HOW MUCH WESTERN ARE EUROPEANS?

Pope Paul II

The Key to future is in the East

Ключ будущего - Восток

La chiave del futuro è l' Oriente

La clef de l'avenir, c'est l' Orient

Die Schluessel  der Zukunft ist im Osten

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We hope  we  have  succeeded in showing, as we purported to do, that, all over their history, Europeans and Russians have been very similar, and have influenced each other in a decisive way. We would like to add that this consideration is applicable also for the present days.In this regard, the similarity is still more evident, at least for what the exterior side of each country’s life. Reading the newspapers of a certain number of European countries, including Russia, or watching at their  television programmes,  you find the same themes, the same habits, the same fashions, the same trends. It is true that this is happening all over the world because of globalisation. However, if you consider the United States, the Arabic countries or other Asiatic countries, like, for example, Kazakhstan or Iran, you will perceive much more differences. For instance, you find, in newspapers, a lot of cultural articles, and, in the television programs, information tends to be more formal, the debates are very sophisticated.

Most observers find that the most important difference is political in character.

Paradoxically, in the precise moment when they would have had an outstanding occasion to enhance their identities, feeling “just Europeans”, the peoples of West Europe have started to consider themselves as “Westerners”(what they did not do before).

But are West Europeans real Westerners? Do they share the fundamentalistic expectation of a providential New World Order? Are they really so individualist, so effectiveness-motivated, as they like to describe themselves? Do not have, also they, some, or many, “Eastern” weaknesses, like the “vice” of nostalgia, like a certain inclination to communitarism and to romanticism?

Is not Europe somewhere in the middle, between East and West?

Pope John Paul II, in recovering the old idea of Ivanov-Razumnik, that Europe must breath with its two lungs, hinted precisely to the fact that Europe possedes huge cultural resources that link it to the West, but that these resources have been less and less exploited over the years, because of the growing and growing hegemony of Europe's most Western parts (England and French), and, latwer on, eve, of America.

As we have seen in all preceding posts, links of Europe with the East are the heritages of ancient civilisations (Danube Civilisation, Peoples of Kurgan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolic Civilisations, Persians,Israel, Ellenism, Peoples of the Steppes, Constantinople, Islam, Sarmatism, the Third Rome,  Marxism, Russian Culture, a.s.o).

The contributions of most of these civilisations to the European, and even, to the Western, ones, are underestimated. Danube Civilisation, Kurgans, Anatolic civilisations, Sarmatism, are even ignored. Persians, Peoples of the Steppes, Constantinople, Islam and Russia are criticized as barbaric and tyrannic, the messages of Egypt, Israel, Ellenism, are misinterpreted. Even the positive contributions of Germany, Italy, Spain and Scandinavia are minimuised, whilst the ones of  America, England and France are overestimated.

Yet, the ethnic basis of all Europeans comes from the steppes, ancient cultures and Christendom come from the Middle East, Christian and Jewish philosophies are practically ellenistic philosophies re-worked by Islam, Eastern Europe occupies more than a half of Europe.

In present times, the tentative to "westernise" the world seems less realistic than in the past. China, India and South America, thanks to their growing economic strength, are re-opening a genuine research about the great non-western cultures. Islam is heading towards being the most numerous world religion. All are laying the basements for asking to be heard at world level  about the decisions on the future of humankind.

America itself studies attentively these developments, and many Americans are studying how to accomodate with a leading role of China.

If Europe wants to escape its present decline, it must participate in this worldwide effort to reconsider world cultures. Its pretension that its model is applicable worldwide is partially motivated by the consistence of federalism with multiculturalism. However, it is not sufficient even now for giving a voice to Europe in world affairs.

As Martin Jacques puts it, Europe risks to be cut out of world decision for its

incapacity to understand other cultures. The late Ramon Panikkar pretended that, in order to establish a true dialogue with the other cultures of the world, the West must undertake a "cultural desarmement". Present days West Europeans are far from knowing whence to start for understanding Islam, China and India.

This is paradoxical, because they have all the opportunity to know foreign cultures, which are present in their cities. We say more. They should be obliged to study certain basic elements of their own culture, such the Persian Origin of the idea of "progress", the Islamic origin of Christian theologies, the role of Central and Eastern Europe in the history of European Constitutionalism, the role of  monarchic and soviet russia in shaping basic ideas of European Federalism, such as the "Concert of European States" and  Regional Federalism.

Studying the elements of East which are in Europe, and even in Western Europe, constitutes the first step for understanding that Western culture is not the only culture. Only after this step, Europeans will be ready to understand China and India, and discuss with them on an even footing.

Therefore, the dialogue between Western and Eastern Europe is so important. Where, by Eastern Europe, we intend, in first instance, Russia, but, immediately afterwards, Euroislam nd Turkey, Eastern Churches, Judaism, all Slavic, Ugro-Finnic,Baltic, Kartvelian and Illyric nations, a.s.o.. 

CRIMEA: THE FIRST EAST-WEST CONFRONTATION

Crimean War

Deep-Rooted Reasons for Hostility

Глубоко засевшие причины враждебности

Profonde ragioni di ostilità

Des raisons d'hostilité profondement enracinées.

Tiefgreifende Feindlichkeitsgruende.

The cultural confrontation among Slavophiles and Westerners, can be utilized as a background scenario of Russia’s cultural and political life up to the Soviet Revolution. The reformist “Russian Thinking” around Černyševskij and Herzen, comes out of a Westerner background, whereby the reforms are seen as a partial imitation of Western Europe or of America. On the contrary, most of the literary, and/or musical, and/or pictorial productions (such as Dostojevsk’s, Tolstoj’s, Ciaikowsky’s, Serov’s, Nestorov’s, Rerih’s, Malevič’s, Strawinsky’s) are deeply rooted in the Slavonic tradition.

