LECTURE#4

How come did Moscow become the capital of Russia? Successful expansionist policies of Ivan III (1462 - 1505) & Vasily III (1505 - 1533). The subjugation to Moscow of Yaroslavl, Rostov, Tver, Chernigov, Novgorod, Pskov, Ryazan, Smolensk lands. The end of the Golden Horde & the Tatar Yoke (1480). Increasing personal power – Ivan’s Law Code (1497), the change in the system of land tenure (land as a military fief) & introduction of the system of civil & military appointments. The emergence of the Russian Orthodox Church as an autocephalous organization. «Moscow – the Third Rome» theory. Discussion: L. Gumiliov theory of «passionate people».

LIFE OF ST. SERGIUS OF RADONEZH
(1314 - 1392)
St. Sergius of Radonezh is the patron saint of Russia, father of northern Russian monasticism, and founder of the Holy Trinity Monastery. Few people have had such a profound influence on Russian life as St. Sergius and his monastery. He was a great mystic and ascetic, whose life spanned much of the 14th century, at the time that Russia was occupied by the Mongol Tartars. Even as a child the future saint was devoted to the Holy Trinity and sought the monastic life. After the repose of his parents, in 1334 the 20-year-old youth went into the deep forest, about 45 miles northeast of Moscow, to seek spiritual solitude as in a desert. He lived a very austere ascetic life, marked by extreme poverty, hard physical labor, and profound humility and simplicity. After a few years of solitude in the forest, disciples started to gather around him, and Russia was forever changed. Through the labors of St. Sergius’ disciples, the northern forest wilderness blossomed with numerous monasteries, which were to play a very significant role in the subsequent life of Russia. In St. Sergius’ great humility, he rejected all honors: only reluctantly did he accept ordination as priest and appointment as abbot of his own monastery; and he flatly refused to accept the office of Metropolitan of Moscow. The many spiritual gifts granted to him include powerful and effective prayer, clairvoyance, spiritual direction, and numerous visions. He reposed in 1392.
St. Sergius’ church, monastery and life’s work were dedicated to the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity expresses the unity between the three Persons of the One God, and hence, also symbolizes the spiritual vision of the restoration of all things to their original unity, including Russia. St. Sergius recognized that the Russian Church and the Russian people were united, and that unification of Russia lands was required for their mutual well-being. Thus, with St. Sergius’ spiritual guidance and blessing, the Grand Prince of Moscow, St. Dimitri Donskoi, united the fragmented Russian principalities under Moscow’s leadership, and in 1380, defeated the Mongol Tartars. As a result, Moscow became the center of Russian life, and St. Sergius and his Holy Trinity Monastery have been looked to for guidance and support ever since.
St. Sergius’ original wooden Holy Trinity Church burnt down and was replaced in 1422 by a white stone church, for which St. Andrei Rublev did much of the iconographic work, including his most famous Holy Trinity icon. This icon is an eloquent expression and testimony to St. Sergius’ spiritual vision of the beauty of salvation.
In theprocess of building the stone church, St. Sergius’ relics were uncovered, and it was discovered that after 30 years, his relics remained incorrupt. His relics were placed in a reliquary in his Holy Trinity Church, readily accessible for veneration. Ever since the discovery of his incorrupt relics, untold numbers of healings and other miracles have occurred. Every day, all day long, pilgrims come and venerate St. Sergius’ relics, and are profoundly touched by being in St. Sergius’ presence.

This article was written by Jane M. deVyver, M.Th., Ph.D. The icon at the top was painted/written by Fr. Theodore Jurewicz, of Erie, Pennsylvania, and is located in St. Innocent of Irkutsk Orthodox Church in Redford, Michigan. http://www.firebirdvideos.com/saintslives/lifeofsergius.htm

EARLY COINAGE OF MOSCOW

GERARD ANASZEWICZ
http://www.chicagocoinclub.org/projects/PiN/ecm.html

INTRODUCTION
Russian national coinage will celebrate its thousandth anniversary in 1988. The most ancient issues were struck between 988 and 1019, of which 11 gold and 330 silver pieces are known. All are modeled after Byzantine types, probably because of the then recent "conversion" of the country to Orthodox religion. These ancient coins circulated in Russia alongside Arabic dirhems and Western European coinage. In Russia, the twelfth through the early fourteenth centuries are known as the coinless period, when solid silver bars provided the principal medium of exchange. The minting of Russian coins resumed in the second half of the fourteenth century with the introduction of "wire money" - crude, irregular shapes of metal stamped with the mark of an issuing authority.
The ancient coins of Russia were struck on behalf of the princes of Kiev, the political and economic capital from the tenth to twelfth centuries. The small quantities found indicate that this early coinage was not meant for trade but rather was a self-proclaimed declaration of importance on behalf of the Kievan Princes. In 1169 Kiev was sacked by the Russian prince Andrei of Suzdal who then moved the capital to the northeastern city of Vladimir. The decline of Kiev was cemented by the Mongol invasion of the thirteenth century as the city was sacked in 1240. For the next two hundred years all of Russia was under the Mongol yoke. Devastating raids, humiliating tribute and slavery were common occurrences during this period. Under the suzerainty of the Mongol Khans, the city of Vladimir remained the nominal capital of Russia.
The Russian political system of this era consisted of a Grand Prince, originally the Prince of Kiev. A principality consisted of a major city and the lands and smaller cities surrounding and dependent upon that city. In essence, they were city-states. Under the Grand Prince were princes of other principalities in varying ranks based upon seniority. The title Grand Prince was used by several of these princes.
The basis for Grand Princely succession was not fixed. Sometimes it was based on the law of primogeniture, sometimes title passed to a brother, sometimes it was taken by force or bribe. After the Mongol conquest the Grand Prince had to be sanctioned by the Great Khan, who would bestow and revoke the title based upon promises of tribute. It was common for a given prince to win and then lose this title several times in his lifetime. The Grand Prince was the senior political leader of the Russian lands - assuming, of course, that the "junior" princes allowed him to rule them. By tradition, the Grand Prince was also considered the Prince of Vladimir even if his "home" was a different principality. The other Russian princes acknowledged the seniority of the grand princes of Vladimir and, although not always readily, lent their support to policies designed to achieve common objectives.
In the early fourteenth century Moscow surpassed Vladimir as the center of Grand Princely power under Ivan Kalita. This occurred through armed interference as well as outright purchases of nearby lands. Eventually the Russian lands would be unified around the Great Principality of Moscow. This article will trace the development of the coinage of Moscow during the unification phase of Russian history. This period, commencing about 1380, is a period of feudal disintegration and internecine war, characterized by the absence of any feeling of national unity. The period ends with the unification of Russia under Moscow during the reign of Ivan III (The Great), who ruled from 1503 to 1533. Ivan III finally developed the notion of tsar and was in fact the first Russian Grand Prince to use that title. The concept of tsar was to be fully realized in Ivan''s son Vasili III and grandson Ivan IV (The Terrible). The title tsar is a corruption of the Latin Caesar. Before discussing the actual coinage, the historical scene of this chaotic period must be described.

