Notes

Note on Transliteration

1 Cf. editorial prefaces and glossary in Mykhailo Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus', 7: xix-xxvi, liii-lvi.

Introduction

1 See Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History.

1 Empire or Nation?

1 Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, 1:34.

2 See Velychenko, ‘Rival Grand Narratives of National History.'

3 Rogger, National Consciousness, 3.

4 See Greenfeld, Nationalism, 238-9.

5 Tolz, Russia, 16.

6 For a survey of the history of the Russian Empire during the rule of Anna Ioannovna and Elizabeth, see Dukes, The Making of Russian Absolutism, 112­44; and Anisimov, Rossiia v seredine XVHl veka, and Elizaveta Petrovna.

7 Quoted in Rogger, National Consciousness, 30-1. Cf. Wortman, Scenarios of Power, abridged ed., 44-51.

8 See Vlasovs'kyi, Narys Istoril Ukrains'koipravoslavnoi tserkvy, 2:129-30.

9 At some point Peter allegedly stated that ‘we need Europe for a few decades before we turn our backside to it.' See Cross, ‘"Them": Russians on Foreigners,' 79.

On the development of the cult of Peter I during Elizabeth s reign, see Riasanovsky, The Image of Peter the Great, 23-34. On its anti-Western over­tones, see Rogger, National Consciousness, 32-3.

For biographies of Catherine II, see Madariaga, Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great, and Alexander, Catherine the Great.

Quoted in Dukes, The Making of Russian Absolutism, 155. On the discourse associated with Catherine's ascension to the Russian throne, see Wortman, Scenarios of Power, 52-8.

Rogger, National Consciousness, 35-9.

Ibid. Continuing the tradition established by Peter I, Catherine's supporters offered her the official title ‘Mother of the Fatherland,' but she declined the honour. On the development of the cult of Peter I under Catherine II, see Riasanovsky, The Image of Peter the Great, 34-45.

Quoted in Cross, '"Them": Russians on Foreigners,' 79.

Ibid., 84-5. Criticism was directed primarily at foreign tutors, who often had no qualifications to teach Russian youth.

On the incorporation of the Cossack polity into the empire, see Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy.

On Shcherbatov and his writings, see Artem'eva, Mikhail Shcherbatov. See Vinogradov, Ocherki po istorii russkogo Iiteraturnogo iazyka XVll-XlX vekov, 213.

On the Synopsis, see Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations, 258-66. On the Rozumovskys, see Vasil'chikov, Semeistvo Razumovskikh.

In the Russian historiographic tradition, Lomonosov has often been consid­ered an embodiment of Russian genius - an essentially non-Western and anti-Western force for good in Russian science, literature, and culture. See the most recent publication on Lomonosov issued under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Fomin, Lomonosov. On Trediakovsky, who enjoys popularity among literary scholars but never matched Lomonosov's stature in the popular imagination, see Reyfman, Vasilii Trediakovsky. For a detailed biography of Muller and an extensive analysis of politics within the academy, see J.L. Black, G.-F. Muller and the Imperial Russian Academy.

On Teplov, see Daniel, A Statesman at the Court of Catherine the Great.

On the attempts of eighteenth-century Russian rulers to prevent the West­ern publication of works deemed harmful to Russia, see Cross, '"Them": Russians on Foreigners,' 82-3.

On the Muller debate, see Black, G.-F. Muller and the Imperial Russian Acad­emy, 109-22. Cf. Shanskii, 'ZapaTchivaia polemika.' For a general survey of the development of polemics on the Varangian issue in the eighteenth century, see Khlevov, Normanskaia problema v Otechestvennoi istoricheskoi nauke, 4-17.

27 On Lomonosov and his participation in the debate, apart from the above­mentioned works by Black and Shanskii, see Rogger, National Consciousness, 209-16; and Peshtich, Russkaia istoriografiia XVIII veka, pt 2, 164-209.

28 On A.I. Mankiev, see Peshtich, Russkaia istoriografiia, pt 1, 103-9.

29 On Tatishchev, see Peshtich, Russkaia istoriografiia XVIII veka, pt 1, 222-75; pt 2, 124-63; and Iukht, 'Pobornik novoi Rossii.' For Tatishchev's invention of sources and events, see Tolochko, 'Istoriia Rossiiskaia' Vasiliia Tatishcheva.

30 For an English-language summary of Tatishchev's views on the origins of Rus', see Rogger, National Consciousness, 196-9.

31 For a brief discussion of Schlozer's and LeClerc's views on Russian history and reactions to them in Russian historiography, see ibid., 186-8, 219-22, 227-38.

32 On the historical views of Catherine II, see Peshtich, Russkaia istoriografiia XVIII veka, pt 2, 252-64. On Boltin, see Shanskii, Iz istorii russkoi istoricheskoi mysli. I. N. Boltin. On Shcherbatov, see idem, 'Chto dolzhno istoriku.'

33 On the multiethnic approach to the early history of Rus' in the works of Catherine II and Boltin, see Elena Pogosian, 'Rus' i Rossiia v istoricheskikh sochineniiakh 1730-80-kh godov,' 16-19.

34 Quoted in Zorin, Kormia dvuglavogo orla, 106. At one point the Crimea was considered a potential place of settlement for the British convicts who eventually ended up in Australia. See Cross, '"Them": Russians on Foreign­ers,' 80.

2 Incorporated Identity

1 Despite these changes in the numbers of ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians between the census of 1718-19 and that of 1795, the proportion of Eastern Slavs in the empire remained almost the same, amounting to

86 per cent in the first case and 83 per cent in the second. See Kappeler, The Russian Empire, 115-17.

2 Raeff, 'Ukraine and Imperial Russia,' 70.

3 See Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture, 1750-1850, 55-8. On Ukrainian medical doctors in the Russian Empire, see S.P. Ruda, 'Medytsyna,' in Istoriia ukrams'koikul’tury, 737-9.

4 See Greenfeld, Nationalism, 238-9.

5 The dominance of Ukrainians among church hierarchs was so complete that in 1754 Empress Elizabeth found herself obliged to order the Synod to include Great Russians among those appointed as bishops and archimandrites.

See Kohut, ‘Ukraine: From Autonomy to Integration (1654-1830s),' 188. On the absorption of the Hetmanate, see Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy.

Kappeler, ‘Great Russians' and 'Little Russians,' 8.

On Divovych, see Oleksander Ohloblyn, ‘Semen ta Oleksa Divovychi,' in idem, Liudy staro'i Ukra'iny, 14-23. For the text of the ‘Conversation,' see Divovych, ‘Razgovor Velikorossii s Malorossiieiu.' For a Ukrainian transla­tion of the poem, see Tysiacha rokiv, vol. 4, bk 2, 115-44. On the ‘Brief Description of Little Russia,' see Apanovich, Rukopisnaia svetskaia kniga XVIII v. na Ukraine, 187-201; and Bovhyria, 'Korotkyi opys Malorosii' (1340­1734) u rukopysnykh spyskakh XVIII st.'

See Divovych, ‘Razgovor Velikorossii s Malorossiieiu,' 414.

Ibid., 394.

On the political ideas of the Cossack officers in the Mazepa era, see Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations, 277-83, 333-42. On Khazar mythology, see Lutsenko, Introduction to Hryhorij Hrabjanka's 'The Great War of Bohdan Xmel'nyc'kyj,' lii-lvi. On the concept of fatherland in Cossack political thought of the Mazepa era, see Sysyn, ‘Fatherland in Early Eighteenth­Century Political Thought.' On Cossack rights, see Kohut, ‘In Search of Perpetual Rights and Liberties.'

These texts have been reissued most recently in Tysiacha rokiv, vol. 4, bk 2, 99-103, 147-66. The speech is not dated, but the petition bears the year 1764. On the relation of both documents to the Hlukhiv council, see Kohut, Russian Centralism, 86-90, nn. 75, 76.

Tysiacha rokiv, vol. 4, bk 2, 99-103.

Ibid., 147-66.

The participants in the council were clearly less optimistic on the issue of the Hetmanate's power and the strength of its Cossack army than was Divovych, who claimed that Little Russia had ten battle-ready regiments.

On court politics and their impact on the decision to abolish the office of hetman, see Kohut, Russian Centralism, 78-86, 95-101. On the Myrovych affair, see Bil'basov, Ioann Antonovich i Mirovich.

Quoted in Kohut, Russian Centralism, 104. Cf. idem, ‘Ukraine: From Auton­omy to Integration (1654-1830s),' 188. In referring to wolves looking to the

forest, Catherine had in mind the Russian proverb ‘No matter how much you feed a wolf, he still looks to the forest [in order to escape].'

19 For the text of Teplov's memorandum, see Vasylenko, 'H.N. Teplov i ioho "Zapiska o neporiadkakh v Malorossii."'

20 For the texts of the instructions to Ukrainian delegates to the Legislative Commission, see Nakazy malorossiiskim deputatam 1767 goda i akty o vyborakh deputatov v Komissiiu sochineniia ulozheniia. Cf. the Ukrainian translation of select instructions in Tysiacha rokiv, vol. 4, bk 2, 188-279. For excerpts from Poletyka's works, see ibid., 270-4. On the Poletykas, see Oleksander Ohlo- blyn, 'Andrii Poletyka,' in his Liudy staroi Ukralny_r 193-98. For a discussion of the Ukrainian elections to the Legislative Commission and the participation of Ukrainian deputies in its work, see Kohut, Russian Centralism, 125-90.

21 On the incorporation of the Ukrainian gentry into the social structure of the empire, see Miller, 'Ocherki iz istorii i iuridicheskogo byta staroi Malorossii.'

22 Quoted in Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 41-2.

23 Quoted in Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 69. For a biography of Bezborodko, see Grigorovich, Kantsler kniaz' Aleksandr Andreevich Bezborodko v sviazi s sobytiiami ego vremeni. For a discussion of Bezborodko's career and his Ukrainian identity or lack thereof, see Saunders, The Ukrai­nian Impact, 69-81; and Kohut, Russian Centralism, 259-63.

24 See 'Nakaz Chernihivs'koho shliakhetstva,' in Tysiacha rokiv, vol. 4, bk 2, 192-201, here 194.

25 Kohut, Russian Centralism, 261.

26 See Ruban, Kratkaia letopis' Malyia Rossii s 1506 po 1776 god.

27 Quoted ibid., 260.

28 See Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 76-7.

29 On Ruban and his writings and publications, see ibid., 119-26.

30 On Tumansky and his family, see Oleksander Ohloblyn, 'Tumans'ki,' in idem, Liudy staroi Ukralny_r 238-61. See also Zhurba, Stanovlennia ukralns'kol arkheohrafiι, 44-93.

31 Quoted in Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 132.

32 Greenfeld, Nationalism, 238.

33 On Kapnist, see Oleksander Ohloblyn, 'Vasyl' Kapnist,' in idem, Liudy staroi Ukralny, 49-114. His mission is discussed in Edgerton, 'Laying a Legend to Rest'; and Dashkevych, 'Berlin, kviten' 1791 r.'

3 Ukraine or Little Russia?

1 On the role of historical myth in the process of modern nation building, see Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, 174-208.

2 See Berger, Donovan, and Passmore, ‘Apologias for the Nation-State in Western Europe since 1800.'

3 On the connection between literary and criminal forgery in the Age of Enlightenment, see Baines, The House of Forgery in Eighteenth-Century Brit­ain. On the function of historical forgeries in East Central Europe and Ukraine, see Hrabovych, ‘Slidamy natsional'nykh mistyfikatsii.'

4 See Trevor-Roper, ‘The Invention of Tradition,' 17-18. For the impact of Macpherson's poetry on the rise of the romantic movement, see Gaskill, Reception of Ossian in Europe. On the reception of Ossian in the Russian Empire, see Levin, Ossian v russkoi literature. On the invention of historical sources in eighteenth-century Russia, see Tolochko, 'Istoriia Rossiiskaia' Vasiliia Tatishcheva, especially 504-23.

5 On the Igor Tale as a late eighteenth-century text, see Keenan, Josef Dobrovsky and the Origins of the Igor' Tale.

6 See Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii. For a brief summary of the unknown author's historical argument, see Velychenko, National History as Cultural Process, 156-8.

7 Although Shevchenko was an admirer of the ‘History of the Rus'' and pop­ularized its heroic version of the Cossack past, he did not share the anony­mous author's anti-Polish attitudes or his nobiliary bias against the popular masses.

8 See Ohloblyn, ‘Where Was Istoriya Rusov Written?' Hryhorii Poletyka has been regarded as the author of the ‘History' by Vladimir Ikonnikov, Oleksander Lazarevsky, Mykola Vasylenko, Dmytro Doroshenko, Yaroslav Dzyra, and Hanna Shvydko. Mykhailo Hrushevsky advanced the hypothe­sis of the co-authorship of Hryhorii and Vasyl Poletyka. The latter was considered the sole author by Vasyl Horlenko, Anatolii Yershov, and Illia Borshchak. The hypothesis about Bezborodko's authorship was first sug­gested by Mykhailo Slabchenko and further developed by Pavlo Klepatsky, Andrii Yakovliv, and Mykhailo Vozniak. See Oleksander Ohloblyn, ‘Istoriia Rusov,' in Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 2:360.

9 Ohloblyn, who was by far the most productive and influential student of the monument, also pushed the ‘nationalization' of the ‘History' to the limit, claiming that it was ‘a declaration of the rights of the Ukrainian nation' inspired by the ‘idea of Ukrainian political sovereignty,' as well as ‘an act of indictment against Muscovy.' See his introduction to a Ukrainian translation of the work, Istoriia Rusiv, v-xxix. For a survey of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century reception of the ‘History of the Rus'' and research on the monument, see Vozniak, Psevdo-Konys 'kyi i psevdo-Poletyka, 5-96. Cf. Kravchenko, Narysy z ukrams'koiistoriohrafi'i, 101-16.

