Notes

introduction

1 Said, Culture and Imperialism, xxii.

2 Hart, “Traces,” 85.

3 Many studies and reference tools assume that imperialism refers exclu­sively to states with overseas dependencies.

4 Arguments against using the term “colonialism” in the Ukrainian politi­cal and economic context include the country’s territorial contiguity, its relative affluence, the integration of its elite into the imperial fold and the absence of racial discrimination. For these reasons, it has been claimed, the term cannot be applied in its “classical” sense. Andreas Kappeler, for instance, has written: “Ukraine also was not a classical colony of the Russian Empire. A spacial, cultural and racial distance was lacking, and a legal discrimination of Ukrainians compared to Russians.” See his “Mazepintsy, malorossy, khokhly,” 140.

5 George Grabowicz has suggested that the continuous marginalization and repression of Ukrainian culture has its closest analogy - particu­larly in the cultural sphere - in colonialism and that “the colonial paradigm is much more pertinent than has generally been assumed.” “Ukrainian Studies,” 677-8. On the importance of postcolonial theory for Ukrainian writing, see Pavlyshyn, “Post-Colonial features”; Pavlyshyn and Clarke, Ukraine in the 1990s; and Yekelchyk, “Nationalism ukrainien, bielorusse et slovaque,” in Delsol and Maslowski, Histoire des Idees Politiques.

6 “Colonialism” is the term generally used to describe the invasion and settlement of one country by representatives of another, with the impo­sition of an alien government, legal system, and institutions.

7 Terdiman, Discourse/Counter-Discourse.

8 See, especially, Dragomanov and Antonovich, Istoricheskiia pesni, and Drahomanov, Politychni pisni.

9 Sypovskyi, Ukraina v rosiiskomu pysmenstvi.

10 Among several good anthologies of postcolonial literary criticism are Williams and Chrisman, Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory; Barker, Colonial Discourse/Postcolonial Theory, and McClintock, Dangerous Liai­sons. They build upon Said’s Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism. The Russian imperial context has been the focus of several works, among them Thompson, Imperial Knowledge; Hokanson, “Literary Impe­rialism”; Layton, Russian Literature and Empire, “Eros and Empire,” and “Marlinsky’s ‘Ammalat-Bek’”; and Scotto, “Prisoners of the Caucasus.”

11 See, in particular, Hrabovych, Do istorii; Pavlychko, Dyskurs modernizmu; Hundorova, Proiavlennia slova; and Zabuzhko, Filosofiia ukrainskoi idei, and Shevchenkiv mif

12 For an introduction to discourse theory, see Mills, Discourse, also useful is Loomba, ColonialismfiPostcolonialism.

13 I have found the following particularly useful: Agursky, The Third Rome, Hosking, Russia; Neumann, Russia and the Idea of Europe; Wolff,

Inventing Eastern Europe, Bassin, Imperial Visions; Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors, and Burbank and Rausel, Imperial Russia.

14 Layton, “Nineteenth-Century Russian Mythologies,” 82.

15 Austin, “The Exotic Prisoner,” 218.

16 Bassin, Imperial Visions, 13.

17 See Arendt, Totalitarianism, 126; Bassin, Imperial Visions, 13.

18 The influence of Austrian rule on Western Ukrainian literature is an important area of investigation that has also recently attracted atten­tion. See Instytut, Ukrainska literatura v Avstrii.

CHAPTER ONE

1 Vossoedinenie Ukrainy s Rossiei. Dokumenty i materialy, vol. 3 (Moscow, 1954), 468, quoted in Floria, “O nekotorykh osobennostiakh,” 19.

2 Segel, Eighteenth Century Russia, vol. 1, 53.

3 The president of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, described the reconfigura­tion of the Soviet Union into the Commonwealth of Independent States in 1991 as a “civilized divorce.” See Brzezinski, “Ukraine’s Criti­cal Role,” 3.

4 A Polish historian has written: “It is difficult to overestimate the contri­bution made by the Zaporozhians in the Russian-Turkish war. They played a prominent role in the conquest of the Crimea, as has been recognized many times, and the highest praise was given them in the numerous reports. Over a dozen tsarist administrators and officers accepted the honorary title of friend of the Zaporozhian army, among them the president of the College of Foreign Affairs Nikita Panin, Major-General Prozorovsky and Mikhail Kutuzov.” Serczyk, Historia Ukrainy, 195.

5 Serczyk, Historia Ukrainy, 198.

6 For the political and social life of Galicia, see Himka, Socialism in Galicia, and Galician Villagers.

7 See Knysh, Rus and Ukraine, 26-7.

8 Sydorenko, “Ukrainian,” 675.

9 For a discussion of later expressions of these stereotypes see Radziejowski, “Ukrainians and Poles.”

10 For the early expression of these stereotypes see Kepmski, Iaich i Moskal.

Sysyn, “The Khmelnytsky Uprising,” 166. Viswanathan, “Currying Favor,” 115.

See his “Encomium on the Battle of Poltava” (Slovo pokhvalnoe o batalii Poltavskoi..., 1709), which together with his “Epinikion...” appeared as a publication entitled Panegirikos, ili slovo pokhvalnoe o preslavnoi nad voiskami sveiskimi pobidi... (Kyiv: Druk. Kyievo-pecherskoi lavry, 1709). It has been argued that Ukrainian scholars and church leaders created the myth of two Russias in order to draw Moscow into a struggle against the Turks. See Sherekh, “Moskva, Marosieika,” 37. Mickiewicz, Les Slaves, 246, 247-8: “le fidele representant de l’idee des conquetes. Il encourage les Russes; il applaudit a leurs triomphes; il maudit et insulte leurs ennemis. Dans l’ode sur la chute de Varsovie, on voit clairement l’idee pretensieuse de l’Empire Russe de se dresser en face de l’Univers entier avec son omnipotence. Dierzhavin dit positivement: Nous n’avons pas besoin d’allies. A quoi bon des alliances? Fais un pas, 0 Russe, un pas encore, et l’univers est a toi!’”

Thompson, Imperial Knowledge, 7.

See, for example, his “To a Fine Fellow” (K krasavtsu, 1794), “On the Subjugation of the Derbent” (Na pokorenie Derbenta, 1796), and “On the Return of Count Zubov From Persia” (Na vozvrashchenie grafa Zubova iz Persii, 1804).

Rozanov, Izbrannoe, 206; Fedotov, Novyi grad, 31.

Mirsky, History of Russian Literature, 63.

Pipes, Karamzin’s Memoir, 139.

Hill, Lenin, 21.

Ibid., 77.

Vladislav Ozerov, for example, spoke of the “Russian God” in his trag­edy Dimitrii Donskoi (1807), which is devoted to the victory of 1380 over the Mongol Horde at Kulikovo Field, one of the most celebrated victories in Russian history. The idea of a saintly Russia under divine protection perhaps has its roots in a deeper past. Halperin has argued that the medieval chronicles provide evidence that Russians, unlike their counterparts elsewhere who “took military losses as evidence of their god’s displeasure,” implicitly denied that the Mongol conquest had occurred: “Through an adept and remarkably consistent use of language, in which they eschewed the terminology of conquest and even liberation, the bookmen avoided coming to grips with the ideological conundrum of their own defeat.” Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde, 62-3.

Neumann, Russia and the Idea of Europe, xi-xii. The idea of Moscow as the “third Rome” (Constantinople was the Eastern, or second, Roman Empire) was first formulated by the monk Filofei in the sixteenth cen­tury. The concept was reinterpreted by Russian thinkers in the nine­teenth century. Solovev saw it as Russia’s mission to “set on earth the correct image of the Holy Trinity.” See his Russkaia ideia, 20-1. Odoevsky, Russian Nights, 209.

Riasanovsky, Nicholas I, 137-8.

Ibid., 131.

Grech, Sochineniia, vol. 3, 290.

Bulgarin, Sochineniia, vol. 6, 130.

Neumann, Russia and the Idea of Europe, 196.

K. Aksakov, Estetika i Iiteraturnaia kritika (Moscow, 1995), 84, quoted in Hrabovych, Do istorii, 126.

Pogodin, “Parallel russkoi istorii,” 74.

Danilevskii, Rossiia i Evropa,, 24.

Ibid.

Slavinskii, “Russkaia intelligentsiia,” 233-4.

Savitskii, “Geograficheskie i geopoliticheskie osnovy,” 117, 118.

See Tillett, The Great Friendship, 26.

M.N. Pokrovskii, Russkaia istoriia s drevneishikh vremen, vol.

Said, “Yfeats and Decolonization,” 72.

See Bassin, Imperial Visions, 27.

Tiutchev, Sochineniia, 305:

Moskva i grad Petrov, i Konstantinov grad - Vot tsarstva russkogo zavetnye stolitsy...

No gde predel emu? i gde ego granitsy - Na sever, na vostok, na iug i na zapad?

Sem vnutrennykh morei i sem velikikh rek.

Ot Nila do Nevy, ot Elby do Kitaia,

Ot Volgi do Evfrata, ot Ganga do Dunaia.

Vot tsarstvo russkoe. i ne preydet vovek, Kak to providel Dykh i Daniil predrek.

Dostoevsky, Diary, 1207-8.

Ibid., 1202, 1209.

Ibid., 906.

La Republica, 27 January 1990, quoted in Neumann, Russia, 197. Dostoevsky, Diary, 1292.

Hokanson, “Literary Imperialism,” 343.

See Dowler, Dostoevsky, 24-5, 30-1, 57.

Ibid., ¹55.

[A.A. Grigorev], “Vopros o natsionalnostiakh, “ Iakor 5 (1863), 81; see Dowler, Dostoevsky, 155.

See Rosdolsky, Engels.

Dostoevsky, Diary, 1372-3, 1376. Rieber, “Russian Imperialism,” 334.

Iskander, “Rossiia i Polsha,” 274. For a translation of the article, see Herzen, “Alexander Herzen, Russia and Poland.”

Fedotov, “Sudba imperii,” Novyi zhurnal 16 (1947), reprinted in his Novyi grad, 187.

Ibid., 188.

V-, “Osvobozhdenie krestian v Rossii i Polskoe vostannie,” Kolokol 195 (1 March 1865): 1602.

I-r [Herzen], “Kolokol i Den,” 1375.

See Miller, “Rossiia i rusifikatsiia Ukrainy,” 146, 154.

The German historian J. Ch. Engel makes this comment in his Geschichte der Ukraine und der ukrainischen Kosaken (Halle, 1796), 194, quoted in Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu, 244.

Nikolai Polevoi, Ermak Timofeich, ili Volga i Sibir (St Petersburg: K. Krai, 1845), 144, quoted in Bassin, Imperial Visions, 53. The stage directions for the ending of the play have the dying hero deliver this speech and “fall silent in ecstasy.”

“Rassuzhdenie o polzakh i nevygodakh priobreteniia Gruzii, Imeritii i Odishi, so vsemi prilezhashchimi narodami,” Chteniia, 1862, 2, section 5, 87, quoted in Dzyuba, Internationalism, 75.

Dzyuba, Internationalism, 25, 79.

Pokrovskii, Russia, 75.

Ibid., 121.

Ibid., 122.

Kappeler, “Mazepintsy,” 125-44. See also his Russland als Vielvolkerreich. For a discussion of the distinction, see Himka, Socialism in Galicia, 4-7. On the use of the term in Engels and Marxism generally, see Rosdolsky, Engels.

Thompson, Imperial Knowledge, 6

Leela Ghandi, Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction (New Ybrk: Colum­bia University Press, 1998), quoted in Thompson, Imperial Knowledge, 11. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Petr Valuev, issued a secret instruc­tion on 30 July 1863 closing all Ukrainian Sunday schools and forbid­ding all Ukrainian-language publications, with the exception of belles lettres. He stated that “No separate Little Russian language ever existed, exists now, or can exist and the dialect used by the common people” in Ukraine was “nothing but the Russian language that had been distorted by Polish influences,” that Ukrainian peasants understood Russian better than Ukrainian, and that beneath the drive for language rights lay a desire for separatism. See Savchenko, Zabo- rona ukrainstva, xvi. The secret Ems edict signed by Alexander II on 30 May 1876 extended the ban by prohibiting all teaching in Ukrai­nian, removing all Ukrainian books and pamphlets from school librar­ies, transferring teachers with Ukrainian sympathies to Russian school districts, and directing Ukrainian districts to appoint Russians. The composer N.V. Lysenko was prevented from publishing a collection of Ukrainian songs, and his musical score for the opera Chornomorets could only be published without the libretto or the title. Alexander II lifted some of these restrictions in 1881 by allowing dictionaries, stage performances, and musical compositions to appear. Savchenko, Zaborona ukrainstva, xxiv.

73 See Riasanovsky, Nicholas, and Whittaker, Origins.

74 Luckyj, Between Gogol and Sevcenko, 36-7.

75 See Sysyn, “Concepts of Nationhood,” and “The Khmelnytsky Upris­ing”; and Chynczewska-Hennel, “National Consciousness.”

