Was Gediminas a descendant of Rurik?
Igor Sklar
(author of families Jagiellon, Golitzine, Troubetzkoy, Czartoryski,
etc) is represented as a descendant of Rurik (author of families
Dolgorukov, Volkonsky, Kropotkin, Mussorgsky, etc). Can this be true?
First of all, if Rostislav of Polotzk went to Constaninople in 1129,
is it possible that his grandson was active in 1270? Can you imagine
your grandpa living and active about 1850, that is, one century and a
half ago?
Secondly, if an Orthodox prince goes to Constantinople, the capital of
Christian world, and disappears there, would you expect that his son
should reappear as a fierce pagan amid woods and bogs of then wild
country like Lithuania? Human sacrifices were still practiced there at
the time!
Thirdly, neither David nor Volk is mentioned in contemporary sources.
They appear for the first time in the 16th century (4 centuries after
the event!) in a Polish book meant to justify the claims of Jagiellons
to the territories of former Kievan Rus and Muscovite throne (there
was a war between the countries going on at the time).
Fourthly, there are so many genealogies of early Lithuanian princes,
that it's enough to drive one crazy! I read in the chronicle of
Bychovec that Gediminas was son of an ostler. A genealogy of his
ancestors in this chronicle is completely different!
Any comments?
Best regards, Igor
GRHa...@aol.com
skla...@yandex.ru writes:
> Can you imagine
> your grandpa living and active about 1850, that is, one century and a
> half ago?
>
I am 75. My father was 50 when I was born. My grandfather was born 31
January 1845, he was 5 years old in 1850. No stretch of the imagination for
me.
Gordon Hale
El Cuervo
Ian Cairns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2677095.stm
Ian
Reedpcgen
>> > Can you imagine
>> > your grandpa living and active about 1850, that is, one century and
>a
>> > half ago?
>> >
>>
>> I am 75. My father was 50 when I was born. My grandfather was born
>31
>> January 1845, he was 5 years old in 1850. No stretch of the
>imagination for
>> me.
>>
>> Gordon Hale
>>
>> El Cuervo
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2677095.stm
>
>Ian
>
I researched a man named Short Long who moved from North Carolina to South
Carolina to Georgia, Alabama and finally Mississipi. He died aged 104
(verifired in census records all along). His last wife was a young woman, by
whom he had five children (others in other states), the last born when he was
age 93. He specifically names the children of this last wife in his will as
being his own, and provides for them well. He at least thought he was
responsible (the long and the short f it - he also had a son by his first wife
named Short Long).
I researched another man who was the first Englishman born in Jamaica (after it
was taken from Spain). He lived to over 100, and it was claimed he ate nothing
but cocoa the last year of his life. That probably did him in. Wonder what he
chased it down with.
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
> On the page http://genealogy.euweb.cz/jagelo/lithua.html Gediminas
> (author of families Jagiellon, Golitzine, Troubetzkoy, Czartoryski,
> etc) is represented as a descendant of Rurik (author of families
> Dolgorukov, Volkonsky, Kropotkin, Mussorgsky, etc). Can this be true?
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The contraindications
are great, and this is certainly the kind of descent that would
be created for someone in that area who rose on his own, but
needed a pedigree to match his accomplishments.
taf
Alex
One thing is more or less clear. In the Russian aristocracy there was a
distinction between "Rurikovichi" (descendants of Rurik) and "Gedeminovichi"
(descendants of Gedemin). Gedeminovichi were "2nd the best" but inferior to
Ririkovichi in a feudal seniority.
Rafal T. Prinke
> Igor Sklar wrote:
> > On the page http://genealogy.euweb.cz/jagelo/lithua.html Gediminas
> > (author of families Jagiellon, Golitzine, Troubetzkoy, Czartoryski,
> > etc) is represented as a descendant of Rurik (author of families
> > Dolgorukov, Volkonsky, Kropotkin, Mussorgsky, etc). Can this be true?
It is definitely not true. Gediminas most probably orignated
from Semigalia - and one or two of his paternal ancestors
might be known (but there is no agreement among scholars
on this).
Best regards,
Rafal
Igor Sklar
"2nd the best" in Muscovy, and Gediminovichi were regarded as
foreigners and treated with respect.
The princely families that had precedence over all others were Bielski
and Mscislawski (both Gediminovichi) in the 16th century, Galitsine
and Troubetzkoy (also Gediminovichi) in the 17th century. There was
not a single prince Kourakine who reached the age of 40 and was not a
boyar (kind of record, perhaps). The Khovanskys were the only obscure
Gediminids, if you may call so the family that gave Pss Euphrosinia of
Staritsa (the brightest character of Sergey Eizenstein's "Ivan the
Terrible") and Pr Andrey Khovansky "Tararuy" (head of the government
in 1682, main character of Mussorgsky's "Khovanshchina").
