Old Russian nationality

In modern times, the idea of ​​the unity of the Eastern Slavs in the Old Russian era dates back to the late chronicles and historical works of the XVII century ^[3] . It is mentioned in the Gustyn Chronicle ^[4] , and in the Kiev synopsis , the authorship of which is attributed to the archimandrite of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra Innocent Gisel , an assumption is made about the eternal unity of Little and Great Russia, justifying the genealogical rights of the Russian tsar to the lands of the former Kievan Rus . These provisions of Synopsis predetermined the views of Russian historians of the 18th and 19th centuries on all Eastern Slavs as representatives of the “united Russian people” ^[3] . In Russian historiography of the 19th century, from time to time there were disputes regarding the “birthright” and advantages on the legacy of the Old Russian state, which some representatives of Little Russians ( Ya. M. Markovich , MA A. Maksimovich ) or Great Russians ( MP Pogodin ) attributed to their own branches. AE Presnyakov tried to smooth out these contradictions, in 1907 he claimed that Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians had equal rights to the heritage of Ancient Russia ^[3] . In parallel with historians and the Russian Orthodox Church, the idea of ​​Old Russian unity was supported by philologists who showed the existence of a single Old Russian language, which subsequently split into several related languages. The most influential works on this issue belong to A. Kh. Vostokov , I. I. Sreznevsky , A. I. Sobolevsky , A. A. Shakhmatov ^[3] .

In contrast to this concept, M. S. Grushevsky introduced the thesis of the separate ethnogenesis of Ukrainians and Russians. This view became dominant in the historiography of the Ukrainian diaspora and gained some distribution in modern Ukrainian science ^{[3] [5]} .

In its modern form, the concept of Old Russian nationality arose in Soviet historiography of the 1930s . Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians were defined as three different nations formed in the 14th – 15th centuries, and Kievan Rus was regarded as their “common cradle”. B. D. Grekov put forward the thesis of the ethnic unity of the Eastern Slavs in the preceding division era. M.I. Artamonov at a meeting of the OIF of the USSR Academy of Sciences on May 26, 1940, where the preparation of a generalizing publication “History of the USSR” was discussed, probably the first Soviet historian to use the concept of “nationality” as a special ethnic category to describe the Eastern Slavs ^[6] . The concept gained theoretical and actual content in the 1940s thanks to the works of the Ukrainian N. N. Petrovsky , the Russians A. D. Udaltsov and V. V. Mavrodin . Mavrodin belongs to the authorship of the term "Old Russian nationality." It was first used in 1945 in the monograph "The Formation of the Old Russian State" ^[3] .

The problems of the Old Russian nationality survived a large-scale discussion in the early 1950s. ^[7] . It was substantiated by S. A. Tokarev , archaeologists P. N. Tretyakov and B. A. Rybakov also took part in its development ^[8] . A. I. Kozachenko , speaking against the prevailing opinion, noted that with the feudal fragmentation that came with the collapse of the Kiev state, the consolidation of the Old Russian nationality intensified, but not weakened ^[9] . According to the researcher, the Old Russian nationality “was one of the first in Europe to stand in the way of consolidation into a single nation” ^[10] . A significant role in the design and further development of the concept is recognized by the Soviet historian and historiographer, specialist in the era of feudalism L. V. Cherepnin ^[11] . It was also subjected to careful analysis by P. P. Tolochko , who confirmed the existence of a unified Old Russian nation ^[12] .

A. P. Tolochko proposed a new approach to the concept of “Old Russian nationality” in 2002, urging researchers to abandon attempts to establish the ethnic community of the Eastern Slavic population that does not exist, in favor of studying it as an “imaginary community” in the spirit of the concept of B. Anderson ^[13] .

A close to Soviet understanding of nationality as the forerunner of the modern nation can be found in the Western historiography of Ancient Russia. Modern English historians S. Franklin D. Shepard consider it possible to talk about the "firstfruits of the nation" ^[14] . French researcher M. Bouchard - about the "medieval nation", in his opinion, Russia can be attributed to the number of those European states in which the formation of nations began before the New Age ^[15] .

In post-Soviet historiography, both in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, attempts have been made to abandon the concept of the Old Russian nation, but to this day it still remains dominant. In 2011, the point of view on the origin of the three East Slavic peoples from a single Old Russian nation was reflected in a joint communiqué of historians from Russia and Ukraine at the “round table” in Kiev dedicated to the 1150th anniversary of the Old Russian State ^[16] .

