Talk:Russian history, 1721–1796/Archive 1

Naming issue

There was a nation called "Muscovy" until 1713. In that year, Peter the Great decreed his nation be renamed "Rossiya"--the Greek term for Rus'--an ambition of Muscovite rulers for at least 2 and a half centuries. Yet, this renaming was resisted in Europe--as testified by diplomatic history. To remove these facts is anti-intellectual, anti-historical, and a bias producing vandalism. If you disagree, please list some facts backing up your position! Genyo 18:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The name "Muscovy" ceased to exist during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, if not, Ivan the Great, and the term "Westernization of Russia" is often used in the period before 1713. The story that Peter the Great named the state Russia is likely to have been made up. When St. Petersburg became the capital in 1712, it wasn't called Muscovy anymore, neither after the massive expansion of territory by either Ivan IV or Ivan III. Marcus2 19:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dedicated to reporting things that are true, not just likely to be true in the wishes of reader.

See the following links:

http://www.consultsos.com/pandora/f1544pht.htm

http://www.ukrntlmuseum.org/

More are available: if you can't produce documentation backing up your fantasy wish for Peter's changing the name of the nation of Muscovy to Rossiya in 1713 to be "made up," then stop your vandalism of the facts on this site. Genyo 02:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've seen people posting things that aren't necessarily true into the encyclopedia. And as I've seen in books, etc., there is nothing saying that it was Peter who renamed Muscovy Russia in 1713. Books and encyclopedias are anyways more accurate sources than the internet. Marcus2 15:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, some User:Drbug disagrees with your proposal, as I do. Marcus2 15:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another source:

http://members.aol.com/UKIRAMR6/old/ukr02.htm Genyo 03:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For God's sake here's some documentation, [1]. Read the first paragraph. It says "first formally proclaimed tsar of Russia". Reference that. Marcus2 17:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Marcus, my son, get your eyes off the pictures and read the text: it clearly states that the official name of the nation in the late 1500s was "Muscovy." There is an anachronistic use of the word Russia here and there probably a confused gloss for the word, "Rus'," but only in the sense of showing who first used the title "Tsar." There is no reference here to any official change of name, let alone any date. I'm grateful, though for the verification that there was a nation officially called "Muscovy" as as late as the later half of the 16th century. I'm indebted to you. Genyo 03:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's not actually what the source says, though it does say that sort of thing for the early 1500s. If you think that there was an area called "Muscovy" in the late 1500s, that's fine. It refers to what the area around Moscow was called at that time. But the article also implies that there was a nation called "Russia" rather than Muscovy - It refers to the nation as Russia at the same time. Marcus2 15:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article repeated terms the nation Muscovy even into the late 1500s, and never asserts a name change during this time period. "Russian" is used a a general anachronistic term. Try to find a source to back up your assertions. Genyo 03:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another source: the writings of the Orthodox Deacon Paul of Alepo, writing about his visit to Eastern Europe in the 1650s: he uses the terms Muscovites and Muscovy for the country. Genyo 18:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thus far I've seen plenty of evidence that the first name for Russia was Muscovy, and I've seen assertions that Muscovy claimed to be the ruler of all Rus' before he was. (even while others ruled Rus' proper and the Rus' capital of Kiev). I've seen assertions about an offical name change in 1713,including evidence from diplomatic correspondence--which verify that the factual name of the country throughout Europe was Muscovy. And I've seen people play dumb and try to use references to Tsarist appropriation of the ruler of all Rus' mantle to falsely and slyly assert that this meant the country was called "Russia" (actually Rossiya)--including by people who obviously know better. What I haven't seen is the documentation for the position that the name was actually changed earlier, a reference to a change of name before 1713.

I'm patient in my quest for facts, though. When the subject matter is the romantic field called "Russian History," you have to be! Genyo 14:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear readers,

I don't have any illusions that it is possible to explain anything to Genyo, but I have to comment his text. The Russian rulers were titled as rulers of Russia (Rus) at least since Ivan III the Great. It is confirmed by the numerous sources. Also I saw earlier cases (in Russian chronicles) when Russians called themselves Russians, and I saw no cases when they called themselves Muscovites. It is also well known who invented the story of "Renaming Muscovy into Russia in 1713" - it was prof. Sergey Pavlovich Shelukhin, lived in Prague since 1921. He also invented some other funny stories, like that Rurik was a Gaul. His inventions were not taken seriously by the scholars, but were cheered by the nationalists.

