Talk:Gathering of the Russian lands

Title

Per Ngram, "Russian" is preferred. That is no surprise, since this is a modern term and "русский" is always translated as "Russian". Plokhy also insists on using "Muscovy" until 1721, but this is not what most historians follow. I took a look at Google Books and there are plenty of results for "gatherer of the Russian lands" (100+), and only a few for "gatherer of the Rus lands". As a result, we must follow the common name. This is a well-established name and we need a lot more than just Plokhy to move the article. Mellk (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Strange. There is an obvious technical problem with Ngrams in this case if it cannot find a single example of "Rus' lands". It seems to not understand what the ' in (Rus') stands for; it puts a space before and after it.

Scholar gives a more mixed picture if we leave Rus' outside of the quotation marks. We get results including both Rus' land(s), Russian land(s), lands of Rus', lands of Kievan/Kyivan Rus', lands of ancient Rus' etc. Same with Google Books. Unfortunately, it's difficult to quantify which term is more prevalent. I guess we should mention both of them in the lead section at the very least.

Incidentally, the original modern Russian term some of them mention is sobiratel’ russkoi zemli, which transcribes to собиратель русскои земли (?). The 1884 book title of Dmitry Ilovaysky calls both Muscovy and Lithuania Собиратели Руси (in this case, that unambiguously means Gatherers of Rus', not Gatherers of Russia). On the other hand, ruwiki provides Объединение Руси или собирание русских земель (в историографии XIX века «собирание Русской земли»). Could you explain the difference? NLeeuw (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: "русский" is always translated as "Russian". If we're talking about the modern language (or the modern ethnicity, but not the nationality), then yes, although until the mid-19th century it was officially called "российский" ("rossiyskiy").

But we're not talking about language or ethnicity, but land(s) (zemla, zemli, zemel'). The ruwiki intro provides three variations, Руси (of Rus' [singular noun]), русских (of [the] Rus'... [plural adjective]), and Русской (of [the] Rus'... [singular adjective]). I think most specialised historians of the past 20 years would not translate any of these three words as "Russian" in this context. Precisely because these refer back to Kievan Rus', and not forward to the Tsardom of Russia and later, Rus' makes more sense than Russian.

If the concept did refer to language rather than land(s), or to refer forward to Tsarist Russia rather than backward to Kievan Rus', we would expect the earliest attestations to say собиратель российской земли, собиратель российский, собиратель России or something, but that's not what we see. NLeeuw (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think most specialised historians of the past 20 years would not translate any of these three words as "Russian" in this context. This is not what I can see in Google Books. The name "русская земля" was widely applied to the land up to the 18th century (then it became more of a poetic term). Picking 1547 as the date when "Russian" is appropriate is very much arbitrary. Mellk (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, "российский" did not displace "русский". Both are translated as "Russian" in English. Russia: Experiment with a People sums this up: "The RSFSR was Russia, but it was also not Russia - or else it would have been called that. The first word in the title was Rossiiskaya rather than Russkaya. The former referred to the state in which the Russians and other people lived; the second to Russian ethnicity. In the title, too, was the reference to federalism. This was yet another indication that the RSFSR was not meant to be a Russian national state but a state which embraced a multiplicity of nations." Mellk (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess what was meant here was that this is pertaining to "Русь", but "русский" is quite literally derived from the word. Not just "русский" but also "русинский", "руський", and so on. It is true that all East Slavs used to identify themselves as belonging to "Русь", but is it a good idea to lump all East Slavs together until more modern times? I do not think so. Otherwise, it does not make sense to refer to Ruthenians. But understandably this is complicated. Mellk (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at the Google Scholar link and most of the results are for "Russian lands". "Gatherer of the Russian lands" (собиратель земель русских) is the sobriquet given to later grand princes of Moscow. Often this is mentioned in quotes e.g. Russia: The Tsarist and Soviet Legacy (p. 11). But this is a well-established term in historiography, as seen in for example the chapter "Moscow and 'The Gathering of the Russian Lands,' 1328–1533" in Russia and the Soviet Union. In this context, it refers to consolidation under Moscow.

The article about unification is a broader topic, covering both consolidation in Lithuania and Moscow. But I have not really seen many English-language sources mention this term when referring to Lithuania. But the "gathering of the Russian lands" continued until the 17th and 18th century (or even WWI) with the annexation of Little Russia and White Russia. This argument is also about the same as if we should refer to "Little Rus" or "Little Russia". Mellk (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you confirm whether this is correct?

Объединение Руси = Unification of Rus'

собирание русских земель = gathering of [the] Rus'/Russian lands [plural]

собирание Русской земли = gathering of the Rus'/Russian land [singular]

собиратель земель русских = gatherer of the Rus'/Russian lands

It seems that the first three, as mentioned on ruwiki, all refer to a process rather than a person. You also seem to agree that the sobriquet "gatherer" (собиратель) has also been applied to multiple princes of Moscow, not just one, as many of them appear to have made their own contribution to the process. So perhaps we should rename it to "gathering" rather than "gatherer"? We can always decide on how to translate the adjective later. NLeeuw (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Also, it depends on the what the scope of the article should be. If the article should be about the "gathering" process more broadly, then I would like to see more English-language sources that refer to the GDL "gathering" such lands. Otherwise, I think it would be sufficient to briefly mention that historians like Ilovaysky referred to the "gathering of Rus" and others like Ustryalov referred to annexations of such territories until the 18th century. Mellk (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ngrams seems to indicate that gathering of the Russian lands is more widely used than gatherer of the Russian lands in English-language Google Books. Unfortunately, we once again get technical errors for Rus' lands in both cases, so we cannot quantify how frequently those variations are used.