Among the discussions is the question of the upper chronological boundary of the existence of the Old Russian nationality ^[17] . In Soviet historiography, it was carried out in the 2nd half of the 13th century (B.A. Rybakov, L.V. Cherepnin, V.V. Sedov, etc.), less often in the XII century (B.D. Grekov, V.V. Mavrodin). Many modern studies speak of a longer process that ended no earlier than the 16th – 17th centuries ^{[2] [18]} . Boris Florea connects the disintegration of the Old Russian nation with the entry of its representatives into the composition of different states with different socio-political systems. The first stage, he considers the gradual differentiation of the Eastern Slavs of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the lands of the emerging Russian state throughout the XIV-XVI centuries, the second stage is the differentiation of Belarusians and Ukrainians in the XVII century based on the difference in public order in the Zaporizhzhya Army and on the lands truncated after the Lublin Union of the Grand Duchy Lithuanian ^[2] .

The signs of unity that allow us to talk about a single nationality include a common literary and spoken language (while maintaining local dialects), a common territory, a certain economic community, the unity of spiritual and material culture , a common religion, the same traditions, customs and law , military structure , the general struggle against external enemies, as well as the presence of consciousness of the unity of Russia ^[3] .

The following arguments are given in support of the existence of a single nation ^[2] :

• The complete disappearance of the old tribal names in the sources in the middle of the XII century in favor of belonging to one nation - “Rus”.
• This is especially noteworthy against the background of the feudal fragmentation process and the difficulties of integration over vast expanses.
• Differentiation is found in the sources only at the regional level - “Novgorodians”, “Pskovites”, “Polotsk citizens” - and does not express ethnic identity.
• Differences in material culture are insufficient if they are not comprehended by their carriers as ethno-forming attributes.
• Comparative historical comparisons with other countries and regions of Europe (Germany, France, Scandinavia, Poland) indicate a higher degree of general ethnic identity in Russia.

As arguments against the existence of a single ancient Russian nationality are given ^[2] :

• The resettlement of the eastern Slavs in areas with the presence of different ethnic substrates (Baltic, Iranian, Finno-Ugric).
• Difficulties in the development of integration processes on such a vast and relatively sparsely populated territory as the East European Plain.
• The existence of marked differences in the material culture of the population of individual regions.
• Deeper linguistic differences between individual groups of East Slavs than previously thought.
• In the chronicle of the pre-Mongol time, the term “Russia” is designated and as such is opposed to other East Slavic lands in the territory of the Middle Dnieper region (the so-called “Russian land” in the narrow sense).

The Slavists, who in their writings also support the concept of the Old Russian nation, include:

• Gorsky, Anton Anatolyevich ^[19]
• Dvornichenko, Andrei Yurievich ^[20]
• Zagorulsky, Eduard Mikhailovich ^[21]
• Novoseltsev, Anatoly Petrovich ^[22]
• Pashuto, Vladimir Terentyevich ^[23]
• Sedov, Valentin Vasilievich ^[24]
• Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich ^[25]
• Treshchenok, Yakov Ivanovich ^[26]
• Florea, Boris Nikolaevich ^[27]
• Froyanov, Igor Yakovlevich ^[28]
• Khoroshkevich, Anna Leonidovna ^[29]

Slavists who deny the existence of a single Old Russian nationality include:

• Braichevsky, Mikhail Yulianovich ^[3]
• Danilevsky, Igor Nikolaevich ^[30]
• Pivtorak, Grigory Petrovich ^[3]
• Bad, Sergey Nikolaevich ^[31]
• Pritsak, Omelyan Iosifovich ^[32]
• Shtykhov, Georgy Vasilievich ^[33]

• Mavrodin V.V. Formation of the Old Russian State. - L., 1945.
• Tretyakov P. N. At the origins of the Old Russian nationality. M .: Nauka, 1970.
• Lebedinsky M. Yu. On the Question of the History of Old Russian Nationality. - M., 1997.
• Sedov V.V. Old Russian nationality: Historical and archaeological research. - M., 1999.
• Tolochko P.P. Old Russian nationality: imaginary or real. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2005.
• Yusova N.M. Genesis of a conception of a long-standing Russian nationality in the historical Russian SSR (1930s — Persian half of the 1940s) (Ukrainian) . - Vinnitsya: Console, 2005 .-- 545 p. - ISBN 966-8086-36-8 .