We will not now talk about the political aspects of this historical turn in the destinies of Southern Russia and we will not yet guess what outcome this turn will lead to, whether it will become the beginning of a great liberation campaign of Orthodox Russian people against Kyiv or remain a purely defensive political operation.
The decision chosen by the leaders of the DPR and LPR has both its undoubted advantages - the claim to liberate the entire territory of Ukraine from the Kyiv junta and, at the same time, the rejection of "Ukrainianism" as a political idea, which is expressed in renaming, and its disadvantages - the rejection of clear and unambiguous Russian identity, which was incorporated into the idea of Novorossiya. However, if you look closely, the idea of Little Russia, as it appeared in the 17th century, under Bohdan Khmelnitsky, also contains a huge unifying Russian potential. We will try to tell about this, tracing the history of the term "Little Russia" from its origin in the depths of the Byzantine patriarchal offices, to the moment when, after the Pereyaslav Rada, it entered the title of Russian sovereigns ...
Where did the terms "Little Russia", "Little Russia", "Little Russia" come from? There is a popular and often discussed explanation, first proposed by the famous Russian scholar and passionate polemicist against Ukrainian separatism A.V. Storozhenko (who wrote journalism under the pseudonym Andrei Tsarinny) (1857-1926). Storozhenko rightly stated that the concepts of "Little" and "Great" Russia are of book origin and began to be used by the Byzantines in their relations with Russia, in official church and diplomatic documentation (1).
But Storozhenko gave an erroneous explanation of the meaning of the words themselves: the word "Small" in the view of the Greeks allegedly meant the initial zone of settlement of some people, and the word "Great" - the zone of its expansion, colonization. "Greater Greece" was the name of the Greek colonies in Italy, "Asia Minor" was the name of the peninsula, allegedly because it was the birthplace of all the peoples of Asia, Britain Minor - Brittany was the ancestral home of the Celts who settled Great Britain. "Little Poland" - the area of the initial settlement of the Poles near Krakow, and "Greater Poland" - the later distribution near Poznan.
According to Storozhenko, “having inquired about the division of Russia that had taken place, the patriarch and emperor began to call Kievan, Dnieper Rus, known to them from time immemorial, as Lesser, and Zalessky Rus, which again appeared to their mental gaze, as Great Rus. Within the boundaries of Little Russia, according to the Byzantine idea, the dioceses were located: Galicia, Vladimir-Volyn, Kholm, Peremyshl, Lutsk and Turov (1347).
This explanation of Storozhenko, which is very sparing to Ukrainian vanity (it was eventually even turned out by Ukrainian propaganda to the formula: “Moscow was a colony of Ukraine”), was supported by a prominent Russian linguist O.N. Trubachev, who emphasized that “this model does not conceal any great power and chauvinism, although they sometimes willingly think so ... In the eyes of a sophisticated reader, these names are good road signs for migrations from the mental center of Europe” (2).
In general, you are the center, we are the later colonized outskirts. Calm down and stop jumping.
But, alas. This hypothesis does not stand up to serious source study analysis. A.V. entered into a controversy with Storozhenko. Solovyov is a major Russian Slavic historian who lived at that moment in Yugoslavia, and then forced by the Yugoslav communists to leave this country and moved to Geneva (3).
There was no such thing as "Greece Minor" as opposed to "Great Greece". The Celts did not move from Britain Minor to Great Britain. Then this country was called "Armorica". It received the name "Brittany" only as a result of the return migration of the Celts, expelled from Great Britain by the Anglo-Saxons in the 3rd-4th centuries. The Byzantines in the time of Justinian knew "Great Armenia" around Ararat and "Little Armenia" in Cilicia. Moreover, these terms “Armenia Small and Great” penetrated into the “Tale of Bygone Years”. When Hungarian missionaries found east of Russia in 1238, they called the alleged ancestral home of the Hungarians "Great Hungary". Papal missionary Wilhelm Rubruck knows "Great Bulgaria" on the Volga and "Little Bulgaria" in the Balkans. The distribution turns out to be almost the opposite than what Storozhenko suggested - "Great" is the main one, and "Small" is the latest colony.
But all these considerations do not apply to the pair “Great” and “Little” Russia. The origin of these terms is purely bookish. They originated from the dust and ink of the patriarchal office in Constantinople and only slowly came into circulation in Russia itself. This genesis was studied in detail by A.V. Nazarenko - perhaps the most subtle in terms of research methods from modern domestic source experts (4).
The word "Great Russia" (ή Μεγάλη Ρωσία) first appears officially in the list of metropolitan areas under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople compiled at the end of the 12th century under Emperor Isaac II Angelos. A little earlier, around 1143, the Greek canonist Neil Doxopatra compiled a treatise on patriarchates for the Norman king of Sicily, Roger II, where he remarked: “in the same way, a metropolitan is sent to great Russia by a patriarch from Constantinople.” Since before that the Greeks called this metropolis simply Ρωσία, the addition of the term “great” in dry canonical documents must somehow be explained.
A.V. Nazarenko connects it with the appearance of the term “Novorossiya” (νέας Ρωσίας) in the lists of metropolitanates dating back to the end of the 11th century, which is located in the mysterious Μαυροκάστρου, that is, in the “Black City”, in which it is difficult not to recognize Chernihiv. Thus, the origin of the term "Novorossia" is clarified - it meant a new metropolis, which was founded in Chernigov during the division of the Russian Land between the three sons of Yaroslav the Wise. Izyaslav reigned in Kyiv, Svyatoslav in Chernigov, Vsevolod in Pereyaslavl, and he also had his own Metropolitan Ephraim of Pereyaslavsky. When compiling the list, the clerks of Constantinople lost this metropolitanate, confusing it with the Bulgarian city of Rusiy, and they had “Rusiy Prestlava”, but most likely initially, along with the old metropolis of Kievan Rus’, the metropolis of Rus’ of Chernigov and Rus’ of Pereyaslavl were on the list.
Later, when the context was lost, and the place in the lists was preserved, mentioning the metropolis of Chernigov, the scribe melancholy noted "νέα", "new" Russia, as opposed to the well-known old - just Russia, not knowing that the embryo of the most emotionally loaded political-geographical term of the beginning of the XXI century.
When, after the death of Svyatoslav and Izyaslav Yaroslavich in 1078, Vsevolod Yaroslavich, the father of Vladimir Monomakh, became the sole Grand Duke, the separate metropolises were abolished, Vsevolod became the prince of "All Russia". This naming "πάσης Ρωσίας" was reflected in one of the found seals of Vsevolod, although it is not used on others (more than a dozen of them have been preserved). This allowed A.V. Nazarenko to hypothesize that a bull with just such a seal was sent to the prince from Constantinople in order to emphasize the overcoming of the division of Russia and the need to overcome the division of the metropolis.
The term "πάσης Ρωσίας" is actively used in Constantinople in relation to the Russian metropolitans and princes precisely in those periods when they faced the danger of fragmentation of the metropolis, to which the Greeks were extremely sensitive. On the seals of Metropolitans Constantine II (1167-1170) and Nicephorus II (1183-1198), “all Russia” appears - this is clearly connected with the claims of Andrei Bogolyubsky to withdraw the Metropolis of Vladimir from subordination to Kyiv, which were decisively rejected by Constantinople. Since then, to any threat to the integrity of the metropolis, the clerks of Constantinople responded by intensifying the term "all Russia".
And it is with this context that A.V. Nazarenko also connects the appearance in the list of metropolises of “great Russia”, which meant the same as “all Russia”, that is, the unity of the Russian metropolis under the rule of the Metropolitan of Kyiv:
"In the formula all Russia from the inscriptions on the seals of the Kyiv metropolitans of the 60-90s of the XII century, it is easy to see a turnover synonymous with the synchronous great Russia(That's right, with a lower case!) from the official term of the Constantinople metropolises. The first sheds light on the meaning of the second. It turns out that the definition of "great" in relation to Russia of the XII century did not at all matter as opposed to some other small or new Russia, but pointed to the integrity of the Russian lands, ecclesiastically subject to the Metropolitan of Kyiv: great means "the whole". This clarification accentuated the unity of the Kyiv All-Russian Metropolis in a situation where it had just been restored or was subjected to new threats” (5).
So, “Great Russia” is not some mysterious distant country with new settlers who came out of Little Russia, but Russia as a whole, all Russia.
But there is no "Little Russia" in the Greek texts. There is "Microrussia". So the church dioceses were designated, which Constantinople had to separate from the Kyiv metropolis at the request of the Galician prince Yuri Lvovich in 1301. This was due to the fact that at the end of the 13th century, Metropolitan Kirill III (1242-1281), a native of Volyn, who in his youth was a close associate of Daniel of Galicia and his actual protege on the metropolitan throne, actually transferred his residence from Kyiv to Vladimir, to Alexander Nevsky . The Greek Metropolitan Maxim (1283-1305) followed his path, moving his residence from devastated Kyiv to Bryansk, and then also moving to Vladimir.
Dissatisfied with the shift of church authority far to the north, Prince Yuri Lvovich of Galicia, the grandson of Daniel of Galicia, achieved the approval of the Bishop of Galicia Nifont by the Patriarch of Constantinople Athanasius of Galicia as a metropolitan for the dioceses subordinate to the Galician princes. Since the Byzantines considered this metropolis as a child of “all” and “great” Russia, in the list of dioceses it was given the name of the metropolis of “Galich of Little Russia” (της Γαλίτζες της Μικράς Ρωσίας) (6).
The fact that “Microrussia” was conceived as a separate part from “Great Russia” can be seen from the numerous Greek explanations for the mention of the new metropolis, one of which reads: “There were 19 dioceses in Great Russia: now there are 12 left. When the diocese of Galicia was elevated to the degree Metropolis by Tsar Andronik according to the royal chrysovuls and patriarchal writings under Patriarch Kir-Athanasius, then the following dioceses submitted to the Galician metropolis: Volodimer, Przemysl, Lutsk, Turov and Kholm ”(7).
With this metropolis, however, unfortunate adventures immediately began to occur. In 1305, after Yuri Lvovich sent to Constantinople, a native of Volhynia, hegumen and icon painter Peter to consecrate him to the Galician metropolitans instead of Nifont. However, at that time, news came to the patriarch about the death of Metropolitan of All Russia Maxim in Vladimir, and a candidate from Grand Duke Mikhail of Tver, Gerontius, arrived. Having provolyniv several years, Patriarch Athanasius in 1308 approved ... the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia of the Volyn candidate, thereby actually abolishing the Galician Metropolis.
“This amazing diplomatic compromise, which temporarily put an end to Galician separatism, but at the same time gave the Galician candidate over the entire Russian church,” notes Archpriest. John Meyendorff, clearly shows that from the Byzantine point of view, the unity of the metropolis was more important than the complaints of “Little Russia” about church abandonment” (8).
The Galtian princes tried to restore the Micro-Russian metropolis. Twice more in the sources emerge the "Metropolitans of Galicia" Gabriel and Theodore, who appeared under Peter's successor, the Greek Theognost. However, Theognost each time won the apparatus struggle in Constantinople. As the compiler of the next list of metropolitans noted melancholy, “the Metropolitan of Galicia received this honor many times, but by the power of the Russian metropolitan he was again reduced to the position of a bishop” (9).
As in the case of the Byzantine title of "All Russia", which penetrated Russian princely titles in the 14th-15th centuries, the title of "Little Russia" also moved from ecclesiastical terminology to secular one. In 1331, the last Prince of Galicia, Yuri Boleslav, in a letter to the master of the Teutonic Order, names himself: "Georgius Dei gratia natus dux tocius Russie Mynoris" (10).
10. Boleslav Yuri II, Prince of all Little Russia. SPb 1907 p. 5
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian historians even published a collection dedicated to Yuri Boleslav (about which extremely fragmentary information has come down to us). This collection opens with an article by Prof. I. Rezhabek "Yuri II, the last prince of all Little Russia." But it would be fairer to say that Yuri was not the last, but her only prince, since this title was not used either before or after.
In 1340, Yuri Boleslav was poisoned by the boyars, and after his death, the Polish king Casimir captured Lvov, and Volhynia was taken over by Lubart-Dmitry Gediminovich, an Orthodox prince from the ruling Lithuanian family. It was he who tried to officially restore the "Metropolis of Little Russia".