76 Hrabianka’s Diistviia prezilnoi i ot nachala poliakov krvavshoi n.e∣>uvaιlo∣ brani Bohdana Khmelnytskoho... Roku 1710 was first published in full in Kyiv in 1854. Velychko appeared as Letopis sobytii v Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii v XVII veke. Sostavil Samoil Velichko byvshii kantseliarist Voiska Zapomzkskogo, 1720, 4 vols. (Kyiv, 1848-64). A translation into modern Ukrainian was made by Valerii Shevchuk in Samiilo Velychko, Litopys,

2 vols. (Kyiv: Dnipro, 1991).

77 See “Rech ‘O popravlenii sostoianiia’ Malorossii”; and “Proshenie malorosiiskago shliakhetstva i starshin, vmeste s getmanom.”

78 The protonational counterdiscourse has been detected in the opposi­tional strategy of Stefan Yavorsky in Peter the Great’s time. See Serekh, “Stefan Yavorsky.” It can also be seen in Pylyp Orlyk’s “Bendery Consti­tution” of 1710 and Hryhorii Poletyka’s submission to Catherine the Great’s Legislative Commission in 1768. Excerpts from both these doc­uments can be found in Lindheim and Luckyj, Toward an Intellectual History, 53-64, 71-3. Poletyka also wrote “Historical Information on what basis Little Russia was under the Polish Republic, and by what treaties it came under Russian rule, and a Patriotic Opinion as to how it could be ordered so that it would be useful to the Russian State with­out violations of its rights and freedoms.” See Poletyka, “Istoricheskoe izvestie.” Vasilii Kapnist’s “Ode on Slavery” (1783) has also been inter­preted as a political protest.

79 See [Divovych], “Razgovor Velikorossii s Malorossiei” and “Dopolnenia Razgovora Velikorossii s Malorossiei” (an abridged version was published in Biletskyi, Khrestomatiia,, 465-83). See also Istoriia Rusov and Pavlyshyn, “Kotliarevsky’s Eneida,” 24.

Hrabovych, “Teoriia ta literatura,” 80-1.

See, for example, Sverstiuk, “Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi is Laughing,” in his Clandestine Essays, 69-96, and Shevchuk, “Eneida.” Skovoroda, Tvory, vol. 1, 59.

Ibid., 72.

Ibid., 84.

Bagalei and Miller, Istoriia gorod.a Kharkova, 467. Chyzhevskyi, Filosofiia, 174-9.

See Olena Dziuba, “Ukraintsi,” in Miller, Rossia, 115-24.

Statistics on the social and national origins of the university’s student body in the early decades indicate that “virtually all its Ukrainian stu­dents were either nobles from the Hetmanate... or sons of priests pri­marily from the Right-Bank Ukraine.” Kohut, “Problems,” 115. Sypovskyi, Ukraina, 10-12. The same point was made earlier by N. Dashkevich. See his “Otzyv,” 1O9.

Mirsky, Russia, 232-3.

Bahalii, Istoriia, 192-3.

See Drahomanov, Politychni pisni ukrainskoho narodu (1883-85), “Malorossiia v ee slovesnosti,” (1869), (with Antonovych) Istoricheskiia pesni malorusskogo naroda (1874), and Novi ukrainski pisni pro hromadski spravy (1881). These are all reprinted in his Vybrane, 5-45, 46-59, 456-61. See also Kostomarov’s “Istoricheskoe znachenie iuzhno- russkago navodnago tvorchestva” (1872) and “Istoriia kazachestva v pamiatnikakh iuzhno-russkago pesennago tvorchestva” (1880). See, for example, Marchenko, Kozaky-Mamai, 16, 40.

Drahomanov, Politychni pisni, iv.

Demidoff, Voyage, 253.

Dzyuba, Internationalism, 82.

Ibid., 83-4.

Ibid., 96, 66, 84.

See Hrabovych, Do istorii, 21.

See Hrabovych, “Teoriia ta istoriia,” 46-137.

Ibid., 84.

Quoted ibid., 108.

“Road to Russia” was the first of six poems that followed act 1 of Forefa­thers’ Eve. Weintraub has described its “basic notion” as follows: “life in Russia lacks organic qualities. It is not an unhampered growth of free human beings. There is something subhuman, animal or mechanical.” Poetry of Adam Mickiewicz, 183.

On the “Slaveno-Rossian” high culture (Slavenorossiiska kultura), based on Ukrainian Orthodoxy and the Ukrainian version of Church Slavonic, see Kohut, “The Question of Russo-Ukrainian Unity,” forthcoming.

On a particular language not being the ultimate determinant of the national in a literature, see Hrabovych, “Ukrainsko-rosiiski Iiteraturni vzaiemyny,” in his Do istorii, 189-236.

Luckyj, Between Gogol’ and Sevcenko, 7.

On the concept of Little Russia see Kohut, “Little Russian Identity.” The evolution of the term “Rus” into “Russia” and “Little Russia” is described in Maksimovich, “Ob upotreblenii nazvanii.” See also Hrushevskyi, “Velyka, Mala i Bila Rus,” and Solovev, “Velikaia, Malaia i Belaia Rus.”

Hrabovych, “Ukrainsko-rosiiski literaturni vzaiemyne,” 222.

On Vahylevych’s identity problem see Brock, “Gente Ruthenus.”

On Kapnist’s mission see Kohut, Russian Centralism., 264-6. The rele­vant documents have been published in Dashkevych, “Berlin.” Opposi­tionist attitudes survived in the family. Drahomanov reported that in the late 1850s he was able to read copies of Shevchenko’s banned poems in the collections of V. Kapnist’s children. See Narod (Lviv) 18 (1893), 15 September, 195, quoted in Priima, Shevchenko, 62. Frick, “‘Foolish Rus’.’”

See Kulish, “Zazyvnyi lyst.”

Franko, “Ivan Vyshenskyi i ioho tvory” (Lviv, 1895), reprinted in his Zibrannia tvoriv, 127.

Mills, Discourse, 97.

Pratt, Imperial Eyes, 4.

CHAPTER TWO

See Halbach, “Bergvolker,” 53. For a fuller account of the war see Gammer, Muslim Resistance.

See Kazemzadeh, “Penetration,” 262.

R. Fadeev, Pisma z Kavkaza k redaktoru Moskovskikh Vedomostei (St Petersburg, 1865) 154, quoted in Kazemzadeh, “Russian Penetration,” 262.

See Halbach, “Bergvolker,” 53-4.

Quoted ibid., 63.

Walicki, Philosophy, 92. Scotto, “Prisoners,” 247.

S. S. Uvarov, Projet d'une academie asiatique (St Petersburg, 1810), reprinted in his Etudes de philologie et de critique (Saint Petersburg, 1842) 1-45. The work met with remarkable success. Uvarov, who later became minister of education (1818-55) under Nicholas I, gave copies to Mme de Stabl and the brothers Schlegel. The work was praised by Napoleon and Goethe.

Marlinsky, “On Romanticism,” 150.

Christoff, Third Heart, 19.

Manuilov, Letopis, 78.

Mirsky, for example, uses the term in History, 132.

Hugo, CEuvres, 305.

During his interrogation Bestuzhev portrayed himself as a contrite and loyal servant led astray by fanatics: “He appealed to patriotism; loyalty to the homeland, the tsar, and the Romanov family; devotion to the Church, to God, and to the people. He asserted that he was a misled patriot who had attempted to serve his homeland through a revolution­ary zeal that proved callow.” Bagby, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, 184.

About sixty-five officers and three thousand soldiers were banned to the Caucasian army. See Fadeev, “Dekabristy,” 100.

Under this title Biblioteka dlia chteniia published the following sketches in these years: Proshchanie s Kaspiem, Put do goroda Kuby, Gornaia doroga iz Dagestana v Shirvan cherez Kunakenty, Poslediaia stantsiia k Staroi Shamakhe, Pereezd ot S. Topchi v Kutkashi, and Doroga ot stantsii Almaly do posta Mugansy.

I.S. Turgenev’s words from 1836 are quoted in Brodsky, Literaturnye salony, 201.

Layton, “Ammalat-Bek,” 39.

Ibid., 41-3. See also Layton, Russian Literature and Empire, 110-32. Marlinskii, Izbrannye povesti, 14.

Ibid., 222.

Layton, “Ammalat-Bek,” 44.

Marlinskii, Izbrannye povesti, 232.

Ibid., 264-5.

Ibid.

Ibid., 271.

Ibid., 235.

Curtis has written that in many ways Yfermolov’s “views on military mat­ters were close to those of the Decembrists, although he apparently had no ties with them and, indeed, was too loyal to his oath to approve their revolt.” The Russian Army, 22.

On the Europe-Asia boundary see Bassin, “Russia.” Barrett, “Lines of Uncertainty,” 600-1.

On Yermolov’s wives, see Berzhe, “Yfermolov.”

Marlinskii, Izbrannye povesti, 172-3.

A tirade by Ammalat-Bek against the cruelty of tsarist policy, the por­trait of Yermolov as a conquering hero, and several other passages were censored. See Marlinskii, Izbrannye povesti, 404. For a discussion of the censorship see Bagby, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, 313-16.

Layton, “Ammalat-Bek,” 46.

Ibid., 51.

It has been suggested that different attitudes coexisted in the author’s mind and that he constructed several persona that served discrete func­tions and different audiences. Bagby, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, 14-15.

Semen Esadze, Istoricheskaia zapiska ob Upravlenii Kavkazom (Tiflis, 1907) 35, quoted in Gammer, Muslim Resistance, 30. Baddeley held the same view: "Yfermoloff s central idea was that the whole of the Caucasus must, and should, become an integral part of the Russian Empire, that the existence of independent or semi-independent states of communi­ties of any description, whether Christian, Mussulman, or Pagan, in the mountains or on the plains was incompatible with the dignity and honour of his master, the safety and welfare of his subjects.” Russian Conquest, 99.

Quoted ibid., 65.

Ibid., 99.

For a discussion of the implications of Marlinsky’s death for the inter­pretation of his work, see Bagby, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, 279.

Bagby, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, 64.

The letter was written in November/December 1937. See Manuilov, Letopis, 89, quoted in Kelly, Tragedy, 83.

Ibid.

General Vladimir Volkhovsky, another former Decembrist, suggested that "two or three months with an expedition against the mountain­eers might be the best way for Lermontov to efface all memories of his faux pas.” Manuilov, Letopis, 82-3, quoted in Kelly, Tragedy, 67.

In a letter of 19 June 1833 to his confidante Maria Lopukhina the young writer explained: "Until now I had lived for a literary career, and now I am to become a warrior. Perhaps this is the shortest way. If it does not lead me to achieve my first aim, perhaps it will be the final solution.”

Tillett, Friendship, 28. Sollogub, Povesti, 490.

Manuilov, Letopis, 96, quoted in Kelly, Tragedy, 107.

Letter, 19 June 1833, to Lopukhina.

Lermontov had witnessed boxing matches from his childhood. See his Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 3, 595.

Letter to S. Raevsky, 16 January 1830.

Eikhenbaum’s resolutely formalist discussion of Lermontov asks read­ers to treat the Hussar poems, like his civic themes, simply as ineffec­tive art. The Hussar poems are described as more pornographic than erotic: "Eroticism is distinguished from pornography in that it finds witty allegories and puns for the most candid situations and it is this which lends it literary value. Since poetry in general is almost wholly the art of speaking allegorically, in order to make palpable the very matter of the word in all its attributes, it is thus perfectly understand­able that an erotic theme, as a forbidden theme possessing no canon­ized poetic topoi for its expression, interests the poet as a purely literary, stylistic problem. Such is the case with Voltaire’s “Pucelle” or Pushkin’s “Gavriiliada.” This is not at all the case in Lermontov: instead of allegories and puns in his verse we see simply scabrous terminology whose coarseness produces no impression because it is not an artistic device.” Eikhenbaum, Lermontov, 119.

53 Baddeley, Russian Conquest, 145.

54 Gammer, Muslim Resistance, 311.

55 McClintock, Imperial Leather, 364.

56 Lermontov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 3, 311:

Teper ostalos mne odno;

Idu! - kuda? ne vse l ravno,

Ta il drugaia storona?

57 The denial of hybridity has a history. Halperin, speaking of medieval Russian writings, has written: “Russian audiences developed a taste for tales with “oriental” settings, but the real thing was, for religious rea­sons, unacceptable.” Russia, 124. In his Poetika (11-13) Likhachev has also discussed the paradox that oriental literatures failed to penetrate Old Rus literature.

58 Gammer, Muslim Resistance, 114.

59 Lermontov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 3, 235:

Smiris, cherkes! i zapad i vostok,

Byt mozhet, skoro tvoi razdeliat rok, Nastanet chas - i novyi groznyi Rym Ukrasit Sever Avgustom drugim!

60 Ibid., 227:

Za chto zavistlivoi rukoi

Vy vozmutili nashu doliu?

Za chto, bedny my, i voliu

I step svoiu ne otdadim

Za zlato roskoshi nariadnoi;

Za to, chto my bogotvorim, Chto presiraete vy khladno! Ne boisia, govori smelei; Zachem ty nas voznenavidel, Kakoiu grubostiu svoei Prostoi narod tebia obidel?

