Rus’ against Russia, or Overcoming a historical paradox

The adjective Rus’ seems unusual. There is Russian, while Rus’ as an adjective looks like a mistake. However, let us not jump to conclusions. I will attempt to argue that Rus’ as an adjective is a much more precise reflection of historical realities than Russian.

Russian refers to ethnic Rus­sians, whereas Rus’ designates inhabitants of Old Rus’. When Ukraine and Belarus were subjected to Moscow, claims were made and accepted that the Russian population predominated in Kyivan Rus’, “the Russian-Lithuanian Duchy was populated by primarily Russian population in the direct sense of the word,” and Navagrudak is a Rus­sian city. (Now it is a raion center in Hrodna voblast; in early records it was designated as the New Lithuanian City. It was also frequently mentioned as the first residence site of Lithua­nian dukes. This is where the Grand Duke Mindaugas ruled in 1253.)

There is no need to explain what “Russian population in the direct sense of the word” means. The primary language of communication in the duchy was the western dialect of the Russian language. However, footnotes sometimes do indicate that it is also called Old Belarusian. In other words, 1,000 years ago the area was populated exclusively by the “Russian people.” So it follows that the history of Kyivan Rus’ is the history of the first Russian state. The Lithua­nian principality was conquered by Lithuanians but Rus­sians always fought them and Moscow came to rescue.

Was it really so? Who were the ancestors who are now called “Rus­sian people”? For clarity’s sake, let us reframe the issue. The question is, how did those ancient Slavic people identify themselves? One thing is sure: they did not identify themselves as ethnic Russians. How could they when the Russian ethnic group was not yet formed? Therefore, the Slavic population of Kyivan Rus’ is more properly designated as Rus’ people.

It is common knowledge that in those distant times people formed tribes and, at the most, tribal unions, rather than ethnoses. The ethnos was a later and higher stage of social development than the tribe. Ethnic identity and the ethnic palette of distinct features possessed by Uk­rainians, Belarusians, and Rus­sians emerged much later after Kyivan Rus’ disintegrated in the 13th century. While tribes can be compared to families, an ethnos is, in the words of the British sociologist Anthony Smith, “a family of families.”

What follows from the above is that “Russians” did not exist as an ethnic group at the time. However, Russian history textbooks point out that Russians comprised the core population of Old Rus’ and the Duchy of Lithua­nia, which leads to a historical-social paradox: Kyivan Rus’ was Russian, as was the Duchy of Lithuania, but the Russian ethnic identity was not there yet.

Ethnic identity is formed “within” certain bounds, separating the ethnos from what it perceives as foreign ethnic groups. Important psychosocial networks of unity gradually emerge on the basis of a common language, culture, and customs, i.e., they are formed in the course of a long period of co-existence on a certain common territory. All of this contributes to ethnocultural identity that causes the ethnic dichotomy, separating one’s “own” privileged ethnos from the hostile circle of “alien” ethnic groups. A case in point are Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians — these are closely-related peoples that are, nonetheless, totally different “on the inside.” Each of them has its own ethnocultural heritage.

As a result, each nation has its own political, economic, cultural, linguistic, and other interests. It can be even said that each nation has its own political, economic, and ethnic reality that has to be defended in this complicated world. The Kremlin will never defend the national interests of Belarusians or Ukrainians for the simple reason that they can only be asserted by the Belarusian and Ukrainian nations themselves.

Therefore, it is more proper to designate the core population of Kyivan Rus’ as ancient Slavs, or Rus’ people, and the duchy as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus’, and Samogitia.

I first came across the definition of Rus’ in Russia and Russians, a book by the Ame­rican social psychoanalyst Da­niel Rancour-Laferriere. He cites the well-known Russian scholar Dmitri Likhachev, who applied the adjective Rus’ to ancient Slavs who were as yet unable to identify themselves as Russians, Ukrainians, or Bela­rusians. Here is what Likhachev writes on this issue:

“(Russian literature) originated in the 10th century — precisely in the 10th, although its origins (or, more exactly, the origins of Rus’ literature be­cause it was the source for Ukrainian and Belarusian literatures) are traced back to the 11th century.”