The final point in the "legal" existence of the Micro-Russian Metropolis was put by Emperor John Kantakouzin, the famous political leader of the Byzantine hesychasts. Having won the civil war in 1347, he took up the arrangement of church affairs. Just at that time, a letter came to him from the Grand Duke of Moscow Simeon Ivanovich ("Proud") with a request to restore the unity of the metropolia. The diploma was accompanied by a large donation for the restoration of St. Sophia of Kyiv.
In a response message, Kantakuzin called Simeon "nephew" (ανεψιοί) and designated him the title "great king of all Russia" (μέγας ρήξ πάσης Ρωσίας) - it is noteworthy that where in the X-XII centuries the word "άρχον" was used in relation to Russian princes - prince , then Kantakuzen calls Simeon "ρήξ" - tracing paper from the Latin "rex", which is much closer to "king" (11).
11. Russian Historical Library published by the Archeographic Commission. T.6. Monuments of ancient Russian canon law. Part 1. (MonumentsXI-XV centuries). St. Petersburg, 1880. Applications. Monuments of Russian canon lawXIII-15th century preserved in the Greek original (hereinafter referred to as "Monuments ... Appendix."). No. 5 Art. 25-30
In the attached imperial chrysobulus, the Byzantine view of the "Μικρά Ρωσία" is expressed very clearly:
“From the time when the Russian people, by the grace of Christ, received the knowledge of God. the most holy bishoprics of Little Russia, located in the area called Volhynia: Galician, Vladimir, Kholmsk, Przemysl, Lutsk and Turov, as well as the most holy bishoprics of Great Russia, belonged to the Kyiv metropolis, which is currently governed by His Grace Metropolitan, Hyperthymos and Exarch of All Russia , Cyrus Theognost.
But in recent times, turmoil, favorable for all sorts of disorders, ruling the affairs of the state and unworthily standing in the church, not thinking of anything else but the fulfillment of their whims (thanks to which they have thrown public and church affairs into disorder, almost everywhere they have brought disorder and turmoil and caused all kinds of harm and evil to Christian souls and bodies), they also introduced that novelty that they torn away the named bishoprics of Little Russia from this most holy metropolis of Kyiv and subordinated them to the Galician bishop, elevating him from bishops to metropolitans, which was not only done in violation of customs , which have been established in all of Russia since ancient times, but also turned out to be painful and hated for all the Christians there, who do not tolerate being the flock of two metropolitans, want the custom to remain unshakable and unchanged, which, as it is said, has existed with them since ancient times, and in every possible way strive to destroy such novelty. So, in the same way, in former times, when such news was also planned, it fell and collapsed at the very beginning - precisely because the Christians there, as it was said, do not tolerate the abolition and violation of their custom. And now the noblest great king of Russia, the kind nephew of my royal majesty, Cyrus Simeon, is reporting this matter to my royal majesty, and, together with other princes there, asks that by my royal chrisovul those bishops should again be subordinated to the aforementioned holy metropolis of Kyiv, as it was before.
Finding this request fair and respectful, both by virtue of the aforementioned, from the beginning and still valid church custom, and by attention to the excellently virtuous and charitable life of the named His Grace Metropolitan of Kyiv, Reverend [hyperthimos] and Exarch of All Russia, who lost [his rights], our the royal majesty, with a real chrysovul, sealed with gold, deigns, decrees and determines that the most holy bishoprics located in Little Russia: Galician, Vladimir, Kholmskaya, Peremyshlskaya, Lutsk and Turov, which, as it was said, were given to Galician at the aforementioned time of unrest, not by belonging, were again subordinated to the most holy Metropolis of Kyiv” (12).
12. Monuments ... Application. No. 3 Art. 13-20
As Meyendorff shows, the Byzantines in general were extremely consistently and stubbornly pursuing a policy of the unity of Russia, which was torn apart both ecclesiastically and politically by the Russian and Lithuanian princes. And their "favorites" were precisely the princes of Moscow.
On the decision of Kantakuzin to abolish the Galich Metropolis, the history of "Little Russia" most likely would have ended, if not for the active policy of the architect of the Lithuanian great power - Prince Olgerd. Remaining a pagan himself, however, he actively sought the creation in the lands subordinate to him of an Orthodox metropolis of an “alternative” Kyiv metropolis located in Vladimir and Moscow. Having not received a positive response in Constantinople, Olgerd arranged for the consecration of his candidate - Theodoret - by the Bulgarian Patriarch in Tarnovo, which, of course, was absolutely illegal, because the Bulgarian Patriarch did not have canonical power over Lithuania or Russia. Thanks to Olgerd, Theodoret settled in Kyiv and the Russian Metropolis was on the verge of a serious split.
Patriarch Philotheus, one of the closest associates of the leader of hesychasm, St. Gregory Palamas, dealt with this issue very decisively. Theodoret was excommunicated, the Russian hierarch Metropolitan Alexei (Byakont) was appointed to the chair in Vladimir, who would soon become the de facto regent of Moscow during the infancy of Dmitry Donskoy, the patriarch sent Archbishop Moses of Novogorodsk a strict demand to obey only Alexei. But the main thing that Theophilus did was to transfer the chair of the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia from Kyiv to Vladimir by a formal decree, knocking out from under the feet of the schismatic Theodoret the argument that he controls Kyiv, and therefore is the Kyiv Metropolitan.
“The most holy Russian metropolis, together with other cities and villages within its borders, still had a city in Little Russia called Kyiv, in which the cathedral church of the metropolis was originally located, and the most blessed Russian bishops also had their residence here. But since this city has suffered greatly from the unrest and unrest of the present time and from the terrible pressure of the neighboring Alamans and has fallen into an extremely disastrous state, those who are hierarchically presiding in Russia and having here not such a flock as befitted them, but in comparison with former times very insufficient, so that they did not have the necessary means of maintenance, they moved to the Holy Bishopric of Vladimir subordinate to them ”(13).
13. Monuments ... Application. No. 12 Art. 63-70
It is interesting that in this document Kyiv no longer refers to Great, but to Little Russia. Obviously, in the eyes of the Greeks, the boundaries of Great and Little Russia were relatively indistinct and subject to political circumstances. At that time, Kyiv was already under the rule of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and, accordingly, was associated with "Little Russia".
Soon the circumstances in Constantinople changed and John Kantakuzenos, and together with him Patriarch Philotheus, resigned from power. The new patriarch Kallistos resolved the dispute with Olgerd differently. Olgerd renounced the schismatic Filaret, and in return received in 1355 the canonical head of the Lithuanian metropolia - Roman, who was a relative of both Olgerd and the princes of Tver.
However, Roman claimed more - for Kyiv, since he was under the rule of Olgerd, and even for Tver, by the right of kinship and dislike of the Tver princes for Moscow. A protracted conflict began, as each side tried to prove their rights to Kyiv. At some point, even an anecdotal situation arose when Metropolitan Roman demanded church fees from Tver, relying on his kinship with the princely house. Having learned about this money from the same Tver, Alexei also demanded.
As a result, the patriarch compromised: Constantinople granted ecclesiastical authority to Roman over not only Lithuania, but also over Lesser Russia - Galicia, “so that he, together with two Lithuanian bishops, Polotsk and Turov, with the addition of Novogorodok, the metropolitan see, would also have the bishopric of Lesser Russia Rus", while Kir Alexei "remains, as he was ordained at first, Kyiv and all Russia" (14). But Roman did not even deign to accept a letter from the patriarch and left: he seized the diocese of Bryansk from Metropolitan Alexei and actually ruled in Kyiv.
14. Monuments ... Application. Art. 76
In 1358, Metropolitan Alexei decided to exercise his primatial rights in the possessions of Olgerd. And then, according to the expression of the conciliar definition of Patriarch Nile, compiled in 1380:
“The Lithuanian prince, a fire-worshipper, always ready to make a devastating attack on any foreign country and conquer any city for himself, but who did not find any access to Great Russia, did not want to remain in peace, but breathed fire on the metropolitan, trying to inflict the most serious insults on him. So, one day, seizing him by deceit while he was surveying Little Russia and the Christians subject to his power, he took him into custody, took away valuable utensils from him and perhaps would have killed him if, with the assistance of some, he had not secretly escaped and thus got rid of from danger” (15).
15. Monuments ... Appendix. Art. 168
Before us is a unique evidence that during a trip to Little Russia (here Kyiv again falls into it), Metropolitan Alexei was captured and captured. Russian chronicles are silent about this event, and the earlier correspondence of the patriarchs and Alexei is silent about this, although there were many reasons to mention this incident. Therefore, it is possible that when in 1380 a pro-Moscow solution to the Little Russian issue was drawn up in Constantinople, they simply rewrote the Moscow letter of complaint, in which, over the years, they could have exaggerated something. We would not dare to say with all certainty that the capture of Metropolitan Alexei took place. But we have no grounds to unequivocally reject the evidence of this document. For example, no traces of the Metropolitan's presence at the bedside of the dying Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich in 1359, where it would be appropriate for him to appear, have been preserved.
If Metropolitan Alexei was indeed captured and fled, then this flight, in fact, saved Russia - it was at that moment that Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich died in Moscow, the juvenile orphan Dmitry remained on the princely table, and the great reign completely sailed away to Nizhny Novgorod. If the metropolitan had not returned alive and well and had not assumed the actual regency, most likely the capital of Russia would first have moved to Vilna, and then it is not known whether Russia would have existed at all.
"Kir Roman" behaved like a bully. He appropriated to himself the diocese administered by Alexei in Bryansk captured by Lithuania, initiated an attack by the Lithuanians on the patrimony of the metropolitan - Aleksin on the Oka, and in 1360 arrived in Tver, which was not and could not be subordinate to him. But “do not be nothing to him according to his will and thought, and do not see him Theodore, Bishop of Tver, nor give him any honor” (16).
16. Quoted from. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. M., "Terra", 1993. T.1. With. 318
In 1361, Olgerd's international shares declined, but they grew with Metropolitan Alexei, who became the de facto regent of Russia, who was also favorably received in the Horde, where he healed Khansha Taidulla. Patriarch Kallistos, following a complaint from Moscow, admitted that the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia is "Kir Alexei", and "Kir Roman", appointed by the Metropolitan of Lithuania, claims more than he has the right according to the canons.
“Having come to Kyiv, he unjustly celebrated liturgies and ordinations here and boldly called himself the only Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia, which caused confusion and confusion in the area of the Right Reverend Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia and prompted the sovereign of Lithuania to rise up against Christians and cause them many troubles and bloodshed ... The ambassadors of the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Lithuania, who came here henceforth, proclaimed, as if boasting: “It is evident that His Grace Metropolitan Kir Roman is strong and can take possession of the entire area of the Russian Metropolis, if he, having come to Kyiv, liturgical here, captured many bishops and restored the Lithuanian sovereign against kir Alexei; having such power from the Lithuanian sovereign, he can do everything” (17).
17. Monuments ... Application. No. 13 Art. 78
“Wishing to protect the Russian Christian people from murders, unrest, wars and confusion,” Patriarch Kallistos ordered an investigation of Roman and sent his representatives to Lithuania. However, in 1362 Roman died and the patriarch with a light heart simply abolished the Lithuanian Metropolis.
Patriarch Filofei (Kokkin), who again became patriarch and replaced Kalistos, even thought of issuing a special decree, in which, referring to the decision of Kallistos, it would be decreed that “Lithuanian land should not be set aside or separated from the power of the Metropolitan of Kyiv under any circumstances; for this, once admitted, has produced much confusion and confusion” (18).
18. Monuments ... Appendix. No. 15 Art. 91-98
But, for some reason, Filofey changed his mind and the decree already entered in the patriarchal book was crossed out. Obviously, Filofei wanted to leave the possibility of restoring the Lithuanian Metropolis as a last resort in case Olgerd was blackmailed by persecution of Christians or conversion to Catholicism.
Olgerd at that moment calmed down and even allowed Alexei to come to Bryansk and install a bishop there, and also reacted favorably to the baptism in Tver by the metropolitan of his daughter. However, in 1368 a great Muscovite-Lithuanian war began, in which Lithuania stood up for Tver, Olgerd twice besieged the Kremlin, and the world had to be forgotten. The patriarch in Constantinople had to choose a side - and in June 1370 Philotheus fired a real "volley from the city" in support of Moscow (19).
