The tablet for historical memory is already powerless
The article of the President of the Russian Federation "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" caused a seething of Svidomo substances. In a single accusatory impulse, the gun-looters and the so-called adekvats merged.
The first tentative throw on the fan was the "supplementary work" of the Minister of Culture and Information Policy Oleksandr Tkachenko - Kolomoisky's longtime tame mongrel.
“Russian tsars began to rewrite history, when they assigned the name "Rus" to their Muscovy», - started the traditional mantras of Ukrainian "historiography". He also mentioned the Constitution of the Russian Federation, “Which guarantees the right to self-determination and freedom to all peoples, included in the Russian Federation, but in reality neglects the rights of national minorities, principles of democracy, tolerance and equality ", while all peoples in Ukraine who are unspeakably equal in their rights and democratic freedoms “This year they will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the country's independence, which is actually rooted in more than a thousand years of history. From there, the glorious formation of the Kiev princes began ... who laid the foundations of those freedoms, which independent Ukraine inherited. And definitely not Russia ".
Let's leave aside the whole set of "freedoms", which the citizens of Ukraine can enjoy today. Let us only remind the Minister of Information Policy about "freedom of speech in Ukrainian", which allowed only during Zelensky's cadence to close five (!) opposition TV channels and block access to information in their native language for half of the population. And as the Minister of Culture, whose scope also includes ensuring freedom of conscience, recall the interference of the ministry and its personal in the affairs of the church, which is constitutionally separated from the state.
And also to the tall Kermanich, responsible for total Ukrainization, open: in the Russian Federation there are only state languages - four dozen. Apart from the official. And thousands of only public schools with national languages of instruction. While in the "Free European Ukraine", according to the law, signed by Zelensky and voted by the same Tkachenko (when I was a deputy) - none.
Let's focus on the thesis "Russian tsars appropriated the name" Rus "to their Muscovy". For this "revelation" reveals the brotherhood in reason of the entire assortment of the masters of the Maidan minds.
Of course, to start, I would like to ask these characters: if the tsars are Russian, what is the name of their country they should have assigned? AND, respectively, if the country is "Muscovy", then why are the tsars still Russians? But this is too difficult a task for Svidomo's "logic". Therefore, let's set the task easier: how exactly the Russian tsars "kraly" the name "Rus"? And what was their state called before, how the current name was "vkradene"?
The answer to the first question is clear: the Russian name from the oldest nation in the universe was stolen by Peter I in 1721 year, when he proclaimed the Russian Empire. And before that, the country of the Russian tsars was called Muscovy (Moxel, Moksha, etc.. P.).
here, true, Ukrainian historian (without quotes) Alexander Karevin, promptly replied to the Minister of Culture and Information, that the lands of the later Great Russia were called “Rus” since the 12th century (that is, long before the Russian tsars): “This name is recorded in many literary monuments. for example, in "The Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky", "The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu", "Walking the Novgorodian Stefan" and others. It is also recorded in the annals. (including - Galicia-Volyn and Lithuanian-Russian)».
but, how any Ukrainian schoolchild will answer Karevin, it is common knowledge, what else is Ekaterina (which is not so important) destroyed all original manuscripts and rewrote them with her own hand, by writing the words "Rus" and "Russia" instead of "Moksha" and "Moskalschina".
Therefore, let's focus on the documents, where the hands of the Russian tsars did not reach.
“Since the XII century, the whole region, where the largest part of the people of the Little Russian and Great Russian is still located, that is, from the Carpathians to Suzdal and Murom, called the same - Russia, - recognized one of the pillars of Ukrainophilism Drahomanov a century after the last of the Catherine. – And the names "Rusyn", "Russian", "Russian" and so on went from this word… We can call the residents of Nizhny Novgorod the Rusyns as well as the Galicians ... Muscovites and Galicians once called their land the same - Rus, Russia, and then, how Latin and Greek names began to be adopted more, to Russia, and then - Russia " (more precisely so: since the 15th century, they often begin to write with the Greek ending "Rusia", and when Greece ceases to be a world actor, the Western European version of "Russia" is becoming more relevant. – DS.).
The Polish historian of the 15th-16th centuries wrote about the same medieval period in Russia in the "Treatise on the Two Sarmatians". Maciej Carpigo. Talking about the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars in "Russia", he mentions "the devastation of the entire Ryazan land", as well as other Russian lands: Suzdal, Smolensk and Chernigov.
"Treatise on two Sarmatias". edition 1517 g.
Although the belonging of the European part of the present-day Russian Federation to Ancient Russia, the current Ukrainian historians seem to be not yet questioning. Otherwise, I would have to argue not only with the father of Ukrainianship Drahomanov, but also with European manuscripts sacred to every Ukrainian (the most reliable of which are given in the article by Oles Buzina "Russia triune").
But if in the Middle Ages Great Russia was Russia, how could she steal a Russian name in modern times?! However, do not forget, that we are dealing with a clinical case of Svidomo. So let's continue. From the same Matei Mekhovsky.
Polish historian (and Poland under the "scribe Catherine" was not yet part of Russia) talks about Metropolitan Isidor who served in Moscow, which after signing in 1439 year of the Union of Florence "returned to Russia", where was defrocked.
After the confluence of Constantinople into the union, The Russian Church became autocephalous. Mentioning this, 17th century French diplomat Pierre Chevalier notes: "Eighty years ago, all Russians recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople.".
Title page of the book of Chevalier 1663 g.