In this excerpt Likhachev emphasizes that in the 10th century there was Rus’ literature, i.e., Old Slavic literature, which was the source for the Uk­rai­nian, Bela­rusian, and proper Russian literatures. Who were the creators of Rus’ literature and art? Rus’ people, rather than Russians. At the time ethnicity was not yet part of people’s social experience or social reality. To reiterate my point, Kyivan Rus’ was populated by Old Slavs, Rus’ people, rather than Russians.

The Grand Duchy of Li­thua­nia had Rus’-Lithuanian population, rather than Russian-Li­thua­nian. In fact, ethnic Rus­sians were never present in the duchy. The Krivichi. Dre­go­vichi, Radymychi, and Li­thua­nian tribes had for a long time had common political life in their own Duchy of Lithuania. Be­la­rusian identity was formed within its boundaries.

Old Lithuania was gradually Slavinized. Now this is the north-western part of Belarus and Vilnius Country in Lithua­nia. However, the ethnographic basis for today’s Lithuania is Samogitia. In order to prove this point, it will suffice to point to the book by Ye. Shyriaev Maps of White Russia, Black Russia, and Lithuania. An analysis of medieval maps that have survived to this day in, for example, Poland, Germany, and England yields a fairly complete picture of how the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus’, and Samogitia developed. Russian territories (which, as I have tried to show, are more properly called Rus’ territories) included eastern Belarus and part of Ukrainian lands, while Sa­mogitia was the western part of present-day Lithuania.

That is why, if the adjective Rus’ and the designation Rus’ people are to be used, they correspond much more closely to present-day Ukraine, rather than Rus­sia and Russians, who were for a long time called Muscovites or inhabitant of Mus­covy. Kyiv was the most developed city of Rus’, while Russia was centered around Moscow. Moscow united the lands on which the distinct ethnic features of Russians were formed.

Contemporary Belarus is comprised of three historical regions-White Russia, Black Russia, and Old Lithuania. In the Middle Ages Belarusians were called lytvyns or even lytovtsi (Lithuanians), but these designations were invested with Slavic, rather than Baltic, sense. For example, in Aleksandr Pushkin’s Boris Godunov a tavern on the Lithuanian border is, in fact, located somewhere on the borderline between the Belarusian lands and Muscovy. Then, in the episode “The Vysh­nevetskys’ Mansion,” after he mustered the troops for a raid on Muscovy, False Dmitriy ad­dres­sed them with the following message: “Lithuania and Rus­sia, you are brotherly flags, / Rising to fight the common enemy, / My perfidious villain. / The sons of Slavs, I will lead you soon, / Into the longed-for battle I will lead your formidable forces.”

Here “brotherly flags” and “the sons of Slavs” emphasize the ethnically Slavic character of Lithuania’s population. Push­kin perceived Li­thuania primarily as a Slavic country. At the same time, the poet underscored that Lithuania was an enemy to Muscovy: “I called Li­thuania / To go against Rus’, against red Moscow. / I am showing the hidden way to the enemy! / But may this sin be not counted against me / But rather against you, regicide Boris!-Go ahead!” Pushkin lived two centuries ago, and it was natural for him to call Belarusian lands Lithuania.

The main dividing line bet­ween the Duchy of Lithuania and Muscovy was drawn in the domain of the state system. Lithuania had constitutional monarchy, while in Muscovy the tsar had absolute power. To add clarity to the picture, it can be said that on the Ukrainian territory a free election system had long been adopted to elect the Supreme Hetman and other officials.

As a confirmation, let me cite the book The History of the Rus’ People penned by Hryhorii Konysky, an 18th -century clerical and cultural activist. He called the inhabitants of Uk­raine “Rus’ people.” He wrote: they “are a free people, always ready to die for their freedom, (...) this trait is inborn in them and makes it hard to coerce them.” In contrast to this, the people populating Muscovy were given a fairly interesting de­scription by Osavul-General Fedir Bohun in his 1650 speech delivered in Chyhyryn: “What reigns among the people of Muscovy are extreme slavery and bondage. They have nothing of their own, except what belongs to God and the tsar. (...) To unite with a people like this is to go out of the frying-pan into the fire.”