19. Monuments ... Application. Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
In a letter addressed to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, Patriarch Philotheus calls him “All Russia” and calls the Russians “the holy people” for whom he prays even more zealously than for the rest of the flock: “I especially do this in relation to you, the holy people of Christ who are there knowing how much they have fear of God, love and faith. Yes, I pray and love you all in preference to others” (20).
20. Monuments ... Application. No. 16 Art. 100
Even more characteristic is Filofey’s letter to Metropolitan Alexei, in which, frankly, more papal than Byzantine notes sound: “For you bear my own rights, and if they submit and show honor and love to your hierarchy, they will honor me, who earth the right of God (τά δίκαια τοΰ ϑεοΰ). And since you, by the grace of Christ, have been appointed by me as a metropolitan, then you have my rights, and everyone who submits to your hierarchship submits to me ”(21).
21. Monuments ... Application. No. 17 Art. 108
Just think about the theological construction itself, which at that moment was built by Patriarch Philotheus: Russians are more than others beloved by the patriarch, who has the rights of God, the holy people, for whom he especially prays, Metropolitan Alexei - the head of the Moscow government, - the vicar of the vicar of God on earth, and therefore disobedience to him is disobedience to God. The Moscow prince and metropolitan regent are the plenipotentiary representation of God on the Russian Land.
In the same spirit, two more documents of Philotheus were sustained - the requirement for all Russian princes to obey Metropolitan Alexei and "to accept his words as God's testaments" (22). And an even more decisive ultimatum, excommunicating from the Church all Russian princes who do not participate in the war between Moscow and the pagan Olgerd, which the patriarch actually proclaims a crusade.
22. Monuments ... Application. No. 18 Art. 109-114
“Since the most noble princes of Russia all agreed and concluded an agreement with the Grand Duke of All Russia Kir Dimitri, obliging themselves with terrible oaths and kissing the honest and life-giving cross, in order to all together go to war against those alien to our faith, enemies of the cross, who do not believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, but foul and godlessly worshiping fire; and the great prince, in accordance with his oath and the agreement concluded with those [princes], not cherishing his life and placing above all the love of God and the obligation to fight for Him and defeat His enemies, prepared and waited for them; and they, not fearing God and not fearing their oaths, transgressed them and the kiss of the cross, so that not only did they not fulfill the mutual agreement and promise, but, on the contrary, united with the impious Olgerd, who, having opposed the Grand Duke, destroyed and ruined many Christians: then these princes, as despisers and violators of the commandments of God and their oaths and promises, are excommunicated [from the church] by the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia, in the Holy Spirit, beloved brother and co-servant of our dimension ”(23).
23. Monuments ... Application. No. 20 Art. 117-120
The moment was the most decisive - the letter was given in June, and in December 1370 Olgerd and his ally Mikhail of Tverskoy approached Moscow, but did not succeed. There is no doubt that by supplying Moscow with a whole heap of evidence of support, compiled in the most energetic terms, the patriarch did what he could to provide significant diplomatic support in the conflict with Lithuania.
However, here Microrussia again took up Filofey. In the same 1370, a message came from Casimir, "the king of the land of Lyash and Little Russia," demanding that the Galician metropolis be restored and a certain Anthony appointed to it. The message was accompanied by an unequivocal threat: “If there is no mercy of God and your blessing on this man, then do not complain about us later: we will need to baptize Russians in the Latin faith” (24).
24. Monuments ... Application. No. 22 Art. 125-128
Before this threat, which has been constantly repeated since then regarding the Russian people in Little Russia, Filofey was forced to yield. In May 1371, a “conciliar act was held on Bishop Kir Antony, who came from Little Russia”, who was appointed Metropolitan of Galicia and “authorized to temporarily take control of Kholmskaya, Turovskaya, Przemyslskaya and Vladimirskaya [Volynskaya - E.Kh.]” (25) .
25. Monuments ... Application. No. 23 Art. 129-134
In explanations with Metropolitan Alexei, the patriarch decided to shift the blame for this decision to the Russian side: “Know that since you have not visited and surveyed Little Russia for so many years, King Casimir of Lyashsky, who owns Little Russia, and other princes sent here , our dimension, the bishop…” (26).
26. Monuments ... Application. No. 25 Art. 141-148
In the same letter, Filofey complains to Alexei about a letter from Olgerd, received simultaneously with Casimir's letter. In this letter, Olgerd lists in detail the guilt of Moscow and the Metropolitan personally in an aggressive policy against Olgerd’s allies, in violation of the kissing of the cross (I remind you that Filofey himself endowed Alexei with rights that, in fact, gave him the opportunity to impose anathemas and resolve oaths, as if it were God himself did) (27).
27. Monuments ... Application. No. 24 Art. 135-140
“And under our fathers there were no such metropolitans as this metropolitan! - blesses the Muscovites for bloodshed, and does not come to us, nor does he come to Kyiv ... Give us another metropolitan to Kyiv, Smolensk, Tver, Little Russia, Novosil, Nizhny Novgorod ”(28). Here, Olgerd's Little Russia is again separate from Kyiv, but the application is utterly ambitious, in fact, to separate from Moscow and its metropolitan eparchy all of Olgerd's allies and well-wishers. Filofey could not agree to anything like that even in a nightmare.
28. Monuments ... Appendix. No. 24 Art. 138
As a result, the policy of the patriarch in the Russian-Lithuanian church conflict began to make unthinkable somersaults. He sent the monk Cyprian to Russia as a conciliator, and then, in December 1375, while Metropolitan Alexei was still alive, he made Cyprian "Metropolitan of Kyiv, Russia and Lithuania", placing him for the lands that were in the power of Olgerd.
Some researchers believe that this was open conformism under the pressure of Olgerd, moreover, not very decent on the part of Cyprian in relation to Metropolitan Alexei (29). Others, like Fr. John Meyendorff and G.M. Prokhorov, they see here the wise policy of Philotheus to preserve the unity of the metropolis (30).
29. Kartashev. Essays ... ss. 321-323
30. Meyendorf. Byzantium ... ss. 239-265; Prokhorov G.M. The story of Mitya. Russia and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo. Leningrad, "Science", 1978
Cyprian had good connections with Russian monasticism, in particular with St. Sergius of Radonezh, but who was promoted by Prince Dmitry Ivanovich to the role of successor-metropolitan priest Mikhail Mityai in Lithuania would definitely not have been accepted. Despite the fact that later Cyprian became the sole Metropolitan of Russia and died in this rank, and the Orthodox Church canonized him, an outstanding writer, among the saints, the very fact of the “parallel” setting of any justification from the point of view of church canons cannot have this decision the patriarch is confused.
By the time Metropolitan Alexei died in 1378, Patriarch Philotheus had already been dismissed from the patriarchate and Cyprian had lost his support. The favorite of the Grand Duke Dmitry, Mikhail Mityai, went to Constantinople, but on the way he either died, or was reduced to the grave by the environment. Since there was money for the appointment, and the letters of the Grand Duke had not yet been filled out, the archimandrites accompanying Mityai decided to enter the name of one of them - Pimen, and make him a metropolitan. Cyprian had more opportunities for them, and they achieved recognition of him as being uncanonical (it is quite likely from their testimony that the captivity of Metropolitan Alexei Olgerd appeared in the text of the patriarchal letter).
In this context, the concept of “Little Russia” appears again - this is exactly how Cyprian is called “metropolitan of Lithuania and Little Russia” in the act of his deposition, adopted by Patriarch Nil in 1380. Denying Cyprian the title of metropolitan of Kyiv and recognizing his appointment as illegal, the patriarch, however, left him "metropolitan of Lithuania and Little Russia" (31). At the same time, the Patriarch decreed that Pimen “if the metropolitan of Lesser Russia and Lithuania dies before him, then he will take control of Little Russia with Lithuania ... And after him, for all time, the bishops of All Russia will be delivered only at the request of from Great Russia" (32).
31. Monuments ... Application. No. 30 Art. 165-184
32. Monuments ... Application. Art. 184
But here again everything got confused. Dmitry Donskoy did not send any Pimen for the metropolitan rank. He sent Mityai there, and, of course, after returning to Russia, Pimen was immediately captured and exiled to distant Chukhloma. The Grand Duke decided to reconcile with Cyprian and make him the metropolitan. There are several points of view when Cyprian arrived in Moscow - if in May 1380, then he blessed the prince for the Battle of Kulikovo, if a year later, then no. But in any case, it is known that it was with his support that a large group of Orthodox Lithuanian Gediminovich princes took part in the Battle of Kulikovo.
One way or another, with the arrival of Cyprian in Moscow, "Little Russia" again disappeared from big church politics. In the act of the final deposition of Pimen and the approval of Cyprian as Metropolitan of All Russia, “Great Russia” appears many times, and “Little Russia” is not even mentioned, as well as in letters of Galich’s church affairs dating back to the end of the XIV century (33).
33. Monuments ... Application. No. 33. Art. 193-228
Even when in 1414 the Lithuanian prince Vitovt, without recognizing the successor of Metropolitan Cyprian, Metropolitan Photius, arbitrarily and without the blessing of Constantinople appointed the Bulgarian Gregory Tsamblak as the head of the Lithuanian Orthodox, he was elevated to the rank of "Metropolitan of Kyiv and All the Powers of Lithuania." When, in 1458, the Polish King Casimir withdrew the Orthodox dioceses of the Commonwealth from subordination to Moscow and installed Uniate Metropolitan Gregory the Bulgarian there, he received the title "Metropolitan of Kyiv, Galicia and All Russia." About "Little Russia" was not remembered again.
So, let's sum up the interim results before proceeding further. The terminology "Great Russia" and "Little Russia" was completely invented in the office of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and was used to describe church affairs and the space of canonical authority of the metropolitans of Russia. At first it was just “Rus”, then, during the period of the division of Rus by the sons of Yaroslav the Wise, the concept of “Novorossia” slips through - the new metropolises of Rus as opposed to Kyiv. With the restoration of autocracy, a single canonical space of "all Russia" and "Great Russia" is also restored. When, at the beginning of the 14th century, in view of the separatist claims of the Galician princes, Constantinople reluctantly forms the Galician metropolitanate, he designates it as “Microrussia” in contrast to “Great Russia”, which remained subordinate to the metropolitans of Kyiv, who were in Vladimir, and then in Moscow. Gradually, as a knot of contradictions is tying in Eastern Europe between Poland, Lithuania and Moscow, who claimed Russian lands, the scope of the term "Little Russia" begins to make unimaginable leaps in diplomatic and canonical letters, either expanding to Kyiv, or narrowing to one Galicia, until , for some time, in connection with the formation of a stable balance between Russia-Moscow and the Commonwealth, it is not forgotten in order to rise again in a different era and in a different context. The historical vicissitudes of the fate of the Russian people in the Polish-Lithuanian state filled this term with new meanings when the formula "Little Russia" became the banner of reunification with Great Russia. We will talk about this next time.
The end follows.
discount price
From 16 859 rubles.
Instead of 17 380 r.
per person
Tour start: Moscow
A tourist can purchase air / railway / bus tickets to Moscow on their own on our ticket service letsfly.ru or through our manager
Tour itinerary: Moscow → Sergiev Posad → Alexandrov → Vladimir → Bogolyubovo → Muromtsevo → Gus-Khrustalny → Suzdal → Moscow
In the high season, airfare prices are rising every day! To fix the price of the flight- book through our managers tickets for one or more tours, for one or more dates! It costs nothing and does not obligate you to anything! Redeem only tickets for the selected tour!
We minimize the cost of air travel. When a flight is canceled/rescheduled, we transfer you to a flight suitable for the tour, and in case of illness, we make a forced full refund of tickets. We also implement train tickets
STOCK Discount 3% for this tour when ordering through the site.
Tour price for 1 person:Note
in a double room (2 persons per room):
RUB 17,380(breakfast only)
RUB 18,790(no dinners)
RUB 19,990(full meals | 6 lunches + 5 breakfasts + 5 dinners)Supplement for single room - RUB 7,100(1 person per room)
Discount for extra bed 600 rub.(3 or more people per room)
Optional visit to Suzdal mead - 300 rub.Choosing a seat on the bus 1200 rub.
rough map of the bus
Golden Ring, Russia A small journey through Princely Russia
Tour details
Book with discount
Per group For another date
Installment or credit available
1 day
Group gathering in Moscow: Art. metro station "VDNKh", parking to the right of the hotel "Cosmos": bus parking map.
