khudozh.-tekhnych. uchylyshch.-

M.: Yskusstvo, 1989.- S. 84.

231

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Каролінгів, франкські воїни носили зачіску, що нагадувала український

оселедець. Треба тут сказати, що в середньовічній Європі християнська

церква виступала проти звичаю “вирощувати на обличчі щетину”. 1 As we can see from the description of the prince Sviatoslav, he had no beard. Other hetmans (the highest military office, and head of state, in Ukraine's Hetmanates, the Zaporizhian Host (1649–1764) and Ukrainian State (1918)б including B.

Khmelnytsky and Mazepa, worn no beards as well. In general, the Ukrainian peasants, as well as Polish, German, French and so on, had no beard. For the Eastern lands, a man who shaved her face changed his nature. “In the process of long-term relations, it occurred a steady opposition between the representatives of the Latinic world who altered their natural appearances and the representatives of the Orthodox world who wanted to keep it”. 2 It was the tsar Peter the Great first who cut the beards of boyars (a member of the highest rank) with his own hands after visiting the countries abroad. In 1699 he decreed a prohibition for the beard-wearing, except as for priests and peasants.

When prince Sviatoslav returned back after the Byzantium campaign to Kyiv, the Pechenegs instigated by the Greeks, attacked him near the thresholds of the Dnipro River and Sviatoslav died in a severe fight. In the middle of 16th century at that very place, near the threshold of the Dnipro river, appeared a famous peoples’ army — Kozatstvo. Following the princes’ military tradition, Zaporozh-ci (Cossacks of the Zaporizhian Sich) shaved their head and beard, leaving only moustaches and chupryna, just like Sviatoslav did. As the ole people, who still recalled the Cossacks, told to D. Yavornytski: “the girls like braids and Zapor-ozhci — chuprynas”. 3 Basing on the numerous pictures and the big amount of descriptions, we know precisely now, who the sign of a warrior looked like —

the oseledets (Cossack chupryna). “All head has been shaven, and just above the forehead a small round peace of hair, three fingers wide, has been left. Further this hair grown into a long braid, that could be hanged over the left side, or make a round and wrap it over the left ear, ot just draw to it and wrap over. Offer when it was no so long, only hanged a little bit below the ear, its end reached the shoulder. Such braid made face look quite belligerent and added original beauty”. 4

From this Cossack chupryna, the Russian name of the Ukrainian — “kha-kol” has probably appeared. “Our ancestors, the Ukrainian Zaporizhian Cossacks, shaved off their heads, and only on its top they left a lock or a scalp lock. As Ukraine developed closer relations to Moscow at the time of Boghdan 1 Brodel F. Materialna tsyvilizatsiia, ekonomika i kapitalizm, XV- XVIII st.- K.: Osnovy, 1995.-

T. I.- S. 280.

2 Floria B. Kto takoi “khokhol”? // Rodyna.- 1999.- № 8.- S. 5.

3 Еvarnytskyi D. Y. Zaporozhe v ostatkakh staryny y predanyiakh naroda.- SPb., 1888.- Chast II.-

S. 20.

4 Chub i chupryna: Zamitka dlia istorykiv, maliariv i aktoriv // ZNTSh.- 1901.- T. 44.- S 3.

232

XXII. KHAKHOL

Khmelnitsky, the Moscow tsar soldiery called us “khakhly” to laugh at us, as

“khakhol” means “a scalp lock” in the Moscow language”.1 Such etymology is supported by all linguists. In the third edition of the Dal dictionary, the origin of the dub “khakhol” is explained as following: “because of the oseledets, a long scalp lock (chub) on the parietal of the shaven head, worm in the old times by the men in Ukraine”. Generally in the Russian language the word “khakhol” means

“A poked out lock of hair or feather on the head”. 2 It is used in the name of some species of birds, animals and plants. For instance: khokhlaty zhavoronok (Crest-ed lark). Khohlaty pingvin (Southern rockhopper penguin). Khokhlatyie antilopy (Forest duikers). Khokhlaty shalfei (bluebeard). Khokhlaty luk (muscari como-sum) etc. We can also add — khokhlataya boroda (a copped beard), khokhlatyie brovi (copped eyebrows).

It should be mentioned, that there is a completely different, i.e. non-russian, etymology of the word “khokhol”, that has recently appeared. “There is an idea that the diminishing name of the Ukrainians “khokhol” comes from the Tatar

“khokh ollu” — “blue and yellow”. According to the other one, that “khokh ollu”

can be translated as “the son of the Heaven”3 There is one more theory: “khokhol — kokol (of the Tibetan origin”), means: a wreath, a crown, a ring gear”. 4

In different time the pseudo-ethnicon “khakhol” has acquired new meaning and has been perceived in different ways. Before the Battle of Poltava it had no abusing meaning in Ukraine yet. This is expressed in ironical way in “The History of Rus”: “The march of the Swedes into Ukraine did not look like an invasion, and had no hostile background, they just passed over the inhabitants’

villages and their fields, as friends and humble wanderers, occupying no property and making no robbery and all that harm, that usually make own troops under the excuse that “I am a servant of the tsar! I serve the God and the Country for all Christian world! All hens and honkers, unmarried women and girls belong to us by the right of the warrior and by the order of his Honor!” To opposite, the Swedes demanded nothing from the people and took nothing by force but when they founded something, then bought it by the inhabitants’ own good will, trading and paying with cash. Each Swede was taught to speak by their commanders to speak the following words in Russian: “Don’t be afraid! We are yours and you are ours!”. However, despite it, the locals’ behavior was similar to that of the wild Americans or fanciful Asians that time. Coming out from their abatises and shelters, the were astonished by the Swedes’ honesty, but as they neither spoke in Russian between each other nor crossed themselves, considered them to be non-baptized and non-Christians, and having seen them drinking milk and eating 1 Vyselenyts Hryts. Khto my? - Troitsk, 1918.- S. 3.

2 Ozhehov S. Y. Slovar russkoho yazyka.- M., 1978.- S. 798.

3 Shliakh peremohy.- 1991.- 2 kvit.

4 Drach I. Novi virshi // Suchasnist.- 1995.- № 10.- S. 6.

233

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

meat in Friday, decided that they were godless unorthodoxies and killed them wherever they found the Swedes in small groups and one alone and sometimes captured them and took to the Russian Sovereign receiving money for that, first with money for some coins and later for a cup of vodka and greetings: “Thanks, khokhlionok (a little khokhol)!”.1

The defeat under Poltava, the main reason of which had been described by the author of “The History of Rus”, destroyed the Cossacks’ State (Hetmanate).

The 18th century became one of the most tragic in the Ukrainian history. The Russian Imperial forces initiated a constant process of interference in all spheres of the people life. Sadly joking over the political situation of that time, the poet of the Cossacks’ State Ivan Kotliarevsky puts the following prayer into the lips of Juno:

Oh only let the Latin kind

To keep for each and every time

The name, the language, faith and form.2

However, they failed to keep the very name. Instead an abusing dub “khakhol” became more and more popular. In his work “Moskal (from Moskva —

Moscow, i.e. the Russian) the Wizard” Kotliarevsky describes an ethnonymic confrontation of the people by-word that was an echo of the ethnic confrontation, which passed through the eye of censorship by some miracle. On one hand, — “You can be a friend with moskal, but hold the stone in your bosom”, and on the other — “Khokhly worth nothing, but their voices are really good”.3

Kotliarevsky The Aeneid shows the fiasco of the Cossacks’ history, the violent slavery of the free people, the establishment of the tyrannical regime and also a loss of the self-appeliation and its switch into “khakhol”, that should be emphasized.

We’re lost! As the dogs at market,

Are your necks ready for the yokes?

By our khokhols’ status we

Will neither bull, nor cow be

But will be certainly an ox:

You’ll go with plough to baker who

Is waiting already for wood,

Or maybe you’ll become a horse. 4

1 Istoriia Rusiv / Ukr. pereklad I. Dracha.- K.: Rad. pysmennyk, 1991.- S. 264-265.

2 Kotliarevskyi І. Poetychni tvory. Dramatychni tvory. Lysty.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1982.- S. 207.

3 Kotliarevskyi I. Poetychni tvory. Dramatychni tvory. Lysty.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1982.- S. 105.

4 Kotliarevskyi I. Poetychni tvory. Dramatychni tvory. Lysty.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1982.- S. 105.

234

XXII. KHAKHOL

S. Rudnicky offers another expression. “The Ukrainian feels the separate identity of his people much ore better and keeping his national qualities even in the farthest and largest colonies, in the most foreign environment, became a reason of the well-known Russian by-word: “khokhol will be khokhol everywhere”.1

The prohibition of the names was an idea of the Catherin the Great. After the Pugachov’s rebellion had been strangled, even the river Yaik was renamed into Ural. Having eliminated the Zaporizhian Sich, Catherin issued the following manifesto: “Hebery We want to inform the loyal subjects of our Empire that the Zaporizhan Sich has been finally destroyed and for from now forth the very name of the Zaporizhian Cossacks is prohibited, as the defiant deeds of this Cossacks, having violated our High orders, insulted out Emperor Majesty”. 2

Analyzing the term “khakhol” in the historical exploration Two Russian People, the fine expert of the people mentality M. Kostomarow drew the following conclusion: “I would also add, that among all the names that were invented to distinguish our people from the Great Russians (rus. Velikorossy, i.e. people coming from Russia), probably the most popular one is “khakhol”. Obviously it has become popular not because its etymology but only due to the way in which the Great Russians have a habit to use it. The word “khakhol” is being pronounced. The Great Russian means a real individual type under it. A character who speaks some certain language, has his own traditions, his own household and life circumstances, some typical national boat race appears before the Great Russian with pronouncing the word “khakhol”.3

This is a good hour to draw the attention on the fact that M. Kostomarov emphasized how the word “khakhol” should be pronounced correctly. According to the phonetic rules of the Ukrainian orthography, this word in Ukrainian texts should be written via the letter “a”, as everybody pronounces this specific term in this way (the Ukrainians as well). As due to the etymologic rules of the Russian orthography, they write “khokhol”, but read “khakhol”. In addition, by the way, the difference between the Russian and Ukrainian etymologic orthography can be represented by any Russian sentence: “Khorosha kholodnaya voda, kogda khochetsa pit’” (the cold water is good when you want to drink). According to the rules of the phonetics, this sentence should have been written in the following way: “kharasha khalodnaya vada, kagda khochitsa pit’”.4 Thus, writing the word

“khakhol” via “a” in the Ukrainian texts is a mistake.

After the prohibition of the Ukrainian printing by the Russian minister of internal affairs Valuyev, a group of the Ukrainian patriots leaded by M. Kostoma-1 Rudnytskyi S. Osnovy zemleznannia Ukrainy.- Uzhhorod, 1926.- S. 37.