(And now here's the comment to Genyo: It's funny that your "sources" use the incorrect derogatory term for Tatars (Tartars), while implicating that the use of Kiev instead of Kyiv is incorrect. Also, it's funny that both Ukrainian nationalists often accuse others in vandalism (even those who have never vandalised anything), and you both vandalised my personal user page. I don't make a conclusion, it's just so funny. :-) Sorry, I don't consider you seriously anymore.)

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 18:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comrade Vladimir, be vigilant in your emotions, party discipline demands it! You're talking about the page of Vladimir here--but your name is Volodymyr, at least during your agancy on these pages. Tell us more about your Shelukhin adventure--do you say he forged the correspondence of 1713 documenting the disbelief in Eruopean capitals that the country of Muscovy was "really" named "Rossiya"? Volodymyr, why is this researching man named Genyo on the page that Vladimir calls "his" page? Did they agree to share it with each other? Genyo 19:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Genyo, are you 350 years old? It is very doubtful that you even were born before 1713. You didn't live during that time, so how are you to really believe some of the stuff you read which may have been artificially made? Marcus2 21:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I could believe it, I just want to see authentic documentation first! Why is that so hard for you? Genyo 02:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Drbug: Please, be consequent in your thesis. As far as I remember your main argument in our discussions is ENGLISH usage of words, even if there is no logic in that. Now you try to enforce your POV, which is different than your arguments under other articles. Can you keep consistency in what you do? You have not proved that the name Russia (in the meaning of Russian state, not Rus') was used outside of Russia before 18th century. Do you? As far as I know the only name of this state known (for example in England) before 18th century was Muscovy. So we should use consistently this name untill the name of Russia (in the meaning Russian state) became accepted in English. And as i remember also modern mainstream historical literature usually attribute the name Muscovy to the Russian state of this period. I cite your own words: "This is English Wikipedia". Regards.Yeti 14:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Drbug knows a lot about Russian history, and sooner or later, I bet he'll turn up with some evidence to back up his argument. I put a request on his talk page. Cheers. Marcus2 17:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If so, fine. But till now I did not notice anything like that.Yeti 19:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It appears that Muscovy is only name used for the period before end of 16th century. For 17th century until reign of Peter the Great Russia is usually used in literature, but Muscovy (or Muscovite Russia) as well especially in older works. So, in my opinion for 17th century, Russia should be used, but Moscow in brakets would be fine. What do you think?Yeti 19:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we should choose the most accurate answer. Here's an excerpt from the 1911 Enceclopedia Brittanica online:

RUSSIA (Rossiya), the general name for the European and Asiatic dominions of the Tsar of All the Russias. Although the name is thus correctly applied, both in English and Russian, to the whole area of the Russian empire, its application is often limited, no less correctly, to European Russia, or even to European Russia exclusive of Finland and Poland. The use of the name in its most comprehensive sense dates only from the expansion of the empire in the 19th century; to the historian who writes of the earlier growth of the empire, Russia means, at most, Russia in Europe, or Muscovy, as it was usually called until the 18th century, from Moscow, its ancient capital. Genyo 21:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quick'n'dirty info.

At first, let me express explicitly, that I don't care too much about who contibuted more into the development of Russia - Slavs, Varagnians, Mongols, Ugro-Fennec people, Jews, bicyclists, or gays. I don't care too much about the state heritance - I don't see why the Golden Horde (that controlled a vast territory) could be considered as less glorious starting poing than Kievan Rus or Volkhov Rus.

But I care to prevent nationalists to revision the history in Wikipedia. I don't wish Wikipedia to pedal any controversial issues that are not pedaled by the mainstream historiography.

It was a preface of some kind.

Now the story.