Departure Moscow to Sergiev Posad from st. metro station "VDNKh", to the right of the hotel "Cosmos".
Departure to Alexandrov.
Dinner in a cafe in the city.
Excursion around Alexandrov. visit Alexander Kremlin- the residence of the first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The architectural ensemble with the exposition "The Sovereign's Court in the Alexander Sloboda", the house church and the palace chambers of Tsar Ivan IV, medieval cellars, the expositions "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. There were legends” and “Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Dormition Convent. Free time.
Free time.
Departure to Vladimir.
Accommodation In a hotel "Amax Golden Ring 3*" Vladimir. Standard rooms.
Dinner in the hotel restaurant.
2 day
Breakfast in the hotel restaurant (buffet).
Departure to Muromtsevo.
Inspection of the park and architectural monuments of the Khrapovitsky estate, tour of the exposition in the boat pavilion. The noble estate was built by the order of Colonel of the Life Guards Vladimir Khrapovitsky at the end of the 19th century by architect Pyotr Boytsov. Built in the Gothic style with towers, lancet windows and battlements on the walls, the estate is perhaps today the main attraction of the Vladimir region. The castle and the park area were almost destroyed during the looting and fires that happened here in the 90s, but even now the castle is literally amazing.
Departure to Gus-Khrustalny.
Dinner in a cafe in the city.
Tour of Gus-Khrustalny- the city of craftsmen, where glassblowers live and work. Excursion to St. George's Cathedral, built in 1892-1903. designed by the famous architect L.N. Benois. From the inside, the cathedral is painted by the outstanding artist V.M. Vasnetsov and decorated with rich mosaics by V.A. Frolov. At the moment, the temple building houses Museum of Crystal Maltsov, which presents the entire history of Russian glassmaking in unique crystal and glass masterpieces. visit crystal market.
Departure in Vladimir.
Visit to the Gingerbread Museum, master class + tasting of royal printed gingerbread with tea. The program includes a fascinating excursion, where they will talk about the once, almost forgotten Russian delicacy, ancient traditions and rituals. Guests of the museum will be able to create their own unique gingerbread souvenir.
Dinner in the hotel restaurant.
3 day
Breakfast in the hotel restaurant.
Departure to Suzdal.
Overview tour of Suzdal- a city-museum, about 200 historical monuments, many of which have the status of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Inspection of the architectural ensemble Suzdal Kremlin. Visiting attractions:
Spaso-Efimiev Monastery with a concert of bells. Visit to the Transfiguration Cathedral. The monastery houses the grave of Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky, an outstanding Russian commander.
Museum of Wooden Architecture with unique buildings of the 17th-19th centuries. The museum is built in the form of a rural street with churches, residential buildings, mills, barns and other buildings transported from different villages and villages of the Vladimir region.
Intercession Monastery(from the observation deck) - a nunnery that holds many secrets.
Dinner in a cafe in the city.
Interactive tour in "Shchurovo Settlement"- a real residential town of the 10th century - wooden chopped huts, an adobe bread oven, a working forge, an armory, barns. Guides, dressed in costumes of the ancient Slavs, will tell fascinating stories about the peculiarities of life and family life of distant years, about the habits and character of pets, and explain the purpose of household items. Each participant will have the opportunity to practice archery.
Free time. For an additional fee, you can visit the Tasting Room "Suzdal Medovukha"(tasting of mead of different varieties - traditional, as well as with hops, mint, spices, horseradish, lime blossom, juniper berries and pepper, anise, clover, basil, saffron, lungwort and even pine buds.)
Return to the hotel.
.Excursion around Vladimir- the ancient capital of North-Eastern Russia. Visiting the sights of the 12th century: Golden Gate(architecture) - a symbol of the greatness and power of Ancient Russia. Demetrius Cathedral- a monument of Vladimir-Suzdal architecture of the pre-Mongolian period.
Assumption Cathedral- a masterpiece of white stone architecture. It is a unique treasury of Russian church art. It contains murals from the 12th-19th centuries. The famous frescoes of the icon painter Andrei Rublev.
Museum "Crystal, lacquer miniature and embroidery" or exposition "Old Vladimir" in a 4-storey tower in 1912 (talks about the city of the late 19th century - early 20th century).
Dinner in a cafe in the city.
Departure to Moscow.
Estimated time of arrival in Moscow (to the VDNKh metro station).
Prince Rurik founded the state in Novgorod around 862. Varangian leaders Askold and Dir come to Kyiv around this time. According to legend, they liberated the glades from the Khazar power and began to reign here. From about this moment, the first historical memories of the territory, which in our time is called Ukraine, appear.
Later there was a period of domination of Kievan Rus by the Golden Horde and princely civil strife, which is not of great interest for this work - this time is described in detail in every history textbook.
Another thing is important - nowhere is there a hint of the word "Ukraine" "- so far we see only Kievan Rus. Subsequently, the Volyn prince Roman Mstislavovich united the Galician and Volyn principalities, captured Kyiv and created a powerful state with a center in Vladimir. And again, about no "Ukraine" is out of the question.
After the death of the last prince Yuri II (1340), a struggle began between neighboring states for Galicia and Volhynia. The Lithuanian prince Dmitry - Lubart occupied Volyn, and the Polish king Casimir III entered Galicia (1340), captured Lvov and took the treasury of the Galician princes. The Hungarians also intervened in the affairs of Galicia.
At this time, the Galician boyars, under the leadership of the Przemysl governor Dmitry Dyadka, established a boyar oligarchy, which was recognized by Poland and Hungary. Boyar power lasted until 1349, when King Casimir III, in alliance with the Mongols - Tatars, suddenly captured Lvov and Galicia. He concluded an agreement with Lithuania and Hungary, according to which Galicia, Western Volhynia and Kholmshchina remained part of Poland until the end of Casimir III's life.
In 1370 - 1387. Galicia was under the rule of Louis - the Hungarian king, who also became the Polish king. Since 1387, the Polish queen Jadwiga annexed Galicia to Poland, trying to turn it and the Kholm region into Polish provinces. There was an intensified colonization of Galicia by Poles and Germans.
Catholic missions were organized in Galicia. With the strengthening of Polish power in Galicia, the Polish gentry (nobles) began to arrive, who received possession of many Galician lands. Galicia was part of Poland until 1772.
Transcarpathia was under the rule of Hungary and remained there, with the exception of some years of the reign of Leo 1 and Yuri 1, until 1918.
Bukovina after the collapse of the Galicia - Volyn state was attached to the Moldavian province, in which it was until 1774.
In the future, the territory of present-day Little Russia passes under the control of the Lithuanian state. This happened under Prince Gediminas, who united the lands of the Galician and Volyn principalities that were scattered after the collapse and called himself "King of Lithuania and Russia." And again, "Ukraine" is not mentioned anywhere.
After the union of 1569 in Lublin, a Lithuanian-Polish union was formed, as a result of which Little Russia was for a long time in the power of the Commonwealth. This continued until the historic 1648, when an uprising broke out against the Poles, led by hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky.
May 16, 1648 Polish troops suffered a crushing defeat near Zhovti Vody, on May 26 of the same year - near Korsun, and on September 23 - near Pilyavtsy. After signing on August 18, 1649. Zborovsky peace treaty, the fate of the current Little Russia was a foregone conclusion.
January 16, 1654 in Pereyaslav, Bogdan Khmelnitsky signed a historically important document with Moscow Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, according to which the Little Russian Cossacks united with the Russian Throne.
This continued until the Bolshevik coup of 1917.The official introduction of the names "Ukraine" and "Ukraine" instead ofhistorical "Little Russians" and "Little Russia" was established aftercrushing of the Russian Empire in 1917 as a result of voluntaristicactions of the Bolsheviks who supported the "independents", hiding behind the rightnations for self-determination. Nothing justified, appointed newauthorities and officially "swallowed" it by academic science sectionunited Russian nation into three separate peoples - Russians, Ukrainians andBelarusians - was a betrayal of our entire common historicalpast from Kievan Rus to the era of the reunification of Western Russian lands withRussia at the end of the 18th century!
In fairness, it should be noted that only once the word Ukraine is remembered - during the Central Rada (1917-1918) and the Western Ukrainian People's Republic with its center in Lviv, and later in Ternopil.
Summing up. As we have seen, practically nowhere in history is the state of Ukraine mentioned. There were only conditionally named Ukrainian lands, which served, rather, as a passing banner - from the Golden Horde to the Lithuanians and Poles. And only after reunification with the Russian Empire begins the flowering of these lands. The very word "Ukraine" comes from the word outskirts - that is. lands located on the outskirts, the borders of another state. So what are the Ukrainian Nazis talking about now? What do they call themselves heirs of? The outskirts of the Russian Empire became Little Russia - Little Russia, on a par with Belarus - White Russia, which, in unity with Great Russia, make up that Holy Russia, which to this day keeps the Orthodox Faith as the only deterrent to the forces of evil. Glory to Holy Triune Russia!
Little Russia or Ukraine?
(tracing paper from the Middle Greek Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία), Little Russia, later Little Russia, less often Little Russia - the name that appeared in Byzantium at the beginning of the 14th century to determine the Galicia-Volyn land in church and administrative terms. Also the name of the territory of the Dnieper region in the 15th-16th centuries and the Left-bank Ukraine after its entry as an autonomy into the Russian kingdom, after the oath of the Ukrainian Cossacks at the Pereyaslav Rada in the 17th century. In the Russian Empire from the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century, it was used as the name of a historical region and the Little Russian province.
Who wants to understand in detail the phenomenon of "Ukrainian" apostasy, let's find out who the "Little Russians" are, and how the Bolsheviks made ukrov out of "sealed wagons". Thus, according to the 1897 census, 94% of ethnic Little Russians and not a single Ukrainian lived in the Poltava province.
“Ukrainians”, especially “orange” and “Svidomo”, for some reason do not like the word “Little Russian”. I don't like the word "Little Russia" either. Overwhelmed by a ferocious malice towards everything “Muscovite”, these “independents” are completely unaware of either the true history of their people, or the origin of the words “Little Russian”, “Little Russia”, “Ukraine”. But these words were invented not at all by Muscovites, but by the inhabitants of Russia. This word is widely used by Bogdan Khmelnitsky in his Belotserkovny Universal in 1648.
“Which of you loves the integrity of the homeland of your Little Russian Outskirts ...”
In a letter from the Zaporozhian Sich to Bogdan Khmelnitsky, written in January 1654, we find the following lines: “But your plan will succeed and be successful, and all the peoples of Little Russia on both sides of the Dnieper, being, under the patronage of the Russian monarch, are worthy to be recognized as the best benefit to the Little Russian fatherland.”
If the term Russians was first mentioned in writing in November 1053 by Illarion of Kyiv, the first Russian metropolitan, the author of the famous "Sermon on Law and Grace", then the term Little Russia, Little Russia arose in 1335, when the Moscow Principality was under the Tatar yoke. Prince Yuri II called the Principality of Galicia and Volhynia Little Russia. And Yuri II called himself "prince of all Little Russia." "Muscovites" have nothing to do with the name "Little Russia". But until the beginning of the 20th century, all the inhabitants of both Little Russia and Big Russia equally considered themselves Russians. “Thank God that we are Russians,” N. Gogol said these words. "Ukraine" was used as a geographical concept, where part of the Russian people, called Little Russians, lived.
There is, of course, nothing offensive in the name "Little Russia". Small - in history the countries were called, from where the people came out - their national cradle. Great - the centers of the territorial completion of state consolidation, which have reached especially magnificent prosperity, wealth and power. From here - Little Greece (Athens) and Great Greece (Hellas), great Italy (after Rome), Little Russia (Kyiv) and Great Russia (Moscow). The name "Little Russia" does not contain anything offensive or shameful for the inhabitants of the south of Russia. Little Russia is called the cradle of the Russian people; not without reason Kyiv is “the mother of Russian cities”, hence “the Russian Land went to be”. The name "Little Russian", if one can speak of preference at all, is more honorable than "Great Russian", because it literally means: Little Russian is the first Russian, the most ancient in its genealogical root.