2 Geller M. Ya. Ystoryia Rossyiskoi Ymperyy: V trekh tomakh.- M.: “MYK”, 1997.- T. II.- S. 204.

3 Kostomarov M. Dvi ruski narodnosty.- Kyiv; Liaiptsih, 1906.- S. 25.

4 Bytsylly P. Natsyia y yazyk // Sovremennye zapysky.- 1929.- T. XL.- S. 409.

235

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

rov, came to Valuyev with a quite protest. This episode in the Valuyev’s notebook is expressed as follows: “Today several individuals came to me, Kostomarov as well, who was very upset about the suspension of the popular publication in khokhols’ dialect”. 1

In the first half of the 19. Century the Ukrainians working for Russian feudal lords were officially called “malorosy” (i.e. the small Russians), but in the everyday life, of course, only “khakhly”. Especially the term “khakhly” was used towards the Ukrainian countrymen. “In the Voronezh Gouvernorate the Great Russian inhabitants appeal to the small Russians with the word “khakhly” and their wives as “khakhlushki” and the small Russians in their turn call the Great Russians “moskali” and the Great Russian women “moskowki”.2 For the Russian imperial society, the “Ukrainian countrymen continued to live in a traditional Ukrainian environment, stay friendly, making no harm and even picturesque in their dances and songs, however in general still to be uncivilized, stupid khakhly”.3 Although, they thought much about the domesticity and a truly farmer’s love to the earth of “khakhly”.

Here for instance is the writing of a high tsar nobleman about the “khokhly” — farmers: “In the Terskaya and Kuban Gouvernorates, soon after the final conciliation of Caucasus, and especially after the Turkish campaign, the life activity has grown to an unusual for Russia tempo soon. In this oblasts, that were the theatres of the bloody events short time ago, where there was nothing except the fortified villages (auls), where the mountain inhabitants lived, and the villages (stanitsas) of Cossacks, who were more busy with securing from the raids of the Tatars, not with the farming. After the conciliation of the Shire, the Cossacks’

stanitsas, generals and officers who had taken part in conquering the Shire, received its fruitful land. And as nobody of this sides were inclined to farming, the officers sold their lots and the stanitsas leased them almost for free. The price of the desiatina (land measure equivalent to 2.7 acres) was not higher than 12

rubles for sold, and for leasing it varied from 5 to 10 kopeks. And the settlers rushed to it from all sides. First appeared the people from Tawriya (Southern Ukraine), driving a dozen or two sheeps in front of them; Mazayevy, Nikolienki, Petrenki and many others — they are now prosperous people having hundreds of thousands of sheeps and many million rubles in their ownership, then the farmers came, khokhly on their creaky non-fettered carriages, with robust bulls in the harnesses, and after them our countrymen on their hungered fleabags as well.

And it constantly came more and more people. All this stuff digged the earth 1 Dnevnyk P. A. Valueva, mynystra vnutrennykh del.- M., 1961.- T. 1.- S. 239.

2 Voronezhskye khokhly // Kyevskaia staryna.- 1885.- T. XI.- S. 613.

3 Kappeler A. Mazepyntsy, malorossy, khokhly: ukrayntsy v еtnycheskoi yerarkhyy Rossyiskoi ymperyy // Rossyia - Ukrayna: ystoryia vzaymootnoshenyi.- M.: Shkola “Iazyky russkoi kultury”, 1997.- S. 137.

236

XXII. KHAKHOL

houses, builded pise-walled or daubed houses, and the villages appeared one after another. The steppe domesticated khokhly adjusted themselves to the new conditions in the best way and soon started to live confidently and wealthy. Many of the “Russian”, including the Russians themselves, were wrecked by a passion for prowling. Having lived week or two on one place together, and seeing no rivers of gold heading straight into their hands they continued their journeys to find the land flowing with milk and honey, constantly looking for the better life, getting poor as the result and selling all their rests to this khokhly they started to work for them and returned back home with nothing, broken and constantly singing “there is no place for hen to walk, the world’s so small”.1

The revival of the Ukrainian literature, which witnessed as well about the political revival, ruined the Russian ideal archetype of the “stupid khakhol”. That’s why, representing a kind of a liberal, as a “tribune”, being a “watchman of the good of Empire against the Ukrainian sedition” in deed, 2 the critic W. Belinsky speaks with hatred about the “khokhlys patriotism” of Taras Shevchenko. 3 “This khokhol radical has written two libels — one about the His Majesty the Emperor and the other one about the Her Majesty the Empress... I haven’t read this libels as no one from my acquaintances has”. 4 Despite he “hasn’t read” them, it was no obstacle for him to condemn the “khokhly language and khokhly literature”.

In his letter to the P. Annenkow he expresses his embarresment: “I hate these khokhly. Still they are just sheeps — but they try to be tolerant in the name of the dumplings with the pork fat!”.5

The editor of the ukrainophobic newspaper Kyivlianin W. Shulgin put the word “the Ukrainians” in quote marks, but wrote “khakhly” without them. Basi-cally, the humiliating name of the Ukrainians “khakhol” has been widely spread in the Russian literature for a long time already. In the poem My pedigree Pushkin had written the following at that time already:

My grandpa was no bondman merchant,

Nor blackened shoes on royal foots,

And singed no songs with aulic clercks,

Became no king with khokhol roots.

Or, for instance, Lev Tolstoy In his story The Two Old Men, “Elisey goes and comes up to two khokhlushki. The women are walking and talking with each other.

1 Vranhel N. Vospomynanye (Ot krepostnoho prava do bolshevykov).- Berlyn, 1924.- S. 130.

2 Hrabovych H. Do istorii ukrainskoi literatury.- K.: Osnovy, 1997.- S. 124.

3 Poltava L. Krytyk Vissarion Bielinskyi i Taras Shevchenko // Vyzvolnyi shliakh.- 1961.- Kn. III.-

S. 185.

4 Belynskyi V. H. Polnoe sobranye sochynenyi.- M.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1956.- T. 12.- S. 441.

5 Belinskyi V. H. Polnoe sobranye sochynenyi.- M.: Yzd-vo AN SSSR, 1956.- T. 12.- S. 441.

237

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Elisey entered the yard; and sees — a man lies near the mound of earth, beardless, thin, with his shirt rucked into the trousers like khokhly do”. The Russian peasants didn’t tucked their shirt in pants, nor shave the beards.

It has been spotted, that the Russian authors liked the most describing “the nice khokhlushki are chatting with the small Russian young men in a delightful open”.1

V. Korolenko in his novel The Blind Musician wrote, “The old man played with his moustaches and roared with laughter, telling an a pure khokhly humor the appropriate story”. Or I. Lazhechnikov in the novel The House of Ice, “Khokhol reveals his kind on a shaven head. This is a small Russian, who wished to have Volynski at the inspection”. In 30th years of the 20th century, the west-Ukraine literature reviewers noticed that the “soviet writers in their works call our compatriots “khakhly” as before.2 Many of the contemporary Russian writers use the word “khakhol” in the author’s speech, among them are O. Solzhenitsyn, who is a half-Ukrainian himself.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the term “khakhol” in the Russian literature and journalism was used everywhere. Here is the first random example,

“Khokhly-addicted people must suppose, that either the two languages — the great and small Russian — are so similar one to another, that they are nothing but one and the same language, or that the small Russian play-writers thins in Russian and translate the thought in Russian into the khokhly’s language”.3

The Russian literature of that period was full of characters of the half-goonish khakhly. Volodymyr Vynnychenko published a protest against it. “Each time —

complained Vynnychenko, - when I take some Russian novel about “khakhly”, the name that has been used in the Russian literature since the old times, in my hands, I get wrapped over by the feeling of disadvantage, shame and fear. Always and everywhere in the Russian literature “khakhol” is a little bit foolish, a little bit cunning, lazy for sure, melancholic and sometimes kind-hearted”.4

Analyzing the Ukrainian characters in the Russian literature of the pre-Revolution period, L. Zhygmailo states, that the “Russian belletristic, reflecting the Ukrainian or “khakhly” characters, in its works, who accidentally have been occurred in their sight, still won’t break the frames of the ethnographism and represents the type of a funny “khakhol”, a countryman or an intelligent Ukrainophilist, compulsive with a “lock of hair”, in the “embroidered shirt”, 1 Volkonskyi A. M. V chem hlavnaia opasnost? Maloros yly ukraynets? - Uzhhorod, 1929.- S. 3.

2 Hranychka L. Khakhly heroiamy moskovskykh sovitskykh povistei // Vistnyk.- 1935.- Kn. 2.-

S. 104.

3 Suvoryn A. S. Khokhly y khokhlushky.- SPb., 1907.- S. 82.

4 Vynnychenko V. Otkrytoe pysmo k russkym pysateliam // Ukraynskaia zhyzn.- 1913.- № 10.-

S. 29-30.

238

XXII. KHAKHOL

who spits through his teeth, laboriously drinks “horilka” (Ukrainian vodka) and recalls the devil after each word”.1

But it would be unfair to state that each and every Russian writers mocked over the “khakhly”. The Nobel prizewinner of 1933 Ivan Bunin, after his trip to Ukraine estimated “khakhly” in another way. “I liked khokhly at a glance. I noticed the stark comparison between the rough great Russian man and khokhol at once. Our men are mostly exhausted, in holed peasant coat, lapti and leggings, with pinched features and bushy heads. And khokhly make a pleasant impression: high, healthy and robust with a calm and kind look, dressed in a clean new clothes. And the places after passing Kursk are joyful as well: the plains of the field reach such far away, that the people of the middle and northern governorates have no idea of”.2 Про знамениту п’єсу А. Чехова “Вишневий сад” І. Бунін

сказав, “Где это были помещичьи сады, сплошь состоявшие из вишен?

“Вишневый садок” был только при хохлацких хатах”998 I. Bunin said the following thing regarding to the well known play of A. Chekhov The Cherry Trees’ Garden, “Have you ever seen the noblemen gardens consisting only from cherry trees? A “Cherry trees’ garden” can be only around the khokhly houses”.

In the Russian army “khakhly” were not quizzed over as well. In the army

“khakhly” were a desirable element: obedient, unspoiled, smart.3 By the by, “some guard regiments consisted almost completely from the Ukrainians, such as Volyn-skii, Izmaylovskii, Preobrazhenskii, Semenovskii ant others”.4 1917, when a democratic revolution erupted in Petrograd, it was the Ukrainian guard regiments which acted as a main assault power against the tsarism. Vynnychenko asked the Russian liberals, “When the thing of Revolution was narrow escape, were that not the Ukrainians who saved it, were that not the Ukrainian regiments, not these volyntsi (from Bolynskii regiment) and izmaylovtsi (from Izmaylovkii regiment)”.5

An interesting thing is an ironic self-evaluation of a famous humorist Anton Chekhov, who wrote, “But if I wouldn’t be a khokhol, if I wouldn’t write at least two hours a day every day, I would already have had my own villa. But I’m a Khokhol, I’m a lazy man”.6

At the dawn of the 19th century, the countrymen of the Upper Dnieper region (the area along the river Dnipro), to the opposite of the countrymen living in Na-ddnistrianshchyna (over the river Dniester) and Zakarpattia (the region over the Carpathian Mountains) lost its national name and partially accepted the tern “the 1 Zhyhmailo L. Ukraynskye typy v russkoi belletrystyke // Ukraynskaia zhyzn.- 1917.- № 1/2.- S. 25.