61 Ibid., 235:

Goriat auly; net u nikh zashchity, Vragom syny otechestva razbity...

Kak khishchnyi zver, v smirennuiu obitel

Vryvaetsia shtykami pobeditel,

On ubivaet startsev i detei,

Nevinnykh dev i iunykh materei...

Ivan Dziuba, “Zastukaly,” 3: 93.

“la k vam pishu: sluchaino! pravo...” (1840), in Lermontov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, 95:

I s grustiu tainoi i serdechnoi

Ia dumal: zhalkii chelovok,

Chego on khochet!. Nebo iasno,

Pod nebom mesta mnogo vsem,

No besprestanno i naprasno Odin vrazhduet on - zachem?

Layton, Russian Literature and Empire, 225.

Quoted in Troyat, LEtrange destin, 141.

N. I. Lorer, Zapiski dekabrista (Moscow: Gos. ekonomicheskoe izd., 1931) 214, quoted in Layton, Russian Literature and Empire, 108. Troyat, LEtrange destin, 211.

Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), 79, quoted in McClintock, Imperial Leather, 25.

Ibid.

Kelly, Tragedy, 136.

Eikhenbaum, Statti, 123.

Ibid.

Ibid., 121.

Ibid.

P.A. Viskovatov, M.Iu. Lermontov: Zhizn i tvorchestvo (Moscow: Izd.

V.F Rikhtera, 1891) 368, quoted in Eikhenbaum, Statti, 123. Bassin, Imperial Visions, 48.

The German Romantic had written that the essence of a thing was in the concatenation of forces that it was - not in something else beyond this. He postulated a conflict within nature that, by inhibiting its pro­ductivity, continually led to the emergence of life and thought. More­over, Schelling’s philosophy saw an identity between mind in us and nature outside us: “the system of nature is at the same time the system of our mind.” Bowie, Schelling 39.

Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 4, 505, 517, qtd. in Eikhen- baum, Stati, 84-5.

Howe, Novels, 27.

Quoted in Bowie, Schelling, 114.

Ibid.

Clarke, Travels, 331. Sumarokov also refers to them as “the privileged possessors of the local land.” Dosugi, vol. 2, 136. Izmailov describes the Taman island as “given over to their rule” by Catherine. Puteshestvie, vol. 4, 12. Shostak describes the Black Sea Cossacks as “all Little Rus­sians” who keep the “customs of their native land” and confirms that the island of Taman “is under their authority.” “Vzgliad,” 82-3.

Clarke, Travels, 167, 282-5. Sumarokov is also clear about their iden­tity: “the Black Sea cossacks do not differ in any way from Little Rus­sians. They have the same shaven heads, the same clothes, the same hems on women, the same language [narechie], the same neat houses, the same sluggishness, and the same customs; in a word, they are the very same Little Russians, except with swords.”(Dosugi, 139).

Sumarokov refers to crossing from Kerch to Taman as a five and a half hour journey from Europe to Asia. Dosugi, 124. Izmailov also describes this point as the link between Europe and Asia. Puteshestvie, vol. 3, 261. Izmailov, with whose account Lermontov may have been familiar, also records it as a mysterious place in which oil bubbled up from the earth and caught fire, a Mount Etna or Vesuvius constantly shrouded in fog. Puteshestvie, vol. 4, 6-11.

Layton, Russian Literature and Empire, 229-30.

Mirsky, introduction to The Demon, 12-13.

Ibid., 14.

Mirsky, History, 136.

Lermontov was drawing on historical and legendary associations when giving his heroine this name. The reign of Queen Tamara, which began in 1184, was Georgia’s most glorious era, marked by prosperity and a flowering of the arts, and it was a central point in its history. The most serious crisis of the reign was the attempt of her Russian husband, George Bogoliubskoi, whom she divorced in 1188, to seize power.

Lermontov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 3, 472:

Ostav ee, ona moia!

Iavilsia ty, zashchitnyk, pozdno,

I ei, ty ne sudia.

Na serdtse, polnoe gordyni,

Ia nalozhil pechat moiu;

Zdes bolshe net tvoei sviatyni,

Zdes ia vladeiu i liubliu!

Layton, “Eros and Empire,” 205.

A.P. Shan-Girei, “M.Iu. Lermontov,” quoted in Lermontov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 3, 648.

Garrard, Lermontov, 100-1. Reshetar, “Perceptions,” 152.

See de Custine, Empire, 121.

Lermontov, Hero, 100, 127.

98 For a discussion of this construct of Eastern Europe, see Wolff, Invent­ing Eastern Europe.

99 de Custine, 85.

100 Ibid., 347.

101 Dostoevsky, like Danilevsky, saw the assimilation of non-Orthodox Euro­pean nations as justifiable on religious grounds. He wrote that the reason for Europe’s degeneracy lay in the fact that “Roman Catholi­cism long ago sold out Christ for the sake of earthly dominion, forc­ing humanity to turn away from it and so being the principal cause of Europe’s materialism and atheism; quite naturally this Catholicism also engendered socialism in Europe.” Dostoevsky, Diary, 1210.

102 Carter, Russian Nationalism, 16.

103 Walicki, Slavophile Controversy, 186.

104 Shcheglov, Rannie slavianofily, 14-15.

105 Christoff, Russian Slavophilism, 34.

106 Dziuba, U vsiakoho, 117-18.

107 See Konstantin Aksakov, “ Russian Eagle,” and Ivan Aksakov, “To the Danube! where a new glory’s / a pure glory’s star shines for us” (“Na Dunai! tuda gde novoi slavy..., 1854).

108 Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy, 186.

109 Arsenev, “Khomiakov,” 14.

110 Khomiakov, “Tridtsats let tsarstvovaniia Ivana Vasilevicha,” Polnoe sob- ranie sochinenii, vol. 3, 49.

111 Ibid., vol. 8, 206; emphasis in original.

112 Khomiakov, Stikhotvoreniia, 267.

113 Ibid., 277.

114 Khomiakov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, 425.

115 Ibid., 499; emphasis in original.

116 Ibid., 243. The argument that Russia grew “naturally,” without con­quest, was to be made later by Danilevsky in his Rossiia i Evropa. He used the metaphor of organic growth and spoke of the Eastern Slavs as parts of a single organism (21-4). Dostoevsky, too, assummed the unity of consciousness and spirit of the Russians, by whom he too meant all the Eastern Slavs (Diary, 933-4). Both follow Khomiakov in combining professions of Russia’s peaceable nature with the call to military action.

117 Dziuba, U vsiakoho, 57-8.

118 Russkii arkhiv, 1879, kn. 3, 327-8, quoted in Dziuba, U vsiakoho, 36-7.

119 Christoff, Russian Slavophilism, 91-2.

120 Egorov, “Poeziia,” 13.

121 Dziuba, U vsiakoho, 269.

122 Iekelchyk, Probudzhennia natsii, 55.

123 Berdiaev, Khomiakov, 220.

Ibid.

Walicki, Slavophile Controversy, 181.

Shevchenko met S. Shevyrev, the Aksakovs, Khomiakov, Pogodin, and others at a dinner given in his honour by Maksymovych on 25 March 1858. He refused to write for their journal Russkaia beseda. Frantsev has argued that Shevchenko and the Cyrillo-Methodian Brotherhood were strongly influenced by Khomiakov, using as evidence a pro-tsarist poem that he attributes to Shevchenko, and he attempts to prove that Khomiakov’s idea of a union of the Slavs under Russian leadership was attractive to the brotherhood and to all the Slavs. See V. Frantsev, “A.S. Khomiakov.” Ivan Dziuba’s U vsiakoho is the fullest treatment of Shevchenko and Khomiakov as antipodes.

CHAPTER THREE

Hooper, “Stranger,” 35.

Said, Orientalism, 99.

Lednicki, Przyjaciele Moskale, x.

See Orlowski, Z dziejow antypolskich obsesji, 49.

Derzhavin’s “Na vziatie Varshavy” (1794) celebrated the crushing of Polish resistance by calling General Suvorov a “Hercules” who left “the corpses of enemies and laurels in his trail.” It described Warsaw as a “traitor,” where the “eagle was now sitting on the evil hydra.” For a dis­cussion of Russian literary attitudes to Poland among the above writ­ers, see Orlowski, Z dziejow antypolskich obsesji, 39-49.

Ibid., 9.

See Pipes, Memoir, 145.

Karamzin, Izbrannye sochineniia, vol. 1, 65-6.

Quoted in Kepinski, Lach, 203.

Na vziatie Varshavy. Tri stikhotvoreniia V Zhukovskogo i A. Pushkina (St Petersburg: Voen. tip., 1831).

The best-known works are A. Pushkin’s Boris Godunov (1825), F. Bulgarin’s Dimitrii Samozvanets. Istoricheskii roman (1830), and A. Khomiakov’s Dimitrii Samozvanets (1831-32), but the theme was used frequently after the first partition of Poland. See also A. Sumarokov, “Dimitrii Samozvanets” (1771), V. Narezhnyi, “Dimitrii Samozvanets” (1804), M. Pogodin, “Istoriia v litsakh o Dimitrii Samozvantse” (1835), M. Zagoskin, Miloslavskii, ili russkie v 1612 godu (1829), and A. Bestuzhev-Marlinskii, “Naezdy, Povest 1613 goda” (1831).

See Dworski, Puszkin, 93, 121, Lednicki, Aleksander Puszkin; and Kushakov, Pushkin i Polsha.

Dolgorukii’s Slavny bubny, although written in 1811, appeared in full only in 1870.

14 Sumarokov, Dosugi, vol. 1, 45.

15 [Sbitnev], “Poezdka,” 222.

16 Prince Dolgoruky could find little that reminded him of Russian gentry and city life (Slavny bubny, 64). Levshin describes the enormous differ­ence between Russians and Ukrainians in his “Otryvki iz pisem o Malorossii,” 35. These comments are supported by the observations of numerous foreign travellers. The GermanJ.H. Blasius commented that “In nearly all spiritual qualities Ukrainians are the very opposite of the Russians.” Blasius, Reise, 326. Another German,J.G. Kohl, wrote: “Should the colossal empire of Russia one day fall to pieces, there is little doubt but the Malorussians will form a separate state. They have their own language, their own historical recollections, seldom mingle or intermarry with their Muscovite rulers, and are in number already more than 10,000,000. Their national sinews may be said to lie among the rural nobility living in the villages, from among whom every great political movement has hitherto emanated.” Kohl, Russia, 528. The Englishman E.D. Clarke commented that Little Russians “differ alto­gether from the inhabitants of the rest of Russia... They are a much more noble race, and stouter and better looking people than the Rus­sians, and superior to them in everything that can exalt one set of men above another. They are cleaner, more industrious, more honest, more polite, more courageous, more hospitable, more truly pious, and, of course, less superstitious.” Clarke, Travels, 170. Clarke describes the mutual sense of cultural difference between Russians and Ukrainians in several places (Travels, 167, 282-5). Another English traveller, R. Lyall, describes crossing the border into Ukraine as being “transported into a new country.” In his opinion “the superior state of civilisation of the Malo-Russians can only be attributed to their not being adscripti glebae [attached to the soil, serfs], and their other peculiar immunities, which generate and cherish independence of spirit.” Travels, 62-3.

17 Dragomanov, “Istoricheskaia Polsha,” 171.

18 The very choice of terminology indicates this. “Little Russia” becomes the preferred term; “Ukraine” is still used in Kondratii Ryleev’s “Voinarovsky” (1825) to indicate an autonomous political entity.

19 Somov, “O romanticheskoi poezii,” Trudy vysochaishie utverzhdennogo Volnogo obshchestva liubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti, 24 (1823): 135-6, quoted in Kiriliuk, “Na puti k realizmu,” 8-9.

20 Dolgorukii, Slavny bubny, 64.

21 See Izmailov, Puteshestvie, vol. 1, 85-6, and Levshin, Otryvki, 41, for comments that the peasants had preserved an ardent love of their fatherland.

22 Levshin, Otryvki, 47.

23 [Sbitnev], “Poezdka,” 244.

Vadim [Passek], Putevye zapiski, 131.

Dolgorukii, Slavny bubny, 242, 264.

He wrote: “I did not like the Uniate service. To put it simply it was nei­ther one thing, nor another - a bit from us and a bit from the Papacy. Let us agree, that everything can have a dual appearance in the world, and even in Nature, except Faith, which everywhere, in all cases, is the same for everyone, and the composition of its rituals ought to corre­spond to its original.” Dolgorukii, Slavny bubny, 216.

Nikolai Grech wrote, “The Little Russian dialect [narechie] emerged and developed under the long Polish rule in South-Western Russia and can even be called a regional version of Polish.” See his Opyt, 12. Severnaia pchela 17 (1835), quoted in Volynskyi, Teoretychna borotba, 208. McClintock, Imperial Leather, 37.

For the debates on the language and literature, see Volynskyi, Teoretychna borotba, and Luckyj, Between Gogol' and Sevcenko.

The comparison was apparently first made in Markovich, Zapiski, 59. The Black Sea coastal region is called “Russia’s Italy” in Vsevolozhskii, Puteshestvie, 81.