However, Scholar is much clearer:

• "gathering of the Russian lands": 211 results
• "gatherer of the Russian lands": 59 results
• "gathering of the Rus' lands": 8 results
• "gatherer of the Rus' lands": 4 results

I think these results are pretty decisive. gathering of the Russian lands appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME by a wide margin. The others may be mentioned in the lead section as WP:ALTNAMEs. @Mellk Do you agree? NLeeuw (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. We can mention both in the lead anyway. The only issue is that gathering of the Russian lands already redirects here and so a technical move request is needed. I tried to move the article but wasn't able to.

It looks like there are a few more results for "lands of Rus" compared to "Rus lands". This can probably be included in a footnote, but it is still far behind "Russian lands". For example, Visions of Empire: How Five Imperial Regimes Shaped the World (2019) says: "Once again Russia justified its share of the spoils—Lithuania and Belorussia, together with what remained of Ukraine and Livonia—in terms of the 'gathering of the lands of Rus,' many of which had been under the 'alien' rule of Poland." (p. 226). Once again, we have a more modern context. I did quite a bit of reading and it looks like this is frequently mentioned in quotation marks ("the gathering of the Russian lands"). It also seems that it is also used to describe Russian policy under Ivan the Terrible. Mellk (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Great. I've filed a WP:RM/TR.

Yes, I've also found a lot of lands of Rus' variations in this context. If the variations get very long, then a footnote would be warranted indeed. As it stands, however, the article is quite small. I think we should increase the main text first, explain where it comes from, who used it and for what purposes, criticisms, debates and discussions, potential alternatives, and so on. I've had the intention to expand this page for some time, but initially I didn't really know where to begin until I read this interesting passage in Plokhy 2006 about Soviet historians disagreeing whether the GDL was or wasn't a legitimate "gatherer of Rus' lands."

Incidentally, it might be significant that Plokhy does not use "the" here, implying that "Rus' lands" is uncountable rather than a known set of territories. That is a good point, because sometimes Wikipedians (though not necessarily the sources they cite) may write that the conquest of territory X was part of the "gathering of the Rus' lands", when territory X (e.g. Siberia) was never part of Kievan Rus' to begin with, and therefore arguably not "a Rus' land". Arguably, only if we follow the interpretation of "the Russian lands", from the perspective of what the Russian Empire would eventually become at its greatest extent, Siberia was arguably a territory that was "gathered" at some point to form part of what "Russia" would eventually become, rather than a territory that once formed part of Kievan Rus' that could be "gathered" by anyone seeking to pick up the pieces after the Mongols fragmented Kievan Rus' in the 13th century.

It all depends very much on how we interpret русских земель etc. and whether we are reasoning backwards from what Kievan Rus' once was (which I think is what the term originally described, as used by Ilovaysky and others), or reasoning forwards towards what Tsarist Russia (which I'm using as a shorthand for both the Tsardom and the Empire) would eventually become. The backwards reasoning would exclude Siberia and other territories, while the forwards reasoning would include pretty much everything within the borders of the Russian Empire in 1914. (I think it would be a stretch to even include Alaska, Sagallo etc. as "Russian lands", much less "the Russian lands", but I'm getting ahead of myself). We should follow what WP:RS have said about this, and so far I don't think I've seen any instances of them reasoning forward. NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the context. But I do not think it would generally refer to Siberia. Hence, why northern/central/southern Russia only refers to the European part of Russia and not Siberia, even historically speaking. It has also been used to refer to non-Russian territories for the sake of justifying conquest, but I think the focus on the article should be the most common use of the term (that is, the period of centralization c. 1500).

I would also note that Halperin only calls "Russian land" incorrect when referring to the Kievan period, but he says that "Russian" is a legitimate translation for the periods after this, but he did not do this for the sake of consistency. It seems he also uses terms like Ros/Rus' tsardom but I have not seen anyone else use such terms. Hence, why I am wary of prominently mentioning such terms. Mellk (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with respect to Siberia not being a "Rus' or Russian land" in the sense discussed here.

It is difficult to choose when to translate русских as Rus' or Russian. Many scholars are inconsistent. I've just found Pelenski's 1977 translation of the oldest attestation, which is the gatherer of the Russian land[s]. Remarkably, Pelenski felt justified adding an [s] between brackets here, but not later on in the same sentence for Vladimir, the New Constantine who baptized the Russian land, even though the original apparently says "land" in singular both times. Elsewhere in his paper, Pelenski carefully distinguishes Rus'ian and Russian as adjectives, but strangely, not here.