Russia/Muscovy/etc in the modern literature

There's no matematically correct answer to this question. The Russia is the most commonly used and well-known term for all periods, including pre-Kievan. If you don't believe me, you can make some googletests immediately. Compare numbers: Rurik Russia vs Rurik Kievan (or even Rurik Kiev) or searches like that. Funny, the first hit of Ryurik Russia is an article from Encarta, titled "Ryurik, Founder of Russia". You can try any search of this type - the result is always the same - Russia is the most often used word for any period when this word anyhow applicable. But maybe you don't believe in googletests, ok, check online encyclopedies. http://encyclopedy.com , http://encarta.msn.com , http://eb.com . The result is the same.

On the other hand, Russia, of course, is not only the most commonly used. It is also most ambiguous. In the Russian historiography this problem is solved by use of adjectives: Ancient Rus(sia), Kievan Rus(sia), Galich-Volyn Rus(sia), Suzdal'-Vladimir Rus(sia), Moscow Rus(sia), Tsarist Russia/Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, New Russia/Russian Federation... Maybe it's an elegant way to preserve a "brandname" Russia, but it was not used by the English world, which mostly uses Russia, rarely Muscovy, and extremely rarely Muscovite Russia. Again, you don't have to believe me, you can easily check this either by reading texts or by the googlecheck.

Considering that relatively few people know what is Muscovy, Russia is definitely should be used to establish the context. It is norm for the English world, and for the Wikipedia. I would be very surprised if the Warring States Period or Spring and Autumn Period were not using references to China.

It's just a simple verifiable fact - Russia is used most often for naming Russia in all its forms through the time. Especially in encyclopedies. Therefore it should be used in Wikipedia. Point. Nothing more matters.

Some interesting facts

However, notwithstanding the above, nationalists' claims are often easily may be rejected even stronger, because they often use false facts - even if these facts do not matter.

Here are some interesting facts:

• The first time Moscow refereced in 1147.
• The Moscow principaliy founded in 1276 (after A.V.Ekzemplyarskij).
• Ivan III the Great officially used title "Ruler of all Rus" at least since 1493.
• Moski and Muscovites were used by Matvej Mehovski (he is considered to be a Pole) in 1517 (Tractate about two Sarmatias). (It's most probable that it was him who invented these words.)
• Ivan IV was inaugurated in 1547 as "Tsar of all Rus" (he was the first tsar in Russia).
• Sigismund von Herberstein published his "Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii" in 1549 (the word Muscovy was not widely used in the West before this book).
• Feodor I, the last of Ryuricovich, died in 1598.
• Michael I, the first of Romanov, started to reign in 1613.
• Alexey I promoted the Greek form of Russia (Rossiya) at least since 1654, but probably before 1650.
• Treaty of Pereyaslav took into the effect in 1654. It is often considered as reunification of Russia.
• Peter I asked his ambassadord to request other governments to Russia instead of Muscovy since 1713.
• Peter I the great was inaugurated in 1721 as "Emreror of all Russia".
• Francishek Dukhinski (he is considered to be a Pole) started a propaganda that Muscovites are not Slavs since 1857 (Poles were preparing "antimuscovite" uprising in Ukraine).

Now the comments come:

• Considering that there are no known (at least to me) mentions of Muscovites before 1493, when Ivan III the Great started to use title "Ruler of all Rus" officialy, it seems to be very plausible that "Muscovites" were invented in Poland-Lithuania in response to the Ivan III's claims to be the ruler of all Rus. The cause and the effect.
• It seems that the country was never called Muscovy by its inhabitans, neither officially, nor non-officially. All the rulers of the Moscow principality pretended to be more than just the Moscow rulers, and there always was a desire for pan-Russian rule. The people mostly called themselves Russian, some others used their tribal names, but they didn't name themself Muscovites.