Shevchuk, 'Nerozhadani taiemnytsi "Istorii Rusiv,''' in Istoriia Rusiv, trans. into modern Ukrainian by Ivan Drach (Kyiv, 1991), 28.

For a critical assessment of the latest Ukrainian publications on the topic, see Kravchenko, 'Istoriia Rusiv u suchasnykh interpretatsiiakh.'

See the entry 'Little Russian Mentality' by Bohdan Kravtsiv in Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 3:166.

Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, iii-iv.

See Storozhenko, 'Malaia Rossiia ili Ukraina?' 287-8.

See Czacki, 'O nazwisku Ukrainy i poczqtku Kozakow.' On Czacki and his activities, see Dybiec, Nie tylko szabhi. Nauka i kultura polska w walce o utrzy- manιe tozsamosci narodowej, 1795-1918, 75-80, 112-13.

On the secular school and gymnasium in Novhorod-Siverskyi, see Oleksander Ohloblyn's essay on the founding director of both schools, Ivan Khalansky, in Ohloblyn, Liudy staroi Ukrainy 262-9.

On Markov, see Zhurba, Stanovlennia ukrains'koiarkheohrafii, 94-119.

See Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriia dlia upotrebleniia iunoshestvu, nachinaiushchemu obuchat'sia istorii, prodolzhennaia do iskhoda XVIII stoletiia, sochinennaia v Kieve uchitelemMaksimom Berlinskim (Moscow, 1800). The 'Short History,' adopted as a textbook in the Kyiv Theological Academy, was used there in that capacity in 1804. See Tsentral'nyi derzhavnyi istorychnyi arkhiv Ukrainy u misti Kyievi, fond 1711, op. 1, no. 120, fols 84, 90.

See Berlinskii, Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriia, 93-106. On Berlynsky and his writings, see David Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 209-12; Braichevs'kyi, 'Maksym Berlyns'kyi ta ioho "Istoriia mista Kyieva'''; and Kravchenko, Narysy z ukrains'koi istoriohrafii, 80-4.

Berlinskii, Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriia, 93, 96-7, 98-9.

See Ohloblyn's introduction to Istoriia Rusiv, viii; and Shevel'ov, 'Istoriia Rusov ochyma movoznavtsia.'

Berlinskii, Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriia, 100.

Ibid., 101.

On Berlynsky's attempts to publish the manuscript, see Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 211. In citing this work, Volodymyr Kravchenko (Narysy z istoriiukrams'ko'iistoriohrafii, 81) gives a somewhat different title: 'Istoricheskoe obozrenie Malorossii.'

On Anastasevych, see Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 140-4. The transla­tion of Czacki's article appeared in pt 1, no. 1 of Ulei for 1811. Two of Berlynsky's contributions, 'Razdelenie Malorossii na polki' and 'O gorode Kieve,' appeared in the same year, in pt 1, no. 3, and pt 2, no. 8 of the jour­nal respectively. Anastasevych visited Berlynsky in Kyiv in 1811, and after­wards they stayed in touch by correspondence. See excerpts from Berlynsky s private diary in the Volodymyr Vernadsky Library, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kyiv), Manuscript Institute, fond 175, no. 1057, section 2, fols 1-55.

On the debate over the language of instruction at the Kyiv gymnasium, see Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 31-2. At some point before the spring of 1817, Berlynsky came into conflict with the then director of the Kyiv gym­nasium and petitioned the St Petersburg authorities in that regard. See a letter to Berlynsky from his brother Matvii, dated 2 March 1817 in St Petersburg, in the Volodymyr Vernadsky Library, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kyiv), Manuscript Institute, fond 175, no. 1057, section 1, fols 7-8.

See Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact, 211. On Symonovsky and his writings, see Ohloblyn, Liudy staroi Ukrainy, 219-36.

On the use of these terms in Cossack historiography of the early eighteenth century, see Sysyn, ‘The Image of Russia and Russian-Ukrainian Relations in Ukrainian Historiography of the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries.'

On Markovych's attitude to the issue of the Cossacks and Ukraine, see Tolochko, 'Kyievo-Rus'ka spadshchyna v istorychnii dumtsi Ukrainy pochatku XIX st.,' 303.

See Istoriia Rusov, 68-74.

Ibid., 208.

Ibid., 236, 253.

Ibid., 161, 167, 172, 179.

Ibid., 242, 253.

On the ‘Ukrainian line' and the names of the gubernias in question, see the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 2:451; 3:165; 5:398.

See Skovoroda, Tvory u dvokh tomakh, 2:316.

On Czartoryski's activities and efforts to restore Polish statehood in the first decade of the nineteenth century, see Wandycz, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918, 33-42. On Polish plans for Right-Bank Ukraine in connection with Napoleon's policies in Eastern Europe, see Borshchak, Napoleon i Ukraina. Cf. Vadym Adadurov, 'Narodzhennia odnoho istorych- noho mitu,' 227, 233.

On the growth of anti-Polish sentiment in Russian society during that period, see Zorin, Kormia dvuglavogo orla... Literatura i gosudarstvennaia ideologiia v Rossii v poslednei treti XVIII-pervoi treti XIX veka, 157-86.

On the struggle for the recognition of Cossack ranks and historical writings produced in order to establish the nobiliary status of the Hetmanate's elite, see Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy, 248-84.

40 Istoriia Rusov, iv.

41 Quoted in Kravchenko, Narysy z ukrains'koi istoriohrafii, 83. The article 'O gorode Kieve,' published in Ulei in 1811, was an excerpt from Berlynsky's larger study, ‘History of the City of Kyiv.' This particular assessment, which would probably have infuriated the author of the 'History of the Rus',' was also apparently less than pleasing to the publishers of Berlynsky's work. According to Kravchenko, it was not included in the 1991 edition of Istoriia mista Kyieva.

42 See Kravchenko, Narysy z ukrams'ko'iistoriohrafii, 83-4.

43 See Tsarinnyi, 'Ukrainskoe dvizhenie,' 142-3.

44 On Berlynsky's interpretation of the Ukrainian past in his unpublished 'His­tory of Little Russia,' see Kravchenko, Narysy z ukrams'ko'iistoriohrafii, 84.

45 On Russian interpretations of Ukrainian history in the first decades of the nineteenth century, including the tendency to claim the history of Kyivan Rus' for Russia alone, see Tolochko, 'Kyievo-Rus'ka spadshchyna,' 266-309.

46 Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, 3.

47 Hobsbawm, 'Identity History Is Not Enough,' in idem, On History, 276.

48 For a discussion of the impact of Mickiewicz's poetry on the Polish, Lithua­nian, and Belarusian national revivals, see Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations, 29-43, 281-3.

4 The Missing Mazepa

1 On the anathematization of Mazepa and the ritual performed on his effigy on the orders of Aleksandr Menshikov, see Subtelny, The Mazepists, 39-40. Cf. Rigel'man, Litopysna opovid' pro Malu Rosiiu ta ¿¿ narod i kozakiv uzahali, 547.

2 For a discussion of the incident, see Sapozhnikov, 'Zagadochnye portrety.' Cf. Zholtovs'kyi, Ukrainskyi zhyvopys XVII-XVIII st., 225.

3 See Subtelny, The Mazepists, 1. On the anathematization of Mazepa, see Brogi, 'Mazepa, lo zar e il diavolo.' A church service commemorating the victory over the Swedes at the Battle of Poltava also featured a condemna­tion of Mazepa, who was identified with Judas. See Pogosian, Petr I - arkhitektor rossiiskoi istorii, 177.

4 See Babinski, The Mazeppa Legend in European Romanticism.

5 The picture, originally known as a portrait of a 'Little Russian,' was later retitled 'Field Hetman.' The new name (napol'nyigetman in Russian) derived from a misunderstanding of the catalogue description of the picture, which stated that it was a not fully (napolno in eighteenth-century Russian) completed portrait of a hetman. Later it was taken to be a portrait of Mazepa. See Bilets'kyi, Ukrainskyi portretnyi zhyvopys, 124.

As in the case of Mazepa, the portraits of Polubotok that circulated in Ukraine during the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the true image of the acting hetman. In real life, he was rather stocky and did not fit the requirements of a romantic hero. As a result, portraits of his father, Leontii, which fit those requirements much better, were disseminated as portraits of Pavlo Polubotok, popularizing the idea of Ukraine's struggle for its autonomous rights (ibid., 124, 219-21).

See the English translation of the poem 'Irzhavets¹' in The Poetical Works of Taras Shevchenko: The Kobzar, 325-6.

For a reproduction of the 1845 watercolour, see Shevchenkivs'kyi slovnyk, 2:333.

For a comprehensive discussion of the origins of the iconographic composi­tion of the Pokrova, see G⅛barowicz, Mater Misericordiae - Pokrow - Pokrowa w sztuce i Iegendzie Srodkowo-Wschodniej Europy.

Shevchenko, Bliznetsy, in idem, Povne zibrannia tvoriv, 4:26-7.

For a discussion of the circumstances in which the icon was painted and its ideological message, see my Tsars and Cossacks, 55-62. Cf. the reproduction of the Sulymivka Pokrova, ibid., plate XI.

On the importance of the Cossack myth for the Ukrainian nation-building project, see Armstrong, 'Myth and History in the Evolution of Ukrainian Consciousness.'

See Hrushevs'kyi, Iliustrovana istoriia Ukrainy. The book appeared in numer­ous editions in Ukraine between 1912 and 1918 and was later repeatedly reprinted in the West.

Despite its title, the essay also covered Ukrainian painting of the eighteenth century. See Kuz'min, 'Ukrainskaia zhivopis' XVII veka.'

Ibid., 458-9.

Kuzmin's high opinion of Mazepa's role in the development of Ukrainian art was apparently influenced by Hrushevsky's treatment of the hetman. In his essay, Kuzmin made reference to one of the Cossack-era portraits in Hrushevsky's survey (ibid., 462, 170-6). In turn, Kuzmin's essay influenced quite a few Ukrainian scholars, including Mykola Holubets, the author of a survey of Ukrainian art (1922). There, Holubets repeated almost verbatim some of Kuzmin's basic assessments. He noted the influence on Ukrainian art of 'Ukraine's unification with Russia' and the profound impact of Ivan Mazepa's activities on the Westernization of Ukrainian art forms. See Holubets', Nacherk istorii ukrains'koho mystetstva, 234, 240-1.

See Zholtovs'kyi, VyzvoTna viina ukrains'koho narodu v pam’iatkakh mystetstva XVI-XVIIi st., 53-4.

See Narysy z istorii ukrains'koho mystetstva, 94-5, plate VI, illustrations nos 159, 160.

19 See Lohvyn, Po Ukraini, 71.

20 See Bilets'kyi, Ukrains'kyi portretnyi zhyvopys, 82.

21 Ibid., 191-2. Biletsky's critique of the social egoism of the Cossack officer stra­tum was directly applied to the sponsors of the Pokrova icons by Zholtovsky, who wrote: ‘The “Cossack Pokrovas" present a profoundly conceived image of the contemporary Hetmanate, its elite, the colonels, captains, and Cossack officers, who based themselves on the power of the tsarist Russian regime and gradually entered the ranks of the "well-born nobiliary stratum"' (Zholtovs'kyi, Ukrainskyi zhyvopys XVII-XVIII st., 231-4).

22 See Bilets'kyi, Ukra'ins'ke mystetstvo druho'ipolovyny XVII-XVIII stolit', 6-7, 98, 100.

23 Although he stayed away from the ‘Mazepa problem,' Biletsky questioned Shevchenko's suggestion that the author of the icon was a foreigner, noting that an artist of such qualifications could have been trained in the Kyivan Cave Monastery as easily as in the West (ibid., 36-7).

24 See Sichyns'kyi, Ivan Mazepa.

25 See Hordyns'kyi, Ukrainska ikona XII-XVIII storich, 22-3.

26 See, for example, the album of reproductions published for Western con­sumption in 1996 by Liudmyla Miliaieva. It includes three Cossack Pokrovas - those from Deshky (with the portrait of Bohdan Khmelnytsky), Sulymivka, and Novhorod-Siverskyi (see The Ukrainian Icon, 68-74). As in her earlier publications, Miliaieva avoids any comment on the ideological meaning of the icons, focusing instead on their characteristics as works of art.

27 See Umantsev, Mystetstvo davn’oi Ukrainy, 242.

28 See Stepovyk, Istoriia ukrains'koi ikony X-XX stolit', 66.

5 The Historian as Nation Builder

1 Nevill Forbes, one of the leading twentieth-century Western experts on the languages, history, and culture of the Slavs, was a reader in Russian at Oxford when he wrote this letter. For the text, see Tsentral'nyi derzhavnyi istorychnyi arkhiv Ukrainy u Kyievi (henceforth TsDIAK), fond 1235,

no. 303, pp. 107-10.

2 On Mykhailo Hrushevsky's academic career, see Prymak, Mykhailo Hrushevsky; Vynar, Mykhailo Hrushevskyi i Naukove Tovarystvo im. Tarasa Shevchenka, 1892-1930; and Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia.

3 One of his followers at the time, the future Ukrainian political leader and historian Dmytro Doroshenko, left the following words in his memoirs concerning Hrushevsky's arrival in St Petersburg in the spring of 1906: ‘His great scholarly and public services; his extraordinary organizational talent created great authority and deep respect for him. In our eyes he was a symbol of pan-Ukrainian unification; in those days his word was law for us.' See Doroshenko, Ìî¿spomyny pro davnie-mynule (1901-1914 roky), 83; cf. Prymak, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, 76.

See, for example, reviews of Hrushevsky's works by Ludwik Kolankowski in Kwartalnik Historyczny 27 (1913): 348-65, and CzesLaw Frankiewicz, ibid., 31 (1917): 174-7.

See a comment to that effect in Andrei Storozhenko's pamphlet on the his­tory of the Ukrainian movement, published under the pseudonym A. Tsarinnyi, Ukrainskoe dvizhenie. Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk preimushchestvenno po lichnym vospominaniiam (Berlin, 1925), repr. in Ukrainskii separatizm v Rossii, 161.