Halperin 2022 paraphrased the opening passage of Donskoy's vita as: Here the identification of Moscow and the Rus’ Land reaches its zenith: Vladimir baptized the Rus’ Land, Metropolitan Petr is the defender of the Rus’ Land, Ivan Kalita, the first Muscovite grand prince, is the “gatherer of the Rus’ Land” (sobiratel’ russkoi zemli), and Dmitrii Donskoi is tsar of the Rus’ Land, his patrimony.

sedmitza.ru has a modern Russian translation, but we are, of course, interested in a critical edition of the source text in Church Slavonic.

Do you know a good source for the original Church Slavonic text of Donskoy's vita? NLeeuw (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, many historians treat Rus/Russian as synonymous and even use both at the same time. Sometimes it seems arbitrary. Some also suggest against using terms like Rusian or Rus'ian. I have read quite a few books that say that such terms are awkward and hence they are not used. Others of course still use this. You can even have chapters where one author uses one and another uses the other or both. Mellk (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Got it! http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/default.aspx?tabid=4985. The phrase in question is:

• Church Slavonic: Внук же бысть православнаго князя Ивана Даниловича, събрателя Руской земли,
• CS romanised: Vnuk zhe byst' pravoslavnago kniazia Ivana Danilovicha, sŭbratelja Ruskoĭ zemli
• Modern Russian: Внук же он православного князя Ивана Даниловича, собирателя Русской земли,
• MR romanised: Vnuk zhe on pravoslavnogo kniazia Ivana Danilovicha, sobiratelja Russkoi zemli,. NLeeuw (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Pelenski 1977: he was a grandson of Grand Prince Ivan Danilovič, the gatherer of the Russian land[s],
• Halperin 2022 paraphrase: Ivan Kalita, the first Muscovite grand prince, is the “gatherer of the Rus’ Land” (sobiratel’ russkoi zemli),. Not sure which version Halperin 2022 was paraphrasing from, but it is neither CS nor MR if it doesn't use a я at the end of either събрателя or собирателя. The double ss in Russkoi implies he's using a modern Russian version rather than the CS original. NLeeuw (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I found another translation which also includes the original text (p. 92) in The Battle of Kulikovo Refought (2017):

  ...Grand Prince Dmitrii, who was born of noble and honorable parents, Grand Prince Ivan Ivanovich and Grand Princess Aleksandra, he was a grandson of Grand Prince Ivan Danilovich, the unifier of Russian lands, great-grandson of the Grand Prince Daniil Aleksandrovich of Moscow, great-great-grandson of Grand Prince and miracle maker Aleksandr Iaroslavich Nevskii, of the saintly root of Tsar Vladimir, the new Constantine, the beautiful light whom God had set in a fertile garden and who enlightened the whole Russian land with the holy baptism.

  Mellk (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, we could mention that as an alternate translation in a footnote. NLeeuw (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Dating Donskoy's vita and the meaning of събрателя Руской земли

As Halperin and Pelenski pointed out, it's difficult to date Donskoy's vita, but Pelenski went for 1455/6. I think Halperin, Salmina, Plokhy and Ostrowski have all commented on this, but let me check the literature on that first. NLeeuw (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Μ. Α. Салмина (M. A. Salmina), '"Slovo o zhitii i o prestavlenii velikogo kniazia Dmitriia Ivanovicha, tsaria Ruskogo"-- pamiatnik XVI v.?' in Проблемы изучения культурного наследия [Problemy izuchen'ya kul'turnogo naslediia], Moscow, 1985, pp. 159–62. Is this perhaps a paper you could get access to? NLeeuw (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304–1589. Camlhridge, 1998, pp. 156–61. dated the 'Expanded Redaction' of the Encomium to Dmitrii Ivanovich to between 1449 and the 1470s. according to Halperin 2001, 254–255. This would then be the time when the attribution of the phrase събрателя Руской земли to Ivan Kalita was first written down.

The question remains, what did the vita's author even mean with Руской земли? And what exactly did he "gather"? Normally, we all seem to interpret "gathering" as outright annexation, but Ivan Kalita (r. 1325–1340) did very little of that. If it just refers to getting the title grand prince of Vladimir, he wasn't the first prince of Moscow to do that (Yury received the jarlig already in 1318), and it wasn't permanently in the hands of the Muscovite princes from then on either (with Tver and Novgorod-Suzdal getting it a few more times after Kalita). I'm not aware of any territories permanently annexed to Muscovy during Kalita's reign.

