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

[James L. Rice]

Dear R. de L.,

Please send booklet, FROM KIEVAN RUS' TO MODERN UKRAINE.  I'll reimburse
as directed:

                J. Rice
                3615 Lachs Ct. S.
                Salem, OR 97302

Thanks,

Jim Rice
University of Oregon

At 06:24 PM 5/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>"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
>
>