Cheers, Igor
A Tsar Is Born
I didn't know lots of this stuff about comparative ranks of the
princes, and am delighted to learn it, Igor. And I had no idea
Euphrosinia, the poisonous aunt in the movie, was a Gedymin, or the
Khovanskys, the great villains of Moussorgsky's opera.
But I do know opera a bit, and in the libretto at least, Andrey is not
head of government but a skirt-chasing lout; it is his father, Prince
Ivan, who runs things. Is this inaccurate? I don't know much of the
history the opera treats.
"Khovantschina" puzzles western audiences who have no idea what
Moussorgsky was getting at, and keep trying to figure out who the hero
is. The hero, of course, is the Great Russian People, but the
protagonist of the opera, who wins the day and punishes the
evil-doers, is Peter the Great -- who, of course, remains off-stage
throughout the action. (It was illegal to show Romanovs on the stage
in Russia. Or legitimate tsars like Ivan IV -- pretenders and usurpers
were fair game, however.) Thus the great confrontation scene in Act II
when three princes fight over who will rule Russia -- Galitzine (the
soulless westernizer, lover of the Regent Princess Sophia Alexeievna
Romanov, who of course does not appear), Ivan Khovansky (the corrupt
old boyar), and the third one (name escapes me just now) who has
become a priest and Old Believer. Then the audience waits to see which
one will win out, and in the opera all three are destroyed. It is very
puzzling for western audiences.
As Russia always has been, eh?
Jean Coeur de Lapin (Ivan Stefanovitch, Knyaz Zhidsky)
Bryn Fraser
>skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.0302031357.6511
>e...@posting.google.com>...
Another planet...?
Thank you for the above which is completely fascinating...
I am still totally confused but fascinated...
This is the same Peter who came and worked in our Naval shipyards...
--
Bryn Fraser ?
~~~~~~~~~~~ + +
="=
~
The human lot. - He who considers more deeply knows that, whatever his acts and
judgements may be, he will always be wrong.
Nietzsche [HA 518]
________________________________________
XX XX
XX http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk XX
XX http://www.thefrasers.com XX
XX____________________________________XX
Igor Sklar
The highest stratum of Muscovite nobility at the end of 16th century
comprised descendants of Great Princes of Moscow or Lithuania:
1. Russian Princes: Shuiski (as heirs of Suzdal and Nizhni Novgorod),
Penkov-Yaroslavski (as heirs of Yaroslavl), senior Princes Rostovski
(as heirs of Rostov);
2. Lithuanian Princes: Bielski (as heirs of Bely), Mscislawski (as
heirs of Mscislaw), Patrikeyev-Galitzine-Kourakine (as descendants of
Yury Patrikeyevich, who was given the senior place among all the
princes by Vasily I, his brother-in-law);
3. Ancient Muscovite aristocracy: Tchelyadnins (descending from
Gavrila Olexich, the great boyar of Alexander Nevsky) and Zakharyins
(=Romanovs, descending from one Andrey Kobyla and thence from Gavrila
Olexich). You may remember this Gavrila from another Eizenstein's
film, "Alexander Nevsky".
Members of these families were promoted from stewards to boyars
immediately, skipping the rank of okolnichi ("sub-boyar").
Next level of aristocracy was formed by senior descendants of
important princely houses: 1) Princes Vorotynski-Odoyevski-Belyovski
(from the House of Chernigov); 2) Princes Mikulinski (from the House
of Tver); 3) Princes Pronski (from the House of Ryazan); 4) Princes
Kurbski (from the House of Yaroslavl); 5) Princes Troubetzkoy (from
the House of Lithuania).
Several old boyar families considered themselves equal to these:
Velyaminovs (claiming descent from King Olaf I Tryggvason), Davydovs
(claiming descent from Genghis Khan), Khovrins-Golovins (claiming
descent from Byzantium), Morozovs (Moscow boyars from the 13th
century), and Saburovs (also ancient boyars).
Regards, Igor
Alex
> Hey, what's wrong with you?
Nothing. How about you?
>It was just the opposite: Rurikovichi were
> "2nd the best" in Muscovy,
Interesting discovery.
>and Gediminovichi were regarded as
> foreigners and treated with respect.
>
The ruling dynasty, until the death of Feodor I had been Rurikovichi.
Rurik also was a foreigner with an advantage of being the older foreigner.
