Charles J. Halperin, The Rise and Demise of the Myth of the Rus’ Land (Beyond Medieval Europe), Leeds: Arc Humanities Press, 2022

Charles J. Halperin received a PhD in Russian History from Columbia University, New York City, in 1973. He is an independent scholar since 1996 (Indiana, USA). Before publishing the current monograph, Halperin worked on topics such as the Mongol influence on the institutionalization of power among the Rurikids, particularly participating in debates on the limits of the power of the Muscovite autocrat (samoderzets) Ivan the Terrible (1530–1584). Another area of his research focused on national identity and the concept of the “Rus’ Land”. This resulted in several monographs: Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History (1985), The Tatar Yoke: The Image of the Mongols in Medieval Russia (1986) and Ivan the Terrible: Free to Reward and Free to Punish (2019).

His current research “The Rise and Demise of the Myth of the Rus’ Land” (2022) is based on a series of revised previous articles. The volume comprises a preface and introduction, nine chapters, and a conclusion. The book is dedicated to the term “Rus’ Land” (russkaia zemlia) as a part of the nomenclature in the medieval and early modern sources. The author analyses the development and transformation of the myth in the long-term perspective. Halperin observes “Rus’ Land” as a political myth that united the elite group around the ruler and gave legitimacy to the reign. The author proposes that the myth probably appeared in the pre-Christian Rus’ (before 988) as a part of the pagan cult of the clan (kul’t roda). As a dynastic (Rurikids) construct that myth was malleable to be transformed after the conversion to Christianity by Vladimir in 988.

According to Halperin, the myth underwent three phases and was applied subsequently to three geographical regions: first emerging in the Dnieper (Dnipro) River valley, it was later applied to all the East Slavic lands under the Rus’ princes of Volodimerovichi, and then limited exclusively to the northeast, where in late fourteenth century, the myth of the Rus’ Land became inseparably connected to the myth of the Muscovite ruler (translatio of the Rus’ land from the Dnipro to the Suzdal land). Halperin suggested that the myth of the Rus’ Land existed until the Time of Troubles (1598–1613) and then fell out of use with the collapse of the Rurikid dynasty. The term Rus’ Land appeared also in the thirteenth century chronicles from Galicia and Volhynia, where the region of Galicia–Volhynia was called the Rus’ Land. Even after the Polish rulers annexed Galicia in the fourteenth century, the principality retained its identity as the Rus’ Land, now being a province of the Crown of Poland. Halperin declines any notion that the myth of the Rus’ Land reflected any national consciousness, because it was never used with an ethnical connotation.

In order to prove his idea of Rus’ land as a dynastic myth, Halperin analyses the myth in the context of the system of “Land” names: Tverian, Novgorodian, Suzdalian, Pskovian and Muscovite. Halperin assumes that the political “Tverian land myth” appeared in the Tverian principality, because in the 15th century the Muscovite principality had essentially usurped the myth of the Rus’ Land. “Novgorodian land” and “Pskovian land”, by contrast, were more geographic terms, rather than political ones. According to Halperin, both terms also implied a religious identity that was connected to the cathedrals in Novgorod (Cathedral of Saint Sophia) and Pskov (Trinity Cathedral) accordingly. The term “Suzdalian Land,” which defined the regions where the Volodimirovich princes resided, never developed its own as a myth. A reason for this might be the overlap of the grand principality of Vladimir with the Suzdalian Land. The Muscovite land never acquired any conceptual or mythic relevance, because Muscovy’s domination of the myth of the Rus’ Land would have made this redundant.

One of the book’s merits is the author’s attempt to overturn established historiographical clichés.  Particularly important is the idea that the term “Rus’Land” had no connection with any form of national consciousness, which previous historiography is so fond of referring to. Halperin’s idea of considering the term as a dynastic concept is innovative. Among other things, it is very important that the book provokes a non-Moscow-centred discussion of the identity of other Russian principalities.

Speaking of the shortcomings of the work, certain issues with the sources and the methodology can be noted. For example, the chapter about the Tverian land is based solely on one source (The pokhval’noe slovo (word of praise) to Grand Prince Boris Aleksandrovich), while others, for example coins, seals or charters, are left aside. It can also be questioned whether the concept of the “Rus’ Land” always holds a purely dynastic meaning. For example, in hagiography, a particular saint may be referred to as the “saint of the Rus’ Land” (e.g., the Metropolitan Peter). An exclusively religious identity in Novgorod and Pskov can be criticized both for being solely religious and for being unique to these two centres.

Charles J. Halperin’s book is fascinating and sheds new light on the terminology and identity issues. The work is particularly important because it challenges discourses of national consciousness. The book also raises the debate about the identities of other principalities and political entities. The author urges us not to use the clichés of being “regional” or “provincial” in regard to them. The work is essential for researchers of the medieval and early modern history of Eastern Europe.