The strengthening of the hold of the Russian Empire on its Asiatic territories (Caucasus, but also Central Asia and the Artic Regions) had increased the interest of Russian intellectuals for the Asiatic Roots of Russia (the Scythians, the Tatars, the Finns, the Persians, the Turks), but also their sympathies for the subjected peoples, whose origins, histories, traditions, languages, were investigated at that time.

Russia was defined more and more as a “Eurasiatic” reality. “Asiatic” subjects enter into the repertory of artists, such as Shagané, Hadij Murat, the Fire Bird, Shahrazade, the Finnish folklore of the North.This attention is not much different from the praise of Mohicans by Fenimore Cooper, or the one of "strong men" of East and west by Kipling, and, fimnally, the participation of Ann Besant both to the induistic revival and to the independence struggle of India.

But also the idea of a community of destinies between Russia and Europe remained at that times strong, albeit Russia felt not be  well understood , and even to be rejected, by Europeans.

Many made an effort to become more European, for being better accepted, as in the case of the Occidentalist, or of social reformers like Caadajen. Others, like Ivanov-Razumnik (who converted to Catholicism as suggested by De Maistre), stressed that Europe needed Russia. He launched the idea of “Europe’s two lungs”, an idea which will achieve so large a resound after having been adopted by John Paul II himself.

The conflict between “Slavophiles” and “Occidentalists” will be synthesized, finally, after the October Revolution, by Blok, who, in his Panmongolizm, will submit, to Europeans, a dramatic alternative: either to accept, brotherly, the Russian as a part of the European family of people, or to find them hostiles, allied with “the Mongolic World” (now, we could think of China and of Islam).

During the XIX Century, Russia did not abandon the “Greek Project” (i Megàli Idèa”), albeit the independence of Greece was not achieved thanks to Russia (or, at least, not thanks to Russia alone); the newly independent Greece became open, besides Russian influences, also German and English connections.

The peak of anti-Russian feelings was reached between the 1848 Revolution and the Crimea War. Russia had intervened, upon request of the Austrian Emperor, in Hungary, for stopping the liberal and nationalistic unrests.Moreover, the Croatian Ban Jelacic, the Ruthenian  peasants and the Bohemian Pan-Slavists    had all supported the Emperor against the revolutionary, so causing all together the suppression of the revolts in the Austrian Empire. From this fact, Marx and Engels draw the pretext for a violent attack against the "peoples without history", responsible, first of all, to have supported the Russian and Austrian Emperors against the revolutionary movements. In 1853, there were not only the left-wing extremists, but also the bourgeois liberals governments of France and of England to be worried of the momentum gained by Imperial Russia by its presence in the Balkans  (including the occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia) and its support to Balkanic nationhoods.

The "Crimean War" consisted, in reality, in a vast encirclement of Russia by British, Franch, Austrians Turks and Sardinians, which took place along the Danube, in Ucraine, Crimea, Caucasus, the Baltic, the White Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The adhesion of the Kingdom of Sardinia was unequivocally motivated by the will of the liberal Cavour Government to join the liberal cohalition of Western constitutional monarchies, abandoning the traditional Russian friendship. The conservative opposition, led by Count Thaon de Ravel, refused to vote in favour of the war. The latter contributed heavily to the self-consciuosness of Russia, to the weakening of Austria, to the assertiveness of the Balkanic countries and to the strenthening of national feelings in Caucasian nationalities.

The Western alliance pretended from Russia the acceptance of some points, what Russia refused to do:

1. Russia was to give up its protectorate over the Danubian Principalities;
2. It was to abandon any claim granting it the right to interfere in Ottoman affairs on behalf of Orthodox Christians;
3. The Straits Convention of 1841 was to be revised;
4. All nations were to be granted access to the River Danube.

At the end of the war, these points were accepted by Russia only partially, and never fully complied with.

Wallachia and Moldavia, formerly under a strong Russian influence, united under the name of Romania, into a new state, where French and Italian influences are decisive, up to the point that the same Rumanian language is “purified” from many of the preceding Slavonic influences, so that the heritage of the Romans is put in the forefront.

Russia interests concentrated on the Slavonic peoples of the Balkans, such as Bulgarians and Serbians, which Russia helped in their efforts to become independent from the Turkish Empire. These efforts, which were at the origin of the “Balkanic Wars”, contributed to creating the background for World War I. 

Of course, not just Russia, but the whole system of powers of the Europe of that time, are equally responsible for the Balkan Wars and for the subsequent World War II. It has to be remarked that the Russian Tsars were active in the diplomatic scene, for fostering a movement for Peace and Disarmament (the Hague Congress for Peace was promoted by Tsar Nicolas II).

The policy of the Russian Empire in that period is rather contradictory. In fact, it had to manage too many contradictory tendencies. From one side, Russia was a very powerful, cultivated, and even rich, country, whose rates of growths were higher than the ones of Western Europe. From another point of view, riches was very unequally distributed, and this created strong social contrasts. The land reforms carried out at the end of the XIX Century, whilst fostering industrialization,also as a consequence of the Crimean War, had not solved the problem of a sound farming class.

The Tsar swinged between the tough defense of traditional autocracy and timid tentatives of reforms in the direction of a parliamentary monarchy, from avant-garde initiatives in the field of internationalism, such as the Hague  Congress, to military escalations, such as the ones in the Balkans.

The policy of Russia-bashing from the side of western goverments and intellectuasls went on. The fact that, contrary to what happened in France, Italy and Austria, liberal reforms had not been implemented during the largest part of the XIX Century were explained, as always, by the innate autocratic spirit of Russians. However, as always, many of the faults identified by polemists in Russia were, or false, a shared with many other European countries.

As an example, the myth, according to which the Russian Empire had to be considered as the main enemy of nationalities in Eastern Europe is not correct. It is true that a strong conflict arose since the beginning with Poles, who did not accept the partial autonomy role of the Kingdom of Poland. It is also true that the Empire forbade the Ukrainian language and the transliteration, into Latin characters, of Baltic languages. However, also Prussia and Austria had annexed large parts of Poland, where they had suppressed any form of autonomy, whilst Russia had been even helpful with Belorussian and Lithuanians, for asserting their own nationhood, after long centuries of dominance of the Polish language, aristocracy and clergy.Not to speak of the violent repression, by England, of Irish autonomy.

THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AS A DREAM FOR EUROPEAN INTELLIGENCIJA

The ideas of a Russian Empire came from Europe

идеи русской империи происходили  из Европы

Le idee dell' impero russo provenivano dall' Europa

Les idées d'un empire russe provenaient de l' Europe

Die Ideen eines russischen Kaiserreichs stammten aus Europa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     The Greek Project

Not just the religious engagement of Russia and of peoples of the Balkans, as parts of a sole Orthodox Church, prompted a strong interest for Russia, but also the diffusion of Enlightenment as an all-European ideology.

One could even say that the formation of the Russian Empire is distinctly interlinked with the ideas and objectives of European Enlightenment. In the XVII and XVIII Century, many European intellectuals intervened with the Zars for persuading them to undertake the conquest of the Ottoman Empire, so re-establishing the unity of Christendom and of the Orthodox World. Especially, in the XVIII Century, Katherine II, urged, i.a., by Herder, worked out an ambitious plan (the “Greek Project”, that the Greeks called “I Megàli Idèa”), for transforming the Ottoman Empire into a Christian Kingdom, governed by a son of herself. During the Independence Wars of the Balkanic States, Russia was without exitation at the side of the Balkanic peoples.

The idea of a Third Rome was not simply an empty slogan. The Tsars shared the Millenaristic faith of West European Rulers, clergymen and intellectuals of their times, such as Columbus, Dom Sebastião, Vieira, Jan Komenský, Campanella, Winstanley or Cotton Mather.

Moreover, they were subject to pressure of intellectuals like Krizanic urging them to attack the infidels of the Ottoman Empire, as a whole Balkanic clergy,.

2.     The Perpetual Peace

As it is well known, the intellectuals of early Modernity were very much attracted by the demiurgic powers of “Enlightened Despotism”. Erasmus, Luther, Machiavelli, Bodin, Grotius, Hobbes, Leibniz, Kant, Voltaire, were all puzzled by the possibility to materialize, via the Prince, their auspices as to the best organization of the State.

Also the idea of a “Perpetual  Peace” was influenced, from one side, from the idea of a Crusade against the Turks, and, from another side, by the idea that, after the fall of the Sacred Roman Empire and the defeat of the Invincible Armada, a New World Order had to be restored.

Philip II and Louis XIV had tried, uselessly, to re-create a “Universal Monarchy”. Thus, the attentions of many began to concentrate on Russia and America, the countries where, as Tocqueville noted,  Europe’s utopias could have materialized.

When Peter 1^st, at the beginning of the 18^th Century, showed an unusually strong capability to modernize its Empire according to European standards, hiring the best technicians, architects and artists from all over Europe, this fact became an irresistible enticement for all intellectuals in Europe, and Peter was exalted by them as the founder of a new Golden Age.

For this purpose,according to Leibniz,  the capital of the Russian Empire should have been transferred into the newly built town of Odessa, situated in the newly conquered Southern Ukraine, and, hence, at midway between Northern Europe and the Middle East. In fact, according to him, the Eurasiatic Continent should have been dominated by two large empires: the Chinese and the Russian. This project was shared by Voltaire, who expressed this point of view in several occasions, and, with special vibrancy, through his satirical pèiece “Le Rescrit de l’Empereur de la Chine”, which constitutes an ironical comment to the comment of Rousseau to St. Pierre’s “Project pour une paix perpetuelle” (in which, in any case, as in the preceding and following “Projects”, the presence of Russia was contemplated). By the way, we consider this “Rescrit” a document having a stringent contemporary value, taking into account the past, and present, role of China.

The idea itself of the conquest of the Baltic Coast, of the construction of St. Petersburg and of the re-baptization of the “Tsar” as “Imperator” was a precise choice in the direction of Europe. But for the Europe of “Enlightened Despotism”, non, surely, for “liberalism”.

Moreover, Peter was too despotic a nature for tolerating too stringent invasions on this decision sphere. On the contrary, Catherine 2^nd albeit a quintessentially despotic ruler, was a very curious and intellectual woman, which, on the other side, mixed with ease their romances with the affairs of State. So, she raised still more the attention of European intellectuals, such as Leibniz, Diderot, Muratori and Voltaire, the latter describing Catherine as the most enlightened sovereign from the times of Solon.

3.     The “Legislative Commission”

Under Peter and Katherine, Russia succeeded in its ambitions to become a European Power, having conquered Estonia, Latvia, the Eastern part of Poland, Belarus’ and Ukraine. The emissaries of Katherine influenced the politics of Poland, Germany, Turkey, England, and even the Kingdom of Naples and the United States.

The accomplishment of this objective was celebrated by Catherine with the well-known monument to Paul 1^st in St. Petersburg. On the Pedestal of the monument, a riding Peter looking at the Baltic from his rampant horse, he let the following phrase, in Latin, be written: “Paulo I, Catherina Secunda”.

The political reforms undertaken under his guidance, such as the “Legislative Commission” which was supposed to introduce, into Russia, the principles of Enlightenment, constituted an excellent example, more than for its contents, for its methodology, since the Commission involved all social resources and all ethnic groups of the Empire. As such, it constituted de facto a precedent for the Politics of Nationalities in XIX Century’s Europe and in XX Century’s federations.

Many commentators maintain that the creation of the Legislative Commission, as well as the text of the Instructions, which it wrote to the members of the Commission, itself, were not genuine, and they should explain why they were not implemented. However, these objections  could be raised also against the reforms of all reformistic Monarch of the XVIII Century. They wanted to abolish the irrational or absolute aspects of the preceding societies, not at all abolish their own power, nor the position of ruling classes. On the contrary, their logic was precisely the one of restraining the elements of Ancien Régime for enhancing the absolute power of the Crown.