POLITICAL HISTORY
After more than a three hundred year hiatus, Russian coinage resumed in the second half of the fourteenth century. At this time the Mongol yoke had been over Russia for more than 100 years yet internal strife and rivalries had weakened the Mongols'' previously invincible strength. In 1380 the Russians, under Dimitri Donskoi, stunningly defeated the Mongols at the battle of Kulikovo, on the banks of the Don River. Dimitri''s surname, literally "of the Don" originated from this victory. This was the first major setback for the Mongols and it gave the Russian people hope for future liberation. Concurrent with weakening Mongol rule, Russian trade and commodity manufacture revived and the population shifts due to the Mongol invasions slowed. Local economies were strengthened and a convenient medium of exchange was necessary. This led to the resumption of coinage. Propaganda also played a part as local princes proclaimed their somewhat autonomous positions coincident with the above economic changes. Numerous major and minor princes issued identifiable coins.
At the end of the fourteenth century four Great Principalities (including Moscow) dominated the Russian scene. Tver, Ryazan and Suzdal/Nizhny-Novgorod were all independent to a large degree, even though the Prince of Moscow held the Grand Princely title. The striking of coins then occurred almost simultaneously in Central and Eastern Russia, first in Moscow and then soon after in Suzdal/Nizhny-Novgorod and Ryazan. Tver coinage started shortly after 1400. In addition, many "junior" princes struck local private coinage in feudal domains dependent upon the above Great Principalities.
Previously the Prince of Tver was defeated in a struggle for Grand Princely rule by the Moscow Prince. As a result, the Tver principality became isolated from the outside world. Tver coinage is known for its multitude of design types. Tver did maintain a rather tenuous independence from Moscow until 1486, when Ivan III annexed it.
At this point, Dimitri Donskoi (of the Don River), as Grand Prince, merged the throne of Vladimir into that of the Great Principality of Moscow. He achieved this through his glory at the battle of Kulikovo and his placating of the Mongol Khan. After Kulikovo, the Khan Mamai was overthrown and replaced by Khan Tokhtamish. In 1382, Tokhtamish led a new invasion of Russia to avenge the previous Mongol defeat. Moscow was sacked and, as a result, the Russian princes, under Dimitri, agreed to new submissions to the Mongols. Substantial tribute was promised and Dimitri was the sole collector on behalf of the Mongols. Thus, he curried favor from the Khan and assured his retention of the Grand Princely title. His testament would begin a hereditary right of succession of the throne. Future Grand Princes would be chosen from the Princes of Moscow. This was the start of the unification process.
The Great Principality of Ryazan played no part in the previously mentioned struggle between Tver and Moscow. Ryazan, situated southeast of Moscow, took the first and heaviest blows of the Mongol invasion. In 1237 the city of Ryazan was pillaged and burned. At that time the Grand Prince was not sufficiently strong to mobilize a force to try to protect the eastern frontier. Eventually the Mongol Horde would sweep across most of the Russian lands. Due to its geographic site, Ryazan would continue to be the target of frequent Mongol raids. As a result Ryazan culture and politics were heavily influenced by the Mongols. Even their later coinage would initially consist of counterstamped Mongol coins. Ryazan was annexed to the Moscow territories in 1520.
The Great Principality of Suzdal/Nizhny-Novgorod was dominated by the two major cities Suzdal and Nizhny-Novgorod, both northeast of Moscow. Suzdal was quite ancient and had had a glorious past. By the end of the fourteenth century, however, Nizhny-Novgorod became the main center of the principality. Like Ryazan, Nizhny-Novgorod was an eastern frontier city, acting as a buffer between hostile neighbors and the central Muscovite lands. It remained a Great Principality, with independent princes, as long as the Moscow Princes were unable to fortify and colonize the eastern frontier. As Moscow grew, its independence declined until it was annexed in 1451. Like Ryazan, the early coinage of Suzdal/Nizhny-Novgorod shows definite Mongol influence, including Arabic legends.
The northern city of Novgorod was quite important at this time, especially economically, as it was a center of trade with the West. Novgorod is not considered a principality but rather a democratic city-state where the ruling prince was no more than a figurehead. Real rule rested with the town council. Novgorod was taken by Moscow in 1478.
As stated above, coinage resumed first in Moscow, under the authority of Grand Prince Dimitri Donskoi. Several key factors contributed to the rise of Moscow. Its strategic location at the center of the intricate river system of Russia was important as was the fact that both the Grand Prince and the Metropolitan of the Russian Church were situated at Moscow. After the Mongol invasions many of the masses of people who left the ravaged eastern frontier passed through and settled in the Principality of Moscow. In 1389 Dimitri was succeeded by his son Vasili I who ruled until 1425. Next came Vasili II, the son of Vasili I, who was then succeeded by Ivan III in 1462. The coinage of these four rulers, all descendents of Ivan Kalita, encompasses the unification phase of Russia.

COIN DENOMINATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
The extreme diversity of pictorial types represented by these coins attests to the lack of a central mint during this period. Evidently the striking of coins was contracted out, probably to a number of silversmiths, some of whom would strike coins for several princes concurrently. Thus, some design similarities do exist. Gold coins from this period are not known with the exception of a unique gold "ducat" of Ivan III dating from about 1484. Mostly anonymous copper coins were struck for local use in the reigns of Vasili II and Ivan III. The denomination of the copper coins, Pul or Pulo, is shown on the coins themselves - "Pulo Moscovskoye - Pulo of Moscow" but the relationship of copper to silver is not known and probably fluctuated depending upon time and place. The denomination of the silver coins, denga, is found only rarely on coins from this period. Subsequently the term dengi came to be the Russian word for the concept of money. The terms pulo and denga are probably of Mongol origin and are unknown to literary sources of the pre-Mongol era.
The term "wire money" is derived from the universal minting technique used for both silver and copper coins. The planchets were literally made from rolled silver or copper wire which was then cut into appropriate sections, depending upon the desired weight. The metal was annealed and then struck into coinage. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the wire was generally not flattened before insertion into the dies. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as coin weights were reduced and planchets became smaller the wire was first flattened before striking. Thus the earlier issues are decidedly rare with complete legends and designs. Well struck specimens command a substantial premium. Irregular shapes are the rule for this series. Elsewhere in Europe minting techniques included hammering silver into sheets and then cutting planchets out of these sheets. This system was inefficient as the waste silver had to be remelted in order to be re-used. However, greater regularity of the coin blanks was obtained with the European system.

