photo #9230136

Why the Empire Needed Rus Kyiv had antiquity. The Christian beginning of Rus. Princely memory. St. Sophia Cathedral. Writing, chronicle tradition, and the image of the "mother of Rus' cities." This was the past that the empire began to appropriate through the name. But the name was not enough. Throughout the 18th century, this claim was explained, repeated, and gradually arranged. It was not enough to say: "We are the heirs of Rus." A coherent line had to be built, one in which Rus "naturally" passed into Muscovy, and Muscovy into the russian empire. And here I return to Catherine II, where this topic began for me. Catherine II and "russian" History In 1783, by order of Catherine II, a commission was created to compile materials on ancient history, which the empire presented as the history of russia. The empire needed to show its past as ancient, continuous, and legitimate — not merely Muscovite, but connected to Rus. The past did not have to be invented from nothing. It could be collected, selected, explained, and arranged so that it led to the empire. What matters is not only which sources exist. What matters is how to read them. Where to place the beginning. Which line of succession to draw. In this scheme, Rus became the first chapter of "russian" history. Kyiv became not an independent centre of memory, but an early stage in someone else's imperial biography. Without Rus, russian imperial history began too late. With Rus, it could appear ancient, Christian, princely, and European. And here the original thought returns: an empire creates a story about itself. russia created its own. And the world still often takes it for history. Have a gentle new week. Sincerely, Yaroslava Kyiv, Ukraine May 7, 2026