As it is known, Katherine was a German aristocrat. Albeit she was perfectly Russian-speaking and an Orthodox believer, she had constantly privileged relationships with subjects of other nationalities, such as August Poniatowsky, a young Polish aristocrat, which, after having been her lover, she promoted to become the King of Poland, as well with the Khan of Crimea, and, finally, with Diderot, whom she sustained heavily from the financial point of view.

Katherine was involved also (as almost all Enlightened Princes)in. American Independence Wars In fact, she promoted the creation of the so-called “Armed Neutrality”, an alliance among European Powers, aiming at preventing the King of England to carry out his embargo to the United States. However, in the last years of her life, after the Pugačiov Revolt, and, especially after the French Revolution, she withdraw many of her proposals, being afraid, before of any other thing, of the risk to undergo the same fate as Louis XVI (who had also enthusiastically supported the American Revolution).

In any case, Catherine was always consistent with her absolutistic creed, which she draw from the reading the works of the enlightened writers to which she was linked, and who were all firm tenants of the Ancien Régime. Just at the beginning of the “Instructions to the Legislative Commission”, where she fixed the terms of engagement of the members of the Commission, she declared that she would have continued to govern Russia in a “despotic” manner (“samodieržavie”) because, as Montesquieu had written, a State of larger scale may be governed only in this way. It is also known that also Hamilton’s Federalist Papers pretended to be based on Montesquieu’s teaching, and, precisely, on the same passage of “De l’Esprit des Lois”, where Montesquieu completes his affirmation concerning the “States of large extension”, saying that they may have governed not just in an autocratic manner, but also by federalism.

This observation shows how much Russia and the United States constitute, so to say, two “mirror images” of Europe. Moreover, it is not even true that the American Federalism is integrally decentralized, whilst Russian centralism is forthwith despotic. In fact, in America, Hamilton’s “federalism” was seen, and correctly, as a trend towards centralization, whilst the idea itself of the Legislative Commission was based on the cooperation of local entities, a cooperation which, in a way or another, never ceased in Russia.

Catherine was the most known and successful German princess at the St. Petersburg’s court. However, she was not the only one. In fact, Martha Skavronskaja became Catherine 1^st, Augustina Wilhelmina von Hessen-Damstadt and Sophia Dorothea von Württemberg married Peter the Great, Luisa Maria Augusta von Baden Baden married Alexander 1^st; Federica Luisa Sharlota Wilhelmina of Prussia married Nicolas 1st; Maximiliana Wilhelnmina Augusta Sofia Maria von Damstadt married Alexander 2^nd; Maria Sophia Federica Dagmar of Denmark married Alexander III, and Alisa Victoria Melana Beatris von Damstadt married Nicolas II, being killed by the Bolsheviks together with her husband.

4.     Europeans in Russia

Saint Petersburg was filled by Europeans, like the Italians (“Friaziny”), northern (protestant) Europeans, who lived in Kukuj/Svoboda.

Many important characters of Peter’s and Catherine’s St. Petersburg were western Europeans. Such as the Danish Vitus Bering, the discoverer of Alaska; the historian Gerard Miller; the Italian architects Aristotele Fioravanti, Domenico Trezzini, Giuseppe Bove, Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli, Artuto Rinaldi, Giacomo Quarenghi, Carlo Rossi; the French Jean Baptiste Le Blond and Jean Vallin de la Mothe; the English Charles Cameron; the German sculptor Peter Clodt; the Swedish painter Alexander Reslin; and, especially, the French sculptor Etienne Frelcemiet (author of the monument to Peter the Great).

Herder thought that the real focal point of Russia was the newly built Odessa, in Ukraine, since, from that town, it could have dominated both the East and the West (a thought which is shared by many anti-Russian of today, who, precisely for this reason, make any efforts as possible for separating Ukraine from Russia).

Melchior von Grimm foreshadow to Catherine II the subdivision of the world hegemony between Russia and America. This idea will be developed, among others, by Tocqueville. According to Grimm, the strength of Russia derived from the fact of not having suffered a revolution.

During the Reign of Catherine, Russia is really a European State, having a German Empress, a capital similar to Venice, speaking French and with an aristocracy being, to a large extent, Polish, German and Swedish. Large minorities of Balts, Poles, Ucrainians, Greeks, Romanians, Tatars, Georgians and Armenians live inside its southern borders.

Under Catherine, a large wave of German immigrantsentered the country  In reality, Catherine invited immigrants of all nationalities, to whom she offered free land, which, after one hundred years, would have become their full property. The colonists flocked towards several destinations, and, in particular, towards Saratov on the River Don. However, with the passing of time, the conditions of German immigrants worsened and worsened, following to the consequences of the abolition of serfdom, to the expiration of the first 100 years privileges, of the russification policies.

During the Bolshevik Revolution, the German immigrants were granted the right to create their own Republic of the Volga Germans. Unfortunately, also in this regions, the problems of land collectivization, of “dekulakisation” and of “Golodomor” were felt.

During World War II, all Volga Germans were deported to Kazakhistan or Siberia.

During the Perestrojka period, they received the right to quit Russia, so that the majority has come back to Germany.

During the Reign of Catherine, the Ermitage was created, which, in Sakurov’s film, has been pertinently defined as “the Russian Arch”, where many and many artistic treasures of the European culture have been stored, for preserving them against the upheavals of history.