See Volkonskii, Istoricheskaia pravda i ukrainofil'skaia propaganda.

On Hrushevsky's appointment to the Lviv University position, see Zashkil'niak, 'M. Hrushevs'kyi i Halychyna (Do pryizdu do L'vova 1894 r.).' On the Polish-Ukrainian political agreement in Galicia, see Ihor Chornovol, Pol's'ko-ukrams'ka uhoda, 1890-94.

See Bahalii, 'Akad. M.S. Hrushevs'kyi i ioho mistse v ukrains'kii istorio- hrafii (Istorychno-krytychnyi narys),' 174-5.

See Hrushevs'kyi, 'Sprava ukrains'kykh katedr i nashi naukovi potreby.' For a Russian translation, see 'Vopros ob ukrainskikh kafedrakh i nuzhdy ukrainskoi nauki,' in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 149-94. Prymak, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, 82.

See Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 54-5.

See a draft of Hrushevsky's letter to Sviatopolk-Mirsky in TsDIAK, fond 1235, op. 1, no. 275, fol. 161^v. Hrushevsky apparently did not know or preferred to ignore the fact that in Russian bureaucratic and nationalist cir­cles Sviatopolk-Mirsky was perceived as a promoter of Polish interests.

On the Ukrainian campaign to lift the ban on Ukrainian-language publica­tions in 1904-6, see Andriewsky, 'The Politics of National Identity,' 42-78, 114-19.

See Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 56-61. On the Ukrainian deputies in the First Duma and their activities, see Andriewsky, 'The Politics of National Identity,' 163-99. Cf. Gerus, 'The Ukrainian Question in the Russian Duma, 1906-17.'

Grushevskii, 'Edinstvo ili raspadenie?' Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 3 (4 June 1906): 39-51, repr. in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 55-67, here 61.

See Hrushevs'kyi, 'Konstytutsiine pytannia i ukrainstvo v Rosii,' Literaturno- naukovyi vistnyk 8, no. 6 (1905): 245-58; also separately: Lviv, 1905. An abridged version of the article appeared in Russian translation in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 121-31.

17 Hrushevsky also indicated the deep federalist traditions of the Ukrainian movement, although he refused to support his claim for Ukrainian auton­omy with reference to the historical rights of Ukraine. See Grushevskii, 'Natsional'nyi vopros i avtonomiia,' Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 1 (21 May 1906): 8-17, repr. in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 68-80; idem, 'Nashi trebovaniia,' Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 5 (18 June 1906): 267-73, repr. in Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 86-92; idem, 'O zrelosti i nezrelosti,' Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 4 (11 July 1906): 203-8, repr. in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 81-5.

18 See Grushevskii, 'Iz pol'sko-ukrainskikh otnoshenii Galitsii. Neskol'ko illiustratsii k voprosu: avtonomiia oblastnaia i natsional'no-territorial'naia,' in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 195-264.

19 See Grushevskii, 'Na drugoi den',' Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 11 (2 August 1906): 743-8, repr. in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 6-11.

20 See Grushevskii, 'Protiv techeniia,' in Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 1-5.

21 In this Hrushevsky was quite close to the position taken by Bohdan Kistiakovsky, an ethnic Ukrainian and a leader of the 'liberation of Russia' movement who opposed Ukrainian nationalism but believed that Ukraini­ans could become equal members of the liberation movement if they orga­nized on an ethnic basis. See Susan Heuman, Kistiakovsky, 114-15.

22 On the Polish political action that led to the issuing of the edict, see Gervais- Francelle, 'La greve scolaire dans le royaume de Pologne.' On Ukrainian reaction to the edict, see Andriewsky, 'The Politics of National Identity,' 75-88.

23 See Grushevskii, 'Ravnoiu meroiu,' Syn otechestva, no. 73 (12 May 1905), repr. in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 101-3.

24 Hrushevs'kyi, 'Bezhluzda natsional'na polityka Rosii,' Dilo, no. 100 (18 May 1905), quoted in Prymak, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, 73. In August 1905, Hrushevsky noted in his diary: 'It looks as if there will be reaction and somnolence in Russia, and the Ukrainians are again prepared to lie down on the stove, having obtained nothing, while the Poles are gaining power over them as well. Sorrow overcomes me for our people and foreigners alike' ('Shchodennyky M.S. Hrushevs'koho [1904-1910 rr.],' 15).

25 See Grushevskii, 'Vstrevozhennyi muraveinik,' Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 6 (25 June 1906): 331-41, repr. in idem, Osvobozhdenie Rosii i ukrainskii vopros, 149-94.

26 See Hrushevs'kyi, 'Za ukrains'kyi maslak (v spravi Kholmshchyny),' Rada, 1907, nos. 2-4; also separately: Za ukrains'kyi maslak (v spravi Kholmshchyny) (Kyiv, 1907). Russian translation: 'Za ukrainskuiu kost' (vopros o Kholm- shchine),' in Osvobozhdenie Rossii i ukrainskii vopros, 278-91.

27 On the formation of the Kholm province, see Weeks, Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia, 172-92; and Chmielewski, The Polish Question in the Russian State Duma, 117-20.

6 Renegotiating the Pereiaslav Agreement

1 See excerpts from Lypyns'kyi, Ukraina na perelomi, 56-7.

2 See Kohut, ‘In Search of Perpetual Rights and Liberties.'

3 See Mikhnovs'kyi, 'Samostiina Ukraina,' 128-30.

4 Radians'ka entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy_r 1:336.

5 See Hrushevs'kyi, 'Khmel'nyts'kyi i Khmel'nychchyna.'

6 Ibid., 17, 20. In an essay on the 250th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Agree­ment, Hrushevsky attributed this defect of Khmelnytsky's to his education in the Oriental school of diplomacy. See Hrushevs'kyi, '250 lit,' 2.

7 Ibid., 16-19, 22-4.

8 See Drahomanov, 'The Lost Epoch,' 156-7.

9 See Antonovych, Pro chasy kozats 'ki na Ukraini. On the parallels in Antonovych's and Hrushevsky's interpretations of Pereiaslav, see Kravchenko, 'Kontseptsii Pereiaslava v ukrains'kii istoriohrafii,' 492-3; and Ias', 'Obrazy Pereiaslava v ukrains'kii istoriohrafii,' 548-50.

10 See Hrushevs'kyi, Iliustrovana istoriia Ukrainy_r 312-16.

11 On the evolution of Hrushevsky's political views and their impact on his interpretation of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, see Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 281-345.

12 Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy_r 9:868.

13 On Soloviev's interpretation of Pereiaslav, see Velychenko, National History as Cultural Process, 102-3; and Brekhunenko, 'Pereiaslavs'ka rada 1654 roku v rosiis'kii istoriohrafii,' 615-19.

14 See Kostomarov, Bogdan Khmel'nitskii, 549-65. On the interpretation of Pere- iaslav in the Ukrainian chronicles and Kostomarov's position on the issue, see Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654, 59-80, 103-9.

15 See Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, 9:755.

16 For Karpov's critique of Kostomarov, see his Gospodin Kostomarov kak istorik Malorossii.

17 Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy_r 9:752.

18 See Hrushevs'kyi, 'Khmel'nyts'kyi i Khmel'nychchyna,' 19-20. The docu­ments on the Pereiaslav negotiations that Kostomarov did not include in vol. 3 of Akty, Gtnosiashchiesia k istorii Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii were published by Karpov in vol. 10 of the series.

19 See Hrushevs'kyi, Pereiaslavs'ka umova Ukrainy z Moskvoiu 1654 roku. Statti i teksty (Kyiv, 1917-18), reprinted in Pereiaslavs'ka rada 1654 roku, 5-54.

See Nol'de, Ocherki russkogo gosudarstvennogo prava; and Rozenfel'd, Prisoed- inenie Malorossii k Rossii (1654-1793). On Hrushevsky's reviews of both works, see Ias', 'Obrazy Pereiaslava,' 556-9.

See Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, 9:755.

Ibid. Cf. Miakotin, Ocherki sotsial^,noi istorii Ukrainy v XVII-XVIII vv.

See Hrushevs'kyi, Pereiaslavska umova, 17.

See Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, 9:754.

Ibid., 758-60.

Ibid., 757.

Ibid., 866-9.

See Hrushevs'kyi, 'Khmel'nyts'kyi i Khmel'nychchyna,' 23.

See Hrushevs'kyi, '250 lit,' 1, 5.

See Hrushevs'kyi, 'Bohdanovi rokovyny,' 209, 211-12.

See Ias', 'Obrazy Pereiaslava,' 555-7.

See Hrushevs'kyi, Pereiaslavs 'ka umova, 22-7. Cf. Kravchenko, 'Kontseptsii Pereiaslava,' 497.

See Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, 9:955.

Ibid., 1051-60.

Ibid., 1035.

Ibid., 969.

See Okinshevych, 'Natsional'no-demokratychna kontseptsiia istorii prava Ukrainy v pratsiakh akad. M. Hrushevs'koho.'

Ibid., 106.

See Iastrebov, 'Natsional'no-fashysts'ka kontseptsiia selians'koi viiny 1648 roku na Ukraini.'

On the interpretation of the Khmelnytsky Uprising in the works of Pokrovsky, Yavorsky, and their followers, see chapter 7 of the present work. Hrushevsky's uncritical treatment of the diary of Paul of Aleppo was also harshly criticized in early 1934 by Volodymyr Zatonsky, a senior party offi­cial in charge of education. See Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 408-9. Iastrebov, 'Natsional'no-fashysts'ka kontseptsiia,' 77.

Ibid., 76.

See M.H., 'Die Ukraine, Glanz and Niedergang.'

See Narizhnyi, review of Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy.

See Lypyns'kyi, 'Ukraina na perelomi,' in Pereiaslavska rada, 55-66.

See Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, 9:1491, 1497-8.

Harasymchuk, 'Z nahody poiavy IX tomu "Istorii Ukrainy-Rusy"

M. Hrushevs'koho,' 537-8.

Ibid., 540.

In his Kozaczyzna ukrainna w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej do konca XVIII wieku, Franciszek Rawita-Gawronski, who had been known for his attacks on the Ukrainian national movement since the early 1900s, not only ascribed the very existence of Ukraine to political intrigue but also held Hrushevsky personally responsible for the creation of Ukraine as a historical entity. Moreover, he criticized Hrushevsky for his allegedly pro-Russian and anti­Polish historical opinions and for treating the Cossacks as Ukrainian national heroes. For Rawita-Gawronski, the Cossacks represented first and foremost the forces of anarchy; he singled out Petro Konashevych-Sahaid- achny as the only positive figure among the early Ukrainian Cossack het­mans because of his conciliatory policies towards the Polish government. Apart from its rabid anti-Ukrainianism, Rawita-Gawronski's book failed to introduce any new ideas into the study of early Cossack history. In his gen­eral treatment of the historical developments of that period, he relied on the works of earlier Polish authors, most notably on the studies and ideas of Aleksander JabLonowski.

51 On the ‘lesser evil' theory in Soviet historiography, see Brekhunenko, ‘Pereiaslavs'ka rada 1654 roku,' 640-3.

52 For the text of the theses, see Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654, app. 8, 271-88.

53 Ibid., 275.

54 Radians'ka entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy_r 1:336.

55 For the text of Braichevsky's brochure ‘Annexation or Reunification?' the minutes of the discussion about it at the Institute of History in the summer of 1974, and Braichevsky's written response to the accusations against him in that discussion, see Braichevs'kyi, ‘Pryiednannia chy vozz'iednannia? Tryptykh.' On Hrushevsky, see the abstract of Rem Symonenko's presenta­tion at the 1974 discussion in Pereiaslavs'ka rada, 346.

56 For a survey of post-1991 trends in Ukrainian historiography on the Khmel­nytsky Uprising and the Pereiaslav Agreement, see chapter 11 in this vol­ume; and Kravchenko, ‘Kontseptsii Pereiaslava v ukrains'kii istoriohrafii,' 512-21.

57 See Lypyns'kyi, excerpts from Ukraina na perelomi in Pereiaslavs'ka rada, 55­66; Lashchenko, ‘Pereiaslavs'kyi dohovir 1654 r. mizh Ukrainoiu i tsarem moskovs'kym'; Iakovliv, ‘Dohovir het'mana Bohdana Khmel'nyts'koho z moskovs'kym tsarem Oleksiiem Mykhailovychem 1654 r.'; and Ohloblyn, ‘Ukrains'ko-moskovs'ka uhoda 1654.'

58 See the articles by Viktor Brekhunenko, Viktor Holubets', and Taras Chukhlib in Pereiaslavs'ka rada, 605-52, 747-74.

59 See Zaborovskii, ‘Pereiaslavskaia rada i moskovskie soglasheniia 1654 g.' On major trends in the development of contemporary Russian historio­graphy on Pereiaslav, see Brekhunenko, ‘Pereiaslavs'ka rada 1654 roku,' 646-50.

60 See Yakovliv, ‘The Judicial Character of the Pereyaslav Treaty'; and Ohloblyn, ‘The Pereyaslav Treaty and Eastern Europe.' On the interpreta­tion of Pereiaslav in English-language historiography, see Frank Sysyn, 'Anhlomovna istoriohrafiia Pereiaslavs^,koi uhody u XX storichchi.'

61 See references to the 'Pereiaslav Agreement' in the titles of appropriate sections in Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 134-6; and Magocsi, A History of Ukraine, 207-16.

