Anniversary of Pereyaslav Rada passed without celebrations
357 years ago, 8 (in a new 18 style) of January 1654, on the main square of ancient Pereyaslav, "gathered a great multitude of all kinds of bureaucrats of people who committed a long circle."This meeting of the hetman of the Zaporozhian Troops, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, addressed the following speech:
- Pans colonels, captains, captains and all the Zaporozhian army and the whole Christian Orthodox! Vedomo you all, as God freed us from the hands of enemies who persecute the Church of God and anger all the Christianity of our Eastern Orthodoxy. For six years now we have been living without sovereign in our land in ceaseless bloodshed and persecutors and enemies of ours, who want to eradicate the Church of God, so that the Russian name may not be remembered in our land. What has velmi us all bothered, and we see that we can not live without a king. For this, now we have assembled the Rada, which is apparent to all the people, so that they will send us a sovereign of four with whom you are hostile.
The first king is the Tours, who many times through his ambassadors called us to his area; the second is the Crimean Khan; the third is the King of Poland, who will himself want to, and now he can be accepted as a former affection; the fourth is Orthodox Great Russia, sovereign, tsar and grand duke Alexei Mikhailovich, all of Russia, an Eastern autocrat, whom we have been asking for our prayers for six years with our unceasing prayers. Here whom you want to elect! The king of Tours is a busurman: you all know how our brethren, Orthodox Christians, the Greeks suffer trouble and the essence of the godless oppression. The Crimean Khan is also known as the Basurman, whom we, by need and friendship, have accepted, what unbearable misfortunes we have taken. What kind of captivity, what kind of merciless shedding of hristiyansky blood from the cops of oppression, no one needs to tell you, better than a Jew and a dog, rather than a Christian, our brother, honored.
And the Orthodox Christian great sovereign, the king of the East, is with us the single piety of Greek law, the same confession, the body of the Church alone, the Orthodox Church of Great Rosia, the head of the property of Jesus Christ. That great sovereign, the king of Christ, gnawed at the intolerable bitterness of the Orthodox Church in our Little Russia, our six-year prayers of unceasing not despising, now graciously bowing its royal heart to us, its great neighbors to us, with the royal grace, leaning on me and begging him, because of his will, whom he deceived him, he deceived him, his great neighbors, to deceive us. With zeal we shall love, except for a royal high hand, a benevolent refuge not to be obryaschem. And there will be someone who does not agree with us now, where the wave road wants.
According to an eyewitness, “to these words all the people cried:“ Die under the king of the east, Orthodox, die in our pious faith with a strong hand, rather than a hater of Christ, trash get! ”Then Colonel Pereyaslavskaya Teter, walking in a circle, asked us on all sides : "Do you want tacos?" Recley all the people: "Wuxin is unanimous." Then the hetman said: “Wake up tacos! Yes, the Lord our God sukrepit under his kingly strong hand! "And the people according to him, all unanimously, cried out:" God, strengthen! God bless! So that Eesma forever be one! ”
So done historical the act of reunification of Great Russia and Lesser. Or, closer to modern terminology - Russia and Ukraine. Many generations of Ukrainian nationalists have since been telling (and they themselves firmly believe in them) fables about how in the 1918th century the Ukrainian people “gained a freedom by a great uprising,” but, seeking help against Poland, “imprudently connected with the Moscow kingdom”, which "slowly enslaved him." This is the version of the most educated of the "Ukrainians", Professor Grushevsky, the so-called "first president" of independent Ukraine in XNUMX, and later vice-president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. His predecessors and followers simply rehearsed the same motive, though, usually, much more mediocre. However, KM.RU devoted separate material to the analysis of various twists and turns of the nationalist interpretation of the Pereyaslavl Rada.
On the other hand, we honestly admit that the official historiography of both the tsarist and the Soviet epochs was also too straightforward, and, besides, it was still over the top with molasses and oil spilled on this really big historical act. Perhaps, oddly enough, it sounds, the most objective picture of the 1654 events of the year was painted by Nikolai Kostomarov in his monograph “Bogdan Khmelnitsky”. This 19th century Russian-Ukrainian historian by the Soviet historical encyclopedia was characterized as one of the founders of "Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism." The Ukrainian nationalists, who did not read his books, usually also bring him into their forerunners, and those who honor him - call him "sold Muscovites."