Shostak, “Vzgliad,” 33.

This pattern was established by Izmailov’s Puteshestvie of 1800, which was strongly influenced by Rousseau. See especially 51-4, 59, 87-91. Bantysh-Kamensky rehearses many of these stereotypes in a chapter devoted to the ethnography of Ukraine. He describes a land so rich that it did not require fertilizing, a fact that allowed the Little Russian to work less than his northern counterpart. “Good-naturedness and simplicity” are the “defining features of his [the Little Russian’s] char­acter,” although he can be cunning and proud. He is courageous and self-sacrificing in battle: “Little Russians are passionate lovers of music.” Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia Maloi Rosii, 464.

Karamzin, Izbrannye sochineniia, vol. 2, 164. Klymovsky became a house­hold name after he was portrayed as the hero of O. Shakhovsky’s play Kozak-stikhotvorets (1812).

Pushkin, “Vechera na khutore bliz Dikanki,” Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 7, 345.

See McClintock, Imperial Leather, 40-2.

The term is used several times, for example, in S.N., “Rusalki do dobra ne dovedut: Malorossiiskaia byl,” Damskii zhurnal 23.16 (1828): 134. Vadim [Passek], Putevye zapiski, 113.

Shalikov, Puteshestvie, 144. Shalikov’s book begins with the words: “Changeons de lieu pour nous defaire du temps.”

This duality is clearly expressed in Vadim, Putevye zapiski, where the first part dwells on the greatness of Russia and the inevitability of empire, while the second focuses on the glorious history of Ukraine and its national distinctiveness.

Voltaire, Essai sur les maurs, in CEuvres completes de Voltaire, vol. 3 (Paris: Chez Furne, 1835), 583, quoted in Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 298. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 6.

Izmailov, Puteshestvie, vol. 1, 200-2.

S.N., Rusalki, 134-5.

Ibid., 136.

It proved an enduring stereotype. Anton Chekhov, in a letter to Maksim Gorky of 18 January 1899, wrote: “I am a khokhol and there­fore terribly lazy.”

McClintock, Imperial Leather, 253.

Izmailov, for example, on crossing the border, asks a Ukrainian peasant why, “although you are not richer than other people, you live so cleanly, so well, so much better than our peasants?” (Puteshestvie, vol. 1, 55). He receives the answer that they are frugal and help one another (56-7). Vadim [Passek], Putevye zapiski, 144.

[Sbitnev], “Poezdka,” 216.

Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. 2, 591.

Sumarokov, Dosugi, vol. 1, 64.

Dolgorukii, Slavny bubny, 59.

Ibid.

Kovalevskii, “Pismo,” 48.

P. Svinin, Otechestvennye zapiski 120 (April 1830), quoted in Zviniatskovskii, Nikolai Gogol, 172.

Dolgorukii, Slavny bubny, 242-3.

Quoted in Gould, Mismeasure, 21.

Pokrovskii, Russia, 99.

Izmailov, Puteshestvie, vol. 1, 251-2, 280.

Dolgorukii, Slavny bubny, 184.

Kovalevskii, “Pismo,” 48.

See, for example, Izmailov, Puteshestvie, 68-73, 234-53; Shalikov, Puteshestvie, 97-100.

Dolgorukii, Slavny bubny, 73.

Kulzhinskii, Sochineniia (St Petersburg, 1850), 207, quoted in Sypovskyi, Ukraina, 24.

Izmailov also says, “No Russian should die without once in his life seeing the site of the battle of Poltava.” Puteshestvie, 237.

Kovalevskii, “Pismo,” 49.

Ibid., 52.

Ibid., 49-50.

Beauplan, La Description d’Ukraine, 35.

"Sekretneishee nastavlenie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II kniaziu Aleksandru Viazemskomu (1764),” Istoriia pravitelstvuiushchego senata za dvesti let, 1711-1911 gg., vol. 2 (St Petersburg, 1911), 795. The passage reads: "Little Russia, Liflandia and Finland are provinces which are governed according to privileges that have been conferred on them; it would be offensive to cancel all these at once, but at the same time it would be more than a mistake to call them foreign and treat them as such, it would be quite foolish. These provinces, and also Smolensk, have to be treated in the gentlest manner, with the aim of Russifying them and putting an end to their looking like wolves to the woods.” Quoted in Strukevych, Ukraina-Hetmanshchyna, 26. See also her "Nastavlenie, dannoe gr. P. Rumiantsevu pri naznachenii ego Malorossiiskim general- gubernatorom, s sobstvenymi pribavkami Ekateriny II,” Sbornik RIO, vol. 7 (St Petersburg, 1871) 376-91. These documents are discussed in Strukevych, Ukraine-Hetmanshchyna, 17-28.

This argument is explicit in a memorandum to Catherine the Great on Little Russia that was probably written by Teplov, Catherine’s State Sec­retary: "Sekretneishie primechaniia,” 29.

"Sekretneishie nastavleniia,” quoted in Strukevych, Ukraina- Hetmanshchyna, 19.

"Sekretneishie primechaniia,” quoted in Strukevych, Ukraina- Hetmanshchyna, 24.

Strukevych, Ukraina-Hetmanshchyna, 24. "Nastavlenie,” quoted in Strukevych, Ukraina-Hetmanshchyna, 25. Tsentralnyi derzhavnyi istorychnyi arkhiv Ukrainy, fond 54, or. 3, syr. 8658, ark. 2, quoted in Strukevych, Ukraina-Hetmanshchyna, 71. Strukevych, Ukraina-Hetmanshchyna, 71.

Dragomanov, "Istoricheskaia Polsha i velikorusskaia demokratiia,” Volnoe slovo (1881); reprinted Geneva 1882, and in Sobranie politicheskikh sochinenii M.P. Dragomanova (Paris, 1905-6). Here quoted from "Ukrainskii vopros v ego istoricheskom osveshchenii” (M.P. Drago- manov, Istoricheskaia Polsha i velikorusskaia demokratiia) Kievskaia starina 91 (November-December 1905): 160.

Bushkovitch, "The Ukraine in Russian Culture,” 340. Saunders, Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture, 148. Izmailov, Puteshestvie, vol. 1, 210-12.

Ibid., 269.

[Sbitnev], "Poezdka,” 216. Nandy, The Intimate Enemy, 80-1. Bhabha, "The Other Question,” 66.

Karamzin, "O sluchaiakh i kharakterakh v Rossiiskoi Istorii, kotorye mogut byt predmetom khudozhestv,” Vestnik Evropy 6.24 (1802): 289, quoted from Segel, Eighteenth-Century Russia, vol. 1, 464-5.

Forced marriage and the husband’s murder at the hands of his wife is a recurring motif in folklore and medieval literature. It occurs in the Byzantine tradition (the Strategemata of Polyaenus) and Norway (the Saga of Olaf and Gudrun). Walter Scott used it in The Bride of Lammer- moor (1819). As we have seen, it is also the theme of Lermontov’s “Lithuanian Woman.”

Izmailov, Puteshestvie, 148-51.

See N. Artsibashev, Rogneda (St Petersburg: Tip. Departamenta Narodnogo prosveshcheniia, 1818). For other versions of the story see O. Veltman, Sviatoslavich, vraazhii pitomets, divo vremen Krasnago Solntsa Vladimira (Moscow, 1835); F. Solovev, “Razrushenie polotskago kniaz- hestva (Istoricheskaia povest iz vremen Vladimira I),” Severnoe Siianie (1831): 7-32; M. Zagoskin, Askoldova mogila (Moscow, 1833).

For the Khmelnytsky theme, see F. Glinka, “Zinobii Bogdan Khmelnitskii, ili osvobozhdeniia Malorossii,” in his Pisma k drugu, vol. 3 (St Petersburg,1816); E. Grebenka, Bogdan, poema. Stsena iz zhizni mal- orossiiskago Getmana Zinoviia Khmelnitskago (St Petersburg, 1843), and “Chaikovskii, roman,” Otechestvennye zapiski 27 (1843): 185-227 and 28 (1843): 5-79; and A. Kuzmich, Zinovii Bogdan Khmelnitskii, roman (St Petersburg, 1846). The haidamak rebellions are depicted in Ryleev, “Gaidamak” (1825); Orest Somov, “Gaidamak: Malorossiiskaia byl” (1826), and “Gaidamak: Otryvok iz malorossiiskoi povesti” (1827);

N. Kostomarov, Sava Chalii (1838); and G. Kvitka, “Predanie o Garkushe” (1841). Aspects of this historical literature have been discussed in Grabowicz, “History and Myth,” 369-416.

For some better-known treatments of the Mazepa story see E. Aladin, Kochubei: Istoricheskaia povest (1827); A. Pushkin, “Poltava” (1828); I. Kulzhinskii, “Kazatskiia shapki,” Damskii zhurnal 27 (1829): 81-7; F. Bulgarin, Mazepa (1833-34); I. Borozdna, “Zolotaia gora, ili ia tebia vyruchu. Malorossiiskoe predanie,” Utrennaia zaria (1840): 99-115; and N. Sementkovskii, Kochubei, generalnyi sudia. Istoricheskaia povest (1845). The Mazepa theme is discussed in Grabowicz, “History and Myth,” 417-57.

Bulgarin, Sochineniia, 369.

Ibid., 439.

Ibid., 484. Ibid., 560.

In chapter 13 the poem is the subject of a strategic discussion between Mazepa and Polubotok. Bulgarin informs the reader that it was published in Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia. See Bulgarin, Sochineniia, 560.

As, for example, portrayed in Kulzhinskii, Fediusha Molitovskii (1833) and Emerit (1836); G. Kvitka, Pan Khaliavskii (1839); N. Gogol,

Mirgorod (1835); and P. Kulish, Mikhailo Charnyshenko, ili Malorossiia vosemdesiat let nazad (1843).

99 Franko, Narys, 94.

100 Grebenka, Chaikovskii, 160.

101 Ibid., 165.

102 For a translation, see Segel, Eighteenth Century Russia, vol. 2, 106-22.

103 Kapnist’s poem appeared in censored form in 1801, but it was not allowed publication in his collected works of 1849. He contacted Prus­sian authorities with a mission to find support for Ukraine’s secession from Russia in the event of a European war (see chap. 1, nιιo). Georg Sacke has argued that the ode was about the liquidation of Ukrainian autonomy. See Sacke, “Kapnist.” Luckyj has argued that it is “quite clear from the poem that serfdom is not the only subject. Kapnist refers several times to the oppression of his native land... and leaves no doubt that not only Ukrainian villages but the cities and the entire people have been enslaved by the power of the state.” Luckyj, Between Gogol' and Sevcenko, 79.

104 Sysyn has written: “Those who have argued that nineteenth-century Ukrainian historians first tried to give the [1648-49] revolt national overtones and portray Khmelnytsky as a national leader have not given careful reading to Hrabianka (1709), Velychko (1720) or the play ‘The Liberation of Ukraine from Polish Servitude by the Lord Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky’ (1728).” See his “Khmelnytsky Uprising,” 166. For a discussion of elements of national consciousness in earlier histor­ical writings, see his “Concepts of Nationhood.”

105 The impact of Ukraine on Ryleev is discussed in Maslov, 251-322.

106 Kotliarevskii, Ryleev, 125.

107 O’Meara, Ryleev, 327.

108 Ryleev, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 412.

109 The area was so predominantly and consciously Ukrainian that after the Revolution of 1917 the Central Rada considered a project to create from it a Ukrainian province that would be named Podon. See Zhyvotko, Podon, 10.

110 Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia.

111 See Maslov, Literaturnaia deiatelnost, 260.

112 For an account of the imperial portrayal of Peter and the battle of Poltava see Riasanovsky, Peter the Great, 3-85, and Pauls, Pollrnai. On Ryleev’s Mazepa see Khodorov, “Ukrainskie siuzhety,” 121-41.

113 It is difficult to agree with Luckyj’s contention that the poem “does not raise the issue that would interest Ukrainians most: the problem of a national war of liberation led by Mazepa against Peter” (Luckyj, Between Gogol' and Sevcenko, 83). The poem was read precisely in this way by tsarist censors and general readers. The Ukrainian historian and poet M. Markevych (N. Markevich) wrote an enthusiastic letter to Ryleev thanking him for the poem and adding, “You will still find among us the spirit of Polubotok.” See Iakushkin, “K literaturnoi,” 599. Polubotok succeeded Mazepa as hetman and was a firm autonomist. See O’Meara, Ryleev, 187.

For Mazepa’s letters see Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia, 574-7. The author also included in footnotes Mazepa’s patriotic poem, the terms of the Pereiaslav treaty of 1654, correspondence of Ukraine’s leaders with for­eign kings and diplomats, and other materials.

Maslov, Literaturnaia deiatelnost, 300-2.

Ibid., 261-5, 296, 302-4.

Ryleev, Polnoe sobranie Stikhotvorenii, 208:

I Petr i ia - my oba pravy:

Kak on, i ia zhivu dlia slavy,

Dlia polzy rodiny moei.

Pauls, Pollavai, 28.

See Subtelny, Mazepiss, 1-36.

Tseitlin, “Tvorchestvo Ryleeva,” 68.