2 Bunyn Y. A. Rasskazy.- M.: Pravda, 1983.- S. 182.

3 Kapustianskyi M. Pokhid ukrainskykh armii na Kyiv-Odesu v 1919 rotsi.- Lviv: Vyd-vo

“Chervona Kalyna”, 1922.- Ch. III.- S. 17.

4 Veryha V. Vyzvolni zmahannia v Ukraini.- Lviv, 1998.- T. 1.- S. 61.

5 Vynnychenko V. Vidrodzhennia natsii.- Kyiv; Viden, 1920.- Chast. I.- S. 51.

6 Chekhov A. P. Sobranye sochynenyi v 12 tomakh.- M., 1957.- T. 12: Pysma.- S. 209.

239

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

small Russian” as the self-appellation, but mostly the scornful Russian seal of the soul and body — “khakhol”. Olexander Dovzhenko in the scenario of the film Zacharovana Desna ( The enchanted Desna river) recalls a dialogue between him and his father as he was a little boy,

“— Father!

— Yes, son?

— Who are the people sailing over there?

— They are from far away, from Oriol. The Russian people, sailing from Russia.

— And who are we? Aren’t we Russians?

— No, we are no Russians.

— But who we are then, dad? Who are we?

— Who knows that. We are simple people, son. Khakhly, those who befarm the land. To say, we are the working people…”1

Speaking about how the Moskals appropriated our name to them, E.

Chikalenko writes, “To say it in simple way, they’ve just taken our passport with force, and gave us the new one with a Byzantium name — “the small Russians”, or in the Russian language, “khakhly”, as our ancestors had shaved the hair and left only a lock (“hokhol” in Russian)”.2

The crush of tsarist autocracy in 1917 showed all tragic ethnonymic situation in Ukraine. “The main disaster of that time was that the Ukrainians haven’t had a commonly adopted national name”.3 The contemporaries noticed that many times with pain. “From that quite conversation in the teacher’s room 1915

I learned for the first time, that the language that we speak, is spoken by over 30 million people; that those people, my parents as well, are called the Ukrainians, neither the small Russians, nor Khokhly, nor Russians, nor peasants, as they are scornfully called now”.4 In May 1917 the Central Council of Ukraine appealed to the intelligent people: “Having absorbed the idea of central power with the milk of autocracy, got used to see Ukraine merely as a South-Western part of the Russian empire, and the Ukrainians as “khakhly” who differ from the Russian only through some small household details, never striving to learn the life of these “khakhly” and their ideals which have never vanished even under the burden of the tsarist autocracy, the middle-class intellectuals were not able, found no inner power to rise to the right understanding of the process which was going on at that time”.5 Such revolutionary conscriptions were 1 Dovzhenko O. Zacharovana Desna. Ukraina v ohni. Shchodennyk.- K., 1995.- S. 49-50.

2 Chykalenko Ye. Shchodennyk (1907-1917).- Lviv, 1931.- S. 348.

3 Yeremeiv M. Polkovnyk Yevhen Konovalets na tli ukrainskoi vyzvolnoi borotby // Yevhen Konovalets ta yoho doba.- Miunkhen, 1974.- S. 121.

4 Kostiuk H. Zustrichi i proshchannia. Spohady.- Edmonton, 1987.- Kn. persha.- S. 18.

5 Khrystiuk P. Zamitky i materialy do istorii ukrainskoi revoliutsii 1917-1920 rr.- Viden, 1921.-

T. 1.- S. 57.

240

XXII. KHAKHOL

heard from everywhere. “Many of us, the Ukrainians, have even forgotten their national name and call themselves “the small Russians”, “khokhly”, “the south Russians”, in other words just like each occupant wishes”.1 At that time, the idea of the autonomy of Ukraine came to the foreground. “Without an autonomy we shall have no native school, but the Russian one. That school, which only messes our children’s heads about and gives no education. There will be a school, which teaches to disrespect father and mother, as they are the so called

“khakhly”, and the boy who speaks one or two words in katsap language, he is no khakhol already but a nobleman”.2

The young general of the Ukrainian People’s Repubic Yurko Tiutiunnyk described the tragic ethnonimic collisions in the revolutionary year of 1917 in the Eastern Ukraine from his own experience. There must have been formed a military unit from the Ukrainian “men in coats”. To do that, according to the tradition of that time, a viche (people’s meeting) was summoned.

“Some seven thousand people came. Opening the viche I suggested:

— Those of us who are Ukrainians, rise your hand up!

Not more than three hundred hands rised up.

— The small Russians, rise your hands up!

Approximately a half of men rised their hands up.

— Khakhly! Raise up your hands

And again one third of the present people rised their hands up.

— The Ukrainians, the Little Russians and Khalhky! Rise your hands up all together!

Over the heads of some thousand people rised a sea of hands. The separate people who had not risen their hands were seen among the others”.3

During 1914-1917 there was a camp for the prisoners of the Russian army who came from Ukraine in the German city of Rastatt. Among the great amount of the imprisoned only a few called themselves “the Ukrainians”.

There was a total mess in the names: “the small Russians”, “the Russians”,

“the Khakhly”.4

An offending term “khakhol” to describe the Ukrainians, as it has already been mentioned, is quite widely spread in Russia nowadays. “The first lesson that is becoming an unseparated part of the national consciousness of a Ukrainian is, that Russia never had, does not have now, and for sure will never have any interest in Ukraine except it complete devastation, to the very bottom, to the foot, to the roots of Ukrainian nation. We can see that from the most refined philosopher to the most provincial alcoholic — too much Russians are taught a fatal obses-1 Lyst vid ukraintsiv-katolykiv z Kyieva.- Poltava, 1917.- S. 4.

2 Chy ye v nas po zakonu avtonomiia? - Vyd-vo “Sich” u Kyievi, [b. r.].- S. 5.

3 Tiutiunnyk Yu. Revoliutsiina stykhiia // Kvartalnyk Vistnyka.- 1937.- Ch. 4.- S. 9-10.

4 Istoriia ukrainskoi hromady v Rashtati.- [B. m. i b. r.] Vydannia SVU.- S. 52.

241

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

sion of the Ukrainophobia. It makes one of the main elements of the “Russian idea”, it is now boiling with an insane, indeed wild hatred to all the Ukrainians in the Russian parliament, it is printed of the walls of the Crimean cities “A good khakhol is a dead khakhol!”1 Even the Ukrainian money are scornfully called

“the khokhlodollars”.

This deadly for the Ukrainians and suicidal for the Russians themselves obsession determines each step, each word, each gesture towards Ukraine from the current Moscow power, the political, military, economical, scientific and cultural staff, whatever camouflage they use. We must admit, that some hundred years old great Russian racism, Nazism as the spiritual base for the worldview, it seems the last and decisive campaign to completely destroy the Ukrainian nation, is now being finished”.2

There is a Ukrainian national legend about how khokhly appeared: “Jesus Christ and St. Peter were walking through the field, and a wedding train was coming towards them. The drunk people started laughing at them. The first man started to bevel and tell Jesus Christ and Peter, “Why are you tramps going around here? You must be farming, not walking around the world at a loose end!” Saint Peter said to Christ whispering, “This man will be the Khakhol, a farmer: he will be farming all his life”. The Christ said, “Do whatever you want with him”. Another drunk man cried to them laughing, “Why are you walking around here; don’t you see you’ve got no lapti; you should braid lapti not visit somebody’s weddings!” St. Peter said, “And this man will be the Moskal, and he will braid lapti and wear them”.3

From the end of the 20th of the 19th century Ukraine, according to the researchers, “was a colony without limits of the inhabitants by the colour of the skin and directly by the nationality (although the scorn towards “khokhly” from Russians despite the social class of the both is well-known, for instance a Russian worker could behave absolutely haughty with a Ukrainian middle class intellectual)”.4 At that time, one could hear: “You will go to your Khakhlandia, and there you will speak your dog language”.5

According to E. Sverstyuk, “centuries of captivity and national deprivation have developed a type of Ukrainian inhabitants, who call themselves with a derogatory nickname „Khokhol“ by telling phraseological units meaning that their nicknames are not so important as relationship between them and those who 1 Drach I. Chy pokaietsia Rosiia? // Zlochyny panivnoho radianskoho komunizmu proty ukrainskoho narodu.- K., 1994.- S. 13-14.

2 Drach I. Vazhki roky ukrainstva // Suchasnist.- 1993.- № 11.- S. 97.

3 P. Y. Yz oblasty malorusskykh narodnykh lehend // Еtnohrafycheskoe obozrenye.- 1890.- Kn.

VII.- S.94.

4 Rusnachenko A. M. Natsionalno-vyzvolnyi rukh v Ukraini: seredyna 1950-kh - pochatok 1990-kh rokiv.- K.: Vyd-vo im. Oleny Telihy, 1998.- S. 41.

5 Smal-Stotskyi R. Ukrainska mova v Sovietskii Ukraini.- Varshava, 1936.- S. 49.

242

XXII. KHAKHOL

use the nicknames („you’d better call us the pots as plant us in the oven“). The

„Khokhol“ also has some relevance to the ancestors who were ready to go into the fire for the honor of their names. He has its own ethics and morality, his sense of humor, his sayings and songs. All low-grade, paltry, cautious, cowardly and farcical part of Ukrainian folklore has been produced by him and belongs to him — to the „Khokhol“, who wants just to eat and drink, who is growing to become a fat, smug, "triumphant boor", who avoids chains of honor and duties, and therefore is not ready to hold the Ukrainian spirit.“1

Along with the term "Khokhol" Russian imperial chauvinism came up with a number of derogatory labels to denote Ukrainian patriots. In the 18th century such label was the term „mazyepinets.“ „Words „mazepynets“ and „Mazepa“

began to be used in order to denote other people by those who did not wish anything good to our people, who treated the Ukrainians, the Ukrainian intelligentsia with evil, by whose who call themselves as Black-Hundreders, „nationalists“,

„allies“, “truly Russians.“2

Russian Orthodox Church, by order of the tsar, discredited the name of Ivan Mazepa. Russian priests, not without success, reproached Ukrainian patriots in front of the benighted „Khokhol“ flock with these words: „you are traitors, betrayers, you’ve got a snake got into your heart, sent by the Jews.“3 Professional Ukrainophobe Pikhno was happy with the fact that „nowadays “Khokhol“ is used to call all betrayers with „Mazepa“.4

After some time „mazepynets“ gradually turned into „maloros“ (junior Russian), loyal servants of Romanov dynasty. In the first half of 19th century the positive image of „maloros“ began to dominate in Russian public consciousness, they were perceived as a colorful version of the Russian people.5 1021 In terms of police and officials of St. Petersburg „Mazepa“-movement as dangerous patriotic movement began to wane, and „in the 19th century Ukrainians became

„khokhols“ in the eyes of Russians, some kind of prototype of an uncivilized peasant.“6 But on the eve of World War I the great idea of Mazepa about the right of Ukrainians to have their own state was reborn. The fight against the hated by Russia „Mazepa“-movement started again. "Black-Hundred “Maloroses“ as Savenko, began now to call themselves „bohdanivets“ in memory of Bohdan 1 Sverstiuk Ye. Na sviati nadii: Vybrane.- K.: Nasha vira, 1999.- S. 273.