Nobody actually knows how that country has been calles by it's inhabitants, but only how it has been called by its people in authority. These people (the rulers with the suite and clerics) were the absolute minority, they were Russians and came earlier from Kievan Rus'. The inhabitants of the country were mostly descendants of finnish tribes and by 1493 had little to do with russians. Hereby the history got two different peoples which would call themselves the same name. One is Little Russia (i.e. the original one) and the other - the Great Russia (the big one indeed). But you have aknowledged two ultimate things about the Great Russia: the Moscow rullers always *pretended* to be more than just the Moscow rulers, and there always was an expansionistic desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.102.37 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Later I will cite the sources, but not because that it may play any role in choice of the word to use, but because I think that this information 1) interesting to many contributors here; 2) may be included into the articles.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 00:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vladimir, more recently alias Volodymyr, "Dr. Bug": Your "probabilities" are very self-serving; please cite sources to document your theories (or fantasies, if they don't rise to the level of theories). They serve you well, but they don't serve the truth. Modern scholarship has advancebeyond the wish list of Russian imperialism, which incorrrectly equates Russia with "Rus'." Once again, would you kindly cite sources for your name change pre-1713? Or at least give a scholarly source for your Polish conspiracy theory? Genyo 02:34, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Drbug: 1. If Matvej Mehovski was a Pole i am an Emperor of China. He was 100 % Ruthenian (you can call even him Russian in your nomenclature) and he even did not speak Polish (for what? He did not live in Poland). At that time Poland did not have any borders with Russia. Do not you see a difference between Kingdom of Poland and GD of Lithuania? Before 1569 they were entirelly different states.

It's a honor to receve a message from the Emperor of China! Thank you, I highly appreciate it! :-)

In all sources I've read Matvej Mehovski is attributed as a Pole. However, it's nice if this talented scientist was a Russian. Thank you for your gift :-). Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to more cautious in the future.:-)

2. He did not invent anything. Mocow was used as decription of Moscow state by ALL its western neighbors (GD of Lithuania, Livonian Order and Sweden. Why? Because the word Rossiya did not exist yet, and Rus was attributed to ALL area of fromer Kievian Rus, including GD of Lithuania. Is it something new for you?

Could you please show me any references to documents using Muscovy (not Moscow that was a city) and Muscovites before 1500? I see there's a need in the Russia naming issue article. This information would be useful for the new article. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you know the references are not numerous because of: untill end of 15th century Moscow did not border with any western state. So, for example fro the English, Moscow was barely one of many states of Rus (please, do not equall it with modern meaning of Russia), which was as exotic as China. Obviously, probably there are no mentions about Muscovy prior 1500 in English texts (as there are no references about Tibet as well).

Anyway, I will try to trace it.

Thank you.

I am almost sure that there's no such references before that Ivan III started to pedal that he is ruler of all Rus. And invention of Muscovy was just a response. Both facts and logics stay for this.

What is really bothers me, none of books I've read, neither the internet explains why Muscovy. It's definitely not Russian - there should be Moskovschina. It's not fenno-ugric or tatar form either. I dind't find any similar forms in the adjacent regions. At first, can you confirm that it is not Polish form either? And also could you please check, which other forms for Muscovy are mentioned in the Polish sources? Thank you! Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 19:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3. Ambitions of Tsar Ivan III are interesting. But I am afraid that they were not shared by foreigners.

They definitely were not shared by the Polish rulers. They rejected to use the title "Ruler of all Rus". (However, I guess, the issue was not Rus, but all.) It is well documented. However, it was a normal political practice of that time, it just means that the state was relatively weak. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Polish and Lithuanian rulers and than Polish-Lithuanian. It is important difference. You are right: the problem was all as G.Dukes of Lithuania considered themselve rulers of Rus as well.

4. Nice. You confirmed that word Rossiya was promoted by Russian Tsars from 1654. So we can use it in modern sense (in the meaning of state) from that year. Not earlier. Thank you for additional argument. Rossia and Ukraine did not unite in 1654. Some (not all) Ukrainian Cossaks confirmed suzerenity of Tsar in 1654. I know nothing about unification of Ukraine and Moscovite Russia in 1654. If you know any such document, please cite it.

This document is titled Treaty of Pereyaslav in English. Your objection looks a bit weird, because Ukrainian state was a state by Cossaks. Yes, not all Cossaks participated the Pereyaslav Rada. But the state that is now known as Ukraine, originates from this Bohdan Khmelnytsky-led state, western parts were added to it later. Please write more details to understand what do you mean. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Our interpretation of Treaty of Pereyaslav is a little bit different. It is funny, because Russian Tsar and Cossacks interpreted it in very different way as well. I can not cite it because of obvious reasons. But further controversies and what we know about the treaty indicate very clearly that there was nothing about "unification" or "annexation". And sorry, but describing three Cossack territories as Ukraine has no sense, and definitelly derives from pan-Russian propaganda (sorry for this word).