Ryleev, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 189.

Ibid., 616.

Kotliarevskii, Ryleev, 112.

Ibid., 96, 113.

Ryleev, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 616-17.

To the canonical imperial position belong, for example, Feofan Prokopovich, “Epinikion,” “Slovo pokhvalnoe o preslavnoi nad voiskami sveiskimi pobede” (1709), and “Slovo pokhvalnoe o batalii Poltavskoi...” (1717); R. Sladkovsky, “Petr Velikii, geroicheskaia poema v VI pesniakh” (1803); and S. Shikhmatov, “Petr Velikii, liricheskoe pesnopenie v 8 pesniakh” (1810).

Hokanson, “Literary Imperialism,” 341.

The words are of Turkish origin.

Iakov Polonskii’s “Imeretin” claims Russia has given the people secu­rity and “full freedom.” It ends as follows:

We [now] have rubles in our pockets,

Locks hanging on our coffers,

And with songs to Kutais,

We carry the Russians in kaiuks [kaiukakh].

The same message is presented in his “Nad razvalinami v Imeritii” (1850), “V Imeretii” (1850), and “V Imeretii” (1848). In the last poem he sees the “evil demon” of the mountains calling Rus to build roads through the cliffs, dam rivers, build cities, and harvest fruit. He calls it a “terrible spirit ready to demand gigantic labour from every pigmy.” Rus, in his opinion, is unfortunately still too busy with conquest to occupy itself with the development of “life and thought” on the site of graves and to assuage the spirit of the mountains. Polonskii, Sochine- niia, 64-5.

131 The folk-song about Mazepa says:

In Kyiv, on the Podol

The pear-trees have been cut down.

The dog Mazepa has caused the death of Innocent souls.

Maksymovych wrongfully attributes “Oi, bida, bida...” to Bohdan Khmelnytsky. For a discussion see Priima, Shevchenko, 25-6. For Maksymovych’s description of how in 1829 he gave the song about Mazepa to Pushkin and how the latter memorized the above segment see Zaslavskyi, Pushkin i Ukraina, 60-1.

132 The authenticity of these songs is an issue, as is the motivation of Palii’s supporters. Drahomanov felt that the lower classes sympathized with Palii, who remained loyal to Peter, but points out that most songs attribute the victory of Poltava to Palii, not Peter, and indicate that Palii helped the tsar because he had been assured that Ukrainians would be freed from taxation and conscription. See Drahomanov, Politychni pisni, xi-xii.

133 The consequences of the revolt are described by Hrushevskyi, “Shvedsko-ukrainskyi soiuz.”

134 Pushkin wrote: “What a repugnant object for an artist is the person of Mazepa. Not one fine or noble emotion. Not a single consoling fea­ture. Seduction, hostility, treason, slyness, pusillanimity, violence.

I wrote Poltava in a few days; I could not occupy myself with it any longer, I would have had to give it up.” Pushkin, "Vozrazhenie kri- tikam ‘Poltavy,’” 409. This letter was omitted from subsequent editions of Pushkin’s “complete” or “collected” works. Where it did appear, the final paragraph containing the above comments was cut.

135 He criticized American mistreatment of Indians and black slaves but defended the savage pacification of Algeria in the 1830s and 1840s. Said writes: “All of a sudden, as one reads Tocqueville on Algeria, the very norms with which he had humanely demurred at American mal­feasance are suspended for the French actions. Not that he does not cite reasons: he does, but they are lame extenuations whose purpose is to license French colonialism in the name of what he calls national pride. Massacre leaves him unmoved; Muslims, he says, belong to an inferior religion and must be disciplined.” Said, Representations, 92. Said also points out that John Stuart Mill’s “commendable ideas about dem­ocratic freedoms in England,” according to the latter, “did not apply to India” (93).

136 Subtelny, Domination of Eastern Europe, 133.

137 See Vintoniak, “Anatema,” 69.

138 See in particular Luckyj, Between Gogol’ and Sevcenko, 88-127; Grabow- icz, “History and Myth,” 1; Mandelshtam, O kharaktere, 70-125; and Zviniatskovskii, Gogol. The most uncompromising expression of this view is in Malaniuk, “Hohol-Gogol.”

139 Quoted in Zviniatskovskii, Gogol, 80.

140 Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 6, 661.

141 Layton, Russian Literature, 87.

142 Gogol, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, 349, 166.

143 Zviniatskovskii, Gogol, 204.

144 Gogol, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, 283, 46.

145 Ibid., 146.

146 Ibid., 46.

147 Ibid., 172.

148 Hrabovych, Do istorii, 106.

149 One of them, “Bisavriuk, ili Vecher nakanune Ivana Kupala,” appeared in Otechestvennye zapiski in the early issues of 1830. After Svinin’s por­trayal of Ukrainians in the April issue, Gogol made a point of not pub­lishing in the journal any more, and in Vechera he mocked Svinin’s portrayal. See Zviniatskovskii, Gogol, 169-72.

150 Pushkin, Sovremennik 1 (1836), reprinted Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 7, 345.

151 I am indebted in the comments that follow to George Grabowicz’s dis­cussion of these stories in his “History and Myth.”

152 Gogol, Sobranie sochinenii v shesti tomakh, vol. 1, 104.

153 A Ukrainian opera, “Cherevyky” (Shoes), was, in fact, produced at this time. Khrapovitsky, the Empress’ personal secretary and a Ukrainian, noted in his diary on 12 June 1786 that during a reading for Catherine of Moscow newspapers, an announcement for the opera “Cherevyky” had elicited a question about the meaning of the word. See Zviniatskovskii, Gogol, 28.

154 Irigaray, This Sex, 76. See also Bhabha, “Of Mimicry.”

155 The Black Sea Cossacks were in fact created in 1787 (initially they were named the Army of Faithful Cossacks) out of Sich remnants, with the destroyer of the Sich, Prince Potemkin, as their honorary com­mander-in-chief. He was given the Zaporozhian name Hrytsko Nechesa. His sudden death put the army’s existence in doubt. Anton Holovaty was sent by the army to St Petersburg to plead for its formal registra­tion and assignment of quarters. After being sent from ministry to min­istry, he suddenly appeared before the Empress in the Summer Garden in full Cossack regalia, fell on his knees, cried “Stii Maty!” (Stop, Mother!) and asked for her patronage for the Black Sea Cossacks. The Empress signed the relevant documents, assigning the army to the defence of the Black Sea coast. This incident was the source of Gogol’s scene in St Petersburg. Holovaty was described by Kvitka-Osnovianenko in a memoir (“Holovatyi,” 1839) that so impressed Shevchenko that he responded enthusiastically with his “Do Osnovianenka.” The Black Sea Cossacks were transferred to the Kuban in 1792.

156 See Zviniatkovskii, Gogol, 164.

157 An often quoted witness of the level of education in Ukraine is Paul of Aleppo, who travelled with Patriarch Macarius of Antioch through Ukraine and Russia in 1652-60, recording not only the high level of literacy but also the enormous cultural difference between the two countries. Describing Ukraine, he wrote: “throughout the whole land, we remarked on one amazing, wonderful characteristic: with rare exceptions, they all, even their women and children, know how to read and know the order of the liturgy and church songs. Besides this, the priests teach the orphans and do not allow them to roam around the streets as illiterates.” Hrushevskyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi, vol. 9, part 2: 977. For an analysis of Paul of Aleppo’s text, see 966-1010. English translations have omitted this and other information pertaining to Ukraine. See Aleppo, The travels of Macarius, and Ridding, The Travels of Macarius.

158 Gogol, Sobranie, vol. 1, 169.

159 Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia, 81-3. This account also tells the tale of Peter VI of Moldavia and Ivan Pidkova and his brother Shakh. It may also have influenced Gogol. Another potential source for Gogol’s story is a popular poem from the early eighteenth century describing Poland as the mother of three children: Liach, Rus, and Lytva. Liach and Lytva kill their brother Rus, causing their mother, Poland, grief. The poem can be found in Dzeverin, Ukrainska Iiteratura XVII stolittia, 248, 564-65.

160 Gogol, Sobmnie, vol. 1, 186.

161 Shevchenko in his “Great Vault” (“Velykyi liokh”) answered it by por­traying two “Ivans” and described the emasculated society as a defence­less womanhood. Panteleimon Kulish’s Black Council (Chorna Rada, 1863) provided a counter-portrayal of Cossack history.

162 Said, World, 19.

163 Maksimovich, “Predislovie,” iv-v.

164 For a study of baroque influences on Gogol, see Shapiro, Gogol. Shapiro points out (16, 40-105) that throughout his life Gogol avidly read Ukrainian ecclesiastical Baroque literature and traces Gogol’s characterization of Cossacks, Jews, and Poles to a play with the stereo­types of the vertep (Ukrainian puppet theatre) and Iubok (popular broadsheet).

165 Quoted in Mandelshtam, O kharaktere, 198.

166 Gogol’s family origins are rarely discussed. On both sides of his family he could trace a line of descent from Mykhailo and Petro Doroshenko and Ivan Skoropadsky, who were all hetmans. One member of his family had been executed by the tsarist regime, others had died in prison or had been exiled to Moscow. Locally he had close family ties with several prominent Poltava families, like the Troshchynskys and Lukashevychs, who showed autonomist sympathies. See O. Ohloblyn, “Problema predkiv,” 3-4 (1967): 15-16; 1-4 (1968): 19-31.

167 Mandelshtam, O kharaktere, 202.

168 Ibid., 203.

169 Bushkovitch, “Ukraine in Russian Culture,” 359, 361.

170 See, in particular, Rutherford, “Vissarion Belinskii,” and Swoboda, “Shevchenko.”

171 See Rutherford,”Vissarion Belinsky,” 500.

172 Grigorev, “Belinskii.” The comment on Shevchenko occurs on page 574.

173 Belinskii, Izbrannye, vol. 1, 114.

174 Ibid., 239-40.

175 Ibid., vol. 5, 103.

176 Ibid.

177 Ibid., 131.

178 Ibid., 124.

179 Belinskii, Izbrannye, vol. 1, 241.

180 Ibid., 141.

181 Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 5, 142.

182 Terras, Belinskij, 61.

183 Ibid., 62.

184 Belinsky asserts that Maksim Maksimich’s view provides “the most accu­rate understanding of the morals and customs of the savage Cherkes- sians.” See Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 4, 208. On the helpless Bela’s refusal of Pechorin’s attempts to embrace her, he exclaims: “What a graceful (gratsioznaia ) trait of character and, simultaneously, how true to nature! Nature never contradicts itself.” Polnoe sobranie, vol 4, 213. He proceeds to argue that her falling in love with Pechorin and the cooling of his love for her are equally inevitable due to the “natural­ness” of the unequal colonial relationship.

185 The phrase is omitted from Rutherford’s translation of this passage. See Rutherford, “Vissarion Belinskii,” 505-6.

186 Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 5, 129.

187 Ibid., 125.

188 Markevich, Istoriia.

189 Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 7, 64-5.

190 Bushkovitch, “Ukraine in Russian Culture,” 340.

Rutherford_j^mVissarion Belinskii,” 512.

Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 5, 330-1.

Ibid., vol. 12, 440. Shevchenko was arrested on 5 April 1847 and sen­tenced to service as a private in Orenburg. Nicholas I placed him under the strictest supervision, denying him the ability to write or draw. The “lampoon” referred to was ‘Son” (The Dream), one of Shevchenko’s greatest anti-imperialist works.

Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 7, 61.

Ibid., 62.

Ibid., vol. 4, 399.

Ibid., 62, 63. Iurii Lypa has, on the contrary, interpreted this work as a cry of despair at the degeneration of the Ukrainian Cossack elite and their loss of a national political consciousness. See Lypa, “Selianskyi korol,” 121.

Habermas, Philosophical Discourse, 44.

Drahomanov develops this argument most fully in “Istoricheskaia Polsha,” in his Sobranie, vol. 1, 215-20.

Berlin, Russian Thinkers, 179.

CHAPTER FOUR

See Zerov, Nove ukrainske pysmenstvo, 172-201; Lektsii, 54-66; and Cyzhevsky, History, 420-31.

Zerov, Nove ukrainske pysmenstvo, 179.

Zerov, Lektsii, 65.

Zerov, Nove ukrainske pysmenstvo, 199, 217.

Shamrai, ‘Shliakhy,” and Ukrainska literatura, 61-4; Plevako, “Hryhory Kvitka-Osnovianenko”; Petrenko, Hryhorii Kvitka; Syvokin, Odvichnyi, 76-114.

Shamrai, “Shliakhy,” 66.

Kvitka-Osnovianenko, Zibrannia tvoriv, 421, 431.

See Maiak, 1840, no. 2, section 4, 19-21.

The glorification of the military in Kotliarevsky was linked to the cre­ation of Ukrainian regiments in the war with Napoleon. See Serbyn, “Ukrainian Participation,” 59-72. Hulak-Artemovsky’s condemnation of the Polish revolt of 1830-31 has been described as an “official declara­tion of loyalty” by Kozak in “Ukraincy,” 176.

Petrov, Ocherki, 107.

