The Roots of Entanglement
Part 1 of this volume consists of essays that discuss the formation of the common East Slavic historiographic tradition in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as well as the attempts of Ukrainian intellectual elites to secure a place of honour for themselves and their homeland in the emerging grand narrative of the Russian Empire.
The opening chapter discusses the role of history in shaping Russian imperial identity - a construct that not only claimed the loyalty of the Ukrainian elites but was formed with their active participation. It analyses the first major debate in Russian imperial historiography, which concerned the alleged invitation to the Varangians (Norsemen) to rule over the people who became known as the Rus' in the closing decades of the first millennium. The chapter explains how different understandings of what constituted the Russian nation produced diverse readings of the Varangian legend in the eighteenth century. Mikhail Lomonosov, who followed in the footsteps of the author of the Kyivan Synopsis (1674) - the first printed textbook of 'Russian' history - and considered Russianness an ethnic attribute, treated the Varangians as representatives of a Slavic tribe. Empress Catherine II, on the other hand, regarded the Russian nation as a political and civic entity and thus had no objection to a definition of the Varangians as non-Slavic Normans or Scandinavians. It was this non-ethnic and essentially imperial understanding of Russianness that became dominant in Russian historiography and political thought of the period and later contributed to the ambiguity of the Russian historical and national project.When it comes to the development of eighteenth-century Ukrainian historical writing and political thought, the imperial idea of allRussian unity discussed in the opening chapter of the volume played an important role but was not the only source of inspiration.
The idea of a distinct Cossack nation of Khazar origin was popular among the Ukrainian elites that supported the revolt of Hetman Ivan Mazepa (1639-1709) against Tsar Peter I in 1708. Their vision of a proud and heroic Cossack nation that concluded the Pereiaslav Agreement (1654) with the tsar during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky (15951657) and later was betrayed by the Muscovites found expression in the historical preamble to the constitution of Hetman Pylyp Orlyk, Mazepa's successor in exile. That concept was also reflected in historical works written in the Hetmanate - the Cossack state founded by Khmelnytsky in 1648 and abolished by Catherine II in the 1780s. Among those works are historical chronicles written by the Cossack officers Samiilo Velychko and Hryhorii Hrabianka in the 1720s and 1730s, as well as poems and dramas composed by their contemporaries. The strongest literary manifestation of Cossack pride and assertion of Ukraine's equality with Russia was a poem written by a Cossack secretary, Semen Divovych, in 1762.That monument of Cossack autonomism is discussed in the second chapter, 'Incorporated Identity,' which explains the historical context of Divovych's 'Conversation between Great Russia and Little Russia' and the political significance of his argument. Divovych, who claimed that Ukraine was no less entitled to use the term Rossiia than its northern neighbour, maintained that the two countries were equal in status, linked only by their common loyalty to the tsar. His 'Conversation' was written at a time of high expectations aroused in the Hetmanate by the ascension to the throne of the new empress, Catherine II. Little did Divovych and other representatives of the Ukrainian gentry, who advanced plans for the strengthening of Ukrainian autonomy, know that the rule of Catherine would effectively end the existence of their polity and abolish the autonomous rights of their region. 'Incorporated Identity' follows the interplay of history and politics in the discourse of the Cossack elites as they faced the growing centralization of the imperial state and its encroachment on the Hetmanate's liberties.
The leading role in the formation of Ukrainian historical and political identity at that time passed from Cossack officers like Divovych to Ukrainians in imperial service, such as Prince Oleksander Bezborodko, the chancellor of the Russian Empire and co-author of A Brief Chronicle of Little Russia (1777), the first book on Ukrainian history to be published after the Synopsis. While cherishing memories of their beloved Little Russian homeland, that group of St Petersburg Ukrainians led the way to the complete incorporation of Ukrainian history and identity into the allRussian imperial construct.By the turn of the nineteenth century, the tradition of using Rossiia to designate both Russia and Ukraine, which had been adopted by the author of the Synopsis, was beginning to create problems for those Ukrainian intellectuals who wanted to stress the distinction between the two countries. Their solution was to revive the term 'Ukraine,' which had been widely used in historical writing of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. By the end of the eighteenth century, it had all but disappeared from use with reference to the territories of the former Hetmanate and was being applied mainly to lands bordering on Russia proper (Sloboda Ukraine). Indeed, some early nineteenth-century writers, such as the anonymous author of the manuscript 'History of the Rus,' - discussed in the chapter entitled 'Ukraine or Little Russia?' - considered the term 'Ukraine' little more than a Polish intrigue. Not unlike Divovych, the anonymous author of the History was proud of his homeland's Cossack past but, given the circumstances of the time, invoked it in order to claim a special place for his countrymen in the Russian imperial hierarchy and historical narrative. Ironically, the heroic ethos of the 'History of the Rus'' proved so powerful that the work inspired generations of romantically minded 'awakeners' of the Ukrainian nation. For them the 'History' became the bible of the Ukrainian past, providing rich material (often legendary and inaccurate) for the construction of modern Ukrainian identity.
Among those influenced by the heroic images of the 'History' was Ukraine's greatest poet and 'father' of the modern Ukrainian nation, Taras Shevchenko (1814-61). An accomplished artist employed by the Kyiv Archaeographic Commission, which was in charge of collecting old Ukrainian manuscripts and art works, Shevchenko was especially interested in Cossack-era paintings and iconography. He was in fact the first to describe in considerable detail the magnificent icon of the Holy Protection at the Pokrova Church in the town of Pereiaslav, which included a depiction of Tsar Peter I and Cossack officers of the period. The description appeared in one of Shevchenko's novels whose main character was not only an admirer of that icon but also an avid reader of the 'History of the Rus'.' Shevchenko believed that one of the Cossacks depicted in the icon was Hetman Ivan Mazepa - a supposition that would make it virtually impossible to publish or study the work in Soviet times. The essay entitled 'The Missing Mazepa' follows the twists and turns of modern scholarly interpretation of the Pokrova icon from Pereiaslav, as well as Cossack iconography in general. It shows how ideological myths created by eighteenth-century imperial elites (Mazepa was anathematized by the Orthodox Church on the orders of Peter I) influenced the development of historical research in a period strongly marked by ideological trends of the modern era.