The name of our people - Russia has been known since ancient times ... "We are a single Russian people!" Ukraine means nothing more than the outskirts, the outlying lands of the state. Anyone who is at least a little familiar with history, with documents written at a time when no one had heard of “independent” separatists, when not a single person had heard of any “Ukrainian people”, knows that expressions are often used in old papers : Ryazan Ukraine, Siberian Ukraine, Voronezh Ukraine. In the old song of the Siberian explorers, composed at the time when Yerofey Khabarov went to the Amur, it is sung: “As in the Siberian in Ukraine Yes in the Daurian side ...” From the song, as you know, especially the old one, you can’t erase the words. For today's separatists, let me remind you that at that time no Ukrainians lived in Dauria. And Siberian Ukraine meant the outlying Siberian land. Little Russians, podeldykivaya enemies of Russia, of course, can be called Ukrainians. And Kyiv, in case of success, the separatists can rename Mazepinsk, Petliurovsk, Banderovsk. But this will not stop Kyiv from being the mother of Russian cities. Little Russia is the ancient original name of a part of Russia. And it makes no sense for us, Little Russians, to give up the historical name of our Motherland. The separatists can call themselves whatever they want. There, Baba Paraska, swearing for dollars on the Maidan for several days, and you are wearing a symbol of the revolution on the Goat Swamp with an order. Or a young woman jumped out of a brothel, put a wreath on her head - a Ukrainian ...
Yes, I am a Little Russian, the first, the most ancient Russian. Maybe my ancestor at the time of Igor nailed his shield on the gates of Constantinople. Why should I change the true name of my ancestors to a new one, which was invented by the founders of separatism, and is being imposed on us today by the Catholic and Polonized "orange Galicians". Why on earth would I consider Muscovites enemies, Moscow culture hostile, when all Russian culture flowed like a stream from the ancient Kyiv Academy.
Not for this my ancestors laid down their lives in battles with the Turks, Tatars, Poles; they died in hard labor galleys, in the dungeons of Polish castles, not for that they fought near Poltava on the side of Peter, fought on the Borodino field in the Poltava regiment of Paskevich, so that their descendants would renounce the entire national heritage of their ancestors. In the name of what is it to be done? In the name of becoming a pan in sham Ukraine, a toy of political forces hostile to Russia?
I stand by the fact that Little Russia - the ancient ancestral home of great Russia, has always bled in the arms of the separatists who brought ruins to it. I always want to be the son of a free great country, not a small separatist stable. I am disgusted by the orange agents of foreign intelligence who have become the "power" of the state, independent of the "Muscovites", but dependent on the "Washington Regional Committee".
Do the Little Russians want to live in occupation, to be a toy in the hands of “pan-ministers” and “pan-masters” alien to us in religion and culture, who are on the payroll of foreign intelligence services? As for the types of occupation, I will give the floor to the contemporary writer S. Sidorenko. “The occupation regime that now rules Ukraine is fundamentally different from all the previous invaders, the invasions of which the Little Russian people had to endure during its long history.
All the former had to us mainly material claims. The Mongol-Tatars, for example, were content with receiving tribute from us.
And even the Poles, in whose subordination for a long time was Little and White Russia - although they tried to convert us into Catholicism, to plant a union among us, however. perceived our people as serfs, as human material, did not even want to dirty their hands about us - and entrusted us to the Jews, who methodically bled the juice out of us, earning future money on their heads
“ trouble” …And the Germans, when they visited us or were just going to us - although they supported all kinds of ideological projects disastrous for us - Lenin, and Grushevsky with Petliura, and Skoropadsky, and Bandera ... - in fact, they were more interested in things deeply prosaic: bread , lard, coal, labor force ...
And the Communist Party that ruled in our country in the 20th century - with all the spiritual losses that we suffered over the seventy years of its rule - focused mainly on the redistribution of property ...
Yes, and the goat-bearded Uncle Sam, who is already standing at our doorstep, holding a weighty calculator in his hand and beating with impatience with his hoof, is primarily interested in what his calculator is able to count.
But for those who sat down on our neck in 1991 and thoroughly entrenched themselves on it at the end of 2004, the main thing is to remake us spiritually, to eradicate the Russian soul from us, to change the spiritual image of the region, where a great culture was born, which gave the world of Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky...
Therefore, following A. Tsarin, I affirm today that political Ukrainians are a special kind of people. “Having been born Russian, a Ukrainian does not feel Russian, he denies his
“ Russianness” and viciously hates everything Russian. He agrees to be called a Kaffir, a Hottentot - by anyone, but not a Russian. The words Rus, Russian, Russia - act on him like a red scarf on a bull. But especially annoying“ Ukrainian” ancient, ancestral names: Little Russia, Little Russia, Little Russian, Little Russian "...Little Russia. Rehabilitation of the toponym.
Modern "Svidomo" Ukrainians perceive this word as an insult - to them personally and to "their" country, which, as they have firmly learned, is a state of three thousand years of history and its roots go back to the Bronze Age, to the times of Trypillia culture. Calling such an ancient civilization, the same age as the pharaohs, “small”, and even “Russia” is a sign of blatant political incorrectness and arrogant great power, for which in the primordial Trypillya cities of Lviv or Stryi you can get in the face.
The funny thing is that the “Svidomye” in this case firmly stand on the positions of RUSSIAN vocabulary and etymology - since it is in the RUSSIAN language that the concept of “small” has a condescending diminutive meaning; “small peoples of the North”, “small haul”, “insignificant” - in all these phrases “small” means “insignificant”, “having no serious significance”, in general - not representing anything serious.
But this is in Russian.
In Polish, "small" means something different. "Little Poland" is not a worthless part of "Greater Poland", not some insignificant piece of a large country, but quite the opposite! "Little Poland" - means "POLAND ORIGINAL", from which the rest of the Polish land went! “Small” means “maternal foundation”, the source of everything else, the beginning of beginnings.
And it is in this, Polish, meaning that the toponym "Little Russia" must be understood.
Little Russia- not a small part of Great Russia, no. Little Russia is exactly that, the original, original part of the Russian land, from which the rest of Russia later grew;
Little Russia - not some Polish distant and wild "Outskirts" (then transformed into "Ukraine"), and the most radical,
reserved RUSSIAN LAND!To be a Little Russian means to be a resident of the most ancient, most original Russian territory, from which “the Russian land went to eat”; to call oneself a Ukrainian means to consider oneself an inhabitant of the Polish underground, a serf from the hallway. And if we take it more broadly, then we can say this: “Little Russian” is a Russian of the highest grade, a resident of the original Russia, the guardian and protector of the cradle of the Russian nation; The “Ukrainian” is the “serf” of the Polish pan, the guardian of his master’s peaceful sleep, the carrier of his slippers and the patient recipient of the master’s thrashing.
Residents of modern "Ukraine" are free to choose who they really are - and this choice depends only on themselves. They can consider themselves "Little Russians" - the older brothers of the Great Russians and Belarusians; can continue to be "Ukrainians" - lackeys of the Polish gentry and third-class Europeans. They can call their homeland Little Russia - the cradle of the Russian people and the starting point for the creation of Great Russia; they can - "Ukraine", the Polish front and yard servants, who have a chance someday in the future to grow into the backyard of a single European house - in which they will be given the honorable right to replace the Poles in the positions of janitors and plumbers. There is a choice!
And everyone does it himself ...
Little Russia is a primordially Russian land with a Russian population who spoke Russian.
However, modern Ukraine is a territory artificially torn away from Russia by the West.For many years, on the basis of the denial of everything Russian, the artificial cultivation of the nation, language and independent ethnic mentality took place here. The authors of the Great Anti-Russian Project pursued their main goal - to make the population forget their true ethnicity, faith, language. And the dilemma elevated to the rank of a state problem, how to say “in” or “in” Ukraine, is an insignificant part of this project only at first glance."On" or "in" Ukraine? Linguistics or politics?
So how is it right?
Information warfare weapons can be not only large political projects, not only individual speeches by politicians, scientists or public figures, and not even just individual label words. It also happens that an elementary lexical pretext becomes the fundamental moment of propaganda. It would seem, what difference does it make, one or two letters, an insignificant trifle, speak and write as you wish. Who is wrong - correct and forget. But to prove the extreme importance of the use of this or that variant in the language, to denounce “mistakes” as deliberate provocations and to establish a different language norm at all costs, all the power of state ideological agitation is suddenly turned on.
This is exactly what happened with the speech turnover, denoting the physical belonging of this or that phenomenon to Ukraine. How to say correctly: “IN Ukraine” or “In Ukraine”? This controversy, now in its fourteenth year, has gone beyond the scope of linguistic science from day one and has become an essential element of international politics. And - the information war waged against Russian civilization.
The path to an unequivocal, the only correct answer to this question is laid in the middle of the previous paragraph, where it is written that this dispute has been going on for the fourteenth year. Only the fourteenth. This is a lot to find the right answer, but from the point of view of the development of the language, no more than a moment. Language norms are the product of the general consent of the people speaking this language, and are formed over decades and centuries. If the majority speaks in a certain way for a long time, this is recognized as correct.
So, the linguistic practice that has developed over several hundred years has made only one option correct - “in Ukraine”. Now its correctness is confirmed by any service or institute of the Russian language.
The prepositions “in” and “on” in Russian competed for a long time, and their compatibility with certain words is determined exclusively by tradition. We say “in Iceland” and “in New Zealand”, but “in Cuba” and in “Cyprus”, “in Karelia” and “in Yugra” (nowadays popular historical name for the area that makes up the territory of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug), but "in Altai" and "in the Kuban". It just happened that way, it’s more convenient, and therefore it’s right. In the same linguistic row, far from politics, there is also the norm “in Ukraine”. Dot.
Indeed, much more often the preposition "in" denotes independent states and independent entities, and "on" - areas within such states, separate territories. This is precisely what did not suit the “Ukrainian” “independent party”. The use of the preposition "na" in relation to Ukraine, as well as "na" in relation to the neighboring Belgorod or Oryol regions, from the point of view of the Russian language, does not give it subjectivity. Because this area has never been a subject in history.
Why argue with the truth?
Where did this “in” come from, and why do many Ukrainians so vehemently insist on applying only this pretext to the name of their own country? For the first time, an official requirement to write and speak "in Ukraine" was made in 1993, at one of the peak moments of the "independence frenzy". The government of the newly declared sovereign republic explained that in this way “the etymological connection of the constructions “to Ukraine” and “to the outskirts”, which does not suit it, is broken, the country receives “linguistic confirmation of its independence”. The combination "in Ukraine" was recognized as the norm of the Ukrainian language.
Immediately, a considerable number of publicists and figures of pseudoscience appeared, who began to prove that ... using the pretext “on”, Russia for many centuries humiliated the “national dignity of Ukrainians” and “trampled their right to independence”. Similar opinions from the earlier Soviet period were also discovered and gained popularity. “For many centuries we heard the Russian “in Ukraine” and therefore recognized this “na” as our own, completely forgetting about its historical origin, not feeling that this very “na” is the most painful and most important sign of our former slavery,” wrote back in 1935, Ivan Ogienko, later recognized as "an outstanding Ukrainian scientist."
Since the mid-90s, every case of using the preposition “na” in relation to “independence” was perceived in this vein, considered, if not a national betrayal, then certainly indulging the imperial ambitions of the “Muscovites”. And gradually, speaking in pure Russian, the majority of the population of Little Russia began to unconsciously use the preposition "v" in relation to the name of their country.
The history and reasons for the emergence of the “Ukrainian nation”, together with its painful desire for independence and the “mova” copied from the Polish, we have already analyzed in detail above. It is only worth noting that the example being analyzed is the most typical of the process of artificial cultivation of national pride in a non-existent ethnic group with the help of minor details of its artificially created language.
The funny thing is that in the Polish language, from which they copied their “mova” to oust the Russian “Ukrainians” from everyday life, the norm “in Ukraine” has always acted and is still widely used. But it never occurs to anyone to talk about the “harassment of Ukrainians” by the Poles.
Instead, “Ukrainian patriots” attack any of their compatriots “who dared to defame their homeland with the contemptuous pretext “v”. And the presence of “na” in circulation in Russia is for them a reason for real hatred on “national” grounds. Well at least not a declaration of war. Try to write a literate from the point of view of the Russian language "in Ukraine" on any Ukrainian-language forum - you will immediately be attacked by a dozen such indignant "patriots".
