Toc Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas – East European History, Vol

H-Russia ToC Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas – East European History, vol. 65 (2017), issue 1

Discussion published by Hermann Beyer-Thoma on Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Vol. 65 (2017), issue 1

Malte Griesse, Gleb Kazakov: Kosakische Aufstände und ihre Anführer: Heroisierung, Dämonisierung und Tabuisierung der Erinnerung. Einleitung [Cossack Rebellions and their Leaders: Heroization, Demonization, and Tabooing of Memory. An Introduction], pp. 1-10

Martin Faber: Furchtsame Verachtung: Die Kosaken des Chmielnicki-Aufstands in den Augen des polnischen Adels [Fearful Contempt. How the Polish Nobility Viewed on the Cossacks of Chmielnicki’s Rebellion], pp. 11-33

The Rebellion of the Zaporozhian Cossacks under the leadership of Bohdan Chmielnicki in the years 1648–1657 has ever since been the subject of various and conflicting interpretations in the historical traditions of Ukrainians, Poles, Russians and Jews. The present article deals with one aspect of it, the view on the Cossacks of the Polish nobility, their principal enemies during the rebellion. The Cossacks wanted to get rid of noble rule in the Ukraine, while the Polish nobles despised them as peasants and a lower sort of human beings. But this view was contested when the Cossacks inflicted some severe defeats on the Polish forces. The nobles in their pamphlets and poems were eagerly looking for reasons why this could have happened, the most widespread among them being the idea that the morals among the nobles had degenerated. This could be seen as a temporary problem that could be solved by their own efforts. Consequently the successful defense of the fortress of Zbaraż against the siege of a great army of Cossacks and Tatars was enthusiastically greeted as proof for the restoration of the old and natural order. One can reasonably assume that there was never a real chance for the integration of the Cossacks into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and that the Treaty of Hadiach of 1658 had to fail because of the unwillingness on both sides to accept its terms.

Gleb Kazakov: Stenka Razin als Held, "edler Räuber" oder Verbrecher? Interpretationen und Analogien in den Ausländerberichten zum Kosakenaufstand von 1667-1671 [Sten'ka Razin as a Hero, a "Noble Bandit", or a Criminal? Interpretations and analogies in foreigners' reports on the cossack rising of 1667-71], pp. 34-51

The article examines the reports of European contemporary authors about the uprising of Stepan Razin in 1667–1671, and their attempts to interpret the rebels’ motives. The main focus lies on the comparisons drawn by the observers between Razin’s rebellion and other European insurrections of the Early Modern period. The sources in question are broadsheets, newspapers, pamphlets and books, i. e. those printed media genres which constituted and influenced the Early Modern public

Citation: Hermann Beyer-Thoma. ToC Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas – East European History, vol. 65 (2017), issue 1. H-Russia. 04-11-2018. https://networks.h-net.org/node/10000/discussions/1696023/toc-jahrb%C3%BCcher-f%C3%BCr-geschichte-osteuropas-%E2%80%93-eas t-european-history Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-Russia sphere. Three perception tendencies can be traced in the Razin discourse of the 1670s. First, the tendency to describe Razin as an ally of the Turkish Sultan, the Crimean Khan or the Persian Shah, and thus to depict the rebellion of the Don-Cossacks as part of the Oriental threat to the Christian world. The second view on Razin tended to show him as a ‘noble bandit’, i. e. an insurgent who nevertheless strove to protect the oppressed from the evildoings of the Russian elite. Finally, after the execution of Razin in June 1671 and the distribution of the official death-sentence, which was soon even translated into several European languages, Razin began to be perceived primarily as a conspirator against the state and a separatist. His revolt was then put on par with the other contemporary separatist movements in East Central and Eastern Europe (the Ukrainian revolt of hetman Doroshenko in 1667–1674, and the Croatian-Hungarian magnate conspiracy against the Habsburgs in 1670–1671). These rivaling views were reflected not only in textual descriptions, but also in images of Razin, which were circulated in various ways.

Malte Griesse: Pugačev-Bilder vor der Kanonisierung: Transnationale Deutungskämpfe in der Vormoderne [Images of Pugachev before the Canonization: Transnational Controversies over the Interpretation of Revolts in Pre-Modern Times], pp. 52-72

This article deals with the commemoration of the Pugachev rebellion (1773–75) during the first half- century after its suppression – until Alexander Pushkin published his historiographical work on the revolt (1833) and his famous novel "The Captain’s Daughter" (1836). Due to the Russian government’s "damnatio memoriae" policy and vivid international interest in the events and the leader, who had impersonated Peter III, Catherine’s II defunct husband and predecessor, practically all representations were published abroad. Two anonymous or pseudonymous accounts stand out as major templates for following treatments of the events throughout Europe: a French biography of Pugachev published in 1775 ("Le faux Pierre III" – The False Peter III), where more than two thirds of the text are dedicated to the protagonist’s (alleged) life before the uprising and which has been criticized as a mere novel bearing not more than some resemblance to historical events; and a German account ("Zuverlässige Nachrichten von dem Aufrührer Jemeljan Pugatschew und der von demselben angestifteten Empörung" – Reliable News about the Rebel Emel’ian Pugachev and the Rebellion Instigated by Him), published in 1784, that focuses in the first place on the military side of the revolt and is certainly closer to what had actually happened. It is shown that the “biography”, which was probably first and foremost a contribution to the intellectual criticism of French despotism, presented a serious challenge to Catherine’s self-portrayal as enlightened monarch. On this background the role of the German account is reassessed: It must have been secretly commissioned by the Tsaritsa herself in order to counteract and discredit a work that tarnished her image and enjoyed enormous popularity throughout Europe.