It's only your dirty pan-Polish propaganda!!! No pity, no regret!!! Oh, sorry, I've mixed up the channels! :-)

Hm, interesting. However, it seems to be a very vast question. It would be cool to consider it, but not that time, ok? I inserted this event into the list not to promote any political agenda, but to allow a reader to understand how key events are related. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 19:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5. Peter I the great was inaugurated in 1713 as "Emreror of all Russia - thank you for confirmation that prior 1721 Muscow was not known as Russia outside its borders.

Maybe there are some lacunas in my education, I don't see how the fact Peter I the great was inaugurated in 1721 (BTW, something wrong with your cut'n'paste tool) as "Emreror of all Russia can confirm that prior 1721 Muscow was not known as Russia outside its borders. :-) Could you please explain? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have pasted wrong sentence and changed the date later. Obviously, it should be Peter I asked his ambassadord to request other governments to Russia instead of Muscovy since 1713.

Yeti, sorry, it is still not obvious :-). Sorry, but you make the same blunder in the elementary logic as Genyo does. If X requests Y to make B instead A, it doesn't mean that Y didn't make B earlier. I.e. if John asks everyone to stop call him Ugly Fat Idiot and to call him John instead, it doesn't mean that nobody called him John earlier. :-) I'm sure that my explaition is clear to you, but I don't think that Genyo would read my reasons. Could I ask you to try to explain Genyo his mistake in logic? Thank you very much in advance, it may help a lot... Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 19:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

6. Anyway, all these arguments are not important, as well as ambitions of Russian Tsars and your POV (and Genyo's as well), because we shoud use commonly accepted in English speakng world historical naming. Bye.Yeti 09:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, we should use commonly acepted naming, like other encyclopedies do. And, repeating, from my side these are not arguments, but a discussion with other wikipedians in purpose to achieve the consensus and to create a base for the new article.

Thank you for your comments! Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see that we agree in the last one. So both Russia and Muscovy are corrects as far as period 1590-1721 are concerned.Yeti 11:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that timespan you mentioned is logical. There is a weak tradition to use the term of Muscovy to the period limited by formation of Moscow principality in the start (i.e. 1276) to the death of the last tsar of the Ryurik dynasty - Feodor I in the end (i.e. 1598). However, anyway, the simple term of Russia is used much more often than Muscovy even for this period. Please, don't invent artificial boundaries, but check the real use... You don't have to believe me, but please really check and make sure that that Russia "brand name" is the most used term for the pre-Romanov epoch as well. It's not something that I can prove by any references, you may be convinced only if you check by yourself. Could you please do it?

(However, to name Russia Muscovy after 1613 is either ignorance or political agenda, I think.) Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 19:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why 1590? What ever happenend then? Russia was formally promulgated as a name for the country in 1713. The Tsar declared himself an emperor in 1721. Muscovy became "Russia" in 1713 and the "Russian Empire" in 1721. Other uses are informal and un-academic at best. For example one can say that the US was inhabited by Indians in 1500. The educated reader knows what's meant, but the statement is technically inaccurate. Similarly, one can say that the US had 2 million people in 1720. Also an inaccurate choice of words. Let's continue to be factual here at Wikipedia. Genyo 15:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reign of Aleksey I Mikhailovich Romanov. Use of "Rusia" and "Rosia"

It's interestesting to read letters of Aleksey I of Russia and official documents of this time. Most of them contain references to the tsar's title (which in turn contains name of the country) and date.

There are many earlier usage in documents, but I'd like to cover a very interesting period when "all Rusia" evolved to "all Rosia", then to "all Great and Little Rosia", then to "all Great and Little and White Russia". Please notice, that there's a single s in Rusia and Rosia. (In the Greek Ρωσία there's single sigma (σ) too.)

Dear User:Marcus2, I also hope that these quotes may be considered as those that you asked me in response to the User:Genyo's criticizm...