 

BETWEEN RUSSIA AND EUROPE

Center-Eastern Europe at the Time of the Livonia War

Poland, Sweden,Belarus,Baltic States, Ukraine, Moldova, Turkey, had tight contacts among them in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
По́льша,Шведска,Беларус,Приба́лтика,Украи́на,Молдова,Турция  были тесно связанные в XVII и XVIII веке
Nel XVII e XVIII Secolo, Polonia, Svezia, Bielorussia, Paesi Baltici, Ucraina, Moldova e Turchia erano strettamente interconnesse
Aux Siècles XVII et XVIII, la Pologne,  la Suède,la Biélorussie, les Pays Baltes, l'Ucraine, la Moldavie et la Turquie étaient étroitement enchevetrées
In den XVIIen und XVIII Jahrhundert, waren Polen,Schweden,Belarus,Baltikum, Ukraine, Moldova und die Tuerkei, dicht miteinander gebunden. 
 

During and after the Mongolian domination, different parts of the Russian territory were subjected to the determinant influences of other, European and Asiatic, Kingdoms, and, in particular,Tataria,  Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and Turkey, so further increasing the cosmopolitan character of Russia.

1.     German Knights

Simultaneously with the Mongolian attack, also the German Knights of the Holy Cross tried to subdue the Novgorod Republic. However, Alexander Nevsky succeeded to defeat and to expel them by the battle of the Peipüs Lake.

The contacts with Germany continued nevertheless, thanks to the membership of Novgorod and other Northern Towns in the Hansa, thanks also to the family connection between the Russian princes and German aristocracy, thanks to the presence of a German heritage in the Baltic States, and, finally, thanks to the important immigration into Russia of German settlers, especially under the kingdom of Catherine II.

2.     Lithuania

During the Mongolian invasions, towns in the Western part of Kievskaja Rus, such as Novohradec, Brest, Mogilev, Minsk, were exposed to the influence of the Lithuanian princes. The latter, being still heathen, were exposed to several pressures to convert. As a consequence, there is, in Lithuanian history, a long-lasting trend toward Christian influences. The latter found their expression, in a first step, in the adoption of Greek Orthodox Faith and of Church Slavonic; later on, in the adoption of Catholicism and of Latin.

In the same time, the South-Western territory of the Kingdom of Halić fell under the influence of the King of Poland.

During the XV and XVI Centuries, the whole territory of present-days Belarus and Ukraine became part of a “Lithuanian Great-Duchy”, which, with its Orthodox Faith and its Slavonic language, could be considered as a sort of replica of the previous Kievan Rus’(and in fact, was still denominated also al “Zemlia Russka”).

3.     Poland

However, the personal union (Polish-Lithiuanian Rzeczpospolita) which, in the form of Unia Lubelska, transformed itself into a Polish hegemony, substracted force to Lithuania, and, hence, also to its previous Orthodox character. Ukraine became a part of the Polish Crown; Catholicism, Latin and Polish gained momentum.

During the period of the “Riots” (“Smutnoe Vreme”, Poles tried even to subdue Russia, arriving at conquering the Moscow Kremlin.

During that period, the Orthodox part of the former Great-Ducky of Lithuania, presently part of the Polish Crown, fell under the control of the Cossacks (the Hetmanate). In a first stage, the Cossack Hetmans governed this region (which stretched between Ukraine and Belarus) on behalf of the Polish King. However, at a certain moment, Hetman Chmel’nicky pretended to get a full autonomy from Poland, and, therefore, was attacked by the same. Chmel’nicky tried to resist Poland with the support of the Tatar Crimea Khanate and of the Ottoman Empire, but the Khan allied with Poles, so that Chmel’nicky was obliged to address himself to Russia.

As a consequence of the lack of success of the Polish tentative, the Muscovite Prince gained further influence also in Ukraine, and, during the XVII Century, with the Jaslav Convention and the Andrusovo Treaty, Kiev became a part of the Muscovite State. This situation gave rise to a growing Ukrainian influence in Muscovy, thanks also to the high level of theological development reached in Kiev’s Seminary.

4.     Sweden

Once the Polish influence finished, another threat was felt by the fledging Russian State: the power of the Kingdom of Sweden.

Following to the Reform and the Religious Wars, Sweden, during the Thirty Years War, had become able to reunite around it all Scandinavian States, more the Baltic States and the North of Germany, becoming a European great power.

Within this framework, the Swedes tried also to extend their power, from the Baltic territories, to Ukraine, across the previous lands of the Lithuanian State, thanks to the alliance with Hetman Mazepa, who tried to become independent from Poland, Russia and Turkey.

Also this tentative was unsuccessful. On the contrary, Paul the Great succeeded in defeating  the Swedes in Poltava and even to conquer all the stretch of Swedish territories on the Baltic, presently corresponding to the St. Petersburgkaja Oblast, to Estonia and Latvia. However, the Swedish influence on Russia did not cease with the Nordic Wars, but, on the contrary, went on also in the following centuries. In fact, in the Baltic States, besides the previous German aristocracy, originating from the German Knights of the Holy Cross, also a Swedish upper class had been created, which influenced the cultural life of the country and of Russia in general. For instance, the Admiral Vrangel’, one of the leaders of the White Russian Army during civil war, was of recent Swedish origins. Later on, in 1809, one of the reasons for the secession of Finland from Sweden, and the accession of the same to Russia, had been that Count Bernadotte, which, under French influence, had been appointed, by Napoleon,  as the King of Sweden, did not guarantee to maintain, to Finnish aristocracy (which was, in fact, nationally Swedish), the privileged guaranteed, under the previous dynasty, as the outcome of the “Constitution” of the “Borga Estates”.

So, Swedish-Finnish legal régime was “transferred” into Russia together with the Grand-Duchy of Finland, so constituting a basis for the reforms prompted later on, for the whole Empire, by Prince  Czartoryski.

This historical period had been also of paramount importance for the formation of the Finnish culture. At the moment of the passage of Finland from Sweden to Russia, and of the creation of the “Grand Duchy of Finland”, the need was felt to create a Finnish culture, instead of relying uniquely on the culture of Sweden, which had been, for the past, the almost sole culture of Finland. In fact, the ancient Ugro-Finnic population had been subjected to the Christian Swedes since the XIV Century, and did not have either a literary language, or a literary tradition.