62 See Nagel's'kyi, ‘Pereiaslavs'ka uhoda 1654 roku v pol's'kii istoriohrafii.'

63 Various aspects of diplomatic and military developments in the region have been discussed in the extensive literature that has appeared since the publication of volume 9 of the History, but none of these works can match Hrushevsky's narrative in scope and attention to detail. For general works on diplomatic relations in 1654-5, see Fedoruk, Mizhnarodna dyplomatiia i polityka Ukrainy, 1654-57; and Russkaia i ukrainskaia diplomatiia v Evrazii; and Zaborovskii, Rossiia, Rech Pospolitaia i Shvetsiia v seredine XV veka. On spe­cific issues of Russian foreign policy at the time, see Zaborovskii, 'Poslednii shans umirotvoreniia,' and ‘Bor'ba russkoi i pol'skoi diplomatii i pozitsiia Osmanskoi imperii v 1653-54 gg.' On Russian policy towards the Crimea, see Sanin, Otnosheniia Rossii i Ukrainy s Krymskim khanstvom v seredine XVH veka. For documents on Muscovy's relations with the Eastern patriarchs after Pereiaslav, see Chentsova, Vostochnaia tserkov' i Rossiia posle Pere- iaslavskoi rady, 1654-1658. On Russo-Ukrainian relations, see Fedoruk, 'Perehovory Rechi Pospolytoi z Moskvoiu i ukladannia Vilens'koho myru (1654-1656).' On the Muscovite-Cossack contest for Belarus, see Horobets', 'Ukrains'ko-rosiis'ki zmahannia za Bilorus' (1654-1659).' On the political consequences of the Battle of Zhvanets, see Stepankov, ‘Kam'ianets'ka uhoda i Pereiaslavs'ka rada.' On the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the eve of the Zhvanets campaign, see Ciesielski, Sejm brzeski 1653 r. Stu- dium z dziejow Rzeczypospolitej w latach 1652-1653. On Polish expeditions in Ukraine in 1654-5, see Kersten, Stefan Czarniecki, 1599-1665. Cf. Stefan Czarniecki: Yolnierz, obywatel, polityk.

64 On the public debate about the commemorations, see Kuzio, ‘Ukraine's "Pereiaslav Complex” and Relations with Russia'; and Kohut, ‘Facing Ukraine's Russian Legacy.'

7 Bourgeois Revolution or Peasant War?

1 Pokrovskii, Russkaia istoriia v samom szhatom ocherke; see the reprint of the tenth edition of the book. On Pokrovsky, see Enteen, The Soviet Scholar­Bureaucrat; and Szporluk, Introduction to Pokrovskii, Russia in World History.

2 For the text of Lenin's letter to Pokrovsky welcoming the publication of Russkaia istoriia v samom szhatom ocherke, see Pokrovskii, Izbrannye proizvede- niia, 3:3-4.

3 Comparing Russian and Ukrainian history of the early modern period, Pokrovsky claimed that the major difference between the Russian and Ukrainian (Dnipro) Cossacks lay in the latter's ability to find allies among the local burghers. The burghers, organized in confraternities, fought against the church union introduced at the Council of Brest in 1596. In Pokrovsky's opinion, the union was little more than a tool of the Polish government to oppress the petty Ukrainian burghers in the interests of the rich merchants. See Pokrovskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 3:80-1.

4 The fourth edition of the book appeared in 1917, while the fifth edition was published and reprinted three times in 1918 and once in 1919. See Vynar, Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, 1866-1934, 29-35.

For some future Ukrainian activists, the 'awakening' of their Ukrainian identity began with the reading of Hrushevsky's Iliustrovana istoriia Ukra'iny. That was the case with the prominent Ukrainian linguist and cultural activist Yurii Sheveliov (George Y. Shevelov), who read Hrushevsky's work in Kharkiv in 1923-4. See his memoirs, V Ukraini, in Ia-meni-mene... (i dovkruhy), 1:74-5. Apparently realizing the danger posed by Hrushevsky's writings, the secret police instructed its local branches in Ukraine to collect information on those who showed an interest in Hrushevsky's Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy. See a secret police circular of August 1925 in Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, ed. P.S. Sokhan', nos 41, 64.

5 During the First World War Yavorsky served as an officer in the Austro- Hungarian army. In 1918 he was on the staff of an Austro-Hungarian military mission, first to the Central Rada and then to Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky. Yavorsky's conversion to communism took place in 1919, when he prepared the defection of units of the Ukrainian Galician Army to the Bolsheviks. When the Galician Sich Riflemen abandoned the Bolsheviks in 1920, Yavorsky remained true to his communist convictions and stayed with his Bolshevik comrades. For a short biography of Yavorsky, see Santsevych, M.I. Iavors'kyi, 5-27.

6 See Hrushevsky's letter of 4 September 1934 to Viacheslav Molotov in Nikitin, 'Pis'mo istorika M.S. Grushevskogo V.M. Molotovu,' 95-7.

7 Pokrovskii, with the assistance of Nikol'skii and Storozhev, Russkaia istoriia s drevneishikh vremen; see the reprint, based on the seventh edition, which appeared in 1924-5.

8 For a brief summary of Pokrovsky's views on 'Russian' history, see Szporluk, Introduction to Pokrovskii, Russia in World History, 16-19; and Barber, Soviet Historians in Crisis, 58-67.

Pokrovskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 1:461-7.

For Pokrovsky's views on the Cossack revolts and the Khmelnytsky Upris­ing, see chapter 9, ‘The Struggle for Ukraine,' in vol. 2 of Russkaia istoriia s drevneishikh vremen, 1:450-517. The chapter is divided into the following sections: ‘Western Rus' in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,' ‘The Cossack Revolution,' and ‘Ukraine under Muscovite Dominion.' The editors of the 1966 edition tried to ‘correct' Pokrovsky's harsh charac­terization of Khmelnytsky. They claimed that despite his ‘class limitations' Khmelnytsky understood that the best option for the further development of the Ukrainian people lay in reunification with the Russian people. These remarks, informed by the ‘Theses on the Reunification of Ukraine with Rus­sia' (1954), reflected a new paradigm of Soviet historiography. It placed less emphasis on the class factor, which was paramount for Pokrovsky, and stressed the importance of nationality, as well as reintroducing the cult and veneration of heroes in history. Both features were characteristic of Russian imperial historiography and were strongly rejected by Pokrovsky. (For edi­torial comments, see Pokrovskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 1:495-6.) Ironically, many of Pokrovsky's assertions amounted to little more than a further development of the young Hrushevsky's populist views, first expressed in his essay of 1898 on Bohdan Khmelnytsky and his period. See Hrushevs'kyi, ‘Khmel'nyts'kyi i Khmel'nychchyna.'

See Shums'kyi, ‘Stara i nova Ukraina,' 96.

For Yavorsky's views on the Khmelnytsky revolt, see ‘The Cossack Revolu­tion,' chap. 2 of Iavors'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy v styslomu narysi (Kharkiv, 1928), 39-56. Cf. his Korotka istoriia Ukrainy (Kharkiv, 1927), 51-8.

See the introduction to Sukhyno-Khomenko, Odminy i bankrutstvo ukrams'koho natsionalizmu.

On Sukhyno-Khomenko, see Mace, Communism and the Dilemmas of National Liberation, 158, 245, 254, 256, 262, 298. On Sukhyno-Khomenko's polemics of 1930 with Mykola Khvyliovy, see Ilnytzkyj, Ukrainian Futurism, 1914­1930, 160-1.

For Rozhkov's application of the materialist method to the history of Rus­sia, see his Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia.

See Sukhyno-Khomenko, Odminy i bankrutstvo ukrams'koho natsionalizmu, 7-94. For Sukhyno-Khomenko's ‘friendly criticism' of Yavorsky, whom in the autumn of 1929 he still tried to save from further attacks by Yavorsky's opponents, see his article ‘Na marksysts'komu istorychnomu fronti,' BiFshovyk Ukrainy, nos 17-18 (September 1929): 47-52; no. 19 (15 October 1929): 54.

See Sukhyno-Khomenko's comment in ‘Dyskusiia z pryvodu skhemy istorii Ukrainy M. Iavors'koho,' Litopys revoliutsil, 1930, no. 5: 322-3.

For Hrushevsky s application of the term first revival to the Ukrainian his­tory of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, see his Istoriia ukrains'koi Iiteratury, vol. 5, KuTturni i Iiteraturni techii na Ukraini v XV-XVl vv. i pershe Vidrodzhennia (1580-1610 rr). See also Plokhy, ‘Revisiting the Golden Age,' xlii-xlvii.

See, for example, the remarks of Horodetska during the Yavorsky discus­sion of May 1929, Litopys revoliutsii, 1930, no. 5: 297 (see note 20 above). Karpenko also criticized those who tended to explain everything with the help of Pokrovsky's theory of commercial capitalism. Although that line of argument implied a critique of Pokrovsky himself, Karpenko managed to present it in a way that looked like a defence of Pokrovsky and an attack on Yavorsky. In Ukraine Karpenko developed into an expert on Pokrovsky. He wrote an article on Pokrovsky's historical views that was published in December 1928, on the occasion of Pokrovsky's sixtieth birthday. See Karpenko, ‘Mistse M.M. Pokrovs'koho v istoriohrafii.' In the early 1930s Karpenko, who by then had replaced the well-known Ukrainian historian Dmytro Yavornytsky as director of the historical museum in Dnipropetrovsk, was attacked in Pravda for opportunism and nationalism. See Chentsov, ‘Ideoloh ukrains'koho natsionalizmu,' 118; and Tereshchenko, ‘V chomu ¿¿ vyna,' 125.

See Karpenko's original presentation, Horodetska's critique of him, and his response to that critique and restatement of his previous position in ‘Dys- kusiia z pryvodu skhemy istorii Ukrainy M. Iavors'koho,' Litopys revoliutsii, 1930, no. 5: 214-18, 295-7, 316-19 (see note 20 above).

See Sokolov, ‘Razvitie istoricheskikh vzgliadov M.N. Pokrovskogo,' 66. On the debates over Pokrovsky's scheme of Russian history in Moscow, see Barber, Soviet Historians in Crisis, 58-67.

Iastrebov, ‘Tomu dev'iatoho persha polovyna,' 148. Ibid., 147.

Ibid.

Ibid., 148.

Iastrebov, ‘Natsional-fashysts'ka kontseptsiia selians'koi viiny 1648 roku na Ukraini,' 60.

See Narys istorii Ukrainy, 67-72. The first edition was published in Ufa in 1942. On the changing image of Khmelnytsky in Soviet historiography of the Second World War period, see Yekelchyk, ‘Stalinist Patriotism as Impe­rial Discourse.'

See Iastrebov, ‘Natsional-fashysts'ka kontseptsiia selians'koi viiny 1648 roku na Ukraini,' 82.

Ibid., 73.

35 Ibid., 72. For more on Yastrebov's interpretation of the Pereiaslav Agree­ment, see chapter 6 of this volume.

8 The People's History

1 See Dzherela z istorii pivdennol Ukralny. Two additional volumes were pub­lished later; their contents are not discussed in the present chapter.

2 Zelnik, ‘Russian Bebels'; Cultures in Flux; Voices of Revolution, 1917; Halfin, Terror in My Soul; Hellbeck, Revolution on My Mind; Fitzpatrick, 'Lives Under Fire'; and Coleman, 'Becoming a Russian Baptist.'

3 Grigorenko, V podpol’e mozhno vstretit’ tol'ko krys.

4 Hrushevs'kyi, Shchodennyk, 1883-1894. Cf. also the published diaries of other leading activists of the period: Kistiakovs'kyi, Shchodennyk; Chykalenko, Shchodennyk, 1861-1929; Vernadskii, Dnevniki, 1917-21; Vynnychenko, Shchodennyk.

5 Miller, 'Ukrainskii vopros' v politike vlastei i russkom obshchestvennom mnenii, 31-41.

6 Ibid., 96-196. Cf. Savchenko, Zaborona ukralnstva 1876 r.

7 Arguments in favour of just such a 'solution' to the Ukrainian question were summarized in works by supporters of the pan-Russian project dur­ing the years of revolution. See Linnichenko, 'Malorusskaia kul'tura'; and Liapunov, 'Edinstvo russkogo iazyka v ego narechiiakh.'

8 Vasyl' Rubel', 'Istoriia..,' in Dzherela z istorii pivdennol Ukralny, bk 1, 102.

9 Ibid., 132, 134, 141.

10 Mikhail Alekseev, 'Memuary,' in Dzherela z istorii pivdennol Ukralny, bk 2, 498.

11 Rubel', 'Istoriia.,' 130.

12 Alekseev, 'Memuary,' 490-1.

13 Rubel', 'Istoriia.,' 102.

14 Alekseev, 'Memuary,' 508, 521.

15 Rubel', 'Istoriia.,' 160.

16 Oleksandr Onysymovych Zamrii, 'Zapovit svoiemu pokolinniu,' in Dzhe- rela z istorii pivdennol Ukralny, bk 1, 215-16, 225-6, 234-5, 236-7; Iaroshenko, 'Shchodennyk,' 272.

17 Rubel', 'Istoriia.,' 164. Andrii referred to this compatriot, Volodymyr Moi- seiovych Bohuslavsky, as a brave man and a good companion.

18 Alekseev, 'Memuary,' 517-18, 522, 533; Zamrii, 'Zapovit,' 238, 242.

19 Rubel', 'Istoriia.,' 159, 165-6, 175-6, 178. Of Andrii's three closest com­rades who informed his family of his death, one, Timofei Skarzhinsky (Tymofii Srazhynsky), was illiterate, and his origin was not indicated in the letter written by Sergei Kharkov on his behalf. Andrii's second comrade, Volodymyr Chirka, came from the Kobryn region near the Ukrainian- Belarusian border, while the third, Nikolai Kozlov, who also appears to have been illiterate, came from Russia (the village of Znamenka; Rubel', 'Istoriia,' 180).

On the Ukrainization of the army, see von Hagen, 'The Russian Imperial Army and the Ukrainian National Movement in 1917.' Iaroshenko, 'Shchodennyk,' 268.

Alekseev, 'Memuary,' 549.

Zamrii, 'Zapovit,' 237.

Ibid., 229.