2 Kovalenko-Kolomatskyi H. Chym shkodiat nam mazepyntsi? - Peterburh, 1914.- S. 5.

3 Aleksyi Y. Probuzhdenye Ukrainy.- Pochaev, 1914.- S. 38.

4 Pykhno D. Y. V osade: Polytycheskye staty.- K., 1906.- S. 289.

5 Kappeler A. Mazepyntsy, malorossy, khokhly: ukrayntsy v etnycheskoi yerarkhyy Rossyiskoi imperii // Rossyia - Ukrayna: ystoryia vzaymootnoshenyi.- M.: Shkola “Iazyki russkoi kultury”, 1997.- S. 130.

6 Kappeler A. Mazepyntsy, malorossy, khokhly: ukrayntsy v etnycheskoi yerarkhyy Rossyiskoi imperii // Rossyia - Ukrayna: ystoryia vzaymootnoshenyi.- M.: Shkola “Iazyki russkoi kultury”, 1997.- S. 130.

243

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Khmelnytsky, who annexed Ukraine to Moscow, opposing themselves to „mazepynets“.1

Since 1919 the term „mazepynets“ gave place to a new term „petlurivets“.

Although the Bolsheviks were hiding their ethnic preferences in social and class terms, for Ukrainians they found a personal time - „petlurivets“. Fighting „petlurivets“ filled the pre-war Soviet Ukraine’s life. The „petlurivets“, the Petlura-movement were seen in everybody with national consciousness and were brutally slaughtered. The „Mazepa-movement gave place to Petlura-movement, 210

years after Ukraine’s last gun roared, and in 55 years after the final, categorical and decisive announcement not only the Ukrainian people, but even „there have been no, there is no and there cannot be any Ukrainian language“.2

The Second World War spawned in Moscow a new term — „banderovets“.

„In terms of the center and Russian society Ukrainian nationalists „petlurivets“

and „banderovets“ became heirs of „mazepynets“.3„Everyone who was sent to work to Russia from Ukraine were „khohkols“ and „banderovets“. All this, however, as if in jest. But when Ukraine in the 1991th declared independence, best friends staged a ruckus: „you damn „khohkols“! We saved you from fascists! We gave you culture! Betrayers...“.4 Denying the right of the Ukrainian people to their own state, Moscow with cruel hate began to call the whole western branch of the Ukrainian people and all patriots in general, whose aim was to combat free, independent, united Ukraine, with the name of Bandera. For Ukrainophobes even Ukrainian language became of “Bandera“-kind. “Director of the CIS Institute Konstantin Zatulin writes in the newspapers that an independent Ukraine is not a „brotherly Slavic state, but an in the best way politically organized Bandera-movement, and „banderovets“ is not a brother to a Russian citizen“.5

An outstanding contemporary theater director, natively from Lviv, Roman Viktiuk, who now lives permanently in Moscow, confessed to a Lviv newspaper correspondent that he is often being miscalled „banderovets“. Asked what content he puts into the word „banderovets“ Roman Viktiuk said: „this is not a word, but destination. „Banderovets“ means to be free“.6 These Viktyuks words reaf-firm an eventually well-known fact that Moscow failed to attach a humiliating meaning to the term „banderovets“ in western parts of Ukraine.

1 Chykalenko Ye. Shchodennyk (1907-1917).- Lviv, 1931.- S. 254-255.

2 Dal V. Tolkovyi slovar zhyvoho velykorusskoho yazyka.- M.: HYS, 1955.- T. IV.- S. 563.

4 PiK.- 2000.- № 10.- S. 5.

5 Lanovenko O. Rosiia: ne velmy pryvablyvyi portret v interieri // Suchasnist.- 2000.- № 3.- S. 93.

6 Ekspres.- 1998.- 7-15 bereznia.

244

XXIII. KATSAP

Alongside an old term “Moskal”, another ethnophaulism “Katsap” and its derivatives appeared in the spoken language of East Ukraine in the 18th century. In particular, an expletive “katsap” was used by Ukrainians in private letters. Taras Shevchenko in his letter to Yakiv Kukharenko dated 30 September, 1842, asked: “Is it my fault that I was born neither Katsap nor the French” (underlining by T. Shevchenko). 1

Yakiv Kukharenko was a Ukrainian writer, ethnographist, assigned otaman of Cossacks. Shevchenko dedicated to him his poem Moskaleva Krynytsia ( The Soldier's Well). Ya. Kukharenko wrote to the poet who had returned from exile, “Heh, Taras, these damn katsaps will ruin you! What are you up to? You’re running your head against a brick wall again. Forget them”. 2 Remembering the times of “the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius”, P. Kulish wrote: “We got to be haters of those who, to our mind were guilty in the poor state of our native Ukraine, but moskals in general, this rude and incapable of anything sublime people, we called Katsaps.

Shevchenko was fruitful in sarcasm, jokes and poems about Great Russians ”. 3

Mykola Gogol wrote to his compatriot, a historian, philologist and ethnographist Mykhail Maksymovych, “You should really leave this “Katsapia” (Land of Katsaps) and come to Hetmanland. I am thinking of doing the same and leave this place next year. We are fools, to tell the truth! Why and who we are making this sacrifice of everything”. 4

Lesia Ukrainka did not really like L. Tolstoy’s The Power of Darkness, a play about Russian people’s life, which was not typical of L.Tolstoy, who preferred writing about aristocracy, and she even took the French translation of the book to see “how they could render such katsap- style in French”.5 In a letter to her sister O.P. Kosach she wrote, “Ivan the Terrible was represented in Italian style by Italians… they could not behave like Katsaps, only Ivan the Terrible looked like Katsap”. 6

Inofficial term “Katsap” denoting ethnicity got to be so popular that it was included into dictionaries, both Ukrainian and Russian. For example, there are the most characteristic instances of the use of this term.

1 Shevchenko T. Povne vydannia tvoriv.- Varshava; Lviv, 1935.- T. XI: Lysty.- S.21.

2 Biletskyi O. I. Pysmennyk i epokha.- K.: Derzhlitvydav URSR, 1963.- S. 397.

3 Fedoruk O. Do pytannia pro Shevchenkovi vplyvy na Panteleimona Kulisha // Panteleimon Kulish: Materialy i doslidzhennia.- Lviv; Niu-York: Vyd-vo P. Kots, 2000.- S. 67.

4 Pysma N. V. Hoholia.- SPb.: Yzd. A. Marksa, [b. r.].- T. I.- S. 253.

5 Ukrainka Lesia. Tvory: V piaty tomakh.- K., 1956.- T. 5.- S. 10.

6 Odarchenko P. Lesia Ukrainka pid hnitom suchasnoi sovietskoi tsenzury // Lesia Ukrainka. 1871-1971.- Filiadelfiia, 1971-1980.- S. 277.

245

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

B. Grinchenko’s dictionary gave the following definition of this pseudoethnonym:

“Katsap, pa”, m. the Great Russian. They look and see a Katsap enter. dem.

Katsapchik, resp. Katsapiuga.

Katsapenia, niaty, n. the Great Russian’s child.

Katsapka, ky, f. the Great Russian woman. He came to a village, heard a Katsapka crying.

Katsapnia, ni, collective from Katsap.

Katsapskyi, а, adjective from the Great Russian.

Katsapchyk, ka, dem. Katsap.

Katsapshchyna, ny, Great Russia. He cursed Katsaps and Katsapshchyna.

Katsapiuga, gy , m. resp. of Katsap”. 1

A Russian lexicographer V. Dal interpreted this word in the following way:

“Katsap is a nickname given by the Malorusy (Little Russians) to the Velikorusy (Great Russians)” 2 In the latest dictionary of the Russian language published after the World War II we can find the following:

“Katsap, arch. colloq. contemptuous name of the Russian (as distinct from the Ukrainian). Shouting,… haggling Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Turkish, French, Katsaps, and Khokhols were on the pavements. (A.N. Tolstoy. Four Ages).

Katsapka, arch. colloq. Female for Katsap.

Katsapsky, arch. colloq. Relating to Katsap”. 3

In the Dictionary of Contemporary Ukrainian:

“Katsap, а, m, arch., colloq. Contemptuous name for the Russian. The fair was buzzing…, resellers clattering, Jipsies crossing heart, Katsaps swearing.

(Vovchok, VI, 1956, 294);

Katsaps came, had dinner, laughed at her though she did not get it [did not understand] (Myrny, І, 1954, 67).

Katsapka, y, f, arch., colloq. Female of Katsap.

Katsapskyi, a, e, arch., colloq. Adj. for Katsap. His [Gogol’s] immortal types described in “Dead Souls“ are an example of of our wealty men, not Katsap-skykh (those of Katsaps) (Myrnyi, V, 1955, 410); Your jokes, like Katsap’s. —

You’d better grow a Katsapska ( Katsap’s) beard, it would match you much better (D. Bedzyk, Dnipro…, 1951, 210)”. 4

As we can see, dictionaries prove a wide use of pseudo-ethnonym “Katsap”

in Ukraine. The same is proven by literature.

1 Slovar ukrainskoi movy.- K., 1908.- T. II.- S. 226-227.

2 Dal V. Tolkovyi slovar zhyvoho Velykorusskoho yazyka.- SPb., 1881.- S. 99.

3 Slovar sovremennoho russkoho lyteraturnoho yazyka.- M.; L.: Yzd. AN SSSR, 1956.- T. V.- S.

886.

4 Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1973.- T. IV.- S. 123.

246

XXIII. KATSAP

“Tribal peculiarity of two people’s fields has been seen by the people for a long time, and from the both sides: the Russian nation was divided long ago by political state and political measure, into Great and Little Rus, but in this Rus, on the one side, there were “Khokhols”, and on the other side there were “Moskals”

or “Katsaps”: they are colloquial nicknames, which have had from both sides more or less definite meaning”. 1

Documentalism is characteristic of A. Svydnytskyi’s description of villagers from Podillya to an unusual for them Katsap-priest,

“На тім покошились, що вибили Тимоху: ще попросили дяка, щоб

настрочив супліку до архирея, а один з громади диктував, а всі слухали

і все: “так-таки, так!” або: “це не так!”… Все прописали: що Тимоха

б’ється з громадою, дома тещу б’є, поганий приклад дає, і жінку товче, аж убити хоче, бо й кричить: “Уб’ю, а сам на Сибір піду”; і п’янствує, і

в школі вікна побив. Йому добре бити, а громаді страта: за що нам кошта

нести? І складались на дзвін, а він купив заводило, бо хотів кишеню собі

полатати. І те помістили в прошенії, що він на срам дому Божому зветься

Петропавловський, як і церква по сусідству. То щоб взяли його, нелюдяного, і відіслали в кацапщину, звідкіль він і прибув, бо тут він зовсім-таки не

годиться: і звичаїв не знає і не шанує, і мови не розуміє і другеє-прочеє.