At that moment in time, Lonnröth, going on the same path as Herder with Latvian ancient poetry, traveled intensively across Carelia, a Russian province inhabited by Finns, where he collected, from the voices of peasants, ancients legends, that he unified into the “Kalevala”, the national epos of the Finns. In so doing, he followed the same path of Macpherson, who, for his “Ossian”, collected Irish popular songs, unifying them into only one poem, and, then, pretending they were “Scottish”.

On the other side, the work of Lonnröth arouse an interest also on the other part of Botnia, in Estonia, where the Kalevi Poeg was composed, an epical cycle connected with the Kalevala.

5.     The Ottoman Empire

Whilst all these transformations were under way in the northern parts of Russia, in the South-Eastern part of it, and also in Ukraine, the influence of the Mongol and Tatar “Great Khans” had left place to the one of Turkey.

Both the Khanate of Crimea and the Nogai Horde had become vassals of the Ottoman Empire. This Turkish/Islamic influence is perceivable already now in those territories. In fact, all the Cis-Caucasian area was inhabited, together with Cossacks, by various smaller peoples, many of them, like the Daghestani and the Chechnyans, of Islamic faith. This area, formerly occupied by Tatars and by Mongols, Islam was often of recent date (like, for instance, in Ingushetia). For this reason, the cultural language was even Arabic, and the connections with Arabia were frequent.

These Islamic populations contributed heavily to revolts, including, i.a. to the one of Pugačiov, who, on the other side, had even an Arabic secretariate for drawing appeals and legislative instruments in that language.

AUSTRVEGR (GARDARIKI)

There is a road from the Variags to the Greek

бѣ путь из Варягъ въ Грѣкы

C'è una strada fra i Variaghi e i Greci

Il y a une route des Variagues jusqu'au Grecs

Es gibt eine Strasse von den Variagen bis zu den Griechen

Whilst the Eastern peoples invaded Central Europe, Northern Germans, the Norse, or Viking peoples, had not stopped to settle in the Baltic area. For instance, the most ancient Norse village was discovered recently in Latvia. These developments of the Nordic peoples is as much stupefying as the one of East-Europeans peoples. Having developed as a Northern branch of the Germanic peoples originated in the Northern part of present-days Germany, they spread throughout Sweden, left empty by the Germanic peoples migrating southward (like the Goths, the Burgunds, the Gepids, the Swabes), and, leaving from there, they started again, populating the coasts of Denmark, Norway, Latvia and Finland. In a further step, they started conquering the Northern parts of Ireland, Scotland and England, Normandy, Flanders, the Northern part of Germany, and entered into Russia through Novgorod and the Great Russian rivers. Later, the areas of expansion of the Vikings covered a still larger area, such as Ireland, Greenland, North America, the Mediterranean coasts, Southern Italy, parts of the Levant, and especially, Russia.

According to ancient Russian historiography (the “Chronicle of Passed Times”), the Vikings, which were called “Ruotsi” in Finland and “Variagi” in Russia, known to the Slavs for their ability to travel and to trade throughout Russia along the greater lakes and rivers, were invited, by the Slavs, to become their kings, in their capital city, Novgorod, because of their superior political know-how. The tribe which was called by Slavs to become the ruling dynasty was the one of the Ross, a very well known surname in Scandinavia and in Anglo-Saxon countries. In Finnish, “Ruotsi” means Sweden. It has to be recalled that, according to most historiographers, a large part of the inhabitants of Rus’ were of Finnic origin. Still today, a large part of Northern Russia is populated by remnants of several Finnic tribes.

As anticipated above, it is not clear whether the founder of Kievskaja Rus’, Rjurik, was really Norse, or, better, a german Slav (Obodrite or Vendic), surrounded by Norse warriors and settling into the Finnish Stara Ladoga.

According to a widespread doctrine, Ross derives from “ródr”, because the well-known Viking ships, the “Drakkar”, were propelled both by a large square sail and by two ranges of “ródr”. It is for this reason that the country governed by the “Ródr” was called “Rus’”, and, since its capital city was Kiev, the first step in its history is called “Kievskaja Rus’” (the “Rus’ of Kiev”). Of course, there are also other alternative, but less recognized etymologies of the name. It is easily to understand that the name “Russia” derives from “Rus’” more than its equivalent in Russian, which is “Rossija” (deriving directly from the ancient clan of the “Ross”, probably thanks to a latinisation adopted during the Enlightenment period).

Since Kiev is in present-days Ukraine, the Ukrainian official historiography is presently contending that “Kievskaja Rus’” has not to be considered as the origin of present-days Russia. In reality, Middle-Ages Rus’ covered an area which is not identifiable with any of the modern Nation-States. In fact, it stretched from present-days Bessarabia, Bucovina and Galicia, up to Belarus’ and Novgorod, whilst its Eastern borders reached up to present-days Tatarstan, Donbass and Crimea. As a consequence, for the purpose of this work, we will consider Russia as including all these territories. Surely, it included a largest part of present-days Ukraine, but the “Zemlja Russkaja” was always described by the Chronicles and poets as a single compound, albeit governed by different princes, which, from another side, were all Rjurikovi ci(descendants of the first “Variags, King, Rjurik). In fact, “Kievskaja Rus’” was a sort of “Federation” of city-states, ruled by their princes “Kniazy”, which descended all from the family of that Rjurik of the house of Ross, which the Kievans had called to rule their town. The role of the Rurikovići in the life of Russia has been huge, and even some ministers of the Communist Soviet Union (including Cičerin, the Minister of War under Lenin) claimed to be a descendant of Rjurik.

So, Kievskaja Rus’ was a multinational state, with a Scandinavian and Slavonic “core”, speaking Church Slavonic and old Russian, but with a larte part of population composed by Finns and Turks, besides Greek monks and other allies and satellites.

The Vikings (called, in Russia, Variags), had created a tight network of commercial routes, going throughout the Russian lakes and seas. Via this network, they were able to trade the most different types of goods from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. From these seas, the goods were further transported and traded worldwide. For this reason, the Kievskaja Rus’ was also called “From the Variags to the Greeks”.

