HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES Volume X]L Number 1/2 June 1987 : Ukrainian Research Institute Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts Publication of this issue has been subsidized by a bequest from the estate of Mykola L. Hromnycky, benefactor of the Ukrainian Studies Fund, Inc. The editors assume no responsibility for statements offact or opinion made by contributors. Copyright 1988, by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved ISSN 0363-5570 Published by the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Typography by the Computer Based Laboratory, Harvard University, and Chiron, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. Printed by Cushing-Malloy Lithographers, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life. CONTENTS Note from the Editors 5 ARTICLES The Pogroms of 1881 8 OMELJAN PRITSAK The Lithuanian Prince-Monk Voje1k: A Study of Competing Legends 44 DAVID M. GOLDFRANK The "Psalter" of Feodor and the Heresy of the "Judaizers" in the Last Quarter of the Fifteenth Century 77 CONSTANTINE ZUCKERMAN "Povest’ o Esfiri": The Ostroh Bible and Maksim Grek’s Translation of the Book of Esther 100 MOSHE TAUBE and HUGH M. OLMSTED The Language Question in the Ukraine in the Twentieth Century 1900-1941 118 GEORGE Y. SHEVELOV NOTES AND COMMENTS Ukrainian Illustrations and Notations Added to Two Seventeenth-Century Books held in the Helsinki University Library 225 BOHDAN A. STRUMINSKY REVIEW ARTICLES Robert Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow: A Challenge to the Revisionists 234 VLADIMIR N. BROVKIN REVIEWS Henrik Bimbaum and Michael S. Flier, eds., Medieval Russian Culture Donald Ostrowski 246 Rozalija J. Kersta, Ukrajins’ka antroponimija XVI St.: Coloviëi imenuvannja Bohdan A. Struminsky 248 Stefania Ochmann, Sejm koronacyjny Jana Kazimierza w 1649 r. Frank E. Sysyn 249 Jan Kozik; Andrew Gorski and Lawrence D. Orton, trans.; Lawrence D: Orton, ed., The Ukrainian National Movement in Galicia, 1815-1 849 Lawrence Wolff 253 Aleh Biembiel, Rodnaje s/ova i maralna-estetyény prahres Bohdan A. Struminsky 257 Marian Zdziechowski, Widmo przyszloki: Szkice historyczno-publicystyczne Stanislaw Baranczak 259 Gerald Janecek, The Look ofRussian Literature: Avant-Garde Visual Experiments, 1900-1 930 Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj 261 Robert V. Daniels, Russia: The Roots ofConfrontation James E. Mace 263 Manoly R. Lupul, ed., A Heritage in Transition: Essays in the History ofUkrainians in Canada Patricia Markowsky-Nahaylo 264 CONTRIBUTORS Omeljan Pritsak is Mykhailo S. Hrushevs’kyi Professor of Ukrainian History and directorof the Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University. David M. Goldfrank is professor of history at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Constantine Zuckerman is an associate at the Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, College de France, Paris Moshe Taube is senior lecturer in the Department of Linguistics! Slavic Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem Hugh M. Olmsted is head of the Slavic Department, Harvard College Library, Har vard University George Y. Shevelov is professor emeritus of Slavic languages and literatures, Columbia University, New York Bohdan A. Struminsky is a research fellow of the Ukrainian Research Institute, Har vard University Vladimir N. Brovkin is assistant professor of government and Dana Faculty Fellow, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio A Note from the Editors The First Ten Years of Harvard Ukrainian Studies In the spring of 1977, the first issue of a new journal, Harvard Ukrainian Studies HUS, was p:resented to the scholarly community. "-It intends.," wrote the editors in their introductory note, "to be an international forum for the exchange of current scholarly research in Ukrainian studies and to cultivate an interdisciplinary approach to the field." Now, ten years later, we can look back at the ten volumes in twenty-five issues, comprising over 5,500 pages of HUS. In these years we have tried to follow the intent of our introductory note. Our journal has kept an inter national and interdisciplinary profile, both when it came to its contributors and to its subject matter. While topics dealing with modern folklore, econ omy, and political science were not absent from HUS’s pages, our profile has been historical and philological, with the stress on pre-modern periods; within those periods, there was virtually no limitation as far as the philolo gies were concerned--we ranged from the Slavic to the Chinese. The bulk of HUS’s articles and reviews dealt with Ukrainian studies as the term is commonly understood, with special attention paid to publication of source materials. In order to offer a forum for the examination of crucial problems in Ukrainian