IMAGES ON COINS
The earliest artistic representations on the coins exhibit substantial internal development when compared to Mongol coinage. After more than a hundred years of subjection to the Mongol Horde, it is surprising to see the richness of Russian coinage as opposed to mainly epigraphic coins of the east. Generally speaking, the images on coins of this period show no evolution or common thread. Random designs predominate. Yet this randomness points to an originality of design not as evident in other European countries. Types represented on the coins include human figures, scenes of the hunt and combat, horsemen, animals and decorative symbols. Obviously, combinations of these images are also known. Considering the coin sizes (usually 9 or 10 mm) the images were not as restricted as one would think. The entire medieval period is marked by this diversity of types except for cities of Novgorod and Pskov. This was probably due to a greater centralization of minting operations in those two cities. The licensing to metal artisans in the rest of Russian allowed for substantial latitude in design selection. Specific types of each ruler will be discussed in conjunction with the legends.

INSCRIPTIONS
The inscriptions on the coins are either in Russian or are bilingual, Russian and Arabic. The bilingual issues were common during the Mongol domination. Most medieval Russian coins commonly specify the issuing prince''s name and patronymic (his father''s name e.g. "Dimitri Ivanovich - Dimitri, son of Ivan"). If both names are present on a coin attribution is simplified. The absence of the patronymic creates difficulty because of the common usage of identical names by princes of different principalities. Some coins of this period are anonymous or illegible and there are still many coins not positively attributed to a given city, let alone a specific prince. The coins of the principality of Suzdal/Nizhny-Novgorod especially are quite confusing.
The coin inscriptions initially read "Seal of the Grand Prince" and the prince''s name. Then the word "seal" is dropped but the grammar still denotes possession "by the Grand Prince." As Moscow grew in importance and power, the title on the coins matured. First to "Grand Prince of all Russia" and then to "Sovereign of all the Russian lands." Ivan III was the first Russian ruler to call himself tsar but the title does not appear on his coins. His son, Vasili III (1505-33) was the first to use this title on coins. In the fifteenth century, a unique Latin inscription is found on coins of Ivan III. The inscription "Ornistotelis" probably refers to the moneyer for the issue. The name "Master Alexandro" appears in a Russian inscription on another coin of Ivan III. Once again this was the name of a moneyer.

DIMITRI DONSKOI
The first coins of Moscow were probably struck as a result of Dimitri Donskoi''s victory at Kulikovo. The battle thrust the Prince of Moscow into the political forefront of Russia and sparked a desire to proclaim this importance. Unfortunately the sacking of Moscow in 1382 by Tokhtamish restored Mongol rule but the Russian victory was not forgotten. All coins of Dimitri Donskoi carry an Arabic inscription on the reverse, usually with the name of the reigning Khan Tokhtamish signifying the continued subservience. However, there is no direct indication in any source that attests this was done at the orders of the Khan. It is likely that after the raid of 1382, Dimitri wished to pay homage to the Khan to avoid further punitive expeditions against Russia. In spite of the victory of 1380, the Russian princes were not truly united, even against a common enemy. Further, between prior Mongol raids and the "Black Death" of the 1350s, the Russian population was exhausted. The obverse of Dimitri''s coins consists of the circular legend "Seal of Grand Prince Dimitri", enclosing the figure of a rooster or a human male head. While no significance is attached to the pictorial design, the legend obviously declares his right to the Grand Princely throne. The fact that the Khan still had to sanction his rule did not dilute its meaning. All coins of Dimitri are rare.

VASILI I
Dimitri''s son Vasili continued to strike coins, though on a much larger scale than his father. Both series are somewhat similar in appearance, but the metrology is different due to weight and purity reductions. The coin reverses continue the Arabic inscriptions of Dimitri including naming Khan Tokhtamish, due to Vasili''s need for confirmation of his throne from that Khan. The Khan was overthrown by Timur (Tamerlane) in 1395 who hastened the Mongol decline and lessened their grip on Russia.
Vasili had inherited a difficult political situation. While the Mongol threat began to wane, encroachments from Lithuania began in spite of Vasili''s marriage to the daughter of Vitovt, the Grand Prince of Lithuania. Vitovt had designs on the Moscow throne. Meanwhile the control of Moscow over Tver, Ryazan, and Novgorod was terribly weak, with these lands conducting their affairs independently. More positively, Vasili had continued to extend the Moscow domain by seizing the principality of Suzdal/Nizhny-Novgorod in 1392. His rule there did not last long, however, and it was not officially annexed until 1451 under Vasili 11.
In 1417 Vasili I''s eldest son Ivan died and the Grand Princely title was to pass to the infant Vasili II. At this point the rules for succession were still not fixed and Vasili I''s brother, Yuri, contested the naming of Vasili II. Yuri was the Prince of Galich, which was a feudal domain under the Great Principality of Moscow. Thus Yuri was a "junior" prince compared to Vasili I. The dispute over succession, then, involved not which Grand Principality should lead Russia, but rather which line of the Moscow princes should control Moscow. It was not debated that Moscow was the center of Russia. When Vasili I died, Yuri gathered forces to seize the Grand Princely title. Because of Lithuania support of Vasili II, Yuri backed off but conflict was to continue during the reign of Vasili II.
The obverse legends of Vasili I''s coins carry the evolutionary legend "Grand Prince of All Russia" signifying the continued rise of Moscow. He also sought to solidify the right of succession to his family. A major design common to Russian coinage was introduced in his reign. The horseman type appears, either with a sword or a falcon in the hand of the rider. Falconing had traditionally been considered a princely sport. The horseman type, after modifications, would become the sole Russian type of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Other designs of Vasili include quadruped animals and human figures with swords and axes.