Whereas the Variags had brought, into Russia, their superior organizational capabilities, the Greeks and the other Greek-orthodox people (inside and outside of the Byzantine Empire: the Bulgarians, the Syrians, the Egyptians) were importing, into the country, their cultural and religious know-how. In the same way as the Moravians and the Pannonians were baptized by Cyrill and Methodius, and the Magyars were baptized by Catholic clergymen, the peoples of Rus’ were baptized by Byzantine clergymen, and became a bullwark of the Eastern Christian culture. The first literary works in Ancient Russian are either translations of Eastern Mediterranean works in Greek, or works of East Mediterranean clergymen in Russia, like John Damascene,, Kosnas Indicoplestes, George Armatolos, the Palestinian Antiochos, the Antiochian Nikin, Černogorski, Efrem the Syrian, John of Suraj, Cyrill of Jerusalem, a.s.o..

The influence of Byzance on Russia has been unbelievably durable. The “Grecization” of Russian religious culture developed in subsequent waves, the first one commencing with the baptism of Kievskaja Rus’ and with the influence of East Mediterranean clergymen on Russian Emperors.

The second one was when, after that the Turkish invasions had conquered Byzance, the Kniaz of Moscow accepted the project to re-define the latter as “Tretij Rim”. The third one was at the moment of the Reform of the Russian Church according to Greek standards, which led to the great Russian Schism, the “Raskol’”, from which the denomination of the “Old Believers” (“Raskol’niki”) arose.

All this shows that Middle Ages Russia, far from being an insulated and barbaric territory, was an area of vivid cultural life, of strong political organization, of an intensive and continuous commercial exchanges.

The Variags connected Rus’, via the Baltic Sea, with all the known “Western” world: all of Europe, the Mediterranean, America, via the Black see, with the Middle East, and, via the Caspian Sea, with the far East . Then Tatars and Mongols brought customs and technology of Mongolia, China and Persia; Byzantines, Turks and Jews connected ancient Rus’ with the Middle East.

Also the political structures, far from being crystallized in an archaic form of “Asiatic despotism”, as hinted by many “Western” commentators, varied without interruption: from the “classic” freedoms of the originary peoples of the steppes and the Novgorod Republic (viece), to the republican forms of Greek colonies on the Black Sea (boulé), of the Variags (thing), of the Kossacks (Rada), up to a Federation of Feudal Monarchies like the Kievskaja Rus’ (Duma), and to the Absolutist government of the following “Zarstvo” and “Imperija”, which, on the other side, were absolutely in line with the contemporary political structures, for instance, of England under Henry VIII and Elisabeth 1^st, or of Milan under the Visconti and the Sforza, or of France under Louis XIV. In any case, political exchanges with Europe were very tight.

The Rjurik Dynasty, as well as the Greek Clergy, was invited into Russia precisely for what, at their time, was considered to be importing “European” lifestyles: monarchy, commerce, Christendom, in the same way as the East Bulgarians of Bolgar (Kazan) called the Muslims, and the Khazars called the Jews. Words like “kniaz” (prince) and “Vieče” (council) come from the Germanic word “Kuning” (king) and “Witan” (assembly).

In particular, the Rjurikovići had a very active intermarriage policy with European kings, which was continued by the Russian rules up to the end of their empire. In particular, Vladimir the Great married Ann of Byzance; Jaroslav married the Norvegian Ingigerda (Irina); Elizaveta Jaroslavna married king Harold of Norway; Anna Jaroslavna married Henry 1^st of France, and later on became Queen of France; Anastasija Jaroslavna married Andrew 1^st of Hungary.

Centralization and supremacy of the King on the Church came from Greece, and, later on, from the Protestant Revolutions.

Eneas Piccolomini, an Italian humanist and geographer, who later on became Pope Pius II, and to whom we owe the concept of the “European Common House”, inserted Russia into the geography of Europe in the XV Century. According to him, the borderline ran alongside the river Don and the Azov Sea.

THE THREE ROMES

Veliko Tarnovo

The Balkanic Origins of the Myth of the Third Rome 

БаЛКаНСКИe ИСТОКИ мифa Третьего Рима

Le origini balcaniche del mito della Terza Roma 

Les origines balcaniques du mythe de la Troisième Rome.

Balkanische Urspruenge des Myths des Dritten Roms.

The pretension, by the Bulgarian Emperors, to represent the Third Rome  had a profound influence on all the Slavonic peoples of the Balkans, and, in particular, in Dalmatia, where the Catholic Croatian monks preserved and diffused the Old Slavonic Ryths. This preservation of the Old Slavonic heritage was one of the sources of Pan-Slavism, thanks also to the role played, in Czech culture, by the Croatian monks called by the Czech Emperor Charles IV for fostering Slavonic culture in Bohemia, so counterbalancing German and Latin influence.

After the Bulgarian Metropolit Feofej, who imported into Russia the concept of “Third Rome”, and the Croatian priest Križanić (who implored the Zar to free the Slavs from the Ottoman Empire and to adopt a pan-slavonic language), also  the Moravian Brother Quirinus Kühlmann, a disciple of Jakob Böhme, went to Moscow in order to persuade the Tsar to adhere to the anti-Turkish league. According to Kühlmann, Russia had a mission, the one to fight against both Turks and Catholics. Kühlmann was burnt as an “heretic” man upon request of German Lutheran Church in Russia.

This heritage of the Byzantine Empire did not create just friends for Russia. On the contrary, it is also the reason of a constant hostility from Western Europe and towards Russia.

The link between Bulgaria and Russia resurged during the XIX Century independence struggles of the Balkanic peoples against the Ottoman Empire. In that occasion, the supporting role of Russia for the independence of Bulgaria resulted to be decisive. For celebrating the brotherhood between Russia and Bulgaria under the aegis of the Orthodox faith, the Russian Czar built up, as a gift to the Bulgarian people, the Alexandăr Nevskij Sofia Cathedral.