Let's look at this claim in a little more detail. In Russia they speak Russian. In Ukraine, the vast majority of the population is also in Russian. The minority is in Ukrainian. In Russian it is correct "in Ukraine", in Ukrainian - "in". They demand to say “v” from everyone, including Russian-speakers. It turns out that the government of Ukraine arbitrarily made a change to the literary norms of the Russian language and now requires their observance? Or - even more ridiculous option - requires you to call your country only in Ukrainian, even when it is in Russian? But it's all the same, as if the Americans demanded that the speakers of all other languages of the world speak about their country in English and say something like “When I was“ in Yu Es Hey ”!
Do not confuse the great Russian language with the political ambitions of a single party, taken separately and insignificant in the scale of history. Norms of the language cannot be changed by government decrees. So say, as they used to say - "in Ukraine"
Little Russia includes 6 provinces.
"Little Russia" or "Little Russia" does not contain anything offensive or shameful for the inhabitants of southern Russia. Little Russia is called the cradle of the Russian people; not without reason Kyiv is the “Mother of Russian Cities”, hence “the Russian Land went to be”. The name "Little Russian", if one can speak of preference at all, is rather more honorable than "Great Russian", for it means literally: Little Russian is the first Russian, the most ancient in its genealogical root, in its direct line.
Heroes of Little Russia. Mikhail Ivanovich Dragomirov
Pride of Little Russia. Ivan Fyodorovich Paskevich
The oath of the Zaporizhian army to the Russian Tsar in 1660 ...
Alexander Suvorov: "God have mercy, we are Russians!"
Pride of Little Russia. Alexander Andreevich Bezborodko
Little Russia includes 6 provinces
Letter of the Zaporizhian Army to the Polish King Jan Casimir
Little Russia
The source of love for the Fatherland is the Orthodox faith
Alexey Myslovsky. My Sovereign
The name of our people has been known to the Russians since the deepest antiquity... “We are a single Russian people!” Little Russia is a tribal concept. Ukraine means nothing more than the outskirts, the outlying lands of the state. Anyone who is at least a little familiar with the history of the Russian state, with documents written at a time when our separatists were not heard of, when not a single person had heard of any "Ukrainian people", he knows that these old state papers often the following expressions are used: Ryazan Ukraine, Voronezh Ukraine, Kursk Ukraine, Siberian Ukraine. In the old song of the Siberian explorers, composed at the time when Erofey Khabarov conquered the Amur, it is sung: “As in the Siberian in Ukraine Yes in the Daurian side ...” From a song, as you know, especially from an old one, you can’t throw out words.
Little Russia- one of the smallest regions of European Russia, but in terms of population it occupies the first place.
This region occupies the Dnieper lowland, which merges with the swampy lowland in the north. Polissya, western slopes of the Central Russian Upland and part of the Carpathian Upland with the Stone Ridge. The western spurs of the Donetsk Ridge enter the southern part of the Kharkov province, forming chalk hills along the banks of the Don. The most elevated part of Little Russia is located in the southwest of Volyn and in the west of Podolsk provinces (the highest points are 460 meters).
In terms of relief, most of Little Russia is a plain. In its most elevated parts, especially along the steep banks of the rivers, the plain is cut by numerous ravines and gullies. In other places, the flatness is disturbed only by mounds scattered in treeless open places, and by small rounded depressions - "saucers", in which water is stored for a long time in spring. In the west of the Volyn and Podolsk provinces, on the border with Austria, there are bizarrely shaped limestone hills - "toltry", rising 30 fathoms above the surrounding area and representing the remains of an ancient coral reef.
The main river of Little Russia, the Dnieper, flows through the middle region and divides it into two parts: the right-bank and the left-bank. The latter is irrigated by the left tributaries of the Dnieper: the Desna with the Seim, the Sula, Psell and Vorskla, flowing parallel to each other from the Central Russian Upland; Donets flows in the east. The right-bank Little Russia is irrigated by the Bug and the Dniester, and in the north in the Volyn province - by the tributaries of the Pripyat (Styr, Goryn) and the right tributary of the Dnieper by the Teterev. The rivers of Little Russia have wide valleys, for the most part with a steep right bank and a low left bank, and a calm, smooth course. Only where they cut through the crystalline rocks of the Stone Ridge do the valleys narrow, both banks become steep, the fall of the channel increases significantly, and in some places rapids form in it (on the Dniester). In the southern sparsely forested part of Little Russia, in the spring, due to the unanimous melting of snow, the rivers quickly overflow with water and spill over wide areas, but in the summer they become very shallow and, therefore, with the exception of the Dnieper, Dniester and Bug, they are suitable only for rafting. The rivers of the northern wooded half (Desna and tributaries of the Pripyat) are more navigable.
Nature
Little Russia lies to the west than the Chernozem Territory and therefore has a milder climate. Winter here is not severe with frequent thaws, summer is hot; autumn, due to the predominance of easterly winds at this time of the year, is characterized by dryness and long clear weather. The amount of precipitation is sufficient and their distribution (the largest amount in the first half of summer) is favorable for agriculture. In summer there are sometimes heavy showers, accompanied by thunderstorms or hail. Between eastern and western Little Russia, however, there is a rather significant difference in climatic terms. Whereas in the east of the Kharkov province the average January temperature is -8º, the average July temperature is +22º, in the west in the Podolsk province the average January temperature is -4º and even -3º, and the summer is relatively moderate (July + 19º). In the Podolsk province, spring does not come earlier and it is much warmer here, which, together with a long and warm autumn, is very favorable for the development of vegetation.
Most of Little Russia is located in the forest-steppe zone and has chernozem soil lying on loess or directly on bedrock. Only the northern parts of the Volyn and Chernigov provinces and a small northeastern corner of the Kyiv province are within the limits of the forest region (Volyn and Chernigov woodlands). Quite extensive forests, consisting not only of deciduous, but also of coniferous species, have still survived from cutting down here; there are vast areas covered with moraine deposits and sands. The soils here are sod-podzolic, there are many lakes and swamps; in general, the landscape resembles the northern forest region of Russia.
Few forests have survived in the rest of Little Russia. Forests of broad-leaved species: oak, maple, ash, linden, in the west of hornbeam, grow mainly along the elevated banks of rivers, from where they climb in green ribbons along the gullies and ravines to the watersheds. Particularly significant islands of watershed forests are scattered in the Podolsk province, where, due to the greater mildness of the climate, beech, silver linden and ivy also grow. Small groves sometimes consist exclusively of wild pears and apple trees, spared by the peasants during deforestation. A special type of woody vegetation is the so-called levadas - dense thickets of alder, willow, poplars and willows, bordering low-lying river banks flooded in spring with backwaters and oxbow lakes scattered among them. The watershed spaces in most of Little Russia, especially in the south of the Kharkov and Poltava provinces, were from time immemorial the steppe, but at present the virgin steppe has receded into the area of legend in Little Russia and has been replaced by continuous rye and wheat fields and fallows - resting neglected fields - on which grows weeds and weeds. Cultivated lands here occupy about 2/3 of the total area and play a predominant role in the landscape.
The western provinces of Little Russia - Volyn and Podolia - have been inhabited by Slavs since time immemorial, but the Dnieper region after the Tatar defeat was almost completely deserted and began to be re-populated by immigrants from the west much later, in the 15th and 16th centuries, when the danger from Tatar raids became less formidable. The Dnieper region was populated by part of the free settlers, who made up the armed artels of fishermen and hunters, from which the Dnieper Cossacks subsequently formed; part of the peasants, who were resettled here by the Polish landowners, seizing empty lands as their property. The clashes of the Cossacks, who did not want to give up their liberties, with the Polish government, the oppression of serfdom and the religious persecution of the Orthodox population forced the dissatisfied to leave their homes and flee further east, beyond the Dnieper. Here, in the basin of the Donets and Don, the Little Russian colonists met with the Great Russian colonists, whom the Moscow government pushed further and further into the steppe. In the 17th century, the left-bank Little Russia was annexed (the provinces of Chernigov, Poltava, Kharkov), and in the 18th century, after the partition of Poland, the right-bank Little Russia (the provinces of Kyiv, Volyn, Podolsk) was also annexed.
The overwhelming majority of the region's population are Little Russians; in the northeast they are joined by Great Russians (Kharkov and Chernigov provinces), in the northwest by Belarusians. In addition, Poles, mostly landowners, live in the Volyn and Podolsk provinces, and German colonists live in the Volyn province. Finally, Jews live throughout the region, with the exception of the Kharkov province, making up a significant part of the population in the right-bank Little Russia (12.5%), especially in cities where Jews often account for more than half of the total population (Berdiev in the Kyiv province - 80% , Zhytomyr - the provincial city of the Volyn province. 42%). In terms of population density, Little Russia ranks second in the Privislinsky Territory; the most densely populated (over 100 people) are the Kyiv and Podolsk provinces; Volyn province is least populated, especially its northern districts, where the population density barely reaches 30 people per square verst.
Thanks to the fertile Chernozem soil and favorable climate, agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the population; no less? The population here is directly or indirectly fed from the land, and the amount of plowed land is 60% of the total land area.
More than half of all land belongs to peasants, but due to the high population density per capita, on average, there are only about 2 acres, and in some places even less than 1 acres. Therefore, the peasants in Little Russia have long suffered from land shortages and have been forced either to rent land at a high price from the landlords, or to work on the landowners' estates, or, finally, to move to other regions of European Russia, Siberia and Ciscaucasia. The largest percentage of migrants in recent years has come from the provinces of Poltava, Chernihiv and Kharkov. Lack of land also causes a lack of walking and pastures, makes it necessary to reduce the number of livestock bred and does not allow the transition from three-field farming to multi-field farming. For the most part, they plow with a heavy plow, to which several pairs of cows or horses are harnessed. Only recently artel seeders, winnowers and threshers began to spread.
Among the landlords, farming is more highly valued, especially in Right-Bank Little Russia. With the exception of Volhynia and Chernigov Polissya, the rest of Little Russia has a surplus of grain, which is partly exported to the northern provinces or abroad, partly processed into alcohol at distilleries that are very common throughout the region.
In Little Russia, rye and wheat are mainly cultivated; they are followed by crops of oats and barley. In very large quantities, more than anywhere else in Russia, sugar beet is bred. Its plantations occupy hundreds and thousands of acres and give a large income to the peasant population. Beetroot is immediately processed into sugar in factories, and sugar production is the largest branch of the local industry. Many sugar factories employ several thousand workers. The first place in the production of sugar is occupied by the Kyiv province, followed by the Podolsk and Kharkov provinces.
Of the other branches of agriculture in Little Russia, horticulture, tobacco growing, and melon growing are developed. Gardens in Little Russia are ubiquitous; the peasants grow mainly plums and cherries, while the landowners grow a greater variety of fruit trees (apples, pears), and in the southwest there are also grapes, apricots, and walnuts. Tobacco growing is predominantly in the hands of peasants and other small proprietors. In the production of tobacco, especially the lowest grade, shag, Malorossiya ranks first in Russia. Tobacco growing is most developed in Chernihiv and Poltava provinces.
Cattle breeding, as a trade, is important only in a few places, in the wooded part of the Volyn province, from where slaughter cattle, meat, lard, and pig carcasses come in large numbers. In the chernozem south, there is even a shortage of cattle, and sheep breeding is more common; peasants breed exclusively coarse-wooled sheep; wool is sold at city fairs, especially in Kharkiv. Cattle - oxen in Little Russia are used for field work and for the transport of heavy loads. Beekeeping is very common in Little Russia, and some beekeepers have several hundred or even thousands of hives.
Industry in Little Russia is poorly developed and is closely connected with agriculture. In addition to sugar refineries and distilleries, windmills and large steam mills (Kremenchug, Poltava), oil mills and breweries are scattered all over the region. Handicraft industry is widespread in Little Russia. In the first place is pottery in the Chernihiv and Poltava provinces. In other places, shoemaking, furriery, weaving of linens, simple towels and napkins are common. The northern forest districts of the Volyn and Chernigov provinces differ greatly in the nature of the population's activity from the agricultural south. So in the Volyn Polissya, felling, harvesting (many sawmills) and timber rafting both to the steppe southern provinces and to Germany occupy a leading place.