Жінку ж просили оставити тут де-небудь за проскурницю — хоч-таки в

Солодьках, бо вона не кацапка. Після цього прошенія — щоб на місце

Тимохи прислали пока хоч сякого-такого: хоч такого, що йому й під носом

не світає, аби вже хоч не кацап”. 2 ( for them to take him, send to Katsapshchi-na, where he came from, for he does not belong here at all: he knows no traditions, neither he respects them, he does not know the language and so on and so forth. They asked to leave the wife somewhere around, for she is not Katsapka.

After such a request, to send somebody instead of Timokha, no matter whom: either one but not the Katsap).

The same attitude to the Katsap-priest was noticed in Chernigiv Province in the second half of the 19th century. M. Galanin wrote: “A feeling of separation from “Katsaps” was for our priests absolutely clear and expressive. I remember it very well how unfriendly did they meet a priest, sent to one of the neighbouring villages from the Russian Eparchy. I never heard him called by name of surname behind his back: he had just one name, that of Katsap”. 3

During the arrests of the members of the Brotherhood of Saint Cyril and Methodius in Kyiv, police found a leaflet on the fence saying, “Brothers! There will be a great moment, a moment when we shall be able to wash all abuse to 1 Pypin A. N. Ystoryia etnohrafii.- SPb., 1891.- T. III.- S. 5.

2 Svydnytskyi A. Tvory.- K.: Derzhlitvydav URSR, 1958.- S. 218.

3 Halahan M. Z moikh spomyniv.- Lviv, 1930.- S. 35.

247

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

our ancestors, our natuve Ukraine by our eternal enimies. Who will raise hands for our great deed… God and good people support us. Always faithful Ukraine’s sons — Katsaps’ enimies”. 1

The name of “Katsap” was widely used in everyday life not only Ukrainians, but also Ukrainian Jews. A well-known Jewish ethnographist, a collector of people’s anecdotes Shafrin suggested a Jewish joke: “When a Katsap buys a sickle in a Jewish shop, he puts it to three tests. First, he tears a hair out of his beard and tries to cut it in the air. If the sickle cuts the hair into two parts, it is good, if it does not, that is bad. Then he hits the sickle upon a rock. If there comes a bliz, it is good, if it does not, that is bad. Then he takes a sickle and hides it under his coat. If a seller does not notice, it is good, if he does, that is bad…” 2

It should be mentioned that a well-known Jewish politician V. Zhabotynskyi observed the following: “We, the Jews, were so enthusiastic in implementing Russification in the Provinces, that our mass-media was fussing about the Russian theatre and promotion of Russian books, and as a result, we completely lost a real arithmentical reality, and how it looked beyond our primitive worldview.

Beyond these cities there is a boilng a whole Ukrainian sea of nearly thirty million people.

Look anywhere but at the centre, at a Mirgorod or Vasylkivsky region, look at its outskirts up to Kharkiv or Voronezh Province, near the borderline of the Great Russian language, and you will be just astonished to see, how innocent and pure this whole Ukrainian sea has preserved. There are villages on this borderline, where “Khakhols” live on the one bank, and “Katsaps” — on the other.

They have lived for ages nearby and do not mix. Each bank speaks its own language, dresses in its own manner, saves its own habits; they marry only on their banks; keep off each other, do not understand one another and do not seek this mutual understanding. P.B. Struve, who created a theory of “national repultion”, should go there for him not to assume that there exists an integral transcendental

“general Russian” nature. This repultion is said to be even better expressed than that of Poland-Lithuania or Poland-Belarus ethnographic border. A Ukrainian poet knew his people, when recommended silly girls: 23

Кохайтеся, чорнобриві,

Fall in love, dark-browed girls

Та не з москалями,

Not with Moskals

Бо москалі — чужі люди…” 2

For Moskals are aliens…

1 Zaionchkovskyi Y. A. Kyrylo-Mefodyevskoe obshchestvo.- M.: Yzd-vo Moskov. un-ta, 1959.-

S. 117.

2 Safrin H. Przy szabasowych swiecach: Humor ydowski.- od, 1976.- С. 31.

3 Zhabotynskyi V. Vybrani statti z natsionalnoho pytannia.- [B. m.]: Suchasnist, 1983.- S. 74-75.

248

XXIII. KATSAP

A. Svydnytsky in his novel “Liuboratsky” gives a saying for teasing Katsaps in Podillya: “Unshaven, bearded, tease dogs by the hut, sitting in the inn, looking at passers-by: a hundred people — a hundred pence. Gugu, tiuga! Katsapiuga!”

There are a lot of people’s sayings about “Katsaps”, here is just one for illustration: “God created a goat, while devil created a Katsap”. 1

A policy of Russification in the USSR was carried out by enforced migration of people. Ukrainian youth, graduates of technical collages and universities was forced to work in Russia, while Russian youth, visa versa was sent to Ukraine.

A sarcastic attitude to such an implementation of “Stalin’s idea of friendship of peoples” was depicted in a popular proverbs of those days: “Let Katsap live and pasture in Ukraine, and Khakhol in Sakhalin”.

Most widely was the ethnofaulism “Katsap” used in the heating years of Revolution when promoters of different political kinds had to explain things to Ukrainian people in a simple and understandable manner. In 1919 Bolsheviks published a brochure under a shocking title of About Katsaps. Here are some extracts, “Representatives of Hetman, Petliura and other supporters of independence told villagers that they called Germans to struggle against “Katsaps”.

Actually our kurkuls ( rich villagers) struggled against Katsaps-peasants and Katsaps-workers, while even they helped Katsaps-kurkuls, Katsaps-landowners.”. 2 Then comes, “Katsaps-landowners, Katsaps-bourgeous are our enimies, as well as Ukrainians-landowners and Ukrainians-kurkuls”. 3 In propagandistic publications of the government of Ukrainian Peoples’ Republic this word was also used. Thus, for instance, there was a poster-caricature with the title “Brotherhood of Katsaps and Ukrainians”.

The poster pictured two Ukrainian peasants pulling a plough, and two Katsaps whipping them. The text was: “These rude Katsaps must be Bolshevist Commissioners from Moskovshchina. Can you see they are as fat as pigs? It is here in Ukraine they are fed so well, and bring a lot home, to Moscow. For seven months of being hosts in Ukraine they have brought to Moskovshchina tens of thousands of train cars (tens of millions of poods) of different foodstuffs: crops, fodder, meat, butter and oil; thousands of poods of salt, kerosene, leather; a lot of machinery from factories, tens of thousands of train cars and thousands of train engines, hundreds of thousands of meaks and numbers of other things.

Could we have so high prices, that the poor cannot even breathe freely, if all these were left in Ukraine? And look at out men! Do they seem so satisfied, as 1 Trudy еtnohrafychesko-statystycheskoi еkspedytsyy v Zapadno-russkyi krai.- SPb., 1872.- T.

I.- S. 257.

2 “Pro katsapiv”. Vydannia politychnoho Upravlinnia Narodnoho Komisariatu viiskovykh sprav Ukrainy.- K., 1919.- S. 6-7.

3 “Pro katsapiv”. Vydannia politychnoho Upravlinnia Narodnoho Komisariatu viiskovykh sprav Ukrainy.- K., 1919.- S. 8.

249

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

the Communists, their eyes and cheeks hollow? Moskals-Communists might not share with Ukrainians the Ukrainian bread in as brothers should. They may soon take shoes and trousers off Ukrainians. Our men might not like to have a yoke on their necks. This is how Moscow Bolsheviks give them “self-determination”.

Full freedom, “even to separate”. They separated everything, took everything away from us. Now we are free to have our soul separated from the body. If one of our men kicks the bucket, the Communists will find another Ukrainian fool to pull the plough”. 1

In the brochure published by the Ukrainian Peoples’ Republic: “In Russia during the Tsar’s reign there was one nation with rights: the Russians (Moskals-Katsaps). They had a right to study at school in their own language, write and speak Russian in courts, in the army. Other nations did not were not given such a right”. 2

Ukrainian rebels in the central regions of Ukraine in 1919-1922, according to secret police, had a slogan “Drive Katsaps away from Ukraine”3 Participants of the national-liberating struggle remember that in opposition of the Bolshevik’s slogan “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” they formulated their own one: “All people are your brothers except the Moskals, the Liakhs ( Polish), the Modiars ( Hungarians) and Romanians, they are enimies of our people”. Here comes the call: “Beat up the Liakhs and Katsaps”. 4

The origin of the word “Katsap”, as distinct from the clear etymology of the word “Khakhol”, needs thorough a philological study. Attempts to use popular etymology of this word, i.e. explaining the origin of the word by sil-imar sounding or accidental similarity, are caused by the desire to neutralize the bitter meaning of the word. They say that “Katsap” is likely to be similar to the nickname of “Khakhol” for Ukrainians. For example, M. Kostomarov

“found out that this word comes from “kak tsap” ( as a goat). A.I. Botodai thought it was from “kat-tsap” ( executioner-goat)”.5 One of Ukrainophobs from Kyiv was so naïve as to say: “Both nicknames originate from a special way of making hair, which was different for various nationalities in ancient times”. 6

So to say, in reply to the nickname “Khakhol” our people created this ethnographic variant of the Great Russians, i.e. “Katsap”, probably by the same external feature and an everyday habit of having beard, like “goat’s beard”, so 1 Bratnie zhyttia katsapiv z ukraintsiamy.- Narodne Ministerstvo Presy y Informatsii Ukrainska Narodnoi Respubliky.- 1919.- Ch. 30, serpen.

2 Pravdyve slovo pro bolshevykiv-komunistiv.- Kamianets na Podilli, 1919.- S. 12.

3 VChK-HPU. Dokumenty y materyaly.- M., 1995.- S. 180.

4 Petrovskyi D. Revoliutsiia i kontrevoliutsiia na Ukraini.- Niu-York, 1921.- S. 5.

5 R. P. Shcho znachyt slovo “katsap”? // Litopys Chervonoi Kalyny.- Lviv, 1996.- № 7-9.- S. 399.

6 Florynskyi T. D. Slavianskoe plemia // Unyversytetskye yzvestyia.- K., 1907.- № 8.- S. 39.

250

XXIII. KATSAP

appeared “kak tsap”, “as a goat” — Katsap, as a small revenge of the humorous Ukrainians, which was even more accurate”. 1

In fact, the word katsap (kasap), according to Academy Fellow D. Yavornytskyi, is of Turkic origin and means “butcher, cutthroater”. He wrote:

“While working in the Archives of the Ministry of Justice in Moscow I found a number of Ukrainian documents dated the 18th century, where the word

“katsap” was written with “s”, i.e. “kasap” instead of “katsap”. Studying then the language of nomads from the Central Asia, I learnt that the Sarts used a word

“kasab”, “kasap”, which meant “butcher” literally, and “slaughterer” figurative-ly. From this it follows that today’s word “Katsap” is not of Russian but of the Oriental, most likely Tatar, origin, like the word “denga” ( money) — in Tatara

“tenka”, “khomut” ( yoke), “sunduk” ( chest) and others, though there is an opinion that their old age gives a right to consider them to be of Moskovian origin.