VASILI II (THE BLIND)
Shortly before his death in 1425, Vasili I had named his son, Vasili II, to succeed him as Grand Prince of all Russia. Upon the death of Vasili, Yuri of Galich began to marshal his forces. The Metropolitan of the Russian church, the merchant class of Moscow, and Vitovt, the Grand Prince of Lithuania, all supported Vasili II. However, it was initially agreed that a final decision would be left to the Khan. Events progressed slowly until 1431 when both the Metropolitan and Vitovt died. Yuri immediately declared war on Vasili. It was not until 1432 that the Khan''s envoy installed Vasili II on the throne of Moscow. This enthronement now took place at Moscow instead of Vladimir. This was to be the last time that a Mongol envoy participated in the coronation of the Grand Prince of Russia.
Vasili''s worries were not over, however, as Yuri managed to occupy Moscow in 1432 and 1434. Yuri''s successes became meaningless when he died in mid-1434. Yuri''s eldest son Vasili Kosoi attempted to take the throne but he had no support. After several engagements Vasili II captured and blinded Vasili Kosoi in 1436. The rule of Vasili II was interrupted again in 1445, when he was captured by the Mongols in the Battle of Suzdal. This convinced Dimitri Shemyaka, the second son of Yuri of Galich, to try his turn at the Grand Princely throne. The people of Moscow were to pay a large ransom to the Mongols to free Vasili but the people rebelled. This reinforced Dimitri Shemyaka''s ambitions and in 1446 Vasili was captured by him and blinded, hence the nickname "Vasili the Blind". Vasili was banished from Moscow but local unrest fueled a movement to restore him to the throne. In 1447 Vasili was restored. Dimitri was eventually poisoned in 1453.
The minting of coins of Vasili was twice interrupted as coinage of the Princes of Galich replaced it when he was unseated. Yuri and his son Dimitri had struck coins at Galich, part of the Great Principality of Moscow. During their occupations of Moscow, coins were struck there showing the inscription "Grand Prince". It is debatable whether these are coins of Galich or Moscow since neither ruler was properly recognized. Shortly after Vasili''s return to the throne in 1447 he struck coins with the new legend "Lord of all the Russian Lands". This proclaimed his victory and his entitlement to the throne. Previously his coins carried the legend "Grand Prince Vasili" similar to those of his forefathers. Obverse designs were similar to prior issues. The horseman type was more frequently used, but the variety of types and even weights is overwhelming. A likely answer for this diversity is the confusing political period of Vasili''s reign.
Reverses of his coins tended to show only a multi-line Russian legend, with no design. This development was due to the weight and size reductions of coins under Vasili. According to Oreshnikov, the primary reference for coins of this period, from 1380 to 1410 coin weight declined from 1.03 grams to 0.80. Between 1410 and 1434, weights dropped to .58 grams and finally, between 1434 and 1462 the weights dropped again to .31 grams. Given the minting techniques of the time, these small coins were not suitable for circular inscriptions since too much would be missing from each coin. Linear inscriptions had a better chance of remaining intelligible.
After Vasili finally won the civil war, he proceeded to annex various territories to Moscow. Galich and Mozhaisk were now directly under Vasili. The city of Dmitrov had been seized in 1428. In 1456 Vasili II was named guardian of the eight year old Prince of Ryazan. This was the start of Ryazan dependence which would culminate in formal annexation by Moscow in 1520. More importantly, Novgorod lost most of its independence in 1456 when Vasili avenged the help Novgorod had given his antagonists in the civil war. Prior to 1456 Novgorod coinage carried the reverse legend "Of Great Novgorod". After Vasili''s victory the legend changes to "Seal of the Grand Prince" indicating dependence on Moscow.
The disorders of this reign eventually led to a strengthening of the Moscow state as the fiercest test of the Grand Princely authority was now over.

IVAN III (THE GREAT)
Ivan is usually called the founder of the Russian State but it is important to remember the firm foundation laid by his predecessors. Coinage of Ivan III took place in the time of the end of the Mongol yoke. This liberation was not due to a dramatic battle but rather was due to the inability of the Mongols to continue to enforce their rule. In 1480 armies of both forces faced each other, but Khan Akhmet withdrew his force before any contact was made. After this, the Grand Prince of Moscow would pay no further tribute. This was foreshadowed in 1462, for when Ivan was proclaimed Grand Prince in that year it was without any sanction from the Khan. As respects Russian affairs, however, Ivan''s accession was of little significance since it was merely a continuation of the Grand Princely policy started before him.
In the course of his reign, Ivan more than tripled Moscow''s dominions. Novgorod had already lost some independence under Vasili II, and was now leaning towards an alliance with Poland and Lithuania. As a result, Ivan attacked and annexed the city in 1478. The Principality of Tver also looked to Lithuania for support, so Ivan invaded and subdued the area in 1485. Other minor territories followed. After these successes Ivan began to use the title tsar although not on his coins. His son Vasili III would be the first to use that title on coins but not regularly. In 1547 Ivan IV (The Terrible) would standardize use of the title.
Judging by the smaller number of images on his coins compared to prior ones, it appears that the use of metalworkers as moneyers was being replaced by a more permanent mint. The predominate design type is the horseman type, which was now considered the "Moscow Arms". Several distinct horseman types appear. The legends on Ivan''s coins state the formulas "Grand Prince Ivan, son of Vasili" as well as "Lord of all Russia". These compare with his father''s inscriptions. Bilingual coins of Ivan exist, which is surprising in that they were struck at a time of no Mongol interference. The Arabic legend reads "This is a denga of Moscow". This legend is repeated in Russian on other types. It is unusual that at this time anonymous coins were struck which are attributed to both Ivan III and his son Vasili III. It is probable that the name was omitted purposely. Almost all Russian coinage was now in the hands of the Grand Prince of Moscow - only Pskov continued to strike independent coinage until 1510. Thus, it was thought unnecessary to identify the issuing ruler since there was only one issuing ruler, the Grand Prince of Moscow.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
ALEF, G. Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth Century Muscovy, Variorum Reprints, London.
CHERNETSOV, A. Types on Russian Coins of the XIV and XV Centuries (translated by H. Wells), British Archeological Reports, Oxford.
ORESHNIKOV, A. Russian Coins Before 1547 (in Russian) Moscow (out of print).
SPASSKY, I. The Russian Monetary System, Jacques Schulman N.V., Amsterdam.

Tsar Ivan III
Ivan Vasilyevich
Born: 22-Jan-1440
Birthplace: Moscow, Russia
Died: 27-Oct-1505
Location of death: Moscow, Russia