Although the lack of land is quite acutely felt in Little Russia, nevertheless, due to the milder climate, the rarer, compared to the Chernozem Territory, crop failures, the existence of many subsidiary crafts in the very region (tobacco growing, gardening, work at sugar factories, etc.). finally, the greater inclination of the Little Russians themselves to agriculture, the population lives here much more prosperously than in the neighboring Chernozem region. The villages here do not have such a neglected appearance, there is a noticeable desire for neatness and beauty both in the home and in clothing, which is increasingly losing its national characteristics; the food of the peasants is distinguished by great variety and nutrition (meat, lard, and fish are much more consumed). To a greater extent, various local holidays and amusements have been preserved that have not lost their everyday features (carols, schedrovka, stoneflies).
Settlements and communications
In Little Russia, as in the Chernozem Territory, there are not many cities, the percentage of the urban population ranges from 10-15%; on the other hand, the villages in the black earth part of Little Russia, especially the right bank, are crowded; there are villages with several thousand inhabitants. And here the villages huddle as close as possible to the water, located mainly along the high steep banks of the rivers, and have a picturesque view. In Little Russia, as in the Great Russian provinces, there is no communal land ownership, and therefore, along with villages and villages, there are many solitary farms.
With the exception of the northern wooded counties, where log huts predominate, in the rest of Little Russia, the population lives in adobe huts or huts, in which only the skeleton of the building is logs or stakes, the walls are woven from brushwood or straw and covered on both sides with a thick layer of clay and coated with chalk . Around the hut, in order to protect it from dampness, an embankment is arranged; the roofs are covered with thatch or less often with reeds, the floor is usually earthen.
White huts are drowning among the greenery of orchards and pyramidal poplars and do not form a straight street, as in Great Russian villages, but are scattered randomly, most often facing south. The huts and outbuildings adjacent to them are surrounded by a palisade or wattle fence, from behind which branches of cherry and plum trees, tall mallows, dahlias and other plants peep out. Behind the village, windmills lined up in a row, waving their giant arms, and behind them squares of cultivated fields dazzle up to the horizon. Below, under the cliff of the bank, on which the village is spread, the waters of the river glisten, accompanied by lush green levadas.
The cities of Little Russia, with the exception of larger industrial and commercial centers, especially county towns like Mirgorod, resemble a village in appearance. They are also located on the high banks of the rivers, they also consist of white mud huts, surrounded by wattle fences and surrounded by green gardens, they are also quiet and patriarchal, but also unsettled.
Even the larger provincial cities, like Poltava, retained this imprint of patriarchy. Some large cities, like the provincial city of Kamenetz-Podolsk, are still not connected by railroads. The cities of the right bank of Little Russia, especially those lying closer to the Austrian border, are located on hills and are very beautiful. In some of them, the remains of ancient castles, fortresses and churches have been preserved.
In complete contrast to these village towns are the most important industrial and commercial centers of Little Russia: Kharkov and especially Kyiv. The population of these cities is growing rapidly and in Kyiv (the 5th most populous city in Russia) has already exceeded 500.000, and in Kharkov 250.000 people. Owing their emergence and prosperity to the position on the most important waterways (Kyiv) and ancient land routes (Kharkov), these cities began to develop especially rapidly since they became the main centers of railway lines. Kyiv is connected by railways with Moscow, with Warsaw, with Odessa and Austria-Hungary (through Volochisk); Kharkov with Moscow, with Sevastopol, with the ports of the Sea of Azov and the Volga region. In general, in Little Russia, in comparison with other regions of European Russia, the railway network is dense.
Compared to railroads, waterways are of secondary importance in Little Russia. The main river of the region, the Dnieper, is shallow and due to the rapids lying to the south, within the Yekaterinoslav province, it is not suitable for direct communication. The largest trading piers on the Dnieper: Kyiv, Kremenchug, Kryukov are located where the Dnieper is crossed by railway lines. The main items of trade are bread and timber.
Despite the significant development of communications, there are still a lot of fairs in Little Russia, not only rural, but also urban. The most important fairs are in Kharkov (4 times a year), in Kyiv, Berdichev.
Many of the cities of Little Russia are distinguished by great antiquity and contain ancient monuments, ancient cathedrals and churches. These cities are not only of commercial and industrial importance, but serve as centers of culture and education (in Kyiv there is a university, a polytechnic; in Kharkov, a university, a technological institute). Kyiv, in addition, is one of the oldest Russian cities with numerous monuments of antiquity, mainly ancient cathedrals and churches - the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, St. Sophia Cathedral, the Church of St. Andrew the First-Called, etc.
Forecasts, predictions, prophecies as ways to control the futurePartner News
Map of Little Russia, as well as the scheme of renaming districts when clicked - increases in size.
We must immediately make a reservation that in the renaming of administrative units in the history of the south-west of Kievan Rus, leapfrog reigns (we look at the scheme of transitions of regions to different states), the reason for which is great fragmentation after the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars, who devastated the southern lands of Russia.
If a the word Little Russia still used to refer to the southwestern lands, the name Ukraine during the time of the Russian Empire, it is not officially used at all, although a Latinized name already appears on foreign maps Ukraine, because this is how the southern lands of the collapsed Kievan Rus are called on the maps of the Commonwealth (Poland), and earlier the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Fig.3 English map from the site Karty.by
1. Little Russia (tracing paper from the Middle Greek Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία), Little Russia- church-administrative definition of Byzantine origin, which appeared at the beginning of the 14th century to designate a diocese in the Galicia-Volyn principality.
Later, a derivative of this definition is Little Russia, and less often Little Russia at different times used to refer to different regions:
- a) in the XIV-XV centuries - the lands of the Galicia-Volyn principality
- b) from the 16th century - all East Slavic (Russian) lands as part of the Commonwealth (later White Russia was singled out from them).
In Russia from the 17th to the beginning of the 20th century it was used as a name:
.
- historical region of the Russian Empire
- Little Russian province - the name of two administrative-territorial units of the Russian Empire that existed at different times in the XVIII century
Name Great Russia did not become widely used, and the word "Great Russian" appears only in the 19th century, since Muscovy preserves the direct inheritance of statehood from Kievan Rus, and the ethnos, the state-forming Russia, which adopted the self-name "Muscovites" during the period of the Muscovite kingdom, by Catherine's decree returns their true historical name - Russians, as successors of the main array Russian ethnos.
From the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century, only the name was used in the administrative division of the Russian Empire. Little Russian province(later Little Russian provinces), transferred to several different regions of the southeast of Russia. However, in everyday speech the word Little Russia often used informally to refer to this historical region, now "near the edge" of Russia. Names « Little Russian" or " Little Russian"At first, it did not have any ethnic racial meaning - it was only the name of a resident of the territory, as well as "Ukrainian", and the modern name "Ukraine" is a self-name of Russians in the Old Russian language typical of ancient Russia, living "near the outskirts" of Russia.
Latinized Polish word Ukraine and an old Russian word Ukraine had one meaning. The self-name "Ukrainian" had only a geographical meaning and was characteristic of the Cossacks and other groups of free people who settled in all directions on the outskirts of the Russian space, since in terms of composition they were mainly Russians, counting from the center, which they obviously considered Russia. Similar word Ukraine was used by the gentry in the Polish language - sometimes in a pejorative sense as "inhabitants of remote lands from the center" - and later it was fixed as the name of the southern Russian lands included in the Commonwealth.
However, it should be noted that for the first time the name "Ukrainian" as a name with an ethnic meaning was used by the Austrians to designate the inhabitants of Galicia in order to contrast the Galicians with their ethnic essence as Russians. Even the name "Ukraine" was first adopted officially in Austria-Hungary for the name of the region from Galicia and several other Austrian-occupied Russian lands. At the same time, violent ukrainization Russian lands by the Austrians caused a strong national movement of Rusyns and other groups of ethnic Russians, who flatly refused to be called Ukrainians. However, the main part of the population of Galicia adopted the self-name "Ukrainian" and the ideology of "Ukrainianism", not particularly understanding meaning of ukrainization as a break and confrontation with their historical homeland.
In addition, it should be noted that the "independence" of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks, who developed as a military class in the south-west of Russia after they seized power throughout territory of Little Russia began to feed "Ukrainianism", since the Cossacks, in words recognizing their belonging to Russia, BUT constantly sought to have complete freedom from the tsarist administration. The Cossacks did not even think about any independent state - but, declaring themselves "defenders" of the southern borders of Russia, they sought to maintain personal independence from all sorts of duties and obligations to Moscow.
Such moods of the Cossacks were quite connected with the Austrian agitation about the emergence of a completely new nationality, the idea of the existence of which, generated by the Austrians, was zealously continued by the Poles, since goal of Ukrainianism remained constant - to make "Ukrainians" enemies of Russia. Bye residents of Little Russia called themselves Russian - it was impossible to do this, since they considered themselves part of the Russian people, but, here is the renaming into a new ethnic group specially invented for this - " Ukrainians- gave such an opportunity.
Before the October Revolution in the Russian Empire for the indigenous the population of Little Russia name fixed Little Russian, which had an ethnic meaning for the most part in cultural terms.
Fig. 8 In the clothes of Little Russians, Tatar influence is noticeable through the Cossacks runivers.ru
After the capture of Kyiv by the Mongol-Tatars in 1240, all political life in the southern lands simply died, and the center of economic life shifted to the north. In the steppes around Kyiv, nomadic raids are not uncommon, so life in the hearth of Kievan Rus becomes simply unsafe. Obviously, immediately after the raid of the Tatars, the inhabitants left this region, fearing to be captured and be taken into slavery, especially since the Tatars who had settled not far in the Crimea form their own Horde.
The subsequent replenishment of the population comes from two sides - the nomads and people from Central Asia, who accompanied the Tatars in their campaign, now settle among the locals, and later the Lithuanian princes and Polish pans, who seized the land as property, resettle peasants here from the north. Population of Little Russia replenished and fugitive serfs from the Muscovite Kingdom.
In the south, on the lands bordering the Tatar Crimea, a group of Cossacks is self-organizing, at first for self-defense, and with the growth in numbers and organization - already as a robbery pirate state, which itself is capable of making predatory raids on its neighbors. Actually, no one pays attention to the ethnicity of the Cossack - if only he knew how to hold a saber.
From the native Russians left after the defeat of Kyiv, and the motley ethnic replenishment, the appearance of the Little Russians is formed, in which the dark-haired type predominates, although genetic studies show their complete affinity with Russians and Belarusians.
The name of Little Russia usually means the current Chernigov and Poltava provinces, but in the historical sense the concept of Little Russia is much broader; she embraced, in addition, the present Southwestern region (that is, the provinces of Kyiv, Podolsk and Volyn), sometimes going into present-day Galicia, Bessarabia, Kherson region. By the Dnieper River, Little Russia was divided into right-bank and left-bank. In this territory, during the specific veche period, there were the principalities of Chernigov-Seversk, Pereyaslav, Kiev, Volyn, Podolsk land, and partly the principalities of Galicia and Turov. The Tatar invasion devastated and weakened the territory of the later Little Russia. The population decreased to the point that Pogodin put forward the hypothesis that it all went somewhere to the north, and a new population appeared in its place from beyond the Carpathians. But M.A. Maksimovich in his article “On the imaginary desolation of Ukraine in the invasion of Batyevo and its population by the newly arrived people” (“Works”, Volume I), and after him V. B. Antonovich in the article “Kyiv, its fate and significance from the 14th to the 16th century” (“Monographs”, I), a number of facts proved that there was no complete desolation of the Little Russian territory after the Tatar invasion, that its population did not leave anywhere and no people moved to southern Russia, although partial colonization cannot be denied. After the Batu invasion, when the power of the Russian princes in the south weakened, southern Russia fell under the rule of Lithuania (see the Lithuanian-Russian state), and when Lithuania was finally united with Poland by the Union of Lublin in 1569, it was under the rule of Poland. Under the Lithuanian princes, the Cossacks arose, with the advent of which the political life of the Little Russian people began.
Russia. History: Little Russia // Encyclopedic Dictionary of F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907.
In the countryside, it was in use Little Russian dialect, and strikingly different in different parts of the earth due to different borrowings from the nearest peoples. The elite and the Little Russian intelligentsia were trilingual, considering Russian, Polish and local dialect - since the Commonwealth itself was bilingual - the inhabitants of Lithuania spoke the former Kiev Old Russian language (from which Belarusian later went), and the Rusyns in Austrian Galicia retained their Old Russian dialect. Reunification of Little Russia with Russia made only Russian the state language; due to the presence of a large number of Poles in the Little Russian intelligentsia, the Polish language was also literary, but Russian was predominant. Moreover, the intelligentsia could not even imagine the subsequent transition from such a developed language of a powerful culture as the Russian language to the small-town rural dialect, which was put by the Bolshevik Ukrainizers as the basis of the Ukrainian language. Before the revolution, attempts to create independent language from the village dialect were ridiculed by the cultured Little Russians.