The Provisional Government's instruction of 4 August 1917 recognized the authority of the General Secretariat of the Central Rada over the Kyiv, Vol- hynia, Podilia, and Poltava gubernias and part of the Chernihiv gubernia. See Verstiuk, Ukrams'ka Tsentral’na Rada, 180; text of instruction in appen­dix 11, 304-6. On the attitude of Russian democrats to the problem of 'New Russia,' see Vynnychenko, Vidrodzhennia natsιi, 1:167-8, 319.

Text of the Third Universal in Verstiuk, Ukrams'ka Tsentral’na Rada, appen­dix 14, 315-18.

Alekseev, 'Memuary,' 549.

Ibid.

Mykola Vasyl'ovych Molodyk, 'Spohady,' in Dzherela z istorii pivdennoi Ukrainy, vol. 5, bk 1, pt 1, 333-5.

Alekseev, 'Memuary,' 549; Iaroshenko, 'Shchodennyk,' 275-80. Iaroshenko, 'Shchodennyk,' 281-2.

Ibid., 286-7.

Molodyk, 'Spohady,' 337.

The most complete account of the Ukrainization policy is to be found in Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire, 75-124, 209-72, 325-8, 344-72. Molodyk, 'Spohady,' 333.

Ibid.

Zamrii, 'Zapovit,' 245.

Iaroshenko, 'Shchodennyk,' 277.

Molodyk, 'Spohady,' 337-8.

Iaroshenko, 'Shchodennyk,' 277.

Ibid., 473. What remained unchanged in these records were the Russian names of the months of the year.

Ibid., 306.

Serhii Tsipko, 'Moi spomyny pro mynule..,' in Dzherela z istoriι pivdenno'i Ukrainy, bk 2, 783.

Ibid., 784.

Ibid., 783.

Komov, ‘Rubel' Vasyl' Dmytrovych,' 37-9.

Hrushevs'kyi, Hiustrovana istoriia Ukrainy. Further references are to the Win­nipeg reprint of this work issued in 1918. The editions of 1917-19 are cited in Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, 1866-1934: Bibliographic Sources, 28, 32, 35.

Rubel', ‘Istoriia...,' 107-10.

See, for example, the exposition of Ukrainian history in Matvii Yavorsky's popular Korotka istoriia Ukrainy. The book was used as a text in ‘institutions of socialist upbringing.' In 1927 the State Publishing House of Ukraine issued its fifth stereotype edition.

On the role of the Cossack myth in Hryshevsky's work, as well as his treat­ment of the social factor in Ukrainian history, see Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 193-207.

Rubel', ‘Istoriia...,' 104-5. Cf. Hrushevs'kyi, Iliustrovana istoriia Ukrainy, 362-7, 428.

Rubel', ‘Istoriia...,' 119.

Ibid., 102-3.

Ibid., 182.

Komov, ‘Rubel' Vasyl' Dmytrovych,' 37-9.

Alekseev, ‘Memuary,' 617.

On living conditions of peasant migrants and dekulakized peasants in another giant industrial centre of the first five-year plan, Magnitogorsk, see Kotkin, Magnetic Mountain, especially the chapter ‘Living Space and the Stranger's Gaze,' 157-97.

Molodyk, ‘Spohady,' 340.

Ibid., 341.

Ibid., 353.

Ibid., 322.

For a survey of interwar western Ukrainian historiography and the work of emigre historians, see Ohloblyn's appendix to Doroshenko and Ohloblyn, A Survey of Ukrainian Historiography, 372-436.

Tsipko, ‘Moi spomyny,' 783.

On the identity-building project in the DP camps, see Kulyk, ‘The Role of Discourse in the Construction of an Emigre Community.'

Tsipko, ‘Moi spomyny,' 792-3, 803.

Ibid., 797-803.

Alekseev, ‘Memuary,' 490.

Ibid., 765, 769.

Zamrii, ‘Zapovit,' 257.

See Alekseev, ‘Memuary,' 507.

9 History and Territory

On imperial disintegration, national self-determination, and border con­flicts, see Cobban, The Nation State and National Self-Determination, 295-9; Prescott, The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries, 109-78; and Coakley, ‘National Territories and Cultural Frontiers.'

See Voshchanov's statement in Izvestiia, 29 August 1991.

See quotations from an internal memorandum on the Crimea prepared by Vladimir Lukin, then chairman of the Committee on International Affairs of the Russian parliament and later ambassador to the United States (KomsomoTskaia pravda, 22 January 1991); an interview with S. Baburin and N. Pavlov, members of the Russian parliamentary group that visited the Crimea in December 1991 (Literaturnaia Rossiia, 31 January 1992); and Ukrainian protests against the creation and activities of the Russian Supreme Soviet ad hoc committee on the status of Sevastopol, called into existence at the Seventh Congress of People's Deputies of Russia in Decem­ber 1992 (Uriadovyi kur’ier, 11 December 1992; Pravda Ukrainy_r 23 January 1993; and UKRAINFORM Reports, 20 February 1993).

Pravda Ukrainy_r 7 April 1992, quoted in Solchanyk, ‘Ukraine and Russia,' 3. Ibid.

On the myth of Sevastopol, see chapter 10 of this volume.

Literaturnaia Rossiia, 8 January 1993. On the development of the Sevastopol mythology and its uses and abuses in the early 1990s, see chapter 10 of this volume.

Robitnycha hazeta, 23 January 1993.

There is a significant literature on Mykhailo Hrushevsky and his writings. See part 2 of this volume.

Armstrong, ‘Myth and History in the Evolution of Ukrainian Conscious­ness,' 133.

Ibid., 128.

On the development of Cossack mythology, see Sysyn, ‘The Reemergence of the Ukrainian Nation and Cossack Mythology'; and Gerus, ‘Manifesta­tions of the Cossack Idea in Modern History.'

For an outline of the Cossack period of Ukrainian history, see Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 105-98; and Subtelny and Vytanovych, ‘Cossacks.' On the history of the Chernihiv region, see the following works: Backus, Motives of West Russian Nobles in Deserting Lithuania for Moscow, 1377-1514; and M.T. Iatsura, ‘Chernihivs'ka oblast',' in Istoriia mist i sil Ukrains'koiRSR, 15-17.

For an account of these events, see Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 143-73.

See Druzhinina, Kiuchuk-Kainardzhiiskii mir 1774 goda, and Severnoe Pricher- nomor’e v 1775-1800 gg. The imperial absorption of the Crimea is discussed by Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, and The Crimean Tatars.

On the partitions of Poland, see Halecki, Borderlands of Western Civilization, 258-75.

For Bezborodko's views on the main goals of Russian foreign policy, see Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy, 261-2.

On Ukrainian settlement of the new territories in the eighteenth and nine­teenth centuries, see Polons'ka-Vasylenko, The Settlement of Southern Ukraine (1750-1775); Golobutskii (Holobuts'kyi), Chernomorskoe kazachestvo, Zapor- ozhskoe kazachestvo, and Zaporiz'ka Sich v ostanni roky svoho isnuvannia 1734­1775; Kabuzan, Zaselenie Novorossii; and Bruk and Kabuzan, 'Migratsii nase- leniia v Rossii v 18 - nachale 19 veka.'

Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy, 7, 29-32.

Ibid., 59-63, 258-76.

On the reemergence of the Khmelnytsky cult after the defeat at Poltava, see Plokhy, 'The Symbol of Little Russia.'

On the gentry's struggle for the recognition of its rights, see Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy, 248-57. On Ukrainian historiography of the period, see Doroshenko, A Survey of Ukrainian Historiography. On the 'Conversation' and the 'History of the Rus',' see chapters 2 and 3 of this volume.

There is an extensive literature on Shevchenko's life and writings. On his interpretation of Cossack history, see Grabowicz, 'Three Perspectives on the Cossack Past.'

On the national revival in Galicia, see Kozik, The Ukrainian National Move­ment in Galicia, 1819-1849; Rudnytsky, 'The Ukrainians in Galicia under Austrian Rule'; and Himka, 'Priests and Peasants,' and 'The Greek Catholic Church and Nation-Building in Galicia, 1772-1918.'

See Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 255-79; Radians'ka entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy, 4:461.

For a general survey of Soviet interpretations of Ukrainian and Belarusian history, see Szporluk, 'National History as a Political Battleground.' On changes in the Soviet interpretation of the Ukrainian past in the late 1920s and early 1930s, see chapter 7 of this volume.

On the national 'awakening' among the Soviet Ukrainian intelligentsia of the period, see Mykhailo Koval', 'Pid "kovpakom" beriivs'koi derzhbez- peky,' UkrainsTyi istorychnyi zhurnal, 1992, nos 10-11: 111-22.

On the political purge of the 1970s in Ukraine, see Solchanyk, 'Politics in Ukraine in the Post-Shelest Period.' On the fate of one of the persecuted, Mykola Kytsenko, a writer and senior Soviet official in the Zaporizhia region, see Olena Apanovych, ‘Nam bronzy ne treba!' UkratnsTca kul’tura, 1993, no. 1: 8-9.

On the celebrations of the five-hundredth anniversary of the Zaporozhian Cossacks in 1990, see Sysyn, ‘The Reemergence of the Ukrainian Nation and Cossack Mythology,' 858-9.

This information is based on the author 's interviews with Communist Party officials in the Cherkasy and Dnipropetrovsk regions (summer 1990- spring 1991).

On the participation of communist officials in the celebrations of the 340th anniversary of the Battle of Berestechko in Volhynia, see the joint statement issued on that occasion by the Lviv, Volhynia, and Rivne regional commit­tees of the Communist Party of Ukraine (Radians'ka Ukrama, 13 February 1991).

Solzhenitsyn, 'Kak nam obustroit' Rossiiu?' See also Solzhenitsyn's Appeal on the December 1991 Referendum,' in which he proposed to calculate the referendum results in Ukraine separately for each region (Christian Democ­racy, 1992, no. 17: 9-10).

On separatist tendencies in eastern and southern Ukraine, see M. Khudan, 'Daiosh Respubliku Novorosiia,' Literaturna Ukraina, 22 November 1990; O. Oliinykiv, 'Nashchadky Chepihy i Holovatoho,' Kul'tura i zhyttia, 5 August 1990; and Sysyn, 'The Reemergence of the Ukrainian Nation and Cossack Mythology,' 861.

See Leonid Zalizniak, 'Vid kozats'koi vol'nosti - do Novorosii,' Pam'iatky Ukratny, 1991, no. 2: 21; Volodymyr Kravtsevych, 'Berezan' i Izmail vziali Zaporozhtsy,' Narodna armiia, 28 October 1992.

See Volodymyr Kravtsevych, 'Kto zhe stroil "Russkuiu slavu”?' Narodna armiia, 6 November 1992.

See the articles on Cossack history in Radians 'ka entsyklopediia istorit Ukratny, 4 vols (Kyiv, 1969-72), 2:406-14.

See Roman Ivanychuk's memoirs in Berezil', 1992, nos 11-12: 125. The novel Mal'vy (first edition: Mal'vy: Roman [Kyiv, 1968]) was not included in bibli­ographies of Ivanychuk's works until the beginning of glasnost.

See Ivan Storozhenko's essay on the Battle of Zhovti Vody (1648) in Mytsyk, Storozhenko, Plokhii, and Koval'ov, Titslavy kozats'kotpovik ne zabudem, and the list of Yurii Mytsyk's publications in Bibliohrafiia prats’ vchenykh Dnipro- petrovs'koho universytetu.

See the article by V. Butkevych, 'Pravo na Krym,' Narodna armiia, 8 July 1992. Noting the first abolition of the Sich by Peter I in 1709 and the resettlement of the Cossacks to territories controlled by the Crimean Tatars, Butkevych claimed that from 1709 to 1734 Zaporizhia and the Crimea constituted one body politic that gained international recognition as a result of the Treaty of Prut between Russia and Turkey (1711). He also stressed the special relations between the Crimea and Zaporizhia on the eve of the imperial abolition of the Zaporozhian Sich in 1775.

41 Literaturna Ukraina, 10 January 1991. This information was drawn from the memoirs of a Turkish traveller, Evlia Chelebi, who visited the Crimea in 1666.

42 For a report on a visit to Sevastopol by the 'Cossacks-Zaporozhians' folk ensemble from the city of Zaporizhia, see Molod' Ukrainy_r 14 January 1993.

43 See the article on the history of Ukrainian settlement in the Kuban by V. Ivanys, V. Kubijovyc, and M. Miller in Encyclopedia of Ukraine, 2:687-95. For the interpretation of Kuban history in Ukraine in the early 1990s, see Petro Lavriv, 'Kubans'ki kozaky,' Narodna hazeta, 1993, no. 8.

44 Biuleten' Ukra'ins'ko'irespublikans'koipartii, 1993, no. 10. On the collaboration of the Ukrainian and Kuban Cossacks, see the statement of Hetman Volodymyr Muliava on the meeting of delegations of Ukrainian and Kuban Cossacks in Kyiv on 2 March 1993 (Molod' Ukrainy, 19 March 1993).

45 See the article on this march in the newspaper of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Narodna armiia, 21 October 1992: Anatolii Zaborovs'kyi, 'Kozaky v kinnomu pokhodi.'

46 N. Narochnitskaia, Literaturnaia Rossiia, 21 August 1992.

47 See Coakley, 'National Territories and Cultural Frontiers,' 41.

10 The City of Glory

1 See Smith, The Ethnic Revival, 165-7.

2 Dunlop, The Rise of Russia and the Fall of the Soviet Empire, and 'Russia: Con­fronting Loss of Empire.'

3 Dunlop, 'Russia: Confronting Loss of Empire,' 45-6.

4 Pipes, 'Weight of the Past,' 5-6.

5 For the peculiarities of Russian imperialism, see The End of Empire?

6 See chapters 2 and 3 of this volume.

7 Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, 350.

8 On the results of the referendum on independence in Ukraine, see Potichnyj, 'The Referendum and Presidential Elections in Ukraine.'

