Rossiia kievskaia/Rus'/Shameless Plugging/Slovo/Sachs

[Robert De Lossa]

>"Rossiia kievskaia"

???

Has someone encountered this term in Russian? The term I've seen is
"Kievskaia Rus'."

Although I am tempted to launch into a discussion of the terminological
discussion about "Rus'" and "russkii," I'll resist and put in a plug for a
booklet we published a while ago that has a very good discussion of the
terminological issues here and will also give those who haven't come across
it before, a sense of how "Ukrainian" historiography handles some of this.
(There are a variety of voices in Ukrainian historiography and national
mythologies haven't congealed as well as in Russia, thus the quotes...) The
booklet is entitled "From Kievan Rus' to Modern Ukraine" and contains
reprints of articles by Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi and Omeljan Pritsak and John
Reshetar, Jr. E-mail me **off list** if you'd like a copy (I'll send it for
the cost of postage only as a service to the field). Our Institute has long
been working on these issues in the context of the Harvard Library of Early
Ukrainian Literature (the series title is a conscious attempt to get people
_thinking_ about the Early East Slavic period as not just "Old Russian"
literature). If you are interested in Old Rus' literature take a gander at
http://www.sabre.org/huri and go to the publications catalog for our
translation series in HLEUL. Each (hagiography, edificatory prose, sermons
and rhetoric) contains first-rate introductions to the period and problems
of language, literary criticism, historiography, etc. They are balanced and
I think those that care will find them useful and informative (testimonials
online welcomed).

Ok, plug over. In general, those interested in medieval East Slavic really
should be aware of the ways in which East Slavic attitudes toward the past
was shaped in the early-modern period (especially the Ruthenian influence
on late Muscovite historiography). It's been said before, but I'll repeat
that our conception of "russkii"--or even its use by contemporary speakers
through the ages--does not have a linear progression from the tenth century
to the almost-twenty-first. Care is warranted in use of the terminology,
not so much because of the sensitivites of modern ethnicities (although
kindness and concern are virtues we need more of), but because one _as a
scholar_ can easily misunderstand one's sources by _assuming_ linear
relationships backward from the present (or the nineteenth century or
whenever). I am not so naive as to think that any scholar operates without
prejudices, but a good scholar is aware of his/her prejudices and makes
them explicit so that others can more effectively judge the value of
his/her work and replicate his/her data (which is the essence of the
scientific method by which we, hopefully, operate).

For those that don't want to spring a buck for the booklet, note, in short:
"Rus'" can refer to Varangian (then Slavic) elite clans, various lands in
the middle ages, different lands in the late middle ages, part of the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, part of historical Hungary, part of what is
now Slovakia, part of what is now Ukraine, part of what is now the Russian
Federation. It refers to territory sometimes, various ethnoses at others,
sometimes the elite, sometimes the chern'. Modifiers used with the term
come and go, depending on time and place (Kievskaia rus'/Kyiivs'ka
rus'=Kievan Rus' for Russians and Ukrainians [and Kyivan Rus' for
progressive sympaticos], Czerwona Rus/Chervona Rus'=Galicia for Poles and
Ukrainians; Podkarpatskazrusz/Pidkarpats'ka Rus'/Podkarpatska or Uhorska
Rus=Subcarpathian Ruthenia for Hungarians, Ukrainians, Czechs and Slovaks;
etc., etc.) To top it all off, "Rossiia" was used by some early modern
Ukrainians and Belarusians to describe themselves within the
Commonwealth... Go figure.

Cheers to all, Rob De Lossa

Addendum: On Sachsiana and the Roswellization of Keenan's Slovo work. It is
astonishing to me that the discussion of the Slovo could have brought on
Jeffrey Sachs bashing (I suppose getting Pipes, too, gives extra credit).
But maybe I should not be so surprised. I would gently remind our colleague
of a few things: 1) SEELANGS, as last I saw, stands for Slavic and East
European LANGuageS. There are several good alt. groups for anti-Sachs
invective and lamentation on things economic in Russia and Ukraine. Most of
us here live by the word and its analysis, not the GDP or export-import
balances. Despite that observation, I will further note: 2) The Soviet
economy fell apart first, this is the primary reason the Russian and
Ukrainian economies are the way they are and, indeed, the major reason why
we now talk about a "Russian" and "Ukrainian" economy at all. All the FSU
countries inherited little rotten economies from the big rotten one and
merciless nomenklaturas and Soviet institutional criminality that easily
translated into regional criminality (cf. Roman Szporluk's prescient
comment long ago that the CPSU functioned like a big Cosa Nostra). Rumors
to the contrary, Sachs did not advise Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et al., when
they created the institutions that made the USSR what it was and thereby
determined the history of that region to this day. 3) If one thinks that
the West (or any individual therein) is more responsible for the fate of
Russian (or Ukrainian or whatever FSU republic) citizens than the
indigenous political elites (including the elements of the nomenklatura
that remain, which is significant and determinative), the ROC and other
national churches, the other regional churches, the people themselves
(after all, most _are_ technically living in democracies now), the mafias,
etc., it is his or her choice, but I question it. Why is it that the Soviet
Union had great intellects that we respected and mighty warriors that we
feared before the _raspad_, but that afterward the successor states are
deemed not capable of being responsible for themselves or resisting the
depredations of the _zapadnye dollarovye sotni_? We Americans have not done
as good a job as we could have with post-independence Russia, certainly,
and there have been problems at HIID, the USAID, the IMF, and the World
Bank, but Russia, ultimately, is responsible for Russia (Ukraine for
Ukraine, etc.). Multi-nationals and our government are doing to them no
more than what they're doing to us (or would do, absent organized
resistance) at home. 4) I know Prof. Sachs and his work. He is a decent man
and has applied that decency to his work in other economies. I think
someone should finally say "enough's enough" with attributing every woe in
the FSU to Jeff Sachs. There, I've said it. 5) With regard to the implied
Keenan-Pipes-Sachs/Harvard conspiracy: Internal logic, man! Anyone who
thinks that two Harvard professors (let alone three) would agree on any
topic long enough to form a conspiracy...

Have a nice weekend.

____________________________________________________
Robert De Lossa
Director of Publications
Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University
1583 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138
617-496-8768; fax. 617-495-8097
reply to: rdelossa at fas.harvard.edu
http://www.sabre.org/huri