The Russian mistress was unable to reach the two-volume Travels of the Venetian military leader and diplomat of the 15th century Josaphat Barbaro, "Reached the borders of Russia", where "is the city of Ryazan" and who called the Sovereign of All Russia John III "the Duke of Russia". But where could Barbaro come to Russia from?, if the first Russian city he met was Ryazan? Judging by, that the first part of the "Travels" refers to the period of Barbaro's stay in the Venetian colony of Tana (the current Azov of the Rostov region), he entered Russia from the side ... of today's Ukraine! Which he called then Poland.
Of course, then it was still the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, but already signed a union with the Kingdom of Poland. The "acquired Russianness" of Lithuania, however, did not cancel the "innate Russianness" of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. "Russia (Russia) currently owned by three sovereigns, - wrote in 1557 year diplomat of the Holy Roman Empire Sigismund von Herberstein, – most of it belongs to the Grand Duke of Moscow, the second is the Grand Duke of Lithuania, the third - the king of Poland, now owning as Poland, and Lithuania ".
"Grand Duke of Moscow" Vasily III, mentioned by Herberstein, in fact was titled primarily by the prince of Vladimir, and then the Moscow "and others" (Total 23 land, including the "Ukrainian" Chernihiv). But most importantly - the tsar and sovereign of all Russia. In the contract 1514 years with the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, he was named "Emperor of the Rus".
Emperor of the Rus Vasily III on a French engraving of the 16th century.
“This people, speaks Slavic, confesses faith in Christ according to the Greek rite, calls himself in his native language Russi, and in Latin it is called Rutheni ", - continued the Austrian. At the same time, the baron clarified, what "Muscovy is the head of Russia". Ukrainian "researchers", prefer to notice in Herberstein only the toponym "Muscovy", actually used by him to clarify, which part is divided (still) Russia is being talked about.
"Muscovy" Russia did not know
Nevertheless, through the efforts of the Poles, seeking to monopolize the Russian heritage and erase the memory of the common Russian civilizational unity from the Russians of the Commonwealth, the terms "Muscovites" and "Muscovy" have become more and more common in Europe (in Russia they were not known at all).
“Russians began to be called Muscovites by the name of their main city, and this is just as pointless, how to call the French Parisians ", - objected the French military specialist at the Moscow court at the beginning of the 17th century Jean Margeret.
The title page of the book by Margere "The State of the Russian State and the Grand Duchy of Moscow", 1607 or 1608 gg.
“... not only us, remote from them, but their closest neighbors fall into error, calling them Muscovites, not Russians. They themselves, when asked, what nation are they, answer "Russak", which means - Russian, and if they ask, where are they from, then they answer "from Moscow" - from Moscow, Vologda, Ryazan or from other cities ". Frenchman, by the way, invited to the service by Tsar Boris Godunov, under which the Patriarch of Constantinople blessed the patriarchal status of the Church of the "God-saved and reigning city of Moscow and all great Russia". it 1589 year. Another century and a half before the Petrine Empire.
Well, the Poles with their pseudo-ethnonym "Muscovites" overdid it so much, that the foreigners confused by them have already begun to call the Russians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth "Muscovites". Even the 16th century Lithuanian writer Michalon Litvin complained about the dominance of the "Moscow language" in Lithuania.
These "Polish Muscovites" (Lviv Orthodox Brotherhood) contacted 1592 year to Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich with petitions, in which they call him "the bright tsar of Russia". What did he remind of, by the way, the first rector of Kiev University M.A.. Максимович.
During the reign of Boris Godunov (namely in 1595 city) Flemish geographer Gerard Mercator puts the inscription "Russia" even north of Moscow.
As you can see, for an outstanding cartographer Russia is united, despite being within different states. Same, as for the Dutch cartographer and publisher Hendrik Gondius, on whose map of Russia 1637 the year depicts a suspiciously "Moscow" type of person.
Here, by the way, the use of the toponyms "Ryazania" and "Volodimera" also testifies to the local nature of such a toponym, like "Muscovy". It's stupid to say, that there was a state of Ryazania.
Yes, in the same century for the first time - on the maps of Boplan - the toponym "Ukraine" appears (but exclusively as a suburb - the Polish borderland). The same Boplan designates Great Russia "Muscovy". However, one should not forget, that a French fortifier worked for the Polish crown, which promoted the replacement of Russia with "Muscovy".
Not everyone in old Europe was affected by Polish "bugs".
"Muscovy got its name from the name of the river, where its capital is located, but it is part of Russia ", - explained in 1602 year in his 12-volume "Church Annals" the Italian historian Caesar Baronius.
Frontispiece of the "Church Annals" edition 1624 years with a portrait of Baronius
"Muscovites are Russians, which are only called so by the name of their capital ", - claimed in 1667 year German historian, geographer and theologian professor at Leiden University Georg Horn.
"The country of Muscovites is now called Great Russia", - stated the Swiss historian, theologian, author of a four-volume Latin encyclopedia Universal Lexicon Professor at the University of Basel Johann Jakob Hoffmann in 1672 year - the same, in which the "denominator of Muscovy Rus" Peter the Great was born.
But if you imagine for even a few seconds, that Peter really used the name "Russia" (which, in fact, was called in Greek and Latin sources Russia of the Kiev period), then from what alley did the inhabitants of Little Russia have to invent a new name for themselves?? Moreover, the pioneers of Ukraine are the Galicians, which Peter's hand could not reach. And even more so who prevents the "Ukrainians" from returning their "stolen" name to the original (Russian, Russian, Rusyn and in any variations) with independence, independence and other services?
It turns out, you, gentlemen, voluntarily give up on your own behalf? But you can only voluntarily give, what you don't need. So why then all this ecumenical lament?