Ivan III, Grand Duke of Muscovy, son of Vasily Vasilievich the Blind, Grand Duke of Moscow, and Maria Yaroslavovna, was born in 1440. He was co-regent with his father during the latter years of his life and succeeded him in 1462. Ivan tenaciously pursued the unifying policy of his predecessors. Nevertheless, cautious to timidity, like most of the princes of the house of Rurik, he avoided as far as possible any violent collision with his neighbors until all the circumstances were exceptionally favorable, always preferring to attain his ends gradually, circuitously and subterraneously. Muscovy had by this time become a compact and powerful state, while her rivals had grown sensibly weaker, a condition of things very favorable to the speculative activity of a statesman of Ivan III''s peculiar character. His first enterprise was a war with the republic of Novgorod, which, alarmed at the growing dominancy of Muscovy, had placed herself beneath the protection of Casimir IV, King of Poland, an alliance regarded at Moscow as an act of apostasy from orthodoxy. Ivan took the field against Novgorod in 1470, and after his generals had twice defeated the forces of the republic, at Shelona and on the Dvina, during the summer of 1471, the Novgorodians were forced to sue for peace, which they obtained on engaging to abandon forever the Polish alliance, ceding a considerable portion of their northern colonies, and paying a war indemnity of 15,500 roubles. From that point forward Ivan sought continually a pretext for destroying Novgorod altogether; but though he frequently violated its ancient privileges in minor matters, the attitude of the republic was so wary that his looked-for opportunity did not come until 1477. In that year the ambassadors of Novgorod played into his hands by addressing him in public audience as "Gosudar" (sovereign) instead of "Gospodin" (Sir) as heretofore. Ivan at once seized upon this as a recognition of his sovereignty, and when the Novgorodians repudiated their ambassadors, he marched against them. Deserted by Casimir IV, and surrounded on every side by the Muscovite armies, which included a Tatar contingent, the republic recognized Ivan as autocrat, and surrendered (January 14, 1478) all her prerogatives and possessions (the latter including the whole of northern Russia from Lapland to the Urals) into his hands. Subsequent revolts (1479-88) were punished by the removal en masse of the richest and most ancient families of Novgorod to Moscow, Vyatka and other central Russian cities. After this, Novgorod, as an independent state, ceased to exist. The rival republic of Pskov owed the continuance of its own political existence to the readiness with which it assisted Ivan against its ancient enemy. The other principalities were virtually absorbed, by conquest, purchase or marriage contract - Yaroslavl in 1463, Rostov in 1474, Tver in 1485.
Ivan''s refusal to share his conquests with his brothers, and his subsequent interference with the internal politics of their inherited principalities, involved him in several wars with them, from which, though the princes were assisted by Lithuania, he emerged victorious. Finally, Ivan''s new rule of government, formally set forth in his last will to the effect that the domains of all his kinsfolk, after their deaths, should pass directly to the reigning grand duke instead of reverting, as before, to the prince''s heirs, put an end once for all to these semi-independent princelets. The further extension of the Muscovite dominion was facilitated by the death of Casimir IV in 1492, when Poland and Lithuania once more parted company. The throne of Lithuania was now occupied by Casimir''s son Alexander, a weak and lethargic prince so incapable of defending his possessions against the persistent attacks of the Muscovites that he attempted to save them by a matrimonial compact, and wedded Helena, Ivan''s daughter. But the clear determination of Ivan to appropriate as much of Lithuania as possible at last compelled Alexander in 1499 to take up arms against his father-in-law. The Lithuanians were routed at Vedrosha (July 14, 1500), and in 1503 Alexander was glad to purchase peace by ceding to Ivan Chernigov, Starodub, Novgorod-Syeversk and sixteen other towns.
It was in the reign of Ivan III that Muscovy rejected the Tatar yoke. In 1480 Ivan refused to pay the customary tribute to the grand Khan Ahmed. When, however, the grand khan marched against him, Ivan''s courage began to fail, and only the stern exhortations of the high-spirited bishop of Rostov, Vassian, could induce him to take the field. All through the autumn the Russian and Tatar hosts confronted each other on opposite sides of the Ugra, until the 11th of November, when Ahmed retired into the steppe. In the following year the grand khan, while preparing a second expedition against Moscow, was suddenly attacked, routed and slain by Ivak, the khan of the Nogai Tatars, whereupon the Golden Horde suddenly fell to pieces. In 1487 Ivan reduced the khanate of Kazan (one of the offshoots of the Horde) to the condition of a vassal-state, though in his later years it broke away from his suzerainty. With the other Mahommedan powers, the khan of the Crimea and the sultan of Turkey, Ivan''s relations were pacific and even amicable. The Crimean khan, Mengli Girai, helped him against Lithuania and facilitated the opening of diplomatic intercourse between Moscow and Constantinople, where the first Russian embassy appeared in 1495.
The character of the government of Muscovy under Ivan III changed essentially and took on an autocratic form which it had never had before. This was due not merely to the natural consequence of the hegemony of Moscow over the other Russian lands, but even more to the simultaneous growth of new and exotic principles falling upon a soil already prepared for them. After the fall of Constantinople, orthodox canonists were inclined to regard the Muscovite grand dukes as the successors by the Byzantine emperors. This movement coincided with a change in the family circumstances of Ivan III. After the death of his first consort, Maria of Tver (1467), at the suggestion of Pope Paul II (1469), who hoped thereby to bind Russia to the holy see, Ivan III wedded the Catholic Zoe Palaeologa (better known by her orthodox name of Sophia), daughter of Thomas, despot of the Morea, who claimed the throne of Constantinople as the nearest relative of the last Greek emperor. The princess, however, clave to her family traditions, and awoke imperial ideas in the mind of her consort. It was through her influence that the ceremonious etiquette of Constantinople (along with the imperial double-headed eagle and all that it implied) was adopted by the court of Moscow. The grand duke henceforth held aloof from his boyars. The old patriarchal systems of government vanished. The boyars were no longer consulted on affairs of state. The sovereign became sacrosanct, while the boyars were reduced to the level of slaves absolutely dependent on the will of the sovereign. The boyars naturally resented so insulting a revolution, and struggled against it, at first with some success. But the clever Greek lady prevailed in the end, and it was her son Vasily, not Maria of Tver''s son, Demetrius, who was ultimately crowned co-regent with his father (April 14, 1502). It was in the reign of Ivan III that the first Russian "Law Book", or code, was compiled by the scribe Gusev. Ivan did his utmost to promote civilization in his realm, and with that object invited many foreign masters and artificers to settle in Muscovy, the most noted of whom was the Italian Ridolfo di Fioravante, nicknamed Aristotle because of his extraordinary knowledge, who built the cathedrals of the Assumption (Uspenski) and of Saint Michael or the Holy Archangels in the Kremlin.