Ok, let's cite:

1649-07-20, Moscow, Соборное Уложение 1949 (Cathedral Code 1949): "государь царь и великии князь Алексей Михайлович, всея Русии самодержец." ("Sovereign tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mikhailovich, of all Rusia autocrat. [3]

1650-05-25, Tarasovka, letter of Aleksey I to A.I.Matyushkin: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа Русии." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich of all Rusia.") [1]

1652-05-00, Moscow, letter of Aleksey I to patriarchy Nikon: "раб божий царь Алексей всеа Русии." ("Slave of God tsar Aleksey of all Rusia.") [1]

1653-10-01, Resolution of Zemskij Sobor: "великого государя царя и великого князя Алексея Михайловича всеа Русии самодержца." ("of great sovereign tsar and great duke Aleksey Mikhailovich of all Rusia autocrat.") [4]

1653-11-00, Siberia, instructions of Verxorut governor L.Izmajlov to Verxotur strelec desyatnik T.Serebryannikov: "по государеву цареву и великого князя Алексея Михайловича всеа Русии." (by sovereign tsar and great duke Aleksey Mikhailovich of all Rusia.") [5]

---

1653-09-03, Moscow, letter of Aleksey I to boyar duke N.I.Odoevsky: "От царя и великаго князя Алексиа Михаиловича всеа Росии." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich of all Rosia.") [1]

1653-11-21, Moscow, letter of Aleksey I to boyar duke N.I.Odoevsky: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа Росии." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich of all Rosia.") [1]

---

1655-01-14, Vyazma, instructions of Aleksey I to boyar G.G.Pushkin: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа Великия и Малыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich of all Great and Little Rosia autocrat.") [1]

1655-01-21, Vyazma, instructions of Aleksey I to boyar I.V.Morozov: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа Великия и Малыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich of all Great and Little Rosia autocrat.") [1]

1655-04-19, Smolensk, letter of Aleksey I to boyar duke Ya.K.Cherkasskiy Kosoy: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа Великия и Малыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich of all Great and Little Rosia autocrat.") [1]

---

1658-08-12, Moscow, letter of Aleksey I to A.I.Matyushkin: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа великия и малыя и белыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich, of all great and little and white Rosia autocrat.") [1]

1658-09-30, Moscow, letter of Aleksey I to boyar duke Yu.A.Dolgorukov: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа Великия и Малыя и Белыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich, of all great and little and white Rosia autocrat.") [1]

1660-03-14, Moscow, letter of Aleksey I to duma noble A.L.Ordin-Nashhokin: "От царя, великого князя Алексея Михаиловича, всея Великия и Малыя и Белыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar, grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich, of all great and little and white Rosia autocrat.") [1]

1660-06-06, Moscow, instructions of Aleksey I to boyar V.B.Sheremetyev: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича, всея Великия и Малыя и Белыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich, of all great and little and white Rosia autocrat.") [1]

1660-07-07, Moscow, letter of Aleksey I to A.I.Matyushkin: "От царя и великого князя Алексея Михаиловича всеа великия и малыя и белыя Росии самодержца." ("From tsar and grand duke Aleksey Mihailovich, of all great and little and white Rosia autocrat.") [1]

1668-10-00, order of Aleksey I to patriarchy boyar N.M.Beklemishev and clerk Kalitin: "Алексея Михаиловича всеа Великия и Малыя и Белыя Росии Самодержца" ("of Aleksey Mihailovich, of all great and little and white Rosia autocrat.") [2]

---

References:

• [1] Московия и Европа / Г.К. Котошихин. П.Гордон. Я.Стрейс. Царь Алексей Михайлович. - М.: Фонд Сергея Дубова, 2000.
• [2] И.Е.Забелин. Материалы для истории русской иконописи // Временник Имп. Московского общества истории и древностей российских. Кн. 7. М., 1850. С. 83-84.
• [3] М.Н.Тихомиров, П.П.Епифанов. Соборное уложение 1649 года. М., Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1961.
• [4] Российское законодательство X-XX вв.: в 9 т. Т.3. Акты Земских соборов. Отв. ред. А.Г.Маньков. М., Юридическая литература, 1985.
• [5] Миллер Г. Ф. История Сибири. М.-Л., 1941.