9 In the autumn of 1996, Georgii Tikhonov, chairman of the Duma Committee on Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, echoing numerous decla­rations of the presidential hopeful, Moscow mayor Yurii Luzhkov, publicly stated that Sevastopol 'was, is and will be Russian' (see 'Ukraine-Russia Dif­ferences Continue,' Ukrainian News, 9-27 October 1996, 5; 'Duma Passes Law Barring Division of Black Sea Fleet, OMRI Daily Digest, 24 October 1996; and ‘Russian Duma Enacts Black Sea Fleet Bill,' Monitor Report, 24 October 1996). Even the Russian premier, Viktor Chernomyrdin, who was usually much more responsible in his public statements, went on record as saying at the summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Lis­bon at the end of 1996 that ‘Sevastopol is a Russian city; all the soil there is covered with the bones of Russian sailors.' See Den', 10 December 1996. See Literaturnaia Rossiia, 8 January 1993.

See ‘Obrashchenie potomkov geroev Sevastopolia k Prezidentu, pravi- tel'stvu i Federal'nomu Sobraniiu Rossii,' Krymskoe vremia, 1996, no. 116. One of the many ironies of the appeal lies in the fact that Admiral Nakhimov was never married and had no children. See his biography, Davydov, Nakhimov.

Smith, ‘Culture, Community and Territory.'

Armstrong, ‘Myth and History in the Evolution of Ukrainian Conscious­ness,' 133.

On the theory of official nationality, see Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855.

Smith, ‘Culture, Community and Territory,' 454.

See the account of the Battle of Borodino in the standard Soviet history of the USSR: Istoriia SSSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, 4:125-32. There is a rich literature in both English and Russian on the history of the Crimean War. For an account of the events of the war, see Goldfrank, The Origins of the Crimean War; and Barker, The Vainglorious War, 1854-56. On the diplomatic consequences of the war for Russia, see Narochnitskaia, Rossiia i otmena neitralizatsii Chernogo moria, 1856-1871.

See Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 165-7.

This approach to the history of the Crimean War was inherited by Soviet historiography and can be found in almost all Soviet publications on the history of the war. See, for example, Istoriia SSSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, 4:517-68.

See Wortman, Scenarios of Power, 2:174-5.

On the eve of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 there appeared a number of publications in Russia devoted to the history of the Crimean War and the defence of Sevastopol. See Opisanie oborony goroda Sevastopolia; Sbornik rukopisei, predstavlennykh E.I.V gosudariu nasledniku tsesarevichu o SevastopoPskoi oborone sevastopol'tsami; and Materialy dlia istorii Krymskoi voiny i oborony Sevastopolia. See also publications that came out at the time of the war: Bogdanovich, Vostochnaia voina; and Dubrovin, Vostochnaia voina 1853-1856 godov.

Anderson, Imagined Communities, 86-7.

See Davydov, Nakhimov, 141, 162-6.

Ibid., 51-2, 83-7.

See Tolstoy, The Sevastopol Sketches.

See Istoriia mist i sil Ukrams'koHRSR. Kryms'ka oblast', 163-4.

The Soviet interpretation of the defence of Port Arthur included many ele­ments of the Port Arthur mythology. See Istoriia SSSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, 6:100-10.

On Mikhail Pokrovsky, see Szporluk's introduction to Pokrovskii, Russia in World History.

See Berkov, Krymskaia kampaniia; and Lagovskii, Oborona Sevastopolia.

On the defence of Sevastopol in 1941-2, see Istoriia mist i sil Ukrains ’koi RSR, 178-86; and Istoriia goroda-geroia Sevastopolia, 1917-1957, 199-257.

See Radians'ka entsyklopediia istoriH Ukramy, 3:214.

See Tarle, Gorod russkoi slavy. In 1955 the same publishing house released a book by Gorev, Voina 1853-1856 gg. i oborona Sevastopolia.

See N. Druzhinin, 'Ot redaktora,' in Tarle, Krymskaia voina, 5-8. In the late 1940s Evgenii Tarle also wrote a book about Admiral Nakhimov: Nakhimov. Tarle, Gorod russkoi slavy 3.

Ibid., 16.

Ibid., 15.

Ibid.

See Tarle, Gorod russkoi slavy. On Nikolai Pirogov's participation in the defence of Sevastopol, see the publication of his letters and memoirs in Pirogov, SevastopoTskie pis’ma i vospominaniia.

See Tarle, Gorod russkoi slavy, 114-15.

Ibid., 75-167. Nakhimov was presented in the same way in the numerous Soviet publications on his life and activities. Compare Aslanbegov, Admiral P.S. Nakhimov; Belavenets, Admiral Pavel Stepanovich Nakhimov; Novikov, Admiral Nakhimov; Tarle, Nakhimov; Admiral Nakhimov. Stat'i i ocherki; P.S. Nakhimov. Dokumenty i materialy; Polikarpov, Pavel Stepanovich Nakhimov; and Davydov, Nakhimov.

See, for example, the chapter on the history of Sevastopol in Istoriia mist i sil UkrainsToiRSR. Kryms'ka oblast, 142-205; and Istoriia goroda-geroia Sevasto- polia. The latter book is identified as the second volume of a two-volume history of Sevastopol. The first volume never appeared.

See Istoriia mist i sil Ukrams'koilRSR. Kryms'ka oblast, 151; and Radians'ka entsyklopediia istorn Ukramy, 2:391.

See Blizniuk, Na bastionakh Sevastopolia.

44 See Literaturnaia Rossiia, 8 January 1993:

Íà îñêîëêàõ íàøåé ñâåðõäåðæàâû

Âåëè÷àéøèé ïàðàäîêñ èñòîðèè

Ñåâàñòîïîëü - ãîðîä ðóññêîé ñëàâû,

Íî... íå íà ðîññèéñêîé òåððèòîðèè.

45 Solzhenitsyn, 'The Russian Question' at the End of the Twentieth Century, 30.

46 Ibid., 48-50.

47 Ibid., 96.

11 The Ghosts of Pereiaslav

1 On the treatment of the Pereiaslav Agreement in pre-Soviet and early Soviet Ukrainian historiography, see chapters 6 and 7 of this volume. For an account of events leading up to and following the Pereiaslav Agreement, see Torke, ‘The Unloved Alliance,' 42-8.

2 For the audio record of the BBC program on Bohdan Khmelnytsky, see ‘Nash vybir' at www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian. For the treatment of Khmelnytsky's image in modern historiography, see Sysyn, ‘The Changing Image of the Hetman.'

3 See ‘Nash vybir' at www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian. Cf. the following statement by the Ukrainian journalist and historian Serhii Makhun: ‘They now talk about the Pereiaslav Council in somewhat subdued tones. But under whose "hand" was Bohdan Khmelnytsky supposed to go in that complex political situation, and under pressure from the absolute majority of the population of Ukraine? Perhaps [under the ‘hand'] of the Turkish sultans and the Crimean khan, who had caused great distress to Khmelnytsky himself?' (‘Iak rozirvaty kolo vzaiemnoho rakhunku obraz?' Den', 25 December 1999).

4 For one of the first attempts to reevaluate the legacy of Soviet historiogra­phy, see Sovetskaia istoriografiia. On the interrelation of national identity and historical memory in Ukraine, see Kuzio, Ukraine, 198-229; and Wanner, Burden of Dreams.

5 See the text of the declaration in Slava ukra'ins'koho kozatstva, 306.

6 Ibid. On the activities of the Ukrainian Cossacks and their links to political parties and the armed forces in Ukraine, see Hryb, ‘New Ukrainian Cossacks - Revival or Building New Armed Forces?' For the role of the Cossack heritage in the Ukrainian national revival in the late 1980s and early 1990s, see Sysyn, ‘The Reemergence of the Ukrainian Nation and Cossack Mythology'; and chapter 9 of this volume.

7 On the historiographic debates over the significance of the Pereiaslav Agreement, see Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654. On differences between Russian and Ukrainian historians in the interpretation of Ukrainian history, see Velychenko, National History as Cultural Process, and Shaping Identity in Eastern Europe and Russia.

On the peculiarities of the nation-building project in Ukraine, see Arel, ‘Ukraine - The Temptation of the Nationalizing State'; Szporluk, ‘Nation­Building in Ukraine'; and the relevant chapters in Motyl, Dilemmas of Inde­pendence; Kuzio, Ukraine: State and Nation Building.

See the English translation of the Theses on the Three-Hundredth Anniversary of the Reunion of the Ukraine with Russia (1654-1954) in Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654, 270-88.

In 1998, a suggestion to name the university after Oles Honchar, a graduate of the university, was rejected.

For Sanin's remarks, see the recording of the BBC program on Bohdan Khmelnytsky, ‘Nash vybir,' at www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian.

See Zaborovskii, Tereiaslavskaia rada i moskovskie soglasheniia 1654 goda': 39.

Ibid., 39, 45.

See Samuilov, ‘O nekotorykh amerikanskikh stereotipakh v otnoshenii Ukrainy,' 1997, no. 3:84. For a Ukrainian response to Samuilov's article, see Oleksii Haran', ‘Pro “rasyzm Hrushevs'koho" ta “pol's'ku intryhu." Rosiis'ka nauka dolaie “amerykans'ki stereotypy shchodo Ukrainy/" Den', 5 August 1997.

Ironically, Kostomarov's views on Khmelnytsky and the Pereiaslav Agree­ment were considered anti-Russian by nineteenth-century Russian histori­ans. For Kostomarov's treatment of the Pereiaslav Agreement and a critique of Kostomarov by Gennadii Karpov, a student of Sergei Soloviev's, see Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654, 103-9. On Kostomarov's life, see Prymak, Mykola Kostomarov: A Biography.

For a political biography of Hrushevsky, see Prymak, Mykhailo Hrushevsky: The Politics of National Culture. On his historiographic views, see Sysyn, ‘Introduction to the History of Ukraine-Rus ' For Hrushevsky's views on the history of the Ukrainian Cossacks, see Plokhy, ‘Revisiting the Golden Age.' Samuilov, ‘O nekotorykh amerikanskikh stereotipakh v otnoshenii Ukrainy,' 1997, no. 3:93.

Ibid., 1997, no. 4:93.

Ibid., 1997, no. 3:95.

See the English translation of the Theses in Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654, 275. Samuilov, ‘O nekotorykh amerikanskikh stereotipakh v otnoshenii Ukrainy,' 1997, 4:90.

On developments in Ukrainian historiography since independence, see Subtelny, ‘The Current State of Ukrainian Historiography'; von Hagen, ‘Does Ukraine Have a History?' and Kohut, ‘Vidchytuvannia

Het'manshchyny.' On the historical factor in Russo-Ukrainian disputes, see Wilson, ‘The Donbas between Ukraine and Russia.'

23 See Mytsyk, 'Natsional'no-vyzvol'na viina ukrains'koho narodu 1648­1658 rr.,' 34-5. Mytsyk also mentions the case of 'Kornilovshchina,' but one could add to this list the official names given to all sorts of 'nationalist' devia­tions in the ranks of the Ukrainian Communist Party, such as 'Volobuiev- shchyna,' 'Skrypnykivshchyna,' 'Iavorshchyna,' and 'Shelestivshchyna.' In contemporary Ukraine, all these terms have a strong negative connotation.

24 See chapter 7 of this volume.

25 See the English translation of the Theses in Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654, 273. Cf. chapter 6 of this volume.

26 Reprinted in Tolochko, Vid Rusi do Ukrainy, 296.

27 Smolii, 'Het'man Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi i ioho doba,' 15. Among Khmelnytsky's mistakes, Smolii listed the withdrawal of Cossack forces from western Ukraine in late 1648 and the deterioration of Cossack rela­tions with Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania in 1654-5.

28 Instead, making reference to the writings of a Ukrainian nationalist ideo­logue, the interwar publicist Dmytro Dontsov, Smolii claims that Ukraine did not unite with Russia into a single state but instead joined a Russo- Ukrainian confederation. See ibid., 21-2; and Smolii, 'Natsional'no- vyzvol'na viina v konteksti ukrains'koho derzhavotvorennia,' 18-19.

29 See Solchanyk, 'Politics and the National Question in the Post-Shelest Period,' 12. For a summary and analysis of Braichevsky's views on the 'reunification' issue, see Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654, 202-13. For the Ukrainian and English texts of Braichevsky's essay, see Braichevs'kyi, Pryiednannia chy vozz’iednannia?; and Annexation or Reunification: Critical Notes on One Conception.

30 The term was not officially accepted at that time but clearly remained attractive in the eyes of leading Ukrainian historians. For the 1960s discus­sion, see Apanovych, 'Natsional'no-vyzvol'ni viiny v epokhu feodalizmu'; and Boiko, 'Shche raz pro kharakter natsional'no-vyzvolnykh voien v epokhu feodalizmu.'

31 See Smolii and Stepankov, Ukra'ins'ka natsional’na revoliutsiia XVH st. (1648­1676). On the use of outdated Soviet terminology and concepts by Smolii and Stepankov, see Natalia Yakovenko's review of the book, 'V kol'orakh proletars'koi revoliutsii,' in Ukra'ins'kyi humanitarnyi ohliad, 2000, no. 3: 58­78. For a discussion of the term 'revolution' in relation to the Khmelnytsky Uprising, see Sysyn, 'War der ChmePnyckyj-Aufstand eine Revolution?' Ukrainian version: 'Chy bulo povstannia Bohdana Khmel'nyts'koho revo- liutsiieiu? Zauvahy do typolohii KhmePnychchyny.'

32 For the latest version of Stepankov's argument on issues of terminology and chronology in the ‘Ukrainian national revolution,' see his ‘Ukrains'ka natsional'na revoliutsiia XVII st.' See Sukhyno-Khomenko's remarks in the discussion of 1929 with Yavorsky in Litopys revoliutsii, 1930, no. 5: 322-3, and the chapter on ‘The Great Ukrainian Bourgeois Revolution' in Sukhyno-Khomenko, Odminy i bankrutstvo ukra'ins'koho natsionalizmu, 28-51.