So perhaps, this first mention of this phrase could something else than permanent annexation? It could be a gathering of forces for a military campaign, as noted by Halperin 2022, pp. 40–41:

Only a single entry in the Old Recension of the Novgorod First Chronicle referred to the Novgorodian Land: in 1137 Prince Sviatoslav Ol’govich gathered the “entire Novgorodian Land” (vsiu zemliu novgorod’skuiu) to make war on his brother Gleb.[Footnote]: NPL, 6645 (1137–1138), 25. Obviously in this citation the phrase the Novgorodian Land denoted a collective of people, probably military, which is common in early Rus’ terminology; see Slovar’ russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv., vol. 5 (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), s.v. zemlia, definition 9, 376 right column–377 left column. Alternative terms in Novgorodian sources also carried both geographic and (in the literal sense of the word) popular meanings. In this chapter my focus is simply on identifying the presence of such terms, not with exploring their alternative geographic or social definitions. NLeeuw (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Synodal NPL s.a. 6645: Потомь же Святославъ Олговиць съвъкупи всю землю Новгородьскую, и брата своего /л.19./ приведе ГлЂбъка, куряны съ Половьци, идоша на Пльсковъ прогонитъ ВсЂволода.

sNPL romanised: Potomĭ zhe Sviatoslavŭ Olgovicĭ sŭvŭkupi vsiu zemliu Novgorodĭskuiu, i brata svoego /l.19./ privede Glěbŭka, kuriany sŭ Polovĭtsi, idoša na Plĭskovŭ progonitŭ Vsěvoloda.

Michell & Forbes 1914: Then Svyatoslav Olgovits collected the whole Novgorod land and fetched his brother Glebko; [and with] men of Kursk [and] with Polovets people went to Pleskov to drive away Vsevolod;

Is съвъкупи / sŭvŭkupi / "collected/gathered" related to събрателя / sŭbratelja / "gatherer"? NLeeuw (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

An even better example is at the end of the Kievan Chronicle account of the Siege of Vyshgorod in 1173:

Hypatian Codex: и тако вьзвратишасѧ всѧ сила Андрѣӕ кнѧзѧ Суждальского совокупилъ бо бѧшеть всѣ землѣ. и множеству вои не бѧше числа. пришли бо бѧху высокомыслѧще. а смирении ѿидоша в домъı своӕ.

Hypat romanised: I tako vĭzvratishasę vsę sila Andrěӕ knęzę Suzhdalĭskogo. sovokupilŭ bo bęshetĭ vsě zemlě. i mnozhestvu voi ne bęshe chisla. prishli bo bęhu vysokomyslęshe. a smirenii ōidosha v domy svoӕ.

Heinrich 1977: And so all the forces of Andrej, prince of Suzdal', returned; he had gathered all the land, a countless multitude of warriors. They had come in pride; they went away to their homes in humility.

Pelenski 1988: And all the forces of Prince Andrej of Suzdal' returned. He had gathered all the lands and of the multitude of his warriors there was no count. They had come in pride, but departed to their homes humble.

Nobody is suggesting here that Andrey Bogolyubsky annexed "all the land" (of Kievan Rus') in 1173, because he was defeated. совокупилъ / sovokupilŭ / "gathered" has a strictly military sense here, not one of political geography and conquest / annexation. совокупилъ / sovokupilŭ seems related to MR wikt:совокупный sovokúpnyj "combined" and wikt:совокупность sovokúpnostʹ ("the sum total"). Seems like it's also related to wikt:совокупление sovokuplénije "coupling, sexual intercourse" and wikt:совокупляться sovokupljátʹsja, "to have sex", but originally "to get connected, to get linked", which seems closer to the meaning "to gather, to collect" that we're looking for.

wikt:собиратель "gatherer" derives from wikt:собирать "to gather, collect, harvest"/ Derived from Old East Slavic съборъ (sŭborŭ), "gathering", "meeting". The modern Russian word wikt:сбор (sbor) still has meaning no. #3, namely (military) muster, assembly). So gathering or mustering troops ahead of a battle or campaign can very well be described by using this terminology, including in combination with zemlia, without actually meaning conquest or annexation, because it happens before a campaign, not after. In the case of Andrey of Suzdal in 1173, he "gathered all the land" before the battle, but was defeated in battle, and did not conquer or annex any lands after the battle. NLeeuw (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: I might add that in about 90% of all cases (88 in total) in which Heinrich 1977's English translation of the Kievan Chronicle uses a variation of the verb "to gather" or the noun "gathering", it refers to gathering troops or forces for an upcoming battle or campaign. I can't easily check whether all those are variations of the Church Slavonic term совокупи(лъ), but I should point out that it's not common in the KC to connect it to the word zemlia. In fact, the passage about Andrey in 1173 might be an exception.

I do see a similar example under the year 1180, where a certain Sviatoslav (probably Vsevolodich, i.e. Sviatoslav III of Kiev, during the 1180 ru:Северный поход Святослава Всеволодовича)

Ipa / Xle: скоупи / совокоупи всю Черниговьскоую / чрънѣговскую стороноу.

romanised: skoupi / sovokupi vsiu Chernigovĭskuiu / chŭrněgovskuiu storonu.

Heinrich 1977: gathered all the territory of Černigov

wikt:страна / strana, originally Proto-Slavic *storna, can mean both "land / country" and "folk, people". совокоупи + стороноу again means mustering the troops before a military campaign, not conquering or annexing lands after a successful military campaign.

So all Ivan Kalita may have done as a so-called събрателя Руской земли may have been gathering troops for a military campaign. Which? Well, the most evident example would be his suppression of the Tver Uprising of 1327 with the help of Suzdalian and Tatar troops. Let's see if we could find support for that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As a policy

@Mellk: Hi, you said earlier that It also seems that it is also used to describe Russian policy under Ivan the Terrible. Where did you find that? It may or may not be true.