See, for example, his letter to Pletnev of 8 February 1839.

See Kostomarov, “Obzor.”

Letter to P.O. Pletnev, 15 March 1839, in Kvitka-Osnovianenko, Zibran- nia, vol. 7, 216.

Zerov, “Literaturna postat,” 38.

Letter of 3 October 1839. See Kvitka-Osnovianenko, Zibrannia, vol. 7, 228. Letter of 28 December 1841. See Kvitka-Osnovianenko, Zibrannia, vol. 7, 338.

Franko, Zibrannia tvoriv u 50 tomakh, vol. 41, 181.

See Volynskyi, Teoretychna borotba, 150-1, 234.

“Golovatyi (Material dlia istorii Malorossii),” first appeared in Otechestvennye zapiski 4.2 (1839): 1-29. “Konotopska vidma” was first published in Malorossiiskie povesti, rasskazyvaemy Grytskom Osnovianenkom, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1836), 107-347.

See Muzychka, “Do pochatkiv,” 15.

Letter to P. O. Pletnev of 8 February 1839. Kvitka-Osnovianenko, Zibrannia, vol. 7, 214.

Syvokin, Odvichnyi dialoh, 91, 97.

Kulish, “Hryhorii Kvitka,” 490.

Danilevskii, Sochineniia, vol. 21, 153, 158.

Syvokin, Odvichnyi dialoh, 100.

The phrase “Ukrainian dualism” is Zabuzhko’s. See her Shevchenkiv mif, 42.

Dziuba, “’Zastukaly,” 3, 93.

Among them are some of his greatest poems: “Stoit v seli Subotovi,” “Velykyi liokh,” “Naimychka,” “leretyk,” “Shararykovi,” “I mertvym i zhyvym,” “Kholodnyi iar,” “Davydovi psalmy,” and “Try lita.” English translations of several are available in Shevchenko, Song.

Dziuba, “Zastukaly,” 4, 108.

De Balmen illustrated “Wirszy T. Szewczenka,” a manuscript of 1844. Ivakin, Satyra, 120.

Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia, vol. 1, 326:

Od moldavanyna do fina

Na vsikh iazykakh vse movchyt,

Bo blahodenstvuiet!

Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia, vol. 5, 130.

The words of the celebratory hymn are “God is with us! Understand, O Nations [literally, “tongues”], understand and submit, for God is with us!” Jeffrey Brooks points out that in popular literature during the Crimean War this was rendered as “Understand heathens, understand and submit, for God is with us!” See Brooks, When Russia Learned, 218. Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia, vol. 1, 327:

U nas! choho to my ne vmiiem?

I zori lichym, hrechku siiem,

Frantsuziv laiem. Prodaiem

Abo u karty prohraiem

Liudei... ne nehriv... a takykh

Taky khreshenykh. no prostykh

Ibid.: “Suieslovy, Iytsemiry, / Hospodom prokliati!”

Danilevsky’s statements on this appear to be the clearest. Smaller nation­alities, he claimed, “lack a consciousness [of independence], they feel no need for it, and are even incapable of feeling it.” They are “ethno­graphic material” that has never assumed the form of political individu­ality. It is impossible to end the life of someone who has never lived; it is impossible to disfigure a body that has no individual unity. Conse­quently, there can be no question here of a national murder, of a national mutilation, and hence of conquest.” See Danilevskii, Rossiia, 24. Allen, Ukraine, 240.

Grabowicz, Poet, 134-5, 137∙ Lysiak-Rudnytsky, Essays, 195. Dziuba, “Zastukaly,” 4, 111.

See in particular Ivakin, Satyra, 119-54; Dziuba, U vsiakoho, 237-89. This is the ending to Pushkin’s “Captive of the Caucasus” (1820-21). See his Polnoe sobranie, vol. 4, 130-1:

Podobno plemeni Batyia, Izmenit pradedam Kavkaz, Zabudet alchnoi brani glas, Ostavit strely boevye, K ushcheliam, gde gnezdilis vy, I vozvestiat o vashei kazni Predania temnye molvy.

Dukes, History, 133-4.

See, for example Iekelchyk, Probudzhennia, 55-8.

Belinskii, Polnoe sobranie, vol. 5, 330.

F.K., “Sochineniia Gritski Osnovianenka,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 118 (1841), 18 October, quoted in Priima, Shevchenko, 80.

Russkii vestnik, 8 (1841): 463.

See Priima, Shevchenko, 80-1.

Maiak 13.25.4 (1844): 8, quoted in Priima, Shevchenko, 104. See Borodin, Nad tekstamy, 175.

Zabuzhko, Shevchenkiv mif 27. Zabuzhko rejects Grabowicz’s more psy­choanalytical explanation of Shevchenko’s anti-imperialist writings and stance by interpreting the typical dualism of Ukrainian writers as a phenomenon produced by colonialism. See her Shevchenkiv mif, 41-2. Charles-Joseph, prince de Ligne, Correspondance et pensees du prince de Ligne, in Bibliotheque des memoires: relatif a Lhistoire de France pendant le 18e siecle, vol. 20, ed. M. Fs. Barriere (Paris: Librairie de Firmin Didot Freres, 1859) 72, quoted in Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 139. Gertsen, Sobranie, vol. 12, 111.

Ibid.

Smal-Stotskyi, “Velykyi liokh,” 275.

Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia, vol. 1, 307:

Tak malyi lokh v Subotovi

Moskva rozkopala!

Velykoho zh toho lokhu Shche y ne doshukalys.

See Franko, “Anatolii Patrikiovych Svydnytskyi (Uvahy do ioho Liuboratskykh),” Zoria 1 (1886) 5, reprinted in his Zibrannia, vol. 27, 7-8. M. Bernshtein has described how, when Prince Vasilchikov became gov­ernor-general in Kyiv in 1862, the attacks on Osnova inspired by mag­nates increased. It was accused of radicalism and separatism, and the censorship took exception to much of its material. See Bernshtein, Zhurnal, 191-208.

Ivan Franko published Volodymyr Antonovych’s remembered version as “Pisni Anatolia Svydnytskoho,” in Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk 4 (1901): 43-4. Panas Myrny transcribed a fuller version, discussed in Syvachenko, Svydnytskyi, 43-50, that he never published. It criticizes Khmelnytsky for selling Ukraine into “Muscovite captivity” and calls upon Ukrainians to rise in armed revolt. For the full version see Klid, “Vzhe bilshe.”

See Belliustin, Opisanie selskogo dukhovenstva.

See M. Nomys, “Olryvki iz avtobiografii Vasilia Petrovicha Belokopytenka,” Osnova (1861) March, 50-77, May, 24-45,June, 1-18; D. Mordovets, “Dzvonar,” Osnova (March, 1861) 11-17;

M. Tulov, “Gimnazicheskaia perepiska, izdannaia byvshim inspek- torom tatarovskoi gimnazii Lineikinym,” Osnova (April 1861) 108-27 and (May 1861) 34-65; “Pismo seminarista,” Osnova (July 1862) 24-31.

See Bernshtein, Zhurnal, 65-70. These articles and Svydnytsky’s own works belie Tadeusz Bobrowski’s assertion that national antagonisms between Ukrainians and Poles became evident only after 1863 and were “not at all” present in 1831 and after 1838. See his Pamietnik, vol. 1, 77. Bobrowski is candid about his own prejudices against “Little Russians,” whom he considers unsophisticated and insincere, attribut­ing this to their subjection first to Polish, then Russian, rule. See his Pamietnik, vol. 1, 212.

See Syvachenko, Anatolii Svydnytskyi, 205.

Svydnytskyi, Liuboratski.

Syvachenko, Anatolii Svydnytskyi, 209-10.

Klebanovsky, who in the 1850s and 1860s studied in the Bohuslav Spir­itual School, has described how the ihumen, who was himself “of Little Russian origin,” would place ass’s ears made of paper on the head and a blackboard with the word “donkey” round the neck of any boy caught using Ukrainian. See Klebanovskii, “Boguslavskoe dukhovnoe uchilishche,” 430-1. A similar punishment is described in Ivan Nechui- Levytskyi, “Zhyttiepys Ivana Levytskoho (Nechuia) napysana nym samym,” Svit 7 (1881): 127.

Pisarev, Sochineniia, vol. 4, 112-13.

Syvachenko, Anatolii Svydnytskyi, 257.

Svydnytskyi, Liuboratsky, 74.

It is interesting that Svydnytsky was known by his friends as “Natalka” (a woman’s name) both for his feminine appearance and delicacy of manners. See Antonovych [V], “Do biohrafii,” 195.

CHAPTER FIVE

N.I. Kostomarov, “Mysli o federativnom nachale v drevnei Rusi,” Osnova 1 (March, 1861): 121-58, quoted in Petrov, Ocherki, 243, 244. Kostomarov, “Dve russkie narodnosti.”

Chernyshevskii, “Natsionalnaia beztaktnost.”

Chernyshevskii, “Novye periodicheskoe izdaniia.” Dobroliubov, “’Kobzar,” 147.

Dobroliubov, Sobranie, vol. 6, 141.

N.A. Polevoi, Biblioteka dlia chteniia (1838), quoted in Dashkevich, “Ot^zyv,” 3^8-9.

Pypin and Spasovich, Istoriia, 306.

Ibid., 351.

Pypin, Istoriia, 126.

Petrov, Ocherki, 176.

See Dashkevich, “Otzyv,” 109.

Miliukov, “Vopros o malorossiiskoi literature,” 163.

The episode is discussed in Holubenko, Ukraina i Rosiia (1993), 355-9. Ob otmene stesnenii, 29-30.

Fedotov spoke cuttingly of how liberals and even revolutionaries accepted the results of the empire’s assimilatory policies. See his Novyi grad, 187-8.

See Iekelchyk, “Malorosiia.”

Baranov and Gorelov, Geografiia Rossiiskoi imperii, 131.

P. Belokha, Uchebnik geografii Rossiiskoi imperii, 3d ed. (St Petersburg, 1864), 80-1, quoted in Iekelchyk, “Malorosiia.”

Belokha, Uchebnik, 81, quoted in Iekelchyk, “Malorosiia.”

D. Ilovaiskii, Kratkie ocherki russkoi istorii. Kurs starshego vozrasta. 36th ed. (Moscow, 1912) 4, quoted in Iekelchyk, “Malorossiia.”

N[di] Zuev, Geografiia Rossiiskoi imperii (Kurs srednikh uchebnykh zavede- nii), (St Petersburg, 1887) 105, quoted in Iekelchyk, “Malorossiia.” Baranov and Gorelov, Geografiia Rossiiskoi imperii, 133, quoted in Iekelchyk, “Malorossiia.”

Ilovaiskii, Sokrashchennoe, 248.

S. Solovev, Istoriia Rossii, vol. 16, 376, quoted in Drahomanov, Politychni pisni, vol. 1, xvii.

Zuev, Geografiia Rossiiskoi imperii, 106, quoted in Iekelchyk, “Mal- orossiia.”

Magocsi, History, 15. For a summary of the attitudes of Russian, Polish, and Ukrainian historians to the Kyivan period, see Magocsi, History, 12-24.

Grebenka, Nezhinskii polkovnik, 4.

Prikiucheniia kazatskogo atamana Urvana (Kyiv: Gubanov, 1901) 3, quoted in Brooks, When Russia Learned, 242.

Brooks, When Russia Learned, 228.

Edelman, Gentry Politics, 94-5.

Struve, “Velikaia Rossii.”

Struve, Patriotica, 300-1, 303.

Ibid., 301.

Ibid., 78-9.

Russkaia mysl 1 (1912): 65-86.

Quoted in Dziuba, “Ta, shcho pylnuvala,” 126.

Miliukov, “Intelligentsiia,” 162.

Andriewsky, “Politics,” 365n97.

Gosudarstvennaia duma: Stenograficheskie otchety, sess. 117 (May 22, 1910), cols. 2072-3.

Elena Stakenshneider, F.M. Dostoevsky v vospominaniakh sovremennikov (Moscow, 1964), vol. 2, 307, quoted in Frank, Russian Prism, 153. Shulgin, editorial, Kievlianin, 6 April 1917.

Shulgin, “Oselok,” Kievlianin, 1 December 1917.

The book was republished in 1915 and in 1917 as Ukrainskii vopros, 3d ed. (Moscow: Tip. Za Druga, 1917). For a recent translation into Ukrainian see Tymoshko, Ukrainske pytannia.

Dzyuba, Internationalism, 66.

Hrabovych, Do istorii, 87.

Bunin, Life of Arsenin, 212.

From his Istoriia moego sovremennika, quoted in Literaturna Ukraina, 14 September 1989.

Illia Erenburg, “Ob ukrainskom iskusstve,” Kievskaia zhizn, 16 Novem­ber 1919, quoted in Stus, Fenomen doby, 20.

Bely’s characterization of his villain reads: “That crafty Ukrainian type resembled more a cross between a Semite and a Mongol, although he passed for pure Russian.” (43) The two Soviet editions (1928 and 1935) cut the word Semite from Bely’s text and replaced it with khokhol, the pejorative word for a Ukrainian.

Fedotov, “Budet.”