Let us return to Lithuania. The poet Adam Mickiewicz, who was a contemporary of Pushkin, wrote in his Pan Tadeusz (Mister Thaddeus): “Lithuania, my dear Motherland! You are like my health. / He values you as his own blood / Who has lost you. Tortured by the foreign lands, / I sing and cry for you alone.” Mickiewicz was born in Zaosie, near Navahrudak, and considered Lithuania to be his Motherland. These lines clarify his self-identification: he identified himself with legendary Lithuania that had long before become part of what is now Belarus.

The designation Belarusians was not even in use at the time-it began to predominate when Lithua­nia became part of the Russian empire in the late 18th century. In the 19th century the Polish historian Aleksandr Bruck­ner wrote: “we always say Lithuanian and Lithua­nians, but this only replaces Bela­rusian and Belarusians because in 1510 a separate ethnographic Li­thua­nia could not be even dreamed of. Even in 1562 Ray called Bela­rusians Lithuanians, while in the 17th century Lithu­anian in Mos­cow’s use had the same meaning as Bela­rusian.”

The most significant historical, political, and cultural events in the duchy took place on the territory populated by contemporary Bela­rusians. Vilnius County with the center in Vil­nius is no exception. According to the 1897 census, Be­larusians were the predominant demographic group in the region. To­day the county is demanding certain autonomy within Lithuania because it has preserved its distinctive ethnic character. Until 1697 the main language of communication in the duchy was Old Belarusian, rather than the western dialect of Russian. The distinct features of Old Bela­rusian have Baltic origin.

Last but not least, let me add the final brushstroke to the historical picture by citing from Wikipedia’s article on Lithua­nia: “Old Lithuania was a multinational state with a significant domination of Slavic (Be­laru­sian) population and Slavic culture, whereas present-day Li­thuania emerged as a result of complex political processes in the 20th century and is a country with restored Baltic culture. The ancient tribe of Li­thuania is very similar to the tribe of Rus’. Both lent their names to the states and both left virtually nothing in terms of culture.”

It is quite true that historical Lithuania and Rus’ vanished. Today Lithuania refers to the Republic of Lithuania, while Rus’ designates Russia, but historically these entities were not the same. Present-day Lithuania is not the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while what existed in the old times was Rus’, rather than Russia.

The Belarusian historian Ana­tolii Taras says that Rus­sians, Ukrainians, and Bela­ru­sians are not even brothers. Per­haps. But we should remember that national identity is rooted primarily in people’s minds and is part of their self-consciousness. If we take a close look at a Russian, a Ukrainian, or a Bela­rusian, what we will find will be a certain human psychosocial construction, rather than a Russian, a Ukrainian, or a Bela­rusian. Each person, regardless of their nationality, is an ex­tre­mely complex psychosocial combination of elements. Simi­larly, we will not find a Frenchman, a Pole, or a Tatar but the same construction that is built following the universal laws of psychology and social logic. The person’s nationality and their attitude to nation will be mere elements of this combination.

Ethnicity is concealed in the social nature of man. There exist only poorly isolated, genetically much-varied populations of people that have evolved for 30-40 generations and that call themselves Russians, Ukrainians, or Bela­rusians. Therefore, genetic studies only complement the so­ciological and psychological studies of nations without re­placing them. Let every Be­la­rusian, Uk­rai­nian, or Russian define this affinity in their own terms and based on their own interests. Whether we are genetically related or not is not so important. The important thing is that we are neighbors and affect one another, whether we want it or not.

Every nation is unique, re­gardless of whether it is “great” or “small”, “major” or “minor.” The­re­fore, if Russians look at other Slavic neighbors as their former colonies, we are indeed not brothers.

To conclude, the collective social sets that the three East Slavic na­tions have developed in the course of history are largely different. Just like 500 years ago, Moscow tends to rule and dominate its neighbors, Be­la­ru­sians have only a modest degree of inner resistance — the war decimated our population, while Ukrainians were the first to introduce free elections and now, not surprisingly, are striving to join the EU.