In 2001, Halperin stated: The 'Expanded Redaction' of the Encomium lauds Ivan Daniilovich (Kalita) as 'gatherer of the Rus' land' (sobiratel' russkoi zemli). Marshall Poe, 'Butterfield's Sociology of Whig History: A Contribution to the Study of Anachronisms in Modern Historical Thought', Clio. A Journal of Literature, History and the Philosophy of History, 25, 1996, pp. 355–56, errs in calling the phrase 'an invention of eighteenth-century nationalist historiography'. Extrapolating the policies of all fourteenth-century Muscovite princes from this phrase is another matter.

Halperin 2001 is correct that the phrase appears as early as Donskoy' vita / Encomium in c. 1455, and is not just a later nationalist invention from the 18th or 19th century. But, as I reasoned above under "the meaning of събрателя Руской земли", it's not clear what the phrase actually means, let alone that we can say whether it described a comprehensive policy of Muscovite princes in the 14th or later centuries.

Halperin 2022, p. 83–84, notes that Ivan IV the Terrible did use the phrase the Rus' Land a lot, but so did a lot of Polish and Lithuanian nobles at the time, including in references to territories controlled by the GDL/PLC (such as Belarus, Galicia, Volynia etc.), and not by Muscovy. Halperin: in a 1577 epistle to Prince Aleksandr Polubenskii in Lithuania, Ivan IV referred to his grandfather, Ivan III the Great, as the “gatherer of the Rus’ Land.” Ivan the Great did not “gather” Galicia into the Muscovite state. So exactly what Ivan the Terrible meant with "gatherer" and with "Rus' Land" is not that plain. We can't take these texts at face value, but need to consider their contexts.

In addition, Halperin mentions the theory that Lithuania might also have thought of itself as a gatherer of Rus' lands: Plokhy proposes that Lithuania presented itself, albeit only briefly, as successor of the Rus’ Land. He cites a 1338 treaty between Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, and the Master of the Livonian Order as evidence of Gediminas’s aspiration to be “gatherer” of the Rus’ Land (a term later applied to Grand Prince Dmitrii Donskoi and Ivan III) in which the Rus’ Land presumably denoted the Lithuanian state. However, the treaty ascribes only geographic, not political, dimensions to the Rus’ Land, mentioning the Lithuanian (Lettowen in the German original) and Rus’ Lands (Ruslande or Ruscelande in the German original, ruskoi zemle in Slavonic) to which a German merchant could travel. The Rus’ Land refers to Rus’ territory under Gediminas’s rule. By 1385 the Union of Krewo between Poland and Lithuania, however, the “Rus’ lands” denoted the Rus’ lands that Jogaila, the Grand Duke of Lithuania who became Wladyslaw, King of Poland upon his conversion to Catholicism, pledged to attach to Poland.

Was gathering the Rus' land(s) a "policy" in Ivan IV's Muscovy, or in Gediminas' Lithuania? It's not evident in either case. NLeeuw (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Rowell, Stephen Christopher (2003). Chartularium Lithuaniae res gestas magni ducis Gedeminne illustrans (PDF) (in Latin and Lithuanian). Vilnius: Vaga. ISBN 5-415-01700-3. Retrieved 18 April 2021.

This critical edition of lots of GDL source texts includes the text of the 1338 treaty in Medieval Low German (Nederduytsch) on pages 258 and 260 (330 and 332 of the PDF file). It's funny, I can read that quite easily, it is very close to medieval Dutch (Dietsch / Duytsch). I'm tempted to put it all on Wikisource, and translate it to English. But the most important question here is whether Gediminas is presented as a gatherer of Rus' lands or not. Plokhy 2006 argues so, but Halperin 2022 is skeptical. Plokhy: A different system of political names and ethnonyms was employed by the authors of the peace treaty of 1338 between Gediminas, the alleged Lithuanian “gatherer” of the Rus' lands, and the Master of the Livonian Knights, Eberhard Mannheim. Gediminas was called the koningh of Lithuania whose power extended over the Lithuanians and the Rus' inhabiting the Lithuanian and Rus' Lands. It was in the name of those two lands and peoples that Gediminas concluded the treaty. Halperin does seem to agree that The Rus’ Land refers to Rus’ territory under Gediminas’s rule. I'll do a word-by-word comparison of the Lithuanian translation next to it, to see if this makes sense. NLeeuw (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Some apparently relevant excerpts from the 1338 treaty. Note: the English translation is based on a DeepL autotranslation of the modern Lithuanian translation. I'm using that as my exemplar rather than relying on my own understanding of the Low German text, even if it seems very close to my native language.

Text: Vort scal de Dudesche kopman varen also wyde, alse de koningh van Lettowen ret over Ruscen unde over Lettowen, seker lyves unde ghudes.

Lith: Toliau, vokiečių pirklys gali važiuoti saugus dėl savo gyvybės ir turto per Rusią ir Lietuvą taip toli, kiek siekia Lietuvos karaliaus valdžia.