On the other side, it is clear that the “first” Rome has still its weight in the overall Christendom, and that Rome remains a fundamental symbol both for Christendom and for the West. The heritage of the West Roman Empire is however challenged from many sides (starting from  the Germanic peoples, and, especially, the Americans, often claim to be the “real” inheritors of the Romans, and from Islam). Finally, things are rendered more difficult by the fact that, in Western Christianity, contrary to the Eastern one, there is a clearcut distinction between State and Church, so that an identification of the Pope with one State could be impossible. In any case, we can assume that the heritage of the West Roman Empire corresponds to what Trubeckoj called, in his time, “Western Europe”, and is “so to say”, “dispersed” among Catholicism and the different Protestant peoples. The European Union plays also, today, a central role in the definition of this “Western Europe”. However, contrary to what many tend to think, “this” Europe is not, and has also never been, the only one.

Also the “Second Rome”, Constantinople, has shaped the life of Christendom for almost one thousand years, with the traditions of the Eastern Churches, with the Byzantine and Bulgarian Empires, but also with the Ottoman Empire and its remnants still today (such as Turkey, the Balkanic and Caucasic States, the Islamic minorities throughout Europe).

And, then, the “Third” Rome, Moscow, with all its connection in the East Slavonic area, but also in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and in all those areas where Russian speaking, and/or Slavonic and Orthodox, communities exist.

So, it is impossible, today, to define Europe as limited to any of the three “Roman” heritages. This in the same way as it would be impossible to define China just with reference to Confucianism, India with reference to the Aryan languages or Islam just referring to Sunnite Arabs.

This is still more true in a moment, like the present, where globalization itself forces everybody to look for larger alliances, in order to be able to overcome together the difficulties of a changing world.

The tripartition of Europe into the “Three Romes” has a very striking parallelism with the discussions under way, today, with Turkey, for an adhesion of the same to the European Union, and, from another side, with the discussion with Russia for a “Eurasiatic Common Market from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. Elène Carrère d’Encausse has even proposed to negotiate two parallel “Super-association Treaties”, one with Turkey, and the other with Russia.

This Slavonic “Translatio Imperii” had a profound influence on all the Slavonic peoples of the Balkans, and, in particular, in Dalmatia, where the Catholic Croatian monks preserved and diffused the Old Slavonic Ryths . This preservation of the Old Slavonic heritage was one of the sources of Pan-Slavism, thanks also to the role played, in Czech culture, by the Croatian monks called by the Czech Emperor Charles IV for fostering Slavonic culture in Bohemia, so counterbalancing German and Latin influence.

After the Bulgarian Metropolit Feofej, who imported into Russia the concept of “Third Rome”, and the Croatian priest Križanić (who implored the Zar to free the Slavs from the Ottoman Empire and to adopt a pan-slavonic language), also  the Moravian Brother Quirinus Kühlmann, a disciple of Jakob Böhme, went to Moscow in order to persuade the Tsar to adhere to the anti-Turkish league. According to Kühlmann, Russia had a mission, the one to fight against both Turks and Catholics. Kühlmann was burnt as an “heretic” man upon request of German Lutheran Church in Russia.

This heritage of the Byzantine Empire did not create just friends for Russia. On the contrary, it is also the reason of a constant hostility from Western Europe and towards Russia.

The link between Bulgaria and Russia resurged during the XIX Century independence struggles of the Balkanic peoples against the Ottoman Empire. In that occasion, the supporting role of Russia for the independence of Bulgaria resulted to be decisive. For celebrating the brotherhood between Russia and Bulgaria under the aegis of the Orthodox faith, the Russian Czar built up, as a gift to the Bulgarian people, the Alexandăr Nevskij Sofia Cathedral.

On the other side, it is clear that the “first” Rome has still its weight in the overall Christendom, and that Rome remains a fundamental symbol both for Christendom and for the West. The heritage of the West Roman Empire is however challenged from many sides (starting from  the Germanic peoples, and, especially, the Americans, often claim to be the “real” inheritors of the Romans, and from Islam). Finally, things are rendered more difficult by the fact that, in Western Christianity, contrary to the Eastern one, there is a clearcut distinction between State and Church, so that an identification of the Pope with one State could be impossible. In any case, we can assume that the heritage of the West Roman Empire corresponds to what Trubeckoj called, in his time, “Western Europe”, and is “so to say”, “dispersed” among Catholicism and the different Protestant peoples. The European Union plays also, today, a central role in the definition of this “Western Europe”. However, contrary to what many tend to think, “this” Europe is not, and has also never been, the only one.

Also the “Second Rome”, Constantinople, has shaped the life of Christendom for almost one thousand years, with the traditions of the Eastern Churches, with the Byzantine and Bulgarian Empires, but also with the Ottoman Empire and its remnants still today (such as Turkey, the Balkanic and Caucasic States, the Islamic minorities throughout Europe).

And, then, the “Third” Rome, Moscow, with all its connection in the East Slavonic area, but also in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and in all those areas where Russian speaking, and/or Slavonic and Orthodox, communities exist.

So, it is impossible, today, to define Europe as limited to any of the three “Roman” heritages. This in the same way as it would be impossible to define China just with reference to Confucianism, India with reference to the Aryan languages or Islam just referring to Sunnite Arabs.

This is still more true in a moment, like the present, where globalization itself forces everybody to look for larger alliances, in order to be able to overcome together the difficulties of a changing world.

The tripartition of Europe into the “Three Romes” has a very striking parallelism with the discussions under way, today, with Turkey, for an adhesion of the same to the European Union, and, from another side, with the discussion with Russia for a “Eurasiatic Common Market from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. Elène Carrère d’Encausse has even proposed to negotiate two parallel “Super-association Treaties”, one with Turkey, and the other with Russia.