Ibid., 457, 459.

Danilevskii, Sochineniia, vol. 1, 62.

Ibid., vol. 1, 118.

Ibid., 147.

Ibid., vol. 2, 7.

Ibid., 11.

Ibid., 58.

Ibid., 62.

Ibid., 55.

Ibid., vol. 4, 83.

Ibid., vol. 17, 27.

Ibid., 83.

Sergei Trubachev, “G.P. Danilevskii: Biograficheskii ocherk,” in Danilevskii, Sochineniia, vol. 1, 72-3.

Ibid., vol. 10, 52.

Ibid., vol. 12, 131.

Ibid., 184.

Ibid., 202.

“Zazyvnyi lyst do ukrainskoi intelligentsii” and Krashanka Rusynam

i Poliakam.

Russkii arkhiv 2 (1877): 229, quoted in Petrov, Ocherki, 270.

[Kulish], “Lipovye pushchi,” 22-4.

Kulish, Povesti, 197.

Ibid., 136-7.

Ibid., 235.

Ibid., 153-4.

Ibid., 246.

See, in particular, his poem “Do ridnoho narodu,” in the collection Khutorna poeziia.

Kulish, “Zazyvnyi lyst,” 571.

Ibid., 575.

Ibid., 609.

Ibid., 610.

Ibid., 610-11.

Ibid., 625-6.

For a description of the episode, see Luckyj, Panteleimon Kulish, 160-5. Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought, 2.

Ibid., 23.

For a discussion of the novel, which was published in issues 1, 2, and 3 of Kyivska starovyna for 1998, see Nakhlik, “Roman ‘Vladimiriia.’” Dragomanov, “Istoricheskaia Polsha.” A chapter from this work has been translated into English as Drahomanov, “A Geographic and His­torical Survey of Eastern Europe.”

Dragomanov, “Ukrainskii vopros,” 150.

Ibid., 154.

Ibid.

Ibid., 156.

Ibid., 159.

Ibid., 166.

Terdiman, Discourse/Counter-Discourse, 14.

See Dragomanov and Antonovich, Istoricheskia pesni malorusskogo naroda (1974-75); Dragomanov, Malorusskia narodnyia predania i rasskazy (1876), Novi ukrainski pisni pro hromadski spravy (1881), and Politychni pisni ukrainskoho narodu, XVIII-XIX st. (1883-85).

Foucault, Language, 199.

Bashtoyi, Ukrainstvo na Iiteraturnykh pozvakh.

His Lysty z Ukrainy Naddniprianskoi were republished in Kyiv, 1917, under his pseudonym P. Vartovy. Drahomanov’s Lysty na Naddniprian- sku Ukrainu were republished in Kolomyia in 1894, in Vienna in 1915, and in Kyiv in 1917. Both works have recently been published together in Hrinchenko and Drahomanov, Dialohy.

WIadysIaw Lozittski, Patrycyat i mieszczanstwo Iwowskie w XVI i XVII wieku, 225, quoted in Franko, Zibrannia tvoriv, vol. 30, 126-7.

Franko, Ivan Vyshensky i ioho tvory (Lviv, 1895) 536, reprinted in his Zibrannia tvoriv, vol. 30, 127.

Hrinchenko and Drahomanov, Dialohy, 168, 166.

Ibid., 176.

Ibid., 217.

Hrinchenko, “Profession de foi.”

Kostomarov, “Dve russkie narodnosti.”

Miroslav Hroch’s three stages are 1 the academic stage, which is led by intellectuals who study the nation’s folklore and history, 2 the cultural stage, characterized by greater use of the vernacular, the spread of edu­cational and literary activities, and the emergence of a press; and 3 the political stage, characterized by the establishment of national parties and mass mobilization. See Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival, “National Self-Determination,” 284, and “From National Move­ment,” 3.

Pavlyshyn has written that in the East European context the terms can be employed to establish a typology of cultural phenomena. In this scheme “colonial” represents those cultural manifestations that may be seen to promote and maintain the structures and myths of colonial power relations; “anti-colonial” represents those that directly challenge or seek to invert such relations; and “post-colonial” represents those that signal an awareness of the relativity of colonialism and anticolo­nialism and, in seeking to transcend them, take advantage of the availability of the historical heritage of both. See Pavlyshyn, Post­Colonial Features.”

Yekelchyk, “Nationalism,” 387.

Franko, “Suspilno-politychni pohliady M. Drahomanova.”

M.P. Drahomanov, “Literatura rosiiska, velykoruska, ukrainska i halytska,” 80-220.

Franko, Pro sotsiializm, 245.

Ibid., 242.

Ibid., 245.

Ibid., 256.

Zabuzhko, Filosofiia, 57.

This argument was made by Skrypnyk in his Do teorii borotby dvokh kultur, and by Chyzhevsky in his History.

Zabuzhko, Filosofiia ukrainskoi idei, 17.

See Franko, “Ein Dichter des Verrates.” The article appeared in Rus­sian as Franko, Poet izmeny. For the Ukrainian version see his “Poet zrady.” Franko simultaneously criticized Ukrainians for their political ineptness and disloyalty in far stronger terms in his “Deshcho pro sebe samoho” and “Poliaky i rusyny.”

It was not the first time Mickiewicz had faced this criticism. It had been raised in 1828 by Kayetan Kozmian and more recently by Georg Brandes, a fact that Franko indicates at the beginning of his article. Franko’s inter­pretation was disputed in Spasovich and Pilz, Adam Mitskevich

This episode is discussed in Hrytsak, Dukh shcho tile rve, 147-8.

chapter six

The play has been republished abroad as Ukrainka, Boiarynia. For an English translation see Ukrainka, Spirit of Flame, 11-68.

See Kostomarov, Ruina.

A. Krymskyi, Rozvidky, statti ta zamitky (Kyiv, 1g28) 326, quoted in Pavlychko, “Ahatanhel Krymsky,” 110.

See Pavlychko, “Ahatanhel Krymsky,” 111.

Ukrainka, Spirit, 66.

Ibid., 66.

See Weretelnyk, “A Feminist Reading,” 163.

Ibid., 216.

Ukrainka, Selected Works, 114. The play is here translated as “The Stone Host,” 85-143.

See her letter to A. Krymskyi, 24 May 1g12.

See Hrabovych, “Kobzar,” 18.

Gellner has defined this as “high culture or great tradition, a style of conduct and communication endorsed by the speaker as superior, as setting a norm which should be, but alas often is not, satisfied in real life, and the rules of which are usually codified by a set of respected, norm-giving specialists within society.” Gellner, Nations, 92, 8.

13 For modernism as a critique of the patriarchal myth, see Hundorova, Proiavlennia slova, 54-70.

14 Said, Joseph Conrad, 73.

15 See Karmanskyi, “Lyst po adresi.”

16 See Rudnytskyi, “Karmansky.” For selections from the first three chap­ters see Karmanskyi, “Kiltsia rozhi.” The full text of the novel was in the archive of the Ukrainian Catholic University in Rome until 1985 and was recovered by Professor Leonid Rudnytsky (See Rudnytskyi, “Karmanskyi,” 16). Quotations in this text are from a photocopy of the original manuscript in the possession of Stepan Yarema, Lviv. They list part (1 or 2) and chapter.

17 Rudnytskyi, Vid Myrnoho, 296-7.

18 For two recent scholarly accounts of these events see Procyk, Russian Nationalism, and Palij, The Ukrainian-Polish Defensive Alliance.

19 This view is echoed by Procyk, who writes that both Ukraine and Poland “lost much because of their failure to develop a solid and dura­ble alliance. While Russia’s power was diminished during the early stages of the revolution, it would have been in Poland’s interest to aid Ukraine and thereby strengthen its own future security vis-a-vis both Germany and Russia. Poland was politically shortsighted to come to terms with the Bolsheviks at Ukraine’s expense” (201).

20 Said, Joseph Conrad, 26.

CHAPTER SEVEN

1 Sinyavsky, Soviet Civilization, 6. See also Berdiaev, Istoki i smysl russkogo kommunizma, in which the author describes communism as an irratio­nal faith but one grounded in Russian history.

2 Agursky, Third Rome, xv.

3 Neumann, Russia, 170. These various groups are discussed in both Neumann and Agursky.

4 Neumann, Russia, 173.

5 Agursky, Third Rome, 305.

6 Zabuzhko, Filosofiia, 34-5.

7 See Liber, Soviet Nationality Policy.

8 O. Hrycenko, “Svoia mudrist.” Natsionalni mifolohii ta “hromadianska relihiia” v Ukraini (Kyiv, 1998) 153-4, quoted in Kulyk, Ukrainskyi nat- sionalizm, 8.

9 On the “struggle of two cultures,” see Mace, Communism, 88-9, and Shkandrij, Modernism, 14-16.

For the different versions and variants and a history of the texts see Bulgakov, Pesy, 35-160, 351-62, 514-36.

Bulgakov, Pesy, 106.

Ibid., 126.

Ibid., 50.

Ibid., 351.

Ibid., 352.

Benjamin, “Moscow Diary,” 25. Bulgakov, Sobranie, vol. 1, 336.

Ibid., 333.

For Gorky’s letter see Drai-Khmara, Z literaturno-naukovoi spadshchyny, 342, also reprinted in Kostiuk, Zustrichi, 281.

Burevii, Pavlo Polubotok.

For a discussion of the play as a response to Bulgakov, see Popovich- Semeniuk.

See Ukrainskyi zasiv (1942), reprinted in Kosynka, Favst iz Podillia. This is the conclusion of Robert Conquest, in his Harvest of Sorrow, 306. It should be pointed out that Conquest estimates the entire death toll from the famine at seven million. Eighty per cent of the mortality was in Ukraine and the largely Ukrainian areas of the North Caucasus: “the five million constitutes about 18.8% of the total population of the Ukraine (and about a quarter of the rural population). In World War I less than 1% of the population of the countries at war died” (306). See Shteppa, “Lesser Evil.”

Pravda, 25 May 1945, quoted in Shteppa, “Lesser Evil,” 108.

See Rylskyi, “Slava.”

See Braichevskyi, Pryiednannia chy vozziednannia? 18. An English transla­tion of the essay appeared as Braichevskyi, Annexation.

They were published in Khvylovyi, Tvory v dvokh tomakh (1991). The fourth and final cycle was first published as Khvylovyi, “Ukraina chy Malorosiia?” (1990). Until then, the fullest edition of the pamphlets had been in volume four of Khvylovy, Tvory v piatokh tomakh. For an English translation see Khvylovy, Cultural Renaissance.

For a critic who takes quite the opposite view, see Stepanenko, “Khvylovyi bez nimby.” He argues that Khvylovy “in national spirit was not a Ukrainian writer” (72) but a thoroughly loyal Communist whose writing was entirely shaped by his reading of Russian literary classics. On Khvylovy’s irony see Shkandrij, “Irony.”

See Sulyma, “Frazeolohiia”; Koshelivets, Rozmova, 70-2.

Khvylovyi, Tvory v dvokh tomakh, vol. 2, 600. This translation is from Khvylovy, Cultural Renaissance, 228-9.

Khvylovyi, Tvory v piatokh tomakh, vol. 4, 417. Another revealing mistake occurs at the beginning of the 1991 edition. Here the word kompaniia (company) is substituted for what in the original was kompartiia (Com­munist Party). Khvylovy’s literary grouping which was called “Hart,” we learn, has, the author informs us, “taken for its ideology the postulates of the Communist Party.” Khvylovyi, Tvory v dvokh tomakh, 395. Rudnytskyi, Vid Myrnoho, 360; Lysiak-Rudnytskyi, “Mykola Khvylovy”; Koshelivets, Rozmova, 70-85.

Mace, “Buremnyi dukh.”

Khvylovy, Cultural Renaissance, 220.

For Dontsov’s comments on Khvylovy, see Dontsov, “Do staroho sporu,” and “Krok vpered.”

Khvylovy, Cultural Renaissance, 2 2 2.

These references are to A.N. Ostrovskii, Groza (Storm, i860);

V. Belinskii, “Literaturnye mectaniia. Elegiia v proze” (Literary Musings. Elegy in Prose, 1834), M. Gorkii, “Malva.”

Khvylovyi, Tvory v dvokh tomakh, 606.

Khvylovy’s Dmytro Karamazov resembles the Russian liberal intelligen­tsia whom he criticized in his Pamphlets and whose hypocrisy and lack of will-power was ridiculed in remarkably similar terms by Vynny- chenko in Vidrodzhennia natsii, vol. 1, 99-100.

Masaryk, Spirit of Russia, vol. 3, 111.

Ibid., 114.

For a discussion see Frank, Dostoevsky, 252-5.

Ibid., 254.

Bhabha, “Remembering Fanon,” 117.

See especially Khvylovyi, Tvory v dvokh tomakh, 608.

Ibid., 595-610.

Khvylovy, Cultural Renaissance, 229.

Iu. Sherekh, “Viktor Petrov iak ia ioho bachyv.” Ukraina (Paris) 6 (1951), quoted in Donchyk, Istoriia, 643.

He also published an excavation diary of Khvoika in Zarubyntsiia. His most important works are Skify. Mova i etnos (Scythians. Language and Ethnos. Kiev, 1968) and Etnohenez slovian. Dzherela, etapy rozvytku i prob- lematyka (Ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Sources, Stages of Development and Issues. Kiev, 1972).

Shevelov, “Shostyi,” 549-50. This assessment is disputed by Chaplenko, whose novel Ioho taiemytsia portrays Petrov as a Soviet spy being black­mailed by the secret police.

Sherekh, “Ne dlia ditei”; Lavrinenko, “Pro grunt.”

Petrov, “Vstup,” 3.

Petrov, “Problemy,” 44.

Ibid., 46.

On the connection between Ukrainska khata’s modernism and national­ism see Ilnytzkyj, “Ukrainska kh.a!a~ and Pavlychko, Dyskurs, 127-62.

For an analysis of Petrov’s writings on culture in this period see Pavlychko, “Na zvorotnomu botsi,” and her Dyskurs, 279-301. Pavlychko’s insightful account draws on Domontovych’s writings of the forties, in particular his novel Bez gruntu, which she feels was written as well as published in German-occupied Kharkiv in 1941-42. Pavlychko emphasizes Petrov’s polemic with an earlier, prerevolutionary Ukrai­nian modernism, which he saw as superficially influenced by Western Europe and incapable of breaking decisively with populism.

The collaboration of the avant-garde with bolshevik power has been described as following “from the very essence of the avant-gardist artistic project,” which is the total mastery of nature: “Since the world itself is regarded as material, the demand underlying the modern conception of art for power over the materials implicitly contains the demand for power over the world. This power does not recognize any limitations and cannot be challenged by any other, nonartistic author­ity, since humanity and all human thought, science, traditions, institu­tions, and so on, are declared to be subconsciously (or, to put it differently, materially) determined and therefore subject to restructur­ing according to a unitary artistic plan.” Groys, Total Art, 20-1. Groys adds that “Although the design of the avant-garde artistic project was rationalistic, utilitarian, constructive, and in that sense ‘enlightenist,’ the source of both the project and the will to destroy the world as we know it to pave the way for the new was in the mystical, transcenden­tal, ‘sacred’ sphere, and in that sense completely ‘irrational’” (64). See Pavlychko, Dyskurs, 168-230, especially 192-3. On futurism see Ilnytzkyj, Ukrainian Futurism.

Domontovych, Tvory, vol. 1, 169.

Shevelov, “Shostyi,” 518.

Ibid.

Pavlychko, Dyskurs, 219. Domontovych, Tvory, vol. 1, 88.

Ibid., 132.

Ibid., 70. Ibid., 76.

Ibid., 131. Ibid., 181. Ibid., 379. Ibid., 367.

Ibid., 425-7. Ibid., 426.

Ber, “Zasady poetyky,” 18.

He wrote a long introduction to the mimeographed edition of Chyzhevsky’s history in which he attempted a periodization of literary- cultural history. See Petrov, “Vstup.”

Sherekh, “Ne dlia ditei,” 367. One such section is chapter 6, which was perhaps revised for publication in 1947. In it the author seems to be retrospectively strengthening his theoretical argument concerning the necessity of period revolutions. This was also the year in which Petrov was composing his introduction for Chyzhevsky’s history, which deals with style as the sole criterion for periodization.

Pavlychko, Dyskurs, 215.

He may have become familiar with Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno and Horkheimer, which appeared in 1944. The authors saw in knowl­edge an urge to control and manipulate that was abstract and utilitar­ian and focused on the need to master nature: “Enlightenment behaves toward things as a dictator toward man. He knows them in so far as he can make them.” Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic, 6. Some of these ideas may have found their way into his Doctor Seraphicus during its rewriting in Germany. In any case, the writer was already concerned with this issue in the twenties, and in the forties, as Viktor Ber, he put forward a critique of modernity that was phrased as a con­trast between the Middle Ages and post- Renaissance, post-Enlighten­ment Europe. This last question is discussed in Pavlychko, Dyskurs, 28o-3.

Domontovych, Tvory, vol. 1, 437.

See Pavlychko, Dyskurs, 286-7. Domontovych, Tvory, vol. 1, 56.

Ibid., 37o.

Zerov, Do dzherel, 118. Zerov’s exposition of the neoclassicists’ position began on 24 May 1925 at a public debate in Kyiv whose record was published as Shliakhy rozvytku. For a discussion see Shkandrij, Modern­ists, 71-9o.

Pavlychko, “Na zvorotnomu,” 124.

Shevelov, “Shostyi,” 529; Korybut, “Doktor Serafikus,” 162-4; Pavlychko, “Na zvorotnomu,” 123.

Zabuzhko, Filosofiia, 9.

Franko, “Deshcho pro sebe samoho,” 3o-1.

See Kulish, “Do ridnoho narodu,” in his Khutorna poeziia.

“Variazka baliada” (1925), quoted from Malaniuk, Poezii v odnomu tomi, 41: Otak lezhysh - zamriiano-bezsyla,

A skhodyt nich i vidmoiu vnochi

Ty rozhortaiesh kazhanovi kryla...

I poky po haiakh krychat sychi,

Po bolotakh skrehochut mlosni zhaby, Shepoche tma i stohne v snakh Dnipro, - Letysh strashna y rozkhrystana na shabash - Svoikh ditei baistriuchu pyty krov - -

92 “Variazka baliada” (1925), quoted from Malaniuk, Poezii v odnomu tomi, 228:

I yshly viky, odnym iarmom zakuti, Plekaiuchy kaliku i raba.

Zradlyvyi, khytryi, temnyi i ledachyi,

V hnylosnim tlinni mertvoi dushi Vin vykokhav sobi pavuche sertse: Male, skotsiurblene, truslyvo-liute, Nenavysne i zazdre na velychnist, Pokirlyve na nyzkist khanskykh stil.

I tak lyshav bezzakhysnuiu zemliu

Y, tikaiuchy, vstromliav u niu sviy spys.

I tak miniav zaliznyi lad derzhav Na khyzhyi svyst chuzhoho batoha I tupo yshov otaroiu v iasyr.

I prodavav na stratu svoho kniazia.

93 See “Ubiinykam” (1926), in Malaniuk, Poezii v odnomu tomi, 75-6.

94 For a partial collection see Malaniuk, Knyha.

95 Ibid., vol. 2, 185.

96 Ibid., vol. 1, 205.

97 Ibid., 234.

98 Ber, “Zasady,” 9.

99 Hordynskyi, “levhen Malaniuk,” 68.

100 Malaniuk, Knyha, vol. 2, 27.

101 Geoffrey Hosking, in his Russia, argues that the “building of empire impeded the formation of a nation” (xix) and that a “fractured and underdeveloped nationhood has been their [the Russians’] principal historical burden in the last two centuries or so, continuing through the period of the Soviet Union and persisting beyond its fall” (xx). Compare this, for example, with Ia. Gordin’s comments in “Chto pozadi” that Russian literature appeared simultaneously with Peter’s state and civilization and became integrated “more than any other European literature” with the state, and that from Peter to Lenin the state viewed culture in purely pragmatic terms, without attributing to it any “independent value.” Dziuba has argued that a threat has hung over the Russian language and Russian culture ever since it was “diluted by heterogeneous and chaotic admixtures.” See his Internation­alism, 179.

102 Ibid., 196.

103 Ibid., 248.

104 Ibid., 82.

105 Malaniuk, Knyha, vol. 1, 31. For Malaniuk’s contribution to the Liter­ary Discussion see Shkandrij, Modernists, 145-8.

106 Popil imperii was published in full in Klen, Tvory, vol. 2, 11-327, reprinted in Klen, Vybrane, 132-356. In Ukraine, Barka’s novel was made into the film Holod 33 in ιggo. The novel was republished in 1ggg as Zhovtyi kniaz: Povist.

107 See Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow, 326-8.

108 Intensified campaigns of denunciation recurred in 1g46 and 1g51 and in the 1g70s. For attacks in the seventies see Shkandrij, “Literary Poli­tics and Literary Debates.”

10g Ukrainians probably formed a majority and certainly a plurality in many penal institutions after World War II, a fact noted in many mem­oirs. They played a leading role in the labour camp strikes that began after Stalin’s death. See Jaworsky, “Dissent,” 115-43.

110 Zahrebelnyi, Ia, Bohdan. For an analysis see Pavlyshyn, “Ia, Bohdan.” Orthodox interpretations of political history are expressed in other works that appeared during the three hundredth anniversary of the treaty of Pereiaslav of 1654, such as Natan Rybak, Pereiaslavska rada,

2 vols. (1g48, 1g54), Petro Panch, Homonila Ukraina (1g54), and Ivan Le, Khmelnytskyi, 3 vols. (1g57-65).

111 See Yfekelchyk, “Nationalism,” 388.

112 The essay “Sobor u ryshtuvanni” has been translated as “A Cathedral in Scaffolding,” in Sverstiuk, Clandestine Essays, 17-68.

113 Dzyuba, Internationalism, 65-6, 166.

114 Ibid., 165.

115 Klebnikov, “Zhirinovsky,” 11g.

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid., 121-2.

118 Nabokov, Nikolai Gogol, 31-2.

11g Reprinted, with an editorial comment, in the Kyiv newspaper Stolytsia for June 1gg6. See Luckyj, Anguish of Mykola Hohol, 23.

120 Gippius, Gogol, 217.

121 See Maiakovskyi, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 5, 134-6.

122 Pokalchuk, “Dovha doroha,” 6, 7.

123 Stus, Vikna, 214.

124 Ibid., 208-26.

125 “Fenomen doby.”

126 Stus, Vikna, 21g.

127 Ibid., 102.

128 Stus, Tvory, vol. 4, 4g8.

12g Hundorova, “Fenomen,” 3.

130 Stus, Tvory, vol. 4, 4gg.

Ibid., 498-9.

Stus, Vikna, 189.

Ibid., 191.

Ibid., 195.

Shevelov, “Trunok,” 55-6.

Pavlyshyn, “Kvadratura kruha,” S9.

Shevelov, “Trunok,” 4S.

Pokalchuk, “Dovha doroha,” 8.

Stus “Nai budem shchyri” (1965), reprinted in Tvory, vol. 4, 176.

Stus, Vikna, 179.

Ibid., 186.

Stus, “Perednie slovo,” S.

This is the argument of Marko Pavlyshyn, “Kvadratura kruha.” Dzyuba, Internationalism, 49-50.

CHAPTER EIGHT

D.S. Likhachev, “Nelzia uiti ot samikh sebia... (Istoricheskoe samosoz- nanie i kultura Rossii),” Novyi min 6 (1994), quoted in Hutsalo, Men- talnist ordy, S.

First published by Possev-Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1970, it was republished in Oktiabr 6 (1989).

Grossman, Forever Flowing, 56.

Ibid., 211.

Litvinova, “Revoliutsiia,” 6.

Quoted in Kis, Final Tretoho Rymu, 25.

Nash sovremennik 1 (1990): 172; quoted in Kis, Final Tretoho Rymu, 196. Korotych and Nagibin are quoted in Kis, Final Tretoho Rymu, 2Si and 680, respectively.

Excerpts appeared in Andrukhvych, “Lysty v Ukrainu,” reprinted in Chetver (199S). The editorial note on page 55 of the latter edition identifies the poems as having been written in the late autumn of 1990 in the same writers’ residence in Moscow that figures in Moskoviad. Pavlyshyn, “Post-Colonial Features,” 44.

Editorial note to Andrukhovych, “Lysty,” Chetver, 55.

Roth, “Carnival,” 2-S.

Moskoviada 2 (199S): S⁸-θ∙

Kis, “Rosiiska mesianska ideia,” 67.

Andrukhovych, Moskoviada, 1, 49.

Andrukhovych, “Lysty,” Chetver, 6S.

Ibid.

Pavlyshyn, “Post-Colonial Features,” 45.

See, for example, Zholdak, Ialovychyna.

Andrukhovych, Perverziia.

Ibid., 37.

Ibid., 68.

Ibid., 227.

Ibid., 317.

CONCLUSION

For a discussion of this issue see Klein, “In Search of Narrative Mastery.”

Said proposed a contrapuntal analysis in his Culture and Imperialism, 18. On figural resistance see Slemon, “Reading for Resistance.” Easthope, Literary into Cultural Studies, 60.

Howe, Politics and the Novel, 19.

Ibid., 21.

Ibid., 23.

Layton, “Eros,” 196.

It has been suggested that “Ukraine represents a case of a national cul­ture with extremely permeable frontiers, but a case that perhaps corre­sponds to postmodern political developments... In other words, what has been perceived as the ‘weakness’ of Ukrainian history or its ‘defects’ when measured against the putative standards of Western European states such as France and Britain ought to be turned into ‘strengths’ for a new historiography. Precisely the fluidity of frontiers, the permeability of cultures, the historic multi-ethnic society is what could make Ukrainian history a very ‘modern’ field of inquiry.” Von Hagen, “Does Ukraine have a history?” 670.

Bayley, Tolstoy, 14.

Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe. McClintock, Imperial Leather, 67-8.