Eng: Further, a German merchant can travel safely for his life and goods through Rus' / Ruthenia and Lithuania as far as the authority of the King of Lithuania extends.

Text: Vortmer scal de kopman hebben eynen vrighen wegh, de ghe heren is de loyse wegh: svan de Dusche kopman kumt int lant tho Lettowen ofte to Ruslande, so magh he varen in dat lant, wor dat he wil; des ghe lik de Ruscesche efte de Lettowesche copman, svan he kumt to Ryghe, so magh he varen, wor he wil, innt lant tho Liflande also verne, alse de mester ret.

Lith: Toliau, pirklys gali keliauti netrukdom as tuo keliu, kuris vadinam as laisvuoju: kai atvyksta vokiečių pirklys į Lietuvos žemę arba Rusią, jis gali keliauti, kur nori; lygiai taip pat rusų arba lietuvių pirklys, kai atvyksta į Rygą, gali keliauti Livonijos žemėje, kur jis nori, ir taip toli, kiek siekia magistro valdžia.

Eng: Furthermore, a merchant may travel unhindered along what is called the free road: when a German merchant arrives in the land of Lithuania or in Ruthenia / Rus' Land, he may travel wherever he wishes; likewise a Ruthenian / Rus' or Lithuanian merchant, when he arrives in Riga, may travel within the land of Livonia, wherever he wishes, and as far as the authority of the master.

These formulae repeat several times for all sorts of scenarios. I'm inclined to accept the idea that Gediminas saw himself as King of Lithuania, but reigning over two lands called Lithuania and Ruthenia / Rus' Land, inhabited by Lithuanians and Ruthenians / Rus', where German merchants could travel as they pleased, under the authority and protection of the king of Lithuania.

It ends with Moreover, if a Lithuanian or a Ruthenian / Rus' wishes to sue a German over an old matter, he must apply to the person to whom he is subordinate; and so must a German in Lithuania or Rus'.
This peace is made in the year of God's birth one thousand three hundred and thirty-eight [1338], on the day of All Saints, with the consent of the magistrate, the marshal of the land, and of many other noblemen, and of the council of the city of Riga, who have kissed the cross on that occasion; by the consent of the King of Lithuania, his sons and all his nobles; they also performed their sacred rites on that occasion; and by the consent of the Bishop of Polatsk [Ploscowe], the Prince of Polatsk [Ploscowe] and the City, the Prince of Vitebsk and the City of Vitebsk [Vitebeke]; they all kissed the cross in confirmation of the said Treaty of Peace.
This peace shall be kept unbroken for ten years.

Kissing the cross as a confirmation or oath is a very Kievan Rus' thing to do. I had never heard of that before I read the Kievan Chronicle. It's strange to read that in a legally binding treaty written in a language close to my native tongue.

Plokhy goes on to interpret the 1338 treaty:

The document was also approved by the Orthodox bishop of Polatsk, the Lithuanian princes of Polatsk and Vitsebsk, and the elites of the two cities. Nevertheless, their cities and lands were not mentioned in the treaty (as they had been in the previous trade agreements), being represented instead by the general term “Rus' Land.” Although it is risky to discern order in terminological usage at a time when it often did not exist, it might be assumed nevertheless that in this context the term “Rus' Land” was employed not only as an ethnocultural but also as a political designation of part of the Lithuanian state. The disappearance of the names of separate principalities from the text of the treaty and the endorsement of the notion of the Rus' Land as a counterpart of the Lithuanian Land could not but promote the loyalty of the Rus' elites to the idea of a broader Rus' community.

I'm inclined to agree that this is what the treaty is in effect doing. I don't think Halperin is correct when he says the treaty ascribes only geographic, not political, dimensions to the Rus’ Land. It is the territory where the authority (ret, recht?) of the king of Lithuania extends, and where German merchants and their goods are under his legal protection. That is a political definition of the Rus' Land within his royal authority. NLeeuw (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not too sure about primary sources but it looks like Ivan IV did send a message to Polubensky in 1577: "...и дѣда нашего, блаженные памяти великого государя Ивана Васильевича, собрателя Руския земли и многимъ землямъ обладателя...". I also noticed that this sounds somewhat similar to a message he sent to Andrey Kurbsky in 1564. Mellk (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting. It confirms what Halperin 2022 said that the phrase appears in Ivan's 1577 letter, but also that it is unclear what it means. собрателя Руския земли и многимъ землямъ обладателя literally means gatherer of Rus' lands and possessor of many lands. Gathering and owning lands are two different things, apparently, although they are closely linked together. First you gather some lands, then you own them (until you die and your heir inherits them). I don't think it's likely to mean "to muster troops" before a battle in this context, but who knows. The use of "many" does mean Ivan I Kalita hadn't possessed all Rus' lands, just many. That makes sense; I doubt anyone thinks the "gathering of Rus' lands" was "completed" by the time he died in 1340.