Father: Vasily II (Tsar of Russia)
Mother: Maria of Borovsk (Maria Yaroslavovna)
Wife: Sophia (Zoe Palaeologa, m. 1469)
http://www.nndb.com/people/775/000097484/

____________________________________________________________________

HISTORIAN AND PHILOSOPHER LEV GUMILEV - POET OF HISTORY

By M. Faustova

October marked the 90th birth anniversary of the Russian geographer, historian and philosopher Lev Gumilev. The Russian Culture Foundation hosted the celebratory evening to mark the event bringing together those who were acquainted with Gumilev as well as admirers of the scientist believed to have defined his epoch.
Lev Gumilev is a person of a thorny destiny. He was born into the family of the outstanding Silver Age poets - Anna Akhmatova and Nikolai Gumilev. His father, Nikolai Gumilev, was executed by shooting in the early 1920s for his alleged involvement in the anti-governmental plot. Lev Gumilev is said to inherit discontent from the authorities. Once he joked sadly that he spent eight years behind bars "for father" and eight more "for mother". And that was true.
He debuted in science brilliantly after graduating from the Leningrad University. He thought in a very innovative manner taking as basis historic and philosophic theories. Lev Gumilev formed his own perception of the world creating new doctrines rejected by everyone at his time. He was the father of ethnogenesis theory, under which nations originate from regularity of the society development, and the "passion" theory - the human ability to sacrifice for the sake of ideological purposes, as Gumilev stated. "Passion" is a hereditary biological ability of the man, and "passion-field" individuals are creators of history, for instance, Prophet Mohammed, Alexander the Macedonian, Napoleon and Vladimir Lenin.
He proved strong despite almost 16 years he spent in Stalin''s camps, participation in the Second World War and a Nazis concentration camp. Wherever he was he did not loose the sense of life that he saw in work, research and creativity. It is generally known that after he was convicted for the second time in the late 1940s and sentenced to 10 years of camps (GULAG) for contra-Marks and Lenin ideology activities, he continued researches in seeking definitions for ethnos and wrote in the camp a large part of his most renowned book "Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere".
Prominent Russian cultural and art workers who attended the evening to commemorate Lev Gumilev emphasized that he was surprisingly ordinary and open-hearted as a person. Famous filmmaker and Culture Foundation President Nikita Mikhalkov says he was happy to meet several times with Lev Gumilev and was completely astonished not being prepared to intercourse with such a distinguished personality. He was the last poet of history, Mr. Mikhalkov said, and was able to shift rapidly from routine and simple things to the deepest and incomprehensible for the then history of humankind. Nikita Mikhalkov says he could never even imagine that ideas of what we are could be presented with such deepness. Lev Gumilev was the first to say that the Russian nation was born in 1380 when Tartar-Mongol troops were crashed during the Battle of Kulikovo. The victory was our predecessors'' merit since by contrast with Tartars they were unified by one language - Russian. Gumilev was saying simple things, at first sight, not connected with history, but in general they were clearly related to the man and his history. Nikita Mikhalkov says Lev Gumilev amazed him as a person who could deeply penetrate into the very essence of any problem or issue and reveal it basing not only on knowledge but also his own sense of being a part of the great and astonishing whole.
Lev Gumilev is called now the Great Eurasian Man. Nikita Mikhalkov attributes it to the fact that thanks to Gumilev we could sense that Russia is the world''s single "institution" linking Europe and Asia. Gumilev used to say that both Oriental culture and Western civilization came through Russia. Civilization and culture, he said, are not the same thing. Civilization is the use of the results of culture, whereas culture is a movement through hundreds of centuries and thousands of generations. On this score Gumilev''s researches have specific role for promoting the national science and spiritual environment of the Russian society. Mr. Mikhalkov regards Gumilev as a very crucial pendulum counting off time of our existence and our perception of the past, present and future.
"Khunnu", "Ancient Turki and the Opening of Khazaria", "In Search For Imaginary Kingdom", "Ancient Russia and Great Steppe", The Geography of Ethnos in Historical Period", "Nor the Candle Goes Out" - these are just a few works by the prominent philosopher Lev Gumilev. He was a man of encyclopedic knowledge who promoted the Russian science and philosophy, created theories that only now national specialists come to approve. Lev Gumilev founded the new field of philosophy - ethnography intervening it with psychology, geography and history. Even in our time many works by Lev Gumilev are not fully esteemed since being a prophet he went far away beyond the bounds of the century, in which he lived and created.
__________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION TO ETHNOGENESIS & THE BIOSPHERE
by Lev Gumilev: Part One

In which the need for ethnology is substantiated and the author sets out his views on ethnogenesis, without his line of reasoning, to which the rest of the treatise will be devoted, and in which the author will lead the reader through a labyrinth of contradictions.