In fact, Kostomarov really did not have much sympathy for the Moscow State. He had even more negative attitude towards the Commonwealth. At the same time, of course, he was a patriot of Little Russia, but being a decent man and trying to preserve objectivity, he did not idealize his countrymen, and without embellishment described their eternal betrayal, throwing, mutual mischief and intrigue. And all this in the seventeenth century was no less than, say, in 1917-1922. or in the past two decades of "Square" of Ukraine.
Here, for example, the aforementioned colonel Teteria would still look quite organically in the Ukrainian political beau monde. This tabernacle, being still long before the Prerevlavl Council sent to Moscow with an appropriate petition, tearfully implored the clerks of the boyars and the tsar himself to show divine mercy and take Little Russia under his arm. Then, as we remember, in Pereyaslavl, the people inclined oath to royal majesty. But as soon as Khmelnitsky died, Teteria ran to the Poles, and received from them the title of hetman’s punishment. And when the Russian commanders and the rebel Cossacks deposed Yury Khmelnitsky, who had changed Russia, Teterya assumed the title of hetman of the Zaporozhian Army (only now not of “royal majesty” but “of his royal favor”). Then he concocted a false accusation against Ivan Vyhovsky, another “hero” of the era, who several times betrayed either Rzeczpospolit or the Russian State, organized his execution, stole the military treasury and fled to Moldova. According to some data, there he died, and according to others, he was executed by another hetman - Bryukhovetsky. This, too, like the aforementioned characters, had time to serve, and betray both the Russians and the Poles, and then was killed by his own Cossacks.
Actually, the goose was good and Bogdan Khmelnitsky himself: as Kostomarov convincingly proved, a year later (!) After the Periaslav Rada he continued in correspondence with the Turkish sultan to call himself a sultan "loyal subject." However, to his credit, Khmelnitsky never went on a direct insurrection against Russia - he told him that he would not violate the oath of the Orthodox sovereign. Nevertheless, the remark of the historian Nikolai Ulyanov in his work “The Origin of Ukrainian Nationalism” seems to be fair: “There can be no two opinions about the true sympathies of Khmelnitsky and his entourage - they were polonofily. In Moscow citizenship went with the greatest reluctance and fear. Scarecrow unknown Cossack fate under the new government. ... The Cossack aristocracy did not think about independence or about secession from Poland. Her efforts were directed precisely at keeping Ukraine under Poland, and the peasants under the panes at any cost. She herself dreamed of getting a pansy. ”
Actually, Kostomarov confirms the same in his works. At the same time, although he negatively (and prejudiced) assesses the policy of Moscow, Kostomarov nevertheless acknowledges that the common people, ordinary Cossacks and clergy, and most of the petty bourgeoisie clearly preferred to be served by his royal majesty. And the notorious “liberties” (that is, the possibility of managing the common people without looking back at Moscow) were mostly interested in the elder who imitated the nobility, and the church elite.
However, all this is a matter of the past centuries, although a certain similarity with the current Ukrainian life is no doubt felt. Another thing is curious - as of today, no one has paid any particular attention, both in Ukraine and in Russia. Neither the State Duma, nor the Federation Council, let alone the government or the presidential administration of Russia, sent congratulatory telegrams to their Ukrainian colleagues in honor of the anniversary. On the Ukrainian side, only nationalists remembered the date - of course, in order to once again betray its curse. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry vaguely remarked that the “date is not the same” (it is not clear whether it is not “round” or not at all festive), and that in general it is rather through the administration of President Viktor Yanukovych. But in general there is no such thing in Ukraine today - he flew to Japan to beat out loans, so he has no time for Pereyaslavl.
Russian-speaking organizations do not celebrate either. The head of the Council of the NGO "Human Rights Social Movement" Russian-speaking Ukraine "and the deputy of the PR Vadim Kolesnichenko said that there would be no events dedicated to the Pereyaslav Rada. According to him, the celebration will not add to the positive in the already “good and friendly relations with Moscow that have been established by President Yanukovych lately.”
And the head of the Kiev Institute of the CIS countries, Vladimir Kornilov, whom the nationalists regularly branded as one of the leaders of the “fifth column” of Moscow in Ukraine, recalled that the Pereyaslav Council was not celebrated in Soviet times, if this date was not round. “Although this is the date that would be worth celebrating at the state level every year. It is important to observe the practical actions in relations between the two countries, ”he noted.
Information