Overall, however, I must say I'm not impressed by the historical reliability of the grand claims Ivan IV supposedly made in this 1577 letter. As the introduction indicates, The message to Polubensky is one of the messages sent by Ivan the Terrible to his opponents during the summer-autumn campaign of 1577 in Livonia (...). It can be assumed that the message to Polubensky, like the Second Message to Kurbsky and a number of others, were part of a special collection compiled with a specific political goal - to glorify the successes of the tsar (these successes turned out to be temporary, which is why this collection did not receive wide distribution). In other words, this was war-time propaganda. The text is full of rhetorical devices intended to manipulate the reader, while both the writer and addressee claim descent from people who almost certainly did not exist: Prus, the "brother" of Julius Caesar (a myth first invented by the 1560 Book of Royal Degrees or Степенная книга), and the Palemonids, the mythical ancestors of the Lithuanian grand dukes (a myth first invented in the 1530s Lithuanian Chronicles).

Given the overwhelming rhetoric, frequent invocations of Christian doctrine and Muscovite political, dynastic and territorial claims and ambitions, as well as more subtle hints such as the usage of pronouns, I suspect that Ivan the Terrible did not write this letter himself, but had it ghostwritten by someone who was well trained in Christian literature, polemics, hagiography, etc. "Letters" such as these are not meant to be private correspondence, but public messaging. I think it is about as historically reliable as the Correspondence between the Ottoman sultan and the Cossacks from a century later, and very similar in style: boasting about how big and strong you are and how weak and small your enemy is. I don't think he wrote it himself, nor do I think it was necessarily forged without his knowledge or consent; as I said, I find it quite likely that it was ghostwritten in his name with his permission. But the fact that this letter claims to have been written by Ivan IV himself, and mentions this phrase, does make it significant. NLeeuw (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Just did a significant expansion on Lithuania. There seems to be consensus that the phrase is first used in Donskoy's vita, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily a Muscovite invention. Pelenski, Plokhy and Halperin are making arguments why Lithuania might have being "gathering Rus' lands" avant la lettre before Moscow did. (Halperin is more skeptical than the other two, but that has to do with the fact that he is skeptical of the very concept of the Rus' Land itself, which he regards as a myth). I think we should balance Muscovy and the GDL more out, not assuming that it always applies to Moscow unless it doesn't, but keeping the term/concept/process/claim open to both. I do think we need some primary sources from Lithuanian grand dukes to analyse, as the 1338 Treaty is too ambiguous to be making a GDL claim towards all Rus' / Ruthenian lands. NLeeuw (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"All Rus' should belong to Lithuania"

The article Algirdas claims in a quotebox "The entire Rus' should belong to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", signed Algirdas' messengers statement to the Teutonic Order. This would be pretty strong evidence if true, so I'd like to examine this claim carefully. It cites this 2016 article in Vakarų ekspresas, a large regional newspaper in Klaipėda, based on the views of Russian historian Igor Kururin (ru:Курукин, Игорь Владимирович). The paper states:

1358 m. Algirdo pasiuntiniai vokiečiams pareiškė: "Visa Rusia turi priklausyti Lietuvai." lt:Kijevo Rusia = Kievan Rus'. (as opposed to lt:Rusija, which is Russia).

In 1358, Algirdas' envoys declared to the Germans: "All of Rus' must belong to Lithuania."

So while the Grand Duchy of is not mentioned, the rest of the quote seems accurate. But, where can we find it in primary sources? NLeeuw (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Paul R. Magocsi, A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples (2010), p. 136: During their joint rule, they (Algirdas and Kestutis) achieved their father's ambitious goal of conquering all the lands of old Rus'. In the words of Algirdas (1358), “All of Rus' simply must belong to the Lithuanians.”² Many other scholars repeat this statement in slightly different variations, but what source ("2") does Magocsi cite? NLeeuw (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Zenonas Norkus 2017 invokes Wartberge 1863: 72. That should be p. 72 of the 1863 German critical edition of the chronicle of Hermann von Wartberge, a contemporary writer in Livonia. NLeeuw (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Livonian Chronicle of Hermann von Wartberge (died c. 1380), sub anno 1358:

Tunc eciam quidam Plawe, nomine propinquus ut dicebatur imperatoris, sed apostata ordinis, apud imperatorem in derogationem ordinis divulgavit, quod Letwini vellent baptisari ad fidem catholicam. Imperator nimium credulus ad hoc investigandum emisit archiepiscopum Pragensem, ducem Oppaviensem et preceptorem Almanie. Quos generalis magister procurata securitate cum magnis sumptibus ad Letwinos perduxit. Qui proposuerunt legationem. Sed Letwini petierunt infra scriptam limitacionem: primo eundo de Mazovia ad locum, ubi fluvius Alle oritur; deinde per descensum Alle eundo ad locum, ubi Alle influit fluvium Pregor usque ad mare recens; usque ad mare salsum, et abinde per mare salsum eundo ad locum, ubi Duna influit mare salsum; deinde Dunam ascendendo ad locum, ubi rivulus, qui exit lacum Laban et influit ipsam Dunam, et inde ascendendo ipsum rivulum per locum predictum eundo directe ad Russiam. – Item postulabant, quod ordo locaretur ad solitudines inter Tartaros et Rutenos ad defendendum eos ab impugnacione Tartarorum et quod nihil iuris ordo sibi reservaret apud Rutenos, sed omnis Russia ad Letwinos deberet simpliciter pertinere; et dicebant: „Si postulata consequi poterimus voluntatem Cesaris faciemus.“ Unde nuncii postulata reputantes inconvenientia recesserunt re infecta. (transcript taken from this website).