33 See Mytsyk, ‘Natsional'no-vyzvol'na viina ukra'ins'koho narodu 1648­1658 rr.,' 30-1.

34 For the use of the term ‘war of national liberation' in Tolochko's writings, see his ‘Pid mistechkom Berestechkom' (1991) and ‘Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi' (1995) in his Vid Rusi do Ukrainy_r 147-50. A prominent historian of Kyivan Rus' and a well-known political figure, Tolochko remains a strong supporter of independent Ukrainian statehood but was ‘lost' by the dominant Ukrain­ian elites at the ‘nationalization' stage of the Ukrainian state-building project. Since 1995, he has challenged many aspects of the ‘nationalization' of Ukrain­ian cultural life and historiography, becoming a villain in the eyes of the Ukrainian historical establishment. For his ‘rebellious' ideas, see his articles and interviews of 1995-7, including ‘Imeet li Ukraina natsional'nuiu ideiu?' ‘Shche raz pro ukra'ins'ku natsional'nu ideiu,' and ‘Inakomysliashchii Tolochko,' ibid., 334-95.

35 See Smolii, ‘Natsional'no-vyzvol'na viina v konteksti ukra'ins'koho derzhavotvorennia,' 10.

36 For a portrayal of Khmelnytsky as a state builder first and foremost, see, apart from works by Smolii, Stepankov, and Mytsyk, the text of a speech delivered by Petro Tolochko at one of the events commemorating the four- hundredth anniversary of Khmelnytsky's birth, ‘Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi,' in Tolochko, Vid Rusi do Ukrainy, 147-50.

37 See Smolii, ‘Natsional'no-vyzvolna viina v konteksti ukra'ins'koho derzha- votvorennia,' 10.

38 The statist approach to the definition of the main goals of the Khmelnytsky Uprising in Ukrainian historiography was criticized by Russian historians at a scholarly conference held in Moscow in January 1995 to commemorate the 340th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Council. See Zaborovskii, ‘Rossiisko- ukrainskaia konferentsiia, posviashchennaia 340-letiiu Pereiaslavskoi rady.'

39 For the use of this term in Ukrainian historiography, see Mytsyk, ‘Nat- sional'no-vyzvol'na viina ukra'ins'koho narodu 1648-1658 rr.,' 30. Cf. Smolii and Stepankov, Ukrains'ka derzhavna ideia, 84.

40 Apparently, the same logic underlay the views of Ukrainian autonomists in the second half of the eighteenth century. One of them, the Cossack secre­tary Semen Divovych, represented the Russo-Ukrainian arrangement as a union of two equal partners, Great and Little Russia, under a common tsar. For a discussion of Divovych's views on the Pereiaslav Agreement, see chapter 2 of this volume. For a critique of the view of the Pereiaslav Agree­ment as an act of confederation, see Longworth, ‘Ukraine: History and Nationality,' 117.

41 See the BBC monitoring service transcript of Russian TV news for 23 Janu­ary 2004. On the political ramifications of Kuchma's decree, see Kuzio, ‘Ukraine's "Pereiaslav Complex” and Relations with Russia'; and Kohut, ‘Facing Ukraine's Russian Legacy.'

12 Remembering Yalta

1 On the symposium organized by the Crimean authorities to mark the sixti­eth anniversary of the Yalta Conference, see Liudmila Obukhovskaia, ‘Imet' uvazhenie k proshlomu,' Krymskaia pravda, 9 February 2005. There is an extensive literature on the conference, most of it published during the Cold War. For a post-Cold War assessment of the decisions made at Yalta, see Gardner, Spheres of Influence.

2 See Jedlicki, ‘Historical Memory as a Source of Conflicts in Eastern Europe,' 226.

3 On the origins of the concept of Mitteleuropa and its transformation into the notion of Eastern and, later, East-Central Europe, see Busek and Brix, Pro- jekt Mitteleuropa; and Laszkiewicz, ‘A Quest for Identity.'

4 See Suny, The Revenge of the Past.

5 On the role of history in postcommunist Eastern Europe, see Rosenberg, The Haunted Land; Borneman, Settling Accounts; and Kaplan, Balkan Ghosts.

6 For a Russian commentary on the outcome of discussions between Powell and Lavrov during a conference of foreign ministers of OSCE member nations in Sofia, see Artur Blinov and Artem Terekhov, ‘Krakh mifa o zonakh vliianiia,' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 9 December 2004.

7 See Evgenii Grigor'ev, ‘MID RF otstoial Kaliningrad,' Nezavisimaia gazeta,

16 November 2004.

8 See Artem Blinov, ‘Tokio daiut trubu, no ne ostrova,' Nezavisimaia gazeta,

17 January 2005, and ‘Ultimatum proigravshego,' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 10 March 2005.

9 On the history of the Baltic states after the Soviet takeover, see Misiunas and Taagepera, The Baltic States.

10 On the controversy accompanying the Moscow launch of the book pre­sented by Vike-Freiberga to Putin, see Ivan Gorshkov, ‘Eto prosto tochka zreniia latyshei,' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 4 February 2005.

See Vaira Vike-Freiberga, ‘Was Ruβland von Deutschland lernen kann,' Der Tagesspiegel, 6 May 2005. For Russian reaction to Vike-Freiberga's deci­sion to come to Moscow for the VE Day celebrations, see Kirill Reznik- Martov, ‘Bush priglasil prezidenta Latvii v Moskvu,' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 8 February 2005.

See the commentary of the Information and Press Department of the Rus­sian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps/ 314872473059B3E2C3256FA60050BAC4.

For the Polish discussion of the consequences of the Yalta Conference in response to the statement issued by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, see Tadeusz M. Pluzanski, 'Jalta - zwyci⅛stwo Stalina, zdrada Zachodu,' 26 February 2005, mazowsze.k-raj.com.pl/pluzanski.shtml; Marek Ostrowski, 'Druz'iam moskovitam,' http://www.pravda.ru/world/2005/ 5/14/38/19148_Polska.html; and the transcript of the discussion on Radio Swoboda on 16 March 2005, with the participation of Polina Oldenburg and Aleksei Dzikovitsky, http: // www.svoboda.org/archive /.

There is an extensive literature on the Katyn massacre. At the time of writ­ing, the latest monograph on the subject is Sanford, Katyn and the Soviet Massacre of 1940.

See Wojciech Jaruzelski, 'Ich empfand den 8. Mai als riesige Erleichterung,' Die Welt, 3 May 2005.

See Jacek Lepiarz's summary of Kwasniewski's interview with Die Welt in the online version of Polityka, 27 February 2005. On KwaSniewski's partici­pation in the Wroclaw commemorations, see Trybuna.com.pl, http: // www.trybuna.com.pl/n_show.php?code=2005050903.

See Artem Mal'gin, 'Nad imidzhem pridetsia rabotat',' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 16 May 2005.

See the interview with Sergei Lavrov in Izvestiia, 17 May 2005. Cf. the text of the interview on the website of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/ sps/1B0BC3CE4ACCA28EC32570040020C546.

For the text of Bush's Riga speech, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/ releases/2005/05/20050507-8.html.

For a survey of the American debate prompted by Bush's Riga speech, see Elisabeth Bumiller, 'In Row over Yalta, Bush Pokes at Baltic Politics,' Inter­national Herald Tribune, 16 May 2005.

Quoted in Matt Welch, 'When Men Were Men and Continents Were Divided,' Reason on Line, 10 May 2005, www.reason.com/hitandrun/ 2005/05/when_men_were_m.shtml.

See Chamberlin, 'The Munich Called Yalta,' in The Yalta Conference.

See Bumiller, In Row over Yalta, Bush Pokes at Baltic Politics.

See Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., ‘Yalta Delusions,' The Huffington Post, 9 May 2005, www.huffingtonpost.com / theblog/archive /2005/05/yalta-delusions.html. Here Schlesinger summarized some of his arguments presented in the October 1967 issue of Foreign Affairs. For a reprint of the article, see ‘Origins of the Cold War' in The Yalta Conference, 152-83.

See Jacob Heilbrunn, ‘Once Again, the Big Yalta Lie,' Los Angeles Times,

10 May 2005.

See Pat Buchanan, ‘Was WWII Worth It? For Stalin, Yes,' AntiWar.com,

11 May 2005, http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=5899. Cf. Chester Wilmot, ‘Stalin's Greatest Victory,' in The Yalta Conference, 59-84.

See ‘Yalta Regrets,' National Review online, 11 May 2005, www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editorial2200505110923.asp.

Anne Applebaum, ‘Saying Sorry,' Washington Post, 11 May 2005, A17. See Iuliia Petrovskaia, ‘Troinaia diplomatiia Busha,' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 May 2005; and Artur Blinov, ‘Ia sidel riadom s drugom,' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 13 May 2005.

See ‘Ialta - shans, kotorym ne sumeli vospol'zovat'sia,' RIA ‘Novosti,'

1 March 2005.

See Trukhachev's translation of Ostrowski's article and his commentary on it in Pravda.ru for 21 February 2005, http://www.pravda.ru/world/2005/ 5/14/38/19148_Polska.html.

On the rise of Stalin's popularity in Putin's Russia, see Mendelson and Gerber, ‘Failing the Stalin Test.'

On the Russian politics of remembrance, as reflected in the composition of the memorial during the Yeltsin period, see Schleifman, ‘Moscow's Victory Park.' For the text of the appeal, see ‘Oskvernenie Dnia Pobedy,' Grani, 12 April 2005, http: // grani.ru/Society/m.87674.html.

See Iu. Krupnov, ‘Kto vyigral voinu? Narod ili Stalin?' Internet protiv teleekrana, 10 October 2005.

See Fedor Lukianov, ‘Den' Pobedy: mezhdunarodnyi aspekt,' Izvestiia, 29 April 2005, http: // www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/3986.html. Cf. Lukianov's much less critical article about Yalta in the 8 February 2005 issue of Vremia novostei, ‘Global'nyi disbalans: mir posle Ialty,' http: // www.vremya.ru/.

See Viktor Sheinis, ‘Ten' vozhdia narodov,' Nezavisimaia gazeta, 20 May 2005. See Mykola Semena, ‘U tsentri uvahy chy na zadvorkakh? Ukraina vtra- chaie mizhnarodnyi prestyzh, zabuvaiuchy pro svoiu rol' u mizhnarodnii istorii,' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, 15-22 January 2005.

See ‘Ukraina i Vtoraia mirovaia voina,' Krymskoe obozrenie, 1 February 2005; and ‘V Krymu otmechaiut 60-iu godovshchinu Ialtinskoi konferentsii,' Krymskoe obozrenie, 6 February 2005.

40 See Liudmila Obukhovskaia, 'Ialta 1945-2005: ot bipoliarnogo mira k geo- politike budushchego,' Krymskaia pravda, 1 February 2005, and 'Imet' uvazhenie k proshlomu,' Krymskaia pravda, 9 February 2005.

41 For reaction to Hrach's statement by the leaders of the Tatar Mejlis, see Tsentr informatsii ta dokumentatsii kryms'kykh tatar, http://www.ddct.org.ua / press /2005 / 20050104.html#33.

42 See Iurii Shapoval, 'Ukrains'ka Druha Svitova,' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 15 (543), 23 April-6 May 2005; Serhii Makhun, '"Zolotyi veresen"'abo "vyrish- ennia pytannia shliakhom druzhn'oi zhody,''' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 36 (564), 17-23 September 2005; and Vladyslav Hrynevych, 'Iak Ukrainu do vstupu v OON hotuvala stalins'ka "konstytutsiina reforma" voiennoi doby,' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 41 (569), 22-8 October 2005.

43 See Serhii Hrabovs'kyi and Ihor Losiev, 'Ialta 1945: triumf svobody, chy peremoha zla?' Svoboda, no. 5, 2005.

44 See Viacheslav Anisimov, 'Radist' zi sl'ozamy na ochakh, abo pro polityku, istoriiu i moral' na zori XXI stolittia,' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 11 (539),

26 March-1 April 2005.

45 See Vitalii Radchuk, 'Velyka Vitchyzniana chy Druha Svitova?' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 26 (554), 9-15 July 2005. For diametrically opposing views on the issue, see the articles in Ukraine's leading Internet newspaper, Ukrains'ka pravda, by Serhii Hrabovs'kyi, 'Chas povertatysia z viiny,' Ukrains'ka pravda, 6 May 2006, and Dmytro Krapyvenko and Pavlo Slobod'ko, 'Tvir do Dnia Peremohy,' Ukrains'ka pravda, 8 May 2006, http://www.pravda.com.ua.

46 On the actions of the communists and the leadership of the Soviet Army veterans' association relating to the failure of the planned reconciliation, see Hrabovs'kyi, 'Chas povertatysia z viiny'; Mykola Velychko, 'NKVD ne prostylo UPA,' Ukrains'ka pravda, 10 May 2005, http://www.pravda.com.ua; Volodymyr Danyliuk, 'Prymyrennia veteraniv. Misiia nezdiisnenna,' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 11 (539), 26 March-1 April 2005; and Iryna Mahdysh, 'Nasha porazka u Druhii Svitovii viini,' Dzerkalo tyzhnia, no. 21 (549), 4-10 June 2005.

47 Ron Popeski, 'Leftists, Nationalists Scuffle in Ukraine over WW2,' Reuters, Kiev, Ukraine, 15 October 2005.

13 The History of a Non-Historical Nation

1 See Rudnytsky, 'The Role of the Ukraine in Modern History'; and Pritsak and Reshetar, Jr., 'The Ukraine and the Dialectics of Nation-Building.'

2 Von Hagen, 'Does Ukraine Have a History?' 658.

3 Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism, 330.

4 On Hrushevsky, see chapters 5 and 6 of this volume.

14 Imagining Early Modern Ukraine

On the political uses and abuses of Ukrainian and Belarusian history during the Soviet era, see Szporluk, ‘National History as a Political Battleground.'