In fact, few people asked residents for ethnic self-determination, because the statistics were rather generalized.
For example, in the descriptions of the peoples of Russia, the first issue of which dates back to 1878, a brief description is given of the number and way of life of the Little Russians, as one of the four peoples designated in the publication.
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 At the end of the 19th century, the number of Little Russians was about 11 million
Where to attribute the Cossacks (Fig. 9 from the site runivers.ru) was not very clear at all - after all, there was the Don Cossacks nearby, who were certainly “Russian”, but the Ukrainian Cossacks mixed with the local population and spoke local dialects. Today, the descendants of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks already belong to the Little Russian ethnic group. With the seizure of power throughout Little Russia, the Cossacks became Little Russians.
Actually the word Cossack was not ethnic - it characterized an armed free man, and the life and principles of management (the range of work of Cossack women) coincided with the life of local rural non-Cossacks living nearby. A striking difference in clothing was clearly borrowed at first from the Tatars, and later from the Turks, as an attire suitable for military campaigns. The Zaporizhzhya Cossacks themselves unequivocally considered themselves not only "Russians", but also proudly called themselves the defenders of the shrines of Russia and the Orthodox faith.
Among population of Little Russia the Poles, who were already considered an internal people, did not stand out in any way, since many landowners retained their estates, and part of Poland was already part of the Russian Empire. Therefore, in the cities, many also knew the Polish language.
Great Russian name took place as a contrast between the inhabitants of Muscovy and the historically divergent branches of the formerly united Russian people - Little Russians and Belarusians. At the end of the 19th century, it even became fashionable in the wake of a rise in interest in the self-determination of nations - but it is rather not mentioned by Russian authors, but flashes in Ukrainian publications.
It is rather difficult to describe the typical national appearance of a Great Russian (Fig. 8,9,10), since there are an order of magnitude more local features - and here there are much more differences between groups of Russians in Great Russia than with residents of Little Russia or Belarus. The language of the Great Russians is understood by everyone in any part of Russia, but the dialect of the northern Russians is distinguished by an okan, and the southern ones by akan. The developed literary language today has almost leveled the rest of the differences.
According to chronicles the peoples of the Baltic long resisted the adoption of Christianity, remaining true to their idols. Actually for Kievan Rus, these lands were a distant province, and only the devastation of the southern lands makes the northern principalities of the Russian world significant in the politics of that time. The Russian princes of Lithuanian Rus, racing with the Polish lords, begin to seize practically abandoned lands around Kyiv, which have not yet been picked up by the Galicia-Volyn prince. The indigenous lands of Lithuanian Rus have been inhabited since ancient times by Slavs interspersed with many other nationalities. The nobility and most of the population speaks Russian and is actually inextricably linked with Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. The princes of Lithuanian Rus remain mainly relatives of the Russian princes from the Rurik family, because it is known that Ivan the Terrible was the son of Elena Glinskaya, the former niece of the Lithuanian prince. However, the Moscow Kingdom, even in the status of a tributary of the Golden Horde, did not become younger in relation to Lithuanian Rus. The principles of the structure of the empire of Genghis Khan allow such uluses as Vladimir-Suzdal Russia to maintain an independent statehood. While the Muscovite principality rises within this Rus, centralizing all the other principalities under itself, the northwestern principalities, which retained their independence, seize the southern centers of the former Kievan Rus, forming another Rus, which in history received the name Lithuanian Rus. This Western Russia, claiming the inheritance of Kyiv, receives an official name as Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but soon, for the sake of confrontation against Moscow Russia and the Baltic German orders, it enters into an alliance with Poland, which had military power and had an almost republican state structure from the free gentry. At this time, the Polish class of the armed nobility organizes a kingdom, very similar to the bandit republic of the Zaporozhian Sich, in which the king is elected by the vote of the gentry. The federal state formation receives the name of the Commonwealth and becomes the largest state in Europe. Ivan's correspondence with Kurbsky characterizes the relationship between two neighboring empires, where border vassals sometimes defect to rival empires.
The isolation of the Russian people in White Russia on the territory of the Commonwealth from the main body of the people in Moscow Russia allows them to preserve an earlier version of the Russian language, almost Old Russian, similar to the modern church one. There is an influence of the Polish language due to attempts to Polish, but later Russian becomes the literary language, thanks to which even today the Belarusian language remains more of a family language. All more or less significant works are created in Russian or Polish.
National self-determination among Belarusians generally comes very late - only in the 19th century. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks made an attempt to Belarusianize the population in nationalist tones, which today sometimes manifests itself in relations between independent Belarus and Russia.
The national dress and way of life in the eastern regions almost does not differ from their Russian counterparts, but in the western parts many details indicate closeness with Lithuania and Poland. (Fig.10)
For many centuries, in general, among Russians, Little Russians or Belarusians were not singled out from their own ethnic group, as is the case today - only by last name can one still somehow distinguish, but not even a fact.
There is an affinity between Russians and Ukrainians and Belarusians, but, as we can see, recently the nationalist elite of Ukraine has been conducting splitting activities, intensifying opposing Ukrainians to ethnic Russians, who make up a third of the population of this country.
Until the 20th century, Russian society did not even suspect the existence of “Ukrainianism”, since under the tsar this ideology was supported by only a few intellectuals in Kyiv and Lvov, mostly from ethnic Poles. At the end of the 19th century, a wave of populism gave rise to an interest in national characteristics, on which an interest in the culture of the Little Russians arises. The Bolsheviks, who came to power due to their ignorance of the anti-Russian essence of “Ukrainianism”, declare it a national liberation movement and, after the revolution, allow undisguised Ukrainian nationalists to form the foundations of the socialist republic of Ukraine.
Thanks to their own misunderstanding, the Bolsheviks exacerbated their ignorance by choosing the word Ukraine in the name of the republic. Here you just need to think for a second about the meaning of this word, as anyone will understand the separatist meaning of this word in relation to Russia, as the proclamation of the independence of this part from the single Russian people and the single country of Russia.
The ignorance of Russian society under the tsar was aggravated many times - which caused the rapid flourishing and territorial expansion of the anti-Russian idea of "Ukrainianism" from an insignificant center in Galicia after its annexation to Little Russia to a vast territory, only now by the hands of the Ukrainian local elite, forced to follow a splitting path in the footsteps of Mazepa, i.e. literally by the separatist separatist way of the Cossacks. The ideology of "Ukrainian" The collapse of the USSR was taken into service by the local elite, as it made it possible to completely break the umbilical cord with Russia, whose elite was the most dangerous rival for the local. The fact that for this it will be necessary to force the people to abandon all the shrines that bind people of Little Russia with Russia – did little to embarrass the “national” Ukrainian elite.
It must be understood that the situation - the Russian people are one, and there are THREE separate states - Russia, Ukraine and Belarus - constantly sets the task for the local elites to justify the existence of a separate independent state from the same ethnic Russians, BUT DIFFERENT - from Russia as the fundamental principle. Therefore, local elites are constantly looking for ethnic differences - the more the better, so that they can oppose the people of Ukraine (and Belarus too) with the same people in Russia (whose elite the locals obviously fear as the most dangerous for them).
The appearance of the national republic of Ukraine within the USSR was an indulgence in the spread of the ideology of "Ukrainianism" in the annexed primordially Russian territories as a result of the Bolsheviks' flirting with the national liberation movement. The communists did not even realize that they were transferring ideas about the national liberation movement to the inhabitants of one of the republics of their own state. They believed that they were supporting Ukrainian nationalism, which never was, it was only hiding behind this name, but there was an old separatist movement against Russia, generated by the Austrians. This was an example of the stupidity of the leadership of the CPSU under the influence of ideological clichés. It simply did not fit in the heads of the Soviet party bosses that they supported Ukrainian separatism. No one even asked the question - and this nationalism-separatism - is it from whom? The answer would have been obvious for a long time, but Soviet science, under the influence of ideology, did not even study Ukrainianism, which has had a single goal for centuries - to tear off Little Russian people from Russia. However, anti-Russian and anti-Russian the essence of Ukrainianism became apparent at the time of Ukraine's independence as a result of the Belovezhskaya conspiracy.
Even today, the only full-fledged scientific work on the issue of Ukrainianness remains the monograph of the emigrant Nikolai Ulyanov, published in New York in 1966 under the title in which he proved that there is no Ukrainian nationalism(this is absurd - the nationalization of Russians from Russians), but there is a hostile, or rather separatist movement against everything Russian and Russian. As we can see, the founders of Ukrainianism managed to realize their plans (now through the support of the United States) to incite hatred of "Ukrainians" against Russia.
Misconceptions and ideological cliches made the leaders of the USSR idealists in the national question and blind in relation to ideology of "Ukrainianism". Today Ukrainianism showed its true essence - it is a real snake, bred on the ignorance of the Bolsheviks about the true nature of this separatist movement against Russia.
The term Ukraine began to be used only at the end of the 19th century, but "after 1917 the historical term Little Russia and the words derived from it were practically withdrawn from historical and geographical use in the Ukrainian SSR, the RSFSR and the USSR as part of the ideological support of Soviet politics. "I think we can continue the same way with a quote from Wikipedia:
After the liquidation of the hetmanate in 1764, a part of the Left-bank Ukraine was created Little Russian province with the administrative center in the city of Glukhov. In 1775 Little Russian and Kyiv province were merged, the provincial center was moved to Kyiv. In 1781 Little Russian province was divided into three governorships (provinces) - Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversk and Kiev. In 1796 Little Russian province was recreated, Chernigov was appointed the provincial center, after which in 1802 it was divided again into two provinces: Poltava and Chernihiv. The names Little Russia, Little Russian, Little Russians were used in relation to the entire southwestern region during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Name Little Russia until 1917 it was semi-officially used for the collective designation of Volyn, Kyiv, Podolsk, Poltava and Chernihiv provinces. That is how the Left-Bank Ukraine, mother and "Little Russia", was called Grigory Skovoroda, and Sloboda Ukraine - his own aunt, which indicated the absence of a pejorative connotation in the term "Little Russia".
Taras Shevchenko in his personal diary written in Russian (in 1857-1858) uses the words "Little Russia / Little Russian" 17 times and only 4 times "Ukraine" (while he does not use the adjective "Ukrainian" at all); at the same time, in letters to like-minded Ukrainophiles 17 times “Ukraine” and 5 times “Little Russia / Little Russian”, and in his poetry he uses only the term “Ukraine”.
Cultural and historical specifics of Little Russia, as well as the regional patriotism of the Little Russians, were quite acceptable in the eyes of the supporters of the concept of a large Russian nation, as long as they did not come into conflict with this concept. Moreover, in the first half of the 19th century, Little Russian specificity aroused keen interest in St. Petersburg and Moscow as a more colorful, romantic version of Russianness.
Throughout the entire period of Ukraine being part of the Russian Empire term Little Russia used as a synonym for Ukraine, both colloquially and (mostly) at official levels. At the same time, already in the second half of the 19th century, the name Ukraine became more widely used in everyday life, private and public life and almost completely replaced all other designations (including the term "Little Russia").
Ukraine after 1917
After 1917, the historical term "Little Russia" and the words derived from it were practically withdrawn from historical and geographical use in the Ukrainian SSR, the RSFSR and the USSR as part of the ideological support of Soviet policy.
In Soviet times, until the 1980s, the term "Little Russia" had an almost negative connotation.
In the Ukrainian historical literature of the period of the Ukrainian SSR, the term "Little Russia" was also used quite rarely.
The term Little Russia in Ukraine
Both in Soviet and independent Ukraine, the term "Little Russia" is rarely used in historiography. The historical names of the regions of Ukraine (Poltava region, Chernihiv region, etc.) are usually used as historical designations. It is allowed, however, to use the term "Little Russia" as a reference to past administrative-territorial units.
This dictionary Little Russia written specifically to clarify the provisions of the section in the rubric. The page has a constant : http://site/page/malorossija