I would rather go further and assume that initially the nickname “kasap” was used by the Russians to denote the Tartars in the meaning of “rapers”, “suppressors”, “slaughterers”. From Moskals the word“katsap” could come to Ukraine during Moscow rule in the 17th century, after Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky”. 2

Academy Fellow S. Yefremov made a report on this subject in Literaturno-Naukovy Visnyk (News of Literature and Science). 3

D. Yavornytsky’s interpretation of the word “katsap” was developed and extended by an anonymous reviewer of “Kyivskaya Starina” (most likely Ac.Fellow A. Krymsky). Upon speculating on the etymology of the words, he came to a conclusion, “So, to find similar sounding for the Ukrainian word “katsap” in the Turkic dialects, there is no need to study the language of the Turkmenians-Sarts; this word in both, direct and indirect meaning, was widely spread since ancient times among other Turkic nationalities, such as the Cumans, Osmanily, or Sel-juk of Asia Minor, the Crimean Tartars, as well as the Lithuanian Karaites…” 4

After that the author provides some examples, in Turkish: a phrase “adam kass-abi” means “a cruel person”, tyrant, a phrase “kassap odlu” means “a rough”;

“kassapchi” in Karaite means “an executioner”; “khassap” in the language of the Crimean Tartars means “a butcher, a slaughterer” and so on. 5 Other authors support this interpretation.

“One should know that the word “katsap” has been found for a long time in the languages of Eastern Turkish tribes with the meaning of “a butcher”, “a cruel person”, “a tyrant”, “a criminal”. 6

1 Pylkevych A. Kto takye ukrayntsy y cheho ony dobyvaiutsia? - K., 1917.- S. 9.

2 Russkoe slovo.- 1901.- 11 lyst.

3 Yefremov S. Shcho znachyt slovo “katsap”? // LNV.- 1902.- T. 17, kn. 1.- S. 2.

4 O proyskhozhdenyy slova “katsap” // Kyevskaia staryna.- 1901.- T. 65.- S. 474.

5 O proyskhozhdenyy slova “katsap” // Kyevskaia staryna.- 1901.- T. 65.- S. 474.

6 Shcho znachyt slovo “katsap”? // Zhyttia i znannia.- 1933.- Ch. 10.- S. 301.

251

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Yevgen Chykalenko, an activist and philanthropist of the pre-Revolution period, wrote in his diary: “the word “katsap” or “kasap” in the Turkic languages and in Moldovan means “a butcher, a slaughterer”. 1 He also put down a derivative “pokatsapytys’ ( verb to Katsap)”. 2

Ukrainian Concise Encyclopedia by Ye. Onatsky interprets the word

“Katsap” as originating from Tartar “butcher”, “slaughterer”.3

Stepan Rudansky has a set of humorous verses about Katsaps. Here is just an extract: 4

Завів кацап християнина,

A Katsap got a Christian

Зарізати хоче.

Wanted to cut his throat

Зав’язав йому назад руки,

Tied his hands behind,

Ніж широкий точить.

Getting his knife sharpened.

А кацапчук семиліток

The Katsap’s son of 7,

Мало не брикає:

Prancing about:

Кругом скаче коло тата

Jumping round his Dad

Та все промовляє:

Saying:

“Да полна уж тачать батька!…

“Stop sharpening, Dad!..

Будєт с нєго, будєт!…

That is enough!

Режь же, батька! то-то любо

Cut him, Dad! Can’t wait

Как трепаться будєт!” 3

To see him shaking!”

It is clear that in Russia the ethnophaulism “Katsap” is not popular at all. It was described in a gentle form, “Ukrainian people do not think of themselves as nationally separated from us, “Katsaps”. They do not think but gave their neighbours a separate name, rather unfriendly one, and got in return from them quite specific name”. 5

Russian mass-media have recently tried to tear up the antonymic pair

“Katsap” — “Khakhol”. Other antonyms are such ethnonymic names as the

“Ukrainian” — “Russian”, “Rusyn” — “Moskal”, “Khakhol” — “Katsap”. Now an unpleasant “Katsap” is being replaced by the name of “Moskal”, which is considered to derive from the city of Moscow and is a variant of the word “Mosсovite”. Illustrative here is, for example, a respectful newspaper “Izvestiia”. “Nobody knows, when the negotiations will be over and Khokhols and Moskals 1 Chykalenko Ye. Shchodennyk (1907-1917).- Lviv, 1931.- S. 348.

2 Chykalenko Ye. Spohady.- Lviv, 1926.- S. 114.

3 Onatskyi Ye. Ukrainska mala entsyklopediia.- Buenos-Aires: Nakl. admin. UAP tserkvy, 1959.-

T. 5.- S. 615.

4 Rudanskyi S. Tvory.- Lviv: Nakl. NTSh, 1908.- T. III.- S. 108-109.

5 Sylykovskyi A. Na povorote // Ukraynskaia zhyzn.- 1912.- № 12.- S. 7.

252

XXIII. KATSAP

will at last know whose land it is”. 1 Such a replacement (“Moskal” instead of

“Katsap”) is, in this case, a violation of traditional speech practice, and there are a lot of such examples.

“Now the Moskal still calls the Ukrainian “Khakhol”, while the Ukrainian calls the Moskal “Katsap”. 2

“Even now the Ukrainian calls the Moskal “Katsap”, and the Moskal calls the Ukrainian “Khakhol”. 3 A writer Anton Chekhov, travelling around the Siberia, compared tidy houses of the locals in the following way, “… general tidiness here is unusual even for our Khokhols, though Khokhols are much tidier than Katsaps”. 4

In Voronezh region, according to ethnographs, the Ukrainians are still called

“Khakhols”, while the Russians are named “Katsaps”. “Due to the wide and stable use these namings lost their offensive character and turned into special ethnonyms”. 5 The modern textbook in History for schools (without cencorship) provides this antonymic pair. “Katsap” is an offensive name for the Russian, spread in Ukraine as an opposition to an offensive nickname of the Ukrainian, that of “Khokhol”, spread in Russia”. 6

Semantic-and-stylistic content of the ethnophaulism “Katsap” in the language of Ukrainians (like, actually, “Khakhol in the language of the Russians) is a result of many-century common life. The word “Katsap” from the point of objective science can never function as a synonymic ethnonym, as well as

“Khakhol”.

In conclusion it should be mentioned that in secret languages (professional argot) can be found special ethnonyms. Thus, for instance, in Russian ethnonyms-argotisms the Ukrainian can be called “Marmysh”, and the Ukrainian woman — “Lokha”. In their turn, Ukrainian argot, as well as in the slang of Belarusian professional beggers, Russians are named with the term “Batus”,

“Batsai”. 7

1 Yzvestyia.- 1998.- 19 bereznia.

2 Barvinskyi O. Ohliad narodnoi literatury ukrainsko-ruskoi do 60-kh rokiv.- Lviv, 1898.- S. 12.

3 Kohut L. Ukraina i moskovskyi imperializm.- [B. m.], 1916.- S. 75.

4 Chekhov A. P. Sobranye sochynenyi v 12 tomakh.- M., 1956.- T. 11: Pysma.- S. 441.

5 Chyzhykova L. N. Osobennosty еtnokulturnoho razvytyia naselenyia Voronezhskoi oblasty //

Sov. еtnohrafyia.- 1984.- № 3.- S. 7.

6 Sarbei V. H. Istoriia Ukrainy. XIX - pochatok XX stolittia: Pidruchnyk dlia 9 klasu serednoi shkoly.- K.: Vyd-vo “Heneza”, 1996.- S. 60.

7 Bondaletov V. D. Arhotycheskaia etnonymyia // Etnohrafyia imen.- M.: Nauka, 1971.- S. 31.

253

XXIV. JEWS OR HEBREWS?

Ukraine struggled for its new ethnonym for a century and a half: from mid 19th to nearly very end of the 20th century. In the Western ethnographic lands, in Transcarpathia and especially in Priashchiv region, this struggle is still going on, caused by Ukrainophobs of various kinds. However, they are rear-guard battles, tiny conflicts. The fight for a new ethnonym of unified nation required a sacrifi-cial self-devotion of Ukrainians and high spiritual tension. Losses of our people were countless, when they defended and established this new ethnonym. The name “Ukrainian”, hated by suppressors, people were chased and often severely punished. However, imperial chauvenists were unable to break the will of people. Finally, Ukrainian people won in this long-lasting ethnonymic war.

Ruling circles of Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania were forced to eliminate secretly governmental bans for the use of the terms “Ukrainian”, “Ukraine”.

Assimilation plans to use ethnonyms to divide and eliminate the Ukrainian ethnos were ruined.

It seemed that in East Europe there came a long awaited ethnonynic peace, agreement and normalization of relations. It seemed that all understood that the

“term, nomination, and name are conventional, but in choosing the name of a nation, the most important thing is how the nation calls itself and how it wants to be called”. 1 So there still exists an unsolven disputable ethnonymic problem.

It concerns a national name of the people of the Old Testament. The situation is astonishing but now in Ukraine there are two ethnonyms denoting the people of the Old Testament at a time: “Zhid” (“Jew”) and “Yevrei” (“Hebrew”). Both a literary language and speech do not bear such a parallelism, its indefiniteness.

Language laws require unambiguity in the choice of an ethnonym. On the other hand, a delicate question of ethnonyms is not only a linguistic problem.

Ethnonym is closely connected with the political field. At any rate ethnonyms

“Zhyd” and “Yevrei”, frankly speaking, are in Ukraine a political problem.

Ukrainian-Jewish relations have been different in different times. On the territory of Ukraine there were Jewish pogroms ( bashing), the Holocaust. Though, we should remember that “Ukrainians did not have real political power in Ukraine for centuries. The conditions of barbarianism, which ruled in Ukraine, were not created by Ukrainians, but were a result of occupational powers’ actions over Ukrainian people, either those of the Polish state, or Russian empire. It was not Ukrainians who dictated conditions but circumstances that ruled in Ukraine for centuries. Aliens never tried to turn Ukraine into a legal territory, for it could 1 Doroshenko D. I. Istoriia Ukrainy: V 2-kh t.- K., 1991.- T. I.- S. 20.

254

XXIV. JEWS OR HEBREWS?

hamper their ruling”.1 Taking into account the experience of the past, not to continue the “dialogue of an anti-Semite and Ukrainopob”, one should take into account reasonable statement of Academy Fellow S. Yefremov, “Jews, as we know, live in the closest connection with Ukrainian people, — they are more than just neighbours, like most other peoples are, they are one counterpart of the same Ukrainian land”. 2 According to historical sources, Jews have been continuously living on the territory of Ukraine for over thousand years. 3 In addition we should quote the historian Ya. Dashkevich: “We have got a persuasive evidence of the fact that the character of Ukrainian-Jewish relations are determined not by three-four years of slaughter but 356 years of more or less normal relations. For otherwise in the beginning of the 20th century about one third of all Jews of the world could not have gathered in Ukraine”. 4

It would be important to remind that the Jewish made their own script five thousand years ago, therefore they have the most complete documented history of all nations. Among them there were Moses, Solomon, David, Apostles, Spino-sa, Heine, Marx, Freud, Einstein and other prominent scientists and artists. The greatest number of Nobel Prize winners of all nations have been Jewish: Isidor Isaak Rabi (phisics), Roald Hoffmann (chemistry), Bashevis-Singer and Shmuel Agnon (literature). Scattered about the world the Jewish have not vanished, have not got ruined, but to the contrary, preserved their national identity, giving other nations an example how to oppose assimilators. The Jewish came back to their ancient homeland in two thousands years; they have built a prosperous country Israel, and restored completely their native tongue, Hebrew, which seemed to have been forgotten. The Jewish occupy an important place in the world policy, economy, finance, and culture, they members of government of different states.