+++

Wow!

Even people who can't read Cyrillic script can decifer this fog with a little effort.

I asked for citations on the names of a political state and what we get instead is the substituting of multiple references to a claimed personal arisocratic title.

I asked for citations about naming Muscovy, Russia, "Rossiya," but we get personal titles about an ancient glorious and romanticized extinct state called "Rus'"--also called, less commonly, "Ros'."

If I asked you for 3 ducks, am I supposed to be satisfied if you give me geese instead--provided you give me twenty?

Every one of these entries speaks not of Russia, but of "Rus'!"

And interestingly enough, they're all internal Muscovite documents, not to other countries outside of Muscovy!

In Ukraine, where the region around the ancient Rus' capital of Kiev (Kyiv) was called Rus' propria, but is now called Great Ukraine, the people and the land have been called Ruski in the native language from the time of Nestor the Chronicler to the time of the 20th century. The possesive form of Rus' in Rus propria was "Rusi" (roosee). The obviously different people from the north, when they appeared, were called in Rus' propria, Muscovite; later, Rossiyski, or, in their own titling, Russki.

One should not dispute the aristocratic titles which you are proving, but you need to get to the topic: a name change of a political entity, and when, which you haven't made a valid effort to prove...

These titles accurately represent an enduring ambition: to succeed and gather Rus' in land and glory.

Our readers need to check historical maps. Not a one of these rulers ever took in all of Rus' expanse.

"Russia" only did that after it was suceeded by a state called the Soviet Union from 1945-1989.

Rome, too was a glorious Empire--but it's name--actually merely a derivative of it--in political states has fallen to Romania. That doesn't mean that Julius Caesar was Emporer of Romania. The linguistic magic involved gets crushed by the geographic magic involved. Romania didn't exist when Julius Caesar lived.

Rus' too was a glorious Empire--but it's name--actually merely a derivative of it--in political states has fallen to Russia. That doesn't mean that Volodymyr the Great was ruler of Russia. The linguistic magic involved gets crushed by the geographic magic involved. When Volodymyr ruled Rus', Russia didn't exist yet.

Genyo 19:37, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great! Dear Marcus, do you see now why I don't have any hope that it is possible to explain anything to Genyo?! Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

===

In support of User:Dr.Bug's argument, I'd like to point out the following:

1. Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, tsar ascended to the throne in Moscow, 1629.
2. Kiev and certain surrounding territory absorbed into Alexei's rule, in 1654.
3. Alexei's kingdom and Rzecz Pospolita (Poland-Lithuania) were at war 1658-1660 (the Second Northern War), which ended in large parts of modern Belarus passing to the control of Alexei's kingdom.
4. The word русский /russkij/ was spelled with one c /s/ руский as late as in Dahl's dictionary of vernacular Russian, 1863-1866, 1880. Thе 1880 edition was republished in the USSR, reset but with Dahl's modified pre-revolutionary orthography preserved, in 1955. There may have been other reprints, but I attest to personally having seen the 1955 one.
5. In the period 1653-1656 the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Nikon, with full support of Alexis, embarked on a series of Church reforms, with the explicit aim of bringing the liturgy into closer correspondence with Greek usage. The reform had more than merely religious effect: society and the church split, but Alexis the tsar supported the reforms.
6. The USSR was formally established in 1922, and is accepted to have come to an end with Mikhail Gorbachev's resignation, December 25, 1991.

The last point is merely a footnote. However, the first three, in conjunction with the letters quoted, fully establish that, in the reign of Alexis:

• "Great Rosiya" referred to the kingdom he inherited (Russia by state inheritance principles, internationally recognized);
• "Little Rosiya" referred to the (parts of the modern) Ukrainian territories;
• "White Rosiya" referred to the (parts of the modern) Belarusian territories.

The fourth point establishes that the single or double s is merely a spelling convention, and one still debated in the nineteenth century.

The fifth point provides a possible -- I stress possible -- explanation for the change of -u- into -o-, since the transliterated Greek quoted is Rosia.