The Grounds for Scientific Quest
Time and history. History is the study of processes taking place in time, but what that time is nobody knows. There is nothing surprising in that. Fish probably do not know what water is, because they have nothing to compare it with. And if they chance to be in air they do not have enough time to compare it with water.
V.I. Vernadsky deemed death as the separation of space and time [1], because inert matter, in his opinion, was timeless. He was seemingly right, but historians are concerned only with the processes of dying in which the now becomes the past. But is the past real?
There is not unanimity of opinion on that among modern scholars.
There is a very common view that there is no past. Giovanni Gentile wrote: "In times past men were born and thought and labored... but all these are long since dead like the flowers on whose scent and beauty in their lives they feasted, or like the leaves which they saw growing green in spring or sere and fallen in the Autumn. Their memory lives; but a world remembered, like the world of dreams, is nothing; and remembering no better than to dream." [2]
The historian, in short, knows well enough that the life and meaning of past facts is not to be discovered in characters or inscriptions, or in any actual relics of the past; their source is in his own personality. [3]
One cannot agree with that, but let us wait to dispute it, since others, too, have written on this theme. Dilthey and Gardiner were even more categorical. They, in fact, denied history, affirming that its conclusions were unreliable since historians were inevitably subjective, and therefore could not be dispassionate. ''The primeval cell of the historical world is the happening in which the subject finds himself in an active relation of life with his surroundings”. [4]
Gardiner has said: "There are no absolute Real Causes waiting to be discovered by historians with sufficiently powerful magnifying-glasses. What do exist are historians writing upon different levels and at different distances, historians writing with different aims and different interests, historians writing in different contexts and from different points of view." [5]
Modern historians, it would seem, have provided these thinkers with the material for such pessimistic conclusions, the same historians aptly described by Anatole France:
"Do we write history? Do you imagine that we attempt to extract the least parcel of life or truth from a text or a document? We publish texts purely and simply. We keep to their exact letter... Ideas are crotchets." [6]
I do not wish to defend that position but surely the dispute is in fact about it. So let us introduce the needed clarity.
The dispute, if one began it, would be based on a philological misunderstanding. A whole series of tasks, quite different from one another though interconnected, are called history now. (1) The publication and translation of ancient sources is a necessary task, but only yields raw material. (2) Historical criticism, sifting out the deliberate and sometimes unconscious lies of authors of antiquity, is the production of semifinished goods. (3) Comparison of the material won about what was previously accumulated is already the product, but not yet a consumable one. Then there is (4) the interpretation of facts on the plane of the problem posed and (5) the posing of new problems arising at the juncture of sciences. The philosophers mentioned above, and many like them, were sorry essentially about the fact that they could not use the obtained raw material without further processing, which is actually impossible, but there is no other way and will not be. The philosophers are right about something else - not everyone can find this road.
The simplest generalizations, it seems … heat of emotions that thought melts and takes on a new form, astonishing the candid reader at first but then convincing him. The point is not what course of thought or choice of arguments a thesis is proved by; that is a craft, which it is necessary to know, of course, but is not enough to know. The point is why a new thesis is sometimes discovered and demonstrated. That is a mystery of the psychology of creation that the Greeks ascribed to the muse of history Clio, who reminded us that the skepticism of the philosophers was unjustified and that the past was not personal experience and not a dream. Because the present is only a moment, instantaneously becoming the past. There is no future, because no acts that determine consequences of some sort are completed, and it is not known whether they will be in the future. The future can only be gauged statistically, with a tolerance that deprives the calculation of practical value. But the past exists; and everything that exists is past, since anything completed then and there becomes the past. That is why history studies the only reality, which exists outside us and in spite of us.
Talk about the unreliability of subjective perception is idle chatter. Reliability is always necessary within definite limits, beyond which it becomes meaningless. It is impossible and unnecessary to calculate the distance from Moscow to Leningrad to an accuracy of a millimeter. It is the same in history, but it has its own specifics of the posing of the problem.
It is reasonable to study processes (social, ethnic, and cultural) rather than nuances of the sensations of historical personages. The degree of accuracy in collecting primary information is small, but when long-lasting processes are traced chance errors cancel one another out, so that we can get a description meeting the needs of our practical task, viz. to understand an epoch. And the wider the coverage the greater the accuracy.
With that posing of the matter there is no sense in increasing the number of petty details above the necessary, because they create cybernetic ''noise''. And the principle of the selection of facts is prompted by the task posed.
Since I start from the point that an ethnos is a natural phenomenon in its forming, the basis for studying it can only be the philosophy of science, i.e. dialectical materialism. Historical materialism sets itself the goal of disclosing the laws of social development, i.e. relates (as Marx put it) to the history of people and not to the history of nature which lies in men''s bodies. And although both these ''histories'' are closely interwoven and interconnected, scientific analysis calls for refining the angle of vision, i.e. the aspect. The historical material we draw on is our information archive and no more. It is necessary and sufficient for the purposes of analyzing it. Marx expressed himself clearly about this:
"History itself is a real part of natural history and of nature''s becoming man. Natural science will in time subsume the science of man just as the science of man will subsume natural science: there will be one science." [7]
We are now on the threshold of the creation of this science.
When it becomes a matter of synthesis, the approach to a problem is correspondingly altered. But, of course, analysis precedes synthesis, and there is no need to jump the gun. Let us say simply that the elements of a scientific materialist science will remain inseparable in it. Having agreed on the meaning of the terms and character of the method, let us pass to the posing of the problem.
In declaring that an ethnos is a biophysical phenomenon, that drive is an effect of the energy of the animate matter of the biosphere, and that consciousness, and equally the history of culture linked with the biosphere, play the role of rudder and not of the motor, we have not resolved the problem posed but have only noted the means of tackling it. But let''s not rush things; let us see whether there is an analogous posing of the problem in contemporary science. There is! Karl Jaspers proposed his own solution. 8 Let us familiarize ourselves with it.
A philosophical-historical conception has prevailed in Western Europe (and only there) since the fifth century A.D., i.e. from Augustine to Hegel, that regarded the historical process as a single line with a beginning and an end, i.e. with completion of its sense. A religious comprehension of history as a striving for the Absolute arose initially from this conception, and then an atheistic ''religion of progress''. Jaspers'' views are the latest version of this theory.
Jaspers singled out from history an ''axial time'' when, between 800 and 200 B.C., spiritual movements arose parallelly in China, India, Persia, Palestine, and Hellas that shaped the type of man that allegedly has existed to the present time. In China these were Confucius and Lao-tzu, in India the Upanishads and Buddhism, in Iran Zarathustra, in Palestine the prophets, in Hellas Homer and the great philosophers. All the world religions and philosophical systems arose from them, and other peoples, like the ''pre-axials'', are unhistorical and can only become enlightened from the ''axial'' peoples and their successors, because there was an ''awakening of the spirit'' and ''ultimate questions of being'' were posed in the ''axial time'', questions of death, finitude, tragic guilt, and the meaning of human existence. The ''axial time'' was, as it were, the root of all subsequent history. [8]
Jaspers did not explain how the parallelism he noted arose in the development of cultures independent of each other, and from what. Neither the invasion of China, India, and Europe by nomad Arians nor the social conditions in those countries, can provide a satisfactory answer. The genesis of the phenomenon remains an open question, but it is an undoubted fact that a ''philosophy of faith'' arose at that time, and in those regions, which provides a real link, to Jaspers'' mind, between nations and cultures.
I shall stop here, because the philosophical part of the doctrine of existentialism, discussion of the present and future, and attempts to explain the sense of history, can only be interesting when the structure''s foundation is quite firm. And that seems even to be doubtful.