Gedemin was a foreigner but Gedeminovichi were not treated as such: they
had been Russian aristocracy just as the descendants of Rurik or the
descendants of the various Tatar Khans.
> The princely families that had precedence over all others were Bielski
> and Mscislawski (both Gediminovichi) in the 16th century,
IIRC, Mstislavski had been Rurikovichi (at least A.K.Tolstoy thought so :-) ).
> Galitsine
> and Troubetzkoy (also Gediminovichi) in the 17th century. There was
> not a single prince Kourakine who reached the age of 40 and was not a
> boyar (kind of record, perhaps). The Khovanskys were the only obscure
> Gediminids, if you may call so the family that gave Pss Euphrosinia of
> Staritsa (the brightest character of Sergey Eizenstein's "Ivan the
> Terrible") and Pr Andrey Khovansky "Tararuy" (head of the government
> in 1682,
He wa not a "head of the goverment" because this position had been kept
by Regent Sophia. He led the mutiny of the Streltsy, was caught and
executed without a trial.
>main character of Mussorgsky's "Khovanshchina").
Ah, now I understand. You are talking about the different times: Russia
practically run out of Rurikovichi by this time and what's left were the
remnants of the 'udelni' princes who were not high in the Boyar
hierarchy because they, traditionally, did not serve the Princes of Moscow.
Alex
> Here's an abstract from Vasily Klyuchevsky's "The Boyar Duma".
>
> The highest stratum of Muscovite nobility at the end of 16th century
> comprised descendants of Great Princes of Moscow or Lithuania:
Exactly. And the Great Princes of Moscow and the first Tzars had been
Rurikovichi.
Alex
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.0302...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hey, what's wrong with you? It was just the opposite: Rurikovichi were
> > "2nd the best" in Muscovy, and Gediminovichi were regarded as
> > foreigners and treated with respect.
> >
> > The princely families that had precedence over all others were Bielski
> > and Mscislawski (both Gediminovichi) in the 16th century, Galitsine
> > and Troubetzkoy (also Gediminovichi) in the 17th century. There was
> > not a single prince Kourakine who reached the age of 40 and was not a
> > boyar (kind of record, perhaps). The Khovanskys were the only obscure
> > Gediminids, if you may call so the family that gave Pss Euphrosinia of
> > Staritsa (the brightest character of Sergey Eizenstein's "Ivan the
> > Terrible") and Pr Andrey Khovansky "Tararuy" (head of the government
> > in 1682, main character of Mussorgsky's "Khovanshchina").
> >
> > Cheers, Igor
>
> I didn't know lots of this stuff about comparative ranks of the
> princes, and am delighted to learn it, Igor. And I had no idea
> Euphrosinia, the poisonous aunt in the movie, was a Gedymin,
She was Khovanskaya by birth and hardly "poisonous"
(I would not rely on a certain movie as a source of any information).
>or the
> Khovanskys, the great villains of Moussorgsky's opera.
>
> But I do know opera a bit, and in the libretto at least, Andrey is not
> head of government but a skirt-chasing lout; it is his father, Prince
> Ivan, who runs things. Is this inaccurate? I don't know much of the
> history the opera treats.
Real life: Ivan Khovansky was at this time a head of the Streletsky
Prikaz (head of the Streltsy). In the confrontation with the goverment
led by Princess Sophia, he took the side of the streltsy vs goverment.
Sophia with boyars fled Moscow and began raising the feudal militia
('Dvorianskoe opolchenie'). At certain point, a detachment of her troops
caught Khovansky while he was sleeping in his tent (AFAIK, he was doing
something like an inspection trip outside Moscow and, as was a custom,
took a nap after the dinner, without bothering to put a proper guard).
He was carried to the Sophia's presense and immediately executed.
AFAIK, the only thing Ivan wwas famous for was a pathological stupidity,
noticed by the Tzar Alexey, who gave him nickname "Tararuy" and predicted
that nothing good will come from his appointment to the commanding
position. Which happened to be true because the Prince had been regularly
defeated during the Russian/Polish War (the appointment was due to his
descendency, the usual problem in Russia before reform of the Tzar Fedor II
who ordered to burn all heraldic books).
>
> "Khovantschina" puzzles western audiences
It puzzled me as well. :-)
(never had patience to listen it from beginning to end)
>who have no idea what
> Moussorgsky was getting at,
Isn't this rather usual for _any_ opera?
>and keep trying to figure out who the hero
> is. The hero, of course, is the Great Russian People,
Eek.
>but the
> protagonist of the opera, who wins the day and punishes the
> evil-doers, is Peter the Great -- who, of course, remains off-stage
> throughout the action.