studies, special thematic issues were put together, of which three have appeared hitherto. "The Kiev Mohyla Academy" com memorated the 350th anniversary of the founding of the first Orthodox col lege in Eastern Europe. The focal point in this discussion was the multicul tural aspect of that institution of higher learning. The issue, "The Political and Social Ideas of Vjaeslav Lypyns’kyj," was devoted to the ideas and theories of that Ukrainian political thinker, and for the first time his legacy was made known to Western scholars. The problem of Ukrainian national consciousness was brought into relief in an issue devoted to "Concepts of Nationhood in Early Modern Eastern Europe," with contributions coming from scholars representing many of the nations involved. The fourth thematic issue, the volume for 1988, will be the publication of the proceed ings of the International Congress Commemorating the Millennium of Christianity in Rus’-Ukraine Ravenna, April 1988. So much for Ukrainian studies in the strict sense of the word. The ten volumes of HUS, however, also contain articles dealing with two areas of research relevant to the Ukrainian past: Oriental and Byzantine studies. In 6 part, the presence of such articles in HUS reflected the interests and com petence of its editors, one of them an Orientalist, the other a Byzantinist. There was also a theoretical reason behind according hospitality to publica tions of this kind: the conviction that the Ukrainian past, especially its early periods, could best be understood in two of its important contexts, Oriental and Byzantine. This had not been the prevailing view since the 1930s, and the narrowing of outlook in Ukrainian scholarship happened both in the Soviet Ukraine and outside of it. When it came to Byzantium, we realized that the present-day Rus’-Ukraine-a land which a thousand years ago accepted Byzantine Christianity and culture, and which in prerevolutionary times boasted prominent Byzantinists, was the only major European country without a significant academic position in the field of Byzantine studies. The same could be said of Oriental studies. Between 1918 and 1930 there were active at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences four institutions, the Chair of Jewish Culture and the Jewish Historico-Archaeographic Com mission, and two Near Eastern Centers for Arabo-Islamic studies and for Turkology. All four were headed by the eminent Orientalist Ahantanhel Kryms’kyj. At present, the land with the Khazarian and Turko-Tatar back ground, which for centuries was also home to large Jewish and Armenian minorities, has no scholarly institutions worth mentioning in these respec tive fields. The past volumes of HUS corrected this imbalance within our limited means: the journal also became a meeting place for students of the early Ukrainian past, as well as for Byzantinists and Orientalists. As a further example of the contributions of HUS to interdisciplinary studies, we should mention Jewish topics discussed in the journal. Both Ukrainian and Jewish scholars found in its ten volumes new discoveries and analytical studies concerning a people many of whose members made the Ukrainian territory their home for centuries, starting with Ancient Greek and Khazar times. HUS has published 419 articles and reviews by 241 authors from 22 countries. The majority of them 158 came from the United States; they were followed by scholars from Canada 27, Poland 13, England 9, Israel 9, Germany 8, and France 7. Three each were from Italy, Yugoslavia, and Turkey, and two each were from Austria, Australia, Greece, Hungary, and Romania. Finally, one each came from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Lebanon, Singapore, Sweden, and the Ukraine. The new developments in the Soviet Union give us reason to hope that par ticipation by Soviet Ukrainian scholars in HUS will increase in the near 7 future. Of the 241 HUS authors, only 70 were Ukrainians or scholars of Ukrainian background. This shows that Ukrainian studies have established themselves in international scholarship. Time brings inevitable changes of perspective in scholarly matters. Still, in all cultural enterprises, some continuity is salutary. Thus, as HUS enters upon its second decennium, we expect it to continue its role as an interna tional forum for Ukrainian studies and their wide background, but we also expect that the new generation of able contributors and editors who are now assisting us will improve upon our efforts. Omeljan Pritsak Ihor evenko Harvard University The Pogroms of 1881* OMELJAN PRITSAK To Marc Raeff The pogroms that began in the Russian Empire in April 1881 in the city of Elisavetgrad now called Kirovohrad are rightly regarded as a watershed in the history of modern Jewry.’ Scholars have been unable to elucidate the causes of these