Iskra Schwarcz: Die umstrittene Heldenfigur des ukrainischen Kosakenhetmans Ivan Mazepa: Dämonisierung und Heroisierung der Erinnerung [The Controversial Hero Figure of the Ukrainian Cossack Hetman Ivan Mazepa: Demonization and Idolization of Memory], pp. 73-90

The figure of Hetman Ivan Mazepa cannot be put in the same line with the leaders of Cossack uprisings. Mazepa was no rebel like Stepan Razin or Kondratii Bulavin. Moreover, the Cossack uprisings of Petro Ivanenko, Semen Palej and Kondratii Bulavin were crushed cruelly with his help.

His early career began with his election as Hetman and he succeeded in reuniting the two parts of Chmel’nyts’kyi’s territory under his hetmanate. When Ivan Mazepa went over to Swedish King Karl XII some years later, during the great northern war, he was denounced as a traitor and the Russian Orthodox Church imposed on him an anathema. The personality of the Hetman still polarizes today: In Russian historiography, Mazepa is considered as the prototype of a traitor, in the national Ukrainian narrative he is honored as a heroic figure. The question of who the Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa actually was is not so easy to answer, because historical facts and the heroic appearance diverge. It is a fact that the figure of the Hetman was undergoing numerous political, cultural, linguistic, literary, and sexual transgressions in its development and certain notions and stereotypes established themselves in the collective memory. Until today they determine the image of the Hetman. The present article questions the origin of certain stereotypes, portrays the role of propaganda actions and the media in demonizing the image of Mazepa and highlights the importance the works of Voltaire, Byron, Hugo and Julius Słowacki had for the idolization of Mazepa. Finally, the question is investigated in how far this hero figure is a constituent part of modern Ukrainian nation- building.

Sergej Nekljudov: Sten’ka Razin und die persische Prinzessin: Ursprünge und Wege einer Legende [Stepan Razin and the Persian Princess: Origins and Fortunes of a Legend], pp. 91-112

The focal point of the mythology about Razin in Russian culture is undoubtedly his killing of a captive Persian princess by drowning her in the Volga River. The legend most likely originated in 1668 in Cossack folklore. In Ludvig Fabritius’ version, it was based on rumours about the ritual sacrifice of a young woman (“a high-born Tatar girl”) to the river spirit. After Razin’s Persian campaign in 1668–69, the Tatar girl was replaced by a Persian princess, according to Jan Janszoon Struys’ version. Later, this legend converged with similar folk ballads and with the folk drama "Lodka" (The Boat). It did not survive in its complete form; by the mid-19th century there were only traces of it left in Russian folklore. Its subsequent popularity was due to Struys’ written account from 1676, which inspired countless remouldings in prose and poetry, theatre and cinema, in painting, sculpture and music. Thanks to the popular song "Iz-za ostrova na strezhen’" (From the Shade of the Island into the Current Stream) based on Dmitri Sadovnikov’s 1883 poem the legend returned into oral tradition and began to influence ‘original’ folk memories of Razin’s rebellion. Two aspects of the story deserve special attention. First, the legend several times crossed and re-crossed the borders of oral and written literature. Second, it presents a striking case of ethno-cultural exchange. In the beginning, a Russian folk legend was first written down in Dutch, then the text saw several translations into French, and these translations, which were often commented and augmented, brought the story back to Russia, where it became part of literary tradition. Later on, some of the poems based on this plot, most of all Sadovnikov’s version, were re-absorbed into folk tradition and acquired new details and twists, which again were used by professional writers.

Dietmar Neutatz: Die Umdeutung von Razin und Pugačev in der Sowjetunion unter Lenin und Stalin [The Reinterpretation of Razin and Pugachev in the Early Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin], pp. 113-131

The image of Stepan Razin and Emelian Pugachev, leaders of Cossack uprisings during the 17th and

18th centuries, was positively reassessed during the early Soviet period. Numerous novels, poems, sculptures, films and musical dramas dealt with these figures. Under the old regime they had been considered enemies, at least from the perspective of state officialdom, but, in the context of Bolshevik power, they were now reinterpreted. This article investigates how Razin and Pugachev were represented during the first decades of the Soviet Union, the qualities that were ascribed to them, the social-political messages they transmitted and the ways in which meanings were ascribed to them with the aim of rendering them suitable figures that could be identified with Soviet society. The dramatic increase in interest in these figures after 1917 had precursors in the period following 1905. New guidelines were then formulated by Lenin in 1919: He interpreted Razin and Pugachev as leaders of “peasants’ wars” and inserted them in a long prehistory of the October Revolution. Nevertheless, during the 1920s the representations did not follow one common line and the variance remained remarkable. During the 1930s, in the context of the “patriotic turn”, Razin and Pugachev experienced a heroization as “folk heroes”. This required their taming and cultivation, because the pantheon of Stalinist heroes was not a place for stubborn, uncivilized illiterates.