Very thoughtful of him because he was 10 years old at this time.
>(It was illegal to show Romanovs on the stage
> in Russia.
But an obvious anachronism was OK because otherwise author would be
forced to show Sophia as a good person, and this DEFINITELY was taboo.
>Or legitimate tsars like Ivan IV -- pretenders and usurpers
> were fair game, however.)
Another dynasty, Rurikovichi. You could even say a lot of bad things about
them (e.g., the play "Death of Ivan the Terrible", "Kiaz Serebrianny", etc.)
>Thus the great confrontation scene in Act II
> when three princes fight over who will rule Russia -- Galitzine (the
> soulless westernizer, lover of the Regent Princess Sophia Alexeievna
> Romanov, who of course does not appear),
The only real statesman of this period. Unfortunately, thanks to his
closeness to Sophia, had been exiled when Narishkin (Peter mother's)
faction took power.
>Ivan Khovansky (the corrupt
> old boyar), and the third one (name escapes me just now) who has
> become a priest and Old Believer. Then the audience waits to see which
> one will win out, and in the opera all three are destroyed.
Well, it took a while before Vasily Golitsin had been destroyed. "Khovanschina"
happened in 1682 and Golitsyn had been sent to exile in 1689. For 7 years
he was a head of the goverment.
>It is very
> puzzling for western audiences.
>
> As Russia always has been, eh?
It's rather naive to make any historic conclusions based on an opera.
The events were not considerably more mysterious than events of the English
Civil War. Don't use opera as a reference point.
Alex
> Another planet...?
Well, I suspect that ANY country looks like another planet when
it represented by a "historic" opera.
>
> Thank you for the above which is completely fascinating...
It is always fascinating how far opera can go in distorting the
real events...
>
> I am still totally confused
Even tried to analyze "Aida" as a source on Egyptian history?
Or the movie "Oliver Cromwell" as a source on the English Civil
War?
>but fascinated...
With what exactly?
>
> This is the same Peter who came and worked in our Naval shipyards...
Nope. It's Peter from opera. A completely different figure who has
nothing in common with the real events or the Tzar of this name. :-)
Rafal T. Prinke
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote:
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote
> > The princely families that had precedence over all others were Bielski
> > and Mscislawski (both Gediminovichi) in the 16th century,
>
> IIRC, Mstislavski had been Rurikovichi (at least A.K.Tolstoy thought so :-) ).
That is correct - the 16th c. Mscislawski were Rurikovichi.
The original family, however, was the descendants of Lingweni,
baptized as Simon/Semen, Olgerdovich. His male line progeny
ended with two ladies: Julianna who m. kn. Michal Ivanovich
Zeslawski, and Anastasia, who m. kn. Semen Slucki. After
the death of their father - kn. Ivan Yurievich - the king
gave Mstislav for life to his widow, and after her death,
he allowed the daughters to live in Mscislav, now royal estate
again, and later (1499) gave it to the said Michal Zeslawski
(disregarding the protests of the other daughter).
This "second" Mscislavski family died out at the beginning
of the 17th c. (with Fedor, who d. 1622, and whose two
children died before him).
Best regards,
Rafal
Andrey Frizyuk
> skla...@yandex.ru (Igor Sklar) wrote in message news:<5a635d65.0302...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hey, what's wrong with you?
>
> Nothing. How about you?
>
> >It was just the opposite: Rurikovichi were
> > "2nd the best" in Muscovy,
>
> Interesting discovery.
>
> >and Gediminovichi were regarded as
> > foreigners and treated with respect.
> >
>
> The ruling dynasty, until the death of Feodor I had been Rurikovichi.
> Rurik also was a foreigner with an advantage of being the older foreigner.
> Gedemin was a foreigner but Gedeminovichi were not treated as such: they
> had been Russian aristocracy just as the descendants of Rurik or the
> descendants of the various Tatar Khans.
>
>
> > The princely families that had precedence over all others were Bielski
> > and Mscislawski (both Gediminovichi) in the 16th century,
>
> IIRC, Mstislavski had been Rurikovichi (at least A.K.Tolstoy thought so :-) ).
>
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/russia/zaslaw.html
Alex
> > The princely families that had precedence over all others were Bielski
> > and Mscislawski (both Gediminovichi) in the 16th century,
>
> IIRC, Mstislavski had been Rurikovichi (at least A.K.Tolstoy thought so :-) ).
Sorry, Mstislavskie had been Gedeminovichi but the Shuiskie (Rurikovichi)
had been higher.
Igor Sklar
The origin of Mscislawski is discussed here:
http://www.geocities.com/tfboettger/russian/princes.htm