Now, one last comment. We have here a conflict between the Russian and the Ukrainian points of view. However, let's stop playing games with vocabulary. The fact that to a Russian, Rus' is merely a poetic term for their country cannot be denied by a Ukrainian nationalist, no matter how hard he tries. Acknowledge that fact. The equivalent to Genyo's statements by a Russian "super-patriot" would be to deny modern Ukraine its roots of a thousand years.

• BTW, Ivan the Terrible was the descendant of Vladimir the Great. The title of Великий князь "Grand duke" or "Grand prince" passed from Kiev to Vladimir in 1169, among Suzdal, Tver, Rostov (and Vladimir) in the period to 1338-39, and after that to Moscow. The details can be found in Karamzin and anywhere else for that matter. Grand Duke of what, exactly? Of Rus. The "imperial" title Император Всероссийский (Emperor of (all) Russia) was only assumed by Peter in the eighteenth century.

A. Shetsen 05:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your dictionary citation is part of the problem, not a scholarly solution: it is an implementation of the romantic axiom, "Russia really is Rus'," so the adjective from Old Ruthenian, for the noun Rus' (rus'ky) therefore means means Russian. It's axiomatic!!! The problem is that history and language and geography don't support the axiom!

Your comparision to denying Ukraine it's one-thousand year history is odd! Like it's a new problem or even merely a theoretical one! Do you really not get it? Russia deciding that she is the same thing as Rus' definitively denies Ukraine her 1,000-year history (Belarus' is denied too)! Russia = Rus' is an equation that does violence to the truth and to Russia's Rus' neighbors!

I found your quote, "The fact that to a Russian, Rus' is merely a poetic term for their country cannot be denied by a Ukrainian nationalist, no matter how hard he tries.". . .more instructive than you know.

Fact is, Russian poetry isn't the problem: the problem is Russians putting forth the dreams of their poetry as if they were facts or truth.

But that's the interesting part of the Wikipedia process. . .it's where the dreams of one's poetical conceptions meet the truth!

Genyo 02:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One other thing. . .A.S. would you please translate another bit of Russian poetry into concrete claims?

an excerpt from your opus "in support of" a particular poiint of view:

in the reign of Alexis:

• "Great Rosiya" referred to the kingdom he inherited (Russia by state inheritance principles, internationally recognized);

referred to the kingdom? by whom? according to whom? what state inheiritance principles? and how was this "state", (actually an aristocratic title) recognized internationally.

 Help the Wikipedia readers clearup the smoke of poetry here.

Genyo 11:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also the claim does not mean that the lands are Russians; the claim only implies that he, or would there be she, is the tsar of the whole Rus including Moscow-Rus, Ukraine-Rus, Belo-Rus and so on. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of confusion also lies because of the change in Cyrillic script. Cyrillic letter for O was Greek omega which was in the name of the country. That could have contribute to that. Also for some reason Germans refer Rußland (meaning the land of Rus) today exclusively to Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV edits

I've made the following changes:

• (***) Added a section on naming that (1) notes the use of the term "Muscovy" in the West, (2) states the internal usage of "Rusia"/"Rosia" prior to 1713, (3) mentions the Russian language meaning of the term "Rus", (4) makes clear the existence of the Ukrainian argument, (5) notes that some Western scholars support it;
• Changed "Muscovy's foreign quarter" into "Moscow's foreign quarter" (it was a "German" settlement in the city);
• (***) Removed all mentions of Muscovy as the name of the state prior to 1713 as offensive to Russians, without introducing the term "Russia" in any context prior to 1713 as offensive to Ukrainians. As regards the correctness of history, that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the POV argument here;
• Changed "Russia's expansion into Europe" to "Russia's expansion" because: (1) Although geographically Europe's borders are drawn at the Ural mountains, the argument about the European vs. Asiatic nature of Russia prior to Peter is far from settled; (2) Some of the expansion was at the expense of the Ottoman empire, exactly along the borders of Europe and Asia; (3) Although I don't believe the article mentions it, Peter did commission Bering to navigate to the Far East (Bering's Strait), thus beginning a process that secured Russia's possession of N.E. Asia and (until 1867) Alaska.

The edits marked (***) are intended as a compromise, and I believe that if it cannot be reached, there is a case here for a formal mediation request, or more. A. Shetsen 07:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC).