In Search of “Ukraine” in the Russian Empire (End of Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries)

VOLODYMYR KRAVCHENKO

Introduction

“Nomen est omen” or “The name is a sign,” as the Roman proverb goes. What exactly does the “sign” mean: destiny, identity, or “occupation”? And what if a person or a thing is known under many names? This is exactly what Ukrainian history presents.

In the “long” nineteenth century, which is considered an epoch of Ukrainian national revival, a diverse nomenclature was used to describe Ukraine and its in­habitants: “qualitative” (“Great” and “Little” Russia), “colored” (“Red,” “Black,” and “White” Russia), and geographic (“South,” “North,” “West,” and “East”). All of them, with addition to “Rus',” “Ukrainian,” and “Cossack” terminology, applied in various contexts - ethnic, political, geographic, and social. At times, different names were used for one and the same region, and by no means did the authors of pertinent texts always bother to explain to readers why they had used one his­torical and geographic term or another.

There are hundreds of articles devoted to the problem of historical terminol­ogy of Ukraine.

Alexsei Miller observes that “In the nineteenth century, the space and popu­lation of the western province [of the Russian Empire - K.V.] became targets of a raging war of words in which, it seems, there was no place name or ethnic group name that would be ideologically neutral. Each one of them either reaffirmed or rejected a particular nation-building project.”¹ In fact, the terminological struggle between the ancestors of present-day Ukrainians and Russians goes back to the times when they established a direct dialogue between themselves during the Cos­sack wars of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The latter triggered a process that fundamentally changed the geopolitical landscape of the territory, which became a battlefield between the competing multi-ethnic states of Mus­covy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Ottoman Empire, and Sweden. This was accompanied with symbolic battles over the contested territory with Ukrainian lands in its center.

Since then, Ukrainian-Russian polemics over the “proper” names for the same territory and its people were conducted during the “long” nineteenth century with no interruption. It is known in different forms, mostly as a dialogue between: Little Russia and Great Russia (according to Semen Divovych and the author of History of the Rus’ People); the “two Rus'ian nationalities” (“Southerners” vs “Northerners”), according to lurii Venelin, or “Malorossians” vs “Velikorossians” according to Mykhailo Maksymovych or Mykola (Nikolai) Kostomarov); the de­fenders of the Cossacks and their opponents.² However, the polemics did not es­tablish a stable national nomenclature for the Ukrainians and their ethnic lands.

The polemics between Russian and Ukrainian intellectuals continued all the way through the “short” twentieth century. They exploded during and after the First World War and the dissolution of the Russian Empire, which was accom­panied by new geopolitical and administrative re-arrangements of the Ukrainian lands.³ The Ukrainian nomenclature ostensibly prevailed. In the Soviet Union, discussion over historical national terminology became taboo. However, it was conducted beyond the Soviet borders, mostly by emigres and a few Western schol­ars.⁴ In many cases, it was initiated by Ukrainian rather than Russian intellectuals. The former used to point out the phenomenon of “Russian” heterogeneity and different meanings of “Russianness,” while the latter preferred to focus on the difference between Malorossiia and Ukraine.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian imperial legacy became an object of intensive study, which had undergone several methodological changes or “turns”: imperial, national, geographical, and linguistic. Since Ukraine be­longed to the historical Slavic-Orthodox core of the former Soviet Union and Russian Empire, Ukrainian topics have been actively involved in the process of rethinking and rewriting of the imperial phenomenon. No wonder it was accom­panied with the explosion of the scholarly debates over the Russian and Ukrainian historical terminology, which now returned to the public space and obtained a vivid political dimension.⁵

The very fact that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the apparently obsolete Little Russian rhetoric made its effective comeback in the socio-political life of both post-Soviet countries tells us something important about Ukrainian modern nation-building. It might suggest that the “Little Russian” discourse of identity either survived the official prohibition of “Little Russian” rhetoric during Soviet times or has been re-discovered recently.⁶ The disintegration of the Soviet Union revived the old legacy of Ukrainian-Russian debates over na­tional identity(-ies).⁷ Simultaneously, it revealed the uneasy and quarrelsome marriage between Ukraine and Little Russia, which defined the nature of mod­ern Ukrainian nation-state building in the twentieth century.

It should be noted that both Russian and Ukrainian historians are deeply in­volved in the nation-state building of their respective countries, which has been unfolding on the symbolic basis of shared history and nested geography. For them, words like Russia, Ukraine, and their derivatives are not just scholarly ab­stractions. This became clear when a “raging war of words” flared up with re­newed vigour after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.⁸ It turned into a real war in 2014, when the current Russian regime annexed Crimea and stirred up sepa­ratist movements on Ukrainian eastern and southern border territories. Natu­rally, that kind of politics turned to history for legitimization and affected the community of scholars directly. It also should be noted that neither Western scholars nor the author of this text are immune to the sentiments inflamed by the ongoing post-Soviet re-identification.

In what follows, I shall attempt to describe and analyze the use of toponymic and ethnonymic terminology in various texts produced in the Russian Empire in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, an epoch that remains under represented in modern imperial studies. The intellectual “domestication” of the Ukrainian lands recently incorporated into the empire proceeded most often by way of discourses involving the terms Russia, Great Russia, Little Russia, Ukraine, and South Russia. What interests me first and foremost is the meaning attributed to such terms, which might be seen as markers of identity.

Was there any logic and consistency in their usage? How should one explain today the multiplicity of terminology which has been used to describe the Ukrainian people? What were their national, cultural, political, and regional as­pects? Did they reflect various identities or different stages in the development of modern Ukrainian national identity? Finally, how can one choose proper de­nominations to describe ethnic Ukrainians from different regions at the initial stage of their modern national re-identification and avoid at the same time their retrospective “nationalization”?

Initially, I intended to limit my source base to works dealing with the history of Ukraine.

Second, it took almost eighty years for the main components of the Little Rus­sian historiographical legacy to travel from the manuscript to the printed world after the dissolution of the Cossack semi-autonomous polity, the Hetmanate, in the 1760s. During the 1840s, the principal historical texts of the previous epoch became available for a broad audience due to Osyp Bodians'kyi, a secretary of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities.⁹ Before that, the development of Ukrainian historical writing remained half-hidden from the observer.¹⁰ Retro­spectively, it is not easy to trace its intellectual evolution and public reception. Many of the manuscripts retained their compilation character when any anony­mous reader could add his own interpolations to the initial text whose real author, as well as his motives and sources of information, cannot be identified.

Third, many of the new texts on Ukrainian topics published in the Russian Empire between the 1760s and the 1840s are marked by generic syncretism, which makes it difficult to separate historiography from geography, ethnography, or even travelogues and belles-lettres. They instead became combinations of various genres.

© © ©

Before addressing terminology, it is necessary to give at least a general description of the broad imperial context in which the search for new collective identities among the Russian subjects took place. In the second half of the eighteenth cen­tury, significant changes in the political geography of the empire were witnessed by a single generation. Suffice it to say that during the reign of Catherine II its external borders were reconfigured no fewer than six times.¹¹ Ongoing imperial expansion to the south and west was accompanied by constant redrawing of ad­ministrative boundaries and intellectual re-imagining of the entire territory of the empire according to Enlightenment principles of cultural unification.

The newly incorporated regions had to be located within the imperial cultural and national symbolic space. They included: Sloboda Ukraine, formed on the basis of the local Cossack social stratum; New Russia, formed as a result of Russia's annexation of the southern steppe borderland, where the Zaporozhian Cossacks and Crimean Tatars operated - a territory that eventually became one of the most polyethnic and urbanized regions of the Russian Empire;¹² and the Right Bank of the Dnipro River (historical Volhynia, Podilia, and Ukraine, which remained under the control of the local Polish nobility until the early nineteenth century, that is, until the Polish Uprising of 1830.¹³ This in turn obliged contemporaries to keep correcting the traditional nomenclature of the historical regions of Rus'/Russia and their respective toponyms and ethnonyms by using the new, sec­ular language for their description.

The development of secular language, scholarship, and education in Russia was accompanied by the massive intrusion of Western terminology into the em­pire's public space.¹⁴ By adopting it, contemporaries sought to describe and com­prehend both the unity and the ethnocultural diversity of the Russian Empire.¹⁵ However, the new, modern ideas and respective terminology were subjected to substantial modification during their transmission from Europe to the east. Very often, the adoption of Western ideas and terminology “were fraught with complications and internal contradictions.”¹⁶ The transformation of the Latin natio into Polish narod and Ukrainian narod and Russian narod through Polish mediation is a good example.¹⁷

The rapid influx of the Western borrowings into the Russian cultural space provoked a response. It was met with the growing interest in the native historical and cultural legacy, including both written (Church Slavonic) and oral (folkloric) cultural traditions.¹⁸ Associated with this was the practice of compiling universal dictionaries and encyclopedias. Little Russian intellectuals actively participated in this process. They made a substantial contribution to the development of mod­ern literary Russian by compiling concise dictionaries of the Ukrainian language to help Russian readers understand Ukrainian history and contemporary life.

During the process of cultural translation and adaptation, the old symbols of identity sometimes acquired a new, additional meaning in the new intellectual and linguistic environment. However, the language in use at the time had not yet worked out a common standard for the description of the Ukrainian and Russian lands and their inhabitants. Contemporaries used a variety of historical toponyms and ethnonyms that did not always distinguish the ethnocultural and adminis­trative criteria for delineating various regions of the empire and its inhabitants.

“Rus - Russia”

Few literary languages of the period under discussion managed to convey all the requisite nuances of the term rus’kost (Rus'ness), mainly because they did not clearly distinguish its religious, political, geographic, historical, and cultural com­ponents. The problem of Russian terminology and its different meanings in dif­ferent imperial and national contexts remained obscured for a long time. It became an object of growing scholarly attention after the break-up of the Soviet Union, when the idea of the historical, cultural, and ethnic heterogeneity of the former “one and indivisible Russia” appeared to be more acceptable to the inter­national community of scholars (including Russian) than before.¹⁹ Usually, this is discussed in terms of national/imperial dichotomy. I believe that a religious or semi-religious dimension of the “Russian” adjective was of no less importance, as the Slavophile intellectual heritage vividly demonstrates.²⁰

In the early nineteenth century, the term Russia (Rossiia) was still considered relatively new or, as Ivan Orlai put it, newfangled compared to the name Rus’, from which it originated.²¹ The latter was usually associated with the more tra­ditional designation of the “Slavic-Rus'” (slavenorusskii narod) or “Slavic-Russian” (slavenorossiiskii) nation, as the author(s) of Kyivan Synopsis (1674) insisted. The Synopsis is a historical overview composed by Orthodox monks on the basis of the Kyivan Rus' chronicles under the influence of Polish Renaissance historiog­raphy.²² It established the new, overarching discourse of “Slavic-Rus'/Russian” identity for the ambitious Muscovite Tsardom, which dreamt of becoming the center of an imagined “Slavic” world.²³ The Synopsis discourse of identity survived until the first third of the nineteenth century, and updated with the modern sec­ular triad of Count Sergei Uvarov.²⁴

Uvarov's formulae of Russian identity had established itself as another way of imperial/religious identification in parallel to the Slavic-Rus ' one. As a combina­tion of confessional and secular components, it might be presented differently as a “pan-Russian” or “all-Russian” discourse of identity, which would also be named as the “Slavic-Rus' Commonwealth” or an “Eastern Slavic Orthodox” imperial community. Serhii Bilenky aptly described the imperial “all-Russian” idea as a “scholarly abstraction” similar to the Soviet one.²⁵ In all these cases, one can find a combination of (semi-)religious and secular markers of identification, which continued its spiritual life well into the modern epoch.

The Rus’/Russian discourse in its both (confessional and secular) versions re­tained its composite, multi-layer character, which covered a great variety of local communities known under different ethnonyms and toponyms. Searches for and “discoveries” of these communities in the imagined space of “Slavdom” were ac­companied by historico-etymological flights of fancy, which became a favorite pastime of many educated amateurs. The anonymous author of History of the Rus’ People, and especially his admirer Iurii Venelin, demonstrated the attractive­ness of that sort of enterprise. They were followed by many other “Columbuses” into the uncharted waters of the Slavic-Rus' ocean, which extended well beyond the Russian imperial borders.

Geoffrey Hosking distinguished “two Russias,” ethnic Rus’ and imperial Russia.²⁶ However, his interpretation cannot be accepted without substantial reservations. Rus’ was usually associated with the old Kyivan Rus' while Russia with the modern Russian Empire. The adjective russkii, a derivative from the Rus’ name, cannot be reduced to ethnicity. It was used interchangeably in ethnic, linguistic, political, and confessional meanings. Even those Little Russian intel­lectuals who openly contrasted ethnic Little Russians and Great Russians adopted the word russkii both as an ethnonym and a politonym for self-description. In other words, the russkii adjective in the Russian Empire retained the same overarching and composite meaning as the old Rus’ borrowed from the medieval Kyivan chronicles.

In terms of geography, historical Russia looks like an entity only at first glance, from a distance of several centuries, and even then, it takes considerable predis­position to see it that way. When we draw closer, it fragments like a kaleidoscopic image whose interconnected pieces are not fused together. The official histori­ographer of the Russian Empire, the academician Gerhard Müller, noted that historical Russia was comprised of Great, Little, White, and Red Rus', whose in­habitants were distinguished from one another by various ethnographic features and dialects.²⁷ This classification of Russia was well established in the imperial and Western historical and geographic literature of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.²⁸ However, the hierarchy of historical regions and the bor­ders, periphery, and center of Rus'/Russia remained undetermined, inasmuch as none of the criteria for defining the Russian national heartland were used con­sistently enough at the time to give the historic “nucleus” of the Russian Empire the appearance of wholeness.

“Great Russia/ Velikorossiia”

The process of the rebranding and re-imagining of the “Slavic-Rus'” intellectual legacy was in its initial stage during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It proceeded in various ways. The Velikorossian discourse and its respective ter­minology, which I consider fundamental for the purposes of Russian modern re­identification, was one of them. It only recently became an object of special studies, being often confused previously with the “all-Russian” (“pan-Russian”) category and lost somewhere between the imperial and national contexts.²⁹ Ve­likorossiia resurfaced in public space only sporadically, mostly in times of geopo­litical and cultural “times of trouble” only to be sacrificed again on the altar of the following empire-building project.

Velikorossiia was included as a separate article in the Leksikon (Lexicon) of Vasilii Tatishchev written in 1745, where it was presented as the Russian historical and national heartland, as well as the core of the Russian Empire.³⁰ However, neither Fedor Polunin's Geograficheskii leksikon (Geographical Lexicon) issued in 1773,³¹ nor the multivolume Novyi ipolnyigeograficheskii slovar’Rossiiskogo Gosudarstva (The New and Completed Geographic Lexicon) compiled by Lev Maksimovich in 1788,³² nor the Survey of the Russian Empire by Sergei Pleshcheev (English edition, 1792),³³ or even Opisanie vsekh, obitaiushchikh v Rossiiskom Gosudarstve narodov (Description of the Peoples of the Russian Empire) compiled by Johann Georgi (1799)³⁴ contains a special article devoted to Velikorossiia. It resurfaced only in the Entsiklopedicheskii leksikon (EncyclopedicLexicon) of Adolphe Pluchart in 1837, thanks to Nikolai Nadezhdin.³⁵

Nadezhdin came to the conclusion that Velikorossiia was a term introduced by Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi in order to distinguish it from Little Russia.³⁶ Although Nadezhdin admitted that Velikaia Rossiia has no strictly defined borders, he as­sociated it geographically with the former Grand Duchy of Moscow, which should be considered the “heart of the empire.”³⁷ Moscow, thus, was endowed with the status of the true national capital of ethnic Russians (russkie) contrary to cos­mopolitan St Petersburg, the official capital of imperial Russia, on the one hand, and Kyiv, the ancient historical capital of Orthodox Slavic-Rus’, on the other. According to the author, the main factors that distinguished Velikorossiia from all other historical regions of the empire were not historical or geographic, but ethnocultural, which gave Velikorossians the advantage over Little Russians and White Russians.³⁸

Nadezhdin was not alone. His ideas were shared, in one way or another, by his contemporaries Nikolai Polevoi and Mikhail Pogodin, as well by some other Moscow-based intellectuals who could no longer ignore the ethno-cultural dif­ferences between the “children of Rus'” (Faith Hillis). However, all attempts of their intellectual heirs and followers to transform the imperial Russia into a na­tional state gave no results. Beyond the elite intellectual circles, people continued to use the Velikorossian and Russian ethnonyms interchangeably. Velikorossiia lost its battle for the “all-Russian” legacy and never fully developed as a modern na­tional designation of the Russian people.

The intellectual misadventure of Velikorossiia continued after the dissolution of the Russian Empire. Its Soviet incarnation, the Russian Soviet Federative So­cialist Republic, was the only Soviet republic deprived of its own capital and the local branch of the Communist Party. Although the idea of the Velikorossiian heartland of the Russian Empire never disappeared completely, it appears Veliko­rossiia remained to be jammed from both sides by the Orthodox Rus’ and impe­rial, secular Rossiia. Today's growing attention to the Velikorossiian discourse, facilitated by the ongoing Ukrainian-Russian/Soviet “divorce,” also has obvious limitations. It is hardly considered an alternative scenario for Russian nation­state building, other than for the imperial one.

“South Russia”

The “South Russian” discourse and its corresponding terminology may be con­sidered the most widespread and least controversial means of identifying the Ukrainian lands not only within the Russian Empire but also beyond its borders. It was deeply rooted in the historical and geographical imagination of the En­lightenment, in which “Russia” was usually associated with the “North.” However, in the second half of the eighteenth century, with the expansion to the south, the symbolic geography of the Russian Empire started acquiring a new dimension. Catherine II's southern geopolitical project appeared to be at once an alternative to Peter I's northern project and its continuation.³⁹ To that end, the latest con­temporary perceptions of territory, based on climatic and ethnocultural features, were implemented.

Catherine II's symbolic division of the empire into three climatic zones is note­worthy in that regard: the northern zone, with its centre in St Petersburg; the middle zone, centred in Moscow; and the southern zone.⁴⁰ This geographical model became a standard description in Sergei Pleshcheev's Survey of the Russian Empire created in 1787.⁴¹ It was most probably associated with Montesquieu's well-known theory of three climatic zones - northern, central, and southern - each of which had a particular and substantial impact on people and the laws by which they were governed.⁴² The three climatic zones of the Russian Empire, as outlined by Catherine II, symbolically underpinned the new design of uniforms worn by the Russian nobility and were featured in gubernia emblems.⁴³ Accord­ingly, Ukrainian lands were divided between the middle and the southern zones: the Kharkiv and Novhorod-Siverskyi administrative units were put in the former, while Kyiv and Katerynoslav were assigned to the latter.

The newly acquired lands were incorporated into the new Russian imperial narrative under the southern name. Thus, in Russian historiography of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the Russian Empire was presented as a fusion of Southern and Northern Rus'.⁴⁴ The symbolism of Greek antiquity and the Slavic-Rus' legacy was used to legitimise the new acquisitions. The Greek el­ement was particularly apparent in the names of the new cities in the Black Sea region and in the titulature of the Russian empress, to which the names Kherson and Taurida were added. The Slavic-Rus’ reference was borrowed from the ancient Rus’ chronicle tradition, as well as from sensational and very convenient discov­eries such as the “Stone of Tmutarakan” or the Slovo o polku Igoreve (The Tale of Ihor's Campaign), which were designed to bolster the claim that this land had belonged to Rus’ since time immemorial.

The newly incorporated southern lands were renamed “New Russia” (Novo - rossiia). The new apellation envisioned in fact the invention of a new regional iden­tity capable of overcoming the old historical regionalism of that part of the empire. No wonder that the New Russian civilizational discourse acquired a southern ge­ographic dimension. However, the newly invented New Russia came to be regarded as part of Southern Russia, and not its territorial equivalent. The latter was much older and broader than the former. At the same time, the southward direction of Russian expansion included a newer “southwestern” vector articulated by Cather­ine II during the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.⁴⁵ The new geographical optic allowed for an intellectual re-discovering of the western Ukrainian lands on the ethnic basis with the help of south-Russian rhetoric.

The topograficheskoe opisanie Khar’kovskogo namestnichestva (Topographic De­scription of the Kharkiv Vicegerency; 1788) may serve as an example.⁴⁶ The Russian author of this work, Ivan Pereverzev, created an original, innovative, and com­prehensive image of Southern Russia on a new ethnocultural basis that included western Ukrainian territory, even though it was divided at the time by adminis­trative, political, and religious barriers.⁴⁷ According to the author, “The inhabi­tants of Southern Russia, separated from one another by the distance of places, foreign rule, variety of bureaucratic administrations, civic customs, language, [and] some even by religion (the Union), [...] look at one another not as someone foreign-speaking but as though at a fellow natives; [.] to this day, all these scat­tered fellow countrymen preserve filial respect for the mother of their ancient cities, the city of Kyiv.”⁴⁸

That observation in turn paved the way for the merging of the “Little Russian” and “South Russian” nomenclature. The author of Topograficheskoe opisanie was followed by some of his contemporaries, including Afanasii Shafonsky and Ivan Stritter: both used the terms Kyivan Rus’, Little Russia, and Southern Russia as synonyms.⁴⁹ A similar orientation is apparent in the Istoriia Rusov, whose anony­mous author identified as “southern” not only New Russia but even western-lo­cated Halychyna (Galicia), calling the latter a bit awkwardly the “southern part of Rus', or Little Russia.”⁵⁰

South Russian terminology as a main marker of historical Rus’ identity was ac­cepted by two Transcarpathian intellectuals, Ivan Orlai and lurii Venelin (Hutsa), who immigrated to Russia. Orlai gave concrete expression to the southwestern dimension of South Russia in his article “Istoriia o Karpato-Rossakh” (A Story about the Carpathian Russes), published in 1804. It was most probably written as a reply to the Austrian historian Johann Christian von Engel, the author of Geschichte der Ukraine u. der ukrainischen Kosaken (The History of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Cossacks; 1796).⁵¹ In another article published in 1826 under the title “O Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii” (About Southwestern Russia), the author focused on the territory on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains in order to prove that it belonged to old Rus ’, not to any other historical and geographical area. Although Orlai did not venture beyond the framework of Slavic-Rus’ discourse, he sub­stantiated the ethnic and linguistic kinship between the local Carpathian popu­lation and the ethnic Little Russians, not the Great Russians.⁵²

Venelin, an ardent Slavophile, also had recourse to the South-North system of symbolic coordinates in order to demonstrate, on the one hand, the commonality of South Rus’ from the Carpathians to the Don and, on the other, to convince his readers that the differences between South and North were not significant enough to warrant dividing their common Rus' historical legacy. It is telling that Venelin sought to replace Little Russian terminology with South Russian designations. Ironically, in ridiculing those who sought to establish the difference between Great and Little Russians on the basis of ostensibly secondary details, Venelin himself contributed to the deepening of those differences when comparing the folk songs and different daily habits of the “northerners” and “southerners.”

The use of the South-North paradigm and the identification of Little Russia with South Russia in ethnocultural terms was already well established by the early 1830s. The second edition of Bantysh-Kamenskii's Istoriia Maloi Rossii (His­tory of Little Russia; 1830) demonstrates the close reciprocal association between the toponym South Russia (sometimes Southwestern Russia) and the ethnonyms Little Russians and Ukrainians.⁵³ The same is apparent in Nikolai Gogol's (Mykola Hohol''s) sketches for a history of Little Russia;⁵⁴ Mykhailo Maksy- movych's respective texts; Mykola Markevych's Istoriia Malorossii (History of Lit­tle Russia);⁵⁵ as well as in the linguistic works of Pavlo Bilets'kyi-Nosenko⁵⁶ and Osyp Bodians'kyi.⁵⁷ The Kharkiv Romantics not only did not renounce the tra­dition of identifying Little Russia with Southern Russia but actually popularized it: at least, this can be said of Izmail Sreznevskii, Mykola Kostomarov, and Amvrosii Metlyns'kyi.⁵⁸

The domination of South-Russian terminology in the mid-nineteenth century may be possibly understood as a consequence of the censorship policy adopted after the affair of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood.⁵⁹ Panteleimon Kulish described Ukraine by using the South Russian designation.⁶⁰ It is telling that he included the cities of Kharkiv and Odesa in its symbolic space.⁶¹ The same can be said on the editors of the St Petersburg-based Ukrainian journal Osnova (Foun­dation), published in 1861-62, and other texts where the “southern” denomination is used as a toponym in a description of what was also known as “Little Russia,” “Ukraine,” and its native people.⁶² It suggests that, South-Russian terminology had already acquired an ethnic meaning.

As an ethnonym, the term “South-Russian” (iuzhnorusskii) was adopted by leading Ukrainian intellectuals to describe the Ukrainian language. Taras Shev­chenko published in 1861 the Ukrainian primer under a “southern” title.⁶³ The “dispute between the southerners and northerners about their Russianness,” first described by Iurii Venelin, continued well into the late nineteenth and early twen­tieth centuries.⁶⁴ However, the “southern” designation of the territory and its peo­ple remained in official usage mostly. It did not replace the Little Russian and Ukrainian terminology altogether but was used with them interchangeably.

“Little Russia/Malorossiia”

In the second half of the seventeenth and for most of the eighteenth centuries the Cossack elite elaborated an idea of the Little Russian fatherland and its specific identity formed on the basis of territorial autonomy, the Cossack social and legal system, and the Orthodox religion.⁶⁵ After the Cossack military administrative system was replaced by the imperial one during the reign of Catherine II, the ter­ritory of Little Russia consisted of the Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Novhorod-Siverskyi viceregencies.⁶⁶ As a result of the administrative reform of 1796, historical Little Russia became the Little Russian gubernia.⁶⁷ After its division in 1802 into the Poltava and Chernihiv gubernias, the historical name of Little Russia was trans­ferred to them.⁶⁸

The Little Russian terminology of the first half of the nineteenth century was inherited from previous centuries as the basic marker of the main part of Ukrainian ethnic territory that entered the Russian/Muscovite state with partic­ular rights in 1654 and was associated with the Cossack state formation - the Het- manate.⁶⁹ It was not imposed on Ukrainians by the Russian imperial authorities in order to diminish their political autonomy and erase their ethnic-cultural dis­tinctiveness from “proper” Russians.⁷⁰ It was used instead by the Ukrainian secular elites to protect their rights and privileges under the “all-Russian” tsar. The “Little Russian” designation was the only one associated with the term “nation” repre­sented by the former Cossack officers, now landed gentry, on the former Het- manate territory.⁷¹ While gradually losing its official politico-administrative, social, and legal meaning, Little Russia retained its integrity in historical and eth­nocultural discourse. The process of the ethnic and historical re-branding of his­torical “Little Russia” did not stop with the Istoriia Rusov, as it usually has been assumed. Instead, it continued to its climax in the grand-narrative created by the “Little Russian historiographer,” Mykola Markevych in i8jos-5os. In the historical sense, Little Russia reached far back into the past, to the times of Kyivan Rus', and in geographic terms its reference exceeded the boundaries of the former Het- manate. It was described in administrative and political, geographic, historical, and ethnocultural terms interchangeably, with Rus/Russian, South Russian, and Ukrainian references often serving as equivalents.

Bearers of Little Russian identity were concerned not with emancipating themselves from the “Rus'/Russia” but with their search for proof of the primacy of “their” region in the historical, cultural, religious, and political space of Rus’/ Russia. At the same time, the main counterpart of Little Russia was not the all­Russian Empire but another historical region, Great Russia, which also laid claim to the status of Russian heartland. Until the mid-nineteenth century, the “two Rus'es” contended for their place under the sun of imperial Russia. Up to that point, the fate of the dispute remained in doubt. “I know that you are Russia, and that is my name, too,” replies Little Russia to Great Russia in Semen Divovych's famous historic-political dialogue of 1762.⁷²

The “two Russias” cohabited peacefully under the “Russian” or better “all­Russian” overarching discourse. Hryhorii Poletyka, the distinguished champion of the Hetmanate's political rights, called his fatherland “Russia,”⁷³ as did his con­temporary and fellow thinker Petro Symonovs'kyi (Petr Simonovskii).⁷⁴ The idea of “two Russias” was publicly substantiated in the Brief Annals of Little Russia, published by Vasyl Ruban in 1777.⁷⁵ It was fully accepted by Lev Maksimovich (Maksymovych), the author and editor of the Novyi ipolnyigeograficheskii slovar' Rossiiskogo gosudarstva (New and Complete Geographic Dictionary of the Russian State) published in 1788.⁷⁶ Andrian Chepa, an ardent Little Russian patriot and collector of Cossack historical documents, proudly called the history of his homeland “a glorious branch of Russian [rosiiskoi] history.”⁷⁷ Mykola Markevych followed this tradition as well.

Some of Chepa's contemporaries associated the emergence of the term Little Russia with the so-called transfer of the grand-princely throne from Kyiv to Vladimir in the twelfth century, which they believed Andrei Bogoliubskii to have done.⁷⁸ Most writers, however, maintained that the term had appeared later, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.⁷⁹ In the footnotes to the fourth volume of Nikolai Karamzin's twelve-volume Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo (History of the Russian State, 1818), written on the basis of primary sources, including the charter of Iurii, prince of Volodymyr-Volynskyi, the Russian historian opined that the term Little Russia had first appeared in 1335. Bantysh-Kamenskii, the author of Istoriia Maloi Rossii, was inclined to agree with him.

Other historians associated the emergence of the term Little Russia with a later period. For example, Afanasii Shafons'kyi surmised that it had appeared only in the times of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi and the annexation of the Hetman state to Muscovy Russia, that is, in the mid-seventeenth century.⁸⁰ His opinion was shared to one degree or another by Berlyns'kyi, Gavriil Uspenskii, and the unknown au­thor of the Novyi slovotolkovatel' (New Dictionary), published by Mykola (Nikolai) lanovs'kyi in 1803-04.⁸¹

Mikhail Markov, an early nineteenth-century historian from Chernihiv, main­tained that the name of “Little Russia” became established in historiographic tradition thanks to Hetman Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi, who was the first to intro­duce it. It is worth noting that even the author of the Istoriia Rusov, whose views on Ukrainian history were conspicuously eccentric, concurred with all these au­thors in stressing that the term Little Russia had emerged simultaneously with Russia and Great Russia after 1654 and had been included thereafter in the tsar's official titulature.⁸²

Perceptions of the territory of Little Russia changed with successive historical periods. Little Russia usually was associated with the Pereiaslav⁸³ or Kyivan prin­cipalities, the latter sometimes believed to have included the lands of the Chernihiv⁸⁴ and Siversk regions⁸⁵ or Volhynia and Podilia.⁸⁶ A similar narrower conception of Little Russian territory limited it to the lands that had been trans­ferred from Kyivan Rus' to Poland between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries and annexed to the Muscovite state in the mid-seventeenth century, owing to Hetman Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi. Despite the tendency to contract the extent of Little Russia in the works of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century writers, perceptions of its territorial nucleus remained relatively stable. That nucleus was the Little Russian fatherland along both banks of the Dnipro River and the Middle Dnipro region.⁸⁷ As such, it remained to be seen in a broad territorial framework, as the heart of a more extensive Little Russia.

Such a broad territorial definition of Little Russia was accepted by Russian au­thors. According to the historian Aleksei Musin-Pushkin, the borders of Little Russia were defined by the upper reaches of the Oka and Donets rivers in the east, the Horyn River in the west, Chersonesos in the south, and the Ugra River in the north.⁸⁸ This is in fact the main territory of contemporary Ukraine, excluding the western oblasts and including Russian border regions. We find a similar per­ception in Afanasii Shchekatov's seven-volume Geograficheskii slovar' rossiiskogo gosudarstva (Geographical Dictionary of the Russian State), published in 1801-09. Khariton Chebotarev, a professor at Moscow University, included in Little Russia not only Hetmanate Ukraine but also the Sloboda region, New Russia, and part of the Belgorod gubernia.⁸⁹ Similarly, a broad definition of Little Russian territory based on ethnicity is to be found in the works of the Russian geographers and statisticians, Karl German and Konstantin Arseniev.⁹⁰

Historical texts allow us to gain an impression of their authors' gradual reori­entation from social and legal criteria to ethnographic ones in defining the ter­ritory of Little Russia. Thus, for Vasyl Ruban, who wrote in the second half of the eighteenth century, Little Russia was defined on the basis of contemporary ad­ministrative divisions as the territory located between Sloboda Ukraine, the gu­bernias of Belgorod and New Russia, and Poland and Lithuania.⁹¹ The author of the Istoriia Rusov somewhere in the early nineteenth century, included in historical Little Russia not only the Left and Right Banks of the Dnipro but also the southern and western parts of present-day Ukraine, and even of Belarus.⁹² In doing so, he employed the Cossack, Rus', and South Rus' markers.

The contemporary of the author of the Istoriia Rusov, lakiv Markovych, gen­erally operated with the geographic terms South and steppe. Mykhailo Antonovs'- kyi hesitated over the selection of criteria to be used in defining the territory of Little Russia, whether historical, administrative, or ethnic: “considering the Little Russian people inhabiting the gubernias of Sloboda Ukraine, New Russia, and almost all of the gubernias of Kyiv, Volhynia, and Podilia, one might think that these lands should be called Little Russia as well, but that would be at variance with historical truth.”⁹³ The next generation of Little Russian intellectuals would no longer entertain such doubts.

The Little Russian designation would become the established term for denoting all that pertained to the ethnic sphere, primarily language and folklore. The border between the new Little Russia and Great Russia was re-conceptualized on the basis of ethnocultural criteria. Besides the aforementioned Ivan Pereverzev, Russian travelers passing through the Ukrainian lands from north to south contributed to this conceptualization. Practically all nineteenth-century Russian and foreign travellers defined the symbolic border between Little Russia and Great Russia as lying somewhere between Kursk and Belgorod, which indicates that they did not differentiate inhabitants of historic Little Russia of the Hetmanate from those of Sloboda Ukraine.⁹⁴

Ethnocultural criteria were also the basis for the growth of what became an established notion that the lands on both sides of the Austro-Russian border were inhabited by “Little Russians.” A dictionary of foreign words published in 1803­06 by a contemporary of Pereverzev's, lanovs'kyi, includes an article about “Rusyns” (rusyny) living in Hungary and Austria and maintains that they were in fact Little Russians (Malorossians) who spoke the Little Russian language, which was close to Russian.⁹⁵ Mikhail Kachenovskii, the editor of Vestnik Evropy (European Herald), introducing a “Little Russian Ballad” to his readers in I827, pointed out that “in our western provinces beyond the Dnipro, in Galicia, in Bukovyna, in part of the northern counties of Hungary, the great mass of the people and the most numerous class of inhabitants is made up of Rusyns, Rus- niaks, a people closer than any other in origin, language, and customs to our Little Russians or, to put it more precisely, one and the same.”⁹⁶

Mykola Markevych did likewise when introducing his poetic collection of Ukrainian Melodies to a broad audience in 1831: “Judging by customs, clothing, and speech, Little Russia may be defined as the whole territory extending from the borders of Hungarian Galicia, including only the Kamianets-Podilskyi and Kyiv gubernia on that side of the Dnipro, to the borders of the Voronezh gubernia, counting on this side of the Dnipro, the Poltava, Chernihiv, and Kharkiv guber­nias, with some localities in the Kursk gubernia. In the south it ends beyond the Dnipro Rapids, where the possessions of the Turkish Sultan once began.”⁹⁷ In his other works as well, Markevych was consistent in his view of Ukrainian ethnic territory past and present.⁹⁸ “Little Russia,” he wrote, “is where the Little Russian language is spoken.”⁹⁹

If Orlai and Venelin preferred South Russian to Little Russian nomenclature, their fellow Habsburg subject Denys Zubryts'kyi, a Galician, who studied the Galician-Volhynian principality in which Little Rus' terminology had been used, favoured the latter in arguing that Little Russians on both sides of the Russo- Austrian border were the same people.¹⁰⁰ Little Russia now came to include not only the lands close to Russia but also the western Ukrainian lands. Little Russian terminology was used to denote this territory in parallel with Rus ' and South Rus­sian designations not only by subjects of the Russian Empire but also by natives of the Habsburg Monarchy before and during the 1848 revolution.¹⁰¹

From the 1840s to the early twentieth century, the ethnonym maloros or malorossianin (Little Russian) became the self-designation of choice among educated “Ukrainians” in the Russian Empire; it also took on supra-regional connotations.¹⁰² At the individual level, practically all educated representatives of Ukrainian society identified themselves as Little Russians, their fatherland as Little Russia, and their mother tongue as Little Russian. It was possible to com­bine Malorossian and Russian identities but a hybrid of Malorossian/Velikorossian was unthinkable.

The “Malorossian” terminology was not imposed from outside by the tsarist censorship. It carried no suggestion of inferiority and simply reflected the historic and cultural belonging of the local population to the broader symbolic space of the “Slavic-Rus' world.” This terminology gave the right to the ancient Slavic- Rus' heritage, which in turn served as a visiting card of a historical and ethnic Little Russian (Malorossian) nation with a glorious past. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Malaia Rus’, malorusskii, and malorossiiskii (Little Russian) became established terms of ethnic self-identification in the Russian Empire and to a degree in western Ukrainian land, though here the ancient term Ruthenian (rusyn) long held sway.¹⁰³

Not until the late nineteenth century did Little Russian terminology begin to yield to its Ukrainian counterpart. At that time, the term malorosy (Little Russians) “became a negative designation by nationally conscious Ukrainians for those compatriots who were loyal to the Tsarist state and integrated themselves into the all-Russian culture and language.”¹⁰⁴ It was only the Soviet project that dealt the hardest blow to Little Russian terminology as a marker of identity. And yet that project merely preserved the Little Russian identity intact under the “Soviet Ukrainian” designation, as would become apparent at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

“Ukraine”

The tradition of consistent use of “Ukrainian” terminology originated in the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was appropriated by the Cossack polity in the seventeenth century. In international circles, the term was popular­ized by the seventeenth-century Description d’Ukranie compiled by Guillaume Levasseur de Beauplan, a French engineer in Polish service. Beauplan's maps as well as those of many cartographers of the seventeenth and early eighteenth cen­tury such as Johann Baptiste Homann, who called Ukraine “terra Cossacorum,” had influenced European usage. The traditional use of the term “Ukraine” as a Cossack territory had a notable influence on Western and Russian authors in the Age of Enlightenment. The Austro-German scholar Johann Christian von Engel used it in the title of his synthetic work on Ukrainian history.¹⁰⁵ Some Russian and Ukrainian historians of the late eighteenth century (Müller, Shafons'kyi, Rigel'man) found no problem in accepting the Polish origins of the word.¹⁰⁶ In the early nineteenth century it was used not only by Polish authors but by some Russian ones as well.¹⁰⁷ One of the first Russian historians to challenge the Polish origin of the term Ukraine was Mikhail Markov.¹⁰⁸

The use of “Ukraine” to designate the Right Bank of the Dnipro River may be regarded as an echo of the aforementioned Polish tradition, while “Little Russia” appears as a designation of the Left Bank.¹⁰⁹ This approach is maintained more consistently in Stanislav Zarul'skii's Opisanie o Maloi Rosii i Ukraine (A Description of Little Russia and Ukraine), written in the late eighteenth century, and in the work of his contemporary Tadeusz Czacki. For some time, Russian authors also found no difficulty in referring to “Polish Ukraine” in order to denote the territory of the Right Bank.¹¹⁰ However, it should be stressed that the “Ukraine-Little Rus­sia” territorial division was never fixed.

The Cossack elite used it both officially and unofficially during and after the Cossack revolution of 1648.¹¹¹ The usage of the term Ukraine was never confined to the folkloric tradition, and it long remained a wandering term localized in var­ious regions and fragmented into discrete parts. Approximately until the mid­nineteenth century it was used almost exclusively in the sense of “borderland” (okraina). Markevych noted that the term Ukraine initially denoted a borderland and specified several historical “ukraines”: those of Kyiv, Moscow, Riazan, and Galicia, as well as Polish and Russian “ukraines.”¹¹² Besides geographic meanings, socio-political ones could also accrue to this term, which had previously been used to refer to the Cossack lands. While Ukraine could be “Polish,” “Lithuanian,” or “Russian,” it could also refer to a specific part of historical Little Russia, namely its “steppe” territory, as Afanasii Shafons'kyi and Iakiv Markovych suggested.¹¹³

There is a dominant view in the scholarly literature that in the early nineteenth century the anonymous author of the Istoriia Rusov rejected the term Ukraina in favour of Little Russia.¹¹⁴ In the introduction to that work, the author rails against “shameless and spiteful Polish and Lithuanian storytellers,” whom he does not identify by name, and who deftly introduced all kinds of “nonsense and slander” into the Little Russian chronicles.¹¹⁵ For example, the anonymous author alludes to an “instructive anecdote” in which some kind of new land near the Dnipro River, here called Ukraine, was brought onto the scene from ancient Rus' or con­temporary Little Russia; new settlements were established there by Polish kings, and Ukrainian Cossackdom was founded.¹¹⁶ He mocks the esteemed “author of such a timid, pretty story,” who “never set foot anywhere but his school and did not see Rus' cities in the country that he calls Ukraine.”¹¹⁷

The target of the author's criticism is not known. Perhaps it was the Kyivan historian Maksym Berlyns'kyi, a teacher at the Main Public School (later gym­nasium), who wrote a brief history of Russia for young people titled Kratkaia Rossiiskaia istoriia dlia upotrebleniia iunoshestvu, published in St Petersburg in 1800. At the time, this was arguably the only such textbook with content related to Ukraine. Berlyns'kyi often called Little Russia “Ukraine,” but so did his con­temporaries and many of his predecessors. Even the author of the Istoriia Rusov reveals that he was not hostile in principle to the term “Ukraine” as such.

The term appears in the main body of his manuscript many times, most often in documents or quotations, sometimes wilfully edited or quoted from memory. For example, the author of the Istoriia Rusov included in his manuscript the text of Hetman Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi's apocryphal Bila Tserkva proclamation of 1648, where “Ukraine” is usually paired with “Malorossiia” (Little Russia) as “Ukraina nasha Malorossiiskaia” (Our Little Russian Ukraine).¹¹⁸ In another case, he refers to Voltaire's description of the Russian-Swedish war of 1709 where “Ukraine” is presented as the land of Cossacks.¹¹⁹

In parallel with this, the anonymous author himself uses the term “Ukraine.” For example, when he describes Ivan Sirko's military actions in Moldavia, he writes that the Cossack chieftain, retreating from the enemy, crossed the Dnister River and “returned to his Ukraine.”¹²⁰ Elsewhere in the book, the author recounts how Turkish armies advanced toward the fortress of Kamianets-Podilskyi in 1672, passing “through Ukraine, loyal to Khanenko, all the way to the Sluch River.”¹²¹ All these examples actually refer to the Right Bank of the Dnipro River, that is, to the same contested territory whose Ukrainian name the author held to have been invented by “shameless” Polish and Lithuanian authors.

At the same time, it was highly unusual and hardly explicable that the author would not apply the name of Ukraine to the territory of the Sloboda Cossack reg­iments, which during his lifetime was known officially as the “Sloboda Ukraine gubernia” (1765-80; 1797-1835). It was the only region whose official name in­cluded the Ukrainian denomination.¹²² It looks like the author of Istoriia Rusov decided to challenge the obvious fact when he coined for the Sloboda historical region the adjective bulavyns’kyi (“of the mace”) so as to emphasize its subjection to the “mace” (possessions) of the Little Russian hetman. In this, the author of Istoriia Rusov was indeed unique. Most other authors, presumably his contem­poraries, tended to assign the name of “Ukraine” to the Sloboda Ukraine (later Kharkiv) gubernia exclusively.

The Statistical Description of the Russian Empire, compiled by Evdokim Zi- ablovskii in the early nineteenth century, says of the Sloboda Ukraine gubernia that “the land constituting this gubernia is called Ukraine to this day, and this be­cause it lay on the very borders, limits, or edge of Russia.”¹²³ In the strictly geo­graphic sense, the Kharkiv region is called ukraina in the works of the philosopher Hryhorii Skovoroda and in the programmatic documents of the Russian Decem­brists.¹²⁴ We encounter it in the same sense in the notes of the nineteenth-century German travel writer Johann Georg Kohl.¹²⁵ It was no accident that their con­temporaries bestowed on Kharkiv the title of “capital of Ukraine.”

Curiously, Vasyl' Karazin, the founder of Kharkiv University who is considered by some enthusiasts an “architect of the Ukrainian Renaissance,” dreamed of the time when his native Sloboda Ukraine would get rid of its “Ukrainian” designa­tion and became just the “Kharkovian” gubernia. It seems like both the author of History of the Rus’ People and his contemporary Karazin considered the “Ukrainian” adjective as undesirable for their respective little fatherland, although for the opposite reasons. Contrary to both of them, Hryhorii Kvitka continued to use the Ukrainian name for the Sloboda Ukraine gubernia and its dwellers even after it was renamed the Kharkiv gubernia. Eventually, the Ukrainian nomencla­ture did not become a monopoly of the Kharkiv or any other historical region.

In the absolute majority of historical texts produced during this period, the term Ukraine was a synonym of Little Russia, its second name denoting the ter­ritorial nucleus on both sides of the Dnipro River discussed earlier.¹²⁶ For evidence of this, it suffices to refer to the works of such reputable Russian historians as Gerhard Müller, Ivan Boltin, Dmitrii Bantysh-Kamenskii, Aleksandr Rigel'man, and the Ukrainian authors Petro Symonovs'kyi, Opanas Shafons'kyi, and Olek­sandr Bezborodko.¹²⁷ In the Cossack memorial literature of the eighteenth cen-

tury, Ukraine was used primarily in the private sphere as a synonym of the more official Little Russia: both of these names identified the authors' common father­land (vitchyzna).¹²⁸

In the early nineteenth century, the aforementioned Russian geographer Evdo­kim Ziablovskii extended the name Ukraine to the entire Left Bank of the Dnipro, that is, the former Hetmanate and the Sloboda region regiments, once again in the geographic sense.¹²⁹ His contemporary Karl German went even further, ap­plying the name Ukraine to the whole territory embracing Little Russia, the Slo- boda Ukraine region, parts of the Katerynoslav and Kursk gubernias, and the land of the Don Cossacks on the grounds that it bordered on the Tatars and Turks.¹³⁰ Pavlo Bilets'kyi-Nosenko, an ardent Little Russian patriot, wrote to the editorial board of the Kharkiv-based Ukrainskii zhurnal in the early 1820s about a “Ukraine from the Carpathians to the Don, inhabited by a Ukrainian population of many millions.”¹³¹ A similar view was expressed in 1827 by Mykhailo Kachen- ovs'kyi of Kharkiv, professor and rector of Moscow University.

Historians concur that in the era of Romanticism both Little Russian and Ukrainian designations became imbued with an ethnocultural content, with a notable rise in the intensity with which Ukrainian terminology was used. But does this mean that Little Russia was being “forced out” by Ukraine as Brian Boeck suggests? He associates the beginning of that process with the publication of a Russian translation of Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan's seventeenth-century description of Ukraine in St Petersburg in 1832, which “may have contributed more to the revival of the term ukrainets’ than any other single event.”¹³²

In Boeck's words, “After the translation of Beauplan, intellectuals inherited a term that was associated with a glorious period in the national past, but whose contents could still be actively shaped by contemporaries.”¹³³ Indeed, on turning to the text of that publication, we see that the introduction by the Russian trans­lator, probably Fedor Ustrialov, contains rousing words about “Ukrainian Cos­sacks” and “Ukraine, native to us by faith, and by language, and by the origin of its inhabitants.”¹³⁴ However, for some reason Boeck did not mention that by then “Ukrainian” ethnic terminology, as noted earlier, was already commonly accepted as synonymous with “Little Russian.”

Thus, Andrei Aleinikov, a deputy to the Catherinian Committee for the com­pilation of a new law code in 1767, spoke of one “Little Russian people in Little Russia and the Sloboda regiments.”¹³⁵ His contemporary Hryhorii Kalynovs'kyi described “Ukrainian marriage rituals of the common people” as common to in­habitants of Little Russia and the Sloboda region.¹³⁶ Ivan Pereverzev, the author of the Topographic Description of the Kharkiv Vicegerency, uses “Ukrainian” ter­minology when discussing the Kharkiv region not only in the geographic but also in the ethnic sense, especially with reference to the “Ukrainian dialect” of the local Little Russians. The second edition of Bantysh-Kamenskii's Istoriia Maloi Rossii, which appeared in 1830, contains Ukrainian terminology, used in parallel to South Russian and Little Russian terminology, inter alia for describing the Ukrainian population (“sons of Ukraine,” “Ukrainians”).¹³⁷

It might seem that Hryhorii Kvitka, who also used Ukraine and Ukrainians in the ethnic sense, intended to narrow the reference of Ukrainians to inhabitants of the Kharkiv region when he sought to substantiate the cultural differences be­tween Ukrainians of the Sloboda region and those of neighbouring Little Rus- sia.¹³⁸ Elsewhere he identified Ukrainians with the inhabitants of historical Little Russia, but in the final analysis he limited the reference of that ethnonym to the Zaporozhian Cossacks alone who were described as “pure Ukrainians.”¹³⁹ In gen­eral, even the regional Sloboda-Ukrainian patriot Hryhorii Kvitka clearly under­stood that all his compatriots, even those who had moved to Siberia or the Caucasus, to say nothing of those in the Carpathian Mountains, shared a common origin and ethnic particularities.

In 1829 the journal Moskovskii telegraf began to publish the poems of a stu­dent of Bilets'kyi-Nosenko, Mykola Markevych, which were issued separately in 1831 under the title Ukrainskie melodii. This work is literally replete with “Ukrainian” terminology in a variety of contexts, from the lyrical to the grandiose: “a glorious period in the national past.”¹⁴⁰ The same year saw the publication in the imperial capital of a devotedly loyal pamphlet by Orest Somov, written on behalf of “a Ukrainian,”¹⁴¹ and in Kharkiv of a Ukrainian Al­manac produced by local Romantics.

Would it not be more accurate to attribute the sudden revitalization of “Ukrainian” terminology in the early 1830s not to one of the publications devoted to that subject but to the general situation in the country after the Polish uprising? The Russian government and society responded to it with a mighty wave of im­perial nationalism directed toward the lands that had become the arena of a suc­cessive Polish-Russian conflict. Until then, those lands had been almost officially named “Polish Ukraine.” From that time forward, they would become “Russian,” at times through a “South Russian” and “Little Russian” mediation.

It is also worth noting that once the Sloboda Ukraine gubernia was renamed the Kharkiv gubernia in 1835, the notion of “Russian Ukraine” lost its narrowly regional character and could “travel” westward and southward along with South Russian and Little Russian terminology. Indeed, the Kharkiv Romantics took ad­vantage of that fact in their writings.¹⁴² The works of Levko Borovykovs'kyi, Mykola Kostomarov, and Opanas Shpyhots'kyi are replete with “Ukrainian” ter­minology.¹⁴³ However, these authors also make broadly concomitant use of Little Russian nomenclature, whether in the form of a subtitle to a “Ukrainian” title or interchangeably in the texts of their works as a synonym for “Ukrainian.”¹⁴⁴

The Kharkiv Romantics were not the only writers to use “Ukrainian” termi­nology in an ethnocultural sense not unlike that of the present day. Gogol, Maksy- movych, and Markevych did likewise. The first two used Ukraina and russkaia zemlia interchangeably.¹⁴⁵ The latter consistently employed Ukraine and Little Russia as synonyms,¹⁴⁶ imbuing both with geographic and ethnic content.¹⁴⁷ In Maksymovych's Skazanie o Koliivshchine (An Account of the Koliivshchyna Rebel­lion), “Ukraine” is the territory on the Right Bank of the Dnipro, where the rebels known as haidamaky were active; they in turn become associated with the Cossacks and were incorporated into the Little Russian historical narrative. Pan­teleimon Kulish, who played the leading role in the systematic use of the term Ukraina,¹⁴⁸ could draw on the works of his contemporaries and predecessors.

This did not mean, however, that Ukraina became established as a national symbol in the course of the nineteenth century. Along with its broad Little Rus­sian counterpart, it could also be used in a narrower sense to denote particular regions of ethnic territory.¹⁴⁹ It should be noted in this regard that Ukrainian terminology, more than South Russian and Little Russian, was associated with the phenomenon of Cossackdom, both Little Russian and Zaporozhian. Ukraine completely eclipses Little Russia, for example, in Fr. Ioann's Heroichni stykhi o slavnykh voiennykh diistviiakh vois’k zaporoz’kykh (Heroic Verses about the Mili­tary Deeds of the Zaporozhian Armies), published in 1784.¹⁵⁰ The inclusion of the haidamak theme in the national narrative in the mid-nineteenth century not only expanded the territory covered by Ukraine but also endowed it with a dis­tinct social dimension.

Ethnonyms

There were several related ethnonyms corresponding to the geographic tax­onomies of the period to describe the population of Ukraine.¹⁵¹ Most often, the names Russes, Slavic-Rus’/Russians,Ruthenians (rusyny),Rusnaks, South Russians, Little Russians, and Ukrainians were used interchangeably. One can find such a mosaic of ethnonyms in practically all the texts described above, as well as in many other sources of both official and private origin. In almost all cases, the dif­ference between ethnonyms and toponyms was not clear.

In not a few instances, the ethnonyms Ukrainian and Little Russian continued to be understood as regionally limited. Venelin, for instance, considered Ukrainian equal in status to South Russian, while ignoring the ethnonym Little Russian.¹⁵² In other cases, Ukrainians and Little Russians served as synonyms. In Boeck's opinion, the symbolic change in relations between the Little Russian and Ukrain- ian designations took place in the latter half of the nineteenth century, when in official discourse maloross remained neutral but ukrainets became negative for political reasons.¹⁵³

Another ethnonym widely used as a designation of Ukrainian inhabitants of the Russian Empire, along with Little Russian and Ukrainian, was khokhol.¹⁵⁴ In the literary Russian of the day, it was perhaps the only general ethnonym appli­cable to ethnic Ukrainians regardless of their place of residence or even social status; to be sure, it was used most often as an informal designation with differ­ent meanings, depending on the context. Contrary to widely held belief, the name and self-designation khokhol was less disdainful or condescending than half-joking and folksy. Khokhol was the quintessence of ethnicity, the indivisible atom, the basic and universal designation that defined a particular individual's origin by birth, special characteristics, and tastes pertaining to national charac­ter. Vasyl' Karazin did not hesitate to call inhabitants of the Sloboda region khokhly, with no negative connotation, since he was emphasizing their aptitude for study.¹⁵⁵

The khokhol designation was adopted by the ethnic Ukrainians for the pur­poses of informal self-identification.¹⁵⁶ The minister of internal affairs, Viktor Kochubei, could refer to himself in a letter to the Little Russian governor-general, Prince Nikolai Repnin, as “a khokhol by birth.” Stepan Burachek, a Russian general and a Little Russian patriot, referred to his landowning countrymen as “pure, original khokhly, only without an oseledets [a Cossack haircut].”¹⁵⁷ Gogol's exam­ple is especially interesting. In a well-known letter to his friend Aleksandra Smirnova-Rossett in 1844, Gogol, a deeply religious man, even gave an ethnic di­mension to the immortal soul and used khokhol and Little Russian derivatives interchangeably in opposition to the Russian adjective.¹⁵⁸ It is worth noting that Gogol's correspondent identified herself as khokhlachka. All these examples hardly fit the “prototypes of uncivilized peasants” designation as a reflection of the complex of inferiority, at least for the period under investigation.¹⁵⁹

It was precisely on the basis of the term khokhol that Russian stereotypes of Ukrainians (“cunning,” “stubborn,” “dim-witted”) and of the differences be­tween the two peoples were generated and cultivated. Passing through the Slo- boda region in 1774, Johann Guldenstadt left the following comment on local Ukrainians and Russians: “one can hardly expect the merger of moskali with khokhly, as they call each other in jest, that is, of the Russians with the Cher- kasians, or Rusnaks.” Half a century later, Opanas Shpyhots'kyi would complain from Moscow in a letter to Izmail Sreznevskii that the local publishers had be­haved with him “like moskali with a khokhol.”¹⁶⁰ The list of examples could be extended. Khokhol and its derivatives have survived to the present day and even reasserted their place in the Russian ethnographic literature.¹⁶¹

Khokhol was perhaps the only ethnonym that lent itself to the formation of a toponym, albeit an imaginary one - Khokhlandiia, that is, a land inhabited by khokhly. It was the reverse in all other instances: the toponym gave rise to the eth­nonym (Ukrainians, South Russians, Little Russians). Prince Ivan Dolgorukii, a Russian traveller, in 1817 found himself in the kholhol region (“oblast' khokhlov”) somewhere between Hlukhiv and Sevsk.¹⁶² Later on, another Russian traveller, Ivan Aksakov, identified Khokhlandiia as the territory between Kharkiv and Poltava.¹⁶³ As one can see, the geography of this ethnically imagined space was not precise. It is curious that even heavily Russified Kharkiv and its university were perceived by Polish and Russian contemporaries as khokhliatskie, a view based, as it seems, on the ethnic composition of the local population.¹⁶⁴

Conclusions

The material cited shows that in the first half of the nineteenth century there were no established rules or norms governing the use of the names South Russia, Little Russia, and Ukraine, just as there was no consensus among historians with regard to the origins of those terms and the way they were understood. Each of these designations had acquired multiple functions, and was used both as toponyms and ethnonyms interchangeably, with no strict rules or order. Under such con­ditions, almost the whole spectrum of Ukrainian designations maintained a cer­tain ambivalence and offered grounds for a variety of interpretations. It may have left some room for the alternative scenarios of modern nation-building. However, it does not imply that local identities were not compatible or even intertwined with the idea of the integrity of the Ukrainian land and people.

Some historians, starting perhaps with Oleksander Ohloblyn, tend to exagger­ate Ukrainian regional fragmentation. The idea that “Ukraine, Little Russia, and South-Western gubernias till the middle of the [nineteenth] century... were con­ceived as different units”¹⁶⁵ begs for limitations. My research suggests that the his­torical commonality of Ukrainian lands never disappeared from the radar of contemporary observers while their ethnic unity was established long before the nineteenth century. It seems like the profusion of toponyms and ethnonyms for the designation of Ukrainian lands and people presented no particular difficulty to contemporaries of the period under discussion. They realized that while names were changing, the population itself had not changed much.¹⁶⁶

I believe that the phenomenon of the multiplicity and ambiguity of respective designations could be better approached from the perspective of the gradual sec­ularization of the medieval discourse of the “Rus'/Slavic-Rus' people” established by the Kyivan Synopsis. The process of its re-imagination and re-articulation in terms of modern geography and ethnicity led to a gradual erosion and fragmen­tation of the historical and religious-linguistic community and its territory pre­sented in Synopsis. However, a language for the description of that process and the emerging new meanings had yet to be developed.

Of the various names in existence, Ukrainian was the least bound up with Rus' religious tradition; hence its triumph over the more traditional projects de­pended on the success of secularization. The formula “Ukraine-Rus',” adopted by Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, represented a compromise between tradition and in­novation.¹⁶⁷ However, it left space for other, more traditional definitions. I have no basis to speak of the gradual displacement of Little Russian or South Russian terminology by Ukrainian terminology or of their differentiation before the mid­dle of the nineteenth century.

The differentiation of Ukraine from Little Russia and the increasing signifi­cance of the former term became apparent only in the second half of the nine­teenth century.¹⁶⁸ Brian Boeck dates the culmination of that process to the early 1920s.¹⁶⁹ Andreas Kappeler considers it completed only after the Second World War.¹⁷⁰ Nonetheless, the revival of the old Little Russian nomenclature at the beginning of the twenty-first century demonstrates that conditions for its pre­servation survived even the Soviet experiment. For Serhii Plokhy, “the terms ‘Ukraine’ and ‘Little Russia' represent very different East Slavic identities.”¹⁷¹ However, it appears the line between the two is often blurred, while their rela­tionship remains situational and motivated by political circumstances rather than cultural differences.

The variety of names (ethnonyms and toponyms) used for the description of Slavic peoples and their lands in the Russian Empire (and beyond) raises a ques­tion about the contemporary language of their description. All attempts to find an alternative definition to describe the identity of those people who found them­selves somewhere between the Ukrainian and Russian poles even today remains futile for the obvious reason: they do not constitute a coherent group.¹⁷² How then to identify retrospectively all those people who understood their distinc­tiveness but instead of articulating it clearly juggled with designations like Little Russians, South Russians, Ukrainians, and the rest?¹⁷³

I would describe all of them as “Ukrainians” from a contemporary perspective and, if need be, clarify their identity orientation more precisely in a certain socio­cultural or political context. In the last case, one cannot help but accept the prac­tice of using a variety of unstable and arbitrarily articulated definitions (Little Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian/Russian, Slavic-Rus', local, etc.) The same ap­proach is relevant, I believe, when it comes to Russians who might be identified as Velikorossy, Rossiiane, Slavic-Rus’, Orthodox, etc.) However, the process of Ukrainian and Russian re-identification is far from being completed. Its further development may affect our understanding of the past.

NOTES

First published under the title “In Search of ‘Ukraine': Words and Meanings,” in Volodymyr Kravchenko, The Ukrainian-Russian Borderland: History versus Geography (Montreal, 2022), 17-46. Reprinted by permission of McGill- Queen's University Press.

1 A.I. Miller, The Romanov Empire and Nationalism: Essays in the Methodology of Historical Research (Budapest, 2008), 169; A.I. Miller, The Ukrainian Question: The Russian Empire and Nationalism in the Nineteenth Century (Budapest, 2003), 25-6.

2 Semen Divovych, “Razgovor Malorossii s Velikorossiei” (A Conversation between Little Russia and Great Russia, 1762), in Ukra'ins’ka literaturaXVIII stolittia (Kyiv, 1983), 384-414; Georgii Konisskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii (Moscow, 1846); Iu. Venelin, “O spore mezhdu iuzhanami i severianami naschet ikh rossizma,” Chteniia v Imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, no. 4 (1847): 1-16; Nikolai A. Markevich, Istoriia Malorossii, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1842); Mikhail Maksimovich, “Ob upotreblenii nazvania Rossiia i Malorossiia v Zapadnoi Rusi,” in Mikhail Maksimovich, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, 307-12 (Kyiv, 1877); N.I. Kostomarov, “Davno li Malaia Rus' stala pisat'sia Malorossieiu, a Rus' Rossieiu,” in N.I. Kostomarov, Zemskie sobory. Istoricheskie monografii i issledovania (Moscow, 1995), 448-55; Mykhailo Drahomanov, “Literatura rosiis'ka, velykorus'ka, ukralns'ka i halyts'ka,” in Literaturno-publitsistychni pratsi, vol. 1 (Kyiv, 1970), 179-80.

3 L'ongin Tsehel's'kyi, Rus'-Ukraina a Moskovshchyna-Rosiia (Tsarhorod, 1916); Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, “Velyka, Mala i Bila Rus',” Ukrains’kyi istorychnyi zhurnal, no. 2 (1991): 77-85; Kyrylo Halushko, Rus ’-Malorosiia-Ukraina: nazva i terytoriia (Kyiv, 2017); Mykola Khvyl'ovyi, Ukraina chy Malorosiia? (Kyiv, 2012); A.V. Linnichenko, Malorusskii vopros i avtonomiia Malorossii (Otkrytoe pis ’mo prof. M. S. Grushevskomu) (Petrograd-Odesa, 1917); A.V. Storozhenko, Malaia Rossiia ili Ukraina? (Kyiv, 1918); P.N. Savitskii, “Velikorossiia i Ukraina v russkoi kul'ture,” Rodnoe slovo 8 (1926): 10-14.

4 Serhii Shelukhin, Ukraina: nazva nasho'i zemli z naidavnishykh chasiv (Prague, 1936); Mykola Andrusiak, Nazva “Ukraina”: “kraina” chy “okraina” (Prague, 1941); Geo. W. Simpson, The Names “Rus,” “Russia,” “Ukraine” and Their His­torical Background (Winnipeg, 1951); Omeljan Pritsak and Volodymyr Kubi- jovyc, “The Names for the Ukrainian Territory and People Used by Other Peoples,” in Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Toronto, 1963); Omeljan Pritsak and John S. Reshetar Jr., “The Ukraine and the Dialectics of Nation­Building,” Slavic Review 22, no. 2 (1963): 224; George Y. Shevelov, “The Name Ukrajina ‘Ukraine',” in Teasers and Appeasers: Essays and Studies on Themes of Slavic Philology (Munich, 1971); Andrew Gregorovich, Ukraine, RusRussia and Moscow. A Selected Bibliography of the Names (Toronto, 1971); Stephan M. Horak, “Periodization and Terminology of the History of Eastern Slavs: Ob­servations and Analyses,” Slavic Review 31, no. 4 (1972): 853-62; Mykola An­drusiak, “Terminy ‘rus'kyi', ‘ros'kyi', ‘rosiis'kyi', i ‘bilorus'kyi' v publikatsiiakh XVI-XIX st.,” in Naukovyi zbirnyk Ukrains koho Vil ’noho Universytetu. Iuvileine vydannia na poshanu prof. d-ra Ivana Mirchuka (1891-1961), ed. Oleksandr Kul'chyts'kyi and Volodymyr Maruniak, vol. 8 (Munich-New- York-Paris-Winnipeg, 1974), 1-13; Liubomyr Wynar, “Comments on Peri­odization and Terminology in Byeloruthenian and Ukrainian Histories,” Nationalities Papers 3, no. 2 (1975): 50-9.

5 Narodzhennia krainy. Vid kraiu do derzhavy. Nazva, symvolika, terytoriia i kor- dony Ukrainy, ed. Kyrylo Halushko (Kharkiv, 2016); Imia naroda: Ukraina i ee naselenie v ofitsial’nykh i nauchnykh terminakh, publitsistike i literature, ed.

E. lu. Borisenok (Moscow, 2016); Leonid E. Gorizontov, “Podneprov'e i Sever- noe Prichernomor'e v mnogotomnykh opisaniakh Rossiiskoi Imperii rubezha XIX-XX vekov: terminologicheskie aspekty,” Slavianovedenie, no. 3 (2016): 72­7; O.las', “Terminy ‘Novorosia' ta ‘Pivdenna Ukraina' v istorychnomu chasi i prostori druhoi polovyny XVIII - pochatku XXI st.: pokhodzhennia i inter- pretatsii,” in Skhid i Pivden’ Ukrainy: chas,prostir, sotsium, vol.i (Kyiv, 2014), 85-91; Faith Hillis, Children of Rus': Right-Bank Ukraine and the Invention of a Russian Nation (Ithaca, 2013); Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj, review of Children of Rus’: Right-Bank Ukraine and the Invention of a Russian Nation by Faith Hillis, H-Net Reviews in the Humanities & Social Sciences (September 2017): 1-5; “Poniatiia o Rossii”: k istoricheskoi semantike imperskogo perioda, ed. A. Miller, D. Sdvizhkov, I. Shirle, 2 vols. (Moscow, 2012); Serhiy Bilenky, Romantic Na­tionalism in Eastern Europe: Russian, Polish, and Ukrainian Political Imagina­tions, Stanford Studies on Central and Eastern Europe (Stanford, 2012);

A.P. Tolochko, Kievskaia Rus’ i Malorossiia vXIX veke (Kyiv, 2012); Aneta Pavlenko, “Linguistic Russification in the Russian Empire: Peasants into Rus­sians?,” Russian Linguistics 35, no. 3 (2011): 331-50; Natalia Yakovenko, “Choice of Name versus Choice of Path: The Names of Ukrainian Territories from the Late Sixteenth to the Late Seventeenth Century,” in A Laboratory of Transna­tional History: Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography, ed. H.V. Kas'ianov and Philipp Ther (Budapest, 2009), 117-48; Serhii Plokhy, The Ori­gins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (Cambridge, 2006); Zenon E. Kohut, Making Ukraine: Studies on Political Culture, Historical Narrative, and Identity (Edmonton & Toronto, 2011); Ri­carda Vulpius, “Slova i liudi v imperii: k diskussii o ‘proekte bol'shoi russkoi natsii', ukraino- i rusofilakh, narechiiakh i narodnostiakh,” Ab Imperio, no. 1 (2006): 353-8; Mikhail Dolbilov and Darius Staliunas, “Vvedeniye k forumu: alfavit, iazyk i natsional'naia identichnost'v Rossiiskoi imperii,” Ab Imperio, no. 2 (2005): 123-34; Mikhail Dolbilov and Darius Staliunas, “Slova, liudi i im- perskie konteksty: diskussii'a prodolzhaetsia,” Ab Imperio, no. 1 (2006): 359­65; Brian J. Boeck, “What's in a Name? Semantic Separation and the Rise of the Ukrainian National Name,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 27, no. 1/4 (2004): 33; Andreas Kappeler, “The Ambiguities of Russification,” Kritika: Explo­rations in Russian and Eurasian History 5, no. 2 (2004): 291-7; A.I. Miller, The Ukrainian Question: The Russian Empire and Nationalism in the Nineteenth Century (Budapest, 2003).

6 E.E. Levkievskaia, “Semanticheskie varianty toponima ‘Malorossia' i ego derivatov v russkoi rechevoi praktike postsovetskogo perioda,” in Imia nar- oda: Ukraina i ee naselenie v ofitsial’nykh i nauchnykh terminakh, publitsistike i literature, ed. E. lu. Borisenok (Moscow-St Petersburg, 2016), 250-78.

7 Many of them were republished, see Ukrainskii separatizm v Rossii. Ideologiia national’nogo raskola, ed. M.B. Smolin (Moscow, 1998). See also: Nikolai Ul'ianov, Proiskhozhdenie ukrainskogo separatizma (Moscow, 1996); Mykola Riabchuk, Vid Malorosii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia (Kyiv, 2000).

8 A.M. Volkonskii, Ukraina. Istoricheskaiapravda i ukrainofil’skaiapropaganda (Moscow, 2015); Ukrainskii separatizm vRossii. Ideologia natsional’nogo raskola (Moscow, 1998).

9 O.V. Todiichuk, Ukraina XVI-XVIII vv. v trudach Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei rossiiskich (Kyiv, 1989).

10 I am using this word here in its contemporary meaning and include texts written by Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians on topics related to Ukrainian history, geography, and ethnography.

11 Willard Sunderland, “Imperial Space: Territorial Thought and Practice in the Eighteenth Century,” in Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, ed. Jane Burbank, Mark von Hagen, and Anatolii Remnev (Bloomington, 2007), 52.

12 In various periods it comprised the lands of today's Zaporizhzhia, Dnipro­petrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kirovohrad, Kherson, and Odesa regions, as well as Crimea.

13 Today this geographic area encompasses part of Kyiv oblast as well as Vinnytsia, Cherkasy, Khmel'nyts'kyi, Zhytomyr, Rivne, and Volyn regions.

14 Poniatiia, idei, konstruktsii. Ocherki sravnitel 'noi istoricheskoi semantiki, ed. lu. Kagarlitskii, D. Kalugin, B. Maslov (Moscow, 2019); Richard S. Wortman, The Power of Language and Rhetoric in Russian Political History: Charismatic Words from the 18th to the 21th Centuries (Bloomsbury, 2017); “Poniatiia o Rossii”, 1:5-47; Ilya Gerasimov, Jan Kusber, and Alexander Semyonov, eds, Empire Speaks Out: Languages of Rationalization and Self-Description in the Russian Empire (Leiden-Boston, 2009).

15 Roland Cvetkovski and Alexis Hofmeister, eds, An Empire of Others: Creating Ethnographic Knowledge in Imperial Russia and the ussr (Budapest, 2013); Marina Mogilner, Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia (Lincoln, 2013); Ingrid Shirle, “Uchenie o dukhe i kharaktere narodov v russkoi kul'ture XVIII v.,” in “Vvodia nravy i obychai Evropeiskie v Evropeiskom narode.”Kprobleme adaptatsii zapadnykh idei i praktik v Rossi- iskoi imperii (Moscow, 2008), 121, 129-32; Aleksei Zagrebin, “I. G. Georgi i per- vyi svodnyi trud po etnografii narodov Rossii,” Voprosy istorii, no. 6 (2007): 155-9; Yuri Slezkine, “Naturalists Versus Nations: Eighteenth-Century Russian Scholars Confront Ethnic Diversity,” Representations, no. 47 (1994): 170-95.

16 Hillis, Children of Rus’, 5; Ilnytzkyj, review of Children of Rus1-5.

17 A.I. Miller, “‘Narodnost'' i ‘natsiia' v russkom iazyke XIX veka: Podgo- tovitel'nye nabroski k istorii poniatii,” Rossiiskaia istoria, no. 1 (2009): 151-65.

18 Russkii iazyk kontsa XVII - nachala XVIII veka (voprosy izuchenia i opisaniia) (St Petersburg, 1999); Istoriia russkoi leksikografii (St Petersburg, 1998).

19 Mariia Leskinen, Velikoross/velikorus: iz istorii konstruirovaniia etnichnosti. Vek XIX (Moscow, 2016); Elena Vishlenkova, Vizual’noe narodovedenie imperii,

ili ‘“Uvidet” russkogo dano ne kazhdomu” (Moscow, 2014); Bilenky, Romantic Nationalism in Eastern Europe,i63; B. M. Kloss, O proiskhozhdenii nazvaniia “Rossiia” (Moscow, 2012); Austin Jersild, “‘Russia,' from the Vistula to the Terek to the Amur,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 1, no. 3 (2008): 531-46; O.N. Trubachev, V poiskakh edinstva. Vzgliad filologa na problem istokov Rusi (Moscow, 2005), 225-36; Iu. S. Stepanov, Konstanty: slo- var’russkoi kul 'tury (Moscow, 2004), 151-65; Paul Bushkovitch, “What Is Rus­sia? Russian National Identity and the State, 1500-1917,” in Culture, Nation, and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600-1945), ed. Andreas Kappeler, Zenon E. Kohut, Frank E. Sysyn, and Mark von Hagen (Edmonton­Toronto, 2003), 144-61; Andreas Kappeler, “Great Russians” and “Little Rus­sians”: Russian-Ukrainian Relations and Perceptions in Historical Perspective (Washington, 2003).

20 In the words of Ivan Kireevskii, the Orthodox consciousness is a basis of Russian “narodnost'”, see E.V. Bobrovskikh, “K istorii izucheniia poniatiia ‘narodnost'' v sotsial'no-politicheskoi mysli Rossii XIX veka,” Sotsial’no- gumanitarnye znaniia, no.i (2015): 193.

21 Ivan Orlai, “O Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii (Pis'mo iz Nezhina k sekretariu obshch- estva),” Trudy i zapiski Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh 1, no. 3 (1826): 227.

22 M.I. Matiushevskaia, “‘Sinopsis Kievskii' 1674 goda v otsenkakh issledovatelei kontsa XX - natchala XXI veka,” Kharkivs’kyi istoriohrafichnyizbirnyk, no. 16 (2017): 256-67; A. Iu. Samarin, “‘Kievskii Sinopsis o Vseia Rossii perveishem samoderzhtse,” Istorik: zhurnal ob actual 'nom proshlom 6 (2015): 34-7; Zenon E. Kohut, “Origins of the Unity Paradigm: Ukraine and the Construction of Russian National History (1620-1860),” Eighteenth-Century Studies 35, no. 1 (2002): 70-6.

23 It is worth noting that Russian tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich even considered to transfer the capital of its growing state from Moscow to Kyiv.

24 Lesley Chamberlain, Ministry of Darkness: How Sergei Uvarov Created Conser­vative Modern Russia (London, 2019), 233-53; Miller, The Romanov Empire and Nationalism, 13-160.

25 Bilenky, Romantic Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 163.

26 “There are even two Russian words for Russia, Rus’ and Rossiia, with the cor­responding adjectives, russkoe and rossiiskoe, whose usage conforms quite closely to the distinction I have made between “ethnic” and “imperial” Rus­sianness. Rus’ is pre-imperial Russia, and is also used to refer to traditional, grassroots Russia, especially as manifested in its villages and churches, while Rossiia is multinational imperial Russia, ruled over by an Imperator rather than a Tsar.” See Geoffrey A. Hosking, Empire and Nation in Russian History (Waco, 1993).

27 Serhii Plokhy, The Lost Kingdom (New York, 2017), 255-7.

28 Narodzhennia kratny. Vid kraiu do derzhavy, 83; Jane Burbank and Mark von Hagen, “Coming into the Territory: Uncertainty and Empire,” in Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, ed. Jane Burbank, Mark von Hagen, and Anatolii Remnev (Bloomington, 2007), 5; Mark Bassin, “Geographies of Imperial Identity, in The Cambridge History of Russia, ed. Dominic Lieven, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 2006), 45-66.

See: Leskinen, Velikoross/velikorus; Leonid Gorizontov, “The ‘Great Circle' of Interior Russia: Representations of the Imperial Center in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” in Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930, ed. Jane Burbank, Mark von Hagen, and Anatolii Remnev (Bloom­ington, 2007), 67-93; Roman Szporluk, “‘Ukrainskii vopros' v politike vlastei i russkom obshchestvennom mnenii (vtoraia polovina XIX v.) by A. I. Miller (Review),” The Russian Review 64, no. 1 (2005): 136-8; Andreas Kappeler, “Great Russians” and “Little Russians”: Russian-Ukrainian Relations and Perceptions in Historical Perspective (Seattle, 2003); Marina V. Loskoutova, “A Motherland with a Radius of 300 Miles: Regional Identity in Russian Sec­ondary and Post-Elementary Education from the Early Nineteenth Century to the War and Revolution,” European Review of History 9, no. 1 (2002): 7-22. Vasilii Tatishchev, Leksikon rossiiskoi istoricheskii, geograficheskii, politicheskii i grazhdanskii, part 1 (St Petersburg, 1793), 230-1.

Fedor Polunin, Geograficheskii leksikon Rossiiskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1773).

Lev Maksimovich, Novyi ipolnyigeograficheskii slovar’ Rossiiskogo gosudarstva ili Leksikon, 6 parts (Moscow, 1788-89).

Sergey Plescheef, Survey of the Russian Empire, According to Its Present Newly Regulated State, Divided Into Different Governments (London, 1792).

Johann Gotlib Georgi, Opisanie vsekh obitaiushchikh v Rossii narodov, 4 vols (St Petersburg, 1799).

N.N. [N.I. Nadezhdin], “Velikaia Rossiia,” in Entsyklopedicheskii leksikon, ed. N.I. Grech and O.I. Senkovskii, 17 vols (St Petersburg, 1837), 9: 262-79. Ibid., 9: 262.

Ibid., 9: 261.

Ibid., 9: 268, 273.

Andrei Zorin, Kormia dvuglavogo orla... Russkaia literatura i gosudarstven- naia ideologiia v poslednei treti XVIII - pervoi treti XIX veka (Moscow, 2001). Sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II, vol. 8 (St Petersburg, 1901), 64.

I used its English edition, see Plescheef, Survey of the Russian Empire, 77. For detailed discussion, see Charles W.J. Withers, Placing the Enlightenment: Thinking Geographically About the Age of Reason (Chicago, 2007).

Leonid Shepelev, Chinovnyi mir Rossii XVIII-nachala XX v. (St Petersburg, 2001), 199, 202.

Fedor Emin, Rossiiskaia istoriia, vol. 1 (St Petersburg, 1767), 90; Afanasii Sha- fonskii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topograficheskoe opisanie s kratkim geograficheskim opisaniem Malyia Rossii, iz chastei koei onoe namestnichestvo sostavleno (Kyiv, 1851), 44, 46; Ivan Stritter, Istoriia Rossiiskogo gosudarstva, vol. 3 (St Petersburg, 1802), 319.

Sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II, 8: 64.

For details pertaining to the authorship of this work, see Opysy Kharkivs ’koho namisnytstva kintsia XVIII st.: Opysovo-statystychni dzherela, ed. V.O. Pirko and O.I. Hurzhii (Kyiv, 1991), 5-8.

Roman Szporluk, “Mapping Ukraine: From Identity Space to Decision Space,” Journal of Ukrainian Studies. Special issue: Tentorium Honorum. Essays Presented to Frank E. Sysyn on His Sixtieth Birthday, no. 33/34 (2008-2009): 441-52.

Opysy Kharkivs ’koho namisnytstva, n. 18.

Shafonskii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topograficheskoe opisanie, 44, 46; Stritter, Istoriia Rossiiskogo gosudarstva, 3:319.

Georgii Konisskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii (Moscow, 1846), 8. Velychenko, National History as Cultural Process, XXII. On Engel, see Thomas Prymak, “On the 200th Anniversary of the Publication of Johann Christian von Engel's History of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Cossacks,” Germano- Slavica 10, no. 2 (1998), 55-61.

Orlai, “O Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii,” 225.

Dmitrii N. Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia Maloi Rossii, 3 vols (Moscow, 1830), 1: 3, 6, 16, 29, 51, 56, 202-3.

[Nikolai Gogol], “Otryvok iz istorii Malorossii,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia (1834): 1-15.

Nikolai A. Markevich, Istoriia Malorossii, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1842), 4.

Pavlo Bilets'kyi-Nosenko, Slovnyk ukra'ins’ko'i movy (Kyiv, 1966).

Osip Bodianskii, “Rassmotrenie razlichnykh mnenii o drevnem iazyke Severnykh i Iuzhnykh Russov,” Uchenye zapiski Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo universiteta, no. 3 (September 1835): 472-91.

Marko Pavlyshyn, “For and Against a Ukrainian National Literature: Kostom­arov's Sava Chalyi and Its Reviewers,” The Slavonic and East European Review 92, no. 2 (2014): 226; David Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture, 1750-1850 (Edmonton, 1985), 7.

According to Mykola Kostomarov, after the dissolution of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood in 1847, the terms ‘Ukraine', ‘Little Russia', and ‘Het'manshchyna' came to be regarded as disloyal, see Stephen Velychenko, “Tsarist Censorship and Ukrainian Historiography, 1828-1906,” Canadian- American Slavic Studies 23, no. 4 (Winter 1989): 386; Velychenko, National History as Cultural Process, 230.

Zapiski o Iuzhnoi Rusi, vol. 1, ed. Panteleimon Kulish (St Petersburg, 1856), XXV. Ibid., V.

Miller, The Ukrainian Question, 75-95; Anton Kotenko, “Do pytannia pro tvorennia ukrains'koho natsional'noho prostoru v zhurnali ‘Osnova',” Ukratn- s'kyi istorychnyi zhurnal, no. 2 (2012): 42-57.

Taras Shevchenko, Bukvar iuzhnorusskii (St Petersburg, 1861). Before him, lakiv Holovats'kyi chose the “southern” designation for the Ukrainian language, see lakiv Holovats'kyi, Rozprava o iazytsi luzhno-Rus 'kym i ieho narichiakh (Lviv, 1849).

A. Malashevych, “Borot'ba za ‘rus'ke pervorodstvo' (z istorii naukovoi dyskusii ‘iuzhan' i ‘severian' u vysvitlenni chasopysu ‘Vestnik Evropy',” Problemy istorit Ukratny XXIX- pochatku XXX st., no. 6 (2003): 283-94. Zenon E. Kohut, “From Commonwealth to Ukraine: The Reconceptualiza­tion of ‘Fatherland' in Cossack Political Culture (i66os-i68os),” Canadian Slavonic Papers 56, no. 3-4 (2014), 269-89; Zenon E. Kohut, Making Ukraine: Studies on Political Culture, Historical Narrative, and Identity (Toronto, 2011),

36- 57; Frank E. Sysyn, “The Persistence of the Little Rossian Fatherland in the Russian Empire: The Evidence from The History of the Rus’ or of Little Rossia (Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii),” in Imperienvergleich: Beispiele und Ansätze aus osteuropiäscher Perspektive. Festschrift für Andreas Kappeler, ed. Guido Hausmann and Angela Rustemeyer (Wiesbaden, 2009), 39-49; Frank E. Sysyn, “Fatherland in Early Eighteenth-Century Ukrainian Political Culture,” in Mazepa e il suo tempo: storia, cultura, società / Mazepa and His Time: His­tory, Culture, Society, ed. Giovanna Siedina (Alessandria, 2004), 39-53.

Mykola Horban', “‘Zapiski o Maloi Rossii' O. Shafonskogo,” Naukovyi zbirnyk Vseukratns'kot akademit nauk. Istorychna sektsiia, no. 26 (1926): 140; Shafon- skii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topograficheskoe opisanie, 3.

As exemplified in the works of lakiv Markovych and Mykhailo Antonovs'kyi. Venelin, “O spore mezhdu iuzhanami i severianami naschet ikh rossizma,” 2; A. Levshin, Pis 'ma iz Malorossii (Kharkiv, 1816).

Bohdan Hal', “Geokontsept ‘Malorosiia' na mentalnykh mapakh XVIII - per- shoi polovyny XIX st.,” Eidos 7 (2013), 93-109; Anton Kotenko, “Construction of Ukrainian National Space by the Intellectuals of Russian Ukraine, 1860­70s,” in Mapping Eastern Europe, ed. J. Happel and Ch. Werdt (Münster, 2010),

37- 60.

Paul Kubicek, The History of Ukraine (Connecticut-London, 2008), 45. Kohut, Making Ukraine, 17, 48.

Ukratns 'ka literatura XVIII st. Poetychni tvory, dramatychni tvory, prozovi tvory (Kyiv, 1983), 394.

Vozrazhenie deputata Grigoriia Poletiki na Nastavlenie Malorossiiskoi kol- legii' gospodinu deputatu Dmitriiu Natalinu,” Chteniia v Imperatorskom ob- shchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, no. 3 (1858): 98.

P. Simonovskii, Kratkoe opisanie o kazatskom malorossiiskom narode i o voen- nykh ego delakh (Moscow, 1847), 2-3.

Kratkaia letopis' Malyia Rossii s 1506po 1776god (St Petersburg, 1777). Maksimovich, Novyi ipolnyi geograficheskii slovar’, 3:74, 112.

V. Gorlenko, “Iz istorii iuzhno-russkogo obshchestva nachala XIX veka (Pis'ma V.I. Chernysha, A.I. Chepy, V.G. Poletiki i zapiski k nim),” Kievskaia starina, no. 1 (1893): 53. See also: Oleh Zhurba, “‘Predstav'te vy sebe, kakoi zver'byl getman! Eto byli prenechestivye despoty!': (z lysta svidomoho ukrains'koho patriota, avtonomista ta tradytsionalista pochatku XIX stolit- tia),” in Dnipropetrovs’kyi arkheohrafichnyi zbirnyk 3 (2009): 198.

This idea was shared, in particular, by Markov and the anonymous author of Korotka istoriia Maloi Rosii, written sometime in the late 1780s and early 1790s, a copy of which was published in 1926 by Mykola Horban'. Gerard Miller, Istoricheskie sochineniia o Malorossii i malorossiianakh (Moscow, 1846), 2; Simonovskii, Kratkoe opisanie o kazatskom malorossiiskom narode i o voennykh ego delakh, 3; Georgi, Opisanie vsekh obitaiushchikh v Rossiiskom gosudarstve narodov, 4:235-36; Stanislav Zarul'skii, Opisanie o Maloi Rossii i Ukraine (Moscow, 1847), 1; Iakov M. Markovich, Zapiski o Malorossii, ee zhiteliakh i proizvedeniiakh (St Petersburg, 1798), 29. Shafonskii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topograficheskoe opisanie, 44, 58. Nikolai Ianovskii, Novyi slovotolkovatelraspolozhennyi po alfavitu, vol. 2 (St Petersburg, 1803), nos. 1-3.

Koniskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, 5, 128. Zarul'skii, Opisanie o Maloi Rossii i Ukraine, 1-2. Shafonskii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topograficheskoe opisanie, 61. Markovich, Zapiski o Malorossii, ee zhiteliakh i proizvedeniiakh, 29. “Kratkoe istoricheskoe opisanie o Maloi Rossii do 1765 goda,” Chteniia v Imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, no. 6 (1848): 1. Mikhail Markov, “Pis'mo k odnomu iz izdatelei (F-mu),” Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 8 (1816): 132; Illia Kvitka, “O Maloi Rossii,” Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 2 (1816): 145-6; Illia Kvitka, “O Maloi Rossii,” Ukrainskii vestnik, no. 3 (1816): 304-14. Aleksei Musin-Pushkin, Istoricheskoe issledovanie o mestopolozhenii drevnego rossiiskogo Tmutarakanskogo kniazheniia (St Petersburg, 1794), ix-xi. Geograficheskoe metodicheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi Imperii s nadlezhashchim vvedeniem k osnovatel’nomupoznaniiu zemnogo shara i Evropy voobshche, dlia nastavleniia obuchaiushchegosia pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Universitete iunoshestva iz luchshikh noveishikh i dostovernykh pisatelei, ed. Khariton Chebotarev (Moscow, 1776), 103-4.

Karl German, Statisticheskiia izsledovaniia otnositel’no Rossiiskoi imperii (St Petersburg, 1819), 37; Konstantin Arsen'ev, Nachertanie statistiki Rossiiskago gosudarstva, vol. 1, Trudy uchenykh ili literatura rossiiskoi statistiki (St Peters­burg, 1818); Konstantin Arsen'ev, Nachertanie statistiki Rossiiskago gosu­darstva, vol. 2, O sostoianiipravitel 'stva (St Petersburg, 1819), 107-8.

Vasilii Ruban, Kratkie geograficheskie, politicheskie i istoricheskie izvestiia o Maloi Rossii, s priobshcheniem ukrainskikh traktov i izvestii o pochtakh, takozh spiska dukhovnykh i svetskikh tamo nakhodiashchikhsia nyne chinov, chisle naroda iprochaia (St Petersburg, 1773), 1-2.

Koniskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, 8, 16, 177-9, 186.

Georgi, Opisanie vsekh obitaiushchikh v Rossiiskom gosudarstve narodov, 4: 338-9.

Ukratna i Rosiia v istorychnii retrospektyvi, vol. 1, Ukratns’kiproekty vRosiis'kii imperil, ed. V.A. Smolii (Kyiv, 2004), 266-310; Oleksii Tolochko, “Fellows and Travelers: Thinking about Ukrainian History in the Early Nineteenth Cen­tury,” in A Laboratory of Transnational History: Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography, ed. H.V. Kas'ianov and Philipp Ther (Budapest, 2009), 149-66.

N. lanovskii, Novyi slovotolkovatelraspolozhennyipo alfavitu, 3 vols (St Petersburg, 1803-06).

David B. Saunders, “Historians and Concepts of Nationality in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia,” The Slavonic and East European Review 60, no. 1 (1982): 50.

Nikolai Markevich, Ukrainskie melodii (Moscow, 1832), V.

Markevich, Istoriia Malorossii, 1: 3.

Instytut rukopysu Natsional’not biblioteky Ukratny im. V.I. Vernads koho (Manuscript Institute of the V.I. Vernads'kyi National Library of Ukraine; hereinafter - ir nbu), f. 14, spr. 4978, ark. 17

Hillis, Children of Rus’, 41.

“Malorusomania” among Galician intellectuals had acquired vivid ethnic- cultural, not historical, meaning, see Oleh Turii, “Ukrains'ka ideia v Haly- chyni v seredyni XIX stolittia,” Ukratna Moderna, nos 2-3 (1999), accessed

18 November 2020, http://prima.lnu.edu.ua/Subdivisions/um/um2-3/Statti/3- TURIJ%2oOleh.htm.

Boeck, “What's in a Name?,” 41.

O. Ohloblyn, “Problema skhemy istorii Ukrainy XIX-XX stolittia (do 1917 roku),” Ukratns'kyi istoryk, no. 1/2 (1971): 11; Aleksei Miller, Anton Kotenko, and Ol'ga Martyniuk, “Neulovimyi maloross: istoricheskaia spravka,” Rossiia v global’noi politike 16, no. 2/3 (2018): 106-22.

104 Kappeler, “Great Russians” and “Little Russians, ” 14.

105 Volodymyr Kravchenko, “I.-Kh. Engel: storinky z istorii prosvitnyts'koi istori- ohrafii Ukrainy,” in I.-Kh. Engel, Istoriia Ukrainy ta ukrains’kykh kozakiv (Kharkiv, 2014), 7-24.

106 Miller, Istoricheskie sochineniia o Malorossii i malorossiianakh, 34; Shafonskii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topograficheskoe opisanie, 49; Aleksandr Rigel'man, Letopisnoe povestvovanie o Maloi Rossii i ee narode i kazakakh voobshche (Moscow, 1847), 12.

107 Evgenii Bolkhovitinov, Opisanie Kievosofiiskogo sobora i Kievskoi eparkhii (Kyiv, 1825), 204, 214, 247; Tadeusz Chatskii, “O nazvanii Ukrainy i o nachale kozakov,” Ulei, no. 11 (1811): 118-27.

108 Markov, “Pis'mo k odnomu iz izdatelei (F-mu),” 135.

109 “Kratkoe istoricheskoe opisanie o Maloi Rossii do 1765 goda,” 27, 29-30; lanovskii, Novyi slovotolkovatelraspolozhennyi po alfavitu, 2:234; Maksym Berlyns'kyi, Istoriia mista Kyieva (Kyiv, 1991), 119-20, 126.

110 Evdokim Ziablovskii, Statisticheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii v nyneshnem eia sostoianii s predvaritel 'nymi poniatiiami o statistike i o Evrope voobshche v statisticheskom vide, vol. 1/3 (St Petersburg, 1808), 5; Arsen'ev, Nachertanie statistiki Rossiiskago gosudarstva, 2:107-8.

111 Taras Chuhlib, “Poniattia “Ukraina” ta “Ukrainnyi” v ofitsiinomu dyskursi Viis'ka Zaporoz'koho (1649-1659),” in Ukraina v Tsentral’no-Skhidnii levropi, no. 15 (2015): 13-41.

112 ir nbu, f. 14, spr. 4978, ark. 8-9.

113 Shafonskii, Chernigovskogo namestnichestva topograficheskoe opisanie, 15;

V. Gorlenko, Stanovlenie ukrainskoi etnografii kontsa XVIII-pervoi poloviny XIX st. (Kyiv, 1988), 72-3.

114 Serhii Plokhy, “Ukraine or Little Russia? Revisiting an Early Nineteenth­Century Debate,” Canadian Slavonic Papers 48, no. 3/4 (2006): 348, 351.

115 Koniskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, iii.

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid., iii-iv.

118 Koniskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, 68-73, 179· However, on several occasions it was used separately as “Ukraine” with the same meaning, see Koniskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, 183, 208. See Frank Sysyn's analysis of the text of Bila Tserkva's proclamation in Istoriia Rusov in Sysyn, “The Persistence of the Little Rossian Fatherland in the Russian Empire.”

119 Koniskii, Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, 208.

120 Ibid., 161.

121 Ibid., 172.

122 Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture, 1750-1850, 262; Bilenky, Romantic Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 56.

123 Ziablovskii, Statisticheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii, 1/3: 128.

124 M.V. Nechkina, Dvizhenie dekabristov, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1955), 389, 423.

125 Johann Georg Kohl, Russia: St Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkoff, Riga, Odessa, the German Provinces on the Baltic, the Steppes, the Crimea, and the Interior of the Empire (London, 1844), 186, 1842, 505.

126 Sergei Beliakov, “‘Taras Bul'ba' mezhdu Ukrainoi i Rossiei. O national'noi identichnosti geroia Gogolia,” Voprosy literatury, no. 6 (2017): 198.

127 Elena Apanovich, Rukopisnaia svetskaia kniga XVIII v. na Ukraine: istorich- eskie sborniki (Kyiv, 1983), 189, 192, 199.

128 O. Dziuba, ‘“Ukrama” i ‘Malorosiia': slova i poniattia v ukrains'kii memuarnii literaturi XVIII st.,” Ukrama v Tsentral’no-Skhidnii Ievropi, no. 15 (2015): 45-52.

129 Evdokim Ziablovskii, Zemleopisanie Rossiiskoi imperii dlia vsekh sostoianii, vol. 3 (St Petersburg, 1810), 339.

130 [Karl] German, Statisticheskiia izsledovaniia otnositel’no Rossiiskoi imperii, 37.

131 Dmitrii Bagalei, Opyt istorii Khar'kovskogo universiteta (po neizdannym materialam), vol. 2 (Kharkiv, 1904), 773.

132 Boeck, “What's in a Name?,” 33-65.

133 Ibid., 37.

134 Guillaume de Beauplan, Opisanie Ukrainy (St Petersburg, 1832), vi.

135 Sbornik imperatorskogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, vol. (1871): 375.

136 G. Kalinovskii, Opisanie svadebnykh ukrainskikh prostonarodnykh obriadov (St Petersburg, 1777).

137 Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia Maloi Rossii, 202-3.

138 G. Kvitka-Osnovianenko, “Ukraintsy”, in Sochineniia, vol. 4, Statt'i istorich- eskie (Kharkiv, 1890), 461.

139 Hryhorii Kvitka-Osnov'ianenko, “Ved'ma”, in Zibrannia tvoriv, 7 vols (Kyiv, 1979), 2:430-40.

140 Nikolai Markevich, Ukrainskie melodii (Moscow, 1831), 102.

141 O. Somov, Golos ukraintsapri vesti o vziatii Varshavy (St Petersburg, 1831).

142 Narodzhennia kramy. Vid kraiu do derzhavy, 87-8; Volodymyr Masliichuk, “‘Vid Ukrainy do Malorosii': Regional'ni nazvy ta natsional'na istoriia,” in Ukrama: protsesy natsiotvorennia, ed. Andreas Kappeler (Kyiv, 2011), 240-1, 243.

143 M.L. Honcharuk, ed., Ukra'inskipoety-romantyky:poetychni tvory (Kyiv, 1987), 68, 87, 143, 144, 146.

144 O. Shpyhots'kyi, “Malorossiiskaia melodiia (1831),” in Ukrains'kipoety- romantyky:poetychni tvory, ed. M.L. Honcharuk (Kyiv, 1987), 87; Hillis, Children of Rus’, 45.

145 Ilnytzkyj, review of Children of Rus'; Boeck, “What's in a Name?,” 68.

146 Markevich, Istoriia Malorossii, 1:134-5, 186, 300, 382.

147 Ibid., 2:67, 280.

148 Bilenky, Romantic Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 56.

149 Anton Kotsipinskii, Pesni, dumki i shumki russkogo naroda na Podole, Ukraine i v Malorossii (Kyiv, 1861).

150 Ukrains 'ka literatura XVIIIst., 77-9, 82-4.

151 M.V. Leskinen, “‘luzhnorussy', ‘malorossiiane', ‘malorossy', ‘ukraintsy': trans- formatsiia etnonima v rossiiskom etnogeograficheskom diskurse XIX v.,” in Imia naroda: Ukraina i ee naselenie v ofitsial’nykh i nauchnykh terminakh, 77­102; K.S. Drozdov, “Ukrainskoe naselenie Rossii/RSFSR v kontse XIX-XX v.: ‘malorossy', ‘khokhly', ‘ukraintsy',” in Imia naroda: Ukraina i ee naselenie v ofitsial’nykh i nauchnykh terminakh, 103-25; Sergei Beliakov, “‘Taras Bul'ba' mezhdu Ukrainoi i Rossiei. O natsional'noi identichnosti geroia Gogolia,” 39-41; Vulpius, “Slova i liudi v imperii,” 353-8; Andreas Kappeler, “Mazepintsy, Malorossy, Khokhly: Ukrainians in the Ethnic Hierarchy of the Russian Empire,” in Culture, Nation, and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter, 1600-1945, ed. Zenon E. Kohut, Frank E Sysyn, and Mark Von Hagen (Edmonton Toronto, 2003), 162-81.

152 Iu. Venelin, Ob istochnike narodnoi poezii voobshche, i o iuzhnorusskoi v osobennosti (Moscow, 1834), 9, 17.

153 Boeck, “What's in a Name?,” 43.

154 Mykola Riabchuk, “‘Khokhly', ‘Malorosy', ‘Bandery': stereotyp ukraintsia

u rosiis'kii kul'turi ta ioho politychna instrumentalizatsiia,” Naukovi zapysky IPiEND im.V. F. Kurasa nan Ukrainy 81, no. 1 (2016): 179-94.

155 Vasilii Karazin, Sochineniia, pis’ma i bumagi (Kharkiv, 1910), 484-5, 584, 600.

156 One can compare the Ukrainian case to many others all over the world in William Safran, “Names, Labels, and Identities,” 437-61. However, the author's interpretation of the “Ukrainian” ethnonym cannot but seem a bit eccentric, see 446-7.

157 Bilenky, Romantic Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 153.

158 “I have to tell you that I myself do not know which kind of soul I have, the soul of a khokhol or of a Russian. I know only that I never would give prefer­ence to the ‘Little Russian' before the Russian nor to the Russian before the ‘Little Russian'.” See Kappeler, “Great Russians” and “Little Russians,” 29.

159 Kappeler, “Mazepintsy, Malorossy, Khokhly,” 168, 174.

160 Taras Koznarsky, “Kharkiv Literary Almanacs of the 1830s: The Shaping of Ukrainian Cultural Identity” (PhD Diss., Harvard University, 2001), 82.

161 lurii Petrenko, Strana Khokhliandiia (Voronezh, 2000).

162 Sergei Beliakov, Ukrainskaia natsiia v epokhu Gogolia (Moscow, 2016), 8.

163 Beliakov, Ukrainskaia natsiia v epokhu Gogolia, 10; I.S. Aksakov, Pis 'ma k rodnym, 1844-49, ed. T.F. Pirozhkova (Moscow, 1988), 401.

164 Artur Kijas, Polacy na Uniwersytecie Charkowskim 1805-1917 (Poznan, 2016), 53; Perepiska la. K. Grota s P. A. Pletnevym, vol. 1, ed. K. la. Grot (St Petersburg, 1896), 242.

165 Kotenko, “Construction of Ukrainian National Space,” 41.

166 Bilenky, Romantic Nationalism in Eastern Europe, 53-4, 153.

167 For Hrushevs'kyi’s discussion of the various names for Ukrainian and Ukrainians, see Mykhailo Hruhevsky, History of Ukraine-Rusvol.i, From Prehistory to the Eleventh Century, trans. Marta Skorupsky, ed. Frank E. Sysyn and Andrzej Poppe (Edmonton-Toronto, 1997), 1-2.

168 lurii Shevel'ov, “Nazva ‘Ukraina’,” in lurii Shevel'ov, Movoznavstvo, vol. 1 (Kyiv, 2008), 421-31; Boeck, “What’s in a Name?,” 43-6.

169 Boeck, “What’s in a Name?,” 48.

170 Kappeler, “Great Russians” and “Little Russians.”

171 Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations, 302.

172 Mikhail Pogrebinskii, “Ukrainorusy: ideologicheskie i politicheskie orientat- sii,” Russkii zhurnal, 7 June (2004), accessed 18 November 2020, http://www. russ.ru/pole/Ukrainorusy-ideologicheskie-i-politicheskie-orientacii; Oleg Nemenskii, “‘Nedoukraintsy’ ili novyi narod? Al'ternativy samoopredelenia lugo-Vostoka Ukrainy,” Russkii zhurnal, 29 December (2004), accessed

18 November 2020, http://old.russ.ru/culture/20041229_nem-pr.html.

173 According to Roman Szporluk, “In many ways these intellectuals were simul­taneously Ukrainian and Russian,” see Roman Szporluk, “Ukraine: From an Imperial Periphery to a Sovereign State,” Daedalus 126, no. 3 (1997), 98; Paul Robert Magocsi noticed that: “it seemed “perfectly normal for some residents to be simultaneously a Little Russian (Ukrainian) and a Russian,” see Paul Robert Magocsi, “The Ukrainian National Revival: A New Analytical Frame­work,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism XVI, nos 1-2 (1989): 51.