This is a result of a phanatic respect to intellect and an idea that children must get education no matter how poor parents can be. One of the founders of the society

“Enlightment”, a prominent civil activist Stephan Kachala, wrote in his book What Ruins Us, and What Can Help Us (1869) explained clearly that “we are ruined” by alcohol, ignorance, inability to get organized to earn and save money.

A positive example, in Kachala’s opinion, is the Jews who “do not drink”, good at trading, give education to their children. It is not good to argue with such ex-traornidary intelligent and extremely gifted people because of their ethnonym by no means would be good for a Ukrainian patriot.

1 Dashkevych Ya. Yevreisko-ukrainski vzaiemyny seredyny XVI - pochatku XX st.: Periody rivnovahy // Slovo i chas.- 1992.- № 9.- S. 67.

2 Yefremov S. Yevreiska sprava na Ukraini.- K.: Vik, 1909.- S. 10.

3 Khonyhsman Ya. S., Naiman A. Ya. Evrey Ukrayny (kratkyi ocherk ystoryy).- K., 1992.- Chast I.- S. 13.

4 Dashkevych Ya. Problematyka vyvchennia yevreisko-ukrainskykh vidnosyn (XVI - pochat. XX

st.) // Svit.- 1991.- № 3-4 (Spets. vyp.: Materialy Mizhnarodnoi naukovoi konferentsii “Problemy ukrainsko-yevreiskykh vidnosyn”. 7-9 chervnia 1991 r., Kyiv).- S. 25.

255

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

Ukrainian-and-Jewish relations do not keep to the estimation of the past.

They are developing very fast, and whatever is told about these relations, they are of great importance for the future of both, Ukrainians and Jews.

One is blindfold not to see it. “None of Jewish newspapers or organizations express Ukrainophobian views. We clearly understand that all we have got in respect of the restoration of Jewish life-style would have been impossible without restoration of independence of Ukraine and the fall of Communism”.1 In Ukraine of today a tradition of Hebrew scientific research are being restored. Such researcher as Marten Feller, Yakiv Honigsman, Zhanna Kovba and others are now studying the history of Ukrainian-Jewish relations. The terminology now contains such a phrase as “Ukrainian Jews”, which is important for international accord.” 2

This background makes it impossible to show disrespect to the Jewish national name. An old Jewish aphorism says, “People disrespect what they do not understand”. Probably here lies the reason of misunderstanding. It is generally known that, unfortunately, common Ukrainians do not see any difference between two ethnonyms: “Zhyd” and “Yevrei”.

These two ethnonyms come from different languages and have various etymology. The term “Zhyd” (the Jew) came to our language orally, in the pre-literate period and was widely spread. The term was borrowed from Italian “giudeo”

[ʒideo] from Latin “judaeus”. The word was formed from the Hebrew personal name Juda, meaning “glorious, praised”. 3 It came to us directly from the Polish language. Abraham’s descendants consider this term to be offensive, in particular in those countries where it is correlated with the term “Yevrei”. O. Bryk suggests the following reason for it, “Ihn the end of the 15th century in the Slavonic East Jews began to preach Judaism, and Orthodox Church in Ukraine called them

“yeres zhydovstvuiushchikh” ( heresy of the Jewish), so they took a Polish word

“Zhyd” not to use the Old Church Slavonic “Hebrew”, for they considered them to be a religeous sect, which did not deserve it.

Thus from Ukraine the Polish word “Zhyd” came to Maskovia. The fact that this sect was dispised by Christians, the word “Zhyd” (the Jew) gained an offensive connotation in the Slavonic East (Ukraine, Belarusia, Moskovia), while

“Yevrey” (the Hebrew) was a decent word, for it is found in the language of the Holy Scriptures (Old Church Slavonic). Since that time (the end of the 15th century) the word “Zhyd” has been considered humiliating among all Eastern Slavs, while “Yevrei” as a decent name. This ethnonym came to the Old Russian lan-1 Rossman V. Leonid Finberh rozmovliaie z Yosypom Ziselsom. Yevrei v suchasnii Ukraini, realii ta perspektyvy // “I”: nezalezhnyi kulturolohichnyi chasopys.- 1996.- № 8.- S. 78.

2 Podolskyi A. Yevreiski studii v Ukraini: rozvytok, tendentsii, perspektyvy // Ukrainskyi humanitarnyi ohliad. Vyp. “Krytyka”.- 1999.- S. 261.

3 Etymolohichnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy.- K.: Nauk. dumka, 1985.- T. II.- S. 196-197.

256

XXIV. JEWS OR HEBREWS?

guage through Old Church Slavonic from Middle Greek and later on (in the form of “hebrei”) into Ukrainian through the Western Slavonic languages.This is a literary borrowing, therefore it is not so popular. It is considered to have originated in Aramenian “eber”, which used to denote “from another side”, i.e. somebody who crossed the Euphrates, somewhere near Garden of Eden. “Hebrew (liter.

“from another side”, someone who came to Сanaan or Palestine from another bank of the Euphrates, as inhabitants of Canaan must have called Hebrews)”. 1

Thus, the name Hebrew was first used in the Bible to call the Forefather and his family who came across the Euphrates, i.e. before Hebrews came to the Jordan bank. “Hebrew”, “Hebrews” is the Old Testament name this nation would like to be called in Ukrainian.

In 1861 in Saint-Petersburg Ukrainian patriots published a national-patriotic magazine “Osnova”. The editors were V. Bilozerskyi, P. Kulish, and M. Kostomarov. Taras Shevchenko actively participated in the publication. The importance of this publication for the Ukrainian political thought of those days is hard to overestimate. To the editor’s office of “Osnova” came a letter of a reporter signing “P-v”. He was a student V. Portugalov, who initiated the first public discussion of Ukrainian-Jewish relations”.2 The editorial staff published the letter in June 1861 under a headline of “A Confusion around the Word “Zhyd”. The letter said that against the background of growing education, the ethnony “Zhyd”, which used to be neutral in Ukraine, was at that time getting offensive. The author wrote, “I beg you not to offend us any more. Is it difficult? You should agree, if educated young people get offended because of this nickname, you’d better avoid it…” Then it follows, “… to the prosperity of Ukraine, on behalf of the Hebrews, offended by a cursy expression in you magazine, I beg you to replace into our national name from now on.”

Did the editorial staff of “Osnova” take into account the appeal of Ukrainian Jewish? No, they did not. On behalf of editors, and to look wider, of all Ukrainians of that time, replied a prominent Ukrainian historian of People’s School Mykola Kostomarov. Typical of the Romanticism epoch, which adored old times and folklore, his reasoning concentrated on two moments. First, the term “Yevrei” (the Hebrew) was not historically found in Ukraine. The ethnonym “Zhyd” had been used for ages. It was fixed in all corresponding historical Ukrainian monuments, and therefore it was impossible to change it (here he gave examples). Secondly, neither in folklore not in the Ukrainian literature, based on the folklore, the word “Yevrei” was not found. Here comes a conclusion that the term “Zhyd” was naturally Ukrainian, while “Yevrei” was borrowed or Russian.

1 Bryk S. Oleksander. Nazvy “ievrei” i “zhyd” // Diialohy.- [Ierusalym], 1985.- Ch. 7-8.- S. 177.

2 Serbyn R., Kharchun Ya. “Shovkova” rusyfikatsiia ukrainskoi diiaspory // Suchasnist.- 1993.-

№ 8.- S. 145.

257

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

M. Hrushevsky thought that M. Kostomarov did not have a right to speak on behalf of all Ukrainian citizens. “M. Kostomarov applied his own subjective emotions inappropriately, and thus left unexplained objective reasons of this confusion”.1

Paradoxically in the same manner of reasoning, we could see Ukrainophobs rejecting any possibility to admit the ethnonym “Ukrainian”. Russian, Polish, and Hungarian chauvinists were shouting that the ethnonym

“Ukrainian” is ahistorical because no chronicles contained it (here they gave examples). Secondly, it was considered an alien neologism, not accepted by their languages. In Russia the ethnonym “Ukrainian” was considered a Polish intrigue, in Poland they thought it to be that of Austria, in Hungary and Romania they suspected Galicia. Though they were unanimous that it was not of Ukrainian origin, as well as the term “Yevrei” is not admitted to be not of Russian, but of Hebrew origin. “Ukrainians who had such a hard struggle for them to be named “Ukrainian”, not “Rusyn”, more than anybody else should understand that any nation has a right to decide how they are to be called; we also feel friendly and polite attitude of those nations who call us as we want us to be called. It should be kept in mind by anyone who deal with the national name of the Hebrew people”. 2

The difference between Kostomarov’s point as for the ethnonym “Zhyd” and that of Ukrainophobs was of political character. Behind historical and linguistic reasons supporters of Great State were hiding the main reason of the war against the Ukrainian ethnonym. This reason was, as we know, large scale assimilation plans. It is unclear, what political interest, what benefit or sense is hidden by Ukrainians who are against the ethnonym “Yevrei”, nobody knows. In 1995 the Hebrew Council of Ukraine addressed Ukrainian citizens with with words, “Re-animators’ terms will not make us take the word “Zhyd” as our self-naming, as well as Ukrainians would not like to become “Khokhols” or “Little Russians”, as Russians do not want to be called “Moskals”, and Polish — “Liakhs”. Is it really necessary for Ukraine to become independent to offend a nation, Hebrew citizens of Ukraine, under a slogan of returning to historical roots?

We are children of Ukraine, working for the development of our homeland and contributing to its awareness, science, culture, art and do not want to feel aliens on the land, where a lot of generations of our people have lived together with other peoples for many centuries.

The destiny of Ukraine is our destiny, the destiny of Ukrainians is of European origin and we require respectful. We are not zhydy, we are yevreii”. 3

1 Hrushevskyi M. Z publitsystychnykh pysan Kostomarova // Naukovo-publitsystychni i polemichni pysannia Kostomarova.- K., 1928.- S. XIII.

2 Bryk S. Oleksander. Nazvy “ievrei” i “zhyd” // Diialohy.- [Ierusalym], 1985.- Ch. 7-8.- S. 9.

3 “My - ne zhydy, my - yevrei…”: Zaiava Yevreiskoi rady Ukrainy // Vysokyi zamok.- Lviv, 1995.-

5 hrud.

258

XXIV. JEWS OR HEBREWS?

The only thing is clear: the followers of tradition do not want to understand that the ethnonym “Zhyd” in the modern linguistic areal of East Europe got a sharply offensive colouring.