First of all, this ''axis'' is very broad. Six hundred years is a period into which much could be squeezed; in addition, it is clear by comparison that immense changes took place during that time, with different results for different countries. China, for example, was united by the Han dynasty, and Hellas and Persia were conquered by ''unhistorical'' barbarians - Macedonians and Parthians. Something is not right.
Let us read further attentively. Jaspers compared how the period of progressive development was completed: in China the Ch''ing Empire (221-202 B.C.), the Maurya Kingdom in India, the Roman Empire, and the Hellenistic states. But in the third century B.C. the kingdoms of the Diadochi in Egypt, Syria, Macedonia, and Bactria were by no means powerful, while Rome was exhausted by the Second Punic War. The Maurya Kingdom in India broke up after the death of Asoka in 226 B.C. Was it because there was disintegration in the West but integration in China? If we compare China with the age of Augustus the chronological assumption is as much as 300 years. Isn''t that a lot?
The idea of an ''axial time'' as a source of spiritual life is refuted by the history of ancient America; the Mayas, Toltecs, and the forerunners of the Incas in the Andes (the Tiahuanaco culture) were not, after all, inferior to the ancient Chinese, Indians, Persians, Hebrews, and Greeks. And it is quite untrue that China withstood the onslaught of the Mongol nomads, rather the contrary.
One can also find more grounds for doubt, but that is not the point. Jaspers'' conception is the most substantiated attempt to understand history as a boon bestowed on primitive savages by these five peoples that made the ''breakthrough'' or ''leap'', and were born anew as it were. This is an arrangement of the views not only of St. Augustine, the source of all the heresies of the Middle Ages, but even of the old Judaic thinkers who created their doctrine of being the God-Chosen people. With a theory of ethnogenesis as a process occurring everywhere, it is impossible to agree with Jaspers. But disagreement is not enough. Let us try and get evidence from the contrary, but not from an academic survey of the trifles it is easy to drown any dispute in, but by a graphic survey of historical reality in the millennium since the ''axial time''.
To begin with, let me note that there actually was the parallelism of the development of the several cultures of antiquity noted by Jaspers, but it was not the sole parallel, and not so fruitful one for singling out the Chinese, Hindus, Iranians, Hebrews, and Greeks in a special category of people; and it faded like other drive explosions of ethnogenesis. That is my counter-thesis. Now let me proceed to check it.
The view from up above. Feelings for other ages swirl in the breast of the historian, but when they surface they are converted into thoughts that hover like ghosts, pale and weightless, incapable of penetrating the consciousness of the reader -the unknown friend for whom they are born.
How is one to give them the primary force of the passion that once generated them? Let me try an old dodge-an image-and may the reader forgive me for beginning a scientific treatise with a lyrical digression.
Imagine that a space vehicle has come close to Earth carrying supermodern observational instruments that record the details of a strip of the Old World of the surface between 30'' and 50'' north latitude. America, let us assume, lies in unilluminated part of the planet at the time of approach. The observations are fed into the spacecraft''s computer, which rejects data not of interest to the spacemen, leaving only what is connected with human culture. Natural conditions will be taken into consideration only when it becomes clear during the work that they are needed in order to understand the genesis of culture.
The first thing the newcomer will see will be the geographical areas of different independent cultures connected with the peculiarities of relief and climate of the regions of the Eurasia and of those of North Africa contiguous to it. The cultural types themselves will be blurred, as for the earthly historian who is concerned with early antiquity. Before the spaceman there will then be outlined the contours of Egypt and Babylon of the second millennium B.C., but not yet of China and India. In the first millennium B.C. he will see, in addition to those countries, Hellas and Rome, but the main, central part of the continent will open up to his instruments only from the beginning of our era. He will then be able to begin a global analysis of his historical observations.
Try and imagine yourself in the place of this newcomer from outer space, on the assumption that he is anthropomorphous and thinks in the categories of earthly logic.
The stream of fight coming to meet him from Earth will bear with it quick panoramas with intervals (breaks) for the time when the territory interesting him is on the other side of the planet rotating on its axis.
Assume that historical panoramas are fixed every 300 years for, say (arbitrarily), the second, fifth, eighth, and twelfth centuries A.D. The sum total of the knowledge so obtained will correspond approximately to the level of knowledge of an educated person but not of a professional, i.e. of the dilettante (who loves, as we know, to pass judgment on the history of mankind, suggesting without grounds of any kind that it is much easier to do that than to interpret problems of organic chemistry).
But we must not judge by preconceived opinions of any kind. Dilettantism can also be useful, or rather fruitful. So let us go the whole hog with the hypothetical astronauts and at the same time check the expediency of the following method, i.e. let us compare logically impeccable conclusions drawn from instantaneous observations (from the standpoint of the scale of history) with what in fact happened in the 300-year interval.
First observation. Second century A.D. Following the Sun. A dim meandering strip on a yellow loess plain, and broad blue ribbons on a green cover of jungles -these are the Huangho and Yangtse rivers and between them the great China of the late Han dynasty. The fields are tilled, the peasants are harvesting millet in the north and rice in the south. Silk garments of various colors and fanciful patterns are being made in workshops. Clay huts surround the luxurious palaces of grandees, built of wood and bamboo, and buried in green gardens with light arbors and pavilions.
In the imperial palace plump eunuch officials keep business accounts on a precious material-paper, and military commanders come to them with bows and gifts, begging to be given profitable appointments. The eunuchs take bribes, knowing quite well how short the giver''s career will be. Here a former lucky one is being led to execution for having robbed the inhabitants of the province he governed, getting money for the patrons. No one intercedes for the person being executed because grim soldiers armed with halberds and arbalests - Tanguts or Hunni from the borderlands - are lined up on both sides of the executioner''s block. On the contrary, there is merriment that there is one oppressor less. The robbed Chinese rejoice, not suspecting that the emperor''s current favorite will ask him to appoint her brother to a profitable place, and that he will begin new extortions.
Only among the Confucian scholars can one note the distress on the faces, because they foresee the future calamities arising as a rule with the universal venality and decline of education, and also, perhaps, among the Taoists whose teaching is banned on pain of death. But the Taoists are bold people; in the mountain villages they not only forecast the weather, and treat the sick, but also whisper the peasant youths that the ''Blue heaven of violence'' will be succeeded by the ''Yellow heaven of justice''. The authorities, however, pay no attention to such trifles.
The spacecraft''s computer processes these data and proposes a forecast: the economic system is firm, there are no dangerous neighbors, the export of silk, unprofitable for China, may be stopped, since the gold obtained for it flows into the hands of favorites who, foreseeing disgrace, hide it in the ground so as to provide for their children. And the astronauts draw the logical conclusion that before them is a stable society with a rich, developing culture, that the boundaries of the Han Empire will be extended to the north and west so as to enlighten the savage Hunni and Tibetans by an advanced civilization, and that the drawbacks of the bureaucratic system will be eliminated by the spread of education, because that is profitable for the state and consequently should lead to universal good.
I shall not blame the astronauts for ignorance of the dialectic of ethnic history. Let me say, only, that within 50 years the population of China will decline from 56 million to 7 500 000, that all the possessions ''beyond the Wall'' will be lost, and people will forget to think about culture.

NOTES
1 V.I.Vernadsky. Khimicheskoe siroenie biosfery Zemli i ee okruzheniva (The Chemical Structure of Earth''s Biosphere and Its Environment), Nauka, Moscow, 1965, pp. 283-288.
2 Giovanni Gentile. The Transcending of Time in History. R. Klibansky and HJ. Paton (eds.). Philosophy and History. Essays presented to Ernst Cassirer. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1936, p 103.
3 Ibid., p 104.
4 Wilhelm Dilthev''s Gesammelte Schrifien, Vol 7. Verlag von B.G. Teubner. Leipzig, Berlin. 1927, p 161.
5 Patrick Gardiner. The Nature of Historical Explanation. Oxford University Press. London. 1955, p 109.
6 Anatole France. Penguin Island Translated by A.W. Evans. The Sun Dial Press, Inc., New York, 1908, p VI.
7 Karl Marx. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Collected Works, Vol.- 3. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, pp303-304.
8 Karl Jaspers. Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. Artemis-Verlag, Zurich, 1949.

http://www.geocities.com/eura