Then a certain Plawe, who was said to be close in name to the [Holy Roman] Emperor, but an apostate of the order [ Livonian Order? ], divulged to the emperor, in derogation of the order, that the Letwins [Lithuanians] wished to be baptised into the Catholic faith. The emperor, too credulous, sent the archbishop of Prague [probably Arnošt of Pardubice], the duke of Oppavi [ John I, Duke of Opava-Ratibor ], and the preceptor of Germany to investigate this. The Grand Master procured them with security, [and] at great expense, he led those who proposed the legation to the Lithuanians. But the Lithuanians asked for the limitation [border] written below: first going from Mazovia to the place where the river Alle rises; then by going down the Alle to the place where the river Pregor flows into the Alle as far as the fresh sea; as far as the salt sea, and from there going through the salt sea to the place where the Duna [ Daugava ] flows into the salt sea; then going up the Daugava to the place where the stream which leaves Lake Laban flows into the Daugava itself, and from there going up the same stream through the aforesaid place going directly to Russia [Rus']. They also demanded that an order should be placed in the deserts between the Tatars and the Rutenos [Ruthenians] to defend them from the aggression of the Tatars, and that no legal order should be reserved for itself among the Ruthenians, but that all Rus' should simply belong to the Lithuanians; and they said: "If we can obtain the demands, we will do the will of Caesar [Kaiser, i.e. the Holy Roman Emperor]." Whereupon the ambassadors, considering the demands inconvenient, withdrew, the matter being tainted. (autotranslated by Google Translate, manually corrected).

I'm still not entirely sure what the context is, but it does appear to be involving peace talks between envoys of the grand duke of Lithuania and envoys of the a certain order active in the land where the Daugava river flows, i.e. probably Livonia. Therefore, the "order" that the man called Plawe supposedly was an apostate of was probably the Livonian Order, a branch of the Teutonic Order (called "the Germans" by the Vakarų ekspresas). The chronicler Hermann von Wartberge himself was a member of that Livonian Order. What he does here is recount a meeting that he probably did not personally attend, but heard of as they happened; scholars believe he joined the order around the year 1358, as his chronicle becomes more detailed from this year onwards. The quote in question is that of his enemies, the Lithuanians, who put forth what was apparently obviously an unreasonable demand, because the Livonian ambassadors considered the demands inconvenient and the matter tainted. It might be that Hermann exaggerated the negotiating position of his enemies as unreasonable, and put words in their mouths that they didn't say.

But it could also be a mistaken interpretation of what their demands were. The allegation that no legal order should be reserved for itself among the Ruthenians does imply outright annexation without any remaining regional or local autonomy. This seems unlikely, as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was very much a feudal conglomerate of principalities, bishoprics, autonomous cities etc., as we already saw in the 1338 Treaty. Centralisation of power would not happen until much later (that's a very 16th century phenomenon). Either way, yes, the quote (in Latin) is there, but not by Algirdas himself, and not from the sources of the Lithuanians, but the Livonians. Nevertheless, that is a valuable piece of evidence that at least according to these Livonian opponents, the GDL was indeed trying to gather all Rus' lands under its banner. NLeeuw (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I might add that Hermann von Wartberge uses a lot of rhetorical devices as well, especially poisoning the well. He gives the readers (us) negative information about his opponents before their arguments are (re)presented:

• The guy proposing the peace talks, Plawe, was an untrustworthy traitor. He was an "apostate" from the Livonian Order, supposedly was close to the Emperor, and lied to him about the Lithuanians willing to convert to Catholicism.
• The Emperor, unfortunately, believed in Plawe's lies.
• The Grand Master of the [Livonian?] Order spent a lot of money and effort to get the Emperor's and Livonian ambassadors to meet the envoys of Lithuania; this was ultimately wasted, because the talks broke down.
• After setting this whole stage, Hermann presents the Lithuanian demands as unreasonable: too extensive, unwilling to grant autonomy to the Ruthenians, demanding all Rus' to "simply" belong to the Lithuanians.
• Therefore, his conclusion is that these demands were "inconvenient" (or perhaps "unconventional", i.e. extraordinary), and that "the matter was tainted" by the Lithuanians, therefore the German/Livonian ambassadors broke off the negotiations.

This is why we can't take what Hermann wrote at face value. The phrase in question is the centerpiece in Hermann's rhetoric, trying to convince us that the Lithuanians were unreasonable and untrustworthy, and that the Germans / Livonians were justified in breaking off peace negotiations. Although I don't doubt that Algirdas and Kestutis did have the ambition to acquire all Rus' principalities under the GDL's banner, skilled diplomats are unlikely to make such unqualified demands (unless they deliberately sabotaged the negotiations; but I think Hermann portrays the Lithuanian envoys as incompetent rather than malicious diplomats). NLeeuw (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)