For an assessment of post-1991 Ukrainian historiography, see Subtelny, ‘The Current State of Ukrainian Historiography'; Kohut, ‘History as a Bat­tleground'; Kasianov, ‘Rewriting and Rethinking'; and Kuzio, ‘Historiogra­phy and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs,' and ‘Post-Soviet Ukrainian Historiography and School Textbooks in Ukraine.' Yakovenko currently chairs the Department of History at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy National University and is editor-in-chief of Ukralns'kyi humani- tarnyi ohliad, which reviews works on Ukrainian history and studies in the humanities. She is also president of the Ukrainian Society for the Study of East Central Europe and chairs a highly successful seminar for young histo­rians at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy.

Iakovenko, Ukrams'ka shliakhta z kintsia XlV do seredyny XVH stolittia. Iakovenko, Narys istoriι Ukralny z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVIII stolittia.

Iakovenko, ParaleVnyi svit.

For a recent discussion of the applicability of the imperial paradigm to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, see Roman Szporluk's dialogue with Andrzej Nowak, ‘Czy Polska byla imperium?'

For examples of the acceptance of that paradigm in the West, see Walicki, Poland between East and West, 10; and Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations, 3. Yakovenko has been accused of attempting to introduce old Polish historio­graphic myths into Ukrainian historiography under the guise of postmod­ernism. See Valerii Stepankov's critique of Yakovenko's views (partly based on her Paralel'nyi svit) in his ‘1648 rik.'

On the model of identity advanced by the Orthodox intellectuals, see Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion, 145-75. On Adam Kysil's regionalism, see Sysyn, ‘Regionalism and Political Thought in Seventeenth-Century Ukraine.' Cf. Sysyn, Between Poland and the Ukraine, 20-36, 104-14.

See Litwin, ‘Catholicization among the Ruthenian Nobility and Assimila­tion Processes in the Ukraine during the Years 1569-1648.'

For a discussion of Cossack attitudes towards religion and their involve­ment in religious conflict during the decades preceding the Khmelnytsky Uprising, as well as the role of the religious factor in the war itself, see Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion, 100-44.

See Fram, ‘Creating a Tale of Martyrdom in Tulczyn, 1648.'

14 Cf. my treatment of Polish, Jewish, and Ukrainian accounts of the Khmelnytsky Uprising in The Cossacks and Religion, 176-206.

15 Crossing National Boundaries

1 See Hermaize, 'Ukrama ta Din u XVII st.'

2 For the text of the review, see Volodymyr Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine (Kyiv), Manuscript Institute, fond X, no. 2913.

3 Ibid.

4 For a brief survey of the development of Cossack studies in Ukraine, see Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion, 6-10, and chapter 9 of this book. The most important works on Cossack history published in Ukraine in the 1950s and 1960s include Kryp'iakevych, Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi; Golobutskii, Zaporozh- skoe kazachestvo; and Apanovych, Zbroini syly Ukrainy pershoi polovyny XVIII stolittia.

On the development of the Russian historiography of Cossackdom, see Barrett, At the Edge of Empire, 1-11; and O'Rourke, Warriors and Peasants, 13-15.

5 The Polish historiography of Ukrainian Cossackdom made a dramatic turn towards an unbiased interpretation of the subject with the publication of Wojcik's Dzikie Pola w ogniu. Among Polish authors who contributed to the field in the 1980s were Teresa Chynczewska-Hennel (Swiadomosc narodowa kozaczyzny i szlachty ukrainskiej w XVII wieku), and Wladyslaw Serczyk (Na dalekiej Ukrainie. Dzieje Kozaczyzny do 1648 r.). The second volume of Ser- czyk's work appeared under the title Na pionιιcej Ukrainie. Dzieje Kozaczyzny, 1648-51.

6 The most important contributions to the history of the Ukrainian Cossacks published outside Soviet Ukraine include Krupnyckyj, Hetman Mazepa und seine Zeit (1687-1709), and Het’man Danylo Apostol i ioho doba; Doroshenko, Het’man Petro Doroshenko; Ohloblyn, Het’man Ivan Mazepa i ioho doba; Okin- shevich, Ukrainian Society and Government, 1648-1781; Gajecky, The Cossack Administration of the Hetmanate; Subtelny, The Mazepists; and Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy.

7 Stokl, Die Entstehung des Kosakentums. Among the works of Russian emigre authors of the interwar period, a study by Svatikov, Rossiia i Don, deserves special attention.

8 For examples of popular books on the history of Cossackdom, see Hindus, The Cossacks; Seaton, The Horsemen of the Steppes; Groushko, Cossack: Warrior Riders of the Steppes; and Ure, The Cossacks.

9 See Rudnytsky, 'A Study of Cossack History.'

10 See Longworth, ‘Letter to the Editor,' Slavic Review 33, no. 2 (June 1974): 413; ‘Professor Rudnytsky Replies,' ibid., 414-16.

11 Among the authors who sought to apply a comparative approach to the history of Cossackdom was McNeill (Europe's Steppe Frontier, 1500-1800). His work nevertheless demonstrated the weakness of an attempt to synthe­size findings in a field that still required a good deal of source-based research.

12 In Ukraine there has been a real explosion of research on Cossackdom, which always symbolized the spirit of Ukrainian independence and histori­cal distinctiveness. Since 1991, it has become a central concern of historians in Ukraine. Among recent additions to the field are Shcherbak, Formuvannia kozats'koho stanu v Ukraini; Lep'iavko, Kozats'ki viiny kintsia XVl st. v Ukraini, and Ukrains'ke kozatstvo v mizhnarodnykh vidnosynakh; Smolii and Stepankov, Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi; Storozhenko, Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi i voienne mystetstvo u vyzvol’nii viini ukrains'koho narodu seredyny XVllstolittia; Fedoruk, Mizhnarodna dyplomatiia i polityka Ukrainy, 1654-1657; Iakovleva, Hefmanshchyna v druhii polovyni 50-kh rokiv XVll stolittia; Horobets', Vid soiuzu do inkorporatsii, Prysmerk Hefmanshchyny, and Elita kozats'koi Ukrainy v poshukakh politychnoi lehitymatsii; Chukhlib, Kozats'kyi ustrii pravoberezhnoi Ukrainy; Lyman, Tserkovnyi ustrii Zaporozkykh Vol'nostei; Shyian, Kozatstvo Pivdennoi Ukrainy ostann'oichverti XVllst.; and Bachyns'ka, Dunais'ke kozats'ke viis'ko, 1828-1868. On contacts between Ukrainian and Don Cos- sackdom, see Brekhunenko, Stosunky ukrains'koho kozatstva z Donom u XVl- seredyni XVll st.

For more literature on the subject, see the bibliographies in Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion and Tsars and Cossacks. See also the bibliographic addi­tions in Mykhailo Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus', vols 7 and 8, and bibliographies appended to individual articles in Ukrains 'ke kozatstvo.

13 For examples of recent research on the Russian Cossacks, see Stanislavskii, Grazhdanskaia voina v Rossii XVll veka; Mininkov, Donskoe kazachestvo na zare svoei istorii, and Donskoe kazachestvo v epokhu pozdnego srednevekov’ia; Zuev, Russkoe kazachestvo Zabaikal'ia vo vtoroi chetverti XVlll - pervoi polovine XlX vv.; Sen', ‘Voisko Kubanskoe lgnatovo Kavkazskoe.'

14 For recent Western works on the history of the Cossacks, see Kumke, Ftihrer und Geftihrte bei den Zaporoger Kosaken; Barrett, At the Edge of Empire; O'Rourke, Warriors and Peasants; Boeck, ‘Shifting Boundaries on the Don Steppe Frontier.'

15 For an application of such an approach, see Brian Boeck's review of recent works on Don, Kuban, and Ukrainian Cossacks in Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 4, no. 3 (summer 2003): 735-46.

See Witzenrath, ‘Die sibirischen Kosaken im institutionellen Wandel der Handels-Frontier.'

Boeck, ‘Capitulation or Negotiation.'

Mininkov, ‘Donskie atamany vtoroi poloviny XVII veka.'

Kappeler, The Russian Empire, 52.

Beyond Nationality

Quoted in Hobsbawm, On History, 270. For a different translation of the same statement, see Renan, ‘What is a Nation?' 50.

See Berger, ‘Representations of the Past,' 74.

See Markevich, Istoriia Malorossii.

On the development of the Ukrainian women's movement in the late nine­teenth and early twentieth centuries, see Bohachevsky-Chomiak, Feminists despite Themselves.

See Efimenko, Istoriia ukrainskogo naroda. On Efimenko, see Markov, A. Ia. Efimenko - istorik Ukrainy.

See Drahomanov, ‘Chudats'ki dumky pro ukrains'ku natsionalnu spravu,' 490; quoted in Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 156.

David Saunders, review of Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, English Histor­ical Review 221, no. 490 (2006): 253.

See ibid., 253-5.

On Hrushevsky, see chapters 5 and 6 of this volume.

Quoted in Leitsch, ‘East Europeans Studying History in Vienna (1855­1918),' 140.

See Kappeler, The Russian Empire, 8.

On the challenges faced by the Ukrainian national narrative vis-a-vis its Russian and Polish counterparts, see Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 92-212.

On Henri Pirrene and his construction of the Belgian historical narrative, see Koninckx, ‘Historiography and Nationalism in Belgium.'

On German national historiography, see Iggers, ‘Nationalism and Histori­ography, 1789-1996.'

See Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia, 419-22.

On the current state of historical research in Ukraine, see Kasianov, ‘Rewrit­ing and Rethinking'; and Kuzio, ‘Historiography and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs.'

Some of the shortcomings of Hrushevsky's scheme were pointed out by his colleague Dmytro Bahalii in the 1920s. See his ‘Akad. M.S. Hrushevs'kyi i ioho mistse v ukrains'kii istoriohrafii (Istoryko-krytychnyi narys).'

The dangers of that approach are spelled out in Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations.

See Kappeler, ‘From an Ethnonational to a Multiethnic to a Transnational Ukrainian History.'

In Ukraine this work was translated into both Ukrainian and Russian and served as a textbook for university students through the first years of inde­pendence.

See Hrytsak, Prorok u svoii vitchyzni.

On Vynnychenko, see Rudnytsky, ‘Volodymyr Vynnychenko's Ideas in the Light of His Political Writings.'

See Iakovenko, Narys istorii seredn ^,ovichno'i ta rann 'omodernoi Ukrainy (Kyiv, 2005). For the first edition, see idem, Narys istorii Ukrainy z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVlH stolittia (Kyiv, 1997). On Yakovenko and her interpre­tation of Ukrainian history, see chapter 14 of this volume.

On the absence of Jews in the standard narratives of Ukrainian history, see Petrovsky-Shtern, ‘In Search of a Lost People,' and ‘Jews in Ukrainian Thought.'

See Kovba, LiudianisT u bezodni pekla; Himka, ‘War Criminality,' http:// www.univie.ac.at/spacesofidentity/_Vol_5_1 /_HTML/Himka.html; Berkhoff and Carynnyk, ‘The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists'; and Grachova, ‘Vony zhyly sered nas?'; and Tsarynnyk, ‘Zolochiv movchyt'.' See, for example, Redlich, Together and Apart in Berezhany; or Dean, Collabo­ration in the Holocaust.

See Kappeler, ‘From an Ethnonational to a Multiethnic to a Transnational Ukrainian History.'

On Ukraine as a cultural borderland between the Christian East and West, see Rudnytsky, ‘Ukraine between East and West'; and Sevcenko, Ukraine between East and West. On the Ukrainian steppe frontier, see the recent publications by Chornovol, ‘“Dyke pole” i “dykyi zakhid,'" and idem, ‘Seredn'ovichni frontyry ta moderni kordony.'

Mark von Hagen has recently made a strong case for the application of the borderland paradigm to the history of Eastern Europe in general and Ukrainian history in particular. See his ‘Empires, Borderlands and Diaspo­ras,' and ‘Povertaiuchysia do istorii Ukrainy.'

On the strategies applied by the Cossack officers, who had to operate simultaneously in a number of worlds, see Frick, ‘The Circulation of Infor­mation about Ivan Vyhovs'kyj.'

See Plokhy, Tsars and Cossacks.

See Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion, 65-99.

See Sevcenko, Ukraine between East and West, 164-86.

Keenan, ‘Muscovite Perceptions of Other East Slavs before 1654 - An Agenda for Historians.'

On Prokopovych and his role in the formation of Russian imperial identity, see Plokhy, ‘The Two Russias of Teofan Prokopovyc.'

See Kappeler, The Russian Empire. Cf. his 'Great Russians' and 'Little Rus­sians,' 8.

See Szporluk, Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union.

See chapter 12 of this volume.

Von Hagen, ‘Empires, Borderlands and Diasporas,' 445.

See Matsuzato, Preface to Emerging Meso-Areas in the Former Socialist Coun­tries; cf. Hrystak, ‘On Sails and Gales, and Ships Driving in Various Direc­tions.'

On the interplay of national and imperial elements in the thought of one of the leading Eurasianists, Nikolai Trubetskoi, see Mark Bassin, ‘Classical Eurasianism and the Geopolitics of Russian Identity,' http://www.dart- mouth.edu/~crn/crn_papers/Bassin.pdf.

See Wandycz, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918.

For a list of publications edited by Kloczowski and conferences organized by the institute, see the institute's website, http://www.iesw.lublin.pl/ dzialalnosc.php http://www.iesw.lublin.pl/wyd_listalph.php.

See Gorizontov, Tstoricheskie puti i pereput'ia vostochnykh slavian glazami rossiiskikh uchenykh.'

See M.A. Robinson's and B.N. Floria's contributions to the discussion in

Na putiakh stanovleniia ukrainskoi i belorusskoi natsii, 24-32.

Istoriia Tsentral 'no-Skhidno'i Ievropy.

See the English translation of Viktor Yushchenko's State of the Nation address of 9 February 2006, http://orangeukraine.squarespace.com/ long-articles/2006/2/16/yushchenkos-state-of-the-nation-address.html. Cf. note 6 above.