S. Yevremov wrote, “By the way, I would like to say that, personally not feeling insulted by the ethnonym “Zhyd”, I consider it not tactful and incorrect to use it, as soon as Hebrews think it to be offensive. It is like calling Ukrainians

“Khokhols”, which would make Ukrainians protest against it, even those, who insist on the use of the word “Zhyd”, contrary to all people offended by it”. 1

S. Yefremov’s words (his book Hebrew Issue in Ukraine is address to Ukrainian citizens to refuse the term “Zhyd”) was not perceived properly at that time. Just some writers, M. Dragomanov, P. Grabovsky, M. Kotsubinsky, and Lesya Ukrainka and some others used the term “Yevrei”. It can be accounted for by the fact that Ukrainian society was involved in the struggle with the Great State assimilation that all the rest was left behind.

Suppressed Ukraine, along with East Europe, was then at a dramatic break-point. Approximately at the same time (1911) a famous pro-Hebrew activist Volodymyr Zhabotysky characterized the state in Ukraine in the following way,

“One can be sure to say that the solution of the contradictory question as of Russia’s national character can depend on the opinion of thirty million Ukrainian people. If we agree to Russification, then Russia will take one way, if we do not, it will have to take another way. They know it very well in Derzhavna Duma ( Russian Parliament).

When they were deciding the issue as of languages of “other nations”

schools, they were entertaining themselves voting for some “shaitans” and “Kazan Greeks”, they did not even vote against the Jewish language in desire to make this draft Act as unacceptable as possible for the authorities. However when they came to the Ukrainian language, they stopped making fun or complicated calculations, and just voted against it, as if feeling that it was the most dangerous item, a decisive step, when one must neither say jokes nor invent tricks”. 2

In February, 1917 Volynian Regimen started the Revolution in Petrograd, and it ruined the tsar’s throne. Zhabotynsky’s prophecy about the importance of Urkainians for Russian empire came true. Though the Revolution and its continuation, Liberating Struggle of 1918-1921, were lost by Ukraine, the Ukrainian people got their new name which should be considered a great historical victory with far-reaching consequences. The government of the Ukrainian People’s Republic of 1917-1921 officially used the word “Yevrei”. After 1918 this word was registered in all the dictionaries in the East Ukrainian lands. It was found in Galicia’s publications, for instance, Concise Dictionary of the Ukrainian Languages 1 Yefremov S. Yevreiska sprava na Ukraini.- K.: Vik, 1909.- S. 69.

2 Zhabotynskyi V. Vybrani statti z natsionalnoho pytannia.- [B. m.]: Suchasnist, 1983.- S. 62.

259

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

and the Main Spelling Rules of Notes about Cases by Kost Kysilevsky (Stanislav, 1927) contains the word “Yevrei” with case forms, as well as adjective derivatives

“yevreisky”, “yevreism” (p.95), Ukrainian Spelling Rules with Concise Dictionary, made up by Mykhailo Vozniak (Lviv, NTSh, 1929), registered “Yevrei” and adjective “yevreisky” (p.114). These words are found in Ukrainian General Encyclopedia (Lviv, 1931, vol.1, p.1259) and Ukrainian-German Dictionary (Leip-zig, 1943) by Zenon Kuzeli, Yaroslav Rudnytsky and Karl Maier. This dictionary contains derivatives “Yevreika” and “yevreistvo” (p.213). Even Canadian publication Ukrainian-English Dictionary (Saskatun, 1955) by Kost Andrusyshyn, as should have been expected, provided four words of active vocabulary: yevrei, yevreika, yevreiskyi, yevreistvo (с. 224). In the USA Ivan Salastin compiled English-Ukrainian Dictionary (1956), with the entry “Yevrei”. 1 Published in Kyiv New Ukrainian Explanatory Dictionary (1998), gives the word “Yevrei”, and provides the word “Zhydy” with the explanation, that it is an archaic offensive name of the Hebrew.

It would be naïve to assume that the Jews would do nothing in the epoch of dramatical changes in the realm of East European ethnonymy after Russian Empire had broken up, and the Little Russians got to be the Ukrainians, Bessara-bians turned into Moldovans, Zarians became Komi, Livonians — Estonians, Votyaks — Udmurts, Sarts — Uzbekans, and so on. In the Ukrainian SSR in the beginning of 1930s according to new spelling rules (1933), the ethnonym

“Yevrei” was introduced into the literary norm of Ukrainian. The word “Zhyd”

was admitted an offensive name of the Jews. After uniting this norm was accepted in the Western Ukrainian territories. Only in diaspora they continued to use the ethnonym “Zhyd”. As soon as the ethnonym “Yevrei” was established as an administrative order, without explanations, it caused ambiguous reaction.

For example, they say that the term “Yevrei” was used by the government in the process of Russification for its enstrangement from other Slavonic nations, for it to cling to Russian”. 2 Or, “There was a deceit in the word “Yevrei” itself, which was imported with the new power. It sounded false, people did not accept it.

Moreover, it sounded as if all the Ukrainian literature was guilty using the word

“Zhyd”, though it had been a traditional Ukrainian name”. 3

From this it follows that “imported”, or Russian, by its origin ethnonym does not suit Ukrainian.

It should be added that the statement about “all Ukrainian literature was guilty” dramatized the situation. The term “Zhyd” just joined the category of 1 Slavutych Yar. “Zhyd” chy “ievrei”? // Diialohy.- [Ierusalym], 1987.- Ch. 13-14.- S. 3.

2 Serbyn R., Kharchun Ya. “Shovkova” rusyfikatsiia ukrainskoi diiaspory // Suchasnist.- 1993.- №

8.- S.146.

3 Svit.- 1991.- № 3-4 (Spets. vyp.: Materialy Mizhnarodnoi naukovoi konferentsii “Problemy ukrainsko-yevreiskykh vidnosyn”. 7-9 chervnia 1991 r., Kyiv).- S. 14.

260

XXIV. JEWS OR HEBREWS?

archaic words, as well as the terms “Rus”, “Rusyn”. The language lives, it is enriched and cleaned all the time, new words and phrases-neologisms appear, old words come out of use and become archaisms or historisms.

In Ukrainian there are a lot of words, phrases, grammatical forms from Russian. 1

It should be stressed that except absolutely Russian syntactic structures, Ukrainian contains about 800 Russian words. It is not justified to concentrate on the word “yevrei” under such circumstances. One should not phariseically tear clothes over “Russian” word “Yevrei”. The word is of semitic origin, and it is not serious to take it as a dirty means of Russification.

The Kyivan Rus was Christianized it got a writing language in the 10th century. God-serving books written in Old Church Slavonic, which originated in Old Bulgarian, came to Rus from Bulgaria. 2 In those books for the Jews there wer such names as “Iudei”, “Yevrei”, “people of Israel”. “So the word “Yevrei” was in Kyiv (988 AD) when there was neither Moscow, nor Moscovian nation. When in due course the Moscow people began to form from the colonists, who came form Kyivan Rus, they brought Christianity to the colonized Finnish lands, as well as the Church language, including the words Iudei”, “Yevrei”. 3

The word “Yevrei” (Hebrew) in Ukraine was fixed in Ostromyrove Gospel in the 11th century, in Zizany’s Dictionary in 1596, and in Pamvo Berinda’s Dictionary in 1627. 4

As far as Ukrainian classical literature is concerned, advocates of its cleanness do not remember that instead of “Russian” it usually uses “Moskal”. Historical meaning of the two ethnonyms (Moskal-Russian) is different for the Ukrainians, as distinct from equally unclear words of “Zhyd” and “Yevrei”. In Shevchenko’s poems we constantly come across such terms as “Moskal”, “Moskovshchyna”. Shevchenko does not use the Polish, only the Lyakh, there are no Romanians but Volokhs, Nimota. 5 Though Ukrainians crossed out the ethnonymy used by Shevchenko not to offend neighbouring nations, and it is fair. None of the advocates of clean Ukrainian call for restoration of the use of “Moskal” in everyday life. While some still cling to the word “Zhyd”. Really in Ukraine there are people so ingenious in “seeking how to hurt Jews that they can call Europe

“Zhydope”.6 A famous writer Yar Slavutych asked, “Should we protect the word

“Zhyd” as some hot heads are doing? It is of no value to us. For instance I do not 1 Karavanskyi S. Sekrety ukrainskoi movy.- K.: UKSP “Kobza”, 1991; Lesiuk S. Slovnyk rusyzmiv u suchasnii ukrainskii movi.- Iv.-Frankivsk, 1993.

2 Horbach O. Heneza ukrainskoi movy, ta yii stanovyshche sered inshykh slovianskykh // Feniks.-

Ditroit; Miunkhen, 1959.- Z. 9.- S. 3.

3 Bryk S. Oleksander. Nazvy “ievrei” i “zhyd” // Diialohy.- [Ierusalym], 1985.- Ch. 7-8.- S. 8.

4 Rudnytskyi Ya. Etymolohichnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy.- Ottava, 1982.- T. II.- S. 313.

5 Stebelskyi B. Shevchenkovi nazvy narodiv // Vyzvolnyi shliakh.- 1994.- Kn. 6.- S. 734-744.

6 Yefremov S. Yevreiska sprava na Ukraini.- K, 1909.- S. 7.

261

Yevgen Nakonechnyi. Stolen Name

care how Hebrews would like to call themselves”. 1 State administration bodies of Ukraine use the term “Yevrei”. All official documents contain only “Yevrei”.

One should not have any illusions, it will so later on. There is no need to raise the problem already resolved. It is needed only by our ill-wishers, who have always wanted to make Ukrainians to conflict with the whole world.

We usually boast, “Antisemitism has never been a part of official ideology in Ukraine, it was not supported both by the Ukrainian state (or autonomy) in short-term periods of its existence, and by any more or less influential political national-liberating movement”. 2 If it is really so, we should at last stop offend the people of the Old Testament “in the name of Ukraine’s prosperity”

“The main thing is to overcome the negative emotional barrier, the negative direction of information flow, and then the life will go smoothly”. 3 The following statement is true not only for people but also for nations, “if you can see something good in a person, he gets better”, and vice versa. Do we not want to become better? Do we really think that giving offensive lables we believe in their cleaning force? If we do not remember Galilei’s formula, “Do not do to another man what you do not want for youself”, let us have in our mind a bit altered Karnegis’s formula, “Make a good name for people for them to live according to it”.

1 Slavutych Yar. “Zhyd” chy “ievrei”? // Diialohy.- [Ierusalym], 1987.- Ch. 13-14.- S. 4.

2 Riabchuk M. “Vsesvitnia zhydo-masonska zmova” ta perspektyvy antysemityzmu na Ukraini //

Suchasnist.- 1992.- Ch. 8.- S. 112.

3 Sverstiuk Ye. Zerna ukrainsko-izrailskoi “solidarnosti” // Ukrainska suspilno-politychna dumka v 20 stolitti: Dokumenty i materialy.- [B. m.]: Suchasnist, 1983.- T. III.- S. 19.

Yevgen Nakonechnyi

Stolen Name Why Rusyns Turned into Ukrainians

P r i n t e d i n U k r a i n e .